Talk:Sister Abhaya murder case

Something useful
I made a massive edit of the entire article. I think we need to get some more points on the basis of Crime branch’s different stages of investigation. Due to lack of sources I left it. Can anyone provide something useful? -- Avinesh Jose  T  11:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The addition of material from Rediff.com needs to verified as the 'CBI is yet to submit the interim report' Worldplayer (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Age of Sister Abhaya at the time?
The opening paragraphs state her to be 21. However, the body of the article states age to be 18. Can this please be resolved? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Rape
Nobody should include the alleged rape of sister Abhaya in the article as a fact. The working hypothesis of CBI cannot account such a situation and the 'corrected' Medical report is is assumed as correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.207.12 (talk) 03:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

POV
Removed the following 'alibi'

In the mean time, Keralashabdam, a political Malayalam magazine, October 12, 2008 Issue reported a Special on this case. They have reported that Sr. Abhaya committed suicide with valid conclusive reasons in detail. That edition includes articles by the following experts:

1. Dr. B. Umadathan, a Forensic Expert, wrote "Abhaya case is a procession of LIES"!

2. N. Thyagarajan, SP of CBI who inquired this case previously wrote,Varghese P. Thomas (his subordinate) made this a murder even when he knew it was a suicide.

3. Dr. C. Radhakrishnan, the Police sergeon who performed the autopsy on Sr. Abhaya, wrote in his article that he firmly believes this was a suicide.

4. Mr. Kunjumoytheen Kutty IPS, who was the Crime Branch SP in charge of this case wrote "this case is prejudged as a murder without enough enquiries.

KeralaShabdam issued another edition on December 7, 2008 explaining why CBI is under pressure to prove this a murder. With the dispute between current ruling party and Christain leaders in Kerala, Orissa situation, and CBI being under pressure to resolve this case, they hurried to a judgement. Now they are looking for witnesses after the arrest!{POV}

Personal Vendatta
It was accused by somebody in the article that Jomon has been pursuing the case for personal vendata. That point is irelevent in this article. Every protest are based on vendatta. He was fed up with the continous stupifaction by the crooked priests for their comfortable and kingly living. Poor followers by supposing everything and everybody are good fails to acheive even a living. And this failure force some to go back to church to find solace (that is what some wanted) but others who remeber how the crooked priests brainwashed the followers to become a bunch of idiots bound to oppose out of deseperation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.207.12 (talk) 07:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Propoganda / POV
Much of this article is written from a prosecution POV in propogandist style. Need a POV template to the article. --Jacob.jose (talk) 07:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Misleading Heading?
The Heading of the article says "Sister Abhaya Murder Case".The fact is that it has never been decided by any of the courts that this is a murder or a suicide for that matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ek254 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As usual, Wikipedia selects the most flagant pov title for a Catholic article. It should read, "Investigation into the death of Sister Abhaya," or at the very least have "the xxx of Sister Abhaya", but it doesn't sound dramatic that way, you see. So the pov title is allowed. Student7 (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Revision Undone?
I made a huge revision to this article, by condensing the timeline for into a single paragraph, in narrative format, both for readability, as an appropriate introduction to the crime for people who are not already familiar with it, and because much of the timeline as it stands is already incorporated into the rest of the text. Other wiki pages concerned with similar subjects have different formats. Does the detailed timeline have to be there? If so, can it be rewritten for clarity or moved further down? I don't understand why this page - which has been flagged as confusing and unclear to readers and in need of cleanup - has to stick to an unreadable and unusual format unlike other Wikipedia pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.42.250 (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Possible useful links to cite article content.

 * Abhaya case: So far
 * Abhaya: HC, CBI heads for fresh row
 * Catholic News
 * The Mangalorean
 * Hindu daily news
 * News of Abhaya Case @ Keralaonline
 * India News
 * India News
 * Hindu daily news
 * News
 * rediff news 1998
 * The Hindu, Chief chemical examiner questioned Abhaya case: CCE questioned
 * Sify, Sister Abhaya murder case takes a new turn
 * The Hindu, Abhaya case: CBI told to file reports
 * Deccan Herald, New turn to Sister Abhaya case
 * Sister Abhaya Case: News Collection in Malayalam with reader comments
 * Bail order Sr Sephy St Pius X Convent vs Union of India- 1 January 2009: http://judis.nic.in/kerala/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=85452
 * Asianet: Abhaya Part I
 * Report on the arrests:
 * Jomon's auto-biography
 * Another link of Jomon's auto-biography

Order
The sequence of events are presented in a haphazard manner. A lot of ordering needs to be done Nadimtrissur1321 (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)