I got a comment from an ex-platoon mate of Tiwary’s in OCS with a link. Instead of leaving it in the comments, I decided to post it up here because there are some things that don’t sit well with me.
The news reports portray Tiwary as a liar, a thief, and an overall bad person. But that doesn’t make him a murderer.
The jury took five days to come to a unanimous decision on Tiwary’s fate. That means that there were objections to his guilt. To me, I would say that the evidence provided is insufficient to convict him.
One reason is the lack of a motivation for murder. The court’s conclusion is that Tiwary murdered one of his housemates for money, and eliminated the other to silence him.
Two questions arise: would any sane person murder another person for a mere $5,000? And it’s not like his family is poor, if he’s able to go to Sydney to study.
Second, the prosecutor says that blood from only one victim was found on the murder weapons – a knife and a bat.
The prosecutor said that Tiwary could have washed the blood after killing his first victim. But the defendant pointed out that if Tiwary was coolheaded enough to do that the first time, why not the second?
Evidence showed that there was no sign of blood in the sink pipes or any marks, and neither was there any signs on the murder weapons of them having been washed. Based on this, the defendant believes that there is a second set of murder weapons out there.
Another issue brought up is that the police did not send the murder weapons for testing at the labs. They only sent blood samples found on the murder weapon.
I feel that’s sloppy investigation and that there could be another murderer on the loose in Sydney because a proper investigation was not carried out.
There’s just so many loose ends that need to be looked into… and I think it’s just wrong to judge a person based on his personality. Granted that the jury probably didn’t do that, but that’s what the news reports making readers do. They’re making people go, “No wonder he’s a murderer lah, he’s a liar, a thief, and hot-tempered some more. Sure guilty one!”
in logic, this is a fallacy named ad hominem.
Hey, I remember seeing a similar thing during the GE period…
I read your story, and I believe what you say. But that’s only one side of him.
I had relatively close contact with Puneet. Back in his secondary school days, when he fails to do his homework, the teacher would scold him. He would then retaliate with physical threats. When he assulted a teacher in front of the class, his father, who was an admin of the same school, scolded the TEACHER for scolding his son.
I’m not surprised at this murder incident.