Sheena Bora case: Rahul Mukerjea defends dad Peter Mukerjea
In the latest update in Sheena Bora murder case, Rahul Mukerjea, son of accused Peter Mukerjea, in an open letter has defended his father, stating the latter wasn't aware of the crime. "Indrani had introduced Sheena and Mikhail as her siblings to everyone?Peter was clearly not involved, nor was he aware of any crime allegedly perpetrated by Indrani," he added.n
In defense of his father and former television head honcho Peter Mukerjea, Rahul Mukerjea, a prime witness of the case today wrote an open letter defending his father again.Tweeting the letter, Rahul reiterated that his dad believed every word his wife told him.Although this is not the first time he has come out in his father's defense while putting the entire blame of Sheena's murder in 2012 on Indrani, the timing of this longish letter assumes importance.The charges against Peter, Indrani and her ex-husband Sanjeev Khanna were filed this month. They have been charged with murder and the trial is set to start in four days.Following is the letter that he has set out in the social media.To all concerned, Ref: Sheena Bora Now that the investigation is complete and the trial is starting, it is (cont) https://t.co/qhe8WKnapcTo all concerned,Ref: Sheena BoraNow that the investigation is complete and the trial is starting, it is of utmost importance to know the correct context and understand the situation correctly - especially with the misinformation carried by sections of the media.The narrative that points to Peter's involvement, is absolutely incorrect and has very unfairly been publicised as the only narrative, and without a fair and balanced counter.In the interests of justice and fairness, it is important to share this information.So here is the correct context;Indrani had introduced Sheena and Mikhail as her siblings to everyone, including Peter.Indrani obviously didn't want it to be revealed that they were her children.Initially when she met Sheena and Mikhail, after they had made contact with her upon seeing her in the news, she instructed them to maintain her lie, or she wouldn't help them in any way. This fact was always kept secret from Peter..that they were her kids. But..when Sheena and I tried to tell Peter about this lie, he asked Indrani and she strongly refuted it, insisting this was not true and that they were in fact her siblings and not her children.Indrani would have then been extremely angry with Sheena for disobeying her most important instruction and undermining her.Peter didn't know the truth of Sheena and Indrani's relationship. If Peter asked Indrani whether there was any truth to these apparent revelations, she only denied it and claimed they were sisters.Evidently, there was no financial motive.Whatever Indrani may have done, was for her own personal reasons.Peter was clearly not involved.Peter was never allowed, by Indrani, to visit Guwahati to meet her parents, obviously, as that would have led to him becoming aware of the truth about Indrani's past and her kids. Something which she was seemingly trying to hide.Indrani had given him the story that Sheena had contacted her with a view to leaving our relationship and wanted money and help to do that (this was not true). But trusting his wife, Peter believed it. Indrani also backed up that story by sending sms messages from Sheena's phone to Peter, stating the same.. That is why he was so sure that she must be fine.Peter's only comment to Indrani on hearing that Sheena wanted to leave, was that 'if Sheena wants to leave Rahul, then she really ought to tell him in some form or another.. can't just go without saying anything.' (as that would have been very hard for me or anyone to deal with). Hence the text msgs sent from Sheena's phone by Indrani.Indrani has been cunning and manipulative and with tragic results, very convincing. She was able to make Peter believe her lies so that she could maintain her deception, and carry on doing what she really intended.He certainly did NOT know what lndrani was upto before, during, or after, with regard to any crime.Emails and recordings MUST be seen in the correct context. He believed what Indrani had told him that Sheena was indeed fine and didn't want to be in touch. And therefore on that basis, he was supporting Indrani's claims that Sheena was ok. NOT a case of misleading because of complicity in any crime..but a situation where he really believed that Sheena was okay because his wife was assuring him of such - and he was trying to tell me the same.In early 2012 when Sheena contacted Indrani with a view to clearing the air, Indrani had told Peter that Sheena had in fact contacted her with a view to leaving the relationship and wanted Indrani's help to do that (Peter was lied to). Therefore, any of Peter's subsequent reassurances given to me that Sheena was fine, or must be fine, were as a result of him believing what he had been told, which Indrani also corroborated to make believable by sending a couple of SMS messages to herself and to Peter, from Sheena's phone, claiming the same.Any and all who inquired about Sheena, were peddled this same story by Indrani and were equally convinced - it was not just Peter who believed her.Peter was clearly not involved, nor was he aware of any crime allegedly perpetrated by Indrani, despite claims to the contrary.These important circumstances, which to date have not been pointed out, very clearly show that Peter was NOT 'in the know' nor was he involved in the crime.Hence, charges against Peter ought to be dropped.