To Assist Our Investigation, Please Complete Both Sides Of This Form As Thoroughly A: Fill & Download for Free

Is it ever justifiable to shoot criminals on sight? Is this a war? If it is, then who exactly is the enemy?I cannot think of any question that I have to consider more carefully, where my opinion, recommendation, advice or actions could have more tragic consequences if I am wrong.I have in the past had to make the decision during anti poaching operations of whether my actions would be legally and morally justifiable. However, I find myself now advising governments and other organizations and instructing men in the field, on when, how and if rangers, investigators and soldiers can or should shoot. I also undertake operations in the field with these men as part of the training, and am forced to make the same decisions alongside them.If I get any of this wrong, I am responsible for people's deaths or the loss of rare rhinos, elephants and other animals at a time when their continued survival hangs in the balance. The pressure is intense and I cannot afford to be anything less than crystal clear about what can and cannot be done in any given situation.Recent events in the United States, where the country is torn apart by the question of when it is acceptable to pull the trigger, should remind everybody of the importance of considering such questions extremely carefully. Flippant answers are irresponsible at the very least. Whether or not you as an individual agree or disagree is not the only issue. It is very important that the wider general public, including political and community leaders and authorities on ethics and morality, agree or disagree with such policy.The ongoing devastation of wildlife populations across Africa, in particular black and white rhinos, and African and forest elephants also means we desperately need the most effective policies and strategies for dealing with poaching. Those need to be both morally and legally justifiable as well as effective. They also need to be politically acceptable, something that is incredibly difficult to achieve.So, who are we going to kill?Here is a picture taken by a friend in Central African Republic last year. It shows three children removing meat from the carcass of a poached forest elephant. So, which poacher would you shoot first? The little girl sitting on the elephant carcass, or the boy doing the butchering? How about the little girl on the right? She is armed with a machete...Children butchering poached elephants at Dzanga Bai in Central African Republic.These children were locals from the area of Bayanga in Central African Republic who accompanied a group of Sudanese poachers who had traveled from Sudan across the CAR, an area twice the size of Texas, to massacre an entire herd of thirty six rare forest elephants. They were present at the killing and were given the meat by the Sudanese in return for showing them where to find the elephants. Therefore, according to the law, they are poachers. The same children will participate in killing animals if told to do so and will not hesitate. They are hungry, desperate and terrified of the men giving the orders.Such poaching groups rarely restrict their activities to killing elephants. They are frequently employed by the Séléka and other rebel groups as mercenaries. They also engage in large-scale banditry, blocking roads and then looting, raping, kidnapping and murdering. They have taken part in the atrocities in Darfur and are recognized as terrorists.​Sudanese Séléka mercenaries, typically equipped. When not hired by rebel groups and certain pariah governments they spend their leisure time poaching and raiding in Eastern and North-Eastern CAR.Obviously no one in their right mind is going to justify or approve of killing those children. However, how about the mercenaries? They are nothing less than land pirates, willing to use any means possible to enrich themselves, including recruiting and using children to do their dirty work.Are they "just poachers" or are they an enemy that needs to be destroyed? They often move in groups of up to one hundred and are mobile and well equipped, with vehicles and camels, and are armed with assault rifles, propelled grenades, heavy machine guns and even anti aircraft cannons and armoured vehicles at times. They are a small army. However, they are also poachers. When they encounter law enforcement officers or any perceived threat to their activities, they not only open fire, but will also aggressively pursue the law enforcement officers/rangers/soldiers and will even direct revenge attacks against any nearby civilian settlements. They address the local people as "slave", which gives a good idea of their mentality.A good friend, Jean-Baptiste Mamang-Kanga fought these groups for 15 years in the CAR. It was warfare, plain and simple.But, can we or should we define such people as poachers? Should they fall into a different category? They will certainly not surrender if approached by rangers. Once they begin shooting back in an area, should these groups not be classified as bandits or terrorists? Perhaps they should be defined by their worst crimes? Ethnic cleansing, murder and slavery. They are enemies of the country and therefore should they not be treated as such and fought as military invaders? I do honestly believe that it is fully justifiable to wipe such groups off the face of the earth.Yet we also have to be aware that they will be accompanied by others who, although engaged in criminal activities, may be coerced or bullied into participating. Any plans to deal with these groups have to have developed tactics for tackling the worst of these while protecting the innocents amongst them. That is a very difficult task and there are no clichés or blanket statements that will ever apply.We cannot lump all poachers into one bag and apply an extreme blanket policy to policing them as such"shoot on sight". Who poaches, what they poach, why they poach and what they are prepared to do to attain their goal varies enormously.In anti poaching and anti trafficking operations that I have participated in West, Central, East and Southern Africa, it is always different from country to country, area to area, and it varies within each area. There are poachers of every ethnic and religious group poaching every species of animal, plant and tree and using every means imaginable, from assault rifles, to steel traps to traditional cross bows. What they kill where and how also differs. In Malawi there is currently a problem with elephant being poached with home made steel gin traps, whilst in Guinea I have worked in an area where warthogs are hunted with AK47s. How do we differentiate. The poacher in Malawi killing elephants with gin traps will usually be moving about unarmed, whilst the Guinean poacher will be armed with an AK47 yet not hunting an endangered species. Who are we supposed to shoot on sight? How can we recognise who deserves shooting?There are certain obvious constants. Most important of which is the clear difference between poaching for commercial gain and subsistence poaching. All too often the poachers themselves are from similar backgrounds and very often motivated by poverty. The great difference though is that in the case of commercial poaching, whether for ivory or meat, there is always someone behind the scenes making buckets of cash out of the trade and it is these people who are the most culpable. When the poaching is an organized criminal activity the whole syndicate needs to be dismantled and broken up. Killing the poacher in the field is just cutting off one of the Hydra's heads. The beast itself must be destroyed.Subsistence poachers in poverty stricken areas just cannot be dealt with in the same way as commercial poaching gang members. A subsistence poacher is often both more desperate, driven by hunger, and less culpable as he has limited choices. If we are truly going to stop poaching, then we need to look as seriously at helping these people find other means of survival as at apprehending and punishing them. These people are also the most likely to be deterred by a shoot on sight policy. To shoot starving people would be an appalling crime.Here is another picture showing women and children we apprehended early this year being escorted out of the protected area. They were part of a group of over forty people poaching buffaloes by shooting into the air and shouting so as to herd them into long lines cable snares. All those who were unarmed were released immediately after interviewing them and taking statements. Sadly, there were both armed women and children in the group. This was a mixture of commercial and subsistence poachers. Commercial poachers came into the area and offered a share of the meat to villagers in return for participating. Should we have shot those women and children on sight?​Women and children apprehended as part of a large-scale poaching operation being carefully walked out of an area for release under guard after being apprehended amongst a group of armed poachers.Here is another scenario. I was prepared to shoot the man in the picture below. He was armed and was located in a position close to where we had just pursued a group of poachers. As you can see, he is not in any way dressed as a ranger. He is wearing a red T-shirt and shorts and is barefoot. My team and I were convinced that we had one of the poachers in our sights.​​The man was actually a ranger. He was part of a team in a boat positioned to cut off any attempt by the gang we were trying to outmanoevre, by cutting off any attempted retreat across a large river. The boat team had encountered the vessels used by the poachers to access the park. These poachers had laid fish nets before moving inland to poach big game. Their intention and past MO was to sell ivory, meat and illegal fish. They had large boats and were well equipped by a backer who expected to make good profit on all the different contraband. If they didn't get lucky with ivory or meat, they would at least return with four boats full of illegal fish. Our ranger had changed his shirt on encountering the nets as it is dangerous to have buttons when working with nets.He had swapped his uniform bush shirt and trouser for the soccer shirt and shorts and because he didn't want to get caught in a net and drown and he needed to wade through the water and mud to get to the bank where he and his comrades hoped to intercept the team we were driving towards. He had also removed his boots. The rangers are not equipped with radios and instead use their personal cell phones to communicate (and pay for the air time out of their own meagre salaries). Unfortunately this was a spot without cell coverage and he was unable to advise that he had changed clothing and position.We spotted him behind a large termite mound from a distance and prepared to shoot him if he raised his weapon to shoot at us. He had made a mistake. If there was a shoot on sight policy in place he would have been history as soon as he had been seen by our team. We shouted at him to drop his weapon.The ranger in question believed we were shouting at a poacher on our side of the termite mound that he could not see. Fortunately he did not raise his weapon and instead, realizing that we might not recognize him, backed away, raising his weapon above his head with two hands.We immediately saw from its outline that it was an M16, something the poachers do not have access to in that area, and lowered our own weapons.There is absolutely no doubt that ranger would have been riddled with bullets from the team if a shoot on sight policy existed. He would be dead dead dead. His children would be fatherless. The rangers would be demoralized. The poachers win. Their activities become easier.So aside from the extremes such as Sudanese mercenary/bandit/poacher type militarized units, where there is little other choice but to declare war on them, is a shoot on sight policy generally effective?The reality is that when you shoot dead a poacher you shoot dead your most important source of information. Any opportunity to find out who is behind the business is gone. Crucial information such as where he came from, how he traveled to and entered the area, who supplied the weapons and ammunition, who the other members of the gang are, where the contraband will be transported to, and, most importantly, who sent him, paid him or who will be buying from him.I am regularly berated by enthusiastic armchair generals for writing anti poaching doctrine that teaches apprehension and only shooting in self-defense. I have yet to be berated by any anti poaching ranger for this, once they understand and experience for themselves how many more links in the chain can be broken through professional, legal and intelligent interviewing and reactive investigation.To really stop poaching in an area it is necessary to cripple the whole illegal operation and take down the whole syndicate. Killing the poacher instead of questioning him destroys any chance of that. Poaching is a complex crime, requiring many participants and numerous steps. People have to fund the expedition. Someone has to supply weapons and ammunition. The poachers need to be transported, with all their kit to the area, sometimes guided in. Porters as well as poachers/shooters are needed to carry the ivory and meat. Officials, such as police officers, customs agents and even rangers have to be paid off. Different steps require different specialists, including shooters, buyers, smugglers, financiers and so on and on.To effectively cripple the whole industry, pressure has to be applied at all steps and to all the different individuals involved. A poacher is not going to poach if he has no ammunition for his weapon, cannot pay porters and has no one to supply and has his own ass in a jail. The only way to really shut down the poaching is to shut down the whole business. If no one in Asia and America (the second largest market for illegal ivory) purchase ivory then the poachers are not going to bother going after elephants. If it is very difficult to kill, transport and sell bushmeat, it will become a too expensive and difficult an undertaking.By shooting dead all the poachers instead of professionally and legally questioning them to find out details of who is doing what, where and when, the authorities play into the hands of the brains and money behind these crimes.A dead poacher means nothing to the people who sent him other than they may have to pay a few nickels out of their millions of profits to send another one... Killing poachers, rather than arresting them, benefits one group more than any other and that is the people who send them to poach. It also benefits the people who supply the weapons and the ammunition, and the equipment, the transport and so on. Instead of the whole criminal enterprise being brought down, the poorest and usually least educated of the criminals is silenced. He is easily replaced.There is also the question of whether shooting poachers in protected areas actually acts as a deterrent. Killing professional rhino and elephant poachers will certainly deter some. However, will it deter enough to drop the levels of those willing to take on the job enough to reduce poaching activity at all in an area? I'm afraid not. The people who really need to be deterred are the kingpins and they are not the ones who get killed. It may temporarily deter gangs from a particular area, in favour of easier pickings, but it has not worked as an effective deterrent against rhino poachers. They will keep coming because the kingpins have an inexhaustible supply of desperate ex-soldiers, rebel fighters, professional criminals and even unemployed rangers. In one small district in Zimbabwe where we were trying to put an end to the elephant poaching, we discovered that there were at the time 52 unemployed former rangers and scouts with firearms and anti poaching training. They had been laid off when the tourism that funded the conservation efforts in Zimbabwe dried up. It was only inevitable that we found that most of the poaching in the area was by men from those ranks. That said, many others volunteered to assist in anti poaching ops for no pay, even though they had no income to feed their families.The first country to issue order to shoot on sight and to indemnify rangers against prosecution or civil suits in the courts was Zimbabwe in 1989. Rangers had already killed 89 poachers in just one area of the country, in just a few years, before the shoot on sight order was given. After the go ahead was given, more poachers died and more and more came. It failed. It was clear that for every poacher who was killed another ten were ready to take his place.Most importantly, once a shoot on sight policy is implemented the stakes are raised dramatically and thereafter the poachers will also begin to use more aggressive tactics to ensure they are on the winning end of any encounter. More rangers are killed and wounded than before. Shooting dead subsistence poachers on sight is also completely unjustifiable and counterproductive. The community will take their revenge on both the wildlife and the rangers. And we can't even differentiate between subsistence and commercial poacher much of the time!It is popular to call this a war. Yet has a war ever been won by just killing the soldiers on the ground? No country fights a war purely tactically, a war is first planned and fought for strategic reasons. In this war, the greatest enemy is not the poacher, it is the crime lords and to win this war pressure needs to be applied to every link in the poaching, trafficking and selling process, from source to market, disrupting the trade at every step and making it simply too costly to undertake and the rewards to too low.Shooting in defense of human life is unquestionably justified. In the case of the Sudanese brutes I mentioned earlier, they need to be defeated militarily to protect the population and resources of the country. That is clearly justified warfare, in defense of the whole population's lives in the area they operate, as well as the lives of the rangers sent to stop them. That situation does not apply to a poacher working for a criminal organization. Both ethically and objectively it is important to capture him.The obvious question that follows is whether it is even possible to capture poachers. Yes, it is. The tactics necessary to shoot a poacher without putting the ranger's life at unnecessary risk are virtually the same as those necessary to apprehend a poacher. Poachers cannot be apprehended in pursuit, they have to be ambushed or surrounded and surprised. Rangers killed by poachers have usually invariably been trying to catch them or attack them in pursuit from the rear and have themselves been ambushed.In order to win, departments need to develop doctrine, methods, skills, tactics and strategies for safely investigating, locating and apprehending poachers and traffickers in the field. Officers need to be trained to use these methods as safely as possible and to use the information gathered from proactive and reactive investigation to then bring down whole syndicates. We have been successfully doing that. It is not a new concept and it works.Reducing demand and taking down the whole syndicates or networks driving the industry is the only way to bring the levels of poaching down.​Rangers arresting a syndicate leader. This man was arrested after three levels of arrests and interrogations. He led a large network in three countries yet to all appearances was a moderately wealthy man by local standards. He was popular in his home town for being very giving to others..Whilst it is crucial to bring down the demand and fight the illegal retailing and wholesaling of wildlife products, such as ivory in Asia and the US, and the sale of bushmeat in the cities of West and Central Africa, someone still needs to hold the fort in and around the protected areas and follow up on information from arrests made there.We have trained over 100 directors, instructors, investigators, unit leaders and rangers in the last year and have successfully taken down whole syndicates and entire networks as part of the in-operations part of our training. We have worked with organizations this year such as UNOPS, The European Union and different National wildlife and forest departments, military special forces and law enforcement units all over Africa. Feedback from the field pours in constantly. Where occasional arrests or contacts were had in the past, the men we have trained now regularly report whole syndicates including foreign nationals being arrested. The system works to effectively halt poaching and that is our goal.​Officers learning how to age tracks so as to ensure no approaching poachers are too close from the rear.The key is the adoption and use of a complete and comprehensive doctrine, including all the strategies, methods and skills necessary to investigate, analyse, plan and execute effective operations at all parts of the illegal process so as to put pressure on all parts of the networks. We teach those involved not only how to coordinate tracking, observation and ambush teams to apprehend poaching gangs in the field, (and if necessary how to correctly and effectively return fire), but also how to positively engage with the community to educate and sensitize them and build up relationships that everyone benefits from, and which provides the necessary information to go after the people behind the commercial poaching. The most important asset in the fight against commercial poaching is the assistance of the community. They provide information on movements into and out of the area and other illegal activities.​Officers meeting with community elders in Guinea.During in-operations training officers visit villages surrounding the protected areas and meet with community and religious leaders, hunting brotherhoods, political groups, officers from other authorities and many more.Not only are the meetings invariably successful in terms of teaching the communities why the protected areas are important and how they can benefit from protecting them, but the same communities provide the information on all the commercial poaching operations in the area and allow us to plan arrest operations.The interviews of those arrested, along with information from other sources, give us all the vital information needed to apprehend the criminals those suspects work with. Further arrests lead to even more arrests and so on and on. The same applies to arrests of poachers in the protected areas. One arrest leads to more arrests and so on and on.​Officers in Malawi applying information from interviews and other sources to determine poacher movements and especially choke points so as to be able to mount effective apprehensions.In conclusion, shooting someone dead creates a very final "dead end" and, if the aim is to gather information so as to bring down the whole network, it is therefore not only a tragic but a stupid action.Only in exceptional circumstances and with a clear legal mandate, can a shoot to kill policy ever be used.To stop and deter poaching the syndicates and networks need to be torn apart. That requires an intelligent, necessarily complex and thorough doctrine that addresses the problem in its entirety. Shooting poachers in the field does not tear apart the networks, it simply protects them from discovery.The devastation of Africa's wildlife can be stopped and stopped a lot more easily and for a lot less cost than most people imagine. Chengeta Wildlife is one organization that is proving that on the ground in the front line and in the communities in West, Central and East Africa. It can be done and we are showing the world how. Our in-operations training and advice to anti poaching units and National wildlife and forestry departments as a whole, is having an impact far beyond the small donations we have received in order to do our work. Every penny has gone into the field. We are proud of our achievements so far and are confident and determined to escalate our work exponentially.If you would like to learn more about the Chengeta Wildlife organization or become part of the team, or just see a video of the action, then please visit this website http://ChengetaWildlife.com .Sorry for the horrific and sad pictures. I often need to take a break from all of this and just remind myself why we have to win this. I will leave you with an image of how it can be..​​How can we allow such scenes to be replaced with rotting carcasses on barren ground?

What if Hitler had at his disposal weapons capable to change the outcome of the war and never used them?The classical answer is that Hitler was traumatised by his own experience with gas during WWI, a conflict during which he was gassed and spent months in recovery, to the point that he ever refused to use them.This explanation may be trueand for sure Hitler was not an enthusiast of chemical warfare, yet:a) Hitler was not someone famous for moral scruplesb) Hitler had experience with vescicant and blistering gas such as phosgene, chlorine and mustard gas but not with nerve gasc) Germans used occasionally gas during the war on the Eastern front and they massively used it during the HolocaustSo something sounds strange, right?This man is Otto Ambros, an high ranking manager of IG Farben (in 1930’s the largest industrial conglomerate in the whole Europe and one of the leading enterprises in the research and production of chemical components) who was condemned for using gas on inmates to 8 years in prison and in 1952 he became a key consultant with Dow Chemicals in the US.Ambros was a key figure in the research and production of nerve agents, namely sarin and tabun.These two nerve agents were completely different weapons from what we (and most people during WW2) imagine: they don’t kill by blistering like mustard gas or phosgene but they are either inhaled (much more effective) or absorbed by skin contact (slower) and suffocate the victims who lose the control of their respiratory muscles.As a consequence, one to be protected when such gases are deployed needs to be fully covered: now imagine the difficulty of designing such an integral protective clothing in a short term and of mass-producing it and deploying it on the field.Add to this the fact that, to give you an example, 500 kg of Tabun released by V2 on London would cause more deaths than Hiroshima.These two nerve agents (together with their more powerful “brothers” soman and cyclosarin) were discovered by a German team of scientists in 1936 by accident and patented in 1937: their discovery was soon protected as it had a military value and soon the production began in 1939 in DyhernfurthAs for December 1944 Germany had at its disposal an arsenal of 12,000 tons of Sarin and Tabun, thus having an absolute supremacy in this field (since Allies never even suspected the existence of such weapon).Now, did you know that Patton III Army was diverted, in April 1945, on Thuringia against all other proposed options?Why?Let’s see what Patton said in an interview at Life Magazine on 27 August 1945:“Several times during the European phase of this war, victory was almost within Germany’s grasp… Especially in the last months of the war , our margin of safety was slimmer than most of us suspected. [The situation] is known best to certain American military experts who have since inspected some of Germany’s underground research laboratories and war plants. Here they saw secret weapons … Weapons which might conceivably have turned the trick for the Nazis if they could have used them boldly in a last desperate gamble. Some of these things can be revealed. Others cannot – Yet.”In Thuringia Germans were experimenting “secret weapons” in the famous triangle Ohrdruf-Arnstadt-Wechmar, among which many rumours state that the III Reich tested a miniaturised atomic bomb and the debate is still open, yet:a) All documents have been classified for 100 years until 2045 (not even ULTRA or MAGIC were given such protection).Everything Patton found in Thuringia, all documents about the IG Farben’s implants of Buna. Hamburg, Bremen and so forth and all the ALSOS (the US mission to investigate the state of German nuclear and biological weapon program): all classified. Why?At Nuremberg Trials, 21 June 1945 (IMT Blue series, Vol. XVI, pg. 526–527), the famous judge Mr. Jackson (the same who famously sanctioned the “six millions” number, so definitely not a Nazi supporter):MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: [Turning to the defendant.] Leaving the question of your personal participation in these matters and coming to the questions dealt with in the second part of your exami- nation, I want to ask you about your testimony concerning the pro- posal to denounce the Geneva Convention. You testified yesterday that it was proposed to withdraw from the Geneva Convention. Will you tell us who made those proposals?SPEER: This proposal, as I already testified yesterday, came from Dr. Goebbels. It was, made after the air attack on Dresden, but before this, from the autumn of 1944 on, Goebbels and Ley had often talked about intensifying the war effort in every possible way, so that I had the impression that Goebbels was using the attack on Dresden and the excitement it created merely as an excuse to renounce the Geneva Convention.MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, was the proposal made at that time to resort to poison gas warfare?SPEER: I was not able to make out from my own direct observations whether gas warfare was to be started, but I knew from various associates of Ley's and Goebbels' that they were discussing the question of using our two new combat gases, Tabun and Sarin. They believed that these gases would be of particular efficacy, and they did in fact produce the most frightful results. We made these observations as early as the autumn of 1944, when the situation had become critical and many people were seriously worried about it.MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, will you tell us about these two gases and about their production and their effects, their qualities, and the preparations that were made for gas warfare?SPEER: I cannot tell you that in detail. I am not enough of an expert. All I know is that these two gases both had a quite extraordinary effect, and that there was no respirator, and no protection against them that we knew of. So the soldiers would have been unable to protect themselves against this gas in any way. For the manufacture of this gas we had about three factories, all of which were undamaged and which until November 1944 were working at full speed. When rumors reached us that gas might be used, I stopped its production in November 1944. I stopped it by the following means. I blocked the so-called preliminary production, that is, the chemical supplies for the making of gas, so that the gas-production, as the Allied authorities themselves ascertained, after the end of December or the beginning of January, actually slowed down and finally came to a standstill. Beginning with a letter which is still in existence and which I wrote to Hitler in October 1944, I tried through legal methods to obtain his permission to have these gas factories stop their production. The reason I gave him was that on account of air raids the preliminary products, primarily cyanide, were needed urgently for other purposes. Hitler informed me that the gas production would have to continue whatever happened, but I gave instructions for the preliminary products not to be supplied any more.MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Can you identify others of the group that were advocating gas warfare?SPEER: In military circles there was certainly no one in favor of gas warfare. All sensible Army people turned gas warfare down as being utterly insane since, in view of your superiority in the air, it would not be long before it would bring the most terrible catastrophe upon German cities, which were completely unprotected.The entire, supposed, blame is placed on Göbbels (who was dead and so could not made any affidavit) and on Robert Ley (who had killed himself 8 months earlier) and then, for the entire process, such marvellous weapons the world had never seen are mentioned…zero times.Now, this is the interrogation of Ambros in December 1947 (Trials on War Criminals before the NMT - Vol.VII - The IG Farben case 1946–49):Q. Now you were also on the Special Committee "C." This was only formed in 1943, and if the development of chemical warfare agents was concluded in 1943, then I would like to know why this Special Committee HC" was founded in 1943, and what was its mission?A. In 1943, the organization of the representatives of industrial economy was set up, and in this organization there was a Central Committee for Powder and Explosives.Q. Mr. Ambros, I would like to interrupt you briefly, and I would like to introduce Ambros Document 5, Ambros Defense Exhibit 5.* On the basis of this sketch, which is on page 37 of the English document book, please explain the position of the Special Committee "C." Do you have this?A. Yes....A. On 15 May 1943, as the last conference, there was a discussion with Hitler and this concerned the"treatment of the chemical warfare agents.Q. Were you alone?A. Shortly before this date I was notified by telegram by the Armament Ministry, and I was told to come to Berlin, and I was taken to the supreme headquarters in East Prussia by airplane. There were representatives of the General Staff, Speer, Schieber, and various directors of central committees from the armament industry.Q. And what did Hitler want from you?A. As the last point on the agenda of this conference there was a one-hour conference about the situation in the poison gas field. Mr. Speer and Mr. Schieber reported, first of all, about the military aspect, about the general situation, and then I was given the floor; and I showed, on the basis of a table: (a.) the requirements of poison gases by the General Staff, (b) the actual production, (c) the stocks. Thus, I discussed objectively all types and described the situation as it was.Q. Did Herr Hitler ask you-one could practically gather thiswhether one could use poison gases, or what was the situation?A. The first reaction was a disappointment, since, in most types, not even half of the requirements of the General Staff had been met. There followed a discussion about the reasons for this, and he asked the question: "What is the other side doing?"Q. Before that, I would like to ask you a question. Did you have the impression as if Hitler wanted to use the poison gases?A. No, Hitler himself did not, but around him there were people who did.Q. Well, go ahead, please; describe to us what happened at this conference.A. He discussed the main types, always with a point of view of "How does it look on the other side?" and I reported objectively that, for example, in the Lost [mustard gas] field, countries which have a lot of ethylene would perhaps have the possibility to produce larger quantities of these substances than we could. Thereupon he [Hitler - ndr] said: "I understand that the countries with petroleum are in a position to make more, but Germany has a special gas, Tabun. In this we have a monopoly in Germany." At that moment I said: "I have justified reasons to assume that Tabun, too, is known abroad. I know that Tabun had been publicised as early as 1902 , that Sarin was patented, and that these substances appeared in patents," and I said, "I am convinced that other countries, in case the German side might use these gases, would very shortly not only be able to imitate these special gases, but even produce them in much larger quantities."Q. Mr. Ambros, before the recess we were talking about this conference with Hitler in May 1943. Is there anything important to say about this conference other than what we have already said?A. During this conference an expansion was also discussed which the ORH had suggested for Tabun. This plan was to be put into execution, but a few months later it was withdrawn.Q. Mr. Ambros, we can draw our own conclusions about your attitude at this meeting. I do not want to go into that much further. I have another question in this connection. You said that certain circles, or certain people in Hitler's "entourage, would have been glad to use poison gas. Do you have any indications that after you took an objective point of view at that time you were not doing these people a favor and that later attempts were made to gain your assistance?A. In August 1944, I was called to Mr. Speer, and again there was a suggestion from the people who wanted gas warfare, but the situation was exactly the same, and my attitude was exactly the same again about the objective of a technical expert. Speer had the same attitude, and so it was again possible to prevent the use of this terrible weapon.Q. Mr. Ambros, for absolute clarity on this point: your point of view was objective?A. Yes.Q. In addition to that, did you tell the people who were in favor of gas warfare that you were against it, Dr was that not possible, or did you think it advisable not to do so in your own interests?A. Those who were in favor of it were Ley, Goebbels, and Bormann. I did not know any of these men. I did not speak to any of them, and I never spoke to Hitler again.The italic part is a lie: the “1902 publicised elements” are just precursor chemical elements and both gases had been strictly kept secret since their discovery in 1937 and Ambros knew that rather well and so should his interrogators since the war had ended over two years earlier and the German inventory had been examined thoroughly.Hence it would appear that Hitler knew about the German monopoly over the production of Sarin and Tabun and he was persuaded that such a monopoly was actually just temporary when in reality no other nations was studying the subject nor had any clue about the existence of such gases, for the American program led to the discovery of DDT, not of sarin and tabun.It also ought to be considered that Ambros and Hitler had had several meetings from 1938 onward considering that IG Farben was charged with producing Sarin and Tabun in 1939.It’s also suspicious how lenient the judges were at Nuremberg: Speer uttered these words during the above-quoted interrogation:MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And certain experiments were also conducted and certain researches conducted in atomic energy, were they not?SPEER: We had not got as far as that, unfortunately, because the finest experts we had in atomic research had emigrated to America, and this had thrown us back a great deal in our research, so that we still needed another year or two in order to achieve any results in the splitting of the atom.This is the first lie because Germany had at its disposal excellent scientists, on par with those the Allies recruited, namely Manfred von Ardenne, Werner Heisenberg, Otto Hahn, Kurt Diebner, Hans Geiger, Erich Bagge, Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker and so forth.But then the judge, Robert H. Jackson, continues:MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, I have certain information, which was placed in my hands, of an experiment which was carried out near Auschwitz and I would like to ask you if you heard about it or knew about it. The purpose of the experiment was to find a quick and complete way of destroying people without the delay and trouble of shooting and gassing and burning, as it had been carried out, and this is the experiment, as I am advised. A village, a small village was provisionally erected, with temporary structures, and in it approximately 20,000 Jews were put. By means of this newly invented weapon of destruction, these 20,000 people were eradicated almost instantaneously, and in such a way that there was no trace left of them; that it developed, the explosive developed, temperatures of from 400° to 500° centigrade and destroyed them without leaving any trace at all. Do you know about that experiment?The judge is wrong about the temperatures and the location (it was not Auschwitz but Monowitz probably), nonetheless it would be a big story, wouldn’t it?20,000 people killed instantly and all of it mentioned during the first process for crimes against humanity would make foresee a clear investigation, right?Nope, the story was never mentioned again.Walther Gerlach, commander of the Reichsforschungsrat (the German research council, thus responsible for the entire German nuclear program), was not even call to testify.Hans Kammler, responsible for the construction of Auschwitz, of the V2 implants where thousands of slave labourers died and of all German “Wunderwaffen” programs, disappeared after the Battle of Berlin and was simply declared dead and not even put under investigation.The same applied to Heinrich Müller, a chief responsible of the Holocaust (and thus well aware of what may have happened during that “experiment”, disappeared as well and was never put under investigation.Why? Because, similarly for Otto Ambros and for the whole nerve agents case, agreements had been made and the Allies were already occupied with the impending Cold War.Furthermore, Dr. Schrader, the leading scientist of the team that discovered Tabun and Sarin, testified about the production of both nerve agents suggesting to Major Tilley, the US investigator, to ask to Georg von Schnitzler who was, together with Ambros one of the leading managers of IG Farben, who in turn named Dr. Karl Krauch, whom Tilley also interrogated and from whom he learnt about Sarin (the name comes from the letters of Schrader, Ambros and two other officers Rüdiger and Linde who were all members of the discovering team).Krauch also told a surprising tale: while in hospital he had been approached by Lt. Col. Tarr, member of the US Chemical Warfare committee, who asked for details of fabrication and Krauch told them to talk with Ambros.Curiously, no one told to the interrogators of the III Army (that of Patton, the same army that was inexplicably re-directed toward Thuringia and that, curiously, captured Ambros) that Ambros was wanted for war crimes nor that he was a key member of German chemical weapons program and Tilley had not been informed by Tarr about anything, hence Tilley concluded that Tarr was, in fact, conducting a separate investigation from the Nuremberg Trials on behalf of the US.Tilley then notified his superiors about Ambros and orders were given to arrest him at his house in Gerndorf but Ambros was gone, headed for the US Army Intelligence interrogation center where the Chemical Warfare had its headquarters.Be also aware that von Schnitzler admitted to Tilley that it was known in the IG Farben board that gas were used to kill people (he is referring to Zyklon B), so the Lt. Col. Tarr was protecting someone who knowingly provided gas to murder people.It does not end here though: Ambros and a colleague of his, named “Stumpfi” (his real name has never been ascertained) were trusted with retrieving the drawings of the equipment needed to manufacture the nerve agents on a large scale and the blueprints.After some troubles, including Lt. Col. Tarr falsifying a telegram of the British ministry of Supply, a double escape of Ambros and Tarr evading requests to comply with the commission charged with interrogatories, Ambros ended up collaborating with the US biological warfare program.Consider that they were a game changer: Sarin and Tabun could have been loaded onto a V2 or just into artillery shell (15 cm Nebelwerfer) and tossed on the Normandy beaches or Bagration fronts (I’m naming the two major Allied operations in 1944 that highlighted how desperate the war situation was for Germans), thus halting them and giving the Reich months to research other “miraculous weapons” and/or increase their production.A V2 loaded with Tabun could have caused countless deaths in London: why did not Hitler ever threaten such use? Why did not he use it as a threat of retaliation (considering that V2 were called “Vergeltungswaffen”, “weapons of retaliation”…)in order to stop the Allied bombing?Do you think I am making such thoughts up?This is an excerpt from Omar Bradley’s memoirs:"When D-Day finally ended without a whiff of gas, I was vastly relieved. For even a light sprinkling of a persistent gas could have forced a decision in one of history’s climactic battles."From the US Army volume about the Normandy campaign:"Concerned that Hitler would respond to the invasion with extreme violence and might even resort to poison gas, Eisenhower's chief surgeon, Maj. Gen. Albert W. Kenner, and the Chief Surgeon of the U.S. Army's European Theater of Operations, Maj. Gen. Paul R. Hawley, had prepared their staffs to process at least 12,000 killed and wounded in the First U.S. Army alone"Consider another thing: they are talking about mustard gas whose deadly concentration in the open is 10,000 mg/m^3 for masked soldiers and 2,000 for unprotected people and it has to be inhaled.Tabun’s lethal dose is 400 mg and 150 are enough to permanently maim someone (in a terrible way), Sarin’s one is 100 mg and Soman is 50.Nerve agents can be inhaled or absorbed by skin and they are much deadlier than previous gases.Nerve agents are not persistent, therefore they are a tactical weapon which is very effective against concentration of troops: exactly like in Normandy.In conclusion, Hitler in my opinion did not use nerve agents (which could have changed the outcome the war) because :he was deceived by his own men who were fearful of the post-war conditions (not certainly out of morality given the disgusting acts they committed during wartime) and was led to believe Allies had retaliatory weapons, which actually they did not have (my first reason)Or alternatively:Hitler, even though was aware of the potential devastation, refused to use such weapons fearing the reprisalHitler was not, in spite of what may be though, an omniscient and almighty ruler and those charged with conducting the German weapon of mass destruction program decided that it was not worth to use such weaponsSources:A. Jacobsen, Operation PaperclipNuremberg trials actsGermany and the Second World War, volumes IV-V-IXR. Karlsch, Hitler’s Bomb

“Love is giving someone the ability to destroy you, but trusting them not to!” Read out Sameer from the small board outside the house they stood at. “Wow, talk about irony!”The main door was opened by the same lady.“Hello!” Shruti greeted.“You again. Come in.” She said inviting them in and ushering then to the same sitting area as last time. “Tell them to check. And tell them to be quiet.” Shruti whispered to Rohan who gave a call.“Please have a seat. Will call him.” The lady said and disappeared.Nirav came in a few minutes later and looked at them as all of them looked at the series of their iconic photographs on the wall.“What is it now? Why do you keep bothering me?”“Quite a saying you have outside your house. What was it Sameer?”“Love is giving someone the ability to destroy you, but.. But..” Sameer faltered.“But trusting them not to. Do you trust people easily Mr. Rai?”“Have you come here to play Kaun banega Crorepati with me?”“Of course not! Though it would be fun, isn't it? But yes you should be asking me questions and I should answer so that I get a chance of this amazing wealth you guys have.”“What the hell are you saying?”Nishant came in just then and looked at them.“Aah! The man of the hour. Come in.”“Bhaiya, are they bothering you?” Nishant asked Nirav.“Ooh... Is this how you took care of him when he was married to Nalini too?”“Excuse me?”“Have you lost your mind?” Nirav asked.“Aah. I was about to. Believe me. Looking for a killer in the era with no CCTVs, no cellphone records, no triangulation record and upon that no body! Uff! It was tiresome. We had our bad days. My teammate is in the hospital thanks to the culprits, but, every dog has its day! Hey that's an apt saying too. You should hang that outside as well.” Shruti replied.“I am asking for the last time.”“Oh there would be many last time, Mr. Rai. Anyway I heard your asset and money amounts to a whooping 20 crore. Am I right?”“That's none of your business, but still I will answer. Yes, approximately.”“Good. And what happens to this when you die? Considering you are the senior most as of now. Your parents died in a car crash along with his younger brother and his wife when you were just in your 20s. When was it, Rohan?”“December 1997.” Rogan replied.“Yes. In December 1997. So what happens after you pass away.”“It goes to my younger brother. What is your point?” Nirav asked. Nishant took out a handkerchief and wiped his fave.“But if you had been married?”“It goes to my wife.”“But she isnt alive now, is she?”“Again, what's your point?”“My point is can you trust the people you love?”“What is she talking, bhaiya?” Nishant asked.“Are you implying my brother had something to do with this? Let me tell you, I was away in the army. It was he who handled everything here. He doesn't need a name on the paper. This whole estate, the money is his.”“I beg to differ. Even if it was the done thing it sure wouldn't hurt to have it put in writing, would it?”“Bhaiya, what is...”“Wait. This is heights officer Ravindran. You have no right to…”“Oh I have all the rights sir. Did you add Nalini's name in the will when she was your wife?”“Yes. I did.”“And did you take it off after getting separated?”“No.”“Were you planning to?”“No.”“Why?”“Because… because..”“Because you still loved her.” Shruti said going near Nirav. “Behind this conventional orthodox male-heir-crazy guy was a loving husband. You did all those wrong illegal torturous things because you couldn't go against your family traditions but you couldn't even forget her. Could you? Which is why even though staying separately for years, you never filed for divorce because you knew she would come back one day.”Nirav looked at her but didn't say a word.“Your silence is my answer.”“Bhaiya she is...” Nishant spoke again.“Wait I am coming to you.” Shruti said and walked up to him. “When did you meet Nalini last?”“I.. I don't know.”“I will tell you. It was in April 1998 when you chanced upon Nalini outside Malhotra's office. Don't deny it. I have a witness. Who has testified, it was you he saw arguing with Nalini.”“Yes.. Yes I did.” Nishant answered.“You met Nalini? Why didnt you tell me?” Nirav questioned.“How would he? Wouldnt it put his plan in the back burner? Would you like to tell your brother what you argued with her or should I say it?”“I don't remember.”“Okay let's forget that. Where were you on 21st May 1998.”“I… I don't know.”“He was at my house. We both met the police guy the next day. Remember?” Nirav pointed out.“Yes. Yes. I was with him.”“Surprising you couldn't remember that. Anyway, where were you on 21st evening?” Shruti asked.“I was at home with bhaiya.”“No. You were not. Ever heard of The Second Innings club?”“No.”“Sure?”“Yes.”“That's odd. Then what were you doing at the meet that evening?”“I wasn't there.”“Your cousin Manish Rai,” Shruti said pointing to the majestic photo frame wall, “is a member. And you were his guest.”“That's not true. You can ask Manish.”“Why should I ask him when I have proof?”“Your face captured in a photograph and your guest form filled with your handwriting.”“Nishant?” Nirav asked.“Bhaiya. She is lying. It's not true.” He said to him and then turned to Shruti. “You stop this!”“Is this how you threatened Nalini? What did she want? Money? Couldn't stand a woman getting her way, do you? Apparently this son producing machine family thinks women are beneath any respect and love.”“Shut up!”“This won't work with me. I am not Nalini. You screamed like this at her that night, right?”“Yes. I did. And she deserved it!”“Nishant!” Nirav exclaimed shocked.“Bhaiya, you should thank me! She was one hell of a bitc…” Before he could finish the sentence Nirav slapped him across the face. “I can't believe you did this. You stooped so low! Is that what I taught you? Why did you do this?”“Because she was giving a bad name to the family! And I could not let that happen.”“What did you do Nishant?” Nirav asked.Nishant stood quiet.“What did you do?”“Just what she deserved!”Rohan's phone rang just then and a voice spoke.“We got Trisha. She was in the warehouse right behind to where you all are.”“Perfect.” Shruti exclaimed.“I saw her at a restaurant once where I had gone to meet a friend who lived in the city. She sat in a corner with a guy who was clearly much older than she was. I saw them being close. He had his hand on her... It was too much to take. I followed them to his office and confronted her when she came out. She said to my face that she loved him. Can you believe that? She was still married to my brother!” Nishant said as he sat in the interrogation room. Shivansh and Poovi sat on the side. All of them facing Shruti and Sameer who sat opposite to them. Rohan stood at a corner along with Shivam and Nirav.“But they were separated...” Shruti said.“But she still was the daughter-in-law of our family. And she has to behave herself. I told her that and that's when she told me she would be sending the divorce papers soon since she wanted to leave all the horrible memories behind. I asked, what horrible memories? She was treated like a queen! And she says, it wasn't like a queen and that we mentally and physically tortured her and that she would put this in the divorce papers too. I understood everything. She was planning on usurping our money! Can you believe that? What mental trauma and physical torture did she go.. ”“She was right...”“She wasn't right! I have seen bhaiya drink his way to misery. I have seen him throwing away his life. He was mentally tortured by her. Women should learn to behave. Their place is in the house where her husband and his family lives.”“The same husband and family who made her abort 5 babies illegally because they were females?” Shruti asked. Nirav looked away.“She is at fault. If she would have given birth to one male heir, it wouldn't have been…”“Do I have to explain biology to you now?”“This is our...”“You say tradition one more time, I will rip off your skin!”Nishant looked at her. “I told her she wouldn't be getting any money and she said it was her right. That greedy woman.”“How did you kill her?” Sameer asked as Shruti glared at him. Nishant looked at him and smirked.“I saw her at The Second Innings club meeting that Manish took me to. I hadn't thought I would see her again, she had jolted me well the last time we spoke. But there she was mingling with men again! Her words echoed and I knew if she did what she intended to, I wouldn't get a penny. Bhaiya would have to pay a hefty alimony and I would be left with nothing. Especially when it's me who has taken care of everything! I had to do something. I…I saw her going to the terrace alone. I told Manish to stay there and I followed her. Just when I was about to confront her I saw a young man screaming at her.”“It was Shivansh Malhotra right?”“Yes. This stupid boy.” He said pointing to Shivansh who sat beside him.“So what's your story?” Sameer asked Shivansh.“Since the day I had heard there was a woman in my father's life I couldn't take it lightly. My mother sacrificed a lot for the family. No woman could take her place. No one. Upon that she was pregnant! It just made me mad. I got her number from Vikas uncle’s diary when he wasn’t at his desk. I called her up and told her she should stop seeing my father. She told me to stop calling her but I would call her everyday and try to talk to her.” He answered.“From the same PCO, you called up last night?”Shivansh nodded.“What happened on 21st May 1998?” Shruti asked.“I came to know Nalini was going to the meet that my dad would frequently go to. He couldn't go that night since Shivam had hurt his leg and he needed to be taken to the doctor. I took that opportunity to confront her that day. I reached the venue and saw her talking to people. I knew Vikas uncle was a member so I just told them I don't intend to stay that I just had a message from him for someone. I saw her talking to another lady when I went up to her. I had to speak to her privately so I asked her to meet me up on the terrace in 10 minutes. She came as instructed.”May 21st 1998“This is heights. Please, stop calling and following me, Shivansh.” Nalini said coming onto the terrace. The moon was shining in the sky but there was little light on the terrace. A small area behind the door was covered in complete darkness. Water pipes were all around and two big water tanks lay right opposite to the door.“If you are so serious about him then why did you come here? Isn't this meet supposed to be the place to meet new people?” Shivansh asked.“This meeting also means I get to meet friends with whom I have become friends since I joined this club. And anyway, why and what I do is none of your concern.”“Everything you do is my concern! You are related to my dad, I have to know if you are doing….”“Following me to places isn't a concern Shivansh.” Nalini took a deep breath. “Listen, there is no major age difference between you and me. Consider me your friend, and believe me. I would do nothing to hurt your father. I love him.”“Are you planning to marry him?”“Yes. We would want to be a family when the baby comes right?”“Are you really going to have his baby? I...”“Yes. I know how you feel but this is something that is between your father and me. Can we not talk about it?”Nishant entered then and closed the door behind him.“Wow! Just wow. You are just a big blotch of woman hood.” He said clapping.“Who are you?” Shivansh asked.“Nishant?” Nalini spoke.“Oh! Your would be mother didn't tell you? I am her husband's brother. Her loving brother-in-law.”“You are married?” Shivansh asked Nalini.“I was.” She answered.“She still is. On papers.” Nishant said.“Don't listen to him, Shivansh. I am telling you..”“She is just with your father for his money. That's it. Nothing more. This pregnancy too is just so that she could catch him.”“No. That's a lie. This baby.... “ Nalini started to say.“Then why wouldn't you divorce your first husband?” Shivansh asked.“I am going to…” Nalini said.“And is also planning on getting a huge alimony which she would have done with your father as well in some years.”“You! I knew this!”“That's not true! Shivansh, listen to me. What he is saying has no truth in it. I love your father. I really do. He is just manipulating....”“Shut up!” Shivansh screamed. A creak was heard and everyone went silent for a few seconds.“Shivansh...”“I was so right about you. You are such a chameleon. A villain.” Shivansh said.“That is true. She is. And you know what they do to a villain, Shivansh?” Nishant asked and took out a knife.Nalini screamed as Shivansh looked in horror. Nishant grabbed her and stabbed her. Shivansh stood there frozen to the ground.And then another scream was heard.Nishant, Shivam turned around see Poovi behind the water tank.Just then a group of people were heard opening the terrace door. Nishant grabbed Nalini's body and signalled Shivansh too grab her. He hid behind the dark area just behind the door. Shivansh went upto to her and held her hand so as she wouldn't run off. A group came in and moved to the other part of the terrace.“Don't you dare speak a word!” Shivansh warned. Poovi stood there in fear. A man from the group came towards Poovi.Hey, where is Nalini?I... I don't know.That’s bad.Would you take this? And keep it with you? It's Nalini's. I will take it later.Sure.The man went to his group and they stood looking at the moon and the sea, combined income a beautiful night.Poovi still stood there not knowing what to do. She saw Shivansh's hand was shivering just like hers.Let's run. She whispered.We can't. What if he kills us too.Then let me go!I can't. Stay!The group after a few minutes headed back down and as they went down, Nishant dropped the body and came near her.“What did you give to that man?” Nishant hissed.“The proof for your jail! Poovi said in broken English. I took photos. Leave me or else you caught.”“Who the hell are you?”“I am Nalini's assistant.”“Get that camera back.” Poovi nodded her head sideways and he put the knife on her neck.“You want to go to your Nalini madam?”“If I die, that photos go to police. You think.”“What do want to keep your mouth shut?” Nishant asked after a thought. Poovi looked at him. Her mind raced.“How much can you give me?”“You greedy Bitch...”Shivansh looked at them cutting a deal and back at lifeless Nalini.Present day.“I had to pay her the amount she asked for. She wanted to change her identity. I did that. Then she disappeared too. She thought I don't know where she is but I always kept a track. Till the time photos were with her I had to be careful! And what do I learn later that camera was with Shivansh!” Nishant said.“It was my father's! I didn't know she had the camera that belonged to my father. None of this would have happened if I knew!” Shivansh added.“We both have been dead then!” Poovi said.“How did you get Shivansh to stay quiet?”“I did nothing. His guilt made him do that. Besides, I knew his past and he knew if he ever doublecrossed me off there is jail term for covering up a crime too. Oh and I knew where is girlfriend lived, that was an added advantage.” Shivansh looked away.“How did you end up at the crime scene?” Shruti asked Poovi.“Nalini and I had gone for fabrics purchasing in the next street when she told me she had to swing by this meet she was a part of. I tagged along and she talked to people. I sat in a corner and was getting bored. That's when she handed me the camera.”“You wanted to take pictures right? Take as many as you like. But remember, don't finish the roll.” Nalini had said.“I took some pictures of the meeting hall and then went up to the terrace. I was engrossed in taking a picture of the moon and the sea when I heard a loud voice. That's when I came near the water tank and saw Nalini with them. It wasn't something I wanted to do but it was an instinct and captured the moment in the camera. When they saw me I knew I either die or become brave. When he offered me money, I…I took it.”“That camera belonged to Malhotra right?”“Yes. It did. But.. I don't know how it went to Shivansh's house. I had kept it safely and it went missing the day after. I was terrified. But I couldn’t say that to them, right? I would have been the next victim!”“Vikas Singh, Malhotra's assistant had come over at the boutique looking for it. His boss wanted the camera back and he took it without leaving a note. That's how the camera ended up being at Malhotra's. And since Shivansh had no idea it was his father's camera he never bothered checking it until his younger son did two decades later.”“If only Malhotra would have survived, you all would have been behind the bars much sooner.” Sameer added.“Why did you try to kill Raina?” Shruti asked Poovi.“I didn't try to kill her. It was him!” She said pointing to Nishant. “He followed me to Raina's apartment. I just had gone to there to tell her the truth. What I was back then, I certainly wasn't the same Poovi now. I had another identity. I had a daughter. What I did back then was not right. I... I just wanted to set things straight. I was halfway through my story when he came barging and…. He threatened me with dire consequences. Just like he threatened me I should admit to Nalini's killing or else he would kill my daughter.”“And you tried to kill her because of two reasons. 1. She is a girl and you people are demons. 2. She would get a chunk of the property if Nirav accepts her. Am I right?” Shruti asked.“I thought you said if I said tradition again you would rip my skin off.” Nishant smirked and looked away.Poovi sat there sobbing. Shivansh sat without an expression.“Last question. Where is Nalini's body?”“We found the body. Buried deep into the sea for years it would take sometime to confirm if it's indeed Nalini's body.” Sameer came in a few hours later into Shruti's cabin. “It's shocking that no one saw Nishant and Manish come in late in the night to take away Nalini's body from the building's terrace where they had dumped it behind the door till the meet was over.”“Even more shocking is that no one saw a body being dumped in the sea with a big stone tied to it. Horrible!” Shruti replied.“Only if officer Roy had investigated more thoroughly.”“Of course. In fact...”“Ma'am?” Constable Gaurav came in. “Shivam Malhotra is here.”Sameer saw Shivam come in and Shruti gestured him to sit.“Things took a huge turn since I took out that camera! Never in my wildest dreams did I think my brother would be involved in this. He was just a scared kid. You would show some leniency on him right?”“He was a witness to a murder and chose to stay quiet for long. I am sorry, its all upon the judge now. But yes he would be getting sentenced for this as will Poovi.”“I see. Anyway, I am sorry for the way I reacted that day. I... It wasn't right.”“That's okay.”“Would you be okay in meeting me again? You know...”Sameer collected his things and headed for the door.“I am sorry but no.” Shruti said. Sameer stopped in his tracks. “You know what Shivam, Nalini was like me. I am like her. Determined. Who stood for herself and took a decision and adhered to it. But she was also like me, emotional, still attached to the past and terrified about it. Nalini isn’t here but if she were I am sure she would have advised me to change myself. To let go of the past and think about the future.” Sameer stood holding the door. “And you aren't the future. Someone else is.” Shruti said looking at Sameer.Shivam smiled and got up. “Aah.. I am glad I could meet and know the other side of you. My bad luck. The man you deem worthy is sure lucky. Good day.” He said and headed to the door. He looked at Sameer who glanced back at him. “You are a lucky man!” He said and patted on his shoulder.Before Sameer could speak Rohan barged in.“Raina is awake. Doctor said she would be good to go soon! She wants to meet us. Sir, let's go.”Raina smiled as she looked at Sameer, Shruti and Rohan lying on the hospital bed.“I can't thank you enough.” She said after she had heard what had happened to her mother. “I finally have my closure.”The nurse came in just then and looked at all the visitors. She can't have more than 3 visitors.Rohan looked at her confused and all of them counted. “We are just three.” He said.There is a forth one outside. Nirav Rai entered the room. “What did you say your relationship was to the patient?” The nurse asked him.“She is my daughter. I am her father.”Shruti looked at Raina who studied the man who had been absent her whole life.“Should we…”“Just one chance. Just one. I want to make amends.” Nirav said as all of them looked at Raina for approval. Raina nodded her head in affirmative. Shruti signalled Sameer and Rohan to leave the room. “We are outside if you need us.” Shruti said to Raina and came out with others.“I am so happy!” Rohan said looking at Raina.“So am I!” Sameer said looking at Shruti.The end.Feeling lost? This is the final part of my “Shadows of the past!” series which started from this answer,Shefali Naidu's answer to Can you write a short story beginning "I thought yesterday was a new start"?Missed a part? Look up here.Shadows of the past!