by Karen Jonson
The trial took a dramatic turn when Vesla took the stand—mainly because she was so emotional during most of her testimony, often breaking down into tears. First, under direct testimony, she described ten separate incidents of sexual abuse by Prakash.
Cathy: “The first time that you were ever alone with him that you recall in the bedroom, what, if anything, do you recall him doing?”
Vesla: “I was seated on the floor to the right of the chair and looking at it. He was in the chair. He began touching my shirt, my shoulders in my shirt area. Then he started playing with my bra strap, and then slowly moved down into touching my breasts. It was a pretty quick encounter. He then gave me candy. He told me I was a good girl and excused me from the room.”
Cathy: “Okay. When you say he excused you from the room, how would he do that? How did you know that you were excused from the room?”
Vesla: “He told me I could go. He waved me out.”
Cathy: “Okay. And so this was the very first time, and he touched your breasts over your clothes?”
Vesla: “Yes.”
Cathy was quick to squash the defense’s assertion that the girls had brought these charges for revenge and potential monetary gain, which the defense had claimed.
Cathy: “And as we sit here today, nobody - you, Shyama, Kate - none of you all have filed suits or have any plans to file (law)suits?
Vesla: “No.”
Cathy: “Is that correct?”
Vesla: “Yes, that’s correct.”
Cathy: “Okay. And just hypothetically speaking, if the jury comes back with guilty verdicts on this man, do you have any plans to sue anybody?”
Vesla: “No.”
Cathy: “What do you want to do?”
Vesla: “I want to move on. I want to not be scared in my house. I want my parents back.”
Cathy: “Do you want these people to believe your truth?”
Vesla: “Yes.”
Cathy: “Pass the witness.”
108
Day Five
Prosecution Rests and Defense Begins
MONDAY, 28 FEBRUARY 2011.
Vesla returned to the stand and Jeff Kearney proceeded to ask her a series of vague questions that seemed to go nowhere.
Cathy had always said one measure of truth is the cost to the victims to speak out. When Kearney passed the witness, Cathy asked Vesla just one question on redirect.
Cathy: “What’s been the hardest part of this whole experience for you?”
Vesla: “Losing my family, my dad, my mom, and then being thrown under the bus for this. Not feeling safe, having an unregistered address, my parents not coming to my wedding even though I invited them, not knowing that I’m carrying their granddaughter.”
Cathy: “Thank you. Pass the witness.”
As Vesla made her last statement in tears, it was obvious she was telling the truth, not out of rebellion or revenge, as the defense had clumsily claimed, but because it was the right thing to do. Cathy rested her case at about 10:30 a.m. Kearney requested a break until after lunch to gather his witnesses. Cathy objected to the delay, but the judge granted the extra time.
After the long lunch break, we returned to find Diwakari waiting outside the courtroom with a scowl on her face. When she glanced our way, she shot us the proverbial daggers at us. However, she also looked unusually nervous. In the next day’s Austin American-Statesman, Eric Dexheimer summed up the afternoon’s testimony from the day’s five defense witnesses.
“Prakashanand’s lawyers on Monday quizzed five women who’d had lengthy experience with the ashram, either as devotees or residents themselves, or who have been otherwise close to the goings-on at the 200-acre facility on RM 1826 in Driftwood. In sum, their recollections were presented to cast doubt on the claims and remembrances - and credibility - of the guru’s accusers.
“‘I never saw a child alone with Swamiji,’ said Emily Roberts, a 27-year-old who, like the three women claiming abuse, grew up at Barsana Dham.
“’Prakashanand was almost always surrounded by people,’ said Sharlini Saknena, a resident of New Delhi and long-time devotee. She added that she never saw him alone with a teenage girl.
“Alexandra Roberts, 17, said that she has been following Prakashanand since she was a very young girl and that she had ‘absolutely not’ ever been alone with him, nor was she aware of any children being alone with the holy man in his bedroom. That’s where Prakashanand’s accusers have said several instances of his molesting occurred.
“Responding to questions from the guru’s attorneys, Diwakari Devi, who has lived at the ashram since 1993 and who is now president of Barsana Dham, reported different furniture in different locations from that reported by the accusing women. She, too, insisted Prakashanand could not have been alone with the young girls in his bedroom. ‘It never happened.’
“In her questioning of the witnesses, Hays County Assistant District Attorney Cathy Compton asked whether they could reasonably claim that they knew what Prakashanand was doing every hour of every day. Most agreed they could not.”
The witness Sharlini had never even been to the Barsana Dham ashram in Texas.
Amy: Okay. Now, you never were in Texas in the 1990s, right?
Sharlini: No.
Amy: So you would not be able to testify at all about what life was like at Barsana Dham in the 1990s?
Sharlini: That’s right.
Amy: And you don’t know how Swami Ji was with children in the 1990s in Texas?
Sharlini: That’s right.
Amy: And you would agree that if Swami Ji was alone with a teenage girl that he would have been alone and you would not have been able to see that? So it’s not significant that you didn’t see him alone with a teenage girl because then he wouldn’t have been alone if you were there, correct?
Sharlini: That’s right.
Jean Roberts, the mother of Alexandra Roberts and daughter of Lois, a long-time Barsana Dham resident, described herself as a “social devotee” of the ashram (although in all my years there, I’d never heard that phrase). It was true, however, that she only visited sporadically and usually only during events. But she also claimed to have slept over many times, which was a bold-faced lie.
Cathy: Okay. And on the overnights, where - when you were there, where was the defendant, if you know?
Jean: Sometimes he wasn’t there. He was sometimes in India when I was there. Typically, if he was in residence, he was in his room.
Cathy: How do you know?
Jean: I’m presuming.
Cathy: Okay. You’re presuming. But you don’t know really, at night, after you were not with him what he was doing, correct?
Jean: No, ma’am.
Cathy: Okay. So you don’t have any way to really know on probably multiple occasions what he did or did not do?
Jean: No, ma’am.
Cathy: Okay. So you’re not here to testify about any personal knowledge with regard to what this defendant may have done or not done with any of the alleged victims in this case? You don’t have any personal knowledge, you didn’t see anything, you weren’t there for any of the events that have been alleged, right?
Jean: Correct.
Cathy: Okay. Pass the witness.
An ongoing tactic of the defense team was to try to downplay Prakash’s role as a “saint” or a being higher than the rest of us—even though that’s exactly what he taught us and what everyone believed. Diwakari attempted this in an exchange with Cathy.
Cathy: Okay. But you’re the president of this organization. And isn’t it true that actually some of your literature refers to him as a living saint?
Diwakari: No.
Cathy: That’s not true?
Diwakari: (Moving head side to side).
Cathy: So nobody from your organization has referred to him in that way?
Diwakari: Maybe based on their experience.
Cathy: Okay. And you don’t — so it’s your testimony that nothing in any of the materials th
at you as - that the organization puts out with regard to him refers to him as being a divine —
Diwakari: I don’t know.
Cathy: — being? Again, you don’t know?
Diwakari: (Moving head side to side).
Cathy: And you’re the president of the organization?
Diwakari: Yes.
Cathy: Pass the witness.
109
Day Six
The “Star Witness” for the Defense
TUESDAY, 1 MARCH 2011.
The day started with Kate being recalled to the stand by Gates—who then tried to trap her into incriminating herself regarding conversations between her and Prabhakari in 2007.
Gates: “Did you say during that conversation to your sister Prabhakari that you were tired of being treated second to Barsana Dham and Swami Ji?”
Kate: “No.”
Gates: “Did you threaten your sister and tell her that you were going to bring Barsana Dham down if they did not leave?”
Kate: “No, because we already knew at that point that I could not even do - I was past the statute of limitations. And I said whatever Vesla and Shyama want to do, I will support them. So I can’t - I can’t even do anything about what happened to me, but I will support whatever Vesla and Shyama do.”
Gates: “So, specifically, Ms. Tonnessen - the question is a specific question. Did you or did you not threaten your sister that you would take Barsana Dham down?”
Kate: “I - no, I did not.”
Gates: “Yes or no?”
Kate: “I absolutely could not even do that.”
On cross-examination, Amy questioned Kate about her motivation and the high price she was paying to recount her story of abuse in a court of law.
Amy: “And your only motivation for coming forward was to protect other children?”
Kate: “Yes.”
Amy: “And you could have lived your life without ever, ever thinking about him and what he did to you again, couldn’t you have?”
Kate: “Yes.”
Amy: “Except for the fact that you knew you had to act?”
Kate: “I knew.”
Amy: “And, actually, the only thing these allegations have done is brought your life down and brought your family down?”
Kate: “It’s horrible.”
Amy: “What’s changed about your life since you’ve come forward?”
Kate: “I haven’t seen my family. I don’t - I’m scared when I come to Austin. We know that - I know that there’s a whole huge room full of people that - I lost all my history. I don’t know.”
Amy: “What does it mean when you say you lost your history?”
Kate: “I mean I lost all of my family, all of my childhood. I don’t - besides my sister, I’m an orphan now. I don’t have people.”
Amy: “Why are you scared when you come to Austin?”
Kate: “Because there’s a very large group of people that are very mad at me for speaking out.”
Amy: “Well, when Prabhakari came to visit you, she again tried to tell you why it is - that you don’t understand what he did to you was - was a blessing or a grace, right?”
Kate: “Uh-huh.”
Amy: “And why is that something that you would be made to believe?”
Kate: “I guess just as - as I was told when I was a child, because it was a test or that this man was so beyond the material plane that nothing he does is material; that sex acts aren’t sexual if there’s no sex in the mind of the person performing them, which, at the time when Prabhakari was visiting me, was ridiculous and I knew was nonsense. And why any man of any age of any spiritual rank would need to commit sex acts on children as a test was - I knew was absurd.”
Next, the defense called three more witnesses: another female ashram resident, a process server, and a religious teacher—all of who gave underwhelming testimony. By mid-afternoon, the defense called its “star witness”—Prabhakari. She had taken the order of sanyas at the age of twenty-one under Prakash. From then on, she wore orange saris, and never again knew what it was like to have anyone tell her “no” or hold her accountable for unreasonable actions. Even her mother and stepfather as devotees had to do as she commanded.
From the time she was 26, she was the undisputed ruler of the Barsana Dham ashram in Prakash’s absence. We were told she was in charge of his defense strategy and managing his defense team. Now, in a court of law, she still seemed to expect that people would accept whatever nonsense she spewed as the truth, no matter how far fetched.
However, catching people in inconsistent testimony is one of the primary goals of lawyers in criminal trials. Inconsistencies can look like lies to the jury, and often make them doubt the entire testimony of a witness. When Prabhakari got on the stand, her testimony revealed major inconsistencies. On her first day of testimony, through sporadic tears (which appeared on cue), Prabhakari responded to questions from Reagan Winn, Kearney’s law partner.
Winn: “You had testified earlier that you had a grandmother that was living in Seattle. Is that right?”
Prabhakari: “Near Seattle.”
Winn: “Did something happen to her in the spring of 2008?”
Prabhakari: “She passed away.”
Winn: “Do you feel any emotions toward Kate and Vesla over the situation with your grandmother?”
Prabhakari: “Yes, I do.”
Winn: “What are those emotions?”
Prabhakari: “They didn’t let me say good-bye to her.”
Winn: “How does that make you feel?”
Prabhakari: “I don’t have a word big enough.”
Winn also questioned Prabhakari about her insinuation that Kate and the girls wanted Hays County to “lynch” Prakash.
Winn: “Did - during this conversation, did she say to you, quote, I’m tired of being second to Barsana Dham and Swami Ji?”
Prabhakari: “Yes, she did.”
Winn: “During this conversation, did she say to you, quote, I’m bringing Barsana Dham down if you-all don’t leave?”
Prabhakari: “Yes, she did.”
Winn: “By ‘you-all,’ who did you take that to mean?”
Prabhakari: “My father, my mother, my brother and myself.”
Winn: “How did that make you feel?”
Prabhakari: “Threatened.”
Winn: “Did she tell you that she would make an accusation against Swami Ji?”
Prabhakari: “Yes, she did.”
Winn: “Did she tell you that she thought the accusation would work because Swami Ji would get a lynching - and that’s a quote - in Hays County?”
Prabhakari: “She did.”
Amy’s cross-examination of Prabhakari began that afternoon.
Amy: “So you agree that you’ve been quoted a lot as kind of representing the position of Barsana Dham?”
Prabhakari: “Yeah. I’ve talked to the Statesman Record.”
Amy: “And that you’ve been very involved in the legal defense of this defendant?”
Prabhakari: “I’ve been at every hearing.”
Amy: “And you’ve been at most of the meetings with the attorneys that the defendant has been to, right?”
Prabhakari: “Not most of them. Some.”
Amy: “Now, in all this time where you - when you say that you have been participating in his defense, did you ever go to law enforcement to address your concerns with law enforcement that these girls are lying?”
Prabhakari: “No.”
Amy: “Have you ever told anyone in law enforcement this, your position that you’ve told this jury today?”
Prabhakari: “I don’t think I’ve ever been interviewed. I can’t remember ever being interviewed by anyone.”
Amy: “Did you ever voluntarily go to them and explain to law enforcement what the real story was?”
Prabhakari: “You mean like go to the police station?”
Amy: “Right.”
Prabhakari: “No.”
Amy: “Well, you don’
t think it would have been helpful to determining whether an offense were committed for the police to know that Kate had made all these threats against him?”
Prabhakari: “I was waiting for my day in court. That’s what I thought I was supposed to do.”
Amy: “Well, if it could have been resolved three and a half years ago, wouldn’t that have been better?”
Prabhakari: “Yes.”
It was downhill from there.
110
Day Seven
Nothing But Lies
WEDNESDAY, 2 MARCH 2011.
The eviseration of Prabhakari wasn’t over yet—Amy exposed another inconsistency in her story.
Interestingly, while Prabhakari radiated confidence and bravado on her first day of testimony, on her second day she was glum and moody. My guess is that she got blasted by Prakash the night before for being her miserable performance on the stand, and the obviously failing “defense strategy.” Things continued their downhill trajectory.
Amy: “Now, you also said yesterday that Kate is the one who kept you from your grandmother’s deathbed, essentially, right?”
Prabhakari: “It wasn’t just Kate. There was my uncle - all three of my sisters were there, actually.”
Amy: “Were where?”
Prabhakari: “With my grandmother.”
Amy: “And this is during the month that she died?”
Prabhakari: “Yes.”
Amy: “So when did your grandmother die? In April of 2008? Is that right?”
Prabhakari: “It was March or April. I don’t remember.”
Amy: “Did you know that Kate was on a month-long retreat in New Mexico and she wasn’t even there with your grandmother when he - she died?”
Prabhakari: “No, I didn’t.”
Amy: “Okay. But it was your testimony yesterday that Kate is the one who kept you away from her?”
Prabhakari: “I understood that all three of my sisters were there, but I only heard about it through my mother.”
Next, the defense called three more female devotees to the stand, each one worse than the next. Carol Bartos, who had cleaned Prakash’s kitchen, claimed that no young girls or single women ever went into his room alone. Vishi claimed the same, as did the next witness, Michelle Paul, a long-time devotee who lived in Austin. But they all made unimpressive witnesses, as evidenced in the following excerpt from Cathy’s exchange with Michelle.