Petition to Conduct CBI Enquiry into Murder of Dr J A Mathan

Monday, 26 July 2010

Characteristics of Women Who Deny or Conceal Pregnancy: Scientific articles


Characteristics of Women Who Deny or Conceal Pregnancy

Abstract
In order to assess characteristics of women with denial or concealment of pregnancy until delivery, the authors conducted a retrospective study of women with no history of prenatal care who presented to their institution for delivery or immediately postpartum.

Among these women, 29% had denied pregnancy, and 9% had concealed pregnancy. Authors constructed models predicting denial or concealment of pregnancy and further elucidated subtypes of denial and concealment of pregnancy. Strikingly, psychiatric consultation was rare for women who had denied or concealed their pregnancies, and yet they would often subsequently take responsibility for their infants.

Introduction
Miller described three types of denial of pregnancy:
1) pervasive denial;
2) affective denial; and
3) psychotic denial.

Pervasive denial "occurs when not only the emotional significance but the very existence of the pregnancy is kept from awareness.
" Weight gain, amenorrhea, and breast changes may not be present or may be misconstrued; even labor pains may be misinterpreted.
Partners and families may also fail to notice pregnancies.

Women with "affective denial" are intellectually aware of their pregnancy; however, they make little emotional or physical preparation, and "continue to think, feel, and behave as though they were not pregnant."

Within this category, some women with substance-use disorders experience affective denial to defend against guilt from potentially harming their fetus through substance use. Last, "psychotic denial" of pregnancy may occur in women with psychosis and a history of loss of custody of other children.

Risk factors for denial of pregnancy may include age, intellectual limitations, social isolation, substance abuse, psychiatric disorder, or irregular menses.

Psychological conflicts that may result in denial of pregnancy include anger at the father of the baby, repressed sexuality, religious prohibitions, relationship with their mother, fear of abandonment, or anticipation of custody loss. Also, some women who deny pregnancy may experience dissociation or conversion symptoms at the time of delivery.

In contrast to the denial of pregnancy, concealment of pregnancy occurs in women who know that they are pregnant and actively conceal pregnancy from family, partners, friends, teachers, and coworkers. Their reasons for doing so may include a fear of others’ reaction to the pregnancy and/or the woman’s plans to place the child for adoption.

Denial of pregnancy and concealment of pregnancy both lead to inadequate prenatal care, yet few studies have attempted to define these two entities more clearly. We are aware of a single prospective study that found hospital delivery rates of 1 in 475 deliveries in Germany; using the definition of denial of pregnancy as a subjective unawareness of pregnancy until at least Week 20 of gestation.7 Subjects were categorized in three ways: denied pregnancy, concealed pregnancy, and a smaller group of adolescents who attempted to "forget" their pregnancies. The rate of "pervasive denial" was 1:2,455. Denial was not further delineated from concealment, and thus the sociodemographic, psychiatric, and other maternal characteristics associated with either concealment or denial of pregnancy are unknown.

The aim of this exploratory study was to describe and compare the varying characteristics of women with denial or concealment of pregnancy more comprehensively. We hypothesized that women who deny or conceal pregnancy would most likely be young, primigravida, living with their parents, and educationally deprived. Also, they would have poor social support networks (or the perception of poor support) and would be likely to have been a victim of abuse. We also expected to find a population of women with frequent psychiatric referrals. We further hypothesized that the women who concealed pregnancy would have been aware of their pregnancies earlier than their counterparts who denied pregnancy.


Method
After Institutional Review Board approval, a retrospective record review was completed at our urban academic medical center. All women without prenatal care with pregnancies reaching the third trimester who presented to the hospital for delivery or immediately postpartum between January 1997 and December 2003 were eligible for inclusion. The subjects were identified by the ICD-9 code V23.7 (Insufficient Prenatal Care). Relevant medical records were then reviewed to ascertain cases with a complete absence of prenatal care. The medical records were also reviewed for any information that could help to discern the cause for this absence of prenatal care. We ultimately included in these analyses only cases in which the absence of prenatal care was secondary to denial or concealment of pregnancy.

Both qualitative and quantitative data were abstracted from all chart notations from physicians, social workers, nursing, and emergency medical technicians. When two data-points differed, we routinely followed the more comprehensive dataset (often documented by the social worker). We assessed multiple medical and sociodemographic factors: history of pregnancy/miscarriage/abortion, social support system, history of abuse, history of substance-use disorders and toxicology results, history of mental illness or retardation, location of the birth, precipitant to hospital presentation, the time during gestation at which the woman reported noticing the pregnancy (if any), contraceptive use, reason for lack of prenatal care, and infant placement.

For this study, denial of pregnancy was specifically defined as "no prenatal care before delivery, including women who were completely surprised by their pregnancy at delivery (pervasive denial) to those having some period of overt cognitive awareness of the pregnancy but no acknowledgment of their pregnancy (affective denial)." Concealment of pregnancy was defined as "conscious awareness of a pregnancy, which was then purposefully hidden from others." This behavior must have been specifically noted in the record. Although substance abuse has been related to some cases of denial of pregnancy in the literature,1 we made the a priori decision to exclude women for whom the primary rationale for a lack of prenatal care was the presence of a substance-use disorder, because substance use itself has been shown to be associated with poor prenatal care9 and would likely have a confounding effect.

Analysis was performed with SAS 9.1.10 Chi-square tests or Fisher’s exact tests were first used to test the association between each categorical (or categorized) variable and women’s response (denial versus conceal of pregnancy). On the basis of univariate and bivariate analyses, logistic regression was performed, including stepwise selection of variables to help identify those that significantly independently affect women’s response and predict the outcome variable of denial of pregnancy.


Results
During the study period, there were 31,475 deliveries at our institution; 216 deliveries occurred among 211 women with no prenatal care; 61 of these women met our criteria for denial of pregnancy, and 20 met our criteria for concealment of pregnancy. Two women with denial of pregnancy had subsequent pregnancies in which they again presented with denied pregnancy during the study period. Women with denial or concealment of their pregnancies, therefore, represented 0.26% of all deliveries.

Characteristics of Women Who Denied or Concealed Pregnancy
The demographics of the women with denial or concealment of pregnancy are reported in Table 1. Women with either denial or concealment of pregnancy had mean ages in their early twenties; 23% and 40%, respectively, were age 18 or younger. The women most frequently lived with their mothers. Several women with denial of pregnancy (13%) lived with a partner, whereas none of the women with concealment of pregnancy did. Predominantly, mothers of women in both groups were noted to be sources of social support; fathers of the infant were listed as sources of social support 50% and 32% of the time, respectively; 66% of women with denial of pregnancy and 45% of women with concealment had completed their high school education. The women with denial of pregnancy were significantly more likely to be employed, whereas those with concealment were more likely to be students (p<0.05).>


Pregnancy and delivery data are reported in Table 2. The index pregnancy was the first for only 26% of women with denial of pregnancy and 35% of those with concealment, whereas 20% and 15%, respectively, had experienced previous miscarriages or therapeutic abortions. Of those reporting the length of time that they knew of their pregnancy, a minority of women with denial of pregnancy (31%), compared with a majority of women with concealment of pregnancy (72%), had known about their pregnancy for more than 1 month (p<0.05).>


Mental retardation was diagnosed in four women (6%) with denial of pregnancy, and one mother with concealment of pregnancy was noted to appear "slow." Six (10%) and three (15%) of the women, respectively, had positive urine toxicology screens for the presence of illicit drug metabolites at delivery. Psychiatry consultation was rarely requested for either denial or concealment of pregnancy (only one request among mothers with denial and three requests among mothers who concealed) during the immediate postpartum period. Four of the women with denial of pregnancy (6%) and five of those concealing pregnancy (20%) had a documented history of mood disorder. Infants were removed from maternal custody at hospital discharge in 13 cases of denial of pregnancy (22%) and 7 cases of concealment (39%).

Model for Denial and Concealment of Pregnancy
Table 3 shows the logistic model for denial of pregnancy. Results of the logistic model were confirmed by both a backward-selection model and a best-subsets selection model, with and without use of the variable regarding "length of noting pregnancy," because of missing data. Only two of the studied variables were independently significantly associated with the outcome in the stepwise-selection model: the number of pregnancies and the documented time that the mother reported knowing of the pregnancy. In the backward-selection model, we also found that the variable for employment was significantly associated with denial of pregnancy.


Subtypes of Denial and Concealment of Pregnancy
Subjects who denied pregnancy were separated into the types of denial of pregnancy described by Miller.1 We further subcategorized by apparent subtypes, shown in Figure 1. Of the 61 cases of denial of pregnancy, 22 women (36%) had "pervasive denial" of pregnancy; 7 (11%) women experienced denial of pregnancy that was persistent until their third trimester, at which time the women did note pregnancy, yet did not obtain prenatal care.


"Affective denial" occurred in 52% (32 patients). On the basis of the reasons reported by these women, the following subtypes of affective denial of pregnancy emerged: ambivalent affective denial (N=11; 18%); affective denial with plans for adoption (N=10; 16%); failed plan to procure abortion, with subsequent affective denial (N=8; 13%); affective denial after rape (N=2; 3%); and other (N=1; 2%). No cases of psychotic denial of pregnancy occurred within this sample.

Concealment of pregnancy was also further subcategorized: 14 women (70%) concealed their pregnancy until delivery, and 6 women (30%) denied their pregnancy until their third trimester, with subsequent concealment until delivery. One woman who concealed her pregnancy reported that her pregnancy resulted from rape.

Women with affective denial were significantly more likely than those with pervasive denial to have had a previous pregnancy (p=0.0017); have another living child (p=0.0002); and not live with their mother (p=0.0122). Also noted was a trend toward a greater likelihood of unemployment in the women with affective denial, as opposed to those with pervasive denial (p=0.0559). Women who concealed throughout pregnancy were significantly more likely than those who denied until the third trimester, and then concealed, to have another living child (p=0.0181) and not live with their mother (p=0.0112).


Discussion
This study of women with no prenatal care comprehensively describes characteristics of women with denial and/or concealment of pregnancy. The results of this retrospective study of peripartum women who denied or concealed pregnancy and received no prenatal care were somewhat unanticipated. Contrary to our hypotheses, women with denial or concealment of pregnancy were predominantly over the age of 18 and were multigravidas. They were primarily students or employed. Women with denial of pregnancy were primarily high school graduates. More than half of the women noted that their mothers were sources of support, whereas only half or fewer noted support from the father of the baby. Women with concealment of pregnancy were aware of their pregnancy earlier than women with denial of pregnancy. Again, contrary to our hypothesis, abuse histories were not commonly noted. Perhaps the most striking finding was that for women who either denied or concealed pregnancy, psychiatry consultation was rarely requested, although infants were frequently discharged to the care of mothers who had denied or concealed their existence until birth.

An earlier inquiry11 into denial of pregnancy at our medical center noted "the lack of attention to the phenomenon of pregnancy-denial mirrors the silent stance of these patients." Women’s mothers, as well as their physicians, also appeared to join in their denial. The German study previously noted found that the median maternal age was 27 years and that one-third of their sample were primigravida.7,8 A French study of 22 women with denial of pregnancy found that the phenomenon was most common among young primigravidas; also, one-fifth had been abused.12 In contrast, the majority of mothers with denial of pregnancy in our sample were in their twenties and were not primigravidas, an unexpected finding. A history of abuse was noted in only a few women, although it may not have been routinely or carefully queried and, therefore, was not noted in the medical records.

In an Austrian sample,13 many women experienced menstruation-like bleeding, minimal weight gain, and no nausea; a few took oral contraceptives during pregnancy. In the French study,12 symptoms of pregnancy, when noticed, were rationalized and attributed to other causes. Similarly, in our sample, several women continued to use birth control throughout pregnancy, and the reasons for hospital presentation in some cases revealed a surprising lack of consideration of pregnancy as the possible cause of symptoms.

Psychiatric problems frequently complicate the denial of pregnancy. Of 27 Austrian women with "disavowal of pregnancy,"13 11 women experienced pervasive denial until delivery. Almost half of their sample (48%) had some documented mental disorder, and three (10%) were mentally retarded. The German study7,8 included 65 women with denial of pregnancy, including 3 with schizophrenia, 2 with personality disorders, 3 with diminished intelligence, and 5 with substance-use disorders. In our sample, among women with denial of pregnancy, 4 (6%) had had previous mood disorder diagnoses; however, psychiatry consultation was requested only once. It is unlikely that the lack of formal psychiatric care in this American sample is due to an actual absence of psychiatric/psychological problems. It seems more likely to indicate an important missed opportunity for psychiatric intervention.

Clearly, women who deny or conceal pregnancy are often experiencing a severe form of psychological conflict. Niefert and Bourgeois2 urged, "If we are fortunate enough to identify these women before delivery, it is imperative that intensive psychosocial counseling be arranged (p 568)." In our sample, very few women were referred to mental health services, even though denial persisted through delivery. It is our belief that women who have denied or concealed their pregnancies should routinely be referred for mental health evaluation, in addition to potential evaluation for parenting capacity.1 Mental health assessment and appropriate treatment in this setting is likely to be beneficial to the health and adjustment of both mother and child.

Interestingly, in the Austrian sample, women often accepted their pregnancy after viewing prenatal ultrasound images.13 Ultrasound may prove helpful when treating a woman with a propensity for affective denial of pregnancy. Women who change their mind after planning to abort should be strongly encouraged to seek prenatal care. Identified rape victims should be encouraged to either seek prenatal care or abortion services.

Physicians should consider the possibility of denial or concealment of pregnancy in young women presenting with complaints of nausea, weight gain, and abdominal symptoms, with or without amenorrhea.2,14 Obviously, denial or concealment of pregnancy is unlikely to be a problem encountered by obstetricians early in patients’ pregnancy. Therefore, prevention of this problem depends on other health professionals’ (pediatrics, emergency medicine, internal medicine, and family practice) awareness and on the general education of the community. Except for some of the women who presented to the hospital with apparently unrelated physical complaints, the majority of women in our sample recognized that they should come to the hospital at the time of delivery. Why, then, did these women think that presenting to a hospital for their delivery was important when they apparently did not think that presenting before delivery for prenatal care was important? Future studies may shed some light on this paradox.

A lack of prenatal care because of denial or concealment of pregnancy should be seen as a "red flag" that automatically triggers consideration of referral for psychiatric assessment, evaluation of parenting ability, and social work assessment. Although routine drug screens are obtained on women with no prenatal care, they are not routinely screened for other mental health concerns. We need to involve mental health clinicians more routinely in treatment-planning for women who have denied or concealed their pregnancies. Many cases in this sample came to the attention of the obstetrics team, but not to the attention of any mental health professional.

Methodological Issues
Strengths of this study include a systematic approach to case-identification, the comparatively large sample size, and explicit definition of diagnostic categories. Our study specifically identified mothers exhibiting a denial of pregnancy within a subset of mothers presenting at delivery with no prenatal care. Some previous studies have not specifically or carefully defined the term "denial of pregnancy." Earlier studies have combined in their sample women who received late prenatal care and those with a complete lack of prenatal care. These factors probably influenced previous study conclusions. In contrast, our sample size may have been limited by the exclusion of women with an affective denial of pregnancy, who sought prenatal care late in pregnancy when their awareness of the overwhelming physical changes associated with pregnancy no longer allowed them to deny reality. This would result in the underrepresentation in our study of women with an affective denial of pregnancy, perhaps weighting the validity of our conclusions toward women with "pervasive denial of pregnancy."

Because this study was a retrospective review of medical records, data quality was not ideal. The actual frequency of women who did not obtain prenatal care and who denied or concealed pregnancy is likely higher than what we found because some women never present to a hospital, and some neonaticides are never discovered. A second portion of the study was planned, with a follow-up telephone interview regarding parenting behavior and experience. However, of 60 women contacted for the study, only 2 responded.

Summary
Women exhibiting denial or concealment of pregnancy present a distinct clinical challenge for all healthcare professionals, but especially obstetricians, psychiatrists, and social-service providers. This study provides documentation that the problem exists.

Healthcare professionals appear to be relatively insensitive to the idea of using the occurrence of this denial or concealment as an interventional trigger for psychiatric assessment. Accurate early identification of at-risk individuals could potentially improve rates of appropriate prenatal care and allow for psychiatric and social interventions to prepare these women for successful motherhood.

Thursday, 22 July 2010

Anil Kumble warms the benches in the Family Court, while Biological Father Kumar Jahgirdar fighting for Custody battle of Kumble's step-daughter


Kumble warms the benches, for once

Anil Kumble was made to wait outside the court for two hours on Thursday, where his wife was fighting for the custody of her child from her first marriage

July 23, 2010
It was one place where the normally self-effacing Anil Kumble really wanted to be, but was not allowed. On Thursday, the former Indian captain was made to sit outside the family court in Bangalore where his wife Chethana was fighting for the custody of her only child from her first marriage.

The case is being conducted in-camera at the request of the Kumbles, but after Kumar Jahgirdar, Chethana’s first husband, and his lawyer objected to Kumble’s presence in the court, the judge ordered him to go out. Kumble sat outside the court from around 3pm till 5pm.

Jahgirdar and Chethana’s daughter, who is 15, is currently staying with the Kumbles. The two were married for 13 years since 1986, and divorced by mutual consent. Chethana married Kumble two months after she got the divorce. The couple fought for primary custody of their only child, and it went all the way up to the Supreme Court. Jahgirdar lost, but the court said the child should spend her weekends and half her vacations with him.

The court also ruled that the father could ask for modifications should the circumstances change. Jahgirdar is married again, and is seeking a review under the “changed circumstances” clause.

The next hearing of the case will take place on July 31. “Jahgirdar can go to court but all the charges he is making against the Kumble family are false. Kumble’s presence is not really required in the court room,” his lawyer C V Nagesh said.

Tuesday, 20 July 2010

NEWS VIDEO: Indian Army Brigadier Under Investigation For "Behaving Like A Don"

NEWS VIDEO: Indian Army Brigadier Under Investigation For "Behaving Like A Don"

Serving Army Officer Brigadier turns Extortionist: Abuse of Position of Power and authority

Right to self-defence extends to protection of property: Supreme Court of India


Right to self-defence extends to protection of property: Supreme Court of India
Jul 21, 2010
NEW DELHI: Right to self-defence is not only about using force to save oneself from an attacker but also extends to protecting one's property from being stolen or forcibly taken over, the Supreme Court has ruled.

"The basic principle underlying the doctrine of the right to private defence is that when an individual or his property is faced with danger and immediate aid from the state machinery is not readily available, that individual is entitled to protect himself and his property," it said.

But the force used by a person to protect himself or his property should not be grossly disproportionate to that needed to ward off the threat from the aggressor, a bench comprising Justices D K Jain and R M Lodha said in a recent judgment.

At the same time, the bench said it would be difficult to quantify how much force was justifiable in exercise of a person's right to self-defence.

"The means and the force a threatened person adopts at the spur of the moment to ward off danger and to save himself or his property cannot be weighed in golden scales. It is neither possible nor prudent to lay down abstract parameters which can be applied to determine whether the means and force adopted by the threatened person was proper or not," said Justice Jain, writing the judgment for the bench.

The court did not give any relief to petitioner Sikander Singh and his associates who had launched an attack on another set of persons and had received injuries when those attacked had retaliated. Citing the injuries on them, the petitioners had claimed that they had attacked in self-defence and requested the court to set aside their conviction.

On finding that the petitioners were the aggressors, the bench said they could not claim right to self-defence.

"The right to self-defence does not include a right to launch an offensive or aggression. In our opinion, therefore, the appellants have failed to establish that they were exercising right of private defence," it said.

Thursday, 15 July 2010

Cuckoo bird: Cuckolded husband divorces wife after finding he's not the father (Biological father is allegedly the Mayor of London Boris Johnson)

Picture: Cuckolded Husband who divorced his wife after finding out that his wife had child from another Biological source (allegedly the Mayor of London Boris Johnson) Separated: Pierre Rolin split with Miss Macintyre shortly after the baby was born in November when a DNA test revealed he was not the father

A child in a Cuckolded marriage is an affront to the Husband by the Cheating wife, especially if the Child BEARS HIS NAME (as a FATHER) and GETS HIS WRONGFUL INHERITANCE!

Cuckoo bird: Cuckolded husband divorces wife after finding he's not the father (Biological father is allegedly the Mayor of London)
'Is Boris the father? It's quite likely he hasn't the faintest idea': London mayor embroiled in paternity riddle
15th July 2010
Boris Johnson is at the centre of a riddle surrounding the paternity of a wealthy socialite's baby daughter.
Helen Macintyre, 36, split from her long-term partner shortly after the baby was born last November when he discovered through a DNA test that he was not the father.
On the birth certificate she declined to identify the man who had fathered the child.

Fatherless Child: Birth certificate with no Father's name
Picture: ?Cuckoo bird Mayor of London Boris Johnson

Paternity riddle: Boris Johnson and art consultant Helen Macintyre have both refused to comment on their alleged 'friendship' or whether the London Mayor is the father of Ms Macintyre's daughter Stephanie
The mystery deepened yesterday when a source close to the London Mayor said: 'Is Boris the father of this child? It's quite likely he hasn't the faintest idea.'
Both Miss Macintyre, an art consultant, and Mr Johnson declined to comment on their 'friendship', which was brought into the public domain in a front page article in the Daily Mirror.
Picture: Mother and Child (Husband divorced after verifying by DNA testing that he was not the biological father of the child)

Miss Macintyre had spent significant amounts of time with the Mayor before the pregnancy, leading to tensions in her long-term relationship with Pierre Rolin, with whom she shared a £5million house in Belgravia, central London.
The 36-year-old first met Mr Johnson when she was a student and he was a journalist. Their friendship was rekindled when he became Mayor and he invited her to be an unpaid fundraising adviser to the Olympics.
The closeness between them, which included regular dinners and phone calls, had already troubled Mr Rolin, 47, although he had made a donation to the Olympics arts project Miss Macintyre was involved in.

Second marriage: Boris Johnson with his wife Marina in London's Trafalgar Square

Miss Macintyre became pregnant early last year, and gave birth to daughter Stephanie in November.
Friends of Mr Rolin, a financier, said that when the girl was born her appearance shocked him and led to jokes that 'she looked a lot more like Boris'.
He took a paternity test and discovered that he was not the father, prompting the couple to split. Miss Macintyre is now living with William Cash, the son of a senior Conservative MP.
There were claims last night that Mr Johnson, a twice-married father-of-four, had also taken a DNA test.
A source close to Boris said: 'I find it very hard to imagine that any bloke would volunteer for a paternity test unless marched to it at gunpoint.'
Mr Rolin, 47, said: 'Sadly, I am not the biological father of Helen Macintyre's daughter. I separated from Helen in November, am just getting on with my life, and have no further comment to make.'
But a friend of Mr Rolin said: 'The gossip among Pierre's friends was that this child, when newborn, had shocking wild red hair and bright blue eyes - and we were all saying she looked a lot more like Boris than Pierre, who is a French-Canadian with dark hair.
'And the appearance of the baby came on top of a lot of calls between Helen and Boris, and her acting as an art adviser to him. So soon after the baby was born they split up.
'It was some time later, just to be sure beyond doubt, that Pierre had a paternity test - and proved he was not the father of Stephanie.'
And a friend of Miss Macintyre said she had initially believed her unborn child was Mr Rolin's - but had already told him that she had enjoyed a fling with Mr Johnson.
Only when the child was born did Miss Macintyre join everyone in surprise at the little girl's appearance, saying: 'There is no red hair in my family, or Pierre's.'

Miss Macintyre is a history of art graduate from Edinburgh University, who went on to work first as an art dealer before establishing her own firm, Macintyre Art Advisory, in 2007, advising rich individuals and businesses on buying art.
She began her relationship with Mr Rolin, a property investment specialist, close to the end of 2006.
A divorced father-of-two, he showered her with gifts including a Mini Cooper with personalised plates, Cartier jewellery, and trips to St Tropez.
She rekindled her friendship with Mr Johnson in January 2009 and had a series of dinners.
She also bumped into the Mayor, when Mr Rolin was also present, at an economic conference in Switzerland the next month, where they are understood to have had drinks as a group.
The Mayor is said to have had a hotel suite next to theirs.
In May last year, when Miss Macintyre was in the early stages of her pregnancy, he appointed her as a 'Fundraising Campaigner' for a visitor attraction at the new Olympic Park being built in East London.

Her most significant success came when she persuaded Mr Rolin to donate £80,000 to the project - which was used to establish plans for a 400ft tall £20million tower to be built at the Olympic site.
A friend of Miss Macintyre said: 'Pierre became jealous of Helen and Boris's close bond and was suspicious of an affair. She would go to meetings at City Hall and they would meet for dinner afterwards.
'When Pierre was away on business she would arrange for Boris to come over to the house. Helen would tell the staff not to come in over the weekend because Boris was uncomfortable with them around.'
Finally, after Stephanie was born at the Portland private hospital in central London in November, Miss Macintyre and Mr Rolin split.
Mr Rolin continued to call and text Miss Macintyre, and in February of this year police gave him a warning for harassment.

A friend of Miss Macintyre said: 'Early last year Helen was talking about her friendship with Boris when she suddenly said "I slept with him", in a "God, what have I done?" sort of way.
'I got the impression it was more of a drunken mistake than a passionate love affair.'
The friend added: 'It came as a shock when she discovered the father of her daughter wasn't Pierre.
'By then she didn't want him having anything to do with the baby, which is how the police became involved.
'She said Boris had a paternity test, and doesn't mind the fact that the baby is his child, and is happy to support her, but he's worried about whether the relationship with his wife will break down.
'Helen was prepared to be a single mum, and is now back at work while an au pair looks after the baby.'
Mr Johnson is said to be hoping to become next leader of the Conservative Party.
But a senior Tory aware of the paternity riddle said: 'If any of this is true, it will put paid to Boris's ambitions of becoming Prime Minister.'
Mr Johnson has often courted controversy. His first marriage, in 1987, to Allegra Mostyn-Owen, ended when he had an affair with barrister Marina Wheeler - daughter of broadcaster Charles Wheeler - whom he married in 1993.
In 2004 it emerged that he had had a four-year affair with Petronella Wyatt, a columnist on The Spectator, which he then edited, and she had had an abortion.
And in 2006 assignations with journalist Anna Fazackerley, 29, were disclosed. Both failed to deny claims of an affair.
Miss Macintyre's career in elite art circles has come despite a tragic background, which saw her father James die in 1998, followed within five years by the deaths of both her sisters - one from liver failure, and one from suicide.
She currently lives in a £1million rented house just off King's Road with magazine editor William Cash, a divorcee and son of Tory MP Bill Cash.
She refused to talk about her relationship with Mr Johnson to the Mail. Mr Cash also refused to comment.
The official spokesman for the London Mayor said: 'Boris never talks about his private life.'

Software engineer G V Girish murder by fiancee Shubha Shankar: Murderers were fourth time successful: Investigator

Software engineer G V Girish murder by fiancee Shubha Shankar: Murderers were fourth time successful: Investigator
July 15, 2010
http://www.dnaindia.com/bangalore/interview_software-engineer-murder-murderers-were-fourth-time-successful-investigator_1409986
KA Nanaiah was the inspector at the Vivekanagar police station when BV Girish, an employee of Intel, was murdered on December 3, 2003, just four days after his engagement. Girish, who had gone out with his fiancée Shubha Shankar for dinner, was assaulted with a rod near the Intermediate Ring Road in Koramangala. Nanaiah registered the case and investigated it. His inquiry led to the arrest of four people, including Shubha and her boyfriend Arun Verma, in January 2004, for the murder. On Wednesday, a fast-track court sentenced the four to life imprisonment. Nanaiah, now a deputy superintendent of police in the criminal investigation department, tells Santhosh Kumar how he cracked the case.

What happened on December 3, 2003?
We received a message that a person, later identified as BV Girish, had been admitted in Manipal Hospital after he was allegedly beaten with a rod by an unidentified man. He died in the hospital the next morning. Shubha told us that a person had attacked Girish and had run away. She said she suspected the man to be a robber.

Did your initial investigations assume it was a case of robbery?
Yes. Everyone in the police force, including my senior officers, suspected that the murder was committed by a robber because the intermediate ring road was then the hotspot for robbers. For a few days, we looked at the case from the robbery angle.

Was Shubha a suspect from the initial stages itself?
We suspected her from day one because her behaviour at the hospital and also at the crime scene when we took her there made us feel that she was trying to hide something from us. We kept a watch on her and started collecting information about her. We also came to know that she had got engaged to Girish just a few days before the incident. This also made us suspect her.

How did you establish her involvement?
When we studied the video recording of her engagement ceremony, we found that she was not happy. But we noticed a change in her behaviour when she was introducing Arun Verma, her junior in BMS College of Law, to Girish. We then went to the college and questioned some students. We came to know that she and Arun were in love.

Later, we collected details of her mobile calls and SMSes and found that she had been in touch with Arun before and after the murder. They confessed to the crime when we interrogated them with the details we had. They also revealed that Arun’s cousin Dinesh Verma and a local goon Venkatesh were also involved in the crime.

Did Shubha’s family force her to get engaged to Girish?
We were not able to ascertain that. But we found that the two families had stayed in the same area and were known to each other for 15 years. Girish’s family was not aware of Shubha’s affair with Arun. Some people told us, off the record, that Shubha’s family fixed her marriage with Girish when they came to know of the affair.

What was revealed during the preliminary investigation?
We arrested the four accused in January 2004. Investigations revealed that they had thrice attempted to kill Girish before his engagement. Shubha had asked Girish when he usually left office. Girish innocently told her the time. She gave this information to Arun. Arun, along with Dinesh and Venkatesh, had then followed Girish three times, but they could not get him alone.

Was it a well-planned murder?
Yes. Investigations revealed that it was a well-planned murder. Shubha kept Arun updated about developments at her home for her engagement with Girish. The two then sought the help of Dinesh and Venkatesh to eliminate Girish. One day, they sat on their college premises and discussed how to
eliminate him.

When attempts to kill Girish while he was on his way home from office failed, Arun asked Shubha to take him out late at night. On the night of December 3, 2003, Shubha called Girish out for dinner. That is when he was killed.

Soon, beating your child could land you in jail: Child abuse

Soon, beating your child could land you in jail:Child abuse
Jul 16, 2010
NEW DELHI: Parents who practice the dictum, 'spare the rod and spoil the child', had better watch out. The government is planning a legislation that will make meting out corporal punishment to a child an offence not just for educational institutions and care givers, but also for parents, relatives, neighbours and friends.

In other words, just like in the US, children in India will be able to take parents or relatives to court for "cruelty".

The proposed punishment for the first offence is one year imprisonment or a fine of Rs 5,000 that can be raised to three years' imprisonment for a second offence with a fine of Rs 25,000.

At present, guidelines issued by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) are the the only deterrent against corporal punishment.

The proposed Prevention of Offences against Child Bill 2009, which has been piloted by the women and child development (WCD) ministry, is in the final stages of approval and is likely to come up in Cabinet soon.

WCD minister Krishna Tirath confirmed the radical move. "There have been consultations on the bill and we are in the process of bringing it to Cabinet," she said.

The draft bill says, "Whoever intentionally inflicts physical penalty on a child for disciplinary purposes shall be punished for the offence of corporal punishment." Corporal punishment has been defined as violence, cruelty, inhuman and degrading treatment by any person including the child's family member, school, relatives, neighbours, friends, educational or care giving institutions, prisons and homes set up under the Juvenile Justice Act. Ragging is also covered under the proposed legislation.

The bill is expected to be an umbrella legislation that will bring all forms of exploitation of the child -- social, physical, sexual or economic -- under the law. It lays down clear penalties for children employed as beggars and prohibits all forms of child labour as domestic help or those forced in hazardous work.

Trafficking and sexual exploitation of children could lead to life imprisonment. Economic exploitation including forcing a minor into labour or to beg, giving children intoxicants or drugs, or exposing them to pornography have also been specifically defined in the bill.

The legislation has been on the anvil for some time now. The NCPCR has held consultations with civil society, NGOs, educational institutions and other organizations. The bill was then drafted in consultation with the solicitor general and is likely to come up in the monsoon session of Parliament.

Wednesday, 14 July 2010

Meet the witness who helped nail the killers and Spouse murderer


Meet the witness who helped nail the killers and Spouse murderer

Nayak Thomas Neelamkavil (57), an ex-army man, did not budge despite threats as he fought to get Girish’s murderers punished

July 15, 2010
The four killers of Intel techie Girish might have got away but for Thomas Neelamkavil (57), the eyewitness who dared to testify in court.

Thomas says he has lived through threat calls and allurements since December 2003. “The police come to my house every day to see if I am all right,” he said.

Thomas was driving with his friend Tolly Ukken near Air View Point in Koramangala when he saw a man being attacked.
“I stopped my car and rushed towards the assailant. He was attacked me with a motorbike silencer,” he recalls.

Thomas was not deterred, and confronted the attacker, who then fled. He handed over the laptop and engagement photos he had found on the spot to the police.

Thomas became a prime witness after the death of Girish in the hospital. “I decided the killer had to be punished, and agreed to testify,” he said.

His friend told him not to get involved when he rushed to Girish’s help. “He warned I would land in trouble. But I had no fear. As an army man, I had rescued many people in Assam. All of them, though badly injured, had managed to survive,”
Neelamkavil said.

His wife and children were apprehensive when the police gave him armed security for six months. “Strangers approached me many times asking me to tell the court I was not present when Girish was killed. I got threat calls. They also tried to tempt me by saying they were willing to pay me any amount.”

Two others helped nail the killers: Investigating Officer H G Dawood Khan and public prosecutor B Venkata Rao.

“We have struggled for five years to build the documents meticulously,” Khan said, adding that skills he had gained when he was an advocate earlier in his career helped him collect evidence.

B Venkat Rao (63), special public prosecutor, too played a big role. Rao took on famous criminal lawyer C V Nagesh and established the guilt of the four accused. “I have only done my duty,” he said.

A life sentence is...

Though a life sentence is prescribed as punishment in the Indian Penal Code, it is not quantified in that book.

“In a strict jurisprudence sense, life imprisonment means keeping a person in jail till his or her death,” said advocate Shankarappa.

But each State has the power to fix the number of years of imprisonment for a life sentence. “The Karnataka Police Manual fixes this at 14 years. So anyone sentenced to life will have to stay imprisoned for 14 years,” said former State Public Prosecutor Dore Raju. Shubha, convicted of killing her fiance B V Girish, is likely to serve 14 years.

JAILED TILL DEATH

But the judge can interpret life sentence to mean that the convict should be imprisoned till death. “In the case of serial killer Umesh Reddy, I tried hard to get him a death sentence. The case finally went to the Third Bench where Justice Ravi Naik said life imprisonment for him would mean he stays in jail till he died,” Dore Raju said.

The court felt the convict staying in prison till his death would send out the right signal.

Unmoved Shubha gets life sentence: Spouse killer exposed

Unmoved Shubha gets life sentence: Spouse killer exposed

Convicted of killing her fiance, 27-year-old gets additional three years of rigorous imprisonment for destruction of evidence

July 15, 2010
In December 2003, Shubha Shankar, along with her boyfriend Arun Varma and two others, had murdered her fiance G V Girish just four days after their engagement.

On Wednesday, nearly seven years after Girish succumbed to injuries after being beaten on his head with a steel rod, all four of the accused were given the life sentence.

Apart from life imprisonment, Shubha got an additional three years of rigorous imprisonment for destruction of evidence.

Judge V S Vantigodi Vantigodi also imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 on each of those convicted, and ordered a payment of Rs 2 lakh as compensation to Girish’s family. Those sentenced, apart from Shubha and Arun, are his cousin Dinesh and a local goon, Venkatesh.

After hearing arguments from both sides in the morning, the judge handed out the punishment in the evening session. As soon as he did, Girish’s sister Sunitha broke down.

Shubha, meanwhile, stayed calm all day, showing no emotion even as the sentence was read out.

Her father Shankar Narayan got busy discussing the verdict with his lawyers, who later confirmed that they would appeal in the High Court. No member of her family addressed the media. Earlier in the morning, the court hall had filled up quickly as hundreds of advocates trooped in to watch the final day’s proceedings in one of the city’s most high-profile murder cases over the last decade.

Tuesday, 13 July 2010

Shotgun Wedding and a Perfect Murder: Murder jigsaw solved, justice done



Shotgun Wedding and a Perfect Murder: Murder jigsaw solved, justice done
Jul 14, 2010

Picture: Shubha and Girish during their engagement ceremony .

BANGALORE: Nearly seven years after Girish, a software engineer with Intel, was murdered on Ring Road, a fast-track court on Tuesday found his fiancee, Shubha, and three others guilty of the act. Girish had been engaged to Shubha just four days before his murder.

HOW THE STORY BEGAN

B V Girish and S Shubha, who were neighbours on 23rd Main Road, Banashankari II Stage, had known each other for 15 years, and were engaged on November 30, 2003. Their marriage was fixed for April 11, 2004.

Shubha was then 21. Daughter of lawyer Shankaranarayana, she was studying final year at BMS College of Law. The engagement with Girish was against her will, as she was in love with Arun Verma, her junior in college. He was from Bihar.

Girish, then 27, was not aware of Shubha's intentions. Girish studied in Dayananad Sagar Institute of Technology and was living with his parents, B Venkatesh, a retired Air Force staffer, and mother Pushpavalli.

Police stated that Shubha's boyfriend Arun, 19, his cousin Dinakar alias Dinesh, and a local thug, Venkatesh, were involved in the murder.

Shubha's father, after learning about her affair with Arun, forced her to get engaged to Girish. Shubha and Arun hatched a plan to eliminate Girish. A desperate Arun hired Venkatesh to kill Girish. Arun's cousin Dinakar helped plan the modalities of the murder.

WHAT HAPPENED THAT DAY

On December 3, 2003, Shubha forced Girish to take her out for dinner and made him stop his bike near the flight landing point on Ring Road, between Indiranagar and Koramangala. Then, HAL airport was operational.

Arun and Venkatesh were waiting on the other side of the road. When Girish was busy watching a flight, Venkatesh went from behind, hit him on the head with a shock absorber, and sped away on Arun's bike.

Shubha shifted Girish to Manipal Hospital, but he died a while later. She told the police an unidentified person assaulted her fiance and ran away. The police, who suspected Shubha, collected call details of her mobile phone, prior to and after Girish's murder on December 3.

There were numerous calls to Arun's number. The police kept a watch on him and collected print-outs of his cellphone calls. They picked up Arun and confronted him with the evidence. He confessed to the murder and, based on this, Shubha, Venkatesh and Dinakar were arrested.

FAMILY WAITS FOR SENTENCE

When the court pronounced Shubha and her three associates guilty, Girish's family was relieved that the battle was finally over.

Girish's sister Sunitha, who was present in court, seemed relieved at judgement but immediately said: "Justice has prevailed and we are relieved. But we are waiting for the sentence that will be announced tomorrow. I can react only after that."

>>

Six years and seven months after software engineer B V Girish had been killed in one of the most high-profile murder cases in the city, his fiance Shubha Shankar, and three others, were convicted of murder by the Bangalore High Court on Tuesday.

In December 2003, four days after their engagement, Shubha and Girish were on their way to dinner on his/ her kinetic. The couple stopped near the flight landing pointon the Ring Road when he was assaulted from behind. Hit on the head with a motorcycle's shock absorber, Girish died a day later in hospital. Shubha had told the police then that Girish had been killed by unknown asaailants.

The police, at first, did not suspect her of having played a part in the episode, and DCP (central) S Parashivamurthy had said as much two weeks after the incident. “She is in a state of shock, we do not suspect her," S Parashivamurthy had said then.
"She is the lone eyewitness to the murder, and we need her co-operation to solve it.’’

It was after the cops investigating the case went through Shubha's phone records, which led them to her boyfriend Arun Verma (then 19), that they suspected foul play. Investigations revealed that Shubha and Arun had hired a local goon, Venkatesh, wih the help of Arun's cousin Dinesh, to kill Girish. All four were pronounced guilty.

Shubha, who was arrested by the police in January, 2004, was in judicial custody for 108 days before being released on bail.

Even though she looked shaken on hearing Judge Vantigodi's verdict on Tuesday, she managed to remain calm. Her parents and relatives, however, broke into tears. A decision on the punishment is expected to be announced on Wednesday.
Delayed, not denied

Girish's family, meanwhile, said they were relieved that justice was not denied, even if it was delayed. ''My brother's head was smashed, but despite knowing that it was his fiancee who had got him killed, we did not say a word to her or her family members. We knew that if we stayed patient, we would get justice," Ramesh B V, Girish's elder brother -- who is also a software engineer -- said after Fast Track Court 17 had announced the verdict.

The family, he said, had religiously attended all the hearings (more than 300) for six years. ''Between 2008 and 2010, my wife Ratna and her father Anantha Narayana Rao attended 145 hearings. People we didn't even know helped us. Eye-witnesses came forward. After getting the conviction, we now finally have some peace of mind," Ramesh said.

Judge Vantigodi, after hearing the arguments, passed his judgement based on electronic evidence and eyewitness records. C V Nagesh, the lawyer defending Shubha and the other accused, had argued that his clients were not even present at the scene of crime, and that one of them was, in fact, at the HAL hospital. The judge said he did not provide sufficient evidence.

Flashback

News of Girish's murder had shaken Bangalore in 2003. Shubha and Girish had been family friends, residing in Banashankari second stage. Both the families knew each other well and had planned to get Shubha and Girish married.
Their engagement was held on November 30, 2003 in Udupi Hall, near BDA complex, Banashankari and the marriage was fixed for April 2004.

Shubha, however, was in love with her college friend from MMS College of Law in Jayanagar, Arun Verma.

Shubha and Arun, as it turns out, took matters into their own hands -- and roped in Dinesh and Venkatesh. On December 3, 2003, Girish visited Shubha at her place and she persuaded him to go out with her for a drive and dinner. Girish took her to his Intel office and even introduced her to his colleagues after which they went to Thank God Its Friday (TGIF) on Old Madras Road for dinner. After dinner Shubha convinced him to go to the flight landing point, to which place Arun and Venkatesh followed them.

Arun and Venkatesh stopped their bike on the other side of the road, and Venkatesh took out a steel rod and smashed Girish's head. While Venkatesh escaped from the crime scene, Shubha asked those passing by to help take Girish to Manipal hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries.

Timeline

November 30, 2003
Girish, 23, engaged to Shubha, 21, at Banashankari

December 3, 2003
The couple have dinner in a restaurant at Carlton Towers on Old Airport Road. Post-dinner, they stop on the Koramangala-Indiranagar stretch of the Intermediate Ring Road to watch planes land/take-off.

Two men walked towards Girish and hit his head with a blunt object before fleeing on a bike. Girish rushed to a nearby hospital, but could not be saved.

January 2004
Following a complaint by Girish’s brother B V Ramesh, police begin investigating foul play angle. Girish’s colleagues, friends and family members repeatedly petition the police and everyone in power to ensure that the killers are nabbed. Police make the breakthrough after questioning Shubha.

January 25, 2004
Police arrest Shubha from her residence in Banashankari for allegedly plotting Girish’s murder, her ‘boyfriend’ and his accomplices.

February 25, 2004
Trial begins in the Mayo Hall court.

July 10, 2007
State government moves high court to vacate stay on the trial.

December 18-19, 2007
Girish’s father, who was constantly tracking the court developments, dies on December 18. On the 19th, trial begins in a fast-track court.

September 19, 2008
Shubha seeks exemption from weekend attendance to the all-women police station claiming that the inquiry was almost complete and accused the police of deliberately making her wait. Previously, the court while granting conditional bail directed Shubha to defer her foreign trip and also report to the Station House Officer every week.

May 17, 2010
The Fast Track Court convicts the accused for murder.
The quantum of punishment will be announced later.

Tuesday, 6 July 2010

HC rules George Fernandes to stay with wife Leila Fernandes

It is shocking how the so-called brothers of George Fernandes are taking sides with a 'Companion' and not the legitimate wife.


HC rules George Fernandes to stay with wife Leila Fernandes
Jul 6, 2010
NEW DELHI: After a frail George Fernandes appeared in a wheelchair before the Delhi high court on Monday, the HC, in an hour-long hearing held in the judge's chamber, said the ailing former Union minister would continue to stay with his wife Leila Kabir and that his brothers can visit him there.

Justice V K Shali, who held one-on-one discussion with 80-year-old Fernandes who is suffering from Alzheimer's disease, refused to interfere with the present arrangement in which he is under the care of his wife at her residence.

Lawyers from both the sides said with the HC ordering that the existing arrangement continue, the brothers could visit Fernandes like in the past.

The judge, after consulting Leila Kabir and his three brothers in his chamber for an hour, said that the case would now be taken up for further hearing on July 19.

Fernandes, brought by his wife to the courtroom in a wheelchair, was unable to speak when his supporters and family members tried to talk to him. He looked lost and was barely able to walk on his own. He was helped by security personnel and relatives while being taken to the judge's chamber.

Dressed in a green kurta and white pyjamas with a saffron scarf, the leader reached the court premises in the second half and left a few hours later. As soon as the court proceedings began, the lawyer, appearing for the brothers, pleaded that it should be conducted ‘in chamber' (in private), which was supported by the
wife's counsel.

The judge then agreed to hear the case in chamber and called Fernandes, his warring kin along with their lawyers to his chamber. Justice Shali then asked all the relatives and lawyers to leave in order to have a one-on-one talk with the leader to know his views. Only a lawyer conversant in Konkani was permitted to be present in the chamber to assist it as a translator.

The judge, after consulting Fernandes, in which the latter could not respond clearly to questions, asked his wife and brothers to see him separately in the chamber. Later, talking to reporters outside the courtroom, the lawyer revealed that Fernandes was seemingly able to understand whatever was being put to him but was unable to respond and his voice remained in


Monday, 5 July 2010

Noida: Woman alleges husband pushing her into prostitution after concealing first marriage

Noida: Woman alleges husband pushing her into prostitution after concealing first marriage
July 04, 2010

Noida: A 25-year-old senior HR executive at a multinational corporation in Greater Noida, has alleged her husband was attempting to push her into prostitution as her parents were unable to fulfill his dowry demand.

The husband is working as senior manager in a South Delhi company.

She alleged her husband used to bring friends and ask her to have group sex with them.

"On the complaint of the woman, a case has been registered and investigations are on", said Noida Senior Superintendent of Police A K Singh.

Reference: