Bias of Guilt in Findings

AOB admitted to one supporter that they were told to ask supporters of Yogi Bhajan the final question in their interviews, “Did you ever hear anything about orgies?” Many supporters who had interviews said they were asked this question or something very similar. Many supporters said they felt that the AOB interviewers hadn’t heard a word they had said in support of Yogi Bhajan’s character because if they had, they would have known that the supporter did not believe Yogi Bhajan would ever have engaged in unethical sexual behavior with his students.

The AOB report contains nothing in the way of “evidence” other than the statements of the accusers.  Several accusers provided names of people who supposedly knew about the claims at the time they supposedly happened. Of these several people, either they could not be located, or they denied remembering the stories as they were presented to them. AOB explained away their denials and decided anyway that the claims were “more likely than not” to have happened.  This demonstrates a very clear bias of guilt.

Here are some examples of their impartial conclusions:

Page 36 of the report says:

“the individual in question could not be located to affirm or deny the allegation.  Since there were other accounts of Yogi Bhajan directing individuals (to engage in sexual activity)… we take ‘#xx’ allegation as credible…The alleged escort denied that they did this, but also may have blocked or forgotten this incident or believed the purpose of the encounter was not sexual in nature….after weighing all of the relevant information available to us, we have sufficient evidence to conclude that it is more likely than not….”

An accusation this serious in nature should not automatically be deemed credible because the accuser says it is so. AOB was incapable of being neutral in order to get to the truth. They dismissed this testimony because it did not fit the narrative they wished to portray.  This demonstrates a clear bias. If the allegations had not been kept under wraps, it is more than likely that the community would have been able to locate the other person.

Page 39 of the report says:

“’#xx’: We picked [name] up at the airport. She had bruises all over her face – she had a split lip, bruised cheek, and puffy eye. And she said she had bruises on her body. She did not want to tell us what had happened, but eventually she said she was kicked in the head by a horse. I did not believe she was kicked by a horse. We wanted to take her to a doctor, but she refused. We saw other things – the way she acted-and I felt something very bad was happening in her life.”

Why was this even included in the report?  It is purely conjecture designed to imply guilt.

Page 49 of the report says:

“We found no inconsistencies when we tested the alignment of allegations of Yogi Bhajan’s propositioning or coaching women for sex between our private interviews and other information made available to us.”

What does this mean? How did they test this?  What other information was made available to them and from whom?

And page 52 says:

“In a media interview conducted in January 1987 with ‘#xx’, when asked if Yogi Bhajan had sex with any of those who worked for him, the interviewee denied that Yogi Bhajan engaged in any sexual behavior with any of his students”

‘#xx’ said: “This is so ridiculous, it’ s almost humorous… It’ s so absurd and so far from the truth and so far from anything that ever went on, that it’s hard for me to comprehend how they [people who have left the community] have the nerve and the gall to create stuff like this that’s based on nothing . However, in the American culture, if a woman spends the night with a man in her room, the only way we have to interpret it is… they’re sleeping together.”

AOB concludes:

“There is reason to question the credibility of this statement, however, since the speaker was being interviewed in 1987 by a media reporter and may not have been truthful in the interest of protecting Yogi Bhajan and others with whom he allegedly had sex.”

Again, AOB discredits the testimony of a Yogi Bhajan supporter by saying she may have been trying to hide the truth.

AOB’s statement shows how sloppy their work is: this was not a “media interview” as they stated. The document they are referring to is an 89-page legal interview, from a former staff member with lawyers involved in the Pamela and Kate lawsuits in 1986.

In many sections of the report, the statement was made:

“We have no specific information that refutes any of the claims made about….  After weighing all of the relevant information available to us, we have sufficient evidence to conclude it is more likely than not that…”

What was the “sufficient evidence”?  Only the statements of the accusers.  Since there was no representative of the accused, no one except the accuser and the interviewee knew what was being claimed.  So how could there be any additional evidence? AOB concludes that since the alleged claims occurred in private, that constitutes proof.

AOB does not provide “verified evidence” that there were any rapes. Only the stories of the women were considered. If the women never told a therapist or anyone else, who confirmed any claim AROUND THE TIME IT HAPPENED, not in 2019-2020, this is not considered verified or corroborated proof.  In a typical “he said/ she said” situation, an investigator asks pertinent questions about dates, locations, who else was around, etc. to verify or dispute a claim being made.

Refer to the Shambala Report to see how this is typically done.