The report says that people were invited to provide specific first hand evidence to refute the claims, BUT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO DO, because there was no representative of Yogi Bhajan who was told what the allegations were, much less who, when, where – so it was impossible to refute information no one knew.
Many people did their best to determine what the accusations were and by whom, so if they had any helpful information to share with AOB, they could do so. In the end, numerous people who knew both the accusers who made public statements and the accused very well, contacted AOB to call into question the veracity of the complaints (at least the ones they knew about). Their “testimonies” represent hours and hours of interview time.
AOB should have concluded that at least 2 of the accusers’ stories were not credible, just based on medical information given to them about Yogi Bhajan’s medical condition during the last years of his life. Medical records were offered, but none were requested.
Page 38-39 findings of the report says that:
“Multiple women made accusations that they were often bitten and had bruises on their lips, face and neck.”
There were many people on the ground at Yogi Bhajan’s residence every day for years and they NEVER saw ANY indication of bruises or bite marks on his staff. At least one interviewee was asked by AOB if they ever saw any bruises or bite marks. That person, someone who lived in the same house as some of Yogi Bhajan’s staff, replied that they had never seen anything. Chances are that if AOB had used their “Assessments of Credibility” to ask the dozens of supporters who contacted them if they had ever seen any sign of bruises or bite marks, they would have been able to come to a “more likely not” determination for these claims.
AOB does not mention how many people they asked if they saw bruises, and who said they had never seen any evidence of that. Instead, they asked, “What about the orgies?”
Why was NONE OF THIS INFORMATION SHARED in the report? There was no substantive information challenging the credibility or veracity of the claims, which was represented in hours of interviews with supporters.