- How do you know Amar denies Rawat abused him? I don't recall seeing that posted here, but maybe I missed it.

- I can't connect an anonymous poster here to the audio. How should that work? Anyway not mine to share.

- Your next answer makes not sense to me, but let's break it down. First of all, Amar I assume is not denying that Hans was abused. Hans says he was abused and he also said his brother was abused. So let's just say Hans is mistaken about his brother. In this case, they could otherwise be telling the truth about their personal experience. So it isn't necessarily either/or right?

- Second point about this. Hans has absolutely nothing to gain by lying. He risks losing his inheritance. Amar has quite a lot to gain by lying for the same reason. That does weigh the scales a bit doesn't it?

- Third point, exactly because you see ambiguity, why do you vehemently defend Rawat? Why not just reserve judgement? 

This reminds me of the case of Woody Allen and his daughter Dylan. There is a glaring difference in that Woody Allen always denied that he abused his daughter and Prem admitted it. But leaving that aside, when the case first came up I think around 1992 Allen was not prosecuted. A big reason was the ongoing custody battle and there was reasonable doubt in that her mother might have coached her. In subsequent times the tide of public opinion has turned against Allen because Dylan is now an adult (like Hans) and has stuck by her story. 

Yet that is not the point. Even back in 1992, when there was still reasonable ambiguity, I certainly would not have defended Allen, even though I liked his movies. I just felt like I couldn't be sure. I am definitely not going to avidly defend a potential child molester based on a possibility of innocence. That is just weird, unless I am his defence lawyer or his mother maybe.

- Your last point about Prem. Both Hans and Prem agree that Prem did something to Hans sexually that was wrong and terribly damaging to Hans. Your defence of Prem is based on the statement from him that he didn't realise it was wrong at the time. 

But what if he is the one who is lying? He certainly would have a very good reason to do that. He is accused of something heinous and this would mitigate his responsibility. This is very common behaviour among people accused of sexual crimes. Is this not also at least part of the ambiguity here, or is the idea that Prem could be the one lying not possible for you to accept?