A case similar to Jethmalani Manhood & Afzal Petition

Castro viewed actions as a challenge to his manhood. Under the influence of liquor his judgment might have been clouded, but probably not, a "gringo" had challenged him in front of many people. The leading case: The Challenge Saloon Murder in San Diego: Augustin Castro's Fight for Clemency.

In another bizarre twist to the Jessica Lal case, senior counsel Ram Jethmalani on Thursday told a Bench of the Delhi High Court that Jessica was not shot over drinks dispute but because she 'challenged the manhood' of the killer.

Senior counsel Ram Jethmalani on Wednesday told the Delhi High Court that it was a "tall Sikh gentleman" who shot Jessica Lall, and not Manu Sharma as alleged by the police. When the Bench, comprising Justices R.S. Sodhi and P.K. Bhasin asked whether the Sikh was Amardeep Singh Gill, one of the accused, counsel said it was some other "sardar," who was an influential person, and it was at his behest that the Delhi police framed Manu Sharma.

Accused: Augustin Castro
After an afternoon of drinking wine and in a drunken stupor Castro allegedly killed Matthew Alderson, the owner of the Challenge Saloon in San Diego. What happened to Castro in the summer of 1872 was repeated over and over again by other indigent defendants throughout California, regardless of racial background.

Matthew Alderson murdered by Castro
On Friday night, April 5, 1872, a group of people gathered in Matthew Alderson's Challenge Saloon at 5th and Columbia streets in San Diego to drink and listen to music being played by the proprietor and two other men. It was about 9 p.m. and W. B. Carleton stated that he noticed a "Spaniard or Sonoran" who appeared to be under the influence enter the saloon. The man began drinking at the bar, talked loudly, and called for more wine. The bartender refused.2

Finally, the bartender put him out of the bar, but he came back in again. He began to display a knife with the tip of the blade broken off and Alderson asked him to put it down and leave. After walking out the door, the Mexican asked for his knife and Alderson picked it up off the table and stepped out the door. A few moments later, Carleton heard a shot, rushed out the door, but was unable to see anyone because it was so dark and there were no street lights.3

He began to grope on the porch and found Alderson lying in a pool of blood, shot one time in the head at very close range. Dr. R. J. Gregg, the examining surgeon, found one wound with the bullet lodged in the base of the brain. The appearance of the wound and the "powder marks" indicated the assailant was very close to the victim.4

Although Carleton did not actually see the shooting, he claimed, "I think that Mexican did it."5

** During the coroner's inquest, J. Mathias, the bartender, identified the man that he put out the door as the defendant Augustin Castro.6

** Ben Mannasse had been in Alderson's saloon for a while that evening and then returned to his home across the street from the Challenge Saloon. He heard Alderson and Castro talking outside and when he looked out of the window, Mannasse saw them both standing in front of the saloon. A few moments later Mannasse heard one shot fired and saw a flash from the gun.7
He then heard someone running down the street toward the Government Corral, but did not see who it was because of the darkness.

** H. Baslow testified that he was standing in front of a market across from the saloon when he saw two men come out, a shot was fired, and a man ran across the street toward the corral. He heard the man running say "God damn you, I've shot you."8

** Constable A. M. Young, the first law enforcement officer to reach the crime scene, Young walked over to the corral, followed the fence, and discovered Augustin Castro about 200 feet from the crime scene. Later, Young testified that Castro "was preparing to shoot me when I rushed upon him."9

** On the surface this appears to be an open and shut case. At the trial, Sheriff S. W. Craigue testified that although Young found Castro first, "I went up to him; he was laying alongside of the fence in what I considered at the time, and do now, a drunken stupor; stupidly drunk."10

** Contrary to what Constable Young said, the sheriff noted that Castro did not have a gun in his hand and he was not about to "shoot or rush" at him. Sheriff Craigue continued "what convinces me that he was unconscious is that it was an hour after the occurrence, [of the shooting] and it being a very dark night he would have escaped, I think, if he had been in his senses." When Castro woke up the next morning in his cell, the jailor informed the sheriff that the defendant had no idea where he was or why he was there. The sheriff concluded "I consider from what I saw and learned, that night was a blank to him."11

** On July 11, Castro, with court-appointed attorney Chalmers Scott, appeared before District Court Judge H. C. Rolfe. Castro with advice of counsel pled guilty to murder.13

** Castro admitted drinking wine most of the afternoon and said: "I don't know where I went to this day, until I was locked up in jail." The defendant also claimed he neither knew Alderson nor saw him the day of the killing. Castro stated: "I don't remember of being in the saloon that night."14

** He admitted that he seldom drank wine until that Friday. After hearing the testimony of Castro and Sheriff Craigue, Judge Rolfe found the defendant guilty of second degree murder and sentenced him to life in prison.

The evidence that Castro committed the killing is convincing even though no one actually saw him shoot the victim. Machismo may have been an important factor that helps to explain this murder. It is possible that after being put out of the bar Castro viewed these actions as a challenge to his manhood. And being heavily under the influence of liquor his judgment might have been clouded, but probably not his feeling that a "gringo" had challenged him in front of many people. However, some of the facts cloud the verdict. For example, Constable Young testified that he found a Colt revolver in the possession of the defendant with "two chambers empty."15

** Why did the constable and the sheriff fail to examine the gun to determine whether it had been recently fired? And does "two chambers empty" mean that two shots had been fired? All witnesses testified that they heard only one shot.

Maybe the constable meant that one chamber had been fired and another chamber had no cartridge in it. With single-action Colt revolvers, it was common to leave one chamber empty over which the hammer rests in order to prevent an accidental misfire. However, there is no way of knowing whether that is what the constable meant when he testified about the crime; he seemed to be suggesting that the gun had been fired twice.

Unfortunately while serving a life sentence in San Quentin Castro had virtually no one to intercede on his behalf, but he learned from experience that if the prosecutor and judge who presided over your trial could be induced to write letters it was possible to gain executive clemency. After spending eighteen years in San Quentin, in 1890, Castro began to write letters to McNealy and Rolfe, the two men most responsible for sending him to prison. By this time both men were apparently convinced that Castro had served enough time for his crime. After receiving a letter from Rolfe, McNealy wrote back, "I agree with you, that this man [Castro] has been sufficiently punished."21

** In a letter to the governor providing facts about the Castro trial and asking for executive clemency, Rolfe claimed that "at the time I had doubts whether he was not more unfortunate than criminal."22

Prison authorities finally paroled Castro on June 19, 1901, and the governor granted a full pardon in January 1903. Castro had entered San Quentin a young man of twenty-three; at age fifty-two he left the prison walls to start a new life.

The following documents from the San Diego Historical Society Research Archives and the California State Archives help to illuminate how the criminal justice system treated indigent ethnic defendants accused of murder. Although it could be a long difficult road and an arduous task for a friendless inmate; these documents do reveal that if one were convicted and sentenced to prison a process did exist to eventually provide for release and pardon.

Mohammed Afzal Guru,
He sentenced to death for his role in the 2001 Parliament terror attack, has petitioned President A P J Abdul Kalam for mercy.Guru has submitted his 102-page long mercy petition to the authorities of Tihar jail, where he is lodged currently, sources told in New Delhi.

In his plea, Guru said he was moved by the 'solidarity' he has received from the people cutting across ideological divides apart from the support he got from Jammu and Kashmir.
Here it is clear that first former and present CMs of J&K, Congress leaders, CPM, NCP, Arundhati Roy and Medha Patkar of NBA and human activists’ lawyers first create atomosphere by their terrorist financed propagena machinery and after that instruct to Afzal for sending the mercy petitions. In saharasamay channel and other media had said about this happening.

"This support has truly given me a new hope that I may still live and able to see me son grow up," he said in his plea. Guru said he was also moved by how 'graciously the President received his wife, son and mother when they met him.....it kindled a new hope that I may still get justice."

God knows President would give Kashmiri Pandits and the families of sacrificed security forces new hope that they may still live and able to see their sons grow up,’’ Are these traitors and Afzal patriot? If yes then this definition should be included in the constitution by the secular government, if that is terrorism sponsored Paki or Italian government instead of Indian.


By Premendra Agrawal


Article of past seven days:
Bush Mush in trouble: Jethmalani for terror
U.P.Poll results: Sealing of Rahul luck & Delhi
Will Bush divide Iraq to destabilize Arab?
Who want to present Saddam head to whom
Mental Disorder: Main Arjun? Gandhi hoon?
Is threat to kill PM a plot of Moles in Govt?
Domestic Violence by Union State Coal Minister’s wife