The couple's lawyer Satyaketu Singh countered the the CBI's arguments and said:

1. The murders could be the job of an outsider who had gained entry into the house. He argued that acquaintances of Hemraj may have gained entry into the house and later killed Aarushi when she tried to resist their intentions. Later, they may have killed Hemraj too, after he resisted Aarushi's murder.

2. He also denied the CBI's argument that the murder weapon was a golf stick. The CBI on Wednesday had said the injury marks of the two victims proved the use of a golf stick. In his arguments, Singh said that it was not possible to use a stick inside Aarushi's room which had little space and was cluttered, with a bed, a cupboard, a computer table and other accessories. The stick could have inflicted only a small injury of around 2cm and not bigger injury marks as claimed by the CBI, he added. He added that the possible murder weapon could be a "khukri', which could have been used to inflict injury because of its weight, and later to slash throats of the victims with its sharp edge.

3. Over the destruction of evidence, the lawyer said that the Talwars could have disposed of Hemraj's body, as Nupur's car was available and Rajesh's car was parked at the house of his in-laws' in the same housing society.

4. Hemraj's cell phone location was found to be somewhere in Punjab while the dentist couple were present at their house after the murders. It was not possible for them to move to Punjab to throw away Hemraj's mobile. He also refuted the circumstantial evidence against the dentist couple, saying the chain of events was not linked.