Message: 8, dated Sun, 10 Feb 2008 from Jose Colaco on subject Re: [Goanet] Facts v/s Hearsay being quite interesting I take a quote from his message which reads - But considering that my initial impression might be incorrect, I wish to draw attention to the following: Sabina Martins of Bailancho Saad shared her experiences during her visit to the violence affected areas. We would also like to thank Vidyadhar Gadgil for sharing his documentation on the communal violence, Arun Pandey for insisting that I do the investigation and to Preetu Nair for introducing us to some people who proved invaluable to our investigation. I wonder if we can get a word or two directly from Sabina Martins, Vidyadhar Gadgil, Arun Pandey and Preetu Nair. 1: Do you agree with this report? 2: Can you share the 'documentation' that was shared?
Is Jose Colaco trying to impress upon Goanet that Sabina Martins, Ramesh Gauns, Vidyadhar Gadgil et. el. were factually present on the day of incidence that took place at riot affected site? Were their dispositions to commission not hearsay dispositions? If so how can a commission or for that matter even court can accept hearsay statements as factual truth? One should not forget, that court prefers real evidence direct from witnesses of what someone saw, not that they were told by someone else. In practice, hearsay is when someone else tells you: this usually includes the instructions from the police or ones instructing solicitors, Hearsay is signaled by the words alleged or allegedly. Fact finding report may represent hearsay, facts, opinion, and conclusions in that order in separately identified sections and if the said report is full with only hearsays rather than facts than the so called report has no place in the eyes of law. This is exactly what has happened with independent commission report appointed by one community to divert the attention from factuality. The involved complexity at the riot prone area was so complex that even one man commission of Nikhil Kumar appointed by Congress Government headed by Pratapsingh Rane than CM, concluded saying - it is intuitively and logically reasonable to presume that there was a pre-planned and pre-conceived orientation to the communal riots but in the absence of any tangible evidence, it is not possible to identify or pinpoint the actual persons or organizations responsible for it. However I must highlight the failure of the police, village panchayat, and other governmental authorities in nipping such situation in the but before they go out of hand therefore I suggest remedial measures to prevent such incidences from occurring in future. Therefore this probe indicts none. The Congress lead government accepted the report only not to act on it!! So after this two commissions finding is there anyone in the net willing to initiate fresh fact finding exercise? such persons are most welcome ..lets try and fix the culprits!! OR still interested into finding or asking self styled persons as to what hearsay things they had disposed before the independent commission appointed by one community to divert the attention from factuality? Best regards, Dr. U. G. Barad
