wrt this from me (Jose Colaco): 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?
Dr. U. G. Barad wrote: [1] 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? [2] 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 one's instructing solicitors, Hearsay is signaled by the words alleged or allegedly. --- jc's response: a: May I suggest that U. G. Barad reads my posts again ...please. If he does so, he just might end up agreeing with me. b: Once again - it would be nice to hear directly - at least - from Vidyadhar Gadgil. My question to Vidhyaghar again is "What 'documentation' have you provided this alleged Commission? c: Other questions will follow - some of them along the lines of the questions posed by Dr Barad. d: If Mr Gadgil cannot confirm the veracity of the statements in the "documentation" he has provided, then I believe that individuals such as this are just as dangerous as the anarchists who reportedly create physical havoc whenever they see an opportunity e: The question to Sabina Martins, Arun Pandey and Preetu Nair remain to be answered. The choice to ignore them of course ...is theirs. jc PS: we can get to this alleged Commission (or is it ...Omission) and its so called Report - as a follow up.