Wednesday, 15 December 2010

The Gasper statements, an addendum


Concern has been expressed about certain observations I made about Mrs. Gasper’s statement in particular in my last piece on this subject. I’ve thought deeply about those observations and I concede they have merit.

The Gaspars made their statements in good faith and they believed, and should have been right to believe, they were made in confidence, to Leicestershire police. They surely never imagined the statements would escape the confines of UK or Portuguese police. But events they were powerless to stop ensued and now those statements are on the net. The argument runs that, therefore, it is not fair to critically analyze what they said and of course it isn’t. But closed barn doors and bolted horses; the internet is now awash with salacious interpretation of Mrs. Gaspar’s statement in particular.

Two things are certain. As I hope I made clear in my first piece, neither Gaspar made any direct allegations. And even if, for reasons they have no cause to reproach themselves for at all, they now regret it, they were wholly justified in confiding what they did. I’d go further. If a third witness had made credible direct allegations, the Gaspar statements, conceivably, might have added weight to the statements of this third witness. But of course there is no third witness. And I think it fair to speculate that the Gaspars themselves would have recoiled in horror from Amaral’s suggestion that an alleged delay by Leicestershire police (whether or not there was such a delay) in passing on their statements might have compromised the investigation. It’s clear that the Gaspars only ever intended what they shared to be background information, not a catalyst for direct action.

In raising the the questions I did in my first piece my intention was not, particularly, to challenge Mrs Gaspar. There might very well be good answers to my points not reflecting at all pejoratively on Mrs Gaspar. My intention was to confront the purveyors of those salacious thoughts, to make them realize how misguided, fallacious and erroneous their opinions are. There is, after all, the reputation of the man who is the subject of this online speculation to consider as well. It has been traduced and the Gaspars are blameless for that.

Perhaps my hope is a forlorn one. But I hope not.
Mrs. Gaspar was an honourable witness.

By Honestbroker.


Addendum by Vee8

I wish to add a thought of my own here. My opinion of Honestbroker’s first piece on the Gaspar statements was that it was perfectly clear and straightforward. He made valid points that, a.) Amaral had clearly lied in his book about what was said in the statements, and that b.) the statements themselves had been distorted and twisted until they were used to besmirch the reputations of several people unjustly.

That Honestbroker feels the need to clarify himself, and point out in clear and unequivocal terms that he did not intend to add to any stress or anxiety felt by Mrs. Gaspar in particular shows he is truly a man of great honesty and integrity. If only those that warp and distort the facts of this case to suit their own agenda had a fraction of this integrity perhaps we would not have had to start this blog in the first place.

By Vee8