Monday, 28 February 2011

Greece Lightning



Article by Deuce. 

In the book, Truth of the Lie, Amaral makes a comment which compares the Gaspar statement with other information, which serves to raise suspicion about a member of the Tapas group, through his use of words to interpret what was said by a witness and the addition of pure hearsay.

Firstly, Goncalo talks about the Gaspar statement itself. Actually he talks about a section from the statement and interprets a specific piece of information which manipulates the truth effectively to point fingers at a member of the Tapas group of friends. Something the Leicester police were no doubt aware of as a risk and therefore had declared their intention to protect innocent people and witnesses through their regulation that this information was not be revealed until the crime had been solved.

Katherina Gasper wondered if two friends she was observing were talking about Madeleine when they were making adult gestures. She did not hear them mention any names, she just wondered, assumed who they were talking about. Yet Amaral twists what the statement says.

Amaral . “She hears the latter ask if she - probably Madeleine - did "that".

The actual statement says.

K. Gaspar. “I was sitting between Dave and Gerry whom I believe were both talking about Madeleine.”

Katherina believed they were talking about Madeleine. That is not the same as knowing as fact that they were talking about Madeleine and certainly not, as Amaral interprets it, Probably talking about Madeleine. Probably means the same as most likely. Why would an investigator charged with finding the truth, take a witness statement and tell readers of his book that the witness meant her assumption of who was being discussed was probable?  He then goes on to make a further link to add value to his probability.

“This witness statement from the couple, S.G. and K.G., is taken by the English police on May 16th, thirteen days after Madeleine's disappearance. That information, very important for the progress of the investigation, was never sent to the Portuguese police. When the Portuguese investigators learn about similar events that allegedly took place during a holiday in Greece - without, however, obtaining reliable witness statements, they tell the English police, who, even at this point, refrain from revealing what they know on the subject.”

Do you see what Goncalo did? He used information learned by Portuguese investigators, but not from a reliable witness statement.  He heard gossip about an issue that allegedly took place on a holiday in Greece and there is no information in the files about this gossip. So isn't Goncalo actually gossiping himself?

Then further along in the same chapter, Goncalo ends the subject with.

“It is difficult to seriously doubt these witnesses.”

He said ‘witnesses’! There is only one witness statement in question. The other unreliable sources which produced gossipers has pluralised his official witness. Even so, if he was just talking about the official witness and her assumption, being 'difficult to doubt an assumption' doesn't really make sense, unless Amaral meant he has no reason to doubt Katherina made an assumption. However, it seems with the addition of hearsay and his use of the word 'probable' to interpret Katherina's own words, I believe Goncalo was manipulating; painting a picture that Madeleine WAS being discussed and raising a suspicion of paedophilia as 'probable'. His statement that it is 'difficult to seriously doubt these witnesses' reveals Amarals real agenda.

Installing such propaganda to add value to an assumption, add value to a witness statement with cheap hearsay, can strike unfounded suspicion upon an innocent individual forever. I have no doubt common sense will prevail and most intelligent people will see through this use of misinformation.

Lightning only needs to strike once. Perhaps Goncalo is relying on that Greece Lightning to manipulate opinion and suspicion?