How Channel 4 claimed to 'authonticate' a video clip that had been edited backward.

Given below is the edited transcript of an exchange between a gentleman who signed himself in as Siobhain McDonagh's researcher and Prof Wijesinha, at a meeting in the House of Commons held on October 12th. The researcher, who also claimed to have provided video material to telecasters on behalf of the LTTE during the last days of the conflict, claimed that what Channel 4 showed had not been edited. His evidence was that Channel 4 said this, and he refused to credit that a UN appointed panel of experts had shown that the clip had been edited backward, and included material filmed at a different time or a different place. The exchange can be seen on 

http://www.youtube.com/user/RajivaWijesinha#p/u/4/lF58k1ua1t4 and 

http://www.youtube.com/user/RajivaWijesinha#p/u/2/eTnB5RmUfjY

He obviously knew the reporters from the Times and from Channel 4 who attended the meeting and whom he commended by name. This association is the more strange in that it was revealed that Siobhain McDonagh had claimed involvement wih Channel 4 in their creation of the film used to atach Sri Lanka. It is hoped that the Labour Party will investigate her involvement with such a 'researcher' whom she brought to the meeting. Given that this 'researcher' claims to be a friend of the Defence Secretary, the manner in which such propagandists spread their influence far and wide should also be investigated, given the recently expressed determination of the Commonwealth to deal firmly with terrorism. It is to be hoped that Britain will not be selective about its targeting of terrorists, and succumb to financial pressures which the LTTE and its offshoots are adept at employing.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Daran, Researcher for Siobhain McDonagh: First of all I would like to say the Channel 4 clip is very distasteful and what was most distasteful about that was also we had some British MPs who knew what was going on. Also I want to say to Zoë and Tom thanks for being here, very brave of you both to be here today the truth is out there, thank you.

I’d like to ask you, why are you just showing a video here, could you please explain to us by showing this video to the west and opposing Channel 4 what you get? And why don’t you allow independent international inquiries into Sri Lanka because the western world wants that, but you are simply just showing a video here and just claiming to tell the truth or whatever, but I just wanted to find out why you don’t allow independent international inquiries into Sri Lanka, and please don’t tell me the LLLRC is going to look after that, because if the LLLRC is going to be all right, you won’t be here at all because you don’t have to show these videos here. Could you please explain?

RW: That is a very interesting question, but the way it is put shows exactly where you are coming from. The Western world wants an interntional inquiry so why don’t you have one? I do not understand why Sri Lanka should do what the western world wants and thinks is right. Now, the reason that we do not think what you describe as an independent international inquiry is needed is that we have already had evidence of the reality of what the world supposes is independent. We are supposed to believe Siobhain McDonagh is independent, that Channel 4 is independent. But everyone is dependent on someone or something as we can see there, we were just told that she cites Channel 4 but had claimed responsibility for what they showed.

What we have said from the very start is that, if prima facie evidence is brought forwards of any form of crime, we will have an investigation. I can say I have looked at what Channel 4 says, and compared it with the documentation we have, and  there is no primary evidence at all with regard to killing civilians shelling hospitals, starving the population and not providing medical supplies, and rape and sexual abuse. However, I am not so sure with regard to certain incidents, for instance the White Flag case, I believe those should be looked at further, and we can ask for further evidence to be provided if available. But with regard to the Channel 4 documentary, though I didn’t quite get the question of the Times person, I think it was suggesting that the most serious part was the alleged treatment of civilians and torture.

Tom Whipple: The most damning parts of the film were the executions caught on film and the apparent torture of the LTTE.

RW: Yes, I have mentioned the need to look into what happened to surrendees in the White Flag case, but with regard to the alleged torture, it’s interesting because when I was in Australia they showed me pictures. They questioned me for about 45 minutes, having sent me the pictures that morning. But I looked at the pictures and I noticed something odd. It’s really interesting the technique that some journalists use, though I’m sure the Times does not behave quite so badly. There were 3 sets of pictures and in one set it seemed there were Sri Lankan soldiers and a dead body, and I said well, this could be Sri Lankan soldiers with the body but nothing connected them to the manner of death. Then there was a single picture of a boy hung by the neck which I found pretty horrifying, but there was  nothing connecting it with anything else. But the third set of pictures was awful, they were the same thing we saw on Channel 4, and I agree this is pretty horrifying. But what I said on the TV interview was, if you look at the people in uniform they may be soldiers, but there are a couple of pictures in which you see people wearing Bata slippers. I don’t know that Sri Lankan soldiers would have had Bata slippers in the field. But all that was omitted in the interview. You see I think what happened was that the first picture was that of Sri Lankan soldiers with the dead body, and they were expecting me to deny that, and then when I denied the third set of pictures, they would have claimed they could prove I was lying.

I don’t know if this lady who is here from Channel 4 was responsible for the first video. They claimed that this was an incident that happened on January 18th and we should investigate it and they would not give us the video, but we checked what they showed and we proved that the metadata said it was made on July 17th. Then Channel 4 showed another clip which had dead bodies vanishing, the first scene has 18 dead bodies, next 14, next there’s 4, and I thought that was very strange. Now that was sent to the UN to be looked at – the first video was not sent by Channel 4, when we asked for the video Channel 4 did not give it to us, when the UN asked for the video, Channel 4 did not give it to them because they say in their documentation that they got this from an institution called Journalists for Democracy. Now Channel 4 had said this was made on a mobile phone initially, and shown direct, but the UN experts denied this, on record they said the reason for this discrepancy was that in fact the video shown by Channel 4 was edited and edited backwards. What was filmed first was shown third, what was filmed second was shown second, they got that right, and what was filmed third was shown first. The fifth episode, one expert said that it was filmed at a different time, the other said it was filmed at a different place. Now the question is, why was it edited backwards?

Mr Daran: The video was not edited at all, it was saying all the time it was authonticated and Channel 4 has a certificate for that.

RW: But whom was it authonticated by?

Mr D: It was probably authoenticated by the computer experts.

RW: Which computer experts?

Mr D: Channel 4 has got it, they have actually shown me the certificate.

RW: It’s all very easy to say it’s authonticated whatever that means, but who authenticated it?

Mr D: Ask Channel 4, they can provide you the certificate.

RW: I’m not asking Channel 4, I’m asking you. Anyone who makes a statement must tell me the reason for that statement, that’s all I’m asking. If you say its authenticated then you must say who authenticated it, if you can’t what you’re really saying is Channel 4 says it is authenticated and you believe them.

Mr D: I didn’t say that.

RW: Quite. Well, let me tell you what the UN experts say, and I quote – this is Grant Fredericks who was first hired by the Tikes – ‘the first four statements were actually recorded in the following order… segment 3, segment 2, segment 1, segment 4’. They say it was edited, possibly by a mobile phone. If Channel 4 wants to say it was not edited and UN experts say it was edited, may I suggest that you go and read up all the documentation carefully, and then tell me whether you believe Channel 4 or you will get other experts to authenticate it and come and tell me. But we are not going to engage in wild goose chases on such evidence.

Intervention – This gentleman over here said Tamil terrorists, you know Sri Lankans don’t fear Tamils, they also fear Tamils who are terrorists….

RW: The point you made is very valid and I would ask my friends not to use it, the term Tamil terrorist is inappropriate. I think we all have to be really careful distinguishing between Tamils and terrorists, you know we do not talk of the Sinhala terrorists when we talk of the JVP in 71 and 83, so I think we need to be very careful. Your point is very valid because not all Tamils are terrorists, so we must change that mindset, and we all of us Sri Lankans must make the point, terrorism had to be got rid of to protect the Tamils too, that is absolutely vital. I think your second point about not letting the media in is actually not correct, most of the media are allowed in. I had 2 Swiss media reporters recently and I argued very hard for the media in 2009 and I’m very glad I did so, but I can see why many people feel some types of reporting are damaging. But we must realise that the media as a whole is  not responsible for rogue elements. It’s like the UN. You know, Jeremy Paige told me the UN said this when he knew it wasn’t the UN, it was individuals in the UN who disagreed with official policy. Then Gethin Chamberlain said various things happened, but they didn’t. The trouble is the press that is nasty does not give us a chance to respond. Repeatedly the High Commission here has asked Channel 4 to interview me but they won’t. In 2009 when I came here Channel 4 refused, fortunately on the BBC Breakfast Show early morning – I had not known the show was so popular – at the end of it they thanked me  and I said you shouldn’t thank me, I should thank you for giving me a chance unlike Channel 4. And then Channel 4 rang almost immediately I had left, why did you say we didn’t want to interview you? Because it was true, you said you couldn’t have me. No, no, they said, we weren’t sure we had a time, but yes we would like you to come tonight, and the press officer made me go, he made me do 10 interviews in one day, and I said I’m tired and he looked at me and said very cheerfully, ‘But they’re all asking you the same questions’. So I did the session with Channel 4 and answered them and since then they have never allowed me to speak. The so called free media doesn’t want free comment. Now I ask some people, when they want to interview me, whether it can be live, and when they don’t agree, I ask if I can have an unedited tape of what I say, then even if they edit it, I know they can’t distort too much.

I’ve learnt we have to be very careful about that type of thing. Back to your final point, that reconciliation should be with accountability, I think accountability is necessary but not retribution. If you look at all the histories of successful wars, successful conflicts resolved, you have to have justice of course as we discussed yesterday, at the meeting of the Sri Lankan Lawyers in London. But if you look at the two examples given to us, one is South Africa. South Africa was where a rather wicked group of people had an apartheid regime which was sadly supported by so many countries. Finally, someone like Mandela managed to make a change, but he thought it was necessary to put behind any recrimination against the South African whites who had behaved badly under apartheid, so all that happened was that they had to confess their sins, and there was no retribution. Another example held up is Cambodia, where you had a ghastly regime that was defeated, and those who were defeated got support from the West so it was only after many years that there were questions of recrimination. But I think some of that is just disgusting, and I do not think we should engage in recrimination with the defeated, so for instance we are simply going to release after rehabilitation most of the former cadres who surrendered. We will not punish them since they were poor kids that were conscripted by the LTTE to kill us.

With regard to our own men, if we look at the allegations that are made, they’re such gobbledegook. 40,000 killed is absurd. One point I’d like to make very clear is that as head of the Peace Secretariat, I would get every day reports of  allegations from TamilNet, and I would monitor them, and ask the forces about any incident that I thought was untoward.  I can assure you that from the beginning of the operation till the end of 2008 there were about 460 air raids and in only 29 of them were there even allegations of civilian casualties. They were very careful, and members of the other forces said they would identify targets for the air force but they said they won’t take that out because it was near a village. Of those 29 incidents 22 were of just one or two killed. And in case you think my statistics are wrong, Tony Birtley of Al Jazeera – he is a responsible journalist, he may criticize us and we may disagree, but if he says something there is a reason for it, he does not just make things up – and he said the information I had was similar to what he had got. So I ask, how dare people claim our forces engaged in indiscriminate attacks, how dare people say we shelled hospitals when the ICRC figures show very clearly that hardly any shells fell in hospitals. These claims are disgraceful, though I don’t want to embarrass the young lady from Channel 4 by asking her if she stands by the  claim their video wasn’t edited

Zoë Sale:  I’m not on the Panel so I do not need to answer.

RW: I quite understand, which is why I said I would not embarrass you by asking. But this young man believed everything you showed, even though it is clear in that second video that the fifth segment was taken at a different time according to one expert, another says it was at a different place. There are plenty of such issues with this material. How dare they come up with such lies?

Edited transcript of questions addressed by Prof Rajiva Wijesinha at the screening of “Lies Agreed Upon” 12 October 2011, Attlee Suite, Portcullis House, House of Commons, UK.