Chanaka Bandarage

Through its 2011 documentary (film/video) titled ‘Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields’, UK’s Channel 4 TV misled the UK people and the World asserting that Sri Lanka’s military during the last stages of the war against the LTTE committed gruesome war crimes and crimes against humanity. The writer can state with absolute certainty and responsibility that the Channel 4 film is full of lies.

This is his Study.

The deceptions are so clever even some Sinhalese who are knowledgeable of the war have murmured to the other did our Army really commit such crimes”? 

We say some scenes of the video though depicts as being shot in Sri Lanka may have been shot outside of Sri Lanka using actors (and they are fine actors indeed). 

Many scenes have been stage managed, people were crying and wailing for the camera. It is reasonable to believe that some of the blood that are shown are not real blood but dye and/or paint (eg: 9:31, 12:55, 35:49, 38:24 – minutes of the YouTube video – ‘Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields’ uploaded by ‘Real Stories’ on 20 September 2015).

E. A. Yfantis, a professor of computer science at University of Nevada-Las Vegas specialising in computer graphics and image processing stated: “based on mathematical analysis, blood in the 3GP videos is not real blood. …. and that “videographic and mathematical analysis of the two 3GP videos show that the videos either were edited, or staged, or both”.

It is possible that some scenes, especially some gruesome hospital scenes, were filmed on location in Tamilnadu. There are about 70 million Tamils living there. There are over 30 million Malayalis in Kerala. There is a lot of sympathy for the LTTE in those places. Finding people therein to act for Sri Lanka’s separatist cause is very easy. 

AA Gill of the UK Sunday Times described the footage: “Not a second of this has been shot by Channel 4; none of the eyewitness accounts comes from journalists”.

The main message of the film is that they targeted hospitals”, they raped Tamil women” and they killed thousands of Tamil civilians including children”; the Channel 4 achieved this objective very well. The film won the prestigious BAFTA Award for the Best Current Affairs documentary, and also won several UK and international TV and Journalism awards. According to Callum Macrae, the Director, for making this film the Channel 4 team was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2012.

After watching the documentary many believe that Sri Lankan soldiers committed most gruesome atrocities (war crimes) that no other recent Army has committed (note the thousands of comments the world population has posted after watching the film on YouTube, over several different channels).

Channel 4 has a duty to disclose true facts, but they failed to do so. This allows those who are directly affected by the video, including the Government of Sri Lanka, to file legal action against Channel 4. Even belatedly, initiating legal action against Channel 4 is the correct way forward.  It is a matter of obtaining Special Leave from the UK Court to file action out of time.  An attempt, worth trying especially given these new findings.

In this instance, the writer, as a conciliatory measure, asks Channel 4 to immediately accept that the film has serious flaws or agree to subject the film to an impartial investigation/Sri Lankan government examination to determine its accuracy/authenticity (say, within four weeks hereof).  This may be the only way for Channel 4 to avoid legal action and preserve its good name. Channel 4 being a reputed UK media establishment is prudent to comply with this open demand.  

Shyam Tekwani, an expert in terrorism and media at the Asia-Pacific Center for security Studies who has extensively covered the Sri Lankan conflict, compared the “tone and tenor” of the documentary to that of productions by the LTTE’s propaganda wing, and opined that “Clearly an effort to sensationalise and shock with carefully selected and edited footage, the documentary weakens its case and invites an investigation into its own credibility and accountability to journalistic norms”.

Many deceptions/ serious concerns in Channel 4 video – The Study

1. Channel 4 has admitted that they produced the documentary solely through records and mobile phone and small camera films given to them by Tamil civilians (mostly living in the UK) and LTTE supporters.  They also admit using some of Sri Lankan government (Army and Air Force) war footage.  Did they obtain permission from the Sri Lankan government to use/edit them? No. Thus, a clear copyrights infringement on their part. Legal action can be initiated against Channel 4 in Sri Lanka for contravening the country’s copyrights laws. Sri Lanka can claim millions of rupees from Channel 4.
2. When Sri Lanka requested Channel 4 to subject the films/videos/photos for independent scrutiny and to provide them with copies and also to reveal their sources (for their own examination); Channel 4 failed to comply.  Channel 4’s excuse was that if they are divulged, Sri Lanka will take revenge from those parties. This is a bizarre excuse.  These are Tamils permanently living in the UK and the West, how can the Sri Lankan government punish them? Channel 4’s excuse is both cunning and flimsy.
3. One of the key Channel 4 witnesses Dr Shanmugarja continues to work as a doctor in the North, the government has not done him any harm. There are at least 3 other similar Tamil doctors currently working in Sri Lanka. No harm has brought upon them. 
4. Wikipedia reports how humanely the Sri Lankan government treated former LTTE leaders, their family members and ordinary Tamils who had close  association with the LTTE (this again shows that the excuse put forward by Channel 4 has no validity):
   I. Daya Master, the head of the media division of the LTTE was given full protection by the government and allowed him to operate his own private news desk. He is currently in Jaffna.
   II.Sasirekha, the wife of the former leader of the LTTE political wing SP Thamilchelvam has stated she was well treated by the Army. She has stated when having abdominal pains she was admitted to the National hospital in Colombo. Her children had attended an international school in Colombo. She has stated that she has no plans to migrate to any other country and wants to live the rest of her life in Sri Lanka.
   III.Sathyadevi, the wife of the leader of Sea Tigers, Soosai has stated that she never thought the government would treat her and her family so well.
   IV. After the war, over 110,000 LTTE combatants were captured by the government. None of them were harmed.  All of them were well taken care of and were promptly rehabilitated.  They now live as free citizens.
5. Channel 4 states that in order to make the film, they were collecting devastating evidence against Sri Lanka for 2 years (0.55). Anyone would agree that there are Tamil elements (civilian and LTTE) who will go to any extent to prepare and provide them with bogus information.
6. When Sri Lanka is validly claiming that the tapes are inaccurate/unauthentic and the evidence presented in the documentary is false; it is unconscionable for Channel 4 to remain silent, and continue to promote it.
7. Sri Lanka is in a quagmirical situation. It has been accused of most heinous crimes by Channel 4 which Sri Lanka has denied. Channel 4 states Sri Lanka is not responding to the allegations. It is Channel 4 that refuses to provide Sri Lanka with information about the mobile phone/small camera records/films.
8. It is clear – after making baseless, blatant allegations, Channel 4 now prevents Sri Lanka from proving her innocence.  This is Channel 4 denying Sri Lanka of natural justice.
9. What Channel 4 has done was to edit Sri Lankan government and Tamil video footage to the maximum and producing their documentary (film/video). In this, there has been so much of content mixing.  And, Channel 4 would not divulge the sources of information. They detest scrutiny. This is unconscionable conduct of the highest proportion on their part.
10. In the video, a figure of more than 40,000 civilian killings is stated.  It is a mere guess by Mr Gordon Weiss, the then Colombo based UN Officer. He had first stated that only 7,000 were killed (he failed to substantiate even this number). This figure continues to escalate. Mr Sumanthiran of TNA has stated that the figure is 100,000.
11. Mr Weiss stated that the Government forces shelled the no-fire zone. How did he know this?  He was in Colombo.
12. If 40,000 people (Tamil civilians) died at the last stages of the war under the hands of the government, given that Mr Weiss was the UN spokesperson in Sri Lanka at the time, he may be personally liable for not doing enough to protect them (why did he/the UN not raise the alarm at that time)? The families of the dead people and the casualties (if any) may be able to sue Mr Weiss/the UN in this regard, for failing to trigger R2P (Responsibility to Protect – an international law principle).
13. If such a massacre took place, would India have stayed silent? India closely monitored the situation, especially the utmost safety of the Tamil civilians.  India regards Sri Lankan Tamils somewhat as their own citizens. India’s RAW has a strong presence in Sri Lanka. Then, the US, UK and EU who have diplomatic presence in Sri Lanka did not raise any alarm that the civilians were being killed. There was a Dravidian BBC reporter stationed in Colombo. It is true that the UK and French Foreign Ministers arrived in Sri Lanka just before the war ended.  They wanted Sri Lanka to stop the war immediately.  It is rumored that they came to save the life of Prabhakaran. Their efforts failed.
14. The documentary failed to mention that Mr Weiss may have had a vested interest in not stating the truth as before the end of the war he was asked to leave Sri Lanka by the Sri Lankan Government. Thus, he had a grudge against Sri Lanka. Furthermore, he wanted to sell his book, which severely criticises Sri Lanka. At the launch of his book in Melbourne in July 2011, under examination by this writer (who was the sole voice for the Sinhalese at the posh event), Mr Weis admitted that the figure of 40,000 is incorrect, and he had himself previously stated it was 7,000. The examination was so intent Mr Weiss had to state words similar to the effect: this is my party, please do not spoil it”.
15. See, ‘Weiss gets wiser’ by HLD Mahindapala in ‘Brief Colonial History of Ceylon’, 10/7/11 – At a book launch held in Melbourne last week, he changed his figure again and came down to 10,000* under questioning by Chanaka Bandarage, a lawyer. Bandarage then asked why the brochure had mentioned 40,000. Weiss had disowned responsibility and passed the buck to the Deakin University which produced the brochure.”   (*Mr Mahindapala is slightly wrong here – what the writer questioned Mr Weiss was that when he had first stated that 7,000 civilians were killed (not 10,000 as reported by Mr Mahindapala), why did he later change it to 40,000). 
16. In the documentary Mr Weiss states what the UN was doing at that time was not enough” (44:80).  He has severely criticised the UN.  But, today he is back with them. (He is the head of the UN (WFP) food aid distribution program for Northern Ethiopia, based in Nairobi, Kenya). It is worth watching how and when he would create another major controversy for countries/UN.
17. Channel 4 failed to mention that they had had serious issues with the Sri Lankan Government in the past, and some of their journalists were asked to leave Sri Lanka. It has been reported that Channel 4 journalists’ visa applications to Sri Lanka were refused.
18. Apart from Mr Weiss, Channel 4’s other main source of information is Vany Kumar. Channel 4 introduces her as a British Tamil. Her birthplace is Sri Lanka and has maintained very close ties with Sri Lanka.  Channel 4 concealed this information from the viewers. Vany Kumar makes ten separate appearances in the 49 minutes documentary. It is reasonable to suspect that she was instrumental in providing Channel 4 with most of the dubious Tamil war videos. Vany Kumar was relaying various Sri Lankan government atrocities allegedly committed against Tamils during the last stages of the war. Throughout the video she maintained a smile but in the subsequent Channel 4 video (‘No Fire Zone – Sri Lanka Killing Fields’, produced in 2013), she cried and sobbed. Who is Vany Kumar?  
19. According to Channel 4 Vany Kumar is a young English Tamil woman who has left London to spend 6 months with her relatives in Sri Lanka” (10:35).
20. According to Wikipedia, ‘Vany Kumar is alleged to have operated in the UK under an alleged LTTE front – Tamil Youth Organization (TYO) and she is alleged to have had links with the LTTE. It is stated that she arrived in Sri Lanka in 2008 at the request of Castro (former head of the LTTE Foreign Division) and underwent military training’. But Channel 4 portrays her as an innocent, impartial expert of the war.
21. Per Wikepedia …. after Kumar’s arrival in Vanni, she underwent one month of weapons training and was enlisted under Sothiya regiment of LTTE. She had also possessed a dog tag with a cardre number issued by the Sothiya regiment, and a cyanide capsule.  She had also worked for the Castro branch of the LTTE international wing.”  (If these facts are incorrect both Channel 4 and Vany Kumar had ample opportunity to correct them; they have not done so).
22. In the later Channel 4 video (‘No Fire Zone’) Vany Kumar acknowledged that she was a friend of LTTE’s News reader, Isipriya.  This evidences her close LTTE connections.
23. Most of the Channel 4 documentary (Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields) is made on the assertions made by Mr Weiss – a dishonest personality and Vany Kumar – who alleges to have close terrorist links.  In the documentary it is obvious that both are lying terribly. Their body language proves this. Both display vague, sly behavior. In such a situation, the allegations made in the video have very little credibility.
24. It is now proven that Vany Kumar has given a wrong name for this documentary. Channel 4 in the later video (‘No Fire Zone’) introduced her as Vani Viji.  They did not give any explanation for the change in the name. What is Vany Kumar’s real name, no one knows, except herself. Is she a Bio-Medical Technician as portrayed by Channel 4? Then, they must prove this.
25. According to Wikipedia: Government investigations had revealed that Vany Kumar, who had gone by at least 4 different names including Dr. Tamilvani, Damilvany Kumar and Damilvany Gananakumar, arrived in Sri Lanka on 28 February 2008.” Vany Kumar is not a medical doctor.
26. The fact of lying establishes a bad credibility for her.  She is the principal witness of the documentary and relates firsthand accounts of the war.  When she can lie about her own name, how can one believe other things that she relates in the video?
27.  Channel 4 attempts to show that the Sri Lankan Government was fighting a war against Tamil civilians and not the most brutal, barbaric terrorist group, the Tamil Tigers (LTTE). This is very inappropriate conduct for a reputed media organisation.
28. Channel 4 went to most extraordinary lengths to accuse that the Sri Lankan government was deliberately killing hundreds and thousands of innocent Tamil civilians (8:25) – …. civilians were bombed, herded and corralled’.  ‘In these killing fields tens and thousands of them were destined to die, targeted by deliberate gunmen fire” (note the use of the word ‘deliberately’ by them; not even ‘recklessly’ or ‘negligently’).
29. Channel 4’s focus has been to show that the government has committed cold blooded murder of thousands of women and children.  Thus, the video is full of such scenes. They know that by that way they would receive enormous praise, and condemnation to Sri Lanka.  
30. It is the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) that slit open bellies of rural pregnant Sinhalese mothers, killed rural Sinhalese infants after grabbing them from feeding mothers and then smashing them down on the ground, killed Buddhist priests cold bloodedly (35 senior/student monks on one occasion) and committed various other brutal and heinous crimes against the Sinhalese (and some Muslims) such as suicide bombings, rape, bus bombings, and the killing of thousands of Sinhalese, Muslim and innocent Tamils by numerous other brutal ways. None of these were shown/stated in the documentary.
31. Channel 4 wrongly states that the Government herded the civilians to the no-fire zone.  What happened was that the LTTE forced people to go with them. People had no other choice. Due to this there were zero people in the villages.  The government then created a no-fire zone for the civilians. The government promised everyone including the UN and the international community that it will not shell the no-fire zone.  The government kept its promise to the letter.
32. A government video (1^st video) showing the Air Force’s Kfir jet bombing an LTTE target is deceptively used in the documentary to show that the Air Force was bombing innocent civilians.  Channel 4 has linked this 1^st video with a 2^nd video that shows a group of people (actors) in a trench.  Channel 4 blended the two videos to intentionally create the drama.
33. According to the government it was an older air attack – that had happened much earlier than the final stages of the war. But, according to Channel 4 it was during the last stages of the war.
34.   Channel 4 admits that the Kfir attack is an Air Force footage and they were provided with the 2^nd video by Tamils that shows people hiding in the trench in fear of the Kfir attack.  Jon Snow, the narrator, unashamedly states about the 2^nd video we don’t know who shot this. It may be a Tiger cameraman, it may be a civilian” (9:34).
35. This is how the UK’s premier TV station has produced a documentary that has won many awards for producing a documentary against an independent nation.
36. Channel 4 amalgamated the two videos to produce the final product – the damaging documentary. The discredit/disrepute they have caused to Sri Lanka and her people is enormous. True, the government is entitled to damages, it is difficult to place a monetary value at this stage upon Channel 4’s wrongful/unethical conduct. Sri Lanka can claim millions of pounds.
37. As Vany Kumar is the person who explains the Kfir incident, it is possible that she provided the 2^nd video to Channel 4. It seems Channel 4 is prepared to telecast any ‘garbage’ that serves their purpose.
38. In the last stages of the war all people were confined to the no-fire zone. There were no people living in homes. But, according to Channel 4 these people with small children were still in their own houses. That simply could not have happened.
39.  In reality, this could not happen the way it was shown.  Channel 4 was able to show it because the 2^nd video is an artificial incident created by using Tamil actors.
40. People in the trench– rather than trying to save their lives were preoccupied about the video (9:46). They continuously ask bizarre questions as don’t take the video”,  what are you going to do video”, Can you hear us” etc. Even the children are heard constantly uttering the word ‘video’.  They were using other stage managed questions such as – please get in the bunker”, They are killing us”, Please God save all of these children” etc. This shows nothing else but fine coaching and acting. 
41. Those people are not lying on the trench but were standing on it – so that they are well visible in the video. They continuously parrot the words – they are killing our children”. This is to obtain international sympathy/attention.
42. Anyone would agree that if people are in real fear of their lives (being attacked by an Air Force), they do not go on talking about a video that someone was making. In the documentary, everyone seems to be more focused on the video than the air attack (In the 2^nd ‘No Fire Zone’ film, the utterings about the ‘video’ have been removed, and the Kfir jet scene has been reduced to only few seconds).
43. If the Kfir jet actually attacked the civilians and/or their surroundings there needs to be evidence about it. Though people were screaming loudly, the video does not show any signs of the bombing. There is no jet sound, smoke or collateral damage caused by the jet.
44. It is obvious that the way they express fear in the trench is unreal. This is because they are actors. This scene is a fine example that Channel 4 has produced a fabricated product.
45. A photo appeared soon after the war showing women running towards a shelter – some had infants in their hands war (this was not shown on this particular Channel 4 video, but on a previous one).  The photo’s message was that the government was shelling women and children in the no-fire zone.  But, in a corner of the photo, a young woman was seen taking photos of the fleeing mothers. This woman was laughingly doing it – she was full of smiles and was thoroughly enjoying her act. She too was photographing the stage managed act; she had appeared on the photo inadvertently.  In the photo, thick smoke is seen in the distance. That same smoke is seen in this video (13:22), proving that the bombing scene in the documentary is a farce. Tamil Separatists who are hell bent on promoting their cause have provided fake documents/videos to Channel 4.  Channel 4 has used them knowing that they are fake.
46. Channel 4 is lying in stating that ‘the government forces were determined to maximize civilian casualties, they used the tactic of bombing/shelling them’ (17:29). It further lied: the government shelled food distribution lines and systematically denied people of humanitarian aid” (21:40)
47. Elsewhere in the video, Channel 4 states that the LTTE was holding people as a human shield (20:30) and the LTTE was firing at civilians who were fleeing the no-fire zone (ie, those who were seeking the government’s protection (26:30). This is true. People were desperate to get on to the government side. LTTE knew their survival dependent on the presence of civilians because the government would not bomb the civilians. Thus, LTTE tried their best to keep the civilians in their proximity.  LTTE was unhesitant to shoot down civilians who tried to flee. Channel 4 reported …cornered Tiger fighters fired on civilians who tried to escape” – (24:15).
48. Though the government had no access to it and it was in the LTTE territory, the government was desperate in saving the civilians, thus demarcated a safe area exclusively for them (no-fire zone). The LTTE including its leadership was congregated elsewhere – mostly in Vellmullivaikal and on the Northern Mullaitivu beaches (Nandikadal lagoon was the Eastern border). In the no-fire zone civilians who tried to flee died/became injured as a result of the direct LTTE gunfire. Some died after getting caught in the LTTE missiles that targeted the government forces. Civilians would have died owing to natural causes. In the LTTE congregated areas thousands of them died under the hands of the government forces. So, there were deaths happening in the final stages of the war. Channel 4 tries to attribute all of them on the government’s account. 
49. Mr Weiss plucked the number, 40,000 from thin air and the whole world adopted it.  None have been able to substantiate this. If such a large number was killed there ought to exist mass graves. After the war, for 6 years, the North was ruled by TNA – the LTTE’s proxy in the parliament. Mr Vigneswaran, a separatist, was the Chief Minister. If such mass graves exist, they would have made a huge cry. 
50. One should acknowledge that many Tamils left Sri Lanka after the end of the war. Some dead Tiger combatants and Sri Lankan military personnel whose bodies could not be traced are accounted as disappeared persons (missing people). These must have been included in Mr Weiss’ 40,000.
51. As deaths had occurred in the no-fire zone (above point 48), it is possible to infer that there were sick and injured people there. As stated before, the LTTE was in control of the area. The government had no access to the no-fire zone (until about 18 May 2009). It is wrong for Channel 4 to state that the injured people in the no-fire zone hospital were victims of the government shelling. We must not discount that the LTTE terrorists who suffered causalities were also treated in that hospital.  Channel 4 did not mention this.  Of the hospital scenes that may be authentic, some of the sick people ought to be LTTE terrorists.
52. Again, the government strictly kept its promise of not shelling the no-fire zone. The Tigers were shelling, but the government was unable to fire-back. Thus, Sri Lanka lost a large number of brave soldiers unnecessarily.
53. It is possible that there were doctors (eg. Dr Shanmugarajah) treating the injured in the makeshift hospital located in the school of Mullivykkal (located in close proximity to the no-fire zone). But, the number of the injured in those medical units is unknown. Channel 4 knows the numbers but would not divulge them.  This is unethical conduct on their part. Given the background of Vany Kumar et al, it is reasonable to suspect that if not all, at least some of the hospital video footage is unauthentic. The manner in which some sick/injured people behave – they resemble more of actors than genuine patients.
54. Channel 4 states it was an unequal war (9:07). But they failed to mention that the LTTE fought a conventional war with the Sri Lankan forces using heavy artillery. They had a Navy and an Air force. Furthermore, they had the added advantage of having suicide bombers.
55. Channel 4 failed to state that over a period of 30 years, the LTTE was responsible for the killing of at least 80,000 innocent Sri Lankan civilians.
56. Channel 4 referred to ‘Darusman Report’ as the UN report. This is wrong. This was not a report called for by the UN Security Council or the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), but by Mr Ban Ki Moon in his personal capacity as the UN Secretary General. Per Mr Weiss ‘Mr Moon rejected his own Commission’s recommendations’ (46.25). It is well known that after the report was published some authors of the Darusman Report started a fierce campaign against Sri Lanka (this raises the question of their impartiality). To this day, they continue their extreme agitation against Sri Lanka.
57. In the film – Channel 4 states there were people who were outside of the UN gate (blue colour) in Wanni  pleading the UN not to leave (4:36). This iron gate is flat, it has no open space. Then, on the same day, a large group of children are seen waving through an open space of a different iron gate (white/black colour). This gate has a wide open space towards the top. UN states the children were also pleading them not to go (4:55) (but, some of them seem to be smiling and in a jovial mood). One UN Officer (Benjamin Dix) almost cryingly relates in the video (5:20) … there was one girl at the end … she had real sadness in her face. I was quite emotional at that point.  Her face really captured…. Her compassion.” Channel 4 must explain the discrepancy – how is it that the same UN office has two entirely different main gates? Also, whether or not the children are child actors (this is because they very much seem to be so).  
58. Per the video three young girls in the no-fire zone were wailing after an alleged bombing raid by the government forces that had killed their mother.  The video states they were not allowed to leave their bunker” (19:27). This is a ridiculous accusation to be made against the government.  Channel 4 itself has acknowledged that until the middle of May 2009, the no fire zone was held under the strict command and control of the LTTE. This means it is reasonable to assume that it was the LTTE that was holding the girls in the bunker after they killed the mother (if that is what had happened). 
59. This scenery (19:21 – 19:58) is very much of a farce. There is no doubt that it was created by using actors.  Apart from above point 58, the main reason for stating this is: In (19:22) a man in light green sarong with yellowish chequered short sleeved shirt (1^st man) was idly loitering around dead bodies lying on the ground in open, including a body that was wearing a blue shirt. In (19:25) (within 3 seconds), he is seen wailing with the girls in the bunker (it is more of a hut). Therein, he was somewhat laughing for few seconds (note, his mouth is covered with hand; two of the girls also seem to be first laughing, then wailing).  In (19:37) (within 12 seconds) the 1^st man who seems to have been directed by someone, suddenly comes out of the hut and goes near the blue shirt dead body. In (19:49) (within 12 seconds) he sits near the blue shirt body and seen wailing.  When this happens another man wearing very similar attire (2^nd man), is seen sitting near a dead body that has an orange coloured garment (note, he was not there in (19:22) scene – so he had just arrived).  The orange garment dead body lies next to the blue shirt dead body. This 2^nd man is seen comforting the orange garment dead body, but when the 1^st man arrives near the blue shirt dead body, he stops wailing and keeps looking at the 1^st man.  Basically, the 2^nd man was showing more interest in the 1^st man’s wailing than his own wailing.  In (19:54) the 1^st man is again seen wailing inside the hut with the 3 girls (thus, he had spent only 5 seconds wailing on the blue shirt dead body).  In (19:58), he is again seen wailing on the blue shirt dead body (this time, he had spent only 4 seconds with the wailing girls). At this time, a bear bodied man with his sarong folded in half (3^rd man) enters the scene and starts worshiping and wailing on the blue shirt dead body.
60. Obviously, this entire scene is very poorly choreographed. In fact, their behavior seems laughable. Why Channel 4 decided to telecast such fabricated content to an educated audience is beyond belief.  
61. The girls’ wailing is ingenuine. They seem to be wailing for the camera. They wail shouting the word ‘Mama’. Given that all the three girls are of same age (about 16), how can they all be sisters? Surely Channel 4 knows that these people are acting for a script.
62. Realising that that acting was so obvious and very visible, in the later video prepared by Channel 4 (‘No Fire Zone’), they more or less eliminated this scene. Only a very short clip was shown. But, Channel 4 cannot escape from the accusation that they produced a new video in order to remove so many dubious scenes of this video.
63. Per the documentary, in another incident, the government had shelled the no-fire zone (13:27). Channel 4 must explain: (i) why the man in blue folded sarong, who was lying on ground with other men, was laughing for few seconds when the shelling was happening (13:49) (in a war situation, such a thing cannot happen). (ii) all know that the no fire-zone was a bare, sandy land with hardly any trees. But, this incident takes place in a fertile, green coconut estate; could it be that the incident took place on location in Kerala, India than Mullivykkal?
64. Per the video, the government on 26/1/09 deliberately shelled people leaving the no-fire zone where many died including a young boy (14), son of Raja.
65. Earlier the video accused the government of shelling the no-fire zone to kill terrorists.  Now it states the government was killing those who were leaving the no-fire zone (17:27). What is the rationale for this, when the fleeing people are not terrorists?
66. Again, when the government wanted people to leave the no-fire zone, why should it kill those very people when they are leaving it? If Raja’s son actually died, could it not have been due to LTTE shelling?
67. It is the same video that states that the LTTE showed brutal disregard to civilians and on 9/2/09 a female suicide bomber killed a large number of soldiers and Tamil civilians (20:07). In such a situation, how can Channel 4 apportion all deaths (40,000) on the government’s account?
68. Note that Raja (18:06) and the man living in London who had seen the carnage in the no-fire zone hospital (12:09) are one and the same person. This is another incident that proves Channel 4’s lying.
69. It is strange that Channel 4 has a footage of Raja’s son sighing his last breath in the hospital (18:20). Is this authentic? Then, how did it come to be – who shot it?
70. Raja (Father) states each time I sees the boy’s dying video …. (18:21) – this seems a lie. No father could watch such a video again and again, if his son actually died.
71. The truth – Puthukutiriappu (PTK) hospital had no patients when the battle between the Army and the LTTE started fighting in that area. But, the documentary shows two women (in the hospital) loudly crying that their legs were injured due to the government shelling (14:01). But, their injuries are not shown. The location that they were in does not resemble that of a hospital. This scene could well have been shot elsewhere and the two women could well be actors.
72. Putumattalan (PT) hospital – there is nil evidence that it was bombed. Channel 4 states after the government shelled the hospital the staff and the injured were evacuated to Mullivykkal (23:00). But, elsewhere in the video, Channel 4 states that patients in Mullivykkal hospital were the victims of government’s indiscriminate shelling of the no-fire zone (not the PT hospital). This is a clear contradiction on their part.
73. In one scene Channel 4 states Vany Kumar was treating injured patients in the hospital (23:30).  It is difficult to state with certainty that the woman shown is indeed Vany Kumar. Even if it is her, why was she in full of smile and in happy mood?  Is it because the filming was happening the way she wanted? How could anyone smile if they are surrounded by dying injured patients?
74. According to Channel 4, Dr Shanmugarajah was a Tamil doctor at Mullivykkal. Dr Shanmugarajah continues to works in Sri Lanka. He now denies the assertions he has made in the Channel 4 video. He severely attacks Mr Weiss’ statement that Sri Lankan government attacked hospitals and makeshift medical facilities.  Dr Shanmugarajah clearly states that ‘Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields’ video has grossly exaggerated facts (see Wikipedia).  
75. Per Wikipedia – .Dr. Shanmugarajah, the medical officer (anesthesia) of Teaching Hospital, Jaffna and former RDHS of Mullaitivu states that “When LTTE asked me to put the figure as 1,000, I said that it is totally unacceptable and that I have not gone and seen such numbers. ….. he also refuted the claims of Channel 4 witness Vany Kumar, who alleged that he cut off the leg of a 6-year-old boy without giving local anesthetic (28:35), (laughingly) saying “We did not conduct any sort of surgery without giving anesthesia. That would’ve killed the boy”.
76. Nadesan and Puladivan’s photos wearing ties are shown (42:37) implying they were civilians, but they were guerilla fighters, so was Isipriya.  It is alleged that they were all fighters at the last stages of the war; so during the confrontation the Sri Lankan forces may have killed them (not sure who actually killed them). There are prior photos depicting these two gentleman and Isipriya in LTTE uniforms. Of course, Channel 4 would not show them. This raises the suspicion that Channel 4 covers up.
77. Isipriya is introduced as the Tamil female TV presenter. What Channel 4 did not say is that she was the Tamil female presenter of the LTTE TV. This is deliberate misleading conduct on Channel 4’s part.
78. Surely Channel 4 knew that she was a Tamil Tiger. In the beginning of the video Channel 4 acknowledges that they did 2 years of research to prepare the documentary.
79. According to the Sri Lankan government, Isipriya was a high profile LTTE cadre tasked to handle the motivation of suicide Black Tigers” (Wikipedia).
80. Channel 4 stated it was the dead body of Isipriya. Was it actually of her?
81. The face of the dead body does not resemble that of Isipriaya.  May be another job of photo editing?
82. It is alleged that the photo shown as of Isipriya’s body had been published sometime before in a pro LTTE website as that of Prabhakaran’s daughter.  In Channel 4 documentary, it has become of Isipriya’s.  Tomorrow it could be someone else?
83. The scores of dead bodies strewn on the ground were those of the Tamil terrorists (Charles Anthony – Prabhakaran’s son’s body was there too), but they were deceptively shown to viewers to believe that they were civilians (41:57), (43:39). These are Sri Lankan military footage, Channel 4 is lying in saying they were provided to them by a reliable source (Sinhalese critic of the government).
84. Channel 4 states that Putumattalan hospital was shelled on 12 May 2009 and it holds meta data to prove this. If it is a genuine media organisation, why cannot it present them for independent scrutiny and for Sri Lankan government’s examination?
85. Channel 4 states that another scene of the film was authentic because its meta data confirmed it to being made on 15 May 2009. But, Channel 4 does not present them in the open for examination/investigation. As stated before, when very serious allegations are made against Sri Lanka, Channel 4 is legally obliged to provide particulars to Sri Lanka as otherwise it is impossible for Sri Lanka to rebut the claims.
86. Patients lying in the open, crying and wailing – unless Channel 4 puts out meta data, it is reasonable to allege that all or some of the scenes are stage managed. There never were such open hospitals in Sri Lanka (without a building) even during the war time. Even Mullyvikkal hospital had buildings – according to the video, it was a school. It very much resembles that people are artificially dressed with blood soaked bandages and blood soaked faces/bodies (this is why Channel 4 must provide the footage for independent examination/investigation and also to the Sri Lankan government).
87. A woman says two months before the end of the war she and her daughter surrendered to the government and they were raped by soldiers (37:37). The funny aspect is that the interview is conducted in the no-fire zone background. This simply could not happen.  If she had surrendered to the government, how can she still be in the no-fire zone for the Channel 4 interview?  Surely Channel 4 will correct this mistake or eliminate this clip altogether in their next video, but the lie is already exposed.
88.  This woman states all the women were raped, then they were taken away and shot” (37:55) – Here, leading questions were put to the older woman, she had no choice but to answer in the affirmative: ‘Yes’.
89. The woman was asked the question – were all women raped”. She replies ‘all the women’ (37:55). Channel 4 does not say how many women were there and raped. 
90.  She says both herself and her daughter were raped (38:56). She does not say why only the two of them were spared.  Channel 4 must provide the answer.
91. It is a hallmark in the entire video that Channel 4 after questioning interviewees feed them with answers that they must give. This is against basic journalistic norms and ethics (and they boast that the Nobel Peace Committee was considering giving them the Nobel Peace Prize!).
92. In the last stages of the war it is difficult to comprehend how the Sri Lankan soldiers could go round raping women when they were engaged in a brutal war fare with Tamil Tigers. All the civilians were either in the two IDP camps or in the no-fire zone.   Civilians were confined to the no-fire zone which was under the LTTE command. If women were raped inside the no-fire zone, it would have happened under the LTTE’s watch.
93. Where people had surrendered – the two IDP camps were full of people and the International Red Cross was also present in the camps.  All the IDPs were meticulously searched before they were registered. They were very well cared for. It is impossible to believe that the surrendered women were raped and shot dead by the military. This is another big lie fabricated by Channel 4.
94. The video, in another scene, alleges that those who were raped and summarily executed were dead LTTE women (43:55). It is difficult to come to such a conclusion merely looking at the photos.  Solid forensic evidence must be provided that they were raped. Most of Channel 4 evidence seems to be hearsay. Basically, Channel 4 is conducting a ‘trial by media’.
95. Colonel Ramesh (41:20) – how can Channel 4 call him a Colonel, when the LTTE was not an accepted military. Ramesh is seen questioned, then his dead body is shown.  There is no video of him being killed. Channel 4 did not explain the missing link – the actual footage of killing Ramesh.
96. The scene depicting Ramesh being questioned – according to Sri Lankan military, it was questioning done on a much earlier occasion (not in the last stages of the war). The actual death had happened later during the final stages of the war, in an entirely different scenario.
97. Channel 4 has prepared Ramesh’s story by blending many videos together. They have been careful to hide this from the viewer.
98. Per Wikipedia, Ramesh gave leadership to Kattankudy mosque massacre which killed 147 Muslim civilians who were praying inside the mosque.  He led the Habarana bus massacre that killed 127 Sinhalese. He is linked with the Aranthalawa massacre that killed 35 Buddhist monks in one spot. 
99. Dead terrorists in naked – this seems to be the normal practice in any brutal warfare. Once the enemy is killed (the LTTE guerillas) then it is normal to undress them to carry out a full body search (they could have worn suicide vests etc). The LTTE did the same to Sri Lankan Army. But, this fact was not disclosed to the viewer.
100. The female bodies shown do not resemble the typical Sri Lankan Tamil woman (38:20 – 40:06). Tamils are generally of darker skin than the Sinhalese; there is not a single darker skin dead body. Also Tamil women are generally shorter and have long hair.  Apart from being very fair, all these female dead bodies seem to be of taller women with shorter hair.
101. The male bodies also do not resemble the typical Sri Lanka Tamil man. Tamil men are generally of darker skin than the Sinhalese; there is not a single darker skin dead body. Most Tamil men wear a moustache. But, in the Channel 4 video scenes all dead bodies seem to be very fair men without moustaches (38:20 – 40:06; 44:13).
102. The scene of shooting people in their head at close range – one ‘Army’ Officer has long hair (34:18); the Sri Lankan Army did not allow its men to grow long hair.
103. The Video alleges that 400,000 were living in the no-fire zone. This is wrong. After the war only 280,000 ended up in camps and this was the maximum number of civilians affected in the last stages of the war.
104. No-fire zone satellite images – they were from an Air force file, but shown as part of the Channel 4 video.
105. Loading dead bodies into a truck by the Army – the dead people (including female) ought to be not Tamil civilians but Tamil terrorists (39:22). But the video never states this, compelling viewers to assume they are civilians.
106. It is very plausible that in the scenes (33:48 – 34:41), what actually happened was that Tamil Tigers wearing Sri Lankan Army uniforms were executing Sri Lankan Army personnel. (Note the alleged killer in Army uniform in scene (39.10), has a moustache and speaks similar to how Tamils speak Sinhalese.
107. Again, the people shown in Sri Lankan army uniforms and shooting on the victims heads cannot be members of the Sri Lankan armed forces but Tamil Tigers who had worn Sri Lankan Army uniforms. The dead, though depicted as the LTTE could well be Sri Lankan Army soldiers (during the war the LTTE tortured and killed many Sri Lanka soldiers and they filmed these killings for propaganda to collect money from the Tamil Diaspora).
108. In the scenes where the Sri Lankan soldiers killing the LTTE prisoners, it is possible that Sinhala words were dubbed into to show that the atrocities were committed by the Sri Lankan Army.  The Sinhalese voices do not correspond or relate to the actions in the background.
109. Lots of Army soldiers in the video resemble Tamils, not Sinhalese.
110. Most of the Army soldiers were speaking Sinhalese with a Tamil accent (38:57). In reality this cannot happen. They ought to be Tamils wearing Sri Lanka Army uniforms.
111. On 1 July 2011 Swarnawahini, a prominent Sri Lankan TV station, telecast on their Live at 8 programme what it claimed to be an unaltered version of a video used on the Channel 4 documentary showing uniformed men summarily executing eight bound and blindfolded men. In the version telecast by Swarnavahini the men in uniform were speaking in Tamil whereas on the Channel 4 documentary they were speaking in Sinhala. Per Wikipedia, an investigation by a UN commissioned panel of independent experts found that the Sinhala version was authentic.
112. Again, it is alleged that Tamil actors have acted as the Sri Lankan army. It is these videos that they have produced to Channel 4, conveniently placing the blame on the Sri Lankan military – that, the Army had killed Tamil civilians. This is why Channel 4 must present evidence to the Sri Lankan government for independent scrutiny.
113. Most of the film footage have been of good quality, they could not have been done by mobile phones/small cameras.  Even the UN expert, Grant Fredericks has stated that optical zooms had been used, by saying this he placidly admitted that the videos were doctored. This is because at that time mobile cameras did not have optical zooms, maximum of what they had were digital zooms.
114. There are about 17 frames of videos that are inconsistent with the original video. This shows that the videos have been heavily edited with sophisticated video software. Because of the editing, they have more than one ‘video layer’ and the audios do not get not synchronized.
115. According to Professor Yfantis: Careful analysis of the two 3GP videos which included both frame by frame visual inspection as well as the robust mathematical attributes of the video frames, has led us to the conclusion that this is a very deliberate and orchestrated video”. His report also detailed the fact that the video file was named “produce.3gp”, suggesting that the video file may have been a result of some form of video editing software.
116. Jon Snow described Sri Lanka’s IDP camps as brutal places where internees were left short of food, water and medicine. … where stories of rape, violence and disappearances were rife” (44:55). This is a deliberate lie on Channel 4’s part. Former male/female IDP’s have provided sworn evidence that they were afforded with excellent facilities; and no such activities as described by Mr Snow ever took place.
117.  ‘Gotabhaya’ was not Sri Lanka’s Defence Minister (41:01), he was only an administrative officer (Secretary of Defence).  The Defence Minister was someone else. This was not a mere innocent mistake but a deliberate act on Channel 4’s part. It was a wild attempt by them perhaps to implicate Mr G Rajapakse in the accusations that they have made in the video.  This shows the cussedness of Channel 4 – how they would deliberately provide wrongful information to viewers with an ulterior motive.
118. AA Gill of the UK Sunday Times criticised Jon Snow’s narration in the video as: “intemperate and partisan“, and stated that “it was all held together by assumptions”.
119. Realising that there are too many obvious lies and deceptions in the video, Channel 4 in 2013 went ahead and prepared the second video titled, ‘No Fire Zone – Sri Lanka Killing Fields’. It was an attempt to eliminate the most extremely dubious footage of this video. This is nothing else but dishonesty on their part. The primary reason why Channel 4 prepared this new video is because they want people to stop watching ‘Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields’, and start watching the new video. 
120. True ‘No Fire Zone’ has new content, but it appears that video is also full of lies, deceptions and fabrications. The writer shall provide an analysis about that video as well.

The writer is the President of Sri Lanka Support Group (Global) srilankasupportgroup@bigpond.com