'Definitive Public Response'?
On 4/4/25 The Council of Reference(CoR) for Lanka Evangelical Fellowship(LEF) posted a 'Definitive Public Response' (hereafter 'DPR') to a series of serious allegations of criminal misconduct in Sri Lanka.
My own responses are posted below.
How can we see this document charitably? At least the third word in the title is accurate.
How do I respond to its specific allegation that 'I have taken things down'? A look at the archives for the index page for the archive, will reveal this is false, (I haven't arranged these, other readers kindly have). I have of course added and transparently corrected. I have only removed one inflammatory but accurate image, at the request of a personal friend.
What about the claim that the CoR,'members of the CoR stopped trying to engage with Charles many years ago'? There is correspondence here from June 2023, less than 2 years ago, I could publish others, many others from other senior figures, but refrain.
What about the claim I have 'published numerous spurious documents'?
It would be helpful to know what they are and I would take them down, if the brethren mean this one, it is confirmed as having been received at the Trincomalee Government Agent's Office, as others may ascertain directly.
So which do they mean, and why in numerous email exchanges haven't they brought this to my attention?
Is this charity?
Then there is the claim that much of the material is 'slander'. I have laboured to seek corroboration from at least two independent sources for every post, sometimes more. I have posted controversial claims, because they are definitely material to the claims laid against JK. I would certainly agree that for example these statements are slanderous and may be actionable in a libel court, but they are Jeyakanth's.
There are cases where I have incompletely understood what took place, for example the DPR raises the question of the wall demolition in 7.11.7, p.25. The video draws attention to the destruction by JK's own associates, the image to a court summons. The court reportedly ordered the destruction, whether before of after the act. I have corrected the entry. It was certainly revealing though incomplete, but not inaccurate.
The archive presented here represents a small fraction of many documents that have come to my hands over the last 15 years in connection with Jeyakanth Selvarajah and the LEF.
I have never claimed they are all accurate, but they are all important documents relating to the history of the controversy.
Many of them are polemical, and some contain very emotional writing.
Some are them are written by Jeyakanth.
Nor have I indicated my own final or complete judgement upon them, but a Supreme Court ruling, especially following repeated appeal, does have considerable weight.
So does the reluctant but detailed documentation of local authorities, pastors, judges, journalists, and many former colleagues of Jeyakanth's.
These documents have come from many independent sources, from some parties who do not and have not worked together.
However there is a common and repetitive set of themes: dishonesty, document fraud, bribery, misappropriation of funds, extortion, sexual infidelity, threats of extreme violence, actual physical violence, legal activism, and even credible and corroborated allegations of abduction and murder, as well as other serious crimes.
I have repeatedly, first privately, then publicly appealed for full, independent investigation.
Others and I have repeatedly expressed extreme dissatisfaction with LEFC's own methods of investigation.
My own attempts to gain cooperation in a full investigative panel, were first welcomed, then quashed and rejected by the CoR.
I welcome the two pastors David Cooke and Mark Mullins' careful and painstaking investigation into Jeyakanth and LEFC, (and here).
I have at first hand witnessed from a modest distance, just how carefully they have handled evidence, questions of influence, objective translation and the interviewing of witnesses.
In my humble opinion, it is leagues away from the very poor and shoddy methodology JK's supporters, LEF and the CoR have repeatedly used, much of which is documented too in the archive.
I have found the DPR lacking in judgement and in sagacity in the areas where they controvert the claims documented in this archive.
There are some very serious defects in the DPR, I have focused on those that pertain to documents here.
In defence of Muraleetharan Kanagalingam.
The DPR makes a big point of assassinating Muralee's character. He is, unlike his nemesis, very reluctant to mount a vigorous personal defence.
A glimpse at the two prayer letters for the two characters is revealing, Jeyakanth's are slick, sensitive to the target audience and full of careful strings to pull in funds. Muralee's are much humbler, simpler, and more full of photos.
Muralee is industrious, but not nearly as focused on presentation and PR, as JK is.
The notion that he wrote accusing letters about JK to the High Court Judge in the rape case, using false names is quite shameful, unevidenced and should be withdrawn or proven publicly. He has always categorically denied this. It looks libellous.
As to the notion, Muralee coordinated or initiated the Cooke-Mullins investigation, or that he manipulated scores of independent witnesses, each with their own accounts to tell, the notion is ridiculous to those familiar with the situation. However like many in and out of Sri Lanka, he welcomed it.
LEF and its supporters' attitude to him reminds me of the paranoia of the KGB in its dying days, always seeing a malign hand in Western activites, however innocuous.
As to specific charges of financial mishandling, Muralee can speak for himself, but I have found him strict and conscientious in the relatively modest funds our own church has sent to him, when we wished to support the poor and needy.
He provided photographic and documentary evidence of prudent expenditure, beyond our satisfaction.
He has been supportive of dissidents from JK's camp and others, and maintained contact with them.
I have never known him to be controlling, overbearing or rude, and dissidents from his association often still maintain cordial relations with him afterwards, unlike JK.
Unlike JK, he is scrupulous not to give bribes, and if he has helped with obtaining official documents, this sometimes means waiting months.
Unlike Jeyakanth, his doctorate is genuine and was earned, not bought.
As to the suggestion he is my main source, I strongly dispute this, I have often sought his corroboration, but most of the items in my archive have first come from elsewhere.
Incidentally, this controversy, in a age of an increasingly chaperoned internet reminds me of the extraordinary potential for fomenting discord between Christians by the subtle use of zersetzung, by antagonistic authorities.
An archive of files pertaining to LEFC.
The Cooke-Mullins Report.
LEF's Definitive Public Response - an introductory reply.
Section 5 - a series of child rapes at 6MP, by JK's employees, covered up by JK and LEF, till now.
Section 5 The DPR and Contempt of courts.
Appendix 2. Thambalagamam. The 'gamekeeper' is a poacher, a 'fraudulent' letter has been authenticated by the Sri Lankan Government Agent.
Section 8.6, p.87 - The unanswered questions about an early house purchase in Mitcham, which was first denied.
Section 8.12, p.94 The 6 pastors' letter of complaint about JK's immorality and extortion - specific questions about land registration.
Home
The Cooke-Mullins Report.
LEF's Definitive Public Response - an introductory reply.
Section 5 - a series of child rapes at 6MP, by JK's employees, covered up by JK and LEF, till now.
Section 5 The DPR and Contempt of courts.
Appendix 2. Thambalagamam. The 'gamekeeper' is a poacher, a 'fraudulent' letter has been authenticated by the Sri Lankan Government Agent.
Section 8.6, p.87 - The unanswered questions about an early house purchase in Mitcham, which was first denied.
Section 8.12, p.94 The 6 pastors' letter of complaint about JK's immorality and extortion - specific questions about land registration.
Home