"Q: In that statement to the CID, you said that" the gossip columnist is not always one single person. It is a collection of news items the newspaper would collect over the week..."
A: Yes.
Q: In that you have mentioned about the writer or writers of the gossip column?
A: In that answer I have said several writers write the gossip column."
What the accused now says is that his statement to the CID viz., "Gossip Columnist is not always one single person" - meant that the gossip column was written by several writers or that the said statement ought to be construed to mean so.
This capricious interpretation invented by the accused as an idea thought of later or as an afterthought, is not something that will appeal to one’s faculty of knowing and reasoning for it (that interpretation) is not countenanced by even the rest of the same statement (to the CID) and, in fact, is belied by the rest of it - for the accused in his statement had stated that: "the column is written by one writer - " and in several contexts in the course of his evidence (as pointed out above) he had admitted that he told the CID so, i.e. that "the column is written by one writer."
I cannot bring myself to believe that he would make such a self-contradictory statement to the CID, and, in fact he had not - as will be apparent from the sequel.
It is correct, as the accused had stated in evidence, that in his answer to the first question put by the CID the accused had stated: "The gossip columnist is not always one single person." By pointing out to the above answer (to the CID) the accused-editor, at the trial, sought to show (falsely) that by the said answer he had also told the police that the relevant gossip column was written by several writers or columnists and not one, for that - he stated (in evidence) was what he meant by that answer to the CID, i.e. when he told the CID that "the gossip columnist is not always one single person." Clearly, the accused is attempting to persuade the court of what is false and cause the court to go astray and fall into error in understanding what he had meant by the above answer to the CID. In fact, even, the learned prosecutors, too, had fallen victims to the guile in that answer viz, that when, he told the CID: "The Gossip columnist is not always one single person" - the accused intended to say or meant that the gossip column (on any one single occasion) was written by several columnists and not by one single. When the accused stated to the CID that the "gossip columnist is not always one single person" - he (the accused did not intend to say that several writers composed or wrote the relevant gossip column. What the accused intended to tell the CID was what, in fact, he had said, that is: "Gossip columnist is not always one single person" - which clearly meant that the gossip column was not on all occasions and at all times written by one single person. In other words, what the accused meant to tell the CID was that the gossip column is not written repeatedly by any one single person. The sense or the import of the answer (to the CID) is that there are several gossip columnists who write the gossip column in or by rotation. It is like saying that the driver of the bus "is not always one single person." It does not mean that at any given moment that the bus was driven by several drivers. At the trial, the accused too has conceded: "always" - "means all the time" one has to concede, that whether one likes it or not, because one cannot change the sense of words by one’s own volition. The word "always" means on all occasions. The evidence of the accused, in so far as it suggests, that he (the accused) meant by that answer to the CID (viz., "Gossip columnist is not always one single person") - that the gossip column was written (on any one single occasion) by several writers is, to put it euphemistically, tendentious in that it (such evidence) is designed to support a cause but not the truth.
It would be apposite, in this context, to show how much bent or eager the accused - editor had been (at the trial) to show, at each and every turn, that the relevant gossip column was composed or written by "several writers" - though the evidence given by him to that effect, did not represent the true factual position. On the face of the relevant gossip column itself (in the middle of the space devoted to that column) the words - "By our gossip columnist" - are printed. Be it noted that what is printed on the face of the relevant gossip column itself viz., "By our gossip columnist" is in the singular and clearly denotes only one writer or one person.
When the accused-editor was cross-examined in that regard the answers which he had given (or avoided giving) would better exemplify the position that arose in consequence, than any description on my part could. (The entire gossip column in question had been marked as P3 at the trial). To quote from the accused’s evidence given on 25.09.1996 (10.45 a.m.):
Q: In P3 at the centre of article "by our gossip columnist" appears in P3?
A: Yes.
Q: According to the words "by our gossip columnist" there is one gossip columnist and that is stated in single?
A: It is well accepted in newspaper practice although it states "gossip columnist" it is a collection of news items."
Q: But the words "by our gossip columnist" the preparation of the entire gossip column is by one person?
A: I do not know about that suggestion."
Thus, it would be seen that his answers were elusive and he thereby evaded answering the crucial question directly and truthfully he would have had no option but to concede that the relevant gossip column was written by one columnist as stated or printed on the face of the gossip column itself. But the tenor and the course of the above answers clearly show that the accused was not in the mood to do so.
The accused was firm in his resolve to stick to his guns and not concede that the writer of the relevant gossip column or the columnist, was one (writer). The above evidence (reproduced on the reverse on this page) had been given on 10.10.1996 - 2.45 p.m.) But after several dates of cross-examination - the surfacing of the truth was inevitable, and the truth became visible or known, strangely enough, on the accused’s own evidence (given on 30.10.1996 - 11.18 a.m.) wherein he had admitted in the clearest terms conceivable that the one single columnist was the writer of the entire gossip column in question.
To quote from the accused’s evidence of 30.10.1996 "one writer puts together various items collected from various sources" (evidence recorded on 30.10.1996 - 11.18 a.m.).
The accused had further admitted on the same date (30. 10.1996) as follows: "It is a composition of one writer. One writer puts together such news items and makes one composition." It is of interest and instructive to recall that the accused when questioned as to whether the very phrase "By our gossip columnist" did not show that the "preparation" of the gossip column was by "one person" - had chosen to plead ignorance by stating: "I do not know about that suggestion" - and he thereby avoided answering that question directly.
On the same date i.e. (30.10.1996) the accused had also stated thus: "The gossip columnist makes one composition of several articles supplied by various reporters."
The above evidence of itself (without more), strangely enough, of none other than the accused himself gives the lie to the interpretation he (the accused sought to place on his statement to the CID, viz., that "The gossip columnist is not always one single person " - but also serves to show the falsity of his evidence viz., that although the phrase - "By our gossip columnist" - was printed on the face of the relevant gossip column itself - (that appeared in the issue of Sunday Times of 19.02.1995) - yet the said gossip column was not written by one single columnist or writer, for in the last resort, when all else had failed, the accused had (as pointed out above as well) categorically admitted: "one writer puts together various items collected from various sources" and he has also said: The gossip columnist makes one composition...." The accused had also said (towards the ending of his evidence) that is, on 30.10.1996 (11.18 a.m.) that the gossip column is, to use the accused’s own words, "one composition" and also said thus:
Q: And that one composition is the gossip column?
A: And that one composition is the gossip column." (30.10.1996 - 11.18 a.m.)
It is not to be forgotten, to begin with, i.e., on 13.08.1996 in numerous instances cited above the accused had said something which represents, almost the diametrically opposite of this version. To quote from his evidence given on 13.08.1996:
Q: Is it your position that this article is written by one person?
A: No. This article is not written by one person.
Q: What you say is P4 is not written by one person?
A: Yes. Not written by one person.
Q: Is it your position that it is written by several writers?
A: Yes it is written by several writers.
Q: The person who wrote the first paragraph presupposes that he has knowledge of all 7 parties that had been written about in the article?
A: Not necessarily. There may have been 2 or 3 writers.
In other words, on 13.08.1996, as the evidence reproduced above would serve to show, the accused did not even admit what strikes one’s eye on the face of the gossip column itself, viz., that the person who wrote the first paragraph of the column had knowledge of all the parties (6 or 7) parties that had been described therein (in the gossip column) - for when the accused was shown the first paragraph of the gossip column and questioned as to whether the substance of the first paragraph itself of the gossip column showed that he writer of said paragraph (1st paragraph) had knowledge of all the parties (six or seven) parties that had been described in the gossip column - the accused did not concede. In this regard I dooº think I need do anything more than reproduce the 1st paragraph (of the gossip column) which is self- explanatory or which speaks for itself. To cite the said first paragraph which is as follows: "For the high and mighty in all of Sri Lanka, be they blue or green, purple or whatever colour of the political rainbow this appears to be party time and we feel if our readers want it; we shall deliver..... Therefore, let’s start at the top. About a party graced by none other than Her Excellency the President Chandrika...."
Thereafter, 6 or 7 parties are described in the gossip column and the 1st party dealt with in the gossip column was the one that Her Excellency the President was alleged to have attended.
It is clear that the accused was not prepared to admit what was as plain as a pikestaff, that is, that the substance of that 1st paragraph itself of the gossip column (reproduced above) clearly reveals that the writer of the first paragraph knew of all the parties that were going to be described in the (whole) gossip column because that fact i.e., such an admission to the effect that the writer of the 1st said paragraph had knowledge of all the parties described in the gossip column - would have almost un-erringly pointed to the fact that the writer who wrote the 1st paragraph of the gossip column is the self-same writer who wrote about all the seven parties referred to in the gossip column for in the 1st part paragraph itself he (the writer) had intimated or made it known that he would be dealing with several parties hosted or given by people or personages belonging to various political parties of various or variegated colours of the "rainbow" for the said 1st paragraph, as pointed out above, opens thus: "For the high and mighty in all of Sri Lanka, be they blue or green or purple or whatever colour of the political rainbow this appears to be a party time.... if our readers want it we shall deliver....."
The overall object of the statements (of the accused) made in evidence and/or of the positions designated (i), (ii) and (iii) and outlined above, at pages 55 and 56 hereof, which positions are now shown to be false, was to show that the relevant gossip column was written or composed by several writers. Firstly, by denying, at first or at the outset, that he ever told the CID that "the column is written by one writer" - he (the accused) was seeking to show that it was written by several writers for had he admitted without reservation or qualification (in evidence) having told the CID so, - it would have been final proof, perhaps, not only of the fact that he said so to the CID but also of the fact that he said so because it, viz., the fact that the column (gossip column) was written by one writer - was the truth or the true position. But the fact remains that although the accused, to begin with, denied having told the CID that the "column is written by one writer" - yet, later on, in the course of his evidence, he also admitted having told the CID so - subject, of course to certain reservations and refinements which had been explained and dealt with above in this judgment.
It is hardly necessary to labour the obvious that statements (in evidence) designated (ii) and (iii) (at pages 55 and 56 hereof) were also made with the same object in view as was the statement in (i)- above. In (ii) the accused had said that by the term "column" in his CID statement - he meant only "an item" or just one item in the whole gossip column and in (iii) the accused sought to show or create the impression that by his statement to the CID, viz., " the gossip columnist is not always one single person " - he meant that the gossip column, on any one single occasion, was composed or written by several writers. It has been shown above in this judgment, that all the above statements are far removed from the truth.
When the statements or evidence whereby it was sought to establish that the gossip column was written by several writers, is manifestly false and un-tenable, the reverse of that fact (sought to be proved by means of such false statements or evidence) has to be invariably inferred to be the truth or to represent the true factual position - more so in a situation like the present one - where the court has to decide only as between two positions or versions : that is, (a) Did the accused tell the CID that " the column was written by one writer " or (b) Did the accused not tell the CID so ? when the version : viz., that the accused did not tell CID so is rejected as false, as it must of necessity be rejected, for the reasons stated above, the court has no choice but to infer and hold that the alternative version viz., the fact that the accused did tell the CID: "the column is written by one writer" - is the truth - there being conceivably no other possible version or any other intermediate position or version. In this context, the drawing of such an inference, i.e. that the accused did tell the CID that " column is written by one writer " - is irresistible for in this case there is the added peculiarity or singularity that such an inference is fortified by the accused’s own admission, made in several contexts in the course of his evidence as pointed out above, that he did tell the CID so - although, at the same time, he also sought by devious means and explanations to whittle down the force of that admission, if I may put it that way. No amount of linguistic manipulation can camouflage the fact that the writer of the relevant gossip column was one person and also the fact that the accused had said so to the CID.
What is the need for the accused, now, to make it appear that the relevant gossip column was written by "several writers" or why did it become necessary for the accused to jettison the position that : " the column is written by one writer" - which was what had been stated by him to the CID? Such a volte - face was rendered necessary in view of the fact that the accused-editor (at the trial) took up the position, | somewhat suprisingly, that he also wrote 3 passages of the relevant gossip column, and that he did so,WITHOUT THE REMOTEST CONCEPTION OF THE CONTENTS OF THE REST OF THE GOSSIP COLUMN. To quote from the evidence of the accused : " I have not had the faintest knowledge of the article except the portion that I wrote." In this context, the fact that the relevant gossip column, in the whole, consisted of 37 or 38 passages calls for remark.
It needs to be stressed (even assuming that this was the true position ) that such a thing, viz., the fact that the accused wrote just 3 passages of the relevant gossip column, had not been even hinted at by the accused in his statement to the CID, let alone mention that fact (to the CID). The statement to the CID had been made on 22.02.1995 and it was more than one year later that the accused stated in court for the 1st time that he also wrote 3 passages - an interval of time which had given the accused a lot of "time for reflection and for concocting a story" - as he seems to have done.
The fact that the writer of the 1st paragraph of the gossip column clearly had knowledge of all the parties described in the relevant gossip column had been shown above and already commented on in this judgment. The accused’s evidence was that he wrote 3 passages about a mix-up in the allocation of a house to a minister. In this context, that is, in relation to the evidence of the accused that he wrote 3 passages without the slightest notice or knowledge or what preceded or followed the 3 passages he, now says, he wrote, it is of interest to note that the passage immediately preceding the 1st of the 3 (three) passages that the accused now claims he wrote was a passage in the following terms : "Now enough about parties. Let’s get down to more serious things, for instance, this week’s mix up between ministers for an official residence caused by a third ministry."
(The above passage immediately precedes the 1st passage claimed to have been written by the accused and immediately succeeds the last passage relating to and describing the parties. It is an intermediate passage.)
The above intermediate passage may be called a passage of transition, effecting as it does, a passage or change frcm one subject to another, i.e. from the subject of parties to the subject of mix-up in the allocation of a residence. Of one thing one can be certain, if of no other, that is,that the writer of this passage of transition too has had knowledge not only of all the parties but also of the mix-up - a fact which is, to say the least, strongly suggestive of the fact that the writer of the passage regarding the mix-up and the writer of the passages relating to all parties is the self same person. In fact, the whole gossip column in question has a unified sequence which places it beyond controversy that it is the work or composition of one writer.
It is to be observed that the relevant gossip column consisted of 37 or 38 passages. The position, i.e. that the accused wrote just 3 passages thereof, i.e. of the entire gossip column, had been adopted at the trial as integral to the accused’s evidence to the effect that the relevant gossip column was written by "several writers". Inasmuch as the proposition that "several writers" wrote the gossip column in question had been rejected above (for stated reasons) - rejection of the belated theory put forward by the accused in his evidence that he wrote just 3 passages of the gossip column - is, more or less, a logical necessity. In any event, as what is stated in the sequel would show, the version that the accused wrote just 3 passages of the relevant gossip column has to be rejected on its own intrinsic worthlessness. When questioned as to why he (the accused) .failed to mention to the CID - the fact that he wrote (only) 3 passages of the relevant gossip column (marked P3) the accused stated as follows :
Q : Did you tell the CID that you wrote 3 passages of P3?
A : I was not asked and I did not tell. (25.09.1996 - 10.45 a.m.)
(The fact that he wrote just 3 passages had been disclosed by him in court voluntarily in his evidence- in-chief.)
Also, without being asked he had told the CID - " I, of course, as the editor take overall responsibility for all news items published in the newspaper." ( It is to be noted that on 25.09.1996 - 10.45 a.m.-page 01 - the accused admitted having told the CID that he took "overall responsibility for all news items published in the newspaper. ") In any event, what makes him say in court, be it noted, on his own initiative that he wrote just 3 passages?
Further, cross-examined the accused stated thus :
Q : You also said - "I of course as the Editor take overall responsibility of all news items". In that answer you took all responsibility for the entire newspaper. But you did not take responsibility for what you wrote in P3 and you did not tell the CID that you were a contributor to P3 ?
A : I took the responsibility of the news items as an editor but not as a writer of feature articles."
The above answer of the accused is revealing. When the accused told the CID that he took the responsibility as the editor for all news items, he (the accused) was thereby seeking to negative or exclude any responsibility as a writer as he (the accused) himself had stated in the above answer (in evidence) wherein he had stated : "I took the responsibility.... but not as a writer." In other words, the impression that he sought to give the CID was that he had nothing to do with the writing thereof, i.e. of the relevant gossip column - although he held himself responsible, ex officio, so to speak, in respect of the entire contents of the newspaper.
The accused had also said, in the course of his evidence (25.09.1996 - 10.45 a.m.) that he did not mention the fact that he wrote only 3 passages of the relevant gossip column because, to use his own words: " I was not asked that question specifically. If I was asked I may have answered it."
The evidence of the accused on this aspect provides interesting reading for when he was further cross-examined on a subsequent trial date (10.10.1996 - 12.25 p.m) he had stated :
Q: You told court that you did not say that you wrote these 3 paragraphs in P3 because they did not ask you?
A : Yes.
But, a little before that, on the same date (10.10.1996 - 12.25) the accused had also, in the course of his evidence, stated :
Q : Mr.Ratnatunga, if the CID asked you whether you wrote these three paragraphs would you have told them that you wrote these three paragraphs ?
A : I cannot say that now. I cannot say whether I would have given my name or not.
The accused had also stated thus: On 25.09.1996 (11.35 a.m.) - "Investigations was to find out who wrote the article, if they were interested they could have asked me whether I wrote any other items in that column....."
It is to be observed that even in the above answer given in court the accused had clearly used the word "column" to mean the whole gossip column for he speaks of "any other items in that column." It is not to be forgotten that when he (the accused) was cross examined as to whether he told the CID thus: "The column is written by one writer"- he (the accused) said that in that answer to the CID, the term "column meant an item" in the column and not the whole column.
Return to News/Comments Contents Page
| HOME PAGE | FRONT PAGE | EDITORIAL/OPINION | PLUS | TIMESPORTS
Please send your comments and suggestions on this web site to
info@suntimes.is.lk or to
webmaster@infolabs.is.lk