Don't give up on the church, pastor tells gays (Observer)

Board member of Dwayne's House Reverend Fowler who also spoke at JFLAG IDAHOT symposium on May 16 prior to the Bain furore was reported on today in the Jamaica Observer while her points are substantive I have to say that if the lobbyists she supports were not so conflicted and directionless in certain respects in the first place we would not be in this predicament we now find ourselves at this time of the struggle. 

Actual service paraphernalia handled by Reverend Robert Griffin in 2010, church from a box if you will.

Case in point the now limp-wristed Sunshine Cathedral Jamaica, SCJ (a branch of Metropolitan Community of Churches, MCC Florida) which was formed to address the spiritual and basic welfare needs of LGBT people while also reaching out to the theological community via the Interfaith discussions yet JFLAG et al allowed a secularist ambit to dominate the conversation (whilst board members cross sit on groups missing the intersectional goals) hence the poisoning of the public perception with moral nihilistic objectives and the anti Christian push, the very homeless MSM issue to which she is now claiming to be directly involved in was sacrificed for same (the closure of the Safe House Pilot 2009) now the Bain issue, if on one hand the dialogue was going on with the Jamaica Umbrella Groups of Churches while on the other the loudest voices are saying down with Christian principles whilst pushing LGBT rights then what does one expect to happen?

Frankly such a tolerant position would be better sounding from a local individual than from a foreigner given the perception of imposed foreign values fuelling the push back from religious groups and individuals. The recent report of support growing for homeless teens in the Shoemaker Gully in New Kingston I wonder now with the ongoing furore when churches are riled up for the Bain issue but quiet on other societal ills.

flashback podcast on poor leadership in LGBT advocacy that has impaired the movement:

Now to the Observer article

MINISTER of the Hope United Church in Kingston, Rev Margaret Fowler has asked the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community not to give up on the church, which she said has been selective about those to whom they give pastoral care.

"I want to just encourage you not to give up on the church. Not to give up on us because some of us are there on the front-line with you," Fowler said

According to Rev Fowler, there is the idea within the church that everybody who has a different view is the enemy. "Sometimes ministers are very selective about those they see for counselling and if you don't like what you hear you just send them to someone else," Rev Fowler said.

Rev Fowler, who was speaking at the recent Jamaica Forum of Lesbians, All-Sexuals and Gays (J-FLAG) hosted Larry Chang Human Rights Symposium in Kingston, said the church should not be caught up in some of the technical issues.

Unlike Jesus who urge persons to come as they are, Rev Fowler said the modern day church does not allow people to come as they are because of the limitations that they have placed on them.

"We have to educate our own church community that we must be open to people. It is not easy to create that kind of space when you have a set of people who only want forgiveness for church people, so anyone outside the realm of the faith you have to join the line, you have to change your ways before you can receive forgiveness. But Jesus didn't say that, He simply said that those who are without sin cast the first stone and all of us have sinned and fallen short of God's glory."

According to Rev Fowler, the church is operating in a Jamaica which wants to focus on the great British empire of yesterday.

"The church is still ministering in a modern-day Jamaica of the new empire but we are still working with old empire values, hence we have a clash of cultures," she argued.

She claimed that the church has not always taken the right path and has created mayhem in many places.

"The church has tried on several occasions to work with vulnerable groups but some think we have not done a good job because all we want the vulnerable group to do is to change and to conform and to come and be like us, gentle Jesus meek and mild," she said.

However, there are those in the church, she said, who have taken the struggle and have gone on the edge and on the margin and have tried to look at things in a slightly different way, she said.

According to Rev Fowler, throughout history the church has not been good at discussing sexuality in any way, shape or form.

"You need to understand that and forgive us as a church, as it is something we like to hide and we don't want to put it out there to talk about it," she said.

The debate about sexual orientation, she said, can be looked at from two angles -- that of the theological biblical angle "where I would come and preach and speak on various Bible text sor we can simply exercise our pastoral duty as Christians and as ministers and there are brothers and sisters out there and the gay community and non-gay community and a variety of communities that need the pastoral approach and commitment of the church".

Father Sean Major-Campbell, priest in charge of Christ Church Vineyard Town, said he not only agrees with Rev Fowler but believes the church needs to stop limiting itself to the Old Testament stories.

According to Major-Campbell, it is the cultural narrative which often informs our views and not evidence-based position such as what new research is suggesting.

"I believe there are many persons who generally have limited themselves to the Old Testament stories and interpretations and narratives which really does not help, because much of what we read for example the Levitical tradition does not necessarily apply to our context. I believe that we also need to try more to operate from a position of compassion, a position of human rights, a position of respect for all," he told the Jamaica Observer.

The easier thing to do, according to Father Major-Campbell, is to quote some Bible verses and not do the hard work which is to think and use our brains.

"We were given our brains first before we were given the Bible and to engage more the reality of people's experiences on the ground. How do people understand themselves, recognising that the Bible is neither a medical book nor a science book and many of the things we need to do to understand more about human life and living and reality is to engage the various disciplines and hear what they have to say," he said.

And given that his views on homosexuality are different from those of several other church leaders, Father Major-Campbell said he remained patient with those who have not yet come to that position of deeper understanding and deeper appreciation of the broader human family.

"Certainly our human community is not made up of heterosexuals alone or one particular race or one particular colour or one particular nationality or one particular sexuality; the human family is much bigger than we often are prepared to deal with," he insisted.

Meanwhile, Pastor Donald Stewart of the Portmore Lane Covenant Community Church questioned where the church should draw the line if it is to be totally inclusive without any restrictions. He questioned if the church is supposed to have no limitation, should it consent to marrying blood siblings. "Where do you draw the line: are you to marry everyone that comes or is there to be some principle?" he questioned.

Pointing to Bible scripture quoted by Rev Fowler, Pastor Stewart said although Jesus said whosoever has no sin let him cast the first stone He also said in the same passage: Woman, go out and sin no more.

But Rev Fowler in dismissing that argument said Jamaica is a long way from having same sex marriages and so this is not something she is concerned about.

"I am more concerned about the young men in the gully in New Kingston at this time. There are a whole lot of people sinning within our church communities which we need to root out and so we have to take the stick out of our own eye before we go to somebody else," she said.

ENDS

Sorry but the gains made though incremental have been wiped out for the most part as daggers are drawn now and I wonder how can those be repaired or reforged?

follow up radio interview:

additional listening May 27th 2014:

Peace and tolerance

H

Is Freedom Of Expression At Risk? asks JFLAG advocate

It may seems so if we are to follow the more vocal and strident anti gay voices as previously latent or dormant feelings have been reawakened in light of the Bain matter. Sometimes I wonder when I see some articles and the folks behind them, does Mr Nelson not realise the public relations nightmare the organization he is linked to JFLAG is now facing and that the work done by previous advocates to get to some real semblance of tolerance has been wiped out by the poor monitoring and subsequent late action by some of his superiors?

Does he not understand the implications of the secular humanist ambit that was added to the public advocacy and yet they expect a tolerance message to resonate with an already cynical public? There seems to be hypocrisy on all sides with the JCHS head complaining of name calling by gay advocates yet he (Dr Wayne West) has no trouble eloquently reeling them off such as "The “utterly fascist, utterly Stalinist” , neocolonial ,imperialist, anti-free speech, thought- policing, intolerant ,belligerent , Mujahideen , ayatollahs of anal, Taliban Gaystapo." (taken from his blog) he also tries to claim that:

"TTT maintains that up to about five years ago the author would have not resisted removal of Jamaica’s buggery.

Testifyingtotruth has no intention of peeping into anyone bedrooms but is even more committed to make sure that no one removes Jamaican’s fundamental rights to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience and parental rights and this is the clear objective of the LGBT lobby which one sees unfolding in western democracies.

Testifyingtotruth is therefore committed to resisting this fascist, stalinist, neocolonial, imperialist, anti-free speech, thought policing political movement.

We do not hold the view that all LGBT persons are a part of this political movement nor do we support violence or any physical harm to LGBT persons."

Recent radio interviews with the gentleman suggests otherwise to me, take a look at this Observer report.

see Wayne West @ 1:15

The business of ethics and integrity comes into play here ON ALL SIDES involved and I notice there is very little emphasis placed on these two tenets of public advocacy especially with regards to Jamaica advocacy both on an LGBTQI front and HIV Prevention work and now obviously missing in the holy religious groups and voices as well.

Tit for tat anyone? how can there be dialogue now even in the face of a religious voice (though a foreigner) calling for the LGBT community not to give up on the church: 

see: Integrity of Jamaican LGBT Advocate Questioned, named as student loan delinquent

The religious groups feel they are being stifled as well as music artists when the action taken though justified in many respects has not been properly timed especially in relation to the bigger strategic goals of the HIV prevention strategies, one may even question the moral authority some folks have when calling out Professor Bain for conflic of interest when said COI is evident in the very groups who did so, the incestuous nature at the management and direction levels of some organizations is questionable then we wonder why decisions and indeed ethics are missing. Attaching the Charter of Rights in this on the context of freedom of speech and not of LGBT rights and recognition seems a little disingenuous to me and some other folks who have commented on this piece and why wasn't this espoused long before the present impasse?

There needs to be some major changes in the strategies on public advocacy on LGBT issues and a clear separation of persons who themselves seems so conflicted that they cannot speak in their official capacities and alternate as it seems fit. Conflict of interest indeed.

Adding insult to injury that in the middle of the furore that is cementing of free speech suppression perceptions in the national pysche JFLAG chooses to launch a media guide on how journalists should use or not certain terms, the RJR interview with Dionne Jackson Miller was clear as the snickers in between the dialogue with Jaevion on May 22nd just indicated the madness of it all as she asked him "You don't think that that might stir resentment amongst professional journalists who are saying who are you to be telling me what to ask?" sometimes I wonder if the J is in the real world? George Davis of Nationwide radio also made dissenting remarks as well to the effect that what right have they (JFLAG) to tell journalists what to say, one could easily see how this also plays into the belief that freedom of expression is being stifled, such a glossary or guide should have been out and on their website eons ago as was agreed in a meeting I attended when Dr Robert Carr was alive and the Chair of the then management committee but such are the repercussions of late action and poor pro-activity.

Here is the article by Jaevion Nelson (limited free viewing, paid subscription may be needed to see it in full)

Freedom of expression/speech is arguably one of the most fundamental rights we enjoy. If nothing else, Betty-Ann Blaine, Daniel Thomas and Shirley Richards, who have been at the forefront of recent protests at the University of the West Indies, subsequent to the removal of Professor Brendan Bain as head of CHART, are right about its importance.

While the public has been misled into believing that the Bain-UWI-Civil Society issue is about freedom of expression, it gives us an opportunity to have a discussion on this important issue.

Ever so often, an alarm is raised about a possible threat to this important right and we are prodded into some sort of action. What really is freedom of expression? How is freedom of expression being threatened and by whom? What does the Constitution of Jamaica and international law say about freedom of expression? How do we protect this right? These are questions we should be asking regardless of our conviction on the Bain issue or gay rights.

According to the Association for Progressive Communications (APC), "freedom of expression is a principle contained in various human rights documents. Its objective is to ensure that people are able to communicate and express opinions, in public, private, either written or spoken, without the interference of the state or others."

Section 13(3)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedom guarantees this. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), states that "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Jamaica became party to on December 19, 1966, articulates that (1) "Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and (2) "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice."

Simply put, it means that people do have a right to have dissenting views on any issue. Secularists are free to express their views about religion and the need to separate the Church from the State. Pastors can say casino gambling and flexi-work week are dangerous and should not be supported. Gay rights advocates can say that Parliament has no business in their bedroom. Christians can certainly say homosexuality is 'unnatural' and is immoral.

NOT AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT

One thing missing from the chants and protests is the fact that freedom of expression is not an absolute right; that there are limitations. As APC notes on their website, "it generally only has applicability where the purpose of expression is lawful, and where the act of expression does not infringe on the human rights of others."

Article 19(3) of the ICCPR further states that "The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; [and] (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals."

With rights come responsibilities. It is important for us to be mindful that we don't harm or restrict the rights of other people in exercising or enjoying our freedom of expression. Those who are overcome with anxiety that this right is being threatened must consider the fact that people, regardless of position in society, will and must be held accountable for what they say.

I do concede that in some cases when people are held accountable for what they have said about a minority group, it is not always justified. Human rights activists must understand that balance is critical in this regard. Not everything said is necessarily offensive and no matter how ridiculous something may sound, it is not always reason to lobby for sanctions to be applied to an individual. The oppressed should never become the oppressor.

Jaevion Nelson is a youth development, HIV and human rights advocate. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and jaevion@gmail.com

Readers you decide it is clear to me that there is just some aimless movements in as far as advocacy is concerned and it just stinks.

Peace and tolerance

H

Ian Boyne: Bain exercised terribly poor strategic judgement .....................

I am still carefully going through the materials too numerous on this issue since it broke last Sunday May 18th in the Gleaner and several other issues have arisen since then as previous posts on this blog has brought to bear, the conflict of interest is clear but long time feelings some which were dormant opposing homosexuality overall and the removal of the buggery law have since reawakened.

You may also want to hear these:

and

Ian Boyne takes on the issue as published yesterday in the Gleaner's In Focus:

Ian Boyne

Professor Brendan Bain exercised terribly poor strategic judgement in offering that affidavit which got him fired. The University of the West Indies (UWI) hardly had any option but to boot him. Overwhelming public outrage and disgust with the demagoguery of the gay lobby and its fellow travellers is absolutely justified, and the championing of freedom of speech is refreshingly welcome.

These are seemingly contradictory positions, but represent the kind of nuanced reflections which have been all too often absent from the largely visceral and glandular discussion of this issue. We need to cool our heads (well, more accurately, our emotions) and rationally and dispassionately discuss this issue.

I have warned repeatedly in these columns about the profoundly anti-democratic tendencies in the gay lobby and its threat to freedom of speech. It exploits the word 'homophobia' as a conversation-stopper, labelling every opposition to homosexuality, however mild, as blind prejudice, bigotry and stigmatisation. The gay lobby has succeeded in defining even intellectually honest objections to homosexuality (an oxymoron?) as hate speech and it will pursue and persecute anyone who opposes its agenda of normalising homosexuality. I have no illusions about either the gay lobby's power or agenda.

The gay lobby and its human-rights allies have suffered significant reputational damage over its bullying of Bain out of his job as head of a UWI project dealing with HIV/AIDS. The Jamaica Umbrella Group of Churches puts it well in its release last Thursday: "A decision such as this against such a reputable professional has served to concretise the view that those with a homosexual agenda are prepared to discriminate against, stigmatise and silence those who do not share their world view. Therefore, this is likely to cement the lines of separation and bolster the stridency in opposing the homosexual lifestyle."

Says the church group: "No doubt Professor Bain's casualty will be lifted up as a local example of what happens to those who share a different world view." However, I believe this issue has been mischaracterised as one of the denial of academic freedom and as mere cowering on the part of the UWI administration. I believe we are conflating some issues needlessly.

First, it is not one of academic freedom. Professor Bain is a retired professor. He has not been penalised as a professor with Evangelical views. He held and expressed those views all those years as a professor and was very active in the Christian community for many years in media pushing traditional Christian family values. He was never victimised by the UWI for that.

But if Professor Bain had lost the support and goodwill of major organisations working in HIV/AIDS, how could he effectively carry out his work as head of Caribbean HIV/AIDS Regional Training (CHART)? What practical sense would it make for the UWI to continue to keep him working in a capacity when those whom he would need to work with reject him? Put the blame on the organisations which vociferously voiced their opposition to his continued leadership, not the UWI that was managing the project.

But you say the UWI must not bow for "30 pieces of silver". It must stand up for principles and its values. Well, it turns out, as Vice-chancellor E. Nigel Harris told us clearly in media interviews last week that the UWI's values are in the direction of the decriminalisation of homosexuality - on the wrong side of which Professor Bain found himself in that Belize case. UWI Chancellor Sir George Alleyne was very forthright and even strident in his address to the 2013 UWI graduating class in Barbados. He sees criminalisation of homosexuality as being against human rights. Harris says explicitly that is the UWI's position.

So faced with sharp and trenchant opposition to Bain's continuing to lead CHART and its own values, the UWI, it seems to me, acted consistently and justifiably in firing Professor Bain. It clearly was going to lose that contract. No doubt about that. But in light of its own position on the importance of decriminalisation to non-stigmatisation and non-discrimination, and the practical fact that Bain's constituency rejected him, it would be only cowardice that would make the UWI keep Bain. Quite the opposite of what some simplistically charge.

The UWI made a significant statement in its release which would justify its dismissal of Bain from the project (not the academy, mark you): "The majority of HIV and public-health experts believe that criminalising men having sex with men and discriminating against them violates their human rights, puts them at even higher risk, reduces their access to services, forces the HIV epidemic underground, thereby increasing the HIV risk. These are positions advocated by the UN, UNAIDS, WHO, PAHO, the international human rights communities and PANCAP (the Pan Caribbean partnership Against AIDS)."

I don't accept all those assumptions. But if there is such broad consensus in the field on the importance of decriminalisation to the HIV fight — and Bain must be aware of this — it was foolhardy for Bain to be leading a regional group and to so blatantly go against its accepted norms in that Belizean case. Go and do your thing. Exercise your freedom of conscience to stand upon for your conviction. But you have to be prepared to pay the price.

The funders of the project, the people paying his salary, have a certain view, whether you agree with them or not. They are both paying the piper and calling the tune. If you fundamentally disagree with them and their direction, you resign. Nobody has any absolute right to any job. There are certain convictions that we have which make us ineligible for certain positions. You can't head a feminist agency and you publicly lobby for women to stay at home and teach that men have a divine right to rule.

We can challenge the groups on their view that the HIV struggle must include decriminalisation. I personally feel their arguments are weak. Even if homosexuality is decriminalised, stigma will still remain once cultural attitudes don't change. Stigmatisation does not depend on laws. That's an elementary fallacy. Ask any black American. Read the literature on race, discrimination and stigmatisation and see how enduring stigmatisation is even after the Civil Rights Act.

The Caribbean gay lobby and its human-rights compatriots make unwarranted assumptions. Do you really believe that it is only because gays are threatened with police action why they don't turn up at clinics and health centres to get treatment and why they don't use condoms, etc.? Really? Nevertheless, I can't see any rational reason to support the continued criminalisation of homosexuality. (Note, this is not the same as arguing for legalisation, which I reject in our context for democratic and religious reasons.)

There is nothing in even conservative Evangelical theology which would say homosexuality should be criminalised while adultery and fornication are not. In the Old Testament, adultery, fornication and homosexuality were all capital offences (like Sabbath breaking). Homosexuality was called an abomination, yes, but in terms of biblical law, it had no higher penalty over adultery and fornication. Why should Professor Bain, as an Evangelical Christian, feel that homosexuals should be locked up and not fornicators and adulterers, when his own Bible provides absolutely no justification for such a differentiation?

That HIV/AIDS has a higher prevalence among male homosexuals is an established fact that is not even contested by gay people. In fact, Bain's testimony, which I read carefully, is sound scientifically, but in no way supports continued criminalisation of homosexuality. I am happy about the outrage and deep concern for freedom of speech, but the issue is misperceived as a freedom-of-expression issue. It is not. It is about loss of confidence by a constituency, justified or not, and the decision of a university to keep a lucrative project which is in tune with its own values.

Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist who works with the Jamaica Information Service. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and ianboyne1@yahoo.com.

Professor's Bain's Testimony Threatened Foreign Funding (Gleaner letter) ....

So as the fire-storm continues since the news came to light that there was a conflict of interest where the former head of CHART testified in a Belizean court on HIV matters here is one such letter and some other links, I am still evaluating the pros and cons of this as this ball from left field has further eroded the gains made over many years in as far as LGBT advocacy and HIV Prevention work.

Today's Gleaner cartoon says it loudest that the perception is now cemented that the lobby is a bunch of bullies:

Demonstration at UWI last week

Here is the letter in question as captioned in the title

THE EDITOR, Sir:

I refer to Gordon Robinson's contribution titled 'Caving in to lobby hijackers' published in The Gleaner of May 21, 2014.

One hesitates to enter the lists against my friend Gordon, armoured as he is with wit, knowledge and intelligence. However, I will present what I believe to be three facts, and then I will ask two questions which I hope Gordon will answer. First, the facts:

1. Since the launch of USAID's HIV/AIDS programme in 1986, the agency has been on the forefront of the global AIDS crisis.

2. That agency's position is the same as that expressed by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in 2009: "Shine the full light of human rights on HIV. I urge all countries to remove punitive laws, policies, and practices that hamper the AIDS response. In many countries, legal frameworks institutionalise discrimination against groups most at risk. Yet, discrimination against sex workers, drug users, and men who have sex with men only fuels the epidemic and prevents cost-effective interventions. We must ensure that AIDS responses are based on evidence, not ideology, and reach those most in need and most affected."

3. The Caribbean HIV/AIDS Regional Training (CHART) Centre is funded primarily by overseas agencies: USAID, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, Health Resources & Services Administration, Global AIDS Programme, and the Global Fund.

Now, my two questions: Was the expressed opinion of CHART's head, Professor Bain, in consonance with the stated position of that organisation's funders? If it was not so consonant, and in the face of very strident opinion expressed by a large number of organisations which CHART is mandated to assist, is it not the prime duty of the UWI to ensure that there is not the slightest possibility that the funding of CHART, this most critically important organisation in the Caribbean's fight against AIDS, be in any way compromised?

JEFFREY C. COBHAM
jeffreycobham@gmail.com

ENDS

In the meantime the discourse continues in the public spaces and here is a more rational look at the issue as recording this morning on HOT 102FM's Morning Edition with a leading Epidemiologist and former head of the national HIV program on the matter:

Sadly we have been left with a black eye as the cemented perception on minds of the anti gay voices especially,

Protests are planned today as well at the gates of the University as if that is going to change the clear conflict of interest on the part of Professor Bain, In this on May 22 file photo, a protester stands in front of the University of the West Indies, Mona campus, in a show of support for Professor Brendan Bain. - Norman Grindley/Chief Photographers Gleaner.

A protest has been planned for this morning outside the University of West Indies (UWI), Mona Reported the Gleaner earlier to demand a response to a petition regarding the dismissal of Professor Brendan Bain.

A statement sent from the email addressjusticeforbrendanbain@gmail.com says the protest was planned for this morning.

Professor Bain was fired last week as the director of the Caribbean HIV/AIDS Regional Training (CHART), Network for providing an expert report in a 2010 suit brought by a gay man in Belize.

Certain lobby groups have claimed that the statement supported the retention of the buggery law in the country as a means of stemming the HIV/AIDS rate.

More than 30 gay and human rights groups had written to the UWI saying they lost confidence in Professor Bain as the head of the training network.

However, last week a group began an online petition demanding, among other things that the UWI issue a public apology to Professor Bain and Jamaicans.

According to the latest email, a protest is planned for today because the UWI vice-chancellor Professor E. Nigel Harris, has failed to respond to the petition.

Dr Carolyn Gomes, the executive director of the Caribbean Vulnerable Communities, which is one lobby groups that sought Bain's removal says the protest will be futile, as the university had no option but to get rid of Professor Bain.

The human rights groups have maintained that Bain's actions in the case presented a conflict of interest. 

My fundamental question is when the dust settles how are the small tolerance gains made over the years be reforged and re-cemented if possible in the national psyche overall?

Here also is the Jamaica Umbrella Groups of Churches take on RJR's Beyond the Headlines last week:

Other letters and discourse of interest:

UWI Did the right thing 

Artists must see the Bigger Picture

Peace and tolerance

H

Police crack College of Agriculture, Science and Education lecturer murder

Police have cracked the murder case involving 44-year-old CASE lecturer Cyprian Moncrieffe. Moncrieffe was found brutally murdered in his bed, Monday, September 9 last year, in Portland. Reliable sources have told a media outlet that police have arrested one man and are seeking two others in the killing. 

The Times has details of the police arrest and what they now know but the newspaper is withholding the information as police say its release now would compromise the investigations. Cops would only say that the man arrested was known to Moncreiffe and didn’t act alone. 

Mr Moncrieffe was found dead near mid-day, in a flat where he lived alone, on the campus of the College of Arts Science and Education (CASE), near Port Antonio. Police found his body in his bed with two knives stuck in the back of his head. The savagery of the attack led police to suspect what they called a “crime of passion”. They claimed that Moncrieffe’s killer might have known him as there was no forced entry to the flat. 

A lap top and his Honda CRV motor vehicle were taken but police said it was obviously not intended as a robbery as several valuable items were left untouched.

 

Police investigations initially suggested that Moncrieffe was killed between Friday September 6 and Sunday September 8. An alarm was raised when the usually punctual Moncreiffe was not seen at school Monday morning. 

Before police were called to the campus, Monday, September 9 Moncrieffe had been reported missing and, in a missing person report, police said “Moncrieffe left CASE in his motor car, sporting a pair of black jeans pants, a pair of grey-and-aqua Nike shoes and a white polo shirt.” They said he had been last seen Friday, September 6.