Dear Mr Halto,
I have decided to write this letter in an open format so that my next step is public knowledge and my reason for this.
I did try going the private route but to no avail.
I have been falsely accused in the worlds media as being Ander’s Breivik’s English ‘mentor’ which has brought with it many problems not just to my own life but also that of my family because as I hope you can understand, being labelled as the man behind the monster who murdered 69 kids on their summer camp because of their political beliefs is not only, not a very nice situation to find myself in, but also a very dangerous position and does not do my family reputation much good which in turn effects my whole families personal and work lives.
Who knows all of the complexities behind standing accused of such a grave crime and what angle the threats to my life and well being now come from.
As soon as I learned that I stood accused of being the English ‘mentor’ I publicly stated that I would travel to Norway to prove my innocence which is what I did, and after 15 hours of interview over 3 days your investigators know for a fact that the media accusation is false.
This makes me wonder why you even stated publicly that you wanted to speak to me in the first place.
Did you base your assumption on the media’s accusation or evidence that is not in the public domain and a part of the ongoing investigation?
If on the media accusation then I call into question your role as a representative of the Norwegian police and the credibility of the department that you represent, and now leaves you wide open for legal proceedings as I continue my pursuit to clear my name.
Stating that I am “only a witness” does not disprove the false claim it only leaves the label hanging over my life and continued doubt in people’s minds.
If you believed that I was the English ‘mentor’ then was it not your responsibility as a representative of a Norwegian public institution to go through the relevant “official” channels to speak to me and not issue a public statement stating to the world through the media that you wanted to speak to me, thus adding fuel to the media fire that was already raging around me?
Not only this, it took almost 4 weeks for the Norwegian police to actually talk to me and this was not because you made contact with me through the relevant official channels which is what normally happens, and then invited me to Norway for interview. It was after I went to the British Embassy in Malta asking for advice on what I should do after standing accused in the worlds media of being Ander’s Breivik’s English ‘mentor’ based not only on other peoples finger pointing but also on your finger pointing. It was all over the World news that you wanted to speak to me because you personally told this to the media in the days after Breivik’s arrest and it took me coming to you and not the other way around.
I heard nothing back from the British Embassy in over a week and in the end it was a Norwegian journalist who gave me the contact details of the investigation for me to contact someone there which is what I did.
I spoke to the investigating officer who dealt with me whilst in Norway about you issuing a public statement ruling me out from being the English ‘mentor’ as I had just proved this point after my time in your Country which I personally feel was the very least you could do.
The first response to this in conversation was that it was difficult because if you publicly ruled me out from being the English ‘mentor’ then this would leave the question in people’s minds of who then is the English ‘mentor’ which might harm the ongoing investigation.
I accepted this to begin with so as to help with your enquiry but a month or so later with absolutely no developments concerning this point that I stand accused in the world’s media I raised the issue again.
When I did raise this point again I received an email back from you stating that Ander’s Breivik had named me himself.
That is a very serious claim to make by a Norwegian police lawyer and your credibility and future position hinges on this statement because I now want to test that statement that came from you and if found to be false I want action taken.
Here are the points.
1) Has Ander’s Breivik named me as being his English ‘mentor’ in interview?
If so, then I accept that statement and then it is your responsibility to investigate why he has stated this because it is false, and if not your statement can only leave one other option.
2) Did you base your public statement on Ander’s Breivik’s claim in his manifesto that his English ‘mentor’ is called “Richard the Lionhearted”?
If so, then everyone investigating my blog and my life prior to July 22nd 2011 will know that I have never ever used the name “Richard the Lionhearted”. I used Lionheart as my nom de plume writing name as an independent name in itself and nothing to do with the historical figure, contrary to what you might have thought.
No matter how close you thought it was it was false which makes your public statement stating Ander’s Breivik named me himself false too which in turn makes you responsible in part, to my ongoing situation that has resulted from your initial statement.
As a lawyer it is your responsibility to state facts to the media and not assumptions as facts especially when they have such a detrimental effect upon someone’s life, and in this case being implicated in the worst European mass murder of the 21st Century.
At this point in time I do not know whether or not Ander’s Breivik has named me himself in police interview, only you know this, but I will safely assume he has not because he knows himself that it is a lie.
I have sought legal advice in the UK and legal representation in Norway and am now just waiting for someone to take up this case to test your statement to prove my innocence.
I did not want to go down this route as several different sources in Norway will testify too. All I wanted was for you to do “the right and just thing” by publicly ruling me out from the English ‘mentor’ position just like you ruled me in, but you have refused to do this and given me no alternative but to test your statement and prove my innocence.
I am not a pawn or scapegoat in your investigation that you can use just because it suits you because you’re the one in authority, with blame levelled at me so deflecting blame or attention from others, or other lines of enquiry. I and everyone else know that if I am not the English ‘mentor’ mentioned in the manifesto, then the big question is; who is the English ‘mentor’?
That must be a question the families of those murdered by Ander’s Breivik and those with a wider interest in the case will want to know.
An official complaint with legal proceedings will now be lodged in due course.