Aftenposten: Difficult for us to consider a different reality
It is difficult for the psychiatrists to consider a different reality because if they publicly agree in court that they believe Breivik's group exists and that he did meet people as he claims then how will that look in the media and in the public eye?
Imagine the consequences for the Norwegian police controlling the case, the Prosecutors now in court and what message that would then send to the Norwegian public and all international observers following the case.
It is impossible for anyone in Norway to claim Breivik is connected to others and that it is not all delusions in his mind because of the wider implications (think about it).
The health professionals have been forced to work around the State's 'official' claims surrounding Breivik even though the police are still investigating the case so should never have made 'official' conclusions in the first place.
The agenda from the very beginning has been to have Breivik written off as a "solo terrorist" connected to no one who is 'insane' which means someone (plural) on State level has a hand behind the events and in no way wants the real meaning and bigger story behind the events emerging so they have closed the case down and white-washed everything ruling out all other possibilities other than the predetermined one which is Breivik the "solo terrorist" connected to no one who is insane.
Find his English 'mentor' and then the unraveling of the truth begins.
Quote: We have no methodology to determine whether one person may consider themselves to have met another person, or if he is lying, says Aspaas.
Based upon that statement the second set of psychiatrists cannot rule out the possibility that Breivik did actually meet someone in London in 2002.
It was 10 years ago so the full truth behind that time frame of history is hard for anyone to know for certain other than those involved themselves.
How can the Norwegian police prove beyond doubt that Breivik did not meet his alleged English 'mentor' in London after his trip to Liberia in 2002?
Their claim that he did not centers on the fact that they cannot prove he did so Breivik must be 'insane' and made it all up.
What type of investigative logic is that?
Further reading: Liberia - London connection
Quote: Even the terrorist believes that he is part of a network that has given him the task of writing his manifesto, but prosecutors believe that Knights Templar exist only in Breivik's own imagination.
Is it not suspicious that Breivik bought an expensive pen after his Liberia meeting in 2002 a few days before he landed in London. He then went on to write his now infamous manifesto which is what his actions center around, claiming he was told to write it.
Imagination is one thing and facts are another.
The purchasing of that pen in the context of Breivik writing the manifesto and claiming he was told to write it in 2002 after his Liberia trip points to the fact that he is telling the truth and the pen is a sign for the future (2011) when looking back which he knew would happen.
He has just been told he has to sit down and write a manifesto and the next thing straight after he buys an expensive pen.
What other explanation is there for Breivik the author of the infamous "2083" manifesto purchasing an expensive pen around the time he claims to have been recruited into a secretive group and told to write the manifesto?
Quote: He may have thought he has met some people, and this has gone over into delusions. Or he may have constructed the idea of being in London. There is a wealth of possible interpretations here, said Tørrissen.
What if he did actually meet individuals in London who did give him documents which is in-line with being recruited into a secretive group who are behind the terrorist attacks in Norway.
Is that not another possibility that should not be ruled out without evidence?
The Norwegian police can find no trace of this meeting taking place 10 years ago so deny it ever took place.
Do you really think that after 10 years the Norwegian police would be able to find a trace that this secretive meeting took place in London?
Of course not.
It does not mean it did not take place, it just means the Norwegian police cannot prove it did so instead of leaving the door open by saying we are keeping an open mind they have ruled out the possibility of the meeting taking place and claimed it is part of Breivik's insanity.
Another door shut that should not be shut.
Quote: Prosecutors believe that there are two scenarios of what happened in London: that Breivik lying, or that he imagines that the meeting has taken place.
Considering it was 10 years ago and impossible to say for a fact that it did not take place, should there not be three possible scenarios of what happened in London in 2002 and not only the two the prosecutors state?
Instead the Norwegian police have ruled out that the meeting took place without having any facts to support their assumption. Their facts are they cannot prove it took place which is baseless.
They then claim it is all in Breivik's head which would be supported in the public mind by the 'insane' label that the prosecutors have been pressing for.
Why have the Norwegian police ruled out the possibility that Breivik is telling the truth?
They would never be able to find out for certain after 10 years, the only clues you have are the suspicious traveling arrangements and facts like the pen.
If it is a secretive group versed in the art of espionage behind the terrorist attacks then it is obvious to the simplest of minds that they would have covered their tracks and not left any traces, especially not that could be found 10 years later.
The Norwegian police located Breivik in 2 cafes around the time of the alleged meeting in London but beyond that he disappeared around the time he said the meeting took place.
The evidence points to the fact that Breivik is telling the truth but in my personal opinion the truth has been covered up, up until this moment in time because if Breivik is telling the truth then there are others who can be directly implicated and if they are directly implicated then others can be directly implicated too and the question is how high do the implications go and where does it then lead?
Close the case down and white-wash it and everyone is safe.