24 August 2012

Questioning Norway’s State Prosecution

VG: 9 of 10 Norwegians believe verdict is correct

How could they have gotten their case so wrong.

First there was the court ordered State sanctioned psychiatric report that deemed Breivik to be a paranoid schizophrenic who was psychotic at the time of his actions which meant he was criminally insane.

There was uproar over this diagnosis by most concerned parties in the case which challenged the court to order another evaluation to take place.

The State prosecutors challenged this and argued in court against another evaluation taking place as they were happy with the first reports diagnosis of Breivik.

The judge had no alternative but to overrule this challenge due to the seriousness of the case before the court and allow for another independent evaluation to take place.

The second evaluation came to a completely different conclusion to the first and stated that Breivik was criminally sane during the time of his actions and was not schizophrenic or psychotic as the first report concluded.

The psychiatric commission charged with overseeing the debate in court over Breiviks mental health had no comments to make against the first report which meant they fully supported its findings. Instead they challenged the integrity of the second report by passing negative comments on it which meant they did not fully endorse it.

The State prosecutors then prosecuted Breivik based upon the first evaluation seeking to have him found criminally insane.

The first report was undermined by all leading health care professionals in the field of psychiatry in the court room including a specialist team who dealt with Breivik in prison around the clock who found no signs of schizophrenia or psychosis in him.

It was also heavily criticised by most leading experts in the field of psychiatry externally who were following the legal proceedings remotely.

The State prosecutors ignored all leading witnesses and continued to uphold the first report in their prosecution case and then left it to the judge to determine the verdict hoping that the law of doubt would be enough to gain the conviction of ‘criminally insane’ against Breivik.

After 2 months deliberations the judge ruled against the prosecution and passed the criminally sane verdict on Breivik. This verdict was a unanimous decision from all the judges sitting over the case which meant there was no doubt from them about their verdict.

In summing up the judge also heavily criticised the work of the first set of psychiatrists who wrote the first State sanctioned report.

The Attorney General who sat above the whole State’s case against Breivik only now states that they should have allowed for the second evaluation to have taken place at the beginning, after the State’s prosecution case has now been completely exposed as an attempt to secure a verdict contrary to the ‘rule of law’.

The question is; why contrary to the evidence did the State seek to secure the criminally insane label against Breivik at all costs?

The Norwegian State’s prosecution case against Breivik has been shown to be fundamentally flawed to the point that the Attorney General should have stepped in and directed his State appointed prosecutors to accept that the first psychiatric report was wrong and misleading. He did not do this, instead the State sanctioned psychiatric commission under his authority upheld that report and undermined the second independent report in an attempt to tip the scales towards the States favour and prosecution case in the eyes of the judges.

Is that not perverting the course of justice?

But this is the Norwegian Attorney General doing it who is above the law because he is sits on the throne of Norwegian law.

The question is; why have the Norwegian State been so desperate to secure the criminally insane label on Breivik contrary to the professional evidence and contrary to public opinion who were following the evidence remotely and could see for themselves?

I have my opinion about why.

This means that the State’s prosecution case against Breivik has been completely exposed as a farce, raising very serious questions about what the State were up to in the court room with the evidence now plain as day for anyone to look upon to draw a conclusion from, although it will all be wrapped up in nice clean clothes for the public perceptions. And the State’s Civil Security Apparatus concerning Breivik was also shown to be a complete farce that has made Norway look like a failed State in the eyes of all outside observers via the July 22nd Commission report that showed a catalogue of errors that allowed ‘Operation Breivik’ to be as successful as it was.

People have got to be thinking now that there is something seriously fundamentally wrong with the Norwegian State’s handling of the whole terrorist attacks inside Norway, even to the point that there has been a hidden hand at work behind the scenes orchestrating things.

All that is left now is to determine whether or not the ‘official’ police investigation into ‘Operation Breivik’ that concluded he was a “solo terrorist” connected to no one is actually a credible conclusion that can be trusted. Based upon the known evidence about the case the answer is no.

This is on top of now knowing that the police response was completely flawed with a catastrophic catalogue of errors based upon the commission report, and now their prosecution case being shown to be completely flawed with very serious questions now arising as to what went on in the court room in front of the Worlds media.

Does the evidence not point to the fact that the Norwegian State in control of the whole case have been working towards a pre-planned agenda which is to cover-up and white-wash the whole thing?

Then you look for reasons why, for which I have come to my own conclusions upon even if they do sound to be unbelievable on the face of it. The evidence is now starting to point to the fact that there might be substance to what I am saying.

The credibility of the police investigation into ‘Operation Breivik’ will now confirm or deny my claims. That is if it is investigated which it should be for the sake of those young Norwegian lives lost on July 22nd 2011 where their memory deserves for truth & justice to prevail along with other accomplices to the event held to account for their complicity.

I can only continue to wait and hope and there is still a whole investigative track outstanding surrounding my ‘official’ witness statement voluntarily given to the Norwegian police after I stood accused of being Breivik’s English ‘mentor’.

No comments: