14 August 2012

The eye of the storm - The Breivik investigation

The release of the July 22nd Commission report over the Norwegian Civil State Securities response to 'Operation Breivik' before, during, and after has shown on the outset that Norway looks like a Third World failed State.

How could that possibly be I am sure the people of Norway must be thinking to themselves with the World’s eyes now on their Country again?

From the Government responsible for the overall management of the Civil State Security, its State appointed heads of the police down to how that mandate is worked out on the ground to secure the National Security of the Country in the interests of the people.

The whole system failed on July 22nd 2011

The present Norwegian political leadership have shown that their management of the Civil State Security is nothing better than that of a failed State, but rather than accept responsibility for their failings and making way for a new political leadership in Norway after these failings that leaves blood on their hands they intend to fight any opposition and cling onto the reigns of power regardless which makes them a Political Dictatorship.

What must political analysts and serious political commentators from foreign Governments now think about the political charade going on in Norway under Jen Stoltenbergs Government and the credibility of that Government?

What is going to be even more damaging is if it turns out that Breivik was not a "solo terrorist" connected to no one as their failed police leaders have consistently said to the World. That will be the icing on the cake to top everything off.

The July 22nd Commission report only covers the police response to 'Operation Breivik' it does not cover the investigation surrounding him that concluded he was a "solo terrorist" connected to no one.

Who is now going to investigate the credibility of the police investigation to determine whether or not that 'official' conclusion was right? If not there are accomplices still out there.

Someone has just come forward stating he is Breivik's second in command in Norway and leader of one of the two cells Breivik spoke of in interrogation which could prove the point.

How will it look if the Norwegian police investigation into Breivik turns out to be a failed investigation too and their 'official' conclusion about him being a "solo terrorist" connected to no one that was propagated to the international community is wrong and he is actually connected to others?

That on top of their complete failure to defend the National Security of the Country they were tasked with.

Then you have to seriously consider the accusation that there has been a hidden hand at work completely undermining the whole National Security infrastructure of Norway so that 'Operation Breivik' was successful and then attempting to cover that up.

Then you ask the question; who and why?

Who is in over all charge of the management of the Civil State Security?

The prosecution case against Breivik in court along with the State appointed psychiatric report and psychiatric commission tells its own story to support this claim of an attempted State sanctioned cover-up, but we do not know about the official police investigation surrounding Breivik yet because nobody has investigated its credibility, although there is enough evidence in the public domain to draw your own conclusion from and there is still outstanding evidence that has not been brought to light yet.

It has now been proven through the July 22nd Commission that the Norwegian police failed at every aspect concerning 'Operation Breivik', so on that basis how can anyone place any trust in the subsequent police investigation and ‘official’ conclusion?

You cannot...

One of the key questions in the police investigation was Breivik's trip to Liberia. After 10 months the Norwegian police could not trace anyone Breivik is said to have met in Liberia.

The newspaper VG took 6 days to trace Breivik's diamond cover story contact whilst the trial was mid way through.

What were the Norwegian police doing for 10 months when this was a critical aspect of the investigation?

During the trial a Detective working on the case stated that Breivik was a "solo terrorist" connected to no one.

He then went on to say to the trial judge that the police were still investigating (during trial) whether or not he was actually connected to anyone.

How can you state an official conclusion in a court of law saying one thing and then completely undermine that conclusion in the same breathe by saying something completely contradictory?

And they have tried placing the schizophrenic label on Breivik.

Breivik also claimed that the police would find a link within his facebook accounts proving he is connected to others, but the polices response was that they would not go looking to prove or disprove this claim because it would be like looking for a needle in a haystack.

Is finding clues in murder enquiries sometimes like looking for needles in haystacks? (This was a bit different from a run of the mill murder enquiry.)

Is that not what the police are employed to do so as to get to the bottom of the truth?

They say Breivik had no help mentally or physically in his attacks, so the question remains as to where Breivik learnt to build a bomb big enough to blow up his Government building because he definitely did not test detonate any bombs on his rented farm.

The list of inconsistencies surrounding the official investigation into 'Operation Breivik' are numerous but the general public have been force fed the 'official' conclusion by the Norwegian State because they own and control the official 'platform' and everyone is supposed to believe in and have confidence in their leaders, so what they say must be true and it has become an accepted fact around the World that Breivik was a “solo terrorist” connected to no one.

Now we are finding out that what they say is not true only the media have not criticised the ‘official’ conclusion surrounding Breivik they have just willingly propagated the ‘official’ line which continues to endorse the false fact that Breivik was a “solo terrorist” connected to no one.

Why would the Norwegian State in control of the Breivik case lie? What are they covering up so as to lie?

No one else is doing the lying and covering up because the whole case is under the direct control of the Norwegian State and Jens Stoltenberg’s ultimate leadership with all heads of Civil State Security over the case being political appointments from his office.

2 fundamental questions remain in my mind and that is who is Alan Ayling aka Alan Lake’s friend ‘Richard the Lionheart’ and who is he connected to in the Norwegian Government.

2 outstanding questions yet to be brought out into the light.

Alan Ayling was interviewed as the possible English ‘mentor’ behind Breivik so these questions are fundamental to the ongoing investigation, only they have not been answered.

What happens when it is proven that Breivik was not a “solo terrorist” connected to no one like the Norwegian State have consistently stated?

This is the eye of the storm in Norway now because if proven it answers all of the questions and accusations levelled at the Norwegian State.

The facts placed into context and this is outstanding evidence yet to be brought forward.

Norwegian police Director admits lying

No comments: