Tampering With the Witness List

The article below describes the latest shenanigans pulled by the defense team in the Anders Behring Breivik trial. Many thanks to our Norwegian correspondent The Observer for the translation.

The translator includes this list of dramatis personae to help non-Norwegians cope with the unfamiliar names:

  • Arne Tumyhr is the leader of SIAN (Stop Islamisation of Norway)
  • Vidar Kleppe is the leader of Demokratene (Anti-Islamic political party)
  • Ronny Alte is the former leader of NDL
  • Lars Gule is of course a former wannabe terrorist arrested in Lebanon in 1977 with 500 grams of explosives in his luggage which he intended to use in a terrorist attack in Israel. I like to refer to Gule as ‘Dynamite Harry’, which is the name of a popular alcoholic character in a Norwegian comedy series from the 1970s. I think it’s a very fitting name for such a loser.

The translated article from Document.no:

Witness Chaos
By Hans Rustad

Defence attorney Geir Lippestad’s handling of the defence witnesses in the Breivik trial is scandalous. In order to have his client declared criminally sane, Lippestad wanted to prove to the court that there are many like minded individuals in Norway and that they could possibly even be morally responsible.

Circus Breivik

The complicity aspect has gradually waned as the trial has run its course and Breivik’s morbid personality has become more apparent.

But the question of like-mindedness wasn’t dropped, and it was reflected in the witness list, which roughly consisted of more or less politicised professionals, and representatives of the political opposition which covers a wide spectrum. It was with great reluctance that one was able to see one’s own name on this list next to individuals like Arne Tumyhr and Vidar Kleppe.

One definitely ran the risk of being caught between a rock and a hard place: between individuals such as Lars Gule, Mattias Gardell, Øyvind Strømmen, and Terje Emberland on the one side, and Tumhyr, Kleppe, and Ron Alte on the other.

It is as if one were to make members of SF [Socialist People’s Party — political party in 1970s Norway] responsible for the actions of RAF [Rote Armee Fraktion, Red Army Faction] terrorists if they had committed terrorist acts in Norway. Didn’t they share the same views?

When the media is unwilling to make any such distinction, the discomfort and risks become even greater. One was expected to go to court and incriminate oneself.

No obligation

Therefore it was a great surprise when Judge Ina Strømstad could reveal that privately summoned expert witnesses were under no legal obligation to testify.

Bruce Bawer and Ole Jørgen Anfindsen could therefore not legally be compelled to testify.

But what happened next was even more scandalous.

In the first lists that the Oslo District Court issued to witnesses subpoenaed by the defence team, they were listed as expert witnesses. Yesterday, day 29 of the trial, the defence team sent out a new revised list in which previous expert witnesses were now listed as ordinary witnesses.

Lippestad is changing the witness status in order to force people to witness, which is unheard of, and one is tempted to use the word “unethical” to describe his actions.

And especially after having listened to the testimony of Lars Gule on Friday. Gule was summoned to do a job: to compromise the moderate right, a job which he performed with great pleasure. If Lippestad seriously believes that people will take the stand for him after Gule’s performance in order to prove the existence of ‘like-mindedness’, he must be seriously deluded.

But there is reason to believe that some people will do so anyway.

The media bias and slander, the omission of information, form an echo chamber, if one may use the new terminology. The court also refers to witnesses as “right-wing extremists “. These accusations have become self-fulfilling, and this is serious in a case which deals with terror and mass murder.

Previous posts about the trial of Anders Behring Breivik:

2012   Apr   11   Circus Breivik
        14   The Show Begins
        16   Fjordman: The Breivik Trial Begins
        17   Trial Without Limits
        17   Cracking Down on Christian Terrorism
        18   Breivik in Brief
        19   Norwegian News Roundup
        20   The Best Laid Plans of Mice and Multiculturalists
        21   The Norwegian Straitjacket
        25   The Trial of Anders Behring Breivik: Week One
        27   Is Breivik’s Trial Unconstitutional?
    May   21   Opting Out of Circus Breivik
        22   Islamophobia ‘Experts’ to be Called in Breivik Case
        23   Narcissism Trumps Ideology
        29   The Left-Wing Media Filter
        31   A Witness Stands Down

5 thoughts on “Tampering With the Witness List

  1. One of the ‘expert’ witnesses on Friday (I forget who and can’t find the transcript) claimed that Breivik’s talk about the “Vienna school of thought” – as mentioned in his manifesto – was a direct reference to the ideas and ideology put forward on the Gates of Vienna blog.

    Lars Gule was asked about this but couldn’t shed any light on it, he was ‘unaware’ if Breivik ever wrote any comments on GoV.

    In passing Gule told the court that he had been banned from VG’s online forum (“VG Debate”, a pretty freewheeling discussion forum on the margins of the online newspaper) for calling another debater ‘paranoid’. This is typical for Gule, using hateful rhetoric against opponents. I’ve crossed swords with him in the comments section of Document.no and he lets loose invective at the drop of a hat.

    Gule also quarreled with Breivik on document.no. Wouldn’t it be ironic if the dismissive hate and personal attacks Gule usually deploys in debates helped in radicalizing Breivik?

    (Not at my usual computer. Can’t log in proper for commenting.)

  2. The Norwegian assclowns commenting on ABB’s posturing in court can’t even read his rantings right: I’d bet my bottom dollar on the thought that the proper translation of “Vienna school of thought” is “Austrian school of economics.”

    The leftist “expert witnesses” can’t speak English as well as ABB — they have blown their interpretation of ABB’s rantings so badly that that their error should be hung around their necks as conspicuously and permanently as the albatross around the the old sailor’s neck. Or in the preceding sentence am I showing I can very well English? (Hint: I’ve read Coleridge.)

Comments are closed.