Weekendavisen could not substantiate its allegations that Niels Harrit was crazy

The Danish newspaper Weekendavisen could not substantiate its allegations that Niels Harrit was crazy

The court hearing due to Niels Harrits case against journalist Soren Willemoes and editor Anne Knudsen from Weekendavisen, for public defamatory and allegations of scientific dishonesty, was held yesterday the 16th of August 2013.
The hearing was initially characterized by the fact, that Niels Harrit was not represented by a lawyer, and had decided to run the case himself. In a courtroom, the language is law, but with the help of both the judge and the defendant's lawyer, the case went in to motion.
First Niels Harrit went to testify, then it was Soren Willemoes - Anne Knudsen had not shown up in court.
To testify for him, Niels Harrit had called architect Jan Utzon, to represent the collegial support represented by Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth, who at this moment counts 1.975 professional signers. Jan Utzon told the court, that he shared the same skepticism as Niels Harrit, over the official explanation for WTC7 collapse.

The accused led no witnesses, the defense was instead based on an article from the Danish newspaper Politiken, by Keld Hybel, in where the colleague of Niels Harrit, Per Hedegaard (Associate Professor in Physics) was quoted for saying that Niels Harrit was nuts, and unique with his theories on the University of Copenhagen. Niels Harrit stressed out in court, that the article was based on a telephone conversation, that Niels Harrit was unaware that Politiken journalist Keld Hybel taped. Niels Harrit did not deny that he initially wanted the article to appear in the newspaper, but he also said that it later became clear to him, that the article was intended to discredit his theories.
Niels Harrit tried several times to get the court to accept a bag of dust from the WTC, but it was rejected on the premises, that evidence should be submitted to the court 40 days before the hearing.

The judge, however, accepted a 54-page long text collection, two days before the hearing, sent by the defendant's lawyer, it should substantiate his closing argument. But this attempt to run Niels Harrit over, was cleverly used by himself, to also to substantiate his final procedure. Where the defendant's lawyer was clearly of the opinion that the written material only substantiated his case, Niels Harrit had skillfully found a handful of places in the text collection, which also supported his case. This reversal clearly made the judge wake up a bit, and perhaps to understand a little of the extent and seriousness of this case. Niels Harrit spoke law, and he did it well.

The case stands or falls, as mentioned in Danish Law and the European Human Rights Convention (which partly became Danish Law in 1992), that the Danish legal code say that the Danish press has an obligation to substantiate its claims, and of being able to demonstrate to have researched the topic.
The question therefore partly depends on whether the judge believes that Soren Willemoes has researched the topic. When Niels Harrit, which of course led his own case, asked him on the stand if he had read the nanotermit report, Soren Willemoes said yes, but he did not think that the WTC-dust was authentic. Niels Harrit therefore referred to the four dust samples underlying the investigations in the report, and where they had come from, explained on pages 8 and 9 - Soren Willemoes claimed he had overlooked that part. When Niels Harrit asked Soren Willemoes, if he had seen his lecture on WTC7, Soren Willemoes said yes. But when Niels Harrit asked where he went to see it, he could not remember. For most of the audience it was obvious that Soren Willemoes told lies in the witness stand, but the assessment is entirely up to the judge. It should however, be noted that Soren Willemoes, also said in the witness stand, that the article was an expression of his own opinion, which happened to be based on a lack of scientific insight. If the judge determines that Soren Willemoes lied in relation to his alleged research of Niels Harrit theory, then Weekenavisen have no defense, because they can not demonstrate even a minimum of research which underlies Soren Willemoes allegations of Niels Harrit.

Niels Harrit has a good case, and from this perspective there is no doubt that Weekendavisen in the legal sense, should be sentenced for libel, and to pay the required compensation of 25.000 Danish kroners. But the question is whether the district court has the courage to judge righteously, and ignore the political dispute behind the case. One can only hope, and I will be glad to discover that the forces of good also exists within the Danish justice system, but the veil of judgment is first lifted on Friday the 13th of September, at 13:00 o´clock, so you have to wait four weeks to get the answer.

By Josef Hanji, 911TruthCopenhagen.

Thanks for this summary.

Sounds like Harrit presented a good argument.

Fighting back

Yes, it does sound like he presented a good argument--even causing the judge to 'wake up a bit' at one point.

And by contrast, 'For most of the audience it was obvious that Soren Willemoes told lies in the witness stand....'

While it's Harrit who's been libeled here, I feel as though cases like this at bottom are really about the whole movement to uncover the truth of 9/11 versus the ongoing, multinational campaign to maintain the cover-up--one of the prime tactics of which is ridicule, sometimes to the point of libel. So when Harrit fights back, he's fighting for all of us.

You said it!

..." So when Harrit fights back, he's fighting for all of us."

Any English translations of the Sept 13 verdict?

I know it is being appealed.. Just curious what the legal justification was for letting the newspaper off the hook. If Weekendavisen could not, obviously, substantiate its claims, what was the reasoning given to let them off?