Harrit sues paper for defamation

[Oystein]

At the Niels Harrit fan club on Facebook, a Henrik Kragh Jensen asked today:

Niels Harrit, my understanding before the trial was that Hedegård supported your questioning of the official explanation, but not your theory. I don't know Hedegård personally but quite a few that do, and they were adament that that was the case. The impression I got from the trial was exactly that as well.

And the Admin of the fanpage replied:

Let me just say first, that this is an administrated page, and you are writing with an admin, not Niels Harrit in person.

I wrote what I wrote, because it is not true that Dr. Hedegaard "spoke directly against" Niels Harrit. What he did say was, that it was difficult to calculate free fall, because energy moved faster then free fall. When the judge in control of the protocols asked him, what it was he supported, Dr. Hedegaard answered, "The report (meaning the nanothermite report), I looked at it and it is good". Dr. Hedegaard said that he had calculated, that it would take 60 ton of thermite to bring down the towers, and that it was hard for him to imagine that could have happened. Dr. Hedegaard said the same thing around 5 years ago, so he was telling the truth when he made the point, that he never really looked into it actually. This is why Hedegaard could substantiate, that he thought the controlled demolition theory was nuts (because its really not Niels Harrits theory, even though many would like to make him look like a lonely nut case, being the only one with that idea). But again, when Hedegaard said that he found that the nanothermite report was good, then its hard to make the conclusion, that Dr. Hedegaard "spoke directly against" Dr. Harrit.

What Dr. Hedegaard had not looked into, the 3rd witness, architect Jan Utzon had, when he told the court that steel framed high risers do not collapse du to fire, and that he jad no doubt that the collapse of WTC7 was a controlled demolition. So in that sense, Dr. Hedegaard is not important, because he stated in court, that he never really looked into this.

Admin.

Is that true? Hedegard told the court the nanothermite report is good? Color me sceptic...

 

[JayUtah]

It is in principle possible to appeal any case from the City Court to the High Court in Denmark, but the court may reject it, and they will if absolutely no new information or evidence will be presented in the appeal case or if the case itself is not of a principal matter.

The same concept exists in American law. An appeals court is not generally bound to hear any case. Typically they choose cases that have interesting and important points of law, or cases where lower courts have ruled differently on similar issues.

In the Harrit case, he wished to add some extra evidence in the form of a video of WTC 7, his dust samples and a Facebook Thread...

See, this is where I think Danish and American law may differ. It is unusual in American law for an appeal to consider new evidence and witnesses. I don't think an appeal would be heard in a U.S. court just because a victorious defendant publicly expressed regret or sympathy for the plaintiff.

...because his article was never aimed at Harrit but at a museum in Copenhagen which had an absurd exhibition about the Armenian genocide having not taken place.

My impression was that Villemoes' treatment of Harrit was simply a brief, passing reference.

Should he however lose, it would be a terrible shock for the freedom of speech and the way that the press works in Denmark.

The English phrase "to have a chilling effect" is how we would characterize such a ruling. Censure for a mild epithet offered in passing seems like quite a chill to me.

He has got no libel case and definitely no case concerning his reputation as a scientist.

My feeling is that he doesn't get to use the courts to ensure that his public figure reputation matches what stature he may have enjoyed as a scientist earlier among fellow scientists. When he departs from accepted scientific practice and instead actively seeks attention in the public eye for polemical purposes, that's a different reputation. He can't insist that his critics apply scientific rigor in their criticism, nor insist that public reaction be universally good.

Thanks for the informative summary.

 

[Redwood]

See, this is where I think Danish and American law may differ. It is unusual in American law for an appeal to consider new evidence and witnesses. I don't think an appeal would be heard in a U.S. court just because a victorious defendant publicly expressed regret or sympathy for the plaintiff.

American courts will usually only hear newly discovered evidence or witnesses, and the appealing party will probably need an explanation as to why this couldn't have been found at the time of the trial. Evidence or witnesses that weren't used or weren't found because the losers were too lazy to find it won't cut it.

 

[ozeco41]

The same concept exists in American law. An appeals court is not generally bound to hear any case. Typically they choose cases that have interesting and important points of law, or cases where lower courts have ruled differently on similar issues.

See, this is where I think Danish and American law may differ. It is unusual in American law for an appeal to consider new evidence and witnesses. I don't think an appeal would be heard in a U.S. court just because a victorious defendant publicly expressed regret or sympathy for the plaintiff.

American courts will usually only hear newly discovered evidence or witnesses, and the appealing party will probably need an explanation as to why this couldn't have been found at the time of the trial. Evidence or witnesses that weren't used or weren't found because the losers were too lazy to find it won't cut it.

Agreed and it is similar from an AU law perspective.

AFAIK the situation with appeals is still similar across all the "common law" jurisdictions - AU, US, UK, CA, NZ etc - despite the divergences and statutory changes imposed since they left the English oversight.

An appeal in common law jurisdictions is primarily an assertion of an error on law - not in fact. The Danish Code Law system may be different.

For example the AU Federal Court principles on appeal can be summarised - my emphases:

For an appeal to succeed a party must convince the Court that the Judge that heard the original case made an error of law and that the error was of such significance that the decision should be overturned. Some examples of significant errors of law are that the Judge that heard the original case:

applied an incorrect principle of law; or
made a finding of fact or facts on an important issue which could not be supported by the evidence.

The Court hearing the appeal:

does not consider any new evidence or information that was not presented in the original case (except in special circumstances)*;
does not call witnesses to give evidence;
does read all the relevant documents filed by the parties for the original case;
does read the relevant parts of the transcript of the original case, if available;
does listen to legal argument from both parties to the appeal.

Note the * (except in special circumstances)

That's where - no matter what jurisdiction - the practising lawyers in the jurisdiction know how the courts will proceed. The Danish appeal system may allow revision of evidence of fact. And the Danish "special circumstances" will be procedurally or case law different to how it is allowed in US, AU or any other jurisdiction.

And prudent generic non-practising lawyers from another jurisdiction (e.g. me ) make no comments.

 

[JSanderO]

Calling some a crackpot... or their beliefs crackpot would involve on some level demonstration of what constitutes a crackpot and what they or their beliefs would meet that standard. Obviously this is a term of art and not a black or white situation in many cases. But it WAS a perfect opportunity for Harrit to introduce his "ideas"/work which were the subject of and basis for the remark. I don't think the "slur" amounts to a hill of beans and not terribly outside the characterizations of the conspiracists on the media. The case was an opportunity to get their "views" about 9/11 some mainstream attention and to reinforce their assertions that the world is prejudiced against them. It's a no lose situation for truthers because no publicity is bad publicity and they had a slight chance of having someone state on the record that Harrit's work was "legitimate".

He will likely lose the appeal. But it will be touted as a Pyrrhic victory and proof to the truthers that once again... the fix is in.

 

[Steen Svanholm]

At the Niels Harrit fan club on Facebook, a Henrik Kragh Jensen asked today:


And the Admin of the fanpage replied:


Is that true? Hedegard told the court the nanothermite report is good? Color me sceptic...

No, Hedegård did not say that the nano report was good. He said that it was good that Harrit et al. actually presented a report (in contrast to informal claims and freely flowing rumors) because with a concrete report, it is possible to check the figures and replicate the experiments in the report.

And Hedegård did exactly that and had calculated through simple multiplication that the amount of claimed nanothemite in the WTC-buildings would be roughly 60 tons of UNEXPLODED nanothermite, and he added that this figure had to be at least twice as much if we include the EXPLODED nanothermite.

He did not say directly that it was impossible amounts but, as far as I remember, he said that it was difficult to imagine how all that nanothermite could have been placed in the Twin Towers unnoticed.

 

[KDLarsen]

Thank you for that detail Steen. I have a feeling the truthers will collectively be tuning out the 60+60 tons of nanothermite figure, instead agreeing with each other that Hedegård had called the report 'good'.

 

[Steen Svanholm]

Thank you for that detail Steen. I have a feeling the truthers will collectively be tuning out the 60+60 tons of nanothermite figure, instead agreeing with each other that Hedegård had called the report 'good'.

Perhaps, but let us await the resume from the High Court that should be published with their ruling on the 9th of April.

I am quite certain that they will ignore everything that is not closely related to whether "tosse" is libelous or not.

Actually, at an instance, when correcting Harrit's questioning, one of the judges said that the court could not settle issues concerning truths/facts of the natural sciences.

They also said, when Harrit presented his magnetic dust to Villemoes and asked him if he could see that some of the dust was magnetic, that Villemoes could not be expected to understand whatever science, Harrit tried to show him.

They clearly found that Harrit was out of line and stopped him. He did stop right away, but at that point it was quite obvious that he had weakened his own case by diverging so much from the libel issues.

 

[Steen Svanholm]

Calling some a crackpot... or their beliefs crackpot would involve on some level demonstration of what constitutes a crackpot and what they or their beliefs would meet that standard. Obviously this is a term of art and not a black or white situation in many cases. But it WAS a perfect opportunity for Harrit to introduce his "ideas"/work which were the subject of and basis for the remark. I don't think the "slur" amounts to a hill of beans and not terribly outside the characterizations of the conspiracists on the media. The case was an opportunity to get their "views" about 9/11 some mainstream attention and to reinforce their assertions that the world is prejudiced against them. It's a no lose situation for truthers because no publicity is bad publicity and they had a slight chance of having someone state on the record that Harrit's work was "legitimate".

He will likely lose the appeal. But it will be touted as a Pyrrhic victory and proof to the truthers that once again... the fix is in.

I expect Harrit to react to a lost case the same way as he reacted in the City Court, by calling it a political verdict.

But the Danish media did not pay anything near as much attention to the appeal in High Court as they did to the City Court case. In general, there is a clear fatigue both amongst the truthers and in the public in general concerning conspiracy theories about 9/11.

 

[Oystein]

911Blogger titles "Three Judges “Astonished” At Now Seeing The Collapse of Building 7 (14 years later) March 15, 2015" and presents the afterglow interview at the pub. A couple of cheerboys, and Prof. SE Jones comment.

One guy posts "Niels Harrit on Danish live DR3 TV show "Monte Carlo på DR3" this night". Harrit is on from 11:45 min onwards. Commenter says:

The two host said they from now on officially are convinced the 911 attacks was an inside job, of some sort.

...

The DR channel 3 is targeted young adults around 20-40 years, and the show is some what popular.

Can some of you Danes comment on this?

 

[Spanx]

911Blogger titles "Three Judges “Astonished” At Now Seeing The Collapse of Building 7 (14 years later) March 15, 2015" and presents the afterglow interview at the pub. A couple of cheerboys, and Prof. SE Jones comment.

One guy posts "Niels Harrit on Danish live DR3 TV show "Monte Carlo på DR3" this night". Harrit is on from 11:45 min onwards. Commenter says:

Can some of you Danes comment on this?

As expected no mention as to what the court case was actually about.

Lol, with all the spam on the net now and Harrit's clear intention was to show Wtc7 and wasn't really bothered about the case, I would like to think after the verdict willemoes will have a pretty strong case against Harrit whether he win or lose.

I would say that any person who is willing to attempt to possibly give someone a prison sentence in order to show the Wtc7 collapse is either a crackpot or very stupid.

 

[KDLarsen]

One guy posts "Niels Harrit on Danish live DR3 TV show "Monte Carlo på DR3" this night". Harrit is on from 11:45 min onwards. Commenter says:

Can some of you Danes comment on this?

Monte Carlo på DR3 is a satire show, carrying on from a radio show they did for a while. I don't watch it myself as I don't particular care for their brand of satire.

 

[Oystein]

Monte Carlo på DR3 is a satire show, carrying on from a radio show they did for a while. I don't watch it myself as I don't particular care for their brand of satire.

Well, do they seriously take Harrit serious?

 

[Steen Svanholm]

They are very young "journalists" - one is not educated, as far as I understand - and they have obviously only heard Harrit's version. They do' not talk much about the court case. They talk about WTC 7 and nanothermite.

Harrit is very direct and claims that WTC was a controlled demolition without any doubt and that incendiaries and explosives were used.

This is a gradual change from when he appeared on TV earlier, right after the publishing of the nano report, where he was more indirect and said that it "looked like" a CD, and "what else can it be?"

Classical radicalization amongst cults.

 

[Oystein]

Thanks, Steen

 

[Josarhus]

Well, do they seriously take Harrit serious?

They dont.

Monte Carlo is a popular satire show, where irony is well integrated in almost every aspect of the show.

Knowing their previous work, they let Harrit talk and encourage him by "agreeing" to what he says. The reel agenda is clear, to make Harrit look like a fool all by himself.

Their approach to news related subjects, are much like Jon Stewart on The Daily Show, where the person interviewed is led to present his or her points in a way, that makes them look silly.

 

[Steen Svanholm]

They dont.

Monte Carlo is a popular satire show, where irony is well integrated in almost every aspect of the show.

Knowing their previous work, they let Harrit talk and encourage him by "agreeing" to what he says. The reel agenda is clear, to make Harrit look like a fool all by himself.

Their approach to news related subjects, are much like Jon Stewart on The Daily Show, where the person interviewed is led to present his or her points in a way, that makes them look silly.

I am not sure I agree here.

I admit that am not familiar with the "Monte Carlo Show" in general so it may be true that their format is to let people talk unhindered and possibly make a fool of themselves, but the interview with Harrit is definitely not satire in any obvious or classical form, and to me, it does not resemble Jon Stewart in any way.

Except for the tinfoil picture of Bush in the background, which I would consider a very subtle hint, I see and hear nothing else than the two hosts agreeing with Harrit on all accounts.

At least, if they are ironic, I would guess very few young people interpret it that way, and the show aims at young people.

I am, however, open to the possibility that I am too old to understand the irony of the show. And I am quite sure that the truther communities see it as long awaited "opening" in the media towards their alternative world views.

 

[Hellbound]

I am not sure I agree here.

I admit that am not familiar with the "Monte Carlo Show" in general so it may be true that their format is to let people talk unhindered and possibly make a fool of themselves, but the interview with Harrit is definitely not satire in any obvious or classical form, and to me, it does not resemble Jon Stewart in any way.

Except for the tinfoil picture of Bush in the background, which I would consider a very subtle hint, I see and hear nothing else than the two hosts agreeing with Harrit on all accounts.

At least, if they are ironic, I would guess very few young people interpret it that way, and the show aims at young people.

I am, however, open to the possibility that I am too old to understand the irony of the show. And I am quite sure that the truther communities see it as long awaited "opening" in the media towards their alternative world views.

I haven't seen it either, but from the description I'd think more "Colbert Report" than "John Stewart". Colbert always tried to "out-crazy the crazies", so to speak, and it wasn't always obvious that he was making fun of the ultra-right-wing viewpoint.

Just thougth I'd toss that out in case the comparison helped anything.

 

[Josarhus]

I am not sure I agree here.

I admit that am not familiar with the "Monte Carlo Show" in general so it may be true that their format is to let people talk unhindered and possibly make a fool of themselves, but the interview with Harrit is definitely not satire in any obvious or classical form, and to me, it does not resemble Jon Stewart in any way.

Except for the tinfoil picture of Bush in the background, which I would consider a very subtle hint, I see and hear nothing else than the two hosts agreeing with Harrit on all accounts.

At least, if they are ironic, I would guess very few young people interpret it that way, and the show aims at young people.

I am, however, open to the possibility that I am too old to understand the irony of the show. And I am quite sure that the truther communities see it as long awaited "opening" in the media towards their alternative world views.

I fully agree that the truthers sees this as a victory and also that Harrit didn’t meet any opposition in the show, but I am pretty sure the two hosts didn't fell for it and I am perhaps also in general a bit more confident in the danish youth's ability to decipher what they see.

Perhaps I should clarify that the comparison to Jon Stewarts show goes for the first half of his daily show, not the last part, where Jon himself has a more in depth interview with a guest.

Truthers have a very narrow perception of things, so for them getting WTC 7 mentioned anywhere in the media is labelled a success, and they are right In saying that people in general don’t know about WTC 7, but then again even fewer are familiar with what the official explanation actually says.

 

[Spanx]

It looked to me like the presenters of the show were trying not to laugh.

Maybe that's just the way they are on serious matters ?