Norwegian killer: the photo that gives the game away?

I've found a photo which may contradict the official story of what happened:




I took the above image from The Sun newspaper, (www.thesun.co.uk...). Within the news story, it says "The blurry images - taken from a helicopter - appear to show a tall blond figure in a dark uniform holding what may be a rifle"

Now, what confuses me is that yesterday, the BBC reported a police chief as saying that a helicopter couldn't be scrambled to Utoya because the closest one was too far in the South (however, I cannot find this story now! Please help!)

Then, when you couple this with:

Daily Telegraph:

Oslo police were informed three minutes later but a lack of suitable helicopters in the capital mean that Swat teams were forced to drive 28 miles across country before they were able to mount an armed assault on Utoya.

The first police patrols began crossing Lake Tyrifjorden at 6.03pm, arriving on the island at 6.25pm.

One of the boats carrying police was too small and began to sink, further hampering the mission.

Erik Berga, police operations chief in northern Buskerud County, said: "The boat was way too small and way too poor. When so many people and equipment were put into it, the boat started to take on water, so that the motor stopped."

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Now the photo I have posted was clearly taken from a helicopter. However, the police initially said that a helicopter couldn't be scrambled to the site because it was too far in the South, Now, lots of news sources are saying something along the lines of "a helicopter containing an assault team was sent initially, but there were not enough men inside to deal with this nutcase". It seems like the news is being re-written

Police conceded that their response was delayed by the decision to send a specialist anti terrorist unit by road from Oslo, 28 miles away, because no helicopters were available in the capital.

Norway's Delta force had no helicopters available in the capital at the time of the shooting, so its commanders decided it would be quicker to go by road rather than wait for a helicopter to fly up from its base in the south of the country.

From the BBC:

Police said they decided to drive to Utoeya because they thought a police helicopter would take longer as they did not have quick access to one.

www.bbc.co.uk...

So my point is: no helicopter, yet we have pictures that have clearly been taken from a helicopter.

What's the contradiction? It matches the description of the suspect,doesn't it?

Can you explain how that contradicts the official story? He's wearing a Norwegian police uniform. All the Nordic countries use similar versions.

reply to post by chemistry


Uhhh there is no way I am seeing this right... But I have 20/20 vision and I swear I see Mickey Mouse!

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
What's the contradiction? It matches the description of the suspect,doesn't it?

Guess we will have to wait till tomorrow?

reply to post by PhysicsAdept


Ha, I can sort of see that.I think what makes up the " mouse ears"is something behind him though.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


I hope not. It was just posted a couple minutes ago. Maybe they just left the site for a few and will be back.

Guess, I am in an optimistic mood today

Why didn't he shoot at the helicopter?

reply to post by gimme_some_truth


Yeah but you'd think that with all the technology of today and considering the magnitude of the situation, that maybe they would have been able to get a better photo. I mean, some of the cameras we use on the helicopters in the US can see you from like 2 miles out and still remain high def!

Just a little odd to me... or maybe not?

reply to post by Signals


Interesting question, actually.Maybe it was far enough away that he didn't notice?

I can only speculate really... Maybe he just wanted to go after the people and ignored the helicopter?

reply to post by PhysicsAdept


nah, I figure it's not to odd. chances are that's the best picture they had at the time or something... Sometimes you take a million pictures and they all suck.. Or maybe they were only able to safely take one picture really quick and it came out blurry?

Plus, I have no idea what kind of camera they were working with...

You do get blurry shots like this in the news sometimes...

Maybe they were staying far back and the picture is blurred because it could not zoom well enough?

I don't know.

I'm still wondering what the OP is on about though.

Originally posted by Signals
Why didn't he shoot at the helicopter?

From the looks of that picture, it is my guess that the helicopter was to far away. If they could not get a good photo, I am sure they had to be way out of range of the killer.

reply to post by Signals


I think he wanted to be taken alive, to tell his story to the court and the media.

it is not a game

2nd line

Soory everyone, I had to leave the OP half finished at first becasue I had to dash out.

What do you think? The pciture was clearly taken from a helicopter but the police say that they didn't send a helicopter.

Now the news is being re-written

All part of the 'movie'?

This pic might have been taken from a media helicopter, or private one. Police would not have access to it. That simple.

reply to post by ajmusicmedia


But that would mean that the media found out about the shootings before the police did.

Don't you think that the 'media' were quick off the mark?

Not really, this was a political gathering. The media are always covering these so it's no surprise they were there at the time. They are probably the ones who alerted the police.

On Saturday I read a BBC report which said that the image was pixelated because of all of the disturbing bloodshed.

Still, my point is: The police say they didn't send a helicopter, but the photo was clearly taken from a helicopter.

Originally posted by chemistry
But that would mean that the media found out about the shootings before the police did.

What makes you think that?

Don't you think that the media were quick off the mark?

Not really, why do you think that they were?