I arrived at the courthouse at 9 o'clock on Monday morning carrying my heavy rucksack full of legal papers. I had also brought with me two sets of tapes, recording 42 conversations I had had with various Norwegians over the years to play any of them if necessary. Kevin Quirk, my translator soon came and then one of the judges - who I thought was a court usher - collected old jugs of water and replaced them with fresh jugs of water. Three judges were hearing the case - Mr. Agnar Nilsen Jnr., who had replaced the water jugs, Thore Rønning and Mrs. Anita Lund. Judge Nilsen Jnr. spoke fluent English with an American accent. He was the senior judge on the bench for this trial. The other two judges did not, it turned out, speak good English.

When I asked Kevin Quirk whether he had read any of the newspaper stories on me, he said he in fact found a report on the Internet from the Drammens Tidende website. I was surprised to hear this - that I was still on the newspaper's own website.

Just before proceedings began Heidi Schøne came into court even though she was only scheduled to give evidence and be cross- examined by me the next day. She spoke for five minutes to the judges, in Norwegian, and then left. Judge Nilsen Jnr. then ruled that it was essential that Ingunn Røren come to court, but debate followed as to who was to pay her fare. I thought I'd already given enough money to Stig Lunde for all the witnesses' fares to be paid. Judge Nilsen Jnr. said that as Vegard Aaløkken had also requested the attendance of Ingunn Røren then her fare should be split 50-50 between myself and Heidi Schøne. To which Vegard Aaløkken replied that Heidi Schøne had no money to contribute and therefore Ingunn Røren should not have to come at all. To which I quickly interrupted to say that I would pay all of Ingunn Røren's fare. Judge Nilsen Jnr. agreed and told Vegard Aaløkken to phone Ingunn Røren during lunch to tell her she had to attend court.

Discussion then took place as to whether Tor-Aksel Busch, the Attorney General, should be required to attend court. Judge Nilsen Jnr. wondered whether his participation had any relevance to my case against Heidi Schøne. I told him that a police officer - Torill Sorte - had lied on oath; that Tor-Aksel Busch in his decision letter of 15th July 2003 had not referred to any of my evidence when ruling that he would not prosecute Torill Sorte. That this meant there was no way of knowing if my evidence had been considered and that therefore Tor-Aksel Busch had to be called to explain his decision, as, I told the court, I suspected a cover up. Judge Nilsen Jnr. seemed to understand my argument and said the court would give its answer tomorrow.

Judge Nilsen Jnr. then told me that this trial was a totally new trial and the decision of the previous judge, Mr.Stilloff, was not relevant now.

I would have liked in my opening speech to have properly run through all the points made in my supplemental appeal document, but I knew this would not be possible due to the lack of time. I had to explain the basic structure of the whole story first to the court and try to incorporate only the key points made in my appeal. It wouldn't be easy.

I began my opening speech by saying that Heidi Schøne should be found guilty under both sections 246 and 247 of the Norwegian Penal Code for being responsible for "telling or adopting or being the primary source for the untruths", written in the Drammens Tidende article of the 14th of July 1998, since Heidi had admitted receiving the article for prior approval and had corrected nothing and I quoted the main examples of her deceit. I then carefully examined Heidi Schøne's own background with the object of convincing the court that her mental condition and high volume of outrageous and uncorroborated accusations made her a witness whose word could not safely be relied upon to be true; that she could not prove 16 years of continuous harassment and so should be found guilty. I repeated what Dr. Petter Broch, her psychiatrist, told the court last time about his patient's condition, including his assessment that my 'reports' on her past life "contained a core of truth". I emphasized that all the evidence against me pre 1995 was only on Heidi Schøne's word and I referred to the tape-recorded conversations of policemen Svein Jensen and Henrik Dugstad who did not believe Heidi. Overall, I hoped that I had put in everything of relevance. I had also to draw the court's attention the relevant documents in the three bundles of court documentation which made for a lot of tedious to-ing and fro-ing and many interruptions for Kevin Quirk to translate when necessary.

Next I proceeded to deal with Vegard Aaløkken. That he had not answered Stig Lunde's appeal document or my lengthy supplemental appeal document and so the court should draw adverse inferences from Aaløkken's silence. And that I didn't know if Vegard Aaløkken had even presented the appeal documentation to his client Heidi Schøne. I examined Vegard Aaløkken's motives by referring to his "absolute bad faith" and attempts to deceive the court, using the following facts.That at the very first hearing in August 2000 he said that my writ and Stig Lunde's supplemental writ were a form of "harassment" of Heidi Schøne. I said that as a man who had faced so many serious allegations I had the right to defend my reputation by issuing a writ. Further, that Vegard Aaløkken was "quick to jump to another perverse conclusion" when he informed the court that I had fabricated the Dun and Bradstreet report which declared I had (rightly) won 50,000 kroner against her in my civil action commenced in the lower courts, the Forliksrade. That he didn't even ring up Dun and Bradstreet to ask what the report was all about, putting the onus on me to prove that I did not fabricate the facts within the Dun and Bradstreet report.That only when I had telephoned Tore Lia at Dun and Bradstreet in Norway did Vegard Aaløkken apologize to the court and withdraw his allegation. I continued attacking Vegard Aaløkken by saying that at the previous hearing he had called me "mentally ill" as well as arguing that my sustained "information campaign" against Heidi Schøne was a "continuing symptom" of my "mental illness". I made it clear to the court that Vegard Aaløkken had tried to persuade Judge Stilloff that I was clinically mentally ill, not as he later suggested to the Norwegian Bar Association that I was a "madman" in the "popular sense of the word." I asked the court exactly what "madman" in the "popular sense of the word" was supposed to mean, when all the newspapers had called me "mentally ill", "sick" and "suffering from an extreme case of erotic paranoia", press descriptions designed to give the impression that I was possibly a registered mental patient or at least should have been. I continued that Vegard Aaløkken in his own "madness" had last time called me "a rapist" knowing that for 12 years his client insisted, falsely, that I had only attempted to rape her.

I went on to refer to policewoman Torill Sorte's attempt to persuade the court at the first trial that my mother told her I had been "put" in a mental hospital, and I read out my family doctor's letter to refute this. And that for Bergens Tidende to identify me 16 times as the "Muslim" man clearly indicated that religious prejudice was the real motive behind the newspaper onslaught from 1995 onwards.

I told the court I did not want Vegard Aaløkken now to be allowed to mislead the court, by repeating the nonsense of continuous sex terror from 1985 onwards without first answering the points raised in my appeal, as otherwise I asked, what was the point putting in an appeal if all its arguments were completely ignored. I requested that Aaløkken answer each point (knowing full well the court would not oblige him to) or that I would alternatively get answers from Heidi Schøne in my cross-examination of her.

I emphasized the "positive" contact I'd had with Heidi: in 1988 when she requested help (the able assistance of my best friend, Russell Gilbrook the drummer - [who became Uriah Heep's drummer in February 2007] - and myself) against Gudmund Johannessen; in 1989 when she phoned me from her hotel and spoke to me for two hours and my August 1990 visit for which she did not report me to the police and her admission to sending me Christian literature in the autumn of 1990.

When I'd finished, Judge Nilsen Jnr. told me that it was not the practice in Norway to attack the character of opposing counsel. A remark which surprised me as Aløkken had attacked me, albeit in my capacity as the plaintiff, for which surely I was entitled to respond. In any event I was going to say my piece.

Vegard Aaløkken then made his opening speech. He repeated most of what he had said in the last court case: that Heidi was not responsible for many of the comments in the newspapers, for example that I had written Heidi 300 letters from 1997 to 1998 or that I had threatened with death her neighbours if they did not give me her new address or that I was suffering from an extreme case of erotic paranoia. Aaløkken ignored the fact that Heidi Schøne had approved the 1995 articles and 1998 article beforehand but did not correct them. He announced that I was uninvited in April 1985 (ignoring the fact that before leaving to go skiing Heidi had left her door key for me under a stone by the window ledge with a pot of hot blackcurrent tea waiting inside); that in 1990 I had "distributed tapes to people" - (I had sent one tape to Dr. Broch which merely recorded word for word the letter I sent him, my reasoning being that it might be easier for him to listen to a tape than plough through my long letter); Vegard Aaløkken conceded that my information on Heidi Schøne's past was "in large part true".

Vegard Aaløkken then went through several of the letters and postcards I had written to Heidi in 1995 and onwards when I had communicated my disgust at her lies and her hypocrisy in calling herself a Christian; in one letter dated the 6th March 1995 I simply said "Gotcha! At last" and added "Freddie's back", which Vegard Aaløkken wanted to convey as another example of harassment, when in fact I wrote this immediately after receiving the letter dated 28th February 1995 from Helge Wesenberg, my Bergen lawyer, informing me of her allegation of "attempted rape". I knew this to be false and at the time I thought I had cornered Heidi and would be able to lodge a complaint about this allegation. The court with much amusement tried to recall which films Freddie Kruger had appeared in. I had to tell the court 'Nightmare on Elm Street', but that my nickname, obviously, was Freddie in England. [The truth was that I knew at the time I wrote these words how they were related to Freddie Kruger]. Vegard Aaløkken then produced a 'Hello!' magazine article I had sent to Heidi - sent to her after the May 1995 newspaper articles. This featured Susan Smith, the American woman who was executed in 2003 for murdering, by drowning, her two small children. In this article I had circled the similarities between Smith's life and Heidi's: there were many comparisons to be made. (See The Times newspaper article on the Smith case printed earlier in this book).

Again, Vegard Aaløkken referred to my postcard calling Heidi a "Christian pervert". He ignored my full explanation in my appeal document that these words meant she in fact "perverted the true values of Christianity".

Vegard Aaløkken continued: that my communications with Heidi indicated I had a "special sexual interest" in her, ignoring the fact that her own life was dominated entirely by sexual adventure and disaster, which I in turn had criticized in my letters to her. He referred to a police witness statement by Heidi dated the 17th February 1990 - a Norwegian language document - in which it was alleged by Heidi that I had made threats to her sister Elizabeth in the snow outside her house in February 1990 (when I was accompanied by Stewart McQueen) and then vandalized a car. Completely untrue on both counts and which accusations were not in any case put to me on my arrest in Bergen on 17th February 1990. They were fabrications by Heidi. This witness statement was included for the first time, as far as I could tell, in the three volumes of court documents sent to me on October 7th by Monica Gran, the court official, and as it was in Norwegian I had no idea what it meant - until now!

Vegard Aaløkken referred to policewoman Torill Sorte's 22nd January 1997 report (printed above) when he repeated her comments that my mother was an "elderly" woman (she was 62 in 1997) who said that I was "sick and need help" and that I'd been "admitted to hospital for treatment". Vegard Aaløkken then told the court I had made death threats against Heidi's son, Daniel, referring to Heidi's police witness statement of the 23rd of April 1997 (printed above). And that I used to "grope" her and had "forcibly kissed" her and told her that if she didn't let me continue I had threatened to tell her neighbours that she'd been sexually abused by her stepmother's father .That I forced her to have sexual intercourse with me. That I had a Restraining Order imposed on the 24th of August 2000 on me by the Norwegian police - which Vegard Aaløkken omitted to mention had been withdrawn by the police when I pointed out to them at the time that I hadn't seen Heidi in over 10 years.That I had received a fine of 10,000 kroner in 2001 under section 390 (a) of the Norwegian Penal Code - Aaløkken omitting to mention that I was convicted in absentia.And finally that my harassment continued in the form of my website www. norway-shockers.com. ( The fact was that Drammens Tidende still covered me on their own website).

Before the start of Tuesday's proceedings (14th October) Vegard Aaløkken gave the court and myself a letter from Dr. Broch, Heidi's psychiatrist, dated the 13th October 2003 which stated that Heidi Schøne's mental state was such that she was unfit to face any cross-examination by me. Kevin Quirk told me that the letter said that Heidi had had a "pathological relationship" with her parents and amazingly a "pathological relationship" with me. Vegard Aaløkken then argued that her psychiatrist's recommendation should be heeded by the court. The same tactics were employed now as for the court case in 2002. I argued that it was absolutely essential for me to cross-examine Heidi Schøne and that the opportunity to do this was a fundamental aspect of my case. The court said they would delay their decision on this matter until after Heidi Schøne gave her evidence. But the judges had reached a decision on whether or not they would ask Tor-Aksel Busch, the Attorney-General, to present himself for cross-examination: he would not be asked. No reasons were given by Judge Nilsen Jnr., who pronounced the ruling. Tor-Aksel Busch would have had a very uncomfortable time in court explaining exactly why he decided not to prosecute policewoman Torill Sorte for her blatant attempt to pervert the course of justice. He was conveniently protected by Judge Nilsen Jnr.

Heidi Schøne entered the courtroom looking ill and exhausted from stress. She had long hair now but I guess it had to be another wig. She began by stating she promised to tell the truth. She added that she'd been on a state disability pension for the past 18 months, had a prolapse of the vertebrae in her neck, had problems remembering things and had a terrible headache as well. That she'd had an alcoholism problem in the family (a reference to her late mother) and she'd been sexually abused by her stepmother's father. She then implored the court that something must be done to "stop" me. That if only she had the money she would sue me in England. And that she wished I was dead.

More 'facts' about our relationship now emerged: that I used to have "way out" discussions with her; that I had been forcing her to convert to Islam; that I called her a "whore" on my 1985 is to visit her; that I "shouted and wailed" over the telephone; that I talked of "stoning women to death" (a practice that I believe has no part whatsoever in Islam, but I knew Heidi was now raising to blacken my character) ; that I called English and Scandinavian women "pigs"; that I tried to have intercourse with her on my first visit to Norway in Christmas1984, had "penetrated" her but "couldn't manage to ejaculate"; that I'd criticized her "fat thighs"; that I said to her she was "just a bitch", and that my temper was capable of making her life terrible. That I'd written many cards and letters to her calling her a "bitch", "a pig" and "a swine" but that she had thrown them all away. That indeed there was a long period when she didn't have a phone "probably" from1988 to 1993 she said; that there was "a woman" I had "scared to death" and another woman who had become "hysterical" because of me. Heidi did not mention who these women were. That from 1985 to 1990 she had two bags full of my letters which she threw away; that I sent cassette tapes to her neighbours (none were produced in evidence); that when I visited her Drammen hotel in 1989 one of her colleagues - no name was given - had told her that I was in her eyes "completely mad"; that on one occasion I telephoned her all night repeating that I would "kill" her; that my "comments" to Heidi that her son was "a bastard" and I would "kill him" terrified her. That I had also written to her saying that because her son Daniel was "a bastard, he didn't deserve to live".

She admitted she wanted my help in 1988 against Gudmund Johannessen but stated that I had called her. (What a lie. She had called me at my office within minutes of her being told to "fuck off " by Gudmund Johannessen. I was the only real friend she had and she knew it !). She admitted she wanted Gudmund Johannessen beaten up. Further that there were many people around her who were scared of me - she gave no names; years ago, she said, I told her I loved watching horror films.

Judge Nilsen Jnr. asked Heidi to leave the courtroom and then quickly decided he would not allow me to cross-examine her. I objected, to which the judge told me,"You are not in England now". He would do the cross-examination himself. Did I have any questions? Yes, about three hours worth I thought to myself. Off the top of my head I rattled off several questions, which the judge wrote down. The honorable Judge Agnar A. Nilsen Jnr., judge and cross-examiner - cum - prosecutor at the same time!

Heidi came back in and in response to the judge's questions said the following: that a distant cousin of hers was raped and killed; she had been raped by a Bergen shopkeeper; that when asked about what her condition was to justify a 100% disability pension she replied "extreme post-traumatic stress syndrome"; when asked whether she had been exorcised from possession of demons in 1990 she hit the roof in a histrionic outburst intended to convey to the court that only a lunatic - me - could allege such things. I have to say again she was an extremely good actress. When asked for clarification on her court statement in 2002 that I had "applied for a residence permit" she stated that I had "shouted over the phone" to her or "maybe written" to her that I was "going to get a residence permit." That in 1995 she had the three newspaper articles read out to her over the phone, from Verdens Gang, Bergens Tidende and Drammens Tidende; that in 1998 Ingunn Røren contacted her prior to the 14th of July 1998 article but that she "couldn't remember" if it was read out to her. (At the 2002 trial she said it was read out to her); that I had pestered and harassed her for so many years that "the Post Office offered to filter" her post; when asked whether she could remember any neighbours I had threatened with death she replied, "No", as she "withdrew" herself more and more, but that "Runar Schøne can remember the names of neighbours threatened". Had she kept any of the alleged cassette tapes I'd sent her? No, she'd thrown them away she said. Further, that Aftenposten did a story on me last year. That I had used "morphine" obtained from my father (a general medical practitioner, now retired); that I wrote "horrible things" on a boarded-up window of her home in August 1990; that she was burdened by looking after her almost blind and handicapped (second) son; that in the middle of London (in 1985) near her hotel there was a confrontation with me and she had to get "security" to take me away.That on one of my visits to her in Norway I had sinisterly just "appeared" at her window.

Judge Nilsen Jnr. did not allow me to cross-examine Heidi on any of her new and varied evidence, saying I would have the opportunity to "comment" in my closing speech. Oh what a travesty! I also noticed Heidi had referred to me in a Norwegian police witness statement as a Shia Muslim, when in fact I was a Sunni. The Shia branch of Islam, of course, was associated with Iran and in Norway Iran did not have a good image at all since the Salman Rushdie affair, when the Norwegian publisher of his book the 'The Satanic Verses' was shot and wounded in Norway.

Next to give evidence was Henrik Lund of the Anti-racist Centre of Oslo. I had a quick chat with him outside the courtroom informing him also of Heidi's courtroom antics. Once in the witness box Henrik Lund confirmed, in relation to Bergens Tidende's article of May 1995 calling me in the "Muslim" man 16 times that no newspaper in Norway would write similarly when the subject was Jewish or Christian, so that to do it when the subject was Muslim can be seen to be an attack on the Muslim religion. I myself told the judge that this was bound to provoke a strong reaction from me.

At the close of business I left the courthouse somewhat deflated as I knew that Heidi Schøne had escaped cross-examination yet again. I walked over the bridge across the river back to the town centre and looked around the shops for a little while. I then stood outside the entrance to Steen and Strøm, the department store, when I was confronted by a familiar face. It was Margot Iqbal, a Norwegian lady who had once been married to a Pakistani and whom I had met many times in the Norwegian Church in East London. What a surprise to see her now. Neither of us could believe it. We went to a café close to Drammen Cathedral and talked for an hour or so. I told her that she was welcome to visit the courthouse to attend my case.

The next day was Wednesday the 15th October 2003. One of my previous lawyers, Karsten Gjone, happened to be in the courtroom opposite us that week for one of his own cases and before his day's business began he made himself available to give evidence. In a quick appearance he confirmed he recognized me from the 14th July 1998 Drammens Tidende article and that I had previously instructed him to sue Drammens Tidende, Bergens Tidende and Verdens Gang. I did not attack him for his failure to issue writs against the three newspapers for their 1995 articles as I suspected the judge would object. Besides, I had the Bar Association's decision confirming Karsten Gjone's negligence to hand into the court.

Hans Odde, the editor of Drammens Tidende was next to give evidence. He mentioned that he knew he was the subject of a strong attack by me on my website. He confirmed that he had no evidence that I had sent 300 letters to Heidi Schøne from 1997 to 1998. When questioned on his newspapers' statement that my reports on Heidi's life had "no basis in reality," he stated that, "At the time it was difficult to evaluate the evidence," and he did not check out whether my reports were true (yet he had three years to do so, from 1995 to 1998).That the information for his 14th July 1998 article came from Verdens Gang. He finally then admitted that his newspaper should not have said my reports had "no basis in reality". Regarding Drammens Tidende's emphatic claim to "16 years of sexual harassment", I reminded Odde in cross-examination that in 1995 I had sent him copies of Heidi's letters to me from 1982 to 1985 and a full resume of my side of the story. When I asked whether Heidi had corrected any of his newspaper's draft articles he said, "No, she didn't". Further that he did not know what "erotic paranoia" meant when he allowed those words to be printed in 1998.When I questioned him on the source and accuracy of various statements (including the one that I had "threatened to kill" Heidi's son) in his newspaper he said that his newspaper should have researched the matter "much better" than they did. I was surprised to hear Odde then say that his newspaper had to a certain extent "fallen out" with Heidi Schøne when she accused Drammens Tidende of not doing enough for her.

Next up was policewoman Torill Sorte, born, she said, on the 30th April 1968. I immediately referred to my family doctor's letter indicating that I had never been put in a mental hospital. How come, I asked her, could my mother have told her this, particularly when we had a recorded conversation with my mother saying the opposite? Torill Sorte responded by saying that she had spoken to my mother "several times" and that my mother had told her I had been put in a mental hospital. I told her she was a liar and pressed her to reveal who phoned who and when. Her reply was that she "couldn't remember". I told her I had the transcripts of 18 of our conversations from the time we started speaking in 1996 to when we stopped in 1998 (a set of which I had given to Vegard Aaløkken). I went through the salient points of each conversation with Torill Sorte. Once again I put it to Torill Sorte that she was a liar and asked her to explain herself with more clarity but Judge Nilsen Jnr. interrupted to say that the court would draw its own conclusions from her statement.

When I had finished and Torill Sorte had left the courtroom, Judge Nilsen Jnr. reprimanded me for my "outburst" for calling Torill Sorte "a liar" and that if it happened again to another witness I would not be allowed to continue any further cross-examination.

Then came Runar Gottlieb Schøne who came hobbling in on crutches and proceeded to tell the court he had had an operation on his leg some hours earlier. Once again he admitted to "babbling" over the phone to me in his "Come to Jesus, Allah doesn't exist" phone call. He confirmed that at our last court appearance in January 2001 he compared me to Osama bin Laden and wanted to kill me. Again, he could not provide any evidence as to which of his neighbours he said in the newspapers I had "threatened to kill". He did mention that from the time he met Heidi in 1993 she was always telling him about me and that he'd seen many letters from me. His appearance on the stand didn't last long: he was not in a good mood and I knew that Judge Nilsen Jnr. would not let me perform the sort of cross-examination I had in mind for him. So I let it go.

Ingunn Røren appeared next. She had in fact taken a plane that morning from Bergen airport to Oslo. So much for her earlier claim that she was not in a fit state to fly due to her pregnancy. She had just been trying it on, as I suspected. I asked her what material she based the 14th July 1998 article on. She said "Heidi's word and the other newspapers". When I challenged her to justify her words, "Psychiatrists think the Englishman is suffering from an extreme case of erotic paranoia", she replied that she didn't at the time know what the words "erotic paranoia" meant but just lifted the words from the newspaper Verdens Gang. She did now know what these words meant. Importantly she also confirmed that she had contacted Heidi in 1998 prior to writing her July 14th article.

I had prepared in England extensive notes for my cross-examination of Ingunn Røren but Judge Nilsen Jnr. made it clear that I was going to be given little time to complete my task as he wanted all the witnesses to be cross-examined by close of business on that Wednesday. So now I could test Ingunn Røren on only on a few of the important points. With regard to her accusation that I had abused her boyfriend in 1996 for "living in sin" with her, my intention was to play the tape of my one brief conversation with him, in court to refute this and ask for this boyfriend's name and why he hadn't put a witness statement in, to support her claim. But none of this I could do as Judge Nilsen Jnr. would not permit it. After I referred Ingunn Røren to the Norwegian translation of this conversation with her boyfriend, she froze and in the face of incontrovertible evidence still maintained her original claim! I was about to go in for the kill but Judge Nilsen Jnr. prevented me going any further saying the court would draw its own conclusions from Ingunn Røren's statement and the other evidence. Yes, I was indeed not in England now.

Dr. Petter Broch came on at 12.35 p.m. In cross-examination he told me Heidi was suffering from an "enduring personality disorder". When I asked whether she was suffering from schizophrenia he said, "Definitely not". Dr. Broch went on to confirm as correct his seven-point statement on Heidi Schøne made on oath in 2001 regarding her various "abusers". He stated that he thought my "pursuit" of her had a "pathological" basis and was a form of "stalking", according to American Psychiatric Association journals on the topic. I asked him to try to appreciate that as I had been accused of threatening to kill Heidi's son, family and neighbours and had been described as suffering from an extreme form of erotic paranoia in the newspapers, then I had the right to take legal action and a right to reply with my version of events. And that this could hardly amount to "stalking". I could see that Dr. Broch was fumbling for an answer and when I tried to continue Judge Nilsen Jnr. stopped me; the judge had had enough. (Stig Lunde had told me in England that Dr. Broch was not at all happy to have to come to court yet again as he was a very busy man. I reminded Stig Lunde that Vegard Aaløkken had himself requested the presence of Dr. Broch and further, that it was essential Dr. Broch be called to confirm to the court exactly what he gave in evidence last time, as Judge Stilloff did not make mention of it in his judgement).

After lunch Vegard Aaløkken made his closing speech. Again he called me "mentally ill". Again he said Drammens Tidende were justified in calling me a "Muslim" as that was how I had "represented" myself. That Drammens Tidende's accusation of "300 letters to Heidi" from 1997 to 1998 (for which there was no evidence at all), was not Heidi Schøne's accusation but that of the newspaper as it also was for the "extreme erotic paranoia" comment. However, this time Vegard Aaløkken did not call me a "rapist". He confirmed that Norwegian law does not require absolute precision and that because of my 1982 to 1985 letters the "sex terror/stalking" period had to be reduced accordingly (presumably by four years although Vegard Aaløkken didn't specify). He said the evidence amply indicated that I was responsible for "stalking" for the "remaining period": that Heidi should be found not guilty. Vegard Aaløkken ignored in particular, once again, Heidi's 1988 request for help from me and our friendly contact during the second half of 1990. I marvelled at how in effect I had to have hard evidence and plenty of it, to counter allegations of harassment and that my word often counted for little. Yet Vegard Aaløkken argued all Heidi had to have was her word to support her claims as sufficient evidence of the truth. I have no doubt at all that if I had not kept those 1982 to 1985 letters then my word on the subject of those letters would have counted for nothing. No one would have believed these letters were ever written to me. As it was, the fact that I had not kept Heidi's few post-1985 letters and cards to me was taken as clear evidence that the "harassment" started shortly after 1985.

On Wednesday evening back at my hotel I put in five hours on my closing speech. I was very happy with the finished product. I turned up in court next morning in bullish mood determined to emphasize that in no shape or form was there 16 years of continuous sex terror/harassment or stalking. I told the court that the years 1982, 1983, 1984 and up to summer 1985 when I was told Heidi was pregnant to Gudmund Johannessen again, were entirely "good" years. I said that no complaints were made during the course of 1985 against me and only after I spilled the beans to her father in November 1986 did the first complaint come, two weeks later in December 1986, when she backdated her allegation of attempted rape to Easter 1985: a long time to wait to make such a complaint; and only then, I emphasized, out of revenge for telling her father of her sordid past. And no details have ever come to light of the exact nature of the "attempted rape". That "significantly" no harassment allegations were made to the police or anyone else in 1987, 1988 or 1989. Only when I tried to visit Heidi in February 1990 to confront her over her incomprehensible past did she then complain to the police and backdate her vague and unsubstantiated allegations. That she didn't contact the police at all regarding my alleged 400 obscene letters that were later "thrown away". That we have no confirmation from any member of her family or friends that they have seen with their own eyes the 400 obscene letters or even a proportion of them. That Heidi took revenge on me because I had written to Gudmund Johannessen's father telling him of his son's abuse of Heidi which his father was completely ignorant of.

I mentioned the year 1987 when Heidi told me she had visited Disneyland in the U.S.A with her son and her employer's family. That she was working in a photographic processing laboratory in Bergen; living alone as a single mother. That she had been given a second-hand Volvo to drive by Gudmund Johannessen's father who had also recently sold the family snack shop.That Heidi told me Daniel needed an operation on his nose. That 1987 was a friendly, good year. As was 1988 when Heidi had admitted trying to enlist my help against Gudmund Johannessen . And which girl, I yet again emphasized, would request such help from a man who had attempted to rape her and "somehow" raped her and threatened to kill her son? For 1990 I made the usual points in some detail. For 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994 I said there were no complaints made by Heidi to the police in those years. Then came 1995 when once again, she backdated her allegations solely relying on her own word: the word of a woman who was in 1988 subject to psychiatric treatment and was now suffering from a permanent mental disorder. I told the court that Heidi had made up her claim that I had obtained and used morphine from my father. That photographic evidence should have been obtained at the time, as proof of my writing "horrible things" on Heidi's door and boarded-up window. That the documentary evidence in possession of Heidi Schøne from February 1995 clearly discloses my annoyance at her silence on questions I had asked her regarding my February 1990 arrest. And when I learnt of the attempted rape allegation I sent my initial 20 reports to her neighbours past and present, as a lesson for making this false allegation. And on seeing the 1995 newspaper articles I initiated a large information campaign in response. I referred again to the independent taped evidence from policemen Henrik Dugstad and Svein Jensen and from Ann-Kristin Horvei doubting Heidi Schøne's ability to tell the truth and to psychiatrist Nils Rettersdol's telephone comments to me on the myth of my "erotic paranoia."

As for Dr. Broch I tried to cut him down to size by examining his letter of the 6th of September 2001 in which he said in his fourth paragraph that the contact in England [in 1982] with "this Egyptian was very difficult" and that I treated Heidi like my "property". I declared that if this was true Heidi would hardly write to me such considerate and loving letters from 1982 to1985. I repeated again Broch's confirmation of the seven points he made on Heidi's life on his first court appearance.

I asked the court for a declaration to be made in its judgement that Ingunn Røren had lied on oath with regard to her telling the PFU that I had "abused" her boyfriend for "living in sin" and for a declaration that Drammens Tidende had lied when it said I had written "300 letters to Heidi Schøne in the last year" (1997 to 1998) and a declaration that policewoman Torill Sorte had lied on oath with regard to my mother telling her I had been put in a mental hospital. I also pointed out that if Ingunn Røren had insisted in 1998 that Heidi Schøne had told her in 1995 that I had "attempted" to rape her then that was proof enough that Heidi had fabricated her later allegation of actual rape.

That Heidi Schøne had been contacted by Ingunn Røren in 1998 and in having the 1998 article to approve or at least read out to her over the phone, in not correcting it Heidi had the intention to adopt it is as true, in effect of making it her version also of the truth. Therefore it cannot be right to direct the fault for false allegations solely at the door of Drammens Tidende.

I repeated the fact that in a libel claim I needed someone to recognize me from the article: that Karsten Gjone was this person and that my reputation had further suffered in his eyes.

I also rubbished the PFU decision of the 24th August 1999 which declared that Drammens Tidende were not in breach of good journalistic practice over their 14th July 1998 article and referred to my letter of the 30th January 2000 to Per Edgar Kokkvold of the PFU. As For the Eiker Modem and Sigdal Magistrates Court fine of the 2nd November 2001, I again went briefly into the reasons as to why that was a totally unacceptable decision.

I then went on to clarify, refute and explain certain comments made by Vegard Aaløkken on the 1995 and post-1995 evidence and made certain the judges were fully aware that after November 1995 I myself knew that none of my letters to Heidi Schøne reached her as they were filtered by the Post Office, yet I continue to write "to" her to let the police know my frustrations.

I finished by saying that if the court was to rule in my favour by finding Heidi Schøne guilty, on this occasion only, I would not enforce my claim for damages or legal costs, to save her from living in poverty for the rest of her life. And that if the court decided only Drammens Tidende is guilty the court should insert a declaration that, even though the newspaper is not on trial, they have failed to prove many allegations, which the court should itemise. And I asked the court to remember that this case began as my prosecution of both Drammens Tidende and Heidi Schøne and told them that due to Stig Lunde missing time limits to go to the Supreme Court, Drammens Tidende had dropped out of the action. And because of that I should not in any event have Heidi's legal costs awarded against me nor have to pay Value Added Tax on them as I was not a Norwegian citizen and I was resident abroad.

When I had finished Vegard Aaløkken was entitled to reply to my closing speech. But before Vegard Aaløkken was allowed to start Judge Nilsen Jnr. said this: "I want an immediate message to be sent to Heidi Schøne that I have been ashamed to take part in this trial". Quite taken aback I asked why. Judge Nilsen Jnr. said, "Look at the state she was in". I replied that her problems had been self-inflicted, as she knew long ago I would take things all the way after what was said about me in the newspapers. Ignoring me, Judge Nilsen Jnr. angrily retorted, "You know, I can fine you for bringing this appeal to court". So I calmly said that if necessary I would take the case to the European Court of Human Rights.

After this highly charged exchange Vegard Aaløkken made his final comments and by one o'clock the court rose, one and a half days earlier than scheduled. Vegard Aaløkken quickly went outside the courtroom to speak to someone and I packed my rucksack with the court papers. I thanked Kevin Quirk. He asked me what I was going to do now and I said I was catching the plane home that evening. I was relieved it was all over but I knew I'd lost my appeal; Judge Nilsen Jnr. had made that quite obvious.

As I walked towards the door of the courtroom my heart sank. I saw two policemen immediately outside in the foyer waiting for me. The Drammen police had obviously liased with Judge Nilsen Jnr. who must have told them exactly what time the trial would finish. I knew now I would not be going home that evening and possibly for many evenings to come. The policemen apprehended me then gave Kevin Quirk some paperwork to translate for me. It was a summons for my arrest for promoting my website in Norway and for a small fax campaign over the last 18 months, detailing Heidi Schøne's past. Once again, I was charged under section 390(a) of the Norwegian Penal Code. The summons was dated the 8th October 2003, the very day I challenged Stig Lunde on the telephone as to whether he had any information as to a possible arrest. The police of course knew I was coming and had prepared themselves in good time. This more recent campaign of mine was in fact very limited as few people in Norway had actually hit on my website and the number of faxes sent was around 40 to 50. The problem as I saw it, was the nature of the things I put on the website: that Torill Sorte had lied on oath. And that the Public Prosecutor Anne Grøstad had covered up for Torill Sorte. I had also attacked the editors of the three newspapers and their journalists and had scanned in every single anti-Norway article from the British press I could find. I coupled this with articles from Aftenposten's own English news website whose headlines described Norwegians, among other things, as "the least religious in Europe", and "world leaders in casual sex"! The chapter in this book on Bosnia was also on view. Concentrated all on one website it was guaranteed to upset the Norwegian establishment. So the police officers then arrested me and took me downstairs to their van parked in the car park.

We travelled to a place I knew well - the newly built Drammen police station and my escorts drove into the underground car park. One of the police officers was the spitting image of the Brazilian World Cup footballer, Ronaldo and when I told him this he laughed, "Yes, I know - many others tell me this too". Well, 'Ronaldo' relieved me of my jacket and trouser belt, the contents of my pockets, my wallet and my wrist watch. All my Norwegian money was counted and placed in a separate plastic bag and put in the police safe. My rucksack and other belongings were put in a locker by 'Ronaldo'. He told me I could make a phone call. I immediately rang the British Embassy in Oslo to explain my predicament and was put through to the Vice-Consul. I told him of my contact with Patricia Svendsen earlier in the year and that she said I should contact the Embassy if and when I was arrested. I told the Vice-Consul that I had now been arrested and the reasons for it and could he send someone round to help me? I told him the address of my website and explained that its existence was basically the reason for my arrest. He said he'd send Patricia Svendsen round as soon as possible, who he said had worked for the British Embassy for 10 years. But the Vice-Consul added, "You do know there is only so much we can do in these situations". I replied, "Yes, I know that". I made a second phone call - to Stig Lunde. "Hello Stig, I'm in Drammen police station because I've just been arrested". "You're joking", he replied. "No I'm not …" And I explained the chain of events after I had finished prosecuting my civil case. Whilst I was talking to him he tried to contact Harold Wibye on his other phone, but Wibye was busy with a client and would call back. We continued to talk in the hope that his ongoing efforts to contact Wibye would succeed but Wibye remained busy. Eventually we said goodbye in the knowledge that I would most probably be kept in the cells overnight, until, hopefully Harald Wibye could visit me the next day.

I was then led to the cells and locked in, minus my shoes which I had to leave outside the door. Maybe half an hour later, the officer in charge of the case (when I'd earlier asked him his name he said, "That's not important"), unlocked my door to say that he would like to ask me some questions so that they could sort this matter out whereupon I could "leave the police station". I would also have to pay my outstanding fine. Alternatively, he said, I could wait until the people from the embassy arrived. I said I'd wait for the people from the embassy. About one and a half hours later the same officer came to my door to announce that the people from the embassy had arrived. Patricia Svendsen, I was surprised to see, was of Asian origin - brown skin. Her colleague was Neil Hulbert, an 'Entry Clearance Officer'. Their news was not good. Patricia Svendsen informed me that the police wanted to keep me in custody and charge me in the magistrates court the next day and ask for a custodial sentence of eight months. Patricia Svendsen was not happy at this and told me I would not be going to prison if she had anything to do with it. So much for the officer in charge earlier offering to "clear the matter up" and let me go! Patricia Svendsen took down some particulars of my story and she recalled the warning letters I had written to her earlier in the year. I guess she must now have realized how disappointed I felt at her failure to help me then, before it got to this stage. I showed Patricia Svendsen the May 1995 Bergens Tidende article and their "erotic paranoia" commentary and read out a paragraph of one of Heidi Schøne's letters. However it was clear to her that nothing was going to be resolved that day as she wanted me to get proper legal advice before I talked to the police and such assistance would not be forthcoming until tomorrow. I gave her Stig Lunde's phone number as well as my mother's phone number so she could tell my mother what had happened. "She won't have a heart attack will she?". "I hope not", I replied. Miss Svendsen then asked me for a photocopy of my passport particulars which photocopy I had stored in my wallet. I left the interview room but the police desk was deserted - we were all alone down there. So I went to my locker, retrieved my wallet and took out the one-page photocopy showing my passport details and photo. I put my wallet in my front trouser pocket and returned to the interview room. Soon the embassy officials bade me farewell and told me they would continue their efforts to free me.

The officer in charge of the case then gave me a signed copy of a Restraining Order made against me dated the 8th October 2003, under section 222(a) of the Norwegian Criminal Procedure Act whereby I was barred from visiting Heidi at her residence or contacting her in any other way. I had no idea where she now lived as she had, of course, apparently moved. And again, I had not visited her in 12 years or attempted to do so. So I looked upon this restraining order as akin to the "engineering" of crime by the police in their bloody-mindedness. Further, the Order stated that I was "barred from distributing information about the aggrieved party to third parties either by letter, telephone, telefax, email or the Internet". The Restraining Order was to last until the 8th October 2004. Violation of the Restraining Order "was punishable by fines and imprisonment of up to six months or both and repeated violations punishable by up to two years imprisonment".

I was put back in the cells. It must have been evening time when two policemen opened my door holding some food. Vegetable soup with stewed beef, two rolls and a yoghurt. I wasn't going to eat though. I knew that by eating I would soon have to go to the toilet and there was no toilet paper.And no soap to wash one's hands with. For water, one pressed a button in the wall above the toilet and a thin stream of water shot out. And I wanted to stay clean. Every half an hour a policeman checked on me - to see if I was "still alive". This carried on all night save for the small hours, when the checks were less frequent. I got no sleep - just lay there on my bunk under a blanket to keep me warm, dozing in the full light of my cell. I exercised a little by walking around this confined space and eventually ate the yoghurt. The next time a policeman opened my door he told me it was 8.30 in the morning. It was one of my arresting officers from the day before who, surprised to see me said, "Are you still here?" No breakfast came - not even a cup of tea. Later the door opened again and one well built blond-haired policeman appeared. He said he just wanted to know what I looked like - obviously curious as to who this longtime adversary was. Time dragged on. At 11.30 a.m. the door opened again and I was told I would shortly be taken to the magistrates court. About half an hour later two policemen arrived to take me to the Eiker Modem and Sigdal Magistrates Court. "Your lawyer will be at the court", I was told. They let me wash my hands and face with soap and warm water in the adjoining toilet facilities. I was then taken around the corner to my locker where I put my belt on as well as my watch and leather jacket and took my rucksack out.

Outside, frost lay on the ground as we drove for half an hour to the courthouse. I was relieved to be out of that claustrophobic cell. Twice in the night when I had coughing fits and needed assistance - even just a cup of tea - I rang the bell in my cell but no one came. If anyone had been dying in between their half hour checks the police would have been none the wiser. I prayed very hard that I would not have to go to prison. Knowing the Norwegians as I did I knew it would be a close call.

We arrived at the courthouse early and had to wait for the judge and lawyers to arrive. The court session was being specially and hastily convened for me. Eventually my lawyer arrived. Not Harold Wibye but a local Drammen lawyer, Svein Olav Duesund, who had been given the papers two hours earlier. No official interpreter was available so they brought along another policeman who spoke reasonable English, to translate for me. Mr. Duesund took me to an interview room and told me negotiations were presently taking place on my case but that if I were to plead guilty to the charges I may - he wasn't certain - escape with a fine and a suspended prison sentence. Would I be prepared to accept this? "Yes", I said. The police lawyer turned up - Ingunn Hodne - and my lawyer conferred with her. When the courtroom was unlocked I went in with my lawyer who discussed my options in more detail with me. I was not going to debate with him why I could not be charged under section 390 of the Criminal Code which gave me the defence of justified comment. After the trouble Harold Wibye had had two years earlier in trying to bring that section in to cover me I was in no mood to try to argue the point myself now. I was in any case exhausted and would do whatever it took to get out of the country. Mr. Duesund then went out. I sat in the witness box with only the translator policeman sitting behind me in the room. When my lawyer came back in it was to tell me that the police lawyer had agreed that if I paid my outstanding fine of 10,000 kroner plus interest together with another 10,000 kroner fine for the present offence for which I was to plead guilty, they would let me leave Norway that evening in return for a prison sentence of eight months suspended for two years. At the same time I was to close my website and do no more faxing. I told my lawyer it was all agreed. Mr. Duesund said, "All this is subject to the judge himself agreeing that you shouldn't go to prison".

The judge then came in and after I promised to tell the truth, he made sure I understood the charges. He asked me if I pleaded guilty or if I wanted to contest the charges. I pleaded guilty. He was at the same time typing away on his computer. More pronouncements were then made as to what was expected of me. The judge mercifully agreed that I did not have to go to prison. Then the hearing was adjourned and we all left the courtroom to sit in the waiting area. After 15 minutes we all went back in again and the judge handed my lawyer and the police lawyer a copy of his verdict. This was read through to me by my translator. I was given seven days to close my website as they did not want Heidi Schøne's name, photos or life history being made available "to the world". So much for the right to reply. That the newspapers had written such rubbish on me elicited no comment at all from the police lawyer or the judge. The Norwegians were determined to silence me. Judge Eric Stillum signed three copies of the verdict and gave one to my lawyer who passed it on to me. Good, I was finally safe.

We all went into the waiting area outside the courtroom whilst discussions took place as to how I was to pay my 22,205 kroner fine. It had to be cash and the question was to which bank was I to be taken to get the money. After a little while the police lawyer, Ingunn Hodne, gave me her mobile phone to take a call from Harold Wibye. Harold told me, that behind the scenes he had been working overtime to get me out of an eight-month prison sentence. To do this he had to put his own neck on the line by assuring the judge and the police lawyer that I would definitely obey his command to cease publicizing Heidi Schøne all over Norway by fax and would shut down my website. Harold Wibye told me that at first the police lawyer was sceptical that he, Harold, had such influence over me. He however managed to persuade them after many phone calls that I would obey his orders. And that he didn't want to get in touch with me beforehand in case he gave me false hope. Harold Wibye now asked me to abide by his request and I agreed knowing full well that the court's verdict would never be enforced at the request of the Norwegians by the British courts. But I knew Harold Wibye had done terribly well to get me off the hook so I was not going to argue with him.

Eventually I went back with my two police escorts to the police van and we drove to the nearest bank, the Sparebanken in Hokksund. There, one of the policemen came in with me and explained to the bank clerk that I had to pay a 22,205 kroner fine and that I would pay with my Visa card. I showed the bank clerk, a lady, my passport as evidence of my identity. After spending a very long time on the phone waiting for Visa Norway to get clearance from Visa England the bank clerk told me that as I did not have a second form of identity I was only allowed to withdraw 10,000 kroner. We attended to the formalities. I put the money in my wallet. We would now have to go back and report to the police station and get permission to go out to another bank's cash point to get the remainder of the money. The trouble was I could not remember my Visa card pin number as I had not withdrawn cash on my credit card for a very long time. I had my Natwest card with me but my withdrawals on it were limited to £500 a day. I needed the equivalent of another £1,000.

We drove back to the underground car park at the police station. I was led back to the cells minus my belt, wrist watch, jacket and rucksack. Off came my shoes. A new police shift was due on now so I had to wait until fresh officers were ready to take me back out again into the town centre to get the rest of the money. This time it was the Gjensidige bank a police car took me to. My Visa card pin number came back to mind, thank God and I tried for 10,000 kroner. Rejected. So with a strong prayer I tried for a smaller amount - 5,000 kroner. Accepted! Out came the cash. Next I put in my Natwest card. Success. Another 5,000 kroner came out. Together with the 3,000 kroner still in the police safe I had just enough to pay the 22,205 kroner fine and get the train to the airport. We drove back to the police station. After half an hour, attending this time at the main police reception when I obtained a receipt for payment of my fines, I left on foot and walked joyfully back to the town centre.

The first thing I did was to telephone my mother from a public phone. She wasn't in but I left a message: that I was out of custody and on my way home. The second thing I did was to inquire if there were any Ryan Air flights back to London but the answer was no -the last flight was fully booked. The third thing I did was to go back to the Gjensidige bank to see if I could squeeze any more money out of the cash machine. Luckily, I got another 500 kroner (£ 44) which I would need to last me the night. The fourth thing I did was to go to the nearest shop, a Chinese supermarket, and buy a Snickers bar of chocolate. I hadn't eaten for almost 24 hours. I then walked the short distance to the railway station and from there on down to my hotel.

On being arrested the previous day I had asked Stig Lunde to phone the hotel to tell them I would be a day late in paying my bill, trusting he would think of a good reason to explain my absence. I had packed my suitcase on that Thursday morning and taken it down for storage near the reception, intending to return after the court case finished, settle up and leave for the airport. Now at 5.50 p.m. I walked up to the reception desk, apologized for being late, and ask the lady on duty to fetch the bill. With her permission I helped myself to two glasses of fruit juice from the restaurant - I had had nothing to drink since a mouthful of water in the police cells that morning. I paid the bill and then phoned British Airways to see if I could catch a flight from Oslo's Gardemoen airport. But the BA office was closed. So I tried SAS. I was in luck: they had a seat - in business class - at cost of 5,649 kroner (£498) leaving at 8.10 p.m. I had to be there for the self-service check-in half an hour before departure. But would I make it in time to the airport? I asked the hotel receptionist how long it would take to get there by train - about an hour was her reply. So I paid for the flight with my Visa card. I had already ordered a taxi for the short trip back to the railway station. In my happiness I told the receptionist that I had made the newspapers many times in Norway and had responded by opening my own website. I wrote down the site's address for her, adding, "For the rest of your life you will never forget me". She said she would look at my website in the evening (presumably when her shift had finished). I would of course have left the country by then. I bade this lady a fond farewell. When the taxi dropped me at the railway station I found at the ticket office that a train was leaving directly to the airport in five minutes. I paid the 151 kroner fare and walked with my luggage to platform one. I asked a girl on the platform how long it would take to get to the airport - about an hour and a quarter she said. No good! I would only reach the airport as the plane was leaving. I went back to the ticket office - was there a quicker train? No there wasn't. I returned to platform one and took the train when it came in. Maybe there was a later British Airways flight I could take or even another airline. I crossed my fingers. Hoping also that the hotel receptionist would not complain to the police that evening that she had seen my website, only for the police to eagerly turn up in the departure lounge to re-arrest me for informing a third party about my website. Well, I was fantasizing this time surely?

The train arrived at exactly 8.10 p.m. I made my way quickly to the SAS check-in desks and to my surprise an attendant was still seated at one of them. And? The flight had been delayed due to fog! Prayers answered. Luggage checked in. With a feeling of triumph I walked the long distance quickly to gate 56. This was a superb airport - clean, modern and beautifully designed. The passengers were not yet boarding. I bought a bottle of apple juice and drank it in two goes. There was one public phone box only for the whole section of this end of the airport. I phoned my mother. With great joy I told her I was just about to board the SAS flight back to London Heathrow. She had got my message earlier to her great relief. But unfortunately when Patricia Svendsen telephoned her with the bad news, my mother told me she had fainted and banged her lip on the Ottoman in the bedroom. She only 'came to' 10 minutes or so later when the phone rang again when it was Stig Lunde with the second edition of the bad news.

We had to wait for another 40 minutes on the plane for the pilots to come from another flight and which was late in arriving. I certainly enjoyed the evening meal given to me by an extremely gracious SAS stewardess. The plane landed just after 11 p.m. at Heathrow. I took the courtesy bus to the long stay car park paid the £81 parking fee and drove home.

The next day I phoned Patricia Svendsen at the British Embassy in Oslo and told her I had received an 8 month prison sentence suspended for two years and that my mother had fainted on receiving her phone call. I made a courtesy call to Stig Lunde who was surprised that I was home so soon. And then I went out to an Internet café and typed in "Heidi Schøne" on the search facility on two Norwegian newspaper websites. Sneaky bastards! Verdens Gang had a front-page article dated the 7th July 1998. Drammens Tidende had two more front-page stories on their site from 1998. Aftenposten's article on me mentioned by Heidi in court, I found by typing in the word "Muslim" on the newspaper's search facility. It was dated 20th April 2002 by Reidun J. Samuelsen. Four stories that I never knew about.