NO WAY TO TREAT A LADY part 1

This is a commentary to the historical documentary film NO WAY TO TREAT A LADY. The film is from the Institution for the Mentally Retarded, Emma Hjorth in Sandvika Norway

This is the video film which the police, Norwegian television broadcasting (NRK-Dagsrevyen), Swedish TV-4 and several newspapers were given January/February 1991. This video film exploded the so-called Sol-case for the second time. This video film shows unexplained sores and injuries inflicted upon the autistic woman "Sol"; covert video recordings of mishandling by staff; - and documentation that Sol's vision has been dramatically reduced.

Most of these video recordings were taken after dark with a video camera hanging ca. 25 meters up in a tree, 34 meters from the window. The microphone was on the ground.

This commentary is a documentary tribute too all that participated in the project that put a stop to the abuse of Solveig (Sol) and saved her life. The institution Emma Hjorths Hjem is now closed and many who participated in the Sol project have been instrumental in its closure.

There are many names that should be remembered in that connection.

The head psychologist Marit Langseth and her motto: ?Emma Hjorth should be bombed? should be remembered. No one in the institutions administration was aware the she was the defence groups mole in the administration!

She participated in a major action with more than 20 persons to save Solveigs life.

Architect Gunnar Bugge and his wife Berit, who were the parents of an autistic man at the institusion, must also be remembered.

There are many persons that have contributed in some way or other to produce this film. Some have assisted in recording, removing of branches that blocked the view to the window, by acquiring videotape, cable, camera, the safekeeping of the videotapes the police were looking for, advice regarding editing, calligraphy ect.

If we shall mention any names it must be the journalist Nina Johnsrud in the newspaper Arbeiderbladet (now renamed Dagsavisen) and the nurse Richard Norton. The Film was finished in the fall of 1990.

According to Johnsrud and Norton it was a problem to show the video material. The video material that documented abuse was to be found on many different cassettes - 25-30 in all. It was time consuming to rewind the tapes and show the video.

It was necessary to make the material more accessible. In addition their was a concern that the police could come with a search warrant and seize the video.

The Norwegian director of health Torbj?rn Mork had written a confidential letter to the district attorney.

The letter was read in the telephone to Journalist Nina Johnsrud by an infiltrator. Mork was particularly preoccupied with the fact that the video was taken up illegally. He asked that a search warrant be issued for a search at Richard Norton and the psychologist Arild Karlsen.

Much of the video was already hidden by Journalist Nina Johnsrud.

However in view of Morks letter all the remaining video and equipment was immediately moved and hidden with the Journalist where the film was finished.

The journalist’s assistance proved to be vital! On the 01.03.91 12 policemen conducted a search of both Richard Nortons and Arild Karlsens place of work and home.

They of course didn’t find anything, thanks to journalist Nina Johnsrud!

The fact that the brave journalist had a relationship with Richard Norton was revealed by a journalist in the national TV Jon Gelius.

He had been informed of the director at Emma Hjorth Bj?rn Krogsrud. Nina Johnsrud denied such a relationship but eventually Nina Johnsrud gave birth to a child who was christened David Johnsrud Norton.

Johnsrud was attacked by several journalists (Dag H?kon Hellevik, Tore Johansen) for her relationship with Norton and her participation in the production of the film.

Johnsrud was required to appear in court regarding her involvement in the production of the film.

She denied having anything to do with the production of the film.

Norton was also required to appear in court.

He declined to answer about who helped on the grounds that doing so could result in prosecution of a family member. In the film there is quite a lot of handwritten descriptions between scenes.

Luckily for journalist Nina Johnsrud nobody recognised her handwriting or even thought to raise the question - who’s handwriting was on the film.

http://www.likestilling.com/psykologi/Rank.html