Comments:
Because I have been taken by Carl Olof Jonsson as a witness that a part of his writing ”Rolf Furuli’s warped ”Response to Carl Olof Jonsson” Disproved” is true , I think it is right for me to raise my voice. I am not so much concerned with differences based on the details persons remember and do not remember fifteen years after the events – court psychologists tell that there are a great percentage of wrong testimonies in court cases, because the witnesses have experienced the situations differently. I am, however, very much concerned with data, and I have the following comments of the situation where I am mentioned. JONSSON TAKES CONJECTURE AS DATA Jonsson writes: ”Here again, Furuli isn’t telling the truth. Norwegian Witnesses informed me that Furuli continued to circulate his paper (his “unfinished notes”) after I answered his letter. And he was still doing so as late as 1990, when some Witnesses in Norway wrote to me and told me that Furuli had lent his first paper or parts thereof to several Witnesses, among them an elder in Oslo, Danne Mattson, and other elders in the city of Bergen (including R. Instebø). I also found out that these Witnesses used the paper in their discussions about the Society’s chronology.—Letter from Jan & Wenche Kalstø to Jonsson, dated September 20, 1990.” It is not Furuli but Jonsson who is not telling the truth here! I have never received nor seen the manuscript of 110 pages written by Furuli that Jonsson claims I have. I had a telephone conversation with Roald Instebo in Bergen, and he says exactly the same. He knows the other elders in Bergen, and can with certainty say that neither they have received the mentioned manuscript. Based on these data, I am sure that what Furuli wrote in ”Rolf Furuli responds to Carl Olof Jonsson” is true: the manuscript of 110 pages was never distributed! I see that Jonsson’s source is ”Norwegian Witnesses,” and if these ”Witnesses” are Jan and Wenche Kalstø (whom he refers to at the end of the paragraph), I can confirm that they do not tell the truth. If these ”Norwegian Witnesses,” contrary to my words do tell the truth, it should be easy to prove: Find one or two copies of the manuscript and tell the name of those who own them. THE JUDICIAL AND THE ETHICAL SIDE OF THE MATTER Because I have been drawn into this by unreliable witnesses, I would like to take a closer look at the ethical side of the matter. In order to illuminate this side, I use the data that Jonsson himself gives, and ignores interpretations and views of the persons involved: 1. 4 February 1987: Furuli’s manuscript was sent to Jonsson by Jonsson’s friends.. 2. 10 April 1987: Jonsson sent the first part of three rebuttals, containing 31 pages, to his Norwegian friends, and they furthered it to Furuli. 3. About a week after he had received the material, Furuli wrote a letter (dated 23 February 1987) to Jonsson. In this letter Furuli states: a) that the notes are copied against his will, b) that they are not a finished manuscript which represents his present views, and therefore, that no part of it should be quoted in any context, c) and, because of the two points above, Jonsson must destroy all copies of Furuli’s manuscript. 4. Jonsson did not destroy his copies but made a "rebuttal" of 31 pages of viewpoints that Furuli did not acknowledge belonged to him. Instead he added 62 more pages to his rebuttal. To justify this conduct it was important for Jonsson to show that Furuli distributed his manuscript, because this would indicate that Furuli did not view it just as unfinished notes - but as shown, this manuscript never was distributed. Jonsson wrote: "Clearly, then, Furuli did nothing to end this false rumor, and so, because he didn't stick to our agreement, I saw no reason to destroy his paper or prevent the Norwegian Witnesses from circulating my rebuttal." I know that persons can interpret things differently, and sometimes take conjecture as data, but I do not think that either Jonsson or Furuli is lying. Therefore, when Jonsson says that he did not know that the manuscript was copied against Furuli’s will when he wrote the first third of his rebuttal, I believe that. And when Furuli says that the manuscript was never distributed, I believe that. But where is the moral and ethical responsibility in this case? Ownership I see no ethical problem with Jonsson writing a rebuttal of 31 pages when he got the manuscript, because he did not know the will of its owner. However, once he got Furuli’s letter of 23 February 1987, the situation changed completely. The one who has written a manuscript is its owner; even an interview, written or oral, made for the media, is the property of the one interviewed until s/he has seen/heard the final version and says OK to using it. That Jonsson did not comply with the demand of the author of the manuscript to destroy all the copies he had, is in my view to take the law into one’s own hands. I view it as tantamount to being the receiver of and the user of stolen goods. Ethics Jonsson can also be criticised for his rebuttal consisting of three parts. According to himself he wrote the first part before he knew the the words of Furuli that the contents contained unfinished notes that could not be quoted as Furuli’s present opinions. But even if the 31 pages were written before he came to know this, once he knew it, he was ethically obliged not to distribute these pages. By distributing these 31 pages he ascribed opinions to Furuli that he did not necessarily have, thus possibly bearing a false witness regarding the opinions of Furuli. I do not take any standpoint in connection with the disagreement between Furuli and Jonsson as to whether Furuli sent his letter before he had read Jonson’s first rebuttal or after this. But if I understand Jonsson correctly, he wrote the greatest part of his rebuttal (parts 2 and 3 of 62 pages) after he got Furuli’s letter. If this is correct, Jonsson deliberately argued against viewpoints that Furuli said he did not have, and this is liable for a more severe criticism, because it is clearly unethical. Jonsson’s arguments in favor of ignoring ethics and ownership I am surprised that one reason that Jonsson mentions for distributing his rebuttal, is that Furuli ”didn’t stick to our agreement”. An agreement is made between two consenting parties, but Jonsson states that he has never spoken with Furuli, and that Furuli did not answer his two letters. So there was no ”agreement”. In addition, even if Furuli actually had distributed his manuscript, there was no excuse for not destroying the copies that the owner of the manuscript had demanded destroyed. If distribution of Furuli’s manuscript had occurred, Jonsson could not know whether there were changes in these other manuscripts. So, to have the right for a rebuttal, Jonsson had to get one of these ”new” manuscripts and see which standpoints were presented there. But regarding the copies he had used for his rebuttal, it was definitely stated by the author that every conclusion in them did not necessarily represent his present views. I want to stress that what is written above, is a statement that I feel I am obliged to give because Jonsson has distorted the facts, and I know these facts. I do not want any further discussion of the matter. Dan-Ake Mattsson

Comments: