01x07 - Sorteper

[bunniefuu]

I'll go down there.
They are there...

- See you.
- See you.
Depending on how long it takes.

- Hello.
- Hi. Do you see us? We're behind the truck.

- Oh yes, behind the truck.
- We're up by the main road.

Oh yes.
Okay, I'm coming up. Bye.

- Sit here. Hi. We made it.
- Did you go for a little run?

Yes, just because it's so damn cold.
It's crazy.

- So we're reunited.
- Nice to see you again.

- You look like yourself. Just a little older.
- You too, you look good.

Have you been summoned for questioning or to court?

I haven't checked.
With whom? Sorteper?

- Yes, that's...
- We heard about it right before we left.

- I'll check when I get back.
- Otherwise, you probably will be within a week.

And then you just have to...

I have two folders here that document
some of Amira's cooperation with the police.

What interest do the police have in this?
It has a bit of a Stasi feel to it.

I could say I don't give a damn.
But it affects other people too.

This should make investigators pause, for now
they have access to a journalist's notebooks.

But when the police get involved
and start saying it's a good idea, -

- then it starts to become an abuse of power.

Now it gets even more exciting.
This hard drive.

It's data theft sanctioned by the police.

- What do they expect when they invite me in?
- Totally insane.

Simply strange police work.

You can't start committing abuses
against the press.
It must not happen.

Norwegian subtitles:
Harald Plahter

I know we've touched on this before.
Just briefly.

What makes criminals become
informants for the police? The enemy.

My experience, after 25 years in the police force, is -

- that most criminals want a life -

- where they are not under pressure
from the police hunting them.

So what makes
informants go over to the police, -

- is that they want to show
that they are actually trying to contribute to society.

The challenge, of course, is
whether that is actually the core of the matter, -

- or if the person has a hidden agenda.
And then the question is:

What is her real
agenda with this cooperation?

Stiig Wæver himself asks
the central question:

What was it that made Amira
start cooperating with the police?

They have something that looks like a family tree.
With the relationships each person has.

Where they make a note
every time they see you with someone.

Or when they see you do something
for someone who is in their registry.

That's where the world collapses for me.
I think I'm going to prison.

In an old interview, she says
it all started with a meeting in a hotel room.

- Where does this meeting take place?
- At a hotel.

- What do the police want out of that meeting?
- What the police always want: information.

Do they say anything about what future you'll have
if you don't cooperate?

Not directly, no.

If I understand
Amira Smajic correctly here, she's saying -

- that this meeting could
result in one of two things:

Either you end up in prison,
or you cooperate.

She's good at creating drama, so I find
it a bit difficult to interpret what she's saying.

But it seems strange
that today you would recruit sources by saying:

"We have evidence of serious crimes here.
You'll walk free if you cooperate with us."

If she is under investigation for serious
crimes, that is the direction you go.

Then you don't make her a source.

If we assume that there is actually
some truth to what Amira is saying, -

- there is
another clue in the old interview.

Like most criminals, I thought -

- that if I were being bugged,
I would notice it.
But you don't.

- So you've been under surveillance?
- My phone was tapped for a year and a half.

There was actually a case where Amira's phone was
tapped before she met the police.

Not for a year and a half, but for over a month.

The case went
by the codename Operation Backdoor.

Thomas Koch.

My name is Stig. Special prosecutor at NSK.

You sent us a request for access
regarding Operation Backdoor. I had the case.

I wanted to hear what you are actually looking for.

We are early in the process,
so I can't say exactly what.

But it's truly
an incredible scam.

The scam started as a rumor
that spread among criminals.

A corrupt tax official could
erase criminals' tax debt.

- You heard about it everywhere.
- Everyone heard you could get your debt erased?

Exactly, yes.

The tax official used
a backdoor in the agency's systems.

And for a fee, he could
make the debt disappear with a mouse click.

But it was a double scam. There was
no backdoor. No corrupt officials.

And the criminals never
got the debt they paid to have erased.

He said a lot of nonsense that wasn't true.
And people talked about it.

And he had promised people various things. And when
it didn't happen, he had to run.

Investigators tapped Amira's phones,
but she was never charged in the case.

A 33-year-old man, however, was.

Our good swindler had figured out
that when you get what's called an R75, -

- if you had public debt,
the debt was listed on the R75.

Then comes a memo that it's not allowed.
Instead of removing it, they zero everything out.

He finds this out, and that's how he convinces
people that he's actually getting their debt erased.

It's very smart.

That's actually why we thought
he wasn't the one who came up with it.

The special prosecutor's speculations
about other masterminds behind the scam -

- contribute to a budding theory
that Amira may have had a hand in it.

This is where we remember that we've heard
about the case before. In an office in Frederiksberg.

Have you checked that the cameras are working here?

- We're checking it now.
- Yes, it works.

There we heard the incredible story of the
man who said he could erase tax debt.

Do you remember Sorteper?
The one who could
erase tax debt. Haven't you heard of him?

Amira called the man Sorteper.

Then Sorteper came.
But what he promised was just:

"If you give me ten percent of
what you owe, I'll erase it tomorrow."

No one can do that.
Not even Mette Frederiksen can do that.

Sorteper could.
At least, many people believed him.

The remarkable thing is
that Amira herself kept bringing it up.

- Do you remember Sorteper?
- Yes. He scammed me out of 900,000.

My brother fled the country because of him.

As if she needed
to distance herself from Sorteper.

- I stayed away from him. Remember?
- You were innocent, Amira.

She also told us in detail
about the advanced scam.

He can erase tax debt
if you give him the social security number.

Like in this podcast I recorded with Amira,
but which was never finished.

A large, overweight, dark-haired man comes in.
With a big belly and a slightly short sweater.

He reminds me a lot of Sorteper.

I actually think many people call him
Sorteper today because I called him that.

Then he says: "I can erase tax debt."
I laughed, because of course you can't.

He says he has people in the scene who sell
the service for him. I could be one of them.

No thanks, I thought.
I'm not getting involved in that.

I have never been exposed to a case like this.

When the case went to court,
people blamed each other.

Sorteper pointed to Amira
as one of the masterminds of the case.

He mentions her name 94 times.

This contrasts with the investigative
material presented by the police in court.

Sorteper's defense attorney reacts to this.

I suspected
that case documents were being withheld.

It's absolutely incredible that there isn't
a single interrogation report on her.

Camilla and I cooperated on this case.

And Camilla often came back after
the court hearings and seemed quite upset.

The prosecution says again and again:
"You have received everything that is relevant to the case."

And the word "relevant" makes me pause.

I write an e-mail to the police and ask
them to confirm that there is no more material.

The day before the closing arguments,


- Between our client and...
- Amira Smajic?

Yes, with Amira Smajic among others.

And it goes without saying, the day before...


You have to have time to read all that.
It's completely impossible in one day.

The defense attorneys protest,
but fail to get the case postponed.

Sorteper gets three years in prison, -

- and the wiretaps that appeared at the last
minute are never presented in the district court.

It's strange that the case isn't postponed
when such material is presented.

As a judge, I would have been angry -

- if someone came up with that at the last minute.

And the prosecutor would have had to answer for it.

It seems like they're trying to sweep something
under the rug, but that doesn't always work so well.

I feel we have investigated the case correctly.

The defense attorneys have had the opportunities they are entitled to.

They were angry because there was no evidence
that could acquit... That's not my problem.

As I recall, it was only...
who had contact with these people.

Therefore, it was natural to focus on him.

They will claim that
you kept the mastermind out of the case.

They have the right to that attitude.
I have the right to disagree a little.

When you, as a handler, are dealing
with an informant, what must you be aware of?

That I am the one handling the source, that it is
I who am the controlling party.

Can a handler -

- turn a blind eye
to crime, accept it?

No, that's the starting point. And that's
where gray areas can unfortunately arise.

After all, an informant becomes
an acquaintance of a police officer.

- Isn't there also a risk of becoming friends?
- Yes, there is.

And some form of friendship should probably develop, -

- or at least
a contact on an equal level.

And it's in that split that you have to
ensure you maintain watertight compartments.

When does the princess want to meet tomorrow morning?

We carefully suggest 9:30 AM,
if that suits the young lady?

- That works.
- And what kind of cake would you like?

- No need, boys.
Just a cup of coffee.
- You'll get your usual double shot.

I think the informant handlers
who are good are very creative people.

I also think you develop a relationship
where you might not become friends, -

- but you understand each other's situation.

The person who ends up in a situation
where they are recruited as an informant...

The most typical thing is that the person is in a jam.

And that jam is most
often about the police having uncovered -

- that the person is committing a crime.

There is nothing they don't know about me.
I'm afraid I'll end up in prison.

You also research police methods.
What can the police offer?

Formally,
there isn't much you can offer.

You are not allowed to help
in a way that protects your informant -

- from being arrested or investigated.

The problem here is that the police become
too strongly attached to their informant -

- and go too far -

- to preserve
and protect their own informant.

And there you have "the slippery slope," as
it's called in English, where things go wrong.

After the loss in the district court, Sorteper's
defense attorneys appeal to have the case retried.

They claim that the 670 pages
of phone taps prove -

- that Amira was an accomplice in the debt erasure.

And in that case, Amira can't go free
while Sorteper is convicted of fraud.

Amira was supposed to come in,
and all the wiretap material was ready.

"Confident of victory" is the wrong phrase to use.

But I definitely felt
that we had more ammunition this time.

Amira is called as a witness,
but does not want to appear in court.

She protests loudly to her handlers.

Hello.
I'm not driving 5 hours to give
a 5-minute statement at 9 AM in Viborg.

It's never smart not to show up.

If he thinks I'm showing up in Viborg
at nine, he must be out of his mind.

You'll probably have to call him on Monday.

The handlers refer
Amira to speak with the prosecutor, -

- who then tries
to have her removed from the witness list.

The prosecutor believes
that Amira is not relevant to the case.

But the judge nevertheless gives the defense attorneys
the green light to call Amira as a witness.

On day two, my client informs me
that no witnesses were to be called.

Just before it's about to happen,
Amira's testimony is canceled.

To everyone's surprise,
it's Sorteper himself who cancels it.

And Sorteper doesn't stop there.
He
confesses to everything and drops the demand for a new trial.

It made absolutely no sense to me.
Everything just suddenly collapsed.

The outcome is the same in the Court of Appeal.

Sorteper is convicted
as the mastermind and gets three years in prison.

I'm in here
and being punished for something she did.

This man has been convicted
as the mastermind behind the debt-erasure case.

He is the one Amira calls Sorteper.

You're wearing an ankle monitor.

Why should we trust
your story more than Amira's?

I'm not saying I'm God's best child.
Of course, we all have a role in this.

And we have to be accountable for it.
But how can she get away with it scot-free?

Your defense attorneys said
that you had a very good hand.

But when you show up in court on day two,
he says that everything has changed.

That you ask him not to call witnesses.
Not even Amira. What happened?

I received a phone call the day before I was due
in the Court of Appeal. From the criminal underworld.

They said that if certain names were mentioned
in court, I would be in big trouble.

Why did you let yourself be threatened into silence?

Because I was thinking
about my safety and my family's safety.

I could have gotten into even bigger trouble if
I hadn't kept my mouth shut. So I just confessed.

In Sorteper's version
of the story, the roles are reversed.

Here, it is Amira
who is the mastermind behind the scam.

So, we are dealing
with two criminals who are blaming each other.

Sorteper is not credibility itself, and we
don't know what role Amira has played here.

But on one of Amira's old phones,
we find something interesting:

An encrypted chat
from when the debt erasure took place.

Here, Amira is contacted
by a man who calls himself Vasi.

He writes to Amira that he has
a client who wants their debt erased.

- Some debt needs to be erased.
- Need the exact amount. From the tax authorities.


How long
does it usually take to get it fixed?

- It varies.
- Approximately?
Is it weeks, months?

- Weeks. Three at most.
- OK, I'll pass that on.

The tax debt of almost half a million
belongs to a pizza restaurant owner -

- who, through Vasi, submits his
driver's license, codes, and BankID.


Amira gives notice that the job is done.

The tax debt can be checked by Wednesday at the latest.

- So it's erased then?
- Yes.

It must be stressed that we don't know
if the police have seen the same material.

But our finding does not silence
the criticism from the defense attorneys.

There is something seriously wrong with this case.
The court has only seen the tip of the iceberg.

I still believe there are phone calls
and case documents we haven't received.

What is it about, Thomas?

The defense attorneys are coming
with some wild accusations.

They accuse me of fabricating evidence.
That in order to get their client convicted -

- I have deliberately painted a picture
that did not correspond to reality.

That is punishable by law. And I feel
that perhaps I have not done that.

Could it be someone who did it
behind your back, or before you found out about it?

I don't know.
But my answer is no.

I know my investigators,
and I know they take their job seriously.

So no, I have not been part of
any meetings behind closed curtains -

- where we have decided
to convict one so that another goes free.

The fact that an informant tries
to get information from their handler, -

- maybe get help, is not unusual, is it?

No, it happens often.
But then it's important -

- that the handlers stick to the rules
for how far one can go or not.

Stiig, now we have to keep our wits about us,
because now we are rewinding -

- to before Operation Backdoor
was decided in the Court of Appeal.

On 16.12.2021, handler M1 writes -

- that Sorteper's defense attorney finds
it strange that she has not been questioned.

We've heard from the boss
that you'll be called in for questioning after the New Year.

- Is there something we should look into?
- Questioning?

Yes.
His defense attorney thinks
it's strange you haven't been questioned.

I don't know
in what context you are to be questioned.

- But they'll probably call you, so you can ask.
- OK. That sounded strange.

Yes, but as I said, the boss wasn't
any more informative than what I told you.

A very internal piece
of information to share with an informant.

When a defense attorney asks questions,
a much sharper spotlight is turned on Amira, -

- and now she can prepare
before she is questioned by the police.

This is information that goes
beyond what one should share with a source.

How did you perceive the prosecution's
request to have Amira Smajic questioned?

It was an interrogation,
but it was mostly completely devoid of content.

I have a quote from the interrogation report here.

"In the autumn of 2019, the interrogated person was strongly affected
by her father's death earlier that year."

"And she had developed a pill addiction.
Her memory was therefore damaged."

Do you remember what you thought when you read
that interrogation? There's more to it than this.

We are not present when the police question
people, so we don't know how persistent they are.

The police cannot
pressure anyone into giving a statement.

So then that is her statement.

Did Amira suffer from memory loss
caused by pill abuse, -

- or was it a fabricated explanation
that no one could disprove?

Something suggests the latter.

During a review
of old recordings, we discover something new.

Here, Amira tells her conversational partner
about an interrogation she was in: Operation Backdoor.

I told the police
that I couldn't remember anything.

To emphasize it, I said that I had
a pill addiction. I have never taken drugs.

Amira claims
she made up a story for the police.

The alleged pill abuse, which is the reason
for the memory loss, has never happened.

Today, it is common knowledge
that Amira Smajic was an informant for the police.

But it wasn't when we began
our collaboration. She told us.

And for a long time, she was actually unsure
if it should be included in the documentary.

Is there a reason you don't want to say now
that the meeting led to you becoming an informant?

It's because it's not
yet fully decided if it should be revealed.

- Then we'll wait until we know.
- We can do another version later.

If she agreed to the cooperation
with the police being made public, -

- we thought it would be good for her
and for us to have the cooperation documented.

Therefore, in April 2022, she went
to a meeting with her handlers -

- and secretly recorded the meeting
with her mobile phone.

We promised her not to use the recording.

And that was precisely because she didn't know
if the cooperation would be made public.

- You have to promise it won't be used for anything.
- Yes.

- I haven't decided how...
- That promise is sacred.

It's about my integrity.
If a boss says we should use the recording, -

- I'll say:
"We can't, because I promised."

I promise on behalf of all of us
that we will not use this recording -

- if she doesn't want it included.
So we didn't use the recording.

I found it difficult not
to use it, but the argument at the time was -

- that it would put
Amira Smajic in further danger -

- if it came out that she was a police
informant.
Now it's public knowledge.

That information is in the press. Everyone knows it,
not least because of Amira Smajic herself.

The premise for that promise is gone.

We have been sitting on very serious
and important knowledge about this audio file.

What's on it must be made public.
Now we're putting everything on the table.

So you know what Operation Backdoor
and the Sorteper case are about?

- In broad strokes?
- Yes.

We have an audio recording
between Amira Smajic and her handler -

- that deals with this very interrogation
they tipped her off about.
Let's listen to it.

- Hello.
- Hi. Do you see us? We're right behind the truck.

- Oh yes, you're behind the truck.
- We're up by the main road.

OK, I'm coming.

- So we're reunited.
- Yes.

- Have you been called in for questioning or to court?
- Haven't checked. With whom? Sorteper?

- Yes, that's exactly it.
- We heard about it right before we left.

- I'll check it.
- Otherwise, you'll be called in within a week.

You can have an app on your phone where
you get digital mail. It will show up there.

If it's an interrogation,
you won't be summoned that way, will you?

- It's an interrogation. And then you probably just have to...
- Say "pass." "I don't remember anything."

Anyway, we were told... You have
been good about wanting to tell things before.

Also about things where officially...

Here you probably shouldn't
be so eager to tell things.

- No, I don't remember anything.
- It's difficult when we don't know what it's about.

- Maybe we'll have time to pick it up.
- But I can't remember anything. It's fine.

- Yes, you're in charge of that.
- It was many years ago.

But since we got a little heads-up,
it's good if you don't remember much.

But that was Sorteper?

Yes...

I almost don't know what to say.

My God.
It's shocking.

It's a grotesque introduction.

A grotesque start to the conversation.

It is not legal to instruct
a witness on how to give testimony.

If my client has had the entire system
against him, it's clear it couldn't have gone well.

It's frightening.
This here... Yes...

There's a little more on the recording,
so we can listen further.

- But that was Sorteper?
- We don't know.

It could have been.
They start
by asking you to tell what you remember.

- Nothing.
- Say that it's unclear.

I became a mother and everything.

And I was a pill ab*ser, so everything was a fog.

- It was OxyNorm.
- Just say that.

- And then you stop there.
- That's fine.

He'll be thinking: What on earth... And then
he'll try to ask more, and then you say:

"That's how it was. I was a completely different person then.
But I don't remember anything from the pill fog."

It's fine.

- OxyNorm.
- How many times have you been questioned?

- That was specific.
- Received.

- And if we find out what it's about...
- I can check.

Yes, that would be smart. But the trial
is ongoing now. So it could well be about that.

From what I hear, he's supposed to be in court.
There are people looking for him.

Well, then they know where to find him.

What do you think about that?

It's a little difficult
to sit and listen to, I think.

You can't
imagine it in your wildest dreams.

It could happen in a novel,
not in real life.

The police are not allowed to help a witness
with an obviously fabricated story.

It's not allowed.
It's as simple as that.

Then he tries to ask again, and then you say
that you were a completely different person then.

"I really can't remember.
It was a fog of pills."

You don't need to have studied law
for many years to see that this is completely wrong.

Shocking. So it's actually the police
who told her what to say.

And that is
exactly what she said in the police interrogation.

And they're sitting there laughing about it.

So she gets away with everything scot-free.

It just shows that no matter what I did
against her, I was fighting against a superior force.

Because she has them in the palm of her hand.
It's totally insane.

People talk about parallel societies, etc.
In g*ng environments, you keep your mouth shut.

You're not allowed to say one thing or another. But
what is this? The police have learned from them.

We fought so hard, but now we understand
why we always hit a wall.

What they have done here is a criminal offense.

We're talking about fabrication of evidence.
Or at least an attempt at it.

It carries a maximum penalty of six years,
so it's a serious crime.

If you cheat, the justice system collapses.

Giving false testimony in court is punished
with a non-suspended prison sentence. It must not happen.

And I don't think you'll find a single
normal police officer who doesn't agree.

Norwegians,
and perhaps Danes, are quite naive.

We believe that regulations are followed blindly.
But it's not like that.

They go to great lengths
to protect their own informant.

The accused is entitled to be assessed
differently. We are approaching a miscarriage of justice.

Not that I have any sympathy for swindlers,
but they deserve a fair trial.

One almost gets the impression
that within the police, within NSK, -

- there is something that can almost
be described as an internal enemy.

Those are strong words you're using,
but what we've heard is extreme.

Hand on heart...
I am...

Of course,
mistakes and transgressions can happen, -

- but this is on a level
that is quite extreme, I think.

It hurts to see as a former police officer.

Here in our round of calls,
we're going to call a number of people.

First, we'll call Amira Smajic.
We probably know the result in advance.

We're not on speaking terms, but we'll try.

The last number we have for Amira.
I have eight different numbers. None of them work.

This is the last one.

The number is not in use.

I have another one here.

The number is not in use.

Then we'll have to send an email
to her and her lawyer.

Now we need an answer from the police
on what has been going on here.

The first person we'll call
is special prosecutor Stig Paulsen.

I have not participated in secret meetings to
convict one person so that another goes free.

You've spoken with him,
so I think you should take this one.

I have spoken with him continuously.
He was very talkative.

Let's hope he still is.

- This is Stig.
- I'm calling because we have a recording -

- where Amira Smajic's handler in NSK -

- instructs her to give false testimony
in connection with Operation Backdoor.

- The same testimony she gives in the interrogation.
- I don't know if Amira Smajic -

- is an informant for NSK.
So I simply
don't know how that sort of thing works.

The prosecution does not instruct
anyone about anything.

- Are the police allowed to instruct witnesses?
- No.

The defense attorneys say they felt
that you were protecting Amira Smajic the whole time.

I suspected
that case documents were being withheld.

I don't know if Amira Smajic is a source for NSK.

So I don't know if anyone is protecting her.
And that's not allowed.

You have said
that you know your investigators.

I know my investigators,
and I know they are serious.

It's easy to think that the instruction could
be related to the investigators in the case.

I cannot rule out
that the conversation we are having here -

- may give me reason
to make a phone call when we are finished.

- Who do you call then?
- I call my boss. She calls her boss.

I'm calling the head of the National Unit
for Serious Crime [NSK], Lasse Boje.

- This is Lasse.
- Is this the head of NSK, Lasse Boje?

This is journalist Mads Brügger.
I'm calling on behalf of TV 2.

We have an audio recording of a meeting
between Amira Smajic and her handlers.

Where they instruct her
to say she was a pill ab*ser -

- and that she therefore couldn't
remember anything in a criminal case.

Can you call my communications chief, Mads?

Can handlers instruct people
on what to say in a criminal case?

- Talk to my communications chief.
- I would like to talk to you about it, Lasse.

Neither the police nor NSK will
comment on source relationships.

That is standard practice.
And that also applies
to what is being alleged in this case.

Are you aware -

- that NSK and Amira have
been spying on journalists?

I have
no comment on that documentary.

It doesn't seem like we're getting anywhere,
but we will contact your press office.

- Thanks for the chat.
- Thank you. Have a nice day.

- Well, at least it's out there now.
- Now we're starting to get up to speed.

Once upon a time, everyone agreed
that swans were white.

The ancient Romans said
that black swans did not exist.

But they do exist.
And when they appear,
we can learn something from them.

We met
the black version three years ago.

Together, we have seen the underworld
merge with the upper world.

And we have seen the police get lost -

- in the shadows of the rule of law
they themselves are meant to protect.

Thus, another layer has been added
to the story of The Black Swan.

There are a number of areas.
The hard drive is being copied.

The witness is instructed, takes pictures of
notebooks and of people who visit you out there.

And it seems that some
of the instructions come from the highest level.

A stop should be put to this
from happening again.

They need to review
how the police should handle sources.

Where should the lines be drawn?
I believe they should be expanded considerably.

But when you can document
what you are doing in this case, -

- it's difficult to argue for
expanding powers when it comes to sources.

I have previously been much more
skeptical than I am now about the use of methods.

Because I have seen some important cases
that would not have existed -

- if we hadn't had
the method at all.

But then there's the eternal balancing act,
and it's difficult.

How big of a problem is this within the police?
Is it one or two people?

Or is it a number of people in the police?
And how high up does it go?

Does it go up to the chief?

They start by asking you to
tell them what you remember.

- Nothing.
- Say that it's unclear.

I became a mother and everything.

And I was a pill ab*ser, so everything was a fog.

- It was OxyNorm.
- Just say that.

- And then you stop there.
- That's fine.

He'll be thinking: What on earth... And then
he'll try to ask more, and then you say:

"I was a completely different person then.
But I don't remember anything from the pill fog."

It's fine.

What is it we just heard?

I don't know.
I understand what you mean it is.

- What do you think it is?
- I don't think anything about it.

Not at all?
What does it sound like?

It's difficult for me to say what it sounds
like.
I know what you claim it is.

That it's a witness in a criminal case
meeting two police officers -

- who instruct the witness to
provide incorrect information?

I am not going to address
the allegations contained in your story.

- Why are you sitting here then?
- To say that the picture you are painting -

- of the police's work with sources,
is not a picture I recognize.

You have a legal background. Are the police
allowed to instruct a witness to lie?

I will not provide legal assessments
of allegations I will not address.

It's very specific.
Why can't you address it?

- It's just allegations and assumptions.
- So you won't answer that.

What would you say to Sorteper and his defense?

They are left with the impression of something
that resembles, and I know this is a strong thing to say, -

- a miscarriage of justice.
That the handlers and NSK
have tried to protect Amira Smajic.

I cannot address a possible
source relationship and the assumption it is based on.

But regarding Operation Backdoor,
one of our prosecutors said very precisely:

He assesses that no main person has
gone free, that the case has been investigated correctly -

- and that it has been
brought to court as it should have been.

Except that Amira Smajic never testified.

If you say that she didn't testify,
then I suppose she didn't.

One can see from the communication
between Amira Smajic and her handlers -

- that there is someone above the handlers
who is instructing and controlling.

How high up does it go?

I cannot address
the allegations in your story.

The handlers tell Smajic
that they have heard from their bosses -

- that she will be called in for questioning after
the New Year.
So there is a management level here.

In the area of sources, it is the case
that the fewer who know, the better.

So there will always be very few who know
who is or has been a source for NSK.

Has any of this made an impression
on you and will it have consequences?

Again, I cannot
address the specifics here.

I was confident in our way of handling
sources before, and I still am.

- Are you?
- Yes, I am.

But there are probably many viewers out there
who, just like myself, are thinking:

"This is completely wrong."
What would you say to them?

I am here to say to the viewers... And I
understand that they are reacting to this story.

My picture of how we handle
sources in the Danish police is completely different.

- It sounds like you're blaming us?
- No.

But you are, aren't you, when you say that we are painting
a distorted picture of what is happening in NSK?

With source work, it's the case that the outside
world speculates, while we can't say anything.

Thank you, Lasse.

- My pleasure. Good luck.
- Thank you.