|Image Courtesy of Matthew D. Inness|
I am no longer shocked but am continually outraged, as this is the third and final sentence regarding this case. I won't discuss the details included in the article below. But, I will tell you the facts behind the case, which have been repeatedly overlooked and mis-represented in the Norwegian press.
Further, we have ideals about justice, that the defendant is "innocent until proven guilty" and that it is first the responsibility of the prosecution to provide evidence of guilt, not the responsibility of the accused to provide evidence of innocence. These principles were clearly violated from the first to the last as each court presumed Nerdrum to be guilty from the beginning and demanded that he prove his innocence.
These proceedings remind me more of the Spanish Inquisition than they do of a modern judicial system in the civilized world!
Over the course of several years of writing about this case, I've learned the details of how it came about:
It began when approximately 40 large scale pieces that Nerdrum painted with an experimental medium began to drip and melt. Understandably, the collectors who had purchased these paintings were upset. Nerdrum spent the next decade re-painting many of these pieces and offered to ship them at his expense to the collectors. The Norwegian IRS claimed that he painted these pieces, not to replace the damaged paintings, but to sell them and evade paying taxes.
Read more for the full background to the case: Odd Nerdrum: Art Political Prisoner
Here is the full article in the Norwegian Press below.
- See also:
Appealed to Supreme Court
Nerdrum appealed to the Supreme Court, which overturned the verdict because they believed the judgment of the Court of Appeal was inadequate.Thus, the whole matter is discussed again by the Court of Appeal in May 2013.
- See also: New straight round of Odd Nerdrum
During his closing argument the Court of Appeal, he criticized the investigation in the case.
He lost the case in both the District Court and High Court and appealed the case to the Supreme Court in May.