The Baneheia case: – Therefore, the case is retaken:

The Commission for the Resumption of Criminal Cases has decided that Viggo Kristiansen will have a new trial of the criminal case starting in 2002.

The actual decision is 369 pages long. The Commission writes the following about the decision:

– The basis for the decision is that there is new evidence and circumstances that offer a reasonable possibility that Kristiansen could have been acquitted, had the court known the new evidence or circumstances when the case was resolved.

– The DNA evidence was crucial, Siv Hallgren, who is head of the commission, tells TV2.

In the decision, the commission provides a brief description of the investigations and reports on DNA testing from 2000 to 2020. It notes, among other things, the following:

• A full DNA profile that could link Viggo Kristiansen to the crime scene, the girls or the acts has never been tested.

Viggo Kristiansen has another chance

Detailed justification

Viggo Kristiansen, through lawyer Sjødin, has given a very complete and detailed justification for the reopening petition, the commission writes.

“He claims that Viggo Kristiansen has been found innocent and that he did not participate in the rape and murder in Baneheia, as the city court and the court of appeal have assumed. There are particular circumstances related to the DNA test and the phone test. motive that it is affirmed that it excludes him as the author. In addition, several complaints have been made that will corroborate the affirmation that it has nothing to do with the misdeeds “, the decision affirms.

Disagreement

The decision was made during the dissent. Three of the commission members believe the case should be resumed, against a minority of two.

“Ultimately, a three-member majority is of the opinion that new statements and expert reports have been submitted after the 2002 conviction that weaken the DNA evidence, and that this is important for weighing up the other evidence that suggested that Kristiansen was guilty and the case was heard in the Agder Court of Appeal. In the majority’s assessment, there is a general reasonable possibility that Kristiansen would have been acquitted, if the Court of Appeal had been made aware of the new evidence that is now available. ” write the commission.

A two-member minority believes the conditions for reopening are not met.

“Although the new expert reports on DNA tests, etc. had been known to the court in 2002, there is still no reasonable possibility that this, assessed together with the other evidence presented to the court, would have changed the evidence in such a way that it would have led to the acquittal of Viggo Kristiansen, “the commission writes .

DNA and mobile

The majority of the commission writes in the decision that they believe the evidence landscape was complicated when the case was pending in the Court of Appeal.

“Thus, there were no witnesses who had seen Viggo Kristiansen in Baneheia between 18.15-20.00 and there was no conclusive DNA evidence against him, although more than 160 samples were taken to further the investigation,” it is noted.

In addition, there was a technical test, the mobile test, which in isolation supported Viggo Kristiansen’s explanation, most note.:

“It was also clear to the court that Jan Helge Andersen had lied several times during interrogation. As mentioned above, it is difficult to have a definitive idea of ​​how the court of law emphasized each individual evidence.”

However, the majority of the Commission clearly considers that the defendants’ explanations, mobile phone tests, and DNA tests were particularly central.

‘In the overall assessment, the majority must also take into account certain factual circumstances that are not disputed in the case, including that there are no observations of Viggo Kristiansen in Baneheia within the critical two-hour period, and that there is no evidence in the case that links it directly with the criminal circumstances or with the crime scene ”, is expressed in the sentence.

Interrogation method

The method used to question Andersen also stands out in the decision to reopen the case.

“The techniques that Jan Helge Andersen used in interrogation are no longer accepted practice and shouldn’t happen,” he says.

At the same time, it is noted in the decision that the reopening commission considers that no new evidence has been presented related to Jan Helge Andersen’s explanations which in isolation served as the basis for the reopening.

“In the commission’s evaluation, however, no new evidence or circumstances have emerged relating to Andersen’s explanations or credibility that, in isolation, provide a basis for reopening,” the commission writes.

– No new theories and analysis

In the decision, the commission writes that “there are no new theories, new analyzes and new arguments related to the evidence that has already been brought before the sentencing court, basically” something new “, which must be assessed according to the standards of Criminal Law. Procedural Law § 391 no. 3 “.

Neither do private statements made to the Commission fall into this category.

“However, such contributions may be factors that allow questioning the validity of the evidence presented to the court. In that case, this should be included in the assessment of whether there are special circumstances that make it doubtful that the sentence is correct,” the commission writes.

Weaknesses

Kristiansen, 41, was sentenced by the Agder Court of Appeal in 2002 to 21 years in prison for being primarily responsible for the rapes and murders of Stine Sofie Sørstrønen (8) and Lena Sløgedal Paulsen (10) in Baneheia in Kristiansand on May 19, 2000. Found two days later.

Since the verdict, several have pointed to weaknesses in the evidence convicting Viggo Kristiansen.

In particular, the findings and analysis of traces and partial DNA elements from Kristiansen’s mobile phone at a base station that had no coverage at the location where the murders occurred, have been explained as proof of exclusion, NTB writes.

Wait

Since receiving the verdict, Kristiansen has claimed that he is innocent. Since November 2017, he has waited for the Commission to reopen criminal cases to process his fifth request. Treatment started in late 2019.

In total, it has requested the reopening of the case on six occasions, has appealed twice the decision not to be taken and has filed one of the appeals before the Supreme Court, but without success.

He also reported his former friend Jan Helge Andersen for a false explanation, but the report was dropped after a few weeks.

Several attorneys have been involved in the case after Tore Pettersen, who defended Kristiansen during the early trials. For the past nine years, it has been attorney Arvid Sjødin in Stavanger who, along with a separate support group of volunteers, has helped Kristiansen bring the case back to the Readmission Commission.

– Without base

The Agder Prosecutor’s Office will not request the release of Viggo Kristiansen.

The tax authority has meant that the case should not be tried again in court.

The prosecutor writes today in a press release that they take note of the commission’s decision.

“The decision of the commission does not mean that the judgment of the Agder Court of Appeal of February 25, 2002 has been reversed, but that Kristiansen is now entitled to a new appeal procedure. In accordance with the second paragraph of article 400 of the Criminal Procedure Law, the Commission will now send its decision to the Appeals Committee of the Supreme Court, which will appoint an Appeals Court to handle the new appeal procedures.

When Kristiansen is now granted the request for resumption, the Supreme Court will appoint a Court of Appeal to rehear the case. It cannot be the Agder Court of Appeal, which handed down the sentence in 2002.

– No absolution

The reopening is not an acquittal, but a decision that the case will be tried again in court, says Eva Kvelland, head of marketing and communication at Stine Sofies Stiftelse.

– We take note of the decision and basically trust that the judicial system will treat all criminal cases in a good and fair manner. The Resumption Commission’s decision does not change the fact that Stine Sofie and Lena were brutally raped and murdered on May 19, 2000, Kvelland emphasizes in a press release.

The decision of the Commission of Resumption obviously affects the relatives.

– Ada Sofie Austegard is Secretary General of the Stine Sofies Foundation. As the mother of Stine Sofie, of course it is stressful for her that the case comes up repeatedly. She is our leader and as colleagues we want to be there for her in every way possible, says Kvelland.