Here’s the split – VG

The answer to the question divided the Commission for the resumption of criminal cases, which this week reopened the Baneheia case by three to two votes.

Atsays the majority, who believe that the value of DNA evidence and explanation today is clearly undermined. They believe that there is a reasonable possibility that convicted murderer Viggo Kristiansen would have been acquitted if the Agder Court of Appeal in 2002 had been aware of the weaknesses.

Ysays the minority. They believe that today there are no new circumstances that would have led the Court of Appeals to reach a different conclusion.

The Commission does not rule on the question of guilt, but will only assess whether there is new evidence or circumstances that may indicate that the sentence was handed down for incorrect reasons.

– It would not lead to acquittal

It is indisputable that Viggo Kristiansen was not observed in Baneheia by other witnesses during the period in which the murders are said to have occurred, and that there is no technical evidence linking him directly to the events.

Everyone on the committee agrees that there is much to be said for Kristiansen’s sake. They also agree that there has been no new evidence or circumstances that in isolation are suitable for acquittal.

But here the paths of the commission divide.

Most believe that several of the key evidence that led to the conviction have been weakened, and that this leads to a weaker overall picture of the evidence against Kristiansen today.

The minority believes that the court in 2002 was aware of the weaknesses, and that what has been done by subsequent investigations and analyzes does not give reason to reopen the Baneheia case, neither alone nor as a whole.

– Had the jury been familiar with the evidence and the circumstances that occurred after 2002, in the minority’s view, there is still no reasonable possibility that this, assessed together with the other evidence presented to the jury, would have changed the evidence available to the court in such a way that it would have led to the acquittal of Viggo Kristiansen.

There are three main points in particular that the Commission questions:

1. DNA entries

The findings of a pubic hair linked Jan Helge Andersen directly to the crime scene. Sperm were found, but in such small quantities that it was not possible to extract complete DNA profiles – just one profile that could indicate that there were multiple perpetrators involved beyond Andersen.

The verdict assumes DNA was found from two different men, although one find was very limited and could not be directly related to Kristiansen. The DNA profile was in agreement with 54.6 percent of Norwegian men, including Kristiansen. The court found that there was substantial evidence to support Andersen’s explanation.

The majority believes that the DNA test was one of the decisive pieces of evidence against Kristiansen, and that it was perceived in court as a sure confirmation that there were multiple perpetrators. They believe that the analyzes are so uncertain that the current evidence should be considered neutral and has therefore changed significantly. This leads to other key tests being amplified or impaired.

The minority He believes that the court agreed with the reservations about the DNA material, and that it was clear to them that the parties disagreed whether it was one or more perpetrators. They believe that the uncertainty in the statements of subsequent experts will not change the rest of the evidence against Kristiansen.

2. Explanation by Jan Helge Andersen

Jan Helge Andersen convinced Kristiansen about the murder case and claimed that he was the main man who forced Andersen to commit abuses and murders.

The verdict based largely on Andersen’s explanation, and the court saw no reason for him to misstate his comrade. They point out that their explanation is flawed, but still believe it to be credible because their explanation is supported by, among other things, DNA evidence.

The majority believes that as the DNA evidence has weakened, Jan Helge Andersen’s credibility will suffer and the probative value of his explanation will deteriorate. They also believe that he had an obvious motive to convince his comrade of the case, among other things to diminish his own role in the murders. They believe that the interrogation methods used pose a significant risk of incorrect explanations when the role itself is marginalized.

The minority he believes there are several reasons to criticize the explanation, including the fact that it was modified several times and that the interrogation methods were questionable. They think it is difficult to understand why he should claim that he was forced to commit murder if he had first decided to lie to his friend in the case. They think it would be more natural to say that Kristiansen committed both murders. The minority believes that the sentencing court was aware of the weaknesses in the explanation and that therefore there is nothing new in the case.

3. The mobile card

The verdict assumes that the killings took place between 19-20 pm on May 19, 2000. Tonight, Kristiansen sent text messages to an acquaintance at 6:57 PM and 7:37 PM. In addition, he received a message at 7:24 p.m.

Kristiansen believes it proves that he was not at the scene during the killings, because his phone was picked up on all three occasions by the EG_A base station, which does not cover the scene.

A mixed commission agrees that the mobile phone test was critical during the court proceedings and that it is primarily a repeat of previous allegations and arguments.

The verdict it leaves the mobile phone evidence unexplained, and several different theories were thrown without a conclusion on mobile phone use when the case went to court. However, the verdict states that the use of mobile phones does not change the other evidence that the court believes shows that Kristiansen is guilty.

The majority believes that the value of mobile testing increases because DNA testing weakens. They believe the moving evidence in court could be a factor in strengthening Kristiansen’s explanation of his movements on the night of the murder, but that it was left unexplained in the verdict because they considered the other evidence so strong that it led to a conviction.

The minority believes that the court was aware of the uncertainty surrounding the use of mobile phones, and that there is nothing new in this evidence today that would have led to acquittal.