[ad_1]
“It’s about me” was written on the defendant’s purse when she arrived in court Thursday morning. And he was right that the attention should be on her again.
All available seats for the audience were taken when Bertheussen gave his last explanation at trial.
The fire in the family’s car on the night of March 10, 2019, was a turning point for investigators. It was then that the PST began to suspect the partner of the Minister of Justice. Just four days later, she was charged.
Even then she denied all blame and received the full support of his defender. “We’ve been through the whole case from A to Z. Nothing points to her there,” attorney Elden said the day after the arrest.
We now know that Bertheussen faced various tests during interrogation. The same evidence reached the court table Thursday.
According to the prosecution, the investigation yielded results quickly when the flames were extinguished.
Although there are no images of Bertheussen to light up, PST made a number of other finds. In large part due to the increasing number of security measures in the family home.
The weekend before the fire Surveillance cameras, hidden cameras and alarm sensors were installed at the doors. The findings of these systems are critical to the case. Especially a six minute window of time.
PST believes the fire started during these minutes. At the time, the only surveillance camera showed the car out of service. Experts believe that the camera must have been turned off from inside the house. At the same time, a sensor shows that the front door was open for just over ten minutes.
At the same time, Laila Bertheussen’s health app shows that she walked 174 steps. PST had installed two hidden cameras covering the driveway and street outside the house, no outsiders were observed here during this time.
Bertheussen himself remembers little of tonight. Apparently because she was very intoxicated. She believes she may have opened the door to let the family cat out, and interprets the steps as cleaning the house before bed. But in court, she made it clear that it is based on assumptions because memory fails.
“Could it have been you who turned off the camera?” Prosecutor Marit Formo wanted to know. “I can’t get him to agree with cat and house and cleaning. But I know I didn’t start my car at the same time. So you can describe the narratives with all these crazy stories,” replied the defendant.
But she was in trouble at this point. “We see that the surveillance camera goes off when the fire starts. Hidden cameras don’t capture anyone.
The door is open and your phone is moving. Are they all coincidences? »The prosecutor continued. “Yes, coincidence in time,” was the short reply of the accused.
She believes it was also a coincidence that the afternoon before the fire she bought garbage at a nearby shopping center.
The flammable liquid was purchased for cash.. “I always carry cash,” he explained. Minutes later, he had no explanation for paying with a card at a nearby bakery.
Forensic scientists believe that the car fire started with purchased alcohol, wire and spark plugs.
During a search of the home, police found incendiary bags of the same type and a roll of string believed to have come from the same manufacturer.
“Is it also a coincidence?” Asked the prosecutor. “Yes, it must be,” replied the defendant with a resigned laugh.
You didn’t come any further, despite a series of in-depth questions from the prosecutor. But the court has likely noted that Laila Bertheussen had little to contribute to explaining the technical findings. The question is whether the judges believe this can really be a coincidence.
It remains the prosecution that bears the burden of proof in the case. This means that they must prove that the accused is guilty, they will not have to prove their own innocence.
At the same time, we know that the court will make a general assessment of the evidence presented. Only if the defendant’s version can be discarded can it be convicted. In this evaluation, few and incomplete explanations can be significant. On the other hand, the court must also consider unanswered questions about submissions to the Elden Law Firm. This seems to be where defenders have their greatest opportunity to cultivate doubt.
While earlier in the case she seemed cheerful and verbal, Laila Bertheussen was more moderate in her final explanation. She seemed low-key, and was at times broad and resigned when she answered the prosecutor’s questions.
There is no doubt that the lessons on the witness stand were demanding for her. And it must be said that it has been the most difficult day so far in this case. So it remains to be seen how the judges will emphasize it all.
