It is not the pee that can catch Bertheussen. That’s everything else.

Urinate is a word for women and children? It has become a national problem during the Laila Bertheussen trial. As proof, it’s a piss in the ocean.

Ingenious Laila Bertheussen your own essay metacomments are rated very high.

On Wednesday, he appeared in court with a bright yellow homemade bag, complete with a screaming emoji and the inscription: “GUILTY of PRAYING.”

“Pesspreik si nu æ”, is the answer that Bertheussen communicates through the bag.

She obviously has a sense of humor.and she is absolutely right.

The use of the word “pee” is linguistically interesting, but in court it is a derailment.

This is not what will possibly catch Bertheussen. That’s everything else.

Closing day procedures started anyway with another fond of urination.

The background is that former language director Sylfest Lomheim claimed in court that the threatening letters must have been written by a woman, because men do not use the word pee, unless they are talking to children.

The debate extended to Dagsnytt 18, where linguist Helene Uri believed that a lawsuit could not focus on such views and anecdotal evidence.

Thus, the defender got John Christian Elden squeezed a very recent seizure on the evidence.

He presented UiB Professor Helge Dyvik’s list of 151 male authors who use the word pee in their works. Ambjørnsen, Bjørnstad, Bjørneboe, Borgen, Gaarder, Kjærstad, Loe, Hoem, Michelet.

Tough men, and they write pee to the whole gang. Even tough guys get drunk on cars and dungeons.

Interesting enough, but for proof, it’s a piss in the ocean.

Fortunately for the prosecution they have a lot of other evidence to draw.

Prosecutor and prosecutor Marit Formo spent the day in court reviewing all the evidence. It’s huge, and mostly from the Wara / Bertheussen house, that you can connect to various events:

• Seal the brochure, markers, printer and printer paper that matches the threat element
• Red alcohol, spark plugs and strings associated with car fire.
• Scripture analysis concluding that letter and labeling match Bertheussen’s letter.
• A surveillance camera turned off, sensors showing that the front door is constantly being opened, and a health app detecting that Bertheussen was moving around at night.
• Bertheussen sought the address of the Tybring-Gjedde couple. It was not publicly available, so the sender must have known where he lived.

The prosecution also withdrew forward that Bertheussen has reason.

They believe that the play “Ways of Seeing” became an obsession for her and that she became intensely involved in blackening those involved.

In media coverage all of this is often referred to as “clues.”

In the process, prosecutor Formo promptly stabbed those who have pointed out that there is no single and conclusive evidence against Bertheussen.

“It does not mean that a case is weak in terms of evidence. Many pieces of evidence can be as convincing as one,” he said during the procedure.

In any case, the judges do not consider one piece of evidence at a time, but rather look at the big picture.

One of the strongest the evidence against Bertheussen is sealed.

Both threatening letters were franked with the image of a lighthouse. In a drawer, the police found a brochure of exactly the same type. Four stamps were missing, exactly the same number as the letters.

“A series of matches must be met if the seal does not originate from this brochure,” Formo said in court.

The prosecution believes that there is only a theoretical possibility for that.

The difference between theoretical and genuine doubt is fundamental for the interpretation of the strict evidentiary requirement of criminal law: “Any reasonable doubt will benefit the accused.”

The wording is a relative of “reasonable doubt”, as most people know from various American court dramas.

Jussnestor Johs. Andenæs wrote in his time that “a certainty that excludes any conceivable doubt seldom occurs in reality.”

There will always be a theoretical doubt built. But it is irrelevant. According to the Supreme Court, this is the reasonable and sensible question that judges should look for.

In this case, the question is boiling over. even if there is any realistic possibility for other perpetrators besides Bertheussen.

“Are the letters stating this credible and realistic?” Prosecutor Marit Formo asked rhetorically.

The question is which story is better explains the evidence.

Either way it’s indisputable that Bertheussen could not have personally sent these letters. One was sent from Norway while she was in the US and two from Sweden while she was in Norway. The prosecution has also not discovered who could have helped her.

There is a weak point in the big story, which defender John Christian Elden is going to insist on.

“There will always be unresolved questions and loose ends. But not all unresolved issues lead to acquittal,” Formo stopped during the procedure.

Laila Bertheussen communicates preferably in liquid form today.

One of the bags he specially designed for the trial was white with a red bow and had the text “Retinitis pigmentosa,” the Latin term for narrowing the field of vision.

Bertheussen believes that the entire case against him is due to the tunnel inspection at PST and the prosecution. The most important task of the judges is to see the big picture anyway.