[ad_1]
The theme of the eighth day of trial was threatening letters. Two of them quite similar. The letters were made up partly of sentences cut out of a newspaper and partly made with stencil prints. The message was taken mainly from an interview with one of the actors of the play “Ways of seeing”.
A letter ended up in the mailbox of the Ingvil Smines and Christian Tybring-Gjedde couple. The other was sent to the Bertheussen / Wara partner, but the postman delivered it to PST.
Hard drive of the prosecution
Who made the threatening letters is one of the biggest questions in the entire trial. The prosecution believes it was Laila Bertheussen, and today they did everything possible to prove it. It was an intense afternoon session as the trial entered its third week.
Standing on the witness stand, constantly with a black stress ball in one hand, the defendant was heavily pressured by prosecutor Marit Formo. From time to time, his colleague Frederik Ranke was also involved in the interrogation.
The first demanding phase of the interrogation began with stamps. Two stamps were placed on each of the envelopes of the threatening letters. The motif on both was a red and white headlamp. In a drawer in Laila Bertheussen’s studio a scroll with the same type of stamps was found. According to the prosecutor, four disappeared, two with a white tower and two with a red one.
“Do you know who used them?” Prosecutor Formo wanted to know. “No,” replied the defendant. “You see that they are the same four missing that have been used in the lyrics, do you have any comments on that?” “Not.” “Could it be that the stamps on the letters originate from this stamp booklet?” “Not.”
Missing answer
The prosecutor also produced an analysis of Kripos that suggests the stamps were identical. “The stamps in all probability come from the stamp booklet or stamp booklets with the corresponding deviations and registration cuts”, is stated in the conclusion.
The defendant also had no comment on the matter. But he said that lately he bought the same type of stamps at “Post i Butikk” and got the same motive. “They are quite ordinary stamps,” he answered the prosecutor’s question in depth. “Kripos thinks stamp cutting is not that common, do you have any comments on that?” “Not.”.
Poor responses from the defendant will likely be used against you. The prosecution will likely argue that it is not credible that she did not have a better explanation for the seal certificate. And the Kripos report can be emphasized when the court must decide the question of guilt at this point.
I didn’t remember the data purchases
The other big topic in today’s survey was the use of printers. The theory is that Bertheussen bought an HP printer with which he printed the newspaper articles with which the threatening letters were written. And that this printer was scrapped shortly after. In support of their opinion, the prosecution has, among other things, a surveillance video from outside the house of the cohabiting couple.
The video shows the defendant loading cardboard cartons into his car. With it you have a red shopping net, on the net you can see the outlines of something black and square. Prosecutors believe this was the printer in question. Laila Bertheussen rejects it.
But I had a bad memory when it came to printers and printer shopping. It can help weaken your credibility. IT specialists at PST have determined that a specific HP printer was connected to Bertheussen’s PC for two hours on a morning in January 2019. In several interrogations immediately after the arrest, she denied that any new printer had been purchased at this site. moment.
Today in court, she opened that she could have made such a purchase anyway. But she does not remember and tells herself that it is really just guesswork and speculation. They asked him a series of questions about this, without the image becoming clearer. The prosecution believes it is obvious that she changed her explanation of the printers after she learned of the evidence in the case. It is rejected by the defenders. So it remains to be seen what the court thinks.
You hardly benefit from poor memory
Today’s session in room 250 lasted just over two hours for Bertheussen. It can still be seen as the most demanding day yet in this case. There is not yet a single piece of conclusive evidence on the table that holds the key to any point in the indictment. And it is the prosecution that must prove that she is guilty, not the other way around. But the court has acquired a growing understanding of the series of indications from the prosecution. So there is almost no benefit to poor memory and lack of response to key points.
