In 2013, a health nurse at the school sent the then 15-year-old girl a report of concern to the police.
The girl had told the nurse that her grandfather had abused her repeatedly, over many years.
The police launched an investigation, but a little over a year later the police felt that they did not have enough to prosecute the grandfather, and the case was dropped on the evidence.
Then – four years later – the girl’s cousin tells a similar story to her mother.
Now the grandfather in his 70s has been sentenced to six years in prison.
Lasted for several years
In a recent ruling from the Borgarting Court of Appeal, the court assumes that the abuse began in 2004, during a period when the girl spent the night with her grandparents on a regular basis.
According to the verdict, the grandfather began to feel the girl’s body, among other things when the two lay in his bed at night.
Eventually, the abuse escalated, and the girl told the court that she experienced the actions as “disgusting”.
She did not tell anyone about one of the abuses until she spoke to a psychologist just before the appeal hearing in the Court of Appeal this autumn. She herself believes that she has repressed the abuse because it was so «horrible».
The abuse occurred on a regular basis until the summer of 2013, when the girl told a health nurse about what had happened.
Thought it was wrong after teaching
The other girl was subjected to a similar abuse when she was six years old, in 2010.
She thinks the incident was “horrible”, and thought about it for a long time afterwards. She also had to sleep with her mother for a long time.
Only when sexual abuse became a topic at school, in 2018, did she begin to think that her grandfather had done something wrong.
In early 2019, she was made aware that her cousins had told a similar story several years before. Then she realized that her grandfather had sexually abused her.
She gave an explanation to the police in a facilitated interrogation that summer.
Made seizure of child porn
According to the verdict, the first accusation in 2013 led to the family being divided.
The girl and her parents are said to have cut off almost all contact with the grandparents and uncles and aunts.
During the period when the abuse took place, the girl was reluctant to visit her grandparents, and at one point she stopped showing joy when they came to visit, according to the parents.
The court, on the other hand, emphasizes other evidence presented against the grandfather. Several of them document an attraction towards younger girls.
Police seized his computer and found pornographic images of children and animals. A former son-in-law also stated in court that on one occasion he was to help the man update his operating system, and discovered that the computer had been used to visit a website with images that were alleged to be child pornography.
Nevertheless, the grandfather has not been charged with possession of child pornography.
Claims it may have happened in his sleep
The grandfather in the 70s has both in the district court and in the court of appeal denied the accusations.
He thinks the first girl has a motive for revenge against him, because he was strict with her.
The man believes that the second relationship either did not happen, or that he may have accidentally confused the grandson with the spouse in his sleep.
The court does not trust his explanation.
Among other things, they point out that the first girl has explained herself more or less consistently since 2013.
They also point out that the girl stood her ground despite the fact that the family was divided, and that this strengthens her credibility.
The man is therefore sentenced to six years in prison for abusing children under the age of ten, sexual intercourse with children under the age of 16, and for incest. The last point only applies to one girl. The court notes that there is an “unknown reason” that the man was never charged with incest towards the first girl.
The sentence is one year stricter than the original decision from the district court.
The grandfather is also sentenced to pay compensation of 200,000 and 90,000 kroner, respectively.
–
