The Birgitte Tengs Case – Cousin Testifies:

HAUGESUND (Dagbladet): – I assume that two experienced and qualified defenders like Kristensen and Bråstein are aware of where the boundaries are for what is relevant to ask questions, lawyer Brynjar Meling tells Dagbladet.

Adds:

– Personally, I don’t see how the questioning of an acquitted man who is the one in Norway who has been most closely vetted by the case, will resolve the challenge they face as to how the defendant’s DNA ended up on the deceased pantyhose.

Completely out of place

Wednesday morning, after some hesitationBirgitte Tengs’ cousin the same age is on the witness stand at the Haugaland and Sunnhordland District Court. He was summoned by defendant Johny Vassbakk’s defense counsel Stian Kristensen and Stian Bråstein.

– We said that we can read these explanations, and in this sense there is no need for the cousin to participate. But now he wants to meet and he needs to be allowed to. It’s hard work, Kristensen tells Dagbladet.

As cousin Arvid Sjødin’s permanent lawyer is in Oslo this week in connection with The Viggo Kristiansen acquittal casehe is assisted in court by Sjødin’s colleague Brynjar Meling.

– How does the cousin testify? What does he think he can come out of the interrogation?

Complete confusion about DNA in court

– He won’t comment on anything about his testimony, except that he considers it his civic duty to assist when summoned. He will answer questions he can answer and he trusts the court will keep a close eye on the case so it doesn’t become too far-fetched, Meling says.

The lawyer adds that the client does not want to comment on matters relating to his person or his family relationships. This also includes the relationship with Birgitte’s parents.

False confession

The cousin was first convicted of murder in district court in 1997, after giving a confession he later retracted. The following year, he was acquitted by the Court of Appeal, but was still ordered to pay compensation to Birgitte’s parents.

After his acquittal in the criminal case, the cousin chose to move abroad. He was educated in London and Paris, raised a family and currently lives in Spain where he has a successful career in finance.

The compensation ruling was reversed in November this year. Therefore, the 40-year-old family man is now completely out of the picture.

Just as fully, Kristensen and Bråstein repeatedly brought him to trial, among other things by reading the entire court verdict, with the false confession, which was conceived as a “film script”.

The cousin’s permanent lawyer, Arvid Sjødin, has previously done so he claimed that defenders “smear” the clientand that they basically cast suspicion on him again by pulling out all this documentation.

– He is not interested in sitting like a goat and accepting accusations, Sjødin said to Dagbladet last week.

Claim innocence

– It is in no way a question of indicating the cousin. We believe he is innocent, and he is, Kristensen tells Dagbladet.

It was extensively documented in the main proceedings how the cousin’s prolonged and intense police interrogations – maximum 17 consecutive days – produced the false confession. Subsequently, the Norwegian police’s interrogation methods were heavily revised.

– They ruined the cousin

– We are absolutely certain that the court will not be able to get a fully illuminated picture without it listening to the explanations that the police gave it in 1997, and this is what is important for us to convey: that it is not hans explanation that is given – it is the police’s perception of what happened that is told through him, says the defendant, and continues:

– And it’s important for us to find out, because the prosecution is actually asking the court to interpret this crime scene differently today – after all, the crime scene is the same.

Compensation received

Kristensen believes her cousin Meling’s lawyer misses the mark when she wonders how the explanation will shed light the central evidence of DNA – a small amount of genetic material matching defendant Johny Vassbakks, found on Birgitte’s tights.

– Cousin can’t possibly shed light on the DNA evidence. What he can shed light on is what the prosecution, police, district court and coroners assumed happened [drapsåstedet] Gamle Sundvegen on the night of 6 May [1995]. What we want to find out is how the police interpreted the crime scene in 1997, says the lawyer.

The prosecution also included the case against the cousin in its presentation of evidence. Among other things, they documented the manner of the interrogation that led to the false confession, and they read the 2001 judgment in which he was awarded compensation by the Norwegian state because the then legally binding compensation judgment went too far. as well as designating him as the offender.

– I still think it’s the cousin

– It is only natural that the cousin is mentioned, as part of the story of the case, State Attorney Thale Thomseth previously told Dagbladet.

The parents follow the explanation

Erik Lea, legal aid attorney for Birgitte’s parents, says they will follow up on the cousin’s explanation.

– They think what he has to say is interesting. They don’t care, because they’ve known him since he was a child, Lea tells Dagbladet.

Adds:

– But they believed for 25 years that he killed their daughter. I don’t know if I would be so calm.