Following the verdict (in 2001), Kristiansen and his supporters have raised several issues concerning the evidence for the verdict. The main issues are related to the interrogating techniques performed on Andersen, the location of Kristiansen's cell phone during the time of the murders, Kristiansen's alibi as per witnesses, whether there were two perpetrators or one, and the validity of the DNA evidence.
Interrogation of Andersen During the initial interrogation of Andersen, the police applied controversial
suggestive question techniques. The lead interrogator, without any formal training, proceeded with so-called "informal conversations" with Andersen while waiting for his attorney to arrive. During this time, the interrogator informed Andersen that the police "knew" there was more than one perpetrator. He also introduced Andersen to the idea that Kristiansen was a participant and even the leading force of the crime. The interrogator wrote the following in the police report: {{Blockquote
Gregg McCrary from the
FBI testified in court in 2011 and said the following about this interrogation: "It's a very alarming way to interrogate a witness. The police must never give the name of possible perpetrators or ask leading questions". McCrary also said that it seemed obvious that Andersen had been guided since the details changed from interrogation to interrogation.
Gísli Guðjónsson, Professor of
Forensic Psychology at
King's College London who is also an expert on suggestibility and false confessions, wrote in his report that the initial police interrogator "most likely ruined the case". This statement also matched the measurements in the telecommunication reports since the cell site connected to Kristiansen's phone was close to his home, a fact Kristiansen's mother couldn't have known about since the cell phone alibi wasn't discovered until the trial was almost over. A
Scandinavian airlines pilot who had some spare time in Kristiansand before his next flight saw a man together with two girls between 19:40 and 19:45 in Baneheia. The pilot only watched them from a distance, but he saw enough to describe the color of their clothes, which matched the color of the clothes of Andersen and the victims. Despite extensive public outreach for everyone who was in the area to contact the police, there were no other reports of a grown up person with two children. The pilot was not called to witness for the court. The observation of the pilot skewed the time period of highest probability of the murders from between 19:00 and 20:00 to between 20:00 and 20:30. Observations made by five other witnesses who heard or saw relevant activity in the area indeed agree with the time of the murders being between 20:00 and 20:30. During this span of time, Viggo Kristiansen used his mobile phone not only to send and receive text messages, but also to calmly speak with a friend. None of these five witnesses were called to court as witnesses either.
Two perpetrators A suspect profile report from the
National Criminal Investigation Service in Norway (Kripos) suggested that there might be only one perpetrator since both victims were killed in a similar way. In the interrogations with the police, Andersen had described in detail how the girls were killed, a method he had learned by watching a special type of documentary called "Reality TV", but he was only sentenced for killing one of the victims while Kristiansen was sentenced for killing both. The suspect profile report was presented neither for the court nor for the lawyers, and was unknown by the public until 2010 when Kristiansen's lawyer Sigurd J. Klomsæt finally got hold of it by appearing personally at Kripos after several failed written requests. FBI expert Gregg McCrary agreed with the conclusion of the report. In addition, the defence has pointed out the extreme rareness of two perpetrators in such a case. In fact there had never been a record of two adult perpetrators where children have been murdered, neither in
Europe nor the
United States, and an American survey from 2008 said that only 2% of all types of murder cases had more than one perpetrator. Kristiansen's lawyer, Tore H. Pettersen, tried to create doubt about whether the DNA evidence showed two perpetrators. He argued that the material could be polluted and that the evidence by itself was very uncertain, but got no positive response from Bente Mevåg when she was confronted with this in court. When Tore H. Pettersen in his closing statement argued that the DNA evidence was caused by contamination, members of the jury reportedly leaned backwards in their chairs, smiled, and crossed their arms comfortably. In the judge's
direction to the jury, the judge said: In 2010, three independent laboratories in Sweden, Norway, and England retested the original biological samples stored at Santiago de Compostela-institute in Spain and the Forensic institute in Norway, material that had been reported dispatched both by Bente Mevåg, and Arne Pedersen at the local police. All laboratories reported the same result. The samples had positive DNA-profile from Andersen, but no match from Kristiansen. Dr. Susan Pope from the
Forensic Science Service (FSS) in London believed the prosecutors had received an erroneous translation of the report since the second match was presented as "incriminating evidence" in court, and the
Santiago de Compostela institute in Spain had denied that their report described the second match as incriminating evidence. The Santiago de Compostela-institute had also reported tiny DNA traces from four different people, and not two people, as claimed by the Norwegian forensics institute, further raising the suspicion of pollution. State prosecutor Jostein Johannesen wrote in 2010 that "it's unfortunate that the police presented this as incriminating evidence against Viggo Kristiansen". In a trial from 2011, Gregg McCrary from the FBI testified that the lack of DNA trace excluded Kristiansen even as a suspect. In conjunction with an application to reopen the case in 2017, telecommunication engineer and scientist Harald Sivertsen analyzed the original report from the Santiago de Compostela-institute. Harald Sivertsen found that the report from Santiago de Compostela-institute was only meant to be a preliminary report. He also wrote that the report did not describe any certainty of two assailants, and he asked where the final report is, and what the final report says. This analysis was written in the form of a letter addressed to Bente Mevåg, but Bente Mevåg did not reply to the letter. In June 2020, the Norwegian Criminal Cases Review Commission asked Frederik Torp Petersen, a Danish DNA expert with a PhD in biology who works for the forensics institute in Copenhagen, to consider the validity of the DNA evidence. His conclusion was that the DNA evidence was too weak to say anything about the number of assailants, and should not be presented in court.
Media portrayal Kristiansen was consistently portrayed in the media as a cold-hearted psychopath. The local newspaper
Fædrelandsvennen referred to him as "the
Incarnation of Evil". But when Andersen in court described how Andersen had killed Sørstrønen, Kristiansen reportedly had tears in his eyes and took deep breaths, showing similar reactions as many others in the court audience. When Kristiansen gave his testimony in court about the underaged girl he had sexually abused 6–7 years earlier, he was crying so heavily that he was unable to speak, forcing the prosecutor to read out loud Kristiansen's written police testimony instead. Andersen, on the other hand, never showed any emotions, not even when describing killing and rape in detail. When Andersen met the press the day after he got his final sentence of 19 years, he said that he rather wanted no sentence when asked how he felt about the sentence. Kristiansen said in the same interview, when asked the same question, that he felt sorry for his mother and his family about what they had to read about him in the papers.
Timeline after the initial trials In 2004, Kristiansen started treatment with
specialist in psychology Atle Austad. Kristiansen contacted Austad because he needed help to cope with the sexual abuse he had committed against an underage girl when he was a teenager. Austad initially assumed that Kristiansen was guilty of the Baneheia case as well, but later realized, after doing some research, that he had to be innocent. After this, Austad recommended Kristiansen to find a new lawyer, and recommended Sigurd Klomsæt. In 2008, Kristiansen filed a motion to re-open his case. Kristiansen had also replaced his old lawyer Tore H. Pettersen with Sigurd Klomsæt. In 2009, Sigurd Klomsæt sued the Criminal investigation chief in Kristansand, Arne Pedersen, since both the police in Kristiansand and a middle manager from the forensics institute, Bente Mevåg, had informed him that the DNA material had been destroyed. In 2010, while Bente Mevåg was on sick leave, the DNA material turned up. Eivind Pedersen, a journalist from
Dagbladet, didn't believe the DNA material had been destroyed as Mevåg had said and contacted acting middle manager Margurethe Stenersen and institute leader
Ole Gunnar Ballo while Bente Mevåg was on sick leave. The pertinent DNA material was located exactly where it was supposed to be, stored in 199 test tubes in a freezer. Margurethe Stenersen also gave assurances that they never throw DNA material away ("Why would we?"). Despite immediate political pressure to investigate the institute after this occurrence, the result was that Ballo, even though he was not in charge when Mevåg disinformed Klomsæt, decided to resign because of "work pressure" just two weeks later and only 9 months after being hired. Mevåg continued in her job and the institute was not investigated. In 2010, the motion to re-open the case was denied by the authorities, stating that the case was not sufficient for re-opening. In 2011, Kristiansen appealed to the
European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. That same year Kristiansen sued the
Norwegian Criminal Cases Review Commission for not granting a retrial. Kristiansen's lawyers described the verdict as an uncritical cheering of the Norwegian Criminal Cases Review Commission. In 2012, Kristiansen appealed this to the
Supreme Court of Norway. His lawyers hoped that he would be granted a new trial since they now possessed additional case evidence which was not considered during the first court proceedings. Viggo Kristiansen argued that new evidence would acquit him. On March 27 the supreme court rejected his appeal. In 2012, Sigurd Klomsæt lost his license to practice law. Klomsæt was sentenced for distributing pictures of
Anders Behring Breivik to the press in conjunction with his work as lawyer for one of the victims. Klomsæt said that "strong forces" had leaked the pictures as a way to get rid of him because of his involvement in the Baneheia case, the
Birgitte case, the
Bjugn affair, and other cases where he had been bothersome for police and prosecutors. When Klomsæt lost his license, Arvid Sjødin took over as Kristiansen's main lawyer. Klomsæt got his license back in 2014. In 2014, Viggo Kristiansen sued Jan Helge Andersen for slandering him. The case was dismissed; the police's justification for the dismissal was that it was "obviously baseless". Arvid Sjødin also notified the director of Public Prosecutions of Norway,
Tor-Aksel Busch, about several criminal offenses performed by the police and the local state prosecutor during the investigation. In his reply, Tor-Aksel Busch did not address the accusations and only wrote "It should be obvious, but just to clarify: Viggo Kristiansen was found guilty in 2002 and all his applications for retrial have been rejected." In 2014, Kristiansen's prison psychologist for 10 years, Atle Austad, said publicly that he thought Viggo Kristiansen was innocent of the crimes, and that this could be proven. For this statement, complaints about malpractice, breach of confidentiality, and other charges, were sent to The Norwegian Psychological Association (NPF) and to the Oslo county. All complaints were sent by the mother of Sørstrønen. Austad later said that he was generally described as a controversial person after this statement; he also received death threats, and was no longer hired by the
Norwegian Civil Affairs Authority. In 2015, Jan Helge Andersen was released from prison. He gave the following statement: "I've been in prison for 14 years, that's a long time. I've paid for what I've done." His parole ended in 2019. In 2015, Atle Austad was cleared of any wrongdoing, both by The Norwegian Psychological Association (NPF) and by the Oslo county. For the complaints about breach of confidentiality, NPF stated that psychologists are required to report cases of miscarriage of justice, even when it breaks confidentiality. In 2016, Arvid Sjødin, Kristansen's lawyer, sent a request for new trial based on a new law called "objektivitetsplikten" (objectivity duty). In 2017, the state attorney rejected the request for a new trial. Arvid Sjødin thought the decision was incomprehensible since "the state attorney now seems to consider himself having more knowledge about cell phones than the experts". In 2017,
Bjørn Olav Jahr wrote a book about the Baneheia case called "Drapene i Baneheia. To historier. En sannhet" ("The Baneheia murders. Two stories. One truth"). Jahr is an experienced journalist and author of several books about real crimes. Jahr concluded that Viggo Kristiansen was innocent and that Jan Helge Andersen was the only perpetrator. The book also sparked a lot of public discussion about the case, including several articles and public statements from people expressing doubt about the sentence, and people believing that Kristiansen is innocent. In 2018, a police expert on telecommunication wrote a note to
The Norwegian Criminal Cases Review Commission to confirm that Viggo Kristiansen's mobile phone gives him an alibi. In 2019, it was revealed that Kristiansen's missing blue
mora knife had been in the possession of the police all the time and had even been checked out of the case as not being the murder weapon. The knife was believed to be missing, and it was also presented for the general public as the murder weapon. In court, Viggo Kristiansen was asked about the knife. The prosecutor asked where the knife was and if he could explain why the knife was missing. In reality, a neighbour of Kristiansen had earlier found the knife on the ground and given it to the police. In 2019 and 2020,
TV2, the second largest TV channel in Norway, released a podcast series about the Baneheia case. The podcast claimed to take a neutral stance but was still accused of being biased in support of Viggo Kristiansen by the families of the victims. In March 2020, Arne Pedersen wrote a public article defending the work of the police. Pedersen also accused the media of being biased in support of Viggo Kristiansen, creating public disbelief. Avid Sjødin, in his reply, claimed many of the statements in the article to be incorrect, but he agreed that the media was being biased, although against, not in support of, Viggo Kristiansen. In June 2020,
The Norwegian Criminal Cases Review Commission asked Frederik Torp Petersen, a Danish DNA expert with a PhD in biology who works for the forensics institute in Copenhagen, to consider the validity of the DNA evidence. His conclusion was that the DNA evidence was too weak to say anything about the number of assailants, and should not be presented for a court. The short answer from the Danish DNA expert was: "I maintain the original wording of the report, and I disagree that it creates uncertainty." In January 2021,
TVNorge, a TV channel in the
Discovery group, released a 6-part documentary about the Baneheia case. A significant part of the documentary focused on Kristiansen's family and their struggles after the conviction including their decades long fight to get Kristiansen acquitted. The documentary claimed to take a neutral stance but was still accused of being biased in support of Viggo Kristiansen by the families of the victims. In January 2021,
Dagsavisen, one of Norway's largest newspapers, wrote in its editorial that the case looked more and more like a miscarriage of justice, and demanded that the case should be reopened. In February 2021,
Civita, one of Norway's largest think tanks, released a podcast with the title "Is the Baneheia case the biggest miscarriage of justice in Norwegian history?", where the host took a clear stance and said the ruling was obviously wrong. In February 2021 the
Norwegian Correctional Service recommended to extend Kristiansen's sentence by four years arguing that there was a real and qualified risk of recurrence of the Baneheia crimes. In the process, Viggo Kristiansen had experienced that the correctional service wanted him to admit guilt in the Baneheia case, and therefore cut off all contact with them. In February 2021,
The Norwegian Criminal Cases Review Commission decided to reopen the case against Viggo Kristiansen. The main reason was new doubt created about the DNA evidence after the trials. The minor reason was new doubt created about the validity of the interrogation of Anderssen, mainly expressed in a report written by Gísli Guðjónsson. The Cases review commission did not consider the cell phone alibi as new evidence, arguing that the judges and the jury were well aware of the strength of the alibi already back then. In conjunction with the reopening, the case was also transferred from the Agder state prosecutor to the Oslo state prosecutor. In February 2021, Viggo Kristiansen applied for his release from prison. Kristiansen had the opportunity to apply for release since 2011, but had until now refused to leave the prison unless he was acquitted. However, since the case had now been re-opened, he was sure he would be acquitted and therefore didn't see any reason to be in prison anymore. In March 2021, the former director of the
National Criminal Investigation Service (Kripos), Knut Holen, said that the evidence to convict Kristiansen did not measure up, and that he should not have been convicted. In April 2021, the
Borgarting Court of Appeal decided not to release Viggo Kristiansen from prison despite him having no current legally enforcable conviction. The court argued that he could be a danger for the society. In May 2021, the Oslo state prosecutor suddenly announced that they had changed their mind and now agreed that Viggo Kristiansen should be released from prison. On the next day, on 1 June 2021, the
Supreme Court of Norway unanimously decided to release Viggo Kristiansen from prison, and on the evening, Kristiansen was a free man. In June 2021, the police took new DNA samples from Viggo Kristiansen. In October 2021, March 2022 and June 2022, Andersen was re-interrogated by Oslo police. His residence was searched by police several times. On 21 October 2022, Attorney General
Jørn Maurud announced that the prosecution would submit a request for the acquittal of Viggo Kristiansen in the reopening case, based on the new investigation carried out by the Oslo police district. On December 15, 2022, Kristiansen was acquitted of murder in the
Borgarting Court of Appeal. On the child molestation and voyeurism charges, that Kristiansen had confessed to, he was sentenced to 10 months imprisonment, far less than the time already served. ==Legacy==