Long before the sentencing was over, it became clear to most in courtroom 1 of the Gulating Court of Appeal that Johny Vassbakk was headed for acquittal. That probably also applied to the case’s three prosecutors. Public prosecutor Thale Thomseth stared rigidly into his computer screen during large parts of the two-hour session. Because what she heard must have been very difficult for Thomseth and her colleagues. Not only was Vassbakk completely acquitted. But the judges also came out strongly against the police and the prosecution’s handling of the Tengs case. It became clear early on that DNA would be central. Lawyer Jarle Golten Smørdal summarized the most central issue: “The parties disagree on whether it has been proven that the DNA find originates from the defendant, and whether the find if so has any connection with the murder,” said the judge. It was here that things went seriously wrong for the prosecution. In contrast to the district court judges, the majority in the Court of Appeal believes that the discovery of DNA on Birgitte’s pantyhose does not show who killed her. “The DNA found on the pantyhose in itself does not say anything about whether it got there during the murder,” the judgment says. Thus the house of cards collapsed for the prosecution. It was clear in advance that if the court had doubts about the DNA evidence, it would be impossible to convict Vassbakk. The police found no other so-called incriminating evidence during the four-year investigation. The police investigation receives harsh criticism from the Court of Appeal. In fact, the criticism was surprisingly harsh. The two expert judges both have a background as state attorneys. That way, they should be more than competent to assess the quality of the work done. And they didn’t hold back. The court believes, in short, that the police fell into a confirmation trap when they got the DNA match at Vassbakk. “As a result of the confirmation trap, the police stopped investigating further against other candidates”, the judges write further. Words such as “speculation” and “uncritical” are also repeated when the court summarizes the prosecution’s argument. The criticism can be read in several ways. It is clear that the Court of Appeal believes that the police investigation was too one-sided, and to a large extent directed against Johny Vassbakk. As is well known, the police have a duty to investigate both to the benefit and to the detriment of the accused. What is more serious is that the court is also strongly correcting the prosecution’s handling of the case further. When the investigation was finished, it was sent to the state prosecutors and then to the attorney general for a decision. It was the latter who ordered the defendant. In order to prosecute someone in a criminal case, the public prosecutor must be personally convinced of the person concerned’s guilt. You must also be sure that the evidence is sufficient for a conviction. With Tuesday’s acquittal, one can safely say that this fell on rock bottom. If one interprets the judges in the Court of Appeal, Vassbakk should not have been charged at all. So what happens now? Johny Vassbakk was released on the spot and left the courthouse a free man. He is now entitled to be seen as innocent in the murder of Birgitte Tengs. As we know, the cousin has long since been checked out of the case and cleared. Thus, the murder remains unsolved once again. It is obviously worst for Birgitte’s parents. But also for the local community on Karmøy, and for the country in general. The Tengs case is one of the most talked about criminal cases in history. With the history of the case, there were extra high expectations for the police and the prosecution this time. Those expectations were not met.
ttn-69
A powerful blow to the prosecution – Statement
