– A lot has happened with the DNA work, and it is the work we have done in forensic genetics that has laid down guidelines for how the police and forensics technicians should work. That’s what Mevåg said when asked by the 52-year-old defendant’s defense attorney, Stian Kristensen. The question came after both Mevåg and her successor in the DNA work in the Birgitte Tengs case, Gro Bjørnstad, had spent the whole day explaining their work. Mevåg worked for large parts of the 90s, 00s, and until she retired a few years ago, at the Forensic Institute (RMI, which later became FHI and OUS). She worked on the DNA analyzes in the Birgitte Tengs case after the murder in 1995. She and others have warned against using DNA as evidence alone. It must be put in a context, the experts believe. Mevåg was crystal clear that contamination, infection and pollution were not something they thought about very much in 1995. Kristensen wondered what she thought about the fact that there had been crime technicians working at the crime scene in 1995, who had stated that one already the hallway thought about contamination. – It’s a portrayal I don’t recognize myself in, said Mevåg. This is what the crime technicians and others have said in court: Tore Per Bakken, crime technician Kripos 1995. In his explanation, he has said that he was wearing white overalls at the crime scene. When asked by the prosecutor why he is without his overalls in the photos, he replies: “Then we would have taken them off.” We were almost ready to wrap up for the day when the picture was taken. It wasn’t unnatural to take off the suit.” Morten Alsaker Lossius, crime technician Haugesund 1995. Said in his explanation that he used disposable gloves at the crime scene. Defense attorney Stian Bråstein enlarges a photo from the crime scene where Lossius is squatting without gloves. “It may be in connection with a glove change. I always used disposable gloves, but occasionally you had to change them.” Leif Øren, Kripos crime technician in 1995. When asked what they did to avoid contamination, he replied: “We used clean special clothes at Kripos. Masks and hairnets.” Johan Sund Eliassen, was a police officer at the crime scene in 1995. He explained that he was concerned with contamination and contamination: “I was above average interested in criminal engineering. I had knowledge of DNA from school. I’m pretty sure we used gloves.” How securely was the evidence handled? A Y-profile of the 52-year-old accused was found on Birgitte Teng’s pantyhose, which is the prosecution’s main evidence against him. They link the find to the murder on 6 May 1995. However, the defenders have pointed to other possible explanations. Has anyone else taken the defendant’s DNA with them? Has it been transmitted via an object? Has the transfer occurred as a result of infection or contamination? As it is DNA that is the main evidence in the case, the explanations from both Norwegian and foreign DNA experts and analysts this week are absolutely central. Mevåg gave an open explanation today about the state of affairs at RMI in 1995. – No one had any knowledge about the transfer of cells. It also influenced the way people worked, she explained in court and showed photos from 1998. Three years after the murder. The pictures showed herself and colleagues standing with white coats sometimes, while at other times without. Some had hairnets, while others did not. In one of the photos, the court saw investigations taking place in civilian clothes. The economy was tight. – We received disposable gloves to a certain extent, as well as plastic aprons from the autopsy room. We partly used them on top of private clothes and hospital clothes. We kept the gloves on and carefully took them off. We did not change coats or clothes between each case as we do today, said Mevåg. In the pictures you could also see several boxes. Boxes of evidence. Mevåg did not rule out that evidence from several cases could lie on the same table. – First of all, we thought that here is someone who is exemplary honest and fair about the level of knowledge you had prior to 1998, which the photos were from, says Stian Trones Bråstein, who is one of the 52-year-old’s defenders, to news after the court day. Stian Trones Bråstein and Stian Kristensen are the 52-year-old’s defense. Photo: Marthe Synnøve Johannessen / news – Are you surprised by the pictures? – The pictures were surprising, I was not familiar with them. When they first existed, it is exemplary honesty and integrity to present them, says the lawyer. He adds that when the pictures first appeared, it was not surprising that they were presented. – How does what Bente Mevåg said rhyme with what crime technicians have said in terms of contamination, pollution and contagion? – I don’t want to say much about it. You can think about it yourself. We will say something about it in the procedure, I think, says Bråstein. Warning against new analyses. In the questioning at the end of the day, defense counsel Kristensen also produced a letter from Mevåg, with what he interpreted as warnings against analyzing the old material with new methods. – When you do not have good enough notoriety about who has done what and when things have been done, if you then choose to do such analyses, you must assess it in the light of the information you have. There can be a number of challenges, said Mevåg. However, without the new analyzes in 2017 and later, no hits would have been obtained. – We have been clear that the entire chain of evidence, and the handling, from start to finish is not what today’s requirements are. It is a discovery that cannot be given the same weight as if it had been secured with current methods, Bråstein believes. The prosecution confident of the evidence At the beginning of their presentations, Mevåg and Bjørnstad referred to several research reports on how easily DNA can be transferred via people or objects. But they were also clear in emphasizing that the DNA must have a source. If the defendant was not responsible for the transfer to the pantyhose directly, how did it end up there? Prosecutor Thale Thomseth is confident of the strength of the evidence after today’s court date. As news told yesterday, the sample that gave a hit was frozen from 1996 to 2017. – There have been no seizures from the defendant inside the laboratory. A lot of research has been done. We feel confident that the tights are not contaminated, she tells news. Prosecutor Thale Thomseth. Photo: Øystein Otterdal / news – What do you think of the fact that the coroners warn against using DNA as the only evidence? – It is a standard formulation that they use. A DNA analysis cannot say when or how it ended up here. Here we have to look in the context of modus operandi, and lack of an alibi, says Thomseth. Birgitte Tengs was found murdered on 6 May 1995. A 52-year-old man from Karmøy is now charged in the Tengs case, and the trial begins on Monday 7 November 2022.
ttn-69
Forensics admit that they may have been careless with evidence – news Rogaland – Local news, TV and radio
