In many ways, the prosecution is setting up a high stakes during the eight-week trial in Haugaland and Sunnhordland District Court. From the very first day, it became clear that much depends on DNA technology. Prosecutor Nina Grande touched on it herself in the introductory lecture where she explained the evidence in the case. “Conviction requires that the court believes that it is the defendant’s DNA that has been found, and that the court believes that it was deposited in connection with the murder case,” said the state attorney. It cannot be said much clearer. If there are doubts about the DNA evidence, the rest of the house of cards can fall. This is also the backdrop for the very extensive DNA tests that have been carried out in the new investigation into the 27-year-old murder case. Experts from Norway, Austria, England and the Netherlands have been consulted, and many of them will also testify in the case. In March 2019, the alleged breakthrough came. The police then learned that a small amount of male DNA had been found in the same place where a bloodstain was secured on the murder victim’s pantyhose, and that the profile matched the DNA profile of the now accused man. From that point on, the investigation was directed in the deepest secrecy against the 52-year-old. For two and a half years, he was scrutinized using all imaginable and unthinkable methods, while the DNA findings were further analysed. And they have gone to great lengths. DNA is complicated to understand, even for members of the court. They were told on Monday that the discovery concerns a so-called Y chromosome, which only exists in men. Basically, all male relatives in the paternal line have the same Y profile, and thus the police were faced with around 40 possible perpetrators. But the investigation has shown that the defendant’s Y profile has a deviation which allegedly limits the number of male relatives. In fact, so much so that you are only left with the accused, according to the prosecution. For example, the father and his brothers can be ruled out through the latest analyses. Statements from a Danish lecturer in mathematics have even been brought in to strengthen the evidence. He has calculated that there is a 0.54 percent probability that someone else has the same DNA abnormality as the defendant. According to the prosecution, the conclusion of all this is clear: it is the defendant’s DNA that has been found on the murder victim’s pantyhose. It simply cannot originate from anyone else. It also seems that the defenders largely agree on this premise. There is therefore reason to believe that the dispute will be about how the 52-year-old’s DNA got there. The public prosecutors seem confident in their case. “The finding is compatible with the fact that it was handed down from a perpetrator whose fingers were stained with Birgitte’s blood,” State Attorney Thale Thomseth stated during his part of the evidence review. But is it really that simple? Could it only have happened when Birgitte Tengs was killed? Or could it have gotten there via contagion from someone else before the murder? Could it also be possible that something went wrong during all the laboratory analyzes of the pantyhose? Only if the court is absolutely sure that it must have happened during the actual murder can the defendant be convicted. It is expected that the defenders will go to great lengths to put cracks in this theory. Their job is to create doubt where possible, and it is perhaps at this point that the opportunity is greatest. The prosecution also has other evidence. It is known that the defendant is a so-called modus candidate, partly because he has been convicted of sexual violence against women. He is also said to lack an alibi for the night of the murder, and he drove a car similar to the one witnesses have described from the center of Kopervik when Birgitte disappeared. The 52-year-old’s own explanation is also important evidence. There is therefore great excitement about what he will say during the questioning later in the week. It is an important principle in criminal law that a defendant can only be convicted if the defendant’s explanation can be completely disregarded, which of course also applies in this case. If one ignores DNA, the evidence still appears more like a series of clues, without other conclusive evidence. “DNA alone is not enough to convict someone”, is often the opening remark from the experts from the Institute of Forensic Medicine when they explain themselves in court cases. It remains to be seen what the conclusion will be in this matter.
ttn-69
The DNA evidence will be decisive – Statement
