The police’s own expert slaughters the interrogations in the Baneheia case

– My conclusion is that vis-à-vis Viggo Kristiansen, the interrogations by Jan Helge Andersen were presented as a kind of conclusion – that this is what they believe, and as long as he explains himself differently, he is lying, said police chief Ivar B. Fahsing when he explained himself in Sør-Rogaland District Court on Thursday followingnoon.

He teaches investigation management at the Norwegian Police Academy and has written the textbook that is used in the teaching of interrogation methodology. It is the prosecution that has commissioned his analysis and assessment of the interviews that were taken in the Baneheia investigation in 2000 – from the round-up and the witness interviews to the interviews where he believes Kristiansen is being pressured to confess.

– There are no alternative hypotheses here. You relate to the fact that “you are guilty”, and you do not look for other explanations. Therefore, the quality is as far from today’s standard as it is possible to get, Fahsing said following reviewing the interrogation protocols that were conducted following Kristiansen was arrested and charged on 13 September 2000 for the Baneheia murders.

The backdrop is a police culture that invested everything in getting the accused to break down and confess. It was a stated position that one should treat the charge as true, and it was the task of the investigators to believe it. A dramatic breach of the presumption of innocence, and one was almost guilty until the opposite was proven, Fahsing maintained. He himself was working in Kripos when the murders occurred in May 2000, but was out on parole that spring.

– It sounds strange in 2024, but there was a lot of status and prestige attached to getting a confession. Marzipan cake was bought in if someone agreed. Then it was celebrated, said Fahsing.

Blind faith in guilt

It was precisely the confession of Jan Helge Andersen and the subsequent explanation that he himself was threatened by Viggo Kristiansen to kill Stine Sofie Sørstrønen (8), which was the main evidence in the conviction of Kristiansen in the district court in 2001 and the court of appeal in 2002. Andersen singled out Kristiansen as initiator, driving force and main man. But the explanatory model was launched by the police investigators and presented to Andersen with questions as to whether he was also a kind of victim in the case, Fahsing pointed out.

The expert had critical remarks regarding the police’s interrogation work already from the time they carried out the first round of questioning a few days following the murders. Too few follow-up and clarification questions were asked regarding details, and the questions are partly leading.

And when Kristiansen was arrested and charged the same autumn, the interrogator already expressed early in the first questioning that he did not believe Kristiansen’s explanation, since Andersen had confessed and explained that his comrade was involved in the case as the main man.

– Based on all this, I think I can say that the interrogator and the investigation management have had an almost blind faith that what Jan Helge Andersen says is true. That one even dares to refer to this position already on page 3 of the first interrogation report tells me that this opinion is not only the interrogator’s own, but also that of the investigation management, said Fahsing.

He also pointed out that Andersen’s confession contains factual errors which may have been introduced to him by the police.

– Nevertheless, you use that explanation as a kind of conclusion, he said.

Andersen maintains

Viggo Kristiansen has explained himself quite coherently and consistently from when he was questioned as a witness following Stine Sofie Sørstrønen (8) and Lena Sløgedal Paulsen (10) were found murdered on 21 May. He has throughout denied criminal guilt and any involvement in the assaults and murders. Nevertheless, he was sentenced to the law’s most severe punishment – and served almost 21 years behind bars as the instigator and main man in the case.

Last week it became known that Kristiansen has been awarded NOK 55 million in restitution and compensation for the damage the criminal prosecution has caused him. However, he has demanded NOK 90 million and has notified through his lawyer, Brynjar Meling, that the decision will be contested in court.

Jan Helge Andersen, for his part, is also on trial for the murder of Lena Sløgedal Paulsen. He denies criminal guilt and maintains his explanation regarding Kristiansen’s role and involvement in the case.

In the trial where Kristiansen was acquitted, state prosecutor Andreas Schei clearly criticized the explanations Andersen gave in the original investigation. Schei is the prosecutor in the ongoing trial once morest Andersen.

– He has explained himself changing and very vaguely. And in light of the new evidence, credibility is further weakened. The evidence suggests that Andersen’s role was different and more extensive than he has explained so far, Schei said.