DRAMMEN District Court: Defenders went hard against the court’s two experts, Gunnar Johannessen and Audun Møller. Both are specialists in psychiatry.
Yesterday, Tuesday, let Attorney Trude Sparre the claim supreme penalty, 21 years in prison for the 53 years old six children mother who was married with Frontline CEO Per Gunnar Asheim.
indictment: Premeditated murder
She is charged with premeditated murder and, according to the indictment drugged her husband and then killed him. Per Gunnar Asheim was found dead on 27 March 2013.
The remains of Asheim was found in the defendant’s BMW in a parking lot in Tranby. The car was completely burnt. The indictment accuses his wife of having doused the car with diesel and lit on.
She has been 724 days in custody.
Surveyor: Psychopathy
The 53 years old woman refuses guilt, but acknowledges some of the charges which she accused of abuse of children over several years.
The court appointed experts has in its statement said that the woman suffers from personlighetsfortyrrelser with psychopathy.
At the trial, already questioned technical discoveries that have been made during the investigation.
Defender: Fearing case goes wrong
This morning, Wednesday, began lawyers Anders Westeng and Hilde Marie Ims on defenders’ procedure.
– The woman who sits prosecuted here in court, is the result of two years of intense pressure with murder charge, questioning and media coverage. To sit 24 hours in isolation in a day require his, still fighting her. But she is afraid to talk because she is afraid she will be branded negatively, said Ims.
The accused 53-year-old sitting pretty quiet all the time, with his elbows on the table and his hands clasped under her chin. Just easy dumbfounding sometimes.
– Stamped like crazy
– It is from this side a certain fear that this case can go wrong, that she can be judged guilty, said Westeng when he started the procedure this morning.
– People who are familiar with this matter through the media, have enough decided that the defendant is guilty. “Obviously it’s the wife who has made it.” She is also branded as crazy. It was as if everyone just needed confirmation, said Westeng.
– Snowball Effect
– I would call it a snowball effect, I’m afraid system dynamics have characterized this case. It is really the reason to put your foot down. The defendant becomes more and more desperate. That she has served two years in custody, is an argument in itself, said Westeng.
He believes that the impression of must have formed following the action may have led to people already long since determined in the question of guilt.
– Useless experts
– The experts took the role of aid prosecutors from day one. Especially Johannessen FAQ far beyond its mandate, said Westeng.
– All relevant questions were already answered. Court assessors were completely useless.
– The defendant saw their diagnosis as offensive and contrary to the treating psychologist, said Westeng.
– Psychologist Specialist has nearly 40 years experience and has been accused psychologist for seven years. She explained that if the court two experts are right in their diagnosis, she even as psychologist been outwitted in the seven years she has treated defendants, said defending Hildemarie Ims.
Johannessen states Aftenposten that he does not want to answer criticism, other than in that case to the court.
– She’s like a boiling kettle
– I’ve been five weeks beside the defendant, it is like sitting at a boiling kettle. I admit that I have become tired. She is a demanding woman. But this is not that she is demanding. It is first and foremost she has committed a murder. And here there are many factors which is in conflict with each other, said the defender.
He has previously been on the same, where he warned jump to conclusions based on the impression she might have given of themselves as a person.
She is described as intense, burning and manipulative. Westeng reminded that she is also described as a warm and good person.
Defender: Do not know that it’s murder
– Difference from Orderud case and Sigrid case is that one there knew that one had to do with a murder. We do not know if we are dealing with a murder, and we can not put the defendant. Is there reasonable doubt? One can not dismiss the details, said Westeng.
He said that there is also a possibility that Asheim had an accident, and that the fire was a result of it.
– The provision that witnesses should not be present in court prior to his explanations are hollowed when a case gets so much media coverage as this case. There is nothing wrong in it, but the court must take into account when witnesses explanations are considered, said Westeng.
– Use common sense
He looked at the objects and the technical evidence that the prosecutor used as evidence that the defendant has killed her husband and believed that the court can not emphasize any of them.
– The reality surpasses often imagination, I ask the court to use common sense.
– If there reasonable doubt
– To judge someone for murder, one should be really sure. To convict the accused to 21 years in prison, should be completely safe. If one has pieces that do not fit, if the pieces must be clamped in place in the puzzle, then we have a reasonable doubt, said Westeng.
Ims pointed out that the cause of fire is not documented, nor whether it was burned or whether it can have occurred for other reasons.
– It is not the defendant to prove his innocence, the prosecutors to prove that she has done, said Westeng. He appealed directly to the court three lay judges and reminded them that they are tltaltes guarantors of the rule of law.
Published:
No comments:
Post a Comment