Friday at 13 started remand hearing in the Oslo City Court. Wearing a gray jogging suit came the accused into the courtroom, where he appeared serious but calm.
The man acknowledged guilt of perjury, false distress message and fake review. Although he admits that it was he who placed a fake bomb on the campus of the University of Oslo on Wednesday morning, he recognizes no culpability for threats.
Police requested four-week detention of the man, while the court decided remand by letter and visit control for one week. Both parties have taken time controls related to a potential appeal of the ruling.
– Risk of destruction of evidence
Prosecutors : Police Attorney Kari Kirk Horn (right) and investigator Anita Halsvik in place in the Oslo District Court.
– We have requested remand because we believe there is a risk of destruction of evidence in the case, said police lawyer Kari Kirk Horn NRK.
The police petitioned closed doors before the hearing, while the accused wanted open doors. The court decided to open the doors, but let down abstracts ban for parts of the hearing.
Exhaust perjury
Thursday it became clear that Nokas-watchman exhaust perjury to the police about the shooting and found a fake bomb at Oslo on Wednesday.
Heavy police forces came out to investigate what one first assumed was an attack on the watchman and a real bomb threat.
The man has since acknowledged that he was wounded when he fired shots with a starting pistol while he was on duty, and placed the fake bomb on University Square.
– Have taken a number of seizures
Police Attorney Kirk Horn says that the indictment against the watchman was extended on the basis of the overall picture.
– term items on threats related to bomb after equation, and the fear and situation the created, she said.
The lawyer will not yet speculate whether the action was planned.
– We are investigating the background for action tactically and technically. We have taken a number of fittings which we will review with questioning in the case, to see if we get a better view of whether there is a motive, says Kirk Horn.
– We know no thing about motive, except that there are elements of the case that allows it to act partly planned.
– Would create consistency in explanation
Weight Cleaning defender, Trygve Staff, stressed that his client acknowledges the facts, although he did not acknowledge guilt for threats.
– He says that he had not the subjective guilt is necessary, but he acknowledges that he has done what is described Staff says to NRK.
According to Staff claim the client that he had no desire to spread fear when he threw away the bomb-like object on the campus.
– He wanted to create consistency in an explanation that he has since gone back on because it was not right, says Staff.
The suspect should be deep despair and regret that he did not tell the police the truth immediately, according to the defender. The watchman reported to have said that he feared for his job after using a firearm while he was uniformed and security service.
Have reported three attempted murders
The watchman has been employed Nokas ago 2011 and has claimed that he has been subjected to a total of three assassination attempts during this time.
– In principle there is no connection between these matters, but it is true that he has been insulted two cases of violence that have been linked to his weights deed. It is natural for investigation group to look at these matters in the future, but as of now there is nothing that would indicate that there is something like, say police prosecutor Kari Kirk Horn.
She says that the accused now are offered a conversation with the coroner. Watchman is currently suspended from his job in Nokas.
Threats and false distress call
The charges against the watchman include the following:
Penal Code § 227 first criminal option:
For word or deed, having threatened with a criminal offense which can result in higher punishment than 6 months’ imprisonment, under such circumstances that the threat was suited to her fear.
Penal Code § 166 first paragraph:
For having given false testimony to any public authority in the case where the legend was destined to submit evidence.
Penal Code § 171 No. 1:
For knowing better for prosecutors or other public authority having reviewed an offense that was not as committed, or have been taken against that intends to arouse suspicion that one is as committed.
Penal Code § 349, first paragraph:
For the undue cries for help, the abuse of distress signal or the like having caused horror among a larger number of people, crowding or public of police, fire, ambulance or the armed force.
No comments:
Post a Comment