The man in his 50s who is charged with the murder of Birgitte Tengs, has given password information that turned out not to be true, according to police.
On Tuesday, the Gulating Court of Appeal decided to reject the appeal against the imprisonment of the man accused of having murdered Birgitte Tengs in 1995. Thus, the imprisonment is maintained until 29 October with a ban on letters and visits and media.
In the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the prosecution has explained why it believes that the man must still be detained.
“Some of the information that the defendant has given about the passwords turned out to be incorrect,” writes the prosecution.
The Court of Appeal agrees that the lack of access to passwords by the police constitutes a danger of loss of evidence.
“The defendant has provided information to the police about the passwords of the e-mail boxes that they have shown not to vote. If he is released, he is likely to destroy or tamper with the computer evidence before the police secure it,” the court writes.
– It is not uncommon to forget passwords
Attorney Stian Kristensen, who is defending the defendant, says Stavanger Aftenblad that his client did not deliberately lie to the police, but instead responded to the police’s questions to the best of his ability. He denies having anything to do with the murder.
– Nor do I think the police believe that my client lied to them. You have tried your best to remember the passwords for the email addresses, and then it turned out that some of the passwords you provided did not match. I don’t think it’s unusual for people to forget passwords, says Kristensen.
It does not indicate the exact number of email accounts the man has at his disposal, but confirms that there are several.
– The accused is not likely to be guilty
It was previously known that the police have linked the man to the case through DNA traces. The prosecution has previously noted that the male lineage of the defendants in Karmøy at the time of the murder was very limited.
In the letter of support that Kristensen and his colleague Stian Bråstein wrote to the appeal to the Court of Appeal, they deny that there is good reason to suspect the accused.
“The results of DNA tests can come from many people,” they write.
“The results of the analysis do not make it probable that the defendant is guilty after the charge, nor if the results are evaluated in conjunction with the evidence in another way.”
They also believe that the prosecution bases its accusation on a hypothesis.
“The defendant has explained himself to the police and, despite numerous witness statements in the case, no one has observed the night of the defendant’s murder.”
Examine the alibi of the male relatives.
In its response, the prosecution writes that the Court of Appeal previously evaluated the defendant’s opinion on the value of the DNA fingerprint as the basis of suspicion.
“The police continue to investigate the alibi of other males in the family of the defendant’s father. Reference samples are examined to narrow the circle of Y-profiles.”
A Y-profile can give indications of whether two or more men belong to the same so-called Y line.