The psychologist who treated Viggo Kristiansen was left hanging and powerless after seven months of unjust persecution.
Published: 09/05/2024 21:00
This is a chronicle. Any opinions expressed in the text are the responsibility of the writer. If you would like to send an article proposal, you can read how here.
The chronicler states that he has never expressed his views on the question of guilt in the Baneheia case.
The tragic events in Baneheia in 2000 are now again presented to the public through the criminal case against Jan Helge Andersen. Viggo Kristiansen is an important witness in the case. Kristiansen has finally been acquitted of rape, complicity in murder and murder.
Baneheia and the question of guilt
In the years following the murder verdict in 2002, Kristiansen repeatedly tried to have the case tried in court again. The courts, those around him, relatives and the readmission commission seemed certain of Kristiansen’s guilt.
This is up in the case against Andersen, where Kristiansen is again being tried to be drawn into the murders.
The “correct” response was therefore the law’s most severe punishment – 21 years’ detention – not least because his denial of participation in the murders emphasized the importance of a long and indefinite response. It became important not to listen to Kristiansen’s own claim of innocence. But others who believed something similar were also subjected to personal persecution.
Not only in the media, but also by public authorities who must ensure that justice is done to the fullest extent.
Couldn’t possibly have committed the murder
Psychological specialist Atle Austad got to experience this. Kristiansen himself sought treatment at Austad, but the treatment relationship did not deal with the Baneheia case. This is clear from Austad’s record keeping.
Austad came to the conclusion, independently of this therapeutic relationship, that Kristiansen could not possibly have committed the murder for which he was convicted, partly because he had not been at the crime scene at the time in question, something which the Attorney General later also assumed.
First to the law. In section 226 of the Criminal Code, the threat of punishment is directed at “anyone who fails to disclose circumstances which prove that a person who has been charged or convicted of a criminal offense that can lead to imprisonment for more than 1 year is innocent. The duty to provide information applies without regard to the duty of confidentiality.’
The accusation of role mixing
In a document from lawyer Arvid Sjødin to the Re-admission Commission in 2014, it emerged that Austad believed Kristiansen had been convicted innocently. This was taken badly by Ada Sofie Austegard, mother of Stine Sofie who was raped and killed in Baneheia, and later founder and head of Stine Sofie’s Foundation, which has had a great influence on Norwegian criminal policy. But Austegard has also actively opposed the attempts to clean up Kristiansen.
She brought in people who were central to the police investigation and the readmission commission to the foundation’s board. She also directed the attempt to “separate” the psychologist who cast doubt on Kristiansen’s conviction, in collaboration with NRK Sørlandet by journalist Thomas Sommerset, Ada Sofie Austegard herself, and the county doctor in Oslo and Akershus, Petter Schou, as regional head of the Health Inspectorate.
When Austegard became aware that the psychologist cast doubt on Kristiansen’s conviction, in June 2014 Stine Sofies Stiftelse sent a request to the County Medical Examiner in Oslo and Akershus to initiate supervision of Austad. After a certain period of reflection, but without obtaining the medical record with the treatment agreement between Kristiansen and Austad, county doctor Schou opened a supervisory case.
The media frolicked
The first two to be informed about this were journalist Sommerset in NRK Sørlandet and the “complainant” Austegard. From the county doctor’s log, it appears that both were informed that supervision was to be opened. Sommerset called on 26 August and confronted Austad with the supervision case and the supervision points that Austad himself received on 29 August, a full four days after NRK had already closed the supervision case.
Although Austegard may have the right to request that supervision be established, she is not a party to the supervision case
Although Austegard may have the right to request that supervision be established, she is not a party to the supervision case, and has no right to the ongoing information that both she and NRK received from the county doctor. The psychologist’s name and picture were made public. The main question in the supervisory case was whether Austad had made a mix of roles by having a treatment relationship with Kristiansen at the same time as he expressed Kristiansen’s innocence in the murders.
The media frolicked for seven months in this role-mixing case and interviewed critics with strong views, and without the case-limited treatment relationship being made clear. After three months, the county doctor came to the conclusion that the office lacked competence and an expert had to be appointed because – as Schou was able to state to NRK – this was “a very serious matter”.
Closed the case quietly
It is not usual for the county doctor to actively and far from prejudge healthcare personnel in the media and more than suggest an offense before the inspectorate takes action. Kjell Ingolf Ropstad (Krf), then deputy chairman of the justice committee, could agree with the county doctor’s insinuations about serious and principled offenses and emphasize that “Kristiansen received a custodial sentence. That means he is one of the most dangerous criminals. And it must be assessed whether he can recover enough that he can be released again”.
Previously, Ropstad proposed an additional grant of NOK 60 million for Stine Sofie’s foundation. In the same place, Austegard expressed his opinion about the psychologist: “This should lead to him not having anything to do with inmates. He should not be allowed to treat convicts when he takes part in something he has no idea about.”
After all the uproar about the psychologist in public, and in which the county doctor took part, the supervisory case was closed quietly. The county governor in Oslo and Akershus concluded that there was no mixing of roles, no breach of the responsibility requirement and good therapy. The decision itself was exempt from public disclosure “since it contains confidential patient information”, county doctor Petter Schou was able to inform VG on 12 April 2015.
A claim for compensation based on the county doctor’s improper creation of a supervisory case, his information about the psychologist’s identity to the press, etc. and the collusion with NRK and Austegard, has been rejected by the Norwegian Health Inspectorate.
This is how power can be maintained, while a hanged psychologist is left powerless after seven months of unjust persecution.
