Jemtland case – Paradox in Jemtland's explanation: – What did not he tell us about it?

HAMAR (Dagbladet): The prosecution does not wait for Svein Jemtland's explanation.

What happened to Janne Jemtland after she was shot and wounded on the night of December 29th?

Despite nine tight days in court, only Svein Jemtland knows what really happened in the hours following the fall of the coup. At least if you are going to rely on the opinion of the prosecuting authority, who does not believe at all in him.

Pizza and burger with the same in the car?

The former stranger explained that he had let his wife die outside in the yard for an hour and a half to two hours before wrapping him in plastic. Then he should have put her in the car, driven her and discovered the hidden traces of the woman in the trunk.

According to him, she had been lying in the trunk for more than half a day before he was relaxing her in another car and driving her to Eid Bru in Glomma. With Janne in the trunk, he went around the village.

According to his explanations, he would have refueled, visited a familiar boat and drove, visited the brother on the family farm, bought a pizza and a burger and left the car in the yard at home with the children inside.

Attorney General Iris Storås, who mentions Svein Jemtland as a cold, calculating murderer, thinks this explanation can not be voted on.

"He had two cars at your disposal, one with equal and one without equal, why did he also choose? Yes, because it was so important to hang up because he had to to be screamed, summed up Storas today.

She asked Svein Jemtland, who himself explained that he had done everything to hide the tracks, would really take the risk of leaving her in the car today.

the paradox

Jemen defender Ida Andenæs turns her around. If Svein Jemtland does not explain correctly, why then would he say something so brutal and detailed?

This is the paradox of the Jemtland affair, and nobody knows if they really get answers.

"There is no flattering explanation that Jemtland gives, in which he tries to restore the relationship.Why in the world would Jemtland give such an explanation if he does not vote?" He said. had lowered into the water shortly after he had almost improved on this explanation compared to the one he should have driven around her naked, wrapped in plastic around from Brumunddal, said Andenæs during its final proceedings today.

– Hide the crime

Attorney General Iris Storås told Dagbladet that after the end of the trial, he did not necessarily share this view.

– We are not completely in agreement. He may choose to wrongly explain to conceal a more serious crime. It starts to wonder, but it does not explain for many reasons. We find at least that he does not want it, "she told Dagbladet.

"Would that strengthen his intention if he drowned her soon after the coup?"

"If he knew that she was alive, it could be strengthened," she said.

The prosecutor was even more aware of this in his proceedings.

"Could it be that he understood that she had a breathing and a pulse and that he had done something to hide the murderous action? He can not kill her anymore because it's no longer an accident, he has to drown it to hide the crime, such a course of events he's talking about, "she said.

Survey in October

However, she does not believe that the issue is at the heart of the charge that the Hedmarken District Court must now decide.

"The key is whether or not he killed or not, and it happens on the stairs on December 29 at home, but we are moving it forward because, in our view, it weakens the credibility of the people. The technical evidence shows that he is not telling the truth about it, she said.

Although the police conducted an extensive investigation well beyond October, a few weeks before the trial, she still has not been able to determine the location of her drowning. They still have not finished, although last October they conducted surveys in a watercourse where they found an unidentified hairline.

"You wanted to clarify as much as possible in this case, including the movements of the accused that night and during the two hours that preceded his death.

– Not in the nature of Jemtland

Ida Andenæs believes that Jemtland's explanation must be taken into account whenever the prosecution has failed to prove the opposite.

"It's a timely question, which I think was the reason we fired up the spotlight and who explains what he says." He provided a detailed explanation which, I think, should be taken into account, she told Dagbladet.

– Could it be because there is another possible involved?

"I mentioned it at least as a problem in the courts, but I can not say anything about it," says Andenæs in Dagbladet.

"In this case, Jemtland would not say anything about it.It is not in its nature," said Andenæs in his proceedings today.

– chose to tie

The attorney also was not strangers to this as it could be a possible explanation.

– In this case, it is different from what the defendant explains, and he must then explain his explanation and start another theory concerning it.

Nevertheless, the prosecutor was brutally honest during his latest trial today.

He says that he does not want to shoot anyone in shit. What's worrying Svein Jemtland? What he did not tell us else? We do not have the phases. Svein Jemtland can choose to tell us, but chose to tie. We must accept that we can not get it.

The verdict against Jemtland will take place on 10 December in the Hedmark District Court.