It is their belief that Jan Helge Andersen acted alone in committing the murders.

The prosecutors believe that the DNA evidence in the Baneheia case has been turned on its head.

On Friday morning, the news came that the Attorney General wants to reopen reopen That a case is “reopened” means that the Re-admissions Commission has concluded that a convicted person will have a new round in court. A case can be reopened both to the advantage and disadvantage of the person concerned.the criminal case against Jan Helge Andersen, so that he can be tried for the murder of Lena Sløgedal Paulsen (10).

In December last year, Viggo Kristiansen was acquitted in the Baneheia case. With that, the murder of Lena Sløgedal Paulsen also remained unsolved.

Andersen himself denies having killed her.

VG has obtained access to a document in which the prosecution explains why the case against Jan Helge Andersen should be reopened.

The prosecution believes that the case against Andersen is in a completely different light after the new police investigation.

The DNA evidence that helped to strengthen Jan Helge Andersen’s explanation in the 2000s is the same that today weakens his credibility and explanation about what happened in Baneheia.

Overall, the evidence now provides grounds for assuming that Andersen is guilty of the murder of Lena Sløgedal Paulsen on 19 May 2000, the statement states.

Firstly, the new DNA evidence points to Andersen having “handled Lena at the scene”.

Secondly, the evidence now points in the direction that Kristiansen was not at the scene, the document states.

• The prosecution further believes that the new DNA examinations from 2021 and 2022 are “Clearly new evidence”which means that the case should be reopened.
• The new DNA evidence no longer supports a hypothesis of two perpetratorson the contrary.
• No technical evidence now supports that Kristiansen should be the perpetrator. In particular, the so-called telephone evidence shows that Kristiansen was not at the scene when the murders took place.
• The new DNA tests weakens Andersen’s credibility and explanation.

DNA evidence turned upside down

In the 2000s, Viggo Kristiansen and Jan Helge Andersen were each convicted of murder.

When Kristiansen was acquitted of the murder of Lena Sløgedal Paulsen (10) in December last year, no one was convicted of this murder.

“Even though a long time has passed since the crimes, and even though Andersen was sentenced to 19 years in prison in the Agder Court of Appeal for the other circumstances (murder of Stine Sofie Sørstrønen and rape or complicity in it by both girls), the importance of clarifying such a serious relationship heavy.” it is stated in the public prosecutor’s reasoning.

DNA findings in nine different places

In the new investigation, DNA matching Jan Helge Andersen has been found in nine different places on the body or clothes of Lena Sløgedal Paulsen.

The new DNA evidence is thus in clear contrast to Andersen’s explanation that Viggo Kristiansen should have been the most active at the scene, as was the basis for the verdicts in the 2000s, the statement states.

“Furthermore, the DNA analyzes specifically contrast with the hypothesis that Viggo Kristiansen should have killed Lena Sløgedal Paulsen, as he was convicted of in the district court and the court of appeal. On the contrary, the DNA traces indicate that it is Jan Helge Andersen who had physical contact with Lena Sløgedal Paulsen at the crime scene.”

No reasonable explanation

The prosecution believes that Andersen has not given any reasonable explanation for the DNA findings, which are also “assault-related”.

“On the contrary, the DNA findings are difficult to reconcile with his explanation of his own role, according to which he should have neither assaulted nor taken Lena’s life, nor in any other way had physical contact with her to a significant extent.”

The new DNA evidence is therefore significant in several ways, according to the prosecution:

“They in themselves point in the direction that Jan Helge Andersen had all or most of the physical contact with Lena Sløgedal Paulsen at the crime scene, they stand in contrast to an opinion that Viggo Kristiansen must have had physical contact with Lena Sløgedal Paulsen, and they are difficult to reconcile with Jan Helge Andersen’s explanation, so that this is weakened as evidence.” it is stated in the justification.

Andersen refuses

Andersen himself denies having killed Lena.

– Given the development of the case, he was not very surprised, says defender Svein Holden about Andersen’s reaction to VG.

Holden says Andersen is both “collected and determined” to present his version of the course of events.

The case is now with the Re-admission Commission, which will decide whether the conditions for reopening the case have been met. If it is reopened, Andersen will be able to be prosecuted for the murder and will have to appear in court.