For 22 years, Andersen has said that he only assaulted one of the victims in Baneheia.
That does not make the police vote because the new investigation has uncovered DNA findings that the police believe originates from Andersen, on both girls.
The findings were made in places that they believe are compatible with both being assaulted by Andersen.
The 41-year-old was confronted with the DNA findings for the first time in questioning in October last year.
Can’t find support
He then opened up that he may have suffered memory loss after Stine Sofie Sørstrønen (8) and Lena Sløgedal Paulsen (10) were raped and killed in May 2000.
Andersen has said that it was his former best friend, Viggo Kristiansen (43), who was the “main man” behind the bestial actions.
He was believed during the 2001 and 2002 trials.
Now TV 2 can say that in the last interviews the police have been concerned with the same things as the country’s leading experts on witness psychology:
That there is no support in the research for such actions being easily forgotten.
Asked about licorice drops
On 27 June this year, the police conducted the very last interview with Andersen before the investigation was concluded.
This is the Baneheia case:
* Stine Sofie Sørstrønen (8) and Lena Sløgedal Paulsen (10) were raped and killed in Baneheia in Kristiansand on 19 May 2000. They were found two days later.
* Viggo Kristiansen and Jan Helge Andersen were arrested in September of the same year, charged and later sentenced to 21 years’ detention and 19 years’ imprisonment respectively for the rape and murder of the two girls.
* Jan Helge Andersen was convicted of rape and murder at Sørstrønen and complicity in the rape of Paulsen. He singled out Viggo Kristiansen as the main man behind the murders.
* Andersen appealed the sentence to the Supreme Court because he believed the penalty discount he received for solving the case against Viggo Kristiansen was too small, but the appeal was rejected. Andersen was released on parole in 2016 after serving 16 years in prison.
* Kristiansen has always claimed that he is innocent. After four previous attempts, he had his criminal case reopened on 18 February this year. On 1 June, as a result of a decision by the Supreme Court’s appeals committee, he was released after almost 21 years in prison.
Towards the end of the questioning, the investigator reminds him that the two spoke together over three questioning days on the 18th, 19th and 20th of October last year.
She then shows a photo of her and Andersen in the interrogation room, taken on 19 October. This day, the 41-year-old opened up for the first time that he could have had a “blackout”.
In the picture she shows him, there is a bag of candy on the table, which Andersen himself had brought with him.
The candy bag contains salty licorice pastilles from the Blackout brand.
“Didn’t think about it”
She asks what he thinks about this.
Andersen replies that he has not thought about the connection in this until now.
According to TV 2’s information, it is stated in the interrogation protocol that “quite honestly, the accused did not think anything of it”.
She asks if he doesn’t think about the fact that he had this type of drops with him during interrogation, called Blackout, at the same time as he sat and told her that he had a “blackout”.
Andersen confirms that “yes, he didn’t think about it”.
She asks him how he thinks this appears to others. He replies that he understands why she is surprised by this, but repeats that there was “no thought behind it”.
Open to the fact that Kristiansen did not molest the girls
If it had been a thought, he would not have taken them with him to the interrogation, he explains.
Asked about paradoxes
The information that the police had made the new DNA findings, which they believe links Andersen to abuse of both victims, became known last autumn.
Through three extensive interrogations of the 41-year-old, this, and how Andersen responded, has been very central to the conversations he and the police investigator who conducted the interrogations have had.
In total, there are 13 findings distributed between both victims.
Several times Andersen has been confronted with the fact that the findings are in direct contrast to his previous explanations.
Andersen believes that he largely sat with his back while Kristiansen assaulted the victims – and that he himself played a less active role at the crime scene.
In new interrogations, Andersen, in addition to opening up about having “blacked out”, launched a hypothesis that Kristiansen may have carried Andersen’s DNA with him onto the victims.
At the same time, he has also opened up that Kristiansen did not abuse the girls after all.
The experts agree
At the beginning of February this year, TV 2 presented the information about Andersen’s explanation about a possible memory loss to some of the country’s leading experts in this field.
See what the experts said about Andersen’s “blackout” in February:
Witness psychologist Ellen Wessel, who lectures at the University of Applied Sciences, stated at the time that this explanation is very unlikely, unless the person concerned “is psychotic, heavily drugged or has had a head injury that affects memory”.
She was supported by psychology specialist Pål Grøndahl, who emphasized that all research indicates that “if you have been part of something dramatic, unique or special, the memory is glued to the memory”.
Both emphasized that the research is completely unambiguous.
– There is no scientific support for an idea that we are displacing the dramatic things, said Grøndahl.
In questioning, the police confronted Andersen with precisely these academic conclusions.
Took a long time to answer
Towards the end of the last day of questioning, 27 June this year, the police investigator brings up this topic one last time.
In the interrogation protocols, which TV 2 has seen, Andersen is referred to as “accused”.
Present are the interrogation expert from the Oslo police district, Andersen himself and his defender Svein Holden.
TV 2 is aware that Andersen sometimes takes a very long time to answer. On certain questions, up to a minute can pass without anything being said.
The police investigator repeats that in a previous interview she asked him if he “wants to remember”. He replies that the answer to that is “both yes and no”, TV 2 is informed.
Confronted with the research
He goes on to say that he has reached a point where he can live well with what he has been involved in, before he says: “Then going so deeply into it again… then there are the consequences too.”
Then the investigator explains, like Wessel and Grøndahl, that there is “little research and other things that support the explanation that the accused does not remember, unless one has been in a state of intoxication or similar”.
Andersen replies that he remembers that they have talked about this before.
At the same time, he points out that he has spoken to a social worker who says the opposite, that you “for example can forget traumatic events”.
“Because it’s right”
The police investigator repeats the question of not remembering, and not wanting to remember. She asks if he really wants to tell what happened.
“I do,” he replies.
She asks if he would have told her about it, if it was the case that he was alone in Baneheia. He replies that he would.
She follows up by asking if he would have told her now, even though he’s been telling otherwise for more than 20 years.
Andersen replies that “if he had remembered it differently, he would have told it, because it is right”.
The interrogator asks for whom it is right, and Andersen answers “for everyone”.
Later, at the very end of the interrogation, Andersen is asked if he wants to add anything. He shakes his head and says he can only tell what he remembers.
If he comes up with something, he must get in touch.
– Not surprised
TV 2 has asked the specialists in witness psychology, Wessel and Grøndahl, what they think about the fact that the police have emphasized the same as them in the interrogations.
Grøndahl does not want to comment on the matter, beyond the fact that he stands by what he stated to TV 2 back in February.
Wessel says she is not surprised that the police have relied on what is found in the research on memory loss in very special situations.
– Based on the current evidence situation, I think it is relevant to announce that research-based knowledge excludes the idea he has about his possible memory loss from the actions, she says to TV 2.
– He may have tried to forget it, but it is unlikely that he has succeeded, she says.
Viggo Kristiansen to TV 2:
– Not surprised at all
Will not comment
TV 2 has been in contact with Andersen’s defender, lawyer Svein Holden, who does not wish to comment on the information in this case.
Nor do the state prosecutors in Oslo, who have led the new investigation, or Kristiansen’s defender, lawyer Arvid Sjødin, want that.
The new and comprehensive investigation was recently concluded, and the case is now on the table of the Attorney General, who will decide what happens next with the Baneheia case.
It is expected that a decision will be made within a short time.