Gaute Drevdal was at the end of June sentenced to 13 years and six months in jail by Oslo district court for nine rapes and one case of sexual intercourse with a minor. Drevdal refuses straffskyld, and has appealed the case. This is his response to two comments in the Newspaper about the verdict. Dagbladet has obtained rebuttal from the women's coordinating lawyer, Marte Svarstad Brodtkorb, as you can read in the bottom of the text.
Under the heading "Startling reading" provides Dagbladet Martine Aurdal its interpretation of the judgment that fell upon me in the Oslo district court.
That a writer as prolific as rettskommentator writing a self-confident comment about a over the eight-week long trial, where she even was not present a single day, is interesting. Rettsreporteres task has traditionally been to report from the court.
Press a key social responsibilities in court; it shall ensure that the judicial power, they follow the principles which are given the. Principles that, among other things, to protect the individual against abuses from the state.
In a much discussed case in practice, this turns the burden of proof against the defendant (i.e. that all charges are valid until they are disproved), it is remarkable that the rettskommentatoren in Norway's third largest newspaper rejoicing over a judgment and a process she does not have the overview.
she Had been in court would she perhaps worried about all of the key evidence that has been lost in the judgment. Or the completely obvious evidence that is misinterpreted, and that have obtained reverse sign.
Perhaps she had worried over that the issue of guilt instead to be evidence based goes into accountability and sannsynlighetsvurderinger. Of the type "the majority is always right," "no smoke without fire", "women talking always true".the Body knows and the body remembers the Comment
This is what we call prejudice, something you normally are trying to keep away from serious criminal charges. Indeed, it is not so that the smoke always is a proof of the fire. Or to put it a little bit at the tip, with a Norwegian author: "the Majority is a collective name for the people who have the right to do something that is wrong."
Two years into the investigation, it was a stated goal for the police to increase the number of the offended person. Both the police, the two first women and the assistance of counsel of their searched more offended.
After Arms, rejoicing over the argument to the district court, that there is a "reasonable strategy" to try and recruit others that may have been the victim of abuse, she is not in that it is a system that has recruited, and she's also not the main problem with the early contact between the women. The problem is not the actual connector, but that the contents of contact have been likely to influence and create new "truths".
Then there will be an additional food for thought when the police states that the first cases would have been dismissed on the bevisets position if it had not been more cases. That the number of oral stories and the similarity between them is proof one could perhaps understand if the charges were made without knowledge of each other.
Arms is, however, more aware of the juicy and detailed descriptions of the judgment. Most might think that this is a result of good policing, and that it is incriminating in relation to the indictment. But no.
This is the information that largely comes from me. Through the five years I have examined my own life through the thousands of old text messages and photos. This I have indiscriminately shared with the police to be able to shed light on what has been going on tidsnært. In several of the cases show documentation that the charges can't be correct. It does not seem to have concerned the court.
Yes, it is correct that there have been women far younger than me in my bed. But also Arms, has for many years shared a bed with a man who technically could have been her father.
This is the moral points that cannot form the basis for the troverdighetsvurderinger. Morality can not raise themselves above the law, especially not in cases where the state requests 15 years in prison. When we are on our way towards a society that is reminiscent of everything we don't want to compare us with.
Arms, writes: "To bestow upon young ladies and give them drugs, put them in a position where they are not able to oppose the assault. A autoritetsperson can be extra difficult to say no to in gjerningsøyeblikket, and to confront in retrospect.".< p> "Sorry, thought we had desk" Debate
the Indictment contains no allegations of neddoping. The same applies to the abuse of authority. There are no coatings in the investigation for the to claim any of the parts. It is a tempting and timely narrative, but it is not correct.
Arms is, unfortunately, not alone to shelf a judgment and a process she did not know. Under the title "the Body remembers what the brain has forgotten" share the Newspaper-columnist Shaft Braanen Sterri a popular performance, which is downright dangerous when it is unleashed in a courtroom.
We don't need to go no further than to the Psychology department and associate professor Annika Melinder:
"A basic mistake often made is to assume that "the body remembers" things that the mind may have displaced. The problem with such a quasi-therapeutic perception of 'the body remembers', is that it implicitly is that this memory is accurate, and that it can lead to that person getting back the true experience in words and pictures. This is both wrong and dangerous."Claims she was warned: - Was blind
Since some of the women in case find that their accusation borne out in a suppressed, traumatic experience, this was during the trial attempted to be canvassed by the vitnepsykolog and expert Ellen Wessell by the Norwegian police. She oriented also generally about vitnepsykologi.
When one reads the judgment it may seem as if the Wessell and it vitnepsykologiske aspect is forgotten. Maybe not so strange, since the subject and the research she represents the fit with the result the district court chose to fall back on.
This is a tingrettsdom. It is appealed, and thus has the most importance as a signal. But it is a signal that should get the telltale to bright red with a commentator who knows the principles that apply in the Norwegian courts.
Is an oral narrative 10 years after a damp night on the town is more reliable than tangible and digital evidence that tells something specific about the alleged events?
This question, we know normally the answer to. But in this case it may seem as if tangible evidence is disregarded for the subjective testimonies of the offended person who either know each other or know each other, and have talked with each other over time. That the district court has not found vitnepsykologien relevant in a case where there is no evidence for the punitive conditions, and where the issue of guilt is determined on the testimonies of a group of people with the same agenda, should scare more than me.
After reading tingrettsdommen and Aurdals comment sitting, I am left with an uncomfortable feeling: A sense of that absolute and verifiable truths must now give way to floating and emotional gjenfortellinger of something that happened a long time ago.
a Lawyer Marte Svarstad Brodtkorb answer the following to Gaute Drevdals op:
"the Judgment is very thorough. All evidence was processed in the course of the nine weeks the case lasted in the Oslo district court. Tidsnære evidence was considered at the same time as the girls ' explanations appeared as a strong and thorough. Drevdal has exercised its right to appeal the judgment. It is his basic right. Of course, it's still an additional load for the girls. It had been desirable if the offended person now could have begun the process to put the case behind him. I'm still confident that the appellate court conduct the matter in the same thorough manner as the district court. The judgment does not describe a ukultur but sexual assault." the
Want to discuss?Visit Dagbladet debate!