A case

November 8th, 2009

Documents

Countless words have been written as a consequence of being thrown to the ground and kicked in the face totally without provocation. The result of being at the wrong place at the wrong time. If you cannot feel safe at highly acknowledged school like NHH, with a small community of students that will meet regularly for the next two years - then everyone should fear for their own safety. Blind violence is a modern phenomenon. Join the fight against violence. This case show how our society's existing system inadequately try to deal with the problem of blind violence.

The Report– Report by top student organ

The report written by "Kjernestyret" (The top student organ), with comments. There was meeting 5 days after the violent attack, between me, two representatives from Kjernestyret and the 5 people involved in the violent episode. It should be noted that the leader of Kjernestyret is a close friend with Henrik, so no actions were taken - when much milder episodes have resultet in being expelled from student activites for a year.

In Norwegian:
Rapport angående hendelse ved Rum - med kommentarer

In English: (Automatic translation)
Report concerning episode at Rum - with comments

The First Sentence– Ruling from the first trial

The ruling for the first trail (Tingretten), with comments.

In Norwegian:
Dommen med kommentarer

In English: (Automatic translation)
The ruling - with comments

The Second Sentence– Ruling from the second trial

The ruling for the second trail (Lagmannsretten). The result is exactly the same as with the first sentence, with the only exception that 3 professional judges voted for conviction and 4 civil judges voted against conviction. Clearly, when 100% of all legal judges in both trails vote for conviction - then it is just facinating that some civil judges can decide otherwise.

In Norwegian:
The ruling from Lagmannsretten October 19, 2009

Notes for P4 interview– National radio P4's questions

The National radio P4, sent me the questions they would ask during a telephone interview. I used these questions to make some preparation notes in advance, made available here. Like with BSTV, P4 also did some heavy editing - so many of my good points, that didn't make it to the radio, can be found here.

In Norwegian:
Questions from P4, with notes

In English:
Questions from P4, with notes

Drinking Culture– proof of excessive drinking

Picture series – shows the excessive drinking culture that well describe the "Reversibel Sveiseaften"-party

The Demand– Compensation for possible losses

There was a high probability of failure to complete my master degree due to limited funds when I started my studies at NHH. Being self-financed, I could only afford to stay in Bergen for 2 semesters, so I would have to complete my master in half the time than other students. The violent cut, and consequent meetings, emails, police visits, countless medical visits, etc. all reduced my possibility to complete my master in two semester with a decent average. The financial crisis further reduced possibility, increasing the demand for higher average. The risk of failing to complete my master was accounted for, and difference in salary between bachelor and master was demanded. I had learned in a course of negotiation the importance of an initial high demand, which was unproblematic when estimating a lifetime of bachelor salary versus master salary. Expected compensation will according to current practice, result in about 15.000 NOK, a ridiculously low amount considering all the work there is in documenting all incured expenses.
In the Compensation Committee for Victims of Violence's case ENV-2005-1985 was an applicant after a brutal assault incurred several fractions in the face and ribs, in addition to dental injuries. Despite the severe damages, the Compensation Committee found that an appropriate compensation would be 15 000 NOK.
While compensation should be above the lower range due to the cosmetic consequences of the damage I incurred, my expected compensation would still be less than 15.000 NOK. I reasoned that the risk of presenting a high demand was nonresistant due to the low expected compensation levels. Since I was expecting the whole case to be dismissed by the police, and certainly not expecting the case going to court due to the confession, I was unaware of the publicity such a demand could generate. Tabloid coverage of the story, presented the demand out of context - unable to convey the complex background and assumptions behind the demand. Most people will start to misunderstand when complexity increases, especially if only source of information is through the media. Fueled by tabloid misrepresentation of something shown out of context, most people actually get upset by the possibility that their tax-money being used to pay the demand. The demand is limited to how much financial assets the defendant has and the ruling of the court, so in that sense is my demand is more symbolic - not expected and certainly not realistic. While still including the high probability of failing to get a master degree, I would have adjusted the demand to more realistic levels if I had suspected the demand to reach the public - precisely because numerous misunderstandings would arise. Since civil judges ignored the law, and let Henrik go home free of charge - compensation was limited to expenses I could document at that time. My total expenses are much higher, which I will not get covered - since second court instance choose to review question of guilt in the appeal, and to ignore changes of an appropriate compensation if found guilty.

In Norwegian:
1st Demand – delivered to policed upon request September 2008

2nd Demand – updated, with more accurate references, delivered June 2009

In English:
1st Demand – delivered to policed upon request September 2008

2nd Demand – updated, with more accurate references, delivered June 2009

Bullied by Bulle– The Student Newspaper Bulle's backpage

The Student Newspaper Bulle, also called K7 Bulletin, did something no other Student Newspaper have done before - it devoted their backpage to target one fellow student with the most brutal words imaginable (image 6). As shocked as any other student at NHH that our student newspaper would sink to this level, I decided to report the newspaper in consideration for my fellow students. No NHH student can feel safe with an editor in place that allow such bullying, with no intention or even an attempt of a funny wrapping.

In Norwegian:
PDF-version with last page replaced

PDF-version of the following edition – filled with reactions from students and Kjernestyret.

Ruling by PFU – the organ responsible to assess if newspapers have behaved according to a set of standards.

Medical– Cut, infection and psoriasis

The brutal damage gave a huge cut very next to my right eye. The highly bacterial nature of the inflicting damage cause the wound to be infected. This was an extremely severe condition, given the close proximity to my eye - and the risk of going blind. So I would have to seek medical attention daily for 2 weeks before they could safely say the infection was under control, and healing could begin.

In Norwegian:
My journal – description of all my medical visits

Diagnosis Psoriasis – report written by a skin specialist

In English:
My journal – description of all my medical visits

Diagnosis Psoriasis – report written by a skin specialist

Police– List of witnesses

I put a lot of effort into making a list of everyone present at the nachspiel, so that it would be easy for the police to uncover what really happened that night. I got a lot of help from friends to indefify everyone, since I knew nobody being a fresh student at NHH. But to my big surprise, choose the police to only to interview those directly involved in the violence - such creating a very unbalance information base of the event. It was in the best interest of the five friends to fabricate a new story, given the severity of what happened, which they also could do since they knew everyone at the nachspiel and there were no external witnesses. Limited resources and the confession caused the police to assume that they had gathered enough evidence. Enough information was presented to get support from professional judges, that are forced to base their ruling on the law - while not enough to convince civil judges, that have a tendency of incorrectly ignoring the law in their ruling. Poor preparation from the police resulted in an incorrect ruling, which were again repeated in the second court instance. From a resource perspective, total cost for the police would have been much lower if they had just called in a few more witnesses to dismiss the cover-up story.

List of witnesses – list of contact information for people present at the nachspiel

Links– Online resources

In Norwegian:
Terminology – legal terms explained

Voldstiltalt etter ny skandalefest – first media coverage, one month before trail

BT Article – the more serious newspaper in Bergen, covered the story

In English:
Terminology – legal terms explained

Accused of violence after another scandal party – first media coverage, one month before trail

BT Article – the more serious newspaper in Bergen, covered the story

Other cases of blind violence
In Norwegian:
Was paralyzed after brutal blind violence – July 12th 2009

Victim (18) of blind violence at Nesttun, Bergen – October 31st 2009

Beaten to death (27) in a pub – October 24th 2009

In English:
Was paralyzed after brutal blind violence – July 12th 2009

Victim (18) of blind violence at Nesttun, Bergen – October 31st 2009

Beaten to death (27) in a pub – October 24th 2009


Populære sider
Om Lars Føleide
Sist oppdatert
14. februar 2018 --  16:06  
2. februar 2018 --  17:46  
28. januar 2018 --  18:26