Delia D'Ambra

The two were very good friends, and it's not possible to see a motive for Andersen to wrongfully involve Christensen in the case. End quote. But a law professor who spoke with producers for the Banahaya Killings docuseries pointed out that Janhelga would have been really motivated to say Vigo was involved in the crime because, by doing so, he essentially deflected a lot of blame away from himself.

The two were very good friends, and it's not possible to see a motive for Andersen to wrongfully involve Christensen in the case. End quote. But a law professor who spoke with producers for the Banahaya Killings docuseries pointed out that Janhelga would have been really motivated to say Vigo was involved in the crime because, by doing so, he essentially deflected a lot of blame away from himself.

Basically, Janhelga benefited from saying that it was Vigo, the 21-year-old who'd influenced him, a 19-year-old, to partake in such a heinous act. In the end, Janhelga received less prison time, and the media didn't paint him as the main perpetrator.

Basically, Janhelga benefited from saying that it was Vigo, the 21-year-old who'd influenced him, a 19-year-old, to partake in such a heinous act. In the end, Janhelga received less prison time, and the media didn't paint him as the main perpetrator.

Court documents filed during an appeal in January 2002 stated that forensic psychiatric experts who'd evaluated Vigo shared in court that he had an emotionally unstable personality disorder, was emotionally unstable, and had pedophilic tendencies, which is Norway's 2002 way of saying what is commonly known in the US as borderline personality disorder.

Court documents filed during an appeal in January 2002 stated that forensic psychiatric experts who'd evaluated Vigo shared in court that he had an emotionally unstable personality disorder, was emotionally unstable, and had pedophilic tendencies, which is Norway's 2002 way of saying what is commonly known in the US as borderline personality disorder.

Ultimately, the appeals court denied him relief, but agreed to increase Jan Helge's sentence from 17 years to 19 years. In a statement to TV2, which was later translated into English, Ada, Stina Sofia's mom, said, "...we can never be completely satisfied when the court does not choose to use the law's strictest punishment.

Ultimately, the appeals court denied him relief, but agreed to increase Jan Helge's sentence from 17 years to 19 years. In a statement to TV2, which was later translated into English, Ada, Stina Sofia's mom, said, "...we can never be completely satisfied when the court does not choose to use the law's strictest punishment.

Nevertheless, we are happy that Jan Helge Andersen did not even get less than 19 years." By 2006, though, Norway's government had granted Jan Helge temporary leave from prison one weekend every month, much to the dismay of the girl's family members, particularly Ada. She complained to the Oslo District Court more than once and actually ended up suing the state over the issue.

Nevertheless, we are happy that Jan Helge Andersen did not even get less than 19 years." By 2006, though, Norway's government had granted Jan Helge temporary leave from prison one weekend every month, much to the dismay of the girl's family members, particularly Ada. She complained to the Oslo District Court more than once and actually ended up suing the state over the issue.

By 2007, she was able to successfully change the law so that survivors of serious criminal cases could object to a prisoner receiving leave, and so could their relatives. In 2008, while serving his time in prison, Vigo gave his first public interview to reporter Anna Norberg and maintained that he was not responsible for what happened to Stina Sofia and Lena.

By 2007, she was able to successfully change the law so that survivors of serious criminal cases could object to a prisoner receiving leave, and so could their relatives. In 2008, while serving his time in prison, Vigo gave his first public interview to reporter Anna Norberg and maintained that he was not responsible for what happened to Stina Sofia and Lena.

He claimed he'd been convicted based on people's feelings, not evidence. He remained as resolved as ever to fight for his exoneration. He wanted a retrial, period. Up until that point, he'd never admitted guilt and there was no physical evidence that proved he was involved. It had always been Jan Helge's word against his.

He claimed he'd been convicted based on people's feelings, not evidence. He remained as resolved as ever to fight for his exoneration. He wanted a retrial, period. Up until that point, he'd never admitted guilt and there was no physical evidence that proved he was involved. It had always been Jan Helge's word against his.

After fully taking over Viggo's case in 2002, his post-conviction lawyer spent over five years sending half a dozen requests to Norway's Criminal Cases Review Commission, explaining why Viggo should get a new trial. Those documents argued a few things that his defense team felt proved that he could not have committed the crime.

After fully taking over Viggo's case in 2002, his post-conviction lawyer spent over five years sending half a dozen requests to Norway's Criminal Cases Review Commission, explaining why Viggo should get a new trial. Those documents argued a few things that his defense team felt proved that he could not have committed the crime.

One had to do with his cell phone activity during the timeframe the girls were killed. The defense team had reviewed every text message and phone call he'd made on Friday, May 19, 2000. And they discovered that between 7 p.m.

One had to do with his cell phone activity during the timeframe the girls were killed. The defense team had reviewed every text message and phone call he'd made on Friday, May 19, 2000. And they discovered that between 7 p.m.

and 8 p.m., which was the time frame authorities believed the murders happened, Vigo's device had made calls and received and sent text messages in a service area that was close to his home, but well outside the coverage area of the crime scene.

and 8 p.m., which was the time frame authorities believed the murders happened, Vigo's device had made calls and received and sent text messages in a service area that was close to his home, but well outside the coverage area of the crime scene.