Johny Vassbakk still denies killing Birgitte Tengs. Now defenders are getting DNA assistance from the Netherlands.

Why was Johny Vassbakk (53)’s DNA found in Birgitte Tengs’ tights?

This is once again a central question when the case against him starts in the Gulation High Court on Tuesday 5 September.

Vassbakk has always denied having anything to do with the murder of the 17-year-old Karmøy girl.

The 53-year-old man was sentenced to 17 years in prison in February but is appealing.

– He had a hard time, he had a hard time. He called it the biggest fight of his life, said defender Stian Bråstein.

– At the same time, he is determined to defend his case, and is looking forward to a new trial at the Court of Appeal, he said.

Krimpodden is present during the trial, and provides daily updates. In the final episode, you’ll hear more about the key points in an appeals case:

Birgitte Tengs was found murdered in Gamle Sundvegen, near her home in Karmøy, on 6 May 1995.

Her tights were pulled up to her ankles, and she received a severe head injury.

Unsolved cases were examined by a police “cold cases” group in 2017. Birgitte’s clothing was analyzed with new and improved technology, and DNA that didn’t belong to her was found in bloodstains on her tights.

Prosecutors believe it belongs to Johny Vassbakk.

Vassbakk himself admitted that he had never met Tengs. The defenders believe that the DNA traces must have got on the stockings by some other means.

– What conclusion can be drawn from the small find in the victim’s tights? Bråstein’s defense asked before the trial.

– Asked to explain nearly 30 years after one accidental night, why exactly is one or five or seven of your skin cells in a certain place, when we know we’re losing thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, maybe every minute?

– This is a task that probably no one else can do, says Bråstein.

Could Tengs and Vassbakk take the same change? Door handle? Can the police divert their tracks when they have handled the foreclosure?

These are the questions defenders will ask.

– I think this is a reasonable objection, said state attorney Thale Thomseth.

– But the prosecutor believes that the evidence will show that there is no preposterous explanation why you found the man’s DNA in the stockings if he is not the culprit, he said.

What is meant by “evidence” referred to by the prosecutor is DNA evidence and supporting evidence, such as alibis, movement patterns, criminal history, and so on.

Before the summer, Birgitte Tengs’ tights were sent to an NFI institute in the Netherlands for two fingerprints to be analyzed.

The end result is still unclear.

The defenders have also received NOK 50,000 from the court to bring in Professor Ate Kloosterman at the University of Amsterdam, who is an expert on the use of DNA in forensic medicine, according to NTB.

Kloosterman will also testify as an expert at the Court of Appeal.