You are welcome.
The last witness is in the stand now. That's a sleep-expert. A professor who is often used as an expert. - In Scandinavia at least an expert witness is expected to be and is considered unbiased. The statements of an expert are considered credible. Period.
IMPORTANT: I simplify the statement of the sleep expert into layman terms. Partly to make it easier to understand the gist of what he is saying and partly because his technical terms can be difficult to translate. But you can verify by reading the transcripts from quite a number of papers yourselves.
-----------
He starts out by explaining about sleep, sleep patterns and sleep-cycles.
He then goes on to comment of four videos made by Marius of SW between 07.12-07.19 on 20th December 2018.
The expert believe the woman (SW) is asleep in the videos, even though they are short and made within a very short time span.
"Seen together the videos - particularly those that show her face - combined with her own statement corroborate that she was sleeping at the time of the sexual acts and as such (she) could not resist."
The sleep expert goes on to explain that the woman had been awake for around 24 hours at the time and been highly active in the period as such it's perfectly possible that she could have gone out as a light and felt into a deep sleep. During such a deep sleep there have been cases of a woman having been subjected to sexual acts without waking up - even without the use of drugs. The mind will usually wake up if some danger-level is triggered (survival instinct) but not always. And it is normal that there is a period afterwards with disorientation and impaired cognitive capabilities. (In my laymen terms: It's possible that SW suffered from sleep deprivation and exhaustion to the point where she went (briefly) into deep sleep, did not wake up during the rape (it's still a rape whether she was drugged or not, mind you) and was unable to remember anything afterwards.)
The sleep expert go on to explain that even in a sleep-disoriented state of mind, it is perfectly possible to in the case a guard to order a cap and remember the address home. (Often taxi-companies will routinely ask for the destination before dispatching a taxi. A safety precaution.)
The taxi was called at 07.23 i.e. five minutes after the last video. The sleep expert explains that it is possible to wake up and order a cab in a state of confusion.
That SW was chatting and appeared to be awake while waiting for the taxi is explained by the expert as being normal. It doesn't take too much brainpower to chat.
The expert is also asked whether it is possible for SW to not notice her panties being removed without waking up. The expert responds that it is. There are several cases where people have had items of clothes removed while asleep without waking up.
The sleep expert cannot conclude that SW is sleeping in the videos, but her behavior (or lack of it, I suppose) is consistent with being asleep. Especially the fact that she made no sound.
Summing up by me: The sleep expert cannot say with certainty that SW was asleep, but all indications point to that she was asleep.
Her behavior afterwards where she seemed normal and alert does not prove anything, that is normal auto-pilot-mode.
---------
There appears to have been a translation error in the BT coverage, because the next witness is an ex-boyfriend of SW.
I have now switched to Dagbladet.
- Fikk du noen gang vite noe om det som skjedde på nachspielet? spør medaktor Andreas Kruszewski. - Nei, ikke noe annet enn at hun sa at det var…
www.dagbladet.no
I get the impression that they were dating at the time.
Boyfriend (BF) explains that he has never met Marius. SW told him that she had been at an after party at Skaugum, but he didn't ask into that. He didn't want to hear about it back then.
Continuing.
The boyfriend is asked whether SW told him about the contact SW had with Marius at Skaugum. The boyfriend explains that SW did tell him she and Marius had sex at Skaugum. He doesn't know if that is true. He was told in 2019.
A second ex-boyfriend of SW will take the stand later today.
A couple of details.
The press corps was shown out of the court room. The reason being that one of the reporters had a phone directed at Marius and/or a witness. That was noticed by the judge and that reporter is now facing problems. The journalists were told sternly that witnesses and Marius are not to be filmed, photographed or otherwise recorded.
Then the trial continued, but now another reporter has been pointed out for directing a phone at someone...
In a Q&A: Marius has had a diplomatic passport all his life, but it was taken away from him in August last year.
- I have followed the live coverage both on bt.dk and a couple of Norwegian papers and they differ. - They differ in the way details and quotes are worded and they differ in a few details that one paper may include but another omit.
