Wrongfully Convicted: Fritz Moen

Scandinavian Crimes (w/ Devante & Delila)

Years of Incident: 1978 - 2008
Location: Norway
Wrongfully Convicted: Fritz Moen
Victim(s): 1
Method: Wrongful Conviction


Fritz Yngvar Moen was a Norwegian man wrongfully convicted of two distinct murders, serving a total of 18 years in prison. After the convictions were quashed, an official inquiry was instigated to establish what had gone wrong in the authorities' handling of the case, and on June 25th, 2007. The commission delivered harsh criticism to the police, the prosecution, as well as the courts for what was immediately termed Norway's worst miscarriage of justice of all time.

Moen was deaf and had a severe speech impediment. He was also partially paralyzed but had normal intelligence and good memory.


Music from  #Uppbeat (free for Creators!):
https://uppbeat.io/t/adi-goldstein/blank-light
License code: A1C1SZ12UFNPUARU

Music from #Uppbeat (free for Creators!):
https://uppbeat.io/t/clemens-ruh/this-place-has-never-known-some-love
License code: DZOFU4ELCVA6ZWEE

Music from #Uppbeat (free for Creators!):
https://uppbeat.io/t/kevin-macleod/lightless-dawn
License code: SNWCDIJUOPTFEHMK

Transcript

- Welcome to another episode of Scandinavian Crimes. My name is Devante and say hello to my lovely, beautiful host, Delila. - Hi. - And on this podcast, we talk about famous Scandinavian criminals who made their mark throughout Scandinavian history. So this one is more of a wrongful conviction. Of course, it's gonna take place around, like the back in the day, the 50s, 60s, 70s, when a lot of the precincts and precincts and police officers and detectives were running things like the Wild West. So this case follows Fritz Ingvar Mowen, who endured an unjust conviction for two separate murders in Norway, spending a total of 18 years behind bars.

(...)

Following the overturning of his conviction, an official investigation was launched to uncover the mishandling of his case by the authorities. On June 25th, 2007, the commission issued heavy criticism towards the police, the prosecution, and the courts labeling it Norway's most egregious miscarriage of justice. Now, if you're a repeat listener, you know this is our bread and butter in terms of like things like this happening, because especially when you hear the case, you're gonna realize it's obvious. The answer is so obvious,(...) but yet somehow it's just like they fumbled it ridiculously hard. So I really want you guys to listen to this one. So grab your tea, grab your coffee, wherever you are, just get like, you know, get in your little corner and let's really lock into this because we're gonna talk about the wrongful conviction of Fritz Mowen.

(...)

Fritz was born on December 17th, 1941.(...) His birth parents were a Norwegian woman, Betsy Mowen, and a German corporal named Fitz Robert Hellman, who served during Germany's occupation of Norway in World War II.(...) Born deaf, Fitz faced abandonment by his mother who entrusted him to an orphanage in June, 1943. Tragically, Fritz's father died on the Eastern Front in 1944, never having a chance to meet his son ever again.

(...)

Following Fritz's placement into the orphanage, his interaction with his mother drastically decreased over time and ended up with them having no contact.

(...)

Betsy later remarried in 1947 and subsequently gave birth to two sons. Born nearly deaf, Fritz had no exposure to fellow deaf individuals between the ages of one and eight.

(...)

During the critical early years when hearing children grasp language, nuanced concepts, Fritz lacked sufficient development opportunities leading to his stunted growth.

(...)

Deprived of typical social and linguistic stimulation during childhood, his growth and comprehension suffered severely, exacerbating his latest struggles with social integration, language comprehension, as noted by psychologists and deaf interpreters. Fritz, despite being deaf with a severe speech impediment and partial paralysis, demonstrated normal intelligence and a strong memory. At the age of 36, Fritz was convicted in 1978 for the rape and murder of a 20-year-old Torin Finstat in Trondheim. Four days after her last sighting on October 2nd, 1977, Torin's body was discovered showing signs of rape and strangulation.

(...)

Fritz was apprehended the following day but asserted to the police that he had an alibi.(...) Fritz had been with a group of people at a friend's birthday celebration on the night Torin disappeared. Witnesses at the party confirmed Fritz's presence until the early hours of the morning. Skeptical of Fritz's alibi, the police subjected Fritz to intense and prolonged interrogations. Over the following weeks, Fritz's statements changed constantly from staying until the party was over to leaving before the others. He would also say conflicting statements switching between denial and admission of guilt, sometimes within the same interrogation session.(...) Additionally, the details Fritz provided exhibited inconsistencies,(...) often not corresponding with the crime nor the crime scene. Although Fritz provided several accurate details during the crime scene reconstruction where Torin's body was discovered, some were still very incorrect. Interestingly, the accurate details he provided matched those reported in newspaper articles which were public information by the time of the interrogations. There existed no physical or forensic evidence connecting Fritz to the crime. No witness observed him with Torin on the night of her disappearance. Consequently, his indictment relied on the presumption that his confession was indeed truthful, while his denials of involvement were deemed false. Despite having normal intelligence, Fritz faced challenges due to his deafness necessitating an interpreter for effective communication. Additionally, his impaired right arm was noted, yet it was deemed insufficient to preclude his ability to potentially harm Torin. Fritz was indicted for this crime by the court on April 11th, 1978.(...) He received a 20-year prison sentence with an additional 10 years of post-release supervision on May 29th of the same year, which was later reduced to 16 years on appeal. Years after Fritz' initial conviction and while his lawyer contemplating petitioning to reopen Torin's case, Fritz found himself under repeated questioning regarding the unsolved strangulation and the attempted rate of the 20-year-old Sigrit, Henkheim, and Trondheim. Sigrit was found dead in September 1976 close to the area where Torin was murdered.(...) There were a lot of similarities to Torin's case hence why law enforcement was so keen to continue the investigation into Fritz. Fritz was purported to have confessed to the crime.(...) Fritz, however, later retracted his confession, asserting it was coerced and made under duress.

(...)

Despite this, his alleged confession served as a basis for charging him with Sigrit's murder and attempted rape.

(...)

Later during the trial, the prosecutor was able to persuade the jury by discrediting the evidence in Fritz' alibi. The semen collected from the crime scene was identified as type A blood, which did not match with Fritz' blood type. The prosecution speculated that the reason for this was due to the presence of E. coli bacteria that might have influenced the false test result. Fritz' alibi was discounted by the prosecution even though the alibi was confirmed by the police.(...) Fritz claimed that he had stayed overnight in the town approximately 45 miles from Trondheim and returned the afternoon after Sigrit was last seen alive. However, the prosecution argued that Sigrit could have still been alive after last being seen and spent the night in her student apartment, only to be in Trondheim the next day without anyone seeing her until Fritz returned to the city that afternoon. Fritz faced indictment for Sigrit's murder and attempted rape on September 15th, 1981. He later was convicted and sentenced to an additional five years on December 19th of the same year, and it was to be served consecutively with his existing 16 year sentence.(...) Fritz' confession to both of these crimes, which seemed to be coerced through intimidation, formed the basis of the prosecution's case. Upon Fritz' conviction, his defense attorney, Olaf Hestenis, declared it a travesty of justice. Judge Carl Solberg reacted vehemently to the outcome of the case, even applauding the court's verdict.(...) It was later revealed that Carl's reputation became marred with instances of miscarried justice, notably in wrongful conviction of Atelé Hage, a father accused of incest. Atelé tragically ended his life after release from prison, only to be cleared a decade later when his children testified on his behalf. Fritz made an appeal, which was ultimately rejected, and upon his release in March 1996, after serving over 18 years in prison, he was placed under preventative supervision. Deemed to be a continued threat, a district court judge authorized his supervision for an additional five years in October 1999. For two decades, Fritz asserted his innocence. Then in the autumn of 1998, a psychiatrist at the prison where Fritz was serving, his sentence reached out to the journalists and a private investigator, Toré Sandberg. Toré is renowned in Norway for his role in exoneration of Per Leland, who had served 24 years for a double murder committed in 1969.(...) Toré was familiar with Fritz's case, and he worked as a former television reporter for the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation.(...) He had covered the discovery of the victim's body in 1976 and 1977, as well as Fritz's 1978 trial.

(...)

He was aware that Fritz's judge at the time, Karl, had presided over the wrongful conviction case of Arte Hage in 1984,(...) which piqued Toré's interest.

(...)

He held several meetings with Fritz, sensing that there might be flaws in his convictions. Having recently collaborated with Oslo attorney, John Christian Elden on a successful exoneration case of a man wrongfully convicted of rape, Toré enlisted John's help to obtain the police investigation files.(...) After reviewing the verdicts, the police files, and conversing with Fritz to the interpreter,

(...)

Johan became convinced that the potential unsoundness of Fritz's conviction and agreed to represent him pro bono.

(...)

During their investigation, Fritz's confession to both of these crimes formed the basis of the prosecution's case. Most evidence that was gathered at both the crime scene was unfortunately lost or destroyed, with the reasons for this remaining unclear.(...) Nonetheless, Toré and Johan were able to find lots of flaws in the process of handling Fritz's convictions and continue to fight for justice.

(...)

After a year of investigation in the autumn of 1999, Toré convened a press conference in Trondheim to publicly disclose that he and Johan were exploring the possibilities of petitioning for the reopening of Fritz's case. Subsequently, in January 2000, Johan formally filed a petition to the court of appeal advocating for the official reopening of both murder cases.

(...)

The petition based on Toré's investigation highlighted irregularities in Fritz's confession,

(...)

deficiencies in the police investigation, the presence of exculpatory biological evidence, and the prosecution's failure to disclose favorable witness statements to Fritz's trial attorney.

(...)

However, the prosecution opposed Fritz's petition, leading to his dismissal over two years later.(...) Johan appealed this decision to Norway's Supreme Court of Appeals Committee in October 2003.

(...)

The appeals committee found strong evidence suggesting that Fritz could potentially be innocent. They based their decision on the investigation that Toré and Johan had made. As a result, Fritz's conviction related to Sigurda's case were reopened, but the petition to reopen Toré's case was denied.

(...)

A year later, on October 7, 2004, the Court of Appeal acquitted Fritz of the charges related to Sigurda's case.(...) Less than a week later, Fritz filed a petition with a newly established Norwegian Criminal Case Review Commission(...) to investigate his conviction with the Toré case.(...) After conducting a preliminary assessment of Fritz's petition, the CCRC appointed attorney John to advocate on Fritz's behalf on November 2004.

(...)

Tragically, four months later, Fritz passed away at the age of 63 while residing in a home for the deaf. Despite his demise, Fritz's half-brother wrote to the CCRC expressing the desire for the petition to be continued.

(...)

As the CCRC continued to review the petition over the passing months, the case took an unforeseen and dramatic turn.(...) Toré, Heppso, hospitalized due to declining health, confessed to three nurses on December 18, 2005, admitting to the murders of the two women.

(...)

Following this revelation, the nurses contacted a priest and a local police in North Trandilag County. Following this revelation, the nurses contacted a priest and local police in North Trandilag County. The following day, Toré reiterated his confessions to the priest, two policemen, and hospital officials.(...) He disclosed that he had murdered two women in Trandheim during the 1970s, specifically mentioning the names of both Sigurd and Toréng. Despite his deteriorating state, Toré referenced Fritz's conviction for Sigurd's murder, although he appeared uncertain about certain details due to the purported intoxication at the time of the crimes. Toré passed away at the age of 67, the following day without providing a recorded or transcribed statement. However, seven individuals witnessed his confession over the course of two days.

(...)

Given the ongoing investigation into Fritz's case by the CCRC,(...) authorities determined that they would investigate Toré's admission to ascertain their veracity. The CCRC conducted a comprehensive investigation into Toré's background. It was revealed that he resided in Trandheim during the years of 1976 and 1977, coinciding with the time frame of both murders.(...) Additionally, through employment and other records, it was established that he was likely present in Trandheim on the days of each of the murders.

(...)

Toré had a history of heavy drinking and had grappled with mental health issues throughout his adult years. He had been hospitalized for mental illness both before and after the time of the murders. In 1979, he was admitted to a psychiatric institution following a mental breakdown while working on the oil platform. Medical records revealed a history of anxiety and depression persisting until his demise.(...) Despite his struggles with alcohol and mental health, the CCRC found no indication that Toré had ever experienced delusions or harbored a propensity to falsely confessing to a crime.

(...)

In addition, the CCRC uncovered a disturbing incident on December 1986 when Toré's girlfriend reported to the police that he had subjected her to extreme violence from 1983 to 1986.

(...)

She detailed instances where Toré had violently assaulted her, including choking her to the point of unconsciousness on multiple occasions.

(...)

She also recounted instances of sexual assault and threats on her life.

(...)

These violent actions closely mirrored what happened to Sigurd and Torén in their murders, with the exception of the girlfriend surviving the strangulation attempts.

(...)

Charges were brought against Toré regarding the reported assaults on his girlfriend, yet they were ultimately dismissed due to insufficient evidence.(...) She explained that during the assaults, she felt too fearful to seek medical attention or involve the authorities, and Toré denied the accusations when questioned.

(...)

However, to cooperate her claims, the CCRC found significant evidence from Toré's medical records. In October 1987, while undergoing psychiatric care, Toré admitted to having been violent towards his partner, acknowledging that his actions had led to the end of their relationship. During the interviews with the CCRC, the witnesses, whom Toré confessed to in the hospital, affirmed the sincerity of Toré's omission. One witness even noted that it seemed imperative for Toré to resolve this matter before his passing.(...) Following the completion of the investigation into Toré's confession, as well as his background, on June 15, 2006, the CCRC formally accepted Fritz's petition application and presented the findings to the Court of Appeals.

(...)

In the report, the CCRC conducted a thorough examination of Fritz's confession in the Toré case, given its pivotal role in his conviction. They highlighted that it was based solely on publicly available information, considering Fritz's familiarity with the Trondheim area and details he could have acquired when taken to the crime scene by the police.

(...)

Crucially, Fritz's confession lacked essential details and he failed to mention many of them. The CCRC acts linguistics expert Professor Arne-Finn Vannen to assess whether Moen's definition led to communication challenges during his interaction with police interrogators and other authorities.

(...)

Arne-Finn analyzed Fritz's statements in an official proceeding and despite the presence of two interpreters to ensure accurate communication, Arne-Finn identified misunderstandings and Fritz's statement.(...) This indicates that many of his remarks to the police during the investigation into Toré's case might have been misinterpreted. The same issue was observed in Sigurd's case as well. The CCRC also highlighted significant parallels between Sigurd and Torin's cases, emphasizing they both shared the same modus operandi.

(...)

The victims' young women returning home from a student's union in Trondheim at night were closely linked in time and the crime scenes were nearby.(...) Furthermore, both cases involved both sexual abuse and head injuries with the victims found with cords on their outer jackets around their throats.

(...)

These striking similarities led Fritz's conviction in both cases and Torin's confession aligned with the evidence suggesting they were perpetuated by Torin.

(...)

Two months after the CCRC folded Fritz's case, on August 24, 2006, the Court of Appeals cleared him of rape and murder charges concerning Torin.(...) The successful acquittals are largely credited to the efforts of Fritz's defense lawyer, John, and a private investigator, Toré.

(...)

With both murder accusations nullified, Fritz's case emerged as a glaring example of Norway's most egregious miscarriage of justice. Following the acquittal, Fritz's legal team initiated a civil suit against the Norwegian government seeking 28 million in damages. In April 2008, the case settled with the presiding judge awarding 20 million Norwegian crowns. The lawsuit sparked extensive public discourse in Norway, prompting calls for an official investigation into the actions of the prosecutors and police.(...) Following Fritz's exoneration, Norway swiftly established a commission to investigate his wrongful convictions.

(...)

The commissions exhaustively inquired and uncovered three key factors. The failure of the police and prosecution to objectively assess the evidence, the lack of impartiality from the prosecution's expert witness,(...) and the disregard for the principle of innocence until proven guilty by both the prosecution and the trial court.(...) Additionally, the Tondheim police were criticized for the incompetence and biased reporting of the case, including the failure to disclose crucial evidence like Sigurd's diary, which contradicted Fritz's involvement in the first place.

(...)

The Norwegian Parliament's Control and Constitution Committee recommended an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the Supreme Court's rejection of Fritz's petition to reopen his convictions. They also considered impeachment charges against the three justices involved.

(...)

Despite criticism of the judge's conduct during Parliament debate, no charges were officially filed against him, and the case was closed on May 27th, 2008.

(...)

The inquiry's findings advised against singling out individual police or judicial officers for responsibility, as such actions were deemed likely to defuse accountability.

(...)

Before we start with the discussion, I would like to pinpoint some things.(...) There were information available, but there were only some articles that were available to read and information. So we would just like to make sure that you know that this is only limited information, but it was still a lot of information available online regarding that. If you live in Norway or close by, if you don't, it's going to be hard for you. I'm sorry.(...) Either way,(...) this case was, and also the cases involved and mentioned throughout this whole greeting,(...) there were open a lot of opportunities for many wrongfully convicted after this, and also they did change a lot of the injustices in general and thoroughly investigated after this case, many authorities and everything like that. So this case actually changed a lot of and exposed a lot of injustices and corruption within the law enforcement and the court of law. So this case was really meaningful, and that's why I think it's important that we talk about it. I know, Devante, that this is,(...) you love this type of topic of wrongfully convicted.

(...)

And I just want to ask you, like, what are your point of view when listening to this case? What did you think was like, this is so like, what were your thoughts, basically?

(...)

Well, initially reading the case, like one of the primary thoughts, I always think this about wrongful convictions, but especially in this one,(...) the answer is so obvious. Yeah. He had partial paralysis. He doesn't even have strength in one of his hands to like strangle somebody. And it's obvious. It's not like it was hidden and it was plain as day you can see him. Oh, this person has a disability. There's no way this person could have done it. But in their hands, they're just like, hmm,(...) he must have did it. Or this is my personal opinion, of course. I'm going to cut to the chase and give you all my opinion. I think they was looking for someone who was an easy scapegoat because I was very common back in the day where it wasn't necessarily about actually finding who did it. They were trying to just solve the case and put someone under the bus and be like, oh, yeah, we solved it. When in reality they didn't even like there was nothing linking him to the crime scene. And the fact that they had forensic evidence saying like, oh, the blood type, what was it? Blood type A or something like that. Yeah. And it was like it was a match. It's a blood type. Yeah. Some like he was he's disabled, not the same blood type.(...) Like what it's literally like it's an easy. That's not him. That was so easy, so simple. And somehow it also like serving what they said later on when they investigated(...) that the cords and twisting around the neck and stuff. And I'm like,(...) that is such a hard thing to do for somebody who is like partially paralyzed. I can just only imagine in like having the strength to overpower a person as well. It just sounds very.(...) I don't know. I just feel like they just kind of like you're a man, you're able to do that to a woman and then not really thinking about other things that might have been harder for it. On top of that, he had alibis, too. It was like it was so many things going on here, basically. It's like it's like someone saying two plus two is four and then there's like, no, it's seven.

(...)

No, it's four. No, it's seven.

(...)

And then having people reinforce it in the court and they just took it at face value. Like as a prosecutor, wouldn't you look at that case file and be like, this doesn't make sense. But I guess during the times it didn't even matter. It was also like basically diminishing every evidence that was available to like saying that. Yeah, but it could be e coli that could make that happen. It doesn't even make sense. Like what? Anyone with a basic high school education, not middle school education,(...) E. coli. No, that doesn't make any sense. I just I was just like, I don't care. I don't care. I don't care how people feel about this. The jury's stupid for believing that. Are you serious? But he was also biased, one of them at least. I mean, most of them were very biased for some reason. I don't know why.(...) I mean, it could be we might know why the reason is that. But we'll talk about that later. It's just like there was so many things, no evidence attached to Fritz. He had alibis. He had proof. The only thing that made it impossible for him was because he couldn't express himself properly because of him being deaf and stuff like that. And he didn't even have interpret, interpret,(...) interpret, yes,(...) he didn't even have that during interrogation most of the time. And they had prolonged interviews. They basically kind of have questionings in a way where it's just, you know, we talked about in previous episodes where they do that when they talk about like when they basically like borderline torture when you like interrogate for somebody like that for a long period of time, many times asking the same things, just trying to twist the words of the person until he says something of the line of confession.

(...)

And then he'd be like, yeah, got you. And then they're guiding him like basically like, I didn't do this. Well, maybe you were in the area like it is. Yes, I was. I mean, it is close to such and such. I'm just trying to guide him to the answer. Exactly. So and because of that, that's the only reason that made him imprisoned for 18 years.

(...)

It was nothing else that could have made it possible for him to do that. And it's just sad to see stuff like that, basically. And I don't know, I just feel very sad about the whole thing.

(...)

And he also died before even being before he was even cleared. Yeah.(...) He only was able to get one of the charges dropped that cigarette I think he was able to get dropped. I think he died.(...) Oh, wait, he died before he died after being cleared. After the cigarette charges got dropped. But Torin Torin was the one they refused. Yeah, that was the one they refused to like, oh, no, he did it. And it's so crazy because like, and but also one thing I'm pretty sure you was about to like bring up at some point is during this time period and when the crimes were taking place,(...) people had a lot of bias and feelings against people with disabilities. Mm hmm. Like, I don't know what it was like people just felt like, you know, because I remember even back in a day when polio was a thing, people was acting like, oh my God, you're the devil. Like,(...) like, it's it's a disability. Like what it doesn't really affect anything else. Basically, ableism, they kind of just like, and this is really harsh ableism. Like they basically were like, you are you can't speak your like, even his parents were just like, oh my God, you're different and kind of like here. His dad died. So we don't know about that. I'm not saying about the dad part. Like the dad was probably just a soldier. Like he might have not even been available during the time. Like he was born. Like, I don't know. I don't know the situation. Dad, but the mom was like, this is different. No. And then kind of just like abandoned him. So there might have been a story. It could have been. Yeah. Okay. He did. She did. Okay. That's a crazy thing. I'm not gonna lie. I don't mean to redirect.(...) That's crazy.(...) The thing is back then, they might have just been like, what is wrong with this child? And like, they might have not had the information about being like deaf. It doesn't change anything. It's just like lack of hearing, like being able to hear properly.(...) But you know, I think that's basically where it comes from. It's ableism to the highest of the highest. Like they were basically pinpointing him.

(...)

And I think it's because of his like partially being paralyzed, like everything, just him being different.(...) And it's sad that he didn't really have a normal child like could basically because he couldn't really grow his skills, social skills, and learning maybe sign language and stuff like that. Stuff like that really can't hurt a child in their growth. So it's sad that they didn't really have the knowledge and they didn't really take care of him.

(...)

And this happened to him. He was a PR victim.

(...)

And then lost so much of his life to a terrible mom.(...) The system and then another system and being convicted of something he didn't do. I don't know if the mom was terrible. I think it's probably because she didn't really know better. She was like, this is different. No, I don't want this and this wrong with the child. It's you know, I don't know how it was back then. I think it was mostly because she didn't know any better and she didn't want to. I mean, sure.

(...)

I would say sure. Like I know it. I'm not saying she's well, I'll say I'll say she's horrible, but not. It was horrible out of ignorance. I mean, she had two other kids with another man. But that's what I was about to say. I was like, it's specifically the fact that, oh, I put my son up for adoption and then have two more sons.

(...)

So literally specifically put him up for adoption for his disability, then start a whole other family with a whole other man. And then I don't know if she even reached out or tried to reach out or I don't know if she has regrets about it. Basically, she didn't really.(...) She didn't even really try to like. Though I guess they have some type of communication with him. Maybe I don't know. Yeah, I'm like, but that's also my kind of thought because I don't see anything regarding like, okay, she tried to reach out because maybe she felt guilty later, which is a sign that, okay, maybe I was wrong back then, but whatever. Even then, that's a problem. But that comes from ignorance at the time. That was just a very ignorant thought that people just didn't put two and two together.(...) But in general, like I can't say I have a lot to say. Simple. The police failed. I can actually say stuff though,(...) regarding if you want to know more about the biological evidence that wasn't mentioned in the whole reading.

(...)

You do know like,(...) oh my God, it's going to be a while, a ride. I mean, but like the blood typing thing was not really the main point that incriminated Fritz. It was just because the prosecution, the prosecutioner was just like kind of really was leading everything evidence was said to something else just to diminish it. And that's why nobody cared about the evidence.

(...)

And that's like the biological evidence was also lost, most of them, or they were destroyed, or they just like disappeared. Nobody knows where they are. But Toure and John was actually asking medical experts for help. And they did the medical expert that did the at the at the at the at the at the stuff like that. And they showcase that like,(...) this is not Fritz at all.(...) So even though the evidence and everything was lost,(...) they still were able to like gather information regarding what other people have like, done and research of this whole thing. And the regarding there was also it was also things that the I can't talk the post.

(...)

I can't talk to one day I give up the too many piece and bees and I can't do it. There's no bees only piece.

(...)

Yeah, I know there's two piece and I can't say the biological material recovered from the crime scenes.

(...)

Yes.

(...)

And basically, to summarize everything, it was from the perpetrator, which did not match Fritz is what I was trying to say, but everything is too many piece and ease and stuff. And I can't really say it. So I give up. Yeah.

(...)

Well, I guess for me personally,(...) if you know, Oh, yeah, I forgot to say, oh, wait, I need to say something to sorry. I'm so sorry. To not to the actual perpetrator had evidence where he put stuff in his Bible

(...)

before he passed away. So there were written violent tendencies that he wrote in the Bible that also, you know, was very concerning and, you know, additional evidence to prove that Fritz wasn't really the guy. So they could have investigated toward back in the day when his girlfriend got hurt and strangled close to the area because I was normal. You didn't cook me dinner, but because they were like, there's not enough evidence for him to do that to you, miss. And she's like, okay. And if she was afraid to get help and it was just a hard, I feel bad for her too.

(...)

So yeah, it was just normalized. That's all. But the only thing I have to say before we wrap things up is this. This was so easy.

(...)

So easy to be like, okay, it wasn't this dude. They made no effort. And it wasn't even just like the police failed. It was like the police failed the prosecution failed the court failed. I'm like three layers of dumbassness. Oh yeah.(...) It was served on not a silver platter. It was served on a gold diamond platter. Like here you are. He's not the person you're looking for. And it was just like, he's definitely the person I'm looking for. It's him. It has to be him. It's crazy. But we know it's ignorance. We know for a fact that it was looking for ignorance.(...) There's a scapegoat. There's probably ableism.

(...)

So, you know, I'm just, this was easy. I already, I'm already stressed. But anyway,(...) when you're hearing this, let us know what you think about this whole case. Let us know if you're from the area and then you know about the case as well and kind of give us some more insight. Maybe there's some information we don't have. Maybe there's some information we missed. Maybe there's some information that got mistranslated. Whatever the case may be, if you're from the area, let us know what's going on, your thoughts.(...) And yeah, this is just ridiculous. You know, so. Also, if you guys want more information about the Hoggia case, we could do like a small little reading thing for some other episode. There's not a lot of information about him, but you know. You look a little bonus. Like, you know, a little. A little bonus. A little bonus. Something like that at one point. You know.

(...)

But just to lighten things up, let's, you know, you already know the usual. If you're a repeat listener.

(...)

It's Easter.(...) Yeah. Happy Easter. Oh, at least by the time this comes out, something Easter ish. But I hope you had a happy Easter and I'm going to get a ham and cheese and a roll. If you know, you know, I'm going to get an orange drink.

(...)

But nonetheless, I am going to hand it over to Delilah. Um,(...) I would like, you know what? I'm going to actually say what I'm going to eat for Easter. So I'm going to have in Jera with some of he and some other things as well. Hamli and stuff like that. And then I'm also going to have some lamb and some potatoes. That sounds good.(...) Yeah, it's really good. And some other thing. Fish as some.

(...)

Yes. It's like a mix of my traditions and also Easter tradition. So yeah, that sounds good. That sounds good as well. Yeah.

(...)

Let us know what you guys think. Love you guys. Love, love, love. And much love. Stay safe out there, my friends.

(...)

And happy Easter. Yes. Happy Easter. Or at least I hope you had a happy Easter. Happy holidays. And we'll see you next time.

(...)

Peace out.