May Have Stuck Himself – NRK Troms and Finnmark
- The Attorney General has closed the case of a 65-year-old woman accused of fatally stabbing her husband, John Tarald Haugen, in the stomach.
- Despite initial charges and previous convictions for stabbing Haugen, the Attorney General determined the evidence was insufficient to proceed with a murder charge.
- The incident occurred in Vardø, where the couple had been living.
Case Closed: Woman Cleared in Husband’s Stabbing Death
Table of Contents
The Attorney General has closed the case of a 65-year-old woman accused of fatally stabbing her husband, John Tarald Haugen, in the stomach.
Despite initial charges and previous convictions for stabbing Haugen, the Attorney General determined the evidence was insufficient to proceed with a murder charge. The decision is final.
The incident occurred in Vardø, where the couple had been living. Before Haugen died, he repeatedly stated that his wife had stabbed him.
Though, the Attorney General believes it cannot be ruled out that the victim himself had sustained the injuries he died of, as the woman claimed when she was arrested.
police Chief Ellen Katrine Hætta in Finnmark, expressed disagreement, stating that the police believed they had sufficient evidence for charges.
Police maintain that the evidence at the scene contradicted the woman’s account.
Lawyer Anne Kroken, assisting Haugen’s son, also dissented from the Attorney general’s decision.
The victim, a 63-year-old doctor, died at Hammerfest hospital in February of the previous year, after being stabbed in Vardø.
The suspect was initially charged with serious bodily injury resulting in death, later changed to murder.
The incident occurred just 15 months after the woman stabbed Haugen in the upper arm, requiring ten stitches. She was sentenced to 90 days in prison for that assault.
At that time, she claimed self-defense, alleging Haugen had attacked her. Following the Vardø incident, she appeared in a prison meeting with visible injuries.
She denied the charges, claiming she was also a victim of violence. Her initial statement described Haugen as “completely rabid” and physically aggressive.
Medical examination revealed wounds in her mouth and fractures.
Conflicting Evidence
Finnmark police believe the woman intentionally stabbed Haugen with the intent to kill.
Police Chief Hætta stated, “there are no traces there that he has managed to do it himself.”
Key points cited by police include:
- Witnesses found Haugen stating,”I die.”
- A knife with the victim’s blood was found partially under a bag near where the accused was sitting.
- Blood from the knife appeared to have been wiped on a wool blanket.
- Grip tissue from the deceased was found on the opposite side of the living room table.
- The woman’s behavior was considered unusual,as she did not call for help and remained detached until police arrived.
Attorney General’s Rationale
The Attorney General acknowledged that the injuries were not typical of self-inflicted wounds.
On the other hand, it is technically and purely possible that the offender has stabbed himself, even though it is an unusual way to take their lives.
The Attorney General’s office also stated, “The forensic evidence does not provide a clear picture of the course of events, and it is indeed neither blood traces nor DNA spores that provide clear points that the stabbing is applied by the accused.”
The woman’s lawyer stated she is relieved to put the case behind her.
The Attorney General’s decision is,as I consider it,just right… Its like she has said right from the beginning: She has had nothing to do with the man’s death. It is crucial. She has maintained this from the first moment, and it has now been accepted.
Discrimination Concerns
The police released a statement noting that the state Attorney in Troms and Finnmark also believed there was sufficient evidence to appeal the case.
The woman’s lawyer found it “very good” that disagreements within the prosecution were acknowledged.
It is indeed completely unproblematic, and it also shows that self-reliant assessments are made at different levels in the prosecution chain.
Police Chief Hætta emphasized the critically important public interest in the case.
We usually do not comment on internal settings,but in this case there have been so much question about it,so we choose to go out with it together.
When asked about potential discrimination based on social status and gender, the chief of police responded:
We have also noticed that there is some discrimination, without wanting to link it to this specific case, but it may well have been charged then, yes.
Case Closed: Key questions Answered About the Woman Cleared in HusbandS Death
This article provides detailed answers to common questions surrounding the case of a 65-year-old woman cleared in the stabbing death of her husband, John Tarald haugen.
What Happened? Understanding the Incident
Q: What is the central event that this article centers on?
A: The article reports on the Attorney General’s decision to close the case against a 65-year-old woman accused of fatally stabbing her husband, John Tarald Haugen, in vardø, Norway. Despite initial charges and previous convictions for assaulting Haugen, the authorities determined that the evidence was insufficient to proceed with a murder charge.
Q: Where did the stabbing occur, and when did the victim die?
A: The incident took place in Vardø. The victim, a 63-year-old doctor named John Tarald Haugen, died at Hammerfest hospital in February of the previous year, after being stabbed.
Q: What were the initial charges against the woman?
A: Initially, she was charged with serious bodily injury resulting in death. These charges were later upgraded to murder.
The Investigation: Conflicting Evidence
Q: What evidence did law enforcement initially believe implicated the woman?
A: The police believed they had solid evidence pointing to the woman’s culpability. Key factors included:
Witnesses heard Haugen state, “I die.”
A knife with the victim’s blood was found partially under a bag near the woman.
Blood from the knife appeared to have been wiped on a wool blanket.
Grip tissue from the deceased was found on the opposite side of the living room table.
* The woman’s behavior was considered unusual. She didn’t call for help and remained detached until police arrived.
Q: What were the woman’s claims and the Attorney General’s rationale for closing the case?
A: The woman denied the charges, claiming she was also a victim of violence and maintaining her innocence from the start. The Attorney General determined the evidence was insufficient, stating that the forensic evidence did not provide a clear picture of how the stabbing occurred and that it could not be ruled out that Haugen had inflicted the injuries on himself.
Q: Did the police and other legal figures agree with the Attorney General’s decision?
A: No. Police Chief Ellen Katrine Hætta expressed disagreement, stating that the police believed they had sufficient evidence to prosecute the woman. Also, lawyer Anne Kroken, assisting Haugen’s son, dissented from the Attorney General’s decision.
Key Differences and Disagreements
Q: what was the woman previously charged with?
A: Fifteen months before the fatal stabbing, she was convicted of stabbing Haugen in the upper arm, which resulted in a 90-day prison sentance. She claimed self-defense in that incident.
Q: How did medical examinations support the woman’s claims of violence?
A: Following the incident, the woman had visible injuries in a prison meeting, with wounds in her mouth and fractures.
The Attorney General’s Stance
Q: How did the Attorney General view the potential for the victim to have caused his own injuries?
A: The Attorney General acknowledged that the injuries were not typical of self-inflicted wounds. However, the Attorney General’s office also stated, that it has technically and purely possible that the offender has stabbed himself, even though it is an unusual way to take their lives.
Concerns and Aftermath
Q: What were the concerns raised about the prosecution’s handling of the case?
A: The Police Chief stated that there had been much question about the case. When asked about potential discrimination based on social status and gender, the Chief of police responded with; “We have also noticed that there is some discrimination, without wanting to link it to this specific case, but it may well have been charged then, yes.”
Q: What was the woman’s lawyer’s reaction to the Attorney General’s decision?
A: The woman’s lawyer was relieved, stating that it was “very good” that disagreements within the prosecution were acknowledged and that her client could finally put the case behind her.
Summary of Key Points
| Feature | Details |
| —————– | ————————————————————————— |
| Incident | Fatal stabbing of John Tarald Haugen in Vardø. |
| Accused | 65-year-old woman,wife of the deceased.|
| Initial Charges | Serious bodily injury resulting in death, later upgraded to murder. |
| Verdict | Case closed by Attorney General due to insufficient evidence. |
| Police Position | Believed they had sufficient evidence for a murder charge. |
| Victim’s State | Haugen stated, “I die.” |
| Previous assault| Woman convicted of stabbing Haugen 15 months prior, claiming self-defense.|