A Norwegian murder case where the defendant has offered three different explanations exposes how the country's appeals system weighs credibility when stories keep changing. The precedent could reshape how Norwegian courts handle evolving testimonies in violent crime appeals. Read more: Murder Charge Dropped After Autopsy in Haugesund Case. Read more: Norwegian Potatoes to Power Moon Rockets.
Third Story, Same Defendant
Veronica Lystrup, 44, was sentenced to 16 years for killing Ole Andreas Sønstvedt with an axe on New Year's Eve 2023. At Hedmarken og Østerdal tingrett (district court), she first claimed he left her farm, then alleged three unknown perpetrators committed the murder. Now at Eidsivating lagmannsrett (appeals court), she admits the killing but claims nødverge (self-defense).
According to NRK Innlandet, the original court found zero credibility in her earlier explanations. Police evidence showed the victim was killed around 9:50 PM but wasn't reported missing for 12 days. Lystrup later dismembered and burned the remains.
Norwegian Legal System Under Pressure
The case tests Norwegian criminal procedure's tolerance for defendant credibility collapse. Unlike plea bargaining systems common in other jurisdictions, Norway's inquisitorial approach gives defendants multiple opportunities to revise testimony through the appeals process. This creates tension between due process rights and victim family expectations.
Bistandsadvokat (victim's advocate) Heidi Ysen told VG that the victim's family considers Lystrup's credibility "at rock bottom." State prosecutor Magnus Schartum-Hansen will focus heavily on these changing explanations when challenging the self-defense claim.
Under Norwegian law, nødverge requires proving immediate danger and proportional force. The lagmannsrett must determine whether Lystrup's third version meets these standards or if the killing was premeditated murder as the lower court concluded.
Broader Nordic Context
Norway's approach differs from neighboring systems. Swedish courts apply stricter credibility standards for defendants who fundamentally alter their defense, while Danish criminal procedure places heavier weight on initial police statements. Finnish courts have developed specific protocols for assessing testimony evolution in domestic violence cases.
The Norwegian Bar Association has debated whether multiple story changes should trigger automatic credibility presumptions against defendants. This case could influence those discussions, particularly given the 12-day delay in reporting and evidence of body disposal.
Lystrup was ordered to pay 450,000 kroner ($41,000) compensation to Sønstvedt's family. The appeals court will review both conviction and sentencing.
This verdict will signal whether Norwegian appeals courts will accept radical testimony shifts or demand consistency from defendants claiming self-defense. Legal practitioners expect the decision to become required reading for criminal defense strategy.