The True Crime series “Who Killed Birgitte” aired on Tv2 in the fall of 2018, and inspired me to reflect a little on what I believe are the underlying reasons why the cousin gave a false confession. Why was he presumed guilty in this case when most of the evidence pointed to his innocence? How did the guilt stamp gain a foothold when there was a lack of evidence and there were obvious errors in the investigation?
What does it really take to become a scapegoat ? Can anyone be one? Could any innocent person with a tendency to be a little “weird” be designated as a murderer?
I don't think so. I don't think it would have affected someone who had just shaken their head and snorted it away. Nor do I think anyone would have had such suspicions directed at them when there was no evidence.
So what was special about the cousin?
It has emerged that he is very intelligent. It has emerged that he was known to be a bit “weird” or different. It has emerged that he had masturbated and was suspected of exposing himself. Most likely in a small community like Karmøy, there were rumors about the cousin, and he was aware of these. He had been reported for exposing himself and the case was dropped, all recorded in the local memorial book; people talked about it. After the murder, people were asked to come in for questioning, and the police wanted to know who was weird, who people experienced as strange, they probably asked the cousin the same thing. That way the cousin knew that he would be mentioned to the police. People wanted to tell about the humiliating episodes.
Research shows that highly intelligent people can often be particularly sensitive and quickly perceive what is happening in the common room. They perceive and process facial expressions, body postures, voice tone, see the dynamics between others and can acquire a deeper insight and understanding of what is happening. This can also give them greater emotional responses and reactions than others who do not perceive and take in the same way, and they are therefore at risk of showing signs that can be mistaken for real guilt. Already at the funeral, the cousin is struggling and has nervous twitches and behaves “strangely”. This is noticed by the police and others present. In the series, an audio recording from the courtroom is played, where the cousin describes that he felt pulled down to the ground by all the lenses. He felt very suspicious.
Now there is no doubt that the cousin, prior to the murder, did things that violated the generally accepted, and perhaps were illegal (but he himself denies exposure) but similar episodes like masturbation can happen in a bush from time to time, the difference is the meaning that is put into the action. And why are some demonized and morbidized, while others are shrugged off; your pig, sort of. In the cousin's case, the first thing happened. He got a stamp. In the series it appears that the cousin is referred to as infantile because he has chosen to read Donald Duck paperbacks when he had dinner.
This has now been retracted in retrospect, but it is important because it can reveal a lot about a prejudiced attitude towards the cousin. It seems that many shared a similar attitude where he was seen and taken in the worst sense, and where even normal patterns of action were morbidized.
Positions like this can overwhelm and divert credible information from outside. They can override wise processing of facts, and sabotage insight and understanding of the issue. Overall, this can lay the foundation for a very unfair and inaccurate portrayal. It creates tunnel vision and sets guidelines so that what does not support their position and view is not seen or valued.
The cousin took on the role of scapegoat, i.e. he confessed to the murder, after being subjected to long periods of solitary confinement interrupted by what are said to be manipulative interrogations. People in the local community, his own lawyer and others seemed to initially support a certain suspicion of guilt, and this probably contributed to weakening his resistance to control techniques and manipulation. It also emerged that the cousin was falsely told that his own family and parents had retracted their alibi, and this is portrayed in the television series as the decisive factor in the cousin's giving in to the pressure.
The police and everyone else involved achieve satisfaction when the confession comes.
Everyone is relieved, the pressure is reduced, there is a feeling of victory in such a tragic case and the cousin himself almost experiences a kind of reward from the police for the confession. This is how the acquisition of an inner scapegoat works. Those who have projected the guilt and responsibility onto the cousin can now gain weight for what they have done through the cousin himself living up to the label of guilt and in a way doing the job as a scapegoat of his own “free” will. But that is not the truth and fortunately for us humans we have an inner voice, an inner judgment that will protest. The cousin understands that he has made a false admission, but at the same time he is a scapegoat so a dilemma arises. He is reluctant to withdraw the confession and feels that he is letting “the others/the police” down when he stands behind his inner truth that he is innocent. But when lawyer Sjødin makes the choice, it becomes easier for him.
But testimonies, rebuttals and reports of other suspicious people and events do not have the power to pierce through the wall of this phenomenon of “creating a scapegoat” by the cousin, and this may probably be because it has become too personal. There are unconscious dynamics that involve people on a personal level. This takes place in settings and situations, there are power distributions and groupings of people who are supposed to relate to each other.
In this case, deep contempt was most likely triggered. The murder of Birgitte was a cruel case with painful details, and the TV series tells the story of police officers who were personally affected and felt it in their spine. There is reason to believe that they needed someone to vent these feelings on, they needed a solution, and time passed without finding a perpetrator. It may also be about breaking free from the unpleasant shadows that come when you are under pressure, when things are at stake, and all the tired chaos inside a person becomes more visible and pushes itself to the surface.
Because the case dragged on, and they got nowhere. The series shows that the investigators from Kripos had high ranks, they were like stars to be reckoned with, they had authority and were used to being listened to and coming to sort things out. But what happened when solutions failed to materialize, perhaps some felt they lost face, some of their reputation was threatened…
The relationship with the cousin may also have become like a bad habit that gave them a boost of energy and relief. Which has further culminated in a strong, overwhelming antipathy towards the cousin and thus blaming would possibly feel good. When the cousin has been used in this way for so long, it will be like other habits, they will find it difficult to stop, which the TV series also confirms. Those responsible are unable to take their eyes off the cousin.
Intelligent and sensitive people are more easily made scapegoats.
There is much evidence that intelligent and/or sensitive people are more likely to be labeled as scapegoats because they perceive things on a deep level. This is not obvious, but can be conveyed on a subtle level and will be picked up by those who are inclined to feel threatened. This can apply to people with power or leadership responsibilities who unconsciously carry a fear of being exposed, or of losing some of their position. They control the group dynamic, and can bring others along, people who may have doubts but who submit because they lack self-awareness or choose easy solutions that benefit them, or it happens as a result of peer pressure. This is how a culture is formed that can turn against an innocent person.
Uncritically indulging in attitudes that support self-defense, ignorance, and denial can have major consequences. Many can go to great lengths to stand by their views. That is probably why this case, with its obvious shortcomings and clear errors, could pass so many by in silence.
The jury in the Court of Appeal, however, remained neutral and looked into the case through an open door and saw things as they were. They acquitted the cousin. But unfortunately, others were given the power to continue and maintain the scapegoat stigma by sentencing him to pay compensation for the murder of Birgitte's parents. In doing so, they caused an extension of the tragedy on all sides.
The series also tells that there were bright spots along the way, with people who got involved and tried to turn things around, without success. Several suffered personal losses as a result of their involvement, but it seems that they are being listened to today by the right people.
My experience through this True Crime series is that Birgitte Teng's cousin became the scapegoat in a dysfunctional culture that spread through the police, the criminal investigation department, and the judiciary. The sum of a number of circumstances created a scenario that benefited the superior forces, and which had the frightening outcome of erasing the truth.
For the cousin, the consequence of being made a scapegoat may have lived on in him as a truth set in stone. It is difficult to change that. He may feel that he has to give too much, that he is always required to explain, that he has to disprove things, that others have a right to it. This inner tendency to feel guilty and give too much can act as a perpetual persecution. The price is enormous, also for the family.
The obviousness of being able to trust that the truth will prevail was taken away. Justice for the cousin is not forthcoming. I still hope they have regained some of their trust now that this series has aired on TV2, and the case has been highlighted in this way. Responsibility must be placed where it belongs, and the cousin must become something other than Birgitte Teng's cousin.
0 comments