CASE REVISITED
I just stumbled upon a couple of videos1 by a Swedish freelance journalist, Otto Ekevi, concerning the 2018 disappearance of Anne-Elisabeth Hagen, the wife of a wealthy entrepreneur, Tom Hagen, both Norwegian citizens. The videos are recaps of known facts of the case, at least what are considered facts. This made me review my own recap of the case and made me aware of a number of important details I didn't include in my own recap.
The fundamental problem with this case from an armchair detective's point of view is that the evidence available comes from documentaries and news articles, not from actual police reports or evidence lists. What I consider the most important evidence is an interview given by Tom Hagen to a Norwegian journalist a couple of years after Anne-Elisabeth's disappearance.
Even this interview has been chopped up and used in various YouTube recaps, but I did find what I consider a reasonably unmolested version of the interview, which has the additional benefit of having German subtitles
2. Although I'm a native Dane, I struggle with Norwegian in general, and certain words used by Tom Hagen didn't make sense to me until I saw the German translation.
Again, since we don't have actual police transcripts to check if he changed his story over time, his account of what took place on the day of the alleged abduction raises some red flags. Even more so than when I posted my initial recap, especially after having spent a lot of time on the Nicola Bulley case, particularly Paul Ansell, the husband. My main concerns are listed below, followed by the conclusion in an upcoming post.
Tom Hagen's search pattern. I have a huge problem with his search pattern and that he didn't notice the ransom letter, rings and watch on the red chair when he descended into the basement. To move around the house, he must have passed through the hall at least twice without noticing at least her belongings on the chair. According to Otto Ekevi, the last room he searched was the bathroom next to the basement staircase. Does this make any sense?
Also, worth noting is that he does not mention calling out for Anne-Elisabeth, wouldn't you have done so? Reminds me of the Jonbenet Ramsey case, where the parents also don't mention calling out for Jonbenet (or even search the house.) My gut feeling is that Tom Hagen's narrative doesn't come from actual memory, although I don't see the purpose of inventing an illogical sequence of movements to delay the discovery of the ransom letter.
The two hours of worrying. If he worried about A-E's well-being after the first call, which allegedly was a 10 o'clock call he was expected to make, why didn't he call the children (they have three) to check if they had spoken to her that morning instead of repeatedly calling at noon? He didn't call anyone to check on her, like the neighbor, who later called Anne-Elisabeth to arrange for him to come over. They had agreed he should change some light fixtures.
Allegedly A-E called a family member at 9:14 am, initially reported to be Tom Hagen by some media, but the identity of this person was never disclosed by the Norwegian police. This was likely to protect this witness and/or to keep details of the conversation confidential. According to Tom Hagen, the close family backs him up 100%, so I'm surprised he hasn't brought up this family member, even in passing, when interviewed.
The reason being that he worked nearby and would have arrived just as she made the call, giving him a near perfect alibi. There's something fishy about this phone call and how nothing has been disclosed by either the police or Tom Hagen. As Tom Hagen currently has a murder charge pending (how is that even possible?), by disclosing who talked to Anne-Elisabeth at 9:14 am, he could totally destroy these accusations against him.
Belongings left behind. I have a huge problem with the rings and watch left on the chair in the hall, along with the ransom letter4. If we reason from a Reasonable Kidnapper Standard3, this makes absolutely no sense. The kidnapper must have arrived and left by car. The driveway and entrance of the house are reasonably exposed to by-passers, so he (or they) didn't want to hang around longer than absolutely necessary5.
If Anne-Elisabeth was dressed at the time the kidnapper arrived, she would have been wearing rings and watch. Nothing was disturbed in the house, suggesting that she let the kidnapper in. Despite some bloodstains6 found in the bathroom adjacent to the hall, she most likely would have been immediately subdued in the hall and carried to the car.
Consider this: Why would the kidnappers waste any time removing her rings and watch instead of immediately getting her in the car and take off? Why would they leave behind jewelry they could later use as evidence that A-E was in fact held hostage by the kidnappers. Tom Hagen would obviously want proof that the ransom note was real. Receiving her wedding ring in the mail would be a powerful message from the abductors!
So, why would she not be wearing the rings and watch when the kidnappers entered? The only reasonable explanation is that she was showering or just had showered. Now, how did the abductors enter the house if she was in the shower since there was no sign of forced entry, and wouldn't the rings and watch be in the bathroom, which I assume to be on the second floor next to the master bedroom7, even if she answered the door wearing a housecoat?
Either way, why would the kidnapper move the jewelry and watch to the hall?!
What's completely missing from the recaps I've watched so far is a description of how she supposedly was dressed when kidnapped. The Hagen couple had been married for 49 years when A-E disappeared. Tom Hagen says they followed their usual morning routine prior to him leaving. Would she normally shower after he left for work? Detective 101 would dictate this to be scrutinized, and particularly how she supposedly was dressed, yet we have no info on the subject.
The wooden block. It's most annoying that I can't make out what he's saying about the wooden block at the front door. Something laying diagonally, which the German transcript didn't catch. As Tom Hagen continues, what I find hard to believe is that he would associate this wooden piece with his wife having a heart attach! Unfortunately, we don't learn if this piece of wood, which clearly was out of place, originated from the residence. Surely, the police must have thoroughly investigated this.
Appreciation of Anne-Elisabeth. NRK @2:14, Tom Hagen is asked to describe his wife. He seems to be overcome by emotions but struggles to give a convincing performance. They were married for 45 years, so he should be able to come up with something that, at least initially, made them click. The words he uses are, in the order they appear, as follows: amazingly nice person, very kind, caring, she has been good to me, happy living with Lisbeth.
Nice, kind and caring, doesn't convey much spark or enthusiasm, IMO. I'm a bit surprised he doesn't mention she is the mother of their three kids. I get the impression he's slanted towards what was in it for him, kind of egocentric. What I find the least flattering about him is a detail most viewers wouldn't pick up on: two of his sentences are prefixed with a No ("nei"), as a discourse marker that weakens his statement and has a distinctive negative connotation.
Actually, his very first sentence discussing her virtues has this unfortunate marker. Again, when he concludes that she has been good to him, this "nei" sneaks in. I'm quite sure he's not aware of this, it's involuntary, and in the category of a Freudian slip. I suspect that when he's stalling around NRK @2:30, he's reliving his last moments with Anne-Elisabeth, maybe realizing what he did was a serious, irreversible mistake.
Classic statement analysis would look for signs of dissociation by not mentioning her name. I think this is often overdone, and in a Scandinavian context can be misleading. Specifically, in this segment from the NRK video, Tom Hagen mentions her by name only once at the very end. In fact, he uses her nickname Lisbeth, which is perfectly authentic. Even the interviewer, when questioning, doesn't refer to A-E by name because the context is given.
Headed for a divorce?
NRK @7:45, divorce papers mentioned, note micro expressions indicating disgust. Why would she sign divorce papers with no intention of using them? NRK @8:30, prenuptial agreement updated to include the house. Tom Hagen is all over the place claiming money is not a big deal to him. If true, a prenuptial agreement wasn't needed in the first place.
Attention kidnappers!
NRK @10:50, Tom Hagen now has the chance to address the kidnappers. His message should be clear: money is not an object, get in touch with me! Instead, he talks in riddles, and doesn't even mention her name. This reminds me of Paul Ansell (Bulley case) who got the same opportunity and had nothing to say.
The crypto deal.
It's impossible to judge how deep the police has actually penetrated the cryptocurrency setup. NRK @11,30, there's no end to these useless superintendent twats: she "believes" and "hopes" the case can be solved, but doesn't back it up with anything of substance. Unbelievable!
_______________
1 Video from Ekevi channel:
LINK 2 NRK Dagsrevyen, video from Hinkers channel:
LINK 3 The term Reasonable Kidnapper Standard was coined by Richard Dwyer in a video discussing the Jonbenet Ramsey case posted here:
LINK 4 Has it been 100% verified that her belongings were on the chair according to Tom Hagen?
5 They might have arrived on foot and left with her car.
6 Analysis were inconclusive.
7 I haven't seen a 2nd floor map of the house; did the bathroom on the first floor have a shower?
