Norway Norway - Oslo, WhtFem 20-30, Fake Name, shot in hotel room, Jun'95

[PatLaurel]

Apologies for not including sources.

So this is a composite image that has been layered and labelled by me, both images are from Verdens Gang newspaper (VG), found at this URL: Mystery at the Oslo Plaza

This shows the difference between the two guns presented to the world by the Norwegian authorities.

RSBM

It's definitely not the same gun. Any theories on why the authorities would photograph a different gun than the one the Jane Doe was shot/shot herself with?

MOO JMO

 

[ApparentlyInDenial]

The gun serial number (if it's the original/official number) starts 245NZ, meaning it's a Browning Hi-Power 9mm manufactured in 1991, sold to the consumer market (Browning serial number information is here: Hi Power Pistol).

I've tried to enhance as much as I possible can the image of the serial numbers found on the VG website here: https://akamai.vgc.no/v2/images/b84...36&s=2e53ce043d5d54dc868adc1b4177649b2d207657.

Judging by the second one, it looks like someone has tried to stamp "246" over the first part. 246 isn't a Browning serial number, so maybe just an attempt to hide the true origin.

The rest of the numbers look like 0*697, **796, **707 or somewhere along those lines. It's very difficult to enhance these images any further.

So it could be along the lines of:

245NZ 0*697
245NZ **796
245NZ **707

I doubt this is useful to anyone, but we never know.

 

[ApparentlyInDenial]

Further research on the gun:

- Jane Doe's gun has a safety clip on the left side only, and a spur hammer, as in the images provided by the police/VG newspaper;

- The spur hammer was introduced in 1981 and the left-only safety replaced in 1989, except for orders by the Israeli government after 1989, or for the Vigilante model between 1981-1989 which also had a spur hammer and left-side-only safety;

- The gun is either made 1981-1989, or made on order to the Israeli government after 1989;

- Either way, the serial number is totally false, as the 'NZ' in the number represents 1991 as year of manufacture.

 

[Mireille]

I stand by what I thought earlier. That the gun in the image and the evidence photo is the same.
But the photo has been altered in some way for some reason. There is too much weird going on in that image for it not to be somehow altered. This can have been done in many ways, overlaying existing photos and merging them down. Drawing straight on. Attempting to hide edges of a merge down by drawing black over etc.

It is just so weird. I can not really think of a reason why anyone would need to photoshop the gun....unless it was not there to begin with. Iam just thinking out loud so ...take it all with a grain of salt.

 

[Beekarina]

I wonder if the gun which was thought to have been destroyed, and then was found when the Norwegian journalist was probing more into the case and drawing attention, is in fact the same gun from "Jennifer's" crime scene? This is where the newer images with the slightly more clear results for the serial #s are coming from.

It is an interesting coincidence. Perhaps only a coincidence, but given something strange appears possible with the gun, and or the images of the gun(s), I have to put this out there as well to consider.

Mystery at the Oslo Plaza

 

[Beekarina]

Further research on the gun:

- Jane Doe's gun has a safety clip on the left side only, and a spur hammer, as in the images provided by the police/VG newspaper;

- The spur hammer was introduced in 1981 and the left-only safety replaced in 1989, except for orders by the Israeli government after 1989, or for the Vigilante model between 1981-1989 which also had a spur hammer and left-side-only safety;

- The gun is either made 1981-1989, or made on order to the Israeli government after 1989;

- Either way, the serial number is totally false, as the 'NZ' in the number represents 1991 as year of manufacture.

You have read this @ApparentlyInDenial ?

“This pistol has all the hallmarks of being a copy produced by the Hungarian factory FEG. It probably dates from the ’60s or ’70s, and it has probably been used as a military weapon. A long list of elements support this,” says VG’s source.

Mystery at the Oslo Plaza

There is a paragraph or so from the weapons collector which may be of interest.

 

[Mireille]

1976-1997 In 1975 Browning standardized its serial number identification which it followed until 1998.
1. Hi Power Type 2W5=40 S&W
245=9mm
2. Date of Manufacture
is a two digit code Z=1
Y=2
X=3
W=4
V=5
T=6
R=7
P=8
N=9
M=0
3. Serial Number beginning with 01001 at the start of each year.
Serial Number Example: 245RT01001
This would be a 9mm Hi Power pistol, manufactured in 1976 with the serial number 01001.

Source

So, like you said @ApparentlyInDenial
That makes: 245 the ammo , in other words 9 mm
Then NZ, the year, so that makes 91.
Then follows the row of numbers. It should be 5 numbers after this.

02 or 07 and then 297 or 697

 

[Beekarina]

Has this image been looked at closely yet?

I'm wondering if there might be blood under the table, by the chair?

From Mystery at the Oslo Plaza

 

[ApparentlyInDenial]

You have read this @ApparentlyInDenial ?

“This pistol has all the hallmarks of being a copy produced by the Hungarian factory FEG. It probably dates from the ’60s or ’70s, and it has probably been used as a military weapon. A long list of elements support this,” says VG’s source.

Mystery at the Oslo Plaza

There is a paragraph or so from the weapons collector which may be of interest.

I do recall reading that when I first read up on this case. It thus makes the serial numbers totally irrelevant.

But there's one detail - the pistol hammer - that suggests this isn't from 60s/70s, as copies from those decades copied like-for-like what Browning made.

Not sure enough but to say that this gun is a pig of a gun (no offence to pigs).

 

[branmuffin]

I disagree, and have said so previously on here. If you are shooting yourself in the forehead with a full-sized service pistol then the hold she was using would be by far the most comfortable and easiest to use. Check the linked video from the scene in Lethal Weapon where Martin Riggs is contemplating shooting himself - he's using precisely the hold that Jennifer used! Try to do, or at least think through, the physical contortions you'd need to use to get a conventional hold on the gun so that your trigger finger were actually on the trigger.

The study into where guns fell is an interesting one. I'll bet though that very few of those suicides involved shots to the forehead. I haven't read it all but if you were to isolate the incidents which were forehead shots which used this style of hold then I think that the number of instances in which the gun was retained in the hand would be far, far higher as it would be a very secure hold, I think. You have your fingers around the backstrap rather than your palm against it and fingers are designed for doing the job of exerting force! Your entire hand would be tensed. I'd guess that it would be actually uncommon for a gun such as this to fall away, quite honestly. That is also backed up by the fact that her thumb was still exerting pressure on the trigger when the gun was removed from her hand.

This attachment gives a good overview of homicides relating to gun deaths whether self inflicted or not. It included the percentages of how many times a weapon is found in the decedent's hands or within a certain distance from the decedent. It also gives percentages of the location of suicide head shots (forehead shots are rare). It also mentions the psychological aspect of female suicide victims and the rarity of leaving injuries that mar the face.

I'm not on board with espionage scenarios but I do see it is quite possible that this death is not self inflicted but murder.

I also feel that the investigation of this homicide was always as a suicide.

Link: http://eknygos.lsmuni.lt/springer/660/295-356.pdf

 

[Beekarina]

I mentioned Jennifer's watch in the photo being close to midnight (?), and planning to look for the time the room was released back to the hotel. Here is a timeline of events:

At about 7:50 p.m., a shot rings out.

The room is left unattended for 15 minutes.

The first police unit arrives about an hour later and establishes that there is a dead woman, shot, on the bed.

At 2:40 a.m., a hearse collects the body.

At 4:10 a.m., the mattress and bed are removed from the room.

At 5:00 a.m., police finish working and release the room to the hotel. According to the report by the hotel’s head of security, the police were “99.9 per cent certain” the death was a suicide.

Mystery at the Oslo Plaza

 

[Beekarina]

This all feels so strange. If there is a cover up, just how far ranging is it?

 

[Mireille]

I am looking at her post mortem photo right now, and she appears to have droplets of blood on her chin, her upperlip, her nose and one on her forehead.

How can she have blood there, and none on her hand?
Her face also has some red marks, one on nose, that I can't quite figure out what could come from, barely visible. Same on one cheek. There also appears to be a strand of hair on her chin.

I am putting by a photo of her, where I am using noise to see what areas have been Altered (this is not unusual to make a victim presentable).

WARNING: POST MORTEM
Source of image

 

[Beekarina]

Are you certain those are drops of blood? When I saw them initially, I thought perhaps moles, then I wondered if they could be petechiae?

 

[Beekarina]

And petechiae *may* indicate a person was strangled. Obviously something bloody happened here as well. Just noting.

Petechial Hemorrhage | Encyclopedia.com.

 

[Mireille]

Are you certain those are drops of blood? When I saw them initially, I thought perhaps moles, then I wondered if they could be petechiae?

Maybe? The one on her nose looks very smeared to be a mole though.

Nose

Chin and lip

Red by hairline, and red dot on her forehead

hair?

 

[Beekarina]

Her neck area also is very bloody (injured?) in many of the photos.

I don't want to seem as though I am questioning everything here, but part of me feels we have nothing to lose by doing so.

 

[ApparentlyInDenial]

Her neck area also is very bloody (injured?) in many of the photos.

I don't want to seem as though I am questioning everything here, but part of me feels we have nothing to lose by doing so.

Nobody else has...

 

[branmuffin]

I am looking at her post mortem photo right now, and she appears to have droplets of blood on her chin, her upperlip, her nose and one on her forehead.

How can she have blood there, and none on her hand?
Her face also has some red marks, one on nose, that I can't quite figure out what could come from, barely visible. Same on one cheek. There also appears to be a strand of hair on her chin.

I am putting by a photo of her, where I am using noise to see what areas have been Altered (this is not unusual to make a victim presentable).
View attachment 294103

WARNING: POST MORTEM
Source of image

I don't see that image as one taken right before they perform an autopsy. It appears to be a photo taken afterwards, when the decedent has had all blood washed away and brought back to a semblance of normalcy to aid in identification. We are seeing her without makeup, without blood spatter in her hair so we have no idea whether she had no makeup on when she was shot. We haven't seen any images of the entrance wound to see whether there was a muzzle imprint and if there was, it's been covered over in the attempt to make her viewable for identification. If she only used one hand to pull the trigger the recoil would have left marks up toward her hairline.

What I don't understand is why the desk clerk in the documentary said there was enormous amounts of blood on the wall behind the bed when he was shown pictures of the decedent when asked to identify her. It doesn't make sense that blood spatter would end up there if she was lying on the bed when shot. An exit wound would be at the back of the skull and skull fragments as well as the bullet would end up under the bed, which has been reported.

 

[Mireille]

I don't see that image as one taken right before they perform an autopsy. It appears to be a photo taken afterwards, when the decedent has had all blood washed away and brought back to a semblance of normalcy to aid in identification. We are seeing her without makeup, without blood spatter in her hair so we have no idea whether she had no makeup on when she was shot. We haven't seen any images of the entrance wound to see whether there was a muzzle imprint and if there was, it's been covered over in the attempt to make her viewable for identification. If she only used one hand to pull the trigger the recoil would have left marks up toward her hairline.

What I don't understand is why the desk clerk in the documentary said there was enormous amounts of blood on the wall behind the bed when he was shown pictures of the decedent when asked to identify her. It doesn't make sense that blood spatter would end up there if she was lying on the bed when shot. An exit wound would be at the back of the skull and skull fragments as well as the bullet would end up under the bed, which has been reported.

Then I am a little puzzled as to what the red dots could be, if they are not blood. Moles do not tend to be this red, and they are not on other images I saw, and on the images drawn of her, they have put moles other places (only one in place of the image, which is her chin) They are all roughly the same size as well.

I don't know if you seen the bed-picture that is widely available online, but there is no blood-spatter there on the bed's headboard. No brain matter either. There is however on the wall above the bed, and slightly to the side of the bed. Not sure how it made it there.... Only on the left side of the bed.

Another image; post mortem

Here you can tell they are not present. The quality is not great, but there is no red dots. Could it have been during or right after starting to wash? Her lip still looks bruised. Chin dot is gone. Nothing on the forehead.