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

[noodlefreak]

I am trying for days now to post to this thread and system doesnt let me So I am sorry but I will try to break this post down to smaller pieces and see if it works.

My notes and thoughts so far..
A. Concerning the name given:
1/ Fergate in belgian language, norwegian and german the pronounciation is the same *all letters exactly pronounced
but the woman in reception wrote Fairgate that means she spoke with her in English.
2/ People in Germany and especially East Germany are tought in the primary school to write calligraphic letters that are continuous to each other and they tend to use it all teir lifes We dont see that here

B. The cleaning lady and the sodas it is to me unclear when the cleaning lady saw the colorful shoes in the room as it is stated here Het Mysterie van kamer 2805
1/The Check- in, took place on Wednesday night, the cleaning of the room would follow normally on Thursday, but there was already a Do not disturb sign outside the room so no staff would come in.
2/ The minibar not been refilled explains the different sodas found empty. Usually the minibar is filled with one bottle of every kind. So it would be One Diet Cola and One Cola if not replaced.
So when did the maid saw the shoes? Or was the Do not Disturb sign placed later that day? and by who?

 

[noodlefreak]

C. Security Staff?
this is confusing ... regarding the security staff, were there two of them? security guy and head of security? Who heard the shot? why did he leave and why instead of calling police immediately waited 15 minutes? why did they open the room before police was there?
Somehow seems like a bigger conspiracy. On the other hand a staged suicide scene done by amateurs?

 

[noodlefreak]

D. Friday or Saturday?
After the medical examination resulting undigested food, it seems more likely that what happened, happened on Friday. Giving enough time for a staged scene

E. Could this gun fire a silent shot?
What if the shot fired on Saturday was that on the pillow and the shot that killed her was fired on Friday?

 

[noodlefreak]

F. Are those definitely her clothes? Her Gun? her cartridges? Her Watch?

I think that a possible explanation of why the clothes that has been found doesnt match her style, as described, and especially the green bag is totally "off", could have also been planted on the scene after her killing on Friday. These clothes could have been anyone s. Maybe what people forget in their rooms and are kept in Lost and found..
Maybe her own clothes have been already disposed, carried out from the hotel my someone that had already checked out.

I am thinking that there is a serious possibility here (again) that this case is connected with another guest in the hotel and another clue for this would be
that nobody is actually certain that this woman ever left the hotel.
Her 20 hours absence doesnt mean she was out somewhere but she could be in someone else s room.
My opinion is that there is a bigger conspiracy here with more that one suspects.

 

[noodlefreak]

What if she was an escort?
What if it wasnt her first time in the Hotel and the given name wouldnt actually be important to them or the woman who made the reservation through the phone, an escort agency s manager or owner maybe.. And even if it was Jennifer s first time in the Hotel, the escort Agency may have connections with this particulat hotel and used it often for dates. So... no questions asked.
Here once more, a booking of a second room in the same hotel would make a lot of sense.

 

[ApparentlyInDenial]

To illustrate the point about the gun photo a bit, here is a prop.

This is a photo taken of a TV, with a 35mm camera, playing the movie Grosse Pointe Blank which was filmed in 1997 on 35mm, and broadcast over the air or from VHS.

The photo was scanned and made digital, and as you can see it still retains the luminance map that was there when filmed, because that's how light works. Light in a photo doesn't go away if the photo is re-photographed.

Thus you can see the outline of the Glock 17 against quite a dark background, in John Cusack's hand. You can see where it ends, it obviously hasn't been added or altered digitally etc. The light is still there no matter how many times it's re-photographed.

(The Glock is a great gun, which always seems to be the sidearm of choice of the security whenever I have worked in particularly dangerous countries.)

 

[ApparentlyInDenial]

Does anyone have a theory on this? It looks like a watch or sunglasses to me, sitting on top of a dirty towel on top of a fresh dressing gown in the bathroom. Note that the woman's watch was found on her body, so it can't be her watch

 

[GatorFL]

To illustrate the point about the gun photo a bit, here is a prop.

This is a photo taken of a TV, with a 35mm camera, playing the movie Grosse Pointe Blank which was filmed in 1997 on 35mm, and broadcast over the air or from VHS.

The photo was scanned and made digital, and as you can see it still retains the luminance map that was there when filmed, because that's how light works. Light in a photo doesn't go away if the photo is re-photographed.

Thus you can see the outline of the Glock 17 against quite a dark background, in John Cusack's hand. You can see where it ends, it obviously hasn't been added or altered digitally etc. The light is still there no matter how many times it's re-photographed.

(The Glock is a great gun, which always seems to be the sidearm of choice of the security whenever I have worked in particularly dangerous countries.)

I'm sorry but this is apples and oranges. You're posting a photo that looks like a screen grab from a movie (one of my favorites BTW) that was filmed with lighting and state of the art cameras. Why don't you start taking some pictures of polaroids from a dimly lit room and doing your analysis on them? I'm not a photo expert but it doesn't take very much deductive ability to know you need to try to replicate the conditions of the photo in question to run a true comparison.

 

[PatLaurel]

C. Security Staff?
this is confusing ... regarding the security staff, were there two of them? security guy and head of security? Who heard the shot? why did he leave and why instead of calling police immediately waited 15 minutes? why did they open the room before police was there?
Somehow seems like a bigger conspiracy. On the other hand a staged suicide scene done by amateurs?

This is exactly what it seems, "a bigger conspiracy". And what a big coincidence... She decides to "end her life" exactly at the moment the security guard is approaching her room.

Why didn't they check on her when it took almost 18 hours for the first message to be delivered?

The second message was "acknowledged 8 minutes later", and, for the second time she failed to contact the front desk. Again, no one went to check on her. This time they knew she was in the room. Food had just been delivered. Why not call instead? Maybe she clicked OK just to delete the messages off of the tv and didn't even read them.

The third message "like the others, was acknowledged with OK”, but this time they decide to check on her immediately because "the Do not disturb sign had hung on the door for two days". The sign was already there when she ordered the food, why didn't they check on her the next morning? Or in the afternoon.
Why send the security guard when "the third and final message, which, like the others, was acknowledged with “OK”? Why now, and not before?

Why leave the room and the whole floor unattended for 15 minutes, when they were so concerned about the guest in room 2805?
Why go down to contact the head of security and not knock on a door and call for help?

I don't think it was "staged by amateurs"... everything seems to have been meticulously planned IMO.

MOO JMO JMOO

Mystery at the Oslo Plaza

 

[ApparentlyInDenial]

I'm sorry but this is apples and oranges. You're posting a photo that looks like a screen grab from a movie (one of my favorites BTW) that was filmed with lighting and state of the art cameras. Why don't you start taking some pictures of polaroids from a dimly lit room and doing your analysis on them? I'm not a photo expert but it doesn't take very much deductive ability to know you need to try to replicate the conditions of the photo in question to run a true comparison.

It's science. I've been through the courses where they teach you how to spot a fake/tampered photo. Commissioning photos and analysis is part of what I do for government agencies around the world.

Don't take my word, here is a paper by South Korean military academics: Exposing Digital Image Forgeries by Detecting Contextual Abnormality Using Convolutional Neural Networks

Regarding "Error Level Analysis" (ELA), one of two main methods I'm using to look at these photos, quote:

"For instance, error level analysis (ELA) identifies areas within an image that are at different compression levels [35]. ELA highlights differences in the JPEG compression level because re-saving a JPEG removes high-frequency patterns and results in less differences between high-contrast edges and textures."

Look at this photo attached. The human eye could go either way, but the Error Rate Analysis (the fuzzy dark one) shows the gun brighter than the surroundings, meaning it likely wasn't in the same photo that it's presented to be in.

--

The reason I used a photo of a movie on TV is because some are convinced that a photo that has been photographed again and again can't retain any forensic value, but when it comes to light/luminance, it clearly can.

 

[GatorFL]

It's science. I've been through the courses where they teach you how to spot a fake/tampered photo. Commissioning photos and analysis is part of what I do for government agencies around the world.

Don't take my word, here is a paper by South Korean military academics: Exposing Digital Image Forgeries by Detecting Contextual Abnormality Using Convolutional Neural Networks

Regarding "Error Level Analysis" (ELA), one of two main methods I'm using to look at these photos, quote:

"For instance, error level analysis (ELA) identifies areas within an image that are at different compression levels [35]. ELA highlights differences in the JPEG compression level because re-saving a JPEG removes high-frequency patterns and results in less differences between high-contrast edges and textures."

Look at this photo attached. The human eye could go either way, but the Error Rate Analysis (the fuzzy dark one) shows the gun brighter than the surroundings, meaning it likely wasn't in the same photo that it's presented to be in.

--

The reason I used a photo of a movie on TV is because some are convinced that a photo that has been photographed again and again can't retain any forensic value, but when it comes to light/luminance, it clearly can.

A polaroid isn't a JPG. A screen grab isn't a photo.

 

[ApparentlyInDenial]

A polaroid isn't a JPG. A screen grab isn't a photo.

You're wrong my friend. The film camera detected the light and wrote it to film, it was broadcast, the same light came out of the TV, the 35mm then captured that light, and it was digitised, which further stored the light. Maybe a little distortion but not enough to alter the fundamental light map of the original.

 

[GatorFL]

You're wrong my friend. The film camera detected the light and wrote it to film, it was broadcast, the same light came out of the TV, the 35mm then captured that light, and it was digitised, which further stored the light. Maybe a little distortion but not enough to alter the fundamental light map of the original.

LOL your screen name is dead on.

 

[Beekarina]

I agree with @Marantz4250b that there are a lot of reasons the magazine could be missing a round. It could have been fired previously elsewhere. She could have have forgotten how many rounds when loading. Could have had difficulty getting that last round in. Or not enough time to fully load. Or symbolic somehow. Just another mystery!

I was thinking how some people will not fully load a Glock, for example, out of concern the springs etc will wear out faster. My thought was this gun looks so worn and uncared for, but maybe that would be some other reason not to fully load it? And I guess that could also explain the test shot, if the ammo was an unknown?

I'm not as knowledgeable as either of you, so trying to learn more by asking. It feels like a "dirty habit" the way I've been taught to chuck things all in together that way, which is what made me wonder where holsters, spare mags, etc might be. (Oh...I think the Browning is bouncing around in here someplace lol)

I have the opposite here with a new magazine. It is so stiff that I have left it loaded intentionally hoping it will loosen up a bit.

 

[Beekarina]

I am trying for days now to post to this thread and system doesnt let me So I am sorry but I will try to break this post down to smaller pieces and see if it works.

My notes and thoughts so far..
A. Concerning the name given:
1/ Fergate in belgian language, norwegian and german the pronounciation is the same *all letters exactly pronounced
but the woman in reception wrote Fairgate that means she spoke with her in English.
2/ People in Germany and especially East Germany are tought in the primary school to write calligraphic letters that are continuous to each other and they tend to use it all teir lifes We dont see that here

B. The cleaning lady and the sodas it is to me unclear when the cleaning lady saw the colorful shoes in the room as it is stated here Het Mysterie van kamer 2805
1/The Check- in, took place on Wednesday night, the cleaning of the room would follow normally on Thursday, but there was already a Do not disturb sign outside the room so no staff would come in.
2/ The minibar not been refilled explains the different sodas found empty. Usually the minibar is filled with one bottle of every kind. So it would be One Diet Cola and One Cola if not replaced.
So when did the maid saw the shoes? Or was the Do not Disturb sign placed later that day? and by who?

This is all interesting. I'm going to watch the Norwegian documentaries again, at least the parts pertaining, and see if they line up.

I do remember one of the cleaning staff, not certain if it was Vigdis Valo, but I believe it was (she is also the one who admired the shoes) was out in the hallway working on another room, and exchanged "Good mornings" with Jennifer as Jennifer was coming dow the hallway towards her room. Jennifer then opened her door, and hung the "Do Not Disturb" sign on the handle.

So, I think this happened AFTER Jennifer has been out, and Vigdis saw the shoes while she was cleaning the room on Thursday, with the trainee. I will double check her interviews to be sure though.

 

[Beekarina]

Ok, NO...I was mistaken. Vigdis was the cleaning person who was in the room the first occasion and admired the shoes. Vigdis has an interview around the 8: 55 mark. She cleaned the room on Thursday.

Karin Lovbrotte was the cleaning person who encountered Jennifer in the hallway. (On Friday, I believe) You can watch an interview with Karin at the 14: 20 mark of this video

You will also want to watch again at the 16:20 ish mark, where the higher ups in hotel discuss the length of time the Do Not Disturb sign was left up.

I personally think this documentary is very helpful, in terms of what we have available.

 

[Beekarina]

Vigdis Valo is an interesting interview. IMO, she seems to have her own opinion....

 

[Beekarina]

Does anyone have a theory on this? It looks like a watch or sunglasses to me, sitting on top of a dirty towel on top of a fresh dressing gown in the bathroom. Note that the woman's watch was found on her body, so it can't be her watch

Can you zoom in more or does it distort? I can see where it could be either. I could also see it being a belt buckle, or even some sort of foil wrapper. Condoms?

 

[PatLaurel]

This is another thing i don't understand and find it to be an absurd:

"Two months after the burial, in 1996, an assistant chief of police decided that everything should be thrown away.
Her few valuables, the diving watch, a gold ring from her right middle finger and a gold ring from her left ear were sold at police auction."

Is this a common practice around the world?

Keeping UP's items until a future identification wouldn't "hurt" their evidence room capacity.

MOO JMOO

 

[Mrs. Badcrumble]

This is another thing i don't understand and find it to be an absurd:

"Two months after the burial, in 1996, an assistant chief of police decided that everything should be thrown away.
Her few valuables, the diving watch, a gold ring from her right middle finger and a gold ring from her left ear were sold at police auction."

Is this a common practice around the world?

Keeping UP's items until a future identification wouldn't "hurt" their evidence room capacity.

MOO JMOO

JF's case is unfortunately not the only case affected by this, and the practice has been heavily criticised and many are working for the laws and practice around evidence storage (or rather the lack of) to be changed.

https://www.dagbladet.no/arkivert/magasinet/bevislos/67651219

Reglene for DNA-bevis må endres

Åpner for å endre DNA-regler etter Monica-saken