Isdal woman Part V - S7 (cause of death)

The less confusing one of C2 and S7 (see Part IV if this makes no sense to you) is S7. I actually agree one can conclude positively on S7, because enough is probably known about this subject. Since there are many lethal elements in S7, it is also of interest to try to explain their importance and their relation to each other. This relation could shed light on C2.

Coroners Speedex Punch Card / "case card" for case 134/70

Punch Card notes

The Coroner would be the most important source of information regarding S7. I guess they did a thorough investigation for the time, but I have not read the final report. I have read the short concluding findings, and I am able to read the information on the Punch Card used by Gades Institute at the University of Bergen for the preliminary autopsy that started November 30th. The Card indicates what is done, and what is concluded and the punching (or lack thereof) is as follows:

A: "Likåpning", meaning "Opening of Corpse". Field is "Type o..." unreadable, but probably "type of examination"

B: "Bergen", Is name of city. Field is "Consignor" (Who (what police district) ordered the examination?)

C: "Utenlandsk", meaning "Foreigner", Field is "Nationality".

D: "Kvinne" / "Female", symbolic representation, Field is "Sex".

E: "Ukjent", meaning "unknown". Field is "Age"

F: "Selvmord", meaning "Suicide". Field is "Unnatural cause of death". There is also a comment in pen. Difficult to read, but I think it says "sannsynlig", meaning "likely"

G: "Varme", meaning "Heat", Field is still "Unnatural cause of death"

H: "Alkohol", meaning "Alcohol". Field is still "Unnatural cause of death"

I: "CO", meaning "Carbon Monoxide". Field is still "Unnatural cause of death"

J: NOTE! "Barbituarer", meaning "Barbiturates", as in the CNS depressant medication she had in her (Fenemal). Field is still "Unnatural cause of death". This one is not checked (photo is 2016)

K: NOTE! "Ukjent", Meaning "Unknown". Field is still "Unnatural cause of death". This one is not checked, meaning Coroner is not uncertain, and never was?

L: Blue pen: (Cause of death:) "Fenemal and CO-poisoning" and (Result of chemical analysis:) "See report" (statement). Black pen: "4 xx xg fennemal xxxxxxxx / xxxxxxxxx, 0,26 0/00 alkohol, 30 0/0 CO". I cant read all this. I think it says 4,5 ug or mg, but it could be 4 smjg. Looks like it has been corrected or its just a typical "doctors pen".

M: Does not seem to have been punched, but it isn't visible in the photo so I cant tell. Field is "Cause of Death", and the options one could have punched is: "Known", "Likely", "Doubtful" and "Unknown". It makes me believe one would rate the level of certainty one felt was corresponding to the cause of death. Like the Coroner is asked: "How certain are you of the Cause of death?", and here he puts his answer (?).

N: "Ikke observert", meaning "not observed". Field is "The death".

What does the card tell us (if anything)

It looks pretty straight forward. The card has been punched. Probably as the autopsy goes along. Maybe it is marked beforehand (blue pen corresponds to punches). I am thinking someone marked this card in blue pen, to indicate what examinations was needed, and after each examination was complete, a punch was made over that blue marking. This could mean the blue pen writing over by the "Suicide" punch was made before examinations. It would indicate they suspected suicide and not murder from the very beginning. Any doubts regarding this would have had to have come along later as far as the Coroner was concerned. I am not sure about what (if any) involvement police would have in filling out such a card, but the Police examination of the scene was not finished until after the preliminary autopsy was complete. Body was moved December 30th. I would think coroner was at the scene before that.

Predetermined cause of death
It seems strange to me, but the Punch card would indicate that the coroner assumed right from the start that it was a suicide. This is not reflected in the newspaper clipping of the time, and it is not compatible with the fact that Kripos (special investigative police unit) was at the scene after local police asked for help the day after the body was found (despite having declined that same help the day before). Every action and statement on the police side in this case indicate a broad investigation. They seem to do a good job in covering many possible leads, and they are quoted numerous times both back then and today stating there was something "wrong" with the scene". "There seemed to be more to it than just a regular suicide". One police investigator tells NRK in 2016 they (police on the scene) was bewildered by the whole scene. The location was strange. The items found was suspicious. There was talk of foul play right from the start.
This is very different from what can be told from looking at the Coroners Punch card. It seems very wrong to assume this was suicide and base an autopsy on that assumption. It would be even more wrong had the Coroner been there on scene together with the police that was so suspicious of the whole scene. I would think such assumption on the Coroners part would automatically rule out several tests, and some may be harder (or just give less reliable results) to do, the longer it is done after time of death.

Pure speculation on my part to say the Coroner seem to have predetermined cause of death, but I do this speculation because of the Coroners seeming conviction that this was a clear and obvious suicide whilst the police seem to think otherwise, or at least they have not concluded and investigate as if it was a "suspicious death" (actual legal term used when the cause of death is not obvious).

I think routines are different today. There is more of an automated assumption that something is suspicious almost regardless of  scene. Maybe there are exceptions like if police uncovers an 90 year old laying dead in his home, but I do think almost any death is supposed to be treated like a "suspicious death".

The preliminary autopsy was finished December 4th, 1970. The final coroners report is dated January 7th, 1971. 

Police investigation of the scene
There are also different routines regarding forensic evidence today. The police did a "crime scene" investigation that was finished by December 7th. Only major findings I can find in the documents released by NRK is that police conclude Isdal woman was "engulfed in an intense but short lasting fire". They find "No evidence of a bonfire" but they could "smell Kerosene from a fur hat found under the body".

I am sure there was other things found and published in this report, but NRK seems to think those are the major ones.

December 2nd, two suitcases was found in a depository at the train station in Bergen. A police investigator taking part of both the investigation on the scene and later, describe the euphoria expressed by seasoned police officers when they learned of the suitcases. He described their search of it like this (free from memory: "I was somewhat surprised by the hurried handling of evidence. There seemed to be an urgency in going through everything as soon as possible, and it was as if everyone wanted to be the first to find whatever clue may be hidden in the luggage". He also says "When the first suitcase was opened, we immediately saw the sunglasses that was laid directly under the lid of the suitcase, right on top of all the other contents" (also free from memory). All this was said 2016.

It seems the police expected to find answers on every "breakthrough" they made, every lead they found, but instead they got a new set of "mysteries" and loose ends on their hands.

The suitcases

The sunglasses with fingerprints

Fingerprints from corpse

The clues that was not confusing, seem to me to have been extremely clear cut and almost seem deliberately put there. Like the sunglasses. Touched in a manner you wouldn't normally do. Placed on top of everything else as if to be uncovered first. Without speculating on who would want to do this, I would (in hindsight) suggest this is a classic "smoke screen". A myriad of "clues" and "hints" and leads hogging down resources. Slowing things down. Giving just enough for it to be traceable, but not enough for the trace to lead anywhere. Nothing seems randomly placed anywhere. There seems to be some kind of deliberate precision. A very strong and focused mind have prepared this all. If it was the woman, that would indicate she wanted to create a "mystery" for anyone finding the suitcases. She could have placed any number of items on top of everything else in that suitcase if she wanted to be identified. A suicide note perhaps? A message to her family or just a hint to police? If you do not want to have your suicide investigated, you pen a letter stating it is a suicide. Give your identity and prove somehow it is your will to die. Unless you want a mystery to make you immortal.

If it was someone else that placed this smokescreen, they wanted the corpse to be linked to suitcases, but not the body to be identified. They placed the glasses there only to give the police a definite link. Whatever was in the suitcases, or the suitcases themselves, would be enough for anyone knowing the woman to get the message: "Yes it is her, and this is what we did when we found her".

Police scene investigation was finished December 5th. The Kripos scene analysis, that is said to analyze every single thing found at the scene, is finished December 21st (all that is "found" from this is a minute remnant of Kerosene). The secret police (POT at that time) in Norway is invited by local police to join the investigation December 8th. This is day after Codes are understood and her travelling is traced through europe. POT is to focus on any possible agent- or spy-theory. The POT involvement is kept secret. Not until many years later is this involvement confirmed.

Barbirurates - Fenemal

The Punch card is not marked (pen) or punched (hole) where Barbiturates (as cause of unnatural death) is visible, but it seems the Coroner has found one such Barbirurate / CNS depressant anyway (the Fenemal). I find it very strange this would not have been marked on the card, as reports from the scene claim there are empty pill glass(es) and pills laying around the dead body.
Final report from the coroner says that the woman had taken 50 - 70 tablets of Fenemal. It also says they found 4 mg fenemal in her blood. They say the amount of tablets was not lethal, and that all pills had not dissolved and some was still in her stomach.

Notes by detective Jahrmann

The results of the preliminary autopsy is finished December 4th. On December 5th, a note by detective Jahrmann mention a separate toxicological analysis that was not performed at Gades Institutt (where the autopsy was done), but by a specialist Lab called "Rettstoksikologisk institutt" and the results are relayed to Jahrman by a woman named Fleischer. The note (See above) says:

"1PM: Rettstoksikologisk Institutt / Mrs Fleischer informs by telephone that 4 mg -0/0 fenemal is found in the blood in the specimen that was sent from Gades Institutt. The aforementioned pills contain fenemal. A "tiny little speck" of a tablet most likely containing another type of Barbiturate was also found.

3.30PM: Docent (that would be a title of a professor lower ranked than a teaching professor / professor extraordinarius) Giertsen informed me about preliminary results of the analyzing of the stomach content. He informed that the amount found was not lethal, but that it was considered strong enough to maybe induce lowered consciousness / sleep".

The note goes on, but I cant read. Looks like it continues: "Docent Giertsen ...". Would have loved to read it all.

Fenemal plus other barbiturates
Again the reference is to 4 mg. In this note, it is clearly stated it is mg -0/0. The Punch card must have been updated after this finding, and the black pen on Punch Card probably says "4 smgj (must have been a typo that was corrected) fenemal / xx ml blood". It doesn't really matter what it says, as they did not do the test themselves but got the results from Rettsmedisinsk Institutt that clearly says 4 mg -0/0. Or at least the 4 and mg is the way it is understood by Jahrman.

Giertsen says to Jahrman the following day that the findings in the stomach (referring to acyual pills found) are not lethal, but could seriously affect ones level of consciousness all the way into sleep. He does not say "unconscious" or "coma", so this dose (amount found in stomach) is regarded much weaker than any of the the toxic doses described for Fenemal (that could induce Coma and shutdown of reflexes aso).

Another very interesting thing is the actual finding of an unknown substance they suspect also is a Barbiturate. The wording "lite fnugg" used by the medical person (don't get me started), would indicate such a small amount one could hardly prove it was there. In Norway "fnugg" is a common tongue word usually used on snow. Snow = Snø. Snowflake = SnøFnugg. Not a real measurement. But used to describe something so small and fragile it could almost not be there if you touch it once.

Calculations
This is where it all gets interesting. To know how many pills of 50mg fenemal a 65kg female would have co consume and digest (the undissolved pills would not affect this value) to have 4 mg fenemal (fenobarbiturate) pr 100 ml blood show up in her blood sample, one needs known references (or volunteers willing to die during testing). One needs to know how the active ingredient (fenobarbiturate) is metabolized, and then one needs to know how much of consumed ingredient will be showing in a blood sample drawn at different times after ingestion.

The way I understand this, you cant calculate this without having "in vivo" examples. That means you only know this for sure if you have analyzed blood samples of many overdoses, and you knew how and at what doses they took the drugs.

I also understand that from time of death, the blood values in samples drawn are pretty much not changing, or they are changing in a predictable way making it possible to estimate true values if time of death is known. Some substances are very hard to detect, and some are more stable in urine than in blood aso. I have to believe that the 4 mg /100 ml result in blood is a reliable method even if it was drawn 2-4 days after time of death (or that they have done any calculations one normally would do).

Drug abuse
Fenobarbiturate is a "long acting" barbiturate. That means, it takes longer for it to reach its potential, and it stays longer in the body before broken down (days). If a person misuses them regularly, the tolerance will increase and the "expected lethal" or "expected toxic" doses and corresponding levels found in serum does not apply anymore. I have not found exact references for this regarding fenobarbirurate, but I know for a fact that similar drugs (Benzodiasepines, Opium, Heroin) allows abusers to take 10 times a "normal" dose with same effect as someone that has never used the drug before. This is called Tolerance. A misuser / abuser, meaning a user that takes a drug to get a "high" or a "low" or just uses it to "feel good", will most likely have increased tolerance for the drug used.

I think this all is relevant since witness accounts describe the Isdal woman as "inapproachable". "Cool and confident". "A world traveller used to travel alone". And similar descriptions that I have seen many many times in drug abusers predominantly abusing Benzodiasepines. They don't look like they are "high". They aren't "too slow" but somewhat slower than normal. They have a fair inner clock (can guess time pretty well where THC users are always wrong (too slow)). They are just a bit "floaty". May look confident and "sure of self", but they are actually a bit slow.

I have worked with drug users for years. I can see the minute signs that others don't. The way Isdal woman acted is consistent with someone regularly using Benzo or Barbiturates. I have to say this, because it could be very important when trying to read the blood samples correctly. Personally I could not rule out that she was a "full blown drug abuser", eating 10 times as much pills as any reference document would suggest. She would easily take 10 or more fenemal 50mg daily and not be more affected that someone taking double prescribed dose (4 pills) if she was an abuser.

All the pill-, opium-, or Heroine abusers I have worked with had serious tooth problems often requiring extensive dental work. For Fenemal, tooth decay is one common side effect. abuse or use. Prolonged use could cause tooth decay. There is even a condition described for users that destroy the enamel due to some genetic provocation from use...

Normal use
I find no reference to the strength of the tablets discovered or who produced them, but I am assuming they are 50mg tablets since that looks like the regular dose for adults. Fenemal was (maybe) not that commonly used in Norway in 1970. I found one reference where the medication was first allowed to be sold / marketed in Norway June 28, 1978. It was however a normal medication worldwide, and the classification "Barbiturates" was very common. I cant say there was no other variant available in 1970 in Norway, but the medication referred to as "Fenemal 50mg tablets" was only allowed to market in Norway after 1978.

The medical information is from official sources, and they say the medications active ingredient is "Fenobarbitual 50mg". It says this drug is indicated for use in epilepsy, and especially for Grand Mal seizure patients having seizures during wake up or falling asleep. It is strongly Central Nervous System (CNS) depressant, meaning it has a general anaesthesia effect, slowing down or stopping signals normally transported through the Central Nervous System to the brain.

Normal dose, would be 1-3 mg (milligram) pr kilogram body weight. One pill being 50 milligram, would mean a female of 65kg would normally use 1 - 2 pills daily.

Therapeutic effect is reached at a (serum / blood) concentration of 45 - 130 "mikromol" (10 - 30 mg pr milliliter).

Warnings regarding use
The info also says one will develop tolerance for the active ingredient over time. Dose may have to be raised. It also says there is a proven connection between using this drug and elevated risk of having suicidal thoughts AND for actually committing suicide.
It warns that usage over time will damage teeth. It is recommended to brush teeth twice daily using fluoride toothpaste.

Regarding mixing with other drugs, there is a clear warning that use of alcohol gives an increased risk of "heavy sedation and significant ("serious" is the direct translation) CNS-depression and respiratory depression even when only consuming small amounts of alcohol".

There are several similarly worded warnings for many drugs with known interaction with Fenemal.

Lethal dose
"For adults, toxic effect is about 1g. 2 grams has been shown to give slight to moderate toxic effect. Potential lethal dose is expected to be 5 - 10 g". Please note this is not milli- or micro grams, but grams. Lethal dose is 5-10 grams intake.

Symptoms of serious toxic effect: "Excitation (early on, especially in children), then increasing CNS depression leading to deep coma with lack of reflexes and of long duration. Ataksia and "Nystagmus". Respiratory depression, hypotension and circulatory failure. Hypothermia. Lowered GI-mortility. Bollous "eksantem" and Rabdomylosis.

Calculating lethal dose by effect from number of pills: One pill is 50 mg. Ten pills is 500 mg (same as 0,5g). 20 pills is 1 gram. 40 pills is 2 grams. 80 pills is 4 grams. 160 pills is 8 grams.
Somewhere between 90 and 200 pills is considered lethal dose as far as I can understand. Before Lethal dose is reached, I expect all the levels of toxicity would present themselves.

Another source (http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/813155-workup) gives another calculation for "long acting barbiturates", and does not speak of lethal dose, but more of "unfavorable prognosis". They say that for long acting Barbiturates, there is an "unfavorable prognosis" if 90mg/L is found in blood.

90mg/L is the same 0.09mg/ml / 90ug/ml and 9mg pr 100ml blood

The Note from Jahrman regarding values relayed to him by phone are "jibberishly" followed by "-0/0". The "-0/0" doesn't mean anything in medicine, but I am sure he tried to sound "medical". If the Coroner got the same values on phone and wrote them down on the Punch Card, It is likely the Punch card is correctly formulated if it says "4 mg fennemal / 100 ml blood". That would be the same as 40mg/L. Ill go with that even though the card looks like it has been altered regarding mg (hope it wasn't ug (microgram) at any point...)

I actually cant find a reference for backwards calculating amount of pills a 65kg 165cm female would have to consume to have 40mg/L fenemal pr 100ml in her blood. This has to exist somewhere, since Coroner seem to be able to do this calculation back in 1970. It would have to be some calculation based on her metabolism, her weight and height. Any special circumstances would also have to calculated in to find out if this dose was toxic, sedative, mild, strong or lethal. A person with poor liver function would need less pills to reach this dose as the liver is the organ that makes sure the active ingredients are broken down. A person with a healthy liver would brake them down faster. Other factors could also influence the calculation, but they are as far as I understand minute.

Even if I cant find the backwards calculation table, I have already calculated how many 50mg pills is needed to reach "lethal dose" based on intake. That intake dose is 5-10g, or something in the vicinity of 90 - 200 pills.
Coroner seem to say (it is referred to in media at least) that Isdal woman consumed completely 50 - 70 pills. The simple math confirm that 50 -70 pills is not a lethal dose. It would mean consuming 2.5 - 3.5g of fenemal. This is consistent with the other source (emedicine) that say 90mg/L is lethal value. Half of that is 45mg/L, and Isdal woman had 40mg/L. Likewise, Lethal intake is 90 - 200 pills. Isdal woman is said to have taken 50 - 70 pills.

Coroners conclusion looks sound and in line with my own findings. If the Isdal woman had 4mg / 100ml blood, she had a non lethal, but sleep- and possible coma inducing dose that would be consistent with intoxication of medium to strong grade. But it depends on two important factors:

1: Was Isdal woman abusing Barbiturates?

2: Was actually 4mg /100ml blood found? Does the original report from Rettsmedisinsk instirutt still exist? As long as the Cardex Punch Card and the police notes are not being either readable or looks like they have been altered, I would like to see the original report.

I would also like to hear if anyone did consider Isdal woman might have abused drugs regularly. If she was, 4mg /100ml blood could be just mildly sedative. It would allow her to take the last 10 pills found in the stomach without "help". Without having to give herself bruises on her neck.

Carbon Monoxide poisoning
The level of CO in her blood is measured to be 30%. Wikipedia lists that levels measured in people that have died of CO-poisoning ranges from 30-90%. I think a 30% level measured indicates CO-poisoning as a significant factor in Isdal womans death. I would actually think CO-poisoning is a clearer cut cause of death than overdose, but overdose could make her tolerate less CO.

Final autopsy report

The Cardex Punch Card and the Jahrman note do seem to confirm fenemal levels found even if they are somewhat hard to read and requires a lot of figuring out. Another source for information on findings would be the final autopsy report itself, but I don't have access to that one.

All I have is the little excerpt from the autopsy that was signed December 7th 1970 (image above). It doesn't say much, but Ill translate what I have. This is the wording (last two of five numbered conclusion-points):

"4. Upon chemical analysis (it) is found an insignificant amount of alcohol, a significant amount fenemal and some carbon monoxide poisoning.

5. Cause of death is assumed to be a combination of poisoning by the sleep medication fenemal and carbon monoxide. The injuries from the fire could have been a contributing factor."

As I have already calculated, this conclusion looks sound. From a Coroners point of view, this could cause death. Alcohol levels of .26 0/00 is very low. That's even below the "safe driving" limit in Norway. She was not drunk, and I am pretty sure that 30-40% alcohol Liqueur bottle found by her side was all but full. Maybe she had one single shot?

The biggest problem I have with the conclusion is that it is not the only possible conclusion. It is not 100% lethal to have Isdalen woman's fenemal levels. It is not 100% lethal to have 30% CO poisoning. It is not even fun to have 0.26 0/00 blood alcohol, and the thing bothering me the most is the bruise on her throat.

Coroner does say that the fire itself, being of such a massive scope, could contribute to death. Nothing to say on that either. The three together would certainly kill very efficiently.

Bruising or bleeding
Somewhere in this report a bruise or a bleeding (bleeding under the skin) is described. One article in Bergens Tdende calls this "bruising". NRK, currently going through this case, describe it like this: "The report also says the woman had a bleeding on her throat. It could come from a blow from a hand, or from her slipping and hitting herself on a branch of a tree".

Can you believe this? Coroner says the most likely way a dead person got a bruise on her neck / throat after 10 pills of fenemal is found undigested in her stomach is she slipped? Or somehow collided with a blow from a hand?

Had it been "a small scratch consistent with brushing up against rocks or a tree", I would not think much of it, but this one little detail should in my opinion be explained better. After all, we are discussing whether she killed her self or if she was killed. For her to be killed, someone must have forced her to eat 10 pills of fenemal. Maybe while she was semi unconscious. That is so unlikely, said police, it had to be ruled out. Now where would someone forcing 10 pills down her throat after injecting her with fenemal have to manhandle her?

I would love to hear the likely scenario where a suicidal calculating woman that has travelled Europe on a predetermined schedule for a year and is determined to take her life manages to get this hemorrhage on her throat. While wearing her big and bulky scarf. But Ill get back to that later on.

Coroners role

I am pretty sure a Coroner of today cant say in a written report that someone overdosing on a Barbiturate made for treating epilepsy died of taking "sleep medication".

The idea itself that a coroner is allowed to claim to know manner of death based on cause of death is disturbing to me. The lack of precision and the use of "common tongue" in the final report (I have only read the last little bit and it could be filled with sound arguments and precision) reminds me of the way paperwork was made during the JFK case. Everyone involved from official offices acted as if they had some finite and godlike ultimate and indisputable knowledge giving them the right to pen almost anything (or nothing) and get away with it. Of course I don't think this case is equally marred by such traits, but there is a resemblance. The coroner seems to have decided this was suicide before any tests was done. His conclusion later in final report is made using "infotainment" language rather than precise medical terms. He might have done this because of the media coverage, and he can probably do this, because nobody at the time would know the difference between Fenemal used to treat epilepsy and "sleep medication". The sad fact is that for Fenemal to be "sleep medication", it would have to have been prescribed by a doctor as such since it is not its primary indicated use. If the coroner had access to Idsal woman's medical journal, he could of course state it was "sleep medication", but he did not have that journal. He himself is not only speculating but making his speculations look like facts. He is assuming a course of events, and putting an imaginary context in between facts without clearly stating that he is (as if he was a blogger :). I find it very strange that this actually seems to have guided the entire outcome of both the final coroners report and ultimately the police investigation towards closing the case and saying it was suicide.

For all I know, this coroner was and still is very capable. He could be the best in the world for all I know. But he could also have been inexperienced in general or regarding drugs or suspicious deaths or whatever would make him assume and stand by the suicide theory. He could have not cared too much about the case. Maybe he had a bad week. Or he was either on his own, or with help from others convinced this was a "clear cut suicide" that did not warrant a thorough investigation.
I'm not saying he did not do a good job at what he did. He just didn't do the obvious thing and mark this case "unknown". He marked it "Suicide" from day one.

What would have happened if the coroner had marked and punched "Unknown" in the field "cause of death" in the first place. What would have happened if the final report said simply "unknown cause of death" or "suspicious cause of death" or "undetermined cause of death"? Could the case have been dismissed and closed in January 1971 then?

Conclusion

I started out pretty determined that it would be fair to expect a cause of death would be possible to establish by some level of certainty. After looking at all this, I have actually changed my mind. My conclusion is that cause of death is undetermined. Any of the three major factors could have been the cause alone, or in combination with any of the other two. The fact that one "minute speck" of another drug was found and the bruising on the neck, would make me even more unsure, and I would ask that the case would remain open. I would have asked for a more thorough second opinion. Maybe even brought in expertise from abroad.
I would also not at any point want to say anything regarding manner of death. I would keep every possible course of events open, as I clearly had no clue as to the order and sequence of non-lethal factors and I had at least two indications pointing to a more complex course of events than just "she poured gasoline over herself and died".

Unless of course a handful of known high ranking Norwegian military officers and officials asked me not to, or I suspected they would prefer I didn't.

Manner of death

I originally thought I would be able to cover both cause of death (S7) and manner of death (C2) in this post, but I will have to do the C2 analysis in a separate post. After all I am going to speculate on who could have made a Coroner not ever doubt this was a suicide. Who could have placed the Smoke screen? If it wasn't Isdal woman herself, I don't think a foreign power would be able to do that. And maybe influence a coroner.

In summery, my "investigation" of the cause of death has raised these questions:

- was the coroner predetermined this was suicide? If so. Why?

- was Isdal woman using or abusing fenemal? 

- There is a smoke screen. Who put it there?

- What does the actual lab results from Rettsmedisinsk institutt say?

- Did Rettsmedisinsk institutt destroy the samples after analysis?

The smoke screen is not fictional. It is clear as day, and discovering who placed it there (Isdal woman being one suspect) will answer C2. C1 is of lesser importance. C2 is the only real interesting mystery. The one thing all efforts should have been focused on in 1970, and the only semi-sane thing to try to uncover today if intention is to solve this mystery.