Isdal woman Part VII - C2 (Manner of death) Case closed - self-immolation?

In my last post I traced what I could find of published information pertaining to Isdal woman and Cause of death. Even though my instincts told me before diving in to this I would be able to reach a likely, logical conclusion, and probably the same as the original report released by the Coroner, I was proven wrong. I don't agree with the conclusion, but see it as one of at least three possible cases of death. Any one of the three "lethal" factors (drugs, flames and CO) could have caused death alone or in conjunction with each other. One can not say exactly how death occurred, and it is not too important. As long as all these elements are in place, the person will die.

Even if it may not be important to find what exact combo caused death, it could be useful to establish in what progression the known events took place. Some of this can be found looking at medical facts. For instance, CO levels in blood is indicative of the deceased having been breathing in smoke from a fire where incomplete combustion of organic matter was present. This organic matter could be fuel. Or wood. Or the woman. Had she not been breathing, she would not have had CO in her blood in such doses.
The bruise on her neck / throat, could only be there if an injury / impact happened before death. Undissolved pills in her stomach means she died before they were dissolved and before the drugs was released to the organism.

The circumstances that are known to have a set of physical limits to them like the ones above, dictates a course of events. Some circumstances are not as clear cut and may have to be placed where in this progression of events they are most likely to have happened. If the majority of events are placed in the course of events based on "most likely", I would say the whole thing is only "most likely" and not a fact. If I have to exclude one of the known events to make the course of event reconstructed look good, I am cheating.

Three theories

Official investigation concluded it was suicide. Speculations have been around since 1970 that there was some other more likely event that led to her death, and of these the most discussed is probably the "agent-theory". One that I don't think has been discussed too much, is that this was an accident. Or that one of the lethal events was falsely understood (barbiturates as suicide aide).

I will discuss theories more later on, but first, Ive made a list of the three major theories and included the events leading to death for all of them in a way they are easily comparable:

One could theorize forever on different details. But I don't think that is fruitful unless you have the detail first. Find the facts and fit them instead of placing fiction in their absence.

My main objection to the official theory could be summed up by looking at two elements that I don't feel have been investigated or explained to an extent making any theory seem rational or logical.

1: The bruise on the neck must be explained, and the explanation must fit any of the theories. If it isn't, it actually seems more likely to be a sign of third party involvement.

2: The "triple lethal means" seem very strange. If you are absolutely positively going to kill yourself, you would not choose three "semi-lethal" means that leave a great amount of uncertainty as to if you are going to die or just be scarred for life. You don't shoot yourself in the leg and hang yourself from an arm and jump two stories into a ravine that may be covered in soft grass. You do one absolutely 100% lethal thing. And if you add anything, it is to aide that lethal thing.

Bruise
The theory she collided with a tree actually seems too far fetched to me. You just don't do that. And if you do, you are probably under the influence of something or having some sort of seizure. The assumption of fenemal being there as a planned suicide means, is less likely to me than that she had an actual need for this drug. It would have been prescribed to her by the same doctor that prescribed the steroids cream. She could have been self-medicating or just abusing. Both self-medication and abuse would raise her tolerance for fenemal, and she could as far as I know, actually have the 5mg / 100ml in her blood without having any poisoning- or overdose effects.

How would an abuser get access to fenemal in a quantity making it suitable for abuse? One would travel a alot...

This is discussed some in my last post, but summed up, fenobarbiturates are "long acting" barbiturates that takes time to give effect, and that will remain in the body for 2 - 7 days and generate "buildup". Buildup, is when you add more before last dose is cleared, and the total amount is relatively high. Over time, and with regular increase of dose, this can lead to very high levels of a drug being detectable in blood but the person taking them has a higher tolerance and has no effect unless dose is raised again.

Barbiturates are also one of the most common (1970s) drug to be self medicating on if one has anxiety, sleep disorders, paranoia, or any other psychological challenges or physical (pain-related) symptoms either as primary illness or as a result of use of barbiturates themselves. This is the main reason this medication was phased out and replaced by Benzodiasepines from mid 60s to mid 70s.

The Isdal woman had a steroids cream for treating sores. She had "bad teeth". She acted "confident" and was" unapproachable".  I would claim she most likely was misusing / self-medicating or abusing CNS depressants and possibly other drugs. I would bet there would have been traces of this long term use in her hair and her nails. Maybe even in her teeth if use had spanned long enough (listen up NRK and Kripos!)

A multitude of side effects would possibly arise from such abuse in addition to poor tooth health, tolerance and buildup. She could have chronic skin diseases, sores, get bruises faster than normal, have headaches, sleep very deep / very light or at abnormal times of the day. Any of the observations made of her by witnesses that describes her acting out of the ordinary, could be a result of illness and / or self medication.

Triple lethal means
The cause of death describing fenemal as a sleep medication taken in order to die, confuses and obscures the more likely theory of her being a regular abuser. I think my theory in removing the 50 - 70 pills of fenemal as a part of the "events leading to death", suddenly makes a suicide or accident more likely. She did not take 70 pills, then "wait a while" before she took 10-12 more pills, drank some alcohol and then poured gasoline on her self and lighted a match. The 50 - 70 pills fenemal was already there in her buildup. She just took 10 - 12 fenemal with alcohol because she knew that would make it easier to burn herself to death, or she just took 10-12 pills and the rest was an accident.

The CO was too low to be a sure cause of death. Keep in mind that to kill yourself by CO poisoning, you would have to be inside a small space without ventilation and with CO being added in large amounts (cars and garage).
This woman died out in the open. No enclosure to force CO levels in the air she was breathing. She would have to breathe in a massive single dose of freshly incompletely combusted organic matter to have 30% CO in her blood after a fire OUTSIDE. Full ventilation. You would almost have to breathe inn the fire itself to do this, and that's what you are doing if you are completely engulfed in flames from burning yourself for about two minutes.

The fenemal was only enough to induce coma if she actually took 80 pills there and then. A coma would render her unable to take 10-12 more pills and pour gasoline on herself. 10 -12 pills is only enough to make her sleep / not feel too much pain. The alcohol was minute. It was the fire that killed her, and that was her intention all along.

Self-immolation

I understand that this "burning oneself to death" sound very strange. I too discarded that theory as insane. Anyone reading this will probably agree, and the reason is simple: Suicide by burning one self is very uncommon in any western society. We speak English. Had we spoken an Arabic, Indian, Pakistani or Egyptian language and googled this, we would actually find out right away this crazy kind of suicide is THE MOST COMMON way for WOMEN to commit suicide in many countries of the East. In particular, there is an almost religious tradition in Hindu culture that suicide should be done by burning oneself to undergo a purification.

We may not understand this, but this is a fact. If the Isdal woman could have killed herself by burning herself and removing all her earthly connections, she just did what is expected. Not a spy. No conspiracy. Just the most common form of suicide amongst women in Egypt, Iran, India and in general amongst Hindu religious people.

Here is an excerpt from an article published in the Indian Journal of Psychiatry. 2015 Jul; 57(Suppl 2): S233–S238.

doi:  10.4103/0019-5545.161484 PMCID: PMC4539867, called "Suicide in women":

"Self-immolation is one of the most common methods of suicide by women in India, Sri Lanka, Iran and other Middle-East countries. In Iran between 70% and 88% of self-immolation are by women.[28] In India 63% (n = 6292) of self-immolations were by women.[10] Self-immolation is the preferred method of suicide for women of Indian origin even after migrating to UK.

The Hindu concept of fire as a purifier, the practices of Sati and Jauhar, which were prevalent until two centuries ago and the easy accessibility and familiarity of kerosene at home are likely to be the reasons for the high prevalence of self-immolation in women.[29]"

(read the whole article here: http://www.indianjpsychiatry.org/article.asp?issn=0019-5545;year=2015;volume=57;issue=6;spage=233;epage=238;aulast=Vijayakumar)

RIP Maryam...
Isdal Woman is likely Syrian, Indian or Iranian. She was actually born on 27th of November 1943 like she stated in immigration papers on at least one hotel. She could have waited for that day to kill herself after leaving the hotel 22nd. She was discovered 29th. Two days after her death and birthday?

In light of my findings and half conclusion, I actually don't think there is a reason to investigate this much further. I bet NRK / Kripos / The labs will find a DNA / Isotope samples belonging to a woman that will fit the geographic area corresponding to my findings. If they don't, Ill look at this some more.

And thank you Maryam for clearing my nightmares. I should probably claim some fancy link to the number 18, but I cant. That was just some random number in a dream...

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.

Isdal woman Part IV - From fiction to facts

There are so many unknowns in the Isdalen case, but some are more important than others to figure out. Mostly because those select unknowns would lay to rest many other speculations. I will call those important unknowns Core unknowns, and they are important as long as no confirmed identity or affiliation is put forth. To me those two central Core unknowns would be:

C1: Her identity
Given no one comes forth with anything answering most of the questions, finding out who she actually was will eliminate "half" of the theories. By this I mean that the exact manner of death including whether it was self inflicted or not, will not be answered by knowing her identity. She could still have committed suicide if a spy. She could still have been killed if she was a civilian and so on, but the background story would be limited to a few theories based on knowing her identity.
The most important piece of information would be actually discovering her true identity. I am sure NRK with all their help from police will do as much as can be done it this regard. The DNA will hint. Stable isotopes may say something about where she lived. Maybe they also will follow this case further than the DNA and uncover something truly groundbreaking.
The reason her identity is important is straight forward.

C2: Manner of death
I don't think cause of death says anything in this case. How and by what events an organism ceases to be alive tells little of the circumstances in witch those lethal sets of events took place. At best they would be indicative. I might be a bit harsh on the original investigation, but I think this question should have been fully answered by the coroner and the forensic investigators, and I don't agree that any case should be closed until such a descriptive, logical and "consistent with facts" conclusion is reached. If it cant be made beyond reasonable doubt, one should not be put forth at all.
Manner of death would answer if it was a willing self inflicted death, an accident, or a murder. How the coroner and police in 1970 could put forth the suicide conclusion when there were clear evidence uncovered during the autopsy saying there might be more to the story, is beyond me. It is probably also the reason this case has never been forgotten (I am sure this is a common denominator in similar cases).

Other important unknowns
Lets say we know her identity, and we know the manner of death. Next step would be finding out who is responsible? I am not sure this is relevant in this case. Unless she was a civilian and was murdered. If she had any affiliation to any clandestine services, we automatically know who killed her more or less (or it just isn't that relevant anymore). And more importantly someone knows who she was and what she did, and she is not "alone". Someone remembers her. Following the "logic" I used starting this out, I guess there would be no reason for a woman that died doing what she loved and wanted herself, to become a ghost and bugger me in my sleep. And yes, that's the only reason I even care about this case.

Since the official story is that she was a civilian, I guess there is no way I can let all the other unknowns be. Those unknowns are not of Core importance, but they are important to fill in gaps in any of the theories regardless of the two Core unknowns, and they are very important if Isdal woman was indeed a civilian. Furthermore, they all would build a circumstantial case regarding the two Core unknowns if they are never fully uncovered. I'm calling these lesser important circumstantial unknowns, Secondary unknowns.
I am sure this has been done to some extent already, but I like to do my own figuring on this as well. Of all the possible Secondary unknowns in this case, these are the ones I think deserves some digging into. I also list reason for them being interesting:

S1: Her Passport and her "identities"
- would aid both in search for C1 and C2

S2: Her disguises and what they were for
- would aid both in search for C1 and C2

S3: Her travels including patterns
- would aid in search for C1

S4: The codes and why they were used
- would aid in search for C1. Indirectly also C2

S5: Her languages
- would aid in search for C1

S5: Her belongings
- would aid both in search for C1 and C2

S6: Her physical appearance
- would aid in search for C1. Indirectly also C2

S7: Cause of death
- would aid in search for C2. Indirectly maybe also C1

S8: Her interactions with other
- would aid in search for C1. Maybe also C2

I have already touched upon S1, S5 and S6. S7 is half explained by the Coroner, but there are clear problems in the conclusion. I feel like doing a thorough series of posts on S7, S2 and s4. I suspect the main reason the general public has trouble accepting the official story is because C2 / S7 is somewhat strange to Westerners, and S7 makes a conclusion regarding C2 that is not consistent with C7 itself. Since NRK and official sources seem to be looking seriously at C1, my next post will be about C2 / S7.

Any theories would have to be based on findings in the two categories above. I might even have to make a flowchart ;)

Isdal woman Part III - Cold war Radio equipment

I read somewhere on the Internet that Isdal woman could not have been carrying radio equipment because they were heavy and bulky. I had to look into this myself just in case, and I have found this not to be true. Actually, there are a multitude of portable devices that she without any trouble could have had both in her luggage and on her body. This equipment ranges from full blown two way radio senders and receivers, to smaller interceptor equipment.

I don't think it is likely a woman would carry full blown radio senders and receivers "just in case" it was needed. I actually don't think she would carry it at all, but one can not rule out a couple of possibilities.

There are so many possible ways she could have been "an agent" with an agenda. I say "with an agenda", because the travelling "honeypot" doesn't seem likely since she stood out as much as she did. It would be completely insane for anyone looking this suspicious, acting so "strange" to actually be that strange. You just would not carry anything even remotely spy like during the cold war if you looked like she did.

Only because of the disguises found in the suitcase and the somewhat cryptic "travel schedule" she had written down in pen on the back of a notepad, I have opted to look at possible communications equipment.

Wide hips
The woman was at least once described as having wide hips. This description was not given by a male shoe salesman that helped her find a pair of rubber boots like I thought previously (he just said "nice legs"), but by a female receptionist at hotel St. Svithun in Stavanger. her description is quoted by NRK, and it says:

(she was) "dark (referring to hair most likely), and had light brown complexion (actual translation would read: "golden skin", but that's not a fair translation), conspicuously (maybe "remarkable" is a better translation?) wide hips without being fat, speaks poor English.

English translation
The word "Påfallede" is used when something is out of the ordinary. Like it really is prominent and noticeable beyond the observers general ability to observe. If you don't notice something that is "påfallende", you aren't paying attention, or you don't know what the alternatives are. Even if you dont, you would be hard pressed to explain how you did not notice something that is "påfallende" if asked by police.

Another detail, is the "without being fat"-remark. It is as if the witness is somewhat confused this was actually a female body type. It must have been very rare (at least to her / Norwegians), to see such broad hips on such a slender female.
Now. That could actually be the case. That her wide hips were abnormal in Norway at the time, but I cant say I have found anything that points to this as a fact. At least not to such an extent that this would be one of the major observations made of her.

This observation was made in Stavanger. Or, on one of her trips to Stavanger from Bergen if you like. It is in Stavanger she is reportedly being seen curiously watching the trial firing of the new Penguin missiles. The Fisherman that say he saw her is now dead, but his wife claims he was 100% positive. The fisherman alerted the security officer at a (naval?) base in Stavanger. From that moment on, any counter intelligence could have been looking for Isdal woman.

The corpse later discovered, shows the female body has somewhat unusually muscular thighs. I can't say I notice anything "conspicuously wide" or "påfallende" with her hips, and neither does the police or coroner. At least they don't describe such a feature.
This could be pure chance. It could be, the remark was made after a police interviewer asked "did you notice anything out of the ordinary" -or something like that, but just for the sake of the argument, -and because this looks like an actual statement, I will go with the theory that the woman observed and believed to be the same Isdal woman had "extra wide hips" at least during her check-in in Stavanger.

Cold War spy (hunting) gadgets
Getting back to the radio equipment of the days, it would actually be possible for any agent in the field to wear either communication equipment, or interceptors or locators. Radio equipment ranges from two way communication gear to pure senders or pure receivers. Interceptors would be equipment capable of picking up radio transmissions, and locators would be equipment used to pinpoint the source of a radio signal. Combos of all these exist. For special forces and agents / operatives, these devices was made portable or wearable.

None of these are as mysterious as they might sound. They were actually wide spread, and their use and existence is well documented. Below are examples of such gear.

The Filin DDR (USSR)

Filin - modified german (east?)

Same modified Filin.

Filin (Russian: Филин) is a Russian body-wearable intercept receiver that was used during the Cold War to track down, locate and intercept enemy communication. The eavesdropping receiver was developed around 1970 and was available in three different versions, each with its own frequency range. The version shown here was used by the East-German Secret Police (Stasi). Like most secret Russian equipment, it was named after a bird. Filin is the Russian word for owl.(from: http://www.cryptomuseum.com/df/filin/index.htm)

Webbing to carry equipment concealed.

Webbing with a SP20(?)

SP20 complete two way.

The SP-15 is a complete self-contained modular spy radio station, developed in Germany in the early 1960s by Wandel & Goltermann and H. Pfitzner for the German Intelligence Agency Bundes­achrichten­dienst (BND). It was intended for espionage, diplomatic radio traffic, Special Forces (SF), clandestine (covert) operations and Stay Behind-Organisations (SBO). Certain components of the SP-15 radio station were also used by the organizations and agencies of other countries. In The Netherlands and some other countries, the SP-15 was also known as FSS-7 and as FS-7. 

 The SP-20 is a spy radio set, developed around 1970 by Pfitzner/Teletron and AEG Telefunken in Germany, as a replacement for the aging valve-based SP-15. It was used by a number of Stay-Behind Organizations in Europe (Gladio) as well as by the Special Forces of the German Army. The two versions can be determined by their colour, green and grey, but are otherwise identical. 

(read about SP15 (-20): http://www.cryptomuseum.com/spy/sp15/index.htm)

 

Compact equipment

Compact equipment

To say she could not have been carrying equipment because it was too large or too heavy, would be wrong. Even during WWII, a female undercover agent working for GB (google "spy princess") operated for years dragging a full blown suitcase radio around in occupied Paris. Avoiding detection in spite of being actively sought out. 
Possible? Yes. Likely? I don't know. It depends on the spoons. The passport. The cause of, and exact manner of death.

Stay Behind
The Gladio / Stay Behind network was operating in Norway since the end of WWII and at least up until 1979, when a secret arms stash / radio transmitting facility was discovered in the basement of a house in Oslo. There was enough equipment to arm some 100 men, and it is reported (by popular media) that there was weapons and ammunition there that seasoned police officers had never seen before. I guess those kinds of network don't just disband themselves. And I am sure they don't report to anyone. At least not the police. These are pure military groups. Probably would have been easy to call upon by regular secret military services (either UK, US or domestic) in 1970 if needed. They could even operate by them selves. What if Isdal woman was hunting radio transmitters? Or she herself had a transmitter and was hunted down?

That would have been something. A rogue agent from Russia / Belgium or Middle East taken out by an secret organization linked to NATO. In Norway. Juhuu!

Anyway. The maps showing how post WWII Europe looked like, should be studied if one is to try to understand Isdal woman's travels. At least if she was at all connected to any of the major players.

Europe division after WWII

Isdal woman's movement discovered by police.

I am no expert. But I would claim it is fair to want to look at her known travel through Europe. What person would choose this route from Stavanger to Basel? Is this the most common route? Almost on top of the "Iron Curtain" border? Would it not be easier to travel behing the Iron Curtain if russian or deeper inside NATO if Nato-affiliation? And what is in Basel other than Swiss banks?
 
 Radio equipped Isdal woman
Just for fun, I have made a sketch based on pictures of corpse (body shape) and added radio equipment like the ones mentioned here. This is of course by no means a scientifically based study. Just a playful sketch. Either way, as much as I might want this radio equipment to fit on her body, I don't think it does. I actually think the very muscular thighs is the reason for the witness describing those broad hip without being fat. A bit strange for the police to leave this out.

Broad hips vs Fat vs Normal?

Isdal woman Part II - physical appearance / police reports

Original Police notes in internal police bulletin.

Police report (case description published in an internal police news bulletin) describe Isdal woman as (dec. 1st 1970) - Entrance no 1058:
"Finding of an unknown female corpse": "Sunday November 29th 1.15PM the corpse of a young female is found at Isdalen close to Bergen. The following description is given: About 25-30 years, 164cm tall, slender attractive build, brown-black hair, small round face, brown eyes, small ears, marked spacing between the two foremost teeth in upper jaw. These were covered in gold on the back. Enamel-like compound of the front and many gold crown on molars. She wore: Blue knitted jacket, black outer trousers, large checkered green and blue shawl made from woollen fabric, semi-long blue rubber boots with white upper rim, drawstrings in front. She had in her possession a blue nylon ladies umbrella. On her arm she had a sports watch made of steel of the brand "SOLO". In her ears she had round gold filled ear clips."

The next day, dec. 2nd 1970, a new post was made. This post is entrance no: 1066:
"Amendment to C-1058": "Corpse has been subjected to strong heat, all clothing is completely or partially burnt. Corpse also has significant burn damage. Correction to description: About 30-40 years, 164 cm tall, slender, attractive built, brown eyes, small round face, small ears, long brown-black hair with ponytail. Around Ponytail is a headband; dark blue bottom colour with white and light blue star shaped drawings and flowers. Molars has preformed gold crowns that is normal in The East, and some places in south- and central America. 14 of the teeth has full or partial root canals, among these 2 wisdom teeth in the lower jaw. Marked spacing between the two foremost teeth in upper jaw. From remnants of clothes, one can conclude she was wearing the following: Assumed dark blue bubble jacket with belt, blue sweater, dark long insulated pants, black longs, black panties, blue (patterned) long sports socks. She had a dark fake leather hat with fur imitation. Blue rubber boots with white sole and white upper rim, drawstrings in front"

Guess NRK has the copytight. May have to remove if they ask.

Police sketch (1970) / NRK - Missal sketch (2016)

Based on this and probably witness accounts, police make the first simple drawing. I think one reason for it being so crude is the fact that she would stand out so much from the general public, there is no real or urgent need for facial reconstructions or life-like drawings.

Another thing I noticed is one witness that was shown the first set of Missal-drawings (2016), commented "her nose was pointier". Without it being explained in what way it was pointy. Had she said the same to a police sketch artist in 1970, he would most likely conclude the nose was pointing upwards, as that's the regular pointedness in northern Europe. I don't know how much schooling the original artist had, but I  am not sure he was too mindful of details. It would be much more strange for him to conclude the nose was pointing downwards.

One of Missals vs 1970

Another one of Missals vs 1970

1970 sketch
- Small rounder face
- Slightly narrow eyes
- Upward-pointing nose

2016 sketch
- Longer (more European shaped) face.
- Fuller lips
- Slightly narrow eyes. 
- Downward pointing nose with a heavy "hump"

I don't know if any of the witnesses was directly involved with the 1970 drawing. I did read in an article on NRK or the newspaper "Bergens tidende" that police made the sketch based on the corpse, but artist could have read the witness statements unless sketch was made before witnesses came forth. The witnesses asked during Missal sketches, seem to agree this is a fairly accurate drawing (after first saying first sketch needed fuller lips and pointier nose).

I dont know if the collage of Missal sketches is a mix of "old" and "new" Missal sketches, or purely the latest ones. But it is evident that Police working from corpse felt the face was smaller and rounder than the Missal sketches are.

Body
Police description is consistent regarding body. Only other account describing her body that I have found, would be at least one witness describing her as having broad hips without being obese, and one stating "pretty legs".

Police does not say anything about abnormally wide hips, but indicate an attractive build. Picture of the burnt body shows obvious well trained thighs and legs in general on very a slender female. I would guess this much muscle on the thighs is somewhat abnormal, and worthy of a mention. The "wide hips without being obese and nice legs", is a strange description unless it is accurate.

If I'm not wrong, it came from a clerk at the shoe store she bought rubber boots. That should be a man that had seen quite a lot of legs and females in general, and a fairly good witness regarding female legs / body build.
The description is worthy of mentioning as long as there are no wide hips on the corpse. It opens the doors for a fair question: Did she carry anything around her waist / hips under her clothes?

Fingerprints
A complete set of fingerprints are shown obviously lifted from the burnt corpse. They had not been removed mechanically as some claim, and they have survived where her nose did not. The fire must have been more extreme in her face area than on her fingers, or the 1970 sketch artist did not interpret the corpse correctly (if indeed he did the sketch based on the actual corpse).
I would assume a police sketch based on an actual skull would be fairly true regarding placement of eyes relative to mouth, top of skull and jaw. I find it strange if the 1970 sketch is not pretty accurate in that regard, and the only explanation I can think of that would justify an artist not to be able to see the massive nose depicted by Missal based (solely / mainly) on witness accounts is if the fire had burned away not only flesh but also underlying tissue and more importantly cartilage.

I'm not going to post pictures of the body. Look elsewhere for that. Instead, I'm going to show the fingerprints lifted from the corpse. If nose and tissue and cartilage was destroyed, the fingers was remarkably well preserved.
Just as a side note, I would blame kids for handling my sunglasses like the ones depicted below obviously has been. You don't normally touch the glass like this.

Fingerprint card.

Fingerprints on sunglasses in suitcase.

Age
Police estimate female of 25-30 years on dec. 1st. The correction to 30-40 looks like it is made at the same time the dentist has done his analysis. If nothing else, this all could point to a very fit 40 year old. Or 30 for that matter (given original Police estimate was solely based on appearance of body.

X-rays of the teeth of Isdal woman from 1970.

Wrist Watch
Police report describes a steel sports wrist watch branded "SOLO".I am no watch expert, but the little I could dig up seems to point to an inexpensive "noname" brand or "rebrand". Lots of "SOLO" wrist watches on eBay, but brand itself is not listed in any of the "Collectible watch brands" lists I have found. I found one at a collector online that claim it is French, but still no reference information. Whatever watch this is, it seems to me it is an anonymous choice. Or she could have fell for the brand mane itself. Solo. Alone. Single.

The only watch I found from earlier than 1970 (for sure, -and I didn't spend weeks looking) was a men's watch. It is stainless steel, marked as "dustproof", and has a "SOLO" brand plus one marking saying "SHOCKPROOF" and another saying (believe it or not) "FOREIGN", where any Swiss Made would have been branded exactly that. From the info I found, its mechanism is called "Lorsa P62", and it is described as being "of respectable" accuracy for its age.
The watch below can still be seen here: http://www.antiquesatlas.com/thevintagewristwatch/browse.php?code=as170a2510
I found references for the Lorsa P62 several places. It is a men's size mechanical insides, and might be French or actually Swiss. Of course I have no Idea what movement is in Isdalen womans watch, but it could be a reliable piece of mechanics even though the SOLO-name looks more like a multi branded design. Anyone better at watches should be able to dig up some more general info on this brand.

Mens SOLO watch 60s

Umbrella
Seen in a picture of the corpse is an umbrella in the foreground leaning between rocks. It is upright (handle up) like as if it was placed there by her. You don't place your umbrella that way if it is raining or snowing. You also would find it easier to light a fire under an umbrella if there was rain.
It is not "the Norwegian way" to hike with umbrellas. One wears raincoats if hiking. She would have looked like a tourist bringing an umbrella into the Forrest.

Clothes
Her clothes are described pretty well for being almost completely destroyed by the fire. Most noticeable is the bubble trousers and the jacket with belt / waistband closure. This closure / belt is a known because the locking mechanism for the belt was found at the site of the corpse. It is visible on pictures (two round metal objects of about 1.5 inches diameter each.
The trousers described sounds more like something a Norwegian would wear if being stationary in winter time, and not something one wears to hike. But that could have been different in 1970.
Also, Norwegians would probably not hike in rubber boots. We would wear leather boots with heavy bottom soles. Again, her appearance is somewhat out of the ordinary. Would be easy to recognize her as a tourist (even if you couldn't see her face).

A small piece of clothing was also found after / upon moving the corpse. Her ponytail was held in place by a dark blue hairband with lighter blue and white star shapes/ flowers. No point trying to google that. Without seeing it, any connection to classical natinal colours or patterns would be wild guessing.