← Fame Under Fire
Fame Under Fire
The trial of Marius Borg Høiby
00:25:51
The son of Norway’s Crown Princess faces 39 charges including four counts of rape.
Loading summary
Transcript51 lines
- [00:00]
Lars Bivanga
This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK.
- [00:06]
Anushka Matandadawati
It's 2009 and we're in the German mountains. A man straps himself into a car on the world's most dangerous racetrack. He whispers to himself, it's time to
- [00:15]
Lars Bivanga
put my balls on the dashboard as
- [00:17]
Anushka Matandadawati
he starts the engine.
- [00:18]
Lars Bivanga
In 15 minutes, he's in an ambulance, unconscious. In 15 years, he's a billionaire.
- [00:24]
Anushka Matandadawati
This is Toto Wolff, Formula One's most powerful team boss and the breakout star of Drive to Survive.
- [00:30]
Lars Bivanga
This week on Good Bad Billionaire, How Toto Wolff made his billions. Listen wherever you get your BBC podcasts.
- [00:40]
Anushka Matandadawati
Hello and welcome back to Fame Under Fire from BBC Sounds. With me, Anushka Matandadawati. Just to let you know, before we begin, some topics in this episode might be distressing over the weekend. One of our listeners who's been with us since Diddy sent in this question. Hi, Anoushka, thank you for a brilliant pod. I've been listening since the Diddy trials and I've never missed an episode. As a Norwegian living in the uk, I've been obsessing over the Marius Borg Hoby case that is wrapping up in the Norwegian court system at the moment. And I would love to hear yours and Sean's take on it. Thank you. This is such an interesting trial. The defendant, Marius Bjork Hoibi has been charged with 39 offenses, including rape and sexual assault, and if convicted, could face over 10 years in jail. But this isn't your traditional court case for a couple of reasons. Number one, Marius is the son of Norway's crown princess, Mette Marit. She had him a few years before she married into the royal family, but he lived in the family castle, went to the events and in privilege and public perception is a member of the royal family. And although he's not in line for the throne, his siblings are. Number two, it's set against a backdrop of Epstein revelations that show the crown princess, that's Marius mum emailing the convicted paedophile after he served time for soliciting a minor for prostitute institution. And number three, the trial started with extra scandal because the day before it began, Marius was re arrested for allegedly violating a restraining order. Now, one person who's been following this trial every day is Norwegian freelance journalist Lars Bivanga. Lars, let's just start with the basics. What exactly has he been charged with?
- [02:17]
Lars Bivanga
Well, he's been charged with 39 different accounts, the most serious being four accounts of rape and violence in relationships. So these four accounts of rape were with four different women? different locations. Several accounts of violent behavior is towards two longer term girlfriends who he lived with on and off. The first one for about a year, the other one slightly less. So in a way, there's two parts to this trial. He got the rapes with the people he met at parties and he was not in a steady relationship with them and then still yet violent in relationship with the long, longer term partners.
- [02:59]
Anushka Matandadawati
Now, the BBC approached his lawyers for comment and they pointed to a previous statement made by defense counsel PETA Sakulik saying, quote, hoibi is absolutely taking the accusations very seriously but doesn't acknowledge any wrongdoing in most of the cases, especially the cases regarding sexual abuse and violence so large. From that we can kind of glean that he does admit to some of the offenses. Which ones are those?
- [03:21]
Lars Bivanga
Well, he's admitted to some lesser offences concerning drugs, selling drugs, procuring drugs. He's also admitted to some of the offences, including violent behavior towards his partner, but none of the more serious allegations of him hitting her or anything like that. When it comes to the sexual assault and the rapes, he completely denies this.
- [03:45]
Anushka Matandadawati
Do we know when authorities started investigating him?
- [03:49]
Lars Bivanga
Well, we know that they started investigating him after the first alleged attack on a longer term girlfriend.
- [03:57]
Anushka Matandadawati
So we know that there was an ongoing investigation into him and then we know he was officially indicted. So for our regular listeners, you know what that means. But if you're uninitiated, that is just the formal charging document where they enlist all the alleged crimes. But this is before we've even got into the trial. There's another twist on the eve of trial, what happens the day before he's due in court.
- [04:17]
Lars Bivanga
So his second long term girlfriend who's involved in this case, he had a restraining order taken out against him. He was not allowed to approach her, text her, contact her in any way whatsoever. He was in breach of this several times in various ways. He had been calling her, texting her. He'd also come to visit her at this occasion. The day before the trial starts, he was in her flat. We understand that that was a sort of an on off relations and she didn't actually deny him access to her flat, but a neighbour or someone who saw him walk in and was aware of this restraining order, contacted police, not the victim, but someone else. So that's when police decided to act because this was a clear breach of his restraining order against this former girlfriend. And that's when they moved in and arrested him. Because the person who reported this to police had heard a fracar shouting things being thrown. So they decided that this sounds like something that the police need to get involved with. And that's when they came and apprehended him. And he's been detained ever since, all the way through these seven weeks of trial as well.
- [05:33]
Anushka Matandadawati
So this all takes place him turning up at a previous girlfriend's flat and then getting rearrested because he's violated that restraining order. The day before they're going into court, then the trial begins. And as you've broken down a bit for us already, much of this trial has rested on the testimony of the alleged victims, who the prosecution say were allegedly sexually assaulted or raped by Marius.
- [05:55]
Lars Bivanga
Yes, the four victims, who are anonymous, have all told stories about being sexually assaulted while they were asleep. All of them were unaware that did happen until the police presented them with video material that the defendant himself had filmed. And one of the things that really sticks in my mind from this entire court case lasting seven weeks is the first witness in the first week was one of these women. She was asked down to the police station to be interviewed and she thought it had to be something about Marius. And she had no idea what they were going to talk to her about until they showed her a film of herself, apparently asleep, being sexually assaulted by Marius. Now, he will deny this and say that this was a consensual act. The police video from this interview was shown in court and you could see that she was extremely upset and surprised when she saw this video. And she claims that she had no idea that that had ever happened, that she was asleep. And this has become a very important bit of evidence for the prosecution that they say is will prove that he was sexually assaulting her while she was asleep. Now, he again denies this and says it was consensual, he believed she was awake. And again, the prosecution will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was aware that she was asleep.
- [07:31]
Anushka Matandadawati
And many of the encounters started with consensual sex.
- [07:35]
Lars Bivanga
Correct? All of them started with consensual sex. Some of them also had consensual sex after the alleged events. But again, they were not aware of. They say they were not aware of what had happened while they were asleep or incapacitated. So all these four events are very similar in nature. And also during all of them, he had been filming on his mobile phone himself, touching them. And this has been used as evidence in court as well. Now, these films came into the police custody after they took his mobile phones off him when he was was first arrested. He initially gave them an old mobile phone which didn't work and didn't have a SIM card in it. They eventually found his current phone. They went through this to look for evidence that would stand up in court when it came to the violence in relationships that they wanted to bring forward as a charge. And then as they looked through these devices, they found potential evidence of further crimes. And the charge sheet basically grew out of that.
- [08:42]
Anushka Matandadawati
And like you say, there's a different element to this in that the alleged victims were made aware of the alleged assault by the police. We have quotes from some of them saying, quote, I had no memories of what happened, but in my mind, I hadn't defined it as an assault until they were shown by the police and then comments on what took place, saying, quote, I was getting more and more tired. I felt like I was just lying there. And he wouldn't stop. The more tired I got, the less I took part. And then one woman saying after she had told him she wanted to sleep, she said she was woken up by a, quote, quote, violent blow to her genital area, saying it was painful, and then saying, I think I just froze, then fell back asleep. Now, I've got a really interesting question here from a listener who says, why did the prosecution need to prove that the defendant knew or should have known that the victims were asleep for him to be convicted for rape and sexual assault? Shouldn't it be enough to prove they were asleep anyway? Large, that is, the burden of proof is on the prosecution in that way, why is it important that he knew or should have known?
- [09:38]
Lars Bivanga
Well, according to Norwegian law, the burden of proof is very, very heavy when it comes to proving guilt in a rape case. So it is not enough, as this listener asked, to prove that someone was sleeping or claim that they were sleeping, if the defendant absolutely is adamant that they were awake and that there is no way of sort of proving that he must have known they were asleep. So this is very central to this case. All these four women are in sort of a similar position here. Now, the prosecution will use some of this video material that the defendant himself shot. And we've even had a sleep expert in court looking at these videos, being asked, you know, does she look like she's sleeping? And he said, yes, she does look like she's sleeping. But this videos are very short. They're a few seconds long, and there's quite a few of them. But he basically says, I cannot say beyond any reasonable doubt. I cannot say she's absolutely 100 sleeping. Because, you know, to prove that, you need basically to be in a Lab almost to prove that someone is asleep. But he said, it looks like she's sleeping, but I cannot say it for sure. So the prosecution have been drilling into this, using these videos a lot to try to prove that he must have known that they were asleep, and then, therefore, his word must not be believed. But, of course, in the end, that will be up to the judges to decide whether they believe him or not.
- [11:12]
Anushka Matandadawati
Yeah. And it all boils back down to criminal intent, really, because if he says, we were having consensual sex at the beginning, and I assumed that had continued, but they say they'd fallen asleep, the criminal intent isn't there because he believes something different. Like you say, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and they are piecing together different pieces of information to try and prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, he knew that these women were asleep. And as you say, they've been using these videos and pictures that were taken. There's also something in there about data from a watch.
- [11:43]
Lars Bivanga
That's correct. This is in one of these four cases. They have been presenting data from a. Like an Apple watch or a Samsung watch on the wrist of the victim to show that her pulse was showing that she was probably asleep at the time, and also his own watch to show when he was active and what his pulse was. And again, they put these data to the sleep expert to say, can this be shown that more likely that she was asleep than not? So, yes. The prosecution have been trying to build a case using a lot of different data. The videos, the watches, the sleep expert.
- [12:24]
Anushka Matandadawati
There's also data in there that they've used showing that after he took these videos and pictures, he accessed a vault app, which is where you can lock pictures and videos inside your phone, and so they can kind of track the movements of what happened. But once again, as you say, the defense will come in straight away and say it's not criminal to put photos in a vault app if he thought this was consensual sex. That doesn't lead to beyond a reasonable doubt proving that these women were asleep and that he knew that. And that's the testimony of these women who have appeared anonymously, given extremely emotional testimony. But we also have someone who's waived their right to anonymity. That's Nora Hawkland, who is one of his former romantic partners. What does she have to say?
- [13:05]
Lars Bivanga
Well, she was explaining how the relationship had developed. She said she fell head over heels in love with him. They had many good times, good days. But she said she felt she was eventually entering into Almost like a coercive relationship. And in fact, the charge relating to her is one of a coercive relationship seen as a whole, not as individual events. So it might be harder to. True for the prosecution, but it is a more serious charge than to charge separate incidents, say if someone hit someone once or was violent in other ways. Now she was on the stand, being quite calm in her explanation of what had happened. She claimed that he'd had a stranglehold of her on several occasions. He had hit her. He was extremely jealous. She claims she's a very famous influencer in Norway. He didn't like all the exposure that brought because he. His own background. He's been saying many times he didn't ask to become part of the royal family, but that happened when his mother married the Crown Prince, and that he's been in the limelight ever since he was three or four, and that therefore he doesn't really crave the limelight, quite the opposite. So for him to be with her, whose job it is to be in the limelight, he found very, very difficult. So she also claimed that he made her stop some of her activities, she had to say no to participating in some reality series, and that he was controlling, starting to control her life, both psychologically and physically. Now, the defendant claims this is more or less made up. He said she was violent back to him. He doesn't deny slapping her, as he put it, but that she slapped him back. But of course, if someone slaps someone back and they're in a coercive relationship, doesn't mean they're not scared of them. So, again, this is taking a lot of time in the court case and we'll see what the judges make of that.
- [15:09]
Anushka Matandadawati
It's a defence that we see quite commonly used when there's charges of domestic violence. Those of our listeners who were with us through Diddy, we heard this a lot from his defence team. It's one of a mutually violent relationship, mutually toxic. It's interesting that coercion is a charge in and of itself, because in a lot of other courts around the world, coercion is a method of committing another form of abuse. And of course, as we know, proving coercion when you're dealing with two adults is extremely hard. She speaks about in court about those violent episodes. She says, quote, I just remember falling to the ground and curling up. And then he kicked me in the back and kept shouting. You said she was quite calm through much of her testimony, but at one point wasn't an audio recording played and she Wrote down.
- [15:54]
Lars Bivanga
Yes, this is correct. This was on an occasion where they had been visiting her family in the far north of Norway. And there was an episode there where he, she claims, became violent towards her. She knew what was coming, she said, and therefore turned on a recording device to have some kind of proof or if she wanted to seek help. She didn't quite know what she was going to do with it. But in the end, this was played in court so people could hear the shouting match. They were both shouting. It became very, very real for a moment. When you could hear, it was no longer word against word. It was actually real audio of a fight going on. Of course, there no videos, couldn't see what was going on. But during the playing of this, she. She did break down and cry and she explained that brought it all back. And she was back in that situation. So that's why she found that very, very hard to listen to. And I think a lot of people in court found it very hard to listen to too.
- [16:55]
Anushka Matandadawati
And as you mentioned, her profession is an influencer. And this led to sort of a media frenzy at the court when some of her friends were called to the stand as well.
- [17:04]
Lars Bivanga
This is right. So the prosecution called quite a few of her friends who are also influencers and well known in Norway, to corroborate what she's been saying. You know, how did she behave in these days that the alleged abuse was taking place? Did she talk to them about it? What did they know? What did they see? Had they seen anyone hit anyone that week where these witnesses were called? It became a bit of a media circus because, of course, these influences are used to being in the media spotlight, but not like this. I think the judge felt it became a bit much at times, that it was taking focus away from the seriousness of the entire trial.
- [17:47]
Anushka Matandadawati
And something that we don't always see in criminal trials is Marius on the stand. He spent a lot of time on the stand telling his side of the story. What has he had to say about all of this?
- [17:57]
Lars Bivanga
He denies all the rape allegations, saying it was consensual. They had sex before some of them had sex. After the alleged abuse, he says he has a lot of sex, he parties a lot. He doesn't deny taking illegal drugs. He says it's part of the culture. Casual sex is. Is not uncommon for him or the people he's with. He's been explaining when it comes to the violence in relationships, he's flatly denied that as well. And say she gave as good as she took and I was not violent. I Might have been loud, I might have been shouting. I can't see why she would be scared because of that. So basically, he's denying it's her word against his throughout this whole case.
- [18:42]
Anushka Matandadawati
I've got another question here from listener saying it was reported that Amarius became visibly and audibly annoyed by some of the questioning, as well as making eye contact with one of the witnesses. Do you think this can harm his defense? And second to that, with that level of a defense attorney, I assume he is well prepped. Could this be part of his strategy now? He. He was reprimanded from making eye contact with a witness.
- [19:05]
Lars Bivanga
Yes. This is again, the woman he had been in a relationship with who's taken out a restraining order against him. I didn't see this myself, but it's been reported that the looks they exchanged in court were of a. Maybe a friendly nature, but the judge would not have any of that. He said that you need to stop doing this. It's tantamount to trying to influence a witness. So he stopped doing that. When it comes to him addressing court relatively regularly in a Norwegian court, the defence or the prosecution can call on the defendant to respond to certain points throughout the court case. So it's not as if he's got one day and one day only, to explain himself. So it's an ongoing to and fro, if you like. So he's had quite a lot of air time, if you like, throughout the court case. He's also been emotional himself, especially when he talks about his family. He's been explaining that he didn't like all the, for him, unwanted attention that his influence of friends and girlfriends brought because he wanted to protect. When he talks about his family, he talks about his mother and the crown prince, of course, his stepfather and his younger siblings, who are also royals and in line to the throne. So he's been, he says, trying to protect them and their reputation. And that's also why he's very much against this kind of unwanted attention. And when he's been talking about his parents or his mother and his stepfather, he's been tearful and said that they've been extremely supportive and, as he put it, the best parents in the world.
- [20:38]
Anushka Matandadawati
And in terms of the idea that that could be part of his strategy, sort of looking at witnesses or getting emotional or, you know, speaking back, et cetera. I think this speaks to something that our resident trial attorney, Sean Kent, tells us every week, which is you just don't know what somebody is going to do when they get up there on the stand. And he spent a lot of time up there, like you say. And I. If you think to the American court system, criminal defendants don't have to take the stand for this very reason, because they are being questioned about things that have happened in their life. In this case, extremely sensitive, talking about relationships that he's been in, accusations of violence and sexual violence. You don't know how somebody is going to react to that. So you could have the best defense attorney in the world, but they cannot predict what their client is going to do when they get up there. And I just want to pick up on what you said there about Marius trying to protect his family, because running parallel to this trial is this unfolding Epstein scandal that's been taking place in Norway with the Crown Princess, Mette Marit. Tell me a bit about what's been going on with that.
- [21:33]
Lars Bivanga
Now, she's been in contact with Epstein over several years, also including after his 2008 conviction. She has claimed in the past that she was not aware of this conviction. Subsequent emails that have been unearthed in the latest batch of Epstein files have shown that she did know and she even commented in one of her emails with him. She's stayed in his Florida mansion. They've met on several occasions. He's even been in Oslo. She's said it was a friendship, but it was nothing more than that, of course. But the problem here within the region, public, if you like, is that she's been confronted with this previously and said he was an acquaintance. It was not a friendship. And as more files have been on earth, she's proven to have not told the full truth. And right now, people are still waiting for her to come out and explain fully what kind of relationship this was. Now she's been not visible at all because of this court case. Also, she's severely ill with a lung disease. She's waiting for a long transplant. So she's basically taking her time. But the media and certain politicians as well, and the public are getting a little bit impatient and want some kind of fuller explanation, if not from her directly, then from the palace.
- [22:55]
Anushka Matandadawati
I mean, we do know that she has issued a, quote, profound apology to the Norwegian people. She also said, quote, I apologise for the situation in which I've placed the royal house, especially the King and Queen. I mean, if you search her name or her email address in the Epstein file, she comes up 919 times. We've said it before, we'll say it again. Appearing in the Epstein files is not an indication of any wrongdoing. But as to the nature of the relationship, you can glean a fair amount from the correspondence that they have. For instance, in one email, she emails Epstein saying, is it inappropriate for a mother to suggest two naked women carrying a surfboard for my 15 year old son's wallpaper? He talks to her about hunting for a wife in Paris and tells her that he prefers women in Oslo. So there is a lot of back and forth and it appears to be very friendly. So we've had kind of two scandals playing out in Norway at the same time. Like you say, they're waiting for a response from her. She hasn't appeared in court during Marius trial. Lars, for people listening, they might be quite shocked because it doesn't sound like there's actually a jury, which is a bit different.
- [23:59]
Lars Bivanga
That's correct. There's no jury. There is one judge and then there's two lay judges. So you could say that constitutes a very small jury. But these three people will equally decide between them where this ends up. In Norway, there has not been jury service for, for quite, quite a few years in all cases. So you've got these three judges who will go away and decide and consider all the evidence that's appeared over these seven long weeks.
- [24:29]
Anushka Matandadawati
So, Lars, we're coming to the end of this trial and we are recording this episode on Wednesday and this morning the prosecution just did their closing arguments. What have they asked the judge for?
- [24:41]
Lars Bivanga
They asked for him to be found guilty in all 39 charges. And taking that into account, they asked for a jail sentence of seven years and seven months. Now, that is not the maximum the law allows. That would be more akin to 16 years. But taking everything into consideration, that is what the prosecution has been asking for.
- [25:06]
Anushka Matandadawati
Now, Large, this was a seven week trial, so we don't have a date for a verdict yet. There is a lot of evidence for the judge to work through and of course, Marius might even remain in custody while they are coming to their decision. And then if he is found guilty, we have sentencing after that. We will stay across this story for our listeners. But Large, thank you so much for walking us through all of that today.
- [25:27]
Lars Bivanga
You're welcome.
- [25:28]
Anushka Matandadawati
That was Norwegian freelance journalist Larvanger. And that's it for this episode of Fame Under Fire from BBC Sounds. With me, Anushka Matandadawati. Make sure you subscribe and turn on your push notifications so you never miss a thing.
- [25:43]
Jamie Bartlett
I'm Jamie bartlett and for BBC Radio 4, I'll be looking at how Fakery took over the world. No, no, hang on. Hang on, sorry, you're not Jamie Bartlett. I'm Jamie Bartlett. Oh, really? Well, who am I, then? I'm afraid you're not real, pal. You're just an imitation chatbot I created to help me make this series on modern fakery and why it's everywhere.
- [26:07]
Anushka Matandadawati
Sounds good.
- [26:07]
Jamie Bartlett
What's going to be in it? Well, There's a lot. 1980s professional wrestling, dodgy academics, AI psychosis, COVID vaccine, skeptics. What's it called? Everything Is Fake and Nobody Cares. With me, Jamie Bartlett. And me, Jimmy Bartlett. Listen. First on BBC Sounds.
- [26:32]
Anushka Matandadawati
It's 2009 and we're in the German mountains. A man straps himself into a car on the world's most dangerous racetrack. He whispers to himself, it's time to
- [26:41]
Lars Bivanga
put my balls on the dashboard as
- [26:43]
Anushka Matandadawati
he starts the engine.
- [26:44]
Lars Bivanga
In 15 minutes, he's in an ambulance, unconscious. In 15 years, he's a billionaire.
- [26:50]
Anushka Matandadawati
This is Toto Wolff, Formula One's most powerful team boss and the breakout star of Drive To Survive.
- [26:56]
Lars Bivanga
This week on Good Bad Billionaire. There how Toto Wolf made his billions. Listen, wherever you get your BBC podcasts,