of death for both victims' death certificates which were issued several days later. In the section on the form which dealt with when the injuries had taken place, he entered "23/12-24/12?". At the start of the investigation it was assumed that the murders had taken place at some time between 19:30 on 23 December and 02:00 on 24 December. Court-appointed experts claimed that the murders could have taken place on 22 December. Even though several witnesses also claimed that the murder victims had been seen and that activity had been registered at the address at a later point in time, the court decided to ignore this testimony and found that Per Liland had committed the murders on 22 December. Alf Nordhus, the lawyer who represented Liland appealed against the handling of the case and the sentencing at the Supreme Court. The appeal was rejected on 28 November 1970. Initial attempts to have the case reviewed Liland, through Alf Nordhus sought to have the case reviewed on 27 December 1971. The application included 1700 pages of documents collected by Sten and Vibeke Ekroth and which also included sound recordings of witnesses who stated that the victims had been seen alive after the murders were supposed to have taken place. Sten Ekroth, a Swedish pop music manager was on an engagement trip with his wife-to-be Vibeke and by chance came to play an important role in the case. The documentation the Ekroths provided formed the basis of the application to have the case looked at again. The couple was newly in love and wanted to document everything they experienced. For that reason they smuggled a tape recorder with them into court. They followed the case closely and had the impression that Liland was innocent. The application to have the case reopened was rejected by Eidsivating Court of Appeal on 7 May 1975. The decision was appealed to the Supreme Court but was rejected by the Court's Appeal committee on 5 March 1976. Imprisonment Per Liland served out his sentence until 22 June 1983. At the time Norwegian law allowed sentences of prisoners who were considered a danger to society to be extended by a maximum of ten years. His sentence was extended to the maximum permitted and he remained in prison until 22 June 1993. Further attempts to have the case reopened On 23 June 1993, the day after his sentence ended,