Liland started a new attempt to have the case reopened. The case was advanced by Ole Jakob Bae and Cato Schiøtz, who later were appointed to the defence in the reopened case. Basis for review A decisive factor in Liland's conviction was that the murders were deemed to have taken place on 22 December. There were several indications that they had actually taken place on 23 December or 24 December, when Per Liland could not be connected to the crime scene. New medical experts Analysis of the victim's blood showed that Larsen had a blood alcohol level of 0.023% at the time of death, while no alcohol was detected in Johansen's blood. There had been a party at the scene of the crime on 22 December and much alcohol had been consumed. Both murder victims were characterised as alcoholics and it was assumed that both were drunk during the party. The original medical experts Jon Lundevall and Johan Chr. Giertsen which the prosecution had relied on therefore concluded that Johansen must have lived for at least 13 hours after having been injured. Testimony from new medical experts did not support this theory. It was also revealed that the two original experts had disagreed but that this had not been revealed during the original court case. It also emerged that blood was found at the scene which had not solidified. Witness statements At the original trial several witnesses claimed to have seen the two murder victims alive after 22 December. The court decided to ignore these statements. Sten and Vibeke Ekroth had, after the trial, questioned several witnesses who made similar claims. During the reopening of the case further witnesses confirmed that the murder victims had been alive after 22 December. Coupon in Larsen's pocket It came to light that police officers Hageløkke and Restad, who investigated the scene of the murder had found a food coupon in Larsen's back pocket. The coupon had been issued by Fredrikstad municipality and had a value of 65 kroner. The report detailed that the coupon had the number 121013 and that it was dated 23 December. The prosecution had neglected to present this evidence to the court. It could have, by itself, been enough to acquit Per Liland in the first instance. Further examination revealed that dates in the report had been changed from 23 December to 22 December and that the coupon number