The Unsolved Murder: The Death of Egil Bråten (Solved)

Scandinavian Crimes (w/ Devante & Delila)

Year(s) of Incident: 2002
Location: Oslo, Norway
The Unsolved Murder: The Death of Egil Bråten (Solved)
Victim(s):  1
Method: Robbery, Assault, Murder

Video Version of This Episode: https://youtu.be/prGe3nRjtYQ

What remained was a quiet street, a lifeless body, and the beginning of what would become one of Norway’s most chilling and unresolved homicide cases. The randomness of the act, the senseless brutality, and the silence that followed made it all the more difficult for a grieving family and for the investigators who vowed to find the truth.

Egil Tostrup Bråten, a young man in his twenties, walked alone through the streets of central Oslo. He had no idea that two teenage boys were shadowing him, tracking his steps from St. Olavs Plass. The pair, one 16 years old and the other 18 had set out that evening with the intention to rob.

Music from #Uppbeat (free for Creators!): 
https://uppbeat.io/t/adi-goldstein/blank-light 
License code: A1C1SZ12UFNPUARU 

Music from #Uppbeat ( free for Creators!): 
https://uppbeat.io/t/clemens-ruh/this-place-has-never-known-some-love 
License code: DZOFU4ELCVA6ZWEE 

Music from #Uppbeat (free for Creators!): 
https: //uppbeat.io/t/kevin-macleod/lightless-dawn 
License code: SNWCDIJUOPTFEHMK

Chapters

• 0:00 Introduction
• 2:25 Story - The Murder
• 4:58 Story - The Investigation and Arrest
• 9:24 Story - The Confession
• 11:53 Story - Trial and the Aftermath
• 13:24 Discussion Section
• 28:13 Conclusion/Outro

Transcript

Welcome to Scandinavian Crimes. My name is Devante and say hello to my lovely co-host Delila.

Hi.

(...)

Okay, I'm sorry, that was awkward. I'm sorry.(...) Hi.

(...)

And on this podcast, we talk about famous Scandinavian criminals who made their mark throughout Scandinavian history.

(...)

So today is a very, I say this every case, so I guess, nevermind me, but this is a very interesting case.

(...)

It's an act of violence that seemed pretty much completely random.(...) But what remained was a quiet street and a lifeless body, and the beginning of what would become one of Norway's most chilling and unresolved homicide cases.

(...)

The randomness of the act, the senseless brutality, and the silence that followed made it more difficult for a grieving family and for the investigators who vowed to find the truth.

(...)

So even though I didn't give you too much about this case,

(...)

I really want you to kind of pay attention to the details because I want to know what you guys think when we get to the discussion section in terms of how do you think maybe they should have gone about investigating this or what do you suspect could have been the possibility of the reason why this could have happened. But you already know what I'm about to say, of course. Come on, you're not new here.

(...)

Grab your tea,(...) grab your snacks.

(...)

If you're on your way to work, go ahead and tuck yourself into that nice little corner on the bus to train, put your AirPods in real tight because this is the story of Aegil's murder.

(...)

It was a cold night in 2002 when Aegil Tostrabrotten, a young man in his 20s, walked along through the streets of central Oslo.(...) He had no idea that two teenage boys were shadowing him, tracking his steps from St. Olaf's Place. The pair, one 16-year-old and the other 18, had set out that evening with the intention to rob. The younger of the two carried a screwdriver hidden on him and the older had come equipped with two knives, one in each pocket. The boys had armed themselves prepared for violence if needed. When they spotted Aegil, they saw an opportunity. He was walking alone, appearing unaware, unguarded. They closed in on him and confronted him in what was meant to be a quick one-sided robbery. But things did not go according to plan. Aegil did not freeze, panic, or surrender.

(...)

Instead, he resisted with everything he had.(...) A tall and physically strong man. Aegil was not an easy target.(...) He lashed out with his fist, hitting at least one of the attackers and pushing them back several meters down the street with full force.

(...)

What was supposed to be a quick mugging turned into a prolonged, violent struggle. During the chaos, the 16-year-old lunged forward with the screwdriver.(...) He struck Aegil repeatedly, at least once in the face and once in the shoulder. The blows were painful, drawing blood and escalating the panic of the moment, but they were not enough to stop Aegil. He kept fighting, driven by fear, adrenaline, and a desperate instinct to survive. Then the 18-year-old stepped in, now holding both knives.

(...)

While Aegil was still fending off the younger boy, the older boy came at him with deadly intent.

(...)

One of the knives pierced Aegil's chest on the left side, cutting 6.5 centimeters deep. It was a single, devastating wound and Aegil staggered.

(...)

For a few seconds, he remained upright, his body reacting slowly to the trauma, and then he collapsed. The two attackers didn't stop to check what damage they had done. They turned and fled the scene, leaving Aegil lying on the cold pavement.(...) Just minutes later, a patrol car passed through the same street. Police officers arrived quickly, but it was already too late. Aegil had succumbed to his injuries, dying on the spot from the stab wound that had punctured deep into his chest. Despite the immediate efforts of the Ozil Police Department, the investigation stalled.(...) There were no eyewitnesses, and the motive made the case even more difficult to solve.(...) The randomness of the attack, combined with the brutality of the violence, challenged the police.

(...)

The investigators followed every leave they could ever uncover.

(...)

They combed through the surveillance footage, conducted door-to-door interviews in the area surrounded by St. Olaf's Place, and appealed to the public for information.

(...)

Dozens of individuals were questioned. Some were ruled out quickly.

(...)

Investigators lingered in police files as people of interest, but no arrest was ever made. Evidence collected from the crime scene included forensic samples such as blood and possible DNA traces, where forensic science at the time was still developing and the technology available in 2002 didn't allow investigators to draw conclusive links between those traces and any individuals. Still, the samples were preserved, and the hope remained that one day, advances in DNA analysis might offer new answers. The case remained unsolved for more than a decade, and for Eggle's family, the prolonged wait was agonizing. Greta Lein Metlid, one of the original investigators, continued to follow the case closely, even as she advanced to a senior position within the Ozil's police.

(...)

Throughout the years, she kept in regular contact with Eggle's family, offering updates whenever there were developments in the case.

(...)

Though her messages were thoughtful and consistent, none brought the closure the family longed for. Year of the year passed without answers until 2016, when everything changed. Through a renewed and meticulous examination of the preserved DNA evidence using more advanced forensic technology than had ever been available in 2002, investigators were able to reanalyze biological traces collected from the crime scene.

(...)

They also revisited and reinterpreted earlier witness statements, connecting subtle details that had previously seemed inconclusive. Thanks to advances in forensic science and a renewed look at old evidence and witness statements, investigators were finally able to connect the dots.

(...)

Their work pointed to a 32-year-old Norwegian man residing in Oslo, who had originally been questioned as a witness years earlier, but had never been considered a serious suspect until now. Two years prior, the man had given a statement to the police during the initial phase of the investigation. At that time, his account did not raise suspicion. He was regarded merely as a witness. He was taken into custody and formally charged with committing or aiding in the murder of Eggle.

(...)

Upon arrest, the man firmly denied having any role in the crime.

(...)

During the initial round of interrogations, his demeanor was notably uncooperative. He offered vague, non-committal answers and avoided providing specific details about his movement or actions on the night of the murder.(...) Investigators observed a striking emotional distance in his behavior. He remained calm, almost indifferent, even when confronted with the seriousness of the charges.

(...)

This detachment combined with the lack of clarity in his responses immediately raised concerns and deepened suspicions among the investigators. As soon as the arrest was confirmed, Greta reached out to Eggle's family without delay.

(...)

She asked them to come to Oslo for an in-person briefing. The request alone carried emotional weight.

(...)

Fourteen years had passed since the night Eggle was murdered, and the journey back to the capital was heavy with a mix of emotions. Upon arrival, Eggle's parents and his sister were brought into a secure room on the sixth floor of the police headquarters inside the Red Zone, an area reserved for sensitive cases. Later they were met with Greta and police jurist Andreas Strand. Andreas began to walk them through the recent developments and explained that as of that moment the suspect had not confessed.

(...)

The family was told they should prepare themselves emotionally for a range of possible outcomes. Then during the meeting, an unexpected call interrupted the conversations.(...) It was a defense attorney representing the man in custody.

(...)

The message was brief but significant. The suspect had changed his mind and now wanted to give a new statement. The man was escorted from the holding cells to a nearby interrogation room. As he entered and took his seat, the room was thick with tension. Then came the words that broke 14 years of silence. He said, "Now,(...) I will tell you what happened to Eggle." He didn't call him the man or the victim, but used Eggle's name. That detail, seemingly small, struck everyone in the room.(...) The man's demeanor had changed dramatically since the previous day. The suspect spoke quietly but with purpose.

(...)

His voice occasionally faltered and his hands trembled. He appeared deeply affected by what he was about to reveal. He described the events of the night in 2002 in great detail. The decision to follow Eggle, the plan to rob someone, anyone, and the eventual confrontation that ended Eggle's life. As the interrogation continued, it gradually became evident to the investigators that he had not acted alone.(...) Initially, he was evasive when questioned about whether someone else had been involved.(...) The officers continued with steady, methodical pressure, firm, but without aggression. Eventually, after repeated questioning, he gave up the name. The second individual was a 30-year-old man who had never appeared in any version of the investigation before, not even as a person of interest.(...) He had slipped entirely under the radar, living an outwardly normal life. In the years since the crime, he had followed the academic path and was now enrolled in a demanding program of higher education, far removed from any past tied to violence. When the second man was located and brought in for questioning, the atmosphere was markedly different. Though the police had never identified him during the original investigation, he did not try to evade the truth once confronted.

(...)

After being taken to custody and presented with the details provided by his former accomplice, he sat down calmly with investigators and acknowledged his role in the events of that night. There was no denial, no resistance.(...) He didn't try to minimize what happened, nor did he attempt to shift blame.(...) Instead, he gave the investigators a full narrative of the night of Eggle's murder, from the first decision to find someone to rob to the final fatal moments. His testimony filled in the gaps. Confirming the previous confession and providing investigators with a complete sequence of events they had been trying to reconstruct for 14 years. In June 2017, the case finally went to trial in Oslo District Court. Both accused gave their versions of the events. While they were different slightly, in their explanations of motive, the court concluded that the crime had been a violent, spontaneous robbery that escalated to murder. The younger man's attacks caused superficial injuries, but it was the older man's knife that ultimately took Eggle's life.(...) In 2018, the Court of Appeal delivered its final verdict.(...) The older man was sentenced for 9 years and 6 months in prison for the murder of Eggle. The sentence was one year less than the original ruling in the District Court.(...) The second perpetrator, who had been 16 at the time of the crime, did not appeal his conviction. He was sentenced 3 years in prison for attempted aggravated robbery. When the courtroom proceedings concluded and the sentences were delivered, a chapter that had remained open for 14 years was finally closed. Its outcome reignited national conversations about youth crime, the boundaries of justice, and the potential for rehabilitation within the legal system. For Eggle's family, the verdict brought both relief and sorrow.

(...)

For the investigators, it was a culmination of years of persistent emotional taxing work. The case stood as a testament to the importance of never giving up, even when the leads fade(...) and time marches on.

(...)

So I feel like we have a theme of unsolved cases that later get noticed or that evidence later get reviewed and solved the cases. The past, most of the episodes from this season is basically like that, which was not intentional.

(...)

But in this case, it's a little bit different because they were teenagers and it also was after 14 years, which is like within the...

(...)

What's it called again?

A statue of limitations?

Yeah. So it's a bit different and it also is a little bit recent. So they did have kind of like a DNA forensic, analytic technology compared to the other cases which were a bit older.

(...)

However, it just wasn't as good as it is today, which is why it took so long for them to even get close to finding the men.

(...)

And obviously we don't say their names because they were kids or children or teenagers when the case or when the crime happened.(...) So we will call the older men or the younger men or the 32 year old or the 30 year old.(...) Just to clarify.

(...)

So honestly, when they said that they had a hard time using the technology, it was a bit confusing to me because I know that 2002,

(...)

they should have been able to use the DNA or any type of evidence that they could provide from the crime scene that they should have been able to get something. But I don't know if it was because of the digital aspect like, oh, they don't have the...

(...)

Yes, Devonta. They don't have the answers, my lord.

No, no, no, I was going to say, we're just forgetting.

(...)

I know like, you're like, oh, yes, 2002. But also remember that part of the world, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, they were behind when it came to forensic technology.

But not that much.

(...) No, they were compared to the US. We were more advanced because also think about it differently.(...) Population size is different. The rate in which crime is committed is different. So the need for technology wouldn't exist at the same time versus over here in the US.

(...)

So it's a little different versus, of course, and we've covered this actually in other cases where like, oh, this early 2000s, why couldn't they do what we may have been able to do? Well, we have crazy people over here. So we needed that technology a lot sooner versus over there,(...) population size is smaller.

We didn't need it over here either.(...) But the thing is,

I still don't commit crime at this. I'm not saying you specifically, but that part of the world in general, your crime rate is substantially lower.

It is lower, but it's not so low as not to upgrade their technology.(...) When it comes to technology, they're pretty like when it comes to technology in Scandinavia, we're actually one of the few that makes really good.

(...)

It's not that you guys technology isn't advanced, it's just simply that there wasn't as much of a pressure to do it because how many stories have we've covered where for the most part, neighborhoods were safe.(...) Children can go outside and play and blah, blah, blah. And then even then back then, this is still not as common as it may seem. We're covering all the cases that may have happened. But for example, I can walk outside right now and I can see a crime within 10 minutes

(...)

because all right, the US is not out of control like that. But you know what I mean?

It is kind of out of control.

It is and it isn't. But I digress.(...) But that's kind of the point. It's just like they just didn't have the need for that technology in 2002.(...) And it was later on when, to your point, even if the crime rate isn't as high, you still have the technology now because times are different. You rather have it and not need it, then need it and don't have it. And that's kind of the route that they took currently when it comes to stuff like this. So I get why that forensic science just wasn't where it should be. And even then, even in the US 2002, it wasn't what it is today.

(...)

So you know what I think they should have done, which was I don't know if they did do it, but I feel like they were dismissing the witnesses and other suspects a little bit too quickly.

(...)

Also, I want to ask you this as well, but like, do you think maybe doing some type of profiling and do like a behavioral analysis or like maybe follow up on the anonymous tips or any type of things like could have helped because one of the witness ended up being the 30, the 30 year, the 32 year old. So.

Well, I always say this and I said in the last case and the case before that. And I said in I think in a case last season when the one this crime was very random. So it's hard to pull out a motive from it, especially when that person may not live in that neighborhood. I'm the victim.

(...)

Also, it's random because it wasn't like a like, you know, like a sexual based crime where or crime of passion. It was a single stab wound to the chest. That's it, which means it was less of a less of this aggressive scene per se. And we know that based on their attention, their intentions was to rob.

(...)

Now,(...) once again, to circle back to what I was starting my point with is that I think when you're judging scenes like this, I always start with people in the area because what was it? The last case,

most of the people they were the witnesses were from the area

were from the area. And then oftentimes people who commit those crimes very rarely will they go will they go somewhere else to commit a crime just like that. That's not as common. Some people have, but for the most part, crimes that take place in the moment, it's usually someone within the area. So which is why we found out one of the people literally was in the area. So that was that's my always my initial suspicion.(...) Basically, it has to be someone in the area has to be someone within a given area and they actually interviewed the guy who was responsible years ago. They just didn't have proof that it was him.

(...) So also they kind of dismissed him as well, because I feel like it's set in the story and also what I could find that they were just like, oh, he was a witness.(...) And this seems like there was no connection.(...) And that's why I have done.

(...)

To maybe find another leader like, oh, do you feel like there was nothing you could have done if you didn't have the technology? Do you feel like the technology is the only thing that they could have used only?(...) Because in this case,

I think it's strictly down to technology. That's why I'm usually more upset if the police didn't do a good enough job. But yeah, it was one of those situations they interviewed people in the area, which like I said, I said would be the best option. They did end up encountering this person before, but because of technology, they can't just assume it's him. They have nothing to tie him to the scene. So in reality that they did what they could have at the time. And then the second they were able to do more, they did do more.

(...)

So yeah, I mean, it's not their fault. You know, they did what they tried. They really did try. They took the right steps, it seems.

(...) Something that I also thought about is that what if the culprit never confessed? Do you think that they wouldn't really be able to solve the case? Because you know,

(...)

even though they have the DNA and they match with a 30 year old,

(...)

legally, he could still deny certain things and be like, no, that wasn't me. I always happened to be in the area because they didn't have any other evidence to connect him with the crime.

(...)

Do you feel like the confession without the confession would I have been able to like get away with it either way, you know, loopholes somewhere in the legal system?

(...) What I think would have probably happened when it came to this case is he if he would have denied it in the interrogation room and decided to go to trial, right?(...) What I think would have happened specifically is that he would have pled innocent and then this case would have probably been publicized.

(...)

So eventually this would have been like, oh, it's an unsolved case based on the Eagles death from back in the day and back in 2002.(...) And this would have made the news. Chances are the first, the 16 year old who was a 30 year old would have probably seen that news report.

(...)

And based on what we know about the 16 year old,

he seems to have lived, like changed his life.

He changed his life around and I'm pretty sure, and he didn't even deny. And when he went to court, he accepted everything completely. So he knew he was at fault. I think he would have saw the news report. He would have confessed and said, that was a guy who did it. I was involved with the

moral compass of the second guy would have done it anyways because of his personality and how he changed.

Yeah, because it seems like when he was younger,(...) he probably was just involved with a night. He was following the 18 year old probably because he's older and he probably is making poor choices. And when you're 16, if you don't, if you're not careful about who you're around, you can end up in situations like this where you have your whole life ahead of you and then someone drags you into something that can ruin your life. So I think that was the case in this situation where he realized all this 18 year old is a bum eventually. And as we found out, he's a 30 year old. He got his life together. He was in a rigorous educational program and he came in terms of the fact that he was responsible. And he didn't deny it. He owned up to it. And I'm pretty sure they took that into account during his trial, which is why he got three years. And I know in Norway,

specifically, he didn't even get charged with helping with murder. It was attempted.(...) No, it was activated.(...) He got charged for aggravated robbery. He didn't get

attempted murder or manslaughter or anything like that. Which means I'm pretty sure they took that into account. Like, oh, well, he really didn't.

He could have charged for it, but they never gave him the verdict.

(...)

So he could have did the final way, even though he didn't do the final blow, he still got his life together. He made better choices. He owned up to it and it actually ended up paying off for him in the end because he only got three years. And obviously we're in 2025. Those three years have been over.(...) So I'm pretty sure he was able to still create some sort of life for himself. And I know in Norway and that part of the region of the world, your life doesn't stop. If you go to jail,

they have really good

systems for people who come out of prison

(...)

for crimes. So his life doesn't have to stop. He probably is living a pretty decent life because he made the right choices.

(...)

So at least that's my opinion. So I can tell this is just a situation that he was a young, impressionable kid that was taking advantage of an older kid. And eventually he did get his life together.

But that goes to my next question. Do you feel like the verdict was a bit too lenient because he changed his life? Do you think that you took it into consideration when they did the verdict? Or do you think because technically you should just judge the case from that time and also you should base the loss and everything from that time.

(...)

So like,(...) do you think in this case that it's fair because of what he did with his life afterward? Or do you think that he should still be judged based on what happened?

(...)

I can't really say what's fair or not.

Because I feel like it's a little unfair if we think about like what actually happened.

(...)

I can't really say what's fair or not because I'm not the victim's family. I'm looking at this from the outside. So in my opinion, it's going to be different.(...) But I think it's some circumstances, some circumstances, it's okay to consider like in a situation like this, if the person actually became a better person even after all this happened,(...) especially if they weren't the one responsible for the killing blow person.

Maybe the actual murder did make him change or like maybe it was the change of reason for him or something.

(...)

Just that act of them attempting to rob and seeing somebody else he was with kill that person probably was like, whoa, this was not what I signed up for.(...) You know, this is not cool. And I'm pretty sure that was I don't know for sure. This is strictly my opinion. What I'm about to say right now. I'm pretty sure that might have been the driving force. You know, I'm pretty sure this driving force reason why he probably was like, I'm not cool with this dude no more. That's probably why they didn't talk anymore.(...) Because that night probably put a wall in between them because one person probably was just like whatever about it. And then the 16 year old was just like, this is way too much. And probably you had to live with seeing that image over and over and over again,(...) you know, until all the way up until, you know, the police, you know, or find out that he was involved.

(...)

So, um, that's that's at least, you know, I think I can't say it was fair, but I think it's okay to occasionally consider when someone is no

longer a threat to society anything after that, basically.

Right. He never did anything after that.

That's why they found him at all.

(...)

He wasn't involved in anything. He was never arrested. He got his life together. He was an education, higher education on top of that.

(...)

He just pulled himself out of it. And I think that's occasionally that's fair to at least like I said, my opinion. I think it's fair in some instances to be like this person got their life together and they clearly learned their lesson.(...) I think that should be taken into consideration in some cases. Yes.

Okay.

(...)

In general, I think the verdict is, um, was reasonable. Nine years for, uh, the older man or boy.

(...)

Yeah. And the three years for the younger one. I think it's fair.

(...)

Um,

(...)

and other than that, I think that's basically it. I thought that it was a lot of nuances here and like what is right, what is wrong or like how to,(...) uh, how would, how the trial and also how the police would charge and interrogate and everything. But it seemed like they did everything correctly. Uh, they interrogated them very correctly too, without like really forcing them to say anything or anything like that. So I think that the case was done very well. It just was very unfortunate with the technology that was limited.

(...)

Agreed.

Mm hmm.

(...)

Yeah.

(...)

So we can, uh, I guess we can finally do what we usually do at the case. At the end of episode, but, uh, you know, as usual, let us know what y'all think about the cases. If you're watching this on Spotify, you know, you can leave a little, you know, message on the episodes. If you want to talk about it directly, reach out via Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, all that stuff.

(...)

And, uh, yeah, let us know what you think about the case. And do you think it's fair that the 16 year old or the 30 year old got the, uh, the more lenient sentence or do you think it shouldn't matter at all? You know, let us know your thoughts. We're welcoming it. And also you can contact us directly through the podcast platform. So you can text us, leave text messages and we can actually respond to them directly. So y'all let us know. And of course to end the episode on a good note, let us talk about food.

(...)

Get vibes. I'm going to start because I have something specifically in mind that it's in my fridge and I'm about to bust down as soon as we stop recording. Oh, that's unfair. That is, I got this, this food from a restaurant called Curry King. And you know, there are a lot of people who are there like Indian,

(...)

uh, and they have some amazing lamb chops with this sauce with this basmati rice. Oh my gosh, it is heavenly. I'm actually trying to rush this along so I can eat that food.

(...)

That sounds really good.

(...)

Your turn.

(...)

I can't top that. I agree with that one. I just won't be able to eat it.

(...)

You can think of something. Come on out.

(...) I guess soup.(...) It's you know, cold now.

(...) That's so, that's so,

uh, ramen though. I made my own ramen for the first time trying to be responsible. No, more responsible with my economy.

(...)

Instead of ordering it, I just try making myself to see if it gets any better. It was good though.

(...)

That's good.

Your sounds way better.

Ramen is good. I like your ramen. I like your ramen, you know, it's good. It's good. It's good.

(...) But either way guys,

(...)

love y'all. Appreciate y'all. And we will, we will see you in two weeks for the next episode.(...) But in the meantime, be sure to listen to the older episodes. If you haven't already, uh, let us know what you think and show some love and we will see y'all next, next time.

(...)

Peace out.