Høiby Admits Filming Hotel Encounter as Trial Turns to Credibility Battle

0:03 Callarogus Shark Media. Hello and welcome to Crown and Controversy in Norway. I'm your Palace Intrigued host to Mark Francis. Thursday's court session was dominated by two things, Marius Borg Hoiby's own explanation of the hotel case, and supporting witnesses for the woman prosecutors say he assaulted in November of twenty twenty four. The trial moved into a decisive new phase today as the defendant took the stand and for the first time, gave his own detailed account of the hotel encounter that forms one of the central rape charges. Hoyby told that court he had been avoiding public nightlife at the time because, in his words, he felt like Norway's most hated man, but ended up at the after party anyway, where he confirmed there was alcohol, cocaine and drinking games. He agreed with parts of the woman's description of the evening, including that they later went together to her hotel, but rejected the allegation of rape, insisting that the sex was voluntary and based on what he described as mutual chemistry. In one of the most significant moments of the day, Hoibe confirmed that he was the person who filmed the twenty seven videos found on his phone from that night. He acknowledged that he did not explicitly ask for permission to record, but claimed there was no doubt the woman was aware he was doing so. Ask why he filmed, he said he simply likes recording sexual encounters and watches the material later instead of pornography, adding that he has never shared the videos with anyone. When

1:33 pressed on how he understood consent, Hoibe told the court that if a partner says stop, then it is stop, but he said he had no memory of the woman doing so, and suggested that if someone only said they were tired, he might have continued for a while. The court also heard that Hoyby was paranoid at the time about being secretly photographed or filmed because of the intense media attention around him. He said he asked to see the woman's camera role because he suspected she might have taken pictures of him, something he only believes he was right about after later reading the police documents. He repeatedly stated that it is difficult for him to separate what he actually remembers from that night from what he has since learned through the investigation. After Hoyby's explanation, the court heard from people close to the woman. A longtime friend testified that they had been trying to reach her repeatedly during the night when she was with Hoeby, and became concerned when they could not get a hold of her.

2:24 The friend said that when the woman returned the next day, she described having had good chemistry with him earlier in the evening, but also spoke about flashes of light, his focus on her genital area, and that her phone had been hidden, which she said explained why she had not answered calls. The friend's evidence also reflected something that had been a recurring theme in the case, that the woman initially spoke about the night in a light or joking way before later processing it differently. The woman's sister then gave evidence. She told the court she had been informed about the events within about a week, and described Hoyby as the story had been told to her her, as intoxicated, paranoid, and controlling on the hotel room. She said her sister reported waking up to him continuing sexual acts and being in pain. The sister also described what she called a marked personality change after the woman later viewed the recordings in a police interview, saying she became withdrawn, stopped smiling, and appeared traumatized. Under cross examination, the defense highlighted earlier statements in which the woman had spoken positively about parts of the encounter and had not immediately described herself as a victim. The defense position throughout has been that the situation has been reinterpreted afterwards and that the legal threshold for the offenses charged has not been met. An expert witness in sleep research gave evidence about whether the woman could have fallen asleep during the recorded sequences. The professor told the court that the short video clips are compatible with both sleep and wakefulness and that there is a significant uncertainty, but added that it is possible for a

3:55 person to reach deep sleep very quickly, particularly under the influence of alcohol, and therefore be unable to resist what is happening. At the end of the day, Hoeby's defense team argued that their expert testimony did not clarify the issue in a way that harms their client, and claimed that the video material largely supports his version of events. The prosecution maintains that the recordings show sexual activity with a person who was unable to consent. Attention is now shifting to what is expected to be one of the most emotionally charged parts of the trial. Influencer and former partner Nora Hauckland is scheduled to begin her testimony, and both sides say that the massive volume of text messages between the two will be central to the court's assessment of whether their relationship was characterized by fear control repeated violence, as the prosecution allegers, or by a very different dynamic, as the defense claims. Hauklund's lawyer says she is under enormous strain and that facing Hoybeian court will be a major personal burden, while the defense says the encounter will also be difficult for him. Over the next phase of the trial, a series of high profile witnesses, including friends, neighbors, and well known media figures, are expected to give evidence about the relationship as the court attempts to build a detailed picture of what actually happened behind closed doors. The court also dealt with procedural planning for the next phase of the trial. More crown and controversy in just a Moment, a brief but dramatic moment late in the day centered on a witness who never arrived, A former inmate who

5:27 had been held in Hama Prison at the same time as Marius Borg. Hoibi had been summoned to give evidence, and the court had even arranged flights for him. He refused to board the plane. Prosecutors told the court they will first try to contact him again, but are now considering whether he should be brought in by force. Even so, the state attorney made clear that he does not view the man as a decisive witness, though he does have questions. He once answered. The reason the man had been called is that he is said to have told the complainant that Hoiby spoke in prison about filming her while she slept. Hoiby rejects that claim. The same witness had also allegedly suggested that Hoiby receive special treatment while in custody. Weiby responded to that directly in court, saying a colloquialism that in essence would be like yelling out bullshit as in complete nonsense, and insisted he was treated like any other inmate.

6:17 A prison governor, speaking on a general basis, backed that up, saying inmates are treated equally and that massage or similar privileges are not offered. The governor did confirm that prisons can help shield inmates from the media when they are released. After Hoiby described being driven out of the back of the facility under a planket to avoid the press. Weiby also gave a more personal account of his time in custody. He told the court of being imprisoned on allegations of rape placed him at the very bottom of the prison hierarchy, calling it perhaps the worst thing you can be there for, and explained that he was kept separated for safety reasons. He described the period when the case first became public as a time when he avoided going out, saying he felt like Norway's most hated man. None of this changes the formal evidence in the case, but it does show how the battle over credibility is now extending beyond the alleged incidents themselves into what was said afterwards, who is willing to testify it, and how the defendant's own accounts of events is being weighed against the claims made about him.

7:15 Portions of this program were assembled with the assistance of AI, including help with translations, summarizations, and news gathering from publicly available sources. While we've taken care to reflect the reporting accurately, translations and interpretations may contain errors. Listeners should treat this as an informational overview, not of verbatim court record. Nothing in this program should be considered a factual finding or legal determination and the habit we'd like to email us or addresses the Palace Intrigue at gmail and dot com. Please follow us on Spotify, Apple or the app of your choice, I Mind Francis. Thanks to John McDermott. This is Crown and Controversy Norway