The Karolinska Institute’s Report on Scandinavian Bodies: A Closer Look at Case 16 (REVISED 22/02/2025)
In 2021, the Karolinska Institute released a report that aimed to determine the origins and ages of bodies found in Scandinavian countries. The study employed various scientific methods, including Aspartic Acid Racemisation (AAR), which uses dentin in teeth, and isotope analysis for determining its origins. Among the cases investigated, Case 16, also known as the Isdal Woman, has garnered particular attention. The Isdal Woman’s body was discovered on November 27, 1970, in Bergen, Norway. The case has remained a mystery for over five decades, captivating the interest of both investigators and the public. The Karolinska Institute’s report sought to provide new insights into this perplexing case by applying advanced scientific techniques. According to the report, AAR was used to estimate the Isdal Woman’s age by analyzing the dentin in her teeth. This method relies on measuring the ratio of two forms of aspartic acid to determine the duration of dentin formation. Additionally, isotope analysis was employed to trace the geographic regions where the bodies lived and the food they had consumed, potentially shedding light on their origins.
While these scientific methods offer intriguing possibilities for unraveling the secrets surrounding Case 16 the Isdal Woman, it is essential to approach the findings with a critical eye. The report’s conclusions, while thought-provoking, may not provide definitive answers to the questions that have long haunted this case. As we delve deeper into the Karolinska Institute’s report and its implications for the Isdal Woman case, it is crucial to maintain an open mind and carefully consider the evidence presented. The application of cutting-edge scientific techniques undoubtedly holds promise for shedding new light on this mystery, but the road to uncovering the truth may be fraught with challenges and uncertainties. In the following sections, we will examine the report’s findings more closely, exploring the potential strengths and limitations of the scientific methods employed. By engaging in a nuanced discussion of the Karolinska Institute’s work, we may gain a more comprehensive understanding of the Isdal Woman case and the complex nature of unraveling long-standing mysteries.
In December 1970 a professor of dentistry Gisle Bang arrived at the age of 35 for the Isdal Woman analysing the teeth using dental methods available at that time. Those 1970 techniques included root dentin translucency which had a mean error of about 4.7 years. So if he said her age was 35 he should have added +/- 4.7 meaning she could have been aged 30 to 40 years old.
In 2018 the faculty of dentistry in Oslo tested three teeth. Two teeth tested aged about 25 years old and one tooth tested aged about 40 years old. Effectively saying older than 25 years but younger than 30 years. Perhaps more scientifically 27.5 +/- 2.5 years.
In 2021 the Karolinska Institute in Linköping tested three teeth. Two tested aged about 40 years old and one tested aged about 25 years old. They arrived at an age of 38.5 years old.
The research findings from both sets present an intriguing scenario. We have three teeth estimated to be around 25 years old and another three teeth estimated to be around 40 years old. The Karolinska Institute’s method involves calculating the average value, which in this case would be (75 + 120)/6 = 195/6 = 32.5 years. However, upon closer inspection, we potentially have a subset of three teeth from the upper jaw consistently indicating an age of approximately 25 years, while the other subset of three teeth from the lower jaw consistently points to an age of approximately 40 years. This discrepancy between the upper and lower jaw teeth suggests that there may be underlying factors related to the X-Ray and AAR dental aging techniques that warrant further exploration.
According to the initial assessment by the pathologist in 1970, the woman was estimated to be around 25 years old. This age estimation aligns with the recollections of most witnesses at the time. In Dennis Zacher Aske’s book “Kvinnen i Isdalen” (The Woman in the Isdal Valley), he cites a quote from the police files attributed to the son of a shop owner who interacted with the woman. The quote states, “Rørtvedt also remembers the woman who bought the rubber boots. He estimates her age to be around 25 years.” This firsthand account further corroborates the general consensus among observers that the woman appeared to be approximately 25 years old at the time of her death.
According to the police evidence, the woman of American origin who purchased Celebrity rubber boots from Rørtvedt’s shop on November 18th, 1970, had recently celebrated her 26th birthday on November 15th, 1970. However, in their report, the police erroneously referred to her as Valentine, because of a typographic mistake.
When considering the Karolinska Institute’s report and the police evidence collectively, it becomes evident that no search was conducted for a 40-year-old woman. This absence of a search aligns with the fact that all witnesses attested to the woman’s age being approximately 25 years old, which coincides with the age of the American woman, Valentine, whose date of birth was November 15, 1944. The Karolinska Institute’s report states, “the roots of teeth 24 and 25 gave a similar age, whereas the frontal tooth 22 gave a much younger age.”
In their analysis, the scientists at the Karolinska Institute attempted to dismiss the notion that the Aspartic Acid Racemization (AAR) process was influenced by the heat of the fire. They did so by stating, “However, if the fire had influenced the racemization process, a higher ratio would have been expected for tooth 22 compared with teeth 24 and 25 positioned further back.” This claim directly contradicts the widely accepted understanding of how heat affects dentin and the AAR process. By asserting that tooth 22, located in the frontal region of the mouth, should have exhibited a higher ratio if affected by the fire, the scientists’ statement seems to disregard the established principles governing the impact of heat on dentin racemization.
The forensic expert from Bergen (Inge Morild), who had discovered the teeth in the Bergen archive, had written to the researchers at the Karolinska Institute, informing them that they had overlooked the potential impact of the teeth being boiled in dye. According to the expert, this process of boiling the teeth in dye would have had a significant influence on the Aspartic Acid Racemization (AAR) process, an aspect that the researchers had failed to consider in their analysis.
The theory behind the Aspartic Acid Racemization (AAR) method suggests that an estimated age can be achieved within an error range of ±3 years by creating a calibration curve “using the same type of tooth as that extracted from the cadaver.” This implies that for accurate age determination using AAR, matching teeth should be tested to obtain the calibration curve for each specific case or group of cases. However, in the study conducted by the Karolinska Institute, there appears to be an inconsistency in the teeth used for calibration.
While teeth 22, 24, and 25 were used in Case 16, teeth 18, 33, and 43 were utilized for Case 14. These represent different tooth types from various positions within the jaw. Furthermore, Case 16 was classified as pre-bomb, whereas Case 14 was post-bomb, with an estimated year of death in 2002 for a 37-year-old individual. This mixing of teeth from different eras and jaw positions raises concerns regarding the validity of the calibration curves and the subsequent age estimations derived from the AAR method.
Traditionally, AAR is reserved for pre-bomb teeth, while X-Ray analysis is favored for post-bomb specimens. This curious amalgamation of methods and samples leaves us wondering about the reliability of the results.
When examining the Karolinska Institute’s report through the lens of the police evidence, a perplexing question arises: How can one reconcile the observed age of 25 years for the woman with the age estimation of around 40 years based on the teeth analysis?
One possible speculation is that for Case 16, the teeth tested from the upper jaw consistently indicated an age of approximately 25 years, regardless of whether the Aspartic Acid Racemization (AAR) or X-ray methods were employed. Conversely, all teeth tested from the lower jaw pointed to an age of around 40 years, irrespective of the technique used. But for the AAR testing teeth 24 and 25 were upper jaw.
This discrepancy raises doubts about the validity of the specimens and whether they were indeed extracted from the same individual — or were correctly identified positionally. In the Karolinska Institute’s report, tooth 22, which yielded an age of 25 years, would be considered an outlier when compared to the other tested teeth, which suggested an age of approximately 40 years. Typically, such an outlier would warrant retesting to verify the results. However, no mention of a retest is made in the report, leaving this anomaly unaddressed.
If we assume they were from the same person then we can return to the explanation of the Bergen forensic expert who believed the AAR result would be seriously impacted by boiling in dye for a long period. The logical explanation is the teeth were boiled in dye and the AAR results entirely unreliable. We should remember boiling a corpse’s teeth in dye would be highly detrimental to accurately estimating age from the dentin, both morphologically and chemically with AAR. The age of the teeth from the upper or lower jaw AAR test would not be accurate.
Shifting our focus to the isotope tests in the Karolinska Institute’s report, we encounter an intriguing observation. For Case 16, the radiocarbon analysis section displays “NA” (Not Available). Given that this method could potentially reveal insights into the location of birth, it seems peculiar that the Karolinska Institute did not pursue confirming whether the 40-year-old Isdal Woman was born in Germany, as speculated.
However, the phrase “NA (Not Available)” does not necessarily imply that the test was not conducted. Instead, it suggests that the results were not provided in the report, potentially due to inconclusive or contradictory findings that rendered them unpublishable. This omission of the radiocarbon analysis results for Case 16 further implies that the Karolinska Institute may have encountered ambiguous or conflicting data, prompting them to withhold the results from the published report.
The 2021 report by the Karolinska Institute on the Isdal Woman case has generated more uncertainties than resolutions, despite employing sophisticated scientific techniques such as Aspartic Acid Racemization (AAR) and isotope analysis. The report’s objective was to determine the age and origin of the Isdal Woman, also referred to as Case 16, whose body was discovered in Bergen, Norway, on November 27, 1970. According to the report’s findings, based on the analysis of three teeth, the Isdal Woman was estimated to be around 38.5 years old at the time of her demise. However, this conclusion stands in stark contrast to previous dental examinations conducted in 1970 and 2018, which placed her age between 25 and 30 years, corroborating witness accounts that described her as appearing to be approximately 25 years old.
This discrepancy between the Karolinska Institute’s report and earlier age estimations, coupled with eyewitness testimonies, has cast doubt on the reliability of the findings, despite the employment of advanced scientific methodologies. The report’s conclusions have inadvertently raised more queries than they have addressed, leaving the Isdal Woman’s true age and origins shrouded in uncertainty.
The stark contrast in age estimates raises significant concerns regarding the validity of the specimens and whether they originated from the same individual. The discrepancy suggests that the teeth may have been subjected to divergent conditions or treatments, potentially compromising the accuracy of the Aspartic Acid Racemization (AAR) results.
A forensic expert from Bergen highlighted that boiling the teeth in dye could have significantly influenced the AAR process, potentially skewing the results for the lower jaw teeth. However, the Karolinska Institute’s report failed to adequately address this concern or explore the potential impact of heat from the fire on the AAR process, contradicting the generally accepted understanding of such effects.
Moreover, the report employed different teeth for creating calibration curves across various cases, raising questions about the consistency and reliability of the results. The mixing of teeth from different time periods and jaw positions further compounds the methodological concerns.
Another notable omission in the report is the absence of radiocarbon analysis results for Case 16, which could have provided valuable insights into the Isdal Woman’s place of birth. This lack of information leaves a significant gap in understanding her origins and background.
In conclusion, while the Karolinska Institute’s report aimed to shed light on the Isdal Woman’s age and provenance through advanced scientific methods, its findings have instead generated more uncertainties and raised doubts about the validity and consistency of the employed techniques and methodologies. The report’s conclusions are marked by inconsistencies and omissions, leaving more questions than answers. The discrepancies in age estimates, concerns about the impact of boiling teeth in dye on the AAR process, and the absence of radiocarbon analysis results highlight the need for a more comprehensive and transparent approach to unraveling this long-standing mystery. Future investigations should address these issues, providing a balanced perspective on the strengths and limitations of the scientific methods employed, while acknowledging the challenges in drawing definitive conclusions from the available evidence.
The writer was assisted by AI to create this article and write it, particularly Claude AI and You.com. The writer of this article has stage 3 cancer and needed all the help he could get.
Let me share my non-scientific perspective on what might have happened to the Isdal Woman in November 1970.
From what I can piece together, the American woman named Jane Wallentine was living two very different lives in Norway. On one hand, she portrayed herself as a pious, church-going Lutheran when staying at hostels. But she also had another side — a predatory, man-hunting persona that came out when she was at hotels.
In his book on the Isdal Woman, Dennis Zacher Aske discusses how prostitutes often need these contrasting identities. The police evidence shows Jane had two suitcases on November 18th, which coincided with the Isdal Woman’s trip to buy a hydrofoil ticket and Jane arriving at her hostel with a larger second suitcase. Curiously, there’s no proof the Isdal Woman traveled on the hydrofoil that day, but there is physical evidence for Jane’s presence on November 19th, 1970.
The evidence from November 19th, 1970 in Bergen shows a woman checking into the Hordaheimen hotel as “Elizabeth Leenhouwer” — but using a Z spelling, which a German likely wouldn’t do. This misspelling seems like an American mistake. Plus, her fake name is nearly an anagram of “Wallentine Hour,” hinting at Jane’s real identity that the police mistyped as “Valentine.”
To understand the tragedy of November 23rd, we need to look at Jane’s childhood. When Jane was age 6, her grandmother died violently in a car crash with an oil truck — an incredibly traumatic event for a young child to witness. This may have caused PTSD and a phobia of the number 6, evident in the Isdal Woman’s avoidance of room numbers containing it.
There are hints that Jane missed school from ages 6–11 and never learned proper handwriting (the Palmer method), perhaps inventing her own writing style. Her damaged teeth and bridgework (assuming she was the Isdal Woman) suggest she may have been in that car crash too, and perhaps felt guilty about causing her grandmother Christina Dahl’s death as a noisy distraction. Eerily, “Dahl” ties into the Isdal (historically “Isdahl”) Valley where she died.
The Karolinska report’s strange speculation about her gold fillings linking to age 11 is puzzling. But maybe it points to early dental work planning to bridge gaps from missing teeth after a car crash, anchored by exposing wisdom teeth. This delayed treatment could explain potential speech difficulties which witnesses reported as a lisp.
Her death around the 23rd of November 1970 may connect to an incident on November 15th, her birthday, when Normann Laskemoen unexpectedly visited the Isdal Valley. Earlier, the Isdal Woman had bought boots, an umbrella, and a hairband in Norwegian colors, possibly for a birthday celebration honoring her part-Norwegian heritage from grandmother Hulde Roalson by attending an umbrella parade on the 15th of November 1970.
Intriguingly, the place names she used — like Wal- in Walburge or Hilde- as prefixes on hotel forms — seem to reference “Wallentine” and “Hulde.” And on the 23rd of November 1970, witnesses at the bank said the Isdal Woman spoke a strange Scandinavian mix, fitting Jane’s Swedish, Norwegian, and Danish ancestry exposed to multiple languages as a child.
So here’s my theory: An encounter with Laskemoen on her birthday in the Isdal Valley may have triggered a massive mental breakdown for Jane, regressing her back to being a traumatized 6-year-old haunted by her grandmother’s violent death and her own injuries.
We know she visited a doctor around this time — was she worried about pregnancy after an unwanted sexual hotel encounter? Jane may have been pregnant by the womanizing photographer Giovanni Trimboli, whose postcard she kept, and tried getting an abortion, going against her own religious beliefs. This could explain her extended Norwegian stay, recovering at hotels, extreme walking, and eating just porridge to lose pregnancy weight.
If Laskemoen dashed her hopes for a happy birthday celebration, it may have been the final crack in Jane’s fragile psyche, leaving her seeking a “rendezvous with death.”
Jane’s story resonates because at its core, it speaks to the psychological trauma and societal pressures women have long faced. By humanizing her, perhaps we can gain some empathetic insight into this decades-old mystery.
This report highlights that AAR should not be used on teeth with cavities:
