Norwegian newspapers have published the kidnapping of Ms Anne-Elisabeth Falkevik Hagen, the wife of a successful businessman. It seems she was taken from her home in a peaceful area outside Oslo on the day of Halloween , and the case which is unique in Norway, has caused great attention. The publication of the case is purportedly initiated by the police, apparently because public attention may bring useful tips. Normally the police tries to keep a lid on such cases, as kidnappers tend to consider the victim more important if the case is hot in the media. This case illustrates some of the risks of going public. Newspapers do not always write what we want them to, and an article in Dagbladet, one of the leading Norwegian papers, illustrates this risk. Dagbladet does not only present the kidnapping case. It also offers an article on the huge wealth of the victim’s husband, and how he built his fortune.
Surely the kidnappers could not be happier. Normally one of the biggest challenges in hostage negotiations is to bring the ransom claim down. In this already relatively old case, direct contact with the kidnappers remains to be established, so we may never know the effect of Dagbladet’s article, but obviously it can only be negative.
The case also illustrates another tricky aspect. What should the police conceal or state publicly?
In this case, the police has stated that they advice the family not to pay ransom. Such statements are dangerous. If the kidnappers get the impression that no ransom will be paid, that could jeopardise the victim’s life. Governments sometimes state as a matter of principle that no ransom will be paid, since that may encourage kidnappers to abduct other victims. While such an attitude is defendable, the statement may lead to the victim’s early death. There is no reason to comment on an actual kidnapping this way. Sometimes negotiations are successful even if no ransom is paid, and it is important to give the negotiators the chance to do their job. It is therefore surprising that the Norwegian Police make such a statement.
According to another leading paper, Verdens Gang, the family has stated, also publicly, that they will follow the advice of the Police not to pay ransom. When asked if the family later on might consider paying ransom, the family's lawyer says he is unable to answer. The heading itself, ststing that ransom will not be paid, might be enough to spur a snap reaction from tense kidnappers, by some assumed to be foreigners. At the same time the poor family is pleading for a sign of life from the victim. One can imagine how attractive it is for the kidnappers to heed this plea, possibly giving the Police clues for the investigation, when there is nothing to be gained.
Surely the kidnappers could not be happier. Normally one of the biggest challenges in hostage negotiations is to bring the ransom claim down. In this already relatively old case, direct contact with the kidnappers remains to be established, so we may never know the effect of Dagbladet’s article, but obviously it can only be negative.
The case also illustrates another tricky aspect. What should the police conceal or state publicly?
In this case, the police has stated that they advice the family not to pay ransom. Such statements are dangerous. If the kidnappers get the impression that no ransom will be paid, that could jeopardise the victim’s life. Governments sometimes state as a matter of principle that no ransom will be paid, since that may encourage kidnappers to abduct other victims. While such an attitude is defendable, the statement may lead to the victim’s early death. There is no reason to comment on an actual kidnapping this way. Sometimes negotiations are successful even if no ransom is paid, and it is important to give the negotiators the chance to do their job. It is therefore surprising that the Norwegian Police make such a statement.
According to another leading paper, Verdens Gang, the family has stated, also publicly, that they will follow the advice of the Police not to pay ransom. When asked if the family later on might consider paying ransom, the family's lawyer says he is unable to answer. The heading itself, ststing that ransom will not be paid, might be enough to spur a snap reaction from tense kidnappers, by some assumed to be foreigners. At the same time the poor family is pleading for a sign of life from the victim. One can imagine how attractive it is for the kidnappers to heed this plea, possibly giving the Police clues for the investigation, when there is nothing to be gained.
RSS Feed
