A witness describes scenes of jealousy from Marius Borg Høiby’s relationship in the Oslo court. But he contradicts her directly.
Mar 11, 2026, 5:27 p.mMar 11, 2026, 5:27 p.m
Elena Rothammer / t-online
Day 23 in the criminal trial against Marius Borg Høiby, the son of Crown Princess Mette-Marit of Norway: There was an open argument between the 29-year-old and a witness in Oslo courtroom 250 on Wednesday. Judge Jon Sverdrup Efjestad had to intervene, as “Verdens Gang” reports.
Marius Borg Høiby contradicts his ex-girlfriend in court.Image: IMAGO / Bestimage
The focus was once again on the events of August 4, 2024. Marius Borg Høiby is accused of attacking his girlfriend at the time in her apartment in the Frogner district of Oslo and demolishing the apartment.
On this day of the trial, other witnesses were questioned about the relationship and the alleged attack, including a friend of the alleged victim. When she described the jealousy between Marius Borg Høiby and his ex-girlfriend, the defendant spoke up. He wanted to clarify a specific scene of jealousy and pointed out that the witness had once told him that the alleged victim was with another man.
The witness did not let this go unchallenged. She interrupted him with the words: “I remember it a little better than you.” Judge Jon Sverdrup Efjestad then ended the exchange with the words: “This is now developing into a kind of argument that we don’t want to have here.” The witness then cried.
Marius Borg Høiby must remain in custody
On Tuesday, March 10, 2026, the Oslo District Court had already rejected an application for release from custody. Marius Borg Høiby’s lawyer Ellen Holager Andenæs told the Norwegian broadcaster TV2 that he would like to be released from custody and is of the opinion that “there is no risk of a repetition of previous crimes.”
The public prosecutor saw it differently and left the decision to the court. The indictment against Crown Princess Mette-Marit’s son includes around 40 individual crimes, including assault, threats with a knife and violations of a no-contact order.
Sources used: