Serial Criminal Child Molester: Erik Andersen (The Pocket Man)

Scandinavian Crimes (w/ Devante & Delila)

Years of Incident: 1976-2008
Location: Norway
Serial Criminal Child molester: Erik Andersen (The Pocket Man)
Victim(s): 1 Murder, 2 Children Accused
Method: Sexual Assault, Pedophilia, Rape

Erik Andersen, often referred to as "The Pocket Man," is a notorious figure from Norway known for his involvement in a series of criminal activities spanning several decades. His nickname stems from his modus operandi of stealing from pockets, particularly targeting children. Andersen's criminal record includes numerous convictions for theft, fraud, and indecent behavior. His case gained widespread attention due to the sheer number of incidents attributed to him and his ability to evade capture for extended periods. Andersen's actions have had a significant impact on his victims and have led to discussions on criminal justice and rehabilitation in Norway.


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
• 5:44 Story - Background
• 6:57 Story - Investigation and Arrest
• 14:08 Story - Post Arrest/Sentence
• 16:03 Story - Parole and Aftermath
• 17:58 Discussion Section
• 31:07 Conclusion/Outro

Transcript

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

 Hi.

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



 So welcome to season three of Scandinavian Crimes.

 Thank you.

 It's been a very interesting ride. It's kind of crazy, you know, we made it to our third year of doing this. And it's been a crazy ride, not just for the podcast, but, you know, for us too as well. So very, very nice to be here. You know, there's a, you know, you got to be grateful. There's some people who haven't had the luxury to be here presently today. But nonetheless,



 come on, give a round of applause. You know, clap, clap, clap, clap. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

 I'm very excited for this season. I'm actually very excited for this season.



 Season's going to be a very interesting ride for sure.



 Because already for the first episode, I'm pretty sure you've read the title. We're going to be talking a lot more about, well, we're going to be talking about a child molester. Now, if you notice something we've discussed, you know, before the season started, is we realized that unconsciously, our seasons sort of kind of have a theme.



 And the first season was like mostly old cases of like, with no evidence and like back in the, I don't know, the 18th, like super old cases.



 And we started making more modern cases on the second season.



 And but the second season had a lot of like religious cults kind of vibe to him and cannibalists and you know, stuff like that.



 And I don't know why we subconsciously make like a theme of it.



 But this season is going to be, I don't know if you want to say.



 It's going to be about probably good about child molesters and pedophiles.

 And that was not on the reason.



 Like it wasn't on purpose, but I think it's probably a good time. Yeah, it's a good time because nowadays we're finding out online that, you know, also, I'm very glad we're seeing more of, you know, pedophiles and people who are interested in children. They're getting discovered. Celebrities and regular people like both men and women being discovered, being little creeps. So this is going to be a very relevant episode because things like this are still relevant, unfortunately, in 2024 and we'll have many more. And also just as a not disclaimer, but also as a little fun little thing by the time this episode comes out, there will be a visual video not for this specific episode, but there's going to be like a YouTube part that we do once or twice a week. It's going to just be me in a video very, very, very, very casual on YouTube where you can kind of catch up with me as I talk about some of the cases we've covered already on the channel where, you know, we can kind of just see and dive into the profiles of the characters. So it's very casual. It's not going to be anything, you know, like form one reading a script too heavily. I'll just have information, kind of chat back and forth and we'll progress from there. There will only be like maybe like one or two videos a month because, you know, having to edit all this stuff will pile up. But let me know what you think. Join me over on YouTube. By the time this episode comes out, when you're hearing this, it'll already be public. So go check it out and we'll see you over there. And I guess let's just go into the episode. So in this episode, we dive into the chilling case of Erik Anderson, a man who became notorious in Norway as the pocket man. For over three decades, he evaded capture while allegedly molesting hundreds of children across southern Norway. Arrested in 2008, Erik's crime spanned from 1976 to his eventual capture with police linking him to roughly 160 cases through the Sorry,



 roughly 160 cases, though the true number may have never been known.



 So luring young boys with disturbing manipulative tactics, he was labeled a dangerous serial criminal by law enforcement. So if this is already piqued your interest, you already know what I'm about to say. Every time I start a podcast,



 grab your tea,



 grab your snacks, go ahead, tuck yourself into a nice little corner if you're taking a train of work or wherever you are. Because this is a story of the pocket man, Erik Anderson.



 In the southwest of Norway, there is a city named Bergen. Bergen is one of Europe's rainiest cities nestled at the end of fjord and surrounded by towering hills and mountain peaks where Bergen's natural beauty is undeniable. Its sheltered harbor has long provided ideal conditions for maritime activity securing the city's prominent role as a bustling port town.



 Erik, born March 20th, 1952, was from the northern outskirts of Bergen where he owned and ran his own successful garage business. His passion for motorsports had driven him for years and he had become a dedicated trainer with the Bergen trial team sharing his expertise with others.



 Despite his success on the track, Erik's personal life had its own challenges. He was divorced and from that marriage, he had two children.



 Other than this, there was not much information regarding his personal life and the reasons why he became what we later would know him as the pocket man.



 The earliest assault known to police took place in 1976 in Osané Bergen.



 During these initial years, the perpetrator employed a disturbing tactic to lure children asking them to assist him in changing a bandage close to his intimate areas. This earned him the nickname "The Bandage Man". It wasn't until years later in 2008 that DNA evidence revealed a crucial link leading to the police to the conclusion that the bandage man and the pocket man were in fact the same individual.



 The pocket man was a notorious predator who used the same tactics to deceive his young victims. He would approach boys aged between 6 and 12 years old, most of them dark skin, and ask them to search for a key in his pocket or just a bandage on his thigh. To make this possible, he had altered his pants by removing or cutting holes in the lining.



 Once the unsuspecting boys complied with his request after his true intentions were exposed, he would further trick them to continue touching him inappropriately.



 In some of his severe cases, the pocket man took things even further by coercing the victims into performing oral sex on him multiple times. He would also sometimes employ young girls as lookouts for his crimes.



 After the offenses were done, it was also common for the pocket man to pay the victims afterwards.



 Over time, the pocket man became bolder and more brazen. In the early 1980s, unsettling incidents took place in the town of Garnes-Burgen.



 Reports emerged of the pocket man attempting to assault two boys, but they managed to escape unharmed.



 These events occurred around 1983 or 1984, casting a shadow of fear over the community.



 Fast forward to November 27, 1994, when the pocket man resurfaced in Sondre, Nordstrand, and Oslo, which is approximately 500 kilometers away from Bergen. He targeted the kindergarten and struck fear into the community.



 It became evident that the pocket man's presence was not confined to a single location and a pattern was seen. Incidents in Oslo predominantly occurred on the weekends, while similar offenses occurred in Bergen.



 His crimes continued unabated through the 90s until 2000, when his patterns would change. All known offenses suddenly stopped occurring in Bergen. Over the following years, offenses seemed to be confined to the Oslo region until around 2003, when a new trend emerged this year. A series of offenses spread across various locations in southern Norway. Police in Norway lacked the centralized computer system capable of identifying similarities between individual cases.



 The offenses by the pocket man were all handled separately and registered as "independent cases."



 It was not until 2003 that an investigator by chance discovered that several cases were "connected." Subsequently, the police in Ski were assigned to conduct a more thorough investigation. They initiated a reevaluation of 70 registered cases from various different police districts. They discovered that the evidence was generally weak, often missing crucial key elements such as interrogations of the witnesses as well as the victims. By May 2004, little progress had been made in the investigation, leading to its eventual closure.



 The pocket man continued molesting young boys throughout the southern parts of Norway, spreading horror to young children and their parents. At the start of 2008, a specialized team dedicated solely to the pocket man case was established in Bergen.



 When investigators suspected the case had originated. During this time, the team received new tips about previously undisclosed incidents.



 With the new tips, the police investigators diligently collected genetic fingerprints from multiple crime scenes. With DNA testing, it was confirmed that the bandaged man and the pocket man were in fact the same individual.



 They also obtained evidence that captured the pocket man on a surveillance camera in Trondheim on September 6, 2003.



 In the morning hours of January 11, 2008 in Bergen, the police apprehended a man they suspected to be none other than the pocket man.



 The suspect, a man in his 50s with no prior criminal record, was arrested after his DNA matched the evidence collected from the scenes of five cases.



 Additionally, he was positively identified through video footage, further solidifying the authorities case against him.



 Following this, on January 14, a court decision mandated that the suspect be held in custody for a period of four weeks with strict limitations imposed on both incoming male and visitors. Before the arrest took place, a search warrant was executed for the suspect's resident. This legal procedure was necessary due to the severity of the potential punishment, which requires a perpetrator to carry a punishment minimum of 10 years.



 Under Norwegian law, where oral sex is considered equivalent to sex, the case fell under a punishment ceiling of 21 years. This classification empowered the authorities to proceed with the search warrant and gather crucial evidence in connection with an ongoing investigation. The alias, the pocket man, was bestowed upon then unknown child molester, Eric Anderson, by both Norwegian law enforcement and the media. For years, Eric's tragedy remained unknown to the police until his apprehension.



 His anonymity remained in the media until August 22, 2009, when Norway's prominent daily newspaper, Vardin's Gang, revealed his full name and face.



 Norwegian media had previously withheld his name and picture at the police request to avoid compromising the investigation.



 However, once the investigation concluded in May 2009, the media were legally permitted to identify suspects in criminal cases.



 Bernd Olufsen, the editor-in-chief of VG, explained that the decision to reveal Eric's identity was motivated by the gravity and extent of his offenses, emphasizing the public's right to know the person behind the heinous crimes.



 In May 2009, the Norwegian police concluded their investigation, trying approximately 160 cases to Eric, starting with the assault in Osanet Bergen in 1976. While the authorities believed there were additional unreported cases, the statute of limitations shielded Eric from prosecution for cases older than 10 years old, despite his confession to 20 of his charges. In August 2009, Eric faced formal indictment on 60 counts, including two rapes of young boys.



 Throughout the investigation, he remained in custody and chose to extend his detention to avoid media scrutiny before the trial.



 In June 2010, Eric received a sentence of nine years of preventative detention with a minimum term of six years for sexual assault against 66 boys.



 Additionally, Eric was mandated to compensate each of his victims with the sums ranging from 20,000 Norwegian crowns to 125,000 Norwegian crowns, resulting in the collective payout of 2,525,000 Norwegian crowns.



 He was also obligated to bear the court expenses totaling another 500,000 Norwegian crowns. This sentence was considered severe by typical Norwegian sentencing standards. This duration of the sentence can be extended by increments of five years when deemed necessary, with the potential of leading to a life term if he was deemed a danger to society.



 Psychiatric experts diagnosed Eric as a pedophile and determined him to pose a high risk of recommitting his criminal offenses. He served the sentence at "illabrison detention" and "security institution."



 Eric submitted a parole application following the completion of his six-year minimum prison term. He states that his therapy progress has been going very well and claims that he is no longer a danger to society.



 After court psychiatrists deemed Eric no longer a threat to society, prosecutors opted not to contest the court-ordered release. The assessment led a local court to grant Eric parole following the completion of seven years out of the nine-year sentence. With prosecutors abstaining from appealing the judgment, Eric is anticipated to be under Norwegian correction authorities' supervision upon returning home.



 In 2014 of November, he was released after fulfilling the minimum term of his preventative detention. Eric intended to build a new house in Voss and reside in a cabin until the house project was finished. As per reports from news agencies and TB, his movers will be confined to Hordenland County unless he obtains special travel authorization.



 Additionally, restrictions are placed on Eric, barring him from accessing public swimming pools or sports facilities and preventing contact with children under 16 unless supervised by an adult.



 Moreover, he is obligated to continue psychiatric treatment and comply with restraining orders imposed by his previous victims.



 Eric's case navigated a challenging legal path following his crimes. While serving his sentence and receiving psychiatric evaluation, ongoing discussion persists regarding his societal reintegration and risk of relapse. The post-release restrictions imposed on Eric reflect an ongoing effort to ensure public safety and prevent harm, underscoring the complexities of rehabilitation, injustice, and cases of serious criminal behavior.



 So before we start the discussion, I just want to say something. I just had a hard time finding information about Eric's personal life and his childhood because we all know it's always good to have a background of the perpetrators.



 And in this case, it was very hard to find. The only thing I could find was the evaluation and the diagnosis of him being a pedophile, which was very obvious.



 And also the assessment of him not being a threat to society after the appeal application.



 But preferably, I always like to have like a thorough background check on the perpetrators to just get a better understanding of why they do these things. And obviously, the psychiatric treatment worked for him, which is really good. And hopefully, he will not redo the crimes he had done and hurt so many children.



 But I guess we can talk about Norwegian laws. So as stated before, the oral sex is like legally it means that it's intercourse. And if done underdressed, it could be considered rape. And it carries 21 years in prison, which is obviously the harshest punishment in Norway.



 So like I'm a bit surprised they gave him a lot less and also gave him an early parole.



 I know that, you know, it's good that they try to do the whole thing of like try to make sure that the perpetrators get readjusted into society.



 And if psychiatric treatment works, that's super good. But also like he had been doing it for so long. And I feel like they're doing a good job theoretically where they like would they keep checking on him, they keep monitoring him, having restraining orders and everything. But like, you know, I just feel like it's a very not like a harsh punishment. But like, how do you feel about this, Dvante?



 I mean, yes, because like if you think about it, he's sorry

 about the punishment itself or.



 I mean, yes,

 because like if you think about it, he I mean, technically, he like if we think about the scale of the cases, because some of them didn't really even have a chance to be like try went to court because it was out of the limitations of the years.



 Like it was outside of the year they could be sent out trial tried. I can't I can't speak. So basically, there was the potential of him doing like six hundred sixty cases, but only sixty six of them was went to court.



 So I feel like if you have that into consideration, I think that this should be more. And I'm just thinking that maybe they determined that because only only I think it's too much, but only two cases was rape.



 And maybe they felt like if they would have been more cases or maybe murder, because I feel like always murder get a harsher sentence. But this case, it was like not.



 And I was just asking you, like, what do you do? Do you think that this is a they they basically treated this case well and they did the right protocol or do you feel like the sentence should have been longer?



 I think I made me America.



 Me being me, I naturally think this should have been longer because despite even though they roughly estimated there was like over 160 cases, he still got charged.

 They estimated 160.

 Even though they estimated over 160, he still got charged for what, 20 of them?



 Or 60 of them.

 I mean, he got charged initially 20 of them, but they he confessed to 20. And also let me rephrase. So it was like it ended up being 66 cases that he got.

 So it was like he confessed to 20. He was charged with 66 of them, but then only serving seven out of nine years. To me, that's a little too lenient. Now, don't get me wrong. I've also mentioned on the podcast before, I'm very much a person for rehabilitation. I don't think to strictly punishment without corrective actions is okay because the whole point is one, we're all human and for various different reasons, people make mistakes and by no means am I excusing him at all just to be clear.



 But but I do think he that's a little bit of a lenient sentence because even if we didn't include the, you know, assuming that they had he had over 160 cases, you know, the police suspected that still 20 people he still admitted to.

 Permittedly affected people

 who he admitted to and he was charged basically with 40 more on top of that. So they had evidence of the 40 more, which means

 the only reason they are the ones who can really make it was because of the time limit. It's actually the patient. They didn't have enough enough information. They didn't have enough like, you know, and it sucks. It truly sucks that it always ends up this way. And you know,



 but I do like like your you guys already know, like Scandinavian countries support the reintegrate reintergation.



 Of criminals. Yes, I bear I was like, so, you know, like, like the countries like Scandinavian countries really believe that's the best way to lessen their reoccurrence of, you know, criminal offenses. And you also have stated that, you know, obviously in America, they don't really have that and it's not really going that well. And you also talked about that previously as well.



 We also covered similar cases.



 And, you know, I guess like if you guys want to go listen to them and like compare and, you know, see for yourself, like, how do you feel about this one compared to the other ones? Because this was like a lot of people for many years. He did this. And I feel like this, in my opinion, I think that they like this should have had at least a couple of more years and then what they gave him. And also the early parole was like what, seven years. I think that's crazy.



 But I also want to finish off with like saying

 also before we transition to the next topic, I'm curious what in this. Obviously, I don't expect you to know or, you know, this is more for the audience per se, but, you know, you can reply if, you know, just curious. Also in the story, there was a mention of like Norway not having a centralized police system. And I find that so interesting because at least in the United States,



 it was almost as if and it was almost as if like centralized police force, you know, was like its intended purpose. Because even in the early days, we had like telegraphs and like call box systems to communicate with other law enforcement agencies. That was in the 1800s and you know, you know, fingerprint records were starting to develop in the early 1900s. And, you know, we had radio communications. We were so even though it's not a perfect system and obviously the police, I don't want to get into what the police were initially created for.



 It seems like we had a more centralized system or way of communicating earlier than Norway. I can't say for the rest of the Nordic area.

 I feel like Norway, yeah, because I feel like compared to the other cases as well, the digitization of things was quite late for Norway. Yeah. But they also have really good investigators and like they're like doing such a good job with finding it out. And I'm so glad that one guy was like happened to like connect the dots. He's like, wait a minute.



 And, you know, so even though the digitization was not really there yet, I still feel like they did a good job.



 And also, fun fact, they did save from older cases the DNA samples for future reference. So they did like they knew that, OK, maybe we don't have the technology or whatever right now, but let's save the like they let's say DNA samples and everything for the future in case we can solve this case. So they did save or withholding forensic evidence or DNA samples so that it could be re-analyzed. I can't speak reanalyzed in 2007.



 And that's why they found the match that it is the pocket man. I mean, so, you know,



 even though lack of technology,



 common sense and brain still can go a long way.

 So that's why I question some of the common sense. You know, I question a little bit because I'm like this ran on for a long time, like 30 years. He ran rampant. And he's done for 30 years. No one put two and two together that they were processing these cases separately, but they all had the same style. Not all of them, obviously. Eventually his way of doing it did change. But even into like this 80s and 90s, you tell

 them you never put two together that

 OK, someone's committing they have an M.O. or the same style in which they're committing a crime, which, you know, in the FBI, that's how they catch serial killers, serial killers who have like rituals and ways that they go about committing crimes. So I'm just curious how, like I know for a fact this is making newspapers because one newspapers exist in the 70s, 80s, 90s, you know, that's a thing. So you're telling me no one saw the newspaper. Oh, someone's committing this, but it's the same age range, same group of people, boys, young boys and the black young boys on top of that. A profile. That's a type. You can see a clear type. But also I don't know if they like black, black, like, you know, like African black, but they were brown, dark skin.

 So basically different,

 maybe, you know, Middle Eastern descent, African. Probably it makes who knows. But what it tells me is that there was at least not enough priority because potentially that could be a prejudice thing because 30 years.



 And I couldn't put to and I'm not talking about this is not the early 1910s, 1920s. We're talking about when technology,



 even if technology isn't what it is now, you were still able to at least compare information and see, OK, this is going on here. This is going on over here. There's a correlation. Like that's in this. I know newspapers exist, but that's

 what I really that's actually really smart. I didn't even think about that. It could be like, you know,



 can be a form of prejudice. They didn't prioritize.

 It could be. Yeah. Because like when I think about it, yeah, it's like it took a long time. And I just thought that like based on what the investigators had, I thought that they were doing a great job with connecting everything. But I also feel like it's very sad that it took so long. I think it's you know what? It is weird. Actually, I agree with you on that one. I think it's very weird. Yeah. And that's also why I want to talk about like like another thing that I want to talk about is like, why did he do the things that he did? Like I get it like he's a pedophile, but like what was the purpose? You know, he I feel like he was deliberately avoiding the police. He knew that what he did was wrong. He never tried to get help to get better.



 And you know, he changed the patterns. He started spreading out more and around north part of the way. And like he was like trying to spread it out eventually because he noticed that like maybe the police was getting into him and he started like changing patterns. And I think that I feel like that is a very calculative thing and very manipulative thing. So I feel like even though he's not a threat to society, he was very he knew what he was doing.



 And I think he just needed like psychiatric help a long time ago. And I'm very I'm like he shouldn't done all that. He should he knew that what he was doing was wrong. He should have had help for that. And I feel like, you know,



 I don't know why he didn't do it. He's like, I just think what he said was weird. Maybe it's because I can't understand pedophiles. I just can't understand. Like, you know that you're doing is wrong.



 So why are you doing it? Why don't you get help if you know that it's wrong? If you know it can damage the children.



 Like I can't I don't understand. I just don't understand. Like what was he afraid to get charged? Like you would if you would be busted anyways, which you eventually you got busted.

 I mean, that's just typical of anyone who commits any crime, you know, even if they do feel bad, very rarely do people turn themselves in.



 If they when his case, it feels like an impulse.

 It could be like in the 80s, maybe it was like, oh, my God,



 being in a psychiatric psychiatric care and oh, my God. It was different to you.

 They would they were beating the dog shit out of people in those psychiatric care houses. They were

 in America. I feel like

 you know how it was back in the day. It was the Wild West for most of these places. They thought crazy people were like less than human. So outside of that, my point being. But I don't think it had anything to do with that. I just think he had an impulse issue. He was like, oh, my God, I'm getting away with this. OK, OK.

 So he paid the victors afterwards, though he paid them. The payment payment

 was to kind of it's like a form of discrediting. It's like think about it like back in the day, like think of it like, oh, if you if he does get caught or you go to court, oh, it was consensual. You know, I it was a transaction. They I paid them for it. They were prostitutes. They used to be in America, at least. There was a couple of cases where people have done that, where even though they course or force the person to do it,

 is it just silence them or was it to like

 it was probably a combination of silencing, but also to make it seem more transactional. Then it was like, oh, I forced them to do it. So basically it's like an insurance measure because like, oh, you know, it was crazy. They were young prostitute. You know, I paid them for service. Blah, blah, blah. So even if, you know, you can didn't know when in reality is, you know, like I said, it's happened before and I wouldn't be surprised.

 I just feel like he was somehow like if we say he did it deliberately to the dark skin boys who might be in a very weird socio economic backgrounds, have maybe a lower one or whatever, he might have used the minority to basically do that is what I'm thinking.



 I hope you enjoyed the first episode of season three of the Scandinavian crimes podcast. And as usual, this is a tradition we always have just in case you're someone who's new and you haven't been here for the last two seasons. We always in the episode on something positive and food is always positive. So what do you have in mind? Are you craving anything in particular?



 I would like to have hot water with some salt and some kale in it. That's it. I want salt, maybe bouillon if I feel very bougie. I just want a very simple, nothing basic, weird soup only made of water and kale. That's why I want to thank you.

 She wants the Kim Kardashian special. I see you. Yeah, I actually would like some jerk chicken. That sounds really good.



 I can't hear what you're saying.

 I said I would really like some jerk chicken.



 That sounds very delicious. Sounds very good. It would be great right now. And it can compliment that seasoned water that you want or the Kim Kardashian special that you ordered.



 It would be great.



 Yeah, I just want it very separate. I just want the kale water. I want that. I just want to sip that like

 the best thing. That's so demure.



 Maybe if I want to be even more bougie, I can have some cucumber on the side with some salt on it.

 That's a very demure. That's very mindful.

 Very budget. That's what we like nowadays in 2024.

 Very budget. Very demure. Very mindful.



 Very Scandinavian crimes.



 A very Scandinavian. Yes.



 Anyways, love you guys. And we will see you in the next episode. And be sure to check out the YouTube video. And also there'll be some content on our social media platforms. So be able to catch up on that as well. And we shall catch you all next week.