Olof Palme assassination case closed
June 10, 2020 8:48 AM Subscribe
The Swedish Olof Palme assassination commission has decided to close the 1986 case and declared "Skandiamannen" Stig Engström the killer. Olof Palme, prime minister during the 70s and 80s, was the architect of many of the social reforms that contributed to Sweden and the rest of the Nordic region's reputation as progressive social democracies. He was assassinated on an open street after watching a movie with his wife and son on the last night of February, 1986.
The history of the case and the many false leads has recently been the subject of a sitcom half filmed in English.
The history of the case and the many false leads has recently been the subject of a sitcom half filmed in English.
Notably, in the press conference the prosecutor said that Thomas Pettersson's investigative piece in magazine Filter didn't actually help, the police investigation started to look at Engström independently (my translation):
posted by youzicha at 9:27 AM on June 10, 2020 [7 favorites]
Is Thomas Petternson a candidate for the long-promised reward of 50 million SEK?This is exactly the same has how Petterson says he came up with the theory: he made FOIA requests for all the witness statements, compared them against each other, and noticed that the statement from Engström didn't seem right. It's all the more embarrassing for the original police investigation, if it was this easy and it still took more than 30 years to solve it.
The question of that reward is not really my responsibility. It's true that Pettersson was interviewed by the investigators several times, and he has made FOIA-requests for documents, but there was no cooperation with him and he didn't put us on the right track. Rather, as investigator Hans Melander explained, Stig Engström became a person of interest for other reasons.
What prompted you to investigate Engström?
When I was appointed as prosecutor for this investigation, I wanted to give up on the "exciting" theories and go back to the scene of crime, and go over the existing witness statements, and then we noticed fairly quickly that one particular witness had not been seen by any of the other ones, and had given weird and hard-to-explain statements about how he had acted. So Engström showed up on our radar fairly early, at least as someone who had behaved strangely.
posted by youzicha at 9:27 AM on June 10, 2020 [7 favorites]
I see some vague references to Engström's "political and private motives", but has anyone explained what those specifically were? The Wikipedia claims he was at some point involved in the Moderate Party, which seems like one of the less militant political organizations available to an anti-Palme conservative. I know that when you dig into the motivations of these guys it almost always ends up being incoherent rage squeezed into semi-coherent (at best) politics, but a passing affiliation with the major opposition party is pretty thin as far as this goes.
posted by Copronymus at 9:29 AM on June 10, 2020
posted by Copronymus at 9:29 AM on June 10, 2020
The suspect is a lonely killer, who conveniently enough died 20 years ago. No new evidence has been found, the circumstantial evidence is just as weak as when he was part of the investigation decades ago. This looks to me like the police just want an excuse to close the investigation after 34 years without any results.
posted by Termite at 9:37 AM on June 10, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by Termite at 9:37 AM on June 10, 2020 [2 favorites]
NYTimes article with more details.
His motive?
Mr. Pettersson, the journalist: “He wanted attention.”
posted by donpardo at 9:37 AM on June 10, 2020
His motive?
Mr. Pettersson, the journalist: “He wanted attention.”
posted by donpardo at 9:37 AM on June 10, 2020
Who Killed Olof Palme?
Not enough information to link apartheid security forces to Swedish PM assassination
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:38 AM on June 10, 2020 [1 favorite]
Not enough information to link apartheid security forces to Swedish PM assassination
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:38 AM on June 10, 2020 [1 favorite]
"He was assassinated on an open street after watching a movie with his wife and son (...)"
Not to make light of a tragic incident.. I feel we lost a good one here.. But the shades-of-Batman are tough to miss. Any attempts to make that connection in popular treatment of the assassination?
posted by elkevelvet at 11:26 AM on June 10, 2020 [3 favorites]
Not to make light of a tragic incident.. I feel we lost a good one here.. But the shades-of-Batman are tough to miss. Any attempts to make that connection in popular treatment of the assassination?
posted by elkevelvet at 11:26 AM on June 10, 2020 [3 favorites]
I am absolutely boggled at the idea that someone could kill a head of state in the late 20th Century, in public no less, and 36 years later, it's still a mystery.
posted by Etrigan at 11:31 AM on June 10, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by Etrigan at 11:31 AM on June 10, 2020 [3 favorites]
What's the benefit of saying "Yeah that guy prolly did it" instead of just "We don't know". I would understand why cops in some countries who shall remain nameless need to have someone to railroad but everyone in this case is dead and it seems like "We don't have any evidence to point to who did this" is the fact of the matter. I guess I expect better from Sweden.
posted by bleep at 11:42 AM on June 10, 2020
posted by bleep at 11:42 AM on June 10, 2020
You'd think the CIA would want it known they can actually manage to pull it off now and again.
posted by Space Coyote at 12:57 PM on June 10, 2020
posted by Space Coyote at 12:57 PM on June 10, 2020
Not enough information to link apartheid security forces to Swedish PM assassination
There was a piece in Der Spiegel a few years ago, however, that suggested strong evidence for British/South African pro-Apartheid mercenaries having assassinated Dag Hammarskjöld a few decades earlier.
posted by acb at 1:22 PM on June 10, 2020 [1 favorite]
There was a piece in Der Spiegel a few years ago, however, that suggested strong evidence for British/South African pro-Apartheid mercenaries having assassinated Dag Hammarskjöld a few decades earlier.
posted by acb at 1:22 PM on June 10, 2020 [1 favorite]
@bleep This might just be some sort of bureaucratic formality of closing a case, and 'we don't know' might not be an acceptable box to check.
posted by mit5urugi at 1:24 PM on June 10, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by mit5urugi at 1:24 PM on June 10, 2020 [1 favorite]
When I first heard about this theory, it seemed really weird to me. But the more I read the more convincing it seems.
The catalog of investigative fuck-ups is excruciating, but the crux of what went wrong seems to be this interview with Engström that was broadcast on Swedish public television. This is mere days after the murder. The initial description of the suspect matches Engström, so what he does is call up a journalist, and offers to come describe his version of events. The journalist then asks in-house artists to provide drawings of incidents matching Engström’s story. This then influences the recollections of the other witnesses, which leads the investigators astray.
As has been mentioned already, Engström’s testimony is wildly different from every other eye witness (of which there were many) whose testimony was taken on the night of the murder. He even claims to have attempted to give first aid to Palme. The only part of his testimony that matches that of other witnesses is that he fled the scene. But he says that he did so to tell police information that he had. He even re-enacts his run for the camera. He claims he then returned to the murder scene. However, no one else had said he was there.
The police see this interview and decide that Engström was merely out for attention without ever investigating him thoroughly, even after one eye witness, Yvonne Nieminen, had said he was who she’d described as the shooter (they also had another strong lead implicating him, from people which I believe haven’t been publicly identified, except insofar as they are from the Åland Islands).
The records of the original investigation regarding Engström are really odd. They conclude that even though the shooter fits his description, it can’t possibly have been him, without explaining why. I don’t claim to know why that is. The only theory I have is that the original investigators were so fixated on the murder being planned that someone who just happened to see Palme and decided on the spur of the moment to shoot him was so far outside their frame that they couldn’t see him. Even as he pushed himself forward in the media. Because why would a murderer draw attention to himself?
The answer given today to that question is that once he had access to the media as a witness to the murder, he kept pushing himself forward because he liked attention. He had been doing so for years, offering himself to journalists for all kinds of interviews on a wide range of subjects, even succeeding sometimes.
As to the motive, he was apparently angry at Palme as a politician. Engström was a right-winger and often stated his intense dislike for the left-wing Palme. So he may have impulsively shot at him when he saw him. As for why he had a gun, he was apparently sometimes armed, as he belonged to a gun club and would borrow guns from a friend who collected firearms to test out at a firing range.
If we believe the current lot of investigators, a random guy who happened to be armed saw a politician he hated and fired. It’s really improbable, but the fact that Engström felt the need to go on television and lie about events makes the improbable seem plausible. He was there, he sometimes had a gun on him, he had a motive, and he lied about his movements and whereabouts that night.
It’s not ironclad, but it makes sense to me.
posted by Kattullus at 2:46 PM on June 10, 2020 [11 favorites]
The catalog of investigative fuck-ups is excruciating, but the crux of what went wrong seems to be this interview with Engström that was broadcast on Swedish public television. This is mere days after the murder. The initial description of the suspect matches Engström, so what he does is call up a journalist, and offers to come describe his version of events. The journalist then asks in-house artists to provide drawings of incidents matching Engström’s story. This then influences the recollections of the other witnesses, which leads the investigators astray.
As has been mentioned already, Engström’s testimony is wildly different from every other eye witness (of which there were many) whose testimony was taken on the night of the murder. He even claims to have attempted to give first aid to Palme. The only part of his testimony that matches that of other witnesses is that he fled the scene. But he says that he did so to tell police information that he had. He even re-enacts his run for the camera. He claims he then returned to the murder scene. However, no one else had said he was there.
The police see this interview and decide that Engström was merely out for attention without ever investigating him thoroughly, even after one eye witness, Yvonne Nieminen, had said he was who she’d described as the shooter (they also had another strong lead implicating him, from people which I believe haven’t been publicly identified, except insofar as they are from the Åland Islands).
The records of the original investigation regarding Engström are really odd. They conclude that even though the shooter fits his description, it can’t possibly have been him, without explaining why. I don’t claim to know why that is. The only theory I have is that the original investigators were so fixated on the murder being planned that someone who just happened to see Palme and decided on the spur of the moment to shoot him was so far outside their frame that they couldn’t see him. Even as he pushed himself forward in the media. Because why would a murderer draw attention to himself?
The answer given today to that question is that once he had access to the media as a witness to the murder, he kept pushing himself forward because he liked attention. He had been doing so for years, offering himself to journalists for all kinds of interviews on a wide range of subjects, even succeeding sometimes.
As to the motive, he was apparently angry at Palme as a politician. Engström was a right-winger and often stated his intense dislike for the left-wing Palme. So he may have impulsively shot at him when he saw him. As for why he had a gun, he was apparently sometimes armed, as he belonged to a gun club and would borrow guns from a friend who collected firearms to test out at a firing range.
If we believe the current lot of investigators, a random guy who happened to be armed saw a politician he hated and fired. It’s really improbable, but the fact that Engström felt the need to go on television and lie about events makes the improbable seem plausible. He was there, he sometimes had a gun on him, he had a motive, and he lied about his movements and whereabouts that night.
It’s not ironclad, but it makes sense to me.
posted by Kattullus at 2:46 PM on June 10, 2020 [11 favorites]
Well when you put it that way it doesn't seem improbable at all. I thought it was weird that none of the links mentioned right-wing opposition to the reforms which was my first guess.
posted by bleep at 2:56 PM on June 10, 2020
posted by bleep at 2:56 PM on June 10, 2020
To me it would be improbable that a someone pushing through fixes to improve society *wouldn't* be gunned down in the street by an impulsive right winger the first chance they got.
posted by bleep at 3:00 PM on June 10, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by bleep at 3:00 PM on June 10, 2020 [3 favorites]
I am absolutely boggled at the idea that someone could kill a head of state in the late 20th Century, in public no less, and 36 years later, it's still a mystery.
I guess I expect better from Sweden.
Nowadays, I'd be willing to believe they think that after letting enough of them happen, the country can acquire herd immunity to murders.
posted by Harvey Kilobit at 3:50 PM on June 10, 2020 [6 favorites]
I guess I expect better from Sweden.
Nowadays, I'd be willing to believe they think that after letting enough of them happen, the country can acquire herd immunity to murders.
posted by Harvey Kilobit at 3:50 PM on June 10, 2020 [6 favorites]
I still remember exactly where I was and what I was doing when I heard of the assassination in neighbouring Norway, even if I was quite young at the time.
posted by Harald74 at 1:09 AM on June 11, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Harald74 at 1:09 AM on June 11, 2020 [1 favorite]
Nowadays, I'd be willing to believe they think that after letting enough of them happen, the country can acquire herd immunity to murders.
Sweden was classified a "high risk country" due to the propensity of unsolved political murders when then Prime Minister Göran Persson visited New York as acting EU president.
Personally I'm pretty skeptical of the conclusions of the committee, and agree that they were mainly looking for closure. We happen to know an eyewitness to the events of that night, and Engström doesn't match his description of the assassin.
posted by St. Oops at 2:43 AM on June 11, 2020
Sweden was classified a "high risk country" due to the propensity of unsolved political murders when then Prime Minister Göran Persson visited New York as acting EU president.
Personally I'm pretty skeptical of the conclusions of the committee, and agree that they were mainly looking for closure. We happen to know an eyewitness to the events of that night, and Engström doesn't match his description of the assassin.
posted by St. Oops at 2:43 AM on June 11, 2020
Icelandic public radio has a Friday morning show about historical matters of one kind or another. The host went through the theory of the prosecutor, and the life of Stig Engström.
First, one major correction to my comment above. I conflated two interviews. The television interview I linked to above was a bit over a month after the murder. The other interview was the day after and was with a newspaper. I should add that these are internally inconsistent and furthermore don’t conform to his statements to the police.
In fact, all those inconsistencies is why the police consider him to be just making things up to get into the media, and don’t ask him to take part in the reconstruction of the crime scene, which is what prompts him to contact Swedish public television and leads to the interview I linked to in my first comment.
One other thing is that I’m now no longer clear who made the drawings that are shown in the television report, whether it was in-house or he drew them himself.
The Icelandic radio program also added something that I had missed, which is that Engström was interviewed in 1992 and presented an “if I did it” hypothetical. He thought it likely that the shooting was more like a hunting accident than anything premeditated. Perhaps the murder of Olof Palme had happened because someone, who happened to have a gun, saw the prime minister out walking, called out to him, and upon being ignored, had a flash of anger and shot at him.
I was, as I said above, fairly convinced by the case, but that 1992 interview sounds an awful lot like a confession. That said, there are a lot of caveats on everything, and it remains profoundly improbable, but it’s the best theory for the shooting of Palme I’ve heard.
posted by Kattullus at 4:24 PM on June 12, 2020
First, one major correction to my comment above. I conflated two interviews. The television interview I linked to above was a bit over a month after the murder. The other interview was the day after and was with a newspaper. I should add that these are internally inconsistent and furthermore don’t conform to his statements to the police.
In fact, all those inconsistencies is why the police consider him to be just making things up to get into the media, and don’t ask him to take part in the reconstruction of the crime scene, which is what prompts him to contact Swedish public television and leads to the interview I linked to in my first comment.
One other thing is that I’m now no longer clear who made the drawings that are shown in the television report, whether it was in-house or he drew them himself.
The Icelandic radio program also added something that I had missed, which is that Engström was interviewed in 1992 and presented an “if I did it” hypothetical. He thought it likely that the shooting was more like a hunting accident than anything premeditated. Perhaps the murder of Olof Palme had happened because someone, who happened to have a gun, saw the prime minister out walking, called out to him, and upon being ignored, had a flash of anger and shot at him.
I was, as I said above, fairly convinced by the case, but that 1992 interview sounds an awful lot like a confession. That said, there are a lot of caveats on everything, and it remains profoundly improbable, but it’s the best theory for the shooting of Palme I’ve heard.
posted by Kattullus at 4:24 PM on June 12, 2020
« Older Book Authors Are Getting Real About How Much They... | How high and low can you go? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by St. Oops at 8:51 AM on June 10, 2020