Would be interesting to hear how "interesting" this article is for an international audience. As a Swede I am sick and tired about all speculation over the years. It is like a wound that never heals. We will never know for sure. Probably like the JFK assasination.
I always enjoy these articles (to the extend that one can take joy in them), because they rarely fail to highlight how different politics can be.
For an American audience, it's unthinkable that a leader of a government would go anywhere without their own private army. When I used to work in central Berlin, I regularly saw members of parliament and ministers have coffee or just walk around completely unprotected. Even Merkel could be seen with only modest security (usually two people), usually walking to/from her flat about a kilometre away from her office.
It's a world where a stranger is not primarily a threat, possibly-armed, and where civility hasn't completely broken down. And it's not even that rare.
Of course, the story itself kinda speaks against this view of the world.
I am from Washington DC and, while it's true that the President is always accompanied by a security retinue -- for reasons well-founded in history -- it is not uncommon to see members of either legislative body walking around unattended. It used to be more common, that's true, but it's still not unusual. The less of a media profile they have, the more likely it is that you'll run into them at a coffee shop.
I remember when I sat just behind José Manuel Barroso, that time the leader of the European Commission in a commercial airline, tourist class.
I loved that guy, like the former Uruguayan president.
>
Of course, the story itself kinda speaks against this view of the world.
Yet these crimes are so rare as to be huge deals when they do occur, and politicians here generally rather take their chances than lead a life protected from their very constituents. In a high-trust society it is also expected from politicians.
It's much easier to have trust in a small unimposing culturally homogeneous country of 10 million like Sweden vs a 300+ million economic and geopolitical juggernaut.
>Of course, the story itself kinda speaks against this view of the world.
Only in the sense that somebody dying from having a walnut stuck in their throats speaks against not eating walnuts.
Politicians of all kinds go by themselves all the time in Europe, and it's no big deal.
Meanwhile, people with guards and police, like JFK and Reagan had attempts (the first of course successful) against them. If the killer is determined (or worse, willing to be killed themselves, like some modern wackos), they can always find some moment.
I hear you, I'm Swedish as well and been hearing people talking about this since my birth (if not earlier).
However, seems they are getting closer at finding out. The article contains:
> In February of this year, the latest lead investigator appeared on Swedish television and, with astonishing confidence, promised to give the public a solution within the next few years. Caution is advisable; this possibility has been teased many times before.
But as mentioned, not the first time someone says that. Also, have not been living in Sweden for the last couple of years, so don't know more about the situation then outlined in the submission article.
Edit: my vote goes to Christer Pettersson being who he said he was, would not surprise me. Pretty fun to read about the different theories as well, some are listed here (for the english readers) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Olof_Palme#Mu...
Yes, this possibility has been teased many times before. On top of my head
- Arrest of "33-åringen" days after the murder
- Gert Fylking's article about Christer Petterssons admission to him
- Pelle Svensson about "bombmannens testamente"
> As a Swede I am sick and tired about all speculation over the years.
I'm not a Swede, but I happened to be in Sweden as a trainee in Sweden just a year after it happened. For a couple of years I read every article I saw. But now that so much time has gone, I don't read any article any more. Not even this one, I was just curious what people comment. It is not unlikely that the murderer has died in the meantime. The same holds for anybody who might have (had) knowledge what exactly happened. The credibility of any new witnesses after so many years cannot be very high. If someone confesses and can offer unique proof/insider knowledge I will hear about whithout reading such articles. Or if credible documents are found in some secret service's archives that they were involved. But it's not anything likely enough to happen that I could still be interested.
You are right. It is actually more likely the murderer is dead than not. This is a simple observation because lots of people associated with the investigation are dead too. Simply beacause time has passed. Christer Pettersson is dead. Hans Holmér is dead. Lisbeth Palme is dead. 33-åringen is dead. Claes Zeime is dead. Axel Morath is dead. Lars Tingström is dead. Skandiamannen is dead. Ebbe Carlsson is dead. And so on, and so on..
Oh, I had already completely forgotten about Ebbe Carlsson. The Swedish Wikipedia article was I nice refresh of my memory and now I understand again why I had read every article back in the days. Better than any fiction... (The English Wikipedia does not mention anythig of the dozens of scandals and weird affairs he was involved in.)
I read this yesterday, and found it fascinating - I’d like to think I have a reasonably good knowledge of world history, but I’d never even heard or it.
for a foreigner, it shows how, if you can get the sympathy of the law enforcement grunts, you can get away with anything.
investigator feels he have to pay too much tax while arresting people they deem unworthy of government benefits? go ahead and shoot your prime minister as the investigation will be sabotaged anyway.
The murder of OP isn't that interesting. Everyone who is knowledgeable about the case knows it can't have been a conspiracy. It was a lone gunman, possibly a drug addict, seeing OP and his wife, seizing the opportunity to kill him.
But what is interesting is the completely disastrous following investigation. The police in Stockholm fucked up in every possible way there is to fuck up. Records were not kept, witnesses were promised rewards for testifying, they didn't investigate the crime scene properly, chased after wild conspiracy theories about South Africa and PKK and so on. Eventually they brought in experts from the FBI, but then it was already too late because it is much harder to solve a murder three years after the fact than one month after. The only reason the murderer went free is the insane incompetence displayed.
The disaster IMO was what the act itself led to, it took something away from all of us. I want to live in a country where the PM walks home by himself at the end of the day, lives in a ordinary place and takes out the garbage after dinner.
I loved that with our country, I was at a concert last summer where the current PM showed up, this was a very small concert in the northern part of the country, with an entourage of SÄPO guards that only could qualify as a small private army.
Security got a lot more plentiful after Anna Lindh and Utøya. (And of course the whole war on terror). These things can't happen too often and stay the same, unfortunately.
I ran in to our previous PM in the Systembolaget at NK-huset a couple years ago, with 2x SÄPO:s. It was odd to see. He bought like 8 of those Stockholm 5,2.
> Everyone who is knowledgeable about the case knows it can't have been a conspiracy. It was a lone gunman
Can you please elaborate? I could very well imagine a seemingly lone gunman who would indeed be a part of a conspiracy, and I have a kind of a direct experience: I was personally a victim of a robbery where only one man attacked me, in what at that moment appeared to me as a completely random attack. Only after that didn't went as planned, a second man came, but not to help me but to help him, to my complete surprise. By chance and my luck the attack was ultimately not successful, but their goal was anyway not to harm me but just to get something I've possessed. Even more interestingly, after reporting the case to the police and after the investigation based on my previous movements before the attack it turned out that these two had two more accomplices. In total, at least four men were involved in one "small" robbery attack. The police told me they are aware of many such cases, and that there was probably even a fifth person involved who coordinated the four. And this all happened in the country and city of more or less comparable overall security and well being to Stockholm, not somewhere where everybody expects such dangers.
So what appeared to be a random attack is actually often indeed planned and involves more people. Even the thieves seldom operate alone.
Then what should be the arguments that there wasn't any conspiracy there?
> Can you please elaborate? I could very well imagine a seemingly lone gunman who would indeed be a part of a conspiracy, and I have a kind of a direct experience:
So much has been written about the murder so I can't really add much of value. Here are a few facts that makes it obvious that murderer wasn't a professional - hence no conspiracy:
1. The murderer tried to shot Palme's wife from a distance of about 2 meters but missed. 2. The murder weapon was a loud and heavy revolver. Real assassins use (silenced) pistols. 3. The murderer kept the gun rather than disposing it which professional assassins do. 4. The deed took place in one of Stockholm's busiest corners on a Friday after salary (lot's of drunk people out). 5. No good escape routes. I walk past the corner many times per week. All the streets are wide and you have to run for about 100m to the closest hiding spot (a small cemetary). 6. OP was often without bodyguards. There would have been way better opportunities to assassinate him.
Roughly, this was the conclusion of the experts from the FBI, who steered the Swedish police away from the political conspiracy theory to the "lone gunman" one. People still cling on to the conspiracy theory though. I think it is easier for them to digest because then there was some "meaning" to the murder, rather than a drug addicted street-thug doing it for no reason.
Fun (sad) fact; in the 90's you could often see the main suspect of the murder Christer Petterson (subsequently released) sitting intoxicated on the subway or commuter rail. People of course avoided him.
> a drug addicted street-thug doing it for no reason
It still sounds much less probable than anybody who would do it with an agenda.
> the streets are wide and you have to run for about 100m to the closest hiding spot
Can you post a link to the location? Not being from there and reading about these details for the first time, it's hard for me to imagine "one of Stockholm's busiest corners" but with no place to hide for 100m? No buildings? No entrances to the buildings? No entrances to the combinations of the buildings where you enter in one block of houses but can magically appear wherever across, already dressed in new clothes? That's all very doable in the busy cities I know, especially if somebody already planned and verified one or two escape routes.
Additionally, there could be a logic behind using an old gun: an origin of an old gun could be harder to trace, it could have been never recorded or marked.
The killer ran up this flight of stairs. Another indication that he wasn't a professional. The stairs were ice-covered and slippery so he would risk falling.
After the stairs, it is not known what route he took. According to most witness accounts, he ran straight. Some believe he ran to the left though, towards the cemetery and hid there.
Thanks! I still don't see how it's an argument that the attack wasn't planned by somebody else, but it is at least obvious, if I understand that the route of the attacke is confirmed, that the attacker himself wasn't prepared to disappear as soon as possible but to simply run for a while.
I was told about similar experience in Moscow. To still a small bag from a man at least three thieves were involved. One distracted, one “accidentally” pushed, one picked up the dropped bag.
"Street pickpockets generally work in teams, known as whiz mobs or wire mobs. The “steer” chooses the victim, who is referred to generically as the “mark,” the “vic,” or the “chump,” but can also be categorized into various subspecies, among them “Mr. Bates” (businessman) and “pappy” (senior citizen). The “stall,” or “stick,” maneuvers the mark into position and holds him there, distracting his attention, perhaps by stumbling in his path, asking him for directions, or spilling something on him. The “shade” blocks the mark’s view of what’s about to happen, either with his body or with an object such as a newspaper. And the “tool” (also known as the “wire,” the “dip,” or the “mechanic”) lifts his wallet and hands it off to the “duke man,” who hustles away, leaving the rest of the mob clean."
If I counted correctly, the described team has five members. For that kind of action it could be an optimum, otherwise it wouldn't be a typical example.
In the article there's a reference to "a paperback, published in 1964, called “Whiz Mob: A Correlation of the Technical Argot of Pickpockets with Their Behavior Patterns,” by David W. Maurer, a professor of English who devoted his life to the study of raffish subcultures, before apparently killing himself, in 1981."
"David Warren Maurer (April 12, 1906 – June 11, 1981) was a professor of linguistics at the University of Louisville from 1937 to 1972, and an author of numerous studies of the language of the American underworld."
Thanks to the modern technology if you're interested in that topic you can find today various CCTV footage of such acts on the YouTube. What's fascinating is how everything happens so "easily" in the real life that even when you try to watch carefully you'd initially miss all the actors until the video points to them or until you replay the video. It's almost like a famous gorilla in the basketball game, but happening continuously on the streets and in the shops.
Indeed -- look at the popular street "con" known as "Three-Card Monte" -- a fraudulent card game which seems to be run by a single person, but in fact also involves several [or all] people in what appears to be 'the crowd.' The victim of the con has no clue that these other folks are working with the guy manipulating the cards.
>*
But what is interesting is the completely disastrous following investigation. The police in Stockholm fucked up in every possible way there is to fuck up. Records were not kept, witnesses were promised rewards for testifying, they didn't investigate the crime scene properly, chased after wild conspiracy theories about South Africa and PKK and so on.*
And that somehow gives people certainty that "it can't have been a conspiracy"?
It seems like a lot of the comments are here from Swedes, and probably that is the working definition here for what consists the common perception.
Is there a simple argument why it was not South African special police? I understand that the Swedish police decided it implausible, but did they explain why?
I think the amount of paranoia and turbulance in SA during the 1980's and the other operations of the special army/police factions make it a somewhat believable possibility. The other thing to keep in mind is that during that time a lot of people were already acting in a sort of "rogue" way. There are always people that go to the radical extreme before a change in power.
So I understand that many people admitted to the murder. In South Africa, there was a specific admission to the murder by Craig Williamson, who is a ex-special agent. I don't think that here there is the same phenomenon by which multiple people admit to the murder in a delusional way.
This admission was done as part of the TRC (Truth and Reconciliation Commision). There is no reason here not to believe them. The only thing I can think of is delusions of grandeur, but like I say, I don't know of many TRC revelations being untrue.
Something about Olof Palme himself. I don't think there has been any other politician in Sweden that have split the opinions in society like him. The left loved him. The right did not. I don't want to reach out for the word hate, because it is so often used today. He was certainly hated among some, yes. But more than that, he was despised probably by the majority among the minority that did not vote left. He left no one neutral.
How come?
A well known quote of his :
"Jag tror efter de studier vi gjort är korrekt att säga att Arbetsgivareföreningens propagandister i mycket framstår som hatets och illviljans kolportörer mot svensk arbetarrörelse"
Basically, this in very sofisticated words describes the Employer organisation's "propagandists" as agents of hate and ill-will against the labour movement. Quite an insult against political opponents. Today, we are perhaps used / more exposed to similar language in social media etc. But during this time, there was nothing like it.
This should be understood against the backdrop of the politics of the time. Sweden was at the time significantly more socialist, very high income taxes, and the right probably felt that there were no limits how far social democratic politicians were prepared to go. Right or wrong, this was the sentiment among many.
His language was often arrogant and in ways derogatory, but not similar to Trump's bombastic tone. In contrast, using much more elegant and precise prose.
I am certain I will get replies that will defend his deeds and oppose how I describe him. Understand that just like society appeared during his reign - two sides who could not understand the other.
"Les chefs des drapeaux rouges et les chefs des chemises noires ne vont qu'au pas cinglant de leurs bottes guerrières, le torse pris dans un corset de fer à l'épreuve de l'amour et des balles. Ils vont, tragiques et le flingue sur le cœur. Ils vont, métalliques et la peur au ventre, vers les palais blindés où s'ordonnent leurs lois de glace. Ils marchent droits sous leurs casquettes, leurs yeux durs sous verre fumé, cernés de vingt gorilles pare-chocs qui surveillent les toits pour repérer la mort. Mais la mort n'est pas pour les chefs des drapeaux rouges ni pour les chefs des chemises noires. La mort n'est pas aux fenêtres des rideaux de fer. Elle a trop peur.
La mort est sur Stockholm. Elle signe, d'un trait rouge sur la neige blanche, son aveu d'impuissance à tuer la liberté des hommes qui vont au cinéma, tout seuls, bras dessus, bras dessous, avec la femme qu'ils aiment jusqu'à ce que mort s'ensuive."
I am not Swedish, and had not yet visited Sweden at the time, and yet somehow Palme‘s murder was shocking and memorable to me.
Perhaps it was that it was a blatant murder in a crowded public place, like something from James Bond. Or the murder of a major public figure, something that had seemingly gone out of fashion (I remember Lennon’s murder distinctly as well, but that was a loonie so somehow lacked the same significance to me).
So odd, since I knew nothing of Swedish politics and honestly couldn’t care less (though I knew who he was, an internationally famous politician).
So whenever his name surfaces I always check out the article. The 80s were weird, and seem weirder in retrospect.
I wouldn't say so. The CIA and high ranking military officials certainly hated him and wanted him dead. There was a strong motive and there many inconsistencies in the way the case was handled afterwards. The majority of higher ranking CIA officials really considered JFK a traitor, because he didn't send air support at the bay of pigs (following through with what he had clearly stated all along). There were claims that he had been subverted by the Soviets, was deliberately sabotaging the country, etc.
Personally, I remain agnostic but find it fairly credible that Oswald personally met a group of conspirators from the CIA a few days before the shooting and these people encouraged him to do what he did, maybe even made him some false promises about what would happen afterwards. It's also not unlikely that the killing of Oswald himself followed a similar pattern.
That's all speculation, but overall reasonable speculation, because of the existing motives. Many conspiracy theories are weak, because they fail to lay out a credible motive. JFK is not one of those cases.
But can a conspiracy of more than a very few people be kept under wraps for a lifetime? I find it hard to believe that if there really was a conspiracy that nothing concrete has emerged in all these years.
When everyone involved has been explicitly been trained and selected to work with secrets, in a historical period when such activities are extremely dangerous and brutal, and under the treath of expedite death penalty or assassination... it's not that hard to believe any involved party would keep very silent.
isn't that literally the job description for the cia?
for a more realistic view, see the interviews with LAPD people from the recent documentary on Bob Kenedy's assassination in LA.
it makes the case pretty clear, and show that people did talk. but that the good media, not wanting to promote conspiracy theories, silenced. The guy was pretty much boasting about his participation for decades and nobody cared.
I though the recent theory that Oswald did shoot at the motorcade but Kennedy was killed by accident caused by a Security service member being startled by one of Oswald shots and accidently discharging had a lot going for it.
While I'm entirely satisfied with the simple Oswald explanation, you are correct to emphasis how utterly terrible JFK's defense and foreign policy was.
The severe weakness shown in the Bay of Pigs debacle, an Eisenhower scheme he utterly wrecked by moving the location as well as the last minute denial of air support, directly lead to Khrushchev's nuclear missile adventure in Cuba. Which led to the closest the world has ever gotten to nuclear war, Soviet subs were under orders allowing them to use their nuclear torpedoes if damaged, and one captain decided this was a case but the decision required three officers, one of whom declined. (This ultimately resulted in Khrushchev getting sacked.)
There's lots more, but it's also worth mentioning that just a month before he was assassinated, he went along with his Best and Brightests' scheme to depose and inevitably assassinate the President of South Vietnam and his brother, which ruined that nation's officer corps and any trust they had in us, which led directly to our having to replace them with our own forces, and the nightmare that followed. LBJ's prosecution of the war was downright criminal, but at the highest level moral, he acknowledged the "you broke it, you own it" principle.
But one could see members of the Deep State deciding that JFK's assassination of an ally President made him fair game for assassination in turn. And for all they knew necessary to save the nation, he'd been reckless all his life, succeeding in starting WWIII given another 1-5 years was entirely possible.
What does 'wanting a conspiracy' mean? When people read the facts of events such as the JFK or Palme assassination and anomolies and inconsistencies become apparent they go looking for answers. The word 'conspiracy' is a lazy way of saying 'don't think' in many cases, despite all the sometimes outlandish ideas these illogical facts tend to spawn...
It means that people become so obsessed with "critical thinking" that they will never be satisfied. Every group telling them to let it go becomes just another brick in the wall of conspiracies surrounding them. Every shred of evidence just invites more questions about who faked it and why.
It's interesting to speculate on the motives, although somewhat mood. Some people probably enjoy just the thrill of thinking about these. Quite possibly, we have some circuits that engage in such speculation, and they do serve some purpose: After all, sometimes they really are coming for you. Maybe the ability to associate only with others that share your fantasies today is the real problem, because the trait itself evolved in times where it was kept in check by your immediate peers, whose rolling eyes would at some point get you to shut up.
This is rather detrimental for society because we no longer have any trusted sources of truth all sides of an argument agree on. Was the economy improving during Obama? "No, all those statistics are fake!" Is the economy continuing to improve? "No, the new guy is now faking the statistics!"
JFK, Area 51, Club 54,... these things have now thankfully passed the threshold of relevancy. But the problem is larger than ever before.
By 'problem' do you mean people not accepting the official narrative and having a go at 'critical thinking'? I wouldn't see that as a problem, I'd see that as a free society
> By 'problem' do you mean people not accepting the official narrative and having a go at 'critical thinking'? I wouldn't see that as a problem, I'd see that as a free society
The problem is that their version of "critical thinking" leads them down extremists rabbit holes like the ones which begin with listening to Alex Jones and ending with them trying to kill people at a pizza place because of purely imaginary Satanic pedophiles.
Sure, it's a "free society" where everyone gets to prove the usefulness of vaccines for themselves, from first principle, because the medical community is corrupt and cannot be trusted. Where people actually start to believe in a "flat earth", and not just as a parody of conspiracy theories, and fly to New Zealand for their yearly meeting (from both Europe and the US, in opposite directions, go figure).
Yeah, that is "freedom", in some sense of the word. But people aren't actually using it to critical think about anything. They see it as license to choose the facts they believe and ignore those that are inconvenient.
It was sad to see two people guarding his tomb all day, even in the rain, in the day that commemorates his dead.
I have also read a book about his assassination that I will recommend to skip and read about his ideas instead.
It will be better to share his ideas than to focus on his death. I think that his world view is more needed now than ever.