The Murder of Olof Palme has Been Solved, See the Facts.

Background

On February 28, 1986, Prime Minister Olof Palme and his wife Lisbet left their home and went by subway to the cinema Grand in the corner of Sveavägen and Tegnérgatan. There they met their son Mårten (with girl friend), with whom they had agreed a few hours before to se the film. No-one else knew about their plans. At the cinema they bought tickets and talked with several people, then went inside and saw the film that began about 21.00. They left at 23.08 and stayed a while talking with Mårten before he went home. The couple went walking southwards along Sveavägen on its western sidewalk, passing a hot-dog stand before crossing over to the eastern sidewalk. There they stopped for having a look at a shop-window, then proceeded to the Tunnelgatan crossing at 23.21. In the middle of the crossing a man stepped forward from the corner behind them and fired off one shot at the back of Palme’s neck from about 10 cm distance and another from larger distance at the shoulder of Lisbet. Palme died immediately, Lisbet was lightly injured. The assassin, holding his fire-arm, looked around for a moment, then half ran, half lumbered eastward along Tunnelgatan and up the stairs towards Malmskillnadsgatan. Thereby he went out of sight from the scene of the murder. Later two bullets were found on the street and were identified as ammunition for a magnum revolver.

Description of the assassin

Through a number of witnesses and other evidence the following characteristics about the assassin can be established:

1. The assassin was a man.

2. He was about 180 cm in length.

3. He was 33 - 47 years old.

4. He walked in a distinctive way, springily and a little ungainly at the same time.

5. He had a clear-cut face with pronounced cheek-bones and a piercing look.

6. He had easy access to a fire-arm and ammunition.

7. He was callous enough to kill a person by almost bodily contact.

8. He was unconcerned enough to commit murder in full view of several witnesses and to leave the place without any marked hurry.

9. He was well acquainted with the locality and knew the best way to disappear among the side streets upstairs from Tunnelgatan.

10. He must have known a few minutes in advance that the Palme couple would pass Tunnelgatan.

11. He must have had a special interest in Palme (qua Prime Minister or private person).

12. He certainly had reason to conceal his real whereabouts on the night of February 28.

Probability of matching the description

What is the probability that there is more than one person who matches all these characteristics? Let us calculate.

There were about 1,500,000 people present in Greater Stockholm within reach of the scene of the murder. Out of these, 50 percent were men = 750,000. Out of these, 20 percent were of ages 33 – 47 = 150,000. Perhaps as many as 50 percent could be considered “about 180 cm in length” = 75,000. The fashion of walking is very unusual, certainly no more than 1 percent walk like that = 750. The face was also characteristic, there could hardly be more than a few percent looking like that, let us say 10 percent = 75. Middle age men in Stockholm almost never carry fire-arms and rarely have access to one, let us say 4 percent = 3. Even men who own a fire-arm rarely are callous enough to kill someone by close bodily contact. To be careless enough to commit murder within sight of eye-witnesses is even more unusual. Probably no more than one percent of all fire-arm owners are callous and careless to such a high degree. This means that we cannot expect to find more than one person even in the whole of Sweden who satisfies these criteria.

The characteristics of Christer Pettersson

The Stockholm precinct eventually found a certain Christer Pettersson who:

1. Was of the male sex.

2. Was about 180 cm in length.

3. Was about 40 years old.

4. Walked springily- clumsily.

5. Had a face with pronounced cheek-bones.

6. Knew a certain Sigge Cedergren (SC) living near the Grand cinema, who owned magnum revolvers, one of which SC declared as missing after the murder. Could have seen Palme enter the cinema at 21.00 thus obtaining two hours’ time to get hold of a revolver.

7. Had on one occasion attacked a person with a bayonet.

8. Had on that occasion committed manslaughter in full view of several witnesses.

9. Had on same occasion fled through Tunnelgatan and its stairway.

10. Could have seen the Palme couple leaving the cinema towards Tunnelgatan and thus being able to run in advance to a suitable intersection on their path.

11. Saved pictures of Palme and placards about the murder.

12. Pretended a false alibi for the night of February 28 before being served any writ.

What is more, Lisbet Palme identified Christer Pettersson (CP) as the assassin when being shown him in a line-up of 12 ordinary men. Unfortunately, she knew beforehand that the suspect was an alcoholic. In a previous line-up without CP she had not singled out anyone.

The Stockholm City Court found CP guilty of homicide of Olof Palme. Later, the Court of Appeal decreed that Lisbet Palme’s identification was not sufficiently reliable and that the evidence was therefore not enough for a conviction. This Court judged CP not guilty.

Additional evidence

Many years later the Prosecutor-General addressed the Supreme Court with a petition for a new trial. The petition was based on some additional evidence, summarily listed below:

1. A man who had known CP since 1965 testified that he had seen him on Tegnérgatan about 22.20 o’clock. He had also seen CP outside the cinema about 23.00 and finally he had seen him standing at the corner in Tunnelgatan where he heard two reports of a gun.

2. Sigge Cedergren (SC) testified that CP was a close friend of a certain Lars Tingström (LT) and would do anything that LT demanded, e.g. kill the Prime Minister. LT was imprisoned for serious crimes and known to be extremely rancorous against the judicature and government of Sweden. SC also testified that he had handed over a magnum revolver to CP arond January 1986. He had also given CP ammunition to the gun.

3. A female acquaintance of SC who also knew CP had gone to see SC between 20.30 and 21.00 on February 28. SC was not at home. Having left the building, the lady met CP on his way to SC. She told him that SC was not at home and had probably gone to the cinema. CP then ran to the cinema (Grand), where she saw him looking towards the entrance. There was a crowd of people outside. Mr. and Mrs. Palme were to mingle with that crowd some minutes before 21.00.

4. On February 28 between 23.00 and 24.00 a male motorist drew southward along Malmskillnadsgatan. From the upper end of the Tunnelgatan stairway a man holding a revolver in his right hand suddenly appeared. The motorist put on the brake. The running man slipped in front of the car but resumed his running eastwards, now along David Bagares gata. When the motorist later saw pictures of CP he became convinced that the revolver man was CP.

5. On February 28, a non-local visited Stockholm. At night he went for a walk and about 23.25 passed westwards through David Bagares gata. Just before Malmskillnadsgatan he met a man trotting along eastwards. The passing man had a keen, intensive eye and smelled of perspiration. When he later saw pictures of CP he became convinced that the keen-eyed man was CP.

6. A taxi driving along Sveavägen passed Tunnelgatan when the murder took place. The driver saw the assassin trotting away in such an unusual movement pattern that he was 95 percent sure that the assassin was CP, whom he was shown walking on a film sequence.

7. The taxi passenger reacted almost exactly as the driver. Seeing CP on the film sequence he said: “It sort of clicked”.

8. The lawyer Pelle Svensson testified that his client Lars Tingström (LT) had confessed, under a pledge of a ten year secrecy that his obedient henchman CP had borrowed a revolver from SC and that CP should execute LT’s revenge on society for the sentence he had got. This revenge should “enter the history books” since it included the murder of the King, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice. According to LT it was by mere accident that CP got a chance to kill Olof Palme before he had killed the King as planned.

9. A woman testified that she had met CP at his home in January 1986. CP had shown her a magnum revolver and said that he intended to shoot Palme. In April she had seen CP once more and he then said that he had killed Palme.

10. A keeper from a nursing home near CP’s home testified that he had met CP several times, both at the nursing home and in downtown Stockholm. CP had, in spiteful terms, railed at Society in general and at Olof Palme in particular. Once CP had said: “That bloody fellow Palme, we are going to shoot him”.

A number of other witnesses had appeared in the Court of Appeal or reported to the Police some time after the trial:

11. An artist testified that she had seen the 19.00-21.00 film performance on Grand and when leaving the place she noticed a man with dark, gimlet eyes. Later, when shown a video recording of 12 people she decided No. 8 (CP) as the one most like the man with the gimlet eyes.

12. An air-traffic controller testified that he had been outside Grand just after 23.00 on February 28. There he had noticed a man with a certain look and deep lying eyes. In a line-up that he witnessed he singled out CP as almost “clear as a bell” like the man outside Grand.

13. When the later film performance in Grand ended, minutes after 23.00, a male acquaintance of CP stood in the lobby next to a public a telephone when he saw CP standing outside and looking somewhat agitated and high. CP refused to talk to the acquaintance. The latter made a phone call (to SC), which was registered by the police as having occurred after 23.15.

14. The owner of the hot-dog stand on Sveavägen had seen the Palme couple passing his stand. He had also noted a man following them. When seeing a line-up he singled out CP as being the follower, mostly in view of his way of walking.

The ultimate verdict

According to the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure, The Supreme Court had the option either to grant a new trial or to refuse. The Supreme Court refused and the old verdict of acquittal remained in force. In 2004 Christer Pettersson died “not guilty”.