DURING THE SIX MONTHS following Ingrid Svenson’s murder, work on the preliminary inquiry was full of surprises. The investigation seemed never ending. It was a bit like opening Pandora’s box – the more they delved into Börge Svenson’s life, the more secrets they discovered.
At the start of the investigation, Sanna had promised to leave no stone unturned in her efforts to convict Svenson, but it seemed as if no matter how hard they worked there were still more stones to turn, so to speak.
It had been a long and laborious process. And now she had a mountain of documents and photographs in front of her to compile and summarize in her final report. In other words, she had a hell of a lot of work left to do. She had to keep her wits about her and not omit any important details. Although the investigation team had been given clear instructions regarding the right to anonymity steps would still have to be taken to ensure compliance. In an extensive criminal investigation of this nature it was very likely that mistakes would be made.
She glared at the piles of paper that lay on the table, leaned back in her chair and sighed heavily. Time was slipping away. Kalle had agreed to review the material with her and Alkelius. However, the prosecutor was always unavailable and didn’t return her calls.
It was actually the prosecutor’s responsibility to complete the report. However, annoyingly enough, any problems or flaws in the investigation results would inevitably end up on her desk anyway.
She looked at the telephone and deliberated whether to call him. After a few seconds she picked up the receiver and punched in a phone number.
“Carl-Magnus Alkelius,” he answered.
“Hi, Sanna Johansson here. How’s it going with the lawsuit?”
“I was just going to call you. As you know we’re bound to maintain the anonymity of the plaintiff.”
“I know,” she interrupted. “That’s also one of the reasons I’m calling – we have a mountain of material to go through and I wonder if you have any plans to be involved?”
“I see,” said Alkelius eventually. “I’m sure we can solve this in some way without too much heavy lifting. Let’s concentrate on establishing the original protocol and after the trial hearing we’ll hand that to the judge along with the lawsuit.” He cleared his throat. “I suggest we make a mirror copy for the media and general public that fulfils confidentiality requirements. We can classify all the other documents.”
“Good, you seem to have thought of everything. I assume that you’ll take care of the original protocol.”
Sanna was intrigued by his lack of interest. It was odd that he had been much less active than he should have been, apart from when the media was involved. In a criminal investigation of this calibre the prosecutor was required to take primary responsibility.
“No, I haven’t started it. I assumed that you would be taking care of it…”
Sanna didn’t answer.
“You’re right Sanna,” he added after a long silence. “I’ll come in tomorrow to finalize things.”
“You mean on Monday…”
“Oh yes,” he answered, chuckling.
“Good. I’ll see you at nine o’clock on Monday.”
Sanna was reasonably satisfied with his response. So infuriated was she by his arrogant indifference, she had actually already started formulating the final report. She closed her eyes and massaged her forehead.
She returned to her work. It was important to get the legal formalities correct. Using the wrong legal expression could result in a misinterpretation of the facts and thereby risk leading to an acquittal. She checked the Code of Judicial Procedure.
A preliminary hearing - in criminal law - is only a preparatory inquiry. The primary purpose of the inquiry is thus to create a basis for prosecution decisions. According to the Swedish penal code: Chapter 23, Section 2, the main aim of the hearing is to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to justify detaining the accused or discharging the accused on bail. The final examination to decide whether a crime was committed or not takes place in court.
She stopped reading for a moment. “I hope there are some people in the courtroom who aren’t in Harald Svenson’s pocket,” she mumbled to herself.
“Chapter 23, Section 4, regulates a number of set of principles pertaining to how the preliminary investigation should be conducted. The provision states among other things that not only circumstances that are not in favour of the suspect but also circumstances in his favour, and any evidence favourable to the suspect shall be preserved. The investigation should be conducted so that no person is unnecessarily exposed to suspicion, or put to unnecessary cost or inconvenience....”
Sanna checked off the items on her “to do” list. It was a question of objectivity. It was important to also include material that played to the suspect’s advantage. Although she didn’t think it would have much of an impact on the verdict she would have to include Hugo Svensson and Ludmila Karlsson’s testimony. They were the only ones who were convinced of Svenson’s innocence, believing him incapable of committing such a horrific act. Moreover, nobody else had come forward offering to testify for him even if many of them had praised his character. “Probably they don’t want put themselves on the line for someone who’s in prison,” she thought.
Sanna was aware that Tallén had Harald Svenson at his heels. There was a lot of talk about Harald Svenson expecting an acquittal. Tallén was compelled to look for an impediment – a mistake in the investigation, which would therefore draw attention to inessential details.
All the technical evidence pointed to Börge Svenson, but anything of minor relevance could turn up in the defence lawyer’s argument. For example, there was a risk that Tallén would try to claim that the investigation time limit had been exceeded, but she had already taken this into account. The preliminary inquiry had gone on longer than planned because of the large amount of unexpected material discovered in Svenson’s attic, which confirmed Svenson’s aggressive nature as well as providing conclusive evidence linking him to another murder.
Sanna glanced at the preliminary inquiry material with a look of satisfaction.
In the forensic pathology report on samples taken from Börge Svenson, abrasions were found on his arms and face, which he was unable to explain. According to the autopsy report on Ingrid Svenson from the laboratory in Uppsala, traces of his skin were found under her nails. Sanna wished that they could tie Svenson to the murder weapon. The chair leg had clear sets of fingerprints. Were they Svenson’s or not? How much time did the forensic pathology department need to prepare their analysis? Every time she contacted them she had been fobbed off with different excuses. Suddenly Sanna felt more and more fed up with the whole story.
ROSIE THE RIVETER HAD convened for their interview with Swedish Television in the newly renovated club premises. They waited with excited anticipation while the TV staff prepared their equipment.
Mikaela, Agnes, Anna, Samuel and Jonathan would be acting as spokespersons and they were seated in the front row where a line of chairs and cushions had been put out. The others found places nearby.
A cameraman directed the lens at the wall that was directly visible as you descended the stairs. On this wall was a painted map of Stockholm where strategic locations were indicated with numbered red dots. On both sides of the map were a series of illustrations that were decoratively painted and inscribed with text. These represented the placards that had been placed at the scene of their attack by victims of rape or assault. This was Rosie the Riveters “complaint” wall”.
“I would first like to congratulate you on a successful demonstration,” said the female SVT presenter with a warm smile.
“Thank you, but it’s actually us who should thank you all – and I mean all of you who have been involved and helped make this demonstration possible.” She paused. “The demonstration would never have succeeded without the support of all the organizations and members of the public around the country who got engaged and helped us get the message out that everyone’s participation was so important!” said Mikaela looking straight at the camera, in an attempt to reach out directly to the participants who were watching the show so that they would feel a sense of pride in what they had accomplished together.
“Why did you choose to do it this way?” asked the presenter.
“Do you mean the placard or the demonstration?”
“Well, both actually,” replied the presenter, caught a little off guard.
“The placard was a way for us to show that we were listening to what victims were saying when they wrote about their experiences and shared it with the public.
She surveyed the members. Some of them nodded or gave a look of agreement.
“A number of support groups have also been started on Facebook,” added Agnes.
“We never thought that the response would be so overwhelming. On the day we first went out with the placard there were so many people who wanted to sign, who wanted to support our cause,” said Mikaela looking intensely at the SVT presenter.
“Why do you think it was so popular?”
“If you think about it, it’s not so surprising,” said Samuel.
“What do you mean?”
“After all the attention that the original placard received, more and more women had the courage to come forward to tell their stories. It was a chain reaction,” continued Samuel
“The first placard in Lill-Jansskogen is definitely what started it all,” said Agnes.
“Do you know the identity of the woman in Lill-Jansskogen?” asked the presenter, hoping to be first out with the news everyone was waiting for.
The members of Rosie the Riveter looked at each other questioningly.
“No, we have no idea,” said Anna curtly.
“It’s none of us anyway,” said Mikaela as the SVT presenter turned to survey the other members and the cameraman directed his camera at them.
“Anyway,” continued Mikaela, trying to draw attention back to the club spokespersons. “We were inspired by the placard and the brave women who were willing to share their experiences. That’s definitely what inspired everyone. And we wanted to be part of that. We wanted to show that we were listening and that there were people out there who supported them.”
“We weren’t misguided. We managed to significantly raise awareness,” said Jonatan with a triumphant smile.
The SVT presenter looked at her crib notes to see whether there was anything she had forgotten to ask.
“You seem very engaged. How did that happen?” She stared at Samuel.
“I think there’s a huge necessity for this type of action.”
“But you’re a man.”
“Are you suggesting that men shouldn’t care how women are treated?” he answered.
“Are you a feminist?” she continued, ignoring his comment.
“Absolutely!” he said, arching his back. “We’re a feminist organization and I’m a member!”
Samuel normally had a very calm disposition and seldom showed irritation. But the SVT presenter had touched on a sore point. It wasn’t the first time he had been challenged about being a feminist.
“Yes, but why are you engaged in women’s issues?” insisted the presenter.
Samuel realized that she wasn’t going to give up.
“Because I have a mother! Because I have a sister! Because I have many friends who are women! Because one day I will probably marry a woman!” He stared into the camera lens. “And I want them to be treated properly – with respect and dignity!”
He was feeling elated. Perhaps the TV presenter would admit that women’s rights issues affected them all.
When the interview was transmitted on TV, Samuel’s final statement was heard in its entirety. The members were thrilled but also a bit surprised because they had assumed the section would be edited out.