12 juli 2014

Fallet Assange: Dödläget är ovärdigt Sverige som rättsstat

I dagens SvD finns en ytterst intressant genomgång av fallet Assange, skriven av hans två svenska advokater. Artikeln är en replik till Elisabeth Massi Fritz som skrev den 8 juli. I texten nedan finns flera intressanta länkar och artikeln utgör i sig hela argumentationen inför förhandlingen den 16 juli om att eventuellt upphäva häktningsbeslutet. Här är hela artikeln från SvD/Brännpunkt.

Att en åklagare håller en förundersökning ­öppen i fyra år utan att förhöra den misstänkte strider mot skyndsamhetskravet. Det är ett tungt vägande skäl för att upphäva häktningsbeslutet av Julian Assange, skriver hans advokater i en replik.

Vår klient Julian Assange har varit häktad i sin frånvaro i nästan fyra år. Han har de två senaste åren vistats på Ecuadors ambassad i London under skydd av politisk asyl. Brittisk polis bevakar byggnaden dygnet runt men kan inte tränga sig in på ambassaden. Vi har gång på gång krävt att åklagaren åker till London och förhör Assange. Åklagaren vägrar.

För att bryta detta dödläge har vi begärt att Stockholms tingsrätt ska upphäva häktningsbeslutet. Detta skulle tvinga åklagaren att tänka i nya banor. Frågan kommer att prövas vid häktningsförhandling onsdagen den 16 juli 2014.

Elisabeth Massi Fritz påstår att allt annat än fortsatt häktning skulle vara ”ett slag i ansiktet” på hennes klient ”och alla kvinnor som blivit utsatta för sexuellt våld” (Brännpunkt 8/7). Detta är slagordsjuridik på lägsta debattnivå.

Massi Fritz är dessutom fel ute i målets avgörande bevisfråga: Inget brott alls har begåtts.

Assange hade i augusti 2010 en kortvarig relation med två svenska kvinnor. Det var fråga om frivilligt sex. Allt annat är honom helt främmande.

Kvinnorna kände inte varandra, men fick kontakt och talade ut. Det slutade med att Fritz klient gick till polisen i sällskap med den andra kvinnan. Men inte för att anmäla Assange för något brott.

Av sms framgår att Fritz klient bara ville få råd om hur hon skulle få Assange att testa sig mot sjukdom. Hon ville inte anklaga Assange för någonting och blev chockad när hon fick veta att Assange anhållits i sin frånvaro.

Sanningen är alltså ingen av de två kvinnorna initialt anklagade Assange för något brott, vilket stämmer väl med Assanges version om frivilligt sex.

Även i övrigt förtjänar Massi Fritz debattartikel stark kritik. Hennes inställning till politisk asyl är minst sagt anmärkningsvärd.

Åtnjutandet av politisk asyl är en grundläggande mänsklig rättighet som räknas upp i FN:s deklaration om de mänskliga rättigheterna (artikel 14). Ecuador hänvisar i sitt beslut om politisk asyl uttryckligen till 1951 års flyktingkonvention (Genevekonventionen).

Man beviljar Assange politisk asyl för att ge honom skydd för utlämning till USA. Det har ingenting med den svenska förundersökningen att göra. Det är bara att läsa innantill i beslutet. Det har Massi Fritz uppenbarligen inte gjort.

Massi Fritz gör också ett mycket grovt misstag när hon helt negligerar hotet från USA:s sida mot Assange för att istället – totalt felaktigt – påstå att Ecuador(”ett litet sydamerikanskt land”) skulle ha hjälpt Assange att ”undkomma rättvisan” genom att ”få världen att tro att detta handlar om USA.”

Låt oss påpeka några grundläggande fakta.

Den 5 april 2010 publicerade Wikileaks videon Collateral Murder, som visar en helikopterattack utförd av amerikanska styrkor mot civila i Irak. Senare samma år publicerades 75000 hemliga dokument från Pentagon, rörande kriget i Afghanistan(Afghan War Diaries), 400 000 handlingar benämnda (Iraq War Logs) och över 250.000 amerikansk diplomatpost (Cablegate) samt 779 fångjournaler från Guantanamo (The Guantanamo Files).

Av bifogade länk framgår den reaktion som dessa publiceringar medförde hos ledande politiska debattörer och makthavare i USA, se tv-klipp.

Detta visar med all önskvärd tydlighet hur fel Massi Fritz har. Parallellt med den svenska förundersökningen pågår ytterst allvarliga brottsutredningar i USA.

Bradley (numera Chelsea) Manning dömdes den 20 augusti 2013 av en amerikansk militärdomstol till 35 års fängelse, anklagad för att ha läckt över 700000 dokument till Wikileaks.

Det pågår även en förundersökning mot ”founders, owners or managers of Wikileaks”. Den bedrivs av åklagarmyndigheten vid Eastern District of Virginia i Alexandria, Virginia och är enligt amerikanska justitiedepartementet aktiv och pågående.

Assange riskerar därmed ett mycket långt fängelsestraff om han utlämnas till USA, minst lika långt som Mannings 35 år.

Det är därför som Ecuador har beviljat Assange politisk asyl.

Mot den bakgrunden framstår Massi Fritz (och åklagarens) krav på att Assange frivilligt ska avstå från att använda sig av sin politiska asyl som fullkomligt orimligt. Julian Assange kommer att använda sin politiska asyl så länge det finns en risk för att han utlämnas till USA för att tillbringa större delen av sitt liv i ett amerikanskt fängelse.

Det i sak mest allvarliga är emellertid att Elisabeth Massi Fritz och åklagaren inte förmår erbjuda någon lösning på det dödläge som målet befinner sig i sedan Ecuador beviljade Assange politisk asyl. Det enda de erbjuder är fortsatt dödläge. Deras krav kan sammanfattas så här: Håll Assange instängd på Ecuadors ambassad i London och hindra honom från att använda sin politiska asyl tills han ger upp och kommer ut frivilligt. Under tiden tänker vi inte göra någonting.

Vi menar att detta är orimligt och ovärdigt Sverige som rättsstat. Det strider mot internationellt erkända konventioner och mot svensk rätt.

Fortsatt häktning strider mot behovsprincipen eftersom den aldrig kan uppfylla målet (att tvinga Assange till Sverige); på grund av den politiska asylen har Assange tillstånd att tills vidare uppehålla sig på ambassaden. Storbritannien kan inte tränga sig in och gripa honom.

Istället bevakar Storbritannien ambassaden dygnet runt (till en kostnad som för närvarande uppgår till över 6 miljoner pund). Bevakningen är orsakad av häktningsbeslutet. Utan häktningsbeslut ingen bevakning. Den svenska staten tjänar dock inget på denna bevakning eftersom den inte kan uppfylla målet (tvinga Assange till Sverige). Den har emellertid starkt negativa konsekvenser för Assange eftersom den placerar honom i husarrestliknande förhållanden under oöverskådlig tid.

Häktningsbeslutet strider därför även mot proportionalitetsprincipen då de negativa konsekvenserna för Assange inte står i rimlig proportion till vad staten kan tjäna på fortsatt häktning.

Åklagarens syfte med att begära Assange häktad är (enligt hennes egen utsago) att han ska gripas och överlämnas till Sverige. Detta syfte kan som ovan visats inte längre uppnås, på grund av att Ecuador har beviljat Assange politisk asyl. Åklagarens yrkande att tingsrätten trots detta även fortsättningsvis ska hålla Assange häktad i dennes frånvaro synes endast ha som syfte att sätta press på Assange att avstå från sin politiska asyl. Ett personligt tvångsmedel får inte användas till att sätta press på den misstänkte. Det strider mot ändamålsprincipen.

Assange har varit häktad i sin frånvaro i snart fyra år. Han har ännu inte förhörts och delgetts någon misstanke om brott mot Fritz klient. Detta trots att vi gång på gång har framfört att Assange vill bli förhörd och därmed rentvådd från de misstankar som åklagaren riktar mot honom.

Att en åklagare håller en förundersökning öppen i fyra år utan att förhöra den misstänkte strider mot skyndsamhetskravet i RB 23:4 och är ett tungt vägande skäl för att upphäva häktningsbeslutet.

Detta är en del av den juridiska argumentation som ligger till grund för vårt yrkande att Stockholms tingsrätt ska upphäva häktningsbeslutet.

Ett upphävande av häktningsbeslutet skulle givetvis inte innebära att den svenska förundersökningen blev omöjlig att driva vidare. Precis som vi yrkat i snart fyra år kvarstår vårt krav på att förundersökningen kompletteras med Assanges version. Vi och vår klient står till förfogande för ett sådant förhör. Allt åklagaren behöver göra är att kontakta oss.

Tingsrätten måste genom att upphäva häktningsbeslutet tvinga åklagaren att driva förundersökningen framåt på det enda sätt som är möjligt: åk till London och förhör Assange.

THOMAS OLSSON

PER E SAMUELSON

Julian Assanges svenska försvarsadvokater

02 juli 2014

Åklagaren: Assange ska vara fortsatt häktad

Åklagaren Maranne Ny i Assangemålet har nu lämnat ett ytterst senkommet svar på Assanges advokaters begäran att förhören skall hållas i London och häktningen upphöra. Aldrig tidigare har väl en anmälan om våldtäkt skapat så mycket prestige. Saken hade kunnat vara ur världen för länge sedan. Här följer Stefan Lisinskis artikel från dagens upplaga av Dagens Nyheter.

Wikileaksgrundaren Julian Assange ska vara fortsatt häktad. Det anser överåklagare Marianne Ny i ett svar på Assanges begäran att häktningen ska upphävas.

Wikileaksgrundaren Julian Assange ska vara fortsatt häktad. Det anser överåklagare Marianne Ny i ett svar på Assanges begäran att häktningen ska upphävas.

I ett svar på advokaternas begäran skriver Marianne Ny och vice chefsåklagare Ingrid Isengren att inget i fallet har förändrats som gör att beslut om häktning ska upphävas.

Åklagarna framhäver att Julian Assange själv har valt att ta sin tillflykt till Ecuadors ambassad i London och att den tiden han har suttit där, drygt två år, inte kan jämföras med att vara frihetsberövad genom häktning.

Åklagarna förnekar också att de skulle kunna genomföra sexbrottsanklagelserna snabbare. De vill inte heller att förhör med Assange ska hållas på ambassaden utan anser att han måste finnas tillgänglig.

”Om förhör och andra utredningsåtgärder skulle vidtas i Storbritannien och utredningen därigenom skulle leda till åtal mot Julian Assange krävs dock fortfarande att han kommer till Sverige för att en rättegång ska kunna genomföras och ett eventuellt straff kunna verkställas” skriver åklagarna.

Julian Assange är misstänkt för våldtäkt och sexuellt ofredande mot två kvinnor under ett besök i Sverige år 2010.

Läs gärna vidare om fallet i nästa inlägg nedan eller under taggen Julian Assange.

02 februari 2014

Fallet Assange: Nu ökar trycket på åklagaren

Nu ökar trycket på åklagaren i fallet med den våldtäktsanklagade Julian Assange. Från höga jurister, och även från politiskt håll, kommer nu krav på att åklagaren driver fallet framåt.

Samtidigt vill inte den svenska åklagaren, Marianne Ny, åka till London och förhöra Assange där. Åklagarmyndigheten har hittills sagt att Assange av utredningstekniska skäl behöver vara i Sverige under förundersökningen.

Det framgick med visst eftertryck i SVTs Agenda på söndagskvällen. Julian Assange, den våldtäktsmisstänkte grundaren av Wikileaks, har nu befunnit sig drygt ett och ett halvt år inne på Ecuadors ambassad i London.

Assange kan tvingas vara kvar på ambassaden ytterligare drygt sex år om han måste vänta tills preskriptionstiden gått ut för den våldtäkt han misstänks ha begått.

Assange vägrar lämna ambassaden eftersom han tror att Sverige kommer att utlämna honom till USA där han riskerar ett långt fängelsestraff efter Wikileaks avslöjanden av bland annat olika amerikanska militära övergrepp och diplomatiska aktiviteter.

Tålamodet tryter

Men nu börjar tålamodet tryta med att inget verkar hända i fallet. För första gången kräver en riksdagspolitiker att åklagaren gör något för att bryta dödläget. Johan Pehrson, rättspolitisk talesperson för Folkpartiet och ledamot i justiitieutskottet, sa i programmet att något borde göras för att föra fallet framåt.

– Det här är ett exceptionellt fall. Därför kan man fundera på om inte åklagaren borde vända på stenarna ytterligare en gång för att se om man inte kan få den här saken ur världen, säger han.

– Fallet har storpolitiska och internationella implikationer. Ingen tjänar på det här, säger Johan Pehrson.

Prestige och cirkus

Att det gått prestige i fallet anses vara en viktig förklaring till det låsta läget. Den analysen gör bland andra Anne Ramberg, Advokatsamfundets generalsekreterare.

– Nu har det blivit lite cirkus kring det här och det har engelsmännen bidragit till men inte minst den misstänkte själv, sa hon till Agenda.

– Men man måste vara lite pragmatisk för att åstadkomma ett slut på den här cirkusen. Man borde ha begett sig till London för att förhöra honom, enligt Anne Ramberg.

Även förre överåklagaren Sven-Erik Alhem tycker det är dags att försöka avsluta fallet. Han tycker att riksåklagaren ska ingripa.

– Riksåklagaren borde ta ansvar nu och säga: hur ska vi lösa situationen som uppkommit? Det kan inte vara rimligt att månad efter månad bara avvakta om Assange till äventyrs skulle vilja lämna sin ambassad, sa Sven-Erik Alhem.

Åtal inte självklart efter förhör

Advokatsamfundet generalsekreterare Anne Ramberg är inte säker på att ett förhör med Julian Assange skulle leda till åtal.

– Det är ju inte uteslutet det skulle komma information vid ett samtal med Assange som skulle leda till att åtalet läggs ned. Det är möjligen den möjligheten som utesluts genom att man inte tar kontakt med honom, sa hon i programmet.

Åklagarmyndigheten svarar

Ingen från Åklagarmyndigheten ville framför kamera förklara varför man inte kan förhöra Julian Assange i London men i ett mejl till SVTs Agenda skriver man att åklagarens möjlighet att ställa frågor om sådant i förundersökningen som inte är direkt uttryckt i den europeiska arresteringsordern är begränsade. Det finns alltså en betydande risk att ett förhör i London inte kommer att föra utredningen framåt.”

Åklagarmyndigheten skriver också: ”Ärendet är pågående. Åklagaren ser ingen möjlighet att i media diskutera eventuella kommande bedömningar eller beslut som kan föranledas av utvecklingen i ärendet.”

Borgström: Ska förhöras i Sverige

Claes Borgström, som företräder en av kvinnorna, tycker inte att åklagaren ska åka till London för att förhöra Julian Assange. Förutsättningarna för att få fram ett underlag till åklagarens beslut om att väcka åtal eller inte blir helt annorlunda om förhöret sker i Storbritannien, hävdar han.

– Jag tycker han ska förhöras som man gör med andra människor som misstänks för att ha begått brott i Sverige. Det är ingen prestige i det.

Enligt Claes Borgström skulle inte den svenska åklagaren personligen få hålla förhöret med Julian Assange.

– Det är på brittisk mark och då ska brittisk polis hålla förhöret. Man måste först ansöka om att ett förhör ska hållas och tala om vilka frågor man ska ställa. Att man måste göra det i förväg är redan det inte så lyckat, säger han.

Som kommentar till detta kan sägas att den svenska halsstarrigheten i frågan fortsätter. En av Julian Assanges svenska advokater Thomas Olsson påpekade att det i USA pågår ett så kallat grand jury-förfarande. Det är en sorts åtalsjury som får avgöra om det finns skälig grund för att väcka åtal. Uppgifter om detta har cirkulerat i amerikansk press under flera månader och enligt Olsson har även USAs justitieminister bekräftat att så är fallet.

Detta komplicerar saken ytterligare, därför att om det skulle bli åtal i USA och en eventuell begäran om utlämning av Assange hänger frågan om utlämning på vilket lagrum man avser att åtala efter. Om man avser använda sig av The Espionage Act, som går tillbaka ända till 1917 kan en utlämning bli ytterst problematisk. Den lagen användes nyligen i åtalet mot Chelsea (Bradley) Manning. Det historiskt mest kända fallet gällde Julius och Ethel Rosenberg som avrättades 1953.

Om USA skulle välja att dra till med The Espionage Act ska man känna till att eftersom lagen ger möjlighet att utdöma dödsstraff torde det vara politiskt tämligen omöjligt för länder som Storbritannien och Sverige att utlämna Assange.

Men det litar naturligtvis inte Julian Assange på och därför väljer han att stanna kvar på Ecuadors ambassad i London.

Och även om åklagaren, Marianne Ny, av olika skäl skulle tvingas lägga ner utredningen så är det ändå osäkert vad som skulle hända den dag Assange vågar lämna ambassaden. Skulle brittiska myndigheter gripa honom om det finns ett amerikanskt åtal och utlämna honom?

Saken är ytterst komplicerad och för sin egen säkerhets skull kommer Julian Assange för mycket lång tid framöver behålla adressen Embajada de Ecuador, Londres.

Länk till programmet: http://www.svt.se/agenda/se-program/article1768676.svt?autostart=true

18 december 2013

25 år efter Lockerbie – svenska spåret fortfarande inte utrett

Den 21 december 1988 klockan halv sju på kvällen, lyfte PAN AMs flight 103 från London Heathrow med destination New York. Planet flög på marschhöjden 10 000 meter över Lockerbie i Skottland.

Då small det klockan 19.03 och ett halvt kilo Semtex placerat i en resväska i babords främre lastutrymme sprängde ett flera kvadratmeter stort hål. 175 000 liter flygbränsle exploderade och förvandlade flight 103 till småbitar. Snart regnade 259 sönderslitna människokroppar, bagage, julklappar och vrakdelar över staden och ett område på flera kvadratkilometer. Cockpiten var någorlunda intakt och landade på ett fält.

På marken dödades 11 människor då hus bröts sönder. En krater slogs upp som slungade 1 500 ton jord och byggbråte vida omkring. Bland de dödade ombord fanns två svenskar, diplomaten Bernt Carlsson och flygvärdinnan Siv Engström.

Det var det då värsta terroristattentatet i historien. Utredarna pusslade ihop vrakdelarna i en tillfällig hangar och snart fann man resterna efter bomben. Den hade placerats i en Toshibaradio, styrd av en timer och inlindad i kläder. Alltsammans placerat i en brun resväska av märket Samsonite.

Skotsk polis pekade snart ut den palestinska terroristorganisationen PFLP-GC, med bas i Syrien. Attacken mot PAN AM skulle ha varit en hämnd från Iran efter att det amerikanska krigsfartyget USS Vincennes i juli samma år av misstag skjutit ner en iransk Airbus med 290 pilgrimer ombord på väg till Mecka. Ayatollah Khomeini sa efter nedskjutningen att ”hela skyn ska regna blod”.

Två månader före Lockerbieattentatet hade västtysk polis gjort ett tillslag mot en terroristcell utanför Düsseldorf, där man grep 17 medlemmar av just PFLP-GC. En av de gripna var en palestinier som bodde i Uppsala. Det viktigaste var att polisen hittade fyra Semtexbomber monterade i radioapparater av märket Toshiba. Svensk säkerhetspolis fick tips om att det kunde finnas en cell också i Uppsala, men brydde sig egentligen inte alls om tipset.

En femte bomb i Düsseldorf var dock försvunnen och hade gömts undan av terroristcellens bombmakare, Marwan Kreeshat. Amerikanska ABC News Europakorrespondent, Pierre Salinger, intervjuade senare Kreeshat i fängelset. Han sa då att han var övertygad om att det var just hans bomb som hade sprängt PAN AM-flighten. Man vet också att under hösten 1988 överfördes stora summor pengar i omgångar från Iran till den tyska terroristcellen via olika banker i Mellanöstern.

Men i augusti 1990 blev det palestinsk-iranska spåret iskallt, då Irak hade invaderat Kuwait. Invasionen och det första Gulfkriget förändrade, på amerikanskt initiativ, utredningen totalt. Inför uppmarschen till kriget gällde det att hålla både Syrien och Iran på mattan.

Spåret efter PFLP-GC blev ointressant och istället pekade USA ut Libyen som ansvarigt för dådet och FN införde på beställning omfattande sanktioner mot Libyen. Efter långa förhandlingar gick Moammar Khadaffi med på att lämna ut två libyer till en skotsk specialdomstol som upprättades på en nerlagd militärbas i Holland.

Efter två skenrättegångar dömdes den ene libyern, Abdelbaset al Megrahi till 27 års fängelse, medan den andre friades. Khadaffi betalade 2,7 miljarder dollar till offrens anhöriga. Sanktionerna avbröts och Storbritannien fick i utbyte lukrativa oljekontrakt. Al Megrahi skickades hem till Libyen 2009, där han senare avled i cancer.

Domen mot al Megrahi byggde på ett utpekande av en affärsinnehavare på Malta, Tony Gauci, som bevisligen hade sålt de kläder som återfanns i bombväskan. Men utpekandet var lögnaktigt, då han i förväg fått se en bild av al Megrahi. Han fick dessutom två miljoner dollar av USA för sitt vittnesmål.

Vid rättegången i Holland förhördes också en numera 59 år gammal palestinier från Uppsala. Men han förnekade ihärdigt all inblandning och hans påstådda alibi har aldrig kunnat verifieras av svensk polis. 59-åringen satt vid den tiden av ett livstidsstraff i Sverige tillsammans med en lika gammal palestinsk kumpan, för en serie bombdåd i Köpenhamn och i Amsterdam som spred död och förintelse och som genomfördes 1985.

De greps först i maj 1989, ett halvår efter Lockerbie, tillsammans med två andra palestinier som numera lämnat Sverige, den ene utvisad enligt terroristlagen. Den 59-årige huvudmannen i terrorligan i Uppsala har av en åklagare i det svenska terrormålet kallats för ”en livsfarlig fotsoldat”. Han hade bland annat varit chef för livvaktsstyrkor inom PFLP-GC i både Libanon och Syrien och var militärt välutbildad i Sovjetunionen.

Idag är det många skotska utredare och experter som anser att det var den 59-årige huvudmannen från Uppsala som såg till att den försvunna femte bomben i Düsseldorf lastades ombord redan i Frankfurt, där PAN AM 103 inledde flighten. Det är bevisat att bombväskan lastades utan att den tillhörde någon passagerare.

Uppsalaligan hade dessutom rest åtskilliga gånger till både Frankfurt och München. Alla gånger på olika falska pass. Det är också bevisat att 59-åringen befann sig på Malta under hösten 1988 och hans jämnårige kumpan hade dessutom bott på Malta.

I huvudmannens bostad i Uppsala fann polisen en kalender med datumet 21 december inringat och i ett avlyssnat telefonsamtal sa hans hustru till en annan person ”gör dig av med kläderna omedelbart”. Hos den personen hittades en väska av samma typ som bombväskan.

Men det svenska spåret efter sprängningen över Lockerbie har aldrig borrats i botten och det är den stora svenska skandalen i sammanhanget, trots att de skotska utredarna numera är övertygade om att det verkligen var PFLP-GC som låg bakom attentatet över Lockerbie.

Huvudmannen från Uppsalaligan och hans närmaste man är numera fria och är tillbaka i Uppsala, så ingen kan påstå att det svenska spåret inte längre går att utreda. Dessutom finns mycket omfattande beslag fortfarande kvar hos svensk polis.

Fotnot: Den 21 december hålls en stor minneshögtid i Londonkatedralen Westminster Abbey och liknande högtider i kyrkor över hela USA, för att hedra de 270 offren.

05 juni 2013

The Catrine da Costa case – media court and the enemies of justice

Posted by Dispatch International April 11, 2013. Fifth and last article in a series.

Despite all setbacks, the two doctors did not give up their battle for justice and restitution. They appealed the revocation of their medical licenses to Regeringsrätten (The Supreme Administrative Court) – who rejected their filing. Then came an extended period involving a series of applications for restitution, and a couple of filings at the European Commission of Human Rights. All were rejected, as if an assembly line were stamping blank papers with rubber stamps.

This legal intermission went on for a full twelve years, until Anders Agell, a professor emeritus in civil law, took up the case in 2003. Yet another application for restitution was denied,.

Submissions to Chancellor of Justice Göran Lambertz produced no results, and the Chancellor likewise refused to agree to a multi-million kroner demand for damages. Lambertz thought that would be for a court to decide.

So, after having worked on the case for four years, on April 2007 Anders Agell filed a case against the Swedish state, at the district court of Attunda, demanding a total of Skr 40 million (€4.8 million) in damages, loss of income and negligence on the part of the state.

The first step in that case, which was to become number 16 in the sequence after 1988, was a so-called interlocutory, where judge Nils Hedström declined to accept the claim from the State that events predating 1991 were past the statute of limitations. Then the Director of Attunda district court, Erik Ternert, claimed Hedström was in a conflict of interest, to the advantage of the doctors.

Nils Hedström was withdrawn from the case, and Ternert himself took over. But at the same time the undersigned revealed in a series of articles that Erik Ternert had dealt secretly with the state agent, who at that time was an assistant of the Chancellor of Justice. In a narrow circle, judge Ternert had also promised that the case would never actually be taken up at court. My revelations led to Judge Ternert’s being forced to resign from his office.

Erik Ternert had also attempted to compel the obviously talented Anders Agell to leave the case, referring to his age. Professor Agell, 77 at the time, became extremely angry over the excesses by Ternert.

However, when the case for damages eventually came before the Attunda district court in November 2009, Anders Agell had died, having been replaced by the lawyers Kajsa Blomgren and Carl Johan Vahlén representing the doctors. 157 points were presented wherein the State was considered to have acted incorrectly, illegally or with negligence.

The Swedish State was represented through the Chancellor of Justice by the retired judge Ingvar Gunnarsson, who back in the days was a close friend and colleague of Carl Anton Spak, the man who had penned the devastating justification for the verdict back in 1988.

The spokesman for the court was judge Sten Falkner, a former prosecutor who had previously worked on laws at the Ministry for Justice and had also worked for the National Prosecutor. That made him a clear example of the very unfortunate practice in which top-level lawyers move between various positions within the legal system. The risk of corruption through friendship is too large.

It would soon turn out that the scandals from the previous legal circus were to see new chapters, in the damages case as well the debacle concerning Erik Ternert’s blunders. For the State had neglected to file its objections to the 157 points justifying damages, and was now forced into simply giving up on all objections.

That made a flabbergasted Sten Falkner ask the lawyers what they wanted ”to be written in a future verdict”. That was no simple oversight from the side of the State, it was pure carelessness, the State’s attorneys demanding many breaks for deliberations. To the audience it was like following a game of chess with the Devil, who was eventually forced to sacrifice his queen.

”We have been nagging them like crazy for 18 months to file the objections, but they have not bothered to do so,” attorney Kajsa Blomgren said during one of the breaks.

Apart from the legal chess games, the proceedings brought forth only a little real news. The first came when the professor in forensic medicine, Jovan Rajs, gave his testimony. He was the absolute crowning witness in the damages case, due to his position as the Härm’s superior at the medical investigation clinic at Solna. Already at an early stage, he had turned his adept Teet Härm into the police, via a handwritten letter to the technical police division.

Now, 25 years later, Rajs claimed that the only thing he knew with certainty was that da Costa had been murdered. ”But who had murdered her I can’t tell,” he said. Rajs was the person who had autopsied the body parts, and his unwavering testimony in the previous cases, primarily against Teet Härm, had been very decisive.

Jovan Rajs also got into a heated courtroom quarrel with Kajsa Blomgren, as she started reading out his memoirs, in which he describes Teet Härm as ”a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde”.

Rajs then shouted aggressively to the entire room: ”No quoting, if you read, you must read the complete chapter. This is not Moscow in 1936.” With his verbal outbursts, Rajs attempted to equate the case with the Stalinist purges in the former Soviet Union. If Rajs had previously been a respected professor in forensic medicine, and previously had pawned his credibility on Härm’s status as both a killer and a dismemberer, he managed on that day to squander all his respect.

It was a clearly shaken person who left the court abruptly after his testimony, accompanied by extreme feminists, who yet again had turned up.

One of the jurors from the 1988 murder case also gave testimony. John-Henri Holmberg explained that he had no idea what the content of the devastating verdict justification would be. Also, he had no knowledge of how that justification was to be written, and got to see the complete verdict only on the same day it was published.

Two judges were also forced to the witness stand: Ingegerd Westlander, who penned the justification about dismembering along with Carl Anton Spak, and Peter Wennerholm, who penned the verdict from the Administrative Court about revoking the doctor’s licenses. But both of them crawled insecurely back and forth among their claimed memory gaps, or referred to the judge’s oath, which prevents judges from revealing details from the individual court deliberations. And the spokesman for the court, Sten Falkner, let them keep up their charades with a smile.

At this point, the media circus had taken down its tent and packed up, coverage of the case was very limited, and no so-called “cultural personalities” appeared during the hearings. Possibly they were ashamed of their previous excesses in reporting.

In the verdict from Attunda District Court, which was handed down in February 2010, 26 of the 157 points from the doctors’ side were upheld, but the district court did not consider any of those points serious enough to justify damages. The verdict was appealed to the High Court as well as to the Supreme Court, but without any result.

In total, some 30 judges have been involved in the 18 different cases through three decades. And we can easily note that in many cases, judges have protected each other from criticism for previous mistakes.

The Catrine da Costa case has been characterized by pure cowardice, miserable legal incompetence and corruption. But the word “corruption” does not exist in Swedish law book. And yet, all of these combined have been the sparks that ignited the fire of legal decay and burned justice to ashes.

By Anders Carlgren

04 juni 2013

The Catrine da Costa case – Legal incompetence and corruption

 

Posted by: Dispatch International April 4, 2013. Fourth article in a series.

After the two show trials in the district court of Stockholm against the two doctors charged with the murder of Catrine da Costa, the National Health Board revoked their licenses to practice medicine. This was done referring to the acquittal from the court stating that they had dismembered the dead body. Thus, they were both acquitted and punished under the same verdict. The National Health Board decision was appealed several times, and the battle for justice and restitution continues even today.

The decisive trial about the licenses of Thomas Allgén and Teet Härm began on a spring day in April 1991 at the Administrative Court in Stockholm. Almost two years have passed since the devastating verdict from the district court. The doctors were acquitted, but were thought to have dismembered the body, their punishment being barred due to the statute of limitations.

The justification was appealed, but the high court as well as the supreme court refused to nullify it. The case was then taken to the Administrative Court in order to cancel the National Health Board decision. The legal wrangling  started with annulling the decision, giving the doctors their licenses back.

But then the Supreme Administrative Court stepped in, demanding that the Administrative Court should retry the case, now demanding that the case had to be decided with presentation of evidence as in a criminal case, despite the Administrative Court having no such legal competence.

The Social Democrat Laila Freivalds was Minister of Justice at the time, and it was legally and politically impossible to take this without her approval. The procedure has even been called “the politicized miscarriage of justice”.

At the retrial on the spring day in 1991, hordes of hard-line feminists had assembled in the street outside, with banners stating “Class before gender”, “Who will be the next victim?” and “Women get no justice”. From the shouting came the slogan ”Hear our call, grave respect for all!”.

The over-inflated media expectations stimulated the general public as well as demonstrators. The news anchor Olle Andersson at state broadcaster SVT was practically alone in his early observation of his colleagues’ attitude:

”What really astonished me was the hateful mood among reporters from Dagens Nyheter, Expressen, Aftonbladet and from the opinion writers of those newspapers. The doctors were to be hung up by their genitals, they were guilty! During the breaks at the trials, there was hatred emanating from the walls from those reporters.”

The crime journalist Ewa Thures from the news agency TT described Thomas Allgén as a ”schoolboy looking like an old man”. And Gun Fälth of Dagens Nyheter, who worked as a prosecutor in the past, considered it tiresome to listen to Allgén, that he was ”arrogant and jealous over his dignity”. Britt Edwall, a hardcore feminist at the state broadcaster Sveriges Radio, thought that Teet Härm was ”brooding, gray and closed” beside his lawyer, whom Edwall thought was ”as if taken directly from a theater piece by Molière”.

As the two doctors fought at court for their professional honor and future, all media impartiality and objectivity was gone with the wind.

The Administrative Court had one issue to decide: whether Allgén and Härm were still worthy to work as doctors. Bertil Södermark, the National Health Board spokesman in the case, demanded in his submissions that the standards of proof had to be set lower than in the district court, as there was no fundamental right to work as doctors. An ID issue was not the same thing as being charged with murder, Södermark held.

This trial featured the reappearance of roughly the same set of witnesses as at the district court, as well as various psychiatrists and psychologists as expert witnesses, fighting each other over the credibility of the testimony from the child Karin about what she was claimed to have experienced.

Journalists of culture such as Yrsa Stenius at Aftonbladet and Eva Ekselius at Dagens Nyheter wrote about the conflict as if they were themselves experts in the matter. The shifting role identities among the journalists were obvious. Furthest down that road was the star writer Per Svensson of Expressen as he tried to analyze what went on in the head of Teet Härm:

”The Coroner is a mere two years older than myself. There are several boys of his kind in my schoolyards, boys who were not permitted to play along, and who would rather stay at home, do homework, study books about the style of SS uniforms, gluing together plastic models of German tanks.” Svensson continued: ”Boys of this kind used to like experimenting with pulling the legs off flies. And the lord of the flies in a doctor’s coat is a nightmare figure you would prefer avoiding any contact with.”

Yrsa Stenius of Aftonbladet wrote seven chronicles, one from each day at court. She saw Thomas Allgén before her ”as a man who is strict and controlled, bordering on lifeless. [...] The man behaves a bit like a robot. Yet, from time to time, something does trickle through the iron curtain.”

The hard-line feminist struggle to punish the two doctors was beginning to look like a public movement, and soon the campaign was given a name: “Justice for Catrine”. There were daily demonstrations, and when the verdict came on May 31st, the conclusion was given in advance.

Thomas Allgén and Teet Härm did not get their doctor’s licenses back. The miscarriage of justice had now been confirmed by a court lacking the legal competence to evaluate the case.

On that evening, 600 feminists marched through the streets of Stockholm, red roses in their hands. At the staircase leading to the High Court of Svea, the hard-line feminist Hanna Olsson, who succeeded in making the prosecutor Anders Helin take the case to the district court a second time, spoke:

Olsson was hoping that the word “whore” could now be eliminated. “After this, only the word ‘woman’ exists. We are breaking a millennium-old patriarchal order under the man,” Olsson was shouting to the jubilant women laying down their roses on the stairs to the court.

In the last chapter: The doctors fight their last battle – demanding Skr 40 million (€4.8 million) compensation for damages.

The Catrine da Costa case – media court and the enemies of justice

 

Publisched by Dispatch International March 28, 2013. Third in a series.

In the previous installment we described how completely impossible it was that the two doctors could have managed to pick up da Costa, bring her to the medical investigation clinic, have sex with her, kill her, dismember the body, clean up the autopsy room, bring away the body parts and get back home.

In order to disguise this fact and prevent the doctors from being acquitted, the way the first trial collapsed due to procedural errors and blabbering jurors, the ultrafeminist Hanna Olsson launched a campaign aimed at demolishing the doctors based on emotional arguments.

On the same day that the renewed decision to prosecute came, March 31st, the leftist lawyer Christian Diesen wrote in the communist newspaper Proletären that he was convinced that the doctors were guilty, and that it was frustrating that with their perversions they ”will get away with it because the head of the victim was never found.”

Hanna Olsson and Cristian Diesen were now seen as the standard-bearers of truth, not least among the leftist journalists at the state broadcasters Sveriges Radio and Sveriges Television. They had been convinced by the political and feminist rhetoric surrounding the case about the two high society men and the defiled woman.

The retrial against Thomas Allgén and Teet Härm went much more according to the tastes of Hanna Olsson and Christian Diesen than the first. The prostitute with the diary eventually played a key role, providing support for what the child Karin had said.

Much later, the professor and author Leif GW Persson judged the diary a forgery, and the author Jan Guillou believes that the woman committed perjury in giving her testimony.

During the second trial at the end of May 1988, the witness with the diary made a powerful impression, not least because she previously, in an interview given to Sveriges Television, had explained how a tied-up da Costa had been subjected to throttling sex games in the presence of the small child. But to the police she had given an entirely different story. The possibly forged diary was proclaimed a document of truth by the media.

Public prosecutor Helin’s tactic was to prove both doctors to be perverted with an abnormal sexual interest in defiling weak women. In this way, he was entirely in line with the two self-proclaimed experts Hanna Olsson and Christian Diesen.

Witnesses from the first trial now appeared in court again. The court chose to screen two gory movies which had been confiscated from Teet Härm. That decision was taken after Folkaktionen mot Pornografi, (“The People’s Campaign Against Pornography”), backed by some 70 more or less militant feminist women’s organizations, had written an open letter to the prosecutor, demanding that the movies be shown.

Screening the movies made a great impact in the media, in Sweden as well as abroad, and leftist journalism with its tainted feminist reporting reinforced the image of both doctors as being sexual monsters.

But the judgment at the court of Stockholm on July 8th 1988 became a double surprise. Teet Härm and Thomas Allgén were acquitted of murder. The charge of having dismembered the body fell away due to any such crime being past the statute of limitations.

But the judge, Carl-Anton Spak, also wrote in his verdict, which could not be appealed, that it had been made clear that the two had dismembered the dead body. At a press conference, he said “one could view that as consumer information”.

Three years later, after a series of trials, both doctors lost their licenses to practice. The corruption of justice had now dug itself into the bedrock of Swedish law.

In the next installment, we describe the doctors’ battle, lasting more than 20 years, to obtain justice and redress from the scandalous verdicts.

By Anders Carlgren

21 mars 2013

The feminist media court decided the fates of the coroner and the general practitioner

The da Costa case: Feminist media court deciding fate of two doctors.

Published by Dispatch International March 21, 2013. Second part in a series.

After a scandalously poor police investigation and six months of solitary confinement, it was time for the two doctors Teet Härm and Thomas Allgén to face justice in the District Court of Stockholm. But there was not to be any justice in the Catrine da Costa case, merely two show trials with false witnesses, changing information and a prosecutor who was not even convinced of his own indictment. Dispatch International continues the story of a legal process controlled by an ultra-feminist mob and the media.

When the two doctors were led from the jail to the courtroom on January 22nd 1988, they attempted to conceal their faces from the press photographers and journalists who tried to catch a glimpses of the two monstrous dismembering killers. For that was how they had been described in enormous headlines on the newspaper placards.

They had simply been convicted in advance. The responsibility for that rested heavily on the ultra-feminist mob which for many months had conducted a campaign against the woman-hating monsters, the killers, the rapists and the body dismemberers.

Evening newspapers joined the fray to an unprecedented extent. When the news Director at public broadcaster Sveriges Radio, Erik Fichtelius, decided to publish the names of the two doctors, Everyone else was free to do the same. The decision by Fichtelius gave each of the two men their mark of Cain. It became a first in Swedish legal history that the media along with an external group managed to control a legal process.

The entire first trial became a race between media and the court, where the media won each round. Witnesses appeared in newspapers before they were interrogated in court, or the media speculated extensively in what they would say, to such an extent that it could hardly be missed by members of the court.

Outside the courtroom, the curious and the feminists would line up for hours seeking to get one of the few seats available to the public. The entire process was initiated by the public prosecutor, Anders Helin, who in front of the sitting court was forced to change the date that the murder was supposed to have been committed – because Allgén had an alibi for the original date. So the prosecutor simply pushed the murder date one day ahead in time.

The prosecutorial tactic was to prove that the two had dismembered the body of Catrine da Costas, and that this constituted evidence that they had also committed the murder during barbaric and grotesque sex play at the medical investigators’ center, in the presence of the 18-month-old daughter of Thomas Allgén.

Over the course of two hours, the doctors were supposed to have had time to pick up da Costa, take her to the medical center, have sex with her, murder her, dismember the body, clean up the autopsy room, remove the body bags, and make it back home again. A scenario with impossible timing.

For that reason, the autopsy report of the medical investigator Jovan Rajs became vital for the prosecution. He was also Teet Härm’s boss and four years before the trial had already pointed out his apprentice Teet Härm in a letter to the criminal police. That such claims did not fit to his role as an expert witness was of no concern to the police. Eventually, Rajs said in his testimony that it was not possible to ascertain the cause of death, a severe blow to the whole chain of evidence. His statement was later torn to shreds by the legal council of the Swedish social authorities.

A couple who owned a photography shop testified that Thomas Allgén had submitted a film with images of a dismembered body. But their identification of Allgén was of significantly worse quality than the rejected identification that Lisbet Palme had made of Christer Pettersson.

Christina, Allgén’s ex-wife, testified what their daughter Karin was said to have told her. That ”the lady head ended up in a trashcan” and ”one can cut up ladies like the garden and daddy”, or that ”they grilled eyes and drank blood”. A police officer claimed to have seen Härm and da Costa  in the subway, and one woman erroneously claimed to have seen the two doctors outside the medical investigation clinic on the day in question. All of these witnesses had contacted the investigators only years after the death of da Costa.

Towards the end of the trial, the media changed tack in their extensive speculations. They now believed in an acquittal, after stubbornly having said the opposite earlier. But the verdict was a conviction, published on the international women’s day March 8th, along with a decision for a forensic psychiatric investigation.

Then came the turnaround. The daily Aftonbladet had managed to interview the jurymen while anticipating the final verdict. Their chatter triggered a legal avalanche. The jury members and the judge jumped the gun. The lawyers appealed the decision and continued the case at the high court. Nineteen days later, Thomas Allgén and Teet Härm were set free after a decision at the Svea high court, which also wrote that procedural errors had been committed, and that if the case was taken to the high court, the two were likely to be acquitted.

But there was a political undercurrent around the case, led by a former investigator of prostitution in Sweden, the ultra-feminist Hanna Olsson. She had followed the case closely and written several articles about it. Olsson contacted the prosecutor, which became her starting point for obtaining a retrial.

From out of nowhere suddenly appeared a prostitute with a diary. The woman claimed that da Costa knew the two perverse doctors, and that one of them had a small daughter. The prosecutor Helin decided to take the woman in for an interrogation, while at the same time declaring that he had no intentions of bringing fresh charges.

But he wanted that decision anchored by the National Prosecutor Magnus Sjöberg. On the same day as that meeting took place, on March 29th 1988, the cultural pages of the newspaper Dagens Nyheter published a major article by Hanna Olsson, who with strong moralistic and feminist indignation criticized the prosecutor for not letting prostitutes be witnesses in court. She also claimed that the doctors had sadistic and necrophiliac tendencies. The case had to be taken up again, she wrote.

On the same day, Hanna Olsson also provided Sveriges Radio with a new testimony from a prostitute who claimed that Teet Härm had been a customer of da Costa. Also on the same day, Anders Helin received an express letter from an anonymous woman, claiming that Härm in tears had admitted his guilt to her. The sender of the letter was never found.

A mere two days later, prosecutor Anders Helin decided that there was to be a retrial. It took only a one-day media campaign by Hanna Olsson, and one anonymous letter, for Helin to change his mind and decide for a new prosecution. As of today, it is unknown which role the National Prosecutor played in the spectacle.

In the next installment, we will explain the verdict that acquitted the doctors of murder, but forever marked them as corpse desecrators.

Link to Dispatch International: http://www.d-intl.com/

By Anders Carlgren

Miscarriage of justice: The da Costa case

A thirty year old miscarriage of justice

Published by Dispatch International March 14, 2013. First in a series.

The case of Catrine da Costa must be described as the worst case of corrupted justice in Swedish criminal history. Two young doctors were charged with murdering and dismembering the prostitute in 1984. Four years after her death, the two doctors were acquitted of the murder itself, but were still accused of having dismembered the body. After this a marathon of 18 court cases was brought before various Swedish courts in order to obtain justice. But in each case the doctors have lost, most recently in the Supreme Court last year. This in spite of the fact that everyone aware of the case knows that they are innocent. Nobody knows with certainty how da Costa died. Now, Dispatch International reveals in a series of articles how the law turned into the enemy of justice.

On a warm summer night in the middle of July 1984, a janitor was walking his dog near an exercise park at the Karlberg canal in Solna, a small urban municipality just north of the Stockholm city center. The dog discovered a collection of black plastic bags that were hidden under a shrubbery out of view from the road. The stench of decay was clear from far away, so the man chose to stop a police car he met on the road.

The police officer brought forth the bags and opened up the plastic, but was unable to ascertain if the contents was remains from an animal or a human. The bags were transported to the medical investigation clinic in Solna a couple of miles away, where they turned out to contain the lower parts of a woman’s torso and the upper parts of both thighs. The area was searched in vain for the remaining body parts.

Three weeks later, the police received a tip about an additional two bags some miles away from the first finding place. Those bags contained the upper part of the woman’s torso, her arms and the lower parts of her legs. But the head and the inner organs were never recovered.

The two autopsies of the findings were conducted by the medical investigator Jovan Rajs, who later was to become a key figure as the corruption of justice spread like a prairie fire. At the second autopsy, the junior doctor Teet Härm (30) was also present. His parents had moved from Estonia in 1944 during the Soviet oppression, and Teet was their only child. During the autopsy, Jovan Rajs was in good mood and jokingly said that it must have been a matron who had conducted the dismembering, as the arms had been cut away in such an unusual fashion.

Having found the hands of the dead woman, police files revealed that her name was Catrine da Costa, a prostitute and drug addict aged 28, convicted a few times for minor offenses. The police now pieced together the last days of da Costa’s life by means of her date book. On Pentecost Sunday, June 10th, she had been visiting an architect in Östermalm, Stockholm, where she had injected heroin and afterwards slept for some hours. After that, she and the architect left the house, and he drove her by car to Kungsträdgården, a park in central Stockholm. The clues ended there, although it was later reported that she had been seen after Pentecost as well.

Police now started to walk through the red light districts of Stockholm by night, carrying a photo album. It contained pictures of twelve men, including the architect, a car mechanic whom da Costa used to spend the night with, and several doctors known to be customers of prostitutes.

Some weeks later came what was considered the great breakthrough. A man in his 50s turned up at the police station. His name was Rolf, and he falsely claimed to be working for the military intelligence services. In fact, however, he was the father of the first wife of the medical investigator Teet Härm, who two years before had committed suicide in the couple’s home.

Rolf handed over a long memorandum concluding that the police should take a close look at Teet Härm. That led to the addition of a photo of Härm to the album carried by the police during their nighttime walks. Eventually one prostitute pointed out Härm as a violence-prone customer, while others called him stingy, shy and nervous. None of the 200 women interviewed indicated any connection between da Costa and Teet Härm.

In spite of the weakness of the suspicions, Teet Härm was arrested and jailed in the beginning of December, five months after the first parts of the body had been found. But interrogations turned up nothing, apart from his admission that he had visited prostitutes a couple of times, and Härm was released five days later. An important consequence, however, was that the promising young medical investigator had lost his job. Stigmatized as a murderous monster and easily identifiable in the evening newspapers, he moved to the countryside. Teet Härm later attempted suicide with an overdose of Methadone, which caused him severe hearing impairment.

At the same time that the medical investigator Härm had been disgraced in the media, a huge panic about incest was spreading in Sweden. Fathers were accused of raping their daughters and many were convicted based on flimsy or no evidence. One of the women targeted by the panic was Christina Allgén. She was married to the doctor Thomas Allgén, who was working as a general practitioner in Alingsås, in western Sweden. The couple had a daughter Karin who was merely 18 months old. Christina went from clinic to clinic for a long time with the small girl, falsely convinced that Thomas had violated their daughter. But in spite of extensive investigations, she found no support for her panic.

The Allgén couple had previously had superficial contact with Teet Härm after Härm had helped Thomas Allgén at a study visit to the clinic for medical investigation as part of his training. When Christina Allgén became aware that Härm was appointed a monster by the media, she forebade Thomas from even mentioning the name Härm.

Concurrently, Christina Allgén interviewed her daughter about what the mother thought the daughter had been subjected to. On scraps of paper, the mother wrote “the head of the lady was thrown into a trashcan”. Or ”they were eating eyes and drinking blood ”, and further that ”you can cut ladies like the garden and daddy”. Much of what the 18-month-old girl was made to say by her mother was recorded, and came to play a decisive role in the early processes, along with the testimony of Christina Allgén herself. No one took notice of the young age of the girl, or the leading questions posed to her by her mother. Nobody questioned what a child of that age would really be able to remember.

Thomas Allgén was interrogated about the statements from the daughter for many hours, inquired about incest and his contacts with Teet Härm, but police got nowhere. Then came the assassination of prime minister Olof Palme in 1986, which led to the murder investigation against Härm and Allgén being closed down.

A bit over a year later the investigation was resumed, now led by a police officer who had no experience with investigating homicide cases. That gave Christina Allgén ample playing room, and the new investigator took all she said at face value. The garden of the Allgén vacation house was dug up, just as the Härm’s garden in Täby had been dug up previously, without yielding any piece of evidence.

At this point, all the police really had was the information from Christina Allgén, and the claim from the coroner Jovan Rajs that Härm had buried the head of da Costa. Rajs was technically disqualified due to his being Härm’s boss but the police didn’t mind that. Nevertheless, Thomas Allgén was arrested and jailed in the beginning of October 1987, and by the end of the month, Härm was jailed as well.

The Swedish daily Expressen got wind of the affair, and presented the child testimony of Karin as indisputable truth, set in type otherwise reserved for the outbreak of war, and in the media, the three-year-old accusations against Teet Härm reinforced the image of the two monstrous murderers and dismemberers.

The prelude to the 30-year miscarriage of justice, where law was to stand in the way of justice, had now been carved into stone.

In the next part: The tale of the ultra-feminist mob who, along with outrageously lying and biased media, made sure that the two doctors had their lives destroyed.

Link to Dispatch International: http://www.d-intl.com/

By Anders Carlgren

15 februari 2013

Lockerbie - Yet Again the Clues Lead to a Palestinian Terrorist Group

Skriver idag i senaste numret av Dispatch International. Länk längst ner.

This year marks the 25th anniversary of the terrorist attack over Lockerbie in Scotland. 270 persons were killed by a bomb aboard Pan Am Flight 103 in transit between London Heathrow and New York, just a few days before Christmas 1988. Today everyone involved knows that the conviction of Libyan Abdelbaset Al Megrahi was based on a fraudulent mock trial. Thus, the investigators are now back to looking at the original suspects, the Palestinian terrorist organization PFLP-GC. That involves two Palestinians serving lifetime sentences in Sweden. But the trail has never been properly investigated, explains journalist Anders Carlgren, who has followed the scandal since it first began.

Yet Again the Clues Lead to a Palestinian Terrorist Group

 

On the shortest day of the year, December 21st 1988, at 6:30 PM, the giant Pan Am jumbo jet took off from London Heathrow, destination New York. The plane, which had suffered an 18 minute delay, reached its cruise altitude of 10,000 meters over the tiny Scottish town of Lockerbie.

Then it blew up. Half a kilo of Semtex placed in a suitcase located in the front portside luggage compartment blew a hole of several square meters in the fuselage. 175,000 liters of jet fuel exploded, and tore Flight 103 to shreds. Only a dull bang was heard in the skies over Lockerbie, but soon afterwards 259 tattered bodies, Christmas presents and wreckage rained on the town, distributed over several square kilometers. The cockpit landed fairly intact on the ground. Eleven persons on the ground were killed as their houses were destroyed. A crater in the middle of town threw up around an estimated 1,500 tons of earth and building materials. Two Swedes were among those killed, the diplomat Bernt Carlsson and flight hostess Siv Engström.

It was the worst terrorist attack to date. Investigators spent a lot of time piecing together the wreckage in a makeshift hangar, and they soon found the remains of the bomb. A brown Samsonite suitcase had contained the bomb, which had been built into a Toshiba radio, detonated by a timer. The suitcase also contained clothes, which were traced to a shop in Malta.

The intention had been to blow up the airplane over the Atlantic, so that it would be buried there forever, but due to the delay at Heathrow, the bomb exploded over land.

Authorities soon pointed towards the Palestinian terrorist organization PFLP-GC, based in Syria, and its leader Ahmed Jibril. The attack on Pan Am was meant as revenge by Iran after the American warship USS Vincennes had mistakenly shot down an Iranian Airbus with 290 pilgrims on their way to Mecca. Ayatollah Khomeini said after the shooting that ”the sky must be raining blood”.

Just two months before the Lockerbie bombing, West German police had cracked down on a terrorist cell outside of Düsseldorf, apprehending 17 members of none other than PFLP-GC. The most important find was four Semtex bombs build into Toshiba radios.

But a fifth bomb had gone missing, and it turned out that it had been hidden by the bomb builder of the terrorist cell, Marwan Kreeshat. The legendary European correspondent for ABC News Pierre Salinger later interviewed Kreeshat in prison. In that interview Kreeshat said that he was convinced that it was precisely his bomb that had brought down Pan Am Flight 103. It is also documented that during the fall of 1988, great sums were transferred from Iran to the German terrorist cell, in several batches via a variety of Middle Eastern banks.

But the Palestinian-Iranian trail sudden went cold and non-existent in August 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait. That invasion and the first Gulf war entirely changed the direction of the investigation, documentably at American request. During the preparation for the war, it was important to keep both Syria and Iran calm. The PFLP-GC was now entirely uninteresting and – unexpectedly – the rogue state Libya was pointed to as responsible for the act. The United Nations complied with a request to impose extensive sanctions against Libya.

One of the persons no longer under investigation was the Swedish-Palestinian Mohammed Abu Talb, then a resident of Uppsala. He had entered Sweden on a false passport. Abu Talb probably had ties to the German terrorist cell, as he and three other Swedish-Palestinians repeatedly traveled to places like Frankfurt and Munich. Abu Talb had a background as chief of bodyguard forces in Lebanon and in Syria, and in the Soviet Union he had received training in handling targeting robots.

Today many investigators and relatives of victims are convinced that Abu Talb obtained the fifth Semtex bomb and had it loaded onto the airplane in Frankfurt, where Pan Am 103 had begun its route. It was determined that the bomb-containing suitcase had been loaded without belonging to any passenger.

Three years before the Lockerbie bombing, in 1985, Abu Talb along with three Palestinian co-conspirators were behind the bombing of a synagogue in Copenhagen and similar bombs against airplane companies in Copenhagen and Amsterdam, both of which caused much death and destruction.

In May 1989 the four terrorists were apprehended in Sweden, and December 21st, one year after Lockerbie, Mohammed Abu Talb and Marten Imandi were sentenced to life prison. The two others received significantly milder punishments.

Investigations showed that Abu Talb had been in Malta during the fall of 1988, and that Marten Imandi had stayed in Malta for a longer period. In the Uppsala home of Abu Talb, police also found a calendar with a circle around December 21st. And in a recorded wiretap , the Abu Talb’s wife was heard saying to someone else: ”get rid of the clothes immediately.” A suitcase similar to the one holding the bomb was found at that person’s residence.

Both Abu Talb and Marten Imandi are now free after having had their life sentences converted. Abu Talb was also sentenced to deportation, but is nevertheless still in Sweden, as the government cannot decide which country he is to be deported to – Egypt, Syria or Lebanon. He has repeatedly applied to have his deportation cancelled, most recently last year, but his application was turned down every time. Marten Imandi, however, cannot be deported, as he is a Swedish citizen.

But this Swedish trail to the Lockerbie bombing has never been followed to the end, after the US and Great Britain surprisingly pointed to Libya as the guilty party. After many long and hard negotiations, Moammar Gadaffi agreed to turn over two Libyans to a special Scottish court located at an old military base in the Netherlands. After two rounds of mock trial, one of them, Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, was convicted to 27 years of prison. Gadaffi paid 2.7 billion dollars to the relatives of the victims. The sanctions were lifted, and in return, Great Britain obtained profitable oil contracts. Al Megrahi was returned to Libya in 2009, where he died later from prostate cancer.

We know today that the owner of the shop in Malta, Tony Gauci, who sold the clothes found in the bomber’s suitcase, lied when he pointed out Al Megrahi in a confrontation; he had been shown a picture of Al Megrahi in advance. We also know that Tony Gauci received two million dollars from the US for testifying in the two mock trials. There are many other errors and repeatedly changing explanations in his testimony.

Abu Talb was also forced to testify during the trials, but he denied any kind of involvement, and claimed that he had been babysitting in Uppsala at the time. That alibi, however, has never been verified.

A year ago, Scottish newspapers published an 800-page report of he investigation from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), which had been classified since 2007. The report pointed out extensive lying, fraud, perjury, bought witnesses and other mistakes during the legal process.

Mohammed Abu Talb and his terrorist associates in Sweden and Germany do not enjoy immunity from the Scottish authorities. Therefore there are good reasons to resume investigation of the Swedish-Palestinian trail.

Länk till Dispatch International, där artikeln finns i både svensk och engelsk version. http://www.d-intl.com/?lang=sv

Uppdatering den 17 februari 2013: Den skotske professorn i juridik, Robert Black, har på sin sajt lagt upp större delen av denna artikel. http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.se/

Professsor Black är en av de mest vederhäftiga kritikerna av hela Lockerbieskandalen. Ironiskt nog var han en av arkitekterna bakom upprättandet av domstolen i Kamp van den Zeist i Holland som dömde Abdelbaset Al Megrahi. Därefter tog Robert Black kraftigt avstånd från hur de båda rättegångarna genomfördes. Han har också skrivit en lång rad artiklar om fallet.