Who killed Olof Palme?
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
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.
The documentary about the Swedish involvement in South Africa is also fascinating, but not specifically about Palme. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4Ah8HCRcrQ
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...
As they say every time. You wouldn't read about it otherwise (ie buy).
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.
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.
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'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.
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.
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.
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.
Si vis pacem, para bellum - the Romans knew it and I believe it is still very true.
And that somehow gives people certainty that "it can't have been a conspiracy"?
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?
"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.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/01/07/a-pickpockets-...
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."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_W._Maurer
"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.
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.
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.
https://goo.gl/maps/TWwgVMsroFnSkNH89
Here is the hot dog stand the couple walked past. The owner thought he saw someone following them.
https://goo.gl/maps/QysTTnjg8ek9PiRy5
Murder scene. The killer ran into the street after shooting Palme and attempting to shoot his wife.
https://goo.gl/maps/biseEKdGTw9A3mzK6
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.
https://goo.gl/maps/DMqBznb8jVgTv4ci7
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
Pierre Desproges
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A skeptic evaluates the evidence, and believes what it tells them.
A contrarian rejects the official narrative, and works from there.
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.