Sweden's 'Hannibal Lecter' cleared of all charges | Hacker News Reader

Sweden's 'Hannibal Lecter' cleared of all charges

theguardian.com

32 points_g2lm26 comments

The article is misleading. He was not drugged by the police, and there was no force involved if my memory serves me correctly.

Thomas Quick as his name was at the time, was a man convicted for child molesting and armed robbery. The police then wanted to question him about other crimes.

He did confess to some crimes, and the investigators then started to press his doctors to give him more and more benzodiazepine (Valium and/or Xanax i think) when he asked for it. Presumably because they wanted to keep him happy, and the confessions to keep coming.

This so becomes a bad circle where he was "rewarded" wit more benzodiazepine for each confessions. Benzodiazepine are highly addictive, and some has claimed this got so bad that even other patients observing this practise wanted to confess crimes so they could get thus drugs to.

Bdw, I am not at all saying that dire mistakes were not made. However in my view it is more a case of incompetence, then there is a case of corruption, malice or deliberate misuse of force by the police.

Sweden isn't alone in this; even Japan has issues with forced/false confessions.

I look forward to a day when confessions, and all eyewitness testimony for that matter, are inadmissible without corroborating, strong, forensic evidence in the courts of any modern democracy. They're all ripe for abuse.

We never admit eyewitness testimony (of which confessions are a variant) in science, why is it allowed in justice systems? If something happened, there should be evidence to that fact. The end!

If confessions were rendered inadmissible, what of Guilty pleas? They're a foundation of the western justice system

Without any strong collaborating evidence, they probably should be inadmissible. Plenty of people confess to crimes they had nothing to do with; there are a lot of crazies out there.

"In 1666, Robert Hubert confessed to starting the Great Fire of London by throwing a fire bomb through a bakery window. It was proven during his trial that he had not been in the country until two days after the start of the fire, he was never at any point near the bakery in question, the bakery did not actually have windows, and he was crippled and unable to throw a bomb. Nevertheless, as a foreigner, a Frenchman, and a Catholic, Hubert was a perfect scapegoat. Ever maintaining his guilt, Hubert was brought to trial, found guilty, and duly executed by hanging."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_confession#Voluntary_fals...

There's a fine line there to be sure. As a society we'd like to find the true culprit in every crime. Yet we'd also like to allow those caught and truly to be able to confess and save on the resources that requiring a full forensic case as well.

Then the fine line isn't between confession and evidence, it's between justice and vengeance. We're more "satisfied" when the guilty confess as that alleviates some of the need for vengeance. And we do have a need for it since the desire for revenge is often innate and hard to suppress. But that has (rather shouldn't) have any bearing whatsoever on the truth.

If such is true without evidence, it's a hollow truth and has no place in justice, which is punishment for guilt on the basis of truth.

If you are happy to rely on a guilty plea, then the whole thing is ripe for abuse by those with money to just pay/threaten someone to do time for them knowing that the chance of investigation is then minimal. Which happens.

It's a balance between preventing that and not wasting resources preparing a full forensic etc. case for EVERY plea which could be used on other more questionable/difficult cases.

UK: we have some limitations on confession evidence [1]. All formal questioning is recorded.

There is evidence to suggest that people make false confessions even without police 'pressure' [2]

[1] http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/confession_and_breaches_o...

[2] http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/09/false-confessions-...

"Western" is an exaggeration -- rather, the common law justice system.

Many European countries, including Sweden, don't have guilty pleas in the American sense. In a Swedish trial, the court must find that the suspect is proven guilty. A confession can be treated as evidence, similar to evidence from witnesses, but just like with a witness the court still has to rule on how credible it is. Except for minor crimes (such as speeding tickets), one can not plead guilty to bypass the trial.

Also, the prosecutor does not have any discretion about what crimes to charge (there is a duty to charge any crime that can be proven). One major consequence is that there is are no plea bargains.

On this topic, it's worth mentioning that Sweden's justice system has essentially no rules regarding the admissibility of evidence - it is up to the court to decide whether a piece of evidence is relevant or not.

Issues like this are one of the reasons that (some) people get really worked up about giving the government more power. If there were literally no abuses like this, ever, many wouldn't care so much. But given that things like this do happen people are right to be skittish.

You have to wonder how many abuses go unreported and unresolved. It's scary to think about.

There is a long article from GQ which gives a clearer picture of what happened:

http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmakers/201308/thomas-qui...

Good for them admitting their mistake like that. Certainly better than a certain case in my state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fells_Acres_Day_Care_Center_pr...

Miranda should attach immediately upon any interaction with the police. You shouldn't be able to confess until you've had the benefit of legal counsel, regardless of whether you assert the right.

I recognize that sounds extreme, but I have seen so many force/falsified confessions during police investigations that I believe it has become the norm rather than the exception in many jurisdictions.

Swede here.

The problem in this case is not that Bergwall didn't have legal counsel. He had, and a "star" one at that. (Actually, the same lawyer that represents the women that Assange had sex with).

The problem is that his lawyer represented his intent rather than his innocence. When Bergwall stated that he did this or that to kill these people, and the lawyer represented this statement in court, there was no one in legal system with the intent to shoot down the claim that Bergwall was the murderer. It was not the prosecution's job; Bergwall himself argued that he was guilty; and his lawyer providing extenuating circumstances - more representing Bergwall's statements in legal language, than doing his utmost in getting him acquitted.

After all, Bergwall _wanted_ to take on these murders. They made him special, a target of much attention, and with that he got the drugs that he was after. It was not until a new head physician at the mental hospital were he was treated prevented prescription of the drugs Bergwall craved that he stopped confessing more and more murders.

Souce: http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Quick-Making-Serial-ebook/dp/B0...

This is the book that turned the tide. The author is a journalist that really made a difference for how this all ended.

Wow, that's a very unusual case. I suppose the lesson is that confessions should always be investigated thoroughly for corroborating evidence. If a person committed a crime, they should be able to give details that only the criminal would know, or point in the direction of physical evidence.

Obviously the police don't like to do that, because it negatively affects their ability to close the case.

I've been thinking a lot about how many of the problems with abuse by some police and prosecutors, (many are good honorable people), result from optimization on the wrong metrics.

Police are measured by clearing cases, and prosecutors by convictions and guilty pleas. Surely there's got to be a better way to score their performance that encourages more just outcomes.

Yes this is very true. Claiming that Bergwall (=Quick) was guilty was a win-win-win-win situation

- Bergwall got the drugs and the attention he craved - His lawyer got to represent the worst criminal in modern Swedish history - The doctors that were close to him at the hospital could make themselves names in the academic community in how successful they were in their methods of "retrieving" the hidden memories of Bergwall. - The lead police investigator got attention and recognition - The same with the prosecutor and so on.

Few (or none) in the system had incentives to pull in the opposite direction.

> If a person committed a crime, they should be able to give details that only the criminal would know, or point in the direction of physical evidence.

Yes! And Bergwall's testimony was often wrong. He guessed for example what was the weapon he must have used. But when he was wrong, he got to "think harder", make another guess, and over time (months or years) he could piece together hints from his interrogators and eventually come up with a somewhat "correct" story vs what secret evidence the police knew. Such as if murderer was using a blunt weapon in the head vs a knife in the abdomen.

It is surreal to read about it.

Cases like this are why I stand against capital punishment.

the real question is what now happens to all the people who were responsible in getting the false confessions?

I hate to say it, but if history repeats itself, the people responsible will either never face persecution or get a slap on the wrist.

> I hate to say it, but if history repeats itself, the people responsible will either never face persecution or get a slap on the wrist.

People not facing persecution for this is a good thing.

People not facing prosecution, OTOH...

Unfortunately, too long has passed and any misconduct in the investigations has been prescribed so noone will be prosecuted or even get a slap on the wrist. Most people involved have already retired as well after building their careers on the case.

However, on the bright side there will be investigations to see how the current system can be improved to reduce the chances of repeating it in the future. For example, in important cases there may be appointed a secondary prosecutor whose role is to be critical of the investigation.

That's an incredibly hyperbolic and slanted headline. Believing any of that article will make you dumber not smarter.

How so? Let's go part by part.

>Swedish man drugged into confessing declared innocent

Swedish man: yes

drugged: yes

into: arguable

confessing: yes

declared innocent: well technically he was declared not guilty

How will the 'entire article' make me dumb?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com