Fact: This has happened
Saturday 15 October: 21-year-old Tove disappears after a night out at a restaurant in central Vetlanda.
Monday, October 17: Two women, now 19 and 20 years old, are taken in for questioning and arrested – and later detained on probable cause on suspicion of kidnapping.
Wednesday November 2: The police find Tove dead in a wooded area southeast of Vetlanda.
Friday March 17: Charges are brought against the two women for murder and grave breach of peace.
March 27: The trial in Eksjö District Court begins. The women admit to moving the body, but both deny murder. The 20-year-old admits that there was a fight and that she then took a stranglehold on Tove while the 19-year-old held Tove’s hands – but says that it was short-lived and that Tove did not die from it.
The younger woman denies any involvement. She states that she was asleep when Tove died, and that she did not dare to say no when the 20-year-old asked her to help move the body.
Wednesday April 19: The women are sentenced to life in prison for murder and grave breach of privacy. The elderly woman is also sentenced to damage because she tried to start a fire at Tove’s father’s house. The sentence is later appealed by both women.
Wednesday 4 October: The trial in Göta Court of Appeal begins. It continues since 10 and 12 October.
The two women, now 19 and 20 years old, were sentenced in the district court to life imprisonment for the murder of 21-year-old Tove. But the verdict was appealed and on Wednesday the proceedings will begin in the Court of Appeal. And there is great uncertainty about where it will land, says Sven-Erik Alhem, chairman of the Crime Victims’ Shelter and former chief prosecutor.
– Quite often it is predictable what the penalty will be, but in this case it is absolutely not like that, he says.
The case has largely boiled down to being about exactly how Tove died. The medical examiners who performed the autopsy concluded that the cause of death was strangulation, and the district court largely relied on their assessment.
New expert witnesses
But ahead of the appeal court hearing, the 20-year-old’s defender has called an expert witness who questions it. Anders Eriksson, professor of forensic medicine, believes instead that Tove may have suffocated from stomach contents that she vomited up, or that she died of so-called reflex cardiac arrest – that is, the heart stopped due to a short-term grip on the throat.
— It is particularly significant from the defense’s point of view regarding the question of the correct cause of death. The defense will make a big deal out of this, says Sven-Erik Alhem.
In addition, two expert witnesses from the National Board of Health and Welfare’s legal advice are to be heard. Partly a specialist in forensic medicine who spoke on behalf of the council and stated that the findings strongly suggest that the cause of death was strangulation. On the one hand, a member of the council who has taken a more cautious approach, and believes that the circumstances entail such uncertainty that it cannot be ruled out that inhalation of stomach contents may have been a contributing cause of death.
“Will be nailed”
– These statements will be nailed down, and it will be extremely decisive what is said orally, says Alhem and adds:
— If you stand in the witness stand and perhaps are not used to that atmosphere, because it is still a strain to make a statement under criminal liability, then there will be an extra dimension in what can benefit the defender.
Normally speaking, the Court of Appeal proceedings are not a new trial in themselves – but rather a kind of review if everything went right in the district court, says Sven-Erik Alhem.
— But in this case, it is not just a replay of the interrogation in the district court, but it is a new process, new witnesses and new experts.
TT: How big is the uncertainty regarding the outcome?
— Highly significant. I certainly wouldn’t count anything, to put it carelessly. But this is an open process, says Alhem.