Читать книгу Thomas Quick - Hannes Råstam - Страница 23

MY CONVERSATIONS WITH JAN OLSSON

TO PREPARE MYSELF I read the court’s verdict and various articles on the subject. The volume of material was overwhelming.

On 29 May 2008 – three days before my first meeting with Sture Bergwall – I phoned Jan Olsson.

Now retired from his position as a detective chief inspector, Jan Olsson had more than thirty years’ experience as a murder investigator and forensic technician. He had been the assistant head of the forensic division in Stockholm and the head of the National Police Board’s profiling group. What interested me most about him was that he had been in charge of the forensic investigations into the murders of the Dutch married couple at Appojaure and Yenon Levi at Rörshyttan.

He had made no secret of his belief that Thomas Quick was wrongly convicted, and he had written articles on the subject. The fact that he was a policeman set him apart in the diverse crowd protesting Quick’s innocence.

I wanted to hear, in his own words, precisely what had convinced him that Quick was wrongly convicted. Olsson was a pleasant man who took his time, carefully outlining about ten different aspects that had given rise to his misgivings. His arguments centred on the two murder cases he had worked on. From what I understood, Olsson’s criticisms were of three failings that might be categorised as systemic faults:

1. From an early stage, the investigators had searched for whatever backed up Quick’s story. Information that seemed to exonerate him was not considered or further examined.

2. The same prosecutor had been in charge of the investigations into all the cases, and only one interrogator was allowed to question Quick. After the first conviction it became almost impossible for the investigators to challenge Quick, and with each new conviction it became even more difficult. In a sense, according to Olsson, the investigators had become ‘the prisoners of the prisoner’.

3. The adversarial relationship in the legal process means that a trial should be a contest between the prosecutor and the defence lawyer. Because the defence led by Claes Borgström did not question the evidence against Quick, the system had collapsed.

After two long and interesting conversations with Jan Olsson, that evening I read the articles he had written over the years. One of the articles published in DN Debatt on 3 October 2002 concludes as follows:

Thomas Quick himself says that he has murdered all these people. All I have to say to him is: Make those of us who doubt you and spread this doubt into the world shut our mouths. Make me stand here, humiliated at having been so wrong to suspect you. You only need to show a single piece of tangible evidence to make it so. One of the body parts you claim to have kept, an object you have stolen from one of your victims. Until this happens I urge the Prosecutor-General to re-examine this case.

I had myself been considering whether I might offer to be an aide to Sture Bergwall, to help him put a stop to the braying of Jan Olsson, Jan Guillou, Leif G.W. Persson, Nils Wiklund and all the others who said that he was just making it up. If Quick really had ‘treasure troves’ of body parts, he could safely reveal these to me without having to ‘give them up’, which, it had been alleged, was the main psychological block to revealing the locations of the bodies. I imagined I might be able to bring some item from a hiding place, have it analysed and then the whole thing would be over.

Caught up in these naive ruminations, I was woken by the phone ringing. From the display I could see it was time for a third conversation with Olsson.

‘Yeah . . . hello . . . It’s Janne. Jan Olsson. I just wanted to mention something that occurred to me. A little piece of advice for you.’

‘Please, go ahead,’ I said.

‘You’re reading all the interrogations with Quick. Think about one thing: has he ever given a single piece of information that the police didn’t already know? I’d say that’s what you ought to be thinking about.’

I thanked him for the advice and promised to stick to it faithfully. It was probably very good advice.

But for the rest of the evening I thought about all the information Thomas Quick had provided during questioning which was supposedly unknown to the police: Therese Johannesen’s eczema scars in the crooks of her arms, the pinpointing of the spot where burnt remains of a child were found, the location of the stab wounds in Appojaure, his shepherding of the police to the place where Gry Storvik was found murdered, all the details about the murder of Thomas Blomgren in 1964. And so on . . .

If the ‘doubters’ knew how Quick could be in possession of all these details, they certainly hadn’t managed to explain it to me yet.