sou-2015-52-rapport-fran-bergwallkommissionen

Summary SOU 2015:52During the investigative process, police and prosecutors gavegreat consideration to Sture Bergwall’s distinctive character andparticular circumstances, which affected how the investigation wasconducted and the approach to the information he provided. Therewas overly uncritical adjustment to Sture Bergwall’s own explanationfor why he had such difficulty providing correct and detailed information,namely that it was difficult to revisit and recount memoriesof the murders and that, as a result of this, he might provide intentionallyincorrect information – “deliberate deviations”. Thisexplanation does not seem to have been questioned by investigators.One probable contributing factor was the legitimacy givento this explanatory model, at least indirectly, by both Sture Bergwall’spsychotherapists and the psychologist engaged as an adviser topolice and prosecutors. The investigators’ faith in this explanatorymodel meant that scant or incorrect responses did not necessarilyhave any significance other than that he had difficulty talking aboutthem or that they were “deliberate deviations”.The advising psychologist also advocated a cognitive interviewmethod to help Sture Bergwall to remember. However, the methodwas not tailored to the fact that, in the individual cases, it was veryimportant that investigative findings were not conveyed to StureBergwall, whose confessions were to have been checked againstactual findings and circumstances. As a result, departures weremade in several respects from regular interview and investigationmethods, and Sture Bergwall’s account became directed in variousways. He also learned about certain circumstances with which hisconfessions should actually have been compared.During the trials, too, special regard was given to Sture Bergwall’sparticular circumstances, which meant that the district courtsaccepted a less sound basis for their assessment. The district courtsalso waived parts of the control system that is built into the proceduresto protect the legal security of the individual. For example,the prosecutor was allowed to question the interrogator and otherpolice officers about what Sture Bergwall had said during the preliminaryinvestigation. This seems to have taken place without anychecks against the underlying interrogation materials.The preliminary investigations were not sufficiently broad andunbiased and did not take sufficient account of alternative coursesof events. The investigators and prosecutor must be considered to24