Personal Relations, Expert Opinion, and Evidence Evaluation

In Allmo's book I, MS, have been given the pseudonym "Docent Magnusson". The reader will learn many true things about me. As regards all things Allmo tries to prove, there are only two petty errors. In due course we shall see that there are also two great lies.

She quotes many strong invectives against judges, psychiatrists and psychologists in my letters to Oswald in prison. With a caveat to be mentioned in due course she also documents the deep and reciprocal friendship that grew between us after he was released. And both before and after he got the disease that eventually caused his death in 2004, I took upon myself many tasks of a social welfare officer.

Throughout a great part of the book the reader will primarily wonder if a person who had such a close relation with Oswald, could make an objective assessment of the facts.

But on the last pages it turned out that my friendship was faked. My real aim was to exploit Oswald. Thus, during the six months before he died and while he was living in three different hospitals, I had either lived in his apartment myself, or had hired it out to someone else and had stolen the rent.

This is a foolish lie, because many constituents of the sequence of events have been annotated in the record by the landlord firm. It was I who found Oswald on the kitchen floor where he had been lying for 6 days and 5 nights without being able to move. (Because of an interrupted task the time of the accident could be dated with certainty.) The kitchen floor was soaked in urine. It is easy to understand that the entire apartment was permeated by strong smell. It would not be easy to find anyone who would be willing to live there.

For obvious reason the first task was concerned with Oswald himself. Three hospitals treated me as his next of kin. I always followed him to other hospitals for specific treatments that would last a whole day. I took him to the toilet when he needed. (Let me add that he would have done the same things for me if needed.)

When he after some weeks had entered a regular schedule of treatment, his landlord had to inspect the damage, and to provide alternatives. When it was agreed that the apartment should be repaired, it was the holiday season, so it took no little time before the repair were completed.

I also had to move all furniture out of the kitchen. I build a very unstable pile in the bedroom, which anyone would have to climb over in order to get to the beds.

Evidently the aim of Allmo's first great lie is to disqualify me.

The same is true of her second great lie: the real aim of MS is to help real sexual offenders to abuse children.

Nevertheless, the general question about personal relations, expert opinions and evidence evaluation is important and need an explicit analysis.

If MS were a very close friend of Oswald's, would it cease to be undeniable facts,

		(1)that Elvira during four different meetings, held over a period of three months prior to the first police interrogation, explicitly claimed that she had no recollection of any sexual abuse (2)that Elvira during the first police interrogation said that she had no recollections of any sexual abuse (3)that Elvira during the first police interrogation said that she was absolutely sure that no sexual abuse had taken place during the last 5½ years (4)that Elvira in the first four police interrogations did not accuse her father of any of those crimes for which he was convicted a few months later (5)that Mollbeck/Allmo repeatedly told the police or the social services that Elvira had recounted certain assaults to her, while Elvira at a later date had no recollection of these assaults, or of having recounting such things; in other words, that Allmo had lied about what Elvira had said (6)that Mollbeck/Allmo repeatedly "knew" what Elvira had experienced before Elvira knew it herself (7)that Elvira provided concrete descriptions of a total of 12 sexual assaults; and that she postulated that her sister Ingrid was an eyewitness of 11 of these; and that there were further eyewitnesses during 7 of these 12 results (8)that all the alleged eyewitnesses said that they had not seen any indecent act (9)that the five judges of the court of appeal in 1994 had erroneous recollections of what the mother had testified, and that they therefore convicted Oswald of assaults of which Elvira had never accused him [Q-47:1]

It is one of the virtues of the approach applied and the results presented here, that the cardinal facts remain cardinal facts, regardless of whatever friendly or hostile relations MS may have to any person. The facts are hard facts, and would not be influenced by any biographical knowledge about MS – for instance, whether or not MS has any clinical training or any clinical experience with children; or even if MS had been psychotic.

To sum up, some kinds of hard evidence really exist, that are independent of any kinds of private relations.

But when this is said, the problem of personal relations is by no means exhausted. One of those judges of the court of appeal who convicted Oswald, had had a homosexual relation with Oswald. This judge will be given the pseudonym Vilgot Janson. I am a little surprised that he did not withdraw from the case. On the other hand I do not think that the verdict and the sentence would have been any different with another judge.

The important biases are often less conspicuous. In the large recovered memory case in Umeå, which also occurred around 1990, the daughter will be given the pseudonym "Elfriede". Like Elvira she was indoctrinated to "recall" a wealth of sexual assaults committed by her father. Like Oswald her father was given a 10-year-sentence, the maximum for sexual abuse at that time. Like Elvira, after the trial Elfriede went on to accuse many other people. The case was re-opened and her father was acquitted. And it turned out that there had never been any evidence against her father the first time the case was handled by the district court and the court of appeal. The main difference between these two cases was that Elvira only accused one influential person, while Elfriede accused many influential persons.

The re-opened Södertälje case started about one month after the Umeå case was finished. One hypothesis easily suggests itself. The five judges of the court of appeal in Stockholm realised that the general public would lose confidence in the legal system, if the very same kind of miscarriage of justice turned out to have been committed by two district courts and two courts of appeal at virtually the same time.

The hypothesis must be faced that the Stockholm judges had decided, prior to the proceedings, (a) to re-convict Oswald; (b) to state in the written judgement that he was probably guilty of all charges for which he had previously been convicted; (c) to invent some judicial quibbles in order to justify that he was this time not convicted of all the crimes of which he was "probably guilty"; and (d) to give him half the former prison sentence.

Bengt G. Nilsson (not a pseudonym) was the chairman of the court. He zealously stopped all evidence that would tell against the charges. One of the most probable explanations is that he actually believed that Oswald was innocent, although he convicted him.

There is another example of improper conduct. The doors were closed when the child murders were discussed, as I have already mentioned. Now, the mother's defence counsel wanted to use a document belonging to the Umeå case. This was forbidden by Nilsson and his four co-judges, on the ground that the this document was classified. Then the counsel obtained the permission from the Umeå court to use this document in the Södertälje case, behind closed doors. The Umeå judge sent her permission to the court of appeal in Stockholm by a fax machine.

But then judge Nilsson stated that no such permission had been received from Umeå, because the fax machine at the court of appeal in Stockholm was broken. - It has been unambiguously proved that the fax machine was not broken, and that the permission was duly received without any problem.

Judge Nilsson's private attitude is a much more serious obstacle to a fair trial, than judge Janson's homosexual affair.

Moreover, any expert or expert witness will soon learn that it will pay much better - not least in cash - to support the prosecutor than to support the defence. In contrast to the defence, prosecutors have a lot of money at their disposal that can be used for finding or inventing evidence.

In Sweden a special group exists which Scharnberg (1993, 1996) called "pseudo-witness-psychologists". These are all clinical psychologists, who have attended a hyper-brief supplementary training at a commercial institute. The members of this group label themselves "witness psychologists", despite the fact that they know nothing about witness psychology. The most prominent of them will almost routinely arrive at the (pseudo-)conclusion that the suspect is guilty.

Their theoretical leader is Egil Ruuth (not a pseudonym). It should come as no surprise that he was involved in both the Umeå case and the Södertälje case, and that he testified in the Umeå case that Elfriede had in no way been influenced by anybody, but that she had recounted authentic memories.

In all of the public research libraries in Sweden there is only one single writing about sexual abuse written by any pseudo-witness-psychologist. It is Maini & Ruuth (1985): A holistic approach to the evaluation of children's credibility: An illustration. This paper consists of 11 pages and was not much distributed outside the university department. It is written in extremely poor English. However, if the content had been interesting it would have been easy to improve the language.

This paper is dated "January 1985". Note that this is the same month in which Muriel murdered both her parents, as described in chapter 40. There it was also described how the police officer Monica Dahlström-Lannes used this crime to start a propaganda campaign, that is to say the sexual abuse craze in Sweden. It would be a natural hypothesis that there was a connection here, because Dahlström-Lannes has always had a warm relationship with the pseudo-witness-psychologists, but a very cold relationship with the genuine witness psychologists.

The paper by Maini & Ruuth was used as course literature for at least 15 years. Nevertheless, outsiders could not obtain or buy a copy. Not even The Library of Psychology and Education in Stockholm was allowed to buy a copy. Today this library has a copy, but only because I succeeded in finding one by private detective work.

I openly admit that when I started to analyse the facts of the case of Elvira, I entertained no suspicion that Allmo/-Mollbeck was the indoctrinator. And it may safely be taken for granted that I would not have found this out without the assistance of the computer. Nevertheless, it can be seen from the police investigation (and later also from Allmo's book) that the entire Allmo/Mollbeck-family continued to believe in Elvira's accounts of mass murder even after the police had completely refuted these stories.

Even before Allmo's/-Mollbeck's real role had been exposed, an objective attitude would have required an "agnostic" attitude, that is to say, the awareness of the possibility that the foster mother might have another role than she pretended to have. Serious incompetence was shown by the police when they permitted Allmo/Mollbeck to be present at police interrogations of Elvira; and also to be present when they drove around in Stockholm in the hope of finding sex clubs and places where people had been murdered.

Admittedly, the following excerpts were not formulated by the police, but by the only psychiatrist who attributed posttraumatic stress disorder to Elvira. But these excerpts agree well with the attitude of the police.

		"On several occasions Elvira shows her dependence on and confidence in Fanny and [the husband's name] Mollbeck. [...] Elvira is to a greater extent than others in need of a stable and affectionate atmosphere in order to do well. The home of the Mollbeck family gives Elvira this kind of safety." [Q-47:2]

The person, who was actually most harmful to Elvira, and who was more than anyone else the cause of Elvira's sufferings, was by all persons who belonged to any kind of societal authority, assumed to be Elvira's greatest help. - Mollbeck has not only exploited Elvira in her recent book. She has also repeatedly acted as a lecturer on sexual abuse. No one knows how many times she has - with Elvira's "permission" [!!] - shown excerpts from the video-taped police interrogations, which are classified to other people. It is even possible that Elvira herself has been shown at some such lectures.


Next chapter

Uppdaterad: 2009-11-19

Yakida