The palm tree's conclusions have been criticized after prosecutor Krister Petersson pointed out the Skandia man as a possible perpetrator. Now several experts want to see a review after the investigation. Mia Edwall Insulander is one of them:
- I want to see you give a voice to the designated one. Not a review of the entire preliminary investigation, but a review aimed at pointing out a defense.
"The suspect has relatives who are affected by this, and also for that reason it is important to give the suspect and his relatives an opportunity to defend themselves, which has not been done," she says in Aktuellt.
"Completely taken"Edwall Insulander says that the public interest in knowing who the killer is must be weighed against the rights of the designated person:
- They presented a reasonably suspect on the basis of indications and not any technical evidence, which is rather weak. If you point out, it is also important that the other side should also have the opportunity to defend themselves and to respond to what is alleged, and it was entirely taken here, she says.
"Can't stay there"Eric Bylander, professor of litigation, also belongs to those who want a commission appointed:
- You can then ask questions that are necessary for us to understand what happened and how it could go so wrong that we could never get a proper judicial review.
- There are too many loose threads. This end point was almost necessary, but it is not the same as that we can stay there, he tells SVT.
"Far from stable suspicion"According to lawyer Johan Eriksson, an examination is particularly important because the Skandia man cannot defend himself.
- I would imagine that you have someone who is free from the prosecutor's office and who is given the opportunity to go through the material and do a self-examination of how far you really come with this suspicion.
- What I heard was far from a stable suspicion, it raises almost more questions than answers.