Nils Gustafsson found not guilty

Fatalized

Odödlig
Aug 2, 2005
114
0
16
35
Fjollträsk, Sweden
I found this on Blabbermouth, seems like the Bodom murders wont get solved after all.


Bodom Lake Murder Suspect Found Not Guilty - Oct. 7, 2005

Finland's Helsingin Sanomat has issued the following report:

In a verdict announced on Friday morning (Oct. 7), Espoo District Court found bus driver Nils Gustafsson not guilty of murder in the infamous Bodom Lake killings (a crime which gave CHILDREN OF BODOM the inspiration for their name — Ed.) of 1960.

The court found that there was insufficient evidence to convict the 63-year-old Gustafsson of killing three of his friends during a camping trip at Bodom Lake. Throughout the trial, Gustafsson maintained his innocence, saying that he and the other three were victims of an unknown assailant.

In its decision, the court emphasised the principle of the presumption of innocence in cases in which there is any doubt of the guilt of the accused. The court also found that Gustafsson's claim of a memory blackout concerning the events was quite plausible.

Furthermore, the court felt that the long time that has passed since the crime took place makes it more difficult to get a reliable picture of events. In its decision, the court also noted that the prosecution was unable to establish a motive.

Following the decision, Nils Gustafsson told his defence lawyer Riitta Leppiniemi that he was relieved and very happy. Gustafsson was not present when the verdict was announced; he heard the news at this home in Espoo.

Prosecutor Tom Idström had little to say on the matter. He has not yet decided if he would appeal the decision.

Heikki Lampela, the lawyer representing the families of the victims of the killings, said that he was not surprised at the verdict.

He said that the family members had hoped for a different outcome. Now he plans to study the decision to see if the lower court had made any mistakes, which might constitute grounds for appeal.
 
The dna evidence wasn't enough. There has been loads of holes in the different stories anyways, no surprise it's mixed up after so many years.
Oh, and I read an article somewhere (Nyt-liite or something) on Gustafsson's and his friend's point of view. There was a taxi-driver friend who drove Nisse to hospital several times after the killings who defended him saying that the wounds couldn't have been self-afflicted. Nisse believes that the killer was a local kiosk-owner, who was known to hate young people going around. He killed himself some time after the murders but before that he covered up the well in his properties, filling it up, and then building a new one near, when there was no need for that. He could have hidden evidence in there, and his wife said something similar on her death-bed. I like that theory=). But, you can't put a killer-stamp on a dead man.
 
Personally I think it's kinda obvious it was him. The final verdict of the court was far from convincing if you ask me. There's not really any hard evidence that an outsider had been there and a shitload of stuff points to Gustafsson being the killer. The court just didn't think that all the material was trustworthy.. but if you take a look at the whole case and all the evidence there's not really any doubt if you just use common sense. But of course they couldn't sentence him since the evidence isn't really waterproof. Imprisoning him wouldn't really help a shit anyway, he turned out to be a decent guy anyway, so.. just leave him be.
 
Shadeg said:
The final verdict of the court was far from convincing if you ask me. [...] but if you take a look at the whole case and all the evidence there's not really any doubt if you just use common sense. But of course they couldn't sentence him since the evidence isn't really waterproof.
Well, the final verdict didn't say Gustafsson was innocent, it said he couldn't be proved guilty. I think most likely Gustafsson is the murderer, but it that's not beyond doubt. And "presumed innocent until proven guilty" is the base of any good law system, better than risking to have innocent people punished because of not waterproof evidence.