Today, February 28, 2006, social democrats all over the world mourn the assassination of Olof Palme, the last of the great Swedish social democrats and probably the last real social democrat ever to hold the top job in any country until the unexpected and still astonishing rise of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.
Do we know who murdered Palme? Perhaps we do. A petty criminal and longtime drug abuser, Christer Petterson, who died in 2004, confessed to the murder in 2001. He was identified as the assassin by Palme's wife, Lisbet, who was herself shot during the attack. Then, on February 24, 2006, Pettersson's close friend Roger Östlund claimed on his death bed that he had actually seen Pettersson shoot Olof Palme. (SOURCE)
BELOW: Christer Petterson:
Two motives have been offered for the murder. In 2001, Petterson's friend, Swedish journalist Gert Fylking, told the BBC that Petterson had had no grievance against Palme personally, but that while he was in prison, he had met someone who had. So he had murdered Palme to avenge the other man's grievance. (SOURCE)
A marginally more plausible motive surfaced this week, when Östlund claimed that Petterson had mistaken Palme for a drug dealer: 'Östlund, who is now dying in hospital, says that Palme was simply the victim of mistaken identity - the real target was amphetamine dealer Sigge Cedergren, whom they had intended to attack as part of a turf war among drug dealers. Östlund says he and another man had planned to attack Cedergren together with Pettersson, but did not know that Pettersson had a gun. Friends of Östlund told Expressen that he has not spoken out before because he was afraid of being killed.' (SOURCE)
Although it's always nice to have a perp, a great deal about the assassination still doesn't make sense. Although he had murdered someone before - in 1970 - there is no evidence Pettersson ever owned a gun. The 1970 murder weapon had been a bayonet and in the other violent incidents in which he was involved, a knife had been used. Östlund says that he did not even know that night that Pettersson had had a gun. The obvious questions, therefore, are: how did Pettersson get the gun? And are either motives plausible?
Superficially, this looks a textbook case of assassination by a 'lone nut,' and perhaps it was always meant to look this way. But can we really believe that Pettersson just happened to be looking to kill a drug dealer at the exact same time and the exact same location that the Swedish prime minister happened to be out without his bodyguard? And on a cold (minus 7 degrees) February night? Why would Petterson have expected to see Cedergren on the street at around midnight on such a cold night?
The fact that Pettersen had a gun on him and fastened on Palme as his victim suggests the possibility that he was somehow manipulated into committing the crime. There is overwhelming evidence that something unusual was afoot on the night Palme was murdered. Palme's behaviour was by no means normal that night, leading to speculation that he was supposed to meet somebody, and there is also overwhelming evidence of police complicity in the crime.(SOURCE)
At the time Palme was murdered, he was a very unpopular figure indeed with three interlocking sets of actors: the governments of South Africa, Israel and the United States. The same nexus of rightwing South Africans which was linked to the assassination in 1996 just happens to have included in its web Jack Abramoff, the Republican party operative currently embroiled in corruption scandals, whose connections back in the 80s went from South Africa to both the Reagan White House and Israel. It would seem a fair bet that Abramoff knows why Palme was killed: after all, he was a central figure in the network of Palme's enemies.
It is therefore the question of the gun that ensures that the case still cannot be regarded as solved. Although Petterson confessed to the crime and has furnished at least two motives for doing so, he has never said anything about the gun: where it came from, why he happened to have it on him that night, and what happened to it afterwards. This implies that at the very least a second person was involved - someone who supplied the weapon, manipulated his movements that night, and who disposed of the weapon afterwards. The only logical reason why Petterson never addressed the matter of the gun is that he refused to implicate one or more other people.
If Östlund was really there - and I don't know of any witnesses who say they saw a second person lurking around with the gunman - he surely would have to know the answers to these questions. Isn't it a little too convenient that Östlund says he didn't know anything about the gun? So let's consider the possibility that while Östlund was dying, persons unknown approached him and made it worth his while to issue a bogus statement confirming that he had seen Petterson shoot Palme, thereby confirming Petterson's earlier confession. This would be a perfect way to shut down suspicions of a conspiracy, wouldn't it? Most people would be inclined to say, well that clinches it! So while I am convinced that Petersson was the gunman, I strongly question whether Östlund's deathbed confession should be accepted at face value. And such good timing too, just days before the twentieth anniversary of the tragedy.
BELOW: The crime scene:

By Social Democracy Now
 http://www.blogigo.co.uk/socialdemocracynow