How would you describe Sara?
Religious. She's as you'd expect of someone
who's been attending Bible School since she was little.
Rather lonely...
And I believe she means well.
I'm quite an old man.
I've seen a lot of violence and cold, callous murder.
I was in Cyprus during a war. I dug up mass graves in Bosnia.
I've talked to the Russian mafia.
I'm investigated murders in Poland and here. I've met evil people.
I think I'm good at reading both good and evil people.
And Sara is a good person.
How can you say that someone who has murdered is good? That's strange.
What good has she done? She killed a person and tried to kill another.
There's nothing good in that.
Cold blooded, when she knows she's doing it.
Even if she did it for very strange reasons that are hard to fathom,
and therefore sentenced to psychiatric care,
the fact remains that she killed a young woman.
And tried to kill a young man. She deprived them of the future.
It's...
It's by no means an innocent deed.
Maybe it's too late to come up with evidence at this stage. I don't know,
but what's considered the truth in relation to what happened is wrong.
And I wish they had done more.
You're talking about truth here, but I'm sure many are thinking,
Helge is the one who knows the truth.
He, if anyone, ought to know what happened.
Who knows the truth?
I don't know if one person knows the whole truth.
I would imagine, Sara knows a good deal of the truth.
I don't know where she stands today.
I'm totally convinced that she did not tell the truth
during the investigation and legal process in 2004.
But I don't blame Sara for that,
instead those who led her to this version of her story.
- Emergency 112, how may I help you? - I don't know.
I just came in here. There's blood everywhere.
In Knutby.
Shock and despair spread throughout the little town of Knutby.
The murder of the woman and the attempted murder of her neighbor
is in stark contrast to this quiet, peaceful community.
This is one of the most bizarre criminal cases in Sweden in modern time.
A web of religion, sex and cruel, callous murder,
unprecedented in the judicial history of Sweden.
Who was the driving force behind this?
It's an important piece of evidence that's been manipulated.
It creates doubt among the public.
Is this what actually happened?
This is a difficult time, but we believe in God.
We're not giving up.
PRAY OBEY KILL
EPISODE 5 DON'T BE AFRAID TO GO CLOSE
- Marianne Leukhardt. - Hi, Marianne.
This is Anton Berg again. We spoke earlier about a reconstruction film.
I'll just get the file. The Knutby case, right?
The filmed material that was accessible to the public is
the film that was shown in the District Court and the Court of Appeal.
The thing is, there is more filmed material.
We can't remove some things,
because that would make it a new document.
The unedited version contains some emotional responses
from the person at the center of the crime scene reconstruction.
Things that are deemed confidential.
- You can appeal the decision. - I will.
We'll send your request to the Court of Appeal.
We got an email from the Court of Appeal.
- Judgement! - A judgment from the Court of Appeal?
It's great to get a judgment.
"With regard to your request to see the six hour-long reconstruction film,
the Court of Appeal has rejected your appeal.
The Police Authority states
that your request to access the films be denied.
The films contain for the most part the type of information
where one sees or hears a suspect interact
with members of the Police Authority." For the most part?
"It is not clear that this can be disclosed
without causing injury or pain to the people involved."
- What kind of injury? - They mean Sara.
Why would the court make this judgment otherwise?
- This is tedious. What do we do now? - We can appeal this.
Yes, we'll do that.
Well...
The most plausible thing to do is to try to get hold of Sara
to see if we can get her permission.
Should we ask Sara?
Yes.
- We've done this before. - We can request power of attorney.
- They can't refuse then. - No.
In all of the interrogations, Sara says that Helge knew nothing
until she finds out from the prosecutor that Asa Waldau and the congregation
have turned their backs on Helge.
That's when a new story takes shape, where she puts the blame on me.
And there's no doubt that this is what the interrogation officers want to hear.
She is described as a person that gives the answers
that she believes people want to hear.
POWER OF ATTORNEY
Sara Svensson. Anton Berg.
"I, Sara Svensson, in accordance with the Public Access to Information Act,
give the two journalists access to any information
in the possession of the Police Authority concerning me."
- The whole reconstruction! - This is fantastic.
- I barely believe it, Anton. - No, but...
Do you understand why she wants Martin and me to see this?
She also wants to know what happened.
She has very scattered memories, it was a long time ago.
Was the police reconstruction properly conducted?
She wanted me to see it in order to find out what I thought about it.
SIGNATURE: SARA SVENSSON
As people, we can end up in situations where
we are involved in things that we could not anticipate.
This applies to Sara, the Nanny, in Knutby too, of course.
We hold one reconstruction with her.
A colleague and I pick her up in Huddinge.
We do it at night in order to avoid the media.
PROTOCOL OF RECONSTRUCTION
ORDERED BY: PROSECUTOR ELIN BLANK
THE PURPOSE: TO CLARIFY THE COURSE OF EVENTS
ON THE NIGHT OF JANUARY 10, 2004
MAIN PERSON: SARA SVENSSON
How to say this?
It was horrifically traumatic to go there.
To the hill where I had been sentenced to hell.
There I had to face the worst moments of my life.
To explain it...
And when I got there...
There were so many people in the house.
Police, camera operators, prosecutors...
It was very hard for me.
Did you have anyone from the hospital with you?
No, I didn't.
So it was just you and your lawyer?
Yes.
Oh, my God.
UNEDITED RECONSTRUCTION NEVER SHOWN IN COURT
JAN OLSSON CRIME COMMISSIONER
The premise is that the person in question
be influenced as little as possible.
The person should go in and demonstrate
what they have done at the scene and that's all.
Is the camera on?
This reconstruction should be a means of testing this woman's story.
One should be able to judge this person's different reactions
and spontaneous ways of doing things and ways of expressing herself
when in this kind of situation.
She shouldn't be influenced, neither should she be directed.
Back then I had a personality trait of pleasing people around me.
My smile is almost automatic.
Because I don't know how to deal with this.
Sorry, can we start over? I'm stuck here...
You can take out your phone when you come in. It's not switched on.
And... but...
So you'll say that when you came in you take out your phone
and say what you did with it. And after that, cut. Is that all right?
Where does this information about the phone come from?
- After the phone we'll stop. - I think I can do that.
Did she say it first or did he get it from an interrogation?
- He doesn't know any of this. - He shouldn't know any of this.
- Ready? - Sound the clapperboard when we start.
Clapperboard.
A new angle. A third camera.
- This happens before... - Yes, we just saw this.
- There are two cameras. - Yes, we've saw it from over there.
Do they want her to walk it through?
And she's holding a third camera.
Three cameras.
PÄR-ANDERS GRANHAG PROFESSOR OF PSYCHOLOGY
If you've only seen the court's version
I think that most people would be convinced
that this person is trustworthy, what she says can be relied upon.
Her version of events is convincing.
EDITED RECONSTRUCTION SHOWN IN COURT
I go into the living room. I take out my mobile phone...
Her emotional state fits what she's telling us.
She comes in and she shows what she did and she did this well.
But when you see all the material you get a different picture.
Can you explain... What you explained just now...
There is background material
that seriously undermines the value of the version the court saw.
It's enough if you shoot with the pillow.
- Okay. - That's perfectly enough.
It will pass soon.
It was in a traumatic state and I believed...
I kept asking was the weapon was loaded?
I was convinced when I aimed at Kenneth that I would kill him.
KENNETH AGREN IN THE ROLE OF DANIEL LINDE
Then I knock lightly.
I don't want to wake the others.
- That was wrong. - What did I do wrong now?
- Several times. - You opened too soon.
Did I open it too soon?
- The fourth time. - The fourth knock.
To be quite frank, this is more like film-making
than crime scene reconstruction.
SVERKER JÖNSSON ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR CRIMINAL LAW
Do that again. I was fixing the light.
They used the term rehearsal and dress rehearsal,
in the material that I've seen.
The role of director isn't easy.
No and I have to avoid the other camera.
Maybe Christer can hold it.
There are instances when Sara says that she'd like to try something out.
She says, "Can we play it down a bit?"
- Can we play it down a bit? - Sure.
They say sure, so they do that.
Oh, that's not what I did.
Under these circumstances, the reconstruction's useless.
I can see your reflection in the window and mine too.
- Unbelievable. - Really? Oh, yes.
- That doesn't matter, surely. - What a pity.
- There's no blind. - Stand a little...
- What did I say Helge said there? - That you shouldn't hesitate.
- That you... - That I shouldn't hesitate.
You said you went in without hesitating.
They miss the opportunity to check the reliability of her statements.
They're convinced that she's telling the truth.
Her statements are consistent.
The question of guilt has already been investigated.
So I go in without hesitating.
No one is looking for discrepancies
between what she said and what she re-enacted,
or between what they know about the investigation in general
and what she re-enacts in the reconstruction. This is overlooked.
That opportunity is lost.
They have an assessment regarding her truthfulness.
The crime scene reconstruction plays a big part in it.
But then I'll be on camera.
It is concluded that she is not a person that makes things up,
or tells lies.
And they're satisfied with that.
There.
Do you want me to do it without sound or should I talk?
Stand there first and say,
"Now I'm going to show you what I did when I was here."
Say, "Without hesitating..." And then we'll film the whole sequence.
- All three? - All three.
- Okay. - Let's try it without the camera first.
- I'll stand here and receive you. - Okay
I can't believe that I had the courage.
It's so easy to reach the...
- That's okay. - I'm thinking out loud now.
- Okay. - Start with that.
Oh, that's not what I did.
- It's still the wrong firing distance. - Yes, it is.
- Like that? - This is how I think I did it.
The purpose of the reconstruction is
for her to demonstrate what she confessed to.
- Exactly. - But she doesn't.
No, she doesn't.
The coroners agree about what close contact shots looks like.
This means that the weapon is held against the head, in this case,
or max 10 cm away.
They say that the shots were close contact.
"Two shots were fired directly at the bedspread on Alexandra's head.
- Namely, close contact shots." - Close contact.
- Did you hold it like this? - Mm.
Does the distance and all of that feel about right?
- Does it feel all right? - Yes, it does.
- Is that roughly what I said? - Yes.
How accurate do I have to be in millimeters, or centimeters?
- As accurate as you can be. - It's so difficult.
- Just think. - Just think?
In what way is it really important?
- She really wants to know. - Oh!
- I understand. I just want to know. - Sara!
This has to do with your credibility.
- The injuries speak for themselves. - Mm.
What you're demonstrating now should be as accurate as possible.
- You have to do it as you remember it. - Okay.
- But don't be afraid to go close. - No.
- Did you hear that? Did he say that? - Don't be afraid to go close.
I understand. Yes.
This is absurd, "Don't be afraid to go close."
They want to place her closer to the victim
because it doesn't match. They want to place her closer.
They don't say straight out, "Move closer."
What they do is give her clear signals that something's wrong with her position
in relation to the victim and the second and third shots.
It's clear they're unhappy with her position.
- Well... - Shall we try it again, a trial run?
That's an instruction.
Take it nice and easy now.
Walk slowly and take the position that you remember best.
- And then walk slowly past here. - Past here?
And we'll do it as accurately as possible.
Okay.
It's pretty simple.
If you do it twice, then you're saying it was wrong the first time.
You're telling this person that it wasn't right the first time.
I take a few more steps, or so, and stop here.
I pull the trigger, firing at the head.
It's extra problematic as Sara is so sensitive to feedback.
She wants to know if she's doing the right thing.
This is something she takes to heart.
She looks for guidance and confirmation.
I don't know if I can be more accurate and...
She senses they want to place her closer.
Standing with a revolver here...
She's now protesting wildly when they try to place her closer.
And she never does that, in this film.
But if it was dark in the room, would it feel different then?
Would it... Because you've... Well...
Does it feel scary when you go close?
- Do you think... Did you go closer? - It's better... No.
It's like this, I wouldn't be able to go too close... emotionally.
- Now or then? - Then, that is.
And that's why I stood... about here.
It was quite close anyway, but I could never... I can't even do it now.
I can't put the revolver against the head and fire.
This was one of the absolute first reconstructions of my career
and that doesn't happen very often.
I remember that it was arranged at very short notice.
We did it at night.
As far I was concerned, Sara would confirm what she had said.
I wasn't aware, before or after the reconstruction,
that there was anything controversial that needed to be explored.
I didn't have any information other than Sara's own version of events.
This was in the middle of the investigation.
What we learnt afterwards from the forensic report,
things that might be confirmed or retracted,
I had no idea about that at the time.
I don't have the same version of reality in here.
I don't know where the areas of doubt lie.
It was difficult to question the part about the firing distance,
which was the only detail
that didn't correspond with Sara's version of events.
I honestly think that the most plausible explanation is still
that Sara doesn't remember correctly.
That she was in fact closer when she fired.
And the reason why she couldn't demonstrate this
may be that she has suppressed the most dramatic part of the events.
I'm not a psychologist, but for me it's the only plausible explanation,
as opposed to another perpetrator or that it happened differently.
- The first shot was about here. - Are you sure about the last shot?
- Yes, I am. - Pull in the cable there.
I don't know. No one else did this shooting.
Unfortunately, I'm sorry. He's trying to...
He's trying to get me to tell a different story.
And then I take two steps...
I think anyone can imagine that putting a revolver close to someone
is more difficult than standing at a distance,
even though both are difficult.
But what we can say is, Sara remembers as well as she can remember.
She goes into detail about a lot of things.
To say that an important detail, like the firing distance,
is the piece of information that she has suppressed, is unlikely.
We remember our actions, especially actions of that nature, very well.
These are not things that one forgets.
I counted and I think Sara Svensson gets to practice this murder three times.
Yes, they produce a product that they can show in court.
There are no questions, or anything included.
It looks like Sara is telling it exactly as it happened.
But this film material tells us a different story.
She never explains in one go how this happened.
This unique opportunity doesn't tell us
if Sara's version tallies with the evidence
that the police actually have.
- Don't be afraid to go close. - No.
Don't be afraid to go close?
Yes, that's probably the way it was.
It's obvious from your comment
and by looking at the reconstruction team that it's important
she talks about the distance. She asks why it's important.
It was... the bit that was shown...
I challenged her on this,
in relation to the information that we had from the crime scene.
Why was it so important?
We wanted her to show us. Since we knew the outcome...
But saying, "Don't be afraid to go close."
That sounds like an instruction,
because we know she's good at reading people.
- We gave her a chance, at least. - Should you have said that?
No, well... It's...
I think that it's exerting too much influence.
I don't know. Here or here?
You're standing a little further away than when we did the dress rehearsal.
- Yes, we didn't repeat it. - How do you mean?
We don't do that with crime scene reconstructions.
They demonstrate the whole sequence from start to finish.
You can stand there.
What was crucial for us was that the film material we presented in court
would show, from the scene of the crime,
what she had described under interrogation.
ELIN BLANK: RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION
I guess it is the same as what you do working in TV.
An enormous amount of material is edited.
The main difference between filming for TV and showing a film at trial is
one of these forms the basis for a murder conviction.
The basis for the District Court's decision was her whole story
given during the course of a number of police interrogations.
This crime scene reconstruction film
doesn't contradict what she had already told the police.
It was just a way of adding another dimension to her interrogation.
It's a little difficult to see her story taking shape
since only three of her many interrogations
have been saved in dialogue form.
And even in these interrogations, we can see that there are times when Sara asks,
"If I knew how it was maybe I would remember correctly."
And then she's told about telephone calls and text messages
and she fills in the rest.
In Helge Fossmo's bedroom, where Alexandra was found shot,
the firing distance is a very important factor.
And she never gets it right, does she?
No, she never goes as close
as the forensic report shows that the shot was fired from.
You can see in the films that Bertil Olsson says,
"Tell it like it was, but don't be afraid to go close."
Okay.
Is this the way to do it?
I have no opinion on that.
Forensics knew that the shots were fired at close range.
It's possible that they had that in the back of their minds.
I don't see any problems with the reconstruction video
that was shown in court, or how it reflects upon
the content of previous police interrogations with Sara Svensson.
Both courts were of that opinion.
What about, "Don't be afraid to go closer"?
- Well, you're not letting that go. - It's very important.
I don't see that as an instruction as to what she should do.
She doesn't act on what's being said.
The additional dimension in this is that despite all the help she gets,
the gestures and that comment for instance
and the fact that they practice three or four times,
she never goes as close as a close contact shot requires.
What's your conclusion since Sara Svensson can't say
how she shot and killed the first person she ever shot?
- She fails to describe it in detail. - Yes, okay.
Either she doesn't remember correctly,
or she doesn't want to show exactly how close she went.
Or maybe there's a third option,
that she didn't do it, don't you think?
Yes, sure.
The court never got to see what the circumstances
for Sara Svensson were when this was shown.
No, that's right. Absolutely.
Why didn't they pick up on the fact that she got the distance wrong?
Why didn't they pick up on that?
What would have happened if they stopped there instead?
Maybe not the reconstruction, but in the investigation. If they had said,
"What the hell is happening now? She's too far away here.
What should we do now?" They didn't do that.
This is one of many pieces of evidence, but it's important evidence.
I still think that all the film material should have been shown.
They should have shown all the filmed material, all the questions. Everything.
I think that if 100 people watched what was shown in court,
I'm convinced that the majority of them would say that what she has demonstrated
is something that she did. If another 100 people
saw all of the material I think the opinion would have been different.
There's a great risk that she's being helped to lie.
That doesn't mean that I have an opinion
on what she's guilty or not guilty of.
I don't know that, however,
I'm sure that, by conducting the reconstruction in this manner,
they're sabotaging their own investigation.
If she is the kind of person they say she is,
that she wants to please everyone,
you would expect her to go closer, "Is this what you mean?"
I would expect that, since they guided her so much.
I thought, "She'll show them correctly." But she didn't.
But is the forensic report wrong? It could be, I mean...
- That it wasn't a close contact shot? - Yes.
She seems very sure.
Maybe Sara Svensson is right and forensics are wrong.
We should do a test shooting, in that case.
SHOOTING TEST
The information we have is that the bedspread was pulled up,
so the two shots were fired through the bedspread into the head.
The gunpowder residue in the technical report tell you it was close range?
Yes. The more concentrated and the smaller the mark is in diameter,
the closer the barrel is to the inflicted injury.
Sara demonstrated that she fired from a distance
- she eventually agreed to 50 cm. - Yes.
From the mouth of the revolver to the body.
We'll begin by using comparative material,
which we'll put a bedspread over, covering the head.
And then we'll fire from a distance of 50 cm.
We can see in this case that the bullet has hit the skin.
There's no soot residue.
Neither are there any burns around the gunshot wound at this distance.
This is what one would expect when shooting from a distance of 50 cm.
- Pass it to me please. - We'll do a close contact test now.
Yes.
- What can we see here then? - We can see that we have soot residue.
The difference between the first series of shots at 50 cm is
there isn't a trace of soot around these injuries.
The difference is soot on all close-contact shots.
There is a discrepancy, shall we say,
between what she maintains was the firing distance
and what the coroner and the forensic laboratory says.
And they haven't looked for an explanation to this.
Why does Sara say this?
I don't know. I can't be the judge of that.
But all I can say is, in my opinion, the firing distances
that she gives in interrogations and in the reconstruction are incorrect.
Hello. Anton Berg and company. We're here to interview Helge Fossmo.
Let's begin.
Should I say anything else?
Yes, that's right.
And then I continue to the living room.
Was that good?
"Was that good?"
And now I'm very determined to see this through.
And I do it.
- Is that edited out? - The laugh? Yes, it's edited out.
I understand. I just want to know.
She notices that they're not satisfied.
You have to do it as you remember it.
But don't be afraid to go close.
It's very clear that they're not satisfied with her answers.
She's very sensitive to that. It's very obvious.
She's asking them what they're not satisfied with.
She doesn't use those words, but there's an unease there
and a will to follow their direction, their instructions.
Helge, what do you think when you see this?
It's a performance, with a director.
She looks really desperate one minute and she's laughing the next.
She chats easily and laughs, and then takes on her role.
It looks very... arranged.
Not particularly authentic.
And now it's clear that the court has been shown edited material.
They never knew how very directed Sara was when they filmed the reconstruction.
It's extremely serious.
Truly serious. The judgment is based on Sara Svensson's version of events.
If she has made all of her statements or just some of the statements
after being influenced, then the court must take this into account.
And of course I'm thinking along the lines of grounds for a re-trial.
We'll have to make an overall assessment.
This isn't the only thing that's strange in this investigation. There's more.
A re-trial requires more than pointing out that something is wrong.
You have to prove that something is very wrong and this is astounding.
What Sara demonstrates is incorrect.
How do you feel about this, Helge, that she gets things wrong?
Well, it makes me wonder obviously, if she really fired the shots.
It must also be said that's she's not reliable,
since her version of events does not correspond with the forensic evidence.
JANUARY, 2021
Why I haven't talked before...
It's simply because I haven't been strong enough.
Everything in Knutby for me
has been such an enormous trauma.
The years in psychiatric care and the years after that...
Dealing with...
Can I exist? Can I be the person I am?
How do others see me?
So I didn't have the strength to tell my story before.
Please excuse us if we are a little blunt here,
but we'd like to ask you about the three shots that killed Alexandra.
- Your story doesn't add up. - No...
Shots two and three are close contact, but you...
Can you describe how it is?
I was prepared for Alexandra to wake up.
That's why I kept at a distance.
And I can't say why...
So, by the second shot, where are you standing?
I'm standing somewhere at the foot of the bed.
Not fully at the end,
but I don't go close.
I don't.
- And by the third shot? - I go closer.
But not close contact.
But if the second shot is close contact, you can't go any closer?
No, but I can't understand how that could be.
The police's technical report
states that both the second and third were close contact.
So, then we thought, if Sara's so sure about it, maybe the report is wrong.
So we have tested to shoot as well and the difference is obvious
between close contact shots and shots from a distance.
So, when it is close contact, it leaves no room for discussion.
Well, I don't have an answer for that...
I was so very scared that Alexandra would wake up...
So I didn't dare to go that close.
And I would definitely not have managed to stand so close either.
I really can't explain why it doesn't add up.
I don't know. I can't...
I must say what I remember
and that memory is the same now as then.
During our investigation, we have looked at the technical report
and spoken to many.
And this is another strange thing that sticks out.
It's the map showing how the perpetrator walked to the scene.
They say the footprints start here, go to the crime scene and back here.
You have said that you started here.
And then you walk here and back.
This is the difference.
There is a forest and a big road between.
What happened here?
I drove there and I walked just like I drew it for the police.
I don't know why there are no footprints
from the car.
But that's where I parked.
And I walked from the car, to the houses and back.
When you read the police's report about the footprints,
they say the dog only found footprints from one person walking one direction.
They don't find footprints the other direction.
I know I walked in someone else's footprints.
Someone else had walked there before me.
So I walked in those.
These guys in Stockholm who taught me...
how to do all this.
They taught me to use shoe covers.
In order to... well, they told me
that you should wear them when committing crime.
So I used shoe covers.
Shoe covers can maybe explain why the dogs lost track.
But you would still make footprints in the snow?
- There is none? - I don't know why really.
Because when I look at this, it looks like someone drove you.
Dropped you off here and then parked here.
Yeah, but that's not the case.
I drove the car alone.
No one else was with me.
During the trial, Asa comes one day to testify.
Afterwards, she does something that people found shocking.
Can you tell us about the hand gesture?
It was everything I had wanted,
longed for, for many years.
But I had been so rejected, broken down and excluded.
I didn't sleep.
I didn't have the right to my own life.
I was called a slave.
People turned their backs on me when I came.
My...
Asa said my evil was contagious to others.
So no one talked to me.
And when you feel like this is when you are offered Asa's hand?
It gave me hope about life.
To get life back.
But today I believe
that hand could have also meant,
"I'm giving my hand to you...
so now you know you should keep quiet, about my role."
My role as?
The Queen of Heaven.
The supreme love of the universe.
The center of the universe.
She was... almost God.
She was God's Bride.