found guilty of the murder of her best friend – a two-year-old boy – in a press release from the prosecutor’s office. Jonas was forced away from his family and grew up locked up in a different forensic psychiatric clinics.
Read more: Major shortcomings when 12-year-old was singled out as the murderer
After the DN’s examination of the case resumed the preliminary investigation on 27 June 2018.
Among other things, has a new blodbildsanalys and renewed DNA analyses were carried out, writes the prosecutor, in a press release.
not the investigation forward, and therefore it is added to the bottom. According to the prosecutor, it is not possible to prove who committed the crime.
– Overall, my assessment is that the evidence after taken the investigative measures would not be sufficient to clarify the sequence of events. There are no prerequisites to take further investigative measures of any kind which is why I put down the pre-trial investigation and terminates the investigation under section 31 LULEÅ, says chief prosecutor Erika Lejnefors.
” I won’t go into any evidence or establishes any liability for any in this type of LULEÅ-the investigation (the Law on young offenders). What I am saying is that the evidence situation is like that that I can’t identify who was the culprit. It is a slightly different its reasons than it was in 2001.
– One can not interpret it any other way than that I concludes the investigation that has been directed against him, because we can’t get anymore, and on the whole say that the confusion which has existed in the investigation, they are still there.
” Then you get the same answer as before, this investigation aimed at the person who was under 15 years of age at the brottstillfället, it is finished, not with any determination of whether someone is suspicious or not, we will not further, and it will not go to clarify the sequence of events.
” I can’t write or explain in a press release that came in 2001. I can only stand for the assessments that I do in the day.
– It is outside of my mission and my involvement in it here, I have no opinion in the matter.
” I can’t say it, then you made a judgement on the material, and the study did when. Now I make a somewhat different assessment.
– You can always learn from different investigations, there are things that happen when it comes to investigation methods and the technical possibilities. In this case, it is terribly disappointing to not have been able to investigate the events with a sufficient strength, particularly for the death of the boy and his family’s sake, but also for the then-12-year-old boy’s skull.
Carl Söderlund mean that the conclusion is clear.
” It is clear that the assessment, as it did in 2001, when my client was singled out as guilty, it can not come until today. That decision was incorrect and it led to my client’s life was destroyed, he was locked up in the caring departments, half of his life.
” I need to talk with my client about.
conducted as a normal investigation, and within the framework of the law on young offenders, LULEÅ.
Both surveys are added so down now. Jonas was singled out as culpable in a press release – but also by the two surveys las down on the formal basis that the suspect was under the age of 15.
The beslutsmotiveringen is now replaced. The prosecutor says instead that ”the evidence is not sufficient to prove who committed the crime”.
” You do not say straight out that he is innocent, it can depend on many things. But so much one can say, that he is no longer singled out. I see this as a big success for him, and in the extension of the DN that started the drag in this, says the lawyer Peter Althin, who has followed the case closely.
at the moment, and the prosecutor come to the conclusion that it was not possible to prove the crime, then he would have been regarded as innocent now.
” What was so incredibly strange was that it was based on some of the worst police questioning I’ve seen in 40 years, and pointed him out as guilty, says Peter Althin.
Read more: ”It was not I, Why would I kill my best friend ”
