Kenya Stockholm Blog

How Could Juliet’s Suspected Murderer Have Been Freed?

There is a cliché among many immigrants in Sweden that “the Swedish law is funny”. KSB has temporarily suspended the publication of further details regarding the Juliet trial so as to give room for a comment on the release by the Court of Juliet’s suspected murderer.

The Swedish law “is funny” because the suspect in the Juliet case has been released even before the official delivery of judgment in Court which is scheduled for Tuesday next week. It might not be surprising to go to Court next week to find that there are no typical Court proceedings with the Judge delivering the judgment because the main arguments in the judgment might simply be handed over on a piece of paper.

When a group of Kenyans showed up at a Court in Stockholm last year to listen to the Judgment in a case in which Billy Boy, a Kenyan Rapper, was being tried for allegedly assaulting a Swedish woman, they were surprised to find that the Court was empty.

When they tried to investigate, they were told that they could get the Judgment on a piece of paper if they were interested. However, not anybody could get the Judgment. Only Billy’s girlfriend could have access to it and at a price. She paid 56 kr (560 Kenyan shillings).

Although Kenyans expected to see Billy in Court for, may be, the last time, the Kenyan Rapper was simply driven to prison because he had been “found guilty”. Don’t worry that Billy was jailed on flimsy grounds and for a crime that was allegedly committed two years before! 

The question that every Kenyan is spitting at the moment is “How could Juliet’s suspected murderer have gone free?” A sample of the suspect’s hair was found on the material that was used to wrap Juliet’s body. This shows that the suspect must have had contact with the body or even wrapped it himself so how could he have done this if he was not party to Juliet’s murder?

The last time Juliet talked on her phone, police evidence showed that it was the suspect who phoned her before her phone went dead. At first, the suspect told police that he was not the father of Juliet’s unborn child. However, DNA evidence showed that he was the father meaning that he had lied to police. When Juliet became pregnant, she was in a relationship with the suspect and the Prosecution showed that Juliet had no other relationship with another man especially after coming into contact with the suspect.

The suspect did not want Juliet to conduct an abortion because he did not want responsibility and this well established position serves as a strong motive for murder. The court could call it “circumstantial evidence” but is DNA evidence and proof of parenthood of an unborn child whose father wanted the mother to abort also circumstantial?

The suspect lived in Farsta. Juliet’s body was wrapped in a tarpaulin. Police investigation found that a tarpaulin and other materials that were used to wrap Juliet’s body were all bought at Claes Olsson Supermarket at Farsta (where the suspect lived) a day after Juliet was allegedly killed.

When her body was recovered, Juliet’s head was wrapped in a plastic bag that was bought from the Konsum supermarket chain. Police found that the suspect bought two such plastic bags at Farsta supermarket the afternoon that Juliet was killed. The circumstance here is how the suspect could have bought two plastic bags similar to the one that was used to wrap Juliet’s body.

A crime that was committed more than a year ago might be very difficult to investigate because of possible destruction of evidence. But how does a lay person explain the fact that after all the circumstances mentioned above, the witness went ahead to hire a small lorry with a “back lift” at Farsta (where he lived) then drives the lorry 130 Km without proper explanations where he might have been?

A rational mind would think that the lorry could have been used to transport Juliet’s body after she was murdered because definitely, you don’t hire a lorry of that magnitude just to transport a CD deck as the witness said.

When Juliet left her flat for the last time she was seen alive, a witness told the Court that she carried with her a “gadget” that she used for training her stomach to keep fit. The “gadget” which was made in Germany, was recovered by police at the suspect’s apartment. The explanation here is that when Juliet left her apartment for the last time, she must have gone to the suspect’s house because how could the gadget have been recovered from the suspect’s house if Juliet did not visit him that day?

Don’t worry that Juliet was short in the back with a hunting gun and that the suspect was licensed to use a hunting gun. Surely, is the acquittal of Juliet’s suspected murderer the result of failure of the Swedish justice system or is it just another case of racism within the system especially on questions touching on Africans in this country? Are we dealing with a case of “another nigger out of the street” or are the circumstantial evidence against the witness “a figment of imagination” of the Swedish police who investigated the case?

I could have rested my case there. According to evidence adduced in court, the witness assaulted an officer at a labor Office with a knife in 1999 and was jailed for two months so the witness had a criminal record.

The same day Juliet was allegedly murdered, the suspect borrowed 100.000 kr from City Bank out of which 70.000 kr was recovered from the house of the suspect. Police speculated that the suspect might have planned to leave the country at short notice because some of the cash was recovered in foreign currency. Does this still sound like circumstantial evidence? May be.

Regardless of what the government is saying and the “integration” propaganda being spewed through the Swedish media, the acquittal of the suspect in this case might be telling a different story to the Kenyan, African and immigrant communities in Sweden – that institutionalized state racism and discrimination exists in the Swedish labor market, housing market and, most importantly, the Swedish justice system.

Africans and other immigrants might not be able to get admission into restaurants especially in Stockholm because of racism and discrimination. However, the Juliet case is probably the latest evidence that in Sweden, a nigger can be brutally murdered without repercussions and that the next “nigger killer” will probably walk away because the life of a nigger in this country is cheap and disposable. What do other niggers say?

Okoth Osewe: makosewe@gmail.com   

November 10, 2006 Posted by makozewe | News & Analysis | Leave a Comment

Juliet Kavinga’s Suspected Murderer Freed

The 35 year old Swedish national who has been facing trial for the murder of Juliet Kavinga, has been freed by the Court in Handen, Stockholm. Details will come out next week when judgment is delivered. According to news flashes in mainstream Swedish media, the suspect was released for “lack of evidence”.

Tora Holst, the Prosecutor who spoke to both Aftonbladet and Expressen newspapers,  said that there is no murder weapon or scene of crime. Court proceedings indicate that there is incriminating evidence although no blood or traces of blood was found in the house of the suspect where the murder is suspected to have taken place. The suspect has already been freed from police custody.

The Kenyan community in Stockholm and friends who have been following the case received the news with shock. Many Kenyans believed that the evidence that was gathered by police was enough to sustain a conviction. 

Okoth Osewe: makosewe@gmail.com

November 9, 2006 Posted by makozewe | News & Analysis | Leave a Comment

Witness Recounts Juliet’s Last Moments

A witness who was sharing the rent with the late Juliet Kavinga has told a Swedish court that the day Juliet disappeared, she was wearing an ordinary jeans trouser and a sweater. On May 13th 2005, the witness told the court that he was standing on the door way of the kitchen when Juliet told him that there was something she wanted to discuss with him.

When asked by Tora Holst, the Prosecutor, what Juliet had wanted to discuss with him, the witness said that he didn’t know exactly but suspected that it might have been something to do with her pregnancy. A friend had come to pick up the witness with a car at that time and the witness told the court that he informed Juliet that they would discuss the issue when he returned from shopping.

“When I returned, Juliet was not in the house”, he said. At that point, the witness did not suspect anything strange because he thought that Juliet was out shortly and that she would return. The witness, who is an African male in his late 30s or early 40s, was the most interesting witness to have testified at the trial since it began.

According to him, “Juliet was a normal person” and he told the court that although they resided together in the same apartment, they never used to dine together. He was paying 3.500 kr rent while Juliet was paying 1.500 kr for an adjacent room.

When questioned why he was paying more money for the rent, the witness said that he occupied a bigger room and a sitting room while Juliet occupied just one room. The house was owned by a woman who was away in Africa at the time Juliet disappeared. He said that Juliet was a professional hair dresser although he didn’t know the amount of money she earned. He also did not know whether Juliet worked at a hair salon.

The witness told the court that he new Juliet’s boyfriend because Juliet had introduced the boy to him. He identified the boyfriend as the same person who was sitting in court.

“The boyfriend used to come home although he had never spent the night in Juliet’s room”, he told the court. He said that he lived together with Juliet but that he did not have a romantic relationship with Juliet who also never told her that she was pregnant. When asked how he knew that Juliet was pregnant, he said that Juliet’s tummy began to get bigger and that he could see that she was pregnant.

Prosecutor: “Did you ask her who the father of the child was?”.
Witness: “Yes”.
Prosecutor: “And what did she say”
Witness: “She said that she was the father”, the witness told the court adding that by then, Juliet was still living in the apartment.

When asked by the lawyer of the accused what he meant by Juliet being “the father” of the child she was carrying, he said that his understanding when Juliet said so was that the boyfriend was the father. He said that Juliet used to go to Church at St Emanuel but that as her pregnancy advanced, she stopped going to church. He said that Juliet never used to bring men home except once when a friend of his tried to befriend Juliet.

When Juliet returned home with the man, the witness said that Juliet slept sitting on the kitchen table while the man slept alone in her room. He said that when he asked Juliet about the circumstances, Juliet said that she wasn’t interested in the man because she knew he was married. He told the court that this was a long time before Juliet met her Swedish boyfriend who was in court. After the incident, he told the court that the relationship did not continue.

The witness said that the relationship between Juliet and her Swedish boyfriend was good and that Juliet used to sleep over at his place from time to time. In October 2005, Juliet told the witness that he will have to pay the whole rent because she was moving in with her boyfriend. The witness said that for the whole of December, he was alone in the house because Juliet was away.

“In January, Juliet came back from nowhere. Someone opened the door and when I asked her what had happened, she said that we would talk later”, the witness said. Juliet then requested that she continue to stay if the witness had no objection and the witness accepted her back.

The witness said that she did not know why Juliet came back but when she was pressed by the Prosecutor why he did not ask her, he said that it was not his business to ask her because he believed that Juliet had an obligation to tell her if she wanted to.

The witness said that Juliet asked him if he would help in any way during her pregnancy and he accepted to do whatever he could do to help. “I felt pity for her because it appeared as if she was alone and needed morale”, he said, adding that he wanted Juliet to know that there was someone who could help. He said that he didn’t know if Juliet continued with contacts with her boyfriend after she returned and that the boyfriend never appeared at the house again.

He said that at about the time when Juliet returned, another man (name on file) who was a student joined them in the house. He said that the man was very busy and always left at 6.00 in the morning.

He said that the day Juliet left the house for the last time and told him that there was something she wanted to tell him, he knew that it must have been something special. He said that at first, he thought that Juliet’s day of delivery was approaching and that what she wanted to tell him might have had something to do with the impending delivery.

When Juliet disappeared, the witness told the court that he tried to make contacts for two days and even sent a message asking Juliet to get in touch with him if she got the message but nothing happened.

“After one week, I went to her room to check if something was not normal”, he told the court. He said that although everything looked normal, he noticed that Juliet’s black bag with wheels was missing while a light blue gadget that was made in Germany and which Juliet used for exercising her stomach, was also missing. “I thought she might have traveled”, he said.

After one week, the witness said that he called a lady friend of Juliet (name on file) and informed her about Juliet’s disappearance together with the fact that she was not responding to phone calls. Juliet’s friend, who hails from Kenya and who also gave evidence before the court, said that the two needed to meet to discuss the issue.

Juliet’s lady friend did come to his apartment and after discussions, the two concluded that Juliet might have been at the refugee camp and that she was safe. Juliet had told the witness when they first met that she was a refugee.

The witness said that he never reported Juliet’s strange absence to police because he personally believed that she was at her boyfriend’s flat and that she was fine. The story continues at the blog spot on Thursday.

Okoth Osewe: makosewe@gmail.com
 

November 7, 2006 Posted by makozewe | News & Analysis | Leave a Comment

“Juliet’s Family Never Got Cash For Funeral”, Court Told In Stockholm

The family of the late Kenyan lady, Juliet Kavinga, is demanding cash totaling to 35.000 kr (350.000 Kenyan shillings) because they “borrowed money” to transport Juliet’s body to Kenya and the bill needs to be sorted out. Addressing the Court on Monday November 6th at Handen in the outskirts of Stockholm city, Pia Tuling, Juliet’s family representative in the on going murder trial of Juliet’s former boyfriend, said that the family hired cars and paid for mortuary charges in Kenya together with other expenses which, they say, needs to be paid up.

According to police investigations, Juliet, who was seven months pregnant, was murdered on 13th May 2005 then her body dumped at Lake Mälaren in Ekero in the outskirts of Stockholm. The body was found floating at Lake Mälaren in August this year.

Pia Tuling gave a break down of expenses the family wanted refunded by the Court. These included cash that was paid to Fidelia AB (a funeral agency) for transporting Juliet’s body to Kenya at 17.800 kr. The team that is representing the family is demanding over 60.000 kr (600.000 Kenyan shillings) in professional fees and other expenses incurred in the process of representing Juliet’s family in the case.

After Juliet’s burial, Pia Tuling traveled to Kenya “to evaluate” the family’s economic situation. During her stay in Kenya, she met Juliet’s sister (Susan) and discussed the issue of compensation. Pia Tuling told the court that Juliet used to send money to Kenya at least twice a year and that the last time she sent cash, the amount was 12.000 kr (Ksh 120.000).

A witness of African origin who lived with Juliet in the same flat and who was the last known witness to have spoken with Juliet on 13th May 2005 told the court that 3-4 months after Juliet disappeared, he removed Juliet’s belongings from her room and transferred them to the Källare (an underground bunker). After Juliet’s body was recovered, police seized her belongings from the bunker and recovered between 70.000-80.000 kr (700.000-800.000 Kenyan shillings) hidden amid clothes and other belongings.

In arguing her case for compensation, Pia Tuling said that the average wage in Kenya is about 1.000 kr (Ksh 10.000) and that under the circumstances, the 35.000 kr which the family borrowed to pay for funeral expenses was huge. The Court heard that the family paid cash to the Church which transported Juliet’s body to her home village where she was buried.

Apart from the funeral expenses, the family is seeking compensation of 50.000 kr (500.000 kr) for the loss of Juliet’s life while they also want cash that was recovered from Juliet’s property to be surrendered to them.

A lawyer who has analyzed the case told KSB that it is possible that cash which was used in funeral expenses will be paid by the court but added that it is unlikely that the family will be paid any compensation because of the loss of Juliet’s life. He said that according to the Swedish law, Juliet was not economically attached to the family back in Kenya and that for this reason, the question of economic compensation for the loss of her life does not arise.

Revelations in Court that there is a bill the family needs to sort out in relation to transportation of Juliet’s body to Kenya and burial expenses will surprise many Kenyans and friends who contributed 48.000 kr (480.000 Kenyan shillings) to help transport Juliet’s body to Kenya. Fidelia, the company which transported the body, was paid 17.800 kr while the balance was sent directly to Juliet’s mother via Western Union. The “Juliet Committee in Stockholm” which raised cash for burial expenses does not feature in the case.

After a fund raising , a section of the Juliet Committee members raised concerns that they did not know the whereabouts of cash that was raised by Kenyans to transport Juliet’s body to Kenya. When an emergency Committee meeting was called to discuss the matter, it emerged that cash had actually been sent to Juliet’s family and that the reason why some Committee members were unaware that cash had been sent was because there had been a “communication breakdown”. The Treasurer of the Juliet Committee, Mr. Silas Njuguna, produced documents that showed that cash had been sent.

A report that was filed at Kenya Stockholm Blog about the meeting read in part: “The Treasurer said that money had already been sent to Juliet’s mother as had been agreed at an earlier meeting while he also said that Fidelia AB, the company that transported Juliet’s body to Kenya, had also been paid”.

The report continued: “According to documents produced by the Treasurer, 277.732 Kenyan shillings was sent to Juliet’s mother Mrs Agnes M. Kikanga Kavinga through Western Union while Fidelia AB was paid 17.800,50 Kr. Cash that was paid to Fidelia was a special discount rate and not the normal Fidelia price. A document that was faxed from Nairobi to the Kenyan Embassy in Stockholm dated September 15th 2006 and signed on behalf of Juliet’s mother, Agnes, indicated that she received Ksh 277,732”.

A witness told the Court that when he last saw Juliet, she was in the kitchen and that Juliet told her that there was something she wanted to discuss with him. The witness was on his way to the shop and he told the Court that when he came back, Juliet was not in the house. She never saw her again. The hearing continues.

Okoth Osewe: makosewe@gmail.com

November 6, 2006 Posted by makozewe | News & Analysis | Leave a Comment

Pastor Beatrice Kamau Defects To ODM-Scandinavia

Pastor Beatrice Kamau, a key member of Narc-Stockholm, has defected to ODM-Scandinavia claiming that the Narc-Stockholm is composed of a group of Kikuyu chauvinists pursuing personal and selfish interests.

Speaking to Kenya Stockholm Blog, Pastor Beatrice said that when she organized a meeting with Narc-Kenya MPs in Skarpnäck in September, she never knew that some Kenyans would hijack the MPs to set up an ethnic Narc-Kenya branch in Stockholm.

“I invited Kenyans who were both Narc-Kenya and ODM-Kenya supporters without thinking about their ethnic groups because I do not believe in tribalism”, she said.

“At first, I thought Narc-Stockholm was an all inclusive Party where every Kenyan who was interested could join”, Pastor Beatrice told KSB. She said that the group behind the Party were doing more damage to the Party because they were operating in secrecy and pushing for a Kikuyu agenda instead of being open and addressing issues.

“I believe in Jesus Christ and Jesus was not a tribalist. I cannot therefore be party to a group of people who are promoting tribalism, hatred, mud-slinging and cheap gossip using bogus political bases in Sweden”, she said.

“In my working life, I don’t entertain tribalism and for me, it doesn’t matter whether a person is a Turukana or a Mjikenda. As Kenyans, we are all the same and once we understand this point, we will be a step towards solving our problems as Kenyan citizens”, she continued.

“You don’t build a Party and recruit new members by hand-picking who is to attend meetings and organizing meetings in hidden places”, she said.

When questioned further, Pastor Beatrice said that she has Kenyan friends and contacts from different ethnic groups and that when she linked up people behind Narc-Stockholm and Narc-Kenya MPs in September, she thought that those behind Narc-Stockholm were politically mature and that her grand expectation was that the Party branch would be open to everybody.

“From what I know, some Kenyans who were initially interested in the Narc-Stockholm have been scared by the Kikuyu outlook of the Party because people behind it believe that Narc-Kenya is a Kikuyu party”, she told KSB.

At a secret meeting with Narc-Kenya MPs in Stockholm, a member of Narc-Stockholm reportedly declared that Narc-Kenya belonged to “The House of Mumbi”, prompting Assistant Minister Alicen Chelaite who was at the meeting to protest.

Pastor Beatrice said that another problem is that people behind Narc-Stockholm have no political experience and that they don’t have basic ideas on how to run a Party.

“I cannot be led by people who are more interested in riding in Mercedez Benzes with MPs when they visit Kenya on holidays than in changing the politics of Kenya”, she said.

In a long interview soon after she declared her defection to ODM-Scandinavia, Pastor Beatrice said that many Kenyans in Stockholm are too mature for tribal politics and predicted that Narc-Stockholm will continue to exist only by name and in the imaginations of the handful of tribalists who have Kikuyunized the Party.

“Members of the Kikuyu community should wake up and join other Kenyans in fighting tribalism and struggling for a better Kenya. You don’t fight tribalism by building a tribal out-fit and it is for this reason that I am quitting the Party”, she said.

The Pastor said that she was impressed by the openness and democratic way in which ODM-Scandinavia was conducting its activities.

“Interim Officials of the Party were elected openly and in a public meeting where all Kenyans were invited”, she said, adding that through its 12 point Program, ODM-Scandinavia was more “issue oriented” as compared to Narc-Stockholm “whose members were stuck with the illusion that Kenya belonged to Kikuyus”.

The defection of Pastor Beatrice to ODM-Scandinavia is a big blow to people behind Narc-Stockholm because it is a confirmation of the general belief that Narc-Stockholm is not a Party but a fragile contraption where political opportunists have congregated to further personal and narrow selfish interests.

Okoth Osewe: makosewe@gmail.com

November 5, 2006 Posted by makozewe | News & Analysis | Leave a Comment

Tribalism In Kenya Is A “Class Issue”, Says Mrs Hellen Opwapo

Mrs Hellen Opwapo, the Chairperson of ODM-Scandinavia, has said that tribalism in Kenya is mainly a “class issue” and not a major problem at the grass roots level. Addressing members of ODM-Scandinavia in Stockholm on Saturday November 4th, Mrs Opwapo said that millions of Kenyans at the grass roots level continued to interact and deal with one another without the element of tribalism coming into play.

“Tribalism is a tool being used by the ruling class to keep Kenyans divided so that they can be controlled”, she told the meeting. The party branch was laying strategies on how to help fight tribalism in Kenya and among the Kenyan community in Sweden especially in Stockholm.

Since ODM-Scandinavia was set up, Kenya Stockholm Blog has established that a tiny group of Narc-Kenya sympathizers in Stockholm have been spreading dirty politics of hatred and tribalism after realizing that Stockholm is an ODM-Kenya zone.

Mrs Opwapo gave a background of ODM-Scandinavia for the benefit of new members who had just joined the Party and reiterated the Party’s commitment in doing everything within its means to help ODM-Kenya win the General election scheduled for December next year. The Party’s Constitution and “12 point Program” were made available to new members at the meeting.

There was hot debate at the meeting about Kenyan politics and the general political situation in Kenya. Some issues which cropped up had to be carried forward to give room for other pressing matters at the meeting which lasted for three hours.

Mr. Mark Gaya, a Kenyan who had just joined the Party and who returned from Kenya recently, said that some Kenyans had been so much brain washed that when Cabinet ministers stole from public coffers, they were regarded as “heroes”.

The meeting, which was well attended, resolved that ODM-Scandinavia would push for the leveling of the political playing field before General elections next year and ensure that the twin issues of dual citizenship and voting from abroad were constantly highlighted during public debates.

The meeting also resolved that the Party branch in Scandinavia would warn ODM-K to stop being inconsistent especially in political struggles. Members were disappointed that after ODM-Kenya began organizing demonstrations to push for the resignation of Justice Aron Ringera as Anti-corruption chief, ODM-Party leaders suddenly stopped anti-Ringera public campaigns without explanations and before Ringera was forced out of office.

Another resolution was that ODM-Scandinavia would strive to give a “class perspective” of the struggle against tribalism in Kenya to expose the myth that different ethnic groups were fighting against one another across the country. The dominant view at the meeting was that there are only “two tribes” in Kenya, “the rich and the poor tribes”.

On the issue of nomination of ODM-K Presidential candidate, the meeting took the position that the process had to be democratic and that ODM-Scandinavia will distance itself from any attempts to impose a Presidential candidate on members.

Mr. Gerry Changa Midenyo, the branch Treasurer, said that ODM-K politicians who are trying to dictate on the issue of ODM-K Presidential candidate should be stopped on their tracks because any dictation over the issue would send wrong signals to ODM-K supporters at home and abroad and compromise the Party’s basic democratic principles.

Addressing the meeting, Mr. Dancan Munala, the Party Secretary, said that there were no ready-made solutions to problems in Kenya. He pointed out that apart from supporting the Party in Kenya, ODM-Scandinavia should also focus on long term development projects with major target groups being the poor in Kenya.

The Committee was given the task of calling another members’ meeting as soon as possible to continue with political debates and to discuss how the party branch would organize political activities in Stockholm to further the agenda of ODM-Scandinavia.

Okoth Osewe: makosewe@gmail.com

November 5, 2006 Posted by makozewe | News & Analysis | Leave a Comment