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
About the Author
