VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED CONTAINS GRAPHIC IMAGES
- What's the emergency? - Kungsgatan 74C.
- What's happened? - No idea. There's blood everywhere.
- Is it an adult? - He has diabetes.
- Does he have diabetes? - Yes.
- You mentioned blood. - There's blood everywhere.
- Do you know where he's wounded? - No.
If he's not breathing we need to do CPR.
- Yes. Where's the ambulance? - On its way, as fast as they can.
- Is he conscious? - Is he reacting at all?
- Is he reacting? He's cold. - He's cold.
TRACES OF BLOOD
At 6.58 am, September 4, 2020, emergency services receive a call
from an apartment on Kungsgatan 74C in Trollhättan.
The callers are two home care assistants.
The user lives at the address.
A woman with several disabilities lives in the apartment.
She needs care 24/7, seven days a week.
Just before emergency services receive the call
team leader Erika has arrived at the apartment.
Erika's taking over after her colleagues Erik and Jonathan.
They've worked the night shift.
The staff switches in the morning.
They found their colleague Erik on the floor.
Initially, they wondered
if it was a diabetic seizure, which could've induced a coma.
She rushed over and tried to resuscitate him.
I went in and looked for Erik. He wasn't where he usually sat.
That's when I saw everything. The blood...
I didn't see Erik at first. I was shocked.
My mind was completely focused on his diabetes.
I blocked out all the awful aspects and the blood. "Where's that from?"
I thought that perhaps his insulin pump had fallen out.
It's impossible to explain how you think in those moments.
Usually, one staff member is awake and one is asleep.
It's terrible that the one who is meant to be awake is on the floor.
The consequences could be serious and dangerous for the user.
The user wasn't able to help herself at all.
She used a ventilator, connected by a tube.
If the tube were to disconnect, an alarm would go off.
But in this case, nobody could help her.
We're responsible for the user. She was fine and alive,
so I ran to Jonathan.
"Call emergency services. There's blood everywhere."
Then, I ran back to Erik.
- The ambulance is almost there. - There's blood! I'm so scared.
I told emergency services to drive faster.
I said that I couldn't handle it. He wasn't waking up.
I thought he'd wake up.
I thought it would be fine when the ambulance arrived.
When the ambulance and police arrive
they quickly declare Erik dead.
They discover that he's been dead for hours.
There are indications that a crime's been committed.
Erik was genuinely kind and caring.
Some people ask how you are, but he really asked wholeheartedly.
He was a lovely guy.
He cared about us. We shared information in a group.
He always sent heart emojis, not just a thumbs up.
He made everyone new feel welcome.
If someone was ill, he wrote "get well soon". He was thoughtful.
He'd just moved to a larger apartment.
He seemed so happy and in love with his partner.
He talked about getting a dog.
I'm older than him, so I think about
how it would've been if I'd died when I was 32 years old.
His death was terribly unfair.
It's just awful.
The police soon arrive with forensic technicians.
It's important to determine as soon as possible
if a crime has been committed or if it was an accident.
It seemed like a crime had been committed.
There were several indications from the start.
The was a lot of blood and splashes of blood.
There was no other natural explanation.
To determine what kind of violence Erik had been subjected to
a medical examiner is summoned.
The medical examiner arrived and we examined the body.
We determined that the injuries were cuts or stabs.
A knife had probably been used. He had typical knife injuries
to his neck and hand injuries, which signify attempted self-defense.
He wasn't just stabbed once.
He had several wounds to his neck, arm and hands.
The autopsy found that the cause of death
was a severed carotid artery and a severed trachea.
The sense we got
when we analyzed the crime scene
was that he'd been attacked from behind.
He was attacked from his right side.
Somebody stood behind Erik while he sat on a chair.
We found Erik's body just inside the door to the patio.
Just inside that door.
It was a ground-floor apartment with a patio.
One of the doors wasn't fully shut.
Traces of blood had been observed
on the outside of the patio.
All three windows belong to the apartment.
The window ahead of me is the living room window.
It's open plan to the kitchen.
The next window is the user's bedroom.
The window furthest away is the room
where staff sleep during the night shift.
On two of the cobble stones there were clear
traces of blood from a foot in a sock.
There are concrete slabs along the wall.
They go around the corner, connecting the building to the patio.
You can see that one of the concrete slabs is missing.
There was a footprint from a shoe on that slab.
One theory was that someone had left the apartment
through the back door and left these traces.
The footprint was probably left before the traces of blood.
The person who left the footprint came to the apartment.
Something happened in the apartment.
The person gets blood on their socks at the crime scene.
They don't put their shoes on again, but leave without shoes.
The police continue to examine the apartment.
They look for evidence to determine what has happened.
After searching the apartment it's concluded that what's missing
is the user's phone and wallet.
Initially, it appeared to be a robbery.
But we had no idea who could've done it.
There were no possible threats against Erik.
We were baffled. Why did someone attack him?
When the emergency call was made and when the police arrived
there were two staff members on site. One had slept there during the night.
Those were the two people in the apartment.
The guy who'd been asleep was the obvious suspect.
He was the only survivor, except for the user.
There was one other member of staff in the apartment.
He was an initial suspect. He was in an apartment
where someone had been murdered. He was a probable suspect.
The victim's injuries indicated murder
and there was a lot of blood at the crime scene.
The amount of blood was central in the investigation.
The suspect, the man who was asleep,
is 55-year-old Jonathan. He's detained immediately.
But, in the initial interrogation, he denies the crime.
The investigation finds that sound carries well through the apartment.
Nevertheless, Jonathan claims that he slept all night
and didn't wake up from any unusual sounds.
It should've been noisy when Erik fell to the ground.
It may seem odd
that the guy who was asleep didn't notice anything.
Already by September 4, the press finds out
about the murder in Trollhättan.
The police and prosecutor don't say much about the case.
The police told us
that they'd found a 55-year-old man in the apartment.
He was interrogated and suspected of murder.
He was suspected on reasonable grounds.
We didn't know much. He was the suspect.
Why is he only suspected on reasonable grounds?
Do they lack evidence against him?
Do they not have solid evidence? We were slightly doubtful,
even though we thought that he was probably the culprit.
The guy who had been asleep told the police straight away
that he'd slept with earplugs.
He'd also taken a sleeping pill
to be sure that he'd get some sleep.
The amount of blood is important for the forensic work
to determine whether Jonathan's account is believable.
The crime scene investigation indicated
that the person who was asleep and was arrested initially...
There were no traces to the door where he was asleep.
There was a lot of blood where the victim had been killed.
We would've seen if someone had moved in that area.
There would've been traces.
But the man could've used a different entrance to the room.
The crime scene investigation showed no signs
that the person who was asleep was involved in the crime.
There was no evidence that tied him to the crime.
There was no indication of that.
The police decide to examine the user's bank statements.
They show a large amount of activity on the night of the murder.
We could see that money had been moved between accounts.
Money from the user's saving accounts
had been transferred to the card account,
which could then be withdrawn from an ATM.
The user is fully paralyzed, so it's impossible
that she made the transactions during the night.
The transactions from her savings to the card account
were done at night.
The money was transferred at about 2.30 a.m.
using the user's electronic identification.
Money was moved back and forth. Transfers of 30,000 kronor
were made to two different cards.
Most of the staff could've used the user's ATM card,
but they couldn't transfer money to the card.
Bearing in mind the transactions between accounts, we wondered
who had access to the electronic identification.
The electronic identification was necessary for the transactions.
Only a few people had access to the electronic identification.
Money hasn't only been transferred between the user's accounts.
The night of the murder, an ATM withdrawal of 15,000 kronor
is made from the user's account at an ATM in Ljungskile.
The police request footage from the ATM's surveillance camera.
What you can see now is from one of the surveillance cameras
at an ATM in Ljungskile.
It's hard to tell
whether it's a woman or a man from this image.
The nose seems to have a small...
What stands out is the light tip, but that could be due to the light.
The tip of the nose is a bit shiny.
This person definitely doesn't want to be seen.
The police show the footage to several witnesses.
One of the staff members thinks that they recognize the person
as a staff member called Jennie Olsson.
To find out if Jennie had access to the user's electronic identification
hearings are held with the user's family and staff.
They find out that she got access to the identification most recently.
Jennie is the user's cousin. Is she involved with the murder?
If so, why?
Friends and acquaintances described Jennie
as a nice person.
And she was. There was nothing strange about that.
Jennie is...
She's very confident and thinks very highly of herself.
She thinks she's better than everyone else.
She's not quiet or boring. People notice her.
She worked as a home care assistant for the user
and she had another job. She seemed to want to earn money.
In hearings, notable information about Jennie is uncovered.
She has a severe gambling addiction.
She gambles a lot.
Sometimes she wins, but she quickly loses the money.
Therefore, she always needs money.
We're talking about a turnover of millions of kronor.
We discovered that through a financial inquiry.
We could see how often Jennie gambled.
She gambled around the clock at regular intervals.
She gambled every two or three hours.
It was incredibly frequent and at times she gambled more.
During this time period she gambled incredibly frequently.
She talked openly about her gambling problem.
It must be awful to have a gambling addiction.
It's probably worse than many other addictions.
She owed money to friends and acquaintances,
as well as the Swedish Enforcement Authority.
This new information about Jennie
makes the police increasingly suspicious.
The reason why we started to suspect Jennie more was
partially due to the fact that she had access to the accounts.
Furthermore, one of her colleagues recognized her
as the person who withdrew cash from the ATM.
We tried to find out where Jennie was.
We tracked her cell phone
to see precisely where her cell phone was.
Through surveillance we managed to locate
an apartment in Uddevalla that she'd moved to.
She moved in there on September 1.
By then, it was September 6.
In the afternoon, September 6, we knocked on her door
in Uddevalla.
In September, police received a call from an apartment in Trollhättan.
A home care assistant was found dead at the user's home.
The victim's colleague, a woman in her 40s, was arrested.
On September 6, the police intervene at the home in Uddevalla
where Jennie Olsson is located.
Jennie's arrest was undramatic.
She came along. She didn't resist arrest in any way.
Then, she was notified that she was suspected of murder,
which she denied.
A few items were confiscated at the apartment.
Her car keys were confiscated, as was her car
and some clothes that were found in the bathroom.
The police examine Jennie's car using a method called Bluestar.
Bluestar is a method we use to detect
very small amounts of blood that aren't visible to the naked eye.
It reacts... It has to be completely dark.
Then you spray the chemical.
It shines. It's florescent. It's a kind of florescence.
The Bluestar examination of her car was very interesting.
We had already examined her car,
but we hadn't found any blood.
So the Bluestar examination was particularly interesting.
When we treated the inside of the car with Bluestar
we saw several traces of blood.
It reacted in several places: on the driver's seat,
down by the floor and at the rear left.
We sent parts of the mat to the National Forensic Centre.
However, they couldn't find traces of blood.
Initially, we didn't find anything that connected her to the murder.
We spent Monday working on it.
Jennie was arrested on Sunday.
The other male suspect was released on Monday.
That's when we found out that they were the victim's colleagues.
It was quite unusual
to find out that they were colleagues.
When Jennie's detained, the interrogations begin.
At first, Jennie denied the crime during the interrogations.
Instead, she told us what she'd done during the past few days.
She told us
that on Friday, September 4,
she deposited money from a football club. She was their treasurer.
She'd visited a friend in Hällevadsholm.
She'd shopped at Ikea.
On Saturday she'd gone to watch a football game.
She was a big fan of women's football.
The police check Jennie's story.
They can confirm that most of her story is accurate.
It wasn't difficult to interrogate Jennie.
She answered questions and offered explanations.
She was notably composed and calm.
It was odd. If I was suspected for a crime I hadn't committed,
I'd try to prove my innocence, not calmly answer questions.
When the police confiscate and examine Jennie's cell phone
they make a remarkable discovery.
In this kind of investigation the suspect's phone is confiscated.
We check if there's anything of interest to us on the phone.
She had downloaded information from the Wilma case
about how the police use cell phones.
We learnt from the Wilma case how to track cell phones.
On September 6, the day Jennie's detained,
the police interrogate Jennie's girlfriend.
They uncover new, interesting information.
On September 6 the girlfriend told us
that Jennie had visited her.
The day before, on September 5, Jennie had gone to the dump
and thrown away some stuff for herself and her girlfriend.
She told us because she'd borrowed a card
to enter the dump.
Following this new information, the police contact the local dump
and request surveillance footage from the waste disposal site.
This is on Saturday, September 5.
We can see that it's about 1 p.m.
A small red car drives in. We know that Jennie's car is red.
We see her step out of the car.
Here you can see a bag in her right hand.
She throws away the bag and a box over there.
She threw the bag further and just dropped the box.
We can see which containers the items end up in.
Then we told them which container we were interested in.
The police are given access to the container.
They begin a thorough search of it.
There's a lot of garbage in a container.
The contents were searched through by hand.
The container was emptied and we started digging around.
The footage was good quality. We could see
that there was a shop logo on the paper bag.
The paper bag was quickly found.
We found interesting items in the bag,
such as shoes, socks and gloves.
What made these items interesting
was that there was blood on them.
In interrogations, Jennie is confronted with the new findings.
Jennie told us that she'd been there and thrown away those items.
At first, we didn't tell her what we had found.
We mentioned shoes and socks and let her tell us about it.
She said they were worn out and dirty.
We waited to find out more about the blood on the items.
It was important that the police got to the dump so quickly.
Just a day later, the items would've been incinerated.
Then the evidence would've been gone.
The blood that was found on the socks and shoes
was Erik's blood.
September 21, 15 days after Jennie was detained,
Annette interrogates Jennie.
I always start by asking, "Do you want to tell me something?"
"Yes," Jennie said, "I want to tell you something."
She took out a piece of paper and showed it to me.
She'd sketched two people, or two heads. She thought
that we should know about them because they'd got her in trouble.
They were responsible for Erik's murder.
It wasn't her. It was these people.
She said that these two people had come up to her terrace.
She lives on the ground floor, but it's hard to get there.
There's a steep cliff. You can't see it from the street.
I was on my way outside for a cigarette.
When I got outside, there were two guys below my balcony.
I lived on the ground floor.
They threatened me with guns and said that they wanted the money
that I should've paid back on September 2.
They said, "You owe someone else money,
but we're going to make sure that you pay back what you owe."
They gave me shoes to wear and we were going somewhere.
She claimed that they forced her into their car.
Then they drove towards Trollhättan.
She told us where they parked,
which was near the user's home.
They followed me to Helen's apartment.
I knocked on the living room window.
I didn't know who was working, but Erik pulled up the blinds.
Jennie says that she lied and told Erik that her car had broken down.
Therefore, she needed to borrow a phone.
Erik let her into the building.
I sat and talked to Erik. Then, I got the phone
and transferred money to what I thought was the card account.
I'd been there for about an hour.
Jennie says that the person she calls Shian
suddenly barged in through the back door.
She said that he came inside.
He walks over to Erik, who's sitting with his back towards the counters.
He points a gun at Erik's head.
Jennie said that she was also behind there.
She said that Erik tried to take back his phone.
Then, for some reason, Shian swaps his gun for a knife
and stabs Erik.
Jennie said that she was worn out and collapsed on the floor
in the corner by the fridge.
Shian walks over to Jennie.
He pulls her off the floor and tells her that they're leaving.
Shian said, "We have to go. Get the wallet."
He was by the door to the patio.
I jumped over the chair, or I don't know which way I went.
Somehow, I got to the wheelchair in the living room.
I took the wallet and ran away.
Jennie takes the user's wallet and leaves the apartment in socks.
Shian forces her to go back and get the user's phone.
Then they leave together in the car.
They drive to Ljungskile, park and Jennie goes to the ATM.
When she gets out of the car to withdraw money
she's given a hoodie and a hat to wear when she withdraws money.
I went to try and withdraw money. I tried one card first.
I didn't know the PIN code, so I couldn't withdraw anything.
I managed to withdraw 15,000 from the other card.
I went back to the car. They took the clothes,
the money, the wallet, the phone... Everything.
They drove me home.
They dropped me off 500 m away and I walked home from there.
They told me that I had a week to get the rest of the money.
The other 35,000.
When she gets home, she gets undressed.
She realizes that there's blood on her socks and shoes.
She takes them off, showers and goes to bed.
Jennie has offered new information.
The police scrutinize the details of her account of events.
When you look objectively at the crime scene,
the evidence and traces,
it wasn't possible for anyone else to have been there.
That person would've left a trace of blood.
The entire floor was basically covered in blood.
I drew a comparison during the proceedings.
Imagine sieving powdered sugar onto the floor.
Then you try to walk across the floor without leaving a trace.
This is the same. It's impossible, in our opinion.
The most important evidence is the lack of additional traces.
It's indisputable.
There were only traces from one person, nobody else.
I'd say that we have investigated all possible options.
Jennie's account of events isn't true.
The forensic team find
that Jennie's been in the apartment, just like she said.
But other people haven't been there, contrary to her claim.
Nobody else killed him. She did it.
That can be deduced from the blood patterns.
It can be concluded that Erik sat on the chair when he was attacked.
The spots of blood show that.
There's a lot of pressure in the carotid artery.
Blood has gushed close to the chair.
There's a lot of blood on the floor and the blood has splashed.
It's not true that Jennie sat in one place
because there lots of dots there.
Jennie has, for some reason,
felt very stressed and just done it.
She stabbed Erik in a way
that was so violent that he didn't have a chance.
The prosecutor deems the evidence to be enough to prosecute her.
Today, the trial commenced of the so-called "assistant murder".
A woman in her 40s is suspected of murdering her colleague
for the user's money.
The breakthrough in the investigation was surveillance footage
from a dump.
This is the footage that the prosecutor says is crucial.
It's from soon after the assistant was found dead at the user's home.
The difficulty with the case wasn't to convince the court
that the defendant was guilty.
The difficult part was to predict the consequences.
The District Court found the defendant guilty
of all charges from the case on Kungsgatan 74.
The charges were murder, serious theft, fraud
and causing danger to another person.
The sentence was 18 years in prison.
18 years is the longest sentence of a limited time.
The next step is life imprisonment.
In my opinion, a life imprisonment would be reasonable for this deed.
The prosecutor lodges an appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Firstly, there was direct intent.
She had attacked her colleague.
He had been stabbed eight times in the neck area.
He would have been in agony. It took a few minutes for him to die.
The circumstances were aggravating. He was attacked in the user's home.
The user's life was endangered by the attack.
It was reckless to commit the attack in the user's home.
The Court of Appeal sentences her to life imprisonment.
Jennie's motive was money. It was solely about money.
To kill someone for 15,000 or 30,000 kronor
is macabre.
What had happened? What was the trigger
that incited someone to murder their colleague at work?
What the hell can trigger that?
We still don't know. Maybe we'll never know.
I still haven't fathomed that Erik is dead.
I don't understand people like Jennie.
It's hard to understand that I've been around a person like that.
It makes you angry and frustrated that...
a person could be so callous.
It's just so incredibly unfair.
It's so awful, of course.
We miss him a lot.
Subtitles: Hannah Jerming-Havill Iyuno-SDI Group