Stig Engström (suspected murderer)


Stig Folke Wilhelm Engström was a Swedish graphic designer. Long treated by the police as an eyewitness of the assassination of prime minister Olof Palme, Engström was proposed as the assassin by Swedish writers Lars Larsson and, separately, Thomas Pettersson.
Krister Petersson, prosecutor in charge of the investigation, announced the closing of the case at a press conference on 10 June 2020, stating twenty years after Engström's death that he was the prime suspect in the murder, but that the evidence against him would have been too weak for a trial.
In line with Swedish media reporting practices of not disclosing the names of suspects, Engström was dubbed The Skandia Man, since he had arrived at the crime scene from the nearby head office of the Skandia insurance company, where he worked. After Petersson's announcement in 2020, Swedish media refers to him by name.

Biography

Stig Engström was born in Bombay, India, to Swedish parents from Småland. His mother, Ruth Engström, was from Nybro; his father, Folke Engström, worked for Ivar Kreuger. In 1926, his father received the opportunity from his employer to move to India to start up production there.
During the couple's time in Bombay, they gave birth to Stig Engström in 1934; his brother was born in 1940 in Calcutta. They grew up in British India and had a nanny, a chef, and a gardener. Engström returned to Sweden when he was twelve years old and lived with relatives of the family until his parents also returned a few years later. He attended the same elite school as Palme. While Engström showed artistic and athletic talent, he did not excel academically and never graduated or went to university. Engström did his mandatory military service before starting his studies to become a graphic designer. For some time, he worked for the Swedish military procurement establishment, designing and illustrating field manuals. During the late 1960s, he was hired by Sveriges Radios förlag and later by the insurance company Skandia to do designer work for them in Stockholm, a position which he held until retirement.
Engström married in 1964 but later divorced. He married a second time in 1968. Besides his work as a graphic designer, he was briefly involved in the Moderate Party in Täby, where he lived. Engström's work for the party included design, print work, and advertising. He eventually left the Moderates because of a disagreement over a school closure with his local party association.
In 1999, his second marriage dissolved and in June 2000, he died in his home, at the age of 66.

Palme assassination

Engström was one of some twenty people present at the scene when Prime Minister Olof Palme was fatally shot with a.357 magnum revolver in central Stockholm, late in the evening of 28 February 1986. Witness testimony was vague and contradictory, describing a man of medium height, wearing a dark coat or, according to a small minority of witnesses, a blue jacket, who may or may not have worn some form of headgear. The killer escaped by foot, and was likely spotted a couple hundred meters from the crime scene by a pair that described a man of uncertain appearance in a dark coat, dark clothing, fidgeting with a small bag.
Engström had clocked out of work and chatted with security guards at the main entrance to the Skandia insurance company only one or two minutes before the shooting. On leaving the building, he was wearing a dark coat, a cap that possibly had ear flaps, a colorful scarf, glasses, and carried a small bag. Some twenty minutes later, he returned to the building to tell the guards that the prime minister had been shot, just forty meters from the lobby entrance. After that, he is believed to have gone home.
Police had failed to hold and question several key witnesses on the night of the murder, and some of them reported to authorities only after national television and radio had broadcast a police request for information on the killing. Engström, too, said he had not been interviewed by the police at the scene, despite approaching an officer to give his story. The day after Palme's murder, he called a police tip hotline, stating that he had walked out of the Skandia gate around the time of the shooting, arriving to Palme's dead body moments later, as one of the first few witnesses on the scene.
Over five police interrogations and several media interviews, Engström maintained that he had participated in the rescue attempt in some fashion, by helping to turn or adjust Palme's body; had spoken a few words with Palme's wife, Lisbeth; had pointed out the killer's escape route when police arrived; and had subsequently dashed after police to hand them information he had learned from Palme's wife, but aborted the run when realizing that they had moved away too far. He said he had tried to report himself as a witness to police on the scene, but had been brushed off.
However, no other witnesses clearly recalled him being at the scene, and his descriptions of himself as an active or even leading figure on the scene were hard to reconcile with the testimony presented by other witnesses. A handful of the witnesses on the scene were questioned about whether they had seen Engström; two responded that they had not, whereas two others said they had, but only after initial hesitation and, in one case, offering details that also seemed to match another witness. Complicating matters, the fact that Engström had sought media attention after the event reduced the evidentiary value of witness recollections of his appearance, since his face was now publicly known.
After briefly treating him as a person of interest, the police dismissed Engström as an unreliable witness and publicity-seeker who was making a nuisance of himself. He would no longer figure in the official investigation, which instead began to pursue a later-discredited lead about PKK involvement.

Quest for media attention

Engström had long been known to friends, colleagues, and family as an attention-seeking person with a taste for drama, and he had appeared a few times in the Swedish media before the assassination. In 1982, he was interviewed by Svenska Dagbladet about gender, after a questionnaire-based survey had identified him as highly "androgynous"; stressing that he was a heterosexual, he said he considered himself to have both male and female personality traits.
After the assassination, Engström embarked on a quest for publicity, calling reporters and offering to tell his story already the day after the murder. He would appear in several Swedish media outlets, criticizing the murder investigation and the Swedish police's lack of interest in his testimony. When investigators failed to invite Engström to the police reconstruction of the crime in April 1986, he contacted a television journalist and offered to dress up in the clothes he had worn on the night of the murder and stage his own reconstruction. It was broadcast on Sveriges Television.
Engström's final interview about the case was in 1992 for the magazine Skydd & Säkerhet; once again, Engström had contacted a friend who worked as a journalist for the magazine.

The "Skandia Man" theories

Due to the failure to solve Palme's assassination and repeated revelations of police misconduct, alternative theories about the murder began to proliferate in the late 1980s and 1990s. Private enthusiasts, journalists, and authors began to propose a variety of possible suspects, scenarios, and conspiracy theories, ranging from CIA, KGB, or South African involvement to a variety of lone gunmen theories, police conspiracies, connections to the Bofors arms sales scandal, and other more or less credible plots. In the media, there emerged a cottage industry of so-called "privatspanare", a somewhat derogatory term for self-appointed investigators.
Engström was initially of as little interest to the "privatspanare" as to the police, given that the random nature of Palme's movement on the night of the murder seemed to preclude that Engström had timed his exit from the Skandia building to intercept the prime minister.
However, in the early 1990s, Olle Minell, a journalist for the Communist magazine Proletären, depicted Engström as connected to a rightwing deep state intrigue against Palme. However, although Minell argued that Engström might have been a part of the murder plot, he did not believe that he was the actual shooter.
The theory that Engström was the assassin of Olof Palme, as a lone gunman, was first brought up in Lars Larsson's book Nationens Fiende in 2016. The allegation later reappeared in an article by journalist Thomas Pettersson in the magazine Filter in 2018, and in his book Den osannolika mördaren, which was published the same year. Pettersson's book also broached theories that Palme had been shot by Swedish intelligence or on orders of the CIA, but ended up agreeing with Larsson's depiction of Engström as having randomly met and shot Palme outside his office building.
According to the theories presented by authors Larsson and Pettersson, which were developed separately but largely overlap, Engström had in fact arrived to the scene earlier than he admitted, spotting Palme only as he exited the building. As, for reasons unknown, he happened to carry a loaded gun, he decided to murder the prime minister. According to the Larsson-Pettersson argument, Engström then fled the area, but, counterintuitively, almost immediately returned to the crime scene or straight to the Skandia building. By reporting himself to the police as a witness and approaching mass media with forged accounts based on elements gleaned from newspaper reporting, he had aimed to muddle witness recollections and confuse the police about his actual role. Both Larsson and Pettersson stressed that Engström had worn clothes that matched some of the witness descriptions of the murderer, pointing especially to the small bag noted by a witness who saw the escaping assassin.
Neither author presented any new testimony connecting Engström to the crime, but Pettersson interviewed Olof Palme's son, Mårten Palme, who was cited as saying that his observation of a man who appeared to take an interest in his parents shortly before the shooting bore a resemblance to Engström. Critics of the Engström theory retorted that Mårten Palme had previously identified Christer Pettersson as that man; Pettersson and Engström bore little resemblance to each other. In a separate 2018 interview, another witness, Lars J, who saw murderer's escape, said it was quite possible that Engström was the man he saw running from the scene of the crime; however, he had not seen the man's face.
Larsson's book drew little attention at the time of its publication, but Pettersson made a major splash and drew some acclaim. However, the theory also met with opposition. Skeptics argued that the idea of Engström as a murder was far-fetched, in comparison with what they viewed as the more obvious alternative: Engström was simply a confused witness with a penchant for exaggerating his own importance, and Palme's murderer remained unknown.
In particular, family and friends of Engström almost universally rejected the idea that he could have been a murderer, arguing that he had no reason to kill Palme, had never owned a gun, had no known criminal or extremist connections, and had no record of violence. Queried by investigators and by the press about the seeming discrepancies in Engström's witness testimony, they pointed to a history of attention-seeking, a taste for "drama," and a record of embellishing his own exploits to draw praise. "He was not a mythomaniac, but it was along those lines," a childhood friend told Expressen.

Named a murder suspect

On 10 June 2020, Engström was announced as the prime suspect in the murder at a press conference by the Swedish Prosecuting Authority's investigator, Krister Petersson. The prosecutor explicitly denied having relied on the books by Lars Larsson and Thomas Pettersson, but presented a strikingly similar case description.
The investigators' case rested on the fact that Engström was known to have been on or near the scene of the crime, but had not been reliably identified as present after the shooting by any other witness; that his own account of events was deemed unreliable; and that his clothing bore a resemblance to that of the murderer. Petersson offered no motive for the killing, did not explain how or why Engström had acquired a gun or why he would have carried it when leaving his office that night, and presented no witness identifying Engström as the perpetrator.
Although the prosecutor had previously claimed to have secured forensic evidence, he presented no such evidence at the press conference. It emerged that investigators had tracked down and test-fired a gun previously owned by an acquaintance of Engström, but that the results had been inconclusive. On the question of the weapon, Petersson simply stated that "considering what later transpires during the evening in question , we state he must have had a gun." The only other forensic element of Petersson's investigation was the DNA-testing of a series of mysterious letters that had claimed responsibility for the murder; however, test results had shown that they had likely not been written by Engström.
Petersson noted that the evidence against Engström would have been too circumstantial for a trial, but named him the prime suspect and said it would have been evidence enough to detain and question him, had he been alive. However, as Engström was already deceased, Swedish police could not start a prosecution, and, consequently, the investigation was closed, 34 years after the murder.

Reactions to the naming of Engström

The prosecutor's announcement met with widespread criticism in Swedish media and from legal experts. Most critics focused on the absence of forensic evidence, charging that Petersson's case was made up of speculation and circumstantial evidence. Some also questioned the legality or propriety of publicly naming Engström when even the prosecutor did not believe he had found evidence sufficient to convict him.Aftonbladet referred to the investigation's conclusion as "a total fiasco". Leif GW Persson, a professor emeritus of criminology, a long-time watcher of the Palme investigation, and an influential pundit on policing and crime issues, ridiculed Petersson's investigation as a "colossal disappointment" and said the case was so poorly construed that it might legally constitute defamation of Engström. Engström's family and friends were similarly critical.
Legal professionals, including the Swedish Bar Association, demanded that a commission should be established to investigate Petersson's accusations, given that Engström, being deceased, could not mount his own defense.
According to a public opinion poll commissioned by Svenska Dagbladet, only 19 percent of Swedes found the Petersson investigation's conclusion credible.
Petersson responded to his critics in Expressen: "We have done our best, and, according to us, the investigation that we're presenting is rather strong."