Pray, Obey, Kill (2021) s01e05 Episode Script

1
How would you describe Sara?
Religious.
She's as you'd expect of someone
who's been attending Bible School
since she was little.
Rather lonely
And I believe she means well.
I'm quite an old man.
I've seen a lot of violence
and cold, callous murder.
I was in Cyprus during a war.
I dug up mass graves in Bosnia.
I've talked to the Russian mafia.
I'm investigated murders in Poland
and here. I've met evil people.
I think I'm good at reading
both good and evil people.
And Sara is a good person.
How can you say that someone who
has murdered is good? That's strange.
What good has she done? She killed
a person and tried to kill another.
There's nothing good in that.
Cold blooded,
when she knows she's doing it.
Even if she did it for very strange
reasons that are hard to fathom,
and therefore sentenced
to psychiatric care,
the fact remains
that she killed a young woman.
And tried to kill a young man.
She deprived them of the future.
It's
It's by no means an innocent deed.
Maybe it's too late to come up with
evidence at this stage. I don't know,
but what's considered the truth
in relation to what happened is wrong.
And I wish they had done more.
You're talking about truth here,
but I'm sure many are thinking,
Helge is the one who knows the truth.
He, if anyone,
ought to know what happened.
Who knows the truth?
I don't know if one person
knows the whole truth.
I would imagine,
Sara knows a good deal of the truth.
I don't know where she stands today.
I'm totally convinced
that she did not tell the truth
during the investigation
and legal process in 2004.
But I don't blame Sara for that,
instead those who led her
to this version of her story.
- Emergency 112, how may I help you?
- I don't know.
I just came in here.
There's blood everywhere.
In Knutby.
Shock and despair spread
throughout the little town of Knutby.
The murder of the woman
and the attempted murder of her neighbor
is in stark contrast
to this quiet, peaceful community.
This is one of the most bizarre criminal
cases in Sweden in modern time.
A web of religion, sex
and cruel, callous murder,
unprecedented in
the judicial history of Sweden.
Who was the driving force behind this?
It's an important piece of evidence
that's been manipulated.
It creates doubt among the public.
Is this what actually happened?
This is a difficult time,
but we believe in God.
We're not giving up.
PRAY OBEY KILL
EPISODE 5
DON'T BE AFRAID TO GO CLOSE
- Marianne Leukhardt.
- Hi, Marianne.
This is Anton Berg again. We spoke
earlier about a reconstruction film.
I'll just get the file.
The Knutby case, right?
The filmed material
that was accessible to the public is
the film that was shown in the District
Court and the Court of Appeal.
The thing is,
there is more filmed material.
We can't remove some things,
because that would make it
a new document.
The unedited version contains
some emotional responses
from the person at the center
of the crime scene reconstruction.
Things that are deemed confidential.
- You can appeal the decision.
- I will.
We'll send your request
to the Court of Appeal.
We got an email
from the Court of Appeal.
- Judgement!
- A judgment from the Court of Appeal?
It's great to get a judgment.
"With regard to your request to see
the six hour-long reconstruction film,
the Court of Appeal
has rejected your appeal.
The Police Authority states
that your request to access
the films be denied.
The films contain for the most part
the type of information
where one sees or hears
a suspect interact
with members of the Police Authority."
For the most part?
"It is not clear
that this can be disclosed
without causing injury or pain
to the people involved."
- What kind of injury?
- They mean Sara.
Why would the court
make this judgment otherwise?
- This is tedious. What do we do now?
- We can appeal this.
Yes, we'll do that.
Well
The most plausible thing to do
is to try to get hold of Sara
to see if we can get her permission.
Should we ask Sara?
Yes.
- We've done this before.
- We can request power of attorney.
- They can't refuse then.
- No.
In all of the interrogations,
Sara says that Helge knew nothing
until she finds out from the prosecutor
that Åsa Waldau and the congregation
have turned their backs on Helge.
That's when a new story takes shape,
where she puts the blame on me.
And there's no doubt that this is what
the interrogation officers want to hear.
She is described as a person
that gives the answers
that she believes people want to hear.
POWER OF ATTORNEY
Sara Svensson. Anton Berg.
"I, Sara Svensson, in accordance with
the Public Access to Information Act,
give the two journalists
access to any information
in the possession
of the Police Authority concerning me."
- The whole reconstruction!
- This is fantastic.
- I barely believe it, Anton.
- No, but
Do you understand why she wants
Martin and me to see this?
She also wants to know
what happened.
She has very scattered memories,
it was a long time ago.
Was the police reconstruction
properly conducted?
She wanted me to see it in order
to find out what I thought about it.
SIGNATURE: SARA SVENSSON
As people,
we can end up in situations where
we are involved in things
that we could not anticipate.
This applies to Sara, the Nanny,
in Knutby too, of course.
We hold one reconstruction with her.
A colleague and I pick her up
in Huddinge.
We do it at night
in order to avoid the media.
PROTOCOL OF RECONSTRUCTION
ORDERED BY: PROSECUTOR ELIN BLANK
THE PURPOSE:
TO CLARIFY THE COURSE OF EVENTS
ON THE NIGHT OF JANUARY 10, 2004
MAIN PERSON: SARA SVENSSON
How to say this?
It was horrifically traumatic
to go there.
To the hill where I had
been sentenced to hell.
There I had to face
the worst moments of my life.
To explain it
And when I got there
There were so many people
in the house.
Police, camera operators, prosecutors
It was very hard for me.
Did you have anyone
from the hospital with you?
No, I didn't.
So it was just you and your lawyer?
Yes.
Oh, my God.
UNEDITED RECONSTRUCTION
NEVER SHOWN IN COUR
JAN OLSSON
CRIME COMMISSIONER
The premise is
that the person in question
be influenced as little as possible.
The person should go in and demonstrate
what they have done at the scene
and that's all.
Is the camera on?
This reconstruction should be
a means of testing this woman's story.
One should be able to judge
this person's different reactions
and spontaneous ways of doing things
and ways of expressing herself
when in this kind of situation.
She shouldn't be influenced,
neither should she be directed.
Back then I had a personality
trait of pleasing people around me.
My smile is almost automatic.
Because I don't know
how to deal with this.
Sorry, can we start over?
I'm stuck here
You can take out your phone
when you come in. It's not switched on.
And but
So you'll say that when you came in
you take out your phone
and say what you did with it.
And after that, cut. Is that all right?
Where does this information
about the phone come from?
- After the phone we'll stop.
- I think I can do that.
Did she say it first
or did he get it from an interrogation?
- He doesn't know any of this.
- He shouldn't know any of this.
- Ready?
- Sound the clapperboard when we start.
Clapperboard.
A new angle. A third camera.
- This happens before
- Yes, we just saw this.
- There are two cameras.
- Yes, we've saw it from over there.
Do they want her to walk it through?
And she's holding a third camera.
Three cameras.
PÄR-ANDERS GRANHAG
PROFESSOR OF PSYCHOLOGY
If you've only seen
the court's version
I think that most people
would be convinced
that this person is trustworthy,
what she says can be relied upon.
Her version of events is convincing.
EDITED RECONSTRUCTION
SHOWN IN COUR
I go into the living room.
I take out my mobile phone
Her emotional state
fits what she's telling us.
She comes in and she shows
what she did and she did this well.
But when you see all the material
you get a different picture.
Can you explain
What you explained just now
There is background material
that seriously undermines the value
of the version the court saw.
It's enough
if you shoot with the pillow.
- Okay.
- That's perfectly enough.
It will pass soon.
It was in a traumatic state
and I believed
I kept asking was the
weapon was loaded?
I was convinced when I aimed
at Kenneth that I would kill him.
KENNETH AGREN
IN THE ROLE OF DANIEL LINDE
Then I knock lightly.
I don't want to wake the others.
- That was wrong.
- What did I do wrong now?
- Several times.
- You opened too soon.
Did I open it too soon?
- The fourth time.
- The fourth knock.
To be quite frank,
this is more like film-making
than crime scene reconstruction.
SVERKER JÖNSSON
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR CRIMINAL LAW
Do that again. I was fixing the light.
They used the term rehearsal
and dress rehearsal,
in the material that I've seen.
The role of director isn't easy.
No and I have to avoid the other camera.
Maybe Christer can hold it.
There are instances when Sara says
that she'd like to try something out.
She says, "Can we play it down a bit?"
- Can we play it down a bit?
- Sure.
They say sure, so they do that.
Oh, that's not what I did.
Under these circumstances,
the reconstruction's useless.
I can see your reflection in the window
and mine too.
- Unbelievable.
- Really? Oh, yes.
- That doesn't matter, surely.
- What a pity.
- There's no blind.
- Stand a little
- What did I say Helge said there?
- That you shouldn't hesitate.
- That you
- That I shouldn't hesitate.
You said you went in
without hesitating.
They miss the opportunity to check
the reliability of her statements.
They're convinced
that she's telling the truth.
Her statements are consistent.
The question of guilt
has already been investigated.
So I go in without hesitating.
No one is looking for discrepancies
between what she said
and what she re-enacted,
or between what they know
about the investigation in general
and what she re-enacts in
the reconstruction. This is overlooked.
That opportunity is lost.
They have an assessment
regarding her truthfulness.
The crime scene reconstruction
plays a big part in it.
But then I'll be on camera.
It is concluded that she is not
a person that makes things up,
or tells lies.
And they're satisfied with that.
There.
Do you want me to do it
without sound or should I talk?
Stand there first and say,
"Now I'm going to show you
what I did when I was here."
Say, "Without hesitating"
And then we'll film the whole sequence.
- All three?
- All three.
- Okay.
- Let's try it without the camera first.
- I'll stand here and receive you.
- Okay.
I can't believe that I had the courage.
It's so easy to reach the
- That's okay.
- I'm thinking out loud now.
- Okay.
- Start with that.
Oh, that's not what I did.
- It's still the wrong firing distance.
- Yes, it is.
- Like that?
- This is how I think I did it.
The purpose of the reconstruction is
for her to demonstrate
what she confessed to.
- Exactly.
- But she doesn't.
No, she doesn't.
The coroners agree about
what close contact shots looks like.
This means that the weapon
is held against the head, in this case,
or max 10 cm away.
They say that the shots
were close contact.
"Two shots were fired directly at
the bedspread on Alexandra's head.
- Namely, close contact shots."
- Close contact.
- Did you hold it like this?
- Mm.
Does the distance
and all of that feel about right?
- Does it feel all right?
- Yes, it does.
- Is that roughly what I said?
- Yes.
How accurate do I have to be
in millimeters, or centimeters?
- As accurate as you can be.
- It's so difficult.
- Just think.
- Just think?
In what way is it really important?
- She really wants to know.
- Oh!
- I understand. I just want to know.
- Sara!
This has to do with your credibility.
- The injuries speak for themselves.
- Mm.
What you're demonstrating now
should be as accurate as possible.
- You have to do it as you remember it.
- Okay.
- But don't be afraid to go close.
- No.
- Did you hear that? Did he say that?
- Don't be afraid to go close.
I understand. Yes.
This is absurd,
"Don't be afraid to go close."
They want to place her closer
to the victim
because it doesn't match.
They want to place her closer.
They don't say straight out,
"Move closer."
What they do is give her clear signals
that something's wrong with her position
in relation to the victim
and the second and third shots.
It's clear they're unhappy
with her position.
- Well
- Shall we try it again, a trial run?
That's an instruction.
Take it nice and easy now.
Walk slowly and take the position
that you remember best.
- And then walk slowly past here.
- Past here?
And we'll do it
as accurately as possible.
Okay.
It's pretty simple.
If you do it twice, then you're saying
it was wrong the first time.
You're telling this person
that it wasn't right the first time.
I take a few more steps, or so,
and stop here.
I pull the trigger, firing at the head.
It's extra problematic
as Sara is so sensitive to feedback.
She wants to know
if she's doing the right thing.
This is something she takes to heart.
She looks for guidance and confirmation.
I don't know
if I can be more accurate and
She senses they want
to place her closer.
Standing with a revolver here
She's now protesting wildly
when they try to place her closer.
And she never does that, in this film.
But if it was dark in the room,
would it feel different then?
Would it Because you've Well
Does it feel scary when you go close?
- Do you think Did you go closer?
- It's better No.
It's like this, I wouldn't be able
to go too close emotionally.
- Now or then?
- Then, that is.
And that's why I stood about here.
It was quite close anyway, but I
could never I can't even do it now.
I can't put the revolver against
the head and fire.
This was one of the absolute
first reconstructions of my career
and that doesn't happen very often.
I remember that it was arranged
at very short notice.
We did it at night.
As far I was concerned,
Sara would confirm what she had said.
I wasn't aware,
before or after the reconstruction,
that there was anything controversial
that needed to be explored.
I didn't have any information
other than Sara's own version of events.
This was in the middle
of the investigation.
What we learnt afterwards
from the forensic report,
things that might be
confirmed or retracted,
I had no idea about that at the time.
I don't have
the same version of reality in here.
I don't know
where the areas of doubt lie.
It was difficult to question
the part about the firing distance,
which was the only detail
that didn't correspond
with Sara's version of events.
I honestly think that
the most plausible explanation is still
that Sara doesn't remember correctly.
That she was in fact closer
when she fired.
And the reason why
she couldn't demonstrate this
may be that she has suppressed
the most dramatic part of the events.
I'm not a psychologist, but for me
it's the only plausible explanation,
as opposed to another perpetrator
or that it happened differently.
- The first shot was about here.
- Are you sure about the last shot?
- Yes, I am.
- Pull in the cable there.
I don't know.
No one else did this shooting.
Unfortunately, I'm sorry.
He's trying to
He's trying to get me
to tell a different story.
And then I take two steps
I think anyone can imagine that putting
a revolver close to someone
is more difficult
than standing at a distance,
even though both are difficult.
But what we can say is, Sara remembers
as well as she can remember.
She goes into detail
about a lot of things.
To say that an important detail,
like the firing distance,
is the piece of information
that she has suppressed, is unlikely.
We remember our actions, especially
actions of that nature, very well.
These are not things that one forgets.
I counted and I think Sara Svensson gets
to practice this murder three times.
Yes, they produce a product
that they can show in court.
There are no questions,
or anything included.
It looks like Sara is telling it
exactly as it happened.
But this film material
tells us a different story.
She never explains in one go
how this happened.
This unique opportunity doesn't tell us
if Sara's version tallies
with the evidence
that the police actually have.
- Don't be afraid to go close.
- No.
Don't be afraid to go close?
Yes, that's probably the way it was.
It's obvious from your comment
and by looking at the reconstruction
team that it's important
she talks about the distance.
She asks why it's important.
It was the bit that was shown
I challenged her on this,
in relation to the information
that we had from the crime scene.
Why was it so important?
We wanted her to show us.
Since we knew the outcome
But saying,
"Don't be afraid to go close."
That sounds like an instruction,
because we know she's good
at reading people.
- We gave her a chance, at least.
- Should you have said that?
No, well It's
I think that it's exerting
too much influence.
I don't know. Here or here?
You're standing a little further away
than when we did the dress rehearsal.
- Yes, we didn't repeat it.
- How do you mean?
We don't do that
with crime scene reconstructions.
They demonstrate the whole sequence
from start to finish.
You can stand there.
What was crucial for us was that
the film material we presented in court
would show,
from the scene of the crime,
what she had described
under interrogation.
ELIN BLANK: RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION
I guess it is the same
as what you do working in TV.
An enormous amount of material
is edited.
The main difference between filming
for TV and showing a film at trial is
one of these forms the basis
for a murder conviction.
The basis for the District Court's
decision was her whole story
given during the course
of a number of police interrogations.
This crime scene reconstruction film
doesn't contradict what
she had already told the police.
It was just a way of adding
another dimension to her interrogation.
It's a little difficult to see
her story taking shape
since only three
of her many interrogations
have been saved in dialogue form.
And even in these interrogations, we can
see that there are times when Sara asks,
"If I knew how it was
maybe I would remember correctly."
And then she's told about
telephone calls and text messages
and she fills in the rest.
In Helge Fossmo's bedroom,
where Alexandra was found shot,
the firing distance
is a very important factor.
And she never gets it right, does she?
No, she never goes as close
as the forensic report shows
that the shot was fired from.
You can see in the films
that Bertil Olsson says,
"Tell it like it was,
but don't be afraid to go close."
Okay.
Is this the way to do it?
I have no opinion on that.
Forensics knew that the shots
were fired at close range.
It's possible that they had that
in the back of their minds.
I don't see any problems
with the reconstruction video
that was shown in court,
or how it reflects upon
the content of previous police
interrogations with Sara Svensson.
Both courts were of that opinion.
What about,
"Don't be afraid to go closer"?
- Well, you're not letting that go.
- It's very important.
I don't see that as an instruction
as to what she should do.
She doesn't act on what's being said.
The additional dimension in this
is that despite all the help she gets,
the gestures
and that comment for instance
and the fact that they practice
three or four times,
she never goes as close
as a close contact shot requires.
What's your conclusion
since Sara Svensson can't say
how she shot and killed
the first person she ever shot?
- She fails to describe it in detail.
- Yes, okay.
Either she doesn't remember correctly,
or she doesn't want to show
exactly how close she went.
Or maybe there's a third option,
that she didn't do it, don't you think?
Yes, sure.
The court never got to see
what the circumstances
for Sara Svensson were
when this was shown.
No, that's right. Absolutely.
Why didn't they pick up on the fact
that she got the distance wrong?
Why didn't they pick up on that?
What would have happened
if they stopped there instead?
Maybe not the reconstruction, but
in the investigation. If they had said,
"What the hell is happening now?
She's too far away here.
What should we do now?"
They didn't do that.
This is one of many pieces of evidence,
but it's important evidence.
I still think that all the film material
should have been shown.
They should have shown all the filmed
material, all the questions. Everything.
I think that if 100 people
watched what was shown in court,
I'm convinced that the majority of them
would say that what she has demonstrated
is something that she did.
If another 100 people
saw all of the material I think
the opinion would have been different.
There's a great risk
that she's being helped to lie.
That doesn't mean that I have an opinion
on what she's guilty or not guilty of.
I don't know that, however,
I'm sure that, by conducting
the reconstruction in this manner,
they're sabotaging
their own investigation.
If she is the kind of person
they say she is,
that she wants to please everyone,
you would expect her to go closer,
"Is this what you mean?"
I would expect that,
since they guided her so much.
I thought, "She'll show them correctly."
But she didn't.
But is the forensic report wrong?
It could be, I mean
- That it wasn't a close contact shot?
- Yes.
She seems very sure.
Maybe Sara Svensson is right
and forensics are wrong.
We should do a test shooting,
in that case.
SHOOTING TES
The information we have is that
the bedspread was pulled up,
so the two shots were fired
through the bedspread into the head.
The gunpowder residue in the technical
report tell you it was close range?
Yes. The more concentrated and
the smaller the mark is in diameter,
the closer the barrel is
to the inflicted injury.
Sara demonstrated
that she fired from a distance
- she eventually agreed to 50 cm.
- Yes.
From the mouth of the revolver
to the body.
We'll begin by using
comparative material,
which we'll put a bedspread over,
covering the head.
And then we'll fire
from a distance of 50 cm.
We can see in this case
that the bullet has hit the skin.
There's no soot residue.
Neither are there any burns around
the gunshot wound at this distance.
This is what one would expect when
shooting from a distance of 50 cm.
- Pass it to me please.
- We'll do a close contact test now.
Yes.
- What can we see here then?
- We can see that we have soot residue.
The difference between
the first series of shots at 50 cm is
there isn't a trace of soot
around these injuries.
The difference is soot
on all close-contact shots.
There is a discrepancy, shall we say,
between what she maintains
was the firing distance
and what the coroner
and the forensic laboratory says.
And they haven't looked
for an explanation to this.
Why does Sara say this?
I don't know.
I can't be the judge of that.
But all I can say is, in my opinion,
the firing distances
that she gives in interrogations
and in the reconstruction are incorrect.
Hello. Anton Berg and company.
We're here to interview Helge Fossmo.
Let's begin.
Should I say anything else?
Yes, that's right.
And then I continue to the living room.
Was that good?
”Was that good?"
And now I'm very determined
to see this through.
And I do it.
- Is that edited out?
- The laugh? Yes, it's edited out.
I understand. I just want to know.
She notices that they're not satisfied.
You have to do it as you remember it.
But don't be afraid to go close.
It's very clear that
they're not satisfied with her answers.
She's very sensitive to that.
It's very obvious.
She's asking them what
they're not satisfied with.
She doesn't use those words,
but there's an unease there
and a will to follow
their direction, their instructions.
Helge, what do you think
when you see this?
It's a performance, with a director.
She looks really desperate one minute
and she's laughing the next.
She chats easily and laughs,
and then takes on her role.
It looks very arranged.
Not particularly authentic.
And now it's clear that the court
has been shown edited material.
They never knew how very directed Sara
was when they filmed the reconstruction.
It's extremely serious.
Truly serious. The judgment is based on
Sara Svensson's version of events.
If she has made all of her statements
or just some of the statements
after being influenced, then the court
must take this into account.
And of course I'm thinking along
the lines of grounds for a re-trial.
We'll have to make
an overall assessment.
This isn't the only thing that's strange
in this investigation. There's more.
A re-trial requires more than
pointing out that something is wrong.
You have to prove that something
is very wrong and this is astounding.
What Sara demonstrates is incorrect.
How do you feel about this, Helge,
that she gets things wrong?
Well, it makes me wonder obviously,
if she really fired the shots.
It must also be said
that's she's not reliable,
since her version of events does not
correspond with the forensic evidence.
JANUARY, 2021
Why I haven't talked before
It's simply because I haven't
been strong enough.
Everything in Knutby for me
has been such an enormous trauma.
The years in psychiatric care
and the years after that
Dealing with
Can I exist? Can I be the person I am?
How do others see me?
So I didn't have the strength
to tell my story before.
Please excuse us
if we are a little blunt here,
but we'd like to ask you about
the three shots that killed Alexandra.
- Your story doesn't add up.
- No
Shots two and three are close contact,
but you
Can you describe how it is?
I was prepared for Alexandra to wake up.
That's why I kept at a distance.
And I can't say why
So, by the second shot,
where are you standing?
I'm standing somewhere
at the foot of the bed.
Not fully at the end,
but I don't go close.
I don't.
- And by the third shot?
- I go closer.
But not close contact.
But if the second shot is close contact,
you can't go any closer?
No, but I can't understand
how that could be.
The police's technical report
states that both the second
and third were close contact.
So, then we thought, if Sara's so sure
about it, maybe the report is wrong.
So we have tested to shoot as well
and the difference is obvious
between close contact shots
and shots from a distance.
So, when it is close contact,
it leaves no room for discussion.
Well, I don't have an answer for that
I was so very scared that Alexandra
would wake up
So I didn't dare to go that close.
And I would definitely not have
managed to stand so close either.
I really can't explain
why it doesn't add up.
I don't know. I can't
I must say what I remember
and that memory is the same now as then.
During our investigation, we have looked
at the technical report
and spoken to many.
And this is another strange
thing that sticks out.
It's the map showing how
the perpetrator walked to the scene.
They say the footprints start here,
go to the crime scene and back here.
You have said that you started here.
And then you walk here and back.
This is the difference.
There is a forest
and a big road between.
What happened here?
I drove there and I walked
just like I drew it for the police.
I don't know
why there are no footprints
from the car.
But that's where I parked.
And I walked from the car,
to the houses and back.
When you read the police's
report about the footprints,
they say the dog only found footprints
from one person walking one direction.
They don't find footprints
the other direction.
I know I walked
in someone else's footprints.
Someone else had walked there before me.
So I walked in those.
These guys in Stockholm who taught me
how to do all this.
They taught me to use shoe covers.
In order to well, they told me
that you should wear them
when committing crime.
So I used shoe covers.
Shoe covers can maybe explain
why the dogs lost track.
But you would still
make footprints in the snow?
- There is none?
- I don't know why really.
Because when I look at this,
it looks like someone drove you.
Dropped you off here
and then parked here.
Yeah, but that's not the case.
I drove the car alone.
No one else was with me.
During the trial,
Åsa comes one day to testify.
Afterwards, she does something
that people found shocking.
Can you tell us about the hand gesture?
It was everything I had wanted,
longed for, for many years.
But I had been so rejected,
broken down and excluded.
I didn't sleep.
I didn't have the right to my own life.
I was called a slave.
People turned their backs
on me when I came.
My
Åsa said my evil
was contagious to others.
So no one talked to me.
And when you feel like this
is when you are offered Åsa's hand?
It gave me hope about life.
To get life back.
But today I believe
that hand could have also meant,
"I'm giving my hand to you
so now you know you should
keep quiet, about my role."
My role as?
The Queen of Heaven.
The supreme love of the universe.
The center of the universe.
She was almost God.
She was God's Bride.