The 55-year-old woman enters the courtroom, dressed in elegant clothes. She gives an orderly impression and looks around with a steady gaze, seemingly calm and controlled, before she finally sits down to go through even a day in court.
the Allegations against her regarding the murder and aggravated theft.
According to her lawyer, Björn Hurtig, the situation is very heavy for the woman.
– She reacts like you do when you get accused of murder but claims to be innocent. With anger and dismay and frustration. She is not especially good, " he says later, to DN.
last year as her then partner, a goldsmith in his 60s, suddenly started to feel bad at some time in the afternoon. The pair were then on the man's country house outside Norrtälje. The woman was given first aid of neighbors to put the man in his bed, and the neighbors went home. Several hours later, at 23, called the woman and wanted to again have the help of the neighbors. She claimed at the time that the goldsmith had become worse.
the Neighbors came and tried to help, and even rang in his tour to SOS alarm. But they were declared as the man already seemed to be dead.
"He is absolutely cold," says one of the neighbors to the operator while giving the man cpr until late at night.
a forensic investigation, but when they found no reasons to suspect that the man had been murdered.
Only after the guldsmeden children asked for a new analysis, which would also look for a number of different toxins, a new study of, inter alia, the dead man's blood. The conclusion confirmed the family's fears: the Man had been poisoned with cyanide. And the suspicion was directed against the 55-year-old woman.
A forensic expert testified during Friday's negotiations in the Norrtälje district court that the goldsmith had had a ”very high cyanide concentrations in the blood.” The level had by far been fatal.
mean that there are circumstances that indicate that the 55-year-old woman has murdered the goldsmith through to poison him.
" I do not want to assess the evidence situation during the time the lawsuit is pending. But I brought the this process, for I believe that it can lead to a conviction, " she says.
Madeleine Pettersson believes that the medical examination shows that the dead the goldsmith must have got the poison for a period then only the accused 55-year-old was nearby.
"She is the only possible offender," says Madeleine Pettersson.
the fact that the woman called for help at a late stage indicates that the woman has murdered the goldsmith.
– It is a damning circumstance that she first at at 23 sounding the alarm to the neighbor. And she is calling nor 112, says Madeleine Pettersson.
the Guldsmeden child is represented by Thomas Bodström, who agrees with the prosecutor's assessment that the 55-year-old has made himself guilty of murder.
– the cause of Death is clear. And no other person has been on the site when it happened, in addition to the suspected the woman and the victim. She has also googled on how to kill with poison. I think it is very clear evidence in this case, " he says.
he testified that a close friend of the goldsmith on the impact the woman had on the now dead man. The friend describes goldsmith as a ”happy guy” who always had ”a twinkle in the eye”. But after he had met the 55-year-old woman he should have been changed. The jeweler will also have lent large sums of money to the woman, and continually paid for her in different places.
Thomas Bodström based parts of its argumentation on how the woman in this way must have taken advantage of the goldsmith – in like with how she should also be economically utilized several other men in the past.
" It's a classic sun-and-our-behaviour. But the big difference here is that she commits a murder here, " he says.
– The most important thing is: He dies of cyanide and there is only a single person who may have done it. You know it is a murder and there is only a single person can have made it here. Then, there is very much evidence or stödbevisning around, " says Thomas Bodström.
Björn Hurtig has a different view of the facts of the case.
" the Prosecutor does not have any evidence that ties my client to the crime. There are very kringbevisning, but a lot of this I mean this is extremely peripheral. For example, the prosecutor has the relied on interviews with my client men, with whom she has had relationships with in the past, to the strength of her personality. And it shows that you have a basically lack of evidence. Here, there is no ”smoking gun”, if you express yourself so, " he says.
" It is clear that it can give a image of my client as a person who may not be telling the truth and who has a boundless behavior. But we are investigating a mordmål and it have not any bearing on mordmålet, " says Björn Hurtig.