4 ms·

> I don't agree. If the prosecutor isn't going after this, there must be a lack of conclusive evidence. If the prosecutor has done their job properly, then yes

> I don't agree. If the prosecutor isn't going after this, there must be a lack of conclusive evidence. If the prosecutor has done their job properly, then yes. > It's obvious that it's her, but it's not proven. I think in most countries this would be a contradiction in terms. But sure, in Sweden this can happen and could well be a fair description of the situation. Largely this happens because we don't have the jury system. So, at least on appeal, a few career judges hear the case and one of them has to write a judgement detailing why they think it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. When it becomes difficult to do that (without the judge in question "making a fool of themselves" in the eyes of other career judges) people tend to be acquitted. Many of them probably would have been convicted by a jury.

impossiblefork 2y ago
We have the nämndemän, which are sort of jury. But there is still reasonable doubt. It is in fact possible, if unlikely, that she didn't do. I think it's very unlikely, and it's unfortunate that we can't convict, but we have not proven that she poisoned him with vitamin D, and there is no direct evidence that she did.
- bjornsing 2y ago
  > We have the nämndemän, which are sort of jury. I don't agree. On appeal there are only two "jurors" ("nämndemän"), and they can be outvoted by the three career judges. Also, a real jury doesn't have to explain their reasoning in writing. The difference is huge in this kind of case. > But there is still reasonable doubt. It is in fact possible, if unlikely, that she didn't do. I think it's very unlikely, and it's unfortunate that we can't convict, but we have not proven that she poisoned him with vitamin D, and there is no direct evidence that she did. Hard to say without knowing the contents of that small brown bottle and how it was procured. One reason I would consider private prosecution is to find out.
  - impossiblefork 2y ago
    It must have been tested. If it weren't KCl, then why would there be no prosecution? If it were vitamin D, it'd be a very short hearing. >I don't agree. On appeal there are only two "jurors" ("nämndemän"), and they can be outvoted by the three career judges. Also, a real jury doesn't have to explain their reasoning in writing. Yes, but is that actually good? Isn't it better to have reasoned judgements? That people explain carefully, why they've determined things as they have, so that their reasoning can be questioned? If there's an unaccountable jury which doesn't have to justify itself, then I can't trust the judgements of the courts. They need to justify themselves, because we have set them there as representatives for ourselves. But surely the prosecutor has tried to figure out how the brown bottle was obtained? Surely questions about this were asked during interviews. Also, do you really think it's good for people to come to these kinds of unjustified conclusions, and convict people for things for which there is in fact no evidence?
    - bjornsing 2y ago
      > It must have been tested. If it weren't KCl, then why would there be no prosecution? The KCl story sounds so weird to me that it’s hard to reason about. Why would the spouse of someone with a serious medical condition be medicating their husband without his or his doctor’s knowledge? It also doesn’t explain the elevated vitamin D. So you’d have to conclude the investigation with two unsolved mysteries so to speak.
      - impossiblefork 2y ago
        Yes, and that is presumably a crime in itself, even though it isn't the 'big' crime of poisoning somebody. My guess is that the wife poisoned him with vitamin D and then started dosing with KCl for some reason, then the KCl dosing was discovered, and we still can't be sure she did the vitamin D dosing. Of course, she probably did. It's very plausible, since the behaviour is so similar to the poisoning behaviour, but we don't have actual evidence of her poisoning him with vitamin D. We have evidence of some lesser, similar crime.
- somat 2y ago
  I think the pivotal point is not what was being put into the water but the fact that it was sneaked in. That is, it was not an act done openly and innocently, but done with subterfuge and intent to deceive. The person doing this knew it was wrong.
nbadg 2y ago
People in this thread keep talking about "reasonable doubt", which is the standard of proof in the US criminal justice system (vs "preponderence of the evidence" in the civil system), but that standard only applies to a conviction, *not* to the decision by the prosecutor to bring charges. Assuming we take the OP's story at face value (obviously something you wouldn't do in a courtroom!), surely there's enough evidence here for a case, even if the defendant isn't, at the end of the day, convicted? Or is Sweden more averse to questionable cases than the US? At least according to this thesis [1], the difference in conviction rate between Sweden and the US doesn't seem to be large enough to support that idea. [1] https://dc.etsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4835&context=etd https://dc.etsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4835&context...
- bjornsing 2y ago
  > Or is Sweden more averse to questionable cases than the US? Formally I think it is. A Swedish public prosecutor should not prosecute unless they “can look forward to a conviction”. So formally, they should not try a case where they are not relatively confident that the court will convict. Also, Sweden doesn’t have a jury system. There are “amateur judges” (“nämndemän”). In the first court (“tingsrätten”) the case is typically heard by one magistrate and two “amateur judges”. But on appeal it’s typically three magistrates and two “amateur judges”. Finally, the court has to explain its reasoning in a written verdict. In combination this makes it harder to get convictions in complicated cases with circumstantial evidence.
  - nbadg 2y ago
    That sounds very similar to the German system (I'm a US-born German permanent resident, hence familiarity with both systems). I'd be curious to see some kind of sociological studies about risk aversion amongst criminal prosecutors. Clearly an acquittal (and the associated trial) is still a huge burden to a person, so a strong motivation to only take cases you're confident you'll win makes sense to me. But especially in situations where the circumstantial evidence is so strong, I think most people in the US would consider it unjust not to pursue a trial at all. To be completely honest, the first thing that crosses my mind is that the prosecutor might be a racist, since the story is (it seems) about an immigrant family. To be clear: I have absolutely no reason to suspect that. But something about the situation sounds off to me, and that's definitely one of the first questions that start lurking in the back of my mind. Long story long: the optics here definitely aren't good.

impossiblefork 2y ago

We have the nämndemän, which are sort of jury. But there is still reasonable doubt. It is in fact possible, if unlikely, that she didn't do. I think it's very unlikely, and it's unfortunate that we can't convict, but we have not proven that she poisoned him with vitamin D, and there is no direct evidence that she did.

bjornsing 2y ago
> We have the nämndemän, which are sort of jury. I don't agree. On appeal there are only two "jurors" ("nämndemän"), and they can be outvoted by the three career judges. Also, a real jury doesn't have to explain their reasoning in writing. The difference is huge in this kind of case. > But there is still reasonable doubt. It is in fact possible, if unlikely, that she didn't do. I think it's very unlikely, and it's unfortunate that we can't convict, but we have not proven that she poisoned him with vitamin D, and there is no direct evidence that she did. Hard to say without knowing the contents of that small brown bottle and how it was procured. One reason I would consider private prosecution is to find out.
- impossiblefork 2y ago
  It must have been tested. If it weren't KCl, then why would there be no prosecution? If it were vitamin D, it'd be a very short hearing. >I don't agree. On appeal there are only two "jurors" ("nämndemän"), and they can be outvoted by the three career judges. Also, a real jury doesn't have to explain their reasoning in writing. Yes, but is that actually good? Isn't it better to have reasoned judgements? That people explain carefully, why they've determined things as they have, so that their reasoning can be questioned? If there's an unaccountable jury which doesn't have to justify itself, then I can't trust the judgements of the courts. They need to justify themselves, because we have set them there as representatives for ourselves. But surely the prosecutor has tried to figure out how the brown bottle was obtained? Surely questions about this were asked during interviews. Also, do you really think it's good for people to come to these kinds of unjustified conclusions, and convict people for things for which there is in fact no evidence?
  - bjornsing 2y ago
    > It must have been tested. If it weren't KCl, then why would there be no prosecution? The KCl story sounds so weird to me that it’s hard to reason about. Why would the spouse of someone with a serious medical condition be medicating their husband without his or his doctor’s knowledge? It also doesn’t explain the elevated vitamin D. So you’d have to conclude the investigation with two unsolved mysteries so to speak.
    - impossiblefork 2y ago
      Yes, and that is presumably a crime in itself, even though it isn't the 'big' crime of poisoning somebody. My guess is that the wife poisoned him with vitamin D and then started dosing with KCl for some reason, then the KCl dosing was discovered, and we still can't be sure she did the vitamin D dosing. Of course, she probably did. It's very plausible, since the behaviour is so similar to the poisoning behaviour, but we don't have actual evidence of her poisoning him with vitamin D. We have evidence of some lesser, similar crime.
somat 2y ago
I think the pivotal point is not what was being put into the water but the fact that it was sneaked in. That is, it was not an act done openly and innocently, but done with subterfuge and intent to deceive. The person doing this knew it was wrong.

nbadg 2y ago

People in this thread keep talking about "reasonable doubt", which is the standard of proof in the US criminal justice system (vs "preponderence of the evidence" in the civil system), but that standard only applies to a conviction, *not* to the decision by the prosecutor to bring charges. Assuming we take the OP's story at face value (obviously something you wouldn't do in a courtroom!), surely there's enough evidence here for a case, even if the defendant isn't, at the end of the day, convicted? Or is Sweden more averse to questionable cases than the US? At least according to this thesis [1], the difference in conviction rate between Sweden and the US doesn't seem to be large enough to support that idea. [1] https://dc.etsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4835&context=etd https://dc.etsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4835&context...

bjornsing 2y ago
> Or is Sweden more averse to questionable cases than the US? Formally I think it is. A Swedish public prosecutor should not prosecute unless they “can look forward to a conviction”. So formally, they should not try a case where they are not relatively confident that the court will convict. Also, Sweden doesn’t have a jury system. There are “amateur judges” (“nämndemän”). In the first court (“tingsrätten”) the case is typically heard by one magistrate and two “amateur judges”. But on appeal it’s typically three magistrates and two “amateur judges”. Finally, the court has to explain its reasoning in a written verdict. In combination this makes it harder to get convictions in complicated cases with circumstantial evidence.
- nbadg 2y ago
  That sounds very similar to the German system (I'm a US-born German permanent resident, hence familiarity with both systems). I'd be curious to see some kind of sociological studies about risk aversion amongst criminal prosecutors. Clearly an acquittal (and the associated trial) is still a huge burden to a person, so a strong motivation to only take cases you're confident you'll win makes sense to me. But especially in situations where the circumstantial evidence is so strong, I think most people in the US would consider it unjust not to pursue a trial at all. To be completely honest, the first thing that crosses my mind is that the prosecutor might be a racist, since the story is (it seems) about an immigrant family. To be clear: I have absolutely no reason to suspect that. But something about the situation sounds off to me, and that's definitely one of the first questions that start lurking in the back of my mind. Long story long: the optics here definitely aren't good.