Found in 1 comment on Hacker News
mongol · 2013-08-02 · Original thread
Swede here.

The problem in this case is not that Bergwall didn't have legal counsel. He had, and a "star" one at that. (Actually, the same lawyer that represents the women that Assange had sex with).

The problem is that his lawyer represented his intent rather than his innocence. When Bergwall stated that he did this or that to kill these people, and the lawyer represented this statement in court, there was no one in legal system with the intent to shoot down the claim that Bergwall was the murderer. It was not the prosecution's job; Bergwall himself argued that he was guilty; and his lawyer providing extenuating circumstances - more representing Bergwall's statements in legal language, than doing his utmost in getting him acquitted.

After all, Bergwall _wanted_ to take on these murders. They made him special, a target of much attention, and with that he got the drugs that he was after. It was not until a new head physician at the mental hospital were he was treated prevented prescription of the drugs Bergwall craved that he stopped confessing more and more murders.

Souce: http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Quick-Making-Serial-ebook/dp/B0...

This is the book that turned the tide. The author is a journalist that really made a difference for how this all ended.

Fresh book recommendations delivered straight to your inbox every Thursday.