Sweden's Director of Prosecution, Lennart Gune, has determined there is insufficient evidence to identify Stig Engstrom as the person who killed Prime Minister Olof Palme in 1986. Engstrom, named as the principal suspect when the case was closed in 2020, died in 2000. A journalist asked this year for a review to explore new DNA testing, but Gune found the available evidence too weak and said there are no legal grounds to reopen the investigation.
Prosecutor: Evidence Insufficient to Identify Suspect in Olof Palme Murder
Olof Palme was gunned down on February 28, 1986, after leaving a Stockholm cinema with his wife (JAN DELDEN)(JAN DELDEN/SCANPIX SWEDEN/AFP)
Sweden's Director of Prosecution, Lennart Gune, has concluded that the evidence is not strong enough to identify the man previously named as the principal suspect in the 1986 assassination of Prime Minister Olof Palme.
Background
Palme was shot dead on February 28, 1986, after leaving a Stockholm cinema with his wife. Despite an extensive investigation spanning decades, no one has been formally charged in the killing. Investigators interviewed more than 10,000 people and recorded 134 confessions over the years, but none produced a credible link to the murder.
2020 Closure and New Review
In 2020, Chief Prosecutor Krister Petersson closed the investigation after naming Stig Engstrom — a former advertising consultant who died in 2000 — as the designated suspect. Petersson said at the time he had closed the probe because a deceased person could not be prosecuted.
Earlier this year, a journalist requested a review of that closure, suggesting new DNA techniques might provide fresh evidence through additional analysis and samples taken from Olof Palme's coat. Because the legal basis for the closure rests on the suspect being deceased, Gune said the investigation could not simply be reopened; instead he carried out a separate review of the evidence against Engstrom.
Findings and Current Status
After examining the available material, Gune concluded the evidence was "not sufficient to form the basis for identifying him as the designated perpetrator." He added that, based on what is now available, it is not possible to prove who the perpetrator is and that further investigation is unlikely to decisively change the evidential picture.
"Based on the investigation material that is now available, it is not possible to prove who the perpetrator is and further investigation cannot be assumed to change the evidence in a decisive way," Gune said.
At present, the Swedish Prosecution Authority has said there are no legal grounds to reopen the case. The matter remains officially closed for the time being, though calls for new technological analyses — including modern DNA methods — have prompted renewed public interest.
