Murder: The Death of Malin Lindström

Scandinavian Crimes (w/ Devante & Delila)

Year(s) of Incident: November 23rd, 1996
Location: Sweden
Murder: The Death of Malin Lindström
Victim(s):  1
Method: Robbery, Assault, Murder

Video Version of This Episode: https://youtu.be/jMVAvYr1OK0

What remained was a quiet street, a lifeless body, and the beginning of what would become one of Norway’s most chilling and unresolved homicide cases. The randomness of the act, the senseless brutality, and the silence that followed made it all the more difficult for a grieving family and for the investigators who vowed to find the truth.

Egil Tostrup Bråten, a young man in his twenties, walked alone through the streets of central Oslo. He had no idea that two teenage boys were shadowing him, tracking his steps from St. Olavs Plass. The pair, one 16 years old and the other 18 had set out that evening with the intention to rob.

Music from #Uppbeat (free for Creators!): 
https://uppbeat.io/t/adi-goldstein/blank-light 
License code: A1C1SZ12UFNPUARU 

Music from #Uppbeat ( free for Creators!): 
https://uppbeat.io/t/clemens-ruh/this-place-has-never-known-some-love 
License code: DZOFU4ELCVA6ZWEE 

Music from #Uppbeat (free for Creators!): 
https: //uppbeat.io/t/kevin-macleod/lightless-dawn 
License code: SNWCDIJUOPTFEHMK

Chapters

• 0:00 Introduction
• 2:30 Story - The Disappearance
• 4:22 Story - The Discovery in The Forest
• 5:05 Story - Investigation
• 7:50 Story - The First Trial
• 10:19 Story - The Breakthrough
• 13:13 Story - The Retrial
• 15:48 Discussion Section
• 25:51 Conclusion/Outro

Transcript

Welcome to Scandinavian Crimes. My name is Devante and say hello to my lovely co-host, Delila. Hi. And on this podcast, we talk about famous Scandinavian criminals who made their mark throughout Scandinavian history.

(...)

So welcome to another episode.

(...)

You know, I just want to say, I hope you're having a lovely, lovely Monday. I hope you're enjoying your day and, or at least your morning if you're listening early or whenever you choose to listen. But today is going to be a very interesting, like I say every episode,

(...)

interesting, interesting case.

(...)

On a cold November night in 1996, 16 year old Malin Lindstrom stepped off a bus and vanished. What followed was not just a murder investigation,(...) but a 26 year fight for justice.(...) Evidence was found questioned and forgotten only to resurface years later.(...) Her family grieved while investigators hit one dead end after another.(...) And with each passing year, the truth seems further away than ever until one hidden piece of evidence finally brought the past back to life.

(...)

So when I tell you this is going to be something I think you'll be very interested in listening to, I mean it. But of course,(...) you already know what I'm about to say.

(...)

Grab your tea,

(...)

grab your snacks.

(...)

If you're on your way to work, tuck in your ear pods or your headphones on real tight and snug, put yourself into that nice little corner on the bus or the train, because this is the story of Malin Lindstrom's murder case.

(...)

On the cold evening of November 23rd, 1996,

(...)

exactly three years after I was born, 16 year old Malin Lindstrom from Javed stepped off the bus in the small industrial town of Hulsoom in northern Sweden.

(...)

Malin was on her way to meet a classmate. It was a short walk, the kind of distance any teenager would travel without a second thought.(...) The snow crunched beneath her shoes as she started down the road.

(...)

She should have reached her destination within minutes, but she never did.

(...)

Malin's friend and her mother waited in Hulsoom, glancing out at the empty street.

(...)

When the minutes stretched into hours, unease grew.

(...)

A call was made to Malin's mother, a call that sparked the beginning of every parent's worst nightmare.

(...)

By the next morning, worried had hardened into dread.

(...)

Malin had not returned home and there had not been a word from her.(...) The family reported her missing and soon Hulsoom was alive with search efforts. Police officers joined neighbors, friends, and strangers alike, combing through frozen fields, riverbanks, and the narrow forest paths.

(...)

The sharp beams of flashlights cut across the dark pine woods.

(...)

Dogs barked and strained against their leash, following scents that led nowhere.

(...)

Posters with Malin's photograph appeared in shop windows and on bulletin boards across the community, her face watching silently over a town desperate for answers. But despite the days of relentless searching, there was nothing. Not a glove,(...) not a footprint, not a single piece of evidence.

(...)

Nearly six months later, on May 22nd, 1997,(...) the silence surrounding Malin's disappearance was shattered. A man wandering the forest near Dumbek out to gather plants noticed something odd scattered across the mossy ground.(...) At first he thought it was nothing more than remnants of winter, scraps of wood, maybe debris left behind after the fall. But as he bent closer, the shape became unmistakable.

(...)

Soon after, the quiet forest was alive with flashing lights and uniformed officers. Police carted off the area. Their grim suspicion soon confirmed. The remains were Malin's. Her body had been left in a lonely clearing tucked beneath low spruce branches. It looked as though someone had returned after the snow melting, deliberately trying to conceal her.(...) She had been bound with tape and suffered through sexual assault. Then with a sharp object, a knife, her life was brutally taken. Pieces of her clothing and personal belongings were missing, which could have been crucial evidence for the investigation. However, the forensic teams moved carefully, combing through each and every inch of the ground.(...) Nothing was too small to matter.(...) Branches were lifted, fibers were collected,(...) soil sifted. Then came the most crucial discovery.

(...)

Among the findings was a barely visible semen stain on Malin's clothes. In 1997, Sweden's DNA technology wasn't yet capable of fully analyzing the sample, so it was clearly preserved at the State Forensic Laboratory, SKL.(...) Frozen and waiting for the day, when advances in science might finally unlock the secrets, it held. Suspicion soon fell on a 19-year-old from Wusung, one of the last people to be seen with Malin that night. She disappeared.(...) From the very start, his statements to the police were inconsistent. At first, he claimed he had only walked part of the way with her, and that there was another man next to her. However, other witnesses contradicted his account, insisting he was the last person seen with Malin that night.

(...)

As investigators pressed for more details, his story shifted. Under growing pressure, he put forward a new claim, that Malin had offered sex for money. The accusation was as shocking as it was implausible. A statement so out of character that her friends and family rejected it outright, calling it nothing more than a fabrication.

(...)

Investigators were unsettled. Something about a young man's changing story combined with his calm, detached demeanor set off many people's alarms.

(...)

He seemed almost eerily unbothered by the gravity of Malin's disappearance, a fact that puzzled the officers who interviewed him. By August, the police had gathered enough suspicion to take action. The young man was arrested and subjected to hours of relentless questioning.(...) During interrogation, he revealed knowledge of specific details that investigators had never even made public. He described the very type of tape used to bind Malin, information that only the perpetrator could reasonably possess.

(...)

When pressed to explain how he knew, he offered no convincing answer. Each response only deepened the cloud of suspicion around him. A careful tangle of half-truths, evasions, and uneasy silences. The case finally went to trial in early 1998 at the district court in, forgive me if I butcher this,

(...)

"Unsure-speak." That was a one-time thing.

No, no, no, no.

Let's continue with the story. Drawing intense local attention.(...) For the prosecution, the task was steep from the outset. There were no eyewitnesses to the murder, no confession, and the forensic evidence was limited to fibers, tape fragments, and the faint seam and stain that science at the time could not fully analyze.(...) Instead, the state built its case around a web of circumstantial details.(...) Prosecutors highlighted the young man's shifting statements, how his account of the night kept changing as investigators pressed him for more specifics. They emphasized that he had shown knowledge of the tape used to bind Marlin, a detail never ever made public. Witnesses testified that he was the last person seen with her contradicting his claims of parting ways earlier in the evening. The defense countered by attacking the investigation itself. They argued that the police had relied on aggressive questioning and confirmation bias, pressuring a nervous teenager into inconsistent answers. They pointed to the lack of clear motive, the absence of full DNA match, and the possibility that the investigators had mishandled or contaminated evidence during the long winter search. After weeks of testimony and deliberation, the district court found the circumstantial evidence convincing enough to secure a conviction. The young man was sentenced to eight years in prison, a relatively low sentence because he had been 18 at the time of the crime and was still covered by Sweden's youth sentencing guidelines. For Marlin's family, the verdict brought some measure of closure but also left with a bittersweet sense of relief.

(...)

Their grief remained raw. The pain of losing their daughter could never be erased. Yet at least now, for the first time since the winter night, someone had been held accountable. However, that relief did not last. The man appealed and later that same year, the court of appeal overturned the conviction. Judges criticized the police investigation, calling their methods unreliable and the evidence was too weak. The suspect then walked free. For Marlin's parents, it was devastating. Their daughter was gone, the man they believed guilty was acquitted, and the case drifted into the shadows of Swedish criminal history. Over the years, Marlin's case haunted the community. In Håsån and the surrounding towns, her name lingered in quiet conversations at the grocery store, in the school corridors, in the local cafes where residents still remember the search parties, and the forest where her body was found.

(...)

Journalists returned to the case again and again. Each anniversary, prompting new headlines and fresh questions about how justice had slipped away. In 2006, public attention spiked when speculation turned toward the Hagamannen, a notorious serial rapist who had terrorized nearby U-mail during the late 1990s and early 2000s. His pattern of violent sexual assaults led some to wonder if Marlin had been one of those early victims. Investigators reviewed the possibility, reexamining the timelines and forensic reports to see if the cases could overlap. But Marlin's family never accepted the theory. To them, the connection felt like a distraction, a sensational headline rather than a serious lead.(...) Their suspicion never wavered. For them, the man acquitted in 1998 was the true killer.

(...)

Meanwhile, forensic science had left forward, transforming questionable evidence into undeniable truth.(...) By the mid-2010s, the National Forensic Center, NFC, had technology capable of extracting DNA from evidence once thought unusable.(...) As investigators revisited cold cases, Marlin's file resurfaced.(...) In November 2020, nearly 24 years after Marlin's disappearance, the breakthrough came. Forensic experts succeeded in extracting a full DNA profile and the results pointed unmistakably to the man who had been acquitted decades earlier.(...) Despite the scientific breakthrough, prosecution remained legally complex. At the time of Marlin's murder, Swedish law imposed a 15-year statute of limitations for serious crimes committed by offenders under 21. Because the suspect was 18 in 1996, there was an initial concern that the case was time-barred even with the new DNA evidence. The Swedish Supreme Court ultimately ruled otherwise. The court determined that the original indictment in 1998 halted the limitation period, meaning the legal clock had never resumed after the first trial.(...) This decision cleared the way for new charges despite the passage of more than two decades.

(...)

The second obstacle involved the DNA collection.(...) Following his earlier acquittal, the suspect could not be compelled to provide a fresh sample.

(...)

Investigators instead located a blood sample he had voluntarily donated for medical research in 2001, preserved at Uppsala University. With judicial authorization, forensic experts tested the sample and confirmed an exact match to the semen recovered from Marlin's clothes.

(...)

In 2022, the case returned to court. This time the proceedings took place in the court of appeal for Nindränåland in the city of Sunnsvall. The hearing lasted four days, each one heavy with tension.(...) Journalists from across Sweden filled the press benches while members of the public, some who had followed the case since the 1990s, queued for seats.(...) Marlin's parents said only a few meters from the man they had always believed killed their daughter. He was now 44 years old, a middle-aged figure far removed from the 18-year-old who once faced the court. Throughout the proceedings, he maintained the same position he had held for decades. He denied any involvement. The prosecutor centered the case on the new DNA evidence.

(...)

Experts from the National Forensic Center testified that the semen stain yielded a complete profile, an astronomical one in quadrillions match to the defendant.

(...)

Prosecutors also stressed his unexplained knowledge of the binding tape and his shifting statements arguing that only the killer could have known such details.(...) The defense countered by questioning the handling of the biological evidence over 24 years. They raised the possibility of contamination and stressed that the semen did not by itself prove murder, it only proved sexual contact. The accused offered no explanation for why his DNA was found on Marlin's clothing, instead repeating his decades-old denials. He offered explanations to the court found implausible, dismissing them as "completely unlikely." On May 30, 2022, the Court of Appeal delivered its decision, guilty of murder.

(...)

The man was sentenced to five years in prison. The punishment shocked many. Five years for murder seemed unthinkably short, however because Swedish law required sentencing according to the statutes in place at the time of the crime and because the defendant was only 18 years old in 1996,(...) the court could not impose a life sentence.(...) Instead, he received five years, a term reduced further by the extraordinary passage of time and the youth rebate applied to offenders under 21.

(...)

The sentence stirred mixed emotions. While it confirmed the long sought truth and held the killer accountable, it also underscored the constraints of the law in the years lost. For Marlin's family, the verdict brought a measure of closure, but the weight of the grief and the sense of justice delayed for decades remained keenly felt.

(Music)

(...)

Okay, before we start the discussion, I just want to clarify

(...)

regarding the semen stain and why it wasn't processed in 1996. So in Sweden, they did have DNA analyzed testing. It just wasn't as refined as it is today and that's why the tiny little semen stain was just so tiny and degraded. It was impossible for them to process it and hence why they decided to put it in a container or then saving it until 2020.

(...)

And thanks to the new, like by the mid 2010s, the improved STR analysis finally like allowed the NFC to actually was able to extract and process the DNA to get a full profile.

(...)

So I just want to make sure that everybody understands that the DNA analyzing tests existed. They just wasn't as refined as today.

(...)

And that's all. So yeah.

(...)

Anyways, I want to talk about how I feel regarding this case because I'm kind of torn between like the legal system if it failed the victim or if it actually did not and was working accordingly.

(...)

So you know how in the first trial, the prosecutor was like heavily talking about the circumstantial evidence and how the interrogation was and whatever and the court of appeal was stated like, no, this is not enough to convict somebody in itself. If you think about it, because he was the 18 year old was 18 year old.(...) I feel like it is fair to not basically convict somebody with not enough proof and evidence to protect, you know, the people.

(...)

But I also feel like in itself, it's scary because he was he ended up being the murderer and the sexual assaulter(...) and he was able to be free and he could have reoffended and everything during those years(...) and either been unnoticed or he could have been like obviously they didn't find any DNA testing or anything to in the system later after that case. But he could have done it unnoticed because he was able to escape from Molyne's case.

(...)

So I think it's kind of scary how I feel like the system in itself protects people in a sense because I feel like it was fair.

(...)

But also it's kind of scary that he was free for like two decades.

(...)

So that's why I'm a little bit torn between like, did anybody do anything wrong or was everything working accordingly?

(...)

And I wonder what you think about it, Devontae. Do you feel like this was fair the way they were able to free him for the I'm talking about the first trial, not the second?

Well, I'll say in general, obviously, there's a theme we have going on here. This is just, I don't know, this is like, once again, it's a situation I don't have too much to say about it, because this is just technology limitation. Once again, where the interrogation might have been a little questionable, a little bit.

Could have been, yeah.

(...)

But I don't know in this totality,(...) yeah, there was a long interrogation in terms of hours and hours, but I don't know if they were like beating him outside his head or anything like that. But for when it seems like that wasn't the case.

(...) It didn't seem like it when I researched that they

didn't go too far. So I don't think the interrogation was that far over any ethical lines, especially for the times. But this is strictly just a situation of technology, once again, being the key component to solving a case because there's, it was like you said, during the winter, there was clearly a probably a snowstorm or snowing enough to the point that her body wasn't even discovered until months later.(...) So there was nothing.

Where the culprit could have done something and changed the crime scene and everything. It looked like they had.

And then on top of that, even if they had dogs during that weather, there's no way they could have stuck to a scent. It was literally impossible for the time for them to have figured it out. This is all strictly by chance, even though how they found the body, it was someone who just happened to run across her body. So this is literally one of those situations where I don't really have too much to say because this is like luck. This is purely luck and lack of technology. And the only thing I will say in regards to, I can say about the second case is, you know,(...) arguing, is it fair(...) that he got, you know, like a five year sentence?

(...)

And I'm just like, well, in reality, I think it just has to do, unfortunately, with the fact that he was charged and, you know, basically they(...) kind of arrested him at first and then he acquitted it. And then that fell into like this legal loophole of where that postponed the legality of the situation because of the fact that he was 18 at the time and committed the crime. So then it's just like there was no contain, like it allowed them to arrest him later on.

I mean, for this case specifically, they made sure they made this like.

(...) So it allowed them to arrest him later on because, you know, they did fall into that legal loophole, but also was a double edged sword where they were limited to the amount of time they can give him due to when the crime took place, even though this was 20 something years later.(...) So it's hard to argue whether it was fair, obviously relative to the amount of time and his age, it's not fair, but relative to how the law works in terms of at that time, at least. It was, I mean, if he was 18 and he would have stayed in jail, then I guess it would have been fair because he was a juvenile or considered young then or whatever.(...) So this is one of those things where, unfortunately,

(...)

it was like I said, this was just like a wrong, like the plan is just aligned in a way that just made things very complicated. It was hard to get DNA evidence. He was charged and he was put in prison, but then he acquitted and then it fell through this legal loophole of, you know, they didn't really get the details they needed of after 20 years later. Then he still got, you know, he was convicted and everything later on as well. But then he still was bound by the same laws of when the crime happened when he was 18. So then he didn't get the full extent of the punishment. So it's just a lot of unlucky things that just took place all at one time. And that's why it feels like it's unfair because it was just, there was nothing anyone could do about any of these situations at all. So it's really hard for me to really speak on it because this is just purely bad luck.

(...)

Yeah, like I feel like the morally,

(...)

I feel like it's not fair to get five years because he was basically free for two decades.

(...)

But like legally, you're right, it was a loophole. And, you know, he can't be sentenced for like based on new laws, he has to be sentenced for the laws that was shown in the early 1990s.

That was applicable to his case in the 1990s. It has to be the laws applicable because that's when the crime was committed. So yeah.

So that's why a lot of people feel like very mixed feelings about it. And like, especially his conviction in 2022.

(...)

But I just want to say that Sweden, the Swedish laws are now a little stricter.(...) So since 2022 offenders who is like 18 years plus can receive life for murder and youth exceptions for harsher sentencing have been removed. The law is tougher, especially for serious crimes, but its effectiveness is debatable.

(...)

So yeah,

(...)

that's pretty much it.

(...)

The last thing I will say though is I do believe the taking blood samples from like research related things. It's a little bit of a slippery slope a little bit.(...) I know like.

Yeah, because they took it from Uppsala.

(...)

They took it from something else that was unrelated, which I think should be protected.

A research from Uppsala University or something. Yeah.

Yeah. Like it should be protected by the law. And I know what technically is, but I feel like it's a little bit of a slippery slope because depending on who's in charge when it comes to a specific case,

(...)

they can technically pull anyone's DNA, you know, for whatever reason.

And that's scary that they were able to do that, honestly.

Yeah, that's the only thing. And I'm not trying to take away from the fact that in this case specifically,(...) you know, like, yes, they called the person who did it. Yes. Okay. But so I'm not taking that away, but I just know this is food for thought for everybody. You know, it's a little bit of a scary thing where people can get access to your your DNA because I guess I'm speaking as an American and, you know, I'm a black American on top of that. So I'm a little skeptical of most governments. But, you know, it's just like,(...) you know, how far can that go where, you know, someone can pull your DNA and be like, oh, it was you. And then, you know, that can evolve into something far more sinister.

(...)

And often it might not even be used for the right reasons.(...) So I'm not saying it will or it is. I'm just saying, you know, for me personally, it's a little bit of a slippery slope in terms of how things can transpire in the future if it hasn't already, or maybe it never does. But that's just the only thing I have to say about the whole pulling blood from oops a lot, because I think that's a little scary a little bit.

It was a little scary.(...) I didn't know it was actually possible to do that because you are when you when you go into a research facility and participate in a research, you sign that it supposedly is going going to be protecting their privacy.

(...)

And for that to be violated by a court to solve, you know, that's like it's invading in the subject's privacy. And I was I didn't know that was possible, even if it's like, for crime reasons or whatever.

(...)

So I guess in itself, it's good, but also ethically.

(...)

It's a little questionable.

Yeah.

(...)

But I think at least for me, I don't really have anything else to say. So unfortunately, a life was lost because of someone who can't keep them hands themselves.(...) So once again, I'm going to bring back what I said last season.

(...)

Ladies, be careful.

(...)

Be sure to take some self-defense courses if you can. If you can't keep some protection on you. I'm not saying you have to have a gun because obviously our audience is split in half between the U.S. and the EU. So gun laws are different all over the world.

I mean, guns are illegal.

(...) So gun laws are different all over the world. So obviously, take proper precaution based on your your area's laws when it comes to protecting yourself, whether that be pepper spray, having maybe a knife, because it depends. This all depends.

(...)

So do what you got to do, because even though this happened in 1996,

(...)

things like this unfortunately still happen in 2025.

So even though it was a cold case, it ended up being solved in itself. That's a huge accomplishment. Most cold cases never get solved. So I think it was a really good thing at the time. It was a really good thing at least that the family got their closure.

(...)

Yeah, but nonetheless still take care of yourself, protect yourself, do what you got to do. I'd rather you get home to your family than we end up talking about a case because you never made it home because of somebody who couldn't keep them hands to themselves. So I mean, that's pretty much what I have to say. Just, you know,(...) and always fight, you know, fight for your life every second, every day, do something.

(...)

Either way, I appreciate y'all and to end this unfortunate, but at least it was solved case on a positive note. Let us do what we usually do. And that is talk about foods that we like and to bring things more positively back around.

Pumpkin pie,(...) pumpkin.

Must be that season pumpkin spice.

Pumpkin, give me pumpkin.

(...)

And that's what I want.

(...)

I would like some, one of my, some peach cobbler will go really, that'll be really good right now. Some peach cobbler. That sounds good.

I never tried it, but it looks messy. So I don't know.

It's just you just eat it with a spoon.

It looks like a pie that's been like mushed together.

(...)

It kind of is. Yeah, that's kind of the point, you know, but it's really good. It's okay. You'll get some in February.(...) So, yeah,(...) I appreciate y'all. I love y'all. Stay safe.

(...)

Stay protected.(...) Be aware of your surroundings.

(...)

And we shall see y'all next week.

(...)

Bye.