Triple Murders: The Åmsele Case

Scandinavian Crimes (w/ Devante & Delila)

Year(s) of Incident: 1988
Location: Åmsele Sweden/Finland
Triple Murders: The Åmsele Case
Victim(s):  3
Method: Murder

Video Version: https://youtu.be/E3Ga6_4XdZY

It was a summer night in 1988 quiet, calm, and still until gunshots shattered the silence in the small village of Åmsele, Sweden. What began as an attempted bicycle theft that took a dark and irreversible turn. By dawn, three members of the Nilsson family lay murdered at the village cemetery, leaving a peaceful community forever scarred.

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
• 2:51 Story - Background
• 4:06 Story - The Triple Murder
• 5:58 Story - Investigation and Arrest
• 9:09 Story - Trial and Verdict
• 9:30 Story - Trial and Verdict (Johan)
• 10:50 Story - Trial and Verdict (Marita)
• 12:12 Story - Aftermath
• 14:50 Discussion Section
• 32:05 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 back to another episode. Before we get into the, you know, brief description of the episode that we always give every episode, just be mindful. Like I said, the last episode, we do have a video for the discussion parts of the podcast on YouTube. So if you want to feel a little bit closer to us, to us and bond and connect, feel free to check out the YouTube channel once again, Scandinavian Crimes Podcast on YouTube.(...) And the last four episodes will have video so you can kind of see the things that we're doing while we're discussing, just like kind of right now, Delilah is checking her teeth apparently. But that won't be recorded because, you know, we only record the discussion sections, but just letting I know that's available if you want to connect with us a little bit more.

Why are you telling them that?

(...)

Just a little, just a little fun, just a little connection, little vibe here. Trying to make a little community bonding experience.

Sorry for the chat.

But nonetheless, let's get into, I guess today's episode.

(...)

It was a summer night in 1988, quiet, calm, and still,

(...)

until gunshots shattered the silence in a small village of Omsalö, Sweden. What began as an attempted bicycle theft took a dark and irreversible turn.

(...)

By dawn, three members of the Nielsen family laid murder at the village cemetery, leaving a peaceful community forever scarred. So you already know, I think every episode is interesting. So you already know what I'm about to say, right? Come on, grab your tea,(...) grab your snacks. If you're on your way to work, just tuck yourself into that nice little corner on a train or the bus and put your AirPods or your headphones on real tight.

(...)

Because this is a story of the Omsala murder.

(...)

Stan, Eva, and Frederick Nielsen were well-loved and respected family living in the tranquil village of Omsala, located in northern Västerborten county.

(...)

Nestled along the Vändl river, Omsala was known for its scenic beauty, strong community spirit, and the traditional Swedish rural lifestyle.

(...)

Stan, in his 40s, worked as a civilian employee at the nearby Ganarn Air Force Base and was known in Omsala as a kind, reliable man active in local organizations. His wife, Eva, 38, was the village hairdresser and a warm, familiar presence, loved for her friendliness, and volunteered work with local sports clubs. Their 15-year-old son, Frederick, was a bright, energetic student who loved football and the outdoors, remembered by classmates and teachers as polite and easy to like. The Nilsons were considered a model family, well-liked, engaged, and deeply rooted in the community. They lived in the modest but tiny house near the village center not far from the cemetery where an unexpected tragedy would eventually occur. On the evening of July 3rd, 1988, 23-year-old Finnish drifter Johann Vielle Iacala and his 19-year-old girlfriend Marita Rundholm arrived at the quiet village of Omsala.

(...)

The pair had been drifting across northern Scandinavia, moving from town to town after a string of minor thefts.

(...)

That night, their attention turned to two bicycles parked outside the Nilsons family home.(...) Johann carrying a sonal shotgun began tampering with the bikes, hoping to steal them. He didn't realize that someone inside the house had heard the noise.(...) Frederick, worried about the strange sounds, stepped outside to investigate.

(...)

His father followed, thinking it was nothing serious.(...) Almost immediately, Johann confronted them, raising the shotgun and ordered them toward the nearby cemetery, just a short distance from their front door and a secluded spot among the birch trees. He forced them to their knees and shot them each in the head at close range. Back inside, Eva grew uneasy when her husband and son failed to return. She went out to search, walking straight into a nightmare. At the cemetery, she found Johann standing over the lifeless bodies of Sten and Frederick. In an instant, her world collapsed, and she became a witness Johann couldn't allow to live.(...) Eva fought back, lunging for the shotgun in a desperate attempt to disarm it. A violent struggle followed. Johann shouted for Marita to help, and at his command, she stepped on the gun to force it from Eva's grasp.

(...)

Moments later, Johann took the shotgun and fired the fatal shot that ended Eva's life.

(...)

By the time the night gave way to early morning, Johann and Marita had vanished, leaving the Nielsen family dead, and the cemetery transformed into a crime scene. Within hours of the bodies being discovered on the morning of July 4th, law enforcement from across Vesterborten County and beyond were mobilized. Investigators moved quickly, combing the village for clues.(...) Residents soon came forward with reports of a young couple seen wandering the area the night before. The description of the man was unmistakable. A Finnish fugitive already known for petty crimes and bursts of violence.(...) The suspicions quickly solidified.(...) Fingerprints taken from Nielsen's family bicycles and nearby objects matched Johann.

(...)

The murder weapon was traced to a theft in Finland and bore the same modifications used in robberies linked to him, leaving little doubt that the couple was behind the murder.

(...)

As Swedish authorities pieced together the evidence and sequence of events, Johann and Marita had already crossed the border and were moving through southern Sweden by the time their identities were confirmed.(...) An international manhunt was quickly launched in a coordination with Interpol and police forces in Finland, Norway, and Denmark.

(...)

Their escape ended four days later in Aldensa, Denmark, on July 7th, where they were apprehended by Danish police after being spotted in the central train station.(...) Both were extradited to Sweden under tight security.

(...)

Johann remained defiant during transport, reportedly offering little emotion or remorse.

(...)

Once in custody, investigators faced the challenge of piecing together what had really happened from the couple's conflicting stories. During early interrogations, Johann admitted to the murders but quickly began altering details, attempting to deflect responsibility from certain actions and cloud the sequence of events. He described the shootings in a detached manner, offering shifting explanations that left investigators questioning his motives and state of mind.

(...)

Marita, by contrast, portrayed herself as a passive onlooker. She insisted she had no control over Johann and claimed she was too frightened to intervene.(...) Her statements emphasized fear and shock, painting a picture of someone trapped in a situation she could neither stop nor escape. Yet her account often contradicted Johann's version of events, forcing investigators to sift carefully through their testimonies to uncover the truth between the two narratives. Evidence revealed that Marita had not only been present during the murders, but had actively participated, especially during the murder of Eva.(...) According to forensic reconstructions and testimonies, Johann had ordered Marita to assist him in controlling Eva during the struggle at the cemetery. In one account, Johann instructed Marita to step on the shotgun to help pry it from Eva's hands, after which he fired the fatal shot. Though Marita did not physically pull the trigger, her compliance and presence at all three murders undermined her initial claim of being a passive bystander. As the investigation progressed and the case moved toward trial, Sweden watched closely. The legal system would soon be tested not just how it handled Johann and Marita, but in how it reconciled justice with trauma and whether it could bring a measure of peace to a family in a village broken by violence. The legal proceedings that followed were as complex as they were emotionally charged. Due to differing degrees of involvement and legal classifications of their actions, the case against Johann and Marita was divided into two separate trials. Both proceedings took place in Sweden, but the judicial system handled each with distinct consideration based on the evidence and testimonies presented.(...) Johann's trial was held in Umeå district court beginning several months after his arrest.

(...)

Security was tight throughout the process due to the notoriety of the case and the emotional intensity surrounding it. During his trial, prosecutors presented a straightforward case. The murders were not impulsive, but deliberate acts carried out to silence witnesses.

(...)

The defense attempted to soften Johann's responsibility by highlighting his troubled past, years of petty crime, unstable relationships, and volatile personality. But psychiatric evaluations ordered by the court were decisive. Forensic psychiatrists concluded that Johann, though anti-social and prone to violence, was not suffering from any mental illness that could diminish his accountability. He was fully competent to stand trial and understood the nature of his actions.

(...)

Motive remained a key issue. Prosecutors argued the murder stemmed from a calculated decision to eliminate witnesses after a failed bicycle theft, with Eva's murder seen as an attempt to prevent identification.(...) The court agreed, describing the violence as both cold-blooded and completely unnecessary.

(...)

The court found Johann guilty of three counts of murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and permanently banned from returning to Sweden after serving his term.

(...)

Marita was tied separately and facing significantly lesser charges. She was charged not with murder, but with accessory to assault, a legal distinction that would go on to provoke both public outrage and legal debate.

(...)

The prosecution's case against Marita centered on her involvement during the critical moments of the murder, particularly the murder of Eva.

(...)

Witness statements, forensic analysis, and Johann's own account revealed that Marita had handed Johann the gun during the confrontations with Sten and Frederick.(...) Most notably, during Eva's struggle to disarm Johann, he allegedly ordered Marita to step on the shotgun to help him regain control of the weapon.(...) Despite this level of involvement, the court ultimately concluded that Marita did not play a decisive role in the actual murders. Her defense argued that she acted under emotional duress, influenced by Johann's dominant and violent personality, and that she did not have the capacity, either emotional or psychologically, to intervene or escape the situation. The court accepted the narrative that Marita was complicit, but only to the extent of assisting in an assault, not in the attempt to kill. Marita was sentenced to two years in prison for accessory to assault, with the court emphasizing that her actions did not meet the legal threshold for accessory to murder. She served her sentence in Finland under a transfer agreement between the two countries. The legal outcome provoked widespread debate across Sweden and Finland. While few questioned Johann's life sentence, many felt that Marita's two-year prison term did not reflect the severity of her actions or the moral weight of her presence during the murders.(...) Many experts argued that the distinction between accessory to assault and accessory to murder was not only legally flawed, but ethically indefensible.

(...)

Marita's actions directly enabled the killings, and that a charge of accessory to murder was both warranted and just. However, some of the public sentiment was also somewhat divided. Some felt sympathy for Marita, portraying her as a manipulated young woman caught in the thrall of a violent and controlling man.(...) Others saw her as a willing accomplice who had escaped justice through legal technicalities. The case became a national conversation on guilt, complicity, and the limits of legal responsibility.

(...)

Shortly after Marita's conviction, she was released from custody. Although she had been sentenced to two years in prison, most of her sentence had already been served during the pretrial detention period.(...) Following her release, she returned to Finland and faded from public view, with limited information about her later life ever made public.

(...)

Johann, meanwhile, began serving his life sentence in Sweden, but was eventually transferred to Finnish prison. In Finland, Johann made multiple escape attempts that reignited public anxiety, and over the years, he became known as a serial escapee. His most widely publicized escape occurred in 2002 when he managed to flee the Finnish prison and cross into Sweden through Haparanda, a border town in the north.(...) The escape triggered a major manhunt across northern Sweden. Police warned the public to stay alert. After days of pursuit, authorities caught up with him near Pitio, where he was apprehended following a high-speed car chase. The spectacle of his arrest was broadcasted across national news.

(...)

In 2008, Johann was granted clemency by Finnish authorities and released from prison after serving approximately 20 years. His release sparked renewed controversy and public debate in both Sweden and Finland.(...) Johann changed his name several times after his release and attempted to distance himself from his past.(...) In the years that followed, the legal handling of the Olmsöller murders would be studied in law schools, debated in political forums, and cited in discussions on criminal justice reform. But the families of the victims, no legal outcome could erase the pain or restore the lives that were lost on that summer night in 1988.

(...)

When they were struggling and fighting,(...) they probably fell down to the ground as they were trying to...

(...)

They tumbled around on the ground, and that's how...

(...)

Marita was able to stomp on the gun to take it away from the grip of Eva.(...) So I feel like I didn't really specify that too well. It just escalated very... I mean, it did escalate very quickly.

(...)

But I just wanted to clarify that.(...) So...

(...)

Before we jump in, I want to say this so badly.(...) This... and I'm not referring to the, obviously, not the victim's family. I'm referring to the Johann who committed the murders. He's a moron, bro. Like, it was such... I get that he has antisocial personality, whatever. It's like, over a bike? What did you think was gonna happen? He was already on the run, and then he brought so much attention to himself over bicycles?

(...)

I think just his mental state in general was just very...

(...)

To me, it just sounds like he was very aggressive, and he was used to being aggressive, and he did a lot of, like...(...) I mean, he did a lot of thefts and crimes, and he probably did shoot people. I don't think he cared.

(...)

I think he just didn't want to have any witnesses and deal with it.

(...)

Which, I get that. It's just...

But it is a very huge escalation.(...) There was no motive or nothing. He just was like, "I don't want to deal with this. Death."

(...)

Right. And then I'm like, "Now you made the situation far worse for yourself, versus either..." Let's say even he just knocked them out and just left them in the cemetery.

(...)

He would've got lesser charges.

(...)

And even then, they probably wouldn't put as much effort into finding him, because it was only an assault charge. The second you murder someone, you just amped up the case by 10, and now they're looking for you. And I'm like, basically, you're the reason why you got caught, because you were so impulsive.

Maybe he thought that I have to kill because they were too against him, and then passive Marita, or whatever you call it.

One of them was a child.

One was a man, one was a child. He was an athletic child. He liked soccer and all that.

(...) He's not going to be...(...) I'm saying in terms of,(...) on average, a 15-year-old is not going to be as strong as a 20-year-old or a 30-year-old.

(...)

So that's what I mean.

I don't even know how old Johan was. Plus he still... How old was he? 20?

He still was an adult, and he was an adult with a gun.

(...)

So it doesn't matter the power dynamic. He had the advantage. So it was just like he just made the situation worse for himself by being so impulsive. And then now that's the mechanism in which he got himself caught because he couldn't control himself.

(...)

But that's just me. I'm just saying, I think he was really stupid.

But back to what you're saying. I just also agree with you that it felt very... It was such a huge escalation.

(...)

Usually people who are stealing, they prefer not to kill because obviously it's going to be...

(...)

Usually they don't. They can hurt, but not kill. They usually don't like it. So that's why it was very like, whoa, very escalation here.(...) And I understand what you mean,(...) but I think he probably just felt like he had to because there was no other way. He was already running away from multiple other charges.

(...)

Maybe he felt like there's no other... It doesn't matter anymore or something.

I mean, at least from what I understood, none of them were murder charges prior to that previously.

Not what I could find.(...) It did only sound like it was like regular theft, but he was stealing the gun.

(...)

It was a stolen gun from another robbery, but it didn't seem like he killed anybody there. So that's why I was just like...

Even when he got caught and then extradited him to Finland, he was only serving time for the murders. I'm like that he committed in Sweden. So clearly he didn't have any other charges that were worth serving. I'm like, "Are robbery okay, cool? I have a gun. Give me what you have." He didn't kill anybody, which means he only killed his family. It seems like he only killed his family over bicycles. Not even money. Not even like millions of dollars. Bicycles.

Yeah.

(...) I have no idea why he thought it was that he had to do it. I just assume.(...) I don't know. I thought that was very strange too. It was like a huge escalation.(...) So I agree with you. I think that was very sudden.

(...)

But something that also I thought was very, I guess, strange was the sentence. I thought that his sentence was understandable.

(...)

Right. But Marita's sentence was a bit different in a way where it's like she was participating even though they can't prove that she intended for the murders to happen or not. I still feel like two years, and it was less than two years,(...) was a little...

(...)

It was too little, I guess?

(...)

Illegally, I get it. I get why they had to do accessory to assault and not accessory to murder. I get that.(...) I just feel like...

(...)

I don't know. It just felt like it was a little bit too easy because she was actively... If you think about it, she was actively helping to partially stop Eva having the chance to survive by stepping on the gun.

(...)

And also,(...) even though I feel like she had too much involvement for it to be accessory to assault.

(...)

I will say this because this is the issue we have currently, at least over here in our legal system. We have this huge disparity when it comes to sentencing because in our legal system,

(...)

even if a woman and man would commit the same crime, exactly the same crime, women typically get a lesser sentence.

(...)

But that comes with this whole... There's a whole deep dive thing you can get into it, how women are not deemed as threatening as men. So often their charges will guarantee be lesser because they're not seen... It's the way that society perceives them. So, I don't know. I guess that's probably what the issue is with this one.

They did say that. They did say that. A lot of people were like, "Oh, but she's a passive. She's just a bystander. She was just swayed by his dominance and aggressive nature." And to some agree, I get it. She could have been scared. She could have been like, she didn't know what to do. But also, she was there for every theft.(...) Like, everything. Since they were running away from all of it together.

(...)

Yeah. Because often society views women as a whole more as victims than people who can actively be a part of crime, be perpetrators. So, even when there were cases over here involving, let's say, drug rings or even sex trafficking, often they'll think, "Oh no, the women, they're not... Obviously, this doesn't apply to every woman involved in these crimes." But there'll be cases where the women are completely complicit.

(...)

And then even on top of the complicity, people will still deem them as victims almost. It's like society only views women as victims. They don't view them as capable of being just as heartless or just as cold-blooded. So, in this case, they mentioned it during the trial.

If it's not very obvious.

If it's not clear as they cut dry that she did it, she wasn't holding the gun herself.

(...)

They obviously took the route they took, which is simply, she must have been a victim. And that's the really crazy part about it, because like you said, she was involved with every robbery. She was there pretty much the entire time. So clearly, she was complicit.

I feel a little bit torn at the same time because like maybe she was scared, but also I feel like there were multiple chances for her to leave him. But maybe she was scared that he would kill her because obviously he was not feeling anything killing the family for bikes.

(...)

So like, I get why people think that way. Okay, tell us.

Because think about like this, like in this situation specifically, let's say she was scared in every situation she was in, right? But let's say in this scenario, right?(...) There was a father and a son.

(...)

They were, they had him outnumbered in terms of the amount of people there. If she really wanted to take an opportunity to, let's say, escape, she would have helped them remember this power in numbers. So because he wouldn't even be expecting her to go against him, that would have been the determining factor that actually could have helped them survive more. They would have more likely been able to walk out of the situation alive and then contacted the police.(...) But to your point, it's the

fact that in every situation, she never took an opportunity. She gave it to him.

She could have shot him herself or gave the gun to the other two.

Maybe it's because she didn't think that, okay, he's going to shoot them. Like maybe she was just like, he's going to threaten them and then we can run away. Like maybe, it's so many things. There's so many maybes. I don't know. I feel like it's a bit, I feel like the sentence was a bit too lenient. But at the same time, I can understand the defense and what other people thought about it. So I'm just like torn between these two kind of like arguments.

I'll tell you something that's very interesting. This is actually getting far deeper than, but this is actually relevant to the case. This is what makes this case probably something that was really talked about with a lot of people.(...) You see how even as you're trying to say like, oh, it's possible she could have been complicit. But what if naturally most people, myself included, they have gender bias. So gender bias people off rip will perceive men as aggressive. How many times have we seen cold cases or not? Sorry, not cold cases. How many times we've seen cases where,(...) you know, a man was accused of committing a crime and then it comes out that he didn't do it later. But people believe it just because he's a man.

(...)

And all of us, every single one of us, become how society is set up.

You can also say the opposite because I feel like the same thing can be like, oh, nobody believes women when they are truly victims.

Absolutely. That's my point.

So that's why I'm like, that's why when it comes to this, I understand why they sentence that way. But I feel like even though she could have been, we say, abused into being emotionally attached to him in a very abusive, toxic way, if we just say that, that that was actually happening,

(...)

then it shouldn't be an excuse for her to assist him in the murder of the people. So I don't feel like it's it's OK. I understand, but I don't feel like it's OK that her kind of trauma bonding thing with him is affecting other people's lives and potentially killing them. That's why I feel like the sentence needs a little bit more adjusting, even though legally it was correct.

(...)

I mean, I agree. I agree. But it's a very it's a very complex issue because it is a lot of gender bias. There's a lot of societal expectations. And then, like I said, this applies to both ends of the spectrum. You know, viewing women as only victims, viewing men as only aggressors. And then it hurts both sides equally in those situations where they're neither the aggressor nor the victim. So, you know, it's one of those situations where it's because of society that probably the sentence did not get more because even if they would have gave her, they could have gave her legally probably three or four years.(...) But they didn't. And I'm pretty sure it's because she was a woman. And that's just the reality.

You think it was fair?

(...)

No, of course not. Oh, really?

What would you have? Do you think she deserved accessory to murder? Because that means that she was actually knowing and intending for them to die.

You know, me personally, I'm pretty sure she's not new to his behavior. Like you said, she's been with him the entire time.

(...)

And I'm pretty sure in cheating, at least from the details we have, it doesn't seem like she was shocked or, you know, at no point is she mentioned, oh, I'm shocked. The only thing she mentioned, at least what we've seen in the case is that, oh, I was in a situation where I couldn't do anything, but didn't really mention the, oh, my God, like this was he's never done that before. Like, because then maybe.(...) But the fact that it was never really brought up kind of implies she's aware of what he's capable of. He may have never done it previously, but I'm pretty sure she was aware. So I at least would have gave her another two years on top of that at least.

But do you think that accessory to assault was fair to give or do you feel like it should have been murder accessory to murder?

At least at least by U.S. standards and I'm a little different name, I'm a little more aggressive.

I know, I know you are a little bit aggressive, but I like to hear your opinion.

(...)

But at least accessory to assault, I don't think that's the case. She definitely handed him the shotgun. That's accessory to murder.(...) You know, that's like me giving somebody a gun and then they shoot somebody five minutes after I'm an accessory to murder over here. Like, what do you mean? So they technically downgraded her charges just to give her a lesser sentence, at least in my opinion. So I think she definitely should have had more time.

(...)

And there was too many factors.

And be sent this to murder, accessory to murder.

(...)

Yeah, she should have got more time for sure, because that was a deciding factor. She had choices in that moment and she didn't take it.(...) So that's just me.

(...)

What did you think about Johan's like escape attempts? Like he made multiple ones. I was just like, you need to chill, Johan. Even though it didn't really give him any added years of like,

(...)

I can't speak,

(...)

any added years of his sentence.(...) It's still just like,(...) why? How was he able to escape multiple times, by the way?

And also- Because they were so lax. Because you know what the issue is? Because he was in prison in Finland, right?(...) He was in prison in Finland. Don't they have an open-

(...)

Doesn't Finland have an open prison system? So basically it's not like here in the US where you're confined.(...) Like I'm pretty sure in Finland they have an open prison. I don't know when it was implemented, so I might be wrong about this.

What's an open prison? Like is it-

So open prison system is like, it's far less strict than in the US. Like an open prison system is like, they can have jobs, they can kind of have a life. They can roam around in designated areas. They have much more freedom. And the reason that is, is because it helps them rehabilitate back into society. So that way they're not like over here, where when criminals go to jail, they don't know how to function in society anymore. So they're more likely to recommit crimes.(...) So that's what an open prison system is.(...) But I'm pretty sure Finland has an open prison system.

I don't know if they had it in 1988,

(...)

but I think they-

(...)

Like I think maybe during the time when he was escaping, which was-

(...)

It was in multiple occasions. Maybe that's when they started.

Actually it was an open 1988.(...) At least from what I see online, it says open prison systems existed in Finland since around the 1930s.

I wonder if it was for murderers too.(...) Really? I thought it was like smaller charges.

The system of open correctional institutions as permanent institutions was more formally established in 1975. So almost 10 years prior to him being.(...) So yeah, they have a more open prison system.

Maybe it wasn't as established with security and stuff like that back then. And now they probably have like more measures for that and stuff.

(...)

Well, that's kind of what open prison systems afford.

They're not really- Do they have a little leg thing? What's it called?

(...)

What's it called in English? Those little leg thing, the antlers, antlers. Whoa. It's like a little ankle,

(...)

larm thing.

(...)

I don't know. I don't know if they have alarms. That I don't know. But open prison systems are designed to be minimum security. Like literally-

But how do they know where they are and stuff?

(...)

I mean, like I said, though, the goal is to treat them as human beings, which causes them to be less likely to commit crimes. Which overall, like I said, studying this in school overall,(...) they do have a lower recidivism rate.(...) I think not in the world, but I think they're like top five, if I remember correctly. That might be different.

I don't mind that system. I just was like, I don't know how it works. And I don't know if they do it for murders, but now you really verified that for me now. So I had to look it up. I actually don't know how long ago they started and everything. But now I know.

(...)

Yeah. So they allow the prisoners to work and study and participate in like community related things. So they don't have to stay in the prison all day, which I was like, how do you escape? But then I'm like, oh, yeah, I forgot. Finland probably has an open prison system. And he probably was in a minimum security area and probably was like, oh, I'm going to go to work and then stole a car, which is an added charge, which they did not charge him for, by the way, which-

No, they're taking a- They're having a chape. Listen, listen, listen, when it comes to both in Sweden and Finland, by the way, like they allow to like punish them like administratively. So basically they don't have any privileges or they can get higher security. Like they can be placed in a tighter security cell or whatever, but they don't really add it to

the- Yeah unless all the crimes are committed, but Grand Theft Auto is a crime. That's my point. Grand Theft- A high speed chase is literally negligence. Those are crime statutes. So how did he not get extra time on top of the 20 is beyond me. So-

I think they just added as a, this is just an escape attempt. So therefore nothing is going to add anything to the sentence.

(...)

That's a crime in itself.

(...)

I guess, you know, that's what the Swedish- There was at least three crimes committed. Swedish law back then. I don't know if they fixed it though. I don't know if they upgraded the losses then. I thought it was strange too. I was just like, oh, that's very like, this seems like a very severe escape attempt, but you know.

Yes. Three separate times, Grand Theft Auto and negligence because he's speeding through these communities and highways and he can, he's literally endangering other people's lives. I'm like, that's reckless driving. That's another charge. Like I said, there's like at least three or four charges he committed just escaping three separate times. And they didn't add any extra years. It was like not nay.

(...)

I don't feel like they changed his lifestyle administratively either.

(...)

I feel like they just kind of like, let's just go back to teaching you how to just calm down.(...) I mean, eventually when he was freed, it sounded like he was just living a normal life after that.

That we know of. Remember he changed his name.

(...)

Yeah.(...) You're right.

(...)

So either way, I don't know.

Sorry, this ended up being way too long. Sorry.

(...)

We got into a discussion there.

(...) Because I'm just thinking about like, it wasn't just Marita who got the lesser sentence. I'm like, they didn't even add years for the prison escapes and the things he did while he was out. But either way, yeah. Let us know what y'all think, man. Because this is an interesting case because this is out of control.

(...)

Multiple layers.(...) Yeah. Multiple layers. A lot of things going on here, especially involving Marita. But y'all let us know. How do you feel about this case? Y'all feel like Marita should have got a longer sentence. Do you feel like they should have added charges for your hands release slash escape, you know, due to all the multiple crimes he committed while escaping? Y'all let us know. And of course, as usual,(...) we will be ending the episode on a good note on a positive note to keep our spirits lifted. And talk about really good food.

(...)

Delilah.

I would like to have soup.(...) I would like to have oxtail.(...) I would like to have lobster tail. I would like to have crab.

(...) I would like to have seafood boil in general and some nice freshly baked bread, garlic bread, preferably. Maybe some cornbread on the side. You know,(...) I should probably have some salads for this. Yeah, add some salad to that, too.

(...)

I want to go to a restaurant in Harlem, Ricardo Steakhouse. They have this really good bread that is like super good texture is amazing.

(...)

Lovely.

(...)

Their lamb was pretty good, too. So I definitely want some lamb.

Is it a steakhouse?

(...)

It's technically a steakhouse, but they got other things. You know, that because some curry go would be fine with some white rice and rice and pea. That sounds nice, actually. Yeah, actually, you know, I'm kind of hungry. I know.

(...)

But I'm just going to chill there. You know, I'm not going to be fat today.

(...) It's fine to be like not fat, but like I mean, you can be fat, too. That's fine. But we like it's fine to just crave food. Like who cares? It

all big back. But yes,

(...)

I hope you enjoyed today's episode. And like I said, feel free to reach out to us on social media and on YouTube where we have the video discussions recorded. So you'll see me visibly saying this to the camera to you.(...) And we shall see you in the next episode.

(...)

Peace out.

(...) Bye.