[wizzwizz4]

I've found this claim online in only four places. Three are the "Alternative for Sweden" website, Samnytt, and Fria Tider. None are reliable sources (one's a political party of bigots, one's a tabloid that's been "sued multiple times for libel", and the third "anses ha ett uppenbart rasistiskt, främlingsfientligt och islamofobiskt innehåll" (quotations from Wikipedia)). I wrote this, before I looked up the names of the websites:

> I don't know enough Swedish to say for sure, but the language feels tabloidy, and there are passages with quite similar sentence constructions in articles purportedly written four-or-more years apart – so this might be one story that was adapted / plagiarised.

The fourth is https://svenskamordfall.se/stockholm-1980-1989/, which I can't identify the provenance of, but doesn't cite any source for its claim. The Swedish Wikipedia article has some kind of edit war, but the edits are all redacted, so I can't see what the edit war is about. (The revert comments look like "Tar bort icke källbelagt påstående.", so maybe it's about this.)

I'm not wholly sure that this story is true: it could be a smear put out by this journalist's enemies. I see little reason to believe there was even such a trial, unless someone can find court records.

[impossiblefork]

Well, it is true, and the conviction in Tingsrätten was for 'vållande till annans död' 'causing the another's death', but in the manner described. Maybe it ended up as manslaughter in a higher court, maybe not-- I don't remember. Previously scans of the court documents were from the Flashback discussion page, but the links are dead now.

While Flashback is a 'random forum' to some degree, it is extremely reliable, since anyone who disagrees can simply post. I don't think its crime forum users would be interested in fake stuff because they want to be in the know.

It would also be an obvious libel matter if Samnytt etc. had libeled Wallner. Wallner would almost certainly have sued them, which has not happened.

What my comment is really about is how courts should be and what they should be-- the idea that their judgements should be as public as possible, because I believe that going before a court should be going before the public, only with the public having set professional experts as representatives, with those still being only representatives of the public, so what they do must be inherently public, i.e. it should be on the internet and completely accessible, forever.

[wizzwizz4]

Is this the Flashback thread? https://www.flashback.org/t1803341 Also, I (belatedly) noticed that the contemporary Wikipedia discussion was archived: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Jacques_Wallner/Ark... This is enough for me to believe that, at the very least, people in 2012 believed that this happened.

To continue the discussion about court judgements being public: sometimes that is not in the best interests of the victims. (I don't know how it works in Sweden, but I've heard of court records being sealed for that purpose.)

[impossiblefork]

Yes, that is the flashback thread.

Yes, it would obviously be against victim interest in some cases. However, since I see courts as I do-- i.e. as people going before the public and laying out something which is intolerable, I feel that incomplete alignment with victim interests is something one must accept.

Instead my view is that the public must become accustomed to that is is a court, and to behave reasonably with regard to those who have brought cases to them.

[soerxpso]

If it's not true, it serves as a good example of why journalists should report on all alleged crimes without hiding information from the public: when you have a system where people know that certain allegations will not be reported for privacy, or preserving the peace, or any other reason, it creates a situation where a random baseless accusation appears to have as much public evidence behind it as a true accusation might.

[jazzyjackson]

Bro has friends in high places bro that's why there's no evidence

Does the victim have a name, or was that memory holed too?

[wizzwizz4]

"Magnus Nordenmark" is the name used by the tabloids. https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/250492078/sven-magnus-no... has the right date of death, and gives a grave site of plot SO 33 5756 in Solna Cemetery, Stockholm. (I don't know how to verify this without actually visiting the cemetery.)

You could have looked this up yourself.

[jazzyjackson]

My google fu aint what it used to be, and when I google 'Sven Magnus Nordenmark' my own comment right above this one is the top hit.

With the death date I was able to find https://sv.metapedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Wallner and its references including http://web.archive.org/web/20140428113854/http://www.natione... which is a detailed review of the whole affair. These are far right / nationalist sources but I don't see that as a reason to disbelieve them, the whole thing sounds a lot more plausible if you are one to believe that a court would let a guy off on self defense if the eyewitnesses painted the victim as a nazi who picked a fight.

If it's misinformation I guess I'm participating in resurfacing these sources on a highly indexed website, but I don't mind being able to add context to somebody's accusation of murder. Nothing catches my interest more than a good wiki edit war.

[wizzwizz4]

The account in the Nationell Idag article does (eventually) provide a few cross-referenceable claims.

> Vad som däremot är märkligt är hur händelsen beskrevs i en av våra största kvällstidningar, nämligen Aftonbladet. Rubriken dagen efter löd 'Jag är fascist' – då höggs han ner.

Allowing for some hyperbole, we're looking for Aftonbladet headlines on (or shortly after) 1982-03-19. I'm again suspicious that the author made a more concrete reference to an article that doesn't support the claims, but superficially appears to:

> En av många artiklar om våldsamma skinheads som publicerades under denna tid (Aftonbladet, 20 juni 1982).

But they recover some of my respect by finally providing concrete court dates:

> Den 11 juni, efter knappt tre månaders utredning, föll domen i tingsrätten.

> Hovrätten dömde Jacques Wallner till 18 månaders fängelse den 17 december 1982.

These dates might help relocate the court documents (which were online, but have since linkrotted). Lots of things claimed at the beginning of this article that seem as though they would be "facts of the case" (e.g. statements about what testimony was given) are later described as the claims of an unnamed family member of Magnus.