Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Who killed Olof Palme?

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 76 posts

Re: Who killed Olof Palme?

#11

Post by JohnStrangeII »

saalweachter wrote: post #4

Eh, the JFK assassination is more people wanting a conspiracy over the boring explanations rather than an unsolved murder.

I wouldn't say so. The CIA and high ranking military officials certainly hated him and wanted him dead. There was a strong motive and there many inconsistencies in the way the case was handled afterwards. The majority of higher ranking CIA officials really considered JFK a traitor, because he didn't send air support at the bay of pigs (following through with what he had clearly stated all along). There were claims that he had been subverted by the Soviets, was deliberately sabotaging the country, etc.

Personally, I remain agnostic but find it fairly credible that Oswald personally met a group of conspirators from the CIA a few days before the shooting and these people encouraged him to do what he did, maybe even made him some false promises about what would happen afterwards. It's also not unlikely that the killing of Oswald himself followed a similar pattern.

That's all speculation, but overall reasonable speculation, because of the existing motives. Many conspiracy theories are weak, because they fail to lay out a credible motive. JFK is not one of those cases.

Re: Who killed Olof Palme?

#12

Post by olivermarks »

saalweachter wrote: post #4

Eh, the JFK assassination is more people wanting a conspiracy over the boring explanations rather than an unsolved murder.

What does 'wanting a conspiracy' mean? When people read the facts of events such as the JFK or Palme assassination and anomolies and inconsistencies become apparent they go looking for answers. The word 'conspiracy' is a lazy way of saying 'don't think' in many cases, despite all the sometimes outlandish ideas these illogical facts tend to spawn...

Re: Who killed Olof Palme?

#13

Post by mongol »

diggan wrote: post #8
mongol wrote: post #3

Would be interesting to hear how "interesting" this article is for an international audience. As a Swede I am sick and tired about all speculation over the years. It is like a wound that never heals. We will never know for sure. Probably like the JFK assasination.

I hear you, I'm Swedish as well and been hearing people talking about this since my birth (if not earlier). However, seems they are getting closer at finding out. The article contains: > In February of this year, the latest lead investigator appeared on Swedish television and, with astonishing confidence, promised to give the public a solution within the next few years. Caution is advisable; this possibility has been…

Yes, this possibility has been teased many times before. On top of my head - Arrest of "33-åringen" days after the murder - Gert Fylking's article about Christer Petterssons admission to him - Pelle Svensson about "bombmannens testamente"

Re: Who killed Olof Palme?

#14

Post by IfOnlyYouKnew »

olivermarks wrote: post #12
saalweachter wrote: post #4

Eh, the JFK assassination is more people wanting a conspiracy over the boring explanations rather than an unsolved murder.

What does 'wanting a conspiracy' mean? When people read the facts of events such as the JFK or Palme assassination and anomolies and inconsistencies become apparent they go looking for answers. The word 'conspiracy' is a lazy way of saying 'don't think' in many cases, despite all the sometimes outlandish ideas these illogical facts tend to spawn...

> What does 'wanting a conspiracy' mean?

It means that people become so obsessed with "critical thinking" that they will never be satisfied. Every group telling them to let it go becomes just another brick in the wall of conspiracies surrounding them. Every shred of evidence just invites more questions about who faked it and why.

It's interesting to speculate on the motives, although somewhat mood. Some people probably enjoy just the thrill of thinking about these. Quite possibly, we have some circuits that engage in such speculation, and they do serve some purpose: After all, sometimes they really are coming for you. Maybe the ability to associate only with others that share your fantasies today is the real problem, because the trait itself evolved in times where it was kept in check by your immediate peers, whose rolling eyes would at some point get you to shut up.

This is rather detrimental for society because we no longer have any trusted sources of truth all sides of an argument agree on. Was the economy improving during Obama? "No, all those statistics are fake!" Is the economy continuing to improve? "No, the new guy is now faking the statistics!"

JFK, Area 51, Club 54,... these things have now thankfully passed the threshold of relevancy. But the problem is larger than ever before.

Re: Who killed Olof Palme?

#15

Post by prolix »

mongol wrote: post #3

Would be interesting to hear how "interesting" this article is for an international audience. As a Swede I am sick and tired about all speculation over the years. It is like a wound that never heals. We will never know for sure. Probably like the JFK assasination.

A couple of things seem obvious. Given the relative safety of the society the crime occurred within, the police were caught with their pants down, and were completely unprepared to deal with a major crime carried out according to a premeditated plan.

After that, everything else is a natural mess.

But, given version of the story as presented here Christer Pettersson seems like an idiot, just useful enough to have done it. Nonetheless, the crime was assuredly well planned, and used the absolute minimum violence at the right moment that permitted escape, so whoever did it planned to get away with it, planned it to kill, and planned the least amount of dramatic flair possible. Seems professional to me. Doesn't seem like the kind of thing to be done by a sloppy drunk with nothing to gain from it.

Someone had something to gain, but we don't know what that was. Without the clear motive, an obvious goal, the thing that made it worth the effort, it's hard to see why anyone wanted him dead.

Unfortunately, that's what makes the drunk such a good suspect, and such a lackluster reality. It feels like there should be more to it.

Re: Who killed Olof Palme?

#16

Post by barking »

JohnStrangeII wrote: post #11
saalweachter wrote: post #4

Eh, the JFK assassination is more people wanting a conspiracy over the boring explanations rather than an unsolved murder.

I wouldn't say so. The CIA and high ranking military officials certainly hated him and wanted him dead. There was a strong motive and there many inconsistencies in the way the case was handled afterwards. The majority of higher ranking CIA officials really considered JFK a traitor, because he didn't send air support at the bay of pigs (following through with what he had clearly stated all along). There were claims th…

But can a conspiracy of more than a very few people be kept under wraps for a lifetime? I find it hard to believe that if there really was a conspiracy that nothing concrete has emerged in all these years.

Re: Who killed Olof Palme?

#17

Post by dfrage »

JohnStrangeII wrote: post #11
saalweachter wrote: post #4

Eh, the JFK assassination is more people wanting a conspiracy over the boring explanations rather than an unsolved murder.

I wouldn't say so. The CIA and high ranking military officials certainly hated him and wanted him dead. There was a strong motive and there many inconsistencies in the way the case was handled afterwards. The majority of higher ranking CIA officials really considered JFK a traitor, because he didn't send air support at the bay of pigs (following through with what he had clearly stated all along). There were claims th…

While I'm entirely satisfied with the simple Oswald explanation, you are correct to emphasis how utterly terrible JFK's defense and foreign policy was.

The severe weakness shown in the Bay of Pigs debacle, an Eisenhower scheme he utterly wrecked by moving the location as well as the last minute denial of air support, directly lead to Khrushchev's nuclear missile adventure in Cuba. Which led to the closest the world has ever gotten to nuclear war, Soviet subs were under orders allowing them to use their nuclear torpedoes if damaged, and one captain decided this was a case but the decision required three officers, one of whom declined. (This ultimately resulted in Khrushchev getting sacked.)

There's lots more, but it's also worth mentioning that just a month before he was assassinated, he went along with his Best and Brightests' scheme to depose and inevitably assassinate the President of South Vietnam and his brother, which ruined that nation's officer corps and any trust they had in us, which led directly to our having to replace them with our own forces, and the nightmare that followed. LBJ's prosecution of the war was downright criminal, but at the highest level moral, he acknowledged the "you broke it, you own it" principle.

But one could see members of the Deep State deciding that JFK's assassination of an ally President made him fair game for assassination in turn. And for all they knew necessary to save the nation, he'd been reckless all his life, succeeding in starting WWIII given another 1-5 years was entirely possible.

Re: Who killed Olof Palme?

#18

Post by dfrage »

barking wrote: post #16
JohnStrangeII wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't say so. The CIA and high ranking military officials certainly hated him and wanted him dead. There was a strong motive and there many inconsistencies in the way the case was handled afterwards. The majority of higher ranking CIA officials really considered JFK a traitor, because he didn't send air support at the bay of pigs (following through with what he had clearly stated all along). There were claims th…

But can a conspiracy of more than a very few people be kept under wraps for a lifetime? I find it hard to believe that if there really was a conspiracy that nothing concrete has emerged in all these years.

When the penalty for revealing it would likely be execution for high treason?

Re: Who killed Olof Palme?

#19

Post by olivermarks »

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #14
olivermarks wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does 'wanting a conspiracy' mean? When people read the facts of events such as the JFK or Palme assassination and anomolies and inconsistencies become apparent they go looking for answers. The word 'conspiracy' is a lazy way of saying 'don't think' in many cases, despite all the sometimes outlandish ideas these illogical facts tend to spawn...

> What does 'wanting a conspiracy' mean? It means that people become so obsessed with "critical thinking" that they will never be satisfied. Every group telling them to let it go becomes just another brick in the wall of conspiracies surrounding them. Every shred of evidence just invites more questions about who faked it and why. It's interesting to speculate on the motives, although somewhat mood. Some people proba…

By 'problem' do you mean people not accepting the official narrative and having a go at 'critical thinking'? I wouldn't see that as a problem, I'd see that as a free society

Re: Who killed Olof Palme?

#20

Post by IfOnlyYouKnew »

mongol wrote: post #3

Would be interesting to hear how "interesting" this article is for an international audience. As a Swede I am sick and tired about all speculation over the years. It is like a wound that never heals. We will never know for sure. Probably like the JFK assasination.

I always enjoy these articles (to the extend that one can take joy in them), because they rarely fail to highlight how different politics can be.

For an American audience, it's unthinkable that a leader of a government would go anywhere without their own private army. When I used to work in central Berlin, I regularly saw members of parliament and ministers have coffee or just walk around completely unprotected. Even Merkel could be seen with only modest security (usually two people), usually walking to/from her flat about a kilometre away from her office.

It's a world where a stranger is not primarily a threat, possibly-armed, and where civility hasn't completely broken down. And it's not even that rare.

Of course, the story itself kinda speaks against this view of the world.

Post reply on HN