Lake Bodom murders

Lake Bodom murders

The survivor

The sole survivor, Nils Wilhelm Gustafsson, although acquitted by court in 2005 trial, remains on of the suspects in this case. Even 44 years later few details in this case just seem very strange about what happened that night and was Gustafsson just victim or something more?

Facts that are supporting the theory:

he suffered the least injuries and survived attack that left the others dead,
he claimed he had amnesia and does not remember what exactly happened, under hypnosis he described assailant in similar way the birdwatchers have (which might be sign he saw the sketch and described this and not his memories),
the victim that suffered the most injuries was his girlfriend, she was partly undressed, which suggest personal and sexual motive behind crime (that was police theory in 2005 trial),
he and Boisman were drinking heavily not only on that night, but in previous ones (according to journal of one of the victims),
his shoes, covered in blood of the three victims, were for some reason hidden in the woods 500 meters away,
he was found on top of collapsed tent, just like his girlfriend, but unlike her he survived and there is no explanation why was he placed on top of the tent,
Gustafsson looked similar to the person from sketch based on the birdwatchers testimony, although why would he be seen leaving the area is not easy to explain,
it cannot be determined if his wounds were self-inflicted, if some of them were sustained during f.e. fight with Boisman, if his amnesia was faked.
the blood spatter on his shoes suggest that whoever was wearing them, wore those shoes during the attack and there is no reason killer would swap his own shoes for those ones,
the blood stains on his shoes contained blood of the three victims, but not his own, which could suggest he was the assailant and had faked his injuries afterwards.

Facts that oppose the theory:

he supposedly sustained life threatening injuries, which put in question theory that they were self-inflicted,
apart from alcohol-induced rage there is no explanation why would he attack the others,
at the same time if it was in fact alcohol-fuelled rage the covering of evidence afterwards would oppose that theory,
the theory that he attacked his girlfriend, who rejected his sexual advances, is far-fetched, especially since she wasn’t sexually assaulted and the death of the other couple would be completely senseless,
if he hid his shoes 500 meters away why he wouldn’t dispose of them the same way he disposed of the knife that was murder weapon and the items that were taken from tent? they were never found, the shoes were found soon after murders,
the birdwatchers saw a man walking away from the tent at 6AM, if it was Gustafsson he would be surprisingly calm in those circumstance, also he would take a huge risk stumbling upon someone, who would see him walking and thus blowing his cover of being a victim of the attack.

Gustafsson is a controversial character in that story, mostly because of the same reason as the other suspects - semantics. According to different sources he either sustained broken facial bones, broken jaw, broken skull, broken skull and cerebral fluid oozing from his nose, in some they were serious injuries, severe injuries, injuries that would confirm that he was a victim, in others life-threatening injuries, but photo of him in hospital suggests something completely different.

Since even when it comes to injuries it is hard to find many details it is impossible to determine if his wounds were self-inflicted, thus if he was in fact a victim or the killer. There are details, like the for-mentioned shoes, the fact the was lying on top of the collapsed tent and not underneath, which diametrically change the perception of his character and what happened.

And those semantics in different sources make him plausible in the role of the killer and the role of the victim - it is impossible to separate him from either of them. The amnesia, which could be very real, but also could be a ploy, did not helped his case either. Nils Gustafsson was acquitted by the court in 2005, but the reason behind it again left him in ambiguous position - the judge pointed out lack of clear motive for the murder and that the evidence were inconclusive, which is not the same as there are no evidence that would put the theory that he was the killer to rest.