Lake Bodom murders

Lake Bodom murders

The unknown killer

While conducting search of the terrain Finnish police also closed the roads around lake and started to check the people in the area. In that process they stopped over 80 people that were running away from the law (for various reasons). Although among them they found no one that would fit the description given by birdwatchers nor anyone that they would link to the Lake Bodom murders. However if Nils Gustafsson was just a victim, if Valdemar Gyllström didn’t finally snapped, if Hans Assmann’s alibi was legit, then there have to be another person, who killed the Lake Bodom teenagers.

The attack took place between 4AM and 6AM, which suggests it was not random. The killer must have seen the teenagers before, at least long enough to know how many of them are. He, which is fair assumption that the killer was male, could not risk that there are f.e. 4 fully sober boys inside the tent, who could have easily overpower him. He must have seen them earlier, perhaps he saw Boisman and Gustafsson getting drunk, thus he knew it is safe for him to attack.

Based on the extent of injuries done to Maila Björklund and the fact that she was undressed by the killer, she was the main target of the assailant. She was dragged from tent, placed atop of it, partly undressed and stabbed again, which means killer was in full control of the situation, since rest of the victims were unable to stop him. The fact that she was undressed could suggest sexual motives behind the attack, but there are no informations that she was sexually assaulted (which does not exclude the sexual nature of the attack). There were signs of blood and semen found on a pillow close to the tent, although they were not linked to any person (perhaps due to lack of technology).

Why he also placed Gustafsson on the top of collapsed tent? Why he did not kill Gustafsson? Why he was wearing Gustafsson’s shoes during the attack? All of those questions are the basis of the Lake Bodom mystery. If we assume Gustafsson and the killer were two separate persons, it is hard to find logical answers to them.

The easiest one is why Gustafsson survived - most likely killer assumed he is dead, but why he did not stabbed him just to make sure is unknown. At least one of the victims had defence wounds, which means she was awake and conscious that they are attacked. Perhaps Gustafsson was hit on the head first, he did not regained consciousness, so killer did not see him as threat. Perhaps Gustafsson was unconscious from drinking most of the evening and missed the initial attack only to be hit on the head afterwards?

This was rather easy question to answer, but the other elements put logic of that answer into question. Why was he dragged out of tent? Maybe he was outside of the tent, but if so why he had no shoes? Maybe he was dragged out of the tent after killer finished assaulting Björklund again and killer was spooked by something before he got round to stabbing Gustafsson? On the other hand the suspect was seen by birdwatchers walking away from tent, not running away, which suggests he was still in the control of the situation.

The killer must have known the are pretty well, perhaps lived locally, although it is doubtful. He must have known the are well enough to know if there is someone near in case the victims would start to scream, well enough to orient himself in the dark and well enough to know the escape route. He took with him or got rid of the items that were missing from the tent, which were never found, so either he knew how to dispose of them or left the area with them.

By the time police got to the crime scene (at least 6 hours after the murders took place), the killer was long gone from the Lake Bodom area, that’s why police found over 80 criminals, but not the killer. Based on that it can be assumed he did not lived locally - police most likely searched the surrounding area, so getting rid of the murder weapon and bloodstained clothes would be a problem in the area full of police.

The murder weapon is a bit of a problem - he used knife and (most likely) a stone. Knife he would need to have with him, it’s not something that he would find at random, nor would risk taking from belonging of the victims just before the attack. The stone or rock on the other hand suggest he wasn’t planning attack, so it was either caused by the sudden obsession with the victim/victims or initiated by something that the victims have done. He needed rock because knife wasn’t enough to attack four people, so either he was afraid the boys will put up fight or he was not that sure of his skills in using knife to rely on just a single weapon.

But here is the problem - knife nor rock were ever found. The knife he most likely took with him, rock could just throw into lake and it would never be found, but getting rid of the evidence suggest he was not acting in some sort of amok, he was already calculating his next moves. And that leads to question of motives, because it is unlikely that someone, who kills for the thrill of it would just carry out a single attack and never return to killing again.

Like I mentioned before it is possible that killer was triggered either by sudden obsession of Björklund (which is suggested by the overkill) or by something that Björklund or other victims have done. Perhaps they stumbled upon each other on the lake shore and something happened. Perhaps they never saw killer, but he was irritated by their behaviour (Boisman and Gustafsson were getting drunk) to the point that he decided to act on his impulse.

The first hypothesis is more likely - Björklund was the main target, the others were killed to get them out of the way, they were not stabbed or hit more than it was needed to kill them (or like in the case of Gustafsson not enough), but for killer stabbing Björklund, even after she was dead, was the culmination of the attack. Yet, straight after the attack he started to cover his tracks - he stole some items to suggest robbery, he got rid even of the rock that he used during the attack, which means he did not act in affect. He reached his target and now was trying to get rid of the evidence. And he has.

This could mean it was not his first attack and might not have been the last - he knew what to do to reach his target and what to do not to get caught. Of course it is just the assumption, it does not mean that a serial killer was behind it. It could have been just a hunter, a former soldier, former policeman - someone who acts on an impulse, but keeps the control of what is happening. Again, the birdwatchers saw a man walking away from the tent, not running, which would alarm them.

And there is one problem that spoils that portrait of Lake Bodom killer, it is the same detail that pushed Finnish police to putting Gustafsson on trial in 2005 - the shoes. Why Gustafsson was not in his shoes is easy to explain - they would not be comfortable to wear inside the tent, so perhaps he took them off before the attack (although the other had theirs on). Why killer took them with him and hid them in the forest? That is harder to explain. But the bloodstains put another layer to that question.

The 2004 analysis of the shoes shown that they had stains of blood from all of the three dead teenagers, but none of the blood of Gustafsson. Also the splat patterns on the shoes suggest that they were wore during the attack by the killer, whoever it was. If it was Gustafsson it would mean he faked his injuries and was not a victim. If someone else was wearing Gustafsson’s shoes during the attack, this is just bizarre.

Ok, we can assume that the killer did not want to get his shoes stained with blood during the attack, we can assume he stumbled upon the shoes outside of the tent, but putting them on would be just the weirdest idea. One: they would have to fit him. Two: he would risk being detected just before attack while he was changing shoes. Three: what if they were outside of the tent for a reason? Perhaps they were damaged, perhaps they had some other fault that might became obvious during the attack and became bigger problem than getting his own shoes stained? It really is bizarre element of this story.

Perhaps Gustafsson was wearing the shoes during the attack and blood spatter analysis was wrong. But in that case why killer would take them off Gustafsson’s feet and why on Earth would he take them with him only to hide them 500 meters away? That bit of the story makes absolutely no sense, no matter from angle you look at it. The weirdest things is that even if we assume Gustafsson was the killer it makes even less sense.

First of all hiding shoes would not make him any less suspect. Second of all he would need to hide them after he killed the others, but before he faked his own injuries. But the problem is that his socks were not dirty (he would have to return somehow to the tent after walking 500 meters and hiding shoes). And the third thing is that it would be very risky of him - he leaves the tent, walks 500 meters just to hide shoes and then returns. This would take few minutes each way, he could stumble upon someone (like the birdwatchers) and risk having a witness to the fact he was not the victim (since he could walk). And then there is another little detail - if he was killer, he got rid of murder weapons and several items that they were never found, why would he hide his own shoes in such amateurish way?

Finnish police made it hard to find evidence in this case, which was perhaps the lucky star that let the killer escape and never face the justice for his actions. While the other suspects could be discredited, it is very likely that the killer in Finland’s most famous unsolved mystery, is already dead, since 62 years passed by. Perhaps the Lake Bodom was his only crime, but is is unlikely. If he was in full control on that night on the lake, he could have plan his next crimes much better.