The killer took the weapon with him, so the question was: What did he do with it? Obviously he could have ditched it for good by chucking it over the railing and into the Baltic Sea on a ferry ride to Finland or something like that. But an equally plausible reason for him to take the weapon with him was that he viewed it as a trophy. The gun that changed Swedish history would have some value to a person who murdered Sweden’s prime minister for his politics. Less so if he was a professional killer who had done it for the money. Since the gun had not been found, that increased the odds of a
...more
This is a tortured bit of logic built on unsupportable assumptions
