It has been revealed today that the information in the investigation material about a burned plastic can found in the stairwell is wrong and that it had been found near to the stage. In connection with this the chief prosecutor revealed that a plastic can containing liquid for plant dyeing had been found in the culvert the day after the fire. The can has been kept since then by its owner who owns a flower shop nearby. It was first during the previous trial that the police took back the can and it is now going to be analyzed.

Back in court, it was the time for the defence lawyers to declare the stands of their clients. All said that their clients deny the arson of first degree and causing another persons death and that they have not been able to realize that the fire could cause such catastrophic results as it did.

Leif Silbersky promised that his client (D19) will "sincerely, honestly and in details give his version of what happened" and make an apology. "He apologizes, for his wrong moral act, to all who have been suffering because of the horrible consequences of the fire." said Leif Silbersky.

Göran Bergendahl said as before that his client (C19) admitts that he has started a fire under a chair. He added that according to C19, he has not spoken with the witness who claims that he has talked with him outside the premises. He mentioned also that the witness has pointed out his client after that the reward was announced.

Göran Franzén said that his client (B19) has not had any part in setting the fire "There was no mutual understanding about what would be done in the culvert.". He said that B19 had not seen any can with inflammable liquid.

Anders Munck said that his client (A21) had seen that fire was set under a chair but he had not seen any can or something else being thrown into the fire. No discussion was made between these four about that a fire would be started. "He regrets today that he did not do anything to put out the fire. He himself losed many friends.".

The others including he himself were then in the stairwell and did nothing. All left the stairwell when the flames were about one decimetre (4 inches) high. He said today that he thought that only the chairs would burn and that the fire would end by itself. D19 said that he had felt been lying sometimes during the police investigations but that he now spoke the truth and also apologized once again to all the relatives who have suffered. He said "I want to apologize to all the relatives and those who have suffered, because I did not prevent the fire or alarmed the police or the rescue services."

According to C19 it was also D19 who poured out the content of a glass bottle with brushes in it, over the chairs. Regarding the can he said "if there ever was a can, I would have talked about it, I do not have any reason to keep it secret.". About the key witness of the police who has pointed him out, he said that the witness has got his information from a third person and "When the reward came, the witness built up a story to become more reliable.". He said also that all four had seen when the fire was started.

At the end he wanted to say some words "It is to all the relatives and so. One wants them to understand that we had not realized that anything like this would happen. Although I can not forgive myself, I would like to ask them for forgiveness. If they can forgive me after all suffering they have been put to go through.".

D19 was given the opportunity to comment the statement of C19 about him being involved in setting up the fire and said "No. He doesn't want to be alone on this.".

He told also that one of them had told that night what had been done to the older brother of B19, who later at the place of the disaster had told it to yet another person and "It's him who has told to the key witness of the police and that's why we're sitting here.".

He commented the version of C19 and said "One can surely put fire to a stack of chairs that way, but not on a single chair. To get the fire spreaded from a single chair to the other chairs on the resting plane, there must be a string of flammable material between them.".

The fire could be spreaded into the premises only when both doors were open, both the door between the stairwell and the premises and the door between the stairwell and the culvert. "The height difference between these doors have turned the stairwell to a chimney, with draught from downside to the up. It has created optimum circumstances for the fire.", he said.

The defence lawyers mentioned that the automatic closing device on the door from the stairwell to the premises was missing and that the door from the stairwell to the culvert must have been wide open, against the recommendations of the fire safety instructions.

He said further that later on that night, just before his performance on the stage, the discjockey found out that it was burning and urged to all to take it easy and walk towards the entry. "I didn't see any smoke or fire, but after a while lots of youngsters began to run towards the exit. Some moments later the black smoke came in. It became difficult to breathe. People got stucked. It was panic. Everybody was shouting, for their mothers, fathers or God.", he said.

Then the lights went off and chaos took over the place and then "Now I really understood the danger. Now the screamin had nearly stopped. It was almost quite somehow.". He had to crawl over lots of people in order to get himself to the entry door but faded out nearby and woke up on the parking plane outside. He told the chamber prosecutor Kristina Ehrenborg Staffas how he was nowadays "I walk forward, take the life for what it is. When people ask me, I just answer them, It's OK.".

He told further that some days later he met C19, outside a coffee shop, and that he then in front of others had denied that he had anything to do with the fire and said "Do you think that I would kill my own friends?". However when they were alone later on, he had first made the witness to promise to tell nothing and after that told him "It was not the meaning, I didn't want it to get so huge. I shouldn't have done it, I shouldn't have made fun like that.".

The witness told also that his information came from he himself and he had not heard it from a third person as C19 and A21 have said to the court. Regarding the reward he said also that it could be good to have if he has to move abroad and that "There are also many others who will get their shares of the money, and also the taxes come after that.".

One of those who had arranged the party was also heard today and he told once again that he had met C19, and possibly even A21 och B19, outside a shopping mall a week before the party and told C19 about it and said to him that he should come to the party. C19 had said that he wanted to come in for free in that case and that he otherwise would destroy the party, a statement that this witness had taken as a joke.

He said that the stories of C19 and D19 are reliable and together they give a clear picture of what occured, eventhough they keep silent about some details regarding their own part. The stories of A21 and B19 are on the other hand not reliable, he said.

About the size of the penalty, Ulf Norén said that it should be weighed in that there were 400 youngsters in the premises, whose lives were put in danger and continued "I am totally aware that this case is about four youngsters and the penalty-reductions that thereby exist. But by considering the size of the sentences that are connected to arson of first degree, it is defined as a very serious crime. I wonder if the minimum punishment of six years should be used in this case, it feels as it would make wrong signals. I have been asked if C19 shall be punished more because he talked first, while the two others (A21 and B19) who have been silent and fidgeted shall be rewarded. The two years gap between these three is too big. It is also important that the court considers if not the penalty for D19 should be increased. He has not hesitated to be there that night anyhow.".

He said that "They should be sentenced because they have done morally wrong. It is wrong to start a fire which has meant a danger for 400 people, amongst which 63 people died and a great number were injured. This is not a deed that one can be indifferent to. One does not stand beside and says 'Oh, are you standing here and burning up 90 chairs?' It does not work like that, it is obvious.". He said further "Don't come and say that there were unlucky circumstances. Don't come and say that there were no risks. Don't come and say that there was not a possible intent with such risks.".

About the penalty, he demanded that it should be raised for all four and said "There is a possibility for that and it is a strong desire from all the case owners that we represent, and that regardless if the client is an immigrant or swedish, born in Sweden. The court should consider the enormous damage that this crime has caused. None of us, despite all experienced lawyers, prosecutors and judges, have ever witnessed a crime that has caused such a huge damage as this crime has made. The fact is that never ever in the modern time, a crime that has caused such a damage, has been committed.".

Svante Frigell, who represents some of the case owners mentioned the indifference behaviour of these four after the disaster when some of them had visited the funerals and that for a year ago a couple of them had even pointed out others as responsible for the fire and said "Very cold-hearted of them to participate in the grief, without exposing themselves. They have shown such an ingenious and cold-hearted manner that one does not need to consider their young age when one decides the penalty.".

Göran Bergendahl, who represents C19 said "No one had an intention that the fire should get that course. No one had understood that there was a risk.... C19 has not said anything to reduce his part. He has taken a moral responsibility by testifying and standing up for his confession.... Those who were in the stairwell are the only ones that know what happened.... ". He did not ask that C19 should be found "not guilty" but applied to the court to sentence him to a much less penalty than 8 years because of his low age when the deed was done.

Göran Franzén, who represents B19, applied that he should be found "not guilty" from all charges. He said "There was no planning, no plans for a crime. he has not participated in any fire-setting and he did not know that a fire was going to be started. He has not teared out any papper either. There is something to support that he has not been in the stairwell where the fire was started. Isn't this a work of one man and are not the others innocents?".

Leif Silbersky, who represents D19, refered to other cases such as the Annika-case, which is about a woman who has been sentenced to 25 years in prison in USA after being a passive witness without attempting to prevent when her boyfriend murdered a police officer, and said that she would have been sentenced to probation in Sweden. He said "Is it possible to defend a person who carries a heavy moral responsibility for 63 youngsters deaths? And who, either in words or actions, have not tried to stop his co-defendant or to alarm the police or the fire squads? Yes, because he has no juridical responsibility and because I, after 38 years in this profession, have a strong belief in the swedish system of justice. The boy has acted unacceptable and offensive and deserves critic, but he is definitely not guilty of any crime. He has stood beside and watched on, and we do not condemn the witnesses in this country.".

Gunilla Nilson-Axman who lost her daughter Sofia in the fire reminded the court why everybody is there by reading up the names of all 63 friends and stating "They were also at a wrong place at a wrong time.".

She said further "Sofia is dead and it's because C19 felt offended. I feel offended too, offended since these guys have appealed the verdicts of the city court and because three of them consider themselves not guilty and want to be released. The fourth one wants to get a lower penalty. But I myself got the life sentence and I can not appeal. I find all four guilty, I don't believe that C19 did this by himself. All four were there by their free wills, everyone has a brain to think with and no one is declared incapable. No one left the place, no one tried to put out the fire. They left a burning fire, close to a wall behind which there were 400 youngsters.".

He turned towards those four and said "You speak of honour and principles, and not to squeal. But you didn't hesitate to falsely point out other fellows. Those principles that you talk about, don't exist and they are just self-defence mechanisms to save your own skin.".

Rozbeh continued "The penalty for this infernal hell that they exposed us for can not be measured in years or months. The night to the 30 of October, these friends of mine did what no friend is allowed to do. The brutal manner, by which they let me down, can not be compensated by any punishment. But the court of appeal can give me and some of my friends who have suffered, some kind of justice. These four have performed Sweden's worst crime that has been committed in the modern time and should be judged upon that. The life goes on for most of us, but we will all remember that night of autumn when the vanity of these fellows, made the devil to visit us on Backaplan.".

The concluding speech of Rozbeh made C19 to sink his head and drop some tears.

Angeliki Bouras who lost her only child, her daughter Voula asked "Why weren't you satisfied by setting up a fire and warning afterwards? The party was destroyed in any case.".

Parvaneh Tana who lost her daughter Mona asked for justice "You should get the same penalty as you have given us. The life sentence."

Mirhussein Javaherinasab who lost his son Gilzad turned directly to C19 and said "I have looked through the belongings of my son. In his piggy bank, there were two twenties. I will ask my lawyer to give those to you after the trial, so you, after coming out, can pay for yourself so no one else has to suffer.".

He talked about that night "Two sweaty and sooty boys laid my beloving little daughter's body on the ground in front of me. The body was still warm and the eyes looked like broken mirrors, but nothing was left. Moa wasn't there anymore. Nothing I did, helped. She laid there, sooty on her nose and with froths at her mouth. Less than 16 years old. Somehow, even I died there when I gave her artificial breathing.... I consider that they are guilty of murder. They are murderers.". He was then stopped by the chairman since the statement was not relevant.

When Leo Papini got into the subject of punishment, he said that the behaviour of those four is of an adult and therefore they should be judged as adults. He saw no reason for penalty-reductions and said "I apply that all four are sentenced for arson of first degree and that all are sentenced to life.".

In the court of appeal same proofs have been presented as in the city court.... It appears from the investigation that a can with liquid for plant dyeing which has been found in the culvert after the fire, has a symbol which indicates that it contains inflammable liquid. Of the reasons that the city court has mentioned, the court finds that it is cleared that fire has been set amongst the chairs on the resting plane or amongst several chairs which have been stacked on some stairs down from the resting plane, on such manner that they have been in contact with the other chairs on the resting plane or have been near to them....

Regarding the stories of those accused the court establishs that the stories are incomplete in important parts of the process... All together the presented circumstances indicate that the informations from each and everyone of these four must be reviewed with major caution....

With consideration to the commented the court finds that it is not proved that someone else than C19 teared out paper or set fire. From the stories of these four it is cleared that all four were in the stairwell or very close to it when the fire was started.

It is also cleared that B19 and A21 later during the night interfered when C19 had got into troubles inside the premises with some other visitors and that one had told them that they would be sent away if they did not stop to make troubles. According the court's opinion it is clear that C19, B19 and A21 have wished to reduce the importance of the argues inside the premises. The statement means that in any case C19 was obviously upset by the discussion about the fee, and it can be assumed that all three reacted when they were threatened to be sent away from the party.

Thereby it must specially be pointed out that the witness, to his teacher very shortly after the disaster and to the police during the interrogations before the reward was announced, had said that he knew who was behind the fire or amongst which persons the culprit should be searched. In the judgement of the witness credibility it must also be considered that his information at the police hearing in December 1999 about that it was C19 who was behind the fire has shown to be correct. With consideration to what has been stated, the court finds that it is cleared that C19 has told to the witness, what the witness has said.

Their comradeship and mutual loyalty has also been confirmed during the hearings in the court when each and everyone of them has said few words about the other's acts during that night even when it has been cleared that they must have made important observations. According to the court it is obvious that there are very strong connections amongst C19, B19 and A21.

D19 was not any close previously to any of C19, B19 and A21 when he met them that night, but he knew about them. D19 has said that he had a strong wish to become a friend to B19, who was his neighbour, and to A21 and that was why he joined them during the night. D19 has also said that he did not want to be a comrade with C19, whom he was afraid of and whom he interpreted to be influenced by something that night. It is clear that D19 recognized C19 to be the leader.

Each and everyone of these four has given completely or partly different explanations about why they got into the culvert once again. C19 has said that he wanted "to check" the culvert and even get into the premises without having to stand in the queue at the entrance. B19 has said that he wanted to destroy things and also wanted to follow C19, who wanted to dance for a last time, and to help him in case it was going to be any trouble again inside the premises. A21 has said that he wanted to make a new attempt to find tools for breaking in and steal. D19:s explanation means that they would let people into the party through the culvert.

With consideration to this stated matter, it appears certain to the court that these four went into the culvert of another reason than what they have mentioned and they have not wanted to tell the correct reason.

D19 must have realized that the information about the can is a disadvantage even for himself. With that background it is not probable that he would have exposed such information if it was not correct. Along that it must be considered that D19 gave the information about the symbol on the can to the city court, it means after that he had a long time to think it over.

C19 has said that it was first in the stairwell that he or possibly someone else talked about starting a fire. That it was an act of impulse that someone initiated in the stairwell is however contradicted by the information about the can.... What has been said now means that according to the court, it could have not been any other explanation, for why these four got into the culvert for a second time, than they had agreed to start a fire close to the place of the party.

All together based on what have been stated, the court finds that it has been proved that C19 started a fire in the stairwell after that he, B19, A21 and D19 together had agreed to destroy the party by setting fire. At this judgement, it is of no vital importance for the question of guilt, that it has not been cleared if there was someone or others than C19 who teared out paper or set fire in the stairwell.

A life sentence is out of the question as penalty for anyone of them, since all were under 21 years old when they committed the crime (law code 29 chapter 7 § second part). According to law code 29 chapter 1 § the penalty must be decided within the limits of the applicable sclaes of the crime by consideration to the penalty value of the crime. C19, B19, A21 and D19 have caused danger to several hundreds people's lives.

The penalties for A21 and B19 are raised to 7 years. The penalties for C19 and B19 are determined. Their restrictions in custody are withdrawn. All must remain in custody until the verdicts have gained legal force.

TV (Swedish public services TV, TV4)
Radio (Swedish public services radio)
Newspapers (Göteborgs-posten, Aftonbladet, GT/Expressen,
Metro, Arbetet, Dagens Nyheter, Svenska Dagbladet)
Web-news agency (Swedish CNN)