Eva Persson retracts her confession

Eva Persson’s retraction transformed the account of Johan Lundberg’s murder from a shared crime into a contested story of coercion and sole responsibility. Coming after Sonja Hökberg escaped police custody and was found dead at the Ystad power substation, Persson’s claim that Hökberg had acted alone gave investigators a new lead while leaving open whether she was telling the truth, protecting herself, or both.

The First Account and Its Reversal

Persson and Hökberg had initially admitted to attacking Lundberg, dividing the blame and saying that money was their motive. After Hökberg’s escape and death, Persson withdrew that account. She now said she was innocent of the murder and had confessed only because she was afraid of Hökberg, whom she described as capable of being very tough on her. She maintained that Hökberg had used both the hammer and the knife.

The timing sharpened the uncertainty. Persson changed her story after Hökberg could no longer answer questions or contradict her. In Wallander’s reconstruction, Hökberg’s death might itself have been intended to prevent her from talking, but the reason for that possibility—and its connection to the separate investigation into Tynnes Falk—was not yet established. The retraction therefore did not settle the case; it made the earlier confession and the new accusation harder to assess.

Persson Under Questioning

Ann-Britt Höglund questioned Persson for two hours and found her markedly different from the confused or passive figure the investigators might have expected. Persson spoke faster during this interview, and many answers seemed prepared in advance. When questions surprised her, she slowed down, apparently using the pause to think. Höglund detected no contradiction in the account during the questioning, but was convinced that Persson was lying about at least part of it.

Persson denied taking calls from Hökberg or anyone else after Hökberg’s escape. She said she learned of Hökberg’s death when Erik Hökberg called her mother, and claimed that the news had shocked her. She had no explanation for why Hökberg went to the substation or who might have taken her there. Höglund thought Persson controlled her reactions and did not seem surprised by the death, despite claiming otherwise; she also saw no sign that Persson feared for her own safety.

Those impressions led Höglund to distinguish between what Persson might know and what she might be concealing. Persson could have been involved in Lundberg’s murder without understanding Hökberg’s other activities or the wider events surrounding the substation. She said the girls had changed seats in a restaurant because Hökberg complained of a draught, denied noticing an Asian man nearby, and claimed never to have heard the name Tynnes Falk. Höglund recalled a possible slight hesitation at Falk’s name but could not be sure what it meant. None of these responses established how much Persson knew.

What the Forensics Could—and Could Not—Support

Fingerprint results complicated any simple dismissal of Persson’s account. The knife used against Lundberg bore prints from both Persson and Hökberg, while the hammer bore only Hökberg’s prints. The evidence therefore left open the possibility that Persson had not wielded the knife, even though it placed her in contact with it. Nyberg emphasized that this was a legitimate possibility, not a conclusion about who committed the murder.

The sequence of the attack gave the weapon evidence greater force. Forensic examination determined that Lundberg was struck first with the hammer and then with the knife, rather than the reverse or both weapons at once. Wallander considered whether Persson had handed Hökberg the knife when asked, an interpretation consistent with Persson’s claim that Hökberg used both weapons but not proof that Persson herself had played no part. The physical evidence thus supported one detail in the revised account while leaving the broader question of complicity unresolved.

A Reversal Without Resolution

Persson’s retraction altered the investigators’ working picture but did not provide a stable explanation of the case. Her steady maintenance of a new story, her apparently prepared answers, and Höglund’s impression of calculated control all made her difficult to read. At the same time, the fingerprints and order of the wounds prevented investigators from treating her claim that Hökberg wielded both weapons as plainly impossible.

The event also exposed the limits of inference from testimony. Persson’s first account could have been a truthful admission, a shared cover story, or a confession made under pressure; the retraction could have been an attempt to escape responsibility, a correction of that account, or a mixture of both. With Hökberg dead, the central accusation could not be tested against her. The reversal consequently became not an answer to Lundberg’s murder but a new uncertainty inside an investigation already widening beyond it.