The disappearance
Kevin Yal-mar-son was born and raised in Dottevik, a town in Arvika situated at Kyrkviken (Shurk-viken) Bay. Kevin left his parents' home at 16:00 on Sunday, August 16, 1998, to play with the other children in the Dottevik residential area. He was last seen alive by his friends around 17:00.
When his mother started looking for him at 20:30, he was missing, and she asked for help from Kevin's grandparents, who also lived nearby in the neighborhood. 15 minutes later, Kevin's grandfather found him lifeless on top of two pallets in the reeds at Shur-k-viken, a few hundred meters from the parents' home.
The investigation
Victim analysis
The communications center was alerted by SOS at 21:31 about a possible drowning incident. However, the Intelligence Service, known as KUT, conducted a thorough victim analysis aimed at understanding Kevin's background. They contacted relatives, neighbors, local residents and daycare staff to gather information. The resulting portrayal of Kevin resembled more that of a stray puppy seeking company rather than that of a typical four-year-old boy.
Kevin's family situation was complex; his parents had separated before his birth, and he had limited contact with his father during his early years. Despite this, Kevin frequently visited his grandparents nearby and interacted with other families, including that of a five-year-old boy who later became a suspect in the case.
This way, Kevin became well-known throughout the neighborhood. He might have done all this to seek the social connection and stability that he lacked at home. Kevin had both friends and adversaries among the local children and had developed a somewhat rough manner of speaking, indicative of his need to establish his own rules and boundaries. He likely possessed strong self-confidence but was wary of placing trust in others, relying primarily on himself.
The police also conducted a comprehensive survey of the Dottevik residential area, uncovering unpleasant environments. Dottevik, despite its picturesque location by Glafs-fjord-en, suffered from a reputation for lower social status. Many children seemed to lack a stable home environment and instead sought companionship among their peers. Raised in fragile family situations, with single parents navigating complex relationship dynamics, these children were forced to forge their own paths.
Interaction between children and adults was limited, with children often left to their own devices for play and socialization. While most residents led respectable lives, the police's findings underscored the presence of unprotected children exposed to conditions and norms that were far from ideal. Behind the polished façades of some homes lay environments deemed harmful to children.
Three different pathways of leads
By the third day of investigation, three distinct leads were established: the Pedophile Lead, the Family Lead, and the Children Lead. This was all led by Rolf Sandberg, who took the role of lead investigator for the Kevin case.
Initially, the police believed it to be a drowning accident based on the SOS call, but injuries on the body led them to request an extended forensic autopsy. The coroner determined that Kevin had been sexually assaulted and then murdered. A survey was conducted to determine the whereabouts of known sex offenders in the area at the time.
On the day of the incident, several witnesses reported seeing known pedophiles near Kevin with one individual even seen holding Kevin's hand while crossing a street. There also lived a pedophile just 100 meters from Kevin's mother's home. Some of the suspected pedophiles had a history of photographing children and displayed concerning behavior indicative of abuse. Another known pedophile residing in Dottevik was later convicted and sentenced to five years in prison for sexually assaulting a 3-year-old.
The Family Lead was explored, recognizing the common occurrence of serious crimes among individuals within familiar social circles. Drawing from statistical data and past experiences, it is well-researched that perpetrators often emerged from within the family circle. This perspective was further underscored by the rarity of instances where young children outside the home fall victim to fatal violence hence putting this lead to rest.
Police forensic technicians continued to meticulously comb the crime scene. It had become evident that the murder site differed from the location where the body was found. Kevin's footwear and a sock were discovered behind a red shed. Within this area, technicians also uncovered a broken branch that had impressions from a child's hand on the inside with strands of hair.
It remained unclear whether these belonged to Kevin, as no fingerprints or hair samples for DNA testing had been taken from him. Kevin also had traces of sand in his undergarments, with the nearest sandy spot being by the red shed, indicating his possible murder around that area. However, no signs of dragging were observed, either on the ground or on Kevin's body, with no abrasions evident on his skin.
The forensic team dismissed the pedophile lead, believing it improbable that a pedophile would leave the body exposed on a pallet in the reeds. Upon observing marks on the photographed body, technicians concluded that Kevin had likely been suffocated with a stick, possibly attempting to resist the pressure with the palms of his hands.
The investigation progressed into its fourth day, with staff tirelessly working to crack the case. After a week of investigation, the focus began shifting towards the involvement of children. Through the analysis of interviews, flowcharts, and mappings of locations and individuals, a group of eight boys quickly became potential suspects.
These boys had been close to the crime scene on the day in question. The children underwent interrogation, but receiving truthful responses proved challenging. The police were astonished by the children's varying perceptions of reality and their ability to fabricate detailed falsehoods. Recognizing the need for specialists experienced in questioning children, Rolf sought assistance from other law enforcement agencies within the county.
Increasingly more resources were directed towards the children's lead, particularly after Professor Rammer from Forensic Medicine visited Arvika to clarify the autopsy findings on Kevin's body. In the preliminary report, when he asserted that Kevin had suffered sexual abuse based on the white substance observed around the body's anus, it was later revealed upon closer examination to be thermometer ointment used by the hospital doctor in Arvika to measure body temperature and estimate the time of death.
The two brothers and the confession
One of Kevin's playmates, a five-year-old boy named Robin Dalén, told his parents he had seen something, prompting them to take him to the police, believing he was a witness. As the interrogations with Robin began, the boy's statements changed with each session, perplexing investigators. However, his seven-year-old brother Christian Karlsson provided a consistent and detailed story, identifying individuals that led to the temporary suspicion of two other older teenage boys.
It would take a considerable amount of time before Robin disclosed the truth about what had occurred. The police also worked with Professor Sven-Åke (Sven-oh-ke) Christianson, an expert in child behavior, who played a crucial role in the investigation.
Upon reviewing some of the interviews conducted with Robin and Christian, Professor Sven-oh-ke quickly assessed that the two brothers were not just witnesses but likely participants in the death of Kevin. The police quickly turned their suspicions towards the brothers and even more interrogations were made.
At a press conference in November 1998, the police announced the conclusion of their investigation. The case was deemed solved when the boys had confessed to the murder of Kevin. They would not be prosecuted or formally convicted because children under 15 can not be convicted of crimes in Sweden. They remained in a legal sense only “reasonable suspects”.
However, if children are suspected of serious crimes, a "proof claim" can be made, which is a trial in court without a conviction leading to punishment. This must be requested by the guardian, who was not informed that this was possible. Consequently, the case was never brought to the district court and the brothers were placed under the care of social authorities for treatment in child and adolescent psychiatric care.
Criticism of the investigation
In late April 2017, the major Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter (new-heter) and the Swedish public television network SVT began exposing potentially serious flaws in the investigation through a series of articles and documentaries.
It revealed several irregularities in how the interrogation and handling of the brothers were conducted. The article highlighted numerous and lengthy interrogations, practices that child interrogation experts consider counterproductive and prone to eliciting false confessions.
They concluded that the interview techniques used in this case were unscientific, contradicted existing scientific knowledge and relied on methods lacking scientific support.
The brothers revealed that the police used threats and rewards to coerce them into "confessing" to the crime with questions often being overly leading. The alleged confessions that led to the closing of the investigation were never documented on audio or video, despite having recordings of several other interrogations of the brothers.
On top of this, the claimed “confession” came after more than 30 lengthy interrogations, sometimes conducted without a parent present. Throughout the investigation, neither the boys nor their family had any legal representation. The brothers allegedly had an alibi, but this key witness was completely ignored.
Sven Åke Christianson
Sven-oh-ke was involved in the Kevin case investigation from an early stage. He is a Swedish psychologist, psychotherapist, and researcher, currently serving as a professor at Stockholm University. His research focuses on human memory functions, criminality, psychological trauma, and interview techniques; however, his methods have been criticized for potentially inducing memories in suspects through reconstruction-like walkthroughs.
He has provided expert testimony to courts on topics including perpetrators of serious sexual and violent crimes, traumatic experiences in children and adults, and cognitive interview techniques. His expertise has influenced several high-profile legal cases and he is best known for his involvement in the Arboga Woman case and the trials of Thomas Quick.
In recent years, researchers and investigative journalists have questioned the validity of his methods, who claim that he contributed to erroneous conclusions in investigations. His involvement in the Thomas Quick and Kevin cases has been particularly criticized.
Aftermath - What truly happened then?
On May 8, 2017, the district attorney decided to re-open the preliminary investigation into the Kevin case following new information uncovered during reviews by “Dagens Nyheter” and the SVT documentary series. The investigation concluded on March 27, 2018, that the brothers were cleared of all suspicion due to "unclear, contradictory, and inconsistent" previous interrogations.
As an alternative explanation, the prosecutor leading the preliminary investigation suggested that Kevin's death may have resulted from an accident, speculating that he was crushed between the pallets where he was later discovered.
However, criminologist expert Leif Persson asserted that murder was a more plausible scenario, implicating a 13-year-old who had been seen playing with Kevin on the day of his death and had provided a false alibi during interrogation. This 13-year-old was later arrested for the rape of a three-year-old in the same residential area, though the prosecutor deemed it unprovable that he was involved in Kevin's death. To this day, no one can explain how young Kevin was moved from the crime scene to where he was found and what had truly happened to him.
In March 2022, the brothers received an "Ex Gratia" compensation of one million SEK each from the state. Minister of Justice and the Interior Morgan Johansson affirmed that "If the state is wrong, it must also endeavor to rectify," expressing well wishes to the brothers for their future endeavors.
To this day, neither of the brothers has any recollection of what happened to Kevin, but they believe that they did not commit the crime. For 19 years, the brothers lived with the burden of being the first children in Sweden to be implicated in a murder. Years of their lives have been taken from them, years that never will come back.
The Kevin case highlights the importance of continually discussing and ensuring children’s rights within the legal system. The principle of presumed innocence until proven guilty must also extend to young children.
adult-like, I feel like Kevin was for being a toddler. He was four years old, but he felt like he was at least a minimum of like seven based on how he just walked around and hanged out with other people and talking to other people.
(...)
And I also find it strange that the parents wasn't really looking for him until long after he was gone. And maybe that was normal back then, but I just think a lot of things were weird,(...) but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a teenager(...) that might have been a bit too rough and ended up killing him.
(...)
But it also could have been a pedophile because there was like a billion of them at that area. So, you know, who have also been sentenced.
(...)
So that's why I wanted to ask you as another expert in this field,(...) who would you think could be the perpetrator?(...) - They're all guilty. I'm trying. - Okay.
(...)
(laughing) - I think they shouldn't have let up on the pedophile too soon because they was like, oh, a pedophile that wouldn't go through that much work.
(...)
Yeah, they would. It really depends on the person, like truthfully.
(...)
I think it was definitely a murder and it's possible. Like you said, there's a lot of pedophiles in the area, especially in close proximity, which shouldn't even be a thing.(...) Like why are they that close to children, but sure, whatever.
(...)
- I mean, it is a rough area. So I guess, you know, they don't care. - They didn't really care that much. Which I mean, I'm not saying I understand cause I don't, but sure, whatever.
(...)
Yeah, but I think they shouldn't have let go of that pedophile lead so quickly.
(...)
I feel like no child unless they were a teenager, which I don't quite think this is quite up their alley either
(...)
would do this. - The pedophile who maybe is the first time they're experiencing- - But what would a pedophile just use a stick and like,
(...)
cause they should have seen signs, right? On the body. They saw that he was abused, but the only sign of the semen like substance was ointment. So it wasn't really.(...) - Yeah, like it's possible that like when a pedophile, like when, especially if it's a pedophile who's never done it before,
(...)
they're going through these motions of like, oh, I like this, I wanna do this, blah, blah, blah. But then in panic, they can do something like dump the body on it. - Instead they kill or like- - Yeah, accidentally kill cause they don't know what they're doing. And that's what I'm saying. Like I'm not saying guaranteed it's a pedophile, but I'm saying there should have been a more thorough investigation into the possibility that it could have been. - Because a pedophile would have been easier for the pedophile to carry the child, not leaving any signs on it. - Any signs of track. It would have been completely easier.
(...)
So that's why I'm like, I also been thinking about it, but a teenager could also be strong enough to do that. And there was a teenager who did the similar thing to another younger child.
(...)
- Right. Which is why, you know, cause I think technically even a teenager can be classified as a pedophile. - Can they?
(...)
- If I remember correctly. - I have no idea, it could, honestly, I don't know. I don't know if it should be,
(...)
I think it should be classified regardless of age.(...) - Yeah, I think they have to be like at least 16 or something like that to be classified as a- - Like when puberty starts or something. - Like it has to be like a five year difference. So if he's four,(...) like, I guess they won't for like kids who are like nine, but if he's like 13, 14, 15, then they would classify this person.(...) Yeah, they would classify the person, I guess as a pedophile. - Teenagers, usually they go after similar age, like a closer in age. That's why I'm like,(...) maybe they could be pedophiles. I have no idea, honestly. - Yeah, but it's entirely possible that- - He was 13, where Professor Lave was saying that the 13 year old,(...) I think it was, I think it was 13. Yeah,(...) a 30 year old who had been seen playing with Kevin on that day,
(...)
but he was later arrested raping a three year old.
(...)
So that was a 13 year old child.
(...)
It is crazy, honestly. I'm just shocked that stuff like that happens, but you know.
(...)
- Yeah, it's hard to say because they didn't do much investigative work. - Don't trust anybody, honestly.
(...)
- Yeah, back in the day was different, you know, in the 90s, early 2000s, kids were young outside playing and even when I was young, I was going to school by myself.
(...)
Well, me and my sister at first because we was going to the same school, but I was going to school by myself. - Everybody was outside and they weren't really anybody watching us.
(...)
- Yeah, like I said, we used to go to school by myself. What grade was I in, like third or fourth grade? I was going to school by myself.
(...)
So, and now I think four is extremely young, but I know like it's only a year difference between five and six, which I know back then, we were able to do. I wasn't even going to school by myself. - But also, I feel like Kevin seemed so adult, like, you know, not adult, like he seemed so much older than his age, like when they did the victim analysis. That's why I was like, he seemed to be at least like seven in his behavior.(...) That's why I was like,(...) nowadays four year olds don't act like that, you know?
(...)
- I guess it's because of his environments and he's seen other boys or girls and other children, you know, for everybody who has listened to our previous episodes, we have had a similar case before with the Silce case.
(...)
And they actually did compare also with another case in UK
(...)
and tried to draw like parallels of like, maybe it's a serial killer who have been traveling across the Europe or whatever.
(...)
But, you know, based on the results from those cases,(...) you know,(...) compared to the UK one,(...) it was heavily secured with cameras everywhere so they could see and have more evidence.
(...)
And, you know, the Silce one,(...) it was different because the kids who accidentally killed her actually went straight to their parents and told.(...) And with this case, all the kids were lying and like didn't really tell the truth. So it was really hard for the investigators to even draw any parallels that were close to what this case ended up being.
(...)
And, you know, that's why they tried to get experts who are good with psychiatry and treating kids and they got Sven Oke, who was the professor(...) and who has been criticized for his previous work, as you already know, Thomas Quick One that we have also made an episode of and the Arboga Woman, I'm not sorry, the Arboga Woman wasn't criticized, but he has also been part of that, which we also have, you know,(...) recently covered.
(...)
But if you guys are interested in those cases, you can go ahead and listen to them,
(...)
especially the Silja case, which is kind of similar to this one
(...)
and the Thomas Quick One, if you guys are interested in that.
(...)
I also wanted to say something about the brothers.
(...)
I didn't really put it in the script, but the brothers were actually like kept away from their parents and their friends and the community for years. So they like was seen as the perpetrators for so many years until they were like, okay, you're not the perpetrators anymore.
(...)
And their lives have been ruined and tarnished(...) and they had been going back and forth between foster parents and like psychiatry treatments and the brothers were basically
(...)
not ruined, but they felt like their life have been ruined because of something that they didn't really do.(...) So that's why I think it's important that we cover this case,
(...)
because to learn and educate ourselves and be better so that children does not get that treatment because they have, usually with children or underage people commit a crime,(...) they get like treated very differently and they can be asked that these two brothers
(...)
be put on like social services and like foster cares and all of that. And we already know the system like that is very crazy.
(...)
So it's very important that we have better loss for underage people or kids.
(...)
So yeah, that's pretty much what I have to say. And if you feel like you don't have anything to put into Dante, we can actually continue with the food thing.(...) - Yeah, it's pretty self-explanatory, unfortunately. And you know-- - It's an unfortunate thing, so. - It's just an unfortunate thing. And then even then the point is we still don't know who did it technically, you know, is by definition child murder case, but it's technically still unsolved.
(...)
- It is actually unsolved, yeah. - So there's no, so there's no part, we don't know who did it. - I mean, they classified it as an accident, so.
(...)
- Yeah, but they didn't actually do any investigative work. So it's hard to say if it really wasn't accident or not. So yeah, we don't know, but you know, it sucks and it shouldn't be this way, but this is what happens when people don't do their jobs properly because of whatever they feel is the right thing to do. So we don't really know what happened because there was no actual effort made, at least based on the information we got online. So I don't really have much to say because there's not enough information.
(...)
But I guess to end the podcast on a nice, lovely note, something a little bit more lighthearted, you already know, we're gonna go talk about some food.
(...)
And I feel like I could go for something simple, a nice little taco or a burrito.
(...)
- Sounds yummy.
(...)
I think I'm just gonna go for some salad because like my stomach been acting up like, it's just like I need something mild
(...)
and a salad sounds nice. Maybe a Caesar salad. - It sounds nice, nice and fresh,(...) fresh.
(...)
But yeah, thank you all for coming and listening. As always, we appreciate you and we'll see you on the next episode.
(...)
- Yes,(...) peace out. - Bye.
(...)
(soft music)