Pettersson's theory is that Palme was shot by one Stig Engström, known as "the Skandia man" (Skandiamannen) after his employer, the Skandia insurance company, whose head office is located next to the murder scene. In earlier accounts Engström had been treated mostly as a witness, specifically (by his own assertion) the first eyewitness to arrive at the scene of the murder. He had also been briefly investigated by the police as a possible suspect, but this had subsequently been dropped. Pettersson posits a scenario where Engström, who had a strong dislike of Palme and his policies, had chanced upon Palme in the street and shot him, possibly without premeditation. Engström died in his home in June 2000. Pettersson suggests that evidence from the crime scene strongly points towards Engström as the assassin. Most significantly, several other witnesses gave descriptions of the fleeing killer that matched Engström, some of them very closely so, while no other witness placed Engström at the scene after the shots, even though Engström himself claimed to have been present from the beginning, spoken to Mrs. Palme and the police, and taken part in attempts to resuscitate the victim. Conversely, the only persons whom Engström was able to identify as having been present at the scene were those likely to have been encountered by the killer, while he was unable to identify those who had arrived after the shooting. Also, Engström's known movements during the evening, about which he provided false information when questioned, indicate he had the opportunity to find Palme at the cinema earlier that evening and later to follow him from there to the crime scene. Soon after the murder, Engström began a series of media appearances in which he developed an increasingly detailed story of his involvement in the events and criticized the police. He claimed those witnesses who had described the killer had in fact been describing him, running to catch up with police officers in pursuit of the assassin. The police, meanwhile, became frustrated with Engström as an unreliable and inconsistent witness and soon classified him as a person of no interest. Pettersson proposes Engström's media appearances were an opportunistic and ultimately successful tactic devised to mislead investigators and later to gain attention as an important witness neglected by the police. While Pettersson's theory is built on circumstantial evidence, he suggests it might be possible to prove Engström's guilt conclusively by