▁but ▁also ▁here ▁the ▁court ▁was ▁in ▁disag re ement . ▁Two ▁members ▁of ▁the ▁court ▁were ▁diver gent ▁and ▁considered ▁the ▁overall ▁evidence ▁was ▁not ▁of ▁sufficient ▁strength ▁and ▁that , ▁even ▁if ▁it ▁was ▁un reason able , ▁could ▁not ▁be ▁ruled ▁out ▁that ▁Str ö berg ' s ▁story ▁was ▁truth ful . ▁In ▁addition , ▁there ▁was ▁great ▁emphas is ▁on ▁other ▁military ▁officers ▁description ▁of ▁Str ö berg . ▁ ▁Str ö berg ▁was ▁released ▁on ▁par ole ▁from ▁K um la ▁Pr ison ▁in ▁May ▁ 1 9 8 6 ▁after ▁serving ▁three ▁years . ▁Str ö berg ▁maintained ▁his ▁innoc ence ▁and ▁in ▁the ▁summer ▁of ▁ 1 9 8 8 ▁Str ö berg ▁was ▁granted ▁a ▁trial ▁de ▁nov o ▁by ▁the ▁Supreme ▁Court . ▁The ▁application ▁was ▁granted ▁when ▁extraordinary ▁reasons ▁for ▁ret rial ▁was ▁considered ▁to ▁exist . ▁The ▁case ▁was ▁heard ▁in ▁the ▁S ve a ▁Court ▁of ▁App e al ▁for ▁a ▁new ▁trial ▁in ▁which ▁the ▁facts ▁were ▁considered ▁compatible ▁with ▁both ▁that ▁Str ö berg ▁was ▁the ▁perpet r ator ▁and ▁the ▁victim ▁of ▁a ▁consp i racy . ▁Str ö berg ' s ▁un reason able ▁information ▁about ▁his ▁contacts ▁with ▁" S ven - R ol and ▁Lar sson " ▁meant , ▁however , ▁that ▁the ▁only ▁pla us ible ▁explanation ▁was ▁that ▁Str ö berg ▁was ▁the ▁perpet r ator ▁and ▁the ▁District ▁Court ' s ▁ver dict ▁was ▁u ph eld . ▁ ▁Dis put