Sidetracked - By Henning Mankell & Steven T. Murray Page 0,56

the table.

“I’ve read through them as best I could,” said Ekholm. “I suggest that we start by talking about what isn’t in the files.”

“It’s all there,” said Hansson, surprised. “If there’s one thing the police are forced to learn, it’s how to write reports.”

“I suppose you want to know what we think,” interrupted Wallander. “Isn’t that right?”

Ekholm nodded.

“There’s a fundamental rule that says that the police are always searching for something specific,” he answered. “If they don’t know what an offender looks like they include an approximation. Quite often the phantom image turns out to have similarities with the offender who is finally apprehended.”

Wallander recognised his own reactions in Ekholm’s description. He always created an image of a criminal that he carried with him during an investigation.

“Two murders have been committed,” Ekholm continued. “The modus operandi is the same, even though there are some interesting differences. Wetterstedt was killed from behind. The murderer struck him in the back, not in the head. He chose the more difficult alternative. Or could it be that he wanted to avoid smashing Wetterstedt’s head? We don’t know. After the blow he cut off his scalp and took the time to hide the body. If we look at Carlman’s death, we can easily identify the similarities and differences. Carlman was also struck down with an axe. He too had a piece of his scalp torn off. But he was killed from directly in front. He must have seen his attacker. The offender chose a time when there were many people nearby, so the risk of discovery was high. He made no attempt to hide the body, realising that it would be virtually impossible. The first question we have to ask is: which are more important? The similarities or the differences?”

“He’s a murderer,” said Wallander. “He selected two people. He made plans. He must have visited the beach outside Wetterstedt’s house several times. He even took the time to unscrew a bulb to obscure the area between the garden gate and the sea.”

“Do we know whether Wetterstedt was in the habit of taking an evening walk on the beach?” Ekholm interjected.

“No,” said Wallander. “But of course we ought to find out.”

“Keep going,” said Ekholm.

“On the surface the pattern looks completely different when it comes to Carlman,” said Wallander. “Surrounded by people at a Midsummer party. But maybe the killer didn’t see it that way. Maybe he thought he could make use of the fact that no-one sees anything at all at a party. Nothing is as difficult as obtaining a detailed impression of events from a large group of people.”

“To answer that question we have to examine what alternatives he may have had,” said Ekholm. “Carlman was a businessman who moved around a lot. Always surrounded by people. Maybe the party was the right choice after all.”

“The similarity or the difference,” said Wallander. “Which one is crucial?”

Ekholm threw out his hands.

“It’s too early to say, of course. What we can be sure of is that he plans his crimes carefully and that he’s extremely cold-blooded.”

“He takes scalps,” said Wallander. “He collects trophies. What does that mean?”

“He’s exercising power,” said Ekholm. “The trophies are the proof of his actions. For him it’s no more peculiar than a hunter putting up a pair of horns on his wall.”

“But the decision to scalp,” Wallander went on. “Where does that come from?”

“It’s not that strange,” said Ekholm. “I don’t want to seem cynical. But what part of a human being is more suitable to be taken as a trophy? A human body rots. A piece of skin with hair on it is easy to preserve.”

“I guess I still can’t stop thinking of American Indians,” said Wallander.

“Naturally it can’t be excluded that your killer has a fixation on an American Indian warrior,” said Ekholm. “People who find themselves in a psychic borderland often choose to hide behind another person’s identity. Or transform themselves into a mythological figure.”

“Borderland?” said Wallander. “What does that involve?”

“Your killer has already committed two murders. We can’t rule out that he intends to commit more, since we don’t know his motive. This indicates he has probably passed a psychological boundary, that he has freed himself from our normal inhibitions. A person can commit murder or manslaughter without premeditation. A killer who repeats his actions is following completely different psychological laws. He finds himself in a twilight zone where all the boundaries that exist for him are of his own making. On the surface he can live a