Wednesday, 13.vii – Thursday, 14.vii Blomkvist had always wondered why the loudspeakers in the district court were so faint, discreet1 almost. He could hardly make out the words of the announcement that the trial vs Lisbeth Salander would begin in courtroom 5 at 10.00. But he had arrived in plenty of time and positioned himself to wait right by the entrance to the courtroom. He was one of the first to be let in. He chose a seat in the public gallery on the left-hand side of the room, where he would have the best view of the defence table. The seats filled up fast. Media interest had steadily2 increased in the weeks leading up to the trial, and over the past week Prosecutor4 Ekstr?m had been interviewed daily. Lisbeth Salander was charged with assault and grievous bodily harm in the case of Carl-Magnus Lundin; with unlawful threats, attempted murder and grievous bodily harm in the case of Karl Axel Bodin, alias6 Alexander Zalachenko, now deceased; with two counts of breaking and entering – the first at the summer cabin of the deceased lawyer Nils Erik Bjurman in Stallarholmen, the second at Bjurman’s home on Odenplan; with the theft of a vehicle – a Harley-Davidson owned by one Sonny Nieminen of Svavelsj? M.C.; with three counts of possession of illegal weapons – a canister of Mace8, a taser and a Polish P-83 Wanad, all found in Gosseberga; with the theft of or withholding9 of evidence – the formulation was imprecise but it referred to the documentation she had found in Bjurman’s summer cabin; and with a number of further misdemeanours. In all, sixteen charges had been filed against Lisbeth Salander. Ekstr?m had been busy. He had also leaked information indicating that Salander’s mental state was cause for alarm. He cited first the forensic10 psychiatric report by Dr Jesper H. L?derman that had been compiled at the time of her eighteenth birthday, and second, a report which, in accordance with a decision by the district court at a preliminary hearing, had been written by Dr Peter Teleborian. Since the mentally ill girl had, true to form, refused categorically to speak to psychiatrists11, the analysis was made on the basis of “observations” carried out while she was detained at Kronoberg prison in Stockholm during the month before her trial. Teleborian, who had many years of experience with the patient, had determined12 that Salander was suffering from a serious mental disturbance13 and employed words such as psychopathy, pathological narcissism14, paranoid schizophrenia, and similar. The press had also reported that seven police interviews had been conducted with Salander. At each of these interviews the defendant15 had declined even to say good morning to those who were leading the interrogation. The first few interviews had been conducted by the G?teborg police, the remainder had taken place at police headquarters in Stockholm. The tape recordings17 of the interview protocol18 revealed that the police had used every means of persuasion19 and repeated questioning, but had not received the favour of a single reply. She had not even bothered to clear her throat. Occasionally Advokat Giannini’s voice could be heard on the tapes, at such points as she realized that her client evidently was not going to answer any questions. The charges against Salander were accordingly based exclusively on forensic evidence and on whatever facts the police investigation20 had been able to determine. Salander’s silence had at times placed her defence lawyer in an awkward position, since she was compelled to be almost as silent as her client. What Giannini and Salander discussed in private was confidential21. Ekstr?m made no secret of the fact that his primary objective was secure psychiatric care for the defendant; of secondary interest to him was a substantial prison sentence. The normal process was the reverse, but he believed that in her case there were such transparent22 mental disturbances23 and such an unequivocal forensic psychiatric assessment24 that he was left with no alternative. It was highly unusual for a court to decide against a forensic psychiatric assessment. He also believed that Salander’s declaration of incompetence25 should be rescinded26. In an interview he had explained with a concerned expression that in Sweden there were a number of sociopaths with such grave mental disturbances that they presented a danger to themselves as well as to others, and modern medicine could offer no alternative to keeping these individuals safely locked up. He cited the case of a violent girl, Anette, who in the ’70s had been a frequent focus of attention in the media, and who thirty years on was still in a secure psychiatric institution. Every endeavour to ease the restrictions27 had resulted in her launching reckless and violent attacks on relatives and carers, or in attempts to injure herself. Ekstr?m was of the view that Salander suffered from a similar form of psychopathic disturbance. Media interest had also increased for the simple reason that Salander’s defence lawyer, Advokat Giannini, had made not a single statement to the press. She had refused all requests to be interviewed so that the media were, as they many times put it, “unable to have an opportunity to present the views of the other side of the case”. Journalists were therefore in a difficult situation: the prosecution28 kept on shovelling29 out information while the defence, uncharacteristically, gave not the slightest hint of Salander’s reaction to the charges against her, nor of what strategy the defence might employ. This state of affairs was commented on by the legal expert engaged to follow the trial in one of the evening newspapers. The expert had stated in his column that Advokat Giannini was a respected women’s rights lawyer, but that she had absolutely no experience in criminal law outside this case. He concluded that she was unsuitable for the purpose of defending Salander. From his sister Blomkvist had also learned that several distinguished30 lawyers had offered their services. Giannini had, on behalf of her client, courteously31 turned down every such proposal. As he waited for the trial to begin, Blomkvist glanced around at the other spectators. He caught sight of Armansky sitting near the exit and their eyes met for a moment. Ekstr?m had a large stack of papers on his table. He greeted several journalists. Giannini sat at her table opposite Ekstr?m. She had her head down and was sorting through her papers. Blomkvist thought that his sister looked a bit tense. Stage fright, he supposed. Then the judge, assessor and lay assessors entered the courtroom. Judge J?rgen Iversen was a white-haired, 57-year-old man with a gaunt face and a spring in his step. Blomkvist had researched Iversen’s background and found that he was an exacting32 judge of long experience who had presided over many high-profile cases. Finally Salander was brought into the courtroom. Even though Blomkvist was used to Salander’s penchant33 for shocking clothing, he was amazed that his sister had allowed her to turn up to the courtroom in a black leather miniskirt with frayed34 seams and a black top – with the legend I am annoyed – which barely covered her many tattoos35. She had ten piercings in her ears and rings through her lower lip and left eyebrow36. Her head was covered in three months’ worth of uneven37 stubble after her surgery. She wore grey lipstick38 and heavily darkened eyebrows39, and had applied40 more black mascara than Blomkvist had ever seen her wear. In the days when he and Salander had spent time together, she had shown almost no interest in make-up. She looked a bit vulgar, to put it mildly. It was almost a Goth look. She reminded him of a vampire41 in some pop-art movie from the ’60s. Blomkvist was aware of some of the reporters in the press gallery catching42 their breath in astonishment43 or smiling broadly. They were at last getting a look at the scandal-ridden young woman they had written so much about, and she was certainly living up to all their expectations. Then he realized that Salander was in costume. Usually her style was sloppy44 and rather tasteless. Blomkvist had assumed that she was not really interested in fashion, but that she tried instead to accentuate45 her own individuality. Salander always seemed to mark her private space as hostile territory, and he had thought of the rivets46 in her leather jacket as a defence mechanism47, like the quills48 of a hedgehog. To everyone around her it was as good a signal as any: Don’t try to touch me – it will hurt. But here in the district court she had exaggerated her style to the point of parody49. It was no accident, it was part of Giannini’s strategy. If Salander had come in with her hair smoothed down and wearing a twin-set and pearls and sensible shoes, she would have came across as a con7 artist trying to sell a story to the court. It was a question of credibility. She had come as herself and no-one else. Way over the top – for clarity. She was not pretending to be someone she was not. Her message to the court was that she had no reason to be ashamed or to put on a show. If the court had a problem with her appearance, it was no concern of hers. The state had accused her of a multitude of things, and the prosecutor had dragged her into court. With her very appearance she had already indicated that she intended to brush aside the prosecutor’s accusations50 as nonsense. She moved with confidence and sat down next to her lawyer. She surveyed the spectators. There was no curiosity in her gaze. She seemed instead defiantly52 to be observing and registering those who had already convicted her in the press. It was the first time Blomkvist had seen her since she lay like a bloody53 rag doll on the bench in that kitchen in Gosseberga, and a year and a half or more since he had last seen her under normal circumstances. If the term “normal circumstances” could ever be used in connection with Salander. For a matter of seconds their eyes met. Hers lingered on him, but she betrayed no sign of recognition. Yet she did seem to study the bruises54 that covered Blomkvist’s cheek and temple and the surgical55 tape over his right eyebrow. Blomkvist thought he discerned the merest hint of a smile in her eyes but could not be sure he had not imagined it. Then Judge Iversen pounded his gavel and called the court to order. The spectators were allowed to be present in the courtroom for all of thirty minutes. They listened to Ekstr?m’s introductory presentation of the case. Every reporter except Blomkvist was busily taking notes even though by now all of them knew the charges Ekstr?m intended to bring. Blomkvist had already written his story. Ekstr?m’s introductory remarks went on for twenty-two minutes. Then it was Giannini’s turn. Her presentation took thirty seconds. Her voice was firm. “The defence rejects all the charges brought against her except one. My client admits to possession of an illegal weapon, that is, one spray canister of Mace. To all other counts, my client pleads not guilty of criminal intent. We will show that the prosecutor’s assertions are flawed and that my client has been subjected to grievous encroachment56 of her civil rights. I will demand that my client be acquitted57 of all charges, that her declaration of incompetence be revoked58, and that she be released.” There was a murmuring from the press gallery. Advokat Giannini’s strategy had at last been revealed. It was obviously not what the reporters had been expecting. Most had speculated that Giannini would in some way exploit her client’s mental illness to her advantage. Blomkvist smiled. “I see,” Judge Iversen said, making a swift note. He looked at Giannini. “Are you finished?” “That is my presentation.” “Does the prosecutor have anything to add?” Judge Iversen said. It was at this point that Ekstr?m requested a private meeting in the judge’s chambers59. There he argued that the case hinged upon one vulnerable individual’s mental state and welfare, and that it also involved matters which, if explored before the public in court, could be detrimental60 to national security. “I assume that you are referring to what may be termed the Zalachenko affair,” Judge Iversen said. “That is correct. Alexander Zalachenko came to Sweden as a political refugee and sought asylum61 from a terrible dictatorship. There are elements in the handling of his situation, personal connections and the like, that are still classified, even though Herr Zalachenko is now deceased. I therefore request that the deliberations be held behind closed doors and that a rule of confidentiality62 be applied to those sections of the deliberations that are particularly sensitive.” “I believe I understand your point,” Judge Iversen said, knitting his brows. “In addition, a large part of the deliberations will deal with the defendant’s guardianship63. This touches on matters which in all normal cases become classified almost automatically, and it is out of respect for the defendant that I am requesting a closed court.” “How does Advokat Giannini respond to the prosecutor’s request?” “For our part it makes no difference.” Judge Iversen consulted his assessor and then announced, to the annoyance65 of the reporters present, that he had accepted the prosecutor’s request. So Blomkvist left the courtroom. Armansky waited for Blomkvist at the bottom of the stairs in the courthouse. It was sweltering in the July heat and Blomkvist could feel sweat in his armpits. His two bodyguards66 joined him as he emerged from the courthouse. Both nodded to Armansky and then they busied themselves studying the surroundings. “It feels strange to be walking around with bodyguards,” Blomkvist said. “What’s all this going to cost?” “It’s on the firm. I have a personal interest in keeping you alive. But, since you ask, we’ve spent roughly 250,000 kronor on pro3 bono work in the past few months.” “Coffee?” Blomkvist said, pointing to the Italian café on Bergsgatan. Blomkvist ordered a latte and Armansky a double espresso with a teaspoon67 of milk. They sat in the shade on the pavement outside. The bodyguards sat at the next table drinking Cokes. “Closed court,” Armansky said. “That was expected. And it’s O.K., since it means that we can control the news flow better.” “You’re right, it doesn’t matter to us, but my opinion of Prosecutor Ekstr?m is sinking fast,” Armansky said. They drank their coffee and contemplated68 the courthouse in which Salander’s future would be decided69. “Custer’s last stand,” Blomkvist said. “She’s well prepared,” Armansky said. “And I must say I’m impressed with your sister. When she began planning her strategy I thought it made no sense, but the more I think about it, the more effective it seems.” “This trial won’t be decided in there,” Blomkvist said. He had been repeating these words like a mantra for several months. “You’re going to be called as a witness,” Armansky said. “I know. I’m ready. But it won’t happen before the day after tomorrow. At least that’s what we’re counting on.” Ekstr?m had left his reading glasses at home and had to push his glasses up on to his forehead and squint70 to be able to read the last-minute handwritten additions to his text. He stroked his blond goatee before once more he readjusted his glasses and surveyed the room. Salander sat with her back ramrod straight and gave the prosecutor an unfathomable look. Her face and eyes were impassive and she did not appear to be wholly present. It was time for the prosecutor to begin questioning her. “I would like to remind Fr?ken16 Salander that she is speaking under oath,” Ekstr?m said at last. Salander did not move a muscle. Prosecutor Ekstr?m seemed to be anticipating some sort of response and waited for a few seconds. He looked at her expectantly. “You are speaking under oath,” he said. Salander tilted71 her head very slightly. Giannini was busy reading something in the preliminary investigation protocol and seemed unconcerned by whatever Prosecutor Ekstr?m was saying. Ekstr?m shuffled72 his papers. After an uncomfortable silence he cleared his throat. “Very well then,” Ekstr?m said. “Let us proceed directly to the events at the late Advokat Bjurman’s summer cabin outside Stallarholmen on April 6 of this year, which was the starting point of my presentation of the case this morning. We shall attempt to bring clarity to how it happened that you drove down to Stallarholmen and shot Carl-Magnus Lundin.” Ekstr?m gave Salander a challenging look. Still she did not move a muscle. The prosecutor suddenly seemed resigned. He threw up his hands and looked pleadingly at the judge. Judge Iversen seemed wary73. He glanced at Giannini who was still engrossed74 in some papers, apparently75 unaware76 of her surroundings. Judge Iversen cleared his throat. He looked at Salander. “Are we to interpret your silence to mean that you don’t want to answer any questions?” he asked. Salander turned her head and met Judge Iversen’s eyes. “I will gladly answer questions,” she said. Judge Iversen nodded. “Then perhaps you can answer the question,” Ekstr?m put in. Salander looked at Ekstr?m and said nothing. “Could you please answer the question?” Judge Iversen urged her. Salander looked back at the judge and raised her eyebrows. Her voice was clear and distinct. “Which question? Until now that man there” – she nodded towards Ekstr?m – “has made a number of unverified statements. I haven’t yet heard a question.” Giannini looked up. She propped78 her elbow on the table and leaned her chin on her hand with an interested expression. Ekstr?m lost his train of thought for few seconds. “Could you please repeat the question?” Judge Iversen said. “I asked whether … you drove down to Advokat Bjurman’s summer cabin in Stallarholmen with the intention of shooting Carl-Magnus Lundin.” “No. You said that you were going to try to bring clarity to how it happened that I drove down to Stallarholmen and shot Carl-Magnus Lundin. That was not a question. It was a general assertion in which you anticipated my answer. I’m not responsible for the assertions you are making.” “Don’t quibble. Answer the question.” “No.” Silence. “No what?” “No is my answer to the question.” Prosecutor Ekstr?m sighed. This was going to be a long day. Salander watched him expectantly. “It might be best to take this from the beginning,” he said. “Were you at the late Advokat Bjurman’s summer cabin in Stallarholmen on the afternoon of April 6 this year?” “Yes.” “How did you get there?” “I went by shuttle train to S?dert?lje and took the Str?ngn?s bus.” “What was your reason for going to Stallarholmen? Had you arranged a meeting there with Carl-Magnus Lundin and his friend Sonny Nieminen?” “No.” “How was it that they showed up there?” “You’ll have to ask them that.” “I’m asking you.” Salander did not reply. Judge Iversen cleared his throat. “I presume that Fr?ken Salander is not answering because – purely79 semantically – you have once again made an assertion,” the judge said helpfully. Giannini suddenly sniggered just loud enough to be heard. She pulled herself together at once and studied her papers again. Ekstr?m gave her an irritated glance. “Why do you think Lundin and Nieminen went to Bjurman’s summer cabin?” “I don’t know. I suspect that they went there to commit arson80. Lundin had a litre of petrol in a plastic bottle in the saddlebag of his Harley-Davidson.” Ekstr?m pursed his lips. “Why did you go to Advokat Bjurman’s summer cabin?” “I was looking for information.” “What sort of information?” “The information that I suspect Lundin and Nieminen were there to destroy, and which could contribute to clarifying who murdered the bastard81.” “Is it your opinion that Advokat Bjurman was a bastard? Is that correctly construed82?” “Yes.” “And why do you think that?” “He was a sadistic83 pig, a pervert84, and a rapist – and therefore a bastard.” She was quoting the text that had been tattooed85 on the late Advokat Bjurman’s stomach and thus indirectly86 admitting that she was responsible for it. This affray, however, was not included in the charges against Salander. Bjurman had never filed a report of assault, and it would be impossible now to prove whether he had allowed himself to be tattooed or whether it had been done against his will. “In other words, you are alleging87 that your guardian64 forced himself on you. Can you tell the court when these assaults are supposed to have taken place?” “They took place on Tuesday, February 18, 2003 and again on Friday, March 7 of the same year.” “You have refused to answer every question asked by the police in their attempts to interview you. Why?” “I had nothing to say to them.” “I have read the so-called ‘autobiography88’ that your lawyer delivered without warning a few days ago. I must say it is a strange document, and we’ll come back to it in more detail later. But in it you claim that Advokat Bjurman allegedly forced you to perform oral sex on the first occasion, and on the second subjected you to an entire night of repeated and consummated89 rape90 and severe torture.” Lisbeth did not reply. “Is that correct?” “Yes.” “Did you report the rapes91 to the police?” “No.” “Why not?” “The police never listened before when I tried to tell them something. So there seemed no point in reporting anything to them then.” “Did you discuss these assaults with any of your acquaintances? A girlfriend?” “No.” “Why not?” “Because it’s none of their business.” “Did you try to contact a lawyer?” “No.” “Did you go to a doctor to be treated for the injuries you claim to have sustained?” “No.” “And you didn’t go to any women’s crisis centre either.” “Now you’re making an assertion again.” “Excuse me. Did you go to any women’s crisis centre?” “No.” Ekstr?m turned to the judge. “I want to make the court aware that the defendant has stated that she was subjected to sexual assaults on two occasions, the second of which should be considered exceptionally severe. The person she claims committed these rapes was her guardian, the late Advokat Nils Bjurman. The following facts should be taken into account at this juncture92 …” Ekstr?m pointed93 at the text in front of him. “In the investigation carried out by the Violent Crimes Division, there was nothing in Advokat Bjurman’s past to support the credibility of Lisbeth Salander’s account. Bjurman was never convicted of any crime. He has never been reported to the police or been the subject of an investigation. He had previously94 been a guardian or trustee to several other young people, none of whom have claimed that they were subjected to any sort of attack. On the contrary, they assert that Bjurman invariably behaved correctly and kindly95 towards them.” Ekstr?m turned a page. “It is also my duty to remind the court that Lisbeth Salander has been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic. This is a young woman with a documented violent tendency, who since her early teens has had serious problems in her interactions with society. She spent several years in a children’s psychiatric institution and has been under guardianship since the age of eighteen. However regrettable this may be, there are reasons for it. Lisbeth Salander is a danger to herself and to those around her. It is my conviction that she does not need a prison sentence. She needs psychiatric care.” He paused for effect. “Discussing a young person’s mental state is an innately96 disagreeable task. So much is an invasion of privacy, and her mental state becomes the subject of interpretation97. In this case, however, we have Lisbeth Salander’s own confused world view on which to base our decision. It becomes manifestly clear in what she has termed her ‘autobiography’. Nowhere is her want of a foothold in reality as evident as it is here. In this instance we need no witnesses or interpretations98 to invariably contradict one another. We have her own words. We can judge for ourselves the credibility of her assertions.” His gaze fell on Salander. Their eyes met. She smiled. She looked malicious99. Ekstr?m frowned. “Does Advokat Giannini have anything to say?” Judge Iversen said. “No,” Giannini said. “Other than that Prosecutor Ekstr?m’s conclusions are nonsensical.” The afternoon session began with the cross-questioning of witnesses. The first was Ulrika von Liebenstaahl from the guardianship agency. Ekstr?m had called her to the stand to establish whether complaints had ever been lodged100 against Advokat Bjurman. This was strongly denied by von Liebenstaahl. Such assertions were defamatory. “There exists a rigorous supervision101 of guardianship cases. Advokat Bjurman had been active on behalf of the guardianship agency for almost twenty years before he was so shockingly murdered.” She gave Salander a withering102 look, despite the fact that Salander was not accused of murder; it had already been established that Bjurman was murdered by Ronald Niedermann. “In all these years there has not been a single complaint against Advokat Bjurman. He was a conscientious103 person who evidenced a deep commitment to his wards77.” “So you don’t think it’s plausible104 that he would have subjected Lisbeth Salander to aggravated105 sexual assault?” “I think that statement is ridiculous. We have monthly reports from Advokat Bjurman, and I personally met him on several occasions to go over the assignment.” “Advokat Giannini has presented a request that Lisbeth Salander’s guardianship be rescinded, effective immediately.” “No-one is happier than we who work at the agency when a guardianship can be rescinded. Unfortunately we have a responsibility, which means that we have to follow the appropriate regulations. For the agency’s part, we are required in accordance with normal protocol to see to it that Lisbeth Salander is declared fit by a psychiatric expert before there can be any talk of changes to her legal status.” “I understand.” “This means that she has to submit to a psychiatric examination. Which, as everyone knows, she has refused to do.” The questioning of Ulrika von Liebenstaahl lasted for about forty minutes, during which time Bjurman’s monthly reports were examined. Giannini asked only one question before Ulrika von Liebenstaahl was dismissed. “Were you in Advokat Bjurman’s bedroom on the night of 7 to 8 March, 2003?” “Of course not.” “In other words, you haven’t the faintest idea whether my client’s statement is true or not?” “The accusation51 against Advokat Bjurman is preposterous106.” “That is your opinion. Can you give him an alibi107 or in any other way document that he did not assault my client?” “That’s impossible, naturally. But the probability—” “Thank you. That will be all,” Giannini said. Blomkvist met his sister at Milton’s offices near Slussen at around 7.00 to go through the day’s proceedings108. “It was pretty much as expected,” Giannini said. “Ekstr?m has bought Salander’s autobiography.” “Good. How’s she holding up?” Giannini laughed. “She’s holding up very well, coming across as a complete psychopath. She’s merely being herself.” “Wonderful.” “Today has mostly been about what happened at the cabin in Stallarholmen. Tomorrow it’ll be about Gosseberga, interrogations of people from forensics and so forth109. Ekstr?m is going to try to prove that Salander went down there intending to murder her father.” “Well …” “But we may have a technical problem. This afternoon Ekstr?m called Ulrika von Liebenstaahl from the guardianship agency. She started going on about how I had no right to represent Lisbeth.” “Why so?” “She says that Lisbeth is under guardianship and therefore isn’t entitled to choose her own lawyer. So, technically110, I may not be her lawyer if the guardianship agency hasn’t rubber-stamped it.” “And?” “Judge Iversen is to decide tomorrow morning. I had a brief word with him after today’s proceedings. I think he’ll decide that I can continue to represent her. My point was that the agency has had three whole months to raise the objection – to show up with that kind of objection after proceedings have started is an unwarranted provocation111.” “Teleborian will testify on Friday, I gather. You have to be the one who cross-examines him.” On Thursday Prosecutor Ekstr?m explained to the court that after studying maps and photographs and listening to extensive technical conclusions about what had taken place in Gosseberga, he had determined that the evidence indicated that Salander had gone to her father’s farmhouse112 at Gosseberga with the intention of killing113 him. The strongest link in the chain of evidence was that she had taken a weapon with her, a Polish P-83 Wanad. The fact that Alexander Zalachenko (according to Salander’s account) or possibly the police murderer Ronald Niedermann (according to testimony114 that Zalachenko had given before he was murdered at Sahlgrenska) had in turn attempted to kill Salander and bury her in a trench115 in woods nearby could in no way be held in mitigation of the fact that she had tracked down her father to Gosseberga with the express intention of killing him. Moreover, she had all but succeeded in that objective when she struck him in the face with an axe5. Ekstr?m demanded that Salander be convicted of attempted murder or premeditation with the intent to kill and, in that case, grievous bodily harm. Salander’s own account stated that she had gone to Gosseberga to confront her father, to persuade him to confess to the murders of Dag Svensson and Mia Johansson. This statement was of dramatic significance in the matter of establishing intent. When Ekstr?m had finished questioning the witness Melker Hansson from the technical unit of the G?teborg police, Advokat Giannini had asked some succinct116 questions. “Herr Hansson, is there anything at all in your investigation or in all the technical documentation that you have compiled which could in any way establish that Lisbeth Salander is lying about her intent regarding the visit to Gosseberga? Can you prove that she went there with the intention of murdering her father?” Hansson thought for a moment. “No,” he said at last. “Do you have anything to say about her intent?” “No.” “Prosecutor Ekstr?m’s conclusion, eloquent117 and extensive as it is, is therefore speculation118?” “I believe so.” “Is there anything in the forensic evidence that contradicts Lisbeth Salander’s statement that she took with her the Polish weapon, a P-83 Wanad, by chance simply because it was in her bag, and she didn’t know what she should do with the weapon having taken it the day before from Sonny Nieminen in Stallarholmen?” “No.” “Thank you,” Giannini said and sat down. Those were her only words throughout Hansson’s testimony, which had lasted one hour. Wadensj?? left the Section’s apartment on Artillerigatan at 6.00 on Thursday evening with a feeling that he was hedged about by ominous119 clouds of turmoil120, of imminent121 ruin. For several weeks he had known that his title as director, that is, the chief of the Section for Special Analysis, was but a meaningless label. His opinions, protests and entreaties122 carried no weight. Clinton had taken over all decision-making. If the Section had been an open and public institution, this would not have been a problem – he would merely have gone to his superior and lodged his protests. As things stood now, there was no-one he could protest to. He was alone and subject to the mercy or disfavour of a man whom he regarded as insane. And the worst of it was that Clinton’s authority was absolute. Snot-nosed kids like Sandberg and faithful retainers like Nystr?m … they all seemed to jump into line at once and obey the fatally ill lunatic’s every whim123. No question that Clinton was a soft-spoken authority who was not working for his own gain. He would even acknowledge that Clinton was working in the best interests of the Section, or at least in what he regarded as its best interests. The whole organization seemed to be in free fall, indulging in a collective fantasy in which experienced colleagues refused to admit that every movement they made, every decision that was taken and implemented124, only led them one step closer to the abyss. Wadensj?? felt a pressure in his chest as he turned on to Linnégatan, where he had found a parking spot earlier that day. He disabled the alarm and was about to open the car door when he heard a movement behind him. He turned around, squinting125 against the sun. It was a few seconds before he recognized the stately man on the pavement before him. “Good evening, Herr Wadensj??,” Edklinth said. “I haven’t been out in the field in ten years, but today I felt that my presence might be appropriate.” Wadensj?? looked in confusion at the two plain-clothes policemen flanking Edklinth. Bublanski he knew, but not the other man. Suddenly he guessed what was going to happen. “It is my unenviable duty to inform you that the Prosecutor General has decided that you are to be arrested for such a long string of crimes that it will surely take weeks to compile a comprehensive catalogue of them.” “What’s going on here?” Wadensj?? said indignantly. “What is going on at this moment is that you are being arrested, suspected of being an accessory to murder. You are also suspected of extortion, bribery126, illegal telephone tapping, several counts of criminal forgery127, criminal embezzlement128 of funds, participation129 in breaking and entering, misuse130 of authority, espionage131 and a long list of other lesser132 but that’s not to say insignificant133 offences. The two of us are going to Kungsholmen to have a very serious talk in peace and quiet.” “I haven’t committed murder,” Wadensj?? said breathlessly. “That will have to be established by the investigation.” “It was Clinton. It was always Clinton,” Wadensj?? said. Edklinth nodded in satisfaction. Every police officer knows that there are two classic ways to conduct the interrogation of a suspect. The bad cop and the good cop. The bad cop threatens, swears, slams his fist on the table and generally behaves aggressively with the intent of scaring the suspect into submission134 and confession135. The good cop, often a small, grey-haired, elderly man, offers cigarettes and coffee, nods sympathetically, and speaks in a reasonable tone. Many policemen – though not all – also know that the good cop’s interrogation technique is by far a superior way of getting results. The tough-as-nails veteran thief will be least impressed by the bad cop. And the uncertain amateur, who might be frightened into a confession by a bad cop, would in all likelihood have confessed everything anyway, regardless of the technique used. Blomkvist listened to the questioning of Birger Wadensj?? from an adjoining room. His presence had been the topic of a good deal of internal argument before Edklinth decided that he would probably have use for Blomkvist’s observation. Blomkvist noticed that Edklinth was using a third variant136 on the police interrogator137, the uninterested cop, which in this particular case seemed to be working even better. Edklinth strolled into the interrogation room, served coffee in china cups, turned on the tape recorder and leaned back in his chair. “This is how it is: we already have every conceivable forensic evidence against you. We have, accordingly, no interest whatsoever138 in hearing your story save as confirmation139 of what we already know. But the question we might want an answer to is: why? Or how could you be so idiotic140 as to decide to begin liquidating141 individuals in Sweden just as we saw happen in Chile under the Pinochet dictatorship? The tape is rolling. If you have anything to say, now is the time. If you don’t want to talk, I’ll turn off the tape recorder and then we’ll remove your tie and shoelaces and accommodate you in a cell upstairs while we wait for a lawyer, a trial, and in due course, sentencing.” Edklinth then took a sip142 of coffee and sat in silence. When nothing was said for two minutes, he reached out and turned off the tape recorder. He stood up. “I’ll see that you’re taken upstairs in a few minutes. Good evening.” “I didn’t murder anyone,” Wadensj?? said when Edklinth had already opened the door. Edklinth paused on the threshold. “I’m not interested in having a general discussion with you. If you want to explain yourself, then I’ll sit down and turn the tape recorder back on. All of Swedish officialdom – and the Prime Minister in particular – is eagerly waiting to hear what you have to say. If you tell me, then I can go and see the Prime Minister tonight to give him your version of events. If you don’t tell me, you will be charged and convicted anyway.” “Please sit down,” Wadensj?? said. It was evident to everyone that he was resigned to it already. Blomkvist exhaled143. He was there with Figuerola, Prosecutor Gustavsson, the otherwise anonymous144 S?po officer Stefan, and two other altogether nameless individuals. Blomkvist suspected that one of them at least was there to represent the Minister of Justice. “I had nothing to do with the murders,” Wadensj?? said when Edklinth started the tape recorder again. “Murders?” Blomkvist whispered to Figuerola. “Ssshh,” she said. “It was Clinton and Gullberg. I had no idea what they intended. I swear it. I was utterly145 shocked when I heard that Gullberg had shot Zalachenko. I couldn’t believe it … I simply couldn’t believe it. And when I heard about Bj?rck I thought I was going to have a heart attack.” “Tell me about Bj?rck’s murder,” Edklinth said without altering his tone. “How was it carried out?” “Clinton hired some people. I don’t even know how it happened, but it was two Yugoslavs. Serbs, if I’m not mistaken. Georg Nystr?m gave them the contract and paid them afterwards. When I found out, I knew it would end in disaster.” “Should we take this from the beginning?” Edklinth said. “When did you first start working for the Section?” Once Wadensj?? had begun to talk he could not be stopped. The interview lasted for almost five hours.
收听单词发音 |
1
discreet
|
|
| adj.(言行)谨慎的；慎重的；有判断力的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
steadily
|
|
| adv.稳定地；不变地；持续地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
pro
|
|
| n.赞成，赞成的意见，赞成者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
prosecutor
|
|
| n.起诉人；检察官，公诉人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
axe
|
|
| n.斧子；v.用斧头砍，削减 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
alias
|
|
| n.化名；别名；adv.又名 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
con
|
|
| n.反对的观点，反对者，反对票，肺病；vt.精读，学习，默记；adv.反对地，从反面；adj.欺诈的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
mace
|
|
| n.狼牙棒，豆蔻干皮 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
withholding
|
|
| 扣缴税款 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
forensic
|
|
| adj.法庭的，雄辩的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
psychiatrists
|
|
| n.精神病专家，精神病医生( psychiatrist的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
determined
|
|
| adj.坚定的；有决心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
disturbance
|
|
| n.动乱，骚动；打扰，干扰；(身心)失调 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
narcissism
|
|
| n.自我陶醉，自恋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
defendant
|
|
| n.被告；adj.处于被告地位的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
ken
|
|
| n.视野，知识领域 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
recordings
|
|
| n.记录( recording的名词复数 )；录音；录像；唱片 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
protocol
|
|
| n.议定书，草约，会谈记录，外交礼节 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
persuasion
|
|
| n.劝说；说服；持有某种信仰的宗派 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
investigation
|
|
| n.调查，调查研究 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
confidential
|
|
| adj.秘（机）密的，表示信任的，担任机密工作的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
transparent
|
|
| adj.明显的，无疑的；透明的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
disturbances
|
|
| n.骚乱( disturbance的名词复数 )；打扰；困扰；障碍 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
assessment
|
|
| n.评价；评估；对财产的估价，被估定的金额 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
incompetence
|
|
| n.不胜任，不称职 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
rescinded
|
|
| v.废除，取消( rescind的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
restrictions
|
|
| 约束( restriction的名词复数 )； 管制； 制约因素； 带限制性的条件（或规则） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
prosecution
|
|
| n.起诉，告发，检举，执行，经营 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
shovelling
|
|
| v.铲子( shovel的现在分词 )；锹；推土机、挖土机等的)铲；铲形部份 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
distinguished
|
|
| adj.卓越的，杰出的，著名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
courteously
|
|
| adv.有礼貌地，亲切地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
exacting
|
|
| adj.苛求的，要求严格的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
penchant
|
|
| n.爱好，嗜好；（强烈的）倾向 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
frayed
|
|
| adj.磨损的v.（使布、绳等）磨损，磨破( fray的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
tattoos
|
|
| n.文身( tattoo的名词复数 )；归营鼓；军队夜间表演操；连续有节奏的敲击声v.刺青，文身( tattoo的第三人称单数 )；连续有节奏地敲击；作连续有节奏的敲击 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
eyebrow
|
|
| n.眉毛，眉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
uneven
|
|
| adj.不平坦的，不规则的，不均匀的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
lipstick
|
|
| n.口红，唇膏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
eyebrows
|
|
| 眉毛( eyebrow的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
applied
|
|
| adj.应用的；v.应用，适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
vampire
|
|
| n.吸血鬼 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
catching
|
|
| adj.易传染的，有魅力的，迷人的，接住 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
astonishment
|
|
| n.惊奇，惊异 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
sloppy
|
|
| adj.邋遢的，不整洁的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
accentuate
|
|
| v.着重，强调 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
rivets
|
|
| 铆钉( rivet的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
mechanism
|
|
| n.机械装置；机构，结构 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
quills
|
|
| n.（刺猬或豪猪的）刺( quill的名词复数 )；羽毛管；翮；纡管 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
parody
|
|
| n.打油诗文，诙谐的改编诗文，拙劣的模仿；v.拙劣模仿，作模仿诗文 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
accusations
|
|
| n.指责( accusation的名词复数 )；指控；控告；（被告发、控告的）罪名 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
accusation
|
|
| n.控告，指责，谴责 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
defiantly
|
|
| adv.挑战地，大胆对抗地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
bloody
|
|
| adj.非常的的；流血的；残忍的；adv.很；vt.血染 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
bruises
|
|
| n.瘀伤，伤痕，擦伤( bruise的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
surgical
|
|
| adj.外科的，外科医生的，手术上的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
encroachment
|
|
| n.侵入，蚕食 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
acquitted
|
|
| 宣判…无罪( acquit的过去式和过去分词 )； 使（自己）作出某种表现 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
revoked
|
|
| adj.[法]取消的v.撤销，取消，废除( revoke的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
chambers
|
|
| n.房间( chamber的名词复数 )；（议会的）议院；卧室；会议厅 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
detrimental
|
|
| adj.损害的，造成伤害的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
asylum
|
|
| n.避难所，庇护所，避难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
confidentiality
|
|
| n.秘而不宣，保密 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
guardianship
|
|
| n. 监护, 保护, 守护 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
guardian
|
|
| n.监护人；守卫者，保护者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
annoyance
|
|
| n.恼怒，生气，烦恼 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
bodyguards
|
|
| n.保镖，卫士，警卫员( bodyguard的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
teaspoon
|
|
| n.茶匙 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
contemplated
|
|
| adj. 预期的 动词contemplate的过去分词形式 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
decided
|
|
| adj.决定了的，坚决的；明显的，明确的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
squint
|
|
| v. 使变斜视眼, 斜视, 眯眼看, 偏移, 窥视; n. 斜视, 斜孔小窗; adj. 斜视的, 斜的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
tilted
|
|
| v. 倾斜的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
shuffled
|
|
| v.洗（纸牌）( shuffle的过去式和过去分词 )；拖着脚步走；粗心地做；摆脱尘世的烦恼 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
wary
|
|
| adj.谨慎的，机警的，小心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
engrossed
|
|
| adj.全神贯注的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
apparently
|
|
| adv.显然地；表面上，似乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
unaware
|
|
| a.不知道的，未意识到的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
wards
|
|
| 区( ward的名词复数 )； 病房； 受监护的未成年者； 被人照顾或控制的状态 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
propped
|
|
| 支撑，支持，维持( prop的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
purely
|
|
| adv.纯粹地，完全地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
arson
|
|
| n.纵火，放火 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
bastard
|
|
| n.坏蛋，混蛋；私生子 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
construed
|
|
| v.解释（陈述、行为等）( construe的过去式和过去分词 )；翻译，作句法分析 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
sadistic
|
|
| adj.虐待狂的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
pervert
|
|
| n.堕落者，反常者；vt.误用，滥用；使人堕落，使入邪路 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
tattooed
|
|
| v.刺青，文身( tattoo的过去式和过去分词 )；连续有节奏地敲击；作连续有节奏的敲击 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
indirectly
|
|
| adv.间接地，不直接了当地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
alleging
|
|
| 断言，宣称，辩解( allege的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
autobiography
|
|
| n.自传 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
consummated
|
|
| v.使结束( consummate的过去式和过去分词 )；使完美；完婚；（婚礼后的）圆房 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
rape
|
|
| n.抢夺，掠夺，强奸；vt.掠夺，抢夺，强奸 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
rapes
|
|
| n.芸苔( rape的名词复数 )；强奸罪；强奸案；肆意损坏v.以暴力夺取，强夺( rape的第三人称单数 )；强奸 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
juncture
|
|
| n.时刻，关键时刻，紧要关头 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
pointed
|
|
| adj.尖的，直截了当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
previously
|
|
| adv.以前，先前（地） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
kindly
|
|
| adj.和蔼的，温和的，爽快的；adv.温和地，亲切地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
innately
|
|
| adv.天赋地；内在地，固有地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
interpretation
|
|
| n.解释，说明，描述；艺术处理 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
interpretations
|
|
| n.解释( interpretation的名词复数 )；表演；演绎；理解 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
malicious
|
|
| adj.有恶意的，心怀恶意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
lodged
|
|
| v.存放( lodge的过去式和过去分词 )；暂住；埋入；（权利、权威等）归属 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
supervision
|
|
| n.监督，管理 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
withering
|
|
| 使人畏缩的，使人害羞的，使人难堪的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
conscientious
|
|
| adj.审慎正直的，认真的，本着良心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
plausible
|
|
| adj.似真实的，似乎有理的，似乎可信的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
aggravated
|
|
| 使恶化( aggravate的过去式和过去分词 )； 使更严重； 激怒； 使恼火 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
preposterous
|
|
| adj.荒谬的，可笑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
alibi
|
|
| n.某人当时不在犯罪现场的申辩或证明；借口 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
proceedings
|
|
| n.进程，过程，议程；诉讼(程序)；公报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
technically
|
|
| adv.专门地，技术上地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
provocation
|
|
| n.激怒，刺激，挑拨，挑衅的事物，激怒的原因 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
farmhouse
|
|
| n.农场住宅（尤指主要住房） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
killing
|
|
| n.巨额利润；突然赚大钱，发大财 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
testimony
|
|
| n.证词；见证，证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
trench
|
|
| n./v.(挖)沟，(挖)战壕 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
succinct
|
|
| adj.简明的，简洁的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
eloquent
|
|
| adj.雄辩的，口才流利的；明白显示出的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
speculation
|
|
| n.思索，沉思；猜测；投机 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
ominous
|
|
| adj.不祥的，不吉的，预兆的，预示的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
turmoil
|
|
| n.骚乱，混乱，动乱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
imminent
|
|
| adj.即将发生的，临近的，逼近的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
entreaties
|
|
| n.恳求，乞求( entreaty的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
whim
|
|
| n.一时的兴致，突然的念头；奇想，幻想 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
implemented
|
|
| v.实现( implement的过去式和过去分词 )；执行；贯彻；使生效 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
squinting
|
|
| 斜视( squint的现在分词 )； 眯着眼睛； 瞟； 从小孔或缝隙里看 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
bribery
|
|
| n.贿络行为，行贿，受贿 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
forgery
|
|
| n.伪造的文件等，赝品，伪造（行为） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
embezzlement
|
|
| n.盗用，贪污 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
participation
|
|
| n.参与，参加，分享 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
misuse
|
|
| n.误用，滥用；vt.误用，滥用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
espionage
|
|
| n.间谍行为，谍报活动 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
lesser
|
|
| adj.次要的，较小的；adv.较小地，较少地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
insignificant
|
|
| adj.无关紧要的，可忽略的，无意义的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
submission
|
|
| n.服从，投降；温顺，谦虚；提出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
confession
|
|
| n.自白，供认，承认 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
variant
|
|
| adj.不同的，变异的；n.变体，异体 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
interrogator
|
|
| n.讯问者；审问者；质问者；询问器 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
whatsoever
|
|
| adv.（用于否定句中以加强语气）任何；pron.无论什么 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
confirmation
|
|
| n.证实，确认，批准 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
140
idiotic
|
|
| adj.白痴的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
liquidating
|
|
| v.清算( liquidate的现在分词 )；清除（某人）；清偿；变卖 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
142
sip
|
|
| v.小口地喝，抿，呷；n.一小口的量 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
143
exhaled
|
|
| v.呼出，发散出( exhale的过去式和过去分词 )；吐出（肺中的空气、烟等），呼气 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
anonymous
|
|
| adj.无名的；匿名的；无特色的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
utterly
|
|
| adv.完全地，绝对地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |