The Man In The Window [Mannen i vinduet - no]

'Andthis was the famous J for Jorgen, one hundred and ninety-five?'

'Jfor John. Nineteen. Five.'

'All right,all right. We have the taxi licensing number.'

'Let'stake one thing at a time.'

'Fine.When did the murder take place?'

'Somewherebetween eleven-thirty in the evening and three in the morning.'

'Andthere were no keys in the dead man's pockets?' 'No keys. Cigarettes, yes. Alighter, coins, but no keys.'

'Itake it no one else knows this?'

'Justyou, Frølich and I know that the keys are missing.'

'Iread that the widow says there was snow on the floor when she woke up.'

'Yes- if she's telling the truth. One possible scenario is that the killer, whostill had snow sticking to the soles of his shoes, took the keys from the deadman, went upstairs, let himself into Folke Jespersen's flat, entered the bedroomand then left again.'

'Others?'

'Myguess is that the snow on the floor was left by Folke Jespersen after anevening walk before he was killed.'

'Whydo you think that?'

'Becausethe killer can hardly have had any snow on his shoes if he had changed into theuniform after wrestling with the body to get it into the shop window. Inaddition, the tread on the dead man's shoe soles was quite deep.'

'Butthe killer took the keys, you said? Why would he do that if he didn't usethem?'

'Themissing keys are a mystery. Either they have not disappeared and are stilllying somewhere in the flat or the killer had something else in mind when hestole the keys.'

'Youdon't think the killer was in the flat?'

'Ifan intruder crept into Ingrid Jespersen's bedroom, it would only have been tosee her sleeping and then to leave – or to take something she knows nothingabout, something she doesn't miss, in all probability something belonging toher husband. In short, the snow on the floor makes sense if Folke Jespersenpopped in to see her.'

Fristadcleared his throat to ask a question, but Gunnarstranda was quicker: 'That'sone possibility. Another is that Ingrid Jespersen made up the whole story aboutthe snow on the floor.'

'Whywould she do that?'

'Well,you tell me. I find it difficult to believe that she would make it up. Unlessit was to give credence to the theory in our eyes that the killer pinched thekeys.'

Theysent each other a look. 'On the other hand,' Fristad reasoned, 'if the widowinvented this business about the snow on the floor…' He left the sentencehanging in the air.

Gunnarstrandanodded.

Fristadcompleted his reasoning: 'Then it is very probable that she invented thebreak-in story because she was the one who killed her husband.'

'Yourconclusion could be right, but the argumentation may be wide of the mark,' thePolice Inspector concluded. 'I lean to the view that the husband left the snowon the floor.'

Thepublic prosecutor and the police officer eyed each across the table again. 'Butwhat do you think, Gunnarstranda? What does your gut instinct tell you? Did thewidow bump off her husband?'

'Motive?'Gunnarstranda wondered aloud.

'Money,sex, heat of the moment,' Fristad said. 'Young woman marries much older man. Heturns down a stack of money by rejecting the offer proposed by his brothers andKirkenær. On top of that he puts an end to his wife's bedroom romps with thelover. These two factors cause a row. The widow is not short of motives!'

'Opportunity?'Gunnarstranda mused.

'Ofcourse she's the one with the opportunity to bump her old man off whenever.'

'Onher own or with help?'

'Withthe lover; she holds him, the lover stabs.'

'Thelover has an alibi.'

'Bloodyhell,' Fristad whispered in a hoarse voice. 'What sort of alibi?'

'Helives with a man – Sjur Flateby, who maintains that Strømsted was never out ofhis bed that night.'

'For me,as a prosecutor, that alibi does not stand up. A partner's statement is thesame as a spouse's – worthless.'

'Iagree. But it's better that the partner admits the lie in a statement to usthan you destroy the man in a court of law.'

'Doesthis guy know Strømsted is shagging the widow?'

Gunnarstrandashrugged. 'He may have an inkling – as he was asked about Strømsted's movementsthat night.'

'Tellthe partner about the infidelity and see how long Strømsted sticks to hisalibi. Although the widow may have done it on her own.'

'Possible.But we mustn't forget the others. Jonny Stokmo hasn't got an alibi, either.'

'What'shis motive though?' Fristad asked. 'No money was taken, just this damn uniform,and we only have Karsten Jespersen's word for it that it exists. If Stokmokilled…'

Gunnarstrandanodded. 'The problem with Stokmo is that he doesn't stand to gain from FolkeJespersen's death. He doesn't get any money and his father's name isn'tcleared. If Stokmo killed Folke Jespersen he must have done it in rage or hemust have had a different motive from this story about his father's besmirchedhonour. Problem number two: the Stokmo theory doesn't square with premeditatedmurder. If Stokmo planned the murder, why didn't he have a plan to clear hisfather's name at the same time?'

'Isee,' Fristad said heavily.

'Furthermore,there are the two brothers,' Gunnarstranda said. 'They have no end of motives.'

'Butdo they have the opportunity? I think I read in one report that they are ill,overweight and have difficulty standing up.'

'Theyhave all the opportunity they need,' Gunnarstranda objected. 'They're old andwhite-haired like the victim. They own the shop with their brother. They canmove around the shop without anyone raising an eyebrow. They have keys to theshop. They might have got in and waited for Reidar to come down. They don'thave watertight alibis either – both claim they were tucked up in their beds -alone.'

'Arethey physically capable?'

'Ofwhat?'

'Killingtheir brother.'

'Nowyou're applying normative assessments, Fristad.

Therule is we stick to facts, motive and opportunity.'

'Fine.Go on.'

'Accordingto these purchasers – Kirkenazr and Varås – Arvid Jespersen said to them,before Reidar was killed, that…' Gunnarstranda formed quotation marks with hisfingers… 'that there was a small cloud on the horizon which had to be removed.'

Fristadsmiled. 'That sounds damned conspiratorial.'

'Itdoes.'

'Fine.The brothers may have done it,' Fristad concluded.

'Thewidow rang Karsten Jespersen when she woke up that night. But Susanne Jespersensaid Karsten wasn't at home.'

'Butdoes that mean the son was on the ground floor killing his father? His wife swearshe was in bed asleep when the widow rang,' Fristad said with a frown.

'Theletter and the numbers only make sense if the son is the murderer.'

Fristadshook his head. 'If you're right that the coded message has something to dowith St John's Gospel, well, we may perhaps be able to conclude something ofthat nature. But then you're overlooking the fact that a taxi was waitingoutside with its engine running.'

Gunnarstrandasighed. 'I'm not overlooking that. The point is that we don't know if it wasthe same car that was seen every time. One witness saw a Mercedes taxi parkedoutside the shop, but it was at least four hours before the murder wascommitted.'

'Butthe taxi licence number was 195.'

'Thewitness didn't say that.'

'Whatare you trying to say now, Gunnarstranda?'

Thepoliceman cleared his throat and braced himself: 'We know that Richard Ekholtdrove a taxi with the number 195. But the witness who saw a mysterious taxi inThomas Heftyes gate could not identify it – it was not necessarily Ekholt'svehicle. And we don't know if Ekholt parked in Thomas Heftyes gate…'

'Butwe do know that Ekholt followed Folke Jespersen that night!'

'Yes,we do.' Gunnarstranda smiled at the public prosecutor. He knew how much the manliked to destroy mere circumstantial evidence. 'The fact that Ekholt followedthe murder victim in his taxi might suggest that it was Ekholt's vehicleparked in Thomas Heftyes gate an hour later. The fact that Ekholt had set hiscap at Gro Hege Wyller and might have been jealous of Folke Jespersenthat evening might suggest a motive. The fact that Ekholt followed FolkeJespersen might suggest that he is involved in the murder. Ekholt'slicence number might even suggest a connection with the writing on thedead man's chest – since the numbers coincide. The strongest indicationthat Ekholt is involved is the fact that he rang Frank Frølich last nightgiving the number one hundred and ninety-five as a kind of password sothat Frølich would take notice of him. However, unhappily, Ekholt is dead. Ifhe had any involvement in the murder, we will have to turn to other witnessesto have this substantiated. We have plenty of circumstantial evidence, but…'