Benzodiazepine dependence

Benzodiazepine dependence is presented as both a serious condition and a contested instrument for judging testimony. In the case of Karl Lundström, Prosecutor Kenneth von Kwist considers whether heavy medication and withdrawal could make Karl’s confession unreliable. Sofia Zetterlund accepts that dependence and withdrawal are real, but rejects the leap from that fact to dismissing what Karl said: his daughter Linnea’s account independently supports it. The disagreement exposes how a medical explanation can become a reason to question a witness rather than a reason to investigate what the testimony describes.

Medication and the question of credibility

After a conversation with Annette Lundström leaves Kenneth von Kwist worried, he turns to the papers concerning Karl’s medication. The daily list records five milligrams of Stesolid, one milligram of Xanor, and 0.75 milligrams of Halcion. The quantities and combination strike him as extraordinary. He is reading a transcript of nearly five hundred printed pages, and the medication offers a possible way to explain why Karl confessed to abusing his daughter.

Kenneth’s reasoning runs in two directions. He thinks benzodiazepines are addictive and that a statement from someone taking them may therefore be questionable. He also imagines that severe withdrawal could have driven Karl to confess to anything in exchange for another dose. The hypothesis makes the confession appear less secure, but the text presents it as Kenneth’s interpretation of the medication and transcript, not as proof that Karl’s account was false. Even after forming this explanation, he remains doubtful.

Sofia Zetterlund’s clinical counterargument

Kenneth contacts Sofia Zetterlund to ask what she thinks about Karl’s benzodiazepine medication. Sofia answers that the medication issue does not settle the case: even if Karl spoke under the influence of heavy medication, his account is corroborated by Linnea, whom Sofia considers the crucial witness. Her response shifts attention from a single speaker’s possible impairment to the evidence supplied by another person.

Sofia then explains the dependence associated with taking Xanor over an extended period. Patients can develop a dependency; withdrawal is difficult, and the distress when the drug wears off can sharply contrast with how well a person feels after taking it. She recalls a client’s description of the experience as “a very quick ricochet between heaven and hell.” Sofia also notes that Xanor is classified as a narcotic and criticizes doctors who fail to account for that knowledge. Her explanation gives the medication real clinical weight without allowing it to decide, by itself, whether Karl’s disclosure should be believed.

The exchange also reveals a conflict over professional authority. Kenneth’s dismissive response to Sofia’s explanation angers her, but she deliberately slows her speech and adopts a patient, explanatory manner. When he starts to say that he cannot believe Karl did what he confessed to doing to his daughter, Sofia directly rejects his conclusion. Her certainty rests on Linnea’s corroboration, not on a claim that medication could have had no effect.

Medication, stigma, and institutional judgment

The case places the effects of medication beside a broader problem: once a person is described as impaired, delusional, or unreliable, that description can shape whether others take their account seriously. The novel does not establish that every heavily medicated person is dependent on benzodiazepines. In Madeleine Silfverberg’s case, for example, she repeatedly maintained that Per-Ola Silfverberg had sexually assaulted her and that other men were involved, with her mother’s approval; she was regarded as psychotic and severely delusional and was under heavy medication. The specific medication is not identified as a benzodiazepine. The parallel lies instead in the way treatment and a psychiatric label accompany the dismissal of an abuse allegation.

Benzodiazepine dependence therefore functions as more than a technical question about a transcript. Kenneth’s theory could weaken Karl’s confession, but Sofia insists that the surrounding evidence, especially Linnea’s testimony, must remain in view. The distinction is consequential: recognizing medication-related vulnerability need not mean treating the person’s account as worthless. By setting competing interpretations against the corroborating testimony, the narrative makes credibility a matter of evidence and institutional judgment, not merely a dosage list.