Viggo Dürer—Karl Lundström

Viggo Dürer and Karl Lundström are linked in the novel by more than a lawyer-client relationship: they belonged to the same little-known foundation, moved in overlapping social circles, and are later named together in Annette Lundström’s account of the Home of Shadows. Their connection helps Jeanette Kihlberg see separate investigations as strands of a wider network, while the contrast between Dürer’s professional role and Annette’s testimony leaves the full nature of his involvement to emerge through evidence rather than assumption.

Professional and Social Connection

Dürer had acted as solicitor for both Karl Lundström and Bengt Bergman, men whose cases and family histories drew the police’s attention. Jeanette’s reconstruction gives the legal relationship a social basis: Dürer and Karl were members of the same foundation and would have met at its meetings and dinners. When Karl encountered trouble, he turned to a solicitor he already knew. Jeanette describes this as a familiar exchange of favors, suggesting that professional representation grew out of an existing network rather than an isolated legal engagement.

The distinction between acquaintance and friendship matters. Kenneth von Kwist, reflecting on his own dealings with Dürer, recalls that Dürer introduced him to Karl, Bengt, and Per-Ola Silfverberg. He says he had never considered these men friends, only people he knew. His account does not establish the depth of Dürer’s bond with Karl, but it confirms that Dürer served as a point of connection among men who later became subjects of scrutiny. The relationship is therefore presented as a durable social and professional link, not necessarily as an intimate friendship.

The Foundation and Its Network

Jeanette identifies the foundation, Sihtunum i Diasporan, as a key link between the men. Its name joins a runic Swedish reference to Sigtuna with a Greek term for living in exile; its members had, or had once had, some connection to the Sigtuna boarding school. The organization’s stated purpose was to combat poverty and improve children’s living conditions around the world. Yet Jeanette finds no record of it in local council files despite its activity in Sweden, an absence that adds to her suspicion about its operations.

Dürer and Karl were among a group of twenty names. Jeanette says that Dürer, Karl, and Bengt Bergman had donated large sums since the mid-1970s. The evidence identifies Karl and Bengt as known child abusers; it does not make the same allegation about Dürer. His documented connection is that he represented both men as a solicitor and belonged to their foundation network. Jeanette stresses that the other members also merit investigation, without claiming that their presence proves wrongdoing.

The foundation’s assets give the connection a material history. It had owned property in Denmark, later sold, and its only remaining asset of value was the motor yacht Gilah. Dürer and his wife were aboard the yacht when they died. Jeanette presents this detail while briefing Jens Hurtig on the foundation; the yacht is not evidence of a particular act by Karl, but it shows that the organization’s network had property and resources beyond its public charitable description.

Parallel Cases and Police Suspicion

The relationship gains investigative weight because Karl and Bengt are described as having abused their daughters as well as other children. Jeanette recalls that Birgitta Bergman supplied Bengt with an alibi in a case involving two Eritrean children. She compares this with Annette Lundström’s repeated protection of her husband. Karl, unlike Bengt, admitted involvement in the child sex trade. That difference in their responses does not dissolve the connection between their cases; for Jeanette, the recurring pattern of family protection, influential men, and troubling legal outcomes makes the overlap more significant.

Dürer’s role as solicitor places him at the junction of these histories, but the novel distinguishes connection from proof. Jeanette suspects that the cases may have been mishandled, perhaps deliberately, and describes the overall pattern as a possible cover-up. She points to the men’s professional success, the money involved, and the shame their families had reason to conceal. Her investigation proceeds from clues—the shared solicitor, shared foundation, and parallel allegations—toward a hypothesis about coordinated protection, not a settled finding that Dürer personally directed it.

An older police inquiry adds another strand. A report about the Psalms of the Lamb movement alleged child abuse and named Annette and Karl, then thirteen and nineteen, along with their parents. Because the complaint was anonymous and the allegations could not be proved, the investigation was dropped. This history places Karl and Annette in a setting of earlier suspicions and failed inquiry; it does not by itself establish what Dürer knew or did at the time.

The Home of Shadows and the Limits of the Record

Later, Sofia Zetterlund questions Annette while psychiatric-clinic orderlies are expected. Annette speaks of the Home of Shadows as a sacred place associated with faithful people and chosen children, locating it in Jutland and in the forests of Polcirkeln. Sofia recognizes the phrase from Karl, who had described the Home of Shadows as a kind of sanctuary. Annette’s words appear disordered, but Sofia suspects that her psychosis contains elements of truth and may be prompting a confession.

Asked who led the faithful, Annette names Karl and Dürer, as well as Per-Ola Silfverberg. She assigns practical responsibilities to Dürer and Per-Ola, saying they ensured that the children were cared for and had what they wanted. She describes the children, including Linnea, Madeleine, and adopted children, as initiates, while diminishing the importance of the women’s role. This is Annette’s account, given in a psychotic state and interpreted cautiously by Sofia; it broadens the suggested relationship from shared membership and legal work to leadership in the group she describes, but remains testimony rather than independently verified fact.

The relationship’s narrative importance lies in how each new connection revises the apparent scale of the cases. Dürer first appears as a solicitor known to Karl; the foundation links him to Karl and Bengt through donations and shared membership; Annette’s account then places him beside Karl in a secretive spiritual community involving children. The sequence makes Dürer a recurring hinge between legal, social, and institutional worlds. It also preserves a crucial uncertainty: the evidence establishes networks, allegations, and a witness’s account, while the question of precisely what Dürer did within them remains part of the investigation.