Xylocain adrenalin

Xylocain adrenalin is a dental anaesthetic whose appearance in the murdered boys’ cases gives the investigation a material link between otherwise incomplete and sometimes uncertain clues. It helps Jeanette Kihlberg consider whether the killings share a perpetrator and directs attention toward Karl Lundström, but it remains an investigative lead rather than proof of a particular person’s involvement.

Identification and forensic role

The substance enters the inquiry through the bodies themselves. After a second boy is found on Svartsjölandet, medical officer Ivo Andrić observes that the case resembles the earlier killing and that the boy has suffered extreme violence. He says it would not surprise him if the body also contained high quantities of Xylocain adrenalin. The phrasing matters: at this point, the substance is an anticipated result, not a confirmed finding. Jeanette nevertheless sees the similarities as sufficient to suspect a common perpetrator and treat the deaths as connected.

The wider pattern gives that suspicion weight. When Jeanette discusses Karl Lundström with the prosecutor, she notes that the dead boys had been castrated and that their bodies contained an anaesthetic used by dentists. Karl’s extreme views about castration and the fact that his wife, Annette Lundström, is a dentist make the combination relevant to her inquiry. Those circumstances establish a reason to investigate the Lundströms; they do not show that either of them administered the drug or establish how it came to be used in the killings.

From a reported method to a possible case link

A more specific lead comes when Sofia Zetterlund tells Jeanette that Karl said Anders Wikström usually injected his victims with Xylocain adrenalin. Sofia does not know whether the substance induces intoxication, and her question prompts a sharply physical reaction from Jeanette: she coughs, then explains that it is an anaesthetic rather than a drug taken to get high. She connects its dental use to the substance found in the boys and again notes that Annette is a dentist.

The exchange turns a name in a conversation into a potential evidentiary connection. Karl’s reported account concerns Anders Wikström and his victims; the police inquiry concerns the murdered boys. Jeanette recognizes an overlap in the substance and the fact that the boys were anaesthetised, but the conversation does not independently verify Karl’s account or establish that Xylocain adrenalin was used in every case. Sofia calls the information incriminating, while the underlying chain remains an investigative inference that requires corroboration.

Testing the pattern and its limits

The possibility that anaesthetic use links cases affects how Jeanette approaches another boy’s death. Although a colleague considers the cases different, she asks that the boy be taken to the Solna Institute of Pathology so that forensic staff can check for signs of anaesthetic. Ivo explains the basis for the comparison: three bodies are already at the pathology lab, and investigators believe they were victims of the same killer. The boys had been abused and castrated, anaesthetised, and found with traces of drugs in their blood. Jeanette’s proposed test is a way to examine whether the apparent resemblance holds, not a declaration that it does.

The early findings complicate rather than settle the hypothesis. Ivo reports traces of amphetamines in the new case, but says they had not been injected; there were no needle marks. The test results for Xylocain adrenalin had not yet come back. Thus the presence of another drug does not confirm the anaesthetic link, and the absence of evidence of injection does not explain how the amphetamines entered the boy’s body. The scene leaves the central comparison open pending forensic analysis.

Investigative significance

Xylocain adrenalin functions as a clue that can travel between a medical examination, a reported account, and a suspect inquiry. Its dental association gives investigators a practical line of questioning, while its reported use by Anders Wikström offers a possible method against which other cases can be checked. At the same time, the narrative distinguishes suspicion from confirmation: an expected substance, a reported practice, and a pending laboratory result carry different levels of certainty.

That distinction keeps the substance from becoming a shortcut to identity. The boys’ cases share several features, and the anaesthetic adds a potentially testable one; yet the available findings do not show that every boy received it, who obtained or administered it, or whether its recurrence alone identifies the killer. Its importance lies in making the suspected pattern more specific—and in exposing how much remains unknown even when separate clues begin to converge.