Höglund

Höglund’s investigation into Sonja Hökberg becomes a crucial but unreliable turn in the case: by pursuing the question of a boyfriend, she uncovers a significant disclosure about Hökberg’s past, yet the resulting lead encourages Wallander to settle too quickly on an incomplete explanation.

Investigative Role and Assignment

At a case meeting, Wallander assigns Höglund to concentrate on Hökberg and Eva Persson. He wants her to determine what kind of life Hökberg led and what she did with her time, while looking for a boyfriend who might have given her a lift out of town. The assignment places Höglund at the center of the inquiry into Hökberg’s personal connections, rather than the parallel investigation into Tynnes Falk’s life or the disappearance of Falk’s body.

On Monday, October 13, Höglund takes up the boyfriend question again with Persson, who continues to deny that Hökberg had one. Persson names only Kalle Ryss, Hökberg’s former boyfriend. Höglund does not treat that answer as the end of the inquiry: she follows the name to Ryss and asks him about his relationship with Hökberg.

What Höglund Learns

Ryss tells Höglund that he fell in love with Hökberg when he first saw her, but that the relationship eventually ended because, as he described it, she was not interested in intimacy. He also says Hökberg had told him she had been sexually assaulted several years earlier and was still traumatized by the experience. The information gives Höglund a possible explanation for what Ryss had experienced in the relationship, while introducing a serious crime that was not already evident in the police records.

Höglund checks the files and finds no case involving Hökberg. Ryss’s account places the assault in Ystad, so Höglund begins to connect the disclosure with Carl-Einar Lundberg, the son of Lundberg. Wallander recognizes the direction of her thinking; Höglund qualifies it as a theory. Her work thus adds both a new line of inquiry and an unverified account whose missing context matters.

The Half-Truth and Its Consequences

In retrospect, Wallander regards his response to Höglund’s findings as one of the biggest mistakes of his life. He believes he should have understood immediately that the existence of a boyfriend made the truth more complicated, rather than treating the discovery as a sufficiently complete explanation. The narrative identifies what Höglund uncovered as a half-truth: not necessarily false, but liable to lead the investigators away from what they needed to see.

Wallander later fears that the mistake cost a person’s life and could have contributed to an even greater catastrophe. The account does not present Höglund as having deliberately misled him; instead, her inquiry produces consequential information that remains incomplete, while Wallander bears the responsibility of interpreting it. Her part in the investigation therefore marks the difference between finding a real clue and understanding what that clue can—and cannot—prove.