Diminished responsibility

Diminished responsibility enters the investigation as a possible defence, not a finding about John Bristow’s mental state. Strike anticipates that Bristow’s counsel may use it, but his own attention remains on the killings and the pursuit of justice rather than on explaining the killer psychologically.

A Possible Defence

Late in his investigation, Strike considers how the case might be argued in court. He expects the defence to invoke diminished responsibility, connecting that possibility to what he sees as Bristow’s vainglorious overreaching and unusually reckless reliance on luck. Strike allows that there may be some pathology, but does not claim a diagnosis or establish that the defence would succeed.

The Evidence Behind Strike’s View

The novel builds Strike’s assessment through the reconstruction of events and the testing of testimony, rather than through a clinical account of Bristow. Tansy Bestigui’s changing story gives Strike reason to distinguish the part he believes authentic from the false details surrounding it. At the same time, her insistence that Freddie Bestigui was asleep when Lula Landry fell leaves the Bestiguis’ exact positions unproven in Strike’s reading of the police file.

The physical details of the investigation also matter to that reconstruction. Derrick Wilson recalls slipping on drops of water on the stairs while retracing his search of the flat. Later, Strike explains that Bristow had carried white roses from another flat, leaving a few drops behind before using the flowers to bring Lula to the door. These clues help expose the planning and improvisation behind the killing; they do not, by themselves, establish a mental disorder.

Justice Rather Than Diagnosis

The possibility of diminished responsibility sits alongside the story’s concern with how testimony can obscure as well as disclose. Strike’s questioning of John Bristow revisits who entered the flat and whether the visitor spoke to Lula, while the investigation as a whole turns on separating observed facts from claims and inference. The legal possibility of a reduced-responsibility argument therefore remains distinct from the detective’s evidential case.

Strike does not pursue a psychological explanation as an end in itself. After considering how counsel might characterize Bristow’s conduct, he returns to his stated aim: justice for Lula Landry and Rochelle Onifade. The defence is thus left as a forecast about a possible courtroom strategy, not a verdict on Bristow’s condition or culpability.