the killer’s handgun

The killer’s handgun is central to the chain of shootings and to the investigation’s effort to connect them. It is first identified when a boy aims it at Agnete Iversen; later, Simon Kefas reads the shell evidence to distinguish weapon types and link ammunition from separate scenes. The gun is both an instrument of violence and a source of forensic clues, although removing a shell casing can delay the connection those clues might establish.

Identification and Use

At the Iversen family home, Agnete sees a boy take an object from a sports bag and point it at her. The object is a handgun. She retreats toward the open doorway; a shot follows, and Simon later examines her body, concluding that she was shot once in the chest. His observations establish the weapon’s immediate consequence, while the shell evidence becomes important to identifying the killer’s method.

The handgun appears again during an attack at a prison lift. Kalle Farrisen registers a muzzle flash in the darkness, and Pelvis falls after being shot. Kalle calls for Cassius to fire; Cassius aims into the lift and shoots, while Kalle is also struck. The exchange turns the weapon into part of a chaotic confrontation in which the men’s attempt to escape and secure themselves is interrupted by gunfire.

Shell Evidence and Forensic Reasoning

Simon explains that a newer handgun may leave a distinctive mark on a shell casing because manufacturers have been required for ten years to engrave a serial number on the weapon’s firing pin. When the pin strikes the cap, it can leave a unique impression; with an empty casing and the Firearms Register, investigators may be able to identify the owner. Simon therefore initially considers whether a killer removed a casing to avoid leaving fingerprints, while noting that a careful shooter could have worn gloves when loading the gun.

That reasoning changes when Simon examines another casing. Its back bears no mark, indicating an older gun rather than the newer weapon he had first inferred. He then recognizes that the ammunition is the same type used in Agnete Iversen’s shooting. The ammunition is common, so the match does not by itself establish who fired either weapon; nevertheless, it supports Simon’s belief that the person who took a casing from the Iversen home was trying to conceal a connection to another planned killing.

Narrative and Investigative Significance

Weapon, Network, and Concealed Connections

The handgun’s appearances sit within a criminal system that reaches beyond the shootings themselves. Simon recalls longstanding rumors that a police mole was leaking information to the person directing much of Oslo’s drug and sex trafficking, a figure the police called the Twin. The name conceals a structure more complex than a lone leader: Ab Lofthus’s diary later reveals that two corrupt officers operated together, allowing one to have an alibi when the other was active. In that network, a weapon is not merely a tool in an isolated crime; its use and the handling of the evidence around it become part of a wider effort to obstruct investigation.

That wider reach becomes concrete when Simon confronts Iver Iversen. He says that Iversen Property did business with the Twin, helping launder money from drugs and trafficking in exchange for fictitious tax losses amounting to hundreds of millions of kroner. Iver denies knowing the Twin, but Simon says he has evidence of their collaboration. The exchange places the firearms investigation alongside financial and institutional corruption: the shootings are connected to a system sustained by money, access, and compromised police officers, not simply by the person who pulls the trigger.

Weapon, Network, and Concealed Connections

The handgun’s appearances belong to a criminal system that extends beyond the shootings. Simon Kefas recalls rumors that a police mole leaked information to the person who ran much of Oslo’s drug and sex trafficking, known to officers as the Twin. The name conceals a more complicated arrangement: Ab Lofthus’s diary later explains that two corrupt officers worked together, so that one could have an alibi while the other was active. Their account of the arrangement also records their betrayal of the police, their efforts to conceal their identities, and their fear that the Twin might discover who they were. In this network, the weapon and the handling of evidence are not isolated details; they sit within a system able to compromise investigations and conceal responsibility.

Evidence, Responsibility, and the Limits of Identification

The firearm evidence illuminates the difference between connecting crimes and proving who committed them. Simon Kefas notes that the ammunition found at the later scene is common, even though it is the same type used to shoot Agnete Iversen. The match strengthens his theory that the removal of a shell casing at the Iversen home was meant to conceal a link to another planned killing, but it does not independently identify the shooter. The inquiry therefore moves through degrees of knowledge: a shared ammunition type suggests a connection; the firing-pin mark might identify a particular weapon; neither clue alone settles the killer’s identity.

The object’s role also reaches beyond forensic procedure into the question of punishment. When Simon confronts Fidel Lae about using dogs to attack a girl attempting to escape slavery, he asks whether that conduct should be punished. The exchange places the handgun within a wider pattern of violence and accountability: the firearm is one instrument among many in a world where criminal power relies on threats, trafficking, and compromised institutions. Its evidentiary marks can help expose connections, but the novel’s broader conflict concerns whether those who wield or enable violence can be made answerable.