Holthemann

Holthemann, the police department’s experienced chief, brings administrative authority and a sharp, practical sense of risk to the investigation of the blood-soaked baby incident. His response combines disgust at the cruelty with an urgent concern about the Sundelins’ safety and the resources needed to catch whoever is responsible; his strength in managing the department contrasts with his difficulty relating warmly to victims and suspects.

Identity and Presence

News of the baby found drenched in blood spreads through the station until it reaches Holthemann’s desk. He enters Konrad Sejer’s office with a cane, hammering it against the floor to register his disgust. The reason he has begun using the cane is unknown to his colleagues. His arrival has a theatrical edge, but the concern behind it is real: he immediately asks what has happened to the child and whether the parents are strong enough to withstand the ordeal.

Holthemann calls the incident cruel and insists that it must be taken seriously. His questions turn quickly from outrage to the people left to bear its consequences. Konrad Sejer describes Karsten Sundelin as strong, indignant, and angry, and Lily Sundelin as acutely anxious. Holthemann’s attention to the parents helps keep the investigation’s human stakes in view, even as he considers the case as a police problem requiring action.

Assessment of the Threat

Holthemann proposes that the perpetrator may be someone who knows the Sundelins. He considers the possibility of a grievance rooted in past arguments, bullying, or insults—something the family might have forgotten or failed to recognize as significant. It is a working hypothesis, not a finding, and the discussion leaves room for other explanations.

When he later asks whether the person responsible is dangerous, whether the prank will be repeated, and whether the case should become a priority, he is testing both the threat and the department’s response. Sejer says the culprit is damaged, makes threats, and likes playing with fire; his reference to explosives is figurative, prompted by the prospect that Karsten is close to losing his temper. Holthemann then asks where the investigation will begin and insists that the perpetrator must be caught quickly. The exchange shows his preference for turning an assessment into an operational decision.

Management and Temperament

Holthemann is astute and analytical, and years of police experience inform his questions. He also administers the department’s budget and oversees the distribution of its modest funds, giving his decisions a practical constraint beyond the immediate urgency of the case. His administrative ability is described as exceptional; in dealings with people, whether criminals or victims, he is less capable than Sejer, whose warmth Holthemann lacks.

That contrast does not make him indifferent. His concern for the Sundelins and insistence on urgency are clear, but he expresses them through assessment, prioritization, and command rather than personal consolation. When the investigation is discussed, he asks what the team knows and where it will start, pressing for a prompt resolution without claiming to have solved the crime himself.

The Childhood Story and the Case’s Wider Meaning

To explain how a comparatively modest offense can generate disproportionate fear, Holthemann recounts a crime from his own childhood, when he was eight and living in the north. A man went through gardens at night with heavy shears, cutting women’s underwear from clotheslines. The offense was limited, but the shears made the neighborhood’s women deeply afraid. Holthemann’s example links the physical scale of an act to the reach of the fear it produces—a useful parallel to a campaign of pranks designed to make people feel watched and unsafe.

The anecdote also reveals how he reasons: he uses an earlier case not as proof about the present perpetrator, but as a way to make the social effect of intimidation legible. Holthemann’s role is therefore chiefly that of a senior decision-maker and interpreter of risk. He urges the police to take the attack seriously, keep the victims’ vulnerability in sight, and act before the campaign can inflict further harm.