Morddezernat

The Morddezernat is Oslo’s largest murder-investigation unit and the institutional center of a dispute over who should investigate Norway’s most complex homicides. Its conflict with Kriminalamt is not merely a contest for prestige: it concerns who assigns cases, controls evidence and information, and can claim responsibility for results. As the linked murders unfold, that rivalry affects the investigation itself and becomes a test of whether murder work should remain divided between specialist units or be consolidated in one national center.

Mandate and jurisdictional stakes

Gunnar Hagen describes the Morddezernat as the largest murder squad in the country, based at Oslo Police District headquarters. In his view, its local expertise and scale entitle it to decide which cases it can handle alone, when it needs assistance, and when a case should be transferred entirely to Kriminalamt. The national agency, as Hagen understands its purpose, was established to support police districts with specialist knowledge in difficult murder investigations—not to take their authority away.

The argument is set against pressure to save money and rationalize police work. Supporters of centralization contend that scarce resources can be used more efficiently if murder investigations are gathered in one competence center. Hagen counters that concentrating responsibility risks narrow, inward-looking expertise: local knowledge, varied professional experience, and the recruitment of new investigators also matter. The organizational question therefore reaches beyond an individual case. It asks whether efficiency is best served by one center or by maintaining a division of work between national specialists and local police.

A jurisdictional conflict becomes operational

The dispute intensifies after Charlotte Lolles is found dead behind a Datsun and investigators recognize similarities to the earlier murder of Borgny Stem-Myhre in a basement. Although both bodies are found in Oslo, Kriminalamt asserts that the apparent double murder belongs to its jurisdiction and begins investigating independently. The Morddezernat is left competing to solve the case while, according to Hagen, Bellman refuses to share information and the investigation stalls.

The matter quickly acquires political stakes. The Ministry of Justice is considering whether to transfer all murder investigations to a single center, and officials are understood to regard the results in this case as relevant to that decision. The Oslo police chief receives word that the ministry would welcome Kriminalamt taking over until the jurisdictional question is settled. For the Morddezernat, solving the murders is thus inseparable from demonstrating that local investigators should retain authority over cases in their own district.

The rivalry also shapes how the investigation is presented to the public. When a newspaper reports on the arrest of Sigurd Altman, Mikael Bellman first checks the front page for mention of Kriminalamt or his own name. The later article identifies him as the investigation’s leader and has him avoid commenting on why a village police officer made the arrest, while emphasizing teamwork and the absence of concern for prestige. The episode shows how public credit and the appearance of institutional cooperation become part of the jurisdictional contest.

Investigative work and disputed conclusions

The Morddezernat’s investigators continue to test evidence even as authority shifts between units. During a discussion of DNA, Harry Hole proposes checking Krongli as well as Tony Leike. Krongli might not have killed Charlotte or Borgny, Harry reasons, but could still have raped Adele Vetlesen. Because a police officer may have attended a crime scene, Harry points to the established practice of collecting fingerprints and DNA from officers at scenes to prevent mistaken attribution. The exchange places internal verification alongside the broader institutional argument: sound investigations depend on evidence and procedure, not simply on which agency claims the case.

At a meeting in room Odin, Harry reports that the gnarled fingers visible beneath a scooter belong to Tony Leike and lays out his theory. Bellman responds that Leike may have had an accomplice. Leike has witnesses who place him at board meetings when Borgny and Charlotte were killed, and Bellman says an accomplice may have committed at least those two murders. Harry objects that images from the Kadok Factory connect Altman to the case, though he has not yet established exactly how. The meeting makes the limits of institutional authority visible: command of the inquiry does not by itself settle what the clues mean, and an arrest or a theory can remain incomplete while evidence is still being interpreted.

Personnel, accountability, and public trust

The conflict is also tied to questions about how police conduct is judged. In a conversation about the rivalry, Roger Gjendem recounts rumors that Bellman once assaulted a colleague and says Bellman appears tolerant of similar misconduct. He also notes that Jussi Kolkka, Bellman’s former Europol colleague, had beaten a rapist during an interrogation, and that Truls Berntsen, Bellman’s close associate, was no model officer. These are presented as allegations and concerns, not established findings; their significance is that the leadership contest is being scrutinized through the conduct of the people who represent the competing institution.

Harry asks Gjendem to intervene in the public argument over responsibility for murder investigations. He wants material that will draw attention to the conflict, including scrutiny of what he characterizes as an authoritarian leadership style, and intends to see how the Minister of Justice responds. The request illustrates how the case is being fought on several fronts at once: through evidence gathering, formal jurisdictional claims, and public pressure. It also shows the risks of turning institutional criticism into a weapon while a live murder investigation remains unresolved.

Reform and the unit’s uncertain future

As the Ministry of Justice’s deadline for proposals approaches, Hagen tells Bellman that both have been asked to submit recommendations for the future handling of murder cases. Hagen says the existing division may be preferable to putting every investigation in one place. He prioritizes sparing the police corps another public scandal and protecting the integrity of ordinary officers, while acknowledging that the ministry might centralize resources regardless of their submissions. If offered leadership of a unified unit, he says he would consider it; at the same time, he argues that the present arrangement is working well enough for killers generally to be punished.

Hagen’s proposed compromise is to continue investigations both in Bryn and at police headquarters, provided the other side shares his view. His position combines institutional self-preservation with a practical defense of divided responsibility, rather than an absolute rejection of reform. The available events do not establish the Ministry of Justice’s final decision. The Morddezernat’s significance therefore remains bound to an unresolved question: whether its local authority and investigative role will survive a reorganization, or be absorbed into the centralized structure its rival has been advocating.