he would never agree to be interviewed – he never agreed to interviews on principle – but he sent material that he felt I ought to read, including his own article ‘The Chief Interrogator’s View of the Mystery of Thomas Quick’, published in 2004 in the Nordisk kriminalkrönika (‘Nordic Crime Chronicle’), where, among other things, he wrote, ‘To demonstrate what sort of evidence underpinned the successful convictions, the investigation into the murder of Therese Johannesen in Drammen might serve as a typical example.’
Even van der Kwast had emphasised the Therese investigation as the one where there had been the strongest proof against Quick. If Stigson, Penttinen and van der Kwast were agreed on this, there was no longer any doubt about which case I would try to get to the bottom of, to examine whether there was any basis for the murmurings about a judicial scandal.
Thomas Quick revealed things about his victims that only the perpetrator and the police could have known. Sometimes he evensaid things that the police were unaware of. This was clearly stated in the sentencing documents.
In several instances it was also difficult to see how he could have been aware of some of the murders at all. This was not least true of the Norwegian murders, which had hardly been covered in the Swedish media. How could Quick, locked up at Säter Hospital, even have had the knowledge to talk about the murders of Gry Storvik and Trine Jensen? Or show the way to the remote places where their bodies had been found?
I felt that many of those who had doubted Thomas Quick’s testimonies had dismissed the question of the information he had provided too lightly. Some of Quick’s so-called unique information could be explained, yet some of it seemed mysterious even after careful scrutiny of the investigation documents.
Quick had given descriptions of the victims’ injuries, details of the crime scenes and information about the victims’ clothes and belongings that had apparently not been mentioned in the media.
How did Quick know that a nine-year-old girl named Therese had gone missing from Fjell in July 1988? Hedemora District Court had recognised the significance of this in its summary of the evidence.
In its verdict for the Therese case, the district court writes: ‘Information about this event available to Quick in the media – in so far as it has been shown – would have been limited.’ And Quick had also given testimony on the subject: ‘He has no memory of having read anything about these events before his confession’, the sentencing document states.
The collected investigation material into the case of Thomas Quick amounts to more than 50,000 pages. I decided to organise the sections pertaining to Therese Johannesen along a timeline, and sat down to read all the interviews and documents from when Quick first started talking about her disappearance. How did he and the investigation get embroiled with Norwegian crimes in the first place?
I found a report in the police investigation stating that Quick had had contact with the Norwegian journalist Svein Arne Haavik.Thomas Quick hadn’t initially attracted any attention at all in Norway, but in July 1995 Haavik wrote him a letter in which he explained that he was working for Norway’s biggest newspaper, Verdens Gang , which had recently published a series of lengthy articles on Thomas Quick. Haavik requested an interview with the serial killer.
The police report gives the following information:
Shortly after, Haavik was telephoned by Thomas Quick, who asked Haavik to send all the newspaper articles about him and his murders in Norway.
Haavik therefore sent Thomas Quick the newspapers from the 6, 7 and 8 July 1995.
The series of articles began on 6 July 1995 with a three-page opener. The front page was filled with a brooding photograph of Thomas Quick looking into the camera.
‘Swedish mass murderer admits: I MURDERED A BOY IN NORWAY.’
Thomas Quick poses
Even van der Kwast had emphasised the Therese investigation as the one where there had been the strongest proof against Quick. If Stigson, Penttinen and van der Kwast were agreed on this, there was no longer any doubt about which case I would try to get to the bottom of, to examine whether there was any basis for the murmurings about a judicial scandal.
Thomas Quick revealed things about his victims that only the perpetrator and the police could have known. Sometimes he evensaid things that the police were unaware of. This was clearly stated in the sentencing documents.
In several instances it was also difficult to see how he could have been aware of some of the murders at all. This was not least true of the Norwegian murders, which had hardly been covered in the Swedish media. How could Quick, locked up at Säter Hospital, even have had the knowledge to talk about the murders of Gry Storvik and Trine Jensen? Or show the way to the remote places where their bodies had been found?
I felt that many of those who had doubted Thomas Quick’s testimonies had dismissed the question of the information he had provided too lightly. Some of Quick’s so-called unique information could be explained, yet some of it seemed mysterious even after careful scrutiny of the investigation documents.
Quick had given descriptions of the victims’ injuries, details of the crime scenes and information about the victims’ clothes and belongings that had apparently not been mentioned in the media.
How did Quick know that a nine-year-old girl named Therese had gone missing from Fjell in July 1988? Hedemora District Court had recognised the significance of this in its summary of the evidence.
In its verdict for the Therese case, the district court writes: ‘Information about this event available to Quick in the media – in so far as it has been shown – would have been limited.’ And Quick had also given testimony on the subject: ‘He has no memory of having read anything about these events before his confession’, the sentencing document states.
The collected investigation material into the case of Thomas Quick amounts to more than 50,000 pages. I decided to organise the sections pertaining to Therese Johannesen along a timeline, and sat down to read all the interviews and documents from when Quick first started talking about her disappearance. How did he and the investigation get embroiled with Norwegian crimes in the first place?
I found a report in the police investigation stating that Quick had had contact with the Norwegian journalist Svein Arne Haavik.Thomas Quick hadn’t initially attracted any attention at all in Norway, but in July 1995 Haavik wrote him a letter in which he explained that he was working for Norway’s biggest newspaper, Verdens Gang , which had recently published a series of lengthy articles on Thomas Quick. Haavik requested an interview with the serial killer.
The police report gives the following information:
Shortly after, Haavik was telephoned by Thomas Quick, who asked Haavik to send all the newspaper articles about him and his murders in Norway.
Haavik therefore sent Thomas Quick the newspapers from the 6, 7 and 8 July 1995.
The series of articles began on 6 July 1995 with a three-page opener. The front page was filled with a brooding photograph of Thomas Quick looking into the camera.
‘Swedish mass murderer admits: I MURDERED A BOY IN NORWAY.’
Thomas Quick poses
Similar Books
