Authors: Hannes Råstam
And sure enough, in a therapy session with Birgitta Ståhle, Quick revealed that important memories had been reawakened.
In the interview, Thomas Quick, Seppo Penttinen and Christer van der Kwast managed through their collective efforts to reach the conclusion that the strap had been used as a strangling knot.
At long last – two years and eleven months after Thomas Quick had first admitted to the murder of Trine Jensen – they had finally obtained a piece of evidence that would hold up in court.
And the inspection video? This notorious film that had such an effect on the conviction shows Thomas Quick, on 16 August 1999, leading a number of Swedish and Norwegian police and other individuals to almost the exact spot where Trine Jensen’s body was found. On the way the car also passed close to the car park where Gry Storvik was found. Quick reacted strongly, with a severe anxiety attack. The others in the car later claimed they were not aware at this time of the other murder – as stated in court, only at this stage did suspicions arise that Quick had also murdered Gry Storvik.
Remarkably enough, my Norwegian colleagues told me that Oslo police had connected the two sexually motivated murders at an early stage and suspected that Trine and Gry had fallen prey to the same assailant. I also discovered that Gry had already featured in newspaper coverage of the Quick investigation just as much as Trine Jensen.
Bearing in mind the leaks and Quick’s generous allowance of full clearance, what was the value of leading the police to two crime scenes that were fifteen and almost twenty years old, and not in any way secret or unknown?
DA CAPO
AT SÄTER HOSPITAL
Christmas and New Year were not usually a big deal, and exceptions weren’t made for the eve of the new millennium. Around the time of the New Year Thomas Quick was ‘tense and shaky’, according to his file. His carers reported ‘weeping and despair’. Quick was unable to sleep because of his ‘high-level anxiety’.
In March a meeting was held to discuss Quick’s treatment regime, but he was too ill to attend. The chief physician Erik Kall was optimistic as always, noting in the file that there had been ‘positive developments in the patient. He has progressed in his psychotherapeutic process and become more integrated as a person’.
Birgitta Ståhle went even further when she wrote in the file of the beneficial effects of the long-term therapeutic treatment. As usual she began her entry by describing the recent advances in the therapy, then moved on to developments in murders currently being investigated and how these related to Quick’s traumatic childhood experiences.
Our continued therapeutic work has implied a broadened and deepened seeing and understanding of both the significance of the various murders and also how the earlier experiences are narrated/expressed in the murders.
In the later part of the autumn there was a clear integration which means that the contexts, both earlier and later, are connected in a clearer way. The differentiation between the various murders has been one of the things of importance to work on.
This has become very clear in the meaning and significance of the murders of boys and those of women.
Chief physician Erik Kall and Birgitta Ståhle’s enthusiastic judgements are in heart-rending contrast to the notes made by the ward staff at this time:
Thomas is having a particularly difficult period at the moment with a lot of existential brooding. On 6/4 he was told that he would be formally arraigned for prosecution within two weeks, which led to additional pressure and increasing anxiety as a consequence. Has taken extra amounts of benzodiazepine to reduce his anxiety and to be able to sleep. On the night of 8/4 he slept only two hours. Much despair with crying and screaming in the night despite extra on-demand medications.
In the weeks that followed there were dreadful scenes of sleepless ‘scream-nights’, anxiety and a parade of Thomas Quick’s multiple personalities, who took turns making appearances on the ward – with high dosages of medication as a result.
On 30 June Birgitta Ståhle made another triumphant note in the file, this time on the subject of how the previous week Thomas Quick had managed to get himself convicted of the murders of Gry Storvik and Trine Jensen.
Continued therapy 3 times a week. Ongoing constructive development of the psychotherapeutic process. Trial in Stockholm 18–30 May.
The trial was regarding prosecution for the murder of two girls, committed in 1981 and 1985. During the trial this positive development takes the form of Thomas managing to conduct himself throughout the trial in a much more collected way than before.
Birgitta Ståhle observed that Thomas Quick needed ‘a relatively short time to recuperate himself after the trial’ and that the therapy ‘has taken a huge step forward’.
Even before the verdict had been given, Seppo Penttinen and Christer van der Kwast were back at Säter for the next murder investigation.
Eight years after Thomas Quick had assumed responsibility for the murder of Johan Asplund it was finally time to bring the whole thing across the finishing line.
Quick’s repeated failure to show where he had hidden Johan’s body had led to van der Kwast being forced, after every fresh attempt, to admit that the foundations were not yet in place to bring the Johan murder inquiry before a court. Now the investigation was going to be brought to a close, so that Quick could be put on trial.
On 26 November 2000 Birgitta Ståhle described what happened to Quick during the reconstructions and the mechanisms of a serial killer.
These tours have resulted in a strong, active and very constructive inner therapeutic process. The earlier defensive structures have been exposed and it is possible to both see and understand in a more complete sense.
She continued:
A prerequisite for this inner work is a deepened connection with reality, both his own early vulnerability and the vulnerability of the victims.
That Thomas Quick, despite this ‘deepened connection with reality’, was in free fall in a personal sense can hardly be doubted. On 12 December 2000 a psychiatric nurse wrote in the file:
Thomas came out of his room at about 02.30 crying inconsolably and in despair. He stayed in the day room until about 04.00 with staff. Thomas paced back and forth and was at times very torn up and in despair. He held his head and said repeatedly that he ‘can’t take the pressure’.
The staff resolved the crisis with the help of Xanax and Panocod, but a few hours later the situation was just as bad again.
In the morning, Thomas felt a bottomless despair. He cried uncontrollably. Sat with the staff. Calming conversation and medication as needed. Conversations with Birgitta Ståhle on the telephone. ‘The bottomless despair runs parallel to the severe anxiety.’
A little later in the day, Thomas Quick was paralysed by cramps in the doorway of the smoking room and was quite unable to move. The hospital staff solved the problem with even more Xanax and Panocod. ‘Part of it is that on Thursday, 14 December that is, a documentary on the so-called “Johan case” will be on TV. It’s obviously going to be difficult for Thomas,’ a nurse noted.
During rounds, Dr Kall was informed that Quick hadn’t slept in three nights. He suggested a mammoth additional dose of tranquillisers, 50 mg of Diazepam. It worked and Quick managed to sleep for between four and five hours and declared himself satisfied with the effect of the Diazepam, which was still working when he woke up, as he ‘managed to get out of bed despite crippling despair’.
During the period that followed he grew worse and worse and was constantly speaking of suicide.
The hospital staff frequently wrote in the file about his ‘significant anxiety which he tries to control by taking additional on-demand medication’. Many times the maximum intake was exceeded. According to the nursing staff, police questioning in the run-up to the trial for the murder of Johan Asplund was ‘tougher than expected’ and Thomas Quick was once again mentioning suicide. In the following days it was noted in the file that he felt ‘especially bad’ with ‘a great deal of anxiety’ and was ‘trembling, pale, slurring his words’.
A few days later, on 16 February, it was once again time for Birgitta Ståhle to sum up the situation:
A psychotherapeutic ‘wheel spin’ after the Christmas break has brought a further emotional deepening and connection as well
as the ability to see and embrace both his earlier activities and how these earlier activities have been acted out in his adult life and have taken form, among other things, in the murdering of boys.
While plans were being hatched for three new prosecutions for the murders of Johan Asplund, Olle Högbom and Marianne Rugaas Knutsen, a man in another wing of the hospital sat down to scrutinise Thomas Quick’s files and medication logs. This was the previous chief physician Göran Källberg, who after a few years in other professional fields had now taken up his former position as head of the clinic. Realising that Quick’s consumption of narcotics-strength medications was exceeding recommended doses by a significant amount, he was seriously alarmed. In his view, what he was seeing here was a consumption of pharmaceutical drugs for the sake of ‘kicks’. And it had been going on for a terribly long time. Ultimately, it was Källberg who was responsible for this clear case of negligent care.
In a conversation with Göran Källberg on 25 April 2001, Thomas Quick denied that this was a case of outright drug abuse and grew very worried when Källberg communicated his decision: benzodiaze-pine medication would be gradually reduced and then phased out completely. Quick told me that at this time he had been dreading the approaching trial for the murder of Johan, which was due to start a few weeks later.
Göran Källberg’s decision had immediate consequences for the murder investigations. There is an interesting note from a nurse from 5 May which gives an insight into Quick’s withdrawal problems. The note also reveals that he was sitting with the investigation notes, as if studying them in order to be able to give a coherent story in the forthcoming district court proceedings.
[Thomas Quick] did not sleep last night. Sat trying to ‘work’ in preparation for the coming trial. Has investigation notes he needs to read. Because of feeling unwell, due to withdrawals and anxiety, he can’t do this. Asked me to contact Dr Kall or another
doctor on duty to get a one-off prescription of a Xanax tablet and two soluble Panocod tablets.
But Göran Källberg’s decision was strictly adhered to and Quick was not given any extra dosage of the medication, neither on this occasion nor on the following day. However, chief physician Erik Kall realised that his patient would not be able to manage the trial unless he was given temporary reprieve from the planned cutback. He wrote:
For the duration of the trial it is necessary to impose a temporary needs-based medication regime, as follows:
At times of high anxiety affecting the patient to the extent of endangering his ability to complete the trial, a Xanax tablet, 1 mg, can be given when required.
At times of such serious tense headache that the completion of the trial hangs in the balance, a Treo comp tablet can be given, or two if required.
If the patient’s general condition is affected in such a way that oral medication cannot be administered, Diazepam Prefill 5 mg/ml 2 ml can be given when required.
The trial for the murder of Johan Asplund started in Stockholm on 14 May 2001. Because Claes Borgström had taken up the position as Sweden’s new Ombudsman for Equality, Thomas Quick was being defended by a new lawyer, Sten-Åke Larsson from Växjö. Aside from this change, he was flanked by the usual group: Seppo Penttinen, Christer van der Kwast, Sven Åke Christianson and Birgitta Ståhle.
On the first day Quick recounted his extremely detailed memories of the abduction of Johan some twenty years earlier: how he had tricked Johan into getting into his car by telling him he had run over a cat, how he rendered him unconscious by slamming his head against the dashboard, how he drove him up to Norra Stadsberget and how there he assaulted him sexually.
After this, how he drove Johan to a place in the area of Åvike, where he strangled him, undressed him and then cut up the body
using a saw and a knife. And lastly how he scattered the different body parts in various places around central Sweden.
Again, Sven Åke Christianson was brought in to talk about his invention – the memory test which, it was believed, demonstrated that Quick hadn’t simply acquired his facts from the newspapers. As usual, Birgitta Ståhle testified about Thomas Quick’s horrendous formative years and how the reawakened memories of them were capable of explaining his transformation into a serial killer. Once again she made a statement under oath that as a general rule she is not present during police questioning and also that the police were not party to what was mentioned in the therapy sessions. Seppo Penttinen also testified about the ‘airtight seals’ between the therapists and the investigators and claimed that Quick, despite having changed his mind on some of the points over the course of the eight-year investigation, had retained ‘clearly defined memories’ on the crucial aspects and ‘stayed true to the central parts of his information’.
John Sjöberg told the court about his splendid cadaver dog Zampo and how the dog had reacted to a number of the places where Quick claimed to have scattered Johan’s body parts. And in case the court wondered why none of these body parts had been found, the geologist Kjell Persson made a statement on his measurements of levels of phosphates in the ground, which indicated that ‘some form of organic material’ was decomposing in the spot pointed out as the murder scene in the Åvike area.
Furthermore, Christianson put forward a psychological explanation for the same puzzle: that serial killers have a need to both talk about their actions and preserve the body parts. These dual needs lead to conflicting emotions.
In its verdict on 21 June 2001, Sundsvall District Court made a slightly hesitant start: ‘Quick has confessed to the deed which is the subject of prosecution. For a confession to form a basis for a guilty verdict, however, there must be additional support from the other parts of the investigation.’