The Bridge III – Episodes 3 & 4

Four episodes in and I’m no less confused. Two suspects down, well not that they were really suspects but I don’t know what else to call them. Anyhow both Aleks and Morten are dead, both shot to death in the same manner, both by an unknown assailant. Except Morten seems to think he knew who was there. That scene was very confusing, the killer had a recording of Morten’s phone call from a few minutes ago, or was it the message he left. I don’t know, either way Morten called him. His dying words were that his brother killed him. But not his literal brother because he doesn’t have one. He does have a half brother Elias but he’s an unlikely suspect, given that he’s only four years old. That was a very amusing conversation between Saga and Henrik. In fact that exchange was so amusing it’s worth putting here in full:

Saga: He doesn’t have a brother.

Henrik: He’s got Elias.

Saga: Elias is four.

Henrik: Yes, yes, I don’t think he did it. But Morten’s got a brother, that’s what I mean.

Saga: Elias is his half brother.

Henrik: Yes I know that Wiki, but…

Saga: Don’t call me that.

Henrik: Sometimes people call their half siblings their siblings. So maybe Morten had more half siblings, that’s what I meant.

Saga: Why didn’t you say so right away?

Henrik: I tried. Then I had to convince you I didn’t think a four year old had shot two men in two different countries in the last 24 hours.

Saga: It sounded like you thought that.

Henrik: No, it didn’t.

Saga: Yes

Henrik is very different to Martin but that’s not a bad thing. If it weren’t for the fact that he clearly has his own issues and may in fact be using Saga I’d say he was perfect for her. So his family is indeed at least missing and that was what he wanted Saga’s help with. If anyone can find out the truth Saga can. Question is does he really want to know the truth, and does it have anything to do with what’s going on? Lukas, the guy from the youth project is convinced he knows Henrik from somewhere, saying that he never forgets a face. But Henrik said he was mistaken. I wonder if Lukas had anything to do with what happened to Henrik’s family. When he’s looking over the case file at home he says “I can’t believe they only questioned him once.”

Questioned who, and what about? Is he referring to a witness or to a person of interest related to the disappearance of his family? Is it possible that Henrik has something to do with all of this? Could he be the brother Morten referred to? This is the best picture I could get, it’s the photos from the file on Henrik’s family. The first guy can’t be Lukas, but the photo underneath could be him. Question is, who’s the first photo of:

Henrik's case file photosI’ve been thinking that the killer may be police or military because of the way both victims were shot. But then a person good be a good shot for other reasons, such as being a criminal. Like the shady people that Lukas is involved with. I have no idea what’s going on there. The kid from the poker game owes him money so to pay it back he has to do him a favour. But it’s his girlfriend who ends up doing it. The task being to pick up a bag from a locker, a bag which gets stolen from her. Except all is not as it seems. It seems to be some kind of set-up, the same black car is following them after they leave. One theory online I read suggested that maybe the girlfriend was a decoy. That she took the decoy bag and the police or the gangsters would have been watching her and not the person who took the real one. The reason I don’t agree is because when she first picks up the bag it’s too heavy for her and she lets it drop to the floor, you can hear the sounds of the weapons in there hit the ground, hence not a decoy.

I don’t know what Lukas’ play is there and to be honest I really don’t care. I find him, his henchmen and Marc and his girlfriend insufferable. The latter especially, I don’t understand why you would stay with someone who not only gambles all your money away but steals your jewellery and anything that isn’t nailed down to feed his addiction, shows no interest in his unborn child and shows no concern for anyone but himself.

To get back to the topic of whether or not the killer is police or military, one of the reasons I had for thinking the former is that I was wondering how did he know where Hans was. How did he know he’d been kidnapped, unless of course he’d been following him, then he would know, it’s possible.

Marc is not the only new face, there’s also the woman from the real estate company Ekhdahl Housing, Anna who’s about to become their new CEO. Not only her but her friend’s son whom she’s sleeping with. He looks a bit like Marc, at first I thought they were the same person and from what I read online it seems I’m not the only one who made that mistake. The other new face is Claes Sandberg who’s introduced at the start of the fourth episode when he kills his dying father. Claes is quite strange and that’s putting it mildly. He’s an author and some kind of speaker. There’s a woman who’s quite obsessed with him and he doesn’t seem to be at all bothered by this fact.

Lukas’ connection to the case is that a van belonging to the youth organization he works for was captured on camera driving across the bridge at the right time. He gets a kid to lie for him, to say he used the van to go and visit his girlfriend. So he may turn out to be connected, or he may have just been running drugs or guns and have nothing to do with it.

Marc Lukas Lukas' henchman Anna Claes Sandberg Anna's boyfriendIt’s curious to think which of these subplots will turn out to actually be relevant to the case. Because series 1 had a couple of such stories which turned out to have no bearing whatsoever on the actual case but which fitted nicely in terms of the themes being explored. In particular I’m thinking about Stefan and his sister in series 1. They were only indirectly involved because of the homeless angle, because his sister drank the poisoned alcohol if I remember correctly. They were relevant in that it was related to the issues of family, of people having to take care of themselves, of not trusting the authorities to do the right thing. Which come to think of it may be relevant here. I can’t believe I only just figured that out. Martin was a little fixated on Stefan, he was convinced he was hiding something or had done something wrong. It was partly to Martin’s persistence they discovered he killed the husband of the woman he was helping to get away. Martin was so sure that handing out your kind of justice wasn’t the right thing to do. But that’s what he ended up doing. Because truth is unless you are in that situation, unless it’s happening to you, you don’t know how you’re going to react.

On a related note I think there may be something there with Henrik. When he was trying to talk Rikard down he asked him if he knew what it was like to lose a child. Not only that but the way he talked about it was most interesting, enough to quote in full:

Henrik: No matter what you’ve done and  to whom it doesn’t come near to killing a child. You’ve already crossed one line. Don’t cross another one. Rikard, it destroys something inside you, if you do this nothing will ever be the same again. Do you understand what I’m saying? If she dies now some of you goes too. Losing a child, life will never be whole again.

Does Henrik know not only what it’s like to lose a child but to kill one too?

Saga’s mother shows up again and is as manipulative as ever. Her father has died and she wants Saga to come to the memorial service which of course Saga refuses to do. Her temporary boss has other ideas however, getting involved when she has no business to do so. Unbelievable, that she thinks it was ok to try and trick Saga that way. It’s none of her business whether Saga goes to her father’s funeral or not. She’s not handling Saga well at all. The board situation was funny, her not being used to the process she doesn’t know that Saga normally runs through the case that way. Her talking to Saga about the performance reviews was not so amusing, and people say Saga lacks empathy. It was a little cruel almost, to tell of the things Hans had been keeping from her. Whether or not Hans possesses any other secrets, that will bother Saga, that he lied to her.

On the subject of Hans, they found him at the Ghost Train. But they only found him because it’s what the killer wanted. He led them to Hans, the ticket for the ghost train was in Helle Anker’s car along with her heart. It’s interesting that he kidnapped him but didn’t kill him, he did however take his right hand which he uses later to guide them to the next victim.

The third victim is Lars-Ove Abrahamsson, a 72 year old retired PE teacher. The scene is set up in a similar way as the other two were, but this one is a little more disturbing. I have no idea what it’s meant to mean. Helle Anker was missing her heart and it was used to lead them to Hans. He was missing his right hand which was used to lead them to Abrahmasson who was missing his penis, which one can only assume will play a part in leading them to the next victim.

Lars-Ove Abrahamsson - murder scene 1 Lars-Ove Abrahamsson - murder scene 2The scene at the end of the fourth episode was very touching. I don’t imagine Saga would have talked like that with anyone before. I just hope that Hans really doesn’t have any major secrets to hide, that Saga won’t end up having any reason to be angry with him.

She told Hans about her mother and what happened. What I find interesting is that she said her mother made her and her sister ill. So Saga already knows for definite then but she still wants proof. She knows she’s right but she needs evidence, it’s the way she thinks, the way she works. Knowing or believing something isn’t enough, she needs to be able to prove something is true.

One thing is for sure Rikard is not the killer. He did kill Fabian Christensen but not the others. That’s why they found his fingerprints on the car but nowhere else. Plus the fact they found prints at all is a clue. The killer was seen wearing gloves at the beginning of the first episode, he wouldn’t be leaving prints anywhere. Also whilst he may be mentally unbalanced he’s probably not physically capable of carrying out all of this, of drugging Hans and then transporting him. Another reason proving he wasn’t the killer is the photo he included of Christensen with his letter to Andersen, there weren’t photos of the other victims, he didn’t claim responsibility for the others. The police tried to use his obsession with Andersen to trap him, providing him with his next target. A Danish army commander named Bente Knudsen. It didn’t work, he went after Helle Anker’s wife instead. He got away from that one but was caught at Andersen’s flat when he held her daughter hostage.

So taking away Christensen the victims are Helle Anker, Hans and Lars-Ove Abrahamsson. Two Swedes and a Dane. Two men and one woman. A gender rights activist, a retired PE teacher and a police officer. When Christensen was still considered one of the victims Andersen’s vlog connected them all but the third victim has no connection it. At least none that Andersen was willing to share, it’s possible she was holding something back. After all she didn’t want to tell the police about the letter.

To work out an possible reason why someone would want to hurt Hans they called in his ex-wife. I read a theory online that has her as the mastermind of all this, theorising that they wouldn’t introduce a character without a specific purpose for them. But that’s not always true with The Bridge, they’ve done that before and besides she did serve a purpose. That rather amusing conversation in which she asked if Hans seemed at all different since he’d gotten married to Lillian. To which Saga told her, yes he’s late in the mornings sometimes and he wasn’t before. It’s not easy to work out if Saga realises the implications of what she’s just said, let alone how it may not the kind of answer she was looking for.

So to sum up, they’ve got Rikard in custody, Hans is safe and they know have a third victim who so far has no connection to Andersen’s vlog.

Question is how many more victims are there going to be and is it going to be one of the new characters introduced,  I wonder if Anna may not be a target. The posed photo with her family got me thinking this. Also there’s a parallel of sorts between her and Saga, a controlling mother.

Random things to mention:

When Henrik introduces Saga he says her name but not where she’s from. Saga adds “Lanskrim Malmo” herself. It’s one of those little moments that I really appreciate, it just gets better every time you see it.

Anna’s affair with that teenage boy is potentially about to become a very public affair. It’s on the front of a newspaper, question is, does this have anything to do with the case.

Henrik is oddly suited to Saga, they suit each other. I didn’t see that coming, them ending up at the singles club or them sleeping together. I think they could be a good couple, I think that would be nice.

I’ve been reading online people’s thoughts and theories, including thoughts on Saga and how well they portray her autism. What’s interesting to me is the autistic people who insist it’s not a good or realistic portrayal of autism because Saga is nothing like them. Well why would she be. For one thing she’s a fictional character and for another she’s an individual, no two people with autism are alike just like no two NTs are alike. I was surprised to read people saying that because she’s so intelligent she should be able to work out how to act around other people. If a NT said that I wouldn’t be too surprised but I would be and was very surprised to read an autistic person writing such a thing. Because they should know better, it’s not about intelligence. She can study these things, learn about them and even maybe sometimes use what she’s learnt in the appropriate situation. But it’ll never come naturally to her and it would be exhausting to do that all the time. In fact if she did commit to that she wouldn’t be able to do her job, she would spend all her time and energy on maintaining that facade. Of course that assumes she’s even interested in doing so. If one doesn’t care about being different then they won’t be motivated to learn to act in the way other people think they should.

And as for her not being a good portrayal of autism because they can’t identify with her or because they don’t think she’s anything like them consider this, I hadn’t thought about myself having anything in common with her, not until someone told me Saga reminded them of me. What’s most interesting about this fact is that they said we sounded alike. It’s interesting because of the language difference, Saga speaks Swedish, I speak English with the person in question yet still they say we sound alike. That we both have the same blunt and matter of fact manner of speaking. My point is I didn’t see that or just never thought about it, maybe those people do have something in common with Saga but they just can’t or don’t want to see it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.