‘What is your point?’ demanded Lenteur, exasperated.
‘What has there been in return, from any country those of us here today represent and to each of which our efforts have been passed on, for investigation, according to our Convention?’ insisted Sanglier formally. He managed to stretch the rhetorical silence by looking individually to each of the men grouped around the table, bringing their wavering concentration back to him. He answered his own question. ‘Nothing! None of the local or national police forces, which should be carrying out their investigations based upon our guidance, has made any significant contribution …’ He went quickly to Lenteur, then to Maes. ‘The binding wire was manufactured in Holland and somewhere in Eastern Europe, possibly what was East Germany. What progress have your forces made finding every manufacturer and from every manufacturer each purchaser and outlet?’
‘Are you serious?’ broke in the incredulous Lenteur, to be stopped in turn by Sanglier.
‘I couldn’t be more serious! It’s a logically routine method of continuing a police investigation … time-consuming, manpower-intensive, boring but absolutely necessary.’ His attention skipped between Sobell and Winslow. ‘The trunk road interceptions were covered, just, by their being accepted as drugs operations. Are they still being carried out? I certainly intend asking the most searching questions of the French forces involved, because I don’t think they are, any more, I suspect, than they are being conducted with the proper diligence in any other country. I think that because the killings have stopped and the public outcry has begun to diminish all the national forces have relaxed, happy for Europol to be identified in the public mind as the organization responsible for success or failure.’
‘I’m still trying hard to follow your argument,’ protested Lenteur.
‘Europol’s working. National forces aren’t. The investigations are getting nowhere and Europol is going to be held responsible.’
‘You’ve no evidence whatsoever for that assertion,’ defended Jan Villiers. Belgium was taking over the Commission chairmanship from Austria.
‘We had, after some difficulty, the initial investigation dossiers forwarded from each country,’ Sanglier reminded him. ‘I propose today that we demand an update, from every country, of what has positively been achieved since our assistance began.’
‘Couldn’t that be invidious?’ asked Villiers, knowing that for the next month he would be the person dealing with Justice Ministers.
‘We know our successes. So, to a lesser extent, do the public. We’ve got nothing to fear from any comparison.’
‘It would be exceeding our remit and our authority,’ declared Lenteur.
‘It would be doing nothing of the sort,’ said Sanglier. ‘By a binding decision of European Union Justice Ministers we are the official liaison between the investigating countries. It’s our right to be kept up to date and it is our function to ensure that liaison is as comprehensive as possible. For which we need weekly if not daily intelligence upon which to judge and make further recommendations.’
‘Why haven’t you insisted upon it before?’ asked Lenteur, an almost instinctive responsibility-avoiding question.
‘I didn’t expect overnight miracles,’ retorted Sanglier. ‘That would have been ridiculous in view of the circumstances that brought about our involvement in the first place. But no force has made any progress whatsoever. I’ve waited this long because I am a professional policeman who allowed what I considered a proper period of time for what we provided to be acted upon and to have resulted in some progress.’
‘I suppose we’ve every right to have expected something by now,’ allowed Bellimi.
Quickly, not wanting to lose the direction in which he was guiding the discussion, Sanglier said: ‘I accept that Dr Carter - everyone in the task force, myself included - has every right to be dissatisfied.’
‘Dr Carter has personally protested,’ said Winslow, unwittingly on cue.
‘Wouldn’t you have expected her to, after the contribution she’s made?’ demanded Sanglier, covering one question with another. Ensuring, too, that the official record would show he had not, in fact, made the categorical claim himself, although from their expressions all of them inferred that he had.
‘Isn’t Dr Carter exceeding her authority?’ demanded Sobell.
Sanglier betrayed no satisfaction. In apparent defence he said: ‘Any success Europol has enjoyed has largely been through the professionalism of Dr Carter.’
‘Are the next two suggestions you make on today’s agenda those of Dr Carter?’ asked Lenteur, under pressure.
Again Sanglier hid any reaction not just at the perfect timing but at the phrasing of the question. ‘Both are based on sound, practical reasoning,’ he said, which again wasn’t a confirmation but allowed the inference.
‘An amnesty would open the floodgates,’ protested Paul Merot.
‘It would do nothing of the sort,’ said Sanglier, prepared by Claudine’s supporting memorandum, which he had not attached to the agenda. ‘It would only apply to the families of the victims. You’re surely not suggesting illegal immigrants are going to start sacrificing and dismembering their children to gain the right of residency!’
Merot flushed angrily. ‘It will be seen as a dangerous precedent.’
‘Hardly as dangerous as having teenagers butchered.’ Sheep, thought Sanglier: sheep to be shepherded in whichever way he wanted. ‘I suggest we announce it at a press conference. The governments will be forced by the strength of public opinion to accept it.’
‘What if public opinion is against it?’ asked Winslow.
‘It won’t be, when it’s made clear it only extends to the victims’ families.’
‘I am not sure how it will be accepted in my own country,’ said Lenteur reluctantly. ‘Incredible though it may seem - embarrassing though it is - there’s actually been some support for those arrested for the murder of the Turkish girl. It’s a volatile situation.’
‘Which is surely a problem - one with which I sympathize - for the German government,’ said Sanglier smoothly. ‘But not an argument or a reason for not doing something that might bring this investigation to an end.’
‘I think it’s important to take all aspects of public opinion into account,’ persisted Lenteur.
Sanglier quickly seized the opportunity. ‘Which is what I am recommending with the Asian appeal on the Internet.’
‘That will be resented as much as announcing the amnesty proposal without consultation,’ argued Hans Maes.
‘We haven’t got time to consult.’
‘But there is time for a continent-wide search for the source of the baling wire!’ said Winslow.
With a pained look at the Englishman, Sanglier said: ‘If you wish to propose that this suggestion goes through national channels I will oppose it - and seek a named vote for the record - but will, of course, abide by the majority decision. My reason for opposing it, which I would also insist upon being recorded, would be the risk of more horrific murders being committed in the months it would take to reach a Union-wide decision.’
Winslow backed down at once. ‘I was merely making an observation.’
‘There’s a logical argument for both the amnesty and extending the identification appeal in Asia,’ said Jorge Ortega.
‘And for the country by country update,’ insisted Sanglier, needing every plank of his plan in place.
‘That, too,’ agreed the Spaniard.
‘We risk being accused of exceeding our remit,’ warned Merot.
‘Which is worse, an accusation of exceeding it or not fulfilling it?’ asked Bellimi generally.
Two sheep in the pen, calculated Sanglier: it wouldn’t be long now.
‘All of us would, of course, be able to advise our various ministries in advance of any announcement or press conference here,’ said Winslow.
Sanglier ticked off another entering the fold.
‘Do you propose a press statement?’ asked Sobell, making t
he fourth.
‘I thought the press conference in Rome had a great impact,’ said Sanglier.
‘Given by yourself?’ queried Lenteur, in a clearly implied sneer.
Sanglier shook his head. ‘I think the people doing the actual work should be given the recognition.’
‘Would that include Dr Carter, who seems to have formed some very strong views about the progress of the investigation?’ persisted Lenteur.
‘I would hope so,’ said Sanglier.
‘Shall we put it to the vote?’ suggested Sobell, in one of his last acts as chairman.
The agreement was unanimous.
‘Satisfied?’ Lenteur asked Sanglier, an edge still in his voice.
‘Completely,’ said Sanglier. Easily he added: ‘My only interest is in protecting the interests of this organization.’
The radiologist closed the machine too tightly to ensure that her breasts were properly held and it hurt. So did the cervical smear that afterwards caused a small bleed and Claudine didn’t enjoy the manual examination of her breasts by the gynaecologist, a white-haired, distracted man named Raufer. He took pedantic case notes and advised that she undergo a yearly examination in future if the current check-up proved to be negative, which he was sure it would be. When she mildly complained of the mammogram discomfort he said it was because she had small breasts, which didn’t mean there was any less risk of her developing a cancer. He promised the X-ray and smear results within a week and said she was not to worry. She’d been wise to come.
There was no call from Yvette, with whom she’d left the gynaecologist’s number, and Claudine decided to lunch away from the Europol building, wanting time by herself.
She was guilty of every accusation - arrogant, conceited, stupid - that Hugo had made, just as he’d been right about getting a lawyer and telling Toomey of the telephone approach from Paul Bickerstone. And the truest warning of all was that by ignoring everything Hugo said she was risking what was most important to her, whatever future she had at Europol. Which made the answer easy and obvious, giving her no other choice: don’t ignore what he’d said, follow his advice instead and hope everything turned out all right.
But that took control away from her and put it in the hands of others: made her dependent on others. Her scales of reasoning abruptly tilted back into an even balance and then descended in the opposite direction, away from logic. What were the arguments against those of Hugo, valid though she acknowledged his to be? Bickerstone’s approach didn’t prove anything, against Warwick or herself: at its worst it was nothing more than curious, something capable of a circumstantial interpretation. Peter Toomey would inevitably make one, and if only she could turn it back upon the man it would all be over. All she needed was something positive, one sharp fact to prick the balloon of suspicion and the whole nonsense would end without her having had to rely on someone else, to depend on someone else. Expose herself. But hadn’t she exposed herself to Hugo Rosetti? Yes, she admitted uncomfortably. Inexplicably - and now to her burning embarrassment - she had talked more about herself, disclosed more about herself, to the Italian than probably she had to anyone, including even her mother and Warwick. But she hadn’t gone as far as to rely or depend on him. Trusted him, certainly. But she was still in control.
Know thyself echoed in her mind. Knowing herself as she did - although unable to understand the aberration with Rosetti - why was she trying to convince herself there was a debate? She knew bloody well what she was going to do, despite all the logical arguments to the contrary. Just as she knew that there wouldn’t be any danger in it. Not in simply returning a call. Then was the time to consider telling Toomey or getting a lawyer. But not now. Not yet. The decision made, Claudine abandoned the idea of lunch and hurried back to the Europol building.
There the meeting between Sanglier and Poulard had already been going on for thirty minutes.
‘I want to be sure about this,’ insisted Sanglier, as if seeking a reminder. ‘Rosetti told you she positively avoided any personal publicity?’
‘It was only in casual conversation, between Rosetti and myself, just before the Rome press conference,’ elaborated Poulard. ‘He said Claudine had refused Ponzio’s invitation to take part in earlier conferences. And that he agreed with her that personal publicity wouldn’t help them. Be a distraction, in fact. That’s why he didn’t want to get involved. Why it was just Siemen and me.’
Sanglier had allowed Poulard to recount and savour every detail of his Rome experience to get to this point, the most uncertain part of the ensnaring web he was attempting to weave. ‘I think she should be invited to participate, though, don’t you?’
‘Most certainly,’ said the French detective. Much of the subservience had gone but he was still properly respectful.
‘I won’t press her, if she doesn’t want to.’
‘Of course not.’
‘Which would leave it to you and Siemen. Have you any problem with that?’
‘None at all.’ Poulard only just managed to appear reticent. Yvette wasn’t the only one to have opened her legs to him since his Cologne and Rome television appearances: some women didn’t object to a fame fuck.
‘This is more important than any public appearance you’ve made before,’ cautioned Sanglier. ‘I don’t want any misunderstanding.’
‘I don’t think I misunderstand.’
‘So what are the points to make?’
‘That the amnesty is not an open invitation, but strictly restricted to the victims’ families,’ recited Poulard. ‘And that the Internet appeal is logical in view of the obvious nationality of those killed.’
This man wasn’t a sheep, thought Sanglier, exasperated: he was a donkey with a dick to match. ‘You must not overlook - although obviously you must not make it obvious - the disappointment of the Commission at the lack of progress anywhere in the Union from the guidance and leads we have provided. National forces should have made more progress by now.’
Poulard stared curiously across the separating desk. ‘You’ve no objection to my talking about our demand for a complete national survey?’
‘I think demand might unnecessarily antagonize,’ suggested Sanglier. ‘Invite would sufficiently convey our dissatisfaction, not just to the police forces but to the general public.’
‘Who will be the spokesperson if Dr Carter does agree to appear?’
‘I’ll decide that after talking to her.’ Discerning the man’s need and knowing the undertaking could easily be reneged upon, Sanglier said: ‘I don’t see why her being with you should take the role from you, unless some technical question is raised.’
Poulard smiled, openly and gratefully. ‘Talking of technical questions, will Rosetti be with us?’
‘No,’ said Sanglier bluntly.
There was a moment of satisfied silence. Poulard said: ‘What should my response be if I am directly asked if we are dissatisfied with individual national or local forces?’
‘That you do not wish to comment upon individual countries or individual investigations.’
‘Which could only mean we’re dissatisfied with everyone?’
‘But which would not be you - or Europol - saying it.’ Sanglier decided that it had, after all, been wise - a necessity, in fact - to discontinue taping every conversation.
‘The amnesty could be the breakthrough, couldn’t it?’ said Poulard, his mind more upon the incident room discussion with Claudine herself than with the sometimes ambiguous and convoluted briefing from Sanglier.
‘I expect it to be precisely that,’ said Sanglier. He added: ‘I’m seeing Dr Carter later this afternoon. If she agrees to take part, then of course I’ll tell you. But if she doesn’t, I think credit should be given to her, if not by name. You’ll be presenting Europol to the public. Let them know there’s a profiler involved.’
‘If you wish,’ said Poulard, doubtfully.
‘I do.’
For the first time Sanglier initially wondered if he had Claudine’s f
ull attention before dismissing the doubt, too professional himself to doubt her professionalism, anxious though he was to find any fault. He realized, instead, that her attitude was entirely understandable. He was obviously setting out to tell her what she expected to hear - which was exactly the impression he wanted to inculcate before arriving at the real purpose of the encounter.
Claudine nodded dutifully but made no comment when he announced that the Commission had accepted both the amnesty and the Internet proposals. And when he pressed for an opinion on the lack of national police progress, Claudine admitted she had hoped for quicker developments in at least one of the murder inquiries, which Sanglier judged sufficient to validate the inference he’d allowed at that morning’s conference. Her first full concentration came with the mention of a press conference and his diffident suggestion that she participate. She immediately refused, insisting there would be no professional advantage and adding, because she felt the objection justified, that she did not want the personal publicity. Sanglier was curious at her reluctance and would have liked to explore it further, but having achieved the-refusal he sought he didn’t want to risk Claudine changing her mind.
‘It’s not something I shall insist upon.’
‘I appreciate that.’
‘I’d like one day for you to get your proper, public recognition.’
‘I’m content the way things are,’ said Claudine.
‘Then that’s how they’ll stay,’ smiled Sanglier. He didn’t speak for several moments but Claudine guessed he didn’t intend concluding the encounter. Then he said: ‘I thought it was an excellent reception.’
Where the fuck were they going now! ‘I thought so too.’
‘Françoise enjoyed meeting you.’
Claudine searched for a proper response. She said: ‘I enjoyed meeting her,’ knowing as she spoke that wasn’t it.
Mind/Reader Page 29