He laughed bitterly.
“You sound like Erik.”
Helena looked at him.
“For once, that doesn’t worry me.”
His expression hardened.
Then softened.
He reached across the table.
“Helena, I love you.”
She looked at his hand.
For months, those words had made her feel chosen.
Now she noticed when he used them.
Usually after a question.
Usually when she was close to leaving.
Usually when he needed something.
She moved her hand away.
“Did you remove documents from Annika’s office?”
He went still.
“Again?”
“Yes.”
He looked toward the window.
“I’ve answered.”
“No.”
Her voice remained quiet.
“You haven’t.”
He turned back.
For a moment, she saw something unfamiliar in his face.
Not rage.
Not panic.
Calculation.
Then he smiled.
“You’ve been speaking to Erik.”
Helena watched him.
“That isn’t an answer either.”
He stood.
“Perhaps this was always a mistake.”
She looked up.
“Which part?”
He hesitated.
“The relationship.”
Helena felt a sharp, unexpected pain.
Even now, a part of her wanted him to take the words back.
Instead, she nodded.
“Perhaps.”
Matthias stared at her.
He had expected argument.
Tears.
A promise to reconsider.
He seemed unsure what to do when she offered none.
Then he left.
Helena remained seated for several minutes.
She did not cry until she reached her car.
The evidence that changed the case came from Berlin.
Annika had been investigating irregular transactions involving a subsidiary company whose records had been altered.
She had contacted an independent financial adviser shortly before her death.
The adviser, uncertain how to proceed after the murder, had kept copies of their correspondence.
When investigators obtained and examined the material through proper legal channels, the significance became clearer.
Annika had discovered discrepancies in transactions Matthias had approved.
She intended to confront him and seek legal advice.
The documents did not prove murder.
They did, however, provide a possible motive beyond the failing marriage.
More importantly, the new records contradicted aspects of Matthias’s account of when he learned about Annika’s concerns.
Further investigation uncovered evidence that he had attempted to retrieve or conceal certain materials after her death.
Helena learned these developments gradually through the formal proceedings and information she was lawfully permitted to receive.
She followed the case from a distance.
For weeks, she resisted the temptation to examine every rumour or anonymous report.
She knew how easily a guilty conclusion could become as distorting as the innocent one she’d previously wanted.
She had to allow the evidence to remain evidence.
Not a story written to satisfy her shame.
The prosecution also identified a witness whose earlier account had been dismissed as unreliable.
The witness had been near the Lindholm property on the night of Annika’s death.
Their original statement contained uncertainties, and investigators had not initially considered it decisive.
New corroborating material changed its significance.
The witness described seeing Matthias outside the house after the period when he later claimed to have remained inside.
This did not establish exactly what happened in the bedroom.
But it contradicted his timeline.
Combined with the financial evidence, medical findings, and communications, the prosecution’s case became stronger.
Matthias’s new defence counsel challenged the evidence carefully.
The proceedings remained contested.
Helena did not celebrate.
She knew too much about the dangers of deciding guilt before the legal process was complete.
Yet privately, she began to acknowledge the possibility she’d spent months refusing to consider.
Matthias might have killed Annika.
And Helena might have helped him exploit weaknesses in the investigation while knowing her judgment was compromised.
The disciplinary investigation into Helena’s conduct began that winter.
It was methodical and humiliating.
She had to answer questions about her relationship with Matthias, her decisions during the defence, and the misleading characterisation of evidence.
She obtained independent legal representation.
She cooperated.
She corrected the record where required.
The firm initiated its own review of supervision and conflict procedures.
Erik became responsible for much of the work Helena had once managed.
Several clients left.
Others stayed.
The newspapers discovered the affair.
The story spread quickly.
FAMOUS DEFENSE LAWYER IN SECRET RELATIONSHIP WITH MURDER SUSPECT.
ETHICS QUESTIONS ROCK STOCKHOLM TRIAL.
LOVE OR MANIPULATION?
Helena stopped reading the headlines.
Sofia did not have that luxury.
At school, classmates sent her links.
Someone made a joke about her mother dating a killer.
Another student asked whether Helena had been paid to sleep with her client.
Sofia came home furious.
Helena found her in the kitchen, staring at her phone.
“What’s happened?”
Sofia looked up.
“Are they lying?”
Helena stood still.
“About what?”
Sofia held out the screen.
Helena read the headline.
She felt the air leave her lungs.
Then she looked at her daughter.
“No.”
Sofia stared.
“So it’s true?”
Helena swallowed.
“Yes.”
The girl looked away.
For several seconds, neither spoke.
Then Sofia asked, “While you were defending him?”
Helena nodded.
Sofia laughed once.
It was a short, disbelieving sound.
“You told me lawyers had rules.”
“We do.”
“And you broke them.”
“Yes.”
Sofia placed the phone on the table.
“You told me you couldn’t come to dinner because the case was important.”
Helena closed her eyes.
The words hurt more than the headlines.
“Sofia—”
