‘But there would still be a shell – a carcass?’
‘Oh, without question.’
‘So how much would you say was used in the explosion on that bridge, then?’
‘With what little was left of the car after that blast, not forgetting the hole it punched through the structure of the bridge? Fifty to seventy-five kilograms?’
‘Christ, as much as that? Why would someone use so much more than necessary?’
‘Because they didn’t know what they were doing, and just over-egged it…’
‘Oh I think we are dealing with people who knew exactly what they were doing. What if the size of the blast was for effect? I assume you’ve seen hits overdone simply to make a point?’
‘Anything's possible. Except a small blast would still produce a sensational outcome, producing enough of a statement by the perpetrator – particularly where it happened – on that bridge; it was highly theatrical. I think it's much more likely your perpetrators made it as large as that for an entirely different reason.’
‘Which was?’
‘ To remove all evidence of the bomb. The less that's left, the lower the chance of forensic identification. From what's left behind after a blast we can normally trace the type, source and consignment of the material. Then, by determining the proportions used in the mix, we can even read the signature of the bomb maker.’
‘So how much residue would you need to glean any of this information? What sort of quantity?’
‘Something the size of a golf ball would be enough.’
‘I’m not sure how much residue would have been left after that blast,’ he said. ‘If I could get you a trace, would you be able analyze it?’
‘Sure.’
‘Thanks, professor. I’ll get whatever we can sent over to you straight away.’
Pudovkin rang Police Major Ustinov. ‘When you get hold of the SOCO for the bomb blast, I need to know how much residue from the bomb itself was recovered.’
‘Right.’
‘Then, send whatever you collect immediately to the Russian Federal Centre of Forensic Science in Khokhlovskiy Pereulok, marked for the attention of the director, Professor Igor Sorokin. I’ll send you a text with the details.’
‘Okay, boss.’
Pudovkin was feeling slightly less daunted by his task now that he had taken what he hoped might be his first tentative step in trying to source some evidence. Forensics were only one possible line to ID the perpetrators, of course. Pudovkin then thought: what about investigating this from the other end? What about looking for the motive? Who could have wanted the lawyer McMahon and Colonel Straker taken out?
Pudovkin quickly felt this line of approach could become far too nebulous; he would much prefer to deal in hard fact. Much better to work back from the evidence, once he had found the smoking gun – to find the motive.
Even so, the question was: Who could have wanted Straker and McMahon killed?
Pudovkin didn’t know where to start.
Very unexpectedly a word popped into his head: he remembered Gazdanov repeating the need to have Straker “stopped” – during the times they had been discussing the man's unwanted actions in the case. But had that word been meant in that way? The prosecutor general was showing a fanatical approach to this trial, indicating a readiness to distort normal procedures. Could Gazdanov be too heavily invested in the case? Despite these musings, Pudovkin struggled to see the country's top law enforcer as a suspect; not least as his suspicions seemed based entirely on interpreting Gazdanov's use of the word “stopped”.
Who else could be a suspect?
Pudovkin thought about the deaths at the Grand Prix. A grieving relative of a dead spectator? They might kill Straker and McMahon to ensure the accused were prosecuted with as little interruption as possible. But that was a pretty indirect way of ensuring a conviction.
What if the theatrics of the hit were meant to be seen as a signal – to the judges, perhaps? This is what awaits you if the wrong judgment is made. Somehow, Pudovkin didn’t feel that was convincing, either.
Then he had another thought.
One that soon filled him with dread.
It came from the oblique reference Gazdanov had made during their meeting with the president – when they’d been questioned about who they thought was the perpetrator.
The prosecutor general had made that veiled reference to “our friend”.
Did Gazdanov mean what Pudovkin now feared he meant?
Everyone in government service had heard the stories, about the malignant, corrupting presence. Gazdanov had even mentioned the man's name when they were discussing Deputy Vladimir Kosygin and what that wretched politician had revealed while in the Butyrka Prison.
The man in question was Vadim Kondratiev.
Could it possibly be that he was “our friend”?
Furthermore, hadn’t Baryshnikov even mentioned the man's name in the witness box as a disruptive influence during the development of the Zhar-ptitsa Autodrom?
What, then, would have been Kondratiev's motive?
Straker and McMahon had been crawling all over the Grand Prix case, popping up here and there, getting in the way. Would any of that interference have been enough to provoke Vadim Kondratiev?
It wasn’t impossible. Pudovkin couldn’t rule it out.
Particularly when he linked everything back to the method of dispatch – to that spectacular bomb blast. Urban legend would easily have Kondratiev behind a hit like that: a vast vanity statement. A car bomb on the Moskvoretsky Bridge, smack in the middle of iconic Moscow? It all seemed right up Kondratiev's alley.
