Gurney flashed a big, earnest smile. “Matt, believe me, I’m with you on that issue one hundred percent. Crossed wires are nothing but trouble. I’m a fan of full disclosure. Cards on the table. Open kimono. No secrets, no lies, no bullshit.”

“Good.” Trout’s chilly tone drained any sense of agreement out of the word. “If you’ll excuse me, there something I need to take care of. I won’t be long.” He exited the room through a door to the left of the fireplace.

The Doberman emitted a low, rumbling growl.

Gurney leaned back on the couch, closed his eyes, and contemplated his game plan, such as it was.

When Trout returned fifteen minutes later, he was accompanied by Rebecca Holdenfield. Instead of looking harried or resentful at having her weekend interrupted, she looked energized and very intense.

Trout smiled with the closest thing to cordiality he’d shown so far. “I asked Dr. Holdenfield to join us here today. I believe together we can address the strange concerns you seem to have and put them to rest. I want you to understand, Mr. Gurney, that this is a highly unusual accommodation. I’ve also asked Daker to sit in. An extra pair of ears, an extra perspective.”

On cue, Trout’s assistant appeared in the doorway by the fireplace—where he remained as Trout and Holdenfield took seats in leather armchairs facing Gurney.

“Well now,” said Trout. “Let’s get right to these peculiar problems you have with the Good Shepherd case. The sooner we dispose of them, the sooner we go home.” He gestured for Gurney to begin.

“I’d like to start with a question. During the course of your investigation, did you uncover any facts that struck you as inconsistent with your basic hypothesis? Little questions that weren’t answerable?”

“Care to be more specific?”

“Was there any debate about the necessity for sniper goggles?” Trout frowned. “What are you talking about?”

“Or the absurd choice of weapon? Or how many weapons there actually were? Or where he disposed of them?”

Despite a conspicuous effort at impassivity, Trout’s eyes filled with a succession of concerns and calculations.

Gurney went on. “And then there’s the fascinating conflict between the shooter’s proven risk aversion and his stated fanaticism. As well as the conflict between his perfectly logical planning and completely illogical goals.”

“Suicide bombings are full of similar contradictions,” said Trout with a dismissive wave of his hand.

“The bombings may be, but the individuals involved in them aren’t. The guy at the top with a political objective, the strategic thinker who chooses the target and lays out the plan, the recruiter, the trainer, the hands-on supervisor in the field, the martyr who volunteers to be blown up—they may function as a team, but each one is who he is. The net result may be crazy and counterproductive, but each component is internally consistent and understandable.”