Her modest finances were in order, and no one other than her parents and some charities would benefit financially from her death. Her secretary did recall talking to someone about interviewing Dr. Hartquist on the cruise, but she was unable to retrieve the name or phone number.
Three weeks later, the lab successfully completed DNA testing on Mark Miller’s remains and compared the results with the DNA from Dr. Hartquist’s body and the bed linens from her suite. At best, this information would show whether Miller was in Dr. Hartquist’s room and had sexual relations with her the night of the murder. But it could not definitively establish his responsibility for the murder. Moreover, Miller’s unexplained death just days later raised the obvious possibility of a larger conspiracy.
The Hartquist DNA testing turned up another possibility. The investigation showed semen in and on Dr. Hartquist’s body from two different individuals, but hair from only one. The RCMP forensic experts theorized that the person whose hair and semen were found would have been with her the last night, while the other person probably would have been in her room on some earlier night. That person’s hair would have disappeared when the housekeeping crew replaced the sheets two days before the murder, and any of his hairs on her body would have been lost in the shower.
The evidence of intimacy with two different men suggested a more prosaic motive for murder—jealousy. Perhaps after the first man discovered the existence of the second (or vice versa), he murdered Dr. Hartquist in a moment of rage. It would have been someone still on the ship when it docked in Yangon, in addition to Mark Miller. The RCMP began by testing those most readily available: the crew. And it discovered the other matching DNA.
It came from Xavier. They took his fingerprints, which also matched a few of the fingerprints found in the room. Marie and Jon interviewed him again, now with this evidence in hand. He had earlier acknowledged knowing “Ingrid Halvorson” from serving her in the main dining room but denied any personal contact.
When confronted with the fingerprints, he tried at first to profess ignorance. But his emotions and body language contradicted that contention. Under intense interrogation, he admitted going to her stateroom for drinks and ending up in bed with her, at her request, some days before. But he adamantly denied any interest in recent contact with her, claiming he would not dare jeopardize his job.
Marie and Jon confronted him with a carefully conceived “jealous triangle” narrative, “Overwhelmed by your desire for her, you returned to her suite the night before the ship docked in Yangon, hoping to find her willing to continue your liaison. Half asleep, she spurned you. From the conditions in the room you realized that another man had just left the suite. You murdered her in a moment of rage.”
After a painful silence, Xavier broke down completely.
“I did go back to Ms. Halvorson’s room that night. Yes, it was obvious from the clothes on the floor that a man had been in the room. She seemed to be deeply asleep. I whispered her name, but she did not answer. I suddenly realized the precariousness of my situation. I would not dream of touching her without permission, for fear she would report me. I tiptoed out without disturbing her, angry with myself for such a foolish lack of personal discipline.
“The next day, when I heard she had died, and then later that she was murdered, I was terrified that I would be accused of the crime. But I had nothing to do with any of it.”
The investigators didn’t give up so easily. “Let’s go over this again. What time did you go to her room?”
“Around midnight. Maybe 1:00 am.”
“What time did you get off work?”
“At 11 pm.”
“What did you do for that hour or more?”
“I was obsessed with her. I kept telling myself to go to sleep, but I couldn’t do it. I finally gave in to my fantasy that she would welcome me with open arms, and no one would ever know.”
“Had you seen her that evening? What was she wearing? Did she encourage you?”
“No, I didn’t see her at all.”
“Are you absolutely sure?”
Xavier paused. “Well, I guess I did see her dancing with someone that evening. That was part of my problem. I was so eager to be with her again. She didn’t come to the main dining room for dinner at my table. Then I saw her dancing with this other guy in the Panorama Lounge. It drove me crazy.”
“Crazy enough to murder her. What weapon did you use?”
“no! I never touched her! Not that kind of crazy. Ms. Halvorson was so beautiful and kind and wonderful. I knew she would be leaving forever in several days. I would never hurt her. I just wanted to spend a few more hours with her.”
“And sleep with her, of course. But she refused you. So you killed her. Where did you go after you left her suite?”
“NO! None of that is true. She never awoke, never moved. I went back to my room, fearing that I had stupidly risked my whole career on that one night. I couldn’t sleep, but I was afraid to go anywhere.”
Repeated interrogation failed to break Xavier’s story. Jon, the skeptic, suspected that Xavier had in fact discovered that Dr. Hartquist was dead and was afraid then to report it and was afraid now to admit failing to report it. But both Marie and Jon came away persuaded that Xavier was not the murderer. Among other things, a man in a jealous rage is unlikely to asphyxiate the object of his anger. That takes time, and it doesn’t inflict enough pain to be satisfying. They both believed that overall, he had told them the truth. That left them with Mark O’Mara (or Miller, if that was his real name.)
Marie and Jon assembled what answers they could find in a first report dated October 6, 2020. The report discreetly omitted any specific reference to Xavier by name, as the report would inevitably become public. But it could not ignore the Captain’s failure to track all his passengers from the moment he was notified of the murder, considering that one of them might well be the villain. As a courtesy, and part of their investigation, they gave Captain Ricardo a draft copy, to allow for his additions or corrections. Ricardo read and reread the crucial portions of the report.
Fingerprints and DNA evidence identified the deceased as Dr. Ilsa Hartquist, a Swedish citizen living in the US, traveling under a forged Dutch/EU passport as Ingrid Halvorson. She was a highly respected and highly visible climate scientist with controversial views. No motive has been found for her use of a false passport. Other cruise ship records show that she had traveled as Ingrid Halvorson on previous occasions. The likely reason was simply a desire for anonymity, given her high public profile and the controversies surrounding her views.
The time of death was either late June 17 or very early June 18, 2020. It appears to have been a carefully planned murder, executed with great care, and for reasons that are not likely to be typical. No personal or financial motive is evident.
The investigation found small quantities of semen from two men in Hartquist’s body, but their order could not be definitively proven. There is no evidence of a lovers’ quarrel, or an angry ex-spouse or professional enemy seeking revenge.
There are no financial circumstances that might provide a motive for murder—no beneficiary from a large life insurance policy, no pension proceeds to anyone other than her parents, no family feuds, no evidence of entanglements with drug dealers or other underworld characters. No money or other property appeared to be missing from her stateroom on the ship, her office, or her apartment.
The search for “Mark O’Mara,” also a passenger, who left the ship when it docked in Yangon and never returned, led to his identification as Mark Miller, using facial recognition technology. He was traveling on the cruise ship under a forged Irish/EU passport. He disembarked