An important day today with all the technical stuff - though I still think even if PM's explanation is plausible in itself, it cannot be true because of the way he has presented it, only after the evidence ruled out his other lies.
Only because I can't find anything else I am posting the opening comments of Ekstra Bladet with all the usual Google translate mistakes. California Robin's tweets are much more useful to English-speakers but I can't find them so I do hope someone else will post them.
https://ekstrabladet.dk/112/skal-vidne-i-dag-ubaads-ekspert-saar-tvivl-om-madsens-forklaring/7100371
Peter Madsen's defender, Betina Hald Engmark, will probably be on the ducks when Captain Lieutenant Ditte Dyreborg from the Navy takes the testimony on the day of submarine day eight.
She has a long past in the Navy, where she, among other things, served on the submarine Springer as a machine master.
Captain Lieutenant has investigated the scene, UC3 Nautilus Submarine, after it was removed from Køge Bay, and has prepared a report.
In section 13 of the report, on the basis of technical investigations in the submarine, doubt as to whether the accident could have occurred as described by a court hearing on 14 October 2017, it is stated in a court order of 12 March in connection with an order , which has been handed down in the case of follow-up investigations by the submarine.
At the hearing of Peter Madsen on October 14 last year, he came with his third explanation of what had happened to Kim Wall. Namely that she could be killed by exhaust gases down in the submarine due to a mistake on the submarine's hull nozzle 4 'and that he did not even follow the necessary procedure.
That explanation came a few days after Kim Wall's head was found in the ocean without fractures like after she had a hatch in her head, as his other explanation sounded.
At the hearing on 12 March, the court had to decide whether the prosecution should be required to conduct follow-up investigations on the submarine on the basis of the three scenarios, which Peter Madsen made following his explanation of the exhaust gases. However, the investigations were rejected by the court.