GUILTY Denmark - Kim Wall, 30, Copenhagen, 10 Aug 2017

[SATA]

I think his lawyer, Betina Hald, looks overwhelmed.
She had no idea where it would lead when she took on the case.
She must be as shocked as the rest of us.

 

[Logical_Inference]

Every other news outlet says it's his words from the court record. Guess we'll have to wait and see.
He might know the lawyer privately from somewhere. Otherwise it's an odd request.

He can ofcourse have said so in the court-meeting, but it can still be his lawyer that had advised him to say so.
No matter what, then its a strange way to "bury" people.

So far I do agree with SATA, that it is hard to believe anything he say, especially regarding all what we have heard about his personality.

 

[Logical_Inference]

I think his lawyer, Betina Hald, looks overwhelmed.
She had no idea where it would lead when she took on the case.
She must be as shocked as the rest of us.

I read that she has other cases too, and that she didnt have time to visit him in jail every day because of other things she needed to take care of. I did wonder about that statement to the news-media, because why should she be there every day? Does he expect her to be there every day, or was it just an argument to convince us about that she is busy.
She does know that he reads media and watch TV....

 

[MONDA]

I read that she has other cases too, and that she didnt have time to visit him in jail every day because of other things she needed to take care of. I did wonder about that statement to the news-media, because why should she be there every day? Does he expect her to be there every day, or was it just an argument to convince us about that she is busy.
She does know that he reads media and watch TV....

Yes, I found that statement strange too. They don't really have that much to talk about until they know what evidence the prosecution will use to support their charges.

 

[SATA]

I wonder who else visits him. His wife? (Does he really have a wife, or is it a girlfriend? My friends who know him well never talked about a wife).Apparently he has no real friends. One of his brothers has publically disowned him.

So all in all a lonely existence, since he chose isolation from other inmates.

 

[pamelado2]

(respectfully snipped)
No matter what, then its a strange way to "bury" people.

So far I do agree with SATA, that it is hard to believe anything he say, especially regarding all what we have heard about his personality.

Exactly what I was thinking! If you weren't guilty of something why bury her? Especially when you're so close to shore. Can you imagine how her family feels about that? And the method he used? Screams to me that it's no accident. He was hiding evidence. He would never have told there was an "accident" at all they hadn't proven he never dropped her off.

There are plenty of middle aged murderers and plenty of murderers where everyone says - oh, but he was such a nice guy, we never would have expected that from him, etc, etc.

If I had accidently killed someone then in a moment of panic tried to cover it up you can bet when the body was found I'd be explaining every minute detail to insure people knew I was innocent.

 

[MONDA]

I wonder who else visits him. His wife? (Does he really have a wife, or is it a girlfriend? My friends who know him well never talked about a wife).Apparently he has no real friends. One of his brothers has publically disowned him.

So all in all a lonely existence, since he chose isolation from other inmates.

Peter Madsen is married (an open relationship). I don't know if his wife visits him.

 

[MONDA]

Exactly what I was thinking! If you weren't guilty of something why bury her? Especially when you're so close to shore. Can you imagine how her family feels about that? And the method he used? Screams to me that it's no accident. He was hiding evidence. He would never have told there was an "accident" at all they hadn't proven he never dropped her off.

There are plenty of middle aged murderers and plenty of murderers where everyone says - oh, but he was such a nice guy, we never would have expected that from him, etc, etc.

If I had accidently killed someone then in a moment of panic tried to cover it up you can bet when the body was found I'd be explaining every minute detail to insure people knew I was innocent.

There is one thing to know about Peter Madsen: he does not think like other people (in any situation, I might add).

I have been following him for quite some time, and I can easily imagine him choosing what HE thinks is the most practical way out. Get rid of the body and pretend nothing happened - whether he killed her or not. In both cases he would have been thinking only about the fate of his submarine and his rocket lab (as noted earlier they are extensions of himself, so purely egoistic reasons).

Also, we do not yet know what details he has told the police. Other than he denies killing Kim Wall, and (strangely) denies the charge of mutilation of corpse. The reason he denies mutilation of corpse charge is, according to some media, a dispute about the wording - rather than the charge itself.

We, like the police, do not have direct evidence that Peter Madsen killed Kim Wall. We have very good circumstantial evidence, possibly good enough for a murder sentence, but the key evidence is missing (like the motive).

 

[Logical_Inference]

There is one thing to know about Peter Madsen: he does not think like other people (in any situation, I might add).

I have been following him for quite some time, and I can easily imagine him choosing what HE thinks is the most practical way out. Get rid of the body and pretend nothing happened - whether he killed her or not. In both cases he would have been thinking only about the fate of his submarine and his rocket lab (as noted earlier they are extensions of himself, so purely egoistic reasons).

Also, we do not yet know what details he has told the police. Other than he denies killing Kim Wall, and (strangely) denies the charge of mutilation of corpse. The reason he denies mutilation of corpse charge is, according to some media, a dispute about the wording - rather than the charge itself.

We, like the police, do not have direct evidence that Peter Madsen killed Kim Wall. We have very good circumstantial evidence, possibly good enough for a murder sentence, but the key evidence is missing (like the motive).

Yeah, we have a hard time believing that he is innocent even that he isnt convicted yet.
There was a long time defense lawyer in the news one day that also said that the media is totally unfair because they almost immidiately did write like he was gulity and thats not good journalism.

BUT the police is charging him with murder, so how can we believe otherwise when even the law-enforcement believes it. If we could find some info or just something that was mitigating circumstances, then the opinion would probably change, but as long as everything points toward a crime then its only human to think he is guilty.

 

[SATA]

Even though the media may have been unfair, I was surprised that so many people on social media actually defended PM.

People came up with outlandish theories about what might have happened, all of which exhonorated him.

That is - until the torso was found and it was clear that her limbs and head had been removed by a deliberate act. Only then the popular view changed.

 

[MONDA]

Yeah, we have a hard time believing that he is innocent even that he isnt convicted yet.
There was a long time defense lawyer in the news one day that also said that the media is totally unfair because they almost immidiately did write like he was gulity and thats not good journalism.

BUT the police is charging him with murder, so how can we believe otherwise when even the law-enforcement believes it. If we could find some info or just something that was mitigating circumstances, then the opinion would probably change, but as long as everything points toward a crime then its only human to think he is guilty.

The police had/has no other choice that charging him with murder, but remember the judge only accepted the manslaughter charge on which he is now in custody. Of course, now they have the torso any judge would retain him on murder charges too. But custody is really only; ok, you can keep him while you build your case. It is not a sentence.

It is quite fair for outsiders to think Peter Madsen killed Kim Wall. Everything does point to that, but just remember that "everything" currently isn't much. They have no murder weapon, no motive, no physical evidence (on the torso) - and a suspect with a different story (which must be taken into account in court).

 

[MONDA]

Even though the media may have been unfair, I was surprised that so many people on social media actually defended PM.

People came up with outlandish theories about what might have happened, all of which exhonorated him.

That is - until the torso was found and it was clear that her limbs and head had been removed by a deliberate act. Only then the popular view changed.

Peter Madsen is a very popular guy. Nobody, and I mean nobody, would have thought he could commit murder.

Personally, I'm not trying to defend him as such, but I'm trying to show that even if he didn't kill Kim Wall dismembering/mutilating/disposing of the body wouldn't be far from his thinking (he is NOT normal, and shows traits of antisocial personality disorder). That means murder isn't the only possible conclusion.

 

[SATA]

Peter Madsen is a very popular guy. Nobody, and I mean nobody, would have thought he could commit murder.

Personally, I'm not trying to defend him as such, but I'm trying to show that even if he didn't kill Kim Wall dismembering/mutilating/disposing of the body wouldn't be far from his thinking (he is NOT normal, and shows traits of antisocial personality disorder). That means murder isn't the only possible conclusion.

I actually did - knowing him peripherally didn´t change that.

 

[MONDA]

I actually did - knowing him peripherally didn´t change that.

Then you probably knew him VERY peripherally. Even his former friends (now "enemies") in Copenhagen Suborbitals, and the people in the Submarine Group (now also "enemies"), and his brother, and anybody who had a close relationship with him thought otherwise.

The verdict was: somewhat crazy, but not a murderer.

 

[SATA]

Then you probably knew him VERY peripherally. Even his former friends (now "enemies") in Copenhagen Suborbitals, and the people in the Submarine Group (now also "enemies"), and his brother, and anybody who had a close relationship with him thought otherwise.

The verdict was: somewhat crazy, but not a murderer.

I think it is because I got scared of him on one occasion.
I have met him a few times and know people who were very close to him.
They often needed to vent about him.

That said, they didn´t think he could have killed her. One of them at least changed their view after the torso.

 

[Satchie]

I wonder if there are other examples in criminal history of people having dismembered a dead body of someone that had NOT been killed, but had died by accident.
It seems so over the top, but of course, PM is an over the top personality type.

Nothing is impossible I guess.

A very famous case is Robert Durst, a multi-millionaire who was aquitted of murder when he claimed he accidentally killed his neighbour in self defense, and then decided to dismember and dispose of the body because he didn't want publicity/police looking into his eccentric personal life.

However the acquittal is in doubt, because he's alleged to have murdered a couple of other people, and is currently awaiting trial for one of those murders.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Durst

 

[MONDA]

I think it is because I got scared of him on one occasion.
I have met him a few times and know people who were very close to him.
They often needed to vent about him.

That said, they didn´t think he could have killed her. One of them at least changed their view after the torso.

Does it not strike you as remarkable that the media hasn't been able to find one ounce of dirt on Peter Madsen (other than he is a jerk, who can behave like a spoiled child)?

This might not be unusual if Joe Public is charged with killing. Most people know little more than a handful of people who could attest to their character, but Peter Madsen is/was living a very public life. He has worked closely with hundreds of people, there are several documentaries about him, and countless interviews. He is also not a small talker; Peter Madsen likes to talk about big questions. About technology, about art, about people, and about life and death. His biographer, who has spent many hundreds of hours in deep conversations with Peter Madsen didn't believe he could be violent. That some, in light of the dismembering, now think Peter Madsen killed Kim Wall is based entirely on the dismemberment (which is technically a separate crime) and not on character.In short, they guess (even if it's a somewhat justified guess).

Establishing character is central to a murder case based on circumstantial evidence, but right now, the only thing suggesting Peter Madsen could kill someone is the fact that he dismembered Kim Wall's body (admittedly a pretty substantial clue). If it can be established that murder isn't the only conclusion the case is still open (this is likely the defense argument). I believe I have shown that Peter Madsen would have a motive (and psychology) to rid himself of Kim Wall's body even if he didn't kill her. That's not the same as saying he didn't kill her, but that Peter Madsen's story about a deadly accident could be true and should be considered (even if your own logic rejects the idea - you are not Peter Madsen).

That being said, the police might have character witnesses with a different story, but it's not public knowledge and we should not be guessing too much. We have to look at whats public.

 

[Indy Anna]

A very famous case is Robert Durst, a multi-millionaire who was aquitted of murder when he claimed he accidentally killed his neighbour in self defense, and then decided to dismember and dispose of the body because he didn't want publicity/police looking into his eccentric personal life.

However the acquittal is in doubt, because he's alleged to have murdered a couple of other people, and is currently awaiting trial for one of those murders.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Durst

Exactly who I was thinking of, Satchie!

 

[kelsie]

It seems to me, that all motives (for murder) suggested here rest entirely on (wild) speculation. Some people assume a rejection of sexual advances would make Peter Madsen violent, but Peter Madsen is a minor celebrity and virtually surrounded by women 24/7 (young and beautiful ones too) - and while he probably has sexual relations with some of them, it's safe to assume he doesn't with all, or even most. He is described as a "flirt", so undoubtedly he has many many rejections behind him.

Besides that, there are plenty of people attesting to a completely non-violent nature (even if prone to verbal outbursts of anger).

We should not be so quick to dismiss Peter Madsen's claim of a deadly accident. Under the wrong circumstances it doesn't take much to kill a human - even something as trivial as a fall can be deadly (rare, but not impossible). A submerged submarine is almost a living machine - a homebuild one even more so. There is undoubtedly many ways a person can get gravely injured, even killed.

This leaves us with the one certain crime: Kim Wall was dismembered.

While I find it hard to believe Peter Madsen could actually kill anyone, I have no problem believing he could dismember and dispose of a body (and be fairly calm about it) if that seemed the right thing to do. He does display some characteristics of antisocial personality disorder (he is not just difficult to work with, he is impossible). I will not try to make a clinical diagnosis, but having followed his relationship and subsequent falling out with various groups, I feel pretty confident he has a certain level of personality disorder (many semi-geniuses have).

That leaves us with the motive (for dismembering and disposing of the body).

Peter Madsen is personally insolvent after a failed business venture about 15 years back (relating to the sale of his first submarine). That means a company (RML = Raketmadsens Rumlaboratorium) apparently owns the submarine (plus workshop, tools, and whatever gear is needed to make and fly rockets). The exact business structure is fairly irrelevant, but RML and Peter Madsen are basically identical entities. It's a company set up purely so Peter could have stuff without owning it.

However, UC3 Nautilus has no registered owner. This is not a legal requirement for an experimental recreation craft, but it is in order to liability insurance for such a craft. I will deduce that UC3 Nautilus isn’t liability insured. A deadly accident onboard would have very serious implications for the way Peter Madsen has constructed his life (literally living his dream). I believe this could motivate Peter Madsen to dismembering and disposing of Kim Walls body. The dismembering could be purely practical – to get the body out of the submarine through a very small opening.

If I’m right in concluding UC3 Nautilus is without liability insurance, then Peter Madsen actually let something slip during the very first “interview” with the media (while he was being escorted away by police). He mentions that raising the submarine would be expensive, but that it is liability insured. This is an odd thing to say, since a liability insurance wouldn’t cover anything in that situation. And it could suggest Peter Madsen had been preoccupied with liability questions.

Not only is this post very well written, it's VERY informative and something worth considering for every person following this thread. Personally, this theory makes the most sense to me.

 

[SATA]

A very famous case is Robert Durst, a multi-millionaire who was aquitted of murder when he claimed he accidentally killed his neighbour in self defense, and then decided to dismember and dispose of the body because he didn't want publicity/police looking into his eccentric personal life.

However the acquittal is in doubt, because he's alleged to have murdered a couple of other people, and is currently awaiting trial for one of those murders.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Durst

Oh yes, Robert Durst, what a character! Thanks.