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

[MONDA]

IMO most accidents - especially fatal accidents - happen when people aren't paying close attention to their environment: rushing down narrow stairs without hanging on to a rail, working with dangerous equipment when distracted by something else. The body and nervous system are designed to preserve us. I don't think Kim Wall would've been doing anything but watching him, and would likely have been on high physical alert in that strange environment. I don't believe those are circumstances in which a fatal accident would happen, unless, for eg, there was a sharp/heavy object that came crashing down on her head.

Will certainly be interesting to hear what the circumstances of the accident are. The overwhelming number of those 'fell down the stairs and hit her head and died' accidents, are, IMO, murders that noone else saw.

Yes, it's pretty hard to think of a situation where she could injure herself seriously. I can really only think of a battery explosion, or getting caught by some moving parts in the engine room (unlikely she would even be there). We should have Peter Madsen's story on Tuesday. Then we can see how it holds up against the overwhelming circumstantial evidence for murder.

 

[MONDA]

I would like to react to this too.

Yes, it is hard to wrap your head around that to cover up an accident, PM sawed off Kim Wall´s arms, legs and HEAD, then punctured her body for crying out loud!
It is very ugly, very brutal.

No matter how obvious it looks everything must be proven in court. Due to lack of direct evidence for murder, it's important to figure out if Peter Madsen's story is credible at all. He specifically said Kim Wall died in an accident (not a heart-attack or anything like that), so we should look into how, if at all, such an accident could happen. Since he also denies involuntary manslaughter (like a sex game gone wrong, or accidentally shooting her with a flare gun) it's pretty fundamental to figure out if you can just suddenly die in UC3 Nautilus. It might be unlikely, but it isn't impossible.

 

[SATA]

Likely a technicality. He was charged Friday afternoon. At that stage the police didn't even know if Kim Wall was actually dead (even if Peter Madsen said she was). It's simply the smallest charge where a judge can give pretrial custody.

As far as I remember the particularly aggravating circumstances was added to the charge the week after, a few days later than the initial charge.
So I thought, results of toxicology tests.
Maybe not correct.

 

[MONDA]

As far as I remember the particularly aggravating circumstances was added to the charge the week after, a few days later than the initial charge.
So I thought, results of toxicology tests.
Maybe not correct.

It was added because they forgot it at the first hearing. Just a paperwork slip-up. You can't just add new stuff to an existing case ruling. In Danmark you can't be held in pretrial custody unless you are looking at 30 days jail minimum. Involuntary manslaughter might not give 30 days, but Involuntary manslaughter under aggravated circumstances does.

 

[SATA]

It was added because they forgot it at the first hearing. Just a paperwork slip-up. You can't just add new stuff to an existing case ruling. In Danmark you can't be held in pretrial custody unless you are looking at 30 days jail minimum. Involuntary manslaughter might not give 30 days, but Involuntary manslaughter under aggravated circumstances does.

Then what are the aggravating circumstances? They can´t just drag that out of thin air.

 

[Logical_Inference]

He specifically asked them to hang around while he tried to fix something. Why would that make you think he wanted them to leave?

Yeah I might have read this wrongly.
I read:
PM: I am going to Copenhagen with a failure. Just stay here, dont follow me.

I didnt notice that he wanted them to wait until he had tried to fix something.

But instead it seems that he wanted them to stay because he was going to sink the submarine, and he wanted to be rescued immidiately. Maybe he had waited for someone to turn up before he did it.

Anyway I am going to wait for tuesday and see what he had explained about that accident. It is really hard to understand what kind of accident that can make you dismember and hide a body. And lie about it.
We will see.

 

[MONDA]

Then what are the aggravating circumstances? They can´t just drag that out of thin air.

They didn't just pluck if out of thin air

The police has always charged Peter Madsen with murder. The judge didn't think there was evidence for murder (at that time they didn't have the body, and Kim Wall hadn't even been missing for 24 hours - the ruling rested mostly on Peter Madsen's accident story), so he only agreed to grant pretrial custody for a charge of manslaughter under aggravating circumstances. It's not a sentence as such, so they don't really need much in way of evidence - a strong suspicion is enough. It doesn't really matter what charge he is detained under, as long as he is detained during the investigation. Peter Madsen is still charged with murder and the case will likely remain a murder case.

 

[MONDA]

Yeah I might have read this wrongly.
I read:
PM: I am going to Copenhagen with a failure. Just stay here, dont follow me.

I didnt notice that he wanted them to wait until he had tried to fix something.

But instead it seems that he wanted them to stay because he was going to sink the submarine, and he wanted to be rescued immidiately. Maybe he had waited for someone to turn up before he did it.

Anyway I am going to wait for tuesday and see what he had explained about that accident. It is really hard to understand what kind of accident that can make you dismember and hide a body. And lie about it.
We will see.

Yes, Tuesday will be interesting. I'm considering going if I can get the time off.

Strictly speaking the case should really be seen as two events/crimes. There is the death of Kim Wall, and there is the dismemberment. For most people they are parts of the same crime, but judicially they are not (although the dismemberment can be used to argue a murder case). Likely the evidence is very strong for dismemberment, but the murder case rest (as far as we know) entirely on circumstantial evidence (the dismemberment/disposal and sinking UC3 Nautilus). As long as Peter Madsen's story is possible, the prosecutor must not only disprove it from circumstantial evidence, he must also prove his own charge (this is harder than it sounds). Peter Madsen doesn't have to do anything - technically he doesn't even have to detail the accident. He could simply say he turned around and found her dead).

 

[Niner]

First - I want to

:welcome6: to WS and this thread!


:greetings: to my European neighbors!!

snipped by me....
Yes, Tuesday will be interesting. I'm considering going if I can get the time off.

Oh - we all like that! Must give "details" on what's going on in court if you can get the time off to go!! You know, PM's demeanor, people there, etc.! nline:

I have added this case to my list of others...


:judge:

JUSTICE for KIM! :rose:

 

[Satchie]

Yes, Tuesday will be interesting. I'm considering going if I can get the time off.

Strictly speaking the case should really be seen as two events/crimes. There is the death of Kim Wall, and there is the dismemberment. For most people they are parts of the same crime, but judicially they are not (although the dismemberment can be used to argue a murder case). Likely the evidence is very strong for dismemberment, but the murder case rest (as far as we know) entirely on circumstantial evidence (the dismemberment/disposal and sinking UC3 Nautilus). As long as Peter Madsen's story is possible, the prosecutor must not only disprove it from circumstantial evidence, he must also prove his own charge (this is harder than it sounds). Peter Madsen doesn't have to do anything - technically he doesn't even have to detail the accident. He could simply say he turned around and found her dead).

I don't follow many of the dismemberment cases that come up, they're depressingly predictable. But I get the impression prosecutors often have success convincing a jury that the guy who dismembered the victim also killed him/her.

For example, the killer of Becky Watts in the UK claimed he was just trying to scare her when she accidentally died, but the prosecution used computer evidence of his obsession with violent to convict him of murder and life in prison. I think they'll be probing deeply into Madsen's life, as well as extensive forensics, to create a bigger picture of his alleged psychological state of mind, motive, etc.

I think Robert Durst was acquitted because he and his lawyers got the sympathy of the jury, painting him as a really nice, very rich guy, who was the victim of crazy people out to get him. They went through an elaborate process of recreating the accidental shooting etc. Prosecutors may have been over-confident and hadn't anticipated the defense strategy.

 

[dizzychick]

Yahoo finally picked up the story:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/danish-submarine-inventor-court-over-journalists-death-020819792.html

 

[MONDA]

I don't follow many of the dismemberment cases that come up, they're depressingly predictable. But I get the impression prosecutors often have success convincing a jury that the guy who dismembered the victim also killed him/her.

For example, the killer of Becky Watts in the UK claimed he was just trying to scare her when she accidentally died, but the prosecution used computer evidence of his obsession with violent to convict him of murder and life in prison. I think they'll be probing deeply into Madsen's life, as well as extensive forensics, to create a bigger picture of his alleged psychological state of mind, motive, etc.

I think Robert Durst was acquitted because he and his lawyers got the sympathy of the jury, painting him as a really nice, very rich guy, who was the victim of crazy people out to get him. They went through an elaborate process of recreating the accidental shooting etc. Prosecutors may have been over-confident and hadn't anticipated the defense strategy.

Absolutely. I did a quick bit of googling and could only find two cases (both identical). Somebody overdosed and their friend panicked (despite being completely innocent) because they didn't want to go to jail. There are undoubtedly more, but they are extremely rare. I seem to remember one about a guy dismembering and hiding his dead mother so he could continue to claim her pension. Rare stuff.

Peter Madsen's lawyer will insist the doors remain open today (even if the prosecution has stated they will request them closed). Apparently, Peter Madsen wants his story out. We should know more in the afternoon.

 

[MONDA]

I don't follow many of the dismemberment cases that come up, they're depressingly predictable. But I get the impression prosecutors often have success convincing a jury that the guy who dismembered the victim also killed him/her.

For example, the killer of Becky Watts in the UK claimed he was just trying to scare her when she accidentally died, but the prosecution used computer evidence of his obsession with violent to convict him of murder and life in prison. I think they'll be probing deeply into Madsen's life, as well as extensive forensics, to create a bigger picture of his alleged psychological state of mind, motive, etc.

I think Robert Durst was acquitted because he and his lawyers got the sympathy of the jury, painting him as a really nice, very rich guy, who was the victim of crazy people out to get him. They went through an elaborate process of recreating the accidental shooting etc. Prosecutors may have been over-confident and hadn't anticipated the defense strategy.

I forgot to add something. While these dismemberment cases are very rare it's not nearly as rare that someone innocent tries to hide a body (for whatever reason). In those cases it's often pretty straight forward to hide the body. In an earlier post, I believe I have show dismemberment was necessary if Peter Madsen wanted to hide the body (for whatever reason). He would simply not be able get the body out of the submarine (through a 7-9' tube with a 2' diameter). However, you still need to be pretty disturbed and likely of the same mind needed to kill in the first place.

 

[MONDA]

Court in session.

Peter Madsen denies the murder charge, but admit dumping the body overboard (after an accident). However, he claims the body was intact when he did so.

Edit: I didn't get to go, but the danish media are running a live online commentary.

 

[Logical_Inference]

I have translated the prosecutors and defence-lawyers comments here:


The prosecutor takes the floor. He says they have four requests. The first is a change of imprisonment. It is a request for extension of imprisonment for four weeks on suspicion of killing
As request number two, door closure is for the sake of the damage to the case by open doors at the present time
He argues further for that later. The 3rd request is that the court of appeal is requested to issue a mental examination order to examine his psyche at the time of the act and relate to his possible dangers.
He has not expressed whether PM will contribute. If he wants, it may be outpatient, if not, it will happen during hospitalization
He wishes as the 4th request for a ruling on a computer that they have not been allowed to search for PM.

Defender says her client would like to give the police access to the computer, but that he wants to sit next to because there are some confidential documents.

Prosecutor reads the sentence: He is charged with manslaughter, filed a sentence for unseemly action by residing on the submarine Nautilus in an unknown way of killing Kim Wall, after which he split the body in his head, leg, arm and torso. Just as he added the torso different stitches as well as applied torso belt attached pipes in order that the torso should remain on the seabed, after which he threw the ligaments into the water.

PM denies being guilty, but acknowledges the indecent handling of corpses by throwing the body overboard in full condition

The prosecutor now argues that the doors must be closed for investigation purposes.

The prosecutor will also rely on investigating in motives and that he does not want to go so much into that point. But that there will be a lot of work to investigate PM's person and things in his life.

Prosecutor Jakob Buch is currently telling you to review a number of conditions.
Including reviewing episodes from his life that may help to illuminate the matter. In addition, the prosecutor's office will not reveal, Nautilus's route, as they know.

He said they chose to publish a press release on PM's explanations that Kim Wall had died in an accident and was buried at sea to take out the information that Kim Wall was still alive.

He believes that it may damage the investigation at present if there are open doors, but it may be that at a later date there will be an opportunity to lift more of the veil. But of course, it is the court that takes the decision to shut down

The defender is now protesting against the prosecutor's request for door closure. She asserts that the prosecutor goes a long way into the grounds, pointing out that if information comes out, it may affect the investigation. She says that the impact must be crucial.

She says that many of the reasons for closing the constitutional hearing have come to the public. On August 12, the police were not so cumbersome, but the police later drove out with comments about the investigation,
My client has the utmost interest in bringing this case to the public. That he is allowed to explain. The most important thing for him is that the police are in a position to investigate the matter.

I have confirmed that my client should have given a different explanation. I will reject that. Obviously, my client just before his arrest has come with a brief explanation to the police, which he immediately changed after getting changed.
Otherwise, my client has not provided alternate explanations. They have been to a six-hour interview and subsequent interrogations
Therefore, my client does not come up with changing explanations. He comes alone with additional explanation
She does not believe that the information of the case can be destroyed by open doors


Now the press is protesting against closed doors. I really wonder why they are allowed to do that, because we all know that all they are interested in is money.....

 

[Logical_Inference]

Ok, doors will be opened, so we will hear his explaination today. I think...

 

[Logical_Inference]

Ok according to the proseutor, then he will prevent the press from rapporting of certain parts:
He says that what will happen to open doors is that he will read the PM's explanation in the constitutional hearing that he will ask for. In addition, there is some documentation. He is considering whether he will consider requesting partial ban on certain witnesses and certainly under documentation of the autopsy statement

 

[Logical_Inference]

PM's explaination to the police: He explained that he had made an agreement with Kim that she was to join his submarine. On Thursday at 17, he had a call that she would like to interview him and if it was possible to get a trip.
He briefed her about safety. There were many people who saw them together. At one point they took a dive. Even longer than normal. She interviewed at the same time
You have to go on the command bridge to control the submarine. He lifted the hatch. Kim was downstairs in the submarine and they agreed that she should also get up. Suddenly he slipped onto the platform and the lane fell down. It hit Kim. He could not see how she was hit. He could only hear a dunk.


Kim was severely injured and suffered severe bleeding from his head. He could see she had a broken skull bruin and found that she had to be dead. He was shocked and did not contact anyone. He stood in a situation that was deeply awful. It was a catastrophe. He did not have to kill anybody, even though it was an accident, with his insane experiments.
He did not touch Kim. He sailed out to Øresund where he would put an end to it all.
He did not mean that Kim was supposed to have the submarine as his grave. He got her up by a string. There was no sexual intercourse. He pushed her overboard, but did not look if she was sinking.
He shook and was strange when he thought about how his future was broken. He switched between two suits on the submarine, as one was swallowed into Kim's blood. He has not tried to clean.
At one point he opened the valves so that the submarine sank.

He talked with his wife and hoped that he could see her and take care of her.
He was examined at Rigshospitalet. Here it appeared that he had fresh damage. He explained that it happened in connection with his work. Responding to the defender he replied that he did not know Kim in advance. Your relationship was pure professional.
He has also explained that he has known his wife since 2010 and has no children.

 

[Logical_Inference]

The prosecutor now asks that he confirm that explanation. He says 10 percent. (It is now a confirmed typo - its 100 %)
He asks for their relationships. Have you seen her before August 10th. No I have not. I have no recollection that I have seen Kim Wall before.
The prosecutor asks whether he has asked other women for a day trip up to. He says yes to that. In one case.
He says that Nautilus preferably requires two in the crew and says he asked a number - both men and women. He confirms that he has previously been out with women to grow sex. He says in a case with his wife. And then he says that he has had Nautilus as a houseboat, and for that period he has had a girlfriend with whom he had been with. and there have been more women who he has been with. And I would say that it has been loving, erotic togetherness.

Are you in the S / M environment? I have done that. I am a person who interests me for all the diversity of eroticism. And I've been to a number of sex parties called Kinky Salon.
He says that it takes place in a shape that respects people's borders. It's happening quite glittering, without the violation of people's borders
I have had a very hard and stressed period. I have been very hard pressed, he says that they should launch a rocket and he found out that a competing rocket company would launch the same day. So he canceled.

The prosecutor asked if he had specific sexual needs at that time point? No matter how I usually have it. There was nothing unique about that period.
Have you been nursing sex (strangling)? No. The only thing is that I've told a mistress that she should hold her breath. It's the closest I've been to it, he says, confirming that he is living in open relationship.

He explains what happens to the hatch as Kim, according to him, gets it in her head. He tells that there is no spring mechanism in the latch that prevents it from slamming. The front is high up and the back is far down . There is darkness in the tower. I do not know what makes the hatch to move. I do not grab it enough to hold it.

The prosecutor does not think it completely agrees with his previous explanation. He reads that PM has previously explained that he lost his footstep because it was wet from the dive. He still got hold of the hatch as he slipped, and he lost the grip and heard a bump. PM maintains that he has not changed the explanation. The prosecutor maintains that he said that he lost his footstep. PM says it fits with what he explains today.
Prosecutors ask for clarification: It's because you slip away from losing your grip. He confirms that.

The prosecutor asked if there was moonlight that night. He says yes, but there was no light in the tower.
He explains that he is preparing to sleep for a couple of hours while Kim's wall is in the submarine. But she is in another section, he says.
- There is a bloodshed on the plates where she is landed. It just makes me go with the boat. I could not help stepping past the bloodshed, he says
- You say you're uncomfortable, and yet you choose to dive and go to sleep, asks the prosecutor.
- Yes I do. But not to jump in it, but at one point I choose to get her up, answers Peter Madsen.
He explains that she is filling the entire middle of the passage

I have no contact to the dead person on board. I do not think she should join my trip. I am suicidal at the time.
Kim Wall is crashed down and lies with the legs exactly in the position of where the tower-hatch is. I want to have the dead person away from the ship.
I do not think she should join my trip. I'm suicidal and complete in panic. I pick her up via a rope. Kim is a skinny girl so it can be done. It happens while I cry, he says.
"I've said earlier that if you can get hurt, it's because you fall down," he says.
"I'm in a state where I have decided that I can not continue the life I live. An appropriate end to Peter Madsen, it is Nautilus. But I think that's not an appropriate end for Kim

"In the situation and the mood I was in, that was the right thing to do, he says about his explanation of the funeral at sea.
"It seems like you're considerate to Kim," he said.
"If I had not been so vicious or affected, I would have sailed back with her and it would have been a lot better for her family.
- Kim's shorts and tights, fell off when I lifted her up, says Peter Madsen.
- Did you notice that her pants also fell off? The prosecutor asks.

"Yes, they fell off with the tights," answers Peter Madsen.
The prosecutor's office is currently asking how her panties can fall off. The two are starting to discuss.
"You must ask some women," answers Peter Madsen.
The prosecutor asks if he binds something about her life. He says yes to that. It's a so-called 'strap' - a nylon strap that was on the submarine, he says.

 

[Ironside]

Thanks for the updates. Can someone explain what the lane is?

Also none of this explains how her head and limbs magically got cut off. He is still lying in my opinion!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk