9 ms·

Given the fairly clear-cut factual dispute, I can't imagine this won't be resolved one way or another fairly soon. Madsen claims he dropped off the now-missing

Given the fairly clear-cut factual dispute, I can't imagine this won't be resolved one way or another fairly soon. Madsen claims he dropped off the now-missing passenger at 10:30pm before going back out on the sub. Investigators suspect that he didn't, and she sank with the sub. Since the sub's been located, and in fairly shallow water, investigators should be able to determine whether there's a body inside it or not soon.

loeg 9y ago
Really shallow! 22 feet. That's within the range they let uncertified divers scuba at.
- ramses0 9y ago
  "Uncertified divers escorted by an experienced, certified diver / instructor and after a safety and equipment briefing." You probably meant "divers with a basic SCUBA certification" (open water, ~30ft depth and conditions similar to your previous dives)
  - jetti 9y ago
    I am not certified and the three times I've been out we have done 40' max depth. 22' is definitely within range of somebody who took a 30 minute session and is out with an instructor.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
    I think most Open Water Dive certifications are to a recommended depth of about 18 metres / 60 feet, and Advanced Open Water Dive certificates are to a depth of about 30 metres / 100 feet.[1] 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Open_Water_Diver https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Open_Water_Diver
    - ramses0 9y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diver_certification#European_and_ISO_standards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diver_certification#European_a... 12m and 20m are basic recommendations listed here. I seem to remember 30ft and 100ft (plus following tables / computers) as the recommended limits.
      - TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
        Thank you for linking to that. It would seem my knowledge is outdated by 17 years. I've noticed recently I've claimed knowledge of something only to realise it was circa 20 years ago, at which point I then loudly blurt out "Back in my day!". I have a recreational dive certificate issued by NASDS Australasia in 2000. Looks like NASDS Australasia has since faded from view, and NASDS USA joined with SSI around 1999. It appears SSI adhere to ISO 24801[1] 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scuba_Schools_International#Recreational_diving_certifications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scuba_Schools_International#Re...
  - loeg 9y ago
    No, that's not what I meant. That said, no instructor with morals is letting an uncertified diver go inside a wreck.
- socialist_coder 9y ago
  > they let uncertified divers scuba at. Who is "they"? There is not some scuba sheriff who magically appears and stops you from going as deep as you want. Get some gear, swim out, and dive. How deep you go is 100% up to you. Also, dive computers make the whole thing very safe by tracking exactly how long and how deep you can stay without needing any lengthy nitrogen releasing safety stops. As a recreational diver with a bit of experience, you can feel very confident going down to 160 feet (maybe even 200?) as long as you listen to your dive computer.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - kobeya 9y ago
    That's ignoring nitrogen narcosis and other very dangerous concerns...
    - socialist_coder 9y ago
      It's not ignoring it at all. Your dive computer tells you exactly how long you can stay at your current depth with no problems ("no decompression time"). You can see tables of the no decompression time: http://elearning.padi.com/company0/tools/RDP_Table%20Met.pdf http://elearning.padi.com/company0/tools/RDP_Table%20Met.pdf The calculations are quite confusing do to manually, but your computer does them great, and in realtime, and for your exact depth & time. So, like I said, as long as you follow your computer, the risk for nitrogen narcosis or any other problems is very very small.
      - kobeya 9y ago
        You are confusing nitrogen narcosis with the bends.
        socialist_coder 9y ago
        You're right, I apologize. But I still argue the point: the depths that you will suffer seriously from nitrogen narcosis are beyond how deep you could even go on 1 tank + no decompression time. Once you get to 160 ft you only have a few minutes at that depth, so realistically you couldn't even go deep enough where nitrogen narcosis would be a big problem. So I still stand by my statement: if you have only 1 tank, and follow your dive computer's guidance, your risk of anything bad happening to you on a dive is slim to none.
- slackingoff2017 9y ago
  I would hope so since I've been in swimming pools deeper than that. Deepest pool I've been to the bottom of was 32 feet I think. I don't get how anyone could dive for fun, it's scary down that deep :)
  - Inconel 9y ago
    If you're comfortable enough to dive to the bottom of a 32 foot pool unaided, I would suggest you give scuba diving a try, assuming you have the opportunity to partake. It can indeed be somewhat scary at first, but again, assuming you're comfortable in the water, it can rather quickly become incredibly relaxing and fun. Being underwater, even at shallow depths, and yet still being able to breathe, is such a weird and unique feeling that I think everyone should get to experience it.
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      I can't agree with this more! I suggest everyone try SCUBA at least once in their life.
  - robmiller 9y ago
    The pressure on my head hurts at the bottom of a 10 ft pool. I don't know how divers do it...
    - acomjean 9y ago
      by pinching your nose and blowing you can equalize the pressure in your ears.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valsalva_maneuver https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valsalva_maneuver
      - slackingoff2017 9y ago
        I'm not sure if this is normal but I have voluntary control over my eustachian tubes. Opening them makes a small click that's audible to others if they put their ears up against mine :)
- belorn 9y ago
  22 feet is within the limit of controlled emergency swimming ascent, and this somewhat possible to reach the surface with a single breath even if Madsen escaped from the sub when it was at the bottom.
towb 9y ago
He could have dumped the body somewhere else and only sank the sub to wash away the evidence. The sub was missing for over 12 hours. Who knows how far that thing can get in that time.
- masklinn 9y ago
  5h each way (giving 2h for whatever), it can probably do ~10km/h[0], so that's likely 50~55km assuming wiki has it right. Here's hoping nothing happened and the journalist just took a nap at a hostel or something, but the optics are quite bad, it's a lot of coincidences which look pretty nasty. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC3_Nautilus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC3_Nautilus
  - dogma1138 9y ago
    She's been reported missing since Thursday, that's one heck of a nap, the likely explanation that she is dead.
- anotheryou 9y ago
  I think it's much more likely that the sub sank by accident and he denies she was on board, than a planned murder happening.
  - tyingq 9y ago
    It didn't have to be a planned murder. It's possible it wasn't premeditated, but happened. He dumps the body, then considers the forensic value of the sub. Navigates to a different spot, then scuttles it to wash anything incriminating away.
    - eugeniub 9y ago
      I think the allegation is that she died because the sub drowned. He isn't alleged to have killed her any other way yet, and speculation of another way is just speculation.
dmix 9y ago
From the police report: > In the afternoon there have been divers on the submarine, lying on seven feet of water. It has not been possible to enter the submarine, either being stabilized on site or rescued and towed to port before it will be possible. This will probably happen during Saturday. They will attempt to either enter the sub on site or tow it back to port today (Saturday). http://www.mynewsdesk.com/dk/koebenhavns-politi/pressreleases/drabssigtelse-i-sag-om-ubaad-2105443 http://www.mynewsdesk.com/dk/koebenhavns-politi/pressrelease...
cjg_ 9y ago
They've already brought the sub to the surface [1] and are towing it to a harbor for investigation. [1] https://bt.bmcdn.dk/media/cache/resolve/image_1240/image/104/1040457/18159798-1.jpg https://bt.bmcdn.dk/media/cache/resolve/image_1240/image/104...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- thanksgiving 9y ago
  Link didn't open in Firefox focus (trackers on an image file?) so Archive fo https://archive.fo/W7sTX https://archive.fo/W7sTX
masklinn 9y ago
> Investigators suspect that he didn't, and she sank with the sub. Investigators also suspect that the sub was scuttled to conceal evidence.
draugadrotten 9y ago
> Given the fairly clear-cut factual dispute, I can't imagine this won't be resolved one way or another fairly soon The police may know much more than they have told the public. They very quickly arrested the man, and they must have had a good reason to do so. The court also jailed him for a couple of weeks, based on evidence presented behind closed doors - the reason for the closed doors being "of respect to the family". There was some evidence presented which would have been of harm to the family, more harm than the public fact of suspected murder. The police may already know most of the story and only needs some time to build the case for the judge.

loeg 9y ago

Really shallow! 22 feet. That's within the range they let uncertified divers scuba at.

ramses0 9y ago
"Uncertified divers escorted by an experienced, certified diver / instructor and after a safety and equipment briefing." You probably meant "divers with a basic SCUBA certification" (open water, ~30ft depth and conditions similar to your previous dives)
- jetti 9y ago
  I am not certified and the three times I've been out we have done 40' max depth. 22' is definitely within range of somebody who took a 30 minute session and is out with an instructor.
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
  I think most Open Water Dive certifications are to a recommended depth of about 18 metres / 60 feet, and Advanced Open Water Dive certificates are to a depth of about 30 metres / 100 feet.[1] 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Open_Water_Diver https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Open_Water_Diver
  - ramses0 9y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diver_certification#European_and_ISO_standards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diver_certification#European_a... 12m and 20m are basic recommendations listed here. I seem to remember 30ft and 100ft (plus following tables / computers) as the recommended limits.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
      Thank you for linking to that. It would seem my knowledge is outdated by 17 years. I've noticed recently I've claimed knowledge of something only to realise it was circa 20 years ago, at which point I then loudly blurt out "Back in my day!". I have a recreational dive certificate issued by NASDS Australasia in 2000. Looks like NASDS Australasia has since faded from view, and NASDS USA joined with SSI around 1999. It appears SSI adhere to ISO 24801[1] 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scuba_Schools_International#Recreational_diving_certifications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scuba_Schools_International#Re...
- loeg 9y ago
  No, that's not what I meant. That said, no instructor with morals is letting an uncertified diver go inside a wreck.
socialist_coder 9y ago
> they let uncertified divers scuba at. Who is "they"? There is not some scuba sheriff who magically appears and stops you from going as deep as you want. Get some gear, swim out, and dive. How deep you go is 100% up to you. Also, dive computers make the whole thing very safe by tracking exactly how long and how deep you can stay without needing any lengthy nitrogen releasing safety stops. As a recreational diver with a bit of experience, you can feel very confident going down to 160 feet (maybe even 200?) as long as you listen to your dive computer.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- kobeya 9y ago
  That's ignoring nitrogen narcosis and other very dangerous concerns...
  - socialist_coder 9y ago
    It's not ignoring it at all. Your dive computer tells you exactly how long you can stay at your current depth with no problems ("no decompression time"). You can see tables of the no decompression time: http://elearning.padi.com/company0/tools/RDP_Table%20Met.pdf http://elearning.padi.com/company0/tools/RDP_Table%20Met.pdf The calculations are quite confusing do to manually, but your computer does them great, and in realtime, and for your exact depth & time. So, like I said, as long as you follow your computer, the risk for nitrogen narcosis or any other problems is very very small.
    - kobeya 9y ago
      You are confusing nitrogen narcosis with the bends.
      - socialist_coder 9y ago
        You're right, I apologize. But I still argue the point: the depths that you will suffer seriously from nitrogen narcosis are beyond how deep you could even go on 1 tank + no decompression time. Once you get to 160 ft you only have a few minutes at that depth, so realistically you couldn't even go deep enough where nitrogen narcosis would be a big problem. So I still stand by my statement: if you have only 1 tank, and follow your dive computer's guidance, your risk of anything bad happening to you on a dive is slim to none.
slackingoff2017 9y ago
I would hope so since I've been in swimming pools deeper than that. Deepest pool I've been to the bottom of was 32 feet I think. I don't get how anyone could dive for fun, it's scary down that deep :)
- Inconel 9y ago
  If you're comfortable enough to dive to the bottom of a 32 foot pool unaided, I would suggest you give scuba diving a try, assuming you have the opportunity to partake. It can indeed be somewhat scary at first, but again, assuming you're comfortable in the water, it can rather quickly become incredibly relaxing and fun. Being underwater, even at shallow depths, and yet still being able to breathe, is such a weird and unique feeling that I think everyone should get to experience it.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    I can't agree with this more! I suggest everyone try SCUBA at least once in their life.
- robmiller 9y ago
  The pressure on my head hurts at the bottom of a 10 ft pool. I don't know how divers do it...
  - acomjean 9y ago
    by pinching your nose and blowing you can equalize the pressure in your ears.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valsalva_maneuver https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valsalva_maneuver
    - slackingoff2017 9y ago
      I'm not sure if this is normal but I have voluntary control over my eustachian tubes. Opening them makes a small click that's audible to others if they put their ears up against mine :)
belorn 9y ago
22 feet is within the limit of controlled emergency swimming ascent, and this somewhat possible to reach the surface with a single breath even if Madsen escaped from the sub when it was at the bottom.

towb 9y ago

He could have dumped the body somewhere else and only sank the sub to wash away the evidence. The sub was missing for over 12 hours. Who knows how far that thing can get in that time.

masklinn 9y ago
5h each way (giving 2h for whatever), it can probably do ~10km/h[0], so that's likely 50~55km assuming wiki has it right. Here's hoping nothing happened and the journalist just took a nap at a hostel or something, but the optics are quite bad, it's a lot of coincidences which look pretty nasty. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC3_Nautilus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC3_Nautilus
- dogma1138 9y ago
  She's been reported missing since Thursday, that's one heck of a nap, the likely explanation that she is dead.
anotheryou 9y ago
I think it's much more likely that the sub sank by accident and he denies she was on board, than a planned murder happening.
- tyingq 9y ago
  It didn't have to be a planned murder. It's possible it wasn't premeditated, but happened. He dumps the body, then considers the forensic value of the sub. Navigates to a different spot, then scuttles it to wash anything incriminating away.
  - eugeniub 9y ago
    I think the allegation is that she died because the sub drowned. He isn't alleged to have killed her any other way yet, and speculation of another way is just speculation.

dmix 9y ago

From the police report: > In the afternoon there have been divers on the submarine, lying on seven feet of water. It has not been possible to enter the submarine, either being stabilized on site or rescued and towed to port before it will be possible. This will probably happen during Saturday. They will attempt to either enter the sub on site or tow it back to port today (Saturday). http://www.mynewsdesk.com/dk/koebenhavns-politi/pressreleases/drabssigtelse-i-sag-om-ubaad-2105443 http://www.mynewsdesk.com/dk/koebenhavns-politi/pressrelease...

cjg_ 9y ago

They've already brought the sub to the surface [1] and are towing it to a harbor for investigation. [1] https://bt.bmcdn.dk/media/cache/resolve/image_1240/image/104/1040457/18159798-1.jpg https://bt.bmcdn.dk/media/cache/resolve/image_1240/image/104...

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
thanksgiving 9y ago
Link didn't open in Firefox focus (trackers on an image file?) so Archive fo https://archive.fo/W7sTX https://archive.fo/W7sTX

masklinn 9y ago

> Investigators suspect that he didn't, and she sank with the sub. Investigators also suspect that the sub was scuttled to conceal evidence.

draugadrotten 9y ago

> Given the fairly clear-cut factual dispute, I can't imagine this won't be resolved one way or another fairly soon The police may know much more than they have told the public. They very quickly arrested the man, and they must have had a good reason to do so. The court also jailed him for a couple of weeks, based on evidence presented behind closed doors - the reason for the closed doors being "of respect to the family". There was some evidence presented which would have been of harm to the family, more harm than the public fact of suspected murder. The police may already know most of the story and only needs some time to build the case for the judge.