9 ms·

Kim Wall: Headless body identified as missing journalist

109 points by noncoml 9y ago

emerongi 9y ago
"The torso was mutilated in an apparent attempt to ensure that decomposition gases passed out of the body, and there was also metal attached to it to make it sink, he added." I have a hard time believing anyone would commit a murder on a submarine in Denmark. I feel like it's almost impossible to cover that up. But if it was an accident... who mutilates the body like that? If I wanted to cover it up, mutilating the body would be too much for me. The case is pretty bizarre, although I'm pretty sure law enforcement has it mostly cracked already.
- falsedan 9y ago
  > I have a hard time believing anyone would commit a murder on a submarine in Denmark. I feel like it's almost impossible to cover that up. The 'perfect crime' doesn't have to leave you above suspicion; but it has to deny sufficient evidence to convict you. You might believe your plan avoided incriminating you to the point that you can plausibly claim that you didn't commit the murder or tried to conceal the evidence. Basically, a psychopath would think they could cover it up.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >I have a hard time believing anyone would commit a murder on a submarine in Denmark. I feel like it's almost impossible to cover that up. You mean "premeditated murder". Because it's too easy to commit a murder or manslaughter anywhere on the heat of the moment (e.g. makes a pass, she refuses, argument, pushes him, pushes her, she falls and dies, etc).
  - emerongi 9y ago
    Yes. Basically I can't see Madsen straight up stabbing her with the clear intention of murdering her. Unless he is crazy or did something else before that, like rape her. The mutilating part is just what throws me off. If he didn't kill her intentionally, how could he go that far? I can see him dumping her body in fear or shock or whatever, but he took his sweet time on the body before doing that.
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      > Basically I can't see Madsen straight up stabbing her with the clear intention of murdering her. Given that he had no compunction about cutting her up into pieces I have zero trouble seeing him stabbing her. At this point in time 'all bets are off', he's been more than just a little bit erratic and has been doing a pretty good job of appearing quite normal after having just dismembered a body and sinking a submarine. You have to be more than a little bit strange to be able to stand there and pretend to be the victim of an accident while talking to the police knowing all that.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - falsedan 9y ago
        > after having just dismembered a body and sinking a submarine Allegedly doing those things. Although I'm pretty sure his right to a fair trial won't be affected by HN comments…
        jacquesm 9y ago
        > Allegedly doing those things. Fair enough. > Although I'm pretty sure his right to a fair trial won't be affected by HN comments… You'd hope not. The one thing that so far has negatively influenced Madsen's chances at any kind of leniency in his future trial (I'm going on the assumption here that there will be such a trial, though I can see some ways in which he might get out of that) is Madsen's own behavior.
    - coldtea 9y ago
      >The mutilating part is just what throws me off. If he didn't kill her intentionally, how could he go that far? After the deed has been done, even if it was an accident, one can panic and try everything to get away with it.
  - pluma 9y ago
    Not sure where they're from but it may be a language thing. For example in Germany "Mord" ("murder") always requires intent. Unintentional killing is called "Totschlag" (manslaughter), if it was an accident it would be called "fahrlässige Tötung" (reckless killing). US law seems to make similar distinctions but groups all of them as "murder": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(United_States_law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(United_States_law) So I'm guessing the strong implication of intent present in e.g. German "Mord" is not present in the English word for most native speakers?
    - adventured 9y ago
      Culturally and legally the US aggressively separates murder out from something that is only an accident. All deaths by accident definitely do not get referred to as murder or grouped under murder. If you accidentally hit someone with a car for example (while not drunk etc), few would call it murder when referring to the event. It would be referred to as: he killed the person, or the person died by accident, or legally involuntary manslaughter if you're responsible for the death. Speaking culturally, typically for people in the US to call something murder, it almost always requires intent or high negligence.
      - pluma 9y ago
        Weird. So why did the comment single out premeditated murder? Getting into a fight and unintentionally/recklessly causing lethal injuries, or unintentionally/recklessly causing a lethal accident to happen wouldn't then normally be called "murder" making the distinction unnecessary? EDIT: To clarify, I'm not picking on coldtea. This isn't the first time I've seen people be corrected when using "murder" to refer to "first-degree murder".
        danso 9y ago
        For starters, there's such a thing as justified homicide, i.e. Self-defense. Voluntary manslaughter covers the situation you describe, in which a suspect kills someone during a fight but can argue that he did not intend for the fight to become lethal. Such as punching someone who then falls and suffers a fatal head injury.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
0xFFC 9y ago
Okay, What was the last topic she was working on? Cartel? Russia? Mafia? etc?
- scarmig 9y ago
  There's a fair chance he raped her and then murdered her. Much more common and less glamorous than Russian mobsters taking out someone about to break the big story.
  - andai 9y ago
    Sounds like something the mafia would say!
  - tyingq 9y ago
    He was apparently very contentious about the submarine and his history with others involved in it as well. I could see an escalating scenario where she, as a reporter would, started questioning around that topic. She hits the right buttons, and he loses it and injures her badly enough that he now has to make a decision.
    - pvaldes 9y ago
      Sounds like a reasonable hypothesis to me, taking in mind the many sources talking about his short-tempered character.
  - pvaldes 9y ago
    Fortunately glamour or statistics are not relevant in justice, only truth and proven facts. At the current moment there is zero data available supporting the mobster hypothesis... but also zero data (unless policemen know something more) supporting the hypothesis of a sexual crime or a rape. Is a murder, pretty obviously, but the reason of the murder is unclosed still. All possibilities are open.
- nippples 9y ago
  Looking at her article history in The Guardian, it doesn't seem likely at all: https://www.theguardian.com/profile/kim-wall https://www.theguardian.com/profile/kim-wall
marvin 9y ago
The article doesn't mention it, but the suspect Peter Madsen is the cofounder of Copenhagen Suborbitals. This is an absolutely crazy story which just gets more insane by the day. Starting with a missing journalist and seemingly accidental sinking of a private submarine, getting more and more weird and inconsistent until now a decapitated, limbless corpse shows up. With the corpse cut in pieces, it's hard to reach any other conclusion than that this was a murder. Or just almost in the region of the semi-plausably concievable, an accident followed by a gruesome attempt to cover it up. The repeated change of stories certainly doesn't help his credibility, and the explanation doesn't stand to reason in any way.
- colde 9y ago
  Worth noting here that he haven't had anything to do with Copenhagen Suborbitals for a few years, as he split away to do his own thing (RML Spacelab).
- jacquesm 9y ago
  > Or just almost in the region of the semi-plausably concievable, an accident followed by a gruesome attempt to cover it up. The accident theory is being stretched beyond the breaking point by now, I find it hard to come up with even a remotely plausible theory of what kind of accident it would have to be to justify the subsequent events. Such an accident would have to look so suspiciously close to murder that he responded just as if it actually was a murder.
  - marvin 9y ago
    My comment came out a little more ambiguously than intended, so just for the sake of clarity: I was pointing out that there is not much room for doubt here. There is certainly no reasonable probability that he's innocent with the evidence that's shown up by now.
    - londons_explore 9y ago
      Imagine for some reason the journalist died, but then he felt the need to hide the body to, for example, hide evidence of an affair.
jacquesm 9y ago
So, now we know why the sub was sunk. I'm curious what implausible rabbit of an explanation Madsen will pull out of his hat to explain this away, and I hope that instead he will now simply confess to what actually happened. What an idiot. Poor family and spouse.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- gribbly 9y ago
  Yes I expect this to play out as it usually does, as more evidence is gathered, the story he is telling changes accordingly while he is trying to paint himself as good as possible given the proven circumstances, with a full confession once there is no more room for anything but the actual truth.
- jondubois 9y ago
  Yeah I don't think the evidence leaves much to the imagination. It sounds like he probably raped her, killed her and then disposed of the body to protect his reputation. It must be be extremely painful for the partner of the victim who was probably feeling paranoid before she even stepped on the submarine.
wlkr 9y ago
My heart goes out to the family and friends of Kim Wall, I cannot begin to imagine what they're going through. I hope the truth of what happened comes to light and the family at least have some answers. Given Mr Madsen's evasiveness and his unwillingness to answer questions honestly I wonder if we'll ever know for sure?
- ladbye 9y ago
  What evasiveness and unwillingness are you referring to? He changed his statement once, and that was within 24 hours of his arrested. Ever since he has remained silent, most likely by order of the court. I actually believe that he told them "everything" at the first hearing (like the admission that she died on board the vessel and was "buried at sea") and as we've seen up until now, the court only releases a part of it once that part no longer has influence on the ongoing investigation. For instance, I think he also admitted to dismembering the body but that part hasn't been disclosed as the police would risk people sailing up and down the coast looking for body parts, and thus risk ruining evidence. The reason why I put 'everything' in quotation earlier, is that I don't personally believe the accident-story until I see evidence that proves it. However, it puzzles me that the prosecutor is still going for the indictment with involuntary manslaughter. I think they know something that the public doesn't - perhaps something that in fact supports the accident-story.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    First saying he dropped her off which was a flat out lie, then saying she was buried at sea. On a technicality you could argue the second was true but I think that is stretching things more than just a bit. Getting rid of the evidence would be a better description. Now we are in full fledged crazy butcher and/or killer territory. I think that pretty much covers evasiveness and unwillingness.
    - ladbye 9y ago
      The "buried at sea" is most likely the phrasing from his lawyer and not his own words. Also, "getting rid of the evidence" would only be used if he did commit the murder. And I agree, regardless of what actually happened he has turned out to be a psychopath. Dismembering a body, puncturing potential air/gas pockets then "wrapping" it in chains and finally throwing it overboard.
js8 9y ago
I don't understand it. If he was rescued from the sunken submarine, how did he smuggle the body with him?
- danso 9y ago
  The allegation is that he did something to the body before the submarine had its accident.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  The timeline is that the body was dismembered and dumped hours before he sank the submarine and his subsequent rescue.
- styren 9y ago
  Here's a timeline of the events https://www.flashback.org/sp61479549 https://www.flashback.org/sp61479549 (swedish) https://translate.google.se/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&u=https%3A//www.flashback.org/sp61479549 https://translate.google.se/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&u=https%3A... (google translate)
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
dnaas 9y ago
This is like an episode from Bron/The Bridge, but for realz
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
kowdermeister 9y ago
The key thing here is that he claims to dropped her off at this location[1] at 22:30. The article mentions cameras around but no info about is she was seen there or not. At that time, the area is probably busy with people wants to chill, so there could be eye witnesses seeing her. It's still not proof that he's innocent, but that would raise lots of doubts. https://www.google.hu/maps/@55.6958462,12.609141,3a,75y,197.5h,81.53t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sUG8BOJeAUqj2E_TCBIecTA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DUG8BOJeAUqj2E_TCBIecTA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D33.915413%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.hu/maps/@55.6958462,12.609141,3a,75y,197....
- wodenokoto 9y ago
  No, he has changed his explanation and told police she died aboard the submarine in an accident and that he buried her at sea.
- joncrocks 9y ago
  From the article: "He initially said he had dropped her off safely near Copenhagen, but has since said she died in an accident and that he had "buried" her at sea."
  - kowdermeister 9y ago
    Thanks, I forgot that by skimming the article. This makes it rather simple. A flat out lie and an unreasonable way to treat an "accident" leaves not much room for the defense.
  - wreath 9y ago
    How can he just bury her without informing her family and/or authority? This alone sounds strange.
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      He was just getting rid of evidence. Note the GP has 'buried' in quotes. This will definitely be held against him and will aggravate any crime he will be charged with.
interfixus 9y ago
So exceedingly strange for me to be commenting on this. I was once a member of the support group around Copenhagen Suborbitals, Peter Madsen's first space rocket venture, which also had the submarine in hand, and from which he was later ejected for erratic behaviour, vile explosions of temper, and general pain-in-the-ass-ness. Around Christmas 2010, in the rocket assembly hangar - inevitable known as the HAB - I had a long talk with a leading support group member. Two things I very clearly remember from tat conversation: I was directed towards Hacker News as a serious forum (have been here ever since), and much more to the present point was told "With all his energy and dynamics and creativity, Peter must have a dark side that we know nothing about". We were not to know that the dark side was a terrifying psychopathic personality, now exposed in all its gore. Danish police is now reopening various old macabre murder cases. I shall be unsurprised if the charming, charismatic Peter Madsen I have met on several occasions turn out to be the craziest serial killer in Danish history. My rage is barely containable. [Written on phone in noisy, unconducive environment. Please excuse typos, clumsiness, and errors]
- nuclx 9y ago
  "With all his energy and dynamics and creativity, Peter must have a dark side that we know nothing about" - no idea what else the person who said that knew. However if I read this as a conclusion, it appears unsubstantial.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    > However if I read this as a conclusion, it appears unsubstantial. Until about two weeks ago it probably was.
- Bromskloss 9y ago
  Wait! No! I never made the connection to Copenhagen Suborbitals! I read now that Madsen left it a few years ago. Does that mean that the work will go on? I hope so!
flexie 9y ago
Goes without saying that he is a despicable human being. But what a poor engineer he also turned out to be. Not because he flunked college or because his rockets never reached space or because his submarine sunk. But working with submarines for decades, and then utterly failing to submerge a body at sea. Not understanding that police would find her DNA in the submarine. His misdeeds were uncovered by regular police work in just a few days. Does he even have a grasp of physics?
- kogepathic 9y ago
  >But what a poor engineer he also turned out to be ... and then utterly failing to submerge a body at sea. Not understanding that police would find her DNA in the submarine. I'm an engineer and knowing that kind of forensic tools are available now to police, there is no way I'd ever think to commit such a crime (and also because WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT?!). Unless the police are very incompetent or you are able to conceal it very well, you will be caught. [0] I can tell you I never had a class during my B.Eng about how to kill someone and destroy DNA evidence. I'm not sure what being an engineer has to do with sinking a dead body and removing DNA evidence, since these are not at all related to Engineering... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Pickton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Pickton
  - tyingq 9y ago
    There are quite a lot of unsolved murders. Thirty percent in the US. Perhaps lower in Europe, but I assume still substantial. Of course, high profile crimes get disproportionate resources. In this case, they turned around a DNA test in a few days or less. The people involved, plus the submarine, assured this one gets attention.
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      Two people get on a boat, only one of them returns and purposefully tries to sink his boat. As murders go this one has a lot of circumstances that facilitate solution in spite of all the attempts at muddying the waters.
mariusmg 9y ago
I'm guessing he made a pass at her, she told him to fuck off, started arguing, he killed her, disposed of the body and then sunk the submarine. Crazy. Expect the Hollywood version in 2024.
_Codemonkeyism 9y ago
The surreality of this all remindes me of John McAfee.
- tptacek 9y ago
  The charges against McAfee are a lot less funny and a lot more serious than you'd guess from message board discussions about him.
Voyage_wanderer 9y ago
Is there any pics of the boat propulsion system? Mutilation can be explained by the body going through a propeller. It is a meat grounder. It is just another possible explanation. Worst marine accidents happen when person falls aboard and gets sucked into propulsion system. Not guilty until proven....
- tyingq 9y ago
  Here: http://www.dw.com/image/40075604_304.jpg http://www.dw.com/image/40075604_304.jpg As you suggest, it's all speculation, but the police are saying it does look like deliberate mutilation. Trying to imagine the scenario where all 4 limbs and a head get cut off by a prop, and it's quite a stretch. There's also blood in the submarine, and the accused's statement that he "buried her" at sea.
- pvaldes 9y ago
  Would not explain the presence of a metallic piece attached to the corpse.
alexozer 9y ago
Maybe she found something in the submarine that he did not intend for her to disclose?

109 points by noncoml 9y ago

"The torso was mutilated in an apparent attempt to ensure that decomposition gases passed out of the body, and there was also metal attached to it to make it sink, he added." I have a hard time believing anyone would commit a murder on a submarine in Denmark. I feel like it's almost impossible to cover that up. But if it was an accident... who mutilates the body like that? If I wanted to cover it up, mutilating the body would be too much for me. The case is pretty bizarre, although I'm pretty sure law enforcement has it mostly cracked already.

falsedan 9y ago
> I have a hard time believing anyone would commit a murder on a submarine in Denmark. I feel like it's almost impossible to cover that up. The 'perfect crime' doesn't have to leave you above suspicion; but it has to deny sufficient evidence to convict you. You might believe your plan avoided incriminating you to the point that you can plausibly claim that you didn't commit the murder or tried to conceal the evidence. Basically, a psychopath would think they could cover it up.
coldtea 9y ago
>I have a hard time believing anyone would commit a murder on a submarine in Denmark. I feel like it's almost impossible to cover that up. You mean "premeditated murder". Because it's too easy to commit a murder or manslaughter anywhere on the heat of the moment (e.g. makes a pass, she refuses, argument, pushes him, pushes her, she falls and dies, etc).
- emerongi 9y ago
  Yes. Basically I can't see Madsen straight up stabbing her with the clear intention of murdering her. Unless he is crazy or did something else before that, like rape her. The mutilating part is just what throws me off. If he didn't kill her intentionally, how could he go that far? I can see him dumping her body in fear or shock or whatever, but he took his sweet time on the body before doing that.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    > Basically I can't see Madsen straight up stabbing her with the clear intention of murdering her. Given that he had no compunction about cutting her up into pieces I have zero trouble seeing him stabbing her. At this point in time 'all bets are off', he's been more than just a little bit erratic and has been doing a pretty good job of appearing quite normal after having just dismembered a body and sinking a submarine. You have to be more than a little bit strange to be able to stand there and pretend to be the victim of an accident while talking to the police knowing all that.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - falsedan 9y ago
      > after having just dismembered a body and sinking a submarine Allegedly doing those things. Although I'm pretty sure his right to a fair trial won't be affected by HN comments…
      - jacquesm 9y ago
        > Allegedly doing those things. Fair enough. > Although I'm pretty sure his right to a fair trial won't be affected by HN comments… You'd hope not. The one thing that so far has negatively influenced Madsen's chances at any kind of leniency in his future trial (I'm going on the assumption here that there will be such a trial, though I can see some ways in which he might get out of that) is Madsen's own behavior.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >The mutilating part is just what throws me off. If he didn't kill her intentionally, how could he go that far? After the deed has been done, even if it was an accident, one can panic and try everything to get away with it.
- pluma 9y ago
  Not sure where they're from but it may be a language thing. For example in Germany "Mord" ("murder") always requires intent. Unintentional killing is called "Totschlag" (manslaughter), if it was an accident it would be called "fahrlässige Tötung" (reckless killing). US law seems to make similar distinctions but groups all of them as "murder": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(United_States_law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(United_States_law) So I'm guessing the strong implication of intent present in e.g. German "Mord" is not present in the English word for most native speakers?
  - adventured 9y ago
    Culturally and legally the US aggressively separates murder out from something that is only an accident. All deaths by accident definitely do not get referred to as murder or grouped under murder. If you accidentally hit someone with a car for example (while not drunk etc), few would call it murder when referring to the event. It would be referred to as: he killed the person, or the person died by accident, or legally involuntary manslaughter if you're responsible for the death. Speaking culturally, typically for people in the US to call something murder, it almost always requires intent or high negligence.
    - pluma 9y ago
      Weird. So why did the comment single out premeditated murder? Getting into a fight and unintentionally/recklessly causing lethal injuries, or unintentionally/recklessly causing a lethal accident to happen wouldn't then normally be called "murder" making the distinction unnecessary? EDIT: To clarify, I'm not picking on coldtea. This isn't the first time I've seen people be corrected when using "murder" to refer to "first-degree murder".
      - danso 9y ago
        For starters, there's such a thing as justified homicide, i.e. Self-defense. Voluntary manslaughter covers the situation you describe, in which a suspect kills someone during a fight but can argue that he did not intend for the fight to become lethal. Such as punching someone who then falls and suffers a fatal head injury.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

0xFFC 9y ago

Okay, What was the last topic she was working on? Cartel? Russia? Mafia? etc?

scarmig 9y ago
There's a fair chance he raped her and then murdered her. Much more common and less glamorous than Russian mobsters taking out someone about to break the big story.
- andai 9y ago
  Sounds like something the mafia would say!
- tyingq 9y ago
  He was apparently very contentious about the submarine and his history with others involved in it as well. I could see an escalating scenario where she, as a reporter would, started questioning around that topic. She hits the right buttons, and he loses it and injures her badly enough that he now has to make a decision.
  - pvaldes 9y ago
    Sounds like a reasonable hypothesis to me, taking in mind the many sources talking about his short-tempered character.
- pvaldes 9y ago
  Fortunately glamour or statistics are not relevant in justice, only truth and proven facts. At the current moment there is zero data available supporting the mobster hypothesis... but also zero data (unless policemen know something more) supporting the hypothesis of a sexual crime or a rape. Is a murder, pretty obviously, but the reason of the murder is unclosed still. All possibilities are open.
nippples 9y ago
Looking at her article history in The Guardian, it doesn't seem likely at all: https://www.theguardian.com/profile/kim-wall https://www.theguardian.com/profile/kim-wall

marvin 9y ago

The article doesn't mention it, but the suspect Peter Madsen is the cofounder of Copenhagen Suborbitals. This is an absolutely crazy story which just gets more insane by the day. Starting with a missing journalist and seemingly accidental sinking of a private submarine, getting more and more weird and inconsistent until now a decapitated, limbless corpse shows up. With the corpse cut in pieces, it's hard to reach any other conclusion than that this was a murder. Or just almost in the region of the semi-plausably concievable, an accident followed by a gruesome attempt to cover it up. The repeated change of stories certainly doesn't help his credibility, and the explanation doesn't stand to reason in any way.

colde 9y ago
Worth noting here that he haven't had anything to do with Copenhagen Suborbitals for a few years, as he split away to do his own thing (RML Spacelab).
jacquesm 9y ago
> Or just almost in the region of the semi-plausably concievable, an accident followed by a gruesome attempt to cover it up. The accident theory is being stretched beyond the breaking point by now, I find it hard to come up with even a remotely plausible theory of what kind of accident it would have to be to justify the subsequent events. Such an accident would have to look so suspiciously close to murder that he responded just as if it actually was a murder.
- marvin 9y ago
  My comment came out a little more ambiguously than intended, so just for the sake of clarity: I was pointing out that there is not much room for doubt here. There is certainly no reasonable probability that he's innocent with the evidence that's shown up by now.
  - londons_explore 9y ago
    Imagine for some reason the journalist died, but then he felt the need to hide the body to, for example, hide evidence of an affair.

jacquesm 9y ago

So, now we know why the sub was sunk. I'm curious what implausible rabbit of an explanation Madsen will pull out of his hat to explain this away, and I hope that instead he will now simply confess to what actually happened. What an idiot. Poor family and spouse.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
gribbly 9y ago
Yes I expect this to play out as it usually does, as more evidence is gathered, the story he is telling changes accordingly while he is trying to paint himself as good as possible given the proven circumstances, with a full confession once there is no more room for anything but the actual truth.
jondubois 9y ago
Yeah I don't think the evidence leaves much to the imagination. It sounds like he probably raped her, killed her and then disposed of the body to protect his reputation. It must be be extremely painful for the partner of the victim who was probably feeling paranoid before she even stepped on the submarine.

wlkr 9y ago

My heart goes out to the family and friends of Kim Wall, I cannot begin to imagine what they're going through. I hope the truth of what happened comes to light and the family at least have some answers. Given Mr Madsen's evasiveness and his unwillingness to answer questions honestly I wonder if we'll ever know for sure?

ladbye 9y ago
What evasiveness and unwillingness are you referring to? He changed his statement once, and that was within 24 hours of his arrested. Ever since he has remained silent, most likely by order of the court. I actually believe that he told them "everything" at the first hearing (like the admission that she died on board the vessel and was "buried at sea") and as we've seen up until now, the court only releases a part of it once that part no longer has influence on the ongoing investigation. For instance, I think he also admitted to dismembering the body but that part hasn't been disclosed as the police would risk people sailing up and down the coast looking for body parts, and thus risk ruining evidence. The reason why I put 'everything' in quotation earlier, is that I don't personally believe the accident-story until I see evidence that proves it. However, it puzzles me that the prosecutor is still going for the indictment with involuntary manslaughter. I think they know something that the public doesn't - perhaps something that in fact supports the accident-story.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  First saying he dropped her off which was a flat out lie, then saying she was buried at sea. On a technicality you could argue the second was true but I think that is stretching things more than just a bit. Getting rid of the evidence would be a better description. Now we are in full fledged crazy butcher and/or killer territory. I think that pretty much covers evasiveness and unwillingness.
  - ladbye 9y ago
    The "buried at sea" is most likely the phrasing from his lawyer and not his own words. Also, "getting rid of the evidence" would only be used if he did commit the murder. And I agree, regardless of what actually happened he has turned out to be a psychopath. Dismembering a body, puncturing potential air/gas pockets then "wrapping" it in chains and finally throwing it overboard.

js8 9y ago

I don't understand it. If he was rescued from the sunken submarine, how did he smuggle the body with him?

danso 9y ago
The allegation is that he did something to the body before the submarine had its accident.
jacquesm 9y ago
The timeline is that the body was dismembered and dumped hours before he sank the submarine and his subsequent rescue.
styren 9y ago
Here's a timeline of the events https://www.flashback.org/sp61479549 https://www.flashback.org/sp61479549 (swedish) https://translate.google.se/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&u=https%3A//www.flashback.org/sp61479549 https://translate.google.se/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&u=https%3A... (google translate)
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

dnaas 9y ago

This is like an episode from Bron/The Bridge, but for realz

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

kowdermeister 9y ago

The key thing here is that he claims to dropped her off at this location[1] at 22:30. The article mentions cameras around but no info about is she was seen there or not. At that time, the area is probably busy with people wants to chill, so there could be eye witnesses seeing her. It's still not proof that he's innocent, but that would raise lots of doubts. https://www.google.hu/maps/@55.6958462,12.609141,3a,75y,197.5h,81.53t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sUG8BOJeAUqj2E_TCBIecTA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DUG8BOJeAUqj2E_TCBIecTA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D33.915413%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.hu/maps/@55.6958462,12.609141,3a,75y,197....

wodenokoto 9y ago
No, he has changed his explanation and told police she died aboard the submarine in an accident and that he buried her at sea.
joncrocks 9y ago
From the article: "He initially said he had dropped her off safely near Copenhagen, but has since said she died in an accident and that he had "buried" her at sea."
- kowdermeister 9y ago
  Thanks, I forgot that by skimming the article. This makes it rather simple. A flat out lie and an unreasonable way to treat an "accident" leaves not much room for the defense.
- wreath 9y ago
  How can he just bury her without informing her family and/or authority? This alone sounds strange.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    He was just getting rid of evidence. Note the GP has 'buried' in quotes. This will definitely be held against him and will aggravate any crime he will be charged with.

interfixus 9y ago

So exceedingly strange for me to be commenting on this. I was once a member of the support group around Copenhagen Suborbitals, Peter Madsen's first space rocket venture, which also had the submarine in hand, and from which he was later ejected for erratic behaviour, vile explosions of temper, and general pain-in-the-ass-ness. Around Christmas 2010, in the rocket assembly hangar - inevitable known as the HAB - I had a long talk with a leading support group member. Two things I very clearly remember from tat conversation: I was directed towards Hacker News as a serious forum (have been here ever since), and much more to the present point was told "With all his energy and dynamics and creativity, Peter must have a dark side that we know nothing about". We were not to know that the dark side was a terrifying psychopathic personality, now exposed in all its gore. Danish police is now reopening various old macabre murder cases. I shall be unsurprised if the charming, charismatic Peter Madsen I have met on several occasions turn out to be the craziest serial killer in Danish history. My rage is barely containable. [Written on phone in noisy, unconducive environment. Please excuse typos, clumsiness, and errors]

nuclx 9y ago
"With all his energy and dynamics and creativity, Peter must have a dark side that we know nothing about" - no idea what else the person who said that knew. However if I read this as a conclusion, it appears unsubstantial.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  > However if I read this as a conclusion, it appears unsubstantial. Until about two weeks ago it probably was.
Bromskloss 9y ago
Wait! No! I never made the connection to Copenhagen Suborbitals! I read now that Madsen left it a few years ago. Does that mean that the work will go on? I hope so!

flexie 9y ago

Goes without saying that he is a despicable human being. But what a poor engineer he also turned out to be. Not because he flunked college or because his rockets never reached space or because his submarine sunk. But working with submarines for decades, and then utterly failing to submerge a body at sea. Not understanding that police would find her DNA in the submarine. His misdeeds were uncovered by regular police work in just a few days. Does he even have a grasp of physics?

kogepathic 9y ago
>But what a poor engineer he also turned out to be ... and then utterly failing to submerge a body at sea. Not understanding that police would find her DNA in the submarine. I'm an engineer and knowing that kind of forensic tools are available now to police, there is no way I'd ever think to commit such a crime (and also because WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT?!). Unless the police are very incompetent or you are able to conceal it very well, you will be caught. [0] I can tell you I never had a class during my B.Eng about how to kill someone and destroy DNA evidence. I'm not sure what being an engineer has to do with sinking a dead body and removing DNA evidence, since these are not at all related to Engineering... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Pickton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Pickton
- tyingq 9y ago
  There are quite a lot of unsolved murders. Thirty percent in the US. Perhaps lower in Europe, but I assume still substantial. Of course, high profile crimes get disproportionate resources. In this case, they turned around a DNA test in a few days or less. The people involved, plus the submarine, assured this one gets attention.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    Two people get on a boat, only one of them returns and purposefully tries to sink his boat. As murders go this one has a lot of circumstances that facilitate solution in spite of all the attempts at muddying the waters.

mariusmg 9y ago

I'm guessing he made a pass at her, she told him to fuck off, started arguing, he killed her, disposed of the body and then sunk the submarine. Crazy. Expect the Hollywood version in 2024.

_Codemonkeyism 9y ago

The surreality of this all remindes me of John McAfee.

tptacek 9y ago
The charges against McAfee are a lot less funny and a lot more serious than you'd guess from message board discussions about him.

Voyage_wanderer 9y ago

Is there any pics of the boat propulsion system? Mutilation can be explained by the body going through a propeller. It is a meat grounder. It is just another possible explanation. Worst marine accidents happen when person falls aboard and gets sucked into propulsion system. Not guilty until proven....

tyingq 9y ago
Here: http://www.dw.com/image/40075604_304.jpg http://www.dw.com/image/40075604_304.jpg As you suggest, it's all speculation, but the police are saying it does look like deliberate mutilation. Trying to imagine the scenario where all 4 limbs and a head get cut off by a prop, and it's quite a stretch. There's also blood in the submarine, and the accused's statement that he "buried her" at sea.
pvaldes 9y ago
Would not explain the presence of a metallic piece attached to the corpse.

alexozer 9y ago

Maybe she found something in the submarine that he did not intend for her to disclose?