6 ms·

"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 si

"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]

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]