4 ms·

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

by 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.
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      > Also, "getting rid of the evidence" would only be used if he did commit the murder. No, if it is an accident getting rid of the body and sinking the sub is also getting rid of evidence and would have been material in determining whether or not it really was an accident in the first place. So either way it is destruction of evidence.
      - ladbye 9y ago
        Technically, you're right. It's just that he would never phrase it as getting rid of evidence nor would his lawyer, as it implies that he was guilty of whatever led up to the point of having evidence.

by wlkr 9y ago

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.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    > Also, "getting rid of the evidence" would only be used if he did commit the murder. No, if it is an accident getting rid of the body and sinking the sub is also getting rid of evidence and would have been material in determining whether or not it really was an accident in the first place. So either way it is destruction of evidence.
    - ladbye 9y ago
      Technically, you're right. It's just that he would never phrase it as getting rid of evidence nor would his lawyer, as it implies that he was guilty of whatever led up to the point of having evidence.