UC3 Nautilus sunk - Peter Madsen charged with murder of journalist Kim Wall

[McBeck]

Originally Posted by Reece

Yes he dropped the hatch on her, then she fell down and her arms, legs, and head fell off!! I don't buy it!!

Me neither. I dont buy that someone else cut off her legs, arms and head. However, that does not mean the hatch explanation is by default untrue. Those hatches are VERY heavy and pack a severe punch if you get one in the head with full kinetic force. Not to mention the fall from the top of the latter.

[Catfish]

^ certainly true

But it does not explain:
1. the claim that he put her off the ship before, at this island. Or did only the media say that? Not sure here.
2. if it was an accident, why didn't he instantly(!) call for SAR or headed to the nearest port, with the body. You do not just "bury someone at sea", this is an idiotic statement or "justification", especially with a mile from the coast
3. the dismembering
4. the "accidentally" sinking Nautilus

All looks too much like a cover-up.
Well, all this has been said before.
I am sure there was some ugly assault circumstance happening before this "accident", but it will be probably impossible to prove that, which again makes this dismembering more suspicious.

Very sad.

[Carotio]

https://www.b.dk/nationalt/landsret-...ve-faengslet-0

Tuesday in court, it was decided to keep PM in custody for the next 4 weeks, while the police investigates further. The lawyer filed a complaint, demanding the immidiate release, but the court has today announced that they have rejected that complaint, because they believe that PM might try to work against that investigation if on free foot. So he has to stay there for the next 4 weeks.

[McBeck]

Originally Posted by Catfish

^ certainly true

But it does not explain:
1. the claim that he put her off the ship before, at this island. Or did only the media say that? Not sure here.
2. if it was an accident, why didn't he instantly(!) call for SAR or headed to the nearest port, with the body. You do not just "bury someone at sea", this is an idiotic statement or "justification", especially with a mile from the coast
3. the dismembering
4. the "accidentally" sinking Nautilus

All looks too much like a cover-up.
Well, all this has been said before.
I am sure there was some ugly assault circumstance happening before this "accident", but it will be probably impossible to prove that, which again makes this dismembering more suspicious.

Very sad.

To get somewhat closer to answering some of above you need to understand how Peter may have been thinking...here is my best shot

1) I think his very first conversation with the authorities would have been that he put her to shore. But its a fact that during the first hearing (the day after) he did state she died in the sub by accident.
2,3,4) His testimony is that he was in shock that something he had built had taken a life - he considered suicide by sinking the sub with both of them in it.
The same state of mind caused him to dump the body and sink the sub. He still maintains that he didnt dismember the body (this is where I cant follow anymore)

The fact of the matter is that only Peter knows what happened, but what part of what he is saying can be believed...In my book it contains both believable, plausible and unbelievable parts

A very tragic story...

[makman94]

Originally Posted by McBeck

Actually he stated in the first hearing with the police that she was dead and that it was an accident.

What was revealed to the public on the 5th of September was what he explained on the 12th of August - his first hearing
So except for what he told the press in passing as he stepped on shore on the 11th of August, he has kept to his story that she died by accident.

thank you for the clarification McBeck, I thought that he has ,firstly, said that he returned the girl alive from the trip.
But even not, the fact is that he knew that time that the girl was dead and said nothing.More over he got rid of the body and later, by 'coincidence', got rid of the boat too. This looks to me more like ''cold blood'' than ''shocked blood''.

Originally Posted by Catfish

....
2. if it was an accident, why didn't he instantly(!) call for SAR or headed to the nearest port, with the body. You do not just "bury someone at sea"...

exactly this ^ guys !

if you are shocked ,as he says, you are not covering everything you can just for slipping away. It is obvious that he wanted nobody to knows

Originally Posted by McBeck

....I think his very first conversation with the authorities would have been that he put her to shore. But its a fact that during the first hearing (the day after) he did state she died in the sub by accident.

what did he meant by that ''he put her to shore'' ? Isn't it that he meant that he put her there alive ?

[McBeck]

Originally Posted by makman94

what did he meant by that ''he put her to shore'' ? Isn't it that he meant that he put her there alive ?

If my memory serves me correct, when he passed the journalists, he said there was nobody else in the sub (referring to the sinking) which is now known to be true. The police stated later that he had stated he put her to shore the evening before, but from the court records we know that during his initial hearing (Grundlovsforhør - the day after the sinking) he stated that she was dead in an accident and that he "buried her at sea". This is the statement he has stuck with.
The media has said that he also said she was dead in a conversation with the police before the hearing.

What seems to be fact is that he initially stated he put her to shore and then changed that to she was dead. Both statements were made within 24hours.

What creates a bit of chaos is that the statement that he put her to shore was released by the police at the very beginning, but it took over a week for the second statement to be released, thus painting a picture of change of statement when they found the torso - which is untrue.

[McBeck]

Originally Posted by makman94

if you are shocked ,as he says, you are not covering everything you can just for slipping away. It is obvious that he wanted nobody to knows

That is the logical reaction in a normal state of mind. When you are in shock you can behave very differently.
A woman once lived with her husband for 2 weeks...while he was dead in their home. It was not until visitors stopped by she accepted and saw that he was dead. She was a normal person.
People can do strange things under pressure or in shock and may not be logical...

However spending the time cut arms, legs and head off is where I personally loose the plot

[Mike Abberton]

I saw one article (sorry no link) that said he intentionally lied about putting her ashore because he thought that would allow him to go home and meet with his wife/family, knowing that the accident story would have to come out eventually. There was enough immediate suspicion though, that he was kept in custody and relatively quickly changed his story.

Of course all that could just be BS, just like the "I don't who cut off her limbs and head, they were attached when I buried her at sea". And the "no I didn't have a saw on board, it was in my shop on shore, but must have been stolen while I was on the sub because it isn't there anymore".

Mike

[Reece]

I'm starting to think he believes his own lies!!he must think we are all gullible.

[Carotio]

If you're on facebook, you can go here:
https://www.facebook.com/kimwallmemo...9317603179349/

Friends of Kim Wall have put together a memorial video about Kim Wall.
The language is in English for the most part.

[gimpy117]

he's changed hit story too much, and I think the fact that he said it was an "accident" but didn't call for help is fishy. I'm sure his boat has a VHF if something happens you call for help! you notify the authorities immediately. that didn't happen...you don't just dump a body because you didn't want it on the boat! and bodies don't just fall apart.

I want to believe that he's not guilty, but a dismembered body seems like a clear attempt to hide the identity of the corpse and the scuttling of the boat an attempt to do away with the crime scene. even if it was an accident (ie. he actually dropped the hatch on her like he said) his cover-up would still be criminal

[biosthetique]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Breaking radio silence to inform you all that last night Peter Madsen and his crew encountered a problem with the ballast tank in the Nautilus which developed into a major issue and unfortunately the submarine sunk.
Peter has been rescued, however the status of the other people who were with him are unknown.

https://translate.google.co.uk/trans...f-det-men-okay

My best wishes to Peter at this difficult time and I hope that if there are others missing that they are found swiftly and Nautilus is able to be refloated in due course.

You best wishes to Peter?...But he is a murderer!...

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by biosthetique

You best wishes to Peter?...But he is a murderer!...

That info wasn't established at that time. When he posted that it still looked like Nautilus had accidentally sunk with no fatalities.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by biosthetique

You best wishes to Peter?...But he is a murderer!...

We are all entitled to an opinion.

Innocent until proven guilty.

[biosthetique]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

We are all entitled to an opinion.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Of course I am entitled to many opinions and so are you.

The Danish legal system might be different from the British or American legal system. Ethnocentrism does not guaranty a clear understanding of foreign situations.