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

[biosthetique]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

Yes. No one is dismissing the tragedy or excusing Madsen. Oberon posted his comments before there was any info about the journalist. I changed the thread title. Your appropriate response should be, "Oh, I understand now".

Your thread was made at 10:58am and I made mine at 11:02am. When I started my post I did not see yours as you asked to go easy. But since it does not seem to make any difference...

Oh I understand now how changing the title of a thread without mentioning it has been modified and updated can create confusion, because if it had not been changed I would not have posted in the first place. If someone should apologize to Oberon it should not be me, because I am not the one that put him in such difficult situation where he was made to appear as someone supporting someone charged with murder!....
So, yes, I understand now, but do you understand now what it creates when thread tittles are changed after the fact?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by biosthetique

If someone should apologize to Oberon it should not be me, because I am not the one that put him in such difficult situation where he was made to appear as someone supporting someone charged with murder!....

Let's see... When you first posted the thread was 15 pages long and had more than 200 posts, and yet not one person had a problem with this until you. It looks to me like you read the title and the first post and started on the attack without reading the rest of the thread first.

So, yes, I understand now, but do you understand now what it creates when thread tittles are changed after the fact?

Since you are the only one who had any problem with this, I'd say the problem lies directly with you.

Just my opinion, of course.

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by biosthetique

So, yes, I understand now, but do you understand now what it creates when thread tittles are changed after the fact?

I understand perfectly. It creates clarity.

[biosthetique]

Actually that thread was created the 08/11/17. Oberon thread and some others were created the 08/11 and here is an article dating from the 08/11 that explains that Madsen was charged with murder.
http://news.sky.com/story/woman-miss...hagen-10983700

Some of you can make all the fuss you want and use it as a smoke screen, but I understand all too well some people support. That is sickening!

The 08/11 the date of that thread Madsen was charged with Murder!!!!...That is all I have to say!

[Buddahaid]

Actually, you don't.

[Sean C]

Originally Posted by biosthetique

Some of you can make all the fuss you want and use it as a smoke screen, but I understand all too well some people support. That is sickening!

Seriously? After everything has been explained to you, you refuse to let go of this accusation? I've only been on this forum for a very short time, but even I can tell you that no one here was aware of all the details when the thread was created.

It seems your only goal is to make the other poster look like an ass. Unfortunately for you, your arrogance blinds you from seeing that what you are actually accomplishing is the exact opposite.

[Oberon]

Nothing to do with me, my thread title was 'UC3 Nautilus has sunk - Madsen rescued' IIRC, Neal decided to add the rest.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by biosthetique

Your thread was made at 10:58am and I made mine at 11:02am. When I started my post I did not see yours as you asked to go easy. But since it does not seem to make any difference...

Oh I understand now how changing the title of a thread without mentioning it has been modified and updated can create confusion, because if it had not been changed I would not have posted in the first place. If someone should apologize to Oberon it should not be me, because I am not the one that put him in such difficult situation where he was made to appear as someone supporting someone charged with murder!....
So, yes, I understand now, but do you understand now what it creates when thread tittles are changed after the fact?

Fair enough, I apologize if the title change was confusing. You make a good point.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Von Due

The title was changed as events unfolded. The original topic title did not mention murder as there was no indication of it at that time. This whole issue is a non-issue and unnecessary.

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

Easy there. I changed thread title several days after the thread was started.

I think this illustrates the risks of changing posts after people have read them. Perhaps if this is done there should be some explanatory text added to the post to make it clear that the post has changed.

I think there is a presumption that posts remain unchanged unless otherwise notified.

[Dowly]

IMHO, if the title is changed afterwards, it would be a good idea to add some text to the first post to explains this for example:

EDIT: Title edited by Onkel Neal on [insert date] or [because reason x]

Though, honestly I think biosthetique simply did not read enough of the thread.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Dowly

IMHO, if the title is changed afterwards, it would be a good idea to add some text to the first post to explains this for example:

EDIT: Title edited by Onkel Neal on [insert date] or [because reason x]

Though, honestly I think biosthetique simply did not read enough of the thread.

I will add that to the moderator procedure, good suggestion.

[CaptBlanc]

From what I read, and using judicious applications of Occam's Razor, I'd say that Madsen was acting from desperation.

Kim Wall gets hit on the head with the unsecured hatch. Pressure hatches are heavy. It cracks her skull and knocks her out and she falls down the ladder. Anyone who knows subs can tell you that a fall down a ladder can easily be lethal.

Madsen realises she's dead, and realises that he's facing a life-wrecking safety lawsuit. His boat, and his other upcoming projects, plus his finacial future and reputation are endangered.

(In the U.S., for example, he can be sued for the entirety of her projected professional earnings calculated from now till the estimated end of her natural working life. This can sometimes run into millions for some folks.)

He panicks. He decides to get rid of the evidence and makes up a hasty "Dropped her off at the dock." story.

Madsen attempts to dispose of Walls body, and scuttles the boat, assuming that no body nor other evidence will survive the sea. He's terribly wrong. He probably intended to have the boat recovered himself, so he scuttles her in shallow waters hoping the "bath" will clean it. He's caught flat when the authorities recover the boat first thing as a matter of procedure. Then the body washes up, too.

He's probably not a experienced killer. Just a man obsessed with his projects and in fear of his future. Faced with experienced police interrogators, he starts to come clean(ish). His inconsistant accounts of events indicate a man who's more interested in minimising any damage to himself than a bloke who want's to be truthful.

I'll be interested to see how this all plays out. It's one screwed-up tragic mess, for sure, either way.

[poakung]

This is so terrible sad for everbody involved

[Jimbuna]

Yes and arguably none more so than for that of the family and friends of Kim Wall.

[Rockin Robbins]

Nothing but a cool, calm collectedness is evident in any of the observable behavior of Peter Madsen. In fact that is what makes the accident theory untenable. People who unexpectedly and accidentally kill someone go well out of their way to panic, act somewhat overwhelmed and hysterically. They preserve the body. They quickly seek help. They are very emotional. They do not withhold information.

Peter Madsen's actions and behavior, using Occam's Razor, are those of a monster. NOBODY accidentally having a passenger die on their boat dismembers the body, tosses it overboard, seeks to deny that they were on the boat, mourns the loss of the boat in a controlled and logical way instead of the passenger who lost her life. It's amazing the outlandish excuses people will make for those clearly not innocent.

The only question is what can be proved and what cannot. And don't count on any help from Peter Madsen. He's in pure avoid the responsibility mode. Solving the mysteries would be his undoing, so he covers up. Those who are in the wrong avoid the light that it might reveal the evil of their actions. Those in the right seek the light to illuminate the fact that in spite of terrible events they did everything they could to do what is right.