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

[makman94]

he changes the stories and now he is saying that the death of the victim was an accident ? and after that one more 'accident' happened which sunked the boat ? did i understand it right ?

[McBeck]

Originally Posted by makman94

he changes the stories and now he is saying that the death of the victim was an accident ? and after that one more 'accident' happened which sunked the boat ? did i understand it right ?

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.

[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!!

[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 ?