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

[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.

[Obltn Strand]

I think our way is better. 12 years in max security prison and rest of natural life in prisoners mental asylum drooling in one's lap. Easier to return convict back to society if founded not quilty.

But let's court do it's job first and if their system is similar to ours, two levels are required until he is/isn't quilty.