
The murder that shook Iceland - CraneWorm
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/apr/12/the-murder-that-shook-iceland
======
jxub
It's a good longform read about this charming (well not in _that_ case)
country.

------
wjn0
It is interesting that the article states that Iceland's conclusion from this
case (and probably others) is "more surveillance." They don't mention if the
autopsy revealed when during the course of these events the girl died. Would
more surveillance have prevented her death? Or is the argument that it would
serve as a deterrent? It seems remarkable that despite a perceived lack of
sufficient surveillance, they have an extremely likely killer convicted, who
if not guilty of murder, is most likely otherwise culpable for her death. He
was caught on CCTV buying the cleaning equipment for the car, for example.
Surely if CCTV is to serve as a deterrent, he would not be caught doing
something so... obvious?

~~~
arnarbi
(Just for context, I am Icelandic, but have no other connection to this
story.)

> They don't mention if the autopsy revealed when during the course of these
> events the girl died.

It does, she drowned after she was put in the water.

> It seems remarkable that despite a perceived lack of sufficient
> surveillance, they have an extremely likely killer convicted

The point is that without that tiny bit of surveillance, it would have been
extremely hard to get on the track that led to discovery of incriminating
evidence. Without linking the red KIA to Polar Nanooq, it is possible that
_nothing_ would have come of it. The perpetrator had left the country with
almost all the available evidence, and such a large search would likely not
have been launched so her body might have never been discovered.

It was by the skin of their teeth that the police managed to link the car in
the first video to the boat. Had the first video been better (or more from the
same area), they would have been able to identify the license plates right
away.

A second thing to realize is in Iceland, the arguments against surveillance
haven't been "we don't want to be watched" nor "it will get abused" \-- but
rather "we don't need it". It is obvious why this case changed that sentiment.

~~~
13of40
> "we don't need it"

But the truth is you really don't need it. Based on what the article says, you
could pave the place with security cameras and it would be decades before you
caught another foreigner murdering one of your teenagers. It's not worth
sacrificing your freedom and privacy.

~~~
arnarbi
> It's not worth sacrificing your freedom and privacy.

I don't think security cameras in public place necessarily sacrifice either.

~~~
13of40
Just as a thought experiment: Why don't we put cameras in public bathrooms? It
wouldn't harm anyone, and it would stop some crimes.

~~~
soneil
I think it'd be fair to say that's a textbook example of "reasonable
expectation of privacy".

If someone watches you walk down the street, your reaction would be somewhere
on a scale between not even noticing, and thinking they're a busybody. If they
joined you in a stall while you expell a few demons, it's a safe assumption
you'd rather different opinion of them.

------
morley
Interesting that this appears on the front page at the same time as this
story:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16828973](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16828973)

I don't have a particular point of view either way other than to say that
context matters, and pragmatism matters, and the solution to these potential
problems can't be "remove all surveillance" any more than it can be "surveil
everything."

~~~
PantaloonFlames
It's a long game, adding surveillance. Surely more surveillance would not have
prevented this senseless murder. No one knows why it happened; it seems to
have occurred without any reason. We can surmise momentary insanity or a drug-
induced psychotic episode. The apparent perpetrator refuses to confess, so
maybe he doesn't even remember how it happened, though obviously he remembers
scrubbing the car.

But CCTV footage wouldn't have stopped this madness. It would have helped find
her body a little more quickly.

In the long term, I guess surveillance would discourage violent crime, as the
idea that "they'll see us, the police will catch us" gradually becomes well
accepted among people who have the potential to commit crimes. This is
probably already true in London, and maybe in other closely-surveilled capital
cities.

But even if everyone sane shares the knowledge that "they're watching us",
psychotic actors will still do psychotic things.

~~~
walshemj
So how come in London (a _LOT_ of cctv) which has just had a really heavy
spike in murderers and Gun crime?

~~~
boomboomsubban
CCTV has been in London for a long time now, and violent crime is still down
from it's introduction. CCTV is not the only factor relevant to a murder rate,
and a "spike" in the overall lower numbers should be an expected result.

------
sdiq
While sad, I like their names though: Birna Brjánsdóttur, Birna Brjánn's
daughter.

~~~
c17r
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_name](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_name)

------
kkkaizer
TL:DR on how was she killed?

~~~
cornholio
Two danish sailors picked her up while drunk in a rental car, one of them got
off to the ship and the other drove away with her and was not seen until the
next morning when he returned the car with a large odometer reading.

Her body was eventually found naked and battered in a distant location, and
the rental had forensic sings of having been cleaned of her blood. The sailor
was recorded buying cleaning products at the same time, his DNA was found on
her discarded clothes and her driving license was found in his cabin on the
ship (along with a few pounds of hashish). A truly disturbed individual that
tried to pin the murder on his colleague up until the very end.

~~~
libria
Also, actual cause of death was drowning which removes some suspicion of
involvement from the other sailor since the drowning likely took place much
later and further away from his departure.

Kudos to the captain for being very responsible and secretly turning the ship
around on suspicion his men were involved.

~~~
21
There was a plan B even if he didn't turn around, but yeah, he made it easier.

