
Kim Wall: Headless body identified as missing journalist - noncoml
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41021223
======
interfixus
So exceedingly strange for me to be commenting on this. I was once a member of
the support group around Copenhagen Suborbitals, Peter Madsen's first space
rocket venture, which also had the submarine in hand, and from which he was
later ejected for erratic behaviour, vile explosions of temper, and general
pain-in-the-ass-ness.

Around Christmas 2010, in the rocket assembly hangar - inevitable known as the
HAB - I had a long talk with a leading support group member. Two things I very
clearly remember from tat conversation: I was directed towards Hacker News as
a serious forum (have been here ever since), and much more to the present
point was told "With all his energy and dynamics and creativity, Peter _must_
have a dark side that we know nothing about".

We were not to know that the dark side was a terrifying psychopathic
personality, now exposed in all its gore. Danish police is now reopening
various old macabre murder cases. I shall be unsurprised if the charming,
charismatic Peter Madsen I have met on several occasions turn out to be the
craziest serial killer in Danish history.

My rage is barely containable.

[Written on phone in noisy, unconducive environment. Please excuse typos,
clumsiness, and errors]

~~~
nuclx
"With all his energy and dynamics and creativity, Peter _must_ have a dark
side that we know nothing about" \- no idea what else the person who said that
knew. However if I read this as a conclusion, it appears unsubstantial.

~~~
jacquesm
> However if I read this as a conclusion, it appears unsubstantial.

Until about two weeks ago it probably was.

------
marvin
The article doesn't mention it, but the suspect Peter Madsen is the cofounder
of Copenhagen Suborbitals. This is an absolutely crazy story which just gets
more insane by the day. Starting with a missing journalist and seemingly
accidental sinking of a private submarine, getting more and more weird and
inconsistent until now a decapitated, limbless corpse shows up.

With the corpse cut in pieces, it's hard to reach any other conclusion than
that this was a murder. Or just almost in the region of the semi-plausably
concievable, an accident followed by a gruesome attempt to cover it up. The
repeated change of stories certainly doesn't help his credibility, and the
explanation doesn't stand to reason in any way.

~~~
quickthrower2
Yeah I can't see how a jury would not convict on murder unless there is some
technicality or excluded evidence.

~~~
iClaudiusX
Robert Durst got away with killing and dismembering his victim because his
defense claimed self-defense while shifting the jury's attention and anger
toward the prosecutor for being an ambitious woman. If you haven't seen HBO's
The Jinx it's well worth the time and absolutely terrifying to see how easily
manipulated a jury can be.

~~~
Lewton
While that's fascinating and creepy

I just want to point out that the Danish jury system have very little incommon
with the American jury system

Professional jury vs a jury system basically designed to ensure the least
qualified people are in the jury

~~~
brusch64
Can you please elaborate the point "professional jury vs a jury system
basically designed to ensure the least qualified people are in the jury" ?

~~~
Lewton
The way the "jury of your peers" is selected in the american justice system
means that sometimes if a person actually has any knowledge in the field the
case is about (say a computer scientist in a software patent infringement
case) they will be filtered out in the jury selection process. On top of that,
jury duty is seen as something to be avoided, so there's also the adage that
juries only consist of people not smart enough to get out of jury duty.

In contrast to Denmark, where in a lot of cases the jury is the three judges
preceding over the case, or in cases where there's a real jury, they jurors
have some form of law degree

~~~
brusch64
Okay ! Didn't know this - thank you for your explanation.

~~~
Lewton
I just researched to make sure I got it right

I'm wrong about the jurors usually having a law degree. Maybe. Apparently each
jurisdiction has a committee that creates a short list every 4 years of people
suited for jury duty. I can find no further info on what "Suited for jury
duty" means, so the "has a law degree" thing might be untrue

------
jacquesm
So, now we know why the sub was sunk. I'm curious what implausible rabbit of
an explanation Madsen will pull out of his hat to explain this away, and I
hope that instead he will now simply confess to what actually happened. What
an idiot. Poor family and spouse.

~~~
gribbly
Yes I expect this to play out as it usually does, as more evidence is
gathered, the story he is telling changes accordingly while he is trying to
paint himself as good as possible given the proven circumstances, with a full
confession once there is no more room for anything but the actual truth.

------
emerongi
"The torso was mutilated in an apparent attempt to ensure that decomposition
gases passed out of the body, and there was also metal attached to it to make
it sink, he added."

I have a hard time believing anyone would commit a murder on a submarine in
Denmark. I feel like it's almost impossible to cover that up. But if it was an
accident... who mutilates the body like that? If I wanted to cover it up,
mutilating the body would be too much for me.

The case is pretty bizarre, although I'm pretty sure law enforcement has it
mostly cracked already.

~~~
coldtea
> _I have a hard time believing anyone would commit a murder on a submarine in
> Denmark. I feel like it 's almost impossible to cover that up._

You mean "premeditated murder". Because it's too easy to commit a murder or
manslaughter anywhere on the heat of the moment (e.g. makes a pass, she
refuses, argument, pushes him, pushes her, she falls and dies, etc).

~~~
pluma
Not sure where they're from but it may be a language thing.

For example in Germany "Mord" ("murder") always requires intent. Unintentional
killing is called "Totschlag" (manslaughter), if it was an accident it would
be called "fahrlässige Tötung" (reckless killing).

US law seems to make similar distinctions but groups all of them as "murder":
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(United_States_law)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_\(United_States_law\))

So I'm guessing the strong implication of intent present in e.g. German "Mord"
is not present in the English word for most native speakers?

~~~
adventured
Culturally and legally the US aggressively separates murder out from something
that is only an accident. All deaths by accident definitely do not get
referred to as murder or grouped under murder.

If you accidentally hit someone with a car for example (while not drunk etc),
few would call it murder when referring to the event. It would be referred to
as: he killed the person, or the person died by accident, or legally
involuntary manslaughter if you're responsible for the death.

Speaking culturally, typically for people in the US to call something murder,
it almost always requires intent or high negligence.

~~~
pluma
Weird. So why did the comment single out premeditated murder?

Getting into a fight and unintentionally/recklessly causing lethal injuries,
or unintentionally/recklessly causing a lethal accident to happen wouldn't
then normally be called "murder" making the distinction unnecessary?

EDIT: To clarify, I'm not picking on coldtea. This isn't the first time I've
seen people be corrected when using "murder" to refer to "first-degree
murder".

~~~
ZeroGravitas
I think the distinction is that if you plan to kill someone for months, then
you wouldn't plan to do so on a submarine, as that would be a hard place to
cover up the act.

If however, you're on a submarine and then decide to kill someone in a rage,
then it's still murder, but it's not planned far in advance.

~~~
pluma
I guess "intentionally killing someone in a rage" didn't come to my mind. I
can imagine planning to kill someone and then doing it or unintentionally
killing someone in a fight/assault. But knowingly killing someone out of the
blue never crossed my mind. Not sure what that says about me, if anything.

------
wlkr
My heart goes out to the family and friends of Kim Wall, I cannot begin to
imagine what they're going through. I hope the truth of what happened comes to
light and the family at least have some answers. Given Mr Madsen's evasiveness
and his unwillingness to answer questions honestly I wonder if we'll ever know
for sure?

~~~
ladbye
What evasiveness and unwillingness are you referring to? He changed his
statement once, and that was within 24 hours of his arrested. Ever since he
has remained silent, most likely by order of the court.

I actually believe that he told them "everything" at the first hearing (like
the admission that she died on board the vessel and was "buried at sea") and
as we've seen up until now, the court only releases a part of it once that
part no longer has influence on the ongoing investigation. For instance, I
think he also admitted to dismembering the body but that part hasn't been
disclosed as the police would risk people sailing up and down the coast
looking for body parts, and thus risk ruining evidence. The reason why I put
'everything' in quotation earlier, is that I don't personally believe the
accident-story until I see evidence that proves it.

However, it puzzles me that the prosecutor is still going for the indictment
with involuntary manslaughter. I think they know something that the public
doesn't - perhaps something that in fact supports the accident-story.

~~~
jacquesm
First saying he dropped her off which was a flat out lie, then saying she was
buried at sea. On a technicality you could argue the second was true but I
think that is stretching things more than just a bit. Getting rid of the
evidence would be a better description.

Now we are in full fledged crazy butcher and/or killer territory. I think that
pretty much covers evasiveness and unwillingness.

~~~
ladbye
The "buried at sea" is most likely the phrasing from his lawyer and not his
own words. Also, "getting rid of the evidence" would only be used if he did
commit the murder.

And I agree, regardless of what actually happened he has turned out to be a
psychopath. Dismembering a body, puncturing potential air/gas pockets then
"wrapping" it in chains and finally throwing it overboard.

~~~
jacquesm
> Also, "getting rid of the evidence" would only be used if he did commit the
> murder.

No, if it is an accident getting rid of the body and sinking the sub is also
getting rid of evidence and would have been material in determining whether or
not it really was an accident in the first place.

So either way it is destruction of evidence.

~~~
ladbye
Technically, you're right. It's just that he would never phrase it as getting
rid of evidence nor would his lawyer, as it implies that he was guilty of
whatever led up to the point of having evidence.

------
mariusmg
I'm guessing he made a pass at her, she told him to fuck off, started arguing,
he killed her, disposed of the body and then sunk the submarine. Crazy.

Expect the Hollywood version in 2024.

------
_Codemonkeyism
The surreality of this all remindes me of John McAfee.

~~~
tptacek
The charges against McAfee are a lot less funny and a lot more serious than
you'd guess from message board discussions about him.

------
Voyage_wanderer
Is there any pics of the boat propulsion system? Mutilation can be explained
by the body going through a propeller. It is a meat grounder.

It is just another possible explanation.

Worst marine accidents happen when person falls aboard and gets sucked into
propulsion system.

Not guilty until proven....

~~~
tyingq
Here:
[http://www.dw.com/image/40075604_304.jpg](http://www.dw.com/image/40075604_304.jpg)

As you suggest, it's all speculation, but the police are saying it does look
like deliberate mutilation. Trying to imagine the scenario where all 4 limbs
and a head get cut off by a prop, and it's quite a stretch. There's also blood
in the submarine, and the accused's statement that he "buried her" at sea.

------
kowdermeister
The key thing here is that he claims to dropped her off at this location[1] at
22:30. The article mentions cameras around but no info about is she was seen
there or not. At that time, the area is probably busy with people wants to
chill, so there could be eye witnesses seeing her.

It's still not proof that he's innocent, but that would raise lots of doubts.

[https://www.google.hu/maps/@55.6958462,12.609141,3a,75y,197....](https://www.google.hu/maps/@55.6958462,12.609141,3a,75y,197.5h,81.53t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sUG8BOJeAUqj2E_TCBIecTA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DUG8BOJeAUqj2E_TCBIecTA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D33.915413%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)

~~~
joncrocks
From the article:

"He initially said he had dropped her off safely near Copenhagen, but has
since said she died in an accident and that he had "buried" her at sea."

~~~
wreath
How can he just bury her without informing her family and/or authority? This
alone sounds strange.

~~~
jacquesm
He was just getting rid of evidence. Note the GP has 'buried' in quotes. This
will definitely be held against him and will aggravate any crime he will be
charged with.

------
js8
I don't understand it. If he was rescued from the sunken submarine, how did he
smuggle the body with him?

~~~
styren
Here's a timeline of the events
[https://www.flashback.org/sp61479549](https://www.flashback.org/sp61479549)
(swedish)

[https://translate.google.se/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&u=https%3A...](https://translate.google.se/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&u=https%3A//www.flashback.org/sp61479549)
(google translate)

------
alexozer
Maybe she found something in the submarine that he did not intend for her to
disclose?

------
dnaas
This is like an episode from Bron/The Bridge, but for realz

