GUILTY Denmark - Kim Wall, 30, Copenhagen, 10 Aug 2017

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is the translation of 'why' on the EB report.

'The day's hearing began with the president announcing that one of the judges had to withdraw because he had got a job in a board, and then one can not be a judge according to the Act of Justice. However, it is decided that the main hearing continues, and every judge has one and a half voice. There are thus three legal judges and two judges with three votes in total. If there is a tie, it is the result that benefits an accused.'

So one of the judges has another job or role and there's a conflict of interest?
 
SATA said:
Sounds like it, Moll.
With three judges, the outcome is random. With two outcome is slanted in PM´s favour. Am I getting that wrong?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say 'random' exactly but I agree with your conclusion. With three judges, if one takes an unduly lenient view of PM, that one can be outvoted by the other two. But with two, and the rule that in the event of a disagreement the benefit of the doubt is given to the defendant/appellant or whatever we call PM now, that one unduly lenient judge's view would be the one to prevail. That does seem to me to be slanting things in PM's favour. I'm surprised it's allowed.

But let us hope that these judges take the same view as the first one. I think his weird ability to charm certain women (I do not of course mean Kim Wall, she wasn't charmed, I mean the 'mistresses', prison warder and so on) should show them he is a danger.
 
SATA said:
Are the chances the two out of three agree larger, than if two people agree? I should have put it that way.
Click to expand...

Not being a statistician I may well be confused but it seems like it! Out of three people choosing between Yes or No, two or three could go one way, and whether it's two or three, that will settle it. At least we know that two people have taken the same view (and hope it would be our view!).

But with two, either the two agree or they don't and it's pre-determined that if they don't, Yes or PM gets the benefit. That seems wrong to me. Well, as has been said, we just hope they do agree. And reject the appeal.
 
It doesn´t make sense that the two judges have 1 1/2 votes each and that vote cast in favour of PM overrules the other.
I have always seen the Danish judicial system to be swift, fair and just - not here!
 
SATA said:
It doesn´t make sense that the two judges have 1 1/2 votes each and that vote cast in favour of PM overrules the other.
I have always seen the Danish judicial system to be swift, fair and just - not here!
Click to expand...

Me too, SATA, and I think I've misled everybody by just using the Ekstra Bladet report. I just looked at the BT one from yesterday, which I didn't see before, and you will be able to make better sense of it but it appears that they are talking about one of the three 'lay judges' dropping out and the legal judges remain at three. I realise that they did say that in the EB report but it wasn't clear in the translation. This is the Google translate version of the BT report, so it's also not entirely clear:

Although the theory may affect how the distribution of the judges may affect the case's decision, Østre Landsret's appeal against Peter Madsen continues with only two laymen.

'This is what the judge Jan Uffe Rasmussen told Wednesday in the Eastern District Court.

"This means that each of the remaining judges receives one-and-a-half votes so that there is still equality in the college," said the President.

Rasmussen refers to the technicality that judges and legal judges - ie judges who have read law - have equal votes in order to determine the sentence for a convicted person.

According to Jan Uffe Rasmussen, the reason for the verdict's decay is that he has been employed by a board. According to the Code of Criminal Procedure, you may not be a judge if you are employed by a ministry's department or have a senior position in an authority under a ministry.

The judicial panel of the Østre Landsret shall only decide what sentence Peter Madsen shall have. The perpetrator has chosen to accept the city court's decision on the debt issue.

The prosecutor's office demands the same punishment as in the city court, prison on lifetime. Madsen himself goes for a time penalty.

In criminal cases, if the court's members disagree, it is the majority that is crucial.

However, if the number of votes ends, for example three voices for life and three for a time penalty, then the result is most favorable to the defendant.

The two remaining judges will only be able to vote, so Peter Madsen should not be sentenced to life in prison.

Should Madsen be granted a lifetime, at least one of the two laymen must vote for at least two of the judges. This would give a result of 3.5 votes for lifetime and 2.5 against.

If both laymen vote for lifetime, it will require at least one of the judges to vote for. It would give a result of four votes for life and two votes against.

They are expected to drop them on Friday this week.'
 
Is there any news about the case itself?
I read a lot about payments that would have to be made to the parents of KW and her BF. Is this part of the verdict that Madsen appeals? Or something preliminary?

After the initial claims that only desecration of a corpse has been proven, the entire appeal turned surreal for me ~ can anyone tell me what they are actually DOING? If the court has appointed as a judge someone whom they should not have appointed by law, this does not inspire confidence in the procedure.


 
Thank you, Moll!

The translation says, debt. It should be, guilt. The word, skyld, in Danish, means both debt or guilt. If you were a human being, you would be able to see that from context. The translation bot can´t.
 
Thanks for that clarification, SATA.
Re the payments that ZaZara mentions my understanding is that this is a separate matter and PM has agreed to pay. But even if he doesn't it will be the state that loses as they pay out compensation in the first instance. Have I got that right?
Well, we'll know about all this tomorrow - I wonder if it'll be delivered as fast as the original verdict. I'm hoping the stuff about only desecration of a corpse being proved, brought up by the defence, will be dismissed out of hand, as it's legally untrue.
 
Friday, September 14th:
*Appeal (Day 3) - Denmark - Kim Isabel Wall (30) (Aug. 10, 2017) - Peter Langkjær Madsen (46) charged with premeditated murder in addition to dismemberment & sexual relations other than intercourse of a particularly dangerous nature & indecent handling of a corpse. Plead not guilty.
Appeal date continues to 9/14.
Verdict was unanimous, by all three judges.
The case has already been appealed. 23 minutes after the verdict.
In Denmark, a life sentence (Livsvarigt fængsel in Danish) theoretically means life without parole: that prisoners will spend the rest of their lives in prison. However, prisoners are entitled to a pardoning hearing after 12 years, and upon motion of the minister of justice, the Danish King or Queen may grant a pardon, subject to a 5-year probationary period.
9/5/18 Update: Madsen is sentenced to life imprisonment for murder on the Kim Wall. However, he has only appealed against the length of the sentence, the guilty issue will not be re-examined.
Defense Attorney Betina Hald Engmark will try to convince the Supreme Court over the next three hearings to mitigate the verdict's judgment in Livstid to Peter Madsen. A final decision is expected on Friday, September 14th. Prosecutor Kristian Kirk read from the verdict in the City Court as part of his documentation in the appeal case. After an overall assessment, the court finds that the accused has killed Kim Wall, finding the court's judgment, which was disposed of in April this year. Appeal hearing continued to 9/12.
9/12/18 Update: One of the judges had to withdraw because he had got a job in a board, and then one can not be a judge according to the Act of Justice. However, it is decided that the main hearing continues, and every judge has one and a half voice. There are thus three legal judges and two judges with three votes in total. If there is a tie, it is the result that benefits an accused. Appeal continues to 9/14.
9/12/18 Update #2: Separate matter: Madsen has agreed to pay 150,000 kroner to the parents of Kim Wall & 120,000 kroner to her boyfriend, Ole Stobbe, as compensation for the loss. Tomorrow he will learn if his appeal against a life sentence has been successful. It is widely predicted it will be reduced to 16 years.
 
Cookies op AD.nl | AD.nl

The appeal hearing of the convicted Danish murderer and inventor Peter Madsen was suspended this morning. The hearing has been suspended because a judge became unwell. It is not clear when the hearing will be now.

BBM


Meanwhile, while we are at it, can someone PLEASE post some information about the content of the trial, what was said, what were the arguments used, what was pleaded, did defense lawyer Bettina say anything at all?

Asking for a friend.

I found this tweet by a Swedish reporter:

David Rasmusson on Twitter

David Rasmusson

@DavidRasmusson

The murder of Kim Wall was planned, ruthless and the victim was defenseless. These are circumstances that allow Peter Madsen to be sentenced to life imprisonment officer. prosecutor Kristian Kirk.


About the judge:

It is still unclear what this means for the procedures themselves. Another Commission mentioned has already left the negotiations. It is possible that the whole process may have to be repeated. It is very unclear what is happening at the moment.


BBM
 
From the Ekstra Bladet report linked above - this is all there was (23 minutes, max), and the gist is clear, but I too would be grateful for a Danish contributor to improve the translation. The defence lawyer has not spoken today, it seems. Read from bottom to top.



08:55
Camilla Marie Nielsen
Now the president must ask for a break. This is because one of the judges of the case has suffered an inconvenience.




08:54
Camilla Marie Nielsen
Now the prosecutor comes to a case of rape and killing. It is a rape of a particularly dangerous nature. The case was taken in 1992 and the victim is first threatened with a knife, then raped and later killed. The man gets a lifetime.
- I think this case is particularly comparable because it is rape and later killing. But I would also like to note that today, in my opinion, we are dealing with an even more serious crime, the prosecutor says.




08:52
Camilla Marie Nielsen
Prosecutor Kristian Kirk is now documenting an earlier case where a man is given a lifetime for the killing of a child. The accused mourned an eight-year-old girl after he had exposed her to a sexual assault.
The sentence was given both in the district court, the district court and the Supreme Court.




08:51
Camilla Marie Nielsen
The prosecutor continues to highlight what he believes are aggravating circumstances in the case. Again he comes to Kim Wall and the fact that, according to the prosecutor's office, she has been stuck in the submarine.
"It's impossible to imagine what has gone through her head under this, says the prosecutor.




08:49
Camilla Marie Nielsen
The prosecutor now supports his claim by mentioning that Peter Madsen has taken on several occasions himself. Eg. during sex with a woman in which Peter Madsen had mounted a go-pro camera on his head.
"The camcorder found in the submarine had nothing to do there," the prosecutor said.




08:46
Camilla Marie Nielsen
"As if that were not enough, I'm quite sure that Peter Madsen has recorded this act," the prosecutor said.




08:45
Camilla Marie Nielsen
The prosecutor is now discussing how Kim Wall may have had it in the submarine during the act.
"She must have been sorry for her life, as we all would have done. At one point, it must have come to her that she did not live alive from there, says the prosecutor, who calls what Kim Wall has been exposed to, for a medieval torture-like act.




08:44
Camilla Marie Nielsen
"I do not think it's a coincidence that the police found Kim Wall's tights and pants in the submarine. It is quite obvious that Peter Madsen was planning to save these things and go to another place of crime, says the prosecutor, who also mentions that Peter Madsen himself even said that he was alone in the submarine when he was rescued ashore.
- It was part of his planning of the perfect crime. But Peter Madsen overestimated himself and underestimated the police and the lighs that I had never heard of before, says the prosecutor.




08:41
Camilla Marie Nielsen
- Peter Madsen's outrageous actions are not an expression of just planning. This is an expression of special planning, says the prosecutor, who believes that Peter Madsen has carefully considered all his actions.




08:40
Camilla Marie Nielsen
"And then the defender can say that how does the prosecutor see Peter Madsen like it and that he furthermore fantasized about his deed?" Says the prosecutor.
- Well, I can say that Peter Madsen has seen and stored a number of videos, animated films or texts with killing women. You've even watched the video where a woman gets the throat over, says the prosecutor.




08:39
Camilla Marie Nielsen
Kristian Kirk also comes across how Peter Madsen
"We can see that he worked firmly for someone to go on the submarine. Peter Madsen has hardly had a certain woman in mind when he tapped his screwdrivers, or should we call them spikes. You've even seen them and they look far from ordinary screwdrivers, says the prosecutor.
"He has gone and enjoyed himself as he tapped them, and while he has probably imagined the crime he has planned, the prosecutor says.




08:39
Linette K. Jespersen
Now Peter Madsen looks a bit obliquely down in the table




08:37
Camilla Marie Nielsen
The prosecutor now deals with three things, which he believes are intensifying in the case against Peter Madsen.
There is:
- the gening is highly planned
- the perpetrator has shown a particular ruthlessness
- the perpetrator has taken advantage of the victim's inability to defend himself.

"It goes without saying that we meet all the criteria here in this case," the prosecutor said.




08:35
Camilla Marie Nielsen
The penalties for killing without mitigating circumstances are generally determined from 12 years to lifetime.
"But when 12 years are a starting point, it goes without saying that the penalty can be lifted according to the gravity of the act," the prosecutor says.




08:34
Linette K. Jespersen
Peter Madsen looks at the prosecutor with his head on the wrong side, while Kristian Kirk begins his procedure.




08:34
Camilla Marie Nielsen
The prosecutor is now documenting a number of previous convictions to emphasize his claim.
Initially, he tells us how a killing as a starting point in Denmark is being charged with 12 years in prison.




08:33
Camilla Marie Nielsen
He claims that in the Byret life to Peter Madsen.
"We are fully aware that it takes a lot to condemn life for one single kill. But in this case we are in a roughness that must be described as being out of category, says the prosecutor.




08:32
Camilla Marie Nielsen
The three judges and two judges have now arrived and the case can begin. It is prosecutor Kristian Kirk, who starts his procedure.
 
At 8.44, I couldn't think what was meant by the 'ligh that I had never heard of before' - I think it's those cadaver dogs?
'Men Peter Madsen overvurderede sig selv, og undervurderede politiet og de lighunde, som jeg heller aldrig havde hørt om før, siger anklageren.'
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 132 more.
Total: 1,464 (members: 133, guests: 1,331)

Online statistics

Members online
133
Guests online
1,331
Total visitors
1,464
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,797
Messages
17,959,029
Members
228,607
Latest member
wdavewong
Back
Top