Biggest privately built submarine sinks...

[jbswagger]

Swedish journalist Kim Wall died by accident after being hit by a hatch cover on board a submarine, the Danish owner of the vessel has told a court.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41165806

[700BHP]

"It was the right thing to do".

What? Chopping her up? Throwing her overboard? Sinking the submarine? Lying about dropping her off safely on land?

I hope he rots inside for the rest of his life.

[Jimmy Recard]

700BHP said:

"It was the right thing to do".

What? Chopping her up? Throwing her overboard? Sinking the submarine? Lying about dropping her off safely on land?

I hope he rots inside for the rest of his life.

In the longer quote he says that he panicked and in his panic it seemed the best thing to do

Whether it's bks or not is irrelevant but it's fair to get a good translation and proper context

[anonymous-user]

Jimmy Recard said:

.. and proper context

What does that mean, the context of his lie? He can say any story.

[Jimmy Recard]

The Spruce goose said:

What does that mean, the context of his lie? He can say any story.

That he says it seemed like a good idea, implying that it no longer does.

I don't claim him to be guilty or innocent, but no trial is improved by poor translation or quoting. I'm making literally no point about Madsen, only about the presentation of the case

[700BHP]

I don't care how panicked you are, none of the things I listed are a 'good idea' or the 'right thing to do'.

If he's telling the truth the right thing to do was to make for port immediately. If she passed away, at least her injuries would be consistent with his version of events. That was his only course of action if he was innocent.

He did what did because he's a fking liar and as guilty as sin.

[anonymous-user]

well translation is an issue, like they call our murder manslaughter, so some newspaper reported it both ways, to me the translation is a minor issue the facts are clear as day.

[Jimmy Recard]

I haven't claimed anything other than that.

Accurate translations are a big deal to me, and English tenses and conditionals are particularly well-known for altering details when translated.

I've seen one particular interview with a guy whose English was good apart from his awful grasp of tenses and conditionals. He misunderstood a massive amount of what was happening because of the interview style and answered questions wrong because of the misunderstandings. The interviewer did not understand the problem because English was his only language.

I am sure that isn't the case here, but it can make a big difference so I'm quite keen on getting it right. Fair trials and all that

[NRS]

Jimmy Recard said:

I haven't claimed anything other than that.

Accurate translations are a big deal to me, and English tenses and conditionals are particularly well-known for altering details when translated.

I've seen one particular interview with a guy whose English was good apart from his awful grasp of tenses and conditionals. He misunderstood a massive amount of what was happening because of the interview style and answered questions wrong because of the misunderstandings. The interviewer did not understand the problem because English was his only language.

I am sure that isn't the case here, but it can make a big difference so I'm quite keen on getting it right. Fair trials and all that

You're arguing semantics. First, he will not be judged in English. They're translating from the Danish legal hearing or whatever the name is. I can understand a bit of Danish and it's pretty clear it's a good enough translation.

Main points (not all covered in the BBC story):

He doesn't want to undergo an psychological examination but judge has ordered it. He also didn't want people to search his computer due to business secrets, but judge said to do it anyway.

His lawyer said he didn't report it because he thought it would be all over for him. It was one of the most traumatic things someone can experience (killing someone else). It also mentions [thank goodness for her sake - my comment] that the damage to the body was done post-mortem. Apparently he also said he threw her overboard in one piece and said he didn't cut her up. He also said he didn't have sex with her. The prosecution talks about pipes attached with nylon line too, which I presume was the metal to weigh her down, and that it matches with some in his workshop. Her trousers were found on the submarine (machine room), and tights and a contact lens with blood where he said she died. Hair and blood in the bathroom too.

Even thought translation will not be an issue in court, it seems clear he is continually lying the entire time. Therefore his witness is complete and utterly untrustworthy. You don't chop up a dead body, throw it overboard and leave the scene, then lie to the police multiple times without having something to hide.

Edited by NRS on Tuesday 5th September 22:37

[NDA]

700BHP said:

I don't care how panicked you are, none of the things I listed are a 'good idea' or the 'right thing to do'.

If he's telling the truth the right thing to do was to make for port immediately. If she passed away, at least her injuries would be consistent with his version of events. That was his only course of action if he was innocent.

He did what did because he's a fking liar and as guilty as sin.

Correct.

[jshell]

700BHP said:

I don't care how panicked you are, none of the things I listed are a 'good idea' or the 'right thing to do'.

If he's telling the truth the right thing to do was to make for port immediately. If she passed away, at least her injuries would be consistent with his version of events. That was his only course of action if he was innocent.

He did what did because he's a fking liar and as guilty as sin.

Scandinavia, crime against women: 3 re-trials, sentenced to 6 month of PS4 or XBox...

[Jimmy Recard]

NRS said:

You're arguing semantics. First, he will not be judged in English. They're translating from the Danish legal hearing or whatever the name is. I can understand a bit of Danish and it's pretty clear it's a good enough translation.

Main points (not all covered in the BBC story):

He doesn't want to undergo an psychological examination but judge has ordered it. He also didn't want people to search his computer due to business secrets, but judge said to do it anyway.

His lawyer said he didn't report it because he thought it would be all over for him. It was one of the most traumatic things someone can experience (killing someone else). It also mentions [thank goodness for her sake - my comment] that the damage to the body was done post-mortem. Apparently he also said he threw her overboard in one piece and said he didn't cut her up. He also said he didn't have sex with her. The prosecution talks about pipes attached with nylon line too, which I presume was the metal to weigh her down, and that it matches with some in his workshop. Her trousers were found on the submarine (machine room), and tights and a contact lens with blood where he said she died. Hair and blood in the bathroom too.

Even thought translation will not be an issue in court, it seems clear he is continually lying the entire time. Therefore his witness is complete and utterly untrustworthy. You don't chop up a dead body, throw it overboard and leave the scene, then lie to the police multiple times without having something to hide.

Edited by NRS on Tuesday 5th September 22:37

I agree with all that, having read it myself.

I personally think he's guilty. What exactly happened, I don't know.

I think that having studied it at university and worked in it since means that translation theory issues jump out at me. I'd say that I was arguing nuance rather than semantics, however close the two can become

(Ps, tongue in cheek for the last sentence!)

[AstonZagato]

jshell said:

700BHP said:

I don't care how panicked you are, none of the things I listed are a 'good idea' or the 'right thing to do'.

If he's telling the truth the right thing to do was to make for port immediately. If she passed away, at least her injuries would be consistent with his version of events. That was his only course of action if he was innocent.

He did what did because he's a fking liar and as guilty as sin.

Scandinavia, crime against women: 3 re-trials, sentenced to 6 month of PS4 or XBox...

Does the Chilean Embassy not have any more vacancies?

[rxtx]

Jimmy Recard said:

I agree with all that, having read it myself.

I personally think he's guilty. What exactly happened, I don't know.

I think that having studied it at university and worked in it since means that translation theory issues jump out at me. I'd say that I was arguing nuance rather than semantics, however close the two can become

(Ps, tongue in cheek for the last sentence!)

Danish is a simpler and less nuanced language than English, I used to be fluent 20 odd years ago when I lived there.

[Globs]

jbswagger said:

Swedish journalist Kim Wall died by accident after being hit by a hatch cover on board a submarine, the Danish owner of the vessel has told a court.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41165806

He's lying in the BBC article too, if someone's bleeding (from a bump?!) then they are still alive so you wrap a bandage (or anything really) around the wound to staunch it and radio for help immediately after, then make ASAP for land.

I wouldn't be surprised if he's done this before .

[Hub]

...and she had a head injury so he took her clothes off?

It should be a significant crime in itself dumping a body at sea rather than seeking help - perverting the course of justice etc.

[youngsyr]

Hub said:

...and she had a head injury so he took her clothes off?

It should be a significant crime in itself dumping a body at sea rather than seeking help - perverting the course of justice etc.

I believe it is - only qualified people can perform burials at sea.

[Vaud]

youngsyr said:

Hub said:

...and she had a head injury so he took her clothes off?

It should be a significant crime in itself dumping a body at sea rather than seeking help - perverting the course of justice etc.

I believe it is - only qualified people can perform burials at sea.

True in the UK - but true everywhere? PCOJ is also a UK crime - is it the same everywhere?

I don't know about the local law, but let's not apply a default of UK laws to another country?

[youngsyr]

Vaud said:

youngsyr said:

Hub said:

...and she had a head injury so he took her clothes off?

It should be a significant crime in itself dumping a body at sea rather than seeking help - perverting the course of justice etc.

I believe it is - only qualified people can perform burials at sea.

True in the UK - but true everywhere? PCOJ is also a UK crime - is it the same everywhere?

I don't know about the local law, but let's not apply a default of UK laws to another country?

It's not just a UK law and even within the UK it doesn't just apply to the UK, but the surrounding waters.

In any case, in Denmark you are required to obtain a certificate before any kind of burial. Therefore this disposal of the body was illegal in its own right, regardless of how she died.

article said:

After the death has been reported to the Danish National Church, the relatives of the deceased receive an official burial approval in writing from the church office (Godkendelsesattest).

https://www.angloinfo.com/how-to/denmark/healthcare/death-dying

[anonymous-user]

he buried her at sea to hide evidence, any other thought to this reasoning is pure lunacy.