All language subtitles for The.Investigation.2020.S01E05.1080p.AMZN.WEB-DL.DD5.1.H.264-Cinefeel[eztv.re]

No damage to the skull.

And we don't have the arms.

That's absurd.

Why the hell did he say
she hit her head if she didn't?

He must have felt sure
we wouldn't find the body.

And when he hears
that we're going to raise the sub,

he comes up with an explanation for
the traces of blood in it.

The problem as I see it is that,
paradoxically, this changes nothing.

We still lack compelling evidence.

But there was no damage to the head.

That makes his explanation
evidently untrue.

Yes, it is.

But only until he comes up with
a new explanation.

And he is perfectly entitled
to do so.

First, he set her ashore.

Then he buried the intact body at sea
after she hit her head.

Now, she didn't hit her head
and wasn't buried intact.

He can carry on like that
for everything we find.

Those are the rules.

As a suspect, he may change his
explanations as often as he wants.

The question then is,
can we rule out an accident?

Can we rule out suicide?

And can we prove murder at all?

What happened?
What's the cause of death?

What's the motive?

-We don't know.
-Exactly. We don't know.

And the burden of proof lies with us.

THE INVESTIGATION

DAY 58
7TH OCTOBER 2017

It's blowing
at nine metres per second.

A northward 1.5 knot current.

The water temperature
is seven degrees.

But at least there's good visibility.

I want at least two people
on each stay.

Stay close together.

It's cold and we're all tired.

So look out for each other.

Any questions?

LUST, JEALOUSY, REVENGE, PROFIT,
EXTREMISM, OSTRACISM, POWER

Back to square one.

What do we know?

We know she was killed
or died in an accident.

What about suicide?
Is it completely out of the question?

It's like a puzzle with half
of the pieces missing.

OK. Let's at least look at
the pieces we've got.

We have a torso, head and legs
with no visible injuries.

We have bits of iron pipe
used to weigh down the body parts.

Identical pipe was found
in the suspect's workshop.

That indicates some premeditation.

We have knickers and tights,
at knife and items of clothing.

We have books to suggest the suspect
was fascinated by crime.

We have witness statements
describing him as sexually deviant.

We know that he tried to invite three
or four other women on sailing trips.

And we know that they all declined.

We know that the journalist called
on spec to get an interview,

embarked on a voyage with him
and disappeared.

But what does all of this prove?

That he killed her, dismembered her
and threw her into the sea.

No, it may show that she was
dismembered and dumped,

but not that she was murdered.

We found the head.
There are no injuries on it.

And he keeps changing
his explanations. Isn't that enough?

No, not necessarily.

No.

Musa and I are meeting the IT
investigators tomorrow morning.

Maybe they'll find something useful
on his private computer.

Does he know that we found
the legs and head?

Yeah.

And it hasn't made him
change his explanation?

No.

What about his social circle?

-Have more people got in touch?
-No.

Some of them must know something.

Hello, this is Jens.

I'd like to call a press conference.

I'd like to share our new findings
with the public.

Will you take care of that?

Great. Thanks.

If we tell the press that there are
no head injuries,

and that he lied about that too,

maybe more of his old friends
will want to talk to us.

And he may have something new to add.

Good morning.

We'd like update you on what has been
dubbed "the submarine case".

Yesterday, with the help of naval
mine-clearing divers,

we made a number of dives.

This resulted in the discovery of
a carrier bag this morning,

which contained Kim Wall's clothes.

A top, a skirt, shoes and leggings.

The bag also contained a knife
and lead weights to weigh it down.

At around midday, we found a leg.

We then found another leg,
and shortly thereafter a head.

And what's interesting is that there
are no fractures to the skull.

And there are no indications of
blunt force to the skull.

Cecilie's phone, Anders speaking.

Hi, Anders. It's Jens, Cecilie's dad.

Hi. Cecilie can't talk just now.

No? I've tried to call many times.

Oh, dear. I didn't know.

Can you tell her to call me?

Yeah, of course I will. Bye.

Right now, we're pressuring him
to give a new explanation,

which we hope
comes closer to the truth.

Or to get people from his circle,
who believe he's innocent, to talk.

Two months have passed now.

We're obviously relieved
that you've...

...that you've found...

I don't understand why
we don't know more.

For everything you find,
he comes up with new explanations.

And now he's been lying again.

And it seems not to have
any consequences for him.

How will we ever find out
what happened?

I wish I knew.

-And are you still diving?
-Yes, of course.

The divers are in the water
whenever weather conditions allow it.

Are they also searching for
the phones?

Finding the phones
is not our main priority.

Why not?

If you find the phones, maybe you
can find out what happened.

I understand.

The question is if those phones
can be found at all.

Or if they've disappeared
into the sand on the seabed.

-I'm ready, Jarl.
-Yeah.

Yellow buoy up!

What's up?

We found something.

-Was it 200 metres?
-Yeah, from the centre line.

219.

I hear you found the saw.

What's wrong?

Something's not right
with the tracking.

What do you mean?

We found the saw down here.

It can't be.

According to our tracking,
the sub wasn't there at all.

How far off track it is?

More than 200 metres.

What does a saw like that weigh?

It must have been dumped and carried
200 metres by the current.

Yeah, I also asked that.

We bought a saw just like it,
sailed out and threw it in the sea.

And?

The current didn't take it.
It sank straight to the bottom.

To find the arms, we need more
detailed information about the route.

We don't have that.

But then we'll have to get it.

I told VTS in Malmö
that we're coming tomorrow.

I have an old mate there.

We have to look at the radar images
second by second, minute by minute,

and hour by hour
until we have all the details.

-How long will it take?
-I don't know.

I've had enough of this.
We need to find everything.

To begin with,
we select a lot of buzzwords.

It could be "murder", "submarine",
"sex." That kind of thing.

We search for them in his files
and search history.

If some words match,
we see where it takes us.

In that way we can steadily get
deeper into the data.

Maybe you could help by categorising
search terms by motive?

We're already on it.

I can send it over
as soon as the list is ready.

-You can add things we've overlooked.
-Yeah.

What if he deleted files?

We'll probably still find traces.

How?

Once something's on a hard disk,
it's virtually impossible to erase.

There will always be traces left.

How do you delete something, then?

You use a bathtub or a hammer.

When do you expect a result?

If there are no matches,
it will be quick.

But if we find something
and begin to dig,

then it could take a while.

What do you mean by a while?

Weeks or... months.

They're searching for
several words of interest:

Sex, submarine, murder.

-How far along are they?
-Not very far.

It's harder than it seems.

Your plan seems to have worked.

I just had the accused's
defence counsel on the phone.

She says her client has decided to

tell the truth about
what happened that night.

He wants a new interview tomorrow.

DAY 65
14TH OCTOBER 2017

What did he say?

He said that, on reflection, he'd
tell the truth about what happened.

Then he said that she didn't die from
an iron hatch hitting her head,

and that he dismembered her because

the body was too heavy to bring
through the tower of the submarine.

So now he admits
dismembering the body?

What about the cause of death?

He says it must be
oxygen deprivation,

suffocation or carbon
monoxide poisoning.

Something about engine trouble
and defective valves.

It was a long, technical explanation,

but in anyway, the hatch slammed shut
while he stood in the tower,

and she was inside
at the bottom of the sub.

A vacuum prevented him from
opening the latch

and when finally got it open,
he climbed down and found her dead

inside the submarine.

-And then he cut her to pieces?
-Yeah.

Or, rather, he first tried
to lift her, but had no luck.

And later that night he decided to
cut the body into smaller pieces.

And after that
he decided to commit suicide,

which he delayed or regretted.

What about the tights and knickers?

He thinks her clothes came off
while he was struggling to lift her.

And he says he didn't notice.

Every time you find something,
he changes his account.

We need to find those arms.

Next, he'll say
she cut her own wrists,

and he promised
never to tell her parents.

We have to be able to reject
any explanation but murder.

You're still here?

Yeah, I've got nothing better to do.

I spoke with the submarine expert,
Ditte Dyreborg.

Yes?

I'm going to see her
and review his latest account.

To find out if the hatch can get
stuck or if that's also a lie.

Great.

It would be nice to rule out.

-See you tomorrow.
-Yeah.

You've reached Cecilie.
I can't take your call right now.

Leave a message
and I'll call you back.

Hi, Cecilie. It's Dad.

Please call me.

Talk to you later.

We sat with a sheet of tracing paper
on the radar screen all day.

We drew in dots every time
the radar registered anything.

From when they left at 7:30 PM
until 10:22 AM,

when the submarine sank.

Minute by minute by minute.

There are more than 600 dots.

Has it changed your view of
which way he went?

Yeah, especially in the southern part
of the track.

Look at this.

These huge turns
that we had no clue about.

They fit with finding the saw there.

Is this where you're
considering diving again?

Considering?

They're getting ready as we speak.

I had an interesting talk with Ditte
Dyreborg, the submarine expert,

about the suspect's
latest explanation.

What did she say?

She said it's actually true
that a vacuum would emerge

which would make it impossible
to open the hatch.

But she didn't understand
how he could have opened it.

In her view,
this would not have been possible.

Okay, let me get this straight.

If the accident he claims happened
really happened,

the hatch would be stuck
and impossible to open.

That's what she said.

And it would take some time to offset
the pressure to open the hatch.

How long?

At least an hour.

What was her analysis?

Well, we don't have
all the schematics,

and the state of the sub after
sinking leaves some big gaps.

What could she conclude?

She said she thinks he's lying
through his teeth.

And the fault that he claims occurred

would have generated strong heat,

which would in part
have created the vacuum

but it would also have left clear
heat impacts on the dead body.

I've asked the Institute of
Technology to investigate and confirm

in their official report.

Does she agree with Lars Møller
that the sub was sunk deliberately?

Yeah, no doubt, she said.

Jakob will be happy to hear that.

Jens speaking.

What?

Hello, Jakob. It's Jens here.

I'm calling to tell you that we found
one of the arms an hour ago.

No, only one of them.

We'll fucking find the other one too.

DAY 111
29TH NOVEMBER 2017

Marker buoy on the surface!

Just let go!

The diver's on the surface.

Yes! Yes!

Way to go! Way to go!

Fucking great!

Yes!

I just spoke with the parents.

They send their regards and thank you
and your men for your effort.

Burying their daughter
means everything to them.

Normally, when we come in
from a day at sea...

the mood is usually
jubilant and vibrant.

And the lads talk about what they're
going to eat and drink.

Who they're going to kiss
when they go ashore.

But once the adrenaline
subsided today,

nobody said anything.

They were totally silent.

Good job.

At least we did what we could.

Let's just hope it's enough.

This is Klaus.

Hi, Klaus. It's Jens here.

Hello, Jens.

What have you got for me?

As expected, the cause of death
cannot be found on the arms.

No signs of suicide,
no defensive wounds or anything.

Okay.

Yeah.

Right. Then the question is
what the hell happened.

Yeah, that's what we
have to find out.

So suicide is off the table.

I guess there's only murder left.

Yeah, maybe.

Maybe there's enough
to convict for murder.

But he'll only get 14 years
and be out after eight or ten.

But to get a lifetime sentence
or psychiatric custody,

we need murder plus something.

I don't need to tell you.

How about rape?

Yeah, we could use that.

But to convict him for rape,
we have to prove that it happened.

And that it happened before death
or was premeditated.

If it happened spontaneously
after she died, it only counts as...

...indecent interference
with a corpse and necrophilia.

It's not enough.

We need to ascertain what happened
that night, Jens, and we will.

By finding the motive.

ACCIDENT, MURDER

The cause of death
could not be found on the arms.

So we have to wait for
the coroner's final conclusion.

Do you have ten minutes?

Yeah, sure.

So far, we've found seven texts about
the impalement of women.

Impalement? What do you mean?

That's a good question.
These are texts of a sexual nature.

Fantasies about impalement.

That's penetration of skin or flesh
by a sharp or pointed object.

Skewers, pencils.

Knives, awls, needles.
Have a look yourselves.

How many stab wounds
did the torso have?

Seventeen.

Do you think there's more of this?

I'm afraid so.

We've been through the suspect's
browsing history,

that is sites he visited,
words he searched for, and so on.

-May I?
-Of course.

Beheaded.

Argony.

Girl.

Three words the suspect
searched frequently,

the last being 18 hours before
the sub embarked for the last time.

Isn't "agony" spelt without an R?

That's the suspect's spelling error.

Despite the typo, the search
returned some interesting results.

Among them a so-called snuff movie
where a woman is beheaded.

A real beheading?

We believe it looks very real.

Did he watch this?

Yes. 18 hours before
he departed with the victim.

Furthermore, we found three short
animations with the same content

downloaded to his computer.

Cartoons?

Decapitation and impalement
represented in a sexual context.

I'd like to see those films.

I strongly advise against it.

Could he have tried to copy
a video he'd watched?

Was it totally premeditated?

Unusually, he took the saw
onboard that day.

That contradicts what he said about
getting the whole body up the tower.

If he didn't know what to do with
the saw, why did he bring it?

And he tried to invite three other
women onto the sub the same day.

But they all declined his offer.

When the first three declined,
he seemed to have given up.

He didn't text anybody else.

But suddenly his phone rang.

It's the Swedish journalist who had
previously tried to get an interview.

She'd like to interview him.

And then the plan is back on.

Is it true that nothing indicates
that they were already acquainted?

Yes.

Do we agree on that?

Then there's no reason to continue
with jealousy, revenge or ostracism.

Does anything indicate profit?

No.

Does anything indicate
a religious or political motive?

Any indications of satanic sacrifice
or a political message? Terrorism?

No.

Lust. He had semen residue
in his underpants.

He's a known figure
in Copenhagen's sex clubs.

Hours before the killing,
he watched a decapitation video.

It all points to a sexual motive.

Power.

He wanted to somehow prove
or demonstrate his power.

Because he felt powerless.

He did have problems
with his projects.

He'd just cancelled
the trip to Bornholm

and his company was
on the verge of bankruptcy.

That could have been
what triggered him.

He suddenly lacked
that part of himself,

feeling powerful, in control.

The knickers and tights and
the rapist's book speak of that.

He wanted to prove himself
by copying that video.

To prove that he could
get away with it.

It gave him a rush.

Power.

Jens?

May I come in?

What's up?

Beheaded, agony, girl.

We've got a motive.
We've got a motive.

If the coroner says the cause of
death was decapitation,

then we've got a winner.

And what if they don't?

Then we'll have an uphill battle
proving that he copied the video.

The worst thing is how random it was.

She tried to interview him
earlier this year.

It didn't work out, she forgot,
and suddenly she remembered.

She called him
to set up an interview.

She didn't have a clue.

But he knew exactly
what he was doing.

He brought all the implements.
She didn't stand a chance.

She did nothing wrong,
she was just curious,

trusting, happy, and brave.

She was just the way we want
our children to be.

-Hello?
-Cecilie, I want a word.

-Hello?
-I'll come down.

-Hi, my dear.
-Hi.

I've tried to call you.

Yeah, I know.

-But you didn't call back.
-I've had a lot going on.

Sorry I couldn't come last time.
I couldn't get off work.

Never mind.

You know what it's like.

Yeah, I know.

Maybe that's why
I didn't return your calls.

What do you mean?

You could have apologised and said
how important a case it was,

and I'd have said it was okay,
even if I didn't think so.

What shall I say?
I can't control what happens at work.

I don't know,
but don't say something...

I'm about to have my first child,
and I'm dead scared and...

I just don't want to be disappointed
time and time again.

Tell me what you expect.

I'm your daughter.

I need care and attention
and to feel...

To feel that I matter to you.

You do matter to me.

Listen, a young woman was killed.

She was dumped in the sea.

What the hell do you want me to do?

I don't know.

But as long as you don't know it
yourself, please don't call me.

Subtitles: Kenn Nakata Steffensen
www.plint.com