Original subtitles

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