district court of ravnkær

case no. 2026-r-0041

the state v. jens møller

cross-examination — prosecution witness camilla bredahl

defense counsel marie degn conducts the cross-examination.

q: fru bredahl, i’ll try to be brief. i want to go back to something you said in direct examination. you described erik as “nervous but determined” the night he left. those were your words?

a: yes.

q: nervous. would you say erik had been nervous a lot in recent months?

a: he was under a lot of stress. the business was —

q: i’m not asking about stress. i’m asking about his general state. his mood. was erik himself in the months before january 14th?

a: he was dealing with a lot. anyone would have been —

q: fru bredahl. was erik sleeping normally?

a: [pause] he… not always, no.

q: not always. can you be more specific?

a: he had trouble sleeping sometimes. a lot of people do.

q: had erik lost weight?

a: he’d lost some weight. yes.

q: how much, roughly?

a: i don’t — maybe seven, eight kilos. i’m not sure.

q: seven or eight kilos. over what period?

a: i don’t know. a few months.

q: so in the months before his death, erik was not sleeping well and had lost seven or eight kilos. was he eating normally?

a: he was eating. just… less.

q: fru bredahl, i want to ask about erik’s drinking. you told the prosecution he had two beers with dinner on the night of january 14th. is that right?

a: yes. two beers.

q: was that typical? two beers with dinner?

a: erik enjoyed a beer with dinner, yes.

q: the forensic report shows erik’s blood alcohol content at 0.14 at the time of his death. that’s significantly more than two beers consumed three hours earlier. were you aware of that?

a: i know what the report says.

q: so either erik drank substantially more after leaving your house, or the two beers weren’t the full picture. which is it?

a: he must have had more after he left. he went to the kro first, i think.

q: had erik been drinking more than usual in recent months?

a: [pause] a bit more, maybe.

q: a bit more. how much is a bit more?

a: i wasn’t counting his drinks, fru degn.

q: was it enough that you noticed?

a: …yes. i noticed.

q: would you say erik’s drinking had increased significantly in the final months of his life?

a: it had increased. i don’t know what “significantly” means to you.

q: let me try it differently. were you concerned about it?

a: [long pause] yes. i was concerned.

q: what were you concerned about specifically?

a: that he was using it to cope. with the business. the stress.

q: fru bredahl, i need to ask you about something specific. in the weeks before erik’s death — approximately two weeks before — did something unusual happen involving erik and a car?

a: [silence]

q: fru bredahl?

a: i don’t know what you’re referring to.

q: i’ll be specific. did you find erik sitting alone in your car in the garage, in the middle of the night?

prosecution counsel: objection. relevance. this is beyond the scope of direct examination and amounts to —

defense counsel: it goes directly to the deceased’s state of mind, which the prosecution opened the door to when they elicited testimony about his “determination” and “nervousness.” if the prosecution is allowed to characterize erik bredahl’s mental state selectively, the defense is entitled to explore it fully.

the court: overruled. the witness will answer.

a: [pause] yes. i found him in the car.

q: tell us about that, please.

a: it was… it was late. around three in the morning. i woke up and he wasn’t in bed. i went downstairs and the garage door was open and he was just sitting in the car. engine off. lights off. just sitting there.

q: what did you do?

a: i asked him what he was doing.

q: what did he say?

a: he said he was thinking.

q: thinking. at three in the morning. alone in a dark car in the garage.

a: yes.

q: did that worry you?

a: of course it worried me.

q: did you ask him what he was thinking about?

a: he didn’t want to talk about it. he came inside and went to bed.

q: fru bredahl, i have to ask you directly. in the months before his death — the insomnia, the weight loss, the increased drinking, sitting alone in the dark at three in the morning — were you concerned that erik was depressed?

a: [long pause] erik was under a lot of pressure. anyone would —

q: that’s not what i asked. were you concerned that your husband was suffering from depression?

a: [voice breaking] i… yes. yes, i was worried about him. i was very worried about him.

q: did you suggest he see someone? a doctor, a therapist?

a: i tried. he wouldn’t go. he said he was fine. he said it was just the business.

q: just the business. the business he described as dragging him down, that was haemorrhaging money, that he saw no way to resolve without a confrontation he dreaded. that business.

a: yes.

q: fru bredahl, you testified that erik seemed “resolved” the night he left. you said it was like someone going to do something they’d been putting off. is it possible — and i need you to consider this honestly — is it possible that the thing erik had resolved to do wasn’t dissolving a business partnership?

prosecution counsel: objection! counsel is asking the witness to speculate about —

the court: sustained. fru degn, rephrase or move on.

q: i’ll withdraw the question. let me ask this instead. in your direct testimony, you said erik told you he was going to “end it.” your interpretation was that he meant the partnership. did he say the words “the partnership” or “the business”?

a: he… no. he said “end it.” i assumed —

q: he said “end it.” and you assumed.

a: i knew what he meant. we’d been talking about the business for weeks.

q: i understand. but the words he used were “end it.” just those two words.

a: yes.

q: fru bredahl, why didn’t you mention any of this during direct examination? the insomnia, the weight loss, the drinking, the incident in the car at three in the morning — the prosecution asked about erik’s state of mind and you described him as “nervous but determined.” why did you leave the rest out?

a: [long silence] because it doesn’t change what happened. jens killed my husband. erik being — erik going through a hard time doesn’t change what jens did.

q: that’s for the court to decide, fru bredahl. not for you.

prosecution counsel: objection. counsel is editorializing.

the court: sustained. fru degn, keep to questions.

q: one final question. you said erik told you jens would “not let it go quietly.” do you know that from your own observation of jens møller, or only from what erik told you?

a: from what erik told me.

q: you never personally witnessed jens møller threaten erik, raise his voice at erik, or behave aggressively toward erik?

a: no. but i —

q: thank you. no further questions.

the witness is excused. the court notes the testimony for the record.