district court of ravnkær case no. 2026-r-0041 — the state v. jens møller

cross-examination of dr. sofie lind, forensic pathologist, rigshospitalet examining attorney: defense counsel m. degn date: 3 february 2026

degn: dr. lind, thank you for your thorough testimony. i’d like to begin with the blood alcohol content. you said mr. bredahl was at 0.14.

lind: that is correct.

degn: and you described significant impairment to balance, coordination, and judgment.

lind: yes.

degn: doctor, in your experience — in your two thousand post-mortem examinations — have you seen cases where individuals at 0.14 or above have died from accidental falls?

lind: yes. it is not uncommon. falls are a leading cause of death associated with alcohol intoxication.

degn: not uncommon. can you give the court a sense of how frequently you encounter accidental fall deaths involving this level of intoxication?

lind: i haven’t calculated an exact figure, but alcohol-related accidental falls account for a substantial portion of my caseload. at 0.14, a person’s risk of a fatal fall is significantly elevated compared to a sober individual.

degn: significantly elevated. now, you testified that the heavy drinking — the akvavit — occurred within one to two hours before death. meaning mr. bredahl’s impairment would have been at or near its peak around the time he climbed a twelve-meter ladder in the dark.

lind: the timing is consistent with that, yes. depending on his rate of consumption and absorption, the alcohol may still have been rising at the time of the fall.

degn: still rising. so he may have been even more impaired than 0.14 suggests at the moment he was on that platform.

lind: it is possible. blood alcohol was measured post-mortem. there are variables — post-mortem redistribution, the stage of absorption. but yes, his functional impairment at the time of the fall may have been somewhat greater than the measured figure.

degn: dr. lind, i’d like you to consider the scene as described. a man at 0.14 blood alcohol or above. a narrow platform twelve meters high. nighttime. no lighting on the platform. a safety railing that is broken — that has a gap in it. in your medical opinion, does that man need to be pushed?

falk: objection. calls for speculation beyond the witness’s area of expertise.

judge: the witness is an expert in causes of death. she may answer as to whether the physical circumstances are consistent with accidental death. overruled.

lind: no. a person with that level of intoxication, on an unlit platform at that height, with a compromised safety railing, would be at very serious risk of an accidental fall. he would not need to be pushed.

degn: thank you. now — the forearm bruises. you testified on direct that the pattern was, and i want to use your exact words, “slightly more consistent with grip marks than with fall impact.”

lind: that is what i said.

degn: slightly.

lind: yes. slightly.

degn: doctor, when you say slightly, what does that mean in practical terms? if you were writing this in a forensic report, would you characterize the bruises as grip marks?

lind: no. i would characterize them as bruises of indeterminate origin, noting that the pattern is consistent with multiple possible mechanisms.

degn: indeterminate origin. so in your forensic report — the document you prepared for this court — you did not conclude these were grip marks.

lind: i did not. my report states the bruises are consistent with both gripping and with impact during a fall.

degn: let me ask about the fall scenario specifically. a person falling from a platform, arms extended — you mentioned they might strike the railing or the silo interior. but what about the ladder? mr. bredahl would have been near the ladder access point. if he stumbled and tried to catch himself on the ladder, could the rungs produce bruising on opposite sides of the forearm?

lind: yes. grasping a ladder rung — or having the forearm slide between rungs during a fall — could produce bruising on opposing sides of the forearm.

degn: the very pattern the prosecution suggested was from gripping.

lind: it is a possible mechanism, yes.

degn: dr. lind, you also testified there were no defensive wounds on mr. bredahl’s hands. no skin under his fingernails. no injuries suggesting he struck another person. is that correct?

lind: that is correct.

degn: if mr. bredahl had been grabbed — if someone had seized his forearms — and he was being forced toward the edge of a twelve-meter drop, would you expect him to resist?

lind: one would generally expect some resistance, yes. scratching, striking, attempting to break free.

degn: and that resistance would leave evidence.

lind: in many cases, yes. defensive injuries are common in physical altercations. skin cells under the nails, abrasions on the hands, torn clothing.

degn: and you found none of that.

lind: no. but i should note that the absence of defensive wounds does not exclude an altercation. a person who is severely intoxicated may have diminished ability to resist. and if the contact was brief — a push rather than a prolonged struggle — there might be less opportunity for defensive injury.

degn: that’s fair. so the scenario the prosecution is suggesting would have to be a very brief contact. someone grabbed his arms, and then — almost immediately — he went over.

lind: if the bruises were from gripping, the absence of other defensive injuries would suggest a brief interaction, yes.

degn: brief enough that a man fighting for his life at the edge of a twelve-meter drop didn’t scratch, didn’t strike, didn’t leave a single mark on his attacker.

lind: that is the implication of the evidence, if one accepts the gripping theory.

degn: or — and tell me if this is also consistent — a drunk man stumbled on a dark platform, flailed, caught the railing or the ladder, bruised his forearms, and went over the broken section. no attacker needed.

lind: that is also consistent with the physical evidence.

degn: let me turn to the skull fracture. you testified the occipital fracture indicates mr. bredahl landed on the back of his head. on direct, you agreed this was consistent with him facing the platform when he went over. but isn’t it equally consistent with a man stumbling backward? losing his balance and falling through the broken railing section?

lind: yes. a backward stumble would produce the same injury pattern. a person who loses balance and topples backward over a low or absent railing would strike the back of the head on impact. i stated on direct that i cannot reconstruct the body mechanics. the direction of impact is all i can speak to.

degn: so to summarize, dr. lind: the cause of death is a twelve-meter fall. the bruises could be from a fall or from gripping — you cannot say which. there are no defensive wounds. and the skull fracture is equally consistent with a stumble as with a push.

lind: that is a fair summary of the physical evidence, yes.

degn: dr. lind, in your professional opinion — considering all of your findings together — can you exclude the possibility that erik bredahl’s death was an accident?

lind: no. i cannot exclude that possibility.

degn: no further questions.

[witness is excused]