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

transcript of proceedings — cross-examination of the defendant, jens møller, by prosecutor lars henriksen.

henriksen: mr. møller, i’d like to start with something simple. when erik walked into your kitchen that night, did he have his phone with him?

møller: i — yes. i assume so. he always had his phone.

henriksen: you assume so. did you see it?

møller: i don’t specifically remember seeing it, no.

henriksen: let me tell you where it was found. erik bredahl’s mobile phone was recovered from the cab of your truck. not on his body. not on the silo platform. not in your kitchen. in your truck. can you explain that?

møller: i can’t explain it.

henriksen: you can’t explain it.

møller: no. i don’t know how it got there.

henriksen: your truck. your property. and you don’t know how erik’s phone ended up inside it.

møller: no.

henriksen: mr. møller, let me suggest something. erik came in and put his phone on the kitchen table. you’ve said he sat at the table when he arrived. is it possible he set his phone down?

møller: it’s possible, yes. he might have.

henriksen: and after you found erik’s body — before you called emergency services — did you go back inside the house?

møller: i… no. i called from outside. from the yard.

henriksen: you called from the yard. on your own phone.

møller: yes.

henriksen: so you had your phone on you.

møller: in my pocket, yes.

henriksen: but erik’s phone ended up in your truck. and you didn’t put it there.

møller: i did not.

henriksen: when was the last time erik was in your truck?

møller: i don’t — maybe a week before? we’d gone to look at a field sprayer in herning.

henriksen: a week before. and the phone was still sitting there a week later, in your truck, and you never noticed it.

møller: i don’t clean the cab every day. there’s papers, gloves, all sorts in there.

henriksen: mr. møller, i’m going to move on. you told the court you never went up to the silo platform that night. is that correct?

møller: that is correct.

henriksen: you’re certain.

møller: i’m certain. i went to erik. he was on the ground.

henriksen: the court has heard testimony from peter nørgaard, the safety inspector. he found a partial boot print on the platform walkway. size 44. erik bredahl wore size 42. you wear size 44. how do you account for that?

møller: i’m up on that platform regularly. every week, sometimes more. that print could be from any time.

henriksen: mr. nørgaard testified that dust accumulation on the platform was minimal and that the impressions appeared recent. consistent with the night in question.

møller: i was up there two days before. checking the grain level. the same thing erik supposedly went up to do.

henriksen: supposedly?

møller: i mean — the same thing erik went up to do. that’s what he said he was doing.

henriksen: that word — “supposedly” — is interesting. you don’t believe erik went up to check the grain?

møller: i do. that’s what he said. i misspoke.

henriksen: let’s talk about the timeline. you testified that erik left the kitchen around 21:15 or 21:20 to go to the silo. you heard the fall around 21:45. and you called emergency services at 22:15. that’s thirty minutes between hearing your best friend hit the ground and calling for help.

møller: it wasn’t thirty minutes.

henriksen: the emergency call was logged at 22:15. you’ve placed the sound at approximately 21:45. what happened in between?

møller: it felt — i wasn’t looking at a clock. i ran out. i found him. i was trying to — i checked for a pulse. i was talking to him. i was… i don’t know. it was — time didn’t feel normal. i was in shock.

henriksen: you were in shock.

møller: yes.

henriksen: for thirty minutes.

møller: i don’t believe it was thirty minutes. i think i heard the fall later than i said. i was guessing at the time.

henriksen: you were guessing. so the timeline you gave the court earlier today, under oath — that was a guess.

degn: objection. the witness acknowledged it was an estimate during direct examination.

the court: overruled. the witness may answer.

møller: i said around 21:45 because that’s my best estimate. i wasn’t watching the clock. i could be wrong by ten, fifteen minutes either way. but i called as soon as i — as soon as i could make my hands work.

henriksen: mr. møller, when you found erik on the ground, what did you do with your hands?

møller: i knelt down. i put my hand on his chest. i tried to feel his neck for a pulse.

henriksen: did you touch his arms?

møller: i don’t think so. maybe. i don’t remember specifically.

henriksen: erik bredahl had bruises on both forearms. dr. lind testified they were consistent with grip marks — someone grabbing him firmly by the arms. you have large hands, mr. møller?

møller: i’m a farmer. yes.

henriksen: and you don’t remember whether you grabbed his arms.

møller: i didn’t grab his arms. i said i don’t specifically remember every movement. my friend was lying on concrete with blood around his head. i was not cataloguing what i touched.

henriksen: let’s discuss the insurance. you testified you “forgot” about the 2.4 million kroner key-man policy. in twelve years, it never crossed your mind.

møller: not in those terms, no. i knew we had insurance. i didn’t sit around thinking about the amount or what it meant.

henriksen: the company was losing money. you were personally exposed to losing your equipment — the sprayer, the seed drill, the trailer — things you depend on to operate your farm. and you never once thought about the policy that would pay you 2.4 million kroner if your partner died?

møller: i did not.

henriksen: the premiums were paid by the company. money was tight. you knew money was tight. and you never looked at the line item for life insurance premiums and thought about what it was for?

møller: thomas handles the books. i don’t go through line items.

henriksen: you trusted erik with the books.

møller: i trusted thomas krogh. our accountant. that’s what accountants are for.

henriksen: mr. møller, i want to come back to the phone. you’ve said you can’t explain how it got into your truck. is it possible — and i want you to think carefully — that in the confusion after finding erik, you picked up his phone and put it in the truck without realizing what you were doing?

[long pause]

møller: i…

degn: the witness can take his time.

møller: i don’t — no. i went to erik. i called 112. i sat with him. i didn’t go to the kitchen and i didn’t go to the truck. not before the ambulance came.

henriksen: you didn’t go to the truck.

møller: no.

henriksen: so the phone moved itself.

degn: objection. argumentative.

the court: sustained. rephrase, mr. henriksen.

henriksen: mr. møller, if you didn’t move the phone, and erik didn’t bring it to your truck, who put it there?

møller: i don’t know.

henriksen: is there anyone else who was at møllergården that night?

møller: no. just us.

henriksen: just you and erik. and the phone ended up in your truck.

møller: yes.

henriksen: one final question, mr. møller. you said erik was “the best friend you had.” you said you let him go out drunk in the dark to a platform with a broken railing that you yourself had reported four months earlier. you knew the railing was broken.

møller: yes.

henriksen: and you let him go anyway.

møller: i told him to leave it till morning. he wouldn’t listen. he was stubborn — erik was always stubborn.

henriksen: you could have gone with him.

møller: i could have. yes. i think about that every day.

henriksen: you could have gone with him, and you chose to make a sandwich.

degn: objection. counsel is editorializing.

the court: the witness has answered. move on, mr. henriksen.

henriksen: no further questions, your honor.

[the witness is excused. the court notes a brief recess before the next matter.]