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

transcript of proceedings — cross-examination of ole hansen conducted by defense counsel degn

defense counsel degn: mr. hansen, you told the court you were in your workshop that evening repairing a fence gate. you had a work light on. the radio?

ole hansen: no radio.

defense counsel degn: any machinery running? power tools?

ole hansen: i had a grinder going earlier in the evening. but not around that time, no.

defense counsel degn: around what time did you stop using the grinder?

ole hansen: maybe — eight o’clock? somewhere around there. i was doing hand work after that. fitting the hinges.

defense counsel degn: hand work. so it was quiet in the workshop from roughly eight onward?

ole hansen: relatively quiet, yes.

defense counsel degn: mr. hansen, 800 meters is roughly half a mile. that’s a long way to hear an argument. you’d agree?

ole hansen: i could hear it.

defense counsel degn: i’m not disputing that you heard something. i’m asking whether, at 800 meters, inside a workshop, you can reliably distinguish between two men arguing and one man shouting into a phone.

ole hansen: i said the rhythm was like two people.

defense counsel degn: you said “fairly confident.” those were your words. fairly confident is not certain, correct?

ole hansen: no. it’s not certain.

defense counsel degn: a man on a mobile phone, pacing, agitated, raising his voice, pausing to listen, then raising his voice again — that could produce the same rhythm you described. couldn’t it?

ole hansen: [pause] i suppose it could. but it didn’t sound like that to me.

defense counsel degn: with respect, mr. hansen, you’ve told us you couldn’t make out a single word. not one. from that distance, you’re interpreting tone and cadence, not content. yes?

ole hansen: yes.

defense counsel degn: let’s talk about the times. you told prosecutor nielsen the argument was around half nine. approximately 21:30.

ole hansen: that’s my estimate.

defense counsel degn: estimate. were you wearing a watch?

ole hansen: no. my phone was in the house.

defense counsel degn: so you had no timepiece of any kind in the workshop.

ole hansen: no.

defense counsel degn: the headlights you saw — you said around half eight. 20:30. how did you arrive at that time?

ole hansen: i knew roughly when i’d started working. i’d been at it for about an hour. so around half eight seemed right.

defense counsel degn: seemed right. mr. hansen, when did you first assign specific times to these events?

ole hansen: when the police came the next day.

defense counsel degn: the next day. so you slept on it, and then reconstructed times from memory, without any reference point, twelve or more hours after the fact.

ole hansen: i did my best.

defense counsel degn: i’m sure you did. but you’d agree there’s a margin of error. the argument could have been at 21:15. or 21:45.

ole hansen: it could have been, yes.

defense counsel degn: and the shout — you said you were even less certain about that one. your estimate was “maybe twenty to ten.” so somewhere between, what — 21:30 and 22:00?

ole hansen: somewhere in there.

defense counsel degn: that’s a thirty-minute window.

ole hansen: i told the prosecutor i wasn’t sure. i’m being honest.

defense counsel degn: you are. i appreciate that. let’s talk about this shout for a moment. you said it was sharp. one sound. and you considered whether it might be an animal.

ole hansen: i did.

defense counsel degn: foxes in that area — they make sounds that can be mistaken for human voices?

ole hansen: they can, yes. especially the vixens.

defense counsel degn: and you were across the workshop. not near the window.

ole hansen: that’s right.

defense counsel degn: so you heard a single short sound, from an indeterminate direction, at an uncertain time, while you were not in a position to see anything. and you’re not certain it was human.

ole hansen: i think it was human. but i can’t swear to it.

defense counsel degn: thank you. now — the car. you said you didn’t hear a car leave between the argument and the ambulance.

ole hansen: that’s correct.

defense counsel degn: but mr. hansen, you also told us you weren’t paying close attention. you went back to your work. you were fitting hinges.

ole hansen: i was listening a bit. i said that.

defense counsel degn: a bit. with no radio, no machinery — but also working with your hands, focused on a task.

ole hansen: i think i would have heard a car.

defense counsel degn: you think. mr. hansen, the road from møllergården connects to the county road in the other direction as well, doesn’t it? south, away from your farm?

ole hansen: [pause] it does. there’s a track that goes south toward the lindegaard road.

defense counsel degn: and a car leaving in that direction — would you hear it from your workshop?

ole hansen: probably not. not from inside the workshop. the south track is — it’s further away, and there’s the tree line.

defense counsel degn: so when you say no car left, what you mean is no car left in the direction you could hear from.

ole hansen: i suppose that’s more accurate.

defense counsel degn: let’s turn to something else. you mentioned an incident with mr. møller’s dogs. four hens killed in your coop.

ole hansen: yes.

defense counsel degn: and you’re still bothered by it.

ole hansen: it was a matter of principle.

defense counsel degn: of course. but it left you with a particular view of jens møller’s character. didn’t it?

ole hansen: i’m here to tell the court what i saw and heard. that’s all.

defense counsel degn: mr. hansen, the prosecutor asked you whether jens raises his voice. you said — and i’m quoting — “he’s not quiet when he’s upset. you hear him.” do you recall that?

ole hansen: i do.

defense counsel degn: how many times have you actually witnessed jens møller upset?

ole hansen: [pause] once or twice.

defense counsel degn: once or twice, over how many years?

ole hansen: i’ve been there thirty-one years. he’s been there — i don’t know, fifteen? maybe more.

defense counsel degn: so in fifteen-odd years of living 800 meters apart, you’ve heard him raise his voice once or twice. and from that you offered the court a characterization of his temperament.

ole hansen: i was answering the question i was asked.

defense counsel degn: you were. and i’m asking you now: isn’t it true that your impression of jens møller as a man who “raises his voice” has more to do with four dead chickens than anything you actually witnessed on the 14th?

prosecutor nielsen: objection. argumentative.

judge thorsen: overruled. the witness may answer.

ole hansen: [long pause] i told the court what i heard. i heard two men arguing. i heard a shout. whether i like jens møller or not doesn’t change what came through that window.

defense counsel degn: but it might change how you describe it. no further questions, your honor.

[witness excused]