district court of ravnkær

case no. 2026-r-0041

the state v. jens møller

direct examination — prosecution witness camilla bredahl

the witness is sworn in. senior prosecutor anders kirk nielsen conducts the examination.

q: fru bredahl, thank you for being here. i understand this is difficult. can you tell the court about your relationship to the deceased?

a: erik was my husband. we were married for fourteen years.

q: and you knew the defendant, jens møller?

a: yes. jens was erik’s business partner. they started bredahl & møller together — i think in 2013, 2014? they were friends before that. or at least erik thought they were.

q: can you tell us about the evening of january 14th? what happened before erik left the house?

a: we had dinner together. around seven, seven-fifteen. erik was… he was quiet during the meal. focused. he’d had two beers with dinner. and then he told me he was going to jens’s farm.

q: did he say why?

a: he said he was going to “end it.” those were his words. end it.

q: and what did you understand that to mean?

a: the partnership. the business. erik had been talking about dissolving it for weeks. he said jens was spending money they didn’t have, buying equipment the company couldn’t afford. he said the partnership agreement was unfair — that it had always been unfair, but he’d let it go because they were friends.

q: you said this time felt different. in what way?

a: erik had talked about it before. the problems with the business. but it was always… venting, you know? he’d complain and then he’d go back the next day and carry on. but that night he seemed resolved. like he’d made a decision.

q: what time did erik leave?

a: around a quarter to eight. 19:45 or so.

q: did he say when he’d be back?

a: he said he’d be home by ten. by 22:00.

q: how did erik seem to you? his mood, his demeanour?

a: he was nervous. but determined. like someone going to do something they’d been putting off. he kissed me at the door. he… [pause] he kissed me at the door and said he’d be back soon.

q: and what happened next?

a: i waited. ten o’clock came and went. i sent him a text around 22:15. no answer. and then at half past ten the hospital called.

q: fru bredahl, in the weeks before erik’s death — the weeks when he was talking about ending the partnership — did he ever express concern about how jens would react?

a: yes. he said jens would lose the farm equipment if the partnership dissolved. the tractors, the combine — it was all bought through the company. erik said jens would fight it. that it would be ugly.

q: did he use those words? “jens would fight it”?

a: he said… he said jens would “not let it go quietly.” i remember that. “not let it go quietly.”

q: did erik mention anything about a life insurance policy connected to the business?

a: i knew there was some kind of insurance tied to the partnership. a key-man policy or something. erik mentioned it once — he said it was part of the original agreement. i didn’t know the amount until after. until after he died.

q: you know the amount now?

a: 2.4 million kroner. [pause] yes.

q: fru bredahl, i want to ask you directly: in your view, based on everything you knew about erik and jens and the state of their partnership — do you believe your husband’s death was an accident?

defense counsel: objection. the witness is not qualified to offer an opinion on —

the court: sustained. rephrase, herr nielsen.

q: let me ask it differently. in the weeks before his death, did erik ever express fear for his physical safety in relation to jens møller?

a: [long pause] he didn’t say he was afraid. not in those words. but i could tell. the way he talked about jens — it wasn’t like talking about a friend anymore. it was like talking about someone unpredictable. someone he didn’t trust.

q: thank you, fru bredahl. no further questions.

the court notes the witness remains available for cross-examination.