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

examination of witness maja vestergaard, conducted by the prosecution. the witness is sworn and reminded of her obligation to speak truthfully.

prosecution: ms. vestergaard, you work at ravnkær kro, correct?

vestergaard: yes. i’ve been bartending there about three years now.

prosecution: and you were working the evening of january 14th?

vestergaard: i was. started at four, worked the close.

prosecution: did you see erik bredahl that evening?

vestergaard: yes. he came in around six. maybe a little before. sat at the bar.

prosecution: was he alone?

vestergaard: yes. alone the whole time.

prosecution: can you describe his demeanor when he arrived?

vestergaard: normal, i’d say. maybe a bit… wound up? not in a bad way. like someone with something on their mind. he was friendly. said hello. ordered a pilsner.

prosecution: and what did he drink over the course of the evening?

vestergaard: he started with two pilsners. then switched to akvavit.

prosecution: how many akvavits?

vestergaard: four. i think four.

prosecution: you think?

vestergaard: it was a busy evening. i’m fairly certain it was four. could have been — no, four. four akvavits.

prosecution: over what period of time?

vestergaard: he was there maybe an hour and a half. left around half seven, a bit before eight.

prosecution: ms. vestergaard, you said when he arrived he seemed like he had something on his mind. did he talk about what was bothering him?

vestergaard: he did, a bit. he was — you know how some people get chatty after a couple of drinks? he was like that. not sloppy, just… open.

prosecution: what did he say?

vestergaard: he said he was about to do something he should have done a year ago. those were his words, roughly.

prosecution: did you ask him what he meant?

vestergaard: i said something like “oh yeah, what’s that?” and he said — i remember this — he said “burning a bridge.”

prosecution: burning a bridge.

vestergaard: yes.

prosecution: did he explain further?

vestergaard: no. and i didn’t push. you hear a lot of things behind a bar. people say dramatic things when they’re drinking. i thought he was… i don’t know, talking about quitting a job or ending a friendship. something like that.

prosecution: did he mention jens møller by name?

vestergaard: no. not that i recall.

prosecution: did he mention a business partner?

vestergaard: no. he didn’t get specific. it was just that one remark.

prosecution: you said he was there until roughly half past seven. what happened around that time?

vestergaard: he got a phone call. his mobile rang and he answered it at the bar.

prosecution: did you hear any of the conversation?

vestergaard: no. it was noisy and i wasn’t standing right next to him. i saw him talking though.

prosecution: how long was the call?

vestergaard: short. two, three minutes maybe.

prosecution: and what did you observe after the call?

vestergaard: he changed. that’s the best way to put it. before the call he was chatty, loose, a bit dramatic. after the call he went quiet. he sort of hunched over the bar. didn’t talk to anyone.

prosecution: did he seem frightened?

vestergaard: i wouldn’t say frightened. more like… resolved? like whatever he’d been working up to, the call made it real. he ordered one more akvavit, drank it quickly, and paid.

prosecution: how did he pay?

vestergaard: cash. put it on the bar.

prosecution: did you notice anything about him physically at that point?

vestergaard: his hands were shaking a bit when he put the money down. but i mean — he’d been drinking for an hour and a half. that could have been the akvavit.

prosecution: or it could have been something else.

vestergaard: i suppose so.

prosecution: and then he left?

vestergaard: yes. he said goodnight. walked out. i assumed he was going home.

prosecution: you said his demeanor after the phone call was “resolved.” in your observation — and i understand you’re not a psychologist — did erik bredahl seem like a man who was afraid of where he was going?

vestergaard: no. he didn’t seem afraid. he seemed like a man who’d made up his mind about something.

prosecution: one more question, ms. vestergaard. when erik said he was about to “burn a bridge” — did he seem angry? vindictive?

vestergaard: no. more like… relieved, almost. like it had been weighing on him and he’d finally decided.

prosecution: not a man looking for a fight.

vestergaard: no. just a man who’d decided something.

prosecution: thank you, ms. vestergaard. no further questions.

the witness remains available for cross-examination by the defense.