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

transcript of witness examination — peter nørgaard called by prosecution

prosecutor lærke holm: please state your name and profession for the record.

nørgaard: peter nørgaard. i’m an agricultural safety inspector with the danish working environment authority. i’ve held the position for eleven years.

prosecutor holm: and in that capacity, you inspected the silo at møllergården following the death of erik bredahl?

nørgaard: i did. i was called out on the morning of january 15th. i arrived at approximately 08:40 and spent roughly four hours on site.

prosecutor holm: let’s start with the platform itself. can you describe it for the court?

nørgaard: it’s a standard agricultural grain silo, cylindrical, roughly twelve meters from ground to platform level. there’s an external fixed ladder — vertical, steel rungs bolted to the silo wall — leading up to a narrow walkway platform at the top. the platform runs along the east and north sides. width is approximately 80 centimeters. there are — or were — safety railings on all sides, steel tube construction, about 110 centimeters high.

prosecutor holm: you said the platform is approximately 80 centimeters wide.

nørgaard: yes.

prosecutor holm: is that typical?

nørgaard: for silos of this age, yes. newer installations tend to be wider. but 80 centimeters meets the minimum requirements that were in effect when this silo was built. it would not meet current standards.

prosecutor holm: and the ladder — what is the angle of ascent?

nørgaard: it’s vertical. completely vertical, with a safety cage beginning at approximately three meters up.

prosecutor holm: now. the east-side railing. tell us what you found.

nørgaard: the east-side railing was broken. the upper horizontal rail had separated from the vertical post at the southeast corner. the break was at the weld joint. the post itself was still standing but the rail section — roughly 2.4 meters long — had come loose and was hanging at an angle, essentially leaving that entire side of the platform open.

prosecutor holm: open. meaning there was nothing between the platform edge and a twelve-meter fall.

nørgaard: correct.

prosecutor holm: what was your assessment of the cause of the break?

nørgaard: the weld joint showed significant metal fatigue. there was corrosion — rust — at the base of the post and along the lower rail. the break pattern was consistent with gradual structural failure over time. this railing didn’t snap suddenly. it had been deteriorating.

prosecutor holm: so the railing was already broken before the evening of january 14th?

nørgaard: in my assessment, yes. the degree of oxidation at the break point indicates it had been separated for some time. weeks at least. possibly longer.

prosecutor holm: and this broken railing was reported to the municipality. you’re aware of that?

nørgaard: yes. jens møller filed a report with ravnkær municipality on september 11th, 2025. approximately four months before the incident. the report was received and logged. no repair was scheduled.

prosecutor holm: so for four months, this railing was broken and the municipality did nothing?

nørgaard: the municipality has a backlog. i can’t speak to their internal prioritization.

prosecutor holm: but jens møller — the owner of the property — also did nothing in those four months to repair it himself or restrict access to the platform?

nørgaard: i saw no evidence of temporary barriers, warning signage, or any other measure to prevent access to the platform from the broken side. no.

prosecutor holm: mr. nørgaard, you mentioned the break pattern was consistent with gradual failure. but you also noted something else in your report. a fresh scratch at the break point.

nørgaard: yes. there was a scratch mark on the exposed metal at the break — approximately two to three centimeters in length. the scratch appeared more recent than the surrounding corrosion. the exposed metal underneath was brighter.

prosecutor holm: what could cause such a scratch?

nørgaard: several things. if someone applied force to the railing — leaned on it, pushed against it, tested it — that could leave a mark on already-corroded metal. it could also result from the railing shifting in wind after the break, metal rubbing against metal. i can’t say definitively.

prosecutor holm: but it was fresh. more recent than the original break.

nørgaard: the appearance was consistent with that, yes.

prosecutor holm: let’s discuss the platform floor. what did you observe?

nørgaard: the platform had a layer of grain dust. fine, dry particulate. fairly uniform coverage. within that dust, crime scene technicians had marked two visible impressions. one was a partial boot print — they measured it at size 44. it was near the center of the platform, oriented toward the east side. the broken side. the second was a smeared partial that could not be sized or identified.

prosecutor holm: you said the grain dust coverage was fairly uniform. what does that tell you about foot traffic on the platform?

nørgaard: it suggests the platform had not been heavily used in recent days or weeks. if people were regularly walking up there, you’d see more disturbance in the dust, more prints, scuff patterns. the limited impressions indicate infrequent access.

prosecutor holm: so when someone did go up there — it would show.

nørgaard: in those conditions, yes. dust like that holds impressions well.

prosecutor holm: and there was one clear boot print. size 44. oriented toward the broken railing.

nørgaard: that’s what the technicians documented, yes.

prosecutor holm: one last area, mr. nørgaard. the interior of the silo. the floor where erik bredahl was found.

nørgaard: the silo interior had a concrete base with residual grain. depth varied — roughly 10 to 15 centimeters in places. concentrated more toward the edges than the center.

prosecutor holm: enough to cushion a fall from twelve meters?

nørgaard: no. absolutely not. at that depth, you’re landing on concrete.

prosecutor holm: thank you, mr. nørgaard. no further questions at this time.

[transcript continues — witness remains available for cross-examination]