Serial Killer: The Conn(iey) Case

Scandinavian Crimes (w/ Devante & Delila)

Year(s) of Incident: August 1971
Location: Denmark
Serial Killer: The Conn(iey) Case
Victim(s):  2
Method: Murder, Serial Killer

Denmark had never faced a case like this before—a brutal series of murders that shocked the nation. The violence was extreme, and the investigation would change the way police approached solving crimes, putting a new focus on behavioral profiling.

Music from #Uppbeat (free for Creators!): 
https://uppbeat.io/t/adi-goldstein/blank-light 
License code: A1C1SZ12UFNPUARU 

Music from #Uppbeat ( free for Creators!): 
https://uppbeat.io/t/clemens-ruh/this-place-has-never-known-some-love 
License code: DZOFU4ELCVA6ZWEE 

Music from #Uppbeat (free for Creators!): 
https: //uppbeat.io/t/kevin-macleod/lightless-dawn 
License code: SNWCDIJUOPTFEHMK

Chapters

• 0:00 Introduction
• 2:33 Story
• 15:01 Discussion Section

Transcript

Welcome to "Scandinavian Crimes." My name is Devante and say hello to my lovely co-host, Delila.

Hi.

And on this podcast, we talk about famous Scandinavian criminals who made their mark throughout Scandinavian history.(...) So I wanted to fool you guys today because Delilah is gonna be the one reading, so.

No, I'm not, no, no. I'm not gonna read nothing.

Apparently she's self-conscious about reading.

(...)

Yes, I am. My voice is not that lovely. I don't like reading.

(...)

You should, reading is fun.

(...)

Either way, this is a case that Denmark had never faced before. A brutal series of murders that shocked the nation. The violence was so extreme and the investigation would change the way police approach solving crimes, putting a new focus on behavioral profiling.

(...)

So this is gonna be a very interesting case because this is like a very,(...) how can I describe it?

(...)

It's very targeted, but at the same time not targeted. I don't wanna ruin too much of it before we get into it. But I think I should really just lock in for this one because this is gonna be kinda weird a little bit.(...) You know, so I don't know. Maybe it's just me, I find this weird. Also, if you enjoy the podcast, be sure to give us a nice little review on whatever podcasting platform you're on. It'll really mean a lot. And also if you have any ideas or you wanna respond to the podcast, especially from Spotify, feel free to leave us a comment in the how'd you enjoy the episode section thing. And we will definitely check it out. So you already know what I'm about to say, right? Especially if you've been here before, come on now, stop playing with me.

(...)

Grab your tea, grab your snacks. If you're on your way to work, tuck yourself into that nice little corner, especially for the train on the bus because this is the story of the Connie Murders.

(...)

On a warm August evening in 1971, the courtyard on Fensmark's Gedith in Nurebro was filled with children's laughter enjoying the last moments of daylight.(...) Among them was the eight-year-old Connie playing alongside her younger brother and their friends.

(...)

At some point, a man entered the courtyard. He walked up to Connie, asked for her name, and claimed to have a message from a woman in the building(...) without hesitation, she followed him toward the entrance number 41.

(...)

As time passed, the other children began to wonder where Connie had gone.(...) Concerned, they made their way to the stairwell calling her name.

(...)

As they entered the building, their playful laughter faded into pure terror.

(...)

Meanwhile, police officers preparing for patrol received an urgent message. A serious incident had occurred on Fensmark's Gedith.

(...)

When officers arrived, they saw paramedics carrying a lifeless young girl, her body covered in stab wounds.

(...)

Moments later, Connie's father arrived, devastated to realize his daughter was the victim. Upon arriving at the crime scene, investigators immediately noticed the blood stains confirming it was the murder site. The murder of Connie was unimaginably brutal. She had been stabbed a total of 33 times and her throat was slit.

(...)

Typically, most crimes have clear motives, especially when children are involved,(...) often pointing to sexual assault.

(...)

However, in Connie's case, there was no signs of sexual violence leaving police to wonder why was she targeted?

(...)

The sheer number of stab wounds exposed the killer's uncontrollable rage and aggression, suggesting this was more than just a random act of violence. The police quickly began questioning the children who had been playing in the courtyard.(...) Several mentioned seeing a man around 30 years old with black hair and distinctive glasses.

(...)

They also noticed a dark stain on his pants near the crotch area.

(...)

He was last seen riding away in a mustard-colored bicycle.

(...)

Another witness, a young woman, came forward stating that she had seen the man outside the apartment complex as if searching for something.

(...)

He looked towards entrance 41 and then glanced into the courtyard, which made her believe he was looking for someone. She described him as having cold-piercing eyes, greasy, unkempt hair, and estimated his age to be around 50. The description did not match the 30-year-old man seen by the children, suggesting there could be two different suspects.

(...)

Based on this, the police created a composite sketch of the suspect.

(...)

During the 1960s to early 1980s, Danish police sometimes used composite sketches

(...)

based on witness descriptions, hoping the public could offer tips.

(...)

The strategy initially generated interest with police reporting around 100 new tips in a single day.

(...)

However, despite the wave of responses,(...) none of the tips led to a breakthrough. One issue with composite sketches is they are often based on a single witness's memory, which may not always be accurate. The description might match the perpetrator, but it could just as easily be of an innocent bystander.(...) In this case, the composite sketch failed to produce any useful leads, and the case eventually went cold.

(...)

Three months after Connie's murder, a 20-year-old man was arrested for a stabbing attack. He had tried to force his way into an apartment, injuring a woman in the process.(...) As the police investigated, they discovered that he lived in the same building as Connie.

(...)

Identifying him as Klaus Kai Bergeron. Despite being 20 years old and looking nothing like the composite sketch, the police brought him in for questioning. Klaus claimed he doesn't remember his exact whereabouts on the day of Connie's murder, but says he left work at 4.30 p.m. and went straight to the bar with his coworkers.

(...)

He also mentions that a drink was spilled on him at the bar, explaining the dark stain on his pants near the crotch. However, when police questioned his fiancee and her mother, they provided a different story.(...) They confirmed that Klaus had returned from the bar, but never mentioned the spilled drink. Instead, he had told them that he had been in a fight with a foreign worker and used a finished knife, which he always carried in his boot. They claimed the blood stains on his pants were from the injured man, not a spilled drink. This inconsistency, racist missions, and just as investigators seem to close in on a breakthrough, several of his coworkers provided an alibi. They insisted that Klaus was with them when emergency vehicles already arrived at the crime scene, meaning he couldn't have been the murderer.(...) With no concrete evidence linking Klaus to Connie's murder, the case stalls again, and the investigation is shelved. Five years later, a brutal murder occurs in Randers. A 15-year-old girl named Connie, spelled with an I.E., was stabbed 36 times in a basement laundry room.

(...)

To avoid confusion, we refer to her as Con. Police believe Con initially tried to escape,(...) running toward the basement restroom where the struggle took place.(...) She attempted to flee again, leaving a 35-meter trail of blood, but her attacker wearing clogs chased her down and stabbed her 36 times before slitting her throat.

(...)

The sheer brutality of the crime leads the Danish National Homicide Unit to be called in.

(...)

The blood trail led investigators to Stairwell 103,(...) prompting them to question the building's residence.(...) Suspicion quickly fell on a man who admitted to seeing Con and her sister in the basement laundry room shortly before the murder.(...) When asked about his whereabouts during the crime, he hesitated, unable to provide a clear alibi.

(...)

One of the detectives recognized his name, and when they pulled up his criminal record, it was revealed to be Klaus, the suspect and the unsolved murder of the eight-year-old Connie five years earlier.

(...)

During questioning, Detective notice fresh scratches on Klaus's face. He claimed he had slipped in the shower while wearing glasses, which cut his face.(...) The officers were skeptical, but Klaus insisted it was common, even claiming to have a photo as proof, but his explanation only raised more suspicion. Recently, Klaus had moved to Randers with his pregnant wife, who was hospitalized in Copenhagen due to complications.(...) When questioned, he told police that on the day of the murder, he traveled from Copenhagen to Randers, arriving around 1 p.m. He claimed he spent an afternoon drinking at home, only leaving at 5 p.m. to buy food and more beer. When he returned, he said he encountered a woman outside the building asking her about the emergency vehicles. She told him a young girl had been murdered in the basement.

(...)

After that, he simply went back upstairs, showered and ate his food.

(...)

However, Klaus's story didn't add up to the other neighbors' stories.(...) Two women later told police they had spoken to him exactly 5 p.m., the same time he claimed to be out buying food and beer.

(...)

Even more troubling, he had mentioned the girl's murder before the police had even arrived, knowing details no one else should have known at the time.

(...)

As suspicion grew, search Klaus's apartment and found a disturbing collection of stolen items. While none directly linked to Kahn's murder, they were all enough to charge him with the theft and possession of stolen goods. This gave investigators more time, but they knew they had to move quickly. Without solid proof, Klaus could walk free.

(...)

As the investigation progressed, police received an unexpected call from Klaus's wife, Yani.(...) After reading about the murder, she began to suspect her husband. When asked if they could search her apartment again, she agreed without any hesitation.

(...)

During the search, Yani pointed out unsettling details, rags under the sink that looked like they had been used for cleaning, an unusual number of towels in the laundry as if Klaus had been showering excessively.

(...)

But the most disturbing discovery was a missing kitchen knife. She informed the officers that they had previously owned a cucumber knife, but it has now gone missing.

(...)

Determined to find solid evidence, they carefully searched the apartment uncovering bloodstain rags and a pair of Klaus's clogs, both with traces of blood, but the knife was still nowhere to be found.

(...)

They conducted one last thorough search of the apartment, which was now nearly empty except for a bolted down shelf.

(...)

After much effort, they pried it loose, revealing a blood-covered knife beneath,

(...)

with Klaus's fingerprints and Khan's blood on it. This discovery was all the evidence they needed to close the case.

(...)

Klaus finally broke. His voice was strained and as he muttered that it must have been him who committed the crime, though he remembered nothing. He admitted that on the day of the murder, he had encountered Khan in the basement of the Randall's apartment complex and even recalled grabbing hold of her.(...) But when asked if he stabbed her, his memory faltered and he claimed he didn't remember. Following his confused confession, investigators turned their attention to the unsolved case from 1971, the brutal stabbing of Connie and Copenhagen.

(...)

Now with his conviction for the Randall's murder, police reopened the investigation.(...) At first, Klaus's colleagues provided him with an alibi, stating that he had been with them at the bar when the emergency vehicles rushed past toward the crime scene.(...) However, when the police reexamined the timeline, they uncovered a critical detail.(...) There had been two separate emergency responses that evening. His colleagues had only been with him during the second incident, not the initial response to Connie's murder. With this revelation, Klaus's alibi completely fell apart.

(...)

Despite the mounting evidence, Klaus remained evasive. When questioned about the murder of Connie, he admitted only to seeing her that day, walking with her to the stairwell and entering the building with her. But when asked about what happened inside, his memory became hazy.

(...)

He acknowledged being there, but refused to take full responsibility, repeatedly insisting that everything was a blur. As investigators dug deeper into Klaus's criminal record, they uncovered a disturbing connection. Before Klaus became a suspect in the 1971 murder, he had been involved in a violent altercation with the mother of a woman he had been obsessed with.

(...)

The woman had repeatedly rejected him and her name was Connie.

(...)

This suggested a possible psychological trigger that he might have sought revenge by targeting girls with the same name. After an extensive trial, Klaus was sentenced to life in prison. While in prison, experts studied his behavior.(...) He admitted that alcohol fueled his violent urges, describing him as calm and rational when sober. It was suggested that if he remained sober, he might be safe for release.

(...)

Authorities granted Klaus parole on two separate occasions, but each decision ended in failure.(...) Shortly after his release, he sexually assaulted underage girls, demonstrating that he continued to pose a threat to society.(...) As a result, he was sent back to prison indefinitely, where he remained until 2002.

(...)

That year, he was diagnosed with terminal cancer and ultimately died in prison, never regaining his freedom.

(...)

This case influenced investigative techniques, techniques in Denmark, leading to stronger focus on criminal behavior analysis. It helped police distinguish between modus operandi, the necessary steps to commit a crime and a serial killer signature, the personal compulsive elements added by choice. Today, behavioral profiling is a key tool in modern investigations, allowing authorities to identify serial offenders more effectively before they strike again.

(...) (Soft Music)

(...)

This is interesting because the second, even before we did the recording, the second I read what was going on, I had a feeling that his attachment to the name Connie was based on a trigger from a previous encounter.

(...)

And they pretty much got to the root cause of it, is because he was obsessed with this one girl,

(...)

and because that one girl did give him what he wanted.

And she rejected him and then he became manic and it was a trigger, that's crazy.

Yeah, it became a trigger for him because this one girl denied him that he was obsessed with. So instead of being a rational person and, okay, she denied me whatever, leave it alone, his mind was like, I need to get even.

It was like a trauma response to that or something.

(...)

So instead of just getting even with the girl that rejected him, which I'm not encouraging, obviously I'm not saying that's right, but I'm saying instead of targeting the person itself, he targeted everyone who reminded him of her.(...) And it's just crazy because stuff like this does happen. There are a lot of cases like this. I think even in law and order, no, no, no, it was,

(...)

what's the name of that show?(...) With FBI agents, no, not X-Files. It's the other one that's been on for 20 years, 21 years, something like that. With the FBI profilers,

(...)

criminal minds.

No, yeah.

(...)

They had like a couple episodes where people were like that where certain things would trigger them, not because they themselves were the trigger, but because of something they experienced previously triggered their trauma and they reacted violently towards it. So I just found that.

I think this is like the first like murder where we had somebody who was like triggered by, like only killing people with the same name.

(...)

But also, it was a very clear like target and also for the police to be like, okay, all these women's like girls as well, because some of them were just children,

(...)

they were Connie and they were like, that's a super good sign, especially for somebody who's like a serial killer, Tennessee.

(...)

Yeah, it's even crazier too. Like there was no age limit on it. So like even children who were named Connie, he was just like, I wanna take this person out. So it seemed like it didn't matter how old they were, what they looked like, he was just like Connie.(...) The name locked him in to just that thought, that trauma.

(...)

Do you think that he actually did remember everything that happened? And it wasn't like a, because you know how triggers can also lead you to be like psychotic sometimes?

(...)

Do you feel like this could be like a psychotic thing or do you feel like he remembers and he knew what he did?

(...) And he just like- I think he remembers.

I think so too.

I'm pretty confident he remembers. I think what he was trying to kind of partially cover his ass, which didn't work out obviously.

(...) I have proof that I have glasses in the shower. Like what?

He was trying to partially cover his ass because he was aware, because the thing is, when he confessed, he was like, it might've been me, versus why didn't you say that the first time?

Why didn't you say that the first time? Why did you say that they found the knife?

So when they had information on him, yeah, when they had information on him, when they had the evidence, that's when he was like, maybe it was me. And I'm just like, so he knew, he was aware.

The thing is, the alcohol did cause him to black out. Did you stab her? He was like, I don't know, I don't remember.

He didn't want to completely admit to it. And that's usually for legal reasons.

(...)

Obviously. Because you know, there's wiggle room in like a case when you go in trial. Like, oh, the person ever admitted to it. You just found the knife. Cause then now it leaves room to spin another story. Cause then he can blame his wife. I'm just giving an example, by the way. I'm not saying he did do that. But it gives opportunity to like, oh, my wife did it. You know, we live in the same house. She could have hid it. We use the same knives that the knife is from the house. Of course my fingerprints would be on it. I use a knife.(...) So there's wiggle room for that. That's usually why they don't admit it. Cause he knew what he was doing.

But he was able to get away with it because he was,(...) like I don't even know how he was able to, like he left the first murder with Connie.

(...)

It was because he overlooked that small detail, remember?

Yeah, but like I'm just saying that, was it because he left the party and the coworkers only heard the first emergency car?

(...) It was that detail that was overlooked.

Cause I was, I didn't understand when I was writing it, if it was like he left and came back, or if it was that he was like, okay, bye peeps. And then he left and then he committed the murder.

(...)

And then they, big coworkers just confused

(...)

like which emergency car they meant.

(...)

No, that's literally what happened. They confused the situation because there was an emergency response twice.

(...)

And then he was only with them for one of them.(...) And then after he was with them.

He was just lucky basically.

He was lucky the first time because if they didn't overlook that detail the first time, they would have caught him the first time. But because I guess the initial investigators.(...) Yeah,(...) the first investigators didn't realize that there was two emergency responses. So they just assumed that it was one. So now in hindsight, when they rechecked everything, oh, there was two. And that's how he got away the first time over a small detail like that.

I just wanted to say something that I thought was very good for the police. It was that they were able to put two and two together and be like, oh, he was a suspect of this one.

(...)

And then I'm so glad that they were also like,

(...)

because they didn't have enough evidence to actually charge him of murder, they were like, well, we see you have stolen goods. We could detain you for that so that they can keep him detained.(...) But remember a couple of cases ago, they couldn't do that. And we were like, oh my God, because like.

I think I said that too. I was like, I think in one of the discussions, I was like, that's how they caught one of the Italian mob bosses back in the day in the US. They caught him on parking tickets, unpaid parking tickets. And then that legally does allow them to do other things within a certain timeframe.

(...)

So I was like, they did the right thing. Oh, you have people's stuff here. You're a thief. We can charge you for that. We can hold you for that. So then they do that. Then it gives them more time to lead into something else. So I was like, that's actually smart. And they did the right thing here.

And I thought it was really smart because you can legally do that. And I was like, I just remember a couple of cases ago,

(...)

about the, I can't even remember what case it was, but it was like something similar. And they couldn't really put him, they couldn't detain him. And then he got away and the victim, it was just like a mess. And it could have been so much easier if they were able to just properly do it. And I'm so glad that they were smart about it and was able, in this case, and were able to detain him for the theft. And then they're like, yeah, we found everything. And the wife, oh my God, thank you.(...) The wife saved the day. Who was like, yeah, they see something's off.

Yeah, she did the right thing. She had tried to cover for him. She did not try and cover for him. She was like, look, I've noticed it's been off. The fact that he's been in both locations,

(...)

but also too, I remember that one case we did where that one guy was really unlucky,

(...)

where remember the track star? Yeah, it's really messed up. I'm not laughing because it's funny. I'm like laughing because like, when you think about it in hindsight, yeah, we remember how bad it was for him where he, I don't know if he was innocent or not, but that was pure, unluck. He actually ended up in two different locations where two different murders happened where he was. And it seemed like he didn't have anything to do with either of them, but because he just happened to be there, I was like, that was pure, unluck. And in this case, it's the same thing, but you know it's him because the wife's in the shimout. So I think that's the one detail that makes a difference is the wife.

The wife, but also he wasn't really good with this alibi the second time either.(...) For some reason that he was talking to the neighbors or the women or the other witnesses and seeing details of the case before even the police was there, to me that just sounds like why, I don't know. He didn't know what he did afterwards, I feel like. And I think he knew and he was fully like in control of what he did.

(...)

And he just probably was triggered by the name and just killed and you know, he knew what he was doing.

I absolutely agree, I agree.

(...)

That's what I feel at least. That's my opinion from the details we have received from this document.

(...)

Yeah.

(...)

I agree.

(...)

But yeah, I don't know. I don't have too much to say about it because I feel like because of the second, the second they called him the second time, they kind of pretty much wrapped up the details. They got the knife, they got the evidence they needed. They got the DNA,

(...)

fingerprints. They pretty much had it like open and closed, like pretty much.

I just thought it was weird though that the kids(...) and the neighbor were like, yeah, I think he was 50 and the kids were like, oh, probably 30. And then the sketch was like super off and like,

(...)

I thought that was a bit weird.

Especially because both times he lived in a building too. That was what was extra weird. What I think too is just,

(...)

and I think this is what's possible in both cases. Some kids have no conception of age.

They don't know. They're like, oh, an elderly person.

Funny thing is the kids said he was 30. So I'm like, they put him younger. That's what I'm saying. But then the person who was an adult was like, no, he's 50.(...) So I'm like, either one of two things, either the kids think all 50 year olds look like 30 year olds in terms of, once you're 30 you're old. Right. Right? So the kids, what was he 20?

Like 26?

I don't even know. I think he was closer to the kids age. So I was like, the kids got it right more than the adult, which means the adult wasn't paying attention, but the kids were.

(...)

Yeah.

(...)

So.

But I mean, they could see his face a lot better than the person though, the woman.

Yeah.

(...)

So that's mostly what it was. Just, that's also why eyewitness testimony is just not reliable. Because people say one thing, you think you would trust the adult more, but then they completely got it wrong. Because someone being in their 20s or even early 30s is different from someone being 50. You're looking for a totally different person.

(...) Yeah, I was like, whoa, 50?

(...)

They even thought it was two people involved. That could be very misleading. And I'm glad they didn't think that.

Exactly.

(...)

So, good job second time around.

Good job, Lease.

(...) At least didn't go on for like 10 years. I think it was only like five. And it was only because of a small detail that, you know, they didn't catch the first time, which it happens, but hey, you got him. He's off the street.(...) I, the only thing questionable was releasing him the first two times.

The parole thing.

The parole thing that should have not happened.(...) Because you can, I know, like I believe in change.

(...)

I don't trust anybody. That's me being American, but I don't know. Like I think that was dope.

But you should before let you think parole is a good thing for, especially for people who have a tendency of like, I think for very specific. Men total problems and stuff.

(...) Yeah, for very specific people and reasons.

I think so. I mean, he had triggers. He could have been healed by therapy and stuff.

I doubt that for some reason. I don't know.

(...)

He was a psychopath?

(...) He, they found out quickly, he was a tight person. He just didn't let it go. He didn't want to let it go. This was something, if he was actively showing positive progress in prison, the only thing they said was, before we wrap up is like, as long as he avoids alcohol, the triggers won't happen. Not really. The, like,(...) truthfully, I think that alcohol was an excuse for him to do that. He would do it sober. And after he was on parole, he did it anyway. The alcohol was never a problem. And also he was a predator, so it's like, Yeah, the alcohol was never a problem. It was simply just because he wanted to.(...) And I think that's what the confusion was. That's my personal take on it though, so. But either way, we'd like to end the episode on a really good note. And usually that involves delicious foods and vibes. So Delilah, what do you have in mind?

(...)

I don't know, man. Like, it's your turn. I don't know. I actually have no cravings. Water,(...) like really refreshing cold water. That's what I want right now.

Do you want some Saratoga water?

(...) I want like the water from the river of Norway's like mountains. Like, I want that clear. I'm so done. Listen, that water is fire. You have never tried real water if you don't go through Norway. Water is not fire.

Water is water.

Okay, oh my God, fuck it.

(...) (Laughing)

I'm just saying that like, if y'all wanna drink real water, go to Norway. Go up to the north of Norway, to the mountains, and just drink like from those little rivers.

(...)

That's just like, and it's really good water. It's a good quality water. It has a lot of minerals. And why am I promoting this? I don't fucking know. Yeah, I don't know.

You went super deep into this for no reason. It's just so good, okay. Or you want water from Norway. Okay. Okay, okay. Yeah, yeah, okay. What I would like is some tres leche.

(...)

Okay.

(...)

Very good.(...) What? I'm not giving you an Etsy, would you? Anyways, if you enjoyed the episode, once again, please be sure to give us a nice little review on whatever platform you're listening to us on. And we shall catch you next week. And we're actually approaching the end of the season pretty soon.(...) So, you know.

Not really, we're in April now.

(...)

We in like in June.

(...)

That means only eight episodes left.

(...)

Wait a minute, that's true. I'm calculating like a fucker. Okay, yeah, you're right. That's true.

(...)

So, love you guys and stay safe out there. And children, if you just by happenstance be listening to this, do not go with strangers,

(...)

okay? Even if they know your name.

(...)

Have a great day, stay safe. And we shall catch you all next week.(...) May. Peace out.