Serial Predator and Murderer: The Rape of the Women in Copenhagen

Scandinavian Crimes (w/ Devante & Delila)

Year(s) of Incident: December 4th, 1992
Location: Copenhagen
Serial Predetor and Murderer: The Rape of Women The in Copenhagen
Victim(s):  3+
Method: Murder, Rape

The brutal and senseless murder of Rikke Hansen in 1992 Denmark left investigators struggling for answers, pushing forensic science to its limits. As time passed, advancements in technology paved the way for breakthroughs not only in Ree-kuh’s case but in other unsolved murders as well.

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
• 3:59 Story - The Murder and Investigation
• 7:33 Story - New Forensic Technology (Finding Suspect Frank Malmberg)
• 9:00 Story - Unsolved Murders and Lingering Doubts
• 10:18 Story - A New Lead to Find the Serial Predator
• 12:37 Discussion Section
• 24:54 Conclusion/Outro

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 welcome back to season four.

(...)

It's been it's really been four years. It's been four years. We're going on four years of doing this podcast and we have seen consistent growth. So it's actually really been this has just been an interesting experience. We've been getting a lot of interactions on YouTube as well. Comments and

exciting, exciting.

Yeah, it's exciting. It's fun to connect with more people and talk about crimes and stuff like that. So before I tell you about today's case and all that jazz,

(...)

we're going to kind of give you the rundown of how things are going to go for this season in particular.(...) And if you have any questions, obviously feel free to reach out to us, email us. But also specifically, you can leave kind of text messages on our bus route where you can send a message and we can respond in the podcast like this on a week to week basis.

(...)

So that's also an option. But either way, like I said, last week in the little snippet for the season four kind of announcement,(...) basically, we're going to be doing every other week for the podcast. It was exhausting, you know, because we have jobs and things you have to do.

You know, the projects and stuff.

Yes. So we'll just keep it pretty simple.(...) Now, also in the discussion session, we will also kind of go over parts of the case that we feel like if how would we solve it? And that's mostly because we recognize a pattern. And that's mostly when we cover these old cases. And you guys have noticed as well. A lot of these police officers in some of these cases are not doing what they're supposed to do or doing things that we logically would think is normal nowadays.

So we'll kind of just, you know, or like lack of technology or other things. Or like, you know, there could be a multiple different reasons or why the case failed.

Yeah. So we're going to go over, like, you know, based on what we know in present day knowledge, what would be our approach. And it will be part of the discussion session. So it's not going to change anything about the story. But just so you guys know, we can participate in that as well, just in case maybe I noticed something we did.

(...)

So that's just a rundown.(...) And so.

(...)

Now, I guess we can start to transition into our our case, right?

(...)

All right. So this case, I'm like, I get on the podcast voice.

(...)

So in this case, the census murder of Rika Hansen in 1992, Denmark left investigators struggling for answers, pushing forensic science to its limit.(...) As time passed, advancements in technology paved the way for breakthroughs, not only in Rika's case, but in other unsolved murders as well.

(...)

So you already know what I'm about to say and I'm about to do.(...) Grab your team, grab your snacks.(...) If you're on your way to work, tuck yourself into that nice little corner on the bus or train, put your headphones in real tight.

(...)

Because this is a story of the murder and rape of the woman in Copenhagen.

(...)

On the cold night of December 4th, 1992,(...) 19 year old Rika Hansen made her way home unaware she was about to walk into a nightmare. At approximately 1245 a.m., she was last seen entering her apartment complex in Avedora, a quiet residential area outside Copenhagen. The streets were mostly empty, but the streets were closed. The streets were mostly empty with only a few late night wanderers and residents still awake.(...) Just 15 minutes later, a 16 year old boy walking his dog near the complex stumbled upon something so disturbing that would haunt investigators for years to come.

(...)

When the police arrived at the scene, they were met with Rika's lifeless body.(...) She had been found in her apartment, stripped of clothing, a sign that suggested a possible sexual assault.

(...)

The brutality of the attack was immediately evident.(...) She had fought desperately for her life.(...) The room bore signs of violent struggle with overturned furniture and bloodstains marking the walls and floor.

(...)

For the detectives assigned to the case, it was one of the most brutal crimes they had encountered yet.(...) The police wasted no time in mobilizing their resources. They meticulously combed through the apartment, collecting evidence, taking photos and documenting every possible clue.

(...)

Among the evidence left behind was an incomplete bloody fingerprint.

(...)

Forensic science in the early 1990s was still limited, but was available.

(...)

The process and fingerprinting identification requires forensic experts to compare prints manually, examining every range and curve under extreme magnification.

(...)

It was a slow and exhausting process.

(...)

Determined,(...) authorities collected and examined over 55,000 fingerprints in hopes of finding a match, a task that consumed years of investigative work. It was the only real trace of a killer, yet without a match, it was meaningless.

(...)

Desperate for leads, investigators turned to the public.(...) They made decisions to release unaltered images from the crime scene, a move rarely taken in homicide cases.

(...)

They also produced a dramatic reconstruction of Rika's final moments, broadcasting it on television in hopes of igniting someone's memory.(...) The response was overwhelming.(...) The police hotline was flooded with calls, tips and theories from the public.(...) Some claimed to have seen suspicious figures near the apartment complex that night.(...) Others believe they had information about potential suspects. Yet despite this massive outpouring of information,(...) every lead led to a dead end.(...) Witness statements contradicted each other. Suspects were investigated and cleared, and the forensic evidence they had was simply not enough to identify the perpetrator.(...) The case that had initially seemed solvable became a frustrating mystery.

(...)

Once a top priority, the case gradually faded into the background, becoming just one of many unsolved murders. Despite investigators' relentless efforts, years passed without any breakthroughs, and the identity of Rika's killer remained a mystery.

(...)

As the years passed, forensic technology advanced.(...) By the late 1990s, Denmark's Central Bureau of Identification had adopted an automated fingerprint identification system, AFIS.

(...)

Unlike the manual process, this system allowed for quick and efficient fingerprint comparisons across a vast digital database.(...) It was a game changer in forensic investigation and for Rika's case.

(...)

Investigators reexamined the bloody fingerprint, hoping the new technology could provide a breakthrough.(...) Initially, the fingerprint was too smudged and incomplete to be completely useful. However, one forensic technician meticulously worked to reconstruct the missing sections of the fingerprint, carefully estimating what the complete print might have looked like. When the enhanced fingerprint was entered into the system, it generated a list of 30 possible matches.(...) Among them was a name that stood out, Frank Ole Mamburg,(...) a 33-year-old man who had lived in the same apartment complex as Rika at the time of the murder.

(...)

He had even been questioned in the initial stages of the investigation, however, without any substantial evidence linking him to the crime, he was dismissed as a potential suspect. Now, with the fingerprint match, police moved quickly and took Frank into custody. He was brought in for questioning and it wasn't long before he confessed to the murder.(...) In 1996, Frank was convicted of Rika's murder and sentenced to 16 years in prison. Though Frank's conviction closed Rika's case, it did not put an end to the investigators' concerns.

(...)

Several other women had been brutally murdered in Copenhagen around the same time. Their case is still unsolved. The similarities between the cases were impossible to overlook and the question remained. Had Frank claimed more victims or was another murderer still in the loose?(...) Among the victims were Anna, a woman who had been killed in central Copenhagen, and Annette, whose lifeless body had been found on Amager. Then there was Lena, discovered deep within the Fassan forest.

(...)

Each case carried the hallmarks of extreme violence, a sense of desperation in the victims' final moments, and a complete lack of leads that could point to a suspect.(...) The grim discoveries continued, adding to the growing list of unsolved cases. In 1997, authorities uncovered the skeletal remains of 23-year-old Bettina, retrieved from an abandoned well years after she had gone missing.

(...)

For years, the files have been unsolved and cases remain untouched.(...) There are victims left without justice, but in 2010, nearly two decades after the murders, a single piece of evidence would reignite the hunt for a killer who had avoided authorities for far too long.

(...)

In September 2010, a woman reported a rape to the police and forensic investigators collected DNA evidence, a condom containing the perpetrator's semen. When analyzed, the DNA profile was the exact match to the biological evidence left in the 1990 murder of Lena, proving that her serial killer was still out there. Further analysis of the DNA evidence linked him to two additional rapes, strengthening the case that they were dealing with a serial predator. With the new information, investigators needed to act quickly before he struck again. The country's DNA registry only contained profiles of individuals convicted of serious crimes, carrying sentences longer than one and a half years. If this man had never been caught for an offense severe enough to warrant DNA collection, his profile would never have been entered. He could have spent years committing crimes while completely avoiding detection.

(...)

Desperate for answers, investigators turned to the public.

(...)

They issued an appeal urging anyone with knowledge of Lena's murder or any other suspicious activity to come forward. The response was overwhelming. Hundreds of tips poured out, but one in particular stood out, a witness reculting an old schoolmate in Fassan Forest around the time of Lena's murder.

(...)

The police acted quickly and arrested the suspect, Marcell Lysgaard Henson.

(...)

His DNA was tested and the results were undeniable. His profile was a perfect match to the DNA found on Lena, as well as two other rape cases.(...) Marcell was charged with multiple crimes and in court he was sentenced to life in prison.(...) While the conviction of Marcell closed, five murders from the early 1990s remained unsolved.(...) In three of those cases, DNA evidence was collected but has yet to be matched to a suspect.(...) For investigators, the passage of time makes solving these cases increasingly difficult.

(...)

Witnesses forget details, evidence degrades, and leads grow cold. Yet forensic advance continued to help provide hope.(...) DNA technology now allows experts to determine characteristics such as hair color, eye color, ethnicity, and even approximate age of the suspect.(...) With the new development, there remains a possibility that these cases, like Rika and Lena's, will one day be solved.

(...)

Before we start with the discussion, I just want to clarify that there are multiple cases in this story. The first case with Rika is Frank. They connected that it was him.

(...)

And then for the other cases, they ended up finding years later that it was Marcell who was for the three rape cases. But because they couldn't really know if it was the same serial predator or if it was multiple different ones.

(...)

They had to basically because they all looked the same and the motive like everything looked the same for each victim.(...) So they thought that it was the same person, but it wasn't. So that's why this case is a little different than the other ones.

Yeah. So now that we know all that officially,

(...)

kind of remember, I said in the beginning, we're going to try and kind of dissect a little bit of the investigation now. To be honest, this case did not have an overwhelming amount of detail in terms of the investigation, but I don't know. I feel at least me specifically, we're still going to dissect it. And obviously some cases will have more details than others. Just so you know.

(...)

But I am going to ask you one question because I know you're the one who obviously wrote the script and so does the rest of the audience. Did they mention anything about cameras of any sort for I know, like, for example, in the forest, they wouldn't have cameras, right?

(...)

But for the first for the other rapes, because this is the 1990s and there still was some level of cameras,

(...)

you know, they weren't the highest qualities.

I think it was a luxury thing compared to nowadays, like almost every it's everywhere.(...) So I think it was a luxury thing. And also based on the information that we received,

(...)

it was it seemed like there was a lack of technology in general when it comes to like forensic and everything. So I think technology wise,(...) Scandinavian general was a little behind compared to I think the States because you guys already had the fingerprint thing.

Yeah, but that's also because I feel like crime was far more rampant, larger population size as well.

(...)

But most of the things was incorporated later, apparently. So I would say even cameras was a luxury thing. Only like the richest places or restaurants or hotels had cameras because they had something to protect or jewelry or you know,(...) so I don't think so.(...) But it was really clarified.

(...)

And also even for the first of the rape that initially came out to be Frank, they didn't even mention doing a rape kit for the first one. He just he outright confessed, correct, if I remember correctly.

Yeah, Frank

does remember they didn't mention anything about like doing a rape kit for him or he just confessed, if I remember correctly.

(...)

I don't know. He didn't. He didn't. I don't think he confessed. I think they.

(...)

He confessed. Hold on.

What the fuck?

(...)

Why is he doing this?

(...)

OK,

(...)

he did confess to the murder. Sorry. Yes, you're right. You're right. I found it. OK,

so he confessed to the murders, but I don't remember.(...) And I'm saying this, like, obviously we just read it, but clearly, but I don't remember them like even attempting to do a rape kit or anything like that.

So rape kit

essentially in the US when anyone gets sexually assaulted, rape stuff like that, I'm pretty sure you've seen law and order, right? They take a rape kit, so they'll swab the area that's been assaulted.

(...)

And then they go to the hospital.

(...) Because then they'll be able to tell like, oh, was this person wearing a condom if they weren't, you know, was it some form of tearing? They'll pull DNA and they can obviously separate it from the victim.

I think that's a new thing to do.

I'm pretty sure rape kits existed back then.

But they didn't even have any way to analyze DNA in that.

Well, I guess I know they didn't really have a full blown way of analyzing DNA as well as nowadays. But a rape kit would at least indicate, like, at least the DNA would have been on

a survey. I don't think they took a rape.(...) That's like, I don't think they did that much of a investigative thing when it comes to rape.

That's what I think is the issue when

it comes to-- I think it was normalized, like, oh, yeah, it sucks. And then they just never did anything until like, even today, they minimize rape victims. They're better, but it's still very-- Because

I even noticed they didn't really take the DNA of the other girls until they realized it was potentially a pattern. They saw a pattern.

So it wasn't like-- But they even saw the patterns in the 1990s.

Yeah, yeah, that's what I'm saying. So like, they took the--

(...)

when they found out these girls had been raped in a very similar manner and killed, they just happened to, you know, kind of collect the DNA in hopes, thinking that it might have been connected to the first murder. But it seemed like without the idea that it wasn't connected to the first murder, they might have not done it at all. So I guess that's what I was asking. But in this case, there wasn't a lot of information and also a lack of technology. And also, like Delilah mentioned in the US, things are different. You know, we had a lot more of that. It wasn't as what it was today, but we still had access to more stuff in the 90s compared to some other places.

(...)

Yeah. So you have to say? No,

I'm just like, I just hate these cases,

like, because I feel like now that we-- or now that I'm learning more about past cases, especially those prior to the 2000s, I see how it is better, but it's still a way to go when it comes to like rape in general and how they deal with treating rape victims and-- or victims of rape. And-- or sexual assault.(...) So it's a bit triggering for me. I don't like it. But I think it's interesting how with the technology improvement, they were able to actually, even though it was years later, they were still able to at least get Marcel.

(...)

Yeah.

(...)

And I think that's, you know,

(...)

they some-- even though they couldn't really analyze it, they still saved the DNA and the information of those cases. You know, cold cases in itself is just like hard to solve. So them saving bits and pieces actually helped to get him. And I'm so happy for that.

Yeah.

At least I'm glad they-- I can agree. I'm glad they saved it. But it's just kind of crazy, you know, like, because of technology and there still isn't a ton of DNA on the investigative process. So I can't really say who was at fault when it comes to investigations.

Yeah, we don't have enough information to know. But to me, it sounds like it was the lack of technology because they were-- they actually put so much manpower on the fingerprint thing, for example, how they were just fighting for the life to just like analyze that fingerprint. But, you know, they didn't have the technology back then.

Yeah. And even then, you know, it seemed not even seemed it basically was immobilized quickly. They did everything they could. They tried to tie to other things once they felt like there was a pattern. So it seemed like at least they were competent and trying to do the right thing. But it was just, you know, it was a wrong place for, you know, it was a wrong place, wrong time situation where so much effort, lack of technology. And they had to literally wait 20 years just to get, you know, conviction because technology allowed them to find who it was.(...) So, yeah, I mean, it sucks, you know.

You know, I wanted to like, talk about this whole like, I actually saw a lecture, or not a lecture, but it was like a little trailer of a woman talking about like, who would be the offenders in serial predator thing, you know.

(...)

And she was saying it was oftentimes ordinary looking white men.

(...)

And I was just like, how can serial offenders or like predators be able to avoid all this? And it's all because they just look like any other person.

(...)

And it's scary because, you know, back then they were able to get away with a lot of things, you know.

(...)

And I think it's interesting how nowadays DNA is going to stop all that. They can't really act or be ordinary looking. They can still get away with some of it, but they, you know, you can't really deny DNA, you know.

(...)

Yeah, and also to cameras everywhere nowadays. Everyone has a camera. Everybody's holding a camera.

(...)

Cameras are part of everyone's building, ring cameras now and all that. So it's a lot harder to do that stuff and get away with it.

(...)

But still, the common theme in which a lot of these cases are happening is that they're usually unassuming on most cases, average looking white men.

(...)

So that just goes to show, like, you know, you hear these cases, you expect to see some things off. Even when we watch documentaries,(...) we assume like, you know, because we know what they did. We're going to look at them. But oh, yeah, they just look off. They look evil. That's because we know.

(...)

They pick the worst pictures.

But that's because we know what they did because now we're looking at it in hindsight. But during the time of these crimes, they just look like anybody else.

I think Ted Bundy is a good example of that. Oh, he's so charming. He looks so like normal.

He's a handsome man. And, you know, hey, like people did not expect this. So it really just shows it can be anyone, anywhere, anytime.(...) It doesn't matter.

(...)

They don't look like monsters. They look like me and you.

You know what this this case reminds me of? Departure Q.

(...)

Department Q? Department. What did I say?

Departure.

Whoa, I'm so sorry. The department Q about the whole unsolved cases and like how difficult it is to solve it and everything.

Yeah, mostly because leads and stuff they change or people die or they get old or they age out. It's impossible to solve every cold case. And also to practices for the police forces in those jurisdictions changed over time because, you know, back then, as we know, back in the 60s, 70s, 80s, even some cases in the 90s, the police is a damn new thing. And they're beat people to get confessions out of them. But then obviously anyone will say anything to stop being tortured.(...) So that became very obviously wrong, which is why that's not a practice we have. And that leads to false confessions. And that's also why cases

do to distress and stuff like that. It's not valid.

And that's also why we try to go back and resolve those cases once they figure out the person was innocent.

(...)

You can't because they never took the time to investigate anything else except beating the person they thought it was.(...) So, you know, it's impossible to solve a lot of these cases.

(...)

What do you think about the whole like that they were posting basically all these like imagery of the murder case to get like in some interest in from the public or help from the public?

I mean, I think it has both good and bad, you know, applications because I feel like there are people who are trying to be helpful and seeing an unaltered image can actually help them.

But isn't it very like...

But it can be graphic for sure.

And also very exposing to the victims and the families have to see that imagery.

I agree with all that. I think it can be all of those things, but it can help. But also it's a double-edged sword, like you said, has all those downsides. It's exposing. It's kind of degrading a little bit. The family probably might feel the type of way about it. And what makes it even worse...

Because when you publicize it, doesn't it mean that you actually take the like you can use that image like as a source for everybody to watch and see like it's for everybody to use.

Yeah. So that's why it can be a very taxing thing. But in some cases, it can be helpful because then let's say there's a small... I'm just giving an example. This wasn't the case in this situation.(...) But let's say the person had a small tattoo on their inner thigh.

(...)

Obviously, your inner thigh is a very private area unless you know you're spreading your legs up for everybody to see. But that's a very private, intimate area. Now, what if you had an ex-partner? Oh, I know who that woman is.

(...)

Because they can

recognize and identify parts of her body that maybe her face is so mutilated that no one can tell. But then I knew a girlfriend who had that mark because we used to date. And then they can identify someone and then the trail can start because he dated her. She used to live here. They find out all this person hasn't been back home in a week. Now they can figure out she's missing. This is who they are. Then it can start the investigation from knowing her identity. So situations, it can help.

But I just feel like they don't do that anymore. Because maybe they have enough experience in technology. I think they don't have to anymore.

It's just simply they don't have to anymore. And also people are weird.

I mean, they do the public, like the image of the suspects.

(...)

Yeah, but they'll get like that's about it as far as it goes. Because nowadays, you know, we have the technology that we can circumvent it. We don't need it per se.(...) And also there are some weirdos online. It's not even just the people who commit these crimes. The people who are watching can be very weird.

(...)

And some people will call in just for the thrill of I want to feel like I'm part of the investigation or factuations can start with people who are victims.(...) So just weirdos. But I mean, that's all I how I feel about this case so far. So I think at least based on what we've seen in red, the police did what they could with what they had. Yes. So I'll give them a pass in this case. But I don't know about the next case because

who are you to say if they can be passed through?

Are you?

(...)

I could be honest that some police officers don't do enough. We've had cases like that where they didn't do enough. Those too many poor choices made.

I think they could have been biases with the whole like, I believe they could have been biases. The reason why some of the perpetrators were able to get away like Frank in the beginning, because there was nothing to time him with. And he looks at the bias.

There's just no proof. The thing is, I don't consider that a bias.

And there could also have been like multiple issues and not only the same.

(...)

Yeah, but I don't get me personally, just to kind of wrap up the discussion. I don't think it's a I don't think it was a bias. There's nothing tying him. Of course, they wouldn't really look into him if there's nothing tying him. That's just simple investigation.

(...)

But I will say this.

(...)

So far, we read it seems like they did okay. If anything changes, my opinion will change.

They did the best they could.

Right. So, of course, per usual, we have to end the episode on a good note. We do this by talking about foods that we like and we enjoy that we have a craving for.(...) So, of course, ladies first, what do you have in mind?

(...)

Honestly, the ramen that we had like yesterday with

like pork slices and like, it was so good.

It was good. Thick slices and it was a nice rainy day and it was like some veggies. It was really good. It was superb.

(...)

That's laps. So I'm going to agree with you on that one. I'm not going to be difficult. But let me know what you guys think about the particular case that we talked about today and other cases as well.

(...)

Once again, feel free to reach out via the little text message thing that shows up in the message bar when it comes up on Apple or Spotify. It's a little link that says text us if you have any opinions, we can add it to the episodes at the end and kind of communicate with you guys more. Don't be afraid to send emails, but preferably comment on the episodes. Leave us a nice review on YouTube. All that comment there. We appreciate it. We appreciate it. And we will definitely respond and have a dialogue with you guys far more frequently than we were able to in the past. So love you. I appreciate y'all.

Thank you guys for listening. Love you guys. Bye.