The judge thought it was pre-meditated. He had extra tools on board of the sub, that usually stayed in his workshop. He had also contacted multiple women in the time up to the killing, asking them to go on a trip with him in the sub. The day before he killed, maimed, and dismembered Kim, he watched a genuine snuff film, on his computer, showing a woman getting killed.

He is up to something like three or four different explanations for an accident, and they have all been refuted by experts. Also his psyc evaluation concluded that he is a danger for others.

I'm sorry but I find your apologetic tone uncomfortable.

Ah, I seem to be very behind on the news coverage then! I didn't know about all that.

I remember it being unclear in the first week or two whether it had been an accident or not, followed by some sketchy details that implied it might have been a cover up. I have not heard much since.

Thanks for the heads up, I of course don't mean to be apologetic at all for the crime, I was surprised at what seemed to be a significant change from the direction the case had been progressing, but this sounds like I was misinformed.

The "accidental" explanations all sounded pretty implausible in the first place. She hit her head and he claims he thought the best thing to do was cut her up and try to hide the body.

There is evidence that it was premeditated. From the article:

> They [the jury] heard how he had joked about “a murder plan” involving tying up a woman on his submarine and slitting their throat with a knife in a set of messages sent to a friend, which he had subsequently tried to delete.

Ah yes, I am behind on news coverage. I was following the BBC who don't seem to have covered all the details. Sounds fairly conclusive then!

Considering he mentioned wanting to do exactly what he did (slit a woman's throat and kill her on his sub) before he ever met wall. I would go with it was premeditated. "They heard how he had joked about “a murder plan” involving tying up a woman on his submarine and slitting their throat with a knife in a set of messages sent to a friend, which he had subsequently tried to delete." Note, he tried to delete these.

He also changed his story multiple times. Beginning with dropping her off on shore alive, to dropping a hatch on her head and finally carbon-monoxide poisoning.

One of the reasons we don't have the full story is that Madsen has repeatedly lied about it, in ways that can be verified. The general drift of those lies has been to make it seem like an accident, so we can reasonably assume that the truth does not indicate that it was accidental.

Edit: Thanks to several people for pointing out large gaps in my knowledge of the case, sounds very much pre-meditated!