But it was impossible to put the name and face of the culprit. That one of the men had gunpowder particles on both hands only proved that he was close when the gun was fired.
The court said no to making the eight collectively responsible both for the murder and for having shot another man from Level in the legs. There was no evidence that participants knew firearms would be used.
Outside in the dark, the acquitted were received with loud shouts of cheering from acquaintances present, while a large number of officers stood ready to intervene.
The next day, two of the defenders talk about a very special case.
– It was a thoughtful end to a long and unusual course, says lawyer Janus Malcolm Pedersen.
– From a legal point of view, in my opinion, it is the right decision when there is no concrete information about who used the firearm, he says.
Lawyer Peter Trudsø was the defender of a 23-year-old man who was sitting at the wheel of his father’s BMW that night when two groups of clashes developed bloodily.
– I have never been in doubt that my client would be acquitted, he says.
As something quite unique in murder cases, six of the defendants were at large while the case was going on.
– It was far-reaching that the prosecution chose to maintain the indictment against all eight despite the fact that both a city court judge and three district judges had said that there was no basis for remanding six of them in custody. When both the city court and the high court do not want to remand a person charged with murder in custody, all warning lights should flash, says Peter Trudsø.
In his time, collective responsibility was also rejected in the case against the men in the Blekingegade gang. One of them had fired a shot during a robbery and killed police officer Jesper Eigtved Hansen in 1988.
But the comparison with the current case lags, the defenders believe.
– The case from Rungsted Strandvej is completely different. It was a sudden meeting of max three minutes. It exploded out of the blue, and there is no evidence that the individual knew that one was armed with a firearm, says Peter Trudsø.
The court also rejected the prosecution’s claim that the eight from Kokkedal constituted a criminal group within the meaning of the Criminal Code, and that the confrontation with the group from Nivå was planned in advance.
The defendants were largely silent. Moreover, witnesses from the Level group have been “very unbelievable” when they have said that only heard the shots and nothing so, the court states.
In North Zealand Police, special prosecutor Margit Wegge on Tuesday does not want to comment on the decision. The prosecution must decide within two weeks whether to appeal the verdict to the high court.