Louise Borglit case: Alexander Toro Moellmann sentenced to life imprisonment
The murder in Elverparken in 2016 — Agent Frank method — Increased sentence in the Eastern High Court

Sagsdetaljer
Quick Facts
Quick Facts
Who is Alexander Toro Moellmann?
Alexander Toro Moellmann is the man who received a final sentence of life imprisonment in October 2025 for one of the most talked-about murders in recent Danish criminal history. In the years following the murder of Louise Borglit, Moellmann was involved in several serious criminal matters, including a violent attempted murder of his then-girlfriend in 2020. It was precisely this history of violent crime combined with the murder in Elverparken that led the prosecution to seek the harshest penalty in the Danish legal system.
What happened in Elverparken?
On November 21, 2016, 32-year-old Louise Borglit, who was seven months pregnant, was found murdered in Elverparken in Herlev. She was out walking her sister's dog in the dark and rainy weather when she was attacked from behind. The autopsy later revealed that she had been stabbed 11 times. The murder shocked the local community and all of Denmark, both due to the victim's condition and the nature of the crime scene. For several years, the Copenhagen West Police had no breakthrough in the case, despite extensive technical investigations and interviews with hundreds of witnesses.
The investigation and Agent Frank
The breakthrough in the investigation came through an unconventional and legally complex method. The police were granted permission to deploy a civilian agent, known by the alias Frank, in the prison where Alexander Toro Moellmann was serving a sentence for attempted murder. Over several months, the agent built a rapport with Moellmann, which led to Moellmann detailing the murder of Louise Borglit on hidden audio recordings. He revealed information that only the perpetrator could possess, including details about the knife's location and the precise circumstances of the attack. This method later became the subject of a principled review in the Supreme Court, as the defense argued that it constituted illegal provocation and a violation of the right not to incriminate oneself.


