ladbye

Technically, you're right. It's just that he would never phrase it as getting rid of evidence nor would his lawyer, as it implies that he was guilty of whatever led up to the point of having evidence.

I agree. So far we just haven't heard anything from PM's past that would indicate the lack of empathy ... until now. It's going to be interesting once the police starts talking more about the accident that should've happened. PM must have given a version of what happened, and to some extent a plausible one, since the prosecutor is still sticking to involuntary manslaughter (and most likely also improper interference with a corpse after today's identification and facts).

The "buried at sea" is most likely the phrasing from his lawyer and not his own words. Also, "getting rid of the evidence" would only be used if he did commit the murder.

And I agree, regardless of what actually happened he has turned out to be a psychopath. Dismembering a body, puncturing potential air/gas pockets then "wrapping" it in chains and finally throwing it overboard.

One theory I've seen was that PM is a highly eccentric person, that's always had problems fitting in and dealing with other people - when working on co-projects. The submarine project was his own, and he was his own boss. If in fact it was an accident that happened down there, it could be hypothesised that PM was afraid that he would loose everything he cared about if the police did not believe it was an accident. Imagine that everything you hold dear is in risk of being taken away from you - that everything you've worked on for so many years may disappear due to something that wasn't your fault? If you have a derailed mindset and think your odds of not loosing everything will improve if you dispose of the body instead of contacting the police immediately? If you have no faith in other people and their judgements?

I am not defending PM, as I think his reasoning and action in any case were completely psychotic in itself, but I can imagine a scenario that - with everything we know up until now - has not been disproven ... although I'm of the firm belief that he did kill that poor girl.

What evasiveness and unwillingness are you referring to? He changed his statement once, and that was within 24 hours of his arrested. Ever since he has remained silent, most likely by order of the court.

I actually believe that he told them "everything" at the first hearing (like the admission that she died on board the vessel and was "buried at sea") and as we've seen up until now, the court only releases a part of it once that part no longer has influence on the ongoing investigation. For instance, I think he also admitted to dismembering the body but that part hasn't been disclosed as the police would risk people sailing up and down the coast looking for body parts, and thus risk ruining evidence. The reason why I put 'everything' in quotation earlier, is that I don't personally believe the accident-story until I see evidence that proves it.

However, it puzzles me that the prosecutor is still going for the indictment with involuntary manslaughter. I think they know something that the public doesn't - perhaps something that in fact supports the accident-story.