3 ms·
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 t
by ladbye 9y ago
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.
- jacquesm 9y ago> Also, "getting rid of the evidence" would only be used if he did commit the murder. No, if it is an accident getting rid of the body and sinking the sub is also getting rid of evidence and would have been material in determining whether or not it really was an accident in the first place. So either way it is destruction of evidence.
- ladbye 9y agoTechnically, 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.