Quote:
Originally Posted by McBeck
Actually he stated in the first hearing with the police that she was dead and that it was an accident.
What was revealed to the public on the 5th of September was what he explained on the 12th of August - his first hearing
So except for what he told the press in passing as he stepped on shore on the 11th of August, he has kept to his story that she died by accident.
|
thank you for the clarification McBeck, I thought that he has ,firstly, said that he returned the girl alive from the trip.
But even not, the fact is that he knew that time that the girl was dead and said nothing.More over he got rid of the body and later, by 'coincidence', got rid of the boat too. This looks to me more like ''cold blood'' than ''shocked blood''.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catfish
....
2. if it was an accident, why didn't he instantly(!) call for SAR or headed to the nearest port, with the body. You do not just "bury someone at sea"...
|
exactly this ^ guys !
if you are shocked ,as he says, you are not covering everything you can just for slipping away. It is obvious that he wanted nobody to knows
Quote:
Originally Posted by McBeck
....I think his very first conversation with the authorities would have been that he put her to shore. But its a fact that during the first hearing (the day after) he did state she died in the sub by accident.
|
what did he meant by that ''he put her to shore'' ? Isn't it that he meant that he put her there alive ?