Carloway's reasoning is quite interesting. Even though that was quite an interrogation, actually an all-nighter, the police were only at the stage of gathering information and couldn't reasonably have regarded him as the suspect. Hmmm. But in fact he didn't say anything incriminating and actually denied the crime in the statement. He relied on it in court rather than give evidence in the witness box. It was helpful to him rather than a hindrance.
I had wondered if this was pre-meditated, but it wasn't, was it? He's met her on her way into work and they've had some sort of super-quarrel and he's strangled her in a rage. I mean who would choose to murder someone right in the middle of a city at their mutual place of work in the morning, with all the attendant difficulties of disposing of the body?
It's a bloody miracle he managed to dispose of the body and leave as little evidence of what he'd done as he did. I suppose in his panic, and all the planning about setting off on the trip to Lochgilphead, he didn't realise he should have continued to send her text messages.
Hey, could we have some innocentisti to make this an actual debate? Cos I can't see this lasting long, it's too one-sided. (I still don't trust these cadaver dogs, but even a stopped clock and all that....)