The paradoxical undressing and burrowing is fascinating and worth googling. Check out the accounts from those who survived those conditions, too. It's all worthy of a good study.
Worthy science; all five, I am sure. Perhaps more. If the members of this WS thread comprised the jury panel for CPH, I am sure we'd all acquit, Peter, due to lack of evidence. On the other hand, if you queried the same jury members following such a trial, you'd probably find many individuals claiming that they thought the dude was nevertheless guilty as hell albeit solely on circumstantial grounds.
There is no debate here, Peter.
The reason MG would have to take the stand, you realize, is that it's her word against our hypothetical suspect, CPH. She remembers the phone calls. She knows what was said. In short, it's her word against his.
(It goes without saying, Peter, I do not think MG is lyingp. Conversely, CPH is a proven liar.)
So, yes, on a purely circumstantial basis, I add it up and see one gah party.