CR has had a month to think about this and devise a plan if 'interrogated'.
As he knows possibly traces of blood may be left in boot (even after loads of cleaning), he has decided to state he saw blood on her head when he opened the boot (this would cover, any traces found).
Of course, he can't remember, due to his blackout, how head injury occurred.
He doesn't state there are stab wounds over her body, implying Mollie hasn't been stabbed (that during his blackout, he didn't inflict the stab wounds).
He states, he places her in the cornfields.
Mollie was located in the cornfields as CR led LE to the site.
We are informed Mollie has multiple stab wounds.
So CR has had another blackout, as now Mollie has stab wounds: previously he only observed blood on her head.
Where did this stabbing occur: at initial interaction, in car, in cornfields, elsewhere?
Poor CR blacks out during any/all of these times as cannot remember.
So CR has recurrent blackouts, and only remembers his plan for LE. Poor CR.
If there is a trial, could the Defence use the fact, anyone could have stabbed Mollie in the cornfields, after CR left her there?
Jurors would be required to think of possibilities, creating doubt.
These are all my thoughts only, and wonder, if anyone may think similarly: could Defence use this tactic, to create doubt, or am I too imaginative !!!!
There have been many cases, when verdict has been 'not guilty', due to doubt created, where the majority of the public think otherwise.