Plot holes?

Purely for idle curiosity chat purposes and nothing deeper than that... and I thought this a terrific drama.

Andri asks Eirikur why he didn't get rid of the key. Eirikur simply says he didn't think of it or similar. We are led to believe (reasonably) that Eirikur had taken leave of his senses during the act. But he then left the key in his kerosene (petrol?) soaked trousers in his house for his wife to launder at sometime. Are we really to believe that in the cold light of day once he'd "come down" from his momentary lapse of reason (I'm trying to be kind here!) he didn't then think "Hmmm. Maybe leaving such obvious evidence laying around isn't the brightest idea. Particularly because Andri lives in the same house as me" ?

Should we believe that in fact Eirikur wanted to be caught?

And - chainsaw. The users of the chainsaw are clearly cold hearted clinical thinkers. Yet they considered washing a chainsaw down sufficient? Why not destroy it completely? At least remove the chain and drop the chainsaw out to sea in one place and the chain in another part miles away - they had a boat after all?? !!! Or is it that as a bunch there were so arrogant in their societal position they believed they were untouchable etc?

And - the shed. We see Hrafn beating at a window in the door of his shed. a shed that we know has a spade at least in it. So he isn't going to try and break the glass to at least try and escape through the hole ? it wasn't a large window but he wasn't a big bloke?


didds