Precisely. People who haven't been fingered, don't pick their accomplices out of a lineup. Not even a stupid perp would do that.
If there was a serious amount of insurance put on the baby, the police would have raised some eyebrows. If there were any at all, I'm guessing it was a small whole-life policy that some people get to ensure coverage later in life. As a baby, my grandparents put on on me. I cashed it out in my mid-20s, when I purchased a much ore substantial policy.
Christopher Milke was murdered for a $5000 insurance policy. Roger Scott, one of three convicted in his murder, participated for a promise of $250.
What benefit does the baby-killer expect from asserting a “Murder for Hire” “defense” (essentially a M1/Death Penalty guilty plea, when a jury of HIS peers might have let him off with M2/Life for a robbery gone very bad?). Even if the parents were guilty too, he has downgraded whatever chances he had, with zero upside. The huge disadvantages of this move suggests revenge (or perhaps he is the evil idiot he appears to be).
Would be interesting to know whether an insurance policy ever existed, when it was taken out and by whom, and its characteristics. (That the mother was shot and id’ed the perp, might raise suspicion that the daddy made any contract arrangements all by himself. Neither the shooters nor the mother necessarily knew any or all the details). Why would essentially destitute parents spend money they didn’t have on life insurance on a baby (if they did)? The desire “to guarantee coverage later in life” doesn’t seem to fit the socioeconomic situation of this family.