There are reasons to give a conflicting story to different people for the same day. This itself is not reason enough to convict. That he mentioned fishing at all would seem to be in his favor. That is the last thing I think someone that did this would mention. Or, maybe his alibi of golf was not a good one and that is why he mentioned the fishing trip.
----
What pray tell are reasons to give conflicting stories. If he were innocent he would have felt comfortable with the truth and stood on it.. till kingdom come....Why would he give a d*** what others think enough to shift his story, What he did, Was what he did= this is where I was PERIOD. The fact that he shifted points strongly to his guilt. I think the only reason he 'finally' committed to fishing in the bay is that he felt comfortable (at the time) that the body would never be found. But then later, he became less confident an made repeated trips back there before the bodies were recovered..
Not only that, but Golfing would have involved a lot more witnesses who could have denied that he was ever there.
Very well said, juzcuz.
In a post-Clinton world, Scott's just telling it like it is--honestly, instead of with obvious lies--is just really hard for some to understand.