[Az Joe]

As guilty as Scott appears to me, I still would not like the police to get the idea in their head that I had done something wrong. Once that happens everything is tailored to fit that conception.

[marajade]

"Once that happens everything is tailored to fit that conception."

Um... that's how all crimes are solved...

[Henrietta]

"As guilty as Scott appears to me, I still would not like the police to get the idea in their head that I had done something wrong. Once that happens everything is tailored to fit that conception."

I'm especially bothered by the idea that they refused to interview some neighbors who saw Laci walking the dog AFTER Scott left for his fishing trip.

While I agree that SP may indeed be guilty, why the refusal to interview material witnesses, merely because they might bring up something exculpatory to the accused? Seems a little suspicious to me.

[Lancey Howard]

As guilty as Scott appears to me, I still would not like the police to get the idea in their head that I had done something wrong. Once that happens everything is tailored to fit that conception.

Unfortunately, that is all too true. And if it later turns out that the convicted person is completely innocent, it is nearly impossible to get the DA to admit that they prosecuted the wrong person. Ed Rendell, when he was Philadelphia DA, convicted a guy and put him on death row and it turned out that the guy was the wrong guy. It took over a year AFTER it was clear that a completely innocent man was convicted (this guy had no connection to the case whatsoever) to get him released. (The real killers were eventually convicted in the case.)