>you wouldn't have to manipulate the crime scene

There is always evidence or something that doesn't necessarily fit that a cop or prosecutor would want to eliminate or disregard. Obviously, they don't usually taint or remove evidence but it doesn't mean they doubt that person's guilt. It just means that they don't want it to be something the jury knows about.

>well, he didn't know, right...that's why he asked

he panicked at the sight and bolted

she could have very well survived for all he knew

i.e. if he killed her, why would he ask if she's dead?

this doesn't make a lick of sense.

Like the cop testified, killers do dumb stuff all the time. Besides that, he coulda thought he killed her, and stupidly wanted confirmation that she was dead.

In any event, in the cops and box's eyes that made him look guilty.

1)how he know it was a murder scene
2)how he know the victim was a she

>as per the beginning of this reply, he could have easily leveraged some sort of confession out of Naz that first night, IMO

this is all you got as far as his doubts?

he tried to get a confession and failed. Once he had the mountain of evidence he moved on.