Interesting article.
Confirmation bias is not only alive and well, but proliferates on all sides. Once someone has decided that someone is a certain way, they will discard evidence to the contrary and look for things that confirm their bias, even if they have to speculate and theorize in order to do it. They will assign feelings and emotions to the players involved even if they've never met them. They imagine thoughts for the people, intentions, and project all sorts of things onto them.
When and if possible I like to start with forensic evidence first, crime scene stuff, and other evidence (like digital), things that are less about someone's opinion and personal perceptions, and not suppose or imagine anything. I don't imagine evidence being there if it isn't, I go with what there is and what I might be presented if I were on a jury.
I try, as much as possible, to take any feelings about the people involved out of the equation and not use things like my "intuition" or "gut feelings" because that simply is not evidence.
I might believe a person is guilty but the totality of the evidence either supports or doesn't support guilt BARD for me. I might get right up to the line and not be able to cross over into "BARD." In this case I'm not even right up to the line of guilt. That doesn't mean I don't see things that make me suspicious and wonder if there's involvement. It simply means the case hasn't been proven to me BARD. If I were on the AK & RS juries I would have voted "not guilty."