I think we are all aware of Scalise family's animosity towards Hackett. Supposedly it started long before the disappearance of Shannan.
Most of us also know of the Scalise son's involvement with marijuana trafficking and his subsequent conviction and imprisonment in another state.
The question is, are the Scalise's implicating Hackett because of the previous animosity between them, and are the Scalise's less credible because of the son's reputation? Or are the Scalise's more credible because of the son's criminal activities, and was their animosity towards Hackett based on knowledge of possibly 'dark' activities.
My sense is that Hackett is not a evil man. I think he got involved in some way with Brewer and Pak and things, from Hackett's perspective, spiralled out of control.
Regarding the number of people at Brewer's house that night, would things start to unravel in the investigation if we knew if Hackett and/or Scalise were there?
I know it is just speculation on my part. In a way it makes sense though, Scalise Jr. is a criminal, what is going on at Brewer's house is criminal activity, it is understandable if Scalise Jr. was there. Scalise Jr. is absolutely insistent on Hackett's involvement in Shannan's death. If Scalise Jr. saw Hackett, Shannan and Pak together and heard conversations, he would have knowledge what really went on.
Why didn't Scalise make official incriminating statements to Law Enforcement? Being a criminal Scalise knows what happens to 'rats'.