I am going to try to explain my opinion of Cox.
Cox is a guy that had a past when it came to abducting (or attempting to abduct) women. He failed twice in California doing this. Once he was talked out of it.
He then is convicted of the Zellers murder, which he adamantly denied all the way through. He never implied he was involved. Now my personal opinion of the evidence in that case is that if DNA existed at that time he would have been executed. This did not occur, many people felt this was an injustice. He knew this. He also knew that every single time that a crime occurred in his area he would be a suspect. H probably did not appreciate that very much.
Now he is emboldened by his new found freedom he goes home to Springfield. This crime occurred and he knew because of his past that the police likely would be coming to talk to him. This was expected he said so himself. Now my take on the police questioning him is this. They come to see him, he is ready, doesn't care much for them asking him questions. The officers ask him where he was on that Saturday. He says he was at a golf tournament, they ask him where he was that night, he says he was at home. They ask him about the morning he sarcastically says, "I was at church" Now this is about as sarcastic as a convicted kidnapper, murder suspect could be. We do not know the context of his conversation so it is not easy to determine.
Now taking into consideration his complete denial in the Zellers case. Why would he insert himself into this case making remarks that are leading people to believe he was involved? That to me is the most telling of all his BS. He knows he is going to be a suspect, he is not involved, but he knows that no one believes him so he is jerking their chain, toying with them.
Fact is he does not take interviews without having questions ahead of time. He doesn't take visitors without having them answer his questions, his letters to the news leader he had all the time in the world to word those just right. He does this so he can basically answer the questions in a manner that is leading and captivating the public. The handwriting expert concluded he was slow witted. Other handwriting experts have said the opposite. Personally I believe that neither can make a statement on a letter that was not a spontaneous production, with one draft.
Now as far as "Steve" goes I fully believe he was referring to Garrison. Garrison is described as a "hippy" he describes himself as "a badass biker" long hair, tattoos. Cox on the other hand was a ranger, an athlete clean cut, a golfer???. Garrison was a substance abuser, Cox was not. Garrison was out three weeks? Where and how did they meet, enough to trust the other in a crime like this? Just doesn't make any sense.