Even you have to admit, bringing second degree murder charges against someone for inconsistent statements is a bit of a stretch, especially after a traumatic accident. How do they know what she told them is factual or not without being able to examine the body and see if it matches up with what she told them ?
We see tons of these cases here where the people in the forums are literally yelling through their screens for the cops to make an arrest, and they won't do it. They have motive, they have method, and they have opportunity....but they have no body, so they let the perp skip around town unimpeded. Sometimes for weeks, months and even years.
This case is pretty much the polar opposite of that, in just about every way. They make an arrest first, then they try to build a case around it. It's flimsy.
How do you know that? Once again, we do not know what the evidence is. It sure as heck isn't simply "inconsistent statements". I think it's clear those statements were what perked up their ears and made her a suspect. But the statements are not why she was arrested. Not on their own.
The point is, if the cops are keystone cops who arrest first and ask questions later, there should be a verifiable skewed ratio in that jurisdiction of arrests to indictments and arrests to convictions. I ask again, is there?
Finally, I'm not sure what's meant by "Even you have to admit..." I hope you're being nice!