If the standard is 'anything is possible" then no one will ever be found guilty.
The way I have always found it helpful to think about the burden of proof is the jury should simply ask what facts it accepts. These do not have to be individually proven beyond reasonable doubt. Then taking those facts, the juries should make obvious and logical inferences around guilt. Then you look back and say - is there any other reasonable possibility? If there is - then it has to be a not guilty verdict.
What you can't do is start henpecking every fact in isolation.
For instance RA and the 3 juveniles report seeing each other at a time supported by corroborating digital evidence. Therefore (if this all stands up at trial) the jury ought to make the obvious and logical inference that it was RA the girls saw.
Inventing 3 other girls for RA to see, without any evidence of their existence, is wild speculation IMO, and not how one works with circumstantial evidence.