Yes, you point out some good and curious aspects of this case. What's also interesting is there was no effort to remove identifying information about who the campers were at the burnt out campsite; personal items belonging to both Russell and Carol were found in their truck--seemingly untouched, and the vehicle ownership was also easily traced back to Russell. Apparently, the total destruction of the tent and it's contents inside, along with items around the tent area--chairs, table, etc...was the focused extent of the damage--the portable shower/toilet seems to appear undamaged. IMO, the tent ambush theory (RH and CC were attacked while sleeping) seems problematic...since the investigators apparently didn't find blood evidence anywhere around the campsite, unless RH and CC were simply woken up and led away unharmed. The bonfire appearance of the fire seems strange to me. It looks like a well contained and controlled fire--why burn up the camp chairs and table? Did the killer leave their dna on the chairs and table after sharing a meal with RH and CC..? I find the fact that Carol had recently closed on a new home also of interest since buying and moving into a new home usually indicates some major life changes. The heart and skin health problems of RH also seem important to this case, since apparently he was taking several different medications and wasn't able to walk a long distance...making it unlikely that he went by foot searching for his lost drone. I agree with you, the likelihood that a killer could plan perfectly a double murder, thinking to stage the scene with confusing evidence while leaving no forensic evidence seems beyond reasonable to me too.