Long timer lurker as I have found this case quite interesting, but I thought I'd add my two cents:
It seems (per my speculation) like the Adelson propaganda machine has really intensified it's efforts recently. I think this is with good cause in order to rehabilitate the family's image as they're probably reasonably close to skating away free and clear. They obviously don't want lurking suspicions to undermine their present lifestyle and relationships, so they need to sow doubt about their involvement in public's mind as best they can.
This is not to say I believe in their innocence: It's untenable to believe that the Adelson's just so happened to employ (and Charlie just so happened to date) the mother of one's of the murderer's children. Dan's moderate interest in gang activity or a poorly devised blackmailing scheme hardly seem like adequate motivation to drive across the state and risk the death penalty in order to rub out an unwitting law professor.
Wendi's crass behavior alone - mocking Dan as her "latex husband" and snagging the kids without notice - is a window into a family where entitlement and viciousness reign under the guise of attractiveness and sophistication - IMO, of course.
Nonetheless, also in IMO, the legal situation is going well for the A's. R and G haven't flipped, and it may be in their best interests not to. R likely was along for the ride and never had anything do with the A's. Unless he's going to turn on his fellow Latin King and G's gf, he likely doesn't have any relevant information - certainly nothing concrete against the A's. Moreover, if the A's have promised to take care of KM and the kids, G probably doesn't want to jeopardize that - particularly because he'd also have to implicate KM.
Sure, self preservation (avoiding the death penalty) is a strong motivation for taking other risks, but as mentioned R's only choice is turning on a fellow King - which probably means he's a dead man either way. G's betrayal of the A's involves crushing his family. Moreover, it's likely a wise move for them to take their chances with a jury: Beyond a reasonable doubt is a hard threshold to meet. That's why DA's will often push for pleas or even drop charges when the evidence isn't air tight.
There is a lot of room to sew doubt. For example, the motive itself is somewhat of a circular argument: R and G killed DM because the A's instructed them to do so, but what evidence is there that the A's made such a request? Because R and G killed DM! I also don't think they have R and G ID'ed at the murder scene. They can just place them in the city at the right time and in a vehicle that matches the observed (common) vehicle at the scene. I'm not saying that there isn't some more substantive evidence than this, but I am saying that there's a lot for a good defense attorney to work with to prevent the state from meeting their burden, IMO.
When I was in law school, I observed a trial regarding a bank robbery. The arrested men were all African Americans; the jury was predominantly white in a white, Republican leaning county. The state had pinpointed their vehicle's location using cell phone information, found tools for breaking into a building in their van, and there was even a picture/schematic of the bank in their vehicle! I don't even think the defense attorney did a great job picking apart the prosecution's case, but there just wasn't the smoking gun - clear ID of these guys breaking into the bank - to remove all reasonable doubt from the jury's mind. The jury didn't even hang - it was an outright acquittal within a few hours.
The bad guys are playing their cards right in this case, and R and G could very well walk away with lesser charges or go free. Even if found guilty, it will be a tough road to nail down the death penalty on this shaky (based upon the evidence) case. The A's will barely suffer heartburn.
This all assumes that there isn't more sound evidence that hasn't been shared; just my opinion.
