Given that this is a victim friendly forum, and we get so many different ideas, one can see how if other evidence discarding those theories is not there, that a perp can get off with the reasonable doubt being the standard. The defense attorney doesn't have to weave such preposterous tale to get that reasonable doubt. It's there.
Yes, WG could have deliberately given the wrong scrip of JM, or his memory could have been off. He was more focused on Hannah, not JM, probably barely glanced at him. He didn't have the video to view to jostle his memory. That's why eye witness accounts have to be taken with a grain or salt, or the whole shaker. That someone after 1 AM in a bar says s/he saw Hannah there. Ummm. Maybe. Maybe not. The ones presumed sober and keeping an eye on the place don't verify it, though, yes, they could all be lying to save their jobs, the bar from fines. Don't think so if she were blatantly in the bar area, though.
But this shows what even a logical reconstruction of events can undergo in a court, in the juroros mind. Maybe Hananh did not get lost but was going to the mall to pick up a guy for a tryst, and hooked up with JM for that purpose, went off with him for consensual sex, was safely dropped up and another guy then nabbed her and did the dirty deed. Possible? Erh, yes. When does it get into the realm of reasonable doubt?