Sorry, but all due respect to your faith in the DA, Tugela is right on target. BASED ON WHAT WE HAVE SEEN (which is what "appears to be"), this DA has a case that could be based on perhaps-coerced testimony and virtually nothing more. If that's the case, then it's easy to understand all the big DP intimations by the DA, as one approach when you lack substance is to try to amp up the intimidating talk and see if it nets a much-needed confession or three.
From where we sit, with the combination of "big talk by the DA" and "utter lack of evidence that we know about," anyone can draw whatever assumptions they want. It's a blank slate, basically, and what you conclude is simply because that's what you want to see, not because we have anything to support it.
Tugela sees the utter lack of evidence (that we know of) and the pattern of DA big-talk behavior and thinks it indicates a DA who's trying to use intimidation to coerce testimony and confessions due to a lack of anything solid. And that may be exactly right. You see the same combo decide that there must be a boatload of unknown evidence. And you may be right instead.
Frankly, at this point, it's only assumptions and our bias about this DA. He has no track record - he's just a guy who got elected and has talked a big game. Time will tell whether he has the goods, or whether he's all hat and no cattle.
I tend to lean toward the side of the DA being honest in his public statements. At the end of the day he is a politician and is pursuing a career. Talking about a case like he has lots of evidence and then having nothing to back it up would be pretty stupid in the long run. Why would he do it? Why pick a losing fight?
Regarding the "utter lack of evidence that we know about", can't we say that this is the case with every case without "sunshine" laws? It would certainly seem to be the norm for the uninvolved bystander (like basically everyone on Websleuths) to know the very minimum of the evidence prior to the actual trial. Why should this be any different?
One question- can we confirm that SA and JA have waived their right to a speedy trial? If so, how does that fit in with the "DA Stowe is all talk, no evidence" scenario? If you didn't do the crime and thus are positive the law doesn't have any real evidence against you, in what scenario would you waive the right to a speedy trial?