Hearsay is a statement made out of court that is offered in court as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/hearsay
So, if we were down the road, and the informant repeated what LT stated during his testimony in court, that would be hearsay. However, there are some key exceptions which permit hearsay testimony in court (see the link above). These exceptions may come into play if the case goes to trial.
As known to the public, the case may be "weak," but there's a lot the State has which isn't going to be publicized. Further, it's more of a circumstantial case than hearsay. The other persons are not going to get on the stand and say, "LT said he killed her." Instead, they will be walked through the chain of events, and asked if Amanda was alive when they left. The defense will then have the opportunity to highlight to the jury that they cooperated to get a deal. It's up to the jury to weed through the BS to get to what they believe happened.
Here is a good script for what the jury would hear at trial about direct vs. circumstantial evidence. A murder case most certainly can be won without direct evidence.
https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/1-General/CJI2d.Circumstantial_Evidence.pdf
If multiple witnesses get on the stand and say LT murdered Amanda, he's not getting off. Given the speed of this case and how closely LE played it to the vest, I would bet good money they have strong evidence and everyone involved will strongly be held accountable. We have a perception that people "get off" on cases far more than they actually do. :twocents: