You can prefer what you like, but your preference may not be what actually happened. And you may not have the full facts, and you don't here. The principal really deals with odds, not conclusions, and only when full facts are in evidence. It's a misuse of the principal to use it when you're missing so many facts.
I'm still waiting for actual photos of the taillight before it landed improperly at the Canton PD sallyport garage. The poor quality video of it being pulled from Dighton clearly shows a lot of red and fits much more with Kerry Roberts testimony (who by the way, did not hear "I hit him") that there was only a small hole in the taillight.
Why weren't clear "before" photos taken of her taillight before it was manipulated? This one should have been a no-brainer. And yet, we haven't seen them.
Why weren't taillight searches and "finds" over the coming days documented? Why didn't the Canton Police find a single place during the early search?
Why is the prosecution making such a deal over glass pieces that don't match?
Why is the lead prosecutor - the one who "collected" the vast majority of evidence - unable to testify?
And let's not forget we've got a lot of people who have lied and been evasive on the stand, and some intentionally destroyed evidence. Why?
How did a taillight on it's own knock a 220 pound man sideways, never mind knock him 12 feet sideways? There's no body damage to the vehicle.
How did a taillight on it's own cause all of the documented injuries?
How does a drunk woman back up over 60 feet at 24 mph on a curve and hit a stationary target who for some reason decides to stand and the road in wait for it to happen?
Again, prefer what you want. But you can't apply Occam's razor without addressing the above.