This faulty conclusion keeps being presented based on a premise that hasn't been advanced - that any perceived room for reasonable doubt in this case equals a claim that the M's aren't the perps. ?
Quite frankly, when the state announced it had DNA! on the tails of searching the Moorer home and making their arrests, and it turned out to be the DNA of the victim from her own car, I wondered if the authorities had seen too much TV and got a little too excited. And then. Nolle Prosequi.
No idea what "multiple strange actions" means to you, but I would argue that it's a sweeping generalization to view people as essentially too lacking in reasoning skills to credibly posit something besides the "obvious". If it was all so obvious, we wouldn't need trials and juries and cross and re-directs.
This case is complicated and while it's easy to try it from our computers, the truth is, we're spectators, much like TV viewers ourselves, and not a jury who is tasked with reviewing evidence and asking, "Does any evidence before me lead me to doubt that's reasonable?" When I refer to doubt in this case, I mean the legal standard and the instructions given by the court, not a belief or fantasy that someone else kidnapped/killed HE.
Sometimes the mundane and simple truth is, someone's dead who shouldn't be, persons in the known chain of events did it, and circumstantial evidence may or may not lead to a united heel-clicking conclusion by a jury. This doesn't mean there's a conspiracy, corruption, stupidity, or too much TV. JMO
.
