It really just doesn't work that way. You can't multiply weak evidence to get strong evidence. Nothing on the list actually adds up to the kind of circumstantial evidence that works in court when added up. That kind of evidence is: nobody saw her do it, but we saw her running away from the site with bloody clothes. Believe it or not, that is what is meant by circumstantial evidence, not "we don't know if we think her story is plausible enough".
Respectfully snipped by me for space. I'm sorry, but the example of the circumstantial evidence you cited that works in court is actually an example of physical evidence. The blood on the clothes of someone running from a crime scene would be physical evidence, while the person running from the scene would be circumstantial evidence.
I'm sure you are aware of the scott peterson case. There was essentially zero physical evidence that tied him to the murder of his wife and child, except possibly a single hair found on his boat which could easily be explained away by the fact that married couples will likely transfer fibers, skin cells, hairs, saliva, etc., from one to another. That hair was not what convicted scott. No, it was his behavior that did it, according to jurors, much of which is similar to the behavior we see in this case:
He had an explanation for where he was at the time his almost ready to pop wife went missing but it did not make much sense. Who goes fishing out on a bay, without proper bait, on Christmas eve, when their wife is close to her due date? - Likewise in this case, TH just happened to be roaming back country roads for a few hours with a sick baby to "soothe her earache" at the very time her stepson went missing, in a remote area near where her cell phone was reported to be pinging (the same place they have now conducted multiple searches, BTW, which is kind of how we know the unsubstantiated report is likely accurate). To most of us, TH's "alibi" makes little sense.
He was surfing for




and engaging in an affair at a time when his beloved, pregnant wife could not be found. - Likewise in this case, TH engaged in explicit sexual behavior with a guy, at a time most people would be filled with fear and anguish, and not in a desperate, turning to another for comfort and security kind of way, but rather, in a lurid "I'm an out of control teenager" kind of way.
There are other similarities I see but it is clear that without the bodies of his wife and child turning up in the very place he said he was when Laci went missing, we might still be waiting for a trial. I think we need the same thing to happen here. Nevertheless, the peterson case was almost 100% circumstantial. Virtually no physical evidence tied him to the murder. Yet there he sits, on death row. And he is far from the only one to be convicted on purely circumstantial grounds - the kind of circumstantial evidence that you do not believe works in court.