With all due respect, I think just the opposite. IMO, based on TLM's background and previously changed versions of events, it would be illogical to believe all or none of her testimony. <modsnip> - MOO. It seems perfectly natural to "pick and choose" depending on the evidence, instinct, and gut feeling.
<modsnip> that they still do not believe that it was TLM who swung the hammer (in spite of her latest testimony and no evidence to refute it), and yet they believe everything else she has claimed. All before they have heard the defence's side of the story.
What boggles my mind is that so many people are 100% convinced of the accused's guilt of all charges (and then some!) at a stage in the trial when only the prosecution's case has been presented. Some have openly stated that they are prepared to fully disbelieve whatever the defence has to say. Others have come right out and questioned even the necessity of a trial.
IIRC, most members who have expressed doubts are withholding judgment until both sides have presented their evidence and arguments. Suggesting alternative possibilities and differing opinions is what Websleuths is all about. How boring it would be if everyone agreed.
JMO
P.S. Other than TLM's word, I don't recall any evidence that Tori was hidden in the back seat. The car had tinted rear windows and there was no DNA found on the coat that TLM claimed covered her. The absence of difficult-to-remove DNA on that jacket is just one of many pieces of "evidence" (or lack of it) that has me scratching my head. MOO
