The desire to protect a degenerate POS from the full consequences of his actions on this thread is disgusting.
See what you want.
I want the truth, and if that requires eliminating any/everything else, so be it.
I can guarantee you any defense attorney worth his ambulance chaser card will come up with a host of scenarios to establish reasonable doubt and beat whatever charges of malice they can, and that will affect what the man is charged with in order to avoid a not guilty verdict or hung jury.
So here we are, looking at all the possibilities and eliminating the ones which do not fit the evidence, basically removing reasonable doubt by
refuting possible scenarios which could have led to the death and injuries involved in the event.
The rest is for the courts to decide. The presumption of innocence remains in effect, even for heinous acts, until the verdict is delivered. You, of all people, I would think would have recognized that, given your profession.
We aren't making any moral defense of what went on, but then legal defenses and morality are often unrelated. It is the legal aspect we are trying to game out.