You, and others, seem to be terribly confused. Your burden of proof lies in courtroom law, and defendant conviction-not in investigation. In fact, in investigative techniques, you actually have it exactly backward.This is where conspiracy people have it fundamentally wrong. In the rational world you don't have to prove someone DIDN'T DO something. If you believe that a man in the woods killed people at the school it is up to YOU to prove THAT, not the other way around.
You say 'nothing debunked at all'. So what are we debunking then? You have no argument. What did the man in the woods do? Put your money where your mouth is.