Their first argument is "how could he afford" the various things that were used in the murders at the movie theatre. There are lots of explanations. He could have sold drugs. He could have stole the money. He could have used his student loans. So the first argument that this video makes is lame. I'll now proceed to watch a bit more.
Their next argument is the complicated bomb that was allegedly in his room, and why he would have warned police about it. I'm sure you can learn that stuff from research and on the internet somewhere. That in itself is nothing of value either positive or negative. He could have just felt remorseful for a bit. So the next so called evidence is non existent. I'll now continue to watch.