Of course they gave the viewing audience what they wanted to see immediately, which likely had nothing at all to do with them feeling they were in the wrong. It's just much less expensive to let (in their mind) a scammer rip them off for a few hundred dollars than to put the fear into a nationwide audience of viewers that Amazon might intentionally do that to them, which of course is complete BS.
As many people have already attested to in this thread, and to which I'll add my own experiences, Amazon's "default setting" is permissive returns. I've also a number of times had to complain about late/lost deliveries, resulting in a free replacement sent out overnight at their expense, and then when the original finally shows up they tell me just keep it.
If we knew the whole story we'd probably find there's pretty good reasons Amazon suspected customer fraud in this specific case. But as I said in my original post, that suspicion is not 100% proof and unfortunately Amazon's systems don't seem as airtight as they need to be as to the fraud maybe having come from an Amazon vendor, supplier, employee or other source.
btw US local news loves those consumer protection stories too. We also have good old fashioned contract law, anti-fraud law, small claims courts, and credit card charge backs, all within a system that allowed for the creation of Amazon and many other global firms. Ultimately there are two parties here and they both need to be treated fairly under the law.