This headline is propaganda, and isn't reflected in the content of the story (which quotes lawyers saying the document "fuel[ed]" the theory.)
The Seth Rich as the DNC leaker "conspiracy" theory was set off by the fact that there was a DNC data leak large enough that some people think that it couldn't have been remote without being detected, so they think it was by an insider. Also, Seth Rich, a DNC IT guy was randomly murdered in an unsolved case.
Nothing else. There was no evidence, just a suspicious coincidence. It is a theory with no evidence supporting it other than that coincidence, not a refuted or a false theory.
This is a person who fabricated a document supporting the theory, not the person who set it off.
The Seth Rich as the DNC leaker "conspiracy" theory was set off by the fact that there was a DNC data leak large enough that some people think that it couldn't have been remote without being detected, so they think it was by an insider. Also, Seth Rich, a DNC IT guy was randomly murdered in an unsolved case.
Nothing else. There was no evidence, just a suspicious coincidence. It is a theory with no evidence supporting it other than that coincidence, not a refuted or a false theory.
This is a person who fabricated a document supporting the theory, not the person who set it off.
Other outlets have generally been more careful.