...ACARS had been disabled BEFORE the final voice transmission...
In the legal terms, this is known as introducing facts not in evidence; the issue being the word "disabled". There is no factual evidence whatsoever to establish that ACARS was disabled. It remains speculation without a factual basis. It may be the most probable explanation, but without facts to back up the assertion, it is still simply a theory.
The simple and unfortunate truth is that we have very few facts with which to work and most of what is being discussed here is theory and speculation, no matter how informed it may be. There's nothing wrong with theorizing about this -- it is a fascinating and compelling mystery.
Nevertheless, I think it is important to differentiate between what is established fact and what is theory. Unless and until the aircraft is recovered, there is little to work with here. Even the "facts" here remain somewhat confused and incomplete.
One last point: I think the flight crew is entitled to the benefit of the doubt and the presumption of innocence absent facts to the contrary. Pilots have been scapegoated in the past (Google TWA flight 260 as a case in point) and the last thing the profession needs is an unwarranted public concern, stirred up by the media, that professional pilots can't be trusted. There are a lot of eyes on this thread and that should give us all pause in theorizing that the flight crew was involved.