Aaron's plans and fate are peripheral to the movie's central concern
I think @NapoleonWilson nails the plot explanation. I'd like to offer an alternative theory based on information outside the film.
As I describe in this other answer:
Primal Fear was specifically concerned with the role of the reputations of high-profile defense attorneys. The historical context matters: the movie came about about 4 years after the O.J. trial. That was a time when it seemed the whole country knew everything about the lawyers and courtroom staff.
To paraphrase myself further: Primal Fear went to a lot of trouble to create a situation that required a high-powered defense attorney to confess on the record that he is a cunning mercenary who cynically exploits the weaknesses of our criminal justice system for the benefit of whoever is rich enough to bankroll his lavish lifestyle.
Why do I say that was the movie's goal?
As I mentioned, this movie was born in the aftermath of the O.J. trial. It was natural for the millions of Americans watching that trial to wonder about the dangers of lawyers like Martin Vail when it appeared that a real football player got away with real murders simply because he was able to afford the services of legal professionals who seemed to not care that they were helping a murderer escape punishment.
Reasonable people might be able to disagree whether that is actually what happened in the O.J. trial, or whether the outcome was just, but it is undeniable that the real trial prompted American society to wonder whether, as a general proposition, skilled-but-greedy lawyers are a weakness in our justice system.
Primal Fear is best understood as a variation on that theme. It tries to present a perfect storm: an unstoppable and unscrupulous defense lawyer whose self interest aligns with that of an equally cunning and manipulative violent criminal.
It is telling that in both cases, the accused had to scramble to put together a plan to avoid punishment. Both defendants realized vastly better outcomes only because they had access to amazingly skilled lawyers, not because their innocence was easy to prove or because they planned their crimes carefully. Aaron's crime is just a caricature of the crimes that O.J. was charged with, and so was his unpreparedness in the moments immediately after the killings. Aaron Stampler runs from the scene of the crime, covered in blood, and hides under a highway overpass? That's his plan?? It's almost as hopeless as... running away from the police in a low-speed car chase as news helicopters track your movements for 45 minutes.
Viewed in this light, Primal Fear doesn't actually care whether Aaron had a plan before his path crossed Martin's, or whether his plan was credible, or whether it succeeded. All it needs from Aaron is that (1) he is genuinely an unrepentant and violent danger to society who (2) has the self-awareness and social skills necessary to present himself in whatever way best serves his amoral lawyer's legal strategy. The movie's raison d'etre is captured in that one moment from the trial that you highlight as Incident 3 in your question:
[Aaron] snaps and takes the prosecutor Janet Venable hostage during the court proceedings
That moment is probably the point that Martin Vail comes closest to being party to a conspiracy to defraud the court, which is not only morally outrageous but also an extremely serious crime in itself.
It is also precisely the fear that had been occupying the American imagination ever since the term "Dream Team" was used to refer to O.J.'s legal defense team. Ask yourself why the movie is called "Primal Fear." What fear did you think it was referring to? The movie is not a scary movie. There aren't really any jump scenes, or gory massacres.
I believe the fear being described as "primal" is this: that the American legal system is powerless before the wealthy, and that our society actually permits one group of people to kill the people in their lives without consequence. In America, the very rich do live above the law. They often pay no taxes. They practically dictate our laws. Some of them even grab random women by the p****. America "lets them do it." This would not be possible without people like Martin Vail.
You will have to decide for yourself whether the film's conclusion tends to exonerate or damn the skilled-but-greedy legal professionals it's so concerned with, or the larger legal and socioeconomic systems they inhabit. Vail is repelled when he sees what Aaron truly is, but a reasonable person might say that's too little, too late. Aaron is not released back into the public, but neither does he receive a sentence that seems commensurate with his act, or compatible with justice or even public safety. Is that good enough? Does the real world tend to do better, or worse?