That would make sense if AK and RS had no reason to be in that house. But they did, before and after the murder.
People can live in a house. A murder can take place leaving Suspect A's blood. The people who live there return to the house. Are we now to suppose they participated in the murder too bc they were in the house and left evidence before and after the murder? Of course not. Otherwise merely having a murder being committed in your own house would out you in jail for murder
There is one or two scenario people who believe connect the dots and explains the murder putting blame on AK. There are other equally plausible scenarios where the evidence is disputed or suggests AK and RS were simply in the house
Bc prosecution has to prove that there is no reasonable alternative, they have to eliminate the possibility of alternative scenarios. They did not do that.
It's not simply a matter of them just living there. It's that they lied about where they were that night. They lied about what they were doing that night. They lied about what they were doing that morning. They lied about how the cottage was found. They lied about everything.
Do people who live in a house automatically lie about living in that house? Do they lie and say, no we weren't at our house at that time, we were actually at another house. Did Amanda say, "Becaues see, even though this is my house and I live here, and i'm going to use that for my "DNA everywehre" argument, actually I was at another house." Even though there is evidence they are lying about that fact?
IMO, they were lying about their alibi. And like I said, they were lying about what they were doing that night. And what theywere doing in the morning. And how they found the cottage, "her home."