Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#12

[aa9511]

Could you use the transcripts or motivation documents to support what you've claimed? It would help and then we can discuss. Thanks.

So you want me to transcribe for you the fact that there is DNA evidence in this case which points unfavorably towards Amanda and RS? Which the defense must rebut if they want to help their client's case?

I don't understand.

 

[MichaelSmith]

So you want me to transcribe for you the fact that there is DNA evidence in this case which points unfavorably towards Amanda and RS? Which the defense must rebut if they want to help their client's case?

I don't understand.

If you're going to make an argument about the junk science in this case, it'd help to use motivation documents or transcripts so people can reply and see what you really mean.

I can cite it's junk science quite easily citing xyz but can you assert it's not?

 

[aa9511]

If you're going to make an argument about the junk science in this case, it'd help to use motivation documents or transcripts so people can reply and see what you really mean.

I can cite it's junk science by citing xyz but can you assert it's not?

But the conversation with Bill_C was about DNA evidence, in general, in this case. I have even forgotten by now how the whole conversation started, but that is where we were in the discussion in the post which you were referencing.

I think IIRC, that I was saying that the defense is naturally going to contest any DNA evidence which would go against their clients. That would be true of any case, whether in U.S. or Italy. I was saying that in any US case, if there is DNA evidence against their client, the defense, if it it doing its job correctly, is going to try to refute that evidence and poke holes in that evidence in any way it can. And probably many of them are going to argue contamination, among other things.

So I was saying that in this case, since the DNA evidence found goes against their clients, of course the defense is going to refute that evidence.

Since it supports the prosecution, why would they argue against it? Of course, the defense is going to argue against it, since it hurts their clients if accepted as such.

 

[MichaelSmith]

But the conversation with Bill_C was about DNA evidence, in general, in this case. I have even forgotten by now how the whole conversation started, but that is where we were in the discussion in the post which you were referencing.

I think IIRC, that I was saying that the defense is naturally going to contest any DNA evidence which would go against their clients. That would be true of any case, whether in U.S. or Italy. I was saying that in any US case, if there is DNA evidence against their client, the defense, if it it doing its job correctly, is going to try to refute that evidence and poke holes in that evidence in any way it can. And probably many of them are going to argue contamination, among other things.

So I was saying that in this case, since the DNA evidence found goes against their clients, of course the defense is going to refute that evidence.

Since it supports the prosecution, why would they argue against it? Of course, the defense is going to argue against it, since it hurts their clients if accepted as such.

Yes but can you use the documents or transcripts to make your point because the prosecutions claims about the DNA were shown to be bogus years ago by the independent experts.

 

[quesarita]

Have you heard of the "prank" theory? That Amanda and RS wanted to do a fun prank on Meredith that night. That would answer a lot of your questions. They might have bumped into Rudy and asked him to join them, to make the prank more "fun." Or they could have actually recruited him, b/c a scaring kind of prank is scarier with more people involved, also his race might have played a factor in their asking him to join them. JMO.

It answers why they got together. It answers the "drug issue" - they didn't need to be on any drugs to do a fun prank. And they would still have their wits about them to figure out a plan in the MANY HOURS after the crime happened and to when the body was discovered. It also would possibly explain the DNA - perhaps the original prank had Rudy coming in and grabbing a hold of Meredith, while the other two scare her without physically holding her. Meredith gets accidentally badly wounded with the knife (two knives used for prank, one butcher, one Rudy's pocket-sized one). Rudy drops her. They panic. In the next moments, they decide that they have no other choice but to make this "accident' appear like someone came in and intentionally murdered her. Thus you see how Rudy's DNA would be the one primarily on her, becaues he was the one who had been holding her for the prank.

I do not find the prank theory credible, but if I did, it would make Amanda and Raffaele fully culpable and pathological IMO - to not try and get medical help, to undress and violate Meredith, and also try and somehow pin it on Rudy (by leaving evidence, not by testimony).

What tends to bend me out of shape is the idea inherent to the guilt scenarios that Rudy was a minor accomplice, even a bystander. That is why he has a reduced sentence, why he could be released this year.

 

[Amber29]

Here's a study on luminol and other presumptive testing.
http://projects.nfstc.org/workshops...ffect of Luminol on Presumptive Tests and.pdf

Looking at the chart it shows on tile (cleaned with 10% bleach on a sponge) tmb gave a weak result before luminol and a negative result after luminol was applied. That proves that luminol is the more sensitive test on tile. So a negative tmb test does not absolutely mean its not blood because in this controlled testing it was for sure blood.

 

[otto]

Do we know for a fact that he was offered a "plea deal?" That's why he alludes to, or maybe even outright says, but that's coming from him.

There are no plea deals in Italian law.

 

[Bill C]

Yes, but in this case, the DNA which was found on Amanda and RS, all of it, supports the prosecution. And it hurts the defense because it points unfavorably towards their clients.

So, naturally, in this case, the defense would be the ones who argue with that evidence.

When you say, "the prosecution had the opportunity to challenge....C+V...," well C+V was arguiing against DNA evidence which already existed against Amanda and RS. It wasn't like they came up with some totally new DNA evidence - such as, oh wait we found some DNA evidence here for a man named John Smith. To which the prosecution would have naturally had to "answer" for.

So since the DNA evidence found was damaging towards the defense's clients, naturally the defense has the burden of reducing the weight of that evidence against their clients.

I agree with what you're saying. But, your earlier argument seemed to imply that I and the defense were cherry picking only DNA evidence that was incriminating toward AK and RS. As you state above, that's the job of the defense. I on the other hand, as hopefully an unbiased observer (I honestly started out that way but am now leaning toward at least an non-guilty verdict) try to look at flaws in ALL evidence. In this case the DNA on the knife (MK's purported DNA not AK's DNA), RS's purported DNA on the bra clasp and RG's DNA on the coat ALL have problems as I stated in other posts. The other DNA evidence, at least to my eye, appears relatively sound.

By the way, on another topic I still have a problem with AK's lamp being found in the murder room. If I look at it objectively, I find both potential guilty and innocent explanations for that finding and we probably will never get a definitive explanation. Therefore, I must conclude that it SHOULD have little real probative value in this court case.

I'll have to admit to an overall bias on my part. I have had two recurring dreams in my life, one being able to fly but the other is entering prison for a crime I have not committed. I occasionally wake up in a cold sweat from the latter nightmare. Therefore, I usually am inclined to give a defendant in a trial involving a serious offense the benefit of the doubt. But, if the prosecution has a strong enough case to where I have LITTLE or no doubt I am willing to convict. To me LITTLE means REASONABLE doubt. This case has enough doubt for me to vote at least not guilty. If there wasn't doubt, how can we explain the polarization of public opinion, even from those who are apparently well informed?

 

[Bill C]

Here's a study on luminol and other presumptive testing.
http://projects.nfstc.org/workshops...ffect of Luminol on Presumptive Tests and.pdf

Looking at the chart it shows on tile (cleaned with 10% bleach on a sponge) tmb gave a weak result before luminol and a negative result after luminol was applied. That proves that luminol is the more sensitive test on tile. So a negative tmb test does not absolutely mean its not blood because in this controlled testing it was for sure blood.

Accepting your interpretation of the study, why was the TMB test even performed and once a negative result was obtained wouldn't a true unbiased scientist want to do other tests to confirm the presence of blood before testifying in court that the substance definitely was blood? This is one of the reasons I am skeptical of anything coming out of Steffanoni's lab that is incriminating.

 

[Amber29]

Accepting your interpretation of the study, why was the TMB test even performed and once a negative result was obtained wouldn't a true unbiased scientist want to do other tests to confirm the presence of blood before testifying in court that the substance definitely was blood? This is one of the reasons I am skeptical of anything coming out of Steffanoni's lab that is incriminating.

Accepting my interpretation of the study? What is your interpretation of the study? This has nothing to do with experts testifying in court. It simply proves that luminol can glow, be tested with tmb and get a negative result, even in a controlled test that was absolutely blood. Luminol is for sure a more sensitive test than tmb.

 

[otto]

The claim that the opposing view is part of a cult mentality is asserted to debase their opinion. It implies that people follow the crowd and can’t think for themselves. Answering your opponent's argument with irrelevant general assumptions about personal characteristics of the opposition is an attempt to lessen that opinion.

Reading across the board on the internet it seems most know the evidence quite well and have reached their own conclusions.

The discussion is about the facts, assumptions and conclusions, not personal characteristics of fellow posters.

I can't speak for people on this forum but from things I've read elsewhere, there is a cult like belief in their guilt. Not even Guede confessing would change their minds. They'd just make another excuse for him like they've been doing for years.

Disclaimer: This does not apply to people posting on this forum and I look forward to reading any replies to Bills question.

BBM
In most criminal trials that I've read about, the majority stand behind the prosecution, but the word "cult" does not normally describe that position.

 

[aa9511]

I do not find the prank theory credible, but if I did, it would make Amanda and Raffaele fully culpable and pathological IMO - to not try and get medical help, to undress and violate Meredith, and also try and somehow pin it on Rudy (by leaving evidence, not by testimony).

What tends to bend me out of shape is the idea inherent to the guilt scenarios that Rudy was a minor accomplice, even a bystander. That is why he has a reduced sentence, why he could be released this year.

bbm

Well I guess that is one way to look at it. Actually, to me, it makes sense. Maybe there is something wrong with me, oh dear. But it makes sense that they woudl go to that depths out of desperation. Out of deseperation. That their subsequent actions stemmed from a place of desperation, that actually makes more sense to me than some kind of taunting-gone-overboard, or sex-game (which I have never accepted the sex-game theory), or argument-gone-out-of-hand. Because taunting-gone-overboard would necessarily have begun with some malice, and argument-out-of-hand would have had to unleash an extreme side of someone's character.

Out of desperation. How can we underestimate what someone will do out of desperation? Their entire freedom was on the line. Think about you just accidentally kill someone, all b/c of your stupidity really, and think about, the consequences of your actions would necessarily run through your mind. OMG my life is over. I believe that the original wound must have been so severe that they had real fear that they would be put in jail for a long, long, time for it....also because the whole reason the wound happened is because they were stupid and they had a very dumb idea. And they would have realized that the minute it happened.

 

[aa9511]

I agree with what you're saying. But, your earlier argument seemed to imply that I and the defense were cherry picking only DNA evidence that was incriminating toward AK and RS. As you state above, that's the job of the defense. I on the other hand, as hopefully an unbiased observer (I honestly started out that way but am now leaning toward at least an non-guilty verdict) try to look at flaws in ALL evidence. In this case the DNA on the knife (MK's purported DNA not AK's DNA), RS's purported DNA on the bra clasp and RG's DNA on the coat ALL have problems as I stated in other posts. The other DNA evidence, at least to my eye, appears relatively sound.

By the way, on another topic I still have a problem with AK's lamp being found in the murder room. If I look at it objectively, I find both potential guilty and innocent explanations for that finding and we probably will never get a definitive explanation. Therefore, I must conclude that it SHOULD have little real probative value in this court case.

I'll have to admit to an overall bias on my part. I have had two recurring dreams in my life, one being able to fly but the other is entering prison for a crime I have not committed. I occasionally wake up in a cold sweat from the latter nightmare. Therefore, I usually am inclined to give a defendant in a trial involving a serious offense the benefit of the doubt. But, if the prosecution has a strong enough case to where I have LITTLE or no doubt I am willing to convict. To me LITTLE means REASONABLE doubt. This case has enough doubt for me to vote at least not guilty. If there wasn't doubt, how can we explain the polarization of public opinion, even from those who are apparently well informed?

Oh ok, I see what you are saying. So I guess, yes, you're right, the defense has to poke holes in it and if, in their minds, something was wrong with the collection or testing of that certain evidence, then they need to bring it to the jury's attention.

I guess then, here is what I think: If I were on the jury, I would be thinking, well they are cherry-picking evidence which is harmful to their clients, and what about all this other evidence which was also collected same way?

So that would make me either question all of the forensic evidence collected in the case, or would make me question the defense's claims.

And I would be thinking, well what are the chances that ALL of this evidence is "wrong" or "contaminated" or whatever? I would find the chance of that highly unlikely.

And I would realize that the defense naturally has the incentive to dispute evidence which is harmful towards their clients.

So those two taken together - that the chances of ALL the evidence being somehow wrong is very slim, and that the defense has the job of protecting its clients - would lead me to the conclusion that it cannot be that only these few DNA samples are "wrong."

 

[Myvice]

bbm

Well I guess that is one way to look at it. Actually, to me, it makes sense. Maybe there is something wrong with me, oh dear. But it makes sense that they woudl go to that depths out of desperation. Out of deseperation. That their subsequent actions stemmed from a place of desperation, that actually makes more sense to me than some kind of taunting-gone-overboard, or sex-game (which I have never accepted the sex-game theory), or argument-gone-out-of-hand. Because taunting-gone-overboard would necessarily have begun with some malice, and argument-out-of-hand would have had to unleash an extreme side of someone's character.

Out of desperation. How can we underestimate what someone will do out of desperation? Their entire freedom was on the line. Think about you just accidentally kill someone, all b/c of your stupidity really, and think about, the consequences of your actions would necessarily run through your mind. OMG my life is over. I believe that the original wound must have been so severe that they had real fear that they would be put in jail for a long, long, time for it....also because the whole reason the wound happened is because they were stupid and they had a very dumb idea. And they would have realized that the minute it happened.

I agree with this and think that's why the injuries with the long knife didn't go all the way in. I can't even imagine the horror of having to kill someone to save myself in such a way.

The supposition that someone wanted her dead would lead you to think the long knife would have been plunged into the body. Not so much if you were doing something you had to do.

I recently had to give my DH shots after he had surgery. It nearly made me sick having to do it and I was very hesitant.

 

[quesarita]

bbm

Well I guess that is one way to look at it. Actually, to me, it makes sense. Maybe there is something wrong with me, oh dear. But it makes sense that they woudl go to that depths out of desperation. Out of deseperation. That their subsequent actions stemmed from a place of desperation, that actually makes more sense to me than some kind of taunting-gone-overboard, or sex-game (which I have never accepted the sex-game theory), or argument-gone-out-of-hand. Because taunting-gone-overboard would necessarily have begun with some malice, and argument-out-of-hand would have had to unleash an extreme side of someone's character.

Out of desperation. How can we underestimate what someone will do out of desperation? Their entire freedom was on the line. Think about you just accidentally kill someone, all b/c of your stupidity really, and think about, the consequences of your actions would necessarily run through your mind. OMG my life is over. I believe that the original wound must have been so severe that they had real fear that they would be put in jail for a long, long, time for it....also because the whole reason the wound happened is because they were stupid and they had a very dumb idea. And they would have realized that the minute it happened.

I don't know about that. The closest parallel would be someone killing someone else with a car and fleeing the scene, maybe trying to clean evidence from their car. This is still a criminal and sociopathic act.

In the case of Meredith Kercher, you are talking about a certain amount of pre-planning between 3 people, and then a mostly effective clean-up by two of those people, while in the throes of their desperation, and apparently without needing to google "crime scene cleanup", and using only materials available on hand at night (nothing bought the next day):

1. Successful removal of all foot and hand prints in the murder room
2. Successful removal of all foot and hand prints in the small bathroom
3. Partial removal of footprints in the hallway (successfully removed any left prints throughout)
4. Successful disposal of any bloodied clothing, rags, paper towels, etc.
5. in the overall photograph of the luminol prints, the bloody shoe prints of Guede are usually shown in red. There is one big luminol blotch that over or underlays one of Guede's prints. If a bare footprint was cleaned away in that spot, how was that print left? Was it smudged at all? (photo from truejusticeformeredith)

 

[aa9511]

I agree with this and think that's why the injuries with the long knife didn't go all the way in. I can't even imagine the horror of having to kill someone to save myself in such a way.

The supposition that someone wanted her dead would lead you to think the long knife would have been plunged into the body. Not so much if you were doing something you had to do.

I recently had to give my DH shots after he had surgery. It nearly made me sick having to do it and I was very hesitant.

Yes, it could not have been an "easy" thing. All of this, I'm sure, has had great psychological effects on them.

If it were me, I would want to forget about the whole thing, I mean, in the sense that I would not want to keep facing it and facing it over and over again and having to re-live everything.

But again, they are still desperate, although now it is a different kind of desperation. Because their trial is still on-going.

And, over the years, I believe they have both found ways of coping with it. For example, Amanda it seems has convinced herself that becaues there was no evidence of her found in the murder room, that means she can technically assert that she wasn't in the murder room, and so therefore she can technically assert that she didn't "participate" in the murder. When you repeat that over and over and over again in your mind, I feel like eventually one would think it's "okay" to be viewed as innocent, because in her mind, there is nothing there to prove she's guilty, in her mind.

Also, think about if this all started because of an accident, and then think about everyone is calling you cruel and evil and those kinds of things, and asserting that you did all of this out of malice and out of something wrong in your general character. Then I find it quite easy to believe how she would start to view herself as a "victim." Because she didn't really mean any harm to Meredith, it was something that happened and her subsequent actions were out of desperation. Perhaps she has convinced herself that Meredith would have died anyway, that there was no chance she could have been saved. And so maybe she thinks, is it better than 1 person's life is ruined, or 3 people's lives are ruined?

If you think about it, she cannot really show remorse for what she's done, in a genuine way. Because that would be admitting that she actually did something. So she has to put on a front for people. If you have to constantly put on a front for people, it would be a lot easier if you actually believe what you are saying. So I think she has, in some way, "convinced" herself that she is a victim in all of this.

 

[aa9511]

I don't know about that. The closest parallel would be someone killing someone else with a car and fleeing the scene, maybe trying to clean evidence from their car. This is still a criminal and sociopathic act.

In the case of Meredith Kercher, you are talking about a certain amount of pre-planning between 3 people, and then a mostly effective clean-up by two of those people, while in the throes of their desperation, and apparently without needing to google "crime scene cleanup", and using only materials available on hand at night (nothing bought the next day):

1. Successful removal of all foot and hand prints in the murder room
2. Successful removal of all foot and hand prints in the small bathroom
3. Partial removal of footprints in the hallway (successfully removed any left prints throughout)
4. Successful disposal of any bloodied clothing, rags, paper towels, etc.
5. in the overall photograph of the luminol prints, the bloody shoe prints of Guede are usually shown in red. There is one big luminol blotch that over or underlays one of Guede's prints. If a bare footprint was cleaned away in that spot, how was that print left? Was it smudged at all? (photo from truejusticeformeredith)

But what I see is very CLEAR shape of shoeprints from Rudy's shoes, and the other blue in the hallway are not as clear of a shape. They do look smudged to me. If you compare to the red, look at the difference between the two. You can CLEARLY tell the very precise shape of a shoeprint from the red, not so much from the blue in the hallway.

For the clean-up, I imagine they brought some gloves with them, would you not imagine they would have thought of that going back to the murder scene? Even I would think of that.

Any footprints of theirs around Mereith's body when she died would have been filled in with her flowing blood.

I believe they used Raffaele's bathroom to clean themselves off, so therefore any bloody mess in the small bathroom would have been the direct result of their cleaning-up actions. Since they did not go in there after the murder (when they were still bloody), and the murder did not occur in there, I do not find it difficult to believe that they could have successfully cleaned up any mess they made from the cleaning-up.

I do not believe there would have necessarily been a lot of evidence to clean up in the murder room. Because like I said, the footprints would have filled in. And if everything after Wound #1 was a part of their "staging/cover-up," then wouldn't you think they woudl be careful not to leave much evidence of themselves?

These are just some ideas, I do not claim to have all or even any of the answers.

How hard would it be to throw away a plastic bag in a dumpster somewhere?

 

[quesarita]

But what I see is very CLEAR shape of shoeprints from Rudy's shoes, and the other blue in the hallway are not as clear of a shape. They do look smudged to me. If you compare to the red, look at the difference between the two. You can CLEARLY tell the very precise shape of a shoeprint from the red, not so much from the blue in the hallway.

For the clean-up, I imagine they brought some gloves with them, would you not imagine they would have thought of that going back to the murder scene? Even I would think of that.

Any footprints of theirs around Mereith's body when she died would have been filled in with her flowing blood.

I believe they used Raffaele's bathroom to clean themselves off, so therefore any bloody mess in the small bathroom would have been the direct result of their cleaning-up actions. Since they did not go in there after the murder (when they were still bloody), and the murder did not occur in there, I do not find it difficult to believe that they could have successfully cleaned up any mess they made from the cleaning-up.

I do not believe there would have necessarily been a lot of evidence to clean up in the murder room. Because like I said, the footprints would have filled in. And if everything after Wound #1 was a part of their "staging/cover-up," then wouldn't you think they woudl be careful not to leave much evidence of themselves?

These are just some ideas, I do not claim to have all or even any of the answers.

How hard would it be to throw away a plastic bag in a dumpster somewhere?

Exactly, a CLEAR shoeprint, under or overlayed by a smudge - how to create a smudge inside the clear print?

Even if the initial place where someone had stepped into Meredith's blood "filled in", there would be footprints leading away from that spot. Rudy's prints are not only on the pillowcase in the bedroom and in the hallway leading away from it, but also on the tile floor in the bedroom under and next to Meredith's clothing. I personally believe it wouldn't be possible to find and clean some blood prints on that floorw shile leaving others, in and around the clothing, and body.

I think it would have been quite difficult to get to a dumpster far enough away without being caught on camera somewhere on the way or the way back. The police did find bloody tissues of some sort near the scene, so they were looking, but the blood on those did not match anyone in the case and were not used as evidence.

 

[Bill C]

Oh ok, I see what you are saying. So I guess, yes, you're right, the defense has to poke holes in it and if, in their minds, something was wrong with the collection or testing of that certain evidence, then they need to bring it to the jury's attention.

I guess then, here is what I think: If I were on the jury, I would be thinking, well they are cherry-picking evidence which is harmful to their clients, and what about all this other evidence which was also collected same way?

So that would make me either question all of the forensic evidence collected in the case, or would make me question the defense's claims.

And I would be thinking, well what are the chances that ALL of this evidence is "wrong" or "contaminated" or whatever? I would find the chance of that highly unlikely.

And I would realize that the defense naturally has the incentive to dispute evidence which is harmful towards their clients.

So those two taken together - that the chances of ALL the evidence being somehow wrong is very slim, and that the defense has the job of protecting its clients - would lead me to the conclusion that it cannot be that only these few DNA samples are "wrong."

With all due respect, your argument carries a definitive prosecution bias. You make no room for the possibility that certain portions of DNA evidence may have been innocently collected improperly (as an example the DNA from the bra clasp) or innocently analyzed improperly ( as an example the Low quantity DNA from the knife where only one sample was run and no controls are available for the defense or the court to even look at) while other DNA evidence was collected and analyzed properly (ie- AK's low quantity DNA on the knife and much of RG's DNA in the murder room. In this case it just so happens that the knife DNA and the bra clasp DNA are critical pieces of evidence. Your argument also doesn't take into account the POSSIBILITY (please don't jump on me too hard for this) that there might be a prosecution bias from the people doing the collection, anlysis and storage that would permit "mistakes" to be made with critical pieces of evidence. In other words the forensic scientists MIGHT have an a priori expectations of what the results of their testing should reveal. Any scientist worth his salt will tell you that such apriori expectations can lead to fallacious results if extreme attention to detail in performing tests and analyzing the data is not paid.
I would argue that a jury made up of people like yourself (maintaining the arguments that you made above) would hamstring a defense team. They could NEVER or almost NEVER win an argument with you questioning prosecution evidence even when that evidence is scientifically suspect.

 

[aa9511]

Exactly, a CLEAR shoeprint, under or overlayed by a smudge - how to create a smudge inside the clear print?

Even if the initial place where someone had stepped into Meredith's blood "filled in", there would be footprints leading away from that spot. Rudy's prints are not only on the pillowcase in the bedroom and in the hallway leading away from it, but also on the tile floor in the bedroom under and next to Meredith's clothing. I personally believe it wouldn't be possible to find and clean some blood prints on that floorw shile leaving others, in and around the clothing, and body.

I think it would have been quite difficult to get to a dumpster far enough away without being caught on camera somewhere on the way or the way back. The police did find bloody tissues of some sort near the scene, so they were looking, but the blood on those did not match anyone in the case and were not used as evidence.

Yes, I see what you are saying now. I don't know about that.

You know what could have also happened? So she gets accidentally struck with the knife. At this point, Rudy is the one holding her b/c in the inital prank, he was the one "assigned" the role of going in first and grabbing her. He drops her.

They panic, think of what to do, decide they have to make it look like someone came in and intentionally murdered her.

Amanda and RS cannot bring themselves to do the stabbing part.

Rudy does the stabbing, b/c he is at this point overwhelmed with panic and he knows that if they don't do it, then he has to do it, and do it fast so he can get out of there.

He does it, flees the scene. Amanda and RS run off to Raffaele's to clean up and think of a plan. They come up with the cover-up, how they will stage the body and the burglarly.

That would also explain why none of the 3 pointed fingers. Rudy can't, because he knows he did most of the stabbing after the accidental part. RS and Amanda can't, because first of all and most obvious, then they would have to admit that their whole story of not being there is a lie, and wait, no we actually were there and played an active role in all of this. Second, the accidental stike which lead to all of this was done by one of them. Third, the whole idea which led to all of this (prank) was theirs. Fourth, they did not call for help (obviously). Fifth, they engaged in a cover-up/staging of a body. Etc.etc.. This would account for all 3 of them not naming each other, obviously they all 3 would have things to hide, even if Rudy did most of the overkill stabbing.

This also would partly explain Amanda and RS insistence in their innocence. After all, they only did physically stabbed her once and that was accidental.