I figured I just start a new thread in case anyone else wants to join in on the dicussion. I think the movie made her seem guilty but the show "Beyond the Headlines" made her seem innocent.
There was a retired FBI agent whose wife made him look into it further just to prove his wife wrong (wife thought she was innocent, agent thought she was guilty) as he looked further into it he concluded that both Amanda and Rafaella had nothing to do with the case.
Some of his comments were that the knife didn't fit the physically wound on Meredith's neck. The DNA sample that they got was so low that it should've have been admissible. The DNA could only be tested once which means during that testing it could have been contaminated... numerous things could have happened. It also isn't conclusive because it was so low you're basically saying we have DNA of a female who has blue eyes and brown hair which could be anyone. Having a higher amount of DNA allows you to pin point it to an individual.
The agent also said that there was no way that Amanda and Raefella could have selectively cleaned up their mess. (no DNA was found of theirs in the room except for Rudy, the 3rd guy). Also Raefella's DNA was on Meredith's bra clasp was really low and they didn't collect until 6 weeks later.
I also think that just because their behavior wasn't "normal" (aka they weren't mourning) doesn't mean they are guilty. People react differently to situations.
I don't know if she's guilty or innocent, I just don't think she got a fair trial. Those were my 2 cents