Parsing the guilty, the guiltier and the guiltiest

After three weeks of testimony in one of the most horrific murders ever on the Seacoast, one question becomes evident.

Can any of these young men be believed?

They're all testifying for their lives, and they all have a lot to lose if things don't go their way.

Michael Tatum of Barrington and Zachary "D.J." Pinette of Springvale have both been given plea deals that give them 30 years to life with a chance for parole for their testifying that Tristan Wolusky was the mastermind of the botched robbery and killing of Aaron Wilkinson of Madbury on June 21, 2014.

And yet by two out of three accounts, Tatum could easily have struck the first fatal blow. It was Tatum, himself, who testified he stabbed Wilkinson in the back after he tried to escape Wolusky's grasp while Pinette struck his legs with a machete.

Then the next day Pinette testified he saw Tatum stab Wilkinson multiple times and only began striking Wilkinson with the machete after Wolusky asked him if he was going to do anything.

Meanwhile, only one defendant, Tatum, has said he actually saw Wolusky stab Wilkinson.

So it's possible that Tatum, who may have struck the fatal blow or blows, gets a chance at parole, while Wolusky gets life without parole.

Of course the coroner has testified it was the totality of 22 stab wounds that caused Wilkinson's death.

And while the trio ended up finding about $30 on Wilkinson that night, how much money did they think he'd have when they concocted their scheme to rob him of drugs and money.

Did they think Wilkinson would come out of his Madbury home to talk to Wolusky with thousands of dollars on him?

When they wrestled him to the ground and demanded the money, had they expected him to say, "Sure, no problem."?

And if he had, wouldn't he likely have not had vast sums of money in his pocket, but maybe had to go back in the house to his room to get it? With his dad in the house?

Would there have been more killing if the robbery had moved inside?

And what about Wilkinson, who has been portrayed by the defense as a drug dealer?

Drug dealers aren't normally thought of as ones who would go to the cops after they've been robbed of drugs or money, because they basically end up implicating themselves as dealers.

All the defendants have said they never planned on killing Wilkinson. If that is to be believed, what in the heck was the dynamic that turned the attempted robbery into a bloodbath.

With all the senseless and random acts of violence this country seems to experience each and every day, you'd think I could wrap my head around a robbery gone awry.

Sorry, I can't.

And with all the players singing for their lives, literally, I can't parse the guilty, the guiltier and the guiltiest.