The king’s servants certainly understood that a coup was in process and that their king was already dead. With nothing to protect but their lives, they fled, not realizing that they had thus become scapegoats for the murder.
Culture: Why would this scenario be believed? Why didn’t the king’s servants attack the murderers and then tell their own story? I offer a speculation based the kinship tensions typical of Mesoamerican monarchies. The king’s closest supporters would be his own lineage and those allied to him; but tensions among the ruling families were constant. I have already argued that Ammon defending Lamoni’s flocks at the waters of Sebus had stepped into a feud between elite kin groups. (See commentary accompanying Alma 17:27.) Thus, a king’s murder by his own servants to benefit a rival clan might not seem far-fetched.
And of course, since Amalickiah controlled the army, even doubters had a powerful reason for accepting his version of the story. With few means of mass communication, the idea with the best access to the largest group prevailed, and Amalickiah was advantaged compared to those who had fled. Circumstantial evidence against the dead king’s servants established their “guilt.”