So, let's see.....a mom and her three-year old daughter walk into a building together. A short time later, the mom is seen leaving the building alone. She goes to see some friends, goes out dancing, and gets a tattoo, and then engages in similar behavior for the next 30 days. She never shows any sign that she's worried about her daughter, who hasn't been seen since the mom left the building alone on the first day. After thirty days, other family members report the child missing.
Six months later, law enforcement finally searches the building and finds the daughter's dead body, arranged neatly in a corner of a closet wrapped in the child's favorite blanket. The body is so decomposed that toxicology tests don't generate any usable results. Law enforcement questions the mother, who tells them that the child has been at camp for six months. When police officers search the mother's home, they find traces of arsenic along with Internet searches on the home computer (dated prior to the child's disappearance) for terms like "killing with arsenic" and "arsenic poisoning."
Police arrest the mother once they find out that the camp she told them about doesn't even exist. She is charged with first-degree murder.
What's the verdict?
Were there any other people in the building when the mother took her daughter in there or was it easily accessible? Was there evidence of how the child died or when?
Those would be important questions that I would have.
In your scenario if the defense asserts the mothers father sexually abused her and was also present at the building then provides no evidence for these claims and in fact admits in their closing there is no evidence against him the verdict is obvious; not guilty, right?
Then again, if aliens came down, grabbed the child, took her into the building to perform experiments on her it would be more probable than the non-evidence Baez threw-up at the jury.
(I don’t need a sarcasm tag for this post, I hope!)