[HiTech RedNeck]

Possible alternative explanations of unknown likelihood might or might not rise in a jury’s mind to reasonable doubt. It’s the nature of the beast to allow it. I can’t see NOT allowing it. The prosecution also has a duty to be intelligent and allow for the jury to consider lesser crimes than the worst accused (I believe it didn’t in the Casey case).

[Trailerpark Badass]

"Reasonable doubt" can be created by attacking the state's evidence, and allows for any possible alternative theory, UNTIL the defense offers their own. The defense can offer its own evidence, things which it asserts ARE TRUE. That necessarily reduces the number of possibilities to two.

It's the defense that makes that choice.