It is possible for an accused murderer to use the unknown assailant theory as a defense in court, arguing that they are innocent and that the true perpetrator is someone who is completely unknown to them. This defense strategy is often used in cases where there is little or no physical evidence linking the accused to the crime, and the prosecution's case relies heavily on witness testimony or circumstantial evidence.

However, in order for the unknown assailant theory to be successful as a defense, the accused would need to present a plausible alternative explanation for the crime, such as another possible suspect or motive. Additionally, the defense would need to address any evidence that may point to the accused as the perpetrator, such as DNA evidence, eyewitness testimony, or any other physical evidence.

Ultimately, whether or not the unknown assailant theory is successful as a defense strategy depends on the specific details of the case, the strength of the prosecution's case, and the effectiveness of the defense team's arguments.


In this episode we take a look at five of the most notorious cases where the unknown assailant defense was used and how Lori Vallow Daybell plans to use it as well.

(commercial at 8:32)

to contact me:

bobbycapuci@protonmail.com


source:

Lori Vallow trial: 5 murder defendants who pointed to unknown assailants | Fox News