I wrote a couple of weeks ago about Bennett’s Chainsaw, which is the principle that:
The more things you must contest and the more explanations you must provide in order to mount a defense, the more likely it is that you will be convicted.
Here is the first corollary to Bennett’s Chainsaw:
In the defense of a criminal case, the second-simplest explanation that accounts for all of the government’s admissible evidence is generally the best.
Why the second-simplest explanation?
Drop me a comment if you think you know.