My prediction is he will resurrect the accident theory. He will point to Cindy's parenting, to KC saying she was more afraid ("absolutely petrified") of her mother's reaction than if she ever saw her daughter again (YM's words) and the nanny story. He will say she tried to make it look like a kidnapping by putting duct tape on her after the fact. Ugly coping will come out and voila! But it's all BS of course. IMO
While I think they could go this route--I bet they will consider just tediously going over every shred of forensics information and boring the jury to death in the "OJ trial" type way. Did any of you watch that trial? My God, they had some forensics guy on the stand for days and days hashing and re-hashing the collection of evidence. All the minutiae PLUS the Mark Fuhrman "problem*" gave us the OJ not guilty verdict. (*Fuhrman was accused of planting the glove and being racist..the jury bought it!)
I can honestly see the OJ type of "defense" happening here. Smokescreens left and right. They won't even have to proffer the accident scenario. They'll say (insert southern drawl here) "why, shucks, we don't know why Caylee died. We're sorry she did..and though my client has not acted in the ways you deem "appropriate"--nothing puts Casey at the scene".
Granted...I think they will have a time of it tryng to explain Casey's goofy movie plot statements--but they will use a shell game strategy that will confuse the jurors. One juror is sure to fall in love with this new "folksy" attorney. He is a perfect choice...because JB is too smirky and dimwitted. We've got trouble with this new guy. Guaranteed.