I really, truly do not understand the defense strategy in this case. It just seems like a put-out-the-latest-brushfire purely reactionary reflex rather than some big picture, unified golden-thread affirmative defensive strategy.
I was trained to use the "golden thread" technique. Basically, you come up with a story that makes sense, that has some firm evidence to support it and is not contradicted by irrefutable evidence. Frequently, initially adverse evidence can become favorable when looked at from a different point of view. For example, fingerprints of a robbery suspect who was ID'd by a store clerk can be negated by bank records showing that the suspect previously shopped at that store, maybe more than once, thus leaving behind his fingerprints and simultaneously being "familiar" when the store clerk is subsequently shown a line-up of possible suspects. Hard work often compensates a lot for bad facts. And, if you've still got absolutely nothing after you have thoroughly worked the case and your client is almost certainly going to be convicted, you make your best efforts to negotiate the best deal you can rather than risk all-or-nothing.
I was not trained to throw mud at a wall in hopes that something will stick. Certainly I would not bet my client's life on it. Quite frankly, if I had a client like Casey who insisted on going with an obviously false alibi like the Zenaida/Zanny/Zany/Zani story, I would have withdrawn a long time ago. $90K or even $200K would not be enough to entice me.
I have seen nothing to change my opinion that some clients choose to hire attorneys like themselves just like some dog owners choose to own dogs that physically resemble them. Casey, the Anthonys and Baez = peas in a pod.
Katprint
Always only my own opinions