Sorry I have been keeping one eye on my work, and answering calls and trying to post at the same time - not making myself clear I guess.
Baez says he is going to do a lot of things - that doesn't mean he is going to do it. He can infer just about anything about the State's case and can spend a half hour doing just that. He can say the jury will hear evidence of a crime that could have been committed by anyone - that not one piece of evidence points to ICA, that the State cannot prove this was murder, etc. etc. I suppose he could also infer sexual abuse in there also - as a reason why she committed this crime, or to explain her post-crime behavior - but to me that is so out of context. To keep the abuse in context with a theory that flows - I think he would need to say it was an accident, and the abuse explains her behavior.
But if he is saying SODDI - throwing a little possible sexual abuse at the wall, since you are saying he doesn't need proof, seems to me at least to have nothing at all to do with denying evidence of a murder and pointing at someone else.
If ICA is completely innocent of this crime - what does sexual abuse have to do with anything? Which slot of her not committing a murder does it fit into? Partying afterwards and avoiding her mother and brother? Getting the suggested abuse into the guilt phase - No - the penalty phase - sure, why not!
To me a story needs to have consistency to jell - and to me this one does. She parties before she murders her child, and she parties after she kills her child. No change of behavior there.