I don't really agree with this.
What the prosecution says is not evidence. Of course they check the evidence (IMO) because they have to show through the evidence presented, and argued at the end of the case, how it proves the charges. If there was no case to answer the defence's remit is to ask the judge to rule that the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction.
It is for the jury to decide the facts proved, the truth as they see it based on the evidence, within the framework of the law clearly laid out for them by the judge.
IMO, you will be in the frame for murder if you were one of three adult family members living together in a small space where your niece died due to persistent long term very serious abuse and restraint, which caused visible injuries and debility, and would have caused screams and significant signs of distress, perhaps unconsciousness, certainly a period of brain damage, leading up to her death, which is very unlikely to have been not apparent to all, and you didn't seek medical help for her but bought tickets (showing participation/group alliance in evading police) for all three adults plus other children, and fled within an hour of her death, and you went into hiding, and you came back to face questioning but you all three remained silent when accused of her murder, and your defence at trial is a written statement that you didn't see anything (the upshot from that being that if you did see, you committed an offence under the law) but you didn't submit yourself to cross-examination at your trial. All of those actions and inactions are evidence.