For example, suppose there are two houses side-by-side. One day someone throws an incendiary device from one house to the other, causing a fire. The facts of the case are:
- There are four people in the house from which the incendiary device is thrown
- It must be one of the four that threw the device (e.g. because the device is thrown from the second floor and there is no sign of forced entry into the house)
- All four people deny that they are the one that threw the device, although none of them can prove that they did not throw the device
What happens in situations like this where there's not enough evidence to pin the attack on one of the four people, but there is enough evidence to be certain that one of the four people is guilty? Do all four get convicted (i.e. three innocent people are convicted) or all four get released (i.e. one guilty person goes free)?
I feel like this must have happened in the past, but I'm unable to find any Google results for this. The closest is the Prisoner's dilemma, which implies that all four are convicted on a lesser charge. However, the Prisoner's dilemma is a thought experiment in game theory so I am not sure if it is legally correct.