I think it's even better if the burden of proof is placed on the prosecution (as it should be):
1. The prosecution must prove I returned the kettle in a damaged state (they can't).
2. They must prove I received the kettle in an undamaged state (they can't).
3. They must prove I received the kettle at all (they can't).
Kettle logic:
1. I wasn't there.
2. I was there but had no motive.
3. I was there, had motive, but had no means.
Argument in the alternative:
1. I wasn't there.
2. Even if I was there, I had no motive.
3. Even if I was there and had motive, I had no means.
The first makes three conflicting statements. The second makes 3 consecutive arguments: I have an alibi, but if you don't believe my alibi, I still had no motive, and if you don't believe my alibi and that I lacked motive, I had no means.