Originally Posted by Blue Order

To take the jury analogy a bit further, it would never be appropriate for a jury to speculate, or to manufacture hypotheses, in deliberations.

The jury is presented with the evidence for a conviction, and with the defense against that evidence. That is all the jury is permitted to consider. A jury is permitted to decide which evidence and testimony it finds more convincing. But what HH does-- manufacture a hypothesis of what "might have happened," based on "logic and reason"-- would be grounds for a mistrial if he ever tried that in deliberations.