I think that's pretty close. If I am arguing that Paul committed the murder (and you are arguing that Peter committed the murder) it doesn't really help your argument to point out that there is evidence the murderer was wearing a dress since it undermines your own position just as much as it undermines the position you have taken.

Getting back to the original discussion, another poster pointed out that my "contested cases later" hypothesis is undermined by the fact is undermined by the observation that for some judges there is a zero percent approval rate for later cases. The problem with this argument is that it undermines the "hunger" hypothesis even more than the "contested cases later" hypothesis.