The break distance bias found in the papers?

I kinda doubt it . . . it goes against common sense that there are judges who, once they get hungry, rule against any parole applications no matter how compelling.

You can't use two pieces of contradictory evidence to support the same argument.

Yes you can, and I can demonstrate it by stepping back and demonstrating this point with an example in abstract terms:

Let's suppose that we are debating whether Hypothesis X is correct or Hypothesis Y is correct. I am relying on evidence A which seems to support hypothesis X. You are relying on Evidence B which seems to support hypothesis Y.

Ok, now suppose you present Evidence C which contradicts my hypothesis -- Hypothesis X. Does Evidence C make my hypothesis less likely to be correct? Not necessarily. If Evidence C contradicts Hypothesis Y even more acutely than Hypothesis X, then Hypothesis X is actually more likely than it was before.

So situations can arise where evidence comes out which contradicts a hypothesis but still makes that hypothesis more likely to be correct.

And that's pretty much the situation here. Your observation about a zero percent success rate at the end of the day in some cases undermines the 'hunger' hypothesis at least as much as it undermines the hypothesis that contested cases are being put at the end of the session (or the hypothesis that there is some other ordering factor at work).