Logical reasoning versus legal reasoning

Many people think that the law uses a very different kind of reasoning from science or classical critical thinking. To the extent that science and classical thinking engage in absolutes, this may indeed be true. But if one adopts the ideas of conjectural knowledge and working hypotheses, the law is not so different. For example, "finding" someone guilty or not guilty based on probabilities of less than 100% rather resembles choosing a working hypothesis.
In reading Herbert L. Packer's "A Measure of the Achievement," I was struck by how similar his steps in legal reasoning about the assassination were to the steps in our critical/scientific approach. He formulated the question, listed the critical physical evidence (and ignored evidence from witnesses), chose a hypothesis, tested it against the physical evidence, sought out other hypotheses consistent with the physical evidence, chose the most reasonable working hypothesis, and considered witness testimony in a corroborative role. We formulate the question, list all possible hypotheses, list all the relevant strong evidence, find all hypotheses consistent with this evidence, choose the simplest of these as our working hypothesis, continue to challenge it with new evidence, and occasionally consider the strongest witness evidence. I submit that these two approaches are essentially identical even though the order of their steps differs slightly. The following table highlights their similarities:

Packer's legal method	Our critical/scientific method
1. Formulate the question.	1. Formulate the question.
3. Choose a hypothesis.	2. List all possible hypotheses.
2. List the key physical evidence.	3. List all relevant strong evidence.
4. Test it against the physical evidence.
5. Try other possible hypotheses against the physical evidence.	4. Find all hypotheses consistent with this evidence.
6. Choose the most reasonable hypothesis as the working hypothesis.	5. Choose the simplest hypothesis consistent with the strong evidence as the working hypothesis.
	6. Challenge the working hypothesis with new evidence.
7. Consider appropriate witness evidence for possible corroborative value.	7. Consider the strongest witness evidence, as appropriate.

Note how minor the differences are: (1) we list hypotheses before evidence, whereas Packard lists evidence before hypotheses; (2) Packard chooses and tests one hypothesis before trying others, whereas we list and test all hypotheses in a group; (3) we challenge or working hypothesis with new evidence, whereas Packard doesn't.
In short, the best legal method is virtually the same as the best critical/scientific method. This extremely important result means that there is one best way of working with evidence, and both the law and the classical arts are using it. Therefore we must learn to use it fluently if we are to get the right answer for the assassination.