But you're clearly claiming the "facts" driving the theory in part are actually ones which you don't even know exist. You "believe" they exist but you don't even know what they are. How can you say you're building a theory on unknown facts which may not even exist?
Again, looking at Terri's "behavior" could easily make you think she is guilty without there being one shred of actual evidence. I could pick someone at random from the board, decide they were involved, and build a case against them. Then whenever there were gaps, contradictions or unknowns in my theory, I could say "well, I believe there's a lot more out there, and I think LE agrees with me" and then redirect to one of my previously established arguments as if it can be used twice.
Imagine two friends named Sam and Max discuss the case, because I like using invented names instead of letters.
Sam: "She sent sexy texts immediately after her husband left. No one normal would do that. It shows she is either indifferent to Kyron, or highly immoral in general."
Max: "You don't know if it is normal, because you don't know how many people involved in missing child cases do this. You only know that this time you found out about it. And even if it is inappropriate or unusual, an equally valid interpretation of this behavior would be that she is someone who turns to sex for comfort. Because we can easily find this other explanation, we know this claim is subjective."
Sam: "But if you add it to the fact that she once had a DUI doesn't that make her seem immoral in general?"
Max: "Zero plus one equals one. We already zeroed out the first argument because either of our interpretations might be valid so we cannot assume either of them are. You cannot now re-add it to the equation."
Sam: "Well, I think there's a lot of stuff, so much that some of it must add up."
Max: "Without examining each piece of it individually and specifically, you can't know whether any of it even exists."