But was there any specific thing during the course of his trial run that would have enticed an attacker? And given the fact that a supposed attacker would osten

But was there any specific thing during the course of his trial run that would have enticed an attacker? And given the fact that a supposed attacker would ostensibly be able to detect the existence of honey before the attack, would they not also be able to detect the absence of it? (And perhaps its simultaneous absence during the course of the trial) Seems like an experimental bias to me