Some people pay more attention to things like science and probabilities, e.g. what is the probability that (a) suicide could be from two gun-shot wounds (b) fire 25 shots without any damage to long, well manicured nails (c) Nevill would call his son rather than the police, etc.
Other people pay more attention to human angle. They heard Julie's testimony under cross-examination by a top QC and they believed her. After all, other people also testified that Jeremy talked about killing his family and would a "scorned woman" really lied on oath in a murder trial, just to get revenge on Jeremy?
The trial did not involve any "probabilities" in the statistical sense. Hence no statistician was called.
Science if presented properly is more reliable that human testimony. Humans forget, misunderstand and lie for a variety of reasons.
a) The pathologist has always maintained:
46. From the pathological evidence alone, the pathologist could not say, one way or the other, whether Mrs Caffell had been murdered or had taken her own life.b) I have only ever heard males commenting on SC's nails. Females, like myself, know for a fact that long manicured fingernails are very robust. The biomechanical movements of doing what the defence alleges would be no more hazardous to fingernails than everyday activites.
c) The totality of the soc evidence by way of blood stains to flooring, casings, distance of shots, trajectories and wound tracks support the perp in the main bedroom with NB coming upstairs.
