James Viver

We're all vulnerable.

Hi, Stockie.

Honestly, it's hard to say because I've not done a murder trial before.

So I kind of had nothing to base it on.

A lot of the evidence felt pretty strong, just from a news sense, comparing it to, I suppose, a news sense and a common sense.

And a lot of the arguments, which I know we'll get into from the defense side, felt a bit far-fetched, to be honest.

And so they convicted them

I suppose I wasn't surprised, but I would qualify that as sort of a relatively inexperienced opinion.

What I would say about that is, you know, on reflection, I wonder, you know, how satisfactory that may have been if they had managed to solve it the first time around or...

know when they had another go sort of a decade or so later you know the passage of time in a in a sort of twisted piece of irony perhaps given now the age of of for coney and for britzy and the the sort of the scenario of life that everybody is in i wonder if just you know manslaughter does whatever murder would have done the practical effect is is the same um and like you say justice has been served and there is that resolution so yeah it's interesting

Yeah, there's sort of a humility to it, isn't there?

with those scientists in that moment, knowing that just because they are working at the sort of ragged edge of their science today, in a year, five years, 10 years, they know it will be better because it wasn't as good before them, if you see what I mean.

So it's kind of built into that science that

You know, we will improve.

It will improve.

The science will improve.

And so it's sort of, you know, hopeful for the future.

Then they'll keep those samples, those epi tubes at minus 80 just on the off chance that it can solve them.

You know, a murder manslaughter in a decade's time, two decades time.

And so it proved to be.