The pathologist from the article, it is important to remember, contradicts the NY ME's report, and has been hired by Epstein's family, who have a wrongful death suit brewing. He's hardly an unbiased source, and unlike the NY ME, he's retired and (while he has a reputation to protect as a human being who cares about such things) he has no career to protect by not screwing up the details on this one.
Bias, reputation, and motive are irrelevant to the claim that "Epstein suffered multiple fractures in his neck that are more consistent with strangulation than suicide by hanging". 1) Did Epstein suffer these fractures? 2) Does established forensic science support that these fractures are more consistent with strangulation? 3) How much more? 4) Is there other evidence that supports the conclusion this was suicide?
The pathologists uses facts and established scientific knowledge to draw a conclusion. Legitimate responses to that conclusion should be factual and scientific. Counter arguments along the lines of the "middle class people don't understand the justice system" or "this guy was paid", however true they may be, don't have any bearing on the neck fractures and if those fractures are consistent with strangulation or suicide.
They are consistent with both, And if the standard were preponderance of evidence and the only evidence on the table where the forensic report, it's two to one odds in favor of homicide by strangulation.
One thing I don't know regarding a medical examiner's job is whether they are supposed to take in additional evidence, and if an ME is required to give one single conclusion. If they are required to give one single conclusion, then it still makes sense that the New York medical examiner would conclude the thing that is more probable in light of circumstances, even if the forensic evidence alone indicates something else is more probable. Because a 25% frequency isn't low enough that one would bet on the 50% frequency event being what occurred in light of the fact that the homicide would have had to happen In a secure and protected facility with an isolated prisoner.
It's almost feels like a Bayesian versus frequentist analysis question.
But in any case, if the medical examiner is required to give a single answer, and their reputation suffers if that answer turns out to be wrong, I would assume that they would factor in mitigating circumstances to allow for the lower probability scenario to outweigh the higher probability scenario in isolation. And the forensics expert who is not responsible for analyzing future cases and may not be constrained to give a single answer is free to answer based on raw probabilities without factoring in circumstances.
