The way I look at it is this re the lies...
If Gerard did not know his wife was dead when he called police that morning, which if he didn't kill her he'd have every reason to think she was still alive, then he would have no reason to lie about the scratches as they'd point to no crime other than a fight. If the truth was you and your wife had fought and she had scratched you then left the house, but alive and you'd committed no crime against her, then why not tell police that truth as you'd have nothing to fear and it could help them find her? Also, if you'd had a fight then you wouldn't call police so soon after her being missing in the morning because you'd think she might have gone off to cool down. You'd search for her first, call her best friend or family, etc. If you called them early because you thought she might have harmed herself you'd tell them that, you'd say we had a fight and she could get depressed I'm worried. But no, he said all was fine.
The other thing, is if you lied to police 'in case' something bad had happened to her you might look guilty then the bits about calling police early still apply but also, once you got arrested for the murder if you were innocent the flood gates would open. You'd already look guilty, and now you know they think you are, so you'd be wanting to tell the truth because that would explain their evidence. You wouldn't wait for trial 2 years later to do it and you wouldn't maintain the lie that they are razor marks.
Do I think there is any reasonable explanation where they can be razor marks? No. Do I think there's an alternative reasonable explanation for why he'd lie about them for a reason other than that he killed her? No. Therefore I consider them evidence of guilt and my understanding if the judges instructions is that in thinking that then that counts as evidence against him.
If Gerard did not know his wife was dead when he called police that morning, which if he didn't kill her he'd have every reason to think she was still alive, then he would have no reason to lie about the scratches as they'd point to no crime other than a fight. If the truth was you and your wife had fought and she had scratched you then left the house, but alive and you'd committed no crime against her, then why not tell police that truth as you'd have nothing to fear and it could help them find her? Also, if you'd had a fight then you wouldn't call police so soon after her being missing in the morning because you'd think she might have gone off to cool down. You'd search for her first, call her best friend or family, etc. If you called them early because you thought she might have harmed herself you'd tell them that, you'd say we had a fight and she could get depressed I'm worried. But no, he said all was fine.
The other thing, is if you lied to police 'in case' something bad had happened to her you might look guilty then the bits about calling police early still apply but also, once you got arrested for the murder if you were innocent the flood gates would open. You'd already look guilty, and now you know they think you are, so you'd be wanting to tell the truth because that would explain their evidence. You wouldn't wait for trial 2 years later to do it and you wouldn't maintain the lie that they are razor marks.
Do I think there is any reasonable explanation where they can be razor marks? No. Do I think there's an alternative reasonable explanation for why he'd lie about them for a reason other than that he killed her? No. Therefore I consider them evidence of guilt and my understanding if the judges instructions is that in thinking that then that counts as evidence against him.
