Right, if you are thinking of it in terms of probabilities, the probability of someone needing to take out their car seat is independent of the probability of someone killing their wife/ex-wife. The two acts being related is specious. Consider this: Of all the instances of someone removing their car seat, what is the percentage that it was to get rid of the evidence of a murder? Of all the instances that someone killed their wife/ex-wife in the passenger seat of their car, how often did that lead to them removing the seat as opposed to say abandoning it somewhere or torching it? You could go on for ever. I'm no authority but I would imagine that statistics generally confuse a subject in a courtroom more than help. That's an unfounded statement on my part but there is certainly a significant number of cases where expert witnesses were brought in and presented statistical data incorrectly to the jury.

There's no doubt that the car situation is going to be seen as a mighty strange coincidence to the jury, but the reasoning of the parent post is wrong. Juries get duped by this kind of thing quite frequently. A really great video of Peter Donnelly talking about this subject at TED can be found at http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/67