Outrageous bullshit like this appears in modern court cases all the time today. For example, it is common to cite astronomically small odds that a DNA match is in error, completely ignoring the far higher odds that the sample was accidentally contaminated, or the lab deliberately falsified the result to satisfy prosecutors, etc. I'm not saying that DNA evidence is bullshit, only that the only way to get something like a 10^-21 odds of error is to ignore all the largest possible error sources.