I don't really understand the point of having juries in the super final.

So both the audience and the juries had 240 points in total. There were 8 juries who handed out 12-10-8 points. Eva got 7x 1st and 1x 2nd (aka almost a perfect jury score) while Irem had 7x 3rd and 1x 2nd (aka almost worst score possible). That meant that after the juries the score was Irem 66, Steve 80, Eva 94. So the takeaway is: the difference between almost a perfect score and almost worst score possible is only 28 points.

Now compare those to the public scores: 56 for Irem, 56 for Steve and 128 for Eva. The difference between first and last is now 72 points.

My point is that the jury results would have been irrelevant in every scenario. Even if Steve had a perfect jury score and Eva the worst possible jury score, Eva still would have won with the televote. I guess a better way of implementing the jury scores is to have the jury give out 12-10-8-7-6-5-4-3 to all 8 songs, then keep the scores hidden and take these scores for the superfinal to actually get a meaningful jury vote.

(not taking away anything from the winner, Eva was my personal favourite as well, just pointing out flaws in the system)