If the defence fail to ridicule these numbers, that's their problem. Isn't it obvious that I am not talking about the case here, but about the mathematics?
As such, your prediction on what line the defence will take is irrelevant to my point. This is a general principle here, not a reference to a specific case and whether or not the defendant is guilty (or indeed whether or not it is his DNA).
My point is, just because something is "very likely" (as it is in this instance), that does not mean that you can throw numbers like "one in xxx quadrillion" around with gay abandon.
Of course the defence is not going to fight the case on the fact that the true chance is (say) one in 7000, rather than one in 150 million billion. How does that deflect my argument? Your point is correct, but a complete non sequitur.
The defence
Date: 2005-11-02 04:48 am (UTC)As such, your prediction on what line the defence will take is irrelevant to my point. This is a general principle here, not a reference to a specific case and whether or not the defendant is guilty (or indeed whether or not it is his DNA).
My point is, just because something is "very likely" (as it is in this instance), that does not mean that you can throw numbers like "one in xxx quadrillion" around with gay abandon.
Of course the defence is not going to fight the case on the fact that the true chance is (say) one in 7000, rather than one in 150 million billion. How does that deflect my argument? Your point is correct, but a complete non sequitur.
PJ