The Worst Math Ever Used In Court

Numbers don’t lie. People misusing numbers do

Take the judge in the case. Take the chances of having his first name, last name, college attended, wife’s name, number of children, and years as a judge and you can “prove” he does not exist because the probability is so small that all of those characteristics exist in one person!!!!

I am so disappointed in the math professor who was called as an expert witness. Assuming he really knew his stuff, he should have seen this abuse of the product rule coming from a mile away, and it was his responsibility to point it out.

love how, had they been guilty, the accomplice got more jail time than the person who actually carried out the assault and robbery.

One thing that I also felt wasn't really touched on in the refuting arguments: "At the end of the alleyway, a man named John Bass witnessed a white blonde woman with a ponytail get into a yellow car, and drive past him. He saw that the driver was a black man with a beard and a mustache." That was the description given about the two people. The entire probabilistic argument presented was heavily based on the probability of a couple matching those six requirements. Where in the accusing descriptions does proof come up that the two people in John Bass' view were even a couple to start? If we assume John saw the two correct people, he saw the robber and her getaway driver. That does not make a couple. I feel that was incredibly glossed over in the courtroom, almost more so than anything else.

This actually falls into a larger category, which is prosecutors and lawyers exploiting other peoples' ignorance (jurors, etc.). It can be a bluff (the prosecutor was spewing math knowledge he knew he didn't understand himself and could be incorrect), or they're convinced they know what they're talking about and that whoever they're trying to convince knows less than them.

I love how the court's references for how they arrived to the 40% probability was citing literal intro to probability books

Where was the defense on cross-examination!? You've gotta be a terrible lawyer to let this testimony fly. "No questions, your honor. I'd rather be fishing."

Prosecutors should face ramifications if they are solely responsible for a wrongful conviction. Especially if it is the result of fabricating evidence, and just making up probabilities is essentially fabricating evidence.

When the people trying to prove that a minecraft speedrunner was or was not cheating are better at using probabilities than actual criminal prosecutors, you realize how awful our legal system is

They forgot to consider "probability that she didn't remember correctly", or "probability that she made up her testimony"

1 out of 12 million seems like plenty of room for reasonable doubt.

"Things needs to be really dumb, before we get smart" Wise words, that's why no matter what anyone says, you're not useless.

6:58 - Another way to think about it, the 1 in 12 million they calculated is supposedly the probability a random person met all those characteristics. But police weren't arresting random couples, but specifically those that match the description. That's why the probability that they are innocent is so much higher, because it isn't out of all couples, but out of all others that match that description.

statistic don't lie but you can lie with statistic

Probably the worst timing to use Betty White for the victim.

Lawyer: I will use probability to prove that they are the only people who could've done it! Me: Oh, are you going to pull municipal census data, vehicle registrations, or any number of real data sets that could give you numbers to work with? Lawyer: Nah, I'm just gonna name probabilities with denominators I rolled on a fucking d10.

Prosecutors wanting a win just to win is a miscarriage of justice. Their duty is to carry out justice. Anything outside of that duty is moraly reprehensible.

I love how interesting this can get and how you are pretty much an information page but its simplified but not overly simplified so it can be enjoyable as well as the music and the mood set in each section

Did no one in the room seriously thought "hey, if there are 2 couples fitting this description in the state the chances would already be 50%"? And people complain about learning math in highschool