[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But watch what happens when the second jury performs your thought experiment. ......

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not too late to delete is it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you suggesting I said something stupid and should delete my post to avoid embarrassment? If I have made a blunder, I do not mind admitting it later. But I am simply illustrating something that David has already acknowledged. Namely, if the pre-footprint evidence points to the shoe size of the defendant, then it will affect the outcome of the mathematical analysis. However, it is clear in the hypothetical that it should not affect the outcome of the actual analysis. This is because, at every point in time, both juries possess the same set of relevant evidence.

If the two situations produce the same actual conclusions, but the math gives two different conclusions, then the mathematical model must be either flawed or incomplete. This apparent contradiction requires an explanation and, I think, demonstrates that things are not quite as simple as they may seem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Essentially you're swinging between attributes of this specific defendant and attributes of the actual murderer ( and therefore potential murderers)and morphing them. Their original Million potential murderers shouldn't have size 13 shoes just because this specific defendant does.

In your second trial the jury noticed that the man had red hair, tattoo on nose and his left eye missing but there was no testimony that the murderer had those attributes. Why would their Million alternates have those features. They've reached the 80% convinced of quilt stage on other evidence. None of their Million alternate accused should have those attributes because they are not attributes of the murderer. They should have the known attributes of murderer and could well be the same Million in DS's first case. Essentially, the Million alternates are blankfaced and shoeless until there is evidence that the murderer had X ( slightly simplified).

Late evidence of a video show a man looking like the defendant comes in. Are you sure their 80% confidence in quilt doesn't change?

Eyewitness testimony could never convict a person in your approach because they already knew what the defendant looks like. ??

luckyme