[David Sklansky]

"So it shouldn't matter whether the Shoe Size evidence comes early or late in the trial. And if it comes late in the trial it should not be subject to a premature opinion of guilt formed from incomplete evidence. After all the evidence is presented it should be weighed together"

It doesn't matter whether the shoe size evidence comes early or late. The end result is the same. If it was the absolutely first piece of evidence he would still be a fifty million to one UNDERDOG to be guilty at that moment (disregarding the fact he was arrested etc.). Then the rest of the evidence would bring him down up to 99.7%

The fact of the matter is that the mathematical technique that makes use of ratios of probabilities ( I won't use the B word) is very useful. And most people don't have a clue how to do this and therefore often make wildly wrong probability judgements. It is true that the technique makes assumptions but they are usually reasonable. And the errors made because of imperfect assumptions pale in comparison to the errors made by people who have no idea how to use the technique.