Back To The Shoe Argument

[David Sklansky]

I need to resurrect it with all this mathematical wrangling going on about evidence. I forget what people's original answers were.

Suppose a man is on trial for murder and the jury is on the verge of acquitting him in spite of their strong suspicion of guilt because the evidence leaves room for reasonable doubt. But at the last minute a footprint is uncovered at the murder scene. It is definitely the murderer's. And it is the same size as the defendent. If it wasn't, its instant acquittal. But since it is the jury is now contemplating a conviction.

Do you agree or not that the rarer the shoe size, the greater the reason for the jury to convict?