> "The following demonstrates the fallacy in the context of a prosecutor questioning an expert witness: “the odds of finding this evidence on an innocent man ar

> "The following demonstrates the fallacy in the context of a prosecutor questioning an expert witness: “the odds of finding this evidence on an innocent man are so small that the jury can safely disregard the possibility that this defendant is innocent”.[1] The fallacy obscures that the odds of a defendant being innocent given said evidence in fact depends on the likely higher prior odds of the defendant being innocent, the explicitly lesser odds of the evidence in the case that he was innocent as mentioned, as well as the underlying cumulative odds of the evidence being on the defendant." Care to explain how this fallacy is related to the above competition?