The problem probably lies in the fact that you cannot prove something by reduction to the absurd based on a probability distribution. Because law requires posi

The problem probably lies in the fact that you cannot prove something by reduction to the absurd based on a probability distribution. Because law requires positive proof (or it should) not just "this chain of events is so unlikely under other assumptions that our assumptions must be right". This is where Sherlock's quotation is misleading: he says "rule out the IMPOSSIBLE", not the improbable. The judge is right epistemologically. Bayesian statistics has only a terminological issue.