One may believe that mathematical logic does not follow legal practitioners in the courtroom. However, logical fallacies are notorious in matters of conviction, especially when they occur due to incorrect probabilistic figures. In other words, people are wrongfully convicted because the prosecution convinces the jury through flawed statistical evidence. Though not majorly, Bayesian logic and probability seem to be at play here. Of course, it seems unreasonable to assign probabilities to events you know have or have not happened. A person being guilty has a 100% chance of conviction, and if he is not guilty, then the probability of that is 0%. A figure in the middle has no business here. But we may go on about assigning probabilities when we do not know, and Bayesianism assists us in doing this rationally. Bayesian probability’s central concept is held by a posterior probability, i.e., the updated probability of an event occurring after considering new evidence or data. Generally...