Here are some short readings about the case of Sally Clark and Roy Meadow, as well as something called the prosecutor’s fallacy:

• Grimes (2023): “Bad Science and Bad Statistics in the Courtroom Convict Innocent People,” Scientific American;
• Carriquiry (2018): “Misuse of statistics in the courtroom: the Sally Clark case,” CSAFE;
• Westreich & Iliinsky (2014): “Epidemiology visualized: the prosecutor’s fallacy,” American Journal of Epidemiology;
• AP Dawid’s statement during the Clark appeal.

Please do the following:

1. Read the articles;
2. Using the ideas of conditional probability and independence that we have studied, write a paragraph or two describing what the prosecutor’s fallacy is and how it applies to the Clark case;
3. If you were an attorney for the defense and had the chance to cross-examine Roy Meadow, what would you ask him about his statistical testimony? What are the most incisive questions you could ask? How would you ensure that the cross-examination would “land” with the members of the jury, who most likely know absolutely nothing about probability and statistics?

Please don’t break my heart

I’m not asking you to read Moby-Dick here.