Great article, no doubt.
Comes with a flaw towards the end, though.
It says 'Unfortunately there are still few jurors, lawyers, and judges who understand the statistical subtleties of such evidence'.
I bet you wanted to say 'Unfortunately there are still few jurors, lawyers, and judges who DO NOT understand the statistical subtleties of such evidence'
Great article, no doubt.
Comes with a flaw towards the end, though.
It says 'Unfortunately there are still few jurors, lawyers, and judges who understand the statistical subtleties of such evidence'.
I bet you wanted to say 'Unfortunately there are still few jurors, lawyers, and judges who DO NOT understand the statistical subtleties of such evidence'