In 1999, in England, Sally Clark was found guilty of the murder of two of her sons. Both infants were found dead in the morning, one in 1996 and another in 1998. In both cases, she claimed the cause...

In 1999, in England, Sally Clark was found guilty of the murder of two of her sons. Both infants were found dead in the morning, one in 1996 and another in 1998. In both cases, she claimed the cause of death was sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). No evidence of physical harm was found on the two infants so the main piece of evidence against her was the testimony of Professor Sir Roy Meadow, who testified that the chances of two infants dying of SIDS was 1 in 73 million. He arrived at this figure by finding that the rate of SIDS was 1 in 8,500 and then calculating that the chance of two SIDS cases was 8,500 × 8,500 ≈ 73 million. Which of the following do you agree with?

A. Sir Meadow assumed that the probability of the second son being affected by SIDS was independent of the first son being affected, thereby ignoring possible genetic causes. If genetics plays a role then: Pr(second case of SIDS | first case of SIDS) <>

B. Nothing. The multiplicative rule always applies in this way: Pr(A and B) = Pr(A)Pr(B)

C. Sir Meadow is an expert and we should trust his calculations.

D. Numbers don’t lie.