 Various attempts have been made to find the answers (for surveys of these attempts, see Enoch and Fisher 2015: 565–571; Redmayne 2008, Ho 2008: 135–143, 168–170; Gardiner 2019b; section 6 of the entry on   legal probabilism).   It has been argued that meeting a legal standard of proof is not merely or fundamentally a matter of adducing evidence to establish a mathematical probability of liability beyond a certain level. Standards of proof should be interpreted in epistemic rather than probabilistic terms. According to one interpretation, the evidence is sufficient to satisfy a standard of proof only if it is capable of justifying full or outright belief in the material facts that constitute legal liability and bare statistical evidence, as in our examples, cannot justify such a belief. (Nelkin 2021; Smith 2018; Buchak 2014; Ho 2008: 89–99.) On Smith’s account, the statistical evidence in our two examples fails to justify belief in the proposition that the defendant is liable because the evidence does not normically support that proposition. Evidence normically supports a proposition just in case the situation in which the evidence is true and the proposition is false is less normal, in the sense of requiring more explanation, than the situation in which the evidence and the proposition are both true. Where all that we have is statistical evidence, it could just so happen that the material proposition is false (it could just so happen that the accident-causing bus was red or that the accused was the one who refused to join in the murder), so no further explanation is needed where the proposition is false than where it is true (Smith 2018).