 The same conflation occurred in the Collins case discussed earlier. Even if the calculations were correct, the 1 in 12 million probability that a random couple would have the specified characteristics should be interpreted as \(\Pr(\match\pmid \textsf{innocent})\), not as the probability that the Collins were innocent given that they matched the eyewitness description, \(\Pr(\textsf{innocent}\pmid \match)\). Presumably, the jurors convicted the Collins because they thought it was virtually impossible that they were not the robbers. But the 1 in 12 million figure, assuming it is correct, only shows that \(\Pr(\match\pmid \textsf{innocent})\) equals \(\slashfrac{1}{(12\times 10^6)}\), not that \(\Pr(\textsf{innocent}\pmid \match)\) equals \(\slashfrac{1}{(12\times 10^6)}\).