Introduction:The science of statistics refers to two distinct areas of knowledge. One area refers to uncertainty analysis and the other area refers to event listing, entity counts for various economic, social and scientific purposes. It is for these reasons that statistics can be of great value in the field of forensic science. Evidence used in a legal context contains doubt, meaning that such evidence requires statistical and problematic reasoning that plays an imperative role in criminal investigations, prosecution, and trial. Statistical and problematic reasoning also plays an important role in relation to forensic scientific evidence, such as DNA, produced by an expert witness. In criminal cases, it is important that everyone is able to understand and handle probability and statistics correctly. Throughout history, many criminal cases have been plagued by misunderstandings of statistical information and probabilities that contribute to erroneous judgments and convictions. Lucia de Berk case: In 2004, a Dutch case involving Lucia de Berk was based on statistical evidence. This particular case demonstrated the risks that occurred when statistical evidence invited problematic reasoning about “coincidence.” Lucia de Berk was a pediatric nurse found guilty of seven murders and three attempted murders. His victims were children entrusted to his care at the Juliana Children's Hospital in The Hague. The court was told that during his shifts, in his care, multiple children had died, which was possible by chance. Dr Henk Elffers told the court that the odds that his presence was a coincidence were about one in 340 million. Such a large amount was extremely powerful and I… middle of paper… between 18 and 60 years old in the area where the rape occurred. a local man was 75%, the odds are 200,000 to 1. • There is a 1.8 million chance that the accused is guilty. • There is a 1 in 3.6 million chance that the accused is guilty based solely on other evidence, not DNA evidence. • There is a 1 in 2 chance that the guilty person will provide alibi evidence • Assuming the chance that the defendant is not guilty based on DNA evidence is one in 200,000,000.• 200,000,000 should be divided by 3,600,000, giving a result that the odds that the defendant is guilty are 55 to one. It was determined that the jury was unaware of the most logical and common sense ways in which they could have evaluated the DNA evidence. The jury was not adequately informed of the meanings or implications of Bayes' Theorem.