Very cool, if true

Interesting -- thanks for that.

My reading of the original redacted court document was that it was Bayesian statistics, not Bayes Theorem which the judge ruled against. The Guardian article muddies the water completely by using the two interchangably. The original court document is heavily redacted so it's unclear.

If the Prof you link to is right, it's a stupid ruling but I *think* he's working from the Guardian article not the court document. The rest of his column is interesting though.