A car was ticketed in Sweden for parking too long in a limited time zone after a policeman recorded the positions of the two tire air valves on one side of the car (in the one o’clock and eight o’clock positions) and returned hours later to find the car in the same spot with the tire valves in the same positions [32]. The driver claimed that he had driven away and returned later to park in the same spot, and it was a coincidence that both tire valves stopped in the same positions as before. The court accepted the driver’s argument, calculating the probability that both valves would stop at their earlier positions as (1/12)(1/12) = 1/144 and feeling that this was not a small enough probability to preclude reasonable doubt. The court advised, however, that had the policeman noted the position of all four tire valves and found these to be unchanged, the very slight (1/12)⁴ = 0.0005 probability of such a coincidence would be accepted as proof that the car had not moved. As defense attorney for a four-valve client, how might you challenge this calculation?