But how about you and I play? Who do you, nurumaik, think is more likely to be guilty? And what rational did you use, and evaluate to make that determination?

The problem you propose is that because the word likely appears, it's ok to use an invalid or inaccurate conclusion. Here it's the equivalent to saying.

all men can fly, Socrates can fly, is it likely that Socrates is a man?

It doesn't matter what context you use to ask the question. No, there's no reason to say Socrates is a man. All birds can fly, so Socrates must be a bird and a man, right?

all pigs can fly, and all bears... thus I have proven it's more likely that Socrates is a man-bear-bird-pig!