Al, Bob, and Charles work in a bank. Some money goes missing one day. Al knows that Bob has a history of petty theft, for which he has been convicted multiple times. Bob also has served a light prison sentence for petty theft, and was fired from a previous job for stealing from a cash register. Al further knows that recidivism rates among offenders is rather high: that is, they are likely to commit the same crime over and over.

On the other hand, Al knows that Charles has an impeccable moral track record, and has never stolen a thing in his life, and has always been upstanding and honest (we will set aside how he could come by such information; let us just assume that he has it on good authority).

Al forms a belief that Bob stole the money. This belief is arguably justified, given his body of knowledge concerning Bob. Later, an investigation finds the missing money (identified by serial number) at Bob's house, there is surveillance footage from the bank of Bob taking the money, and a tipster reports that Bob was in the local bar, bragging about his theft.

It has now been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that Bob was the thief. So, when he initially formulated his belief about Bob's having taken the money, Al held a justified true belief. Did he know that Bob took the money?