May 26, 2005
Day Four
The Republicans' statistical analyst Clark Benson is now on the stand.
--
CalTech professor Jonathan Katz was just sworn in.
Democrat lawyer David Burman throws a temper tantrum. "We want to know how these people voted. Don't look at that ... look at me and answer my questions."
Katz is doing a fine job of defending his work. Burman is demanding an absurd standard which isn't required by any statute, which is to show with certainty how every illegal voter voted (the unknown illegal voters as well as the known illegal voters).
Burman brings up the red herring of the "ecological fallacy".
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 26, 2005
09:01 AM | Email This
1. What's this business about not allowing Benson as an expert witness?
2. Apparently much ado about nothing, given that he is testifying now.
3. Benson is a pretty cagey fella, reminds me of Stefan when it comes to numbers
4. Katz is on the stand, and audio on TVW has dropped out.
5. It's a little shocking the Dem Lawyers didn't "Object" when he answered the questions regarding his scholastic accomplishments.
6. The audio from TVW has been horrible this morning. Must be heavy traffic, but it would help if anyone with an alternative source could give us real-time blow-by-blow.
7. Is he trying to intimate that the statistitions weren't given enough information?
8. Who is THIS democrat lawyer?
He is just trying to make statistics look confusing, which it's not if you understand it.
9. The Democrats don't understand those "basic" calculations. 1+1=3 in their book.
10. binomial in the multi nomial?
Bet CG can't even spell that
11. I wouldn't make the mistake of assuming that CG is stupid. She's not. She is corrupt, but not stupid.
12. Einstein said: "Things should be as simple as possible, but not simpler". This lawyer wants simpler than possible.
13. Wow - this Katz witness is awesome. The dem lawyer is not going to be able to spin his answers at all. Katz is confident, eloquent, and definitely not confused!
14. This guy on the stand knows his stuff! Got some b*lls too!
15. The party of the intellectuals is trying to make math look not scientific.
16. For a good feed go to NWCN. they have a excellent video and audio.
Got there via Orbusmax.com
17. The guy sitting in the chairs a few rows back, as seen in the camera angle of the lawyers, has a shirt on that says "Flush..." and I can't read the rest because his arms are folded. Anyone know what it says?
18. Nevermind, "Flush the Johns". Old shirt :-) I thought it might be something new.
19. So, from what I can tell there hasn't even been a question asked yet. He's just instructing him still on what to base his answers on? Maybe I'm thick, but jeez.
20. I think the judge is on our side.... Sustaining all of our objections....
21. Interesting theory from the dem lawyers. They seem to be saying that if you don't know every illegal ballot cast, then you have a sample of illegal ballots cast. Since the data is not complete, because it is virtually impossible to find all illegal votes, then the data is a sample of the complete data. Because the sample was not scientifically designed, it can't be used to infer things about the election as a whole. Essentially it is the same argument used by Durkin. If we don't know everything, we can't overturn the election because we can't be 100% sure.
22. "flush the Johns" is the shirt.
Just tuned in, Katz: WHO IS THIS GUY? very confident fellow, whoever he is. Seems to know where the lawyer is going, not going to allow himself to be trapped.
23. I wish he'd just smack the lawyer, and scream "Idiot!"
24. Well that line of questioning was a big dead end.
25. I think you have it about right MIMike.
26. Aaahhh, he wasn't getting the answered he wanted or the help from the Judge he needed so he retracted the question. Someone give him a kleenex.
27. IT IS OUTRAGEOUS! You're a f-ckin moron!!!
28. Wow!!!!!
"Stop looking at them, look at me!"
He is trying to fluster the witness. I think it is a sign that this dem lawyer is flustered himself.
29. Bridges to Dem Lawyer: Grow up.
30. There is a snottyness in this lawyers' voice that I don't thing is endearing to the judge.
31. Funny. "I don't understand the principal, so I'm not going to ask you any questions on that"
And give me a break, the guy's a Professor, of course he'll look around the room as he talks.
32. is it just me? or is Burman (D-atty)getting his butt kicked by the witness right now?
33. waaaaah!
Will this statistical analysis tell if a felon is a car theif or a murderer with brown hair?
it's like that commericial where the lawyer asks the jury:
"DNA isn't REALLY evidence is it?- shakes her head no.
34. Excuse me, but why does this lawyer not have a problem with canvassing boards trying to figure out how someone voted from a ballot, but has a problem with concrete math and statistical analysis?
35. I don't think that he's getting his way. And I think he knows it.
36. I don't think Burman is getting his butt kicked necessarily. I think he is building a case for the supreme banana court to give them justification for their inevitable overruling of Bridges.
37. Am I understanding this lawyer, that statistics isn't a valid science? Their argument is that all statisticians are just guessing? This is the best they have?
This lawyer couldn't pass the WASL!
38. >>Don't look at that ... look at me and answer my questions.
Judge do I have to look at him he is really ugly.
39. At the beginning of this the judge told Katz the lawyer was going to try to eat him up or some such thing. I think the lawyer is still hungry:)
40. cause Satterberg, Logan, Pelz and Huenneken had the Magic " 8 Ball " don'tcha know
41. What he's saying is you would have more confidence in the result if the data were better. Duh! How much is this guy getting per hour?
42. That was a good one by Burman.
I agree Rich - they are happy to devine "voter intent" using a crystal ball, but are unhappy with the use of statistical theory.
43. I don't know if anyone else has noticed this....There's a guy in the audience wearing a t-shirt that says "Flush the John's".
I first thought it said "Flush the Dem's" Same thing isn't it?
44. That's not the only thing that boggles your mind, buddy.
45. I hate to be a skeptic but I agree with DeadMan about the supremes. This guy is doing good, though.
46. someone give the court reporter a cup of coffee.
47. Wow--compare this witness to Huennekens and Way. Sounds like HE should be in charge in KC Elections. I have a feeling things might've gone better.
48. A shrill voice is heard from Olypmia
" Hell know he can; have any water, we are in a draught"
49. That would be the point of this tyrade of dead end questioning.
50. A shrill voice is heard from Olympia " Hell know he can't have more water, we are in a draught"
51. I love how when this lawyer asks how something is done, he gets "NO". So great. He's not rattling Katz at all.
52. That's right, Rich; Dems can call a stray mark a Gregoire vote when it doesn't even LOOK like a vote and that's JUST FINE; but mathematically scientific stuff? Well, THAT'S just smoke and mirrors.....
53. Now that we're at recess, does anyone have a good suggestion on how to get over a Gummi Bear addiction?
54. gummy worms
55. Sure, Editor; just listen to a Christine Gregoire speech for an hour and that should cure it right away...
56. Those candy orange slices
57. Gummi vitamins (yes, you can get them at Costco). Eat more than 5 and by the next day, you will probably never want to see a gummi ANYTHING anymore.
58. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the Dem lawyer just led the witness through a series of questions that, presuming proportional analysis is allowed, that it has to be on a precinct level, not by a broader level, thus supporting the R's interests...
I really like the witness, even if the whole thing is blown up in an hour.
The lawyer is trying to pull a "Columbo", pretending to be dumber than he is and bringing in all kinds of stuff that is meant to be foundational for ruling against the witness' testimony.
The witness is running circles around the lawyer, but I have strong reservations about it being enough.
Did anyone elaborate about what a Frye is? Obviously it has to do with the credibility of expert witnesses and the introduction of evidence/expert testimony...but what else?
59. Almond Roca
60. Peeps!!!
61. I find it interesting that in this situation, the Democratic lawyer is rejecting the statistical analysis used to support Rossi's case. The numbers do not support his position, so he rejects the whole thing out of hand - without having a valid reason for his rejection of it other than requiring impossible conditions in order to accept the analysis.
Meanwhile, there are the Democratic conspiracy theories that somehow Carl Rove stole the election for George Bush. After all, how could Bush have won when the exit polls (a type of statistical analysis) clearly indicated that John Kerry won? In this case, the exit polls are held to be more reliable than the election results.
All very interesting...
62. Statistics IS all about guessing. Hell, most decisions in life require some amount of guessing.
It just that statistics helps us make very good guesses. :)
And no one ever really KNOWS anything with absolute certainty. Fortunately, courts don't require certainty, just reasonable or the absense of reasonable doubt.
63. Is anyone else laughing at the number of times the poor stenographer had to ask Katz to slow down and repeat himself?
64. The interesting thing is that Dean Logan, at $120,000/yr probably is in the same ballpark as the pay of a full professor at Cal Tech.
I know which one I'd prefer to have run my election.
65. "Did anyone elaborate about what a Frye is? Obviously it has to do with the credibility of expert witnesses and the introduction of evidence/expert testimony...but what else?"
A Frye test is a common-law rule of evidence: the results of scientific tests or procedures are admissible as evidence only when the tests or procedures have gained general acceptance in the particular field to which they belong.
66. Again- the dems are trying a two prong strategy.
The data is either too specific- or not specific enough.
they'll throw both steaming theories at the wall and see what sticks.
67. At the risk of looking like a dumb dumb. Was there a cross with the professor from Cal Tech?
Did I miss it?
68. "they'll throw both steaming theories at the wall and see what sticks."
An awful messy strategy. But if that's all you've got, then that's all you got.
69. Frye is the court case that set the standard for admissibility of scientific evidence. Basically it has to be generally accepted in the scientific community. If you do a google search on Fyre I am sure you will get lots of results.
70. How can this gender argument be valid when gender is not a choice as is voting and when males are much more likely to be felons than females are. It seems to me that argument is totally bogus.
71. Bob E,
I believe the Fry thing you refer to is an inquiry by the Court to determine the propriety and / or usefulness of the proposed type of evidence (statistical analysis of illegal voting patterns in this case) in assisting in the adjudication of facts.
72. At first, I was wondering who this yahoo on the stand is, but actually, I think he is making the pubbies case for them. I think the pubbies know this and that is why you are not hearing objections.
Follow me here ... on one hand the pubbies are trying to do a proportional analysis that gives them a good guess as to what the vote count was. Dems dont want that, because they loose.
OK, so come back and try to prove it does not work ... and what you prove is that if there are 130 votes in the entire state that are in question, the election should be set aside because the margin of error is greater than the actual difference ... net result ... PUBBIES WIN.
I love this