Cellphone forensics expert testifies about Alex Murdaugh's phone
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ก.พ. 2023
- Sgt. Paul McManigal with the Charleston County Sheriff's Office testifies about Maggie Murdaugh's cellphone and its functions. During Tuesday's rebuttal witness testimony, McManigcal explained how he performed tests on a phone similar to Maggie Murdaugh's in an attempt to activate the iPhone's "Raise to Wake" feature.
McManigal is a Sgt with Charleston County Sheriff’s Office, with Secret Service in cyber fraud division. He is a digital forensic examiner. He is the one that received the iPhone from Agent Dylan Hightower belonging to Alex Murdaugh.
McManigal was asked to redact private lawyer/client communications found on the phone, narrow the digital evidence collected to a timeframe closer to the murders of Paul and Maggie, and generate a report of the information collected from Alex’s phone.
![อยู่ได้แล้ว - LIPTA feat. Mirrr [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/-9-hpntNym4/mqdefault.jpg)
I’m sorry, but this is one of the funniest things I have ever seen. I was laughing so hard during this testimony, I was in tears.
“So, you’re alone in your office, throwing the phone around, taking no measurements, recording nothing, over the weekend, and then you come in here and testify, as an expert, as to what the phone can do?”
“That’s correct.”
LATER
“And when it comes to tossing it around and seeing how it moves, you don’t know anything more than anyone else, do you?”
“No, sir.”
😂
Is this real life?
I literally fell out of my chair laughing so hard during this testimony. He was so matter-of-fact when he answered. This was hilarious! 😂
@@candicane1 I KNOW!!!! How he answered every single question with a straight face. No nonsense, all business.
This entire testimony was freaking comedic gold.
You camt make this stuff up🤣🤣🤣
This was so embarrassing for the prosecution. Letting him testify while he did not record anything at all. What were they thinking?
You fell for defense’s argument that it wasn’t science but he didn’t say it was science. Just the opposite - not an exact science. This is why judge overruled the objection.
@@wishingyoupeace It's not about science, but how do we even know he did the experiment? There is no proof whatsoever. He only said he did the experiment alone in his office by throwing an iPhone a few times. I could have said the same thing. This witness looked like a joke when the defense cross-examined him.
I don't understand why they didn't ask an Apple representative to provide their expertise. They did it with Snapchat.
What was his Fee!😂😂😂
@@lebensgenieter2890 I disagree. “How we know” is because he testified under oath. As an expert he knows the light sensor had a battery saving component based on predictive factors of the way phone is handled. He experimented by handling it in different ways and found some patterns “9/10 times it lit up”etc. He described setting & limited experimentation. He did not claim it to be anything more than an example of patterns he visualized.
The defense looked dumb by belaboring a moot point (it was not a randomized controlled study and he never claimed it to be). The defense attorney’s strategy backfired by coming off as a bully without any substance to his point. Yes the witness merely experimented by tossing phone in various ways. He reported results from this limited firsthand experience which jury could take for what it was worth.
@@lebensgenieter2890 I do agree they should have had an expert from Apple on sensors but that would be for the defense to provide since they disagreed with testimony. He was merely reporting battery saving patterns of iPhone and gave simple examples. Defense attempted to discredit expert witness but it didn’t work because he did not make false claims beyond his scope of accepted expertise. Judge said if they disagreed with his qualifications as expert, they had opportunity to do so and didn’t. One does not have to be an engineer to provide basic information on battery saving motion sensors.
Everybody went home throwing their phones at the wall
😂
Defense: so you did your test in your office?
Witness: absolutely..
😆🤭
Hell i can be an expert forensic, im good at throwing phones around, im a professional, this is a joke
The attorney in the back with his head down with glasses on top of his head. So telling of the overall prosecution feeling during this testimony.
If he had filmed it, it could have been a hell of an advertisement for screen protectors and phone cases. Well, except for the whole murder tie in.
This can't even be called an experiment 🤣 no data recorded, no control, no measurements. My college professors would have thrown me out
Wow. Not a good look for the prosecution
The defence lawyer doesn't know much about cellphone activation... far less than the witness
Who's idea was it to get this guy...?! Backfired anyway..
I agree , the judge should strike this , this is a joke
No, judge is not going to strike testimony because he’s a bad witness for the prosecution. It’s just an unfortunate gaffe for the prosecution case.
@@ggcatbelladogantics2959 defense is making a point , i get it , my point is how could they this idiot on the stand in a case with literally all circumstantial evidence, and talk about throw his phone around all weekend, with out any notes or video , in a high profile murder case , its looks so moronic!
Sure this “expert” may be a joke but the defense had the opportunity to argue that he was qualified as an expert witness- they didn’t.
The prosecution should have at least made sure data was recorded before putting this “expert” on the stand. Very embarrassing but this is how poor this prosecution has been managed through out this case.
None of the defense witnesses provided written reports if you’ve been following it’s only been verbal testimony. This may have sounded ridiculous because the topic is ridiculous. But there are some who don’t know how cell phone backlights work. If you simply throw it as he did, any juror would also see it’s plausible AM threw the phone and backlight didn’t come on because 9/10 times it doesn’t.
This was insane, what in tarnation is he talking about?
How is this real life? 😂😂😂 that this guy was allowed to testify is shameful to the prosecution and judges reputations… this is an all time court blooper
I’m sorry but this is absolutely going on my list of funny court bloopers and I work in the court room! 😂😂😂
Geez... Who is this "pro" witness? WTF😜
Supposedly an iPhone “pro” max one 😂😂😂😂
Train wreck of a witness
OMG... never saw this witness! Lol my iPhone screen's on vs. screen off acts nothing like he says!😂
The rebuttal has done way more bad than good for the State. The Coroner was bad enough and then this guy? Perfect example of how slimy and dirty prosecutors and the State can truly be.
This guy was an embarrassment for the Prosecution, but the Coroner knew her stuff and was excellent.
@tld: She wasn’t good the first cross during the State’s case and was worse during her rebuttal. Not enough pictures of the scene. Her notes don’t coincide with her final verdict; which is why she didn’t turn them in. She didn’t shave the head to check for stippling or any other evidence for that matter. . No X-rays. No experience of head shots that weren’t suicides.
Did she not do these standard steps bc she had a preconceived idea of what happened and didn’t feel she needed to or was it something more nefarious?
All I can tell you is just like the motto of this trial it was either not done “but they tried” or it wasn’t done bc it’s “not my job”. It’s disgraceful.
@@apfeiffer7606 I wonder if you really saw all of her testimony? The only thing she possibly fell short of the mark on was not taking more photos which she readily admitted to. Otherwise, she adroitly rebutted every false accusation and red herring the Defense was throwing at her. I could refute each of your suppositions but don't want to take the time since you will probably not be accepting of them. However, I will give just one example regarding the working notes. These were her personal working papers not meant for public consumption or reporting which she used as aids during the ongoing autopsies. Her working notes don't have to match the final autopsy report because during the process, new bits of evidence may have redirected her to new compelling conclusions. Haven't you ever done a crossword puzzle and written in a plausible answer only to have to go back and change it after getting more clues? I think your heavy criticism of the Coroner tells us more about you than her. Perhaps you are a misogynist that does not respect women who are highly educated, eminently qualified and very successful at their chosen professions?
@@tld7846 Ahh yes, the practice of name calling and accusing when you can’t admit things. Just admit she left a lot of unanswered questions bc the job was not done as thorough as it could or should have been.
This judge is the worst judge I’ve ever seen. He sustained the prosecution’s objection when the defense’s phone expert, an ACTUAL PHYSICIST/ENGINEER was trying to testify about the phone’s movement … but this guy, THIS guy, the judge thinks is A-OK. What a biased hypocrite. Seriously.
No livestream. Why?
Omg hilarious. He had one job 😂
Judge should have struck this testimony immediately after he said he didn't know anything more than anyone else in this subject matter. He testified as an expert in extraction not phone functions.
I like the badge lanyard showing the world he's in the secret service , he must be in the not so secret service department 😂😂
👀😬
This such a joke
I agree 💯
My ears pricked up when this "expert" said "I studied statistics at college" ( FYI In Australian we call it university).
I'm sorry but that not how a expert in "statistics" (ie mathematics) would speak.
They would never say 'I studied statistics in college". A real expert would say.
"I obtained a Bachelors or Masters of honours or.a doctorate in mathematics from such and such university/college".
I've also wouldn't expect a (real) mathematician to just hand wave away, a subject like statistics. Especially when trying to explain statistics to a lay person.
Because plainly speaking statistics is hard. Your not going to be able to do statistical equations or analysis using just your intelligence and intuition.
There are a lot of technical terms in statistics. It also involves many mathematical concepts. The formulas of which are also arithmetically complex, making them difficult to apply without errors.
I'll give you an example of how tricky statistics can be.
If I were to ask (the seemingly simple) what is the probability of getting 50 heads in a 100 coin tosses?
What would your answer be?
Well if we toss a coin 100 times, then its true that we expect that heads will appear 50 times. But It DEPENDS on what you mean by "EXPECT". Its true that the most likely outcome is 50 heads, but this will only happen approximately 7.96% of the time and you would figure this out like (ie the equation looks like) this:. The probability of exactly n heads in 2n flips of a fair coin is (2nn)2−2n=(2n)!n!22−2n
For small n you can evaluate that exactly, but for large n it’s more convenient to use Stirling’s approximation for factorials, n!≈2πn−−−√(ne)n
That makes the probability approximately 4πn√(2ne)2n(2πn√(ne)n)22−2n
which reduces to 1πn√
For n=50
that is approximately 0.0798
while the exact calculation rounds to 0.0796.
See what I mean!
.
This was a complete joke. The witness knows nothing about how the software works, nor is he even using the same software version which could fundamentally change test results. I can't help but feel extreme second hand embarrassment for this guy.
My ears pricked up when this "expert" said "I studied statistics at college" ( FYI In Australian we call it university).
I'm sorry but that not how a expert in "statistics" (ie mathematics) would speak.
They would never say 'I studied statistics in college". A real expert would say.
"I obtained a Bachelors or Masters of honours or.a doctorate in mathematics from such and such university/college".
I've also wouldn't expect a (real) mathematician to just hand wave away, a subject like statistics. Especially when trying to explain statistics to a lay person.
Because plainly speaking statistics is hard. Your not going to be able to do statistical equations or analysis using just your intelligence and intuition.
There are a lot of technical terms in statistics. It also involves many mathematical concepts. The formulas of which are also arithmetically complex, making them difficult to apply without errors.
I'll give you an example of how tricky statistics can be.
If I were to ask (the seemingly simple) what is the probability of getting 50 heads in a 100 coin tosses?
What would your answer be?
Well if we toss a coin 100 times, then its true that we expect that heads will appear 50 times. But It DEPENDS on what you mean by "EXPECT". Its true that the most likely outcome is 50 heads, but this will only happen approximately 7.96% of the time and you would figure this out like (ie the equation looks like) this:. The probability of exactly n heads in 2n flips of a fair coin is (2nn)2−2n=(2n)!n!22−2n
For small n you can evaluate that exactly, but for large n it’s more convenient to use Stirling’s approximation for factorials, n!≈2πn−−−√(ne)n
That makes the probability approximately 4πn√(2ne)2n(2πn√(ne)n)22−2n
which reduces to 1πn√
For n=50
that is approximately 0.0798
while the exact calculation rounds to 0.0796.
See what I mean!
.
Two different phones, two different versions of software and I'm supposed to believe that you have any idea how many steps she took?
Defense on cross: So Mr. expert, how much did they pay you to throw your iPhone around your office? HahAhAhahHa,!
How does this matter ? What are they trying to rebut?
They’re trying to rebut the idea that AM took Maggie’s phone and threw it out the window. This testimony was hilarious. 😂
What is the relevance of the cell phone thing here?
I think they are trying to prove that he threw maggs phone out of his car window on his way to m. Not sure how
Would phone maker know this data?
I have an iPhone 11 and when I pick up the phone, the screen does not come on. Is that an iPhone 11 Pro Max feature only? A feature I may have off?
You prob have it off. Mine turns on every time I raise I even move it. It’s just an 11 too. It won’t turn off. Lol
@@Im_sin_d thank you! I do have it off. I couldn't figure out what the feature is called and found out it is called "raise to wake." I know why I had it off now haha
Court tv keeps saying the jury aren't note takers, lady they don't give 2.....ts they already decided on the case they're waiting to go and deliberate trust me 6 weeks of this nonsense....
Did they check for finger prints
Did the phone have any damage? Did he testify he checked the liquid damage indicator at all? Physical damage?! This just cost the people of SC a conviction, I promise you that. Wait to hear on appeal.
Oops there goes Alex crying again oh no I thought he was done 😒
Believe it not my dear…. We are innocent until proven guilty in the United States of America. The state did a horrible job/ sorry
I think there was logic to calling this witness however he did not come across very professional 🤦
My ears pricked up when this "expert" said "I studied statistics at college" ( FYI In Australian we call it university).
I'm sorry but that not how a expert in "statistics" (ie mathematics) would speak.
They would never say 'I studied statistics in college". A real expert would say.
"I obtained a Bachelors or Masters of honours or.a doctorate in mathematics from such and such university/college".
I've also wouldn't expect a (real) mathematician to just hand wave away, a subject like statistics. Especially when trying to explain statistics to a lay person.
Because plainly speaking statistics is hard. Your not going to be able to do statistical equations or analysis using just your intelligence and intuition.
There are a lot of technical terms in statistics. It also involves many mathematical concepts. The formulas of which are also arithmetically complex, making them difficult to apply without errors.
I'll give you an example of how tricky statistics can be.
If I were to ask (the seemingly simple) what is the probability of getting 50 heads in a 100 coin tosses?
What would your answer be?
Well if we toss a coin 100 times, then its true that we expect that heads will appear 50 times. But It DEPENDS on what you mean by "EXPECT". Its true that the most likely outcome is 50 heads, but this will only happen approximately 7.96% of the time and you would figure this out like (ie the equation looks like) this:. The probability of exactly n heads in 2n flips of a fair coin is (2nn)2−2n=(2n)!n!22−2n
For small n you can evaluate that exactly, but for large n it’s more convenient to use Stirling’s approximation for factorials, n!≈2πn−−−√(ne)n
That makes the probability approximately 4πn√(2ne)2n(2πn√(ne)n)22−2n
which reduces to 1πn√
For n=50
that is approximately 0.0798
while the exact calculation rounds to 0.0796.
See what I mean!
.
It's a murder mystery I feel like we're playing along. I got a great idea let's just ask Alex how we're Maggie and Paul positioned, good lord....
I would agree that If My life was on the line here.. I would hate to know that Someone as ignorant as "Their Expert" Isnt playing with my life.. or with yours...
Wtf point is this
Well whatever point was the result is, this Man being humiliated on the stand!
FYI My ears pricked up when this "expert" said "I studied statistics at college" ( FYI In Australian we call it university).
I'm sorry but that not how a expert in "statistics" (ie mathematics) would speak.
They would never say 'I studied statistics in college". A real expert would say.
"I obtained a Bachelors or Masters of honours or.a doctorate in mathematics from such and such university/college".
I've also wouldn't expect a (real) mathematician to just hand wave away, a subject like statistics. Especially when trying to explain statistics to a lay person.
Because plainly speaking statistics is hard. Your not going to be able to do statistical equations or analysis using just your intelligence and intuition.
There are a lot of technical terms in statistics. It also involves many mathematical concepts. The formulas of which are also arithmetically complex, making them difficult to apply without errors.
I'll give you an example of how tricky statistics can be.
If I were to ask (the seemingly simple) what is the probability of getting 50 heads in a 100 coin tosses?
What would your answer be?
Well if we toss a coin 100 times, then its true that we expect that heads will appear 50 times. But It DEPENDS on what you mean by "EXPECT". Its true that the most likely outcome is 50 heads, but this will only happen approximately 7.96% of the time and you would figure this out like (ie the equation looks like) this:. The probability of exactly n heads in 2n flips of a fair coin is (2nn)2−2n=(2n)!n!22−2n
For small n you can evaluate that exactly, but for large n it’s more convenient to use Stirling’s approximation for factorials, n!≈2πn−−−√(ne)n
That makes the probability approximately 4πn√(2ne)2n(2πn√(ne)n)22−2n
which reduces to 1πn√
For n=50
that is approximately 0.0798
while the exact calculation rounds to 0.0796.
See what I mean!
.
Set aside this being quite stupid and funny, it's amazing listening to the judge asking the defense why they think this witness should be excluded as an expert. It shoud absolutelly be excluded. Am I wrong?
Yeah the prosecution took a big loss on that. No evidence of these tests at all? Nothing? Was this guy paid?
This expert or so called is a joke no data and no recording so we have to just go off what he says and believe it
My ears pricked up when this "expert" said "I studied statistics at college" ( FYI In Australian we call it university).
I'm sorry but that not how a expert in "statistics" (ie mathematics) would speak.
They would never say 'I studied statistics in college". A real expert would say.
"I obtained a Bachelors or Masters of honours or.a doctorate in mathematics from such and such university/college".
I've also wouldn't expect a (real) mathematician to just hand wave away, a subject like statistics. Especially when trying to explain statistics to a lay person.
Because plainly speaking statistics is hard. Your not going to be able to do statistical equations or analysis using just your intelligence and intuition.
There are a lot of technical terms in statistics. It also involves many mathematical concepts. The formulas of which are also arithmetically complex, making them difficult to apply without errors.
I'll give you an example of how tricky statistics can be.
If I were to ask (the seemingly simple) what is the probability of getting 50 heads in a 100 coin tosses?
What would your answer be?
Well if we toss a coin 100 times, then its true that we expect that heads will appear 50 times. But It DEPENDS on what you mean by "EXPECT". Its true that the most likely outcome is 50 heads, but this will only happen approximately 7.96% of the time and you would figure this out like (ie the equation looks like) this:. The probability of exactly n heads in 2n flips of a fair coin is (2nn)2−2n=(2n)!n!22−2n
For small n you can evaluate that exactly, but for large n it’s more convenient to use Stirling’s approximation for factorials, n!≈2πn−−−√(ne)n
That makes the probability approximately 4πn√(2ne)2n(2πn√(ne)n)22−2n
which reduces to 1πn√
For n=50
that is approximately 0.0798
while the exact calculation rounds to 0.0796.
See what I mean!
.
@@matthewclaridge8063 you only need to be able to count to ten when talking about 9 out of 10 times. He is providing an example of variations in what could trip a motion sensor on cell phone, not expert testimony on statistics.
@@wishingyoupeace Well funnily enough. This would have been a great time to use some statistics.
This expert has compiled some data. Namely the cell phone landed one-way (lets say screen up for argument sake) 9 time out of 10 throws.
Okay so the cell phone landed one-way 9 times out of 10 throws.
But what does that MEAN!!!
Should the Jury even pay any attention to this and if so how much attention?
Is a cell phone landing like this no big deal?
Or is a cell phone landing this like being struck by lightning?
I mean there's no point having data if you don't know how important it is right?
I could use statistics to explain all these things to the jury. But I'm not sure this "expert" could say the same thing...
PS Again I'm not trying to talk myself up hear (besides its a pretty basic question). I'm just saying it like it is. There's no point in me pretending one way or the other. One last thing. We may disagree with each other in regards to certain issues/opinions. But I'll promise to be honest with you if your honest with me.🤝
It’s actually shocking that the judge didn’t have the ability to recognize this is not an actual expert witness… makes it seem like his comprehension of what’s going on is limited and he just had extreme bias toward the prosecution.
My nephew,5 years old,known more about technology then this "expert"!Wtf was in the head of prosecution...
My ears pricked up when this "expert" said "I studied statistics at college" ( FYI In Australian we call it university).
I'm sorry but that not how a expert in "statistics" (ie mathematics) would speak.
They would never say 'I studied statistics in college". A real expert would say.
"I obtained a Bachelors or Masters of honours or.a doctorate in mathematics from such and such university/college".
I've also wouldn't expect a (real) mathematician to just hand wave away, a subject like statistics. Especially when trying to explain statistics to a lay person.
Because plainly speaking statistics is hard. Your not going to be able to do statistical equations or analysis using just your intelligence and intuition.
There are a lot of technical terms in statistics. It also involves many mathematical concepts. The formulas of which are also arithmetically complex, making them difficult to apply without errors.
I'll give you an example of how tricky statistics can be.
If I were to ask (the seemingly simple) what is the probability of getting 50 heads in a 100 coin tosses?
What would your answer be?
Well if we toss a coin 100 times, then its true that we expect that heads will appear 50 times. But It DEPENDS on what you mean by "EXPECT". Its true that the most likely outcome is 50 heads, but this will only happen approximately 7.96% of the time and you would figure this out like (ie the equation looks like) this:. The probability of exactly n heads in 2n flips of a fair coin is (2nn)2−2n=(2n)!n!22−2n
For small n you can evaluate that exactly, but for large n it’s more convenient to use Stirling’s approximation for factorials, n!≈2πn−−−√(ne)n
That makes the probability approximately 4πn√(2ne)2n(2πn√(ne)n)22−2n
which reduces to 1πn√
For n=50
that is approximately 0.0798
while the exact calculation rounds to 0.0796.
See what I mean!
.
I don’t think your 5 year old nephew could extract information from an iPhone and prepare reports for court.
This attorney is trained in discrediting a witness and you fell for it.
@@wishingyoupeace educate yourself before you write nonsense comments about subjects beyond your knowledge!
@@xmindk your comments are nothing but sarcasm. Thought maybe you had something more. Critical thinking skills? A hypothesis? Reasoning? I was sincerely curious why you thought your 5 year old knew more than a certified expert.
Who is this attorney? He enjoys mocking and humiliating witnesses to throw off jury. Opposite effect to anyone of intelligence by getting this agitated with a witness. He’s drawing more attention to this point he wants thrown out because it’s damning to defense. And yes, anyone can test this for themselves with a simple toss. He’s not saying that’s what happened at time of crime but what COULD account for a toss without light coming on.
I'm sorry but... despite me being in favour of the prossecution, this was hilarious. An expert can't behave like this. These are serious matters. No one would accept that "experiment" in a scientific study, much less in a murder case. He deserves to be mocked. He won't do it again.
@@clorofilaazul it was NOT a scientific study! You are falling for defense by believing this is intended to be a scientific study. It was nothing more than a series of phone tosses and he never said it was more than that.
@@wishingyoupeace I’m not falling for anyone, my friend. I’m unbiased, despite thinking he’s the one who killed his family. But that doesn’t make me blind to the obvious: this “expert” participation was terrible, for himself and the prosecution. That should be obvious to anyone.
These are serious matters. People have to behave accordingly. And an expert should know better, definitely.
Defense is harassing the witness. Give me a break! This was enlightening information and helps understand the phone idiosyncrasies.
My ears pricked up when this "expert" said "I studied statistics at college" ( FYI In Australian we call it university).
I'm sorry but that not how a expert in "statistics" (ie mathematics) would speak.
They would never say 'I studied statistics in college". A real expert would say.
"I obtained a Bachelors or Masters of honours or.a doctorate in mathematics from such and such university/college".
I've also wouldn't expect a (real) mathematician to just hand wave away, a subject like statistics. Especially when trying to explain statistics to a lay person.
Because plainly speaking statistics is hard. Your not going to be able to do statistical equations or analysis using just your intelligence and intuition.
There are a lot of technical terms in statistics. It also involves many mathematical concepts. The formulas of which are also arithmetically complex, making them difficult to apply without errors.
I'll give you an example of how tricky statistics can be.
If I were to ask (the seemingly simple) what is the probability of getting 50 heads in a 100 coin tosses?
What would your answer be?
Well if we toss a coin 100 times, then its true that we expect that heads will appear 50 times. But It DEPENDS on what you mean by "EXPECT". Its true that the most likely outcome is 50 heads, but this will only happen approximately 7.96% of the time and you would figure this out like (ie the equation looks like) this:. The probability of exactly n heads in 2n flips of a fair coin is (2nn)2−2n=(2n)!n!22−2n
For small n you can evaluate that exactly, but for large n it’s more convenient to use Stirling’s approximation for factorials, n!≈2πn−−−√(ne)n
That makes the probability approximately 4πn√(2ne)2n(2πn√(ne)n)22−2n
which reduces to 1πn√
For n=50
that is approximately 0.0798
while the exact calculation rounds to 0.0796.
See what I mean!
.
@@matthewclaridge8063 he didn’t claim to be an expert in statistics.
@@wishingyoupeace Correct me if I'm wrong (and please do) but he said "I studied statistics at college" (ie by college/ university we're talking about someone undergoing a tertiary level education).
Your telling me that this man...
Has meet all the prerequisites (ie attained a high score in his SAT/HSC and then obtained a collage/university offer) to study ether a BA Mathematics (ie Bachelor of Arts) or a BS Mathematics (ie Bachelor of Science). Because thats how you would study tertiary level statistics (trust me I know 😋)
Your telling me that this man... Who has shown, by the mere fact that he was accepted into a under graduate degree, must have a high level of education, intelligence, comprehension, dedication and work ethic.
Your telling me that this Man...
After being hired to formulate a professional opinion for the state and testify as an expert witness.
Made a conscious, premeditated decision NOT to document any of his data, observations experimentations or conclusions.
Your telling me this man...
This "highly educated" man. Showed up to court with nothing but a verbal statement.
Your telling me that this man...
Didn't realise that the professional (ie the expert) thing to do was present the court with a report (that can be filed into evidence). Detailing all his data, calculations, analysis and findings.
Your telling me this man...
Didn't realise that this would have enabled him to state. "That he stands by his work" and he would be happy for his report to be given to other experts. To be scrutinized and assessed in the rigorous peer review process that "ALL MY WORK GOES THOUGH"!
Do you SERIOUSLY think this man's a legit expert?
I'm not sure if this man's really a Charleton (ie he's pretending to be an expert).
And I'm not sure if this man's really a Conman (ie he's purposely giving fake testimony).
But I'm absolutely sure that this man's a Buffon!
@@wishingyoupeace LoL fare enough... Your entitled to your opinion...👍
Just for record I don't consider myself an expert in anything (as I'm not that conceded).
But I do have a BS in Mathematics and I'm currently doing my Honour's in Computer science . So believe it or not, I know statistics. As a matter of fact I consider it a bit of a fortay of mine.
PS just stop and think for a minute.. if I was just a internet troll, don't you think I'd pretend to be good at something a little cooler than statistics! 🤣
@@matthewclaridge8063 I was talking about the cellphone witness. He did not claim to be a statistician or math expert. Are you the guy who testified today? To say he took statistics in college wasn’t to say that by tossing the phone around, he was a researcher presenting scientific data. He was merely explaining at very basic level how motion sensors work on cell phone.
What are you talking about?
Ahahaha ahaha Ahahaha 😂😂
I've lost count the amount of times I've grabbed my phone to the missus off the bed quickly and vigorous and it's come on..worst testimony ever..fucked up prosecution
👀😂
This guy actually was good he made you check the rotation on your cell phone. He was a planted in there purposefully to have you test the procedure yourself and verify how he threw the phone out the window and it rotated and lit up. It was able to time the occurrence. This is not rocket science it’s a simple test and he doesn’t have to be an engineer to figure it out. Some people just ride the bus not drive the bus. 😅
Hilarous. Defense accepted him without objection, and based on his testimony I'd say Alex is guilty.
😂😂😂
I understand it is very simple exercise. Yet a jury is not allowed to go do these experiments. So you tell them this to prove a point. It is common sense. Go throw your phone. Sometimes it turns on sometimes it does not.
My ears pricked up when this "expert" said "I studied statistics at college" ( FYI In Australian we call it university).
I'm sorry but that not how a expert in "statistics" (ie mathematics) would speak.
They would never say 'I studied statistics in college". A real expert would say.
"I obtained a Bachelors or Masters of honours or.a doctorate in mathematics from such and such university/college".
I've also wouldn't expect a (real) mathematician to just hand wave away, a subject like statistics. Especially when trying to explain statistics to a lay person.
Because plainly speaking statistics is hard. Your not going to be able to do statistical equations or analysis using just your intelligence and intuition.
There are a lot of technical terms in statistics. It also involves many mathematical concepts. The formulas of which are also arithmetically complex, making them difficult to apply without errors.
I'll give you an example of how tricky statistics can be.
If I were to ask (the seemingly simple) what is the probability of getting 50 heads in a 100 coin tosses?
What would your answer be?
Well if we toss a coin 100 times, then its true that we expect that heads will appear 50 times. But It DEPENDS on what you mean by "EXPECT". Its true that the most likely outcome is 50 heads, but this will only happen approximately 7.96% of the time and you would figure this out like (ie the equation looks like) this:. The probability of exactly n heads in 2n flips of a fair coin is (2nn)2−2n=(2n)!n!22−2n
For small n you can evaluate that exactly, but for large n it’s more convenient to use Stirling’s approximation for factorials, n!≈2πn−−−√(ne)n
That makes the probability approximately 4πn√(2ne)2n(2πn√(ne)n)22−2n
which reduces to 1πn√
For n=50
that is approximately 0.0798
while the exact calculation rounds to 0.0796.
See what I mean!
.