That Time A Paternity-Court TV Show Centered On A Guy Who Was Fatally Shot In Philly

Screen Shot 2016-02-09 at 8.47.40 AM

As noted this weekend, I’d never heard of “Lauren Lake’s Paternity Court” until I got word that there was a case involving Philly love, parenting and death would be on it.

That local angle is why I spent 30 minutes watching the case of “Brogden vs. Sugden-Jones” on which Timesha Brodgen took to the airwaves “to prove that Tyrell Jones is her daughter’s biological father.” Mr. Jones is no longer among the living.

The late Mr. Jones’ sister Tiona Sudgen questions whether “her late brother is the father of Kwamirah,” the one-year-old daughter at the heart of a conflict that has rendered her mother unable to recover from the loss of her son, who was fatally shot on North Marshall Street near Sixth and Olney in Jan. 2014. RIP.

Tiona says she has “no help at all,” and that the Sudgen’s family hates her.

Says Tiona, Timesha slept with two of her brothers and that that living brother could be the father.

Explains Timesha, she got drunk and mad and had sex with the brother Paul (once!) because the late brother was running around behind her back.

“It’s just affecting our family too much. We have to get this over with,” says Tiona, whose brother Paul was very upset about having to take the requisite paternity test.

“This is indeed a family affair,” said Judge Lake of the fact that the paternity test will determine which Sugden-Jones brother was the father of Ms. Brodgen’s baby girl.

Presented as a witness was Deanna Chambers, the mother of Tyrell’s “middle child” who noted that Tiona was at her house when Kwamirah was born and had no interest in going to the hospital.

She said she was eight-months pregnant at Tyrell’s funeral.

Anyway, Tierra Jones — another sister of the fallen — also refutes Timesha’s claims. She feels as if her brother is no longer here to defend himself and that’s kinda sleazy.

“If he was here, he might’ve said ‘it’s my baby,’ but he’s not here,” says Tierra, who feels strongly that it is because Timesha “got around” and that “the baby doesn’t look like my family.”

After 25 minutes of back and forth (and commercials), Judge Lake gets to the DNA test results.

Phase One: Determine whether one of the Joneses is the father.

Phase Two: If so, which?

Here we go with the results:

Kwamirah, 17 months, is in fact related to the Jones family. Furthermore, the DNA test assessed paternity to the late Tyrell.

Screen Shot 2016-02-09 at 9.03.19 AM

Though none of the involved parties liked one another in the past, the results elicit apologies, hugs and a lot of tears. Judge Lake hopes this will build a familial embrace that makes the future brighter. For young Kwamirah’s sake, let’s all hope that happens.

 

kata atau persingkatan kata yg tidak beâ?¦

More Phony Numbers–This Time on the Anticorruption Impact of Open Data

OK, I know I’m beating a dead horse. Within the last month I’ve already posted several times (see here, here, and here) about bogus anticorruption statistics, as has Rick. And I promise that after this post, I’ll move on to other topics. But I can’t help commenting on this latest release from Transparency International, criticizing the recent World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting for not explicitly addressing corruption. As its lead example, TI faults the WEF for not addressing issues like open data (and openness more generally). I’m sympathetic to TI’s policy position, but in making the case, TI asserts, “One study suggests that open data could reduce the costs of corruption by about 10 percent.”

I was curious (and, admittedly, skeptical) about yet another seemingly precise estimate of something that’s inherently hard to measure. So I clicked on the link to the “one study” that “suggests” that open data technologies would reduce the costs of corruption by 10%. This “study” is actually a report (really, an advocacy document) from an Australian consulting firm (Lateral Economics), commissioned by a philanthropic fund (the Omidyar Network) that invests in open data initiatives. How does this “study” reach its conclusion that open data could reduce the costs of corruption by 10%? I will now quote in full the entirety of the evidence and analysis supporting that conclusion:

There is now a growing body of evidence that open data plays a role in reducing corruption. Open data can reduce the extent of corruption by both reducing its private returns and making it easier to detect. Based on the evidence, we think it reasonable to suggest that the costs of corruption would be reduced by of [sic] the order of 10%. [p. xiv.]

[And again, later in the document:] To estimate the benefits of open data in reducing corruption, we begin with estimates of the costs of corruption in developed countries…. We think a reasonable contribution of open data in reducing corruption is on the order of 10%. [p. 58]

That’s it. What’s “the evidence” on which this 10% estimate is “based”? Who knows. There’s essentially no discussion, save for one anecdote (repeated several times throughout the document) about how open data helped prevent a $ 3.2 billion tax fraud in Canada in 2007–which, it should go without saying, is not actually a measure of the costs of corruption. As far as I can tell, the 10% figure is completely made up.

I’m not sure I can really come down too hard on TI for including this bogus figure in what is, after all, an advocacy-oriented press release… But really, I mean, come on. This casual invention and repetition of fabricated figures is ridiculous, embarrassing, and–as Rick warns–could come back to haunt the anticorruption movement, ultimately undermining its credibility. That TI press release could have worked just as well, and been just as persuasive in presenting the case for the importance of open data, without all the nonsense statistics thrown in just to sound impressive.

Seriously, guys, cut it out.