As mentioned before, we use Benford’s law to justify an investigation and/or audit. The investigation or audit will reveal the evidence that we can use in court.
Exactly. Benford's law is just step 1 of analysis. If something does not pass it, it is either a) worth asking what is special about it or b) an indication it is not a natural sequence, there is probable artificial manipulation that is worth investigating further.
I agree, I don't think anyone, not even statisticians are suggesting that Benford's Law is proof positive of fraud. It is used as a preliminary tool to analyse large data sets to identify the probability that fraud might exist. From that point, a court might uphold a more in-depth investigation and force parties to release documents etc.
You're right. I've seen plenty on this site saying it is proof of shadiness, hence this post. I was under the impression that it was a smoking gun so I'm sure I'm not the only one.
We mainly used it to stabilize morale and show that there is good reason to believe that the results were not legitimate. Until these abnormalities are properly investigated, the results should not be legitimized.
Also, the guy in the video isn’t using the data sets that were actually called into question so he really isn’t debunking anything.
As mentioned before, we use Benford’s law to justify an investigation and/or audit. The investigation or audit will reveal the evidence that we can use in court.
Exactly. Benford's law is just step 1 of analysis. If something does not pass it, it is either a) worth asking what is special about it or b) an indication it is not a natural sequence, there is probable artificial manipulation that is worth investigating further.
I agree, I don't think anyone, not even statisticians are suggesting that Benford's Law is proof positive of fraud. It is used as a preliminary tool to analyse large data sets to identify the probability that fraud might exist. From that point, a court might uphold a more in-depth investigation and force parties to release documents etc.
You're right. I've seen plenty on this site saying it is proof of shadiness, hence this post. I was under the impression that it was a smoking gun so I'm sure I'm not the only one.
We mainly used it to stabilize morale and show that there is good reason to believe that the results were not legitimate. Until these abnormalities are properly investigated, the results should not be legitimized.
Also, the guy in the video isn’t using the data sets that were actually called into question so he really isn’t debunking anything.