MARCH 8 2020 CORRECTION: The ‘Murder Map,’ Tables and Charts showing location data have been corrected. The correction is based on a review of my data by the GIS Society of Trinidad and Tobago (to which I am grateful for). Going forward, GISSTT will validate/confirm if the Addresses collected from media reports – which remain my primary source of data – are assigned to the correct Regional Corporations/Administrative Areas of Trinidad. The remainder of the methodology remains the same, i.e., The online editions of The Guardian, LoopTT, Express and Newsday are checked periodically during the month for reports of murders. Details (e.g., Name, Gender, Address, Age, et cetera) are keyed into Excel and tables and charts are then produced for the month in question and posted on this site.
There have been at least 43 murders in Trinidad for the month of January. The data presented below was collected and compiled from the online editions of the following news sites: The Guardian, LoopTT, Express and Newsday. During the month of January, these websites were checked periodically and reports of murders were recorded. The data does not include persons killed by the TTPS, nor does it include data from Tobago.
Your statistics are misleading. There are 6 murders that have been ascribed to Arima that actually occured in Tunapuna Piarco Regional Corporation. They are 3 on Demerarra rd on Jan 16. There are 3 more that occured in Pinto Rd on January 6. These areas are in TPRC. That means there were 5 in the borough of Arima and 11 in TPRC. Do your geography.
Hello, thank you for leaving a comment. At the start of my article I clearly stated where my data, inclusive of geography, was obtained from, i.e., the websites of the The Guardian, LoopTT, Express and Newsday. Have you reached out to them to indicate that their reporting is erroneous as it relates to the Arima murders, and that they should do their geography? If and when they modify/amend their reports – in line with what you have indicated – then I will happily follow suit.
Amit, since you’ve taken the mantle of presenter / reporter of statistical evidence of a matter of such a serious nature which impacts the national community, one would suggest that you ensure your data, although collected from third party sources, are within a certain degree of accuracy which would render your work beyond reproach.
Simply plastering a disclaimer onto your packaging doesn’t absolve you of your assumed duty to accuracy of data collection and source verification.
If this most basic of statistical rule isn’t understood, respected and applied then then how can your inferences, analysis, conclusions or summaries be respected and accepted?
If the dismissive treatment of the data irregularities brought to your attention by Franklin Christo is any indication of the care, standard and accuracy of your overall presentation, then it’s not unreasonable for one to arrive at the conclusion that your report in its entirety is untrustworthy to say the least…
Hello Joe,
Email is not always the best way to communicate as it may come across the wrong way. Happy to have a call with you as I genuinely appreciate your opinion, but I will not be removing my disclaimer.
Unlike the media – the source of my data and subsequent reports – I do not have dedicated reporters, time, budgets, et cetera. Are you suggesting that I adopt an absolutist position, i.e., get it right, or don’t do it at all? And right according to who/whom, one or two individuals versus established media organizations? Furthermore, if media organizations themselves cannot get it right, or consistent , should they stop reporting? How is it that yourself and Franklin have expectations for me to get it right/consistent when MSM (mainstream media) themselves clearly cannot? Are you and Franklin also taking the media to task for their inaccuracies and inconsistencies? As you and Franklin question me, I think it’s fair that I question you as well. I look forward to your responses.
In terms of Franklin’s comment, put yourself in my shoes. Several media houses report something as “X.” However, one individual is reporting it as “Y.” After I double checked my sources – as it relates to the whole Arima/Tunapuna-Piarco labeling affair – I made one change to my data set and presentation. Keep in mind that it is only myself, taking on the “mantle of presenter/reporter” on this important national topic. If it is so important, as you say, then why isn’t better reporting being done around it, and better data being published, especially by organizations who are better staffed and funded? If you, and others, are unhappy with my reporting, or think it can be improved upon, then don’t you think it is also your duty to take up the mantle on this important national topic, and to invest your own time and resources conducting research, analysis and publishing same? My voice is just one, and for anyone to just listen to one voice, and to trust it as the gospel or the truth, makes no sense to me. People are free to read and/or ignore what I have posted. People should also question everything and dig deeper and rely on multiple sources to form their opinions/beliefs.
Finally, I welcome persons who are willing to work with me – in a collaborative manner – in the pursuit of work that is, as you say, “beyond reproach.” Will you be one of those persons who will help collect, review and analyze the data with me at the end of the month, or do you prefer to stand on the side-lines and critique. The former is hard work, the latter is very easy to do. I respect your decision either way.
Kind regards,
Amit.
I’m still tying to understand the mantle you have taken up and the point of it. Apart from relying exclusively on the media who are notorious for getting things wrong (sometimes names/info on front page and page 3 don’t match), what is the point of taking data from a single month and illustrating it in multiple forms?
Putting the blame for inaccuracies on the notoriously inaccurate source doesn’t do you any favours either. If anything, your awareness of their weakness puts a greater onus on you to seek better sources to verify, such as the police crime stats. You’ve taken a much easier and more inaccurate route of saying what someone else and then telling your commenters to take that “person” to task for saying it wrong.
And what exactly are we to take away from this stand alone information? Where is the comparison to the past 4/7/9 Januarys? Or even the past 12 months? Did you do a similar presentation last year, last 4/7/9 years? If not why this January? And this year? Did the killings in TT touch you in particular way this year or is it because there are elections this year? If the latter then why make people’s lives and deaths and grief and pain political? Including using the names of the deceased to reopen wounds that their families and loved ones are trying to heal?
So what exactly is the purpose behind this? What’s the take away? Cause all you’ve done is say January had 43 murders in Jan 2020 in about 7 different ways. If you’re saying it for the sake of saying it, you could have used a lot fewer words.
Why emphasise it to this degree? What’s the point you’re to make? To whom and/or about whom.
Hi Kerry,
Thank you for your comment. I’ll try to answer your questions and respond to your points as best as possible:
1. “what is the point of taking data from a single month and illustrating it in multiple forms?”
There is no point in doing a single month in isolation, and that’s not my intention. January 2020 was my starting point for continuous collection and publishing for Trinidad.
2. “Putting the blame for inaccuracies on the notoriously inaccurate source doesn’t do you any favours either. If anything, your awareness of their weakness puts a greater onus on you to seek better sources to verify, such as the police crime stats. You’ve taken a much easier and more inaccurate route of saying what someone else and then telling your commenters to take that “person” to task for saying it wrong.”
That may be the case in the minds of some people, however, that is the methodology that I have chosen for my research. Given that I am the researcher, as opposed to someone else (such as yourself), I decide what the methodology is (and I state it upfront). My methodology relies heavily, and exclusively, on media reports. Furthermore, if you and others like you know the media are “notorious” for getting things wrong, can I assume that you and your contemporaries are applying pressure and taking them to task as well?
3. “You’ve taken a much easier and more inaccurate route of saying what someone else and then telling your commenters to take that “person” to task for saying it wrong.”
Indeed I have, and I have made it clear to persons reading the blog why I have taken that approach (due to lack of resources) and where my data sources are from (the media). It is then up to readers like you to determine what to make of it (if anything at all).
4. “And what exactly are we to take away from this stand alone information? Where is the comparison to the past 4/7/9 Januarys? Or even the past 12 months? Did you do a similar presentation last year, last 4/7/9 years? If not why this January?”
The stand alone information for January 2020 may still be useful to some persons. For example, it breaks down the murder count by gender, and also by age group. The comparison between time periods will come as I continue to collect data going forward, but January 2020 is my starting point for Trinidad.
5. “And this year? Did the killings in TT touch you in particular way this year or is it because there are elections this year? If the latter then why make people’s lives and deaths and grief and pain political? Including using the names of the deceased to reopen wounds that their families and loved ones are trying to heal?”
No, the killings in Trinidad did not “touch” me in a particular way. No, elections have nothing to do with it as I’m not a Trini by birth or citizenship, and even if I were, politics do not motivate me. Data collection and analysis motivates me and the pursuit, where possible, of accurate and objective data. As it relates to including victim names, this information is in the public domain and in Google’s indexes, it is not private. Would you rather we forget the victims? Should The Media not report their names as well? How do you think the victims’ friends and family will feel about that?
6. So what exactly is the purpose behind this? What’s the take away? Cause all you’ve done is say January had 43 murders in Jan 2020 in about 7 different ways. If you’re saying it for the sake of saying it, you could have used a lot fewer words. Why emphasise it to this degree? What’s the point you’re to make? To whom and/or about whom.
Crime is a major issue in the Caribbean, violent crime in particular. There is also a major issue around finding detailed data – current and historical – on murders in the Region. Thus, my goal, as best as possible and as accurately as possible, is to provide a resource for individuals and/or organizations to find data on this particular topic – as opposed to sweeping it under the rug, forgetting about it, ignoring it, making it political, et cetera. It is my hope that some people/organizations will make use of the data as a small input towards finding solutions that benefit the population as a whole.
I hope the above responses have satisfied you and others in some small way. Do have a safe and enjoyable weekend. Oh, and before I forget, since you found the time to critique my work (which I sincerely appreciate) I trust that you, and others like you, will not only find the time to critique, but find the time to do you own research and publish your own findings. It is very easy to be an armchair critic. It is very difficult to leave your comfort zone, your biases, perceptions, political agendas, et cetera, and go out there and invest the time and energy into your own independent research and publication.
Finally, the fact remains, i.e., there have been AT LEAST 43 murders in Trinidad during January 2020. Nothing that you, or others of similar ilk, will change that. If you’d like to help me to improve on the accuracy of the data, as opposed to sitting back and complaining about it, then I’d welcome the opportunity to work with you for the better of the country.
Cheers,
Amit.