News Intelligence Analysis




[Editor's Note: Alan Waldman published a brilliantly written article titled, Was It Hacked? The article was published in the Orlando Weekly on November 18, 2004. We highly recommend Waldman's essay to our readers. To read the article, click on the photo.]


Votergate 2004?

Research Studies Uncover Potential Massive Election Fraud



By Katherine Yurica  

November 19, 2004

[Editor's Update Notice, November 21, 2004]
[ Editor's Update Notice, December 10, 2004]



Finding the Corpus Delicti in the 2004 Election Results


Ordinarily victims of crimes do not have to prove the existence of the crime. The dead body or the charred ruins of a burned down building provide visual, concrete proof of the wrongdoing. Sometimes, however, the crime is intentionally hidden, buried among honest transactions, covered with obstacles, and driven through layers of deception to lie at the bottom of a muddy pond—or at the bottom of a huge box of ballots in a warehouse or buried in a computer application’s program.


But without evidence that a crime was committed there can be no apprehension of the perpetrators, hence the search for the corpus delicti—the dead body or the thing upon which the crime was done.


Finding evidence of a crime is not the same thing as finding “who did it.” All the FBI or other investigators need to start a criminal investigation is evidence a crime has been committed. And it is for this reason I have been surprised and shocked at the mainline media’s news bureaus and reporters who have produced articles and comments dismissing valid evidence unearthed by researchers who are investigating the November 2, 2004 elections.


The media’s attitude has been, “Well if there’s no dead body, we can’t publish the fact that a missing person’s shoes, purse, cloths and car keys were found in a suspect’s car because that doesn’t prove anything.” This explanation is usually followed by an argument that goes something like this: “Anyway, those items found so far could have belonged to 3,700 other women, and according to Smith Lane’s store manager, ‘that’s how many outfits were sold in the last year identical to those found in the suspect’s car!’” How often in anyone’s lifetime, have you heard the press begin a denigration of evidence during an investigation or seen the press take an advocates position regarding a criminal or civil case? (In fact, there is such a thing as obstructing an investigation.)


If the negative attitude of the press regarding whether or not election fraud exists, would be applied across the board to other crimes, I dare say the press coverage of not only the Scott Peterson case, but many a highly publicized crime in America would have been greatly quieted!


The problem seems to rest upon the media’s distrust of “probabilities.” However, my old law school text on Cases and Materials on Evidence begins with a statement on the problem of proof:


“Evidence is produced at a trial so that an impartial trier can decide how an event occurred. Time is irreversible, events unique, and any reconstruction of the past at best an approximation. As a result of this lack of certainty about what happened, it is inescapable that the trier’s conclusions be based on probabilities.” [1]

As Sheldon Droby, a former C.P.A and auditor put it:  “I have used statistical sampling throughout my career with great confidence. With electronic record keeping, it’s easy to create a program to falsify the books. But there are ways to uncover that. Auditors have developed statistical ways to cut right through corruption in companies. You don't even need a paper trail. These statistical approaches can be used with almost 100% accuracy to uncover fraud.”


Having got the problem out in the open, let’s examine three valid research studies produced since the November 2nd election.


The Studies

The Berkeley Study:

On November 18, 2004 a University of California, Berkeley research team headed by Professor Michael Hout told a press conference that a study the team conducted focused on electronic machine voting in Florida. While all 67 Florida counties were reviewed, the study shows there is a statistical anomaly in three southern counties which gave President Bush between 130,000 and 260,000 or more extra votes. At issue were Broward, Palm Beach, and Miami Dade counties. In Broward County alone, Mr. Bush appears to have received 72,000 excess votes. (See study summary.)

Hout said, “We can be 99.9% sure that these effects are not attributable to chance.”

The research team is comprised of doctoral students and faculty in the UC Berkeley sociology department. Dr. Hout is a nationally known expert on statistical methods and a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the UC Berkeley Survey Research Center.

Hout explained that what happened in the three counties, “was out of pattern with what occurred in the other 64 counties in the state. For the sake of all future elections involving electronic voting—someone must investigate and explain the statistical anomalies in Florida. We’re calling on voting officials in Florida to take action.”

According to the study President Bush received a total of 1,157,435 votes when he should have received between 900,000 and 1,020,000. Hout said, “All I know is that the smoke alarm’s gone off, it’s up to the Fire Department now.”

If the extra votes were simply added to Mr. Bush’s total votes, his “stuffed” ballots would have added 130,000 votes to his tally and the county totals should reveal the additional votes by comparing the signed-in number of voters to the actual votes. If however, 130,000 votes were taken away from Kerry and converted to the use of Bush, then Bush’s net gain would be 260,000 votes. Bush won Florida by about 311,000 votes, so investigators would have to locate another 52,000 or more unlawful votes in the state before Kerry could claim the presidency based on Florida's votes.


The Freeman Study:


On November 21, 2004, Dr. Steven F. Freeman, faculty member of  the University of Pennsylvania, authorized the Yurica Report to post the latest draft of his research paper, “The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy.” #4-10 [This is the latest complete study issued. Although Dr. Freeman has issued a new first part, it actually ends mid-way through his study. We have opted to wait for the complete study before updating.] (Dr. Freeman’s areas of expertise include resilience, innovation and research methods.) In this latest draft, Dr. Freeman emphasizes that the exit polls he used were “uncorrected” polls. It is not well known that the media change their exit poll data to conform to the actual poll numbers following the close of the polls. However, Freeman was able to obtain a copy of the uncorrected exit polls that reflect the accurate survey of voters. This is the reason that some research teams have not had the same results as Freeman. (Other teams, Freeman said, “used data in which the count is assumed correct to prove that the count is correct—and then used their report to dismiss allegations that anything is awry.”

Dr. Freeman's paper focuses on the three major battleground states of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. Freeman said, “The conventional wisdom going into the election was that these three critical states would likely determine who would win the Presidential election.” He was right.

Freeman said, “Most Americans who listened to radio or surfed the Internet on Election Day this year, sat down to watch election night coverage expecting that John Kerry had been elected President. Exit polls showed him ahead in nearly every battleground state, in many cases by sizable margins.” Freeman pointed out, “Undecided voters broke heavily toward the challenger, and the Democratic Party, possibly better organized and more committed than ever in their history, generated extraordinary turnout.”

It was widely reported that Karen Hughes believed that Mr. Bush was going down to a sure defeat and informed the President of that fact. Then something happened. According to Freeman, “In key state after key state, counts were showing very different numbers than the exit polls predicted and the differentials were all in the same direction.”

Much has been said by the media that exit polls were not intended to verify the results of an election, but Freeman points out the unique accuracy of exit polls. He wrote, “Exit polls are surveys taken of representative respondents from the overall voting population.” People are asked how they voted—not how they will vote.

Freeman conducts an analysis of Kerry’s votes: The likelihood of Kerry receiving only 47.1% in Florida, given that the exit polls indicated 49.7% is less than three in one thousand. Although Kerry did carry Pennsylvania, the likelihood of his receiving only 50.8% given that the exit polls indicated 54.1% is less than two in one thousand. Similarly the likelihood of Kerry receiving only 48.5% in Ohio, given the exit polls indicated 52.1% is less than one in one thousand (.0008).

Freeman says, “The likelihood of any two of these statistical anomalies occurring together is on the order of one-in-a-million. The odds against all three occurring together are 250 million to one. As much as we can say in social science that something is impossible, it is impossible that the discrepancies between predicted and actual vote counts in the three critical battleground states could have been due to chance or random error.”

Freeman concludes his study by making it clear that it is the “responsibility of the media, academia, polling agencies, and the public to investigate.”

I suggest that it is also the responsibility of the FBI to investigate on the grounds of suspicion that the government of the United States has been defrauded.


 The Ignatzmouse Study of North Carolina:


When blogger ignatzmouse looked over the North Carolina election returns, he thought "things looked funny." They were out of sync with the exit polls for one thing and no one could believe Erskine Bowles lost his Senate race. After downloading the precinct data, Ignatzmouse noticed that the absentee vote, which also included the early voting data, was huge. In fact he found that the file held more than a million votes and nearly a full third of the total vote. (30%) It offered him the chance to compare an unadulterated voting pattern against the strange results of election day. What he found out was stunning. By using benchmark absentee data against election day returns, a compelling case for purposeful tampering of the electronic data is made. (See below.)

Ignatzmouse discovered what Dr. Freeman observed: with essentially the same vote demographics in the absentee votes and the poll votes, there was a sudden shift of 6.4% of the vote toward the Republican. But when he compared his data to the Presidential race, he met sheer absurdity. By all standards of reason, the other two-thirds of the vote should be very close to the same result, or Kerry should have been behind by 6 points. Instead there was a sudden and unexplained plummet in the very same electorate of nine points, which more than doubled Kerry's overall margin of defeat. This meant a 15 point edge for Bush in North Carolina on election day. Read the study and data here.


The Cuyahoga County, Ohio Study:


[Editor's Note: November 21, 2004: We are aware that Cuyahoga County election officials have posted an explanation for the over-votes listed below. (See )

Explanation of Ballots Cast Totals on this page and the Summary Report
In even-numbered years, the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections tallies absentee ballots by Congressional, House, and Senate district combinations. Because of this, the ballots cast totals for municipalities on this web page and on the summary report needs to be derived by using the following technique: For municipalities with wards, find the ballots cast total for each ward and total them. For municipalities without wards, please refer to the contest of interest on the canvass report. Absentee ballots cast totals appear separately at the end of each contest on the canvass report. If you have any questions, please contact the Board of Election’s Ballot Department Manager at (216) 443-6454.

The point to keep in mind is that Cuyahoga County has failed to follow the first rule of election reporting: If more votes were cast than the number of voters, then there is prima facie evidence of fraud. It is not up to the public or investigators to recalculate the County's totals. It is up to the County to publish the correct totals. Otherwise, they could be guilty of obstructing investigators and obfuscating the election results, in clear contradiction to their responsibility to the public. Thus rather than explaining the error away, the explanation offered is actually an admission the County published false data. It therefore places the election results in doubt, contrary to the Washington Post's report.] Back to beginning.


[Editor's Note and Update December 12, 2004: Sometime between November 21 and December 8, 2004, the Cuyahoga County officials changed all the totals they previously published for the number of ballots cast. Apparently, they retained the initial totals of registered voters. We have decided to leaveTeed Rockwell's study in this report because it now represents an historical record of what transpired: i.e. Cuyahoga County published false information and then apparently corrected it. In publishing false information, Cuyahoga County brought deserved criticism to itself and raises questions about the competency of the election officials. To deliberately obfuscate election totals essential to test the accuracy of the election results, is at best negligent. Only an audit and a recount will show whether the county's totals are correct--indeed whether the State's totals are correct.

We join with all the groups who have taken the State of Ohio to court to obtain the right to a recount and the filing of legal injunctions. We urge you to contribute to the cause. The only thing at stake is democracy in the United States. No one should usurp the office of the president of this nation before all the votes are counted. If that means a delay in the inauguration, the Constitution provides for such a situation. Better to surmount a delay than for a nation and the world to lose confidence in the fairness of the voting process in America.] Back to the beginning of this report.


There Were 93,000 Extra Votes In Cuyahoga County Before the County Corrected Their Figures.

By Teed Rockwell

November 12, 2004

Smoking Gun

You may have seen the associated press story about the precinct in Cuyahoga county that had less than 1,000 voters, and gave Bush almost 4,000 extra votes.

But that turns out to be only the tip of a very ugly iceberg. The evidence discovered by some remarkably careful sleuthing would convince any reasonable court to invalidate the entire Ohio election.

In last Tuesday's election, 29 precincts in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, reported votes cast IN EXCESS of the number of registered voters - at least 93,136 extra votes total. And the numbers are right there on the official Cuyahoga County Board of Elections website:


Bay Village - 13,710 registered voters / 18,663 ballots cast

Beachwood - 9,943 registered voters / 13,939 ballots cast

Bedford - 9,942 registered voters / 14,465 ballots cast

Bedford Heights - 8,142 registered voters / 13,512 ballots cast

Brooklyn - 8,016 registered voters / 12,303 ballots cast

Brooklyn Heights - 1,144 registered voters / 1,869 ballots cast

Chagrin Falls Village - 3,557 registered voters / 4,860 ballots cast

Cuyahoga Heights - 570 registered voters / 1,382 ballots cast

Fairview Park - 13,342 registered voters / 18,472 ballots cast

Highland Hills Village - 760 registered voters / 8,822 ballots cast

Independence - 5,735 registered voters / 6,226 ballots cast

Mayfield Village - 2,764 registered voters / 3,145 ballots cast

Middleburg Heights - 12,173 registered voters / 14,854 ballots cast

Moreland Hills Village - 2,990 registered voters / 4,616 ballots cast

North Olmstead - 25,794 registered voters / 25,887 ballots cast

Olmstead Falls - 6,538 registered voters / 7,328 ballots cast

Pepper Pike - 5,131 registered voters / 6,479 ballots cast

Rocky River - 16,600 registered voters / 20,070 ballots cast

Solon (WD6) - 2,292 registered voters / 4,300 ballots cast

South Euclid - 16,902 registered voters / 16,917 ballots cast

Strongsville (WD3) - 7,806 registered voters / 12,108 ballots cast

University Heights - 10,072 registered voters / 11,982 ballots cast

Valley View Village - 1,787 registered voters / 3,409 ballots cast

Warrensville Heights - 10,562 registered voters / 15,039 ballots cast

Woodmere Village - 558 registered voters / 8,854 ballots cast

Bedford (CSD) - 22,777 registered voters / 27,856 ballots cast

Independence (LSD) - 5,735 registered voters / 6,226 ballots cast

Orange (CSD) - 11,640 registered voters / 22,931 ballots cast

Warrensville (CSD) - 12,218 registered voters / 15,822 ballots cast


The Republicans are so BUSTED. the official website of the Cuyahoga county election board, providing irrefutable evidence that the vote was off by at least 93,000. Kerry lost Ohio by approximately 130,000 votes, so this is not an insignificant figure that can be ignored, particularly when there are numerous other indications of voter fraud in Ohio and elsewhere.

I think the only possible alternative is to invalidate the entire Ohio election, if not the entire national election. I'd say the game's up.

America, it looks pretty much like you've been had.

Teed Rockwell
Philosophy Department
Sonoma State University




[1] Evidence, Cases and Materials, Edmund M. Morgan, John M. Maguire, and Jack B. Weinstein, Fourth Edition, The Foundation Press, Inc. 1957, Brooklyn. At page 1.

Katherine Yurica is a news intelligence analyst. She was educated at East Los Angeles College, the University of Southern California and the USC school of law. She worked as a consultant for Los Angeles County and as a news correspondent for Christianity Today plus as a freelance investigative reporter. She is the author of three books. She is also the publisher of the Yurica Report.


Send a letter
to the editor
about this article


Related Articles:


The Election Fraud Directory go to the Yurica Report's Directory to read all the latest
revelations and studies revealing suspected election fraud.
Directory of the 2004 Election Fraud Articles.



How You Can Help And What You Can Do

Stolen Election 2004: The Voter Rights March Synopsis of Articles

A Comprehensive Case For Voter Fraud in North Carolina

The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy by Steven F. Freeman, PhD


Back to The Yurica Report Home Page

Copyright © 2004 Yurica Report. All rights reserved.