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 http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us//BOE/results/currentresults1.htm#top
)
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.
http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us//BOE/results/currentresults1.htm#top
...is 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
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/.
http://wand.stanford.edu/elections/us/FL2004/
http://www.orlandoweekly.com/news/Story.asp?ID=4688
Back to The Yurica Report Home Page
Copyright ©
2004 Yurica Report. All rights reserved.