Votergate 2004?
Research Studies Uncover Potential Massive Election Fraud
By Katherine Yurica
November 19, 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.
follow link