Posted on 11/08/2020 8:23:50 PM PST by Fitzy_888
In their ‘pseudoverse’, there is no probable cause for making such allegations. In the real world, there is an abundance of it, and together with additional actionable intelligence, I don’t see how we don’t have a case.
Initiate, strike and follow through. Wash, rinse and repeat. Drain the swamp and the pseudoverse implodes at a safe distance. Proceed with caution and keep the faith.
I wonder if the court could simply discount/eliminate the vote in the specific precincts where the co-mingling occurred? Just simply say, every vote is invalidated because we can’t separate the wheat from the chaff?
Here is some deep analysis on the election data if you like that kind of thing. I do. Good stuff here..
https://twitter.com/APhilosophae/status/1325592112428163072
How well did mathematical impossibilities help OJ's prosecution secure a conviction?
Apples and oranges.
The OJ jury probably had five years’ total higher education spread among all 12 of them. And it was a case of jury nullification based on race.
This case will be heard by educated people.
In this case though, “Benford’s Law” is NOT a mathematical model, but a simple description of how the values generated by real process MUST be distributed.
Trump has been whining for 6 months about what would happen with these mail-in ballots.
He's had all this time to formulate a plan to trap these bastards.
If he did nothing but whine and now hopes that statistics will give him his rightful victory, he is done.
...and so are we.
_______________________________________________________
Every envelope has been destroyed by now, especially in PA.
Yeah,yeah, SCOTUS ordered them separated. So what? Since when have DEMS ever had to follow the law? They are daring SCOTUS to do something about it, because if that happens, there will be massive riots.
That is not SCOTUS's job. Each state legislature has to the power to invalidate an election and then select delegates to the electoral college. Please stop spreading misinformation.
Far too many people keep saying such rubbish.....
I guess Rats will need to be Science deniers to kill this information.
_______________________________________________________
Good God, where have you been the last four years? Dems don't go to jail for anything! So you find some poll workers who cheated...the Dem machine will supply a slick lawyer and get it before a Dem judge. And the word of a few poll workers won't mean jack anyways.
It DOES add to the story, however. Maybe not alone, but with all of the other evidence it is eye opening. TDSers aren’t going to believe anything, or rather, will pretend not to.
I agree that statistical analysis is probably not legally admissible evidence to prove election fraud, but it may be enough to establish the equivalent of probable cause in a criminal case.
“saying ‘This doesn’t seem likely’ is pretty weak sauce.”
True — as a sole issue, but it could be one more nail in the coffin. Attorneys say that circumstantial cases often are stronger with many pieces of evidence combined.
Court’s are allowed to make inferences based on expert testimony and scientific evidence. Who has the expertise to really understand DNA, evidence which is given the weight once accorded to scripture?
I have been hearing murmurs about Benford’s law anomalies, which arouses suspicions. Until these questions are put to rest no one is obliged to offer Biden any iota of respect as president.
Show those those charts for all the states and if only the contested states have that anomaly, it is powerful circumstantial evidence a judge would be hard pressed to dismiss.
Democrats LOVE to say follow the science.
But man do they hate following MATH!
I guess science doesn’t lie, but math does?
BINGO...Copernicus also understands...
Consider the phrase beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the standard that applies in criminal trials. In civil matters the standard is LOWER: preponderance of the evidence.
So let's, for arguments sake, use beyond a reasonable doubt. In Statistics there are numerous tests which express a confidence that a set of data is to be trusted. In court experts would be called upon to testify whether a set of data is to be trusted. If these no so-called experts can be found to testify that there is a greater chance that the such data would be observed even one time in a million, then it certainly would be beyond a reasonable doubt that the data is not to be trusted.
ML/NJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.