Considering I actually have forensic accounting in my background.... no, that's not how it works.
You use anomalies to dig further and find proof. You have something like Benford's that highlights a problem. "Hey, look at this, something screwy". Then you start digging to find the anomalies, and audit from there. Audits are where the discovery comes from, and that is what allows you to find proof.
The key difference here is that, as said before, y'all are grasping at straws saying "LOOK AT THIS PROOF". This isn't proof, it is highlighting the need to do a deep dive and FIND proof. When you present data analysis alone as concrete evidence and it is then (expectedly, I might add) tossed in the garbage at court, y'all get all surprised Pikachu face, even though literally every lawyer with a podcast and YouTube channel knew it was coming.
Couldn't they have leveraged these analyses as probable cause to get subpoenas for further investigation? Always puzzled me why they didn't. Asking for the moon with just "data analyses" that haven't even been cross-examined was always going to go down in flames.
They have. Not every lawsuit was done improperly. You're launching a ton of lawsuits with basically the same complaint and they're including something that usually isn't in lawsuits but it makes sense for these cases. "We saw irregularities here, here, and here and therefore there is major doubt cast because if the irregularity/fraud existed there, then it could potentially exist in other similarly run areas (Dem dominated counties, Dominion software using counties). There's going to be a lot of copy paste used in filing these.
The courts had 0 intention of viewing these cases anyways. Take the Texas case for example. Not filed improperly and for a state with a grievance against another state, the actual precedent is obviously to head to federal court. But it was dismissed on lacking standing... besides the fact that standing is a pretty stupid thing that's now almost always applied to our legal system, Texas included why they had standing and were dismissed anyways without the court even allowing them to argue it.
It's utter stupidity to think an anomaly is proof positive enough for court. Insane. Anomalies are and always will be just enough to give cause to further investigate.
Law enforcement get warrants issued based on anomalies... they wouldn't just immediately charge the suspect and go to trial with just that base anomaly (unless they suck at their job).
Considering I actually have forensic accounting in my background.... no, that's not how it works.
You use anomalies to dig further and find proof. You have something like Benford's that highlights a problem. "Hey, look at this, something screwy". Then you start digging to find the anomalies, and audit from there. Audits are where the discovery comes from, and that is what allows you to find proof.
The key difference here is that, as said before, y'all are grasping at straws saying "LOOK AT THIS PROOF". This isn't proof, it is highlighting the need to do a deep dive and FIND proof. When you present data analysis alone as concrete evidence and it is then (expectedly, I might add) tossed in the garbage at court, y'all get all surprised Pikachu face, even though literally every lawyer with a podcast and YouTube channel knew it was coming.
Couldn't they have leveraged these analyses as probable cause to get subpoenas for further investigation? Always puzzled me why they didn't. Asking for the moon with just "data analyses" that haven't even been cross-examined was always going to go down in flames.
It's tough when the courts throw your case out without ever examining your evidence.
Get better lawyers that won't fumble procedural issues, and that don't sue in the wrong court.
They have. Not every lawsuit was done improperly. You're launching a ton of lawsuits with basically the same complaint and they're including something that usually isn't in lawsuits but it makes sense for these cases. "We saw irregularities here, here, and here and therefore there is major doubt cast because if the irregularity/fraud existed there, then it could potentially exist in other similarly run areas (Dem dominated counties, Dominion software using counties). There's going to be a lot of copy paste used in filing these.
The courts had 0 intention of viewing these cases anyways. Take the Texas case for example. Not filed improperly and for a state with a grievance against another state, the actual precedent is obviously to head to federal court. But it was dismissed on lacking standing... besides the fact that standing is a pretty stupid thing that's now almost always applied to our legal system, Texas included why they had standing and were dismissed anyways without the court even allowing them to argue it.
You're getting downvotes for being right.
It's utter stupidity to think an anomaly is proof positive enough for court. Insane. Anomalies are and always will be just enough to give cause to further investigate.
Law enforcement get warrants issued based on anomalies... they wouldn't just immediately charge the suspect and go to trial with just that base anomaly (unless they suck at their job).