You are on page 1of 19


Analysis of
2016 and 2020
Presidential Elections

Ray Blehar
February 16, 2021

There was not a single write-in vote among the nearly 3 million absentee votes
cast in the Arizona 2020 election. This anomaly is proof of a systemic error in
the voting system. In addition, inconsistent reporting categories of votes
between the state and counties, anomalous vote totals for Minor Party
candidates, and other anomalies in mail-in voting provide compelling evidence
that Arizona’s 2016 and 2020 certified election results1 were based on
incomplete, erroneous, and very likely manipulated data. Specifically:
 The certified vote total and the county totals do not reconcile by 9,999 votes;
 The 2020 write-in total of 2,023 votes was based only on in-person votes;
 There are 106,110 fewer votes in the 2020 certified results for Minor Party
candidates than there were in 2016; and,
 There were 628,034 more absentee/early votes counted than reportedly

The analysis determined consistent reconciliation values of approximately

100,000 votes between various election data sets. For example:
 The vote to Biden’s advantage in 2020 was 101,691 votes;
 There is a difference of 112,0322 votes between the record of early/absentee
votes in the U.S. Elections Early voting report and the certified results;
 The projection of votes shifted during adjudication is 117,787;
In 2016, the Green Party (GP) candidate Jill Stein received an average of
90,000 less votes than same party down-ballot candidates.3

In conclusion, the analysis reveals that approximately 100,000 absentee votes,

including all of the absentee write-in votes, were manipulated during the 2020
Arizona vote tabulation and a similar total was manipulated in 2016.

Edison Research, NEP data 11/30/2020 (data used for certification of votes)

1. Primary sources: Analysis of Arizona’s 2016 and 2020 certified election results
was performed using a variety of sources. The primary source was the official
certified results (canvass) from the Arizona Secretary of State (AZ SOS). 4 The
figures in the AZ SOS report are the output from the Edison Research National
Election Polling (NEP) vote tabulation.5

2. Edison Research NEP: The NEP provides media organizations with real-time
vote results in all 50 states. The NEP tracks every vote until results are certified
by all states. Vote count data is available for statewide results, vote by
Congressional District, county vote data breakouts for statewide races, and all
U.S. House races.6 These two sources match exactly at the state level for
candidates who were listed on the ballot. Hereafter, these sources will be
referred to as the “certified result (s).”

3. Secondary sources. In addition, the analysis relied upon ancillary sources and
sub-sources to include Early Voting statistics from the US Elections Project,7
county -by-county results in AZ,8 historical results from the Arizona 2016
canvass,9 relevant media reports, election systems certification documents, and
election results from numerous US states.10

4. Methodology: The analysis consisted of comparisons of data among sources,

reconciling sources as applicable, and identifying significant deviations.

See Appendix A for full list of county sources
See Appendix B for full list of state sources

Bottom Line Up Front
5. Discrepancies resulting from numerous analyses are coincident with Biden’s
margin of victory and total vote swing in 2020. These coincidences are unlikely
to be a matter of chance and reveal patterns of vote manipulation in the 2020
and 2016 Arizona presidential contests.


Biden 2020 Margin of Victory in AZ
Discrepancies found
Reconciliation between certified and county 9,999
Invalid write-in votes 10,003
Missing overvotes (approximate) 9,006
Vote Swing from 2016 to 2020
Discrepancies found
Reconciliation of absentee ballots receipts 112,032
Decline in Minor Party vote from 2016 to 2020 106,110
Green Party (Stein) underage vs. AZ cohorts 2016 90,380
Estimated 2020 votes manipulated/shifted 117,787
Average of discrepancies 106,577
Missing Write-In Votes * Missing Undervotes
53,000 - 68,000 10,000 - 34,000
2016 Green Party + Media report of
Write-Ins 53,270 undervotes (11/16/20) 34,718
2018 Green Party Reconciliation of state
statewide average 54,192 and county tabulations 9,451
2020 Projected Write- 2020 Projected
Ins based on undervotes based on
percentages 67,746 percentage 13,549
Number of write-in votes by absentee ballots in 2020
*Green Party forced to write-in presidential candidate in 2020


6. Zero write-in absentee votes in 2020. The most significant anomaly is that no
absentee write-in votes are included in the certified results. There were
approximately 3 million absentee votes cast in the 2020 election and not one
write-in vote is among them. This cannot be anything other than systemic error.
The graphic below shows the certified vote totals for Coconino, Maricopa, and
Pima counties and there are no write-in absentee votes. The remaining counties
show the same total of zero for absentee write- in votes in the certified. There
were 18,925 write in votes in 2016.

Figure 1: Certified results confirm zero write-in absentee votes.

7. Inconsistent reporting and recording of absentee ballot receipts. The tracking of
absentee ballot requests and receipts were inconsistent. A total of 3,448,181
absentee ballot requests were received on or before November 2, 2020 – not
including requests from Maricopa County. Tracking of absentee ballot requests
and ballots received was inconsistent throughout the process, as only eight (8)
reports were posted over twenty (20) days and two of those reports were posted
on the same day. Results were broken out by political party only. for the last
three reports.

Democrat Republican Affiliation Returned Requested*
10/14/2020 NR NR NR 191,280 2,823,423
10/15/2020 NR NR NR NR NR
10/16/2020 NR NR NR 586,092 2,734,503
10/17/2020 NR NR NR NR NR
10/18/2020 NR NR NR NR NR
10/19/2020 NR NR NR NR NR
10/20/2020 NR NR NR NR NR
10/21/2020 NR NR NR 1,085,794 2,628,213
10/22/2020 NR NR NR NR NR
10/23/2020 NR NR NR NR NR
10/24/2020 NR NR NR 1,178,439 2,620,920
10/24/2020 NR NR NR 1,605,338 3,335,032
10/25/2020 NR NR NR NR NR
10/26/2020 NR NR NR NR NR
10/27/2020 NR NR NR NR NR
10/28/2020 NR NR NR NR NR
10/29/2020 NR NR NR NR NR
10/30/2020 879,178 836,123 587,455 2,302,756 3,383,433
10/31/2020 NR NR NR NR NR
11/1/2020 879,178 836,123 587,455 2,302,756 3,383,433
11/2/2020 923,805 914,172 633,600 2,471,577 3,448,181
*Does not include Maricopa

Figure 2: Tracking of absentee ballot requests and receipts

8. Maricopa returned nearly 1.5 million absentee ballots. According to the certified
results, Maricopa County returned 1,489,023 absentee ballots. However, the
results also show that 1,859,724 absentee votes were cast –or 406,719 votes more
than possible. Results are similar in the other counties as all have more votes
counted than ballots received for a state-wide discrepancy of 628,084. This
discrepancy requires further investigation or explanation.

Absentee Absentee
ARIZONA 2020 Counted Received Difference
Apache County 24,033 14,684 9,349
Cochise County 48,428 40,322 8,106
Coconino County 60,874 37,503 23,371
Gila County 22,765 22,311 454
Graham County 10,738 9,380 1,358
Greenlee County 2,618 2,450 168
La Paz County 4,495 3,932 563
Maricopa County 1,895,742 1,489,023 406,719
Mohave County 79,622 66,610 13,012
Navajo County 36,136 28,592 7,544
Pima County 454,681 406,810 47,871
Pinal County 147,527 88,536 58,991
Santa Cruz County 15,652 11,041 4,611
Yavapai County 125,043 100,553 24,490
Yuma County 59,275 37,798 21,477
TOTAL 2,987,629 2,359,545 628,084

Figure 3: More absentee votes counted than received

9. Absentee ballot receipts don’t reconcile. The certified results (Figure 3)

recorded 2,359,445 absentee ballots received11 while the Arizona Early Voting

Reported as “absentee_max_ballots” in the certified results.

statistics12 (Figure 2) reported 2,471,577 for a difference of 112,032 fewer votes
represented in the certified results.

10. Poor administrative controls. The inconsistencies in the reporting and counting
of absentee votes reveal a poor system of administrative controls. Without
proper administrative controls, the outputs of the system (i.e., the results) are

11. Reconciliation of party voting. The 2020 certified presidential election results13
for Arizona do not reconcile with the results from the individual counties.14
There were 9,999 less votes at the state level than reported by the counties – not
including overvotes and undervotes. The vote totals for Biden and Jorgenson
matched at the state and county levels, however the Trump total was off by 4
votes. There was a discrepancy of 10,003 votes in the write-in counts between
the state (2,032) and the sum of the counties (12,035). That difference is nearly
the same as the margin of victory in the 2020 presidential contest (10,457 votes).

TOTAL Biden (D) Trump ( R ) Jorg (L) Write-in (WI)
Certified Result 3,387,326 1,672,143 1,661,686 51,465 2,032
NEP 12.12.2020 3,387,326 1,672,143 1,661,686 51,465 2,032
Certified Less NEP 0 0 0 0 0
County Totals 3,397,325 1,672,143 1,661,682 51,465 12,035
Certified Less County -9,999 0 4 0 -10,003

Figure 4. Certified results don’t reconcile with county results.

12. Ballot Adjudication. Voting systems software15 must have the capability to
adjudicate write-in votes, mismarked votes, and otherwise undetermined votes.
In these instances, an election worker views the ballot image and determines the

See Appendix A for sources.

intent of the voter. This is a situation that is susceptible to vote manipulation
(i.e., fraudulent assignment of votes).

13. Official write-in votes. In Arizona, for a write-in vote to be counted it must be
cast for an official write-in candidate who filed the correct paperwork with the
Secretary of State.16 Hypothetically, if an individual voter wrote in Trump
instead of marking Trump’s name on the ballot, that vote would not be counted.
I noted the latter occurrence in my review of Pennsylvania’s write-in votes.

14. Invalid Write-in Votes. Overall, 83% of all write-in votes were invalid in 2020
compared to 60.9% in 2016. In Maricopa County, 6,611 of 7,942 write-in votes
(or 83%) were invalid in 2020. Comparatively, 60.3% of write-in votes were
declared invalid in 2016. In 2020, the invalid rates for write-in votes were above
70% for each county with a total of 10,003 votes rejected. Conversely, in 2016
the range of percentages for invalid votes ranged from 0% (Greenlee) to 83.6%
(Apache) with 29,500 votes rejected. The 2020 percentages are consistently
higher than in 201617 and strongly indicate a systemic error.

2020 Results 2016 Results

Certified Total Certified Total Pct
ARIZONA Counties Write in Write-in (WI) Invalid Pct Invalid Write in Write-in (WI) Invalid Invalid
Apache County 11 96 85 88.5% 106 648 542 83.6%
Cochise County 31 223 192 86.1% 455 1,086 631 58.1%
Coconino County 74 360 286 79.4% 536 1,880 1,344 71.5%
Gila County 16 73 57 78.1% 112 207 95 45.9%
Graham County 1 34 33 97.1% 195 342 147 43.0%
Greenlee County 3 11 8 72.7% 27 27 0 0.0%
La Paz County 2 14 12 85.7% 15 89 74 83.1%
Maricopa County 1,331 7,942 6,611 83.2% 12,355 31,091 18,736 60.3%
Mohave County 37 215 178 82.8% 230 598 368 61.5%
Navajo County 16 163 147 90.2% 505 1,145 640 55.9%
Pima County 338 1,777 1,439 81.0% 2,509 7,731 5,222 67.5%
Pinal County 63 551 488 88.6% 1,057 1,300 243 18.7%
Santa Cruz County 5 25 20 80.0% 47 193 146 75.6%
Yavapai County 59 360 301 83.6% 652 1,964 1,312 66.8%
Yuma County 45 191 146 76.4% 124 124 0 0.0%
Total 2,032 12,035 10,003 83.1% 18,925 48,425 29,500 60.9%
Figure 5: High rejection rates of write-in (adjudicated) votes

See Appendix B for 2016 county sources

15. Write-in vote total. The certified total write-in votes for Arizona are 2,032, which
is 0.06% of the total vote for president and does not include any mail-in votes
based upon review of the NEP data.

16. 2016 historical comparison. In 2016, the certified write-in vote total was 18,924
or 0.74%. Extrapolating on the 2016 level, the projected number of 2020 write-in
would be 24,912.

17. Overvotes and undervotes. The county level results show that 5,528 overvotes
and 9,467 undervotes were tabulated in the election system. While not reported
at the state level, eight of fifteen counties reported undervotes, while only six
counties reported undervotes in 2020. Interestingly, various media outlets
reported that Arizona had approximately 34,000 undervotes based on data
posted to the state website.18 19

18. Overall reconciliation. Overall, there were 24,994 fewer votes in the certified
results than the county results when overvotes and undervotes are included. If
the USAToday column was accurate, a lot of undervotes are missing.

Figure 6: County and state totals don’t reconcile by 24,994 votes


19. Significant decline in Minor Party votes from 2016 to 2020. The Libertarian
party was the only Minor Party qualified to be placed on the presidential ballot
and received 51,465 votes. Counting write-in votes, the grand total of Minor
Party votes in 2020 was 53,497. In contrast, Minor Party voters cast 159,957
votes in 2016 – a difference of 106,100 votes. Green Party (GP) candidate Jill
Stein received 34,345 votes20 in 2016 – a number similar to the 2020 votes that
could not be reconciled (37,042). The GP party candidate for 2020 was
recognized as an official write-in candidate and received just 1,557 votes. The
significant decline is quite unusual and may have been due to vote manipulation
during the adjudication process.

20. Decline in write-in votes in 2020 is anomalous. With the GP voters forced to
write in their candidate, the expected write-in total for the state of Arizona 2020
should have been considerably higher than in 2016. Assuming the GP supported
its 2020 candidate at same level as in 2016, the 2020 total write in-votes for
Arizona should have been in the neighborhood of 46,000 to 56,000 votes.
However, the GP candidate received only 1,557 votes.

21. 2018 election results. In the most recent election, The GP’s gubernatorial
candidate garnered 50,962 votes while its US Senate candidate received 57,442
votes21 -- in an off-year election. These totals are further confirmation that the
write-in vote count for 2020 is abnormally low and does not reflect expected GP
support in Arizona.

22. 2016 Federal level comparison in Arizona. Results of other GP members in the
2016 election may also provide insights into vote manipulation. In 2016, the GP
presidential candidate Jill Stein received 34,345 votes. Comparatively, Stein’s
GP cohort, Senate candidate Gary Swing received 138,634 – an incredible


104,289 more votes than Stein. Again, a reconciliation (shortage) amount of
approximately 100,000.

23. Control states. In order to determine if the results were a matter of Stein’s
unpopularity compared to local candidates, solid red and blue states were
selected as control states. Stein’s results were similar to her GP cohorts in
those states. For example, Stein and her GP US Senate candidate cohort got
nearly equal votes of 50,002 and 48,823 respectively in solid-blue Oregon22. In
solid-blue Connecticut, Stein received 22,841 votes to her Senate counterpart’s
16,713.23 Stein received 25,419 votes, which is within one standard deviation of
the GP state-wide average of 35,933 votes, in Missouri.24 In solid-red South
Carolina, Stein received 13,034 votes and her US Senate cohort received 14,872.
The control state analyses confirm that the Arizona results were anomalous.

24. Battleground States. In order to gain more insights into this anomaly, other
battleground states were examined. Pennsylvania’s results were much like
Arizona’s in 2016. Stein received 49,941 votes but her GP cohorts received
158,942 for Auditor General and 170,275 for Treasurer – besting her by over
100,000 votes each. In battleground Michigan,25 Stein received 51,463 votes but
was trounced by five GP cohorts who garnered in the neighborhood of 100,000
votes each. In 2016, Ohio was a battleground state and the same anomalous
situation appeared there for Stein. She received 46,271 votes to her GP cohort’s
total of 88,246. The battlegrounds and Arizona are anomalous.


Figure 7: Arizona & Battlegrounds results were anomalous for Stein in 2016

25. Stein called for forensic audits in 2016. Stating that Pennsylvania’s election
system was “a national disgrace,” Stein called for forensic audits of the voting
machines in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. .26 Unfortunately, Stein’s
call for the audits was based on the narrow margins of victory for Trump over
Clinton rather than her own anomalous vote totals.

26. Clinton reluctant to question integrity election system. After losing the
election, Clinton claimed there was Russian interference in the election but
didn’t call for forensic audits. According to media reports, Clinton and her
advisors were “intensely reluctant” to question the integrity of the voting
system.31 She did not support Stein’s efforts for investigations in Michigan and

27. Computer scientists find issues with voting machines. Clinton eventually
supported Stein’s efforts in Wisconsin after her supporters32 and computer
scientists33 provided evidence of voting machine irregularities.



28. Arizona voting system irregularities. Nearly three quarters of Arizona’s votes
were tabulated in just six (6) transactions over a period of ten minutes on
November 3, 2020. An total of 2,329,555 votes were recorded out of the state
certified total of 3,338,226, including a massive dump of over 1.4 million, votes
before a more typical voting pattern resumed around 3:14 AM GMT (8:14 PM
Mountain Standard Time (MST).

Biden Trump
eevp Timestamp New Votes New New
0 2020-11-04T10:02:04Z
3 2020-11-04T03:03:36Z 104866 50,336 52,957
23 2020-11-04T03:05:47Z 625,433 363,014 254,499
69 2020-11-04T03:06:25Z 1,473,186 798,568 655,467
70 2020-11-04T03:08:46Z 31,068 14,853 15,811
72 2020-11-04T03:10:54Z 69,790 19,880 49,003
73 2020-11-04T03:13:47Z 25,212 8,981 15,904

Figure 8: Large tranches of votes at beginning of count.

29. Vote reporting stopped in the middle of the night. As was the case in many key
battleground states, vote reporting stopped at 2:39 AM EST (12:39 AM MST).
However, unlike many of the other battleground states, Arizona did not have an
anomalous vote spike in favor of Biden when the reporting resumed at 8:44 AM
EST (6:44 AM MST). This is likely due to the fact that the vote spikes occurred
at the outset from the reporting/tabulation of the massive early vote.


30. Shifting of Adjudicated Votes. The chart below shows vote switches highlighted
in yellow. In many cases, the beneficiary of the shift cannot be determined as
both Biden and Trump have a greater number of votes than the amount shifted.
The beneficiaries of the shifts can be determined by audit of the ballot images.

31. Estimated 117,878 votes switched. Analysis of the certified voting results
reveal that 36,728 of the votes – about 3.5% of adjudicated votes -- were
reassigned to Biden and Trump, exclusive of the large vote tranches at the
outset. Applying that percentage to the total votes yields a potential 117,787
votes shifted. Due to the fact that the votes in this table are computed from
percentages that are only accurate to three decimal places, these figures could be
off due to rounding. That said, the final output of the NEP data matches the
Arizona certified results exactly.
Biden Trump
eevp Timestamp Total Votes New Votes New New LO New
73 2020-11-04T03:16:33Z} 2,331,651 90 49 -2,291 2,333
73 2020-11-04T03:17:55Z} 2,332,883 1,232 -1,669 552 2,349
75 2020-11-04T03:24:23Z} 2,396,381 12,931 4,560 10,586 -2,215
75 2020-11-04T04:04:48Z} 2,402,922 1,968 -1,346 886 2,429
75 2020-11-04T04:23:33Z} 2,408,896 4,345 2,329 4,364 -2,348
75 2020-11-04T04:26:30Z} 2,410,178 1,282 -1,723 578 2,427
78 2020-11-04T05:53:27Z} 2,483,748 63,354 21,539 43,412 -1,597
78 2020-11-04T06:01:59Z} 2,502,286 18,392 2,259 13,391 2,741
79 2020-11-04T06:07:45Z} 2,533,873 12,028 6,327 8,067 -2,365
79 2020-11-04T06:17:33Z} 2,536,236 2,363 -1,293 1,089 2,567
80 2020-11-04T06:43:46Z} 2,550,854 13,080 4,316 11,132 -2,368
80 2020-11-04T07:20:03Z} 2,567,895 15,053 5,320 6,970 2,764
82 2020-11-04T07:33:40Z} 2,638,624 15,405 5,357 12,471 -2,423
82 2020-11-04T07:39:40Z} 2,639,559 935 484 -2,201 2,652
86 2020-11-06T00:14:38Z} 2,932,674 5,833 2,940 5,744 -2,851
86 2020-11-06T00:34:35Z} 2,934,297 1,623 -2,116 784 2,955
88 2020-11-06T01:13:36Z} 2,976,285 2,223 4,092 1,074 -2,943
93 2020-11-06T19:23:36Z} 3,127,581 3,957 -1,149 1,923 3,183
97 2020-11-07T16:01:45Z} 3,284,602 40,407 20,001 26,247 -5,842
98 2020-11-08T23:34:40Z} 3,322,208 13,486 6,676 9,917 -3,106
98 2020-11-09T22:22:36Z} 3,327,452 3,437 -1,626 1,684 3,379
98 2020-11-10T21:39:45Z} 3,340,535 5,480 6,048 2,685 -3,253
98 2020-11-10T23:18:55Z} 3,341,449 914 -2,889 448 3,355
99 2020-11-12T03:16:53Z} 3,366,867 13,143 6,493 9,807 -3,157
Multiply -36,728 by approximately 3 to project shifts prior to eevp 73 -36,782

Figure 9: Vote shifts after 73 PCT of vote counted

The results of numerous and varied analyses reveal that approximately 100,000
votes were manipulated in the 2016 and 2020 Arizona presidential contests.
Legal hurdles in Arizona (and Pennsylvania) forced the GP to write-in its 2020
presidential candidate and those votes were susceptible to vote manipulation
during the adjudication process. It is likely that between 50,000 and 65,000
write-in votes for the GP candidate were fraudulently reassigned in Arizona. In
addition, between 9,541 and 34,000 undervotes – also susceptible to vote
manipulation during adjudication – are not accounted for in the Arizona certified
results. Finally, the analysis revealed that is also very likely that fraudulent
vote reassignment occurred in Arizona and other key battleground states in

Appendix A: 2020 Analysis Sources

Arizona Edison NEP

Arizona Canvass
Arizona statewide,_2020
Apache County

Cochise County

Coconino County
Gila County
Graham County
Greenlee County
La Paz County Canvassed-PDF
Maricopa County
Mohave County
Navajo County Comp%20O%20w%20win.pdf?ver=2020-11-16-095402-667&timestamp=1605545965609
Pima County s/General%202020%20Results.pdf
Pinal County 0-120278
Pinal County
Santa Cruz County OFFICIAL-Results
Yavapai County 8_10a&revDate=20201118_10a
Yuma County

APPENDIX B: 2016 County level sources
Apache 2016 Election.pdf

Cochise 2016
Coconino 2016 REPORT-Final-11-8-16?bidId=
Gila 2016
Graham 2016
Greenlee 2016 %20Official%20Canvass.pdf
La Paz 2016 CanvassedPDF
Maricopa 2016 In%20Report%20Summary%20NOV%202016.pdf
Mohave 2016 =0
Navajo 2016 nSummaryReport.pdf
Pima 2016 st%20Results/2016%20SOVC/Pima%20Canvass.pdf
Pinal 2016 6-079404
Santa Cruz Official-Results
Yavapai County
Yuma County

2016 U.S. State Data

GP 2016 Candidates

South Carolina
Pennsylvania ve=0

Raymond M. Blehar, Curriculum Vitae

I earned a Masters of Business Administration degree (with honors) from Penn

State University in 2008 and a Bachelor of Arts degree in Geography from the
Indiana University of Pennsylvania in 1983. I retired from the federal government
in 2017 after serving 32 years in the Defense/Intelligence Community. While
employed by the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA) and predecessor
agencies (1985 to 2017), I served in a variety of management and staff positions
including (but not limited to) assistant inspector general, performance analyst,
primary staff officer for intelligence program reviews, head of financial
management control, financial audit liaison to the Department of Defense (DOD),
and assistant deputy director for quality. My experiences at NGA included various
statistical analysis and modeling activities, administration and analysis of
organizational surveys, and monitoring and analyzing agency performance to
include financial analysis, audit, and oversight. From 2010 to 2013, I served a
rotational assignment as a senior analyst to the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence (ODNI), Systems, Resources, and Analysis Directorate. While at
ODNI, I conducted various analyses regarding multiple systems software and
hardware acquisitions in excess of $10 billion (aggregate). In addition, I provided
financial analyses and recommendations regarding investments in commercial
partnerships. During my career I received commendations from NGA (and
predecessors), ODNI, CIA, and the Department of Defense for my analytic

In addition to my work activities, I volunteered as an Awards Examiner for the U.S.

Senate Productivity Awards and Maryland Quality Awards program (1997-2001).
In that role, I evaluated the management practices of public agencies, private sector
companies, and educational systems and provided recommendations for
improvement. More recently (2012-2018), I provided pro bono
investigative/analytic support to defense teams in the criminal cases of former Penn
State President Graham Spanier (Commonwealth v. Spanier) and former
Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane (Commonwealth v. Kane) as well as
to Spanier as the plaintiff in his civil case against former Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) Director, Louis Freeh (Spanier v. Freeh). Notably, my
investigations/analyses revealed that the key evidence used in the
prosecutions/convictions was of dubious provenance and was subjected to