Thanks, Ebbie.

Y'know, the law is in many ways an arse. It allows eye-witness reports as "sound" evidence, but usually rejects some of the strongest kinds of scientific evidence and arguments as "evidence," as long as something isn't "conclusive proof."

In this case, we have the TOTAL ABSURDITY of allowing UNVERIFIABLE vote counts to stand unchallenged -- i.e., the state puts its blind trust in them -- but will probably not (if history is any judge) allow such a compelling statistical case as Freeman's to be considered as "evidence" at all!

Mind you, juries often convict people of murder on much weaker statistical (circumstantial) cases than Freeman's.

Isn't it interesting how much credence the press and the candidates give to polls when it's to their advantage? Pre-election polls are much less valuable than exit polls, but now everyone's awfully quick to discredit exit polls that don't match the numbers generated by seriously flawed vote tabulation processes.