A team of forensic investigators has uncovered a huge stash of illegal ballots in Michigan that were counted in the 2020 presidential election.
A staggering 34,000 illegal ballots were found in Detroit, Michigan during a groundbreaking forensic criminal probe into key battleground precincts from the controversial 2020 election.
Specklin Forensics, a national expert in criminal forensics, completed an investigation into the 2020 election in Michigan and published a report on its findings.
The forensics organization found damning evidence of widespread and systemic voter fraud.
The evidence of fraud was particularly found among absentee ballots, according to the report.
During the investigation, Specklin Forensics was granted access to 2020 ballots in Wayne County, which covers Detroit.
Forensic investigators found:
- A significant number of absentees in different precincts illegally had no signed ballot application. Many absentee ballots had no request whatsoever, in the two primary precincts examined the rates of illegal ballots were 12% and 20%.
- Absentee ballots often had a lighter tone and shade to the printing. The Detroit clerks even commented to the Specklin team that the type of paper felt different.
If the numbers of absentees missing a ballot request are extrapolated out to the rest of Wayne County, Specklin reports, “with approximately 170,000 AV ballots, the range at 8%-20% would be 13,600 to 34,000 ballots with no application requesting the ballot.”
The report, released on July 26th, found that in 20% of cases in one Detroit absent voter counting board and 12% in another, the eligibility requirement was not met.
These ballots were therefore illegitimate and, in a non-corrupted election system, would have been rejected, the report concludes.
Specklin head Erich Specklin issued a statement warning that more investigations into the 2020 election need to be conducted.
“…the computer data relating to the scanning and tabulation from this 2020 election should be examined and compared for discrepancies as well as time sequences,” Specklin said.
“This data should include ballot images to check for duplicate scans, comparison of totals, times of scanning, and other related features and possible access from outside sources.”