This story is consistent with most cases I have researched. There is this dichotomy of cases the state attorney’s office prosecutes that are factually anemic and the cases that office refuses to prosecute regardless of abundant proof of countless crimes. Victims are created in both types of cases. What do you do when you are the object of a prosecutor’s tenacious claim of wrongdoing, while you are innocent? Is it worse than when someone has taken advantage of you or your family and that person thumbs their nose at you, denying you justice?
Laura Carroll and Emily Grover have been casted into the role of wrongly accused victims. I will delve into the “whys” in another post. What I wanted to bring out is the evidence presented. To give a bit of background, after the voting was complete, administrator, Carolyn Gray sorted through the votes. She is familiar with this app, Election Runner. She analyzed the data provided. According to her, she started deleting “suspicious votes” (as she had done in prior elections) she stopped deleting and sent the info to the school district to evaluate. The problem is we have no idea how many votes she deleted that might have altered the results or how many votes that were deleted that would point to someone else? We have incomplete information that is being used to prosecute a woman and her daughter. WTF?
Also brought out was the time the votes came in, according to Ms. Gray, there could be a lag in how said votes came in, which has come under scrutiny as well. The way the votes came into the program, is also being called “fishy”. But is it fishy if there is a lag??
Here are a couple of points in her deposition that I think deserve some attention:
So, we don’t know how many votes were suspicious and were deleted by Ms. Gray. My question on this is: if evidence is tampered with providing a clip of what happened, how do we know that data wouldn’t implicate someone else or give a fuller view of what we are looking at? Capturing some evidence that points to Emily or her family seems moot on its face because we don’t know the context of the data we now have. If you found a dead body and you cleaned up some blood around the body, wouldn’t that be destroying evidence? If you think someone hacked your computer, wouldn’t it be destruction of evidence to delete the proof of such? In both cases, it would significantly alter the outcome of any trial. You have unknown info swirling around that could have potential to exculpate people; why is that not being seen?
There are a couple of points to make Ms. Gray’s participation in this case sketchy; so far, we have a criminal case initiated with incomplete evidence; an administrator assuming guilt based on said incomplete evidence; the same administrator, did not authenticate the data (the portion she didn’t delete) before she sought to escalate this. Because she deleted some, authentication is necessary to see if any foul play occurred at all.
To me, it appears like they are backdooring this issue of authentication by using the records on FOCUS, the county site rather than that of the Election Runner app. This is deceptive info. It may show logins to FOCUS but it does not show the Election Runner results. It depends on the authenticity of the Election Runner app.
Just to clarify. One cannot enter the Election Runner app through FOCUS. It’s not possible. The two programs have no connection except that the school board believe that info gathered from FOCUS access to get the information that was needed to fraudulently vote for other students.