Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai, M.I.T. Ph.D., the Inventor of Email issued a response to Maricopa County’s explanation as to why the “Verified & Approved” envelope stamps appeared to be photoshopped.
Dr. Shiva was contracted by Arizona auditors to analyze mail-in ballot envelope images and his findings were highly suspicious, to say the least.
Here is an example of one envelope image that may be fake.
A poor explanation from the county raised even more questions from Dr. Shiva.
Apparently, the county compressed the images before delivery to the Senate instead of giving the real unaltered envelope images.
Shiva describes the explanation as “somewhat cryptic”, then follows up with questions addressing the SOP for envelope image processing.
Dr. Shiva’s response to Maricopa County’s explanation to the envelopes. pic.twitter.com/1rlsmLZeCU
— Christina Bobb (@christina_bobb) October 2, 2021
Dr. Shiva’s letter to Randy Pullen:
Arizona State Senate c/o Randy Pullen
Re: Response to County Explanation of Stamp “Behind” Envelope Triangle
Thank you for sharing with me the “County Explanation” concerning the anomaly EchoMail detected of the “VERIFIED & APPROVED MCTEC” stamp appearing “behind” the triangle. Their explanation stated:
“Since the scan is compressed the envelope only takes the outline of things like an arrow or large font. So the stamp was simply stamped over The Black arrow and in a scan it appears to be under it.”
This explanation is somewhat cryptic, and our follow up herein is, therefore, based on our interpretation of their explanation (see I). Moreover, their explanation raises many new questions, and provides an opportunity for further dialog with the County to understand the specific Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) of the image processing methods and what steps they follow in the systems for Early Voting Ballot (EVB) return envelope processing.
Figure 1 – Example of EVB Return Envelope. EchoMail, Inc. 701 Concord Avenue | Cambridge, MA | 02138
I. EchoMail’s Interpretation of County Explanation
EchoMail’s interpretation of the County’s explanation is: When a stamp is placed over a blackened region, on any of the triangles on the EVB return envelope (as shown in Figure 1), image compression replaces non-white pixels in those triangle areas with white pixels. And, this image compression process leads to the observed anomaly.
II. Questions and Concerns in Response to County’s Explanation
1) What is most concerning is to find out now, for the first time since EchoMail was engaged for this audit, that the images EchoMail received are a compressed version of some original version. This means that modifications took place e.g. compression on the original images that were created from scanning of the voter’s original EVB return envelopes.
2) Are the pre-compression EVB return envelope images available?
3) How many sets of EVB return envelope images with varying compression exist?
4) Is there an entire set of EVB return envelope images that are high resolution?
5) Are the original EVB return envelopes available for inspection?
6) Is a virtual i.e. digital “VERIFIED & APPROVED MCTEC” stamp being applied to the original high-resolution EVB return envelope images?
7) Are the EVB return envelope images encrypted when saved?
8) What other image processing and modifications takes place on the original EVB return envelope image?
9) Are the EVB return envelope images stored in one central repository?
10)Who has access to the EVB return envelope images?
11)What modifications can be applied to the EVB return envelope images besides the “VERIFIED & APPROVED MCTEC” stamp?
12)Can signatures be removed and altered in the Signature Region of the EVB return envelope images?
13)Can any region of the EVB return envelope image be altered?
14)What is the Chain of Custody on alterations to the EVB return envelope images?
15)Is there revision tracking enabled on EVB return envelope image modifications?
16)What other image processing occurred on the EVB return envelope images prior to EchoMail receiving them?
17) Why are not all the bona fide i.e. “Verified and Counted” EVB return envelope images stamped with “VERFIED & APPROVED MCTEC?”
18)Given EchoMail has access to EVB return envelope images, where the stamp appears both behind and in front of a triangle, how does the County’s explanation resolve such examples? Do different image compression settings exist?
19)What is the exact process and Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) from receipt of the original EVB return envelope from the voter, to scanning, to stamping, to storage, and compression of the EVB return envelope images?
EchoMail appreciates the response from the County. We look forward to next steps, once we receive answers to the above questions.
Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai
The County did not give a clear explanation for why these envelope images look like this and if what they say is true, the images were adjusted before delivery.
The original envelopes need to be analyzed.
This investigation is now in the hands of Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich.
Contact him NOW and demand that he looks at this evidence.