Click HERE to view an editorial from today's New York Times in which they embrace the nonsense from McClatchy, ProPublica and PBS Frontline about evidence in the Amerithrax investigation. The Times makes the same ridiculous arguments. The New York Times' editorial says:
"As for the circumstantial evidence, an investigation by PBS Frontline, assisted by ProPublica and the McClatchy newspapers, cast doubt on two elements that prosecutors had declared important. A contention that Dr. Ivins worked extraordinarily long hours alone at night in his laboratory just before the mailings looked less suspicious after the journalists found that he regularly worked late hours in other labs and offices."
Yes, and the fact that he "regularly" worked long hours in offices and other laboratories explains why the guards and others in Building 1425 didn't pay any attention when Ivins suddenly started working those hours in his BioSafety Level 3 laboratory instead of his office and other laboratories where he'd previously spent his time at night and on weekends. The guards had become accustomed to seeing him in the building at night. They just had no way of knowing that he was doing something different from what he normally did.
The evidence is that Ivins was working in his BSL-3 lab alone and unsupervised with equipment that he could use to create the powders. And why couldn't he explain what he was doing in his BSL-3 lab on those evenings? Why did he suddenly start doing something different? What was he doing? It's the fact that he was in his personal BSL-3 lab doing something DIFFERENT that is the evidence against Ivins. The fact that he normally worked long hours only shows why his time spent making the anthrax powders went unnoticed by others.
Discussion?
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete---------Yes, and the fact that he "regularly" worked long hours in offices and other laboratories explains why the guards and others in Building 1425 didn't pay any attention when Ivins suddenly started working those hours in his BioSafety Level 3 laboratory instead of his office and other laboratories where he'd previously spent his time at night and on weekends. The guards had become accustomed to seeing him in the building at night. They just had no way of knowing that he was doing something different from what he normally did.
=============================================
But THAT part is not in evidence: where is the evidence that Ivins was doing 'something different'?
Another partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete----------
The evidence is that Ivins was working in his BSL-3 lab alone and unsupervised with equipment that he could use to create the powders.
=============================================
What equipment was that?
Richard Rowley wrote: "But THAT part is not in evidence: where is the evidence that Ivins was doing 'something different'?"
ReplyDeleteThe evidence that Ivins was doing something different is the fact that he was working long hours in his BSL-3 lab, which he had not been doing in previous months. He had equipment in is BSL-3 lab for making anthrax.
"What equipment was that?"
1. He had autoclave bags full of anthrax spores he could use.
2. He had biosafety cabinets where he could safely scrape the spores and other material out of the plates and into a beaker.
3. He had centrifuges which he could use to separate the spores from the slime and debris that had been in the plates with the spores.
4. He could use the same biosafety cabinets to air dry the spores.
5. He could use the same biosafety cabinets to put the spores into the letters.
6. He could use the biosafety cabinets to put the letters into Ziplock bags and wipe down the outside of the bags with bleach to avoid leaving spores around as he transported the letters. (Putting the letters into a Ziplock bag also avoided the problem of leaving fingerprints on the letters.)
Ed
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete----------------
The evidence that Ivins was doing something different is the fact that he was working long hours in his BSL-3 lab[...]
===============================================
That's what is known as circular reasoning.
If you have a swimmer who usually works out for 1/2 hour a day in a pool and then ends up on a particular day spending 1 1/2 hour in the pool it would not NECESSARILY mean that the swimmer was doing 'something different' (non-swimming) in the pool on that occasion. He may have had more energy on that day or wanted to work on his backstroke. There's no way to tell.
To get back to Ivins, I hardly think we are in a position to intuit exactly what he was doing in his lab in 2001 EVEN DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS (figure 8 am to 5 pm), let alone in the off hours.
----------------------------------------------
I think your account, Mister Lake, is very imaginative. But that's all.
That is: there's no presentable evidence of what he was doing.
Richard Rowley wrote: "If you have a swimmer who usually works out for 1/2 hour a day in a pool and then ends up on a particular day spending 1 1/2 hour in the pool it would not NECESSARILY mean that the swimmer was doing 'something different' (non-swimming) in the pool on that occasion."
ReplyDeleteYou're totally missing the point and distorting the facts. If a swimmer spends a half hour a week in the pool three times a month, and then suddenly starts spending three hours a DAY in the pool EVERY DAY, it DOES mean he's doing something different.
It means even more if they find that he's sent letters applying for the Olympic team. One can logically deduce that the extra time and the application for the Olympic team are connected. (It may not be provable, but there would be no problem convincing 12 people that the deduction is sound and reasonable.)
"there's no presentable evidence of what he was doing."
Yes, there is. You do not need home movies of him making the anthrax powders to DEDUCE from his other actions (and the other circumstantial evidence) what he was doing on those evenings.
A jury would have been given ALL the evidence showing Ivins' actions, they would see the logic of it all, and they would almost certainly have found Ivins guilty. The defense's argument that it's all just an incredible string of coincidences wouldn't likely have swayed anyone.
But, that's my opinion. It seems that you believe that circumstantial evidence isn't "real" evidence even though it's used to convict hundreds of criminals every day.
Ed
Partial post by Mister Lake (addressing me):
ReplyDelete-------------
"there's no presentable evidence of what he was doing."
Yes, there is. You do not need home movies of him making the anthrax powders to DEDUCE from his other actions (and the other circumstantial evidence) what he was doing on those evenings.
============================================
No. Not home movies. But ANYTHING to indicate he was drying anthrax, purifying same, writing letters etc.
Otherwise, it's merely tarted-up conjecture. Which you label 'deduction'.
Richard Rowley wrote: "No. Not home movies. But ANYTHING to indicate he was drying anthrax, purifying same, writing letters etc."
ReplyDelete1. Ivins couldn't explain his unusual hours in Suite B3, much less his unusual hours in room B313 within Suite B3.
2. Ivins had the capability in his lab in B313 and within other labs in Suite B3 to make the attack anthrax.
3. The facts indicate that the attack anthrax was made from spores that had been allowed to grow on agar plates that had been placed in autoclave bags and allowed to remain in Ivins' lab for weeks.
4. The plates in those bags were plates on which Ivins and his assistants had tested spore concentrations in aliquots and other samples derived from flask RMR-1029.
5. Ivins had the means to make the attack anthrax. He had all the equipment and expertise that was needed.
6. Ivins had multiple motives to make the attack anthrax and send the letters.
7. Ivins put a coded message in the first attack letter that was meaningful to him.
8. Ivins used a ZIP code and a return address on the senate letters that meant something to him.
9. Ivins hours in his lab and suite B3 and his lack of an alibi show that Ivins had the opportunity to make the anthrax and to drive to New Jersey to mail the letters.
10. There were connections between the location of the mailbox and Bruce Ivins.
11. The FBI couldn't find anyone else who had means, motive and opportunity.
I could go on and on, but the end result is always the same: The facts say that Ivins was making the anthrax powders in Suite B3 on the evenings and weekends in August, September and October.
12. Ivins tried to destroy evidence after the crime.
13. Ivins tried to intimidate witnesses.
14. Ivins tried to mislead the investigation by pointing to others, including his own subordinates, as possible suspects, and by supplying (1) an improperly prepared sample and (2) a false sample to the FBI repository.
15. Ivins was mentally ill and had murderous impulses. He tried to destroy the career of a woman who tried to ignore him, he'd purchased bomb making materials and had plot to murder a former subordinate.
No matter how you look at the facts, they add up to Ivins making the anthrax powders in his lab in August, September and October of 2001.
Ed
Mister Lake's
ReplyDeletePoint 1 reverses the burden of proof, and does so as unconvincingly as possible: if I want to find out why Mister Lake didn't post on day X, the best way to find out is to ask him on day X+1, NOT to wait 5 or 6 years, get a vague reply, and then 'summarize' that with "Mister Lake had no credible explanation as to why he didn't post on day X". In short, the lack of an 'alibi' is an artifact of how the investigation was conducted (the FBI's fault, not Ivins').
There was hardly a day in the quarter century that Ivins worked at USAMRIID that he DIDN'T use suite B-3, with (probably)most days spending at least some time in the B-313 lab, so naturally, under those circumstances, expecting someone to remember activities in B-13 even 6 MONTHS later is wildly unrealistic. This unrealism is pervasive in the 'case' against Ivins.
[To be continued]
Mister Lake's point #2
ReplyDelete2. Ivins had the capability in his lab in B313 and within other labs in Suite B3 to make the attack anthrax.
speaks to some undefined 'capability'. Since we don't know HOW the anthrax was made (dried) (and Mister Lake claims the investigators aren't obliged to figure THAT out), it makes no sense to say what capability Ivins had. I gather (as a layman) that there are several methods to dry anthrax into a powder. The vagueness on this point is EXACTLY why the investigation stuck to the lyophilizer hypothesis from Aug 6th 2008 (ie a week after Ivins' death) to July of THIS year: they could get away with it, since minus the civil litigation there was no method to test this lyophilizer hypothesis in a court of law. As soon as they realized there was, they 'amended' something they avoided amending for (almost)3 solid years.
As to Mister Lake's point #3:
ReplyDeleteWHERE in the 92 page document which is the summary of the investigation does it state that the spores were grown on agar plates?
(I'm willing to reexamine this point if it is indeed in the FINAL REPORT, but if it isn't then it's a matter of wild goose chasing)
Mister Lake's point #4
ReplyDelete4. The plates in those bags were plates on which Ivins and his assistants had tested spore concentrations in aliquots and other samples derived from flask RMR-1029.
is an elaboration (a further development) of #3 and since #3 isn't clearly claimed by the FINAL REPORT, there's nothing to respond to.
Mister Lake's point #5:
5. Ivins had the means to make the attack anthrax. He had all the equipment and expertise that was needed.
Okay, this is merely a more generalized version of what is (partially) being claimed in points 3 and 4. Without knowning HOW the Amerithrax anthrax was dried/purified, it is meaningless to say Ivins (or anyone else) had the 'equipment and expertise' to do that particularized processing. And if having a functioning lyophilizer in B-313 was necessary, as ORIGNALLY indicated at both the Aug 6th press conference AND in the FINAL REPORT, then Ivins did NOT have the equipment.
Another partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete-------------
6. Ivins had multiple motives to make the attack anthrax and send the letters.
============================================
Many times claimed, but never proven. Motive, like other parts of a case, need to be proven.
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete----------
7. Ivins put a coded message in the first attack letter that was meaningful to him.
===========================================
As i've observed before about the first word (Ivins), that shows the a priori thinking at the heart of all this. If you want to CONVINCE anyone, you should write 'The PERP(ETRATOR) put a coded message....'.
As to the 'code' I find that the most laughable piece of 'evidence' of all. From reading MIRAGE MAN it is clear that it (the code) WASN'T something 'decoded' by a cryptographer or someone similarly trained but was suggested by an FBI scientist. This would have been ripped to shreds in a court (by, among others, trained cryptographers used by the defense). Totally bogus at every level.
Next by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete----------
8. Ivins used a ZIP code and a return address on the senate letters that meant something to him.
=============================================
Unproven and in the first instance (zip code) almost certainly untrue.
This is also made manifest in MIRAGE MAN: Ivins was born (and raised) in Lebanon, his FATHER was born and raised in Lebanon. Meaning that his grandfather was the only one who spent time in New Jersey (in the 19th Century). Guess what? There were no ZIP codes in the 19th Century. There's no evidence Ivins ever SAW this (old 19th Century) house, no evidence he saw a PICTURE of the house. He would have no reason to know its ZIP code (if the house still exists today....not in evidence either!)
As to the 'Greendale' connect, we saw years ago that Hatfill had such a connection too. Of no real value.
A further point by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete------------
9. Ivins hours in his lab and suite B3 and his lack of an alibi show that Ivins had the opportunity to make the anthrax and to drive to New Jersey to mail the letters.
===============================================
Ivins was in his suite probably almost every work day from 1981 to 2007. Nothing in the SLIGHTEST bit suspicious about that. Where ELSE would he be?!?!?
And------on the trip to NJ------YOU'RE the one, in effect, requesting video tape of him sleeping in Frederick to 'prove' he wasn't in New Jersey. TOTALLY absurd expectation.
As far as we know he never was in NJ in Sept or Oct of 2001.
Another point by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete--------
10. There were connections between the location of the mailbox and Bruce Ivins.
===========================================
Only in the same six-degrees-of-separation sense that I have connections to the state of Wisconsin.
Another point by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete--------------
11. The FBI couldn't find anyone else who had means, motive and opportunity.
==============================================
That's too bad. But at the same point in the UNABOM investigation (7 years or so) the FBI didn't know Kaczinski from Adam. It merely means that they should have kept plugging. Instead, they did what they did with Hatfill. To disastrous result.
"The police couldn't find anyone else" isn't evidence in a trial. Period.
Mister Lake added:
ReplyDelete-------
I could go on and on, but the end result is always the same: The facts say that Ivins was making the anthrax powders in Suite B3 on the evenings and weekends in August, September and October.
==============================================
The end result is always the same because there's no open-mindedness on the part of the analyst(s).
No facts say
1)Ivins did ANY drying of anthrax in Sept and Oct of 2001 (or for that matter in the entire calendar year of 2001)
2) he drove to NJ in those months.
3) he printed the texts of the letters.
4) he copied the letters.
And that's the whole case. A vacuum.
More:
ReplyDelete12. Ivins tried to destroy evidence after the crime
-----------------------------------------------
Evidence of DRIED anthrax? That's nowhere in evidence. And if it wasn't dried anthrax, it probably wasn't evidence.
More from Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete----
13. Ivins tried to intimidate witnesses.
-------------------------------------------
But of course there WERE no witnesses:
a)to the drying/purifying.
b) to the letter writing.
c) to the copying.
d) to the drive(s) to Princeton.
e) to the mailing(s) themselves.
The only person I'm aware of that Mister Lake (but Mister Lake alone) calls a witness is Jean Duley. But she first met Ivins in early 2008: 6 years after the anthrax attacks. She's no witness to THAT.
Another partial by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete-----------------
14. Ivins tried to mislead the investigation by pointing to others, including his own subordinates, as possible suspects, and by supplying (1) an improperly prepared sample and (2) a false sample to the FBI repository.
---------------------------------------------
Ivins had a mental illness (schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder) that included an element of morbid suspiciousness. This element was made manifest for decades in his obsession with Kappa Kappa Gamma. An absurd notion that they saw him as an 'enemy'.
So naturally during the Amerithrax investigation his suspiciousness was triggered by the investigators' questions and his own notion that Amerithrax WAS likely an inside job.
So I think he HONESTLY reported his suspicions.
(Just like, in turn, Nancy Haigwood did early on in the investigation, and Jean Duley AND one of Ivins' brothers did THEIR suspicions at a later point)
And just a followup to my last post about Ivins' morbid suspiciousness: NORMALLY mental illness is uncontagious but the investigation showed it's own group-think version of this morbid suspiciousness BOTH in the it-must-have-been-Hatfill phase and in the it-must-have-been-Ivins phase.
ReplyDeleteAnd Mister Lake has shown a sympathetic version of same for the better part of 3 years.
Mister Lake's last major point:
ReplyDelete--------
15. Ivins was mentally ill and had murderous impulses. He tried to destroy the career of a woman who tried to ignore him, he'd purchased bomb making materials and had plot to murder a former subordinate.
----------------------------------------------
Ivins kept his murderous impulses under control his whole life; the only person he ever harmed physically (that we know of) was himself via suicide. His plots remained unfulfilled notions that never produced anything harmful in a physical sense.
Miste Lake's summary:
ReplyDelete---------
No matter how you look at the facts, they add up to Ivins making the anthrax powders in his lab in August, September and October of 2001.
-----------------------------------------------
No. It isn't even close: if I were a judge at such a (now notional) trial of Bruce Ivins, I would direct the jury to come to a not-guilty verdict based on the paucity of material evidence.
Richard Rowley wrote; "Point 1 reverses the burden of proof"
ReplyDeleteNo, it doesn't We've been over this before. It is NOT the prosecution's responsibility to find an alibi for the defendant.
"WHERE in the 92 page document which is the summary of the investigation does it state that the spores were grown on agar plates?"
It's not in the Summary Report. It's in the documents supplied to the National Academy of Sciences. Batch 3, Document 1, pages 237 & 245 state that the New York Post powder consisted of 6% agar. And there were traces of agar in the Leahy powder. That's SOLID evidence that the spores were grown on agar plates, not in flasks.
"Motive, like other parts of a case, need to be proven."
ABSOLUTELY FALSE AND TOTAL NONSENSE.
It is not necessary in criminal cases to prove motive in any way whatsoever. Motive is what was going on in someone's head. And, often, the criminal doesn't know himself what his motive was. He might believe it's one thing, but a psychiatrist might claim it's something else.
"As to the 'code' I find that the most laughable piece of 'evidence' of all."
That just shows how you think. It has nothing to do with what would happen in court. In court, the hidden code would be equivalent to a "smoking gun." (See my response to your message on ProPublica for further details.)
"As to the 'Greendale' connect, we saw years ago that Hatfill had such a connection too. Of no real value."
It was of no value in the Hatfill case because there wasn't much other "evidence" to show a jury. That's not true in the Ivins case where there is a MOUNTAIN of other evidence to show the jury.
"Ivins was in his suite probably almost every work day from 1981 to 2007."
In reality, the facts indicate that Ivins spent most of his evening hours prior to the attack in his office on his computer, not in his lab. And, he destroyed all his emails for 2001 so that they FBI couldn't use them against him - another example of Ivins destroying evidence.
""The police couldn't find anyone else" isn't evidence in a trial."
It IS evidence that all the other people with access to flask RMR-1029 had alibis, had insufficient knowledge and/or had no means or opportunity to make the anthrax powders.
"Evidence of DRIED anthrax? That's nowhere in evidence."
Yes, it is. Independent investigators checked Ivins lab after Ivins' second cleaning and they found spores in his office. Since they had been there for months, they were undoubtedly DRY SPORES.
"The only person I'm aware of that Mister Lake (but Mister Lake alone) calls a witness is Jean Duley."
I was referring to the USAMRIID employee Ivins tried to intimidate. See page 68 of the FBI Summary Report.
"Ivins kept his murderous impulses under control his whole life; the only person he ever harmed physically (that we know of) was himself via suicide."
His attempts to destroy Nancy Haigwood's career were absolutely vicious. Your argument is that because he never killed anyone before - resulting in an arrest, conviction and the death penalty - that means he couldn't have killed anyone via carelessness in 2001. That's just total nonsense.
Ed