The major subject this week should be my new web page How Bruce Ivins Made the Attack Powders ... Allegedly. Together with the page about "When & Where Bruce Ivins Made the Attack Powders ... Allegedly," the two pages should explain everything significant that there is to know about how Dr. Ivins committed the attacks.
The Anthrax Truther arguments, however, will still be that Dr. Ivins couldn't have been making anthrax in his lab because he was tending to test animals there, even though the facts clearly show he was NOT tending to the animal during most of the times he was in his lab in the evenings.
And the conspiracy theorists will argue that Ivins couldn't have made the attack anthrax because it was weaponized with silicon (and tin) in some supersophisticated way that was not in Dr. Ivins' skill set, even though the facts clearly show that the attack anthrax was NOT weaponized with silicon (or tin).
A second subject for discussion could be the transcripts I located for the PBS Frontline interviews of FBI Agent Edward Montooth and U.S. Attorney Rachel Lieber that were done for the October 11, 2011 program called "The Anthrax Files." The interviews thoroughly shoot down a lot of arguments from Anthrax Truthers.
The interviews also show how biased and distorted the PBS Frontline show "The Anthrax Files" was. The show asked questions that were thoroughly answered by Montooth and Leiber, yet Frontline presented them as if they hadn't been answered or as if the answers weren't believable.
The Maureen Stevens vs USA lawsuit was settled on Tuesday for $2.5 million, which is substantially less than the $50 million the suit had demanded.
You show Ivins as having hours in B3 on Sep 14 and Sep 15 in Bldg 1425 at one point and then at another, you say he was not in Bldg 1425 at all on Sep 14 and Sep 15 2001.
ReplyDeleteThe FBI experts like Vahid Majidi said Ivins grew the anthrax on the weekend of Sep 14 to Sep 16 2001. You have now abandoned that theory and switched to the plates in trash bags.
That shows the FBI/DOJ did not have a ready to go case in 2008 when Ivins died. It also shows the confidence of prosecutor Rachel Lieber in her case is misplaced, she did not have a ready to go case, because they did not have the ability to show how Ivins could have grown or processed the anthrax.
The same applies to your comments on the color and the gradient in color of anthrax spores. The DOJ/FBI did not discuss that in 2008 and did not have that integrated into a theory of how Ivins did it.
Overall this is valuable work but needs some additional work on these types of details and inconsistencies.
Old Atlantic wrote: "You show Ivins as having hours in B3 on Sep 14 and Sep 15 in Bldg 1425 at one point and then at another, you say he was not in Bldg 1425 at all on Sep 14 and Sep 15 2001."
ReplyDeleteWhere do I ever say that Ivins wasn't in Building 1425 on Sep 15 and Sep 15 2001? The 14th, 15th and 16th are days when Ivins was in his lab on every graph and on every chart I've ever drawn.
I can only assume you are talking about the 8 PM times that were on a calendar found in Ivins' briefcase in 2007. Ivins was not in Building 1425 at 8 PM on Sept. 14 & 15, 2001. Ivins entered Building 1425 at 8:54 PM on the 14th and at 8:05 on the 15th. He went into his lab in B3 at 9:45 PM on the 14th and at 9:35 PM on the 15th.
Old Atlantic also wrote: "The FBI experts like Vahid Majidi said Ivins grew the anthrax on the weekend of Sep 14 to Sep 16 2001. You have now abandoned that theory and switched to the plates in trash bags."
I'm not sure if the FBI has made any firm statements about exactly when or how Ivins made the anthrax.
The information about using plates from the autoclave bags to make the attack anthrax is my analysis. I've been saying Ivins used plates from autoclave bags to make the attack anthrax for over a year. Here's a statement I wrote on May 4, 2010:
There's even a possibility that those spore powders didn't need to be "created" at all, since Dr. Ivins may have been able to simply dig them out of his trash before the trash was sterilized in the autoclaves.
Old Atlantic also wrote: "That shows the FBI/DOJ did not have a ready to go case in 2008 when Ivins died."
My analysis that Ivins made the spores from autoclave trash isn't part of the FBI's case. Their strategy seems to be to just show he had plenty of time, all the abilities and all the equipment needed to make the attack anthrax, without actually proclaiming which method he used. They just need to show "means," they don't need to go into details.
I'm filling in the blanks. My analysis says which method was MOST LIKELY used by Ivins.
Old Atlantic also wrote: "The same applies to your comments on the color and the gradient in color of anthrax spores. The DOJ/FBI did not discuss that in 2008 and did not have that integrated into a theory of how Ivins did it."
Right. The same applies. The FBI didn't need or use that information to make their case. I'm just filling in the blanks for my own analysis. I'm writing a book about the case, and in the book I'll fill in all the blanks with analyses of the facts wherever possible.
"Overall this is valuable work but needs some additional work on these types of details and inconsistencies."
There are NO inconsistencies. My filling in the blanks doesn't create an inconsistency. It just adds details to the FBI's case that the FBI didn't consider to be necessary to make their case against Bruce Ivins.
It's not an inconsistency for the FBI to be unclear about Ivins' exact methods and for me to state what the facts say about the methods Ivins most likely used. It's just a different way of presenting the facts for different audiences. They were preparing a case to be presented to a jury in a court of law. I'm preparing a case to be presented to people who want as many details as possible - even if the details aren't needed in court.
Ed
Old Atlantic,
ReplyDeleteI think the differences between what I'm saying about the case and what the FBI/DOJ are saying about the case is also a matter of strategy.
In court, if the prosecutor just shows that Ivins had ample means to create the attack anthrax in a variety of different ways, that will be more meaningful to a jury. It is SOLID FACTS which cannot be disproved.
If the prosecution were to go into the method MOST LIKELY used by Dr. Ivins, they would be stating that it cannot be conclusively proved that Ivins used that method.
So, it's better in court to show that Ivins clearly had the means than to show that Ivins MAY have used Method X, but possibly Method Y, or maybe even Method Z.
Ed
The person who posts as "DXer" on Lew Weinstein's web site keeps filling my inbox with nonsense arguments. I've told him I won't respond to his nonsense in private, but he continues sending me the same kind of nonsense. So, I'll respond to this morning's emails here.
ReplyDeleteDXer wrote as the subject of an email: "the pattern of hours was not possible beginning in 2002 - rather than correct his error, Lake keeps on repeating Rachel's confused point about the pattern not continuing after December 2001
And the body of the email added, "He invites people to correct his errors and says he will make corrections but he doesn't -- and instead just keeps making the same central and fundamentally important error."
My response: What does anything that happened in December of 2001 have to do with what Bruce Ivins did in September and October of 2001? DXer doesn't explain. Thus, it's just nonsense. There is no error to correct. There is only nonsense to ignore.
In another email, "DXer" wrote as the subject: "Rachel says it would take 20-30 minutes - the scientist who actually would do it (Mara) says it would take 2 hours"
And as the body of the email he wrote, "Mara is an attorney making an attorney unsupported by the evidence -- and as for the notebooks she says are so important, you'll recall that she said, through a spokesman, that we would not be obtaining them under FOIA.
Question: Why does Ed rely on the lawyer Rachel and not the scientist Mara?
Both are very good at what they do -- but only one has the relevant expertise and knowledge."
This part is just plain jibberish: "Mara is an attorney making an attorney unsupported by the evidence"
I can deduce, however, that his argument seems to be that I should rely on what Mara Linscott said about how long it takes to check on animals and NOT on what U.S. Attorney Rachel Lieber said about how long it takes to check on animals.
In an FBI report found in FBI pdf file #847425 it says on page 23 that someone (apparently Mara Linscott) said,
"If someone came in on the weekend it was to look at the animals/count the dead animals. This could take approximately two hours and was usually a one-person job."
Dxer evidently wants me to conclude that this means that every animal check would take two hours. Therefore, to him, this explains Ivins' unusual hours in Suite B3: Dr. Ivins was checking on animals.
It's just more nonsense, of course.
(1) The facts say that Ivins was not usually in Suite B3 when he checked on animals. So, checking on animals does not explain his unusual hours in Suite B3
(2) Mara Linscott could have very likely been counting the time from leaving her home until returning to her home. I.e., it would take her 2 hours to go in to work to check the animals and return home again.
DXer also appears to be arguing that, if an animal is found dead, there are protocols which MUST be instantly followed, and the person finding the dead animal MUST be the one to follow the protocols. The protocols involve performing a necropsy on the animal and autoclaving the carcass, which he assumes would take two hours or more.
The facts say, however, the tests were to determine how the animals are affected by vaccines. There's nothing in the tests that require an immediate necropsy or immediate autoclaving.
DXer's arguments are that Ivins MUST have followed all protocols. However, the facts say that Ivins ROUTINELY ignored protocols that were not critical to test results.
Ed
September 1 - Not in Building 1425.
ReplyDeleteSeptember 2 - In Suite B5, apparently.
September 3 - In the B301 locker room.
September 4 - In Suite B5, apparently.
September 5 - Not in Building 1425
September 6 - In Suite B3.
September 7 - In Suite B3.
September 8 - In Suite B3.
September 9 - In Suite B5, apparently.
September 10 - In his office, presumably.
September 11 - In Suite B3.
September 14 - Not in Building 1425.
September 15 - Not in Building 1425.
September 16 - In Suite B3.
September 28 - In Suite B3.
September 29 - Not in Building 1425.
September 30 - Not in Building 1425.
OAL,
ReplyDeleteYou're taking things out of context. The entire two paragraphs before that list on my web page about "Where & When Bruce Ivins Made the Attack Powders ... Allegedly" are about the 8 PM entries on the calendar. Here's the sentence just before the list:
-------------------
And, a check of Dr. Ivins in-out logs for those evenings shows that he was in different places on different evenings at 8 PM.
September 1 - Not in Building 1425.
September 2 - In Suite B5, apparently.
September 3 - In the B301 locker room.
September 4 - In Suite B5, apparently.
September 5 - Not in Building 1425
September 6 - In Suite B3.
September 7 - In Suite B3.
September 8 - In Suite B3.
September 9 - In Suite B5, apparently.
September 10 - In his office, presumably.
September 11 - In Suite B3.
September 14 - Not in Building 1425.
September 15 - Not in Building 1425.
September 16 - In Suite B3.
----------------------------
Ivins was not in Building 1425 at 8 PM on September 14 and 15, therefore if he was really checking on animals at 8 PM they weren't in Suite B3 and they weren't in Building 1425.
There shouldn't be anything confusing about that.
Ed