The first subject in the comment I wrote for my web site this morning was about the fact that Bruce Ivins looked at anthrax colonies on agar plates nearly every day, yet he failed to notice that flask RMR-1029 contained countless morphological variants.
Yet, Terry Abshire (who had far less experience with anthrax than Bruce Ivins) noticed morphological variants in the attack anthrax, which eventually led the FBI to flask RMR-1029 and helped identify Bruce Ivins as the anthrax killer.
And, Bruce Ivins evidently believed that morphological variants resulted from passaging. Or he didn't understand what morphological variants were. Either way, it was one of the errors that led to his downfall.
I also mention discussions with various Anthrax Truthers. One tried to convince me that the FBI was wrong in the way they instructed people to create samples for the FBI repository. But, I showed her that she just didn't understand what the real world is like outside of her own microbiology laboratory.
Another Truther tried to convince me that I was a "True Believer" because I accept the facts and can't be persuaded by beliefs and opinions.
And a third Anthrax Truther started posting sermons to this blog about his beliefs, and I had to start deleting them. He also endlessly argues that my conclusion that a child wrote the anthrax letters is wrong, because he has a different theory. And, it doesn't matter to him what the facts say, because doesn't accept the facts as being facts.
And, of course, Newt Gingrich won the South Carolina primary in spite of the fact that I find it difficult to believe that anyone would vote for him for anything. (It's difficult to believe, but NOT impossible to believe.)
You are are mischaracterizing what I wrote.
ReplyDeleteFirst, what I said about Brother Jonathan is that he no longer believes that. That was an internet post 10 years and he is persuaded now that he was mistaken and he agrees it was a stupid suggestion. He is not the True Believer -- you are.
Second, I did not say that the number who agree with your "First Grader" theory is small. I suggested it was zero. I asked you to state the number and suggested that the number of people who agree with the theory was less than one. I specifically said you are a minority of one.
The fact that block lettering can be said to be child-like is not the same as saying it a First Grader wrote the letters and envelopes.
Overall, I've called you an incompetent researcher who for example never even bothered -- if you are interested in handwriting analysis -- to pull Atta's visa application. Someone should do that. There must be other applications that contain his handwriting -- perhaps an application to Huffman Aviation etc.
I've introduced you to the handwriting analysis literature and provided you contact information for handwriting experts, and upon a review found that there was no support at all. As to a comparison with Atta's handwriting, you simply haven't done it.
Your failure to pull relevant handwriting exemplars -- if handwriting is an interest of yours -- demonstrates what a poor researcher you are.
But in the meantime, correct your mischaracterization of my posts. I said specifically said that no one agreed with your First Grader theory -- and did not say that it was a small number.
You have no right to mischaracterize what others say.
Anonymous #2 wrote: "First, what I said about Brother Jonathan is that he no longer believes that. That was an internet post 10 years and he is persuaded now that he was mistaken and he agrees it was a stupid suggestion."
ReplyDeleteWhere is that documented? What proof do you have that Brother Jonathan changed his mind? Are you saying you contacted "Brother Jonathan" and persuaded him to change his mind?
"But in the meantime, correct your mischaracterization of my posts. I said specifically said that no one agreed with your First Grader theory -- and did not say that it was a small number."
Right. I wrote it was a small number. You ignored what I wrote. I changed my comment.
I did a lot of comparisons on the handwriting. The problem with people with other theories is that they do as they do with all the evidence: They pick out what supports their beliefs and ignore everything else. They'll find an "H" in the anthrax handwriting that seems to match an "H" in a letter written by some terrorist, and they'll declare that means it's a handwriting match. That's TOTAL NONSENSE, of course, since when writing in block letters it's difficult to NOT have some matches on some letters.
Just like evidence showing Ivins was the anthrax killer, the evidence has to be viewed as a total package. You can't just view a single item and make a declaration. Handwriting analysis involves looking at the entire collection of samples - two letters and four envelopes - and comparing them as a whole against other handwriting samples.
When that is done, the facts say that a child who was just beginning to start first grade wrote the letters and addressed the envelopes.
Ed
To the contrary, Ed, you have never done a comparison of Atta's handwriting with the anthrax letters. You are the one who thinks handwriting analysis would be fruitful. A failure to consider alternative hypotheses -- by pulling up Atta's visa application (I presume there is a copy somewhere online) -- marks you as a True Believer. The GAO should obtain the numerous reports by FBI's handwriting experts. It is a forensic method they used. None of them -- not one of them -- will support your theory.
ReplyDeleteNot being a qualified expert or having any experience in the field, you may not know how handwriting analysis works.
ReplyDeleteHow Handwriting Analysis Works
http://science.howstuffworks.com/handwriting-analysis.htm
When there's a suspect in a crime and the evidence includes a handwritten note, investigators may call in handwriting experts to see if there's a match. In some cases, it might be the one piece of evidence that gets a suspect charged and eventually convicted. But what if it's a false match? How exactly do experts go about analyzing someone's handwriting?
...
First and foremost, handwriting analysts must be able to accurately distinguish between style characteristics and individual characteristics, which takes a lot of training. They can pretty much ignore the style characteristics, which are only useful for determining with a fair degree of certainty which copybook the writer learned from. The individual characteristics are what matter the most in determining authorship.
So the process of handwriting analysis when comparing two documents - one by a known author, one by an unknown author - starts not with checking for similarities, which any of us could do with a fair degree of accuracy, but instead with checking for differences. It's the differences that initially determine if it's possible that the same person wrote both pieces of text. If the re are key differences in enough individual characteristics, and those differences do not appear to be the result of simulation (an attempt to disguise one's handwriting or copy someone else's), then the two documents were not written by the same person. Simulation has its own telltale characteristics, which we'll discuss in the next section. However, if the differences don't rule out a match, and there are significant similarities in the individual traits in the two documents, singular authorship becomes a possibility.
Moving from possibility to probability is where the heavy lifting comes in.
The handwriting analysis is done by the FBI's Questioned Documents Unit and there is an expert opinion comparing Atta's handwriting to the letters containing the mailed anthrax.
The GAO should obtain it.
Anonymous #2 wrote: "First and foremost, handwriting analysts must be able to accurately distinguish between style characteristics and individual characteristics, which takes a lot of training."
ReplyDeleteAnd
"starts not with checking for similarities, which any of us could do with a fair degree of accuracy, but instead with checking for differences."
I just posted all that in response to your comments in the thread for last week. I was writing my comment while you were writing yours.
The biggest problem with handwriting analysis is that it's an ART, not a science. In the anthrax case, we have many experts each giving a slightly different opinion. That's why the results are "inconclusive."
I don't have time to dig into it, but you can probably find an expert who has a totally different opinion about the anthrax handwriting than another expert.
You will undoubtedly pick the expert who supports your beliefs, but I will just say that it only means that handwriting analysis is an art NOT a science. Therefore, we need to determine if the "expert" began with any biases. And we need to compare one "expert's" opinion to another to see which makes the most sense. And that means it becomes my opinion versus your opinion, and we're never going to agree.
So, my analysis stands until it is proved wrong.
Ed
r rowley:
ReplyDeleteMister Lake writes (partial):
----------
The biggest problem with handwriting analysis is that it's an ART, not a science.[...]
---------------------------------------------------------
So is crime-solving. That's why they are both intriguing.
Since I agree here on one point with Mister Lake, I might as well state it: anonymous #2 is almost certainly wrong in claiming that NO ONE agrees with Mister Lake's child hypotheses. This is a very large country (over a quarter of a billion people) and it would be very strange indeed if, among all those people who see this or that 'grassy-knoll gunman' since 1963 there were no one who would buy the child hypothesis, ESPECIALLY when descriptions of the printing frequently involve(d) the words "childish" and "child-like" "scrawl" etc.
ReplyDeleteOf more import, to my mind is: what do most graphologists make of the printing WITHOUT any hypothesis to buttress or shoot down? My impression is that not a one has SPONTANEOUSLY claimed that it was ccnsistent with the printing of a child, even if we expand the parameters from 6/7 year old to 10 or 12 years old.
They may all be negligent or mistaken but.....
r. rowley
Richard Rowley wrote: "They may all be negligent or mistaken but....."
ReplyDeleteI think the idea that a child could have written the letters is just something they never even thought about. It never even occurred to them. They simply assumed that the person who sent the anthrax wrote the letters.
They also didn't think of it for the same reason Anonymous #2 so completely dismisses it: It doesn't seem like something anyone would do. They would be afraid that the child would talk.
But, it definitely seems like something Ivins would do. He was a master at manipulating people. His wife ran a day care center, and his will was very vindictive toward his wife. And, there was apparently one child in the day care center who Ivins' obsessions would cause him to focus upon. And, since Ivins supported pedophiles, it cannot be argued that Ivins wouldn't sink so low as to manipulate a child.
Ivins would have viewed using a child to write the letters as a perfect way to prevent the handwriting from being matched to his.
No matter how you look at it, the facts say that Ivins manipulated a child into writing the letters.
And, don't forget, the hypothesis that a child wrote the letters was laid out YEARS before anyone ever heard of Bruce Ivins. I described it in my book, which was published in March 2005.
Ed
Richard,
ReplyDeleteDon't confuse graphology with forensic handwriting analysis.
There are people qualified to testify in federal court on handwriting analysis. In a typical case, a DC lawyer would have his pick of a former FBI analyst, a former CIA analyst or a former big city police department analyst. The experts in the FBI's Questioned Documments are qualified experts -- on handwriting analysis. They do it for a living. Graphology, in contrast, is a pseudoscience in which personality is gleaned from handwriting. The GAO should obtain the opinions the FBI's experts have written. They are part of the methodologies the FBI used.
Richard,
ReplyDeleteI just got the email from Anonymous #2 that he sent you you and me. I've put it on my site HERE. It demonstrates he doesn't do things the right way. The image with the email shows he matches 8's to Atta's handwriting, but ignores 4's which do not match.
Even worse, he sees a match on G's where the G's do NOT match, and he sees a match on Y's where the Y's do NOT match.
It's pure bias. He's seeing what he wants to see. And, he's ignoring the basics of handwriting comparison that he claims I ignore, but which I use and he doesn't.
Ed
Anon-2,
ReplyDeleteYou make a good distinction between forensic handwriting analysis (which generally involves comparisons between one script and another)and graphology (graphological analysis). I will split company with you on "pseudo-science"; I think SOMETHING of a psychological nature CAN be gleaned from someone with both a talent for and a rigorous background in it. But it probably doesn't have the same legal status (meaning admissibility)in courtroom setting as the forensic analysis.
A good presentation of the forensic anslysis work in a film was in ZODIAC (2007?) where the Philip Baker Hall character's role was central. Perhaps more later!
Ed, take down that copyrighted graphic unless you want to pay attorneys fees. Thx.
ReplyDeleteYou are only allowed to hyperlink.
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/38476.jpg
The lines are between letters and make no conclusion as to whether they match. The entire purpose is to have GAO obtain the expert opinion on Question Documents Unit on the subject. Of course, the reader can compare the documents on their own.
What is the question?
ReplyDeleteSuppose we have m(x,L) which measures the likelihood, overlap or
whatever between source x and the sample letter L.
Let A be known Atta sources and I known Ivins sources.
Is the question m(A,L) >? m(I,L) ?
Suppose I' is a handwriting sample Ivins might use as disguise or
pick some other person to write it.
The letter L purports to be from Atta. This means we have to ask what is the chance the letter L would be generated by Ivins to achieve a match m(A,L) or higher?
Tail match region is I' such that m(I',L) >= m(A,L).
p(Tail match region) = sum p(I'|I' in tail match region)
The chance Ivins would pick a first grader who would come as close or better to matching Atta's known sources is low. I would estimate less than .0001 at least.
How many first graders would you have to go through for them to generate an equal or higher match measure to Atta? Maybe a 1 million is not enough.
Same with Ivins disguising his writing to randomly equal or exceed the match measure to Atta.
So we conclude Atta was the source over these competing hypotheses.
R. Rowley
ReplyDelete----------
Okay, back to the handwriting. Though I saw ZODIAC some time ago, it was VERY meticulous* in following both the history of the crimes and the course of the investigation(s)(Zodiac killed in different jurisdictions, so there were a number of law enforcement agencies trying to figure out who he was).
We see, fairly late in the film, the document analysis guy (the forensic handwriting analysis man)played by Philip Baker Hall explaining to the 'True Believer' (Robert Graysmit: cartoonist who becomes sleuth)that Zodiac makes a certain letter one way sometimes, another way other times. So it's all highly interpretive, just the way I like it!
*I had read both of Graysmith's books on Zodiac long before watching the film, that's how I know how accurate it was. And Graysmith was involved in the making of the film.
I really don't understand the ATTA theory, but that's okay: lots of stuff goes over my head!
The GAO should obtain copies of all handwriting analysis reports done by the FBI's Questioned Documents Unit. (Redactions can be made as necessary). In the case of Atta, no redactions under FOIPA (b)(6) are warranted.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/april2001/held.htm
Handwriting Comparisons
The majority of the cases handled by the QDU involve handwriting. Although not all handwriting is identifiable to a specific writer or writers, the examination of handwriting characteristics can sometimes result in determining the origin or authenticity of said questioned writing. Traits such as age, sex, personality, or intent cannot be determined from handwriting examinations.
Handwriting comparisons are based on the principles that no two people write exactly alike and that characteristics reoccur throughout every person’s writing, although no one writes exactly the same way twice. This combination of characteristics is unique to every individual and is used by document examiners for comparison.
Evidence bearing writing may be received in two forms. If the evidence submitted includes only writing of unknown origin, the examination will probably include only file searches, the preservation of a visual record, and an evaluation of the potential for future comparisons of the writing. When both questioned and known (the product of a specific, identified individual) writings are submitted, the same file searches and preservation are completed. In addition, a side-by-side comparison of the writings will occur. At the conclusion of any QDU examination, a report is issued explaining the examinations conducted and stating any definitive determinations made as a result of the comparisons.
A definite opinion is not always possible when conducting a handwriting comparison. Reasons for an inconclusive result include the following.
The questioned writing is limited.
The known writing is limited in amount, comparability, or both.
The writing is not naturally prepared.
Common types of writing unlikely to yield definite opinions include photocopies (often mistaken for original writing) and deliberately distorted writing, including tracings and simulations. Figures 4 and 5 include some questioned signatures that contain characteristics indicative of distorted writing. Because distorted writing does not usually reflect the normal habits of the person who prepared it, handwriting comparisons are unlikely to result in the association of a questioned signature with the person who wrote it.
Someone who never saw Atta's printing is unlikely to come close to matching it in a letter they prepare purportedly from Atta that spells out Atta's name by emphasis of letters at the same time. Especially, when the method they choose is the same method Atta chose in his printing. For Ivins to have hit on the same method to emphasize letters as Atta used in his US government documents is unlikely.
ReplyDeleteMore likely is that Atta knew, somehow, how Atta had himself printed his letters in the US document and that Atta himself then duplicated that in the anthrax notes because Atta had the idea the US government would compare an anthrax note with the name Atta indicated by emphasizing letters to the documents Atta had himself submitted to the US government. You think?
Atta did this because he thought he would be dead by the time US government got around to compare an anthrax letter indicating Atta by emphasizing letters in parallel to the way Atta did it in the documents Atta submitted to the US government.
FBI expert opinion is as follows:
ReplyDelete1. The author uses dashes ("-") in the writing of the date "09-11-01." Many people use the slash ("/") to separate the day/month/year.
2. In writing the number one, the author chooses to use a formalized, more detailed version. He writes it as "1" instead of the simple vertical line.
3. The author uses the words "can not," when many people prefer to spell it as one word, "cannot."
4. The author writes in all upper case block-style letters. However, the first letter of the first word of each sentence is written in slightly larger upper case lettering. Also, the first letter of all proper nouns (like names) is slightly larger. This is apparently the author's way of indicating a word should be capitalized in upper case lettering. For whatever reason, he may not be comfortable or practiced in writing in lower case lettering.
5. The names and address on each envelope are noticeably tilted on a downward slant from left to right. This may be a characteristic seen on other envelopes he has sent.
Comment: So what one wants to do is consider who used a dash instead of a slash, who used a "formalized, more detailed version" of a "1"... who used "can not" instead of cannot. etc. Who used printing where "the first letter of all proper nouns (likes" is slightly larger.... Whose handwriting had a downward slang from left to right...
Ed Lake agrees that it is clear that Dr. Ivins did not write the letters. So the thing to do is obtain exemplars from other possible suspects and compare them.
It is likely that Atta had this whole way to identify himself in the anthrax letters thought out in advance, possibly well in advance. This was his way to memorialize himself.
ReplyDeleteThere is no indication that Atta's visa application was available to Dr. Ivins at the time of the anthrax mailings. I would have brought it to people's attention years ago but as part of a special operation called OPERATION ED, the game was to have Ed over the years talking about his ridiculous First Grader Theory as much as possible.
ReplyDeleteThere is no need to make conclusions on the handwriting. It is the special province of a True Believer like Ed to do so -- making such imbecilic comments as "My first grader theory is proven until debunked." Instead, we should be urging GAO to (1) obtain and publish the opinions of the experts of the FBI's Questioned Documents Unit (to the extent possible with privacy obligations); (2) obtain as many handwriting exemplars that can be authenticated as having been written by Atta, a leading POI.
I don't believe the FBI has ever released the handwritten will of Atta in Arabic. I have no idea why it was not released. It seems that it should be.
From the content, you would want to take special note of someone who removed all unnecessary hair at the time of 9/11 and the anthrax mailings.
Didn't the FBI send out about 100,000 postcards to people in New Jersey and Pennsylvania to see if anyone recognized the handwriting? That would indicate that they believed the writing was the writer's natural style. Also:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/misc2.html#USA11021
"There are enough unconscious, habitual characteristics to say it's the same person," says Gideon Epstein, formerly chief forensic document examiner for the U.S. Army and for the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
"The more envelopes that surface, the more evidence you have for identifying the perpetrator," says Epstein, who is now in private practice in Rockville, Md.
In the Daschle and Brokaw letters:
• The writing starts high on the left and slants downward.
• Placement and spacing between the letters, the words and the lines have a similar rhythm.
• The height ratios between the taller and lower block printed letters are consistent.
• Comparable letters are constructed similarly. He notes the "distinctive flowing No. 2."
Epstein would still want to study these letters under a microscope, to look at how rapidly and easily they were written. He also would hunt for impressions in the paper that might show another envelope had been addressed on top of it.
Search "Technical Lettering" and read the Wiki. It appears the anthrax letters and envelopes are written in Technical Lettering which is taught to engineering students and architectures students which is what Atta was.
ReplyDeleteParts of the envelopes or letters may have been written by the other hijackers after Atta taught them Technical Lettering.
Technical Lettering is either vertical or slants to the right at 68 degrees. Thus in making the envelopes, they may have slanted down from this instruction.
ReplyDeleteUniformity, the use of one 1 as distinctive from ell (l), the use of all caps, are all part of Technical Lettering.
In technical drawings, the reader has to be able to tell the number one from letter ell without relying on context.
The letters and spaces are supposed to be uniform in Technical Lettering.
http://www.personal.kent.edu/~rbavis/lettering.htm
ReplyDeleteKent State instructions on Technical Lettering. Just an overview.
Also see the Wiki article and the book they reference in the external links.
The way the A is made is called Blackboard or Gothic and is part of Technical Lettering style in some cases.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.archive.org/stream/textbookoffreeha00daniiala#page/8/mode/2up
Flip through the pages of the Frank Thomas Daniels book using the controls at the bottom of the link. This shows many of the characteristics of the anthrax letters and envelopes.
The so called hoax letters can also be analyzed this way.
Old Atlantic Lighthouse,
ReplyDeleteThe anthrax letters do NOT match Atta's handwriting. There are VAST differences. And, the few similarities are therefore meaningless.
Atta typically drew his 1's in a way that is something like a droopy 7. In a single stroke, he began by drawing the top serif upward at an angle to the top of the 1, then he drew the vertical line downward to complete the 1. Sometimes, the serif would be half as long as the vertical line, almost like drawing an upside-down V.
That is TOTALLY different from the way the anthrax letter writer wrote 1's. Atta's M's are also significantly different. The center V doesn't go down to the base. Plus, Atta drew 4's that were open on the top. The anthrax writer wrote 4's that are closed on the top.
Atta's handwriting does NOT match the anthrax letter handwriting. Period. Finding a few similarities means nothing, since it is block printing, and you will almost ALWAYS find some similarities between samples.
Ed
I agree with Mister Lake that Atta's printing is a bad match overall for the anthrax letters. However, this has been a VERY useful exercise for me personally (the presentation of the comparison(s) over at Lew Weinstein's and discussions etc.) vis a vis an element of my own hypothesis. I say 'element' and yet it could also be called a skein of evidence.
ReplyDeleteWhat I see with the Amerithrax printing in general is a concerted effort (obvious from the various halts in the letter formations, halts which manifest themselves in blotches of ink, usually at the end of a stroke or stroke element)to APPEAR foreign: a pseudo-foreignness, if you will.
The major conceit, as I see it, is to appear to be someone whose native writing system is the Hebrew alphabet. So, starting back in 2006, I developed documents analyzing the constituent elements of that. Somewhere along the line I noticed something VERY peculiar about the letter 'S' in the Amerithrax texts (letters AND on the envelopes): it appeared very foreign but not Hebrew in any way that I could see (no Hebrew letter looks anything like an ordinary block-printed 'S' OR like the stilted-looking version of same that appears in those letters/on those envelopes).
What I posited eventually was: this(the one letter alone) was meant to suggest an Arabic-language speaker (an Arabic alphabet user) whose Latin letter 'S' was influenced and slightly deformed by a certain Arabic letter. That letter is the very last letter of the Arabic alphabet: ya.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_alphabet#Table_of_basic_letters
The last letter in its "isolated" form (far right) is what is being more or less interpolated into the Amerithrax texts as an 'S'. I say "more or less" because the printer doesn't copy the 'ya' 100% (the tail is, well, curtailed). It is a second red herring in the effort to confuse would-be analysts of the printing style. [end part I] r. rowley
Anyway, I THINK I wrote up that interpretation (that the 'S' in just about every instance in the Amerithrax letters is carefully constructed hybrid whose purpose was to resemble a 'ya') but I had NO instances of native Arabie speakers/writers printing in Latin letters to ascertain how realistic this was.
ReplyDeleteUntil now. And thanks to DXer. Atta's block letter 'S' (three instances on the Huffman Aviation form) does indeed greatly resemble the letter 'ya' in his own native writing system. Only the tail is shortened, and the two dots under the letter 'ya' omitted.
The pseudo-Arabic influence of the Amerithrax does those very things too: shortens the tail, leaves out the two dots. In addition, the Amerithrax version of the letter achieves a greater balance of the upper and lower portions of the letter, in keeping with the usual form of the letter 'S'. But it is far more sinuous in shape than a typical Latin letter 'S'.
[Perhaps more later]
Significance: though this is a mere skein or element in my overall analysis it has number of ramifications:
ReplyDelete1)the multiple Hebrew elements all but preclude someone who ISN'T thoroughly familiar with the Hebrew alphabet as being the printer.
2)since only about 2.1% of the US population is Jewish, and many of these totally secular Jews who have had no reason/opportunity to use the Hebrew alphabet in any way, EVEN if we throw in Near East scholars, journalists who have learned Hebrew as part of their work, seminary students/ministers who learned Hebrew as part of their education, and other Gentiles who have learned Hebrew to one degree or another, we are still looking at a US population of which no more than 3% can be said to know the Hebrew alphabet to any degree.*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population#Populations_as_a_percentage
3) The value of this is eliminative: anyone who DOESN'T know the Hebrew alphabet to a considerable degree, can be eliminated as a PRINTING suspect.
(Since the Arabic element is limited to one letter ('S'/'ya') its presence in the text wouldn't necessarily indicate a thoroughgoing knowledge of the Arabic alphabet/language)
*In my opinion the depth of familiarity with Hebrew letter forms indicates someone with thorough knowledge of the writing system and likely the language. r. rowley
Richard Rowley,
ReplyDeleteWow. That's a very interesting piece of rationalization. On Lew Weinstein's site, Old Atlantic Lighthouse did something similar where he determined that the writer was taught in a German school because CAN NOT was written as two words instead of one, and the equivalent in German is ALWAYS two words.
It just goes to show how people can find things to verify their beliefs if they look hard enough and ignore everything that disproves their beliefs.
I also agree that this has been a very useful exercise. I noticed something yesterday that I hadn't previously noticed: When writing Y's on the New York Post and Tom Brokaw envelopes, the writer paused when he finished the stroke where the left side of the V at the top of the Y meets the vertical line. I.e., there are little blotches of ink at the intersection.
I tried to determine if the writer drew Y's with THREE strokes, which would be EXTREMELY unusual, but I can't tell for certain. The blotches of ink at the line intersection cover any gaps that might have been there. (The Y's on the envelopes are very different from Atta's Y's. Atta drew a straight diagonal line, and then added the left diagonal. The anthrax letter writer either writes three lines, or he puts a bend in the line that begins at the right top and ends at the bottom of the Y.)
I noticed the blobs of inks on other characters in the Brokaw envelopes before, and I pointed them out as "pause marks," where the writer kept the pen on the paper as he looked to check what the next character was that he needed to write.
And, it's important to note that he didn't leave any "pause marks" on the media letter nor on the senate envelopes nor on the senate letter. To me, that indicates that he gained confidence between envelope-addressing sessions.
You say the blotches are an attempt to "appear foreign," but you don't explain why he wanted to "appear foreign" when addressing the media envelopes, but NOT when he did any of the other writing.
Ed
Partial post by Ed Lake:
ReplyDelete-------------
You say the blotches are an attempt to "appear foreign," but you don't explain why he wanted to "appear foreign[...]
=============================================================
I NOWHERE (ie not on this thread, not on any thread of any blog/message board, not in private email exchanges, not in face-to-face discussions of this topic etc.) said that the blotches "are an attempt to appear foreign". The blotches are a result of hesitations and long pauses when the writing (printing) isn't free and spontaneous. The reason for THAT is: when one writes freely, quickly, spontaneously one's natural style comes through(it would be thus be a good match to the perp's true printing style AND, almost surely, would suggest someone whose original writing system was likely the Latin alphabet). The blotches are a result of the slowness and non-spontaneity of the printing (its artifical quality). These blotches are an unintended consequence of the halts, hesitations, and slowness of the writing, and these (the halts, hesitations, and slowness) are what gives it away as a premeditated, unnatural sort of writing.
Technical lettering involves more strokes I believe from what I read. Atta could have employed more of Technical Letting principles in the letters.
ReplyDeleteAlso he could have instructed the others to use Technical Lettering to complete the work, with him doing only some of it. Atta may have overseen their writing the letters or decided which to include, perhaps at the Kinkos that shows them there as Dxer has found. That includes cutting down paper.
Also note there are variations in Atta's known sources and these were not documents as important to him perhaps as these martyrdom letters. So he was more careful with martyrdom letters since those were in a sense to Allah. So he would use more strokes, make the Y more carefully, etc. as in the Technical Lettering taught to him as an engineering/architecture student in Cairo.
The Atta marking may have been the rest of the team honoring Atta. However, it is also possible that the anthrax plan was not completely known to bin Laden. They may have had a code that if they did an anthrax attack or some other element added while in the US but not told to bin Laden, that they would use letters as part of it that had the name Atta marked this way.
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete-----------
And, it's important to note that he didn't leave any "pause marks" on the media letter nor on the senate envelopes nor on the senate letter. To me, that indicates that he gained confidence between envelope-addressing sessions.
================================================================
I think he just lost patience: printing in such an artificial way is tedious; it's one thing to do it once, quite another to do it repeatedly. Since the Brokaw/NY POST text contained more than enough (false) clues that he was foreign and (likely) Israeli, there was no need to gild the lilly.
I stumbled across something interesting this evening: an analysis of Mohamed Atta's (Latin alphabet)handwriting:
ReplyDelete-----------------------
Introduction to the analysis of Mohamed Atta
On September 11, 2010 at 08:46, Mohamed Atta crashed Flight 11 into the northern facade of the North Tower of the World Trade Center. This analysis is designed to attempt to get some information about the personality of Atta. The handwriting samples on which this report is based are, by circumstance, very limited and of poor quality.
Arabic was Atta’s first written language, written with a non-Roman letter system (in other words, it is not based on the ABC’s we are familiar with in the West), and Arabic is written from right to left. It is a matter of considerable difficulty for a person to make the switch From Arabic to English, and that affects the handwriting and complicates the analysis. If we did not know Atta’s background, we might assume from his samples that the writer was not an adult, or that he had developmental difficulties, since this would be the typical explanation for the low skill level of the writing (poor letter formation, irregular spacing, etc.)
--------------------------------------------------------------
That last sentence in particular bears reading more than once.
In particular the part that goes: "If we did not know Atta’s background, we might assume from his samples that the writer was not an adult[...]". Naturally this principle would count for other cross-linguistic, cross-writing system situations.
http://handwriting-guru.com/attareport.html
r. rowley
Richard Rowley wrote:
ReplyDelete"I NOWHERE (ie not on this thread, not on any thread of any blog/message board, not in private email exchanges, not in face-to-face discussions of this topic etc.) said that the blotches "are an attempt to appear foreign"."
And, a few messages earlier he'd written:
"What I see with the Amerithrax printing in general is a concerted effort (obvious from the various halts in the letter formations, halts which manifest themselves in blotches of ink, usually at the end of a stroke or stroke element)to APPEAR foreign: a pseudo-foreignness, if you will."
Do you have multiple personalities?
Richard Rowley also quoted a handwriting expert as saying:
""If we did not know Atta’s background, we might assume from his samples that the writer was not an adult[...]".
In that context, Atta's handwriting would NOT be considered to be the block lettering he used on forms. It would be the cursive writing he did on other kind of documents. His cursive writing was barely legible and could be viewed as child-like. There's an example HERE and on the link you provide.
Ed
Old Atlantic Lighthouse wrote: "Also he could have instructed the others to use Technical Lettering to complete the work, with him doing only some of it."
ReplyDeleteThe experts say that all the handwriting on both letters and all four envelopes is from the same person. There are too many personal traits for there to have been more than one writer involved. (However, I think the date on the media letter was added by a different person).
Ed
Old Atlantic Lighthouse AND Richard Rowley,
ReplyDeleteI find it fascinating that you don't consider it to be "evidence" that the mailbox used by the anthrax mailer was 175 feet from a KKG office, and Bruce Ivins was obsessed with the KKG sorority and would drive great distances just to look at their sorority houses.
You also don't consider it to be evidence that Ivins would drive long distances to mail things so they couldn't be traced back to him.
You also don't consider it to be "evidence" that Ivins' father went to Princeton, which was directly across the street from the mailbox.
You also don't consider it to be "evidence" that the ZIP code on the senate letters was the ZIP code for the area where Ivins' father's family lived for over a hundred years.
And, I could go on and on about what you do NOT consider to be evidence.
But, OTL seems to consider the fact that Atta went to a Kinkos to be PROOF that Atta was involved with the anthrax letters, apparently because Kinkos has copy machines. He also suggests that a paper cutter at Kinkos was used to trim the edges off the letters, even though the edges appear to have been cut off unevenly with a scissors.
And, OTL seems to consider it PROOF that Atta was involved in writing the letters because Atta once went to school in Germany where the German words for CAN and NOT are never combined, and in the senate letter CAN NOT is written as two words.
Doesn't this seem to confirm that when it comes to "evidence" that supports your beliefs, you'll consider even the most wildly remote connections to be proof. But, you'll ignore a whole list of very clear connections if the items on the list disagree with your beliefs?
What are your criteria for evaluating proof? If it agrees with you, it's "solid evidence," if it doesn't agree with you, it's NOT "evidence" at all?
Ed
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete-------------
"I NOWHERE (ie not on this thread, not on any thread of any blog/message board, not in private email exchanges, not in face-to-face discussions of this topic etc.) said that the blotches "are an attempt to appear foreign"."
And, a few messages earlier he'd written:
"What I see with the Amerithrax printing in general is a concerted effort (obvious from the various halts in the letter formations, halts which manifest themselves in blotches of ink, usually at the end of a stroke or stroke element)to APPEAR foreign: a pseudo-foreignness, if you will."
--------------------------------------------------------------
What that second paragraph (written by me) says is:
1)the printer is attempting to appear foreign.
2)he does this by methodically combining normal versions of letters/strokes with elements from Hebrew.
3)since he doesn't normally do this (the combination) it requires concentration AND a lot more time to do the printing.
4)at certain points, sometimes in the middle of a word, even the middle of a letter, the perp asks himself 'how do I make this Hebrew-influenced looking?'
5)at those points the printer hesitates, stops, and the ink keeps coming, producing the blotch. But the blotch itself is unintended.
(the blotch is unintended because it gives away in general terms what is going on: someone is printing in a way wholly artificial)
6)the same applies to people forging signatures: the inexperienced forger (and perhaps even an experienced one on a bad day)will exhibit signs of slowing down the writing, sometimes to the point of stopping altogether.
7)and that's one of the easiest ways to detect a (bad) forgery: look for slow writing, evidence of unnatural stops in the middle of a word, backtracking etc.
8)the Amerithrax printer is, in effect, 'forging' the printing of a notional Hebrew perpetrator in order to deceive.
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete---------------
Old Atlantic Lighthouse AND Richard Rowley,
I find it fascinating that you don't consider it to be "evidence" that the mailbox used by the anthrax mailer was 175 feet from a KKG office, and Bruce Ivins was obsessed with the KKG sorority and would drive great distances just to look at their sorority houses.
You also don't consider it to be evidence that Ivins would drive long distances to mail things so they couldn't be traced back to him.
You also don't consider it to be "evidence" that Ivins' father went to Princeton, which was directly across the street from the mailbox.
You also don't consider it to be "evidence" that the ZIP code on the senate letters was the ZIP code for the area where Ivins' father's family lived for over a hundred years.
And, I could go on and on about what you do NOT consider to be evidence.
But, OTL seems to consider the fact that Atta went to a Kinkos to be PROOF that Atta was involved with the anthrax letters, apparently because Kinkos has copy machines.[...]
===============================================================
Old Atlantic naturally can speak for him/herself. I myself do see the Kinko's evidence as on a par with the 'Princeton/KKG connection' evidence in the case of Ivins. I reject both (on grounds of logic and admissibility).
In THAT sense Mister Lake and Old Atlantic Lighthouse are the ones in the same boat, one at the front of the boat, the other aft.
Richard Rowley wrote:
ReplyDelete"the Amerithrax printer is, in effect, 'forging' the printing of a notional Hebrew perpetrator in order to deceive."
That's a VERY strained bit of rationalizing involving the reading of someone's mind, and I seriously doubt that anyone on else this planet would agree with that interpretation of the handwriting.
It would be interesting to see the elements of your analysis side by side with the elements of my analysis. I would think that your analysis would be all about your beliefs, while mine would be all about how the changes in handwriting follow EXACTLY what is typically being taught and learned in first grade at that point in time.
FACT: The writing on the October letter is half the size of the writing on the September letter.
FACT: Writing smaller is one of the first thing taught in first grade.
FACT: The writer learned to properly draw R's between the September letter and the October letter.
FACT: In Kindergarten you copy things from a blackboard. In first grade you are taught how to draw letters of the alphabet.
FACT: The writer did not use punctuation in the September letter but did use punctuation in the October letter.
FACT: Punctuation is taught in the first weeks in first grade.
In the sense that you ignore facts and use mostly beliefs, it puts you in the boat with OAL.
"Old Atlantic naturally can speak for him/herself. I myself do see the Kinko's evidence as on a par with the 'Princeton/KKG connection' evidence in the case of Ivins. I reject both (on grounds of logic and admissibility)."
I was just curious why you won't argue with a fellow Anthrax Truther, but you'll argue with me. Is there some kind of "Rule of the Brotherhood" that demands no arguing within the ranks?
Ed
Ed perhaps can agree that the FBI should produce the film of KINKOS making copy. That was the point being made. The film then lets folks study, possibly, what precisely he was doing.
ReplyDeleteEd perhaps can agree that the FBI should produce any evidence that the Federal Eagle envelope was sold at the Laurel MBE. That was the point being made.
Ed perhaps can agree that Planes Operation operative Jdey was not dead and that he was detained and released (with biology textbooks) in August 2001 and the FBI did not disclose this over the next 10 years. Ed should correct his page where he suggests all the Planes Operation operatives were all dead. (This has been pointed out to him but he has never made the correction). Same for Adnan El-Shukrijumah. There is a $5 million BOLO out for both.
Ed perhaps can agree that a fine powdered mixer was delivered to the block where Atta and Nawaf Al-Hazmi was making final preparations for 9/11 in Fort Lee. Ed perhaps can agree that he does not know where the fine particulate mixer was taken.
Ed perhaps can agree that one of the folks at Lenox Hill Hospital was indicted for lying -- and instead of having gone to medical school he was helping Bosnian fighters Al-Hazmi and Jdey in Bosnia. Ed perhaps can agree that the person co-authored the JAMA article on the causes of Nguyen's infection and lived next door to Al-Timimi in Falls Church.
Ed perhaps can agree that a former Zawarhiri associate was supplied virulent Ames by Bruce ivins.
Or perhaps not.
Anonymous #2 wrote:
ReplyDelete"Ed perhaps can agree that the FBI should produce the film of KINKOS making copy."
I have no comment on that at all, since it has nothing to do with my area of interest: The anthrax attacks of 2001.
"Ed perhaps can agree that the FBI should produce any evidence that the Federal Eagle envelope was sold at the Laurel MBE."
I would think that if MBE sold pre-stamped envelopes, they probably didn't go to the local post office to get their stock, they most likely got them from the MBE supply center. And, for all we know, that supply center could be in Kentucky of Arizona.
"Ed should correct his page where he suggests all the Planes Operation operatives were all dead."
My web site doesn't say anything about "operatives," it only says that the 9/11 hijackers were DEAD for a week at the time of the first mailing and DEAD for a month at the time of the second mailing. Plus, the facts indicate that the second letter was written because the first letters failed to accomplish anything, which means that any notion that a DEAD hijacker came back to life to write a new letter is just plain silly. And, it makes no sense that a 9/11 hijacker would write two sets of letters using different writing skills to be mailed three weeks apart after his death. That just makes NO sense.
"Ed perhaps can agree that a fine powdered mixer was delivered to the block where Atta and Nawaf Al-Hazmi was making final preparations for 9/11 in Fort Lee."
I can't agree or disagree with something that is so totally irrelevant. Unless some solid relevance can be shown, the subject of a "fine powdered mixer" is meaningless. The FACTS say the media powder wasn't a "fine powder," it was 90 percent dried agar. The photos show it to be chunks of dried agar. So, it's ridiculous to suggest that the media powder was created using some kind of "fine powdered mixer."
"Ed perhaps can agree that one of the folks at Lenox Hill Hospital was indicted for lying"
All I can agree with is that that is so totally irrelevant to the anthrax attacks of 2001 that you might as well be talking about the price of strawberries in Argentina.
"Ed perhaps can agree that a former Zawarhiri associate was supplied virulent Ames by Bruce ivins."
All I can say is that you constantly talk about "virulent anthrax" as if the only virulent strain of anthrax is the Ames strain. Now you use the term "virulent Ames," which makes me think you are changing terminology. If you have evidence that Bruce Ivins gave a sample from flask RMR-1029 to "a former Zawahiri associate," you should show that evidence instead continuously using vague terms like "virulent anthrax" instead of specific terms like "virulent Ames strain anthrax from flask RMR-1029." One gets the impression that you are trying to make more out of your "evidence" that is really in the "evidence."
Ed
Oops. I wrote too fast, because I've got other things I need to do.
ReplyDeleteThe media powder wasn't 90% dried agar, it was 90% dried "matrix material," a.k.a. "afterbirth" slime that is left behind when the mother bacteria dissolves away after creating the spore.
That means the slime was scraped straight out of the Petri dish and did not go into any kind of "fine powdered mixer."
Ed
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete-----------
Richard Rowley wrote:
"the Amerithrax printer is, in effect, 'forging' the printing of a notional Hebrew perpetrator in order to deceive."
That's a VERY strained bit of rationalizing involving the reading of someone's mind, and I seriously doubt that anyone on else this planet would agree with that interpretation of the handwriting.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Points:
1) I really don't understand why you use the word "rationalizing" here. If you're calling the analysis 'rational' then I accept the compliment.
2)I confess that I'm not personally acquainted with 99.99% of the 7 billion people on this planet, but I suspect that few are interested in Amerithrax. My experience with talking with friends and acquaintances here in the Midwest is: close to 100% know less about the Case than I did in late 2005 (ie knowledge so negligible than consulting with them would be/has been a waste of time: for them and me), not a single one showed any knowledge of graphological analysis. Finding persons with even a rudimentary knowledge of Hebrew writing (my level of knowledge)has been equally problematic. I'm not writing here to pick up 'recruits' merely to explicate an element of my hypothesis.
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete-------------------
FACT: The writer did not use punctuation in the September letter but did use punctuation in the October letter.
FACT: Punctuation is taught in the first weeks in first grade.
===============================================================
Okay, where's your reference for that 'fact'?
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete---------------
FACT: The writing on the October letter is half the size of the writing on the September letter.
FACT: Writing smaller is one of the first thing taught in first grade.
==============================================================
Okay, where's your refernce for that 'fact'?
The writer of this website taught apostrophes in the 6th grade:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dreaded-apostrophe.com/
"I myself do see the Kinko's evidence as on a par with the 'Princeton/KKG connection' evidence in the case of Ivins. I reject both (on grounds of logic and admissibility)."
ReplyDeleteThe anthrax letters internally try to identify the sender as Atta by the emphasis of his name according to the FBI and others. The FBI then says Atta did not send them for various rooms. The FBI says the anthrax letters are xerox copies.
A few days prior to the first letters being sent, the FBI has video tape of Atta at a Kinkos xeroxing and possibly even cutting down paper.
Videotape in Kinkos of the person the letters are internally purporting to be from, when the letters are xeroxes, is admissible for trying to prove that the person whose name is in the letter is the one who wrote it and xeroxed it.
Ivin's father lived in Princeton type of evidence. A person can not be charged with murder based on evidence that their father lived in the city decades before where the murder occurred. I ask Anonymous to cite one case where a person's father living in a city decades ago was admitted as evidence as that the person did the murder.
Richard Rowley wrote:
ReplyDelete"1) I really don't understand why you use the word "rationalizing" here."
From my Websters:
"Rationalize: v.i. To find motives for conduct which are plausible but false."
But, I'm also using it to describe your argument as an "ad hoc hypothesis."
"In science and philosophy, an ad hoc hypothesis is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified. Ad hoc hypothesizing is compensating for anomalies not anticipated by the theory in its unmodified form.
In the scientific community, scientists are often skeptical of theories that rely on frequent, unsupported adjustments to sustain them. This is because, if a theorist so chooses, there is no limit to the number of ad hoc hypotheses that they could add. Thus the theory becomes more and more complex, but is never falsified.
Ed
Richard Rowley wrote: "Okay, where's your reference for that 'fact'?"
ReplyDeleteWhich fact? The facts about punctuation and the size of the writing in the anthrax letters? I have large copies of FBI pictures of the letters and the envelopes obtained eight or nine years ago via an FOIA request. There's a scale beside the letters and envelopes which can be used to check the size of the writing. The information is all on the main page I used for my site from 2001 through 2004, before it became so big people where having a hard time downloading it all. Click HERE.
But, if you're asking about my references for what is taught in first grade, it comes from research done years ago. In kindergarten, children use unlined paper and they typically copy things from a blackboard when they write.
Mostly what they teach in kindergarten is to be quiet when the teacher is talking, to play nice, to share, to clean up after themselves, and to pay attention.
In first grade, they're given lined paper and they have to learn to write between the lines. And they learn punctuation. And they're taught the proper way to draw the various letters of the alphabet.
There are lots of web sites about what is taught in first grade and what is taught in kindergarten. And, a lot of it was presented by "Brother Jon" on his web site when he argued that the letters were written by a first grader. That site no longer exists.
Ed
Partial post by Ed Lake:
ReplyDelete------------
Richard Rowley wrote:
"1) I really don't understand why you use the word "rationalizing" here."
From my Websters:
"Rationalize: v.i. To find motives for conduct which are plausible but false."
But, I'm also using it to describe your argument as an "ad hoc hypothesis."
"In science and philosophy, an ad hoc hypothesis is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified. Ad hoc hypothesizing is compensating for anomalies not anticipated by the theory in its unmodified form.
In the scientific community, scientists are often skeptical of theories that rely on frequent, unsupported adjustments to sustain them. This is because, if a theorist so chooses, there is no limit to the number of ad hoc hypotheses that they could add. Thus the theory becomes more and more complex, but is never falsified.
=============================================================
That reminds me: how could your a child-printed-it hypothesis be falsified? (I mean other than the real killer being convicted and stating that no child was involved?)
r rowley
Richard Rowley wrote: "That reminds me: how could your a child-printed-it hypothesis be falsified?"
ReplyDeleteBy "falsified" do you mean "proved false"?
If Ivins had stated that no child wrote the letters, that he did, it wouldn't disprove anything. It would just increase the mystery of why the handwriting didn't match Ivins' handwriting.
To end the mystery, Ivins would have to write something in the exact style he used in the letters, and it would have to match.
For "handwriting expert" to disprove the hypothesis, he or she would have to come up with a more plausible reason why, between writings, the writer changed the way he drew certain characters, why he decided to writing smaller, why he decided to add punctuation, why he decided to appear to write with more confidence, etc.
I seriously doubt any handwriting expert can come up with any such explanations, but Anthrax Truthers do it all the time by rationalizing, i.e., by dreaming up ad hoc explanations that cannot be disproved, like claiming that the adult writer wanted to make it appear that a child was doing the writing, or he did it to make it appear that a person more accustomed to writing in Hebrew did the writing.
Ed
Old Atlantic Lighthouse wrote: "I ask Anonymous to cite one case where a person's father living in a city decades ago was admitted as evidence as that the person did the murder."
ReplyDeleteNone of the Anonymi ever made such a claim. Neither did I.
The claim is: The fact that Ivins' father went to Princeton establishes a link between Bruce Ivins and the scene of the crime.
By itself, the link means NOTHING. That has been made clear DOZENS OF TIMES.
But, when combined with all the other evidence, it establishes that Ivins not only had links to the scene of the crime, he chose it because of those links.
It doesn't prove Ivins did it. OTHER EVIDENCE proves that Ivins did it. Mostly, the evidence about Ivins' father just goes to show motive for picking that mailbox.
I really think it's time that Anthrax Truthers at least ATTEMPT to understand the basics of evidence in criminal cases. Explaining the basics over and over again just makes it look like Anthrax Truthers are incapable of learning anything.
Ed
We can all agree with Ed on one thing. The handwriting is not Dr. Ivins handwritng. That pretty much covers the territory as to handwriting with respect to an Ivins Theory. I certainly appreciate Ed's efforts in persevering in maintaining that it is not Dr. Ivins handwriting.
ReplyDeleter rowley: the anonymous wrote:
ReplyDelete----
We can all agree with Ed on one thing. The handwriting is not Dr. Ivins handwritng. That pretty much covers the territory as to handwriting with respect to an Ivins Theory.[...]
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. And I should have mentioned that somewhere along the line (and repeatedly) I applied my Hebrew-element hypothesis to the known facts of Ivins/his life:
1)last name not obviousl Jewish(neither Ashkenazic, nor Sephardic)
2) religious background: Protestant in childhood, conversion to Catholicism in adulthood.
3)nothing in academic background to indicate interest in Near Eastern languages.
4)if he had picked a language to study for scientific studies the leading candidates would be: Latin, Greek, perhaps German.
So if Ivins was responsible for the TEXTS he got someone else to do the printing. A child? Why not?
As to the equipment delivered to 215 Main St, Ft. Lee, NJ, see "Guilty Plea in Fraud Case But Feds Fear Pakistani's Purpose for buying Food Mixer," Newsday , July 15, 2002
ReplyDeleteSee generally "Guilty Plea in Fraud Case But Feds Fear Pakistani's Purpose for buying Food Mixer," Newsday , July 15, 2002
ReplyDeleteI haven't laid my hands on the Newsday article will try to do so within the next day.
I made the following notes about the processor in mid-August 2002:
An arrest warrant was issued on or about October 18 [2001] for a man of Pakistani origin in Fort Lee, New Jersey who had ordered a $100,000 processor that was delivered to 215 Main St. in Ft. Lee. (Source: PACER) This turns out to be just yards from where Atta booked the 911 flight. Mr. Abbas had left the country for Karachi and was arrested on his return in December. He worked in the computer wholesale business. (D&B) He had obtained the money for the processor, the type of machine which a top DOD official says could be used for making anthrax (Air Force Journal, May 2002) by a check-kiting scheme to which he recently pled guilty. (PACER) He was denied bail when he only turned two expired passports and wouldn't swear he didn't have another one. (PACER) (I don't know whether the two expired passports had the same social security number and birthdate or not).
I wrote at the time:
"So he's been locked up since late December 2001 and now faces a sentence for the check-kiting used to get the processor for his computer wholesale firm."
I wrote:
"Hani and Nawaf, shortly before 9/11, wired $15,000 in excess funds back to U.A.E. where one of them had lived and then it was routed to Karachi. " (Note: It turns out that the excess funds were being wired to the fellow with the anthrax production document scanned onto his laptop). And it turns out that Nawaf attended the planning at the anthrax lab technician's condo in Malaysia.
"Syed Athar Abbas¹ federal defender says ... that the feds have never asked about the processor and neither has he (as his counsel). I don't know what his original federal defender would say. (There was a change of venue and thus I presume a change in counsel)."
While I admire Rocco P. breaking the story, for years I have just relied on David Tell's excellent article on the subject given its ready availability.
Anonymous #2 wrote: "See generally "Guilty Plea in Fraud Case But Feds Fear Pakistani's Purpose for buying Food Mixer," Newsday , July 15, 2002"
ReplyDeleteThis forum is for discussing the anthrax attacks of 2001. If you continue to preach your beliefs here about off-topic subjects, I'll have to start deleting them.
You have already posted the material on Lew Weinstein's site. There is no need to also put it here.
The anthrax attacks involved just a few teaspoons of anthrax powder. The idea that there could be a connection to an industrial-size food mixer is preposterous. It could have been part of some other terrorist plan, but it obviously didn't have anything to do with the anthrax attacks of 2001 - which is the subject of this forum.
Ed
Richard Rowley wrote: "So if Ivins was responsible for the TEXTS he got someone else to do the printing. A child? Why not?"
ReplyDeleteYou need to remember: My handwriting hypothesis was developed YEARS before I and most people ever heard of Ivins. At the time the hypothesis was developed, the person I thought most likely did it was a man in New Jersey who had no known connection to any children of the right age. I think he was either a bachelor, or he was divorced and his children were fully grown.
Nevertheless, the hypothesis said that a child wrote the letters. So, the hypothesis didn't quite connect to the guy who I felt most likely did it. If anything, the hypothesis said he did NOT do it. But I had no better suspects.
A good hypothesis can be used to make predictions. In this case, the hypothesis predicted that when the culprit was found, he'd have a connection to a six-year old child.
Years later, Ivins was identified as the anthrax mailer, and it was revealed that his wife ran a day care center out of her home. The prediction was correct. The culprit had a connection to a six-year old child.
I never actually stated the prediction as a prediction, but it was a prediction of the hypothesis.
Ed
To the contrary, Ed. That was not at all your theory. I'll pull up the archived explanations of your theory in which you explain that it was clearly some fellow in New Jersey aided by some fellow in WIsconsin -- when as the fellow in Wisconsin explained in exasperation (both publicly and to me privately), that he didn't even know that anthrax was a bacteria rather than a virus. It was a baseless theory and you persisted in it for 8 years. The fellow in Wisconsin didn't even know anyone in New Jersey but you insisted he was lying. I have archived copies of all tweaked variations that I'll lay out in a chronology so as to avoid you misremembering the history.
DeleteAnonymous #2,
DeleteI don't disagree that I had a bunch of theories that I kept adjusting as new facts were found. That's the nature of a theory. That's the way things are supposed to work. Among other things, it shows that I was open to new information. I wasn't locked into any theory.
But, you obviously cannot understand that, since you have an unshakable belief which cannot be changed by new facts, and you've stuck with your belief for over ten years.
However, the hypothesis that a child wrote the letters was only improved upon. It was never changed, because the new facts confirmed the hypothesis and no facts ever disputed it.
Ed
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAnonymous #2 wrote: "The fellow in Wisconsin didn't even know anyone in New Jersey"
DeleteI never mentioned the guy in Wisconsin by name, even though it was stated in news reports which showed he was being investigated by the FBI.
You, however, seem to constantly recklessly and maliciously mention him by name.
If you do so here, I'll immediately delete such posts.
Ed
No one need mention his name to know that it was stupidest theory of any I have heard -- short of the First Grader theory. It was called the Wisconsin Bowler theory. You suspected a guy who worked in a bowling alley who thought anthrax was a virus. For 8 years. For 8 years you insisted he was involved notwithstanding the total absence of evidence. It was good for laughs but not for discussion of the evidence relevant to the anthrax mailings.
DeleteAnonymous #2 wrote: "You suspected a guy who worked in a bowling alley who thought anthrax was a virus."
DeleteNo, the FBI investigated a scientist who worked at Battelle and was fired from there, and the was apparently suspected of stealing something because his home was searched. Battelle was one of the labs that had the Ames strain. MANY newspapers printed the story that he was a suspect. I had no other suspect, so I picked up on it.
Then one source said the guy was "not the focus of the investigation" while another FBI source said he wasn't "officially" a suspect, but he hadn't been ruled out.
So, he remained a suspect for me, until it turned out he had a perfect alibi for the time of the first mailing.
You seem to think that if the FBI says he isn't the focus of the investigation, I should immediately accept that as meaning he's innocent. Yet, when the FBI says that Muslims weren't behind the attacks, Bruce Ivins did it, you feel that it's okay for you to ignore what the FBI says and all of their evidence.
I ignored the FBI's vague claims, and you ignore their solid claims, and you accuse me of being wrong in not accepting the FBI's statements. Don't you see any logic problems with what you're saying?
Ed
The article on the Council of Foreign Offices by former Newsday journalist Laurie Garrett addresses the lead of the equipment delivered to 215 Main St. in the context of the anthrax mailing and refers to it as a "giant spore lyophilizer [freeze dryer]." What is the authoritative authority for the nature of the equipment? Is it mentioned in the court docket? Can the Newark federal public defender tell us? (I believe he was responsive to an email in 2002) but I am not seeing his email. What is the cost new of the lyophilizer that we now know was not in fact in the BL-3 with Dr. Ivins? Was it bigger or smaller? Did it cost more or less?
ReplyDelete"Garrett: Most of the evidence regarding Ivins has to be viewed as circumstantial. The sum total of that circumstantial evidence is weaker than the sum total of circumstantial evidence pointing at Al Qaeda. And that evidence includes the following: Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania, and unbeknownst to most of the public, the investigators were able to identify the bodies of the hijackers and test them for anthrax, and at least one of them came up positive. That individual is the same one who went to an emergency room in Florida, when they were all down there for flight training, seeking help for a black sore on his hand. Retrospectively, the physician concluded that it could very well have been cutaneous anthrax. Two other individuals involved in the Florida training group sought pharmaceutical assistance for pain on their hands and skin rashes. And Mohamed Atta attempted to purchase a custom-made crop duster with all but the pilot’s seat removed for a double-size tank. Fortunately, he was not able to obtain a bank loan to purchase this custom-made plane. There was an individual who appears to have been connected with the group in New Jersey and had an online greeting-card company; through his office, he ordered a giant spore lyophilizer [freeze dryer]. I interviewed folks, who spoke to me off the record, who had been involved in the Special Forces team that tried to capture Osama bin Laden in December 2001. They captured a complex of caves in Tora Bora, one of which was described as a laboratory. Back in 2002, my source in that team told me this was a real lab and that—if I had seen it—I would have been astonished. It was scoured and swabbed for spores on four occasions: twice by an unnamed agency, but I believe it to be the Special Forces team and the CIA, in 2001 and 2002; and then several years later, on two occasions, by the FBI. The first two scourings of this cave came up positive not only for anthrax but for the Ames strain, which would be highly unlikely as a natural occurrence in Afghanistan. The second two scourings by the FBI came up negative."
Separately, with respect to the findings upon testing, was the sampling done at Tora Bora as she reports? Or was it Kandahar? There is no reason for it to be classified and the GAO should set out in detail the findings upon sampling.
Richard Rowley,
ReplyDeleteI just wrote: "At the time the hypothesis was developed, the person I thought most likely did it was a man in New Jersey who had no known connection to any children of the right age. I think he was either a bachelor, or he was divorced and his children were fully grown."
This shows I can rationalize, too. And it is a good illustration of "rationalizing."
At the time, I figured the guy in New Jersey must have some connection to a six-year old child that I simply couldn't find in my research. Maybe it was a relative, or maybe it was a child of a friend.
The hypothesis said a child wrote the letters. The guy who most likely sent the letters didn't have any kids. So, I did an ad hoc adjustment to my reasoning and concluded that the guy could have a connection I didn't know about. No one could prove otherwise, so the hypothesis was still valid.
That's called "rationalizing."
Ed
Anonymous #2 wrote" "There is no reason for it to be classified and the GAO should set out in detail the findings upon sampling."
ReplyDeleteYou're still sermonizing. Take your sermons elsewhere.
Final warning.
Ed
One can see the used one for sale at Wohl Aaaociates and appreciate those with personal knowledge that Dr. Ivins could not have moved it into the B3 even if he had wanted.
ReplyDeleteUsed Virtis 3 Shelf Laboratory Freeze Dryer For Sale.
CATALOGUE NUMBER 6201-1333, SERIAL NUMBER 1124. EQUIPPED WITH THREE SHELVES, EACH MEASURING APPROX. 10"" WIDE X 20"" DEEP. WITH STOPPERING FEATURE, CHAMBER MEASURES APPROX. 18"" DIAMETER WITH FRONT HINGED GLASS VIEWING DOOR. ELECTRICAL SPECIFICATIONS: SINGLE PHASE, 60 CYCLE, 208 VOLT.
Item number: 6961C
Capacity/Model: 3-SHELF
Brand: VIRTIS
But no one has ever said it was "too big" to use because of its capacity. It is concluded he could not have used it because it was "too big" for him to move -- because we know Dr. Ivins was in the B3 lab and the lyophilized was not.
If it turns out that Laurie Garrett is correct that this is the equipment that was delivered to 215 Main St. in Fort Lee, then the FBI's position is that such a lyophilizer was suitable to make the powdered anthrax that was mailed. So the next thing to do is contact Rocco or check PACER for the make and model of the equipment that was delivered.
On the lyophilized issue, Paul Rothstein, a law professor at Georgetown University today said in the Washington Post:
Delete“I cannot think of another case in which the government has done such an egregious about-face. It destroys confidence in the criminal findings."
"Justice Dept. takes on itself in probe of 2001 anthrax attacks," Washington Post, Jan. 27, 2012
Washington Post, January 27. 2012:
ReplyDelete"The unusual spectacle of one arm of the Justice Department publicly questioning another has the potential to undermine one of the most high-profile investigations in years, according to critics and independent experts who reviewed the court filings."