My Sunday comment on February 12 began with details about the completed first draft of my book. (The second draft probably won't be done any sooner than four months.)
I then posted a few of the 52 photographs I received from the FBI in response to a Freedom Of Information Act request I'd filed.
I commented on the photos I posted. They show how cramped and filled with equipment the lab was. And, the only window was the window in the door.
Lastly, I mentioned the discussions from last week which indicate that I'm arguing with one person (Richard Rowley) who truly believes that the person who sent the anthrax letters had Hebrew as his first language. And the other person in last week's arguments ("Anonymous") truly believes that some Muslim sent the anthrax letters. Their arguments seem almost diametrically opposed, yet they don't argue with each other, and they don't present evidence in support of their beliefs. They only argue that the FBI must be wrong - not due to any kind of criminal conspiracy - but due either to incompetence or to laziness and "group think."
A second comment posted on Sunday shows that an Emerson CD player seen in Ivins' lab is also sold as a "nanny cam" that can be used to spy on people. And Ivins was known to purchase and use such spy equipment.
Okay, I guess I WASN'T clear enough. At least, that's the only conclusion I can draw from this:
ReplyDelete-----------------------------
Lastly, I mentioned the discussions from last week which indicate that I'm arguing with one person (Richard Rowley) who truly believes that the person who sent the anthrax letters had Hebrew as his first language.
==============================================
My hypothesis is:
1)the writer (printer)(but not necessarily the mailer) is a native English speaker. Given the location(s) involved, most likely an American (born or naturalized) or a long-time resident.
2)he employs at least two red herrings in the writings: a)Islamist slogans ('Death to [yadda yadda yadda]' and 'Allah is great') b)the incorporation of Hebrew writing features into the forms of many letters, this IN ORDER TO FALSELY SUGGEST that the printer is Israeli.
3) No true Israeli would likely make such a full range of interpolations accidently.
So I do NOT believe "that the person who sent the anthrax letters had Hebrew as his first language."
But to do what he(the printer) did, would require good-to-excellent knowledge of Hebrew as a SECOND language.
As I noted, this is (potentially) a great discriminator as only 1 to 3% of AMERICANS likely would know Hebrew/its alphabet well enough to even attempt such a thing.
Bruce Ivins left no indication that he knew Hebrew in the slightest.
Richard Rowley wrote: "But to do what he(the printer) did, would require good-to-excellent knowledge of Hebrew as a SECOND language."
ReplyDeleteOnly in your fantasies. There's nothing in the handwriting to suggest anything like what you say. The people who suggest that the writer is foreign born - or people like you who suggest the writer is trying to imitate the handwriting of someone who is foreign born - start with a conclusion and then distort the facts to make them fit their conclusion.
The phrases "Death to [yadda yadda yadd]' and Allhah is great" WERE meant to imitate Islamic terrorists phrasing, but the experts say that Islamic terrorists would nearly always include some Arabic writing in such a letter, and they would not write "Allah is Great," which is a mix of two languages, they'd either write "Allah Achbar" or "God is Great."
There is nothing at all in the writing to suggest anything having to do with writing in Hebrew. That's a total fantasy. You're seeing what you want to see.
If the writer was trying to make it look like he/she normally wrote in Hebrew, why are you the only one able to see it?
Ed
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete-------------------
Richard Rowley wrote: "But to do what he(the printer) did, would require good-to-excellent knowledge of Hebrew as a SECOND language."
Only in your fantasies. There's nothing in the handwriting to suggest anything like what you say.[...]
=========================================================
Oh? That's funny, when I first emailed you years ago with my linguistic/graphological analyses, you were dismissive but you never indicated you knew the Hebrew alphabet. So I gather you've since learned it?
Richard Rowley wrote: "So I gather you've since learned it?"
ReplyDeleteNo, but I can see there's nothing foreign about the writing. It's just the handwriting of a normal six-year-old.
Why didn't you answer the question: Why are you the only one able to see it?
And why can't you explain or illustrate what you mean? Is it because you know people will just laugh?
Ed
Partial post:
ReplyDelete-----------
Richard Rowley wrote: "So I gather you've since learned it?"
No, but I can see there's nothing foreign about the writing. It's just the handwriting of a normal six-year-old.
===============================================================
I like to conduct mental experiments. Do it all the time. One that I've done in recent years is: put myself on the other side of an argument, put myself in the other guy's shoes.
So, in this matter, my little mental experiment went: what IF some interlocutor on Amerithrax announced to me that there were features of the Devangari script (see: http://www.omniglot.com/writing/devanagari.htm )interpolated into the letters of the Brokaw/NY Post printing? What would MY reaction be?
Well at the surface level it would be respectful ('That's an interesting idea; why don't you tell someone about it?'). At the inner monologue level it would alternate between caution ('Maybe this guy is on to something....') and self-reproach ('Devangari! What a chowderhead I've been for all these years! Why didn't I learn Devagari? What the HECK kind of linguist am I, not having learned even a SINGLE indigeneous language of the Indian subcontinent?').
I WISH I could say that in this little thought experiment, I'm a go-getter and take a New Year's resolution to learn Devangari. But I doubt, at least in the REAL world (outside of thought experiments), I would invest the (considerable) effort to learn it, especially given my age and the daunting task it would be for someone like me who isn't 'visual' at all. Learning the Hebrew alphabet in my 50s was difficult enough!
The one reaction I've NEVER had in this little thought experiment
of mine is: 'that guy's fantasizing; there's nothing like that in the letters'. That's due to two factors (in no particular order):
1)I respect original ideas/insights and I respect people's right to disagree with each other, AND with whatever the 'official' verdict is in a matter.
2)Not knowing Devangari, I would have no basis whatsoever to say either way (yes, there DO seem to be Devangari elements/no, there's no Devangari element).
In short, I don't have an AUTOMATIC opinion on everything under the sun. There are entire areas of controversy (here I'm talking generally, not just about Amerithrax) in which I've NEVER had an opinion or I've edged away from a long-held opinion. In this latter category would be capital punishment. For the first 40 years of my life I was all for it (for 1st degree crimes)but as I learned more about malfeasance and mistakes by police, prosecutors etc. as I learned about death row prisoners railroaded, as I learned about THE INNOCENCE PROJECT , I realized that the state was too prone to error/corruption/abuse to be given such a power (the right to execute someone). I think I only realized at a conscious level that I was AGAINST capital punishment 2 or 3 years ago, but clearly I was coming to that point for a very long time.
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete----------------
The phrases "Death to [yadda yadda yadd]' and Allhah is great" WERE meant to imitate Islamic terrorists phrasing, but the experts say that Islamic terrorists would nearly always include some Arabic writing in such a letter, and they would not write "Allah is Great," which is a mix of two languages, they'd either write "Allah Achbar" or "God is Great."
=============================================================
Points:
1)for some reason, even when Mister Lake is AGREEING with me (see the paragraph I just copy and pasted) he makes it SOUND like he's disagreeing with me.
2)Oh, so they used "experts" to determine that, did they? And were "experts" used to compare Ivins' printing to that of the Amerithrax texts in the 2005-8 period?
Partial post by Ed Lake:
ReplyDelete---------------------
Why didn't you answer the question: Why are you the only one able to see it?[...]
---------------------------------------------
Naturally this is an area that I myself have thought about from time to time. My tentative thoughts:
1)to even POSSIBLY see elements from another alphabet (Cyrillic, Arabic, Hebrew, whatever)in such a text one needs to have some MINIMUM knowledge of that alphabet. This eliminates at the get-go, in the case of Hebrew, 97% of the US population (and I think that a conservative estimate). Someone like me who learned the Hebrew alphabet late in life and has never used it actively really wouldn't be able to do something like the combining that was done in the Brokaw/NY Post text printing, but with difficulty, someone like me (ie with a passive knowledge) CAN notice and see patterns that suggest Hebrew elements were interpolated in the printing. If the 97% figure holds true for graphologists too, then 97% of American graphologists couldn't even POTENTIALLY notice the Hebrew elements. At least not on their own.
2)time on task. Because I have no scientific background and think I'm too old/decrepit/set in my ways to even acquire a layman's appreciation of such things as the drying equipment, the tin content, and other scientific/technical questions related to Amerithrax, I have concentrated almost exclusively over the years on where I have a good background/experience: linguistics, proofreading, pragmatics. (In economics this is called "competitive advantage")
Though I had no background/experience in graphological analysis,
I thought this area very interesting and accessible to someone like me. So I've read/consulted far more 'handwriting/graphology' books than I would have dreamed of years ago.
I SUSPECT that online professional graphologists opining on the Amerithrax printing may have given it an hour or two, possibly a day or two, in extreme case a week or two, but I have been concentrating on the linguistic/graphological elements from late 2005 to the present. More or less 'without cease'.
I would be VERY VERY surprised if I hadn't worked on it more timewise than all of the professionals (online AND consultants employed by the Task Force)put together. Sometime in the 2006-7 timeframe I printed out both texts (Brokaw and Leahy) and started carrying them around with me in a water-proof folder. The Brokaw (ie really interesting) letter was on top with the lettering showing through the transparent side. This enabled me to incorporate fresh glances at the printing many dozens of times a day(ie while waiting for the bus, while waiting in line at the supermarket etc), so I didn't HAVE to set aside a special block of time each day or night to make (potential) progress. But sometimes I STILL did devote an hour or two at night to this stuff (linguistics and graphology).
(End part I)
Graphology is a pseudoscience and not admissible in court. See case law.
DeleteForensic handwriting analysis is admissible and is entirely different from graphology.
There is no literature or testimony accepted in federal court that uses the term graphology rather than handwriting.
Richard Rowley wrote: "The one reaction I've NEVER had in this little thought experiment of mine is: 'that guy's fantasizing; there's nothing like that in the letters'."
ReplyDeleteBut, you never fully explain your theory. I constantly ask you for details, and you just waffle around. I provided you with EXACT details of why the handwriting appears to be that of a child, but all you do is give vague hints about what you believe, and you argue that your theory is better than the FBI's. That's NUTS.
If you have more solid facts than I or the FBI have, present those facts. Don't just endlessly claim that your theory is better because you believe it's better. That's what NUT CASES do. That's what True Believers do.
Ed
Richard Rowley asked: "And were "experts" used to compare Ivins' printing to that of the Amerithrax texts in the 2005-8 period?"
ReplyDeleteThe experts who talked about how the writing looked like someone trying to create phrases that would appear to be from a Muslim terrorist were making their statements in late 2001 and early 2002, long before Ivins became a suspect.
The only information I have about comparisons between Ivins' handwriting and the handwriting on the letters is (1) what was said in a news conference on August 6, 2008: the handwriting evidence was inconclusive, and (2) what's in the Summary Report: The handwriting looked like handwriting Ivins used when playing jokes.
Ed
Don Foster is quoted in the press at the time that it seemed that Urdu was the writer's native language. You folks should turn to endeavors that lend themselves to scientific and objective proof.
DeleteOkay, I guess that Foster used something in the syntax (if I remember correctly) to SPECULATE that the author might be a native speaker of Urdu. I DON'T think he set that in stone. And wisely so: the texts we have (Brokaw and Leahy) are just too short to make any sort of judgement based on syntax.
DeleteTo take it to another extreme:
Despite what our 8th grade English teachers told us, "Yes," and "No." are complete sentences. But they are perfectly idiomatic ones: they are the products of native English speakers AND foreigners who speak English badly. So such sentences are bad differentiators (really not differentiators at ALL).
They tell us NOTHING about the author. At least, not via SYNTAX.
The Amerithrax texts are a TAD longer than that. But they could have been written by people from lots of (linguistic) backgrounds, including (but not limited to) native English speakers.
I just did a search and found a reference to Don Foster's comment:
Deletehttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6152515/ns/us_news/t/hatfill-strikes-back-anthrax-case/
---------------------------------------------
The lawsuit also attacks comments made prior to publication of the article, that suggest Foster at first believed a foreigner was responsible for the anthrax mailings. In a Dec. 26, 2001, article in The Times of London, for example, Foster says: “It is my opinion that the documents are at least compatible with that of a foreign speaker of Urdu or Arabic — although it's quite possible that it's someone using it as a smokescreen. There are some other indications that this person may be a Pakistani.”
------------------------
So the TOTALITY of his comments enable him to cover, if not ALL bases, then a significant number of them.
"Compatible with" isn't the same as saying it's a sure thing. And his article then indicated that Hatfill might have done it. So call it 'covering many bases'.
Richard Rowley wrote: "I would be VERY VERY surprised if I hadn't worked on it more timewise than all of the professionals (online AND consultants employed by the Task Force)put together."
ReplyDeleteThat's not healthy. I indicates an obsession. And it strongly suggests that you are trying to make the facts fit the conclusions you began with.
Ed
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete-----------
Richard Rowley wrote: "I would be VERY VERY surprised if I hadn't worked on it more timewise than all of the professionals (online AND consultants employed by the Task Force)put together."
That's not healthy. I indicates an obsession. And it strongly suggests that you are trying to make the facts fit the conclusions you began with.
==============================================================
Actually, I think obsessions that produce results are worthwhile.
Henry Ford was obsessed with automobiles, Thomas Edison with a myriad of scientific applications (light bulb, motion picture camera, phonograph etc.). Frequently such people turn their spouses into quasi-widows, unless both share the same field/obsessions (think: the Curies).
I only brought this point up to show why I am better positioned than anyone I know* about to make judgements about the writings. It was not something I 'spontaneously' came up with one day. It was a product of blood, sweat and tears over the years 2005-9.
As to this part "And it strongly suggests that you are trying to make the facts fit the conclusions you began with." it just isn't so: my first document write-up, in late 2005, was a straight-down-the-middle evaluation, probably not that much different from many
other grapholinguistic evaluations that had been made from 2001 to 2005, ie before I began investigating (likely English speaker trying to disguise that fact, pretending not to know how to spell penicillin etc.). I wrote nothing in that original write-up about interpolations of strokes/stroke elements from other writing systems (since I saw them not). That came much later (many months) and even THAT had to be pared down (the easiest foreign alphabet elements to 'see' are those of the alphabet you know best and for me that was Cyrillic; eventually I judged that whatever LOOKED like Cyrillic alphabet strokes was likely just the vagaries of writing, so I deleted all the Cyrillic element claims in subsequent documents). It's been a very long haul. But very rewarding (I'd do the same thing over again).
*Of course there may be a person (or persons) out there who was doing something analogous, with a background in linguistics etc. That cannot be precluded. A known unknown.
I should correct something that I wrote about: "comparative advantage" is the economics term that I was looking for; I called it "competitive advantage".
ReplyDeletePartial post by Anonymous:
ReplyDelete-------------------
Graphology is a pseudoscience and not admissible in court. See case law.
Forensic handwriting analysis is admissible and is entirely different from graphology.
There is no literature or testimony accepted in federal court that uses the term graphology rather than handwriting.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Again with the 'pseudoscience'! I have no delusions that a full range of graphological evidence wouldn't quite make it in court, but my focus in the beginning and EVEN TO THIS DAY isn't: how can I prove this in court? I'm not a lawyer, not a law enforcement type. I approached this case as a puzzle-solver. Even if I'm 100% correct as to who done it, that DOESN'T mean
1)I could convince the proper people of my solution.
2) those people would be willing to defy the full range of public statements by Director Mueller, the US attorneys involved, the Task Force itself. The government has painted itself into a corner in this case by blaming Ivins. That's not MY fault!
Richard,
DeleteBy all means, share with us the titles you've read on the subject of handwriting analysis. I'll then be in a position to point out those by qualified experts and those that are not. Then armed with such "learned treatises," we can discuss them and know what each other considers reliable learning. (I'm widely read on the subject particular subject for a research project unrelated to this one).
Okay, next time I'm in the library where they have the really good collection of graphology books, I'll write down the titles/authors.
DeleteBut I'm going to circle back, for I realize that I myself haven't been 100% clear on my use of graphology in THIS CASE (Amerithrax) and my overall evaluation of graphology as a field.
In the books I encountered, virtually without exception, in the introductory remarks, the authors stress:
+the ideal sample is: recent, in cursive* (that is, if the person USES cursive), spontaneous and free (without self-consciousness), without any effort of concealment.
But the Amerithrax letters (especially the Brokaw/NY Post text) are block-printed, unspontaneous (the most premeditated of writings possible), slow, riddled with effort to conceal etc. The "anti-ideal" writing sample(s).
For this reason (and one or two others)I decided in the middle of MY linguistic/graphological study to concentrate NOT on the PSYCHOLOGY indicated by a surface reading of the text(s) in question (since these could not be relied on) but on the METHODS by which the author sought to deceive.
As I and Mister Lake agree (yikes! how'd THAT happen?)the (identical) slogans at the end of the letters indicate an effort to deceive: the slogans, both as worded and as ordered (Allah is in the very last sentence, a no-no for the pious)indicate, to all but the most literal-minded, that a non-Muslim is pretending to be Muslim.
My insight was: the perp (author) wouldn't be satisfied with a single deception: there would be OTHER efforts to deceive in the whole operation (the conspiracy that is Amerithrax). So, in the texts:
1)the Greendale School is a deception.
2) Franklin Park is a deception.
3) the return zip code is a deception. (The zip code exists but it has nothing to do with the invented school or the invented Franklin Park or the perp himself)
I began to suspect that the mailing point(s) was/were a deception too.
*cursive is preferred because the CONNECTING strokes tell graphology experts quite a bit about the writer.
If the writer ALWAYS prints, then (usually) when he/she picks up speed, impromptu connecting strokes are left too, telling the graphologist things about the writer.
(End Part I)
Richard Rowley wrote: "As I and Mister Lake agree (yikes! how'd THAT happen?)the (identical) slogans at the end of the letters indicate an effort to deceive:"
DeleteIt's not really my observation. As soon as the letters appeared, there were experts saying that the letters were obviously intended to appear as if they came from a Muslim terrorist, but the wording wasn't right. The FBI Summary Report says on page 57:
The language of the letters – specifically “Death to America, Death to Israel, Allah is Great” – obviously plays on the still very-real fears stemming from the 9/11 attacks, just a week before the first mailing. This fact demonstrates that whoever sent the letters was trying to associate himself with al Qaeda in an effort to send the investigation far afield of a home-grown attacker. That the perpetrator was a home-grown attacker is supported by the statement “Allah is Great.” Experts consulted by the Task Force agreed that a true jihadi would be more likely to say “Allah Akbar” (“God is Great”).
"My insight was: the perp (author) wouldn't be satisfied with a single deception:"
I don't think the return address is a "deception." I think it's an effort to make certain that, if the letter filled with anthrax got returned to sender for some reason, it wouldn't get returned to a school. The address appears real, but it isn't. It's another indicator that the culprit didn't want to harm anyone.
Plus, of course, the school in the return address explains the childish writing and makes it a bit more likely that it's going to be opened and read (unlike the first batch of letters which were mostly thrown out unread).
Ed
Richard Rowley wrote: 1)the Greendale School is a deception.
DeleteThe facts indicate that "4th Grade" and "Greendale School" are not a deception, they are other "signatures" that Ivins used for some reason. In a magazine to which he subscribed, there had been a story about a student in 4th Grade in a Greendale School in Wisconsin who had received corporal punishment, and a lawsuit was in progress.
"Franklin Park" wasn't a "deception." It may have been where he planned to mail the letters, before he got sidetracked by his visit to the KKG office in Princeton. I think he was planning to drive toward Newark, where one of the 9/11 hijacked planes had started its trip, and he just didn't get that far. Franklin Park is closer to Newark than Princeton, but evidently just a bit too far for Ivins to get there in the middle of the night and still get back home in time to get to work.
According to the EBAP, the ZIP code is Ivins' "signature" connecting his origins in Monmouth (NJ) to KKG's origins in Monmouth (IL). I think that makes a lot of sense.
Ed
Partial post by Mister Lake:
Delete----------------
Richard Rowley wrote: "As I and Mister Lake agree (yikes! how'd THAT happen?)the (identical) slogans at the end of the letters indicate an effort to deceive:"
It's not really my observation.[...]
=================================================
Okay, but to agree on something doesn't require that the idea be original with either of the agree-ers. It merely requires their mutual acquiescence to the proposition.
Partial post by Mister Lake:
Delete----------------
Richard Rowley wrote: 1)the Greendale School is a deception.
The facts indicate that "4th Grade" and "Greendale School" are not a deception,[...]
===================================================
I was talking about the persons READING the return address: would THEY be in on the (alleged)'signature'? No, they would not.
The readers would be:
1)anyone in the post office who bothered to look at the return address/make sure there WAS a return address.
2)people in the Senators' office if they(the letters) had gone through.
3)the letter opener/reader.
For THOSE people the return address would merely indicate where the letter(s) came from: a 4th Grade Class of the Greendale School of Franklin Park, 08852. A FALSE address. So I'm merely calling a willfully false address a 'deception'. Mister Lake, buying every (implausible) detail of the Task Force narrative including this SPECULATIVE stuff about a signature/imputed fascination with the word 'Monmouth'/etc. can't bring himself to agree. A confirmed contrarian.
Another partial post by Mister Lake:
Delete--------------
According to the EBAP, the ZIP code is Ivins' "signature" connecting his origins in Monmouth (NJ) to KKG's origins in Monmouth (IL). I think that makes a lot of sense
================================================
I think:
1)it's mind-reading on a grand scale.
2) it (and a whole lot of other stuff in the FINAL REPORT) wouldn't be bothered with if they had proof he made EITHER trip to Princeton and/or had proof he did drying/purifying of anthrax in the August to October 2001 timeframe.
3)it's implausible in the extreme.
-----------------------------------------------------
Richard Rowley wrote: "It merely requires their mutual acquiescence to the proposition."
DeleteThere is no "acquiescence" involved. I looked at the facts and the facts make sense. There was nothing to protest, therefore acquiescence was not required. It's just a matter of understanding what was meant.
"So I'm merely calling a willfully false address a 'deception'."
Okay, but that's like calling a fake building in a fictional movie a deception. It's not really "a deception" it is PART of the deception. The entire movie is a "deception." It's fiction made to appear real. The fake building helps accomplish the deception.
The entire letter was intended to look as if it was sent by Muslim terrorists, including the spores inside. But, while preparing the "deception," Ivins used details which also had meaning to him.
Think of Alfred Hitchcock appearing in his movies. Let's use "To Catch A Thief" as an example. The movie is a piece of "deception" intended to make you believe that a fictional story about a jewel thief is really taking place, and Hitchcock sitting at the back of a bus beside "jewel thief" Cary Grant is a "signature" that is part of the overall piece of work.
Yes, it's a "deception" in that Hitchcock was playing a passenger on the the bus, while he was really the director. But the "deception" is minor, the signature is what is important.
"3)it's implausible in the extreme."
Only to people who are firmly locked into another theory and who ignore ever piece of evidence that doesn't support their own personal theory.
Ed
Partial post by Mister Lake:
Delete-----------
Richard Rowley wrote: "It merely requires their mutual acquiescence to the proposition."
There is no "acquiescence" involved. I looked at the facts and the facts make sense.[...]
=================================================
acquiesce: 3)to accept or comply tacitly or passively: accept as inevitable or indisputable.
------------------------------------------------
Just because Mister Lake seldom quiesces, doesn't mean he seldom acquiesces.
Partial post by Mister Lake:
Delete------------
Okay, but that's like calling a fake building in a fictional movie a deception. It's not really "a deception" it is PART of the deception. The entire movie is a "deception."[...]
==============================================
Only to those audiences (or audience members) that take the movie as a real record of transpiring events rather than either a fictional story* or a reenactment of real events (think: biopic). I've NEVER met a single person in the cinema who did that. (But people who live in the Amazon Rain Forest and have never seen a film may be taken in, is THAT what you are talking about?!?!?)
That is NOT what the return address on the Leahy letter does: almost certainly no one moving that letter through the postal system said to themselves "Oh, this return address must be a fiction." Because the return address is rarely looked at unless there is a problem with delivery? Yes, but even if they HAD looked at it, it wouldn't have registered fake/false/untrue/deceptive because it's a plausible address: a zip code that fits Central New Jersey, NJ given as the state, and a plausible-sounding school name. Plausible to buttress the deception.
---------------------------------------------------
*It's called 'willing suspension of disbelief': the audience KNOWS it isn't true but enjoys the sensation anyway.
Richard Rowley wrote: "Only to those audiences (or audience members) that take the movie as a real record of transpiring events rather than either a fictional story* or a reenactment of real events (think: biopic)."
DeleteI thought the Alfred Hitchcock movie analogy was a very good analogy. But, apparently it is totally lost on you.
Now you're just babbling and begin argumentative.
Ed
Richard Rowley wrote: "Only to those audiences (or audience members) that take the movie as a real record of transpiring events rather than either a fictional story* or a reenactment of real events (think: biopic). I've NEVER met a single person in the cinema who did that."
DeleteAs I recall, you posted a whole bunch of messages on Dr. Nass's site about how the movie "Twelve Angry Men" showed how jurors question the facts presented to them.
So, did you think "Twelve Angry Men" was a real record of real events?
Or were you just being argumentative in using that movie to illustrate a point, and now you're being argumentative in refusing to see how a different movie can be used to illustrate a different point?
"It's called 'willing suspension of disbelief': the audience KNOWS it isn't true but enjoys the sensation anyway."
In reality, "willing suspension of disbelief" pertains to movies like the Harry Potter films or the Lord of the Ring films. Everyone knows that it's made up and there's absolutely nothing real about it, but they enjoy the excitement and the sensation anyway.
In movies like "Twelve Angry Men" and most of Alfred Hitchcock films, there is no "suspension of disbelief" involved. There's nothing to automatically disbelieve. There are no mystical forces, magic wands and trees that talk. Hitchcock movies are fictional stories about things that could really happen and which may have happened somewhere to someone. They're "morality tales" and "life lessons." They show things that can happen to real people. Such movies can expand your knowledge and understanding of the real world, even if the stories are fiction.
You don't learn if you disbelieve everything you see, which is what you've been demonstrating in this forum.
Ed
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete--------------
Richard Rowley wrote: "The one reaction I've NEVER had in this little thought experiment of mine is: 'that guy's fantasizing; there's nothing like that in the letters'."
But, you never fully explain your theory. I constantly ask you for details, and you just waffle around. I provided you with EXACT details of why the handwriting appears to be that of a child, but all you do is give vague hints about what you believe, and you argue that your theory is better than the FBI's. That's NUTS.
===============================================================
What you are leaving out Mister Lake is:
1)starting in 2006 or 2007 I sent you a number of emails, early versions (at least 2) of my linguistic sleuthing centered on the letters (especially the Brokaw/NY Post one). Under a pseudonym (but eventually you learned the r.rowley= pseudonym equation, so it still stands).
2)you were dismissive: "all you have is a theory, we need suspects!" was how it went. Perhaps I sent you 5 emails at that time, you sending 3 or 4 shortish ones back. I realized it was hopeless (I wasn't looking for a pat on the back, I was just eager to find SOMEONE who was interested in the same stuff regarding Amerithrax that I was, possibly so as to receive CONSTRUCTIVE feedback). I didn't take it personally and assumed you had so many email interlocutors that you had to pick your spots. And I respected that.
3)forward a year or two. Or maybe three (my memory is atrocious). You had redone your child-did-it document and I thought you would
appreciate constructive criticism of same. I worked on the email document 3 or 4 days, having thought about it (the ideas in the documents) for many months (it was right up my alley).
4)Silence. Total silence. Putting two and two together, I realized that I would NEVER have an email correspondence with Mister Ed Lake. Fine and I never thought to bring it up again.
5)Fast forward again (a year later?) Mister Lake (not addressing me in particular) declares on some blog or other that he had NEVER received any sort of point-by-point criticism of his child-printed-it hypothesis. Since this was EXACTLY what my (very long) last email (see point 4) had been I challenged him (foolishly I guess). He professed no memory of the document/email, THEN turned the whole thing into an opportunity to 'investigate' (in public!) what my pseudonym=real name equation was!
Given the above history, Mister Lake, you really need to take a time machine back to 2006/7 and give yourself a good scolding!
Richard Rowley wrote: "Mister Lake (not addressing me in particular) declares on some blog or other that he had NEVER received any sort of point-by-point criticism of his child-printed-it hypothesis. Since this was EXACTLY what my (very long) last email (see point 4) had been I challenged him (foolishly I guess)."
ReplyDeleteI still have your emails. But I don't have the time right now to go back and try to find the letter you say I ignored. I need more information to do any kind of search. I have about 45,000 emails in my archives.
I remember you getting upset when I referred to it on someone's blog (probably Nass's), but, as I recall, you had already referred to it in the discussion. So, I assumed it was okay to put the parts together and talk about it. (I also have an archive of Nass's blog threads where I was involved, but, again, I need some date or other information to help do the search.)
You seem to understand that I used to get dozens and dozens of theories about the handwriting. Each person sending me their theory considered it to be brilliant and well-though-out. But, to me they were all basically the same thing: unproved theories without evidence but designed to promote a firm belief about who they believe sent the anthrax letters.
But, these are all side issues. The current issue is your theory about the handwriting.
The best way to present an hypothesis is to describe it clearly and succinctly, point by point. And then to ask for people to find holes in it. That's what I did with my hypothesis that shows a child wrote the letters.
If I had the time, I'd try to find your letter. But, I'm pretty sure all it would say is that you don't believe the findings. You wouldn't have proved any of them wrong. If you had, I would certainly have remembered that and made a big deal of it.
If this is all such a big deal to you, why don't you have more information, like the date on the email and the subject, or how you proved my hypothesis was wrong?
Ed
Anonymous wrote a comment that began with: "I believe the questions you should be asking are---"
ReplyDeleteSince I have no interest in what questions he thinks I should be asking, the comment was deleted.
This forum is for discussions, not for sermons about what others should be doing to fit the role Anonymous sees for them.
Ed
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete---------------
Richard Rowley wrote: "Mister Lake (not addressing me in particular) declares on some blog or other that he had NEVER received any sort of point-by-point criticism of his child-printed-it hypothesis. Since this was EXACTLY what my (very long) last email (see point 4) had been I challenged him (foolishly I guess)."
I still have your emails. But I don't have the time right now to go back and try to find the letter you say I ignored.[...]
============================================================
You misunderstand. I DIDN'T site this history either to remonstrate with you or go set you into a search of your email archive. It's old history. But it's old history that all but guarantees that even in the big picture (see my very first post THIS thread) you are relying, not on either an accurate memory of what I've written OR on the still-extant TEXT of anything that I EVER wrote, in emails, at Meryl Nass's blog, at Lew Weinstein's blog or anywhere.
Because you don't remember/can't be bothered looking for stuff, you MAKE IT UP (!!!!!!!!!!). Again, see my very first post this thread.
There's a reason for that: you are a black-or-white thinker. Everyone who isn't a sheep is a goat: a True Believer or a 'conspiracy theorist'. Your labels, your mantras. Sure there ARE 'conspiracy theorists', to one degree or another, out there.
But they aren't all wrong all the time: Woodward and Bernstein got wind of a conspiracy (no quotes necessary) to plant bugs at the DNC in June of 1972. A conspiracy hatched by minions talking in the White House, even in the presence of former Attorney General Mitchell. There was a conspiracy to hush it up, with a president among the conspirators. Iran-Contra was a double-barrelled conspiracy. Etc.
Arguably every single instance of public graft (a PERENNIAL problem in politics) is at least a two-person conspiracy: the bribe-giver and the bribe-taker. So, MERELY labeling something a "conspiracy theory" tells us in no way whether the 'conspiracy' is plausible or not. I AGREE that many of them (the theories)---and I'm not just talking about Amerithrax here------are implausible: the VAST majority. But, pretty much by definition, the ONLY persons who WILL detect a true conspiracy are "conspiracy theorists".
(More later)
Richard Rowley wrote: "Because you don't remember/can't be bothered looking for stuff, you MAKE IT UP (!!!!!!!!!!)."
ReplyDeleteI don't make things up. I may interpret things differently from you, but that doesn't mean I'm making anything up. If you write something that is unclear, and I interpret it in a way you wouldn't want it interpreted, that isn't making things up.
"But, pretty much by definition, the ONLY persons who WILL detect a true conspiracy are "conspiracy theorists"."
I don't think so. Conspiracy theorists are people who imagine conspiracies whenever they don't believe what the government says (and they almost never believe what the government says). Real life criminal conspiracies are almost always uncovered by detective work where no one was looking for a conspiracy, they were only tracking down who was involved in some crime or potential crime.
Ed
Partial post by Mister Lake:
Delete-------------------
Richard Rowley wrote: "Because you don't remember/can't be bothered looking for stuff, you MAKE IT UP (!!!!!!!!!!)."
I don't make things up. I may interpret things differently from you, but that doesn't mean I'm making anything up[...]
====================================================
I agree we interpret things differently and that's no problem. But when you, in your COMMENT SECTION (and remember at least some of your readers read the comment section but never bother looking at the blog)you made a characterization of my hypothesis------and if nothing else I'm THE authority on my own hypotheses!-----------that claimed that I had claimed the printer was someone whose native alphabet was Hebrew:
-------------------
Of course not. They have very different theories about that. One truly believes it was a Muslim, the other indicates he truly believes it was someone "whose native writing system is the Hebrew alphabet."
----------------------------------------------------
You are pretending to quote me there. If you ARE quoting me, it is out of context. The full sentence reads:
" The major conceit, as I see it, is to appear to be someone whose native writing system is the Hebrew alphabet".
THAT means the printer's conceit (meaning pretense)is to APPEAR to be someone whose native writing system is the Hebrew alphabet. It's a DECEPTION. And nothing I've ever written on this subject has ever strayed from that! How, then, can you "interpret" that sentence to mean that the printer's native writing system is the Hebrew alphabet? That's the opposite of what I wrote!
-------------------------------------------------
When you quote someone, Mister Lake, it not only behooves you to get all the words right, it behooves you to convey, to the extent possible, the true meaning. Not some imagined one by you!
Richard Rowley wrote: "When you quote someone, Mister Lake, it not only behooves you to get all the words right, it behooves you to convey, to the extent possible, the true meaning. Not some imagined one by you!"
DeleteI agree. However, the problem with your posts is that they're too long, too convoluted, too incoherent and too off-point. They're too often just arguments to create arguments. You argue over the meaning of words, over pieces of sentence, and over things that you believe that everyone else in the world would do just as you would do.
I'm in the process of writing a book. I've got a million other things to do at the same time. Plus I'm trying to be responsive on this blog.
So, you really need to be more concise and precise. Otherwise, I'm liable to misinterpret what you say just because I don't have the time to do a prolonged study of what you say to see if I can decipher exactly what you mean.
Ed
Partial post by Mister Lake:
Delete---------------
I agree. However, the problem with your posts is that they're too long, too convoluted, too incoherent and too off-point. They're too often just arguments to create arguments.
===================================================
What is "convoluted" about the sentence in question?
By my lights it's a simple statement about the Central fact of the printing of the Brokaw/Post letter(from which I make a number of deductions). Nothing more and nothing less. It's like you can't even ADMIT that you erred in your presentation of my idea; any misrepresentation is my 'fault', apparently because I don't write like you do!
As to THIS part: "They're too often just arguments to create arguments." I think just the opposite is true. YOU don't like to discuss (like I do), you like to argue (there is a difference). Example: (from this very thread at end of one post by Mister Lake addressing me):
---------------
And why can't you explain or illustrate what you mean? Is it because you know people will just laugh?
-----------------------------------------------------
That's not discussing. That's baiting someone, therefore I IGNORED that particular remark. But the remark is indeed "just arguments to create arguments."
Richard Rowley wrote: "It's like you can't even ADMIT that you erred in your presentation of my idea; any misrepresentation is my 'fault', apparently because I don't write like you do!"
DeleteI admit that I misunderstood your theory when I wrote the comment for my site, but the problem is: I can't correct it, because I don't know what your theory really is. You just wander all over the place, arguing that the government is wrong without ever really explaining your own theory.
Your theory evidently has something to do with someone who you believe tried to write like someone who was taught to write in Hebrew before they were taught to write in English. That's about all you've made clear so far. (And you'll probably find something wrong with what I just wrote.)
"That's not discussing. That's baiting someone, therefore I IGNORED that particular remark."
Let me rephrase and ask the question again without adding a guess or speculation as to why you won't explain anything meaningful about your theory:
Why can't you explain your theory?
Ed
At the very end of Mister Lake's last post:
Delete--------------
Why can't you explain your theory?
==================================================
1)Frankly it's not in my interests (financial)to do that publicly. Sure, as things stand now, that $2.5 million might as well be in another solar system, but ....you never know!
2)Somewhat along the same lines: I too have 'literary ambitions': two books, the first a book (unwritten) on the particular neurological condition of the Anthrax Killer (AK); the second (unwritten, but with just about all of the research done)on the Amerithrax conspiracy (no, not a conspiracy of the government, a conspiracy of domestic terrorists headed by a brilliant, if warped, mastermind, someone whose name would mean nothing to the general public, even if I were to write it*).
Though the SECOND book will be easier to write (the hard part: deleting info that indentifies the killers*), the psychological portrait will require the first book (since that will follow similar perps from 1888 to the present, show the psychological PATTERN). IOW the first book shows that the second book isn't, at the psychological level, special pleading.
*Naturally, I don't want to be sued, I don't want Mister Lake to be sued, so that finishes that!
--------------------------------------------------
In our best exchanges, Mister Lake, I enjoy talking to you but $2.5 million is......real money.
I've been scouting around lately for a co-author and I think I've found her, but she doesn't know it yet, doesn't know me from Adam. I hope that will change over the summer.
Richard Rowley wrote: "Sure, as things stand now, that $2.5 million might as well be in another solar system, but ....you never know!"
DeleteSome things CAN be known. The money was for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the anthrax mailer. That money is no longer available, and, even if it were, there would be no chance of getting a conviction because the DOJ has stated who did it.
So, you would need evidence so overwhelming that no one could possibly deny it, AND your evidence would have to explain why the evidence against Ivins was so overwhelming yet wrong. Clearly, you do not have that.
If you're worried about getting sued, that should also be another BIG clue that you don't have the proof you need to convince a jury. It's an admission that you have no real evidence, just a theory.
Years ago, a guy in Pennsylvania was writing me about a college professor who he thought was the anthrax killer. He wrote a book about it and self-published it. I was tempted to buy a copy, but didn't. As I recall, he found someone to help him write the book. (I just did some research on him and found that he died in 2010.)
Lew Weinstein wrote a novel about the case, and so did Don Weiss from the New York City Department of Health. I don't think either book sold very well. And I don't think any of the non-fiction books on the subject ever made the best sellers lists.
That means that publishers won't see much potential for another book on the subject. It's an "old news" topic that no one cares about.
Anyone who expects to make a lot of money by writing and selling a book about the anthrax attacks needs to have his head examined.
I'm not writing my book because I expect to make money. I'm writing it to complete my 10+ years of research. I can't just drop the subject and walk away. I need to sum up what I learned about the anthrax case during the past 10 years. And, since I enjoy writing, doing it in book form seems ideal for me. Writing is a hobby I've enjoyed since I was 10 or 12. I tried selling short stories when I was a kid.
I'll try getting a publisher interested in my new book, but I don't hold out much hope for that. The market is just too tough. So, I'll probably end up self-publishing about 300 copies. Two copies will go to the Library of Congress, which is part of the goal.
You need to do some research on the book business. The idea of looking for a writer to help with the writing of a book that has no visible market seems wildly naive.
Ed
I forgot to mention "Vanity Publishers." There are DOZENS of them. I get emails from them almost every day. They make a lot of their money from people who can't write a book by themselves, but who think their book idea will make a fortune. I doubt that 1 in ten thousand earns back what they spent.
DeleteI self-published my first anthrax book in 2005. That means I did the writing and the typesetting, cover design and everything else. I sent copies to the copyrights office, I purchased the ISBN code, and I even created the UPC scanner code for the back of the cover. Then I turned it over to a PRINTER who just printed it and did the binding.
Vanity Publishers make their money by doing all those chores for you - typesetting, cover design, writing, proof-reading, editing, obtaining the ISBN code, etc. And you pay through the nose for every step.
Ed
Partial post by Mister Lake:
Delete-------------------
Some things CAN be known. The money was for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the anthrax mailer. That money is no longer available, and, even if it were, there would be no chance of getting a conviction because the DOJ has stated who did it.
---------------------------------------------------
That's why I say they've painted themselves into a corner.
As to the merits:
To compare on just a TEENY-WEENY point:
1)the Task Force's tying of Ivins to Princeton involves:
a)a grandfather living NEARBY (depending on what nearby is) in the 19th Century.
b)a father attending Princeton HS/College 60 or 70 years before the anthrax attacks.
c)a zip code for an area whose name has the word Monmouth in it.
d)driving through Princeton in a car when he was 10 years old (circa 1956).
In contrast my mailing suspect had contemporaneous (2000-1) familiarity with Princeton, went there at least occasionally. This I've verified in the last 2 weeks.
Richard Rowley wrote: "In contrast my mailing suspect had contemporaneous (2000-1) familiarity with Princeton, went there at least occasionally. This I've verified in the last 2 weeks."
DeleteWhich proves what? Using your own reasoning, that would also mean that all of the hundreds of thousands of people who visited Princeton in 2001 should be suspects.
You seem to be saying that circumstantial evidence doesn't mean anything unless it is evidence against your suspect.
The FBI's case against Ivins begins with his control of flask RMR-1029. How did your suspect get access to the contents of flask RMR-1029?
The FBI's case also rests on the fact that Ivins had no verifiable alibi. What about your suspect? How do you know he doesn't have an alibi?
The FBI's case is also about the fact that Ivins had all the experience he needed, unsupervised access to the equipment needed and multiple motives. Does your suspect have all of that?
The FBI's case is also about the fact that Ivins threw away "code books" which explained the hidden message in the media letters. How does your theory explain the traced-over characters in the media letter?
Ed
Partial post by Mister Lake:
Delete-----------
Richard Rowley wrote: "In contrast my mailing suspect had contemporaneous (2000-1) familiarity with Princeton, went there at least occasionally. This I've verified in the last 2 weeks."
Which proves what? Using your own reasoning, that would also mean that all of the hundreds of thousands of people who visited Princeton in 2001 should be suspects.
===================================================
And by the standards that YOU accept (grandfathers in previous centuries, family members attending school etc.) literally TENS OF MILLIONS of people are tied just as "tightly" (meaning not tightly at ALL!) to Central New Jersey/Princeton as Ivins was. Including me (as I've noted over and over and over again to try to make it as simple as possible).
THAT'S why the Ivins' Princeton ties are of no logic import:
1)except for the one instance they are all at least one remove: not Ivins having a person (personal, as in "in person") connection to Princeton but having a six-degrees-of-separation connection. Worthless.
2)the one exception (the childhood ride through Princeton circa 1956)is chronologically the CLOSEST tie (timewise). The others are in the 60 to 120 year range. Can't you see anything wrong logically wrong with that?!?
----------------------------------------------------
The ORIGINAL profile of the UNSUB by the FBI talked about (paraphrase): 'some familiarity with the Princeton area'.
Would the 19th Century grandfather have passed that on to Ivins GENETICALLY?!?! No.
What about the father? No.
What chance is there that Ivins acquired a 'familiarity' with Princeton via one trip there in a car in 1956? Slim and none. And "Slim" just left town.
So, yeah, my suspect is better on this evidentiary point because it's PERSONAL familiarity with the area (which Ivins did NOT have, as far as we know)
And it's contemporaneous to the crime (the 1956 trip being off by 55 years).
Partial post by Mister Lake:
Delete-----------------
You seem to be saying that circumstantial evidence doesn't mean anything unless it is evidence against your suspect.
---------------------------------------------------
No. I think I've said fairly consistently that TIGHTLY FRAMED circumstantial evidence is what we're looking for: the more tightly tied, CHRONOLOGICALLY and MOTIVATIONALLY and physically the better: a person holding a gun at a shooting scene would be the first one looked at but if HIS gun didn't match ballistically the bullet(s) used then he wouldn't be tightly tied to the murder, unless he used another gun and hid it.
Look at the chronology of Ivins' so-called links to New Jersey. They're anything but tightly connected to the time of the anthrax mailings. In most instances they aren't IN PERSON links(they are ANCESTRAL ones). They are NO BASIS for saying he even had familiarity with the area! It takes extended presence AS AN ADULT to become familiar with roads in an area. That Ivins lacked. So his 'ties' aren't even of probative value.
Richard Rowley asked: "Can't you see anything wrong logically wrong with that?!?
DeleteI can see plenty wrong with YOUR logic. But your logic has nothing to do with the FBI's (or MY) logic.
The fact that Ivins was driven through Princeton when he was a kid was only used in the case because Ivins also claimed he'd never been to Princeton. It showed that he'd tell the truth when he thought it would do no harm, and he'd lie when he saw dangers in telling the truth.
Ivins' ties to Princeton aren't of significant importance. It's Ivins' obsessions with KKG that are significant. The letters were mailed in the nearest mailbox to the KKG offices in Princeton. The fact that Ivins' father went to Princeton is another connection to that mailbox and that location, but it's not as important as the KKG connection.
"So, yeah, my suspect is better on this evidentiary point because it's PERSONAL familiarity with the area (which Ivins did NOT have, as far as we know)"
In what way is a "PERSONAL familiarity with the area" important? Is there something about downtown Princeton that would cause people to fall into a bottomless pit if they hadn't previously been there?
"And it's contemporaneous to the crime (the 1956 trip being off by 55 years)."
It's still meaningless unless it was on the two dates the crimes were committed.
Ivins had NO ALIBI for the times of either mailing. If you don't know whether your suspect had an alibi or not, your whole theory has a MAJOR HOLE IN IT.
Ed
Richard Rowley wrote: "Look at the chronology of Ivins' so-called links to New Jersey. They're anything but tightly connected to the time of the anthrax mailings."
DeleteWhich demonstrates once again that you have absolutely no understanding of evidence.
The links between Ivins and KKG have NOTHING to do with the TIME of the crime.
The links between Ivins and the ZIP code have NOTHING to do with the TIME of the crime.
The links between Ivins and the scene of the crime have NOTHING to do with the TIME of the crime.
The links to KKG, the ZIP code and the scene of the crime have to do with Ivins' obsessions. They help explain why that particular mailbox was used. They help explain why that particular ZIP code was used. They connect Ivins to the scene of the crime and the letters, NOT to the TIME of the crime.
The major evidence related to the TIME of the crime is Ivins' lack of an alibi.
Ed
Partial post by Ed Lake:
Delete---------------
How does your theory explain the traced-over characters in the media letter?
================================================
Oddly enough THAT'S the true 'signature' but you have to know how to read it and you can't 'drop' letters you don't like (like the DoJ did). I 'solved' the traced-over letters in late Sept 2006. It's the Rosetta Stone of Amerithrax.
Richard Rowley wrote: "I 'solved' the traced-over letters in late Sept 2006. It's the Rosetta Stone of Amerithrax."
DeleteIn other words, you won't explain anything. We just have to trust you and believe that you have found the correct interpretation of the highlighted characters.
And, what reason is there for ANYONE to believe you've found anything of importance? I cannot imagine any.
The rest of the world believes evidence, which you haven't presented. So, you have shown us nothing, and there's absolutely no reason to believe you have anything.
I and the FBI present our evidence. You present claims without evidence.
In other words, based upon the evidence, you have nothing and the FBI has a very solid case.
End of story.
Ed
Partial post by Mister Lake:
Delete-----------------------
Which demonstrates once again that you have absolutely no understanding of evidence.
-------------------------------------------
Let's let the readers decide, eh? More from Mister Lake:
-------------------------------------------
The links between Ivins and KKG have NOTHING to do with the TIME of the crime.
===============================================
You're right! They have nothing to do with the crime whatsoever! Back to Mister Lake:
--------------
The links between Ivins and the ZIP code have NOTHING to do with the TIME of the crime.
---------------------------------------------
You're right! They have nothing to do with the crime whatsoever! (And now that we know from Anonymous that Ivins' family did NOT live in that zip code area, there are no such links to the zip code).
Back to Mister Lake:
---------
The links between Ivins and the scene of the crime have NOTHING to do with the TIME of the crime.
----------------------------------------------
There are no links between Ivins and the scene of the crime: that's the WHOLE POINT! As far as we know Ivins was NEVER at that mailbox (who knows if the mailbox was even there in 1956?).
Richard Rowley wrote: "There are no links between Ivins and the scene of the crime: that's the WHOLE POINT!"
DeleteAnd you demonstrate once again that you have no understanding of evidence.
The items I listed DO link Ivins to the scene of the crime. As I stated, they do not link Ivins to the TIME of the crime. Other evidence links Ivins to the TIME of the crime - specifically his lack of an alibi.
HUNDREDS of possible suspects were eliminated as suspects because they had an alibi for the TIME of the crime.
You seem to argue that because your suspect was in the area at some unspecified time in 2000 or 2001 that is evidence of something. But, it's evidence of NOTHING. The only time-related evidence is either (1) someone saw him at the scene of the crime at the time of the crime or (2) he had no alibi for the time of either mailing.
You appear to have neither. The FBI has #2 for Ivins.
"Let's let the readers decide, eh?"
I don't know about you, but my emails wonder why I bother to argue with you. They see it as a waste of my time. And, I'm beginning to agree.
Ed
Partial post by Mister Lake:
Delete--------------
You seem to argue that because your suspect was in the area at some unspecified time in 2000 or 2001 that is evidence of something. But, it's evidence of NOTHING.
================================================
It's evidence of LIKELY familiarity with the general area, the very thing we DON'T know that Ivins had and the very thing that the FBI back on November 9th 2001 listed as part of the 'behavioral assessment':
■has a familiarity, direct or indirect, with the Trenton, NJ, metropolitan area; however, this does not necessarily mean he currently lives in the Trenton, NJ, area.. He is comfortable traveling in and around this locale.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/famous-cases/anthrax-amerithrax/linguistic-behavorial-analysis-of-the-anthrax-letters
Note: when the above (partial) behavioral assessment was issued, they still had not determined which mailbox had been used for the letter drop: one on Nassau Street across from Princeton U.
---------------------------------------------------
Partial post by Mister Lake:
Delete-------------
Richard Rowley wrote: "I 'solved' the traced-over letters in late Sept 2006. It's the Rosetta Stone of Amerithrax."
In other words, you won't explain anything.[...]
==================================================
WHAT "won't explain" ?!?!?!?! I just TOLD you it's the signature. Signature as in "distinctive name" that a person writes to authenicate something. What could POSSIBLY be simpler than that?!?!?!
And I ALSO told you (this thread) that I'm not going to get sued just to satisfy your curiousity. If you can't read the signature that's not MY fault!
Partial post by Mister Lake:
Delete-------------
HUNDREDS of possible suspects were eliminated as suspects because they had an alibi for the TIME of the crime.
=================================================
Once again you're confusing a law enforcement TECHNIQUE for something substantial, something that can be presented in a court of law. For example:
-------------------------------
DA: So, Detective Quinn, you ran down all the second story men in the greater metropolitan area and EVERY SINGLE ONE of them had an alibi, except for Mister Willie Sutton, is that correct?
DQ: That's correct.
--------------------------------------------
You can't do the above, it's inadmissible. It's a legit law enforcement technique but it's not evidence. I HOPE I don't have to explain why.
The reason that the KKG obsession doesn't link Ivins to the scene of the crime is:
Delete1)mailing from that mailbox doesn't get the letters TO KKG.
2)mailing from that mailbox doesn't indicate that the letters were FROM KKG.
3)mailing from the mailbox had NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER on KKG. Or on Ivins' knowledge of KKG.
Therefore the claim that that mailbox was picked by Ivins (or anyone else for that matter!)because it was 175 feet from a building that, on the third floor, housed a KKG office is a)unproven b)fundamentally unprovable c)in TOTAL contradiction to what we know about how people, weird and not-so-weird choose to mail things.
Going back quite a ways (Mister Lake):
Delete------------
The major evidence related to the TIME of the crime is Ivins' lack of an alibi.
===================================================
Mister Lake, it has been explained to you over and over and over again on other venues (other blogs dealing with this case) that "lack of alibi" isn't evidence. You could verify that with an attorney. I bet one or two frequent your health club.
Ricard Rowley wrote: "It's evidence of LIKELY familiarity with the general area, the very thing we DON'T know that Ivins had and the very thing that the FBI back on November 9th 2001 listed as part of the 'behavioral assessment'"
DeleteInteresting point, but you're comparing apples and oranges.
The "behavioral assessment" was an educated guess based upon past cases as to what type of person committed the anthrax attacks. It's not evidence. And, as it turned out, the person who actually committed the anthrax attacks didn't fit every part of the "common pattern" for such crimes. Among the mismatches: he was not familiar with the area.
"DA: So, Detective Quinn, you ran down all the second story men in the greater metropolitan area and EVERY SINGLE ONE of them had an alibi, except for Mister Willie Sutton, is that correct?
DQ: That's correct.
--------------------------------------------
You can't do the above, it's inadmissible. It's a legit law enforcement technique but it's not evidence."
You CAN do the above. It's testimonial evidence showing how the suspect was identified from among other possible suspects. It's done every day in court. As I've said repeatedly, you need to learn more about evidence.
"Therefore the claim that that mailbox was picked by Ivins (or anyone else for that matter!)because it was 175 feet from a building that, on the third floor, housed a KKG office is a)unproven b)fundamentally unprovable"
It's proved by your own statement. The mailbox WAS undeniably 175 feet from the scene of the crime. It was undeniably used by the anthrax mailer. Other facts say that Ivins was the anthrax mailer. Ergo, Ivins used it to mail the letters. His exact reasoning cannot be known because the reasoning took place inside his head, and he's dead. But, the prosecutors can offer up possibilities or just leave it to the jurors to figure out the possibilities. As I've said repeatedly, you need to learn more about evidence.
"Mister Lake, it has been explained to you over and over and over again on other venues (other blogs dealing with this case) that "lack of alibi" isn't evidence."
Testimony from investigators that Ivins had no verifiable alibi IS EVIDENCE. Plus, the lack of an alibi makes almost everything else valid evidence. If Ivins had a verifiable, unshakable alibi, there would be no case. It is only because he had no verifiable alibi that everything else becomes useable in court. And, his lack of an alibi is established via "TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE" from investigators.
As I've said repeatedly, you need to learn more about evidence.
Ed
Richard Rowley wrote: "WHAT "won't explain" ?!?!?!?! I just TOLD you it's the signature. Signature as in "distinctive name" that a person writes to authenicate something. What could POSSIBLY be simpler than that?!?!?!"
DeleteIt's not a signature until you PROVE it's a signature. Until then, it's just some unverified and seemingly preposterous claim you make that no one has any reason to believe.
"And I ALSO told you (this thread) that I'm not going to get sued just to satisfy your curiousity. If you can't read the signature that's not MY fault!"
Yes, it IS your fault. You are the person making the claim. Therefore you need to prove your claim. You refuse to do so, so it's your fault that your claim is rejected and disbelieved.
If you cannot prove your claim, you should really just shut up about it. Blaming others because they cannot see what you claim to see is not only a characteristic of a True Believer, it's also a symptom of paranoia and mental disease.
Ed
Partial post by Mister Lake:
Delete------------
The "behavioral assessment" was an educated guess[...]
----------------------------------------------
And the KKG proximity as a REASON for picking a mailbox ISN'T "an educated guess"? It's a guess for sure. How "educated" it is, I'll leave for others to say.
---------------
Back to rest of sentence by Mister Lake:
---------------
"based upon past cases as to what type of person committed the anthrax attacks. It's not evidence."
--------------------------------------------------
And is there ANY precedent whatsoever ("based upon past cases") of perps mailing bombs or toxic substances, based on the proximity of the mailbox chosen to the business office of an organization with which they have an obsession? (I asked you this question before using different verbiage, and you never mentioned any such case(s)). If not then "It's not evidence". That is YOUR judgement Mister Lake. It coincides with my own
Partial post by Mister Lake:
Delete-----
Richard Rowley wrote: "WHAT "won't explain" ?!?!?!?! I just TOLD you it's the signature. Signature as in "distinctive name" that a person writes to authenicate something. What could POSSIBLY be simpler than that?!?!?!"
It's not a signature until you PROVE it's a signature. Until then, it's just some unverified and seemingly preposterous claim you make that no one has any reason to believe.
================================================
Mister Lake, you asked me THIS THREAD why I wouldn't share my hypothesis about Amerithrax. I gave you two (very valid) reasons. Here's a third:
3)Because you, Mister Lake, turn EVERYTHING into an argument. So I KNEW it was just a matter of time (and it turned out to be a vastly shorter time than I expected!) before you would COMPLETELY FORGET that I had no interest in discussing my hypothesis(and thereby avoid having to "prove" anything) and had hitherto (at Lew Weinstein's site, at Meryl Nass's site, here etc.) rather scrupulously AVOIDED even outlining it to the extent I (eventually) did in this thread just to placate you: (quoting my own post above): " not a conspiracy of the government, a conspiracy of domestic terrorists headed by a brilliant, if warped, mastermind, someone whose name would mean nothing to the general public, even if I were to write it*).".
NOW, as expected, you're making it out that I am trying to "convince" people of my hypothesis. If I were, I would HARDLY have avoided for 3 solid years (from Dec of 2008 at the very latest to the present thread)laying out my central hypothesis.
With Mister Lake you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't!
If you believe in the "amino acid code" (Gawd!), you don't need to even examine a counter-idea.
Partial post by Mister Lake:
Delete-----------------
"DA: So, Detective Quinn, you ran down all the second story men in the greater metropolitan area and EVERY SINGLE ONE of them had an alibi, except for Mister Willie Sutton, is that correct?
DQ: That's correct.
--------------------------------------------
You can't do the above, it's inadmissible. It's a legit law enforcement technique but it's not evidence."
You CAN do the above. It's testimonial evidence showing how the suspect was identified from among other possible suspects. It's done every day in court. As I've said repeatedly, you need to learn more about evidence.
==================================================
No. The trial is centered on the defendant and his relation (if any) to the crime(s). "Elimination" could only work juridically if:
1) you could be 100% sure that you had accounted for everyone who could possibly have done the crime.
(This is virtually impossible, that's ONE reason this legit law enforcement technique doesn't work in a courtroom)
2)you could be 100% sure that the 'alibis' were valid (this too couldn't be done to the level of certainty, a second reason this wouldn't work in a courtroom).
(There may be others; what am I, a lawyer?)
No way, Jose!
Partial post by Mister Lake:
Delete---------
"And I ALSO told you (this thread) that I'm not going to get sued just to satisfy your curiousity. If you can't read the signature that's not MY fault!"
Yes, it IS your fault. You are the person making the claim.[..]
===============================================
Claim? That's message board/blog talk. I make no "claim". YOU asked ME:
-------
How does your theory explain the traced-over characters in the media letter?
------------------------------------------------
Seeing no harm in telling you in GENERAL TERMS, I relented once again. Suddenly I'm someone making a "CLAIM" (!!!) and I have to "PROVE" (The word is Mister Lake's) that it's a signature. No thanks.
It isn't in my interests (financial or otherwise) to convince YOU. And the only way to POSSIBLY convince you of anything related to Amerithrax is to convince the FBI first. They would only reopen the case if FORCED to by the political class. Won't happen any time soon. I have other plans.
Richard Rowley wrote: "And the KKG proximity as a REASON for picking a mailbox ISN'T "an educated guess"?"
DeleteThe KKG proximity to the mailbox is a FACT. Ivins' obsession is a FACT. No "guesses" are necessary. The facts are presented to the jury, and the jury can do the guessing about why Ivins used the nearest mailbox to the KKG office.
"And is there ANY precedent whatsoever ("based upon past cases") of perps mailing bombs or toxic substances, based on the proximity of the mailbox chosen to the business office of an organization with which they have an obsession?"
Probably. Somewhere. But it's irrelevant. No one is trying to compare Ivins' motives and crime to some other case. It's a unique case.
"Because you, Mister Lake, turn EVERYTHING into an argument."
I don't turn things into arguments. I discuss the facts. The arguments come from you when you refuse to accept the facts as being facts. And when you argue that the facts prove nothing.
"NOW, as expected, you're making it out that I am trying to "convince" people of my hypothesis."
You're not trying to convince people to accept your hypothesis. As you say, you do not explain your hypothesis. So, you try to convince people that the FBI must be wrong because you have a better hypothesis and because the FBI's evidence isn't really evidence, and only the evidence that you won't explain is really evidence.
"1) you could be 100% sure that you had accounted for everyone who could possibly have done the crime."
Once again you demonstrate that you do not understand evidence or how the criminal justice system works. No one has to prove to a 100% certainty that there isn't some unknown person who could also have committed the crime.
All that has to be shown to the jury is that the investigators used "due diligence" when locating and eliminating other possible suspects.
"They would only reopen the case if FORCED to by the political class. Won't happen any time soon. I have other plans."
Hmm.
"Suddenly I'm someone making a "CLAIM" (!!!) "
You claimed you have some kind of evidence about the handwriting that I should have been able to see. Why only me? Why hasn't everyone else seen your interpretation of the highlighted characters in the media letter if it's so apparent?
Here are your exact words:
"THAT'S the true 'signature' but you have to know how to read it and you can't 'drop' letters you don't like (like the DoJ did). I 'solved' the traced-over letters in late Sept 2006. It's the Rosetta Stone of Amerithrax.'
You CLAIM a "true 'signature'" can be read in the media anthrax letter. You CLAIM it's "the Rosetta Stone of Amerithrax." You CLAIM you "solved" the traced over letters in late Sept 2006. And you've apparently just CLAIMED you have some plan to get your theory into the public arena that doesn't involve the FBI or persuading the "political class."
Do you have any idea of what theories people have voiced about what the highlighted characters mean? If you don't know, how do you know that your theory hasn't been proved wrong? And, if you're certain that no one else has seen what you claim you see, couldn't that mean it isn't really there?
I'm not trying to get you to divulge your theory. I'm just trying to get you to discuss something other than your wild misunderstandings about evidence and the judicial system, and something else besides your claims that the FBI must be wrong because Anthrax Truthers have opinions that the FBI is wrong.
Ed
Here's what an "intelligent" discussion is supposed to be like:
DeletePerson A says: I think X did it, and here are my reasons: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
Person B then says: I think Z did it, and here are my reasons: 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10. Your reasons 2 and 3 have been proved invalid by scientists.
Person A: Where? When?
Person B: In the January 2010 issue of "Super Science Magazine, page 149.
Person A: Ah. But hasn't your reason 10 also been proved wrong?
Person B: It was claimed to be wrong, but further checking showed it to be right. It's in the XYZ report on page 17.
Person A: Ah. I guess that proves that your hypothesis explains all the facts and mine does not. Thank you for showing me where I was wrong.
Ed
I came upon this oldie but goodie by Mister Lake:
Delete----------
Richard Rowley wrote: "And the KKG proximity as a REASON for picking a mailbox ISN'T "an educated guess"?"
The KKG proximity to the mailbox is a FACT. Ivins' obsession is a FACT. No "guesses" are necessary. The facts are presented to the jury, and the jury can do the guessing about why Ivins used the nearest mailbox to the KKG office.
----------------------------------------------
AGAIN you misstate things: the jury's task is to decide WHETHER 1)Ivins did the crime AT ALL (and the proximity of the KKG office is only useful to the extent that it HELPS them to make such a determination and 2)whether the case for Ivins having done it was proven "beyond a reasonable doubt".
In Mister Lake's version, as always, the "jury" is 12 people who think like Mister Lake: they take Ivins' guilt as a STARTING POINT and because of that can't see the proximity of the KKG office as even a potential coincidence having no bearing on guilt/innocence.
Richard Rowley wrote: "In Mister Lake's version, as always, the "jury" is 12 people who think like Mister Lake: they take Ivins' guilt as a STARTING POINT and because of that can't see the proximity of the KKG office as even a potential coincidence having no bearing on guilt/innocence."
DeleteIn Mr. Rowley's version, as always, the jury is a group of 12 people who think like Mr. Rowley: they are incapable of understanding that they MUST NOT make their decision of guilt or innocence until they have heard ALL the evidence.
In the real world, juries are INSTRUCTED to listen to ALL the evidence and then decide what might be a coincidence and what clearly is NOT a coincidence when determining the defendant's guilt or innocence.
In Mr. Rowley's fantasy world, circumstantial evidence isn't even allowed in court, because he believes each item of evidence must by itself be solid proof of guilt -- otherwise it isn't even evidence.
It's Mr. Rowleys same ridiculous belief just repeated over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.
Ed
Going WAY back, partial by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete----------------
So, did you think "Twelve Angry Men" was a real record of real events?
Or were you just being argumentative in using that movie to illustrate a point, and now you're being argumentative in refusing to see how a different movie can be used to illustrate a different point?
---------------------------------------------------------------
My MEMORY of it is: it's a drama. But obviously some dramas are more realistic than others. And SOME dramas teach moral lessons (as do Aesop's Fables, which I'm pretty sure no one mistakes for anything 'real' either).
In the 19th Century novels edged into a style of 'realism', probably beginning with the French. But reaching its zenith with Tolstoy, Dostoevsky etc. But there must have been a wide gulf nonetheless between WAR AND PEACE and the Napoleonic invasion of Russia. Even 'realism' is a relative term.
Twelve Angry Men seems to be a realistic drama. It does have lessons: about prejudice, about taking out personal domestic frustrations out on someone else (the Lee J Cobb character), about making too hasty a judgement. But it does wonderful things without seeming preachy.
Did you read that they (movies or TV) are doing a remake? Jack Klugman will play juror number 5 this time. He is the only survivor from the original film.
Richard Rowley asked: "Did you read that they (movies or TV) are doing a remake? Jack Klugman will play juror number 5 this time. He is the only survivor from the original film."
ReplyDeleteNo, I hadn't read that. However, Jack Klugman was Juror #5 in the original film.
Doing some research, I see it was remade in 1997 as a TV movie, but Klugman wasn't in it. It was made as a Russian movie in 2007, but again without Klugman.
Doing more research, I found a site HERE that says that Klugman will be doing a revival of the PLAY this coming spring. The article says:
George Street Playhouse in New Brunswick, N.J., announced that Mr. Klugman – who is 89 – will play Juror 9 in a production of the stage adaption “Twelve Angry Men” there March 13-April 8, 2012.
That's probably what you're referring to.
Ed
My mistake: it IS, as you say, a stage production and Klugman takes on the juror #9 role. Boy, I don't know how you can remember the juror numbers!
ReplyDeletehttp://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/21/jack-klugman-after-half-a-century-returning-to-twelve-angry-men/
Richard Rowley wrote: "Boy, I don't know how you can remember the juror numbers!"
ReplyDeleteI didn't remember the juror numbers, they were identified in the first place I looked, the Internet Movie Data Base.
That link also says that in the original movie the part of Juror #9 was played by Joseph Sweeney, but there's no picture of Sweeney. Looking him up on Google, I find he's the old guy who makes the fateful decision to support Henry Fonda when Fonda says he won't fight any further if they take another vote and it's 11 to 1. Juror #9 decides to side with Fonda just to let Fonda have his say.
I guess having 89-year-old Klugman play the part of the old man makes a lot of sense.
Ed
I can also envision the audience cheering when it's revealed that Klugman had come to the aid of Juror #8 (played by Fonda in the movie). It's a pretty dramatic moment in the movie. Everyone wanted to go home, and Juror #9 screwed things up. As I recall, in the movie they had everyone who voted guilty raise their hands, and Jurors #8 and #9 were the only Jurors who didn't raise their hands. Everyone else is stunned and they demand an explanation from Juror #9. Dramatic stuff.
ReplyDeleteEd
When I saw it as a kid on TV only Henry Fonda's name rang a bell.
ReplyDeleteWhen I saw it again a few years ago, I was stunned: 'Oh, that's Jack Klugman! And that's E.G. Marshall looking younger than I ever saw him! And that's Martin Balsam! And that's Lee J Cobb! And that's Ed Begley (though I'm more familiar with Ed Begley Jr.)! Weird. Like a class reunion, in reverse and on video.
I think that that film would be excellent for a Civics class to see.
Rats! I don't have the patience to look for the post so I'll just put it here: what Anonymous(?) was looking for as references in graphology texts:
ReplyDeleteTHE DEFINITIVE BOOK OF HANDWRITING ANALYSIS by Marc Seifer (2009, paperback). 318 pages including index. Starts with history of graphology. Author has 35 years (now 37?) of experience in field. Super impressive list of agencies worked with, both in Rhode Island and nationally (DoD, Undersea Warfare, UPS etc.)A professor who teaches psychology and forensic graphology at Roger Williams University in Bristol. PhD.
---------------------------------------------------------------
THE HANDWRITING ANALYST'S TOOLKIT by Peter West (2004). Much shorter book but attractive and I use for reference: chapter 5 gives examples of lower case forms for each letter of alphabet and probable significance. Emphasis on reading character and personality.
---------------------------------------------------------------
If I wanted to cross-reference stuff years ago I would also check particular things in a book at Borders. Alas, Borders is kaput.
As a reference, you rely on the text written by Dr. Seifer, who is "Past editor of MetaScience, A New Age Journal on Consciousness." Turning to his expert qualifications, do you know if he has ever been qualified as an expert to testify in federal court? Has this "Definitive Book" ever been accepted as a "learned treatise" so as to be admissible in evidence? When dealing with the subject of handwriting analysis -- again graphology is a pseudoscience -- the first questions one will want to address is: (1) is the fellow a qualified expert? (2) is the textbook admissible as a "learned treatise"?
DeleteThe rules governing admissibility are not beside the point. The admissibility of scientific evidence hinges on its reliability.