One topic mentioned in my Sunday comment on February 26 was the argument I've been having with an Anthrax Truther on this blog. It's probably the first time I've ever gotten a Truther to explain his beliefs, and it was very illuminating.
He argued that the reason there are some traced over characters in the anthrax letter sent to the media is because, in Hebrew writing, "1)straight horizontal lines tend to be extra thick" and "2)straight vertical lines tend to be the thinnest line."
In other words, the writer was trying to imitate writing in Hebrew.
I pointed out to the Truther that the thick and thin form of writing is brush-stroke-calligraphy and has nothing to do with normal writing done with a pencil or modern pen.
The Truther went silent for a day or two and then countered by writing this:
"So if you ARE trying to print something in Latin letters and yet give it a 'pseudoHebrew' style, the way to go is to follow the thickness/thinness style of that first "book print" Aleph, and to do that for ALL the letters which you wish to give that style."
And, of course, I pointed out that "the writer of the anthrax letters did NOT do it with ALL the letters. The writer wasn't consistent with highlighting A's and T's. The T's in DEATH are not highlighted. The A in TAKE is not highlighted, neither is the A in AMERICA or the second A in ALLAH nor the A in ISRAEL."
Any theory about the highlighted characters in the media letter has to explain the following:
1. Why are the first and last characters in the first and last lines highlighted?
2. Why is the A in the misspelled word "PENACILIN" highlighted instead of the A in "TAKE"?
3. Why are only T's and A's clearly highlighted.
4. Why aren't all T's and A's highlighted?
5. Why does every sentence in the letter consist of only three words?
The Anthrax Truther's theory answers none of those questions. The only theory that does answer all five questions is the theory provided by the FBI HERE.
In my Sunday comments, I also mentioned that I'm working on creating a couple pdf files that will show the photographs of Ivins' lab and office that I received via an FOIA request. I created a 2 page test file HERE. It looks like a good way to do it.
Other subjects I mentioned in my Sunday comments were the Portland hoax letters, the continuing attack on my web site from someone in Kazakhstan, and the statement in former Senator Russ Feingold's new book which says this about the anthrax attacks of 2001: "We may never know who really committed this crime."
It seems to me that all that is needed to "know" who committed the crime is to look at the facts. But, some seem to need an "official" finding of some kind -- a different official finding than that which has already been provided. But, would they accept any "official" finding if it doesn't agree with their beliefs? History has definitely indicated that they will not.
My G*D! And Mister Lake says that he doesn't "make stuff up"?~?!?!?!?! Just about this entire entry is made up:
ReplyDelete----------------------
February 26, 2012 (E) - Once again last week, the arguments on my interactive blog proved very fruitful. For what may be the first time, I managed to get an Anthrax Truther to explain some of his beliefs. And, it was very illuminating. I learned that the Truther was using Don Foster's article in Vanity Fair magazine as an authority. He seemed totally unaware that the article resulted in a lawsuit that was eventually settled for what appears to be millions paid to Steven Hatfill, or that Foster's writings have been shown to be largely nonsense. But, even more stunning was the revelation of why the Truther believed some of the A's and T's on the media letter were traced over: he viewed Hebrew brush-stroke calligraphy as normal writing. And, in another amazing post he indicated he believed the FBI would reinstate their $2.5 million dollar reward just to give it to him for finding out the "truth" about the case.
----------------------------------------------
The first three sentences are fine, after that it's time to get "shovel ready". First one:
--------------------
I learned that the Truther was using Don Foster's article in Vanity Fair magazine as an authority.
------------------------------------------
And on last week blog thead I EXPLICITLY and REPEATEDLY say that I used Foster PRIMARILY as an "informant" ie as a source of information on the FORMS of the lettering of the St Pete hoax letters since they (the forms) were available nowhere else. And I note (again last week's blog) that it was the FBI in 2001 that recognized Foster as an expert by:
1) contacting him about Amerithrax on Oct 12th 2001 so as to get the benefit of his forensic linguistics expertise.
2)providing him with copies of Amerithrax and St Pete hoax letters.
And of course I noted that in previous cases they had used Foster as an expert as well.
I went into EXCRUCIATING detail about where I disagreed with Foster's evaluation (the label "Russian" etc.). None of this stuff registered with Mister Lake.
(End Part I)
(Part II) Back to comment (E)
ReplyDelete--------------------------------------
He seemed totally unaware that the article resulted in a lawsuit that was eventually settled for what appears to be millions paid to Steven Hatfill, or that Foster's writings have been shown to be largely nonsense.
--------------------------------------------
I don't know how I "seemed" to be unaware of the lawsuit. I was aware (have been for YEARS) that Foster/Kristoff/et alia were objects of a lawsuit by the same person (Hatfill) who sued the DoJ. If that's a basis for not believing them (being the object of a lawsuit), then Mister Lake just provided ANOTHER reason not to believe that Ivins was guilty (call it reason #7,655,453): the DoJ being the plaintiff of Hatfill's lawsuit, settled for $5.8 million and THEY say that Ivins is guilty.
I said "plaintiff" here and I meant "defendant". I'm a chowderhead!
DeleteRichard Rowley wrote: "If that's a basis for not believing them (being the object of a lawsuit)"
DeleteYou're distorting things again. The Foster lawsuit and the New York Times lawsuits were totally different lawsuits. And, being the subject of a lawsuit is not the basis for disbelieving Foster.
The lawsuit against Foster and the two magazines was settled because it was clear that Foster had written totally incorrect information in his article. It's the totally incorrect information that makes Foster unbelievable.
And, comparing that lawsuit to the lawsuit against the government is just plain ridiculous. The lawsuit against the government was about privacy rights, not about any kind of claims regarding who sent the anthrax letters.
Ed
Partial post by Mister Lake:
Delete------------
The lawsuit against Foster and the two magazines was settled because it was clear that Foster had written totally incorrect information in his article. It's the totally incorrect information that makes Foster unbelievable.
===============================================
I don't know about "totally incorrect information": part of forensic linguistics is: drawing inferences about writing (via syntax, word choices, pragmatics etc). Inferences, by their very nature, are interpretive. Interpretive, by ITS very nature, means subject to error, subject to correction etc.
Hatfill was innocent. The whole world knows that NOW. Knew it by the fall of 2006 when the DoJ finally made it official. But I understand perfectly well WHY Foster and Rosenberg and others suspected him. In some cases, a touch of political coloring was involved (in particular I think that for Rosenberg Hatfill came across as too gung-ho right-wing etc. The perfect boogeyman).
Other factors had to do with coincidental appearances by Hatfill in places where hoax letters were mailed (London November of 2001). However, none of these people (Kristoff, Rosenberg, Foster) were operating in a vacuum. OTHER people in the world of BW were almost certainly relating THEIR suspicions about Hatfill.....telling Kristoff, Rosenberg and Foster about THEIR suspicions. A bad scene.
Richard Rowley wrote: "Hatfill was innocent. The whole world knows that NOW. Knew it by the fall of 2006 when the DoJ finally made it official."
DeleteThe "DoJ finally made it official" when they settled the lawsuit in June 2008 and then formally declared him innocent on August 9, 2008, after Ivins' suicide.
FYI, I was arguing that Hatfill was innocent as soon as I saw his name in print. In early August, 2002, I created a web page that declared that the persecution of Steven Hatfill was "all politics":
http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/clueless.html#politics
I wrote this comment on September 4, 2002:
"There's something very wrong here. This smacks of blacklisting. And, while I could be wrong, it appears that the DOJ is persecuting Dr. Hatfill simply as a way of relieving political pressure on themselves. Dr. Hatfill has not been charged with any crime. He apparently has a solid alibi for the dates of the anthrax mailings. And the FBI has stated repeatedly that he is not a suspect."
I wrote this comment on September 5, 2002:
"One thing that seems clear from all this is that the DOJ is behind the harassment of Dr. Hatfill, not the FBI. While the FBI is a division of the DOJ, the Department of Justice makes the decisions on who to arrest and - apparently in this case - who to harass."
Ed
(Part III)More arrant nonsense by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete---------------------------------------
But, even more stunning was the revelation of why the Truther believed some of the A's and T's on the media letter were traced over: he viewed Hebrew brush-stroke calligraphy as normal writing.
-----------------------------------------
I NOWHERE AND NEVER said that "Hebrew brush-stroke calligraphy" is "normal writing" (gosh, what could POSSIBLY be vaguer than the expression "normal writing"?). But go to the thread to see what I actually wrote as it bears no resemblence whatsoever to these distortions:
http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2012/02/feb-19-feb-25-2012-discussions.html#comment-form
Part IV Mister Lake's last distortion:
ReplyDelete------------------------------------------
And, in another amazing post he indicated he believed the FBI would reinstate their $2.5 million dollar reward just to give it to him for finding out the "truth" about the case.
-----------------------------------------------
And what did I actually write about the reward?
----------------------------------------------
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!
==============================================
If you were grading a person's reading comprehension and they paraphrased "that $2.5 million might as well be in another solar system, but ....you never know!" as "[..]he believed the FBI would reinstate their $2.5 million dollar reward just to give it to him for finding out the "truth" about the case.", I like to think you would FLUNK the person on that paraphrase. I'm expressing severe DOUBT, ie "in another solar system", a doubt that is nowhere in evidence in your absurdly tendentious paraphase "[...]just to give it to him for finding out the "truth" about the case."
From the entry above: (partial)
ReplyDelete-----------------------------------
4. Why aren't all T's and A's highlighted?
------------------------------------------------
Because the signature line(s) only need(s) a limited number of letters.
Richard Rowley wrote that I wrote on my web site: "he viewed Hebrew brush-stroke calligraphy as normal writing."
ReplyDeleteWhen I put something on my web site, it's usually after I've modified it about 30 times. And, after it's on my site, I continue to modify it. I saw that comment and changed it before you mentioned it. I changed it to:
"he viewed Hebrew brush-stroke calligraphy as what the writer was trying to imitate."
The comment about expecting the $2.5 million award wasn't just mentioned once. You also mentioned it when you wrote: "In our best exchanges, Mister Lake, I enjoy talking to you but $2.5 million is......real money."
That certain SEEMS like you are saying you can't go into details because you EXPECT to collect the $2.5 million award, and you don't want to risk someone else collecting it first.
Ed
Sharing certain info isn't something you can "take back": if/when there's political will to reopen the case. I'm saying that even a .00000001% chance of earning the reward money is a real (if minute) chance.
DeleteThe Hebrew subhypothesis I'm willing to share because it only takes one so far (ie even though no one saw the pseudoHebrew style, seeing it alone WON'T id the perp, but it WILL give you this equation: Amerithrax printer=St Pete hoax printer. And it does tell you that the printer knew the Hebrew alef-bet very well. Both things exonerate Ivins: he neither knew Hebrew (to our knowledge)nor did he have a chance to 'teleport' himself down to St Pete on a workday, a workday at USAMRIID whose documentation is abundant.
Richard Rowley wrote: "Both things exonerate Ivins"
DeleteOr, to put it correctly, both things might exonerate Ivins if they could be conclusively proved.
But, so would home movies taken by invisible men of black-garbed Ninja warriors sneaking into USAMRIID to steal samples of flask RMR-1029 and then more home movies of them writing and mailing the letters.
There is virtually NO chance of either coming true. You cannot possibly prove that "Amerithrax printer=St Pete hoax printer" since there's no reason to believe that anyone would ever see what you see. How could you possibly prove such a thing? As I've stated several times before, handwriting analysis is an ART, not a science, so it's virtually impossible to prove anything about handwriting with scientific certainty.
You would NEED scientific certainty to disprove all the existing evidence against Ivins. (Anthrax Truther fantasies that there is no evidence against Ivins is just that: fantasies.)
"it does tell you that the printer knew the Hebrew alef-bet very well."
No, it tells everyone that you began with a belief about a suspect and you are twisting and fantasizing about the evidence in order to make it support your beliefs.
Ed
Partial post by Mister Lake:
Delete-----------
You cannot possibly prove that "Amerithrax printer=St Pete hoax printer" since there's no reason to believe that anyone would ever see what you see.[...]
==============================================
What do you mean? Are you claiming you DON'T see that the cross bars on those 6 ----count 'em 6!--- T's are highlighted AND that the stems are NOT highlighted/extra heavy? I think that just about everyone who looks will SEE that. They may not INTERPRET it the way I do, but then as I mentioned:
1) 97% of Americans have no knowledge of the Hebrew alphabet (preventing that interpretation from even entering their minds).
2) 99.9999% of the US population hasn't spent years looking at printouts of the Brokaw and Leahy texts and/or the blown up versions of same at the UCLA epidemiology site. It's no an interest.
In short, they are in the same boat that I am in trying to say something about.....John Ford vs. Shakespeare as the author about that poem of questionable authorship. Clueless.
Partial post by Mister Lake:
Delete-------------------------
"it does tell you that the printer knew the Hebrew alef-bet very well."
No, it tells everyone that you began with a belief about a suspect[...]
-----------------------------------------------
If you are talking about Ivins ('suspect') then you've got the chronology all wrong:
1)late 2005 I start my linguistic analysis. No interpolations seen by me.
2)2006 I begin to see some but they are mostly Cyrillic and eventually I discard them as vagaries of the printing (ie coincidences with no systematicity to them).
3)circa 2007 redoubling my efforts, I start to see what was before me the whole time: SYSTEMATIC efforts in the Brokaw text to interpolate Hebrew alphabet elements.
4)late July/August 2008 Ivins dies/is accused.
5)I immediately calculate that there's a 70% chance he did it, a 30% chance someone else did it.
6)September to December 2008. As I familiarize myself with the evidence, it's clear that it's vastly weaker than the claims made for it ("beyond a reasonable doubt")
7)Feb 2010 FINAL REPORT. Eventually I digest that and realize that most of it is inadmissible stuff that tells us nothing about the likelihood that Ivins did it and that's it's essentially a PR document.
So, FIRST came my linguistic analysis, THEN came the Ivins saga. But if they HAD been able to place Ivins at the crime scene on the night of Sept 17/18, I would have been open to the possibility of his guilt.
I won't say that there's 0% chance of him having done it, but it's far lower than 1%.
Richard Rowley wrote: "They may not INTERPRET it the way I do, but then as I mentioned:
Delete1) 97% of Americans have no knowledge of the Hebrew alphabet (preventing that interpretation from even entering their minds)."
All you're saying is that you're interpreting things to fit what you want to believe. And, you ignore everything that doesn't fit.
The fact that you have some knowledge of the Hebrew alphabet doesn't mean that the Hebrew alphabet has anything to do with the anthrax writing. It just means you can interpret things that way if you try hard enough.
Someone with knowledge of Sanskrit could probably find some reason to argue that the writer of the anthrax letters knew Sanskrit if such a finding was his goal.
You start with a conclusion and then look for facts to fit that conclusion.
Conclusions should come from the facts, not the other way around.
Ed
Last sentence from above:
Delete--------You start with a conclusion and then look for facts to fit that conclusion.
============================================
Did you even READ my post above yours?!?!? There I give the chronology of my linguistic sleuthing and it's incompatible with what you just posted. I left out a few details: the TOWN OF QUANTICO letter text was released late (late 2008?) and I took my time analyzing it psycholinguistically. But it had the same author as the St Pete hoax letters and the Amerithrax letters.
Richard Rowley wrote:
DeleteExtraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You obviously have NO PROOF, just theories and beliefs.
As I said, you start with a conclusion and then look for facts to fit that conclusion.
You claim you didn't do that, but the facts say you did. How did you pick your "suspect" out of all the people in the world? It obviously wasn't because you had solid facts showing he was the only person in the would who could have done it.
Whether you realize it or not, you decided that your "suspect" did it based upon something you interpreted as "evidence" showing he did it, and then you just twist and distort everything else to make it fit your theory.
You don't seem to care if he had an alibi.
You don't seem to care if he had access to the Ames strain.
You don't seem to care if he had the means to make the anthrax powders.
You don't seem to care if he had the opportunity to make the anthrax powders.
You don't even talk about evidence showing motivation.
You just conclude that he did it, and you distort meaningless facts to make them fit your conclusion.
Ed
Partial post by Mister Lake:
Delete-----------
Richard Rowley wrote:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.[...]
------------------------------------------------
More message board cliche. I don't think so: "extraordinary claims" are in the eye of the beholder. Claiming that a person:
1)killed New Yorkers with a toxic substance because he thought they were crybabies (then killed people in DC and Florida with the same substance for COMPLETELY DIFFERENT reasons)
2)used a false zip code in a return address because the community had the word "Monmouth" in it and he was (secretly!) obsessed with that word BECAUSE the female fraternity he was (truly) obsessed with originated there
3) secretly drove twice to Princeton in the dead of night without anyone being the wiser AND secretly dried/purified anthrax in a government lab (a really SMALL government lab, if the pictures we've seen are any indication), this at night too
etc. I wouldn't call these things "extraordinary claims", I would call them claims that fly in the face of what we know about human nature: attributed motivation(s) that aren't even INTERNALLY consistent (and don't match up well with any known precedent), the ability of keep secrets (Ivins was, on the whole, a blabbermouth), the observational skills of Ivins' colleagues that Bruce was doing something 'different' in the lab(s). etc.
Richard Rowley wrote: "Because the signature line(s) only need(s) a limited number of letters."
ReplyDeleteDo you want me to try to interpret what you mean? Won't you just complain that I misinterpreted it incorrectly, no matter what I say.
Note, that the FBI's explanation says very clearly why only certain A's and T's were highlighted. Are you afraid that if you answer the question clearly, someone else will collect the $2.5 million award?
Why don't you try answering the other 4 questions? Why just answer one without really explaining what you mean? That says you really don't have any answers and your theory is not well conceived. A good hypothesis MUST address all the facts.
Ed
Richard Rowley wrote: "Because the signature line(s) only need(s) a limited number of letters."
DeleteDo you want me to try to interpret what you mean? Won't you just complain that I misinterpreted it incorrectly, no matter what I say.
------------------------------------------------------
Okay, let me interpret what I mean. (Note: this is just an example, ie something by way of analogy, it is NOT the name of the printer!)
Say you are the printer and your name is.....Tatum (I always think of Tatum O'Neal but I think it's a name for both genders).
Somewhere along the way, you acquire a diminutive, a casual tweaked form of your true name: Tato. Not everyone calls you that but it's a part of your identity and you think of YOURSELF as "Tato".
You decide to daringly incorporate your name into the Brokaw/Poster text, and to do it in CONJUNCTION with the highlighted pseudo-Hebrew elements of the text (sidenote: I haven't gotten to the full range of pseudoHebrew features yet but that's for later).
Well, if you do it 'straight up' you 1)aren't being clever enough (and this guy is VERY clever) and 2)you might make it easy for either law enforcement or some friend/relative/acquaintance of yours to say "Wait a moment! I know a Tato! Maybe he's the Anthrax Killer!".
Bad scene. But you REALLY REALLY want to 'sign your work', figuring it will be a continuous source of pleasure/pride, knowing what no one else knows: the deeper meaning.
What to do?
There are a few strategems available: tweek the name once again (beyond the original tweeking that mutated 'Tatum' to 'Tato'). Have the lettering read from right to left. Have the lettering read from bottom to top. Have the lettering read diagonally (at least 4 diagonal variants): have the diagonality go from this corner to that.
Back to 'tweeking'. Think about HOW such diminutives are formed to begin with. They are almost all done by some: 1)non-truncation deletion 2)transformation, -um to -o in the name in question. 3)truncation (truncations can occur in the beginning or at the end of the original name).
4)consonant cluster reduction(even sometimes to the point of deletion (see 1)). Etc.
And tweeking can be done ALONG with changing the read. That was done in the Brokaw text. He signed it twice in the highlighting. But his name isn't Tato.
There were lots of people who believed that the leader of the 9/11 hijackers. Mohamad ATTA, "signed" the letter, since A's and T's are highlighted, and four of the letters do spell Atta: TTTAATTAT.
DeleteBut, all it proves is that, like what you're doing, you can make some things fit any theory. The problem is: You have to ignore fifty solid facts in order to find the one you can distort to support your theory.
Ed
In my treatment of diminutive formation methods, I SOMEHOW left out a very common one: adding morphemes/diminutive suffixes etc.
DeleteThink ".....the Dude.....or the Duderino, if you're not into the whole brevity thing!" from the movie THE BIG LEBOWSKI
Anyway, if you do this insertion of "Tato" once, you only need 2 T's to be highlighted. If you insert two instances of "Tato" you need 4 T's. Whatever T's are superfluous to the effort are left unhighlighted.
DeletePartial post by Mister Lake:
Delete---------
Note, that the FBI's explanation says very clearly why only certain A's and T's were highlighted.
------------------------------------------
And do they explain why only the cross bars of the 'T's are highlighted? No, they do not.
At LEAST for that detail my explanation is better.
Richard Rowley wrote: "And do they explain why only the cross bars of the 'T's are highlighted? No, they do not.
DeleteAt LEAST for that detail my explanation is better."
But the FBI's explanation doesn't require that both strokes be traced over, only that those T's are highlighted. And, their theory explains why some of the T's are NOT traced over. You claim you have an explanation for that, too, but you won't tell anyone what it is. So, for now you have no explanation to offer.
You pick a few insignificant things to use to support your theory and ignore the MOUNTAIN of facts which does not support your theory.
Ed
This I skipped over before: Mister Lake(partial):
Delete---------
Richard Rowley wrote: "And do they explain why only the cross bars of the 'T's are highlighted? No, they do not.
At LEAST for that detail my explanation is better."
But the FBI's explanation doesn't require that both strokes be traced over, only that those T's are highlighted.
------------------------------------------------
But if the stems aren't highlighted (and they aren't)
the T's aren't "highlighted", they are HALF-highlighted (the stems being AT LEAST as long at the crossbars, in most cases longer). You would NEVER get that from Willman's book because instead of providing photos/facsimiles of the Brokaw letter (so the reader can decide for himself), Willman just highlights WHOLE LETTERS, and only highlights the letters that the government claims are highlighted. Very misleading.
Richard Rowley wrote: "But if the stems aren't highlighted (and they aren't) the T's aren't "highlighted", they are HALF-highlighted (the stems being AT LEAST as long at the crossbars, in most cases longer).
DeleteYou're creating rules to suit your beliefs. There are no official rules on what constitutes "highlighting."
The reason why the A's and T's aren't clearly highlighted would seem to be that clearly highlighting characters would make them too noticeable.
There's a hidden message in the letter, and if you CLEARLY highlight specific characters in a way that can't be misinterpreted, it would cause EVERYONE to realize that the A's and T's are deliberately highlighted for some specific reason. And everyone would try to figure out what that reason is.
Doing a bad job of it assured that the hidden message wasn't easily decoded.
Besides, there's another reason the characters are highlighted the way they are. I explain it on my web page here:
http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/WritingFacts.html
Look for the boxed note near the bottom that was added on February 28, 2010.
Ed
Since I have Mister Lake on a thread, I'd like to pick his brain for a moment on a minute detail of Amerithrax. As it happens, I'm in the middle of writing MY "final report" on Amerithrax (just 2 years behind the DoJ but they had a head start!), and am trying to fill in all the empty spaces.
ReplyDeleteOne such: the postal location (postmark location) of the TOWN OF QUANTICO LETTER. As far as I can see, though they gave the DATE of the postmark (Sept 21 or 26th, I always forget!), nowhere is the location given. I figure that if they can SEE the date, they can likely see the location (it's on the same postmark). I already dealt with the linguistics of the letter (in a previous document) but to determine the distribution of the letters (the underground network) it would help to know where it entered the postal system. Thanks!
Richard Rowley wrote: "it would help to know where it entered the postal system."
ReplyDeleteI don't think that information has been made public. It was postmarked on Sept. 26, 2001. I found this in a January 26, 2002 article by Laura Rosen on Salon.com:
----------
Dr. Assaad is a potential biological terrorist," the letter stated, according to Assaad and McDermott. The letter was received by the FBI in Quantico, Va., but Assaad did not learn from the FBI where it had been mailed from. "I have worked with Dr. Assaad," the letter continued, "and I heard him say that he has a vendetta against the U.S. government and that if anything happens to him, he told his sons to carry on."
---------
The facts suggest it was mailed from somewhere around Frederick, MD, Washington D.C. or Quantico, VA.
Ed
Thanks! It really is a minute point but since I'm confident the letter was written by the main perp, I had to go the extra mile to determine the postmark.
ReplyDeleteRichard Rowley wrote: "I'm confident the letter was written by the main perp"
DeleteSince the letter was TYPED or COMPUTER PRINTED, it was not like the anthrax letters or the St. Petersburg hoax letters. Part of the letter can be viewed by clicking HERE
It's clear from the letter that the writer was someone who worked at USAMRIID and knew Assaad very well, so, unless your "culprit" worked at USAMRIID and knew Assaad very well, the facts say your confidence is misplaced.
Ed
Partial post by Mister Lake:
Delete----------
It's clear from the letter that the writer was someone who worked at USAMRIID and knew Assaad very well, so, unless your "culprit" worked at USAMRIID and knew Assaad very well, the facts say your confidence is misplaced.
=================================================
Actually, nowadays you can learn a enormous amount about a person via the Internet. Especially if the person's name isn't Smith/Jones/etc (ie super common) AND there's some distinguishing characteristic(s) about the person. A toxicologist named Ayaad Assaad who works at the EPA isn't going to be hard to find (meaning localize geographically, organizationally etc.).
My guess is: AFTER Assaad filed his lawsuit against USAMRIID(?) there were news stories about it. News stories that got the attention of the agent provocateur in question: he decided that this guy was 'perfect' for his purposes. Not just the ex-USAMRIID connection, not just the fact that Assaad was Arab in origin, but the fact that because of the DETAILS of the situation that had prevailed at USAMRIID when Assaad was there (the whole 'Camel Club' harassment thing), THEY (some ex-Camel Club member(s)) would be blamed for the letter. A red herring (the letter of denunciation) that had a built-in FURTHER red herring (the likely ascription of the QUANTICO LETTER to a CC member or other 'racist' enemy of his).
But Assaad WASN'T perfect: he wasn't Muslim and thus was an unlikely Muslim jihadist. But perhaps THAT detail wasn't in the news stories about his lawsuit/the harassment etc.
Richard Rowley wrote: "Actually, nowadays you can learn a enormous amount about a person via the Internet."
DeleteYou're rationalizing again. In case you've forgotten, "rationalizing" means you are digging around to find things which you can distort to fit your argument, and which no one can prove to be false.
I can't prove your reasoning to be false, but everyone should be able to see that it makes no sense whatsoever.
"My guess is: AFTER Assaad filed his lawsuit against USAMRIID(?) there were news stories about it. News stories that got the attention of the agent provocateur in question"
You're assuming that the age discrimination lawsuit made the papers. Assaad was one of the three people involved in the lawsuit which was apparently filed in 1997. I can't find any mention of the lawsuit prior to the anthrax attacks.
Ed
Partial post by Mister Lake:
Delete-------------
Richard Rowley wrote: "Actually, nowadays you can learn a enormous amount about a person via the Internet."
You're rationalizing again. In case you've forgotten, "rationalizing" means you are digging around to find things which you can distort to fit your argument, and which no one can prove to be false.
------------------------------------------------
Well, am I the only one doing that?
Can ANYONE "prove" that Ivins DIDN'T have an obsession (an obsession he apparently never spoke about/alluded to/expressed in any manner) with the word "Monmouth"? No, they can't.
Is that a rationalization?
Can ANYONE therefore "prove" that Ivins DIDN'T choose the Leahy letter zip code (08852) because it was the zip to Monmouth Junction? No, they can't.
Is that a rationalization?
Can ANYONE "prove" that Ivins (or anyone else)DIDN'T choose that mailbox because of its proximity (175 feet) to the KKG business office? No, they can't. Is that a rationalization?
Can ANYONE "prove" that Ivins' antipathy to the kvetching of New Yorkers didn't extend to murdering them through the mail? No, they can't. Is that a rationalization?
Can ANYONE "prove" that Ivins DIDN'T commit suicide because of a 'consciousness of guilt' over Amerithrax? Nope. Is that a rationalization?
Maybe you 'spot' rationalizations so well, Mister Lake, because you've spent so much time inventing them/endorsing them when they agree with the overall proposition ("Bruce Ivins, acting alone, yadda yadda yadda....").
Partial post by Mister Lake:
Delete--------------
Since the letter was TYPED or COMPUTER PRINTED, it was not like the anthrax letters or the St. Petersburg hoax letters.[...]
=================================================
Yes, I know. And that's why the only way (that I can think of!) to detect a common authorship is psycholinguistics: at the deepest psychological level the author reveals himself.
You're assuming that the age discrimination lawsuit made the papers. Assaad was one of the three people involved in the lawsuit which was apparently filed in 1997. I can't find any mention of the lawsuit prior to the anthrax attacks.
Delete---------------------------------------------------
Yes, I assume that it at least made the Frederick News-Post. Not so much for the 'age discrimination' angle as for the fact that (evidently, based on news accounts in later years)the plaintiff dragged in stuff about him getting harassed by the Camel Club and the commander of USAMRIID did nothing (this was in the early 1990s, several years before the layoff that led to the lawsuit).
Richard Rowley wrote: "Can ANYONE "prove" that Ivins DIDN'T have an obsession (an obsession he apparently never spoke about/alluded to/expressed in any manner) with the word "Monmouth"? No, they can't."
DeleteIt was PROVED that Ivins had an obsession with the KKG sorority. He stated so himself. He made it very clear. And, his actions further proved he had an obsession with KKG.
KKG was founded at Monmouth College in Monmouth, IL.
Ivins' ancestors were from Monmouth, NJ.
The ZIP code on the senate letters was for Monmouth Junction, NJ.
There is NO RATIONALIZATION. It's all solid facts. It's is NOT rationalizing to suggest that Ivins used that ZIP code because of his KKG obsession. It is a logical conclusion based upon the facts.
Rationalizing, the way you do it, is to pick things out of the air and to declare they could prove your theory.
Your best recent example of rationalizing: (1) assuming that the Assaad lawsuit was printed in a newspaper, (2) assuming that your culprit read that newspaper, (3) assuming that your culprit had some reason to incorporate that information into the Assaad letter, and (4) assuming that linquistics can show a connection between the anthrax letters and the Assaad letter. From those unproved assumptions involving NO FACTS whatsoever you conclude that your culprit wrote the Assaad letter.
If you can't see the difference, it shows you are totally blind to anything and everything that doesn't support your theory.
Ed
Partial post by Mister Lake:
Delete-----------
Richard Rowley wrote: "Can ANYONE "prove" that Ivins DIDN'T have an obsession (an obsession he apparently never spoke about/alluded to/expressed in any manner) with the word "Monmouth"? No, they can't."
It was PROVED that Ivins had an obsession with the KKG sorority.[...]
==============================================
That does NOT establish, logically or in any other way (and certainly not juridically!) that Ivins had an obsession with the word "Monmouth".
ANOTHER example (honestly, if I even have to give such examples, it's a bad sign!):
Joe Schmoe has an obsession with Mary Jane Watson.
Mary Jane lives on Elm Street. Does THAT mean that Joe Schmoe has an obsession with the word "elm"? No, it does not. And examples of this sort could be supplied ad nauseum. Obsessions don't 'travel' well. You could have an obsession about a woman and find her sister repulsive. The former has NOTHING to do with the latter.
PATHETIC line of argumentation.
Richard Rowley wrote: "That does NOT establish, logically or in any other way (and certainly not juridically!) that Ivins had an obsession with the word "Monmouth"."
DeleteThat's just another one of your "straw man" arguments. NO ONE ever said that "Ivins had an obsession with the word 'Monmouth'." You create that idiotic claim just so you can argue against it.
Ivins was obsessed with the KKG sorority.
Continuing to create straw man arguments just so you can dispute them is a PATHETIC line of argument.
Ed
Partial post by Mister Lake:
Delete-----------
Your best recent example of rationalizing: (1) assuming that the Assaad lawsuit was printed in a newspaper,[...]
=============================================
There are assumptions and then there are assumptions.
Frederick MD is, in effect, a 'company town'. That company is Fort Detrick/USAMRIID. Has been since I was knee-high to a grasshopper. Just as there are few secrets in other company towns, a big brouhaha like the COMBINATION of the discrimination lawsuit and the antics of the Camel Club would be hard to hide. And that's EXACTLY the sort of thing to sell newspapers, so if anyone in the local media got wind of it (the totality of the circumstances that those scientists complained about), it would have been in AT LEAST the local media. In addition, most papers of any size have 'court reporters'. I'm guessing the Frederick News-Post has one, had one in 1997. It cannot be precluded that one of the plaintiffs, in person or through an attorney, decided that media attention might help his suit. Etc.
IOW it isn't just any old assumption, it's an assumption based on probability, knowledge of how the media work, etc.
Partial post by Mister Lake:
Delete---------------
(2) assuming that your culprit read that newspaper,
--------------------------------------------------
It could be that the story was picked up by a wire service. Or he was interested in USAMRIID, and did google searches in 1997 on USAMRIID. (He's been interested in anthrax since AT LEAST 1997) Usually when you do such searches and there's 'breaking news' connected to the search term(s) used, that hit (those hits)show(s) up at the top of the queue.
Another tangent but relevant to the whole concept of "pseudo-whatever" writing styles. Though I don't ever remember seeing 'pseudo-Hebrew' style until I stumbled upon it quite belatedly in the Brokaw text, I have seen, down through the years, many instances of pseudo-Cyrillic (in most instances, if not all, intending to portray Russian Cyrillic).
ReplyDeleteAn example, when that movie "Red Dawn" came out in the 1980s, the title on the poster featured an 'A' that was so constructed so
as to suggest the Cyrillic letter 'D' (more or less the same as Greek 'Delta'). See:
http://thetincocoon.blogspot.com/2008/12/red-dawn-1984-remember-when-american.html
Another VERY common pseudo-Cyrillic feature is to reverse the letter 'R' since this is very similar to the last letter of the Cyrillic alphabet, 'ya'.
The backwards letter 'N' that Don Foster observed in the St Pete hoax letters is another common pseudo-feature for Cyrillic.
Apparently there were plans for (will still be?) a remake of Red Dawn with Chinese or Korean villains. So guess what? Pseudo-hanzi
lettering: see:
http://screenrant.com/red-dawn-villains-china-north-korea-schrad-106177/
On this next one the poster, 1/3rd of the way down shows not just pseudo-hanzi but on the right instances of pseudoHangeul (Hangul)
(the Korean syllabary). At least I THINK it's pseudo-! (Anyone with knowledge of Hang(e)ul, please correct me.
Anyway, what brought on this PARTICULAR post was: in the weekend issue of the Wall Street Journal there is a sort of come-on for a story inside the paper, the come-on being in the upper left corner of the front page: AFTER PUTIN. But 3 of those letters are done pseudo-Cyrillic style: the A (I think), the E (for sure), and the U.
So this pseudo-whatever printing style is out there. But it's so much a part of the scenery that most of us barely notice it.
Richard Rowley wrote: "So this pseudo-whatever printing style is out there."
ReplyDeleteBut, the anthrax letters had no backward characters. Plus, the culprit clearly knew how to spell penicillin, since when the misspelled it PENACILIN he highlighted the A that doesn't belong. That says, he wanted the spelling error and the A to attract notice.
Your convoluted explanations really explain nothing. There is no similarity between the St. Petersburg letters and the anthrax letters, other than that they are both printed with all capital letters. But, that's pretty much the standard for for hoax letters.
Ed
Partial post by Mister Lake:
Delete-------------------
Richard Rowley wrote: "So this pseudo-whatever printing style is out there."
But, the anthrax letters had no backward characters.[...]
----------------------------------------------------
But there are no Hebrew letters, to my knowledge, that resemble a backward or reversed version of an individual Latin letter. In Cyrillic there are at least two: "ya" which indeed looks like a backwards 'R', and "ii" which looks like a backwards 'N'. You have to go with what the writing system provides and that means parameters.
Somehow I neglected to post the link to the RED DAWN site with both the pseudo-hanzi and the pseudo-hangul. It is here:
ReplyDeletehttp://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=254402
Scroll down 1/3rd of the way.
The fact that you seem to be a fan of "RED DAWN" isn't helping your cause.
DeleteAt the time it was released, Red Dawn was considered the most violent film by the Guinness Book of Records and The National Coalition on Television Violence, with a rate of 134 acts of violence per hour, or 2.23 per minute.
I thought it was a total waste of time.
Ed
Partial post:
Delete--------------
The fact that you seem to be a fan of "RED DAWN" isn't helping your cause.
-------------------------------------------------
Never saw it. But it came to mind because I was studying Russian in the mid-1980s when it came out and the publicity campaign was ubiquitous.
I like Lea Thompson though, so even dreck has a saving grace or two.
I regret that "Penacilin" is for the book.
DeleteSo, to get back to what I started on in last week's blog thread: the Hebrew elements interpolated into the printing by the printer.
ReplyDeleteAs I showed via the links provided, the TRADITIONAL Hebrew print forms of letters include a significant number which are roughly T-like: either having a single stem topped by a crossbar (Daleth, Reish, Zayin, arguably even the Vav), or having a sort of double stem with a crossbar-like straight line stroke at the top: Hey, Chet, Tav. In all cases the crossbar is extra heavy/thick, the vertical stem(s) regular or extra thin.
The way they are depicted, with the horizontal crossbar extra thick/heavy is how the 6 highlighted T's of the Brokaw/Post text are depicted. Said another way, NONE of those 6 T's exhibits highlighting of the slightest sort in the stems themselves. This is the single most pervasive pseudoHebrew feature interpolated into the text.
Others:
1)the 3 instances of the letter A that are highlighted are done that way in their entirety: the sides because these are treated like diagonal strokes (extra heavy/thick), the connecting stroke because it is horizontal.
2) the "T" in DEATH of the 4th line isn't a 'T' at all, it's a Daleth. This would be obvious to a Hebrew native if the 'T' in question were presented in isolation. But in the middle of Latin letters, it is interpreted at a 'T'.
3)evem the 'T' above that one, the 'T' of DEATH in the 3rd line is really a cross between a true "T" and a Daleth.
(Said another way ie in points 2 and 3 above, there isn't a single letter 'T' in the Brokaw letter which isn't given at least a touch of pseudo-Hebrew influence.)
In addition:
4)the letters I and C in AMERICA (third line) are set off from the rest of the letters of the word, are written close together and are identical in form to the SCRIPT FORM of the Alef (the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet). See second group (cursive)first line far right here:
http://www.ruthsjewishstamps.com/Alphabets.htm
Richard,
ReplyDeleteThe person of your interest was at a particular University which, at your request, will remain nameless. The University never had virulent anthrax i.e., virulent Ames -- let alone virulent Ames with the 4 morphs. A search of the literature could have confirmed that -- as could have inquiry to the University itself.
By way of example, in tracking potential access to Brandeis, the first step was to search the literature and news articles and the second was to contact the professor, find out what strains they had (and where it was kept and how it was labeled). (The answer was Vollum and the labeling reflected the building).
The same procedure was needed for University of Texas at Houston which involved contacting Dr. Koehler and finding out the reason for the upgrade to BL-3 in March 2001. (The answer was that they were inserting plasmids into avirulent strains).
You asked me not to identify the University so I won't. But you should not even be wasting the first nanosecond examining handwriting (relying on New Age texts no less) without first considering basic questions of access to Ames, access to powdered Ames or the ability to make it into a powder, and travel to the location on those dates. Of course, motive -- entirely lacking -- also helps too.
The suggestion that a particular Battelle employee was responsible was equally specious and easily disproven by contacting the scientist and asking him detailed questions that permitted the theory to be roundly debunked.
Disproving Ed's theory was even easier upon contacting the fellow.
You folks have to understand the type of evidence that is probative and the type of research that gets questions of "whodunnit" answered.
Partial by Anonymous:
Delete---------
[...]You asked me not to identify the University so I won't. But you should not even be wasting the first nanosecond examining handwriting (relying on New Age texts no less[...]
-------------------------------------------------
As I explained previously, though I think there IS a general psychological validity to a disciplined, examine-the-whole-gestalt of-the-writing-sample approach (ie truly professional handwriting analysis per se)--------this in addition to the well-established competency of document examiners in comparing handwriting samples/looking for forgeries etc.----------my linguistic approach to the letters relied not at all on anything I read in a graphology book. My approach was simply:
1) this is a COMPLETELY artificial way of printing, a way of printing that is meant to deceive AND that bears no resemblance to that of the printer's normal printing.
2) what is the method that was used to deceive? (Or methods?)
Eventually, after much back and forth, I came upon it (though I still suspect that the sinuous quality of the letter 'S' was designed with the Arabic letter 'ya' in mind).
As to the rest, I not only won't mention particular suspects here (ie on the Internet), I won't mention suspect institutions.
Much of my work of late HAS been in the area of discerning inter-institutional relationships, especially in the 2000-1 timeframe. Alas, I won't be sharing that here. Nor in my (much fantasized about) book. Legal considerations.
Not only did the University not have anthrax/Ames anthrax, but the person you focus on has no microbiological training. He literally is as far from a viable candidate as one could possibly get -- lacking means, motive, modus operandi and opportunity. You make wild assumptions about where he was in September and October 2001. Your misplaced emphasis on handwriting parallels Ed's. In Ed's case, he adopts the DOJ's theory which incorrectly credits a particular letter as double-lined when it wasn't. See 302 interview statement addressing the issue. See also forensic handwriting analysis from 2001 that GAO needs to obtain from FBI.
DeleteRichard,
ReplyDeleteYour fellow Anthrax Truther "Anonymous" is explaining to you why your theory is meaningless unless you can explain critical facts.
Finding something that you can twist to argue a point doesn't mean you have a real case. It just shows you ignore everything that you cannot twist and distort.
"Anonymous" does the same thing to argue his belief about who sent the anthrax letters.
And, you BOTH believe everyone else has "to understand the type of evidence that is probative and the type of research that gets questions of 'whodunnit' answered" in order to come to your conclusions.
Reality, of course, is very different from what both of you believe.
Ed
And just one last time: in NONE of the graphology/handwriting books I ever looked at was there a section/chapter/subheading/paragraph/sentence/clause about discerning interpolations of foreign writing systems in a given text. Probably because it so seldom happens.
ReplyDeleteTHEREFORE (and probably for other reasons I can't think of at the moment)I never used anything from those books in evaluating the writing of Amerithrax.
Richard,
ReplyDeleteOne need never concern oneself with handwriting absent access to virulent Ames.
Turning to a survey of universities...
UNM, for example, obtained virulent Ames from RMR-1029 in March 2001 even though its BL-3 report was not going to be built under December 2001.
LSU received its virulent Ames from Porton Down.
The GMU researchers did their research with virulent Ames at Southern Research Institute in downtown Frederick.
In contrast, the university that is the venue of your theory NEVER had virulent Ames and so the theory is still-born. It never even had virulent anthrax of any strain, did it?
One never comes close to bother considering questions of handwriting absent access to Ames.
Partial post by Anonymous:
Delete------------
UNM, for example, obtained virulent Ames from RMR-1029 in March 2001 even though its BL-3 report was not going to be built under December 2001.
=====================================================
Thank you very much! You have NO idea how helpful that was. Is the UNM situation written down where I can make reference to it (look at it, cite it?)? I'm writing several documents on various aspects of Amerithrax and this info, if I could footnote it, at least, would fit in with one of them!
Anonymous wrote: "One never comes close to bother considering questions of handwriting absent access to Ames."
ReplyDeleteTo Richard Rowley:
Or, as I would phrase it: if your suspect didn't have access to the Ames strain and the morphs found in flask RMR-1029, all your jibber-jabber about handwriting is just a waste of time and meaningless.
Ed
I meant to write:
ReplyDeletethe BL-3 lab at UNM reportedly was not completed under December 2001 and so the reason for the mailing to UNM in March 2001 is a mystery.
Back to the above on subsequent posts but, strangely enough, though I've had my pseudoHebrew subhypothesis for several years now, I TOTALLY ignored what is close to my PRIME DIRECTIVE: when in doubt, Google it.
ReplyDeleteIgnored until tonight:
http://www.abstractfonts.com/search/pseudo+hebrew
(Included is pseudoHellenic font and real Hebrew but much of it is pseudoHebrew. Gee, the Internet has everything!)
Prior posts:
ReplyDelete----------
Anonymous wrote: "One never comes close to bother considering questions of handwriting absent access to Ames."
To Richard Rowley:
Or, as I would phrase it: if your suspect didn't have access to the Ames strain and the morphs found in flask RMR-1029, all your jibber-jabber about handwriting is just a waste of time and meaningless.
========================================================
Well, now the three of us......uh oh, Mister Lake doesn't like the word "agree", especially when it concerns a True Believer. So our thoughts overlap!
Richard Rowley wrote: "I don't think so: "extraordinary claims" are in the eye of the beholder. Claiming that a person:
ReplyDelete1)killed New Yorkers with a toxic substance because he thought they were crybabies (then killed people in DC and Florida with the same substance for COMPLETELY DIFFERENT reasons)"
More wild distortions. More straw man arguments.
"It could be that the story was picked up by a wire service.
More rationalizations.
For some reason having nothing to do with evidence, you apparently picked a suspect that you thought could be the anthrax mailer because there was something about him that you considered to be suspicious.
Then you proceeded to find things that you could interpret as being "evidence" against this person.
There's no reason for anyone to further respond to your irrational arguments if you can't answer a few basic questions:
1. What caused you to choose your suspect out of all the people in the world?
The FBI identified Ivins as the anthrax mailer by a process of elimination. Nearly everyone else with access to the spores in flask RMR-1029 either had a solid alibi or had no capability to make the spores found in the letters.
2. How did your suspect obtain spores from flask RMR-1029?
Ivins controlled flask RMR-1029 and had daily access.
3. Where did your suspect create the attack spores?
Ivins had a lab and sophisticated equipment at his disposal, and he could work alone during long hours at night and on weekends to make the spores.
4. How do you know your suspect doesn't have an alibi?
The FBI determined that Ivins had no verifiable alibi.
5. Where did your suspect buy the envelopes?
The facts say the envelopes used in the mailings were sold at a post office used by Bruce Ivins.
Since all you do is distort facts, rationalize and ignore all the facts which say you are wrong, there doesn't seem to be much point in debating details with you if you cannot adequately answer basic questions which would show if your suspect is a viable suspect and your reasoning is logical reasoning.
Ed
Partial post by Mister Lake:
Delete-----------------
Richard Rowley wrote: "I don't think so: "extraordinary claims" are in the eye of the beholder. Claiming that a person:
1)killed New Yorkers with a toxic substance because he thought they were crybabies (then killed people in DC and Florida with the same substance for COMPLETELY DIFFERENT reasons)"
More wild distortions. More straw man arguments.
====================================================
Oh, and one 'side' of the "amino acid code" 'solution' ISN'T "FNY" and that WASN'T interpreted as "[p]uck New York" and connected to Ivins' antipathy to New Yorkers? Of course it was. So how is it a "straw man"?
Since that motivation couldn't have explained letters to politicos in DC and to tabloids in Florida, I think I summed things up nicely.
Sorry that I can't/won't answer every single question that pops into someone's head. Buuuuuuuut:
ReplyDelete4. How do you know your suspect doesn't have an alibi?
Oh, he DOES have an alibi: the best one possible. He wrote the letters and had someone ELSE mail them in Jersey (hence: conspiracy). He wasn't within 1000 miles of that mailbox, never visited (I'm sure)the entire state in Sept-Oct 2001.
(Cleverly)guilty people have "iron-clad alibis"; the innocent don't realize they need them. Didn't you ever watch COLUMBO?
Richard Rowley wrote: "Oh, he DOES have an alibi: the best one possible."
ReplyDeleteSo, it appears you have NOTHING that would convince ANYONE that your suspect is the anthrax mailer. It's just something you believe.
What else is there to say? You've made your position clear. All you can do is distort facts, rationalize and create straw man arguments to promote your beliefs.
Ed
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete--------
Richard Rowley wrote: "Oh, he DOES have an alibi: the best one possible."
So, it appears you have NOTHING that would convince ANYONE that your suspect is the anthrax mailer.[...]
---------------------------------------------------
I don't know about "anyone" but I wasn't counting on convincing you, Mister Lake. Your tastes don't run to the paradoxical:
1)person has alibi=person is innocent
2)person doesn't have alibi=person is guilty
-------------
Evidently you didn't watch Columbo.
Richard Rowley wrote: "1)killed New Yorkers with a toxic substance because he thought they were crybabies (then killed people in DC and Florida with the same substance for COMPLETELY DIFFERENT reasons)"
ReplyDeleteAnd
"Since that motivation couldn't have explained letters to politicos in DC and to tabloids in Florida, I think I summed things up nicely."
It's been explained to you many times that the facts say Ivins didn't intend to kill ANYONE.
So, saying he intended to kill New Yorkers "because he thought they were crybabies" is just plain ridiculous and another silly straw man argument. That's an argument you manufactured just so you could argue against it.
The "FNY" code in the letter was most likely a coded comment relating to his former assistant Mara Linscott's love for New York City. The other interpretation of the coded message referred to his other assistant "PAT."
Richard Rowley also wrote:
"1)person has alibi=person is innocent
2)person doesn't have alibi=person is guilty
That's another silly straw man argument and another distorted claim.
No one ever said that if a person doesn't have an alibi that means he's guilty. You made up that nonsense as a straw man argument just so you could argue against it.
The evidence says Ivins' was guilty.
A verifiable alibi could disprove the evidence. Ivins had no verifiable alibi. Therefore, the evidence is not disproved.
"Evidently you didn't watch Columbo."
I watched "Columbo." Columbo found evidence to prove people guilty. He didn't distort facts, create straw man arguments, and rationalize everything to make it fit a belief the way you do.
You have NO EVIDENCE that would convince anyone that your suspect is the anthrax mailer, so you just ignore or distort all the evidence against Ivins as a way of suggesting that the FBI's case wasn't solid, either. The FBI/DOJ's case against Ivins was solid. You have NO case against your suspect.
Ed
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete-----------
Richard Rowley wrote: "1)killed New Yorkers with a toxic substance because he thought they were crybabies (then killed people in DC and Florida with the same substance for COMPLETELY DIFFERENT reasons)"
And
"Since that motivation couldn't have explained letters to politicos in DC and to tabloids in Florida, I think I summed things up nicely."
It's been explained to you many times that the facts say Ivins didn't intend to kill ANYONE.
===========================================
There you go again: mixing you own idiosyncratic stuff in with the findings of the Task Force. THEY don't claim that the Anthrax Killer didn't mean to kill anyone. I have my hands full enough showing the inadequacies of what they DO claim about Ivins without havig to 'switch partners' in the middle of that dance and 'prove' that a man, sending at least 8 letters through the mail containing the most deadly strain of anthrax available to anyone in the United States, 'didn't mean to kill anyone'.
I think I'll go back to my Anthrax Printer=St Pete Printer equation.
ReplyDeleteI was neglectful here on two counts:
1) this not only eliminates Ivins in any accomplice-less scenario, it is bound to do the same for anyone at USAMRIID who wasn't on extended leave/vacation between September 17th and October 9th 2001. The round trip down to St Pete and then back to Frederick is simply too long (1800 miles or so)to have been done twice (once for the Sept 20th mailing, another time for the October 5th mailings).
2) it has profound psychological implications for understanding the MOTIVES for the crime: this is someone who ENJOYS hoaxing (is a serial hoaxster)and the manipulation involved with have left, both before Amerithrax and after, a further record of similar (unsolved) hoaxes.
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete---------
No one ever said that if a person doesn't have an alibi that means he's guilty. You made up that nonsense as a straw man argument just so you could argue against it.
=============================================================
Oh, so I guess I just hallucinated that, over the last 3 years, over dozens of threads at many blogs, you yourself brought up Ivins' lack of an alibi as some sort of 'evidence' against him.
As I said, innocent people don't know they NEED an alibi and so don't document their own sleep.
Richard Rowley wrote: "There you go again: mixing you own idiosyncratic stuff in with the findings of the Task Force. THEY don't claim that the Anthrax Killer didn't mean to kill anyone."
ReplyDeleteThey don't claim that Ivins DID intend to kill people, either.
The FACTS say that Ivins didn't intend to kill anyone.
The FBI and DOJ just talk about Ivins' motives involving preventing the anthrax vaccine program from being shut down, a possible profit motive from patents, stopping criticism of his work, and the feeling that the women in his life were always abandoning him.
None of those motives required that he kill someone. And, as you well know, he stated that he wasn't "a killer at heart."
So, your nonsense about Ivins wanting to kill New Yorkers because they're crybabies remains NONSENSE. And, the fact that you cannot believe it is YOUR ENTIRE PROBLEM. You seem incapable of believing anything that doesn't fit with your own personal theory.
"Oh, so I guess I just hallucinated that, over the last 3 years, over dozens of threads at many blogs, you yourself brought up Ivins' lack of an alibi as some sort of 'evidence' against him."
I've already explained to you numerous times that the lack of an verifiable alibi is NOT "evidence." You are just creating another straw man argument.
The lack of an verifiable alibi means Ivins could not use an alibi to disprove the evidence against him.
The lack of an alibi is very important part of the CASE against Ivins. But it's not "evidence," per se, since it's not an object, a document, a photograph, a public record, a deposition, oral testimony or any other item that can be admitted into evidence.
We could save each other a lot of time if you'd just understand that.
You're making stuff up in fantasizing that Ivins was at home asleep.
When did Ivins ever claim that he was at home asleep?
Innocent people may need sleep, but Ivins freely admitted to occasionally sneaking out of the house to travel long distances in secret. So, there would be no reason to believe him if he claimed that on the specific occasions in September and October 2001 he was at home asleep. I don't recall Ivins ever making such a claim. And the facts say that Ivins was NOT at home asleep.
Ed
And the facts say that Ivins was NOT at home asleep.
ReplyDelete-----------------------------------------------------------
Which facts are those?
Richard Rowley wrote: "Which facts are those?"
ReplyDeleteThe facts which say that Ivins was the anthrax mailer and he acted alone.
In case you've forgotten, the facts are listed and explained in the DOJ/FBI Summary Report. Here's the link:
http://www.justice.gov/amerithrax/docs/amx-investigative-summary.pdf
Those facts indicate that Ivins MUST have driven to New Jersey to mail the letters during the critical times when he had no alibi.
Ed
To the contrary, the family's 302 interview statements, which you apparently have not seen, provide him with an alibi.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous wrote: "To the contrary, the family's 302 interview statements, which you apparently have not seen, provide him with an alibi.
ReplyDeleteYou're not paying attention. I said Ivins had no VERIFIABLE alibi.
Claims that Ivins was asleep or that he couldn't have gotten out of the house without a family member noticing are meaningless and nearly worthless in court if the facts say the person is guilty. PLUS, Ivins freely admitted that he would routinely sneak out of the house and take long drives without his family being aware of it.
The evidence says Ivins was guilty. The fact that Ivins had NO VERIFIABLE ALIBI says the evidence proving his guilt is SOLID evidence.
Ed
It works like this. The DOJ has no evidence he travelled to Princeton.
ReplyDeleteThe defense puts on the evidence he was home with 3 adults in a small house.
DOJ fails to prove their case. End of story.
Dr. Ivins explained that he travelled on the long drives to other sororities when his wife was out of town.
As for husbands and wives who drive in the evening -- without the other knowing where they are -- that actually is very common. I don't require that my wife detail where she went and she regularly drives all over the state.
You regularly confuse a prosecutor's spin with evidence.
The evidence that should have been your focus is what the alibi witnesses said in their 302 interview statements. But you are not concerned with the evidence -- just the prosecutor's spin.
The Investigative Summary does not cite the record and is filled with factual inaccuracy.
Fact 1: Ed Lake never requested the family's 302 interviews under FOIA.
ReplyDeleteFact 2: Ed Lake has never interviewed any of the alibi witnesses.
Virtually EVERY criminal who doesn't admit to his/her guilt claims to have been sleeping, taking a walk, going for a drive, watching a movie, or just being home alone at the time of the crime.
ReplyDeleteSometimes, they even manage to get a relative or girlfriend or spouse to support their "alibi."
But, if the evidence says they did it (as it does in the Ivins case), no jury is going to believe the culprit's claims OR the claims of the relative or girlfriend or spouse.
A "verifiable alibi" would be "evidence" from a neutral source that supports the alibi -- such as a time-stamped movie ticket, a receipt from a place where the guy bought a hot dog during his walk or drive, a closed-circuit TV shot of him walking somewhere else at the time of the crime, or a phone call that occurred during the time he was home alone and which phone company records can verify.
But, even then, it is sometimes possible to "break the alibi" and show the guy found the time-stamped movie ticket or receipt by going through trash, or he somehow called himself at home and let an answering machine answer, which he later erased.
Having a verifiable alibi is VERY important when arguing against the evidence. Having only an unverified CLAIM of being somewhere other than at the crime scene is virtually meaningless in court - even if a relative, friend or spouse supports the claim. Juries understand that mothers lie for their kids, wives lie for their husbands, girlfriends lie for their boyfriends, etc.
Ed
Ed, ask yourself:
DeleteWhat instruction under the pattern instructions for criminal prosecutions in the District of Columbia would be given on the question of alibi?
What do the pattern instructions say?
Do they say advise something like this?
"5.01 Alibi
One of the issues in this case is whether [defendant] was present at the time and place of the alleged crime. If, after considering all the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt that [defendant] was present, then you must find [defendant] not guilty.
Comment
A defendant is entitled to a special instruction that on the issue of alibi a reasonable doubt is sufficient to acquit. See, e.g., Duckett v. Godinez, 67 F.3d 734, 745 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 1549 (1996); United States v. Simon, 995 F.2d 1236, 1243 (3d Cir. 1993); United States v. Hicks, 748 F.2d 854, 858 (4th Cir. 1984); United States v. Burse, 531 F.2d 1151, 1153 (2d Cir. 1976); United States v. Megna, 450 F.2d 511, 513 (5th Cir. 1971)."
You are arguing that there is no reasonable doubt he was not home asleep without even bothering to request the statements of the three witnesses who would be available to testify.
If you want to predict what would have occurred at trial, for each issue, you should quote the instruction that would be given the jury and then link the relevant evidence / witness testimony.
It serves no purpose for you to merely naively credit everything alleged, without support, by a prosecutor.
Anonymous wrote: "If you want to predict what would have occurred at trial, for each issue, you should quote the instruction that would be given the jury and then link the relevant evidence / witness testimony."
DeleteI've linked to the relevant evidence many times, but here's the link to the FBI/DOJ Summary Report once again:
http://www.justice.gov/amerithrax/docs/amx-investigative-summary.pdf
The instructions to the jury would be based upon the law. You emailed me a paper about the law as printed in the Western New England Law Review in 1998. Here's the link:
http://assets.wne.edu/162/24_note_Criminal.pdf
Basically, it just says what we all have been saying here and with which no one disagrees:
"the prosecution has the burden of disproving the defendant's alibi beyond a reasonable doubt and that the defendant does not have the burden of proving the alibi."
In other words, the defendant can simply make up an alibi by claiming that he was at home asleep at the time of the crime. And it is the prosecution's burden to disprove the alibi.
In the Ivins case, the FBI (as described in the Summary Report) proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Ivins was NOT at home asleep. Anthrax Truthers may demand some different kind of proof, like home movies of him actually mailing the letters in New Jersey, but no jury would require such proof.
Interestingly, the paper linked above seems to have been written because some courts didn't even think it was necessary to instruct jurors about how an "alibi defense" is to be considered.
BTW, the document at the link is an interesting read because it also explains how an "alibi defense" differs from an "affirmative defense." An "alibi defense" (which pertains to Ivins) would be a claim that he was at home asleep. An "affirmative defense" would be a claim of entrapment, self-defense or "necessity." Ivins could claim none of these.
The document concludes with this:
"a defendant who advances an alibi defense with evidentiary support has an unconditional due process right to a jury instruction as to the prosecution's burden of proof for the alibi."
"Evidentiary support" in Ivins' case would have been testimony from his wife (and maybe his kids) that he was at home asleep at the times of the mailings.
But, how accurate can they be about routine things that happened years ago? And Ivins openly admitted to sneaking out of the house to commit crimes without his wife knowing about it. Plus, the FBI had a MOUNTAIN of facts (described in the Summary Report) showing that Ivins DID commit the crime and must have driven to New Jersey to mail the letters.
The evidence is clear and says Ivins was guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. The only people who would disagree are people who have other theories, who disbelieve or distrust the government, and who think their own VAGUE AND UNPROVED theories are better than the case presented by the FBI and DOJ.
Ed
Most people would see no point in being dogmatic in insisting that someone travelled to Princeton, absent evidence that he did, without at least taking the step of requesting a copy of the statements by the alibi witnesses. The people who make it a point of devoting years to the issue (i.e., you) are the ones expected to inform themselves by obtaining the relevant documents. Instead of analyzing the evidence, you merely are crediting a prosecutor's spin. Your chances of being published are zero given your approach to the issue -- insist as fact that he has no alibi without requesting a copy of the statements of his alibi witnesses.
ReplyDeleteYou don't have a verifiable evidence either.
Ironically, for 7 years, you argued that the guilty person would make sure to have an airtight alibi. You relied on the movie "Strangers on a Train."
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete-------
Richard Rowley wrote: "There you go again: mixing you own idiosyncratic stuff in with the findings of the Task Force. THEY don't claim that the Anthrax Killer didn't mean to kill anyone."
They don't claim that Ivins DID intend to kill people, either.
============================================================
So, according to YOU, if the Task Force hasn't EXPLICITLY denied some individual's hypothesis about the case, it's safe to say that they accept it.(?)
But what's good for the goose, is good for the gander: by this same principle I could claim that the Task Force accepts the pseudoHebrew style printing that I've already explicated here.
(Note: I'm not saying that they accept it, clearly if they HAD known about it/accepted it, they could have eliminated Ivins, among other things. I'm merely following Mister Lake's train of thought:
that which is not explicitly repudiated by the Task Force is thereby confirmed by the Task Force)
My take would be: this is a most premdeditated crime and the most virulent form of anthrax was selected to cause maximum impact: maximum publicity, maximum death/injury. Of all people, Bruce Ivins would have been aware of the destructive power of the anthrax in that vial.
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete--------
Virtually EVERY criminal who doesn't admit to his/her guilt claims to have been sleeping, taking a walk, going for a drive, watching a movie, or just being home alone at the time of the crime.
----------------------------------------------
And JUST THE CRIMINALS? Don't the innocent say the same thing?!?!?
The FBI hasn't established he wasn't in Frederick on the night of the 17th/18th. And without an accomplice scenario to fall back on, that semi-eliminates Ivins.
Sometimes Mister Lake DOES ask interesting questions:
ReplyDelete----------
5. Where did your suspect buy the envelopes?
==========================================================
I'm darn tootin' sure he (or more likely an accomplice) bought the envelopes in Frederick, Maryland. I doubt he knew specifically about the 'printing defects' in question, but if there WERE any way to trace back the envelopes forensically, it would be preferable to make the investigators fall for this particular red herring. And they fell for it like a ton of bricks.
Between fingering Ayaad Assaad via that letter of denunciation and buying the envelopes in Frederick, they kept one step ahead of the 'flatfoots'. And remain that way a decade later.
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete----------
You're making stuff up in fantasizing that Ivins was at home asleep.
When did Ivins ever claim that he was at home asleep?
==========================================================
Since in the quarter century that he worked there (at USAMRIID)
he must have slept at home THOUSANDS of times between 11 PM and 6 PM on a weekday night when he had to work the next morning, I hardly think it particularly unlikely he DIDN'T sleep on that particular night (and of course, given the lateness of the questioning of Ivins on this point, he was almost certainly RECONSTRUCTING what he MUST have been doing on the night(s) in question). I can't 'prove' I didn't take a 7 hour drive down to St Louis last night (or last week or last month or last year or etc. ad nauseam) to commit some crime instead of sleeping in those 7 hours. But to label that: 'suspect has not verifiable alibi' is tendentiousness raised to a principle.
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete--------
Juries understand that mothers lie for their kids, wives lie for their husbands, girlfriends lie for their boyfriends, etc.
==============================================================
That's why 'alibis' should be deemphasized: most times they mean little one way or the other.
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete============
I watched "Columbo." Columbo found evidence to prove people guilty. He didn't distort facts, create straw man arguments, and rationalize everything to make it fit a belief the way you do.
----------------------------------------------------------
Actually, much of both Columbo's schtick and Jessica Fletcher's schtick wouldn't have been admissible in a court of law. That wasn't the point of those shows. The point of those shows was: the puzzle. Figuring out who done it/how they done it (the focus of MURDER SHE WROTE), or HOW Columbo would figure out what really happened/outwit the well-heeled and usually self-confident opponent.
And HOW Columbo would figure it out frequently involved looking BEYOND 'facts' that everyone accepted in the opening 20 or so minutes of the show: the OSTENSIBLE accidental death, OSTENSIBLE suicide, OSTENSIBLE iron-clad alibi of the perp.
But apparently Mister Lake watched Columbo and merely saw a more ethnic Joe Friday.
Anonymous wrote: "Most people would see no point in being dogmatic in insisting that someone travelled to Princeton, absent evidence that he did..."
ReplyDeleteBut, there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence saying he did. You are being dogmatic in saying Ivins didn't drive to Princeton while ignoring the MOUNTAIN of evidence saying he did.
All the facts described in the FBI/DOJ Summary Report say that Ivins created and mailed the anthrax letters.
Ivins himself said that he would frequently sneak out of the house and go for long drives to do things that couldn't be traced back to him, and his wife knew nothing about those trips.
Ivins had no verifiable alibi for the times of the mailings. If there was anything worthy of mention in the 302 statements from his family, "Anonymous" would have posted it. He hasn't. So, the statements from his family in no way disprove the evidence against Ivins.
There is no reasonable doubt that Ivins drove to New Jersey to mail the letters. That's not "dogma." That's what the evidence says.
Richard Rowley wrote: "That's why 'alibis' should be deemphasized: most times they mean little one way or the other."
I agree. Now you just need to convince "Anonymous" and stop arguing with yourself.
Richard Rowley also wrote: "The FBI hasn't established he wasn't in Frederick on the night of the 17th/18th. And without an accomplice scenario to fall back on, that semi-eliminates Ivins."
Nonsense. The FBI established that Ivins must have been in Princeton at the time of the maiings.
1. The facts say Bruce Ivins created the anthrax powders and wrote the letters.
2. The facts say he did so alone.
3. Ivins admitted to driving long distances to commit other crimes so they couldn't be traced back to him.
4. Ivins stated that he'd often leave the house and take long drives without his wive knowing about it.
5. Ivins had connections to the scene of the crime.
6. Ivins had no verifiable alibi for the time of the crimes.
The facts say beyond a reasonable doubt that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer and that he drove to Princeton twice to mail the letters.
You can argue whether there is a "reasonable doubt" or not, but if a jury had set Ivins free for a lack of sufficient evidence, that wouldn't mean he was "innocent." It would just mean there wasn't enough evidence to convince the jury. But, in the Ivins case, there WAS more than enough evidence to convince a jury.
Rowley and Anonymous disagree because they have their own individual theories about who did it, and they believe those very different theories even though they have no real evidence at all. They just have beliefs.
They demand solid and incontrovertible evidence to prove Ivins guilty, but they also consider vague, unexplained beliefs to be sufficient to prove their own individual suspects are guilty.
And, they both somehow expect others to believe their vague, unexplained beliefs even though they disagree with each other! And they can't see how ridiculous it is to argue their very different unproved beliefs against the FBI's MOUNTAIN of evidence against Ivins!
Ed
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete----------
Rowley and Anonymous disagree because they have their own individual theories about who did it, and they believe those very different theories even though they have no real evidence at all. They just have beliefs.
============================================================
Huh? I don't think you've actually read (I mean REALLY read) Anonymous's posts here. He cites not a single "belief", he brought in his personal hypothesis NOT AT ALL. He merely treated of the evidentiary requirements, and cited case law, so as to determine the likely STATUS of these 'Ivins didn't have an alibi' claims. And that's all they are: claims. This is Mister Lake taking those claims in a PR document and ASSUMING that this is how they, tendentious and unanswered in the FINAL REPORT, would have looked in a trial setting. Once again, blinded by surface 'facts'.
Richard Rowley wrote: "This is Mister Lake taking those claims in a PR document and ASSUMING that this is how they, tendentious and unanswered in the FINAL REPORT, would have looked in a trial setting."
ReplyDeleteI'm making no such assumption. That's just another one of your straw man arguments.
The Summary Report is a SUMMARY report, which mean it SUMMARIZES the evidence. Obviously, in the actual trial (prior to the final arguments), the evidence would NOT be summarized..
Anonymous' personal hypothesis is hinted at on other forums. It's just as vague and unsupported by actual evidence as your "hypothesis."
Ed
Ed Lake says there is a mountain of evidence that Bruce Ivins dried anthrax into a powder? There is, Ed? How did he dry the anthrax? Where did he dry it? When did he dry it?
ReplyDeleteEd Lake says there is a mountain of evidence that Bruce Ivins photocopied the letters that were mailed. There is, Ed? Where did he photocopy the letters?
There is no evidence on these issues.
Instead, there is just a misrepresentation of evidence by a prosecutor who nowhere discussed Dr. Ivins work with the rabbits.
Anonymous wrote: "Ed Lake says there is a mountain of evidence that Bruce Ivins dried anthrax into a powder?"
ReplyDeleteAnonymous is playing the same straw man argument game that Mr. Rowley constantly plays.
No one said that there was a "mountain of evidence that Bruce Ivins dried anthrax into a powder."
I said there was a MOUNTAIN of evidence proving that Ivins was the anthrax mailer. The evidence showing that Ivins dried the anthrax into a powder would be a PART of that "mountain."
The DOJ would show in court that Ivins had numerous different drying methods at his disposal, and he knew how to use all of them. Therefore, he UNDENIABLY had the MEANS to make the powders.
The same with the photocopying. There were numerous copy machines all around Frederick that he could have used, therefore he UNDENIABLY had the MEANS to make the photocopies.
Ed
Indeed, Ed has persuasively explained that it is clear that Dr. Ivins did not write the anthrax letters. He says it is nearly certain a First Grader wrote the letters. Thus, that fact alone (if credited), without more, would lead to his acquittal.
ReplyDeleteIt is foolish to purport to assess the persuasiveness of alibi witnesses while making no attempt to obtain their statement. It is foolish to assess the issue of where the letters were photocopied without obtaining a copy of the expert report on the mass spec of the toner identifying the brand photocopier.
For 7 years, you are argued there were mountains of evidence against the WIsconsin bowler. There wasn't. There wasn't any evidence.
Instead of evidence that Bruce Ivins did this or that -- such as photocopy the letters -- Ed Lake relies on evidence anyone could have done that... evidence that points equally to anyone. Indeed. That's precisely the point. Ed Lake makes the argument without being interested in the brand photocopier that was used.
ReplyDeleteThere are a number of ways the powder could have been made. Source: Alibek, Kiel.
ReplyDeleteFor example, a fluidized bed dryer could have been used. Source: Alibek, Kiel. Dr. Ivins did not have a fluidized bed dryer available to him.
A spraydryer could have been used. Source: Alibek, Kiel. Especially a dual-nozzled one. Dr. Ivins did not have a fluidized bed dryer available to him.
So what equipment does Ed suggest Dr. Ivins used? A Speed Vac? Does he not credit the expert report of Luann B who addressed this precise issue?
Rather than evidence of drying, Ed is pointing to a lack of evidence of drying without realizing it.
At least he agrees Dr. Ivins did not write the letters. Moreover, he forthrightly admits he is judging the statement of the 3 alibi witnesses without even seeing them (or having requested them under FOIA).
Anonymous wrote: "Thus, that fact alone (if credited), without more, would lead to his acquittal."
ReplyDeleteBut that's just my hypothesis. It has nothing to do with the FBI/DOJ's case (except to explain some inconclusive details). So, your argument is meaningless.
Anonymous also wrote: "For 7 years, you are argued there were mountains of evidence against the Wisconsin bowler."
Nonsense. That's just malicious distortions of the facts. I will delete any further such malicious distortions.
I hypothesized about someone the FBI investigated in October 2001, who very quickly turned out to have a perfect alibi for the time of the first mailing. So, I no longer thought he was the mailer. Your constant claims to the contrary are maliciously incorrect.
Plus, I stated repeatedly everywhere that I only had a hypothesis that was sorely lacking in any substantial evidence. In my book I called it a "working hypothesis" which explained all the known facts. I say in my book, in the chapter titled "A Working Hypothesis," on page 206:
"All the pieces fit. But, I also know that I probably do not have all the relevant information. Some solid piece of evidence that I’ve failed to find or properly evaluate could easily change things. That’s what a “working hypothesis” is all about: to present it for others to tear apart with new facts which the hypothesis cannot explain."
You may not be able to understand it, but that's how REAL analytical work is done. A "working hypothesis" is developed that explains all the facts and the hypothesis is put out there in the world (in scientific journals or on the Internet) for people to challenge and prove wrong.
No one proved the hypothesis wrong. As it also says on page 206 of my book:
"But, after three long years of fielding challenges, this working hypothesis has remained virtually unchanged. Furthermore, the theories of the challengers have mostly proven to be largely based upon bad science or no science at all."
It was the FBI who presented a MOUNTAIN of new evidence pointing to Bruce Ivins that I previously knew nothing about. So, that part of my hypothesis was shown to be wrong and I immediately changed it to reflect what the new and better information said.
That's the way "working hypotheses" are supposed to work.
You, on the other hand, seem to have concluded that someone with connections to Muslim terrorists must have sent the anthrax letters, and you've stuck to that conclusion for ten years in spite of all the facts saying it is total nonsense.
I adjust to new facts. Anthrax Truthers distort and find ways to ignore new facts so they can continue to believe what they want to believe.
See the difference?
Ed
Anonymous wrote: "Rather than evidence of drying, Ed is pointing to a lack of evidence of drying without realizing it."
ReplyDeleteMore nonsense and deliberate distortions.
The FBI Summary report says on page 15:
---------------- start quote --------
Second, the evidence demonstrated that the perpetrator was familiar with key items of laboratory equipment used in microbiology research. All of the Ames anthrax existing in the 15 U.S. labs prior to the attacks was in liquid slurry form or on vegetative cell slants, rather than in powder form. Consequently, it was not possible for the perpetrator to merely steal an existing quantity of Ames spore powder “off the shelf,” because none was known to exist in the holdings of any laboratory. Even if the perpetrator stole a quantity of liquid Ames anthrax slurry, it would still have been necessary to dry the anthrax in order to produce a product like the one recovered from the envelopes. This drying procedure would have required either the type of laboratory equipment, such as a lyophilizer or speed-vac system, that was present in each of the 15 labs, or considerable time and space to air-dry.
---------------- end of quote -----------
And it says on page 30:
------------- start quote -----------
Drying the spores likely would have attracted attention unless the perpetrator accessed the equipment at night. Drying anthrax spores requires either a sophisticated drying machine called a lyophilizer, a speed-vac, or a great deal of time and space to let the spores air-dry – that is, to allow the water to evaporate – in the lab.
------------ end of quote -----------
And in the footnote at the bottom of page 31 it explains how much time is needed to dry spores:
----------- start of quote ----------
Numerous microbiologists have concurred that two hours and 15 minutes would be enough time to dry Ba spores, depending on factors such as the quantity of starting material, the volume of liquid in which it was suspended, and whether a centrifuge was used to eliminate most of the water, leaving behind a pellet, or paste, capable of being dried in well under two hours.
------------ end of quote -----------
Ivins had TWO centrifuges in his lab and more than enough time to air dry the spores.
Ed
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI deleted two of your posts. The first was mostly just a malicious attack upon a witness used in the case. I've previously warned you that I will delete such posts.
However, that post also contained this:
"Ed hasn't even linked or discussed David Relman's piece in Science this month on the subject of Amerithrax."
Thanks for pointing that out. I'll comment about it in tomorrow's comment on my web site.
The second post by Anonymous that I deleted maliciously repeats a claim about my original hypothesis that I've already thoroughly explained.
Ed
Anonymous wrote: "Instead of evidence that Bruce Ivins did this or that -- such as photocopy the letters -- Ed Lake relies on evidence anyone could have done that... evidence that points equally to anyone."
ReplyDeleteThat's why the FBI didn't use any evidence of where Ivins made the copies in their summary report. They only commented that there was a copy machine available in the library.
They had no solid evidence of what copy machine Ivins used. They could only show that Ivins (like almost anyone else) had many copy machines available for his use in the Frederick area.
That fact doesn't point to anyone else because no one else is being accused. Evidence is used to support a claim or accusation. There is no claim or accusation against anyone else in the Amerithrax case.
You really need to learn more about evidence and how it is used in court. Then maybe you wouldn't rely so much on your personal beliefs.
Ed
I must side with Mister Lake in saying that there's no need to character assassinate Jean Duley* or anyone else whose info about Ivins is negative. That doesn't mean, in the case of Duley, one can't note the limits of her knowledge of the field (psychology/psychiatry) in question. It's just that we ourselves are complaining about the DoJ's hatchet job on Ivins (the inclusion of stuff about bondage and women's underwear etc., stuff
ReplyDeletethat tells us nothing about the likelihood that Ivins did Amerithrax).
It's especially unnecessary since the case against Ivins is so weak, so built on speculation and potentialities.
*assuming it was Jean Duley who was vilified
So Ed Lake is relying on one of these methods of drying:
ReplyDelete"This drying procedure would have required either the type of laboratory equipment, such as a lyophilizer or speed-vac system, that was present in each of the 15 labs, or considerable time and space to air-dry."
The issue of lyophilized has been addressed.
Now, Ed, is there a named scientist who stands behind the speed-vac system that Dr. Ivins as being useable? Or are you merely relying on the AUSA's say-so. I have previously mentioned Luann B's explanation why the particular speed-vac could not have been used. What scientist are you relying upon?
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete--------------------
Ivins had TWO centrifuges in his lab and more than enough time to air dry the spores.
============================================================
Is there some sort of mathematical calculation in either the FINAL REPORT proper or the supplementary material (which I have never looked at) that fills that out?
A SpeedVac operates slowly and it would have been impossible for Ivins to use it to dry the amount of anthrax used in the letters in the time frame the FBI says he did. [HERALD-MAIL, 8/8/2008] Dr. Melanie Ulrich is available to be contacted for her expert opinion.
ReplyDeleteNow what scientist are you relying upon again who has experience with a Speed Vac (see specific model) so as to be qualified to speak to the issue?
You have a habit of crediting anything a prosecutor alleges without ever kicking the tires.
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete----------
No one proved the hypothesis wrong. As it also says on page 206 of my book:
"But, after three long years of fielding challenges, this working hypothesis has remained virtually unchanged.[...]
===========================================================
Of course it's unchanged:
1)the Task Force is history and THEY would have had to be the ones
to change their own "working hypothesis".
2)Director Mueller is a captive of his own endorsement of the case against Ivins, though there are signs he is less than happy about the outcome of the case.
3)the US attorneys involved (Lieber, Kohl, Taylor etc) put their own personal prestige on the line as well as the prestige of the DoJ. They're certainly NOT spending even 30 seconds a day thinking: 'How can I change the working hypothesis on that case we closed two years ago?'
In a phrase they're stuck with it.
History's judgement will be harsh.
Anonymous asked, "What scientist are you relying upon?"
ReplyDeleteAny scientist can tell you how long it takes to air dry spores. The facts strongly suggest that the spores were air dried, although other methods cannot be ruled out.
I've talked with several scientists who agree that air drying would be the easiest method to use. And, Ivins certainly had the capability to air-dry spores.
Richard Rowley wrote: "Is there some sort of mathematical calculation in either the FINAL REPORT proper or the supplementary material (which I have never looked at) that fills that out?"
I don't know what you're looking for. I quoted the Summary Report which said that it took about 2-1/2 hours to dry spores.
If you want to know how long it takes, mix some flour or talcum powder with water and spread it out on a plate. Watch how long it takes to dry back to being a powder. Air drying isn't a secret process.
Ed
You're saying that ANY powder is going to dry at the same rate?
ReplyDelete(That strikes me as unlikely; heck CLOTHES that are hung on a clothesline don't dry at the same rate, so I hardly see how talcum powder=flour=wet anthrax in testing the rate of drying. And of course temperature and ambient humidity in the room is going to be involved since we are talking about evaporation. You're trying to oversimplify something that has more to it.)
Anonymous wrote: "Now what scientist are you relying upon again who has experience with a Speed Vac (see specific model) so as to be qualified to speak to the issue?"
ReplyDeleteYou're NOT PAYING ATTENTION. The facts say that the spores were almost certainly air-dried.
Speed Vacs are another straw man argument. No one claims that a Speed Vac was used to dry the attack spores.
The FBI doesn't say exactly how the spores were dried, since various methods could have produced exactly the same results.
The FACTS say that air-drying was the method most likely used. Those facts include how the powders look under an electron microscope and how John Ezzell described the media spores. Plus, it would be the simplest method, leaving the least amount of equipment to clean up.
Ed
Let's consider the expert opinion of the FBI's expert that had a leading role in presenting to the NAS -- Patricia Worsham.
ReplyDeleteShe explained under oath:
"I don't believe we had facilities at USAMRIID to make that kind of preparation. It would have taken a great deal of time; it would have taken a huge number of cultures; it would have taken a lot of resources that would have been obvious to other people within containment when they wanted to use those resources.
We did not have anything in containment suitable for drying down anything, much less a quantity of spores."
Now this expert witness, whose expertise everyone would credit, would destroy the argument made by the DOJ AUSA.
The FACTS say that air-drying was the method most likely used. Those facts include how the powders look under an electron microscope and how John Ezzell described the media spores.
ReplyDelete--------------------------------------------------------
Do you have a citation for that? I would like to look for it.
Richard Rowley wrote: "You're saying that ANY powder is going to dry at the same rate?"
ReplyDeleteI'm saying that any similar powder would dry at roughly the same rate.
What difference would it make if it took two hours to dry the spores versus two and a half hours? Ivins spent long hours in his lab and had all the time he needed.
The Summary Report says:
"Numerous microbiologists have concurred that two hours and 15 minutes would be enough time to dry Ba spores,"
I'm saying that drying spores is a simple process that isn't secret. So, if you need to see how it works, you can add water to some flour and then dry it back into a crumbly powder again.
Ed
Rachel knew that the photocopy machine at USAMRIID was not the model used -- based on Dr. Bartick's mass spec study on the toner, right?
ReplyDeleteAnd so the discussion of the time he spent in the library is actually in the nature of alibi evidence.
Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete--------------
The Summary Report says:
"Numerous microbiologists have concurred that two hours and 15 minutes would be enough time to dry Ba spores,"
==============================================================
Notice that they do NOT say "there are no dissenters from this view" nor do they say "the dissenters from this view aren't numerous as well". That's why the Final Report is so unsatifying: a person who reads it with BOTH some background knowledge AND a tad of scepticism is going to evaluate it differently from someone who ONLY has the background knowledge (Mister Lake).
Anonymous wrote: "Now this expert witness, whose expertise everyone would credit, would destroy the argument made by the DOJ AUSA."
ReplyDeleteNonsense. Acquaintances of Ivins say lots of things that can easily be shown to be false. Their claims are generally based upon false assumptions about the powders and ignorance of what Ivins had available to him.
They are speculating.
And the DOJ's view of such testimony as described in the Washington Post is as follows:
------------start quote ---------
Prosecutors and FBI officials disputed the contentions of the two scientists, saying in interviews that they were biased because they supervised Ivins and could have missed signs of his guilt. Though Byrne and Andrews were listed as government witnesses in the civil case, officials said they would never have been certified by a judge as experts under the stricter rules in the criminal system, which does not allow speculation.
---------------end quote ----------
Worsham falls into the same category. She's speculating based upon a personal bias and ignorance of some of the methods available to Ivins.
Ed
We are discussing the speed-vac presently.
ReplyDelete"Wired" says of this Worsham testimony:
"That statement is significant, not only because Worsham was a world-renowned anthrax authority. She was also the person whose work eventually lead to the most rock-solid evidence against Ivins: a flask under his control with major genetic similarities to the lethal spores. Without Worsham, the FBI wouldn’t have even had a circumstantial case against Ivins."
Ed, are you familiar with the model of Speed-Vac? Would you agree that its manual is admissible and authoritative evidence of its capacity?
Have you divined a named scientist who supports your position on the speed-vac? Have you found the report where they determined how long it would take to dry the material using that model of speed vac?
Byrne and Andrews WOULD have been expert witnesses on working conditions at the Bacteriology Division in 2001. World-class experts. So they would have been in the best position to say:
ReplyDeletewhat equipment was available, how likely/unlikely it was that ANY EMPLOYEE in that division could have had, in the suites, his own
surreptitious anthrax-drying operation going on for about a month (circa Sept 11th to Oct 6th/7th/8th/9th) without being noticed in any way.
On the 'familiarity with the work environment' question those 'biased' witnesses would have had extreme credibility.
Ed,
ReplyDeleteWould you agree, based on her filed patent, that Dr. Worsham has knowledge of the specific speed-vac?
Anonymous wrote: "We are discussing the speed-vac presently."
ReplyDeleteNo we're not. YOU are trying to discuss speed-vacs. I consider it a meaningless and pointless argument since there is no reason to believe Ivins used a speed-vac. The FACTS say he air dried the spores.
I need to take a couple hour break. I'm starving, and I need to do some chores. Plus, I need to start working on my "Sunday comment" for tomorrow.
Ed
I can appreciate your difficulty in finding a named expert:
ReplyDelete"DR. MAJIDI: You know we really -- we really don't have the -- we don't really have any answers for what process was used to grow additional spores or what methodology was used to dry them."
Okay, great.
ReplyDeleteWe can agree on this: "There is no reason to believe Ivins used a speed-vac."
And I believe we can agree that there is no reason to believe Ivins used a fluidized bed dryer or spraydryer, such as Alibek and Kiel have often told they thought was used.
Do you agree there is no reason to believe Ivins used a fluidized bed dryer or spraydryer?
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete-------------
Speed Vacs are another straw man argument. No one claims that a Speed Vac was used to dry the attack spores.
============================================================
That implies that the Task Force/DoJ:
1) never introduced a speed vac as a possible drying method.
(My memory is: they did)
2) they introduced the speed vas as a possible drying method and then subsequently repudiated that idea.
(I have no memory of this)
If neither #1 nor #2 is true, then it isn't a strawman argument.
Ed, would you agree with the statement at page 30 of the FBI Summary Report on the Amerithrax Case: that air-drying would require "a great deal of time and space"?
ReplyDeleteWhat named expert are you relying upon as to the amount of time and space? Would you agree that Dr. Popov would be an expert qualified to testify in federal court on the issue? See his lengthy opinion I solicited and uploaded by him on this subject.
Have you interviewed the lab tech who visited the B3 each during the period to ask what he observed?
Have you interviewed Patricia Fellows who visited the B3 each during the period to ask what she observed?
Have you interviewed Patricia Worsham whose office was in the B3 to ask what she observed?
Did anyone observe what Dr. Popov would testify was necessary?
Or are you just assuming your facts again without making the relevant inquiry.
I agree with you that Dr. Ivins did not write the letters.
And I agree with you that Dr. Ivins did not use a speed vac to dry anthrax to make a powder.
I commend you for conceding the points.
But you seem not to have made the relevant inquiries regarding your speculative "air drying" theory.
Anonymous wrote: "On the 'familiarity with the work environment' question those 'biased' witnesses [Andrews and Byrne] would have had extreme credibility."
ReplyDeleteNonsense. The judge would never allow them in to testify about the "work environment" since it's not an issue.
Ivins had all the equipment he needed to make the powders in his lab. Period. And he was allowed to work unsupervised at night when he could do anything he wanted.
Byrne, Andrews AND Worsham could not possibly dispute the findings that Ivins had all the equipment he needed. The equipment can be seen in photographs. The only issue is how the spores were grown, and that's an issue that those three mistakenly assume was done via "normal" procedures. The facts say the spores were NOT made using "normal" procedures.
Anonymous also wrote: "Do you agree there is no reason to believe Ivins used a fluidized bed dryer or spraydryer?"
It's a certainty that Ivins didn't use a spraydryer. USAMRIID didn't have one, and Ivins couldn't possibly produce the media powders by using a spray dryer. The chunks would never get through the nozzle. The same is probably true with the senate powders.
Anonymous also wrote: "But you seem not to have made the relevant inquiries regarding your speculative "air drying" theory."
The "experts" you say "observed" things did NOT observe what Ivins was doing during his long hours alone and unsupervised at night and on weekends in his lab. So, they have nothing relevant to say about what Ivins was doing.
I have my own quotes from Dr. Popov. We agree on most things about how the spores were most likely made. However, he seems to think it involved a conspiracy of some kind. I don't.
Richard Rowley's comments aren't worth quoting or a response. He just distorts comments and endlessly creates straw man arguments.
I'll be back tomorrow after I've uploaded my Sunday comment.
Ed
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete------------------
Anonymous wrote: "On the 'familiarity with the work environment' question those 'biased' witnesses [Andrews and Byrne] would have had extreme credibility."
Nonsense. The judge would never allow them in to testify about the "work environment" since it's not an issue.
----------------------------------------
You're WRONG: even if Ivins ONLY stolen the wet anthrax from work it would be an issue, but the claim of the prosecution is: a surreptitious drying/purifying program was conducted by Ivins AT WORK for a month without anyone being the wiser. That INHERENTLY brings the work environment into the spotlight.
Richard Rowley wrote: "You're WRONG: even if Ivins ONLY stolen the wet anthrax from work it would be an issue,"
ReplyDeleteIf Andrews and Byrne would have been called as witnesses, it would have been by the prosecution to show how Ivins' supervisors had no idea what Ivins was doing in his lab alone and unsupervised at night and on weekends. And since Worsham shared the same suite, she could have similarly testified how ignorant they all were of what Ivins was doing.
Ed
Post by Mister Lake:
Delete------
If Andrews and Byrne would have been called as witnesses, it would have been by the prosecution to show how Ivins' supervisors had no idea what Ivins was doing in his lab alone and unsupervised at night and on weekends. And since Worsham shared the same suite, she could have similarly testified how ignorant they all were of what Ivins was doing.
================================================
But since both supervisors DON'T think that Ivins did it (didn't do the drying/purifying at work and didn't do the crime AT ALL) I hardly see how even the cleverest of prosecutors could obscure that point (THE major point in the whole case against Ivins). And even if he/she did, on cross-examination those supervisors would be given free rein by the defense counsel to explain in vivid detail why such drying/purifying wouldn't have been secret for a solid month.
A disaster for the prosecution's case. The prosecutor would never have called them.
Richard Rowley wrote: But since both supervisors DON'T think that Ivins did it (didn't do the drying/purifying at work and didn't do the crime AT ALL) I hardly see how even the cleverest of prosecutors could obscure that point (THE major point in the whole case against Ivins)."
DeleteTheir opinions are largely irrelevant, since they are only opinions. They can only SPECULATE that Ivins didn't didn't do it. And, no judge is going to allow a witness onto the stand who can do nothing but speculate.
The FACTS say they had no clue about what Ivins was doing. They weren't there when Ivins was there at night and on weekends. So, their testimony would be worthless. It wouldn't be allowed.
I don't think the prosecution would call them to testify that they weren't there, since the in-out logs would show they weren't there. No one would challenge the in-out logs, since they are neutral and automatic. I just mentioned it as being the only worthwhile thing they could testify about.
Ed
Partial post by Mister Lake:
Delete-------------
Richard Rowley wrote: But since both supervisors DON'T think that Ivins did it (didn't do the drying/purifying at work and didn't do the crime AT ALL) I hardly see how even the cleverest of prosecutors could obscure that point (THE major point in the whole case against Ivins)."
Their opinions are largely irrelevant, since they are only opinions. They can only SPECULATE that Ivins didn't didn't do it. And, no judge is going to allow a witness onto the stand who can do nothing but speculate.
------------------------------------------------
So that same judge won't allow any witness:
1) to speculate as to what Ivins was doing at his lab in the evenings from Aug to Oct 2001 (if so, you can kiss the government's whole case goodbye, because it is based on EXACTLY that speculation).
2)to speculate on why the zip code 08852 was used on the return address.
3)to speculate whether the proximity of the mailbox used to a KKG office might have any significance.
4)to speculate that Ivins (twice!) took an undocumented car trip, once in Sept and once in Oct, down to Princeton (see point 1).
Etc.
We KNOW Ivins was in Frederick on Sept 17th and 18th (he worked at least part of both days and it is documented); it is SPECULATION that he took a trip to Princeton. Pure speculation. That's why the case against him is so weak: it is based on entirely on speculation. And potential.
The supervisors wouldn't be speculating about Ivins' character (they knew him longer and more thoroughly than the investigators), the drying equipment available, the plausibility of ANYONE (ie not just Ivins ) to set up a surreptitious drying/purifying operation in the hotsuites without anyone noticing.
Richard Rowley wrote: "it is SPECULATION that he took a trip to Princeton. Pure speculation."
DeleteNONSENSE. It is a DEDUCTION or CONCLUSION based upon the facts.
You seem totally incapable of understanding evidence. In the real world,
1
+1
=2
In your world, 1 does not equal 2, therefore no amount of 1's can equal 2. It's CRAZY.
After looking at ALL the evidence, any reasonable person would CONCLUDE that Ivins drove to Princeton to mail the letters, even though no single piece of evidence is solid proof of that by itself.
I'm really getting tired of explaining this BASIC LOGIC to you.
Ed
And Ed Lake thinks it is a DEDUCTION or CONCLUSION based upon the FACTS that a First Grader wrote the letters.
DeleteEnd of story.
Anonymous wrote: "Ed Lake thinks it is a DEDUCTION or CONCLUSION based upon the FACTS that a First Grader wrote the letters."
DeleteCorrect.
And Anonymous thinks that opinions and beliefs override all deductions and conclusions based upon facts.
He doesn't challenge the facts by finding factual errors or by presenting better and contradicting facts, he just believes what he wants to believe.
End of story.
Ed
I wrote: "The FACTS say that air-drying was the method most likely used. Those facts include how the powders look under an electron microscope and how John Ezzell described the media spores."
ReplyDeleteAnd Richard Rowley responded: "Do you have a citation for that? I would like to look for it."
Photos of the powders can be seen on my web site at this link:
http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/HowIvinsMadePowders.html
The comments by John Ezzell were made during the Anthrax Truther conference headed by Lew Weinstein back in November 2010. Here are the YouTube versions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7fv_sF90bw4#!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MxaJwDGF-Ks
Ed
Thanks!
ReplyDeleteSince Mister Lake has left the reader of this thread with the impression that 'Truthers' introduced the idea of Ivins using a speed vac(uum) as a "strawman argument" (see above), I hunted it down: (from last July)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/07/29/v-print/118790/judge-allows-feds-to-revise-filing.html
(partial: 4th paragraph in its entirety):
---------------------------------------------------------------
The revised filing said that Ivins had access to a refrigerator-sized machine known as a lyophilizer, which can be used to dry solutions such as anthrax, at the facility in a less secure lab. In addition, it said that Ivins also had a smaller "speed-vac" that could be used for drying substances in his containment lab.
----------------------------------------------------------------
(No mention of "air drying" in revision).
So, it was the GOVERNMENT, not Anonymous or yours truly who introduced this, and did it as part of a "revised filing" of last summer. And they did that because their original claim, that the lyophilizer was used, was untenable. Hence, it's no 'strawman argument' to say the Government was citing the speed vac.
Furthermore (and I TOTALLY missed this on the first go-round) (Paragraphs 8, 9, and 10 in their entirety):
--------------------------------------------------------------
The government also retracted statements that suggested that live anthrax spores from a flask in Ivins' lab had been distributed more widely than the FBI had asserted in making its case against Ivins.
In its initial filing in the Stevens case, the government said that the spores were shipped to several private laboratories, including "at least" the Battelle Memorial Institute in West Jefferson, Ohio; Covance in Princeton, N.J., and BioPort in Lansing, Mich.
But in its revised declaration, the government said that Battelle was the only lab known to have been sent live spores.
================================================================
Richard Rowley wrote: "Furthermore (and I TOTALLY missed this on the first go-round)"
ReplyDeleteYou're still TOTALLY missing the fact that "the government" is NOT a Borg collective where everyone knows what everyone else knows, where everyone thinks alike, and where everything is done as if done by a single entity.
In the real world, some lawyers in the Department of Justice's civil division didn't understand the details of the criminal division's case against Bruce Ivins and wrote a couple erroneous sentences in a court document.
In Mr. Rowley's fantasy world, there are no such things as "human errors." If some government employee made a mistake, Mr. Rowley evidently believes it wasn't really a mistake, it was part of some master plan.
Ed
Richard Rowley wrote: "Furthermore (and I TOTALLY missed this on the first go-round)"
ReplyDeleteYou're still TOTALLY missing the fact that "the government" is NOT a Borg collective where everyone knows what everyone else knows, where everyone thinks alike, and where everything is done as if done by a single entity.
=========================================================
I don't THINK the government is a "Borg collective" and NOTHING I have written on this blog (or ANY blog having to deal with Amerithrax)could be misconstrued to that effect. And Mister Lake cites nothing that I ever wrote that could POSSIBLY be (mis)interpreted that way. And recently when he (Mister Lake) ascribed some grand (government) conspiracy theory to me, I demurred and ascribed their blundering to "governmental inertia and groupthink". For once he got it right in his comment section and quoted me to that effect. But I see from the above post that he is back on his old hobby-horse.
As to this:
--------
In the real world, some lawyers in the Department of Justice's civil division didn't understand the details of the criminal division's case against Bruce Ivins and wrote a couple erroneous sentences in a court document.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I have NO IDEA what "error" Mister Lake is talking about. Is it:
1)the citing of the lyophilizer in the first place? (since your average lawyer isn't going to know what a lyophilizer is, I hardly think the lawyers are to blame for that! They merely captured in prose what the Task Force claimed) But that was done TWICE, a year and a half apart: at the Aug 6th 2008 press conference, and then in February 2010 in the Amerithrax Investigative Summary (which according to Mister Lake was written not by Jeff Taylor but by Rachel Lieber, both of whom I take to be in the criminal division). That "error"-----if that's what Mister Lake is referring to-----was in place for yet ANOTHER year and a half. Until, that is, the government lawyers (I assume civil division) realized that the lyophilizer was untenable. THEN they changed it. Is THIS the error(2) Mister Lake is talking about?!? But if the lyophilizer IS untenable, then it wasn't an error.
Mister Lake TOTALLY ignores the brunt of my prior post which is that FAR from the speed vac being something invented (ie dragged into the case) by Anonymous or me, it was what the government lawyers (again probably civil division) added as a possibility (ie a fall-back position behind the lyophilizer) in July of last year. And he ignores the fact that NONE of the lawyers (Criminal division: Jeff Taylor at the Aug 6th 2008 newsconference, Rachel Lieber in the Amerithrax Investigative Summary; civil division: in the "revisions" cites any "air drying". It appears to be another one of Mister Lake's ideas that he then ASCRIBES to the government's case against Ivins.
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete-----------
In Mr. Rowley's fantasy world, there are no such things as "human errors."
===================================================
Oh, not only do such human errors exist, they are part and parcel of why I finally turned against the death penalty. As I noted on this blog but in another thread recently.
But as I noted a couple times already on other blogs: ALL the 'errors', overstatements, things that needed to be revised etc. in Amerithrax did so (erred) in a predictable direction: each one either was more prejudicial to Ivins, or made the case against him stronger-LOOKING. NO ERROR (that I'm aware of) made him look 'good' (ie less likely to have done the crime). Guess why? (the newsconference was a PR document, the Amerithrax Investigative Summary was a PR document, only the civil litigation-related stuff was dealing with the prospect of true
courtroom litigation and thus had to contend with accuracy, fair play, due process etc. Hence the revisions and retractions.)
If some government employee made a mistake, Mr. Rowley evidently believes it wasn't really a mistake, it was part of some master plan.
ReplyDelete-------------------------------------------------------------
The only "master plan" was to get the Task Force and the DoJ out from under Amerithrax. They succeeded, at least temporarily.
But history will be the final judge of what they did. It's unraveling already.
Richard Rowley wrote: "So, it was the GOVERNMENT, not Anonymous or yours truly who introduced this, and did it as part of a "revised filing" of last summer."
ReplyDeleteAnd
"The government also retracted statements that suggested ..."
And
"In its initial filing in the Stevens case, the government said..."
And
"But in its revised declaration, the government said ..."
And when I pointed out that "the government" is not a Borg Collective, Mr. Rowley wrote:
"I don't THINK the government is a "Borg collective" and NOTHING I have written on this blog (or ANY blog having to deal with Amerithrax)could be misconstrued to that effect."
Whenever you talk about "the government" doing something in the Stevens lawsuit, you are talking like "the government" is a Borg Collective.
A Department of Justice lawyer from their civil division working on the Stevens lawsuit wrote an incorrect sentence in a legal document. It was NOT some coordinated action by "the government" to do something improper. It was a "human error" committed by an individual in a different division not fully familiar with the Amerithrax case.
Richard Rowley also wrote:
"in Amerithrax did so (erred) in a predictable direction: each one either was more prejudicial to Ivins, or made the case against him stronger-LOOKING. NO ERROR (that I'm aware of) made him look 'good' (ie less likely to have done the crime)."
The error in the Stevens lawsuit document was such an error.
In Amerithrax, the FBI and DOJ presented their case against Ivins in their summary report. If there are errors, you need to identify the errors and PROVE THEY ARE ERRORS, otherwise you are just talking nonsense.
Ed
Partial post by Mister Lake:
Delete---------------------
"I don't THINK the government is a "Borg collective" and NOTHING I have written on this blog (or ANY blog having to deal with Amerithrax)could be misconstrued to that effect."
Whenever you talk about "the government" doing something in the Stevens lawsuit, you are talking like "the government" is a Borg Collective.
=============================================
This once again shows your unfamiliarity with standard legal jargon: when a plaintiff is suing a government agency, the defendant is, broadly speaking, the government. That's not terminology that I or any Amerithax sceptic made up. It's standard terminology.
In criminal and civil cases.
-----------------------------------------------------
See for example
http://library.thinkquest.org/2760/gloss.htm
prosecutor - public official who presents the government's case against a person accused of a crime
-------------------------------------------------------
In criminal trials the prosecutors(state or federal) generally refer to themselves (their side)as "the people". Naturally, the defense doesn't generally use that term, as it suggests something democratic and popular about a given prosecution, something the defense usually wants to dispute.
Bob Stevens widow was suing the government. A Department of that Government was defending it. There's no better way to put it.
Since Mister Lake is bound to be sceptical of one source on terminology, here's another:
Deletehttp://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/prosecutor
-------------------
Prosecutor:
One who prosecutes another for a crime in the name of the government.
State and county governments employ prosecutors to represent their local communities in complaints against criminal defendants. On the federal level, the president appoints prosecutors to represent the United States in complaints against criminal defendants.
------------------snip snip--------------------------
You're distorting the argument. Yes, an attorney working for the government represents "the government," but if you want to understand what happened, you can't talk about "the government" making a mistake when it was an individual who made the mistake.
DeleteYou seem to be saying that you do not want to understand what happened, you want to argue that "the government" was wrong.
I'm just interested in what happened.
Ed
AUSA Rachel Lieber wrote in her Amerithrax Investigative Summary:
ReplyDelete"This drying procedure would have required either the type of laboratory equipment, such as a lyophilizer or speed-vac system, that was present in each of the 15 labs, or considerable time and space to air-dry."
Use of a lyophilizer has been thoroughly debunked -- Dr. Ivins was not working where the lyophilizer was located. It, in fact, was not in his B3 lab. (Dr. Kiel and others would point to damage caused by a lyophilizer which was not observed in the mailed anthrax; though the use of silica perhaps might have sufficed to avoid damage).
Similarly, Ed Lake concedes that there is no indication a speed vac was used.
As for Ed Lake's suggestion that air drying was done, “Knowing the layout of the BSL-3 suite, the implication that Bruce could have whipped out [anthrax mixture] in a couple of weeks without detection is ridiculous,” says Gerald P. Andrews, director of the bacteriology division and Ivins’ supervisor from 2000 to 2003.
Dr. Serge Popov has made the same point.
A leading FBI expert, Patricia Worsham, intimately familiar with the B3 at issue, has also made the same point in her sworn testimony.
Thus, the prosecution's imagined case was still-born.
Ed Lake has never been in any Biolevel 3, let alone the B3 in Building 1425 at USAMRIID. He has never worked with anthrax spores. He doesn't even read entire books and articles on the subject of Amerithrax.
But to simplify the issues, we certainly can appreciate his conceding that a speed vac was not used (contrary to DOJ's suggestion).
Anonymous wrote: "But to simplify the issues, we certainly can appreciate his conceding that a speed vac was not used (contrary to DOJ's suggestion)
ReplyDeleteThe DOJ made no such suggestion. You're creating straw man arguments.
The FACTS say that Ivins was the anthrax mailer.
People with UNINFORMED OPINIONS do not agree.
You constantly cite people with UNINFORMED OPINIONS who disagree with the FBI's case against Bruce Ivins.
Who cares what people with UNINFORMED OPINIONS have to say?
The FBI did NOT say that a lyophilizer or Speed Vac was used. They said that a lyophilizer or Speed Vac COULD HAVE BEEN used. Or to phrase it more accurately and in legal terms, they cannot say that it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for a lyophilizer or Speed Vac to have been used to create the attack powders.
If any of your UNINFORMED "experts" can prove that it was IMPOSSIBLE to use either of those devices, they should present their case instead of just spouting ignorant opinions.
The FACTS say that the spores were almost certainly air dried. However, anyone examining the FACTS cannot rule out the REMOTE POSSIBILITY that some other drying method was used.
The "experts" you cite are IGNORANT of the facts. They ridiculously and falsely ASSUME that if Ivins made the anthrax powders he would have used standard lab procedures.
They ridiculously and falsely ASSUME that if Ivins made the anthrax powders, he MUST have starting making the spores after 9/11.
I've read hundreds of articles about the science used in the case, and I've read many books on the subject. You state that "All this science stuff is over my head." On that we can agree.
You cite "experts" who have OPINIONS which agree with elements of your beliefs.
I look at the facts. When "experts" disagree, I look very HARD at the facts to determine which expert is correct. It's usually very easy to do, since it's almost always one "expert" voicing his or her uninformed OPINION against another expert who has facts and states facts.
You don't need to go into a Suite B3 at USAMRIID to determine the difference between facts and opinions. Anyone can do that. You should try it sometime.
Ed
Ed Lake says the FBI's experts such as Patricia Worsham are uninformed. See her sworn testimony. To the contrary, it is Ed who is uninformed even by having read the relevant literature.
ReplyDeleteEd is confused about the nature of successful prosecutions. He thinks it suffices to put on a case by which they argue we "cannot say that it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for a lyophilized or Speed Vac to have been used."
Ed Lake thinks Dr. Ivins's first counselor is a reliable witness. He is uninformed and has not read her 2009 book.
Ed Lake thinks that Dr. Ivins' time was not occupied by working with the rabbits. He is unformed and has not mastered the documents --instead crediting the prosecutor's summary memo which shows the AUSA to have been unaware of the work or what it involved.
Ed Lake is uninformed about the mass spec work done identifying the toner of the photocopier -- instead regularly confusing that issue with the issue of "track marks."
Ed Lake is uninformed about the nature of handwriting analysis -- instead arguing that the letters were written by a First Grader.
Ed Lake is uninformed about the issue of the mutations and hasn't even read the article by an undisputed expert on the subject, Dr. Leppla.
Ed needs to inform himself about basic issues such as the instructions that a jury would be given in a prosecution. When the experts -- including government experts such as Patricia Worsham took the stand -- a jury would then assess the testimony of those experts, ignoring the internet postings by someone not at all qualified to address these issues.
Photo analyst indeed.
The way it would work, Ed, is if there is evidence to cite by qualified experts that the FBI relied upon -- see material submitted to the NAS -- then by all means cite it and discuss it. As someone not qualified on the subject, your opinion is not worth anything. You should be citing named experts and their presentation to the NAS. If such existed.
Does it, Ed? The review by the NAS was a review of the science relied upon by the FBI.
Ed does not know the brand pen that was used to address the letters and never requested under FOIA the FBI lab reports showing that Dr. Ivins never used such a pen.
DeleteEd does know the brand tape that was used to tape the letters and never requested under FOIA the lab reports show that Dr. Ivins never used that tape.
Ed does not know the brand photocopier used to photocopy the letters and never requested under FOIA the FBI lab reports showing that Dr. Ivins never used such a photocopier.
Ed has never interviewed Dr. Bartick, a leading FBI expert on these issues.
By GAO's obtaining and releasing those reports, we can all inform ourselves of the findings by the FBI's forensic experts on these issues.
We need more information and findings by the FBI's forensic scientists -- and fewer conclusory assertions by prosecutors and investigators to the media.
Anonymous wrote: "Ed does not know the brand pen that was used to address the letters .."
DeleteEd knows that a different pen was used for the senate envelopes than was used for the media envelopes. Ed knows that the tests of the inks found nothing conclusive.
Ed knows that the idea that anyone can prove that Ivins "never used such a pen" is TOTALLY RIDICULOUS.
Ed knows that the idea that anyone can prove that Ivins never used the tape used in the letters is TOTALLY RIDICULOUS.
Ed knows that the idea that anyone can prove that Ivins never used the type of copier used to copy the letters is TOTALLY RIDICULOUS.
You've just proved once again what you've said so many times: All this science stuff is over your head.
Ed
Are you claiming that the FBI could not identify the brand pen used? If so, what is your source? Identification of the brand used, rather than being "nothing conclusive" is gold standard in differentiation of inks.
DeleteYou write:
"Ed knows that the tests of the inks found nothing conclusive."
What you perhaps mean to say on the ink, tape and photocopier toner issues is that nothing was found corroborative of the FBI's Ivins Theory and that no matches were found among the hundreds of samples taken from Dr. Ivins' office and residence.
DeleteNot being informed about the nature of the photocopier toner issue -- and regularly confusing it with the issue of tracks -- you thought it mattered when the samples were retrieved.
DeleteEven as to "tracks" it is a simple matter of pulling samples that were photocopied the same time period. It doesn't matter when the samples were obtained.
Anonymous wrote: "Are you claiming that the FBI could not identify the brand pen used?"
DeleteI recall reading somewhere the brand of pen used, but I don't see any purpose in looking for that source, since it proved nothing. Besides, the pen was probably a pen the child had in his school back pack.
Anonymous also wrote: "What you perhaps mean to say on the ink, tape and photocopier toner issues is that nothing was found corroborative of the FBI's Ivins Theory "
This discussion is about the FBI's case against Ivins. Nothing about the ink, tape or photocopier proved anything one way or another in the case against Ivins. I.e., it was inconclusive.
Ed
(%$#^%^%$&^%$!!
ReplyDeleteI was working on my income tax, and when I tried to install TurboTax it told me I needed an update to Windows XT. I applied the update, which took THREE HOURS and IT DIDN'T WORK. I had to un-install it, which took another hour and a half.
So, I'm done for today. I see a post by Anonymous in my inbox, but I don't have the time to even read it today, much less respond to it. I'll do that in the morning.
Ed
Anonymous wrote: "As someone not qualified on the subject, your opinion is not worth anything."
ReplyDeleteGenerally speaking, I'm not giving my opinions. I discuss and evaluate FACTS.
You, on the other hand, have stated MANY times, "All this science stuff is over my head."
So, since "all this science stuff" is over your head, all you can do is distort facts and give opinions about things you admit you don't even understand.
Anonymous wrote: "Ed Lake says the FBI's experts such as Patricia Worsham are uninformed.
Pat Worsham was NOT an FBI expert. She was a possible suspect. During Amerithrax, she worked for USAMRIID and did BLIND testing because the FBI had no real alternatives to using people at USAMRIID to do such tests. If she thinks Ivins couldn't have made the attack powders, she's not only uninformed, she's flat out wrong.
Elsewhere, you talk disparagingly of John Ezzell being "an FBI scientist." Of course, he also worked for USAMRIID, not the FBI. And you never quote Ezzell who said that Ivins COULD HAVE DONE IT.
You quote Worsham who never made anthrax powders and yet claimed Ivins couldn't have done it, and you do not quote Ezzell who made anthrax powders and knew Ivins could do it, too.
You quote scientists who have opinions that agree with your opinions, and you attack and ignore the scientists who have FACTS that say you are wrong.
You argue irrelevant matters incessantly, as if they were the most important subjects instead of being totally irrelevant.
You think I should read a book about the occult because you have read it! What kind of screwball reasoning is that?
If "all this science stuff" is over your head, why do you keep giving worthless opinions about it?
Ed
Anonymous wrote: "Ed Lake is uninformed about the issue of the mutations and hasn't even read the article by an undisputed expert on the subject, Dr. Leppla."
ReplyDeleteI consider myself to be VERY informed about "the issue of the mutations."
If Dr. Leppla had something worthwhile to say, why don't you tell us what it is? Is it because you didn't understand a word of what he wrote? Or is it because he said nothing you can twist or distort to support your beliefs?
You seem to be playing an idiotic game of "one-upsmanship" by suggesting because you HAVE a copy of a scientific article that you undoubtedly do not understand, that somehow means something about how informed I am on "the issue of mutations."
For your information, being "informed" is about having read and understanding key material related to the issue, it's NOT about being the first to download something from the Internet.
Ed