Sunday, February 5, 2012

Feb. 5 - Feb. 11, 2012 Discussions

The main topic of my Sunday comment this week is an examination of inconsistencies and errors in an official police report about the death of Bruce Ivins in July 2008. The intent was to show that humans make mistakes, even in critical situations. So, it can take some analysis to figure out exactly what happened.

The Washington Post "reporter" who re-hashed an error in a court document filed in the Stevens vs USA lawsuit should have realized that mistakes happen and that it DID NOT mean a change in direction for the case, nor was it any evidence of a disagreement between civil and criminal divisions in the DOJ. It was just a human error, which is totally understandable in a case as complex as the Amerithrax case.

Also, last week's news reports that, last October, a university professor in Pakistan mailed some anthrax to the Pakistani Prime Minister seems to have stirred up the Lunatic Fringe. They seem to see it as being connected to the anthrax attacks of 2001 -- until proved otherwise to their satisfaction. But, of course, it can never be proved otherwise to their satisfaction, since facts mean absolutely nothing to Anthrax Truthers and The Lunatic Fringe.

123 comments:

  1. Well here we are, back to the handwriting again.
    Mister Lake quotes the Aug 6, 2008 press conference, specifically the Q & A part:
    ----------------------------
    QUESTION: You didn't take handwriting samples from Dr. Ivins?

    MR. TAYLOR: We examined handwriting samples but then there was no comparison made or a specific identification of the handwriting. It appears that when the analysts would look at it, that there was an attempt to disguise the handwriting. So it was unable to make a comparison.

    With respect to handwriting samples, we did have indications from individuals with whom we spoke that there appeared to be some similarities in handwriting that were apparent. That said, we did not have a scientifically valid conclusion that we thought would lead us to be able to admit that in evidence.
    ============================================
    Naturally, Jeff Taylor is a lawyer (compare: "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.") and he is speaking extemporaneously, as one has to in press conference Q & A. But what is impressive (to me!) is the vagueness of the response(s):
    ----------------

    Q: You didn't take handwriting samples from Dr. Ivins?
    ------------------------------------------------
    Note: this is normally a yes/no question: either they did "take" samples from the individual or they didn't. But that's not how Taylor responds. Instead he ignores the questioner's verb "take" and says "we examined handwriting samples". Which raises the obvious question: where/who (and when) did they get those samples from and what were they compared to? But Taylor THEN says (incredibly!)(same sentence as it continues)"but then there was no comparison made or a specific identification of the handwriting." There was NO COMPARISON MADE?!?!?!? What then what was the PURPOSE of "examining handwriting samples"?!?!?!? And (just as obvious a point in this context)how the HECK could you get a specific identification of the handwriting WITHOUT a comparison to SOMETHING?
    -----------------------------------------------
    [End part I]

    ReplyDelete
  2. Part II)The rest of that paragraph is just as incomprehensible:
    ---------
    It appears that when the analysts would look at it, that there was an attempt to disguise the handwriting. So it was unable to make a comparison.
    ================================================
    Note: when the analysts would look at WHAT?!?!?
    Unless you are a mindreader, you have to guess.
    Not what a lawyer in a courtroom would/should have his listeners do. So my mindreading is as follows:

    Yeah, probably in the late 2001/early 2002 period honest-to-gosh handwriting experts ("analysts") were used by the Task Force to examine the handwriting (the printing) and it's probable (but Taylor doesn't say this) that THEN they (those handwriting experts)said that the printing exhibited features indicating an attempt to "disguise" the handwriting. But there's no indication whatsoever that Ivins' handwriting (printing) was examined by those "analysts". Among other reasons, because he wasn't a particular suspect in 2001/2002.

    Then we come to the SECOND paragraph of Taylor's answer:
    ------
    "With respect to handwriting samples, we did have indications from individuals with whom we spoke that there appeared to be some similarities in handwriting that were apparent. That said, we did not have a scientifically valid conclusion that we thought would lead us to be able to admit that in evidence."
    ===============================================
    The second paragraph READS like a first paragraph, ie "with respect to handwriting samples" (what? Wasn't that what the original question was about? And weren't you talking about "handwriting samples" in your first paragraph?).

    But what does he say? "[W]e did have indications
    from individuals with whom we spoke that there appeared to be some similarities in handwriting that were apparent."
    Notice the vague phraseology: "individuals with whom we spoke". That's not the phraseology you would likely use if you were talking about credentialed document examiners and others whose professional lives centered on making evaluations of handwriting.
    [End Part II]

    ReplyDelete
  3. Part III)And the last sentence of that second paragraph by Jeff Taylor:
    --------------------
    That said, we did not have a scientifically valid conclusion that we thought would lead us to be able to admit that in evidence.
    ==============================================
    Again, notice the studied vagueness of the response: "we" (who is "we"?!? the task force?, the US Attorneys involved?, professional document/handwriting examiners being tasked with an evaluation? Only Jeff Taylor's hairdresser knows for sure!)"did not have" "a scientifically valid conclusion". Could it be that you didn't have that conclusion because the "individuals" cited in your second paragraph weren't the trained professionals in graphological analysis that (presumably) were being referred to in your first paragraph("analysts") and IPSO FACTO could not come to a SCIENTIFICALLY VALID conclusion? Could not reach that degree of validity because these were mere amateur evaluators of the handwriting?
    And would have been blown out of the water by bona fide document evaluators/graphologists employed by Ivins' defense?
    (That's my understanding of Taylor's mealy-mouthed two paragraphs)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Part IV)
    ----------------------
    My interpretation (above 3 posts) of Taylor's presentation in Q & A is reenforced when one then looks at the paragaph that Mister Lake then presents (from page 89 of the FINAL REPORT):
    ------------------------------------
    In addition, a witness who had received a number of packages and cards over the course of several years in the late 1990s and early 2000s was shown copies of the letters and envelopes used in the anthrax attacks. The witness thought that the handwriting on the envelope addressed to Senator Daschle reminded the witness of Dr. Ivins’s writing. If the witness were to receive a package with that writing on it, the witness would think of Dr. Ivins. The witness noted that, in particular, the style of the block letters with alternating heights stood out, as did the slant of the writing. The witness said that this was the type of writing Dr. Ivins used when he disguised his handwriting as part of a joke. As the witness studied the letters, the witness noted that the “E” and the “R” in the letter to the New York Post also looked familiar. The witness stated that these letters also reminded the witness of when Dr. Ivins disguised his handwriting as a joke. The witness described this “disguised” handwriting as being similar to Dr. Ivins’s standard handwriting, and that one could tell that he was trying to disguise his handwriting to a limited extent. Another witness familiar with the handwriting of Dr. Ivins in many contexts said the same thing.
    ==============================================
    Here the word "individual" is eschewed in favor of the word "witness", but it is clear that this person is NOT A GRAPHOLOGIST of any sort. (Just like in paragaph 2, but likely NOT paragraph 1 of Taylor's response at the press conference to the question about graphological samples) The 'witness' is giving an impression ("thought that") of what he REMEMBERS about block-printing by Ivins in the 1990s and early 2000s. Note that for that fact alone (ie memory versus side-by-side comparative analysis)it would have been excluded as highly speculative and impressionistic and prejudicial to the defendant (Ivins). But this info can be presented in the FINAL REPORT because there is no need to respect the requirements of admissibility.
    [End of IV]

    ReplyDelete
  5. Part V)
    -------------
    Despite the fact that so much here is purposely vague and prejudicial to Ivins certain beneath-the-surface admissions IN IVINS' FAVOR are to be found if one looks hard enough. One such is this sentence (again from same paragraph, page 89, as was already presented):
    --------------
    The witness described this “disguised” handwriting as being similar to Dr. Ivins’s standard handwriting, and that one could tell that he was trying to disguise his handwriting to a limited extent.
    ============================================
    So the prosecution "witness" says that EVEN WHEN IVINS IS TRYING TO DISGUISE HIS HANDWRITING it (the disguised handwriting) is "similar to Dr. Ivins’s standard handwriting". And "one could tell that he was trying to disguise his handwriting to a limited extent". This is "evidence" that tends to be exculpatory: the AMERITHRAX printing looks NOTHING like Ivins' standard printing, and, because of what this 'witness' says, we would expect it to be an amateurish and ineffective handwriting disguise, IF IT WERE DONE BY IVINS.
    That is not the case. Which logically points to a non-Ivins printer.

    ReplyDelete
  6. In doing searches this evening related to the handwriting analysis, I stumbled upon this story from Aug 7, 2008:
    http://www.wnd.com/2008/08/71721/
    ----------------------------------------------
    [Partial]
    -----------
    Casting further doubt on the FBI’s anthrax case, accused government scientist Bruce Ivins passed two polygraph tests and a handwriting analysis comparing samples of his handwriting to writing contained in the anthrax letters, U.S. officials familiar with the investigation say.

    [skipping one-sentence paragraph]

    Ivins passed the first polygraph to satisfy a security requirement prior to working with the FBI as part of a team of scientists at the Fort Detrick, Md., lab who originally helped analyze the anthrax letters. He passed a second exam after he became a suspect.

    WND has learned that the FBI was so frustrated with the exam results that last October authorities asked a judge for permission to search Ivins’ home and vehicles specifically for evidence of any materials, such as books, that would have helped him “defeat a polygraph.”

    Also, officials confirm that FBI handwriting analysts were unable to conclusively match samples of Ivins’ handwriting with the writing on the anthrax envelopes and letters, which sounded as if they were written by jihadist accomplices of the 9/11 hijackers. The crude notes declared: “DEATH TO AMERICA. DEATH TO ISRAEL. ALLAH IS GREAT.”
    ===========================================
    So, naturally, the polygraph tests and handwriting analysis are (strictly in a rhetorical sense) rendered 'inconclusive'. But without logical justification. And a defense lawyer could have brought the handwriting analysts in as DEFENSE WITNESSES (polygraph tests being inadmissible).

    ReplyDelete
  7. Richard Rowley,

    Your ramblings serve no purpose other than to verify that the handwriting evidence related to the letters and envelopes was INCONCLUSIVE. End of story. Arguing about the way things were phrased by DOJ lawyers is pointless. Arguing about how defense lawyers would counter evidence that the prosecution would never try to use is doubly pointless.

    There WERE other handwriting comparisons done on Ivins' handwriting. The comparisons were done on slant labels to confirm that Ivins prepared slants that he claimed others may have prepared. When confronted with such evidence, Ivins tried to argue that he may have prepared the labels while others prepared the slants, but that is virtually NEVER done. It would be a VERY bad lab practice, and I think there may be testimony from Ivins' assistants that it was never done.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  8. GAO should obtain the copy of the handwriting analysis report that was done comparing Dr. Ivins' handwriting to the handwritten letters accompanying the notes. US Attorney Taylor is mistaken if he is suggesting one was not done. Although Ed's argument that it is 99% certain a First Grader wrote the letter is silly, the handwriting report comparing Dr. Ivins' handwritting to the anthrax letters would have been admissible and should be disclosed by GAO. Handwriting was expressly relied upon by the FBI in 2001 -- in an opinion that emphasized things like the dashes used for dates, the use of "can not" etc. (See FBI's website). There is an FBI report comparing Dr. Ivins' handwriting on those points.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous,

    Your beliefs about what the GAO should do are thoroughly and endlessly posted on Lew Weinstein's web site. There's no need to also sermonize about them here.

    The fact that the FBI thought in 2001 that the handwriting might be useful as evidence is irrelevant. They have explained that handwriting evidence turned out to be inconclusive. Period. End of story.

    However, my hypothesis about who wrote the letters remains valid until disproved. What you believe is irrelevant. That's been explained to you many many times.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous posted more of his sermon about what the GAO should do, plus some questions meant for people who are not on this forum. So, the post was deleted.

    However, he asked one question that is worthy of comment: Did guinea pigs die when exposed to it so as to rule out possibility of a false positive.

    You don't rule out "false positives" by testing on guinea pigs.

    As I understand it, "false positives" in anthrax tests generally result from using quick chemical tests which merely test for specific chemical compounds found in anthrax. They put some spores into a chemical, and if the chemical turns milky, it contains anthrax (or something like anthrax).

    But, other bacteria can contain the same chemicals, and the same chemicals can come from other sources. Hence: False positives.

    Confirmation tests take longer. They involve inoculating a blood agar plate and waiting 12 to 24 hours to see if anything grows. If something grows, they look at it under a microscope to see if it is a boxcar shaped, interacts with the blood agar, and non-motile (incapable of moving) bacteria like anthrax. The look at the shape and color of the colonies. If the bacteria are boxcar shaped, non-hemolytic and non-motile, then then perform stain tests to see further reduce the number of possibilities.

    They put a drop of a blue or purple stain on the bacteria, and if it absorbs the color, it is "gram positive" and belongs in the Bacillus species. Then they go through other tests to determine if it truly is anthrax or not. These tests are considered "definitive," although you'll have to do DNA tests to determine the exact strain of anthrax.

    They do NOT infect guinea pigs. That wouldn't prove anything. If they didn't do the other tests and the guinea pig dies, they wouldn't know what caused it. If the other lab tests show the spores are anthrax, they KNOW that the guinea pig will die, so killing it would prove nothing.

    The tests with guinea pigs are tests where VACCINATED guinea pigs are used to see if a vaccine is effective. They will also inoculate UNVACCINATED guinea pigs just to verify that the same spores have different effects in different animals, depending totally upon whether the guinea pig was vaccinated or not.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  11. Partial post by Mister Lake:
    ---------------
    The fact that the FBI thought in 2001 that the handwriting might be useful as evidence is irrelevant.[...]
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    What about in 2005? or 2006? or 2007? or whenever it was that the Task Force decided that Ivins was the top suspect? Surely, THEY then must have had some such comparison (Ivins' exemplars on one side, AMERITHRAX exemplars on the other)done by qualified professionals. Why, in all of Jeff Taylor's double-talk, is there NO mention of what the PROFESSIONALS said about the likelihood that Ivins did that printing? Why is the only reference to the later period(2005-2008) and the printing super-vague references to "individuals with whom we spoke" and a "witness"*? I submit that the true experts told them (the Task Force) uncongenial things: it's a bad match to Ivins' printing. And that's why we only get blind reports (unnamed 'witnesses') saying things that are a BIT more congenial.

    Anonymous has it right: looking at the underlying RAW data (in the graphological area but in other skeins of evidence as well) is EXACTLY what the GAO ought to do. And if Mister Lake had true confidence in the work of the Task Force/DoJ in Amerithrax, he would be urging the same thing.

    *Note: a "witness" in a courtroom context means: someone who testifies in a COURT PROCEEDING and can be questioned by BOTH SIDES (defense and prosecution). That's not what we have here(the 'witness' is neither under oath nor can he be cross-examined; we have to rely on the word of the 'prosecution' even as to whether the 'witness' exists!). But the word 'witness' is used to try to play on the illusion of fair play and due process, where neither exists.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Richard Rowley wrote: "I submit that the true experts told them (the Task Force) uncongenial things: it's a bad match to Ivins' printing."

    I agree, of course. It wasn't Ivins natural handwriting. It doesn't take a "professional" to see that.

    But, the experts could not rule out some form of disguised handwriting. So, the results are inconclusive. You can't prove the negative, so NO ONE can say that it is impossible for Ivins to have disguised his handwriting in some way, producing what is in the letters and on the envelopes.

    "we have to rely on the word of the 'prosecution' even as to whether the 'witness' exists!"

    It's pretty clear that the "witnesses" are Mara Linscott and probably either Nancy Haigwood or Patricia Fellows. They talk about how they received letters and gifts from Ivins with the "childlike" handwriting.

    Yes, we have to rely on the prosecution. There was no trial. And, the handwriting was inconclusive, so it probably wouldn't have been mentioned in trial anyway -- certainly NOT by the prosecution. And, I seriously doubt the defense would have tried using handwriting to prove anything, since, as stated above, they would have to prove the negative -- that Ivins could not possibly have written the letters.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mara Linscott and the other women evidently didn't save the hand-written "childlike" letters that Ivins left or sent them, so there are no actual handwriting samples to use for a comparison. It's all purely testimony.

    It seems VERY doubtful that the prosecution would have the witnesses talk about the handwriting in court, since the defense would merely point out that the witnesses were working from their memory of things that happened years earlier, and they could be totally wrong.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  14. Partial post by Mister Lake:
    -------------
    Your ramblings serve no purpose other than to verify that the handwriting evidence related to the letters and envelopes was INCONCLUSIVE. End of story.
    ============================================================
    Points:

    1)I admit that there are "ramblings" on this thread, but they are almost ALL by Jeff Taylor (he was asked the simplest of questions:
    "You didn't take handwriting samples from Dr. Ivins?" and HE danced around that question for the longest time. And never answered it.

    2)"inconclusive" is a LABEL that the FINAL REPORT authors put on
    some unknown-to-us results. The way to find out what the true results are is: to have the GAO examine the raw files and/or talk to the graphologist(s) who did the evaluation(s).

    3)as already noted, the DoJ/Task Force used the same label ("inconclusive") for the polygraph tests. And we know the underlying reality: he passed BOTH polygraphs (and the first one wasn't 'ruled' inconclusive until YEARS later (5 years?), once again because those results (the original ones) were uncongenial to their overall conclusion ('Bruce Ivins, acting alone, yadda yadda yadda').

    4)the conceit of the title of your website "Analyzing the Anthrax Attacks" is that you are INDEPENDENTLY evaluating what likely happened, not mindlessly repeating what's in government handouts (on a whole array of things: "person of interest", the presence of the lyophilizer (would it be SUCH a no-no to admit that the 'true believers' were right, the government wrong about the lyophilizer?!?!?), the ORIGINAL results of the polygraph tests, the results of PROFESSIONAL GRAPHOLOGICAL comparisons of Ivins' printing to that of the Amerithrax mailings (still unknown to us) etc.)

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous posted some stuff about how tests of are done in Afghanistan, including this statement: "On the basis of growth characteristics, absence of beta-haemolysis, absent or doubtful motility and morphological characters of the isolates on Gram stain, 62 isolates were considered suspicious and were inoculated into guinea-pigs.Inoculated animals remained healthy well beyond the required observation period of 5 days. All the samples were therefore reported as negative for B. anthraces."

    So, in Afghanistan they apparently do use guinea pigs to verify that substances are NOT lethal. Thus the guinea pigs are not needlessly killed.

    This, of course, has NOTHING to do with the previous question from Anonymous: "Did guinea pigs die when exposed to it so as to rule out possibility of a false positive."

    As usual, I responded to one thing and he changes the argument to something totally different.

    That's why this forum is moderated. There doesn't seem to be any way to hold an intelligent conversation with some people.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, Ed, you obviously haven't read the article. You are not qualified to address these issues.

      Delete
  16. Richard Rowley wrote:

    "4)the conceit of the title of your website "Analyzing the Anthrax Attacks" is that you are INDEPENDENTLY evaluating what likely happened, not mindlessly repeating what's in government handouts"

    Right! And the handwriting is a perfect example. I do not agree that the handwriting is inconclusive. I think IT IS CONCLUSIVE that Ivins did NOT write what is on the letters or envelopes (with the possible exception of the date on the media letter). And I think it is fairly conclusive who actually DID do the writing.

    "the government wrong about the lyophilizer?!?!?"

    The "government" was not wrong about the lyophilizer. They stated in the Amerithrax case that it COULD HAVE been used to make the anthrax powders. True.

    In the Stevens lawsuit, some lawyers in the DOJ's civil division made a mistake and wrote a sentence that was WRONG in a legal document. That doesn't make the "government" wrong, since other lawyers in the criminal division pointed out the error and the correction was made.

    When one person in the government makes a mistake and another corrects it, how can "the government" be wrong?

    All that incident in the Stevens lawsuit showed was that the anthrax murder case was a very complex case, and if you are not truly immersed in all the details, you can easily misunderstand things.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is from the USG affidavits in support of the search of Dr. Ivins' home.

      http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:cGDPrlAsK9cJ:www.justice.gov/amerithrax/docs/07-524-m-01.pdf+Ivins+BEI+Amerithrax+lyophilizer&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

      "Law enforcement officials have spoken to biological experts who have knowledge andtraining in the field of infectious diseases including anthrax. According to these individuals quantities of Bacillus anthracis can be produced in a scientific laboratory, such as those found atuniversities, military research facilities, or other research institutions. Culturing anthrax andworking safely with dried anthrax spores requires specific training and expertise in technicalfields such as biochemistry or microbiology. It also requires particular laboratory equipment such as a lyophilizer or other drying device, biological safety cabinet or other containmentdevice, incubator, centrifuge, fermentor, and various personal protective gear, described more fully in the Attachment to this affidavit."

      Delete
    2. Anonymous,

      You've sent me this via an email, you've posted it to Lew Weinstein's web site, and now you post it here.

      Why? What does it mean to you?

      To me, it just says that anyone with experience in biochemistry or microbiology could have made the attack anthrax in any university lab or research facility.

      I've been saying that for nearly ten years.

      What is it you're trying to say.

      Ed

      Delete
  17. Partial post by Ed Lake:
    --------------
    The "government" was not wrong about the lyophilizer. They stated in the Amerithrax case that it COULD HAVE been used to make the anthrax powders. True.
    ============================================================
    Do we REALLY have to go over this again?!?!?
    Okay:

    1)the one and (as far as we know) only lyophilizer available to that section of USAMRIID (Bacteriology division, anthrax ?subsection?)
    had NO PROTECTIVE HOOD* ,this apparently for many weeks or months prior to Sept-Oct 2001 and for that reason ALONE could not have been used.

    2)it was not in Ivins hot suite area in the necessary time frame* (Aug to Oct 2001). And for that reason could not have been used.

    3)it was somewhere as big/heavy as a refrigerator and would have required AT LEAST two guys to move it into (and out of, if we are imagining Ivins moving it in and out of his lab between uses in Sept and Oct 2001) the suite that Ivins used and no one ever reported that Ivins asked for help in moving it.* For THAT reason it could not have been used.

    4)it was NEVER SEEN by anyone in the Aug-oct 2001 timeframe in Ivins' suites. NO ONE. For that reason it could not have been used.

    How, then, can you say that the lyophilizer "could have been used"?!!?!?!?!!?

    Only in another universe or another dimension of this universe could that POSSIBLY be true. Here Mister Lake is TRAILING the DoJ on admitting the obvious: he's got to be the last person in any way knowledgeable about the Case, who is STILL insisting that that that lyophilizer could have been used. Why? I'll bite my tongue on that one.


    *These items, ie reasons the lyophilizer couldn't have been used, were discussed on the Internet ad nauseam for MANY MANY months before the s[p]it hit the rotating ventilation device in the civil suit and the DoJ finally 'amended' its statement that the lyophilizer was a requirement. Amended it because the plaintiff's attorneys already knew, from eyewitness accounts 1, 2, 3, 4. above.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Richard Rowley wrote: 'How, then, can you say that the lyophilizer "could have been used"?!!?!?!?!!?"

    You're using the reasoning of people whose goal is to argue that Ivins was innocent. They have no concern about facts or the law. They're just creating fictitious "straw man" arguments which they know they can knock down and disprove.

    The government never said anything about anyone moving the lyophilzer into Ivins' lab. That's an ABSURD "straw man" argument created by the friends of Bruce Ivins.

    This is really just a question of law and logic.

    Logic says that it cannot be proved that it is totally impossible for Ivins to have used the lyophilizer to make the powders. Therefore, it cannot be eliminated as a possibility.

    No one believes Ivins used the lyophilizer, but it is a possibility.

    Since it's not reasonable to believe that Ivins moved it to his BSL-3 suite, he would have had to use it in Suite B5.

    Is it totally impossible for Ivins to have dried spores in the lyophilizer while it was in suite B-5? NO! Does anyone think that's what he did? NO!

    It's just a method that cannot be scientifically eliminated.

    I think the government made a mistake on mentioning the lyophilizer without also mentioning other drying methods at the same time. It appears they only did so because Ivins lied about knowing how to use it. That showed he was being deceptive even when it wasn't necessary.

    "Mister Lake is TRAILING the DoJ on admitting the obvious: he's got to be the last person in any way knowledgeable about the Case, who is STILL insisting that that that lyophilizer could have been used."

    "The government" still says the lyophilizer COULD HAVE BEEN used. Even in the Stevens case they say so. Here's the erroneous statement they made about the lyophilizer:

    28. USAMRIID did not have the specialized equipment in a containment laboratory that would be required to prepare the dried spore preparations that were used in the letters.

    And here's the corrected statement:

    28. Although USAMRIID had equipment that could be used to dry liquid anthrax in the same building where anthrax research was conducted, USAMRIID did not have a lyophilizer in the specific containment laboratory where RMR-1029 was housed to prepare the dried spore preparations that were used in the letters.

    The corrected statement doesn't eliminate the possibility that Ivins could have used the lyophilizer in suite B5. That possibility CANNOT be scientifically eliminated. The statement also doesn't eliminate the possibility that the spores could have been dried in some other way.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  19. An entire post by Mister Lake from yesterday:
    --------
    Mara Linscott and the other women evidently didn't save the hand-written "childlike" letters that Ivins left or sent them, so there are no actual handwriting samples to use for a comparison. It's all purely testimony.

    It seems VERY doubtful that the prosecution would have the witnesses talk about the handwriting in court, since the defense would merely point out that the witnesses were working from their memory of things that happened years earlier, and they could be totally wrong.
    ===============================================================
    And that's why it would have been inadmissible. A judge would have been able to realize the tentative, speculative, and fallible nature of such testimony and would therefore rule against it being presented to a jury in the first place.

    But it's in the FINAL REPORT. Guess why?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Partial post by Mister Lake:
    ----------
    Richard Rowley wrote: 'How, then, can you say that the lyophilizer "could have been used"?!!?!?!?!!?"

    You're using the reasoning of people whose goal is to argue that Ivins was innocent.[...]
    ===========================================================
    Well, since I think he's innocent too, that would hardly put me off!

    Back to Mister Lake:
    -----------
    They have no concern about facts or the law.[...]
    -------------------------------------------------------------
    Don't agree. Lew Weinstein is very knowledgeable about both the facts and the law. And he's just one example.

    Back to Mister Lake:
    -----
    They're just creating fictitious "straw man" arguments which they know they can knock down and disprove.
    ===============================================================
    A "straw man argument" is one in which an argument is imputed to an opponent which the opponent has never IN ANY WAY EXPRESSED.
    The lyophilizer argument was put forward by the DoJ on Aug 6th 2008 as an integral part of the 'case against Ivins' (item #2, ie second skein of 'evidence' (wink wink)). Approximately 1 1/2 years later (Feb 2010)it was again used in the FINAL REPORT.

    I, myself, have cited both that newsconference's use of the lyophilizer AND the use of it in the FINAL REPORT in other venues when discussing this matter with Mister Lake. There's nothing even 'straw-mannish' about that argument. Which is PRECISELY why the DoJ asked for the amendment of their claims about the lyophilizer last summer.

    ReplyDelete
  21. More from Mister Lake's previous post:
    --------------
    The government never said anything about anyone moving the lyophilzer into Ivins' lab. That's an ABSURD "straw man" argument created by the friends of Bruce Ivins.

    This is really just a question of law and logic.
    ==========================================================
    No. Here's what logic says:

    1)if there's no lyophilizer in your hotsuite and you want to use a lyophilizer to dry anthrax (or anything like anthrax) IN THAT HOT SUITE you have to:

    a)locate and get your hands on a lyophilizer

    b) ascertain that it works/is useable (ie including having the protective hood)

    c) move that lyophilizer (or HAVE it moved*) into your hotsuite.


    (d))and if you use it MULTIPLE times (September mailings, October mailings) you have to move the lyophilizer in and out of your hot suite, unless you have no objections to your co-workers seeing the next morning that you have moved/have had moved the lyophilizer into your hot suite. And since this would inevitably lead to embarassing questions--------'What's with the lyophilizer, Bruce?'------there's not a snowball's chance in hell that Ivins or anyone in his putative position would have left themselves open to such queries).

    That's what a logic that is consequent shows us.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Richard Rowley wrote this about the mention of handwriting, 'But it's in the FINAL REPORT. Guess why?"

    I try not to guess. I prefer to analyze the facts. The report was supposedly written by Rachel Lieber. So, the facts would suggest that that is her personal theory.

    If there had been a trial, Mara Linscott, Nancy Haigwood and Patricia Fellows would all have testified about various things - Ivins' abilities, Ivins' obsessions, etc. And, in the course of such testimony, they would have been allowed to say that they remembered the handwriting on Ivins' letters as being very much like the handwriting on the attack letters. It's not speculation, it's not hearsay, it's personal recollections, so it could be admissible if done the right way. The defense can dispute their recollections, but they can't prevent them from being brought up as part of testimony about Ivins obsessions.

    "There's nothing even 'straw-mannish' about that argument. Which is PRECISELY why the DoJ asked for the amendment of their claims about the lyophilizer last summer."

    FALSE! There was NO "AMENDMENT" of claims about the lyophilizer. There was a CORRECTION to an erroneous statement. The statement said a lyophilizer was "required" to make the attack powders. That was totally wrong. The sentence was corrected.

    Except for that erroneous statement in the Stevens lawsuit document, there was NEVER any claim that a lyophilizer was used, only that it COULD HAVE BEEN used.

    "if there's no lyophilizer in your hotsuite and you want to use a lyophilizer to dry anthrax (or anything like anthrax) IN THAT HOT SUITE you have to ..."

    That's a preposterous argument. There's no reason why Ivins would "want to use a lyophilizer to dry anthrax." There were MUCH easier ways to dry anthrax. So, the whole idea that Ivins would want to move the lyophilizer to Suite B3 is just plain ridiculous. It's a "straw man" argument, i.e., a preposterous idea set up just so you can shoot it down.

    "A "straw man argument" is one in which an argument is imputed to an opponent which the opponent has never IN ANY WAY EXPRESSED."

    NOT TRUE A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. SOURCE

    You misrepresent the DOJ position by claiming they said that Ivins used a lyophilizer, and then you shoot down the idea of Ivins using a lyophilizer by arguing that it would have been next to impossible to use it in his B3 suite.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  23. Partial post by Mister Lake:
    --------------------
    You misrepresent the DOJ position by claiming they said that Ivins used a lyophilizer,[...]
    =========================================================
    Okay, I'll agree with you to this extent: they IMPLIED and IMPLIED STRONGLY that Ivins used the lyophilizer. Just like they IMPLIED that he used the xerox machine at the USAMRIID library to copy the letters. Just like they IMPLIED that Ivins' grandfather's house in NJ in the 19th Century had some relevance to the location of the mailing. Just like they IMPLIED where Ivins' father went to H.S./college had some relevance to same. Just like they IMPLIED that the location of the KKG office had relevance to same. About 92 pages of 'implication'. But the distinction between true evidence and implication/insinuation isn't always appreciated by the public at large. And the public at large was the target audience of both the Aug 6th press conference AND the FINAL REPORT. The 'evidence' AS EVIDENCE is mostly garbage.

    ReplyDelete
  24. One last(?) go at the lyophilizer question: I'd agree with Mister Lake that A lyophilizer could have been used to prepare the anthrax of Amerithrax. It's just that the one available to Bruce Ivins (and his colleagues) COULDN'T have been used. And since the FINAL REPORT is, with the exception of certain historical details about the early years of the case (2001-2006), focussed almost exclusively on establishing that Ivins (acting alone) did the crimes, and the lyophilizer is used to IMPLY that that's the equipment he used for the drying, it makes no sense to say (in that given context) that "the lyophilizer could have been used".
    Nope. No hood. End of story.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Richard Rowley wrote: "they IMPLIED and IMPLIED STRONGLY that Ivins used the lyophilizer. Just like they IMPLIED that he used the xerox machine at the USAMRIID library to copy the letters. Just like they IMPLIED that Ivins' grandfather's house in NJ in the 19th Century had some relevance to the location of the mailing. Just like they IMPLIED where Ivins' father went to H.S./college had some relevance to same. Just like they IMPLIED that the location of the KKG office had relevance to same."

    No, they didn't IMPLY anything. They stated facts. When viewed together, the facts say Ivins sent the letters.

    "To imply" means "to indicate without saying openly." The DOJ is saying OPENLY that the ZIP code connects Ivins to the senate letter. They are saying OPENLY that the location of the KKG office connects Ivins to the scene of the crime. They are saying OPENLY that the fact that Ivins' father went to Princeton connects Ivins to the scene of the crime.

    They are saying OPENLY that the copy machine in the library COULD HAVE BEEN used to make the letter copies.

    They are saying OPENLY that the lyophilizer COULD HAVE BEEN used to make the anthrax powders.

    No implications. Just statements of facts.

    Richard Rowley also wrote,

    "It's just that the one available to Bruce Ivins (and his colleagues) COULDN'T have been used."

    "No hood. End of story."

    Nonsense. The lyophilizer was evidently used in Suite B5 to dry non-lethal powders. That says that there wasn't any danger of those powders blowing all over the place - even if they were non-lethal. The powders may be non-lethal but they could still get airborne and into people's eyes and lungs. There was no hood, so there was no need for a hood to keep non-lethal powders contained, the lyophilizer kept the powders contained.

    I don't know the exact details of the lyophilizer in Suite B5, but a search on the Internet will show that lyophilization is often done by placing materials inside a membrane bottle that acts as a filter, keeping the dry powder inside while letting all the moisture escape. And, the lyophilizers are self-cleaning.

    It might be dangerous to dry anthrax in the lyophilizer in Suite B5, but Ivins was doing dangerous things every day. He was accustomed to the dangers and knew how to clean up after himself.

    There's no reason to believe that it was impossible for Ivins to have used the lyophilizer in Suite B5 to dry the attack spores, although it seems extremely unlikely that he did so. The facts strongly suggest that he air dried the spores.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ed writes:


      "They are saying OPENLY that the copy machine in the library COULD HAVE BEEN used to make the letter copies."

      Indeed. And yet the not-yet-publicly-disclosed mass spec on the toner excludes that possibility which makes the position a lying crock. The GAO needs to obtain a copy of Dr. Bartick's report on the toner (which is totally separate of any analysis of "track marks.") And reporters need to call Dr. Bartick in Boston and interview him on the subject.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous is again posting sermons about what the GAO needs to do. But, since it's such a short sermon, I allowed it.

      He also says,

      yet the not-yet-publicly-disclosed mass spec on the toner excludes that possibility which makes the position a lying crock.

      You ignore the fact that the letters were copied in 2001 and the copy machine in the library at USAMRIID probably wasn't checked until 2003 or 2004. It could have been cleaned countless times, repaired, overhauled or even replaced during the intervening years. That would make any comparison meaningless.

      I should have deleted Anonymous' comments about what the GAO needs to do. I'll be more careful next time.

      Ed

      Delete
  26. Ha! As you'll recall, Dr. Ivins was not in B5, he was in B3. The case Rachel thought she had proved actually served to establish he was not using the lyophilized in B5. Instead, he was in the B3 with the rabbits.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anonymous wrote: "The case Rachel thought she had proved actually served to establish he was not using the lyophilized in B5.

    So, you're doing mind reading games today? You know what Rachel Lieber thought?

    Ivins worked in B3, but he also had a lab in B5 (room B505). The in-out logs indicate that he frequently went into Suite B5. There was nothing preventing him from using the lyophilizer at night or on weekends.

    No one is saying Ivins used the lyophilizer to dry the attack powders. But they are saying he could have used the lyophilizer to dry the attack powders.

    They're saying that Ivins had the MEANS to dry the attack powders. And the lyophilizer was one of those means. Air drying was another.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  28. Parial post by Mister Lake:
    ------------
    They are saying OPENLY that the copy machine in the library COULD HAVE BEEN used to make the letter copies.
    ============================================================
    But it COULDN'T have been used: they(the investigators) tested that copy machine and it was a 'non-match' (page 13 of the FINAL REPOT). It was on SUBSEQUENT pages of the report that they tried to circle back and IMPLY that Ivins used that copier. Circled back because they know that 1)the general public won't read anything beyond media summaries of the FINAL REPORT 2)the sub-population that WILL read it won't remember MANY pages later that they already admitted on page 13 that all the machines they tested were non-matches to the Amerithrax texts.

    As with the polygraph tests, the Task Force is arbitrarily ignoring THEIR OWN TEST RESULTS in order to try to implicate Ivins. Clever. But too clever by half.

    As I said, the deeper you get into parsing the 'evidence' the junkier it turns out to be.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Richard Rowley,

    I know they didn't find any match on the copy machine. But, they apparently didn't even test the machine in the USAMRIID library until YEARS after the attacks. So, you again say the DOJ implies this or that, and I again say they just state the facts.

    As far as the polygraph test is concerned, it was "inconclusive" for multiple reasons. (1) NOTHING ABOUT LIE DETECTOR TESTS IS CONCLUSIVE. (2) Ivins was evidently a sociopath, and one test for a sociopath is that they'll pass a lie detector test without difficulty, since they lie without emotion. (3) Ivins took drugs which could have had an effect on his lie detector results.

    So, you can argue that the DOJ is implying this or that, but the legal case isn't about implying, it's about what the facts say. And the facts say beyond any reasonable doubt that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  30. Prediction: the GAO will discover that the Task Force engaged one or more graphological analysts (PROFESSIONALS, not "individuals with whom we spoke")in the 2005-2008 period and that those analysts came to the conclusion that Ivins' printing was a BAD match to the Amerithrax printing. The Task Force then 'buried' this information (via making to references to it in Aug 2008 and in the FINAL REPORT). This revelation (and any similar things they find in the raw files of the case)will give Rush Holt, Senator Grassley et alia plenty of ammo to use in pressing for a full-blown inquery into Amerithrax. Whether Holt/Grassley et alia will prevail or not, I can't say. It also would depend, to some extent, on the outcome of the election(s) in November.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Richard Rowley wrote: "Prediction: the GAO will discover ...."

    Prediction: The GAO will not second guess or re-investigate any part of the Amerithrax case. They will only make recommendations about how cases involving biological agents should be handled in the future.

    The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an independent, nonpartisan agency that works for Congress. Often called the "congressional watchdog," the GAO investigates how the federal government spends taxpayer dollars.

    I can see them criticizing the FBI for spending $880,000 to let some scientists review the science of the case. The FBI should have realized that would be largely a waste of money. Scientists seem to rarely agree with other scientists about anything.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  32. Partial post by Mister Lake:
    ---------------------------
    So, you can argue that the DOJ is implying this or that, but the legal case isn't about implying, it's about what the facts say. And the facts say beyond any reasonable doubt that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer.
    ===============================================================
    You have successfully evaded the requirements of due process once again. Alas, the US attorneys involved in Amerithrax WOULDN'T have been able to achieve that: THEY are bound by admissibilty and other requirements.

    So, since they(the US attorneys) wouldn't have been able to EXPLAIN (to the judge) what relevance the location of the residence of Ivins' grandfather in the 19th Century had to Ivins' guilt/innocence, it (that "fact") wouldn't have been admissible. Ditto for the following "facts"/testimonies: his father's alma mater, the 175 foot distance to the KKG office, opinions of Ivins' printing style if given by arrant amateurs(especially if those amateurs were making their evaluations via their MEMORY of Ivins' printing style rather than a side-to-side comparison of documents), the 'decryption of the amino acid code' (unless it were presented by qualified cryptoanalysts).

    The tape recording of the conversation between Ivins and the FBI 'wired' witness in a restaurant might well have been admissible, but since it (the conversation)as conveyed by the trasncript on pages 70 and 71 of the FINAL REPORT shows a conversation that was ANYTHING BUT an 'equivocal denial' that tape recording would have redounded to the benefit of the defense. So the US attorneys likely would not have used it.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Partial post by Mister Lake:
    -------------
    I can see them criticizing the FBI for spending $880,000 to let some scientists review the science of the case. The FBI should have realized that would be largely a waste of money. Scientists seem to rarely agree with other scientists about anything.
    ===============================================================
    The solution to Amerithrax isn't (primarily) in the science, it's in the writing.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Of some interest here is this characterization of the GAO:
    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2001/08/what_does_the_gao_do.html
    Since the characterization was written pre-Amerithrax, it has the benefit of telling us something of the scope of the GAO's investigations without prejudging their take on what needs to be looked at in the Amerithrax investigation.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Richard Rowley wrote: "You have successfully evaded the requirements of due process once again."

    No, you just have a very WRONG idea of what is admissible in court and what isn't.

    Your belief that the prosecution would not be allowed to show connections between Ivins actions and the scene of the crime is just plain preposterous. There's no explanation needed to show that the return address ZIP code on the letter belongs to the area where Ivins' father's family lived for over a hundred years. The facts explain themselves. There's an undeniable connection -- one among many.

    "Ditto for the following "facts"/testimonies: [...] opinions of Ivins' printing style if given by arrant amateurs(especially if those amateurs were making their evaluations via their MEMORY of Ivins' printing style rather than a side-to-side comparison of documents)"

    I've been doing some additional thinking about that. I no longer think that Rachel Lieber put that information in the Summary Report because it somehow agrees with her own theory. The facts say that she put it in the report because it says Ivins could have used children to do his writing long BEFORE he did it with the anthrax letters. He could have used (different) children to write the "childlike" letters to Mara Linscott and either Nancy Haigwood or Pat Fellows.

    "So the US attorneys likely would not have used it [the taped conversation].

    According to David Willman's book, Rachel Lieber planned to used the taped conversation between Ivins and Fellows in her opening arguments to the jury in the trial. It would have been devastating testimony from Ivins himself that he did not deny committing the crime.

    Innocent people yell I DIDN'T DO IT!!!
    Guilty people mumble, "If I did it, I don't remember doing it."

    "The solution to Amerithrax isn't (primarily) in the science, it's in the writing."

    Only in a world where facts and evidence have no meaning and beliefs are everything.

    The link you provided about the GAO merely confirms that the GAO has no ability or authority to re-investigate the Amerithrax investigation. They can only investigate to see if taxpayer funds were being spent properly.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  36. Partial post by Mister Lake:
    -----------------
    Your belief that the prosecution would not be allowed to show connections between Ivins actions and the scene of the crime is just plain preposterous. There's no explanation needed to show that the return address ZIP code on the letter belongs to the area where Ivins' father's family lived for over a hundred years. The facts explain themselves. There's an undeniable connection -- one among many.
    =======================================================
    No. Few "facts" explain themselves. Lawyers are always employing facts--------or at least those facts that they can BOTH prove and get admitted into evidence (the judge's call, not the call of Ed Lake or of r. rowley)-------and then spinning an array of same to make their respective cases (he's innocent!/he's guilty!). Just like politicos do: the unemployment rate is an official stat, but what the unemployment rate MEANS at any given moment and whether the (let's posit) high unemployment rate at a given moment is to be blamed on the sitting president, the present House and/or Senate, the Secretary of Treasury/budget director OR on their respective predecessors, OR whether any coherent answer to such a complicated question is even possible is strictly a matter of interpretation. Which in an adversarial system means: battling interpretations (plural).

    As I mentioned elsewhere, I have more New Jersey connections than
    Bruce Ivins does. But none of my NJ connections have any bearing on whether I committed a crime in the Garden State. New Jersey is (last time I looked) our most densely populated state. Meaning that OF COURSE millions and millions of people (including ones like Ivins who NEVER lived in that state) have social and other connections to that state. It is of no logical import to the case. Inadmissible.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Partial post by Mister Lake:
    -----------------------
    According to David Willman's book, Rachel Lieber planned to used the taped conversation between Ivins and Fellows in her opening arguments to the jury in the trial. [...]
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    Well, if Willman said that (I tend to jump around his book so I haven't read it straight through), then he's ignorant/naive. That's not what opening arguments are for. Opening arguments/statements (for both sides) are to give the jury an OVERVIEW of things: what crime was committed, where/when it was committed, what the "people" (ie the government) intend to prove about the defendant's culpability. Perhaps HOW they intend to prove it. But the proof itself will be in the body of the state's case, not in the introduction that opening statements are.
    (see, for example this: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:CM_Vws4TWJsJ:www.cvs.k12.mi.us/abarren/images/Helpful%2520Links/Stages%2520of%2520a%2520Trial%2520Handout.doc+%22the+stages+of+a+trial%22&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESh2CgFKe03UP3EMzqv497Ce8hPHPYTkezmQjaU7gcYcfeJ13-P05ufTeKwVqPfSmKyu7e6khv1QkSZANJwfcHDHdKUc2KMqEuofFsstSOR4JW05vzHED7TWR3wsXlBZCaOGvi7-&sig=AHIEtbReEjScLfypXCCMRP8EnydeVS1pYg

    ReplyDelete
  38. Partial post by Mister Lake:
    ---------------
    Innocent people yell I DIDN'T DO IT!!!
    ============================================================
    Ivins did that from at least March of 2005 to July 27th 2008. His cries fell on deaf ears. Little did he realize that that deafness would spread to others after his death.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Richard Rowley wrote: "Meaning that OF COURSE millions and millions of people (including ones like Ivins who NEVER lived in that state) have social and other connections to that state. It is of no logical import to the case. Inadmissible."

    You seem totally incapable of understanding evidence or the legal process. It's really not that complicated. I'll try again.

    Your connections to the scene of the crime have no meaning because YOU ARE NOT ON TRIAL.

    Ivins' connection to the crime scene WOULD BE evidence because he would have been on trial.

    Facts become evidence in court when the facts are presented to support a claim.

    There are no claims associated with your connections to New Jersey. Therefore the "connections" are just meaningless facts.

    But facts are NOT meaningless when they become evidence in support of a claim that Ivins was the anthrax mailer.

    The fact that is Ivins had an obsession with the KKG sorority and there was a KKG office 175 feet from the scene of the crime IS EVIDENCE of a connection to the scene of the crime. Any claim that it is not admissible is PREPOSTEROUS.

    The same with the fact that Ivins' father went to school across the street from the scene of the crime.

    The same with the fact that the ZIP code on the return address is the ZIP code for where Ivins' father's family lived for over a century.

    IT IS EVIDENCE. IT IS ADMISSIBLE. TO CLAIM IT IS NOT ADMISSIBLE IS PREPOSTEROUS.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  40. Richard Rowley wrote: "Well, if Willman said that (I tend to jump around his book so I haven't read it straight through), then he's ignorant/naive."

    What does Willman have to do with it, other than reporting on what Lieber told him?

    At the top of page 296 of Willman's book there is this paragraph:

    "Agent Alexander was at the FBI's office in Frederick, listening in as the conversation unfolded. As he followed the back-and-forth, Alexander looked forward to the day when a jury would hear Ivins stammering and equivocating about whether he committed the anthrax letter attacks. That night, Rachel Lieber listened to a tape of the conversation and resolved that she would play excerpts from it during opening arguments at the future murder trial of Bruce Ivins." Note 6.

    Where did the information come from? Willman explains in Note #6 for chapter 28:

    "Author's interviews with Lawrence Alexander, March 11, 2010, and Rachel Lieber, August 27, 2010."

    So, your claim that "That's not what opening arguments are for" is WRONG and IGNORANT OF THE FACTS.

    Can't you see that your beliefs about evidence and court proceedings have NOTHING TO DO WITH REALITY?

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  41. Richard Rowley wrote: "Ivins did that [claimed his innocence] from at least March of 2005 to July 27th 2008."

    Why don't you provide examples and tell us your sources?

    Ivins made a lot of false claims about not being able to make such powders, but that is not the same as claiming he didn't send the anthrax letters. All of his claims about not being able to make such powders could have been easily disproved in court. The claims were definite lies.

    I'm not saying he never claimed that he was innocent. He may have done so at some point in time. But, I don't recall any such declaration. He seemed to spend most of his time pointing to others who he argued would be better suspects than he.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  42. Partial post by Ed Lake:
    ------------
    Richard Rowley wrote: "Ivins did that [claimed his innocence] from at least March of 2005 to July 27th 2008."

    Why don't you provide examples and tell us your sources?
    ==========================================================
    My source is: the FBI (see the first 4 posts of THIS THREAD).

    ReplyDelete
  43. Okay, I misremembered where I posted the FULL transcript of those two pages (70-71) of the FINAL REPORT dealing with Ivins' wired conversation with his 'colleague and friend'. It was not on this thread but here

    http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2012/01/jan-15-jan-21-discussions.html

    And it wss more than halfway down the thread: It starts off like this:

    AnonymousJan 26, 2012 01:19 PM
    Okay, here's the presentation of the "non-denial denial" on page 70 of the FINAL REPORT (online version):
    --------------------------
    I was getting that mixed up with my treatment of Jeff Taylor's Mexican hat dance around whether they(the Task Force) had taken handwriting samples from Ivins. THAt what starts this thread (first 5 posts).

    ReplyDelete
  44. Partial post by Mister Lake:
    -----------
    Richard Rowley wrote: "Meaning that OF COURSE millions and millions of people (including ones like Ivins who NEVER lived in that state) have social and other connections to that state. It is of no logical import to the case. Inadmissible."

    You seem totally incapable of understanding evidence or the legal process. It's really not that complicated. I'll try again.

    Your connections to the scene of the crime have no meaning because YOU ARE NOT ON TRIAL.
    ==============================================================
    Once again, you misread what I wrote: (this is what I wrote)
    ------------
    But none of my NJ connections have any bearing on whether I committed a crime in the Garden State.
    ========================================================
    At this point I'm NOT (in this sentence) talking about Amerithrax.
    I'm talking about the LOGICAL PROPOSITION (a proposition that if accepted would undermine due process) that a person is 'tied' logically to a crime(ANY crime) just because that person:

    1)lived there (in that state) decades ago (my basic training at Fort Dix in the 1970s 'qualifies' me on that count in NJ*)

    2)had some ANCESTOR who lived there in a previous century(!!!!)

    3)had a father who went to HS/college in the area 60 or 70 years earlier.

    Etc. (Etc=any and all OBSCURE and not-tightly-connected-to-the-crime-and-it's-circumstances-including-its-chronology connections to: a state, a town, even a neighborhood)

    The crime in question could be: a bank robbery, a rape, a theft, assault and battery, a murder. Almost ANYTHING. NOT JUST AMERITHRAX!

    NONE of these logical propositions are.....logical. Rules of evidence aren't crafted especially for Amerithrax or the 'Case against Bruce Ivins'. They are PRE-EXISTING principles of LOGIC, precedent, procedure and law. It's clear you are unfamiliar with them. THEREFORE you are poorly positioned to evaluate the FINAL REPORT, the Aug 6th press conference, etc.

    *Ivins apparently NEVER lived in NJ. But even if he had, this would NOT IPSO FACTO logically connect him to Amerithrax

    ReplyDelete
  45. Richard Rowley wrote: "My source is: the FBI (see the first 4 posts of THIS THREAD)."

    You are just playing word games. There is NO STATEMENT in the taped conversation between Ivins and Fellows were Ivins says he did NOT commit the crime. You claim there is, but you won't say where. Instead you point to a section that proves why I am saying, not what you are saying.

    And your attempts to argue that Rachel Leiber and the Department of Justice do not know the rules of evidence as well as you do are BEYOND PREPOSTEROUS.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  46. Partial post by Mister Lake:
    -------------
    I'm not saying he never claimed that he was innocent. He may have done so at some point in time.[...]
    =============================================================
    He did so from the word go. And he did so on pages 70 and 71 of the FINAL REPORT. You just have to be a discerning reader and ignore the DoJ's label: "equivocal denial". There's NOTHING equivocal about it: it's a double-barreled denial (he denies that he did it, he denies that his crazy alter ego did it), it's a denial in depth (1)'I'm not a killer at heart' (2) 'I don't like to hurt people' (3)'When my alter ego takes over there are signs that clue me in (but there were no such signs in Amerithrax)' (4)
    I've avoided learning how to make a bioweapon (because both it and my crazy rages frighten me).

    And since THIS is the closest the Task Force came to an admission (Which is why THEY decided to include it in the FINAL REPORT) we can be confident that Ivins was elsewhere consistently denying guilt, BOTH to the investigators AND to Ivins' friends/colleagues (wired and unwired).

    ReplyDelete
  47. Richard Rowley wrote: "I'm talking about the LOGICAL PROPOSITION (a proposition that if accepted would undermine due process) that a person is 'tied' logically to a crime(ANY crime) just because that person: ... Yada yada yada.

    You are creating straw man arguments. A "straw man argument," as I've pointed out to you before, is a fallacy based on a misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

    You are misrepresenting the evidence supplied by the FBI and the DOJ. And then you argue that the misrepresentation is invalid. Agreed. It is invalid. But, it is YOUR misrepresentation, not anything from the DOJ or FBI.

    The DOJ is NOT saying that the fact that Ivins father went to Princeton is proof that Ivins sent the anthrax letter.

    The FBI says the FACT that Ivins' father went to Princeton, right across the street from the scene of the crime, is a CONNECTION between Ivins and the scene of the crime. That is an UNDENIABLE FACT.

    You need to understand that evidence may merely HELP prove a claim in court. You endlessly and ridiculously argue that every item of evidence must BY ITSELF prove the claim. That's simply NOT TRUE. Endlessly arguing it shows you have a total ignorance of evidence and court proceedings.

    I've told you many times that an item of evidence by itself may be totally meaningless. But, when put together with all the other items of evidence, it can be a significant part of the total evidence pointing to a person's guilt.

    You really NEED to try to understand that. I'm not going to try to explain it to you another hundred times. At some point in time, I have to assume you either do not want to understand it or you are incapable of understanding it.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  48. Richard Rowley wrote: "There's NOTHING equivocal about it: it's a double-barreled denial (he denies that he did it, he denies that his crazy alter ego did it), it's a denial in depth"

    TOTAL NONSENSE!!!

    "I'm not a killer at heart" is NOT A DENIAL. It's an argument from someone who killed by mistake.

    "I don't like to hurt people" is NOT A DENIAL. It's an argument from someone who killed by mistake.

    The facts indicate that Ivins didn't intend to kill anyone with is letters. He included medical advice in the first batch of letters, and he taped the letters shut to make sure that no powder would escape. NO ADDRESSEE WAS KILLED.

    Ivins did NOT deny sending the letters. He just claimed in round-about ways that, if he did it, he didn't mean to do it.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  49. Partial post by Mister Lake:
    -------------
    And your attempts to argue that Rachel Leiber and the Department of Justice do not know the rules of evidence as well as you do are BEYOND PREPOSTEROUS.
    =================================================================
    I have NEVER argued that Rachel Leiber and the DoJ don't know the rules of evidence. I have ALWAYS argued that they know them all too well and that they THEREFORE know that much of what is in the FINAL REPORT is inadmissible and DON'T CARE.

    Don't care because they knew from July 29th 2008 onwards that there would be no trial for Bruce Ivins. No trial except in the court of public opinion. Therefore they tried (and more or less succeeded) in blackening his name via revelations about paraphilias amd other matters TOTALLY unrelated to either the Amerithrax crimes or (possible) motives therefor. And added to that wholly specious non-arguments about 19th Century grandfathers and a father's alma mater (ie stuff that tells us NOTHING about the probably of Ivins' guilt/innocence in Amerithrax).

    NOWHERE in the FINAL REPORT does it say: 'this skein/this fact would be admissible in a realistic trial setting'. They don't do that for two reasons: 1)they know it isn't true (in many instances) 2)that (admissibilty) isn't the focus of the FINAL REPORT.

    I don't know HOW many times I've written here (and in other venues) directly to Mister Lake that 'this is a PR document' but it must have been dozens of times. Apparently Mister Lake doesn't actually know what PR (public relations) means. For if he did, he would cease once and for all from taxing me with claiming that those high-priced government lawyers don't know the rules of evidence. They know them and apply them in court(s) every day. But the FINAL REPORT wasn't written in order to submit it to a judge/court, it was written to try to convince the US populace that Amerithrax was correctly solved. Alas, it wasn't.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Partial post by Mister Lake:
    ----------
    Richard Rowley wrote: "There's NOTHING equivocal about it: it's a double-barreled denial (he denies that he did it, he denies that his crazy alter ego did it), it's a denial in depth"

    TOTAL NONSENSE!!!

    "I'm not a killer at heart" is NOT A DENIAL. It's an argument from someone who killed by mistake.
    ===============================================================
    That's funny. If I killed someone by 'mistake' (here another of Mister Lake's idiosyncratic apostasies is showing!)I would say something like:

    1)'I didn't mean to kill anyone'

    2)'I was just trying to scare people'

    3) 'I didn't realize how powerful that powder was'

    Etc. What he DID say ("I don't like to hurt people")
    is perfectly consistent with the many many prior denials Ivins made to the investigators and to the wired witness. Here he's saying that EVEN IF HIS ALTER EGO took over for a while this (hurting people)wouln't have happened. And we know of no instance in Ivins life prior to Sept 2001 (he was 55 years old at that time)where he (or his crazy alter ego) DID physically injure anyone.

    Your reading of this, Mister Lake, is as tendentious (and therefore stilted) as that of the authors of the FINAL REPORT.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Partial post by Mister Lake:
    -----------
    I've told you many times that an item of evidence by itself may be totally meaningless.
    =============================================================
    And I told YOU (time and again) that you are the one playing 'word games': you are flitting back and forth between the JURIDICAL meaning of the word "evidence" (that's something that a judge decides a jury can see in a trial based on the rules of evidence and other things) and the common everyday use of that word (ie Definition of EVIDENCE
    1a : an outward sign : indication [...])
    Those meanings are NOT the same. The juridical one is vastly narrower and requires in depth familiarity with court/legal procedures to be fully comprehended.

    Compare:

    1)Beijing is the capital of China.

    2)The grandfather of Bruce Ivins lived in the greater Princeton area in the 19th Century.

    Both 1) and 2) are 'facts' but BOTH would have been inadmissible as evidence in a trial of Bruce Ivins. And for the same reason: both tell us NOTHING about the likelihood Ivins did the crime(s), about any POTENTIAL motivation for that crime. Even when those 'facts' are added to other facts.

    ReplyDelete
  52. One last point on the rules of evidence and the FINAL REPORT:

    1) as already noted by me, Jeff Taylor's Mexican hat dance around the question of whether Ivins' handwriting samples were "taken" by the Task Force INCLUDED blind references to "individuals with whom we spoke" and (at least one) unnamed "witness" who gave his impressions of Ivins' handwriting/printing based on the witness's memory of mail items received from Ivins in the 1990s and early 2000s.

    2) I may be wrong but I got the impression that EVEN MISTER LAKE saw that such testimony by non-professionals giving graphological opinions based not on direct side-by-side comparisons (Ivins sample next to Amerithrax sample)wouldn't be admissible.

    3)If I'm right (Mister Lake DOES have that opinion) then (following what he taxed me with above)HE (Mister Lake) is thereby saying that Jeff Taylor doesn't understand the rules of evidence.

    4)How to solve this quandry? I submit that AT SOME LEVEL of consciousness Mister Lake himself knows that the FINAL REPORT and the Aug 6th press conference didn't abide completely by the rules
    of evidence (and that Taylor and Lieber were totally aware of this). Because they will never have to submit that FINAL REPORT to a criminal judge who could knock anything down.

    5)Therefore the only difference between Mister Lake and me in the matter is: he sees only one or two inadmissible things in the FINAL REPORT whereas I see dozens.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Partial post by Mister Lake going way back:
    -----------------
    Richard Rowley wrote: "Well, if Willman said that (I tend to jump around his book so I haven't read it straight through), then he's ignorant/naive."

    What does Willman have to do with it, other than reporting on what Lieber told him?
    ========================================================
    That's funny coming from you! When I mentioned that a careful reading of Willman's account of the course of the investigation indicates that Willman reported that Task Force newbie Alexander was told in early 2004 that Hatfill was the prime suspect, his indictment "imminent", Mister Lake's explanation (one of at least two by him) was: Willman must have gotten it wrong!

    So if Willman (possibly) got THAT (non-legal/non-procedural)matter wrong, why couldn't he have misconstrued what Rachel Lieber told him? ESPECIALY when it concerns a procedural matter: I NEVER heard of an attorney in a big crimal trial putting the SUBSTANCE of evidence in an opening statement. It's putting the cart before the horse.
    (See: http://criminaldefense.homestead.com/Opening.html

    ReplyDelete
  54. Partial post by Mister Lake:
    ---------------
    The fact that is Ivins had an obsession with the KKG sorority and there was a KKG office 175 feet from the scene of the crime IS EVIDENCE of a connection to the scene of the crime. Any claim that it is not admissible is PREPOSTEROUS.
    ==========================================================
    You need to go to a message board where lawyers hang out. They would set you straight on this stuff. Me you won't believe because I'm "prejudiced" by the fact that I think Ivins was innocent.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Partial post by Mister Lake:
    ------------------
    Facts become evidence in court when the facts are presented to support a claim.
    -------------------------------------------------------------
    But since you(any individual)

    1)doesn't need to have a 19th Century grandfather who lived in the greater Princeton area to mail a letter (of any sort) on Nassau Street, it (the grandfather) DOESN'T advance the claim

    Since you (any individual)

    2)doesn't need a father who went to Princeton to mail a letter (of any sort) on Nassau Street, it (the father's alma mater) DOESN'T advance the claim.

    Since you (any individual)

    3)doesn't need to have an obsession with a nearby sorority office on Nassau Street to mail a letter (of any sort) on that street, it (the sorority obsession) DOESN'T advance the claim.

    Irrelevant to guilt/innocence. Simple logic.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Richard Rowley wrote: "I have NEVER argued that Rachel Leiber and the DoJ don't know the rules of evidence. I have ALWAYS argued that they know them all too well and that they THEREFORE know that much of what is in the FINAL REPORT is inadmissible and DON'T CARE."

    Okay. You've made your point. The federal officials involved with the case know the rules of evidence, but they just "don't care" and talk about things that are inadmissible as if they were admissible. In your mind, they're all just corrupt government officials "blackening" the good name of a mentally ill burglar, thief, vandal and harasser of women who was laden with all kinds of creepy obsessions.

    "NOWHERE in the FINAL REPORT does it say: 'this skein/this fact would be admissible in a realistic trial setting'. They don't do that for two reasons: 1)they know it isn't true (in many instances) 2)that (admissibilty) isn't the focus of the FINAL REPORT."

    And, you fantasize that the US attorneys know that the evidence is not admissible, but they talk about it as if it is.

    And, in your mind, there's no possibility that the evidence really IS admissible, so the US attorneys are just lying.

    So, you're not saying you know more about evidence than the FBI and US attorneys do, you're saying the FBI and the US attorneys are all corrupt. And, you believe this because they didn't arrest the person who you believe did it.

    Aren't you also saying that, because of your vastly superior knowledge of evidence, you know that your evidence is pure nonsense that doesn't prove anything? You refuse to explain your evidence at all. Do you just expect everyone to assume that it exists and is overwhelming?

    The only valid assumption is that your evidence is worthless, so you argue that the FBI/DOJ's evidence is also worthless, but more worthless than yours.

    Thanks for clarifying things.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  57. Richard Rowley wrote: "If I killed someone by 'mistake' (...)I would say something like:

    1)'I didn't mean to kill anyone'"


    So, if you killed someone, you'd confess? And that somehow means that Ivins would also confess?

    Why? Do you consider yourself to be the standard for the world? Can't you see how ridiculous your reasoning is? SOMEONE killed those 5 people, and that person hasn't confessed. How can that be? By your reasoning, EVERYONE who kills also confesses.

    Or maybe you just don't realize that "I didn't mean to kill anyone" is a confession.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  58. Richard Rowley wrote: "Both 1) and 2) are 'facts' but BOTH would have been inadmissible as evidence in a trial of Bruce Ivins. And for the same reason: both tell us NOTHING about the likelihood Ivins did the crime(s), about any POTENTIAL motivation for that crime. Even when those 'facts' are added to other facts."

    Nonsense.

    The fact that Beijing is the capital of China WOULD be admissible as evidence, if it HELPED prove anything in the case. It doesn't. So, it wouldn't be admissible.

    The fact that Ivins' grandfather lived in ZIP code area 08852 IS admissible as evidence because it HELPS connect Ivins to the senate envelopes where that ZIP code was used.

    This isn't about any general interpretation of the word "evidence," it's about the LEGAL interpretation of evidence.

    This is from "The People's Law Dictionary":

    -----------
    Evidence: n. every type of proof legally presented at trial (allowed by the judge) which is intended to convince the judge and/or jury of alleged facts material to the case. It can include oral testimony of witnesses, including experts on technical matters, documents, public records, objects, photographs and depositions (testimony under oath taken before trial). It also includes so-called "circumstantial evidence" which is intended to create belief by showing surrounding circumstances which logically lead to a conclusion of fact.
    ------------

    The ZIP code on the Senate letters is for the area where Ivins' grandfather lived. Mentioning it in court is intended to convince the judge and/or jury that Ivins had a connection to the writing on the senate anthrax envelopes. It will help "create belief" by showing a connection between Ivins and the ZIP code on the senate envelopes. It HELPS connect Ivins to the crime.

    The claim is: Ivins used a ZIP code that had a personal significance to him.

    It's legal evidence. To argue otherwise is a display of ignorance of the law.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  59. Richard Rowley wrote; "3)If I'm right (Mister Lake DOES have that opinion) then (following what he taxed me with above)HE (Mister Lake) is thereby saying that Jeff Taylor doesn't understand the rules of evidence."

    You're wrong. First, I don't think that Jeff Taylor had anything to do with the writing of the Summary Report. It's my understanding that it was written by Rachel Lieber.

    Second, I explained that the testimony of witnesses is allowed, and if Mara Linscott and/or Nancy Haigwood and Patricia Fellows state that the handwriting on letters they received as "jokes" from Ivins looked like the handwriting on the attack letters and envelopes, that is totally admissible. It's admissible as testimony from a witness, and is no different than a witness saying "I saw Joe Blow on 3rd street on the day of the crime."

    The defense can argue about how clearly the witness could see Joe Blow, but the testimony is still acceptable. And so would the testimony of the witnesses that the handwriting looked like the way Ivins wrote when he sent them "joke" letters. PERIOD.

    I have no disagreement. If that's what they believe they saw, I totally accept that it is what they believe they saw.

    However, I have a different interpretation. I see it as pointing out a possibility that Ivins used other children to write letters for him in the past. He didn't just start with the anthrax letters.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  60. Richard Rowley,

    Doesn't our whole discussion boil down to you claiming that "the government" cannot be trusted, and therefore you're going to believe whatever you want to believe, regardless of what the facts say?

    If "the government" says something that you do not accept, to you it means they don't care about the "truth".

    So, our discussion isn't about the facts of the case. It's about your distrust of "the government" and your belief that "the government" got the facts wrong. And, that means you can just ignore all the evidence and claim it isn't really evidence because, as you interpret things, it's either phoney statements made up by "the government" or it's false interpretations by "the government."

    So, all we're really doing is discussing your beliefs.

    And, whenever I prove that your beliefs are totally wrong, you just change the subject.

    Doesn't that about sum things up?

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  61. Partial Post by Mister Lake:
    -----------------
    Doesn't our whole discussion boil down to you claiming that "the government" cannot be trusted, and therefore you're going to believe whatever you want to believe, regardless of what the facts say?
    ===============================================================
    It would not be my formulation that "the government cannot be trusted". My formulation would be: the government cannot ALWAYS be trusted and that that's why we have:

    1)a system of checks and balances (ie 3 branches of the government
    which are SUPPOSED to keep an eye on each other, even a suspicious eye)

    2)a free press which, when it is performing optimally, plays a sort of watch-dog role

    3)various citizen groups (a phenomenon which Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville remarked on in the 19th Century and contrasted with the paucity of such groups in his native France; see
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_de_Tocqueville

    4)in places here and there internal government watchdogs, like the GAO, though their jurisdictions are sometimes severely circumscribed

    5)brave, sometimes heroic individuals who act as whistleblowers on
    the very organizations to which they belong (in the FBI context, see Coleen Rowley (no relation): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coleen_Rowley

    Etc. That old expression that "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance" is usually understood in terms of foreign threats, but the INTERNAL ones are frequently more numerous, more deep-seated,
    harder to perceive, harder to root out etc.

    Which prompts (in me) a mischievous question: Mister Lake, if, in the next 5 to 10 years, it is revealed that Ivins was innocent and the true culprits are identified (For Mister Lake this is a COMPLETELY hypothetical question, that goes without saying), who should be blamed for the Ivins fiasco?

    ReplyDelete
  62. Partial post by Miste Lake:
    ---------------
    Richard Rowley wrote; "3)If I'm right (Mister Lake DOES have that opinion) then (following what he taxed me with above)HE (Mister Lake) is thereby saying that Jeff Taylor doesn't understand the rules of evidence."

    You're wrong. First, I don't think that Jeff Taylor had anything to do with the writing of the Summary Report. It's my understanding that it was written by Rachel Lieber.
    ==============================================================
    Of course, your SOURCES are better/more numerous than mine, but I would be SHOCKED if the FINAL REPORT was the product of one author. And in any event, it would have had to have been proof-read/edited (where necessary) and research of some sort would have had to be done BEFORE, so, no matter whose PROSE it is (an individual's or a groups) it's a collective document. Because it represents the COLLECTIVE Task Force/DoJ take on the Amerithrax investigation and the collective judgement for closing same.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Richard Rowley wrote: "Mister Lake, if, in the next 5 to 10 years, it is revealed that Ivins was innocent and the true culprits are identified (For Mister Lake this is a COMPLETELY hypothetical question, that goes without saying), who should be blamed for the Ivins fiasco?"

    That would depend upon what the evidence says. Since the "fiasco" would have to involve a conspiracy and cover-up involving HUNDREDS (perhaps THOUSANDS) of people, I cannot imagine who could be "blamed." It would have to be someone or some group so powerful that no one would dare to dispute or contradict "the official story."

    They'd have to operate with such secrecy that no one in the media could ever find proof of their manipulations. (The disputes from Anthrax Truthers inside and outside of the media don't count, since their science is nonsense and they have no proof to back up their theories. They just claim the FBI is wrong. They have no proof of what is right.)

    You're fantasizing about a situation where the entire Amerithrax team goes along with pointing at Ivins instead of someone else because they all are part of a conspiracy. You're talking about the manufacturing of HUNDREDS UPON HUNDREDS of documents to make it look like they were investigating Ivins and finding evidence against Ivins when really they were doing what? Sitting on their hands because some mysterious puppet-master wouldn't allow anyone to look at the person you believe did it?

    As things stand now, only GOD or some all-powerful puppet-master from outer space could do what you believe was done. I'd really like to see the evidence that "blames" him (or it).

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  64. Richard Rowley wrote: "I would be SHOCKED if the FINAL REPORT was the product of one author."

    Perhaps "Anonymous" a.k.a. "DXer" could respond to that. He has repeatedly implied on Lew Weinstein's site that Rachel Lieber wrote the report.

    My experience and understanding of similar processes says that one person would be the "primary author," but that person would use input from others and undoubtedly allowed others to proof-read the report before it was officially released. But the "primary author" would have the final say on everything.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  65. Partial post by Mister Lake:
    ----------------
    Richard Rowley wrote: "Mister Lake, if, in the next 5 to 10 years, it is revealed that Ivins was innocent and the true culprits are identified (For Mister Lake this is a COMPLETELY hypothetical question, that goes without saying), who should be blamed for the Ivins fiasco?"

    That would depend upon what the evidence says. Since the "fiasco" would have to involve a conspiracy and cover-up involving HUNDREDS (perhaps THOUSANDS) of people, I cannot imagine who could be "blamed." It would have to be someone or some group so powerful that no one would dare to dispute or contradict "the official story."

    They'd have to operate with such secrecy that no one in the media could ever find proof of their manipulations. (The disputes from Anthrax Truthers inside and outside of the media don't count, since their science is nonsense and they have no proof to back up their theories. They just claim the FBI is wrong. They have no proof of what is right.)

    You're fantasizing about a situation where the entire Amerithrax team goes along with pointing at Ivins instead of someone else because they all are part of a conspiracy.
    ================================================================
    Again that's YOUR formulation, not mine. My formulation would be along the following lines:

    The entire Amerithrax team 'went along' because

    1)Ivins' suicide presented them with a fait accompli (among other things it meant that they would never get a confession out of him, never learn any details about drives to Princeton, methods of drying anthrax that he used, never find out for sure why certain letters in the Brokaw/NY POST text were highlighted, never find out why he chose Princeton, never find out why he selected certain targets (addressees), never find out COUNTLESS details of the case that the FINAL REPORT merely pokes around at).
    And they couldn't 'change their mind' at the last minute (as they apparently did with Hatfill, in fits and starts, in 2004, dropping their 'imminent' indictment of him when they BEGAN to doubt his guilt). Death closes many doors, and not just for the deceased.

    2)they truly DID run out of other suspects, so they had no fallback position.

    3) a putatively innocent Ivins would have been a colossal PR disaster ("FBI drives innocent man to suicide" would be the banner headline). Possibly followed by a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the widow Ivins. An innocent Ivins=a disaster. A guilty Ivins=FBI gets their man again.

    4)collegiality. US attorneys and FBI agents work together every day. This naturally produces inter-organizational affinities and personal friendships. The 'teamwork' mentality prevails. So the Task Force was ALREADY in the process of handing over the case to the US attorneys(via the grand jury examination), when Ivins suddenly became, shall we say?, unavailable. The US attorneys balking at the Task Force line (that Ivins did it) would have gone against the internal culture of the DoJ. And would have had far-reaching repercussions/bad feelings between FBI and US attorneys.


    5)None of those Task Force members WANTED Ivins to commit suicide
    and they were, no doubt, shocked when it happened. The (potential) guilt over having caused it could be assuaged somewhat by convincing themselves that this too (the suicide) was just another expression of guilt. 'We didn't drive him to suicide, his conscience did!' That too (this psychological phenomenon) would contribute to the circle-the-wagons attitude.

    I don't know what to call the above points (1-5). But "conspiracy" doesn't quite hack it. A true conspiracy is more self-aware. The closest term I can come up with is: organizational entropy and group think.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Partial Post by Mister Lake (going back a ways):
    --------------
    The fact that Ivins' grandfather lived in ZIP code area 08852 IS admissible as evidence because it HELPS connect Ivins to the senate envelopes where that ZIP code was used.
    ========================================================
    ONLY if you(the prosecutor) established that Ivins HIMSELF knew what the zip code of the grandfather's house was*. The FINAL REPORT does not even CLAIM that Ivins knew that zip code (since the Ivins family moved to Ohio in the 1890s, ie 70 to 75 years before the zip code system was established, over half a century before Ivins was born, AND Ivins never lived in NJ), let alone PROVED (via documents/testimony etc) that Ivins was aware of it.
    KNOWING the zip code (of the plot where his grandfather's house stood in the 19th Century)is a requirement to then willfully put that zip code on the return address VIA that knowledge.

    One expression/concept that I've not used-------because I'm not a lawyer and it doesn't come that easily to me-------is that of "laying the groundwork" to an area of testimony and/or evidence. If Ivins HIMSELF had expressed to investigators and/or third parties a fascination with his grandfather's house's location (likely the house was torn down by now!), that would lay the groundwork for testimony about the zip code connection. But there's no record of that.

    Not in evidence (in the FINAL REPORT).
    Ergo inadmissible.

    *It's really difficult knowing what verb tense to use here when the HOUSE likely NEVER had a zip code, if it was torn down before 1960. In that instance only the plot of land and/or whatever house replaced it.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Richard Rowley wrote: "I don't know what to call the above points (1-5). But "conspiracy" doesn't quite hack it. A true conspiracy is more self-aware. The closest term I can come up with is: organizational entropy and group think."

    But "organizational entropy and group think" only happens in situations where everything is basically routine and nobody's watching. It doesn't fit with FBI cases where every investigation is different and the whole world is watching.

    After the anthrax attacks occurred, the country was in a near panic out of fear that the next attack could be devastating. And, there were no immediate clues to who had committed the crime. That is NOT a situation where "organizational entropy and group think" will occur.

    The facts say that there was a lot of disagreement within the FBI during the initial stages of the investigation. One FBI agent in Florida caused a lot of problems early in the investigation by insisting that the Washington Field Office was ignoring the connection to al Qaeda and the 9/11 terrorists' stay in Florida.

    And, there were people (mostly in the DOJ) who were very upset with the FBI for not finding any evidence to arrest Hatfill. And there were FBI agents who apologized to Hatfill because of all the pressure to investigate him that was coming down from up high.

    And there were journalists looking for inside information. And there were politicians demanding a resolution to the case.

    That environment doesn't fit with "organizational entropy and group think."

    You're also suggesting that all the reports are made up, that the facts didn't point one by one to Ivins.

    You're also suggesting that the dispute between FBI field agents who believed Ivins did it versus managers who wanted Hatfill to be the culprit didn't happen, because, if it DID happen, there couldn't be any "organizational entropy and group think."

    Your view of the situation has nothing to do with reality. There's no way that "organizational entropy and group think" could have motivated any part of the case against Ivins.

    And, if you bothered to read the FBI reports instead of just assuming that they are not worth reading because they don't point to the person you think did it, you'd see that there is a paper trail showing how the case led to Ivins.

    Your beliefs are just absurd.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  68. Richard Rowley wrote: "KNOWING the zip code (of the plot where his grandfather's house stood in the 19th Century)is a requirement to then willfully put that zip code on the return address VIA that knowledge."

    In the Internet age, finding the ZIP code for a area where one's relatives lived is easy, and Ivins was on-line all the time doing research into people and places of interest to him.

    You're also creating another "straw man." No one ever mentioned anything about any grandfather's HOUSE. You're creating a false claim so that you can shoot down the claim.

    The return address on the senate letters is a concoction of real and false information. There is no Greendale School in Franklin Park, and 08852 is NOT the ZIP code for Franklin Park. The address is fictitious, but would probably look real to the intended recipient. AND, because the address didn't exist, there was no danger of the letters being returned to sender for some reason (and infecting a grade school). In other words, someone put some thought in to creating that fictitious address.

    Why use Greendale School? Ivins had a connection to a Greendale School in Wisconsin. Could that be why he used it? It meant something to him.

    Why pick 08852 for the ZIP code? Why not use the ZIP code for Franklin Park?

    The answer seems to be: Ivins wanted to use a ZIP that meant something to him. So, he used the ZIP for the area where his ancestors once lived.

    And he put the letters into a mailbox across from where his father went to school.

    And that was the closest mailbox to the KKG office, which was an obsession of Ivins.

    And Ivins admitted he would drive long distances to look at KKG building just to feed his obsessions.

    It all fits together. It's all valid evidence. Distorting the argument by creating "straw men" doesn't change the facts. Ivins had multiple connections to the scene of the crime AND to the return address used on the Senate envelopes.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  69. Partial post by Mister Lake going back quite a ways:
    --------------
    Richard Rowley wrote: "If I killed someone by 'mistake' (...)I would say something like:

    1)'I didn't mean to kill anyone'"

    So, if you killed someone, you'd confess? And that somehow means that Ivins would also confess?

    Why? Do you consider yourself to be the standard for the world? Can't you see how ridiculous your reasoning is?
    ==================================================================
    No. I see NO JUSTIFICATION for the label "equivocal denial" when

    1)Ivins REPEATEDLY told Fellows in prior conversations that he was innocent. (I noted this before and Mister Lake did not dispute that THAT was the case)

    2)the transcribed (wired) conversation is TRUNCATED, the missing beginning likely a FURTHER denial by Ivins (and likely on tape in the bowels of the FBI/DoJ)for the flow of the conversation that we HAVE (via the transcript portion) wouldn't make logical sense UNLESS Ivins had denied it in the earlier part of the conversation (I wrote this before and Mister Lake did not dispute THIS part).

    3)Fellows, NOT Ivins, raises the possibility that Ivins' alter ego, without Ivins' knowledge/memory, committed the crime(s) and Ivins rejects that possibility (I wrote THIS before and Mister Lake did not dispute it then; when I refer to past writing on this subject it is here:
    http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2012/01/jan-15-jan-21-discussions.html close to 2/3rds down the thread and beginning with AnonymousJan 26, 2012 01:19 PM

    I finished that off in the old thread with this:
    -------------
    4) DESPITE Fellows' best efforts (likely after extensive coaching by the Feds) to get Ivins to make a non-committal admission, he rejects that possibility: "I don't have it in my heart to kill anybody."

    5)Ivins further explains that when that 'other person' takes over without his knowledge/memory he finds out indirectly:
    "“The only reason I remember some of this stuff, it’s
    because there’s like a clue the next day. Like there’s an e-mail or, or, you know, when you’re, when you’re in bed and you’re like,
    you’re like this, you know, that’s, that’s not real fun. It’s like ‘oh shit, did I drive somewhere last night?’”.
    Implied in this (point 5) is: Ivins reports no such "clues" related to Amerithrax. This would be particularly remarkable because the Amerithrax crimes, if committed by someone like Ivins ACTING ALONE, would have consumed at least a month: from at least a week before the Sept 18th mailings(growing, drying/purifying, letter printing/xeroxing, finding correct addresses, loading up letters, driving up to Princeton)until the 9th of October. During that month he would have had to surreptitiously do all sorts of subtasks, in addition to his regular work. Yet Ivins reports no such clues.
    ================================================================
    AGAIN Mister Lake didn't dispute the essence of points 4 and 5.
    And in failing to dispute it, he's given away the store.
    No person with an open mind would call the totality of the above an 'equivocal denial'. Mister Lake doesn't have an open mind. It is HIS 'logic' that I find "ridiculous".

    ReplyDelete
  70. Parial post by Mister Lake:
    -------------
    Richard Rowley wrote: "KNOWING the zip code (of the plot where his grandfather's house stood in the 19th Century)is a requirement to then willfully put that zip code on the return address VIA that knowledge."

    In the Internet age, finding the ZIP code for a area where one's relatives lived is easy, and Ivins was on-line all the time doing research into people and places of interest to him.
    =============================================================
    You've moved the goalposts once again.

    1)I observed that there NO EVIDENCE Ivins was interested in the location of his grandfather's house in the 19th Century. So no reason for him to know OR look for the zip code. And if he wasn't looking he would have close to a zero per cent chance of finding it, let alone remembering it.

    2)THAT (point 1) is not answered by saying he "could have" found out the zip code.

    Can you see that difference? If not, let me give you OTHER examples:

    1) (person 1)"Dave has shown no interest in the nation of Tanzania".

    2) (person 2)"Oh, it's the easiest thing in the world to find out info about Tanzania via the Internet!"

    (Person 2 is giving what I'll call the 'Gracie Allen' response, switching the conversation from what a person is/is not interested in to the potential of ANY HUMAN BEING on the Internet to find out information)

    Another example:

    1)Person 1: "Mary doesn't give a darn about ice hockey."

    2)Person 2: "But there are sites on the Internet that ice hockey fans read all the time! And Mary is online quite a bit!"

    More Gracie Allen.
    There's a huge difference between knowing something and knowing where you can find something out. To find something out you generally have to look for it. There's no evidence of that.
    It's special pleading.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Richard Rowley wrote: 1)Ivins REPEATEDLY told Fellows in prior conversations that he was innocent. (I noted this before and Mister Lake did not dispute that THAT was the case)"

    And when I ask you to give examples of where Ivins said he was innocent, you just give the examples where Ivins said that IF he did it, he didn't mean to do it.

    "No person with an open mind would call the totality of the above an 'equivocal denial'. "

    No person with an open mind would call Ivins statements anything other than an equivocal denial or a "non-denial denial."

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  72. Richard Rowley wrote: "1)I observed that there NO EVIDENCE Ivins was interested in the location of his grandfather's house in the 19th Century."

    You write so many long emails that I just can't spend the time to study every word. You need to learn how to make more concise observations. Brevity is the key to communication.

    I can't recall the exact situations, but Ivins talked endlessly about the causes of his paranoia and how it could be hereditary. He was obsessed with himself, and that means he would very likely have researched every detail about his family history.

    I don't have the time to do the research into what was found in the search of Ivins' possessions, and you wouldn't accept it anyway, so I don't know what more can be said on this.

    The ZIP code WAS a connection between Ivins and the senate letters. That's undeniable. You can suggest that Ivins didn't know there was a connection, but you can't prove he didn't know it. The evidence says he did.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  73. Richard Rowley wrote: "1)I observed that there NO EVIDENCE Ivins was interested in the location of his grandfather's house in the 19th Century. So no reason for him to know OR look for the zip code. And if he wasn't looking he would have close to a zero per cent chance of finding it, let alone remembering it."

    I just remembered something. This is from page 45 of the Expert Behavior Analysis Panel Report:

    For reasons whose significance will become clear later in this narrative, it is important to note that Bruce Ivins was aware of this family genealogy. In a file where he kept important papers, he saved a letter, dated August 26, 1986, from a paternal relative. This letter specifically related the genealogy of the Ivins family, and listed Thomas Ivins and his father, Barzillai, whose ancestors had also been born in Monmouth, N.J.

    Monmouth is the area for ZIP 08852. And on page 46:

    In a March 2005 interview with investigators, Dr. Ivins said that when he was about 10, the family did take a trip; he “traveled through the town of Princeton with his parents, circa 1956, on a family vacation which included a tour of historic sites…”

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did the psychiatrists misunderstand the family tree -- specifically, misunderstand the references to Monmouth in the letter? Barzillai Ivins came from MONMOUTHSHIRE (Eastern) WALES. But then the family came to Burlington County, NJ. Did the psychiatrists get confused by the reference to Monmouthshire? And confuse New Hanover in Burlington County as later being named Monmouth?

      http://trees.ancestry.com/tree/15768351/person/309806748/story/a28563e4-a5f2-48aa-9f84-9e4af3901c9f?src=search

      Do you uncritically accept whatever a prosecutor or psychiatrist -- when you want to believe it -- says or do you independently check things? Dr. Ivins' family tree is subject to independent verification. A 14-day trial at ancestry.com is free.

      Delete
    2. In connection with your claim that Thomas Randall Ivins was born in Monmouth, NJ -- and reliance on that as evidence of his murder by his son Bruce of five people -- have you seen Thomas Randall's birth certificate? Or, for that matter, even his December Z6, 1933 marriage certificate?

      When you make a claim as to the location of someone's birthplace, you should rely on primary source material so as to ensure the accuracy of the factual statement and avoid the risk of error.

      For example, we know he attended Princeton because we have the Princeton yearbooks. He played coronet. see Yearbook images uploaded to ancestry.com. I believe he lived in Jameson.

      But what primary source material do you rely upon in claiming the location of the NJ birthplace of Thomas Randall Ivins?

      Would you agree that his birth certificate authoritatively settles the location of his birth?

      And would you agree that it was Monmouthshire, Wales from which the Ivins family came to New Hanover, Huntington County in the 17th Century?

      Delete
    3. Anonymous wrote: "In connection with your claim that Thomas Randall Ivins was born in Monmouth, NJ -- and reliance on that as evidence of his murder by his son Bruce of five people"

      Whom are you addressing? Who made such a claim?

      The point is that Ivins had connections to the Monmouth, NJ, area which has the ZIP code of 08852 AND he KNEW about those connections. It's not about who was born where.

      Ed

      Delete
  74. These are the psychiatrists who extensively rely on the annotations of the first counselor, who in a 2009 book wrote that she was controlled by an alien who had implanted a chip in her butt and thought murderous astral entities were trying to kill her (attached to her patients). She worked part-time as a counselor when she wasn't working as an exorcist)

    Weren't his ancestors born in New Hanover in Burlington County? Given the psychiatrists do not quote or reproduce the letter, what support is there for the psychiatrists' claim from ancestry.com? I would be glad to provide you a screen image of the locality his ancestors were born and the associated zip code if you really want to explore these facts you find relevant and underlying an Ivins Theory.

    The passage from the psychiatrists' report:


    DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

    The youngest of three boys, Bruce Edwards Ivins was born April 22,

    1946 and reared in southwest Ohio, in Lebanon, where his father,

    Randall, owned and managed the Ivins-Jameson Pharmacy. The Ivins

    family traces its American roots to 17th century New Jersey. Bruce

    Ivins’ great-great-grandfather Thomas Ivins was born in what was

    then known as Monmouth, N.J., before moving to Ohio in the

    19th century.

    For reasons whose significance will become clear later in this

    narrative, it is important to note that Bruce Ivins was aware of this family genealogy. In a file where he kept important papers, he saved a letter, dated August 26, 1986, from a paternal relative.

    Exerpt (page 130 ):

    By using the ZIP code of Monmouth Junction, Dr. Ivins may have been

    portraying in code the connection between KKG and his own identity.

    Monmouth Junction may have represented the union of father

    (Monmouth, N.J.) and mother (Monmouth College, KKG), i.e., himself.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Barzillia Isaac Ivins

    Birth: NOV 1680, Salem Twp, Salem Co, NJ
    Death: BET 19 JUL 1767 AND 11 JUL 1768, Mansfield Twp, Burlington Co, NJ

    ✍ Personal Notes about Barzillia Isaac Ivins
    ✏ Sources and Citations for Barzillia Isaac Ivins
    Partner: Sarah Johnson
    Marriage: 26 APR 1711, Mansfield Twp, Burlington Co, NJ
    ✏ Sources and Citations for Barzillia Isaac Ivins and Sarah Johnson
    Child: Isaac Ivins Born: BEF 1725, Mansfield Twp, Burlington Co, NJ =>
    Child: Solomon Ivins Born: BET 1712 AND 1716, Mansfield Twp, Burlington Co, NJ =>
    Child: Samuel Ivins Born: Burlington Co, NJ
    Child: Thomas Ivins Born: 1713
    Child: Sarah Ivins Born: 1715, Burlington Co, NJ
    Child: William Ivins Born: 1718
    Child: Joseph Ivins Born: 1721, Mansfield Twp, Burlington Co, NJ =>
    Child: Moses Ivins Born: 1728, Mansfield Twp, Burlington Co, NJ =>
    Partner: Lydia Brown
    Marriage: BET 1730 AND 1731, Hanover Twp, Burlington Co, NJ
    http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bobwolfe/gen/person/p3503.htm

    ReplyDelete
  76. The line of descendancy is as follows:

    Isaac Ivins - Sarah Johnson
    Isaac Ivins - Mary Hopkins
    Isaac Ivins - Hannah Tilton
    Barzallai Ivins - Ann DeCou
    Thomas Ivins - Mary Cleaver or Cliver
    Thomas Elwood Ivins - Amelia Ellen Lewis
    Wilbur C. Ivins - Mary A. Randall
    Thomas Randall Ivins - Mary Johnson Knight
    Bruce Edward Ivins

    In testing the psychiatrists'(yet unsupported) claim feel free to rely on evidence of the birthplace of Thomas Randall Ivins, Wilbur C. Ivins, Thomas Elwood Ivins, or Barzallai Ivins.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Anonymous wrote that the EBAP wrote: "By using the ZIP code of Monmouth Junction, Dr. Ivins may have been portraying in code the connection between KKG and his own identity."

    Yeah, maybe. Or maybe Ivins used the ZIP code because he needed to put a ZIP code in the return address that did not match with Franklin Park and the ZIP for Monmouth Junction was one that meant something to him.

    The name connections between Monmouth, NJ, and Monmouth College in Monmouth, IL, where the KKG sorority was first formed were also something that Ivins almost certainly knew, so he used the ZIP because it came to mind easily.

    I'm not saying that the psychiatrists are wrong, I'm just saying that simpler explanations work equally well and produce the same conclusion: Ivins had a connection to the ZIP code used in the senate letters.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  78. Ed Lake claims that Bruce Ivins father and great great great grandfather etc. were born in Monmouth, NJ when that it is not true. Absent the genealogical evidence, he needs to correct his webpage and stop making the false claim. He has more than once relied on the false claim that the psychiatrists made on this issue. Instead, the family was from Monmouthshire, Wales. As for New Hanover, Huntington County -- if you turn to the historical records, that is what it was known as and what appears in the records. But by all means, post the actual records.

    The EBAP report is riddled with egregious and central mistakes that they have refused to correct -- to include their reliance on a central witness, Judith McLean, who has written a lucid 2009 book downloadable for $10 at Amazon.com explaining that she thought she was controlled by an alien who had implanted a chip in her butt and each night would give her instructions. This is the sort of specious evidence relied upon by Ed Lake and the psychiatrists that they then ignore. When it is pointed out to them, they refuse to correct the mistake and then just adapt their rationalism that overlooks the absence of evidence and starts with the conclusion: "He must have...."

    ReplyDelete
  79. Anonymous wrote: "Ed Lake claims that Bruce Ivins father and great great great grandfather etc. were born in Monmouth, NJ when that it is not true."

    If I made such a claim, why don't you quote me? Or are you DELIBERATELY making false claims about me?

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  80. Ed's theory on Monmouth is analogous to Mr. Bedlington's reliance on Greendale and a Hatfill Theory.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Anonymous,

    I have no "theory on Monmouth." I only have the facts, and the facts are:

    Fact 1. The ZIP code for Monmouth Junction was used on the senate envelopes.

    Fact 2. Monmouth Junction, NJ, is where Ivins' ancestors lived.

    Fact 3. Ivins had documents showing that he had researched that area and his connections to it.

    Fact 4. Monmouth, IL, is where the KKG sorority was founded.

    Fact 5. Ivins stated he had an obsession with the KKG sorority.

    There is no theory in this. It's just a list of facts. And, together they tend to explain why Ivins would have used that ZIP code in the anthrax letter, if he was indeed the one who picked the ZIP code to use.

    And, other facts say Bruce Ivins was indeed the one who picked the ZIP code and mailed the letters.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  82. Ed Lake writes:

    "he point is that Ivins had connections to the Monmouth, NJ, area"

    He did? What were they? His distant relatives were born in HUNTINGTON COUNTY, right? That's an entirely different county, right? Do you agree that none of Dr. Ivins' relatives were born in Monmouth or any locality ever known as Monmouth? Are you just relying on the report by some psychiatrists without checking it yourself? Are you crediting the psychiatrist's assertions over the genealogical record I've set forth? Lynn Ashley-Reddan has researched the issue and posted the lineage and birthplaces. I recommend you to her. She is online and lists her information for contact on the precise point. By all means, let's post the most authoritative evidence of their birthplace from an expert researcher so that we avoid any error on the subject. You are the one relying on the issue of use of that zipcode as evidence of the murder of five people and so you can appreciate that you'll want to get your facts right before you publish.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Ed Lake on his main page of his webpage -- toward the top -- writes:

    "It belongs to Monmouth Junction, NJ, where Ivins' family on his father's side came from."

    I have suggested to Mr. Lake that Ivins' family did not come from there as Ed now has claimed, for years. Burlington is not even the same County. I have cited numerous genealogical records showing that they came from a different county entirely, Burlington County. By all means, let's find the most authoritative evidence and upload it. The Burlington County clerk can provide the original records. Otherwise, I have named the woman who posted the names of his family members going back. She lists the birthplaces. I have urged that people take advantage of the wonderful 2 week trial ancestry.com offers. I believe you'll find that they were born in Mansfield Twp, and Hanover Twsp. But this claim makes (""It belongs to Monmouth Junction, NJ, where Ivins' family on his father's side came from.") is made by Ed Lake -- and so he is the one who will want to check his facts. Most people realize that speculative (and incorrectly premised) reasoning is not the stuff of sound analysis.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Ed, I don't know how more plainly I can ask this. You claim that Ivins ancestors are from Monmouth Junction, NJ. On what basis do you make that claim? I have provided extensive listings from ancestry.com. Please reconcile that information with your repeated claim that Ivins ancestors were from Monmouth Junction, NJ. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  85. Anonymous wrote: "You claim that Ivins ancestors are from Monmouth Junction, NJ. On what basis do you make that claim?"

    It was in some report. I'll have to do some research to find it.

    Anonymous also wrote: "His distant relatives were born in HUNTINGTON COUNTY, right?"

    There is no "Huntington" County in New Jersey. But, assuming that you mean "Hunterdon" County, aren't you contradicting yourself? You also posted this:

    Birth: NOV 1680, Salem Twp, Salem Co, NJ
    Death: BET 19 JUL 1767 AND 11 JUL 1768, Mansfield Twp, Burlington Co, NJ


    Assuming that it wasn't Huntington or Hunterdon county, but Burlington county that you meant, it's an interesting point.

    Burlington County has a common border with Monmouth County.

    I recall reading something about how the counties were laid out differently at one time, and there was some kind of explanation for this apparent conflict of facts. But, I'm not sure where I saw it. A quick check shows it wasn't in the Summary Report.

    But, I'm interested in accuracy, and you seem to have pointed out a conflict in the facts. So, I'll check it out.

    I've got other things on my mind right now, so it may take a day or two to change focus and dig into it. Or, I may remember something in a moment or two. We'll see.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  86. Ha! It was in some report. Yes, the EBAP report. In the passage I've quoted above and that we are discussing. He was from Burlington County, not Monmouth Junction. It would be tantamount to claiming you live in Burlington, WI rather than Racine. And then claiming you are responsible for a murder that occurred in Burlington Coat factory. Those psychiatrists submitted their report to a federal district court judge -- relying on a woman as a key witness who then later explained that she was taking her instructions at the time from an alien who had implanted a chip in their butt -- and then they did not correct their submission to the federal court. The DOJ lawyers sat by and did nothing. Now the internet poster repeating the false claims in the EBAP report won't even correct something as basic as the place people were born!

    Yes, it is Burlington County and they were adjacent. Different places. Different counties. And New Hanover was known as New Hanover. See records.

    There is no conflict in the facts. You simply have falsely claimed that his family was from Monmouth Junction when they were not. And then you denied claiming that. Then you refused to correct it.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Anonymous wrote: "There is no conflict in the facts. You simply have falsely claimed that his family was from Monmouth Junction when they were not. And then you denied claiming that. Then you refused to correct it."

    If you would just stop posting for awhile, I'll try to sort this out. I start writing a response, and then you post something new. I can't moderate your posts without wiping out what I've started to write in response.

    If there's an error in what's on my site, I'll correct it, but first I have to determine that it truly is an error. Most of the time you claim I made an error because I posted something that conflicts with your beliefs.

    If it's a true error, I'll correct it.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  88. Fact 1: Monmouth Junction NJ 08852 is in Middlesex County.

    Fact 2: Burlington County is not adjacent to Middlesex County.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middlesex_County,_New_Jersey#Adjacent_counties

    Adjacent counties

    • Union County, New Jersey – north
    • Monmouth County, New Jersey – southeast
    • Mercer County, New Jersey – southwest
    • Somerset County, New Jersey – northwest
    • Richmond County, New York – northeast


    Fact 3. You don't correct your mistaken factual claims. You have based a claim of murder on his family being from Monmouth Junction, NJ when in the face of the genealogical evidence cited to you.

    I have to post in order to avoid the proliferation of error -- such as your suggestion that they involve adjacent counties.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Anonymous,

    Okay, I've corrected what's on my site. It previously said:

    14. He had various connections to the New Jersey area where the anthrax letters were mailed. The ZIP Code used in the return address on the senate letters was 08852. It belongs to Monmouth Junction, NJ, where Ivins' family on his father's side came from. Plus, Monmouth College in Monmouth, IL, is where the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority (an obsession of Ivins') was founded.

    It now says:

    14. He had various connections to the New Jersey area where the anthrax letters were mailed. The ZIP Code used in the return address on the senate letters was 08852. It belongs to Monmouth Junction, NJ. Ivins' ancestors on his father's side came from an area then known as Monmouth, NJ., although it's unclear why it was known as such. Plus, Monmouth College in Monmouth, IL, is where the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority (an obsession of Ivins') was founded."

    See, no problem. And, it doesn't make much difference. It's really just a minor error. It still connects Ivins to "Monmouth" in several ways.

    Thanks for pointing this out.

    If you weren't sending me so much crap all the time, I'd pay more attention. As they say, "Even a broken clock is right twice a day." This seems to be one of those times for you.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  90. Anonymous,

    All that needed to be said to point out the error I made in item #14 of "The Case against Ivins" was to say, "Ivins family did NOT come from Monmouth Junction, NJ, they came from an area that was once known as Monmouth, NJ, which is nowhere near Monmouth Junction." And the EBAP report could have been cited as an authority.

    I would have fixed the error immediately.

    But, instead, you bury the information inside a mountain of rantings and sermons about how you don't believe the EBAP, how they don't use experts you approve of, how I don't make the corrections you point out, how I don't do things they way you think they should be done, etc., etc., etc., etc.

    I appreciate being advised of the error, but you might try being more concise and precise in the future.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  91. Ed,

    What is your authority for the proposition that it was known as Monmouth? What is your citation? As a genealogical hobbyist myself, I can assure you that the way that it works is that if you make a factual claim about geography or such you support it with a citation to an authoritative source.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Ed, what facts are you relying on?

    New Hanover Township is a Township in Burlington County, New Jersey, United States. As of the United States 2000 Census, the township population was 9,744. The township is located in the Delaware Valley.

    New Hanover was originally formed by Royal Charter on December 2, 1723, from portions of Chesterfield Township and Springfield Township. New Hanover was incorporated as one of New Jersey's initial 104 townships by an Act of the New Jersey Legislature on February 21, 1798. Portions of the township were taken to form Pemberton borough (December 15, 1826), Pemberton Township (March 10, 1846), North Hanover Township (April 12, 1905) and Wrightstown (March 4, 1918).[5]

    ReplyDelete
  93. As I said above, you cite no factual support for the claim that the locality Dr. Ivins' was born or from was formerly known as Monmouth. Same for his paternal ancestors. The history of New Hanover Township and Mansfield Township is easily accessed as are historical maps. You are entitled to your opinions but not to your own facts. I've urged that you cite and upload any support for your claims and you failed to do so.

    I've asked you for the factual authority for your claim and you cite none -- other than point out that it the position of the psychiatrists. But that is precisely the point. They relied on the point and yet you can cite no factual support.

    I told you that you would not correct your page but would just rationalize the issue -- which is exactly what you did.

    Mansfield Township is a Township in Burlington County, New Jersey, United States. As of the United States 2000 Census, the township population was 5,090, which was forecast to have grown to 8,047 as of the 2006 Census estimate, representing growth of 58.1% since the previous enumeration.

    Mansfield was first formed on November 6, 1688, and reformed by Royal Charter on May 9, 1770. Mansfield was incorporated as one of New Jersey's initial 104 townships by an Act of the New Jersey Legislature on February 21, 1798. Portions of the township were taken to form Fieldsboro (March 7, 1850, within township; became fully independent c. 1894), Bordentown Township (March 8, 1852) and Florence Township (March 7, 1872).

    You need to do better research and stop making unsupported claims.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Anonymous wrote: "What is your authority for the proposition that it was known as Monmouth?"

    You need to do better research and get your facts straight. The secondary source is the EBAP report (click HERE to view it) which says on page 45:

    The Ivins family traces its American roots to 17th century New Jersey. Bruce Ivins’ great-great-grandfather Thomas Ivins was born in what was then known as Monmouth, N.J., before moving to Ohio in the 19th century.

    For reasons whose significance will become clear later in this narrative, it is important to note that Bruce Ivins was aware of this family genealogy. In a file where he kept important papers, he saved a letter, dated August 26, 1986, from a paternal relative. This letter specifically related the genealogy of the Ivins family, and listed Thomas Ivins and his father, Barzillai, whose ancestors had also been born in Monmouth, N.J.


    And, on page 129 of the EBAP it says:

    On his father’s side, as we’ve noted, and as Dr. Ivins knew, the Ivins family came from Monmouth, N.J. (Note: Monmouth County, N.J. does not contain a municipality by that name; whether the Ivins family records that Dr. Ivins kept refer to the county or a farm community is unclear; regardless, they refer to “Monmouth, N.J.”)

    The primary source, therefore would be the August 26, 1986 letter. It specifically says "Monmouth, N.J."

    If you need to see the letter, you should contact the FBI.

    If the letter says that Thomas Ivins and his father were both born in what was then known as Monmouth, N.J., then it doesn't really matter what current maps say. All that matters is what Ivins believed and what was in the letter.

    I'm making no claims. I'm just analyzing the data. YOU are making claims that the letter is wrong.

    I have no reason to doubt what is in the letter. If you do, then complain to whoever wrote the letter.

    BTW, page 91 of FBI file #847447 mentions an envelope found during the November 1-2, 2007 search of Ivins' home. The envelope was labeled "Family Tree" and contained various clippings. There is no mention of a letter, but that's where it may have been. There is no copy of the letter in that file.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  95. Anonymous,

    I can see that item #14 in "The Case against Ivins" on my site still wasn't precise enough. So, I've changed it to read:

    14. He had various connections to the New Jersey area where the anthrax letters were mailed. The ZIP Code used in the return address on the senate letters was 08852. It belongs to Monmouth Junction, NJ. According to a letter in Ivins' files, his ancestors on his father's side came from an area then known as Monmouth, NJ. Plus, Monmouth College in Monmouth, IL, is where the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority (an obsession of Ivins') was founded.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  96. I sent Ed Lake an extensive link of historical maps and contact information for an expert on the genealogy of Dr. Ivins' line.

    http://mapmaker.rutgers.edu/MAPS.html

    Rather than being able to cite any support for the psychiatrist's claim, he merely credits it.

    And that is precisely the problem. He merely accepts Rachel Lieber's claim and the psychiatrists claim without checking it.

    For example, I point out that a key witness they rely upon reported in a 2009 book that she was controlled by an alien who had implanted a microchip in her butt -- and thought her patients were controlled by murderous astral entities (see her July 2007 story about Dr. Ivins' murderous plot)... And he didn't even read the book! It conflicted with his beliefs.

    Instead, he merely accepts claims and repeats the woman's claim as evidence of murder of 5 people -- considering the claims as evidence.

    Ed cites no support whatsoever for the proposition that the birthplace of Ivins Dad were from some place known as Monmouth, NJ. And yet he alleges it as an established fact. To the contrary, until he is able to corroborate it with a citation to evidence, it merely is established that the USG consultants relied upon the issue in assessing an Ivins Theory.

    Dr. Ivins family came from Monmmouthshire, Wales.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Anonymous wrote: "Ed cites no support whatsoever for the proposition that the birthplace of Ivins Dad were from some place known as Monmouth, NJ."

    I cited the exact source. You just don't accept the source.

    "And yet he alleges it as an established fact."

    No, I don't. I mention it as information from a letter Ivins had in his possession.

    If you do not believe the letter exists, that's your problem. If you think the letter says something other than what is in the EBAP report, that's your problem.

    You are doing a NEW investigation. You make noise like an INVESTIGATOR. I'm not doing an investigation. I'm analyzing data. And, I see no problem with the data. The fact that you disagree with the data isn't a problem for me, it's a problem for you.

    Also, I deleted your second nonsensical post about the supposed "key witness" that you rant so endlessly about. You've already mentioned it in this post, there's no need to repeat it.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  98. Anonymous,

    I also deleted your comment about the way you think others should have handled some information about Hatfill.

    That's preaching to others to do things your way because it's the only correct way. This forum is not for your preachings.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  99. You confuse data with claims.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Anonymous wrote: "You confuse data with claims."

    No, you argue that the data is nothing but claims. You need to prove that instead of just claiming it.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  101. There are 134 place names in the United States and Dr. Ivins' father and ancestors were not from any of them -- to include Monmouth, NJ. I take it you were never in the National Geographic geographic bee.

    http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=129:2:278981474174754:pg_R_49919549018705442451:NO&pg_min_row=76&pg_max_rows=15&pg_rows_fetched=15

    ReplyDelete
  102. Anonymous wrote: "There are 134 place names in the United States and Dr. Ivins' father and ancestors were not from any of them"

    You're still missing the point! It doesn't make any difference where "Monmouth" was or who was born there or who wasn't born there!!

    The only important fact is that the letter Ivins had in his possession said that his ancestors were born in Monmouth, N.J. That means that is what Ivins knew or believed. And it's what Ivins believed that relates to why he used the ZIP code for Monmouth Junction.

    It's all explained in the EBAP report. You are arguing something that doesn't matter to anyone but you.

    I previously made the same mistake. But you pointed out my mistake. It's not about where anyone was born, it's about what Ivins believed and why he used that ZIP code.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  103. To the contrary, the letter said his ancestors were from Monmouthshire, Wales. Let me guess. You didn't sign up for the 14 week free trial at ancestry.com.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Anonymous wrote: ""To the contrary, the letter said his ancestors were from Monmouthshire, Wales."

    You have the August 26, 1986 letter from his "paternal relative"?

    Why haven't you posted it somewhere? Why are you writing meaningless information about ancestry.com? Are you saying the letter is on that site?

    Let's see the letter. Then I'll acknowledge that the EBAP report is wrong.

    This is from pages 129 and 130 of the EBAP report:

    On his father’s side, as we’ve noted, and as Dr. Ivins knew, the Ivins family came from Monmouth, N.J. (Note: Monmouth County, N.J. does not contain a municipality by that name; whether the Ivins family records that Dr. Ivins kept refer to the county or a farm community is unclear; regardless, they refer to “Monmouth, N.J.”) KKG, as also discussed, was founded at Monmouth College in Monmouth, Ill.

    Dr. Ivins did not use the ZIP code of either of these places, however, because doing so would not have demonstrated the link between them. Code lover that he was, he appears to have come up with something much richer.

    Dr. Ivins felt that his own identity, aspirations and resentments, were entwined in KKG. His decades of obsession demonstrated that entanglement.

    By using the ZIP code of Monmouth Junction, Dr. Ivins may have been portraying in code the connection between KKG and his own identity. Monmouth Junction may have represented the union of father (Monmouth, N.J.) and mother (Monmouth College, KKG), i.e., himself. And it also represented his entanglement, his obsession with KKG.

    In other words, in two inter-related ways, the Monmouth Junction may have represented Dr. Ivins himself. With the return address on his Senatorial letters, he appears to have revealed the identity — at the deepest level — of the mailer. Dr. Ivins, in short, signed his letters.


    Or as I'd phrase it, Ivins used the ZIP code for Monmouth Junction because the name of that town included the word "Monmouth," and "Monmouth" connected him and his ancestors to the KKG sorority, since KKG was founded in Monmouth, IL.

    It was his way of coding things into his letters, and, as the report says, it was - in effect - his signature.

    If you have a copy of the 1986 letter from Ivins' paternal relative and can disprove these conclusions from the EBAP, let's see it.

    Until then, I think all those "Monmouth" connections meant something to Ivins, and there is no doubt that the senate letters had the ZIP code for Monmouth Junction.

    Ed

    ----------

    ReplyDelete
  105. Anonymous,

    Actually, Monmouthshire,Wales, is another "Monmouth" connection to Ivins. So, even if the letter from his paternal relative said "Monmouthshire, Wales" instead of "Monmouth, N.J." as the EBAP report says it said, the connection is still there, it would just be that the EBAP report misstated what was in the letter.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  106. Ed Lake writes:

    "it would just be that the EBAP report misstated what was in the letter."

    ReplyDelete
  107. Anonymous wrote (quoting me): ""it would just be that the EBAP report misstated what was in the letter."

    Right, but until you prove that what the EBAP report stated about the August 26, 1986 letter was a misstatement, there is no reason to believe that the EBAP report is incorrect.

    And, more importantly, if the letter did say that Ivins distant relatives came from Momouthshire, Wales, and not from "Monmouth, N.j.," it still shows Ivins' connections to "Monmouth."

    Monmouth College - where the KKG sorority was founded.
    Monmouth, IL - where Monmouth college was located.
    Monmouth, N.J - which the EBAP mentions.
    Monmouthshire, Wales - which "Anonymous" mentions
    Monmouth Junction, N.J. - the ZIP code on the senate letters

    Ivins was "signing" the letter with a code that showed a connection between himself and the KKG sorority. It was the type of game Ivins liked to play to show he was smarter than everyone else and could fool them without them ever realizing it.

    But, in this case, people realized it.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  108. From WAY back, quoting the shrinks who never examined Ivins:
    --------------------
    By using the ZIP code of Monmouth Junction, Dr. Ivins may have been

    portraying in code the connection between KKG and his own identity.

    Monmouth Junction may have represented the union of father

    (Monmouth, N.J.) and mother (Monmouth College, KKG), i.e., himself.
    =================================================
    How very Freudian! Maybe he had a 'Monmouth Complex', eh? Speaking of 'eh?'....

    In looking at an atlas tonight I discovered that British Columbia has a Monmouth AND Oregon does too, so if the authorities have ANY unsolved murders in those localities, I suggest they 'solve' them forthwith by doing the implausible psychobabble thing with Ivins. Not only does that 'solve' the cases (wink, wink) but it bypasses yucky stuff like due process, admissibility, probability and common sense. Just a sardonic thought.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Partial post by Mister Lake:
    --------------
    Or as I'd phrase it, Ivins used the ZIP code for Monmouth Junction because the name of that town included the word "Monmouth," and "Monmouth" connected him and his ancestors to the KKG sorority, since KKG was founded in Monmouth, IL.

    It was his way of coding things into his letters, and, as the report says, it was - in effect - his signature.

    If you have a copy of the 1986 letter from Ivins' paternal relative and can disprove these conclusions from the EBAP, let's see it.

    Until then, I think all those "Monmouth" connections meant something to Ivins,[...]
    =============================================================
    Such is the power of auto-suggestion.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Richard Rowley wrote: "Such is the power of auto-suggestion."

    You're ignoring the fact that, until Anonymous showed me where I was wrong, I thought that the ZIP code was for the town where Ivins' father's ancestors were born. But, Ivins' ancestors weren't born anywhere near Monmouth Junction, NJ. They were born in an area which they called "Monmouth," probably because they came from Monmouthshire, Wales. But, the New Jersey area never officially had such a name.

    I wasn't even aware of any connection to Monmouthshire, Wales, until Anonymous pointed it out.

    You may think it's just a coincidence and has no more meaning than the fact that there's also a Monmouth in Oregon, but in court all the connections between Ivins and places called "Monmouth" would be VERY impressive. They would see virtually no possibility of a coincidence.

    But, I know you have a different theory and you have no real proof to support your own theory, so you MUST disbelieve all the evidence against Ivins in order to continue to believe your own theory. That's a well-documented and very common psychological condition. It's called "denial," a total refusal to accept the evidence.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  111. Partial post by Mister Lake:
    ------------------
    Richard Rowley wrote: "Such is the power of auto-suggestion."

    You're ignoring the fact that, until Anonymous showed me where I was wrong, I thought that the ZIP code was for the town where Ivins' father's ancestors were born. But, Ivins' ancestors weren't born anywhere near Monmouth Junction, NJ. They were born in an area which they called "Monmouth," probably because they came from Monmouthshire, Wales. But, the New Jersey area never officially had such a name.[...]
    ============================================================
    I read the WHOLE exchange. That's what's behind my comment.
    ORIGINALLY, it's Monmouth Junction. And THAT indicates Ivins did it. Then it's another Monmouth but BOTH had the word "Monmouth" in them, so THAT indicates Ivins did it. Since about December of 2008, you've lost all sense of proportion in your Ivins-did-it mania, never more evident than in this eye-popping statement:
    ---------------------------------------
    You may think it's just a coincidence and has no more meaning than the fact that there's also a Monmouth in Oregon, but in court all the connections between Ivins and places called "Monmouth" would be VERY impressive. They would see virtually no possibility of a coincidence.
    ==============================================================
    Auto-suggestion followed by projection.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Richard Rowley wrote: "ORIGINALLY, it's Monmouth Junction. And THAT indicates Ivins did it. Then it's another Monmouth but BOTH had the word "Monmouth" in them, so THAT indicates Ivins did it"

    No. Originally I thought the connection between Ivins and the ZIP code was that Ivins' father's ancestors were born in Monmouth Junction.

    Then Anonymous corrected me and pointed out that the connection to Ivins is the fact that his ancestors were born in an area of New Jersey that his ancestors called "Monmouth," but which no longer uses that name. Plus, even farther back, Ivins' ancestors came from "Monmouthshire, in Wales.

    And, in re-reading the EBAP report I see that it's really all about how Ivins had connections to places called "Monmouth" and the Kappa Kappa Gamma with which Ivins was obsessed also had connections to places called "Monmouth."

    It's a clarification of Ivins' motives for using that ZIP code. I misunderstood a connection, then I was corrected and shown what the connection really was. It's called learning.

    It makes sense either way, but I definitely prefer that it make sense and also be correct.

    And, the fact that you don't see how impressive it would be to a jury as part of the explanations for all of Ivins' secret code writings just shows that you cannot accept any evidence that contradicts your beliefs.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  113. Partial post by Mister Lake:
    --------------------------------
    No. Originally I thought the connection between Ivins and the ZIP code was that Ivins' father's ancestors were born in Monmouth Junction.
    ===============================================================
    AND you thought that this was logically connected to Ivins' guilt.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Then Anonymous corrected me and pointed out that the connection to Ivins is the fact that his ancestors were born in an area of New Jersey that his ancestors called "Monmouth," but which no longer uses that name. Plus, even farther back, Ivins' ancestors came from "Monmouthshire, in Wales.

    And, in re-reading the EBAP report I see that it's really all about how Ivins had connections to places called "Monmouth" and the Kappa Kappa Gamma with which Ivins was obsessed also had connections to places called "Monmouth."

    It's a clarification of Ivins' motives for using that ZIP code. I misunderstood a connection, then I was corrected and shown what the connection really was. It's called learning.
    ===============================================================
    And AGAIN you see that as logically connected to Ivins' guilt.
    But Anonymous, the one correcting you, does NOT see it as logically connected to Ivins' guilt. So it OBVIOUSLY isn't just a matter a knowing the "facts" in the case.

    You are pre-disposed to interpret each and every fact in the worst light possible vis-a-vis Ivins. Anonymous and I are not.

    You (and the Task Force) are like some pea-soup thick fog: you can envelope any set of facts and still keep on going in the same direction: "Bruce Ivins, acting alone, yadda yadda......"

    ReplyDelete
  114. Richard Rowley wrote: "You are pre-disposed to interpret each and every fact in the worst light possible vis-a-vis Ivins. Anonymous and I are not.

    No. The evidence is overwhelming. But, it's also a VERY complex case and some details aren't fully explained in FBI documents. So, some things can be easily misinterpreted or misunderstood.

    You and Anonymous each have your own individual theory. You don't agree on who did it, you only agree that the FBI must be wrong, because if the FBI is right, then BOTH of you are wrong.

    You can't believe that BOTH of you can be wrong, but you ignore the fact that you do not agree on who did it, so, by your own reasoning, one of you MUST be wrong.

    You don't argue with each other. You only argue with the FBI's findings (via me, since I agree with most of the FBI's findings) because you can get a lot of support from other people with other theories who also agree that the FBI must be wrong.

    So, we've got hundreds of people, each with his or her own unique theory, all arguing that the FBI is wrong. And each of them thinks that because so many people believe the FBI is wrong that makes it so.

    But you don't agree with each other. It's hundreds of individuals, each with a unique theory that says everyone else in the world except that one individual must be wrong.

    It's lunacy. It's some kind of anti-authority mental condition.

    But, it's also just the basic Freudian condition known as "denial." You each firmly believe something even though you have no real proof to support your belief, and you ignore all of the overwhelming evidence that says you're wrong. And, you get support from others who are also in "denial" but who agree that the government is wrong, while you all ignore the fact that you don't agree on anything else.

    It's a fascinating phenomenon.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  115. A song parody: sung to the tune of PETTICOAT JUNCTION theme:
    -------------------------
    Monmouth Junction

    Come see the evidence that is there for all to see at the junction (Monmouth Junction!)

    Turn off your intellect, it is time to relax at the junction.
    (Monmouth Junction!)

    Special pleadin', you bet. Even more when you get to the junction.
    (Monmouth Junction!)

    There's an Ivins residence with a zip code you done met at the junction. ( Monmouth Junction!)

    It's been vacant quite a while but stay for a spell at the junction. (Monmouth Junction!)

    And that's Uncle Sam he's a PR man at the junction. (Monmouth Junction!)
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    Thanks to Paul Henning and Curt Massey!
    http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/televisiontvthemelyrics-50s60s70s/petticoatjunction.htm

    ReplyDelete