I got a great deal of work done on my new book last week. I hope to start contacting agents and publishers in late April.
It appears that the Kazakh/Russian attack on my web site is over. But there's still a mystery surrounding some POST commands done by a Russian site.
The argument on this blog over whether or not the EBAP report was "biased" does not appear to be resolvable. So, it's just a waste of time. Opinion versus opinion arguments accomplish nothing.
The argument says nothing about whether Ivins was guilty or innocent.
The argument says nothing about the facts of the case.
I probably wasted more time on that argument last week than I should have.
From today's comments section:
ReplyDelete----------
An Anthrax Truther keeps creating rules for how the world should work in order to reach the conclusions he has reached about the Amerithrax case. And, he appears to believe that if the world doesn't operate according to his rules, it's operating incorrectly.
=============================================
The only 'rule' I can see in last week's blog that you are attributing to me is: for a panel of psychiatrists examining the behavioral aspects of a criminal case to be an 'outside panel' requires that that panel be 'outside' (hence the term 'outside panel')1)the original investigation and 2)the organization(s)that conducted the investigation. Dr Saathoff and his panel qualify on neither count. And as I indicated in last week's blog thread that isn't a rule, it's a tautology: 'outside'=outside the thing being examined.
Mister Lake, by contrast, has no 'alternative' explanation for 'outside'. So apparently it's, in his idiolect, an honorific that is bestowed willy-nilly on this panel and that one. Without rhyme or reason. Sort of like the original investigatin itself.
Mr. Rowley,
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to argue opinions versus opinions. It's just a waste of time. You have your opinions, I have mine.
Ed
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/outside
ReplyDeleteout·side (out-sd, outsd)
adj.
4.
a. Not belonging to or originating in a certain group or association: requested outside assistance; deplored outside interference.
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/outside
Adj
5. outside - functioning outside the boundaries or precincts of an organized unit; "extramural hospital care and treatment"; "extramural studies"
N
5. The part of the world not encompassed by or under control of an organization or institution; as, prisoners are not allowed to pass objects to persons on the outside; one may not discuss company secretes with anyone on the outside.
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/american-english/outside_3
outside
/ˌɑʊtˈsɑɪd/, /ˈɑʊtˌsɑɪd/ prep, adj, adv [not gradable] (NOT PART OF SOMETHING)Definition
› not within or part of something:
I live just outside (of) Baltimore.
Cars, movies, and radio linked small towns to the outside world.
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/outside_2
out‧side2 S2 W2 [only before noun]
1 not inside a building [≠ inside]: We turned off the outside lights and went to bed.
The house will need a lot of outside repairs before we can sell it.
2 involving people who do not belong to the same group or organization as you: Outside observers said the election was free and fair.
Consultants were brought in to provide some outside advice.
-------------------------------------------------------------
r. rowley: Note that IN THE BEGINNING 'consultants' are regarded as outsiders, but, in the case of an already concluded investigation like Amerithrax, when it's being reviewed after closure, the investigation in its entirety is regarded as the 'inside entity' and Saathoff was integral to that inside entity.
Mr. Rowley,
ReplyDeleteYou're wasting your time and mine. As I've stated repeatedly, no members of the panel worked for USAMRIID, therefore they were NOT - repeat NOT - insiders when they analyzed the practices at USAMRIID that allowed a mentally ill person to work with dangerous pathogens alone and unsupervised.
Ed
You're wasting your time and mine. As I've stated repeatedly, no members of the panel worked for USAMRIID, therefore they were NOT - repeat NOT - insiders[...]
ReplyDelete==============================================================
They (the panel) were 'reviewing' an INVESTIGATION, not the BW headquarters that is Fort Detrick/USAMRIID, an investigation conducted by a Task Force whose PRIMARY forensic psychiatrist was Dr Gregory Saathoff. It could only be an OUTSIDE panel if its membership was in no way connected to the original investigation.
That was not the case. This was a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest so blatant, so obvious, so screaming-out-in-neon-lights that it would be humorous if it didn't involve such serious repercussions.
-----------------------------
By contrast, according to Mister Lake, if FBI Director Mueller had been the head of the behavioral panel, it STILL would have been an outside panel, because Mueller doesn't work at USAMRIID!
Unbelievable!
Richard Rowley wrote: "They (the panel) were 'reviewing' an INVESTIGATION, not the BW headquarters that is Fort Detrick/USAMRIID, an investigation conducted by a Task Force whose PRIMARY forensic psychiatrist was Dr Gregory Saathoff."
ReplyDeleteTOTALLY FALSE. The panel reviewed the policies and practices AT USAMRIID which allowed a mentally ill person to work there with dangerous pathogens for decades.
The panel did NOT review the FBI's investigation. That's just plain ridiculous.
The FBI investigation found that Ivins had severe mental problems and committed burglaries and other criminal acts while working at USAMRIID. Plus he was seeing psychiatrists and taking medicines for his mental problems. The panel investigated how all that could have happened without anyone at USAMRIID realizing it and stopping Ivins from working with dangerous pathogens.
Ed
The findings of the Expert Behavioral Analysis Panel start on page 15 of the report. The link:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/dcd/sites/dcd/files/unsealedDoc031011.pdf
The primary findings:
1. Dr. Ivins had a significant and lengthy history of psychological disturbance and diagnosable mental illness at the time he began working for USAMRIID in 1980. [REDACTED] that would have disqualified him from a Secret level security clearance had they been known. Such disqualification would have prevented him from having access to anthrax prior to and after 2001.
2. Information regarding his disqualifying behaviors was readily available in the medical record and accessible to personnel had it been pursued under mechanisms that existed prior to and after 2001.
3. Relevant information in the medical record, including pertinent psychiatric history, did not become available during the security clearance process as a result of a several factors:
• Dr. Ivins made critical omissions in his self-reports;
• Background medical record investigators did not pursue inconsistencies in Dr. Ivins’ reporting;
• Background medical record investigators did not request and review available medical records;
• Background medical record investigators did not follow up on incomplete responses by treating clinicians;
• Background medical record investigators did not clarify information through direct interview;
• Treating clinicians did not report significant information known directly to them or available to them through ancillary therapist notes in the medical record.
4. It was not privacy law that prevented the flow of healthcare information between Dr. Ivins’ private psychiatrist and USAMRIID — information that would have disqualified Dr. Ivins from a security clearance and access to select agents prior to the mailings or afterwards. Dr. Ivins had signed multiple waivers of his right to health information privacy. It is possible, however, that healthcare providers viewed privacy law as a barrier to disclosing information of concern about Dr. Ivins.
6. While he was employed at USAMRIID, routine drug and alcohol testing was not performed on civilians, like Dr. Ivins, who worked within secure USAMRIID laboratories.
9. Many of the civilian mental health professionals who treated Dr. Ivins prior to 2001 (Dr. #1, Dr. #2 and Therapist #1) did not know that he had a security clearance and would have advised against it had they been consulted. However, even after recommending involuntary hospitalization for Dr. Ivins because of his suicidality and homicidality, the psychiatrist who treated Dr. Ivins from 2000-2008 continued to take the position that Dr. Ivins should have full access to agents such as anthrax.
10. Failures in supervision, documentation, and communication allowed Dr. Ivins to avoid scrutiny before and after the anthrax mailings.
Note that NONE of these findings have anything to do with the Amerithrax investigation. They are about failed procedures at USAMRIID and with Ivins' psychiatrists.
Ed
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete----------
Richard Rowley wrote: "They (the panel) were 'reviewing' an INVESTIGATION, not the BW headquarters that is Fort Detrick/USAMRIID, an investigation conducted by a Task Force whose PRIMARY forensic psychiatrist was Dr Gregory Saathoff."
TOTALLY FALSE. The panel reviewed the policies and practices AT USAMRIID which allowed a mentally ill person to work there with dangerous pathogens for decades.
===============================================================
Totally false? But what were they looking at Ivins' MEDICAL RECORDS for then? Why was it called a "behavioral assessment panel" then? Why was the panel composed (mostly) of psychiatrists then? Of COURSE it was reexamining Ivins' mental health and its alleged impact on Amerithrax! Apparently Mister Lake has a different definition not merely for the word "outside" but for almost everything: "behavioral assessment" evidently means that the panel determines NOTHING about the behavior! The psychiatrists were picked for the panel because psychiatrists are ALWAYS picked to improve security at military installations! Not!
Unbelievable!
Richard Rowley wrote: "Totally false? But what were they looking at Ivins' MEDICAL RECORDS for then?"
ReplyDeleteBecause part of the project was to determine why USAMRIID management didn't contact Ivins' psychiatrists to ask them if Ivins should be allowed to work with anything dangerous. And the project required people with knowledge of how psychiatrists work in order to evaluate what happened and what needs to be done.
Another part of the project was to determine why the psychiatrists didn't inform Ivins' employer that he shouldn't be allowed to work with anything dangerous.
Look at the recommendations starting on page 18:
1. Personnel Reliability Program measures that allow for requisition of medical records should be utilized. Consent to release of the employee’s complete records should be made a condition of continued access and security clearance.
In case you don't understand that, it means that management at USAMRIID should be able to access an employee's mental health records from their psychiatrists and the employee shouldn't be hired unless he agrees to allow that.
4. For those to be newly enrolled in Personnel Reliability Programs, requests for records and their reviews should be all-inclusive. Subsequent requests and reviews for records should extend to all available records for the previous five years or the entire period since the last complete record review, whichever is longer. Subsequent to detailed review of the records, the treating clinician providing these records should be interviewed to determine the completeness of the records. If additional notes and materials exist, and if there have been contacts with additional clinicians, these notes and materials should also be reviewed, and clinicians contacted.
In case you don't understand that, it says USAMRIID management should not only get access to ALL of an employee's mental health records, but they should also interview the psychiatrist to make certain nothing was left out.
9. Information from treating clinicians should be regarded as important but not dispositive when questions of security clearance and fitness-for-duty are considered. All fitness-for-duty evaluations and medical reviews should be conducted by clinicians who have had no treatment or other relationship with the subject of the investigation. These clinicians should also receive specific training in conducting fitness for duty evaluations in high security settings.
In case you don't understand that, it says that the evaluation of whether an employee or prospective employee is fit for duty should NOT be done by anyone who has been treated or knows the psychiatrist who treats the employee.
It requires professional mental health experts who have worked in the mental health field to decide what is realistic and proper. That's why the panel consisted largely of mental health experts.
Comprendo?
Ed
Mr. Rowley,
ReplyDeleteYou really need to read the "Statement of Purpose" starting on page 21.
On the subject of impartiality:
After onsiderable consultation with authorities in their disciplines, Dr. Saathoff specifically proposed a panel of experts with backgrounds in psychiatry, psychology, medicine, law, and network and systems analysis. The panel members he proposed were all independent and impartial; none had treated or known Dr. Ivins, who had died a year earlier; none, indeed, had had any involvement with the case.
On the subject of why they looked at Ivins' mental health records:
The Panel approached its work from two perspectives. First, it sought a comprehensive understanding of the mental health, behavioral, medical and toxicological issues. Second, it looked at systems — and specifically, how they could be altered to improve safety and security.
Ed
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete------------------------
Richard Rowley wrote: "Totally false? But what were they looking at Ivins' MEDICAL RECORDS for then?"
Because part of the project was to determine why USAMRIID management didn't contact Ivins' psychiatrists to ask them if Ivins should be allowed to work with anything dangerous. And the project required people with knowledge of how psychiatrists work in order to evaluate what happened and what needs to be done.
===========================================================
No, looking at Ivins medical records has NOTHING to do with Fort Detrick/USAMRIID. He(Ivins) was seeing his own psychiatrists, not USAMRIID-appointed ones. The command of USAMRIID and the security officers would have no way of knowing WHAT Ivins' diagnosis or diagnoses was/were, and no way of knowing how he was doing medically THROUGH THOSE RECORDS and that's how it should be: if you don't want SEVERELY mentally ill people at a place, then you need to encourage people to seek out medical attention and honor doctor/patient confidentiality.
Another part of the project was to determine why the psychiatrists didn't inform Ivins' employer that he shouldn't be allowed to work with anything dangerous.
ReplyDelete=============================================================
Well, we know that at least one of them thought that there was no danger.
(and since Ivins was doing okay prior to March 2005, I concur!
His mental deterioration was a PRODUCT of the investigation. Culminating in suicide.)
1. Personnel Reliability Program measures that allow for requisition of medical records should be utilized. Consent to release of the employee’s complete records should be made a condition of continued access and security clearance.
ReplyDelete=========================================================
Don't agree. It violates doctor/patient confidentiality and is still no guarantee that things like Amerithrax won't happen again. It's a medicine that is worse than the sickness.
Mr. Rowley,
ReplyDeleteYou really need to read the "Statement of Purpose" starting on page 21.
----------------------------------------------------------
And you need to read the EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (which presumably was written by the same persons who did the whole report); as I indicated on last week's blog, 11 and 3/4 pages of that executive 13 and change page summary deal with the crime/Ivins/Ivins' motive/ etc. 1 and 1/4 pages (very bottom of 12 and all of 13 deal with "Security Issues". I rather doubt that division of attention is accident or unrepresentative of the whole report.
And by the way the official title of the report is:
Report of the Expert Behavioral
Analysis Panel
A title incompatible with what you claim the contents PRIMARILY are.
So what were the headings in the EXECUTIVE SUMMARY before "Security Issues" are addressed at bottom of page 12?
ReplyDeleteGoing backwards, the headings are:
(Ivins') SUICIDE (Top of page 12, bottom of page 11)(This item alone gets almost as much space as "Security Issues")
MEAN AND OPPORTUNITY (as in 'Ivins had the means and opportunity to commit Amerithrax') Most of page 2, 2 lines in page
MAIL AS VEHICLE (wherein it IS assumed that Ivins did the crimes and tries to psychoanalyze why he 'chose' the mail) Top of page 11, bottom of page 10.
DOCTOR IVINS MOTIVES FOR THE ATTACK (written of course as though there's no doubt he did Amerithrax): subheadings include: Revenge, Personal validation, career preservation and professional redemption, Loss. This section goes from the bottom of page 8 to the top of page 10.
WORK AT USAMRIID (Wherein Ivins' work history at USAMRIID is intermingled with recounting his harassment of a KKG alumna, other interpersonal interactions etc). Bottom of page 6, all of page 7, top of page 8. This is longer than entire section of "Security Issues" in Executive Summary.
A LIFELONG OBSESSION (Wherein his KKG obsession is related, plus some references to his psychiatric care, including long passages blocked out). Entire page 5 half of page 6.
A TRAUMATIC DAMAGING CHILDHOOD (yadda yadda) Almost all of page 3, all of page 4.
MEAN AND OPPORTUNITY (as in 'Ivins had the means and opportunity to commit Amerithrax') Most of page 2, 2 lines in page 3.
Page 1 and first 4 lines of page 2 has no subheading and it covers
the crime of Amerithrax, the investigation's course, the maneuvering to set up the panel, and the usual disclaimers>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I leave it to the reader to determine whether such an EXECUTIVE SUMMARY is compatible with Mister Lake's claims about the PRIMARY focus of the report.
Richard Rowley wrote: "The command of USAMRIID and the security officers would have no way of knowing WHAT Ivins' diagnosis or diagnoses was/were, and no way of knowing how he was doing medically THROUGH THOSE RECORDS and that's how it should be:
ReplyDeleteYour opinions just get more and more ridiculous.
It was the JOB of Ivins superiors and security officers at USAMRIID to know the mental health of USAMRIID's employees. They FAILED at that job. And you claim it's okay if the managers at USAMRIID allow mentally ill people to work with deadly pathogents???? That is not only ridiculous, it's just plain STUPID.
"It violates doctor/patient confidentiality and is still no guarantee that things like Amerithrax won't happen again. It's a medicine that is worse than the sickness.
That comment is even more ridiculous. You're saying that a person's privacy is more important than national security. You're saying that it isn't the government's business if mentally ill people are hired to work with deadly pathogens in government labs. That is so absurd that it's unbelievable that anyone would believe such a thing.
And then you look at titles and count pages instead of reading the report. That is almost as absurd as the rest of your posts from last night.
But, we're getting into opinion versus opinion arguments again. In my opinion, your opinions are ridiculous.
Ed
Richard Rowley wrote: "and since Ivins was doing okay prior to March 2005, I concur!
ReplyDeleteHis mental deterioration was a PRODUCT of the investigation.'
Absolutely RIDICULOUS! Ivins was seeing psychiatrists for YEARS before the attacks. He was planning MURDERS. He was building bombs. He was committing burglaries. He was committing acts of vandalism. He was taking anti-psychotic drugs. And it was all connected to uncontrollable obsessions. He was far from "okay." He was mentally ill.
Your beliefs are just one preposterous conclusion after another.
The investigation added stress to Ivins' life. He didn't want to be found out. But, everything that was mentally wrong with Bruce Ivins was wrong long before the anthrax attacks or any contact with the FBI.
Ed
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete---------------
Richard Rowley wrote: "The command of USAMRIID and the security officers would have no way of knowing WHAT Ivins' diagnosis or diagnoses was/were, and no way of knowing how he was doing medically THROUGH THOSE RECORDS and that's how it should be:
Your opinions just get more and more ridiculous.
It was the JOB of Ivins superiors and security officers at USAMRIID to know the mental health of USAMRIID's employees. They FAILED at that job.[...]
==============================================
You assume that BECAUSE you assume (based on precious little evidence) that Ivins did the Amerithrax crimes. Ivins was a familiar to people all the way up the chain of command, including at least some Fort Detrick CO's. And that for 2 to 3 DECADES. Those people were in a better place to evaluate Ivins than the very SHRINK (that would be Saathoff) whose 'guidance' to the Task Force led to psychological manipulations (lying to Ivins about denunciations of him by Henry Heine and probably others; purposeful isolation of Ivins etc.) whose very purpose was to mentally destabilize him. Let me write that last part again: WHOSE VERY PURPOSE WAS TO MENTALLY DESTABILIZE IVINS.
There was (evidently) an attempted suicide by Ivins in March of 2008, yet instead of backing off and trying to stabilize him, this only encouraged the Task Force (oh, goody! He's about to crack!).
Then the very incompetent (Saathoff) whose advice was so disastrous for Ivins and any potential successful outcome of the investigation is appointed to head a panel like this. If it HAD been an honest panel then it would have criticized, at a bare minimum:
1)the lies told to Ivins by the investigators.
2)the FBI-imposed isolation of Ivins.
3) the 'psychiatric consultant' involved. Saathoff.
(END PART I)
And then there's this beaut of a characterization from the panel's report:
ReplyDelete----------------------
"Their complacency was such that in the final months of his career at USAMRIID, many of them observed his deteriorating emotional and physical condition — including a black eye from a fall due to intoxication — but did not report their observations or take other action," the report says.
--------------------------------
Of course in the "final months of his career" Ivins was being lied to by the investigators, he was being purposely isolated, his children (just like Hatfill's girlfriend a few years earlier) were being told he did Amerithrax etc.
Complacency? You better believe it! The Task Force's complacency with an investigation that was 95% (bad)psychology was sweeping and it put all the marbles on FURTHER psychological manipulation. And since this went hand-in-hand with Dr Greg Saathoff's consultant work on the case, everyone can agree with the above:
------
many of them observed his deteriorating emotional and physical condition — including a black eye from a fall due to intoxication — but did not report their observations or take other action[...]
---------
This fits the Task Force (and Dr Saathoff) to a T. THEY could have backed off. But then again, they had no substantial evidence, so it was gung-ho mental destabilization. The panel's a nice touch.
http://www.herald-mail.com/news/hm-expert-panel-faults-army-in-anthrax-case-20110323,0,7934429.story
Richard Rowley wrote: "and since Ivins was doing okay prior to March 2005, I concur!
ReplyDeleteHis mental deterioration was a PRODUCT of the investigation.'
Absolutely RIDICULOUS! Ivins was seeing psychiatrists for YEARS before the attacks.[...]
====================================================
So what? As I already noted a few times before HE was frightened by his own paranoia and violent ideas and this was the primary drive to see psychiatrists.
The Task Force not only CAUSED his deterioration, THEY WERE SEEKING that very deterioration. Making the suspect 'crack'.
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete-------
The investigation added stress to Ivins' life.
============================================================
What you are leaving out is: the investigation PURPOSELY brought more stress into Ivins' life as a statagem to try to make him crack. They succeeded. Only perhaps not in the way they intended.
I wrote: "It was the JOB of Ivins superiors and security officers at USAMRIID to know the mental health of USAMRIID's employees. They FAILED at that job.[...]"
ReplyDelete==============================================
And Richard Rowley responded. "You assume ... (based on precious little evidence) that Ivins did the Amerithrax crimes."
There is NO ASSUMPTION involved in the fact that Ivins was mentally ill. He should never have been allowed to work with dangerous pathogens. His managers FAILED to do their job in preventing him from working with dangerous pathogens. Period.
The fact that he committed 5 murders by sending out the anthrax letters was the RESULT of their failure to do their job, but the failure would still have been a failure even if Ivins' hadn't committed the murders. He should never have been allowed to work with dangerous pathogens.
Richard Rowley also wrote: "What you are leaving out is: the investigation PURPOSELY brought more stress into Ivins' life as a statagem to try to make him crack."
So what? If he had been innocent, he would have fought back, and he would have argued that he was innocent. Instead, he told people, "I do not have any recollection of ever have doing anything like that." And, "I am not a killer at heart." He was apologizing and claiming to have forgotten instead claiming innocence!!
Guilty people commit suicide when the police close in. Innocent people fight back and try to convince the world that they're innocent.
The idea that the authorities shouldn't have put pressure on Ivins is RIDICULOUS NONSENSE. It's a proven technique that has resulted in the closing of countless cases. And, the FBI and DOJ warned Ivins' lawyer that Ivins seemed on the verge of doing something. His lawyer did nothing. Many people wanted to keep Ivins locked up, but the doctors at the mental hospital let him go. And Ivins started making plans for suicide as soon as he was out the door.
It would have been better for everyone if Ivins hadn't committed suicide and had stood trial for his crimes, but he chose to avoid standing trial. It was his choice.
The idea that the FBI or DOJ wanted him to commit suicide is TOTAL NONSENSE. They wanted him to confess. Failing that, they wanted to put him on trial.
Testifying before a grand jury added stress.
Being advised that he was facing the death penalty added stress.
Being shown that he was a liar added stress.
Being advised of all the evidence against him added stress.
But, those are legal requirements when preparing an indictment to arrest someone for murder.
Ivins had a choice of a public trial or suicide. He chose suicide. Blaming the FBI or DOJ for that is just plain ABSURD.
Ed