My comment for Sunday on my web site was mainly about my desire to start working on the "final draft" of my book and to get it into print, whether via self-publishing or via a regular publisher. There are still things pending - such as the supposedly imminent release of Ivins' private emails, some additional pictures the FBI is sending me, and the General Accountability Office's (GAO's) review of the Amerithrax investigation. If any of it gets released before I actually send out the CD containing the pdf files the printer will use to print the book, I can always stop and incorporate something that is of great importance. But, I can't just keep waiting and waiting.
I also explained in my Sunday comment why I continue to argue with Anthrax Truthers even though there seems no way to change their minds about anything. That's something else that evidently won't stop until after the GAO releases its review and after my book is printed and fades into history.
I no longer argue with people who have theories about the JFK assassination.
I no longer argue with people who don't believe Americans went to the moon.
There'll come a time when I'll no longer argue with people who have alternative theories about the anthrax attacks of 2001. It's a matter of diminishing returns. I still find it somewhat educational, but it's becoming less and less so.
Ed
You gave me a little opening with this:
ReplyDelete-----------------
I no longer argue with people who have theories about the JFK assassination.
---------------------------------------
Okay, this is another area where I'm very opinionated (but avoid argumentation): the JFK assassination. Nevertheless it might be a fruitful starting point.
Lately, I re-watched the film JFK (I boycotted it for about 15 yrs but have more than made up for it lately with multiple viewings. Some of those viewings were followed up by consultations with Posner's book CASE CLOSED).
I did a little mental experiment:
1) suppose I found myself locked in a room with Oliver Stone. For 1 to 3 hours.
2) and all we talked about was the JFK assassination.
3) would our disagreements center on 'facts' which Stone refused to acknowledge? Or vice versa?
4)after thinking this over for some time (periodically for weeks now) I concluded the reverse: Stone (assuming he's of the same opinion as when he shot JFK) and I would disagree about few (if any) facts. Rather it would be the WEIGHT we gave to those facts which would be the center of our disagreements.
I think the same thing applies in evaluating the Task Force's conclusions in Amerithrax: those who disagree with the conclusions don't give the same weight to certain facts as those who agree with those conclusions.
Richard Rowley wrote: "those who disagree with the conclusions don't give the same weight to certain facts as those who agree with those conclusions."
ReplyDeleteTrue. But it's not that simple.
I give some weight to the fact that the decoded message in the media letter relates to Ivins' two co-workers. You do not give the decoded message any weight at all - because you can dream up alternative decoded messages.
So, I'm giving a FACT some weight. You are ignoring the FACT and declaring your belief that the FACT is meaningless.
You introduce BIAS into the argument. You are BIASED in favor of your own theory. And you argue AGAINST the facts having any meaning at all.
If you weren't biased, you would accept the FACT that the coded message decodes to identify two of Ivins' co-workers, but you would argue that you have more FACTS which are better proof of who did it. And you'd give MORE WEIGHT to those facts. That is something you NEVER do.
If the FACTS say that Ivins had a connection to the scene of the crime (the mailbox), you'd accept that, but you'd argue that your suspect had a BETTER connection to the scene of the crime. Instead, you argue your belief that your suspect or someone helping your suspect must have had some reason to use that mailbox.
Ed
Hello me Lake and mr Rowley:
ReplyDelete+ My theory that Dr. Ivins is guilty & innocent, and everything is related to a woman must seem very strange. I'll try to explain without looking like Lt. Columbo.
- The murderer of anthrax is a poisoner to alert their targets and kill strangers. The aim of the poisoner is the world of media and prominent people in the world of politics, it's like to kick a hive of bees or wasps. It is a BAIT.
+ Mr Ivins,he behaves like a stalker rejected, his behavior with women and college fraternity is perverse and continuing as described in these links:
The anthrax killings: A troubled mind
May 29, 2011|By David Willman, Los Angeles Times
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/29/nation/la-na-anthrax-ivins-20110529
Resources for Victims of Stalking.
http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/group/busslab/stalkinghelp/StalkingWhyAm.html#Types
Rejected Stalker
Motivation
(a) Begins to stalk after their partner (romantic or close friendship) has ended their relationship or indicates that he or she intends to end the relationship.
(b) Wants to be in a relationship with the victim again or seek revenge on the victim. The stalker's goals may vary, depending on the responses of the victim.
Personality
(a) May have high levels of these personality characteristics:
- narcissism
- jealousy
(b) May have:
- feelings of humiliation
- over-dependence
- poor social skills and a resulting poor social network
Stalking Behaviors
(a) Is often the most persistent and intrusive type of stalker.
(b) Is most likely to employ intimidation and assault in pursuit of their victim. A history of violence in the relationship with the partner is not uncommon.
Duration and Criminality
(a) This type of stalker is typically the most resistant to efforts aimed at ending their stalking behavior.
+ And the evil behavior of Ivins Anthrax triggered the tragedy. A woman was stalked by Ivins in the lab and nobody did anything to protect it, or your co-workers or people who directed Fort Detrick. .... except a person who was tired of the chaos in the military base.
End first part.
Second part:
ReplyDelete+ Is a modification of the history of the "Mentalist", season 2, episode 16 "Red Code":
+The reason for killing is a steal
+The bad guy tries to cover the absence of a product
+The laboratory is unsafe and personal relationships are strange.
+Accident?
___So I think someone tried to give a lesson to Ivins. A robbery would require an investigation in the laboratory and a punishment.
But Ivins managed to hide all, he works much in little time.(The theft may explain the discrepancies between what Ivins could manufacture and what he could not produce but keep in his laboratory)
___Then the thief became poisoner, a poisoner who warned their victims on the nature of the poison and the drug they should use to save their lives. Not a joke. The poisoner wants to be taken seriously and pursue it. The poisoner known to Ivins and his feud with a fraternity, and establishes a relationship with the mail and Ivins.
___Mr Ivins fights. He causes an accident to start an illegal and private investigation, he loosens the cork of a flask and the threat of contamination leads to the locker room. the wardrobe is contaminated but he did not find the closet´s thief because he expected to be spores inside. mr Ivins was wrong( it was necessary to find the closet very much cleaner). Two employees were contaminated and it was not anything else.
___I guess he bought the gun and bulletproof jacket to kill the poisoner unknown.
___Mr Ivins obstructing the investigation but passes the test of the lie machine because they do not him the right question:
-Ivins knows what happened and he could have prevented the tragedy occurred, but was not the poisoner.
+ He killed himself because he was guilty, he could help and assist in the investigation, but his weak ego led him to hide it all to end.
Somewhere must be the notes of Dr. Ivins, who find them will know what has happened.
The tale has ended.
Bye from Spain
I would call that the "madre" of all murder mysteries!
ReplyDeleteHello Mr. Roley.
DeleteWe can also play the "Silence of the Lambs":
"Hannibal Lecter: First principles, Clarice. Simplicity. Read Marcus Aurelius. Of each particular thing ask: what is it in itself? What is its nature? What does he do, this man you seek?
Clarice Starling: He kills women...
Hannibal Lecter: No. That is incidental. What is the first and principal thing he does? What needs does he serve by killing?
Clarice Starling: Anger, um, social acceptance, and, huh, sexual frustrations, sir...
Hannibal Lecter: No! He covets. That is his nature. And how do we begin to covet, Clarice? Do we seek out things to covet? Make an effort to answer now.
Clarice Starling: No. We just...
Hannibal Lecter: No. We begin by coveting what we see every day. Don't you feel eyes moving over your body, Clarice? And don't your eyes seek out the things you want?"
+ Therefore the correct answer requires the right question:
What does the murderer of anthrax?
- He poisons and warns them of danger and the medication they should take.
Who are the people he wants to poison?
- They are celebrities. People who decide what is news and what is not news, and people who decide what to do and what not to do.
- The poisoner does not kill anyone, he wants to be the center of attention.
- Dr. Ivins have the applause of his audience at the Red Cross,plays the piano in church, juggling ..... for this reason is not the poisoner. He already has the attention of his audience.
etc ..... Bye.
I give some weight to the fact that the decoded message in the media letter relates to Ivins' two co-workers.
ReplyDelete------------------------------------------------------------
If the decipherment had any value whatsoever:
1) it could have been done (at least up to a certain point) in 2001-2005, since not a single jot has been added to the code since then
2) in that instance the same methodology would have rendered the twin "solutions" (cough! cough!): "PAT" and "FNY".
3) there's not a shred of evidence such a decipherment ever rendered that in 2001 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, mid-2008. If it had been done, it would have been presented in early August 2008, shortly after Ivins death, as part of the 'evidence' presented.
4)rather the 'decipherment' was an ad hoc and desperate attempt, after the Aug 6th 2008 newsconference, to provide ADDITIONAL "evidence" OF IVINS' guilt, since there was a skeptical general reaction to what was presented at that newsconference.
5) so rather than a let-the-chips-fall-where-they may effort by qualified cryptoanalysts, it was an effort by rank amateurs in the field to link Ivins, no matter how tendentiously the link was arrived at, no matter how convolutedly.
6) in other threads,(other venues?), I gave a long list of famous 'Pats', and observed that if you threw in all the Patricks, Patricias, and people who just acquired the nickname "Pat" during their lifetimes in the English-speaking world, you would have a humongous list indeed, hundreds of thousands to millions) and that there's no DISINTERESTED reason for a legitimate decipherer to assume it refers to any coworker of Ivins. Ergo it's not a fact. More recently I did something similar with "FDY": lots of place names in NY State begin with the letter F and someone from New York (like me) would take that as the most likely significance, NOT 'f**k NY'.
A decipherment so tendentious and convoluted cannot be taken seriously.
Richard Rowley wrote: "4)rather the 'decipherment' was an ad hoc and desperate attempt, after the Aug 6th 2008 newsconference, to provide ADDITIONAL "evidence" OF IVINS' guilt"
ReplyDeleteYou're just ignorant of the facts. People thought the highlighted characters might have some meaning, but no one could decode the hidden message in the letter until AFTER Ivins was observed throwing away the code books on the evening of November 7-8, 2007. They FBI had done a search of Ivins' home the week before. They knew it's common for criminals to get rid of incriminating stuff that the investigators missed during a search, in case they might come back and do another search. So, the FBI was watching when Ivins threw out the code books.
When FBI agent Darin Steele, who is also a microbiologist, went through the book Godel, Escher, Bach (GEB) to try to figure out why Ivins had thrown it away, he found the passages in the book which describe almost EXACTLY how Ivins had coded the message.
Previously, he'd wondered if the A's and T's could have some DNA meaning, but it wasn't until he had the code book that all the pieces fell together. And, it was clear to everyone else, too. The other "code book" (a science magazine) held the technique to decode the final DNA message.
Ivins code followed the THREE CODING STEPS in GEB perfectly, although the clues and the decoded message have nothing in common. That CAN'T be just a coincidence. If you think it is, you are in fantasy land.
You are just looking at the end result and claiming you don't believe it. It's not the decoded message that is so convincing, it is the METHOD of coding and how it follows GEB so perfectly that makes it virtually undeniable to any impartial and unbiased observer.
See David Willman's book, pages 273-274.
Ed
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete----------------
You're just ignorant of the facts. People thought the highlighted characters might have some meaning, but no one could decode the hidden message in the letter until AFTER[...]
=================================================
Hold it right there: to decode something you don't need to know the identity of the writer/encoder.
And what's this "people" stuff?!?!? Did you take lessons in the Jeff Taylor school of obfuscation? The thing to look for is what the FBI/Task Force people said EARLY ON about the highlighting (NOT what they said later when they wanted to pin the whole thing on Ivins, which was the situation after July 29th 2008).
To my knowledge, the only (limited) source for that (at least on the Internet) is here:
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/06/17/why-did-fbi-agent-darin-steele-think-that-the-t-in-next-was-double-lined-in-concocting-his-interpretation-of-a-code/
There we have the EARLY version of what their struggle was: it WASN'T that they had no idea that A's and T's were bases to nucleotides(the ABCs of genetics) and were integral to DNA. It WASN'T that they had no idea that those could form units that translated into amino acids (ditto). No, their problem was VASTLY more fundamental*: they weren't sure which letters to count as 'highlighted' which to count as 'unhighlighted'. There's NO indication that they 'solved' even that most fundamental question* (which didn't require a copy of GEB, indeed couldn't be made any easier by consulting GEB)in 2001-2008. So, the TOTALLY unsolved 'encryption' suddenly became 'solved' not because they truly gained some insight into manner of encryption but because they now had a TARGET solution: anything and everything that somehow connected it, no matter how tendentiously, to Bruce Ivins. That's why "PAT" can't be Pat Sajak, or Pat Boone, or Pat O'Brien etc. (ad nauseam): because such solutions don't point to Ivins, EVEN THOUGH THOSE SOLUTIONS USE THE SAME 'amino acid code' manner of encryption. The 'FNY' solution(wink) is even more fanciful still and is a good example of imagination unconstrained by common sense of any sort.
As I mentioned some days or weeks ago, in the military I was in 'signals intelligence', the very branch that uses encryption, though now and for a long time it has been done electronically, rather than by alpha-numeric substitution. But because of that, I've been interested for decades (probably more than Ivins) in codes. That means, among other things, I don't find Ivins' interest AT ALL rare or exotic. It also means I have a much higher standard when it comes to evaluating manner of encryption/decryption. The Task Force's solution wouldn't have been presentable 'as is' in a court of law, for the same reason that other areas of expertise aren't presentable except by
*and of course if letters OTHER than CAGT are highlighted, then this AUTOMATICALLY means it isn't an 'amino acid code'.
(END OF PART I)
(PART II)
ReplyDeleteLet's take a look at one element of the chronology: when did the Task Force do its "trash run" on Ivins' house? November 2007. So they retrieved the book (GEB), saw various things highlighted, and subsequently questioned him about the book (without letting him know they had taken his copy from the trash)in (I believe) early 2008. Yet on August 6th 2008 a week or so after Ivins' death, there was not the slightest indication by Jeff Taylor that there was any "amino acid code" skein of evidence. Obvious question: why not? Because they hadn't dreamed it up yet. "FNY" isn't a solution that points to Ivins. Neither, if you think about it, is "PAT". (If Ivins were to write in such a code the name of someone he seems to have been truly obsessed with, it would have been 'Nancy' (Haigwood)).
As I've written many times, the Aug 6th press conference, AND the 'Final Report' (and just about anything else connected with same) are public relations ventures. They were successful on THOSE terms: most people don't know (or want to know) much about codes, and if you throw in the 'amino acid' stuff
you either intimidate them or put them to sleep. Either one is sufficient for the DoJ.
For those who know a TAD about such subjects however, it's not impressive at all. Rather it's an insult to our intelligence.
Richard Rowley wrote: "to decode something you don't need to know the identity of the writer/encoder."
ReplyDeleteYou're just creating silly rules that have nothing to do with reality.
There is no order that is required for decoding something.
Richard Rowley also wrote: "I have a much higher standard when it comes to evaluating manner of encryption/decryption."
Your "higher standard" has nothing to do with the reality of the Amerithrax investigation. If you know so much, you should know that you don't spend years trying to decode something UNLESS there's solid reason to believe that IT IS A CODE.
If Ivins had put an OBVIOUS coded message into the letter, everyone in the world would have been trying to decode it. People were arguing about what the highlighted characters meant for YEARS before the message was finally decoded. A lot of people thought the A's and T's indicated "Atta," one of the hijackers. I thought it was just doodling. The idea that there was a hidden message in the letter never occurred to anyone I know.
I seriously doubt that anyone was even thinking about the meaning of the A's and T's when Darin Steele started going through the copy of GEB that Ivins threw out. But, suddenly, the solution was there before him. And all the pieces fell together.
Once you see from the code books what the code is, you know that an R that might seem slightly highlighted isn't part of the code and the T's that don't seem fully highlighted ARE part of the code. The coding technique spelled out in GEB tells you how to tell what is part of the code and what isn't. It doesn't take a genius cryptographer to realize that in TTT AATR TAT the R doesn't belong or that TT AAT TAT is missing something if the code consists of 3-letter groups.
Your argument that Ivins would have encoded Nancy Haigwood's name is ridiculous. He coded what he could figure out. The coded letters also had to fit into the message of the anthrax letter. He needed to have highlighted characters in the four corners of the regular text, and he probably worked for a long time to figure out how to accomplish that. If he wanted to encode "NANCY" in some way, he would have had to use a totally different coding method. He used what he'd read about in the science magazine.
Your argument that the FBI devised the code after Ivins died is a preposterous belief. PROVE IT! Such ridiculous claims show that you are totally biased and cannot view the evidence objectively.
Ed
Hello gentlemen:
ReplyDelete- I'm sorry gentlemen, but in this story of code based on the letters T and A, i only see the writing of a nervous man trying to assert itself by overwriting the A and T.
- This is not a code, this is a psychological manifestation of insecurity. the physical structure of the letters A and T allows the assertion of the writer's personality.
- Thus PenAcillin just means the intellectual level of the writer's family. I think of a person or family of origin foreing who committed this error to be nervous at the time of writing.
- Gentlemen, i do not understand why you choose the more complicated explanation. Has no one uses Occam's razor?
Joseph from Spain wrote: "Gentlemen, i do not understand why you choose the more complicated explanation. Has no one uses Occam's razor?"
ReplyDeleteMr. Rowley doesn't believe Ivins wrote the letter or that the highlighted characters have any meaning.
Joseph believes Ivins wrote the letter, but doesn't think the highlighted characters have any meaning.
The FACTS say Ivins wrote the letter and put a coded message in it:
1. Ivins was fascinated with codes.
2. Ivins was observed throwing away the code books.
3. The coded message fits perfectly to what was in the code books.
4. The decoded messages make perfect sense for Ivins.
5. Ivins seems to have put the coded message in the letter so that he could prove that he wrote it if that proved necessary.
So, "Occam's razor" indicates that Ivins wrote the letter and put a hidden, coded message in it. It is far less likely that all of the facts are just coincidences or misinterpretations.
Ed
Joseph of Spain is on to something (if you ignore some sometimes- mangled syntax):
ReplyDelete--------
The murderer of anthrax is a poisoner to alert their targets and kill strangers. The aim of the poisoner is the world of media and prominent people in the world of politics, it's like to kick a hive of bees or wasps. It is a BAIT.
[skipping some stuff]
Therefore the correct answer requires the right question:
What does the murderer of anthrax?
- He poisons and warns them of danger and the medication they should take.
Who are the people he wants to poison?
- They are celebrities. People who decide what is news and what is not news, and people who decide what to do and what not to do.
- The poisoner does not kill anyone, he wants to be the center of attention.
====================================================
Okay, here's the paradox: can one be an anonymous center of attention?
I don't follow the logic regarding what Joseph from Spain is writing about poisons.
ReplyDeleteHowever,
When Bruce Ivins was in high-school and college, he would warn people who tried to bully him that he was an expert in poisons and could just put something in their food if they continued to bully him.
Around 1980, Ivins told his psychiatrist about his plans to poison Nancy Haigwood.
In early 2000, he told his counselor about his plans to poison Mara Linscott.
In January 2002, Ivins' adopted daughter Amanda tried to commit suicide by taking "poisons" (Tylenol and painkillers).
So, Ivins seems predisposed to have used "poisons" to kill himself. And, of course, he had motives for using anthrax in the letters.
So, whatever Joseph from Spain AND Richard Rowley are arguing, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the facts.
Ed
Richard Rowley wrote: "to decode something you don't need to know the identity of the writer/encoder."
ReplyDeleteYou're just creating silly rules that have nothing to do with reality.
There is no order that is required for decoding something.
-----------------------------------
Not in general terms but OF COURSE you have to determine what the surface text is (here: what the highlighted letters are) before you can then 'decipher' those letters. That's just the ABCs of decoding because if you don't know what the surface text is, you don't know WHAT you are decoding (since 'decoding' is essentially a sort of translation, ask yourself can you translate an UNKNOWN Japanese text into English or vice versa? Of course not! Determining the text comes first, is the SINE QUA NON).
----------
Richard Rowley also wrote: "I have a much higher standard when it comes to evaluating manner of encryption/decryption."
Your "higher standard" has nothing to do with the reality of the Amerithrax investigation. If you know so much, you should know that you don't spend years trying to decode something UNLESS there's solid reason to believe that IT IS A CODE.
-------------------------------------------------------
Okay, then since you have been in a ringside seat on the Case since late 2001, what did the G-men think the highlighted letters meant in 2001? 2002? 2003? 2004? 2005? 2006? 2007?
And what was so important that they couldn't hand that work over to qualified specialists (thus not taking any agent-hours away
from those on the Task Force proper)?
Or are you claiming they ignored the highlighting for 6 to 7 years? Since we don't know which forensic linguists (besides Don Foster) and/or which cryptoanalysts (They almost certainly submitted copies of both letters to the FBI crypto-section), we aren't going to get info on this point, ESPECIALLY if those early judgments are incompatible with their final solution(s): PAT=PAT Fellows/Worsham; FNY=F**K NY.
Mister Lake is intimating something absurd: no one had ANY idea that the highlighting could be a code, until 2007. That simply isn't credible, especially if we use the word "code" in the widest sense.
So, whatever Joseph from Spain AND Richard Rowley are arguing, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the facts.
ReplyDelete-----------------------------------------------
We are arguing psychology. Whether that is a Lakeian 'fact' or not, I don't know.
You are arguing psychology while ignoring most of the facts required to understand the psychology involved.
DeleteEd
Richard Rowley wrote: "what did the G-men think the highlighted letters meant in 2001? 2002? 2003? 2004? 2005? 2006? 2007?"
ReplyDeleteThere's no record of what they thought. They didn't "ignore" the highlighting. It was just an unexplained peculiarity in the handwriting. They were investigating thousands of leads. They were asking handwriting experts about the highlighting. But, I don't recall any handwriting expert giving an opinion about the highlighting.
Richard Rowley also wrote: "Mister Lake is intimating something absurd: no one had ANY idea that the highlighting could be a code, until 2007. That simply isn't credible, especially if we use the word "code" in the widest sense."
You are using 20/20 hindsight. There was no reason to think that the anthrax mailer would put a coded hidden message inside a threat letter. And, if anyeone thought it might be a code, they couldn't break it.
In 2001 to 2007, a lot of people were guessing what the highlighting might mean. As I said, one popular theory was that it was Mohamed ATTA's name with some extra A's and T's. Darin Steele saw that the A's and T's might relate to DNA codons, but he didn't go any further than that.
Something that seems obvious once you have all the facts isn't that obvious when you're missing 90% of the facts - specifically the code books.
Ed
Joseph from Spain:
ReplyDelete-------------
- Gentlemen, i do not understand why you choose the more complicated explanation. Has no one uses Occam's razor?
=================================================
Yes, by my lights the simplest explanation is: the highlighted elements are a signature. It is not only simpler, it is in accord with what we know of human nature: artists of all sorts have, since at least the Renaissance, signed their works in one way or another. Graffiti 'taggers' do the same, even when it exposes them to legal prosecution. Of course writers and 'authors' in a more general sense take credit for their work by having their names on their 'works'.
Nor is this unknown in the annals of crime: "Jack the Ripper" can be thought of as a sort of 'literary pseudonym' for that killer.
More recently there was a killer in the Northwest who had killed a number of women but he insisted on giving himself another 'literary' pseudonym "the Happy Face Killer": he wrote it on the walls of public restrooms, even sent in letters to newspapers with that name/happy face drawing. etc.
This is the episode (I've never seen "The Mentalist" myself) Joseph from Spain was talking about:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/the-mentalist-2010/episode-16-season-2/code-red/293789
For what it's worth, "The Mentalist" is my favorite TV show. It was #2 after "House" before "House" went off the air a couple months ago. I have seasons 1, 2 and 3 of "The Mentalist" on DVD, which means I've seen nearly every episode twice. (So far, I've only watched the first 8 episodes of season 3 from DVD.) So, I'm very familiar with the show.
DeleteBut, I think it's a stretch to try to relate anything in that show to the Amerithrax case. In every episode Jane identifies the culprit long before the California Bureau of Investigation does, because he's more observant of human actions and reactions. That's the fun part of the show.
Ed
Okay, ignoring my solution, here's what I think about Ivins and 'codes'.
ReplyDelete1) the earliest known strong interest by Ivins in the subject is: Kappa Kappa Gamma and its code(s) (ie back in the 1970s). Knowing their code(s) seemed to give Ivins a sense of control, since KKG then couldn't 'slip anything past' Ivins via the code (I know, I know, they didn't give a hoot about Ivins, but I'm trying to reconstruct HIS thinking on the subject, the evident origin of his interest in codes, an interest originally ignited by a quixotic paranoia).
2) likely THIS interest, like others, became an ongoing one, and was likely ONE reason he was interested in GEB: it included stuff about codes there.
3)zip forward several years: Amerithrax happens. Ivins is close to the 'ground zero' of Amerithrax: THE big installation studying pathogens for the military. He's a de facto consultant early on. But he's curious too and figures he's as well-situated as ANYONE to figure out who did it: via his knowledge of co-workers, ex-coworkers, people at other installations etc.
4) So he tries to figure it out, over a protracted period of time.
And a PART of the puzzle is: what do the highlighted letters/portions of letters mean? He uses his (likely ALREADY dog-eared) copy of GEB as a working aid.
-------------------------------------------
End Part I
Part 2
ReplyDelete--------------------------------------------------
So, is there EVIDENCE that Ivins was trying to figure out who did Amerithrax on his own? Yes. From the FINAL REPORT pages 72-3
-------------------------------
In November 2007, a search of Dr. Ivins’s residence revealed the printout of an e-mail he sent to himself “speculating” in an illogical 12-point memo that Former Colleagues #1 and #2
together mailed the anthrax letters in an effort to get back at him, a notion he had raised once before:
I’m seriously wondering if [Former Colleague #2] and [Former
Colleague #1] may have been involved. Note the following:
1) [Former Colleague #2] . . . made the finest preparations of
anthrax spores, and [Former Colleague #1] was her loyal
understudy.
2) [For two years] the two of them made countless preparations of
anthrax spores. They made them together and I wasn’t in the suite
when they made and purified them.
3) Former Colleague #2 secretly complained to [Former Colleague
#1] and [a researcher at a different lab] about her supervisor (me)and then was dishonest about it when confronted by me.
4) [Former Colleague #1] was dishonest when confronted by me
with questions concerning the above situation.
5) [Former Colleague #1] is extremely familiar with the Northeast,
and the letters were mailed from the Northeast.
6) [Former Colleague #2] and [Former Colleague #1] were very
close for a number of reasons, [listing various reasons].
7) Less than a year after the anthrax letter attacks, [Former
Colleague #2] left USAMRIID as an internationally recognized
authority on anthrax spores and their production and purification,
and she took a job in the private sector. Since then her career has moved upward rapidly.
8) [Former Colleague #2] and [Former Colleague #1] had the
opportunity to make “anthrax letter spores,” and they had motives.
For [Former Colleague #2], the twin motives of revenge on her
supervisor and giving her career a boost would be at the front. For [Former Colleague #1], loyalty to her best friend and mentor while in Frederick, combined also with revenge on her supervisor, would
72
be at the front.
9) . . . I have to wonder if there was outside assistance from one or more individuals - perhaps known to [Former Colleague #1] - who would have biochemical/pharmaceutical experience to make the
spores into a powder.
10) . . . [Former Colleague #1] may have had connections that
could [mail the spores]. Her family is from New York, and she has
many friends in the Northeast.
11) Finally, this is merely a theory, not an accusation. For both
individuals, ([Former Colleague #2] and [Former Colleague #1])
motive is present, availability (of the Ames strain of Bacillus
anthracis) is present, knowledge of how to make large quantities of pure spores is present. Furthermore, with Former Colleague #1’s
personal and family connections, mailing the letters would not
have been a problem. The one piece of the puzzle that would need
to be filled is how they weaponized the spores into a powder.
Perhaps [Former Colleague #1] was able to look the information
up or get the information from someone she knew. Again, perhaps
one or more other individuals were involve in weaponizing their
anthrax spores into powder form.
12) Again, this is just an idea, but it’s an idea that makes sense.
---------------------------------------------------------
End Part 2
Part 3
ReplyDelete------------
Then after the above is concluded on page 73, it is stated that although the printout of the above email was done in June of 2007, the email was sent almost 2 years before (so mid-2005). Meaning that 3 1/2 years after Amerithrax, Ivins was STILL trying to sort through who might have done it. Coming to wrong conclusions, but still trying. Something incompatible with his own guilt in the matter.
The discernment of what the highlighted letters might mean was likely done with the help of GEB, under Ivins' guess that it might be some sort of code.
But by 2007 not only had he likely given up his attempt to solve the case on his own, he HIMSELF had come under increased scrutiny (particularly harrowing when you have a condition that includes a powerful paranoid element to your personality)by the Task Force, culminating in the Nov 2007 search of his residence. Subsequently, likely realizing that even his INNOCENT use of GEB to attempt to DECIPHER the 'code' of the highlighted letters could be misconstrued as evidence that he had used the book to ENCIPHER a message in the Brokaw text, Ivins decides to throw the book away.
And we know what that resulted in: the Task Force took the attempt to throw the book away as sign of guilt.
Ivins wasn't "investigating" the attacks. He was pointing at a whole bunch of people as being better suspects than he.
ReplyDeleteWhen Ivins wasn't pointing at others as being able to make the spores, he was claiming that no one at USAMRIID had the ability to make such spores. He argued whatever argument he thought might make the FBI look elsewhere - other than at him.
Ed
Posted by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete-------------
Ivins wasn't "investigating" the attacks. He was pointing at a whole bunch of people as being better suspects than he.
-------------------------------------
No. This was in 2005, when he wasn't much of a suspect, and it was in an email TO HIMSELF.
And another email from Ivins (this in Sept of 2007) to himself indicating the same effort to figure out who might have done it:
ReplyDelete-----------------
It was against that backdrop that Ivins, at 5:49 p.m. EDT on Sept. 7, sent the e-mail to himself, proclaiming that he had solved the case. Sent from one of the addresses he had registered, KingBadger7@aol .com, Ivins wrote:
"Yes! Yes! Yes!!!!!!! I finally know who mailed the anthrax letters in the fall of 2001. I've pieced it together! Now we can finally get all of this over and done with. I have to check a couple of things to make sure ... absolutely sure . . . and then I can turn over the info. I'll probably turn it over to my lawyer, and then he'll turn info over to the authorities."
Ivins added -- in an apparent reference to his colleagues at Ft. Detrick:
"I'm not looking forward to everybody getting dragged through the mud, but at least it will all be over. Finally! I should have it TOTALLY nailed down within the month. I should have been a private eye!!!!"
Paul F. Kemp, a lawyer whom Ivins had hired to represent him, said that the e-mail "was a note with himself to discuss with me certain information that he wanted to pass on to the FBI. He did, and I passed it on. It was an attempt to say who might have had access to the beaker" containing the RMR 1029 anthrax.
------------------------------
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/25/nation/na-anthrax25
---------------------------------------------------
Again, whether you take the email as a SERIOUS evaluation of what he had figured out, and its import, OR if you take it as self-mockery of his hapless labors, it's another indication he was putting a lot of mental effort into trying to figure the case out, effort incompatible with his own guilt.
Richard Rowley wrote: "it was in an email TO HIMSELF."
ReplyDeleteThe FACTS say that Ivins was the anthrax mailer. So, he obviously wasn't trying to figure out out the anthrax mailer was.
Ivins could have sent the emails to himself in an attempt to see if the FBI was reading his emails. Or, he could have assumed his emails were being read by the FBI, so he sent emails that made it look like he was trying to figure out who did it.
And, as you say, he was going to use one of the emails in an attempt to assure his lawyer that he was innocent. It was just more of his efforts to manipulate people.
Ed
Your argument that the FBI devised the code after Ivins died is a preposterous belief. PROVE IT!
ReplyDelete---------------------------------------
You ask me to prove it BECAUSE you know that no one could possibly prove it*. But ask yourself: why would they keep secret that particular skein of evidence at the Aug 6th 2008 press conference, which was indeed "after Ivins died" unless they didn't have that 'decryption' available? I can think of not a single reason for that, and YOU, Mister Lake should be even MORE nonplussed since you are so impressed with the 'amino acid code'.
*The only way I could imagine this being 'proved' in even a tentative way is if, in the future, someone gets a Task Force member of 2008-2010 rip-roaring drunk, asks the pertinent question
and the Task Force member admits it. But I imagine that's the type of stuff the Task Force types are urged not to talk about.
Richard Rowley wrote: "why would they keep secret that particular skein of evidence at the Aug 6th 2008 press conference, which was indeed "after Ivins died" unless they didn't have that 'decryption' available? I can think of not a single reason for that"
ReplyDeleteThey didn't keep it a secret. It WAS mentioned in the press conference.
Jeff Taylor said: "Dr. Ivins took highly unusual steps to discard a book and article on DNA coding while under 24/7 surveillance."
It was part of item #4 in the list of evidence against Ivins:
1. Ivins had control of the "murder weapon."
2. Ivins had the knowledge to create the attack spores.
3. Ivins couldn't explain the long hours he worked alone in his lab at night.
4. Ivins' actions showed "consciousness of guilt."
5. Ivins had mental health problems.
6. Ivins would often drive long distances at night to do things that he didn't want traced back to him.
After listing the six general items of evidence, the press conference was throw open to questions, and no reporter asked questions about that item of evidence.
That press conference was called to answer questions from the media. It wasn't called to present every detail of the entire case.
So, you are not looking at the FACTS. You are distorting the situation to make it fit your beliefs.
Ed