Sunday, July 29, 2012

July 29 - August 4, 2012 Discussions

Last week, I found it interesting to learn that James Holmes - the Colorado theater killer - was seeing a psychiatrist.  Before the shootings, Holmes sent a notebook to his psychiatrist allegedly telling her what he was planning to do.  It reminded me of Bruce Ivins, who would go see a psychiatrist whenever he started thinking of killing people. And, it appears that Holmes was being treated for schizophrenia, just like Ivins.

But, the big discovery last week was learning that the wildly inaccurate PBS Frontline documentary "The Anthrax Files" is a finalist for an Emmy Award for outstanding journalism.  (Click HERE to view a list of the distortions and errors in the PBS program.)  And I also was reminded of a book written in 2009 that suggested that weapons manufacturers were behind the anthrax attacks of 2001.  That means that four books have been published about the case since it was announced that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer: One book said it was really weapons manufacturers, another said it was really al Qaeda, another was neutral, and the fourth agreed with the FBI.

So, it's really clear that there is a need for my book which debunks all the alternative theories and explains how the FACTS show beyond any reasonable doubt that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer.

I rewrote the query letter I've been using, and starting on Monday, I will be presenting my book that way: It's a book that explains all the evidence that proves Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer, it debunks all the alternative theories, and it leaves no room for doubt about who did it.  Bruce Ivins did it.

Lastly, my Sunday comment also explained how Mohamed Atta's handwriting is NOTHING like the handwriting on the anthrax letters, even if a person can find a few individual characters in examples of Atta's handwriting that seem similar to characters in the anthrax writing examples.



  1. After writing the blog comment, I remembered that there's actually a fifth book about the anthrax attacks.

    Early this year, Harry Mason published his book, titled "The Mystery of September 11 & The State Lotteries." It claimed that the anthrax attacks were part of a conspiracy connected to the New Hampshire State Lottery.


  2. Perhaps you should avoid mentioning that you think a First Grader wrote the letter until after your query letter. Including that in a query would doom your chances unnecessarily.

  3. Anonymous,

    The handwriting is only an issue with people who have fixed ideas about the case. I'm looking for an agent who is interested in looking at the facts.


  4. But it is a FACT that no agent has been willing to rep the book arguing that a First Grader wrote the letters. Your argument, even on its face, only goes so far as to suggest that the writer recently learned to write English. Also, you might avoid mentioning the "State Lottery" book given you have not read it -- it is bad form for you to continue commenting on things you haven't read. The publisher would be glad to send you a free copy so you are informed.

  5. Anonymous,

    No agent has even mentioned the handwriting. I doubt that any of the agents even know it's an issue with a few Anthrax Truthers.

    I don't "comment" on the State Lottery book. I just list it as one of the five books that have been written about the case since the FBI concluded that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer. Agents want to know what other books there are on the subject, and how my book differs from all the others. I don't need to read the book to do that.

    If Harry Mason thinks the case is connected to the New Hampshire State Lottery, that's all I need to tell the agent.

    If Coen and Nadler think the attacks were the work of weapons manufacturers, that's all I need to tell the agent.

    If Laurie Garrett thinks al Qaeda was behind the attacks, that's all I need to tell the agent.

    You continue to comment on things you know nothing about - like literary agents and how they think. Literary agents are like everyone else: they have their own personal interests. Some really like travel books, some like self-help, some specialize in books about politics, some specialize in books about antiques. There are NO agents who specialize in books about the anthrax attacks. So, finding the right agent is a matter of analyzing what books they've sold in the past to see if they somehow touch on the subject of terrorism, science and true crime. And, even if they do, that doesn't mean that they'd be interested in a book about the anthrax attacks. If the last books they sold was about terrorism, they may be tired of the subject and be looking for a book about jazz or movies.


  6. "No agent has even mentioned the handwriting."

    Have you mentioned in a query sent to date that you think a First Grader wrote the anthrax letters?

    You say that you don't need to read a books you cite in a query letter. If you haven't read the books you comment on -- for example, you haven't read the book by Pulitzer Prize winner Laurie Garrett, the agent will not think of you as informed by what is written on the subject. Indeed, I see great similarities between the "State Lottery" book and your arguments.

    When the agent says she wants you to say why your book is different, it is presumed you have read them.

  7. Anonymous wrote: "Have you mentioned in a query sent to date that you think a First Grader wrote the anthrax letters?"

    I's not mentioned in the letter itself, but it is mentioned in the chapter summaries. The 3 sentence summary of chapter 7 includes this:

    Ivins manipulates a child from his wife's day-care center into writing the first letter.

    And the four sentence summary for chapter 8 includes this:

    Ivins persuades the same child to address the envelopes to people in the media.

    Anonymous also wrote: "the agent will not think of you as informed by what is written on the subject."

    My book isn't about the OPINIONS of people who disagree with the FBI. My book is about what the FACTS say. I am VERY informed about what the facts say. The opinions of people who disagree with the FBI are part of the book, but only to show that they are just OPINIONS and have little to do with reality.

    I mention Garrett's book in the final chapter, but only to show that lots of people still have their own opinions and still disagree with the FBI's findings.


    1. I just changed the sentence in the chapter 7 summary to read:

      Ivins manipulates a first grader from his wife's day-care center into writing the first letter.

      And the summary for chapter 8 now has this sentence:

      Ivins persuades the same first grader to address the envelopes to people in the media.

      That's better than just saying it was "a child."


    2. "I's not mentioned in the letter itself,.."

      Ah, then I see we don't disagree. It should not be mentioned in the query letter itself or else it would doom your prospects at that stage.

      As for being in the book, you presume the past agents you approached read your manuscript. As soon as for whatever reason they determine it is not their "cup of tea", they have no reason to read a manuscript they are not interested in representing. When there is a "referral," they of course for professional reasons want to ask for the manuscript.

      But I see you are on the right track in not mentioning the First Grader theory in your query letter -- which was my original point above.

  8. Anonymous wrote: "But I see you are on the right track in not mentioning the First Grader theory in your query letter"

    The chapter summaries are in an attachment to the query letter. I don't mention the hypothesis about the first grader for the same reason I don't mention the facts about the source of the Silicon or the method Ivins almost certainly used to make or dry the spores. That's detail.

    The query letter mentions that the handwriting, the source of the Silicon and the exact method of making and dry the anthrax spores are not part of the FBI's case summary. The FBI leaves those issues unresolved. I explain the facts and resolve those issues. That's also a big difference between my book and Willman's book.


  9. ". That's also a big difference between my book and Willman's book."

    Yes, he interviewed many of the investigators and in copious footnoting indicates the date of the interview, identifying the investigator. He also interviewed witnesses such as Nancy Haigwood and Judith McLean on multiple occasions.

    You haven't.

  10. Pulitzer Prize winner David Willman, already acclaimed for his great work about the pharma industry and the FDA, went and interviewed witnesses from Dr. Ivins' childhood. You didn't.

    You, in contrast, didn't even bother to obtain through FOIA the handwriting forensic analysis showing that the "T" in NEXT was not in fact double-lined -- a mistaken premise of Agent Steele's code theory.... which you just swallowed whole and now regurgitate.

  11. Anonymous wrote: "He also interviewed witnesses ..."

    Right. Since Willman did it, there's no reason for me to repeat what he did. There's no reason to believe they would have anything to add that would be meaningful to my book. My book analyzes the facts about the anthrax attacks, NOT people's opinions or recollections about Ivins' childhood.

    I cite Willman's book many times in my book. And I HAVE talked with many people involved with the case.

    Anonymous also wrote: "You, in contrast, didn't even bother to obtain through FOIA the handwriting forensic analysis showing that the "T" in NEXT was not in fact double-lined -- a mistaken premise of Agent Steele's code theory.... which you just swallowed whole and now regurgitate.

    FALSE! I obtained very large images of the anthrax letters from an FOIA request back in 2002. I've shown on my web site that the horizontal line in the T in NEXT IS clearly double-lined. Click HERE for an enlargement from my web site.

    You claim it isn't just to argue opinions instead of facts.


  12. You never even bothered to obtain the 302s of Dr. Ivins' alibi witnesses!

  13. Damn! The link doesn't work. I misspelled a word. Here's the link to the highlighted T in NEXT:

    Ivins had no alibi witnesses. He had people who believed he couldn't have done it. The FACTS say that he did it beyond any reasonable doubt.


  14. "Since Willman did it, there's no reason for me to repeat what he did. There's no reason to believe they would have anything to add that would be meaningful to my book. "

    Exactly. But it is important that is not disclosed in the query letters. You need to find an agent who is not familiar with Mr. Willman's book.

  15. There were numerous adults with him on the evening of the mailings -- at his group therapy for his drinking problem. They are fact witnesses. Moreover, there were corroboratory billing records. The FBI had not yet obtained them yet at the time of Dr. Ivins suicide due to a crashed computer.

    Moreover, there were three adults living in the small house with him overnight. They are fact witnesses.

    You have not seen their statements. You did not even request their statement. Nor did you interview them. You are the one asserting your beliefs.

  16. You obviously have not interviewed Diane, Amanda or Andy. We don't need to even pause to consider the facts that you don't read the books or literature on the subject. You don't conduct even the most basic interviews.

  17. The DOJ withheld the documents showing that Dr. Ivins was in the lab those nights in early October working with the rabbits. Once you had no answer to the rabbit documents and did not even attempt to address them in their particulars, your argument was a non-starter. The DOJ's central premise had been unexplained time in the lab. Contrary to what you say, Dr. Ivins DID explain this to the FBI. You don't even link most of the documents let alone discuss them. Just as you've never read Laurie Garret's book, you haven't processed many key documents. You prefer the crayon drawings of First Graders as if they were somehow "FACTS."

  18. The US Attorney falsely suggested Dr. Ivins used a lyophilizer when in fact the USG knew the lyophilizer was not where Dr. Ivins was located on the nights the DOJ claims he processed the anthrax. You have claimed that it is not what US Attorney said when in fact if you turn to the transcript from August 8 that is exactly what he said.

  19. The two key witnesses were Patricia Fellows and Mara Linscott. The DOJ shredded their civil deposition. His accuser, Patricia, was his assistant thanked by the former Zawahiri associate for her technical assistance. You are not troubled by the destruction of such sworn testimony because you have no relevant experience to bring to bear on the matter.

  20. Hmm. I went to the health club for a workout, and when I returned I found SEVEN messages from "Anonymous" awaiting moderation. One contained a personal attack, which I deleted. The others are above. They contain the same kind of nonsense "Anonymous" always posts.

    Anonymous wrote: "You need to find an agent who is not familiar with Mr. Willman's book."

    You clearly have no understanding of the book business, so you should be the last one to give advice. An agent familiar with Willman's book will more easily see how different my book is.

    Anonymous wrote: "They are fact witnesses."

    They are NOT alibi witnesses in any way, shape or form. The fact that Ivins went to group therapy early in the evening has nothing to do with what he did later in the evening. And, Ivins himself stated that his family didn't know or care where he was when he went out at night.

    Anonymous also wrote: "You obviously have not interviewed Diane, Amanda or Andy."

    Everything Ivins did he did without their knowledge. Did Laurie Garrett interview them? Why not, if you believe they have so much of value to say?

    Anonymous also wrote: "Dr. Ivins was in the lab those nights in early October working with the rabbits."

    Nonsense! If that were true, why don't you PROVE it instead of just stating your mistaken beliefs?

    Anonymous also wrote: "The US Attorney falsely suggested Dr. Ivins used a lyophilizer ..."

    The key word is "suggested." What he may or may not have mistakenly suggested is irrelevant.

    Anonymous also wrote: "The two key witnesses were Patricia Fellows and Mara Linscott."

    They were witnesses in a different case. They would also undoubtedly have been witnesses in the case against Bruce Ivins, since they could testify that Ivins had all the knowledge and equipment to create the attack spores. They also knew that Ivins let autoclave bags full of inoculated plates lay around for weeks, which almost no other lab would allow to happen. Pat Fellows would be a witness to the fact that Ivins made "non-denial denials" when asked if he sent the anthrax letters. He said, if he did it, he didn't remember doing it. Linscott would testify to Ivins practice of driving long distances to leave mysterious packages on her doorstep. They would witnesses for the prosecution, NOT for the defense.

    Your arguments are the same nonsense you've been arguing for years. You seem to be incapable of seeing that your arguments are nonsense. You seem incapable of understanding FACTS override all of your mistaken beliefs and opinions.


  21. This is one of the three reasons US Attorney Taylor argued Dr. Ivins was guilty. It turned out be a mistaken premise given the lyophilizer was not in fact available to him in the B3 (where he provably was).

    The US Attorney explained that the sworn affidavits alleged:

    "The affidavits allege that, not only did Dr. Ivins create and maintain the spore batch used in the mailings, but he also had access to and experience using a lyophilizer. A lyophilizer is a sophisticated machine that is used to dry pathogens, and can be used to dry anthrax. We know others in Dr. Ivins' lab consulted him when they needed to use this machine."

  22. Anonymous wrote: "This is one of the three reasons US Attorney Taylor argued Dr. Ivins was guilty."

    It's a reason to believe that Bruce Ivins knew how to dry spores. He was in charge of a freeze-drying machine that could be used for such a purpose. He taught people how to use the machine. Ivins falsely claimed he wasn't an expert on use of the machine.

    Taylor does NOT say that Ivins used the lyophilizer to dry the spores used in the attacks. He said the lyophilizer COULD be used for such a purpose.

    It would have been better if Taylor hadn't mentioned the lyophilizer at all, but he did. So, you can twist and distort what he said, but the fact is: Ivins had OTHER ways of drying spores, and the facts say he made the attack spores and mailed the letters. So, Taylor's unfortunate comment about the lyophilizer changes nothing.


  23. As your second point for believing Dr. Ivins was responsible, you write:

    "In 2000, a year before the anthrax mailings, Ivins had talked with his mental heath counselor about his plan to poison a "young woman." The counselor called the police, but because Ivins hadn't provided a name, there wasn't anything they could do. The facts indicate the woman was Ivins' former assistant, Mara Linscott. Ivins evidently changed his mind about poisoning her."

    You incredibly have not read that first counselor's 2009 autobiographical book that explains that in 2000 she was psychotic and was controlled an alien who had implanted a microchip in her butt. She says she received instructions from the alien at night before going to sleep. The alien made her think her clients (in her new part-time counselilng gig) were murderous fiends with nasty astral entities attached. (She would have emergency exorcisms after her sessions.) Your entire "Ivins Theory" lost credibility when you stubbornly refused to read the book and yet persisted in relying on her earlier claims.

    To expect a publisher to publish your assertion when you admit you haven't even read the book is highly unrealistic. You take pride in not reading relevant material bearing on your assertions. You shouldn't if you have hopes of being published. You instead should go read the e-book. An editor does not have time to fact-check -- they need to count on you to have read the relevant books, conducted the relevant interviews.

    The Copyright Office shows about 6 times when you should have done a reality check and accepted input that would have increased your prospects.

  24. Anonymous wrote: "To expect a publisher to publish your assertion ..."

    I make no "assertion." YOU make the assertion that the counselor was "psychotic" and that her statements about Ivins wanting to kill Mara are false. The facts indicate that everything she said was true, since she checked with many others before calling the police. So, your assertions are based upon beliefs that are distortions of reality.


  25. "The facts indicate that everything she said was true, since she checked with many others before calling the police. So, your assertions are based upon beliefs that are distortions of reality."

    Ha! "The facts indicate that everything she said was true." And yet there in fact is no police report. The fact that you refuse to bother to read such a book by your key witness will immediately disqualify you in the eyes of any agent or publisher. It is easily remedied. I have offered more than once to send it to you. You can read it quickly. And then to that extent you will be informed.

    Presently, you presume to tell us who Putlized Prize Winner Laurie Garrett interviewed, for example, when you haven't even read her book on this subject. Publishers don't have to rely on internet posters who want to be published who do not make it a point to inform themselves. It doesn't have as much to do with credentials as it has to do with work ethic and research standards.

  26. Any airplane mechanic knows that sometimes it is necessary to look under the hood.

  27. You talk about assertions I make.

    To the contrary, I have quoted extensive passages from her book -- the book you have not read.

    Those passages, without more, disqualify her from being a witness.

    You would know that if you had any relevant experience or training.

  28. Anonymous,

    I hope you realize that your nonsensical rants are just making you look ridiculous.


  29. Good luck with your First Grader issue, Ed.

    I still recommend that you try to keep an agent from learning of the theory for as long as possible so as to increase your prospects in finding someone who can help you advance your theory a First Grader wrote the letters containing the mailed anthrax in Fall 2001.

    I also recommend you read the books you cite in a query letter. An agent will presume that you have books you cite and distinguish -- just as a reader would presume you have read other things cited. You could read the books instead of watching television tonight.

    I have no doubt you'll be able to find a suitable publisher. All sorts of things get published.

    1. For example, the "State Lottery" book you cite but haven't read has many similarities. You might approach that same publisher.

      The publisher will send it to you for free. You wouldn't want to be out of pocket to see it.

  30. Mr. Lake,

    On researching at the Madison building, one fills out a form to request a manuscript from archives. For example, Dr. Hatfill's manuscript was in archives. (Mark that as another book you never read).

    My favorite book that I ever read in archives at the Madison Building was TECHNOPHOBIA. It was about a man who was a serial killer -- he awoke, bearded, as if from a dream. The author got the idea from Ted Kaczynski's brother while on a camping trip and then went straight to a computer lab to write it up over 30 days. Absolutely fascinating read. And the author Joe was very kind to explain where he got the idea for the book. I once went to heard David, the Unabomber's brother, to speak against capital punishment but he forthrightly noted at the start that there were some questions he was not going to answer.

    1. This is another instance where I can't tell if it's a message from the same "Anonymous" or not.

      Hatfill's book wasn't about the anthrax attacks of 2001. And, it was a novel. There's another NOVEL about the attacks that I haven't read, although I am curious as to what it says. It's called "Malaise" by Dr. Don Weiss.

      I can understand why you think novels about other subjects (like Hatfill's book) and other FICTION is relevant research, but I'm only interested in the FACTS. And, you do not get FACTS about the case from FICTION.


    2. In the FBI's affidavits, Dr. Hatfill's novel EMERGENCE (I believe was the title) was relied upon as part of the probable cause for the searches. That is, the plot of the novel were key facts underpinning their "Hatfill Theory."

      I appreciate that you are more comfortable with merely blindly accepting a prosecutor's assertion rather than going to the actual source.

  31. One of the Anonymi wrote: "I appreciate that you are more comfortable with merely blindly accepting a prosecutor's assertion rather than going to the actual source."

    I reality,I went to the source - or, more accurately, the source came to me. I talked on the phone with Steven Hatfill five times in 2003. The facts were clear from the very beginning that he wasn't involved. I said so on my site beginning in August 2002, and I wrote so in my book published in 2005.

    The idea that I need to read Hatfill's NOVEL before I can write a book about the anthrax case is preposterous to the point of being just plain idiotic.


  32. Dr. Hatfill wrote the partial, uncompleted novel, titled "Emergence," deposited by his co-author at the Library of Congress, and CNN has described its contents in detail. The novel draft titled Emergence may have been obtained at the Library of Congress' Copyright Office where it had been deposited, rather than given to a reporter by a Special Agent or other source.

    A terrorist with vague international ties is opposed by a brave American researcher -- who fits Dr. Hatfill's profile -- who battles against government bureaucracy to solve the mystery. The novel did not involve anthrax, but plague ("Yesinnia Pestis"). The plague was cultured from the fleas of Prairie Dogs. The outbreak begins in Antarctica but the researchers are dead before rescuers arrive. The medical investigation is then stymied by the U.S. State Department and the government of South Africa, which runs the Antarctic base. The book then moves forward eight years to Washington.

    A Palestinian terrorist with the research skills of a cancer specialist -- both Dr. Hatfill and more than one of his accusers are cancer specialists -- uses fleas from prairie dog tunnels and mice to culture the plague bacteria in hotel rooms. Cost: $387. Memories? Priceless.

    The perpetrator's misdeeds have been financed by Iraq. The terrorist then goes on a public tour of the White House, using a specially equipped wheelchair to spray the bacteria culture on the carpet. CNN reports: "Soon, the president, his staff, members of Congress and the general public begin coming down with sore throats and dementia."

    The novel's protagonist, a CDC researcher from Antarctica, is then put on the case. Picture Steve Segal in the role, giving early and long lectures to his superiors about the dangers of stockpiling such weapons. He goes back to Antarctica to fearlessly tackle the medical mystery, though his team members die in the process. In the sketchy end of Hatfill's novel, the United States dropped a nuclear bomb on Baghdad. The novel by Hatfill and Akers "features long and detailed scientific passages and talks extensively about the Soviet Union's bioweapons program." It also makes the point that a single terrorist would have formidable hurdles to overcome in launching such an attack. In the book, the CDC is described as suffering from poor leadership and budget constraints with an irrational focus on industrial accidents and inner-city violence.

    The FBI used the novel as part of its elaborate, highly rationalized "Hatfill Theory" -- which necessarily involved wild speculation as to motive.

    1. One of the Anonymi wrote: "The FBI used the novel as part of its elaborate, highly rationalized "Hatfill Theory" -- which necessarily involved wild speculation as to motive."

      Nonsense. The FACTS say that conspiracy theorists were pointing the finger at Dr. Hatfill for EIGHT MONTHS before the FBI was virtually ORDERED by senate staffers to investigate him. During that time, the New York Times was pointing at Hatfill (although not by name). Hatfill's novel was just one of the more idiotic things the conspiracy theorists were using as "evidence" that Hatfill could be the anthrax killer.

      The FACTS say (click HERE) that the FBI stated again and again that Dr. Hatfill was NOT a suspect. Even when John Ashcroft called Hatfill a "person of interest," he was trying to say that Hatfill was NOT a suspect, just someone the FBI was talking with.

      Some within the DOJ evidently became convinced that with all the scientists and people in the media pointing at Hatfill, "where there's smoke there's fire," and they started believing Hatfill could be the killer, too. Some senior agents and officials in the FBI may also have felt the same way. But, there were NEVER any real FACTS which pointed to Hatfill as being the anthrax killer.

      My site points that out, and, of course, so does my new book.


  33. Mysterious VisitorAugust 1, 2012 at 12:06 PM

    Here are instructions for picking a unique name in order to avoid the confusion of having a half dozen people calling themselves "Anonymous" all posting different arguments:

    In the "Comment as:" box, chose the option "Name/URL." Then, when presented with the "Edit Profile," just make up a unique name and type it in the Name box. Example "Mysterious Visitor." You can leave the URL box blank.

    Depending upon your own software, you may have to type in "Mysterious Visitor" every time you post, but if that's too much typing for you, just pick a name like "XYZ."

    I see that you will also have to prove you are not a "robot" by typing in a code from a picture. But, I think you may only have to do that the first time you post with a unique name.

    Mysterious Visitor (a.k.a. Ed)

    1. After I posted as "Mysterious Visitor," I signed in under my own name and wrote the 12:23 p.m. response to Anonymous. Yet, when it came time to "preview" what I'd written, the Google software was still assuming I was "Mysterious Visitor." So, their software recognized I was posting as "Mysterious Visitor" even after signing in. That seems to indicate that the software will allow you to do multiple posts without having to type in your unique name every time.


  34. Longfellow's GhostAugust 1, 2012 at 12:28 PM

    Your genetics code theory has no basis. In the page you uploaded, you can see that the "X" is double-lined. The upper portion has a branch going straight and also to the other side. That demonstrates even at 2X magnification (as opposed to the 200X or 400X that had been proposed), the FBI's code theory is shown to be spurious and without basis.

    1. Longfellow's Ghost,

      Sorry, but I can only guess as to what you're talking about. MY "genetics code theory"?

      If you're talking about the highlighting of characters in the media letter, the X in NEXT is NOT highlighted NOR double-lined. Click HERE for an enlarged image of that part of the Brokaw letter.

      It looks like the writer started to draw the upper right to lower left diagonal line of the X and the pen wasn't writing correctly, so he started again. And, he awkwardly started off target and drew a little mark where he restarted. Compare both lines in the X to the horizontal bar atop the T and you'll see the difference between a highlighted line and a normal line. The lines in the X are normal. The horizontal bar in the T is "double-lined."

      And, just in case you want to argue that it seems like part of the R in America is double-lined, that's just because at that time the first grader was writing kindergarten-style. He drew his R's by making a circle and then adding the vertical and diagonal lines. Drawing the vertical line did write over part of the circle, but it wasn't "highlighting," it was just the result of drawing circles for the tops of his R's.


  35. Better Half of AdamsAugust 1, 2012 at 12:40 PM

    Note further that the Library of Congress IP shows not only for the Madison building, but also for Adams and Longfellow.

    Some say that John Adams married Abigail for money, but if you read her letters, you can see how brilliant and ahead of her times she was. She was his most trusted confidante and policy adviser. He ignored only her advice that women should be given the right to vote.

    But as for your theory that a First Grader wrote the letters, you offer no argument at all as to why your same logic does not apply to someone who recently learned English (at whatever age). Thus, your reasoning is fallacious -- ridiculous even -- from the start.

  36. "Better Half of Adams" wrote:"you offer no argument at all as to why your same logic does not apply to someone who recently learned English (at whatever age)."


    1. Adults with writing skills in any language do not start out totally unskilled at writing. They do not write large characters one time and a few weeks later learn to write smaller. They already have the hand-eye coordination to write the same size all the time. (Years ago, I learned to write in Japanese, and the size of my Chinese or Japanese characters never changed.)

    2. Adults with writing skills in any language know what punctuation is. They don't learn it the way a child does in his or her first weeks of first grade. The first letter had no punctuation, the second letter did.

    3. Adults learning to write in a new language do not start by copying things from a blackboard. They begin with examples of how each character of the alphabet SHOULD be drawn. There is NO REASON why an adult should draw his R's kindergarten style on the media letter and first grade style on the media envelopes and the second letter and envelopes.

    4. The question mark is from Arabic. No Arab is going to have to learn to draw the question mark all over again just to write in English. The question mark in the senate letter is drawn with three strokes. No adult draws a question mark that way.

    And there are probably other reasons as well. Those listed above are just the more obvious ones.


    1. Another obvious example is the way the letter writer drew O's on the media letter. He drew them in a way that no adult would. He started to draw a circle, and then because of his lack of hand eye coordination, he continued beyond the point where the circle was complete for another quarter of the circle, sometimes going far off the original line before coming to a stop. That is a CHILD's way of drawing O's in kindergarten.


  37. Current Periodicals RoomAugust 1, 2012 at 1:17 PM

    In the Current Periodicals Room at the Madison building, even the most casual reader likely knows that the Amerithrax investigation has gone way past bullshit theories and now has turned to the issue whether the science relied upon by the FBI was validated. The GAO already has issued a report on validation of sampling methods. Your discussion relating to handwriting is not validated and has no place in current discussion. Which is why you will find that it will not be published. I recommend you learn about the case by reading the literature and find experts who are qualified to weigh in whether the methods are validated. It has been pointed out that you have not read the books you cite in your query letter which in the world of publishing constitutes fraud -- akin to making up quotes.

    1. Current Periodicals Room,

      Changing your name with each post is just plain childish. Your opinions are even more childish.

      My handwriting analysis is based upon FACTS which anyone can verify. The idea that an analysis must first come from some "expert" in handwriting analysis is just plain ridiculous. It's just a way of avoiding discussing the facts.

      The facts say that a first grader wrote the anthrax letters. You refuse to discuss the facts because you have unshakable and baseless beliefs. Your opinions are of no value and certainly wouldn't be shared by any intelligent literary agent.


  38. Mysterious VisitorAugust 1, 2012 at 1:59 PM

    After your next rejection, you should ask the literary agent what they think of your First Grader Theory. You need to do more to inform yourself. Why speculate about what they think of it (and make assumptions and assertions about what they think) -- when it takes 3 seconds to ask?

    1. And you should stop acting like an obnoxious 12-year-old. Using the name I previously used just shows you cannot be taken seriously.

      You clearly know nothing about literary agents, so your advice is laughable and ridiculous.

      And, just look at your recent arguments about the anthrax case:

      You argue that you believe the T in NEXT in the media letter was not highlighted.

      When I provide FACTS showing that the T was indeed highlighted, you change the subject. You then argue that the X is also highlighted.

      When I provide FACTS showing that the X is NOT highlighted, you change the subject. You then ridiculously argue that I never explained why the child's handwriting on the letters wouldn't be the same as an adult just learning to write in English.

      When I provide a list of FACTS showing how the handwriting of an adult learning to write in English would be dramatically different from the handwriting of a child learning to write for the first time, you change the subject, and you complain that I don't read what you read or follow your rules for discussing this topic.

      You show you are incapable of discussing facts. You show that you have NO facts to support your arguments. And, since you are incapable of discussing the facts, you just state your ignorant beliefs about literary agents and about the case in general.

      You're proving my case, not yours.


  39. Ed, you appear not to understand what validation entails in regard to a forensic method.

    I have often suggested that we put your "I know it when I see it" powers to the test in a blind test but you are not interested.

    You have not even read the handwriting literature on the subject of handwriting analysis of children or ESL students.

  40. I am trying to help you get published, Ed. Having you channel the FBI's argument would be a wonderful thing.

    It's a good thing you do not mention it in the query letter but only in an attachment. We can hope an agent doesn't see it.

  41. Anonymous,

    So, you're changing the subject again?

    The facts about the handwriting are clear. NO ONE has shown any FACTS which dispute the finding that a first grader wrote the letters. All you do is argue ignorant beliefs.

    I don't know what you're talking about when you talk about a "blind test," but the very idea seems STUPID.

    You don't know what I've read about handwriting. You're just stating your beliefs and opinions. And, you're ignoring the fact that no two "experts in handwriting" seem to have the same opinion about the handwriting in the letters. The idea that some "blind test" would prove anything is mind-boggingly ridiculous.

    Your opinions show you know absolutely nothing about literary agents. Yet, you mindlessly state your beliefs over and over.

    You wrote: "I am trying to help you get published, Ed."

    Your advice shows nothing but total ignorance about agents and publishers. Why haven't you published a lot of books? Why do you just post endlessly to a web site that almost no one reads? Is it because you know that no publisher would even consider anything you write?


  42. Ed,

    Validation is a formal, empirical process in which an authority determines and certifies the performance characteristics of a given method.

    For example, one can validate a method to identify the brand of photocopier used. The FBI used a validated method and the method excluded the USAMRIID photocopiers.

    One can validate a method used to identify the brand ink used. The FBI used a validated method and the method excluded the pens used by Dr. Ivins.

    One can validate a method used to identify the type tape used and validate the method used to determine it came from the same roll. The FBI used a validated method and the method excluded the tapes in the possession of Dr. Ivins.

    In GAO report number GAO-05-251 issued April 5, 2005 the GAO discussed validation necessary to have confidence in results.

    Your handwriting analysis is not a validated approach. Moreover, you are not even a qualified expert in the field. Indeed, you haven't even read the relevant literature.

    But we don't have to agree on the importance of validation in true crime analysis or forensic science. We agree on the important point. Don't mention your First Grader theory in the actual query letter but instead include it only in an attachment. Hopefully, the agent will overlook it in forming her initial impression.

  43. Anonymous wrote: "Validation is a formal, empirical process in which an authority determines and certifies the performance characteristics of a given method."

    Once again you show your total ignorance of handwriting analysis.

    You cite "validation" methods involving SCIENTIFIC METHODS, like testing photocopiers and inks and tapes.

    NONE of that applies to handwriting analysis. Handwriting analysis is an ART NOT A SCIENCE. That's why no two "handwriting experts" seem to agreed on the handwriting in the letters. That's why the FBI found the handwriting evidence inconclusive. It's all a matter of opinion and experience.

    So, your suggestion that there is some kind of "validation" is idiotic nonsense. In court, they would question the "handwriting expert's" previous experience to determine if his OPINION is "an expert's opinion," but the defense could just present another "handwriting expert" who says something totally different. And it would be left to the jury to decide which "expert" is most believable. So, in reality, it is the jury that is doing the final handwriting analysis.

    My analysis is not being presented in a court of law, but it is there for any "experienced handwriting expert" to challenge. I've wanted such a challenge for nearly ten years. No "handwriting expert" has challenged my analysis. So, it is valid until PROVED otherwise. Your OPINIONS are meaningless and worthless.


  44. Ed thinks his opinion is proved because no one bothers to address the issue with him. He is what he calls a True Believer.

    1. Anonymous has argued for over ten years that Muslims were behind the anthrax attacks even though all the facts say otherwise. No facts can change his mind. And, he argues that anyone who disagrees with his unshakable beliefs is a "True Believer."

      That's another example of the kind of logic "Anonymous" uses and why nothing he says can be taken seriously.


  45. Ed,

    I recommend you read the peer-reviewed literature on handwriting analysis and the validation of conclusions in the area. I would be glad to pull key articles and provide them to you if you'll read them.

  46. Anonymous,

    Are you incapable of understanding anything?

    I've read plenty of literature on handwriting analysis. No handwriting analysis "literature" has any meaning to the handwriting in the letters if it doesn't specifically evaluate the handwriting in the letters. And, even then it's still a matter of opinion.

    The idea that there is some general science that can be applied to reach a scientific conclusion is IDIOTIC. Handwriting is about specific HUMAN BEINGS. It's NOT about the physics of mechanical devices or chemical compounds.


  47. Anonymous,

    As I've told you many times before, it's not about what you read, it's about what you UNDERSTAND.

    It doesn't make any difference how much literature you've "read" about handwriting analysis if you don't understand any of it.

    And, you clearly don't understand anything about handwriting analysis because you cannot intelligently discuss the subject. Every attempt I make to discuss some aspect of the subject is met with a change in subject.

    The comparison between Mohamed Atta's handwriting and the writing on the anthrax letters you repeatedly cite is ABSOLUTE NONSENSE. It shows a total lack of understanding about handwriting analysis. Click HERE to view that ridiculous nonsense on Lew's site.

    Do you want to discuss it? Of course you don't. You just want to change the subject and argue nonsense opinions about who has read what, instead of discussing anything meaningful or substantive.


  48. Ed,

    Why do you think that handwriting analysis would not be admissible? See controlling case precedent.

    Do you even know the controlling case precedent under Daubert governing handwriting analysis in the District of Columbia? No?

    It is YOUR handwriting analysis that would not be admissible under that precedent because you are not qualified as an expert. Publishers want to publish the opinions of qualified experts. Federal courts screen for relevant expertise just as agents do.

    That is why I favor the approach you've adopted of not mentioning your First Grader Theory in the query letter (and leaving it to an attachment). You don't want to highlight to an agent that you are not qualified on the issue.

    All the experts qualified to testify on the issue disagree with you.

    Here, GAO should obtain the handwriting analyses of those part of the 911 operation such as Atta and Jdey.

  49. How, Ed, does the federal district court of Appeals application of Daubert different from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals decision under Frye? In Pettus v. United States, decided by the D.C. Court of Appeals in February 2012, "The principal issue on appeal is whether the trial judge erroneously admitted the expert opinion of an FBI forensic document examiner that a piece of handwriting left on the body of the murder victim had been written by appellant."

    The Court held that handwriting analysis remains admissible in D.C., and appellant's attempt to spin an National Research Council report into a rejection of such evidence fell flat. (Months after Pettus was sentenced, the National Research Council issued a report that critiqued forensic science, including handwriting analysis, and made recommendations for ensuring greater quality and consistency in the field.) "The Report is more nuanced than that."

    As noted by one commentator

    "The D.C. Court of Appeals is the high court of the state-like judicial system set up by Congress for local matters, not to be confused with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Curiously, this court has decided to stick with the old Frye test rather than go with the Daubert test applicable in federal courts. See n. 4."

    "The government's proof allowed the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant sexually assaulted and killed 78-year-old Martha Byrd in her home (next to his family's home) within a day or two before September 4, 2004, when her body was found lying in her bed. ... Semen found on her thighs and material taken from her vagina contained sperm matching appellant's DNA profile by an overwhelming statistical probability. His left ring-finger print was found on the inside frame of a sliding glass door that had been forced open to allow entry to the home. The night before Ms. Byrd's body was found, appellant had been seen "[s]peeding up and down the street" in her car, and his palm print was later lifted from the car interior. ***

    An envelope found on Ms. Byrd's body contained a handwritten note that read: "You souldins [sic] have cheated on me." Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) document examiner Hector Maldonado later compared the handwriting on the envelope with 235 pages of appellant's handwriting taken from his jail cell. Based on Maldonado's observation of "an overwhelming amount of handwriting combinations . . . in agreement with each other" and no significant differences, he opined that appellant was the author of the murder scene note.

    Here, the FBI handwriting analysis comparing the writing of such individuals as Atta (whose exemplar you link) would be admissible evidence under Pettus if heard in that court and the Frye standard applied."

    Ed, how does the federal district court of appeals application of Daubert different from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals decision under Frye? You don't know?

    By all means, GAO should obtain the relevant handwriting analyses by qualified experts because they might contain persuasive analysis (to include the exemplars).

    It's just that you are not qualified to address the issue. In any event, you agree that it is not the handwriting of Dr. Ivins and so you can sit down now.

  50. The Pettus court cited Moshe Kam et al., "Writer Identification Using Hand-Printed and non-Hand-Printed Questioned Documents, 48 J. FORENSIC SCI. 1391 (2003) in which the author focused on error rates for hand-printed (versus cursive) samples and found that, for hand-printed writings, document examiners had a false positive error rate of 9.3 percent compared to a 40.5 percent error rate for laymen.

    But given you AGREE that the letters do not constitute Dr. Ivins' handwriting, we do not have to concern ourselves with a layman's false positive error rate of 40.45 percent error rate for laymen.

    Those who are persuaded of Dr. Ivins' innocence appreciate your (unintended) effort to bring attention to the fact that the handwriting indicates that he did not write the letters.

    Your suggestion of a 99% certainty was a red flag that you were a true believe who knew nothing about the literature or the error rates in controlled studies.

  51. The decision in USA v. "Crazy Mary" in May 2012 is illustrative of the scrutiny of qualifications of the person whose opinion is offered. The District Court explained that "[l]ike most forensic disciplines, on-the-job specialized training from experienced examiners is the only way to acquire expertise." While you are not qualified, it was a simple matter to obtained expert opinions from examiners who are regularly deemed qualified to testify.

    B. Qualifications

    Here, the Court's primary concern is whether Mr. B is sufficiently qualified to testify as an expert at sentencing.

    Yet, in this field, due diligence necessitates probing beneath the surface, and in Mr. B's case, even a small amount of probing would have unearthed a rather different picture. During voir dire, the Government whittled away at Mr. B's qualifications, beginning with his training and experience. Mr. B admitted that his undergraduate [*18] and graduate studies were of no particular relevance to his training as a document examiner, and that he could not recall whether his Military Police Officer's School training addressed forensic document examination techniques. The Court is willing to accept Defendant's proffer of a statement made by the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners ("ABFDE") that "[l]ike most forensic disciplines, on-the-job specialized training from experienced examiners is the only way to acquire expertise." Yet even taking this into account, Mr. B's "on-the-job" training for two years under Mr. Walker is questionable given concerns that were raised about Walker's qualifications and credibility. *** From this questionable training experience, Mr. B proceeded to start Handwriting University with his son, and then both taught and later received continuing education at Handwriting University.

    In determining whether an opinion witness is qualified, a court may also consider a witness's membership and leadership in professional associations. The only professional organization in the field of document examination that offers certification is the ABFDE. Neither Mr. B nor his mentor Ray Walker is an ABFDE member. Although Mr. B testifies that he is a member of three other professional organizations, his membership in those groups reveals very little about his training or credentials given that the organizations do not have a certification process or require proficiency testing.

    Mr. B's qualifications were "clearly paltry in comparison" to other document examiners whose testimony had been admitted in the same district and circuit. The court observed that Mr. B, at the time, was not certified by the ABFDE or a member of any of the twenty nationally recognized document examiner trade organizations, had not subjected himself to any sort of proficiency tests or regular peer review, had never authored an authoritative text in his field, had never received training in notable government training programs, and had never taught in a recognized program for his field. Id. at 1378-79. Instead, the court observed, "[a]t most, the evidence shows that Mr. B received the vast majority of his training in this field not from a recognized or accredited program but from Dr. Ray Walker, whose own qualifications as a document examiner are suspect; that he has worked as a document examiner based on this training for twenty-two years; and that he had a one- or two-year stint examining checks for forgeries as a consultant to the Dallas, Texas [*21] Justice of the Peace Court and the Dallas County District Attorney's Office." Id.
    Even under a "minimum indicia-of-reliability standard," this Court concludes that the issues raised with respect to Mr. B's qualifications call into doubt the reliability of any testimony that he would offer."

  52. Under case law applying Daubert, the validation of the handwriting method is referred to as "is there a known potential error rate?"

    Given the acceptance and admissibility of handwriting analysis, it is important that the GAO obtain handwriting analyses to the extent consistent with privacy interests. (Atta, for example, and the hijackers recently taught English by KSM, have no cognizable privacy interest).

    2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59939 (June 3, 2011), states the general principles:

    "The inquiry into reliability when determining whether the testimony of non-scientist experts is reliable. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593-595. These factors are: (1) can the theory or technique be tested or has it been tested; (2) has the theory been subject to peer review or publication; (3) is there a known potential rate of error and are there standards controlling the technique's operation; and (4) if the theory or technique enjoys general acceptance within the relevant scientific community. Id.

    The Daubert factors are "meant to be helpful, but not definitive" and "do not constitute a definitive checklist." Kumho Tire Co. Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 151, 119 S. Ct. 1167, 143 L. Ed. 2d 238 (1999). Additionally, the Court "must have considerable leeway in deciding in a particular [*8] case how to go about determining whether expert testimony is reliable." Id. Rule 702 "grants the district judge the discretionary authority, reviewable for its abuse, to determine reliability in light of the particular facts and circumstances of the particular case." Id. 526 U.S. at 158.

    The Ninth Circuit and six other circuits have already addressed the admissibility of handwriting expert testimony and determined that handwriting expert testimony can satisfy the reliability threshold. See United States v. Crisp, 324 F.3d 261, 266-70 (4th Cir. 2003); United States v. Mooney, 315 F.3d 54, 63 (1st Cir. 2002); United States v. Jolivet, 224 F.3d 902, 906 (8th Cir. 2000); United States v. Paul, 175 F.3d 906, 911 (11th Cir. 1999); United States v. Jones, 107 F.3d 1147,1161 (6th Cir. 1997); United States v. Valasquez, 64 F.3d 844, 850-52, 33 V.I. 265 (3rd Cir. 1995); United States v. Prime, 431 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Johnson, 30 Fed.Appx. 685 (9th Cir. 2002).

    For example, in Johnson the Ninth Circuit held:

    "The handwriting expert compared known samples of Johnson's handwriting to the handwriting on the I-94 forms and to a handwriting exemplar given by Johnson. The government presented [*9] evidence that the handwriting expert was experienced and well-qualified, and his qualifications were subject to examination by defense counsel. Further, '[i]t is undisputed that handwriting analysis is a science in which expert testimony assists a jury.' United States v. Fleishman, 684 F.2d 1329, 1337 (9th Cir. 1982). ...

    Therefore, handwriting analysis is a tested theory, it has been subject to peer review and publication, there is a known potential rate of error and there are standards controlling the technique's operation, and it enjoys general acceptance within the relevant scientific community. See Id.; See also Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593-595."

    1. Anonymous wrote: "Therefore, handwriting analysis is a tested theory, it has been subject to peer review and publication, there is a known potential rate of error and there are standards controlling the technique's operation, and it enjoys general acceptance within the relevant scientific community.

      TOTAL NONSENSE! You copy and paste material, but you are only showing your TOTAL IGNORANCE OF THE SUBJECT!

      Here's a quote for you:

      "No forensic technique has taken more hits than handwriting analysis. In one particularly devastating federal ruling, United States v. Saelee (2001), the court noted that forensic handwriting analysis techniques had seldom been tested, and that what testing had been done "raises serious questions about the reliability of methods currently in use." The experts were frequently wrong--in one test "the true positive accuracy rate of laypersons was the same as that of handwriting examiners; both groups were correct 52 percent of the time."

      Click HERE for the source.

      Another quote:

      "Certainly the most significant shortcoming of handwriting analysis as a science is the fact that it is ultimately subjective. This means that its acceptance in the scientific community and as evidence in court has historically been shaky. Only recently, as the training of analysts has become more standardized and certification procedures have been put in place, has handwriting analysis started to gain more acceptance as a reproducible, peer-reviewed scientific process. The results of a handwriting comparison are still not always accepted as evidence in a court case, partly because the science has a few more hurdles to clear, including determining a reliable error rate in analysis and setting standards for the comparison process."

      Click HERE for the source.

      The handwriting analysis done on the anthrax letters was inconclusive. So, a solid hypothesis like mine is valid until proved otherwise.


  53. Anonymous wrote: "It is YOUR handwriting analysis that would not be admissible under that precedent because you are not qualified as an expert. Publishers want to publish the opinions of qualified experts."

    Where did you get the hilariously ridiculous idea that I was presenting my handwriting evidence in court? That's funny!

    Your ignorance of the publishing business is equally astounding. How many books have you successfully published? What credentials do you believe you have to allow you argue what publishers will or won't publish?

    You argue that I don't have handwriting analysis credentials, and at the same time you claim expertise about publishing as if you had impressive credentials in that field. You're just showing how ridiculous your beliefs are.

    My book discusses what the facts say. The facts say that Ivins used a first grader to write the letters. The facts say that Ivins used spores from plates in autoclave bags to make the powders. The facts say that the silicon in the spores were an effect of growing spores at room temperatures instead of in an incubator. I cite documents and show exhibits. The fact that the same things weren't previously stated by some "expert" just means what I have isn't a rehash of someone else's ideas.

    I've been discussing the facts of the case with scientists and other "experts" for ten years. No one has any facts which dispute the facts I use in my book.

    But that doesn't mean my book is error-free. Everyone makes mistakes.

    I found a whole list of errors in Jeanne Guillemin's book AND another list in David Willman's book. For example, Guillemin says on pages 104 and 128 that the addresses on the envelopes were produced by a copy machine. They weren't. They were hand written in ink. On page 175 of Willman's book, he wrote: "The block-lettering printing on the envelopes and in the letters appeared to have been disguised, perhaps by the mailer's use of his off writing hand." He cites interviews with retired FBI document examiner Gerald B. Richards as his authority. But other FBI experts have stated that the writing is the writer's natural style of writing in block letters. That's why they sent out a hundred thousand flyers to see if anyone recognized the handwriting.

    When you talk about publishers and agents, you are claiming expertise in an area where you are totally ignorant.


  54. So let's see. You want me to quote you authoritative learning how publishers want to publish things written by people qualified to address a subject? And don't want to publish stuff by people not qualified to address it? Okay. But I believe everyone knows that.

  55. On the question of the query letter, we've already agreed. We both agree that the First Grader theory should not be broached in the body of the query letter but should be left to an attachment.

    We look forward to many more updates.

  56. Anonymous wrote: "You want me to quote you authoritative learning how publishers want to publish things written by people qualified to address a subject?"

    I want you to quote me authoritative material that says that in order to be an expert on something a person first has to meet your standards. That's what you are saying.

    Do you have authoritative material which says that someone who has studied a subject informally for ten years is disqualified to write about it if they do not have formal training on the matter?

    That would probably mean that half the non-fiction books published are wrong by your standards. Books are published every day by people who became experts by studying something for years because they were fascinated by it. Getting published depends upon the individual making decisions. If the publisher thinks the book is solid, it doesn't make any difference if the book is about Abraham Lincoln's doctor's dog and the writer's background is in high finance. It's only a matter of whether or not it's a "good read."


  57. Studying the question of children's handwriting vs. ESL handwriting involves reading the literature, collecting samples, and doing controlled studies to determine the error rate (which is how the method is validated). Failing to do just makes it the same BS that it was when the internet poster first suggested it. The reason a federal district court excludes such opinion is because it is UNRELIABLE. Not for some technical reason unrelated to its reliability. It may be important to your vanity to be published but there are a lot of people who think it is important to take a sound and reliable approach to the evidence relating to the Fall 2001 anthrax mailings -- with questions of personal vanity unimportant. I first recommended you validate your conclusions back in 2002. You refused even to refuse the literature regarding the validation that others have done relating to children, ESL students, and block lettering such as the study relied upon by the D.C. Court of Appeals in February 2012. But let me leave to your own devices for a while. All the qualified experts -- and I mean all -- disagree with you.

  58. Anonymous wrote: "Studying the question of children's handwriting vs. ESL handwriting involves reading the literature, collecting samples, ...."

    Your logic is wrong by every measure. And you just continue to ignore the facts. The facts say that a child wrote the letters. Arguing that the average child doesn't write the same way or as well as the child who wrote the letters is ridiculous. It's NUTS.

    If you believe that a child did not write the letters, you should provide some FACTS which contradict the FACTS I have presented. Instead, you just ignore the FACTS and continue to argue total irrelevant nonsense.

    My conclusions are validated by the FACTS.

    My conclusions are sound.

    NO professional forensic handwriting experts have evaluated my conclusions and disputed them.

    Experts have stated their own opinions, but the FACTS show that their opinions are based upon an ignorance of all the facts, since they do not address the key facts about the handwriting - (1) the change in the size of the writing, (2) the shift from no punctuation to punctuation, (3) the change in the way characters are drawn, etc.


  59. Under your logic, Mr. B, the person offering opinion evidence about "Crazy Mary's" signature, could argue that his opinion should be considered because the signatures constitute FACTS.

    That's not how it works.

    Even in assessing whether a particular person wrote particular block lettering, a lay person's error rate is about 40 % (in the one study relied upon by the D.C. Court). That's barely better than a 50/50 guess. Guessing is something you uniquely think of as part of true crime analysis.

  60. But you take the same approach to other evidence -- disregarding issues relating to the reliability of the evidence. See your point #2.

    For example, your key witness (see your most recent post) is a woman who reports she took her instructions each night from an alien at night who had implanted a microchip in her butt (she was advised that her patients were murderous fiends). That counselor annotated the observatiosn of the psychiatrists.

    A federal court judge would not merely exclude such testimony. He might very well shout at the lawyer given reliance on such a witness is so outrageous.

    Except for being sued for intellectual property infringement, you have no relevant experience guiding your assesment of the reliability of evidence.

  61. But let me get back to you after you report the next 6 rejections. Summer beckons. Keep at it. There are many dozens of agents out there.

  62. Anonymous wrote: "Under your logic, Mr. B, the person offering opinion evidence about "Crazy Mary's" signature, could argue that his opinion should be considered because the signatures constitute FACTS."

    Nonsense. You just have no comprehension of facts, and you're distorting the argument. I'm not talking about my opinion. I'm talking about the FACTS represented in the handwriting samples.

    It's a FACT that the media handwriting is twice the size of the senate handwriting. That is NOT an opinion. It is a FACT.

    My HYPOTHESIS offers an explanation for that fact by presenting another FACT: Children are taught to write smaller in first grade. That is NOT an opinion. It is a FACT.

    And the rest of explanations in the hypothesis are also FACTS.

    I present the FACTS which show that a child almost certainly wrote the letters. There are NO BELIEFS involved. Beliefs only come into the picture when you argue that you do not believe the facts.

    Anonymous also wrote: "your key witness (see your most recent post) is a woman who reports she took her instructions each night from an alien at night who had implanted a microchip in her butt"

    Nonsense. Judith McLean is NOT a key witness in any way. You are again distorting the facts. You seem obsessed with her. You are attempting to discredit a witness in the FBI's case by suggesting that she is mentally imbalanced. A judge would determine if the fact that she wrote a book that you disapprove of disqualifies her as a witness.

    Anonymous also wrote: But let me get back to you after you report the next 6 rejections. Summer beckons."

    Yes, I think you need to get your obsessions under control.

    My web site logs show that you have visited my site eighteen times in the past 2 days. That's more than everyone except Google and the Yandex search engine. And you tied with the Microsoft search engine.

    Yesterday, you visited my site at:

    8:10 a.m.
    9:39 a.m.
    10:16 a.m.
    10:56 a.m. (refresh?)
    11:38 a.m.
    11:47 a.m.
    12:38 p.m.
    1:06 p.m. (refresh?)
    1:45 p.m.
    2:19 p.m.
    2:36 p.m.
    3:38 p.m.
    4:45 p.m.
    5:16 p.m.
    9:52 p.m.

    That's fifteen times. So, I checked the logs for the previous day, the 1st of August, and I found you visited at:

    8:42 a.m.
    9:48 a.m.
    10:40 a.m.
    2:41 p.m.
    2:59 p.m. (refresh?)
    3:24 p.m. (refresh?)
    3:33 p.m. (refresh?)
    4:06 p.m. (refresh?)
    4:53 p.m.
    5:44 p.m.
    6:13 p.m.

    That's ten times. So, the software that calculates visits must have combined seven of those visits together with other visits when you just left your computer on my site and then clicked on "refresh" when you came back to look at your computer again. (A "refresh" just downloads a new copy of the text and doesn't download new copies of the images. That probably accounts for the discrepancy.)

    You really need to get your obsessions under control.


    1. Oops. You visited eleven times on August 1, not ten times. My mistake.