My comment for Sunday, Aug. 26 was mostly about the progress with my book. I received no responses to any queries to agents during the past week, and I've decided to try querying a publisher this week. Some research I did uncovered a major book publisher that seems perfectly suited to my book.
I'm also preparing the "final" version of the book, creating the pdf files that printing companies need to print books. I'm currently on Chapter 7. I added about a page to Chapter 4 where I evaluate Bruce Ivins' September 17, 1993 letter to the editors of the Frederick News-Post defending pedophilia. The facts seem to indicate that Ivins was thinking of a teenage girl when he wrote that letter at age 47. A year later, he hired the girl to work for him as an assistant in his lab.
I was amused last week to see the reaction "Anonymous" had to my pointing out to him in my August 22 post, that his interpretations of what Tom Walker wrote in his book were totally wrong. "Anonymous" stopped posting to this blog, but he posted a bunch of messages to Lew Weinstein's blog where he admits that he didn't understand what he was reading in Walker's book, and he then demonstrated that he also didn't understand what he was reading in the Expert Behavioral Analysis Panel report. In one post, "Anonymous" wrote:
"The consulting psychiatrist, for example, points to the fact that Bruce’s mom went to Monmouth College."
Bruce's mom did NOT go to Monmouth College. She went to Florida Women's State College where she got a degree in home economics. The EBAP report (and the "consulting psychiatrist") did NOT say that Bruce's mom went to Monmouth college. The EBAP report says on page 130:
"By using the ZIP code of Monmouth Junction, Dr. Ivins may have been
portraying in code the connection between KKG and his own identity.
Monmouth Junction may have represented the union of father
(Monmouth, N.J.) and mother (Monmouth College, KKG), i.e., himself.
And it also represented his entanglement, his obsession with KKG."
It's a psychiatrist's way of saying that Ivins may have seen some mystical connection between his own ancestors from Monmouth, NJ, and the origins of the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority in Monmouth, IL.
Ed
It's a psychiatrist's way of saying that Ivins may have seen some mystical connection between his own ancestors from Monmouth, NJ, and the origins of the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority in Monmouth, IL.
ReplyDelete----------------------------------------
As important still is the implicit OTHER END of those two "may's" used by the psychiatrist:
the place of origin of KKG and the placename associated with SOME of Ivins' ancestors MAY be totally unrelated to the perp's thinking, even if that perp WAS Ivins. Purest speculation.
Richard,
ReplyDeleteYou don't seem to understand that what was going on in someone's mind is ALWAYS "speculation." But, psychiatrists are supposed to be experts in that field of "speculation," so their "speculation" should be more reliable than that of the average person.
And, just because people have to speculate when trying to figure out WHY a killer did what he did, that doesn't mean everything is "speculation." There are countless solid facts which, when combined, make it clear beyond any reasonable doubt that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer.
Ed
Richard,
ReplyDeleteYou don't seem to understand that what was going on in someone's mind is ALWAYS "speculation."
---------------------------------------
It is not! To have composed the above sentence, you would have had to have underlying ideas about the contents; you would have had to make an effort to compose those thoughts in prose. It is human language (and obviously also human action) that reveals human thought. No speculation needed.
What you are (consistently) overlooking is: Ivins produced thousands and thousands of emails: some merely work-related, others of a personal (even HIGHLY personal) nature to others. Some were emails to HIMSELF (and thus a de facto diary). The Task Force recovered thousands of same and knew his various email/Internet identities.
Yet none of those emails show: fascination with the place name "Monmouth" (in any way, and certainly not because of his 'ancestors' and/or the origins of KKG); particular hostility toward ANY of the addressees of the Amerithrax letters etc.
(TO BE CONTINUED)
(continuation)
ReplyDelete(imagined courtroom scene with psychiatrist who has just speculated that Ivins "may have seen some mystical connection between his own ancestors from Monmouth, NJ, and the origins of the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority in Monmouth, IL.")
------------------------
Defense: Doctor, how long have you been practicing psychiatry?
Doctor: Twenty years.
Defense: And in those twenty years, how many patients have you seen?
Doctor: Oh, if you count consultations, thousands.
Defense: And of those thousands of patients, how many revealed to you a 'mystical fascination' between the location or place name where the patients' ancestors lived in conjunction with an identical or nearly place-name which was the original place-name of some person or organization on which they had a fixation?
Doctor: Well, none.
Defense: And did some colleague tell you of such a case?
Doctor: No.
Defense: Are there documented cases of such juxtapositions in the literature (meaning peer-reviewed) of your field?
Doctor: No.
(Etc)
-----------------------------------------------
That's why I think such speculation wouldn't be admitted in the first place: it isn't an established human cognitive trope. Psychiatry doesn't recognize it as such.
Said another way, the psychiatrist's speculation isn't confirmed by known examples of same.
And this is what I was driving at in many many other posts: Ivins' mental processes, as quasi-described are almost always examples of special pleading.
Richard Rowley wrote: "Yet none of those emails show: fascination with the place name "Monmouth" (in any way,"
ReplyDeleteRIGHT. And you do not understand the facts.
FACT #1: Ivins never told ANYONE about his obsession with KKG. He never told his wife. He never told his co-workers. He never told his psychiatrists. He only told the FBI after the FBI questioned him about it. The FBI learned of his obsession from one of his victims: Nancy Haigwood.
Therefore, your argument is nonsense.
It's also nonsense because you bizarrely ASSUME there are no other cases where someone was obsessed with connections between their background and where some "enemy" originated. That's a ridiculous assumption. It could be very common with paranoia.
And, Ivins had a document in his possession that was found during a search where he traced his ancestry back to the Monmouth area in New Jersey.
From every direction, your observations only show ignorance of the facts. There's nothing believable in what you believe.
Ed
Oops. While working out at the health club, I remembered an instance where Ivins did tell someone about his KKG obsession. He told Mara about it in 2002. On page 69 of the EBAP report it says:
ReplyDeleteThese exploits were so important to him that, even though they were criminal in nature, he could not keep them entirely to himself. He told Technician #1, who in September 2002 wrote Technician #2: “He broke into a sorority house, while no one was there, to get the code book.”
But, that seems to be the only time he told anyone about his obsession -- before telling the FBI and DOJ in January 2008.
Ed
Posted by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete-----------
Richard Rowley wrote: "Yet none of those emails show: fascination with the place name "Monmouth" (in any way,"
RIGHT. And you do not understand the facts.
FACT #1: Ivins never told ANYONE about his obsession with KKG.
==============================================
Okay, but that does NOT mean that you can then attribute to Ivins any and all thinking about "mystical links" between KKG & anything CONCEIVABLY related to KKG, via its history, its geography, its personnel etc. and justify it by saying 'Well, Ivins never told his wife/others lots of stuff, so we THINK that he may have cognitively seen this 'mystical link' between two Monmouths WITHOUT telling anyone, WITHOUT leaving some sort of trail.
That's not evidence. And a psychiatrist would have no 'expert knowledge' about a patient he never examined, speculating about a 'mystical connection' that is unlike any known in his profession. (The psychiatrist gussies this up a bit by dragging in Freudian "mother" and "father" labels, but that doesn't change the fact that it's pure speculation and non-professional speculation at that!)
Trials are conflicting arguments, but arguments about stuff that tends to leave SOME sort of evidence behind.
By its very nature this pure speculation about some 'Monmouth' "mystical connection" is unproven, perhaps unprovable, and wouldn't AS IS be admissible in a court of law.
Sidenote: one thing I realized some months ago related to this Monmouth business is the following: I, like all greater New York City resident of my era, was subjected to hundreds, if not thousands, of advertisements (TV/radio/print) for Monmouth Park, a race track (it still exists: http://www.monmouthpark.com/
Therefore the place name 'Monmouth' seems to me to be as ordinary as ordinary can be. Therefore not impressive AT ALL as a-coincidence-that's-too-fantastic-to-just-be-a-coincidence.
And, Ivins had a document in his possession that was found during a search where he traced his ancestry back to the Monmouth area in New Jersey.
ReplyDelete--------------------------------------
Ivins having such a document does NOT establish a fascination with the placename Monmouth. Some relative (if I remember correctly) sent him (unprompted, if I recall correctly) some document(s) with this info. If the placename had been Hoboken, would that in any way establish that Ivins HIMSELF had a fascination with the placename Hoboken? No, it would not.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702
ReplyDeleteCourts both before and after Daubert have found other factors relevant in determining whether expert testimony is sufficiently reliable to be considered by the trier of fact. These factors include:
(1) Whether experts are “proposing to testify about matters growing naturally and directly out of research they have conducted independent of the litigation, or whether they have developed their opinions expressly for purposes of testifying.”
(2) Whether the expert has unjustifiably extrapolated from an accepted premise to an unfounded conclusion.
(3) Whether the expert has adequately accounted for obvious alternative explanations.
(4) Whether the expert “is being as careful as he would be in his regular professional work outside his paid litigation consulting.”
(5) Whether the field of expertise claimed by the expert is known to reach reliable results for the type of opinion the expert would give.
Richard Rowley wrote: "Okay, but that does NOT mean that you can then attribute to Ivins any and all thinking about "mystical links" between KKG & anything CONCEIVABLY related to KKG, via its history, its geography, its personnel etc."
ReplyDeleteYou are making up nonsense rules to fit your beliefs.
The prosecution would have presented the connections between Ivins, Monmouth, KKG and the anthrax letters as part of a long series of FACTUAL connections between Ivins and contents of the the letters and envelopes.
Richard Rowley also wrote: "By its very nature this pure speculation about some 'Monmouth' "mystical connection" is unproven, perhaps unprovable, and wouldn't AS IS be admissible in a court of law."
Nonsense. The prosecutors would have been presenting FACTS. Those facts are all valid circumstantial evidence, whether you believe it or not.
FACT: Ivins was obsessed with KKG.
FACT: The letter mailed from a mailbox near a KKG office.
FACT: The return address ZIP code was for Monmouth Jctn.
FACT: Ivins had a document connecting him to Monmouth, NJ.
FACT: The KKG sorority was founded at Monmouth College.
FACT: The KKG sorority was founded in Monmouth, Illinois.
FACT: Ivins was fascinated with codes.
FACT; Ivins frequently sent coded messages.
The defense can then argue that it's all just one incredibly long series of "coincidences," but it would be up to the jury to decide who they believe. And the evidence related to "Monmouth" would be just one very tiny part of the whole case against Ivins. There would have been enough evidence to convict Ivins even if the Monmouth FACTS didn't sway anyone.
I'm not sure what psychiatrists would have testified about, if there had been a trial. But, before they would be allowed to testify, the prosecution (and defense) would have to persuade the judge that what they have to say is a valid professional opinion based upon established psychiatric principles and documented case histories.
Ivins admitted that he had an obsession with KKG. All factual evidence showing connections between Ivins, the anthrax mailings and KKG related matters and locations would be admissible.
We don't know if there would have been reason in court to bring in psychiatrists to discuss Ivins' fascination with KKG. He apparently didn't discuss KKG with any of his own psychiatrists. And the psychiatrists who wrote the EBAP report never actually evaluated Ivins personally. The prosecution might just have brought in the FBI and DOJ officers who heard Ivins confess to his obsession with KKG. That could have been enough to cement the connections between Ivins and the ZIP code, the mail box, etc.
Ed
Richard,
ReplyDeleteI should have added that the prosecution would also have presented other KKG-related FACTS to the jury, such as:
1. Ivins did extensive research into the locations of KKG offices and sorority houses.
2. Ivins would drive long distances to visit those KKG locations.
3. Ivins often drove to visit KKG offices at night.
4. Ivins didn't tell his family about what he was doing on those long drives to visit KKG offices.
5. Ivins committed burglaries during his visits.
6. Ivins harassed a KKG member.
7. Ivins sent a letter to a newspaper falsely signing the name of a KKG member, to cause trouble for that KKG member.
8. Ivins vandalized objects connected to a KKG member.
9. Ivins used false names connected to a KKG member to set up post office boxes.
10. Ivins stole a code book from a KKG office.
etc., etc., etc.
These are all FACTS which can be presented in court to establish a foundation to argue that Ivins' obsession with KKG connects him to the scene of the crime (the mailbox) and to the ZIP code on the return address on the senate letters. It also shows that it would not have been inconceivable for Ivins to have slipped away from his home unnoticed to drive to New Jersey to mail the letters. It also shows that Ivins had no concern for breaking the law if it would accomplish some objective of his.
Ed
Thanks to Anonymous for that. All 5 points are relevant to this discussion, but point #5 in particular draws my attention:
ReplyDelete(5) Whether the field of expertise claimed by the expert is known to reach reliable results for the type of opinion the expert would give.
----------------------------------------------------
As already noted:
1) at no point did a prosecution psychiatrist examine Ivins.
2) at least one, Dr Sathoff, was present when Ivins was being questioned.
That is no basis to give "expert" testimony about the psychological condition of a 'patient' (remember, a never-examined 'patient'), no basis to say what obsessions (other than the one Ivins confessed to having) the person had. Certainly no basis to say 'Established obsession A (the KKG one) extends to the placename of origin of the organization, and FURTHERMORE connects to the (not-established)obsession with the location of 19th Century ancestors' residence.'
It's speculation heaped on speculation heaped on speculation.
Richard Rowley wrote"2) at least one, Dr Sathoff, was present when Ivins was being questioned."
ReplyDeleteWhen did this occur?
Richard Rowley also wrote: "It's speculation heaped on speculation heaped on speculation."
No, it's FACT heaped upon FACT heaped upon FACT.
There would be no true "speculation" presented in court. If any psychiatrist were asked to testify, it would be his professional or "expert" opinion, not speculation.
The prosecution would present the FACTS and they might ask for some some professional or "expert" opinions, but they would not ask anyone to "speculate."
Click HERE for a list of standard reasons for objections in court. The last says:
"A question is speculative if:
It invites or causes the witness to speculate or answer on the basis of conjecture."
So, no lawyer can ASK a witness to speculate without risking that the opposing side will justifiably object.
What the psychiatrists might have to say would be their "professional opinion" or their "expert opinion." It would NOT be speculation.
You are fantasizing about things that wouldn't have happened in court and arguing that they wouldn't have happened.
What would have happened in court is that the FACTS would have been presented, and "experts" would have testified to how the FACTS were found. Then other "experts" might have testified to the significance of such facts to the case.
I erred when I stated at the top of this thread that "what was going on in someone's mind is ALWAYS 'speculation'." I shouldn't have used that word. What I meant was that any statements in court about what someone MAY have been thinking would have to be opinions from "experts".
And, expert opinions would be presented in court as expert opinions.
Ed
More FACTS that are of dubious help:
ReplyDelete5. Ivins committed burglaries during his visits.
Question: was a burglary in ANY WAY (ie even allegedly) involved in Amerithrax?
Answer: no, it was not.
9. Ivins used false names connected to a KKG member to set up post office boxes.
Question: was the use/misuse of a post office box, using either false or true names involved in Amerithrax?)
Answer: no, it was not.
6. Ivins harassed a KKG member.
Question: was the harassment of a KKG member or the member of any other sorority/female fraternity involved in Amerithrax (even allegedly)?
Answer: no, it was not.
10. Ivins stole a code book from a KKG office.
Question: was the theft of a code book even allegedly involved in the commission of Amerithrax?
No, it was not.
8. Ivins vandalized objects connected to a KKG member.
Question: were ANY acts of vandalism connected to the commission of Amerithrax, even allegedly?
No, they were not.
Etc. etc. etc.
You are using OTHER actions by Ivins, some weird, some devious, in a few instances criminal actions (crimes against property) to try to establish that Ivins committed Amerithrax.
That doesn't follow LOGICALLY. Nor would that stuff be admissible
in a hypothetical trial of Ivins for Amerithrax if that trial followed established rules of evidence.
(precisely because the answer to each question posed above is:
no).
Richard Rowley wrote"2) at least one, Dr Sathoff, was present when Ivins was being questioned."
ReplyDeleteWhen did this occur?
------------------------------------------
I don't recall. I'm not even sure where I read it (David Willman's book MIRAGE MAN?). But I'm PRETTY sure I didn't hallucinate it. And if I DID then there's even less basis for Sathoff or any other shrink-consultant of the Task Force to say anything about Ivins.
Richard Rowley wrote: "I'm PRETTY sure I didn't hallucinate it."
DeleteYou didn't hallucinate it, but you did distort it.
Willman's book says on page 279 that Dr. Saathoff was invited to meetings at the FBI offices:
"Montooth invited a psychiatrist, Dr Gregory Saathoff to the meetings for advice on how Ivins might react to certain questioning."
The FBI were consulting with him on what to ask Ivins and how to phrase questions to get Ivins to answer and not clam up.
There would have been no way Ivins' lawyers would have allowed a psychiatrist to question Ivins directly without a court order.
Ed
From page 1 of the EBAP report:
Delete"In July 2009, Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia authorized a report from the Expert Behavioral Analysis Panel. Chief Judge Lamberth authorized the Panel to examine "the mental health issues of Dr. Bruce Ivins and what lessons can be learned from that analysis that may be useful in preventing future bioterrorism attacks." The Panel was granted access to the Amerithrax investigative materials as well as the sealed psychiatric records of Dr. Ivins. The Panel was asked to provide insights into how the country can be better defended from such attacks and to provide a better understanding of Dr. Ivins himself. In particular, the Panel was asked to offer, based on the available materials, a better understanding of Dr. Ivins’ mental state before and after the anthrax mailings, his possible motives — and the connections, if any, between his mental state and the commission of the crimes. The Panel was aware that it was not being asked to be the final arbiter of whether or not Dr. Ivins was responsible for the attacks, or to conduct a peer review of the doctors and therapists who provided care to Dr. Ivins over the years."
Ed
Richard Rowley wrote: "More FACTS that are of dubious help"
ReplyDeleteOnly because you insist on ignoring the facts and distorting how the facts would be presented in court.
The burglaries would be brought up when investigators testified to what Ivins told them when they questioned him about the case. The questioning by the prosecutor might go something like this:
Prosecutor: What did Ivins tell you in the January 2008 meeting?
FBI Agent: We asked him about his interest in the KKG sorority. He told us it wasn't an interest, it was an "obsession." He told us it was such a deep obsession that he had harassed and vandalized property belonging to KKG members who failed to respond to his questioning about KKG matters.
Prosecutor: What did he say about this obsession that might relate to the anthrax attacks?
FBI Agent: He told us he had driven long distances at night to burglarize KKG offices and sorority houses - or to just look them over. And his wife knew nothing about it. He told us he was accustomed to doing things at night without his wife knowing about it.
Prosecutor: And how does that relate to the Amerithrax case?
FBI Agent: It told us Ivins could leave his home at night to drive long distances, and his wife wouldn't question it or even know about it. It verified that he had no real alibi for the times of the letter mailings.
Prosecutor: How did Ivins know about the location of these sorority houses?
FBI Agent: Mr. Ivins explained to us that he did extensive research at the Library of Congress and elsewhere to find all the KKG facilities on the East Coast. That caused us to wonder if there was a KKG office near the mailbox where the letters were mailed. We found that the mailbox was the nearest one to the KKG office in Princeton.
Prosecutor: Did you find anything else of significance about that location?
FBI Agent: It was directly across the street from Princeton University, and Dr. Ivins' father was a graduate of Princeton.
Prosecutor: Did Mr. Ivins tell you what he was looking for when he committed the burglaries?
FBI Agent: He was looking for things that might explain why the KKG sorority was out to get him. He felt they had some kind of vendetta or fatwa against him. During one burglary, he found a code book for the KKG rituals and stole it.
Prosecutor: A code book?
FBI agent: Yes. We found numerous items of evidence which indicated that Mr. Ivins had a long-time interest in codes.
Prosecutor: What significance did that have to the investigation?
FBI Agent: It related directly to the coded message we found in the media letter.
Prosecutor: Did Mr. Ivins admit to sending coded messages?
FBI Agent: Yes, he did. He told us he would send coded packages occasionally to Mara Linscott and others to see if they could figure out who sent them. We also found some letters he'd written which contained coded phrases involving DNA references that were very similar to what was in the anthrax media letter. He has acknowledged that he wrote those letters.
Prosecutor: Is there any code book of particular meaning to the Amerithrax investigation?
FBI Agent: He told us one of his favorite books on codes was "Godel, Escher, Bach," which we determined contained the code used in the media letter. And, even though it was one of his favorite books, he threw out his copy after we searched his home on November 1, 2007. We wondered why. When we looked through the book we discovered that it contained the first steps to decode the hidden message in the media anthrax letter. At the same time he threw out that book, he threw out a magazine that contained the rest of the decoding steps for the hidden message in the media letter.
Etc., etc., etc.
Ed
More:
ReplyDeleteProsecutor: How certain are you that the hidden message in the media letter was properly decoded? How certain are you that there even was a hidden message?
FBI Agent: All the pieces fit perfectly. It was clear for years that the darkened A's and T's in the media letter were unusual. There was lots of speculation on what they might mean. Then, when Agent Steele saw that the method of coding matched what was described in "Godel, Escher, Bach" almost perfectly, it seemed like it HAD to be the answer. It explained the three word sentences. It explained why the A in the middle of the misspelled word "PENACILIN" was one of the highlighted characters. It explained why the first and last characters on the first and last lines were highlighted. It explained everything.
Prosecutor: Haven't some people argued that some A's and T's don't seem to be as fully highlighted or traced-over than other A's and T's.
FBI Agent: It was pointed out, but it's clear under a magnifying glass that there are NINE coded characters. The consensus is that the A's and T's are not all identically highlighted because that would make the coding process too obvious. It would cause everyone to wonder what was special about those nine A's and T's. And when you have a lot of people looking, someone is bound to figure things out. By making it somewhat unclear as to exactly which characters were highlighted, it made it seem less like a hidden coded message.
Prosecutor: Is that speculation?
FBI Agent: No. It's our analysis. It fits with the coding instructions in "Godel, Escher, Bach" and with the information about codons in the science magazine that held the rest of the coding procedure. The decoded message makes sense for Dr. Ivins to have used it, and we knew he had a fascination with codes. He'd sent out coded messages before.
Prosecutor: But not exactly like the message in the letter.
FBI Agent: No, not exactly like that message. If he had created a coded message exactly that way before, whoever received the first coded message would likely have recognized the code in the media letter. It would make no sense for him to use a code that someone else knew he had previously used.
Prosecutor: Is there anything else that convinces you that the letter was properly decoded by the FBI?
FBI Agent: No one else has come up with any better explanation for those highlighted characters. Most of what they've come up with makes no real sense at all. All the facts say that the nine A's and T's are a hidden message and the hidden message decodes to be the name of one of Dr. Ivins' assistants, and a second version of the decoded message is a reference to an on-going argument Dr. Ivins had with a former assistant. Everything fits perfectly.
Etc., etc.
Ed
Mister Lake posts an overall view from page 1 of the EBAP report, explaining how that body came to be; it includes THIS: (repost)
ReplyDelete------------------------
In particular, the Panel was asked to offer, based on the available materials, a better understanding of Dr. Ivins’ mental state before and after the anthrax mailings, his possible motives — and the connections, if any, between his mental state and the commission of the crimes.
----------------------------------------------------
Ask yourself this: if Ivins DIDN'T do the crime could there POSSIBLY be a connection between Ivins' mental state and the commission of the crime?
No, there could not be, because if he didn't commit the Amerithrax crimes then his mental state (during his entire life) would have no bearing on Amerithrax.
And could Ivins HAVE HAD 'possible motives' if he didn't commit Amerithrax? No, once again, it's just basic LOGIC: if you didn't commit crime X, then neither your mental state nor your (alleged) motives could play any role WHATSOEVER in the commission of crime
X.
This is the contradiction at the heart of the EBAP commission: they could only CONCEIVABLY do something useful vis-a-vis Ivins if Ivins did the crime. Otherwise, their statements about Ivins would have no value in illuminating the crime.
===================================================
Despite the fact that a court commissioned the panel, it was a panel whose origins was: the DOJ. The court merely acquiesced in
its creation: "authorized" is the word used in the first sentence.
Such a panel would not have come into being had Ivins lived to face a trial. And such a panel doesn't therefore have to follow courtroom procedures, the rules of evidence etc.
Its function, as I understand it, is advisory.
(There's no sign in the report that the panel took evidence from Ivins' attorney(s) or supporters; this is a one-sided version even of his psychological condition: it's a creation of the DoJ, merely sanctioned by a court.)
I thank Mister Lake for the correction about Dr Saathof but that merely means: not only didn't Saathof examine the 'patient', he didn't even meet him in a more casual way. Anything he was saying about the 'patient' would not have the authority of expertise, or at least not the expertise of clinical psychiatry.
ReplyDeleteIn this context (this case) he would not have been an expert witness.
Here's why it is UNLIKELY that Ivins' burlaries would be admissible, no matter who did the testifying:
ReplyDelete----------------------------
Prior Bad Acts - Statutory Trends Toward Admissibility
Introduction of "prior bad acts evidence"—proof that in the past the defendant committed acts similar to those charged—has traditionally been closely limited to proof of matters such as intent, motive, identity, common scheme or plan. See, e.g., Federal Rule of Evidence 404. The prohibition is rooted in the principle that a jury hearing of prior similar acts may convict the defendant of the charged crime because it believes, based on the past conduct, that the defendant committed the present crime as well, or that it may be so repelled by the past incidents that it will convict in response to those matters.
Increasingly, federal and state statutes have created exceptions to permit use of prior bad acts evidence in sexual assault and domestic violence cases, in a variety of contexts and for a range of purposes.
Domestic violence and intimate partner sexual abuse most often take place as a pattern of abuse. When a court or jury hears evidence concerning only an isolated incident, the greater pattern of coercion and control is lost. The escalation of violence and sexual degradation over the years becomes invisible. The incident that finally brings the case into court may be trivialized as a one-time event. Permitting the trier of fact to hear about the defendant's prior similar conduct places the alleged offense in perspective.
In cases of sexual assault, the Federal Rules of Evidence were modified in 1994 to permit consideration of evidence of a defendant's prior sexual assaults or acts of child molestation "for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant." Federal Rule of Evidence 413(a) (sexual assault); Federal Rule of Evidence 414 (child molestation). These statutes have survived constitutional challenge. United States v. Enjady, 134 F.3d 1427 (10th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 887 (1998).
http://www.njep-ipsacourse.org/EvidentiaryIssues/PriorBadActs-Admissibility.php
So, getting back to whether the testimony about Ivins' burglaries would be admissible, this is apparently the relevant part of the
ReplyDeleteFederal Rules of Evidence: Rule 404, part b
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_404
-------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Crimes, Wrongs, or Other Acts.
(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.
(2) Permitted Uses; Notice in a Criminal Case. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident. On request by a defendant in a criminal case, the prosecutor must:
(A) provide reasonable notice of the general nature of any such evidence that the prosecutor intends to offer at trial; and
(B) do so before trial — or during trial if the court, for good cause, excuses lack of pretrial notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------
So the prosecutor is obligated to provide notice that prior bad acts (including obviously anything criminal) are intended to be brought into the trial as part of the DA's case against the defendant. (I THINK this is a part of 'discovery' but don't quote me on that!)
The defense, would, no doubt, object in this case (Ivins). The court would likely say that the defense can STIPULATE (ie admit in open court) that Ivins indeed had/has an obsession with KKG
(since all the stuff about the night drives to KKG chapters, the burglaries etc. are merely details of that obsession and tell us nothing PER SE as to whether Ivins did Amerithrax). I think the prosecution would go along,,,,,in light of 404 b.
Partial post by Mister Lake going back quite a ways:
ReplyDelete----------------
Richard Rowley also wrote: "It's speculation heaped on speculation heaped on speculation."
No, it's FACT heaped upon FACT heaped upon FACT.
===================================================
That sentence by me immediately followed and was referring to this paragraph written by me:
==============
That is no basis to give "expert" testimony about the psychological condition of a 'patient' (remember, a never-examined 'patient'), no basis to say what obsessions (other than the one Ivins confessed to having) the person had. Certainly no basis to say 'Established obsession A (the KKG one) extends to the placename of origin of the organization, and FURTHERMORE connects to the (not-established)obsession with the location of 19th Century ancestors' residence.'
-------------------------------------------------------
I say again: speculation piled on speculation piled on speculation.
Again going way back to a (partial) post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete--------------------
"A question is speculative if:
It invites or causes the witness to speculate or answer on the basis of conjecture."
So, no lawyer can ASK a witness to speculate without risking that the opposing side will justifiably object.
What the psychiatrists might have to say would be their "professional opinion" or their "expert opinion." It would NOT be speculation.
=======================================
Once again you ignore the fact that psychiatrists treat PATIENTS, patients they have examined. And no psychiatrist the prosecution could have called had examined Ivins. Indeed, you yourself, Mister Lake, corrected me when I wrote that Dr Saathoff was present during one questioning of Ivins. So, it's entirely possible that Saathoff never even laid eyes on Ivins(even to pass him by in a hallway at Justice!). Anything he thus said about Ivins would have been SECOND HAND opinion (ie opinion based not on an exam, but based upon what OTHERS had told him about Ivins).
That would indeed be considered speculation by a court, NOT 'expert testimony' because the psychiatrist would not be practicing psychiatry in that instance, he would be practicing mind-reading. And he would merely be recycling the psychological opinion of laymen (ie non-psychiatrists/psychologists) on the Task Force, a recycling that might have added shrink jargon, but which would still be something that merely had the aura of psychiatry, not its substance.
Hmmm. SIX posts from Richard Rowley overnight. But they involve only two basic arguments. The first argument is about the EBAP, "Such a panel would not have come into being had Ivins lived to face a trial."
ReplyDeleteTrue. After Bruce Ivins committed suicide, Dr. Saathoff was commissioned to do an analysis to provide "a better understanding of Dr. Ivins’ mental state before and after the anthrax mailings, his possible motives — and the connections, if any, between his mental state and the commission of the crimes."
Mr. Rowley argues that this shouldn't have been done because Ivins wasn't proved to be guilty, and the EBAP assumed that Ivins was guilty.
The study was done. It was done legally. And it was done for good reason: "to provide insights into how the country can be better defended from such attacks and to provide a better understanding of Dr. Ivins himself."
It was done because it could help in future investigations. And, in the process, it provided a lot of information about Bruce Ivins which helps us understand what he presumably did.
Mr. Rowley's argument is that none of this is of value if Ivins was innocent. FALSE! Ivins mental problems were REAL. His history of burglaries, harassment and vandalism was REAL. Whether he was guilty of the anthrax killings or not, he never should have been allowed to work with deadly pathogens. The study shows that and shows where the mistakes were made in allowing Ivins to work with deadly pathogens.
The Panel examined Ivins medical and psychiatric records to come to their conclusion. Since Ivins was dead, that was the best way to do what they were asked to do.
Dr. Saathoff wasn't going to testify against Ivins in court, so Mr. Rowley's arguments that Dr. Saathoff couldn't have testified against Ivins in court are meaningless.
Mr. Rowley merely argues that he has a different theory about who sent the anthrax letters, therefore everyone should have let Bruce Ivins alone. That argument is based upon his personal beliefs. The evidence says that Bruce Ivins was guilty.
Mr. Rowley's next argument is: "it is UNLIKELY that Ivins' burglaries would be admissible, no matter who did the testifying" because they were "prior bad acts".
FALSE. The testimony about Ivins burglaries in my hypothetical court session weren't presented to establish that Ivins committed "prior bad acts" and thus probably committed the anthrax attacks, too. The burglaries were mentioned by the witness because they showed the intensity of Ivins' obsession with the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority. And, Ivins' obsession with KKG was important to the case because it connected him to the crime scene. That is totally admissible as evidence.
So, this is another false premise from Mr. Rowley. Mr. Rowley is arguing against a claim that no one was going to make. Therefore, it is a meaningless argument.
[End part 1]
[Part 2]
ReplyDeleteMr. Rowley also argued, "Certainly no basis to say 'Established obsession A (the KKG one) extends to the placename of origin of the organization, and FURTHERMORE connects to the (not-established)obsession with the location of 19th Century ancestors' residence.'"
FALSE! There IS such a basis..
In court, the presentation of the evidence might have gone this way:
Prosecutor: Agent Steele, you've described how there was a hidden message in the media letter. Were there any hidden messages or codes in the senate letters or envelopes?
FBI Agent: Yes, we believe so. The part of the return address for "4th Grade, Greendale School" appears to be related to something Dr. Ivins read in an issue of the American Family Association Journal about case where a child in the 4th grade at a school in Greendale, Wisconsin, was sent home bruised from a spanking. Dr. Ivins and his wife were evidently so moved by this incident that they donated money to the AFA shortly afterward. And, the ZIP in the return address code is for Monmouth Junction, New Jersey. It appeared to investigators that this related to Dr. Ivins personal background. His father's family came from an area called Monmouth in New Jersey. And, it also relates to Dr. Ivins' obsession with Kappa Kappa Gamma, since KKG was founded at Monmouth College in Monmouth, Illinois. Knowing Dr. Ivins love for coded messages, we saw this as another code he put in the letters.
Mr. Rowley will undoubtedly argue that this is "speculation." No, it is what the FBI investigators saw as evidence based upon other coded materials they saw in the letters.
Objections about "speculation" are valid when the prosecutor ASKS the witness to speculate about something. When an investigator is doing an investigation, the process is almost never straight-forward. There are almost always guesses, speculation, theories, and hunches involved. So, it is perfectly valid for an investigator to testify to what he was thinking and what he concluded. The jury can believe or disbelieve it, as they see fit.
Ed
Mr. Rowley's argument is that none of this is of value if Ivins was innocent. FALSE! Ivins mental problems were REAL.
ReplyDelete-------------------------------------------------
Don't agree. Yes they were real, BUT Ivins worked at USAMRIID for 2 to 3 decades. He had tremendous respect for his work in the bio-warfare community.
That comes out from just about everyone concerned: his bosses, his colleagues, his ex-colleagues (like Ayaad Assaad). And this from Wiki:
-----------
On March 14, 2003, Ivins and two of his colleagues at USAMRIID at Fort Detrick received the Decoration for Exceptional Civilian Service—the highest award given to Defense Department civilian employees—for helping solve technical problems in the manufacture of anthrax vaccine.[44]
--------------------------------------------
Pretty good for someone who, according to Mister Lake, shouldn't have been working there AT ALL.
I see no evidence whatsoever that his mental illness had a major
negative impact on his work performance......until the Task Force began to put him under surveillance etc. But as we saw with Steven Hatfill, a FAR sturdier person psychologically, anyone can melt under that pressure. And, as with Hatfill, it has NOTHING to do with guilt or innocence.
Another partial by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete----------
The Panel examined Ivins medical and psychiatric records to come to their conclusion. Since Ivins was dead, that was the best way to do what they were asked to do.
===============================================
Again, the idea for the panel came from DoJ, not the court that authorized it. And who in DoJ suggested it? Dr Saathoff! So your locution "do what they were asked to do" makes it sound as if its just some chore/task imposed on them from the outside. Not true!
It's a Saathoff panel through and through: HIS original idea for the panel, HIS picks for who was going to be on the panel, HIS chairmanship of the panel. And who was the MAJOR (but perhaps only?) psychiatric consultant of the Amerithrax Task Force? Why that very SAME Dr Saathoff! So it wasn't an "outside" panel whatsoever, not if the word "outside" has any meaning.
Richard Rowley wrote: "I see no evidence whatsoever that his mental illness had a major negative impact on his work performance"
ReplyDeleteThat's because you don't look at the facts. Ivins never did anything of great significance. His name was on a lot of scientific papers mainly because he was the person who created the spores used in the studies. He was someone who knew how to do something very well, and he did the same thing over and over and over and over and over.
In August 2001, before the attacks and before the FBI had any reason to "pressure" him, Ivins was effectively demoted to work for Patricia Worsham, who was younger than Ivins and who had worked at USAMRIID less time than Ivins.
But, more importantly, your notion that it is okay to have mentally ill people who commit burglaries, harassment, vandalism and other crimes handling dangerous pathogens in government labs is just plain CRAZY. It's RIDICULOUS. It's ABSURD. It doesn't make any difference how long Ivins went without being caught, he SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO WORK WITH DANGEROUS PATHOGENS.
Your crazy argument is that they shouldn't stop mentally ill people from working with dangerous materials BEFORE they commit crimes, they should do it AFTER they commit crimes, just as they did with Ivins. That is just plain NUTS. It's some unthinking, screwball argument based upon some absurd notion that Ivins was really just a "nice" guy who got picked on by some nasty government people.
Ed
And I'm not the only one who sees inherent contradictions in the panel's claims: http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2011/03/23/fbi-stalkers-are-likely-bioterrorists/
ReplyDeleteRichard Rowley wrote: "So it wasn't an "outside" panel whatsoever, not if the word "outside" has any meaning."
ReplyDeleteYou endlessly create straw man arguments and then argue against your own straw man arguments.
The word "outside" is YOUR word, not mine.
Dr. Saathoff asked the judge to permit the formation of the panel to produce a report because he was the one who saw a need for such a panel. And the judge agreed. Yes, Saathoff was an "insider." But, that only means he knew more about the case than anyone "outside," and therefore he could get the job done more quickly.
There's no reason to believe the panel was biased. They looked at the facts and presented evidence to back up their conclusions. The fact that they began with the assumption that Ivins was guilty is because that's what the facts said. It would have been ridiculous to start with the assumption that they didn't know who committed the crime. That would mean they'd first have to investigate the FBI's investigation before they could come to any conclusions. That may be what you think should have been done, but that's only because you have your own theory of who did it. Do you really think that if the panel had started with the idea that Ivins was innocent they would have come to YOUR conclusion as to who did it?
Ed
Richard Rowley wrote: "And I'm not the only one who sees inherent contradictions in the panel's claims"
ReplyDeleteAnother straw man argument. Who ever said you were the only person who disagreed with the FBI's OR the EBAP's findings?
The fact that others agree with you, just means there are others who do not understand the facts and have theories of their own.
I've been stating on my web site for years that all the Anthrax Truthers seem to have unique theories. The only common thread is that they all agree the FBI must be wrong, because if the FBI is right, then all the Anthrax Truthers must be wrong. And, they just don't see that as being possible.
Do you think that "emptywheel" agrees with YOUR theory about who did it? Or do you think he has his own theory? And, why don't you argue against his theory or the theories of all the other Anthrax Truthers who disagree with your theory?
Ed
Richard Rowley wrote: "I see no evidence whatsoever that his mental illness had a major negative impact on his work performance"
ReplyDeleteThat's because you don't look at the facts. Ivins never did anything of great significance. His name was on a lot of scientific papers mainly because he was the person who created the spores used in the studies. He was someone who knew how to do something very well, and he did the same thing over and over and over and over and over.
--------------------------------------------
So after claiming in sentence 1 above that I don't look at "facts" you then make ASSERTIONS. Assertions based on what?
Your own opinions. You quote NO ONE who ever worked with Ivins.
Nor does your account explain how, about 2 years later, Ivins got the highest possible civilian award from the DoD (indeed you consistently refrain from referring to that award....wonder why!).
Back to Mister Lake:
-------------
In August 2001, before the attacks and before the FBI had any reason to "pressure" him, Ivins was effectively demoted to work for Patricia Worsham, who was younger than Ivins and who had worked at USAMRIID less time than Ivins.
-------------------------------------
The only person who ever claimed that (to my knowledge) is ED LAKE. And when you do claim it, you cite no one who worked with Worsham or Ivins. Undocumented.
Neither one of us is in a good position to evaluate ON OUR OWN Ivins' work: what it entailed, how well he did it. So I refrain from speculating and point to: his long tenure at USAMRIID (he survived the RIF (reduction in forces) of 1997(?) when as many as 30% of the workforce was let go); his award of 2003 (ie 2 years AFTER, according the Mister Lake, Ivins was 'effectively demoted'); statements made in public by colleagues/ex-colleagues.
A couple of posts up Mister Lake posted:
ReplyDelete----------
Richard Rowley wrote: "So it wasn't an "outside" panel whatsoever, not if the word "outside" has any meaning."
You endlessly create straw man arguments and then argue against your own straw man arguments.
The word "outside" is YOUR word, not mine.
========================================================
That's funny, I distinctly recall us arguing this before and your "strawman" position was: no one on the panel was an insider (Mister Lake's word): (from March 25th this very blog):
---------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rowley,
You're wasting your time and mine. As I've stated repeatedly, no members of the panel worked for USAMRIID, therefore they were NOT - repeat NOT - insiders when they analyzed the practices at USAMRIID that allowed a mentally ill person to work with dangerous pathogens alone and unsupervised.
--------------------------------------------------
But of course then (as now) I was talking about whether they were outsiders vis-a-vis the Task Force. The Chairman certainly was not.
Richard Rowley wrote: "And I'm not the only one who sees inherent contradictions in the panel's claims"
ReplyDeleteAnother straw man argument. Who ever said you were the only person who disagreed with the FBI's OR the EBAP's findings?
---------------------------------------
No one. Does every sentence I write have to be in contradictions to one you write???????????
Richard Rowley wrote: "You quote NO ONE who ever worked with Ivins."
ReplyDeleteI was citing John Ezzell. It was Ezzell who said that Ivins mainly just made spores. He said that Ivins did good work when he first started at USAMRIID, but then things went downhill from there. I just didn't have the time to look up the actual quote. I'm suppose to be doing the final draft of my book.
Ivins was also told by his bosses that they didn't want someone of his pay grade and experience doing nothing but making spores. And they wanted him to go to work on developing a vaccine for glanders. I'd have to did for the actual quote on that, too.
Richard Rowley also wrote: "The only person who ever claimed that (to my knowledge) is ED LAKE."
That's because I look at the facts. It is a FACT that Ivins was put under Patricia Worsham. The facts indicate he was told about it in August of 2001, and it went into effect in early 2002. He wrote a nasty letter to Worsham telling her he had done the cleaning up of his lab that she ordered him to do.
His award and the fact that he wasn't kicked out by the RIF just means he wasn't at the bottom of the heap.
Ed
The most ironic thing is that he wrote that email reporting to his supervisor that he had cleaned up the lab as she asked -- on one of the nights Ed says he had no reason to be in the lab!
DeleteAnonymous,
DeleteI deleted two or three of your posts because they were just personal attacks and provide nothing new. I let the above post go through just to have something to respond to.
Where have I ever stated that Ivins had no reason to be in his lab on the night he did the cleaning ordered by Worsham?
I make it a point just about everywhere I can think of to point out that that was the ONE time when we knew what Ivins was doing. PLUS, September 26 was BETWEEN mailings while Ivins was waiting for the result of the first mailing and hadn't yet started working on the second batch of anthrax.
You are wrong on all counts - as usual.
This is my last post for today.
Ed
Richard Rowley wrote: "Does every sentence I write have to be in contradictions to one you write???????????"
ReplyDeleteNo, but we're supposed to be in a debate here. Making pointless comments accomplishes nothing.
And arguing over wording also accomplishes nothing.
You're just changing the subject because you have no real arguments or facts. All you have are beliefs.
Ed
Hmmm. I couldn't find the source for the statement about Ivins' publications, then I remembered I mentioned it in my own book. And I referenced the source there. It's from USA Today:
ReplyDelete"But in the last 10 years or so, Ivins' role seemed to have shifted to that of a supporting player, albeit a highly skilled one. During the 1990s, Ivins was credited as the lead author on four out of 12 published journal articles. After 2000, he contributed to 16 articles, but was not named as the first author on any. His greatest prominence as a scientific author came during the 1980s, when he was the lead writer on seven articles.
...
John W. Ezzell, the former top anthrax specialist at the Army biodefense facility where Ivins worked, said his one-time colleague was cited so frequently in recent years because he provided the anthrax spores that were used in a range of experiments with animals.
"He got his name on a lot of these publications because he was providing the spores," said Ezzell, who retired from the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, Md. "That is one of the reasons he was on so many publications. So many of the studies were conducted with his spores."
Ed
Back to Mister Lake several posts back:
ReplyDelete----------------
But, more importantly, your notion that it is okay to have mentally ill people who commit burglaries, harassment, vandalism and other crimes handling dangerous pathogens in government labs is just plain CRAZY. It's RIDICULOUS. It's ABSURD.
==================================================
And as I pointed out to you back in March (repost from my own post of March 25, 2012 9:32 AM)(ENTIRE POST):
----------------------------------
Partial post by Mister Lake:
---------------
"More stringent vetting would eliminate not only potential ad-hoc terrorists but excellent microbiologists who are just a bit weird. Ivins was mostly the latter (in my view)."
So, you think it was OKAY for Ivins to have been working alone at night, unsupervised, with deadly pathogens - even though he was an admitted burglar,[...]
============================================================
Once again Mister Lake scrambles the chronology....perhaps he took lessons from Jeff Taylor?
1)Ivins admitted the burglaries sometime in the 2005 to 2008 timeframe.
2)No one at USAMRIID knew about them in the 1980s (or 1990s etc), so how were they to respond to them?
This, as so much of what is discussed in this case (especially the legal side), is about process. But Mister Lake has no feel for process, so he's not really interested in the law.
Richard Rowley argues ONCE AGAIN: "No one at USAMRIID knew about them in the 1980s (or 1990s etc), so how were they to respond to them?"
ReplyDeleteOnce again you are missing the point: USAMRIID SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT IVINS WAS MENTALLY ILL. The purpose of the EBAP report was to show that there were ways that USAMRIID could have learned more about Ivins' mental problems, but they didn't do it.
The fact that USAMRIID didn't know about Ivins' mental problems does not mean there was no way they could have known. THERE WERE WAYS THEY COULD HAVE KNOWN.
You have argued your nonsense position before. How many times do we have to go over the same thing? The EBAP report explained how things could have been done better and how such things can be avoided in the future.
Ed
Of some interest vis-a-vis the EBAP panel:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.clinicalpsychiatrynews.com/views/shrink-rap-news/blog/use-of-psychological-profile-to-infer-ivins-s-guilt-is-problematic/f0c12d12abb4d3a36fba48c4ad222b31.html
Richard Rowley wrote: "Of some interest vis-a-vis the EBAP panel ..."
ReplyDeleteThe link is to an old article that everyone commented upon when it first came out in June 2011. I wrote a long comment about it on my web site, and I linked to comments about it on other sites. Here's a small part of what I wrote:
But, if I understand Dr. Hanson's complaints correctly, she feels the EBAP report should have been written to show that Ivins might have been innocent, the report shouldn't have been distributed to anyone outside of the courtroom where it was authorized, and it shouldn't have been written by anyone who ever collaborated with the FBI, since that infers bias.
In other words, the report either should have (1) been written in such a way as to make it totally useless, or (2) it should never have been written at all. And the Lunatic Fringe agrees. Click HERE and HERE.
The article is just someone's opinion. The purpose of this blog is to avoid arguing opinions and to discuss FACTS.
And, what is the point of citing old articles that have been discussed before? What is the point of citing any article that is just someone's opinion?
Ed
A reminder: I am deleting posts to this blog from "Anonymous" where he argues his beliefs and attacks me because I disagree with his beliefs.
ReplyDeleteFor example, he is currently arguing in emails and in deleted posts that Patricia Worsham held up a "Queen Is Not Amused t-shirt" at Ivins' funeral and, in Anonymous's opinion, that somehow means that what Ivins wrote in his September 26, 2001 email wasn't out of anger but was just some kind of joke.
All it really says is that Worsham didn't hold grudges and that she could be kind at his funeral. Worsham also protected Ivins when everyone else wanted to fire him after he spilled Sterne anthrax on himself and went home to wash it off. This says more about Worsham than it does about Ivins.
But it does say that Ivins could be very difficult to deal with, and people at USAMRIID ignored his tantrums, idiosyncrasies and odd activities when they should have been watching him very carefully.
I will continue to delete posts from "Anonymous" in which he merely states his beliefs and attacks me because I disagree with his beliefs.
Ed
Posted by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete---------------
Richard Rowley argues ONCE AGAIN: "No one at USAMRIID knew about them in the 1980s (or 1990s etc), so how were they to respond to them?"
Once again you are missing the point: USAMRIID SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT IVINS WAS MENTALLY ILL.
======================================================
You say that:
1) PRIMARILY because you think Ivins did the crimes of Amerithrax (and are therefore ill-placed to consider the alternative).
For if Ivins DIDN'T do the crimes of Amerithrax, what was the harm to the US of hiring and keeping on such a dedicated scientist?
2) without any sign of thought as to the level of intrusiveness such checks would entail: yeah, you could give each and every USAMRIID employee a polygraph yearly and ask them if they had received psychiatric care, but that would, among other things, DISCOURAGE personnel from seeking needed help in that area. Presumably, the DoD wants to ENCOURAGE the seeking of that help.
Mister Lake, responding to Hanson's article criticising the EBAP report:
ReplyDelete--------------
The article is just someone's opinion. The purpose of this blog is to avoid arguing opinions and to discuss FACTS.
=============================================
Yet somehow you believe that Dr Saathoff and/or another psychiatrist employed by DoD for the purpose would have had no trouble vis-a-vis the Rules of Evidence and due process of rendering a medical OPINION about Bruce Ivins in a trial setting DESPITE the fact that Saathoff never examined Ivins, and, if Mister Lake is correct, never even met the man!
Richard Rowley asked: "For if Ivins DIDN'T do the crimes of Amerithrax, what was the harm to the US of hiring and keeping on such a dedicated scientist?"
ReplyDeleteThat's like asking: What's the harm of having a mentally ill person who talks about poisoning people run a day care center where your child spends his days?
You're talking about having a mentally ill person work with deadly pathogens that could be used to kill millions of people. I cannot understand how anyone could say that's okay. IT'S CRAZY!
Richard Rowley also wrote: "that would, among other things, DISCOURAGE personnel from seeking needed help in that area. Presumably, the DoD wants to ENCOURAGE the seeking of that help."
That's the cost of keeping America safe. The alternative is STUPID.
Ed
Richard Rowley wrote: "Yet somehow you believe that Dr Saathoff and/or another psychiatrist employed by DoD for the purpose would have had no trouble vis-a-vis the Rules of Evidence and due process of rendering a medical OPINION about Bruce Ivins in a trial setting DESPITE the fact that Saathoff never examined Ivins, and, if Mister Lake is correct, never even met the man!"
ReplyDeleteNo, as I've tried to explain to you many times, that is YOUR "straw man argument." You're creating a fictional situation and then arguing against your own fictional situation.
No one ever said that Dr. Saathoff was going to present any evidence at any trial without ever meeting Ivins. Where did you get such a ridiculous idea?
If Ivins hadn't committed suicide, his lawyers might have argued that Ivins was mentally ill when he committed the crime. If so, then Dr. Saathoff and others would have been given the opportunity to examine Dr. Ivins at length.
But, Ivins was dead. There is never going to be any trial. So, your fictional situation makes no sense.
Dr. Saathoff and others worked with the medical records produced by Ivins' own psychiatrists to produce the EBAP report. That report had nothing to do with any trial. It was a report about what could be learned about the Ivins case that would be valuable in the future.
Ed
Post going back a bit by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete----------------
Richard Rowley wrote: "Does every sentence I write have to be in contradictions to one you write???????????"
No, but we're supposed to be in a debate here. Making pointless comments accomplishes nothing.
And arguing over wording also accomplishes nothing.
=================================================
Whether a comment is "pointless" is in the eye of the beholder.
I wrote a seven-word sentence introducing a link. You, absurdly, make that sentence out to be something that has to be refuted!
If ever there was anything here "pointless" it would have to be that refutation. It betokens a snarliness and a combativeness that is unnecessary
Richard Rowley wrote: "Yet somehow you believe that Dr Saathoff and/or another psychiatrist employed by DoD for the purpose would have had no trouble vis-a-vis the Rules of Evidence and due process of rendering a medical OPINION about Bruce Ivins in a trial setting DESPITE the fact that Saathoff never examined Ivins, and, if Mister Lake is correct, never even met the man!"
ReplyDeleteNo, as I've tried to explain to you many times, that is YOUR "straw man argument." You're creating a fictional situation and then arguing against your own fictional situation.
No one ever said that Dr. Saathoff was going to present any evidence at any trial without ever meeting Ivins. Where did you get such a ridiculous idea?
==========================================
So, you now admit that ALL of the psychological "evidence" contained in the FINAL REPORT (and needless to say in your lists of FACTS) indicating Ivins' guilt wasn't presentable in a court of law in a notional trial of Ivins? Wasn't presentable because Ivins' own psychiatrists were under the obligations of doctor-patient confidentiality, and the Task Force/DoJ psychiatrist(s) hadn't even examined Ivins?
(A yes or no answer to this would suffice)
I've been stating on my web site for years that all the Anthrax Truthers seem to have unique theories. The only common thread is that they all agree the FBI must be wrong, because if the FBI is right, then all the Anthrax Truthers must be wrong. And, they just don't see that as being possible.
ReplyDeleteDo you think that "emptywheel" agrees with YOUR theory about who did it? Or do you think he has his own theory? And, why don't you argue against his theory or the theories of all the other Anthrax Truthers who disagree with your theory?
====================================================
Naturally, in Internet discussions, as in other aspects of life, one has to pick one's spots. If I were MERELY looking for an argument, I'm sure I could find one close to 24/7 365 days a year. I'm not. And I do dispute about other topics on the Internet, and have done so in one venue or another for over a decade.
The DoJ's position, that Ivins did Amerithrax alone, gives the FINAL REPORT a central position in discussions of the anthrax attacks, a position not unlike that of the Warren Commission's Report in the JFK assassination.
Though I don't agree with the central contentions of any of the JFK alternate-theory buffs, I certainly do NOT fault them for their concentration on what they see as errors, omissions, distortions etc. in the Warren report. That report is the touchstone of the JFK assassination, just as the FINAL REPORT of the Task Force is the touchstone of Amerithrax. ANYONE trying to figure out whether Ivins was guilty and/or whether someone else did it, perforce is obligated to take into consideration the contents of that report, as well as other statements by the Task Force/DoJ.
From Mister Lake's post of Aug 29th 7:34
ReplyDeleteMr. Rowley also argued, "Certainly no basis to say 'Established obsession A (the KKG one) extends to the placename of origin of the organization, and FURTHERMORE connects to the (not-established)obsession with the location of 19th Century ancestors' residence.'"
FALSE! There IS such a basis..
In court, the presentation of the evidence might have gone this way:
Prosecutor: Agent Steele, you've described how there was a hidden message in the media letter. Were there any hidden messages or codes in the senate letters or envelopes?
----------------------------------------------------
Points:
1) Agent Steele isn't mentioned in the Final Report (indeed, so much of what is in the Final Report is of immaculate conception: no accounting of who did various tests, did various interviews, 'solved' the 'code' etc.)
2) Agent Steele isn't a cryptoanalyst or cryptographer, the pertinent fields in ALLEGING there was a 'code' message in the highlighting of the characters of the Brokaw text, a preliminary step to trying to DECODE the contents of such a coded message.
3) Naturally a prosecutor would be aware that Steele wouldn't be considered an expert witness vis-a-vis cryptoanalysis, and, if the prosecution decided to try to include the 'code' into the case against Ivins, another true expert in codes would have been used.
In short Mister Lake's imagined questioning of Steele on the 'code' is 99.9% imagination, and .1% established legal procedure.
An egregiously erroneous mistake by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete-----------------
Objections about "speculation" are valid when the prosecutor ASKS the witness to speculate about something.
==========================================
No, you're wrong. Attorneys know that speculation is either forbidden or severely limited by the Rules of Evidence/due proces, so when they try to get speculation into the testimony they try to "sneak" it in, studiously AVOIDING the verb "speculate" or the noun "speculation". Frequently they do this by asking open-ended questions.
We laymen know this because, if we've watched much of TV courtroom dramas with even a patina of realism about them, we've heard the following formulation dozens to hundreds of times:
"Objection, your honor! Calls for speculation on the part of the witness!"
This, no doubt, follows established legal practice.
Attorneys wouldn't say that if speculation WEREN'T forbidden/severely limited by due process. It is then up to the judge to determine whether the question DOES call for speculation on the part of the witness, and whether to sustain the objection.
Another partial from Mister Lake going way back:
ReplyDelete---------------------------
Mr. Rowley's next argument is: "it is UNLIKELY that Ivins' burglaries would be admissible, no matter who did the testifying" because they were "prior bad acts".
FALSE. The testimony about Ivins burglaries in my hypothetical court session weren't presented to establish that Ivins committed "prior bad acts" and thus probably committed the anthrax attacks, too. The burglaries were mentioned by the witness because they showed the intensity of Ivins' obsession with the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority.
-----------------------------------------------------------
But EVEN IF the intention of the prosecution wasn't to introduce
prior bad acts, testimony that he did such acts is prejudicial to the defendant, and so the judge would have to weigh THAT prejudice versus the benefit of admitting the testimony. Realistically, the best the prosecution could hope for would be the defense stipulating to the fact that Ivins had such an obsession.
Here's a wonderful example of how central to due process the principle of avoiding presenting testimony prejudicial to the defendant is:
ReplyDeletehttp://myfloridalegal.com/alerts.nsf/Print%20Slip%20Opinions/78BE61333BF2A8B585256473006EEB80?OpenDocument
Jeeze! There were SEVEN posts from Richard Rowley awaiting moderation this morning, and NONE seems worth bothering with. But, I'll respond anyway.
ReplyDelete#1 - RR wrote: "If ever there was anything here "pointless" it would have to be that refutation."
Another argument over the words I use instead of sticking to the subject.
#2 - RR wrote: "So, you now admit that ALL of the psychological "evidence" contained in the FINAL REPORT (and needless to say in your lists of FACTS) indicating Ivins' guilt wasn't presentable in a court of law in a notional trial of Ivins?"
What "psychological 'evidence' contained in the FINAL REPORT" are you talking about? Here's what it says about the source of "psychological evidence" in the Final Report:
"The mental health information contained in this Investigative Summary derives from the following sources of information: (1) interviews of people close to Dr. Ivins; (2) interviews of Dr. Ivins himself; (3) a review of thousands of e-mail messages by Dr. Ivins and about Dr. Ivins; and (4) a review of his prescription records. Of these, some of the most detailed information regarding his deteriorating mental health in the years leading up to the mailings came from the words of Dr. Ivins himself, either in e-mails or in interviews with investigators."
There's nothing in there about Dr. Saathoff or even from Ivins' psychiatrists. Why would you even think it wouldn't be presentable in court? It's witness testimony!
#3 - RR rambled on about his philosophies. No response necessary.
#4 - RR wrote: "Agent Steele isn't mentioned in the Final Report"
NONE of the witnesses who would have appeared in court are named. The report was written in such a way to avoid the naming of witnesses, since it was not necessary to publicly identify witnesses to write such a report. If there had been a trial, the witnesses names would have become part of the public record.
I wrote about how witnesses questioning "might go" in response to your absurd ideas about how you believe it would go.
#5 - RR argues that I'm wrong about how speculation would be objectionable in court, and he argues instead that lawyers have ways to get around such objections. He's changing the argument just to be argumentative.
#6 - RR wrote: "But EVEN IF the intention of the prosecution wasn't to introduce prior bad acts, testimony that he did such acts is prejudicial to the defendant, and so the judge would have to weigh THAT prejudice versus the benefit of admitting the testimony."
It's ridiculous to even suggest that a judge would disallow evidence connecting the defendant to the scene of the crime because it might be prejudicial.
#7 - RR posts a link to a site that says,
"The court found that the state’s remarks impinged on the defendant’s constitutional right to remain silent."
That ruling has nothing to do with anything in this discussion, so it's just another waste of my time.
Ed
Oops. Regarding item #2 above, the Final Report also says on page 42:
ReplyDelete"Investigators also obtained significant information regarding Dr. Ivins’s mental health in the course of an investigation into threats he made in a group therapy session in early July 2008. They interviewed the provider who was present at that group therapy session. In a publicly filed application for a Peace Order, which she filed in the District Court of Maryland for Frederick County on July 24, 2008, that therapist provided the following information regarding Dr. Ivins’s mental health history: “Client has a history dating to his graduate days of homicidal threats, actions, plans. . . . [another mental health professional], his psychiatrist[,] called him homicidal, [and] sociopathic with clear intentions.” At a hearing on her motion for a peace order, the therapist provided more detail regarding this assessment by Dr. Ivins’s psychiatrist, mentioning that as far back as 2000, Dr. Ivins had engaged in plots of revenge involving poison."
So, the prosecution would be free to use in court material from the public record where health care professionals stated that Ivins had voiced plans to poison people. They say the evidence would be used because,
"This evidence shows that Dr. Ivins’s mental state was precarious in the months leading up to the mailings."
It's about Ivins' mental condition at the time of the attacks, which could be used in court to show motive. It's NOT about prior acts.
Ed
"This evidence shows that Dr. Ivins’s mental state was precarious in the months leading up to the mailings."
ReplyDeleteIt's about Ivins' mental condition at the time of the attacks, which could be used in court to show motive. It's NOT about prior acts.
---------------------------------------------------------
Naturally, when the Final Report uses the word "evidence" that is in the generic sense, just as we saw their use of the word "witness" to describe an informant (ie someone from whom they elicited info) who told them (from memory!) that the printing of Amerithrax (envelopes and/or texts?) resembled that of Ivins. But, as I think is clear, a 'witness' in a juridical sense is generally named, appears in court, is subject to not only a direct examination but to a cross examination. All things unlikely even if Ivins had lived (because the 'witness' was working from memory, rather than a side-by-side examination of writing samples, because the 'witness' wasn't a professional of any sort in handwriting examination etc).
Here we have the same thing being done with the word 'evidence'.
Indeed there not a single word or phrase, let alone sentence, in the Final Report differentiating juridically-APPLICABLE evidence from generic evidence/testimony.
Because it's a PR document primarily.
#2 - RR wrote: "So, you now admit that ALL of the psychological "evidence" contained in the FINAL REPORT (and needless to say in your lists of FACTS) indicating Ivins' guilt wasn't presentable in a court of law in a notional trial of Ivins?"
ReplyDeleteWhat "psychological 'evidence' contained in the FINAL REPORT" are you talking about?[...]
========================================================
Section D pages 38-41 "Motive" is all about reading Ivins' mind and not terribly plausibly either, if you know something about Ivins outside of their 'narrative'.
They are ASCRIBING motives to him without any evidence of same.
Section E pages 41-48. "Mental Health" More of same.
When you have a 92-page final summary document on a case that is being closed, and roughly 72 pages are dedicated to the person you are blaming the crime on (Ivins), then having 10 pages (pp. 38-48) of those 72 pages containing what I would call mind-reading and pseudo-psychology then it's a sign of desperation (ie a paucity of physical evidence).
Richard Rowley wrote: "Indeed there not a single word or phrase, let alone sentence, in the Final Report differentiating juridically-APPLICABLE evidence from generic evidence/testimony."
ReplyDeleteSo, now you're complaining that the DOJ didn't write the Final Report according to your personal standards?
Some day you're going to have to understand that just because someone or some organization doesn't do things according to YOUR standards, that doesn't mean they're wrong.
Richard Rowley also wrote: "They are ASCRIBING motives to him without any evidence of same."
So, this is another complaint that they didn't do things they way you feel they should have been done. They didn't meet your standards?
Maybe you just don't understand the word "Summary." The report is titled "ANTHRAX INVESTIGATION SUMMARY.
The word "Summary" is defined by Webster as: condensed and "a brief statement covering the substance or main points."
Perhaps you forgot that they released 2,720 pages of supplemental documents that you can read if you want details. Have you read them? I have.
Arguing that you disapprove of the way the DOJ does things doesn't leave much room for an intelligent discussion.
Ed
Partial by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete------------------
Richard Rowley also wrote: "They are ASCRIBING motives to him without any evidence of same."
So, this is another complaint that they didn't do things they way you feel they should have been done. They didn't meet your standards?
===============================================
What "my" standards? They didn't meet the LEGAL standard. And if we are talking about what would have happened in a court of law, then that's all that matters.
Richard Rowley asked, "What "my" standards? They didn't meet the LEGAL standard. And if we are talking about what would have happened in a court of law, then that's all that matters."
ReplyDeleteThey meet all the LEGAL standards. You're just distorting things to argue your beliefs. I keep pointing out that you are distorting things, and you then change the subject.
You created an absurd courtroom scene between the defense lawyer and a psychiatrist that would NEVER happen.
And, when I show how the evidence would have been properly presented, you argue that I'm speculating. And your absurd scene was NOT speculation?
You fantasize that DOJ attorneys are going to present evidence in screwball ways that would never happen. And then you argue that such arguments don't meet legal standards.
And you won't even consider any realistic version, because you do not want to see any realistic version. You just want to argue that the entire Department of Justice is incompetent, because that would mean to you that they are wrong and your are right about your own personal theory of who did it.
Ed
Richard Rowley asked, "What "my" standards? They didn't meet the LEGAL standard. And if we are talking about what would have happened in a court of law, then that's all that matters."
ReplyDeleteThey meet all the LEGAL standards. You're just distorting things to argue your beliefs. I keep pointing out that you are distorting things, and you then change the subject.
=========================================
Quite untrue. You've posted nothing on this thread about the legal standards for proving motives. Because you really aren't interested in them intellectually.
Back to Mister Lake:
-------------
You fantasize that DOJ attorneys are going to present evidence in screwball ways that would never happen. And then you argue that such arguments don't meet legal standards.
-------------------------------------------------
No, I don't think much of ANYTHING in pages 38-48 is presentable in a court of law. Because of those legal standards and due process.
For that matter I don't think that anything of the 'amino acid code' would have been presented either: because whoever made it up likely was not a qualified cryptoanalyst/cryptographer. A layman's take on that would have been sheerest speculation.
Etc. (and here etcetera means=very little of the FINAL REPORT's contents would have been presentable in a court of law. Not because I have some special idiosyncratic standards and/or want to attribute to the DoJ lawyers some "screwball" style of presentation, but because, from a juridical standpoint, there's just very little there (again, this is why there are 10 pages of lousy psychology in a 92 page document, an absurd ratio when you compare it to anything else)).
I have consistently said (many many times) that I consider the FINAL REPORT primarily a PR (rather than legal) document: a public relations effort to convince the public that the Task Force figured the case out. Such an effort doesn't have to bother with due process, the Rules of Evidence etc.
Richard Rowley wrote: "You've posted nothing on this thread about the legal standards for proving motives."
ReplyDeleteYou're fantasizing again. Have you provided "legal standards for proving motives"? How does one PROVE what was going on inside someone's head?
Richard Rowley also wrote: "I don't think much of ANYTHING in pages 38-48 is presentable in a court of law. Because of those legal standards and due process. "
And I've explained to you that that is a SUMMARY. It is NOT a legal document. Your argument is that the DOJ did not do things the way you want them done. Tsk tsk.
Richard Rowley also wrote: "I don't think that anything of the 'amino acid code' would have been presented either: because whoever made it up likely was not a qualified cryptoanalyst/cryptographer. A layman's take on that would have been sheerest speculation."
NONSENSE. You are fantasizing. I've explained to you how the code would be presented in court (click HERE), and you just change the subject and then argue the same NONSENSE over again.
Richard Rowley also wrote: "I have consistently said (many many times) that I consider the FINAL REPORT primarily a PR (rather than legal) document: a public relations effort to convince the public that the Task Force figured the case out."
Yes, we know your OPINION. I disagree with YOUR OPINION. Your OPINION is of no value, since it is based upon a BELIEF that the FBI is wrong and you know who really sent the anthrax letters - a BELIEF that seems to be totally without EVIDENCE, since you have never presented any evidence to support your theory that would be useable in court.
Ed
Click HERE to go to the source for this quote:
ReplyDelete"It is very important to remember that motive is not an element to the crime. Although a prosecutor will almost certainly want to prove that the defendant had a motive for committing the crime in order to strengthen the prosecution's argument that the defendant did commit the crime, proving motive is not essential to proving criminal liability."
"Proving motive" means proving that the defendant HAD a motive. It does NOT mean that the prosecution has to prove exactly what the defendant's motive was when he committed the crime. That requires mind reading.
Bruce Ivins has MULTIPLE motives:
1. He wanted the anthrax vaccine program to get back on track.
2. He had a profit motive.
3. He had been asked to change careers and to start working on glanders. He did not want to change.
4. He felt that his life's work was going down the drain if he couldn't get people interested in finding a new vaccine.
5. He felt the country was in danger if we didn't develop a new anthrax vaccine quickly, and scaring the hell out of people would create a DEMAND for a new anthrax vaccine.
Ed
This is from one of my Legal Dictionaries:
ReplyDeleteMOTIVE; n. in criminal investigation the probable reason a person committed a crime, such as jealousy, greed, revenge or part of a theft. While evidence of a motive may be admissible at trial, proof of motive is not necessary to prove a crime.
I think this has probably been explained to Mr. Rowley numerous times. But, he will probably want Dr. Ivins' motive proved to his satisfaction and personal standards anyway.
Ed
Bruce Ivins has MULTIPLE motives:
ReplyDelete1. He wanted the anthrax vaccine program to get back on track.
2. He had a profit motive.
3. He had been asked to change careers and to start working on glanders. He did not want to change.
4. He felt that his life's work was going down the drain if he couldn't get people interested in finding a new vaccine.
5. He felt the country was in danger if we didn't develop a new anthrax vaccine quickly, and scaring the hell out of people would create a DEMAND for a new anthrax vaccine.
--------------------------------------------------
All you've done there is ASSERT motives. In a courtroom venue you have to PROVE motives. There's a big difference.
I could assert that Ed Lake committed the Amerithrax crimes because he was bored and wanted something to talk about on the Internet! Even if that had a patina of plausibility (ie even if Mister Lake had told friends in mid-2001 that he WAS bored and was looking for something new to do), it wouldn't be presentable without proof. Proof that the complaint of boredom (which can have many reliefs)found its salvation in committing the crimes.
Richard Rowley wrote: "In a courtroom venue you have to PROVE motives."
ReplyDeleteNONSENSE!!!
I've explained to you that you do NOT have to PROVE motive.
If the prosecution wanted to do so, however, they could provide EVIDENCE of motive.
1. He wanted the anthrax vaccine program to get back on track.
EVIDENCE: His emails stating his concern about the program.
2. He had a profit motive.
EVIDENCE: His cashed checks for patent participation on the previous vaccine.
3. He had been asked to change careers and to start working on glanders. He did not want to change.
EVIDENCE: Emails and testimony from co-workers about how he did NOT want to start working on glanders.
4. He felt that his life's work was going down the drain if he couldn't get people interested in finding a new vaccine.
EVIDENCE: His emails.
5. He felt the country was in danger if we didn't develop a new anthrax vaccine quickly, and scaring the hell out of people would create a DEMAND for a new anthrax vaccine.
EVIDENCE: Emails and testimony as to what happened AFTER the anthrax mail attacks.
Richard Rowley wrote: "I could assert that Ed Lake committed the Amerithrax crimes because he was bored and wanted something to talk about on the Internet!"
You could assert that, but do you have EVIDENCE to support it?
The DOJ had EVIDENCE to use. The evidence would not PROVE Ivins' motive to YOUR satisfaction, but you do not control the justice system. The evidence would be sufficient for the justice system.
Ed
Richard Rowley wrote: "In a courtroom venue you have to PROVE motives."
ReplyDeleteNONSENSE!!!
I've explained to you that you do NOT have to PROVE motive.
==========================================================
Any reasonable reader of this blog will understand what I meant:
if you INTRODUCE motive, you have to prove it, just like the other aspects of the case (opportunity, means etc.).
Richard Rowley wrote: "I could assert that Ed Lake committed the Amerithrax crimes because he was bored and wanted something to talk about on the Internet!"
ReplyDeleteYou could assert that, but do you have EVIDENCE to support it?
--------------------------------------------
Well, as I ALREADY wrote: if Mister Lake told friends in mid-2001 that he was bored and was looking for something new to do (and these friends remembered and testified), this would be the ROUGH EQUIVALENT of Ivins 1)expressing concern about 'his' vaccine/2)dsicomfort at being asked to work on glanders/3)wanting to create a popular demand for a vaccine via scaring people etc.
If the standard for proving motive is THAT low, then it becomes all but meaningless.
Richard Rowley wrote: "if you INTRODUCE motive, you have to prove it, just like the other aspects of the case (opportunity, means etc.)."
ReplyDeleteJUST MORE NONSENSE!!! I've cited you what the law is, yet you persist on arguing your nonsensical belief as if the law has no meaning.
Richard Rowley also wrote: "If the standard for proving motive is THAT low, then it becomes all but meaningless."
Maybe by your standards, but that's the way the American courts and other courts have been operating for hundreds of years.
The rest the world understands that proving what was in someone's mind is absurd. It's impossible! It's something that happens only in your fantasies.
I've cited the law. Why don't you cite the law which you believes supports your beliefs?
Or are you now going to change the subject?"
Ed
Mr. Rowley,
ReplyDeleteI could remember having this ridiculous debate before. So, I checked back, and sure enough, we went through all this on October 27, 2011, when you wrote: "Motive, like other parts of a case, need to be proven." (Click HERE to go to the actual post.)
And I responded: "ABSOLUTELY FALSE AND TOTAL NONSENSE.
It is not necessary in criminal cases to prove motive in any way whatsoever. Motive is what was going on in someone's head. And, often, the criminal doesn't know himself what his motive was. He might believe it's one thing, but a psychiatrist might claim it's something else."
So, when do you plan to have this discussion again? Isn't there anything that you will accept that will make you understand that your belief about needing to "prove motive" is total nonsense?
Ed
Richard Rowley wrote: "if you INTRODUCE motive, you have to prove it, just like the other aspects of the case (opportunity, means etc.)."
ReplyDeleteJUST MORE NONSENSE!!! I've cited you what the law is, yet you persist on arguing your nonsensical belief as if the law has no meaning.
-------------------------------------------------
No, you cited entries from one or two legal dictionaries and the URL of a high school history teacher named Mister Sedivy. The former are primarily works for the general public, for the utter novice, not for someone with the slightest knowledge of how the system works.
The trial contemplated for Ivins would have been a federal one, and federal standards are primarily governed by the Rules of Evidence. You have the distinction of being the ONLY person on this thread to not have referred to those Rules. Anonymous and I both have:
Anonymous did it first in his August 28, 2012 4:41 AM post.
I did it subsequently in my post of August 28, 2012 3:52 PM.
Once again, here they are: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/
It is not necessary in criminal cases to prove motive in any way whatsoever. Motive is what was going on in someone's head. And, often, the criminal doesn't know himself what his motive was. He might believe it's one thing, but a psychiatrist might claim it's something else."
ReplyDelete--------------------------------------------
That means you don't have to introduce motive. I never claimed you have to INTRODUCE motive, I merely said that it (motive) follows the same general contours as the other elements of the prosecution's case: you cannot merely assert, you have to back it up.
Richard Rowley wrote: "You have the distinction of being the ONLY person on this thread to not have referred to those Rules."
ReplyDeleteIf there's something in the Federal "Rules of Evidence" that says something other than what I cited, why don't you quote it?! Why just post a link?
Note that doing a search at that link for the word "motive" finds .
When you look at Rule 404, however, it says:
(a) Character evidence:
(b) Crimes, Wrongs, or Other Acts.
(2) Permitted Uses; Notice in a Criminal Case. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.
So, it says that if the defendant's character indicates he is evil, his character can be used to prove motive. That would certainly include someone who repeatedly talked about poisoning people.
Further down it indicates that OPPORTUNITY can also be used to prove motive. And we KNOW Ivins had the opportunity. He had NO alibi.
You are sending up a smoke screen instead of arguing facts.
Have you nothing to support your beliefs other than a link that you cannot show has anything to support your beliefs?
Ed
Richard Rowley wrote: "I never claimed you have to INTRODUCE motive, I merely said that it (motive) follows the same general contours as the other elements of the prosecution's case: you cannot merely assert, you have to back it up."
ReplyDeleteAnd I said that is NONSENSE.
It would have been a big part of the case against Ivins to show he had MULTIPLE motives for committing the crime. And, I've already cited the kind of evidence that would be used to show he had motive.
But there is no requirement to PROVE which motive drove Ivins. It isn't even necessary to show documents such as emails, or testimony from co-workers, which INDICATE he had a POSSIBLE motive to commit the crime. But, since the evidence is there, it would undoubtedly be used.
Ed
Richard Rowley,
ReplyDeleteYour problem may be that, like not understanding the facts about motive, you may also not understand the difference between "evidence" and "proof."
EVIDENCE is something that is presented to support the claim that is being put before the court, i.e., the claim that Ivins was the anthrax mailer. So, time sheets would be evidence, testimony would be evidence, emails would be evidence, etc.
PROOF is "what the trier of fact (a jury or a judge without a jury) needs to become satisfied" that "the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."
So, EVIDENCE are things you can see and hear; PROOF is whatever turns the switch on inside your head to convince you that the case against the defendant is solid. It could be a single "smoking gun" or it could be the 77th item of evidence in a stack of 100 items of evidence. It's whatever convinces the jury or judge that the evidence is sufficient to prove guilt.
Comprendo?
Ed
Richard Rowley wrote: "You have the distinction of being the ONLY person on this thread to not have referred to those Rules."
ReplyDeleteIf there's something in the Federal "Rules of Evidence" that says something other than what I cited, why don't you quote it?! Why just post a link?
-------------------------------------------------------
Just above that link is this sentence:
I did it[meaning referred/linked to the Rules] subsequently in my post of August 28, 2012 3:52 PM.
------------------------------------
If you had gone to that post, you would have seen that I both linked the site and 'copy and pasted' material there from the Rules of Evidence, specifically rule 404b. And under the copy and paste, I discussed the contents vis-a-vis the admissibility of prior bad acts and the likely impact of same in a notional trial (here of Ivins).
Richard Rowley wrote: "I discussed the contents vis-a-vis the admissibility of prior bad acts and the likely impact of same in a notional trial "
ReplyDeleteAnd the subject I was talking about was your absurd notion that the prosecution must furnish PROOF OF MOTIVE.
So, your previous comment about "prior bad acts" had nothing to do with "proof of motive."
You need to try to keep track of what the current discussion is about. And, when you argue a point, don't assume that I will remember some different argument from long ago and make some wild connection. I'm busy finishing up on my book, so discussions here are not foremost on my mind.
Ed
Let me ask you a pointed yes-or-no question, Mister Lake: do you think that the Task Force ESTABLISHED motive on the part of Doctor Ivins to commit the Amerithrax crimes?
ReplyDeleteRichard Rowley wrote: "Mister Lake: do you think that the Task Force ESTABLISHED motive on the part of Doctor Ivins to commit the Amerithrax crimes?"
ReplyDeleteYes, of course I think they "established" motive. They established MULTIPLE motives. I listed some of them along with the evidence that "established" the motives in my previous post which you can read by clicking HERE.
Ed
For those still interested on the subject matter that began this
ReplyDeletethread (the EBAP and Dr Saathoff), I recommend previous threads here: http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2012/03/mar-25-mar-31-2012-discussions.html
and:
http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2012/03/mar-18-mar-24-2012-discussions.html
Question posed by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete--------------
Comprendo?
-------------------------
No comprendes. But it's no skin off my nose.
Richard Rowley wrote: "No comprendes."
ReplyDeleteClick HERE to go to a Legal Dictionary which explains:
MOTIVE: An idea, belief, or emotion that impels a person to act in accordance with that state of mind.
Motive is usually used in connection with Criminal Law to explain why a person acted or refused to act in a certain way—for example, to support the prosecution's assertion that the accused committed the crime. If a person accused of murder was the beneficiary of a life insurance policy on the deceased, the prosecution might argue that greed was the motive for the killing.
Proof of motive is not required in a criminal prosecution. In determining the guilt of a criminal defendant, courts are generally not concerned with why the defendant committed the alleged crime, but whether the defendant committed the crime. However, a defendant's motive is important in other stages of a criminal case, such as police investigation and sentencing. Law enforcement personnel often consider potential motives in detecting perpetrators. Judges may consider the motives of a convicted defendant at sentencing and either increase a sentence based on avaricious motives or decrease the sentence if the defendant's motives were honorable—for example, if the accused acted in defense of a family member.
In criminal law, motive is distinct from intent. Criminal intent refers to the mental state of mind possessed by a defendant in committing a crime. With few exceptions the prosecution in a criminal case must prove that the defendant intended to commit the illegal act. The prosecution need not prove the defendant's motive. Nevertheless, prosecutors and defense attorneys alike may make an issue of motive in connection with the case.
For example, if a defendant denies commission of the crime, he may produce evidence showing that he had no motive to commit the crime and argue that the lack of motive supports the proposition that he did not commit the crime. By the same token, the prosecution may produce evidence that the defendant did have the motive to commit the crime and argue that the motive supports the proposition that the defendant committed the crime. Proof of motive, without more evidence tying a defendant to the alleged crime, is insufficient to support a conviction.
¿Lo entiendes ahora?
Ed
Richard Rowley,
ReplyDeleteHere's a little story that might help you understand how the law and courts work:
Many years ago, I thought I might have to testify in a trial, so I went to a hearing in the case just to watch the proceedings.
Before they hearing, they held traffic court. I found it absolutely fascinating.
One after another, the ticketed drivers would stand up before the judge and plead their case, like so:
"I had to speed up to pass someone driving slow ahead of me."
"I had to get to a meeting, so I was driving a little fast."
"I had to speed up to make the traffic light a block ahead."
"I had to get home before my son got out of school."
Etc., etc., etc.
Sometimes the judge didn't even let them finish before he rapped his gavel, pronounced them guilty and ordered them to pay the fine.
NONE of the drivers seemed to realize that the judge didn't care about WHY they broke the law. The judge only cared IF they broke the law.
And, NONE of drivers seemed to realize that when they tried to explain WHY they broke the law, they were CONFESSING TO BREAKING THE LAW. And that was all the judge was interested in. As soon as they had confessed, he pronounced them guilty.
Afterward, NONE of the drivers seemed to understand why the judged didn't care about WHY they broke the law.
About the only reason you can have for breaking the law in such a a case is if it's a life-and-death situation. And, none of the drivers had such an excuse.
The only guy I saw get pronounced "not guilty" claimed that there was another car just like his that was speeding, and the cop got the wrong car. The cop wasn't in the courtroom to argue against the driver, so the judge gave the driver the benefit of the doubt.
Ed
Mister Lake, do you know any lawyers? Normally, I don't ask people personal questions on the Internet. Your greatest deficiency here is: you think you know a lot about the law (it's no better than your Spanish) but you don't.
ReplyDelete=====================================================
As to the latest iteration of your VERSION of our disagreement:
No, you still don't understand after all my posts what I've been saying consistently but with slightly different wordings from post to post. I'll try ONE LAST TIME and then give it a rest:
1) Nowhere on this thread (or on any thread here or in any venue)did I say that you need proof of motive* FOR CONVICTION.
(But for some reason, Mister Lake mentally inserts the words/idea "for conviction" every time he reads a post of mine dealing with the question of motive).
2) What I have consistently said is that motive follows the same contours as the rest of the elements in a case: if you assert that the perpetrator was in NJ to mail an anthrax letter, you really need some proof that the guy was in NJ in the pertinent timeframe (and rather more than that (ie a closer proximity to the mailbox)if the perp lives in NJ to begin with!). You (the prosecutor) need to establish/prove what you are asserting.
If you say the perp used a lyophilizer in preparing the powder(s) you have to establish that he had access to such a device, it was in working order(complete with hood!), that this too was in the right timeframe. And that where it was/ended up was compatible with its use for anthrax (ie hot suites).
Motive is like that: any person can ASSERT that another person had motive X. That does not establish motive. How do you establish motive? Not by mindreading, but by referring to prior actions/prior statements of same: in the OJ Simpson murder trial
there was played a 911 call by Nicole Brown-Simpson that was in the middle of a domestic dispute, and I think there was other testimony about prior domestic disputes with Simpson smashing a car window and other inanimate objects. Those things didn't prove he KILLED anyone, but they did tend to prove motive of explosive jealousy, anger etc.(directed moreover at the very primary murder victim). If that (the domestic abuse evidence) wasn't necessary then ANY prosecutor could claim that ANY husband on trial for murder did it from jealousy, anger etc. and these things really need to be proved; otherwise we are convicting people for belonging to generic groups (ie husbands).
*when I wrote "you need proof of motive" it meant "to establish, rather than merely assert motive", it did NOT mean 'to obtain a conviction'. For a number of reasons including the fact that for some crimes the motive remains unknown even AFTER conviction.
-------------------------------------------------
And that's it for me on this motive thing.
Sorry for the delay in responding. I was writing a long comment for my web site about the latest theory from another Anthrax Truther and who he thinks did it.
ReplyDeleteRichard Rowley wrote: "Mister Lake, do you know any lawyers?"
I've exchanged numerous emails and talked on the phone with Tom Connolly, Steven Hatfill's lawyer. Does that count? Years ago, a prisoner in a Michigan state prison tried to sue me for ten million dollars because I wouldn't argue on my web site in favor of some cause of his. I consulted a lawyer about the lawsuit papers the prisoner sent me. Does that count? I've also dealt with lawyers on tax matters and property sales. Does that count?
Richard Rowley also wrote: "Motive is like that: any person can ASSERT that another person had motive X. That does not establish motive."
YES, IT DOES!!!!!
The law is very clear. All the prosecution needs to do to "establish motive" is to present evidence like emails from Ivins that he was upset because his vaccine program might be shut down, and/or cashed checks from Ivins that he made money from prior patents, and/or emails from Ivins that he was angry with comments from Daschle and Leahy. That establishes motive according to the law.
It may not "establish motive" according to your standards, but all you can cite is a case where you feel someone established motive and the guy got off anyway. What does that prove?
Ed
Richard Rowley wrote:" 1) Nowhere on this thread (or on any thread here or in any venue)did I say that you need proof of motive* FOR CONVICTION."
ReplyDeleteAnd nowhere in this thread did I say anything about needing "proof of motive FOR CONVICTION."
You are just creating another false argument so that you can shoot it down.
The statement from the legal dictionary that includes the word "conviction" says: "Proof of motive, without more evidence tying a defendant to the alleged crime, is insufficient to support a conviction."
All that is saying is that, if you can prove or establish motive, that's not enough by itself to convict someone. I don't think anyone in their right might would say it was.
Motive is just ANOTHER ITEM OF EVIDENCE. By itself, it proves nothing.
You seem to argue that evidence isn't evidence unless by itself it proves guilt. But, you'll just argue that you never phrased it that way. Right, you never phrased it that way. You avoid being clear about anything you say.
You wrote: "All you've done there is ASSERT motives. In a courtroom venue you have to PROVE motives."
And how do you prove motives according to your standards? You never explain anything. You seem to suggest that the motives asserted by the prosecution in the OJ case were proved, but HOW was it proved? All they did there is what they would have done in the Ivins case: They would have asserted or established or proved Ivins had motive by presenting evidence showing he had motive.
Cite the law supporting your beliefs. When I cite the law, you just claim it isn't a good citation. When you "cite" the law, your "authority" says the opposite of what you claim.
We're never going to get anywhere that way.
Ed
Richard Rowley,
ReplyDeleteHOW DO YOU PROVE MOTIVE ACCORDING TO YOUR STANDARDS?
Explain. Don't cite things or cases that say the opposite of what you claim.
Ed
Nothing shows how hopelessly lost Mister Lake is in this motive businesss better than the above sentences, written by him today (ie after DAYS of having a chance to bethink himself:
ReplyDelete--------------------------------
Richard Rowley also wrote: "Motive is like that: any person can ASSERT that another person had motive X. That does not establish motive."
YES, IT DOES!!!!!
========================================================
You are equating:
assertion of motive=establishment of motive.
They are not equivalents. Any lawyer, any logician will tell you that.
==========================================================
I gave an example of proving motive from the OJ Simpson murder trial (the 911 call, the other domestic abuse incidents, one of which caused Simpson's arrest ALL directed against the primary murder victim, his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson). Therefore there was more (FAR MORE!) than an assertion of motive in the OJ Simpson murder case, there was proof of multiple prior jealous rages directed at the (primary) murder victim.
There are no analogues to this evidence in the Bruce Ivins/Amerithrax instance. Nothing beyond bald assertion.
That's not "my" standard, that's the typical legal standard. It's a very simple principle: don't merely assert something, show/demonstrate/establish/prove it.
------------------------------------------------------
Naturally, nowhere in Mister Lake's subsequent three (3) posts does he address the Simpson Case and HOW motive was (quasi?)* established.
*I write 'quasi'-established here because Simpson was acquitted and in the post-trial swirl one or more jurors said they thought the domestic abuse evidence/testimony had NOTHING (!!!) to do with whether Simpson killed his ex-wife (and Goldman). Go figure!
I picked the Simpson trial because just about everyone over a certain age is familiar with it, and the proof of motive (jealousy/possessiveness/anger) is established to MOST people's satisfaction.
Evidently one week before the Amerithrax mailing, Ivins received paperwork notifying him that his work was rated 'exceptional':
ReplyDeletehttp://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/09/04/on-september-11-2001-dr-ivins-was-notified-that-his-performance-was-assessed-as-exceptional/
----------------------------------------------------------
That's a good example of (here motive-related) material that was lost or buried by the Task Force/DoJ. And we know why.
Richard Rowley wrote: "Mister Lake, do you know any lawyers?"
ReplyDeleteI've exchanged numerous emails and talked on the phone with Tom Connolly, Steven Hatfill's lawyer. Does that count? Years ago, a prisoner in a Michigan state prison tried to sue me for ten million dollars because I wouldn't argue on my web site in favor of some cause of his. I consulted a lawyer about the lawsuit papers the prisoner sent me. Does that count? I've also dealt with lawyers on tax matters and property sales. Does that count?
==============================================================
I meant: socially, so as to ask him a 'teeny-weeny question' gratis about motive and how it is established. I think this is one of those deals where you wouldn't believe me or anyone else who posts here because of my place in your Lakeian taxonomy: True Believer (or whatever). Ask an outsider: someone not into Amerithrax. And just ask them something along the lines of:
when a prosecutor ESTABLISHES motive, how is that typically done?
Richard Rowley wrote: "Evidently one week before the Amerithrax mailing, Ivins received paperwork notifying him that his work was rated 'exceptional'"
ReplyDeleteYes, but the document also says that, in the U.S. military's way of doing things, "exceptional" is a grade of B and a numerical ranking of 84%. An A ranking is 85% to 100%. So, a B apparently just means "above average."
You suggest this "was lost or buried by the Task Force/DoJ," but you are just once again twisting facts to make them seem like they say something they don't.
Ed
Generally speaking, Bruce Ivins' work WAS above average. It was his lack of concern for following established procedures, his awkwardness, his personality and his mental peculiarities that made him sometimes VERY difficult to work with. That's almost certainly why he was demoted to work for Pat Worsham.
DeleteEd
Richard Rowley wrote: "when a prosecutor ESTABLISHES motive, how is that typically done?"
ReplyDeleteWhy would you believe what some acquaintance of mine says, while you refuse to believe what dictionaries and law books say?
This subject had been explained to you numerous times.
When a prosecutor ESTABLISHES motive, it is typically done by presenting evidence to show motive. In the Ivins case that evidence would be testimony that Ivins was angry at Leahy and Daschle, testimony that Ivins was upset about the fact that his vaccine work was going down the drain, etc., etc. That ESTABLISHES motive.
Ricard Rowley also wrote: "That's not "my" standard, that's the typical legal standard. It's a very simple principle: don't merely assert something, show/demonstrate/establish/prove it."
But, all you do is spin what the was done in the OJ case as if that means something. It doesn't.
The motive in the OJ case may be more easy for you to understand than the motives in Ivins' case, but being easier for you to understand doesn't make it more valid or legal.
All that is needed to "establish motive" in court is to provide a plausible reason for why the defendant committed the crime.
The DOJ provided numerous plausible reasons why Ivins sent the anthrax letters. The fact that you have other beliefs about how motive is "established" doesn't mean that your beliefs are valid. They're NOT valid.
"A motive, in law, especially criminal law, is the cause that moves people to induce a certain action. Motive, in itself, is not an element of any given crime; however, the legal system typically allows motive to be proven in order to make plausible the accused's reasons for committing a crime, at least when those motives may be obscure or hard to identify with.
"Motive" describes the reasons in the accused's background and station in life that are supposed to have induced the crime.
Motive is particularly important in prosecutions for homicide. First, murder is so drastic a crime that most people recoil from the thought of being able to do it; proof of motive explains why the accused did so desperate an act." SOURCE
To establish motive in court, all the prosecution has to do is provide plausible reasons why the defendant committed the crime.
You are obviously once again stuck on words. You think that the word "proof" means something that it doesn't. "Proof" to you seems to mean indisputable evidence which cannot be denied. That's not what it means at all. "Proof" is just evidence which will convince a judge or jury of something.
The jury would want to know why Ivins committed those horrible murders.
The prosecutor would explain that Ivins had a money motive, he had a motive related to his career and life's work, and he had a motive related to his mental problems. That establishes motive. It's PROOF that Ivins had a motive.
OJ Simpson's motives may have been more clear, but Ivins' motives were just as valid for establishing in court that he had a reason to do what he did.
So, I ask you once again:
HOW DO YOU PROVE MOTIVE ACCORDING TO YOUR STANDARDS?
EXPLAIN. Don't cite articles or cases that say the opposite of what you claim.
Ed
You suggest this "was lost or buried by the Task Force/DoJ," but you are just once again twisting facts to make them seem like they say something they don't.
ReplyDelete===========================================================
Okay, Ivins died on July 29th, 2008. It's a little over 4 years later. This document indicates that the investigators/prosecutors (ie the people behind the FINAL REPORT) had a basis for knowing, quite independent of what Ivins said in 2007-8, why he was working extra hours in Sept/Oct 2001. But they wrote their 'narrative' as if they didn't have that knowledge. As if Ivins' presence was unexplained/virtually inexplicable WITHOUT Ivins doing the Amerithrax crimes. Understandable if your ONLY PURPOSE in writing the REPORT is to blame the crimes of Amerithrax on Doctor Ivins, all but inexplicable if you really want to be honest about why he was working the extra hours.
Nor do I assume that's the only paperwork that was suppressed to try to make it look like the Task Force solved the case.
Posted by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete----------------------------
The prosecutor would explain that Ivins had a money motive, he had a motive related to his career and life's work, and he had a motive related to his mental problems. That establishes motive. It's PROOF that Ivins had a motive.
----------------------------------------------
Money motives are generally established by providing financial records (not in the FINAL REPORT), eliciting testimony from creditors/business partners (ditto) and/or providing statements by the defendant that he had financial concerns(ditto) etc. There's nothing of the sort in the FINAL REPORT. (Take a look at pages 38-41)
"Motive related to his mental problems" is just a meaningless construction, a way of saying 'we think he did it cause he's nuts, but we have no idea in what way!'. That's PRECISELY why mere assertion doesn't work in a trial: for motive or for the other elements in a case. If trials allowed THAT as proved motive, law enforcement would devolve into an organized persecution (a persecution for the purpose of prosecution) of the mentally ill.
Back to the statement "he had a motive related to his career and life's work". As already noted, Ivins received an evaluation of 'outstanding' for his work at USAMRIID, and he received it on September 11th, 2001 (ie one week BEFORE the first mailing). He was about 2 years away from receiving the highest award given to civilian employees at USAMRIID. His career was going great guns.
Another Task Force/DoJ assertion unsupported by what we know.
Richard Rowley wrote: "This document indicates that the investigators/prosecutors (ie the people behind the FINAL REPORT) had a basis for knowing, quite independent of what Ivins said in 2007-8, why he was working extra hours in Sept/Oct 2001. But they wrote their 'narrative' as if they didn't have that knowledge."
ReplyDeleteEXPLAIN! That's just your mumbo jumbo beliefs and interpretations. It's a complaint that the DOJ didn't do things the way you FEEL they should have been done to suit YOUR standards.
Ivins had NO VERIFIABLE explanation for why he was working all those extra hours at night. He claimed that he'd just go in to lay around or putter around in order to get away from his wife and his home life.
Richard Rowley also wrote regarding motive: "Another Task Force/DoJ assertion unsupported by what we know."
You're spouting total nonsense. You're arguing that because YOU do not fully understand Ivins' motives, he HAD no motives. That's your problem.
The Summary report says on page 39:
1. Dr. Ivins’s life’s work appeared destined for failure, absent an unexpected event.
Ivins needed to do something to get the anthrax vaccine program back on track. The letters did exactly that.
On page 40, the Summary report says:
2. Dr. Ivins was being subjected to increasing public criticism for his work.
Ivins needed to do something to get more funding for the NEW vaccine because the old vaccine was being criticized by people in the media and politicians.
On page 41, the Summary Report says:
3. Dr. Ivins was feeling abandoned in his personal life.
And on page 47 the Summary Report says,
2. Dr. Ivins’s own statements to investigators showed a man driven by obsessions.
Ivins was mentally ill and driven by obsessions. The facts indicate that he hoped to get Nancy Haigwood to come to work for him if there was some reason for the anthrax vaccine program to get a higher priority. The facts indicate he was also hoping that Mara Linscott might come to work for him again, to help the country out of a crisis - the crisis he created.
Ivins had CLEAR MOTIVES. Some relate to his obsessions, which were part of his mental problems. Those motives may not be the same motives OJ Simpson had or some other killer had, but they were Ivins' motives, and any juror would see that, even if you cannot.
Ed
I think there are two quotes really worth remembering in this thread:
ReplyDelete1. "Proof of motive is not required in a criminal prosecution. In determining the guilt of a criminal defendant, courts are generally not concerned with why the defendant committed the alleged crime, but whether the defendant committed the crime."
2. "Motive, in itself, is not an element of any given crime; however, the legal system typically allows motive to be proven in order to make plausible the accused's reasons for committing a crime, at least when those motives may be obscure or hard to identify with."
Murder trials are not about WHY the defendant killed someone else, they're about WHETHER the defendant did the killing.
The only reason motive is brought up in the trial is to help the jury understand WHY the defendant COULD have committed such a terrible and unthinkable crime.
This is done by presenting evidence showing motive. In Dr. Ivins' case, that evidence would have been testimony and emails showing that Ivins was upset that his first vaccine was being severely criticized and that his new vaccine wasn't getting the support it needed to be perfected. There would also have been testimony and evidence showing that he needed some event to turn his life around and to bring back the women he was obsessed with. And there would have been testimony and emails showing that Ivins was mentally ill, and as a result, his obsessions were driving his thinking and causing him to make decisions that eventually led to the death of five people and injury to 17 others.
There would have been absolutely NO problem whatsoever in showing that Ivins had ample motive to send the anthrax letters.
Ed