Sunday, August 5, 2012

Aug. 5 - Aug. 11, 2012 Discussions

The comment I wrote for my web site for Sunday, Aug. 5 was mostly about my continuing search to find a literary agent to help me get a publisher for my new book.  It's very slow going.

Three months ago, on May 9, 2012, I sent out 12 query letters at one time.  7 agents responded with "sorry, but it's not our kind of project" or "we're too busy right now" rejection slips. The other 5 didn't respond at all.   The rejections arrived after 1, 2, 8, 9, 19, 20 and 35 days.  So, there's no real pattern, other than that Thursday and Friday seem to be the most popular days for sending out rejection slips.

I started to add a comment about some total nonsense posted to this blog by "Anonymous" last week in the July 9 - Aug 4 discussion thread.  He posted:
Therefore, handwriting analysis is a tested theory, it has been subject to peer review and publication, there is a known potential rate of error and there are standards controlling the technique's operation, and it enjoys general acceptance within the relevant scientific community.
And the facts are:
No forensic technique has taken more hits than handwriting analysis. In one particularly devastating federal ruling, United States v. Saelee (2001), the court noted that forensic handwriting analysis techniques had seldom been tested, and that what testing had been done "raises serious questions about the reliability of methods currently in use." The experts were frequently wrong--in one test "the true positive accuracy rate of laypersons was the same as that of handwriting examiners; both groups were correct 52 percent of the time."   (Click HERE for the source.)
Instead, I posted the analogy I wrote in response to a post from Richard Rowley, comparing the solving of the Amerithrax case to putting together the pieces of a 500-piece picture puzzle.

I also mentioned in my Sunday comment that I was trying to think of ways to get the voters for the Emmy awards to see what kind of inaccuracies were in the nominated PBS Frontline program "The Anthrax Files."

Ed

49 comments:

  1. If expert testimony is going to send people up the river, it better be more than some mope's prejudices dressed up as science.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One of the Anonymi wrote: "If expert testimony is going to send people up the river, it better be more than some mope's prejudices dressed up as science."

      In the case against Bruce Ivins, the government was not going to present any handwriting evidence. Their position was that the handwriting evidence was inconclusive. Therefore, it wouldn't have been mentioned when the prosecution presented their case.

      If the defense brought up the handwriting during their part of the trial, it's hard to see what they would say. They might have had some "mope" argue that the handwriting did not match Bruce Ivins' handwriting. But, on cross-examination, the prosecution would just ask the "mope" if he was testifying that it was a scientific certainty that Ivins did not disguise his handwriting in some way and write the letters.

      If the "mope" wasn't totally prejudiced, he'd have to admit that it was not a scientific certainty.

      And the prosecution would ask, "So, it's a possibility that Bruce Ivins DID disguise his handwriting and write the anthrax letters?"

      And the "mope" would have to admit it was a possibility.

      Ed

      Delete
    2. Ed speculates about Attorney Kemp would have done rather than ask him or rely on what he has said on the subject. Ed inexplicably has never interviewed Attorney Kemp and instead proceeded directly to BS assumptions.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous wrote: "Ed speculates about Attorney Kemp would have done rather than ask him or rely on what he has said on the subject."

      False. I'm relying on what Kemp has said on the subject and on what he would be allowed to say or present in court.

      There's no reason for me to interview Paul Kemp. His statements to the media and elsewhere have made his position clear: He would have been defending Ivins with every legal angle in the book. His public statements already clearly show he is ignorant of the facts or finds them irrelevant.

      Ed

      Delete
    4. Ed Lake says there is no reason for him to interview Paul Kemp in the book he is writing arguing that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer and that a First Grader wrote the letters.

      Indeed. There isn't.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous,

      I'm glad we agree. My book isn't a book of interviews and people's opinions. It's an analysis of the facts.

      Interviews mostly just get opinions. When I contact someone, I contact them to clarify facts. And Paul Kemp has made it clear that he is largely ignorant of the facts. Click HERE for our previous conversation on this topic.

      It's says,

      "In the videos, Kemp claimed that Ivins delivered one sample to Paul Keim in Arizona and another to the FBI. That's totally preposterous. Kemp claimed that the FBI either broke or threw out their sample, but Keim kept his as a good scientist should. Nonsense."

      And I explain why Kemp's claims are nonsense.

      You just mindlessly argue the same things over and over.

      Are you totally incapable of learning anything?

      Ed

      Delete
    6. Ed, no agent has yet been interested in interested in marketing a book when dozens have interviewed Attorney Kemp and you are the only who hasn't. For you to speculate on what PK's trial strategy would be on the issue of handwriting has no basis.

      By way of example, if he found that there are reports by FBI handwriting analysts showing a strong similarity between the mailed letters and XYZ with means, motive, opportunity etc., he would argue that was exculpatory of Dr. Ivins (using the testimony of a qualified expert).

      Or if there were sound testimony that the letters show that the person had just learned English, he would argue that was exculpatory of Dr. Ivins given that those threatening to use anthrax had just been taught English by KSM. (No one would be addressing your First Grader Theory because there would be no qualified testimony supporting the view).

      Your experiment with the left and right hand was particularly silly given it is a simple matter to write differently using the same hand.

      Rule No. 1 in publishing: Always contact someone before accusing them of murder. If they are deceased or in prison and incommunicado, be sure to contact their lawyer so that the lawyer can correct any errors. If you don't, don't expect to be published. It is a crime to defame the dead in many states. A consummate professional, Mr. Willman conducted extensive interviews, to include Attorney Kemp.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous wrote: "For you to speculate on what PK's trial strategy would be on the issue of handwriting has no basis."

      I don't speculate on "what PK's trial strategy would be." All I did was present a theoretical response to a theoretical argument about handwriting.

      Anonymous also wrote: "Your experiment with the left and right hand was particularly silly given it is a simple matter to write differently using the same hand."

      My experiment was in response to what's written in David Willman's book, where he cites an FBI handwriting expert as suggesting that the handwriting on the letters and envelopes could have been done by Ivins using his "off" hand.

      Also, writing "differently using the same hand" is not as easy as you seem to believe. If you try it, an "expert" can usually tell that you did not write the way you normally write.

      Anonymous wrote: "Rule No. 1 in publishing: Always contact someone before accusing them of murder. If they are deceased or in prison and incommunicado, be sure to contact their lawyer so that the lawyer can correct any errors."

      That's just plain STUPID. The FBI notified Ivins that he was being accused of murder. Did you somehow fail to realize that? They also talked with his lawyer. If it's a crime to defame the dead, why didn't Kemp sue the DOJ? In case you forgot, the key plot point in Agatha Christie's book "Death on the Nile" is that you CANNOT be sued for defaming the dead.

      The fact that I add some additional facts to the FBI and DOJ's case doesn't mean that I'm the one who is accusing Ivins of being the anthrax killer. That was already done by the DOJ four years ago.

      Your beliefs about how books MUST be written are total, ridiculous nonsense.

      Ed

      Delete
    8. On page 175 of Willman's book, he wrote: "The block-lettering printing on the envelopes and in the letters appeared to have been disguised, perhaps by the mailer's use of his off writing hand." He cites interviews with retired FBI document examiner Gerald B. Richards as his authority.

      Delete
    9. Ed, you confuse civil actions and criminal statutes. It is a crime to defame the dead in many states. The statutory citations have previously been provided to you. Now you can reason that the statutes are not enforced and that civilly the family does not have standing to sue you, but a publisher would not want to defame the dead without taking basic steps such as have the would-be author make necessary inquiries. They don't have time to fact-check their authors and so they are counting on you to make necessary inquiries.

      In other words, people who hope to be published should do proper research. In this context, if you would pick up the phone and call Attorney Kemp, he could correct numerous factual misstatements. Any publisher would want you to do so.

      Delete
    10. Anonymous,

      You are being absurd. You are arguing that if I agree with the government's finding that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer, I can be sued for defaming the dead.

      You wrote: "The statutory citations have previously been provided to you."

      Where did you provide anything that says I can be sued for agreeing with the government's findings?

      Your arguments just become more and more preposterous.

      Ed

      Delete
  2. Click HERE to view the source for this statement:

    "Courts do not apply a rigid rule in determining whether a particular witness is qualified to testify as an expert. Instead, an expert's qualifications are normally evaluated on a witness-by-witness basis, according to the facts and issues of each case. Several courts have stated that the true criterion in determining the qualification of expert witnesses is not whether they employ their knowledge and skill professionally or commercially, but whether the jury can receive appreciable help from them on the particular subject in issue. Many courts also require the witness to exhibit sufficient knowledge of the subject matter before his or her opinion to go to the jury.

    The qualifications of an expert witness must be carefully scrutinized by courts to guard against charlatans who may give erroneous testimony without a sound foundation."


    Here's part of a ruling from the Third Circuit Court on the subject of handwriting testimony from "experts",

    "Handwriting experts often give their opinions in terms of probabilities rather than certainties. See, e.g., United States v. Rosario, 118 F.3d 160, 163 (3d Cir. 1997) (considering a handwriting expert's testimony that the defendant "probably" authored a forged check in affirming a forgery conviction); United States v. McGlory, 968 F.2d 309, 346 (3d Cir. 1992) (handwriting testimony is admissible "even if the handwriting expert is not absolutely certain that the handwriting is that of the defendant."); United States v. Galvin, 394 F.2d 228, 229 n.1 (3d Cir. 1968) (handwriting testimony is not rendered inadmissible merely "because it expresses a probability"). Indeed, Jackson testified that rendering "less-than-certain" opinions is an accepted practice in her field.'

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  3. Posted by Mister Lake:
    -----------
    If the defense brought up the handwriting during their part of the trial, it's hard to see what they would say. They might have had some "mope" argue that the handwriting did not match Bruce Ivins' handwriting.
    ==================================================
    Why "mope"? It may be possible to get an absolute amateur in a field to testify, but juries are much more likely to heed the opinion of a professional document examiner. ESPECIALLY when the document examiner has been able to do side by side comparisons (Ivins' printing vs Amerithrax printing). This was NOT done by the (apparent) amateurs cited on pages 89-90 of the FINAL REPORT. I would expect a competent defense to try to put a professional on the stand. Assuming, of course, that the professional saw little likelihood that Ivins printed the Amerithrax letters.
    Even THAT element (a non-match on the printing) could provide reasonable doubt in a lone-wolf scenario, a scenario that the gov't claimed to believe in.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Richard Rowley asked, "Why "mope"?"

    It was a term that "Anonymous" used in the first response in this thread.

    Since the prosecution didn't plan to present any handwriting evidence, it would be ridiculous (and possibly legal suicide) for the defense to try to argue that the handwriting could NOT have been written by Ivins. That would require proving the negative, which is impossible.

    If the prosecution didn't get the defense's "expert" laughed off the stand for trying to argue the impossible, the prosecutors could legally present handwriting evidence that wasn't made available in discovery. And the defense might find that they'd stepped into a bear trap.

    Since the defense opened the door to arguments about handwriting, the prosecution would legally be able to present whatever they had -- even if it was inconclusive - like the testimony you mention from page 89 of the Summary. They could bring those "witnesses" to the stand to testify about what they remember about the writing on packages Ivins had sent many years ago.

    The prosecution could BURY the defense in "testimony evidence" that showed that the "expert" the defense put on the stand was just talking total nonsense.

    In the real world, however, the judge would probably never let the defense make such a stupid mistake as trying to have some "expert" claim that the handwriting could not have been Ivins' handwriting. The judge would know that would require proving the negative. And, the judge would know that the defense was arguing against evidence that the prosecution hadn't mentioned.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Richard, the sentence using mope was a quote from the source cited by Ed. (The article btw was from 2003 before the precedent shifted after an initial setback in 2003 in a district court decision.)

      Ed just doesn't appreciate that in this context he's the mope. (See his argument for years that it was 99% certain based on the FACTS that a First Grader wrote the letters). His 99% argument was the red flag that he was what he calls a True Believer.

      He also doesn't know anything about trials. He writes:

      "Since the defense opened the door to arguments about handwriting, the prosecution would legally be able to present whatever they had -- even if it was inconclusive - like the testimony you mention from page 89 of the Summary. "

      The government's expert, assuming that he had the required training and experience, would be able to testify as to his opinion regardless of any "door" being opened by the defense. The admissibility of his testimony depends on the principles of Daubert as applied to handwriting experts, as those principles are applied by the federal courts in the District of Columbia. See precedent (which Ed has not seen). Indeed, Ed relied on the 2003 article describing a case at the time without citing the numerous court of appeals decisions since applying Daubert. He dismissed as nonsense the oft-repeated quote I took from the court of appeals decisions. Personally, I take the position taken by the NRC report on forensics. GAO too similarly would be quick to emphasize the importance of validation and proven error rate through controlled study. For GAO's part, it is just important that they disclose the FBI's handwriting analyses, to include those of the Al Qaeda operatives and the late Dr. Ivins.

      Ed has not seen any of the government's handwriting expert reports on various suspects and so is not in a position to know how many matches or similarities were found. In fact, there were similarities -- possible matches even.

      It is easy to disguise one's writing, however. Any person can write their printing in 8 different ways. If 10 people did that, and you took the 80 printed messages, an expert would not be able to meaningfully sort them out. See peer reviewed literature. (which Ed has not seen). Printing and cursive writing is a different kettle of fish.

      Ed will never be published because rather than edit his manuscript to comply with basic publishing tenets -- like make necessary inquiries, read the books not the books on the subject etc. -- he just then proceeds on to speaking beyond his training in yet another field. For him to stubbornly think that a publisher won't care that he hasn't done due diligence by calling Dr. Ivins' attorney (like everyone else) doesn't have any consequences for anyone but him. He'll see that as the rejections by agents (who know better) accumulate.

      If he doesn't believe me, he can ask any agent.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous wrote: "It is easy to disguise one's writing, however. Any person can write their printing in 8 different ways. If 10 people did that, and you took the 80 printed messages, an expert would not be able to meaningfully sort them out."

      You are creating nonsense scenarios. The issue is whether Ivins wrote the anthrax letters or not. The FACTS say he didn't. NO expert has proved that he did.

      The issue is not whether "expert" can sort of the handwriting from 10 different people attempting to disguise their handwriting, it's about whether or not Ivins wrote the anthrax letters.

      THE "EXPERTS" DON'T KNOW. That's because the FACTS say that Ivins used a first grader to write the letters, and NONE OF THE EXPERTS ADDRESSED THE FACTS WHICH PROVE THAT HYPOTHESIS.

      Ed

      Delete
  5. Richard Rowley wrote: "Even THAT element (a non-match on the printing) could provide reasonable doubt in a lone-wolf scenario, a scenario that the gov't claimed to believe in."

    No, it couldn't. As stated above, the prosecution would present their own "experts" who could testify that Ivins disguised his handwriting in some way.

    What juror is going to believe that it is impossible to disguise your handwriting? There is no "reasonable doubt" in an idiotic claim that the defendant couldn't have disguised his handwriting. It would be a totally stupid claim.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  6. Partial post by Mister Lake:
    --------
    Since the defense opened the door to arguments about handwriting, the prosecution would legally be able to present whatever they had -- even if it was inconclusive[...]
    -----------------------------------
    But what's the POINT of introducing self-proclaimed "inconclusive" evidence? My observation is that the two sides in a trial situation introduce evidence/testimony for two primary reasons:

    1) To show the defendant(s) guilty/innocent

    2) to rebut evidence of the opposing side showing guilt/innocence..

    Inconclusive 'evidence/testimony' does neither.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Richard Rowley wrote: "But what's the POINT of introducing self-proclaimed "inconclusive" evidence?"

    There is no point ... unless some other evidence will make the first evidence "conclusive."

    That's why the Department of Justice did NOT plan to introduce any handwriting evidence. It was inconclusive. Their "experts" didn't agree with one another.

    Your argument was that the DEFENSE would then bring in some "expert" to argue that it was NOT Ivins' handwriting on the letters and envelopes as part of some kind of screwball plan to introduce "reasonable doubt."

    A trial consists of the prosecution presenting its case proving the defendant is guilty.

    When the prosecution has completed presenting its case, it's the defense attorneys turn to argue that the evidence presented by the prosecution is not conclusive, and that there is reasonable doubt.

    Since the prosecution never argued anything about the handwriting, because it was inconclusive, the defense wouldn't bring it up, because, as you say, inconclusive evidence doesn't prove guilt OR innocence.

    So, based upon what we now know, there would have been no handwriting evidence presented in the trial of Bruce Ivins if he had lived and been put on trial.

    I'm not bound to the rules used in court, however. And that's why my book presents additional facts which show that Ivins manipulated a first grader into doing the writing.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ed is mistaken. No FBI expert thought that it was a match with Dr. Ivins' handwriting.

      Certainly, the FBI should produce the reports by its handwriting experts so they can be publicly disclosed.

      Ed is stupid if he doesn't understand that Paul Kemp was free to use handwriting to point at a party other than Dr. Ivins.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous is just making stuff up. I never said any "FBI expert thought that it was a match with Dr. Ivins' handwriting."

      I never said Kemp couldn't use handwriting to point to some party other than Ivins. That subject was NEVER MENTIONED by anyone. But, since Anonymous has mentioned it, he fails to mention that the prosecution would be free to use REBUTTAL witnesses to discredit any such fantasy testimony from Kemp's witnesses.

      The FBI's reports from it's handwriting experts are INCONCLUSIVE, so they are not part of the case. You may want the FBI to release papers that HAVE NO MEANING to any case, but it's just another one of your fantasies.

      Ed

      Delete
  8. Richard Rowley wrote: "But what's the POINT of introducing self-proclaimed "inconclusive" evidence?"

    There is no point ... unless some other evidence will make the first evidence "conclusive."

    That's why the Department of Justice did NOT plan to introduce any handwriting evidence. It was inconclusive. Their "experts" didn't agree with one another.
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    There's no reference whatsoever in the FINAL REPORT to any experts (using that word or a synonym) in the fields of: questioned document examination; diplomatics; forensic linguistics; graphological analysis or any other field(s) relevant to the printing of the characters of those letters/outer envelopes.

    All that we have in the FINAL REPORT on the comparison of Ivins' writing(printing) with that of the Amerithrax letters/envelopes
    is what I already cited from pages 89 (last paragraph)and 90 ( one sentence continuing and finishing that paragraph).

    In that paragraph there are no 'experts' cited, there are only unnamed "witnesses" (ie acquaintances of Ivins who had received
    one or more mailing from him in the past).Those witnesses were relying on their MEMORIES (were not doing side-by-side comparisons of Ivins sample(s) vs Amerithrax samples).

    Therefore one could surmise that for that reason alone (defense witness who did side-by-side comparisons vs. prosecution witness who did not) the court could/would admit the former and bar the latter. Human memory has an established record, in court and elsewhere of being inaccurate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've tried to explain the difference between graphology and handwriting analysis, Richard.

      All the sources you have ever linked involve graphology and graphologists.

      Such testimony does not meet the standards of Daubert.

      I'll email you folks the post-2003 Court of Appeals cases applying Daubert to handwriting analysis because everything both of you are saying is mistaken.

      We can all agree on a basic proposition. GAO should obtain all handwriting analyses done by the FBI to the extent not exempt from production due to privacy reasons. For example, at a minimum, the GAO should obtain and produce the handwriting analyses done for Ivins, Atta, Jdey and the 911 operatives like Jdey and the hijackers recently taught English by KSM, at the anthrax lab tech's condo and with the blackened leg lesion. All we know so far as Dr. Ivins' handwriting was not a match. And Ed Lake AGREES that Dr. Ivins did not write the letters -- that it is not his handwriting. And so on the handwriting we all agree it is exculpatory of Dr. Ivins.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous wrote: "And so on the handwriting we all agree it is exculpatory of Dr. Ivins."

      NONSENSE. The FACTS says that Ivins used a first grader from his wife's day care center to write the letters, so the handwriting is NOT "exculpatory of Dr. Ivins." It only says he didn't write the letters, it doesn't say anything at all about the evidence that PROVES he made and mailed the anthrax spores.

      Ed

      Delete
  9. A word on the word "mope": I understood(?) anonymous to be using it to describe a NON-professional (ie someone just asked his opinion on whether a given printing---------here a printing from Amerithrax--------SEEMED to resemble what that person ("witness") REMEMBERED about Ivins' printing).

    Mister Lake then seems to appropriate the word and to apply it to (putative) defense EXPERTS in one of the relevant fields (questioned document examination etc,). While this may seem even-handed to Mister Lake, it is anything but: like comparing Dr Henry Lee's testimony on blood spatter to that of a technician at a local blood bank.

    ReplyDelete
  10. What juror is going to believe that it is impossible to disguise your handwriting?
    ----------------------------------------------------
    None, but if that's the standard, then such questioned document examiners would NEVER be used as witnesses in court. And I believe they are.
    Back to Mister Lake:
    -----------------------

    There is no "reasonable doubt" in an idiotic claim that the defendant couldn't have disguised his handwriting.
    ------------------------------------------
    No one's claiming that the person 'couldn't' have disguised his handwriting. The question is (has always been):what other proof is there that other subtasks were done by the defendant?
    Proof of anthrax drying and/or purifying in August-October of 2001? No, no proof. Proof of two trips taken to New Jersey one in September of 2001, the other in the first half of October? No, no proof.

    There's just no proof that the texts were CONCEPTUALLY conceived by Ivins, or printed by Ivins, or photocopied by Ivins etc.
    There's a black hole where there should be evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I just clicked on the link that Mister Lake gave us about expert testimony: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Expert+Testimony
    Notice what he left out (first sentence):
    --------------------------------------------------
    Testimony about a scientific, technical, or professional issue given by a person qualified to testify because of familiarity with the subject or special training in the field.
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    It is in the context of THAT OPENING SENTENCE that the rest of what Mister Lake posted must be evaluated. I take it to mean that:

    1) only experts in ballistics may testify about ballistic tests

    2) only experts in blood may testify about blood tests

    3) only experts in DNA may testify about DNA

    Etc.
    Given that context, I find it improbable that non-experts would qualify to opine on Ivins' handwriting and its similarity to printing on Amerithrax letters/envelopes.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Richard Rowley,

    Your arguments are mostly just gibberish. They are made-up disputes over the meanings of words and nonsense arguments where you try to twist the facts to make them seem like you have some kind of argument. You argue about the way you think things SHOULD be done, and ignore how they are ACTUALLY done.

    You wrote: "Therefore one could surmise that for that reason alone (defense witness who did side-by-side comparisons vs. prosecution witness who did not) the court could/would admit the former and bar the latter. Human memory has an established record, in court and elsewhere of being inaccurate."

    Wha..? You're assuming that a judge would bar testimony from eyewitnesses who received packages from Ivins that had "child like" writing on them? You're assuming that the defense would be allowed to produce experts who would show side-by-side comparisons of Ivins' handwriting and the writing on the letters and argue that they are not alike without any cross-examination by the prosecution? On what planet would this trial take place?

    You also wrote: "A word on the word "mope" which is just a silly argument over a word that I used in a way that you disapprove of.

    You wrote: "Proof of anthrax drying and/or purifying in August-October of 2001? No, no proof."

    The prosecution would have produced scientists who could testify that Ivins had the capability to dry and purify anthrax powders and could easily have done it in several different ways. That is called MEANS, which is all that is needed in court. The prosecution does NOT have to state exactly which method the culprit used.

    You wrote: "Proof of two trips taken to New Jersey one in September of 2001, the other in the first half of October? No, no proof."

    The proof is in the form of NO ALIBI. That's all that is needed in court.

    You wrote: "There's just no proof that the texts were CONCEPTUALLY conceived by Ivins, or printed by Ivins, or photocopied by Ivins etc."

    The prosecution would have PROVED in court that Ivins had means, motive and opportunity, AND that he lied to investigators, he destroyed evidence, he tried to mislead the investigation, he intimidated witnesses, he used terms similar to what was in the letters, he seemed to know about the letters before anyone else did, and he was in charge of the murder weapon. That PROVES the texts of the letters "were CONCEPTUALLY conceived by Ivins," because it is proof that he did the crime.

    You wrote: "I find it improbable that non-experts would qualify to opine on Ivins' handwriting and its similarity to printing on Amerithrax letters/envelopes."

    You're distorting the facts. The witnesses who say they received packages with handwriting on them that seemed like the handwriting on the letters would NOT be giving "expert testimony. They would be giving EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY. They would be testifying as to what they SAW.

    You do not have to be an accredited "expert" in stop lights to testify that a light was red when a car didn't stop for it.

    The defense can cross-examine the witnesses and question how reliable their memories are after so many years, but they cannot PREVENT eyewitness testimony.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  13. Typical of Ed Lake's reasoning. Bruce Ivins could not prove he was asleep on a particular night 7 years earlier. Therefore he must have have been the anthrax mailer.

    Bruce Ivins could not prove he did not write the letters (or have someone else do it for him). Therefore he must have been the anthrax mailer.

    Ha!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous wrote: "Typical of Ed Lake's reasoning. Bruce Ivins could not prove he was asleep on a particular night 7 years earlier. Therefore he must have have been the anthrax mailer."

      You are distorting arguments because your own arguments are nonsense. Ivins' lack of an alibi is just one part of the Department of Justice's case against Bruce Ivins. You cannot find any evidence that the government's case is invalid, so you try to make it seem like it's MY case. That's just plain silly.

      Ed

      Delete
  14. By all means, the DOJ attorneys "Ivins Theory" is publishable. A book by Ken or Rachel or any of the investigators would be fascinating.

    Besides, given the AUSA's beauty and intelligence, she would make a great interview subject and very appealing author.

    It's your First Grader theory that is not publishable.

    Here is how an interview with Ed Lake would go.

    Q:

    "Attorney Kemp says you got basic facts wrong and that if you had called him, he could have helped you avoid the mistakes. Why didn't you conduct the most basic interviews?"

    A: "I knew in my heart I was right and that I would have uncovered any errors by reading newspaper quotes by him. I have known a First Grader wrote the letters in December 2001 since I first saw an internet poster suggest that the block writing looked like a child might write. I said, by God, it is 99% certain that it is correct. Because only First Graders would have chosen to write smaller in the next batch when they had more to fit. Adults would not have chosen to do that. Only a First Grader in his first weeks of school. I approached some First Grader teachers but they did not want to cooperate with me."

    Q:

    "You did not read central books in the field and that you cite and dispute. Why didn't you read them? For example, why didn't you read Laurie Garrett's book?"

    A:
    "I read an interview of her on the internet and I think if there was anything worth noting in her book, she would have mentioned it in the interview."

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous wrote: "It's your First Grader theory that is not publishable."

    An agent who read the book commented, "Fascinating and I think you are the person to write this book. Clearly the authority on the subject." However, she found the book was much too long. And she didn't think there was a market at this time for a book about the anthrax attacks.

    So, the FACTS say you are WRONG as usual. You are making up arguments about a subject in which you are totally ignorant.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous wrote (going back a ways):
    ----------------
    All we know so far as Dr. Ivins' handwriting was not a match. And Ed Lake AGREES that Dr. Ivins did not write the letters -- that it is not his handwriting. And so on the handwriting we all agree it is exculpatory of Dr. Ivins.
    ======================================================
    Yes, I agree 100%. Mister Lake wants to take a little bit from column A (the actual 'case' the DoJ made in its final document, which claimed nothing about child printers) and a little bit from column B (the Ed Lake School of Supplementary Theorizing).

    Unfortunately, in a real trial environment this would not be possible: there you have to mean what you say WHEN you say 'Bruce Ivins, acting alone, committed all the tasks and subtasks of Amerithrax'.

    In THAT context, the handwriting is indeed exculpatory.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Richard Rowley wrote: "Unfortunately, in a real trial environment this would not be possible" AND "In THAT context, the handwriting is indeed exculpatory."

      Total NONSENSE.

      First, the DOJ made it clear that the handwriting evidence was inconclusive, so they weren't going to use it to make their case. They didn't need it. They had plenty to convict Ivins without any handwriting evidence.

      Second, my hypothesis is NOT exculpatory. It just fills in the blanks and explains why the "experts" couldn't agree. It doesn't contradict anything in the FBI's case. The handwriting information on page 89 of the Summary doesn't say that Ivins wrote what was on those packages he sent to his friends. It just says that handwriting looked similar to what was on the letters and envelopes. In theory, he could have used a child to address those packages, too (although I do NOT suggest that in my hypothesis).

      Ed

      Delete
  17. Fact: You have not read the books you cite in your query letter.

    Fact: You have not even interviewed Dr. Ivins' attorney.

    Fact: You think only a First Grader would choose to write smaller (thus permitting more to fit).

    Fact: You refuse to read the books you cite, interview people you should interview, or adjust your substance to square with common sense.

    On whether there is an agent who is willing to sign on without you taking such basic steps to increase the prospects of publication, be sure to keep us updated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous wrote: "Fact: You think only a First Grader would choose to write smaller (thus permitting more to fit)."

      Nonsense. The FACTS say that the child wrote smaller because he was taught in the first weeks of first grade (which was happening at the time of the mailings) to write smaller. Your fantasy that some adult just happened to decide to write smaller, add punctuation and start drawing certain characters of the alphabet correctly on the second letter is not only pure baseless fantasy, it is also absurd conjecture without fact or foundation.

      Ed

      Delete
  18. Posted by Mister Lake a ways back:
    -------------------
    You're assuming that a judge would bar testimony from eyewitnesses who received packages from Ivins that had "child like" writing on them?
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    You are using the word "eyewitnesses" in a very peculiar manner.
    Usually 'eyewitnesses' are those who witnessed a crime or the aftermath of a crime (ie someone running away from a crime scene, driving away etc.)Occasionally, those who saw a suspect immediately BEFORE the crime. That's not what's being referenced here.

    From Mister Lake's usage of "eyewitness" we would have to say that he was an 'eyewitness' to the handwriting (printing) of literally thousands of persons over his lifetime (all the way back to first grade). Okay. Let's go with that definition: is it likely that Mister Lake has a SOLID memory of the handwriting of all the persons whose handwriting he ever witnessed? No, not unless he's one of those memory savants.
    Back to Mister Lake:
    -------------
    You're assuming that the defense would be allowed to produce experts who would show side-by-side comparisons of Ivins' handwriting and the writing on the letters and argue that they are not alike without any cross-examination by the prosecution?
    -----------------------------------------
    Delete the "without any cross-examination by the prosecution" part and yes, that's what I think would have happened in a trial of Bruce Ivins. Why? Because you, I, and anonymous (and I THINK everyone who has examined this and reported on blogs etc.) agree that the match to Ivins' printing is poor. So I'm only assuming that a professional would agree with (at least!) the three of us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Richard Rowley wrote: "You are using the word "eyewitnesses" in a very peculiar manner.

      According to Wikipedia, there are FOUR types of witnesses that can testify in court:

      A percipient witness or eyewitness is one who testifies what they perceived through his or her senses (e.g. seeing, hearing, smelling, touching). That perception might be either with the unaided human sense or with the aid of an instrument, e.g., microscope or stethoscope, or by other scientific means, e.g.,a chemical reagent which changes color in the presence of a particular substance.

      A hearsay witness is one who testifies what someone else said or wrote. In most court proceedings there are many limitations on when hearsay evidence is admissible. Such limitations do not apply to grand jury investigations, many administrative proceedings, and may not apply to declarations used in support of an arrest or search warrant. Also some types of statements are not deemed to be hearsay and are not subject to such limitations.

      An expert witness is one who allegedly has specialized knowledge relevant to the matter of interest, which knowledge purportedly helps to either make sense of other evidence, including other testimony, documentary evidence or physical evidence (e.g., a fingerprint). An expert witness may or may not also be a percipient witness, as in a doctor or may or may not have treated the victim of an accident or crime.

      A reputation witness is one who testifies about the reputation of a person or business entity, when reputation is material to the dispute at issue.

      I was referring to the "eyewitnesses" who saw with their own eyes the handwriting on packages they received and could testify that it looked like the handwriting on the anthrax letters and envelopes.

      Ed

      Delete
  19. Ed,

    Your First Grader Theory is that Paul Kemp's client, Diane Ivins, ran a day care cent (that at the time would have been unlicensed) in connection with which she allowed a First Grader to be involved in the murder of a number of individuals. A publisher's legal counsel will want to make sure that you took the basic precautions in avoiding a suit for libel -- such as contacting the person or her counsel to ask if you have your facts right. (By way of example, Nicholas K., the NYT columnist, did not call Hatfill and that put him behind the eightball in terms of the libel precedent. Don Foster did also. By contacting Attorney Kemp, you give the publisher some comfort they won't be sued for libel by Mrs. Ivins. You always give the party an opportunity to point out things that are not correct. Failing to do that makes your First Grader theory unpublishable because you've made fundamental errors relating to factual matters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous,

      Why do you think that Laurie Garrett's book was self-published? Why couldn't she find a publisher? She must have already had an agent. Why couldn't her agent find a publisher?

      By your criteria, her book must be wildly inaccurate and total nonsense. She is a Pulitzer Prize winner, yet she couldn't get a publisher to publish her book which suggested that al Qaeda was behind the attacks. Why not? Did she fail to check her facts? Did she fail to call Paul Kemp? Did she fail to call you? Or was the book just not worth publishing because she didn't have any believable evidence to support her ridiculous conjecture that al Qaeda was behind the anthrax attacks?

      I present the facts that a child wrote the letters. There's no reason for an agent OR publisher to disbelieve the facts. You disbelieve the facts because you have beliefs which you think override all the facts. Presumably, an agent or publisher would start with an open mind - NOT a closed mind like yours.

      In my book, I cite David Willman as the source for saying that Diane Ivins ran a day care center in her home. And the FACTS say that a child wrote the letters.

      Typically, before ANY publisher publishes ANY book they have a lawyer go through it to see if there's anything to be concerned about in it. The contract with the author is written by a lawyer. Publishers have lawyers on retainer to take care of all legal matters. They won't find anything to be concerned about in my book. Your fantasies aren't in my book.

      Ed

      Delete
  20. Anonymous wrote: "Your First Grader Theory is that Paul Kemp's client, Diane Ivins, ran a day care cent (that at the time would have been unlicensed) in connection with which she allowed a First Grader to be involved in the murder of a number of individuals."

    Only in the same way she "allowed" her husband to murder those five individuals. The FACTS say that Diane Ivins was totally unaware of what her husband was doing. That applies to both the murder of five innocent people and to the using of a child in her care to write the letters and address the envelopes. Ivins stated in ON THE RECORD interviews with the FBI that his wife was totally unaware of his activities. So, the suggestion that she "allowed" Ivins to commit illegal acts is an attack on her from YOU, not from me.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  21. Ed Lake says that Diane Ivins was totally unaware of what Bruce Ivins was doing with a First Grader that Ed Lake says was in her care. And yet he has no factual basis for making the claim and refuses to contact Diane's counsel so that counsel can set him straight.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Specifically, Ed has no factual basis for claiming that Bruce Ivins did anything whatsoever with any First Grader in her care. He reports that he is relying on newspaper accounts rather than interviews.

    Unless you drop your First Grader argument, your book stands no chance of being published, Ed.

    ReplyDelete
  23. FACT: There were no First Graders in the day care.

    Day care is provided to pre-school children.

    First graders are either in school or homeschooled.

    Ed would have known this if he had made the most basic inquiry.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Ed Lake lacks basic reasoning ability.

    He writes:

    "A Child WroteThe Anthrax Letters
    by
    Ed Lake
    (January 11, 2009)
    (Last revised May 18, 2011)

    Facts are facts, whether they are believed or not.

    In the Amerithrax case, the preponderance of facts show very clearly that a child almost certainly wrote the anthrax letters and addressed the envelopes. "


    Ed Lake reasons, for example, that a key fact is that the first batch of letters (to the media) were twice as big. He says kids in the first week of First Grade learn to write smaller. Therefore, a First Grader wrote the letters.

    Yet, he doesn't recognize that the first batch of letters had 15 words. The second batch had 24 words. Thus, assuming that copies were made just at 100% (with no enlargement or reduction) then it would be natural to write about half as big to fit twice the text.

    It is a simple matter to know whether copies were enlarged or reduced based on measurement of the pixels upon 200X or 400X enlargement.

    The reason not a single person agrees with his "First Grader wrote the letters" is that it is brain-dead dumb. He obviously has never supervised a child writing thank you notes to see the result even when an address is provided.

    But his lack of reasoning ability is matched only by his lack of compliance to basic journalistic or publishing standards relating to making necessary inquiries. If he had made even the most basic inquiry, he would have realized that there were no First Graders at the location. Daycare involves pre-school children.

    It's time for another essay about hyphenation, Ed. Then send out 25 more agent letters and duly report whether their response.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anonymous wrote: "he has no factual basis for making the claim and refuses to contact Diane's counsel so that counsel can set him straight."

    And, "Unless you drop your First Grader argument, your book stands no chance of being published, Ed."

    Your posts have always been pathological, but now they are becoming repetitious, menacing and somewhat threatening.

    After today, I'm going to be deleting all of your posts. There's no point to trying to show you that your arguments are nonsense, since you just distort the facts, change the subject and post more nonsense.

    For example, Anonymous wrote: "Yet, he doesn't recognize that the first batch of letters had 15 words. The second batch had 24 words. Thus, assuming that copies were made just at 100% (with no enlargement or reduction) then it would be natural to write about half as big to fit twice the text."

    On my web site for TEN YEARS I have displayed very large copies of the letters and envelopes with rulers beside them. The writing on the senate letters is roughly half the size of writing on the media letter even though three of the sentences consist of the same words and there are large empty spaces below the text and to the right of the text. There is no question of running out of room. PLUS, the writing on the senate envelopes is ALSO roughly half the size of the writing on the media envelopes.

    You don't even bother to look at the facts. You just make things up to create nonsense arguments. There is no point in discussing anything with you. You repeatedly demonstrate that you are incapable of participating in any kind of intelligent discussion.

    After today, I will be deleting all of your posts.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  26. Ed has not read ANY of the peer-reviewed literature about ESL students and their printing.

    FACT: Ed Lake has not been to a library in the past 12 years.

    Defense rests.

    ReplyDelete
  27. The first letter had 5 lines.

    The second letter had 7 lines.

    Any adult would write smaller to fit more lines onto the page.

    To conclude that a First Grader nearly certainly wrote the letters is specious.

    You need to delete this post because you understand that it destroys your argument and so you cannot deal with the facts.

    No one has bothered to address the issue on the merits before because on its face it was a foolish suggestion.

    ReplyDelete
  28. In his final posting to this blog last night, Anonymous wrote: "Any adult would write smaller to fit more lines onto the page.:

    So, in your fantasy world, when writing on a sheet of 8-1/2 x 11 paper, adults typically compute how many words are going to be in the note, and they adjust the size of their handwriting accordingly? And they do this even if there's enough room to write three or four times as much on the page?

    That is about the dumbest BELIEF you have ever posted anywhere. And that makes it appropriate for your last post here.

    I deleted the post you attempted this morning. It was past the deadline. And, it didn't say anything other than that you disapprove of what I read and don't read.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete