Sunday, September 9, 2012

Sept. 9 - Sept. 15, 2012 Discussions

My first comment on Sunday, Sept. 9, was mostly an update on the progress with my book.  I've finished creating the pdf files for the text part of the 6x9 book version, and I'm now about to start working on the Index.  I'll send out more queries to agents, starting tomorrow. 

In my comment, I  also wrote about how "Anonymous" (a.k.a. "DXer") is complaining because I'm deleting his posts to this blog.  He wants to argue about the rabbits Ivins was working with in early October 2001.  It appears that, to "DXer," if Ivins had any work of any kind to do during that period, he MUST have done it at night and on weekends, thus explaining his unexplained long hours working nights and weekends. 

But, records show that there were animal handlers who took care of the menial work involving animals and even checked on the animals.  Autoclaving dead animals would almost certainly be done by animal handlers.  Plus, people don't usually stand around twiddling their thumbs while the autoclave goes through a sterilization cycle.  The machine turns off by itself, so it's more common to put things into the autoclave, turn it on, then go back to your own work, and then to come back to the autoclave later to empty one load and put in another.

There's NOTHING of substance in anything DXer posted to Lew Weinstein's web site.  He just asks questions instead of providing answers.  He posts documents, but the documents don't answer any questions.  They only cause DXer to ask more questions. 

The facts say that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer.  Asking meaningless questions that no one else has the time or interest to answer won't change the facts.  And, besides, when answers are provided to DXer's questions, the answers usually show that asking the question was just a big waste of everyone's time.

My second Sunday comment on my web site was about anthrax hoax letters that someone has been mailing from Syracuse, NY, since 1997.  The letters are very interesting.  Click HERE to go the the Syracuse Post-Standard article about the letters.         

Ed

49 comments:

  1. In one of the posts from "Anonymous" (a.k.a. "DXer") that I deleted this morning, he wrote:

    "You only accept posts that engage you in a "debate."

    You need to avoid the merits which is why you delete any substantive post or linking to the relevant documents.
    "

    Duh. It says at the top of this blog:

    The Purpose of this blog is to allow people to intelligently debate the comments I make on my web site at www.anthraxinvestigation.com.

    That means that if someone tries to post material that doesn't interest me, I may not let it go through - particularly if it isn't anything relevant or meaningful. Such things can be discussed on other blogs.

    Discussing the "merits" of irrelevant materials and beliefs doesn't provide the basis for any kind of "intelligent debate."

    To start a debate about a document, it must FIRST be established that the document contains something worth debating or discussing. Just posting a meaningless document and waiting for someone to say something about it is what is done on Lew Weinstein's web site, not here.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  2. Here are two interesting paragraphs from the Post-Standard's article about the Syracuse hoax letters:

    First,

    "One peculiarity stands out about the letters — many of them contain passages from the writings of H.P. Lovecraft, an American author of horror, fantasy and science fiction, especially the subgenre known as “weird fiction.” He died in 1937."

    Second,

    "The letters don’t name Lovecraft, but many quote passages from his stories, [FBI Special Agent Dan] Capone said. The agent picked up on the connection when he plugged certain sentences or series of words from the letters into Internet searches."

    That will probably upset Mr. Rowley, since Dan Capone doesn't appear to be an authorized and accredited code breaker. Therefore, figuring out the references wouldn't be allowed in court --- according to Mr. Rowley's beliefs. :-)

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  3. An interesting quote from H.P. Lovecraft:

    "I am disillusioned enough to know that no man's opinion on any subject is worth a damn unless backed up with enough genuine information to make him really know what he's talking about." - H. P. Lovecraft (SOURCE)

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  4. "The letters don’t name Lovecraft, but many quote passages from his stories, [FBI Special Agent Dan] Capone said. The agent picked up on the connection when he plugged certain sentences or series of words from the letters into Internet searches."

    That will probably upset Mr. Rowley, since Dan Capone doesn't appear to be an authorized and accredited code breaker. Therefore, figuring out the references wouldn't be allowed in court --- according to Mr. Rowley's beliefs. :-)
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Funny how much Mister Lake misunderstands me. I can only wonder how much of it is intentional.

    There's no "code" alleged in the texts, there are only quotations
    ("passages") from one writer's oeuvre. I doubt that THAT would require a PhD in English literature who had specialized in Lovecraft to testify to same.

    I myself have used Google searches extensively to verify certain information related to Amerithrax and connected crimes.

    However, since I'm guessing that hundreds of thousands have READ Lovecraft, it would be rather difficult to use it as a basis for identifying the writer.

    My guess? The Amerithrax Killer.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Richard Rowley wrote: "My guess? The Amerithrax Killer."

    What do you mean? Are you saying you think your suspect wrote the Syracuse hoax letters, too?

    Richard Rowley also wrote: "However, since I'm guessing that hundreds of thousands have READ Lovecraft, it would be rather difficult to use it as a basis for identifying the writer."

    But, it could be evidence if they found the guy some other way. If he's used H.P. Lovecraft quotes elsewhere, or if they found H.P. Lovecraft books in his home, that would be evidence against him. It wouldn't mean anything by itself, of course, but in combination with other circumstantial evidence (like copies of the teddy bear stationery) it could help make the case.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  6. Richard Rowley wrote: "My guess? The Amerithrax Killer."

    What do you mean? Are you saying you think your suspect wrote the Syracuse hoax letters, too?
    ----------------------------------------------------
    Since I only learned about this series of mailings today, it would be premature (to put it mildly!) to commit myself to such a position. But there are congrueties that jump out at me:

    Especially since, as I've explained in these precincts, MY picture of the Anthrax Killer is:

    1)someone who enjoys (and enjoys a LOT!) sending threatening communications through the mail, even when they DON'T bear toxic substances.

    2)someone who, in distinction to anti-abortion terrorists et alia., doesn't merely target one type of person/organization/facility but has shown a predilection for sending stuff to: schools, news media, politicians, TV personalities etc.

    3)someone who had/has an accomplice in the New York/New Jersey area.

    4)someone who uses geographical misdirection (ie taking a drive before dropping off a mailing).

    5)someone who is good at leaving no standard forensic evidence (fingerprints; DNA etc.)Here in the Syracuse instance that is only IMPLIED, implied by the long time span (15 years) without
    the G-men finding him.

    6)someone who was up to no good BEFORE 1997, but whose anthrax/anthrax hoax/white powder "career" seems to have begun in April of 1997 with the B'nai Brith mailing.

    The 'Syracuse mailings' also began in 1997.
    In addition, there's something about the writing......that I'm saving for a book I hope to write.
    Put it this way: the mailer has the same neurological condition as the Amerithrax Killer. A very rare neurological condition.
    So rare it has no name. But that's all I can say at this point...unless more info is released by authorities.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Richard Rowley wrote: "MY picture of the Anthrax Killer is:"

    You missed a few things. It appears your picture of the Anthrax Killer also includes:

    7) someone who uses different syntax and different handwriting whenever he changes to a new location for mailing his letters.

    8) someone who feigns different motives whenever he changes to a new location for mailing his letters.

    9) someone who is smart enough to know how to keep track of which persona he is using in which city as he moves back and forth across the country.

    10) someone who has no problem traveling thousands of miles to mail letters using persona 1, then more thousands of miles to mail letters using persona 2, then more thousands of miles to mail letters using persona 3, etc., etc.

    According to Occam's razor, however, the simplest explanation is that there are different people mailing these totally different hoax letters.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  8. You missed a few things. It appears your picture of the Anthrax Killer also includes:

    7) someone who uses different syntax and different handwriting whenever he changes to a new location for mailing his letters.
    --------------------------------------------------
    No, I'm not said a word about syntax in any posting, here or at Weinstein's blog or Meryl Nass's blog. I'm big on syntax, but my findings in that area I keep to myself.

    You are right about the handwriting though: he does like to vary it, and he doesn't ALWAYS do it by hand: some of his texts are typed or even computer-generated. He really mixes it up more than a little. It helps cause 'linkage blindness'.
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    8) someone who feigns different motives whenever he changes to a new location for mailing his letters.
    -----------------------------
    This too is true. It amuses him and sends the authorities off on a wild goose chase......looking for Camel Club members or whomever.
    -------------------------------------------------------
    10) someone who has no problem traveling thousands of miles to mail letters using persona 1, then more thousands of miles to mail letters using persona 2, then more thousands of miles to mail letters using persona 3, etc., etc.
    --------------------------------------------------------
    You are missing the fact that he has a distribution network: his "organization", which is composed of at least 3 persons domestically.
    And as I said, one of those, the Amerithrax mailer, lives in the NY/NJ area.

    It would be interesting to get a geographical breakdown of the postmarks, but I doubt the authorities will make that public.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Here's a strange thing in that second news item that Mister Lake linked:
    ------------------------------------------------------
    Our investigative techniques enable us to definitively rule out all innocent parties. If you have information about this case you need not be concerned about causing trouble for someone who is not involved
    -----------------------------------------------------
    Never saw such a disclaimer before on such a thing. Perhaps they think it, the disclaimer, will produce more informants? I can just SEEM an elaboration on that: 'See, in Amerithrax we definitely ruled out Steven Hatfill!'.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Richard Rowley wrote: "It would be interesting to get a geographical breakdown of the postmarks, but I doubt the authorities will make that public."

    You're just not paying attention.

    The Syracuse hoax letters were postmarked in Syracuse.

    The St. Petersburg hoax letters were postmarked in St. Petersburg.

    The Dallas hoax letters were postmarked in Dallas.

    The anthrax letters were postmarked in Trenton.

    The Assaad letter was postmarked in Maryland or DC.

    They usually identify the area where the letters were postmarked. The Assaad letter is an exception, but they vaguely indicate that it was mailed near Ft. Detrick.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  11. Richard Rowley wrote: "Never saw such a disclaimer before on such a thing."

    Neither have I. The emails I'm getting suggest that the FBI probably knows who the guy is, but they don't have the evidence needed to arrest and convict him. As always, the $10,000 reward is for "information leading to the identification, arrest, prosecution, and conviction of the subject of this investigation."

    So, just supplying a name isn't enough. They're looking for something solid.

    I think that may be the case with the Dallas hoax letters, too, since a Google search quickly finds a guy who looks right for it. But proving he did it is something else again.

    One of the comments following the Post-Standard article says,

    "First of all, how come FBI said they got leads and a list of suspects and still asking us for help? This makes no sense. They want a witness. That is why."

    I went back to the article and found this:

    "The agency does have leads, but he would not disclose them. He also wouldn’t say whether there were any suspects. 

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  12. u're just not paying attention.

    The Syracuse hoax letters were postmarked in Syracuse.
    -----------------------------------------------------
    That first article posted by you IMPLIES that, but doesn't say so explicitly.
    ==========================================
    The Dallas hoax letters were postmarked in Dallas.
    --------------------------------------------
    Again, the publicly available information isn't centered on postmarks:
    ---------------------------------------------
    http://www.wfaa.com/news/crime/FBI-offering-reward-to-catch-person-delivering-suspicious-white-powder-151740495.html
    by DEBBIE DENMON

    WFAA

    Posted on May 16, 2012 at 4:51 PM

    Updated Wednesday, May 16 at 5:52 PM

    DALLAS — The FBI and U.S. Postal Service need the public's help in finding the person who has sent more than 380 letters filled with white powder to addresses in 48 states — including Texas — since 2008.

    A reward of up to $150,000 is being offered for any information that leads to an arrest.

    Federal officials are investigating seven white powder incidents across North Texas and a total of 20 across the state.

    The latest incident in the Dallas area occurred last Tuesday when a suspicious letter was sent to a Dallas Head Start school. That followed similar letters with white powder addressed to schools in Irving, Garland and Mesquite and also to a church in Grand Prairie.
    [rest of article deleted except for following sentence]:
    The suspect is thought to be wearing gloves when he mails the letters.

    -----------------------snip-----------------------------------
    The article doesn't discuss postmarks. It certainly implies a high level of attention to the Dallas area.

    Postmarks are one of the things I key on since it's unlikely they would/could be 'faked'.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The Assaad letter was postmarked in Maryland or DC.
    ------------------------------------------------
    I have been unable to verify that. And what I cannot verify I am reluctant to assert.
    Is it likely? I think so. But since there is that distribution network and an effort at misdirection it wouldn't establish that the letter WRITER lived in MD/DC.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Richard Rowley wrote: "The article doesn't discuss postmarks. It certainly implies a high level of attention to the Dallas area."

    DALLAS:

    "The letters are postmarked Dallas,Texas and contain a letter with the words AL AQEDA-FBI or similar language and contain a white powder. They are typically addressed using a computer printed label." SOURCE

    "NBC 5 learned Monday that a letter sent to a gallery in Manhattan was postmarked in Grapevine [a Dallas suburb].

    "If a letter is actually postmarked Grapevine, that would mean it would have to come across the counter," said Amanda McMurrey, of USPIS."
    SOURCE

    SYRACUSE:

    "The FBI and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service are offering a $10,000 reward for information that leads to the conviction of whoever sent the powder in 21 threatening letters from Syracuse since 1997."

    "The mailings from Syracuse never contained anthrax or any other hazardous material, FBI Special Agent Dan Capone said.

    "The letters were sent from Syracuse in 1997, 1999, 2002, 2010, 2011 and this year." SOURCE

    ASSAAD: (My memory was off by a few miles on this one)

    "The anonymous warning, which has intrigued federal agents and amateur sleuths on the Internet for years, was sent from a mailbox in northern Virginia and postmarked Sept. 26, 2001." SOURCE

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  15. I deleted two attempted postings by "Anonymous," because I'm tired of his games of being nasty, then being nice, then being nasty again.

    However, a couple things he wrote in his attempted posts this morning are worth repeating:

    "Anonymous" wrote:

    "For example, consider the spelling of THINX which is a Dallas company that makes analytical cameras."

    The Syracuse writer didn't write "THINX." He wrote "THINK." The vertical line in the K is just slightly bent.

    "THINX" does not fit the text: "DO YOU REALLY THINK THE ATROCITIES AND WAR CRIMES YOU HAVE BEEN COMMITTING IN IRAQ & AFGHANISTAN WOULD GO UNAVENGED?!"

    "Anonymous" also wrote this:

    "I think that H.P. Lovecraft stories in THE WATCHERS OUT OF TIME about haunted houses and the like is well worth closely studying. (Although I would prefer to find a Cliff Notes version). (The eyeball appears before each story)."

    Checking the book on-line HERE, I see there is indeed an eye at the front of each story.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  16. Concerning the Dallas letters: from the first linked story provided by Mister Lake above is this sentence:
    ------------------------------------
    The FBI has declined to discuss whether all the letters are connected, however NBC investigations have revealed some letters and packages contained postmarks from Grapevine and Dallas, TX
    ==========================================
    "Some letters and Packages" suggests that perhaps all of them did not have those postmarks. Or at least it leaves open that possibility. I try to err on the side of caution in all these things. Nor do I assume that any news account is complete/100% accurate since these things are written on the fly.
    The second linked story doesn't try to account for the postmarks of ALL the letters/packages and the link-within-the-link story of the middle school in Connecticut mentions nothing about origin/postmark.

    ReplyDelete
  17. -----------------
    Back to something Mister Lake previously wrote and to which I previously responded:
    ------------
    8) someone who feigns different motives whenever he changes to a new location for mailing his letters.
    -------------------------------------------
    But if you read the descriptions of what the writer says in the 21 'Syracuse letters' you find:
    -----------
    "They include references to AIDS, abortion rights; 9/11 conspiracy theories; religion; the Iraq and Afghanistan wars; war crimes and atrocities; the 1993 Branch Davidian incident in Waco, Texas; the oppression of Muslims; the degradation of women; and home-shopping shows, the FBI said."
    (Above from the linked story on the Syracuse mailings)
    ----------------------------------------------
    I would say "feigned motives" covers that fairly well, and remember, if Mister Lake is right (and I think he is!) those are
    at least 9 or 10 'motives' by the same writer, sending threatening communications from one general location: Syracuse, New York. So he doesn't have to change either (mailing) locations or personas to do that.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Richard Rowley wrote: "Some letters and Packages" suggests that perhaps all of them did not have those postmarks. Or at least it leaves open that possibility. I try to err on the side of caution in all these things."

    You're not erring on the side of caution. You're erring on the side of absurdity.

    What are you trying to argue? That there's a possibility that one or more of the letters wasn't sent from the Dallas area? So what?

    The reason these letters are grouped together as a "case" is BECAUSE THEY ALL CAME FROM THE DALLAS AREA. If one of the letters was postmarked in Cape Town, South Africa, don't you think they'd mention that?

    You're creating baseless, nonsensical arguments just to satisfy your own personal beliefs. You want definitive, indisputable evidence to the contrary, or you're just going to believe what you want to believe.

    What's the point in discussing anything if you're just going to believe what you want to believe?

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  19. Richard Rowley wrote: "I would say "feigned motives" covers that fairly well, and remember, if Mister Lake is right (and I think he is!) those are at least 9 or 10 'motives' by the same writer, sending threatening communications from one general location: Syracuse, New York."

    You are agreeing with yourself, not with me. I tried to show how ridiculous your beliefs are when you argue that one person could be behind all the letters from Dallas, Syracuse, St. Petersburg, Northern Virgina, Princeton, etc., changing persona when going from place to place. "Persona" doesn't just involve motive, it involves writing style, tone, and context.

    Having a bunch of causes like the Syracuse letter writer has doesn't mean he has a bunch of motives. He probably just has ONE motive, but what that motive is is unclear. It seems to have something to do with his distrust of the government and people who support the government. The world doesn't work the way he wants it to work. And, he's bitching about it. That's his motive. The places he attacks are places that don't do things the way he thinks they should be done.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  20. Posted by Mister Lake:
    -------------------
    The reason these letters are grouped together as a "case" is BECAUSE THEY ALL CAME FROM THE DALLAS AREA. If one of the letters was postmarked in Cape Town, South Africa, don't you think they'd mention that?
    ==================================================
    Okay, that SOUNDS logical but.......I try to put myself in the reporters' shoes. How do REPORTERS know stuff to put in their news articles? Mostly by talking to people, in crime reporting especially talking to police. But there are snags: sometimes the most talkative cops aren't the most knowledgeable. Sometimes the cops THEMSELVES haven't made a determination. Sometimes the cops are holding back details to confuse, irritate, provoke (etc.) the perp(s).
    So if a white powder letter came to some person/organization from
    Cape Town (or a similarly exotic locale) I suspect the investigators would be very reluctant to group it with the Dallas letters, no matter the internal similarities. That would be the prudent FIRST STEP. But hopefully not the last step.
    At any rate, the info the typical news consumer is getting is being filtered in at least two ways: by what the authorities decide to make public, AND by what the reporters decide is newsworthy. And sometimes even when info makes it past the 'filters' it's a little bit garbled.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Having a bunch of causes like the Syracuse letter writer has doesn't mean he has a bunch of motives.
    ---------------------------------------
    I would call those "pseudomotives". He simply enjoys the activity and the spectacle and the cat-and-mouse game. Those are his 'motives'.

    ReplyDelete
  22. And a perennial by Mister Lake:
    -------------
    You're creating baseless, nonsensical arguments just to satisfy your own personal beliefs.
    =======================================
    But every time you take a stab at stating what my "beliefs" are, you muck it up. You CONSTANTLY misstate my positions.

    And how could I have a "belief" about the Syracuse mailings when I just learned about them the other day? Learned about them first here and at Lew Weinstein's site. Let me quote (partially) my first and second posts here:
    ---------------------------------
    [end of first post] My guess? The Amerithrax Killer.
    [beginning of second post]
    Richard Rowley wrote: "My guess? The Amerithrax Killer."

    What do you mean? Are you saying you think your suspect wrote the Syracuse hoax letters, too?
    ----------------------------------------------------
    Since I only learned about this series of mailings today, it would be premature (to put it mildly!) to commit myself to such a position. But there are congrueties that jump out at me:[...]
    =====================================================
    A 'guess' is not a belief. But I'll continue to monitor it. And if it is the Amerithrax Killer, it explains a lot.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Richard Rowley wrote: "I try to put myself in the reporters' shoes. How do REPORTERS know stuff to put in their news articles?"

    In this situation, it wasn't a reporter uncovering a story. The FBI went to the media to announce that they were offering a $10,000 reward for information leading to the conviction of the person who had mailed 21 hoax anthrax letters from Syracuse during the past 15 years.

    And the FBI provided Special Agent Dan Capone to answer reporters' questions about what was in the FBI flyer.

    The only other sources for information are past news articles and interviews with people who received the letters.

    So, if the reporter says that the letters were all postmarked in Syracuse, you can be pretty certain they didn't make that up. The information came from Dan Capone.

    Richard Rowley also wrote: ""And how could I have a "belief" about the Syracuse mailings when I just learned about them the other day?"

    You have made it very clear that you believe you know who sent the anthrax letters and that you believe the FBI is wrong in stating that Bruce Ivins did it. You've made it very clear that you believe your fantasy suspect is behind lots of hoax letters, including the St. Petersburg letters, possibly the Dallas hoax letters, and you suggested he might be behind the Syracuse hoax letters, too.

    So, your reasoning goes as follows:

    FACT: The Syracuse letters were postmarked in Syracuse.

    You: The reporters could have gotten that wrong.

    FACT: The FBI told the reporters where the letters were postmarked.

    You: The FBI cannot be trusted.

    FACT: The Dallas letters were postmarked in or around Dallas.

    You: The FBI could be mistaken.

    FACT: The Assaad letter was postmarked in Northern Virginia.

    You: That's too vague. I could mean anywhere.

    FACT: There's a picture of a St. Petersburg letter on-line and it shows a St. Petersburg postmark.

    You: The culprit could have mailed the letter inside another envelope to someone in St. Petersburg so it would be mailed and postmarked in St. Petersburg.

    So, as I wrote, "You're creating baseless, nonsensical arguments just to satisfy your own personal beliefs."

    Richard Rowley also wrote: "I would call those "pseudomotives". He simply enjoys the activity and the spectacle and the cat-and-mouse game. Those are his 'motives'."

    That's another statement saying that you believe your suspect was behind the Syracuse hoax letters. You're twisting the facts to make them fit your beliefs.

    The FACTS say that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer.

    The FACTS say that the writer of the Syracuse hoax letters lives in Syracuse.

    The FACTS say that the writer of the Dallas hoax letters lives in Texas.

    The FACTS say that the writer of the St. Petersburg hoax letters lives in Florida.

    The FACTS say that each of those "cases" has a different perpetrator.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  24. Richard Rowley wrote: "I try to put myself in the reporters' shoes. How do REPORTERS know stuff to put in their news articles?"

    In this situation, it wasn't a reporter uncovering a story. The FBI went to the media to announce that they were offering a $10,000 reward for information leading to the conviction of the person[...]
    ============================================
    But it's STILL up to the reporter in question to decide what's important. AND how to present that in a story. That's just the way
    things are. Only a (faithful) transcript of such a newsconference
    would give a news consumer the details in an unfiltered way.
    ----------------------------------------------
    The FACTS say that the writer of the St. Petersburg hoax letters lives in Florida.
    ----------------------------------------------
    No, it was the SE U.S. accomplice who lived in the Florida area, the Anthrax Killer did not.
    -------------------------------------------
    FACT: There's a picture of a St. Petersburg letter on-line and it shows a St. Petersburg postmark.
    ------------------------------------------
    As I stated in these precincts at least 2 or 3 times, the UNABOMBER had not a single mailed communication/bomb with a Montana postmark, that "fact" doesn't mean that he didn't live in Montana, it means that he was using misdirection to OBSCURE his location.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Thanks for the update of the Syracuse letters!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Richard Rowley wrote: "But it's STILL up to the reporter in question to decide what's important. AND how to present that in a story. That's just the way things are."

    No, that's NOT the way things are. You're probably thinking of columnists, not reporters. Reporters cover the story and write about it, providing the who, what, when and why. Their editors may then decide what is "important" and what is not. If the news editor wants more, he'll tell the reporter to get more. If he wants less, he'll cut what the story doesn't need.

    But, the idea that they'll just make up a story that the letters were postmarked in Syracuse when they weren't, or that a reporter would get such a fact wrong, is just a remote "possibility" you conjure up in order to argue your personal theory.

    The UNABOMBER was an exception, not the rule. And while Ted Kaczynski have mailed his bomb packages from widely separated cities, he did NOT - REPEAT NOT change his writing style or persona. The FBI and ATF saw that the M.O. was always the same. So, you are selecting the facts which fit your theory and ignoring the fact which say your theory is nonsense.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  27. But, the idea that they'll just make up a story that the letters were postmarked in Syracuse when they weren't,[...]
    -------------------------------------------------
    Well the follow-up story you presented today explicitly states that ALL the postmarks were from the Syracuse area, so now there's no dispute. And that's what I was looking for: an explicit statement to that effect.
    ==================================================
    The UNABOMBER was an exception, not the rule.
    -----------------------------------------------
    Look at my entire "oeuvre" on the Internet, Mister Lake, nowhere do I claim that Amerithrax is a "rule". Exceptional cases happen, and when they do, they are particularly hard to solve, precisely because the investigators are primed by the usual cases. The usual M.O.s, the usual psychology.
    ---------------------------------------------------
    And while Ted Kaczynski have mailed his bomb packages from widely separated cities, he did NOT - REPEAT NOT change his writing style or persona.
    ------------------------------------------------
    That's true: the diagnosis given to him, correctly or not, was paranoid schizophrenia. The Amerithrax Killer has something else.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I wrote: "The UNABOMBER was an exception, not the rule."

    And Richard Rowley responded: "Look at my entire "oeuvre" on the Internet, Mister Lake, nowhere do I claim that Amerithrax is a "rule"."

    And no where did I say that Amerithrax case is a "rule."

    The UNABOMBER was a case that is an exception to the "rule" that senders of threatening letters typically send their letters from the general area where they live (give or take 20 miles).

    The Amerithrax case was another exception, because Ivins drove about 200 miles each way to mail the anthrax letters.

    The "rule" applies to the Syracuse case, the Dallas case, the St. Petersburg case and hundreds of other cases where the culprit was identified and caught.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  29. And Richard Rowley responded: "Look at my entire "oeuvre" on the Internet, Mister Lake, nowhere do I claim that Amerithrax is a "rule"."

    And no where did I say that Amerithrax case is a "rule."

    The UNABOMBER was a case that is an exception to the "rule" that senders of threatening letters typically send their letters from the general area where they live (give or take 20 miles).
    -------------------------------------------
    That's why I brought him up! You were responding to ME, remember?
    -----------------------------------------------
    The Amerithrax case was another exception, because Ivins drove about 200 miles each way to mail the anthrax letters.
    -------------------------------------------
    Undocumented. And so was the drying, purifying, letter writing,
    letter xeroxing. And if I've written to that effect once, I've done so 40 or 50 times.
    ------------------------------------------
    The "rule" applies to the Syracuse case, the Dallas case, the St. Petersburg case and hundreds of other cases where the culprit was identified and caught.
    -----------------------------------------
    That's simply your assertion. And I can assure you that in the St Petersburg case you are 100% in error.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Richard Rowley wrote: "if I've written to that effect once, I've done so 40 or 50 times."

    And, I've told you 40 or 50 times that your BELIEFS have no value here. That's why I ignore them.

    I'm only interested in FACTS. And the FACTS say that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer -- beyond any reasonable doubt.

    You've never presented any facts of any kind to support you beliefs. So, why should anyone even pay attention to your beliefs?

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  31. Richard Rowley wrote: "if I've written to that effect once, I've done so 40 or 50 times."

    And, I've told you 40 or 50 times that your BELIEFS have no value here. That's why I ignore them.
    ======================================================
    Fine, then just give us the EVIDENCE that Ivins did any drying in August to October of 2001. (you can't because there is none; if there were such evidence, it would have been in the FINAL REPORT)

    Give us the EVIDENCE that Ivins drove (twice!) to Princeton in September/October 2001 (you can't because there is none; if there were such evidence, it would have been in the FINAL REPORT)

    Give us the EVIDENCE that Ivins wrote/had a child write the texts (you can't because there is none; if there were such evidence, it would have been in the FINAL REPORT)

    Give us the EVIDENCE that Ivins then xeroxed those texts (you can't because there is none; if there were such evidence, it would have been in the FINAL REPORT)

    It is your (and the Task Force's) 'case' against Ivins that is steeped in (false) belief.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Richard Rowley wrote: "Fine, then just give us the EVIDENCE that Ivins did any drying in August to October of 2001. (you can't because there is none; if there were such evidence, it would have been in the FINAL REPORT)"

    You are just demonstrating for the 40th or 50th time that you have no understanding of evidence.

    Ivins had the means, motive and opportunity to dry the spores in his lab. OTHER FACTS show he was the anthrax mailer (connections to the crime scene, access to the "murder weapon,"his unexplained hours at night and on weekends in his lab, his history of plotting crimes, his lack of an alibi, the code in the media letter, his non-denial denials, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.) Therefore, the EVIDENCE says that Ivins dried the spores in his lab, and the EVIDENCE says that Ivins drove to Princeton to mail the letters, because that was necessary to commit the crime that the OTHER EVIDENCE says he committed.

    The EVIDENCE also says that Ivins used a first grader to write the letters and address the envelopes, but the FBI/DOJ did not include that as part of the case.

    The fact that you do not understand evidence and do not care about evidence (except under your terms) is irrelevant.

    The FACTS say that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer beyond any reasonable doubt.

    All you have to challenge that is unbelievable beliefs.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  33. One thing worth noting about the Syracuse mailings is: the number of mailings reported (21) is NOT terribly high when you consider the timeframe during which they have been sent (1997-the present or 15 years). That would be consistent with someone who DOESN'T either live in the area (Central New York State) or have an accomplice available in that immediate area. So, if my Anthrax Killer is the mastermind/writer, he is likely depending on an accomplice somewhat removed from there. The only way to verify THIS however would be to get a better accounting of the DATES of the postmarks. The only clue from one of the articles is this passage:
    -------------------------------------------------------
    The letters were sent from Syracuse in 1997, 1999, 2002, 2010, 2011 and this year. Why so many big gaps? The sender might have been in jail or ill, Capone said.
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Since the NY/NJ accomplice of the Anthrax Killer is his closest (to Syracuse) KNOWN accomplice, it was likely just too much trouble to make that drive on a yearly basis. But that is best determined by seeing whether the mailed items were mailed IN BUNCHES (ie 2 to 6 letters, say, with the same postmark).
    The drive from NYC to Syracuse is about 4 and 1/2 hours. Meaning a 9 hour round trip. So a NY/NJ accomplice would have to have taken the better part of a day driving.

    And if, concurrently, you are sending threatening letters elsewhere, not necessary to getting your pseudo-anthrax 'fix'.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Richard Rowley wrote: "That would be consistent with someone who DOESN'T either live in the area (Central New York State) or have an accomplice available in that immediate area."

    It's interesting how you have these fantasies while ignoring the fact that the FBI has all the information you do not have, therefore they are in a much better position to do an analysis.

    But, you clearly feel that the FBI is incompetent, and that your fantasies are more valid -- even though you clearly have no evidence of any kind to support your beliefs.

    If the FBI makes an arrest in the Syracuse case, will you assume that person is just "an accomplice" to your suspect in the anthrax mailings?

    The news reports seem to indicate that the FBI knows who did it. They just want more and better evidence before making an arrest. That's why they asked for help from the public.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  35. Mister Lake addressing me:
    -----------------------------------
    If the FBI makes an arrest in the Syracuse case, will you assume that person is just "an accomplice" to your suspect in the anthrax mailings?
    -----------------------------------
    No, not unless there is evidence of that.
    Contrary to Mister Lake's picture of me, I'm VERY self-critical (not that good a characteristic in many areas of life, but a boon in certain areas where self-criticism can lead to a rigorous testing of ideas).

    I'm open to being proved wrong. For instance, several years back
    I told my regular correspondents that I thought that the Anthrax Killer was responsible for a series of mailings (pipe bombs, but not fully functional) in the Mid-West. There were a number of reasons I thought that(contents of letters). But an arrest was made; it was an Iowa machinist who, I recently learned was convincted this year: http://www.fbi.gov/chicago/press-releases/2012/iowa-man-convicted-of-mailing-pipe-bombs-and-threatening-letters-to-investment-firms-in-terror-bid-to-raise-stock-prices

    So I admitted to myself and my correspondents that I was wrong.
    Something like that half-happened in August of 2008 when the DoJ said that Ivins did Amerithrax. But the closer I looked, the more bad psychology I saw, the less physical evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Richard Rowley wrote: "I'm open to being proved wrong."

    You've showed no evidence of that here.

    Whenever I try to show you that you are wrong in your beliefs about what constitutes "evidence," you just change the subject. Then, later, you argue your same incorrect beliefs again.

    When I tried to show you that your were wrong in your beliefs about how "motive" is used in court, you just changed the subject again.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  37. Whenever I try to show you that you are wrong in your beliefs about what constitutes "evidence," you just change the subject.
    ------------------------------------------
    Au contraire! I seldom 'change the subject', I merely contest either your 'fact' or the relevance of your 'fact' (19th Century ancestors' domicile location is a fact that has no relevance whatsoever to the guilt of ANY suspect in ANY crime!).

    Or I show that many facts can have more than one interpretation, something you are obviously very uncomfortable with. I am very comfortable with that.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Richard Rowley wrote: "I merely contest either your 'fact' or the relevance of your 'fact'..."

    You contest it, and when you are shown to be wrong, you change the subject. And you are now once again arguing an incorrect belief just as I predicted.

    Ivins' 19th Century ancestors' domicile location is a fact that HAS relevance to the guilt of Bruce Ivins. Your beliefs don't change the law or the facts.

    Ivins' ancestors came from Monmouth, NJ. The postmark on the senate anthrax letters was Monmouth Junction, NJ. Ivins was obsessed with the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority which was founded at Monmouth College in Monmouth, IL. Those are relevant facts which could be presented in court to help establish links between Ivins and the anthrax letters. Your beliefs could never keep that information from being presented in court. It would be up to the jury to decide if the links are meaningful or not.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  39. Richard Rowley wrote: "I merely contest either your 'fact' or the relevance of your 'fact'..."

    You contest it, and when you are shown to be wrong, you change the subject. And you are now once again arguing an incorrect belief just as I predicted.
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    What "incorrect belief"? I literally have no idea what you mean.
    -----------------------------------------------------
    Ivins' 19th Century ancestors' domicile location is a fact that HAS relevance to the guilt of Bruce Ivins.
    ----------------------------------------------
    That's a(n)(perennial) assertion of yours that is NOT advanced by the rest of your post. And it's an assertion which an outsider with a good law background (ie someone you haven't pre-labelled "Truther" "True Believer" etc.) could better set you straight on than I could.

    What YOU are calling 'changing the subject' is really me making my point and moving on. Not going over the same point over and over and over again. Which is what your preference seems to be.
    =======================================================
    But for old times sake I'll try one last time.
    Ivins could have, at one point in his life, LIVED in New Jersey (PERSONALLY, Not via ancestors) and it would have no relevance to Amerithrax beyond establishing his familiarity with the area (Mister Lake and the Task Force think Ivins did the New Jersey mailings WITHOUT that personal familiarity).

    The problem isn't that there's no connection between KKG and the Monmouth place name, the problem is that THAT connection is irrelevant to 1)Ivins himself and 2) the likely reason(s) that a given mailbox/town was chosen. (Said another way, criminals choose mailboxes/post offices for the same reasons that non-criminals do: convenience, broadly speaking)

    (And I've been over the contents of the above 2 paragraphs countless times; moving on is NOT 'changing the subject').

    ReplyDelete
  40. It's interesting how you have these fantasies while ignoring the fact that the FBI has all the information you do not have, therefore they are in a much better position to do an analysis.

    But, you clearly feel that the FBI is incompetent,
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    I agree that it's better to have as much detailed info as possible but I do the best I can with what's available.

    As to the FBI being 'incompetent' that would be harsh language. Obviously they have had great success in a number of ways in the past century. They are best where their procedures and protocols and 'chain of command' make crime-solving mechanical, predictable, routine or routine-ized. Where they have difficulties is: letting go of obviously innocent suspects (Richard Jewell; Steven Hatfill for two obvious examples). That tells me that the organization needs something (well, someONE) to work AGAINST. And such organizations don't encoursge (especially in underlings) imagination and thinking outside the box.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Richard Rowley wrote: "What YOU are calling 'changing the subject' is really me making my point and moving on."

    Yes, you make a bogus claim based upon your beliefs and then you "move on," a.k.a. "change the subject," instead of trying to resolve the issue or dispute by examining facts.

    Richard Rowley also wrote: "The problem isn't that there's no connection between KKG and the Monmouth place name, the problem is that THAT connection is irrelevant to 1)Ivins himself and 2) the likely reason(s) that a given mailbox/town was chosen."

    The connection is VERY relevant. That's why it would have been presented in court. You merely BELIEVE it is not relevant and assume that your beliefs are facts (which they are not).

    Richard Rowley added, "(Said another way, criminals choose mailboxes/post offices for the same reasons that non-criminals do: convenience, broadly speaking)"

    NONSENSE! Criminals (broadly speaking) choose mailboxes that won't lead the police to them (such as mailboxes far from surveillance equipment, mailboxes miles from where they live (regardless of the inconvenience).

    Moving on IS changing the subject.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  42. Richard Rowley wrote: "I agree that it's better to have as much detailed info as possible but I do the best I can with what's available."

    You use what fits your beliefs and ignore or distort anything that doesn't fit your beliefs.

    "And such organizations don't encoursge (especially in underlings) imagination and thinking outside the box."

    That's just another attempt to justify why you ignore the FBI findings. You assume that you are correct and the FBI agents just aren't "thinking outside of the box." In reality, you are working with BELIEFS and the FBI is working with FACTS. Your beliefs are "outside the box" because they have nothing to do with reality. The FBI works in the real world.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  43. "And such organizations don't encoursge (especially in underlings) imagination and thinking outside the box."

    That's just another attempt to justify why you ignore the FBI findings.
    -----------------------------------------------------
    Well, I'm trying to respond to your post. If you hadn't taxed me with finding the FBI "incompetent" I would likely not have given you my evaluation. But think about it: ALL law enforcement agencies are more or less quasi-military in structure (units, commanders, ranks, frequently uniforms etc.) and culture. So they ALL probably have the same general features: a combination of strengths and weaknesses.
    -------------------------------------------------------
    You assume that you are correct and the FBI agents just aren't "thinking outside of the box."
    --------------------------------------------------------
    Well, MY strength is that I DON'T work for the FBI: I don't have a boss to please, don't have a promotion I'm angling for. Don't much care if anyone reading these words thinks "The guy is loco".
    So, for sure I'm thinking outside the box on Amerithrax (because no one on these blogs besides me thinks it's a NON-Muslim domestic terrorist group with a mastermind who gets his jollies from sending threatening missives through the mails and has been doing this on a MASSIVE scale since (at least) 1997).

    Of course, thinking outside the box doesn't make your original thought(s) correct. So I need some bases for checking my ideas. So primarily I look to....forensic linguistics!

    ReplyDelete
  44. Mr. Rowley,

    Since you once again just state what you believe, there's nothing in what you wrote that provides any basis for an intelligent discussion.

    "So I need some bases for checking my ideas. So primarily I look to....forensic linguistics!"

    "Forensic linguistics" isn't likely to provide anything worthwhile about any issue we debate here.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  45. Rowley,

    Since you once again just state what you believe, there's nothing in what you wrote that provides any basis for an intelligent discussion.
    -------------------------------------------------------
    What "believe"?

    I wrote:

    1)law enforcement agencies have quasi-military structures/cultures. Is that a belief? No, of course it isn't. It is a standard observation that I've encountered for DECADES in various places. Since I had relatives in tne NYPD I can aver that that's just the way it was/is.

    2)no one on these blogs claims that a NON-Muslim terrorist group which ALSO does white powder mailings did Amerithrax. Maybe my hypothesis is wrong but it is apparently (on the blogs) my UNIQUE hypothesis. So that's not a belief.

    There's just nothing in my prior post that IS a "belief" and this goes to the heart of your confusion, Mister Lake: according to you all your opponents have are beliefs.

    As the Church Lady used to say, 'How conveeeeeenient!'
    ==========================================================
    "Forensic linguistics" isn't likely to provide anything worthwhile about any issue we debate here.
    --------------------------------------------------------
    True. I don't share that stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Richard Rowley wrote: "What "believe"?"

    So, you've successfully changed the subject (a.k.a. "moved on") once again. Now you argue about words again.

    All you wrote about in your previous post was your beliefs.

    You wrote, "MY strength is that I DON'T work for the FBI

    You BELIEVE that is a "strength," while it appears to be a very severe limitation.

    You wrote, "no one on these blogs besides me thinks it's a NON-Muslim domestic terrorist group with a mastermind who gets his jollies from sending threatening missives through the mails"

    True. You have a BELIEF that no one else seems to think has any logical foundation whatsoever.

    And, lastly, you seemed to say that your BELIEF in "linguistic forensics" provides you with some valuable insight, while your arguments show that all it does is make you argue total unsupported nonsense.

    Try using "linguistic forensics" to see what you are talking about. You talk about beliefs, and yet you claim to be discussing facts when you say you BELIEVE that "ALL law enforcement agencies are more or less quasi-military in structure." The FACTS show no more similarity between the military and the FBI than between the military and the structure of a private company where you have divisions, departments, sections, bosses, supervisors, clerks, and even uniforms in many situations.

    I've been in the military. I've also run a company, and I worked in jobs where I did investigations (analysis IS an investigation and putting together of facts). I've done MASSIVE investigations. I see very little similarity between the military and the FBI. That's just something you BELIEVE.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  47. Thanks for the bit today about the Masonic eye. It was useful for me!

    ReplyDelete
  48. You wrote, "MY strength is that I DON'T work for the FBI
    -------------------------------------------------------------
    What's unusual about THAT? If you think ('believe' in Lakespeak) that you have solved the case and that the Task Force assigned to the case:

    1)blamed (at least) two innocent men, the first for 4 1/2 years (2002-6), the second for 2-3 years (while he was alive)and then drove that second innocent man to suicide in mid 2008

    2) never even understood the ABCs of the crime ie. that it was a group effort, not a mere 'lone wolf' perp; that there were all sorts of connected cases (St Pete hoax letters, subsequent white hoaxes right down to the present day, Town of Quantico letter etc.)

    3)etc.

    then that has to be explained by SOMETHING. And you in effect INVITED me to speculate on that. Invited me by your usual mind-reading (don't call the Psychic Friends Network, Mister Lake, they'll call you!):

    "But, you clearly feel that the FBI is incompetent,[...]
    =====================
    (That's a quotation from Mister Lake just a few posts up)
    This is Mister Lake telling ME what I feel. You'll notice I never play the mind-reading game with you: I never write: 'Mister Lake clearly feels blah, blah, blah,...' I think that Mister Lake can speak for himself, plus I KNOW I'm not psychic.

    So I tried to explain SOME of my reasoning as to why the Task Force blundered so badly, blundered right to the end, all save in the public relations area. But that's just on Amerithrax.
    -------------------------------------------------------------
    Since NUMEROUS observers have said in the past decade that 'group think' and a refusal by analysts (and others) 'to think outside the box' etc. were integral to the failures of FBI/CIA etc. to prevent Sept 11th (along with an inability of the agencies to share info in a timely manner), my opinion here is just a standard trope, not AT ALL original; one would have had to have been in a cave in Afghanistan.....no, check that! in a cave on the moon over the past 10 to 12 years not to have heard/read those criticisms of FBI and other agencies in that regard. And that countless times. From politicians, from blue panel commissions, from ordinary people, from (ex-)FBI members themselves (like Colleen Rowley).
    How likely is it that the failures of Amerithrax have NOTHING to do with the internal culture and command structure of the FBI?
    It seems to me, not likely AT ALL.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Mr. Rowley,

    From my point of view, you've just confirmed that nothing you say can be taken seriously. You have no understanding of logic, facts, or the legal system. You will just continue to argue your beliefs against all reasoning.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete