Sunday, November 25, 2012

Nov. 25 - Dec. 1, 2012 Discussions

My Sunday comment this week was almost entirely about the new video I created which shows beyond any reasonable doubt that Dr. Bruce Ivins didn't do the handwriting on the anthrax letters and envelopes himself.  He manipulated a child just starting first grade to do the handwriting (everything except the date on the media letter).  Here's the icon you can click on to view the 8 minute 37 second YouTube video:

Starting tomorrow, I'll send emails to all the reporters and media outlets I can think of to tell them about this video and what it says.  I'll send out "press releases," and I'll send out personal emails.

My hope is that some media organization will try to get opinions from "handwriting experts" to see what they have to say about this "new evidence" (which has been on my site since 2002, and which was described in great detail in my 2005 book).  Since, to my knowledge, no "expert" has ever mentioned the key fact that the handwriting on the Brokaw letter has significant differences from the handwriting on the Brokaw envelope, I'm most curious as to what "experts" might say about that and how it relates to the other facts I mention.

The FBI and the Department of Justice didn't seem to be able to find any two "handwriting experts" who agreed on much of anything about the handwriting.  Some of their "experts" seemed to agree that it was the writer's "natural style" of handwriting.  That's why the FBI sent out 150,000 post cards to people in the Trenton area to see if anyone recognized the handwriting.  Some probably agree that the handwriting on the letters and envelopes does not match Dr. Ivins' handwriting examples found elsewhere.  Some "experts" opine that means that Ivins must have disguised his handwriting.  But, as my video says, the facts say the handwriting is not disguised using any of the best known techniques.

The FBI and DOJ didn't use the handwriting on the letters and envelopes as evidence in the case.  It was just too "inconclusive."  But, if their "experts" had looked at all the facts, the evidence probably wouldn't have been so "inconclusive."


No comments:

Post a Comment