Sunday, December 9, 2012

Dec. 9 - Dec. 15, 2012 Discussions

Sunday, December 9, 2012 is an eventful day for me.  There's certainly a lot to write about.

First, my local newspaper, The Racine Journal-Times, printed an article about me and my book.  Click HERE to read it.

Secondly, I finished converting the print version of my book "A Crime Unlike Any Other: What the Facts Say About Dr. Bruce Edwards Ivins and the Anthrax Attacks of 2001" into a Kindle version.  It's now for sale on  Just click HERE.

The Racine Journal Times' article is followed by three comments from readers.  The first person commenting, "FOR5DOLLAR," wrote:

"This is hilarious, this is the same Ed Lake that thrives on lies, innuendo, unfounded accusations, in a fairy tale form. I would not buy this book for any reason. Ed Lake does not have a clue as to who sent the anthrax in 2001, it was not Bruce Ivins. "The scientific road to nowhere" that is where Ed Lake has been, driving his psychotic dream of becoming a writer only to find himself sitting on a pile of scrap paper."

"FOR5DOLLAR" then posted another comment just telling people not to buy the book.

Then "BigRed" wrote a comment that says,

"If someone is going to commit a serious crime, the perp (who Mr. Lake urges was Dr. Ivins) has no reason to involve a young child who could tell the secret. Mr. Lake should have checked his facts. There in fact was no first grader in Dr. Ivins' home as Ed imagined."

In reality, of course, the facts say that Ivins used a child to write the anthrax letters.  Here's a video where I list 12 facts which appear to prove that the letters were written by a first grader:

If it's a "fact" that there "was no first grader in Dr. Ivins' home," then the facts say Ivins found a first grader somewhere else.  The handwriting facts remain the same.  And they say a child wrote the letters.

However, when "BigRed" claims it's a "fact" that there was "no first grader in Dr. Ivins' home," he's saying he doesn't have any evidence of it.  He asked people, and they said no.  And, he believes what he was told -- because he has a theory of his own.  He evidently believes a Muslim terrorist who couldn't write English very well wrote the letters and addressed the envelopes, and, by pure happenstance, the terrorist's handwriting went through the exact same changes as a child's handwriting would be going through in August, September and October of 2001 as he begins the first weeks and months of first grade.

Saying you don't believe a child wrote the letter or that others don't believe it doesn't change the facts.  The only way anyone can prove that a child did NOT write the letters is to provide more and better facts which conclusively and undeniably show that it was done by someone else, facts which also fully explain why it appears to be a child's handwriting.  

All I've seen are arguments that people don't believe it.  Claims that there was no child in Ivins' home at that time do not change the factsClaims that Ivins could have written the letters himself and tried to make them look like they were written by a child just starting first grade doesn't change the factsClaims that if Ivins wrote using his "wrong hand," the results could look just like what's on the letters doesn't change the factsClaims that a Muslim terrorist would write just like a child just starting first grade at that point in time doesn't change the facts

Until more and better undeniable facts can be found that solidly prove otherwise, the facts say that a child just starting first grade wrote the anthrax letters



  1. Ed writes:

    "He evidently believes" a Muslim terrorist who was just learning English...

    Ed failed to correct his page even though I pointed out that is not anything I have ever argued that the letter writer had just learned English. I have never suggested that the letters were written by someone who was just learning to write English. Ed regularly mischaracterizes arguments and then does not make corrections. What I have pointed out that if one accepts his premise -- HIS premise -- that the writer had just learned to write English, then his conclusion is not the logical conclusion. The logical conclusion would be that the writer had himself just learned to write English. See Occam's Razor. Instead, I have, for example, argued that the FBI should produce its handwriting analysis comparing Ivins' handwriting and the anthrax letters. When Ed uses the word "evidently" that is a red flag that he has no factual support for what follows.

  2. "Anonymous" wrote: "The logical conclusion would be that the writer had himself just learned to write English. See Occam's Razor."

    If the facts say that a child just starting first grade wrote the letters - as the facts do - then Occam's Razor says that is the best explanation.

    To argue that it was an adult who was just learning to write in English it to argue AGAINST the facts. It is arguing AGAINST Occam's Razor.

    Long ago, I learned to read, write and speak Japanese. Since I was already an adult, I didn't have to learn all the things that a child has to learn. I didn't have to learn to write smaller than kids write in kindergarten. I didn't have to learn punctuation as a separate task. I didn't have to develop hand-eye coordination.

    When an adult learns to write in a new language, even one as different from his own language as Japanese is from English, THERE ARE NO CHILD-LIKE CHARACTERISTICS in the writing. It's the writing of an ADULT who already knows about writing in the right size and about using punctuation.

    My Japanese handwriting may not have been smooth and flowing, but it was NOT a child's handwriting and didn't look anything like a child's handwriting.

    Therefore, if the facts say that the handwriting is that of a child just starting first grade, any argument that an adult just learning to write in English would write like a child is TOTAL NONSENSE.


    1. I wrote: "...any argument that an adult just learning to write in English would write like a child is TOTAL NONSENSE."

      I forgot about the movie "Charly." In it, Cliff Robertson played an adult who had the mental development of a 6-year-old. He wrote like a 6-year-old.

      So, I suppose "Anonymous" could argue that the letters could have been written by an adult with the mental development of a 6-year-old.

      And, I suppose he could also argue that that also fits "Occam's Razor" better than that a child wrote the letters.

      I appears to be very easy for people to fantasize about alternatives to what the facts say, rather than acknowledging and understanding what the facts actually say.


  3. "Anonymous" also wrote: "I have, for example, argued that the FBI should produce its handwriting analysis comparing Ivins' handwriting and the anthrax letters."

    The handwriting on the letters does NOT match Ivins' handwriting. It doesn't take a "handwriting expert" to see that. Anyone can see it.

    The FBI's "handwriting experts" cannot agree on the handwriting. It appears that no two have the same opinion. That's why the handwriting is not part of the FBI's case: the handwriting analysis was inconclusive.

    What is needed is to have some professional forensic handwriting experts look at the FACTS as I presented them in my video and to give their opinions. NO professional "handwriting expert" has addressed all the facts I present in the video at

    It appears that the "handwriting experts" never compared the way characters were drawn in the Brokaw letter versus the Brokaw envelope. And, if they even noticed the difference in the size of the handwriting between the September and October letters, I've never seen anyone of them mentioned it - much less explain it.


  4. "The handwriting on the letters does NOT match Ivins' handwriting. It doesn't take a "handwriting expert" to see that. Anyone can see it."

    Well said, Ed. Thank you for drawing attention to the fact. Keep it up.

  5. This morning I found an article from NewsMax that contains a handwriting analysis from an FBI "forensic linguistic" that's kind of interesting:

    FBI profiler James R. Fitzgerald told the bureau five years ago that it probably had pinpointed the wrong man as the culprit for the anthrax mailings that killed five people, but those in charge of the investigation ignored him.

    Fitzgerald, who also is a forensic linguist who analyzes communications, offered a profile that generally excluded initial suspect Steven Hatfill but fit Bruce E. Ivins, the man the FBI ultimately decided was responsible for the mailings in 2001.

    The FBI asked Fitzgerald, now retired from the bureau, to review the documents in the anthrax case early on.

    “A total of 29 words were used in all the anthrax letters,” Fitzgerald tells Newsmax. “There wasn’t a whole lot to go on from a linguistic perspective, but there were some interesting stylistic perspectives, including the way the person used dashes to separate the dates, used uppercase lettering, and used larger uppercase lettering for certain words in the beginning of sentences. On the envelopes, he didn’t use commas between the city and the state.”

    Here's the link:

    Note that the handwriting analysis was done BEFORE Ivins was identified as the killer and there's no information about actually comparing Ivins' handwriting to the handwriting on the letters and envelopes.

    When a comparison is made, "handwriting experts" generally just try to guess how Ivins disguised his handwriting. In Willman's book, he mentions that some "expert" felt that Ivins did it by writing with his "wrong hand."


    1. Yes, it is an interesting article.

      1 It appears that the FBI wanted blame on Hatfill....
      .. but he had a good lawyer and he wanted to fight for his innocence.

      2 "The suspect may not have wanted to kill anybody, the profile indicated. Rather, the anthrax enclosed in mailed envelopes could have dispersed when processed at postal facilities, killing people accidentally."

      + A poisoner not need to kill to get what he wants. There is also the problem of the secretary or office staff that is dedicated to open letters from strangers.

      + The letters were never opened by the presumed targets... and never would have been opened the letters by them.

      What think your secretary about this case?

    2. Joseph from Spain asked: "What think your secretary about this case?"

      I don't have a secretary. But, I suspect a lot of secretaries were worried by the anthrax letters.

      Joseph from Spain also wrote: "It appears that the FBI wanted blame on Hatfill..."

      Conspiracy theorists were pointing at Hatfill for EIGHT MONTHS before anyone in the Department of Justice ever mentioned his name.

      If you read my book, you'll see that most within the FBI didn't see any evidence pointing at Hatfill, but there were people (particularly in higher management) who felt that, because so many scientists (who are conspiracy theorists) were pointing at Hatfill there must be something to it. But, all the evidence the FBI found said Hatfill was NOT the anthrax mailer.

      It took a long time to figure out that Ivins was a much better suspect than Hatfill.


    3. You said: "all the evidence the FBI found said Hatfill was NOT the anthrax mailer." but the government had to pay him an indemnity because of the misbehavior of FBI agents

      Lawyers said:
      In a written statement, Mr. Grannis and Dr. Hatfill’s other lawyers said, “We can only hope that the individuals and institutions involved are sufficiently chastened by this episode to deter similar destruction of private citizens in the future — and that we will all read anonymously sourced news reports with a great deal more skepticism.”

      WIKIPEDIA said:
      "The US Department of Justice identified the former government scientist as a "person of interest" in its investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks.FBI searches of his apartment in July and August 2002 were well-attended by journalists, many of whom had been pointing at Dr. Hatfill for months. Dr. Hatfill later sued the government for ruining his reputation, a case which the government settled for US$5.8 million. He also filed lawsuits against several periodicals that had pointed to him as a figure warranting further investigation. Dr. Hatfill's lawsuit against The New York Times was dismissed on the grounds that he was a "public figure" and malice had not been proven. Dr. Hatfill's lawsuit against Vanity Fair and Readers' Digest was settled out of court, and the details were not disclosed. FBI and DOJ officials later attempted to blame another government scientist, Bruce Edwards Ivins."

      In both cases the government agents were unable to find evidence of a crime. If Ivins were alive How much money should the government pay him?

    4. Joseph from Spain,

      Steven Hatfill became a "person of interest" because scientists and others were pointing at Hatfill as a possible suspect. The NEW YORK TIMES was pointing at Hatfill (without naming him) as the person who sent the anthrax letters. The FBI found no "evidence" against Dr. Hatfill, but the people pointing at Hatfill claimed that that was because the FBI was covering up for Dr. Hatfill. The identification of Dr. Hatfill as a "person of interest" was NOT the doing of the FBI. It was entirely the work of conspiracy theorist scientists, plus one misstatement by the Attorney General, John Ashcroft.

      The FBI had a MOUNTAIN of evidence pointing to Dr. Ivins as being the anthrax mailer. The case against Dr. Ivins was NOT created by conspiracy theorists, so it has nothing to do with what happened to Steven Hatfill.

      If Ivins were alive today, he'd probably be sitting in jail awaiting his execution for terrorism and mass murder.


  6. In and email he sent to me this morning, "Anonymous" wrote: "for your Christmas present, I'll see if I can't send a compilation of expert opinions comparing these exemplars - no one agrees with you, Ed - but thanks for focusing on the issue of handwriting"

    I already have the opinions of the "experts." None of them argue that the letters were written by a child. But, they don't agree with each other, either. It's a hodgepodge of differing opinions. That's why the FBI said the handwriting evidence was "inconclusive."

    Nevertheless, "Anonymous" evidently believes that posting or sending me the opinions of a bunch of "experts" who do not agree with each other, and who do not even mention the key facts I mention in my analysis, will somehow prove something.

    That's the kind of bizarre, incomprehensible, ridiculous, nonsensical logic he's been using for over ten years in his arguments.


  7. Ed,

    Your argument that Bruce Ivins took steps to be able to prove he sent the letters is particularly stupid. (For example, you reason that he cut the sides and kept the pieces of paper as such proof).

  8. "Anonymous" wrote: "Your argument that Bruce Ivins took steps to be able to prove he sent the letters is particularly stupid"

    So, if you don't believe it, that means it's stupid? You think your beliefs are what governs the universe?

    The facts show that the Brokaw letter was trimmed different from the New York Post letter, and the Senate letters were trimmed different from the media letters. The question is: WHY?

    The FACTS suggest that it was done for the same reason Ivins put the hidden message in the media letter: Because he felt he might someday want to prove that he sent the letters.

    You may not believe it, but your beliefs have always been absurd, and you don't appear to have a better explanation, since you never explain any of your beliefs.

    So, the fact that you do not believe it is a PLUS for it being a correct hypothesis.


  9. The FBI or CIA wrote the letters.

    1. One of the Anonymi wrote: "The FBI or CIA wrote the letters."

      So, you don't know or care which it was? And, I assume you don't have any evidence. It's just a belief you have.

      So, why even mention it? There's no basis for discussion when someone just declares a belief with no evidence.