I did some research to find what others say "proving the negative" means. Doing that research showed me that the argument is really about "Burden of Proof." For example, I found a reference to "Russell's Teapot" which says,
Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, ... Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong.Another source:
The burden of proof is always on the claim that X exists rather than on the claim that X does not exist.Another source that may be easier to understand says:
A negative proof is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of:Another good source says:
X is true because there is no proof that X is false.
The negative proof fallacy is where one assumes something is true if it cannot be proven false. It can also happen when one assumes that something is false if it cannot be proven true.As anyone can see, that kind of argument is not really about proving someone wrong. It has to do with claiming something is true because those who disagree cannot prove it to be false.
An infinite amount of silly statements might be declared and be completely unprovable, hence we cannot assume validity in the face of unprovability. This is what is known as burden of proof.
Here's an example of how one Anthrax Truther might argue:
I know that an American-based supporter of al Qaeda was behind the anthrax attacks because it cannot be proved that there was no al Qaeda supporter behind the anthrax attacks. If you claim that all the evidence proves that Dr. Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer, all that means is that Ivins was an al Qaeda supporter, if you cannot prove he wasn't.Here's an example of how another Anthrax Truther might argue:
I know that Dick Cheney was behind the anthrax attacks because no one has proved that he was NOT behind the attacks.The burden on the proof MUST be on the person making the claim, not on the person who disputes the claim.
Ed
The evidence you perceive that the letters were written by a First Grader -- if it were supported by expert testimony -- is admissible to prove that the letters were not written by Dr. Ivins.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, the uncontradicted evidence that Dr. Ivins did not have any access to a First Grader in September and October 2001 is admissible to the same effect.
The burden of proof remains on the prosecution to prove all the elements of a crime by the requisite standard applicable to criminal prosecutions.
Anonymous wrote: "The evidence you perceive that the letters were written by a First Grader -- if it were supported by expert testimony -- is admissible to prove that the letters were not written by Dr. Ivins."
DeleteSince the handwriting "experts" could not agree, there would not have been any handwriting evidence in the case against Bruce Ivins. This issue is entirely outside of the legal case against Ivins.
It's merely about evidence for a claim. It's a "side issue" for discussion.
The claim is that Ivins used a child to write the anthrax letters. That claim is supported by an abundance of evidence - specifically 12 FACTS - but other facts can be provided if necessary.
The burden of proof has been met. Not believing the proof means nothing.
If you think that someone else wrote the letters, the burden of proof is on YOU to substantiate your own claim with BETTER evidence that what I've provided.
Ed
Your argument is that the person who wrote the letters seems to have just learned to write English.
DeleteWe both agree there is no handwriting evidence supporting the claim that Dr. Ivins wrote the letters -- and not even the FBI claims that there is.
Anonymous wrote: "Your argument is that the person who wrote the letters seems to have just learned to write English."
DeleteNo, that is NOT my argument. That is your deliberate misinterpretation of my argument.
The evidence also says that the writer just learned to write. The language is irrelevant.
There are additional facts which show that the writer lacked hand-eye coordination. He/she didn't have the skills that an adult acquires after writing for many years. Those skills remain with an adult even when changing to a writing in a new language.
Example: An adult does not have to learn to write smaller.
Example: An adult already understands about punctuation from whatever writing he did before.
The facts say that a child wrote the letters, NOT AN ADULT.
Ed
Ed, your discussion is mistaken.
ReplyDeleteHere is a summary of burden of proof in a criminal prosecution.
Your confusion on such issues underlies your entire understanding of Amerithrax. You mistakenly thought the burden in a rebuttal rested with the defendant. it doesn't. On an issue such as alibi (e.g., rabbits), for example, the burden remains on the prosecution.
http://www.csustan.edu/cj/evidence/chap6.htm
“Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”
•In all criminal cases, the state has the burden of proving every essential element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Constitutionally required by the 14th Amendment “Due Process” clause.
• It is defined as not a mere “possible doubt,” but an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge after considering the entire case.
Shifting the Burden of Proof
• The overall BOP to prove the defendant's guilt emains on the prosecution throughout the trial.
• It never shifts to the defendant to prove his/her innocence.
May the Burden shift on any issue?
RULE:
• While the burden on an element of the crime may not shift to the defendant, the BOP on an affirmative defense may shift to the defendant.
• It depends on whether the issue is treated as an affirmative defense or rebuttal .
• Rebuttal of prosecution evidence- only the burden of going forward shifts- burden of proof does not shift.
• Legally recognized affirmative defense- burden shifts to defendant.
Specific Affirmative Defenses
Alibi
• Majority view- rebuttal of prosecution evidence only,
• BOP does not shift and remains on the prosecution. (California & Feds)
Anonymous wrote: "You mistakenly thought the burden in a rebuttal rested with the defendant. it doesn't. On an issue such as alibi (e.g., rabbits), for example, the burden remains on the prosecution."
DeleteYou have no evidence regarding rabbits that has any meaning to Ivins' alibi. All you have are CLAIMS that the rabbits have some meaning to his alibi. You have a belief.
The prosecution doesn't have to disprove a belief that has no meaning the case.
Ivins had no alibi.
If the defense CLAIMS that Ivins DID have an alibi, and that the rabbit tests somehow provide that alibi, then it is up to the defense to prove that CLAIM.
Your argument seems to be that since Ivins was working with rabbit tests during that general period of time, then all of his overtime hours are explained by the rabbit tests. You need to prove that claim. It is not the burden of the prosecution to prove the negative, that Ivins was NOT working with rabbits during all of his overtimes hours.
You got things backwards, as usual.
Ed
On the issue of the lyophilizer, the rabbits, etc., the burden of proof remains on the prosecution.
ReplyDeletehttp://criminal.lawyers.com/Criminal-Law-Basics/Criminal-Trials-Who-Has-the-Burden-of-Proof.html
Criminal Trials - Who Has the Burden of Proof?
POSTED IN CRIMINAL LAW PROCESS BY LAWYERS.COMSM 0COMMENTS
Almost everyone has heard the saying, "innocent until proven guilty." This basic principal of criminal law is essentially referring to the burden of proof. The burden of proof is the duty of one party in a case to convince the judge or jury that their version of the facts is true. The defendant doesn't have to prove his innocence because the burden of proof is on the prosecution. The burden of proof is much higher in criminal cases than in civil cases because the defendant often faces jail time and the loss of many civil liberties.
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
When a defendant is faced with criminal charges, the prosecution must prove their version of the facts beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that each and every element of the crime charged must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Beyond a reasonable doubt means that there is proof that you would be willing to rely and act upon without hesitation in your own affairs. Beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't mean an absolute certainty.
***
Burden of Proving Defenses
Ordinarily, if the defendant raises a defense to the prosecution's proof and there is evidence to support it, the burden is on the prosecution to disprove it.
Anonymous wrote: "Burden of Proving Defenses
DeleteOrdinarily, if the defendant raises a defense to the prosecution's proof and there is evidence to support it, the burden is on the prosecution to disprove it."
There is no evidence to support the claim Ivins was working with rabbits during all or even most of his unexplained evening hours.
It's just a baseless belief.
Ed
From the material at the head of this thread:
ReplyDelete-----------------------------------------------
Another source:
The burden of proof is always on the claim that X exists rather than on the claim that X does not exist.
Another source that may be easier to understand says:
A negative proof is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of:
X is true because there is no proof that X is false.
=====================================================
Here's an example of that "fallacy":
From "The Case Against Dr. Ivins"
One of 20 points.
-----------
19. There is no evidence that Dr. Ivins could not possibly have sent the anthrax letters.
-------------
Above from Mister Lake's overview section:
http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/#overview
R. Rowley wrote: "Here's an example of that "fallacy":
ReplyDeleteFrom "The Case Against Dr. Ivins" One of 20 points.
You just continue to mindlessly argue about one item of evidence at a time.
If you cannot understand evidence, why not just say so? Why continue to post ridiculous arguments that some item of evidence BY ITSELF is not evidence because it doesn't prove BY ITSELF that Ivins was guilty.
What you mention is item #19 in a list of 20 items. By itself, it means nothing, as is usually the case with circumstantial evidence. But, in court, if the DEFENSE doesn't come up with some evidence that the defendant "could not possibly have sent the anthrax letters," that is going to be a MAJOR point for the jury when they declare the defendant guilty.
Ed
R. Rowley wrote: "Here's an example of that "fallacy":
ReplyDeleteFrom "The Case Against Dr. Ivins" One of 20 points.
You just continue to mindlessly argue about one item of evidence at a time.
If you cannot understand evidence, why not just say so?
---------------------------------------------------
How is pointing out that one of your 20 points is a logical fallacy as described by the very source you cited "mindlessly arguing" anything? I think it's "arguing" (in the good sense)
QUITE mindfully: ie very consciously about every premise and every step taken in a logical series.
I HAVE said a number of times, on my own, that many of your points don't follow logically. But I thought it would be better if your own source pointed it out to you in this one instance.
I can only take it now that you aren't really interested in logical fallacies.
R. Rowley wrote: "I HAVE said a number of times, on my own, that many of your points don't follow logically."
ReplyDeleteAnd I've tried again and again to explain to you how the points follow logically. I wrote:
"But, in court, if the DEFENSE doesn't come up with some evidence that the defendant "could not possibly have sent the anthrax letters," that is going to be a MAJOR point for the jury when they declare the defendant guilty."
What is so illogical to you about the defense trying (and failing) to provide evidence of Ivins' innocence? Isn't that what a defense lawyer is supposed to do? It's not "proving the negative," it's positively proving that Ivins had an alibi or positively proving that Ivins wasn't making anthrax powders during those unexplained hours in his lab.
In addition, page 17 of the Final Report says:
"Based on this suspicion metric, certain individuals were scrutinized even further to determine their whereabouts during the windows of opportunity for the mailings, their handwriting characteristics (for comparison to the printing on the attack letters/envelopes), and to determine to what extent they had protected themselves from anthrax infection at the time of the mailings."
So, they tried to use handwriting experts to help eliminate suspects. That doesn't mean that a "no match" on handwriting was the ONLY thing used to eliminate a suspect. Nor does it mean that a "no match" would be "conclusive" in any way. As the quote says, they also checked on other things.
You're spending too much time on trying to find things I wrote imprecisely and not enough time actually studying the MOUNTAIN of evidence that says Ivins was the anthrax killer. That's the argument, not what words I use.
Ed
In the above Post Mister Lake completely ignores the essence of my points of my two prior posts:
ReplyDelete1) the nature of the logical fallacy he himself wrote about right here.
2)the fact that his own point #19 is an excellent example of that very logical fallacy.
Instead Mister Lake switches from talking about the internal (non-)logic of point #19, and claims that somehow the point is 'saved' by its association with points 1 through 18, and point #20.
That just isn't so: the INTERNAL LOGIC of a statement must rest on itself, just like the foundation of a house or other building must hold up that edifice on its own, it cannot seek 'allies' among other foundations of other buildings in the neighborhood.
-------------------------------------------------
In this thread I've avoided talking about handwriting (which has nothing to do with point #19).
I THOUGHT Mister Lake started this thread to talk about "Burden of Proof" (otherwise why have it at the very top thread-opening comment?). The logical fallacy, adduced by Mister Lake, and committed in point #19, does have the effect of reversing the burden of proof: the defense has to prove 'non-guilt' (ie a negative), for it's the very alleged FAILURE of the 'defense' to prove 'non-guilt' that is the essence of point #19, which once again is:
19. There is no evidence that Dr. Ivins could not possibly have sent the anthrax letters.
and that's not how the court system (generally) works.
R. Rowley wrote: "The logical fallacy, adduced by Mister Lake, and committed in point #19, does have the effect of reversing the burden of proof: the defense has to prove 'non-guilt' (ie a negative),"
DeleteNo, it doesn't. It was the FBI's duty to hunt for exculpatory evidence that might prove Ivins innocent. Item #19 says they found so such evidence.
By itself, that fact #19 means nothing. But, it means a great deal when combined with all the evidence which shows Ivins WAS guilty.
There is no burden of proof on the defense or on the FBI to prove Ivins was NOT guilty.
No attempt was made to claim that because the FBI couldn't find any exculpatory evidence that means Ivins was guilty.
The MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE THEY FOUND says Ivins was guilty, not something they did NOT find.
The "essence" of your posts is to turn things around to create an argument where there should be no argument.
Ed
R. Rowley wrote: "The logical fallacy, adduced by Mister Lake, and committed in point #19, does have the effect of reversing the burden of proof: the defense has to prove 'non-guilt' (ie a negative),"
DeleteNo, it doesn't. It was the FBI's duty to hunt for exculpatory evidence that might prove Ivins innocent. Item #19 says they found so such evidence.
=============================================
Here I really don't know whether Mister Lake means "evidence" in a GENERIC sense or in a legal sense (for the Final Report has stuff from both categories). Assuming the former: the ORIGINAL results of those polygraph tests would be generic (ie not court admissible) evidence of Ivins' innocence. The non-match found in the handwriting analysis would be (ADMISSIBLE) evidence of Ivins' innocence. The non-match on the USAMRIID photocopier would be (ADMISSIBLE)exculpatory evidence. Etc.
The lack of any mention in the Final Report of the PROFESSIONAL handwriting comparison(s) undoubtedly done, while on pages 89-90 there is an anecdotal sketch of two "witnesses" who knew Ivins and had seen samples of his printing, indicates that that analysis would have been exculpatory too. So if you are LOOKING for exculpatory evidence, it will only be in the lacunae of the Final Report, not in its drift. Perhaps a reason for someone (not me!) to do further FOIA requests.
-----------------------------------------
Mister Lake's response above indicates he is not distinguishing between the FBI's obligation to the DEFENSE (which would have only been activated post-indictment) and its (non-existent) obligation pre-indictment. The DoJ had no such (legal) obligation
since the indictment never came about. The Final Report carries no such legal obligations. Nor does it fulfill the moral ones.
R. Rowley wrote: "Here I really don't know whether Mister Lake means "evidence" in a GENERIC sense or in a legal sense"
DeleteSince we're talking about an hypothetical trial of Bruce Ivins, why don't you just assume we're talking about evidence for a trial, i.e. evidence "in a legal sense"?
You're making this discussion a lot more complex than it needs to be by arguing over the meaning of words.
And PLEASE stop talking about the Final Report as if it were what the DOJ was going to read at the trial. It's just a SUMMARY of the case for the general public. The actual trial of Dr. Ivins would probably have taken at least a MONTH just to present the evidence from prosecution's side of the case.
R. Rowley wrote: "Mister Lake's response above indicates he is not distinguishing between the FBI's obligation to the DEFENSE (which would have only been activated post-indictment) and its (non-existent) obligation pre-indictment. "
During the investigation, if Ivins said he had an alibi, it would have been the DUTY OF THE FBI to check out his alibi.
Post-indictment, it's a requirement that the FBI/DOJ disclose any exculpatory evidence that they found. "Evidence" is not necessarily "proof."
BUT, during the investigation, if the FBI agents find PROOF that Ivins did NOT do it, it is absurd to believe they would just continue investigating him anyway. Facts and evidence drive an investigation. If FBI agents (or police) have proof of someone's innocence and yet continue to look for proof of guilt without telling the suspect about the proof of innocence, that could logically (and probably legally) be viewed as a conspiracy to frame an innocent person for a crime.
Ed
Okay since Mister Lake HIMSELF is intent upon taking this off topic for the thread, I'll respond in broad terms to part of what he wrote above:
ReplyDelete---------------------------------------------
"But, in court, if the DEFENSE doesn't come up with some evidence that the defendant "could not possibly have sent the anthrax letters," that is going to be a MAJOR point for the jury when they declare the defendant guilty."
========================================================
Think about what this really means. If there was 'evidence' that Ivins "could not possibly have sent the anthrax letters", what would that mean? What would it look like?
Examples: (caution: contrary-to-fact scenarios ensue, scenarios which are not answered by noting that they are contrary-to-fact)
1)Ivins was in a coma for the entire months of September and October of 2001. Medical records, hospital records/personnel confirm this.
2)Ivins was at a two-month long conference in Zanzibar for the entire months of September and October of 2001. Documented by Tanzanian entry/exit stamps in passport, testimony of other participants who saw him there daily.
3)Ivins was sent to investigate an outbreak of anthrax in China and spent the entire months of September and October of 2001 in China. Again documented by passport stamps, testimony of other participants.
Etc. (meaning one could make up other scenarios along these lines)
These are,again, concretizations of a situation where:
(from Mister Lake's post)the defendant "could not possibly have sent the anthrax letters,"
So how likely is it that this stuff would be brought up in a notional trial of Bruce Ivins?
Not likely AT ALL. Because if such knock-em-dead evidence existed,
1)we would not be having this discussion
2)Ivins would not have committed suicide
3)the prosecution would not have told Ivins he was about to be indicted
4)the investigators would never have searched Ivins' house.
5)the investigators would not have tried to socially isolate Ivins
6)the investigators would have believed their own polygraph tests of Ivins
7)the investigars would never have made Ivins a suspect (confidential or otherwise) to begin with.
By their very nature REAL trials have to do with (somewhat) ambiguous claims. If they did not, then they really wouldn't be necessary.
Lots of Amerithrax skeptics have harsh things to say about the investigation; relatively few (and, probably, none of the true conspiracy buffs)think the Task Force would have stayed so long on a suspect if that suspect's innocence was so categorically established.
R. Rowley wrote: "If there was 'evidence' that Ivins "could not possibly have sent the anthrax letters", what would that mean? What would it look like?"
DeleteAsk Anonymous. He claims it would look like an Easter bunny.
In reality, it would look like:
(1) USAMRIID in-out logs showing Dr. Ivins didn't have the time to drive to New Jersey and back.
(2) Other evidence (speeding tickets, parking tickets, receipts) showing that Ivins was somewhere else and therefore didn't have the time to drive to New Jersey and back
(3) Unbiased eyewitnesses who could testify that Ivins was with them at the critical times and therefore didn't have time to drive to New Jersey and back.
(4) Records showing that all of Ivins' motor vehicles were in use by others during the critical times and therefore had no means to drive to New Jersey and back.
But, once again, the fact that Ivins did not have any of these items of evidence does NOT by itself mean he was guilty. The MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE PROVES IVINS WAS GUILTY. The lack of exculpatory evidence just doesn't change what the MOUNTAIN proves.
Ed
R. Rowley wrote: "If there was 'evidence' that Ivins "could not possibly have sent the anthrax letters", what would that mean? What would it look like?"
ReplyDeleteAsk Anonymous.
--------------------------------------------------
It was a RHETORICAL question, Mister Lake, I answered it myself!
Oh well!
----------------------------------------------------
But note that Mister Lake's imagination fails him here:
------------
(1) USAMRIID in-out logs showing Dr. Ivins didn't have the time to drive to New Jersey and back.
--------------------------------
That MIGHT do for the Sept 18th mailing (if Ivins worked through the night; how often did THAT happen?!?) but no scenario could cover the 4-day spread of the Oct 9th mailing (Oct 6, Oct 7, Oct 8, Oct 9). In THAT instance Ivins would have had to take up permanent residence at the USAMRIID labs. And wasn't it 'unexplained' presence in the labs at night that was so "suspicious" to begin with?
----------------------------------------
And somewhat here:
(2) Other evidence (speeding tickets, parking tickets, receipts) showing that Ivins was somewhere else and therefore didn't have the time to drive to New Jersey and back
---------------------------------------------------
Note that these are the very items I was maintaining, maintained for years, would be valid EVIDENCE that Ivins made the trip to Princeton (and Mister Lake mostly ignored as unnecessary). Now we are talking about NEGATIVE proof, and given the wide "window of opportunity" you would probably need more than one ticket/receipt to prove it even for the Sept 17th/18th mailing (something like a 13-hour window of opportunity; 6 pm to 7 am).
At least one doesn't QUITE fit the bill:
(4) Records showing that all of Ivins' motor vehicles were in use by others during the critical times and therefore had no means to drive to New Jersey and back.
That's just not being imaginative enough: there are taxis and limousines (and probably other services I'm unaware of) that will take passengers on long trips if they are determined enough, so that isn't categorical enough to fit the requirement: (Mister Lake's own formulation):
'evidence' that Ivins "could not possibly have sent the anthrax letters",
"could not possibly" is the killer.
R. Rowley wrote: "In THAT instance Ivins would have had to take up permanent residence at the USAMRIID labs. And wasn't it 'unexplained' presence in the labs at night that was so "suspicious" to begin with?"
DeleteYou are just being argumentative. I was just explaining that he wouldn't have been a suspect if he went in to work once every six or seven hours for a few minutes and could thereby prove he couldn't have driven to New Jersey.
R. Rowley also wrote: "Now we are talking about NEGATIVE proof,"
NONSENSE. Proof that someone was somewhere at a specific time is positive proof of where that person was. Viewing it as negative proof of where he was NOT is just being argumentative.
R. Rowley wrote: "could not possibly" is the killer.
Okay. I keep forgetting that you are just looking at the meaning of words and not trying to discuss the evidence in the Ivins case.
You're right. If Ivins' vehicles were all unavailable, he might have had a secret teleporter somewhere which he could have used to beam himself to New Jersey to mail the letters. No one can say it is NOT possible.
Your own "rhetorical" answers are equally invalid, since there are hypothetical things that could still be "possible."
So, we're not talking about the Amerithrax case here. You're only talking about the meaning of words. And I was talking about evidence in the Amerithrax case.
My mistake.
Ed
R. Rowley wrote: "In THAT instance Ivins would have had to take up permanent residence at the USAMRIID labs. And wasn't it 'unexplained' presence in the labs at night that was so "suspicious" to begin with?"
ReplyDeleteYou are just being argumentative.[...]
==============================================
No, I'm being CONSEQUENT: following an argument to its concrete results.
--------------------------------------------------
R. Rowley also wrote: "Now we are talking about NEGATIVE proof,"
NONSENSE. Proof that someone was somewhere at a specific time is positive proof of where that person was. Viewing it as negative proof of where he was NOT is just being argumentative.
====================================================
It's negative evidence vis-a-vis the claims of the prosecution, which are the only claims the trial is trying to make a judgement on.
===============================================
Mister Lake:
------------
Your own "rhetorical" answers are equally invalid, since there are hypothetical things that could still be "possible."
========================================================
No, "invalid" means 'not logically indicated'. My answers were perfectly logically indicated. They were merely unlikely (in the extreme). Unlikely on (at least) two counts: 1)such trips are (probably) rarely made, at least by USAMRIID personnel and
2)they would probably not last for 2 calendar months.
That's a probability question, not a logic question.
-----------------------
YOUR responses simply did not cover your own description:
'evidence' that Ivins "could not possibly have sent the anthrax letters",
=======================================================
So, we're not talking about the Amerithrax case here. You're only talking about the meaning of words.
--------------------------------------------
Since I take the meanings of words very seriously, I hardly think you can have a SERIOUS discussion of Amerithrax or any other subject without taking them seriously.
R. Rowley wrote: "No, I'm being CONSEQUENT: following an argument to its concrete results."
DeleteYou're being "consequent?" You've been reading the dictionary again. But, I don't want to get into another idiotic argument about your use of a word.
R. Rowley wrote: "Since I take the meanings of words very seriously, I hardly think you can have a SERIOUS discussion of Amerithrax or any other subject without taking them seriously."
I don't think we can have a serious discussion about Amerithrax if all we do is argue about the use of words.
Ed
Some ways up the thread:
ReplyDelete--------------------
R. Rowley wrote: "Mister Lake's response above indicates he is not distinguishing between the FBI's obligation to the DEFENSE (which would have only been activated post-indictment) and its (non-existent) obligation pre-indictment. "
During the investigation, if Ivins said he had an alibi, it would have been the DUTY OF THE FBI to check out his alibi.
=====================================================
That's a logical and ethical obligation for an investigator, but it's NOT a legal obligation.
R. Rowley wrote: "That's a logical and ethical obligation for an investigator, but it's NOT a legal obligation."
DeleteThat is a "claim." The burden of proof is on you to support that claim with evidence.
Ed
You're right. If Ivins' vehicles were all unavailable, he might have had a secret teleporter somewhere which he could have used to beam himself to New Jersey to mail the letters. No one can say it is NOT possible.
ReplyDelete============================================
Mister Lake, I gave you CONCRETE and plausible alternatives to taking one's own vehicle to Princeton (I should have added the rather simple expedient of borrowing a friend's vehicle), and instead of grappling with those plausible alternatives, you make up some special sci-fi concoction of your own for the sake of mockery. That reflects on YOU, not me or any interlocutor who is discussing these matters with you in good faith.
R. Rowley wrote: "Mister Lake, I gave you CONCRETE and plausible alternatives to taking one's own vehicle to Princeton"
DeleteYour ways would leave behind witnesses and evidence that he went to New Jersey.
If you are "consequent" and follow the discussion at all, you would see that you were just going back to ways of leaving behind evidence of the trip to New Jersey.
I used a sci-fi way that would NOT leave behind evidence. My intent was to illustrate that Ivins could travel to New Jersey without borrowing someone's car, without renting a car, without getting a parking ticket, without getting a speeding ticket, and without leaving a trail of receipts.
And, he didn't have to use a teleporter to do it, either.
All he had to do was be careful
Ed
Last by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete------------------
R. Rowley wrote: "That's a logical and ethical obligation for an investigator, but it's NOT a legal obligation."
That is a "claim." The burden of proof is on you to support that claim with evidence.
================================================
What law says that an investigator has to "check out" an alibi?
Besides, you yourself said it was a "duty". Not all duties are laws...
R. Rowley wrote: What law says that an investigator has to "check out" an alibi?
ReplyDelete"Police misconduct"? But, I'm not sure what laws cover that. I could also argue "obstruction of justice," but then I'd have to do a lot of research to check that out, too. So, we're just in another asinine debate that is a side issue and doesn't address the evidence in the Ivins case at all.
And, it's all about a ridiculous suggestion that a cop doesn't have to check out an alibi because there is no law that requires he check out an alibi. How often does that occur? Oops. Asking that question would probably take us into more ridiculous hypotheticals. And you'd probably argue about whether the ridiculous hypotheticals are really "ridiculous" or not.
There doesn't seem to be any way to get you to stick to the subject.
Ed
And, it's all about a ridiculous suggestion that a cop doesn't have to check out an alibi* because there is no law that requires he check out an alibi. How often does that occur?
ReplyDelete-------------------------------------------------------------
Don't know. Don't think there are any stats on such stuff. And anyway you would have trouble getting any acknowledgement from the cop(s) in question. But that people are sometimes investigated, indicted, tried and convicted, when a more skeptical investigator/prosecutor MIGHT have looked a 'gift horse' in the mouth by being skeptical of one's own 'success' in the matter, AND that some of these convictions put away innocent people......of that there is no doubt.
And fairly recently I came across such a case (for the second time**) when doing YOUTUBE searches using such terms as "serial killer": the first victim of the HAPPY FACE KILLER in the Pacific Northwest was a murder blamed on two innocent persons:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg69YcDVnkA
Each apparently spent 3 or 4 years in prison before the avowals of the Happy Face Killer that he did it were taken seriously.
Of course it didn't help that one of the two persons confessed to the murder....
*the discerning reader can reread my posts above and observe that I never wrote that an investigator "doesn't have to check out an alibi"; rather I agreed with Mister Lake that it was a duty, but not a legally-binding obligation. Such matters, whether an alibi is a serious one or not, are always going to be left up to the people looking into the matter anyway. In the BEGINNING that's the investigators.
**A number of years ago I read about the Happy Face Killer in a book by Jack Olsen but the memory, she's a goin' and the youtube piece was a good memory-jogger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Olsen
I erred the other day in saying in this thread that the window of opportunity was 13 hours on Sept 17-18th. According to the final report it was 19 hours long: 5 pm on the 17th to noon on the 18th.
ReplyDeleteMy mistake.