Sunday, March 31, 2013

Subject: Double Standard for Evidence

I've come to realize that there's a key point that I haven't used enough when I argue with Anthrax Truthers: Anthrax Truthers use a "double standard" when discussing their evidence versus the FBI's evidence.

If it's evidence for something they believe, it's solid evidence.  If it's evidence pointing to Bruce Ivins as the anthrax mailer, it's meaningless and not evidence.

The gash on al Haznawi's leg that Dr. Tsonas thought might have been an anthrax lesion is seen as solid proof that the 9/11 hijackers brought a supply of anthrax with them.  The fact that Ivins had all the anthrax needed for the attacks with the same DNA attributes and made the same way as the attack spores is seen as proof of nothing by Anthrax Truthers. 

The evidence showing that Ivins controlled the murder weapon is seen as meaningless, since the Truthers claim that hundreds of others could have accessed flask RMR-1029 in secret.  However, false positives encountered during tests of a lab in Afghanistan are seen as solid proof that al Qaeda made "the murder weapon."

The fact that no spores were found in Ivins' car is seen as proof that Ivins did NOT mail the letters.  The fact that no spores were found anywhere the 9/11 hijackers went isn't seen as proof of anything.

Etc., etc., etc., etc.

I'm thinking that I should try to prevent Anthrax Truthers from using a double standard for the evidence - or I should point out that they are using a double standard when I can't prevent it.  That could be the key to showing that Anthrax Truthers really have no case -- no matter who they think sent the anthrax letters.

Ed

97 comments:

  1. Minutes after posting my Sunday comment for my web site, "Anonymous" sent me an email that quoted from my comment:

    "I don't understand the message about China, and I could be wrong in assuming the messages were intended for me, but why else would they show up in MY log?"

    and then said, "Ed, maybe someone is playing an April Fools joke on you"

    It's not April Fool's day yet, and it doesn't seem like a "joke." It looks more like a test to see if I'd notice the messages.

    I didn't initially notice the ones on yesterday's log, but I noticed the ones on this morning's log because they were among the last lines I copied when I made a copy of the log. And log entries that contain full sentences are HIGHLY unusual.

    I'm wondering if he isn't making some kind of suggestion that China may have made the anthrax and copied the morphs in the process.

    Maybe he'll see my comment and create a new log entry in response.

    It's a VERY unusual way to communicate. It may even be one that the NSA has never encountered before.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  2. Darned clever, these Bulgarians!

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Anonymous sent me an email which said, "The prank -- the game -- was to get you to blog on the subject."

    That's not much of a game, since it was very clever and worthy of a comment.

    If someone shows me something that is clever and totally new, and it relates to my web site, it's not "prank" to get me to comment on it. I welcome it.

    "Anonymous" compares it to his "prank" where he posted as "Brad" and "Angelina." That was a true prank. All it did was show how silly "Anonymous" can get when he wants attention. There was nothing clever about it. It's more malicious than clever.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous also said in his email, "it occurs to me that your Russian and Chinese mystery - and Brad and Angela too -- were part of a practical joke"

    I think "Anonymous" has no understanding of how complex it would be for a single individual to pull off such a "practical joke."

    I don't know if it's even possible to cause a fake IP address to appear on a log entry.

    If it is possible, it's probably also illegal.

    It's far more likely that those Russian and Chinese posts don't have anything to do with me specifically. It seems VERY likely that hundreds or thousands of other web sites also get those same kinds of log entries.

    The only differences are: (1) I look at my logs, a (2) I write comments about unusual things I see.

    Some "mysteries" may also be just bad coding, and the site operator may not know what's happening on the other end.

    The Bulgarian log entries, however, were ALMOST CERTAINLY directed at me, since that's the only way the entries make sense. They would ONLY appear on my site logs as a result of a specific line of code in a program that was designed to cause it to happen.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hmmm. While I know of no way to change the IP address, I can make similar messages appear on my log. Here are two messages I just created by going to http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/This+Is+Test+Number .... etc.:

    98.144.51.230 - - [31/Mar/2013:15:30:13 -0400] "GET /This+Is+Test+Number+One+To+See+What+Happens HTTP/1.1" 404 643 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:19.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/19.0"

    98.144.51.230 - - [31/Mar/2013:15:31:24 -0400] "GET /This+Is+Test+Number+Two+To+See+What+Happens.html HTTP/1.1" 404 648 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:19.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/19.0"

    The IP address, of course, is MINE.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  6. The following is from MSNBC.com: (partial)
    ------------------
    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/16/17783383-letter-sent-to-us-senator-tests-positive-for-deadly-poison?lite

    A letter intended to reach Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., was intercepted at an off-site facility after testing positive for a deadly poison, FBI officials said late Tuesday.


    United States Senate

    Republican Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi was sent a letter that tested positive for the poison ricin.
    An initial test of the mail, which was caught during an off-site postal screening process in Landover, Maryland, detected the letters contained the poison ricin, according to officials. A second test conducted in a lab also came back positive for the poison.
    ------------------------------------------------
    That's likely going to come from the Amerithrax mastermind too.
    He's apparently been sending ricin through the mail since late 2003: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_ricin_letters

    Addressee was a US senator (as in second batch of Amerithrax mailings, and as back in 2003-4 ricin incidents (ie Senator Frist)).

    ReplyDelete
  7. And from a story at the Wall Street Journal on the same subject:
    (partial)
    ---------------
    Sen. Claire McCaskill (D., Mo.) said after a closed-door briefing that senators were told the letter had come from a person who "writes to a lot" of lawmakers, but she didn't identify the suspect.
    ----------------------------------------------
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323346304578427270104644546.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LatestHeadlines

    ReplyDelete
  8. Rather than go over this stuff in a terribly redundant fashion, one can see my general ideas here:
    http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2012/05/may-13-to-may-19-2012-discussions.html

    ReplyDelete
  9. R. Rowley wrote: "That's likely going to come from the Amerithrax mastermind too."

    So, you think the ricin letter to Senator Wicker was sent by the same person/group who sent the anthrax letters?

    Doesn't that mean if they catch the guy who sent the ricin to Wicker they catch the guy who did everything?

    Time magazine says, the "police have a suspect in mind" in this latest ricin case. It's someone who sends lots of letters to Senators. FOX news says the same thing.

    You must be relieved that the whole mystery may soon be solved.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  10. Doesn't that mean if they catch the guy who sent the ricin to Wicker they catch the guy who did everything?
    ----------------------------------------------
    Yes, it would be the case. But they won't find him. For the same reason(s) they haven't found him since he sent that leaking petri dish to B'nai Brith in April 1997. He's fairly careful.
    ----------------------------------------------
    Time magazine says, the "police have a suspect in mind" in this latest ricin case. It's someone who sends lots of letters to Senators. FOX news says the same thing.

    You must be relieved that the whole mystery may soon be solved.
    -------------------------------------------

    No, that's a misinterpretation (by Time)(if they truly had a suspect, they would have searched his abode by now and we'd know it). They don't have a 'suspect', they have a pattern: not many people send ricin, over the course of 9 years, to Washington DC politicians. He may even have continued using the pseudonym he used in the (Greenville SC) 2003 mailing(s): Fallen Angel. But knowing the pattern isn't the same thing as zeroing in on a suspect.

    ReplyDelete
  11. R. Rowley wrote: "No, that's a misinterpretation (by Time)(if they truly had a suspect, they would have searched his abode by now and we'd know it)."

    Technically, it would have to be a misinterpretation by Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo) who got the information from a briefing given to senators by the FBI.

    So, if they catch the guy who you believe did it, they'll be solving hundreds of crimes all at once? Too bad the FBI isn't as clever as you are in figuring out who did all those crimes. Maybe you should try harder to convince the FBI that you know who did it -- even if you don't have any kind of meaningful evidence.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  12. R. Rowley wrote: "No, that's a misinterpretation (by Time)(if they truly had a suspect, they would have searched his abode by now and we'd know it)."

    Technically, it would have to be a misinterpretation by Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo) who got the information from a briefing given to senators by the FBI.
    ================================================
    Well, that's a tricky matter: if you go by the FIRST report posted here-----the one from MSNBC.com it goes like this:
    ------------
    Sen. Claire McCaskill (D., Mo.) said after a closed-door briefing that senators were told the letter had come from a person who "writes to a lot" of lawmakers, but she didn't identify the suspect.
    ------------------------------------------
    McCaskill is quoted, but only with the words "writes a lot" (but possibly she used the word "person" also, that's not clear). It's only in the second clause of the sentence that the word "suspect" is used and it's not in quotation marks, so it doesn't NECESSARILY come from McCaskill, it may indeed be just a stylistic thing: avoid repeating a word like "person" in the same sentence when in the overall context a LAYMAN (as opposed to a G-man) might use the word "suspect". At least, that's what I 'suspect'.....

    ReplyDelete
  13. So, if they catch the guy who you believe did it, they'll be solving hundreds of crimes all at once?
    ----------------------------------------------------
    I think so. But only in an intellectual sense: there's not going to be much physical evidence for stuff done in 1997. For that matter, I doubt there's much physical evidence left from 2001.
    And then there's the repeated claims that Bruce Ivins acting alone, yadda yadda yadda. Completely unnecessary and, in the long run, counterproductive.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The complete McCaskill quote come from the Associated Press. MSNBC just wrote their own version. The Time magazine article begins with this:

    "Unlike with the Boston Marathon bomber, police have a suspect in mind as they try to determine who mailed a letter to Sen. Roger Wicker that tested positive for poisonous ricin, a Senate colleague said.

    The person that is a suspect writes a lot of letters to members,” Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said Tuesday as she emerged from a classified briefing."


    I wrote:

    "So, if they catch the guy who you believe did it, they'll be solving hundreds of crimes all at once?"

    And R. Rowley responded:

    "I think so. But only in an intellectual sense"

    Only "in the intellectual sense"??? Is that the same thing as saying they'll have the culprit but they won't be able to prove that he did all the other things you believe he did?

    Hmm. Well, at least you'll no long have to concern yourself. They'll have locked up the guy who you believe committed hundreds of crimes. It will all be over ... at least until the next crime involving a letter.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  15. “The person that is a suspect writes a lot of letters to members,” Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said Tuesday as she emerged from a classified briefing."
    ----------------------------------------
    Thanks for that. So if the quotation from McCaskill is accurate either: she was careless about her choice of words or she overinterpreted what she was told at the briefing. For if we, collectively, learned anything from Amerithrax it's that the DoJ dislikes the word "suspect", so even if they HAD a suspect (don't think they do) it is unlikely they would use THAT word in briefing US senators. And probably they didn't even use the word "person of interest" either. It's McCaskill's interpretation.
    --------------------------------------------------
    "I think so. But only in an intellectual sense"

    Only "in the intellectual sense"??? Is that the same thing as saying they'll have the culprit but they won't be able to prove that he did all the other things you believe he did?
    ----------------------------------------------
    How do they USUALLY prove such stuff?

    1) postmarks (a general sort of evidence). But he uses his network of collaborators to mail stuff from all over (well, at least the Eastern US). Different postmarks, different states.

    2)fingerprints. None found in Amerithrax (that we know of), the writer of the Goldman Sachs letter 'apology' letters said he had used ?furniture polish? to wipe off finger prints (and this was confirmed by examining the mailings); none of the other mailings (Syracuse, Texas etc.) seem to have fingerprints etc..

    3)eyewitnesses. Don't appear to be any in any of the cases.

    4)DNA from stamps. Pre-paid envelopes preclude that.

    Etc. It's not MY fault that the perp is careful. But I HAVE been careful in my postings here and elsewhere to say that intellectually solving a case (a la Columbo, Jessica Flecher, Hercule Poirot etc.) isn't the same thing as accumulating the evidence. The G-men have their work cut out for them!

    ReplyDelete
  16. R. Rowley wrote: "intellectually solving a case (a la Columbo, Jessica Flecher, Hercule Poirot etc.) isn't the same thing as accumulating the evidence."

    It isn't? I think you're misinterpreting things. All the cases solved by those fictional detectives (Columbo, Fletcher, Poirot) involved accumulating evidence -- much of which was circumstantial evidence. Virtually every case resulted in the culprit being identified and arrested.

    What you consider to be "intellectually solving a case" seems to be your knowing "in your gut" who did it, even though you have no evidence. If your gut tells you who did it, that's is NOT your brain telling you, therefore it is NOT "intellectual."

    There are cases on TV where the detective knows "in his gut" who did it, because when he or she confronted the suspect, the suspect smiled, looked the detective in the eye and said, "Prove it." But, in every case, the detective then proves it by finding evidence.

    I think your problem is that you still don't understand circumstantial evidence. You feel it isn't evidence, even though it's the type of evidence used in most criminal trials.

    Intellectually, it doesn't matter what your gut says. Your gut is often wrong. It only matters what the evidence says. The evidence may sometimes be misleading, but it can't be "wrong." It can only be incomplete or misinterpreted.

    And you seem to have NO EVIDENCE to support your beliefs -- only a gut feeling. That's not "intellectually solving a case." That's believing something that isn't supported by the evidence. It has nothing to do with intelligence.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  17. R. Rowley wrote: "intellectually solving a case (a la Columbo, Jessica Flecher, Hercule Poirot etc.) isn't the same thing as accumulating the evidence."

    It isn't? I think you're misinterpreting things. All the cases solved by those fictional detectives (Columbo, Fletcher, Poirot) involved accumulating evidence -- much of which was circumstantial evidence. Virtually every case resulted in the culprit being identified and arrested.
    ---------------------------
    Identified yes. Arrested, sometimes maybe. But getting the GOODS on the perp? Not really. And when it sorta happens it's an after-the-fact confection, no more believable-----actually LESS----than the puzzle-solving that is at the heart of those sleuths and their schtick.

    I've sure I've seen scores of Columbo episodes over the years, but

    1)I've never seen Columbo read anyone his Miranda rights.

    2)I've never seen Columbo in COURT (which is after all where these things are always adjudicated).

    3)I've never seen Columbo even TALK with a prosecutor.
    (Not complaining, just describing the essence of the show: it was a puzzle-solver's delight, but let's guess no law school has even THOUGHT about confusing their students by holding up episodes as proper investigative/legal procedure).

    4)I've never seen a Columbo episode in which the perp didn't admit the crime in the last or next to last scene.

    Hercule Poirot was a (?former?) Belgian sleuth who was always operating out of his jurisdiction, outside Belgium (meaning, among other things, he wasn't familiar with local legal requirements, had no search or police powers whatsoever etc.). Sherlock Holmes was a CONSULTANT, not a cop. Jessica Fletcher a mystery writer who 'imagined' the true perp via sifting through
    a maze of motive and opportunity etc.for all the suspects.

    I don't EVER recall seeing Fletcher, Holmes, Poirot in a courtroom scene. Perhaps it would have been anti-climactic dramatically, but that's where cases (even of the OBVIOUSLY guilty!) are won or lost.
    ---------------
    Universally, these shows and movies (and presumably even the written works that some of them are based on)feature in the ultimate or penultimate scene a cleverer-than-all-getout explication of the crime by the sleuth. After (perhaps) some last moment sputtering denials by the perp, he ends up confessing, sometimes before, sometimes after, sometimes DURING a last ditch effort to escape (think THE THIN MAN). In Columbo (and I think MURDER SHE WROTE) the perps were all too high-class to bother with fleeing or strong-arm tactics when found out. So there's some variation, but very little in the way of development of USABLE evidence of the courtroom sort.

    ReplyDelete
  18. R. Rowley wrote: "I don't EVER recall seeing Fletcher, Holmes, Poirot in a courtroom scene."

    Correct. TV detective shows are all about identifying the culprit. The courtroom scenes all take place after the story ends. They never use a grand jury. The reading of the suspect's Miranda rights is sometimes done by the cop who puts handcuffs on the suspect as the story ends, but I don't think you ever seen Columbo, Fletcher, Holmes or Poirot put handcuffs on anyone, either.

    However, the anthrax case and the ricin mailings aren't fictional crimes. They're real crimes. Using fictional reasoning (as you seem to be doing) doesn't necessarily apply to a real crime. And your fiction-based reasoning certainly doesn't take precedence over real-life reasoning.

    In real life, arrests are generally made by a cop only if he actually witnessed a crime or if he has other direct evidence and there's a danger of the suspect fleeing.

    You never see Columbo testifying before a grand jury even though ALL of his cases would probably have gone before a grand jury.

    In real life, the police find real evidence - INCLUDING circumstantial evidence - and they present it to the district attorney. They may continue to look for additional evidence after they identify the culprit because they want to make a better case in court. They question the suspect repeatedly and investigate anything he might say that could lead to additional evidence. None of that is ever done in a fictional case. It's not good drama.

    The FBI had a solid case against Ivins. They were preparing to indict him. Ivins even had to get a different lawyer because the lawyer he had wasn't qualified to try a death-penalty case. And arrangements were made for the government to pick up Ivins' attorney costs because it was a death penalty case. But, neither the FBI nor the police ever made an actual arrest. Why? Because if they had, Ivins name would immediately have been in the newspapers and the media would have gone crazy.

    The DOJ was working through a grand jury. That way, it wouldn't be until the grand jury handed down an indictment - which would be immediately followed by an arrest - that the media would know that the anthrax mailer had been found.

    There are BIG differences between the fictional cases you use as a guide and the real laws and rules the FBI and the police use.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  19. There are BIG differences between the fictional cases you use as a guide and the real laws and rules the FBI and the police use.
    ---------------------------------------
    What "use as a guide"? I was citing those shows as interesting
    "puzzle-solving" ventures, NOT as realistic portrayals of true courses of investigations, adjudications of crimes.

    And I was doing it to emphasize something erroneous in what you posted above: (repost)

    So, if they catch the guy who you believe did it, they'll be solving hundreds of crimes all at once?
    ----------------------
    Of course, whether it's erroneous depends on what YOU meant by "solving". That's why I responded (partial):
    ----------------------------------------------------
    I think so. But only in an intellectual sense[...]
    ----------
    It's only an intellectual solution in the sense that Jessica Fletcher's solutions are: all neat and tidy at the end, since due process never comes into the picture. In 'reality-based' stuff due process HAS to enter the picture. It's the difference between showing something to a TV or movie audience (which is constrained only by the imagination and by film technology), and showing 'evidence' to a jury, which is constrained by due process.

    Figuring out who-done-it isn't the same as proving who-done-it in a court of law.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I just fell upon this:
    ------------------------
    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gW_Wd5miTL3x8bPRT0k8HMExQGqg?docId=CNG.c5a61f715ab8ad1475708283e33931ee.2d1

    Letter addressed to Obama tests positive for ricin: FBI

    By Stephen Collinson (AFP) – 57 minutes ago

    WASHINGTON — A letter addressed to US President Barack Obama tested positive for ricin in a drama over poisoned mail spreading alarm in Washington, which was already on edge Wednesday after the Boston bombings.

    The FBI said there was no connection between the letter sent to Obama and detected at a remote mail facility, and another mailed to Republican Senator Roger Wicker, and the blasts at the Boston marathon which killed three people.
    -------------------------------------------------
    I interrupt the excerpt from the news story to say: I don't like the second comma above: I don't think it should be there, though its possible they are saying that there's no connection between the two anthrax letters! Back to the story excerpt:
    -----------------------
    After preliminary tests on the Obama letter showed traces of ricin, further examinations will be carried out over the next 24 to 48 hours, the FBI said.

    The US Secret Service said the letter to Obama had been intercepted at a mail screening facility outside the White House on Tuesday, the same day authorities said a letter was sent to Wicker that also showed traces of ricin.
    -----------------snip------------------------

    ReplyDelete
  21. R. Rowley wrote: "Letter addressed to Obama tests positive for ricin:"

    Yeah, but that's just some "preliminary" tests which often give false positives. They still have to do actual lab tests to confirm it.

    However, since we have four letters all testing positive for ricin, it seems logical that some form of ricin will be found in the letters.

    The letters were mailed from Memphis and contain the message: "I am KC and I approve this message."

    It seems possible that the guy may have mailed the letters in Memphis and then driven to Boston for the marathon.

    The FBI reportedly has videos and/or photos of the person in Boston who put the second bomb on the curb next to a mailbox. Many news outlets were reporting that an arrest had been made, but the FBI denies it.

    I think it would be a good idea to wait awhile to see how this all plays out before arguing further over the differences between the way Jessica Fletcher solves a crime and the way the FBI solves a crime.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  22. The ricin letters also say, "To see a wrong and not expose it, is to become a silent partner to its continuance."

    I've seen that kind of comment from a lot of conspiracy theorists.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  23. At least we know he's not using "Fallen Angel" now as a pseudonym.

    KC (?and the Sunshine Band?)
    ----------------------------------------------------
    So 2003-4: (excerpts from Wiki)

    1)On October 15, 2003[5] a package was discovered at a mail-sorting center in Greenville, South Carolina, near the Greenville-Spartanburg International Airport.[6] The package contained a letter and a small metal vial containing ricin powder.[6] A label on the outside of the envelope containing the vial displayed the typed message: "Caution ricin poison enclosed in sealed container. Do not open without proper protection".

    2) On November 6, 2003, another letter, described as "nearly identical" to the October letter, was discovered. This time, the letter was addressed to The White House and it was discovered at a White House mail-processing facility in Washington D.C.[11] The letter contained a small vial of a white powdery substance that was initially tested negative for ricin.[12] After subsequent testing at the mail facility resulted in positives for ricin contamination on mail equipment, the U.S. Secret Service ordered a retest that showed by November 10 the letter was "probable for ricin".[12]

    The letter was postmarked on October 17 in Chattanooga, Tennessee.[5] Though addressed to the White House, the threatening language contained in the letter was again directed at the U.S. Department of Transportation and written by an individual calling him/herself "Fallen Angel", as with previous letter

    3)On February 2, 2004 in a mail room serving Senator Bill Frist in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, a white powdery substance was found on a sorting machine.[15] Tests on February 3 confirmed that the substance was ricin.[15] The positive test results were indicated by six of eight preliminary tests on the substance.[13] The discovery resulted in more than a dozen staffers undergoing decontamination as well as the closure of the Dirksen, Hart, and Russell Senate Office Buildings.[13][15] The incident was treated as a criminal probe with investigators looking carefully for any connection between the ricin found at Dirksen and the "Fallen Angel" cases.
    -------------------------------------------------------
    As these things (in Chattanooga, and recently in Memphis mailing) happened far from known residences of any of the Amerithrax perps, I have to guess the mastermind has another accomplice in or near Tennessee, a hyper elongated east to west state.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "It seems possible that the guy may have mailed the letters in Memphis and then driven to Boston for the marathon. "
    -----------------------------------
    My interpretation would be: he's piggy-backing on April 15th, just as he piggy-backed on Sept 11th back in 2001.

    ReplyDelete
  25. R. Rowley wrote: "My interpretation would be: he's piggy-backing on April 15th"

    Maybe, but it usually takes a day or so for someone to develop a diabolical plan. And your idea assumes that the guy had ricin ready and was just waiting for some other event to happen before he mailed out the letters.

    It seems a bit more logical that the guy mailed the letters on the 15th before heading to Boston. The letters were then intercepted and tested on the 16th and 17th.

    Of course, it may also be somewhat logical that the two attacks are unrelated. But, they just seem too close together to be unrelated - particularly since we haven't had anything like it in years.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  26. R. Rowley wrote: "My interpretation would be: he's piggy-backing on April 15th"

    Maybe, but it usually takes a day or so for someone to develop a diabolical plan. And your idea assumes that the guy had ricin ready and was just waiting for some other event to happen before he mailed out the letters.
    --------------------------------------------------------
    I don't think anything terribly clever (or original!) is necessary: he's been mailing many dozens to hundreds of threatening letters (some with powders, some without) since 1997, and he seems to use accomplices to obscure where they are coming from.
    ---------------
    Note another correspondence:

    Amerithrax text #1: Take Penacilin Now.
    Amerithrax text #2: We Have this anthrax.
    First 2003 (October) ricin mailing had this on outside: Caution ricin poison enclosed in sealed container. Do not open without proper protection

    ReplyDelete
  27. Another thing to bear in mind is the considerable distance between Memphis and Chattanooga:

    Chattanooga, TN
    4 hours 55 mins
    Memphis, TN

    340.3 mi
    ----------------------------------
    The accomplice may live in neither place, in someplace in between.

    ReplyDelete
  28. R. Rowley wrote: "I don't think anything terribly clever (or original!) is necessary"

    That's because you can rationalize anything to make it fit with your theory.

    I was talking reality. The facts say it took Ivins a couple days to decide to take advantage of 9/11 to send out anthrax letters he'd been planning for over a year.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  29. R. Rowley wrote: "I don't think anything terribly clever (or original!) is necessary"

    That's because you can rationalize anything to make it fit with your theory.
    ----------------------------------------
    My theory, as I've told you a number of times, is an accretion, not a spontaneously-generated product of either my own imagination or, shudder!, going into full booster mode for whatever the government is claiming at a particular time. Meaning it is reality-based.

    My theory didn't include any accomplices until I realized that to do the St Pete hoax letters, AND the Amerithrax proper letters, AND the Town of Quantico letter etc. would require a relay system, one which took me surprisingly long to sketch out. And, notice, in this very thread I'm still tweaking my theory: I now think it likely a Tenn. area accomplice was/is involved, though that doesn't help me ident him.
    -----------------
    If Ivins did it, then he's of no help with the ricin attacks.

    ReplyDelete
  30. R. Rowley wrote: "My theory didn't include any accomplices until I realized that to do the St Pete hoax letters, AND the Amerithrax proper letters, AND the Town of Quantico letter etc. would require a relay system, one which took me surprisingly long to sketch out."

    It's called "rationalizing." It has nothing to do with reality.

    R. Rowley also wrote: "If Ivins did it, then he's of no help with the ricin attacks."

    Right. It's VERY difficult to rationalize a way he could have helped with the ricin letters that just arrived.

    There is absolutely NO REASON to believe any of these various crimes involving letters are connected. There are simply a lot of nut cases out there. And sending stuff through the mail is viewed by nut cases as a relatively safe way to cause trouble without getting caught.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  31. New information about the ricin letters from HERE.

    "According to the FBI bulletin, both letters, postmarked April 8, 2013 out of Memphis, Tenn., included an identical phrase, "to see a wrong and not expose it, is to become a silent partner to its continuance."

    In addition, both letters are signed: "I am KC and I approve this message."


    That means the ricin letters CANNOT be something someone dreamed up AFTER the Boston bombings.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  32. R. Rowley wrote: "My theory didn't include any accomplices until I realized that to do the St Pete hoax letters, AND the Amerithrax proper letters, AND the Town of Quantico letter etc. would require a relay system, one which took me surprisingly long to sketch out."

    It's called "rationalizing." It has nothing to do with reality
    -------------------------------------------------
    No, "rationalizing" means claiming your theory has no flaws. Like you do with the DoJ's case. I noticed flaws in my one-man theory in, I think, early 2007, due to the geography of the whole thing,
    and THAT'S when (and why) I realized accomplices are necessary.
    But since I wasn't sharing with Mister Lake in 2007 and 2008, he's oblivious to the circumstances of how I ascertained thing, including the sequence.

    Rationalizing 500-pound man: "I'm fine the way I am!"

    Non-rationalizing 500-pound man: "I could stand to lose a pound, or ten, or a hundred".

    My theory has been on a diet for years.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "That means the ricin letters CANNOT be something someone dreamed up AFTER the Boston bombings."
    ----------------------------------
    You're right.

    ReplyDelete
  34. R. Rowley wrote: "No, "rationalizing" means claiming your theory has no flaws."

    No, it doesn't. "Rationalizing" means you dream up an explanation for everything to make it fit your theory. That has nothing to do with "flaws."

    You dream up a theory, and then you make up ways everything you want to fit the idea can fit the idea. And you leave it to others to prove that the pieces don't fit. If they try, you can rationalize ways to argue that they DO fit- in spite of all arguments.

    When pushed, the argument is: Prove that it is IMPOSSIBLE for my theory to be right. I.e., you shift the burden of proof to those who do not accept your theory.

    I'm done for today. I'll be back tomorrow.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  35. Well, it looks like I was wrong about the (recent) ricin mailings being connected to those of 2003.....and therefore the Amerithrax
    mailings...

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324493704578428681727849900.html

    POLITICS Updated April 17, 2013, 8:40 p.m. ET
    Man Is Arrested in Ricin Scare .

    WASHINGTON—Federal agents arrested a Mississippi man on Wednesday for allegedly sending suspicious letters to President Barack Obama and a U.S. senator, at the end of a day of nervous tension across the nation's capital.

    Paul Kevin Curtis was arrested at his home in Corinth, Miss., the Federal Bureau of Investigation said. He was also charged with sending a similar letter to an unidentified Mississippi justice official. Authorities didn't immediately describe the charges.
    -----------------------------snip---------------------------
    So maybe Senator McCaskill did understand correctly what the senators were told about a "suspect".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R. Rowley wrote: "Well, it looks like I was wrong about the (recent) ricin mailings being connected to those of 2003.....and therefore the Amerithrax"

      Yeah, and there's no connection between the ricin mailings and the Boston bombings, either. I awoke this morning realizing that the postmark on the ricin letters was April 8 and the Boston bombings occurred on April 15, exactly one week later. 9/11 and the first anthrax mailing occurred exactly one week apart.

      But, some mysterious occurrences are just coincidences.

      Ed

      Delete
  36. I agree with Mister Lake's comment today that John Bolton's idea that there is an overseas connection to the two Chechen brothers'
    bombings is unlikely. The focus of Chechen terrorism has been Russia, there's no profit to them in attacking other nations, and certainly not the US which historically has been at least a rival, if not an out-and-out adversary of the USSR/Russia for close to a century. So, it's probably just the two brothers, accepting their own form of 'jihad': an idiosyncratic ideology-for-two that doesn't map well to other organizations. Critical to establishing that, though, is capturing the surviving brother live.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I guess I wrote too soon in assuming that Paul Kevin Curtis was guilty of sending the ricin letters:

    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/22/16918241-fbi-no-ricin-found-in-home-of-mississippi-suspect?lite

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-securitybre93m151-20130423,0,6655848.story

    I wonder whether they've at least established (ie know via some sort of evidence) that he drove to Memphis in the right timeframe to do the mailings.
    Distance from Memphis to Corinth MS is: 96.9 miles, or 1 hour 40 minutes:

    http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=distance+from+memphis+to+corinth+ms&oq=distance+from+memphis+to+corinth+ms&gs_l=serp.3..0i22i30l2.4258.10768.0.11199.18.17.1.0.0.0.190.2088.5j12.17.0...0.0...1c.1.11.psy-ab.m4NfGDf0Q4c&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&fp=49a5d3695b53d166&biw=1280&bih=853

    ReplyDelete
  38. FBI serves search warrant at Dutschke's home

    Published: 1:57 pm Share Updated: 2:34 pm LEE COUNTY, Miss. (WTVA)--Federal agents are now searching the home of J. Everett Dutschke.

    Earlier this week the defense attorney for Paul Kevin Curtis- the man accused of mailing three ricin laced letters to President Obama, Senator Roger Wicker, and Judge Sadie Holland- suggested prosecutors look into J. Everett Dutschke.

    Defense attorney Christi McCoy said Curtis is innocent and the government has failed to find any proof connecting him to the letters.

    Curtis was released on bond Monday.

    http://www.wtva.com/content/news/breaking/story/FBI-serves-search-warrant-at-Dutschkes-home/8mOwzV6idEuzp7eZsQ2f5A.cspx

    ReplyDelete
  39. R. Rowley wrote: "I guess I wrote too soon in assuming that Paul Kevin Curtis was guilty of sending the ricin letters"

    I think "frame ups" are real in about 1 time out of 10,000 times they are claimed.

    The odds are still in favor of him being the culprit. But, it's not a sure thing.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  40. Mister Lake wrote:
    ---------------
    I think "frame ups" are real in about 1 time out of 10,000 times they are claimed.
    ====================================================
    But then we still disagree as to whether the TOWN OF QUANTICO letter denouncing Ayaad Assaad was an attempted frame up or, this Mister Lake's take, a sincere warning to the authorities. And by "still" I mean 11 1/2 years after that letter was sent.

    So perhaps Mister Lake is merely less open to the possibility.

    ReplyDelete
  41. R. Rowley wrote: "Mister Lake's take, a sincere warning to the authorities. "

    Right. There is absolutely NO reason to believe it was anything other than a sincere (but probably overstated and prejudiced) warning to the authorities. What it said about Assaad was roughly true, wasn't it?

    All it said was that Assaad was a "potential terrorist" and asked that the authorities "talk to him to make certain he is not involved in further terrorist activities."

    In some people's view, every foreign born person is a "potential terrorist."

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  42. R. Rowley wrote: "Mister Lake's take, a sincere warning to the authorities. "

    Right. There is absolutely NO reason to believe it was anything other than a sincere (but probably overstated and prejudiced) warning to the authorities. What it said about Assaad was roughly true, wasn't it?

    All it said was that Assaad was a "potential terrorist" and asked that the authorities "talk to him to make certain he is not involved in further terrorist activities."
    --------------------------------------------------------
    I don't think I have anything new to say to that beyond what I posted here 11 months ago: (repost)
    -----------------------------
    r. rowley May 24, 2012 at 6:40 AM
    Partial by Mister Lake:
    ----
    The Quantico letter gave information about the sender. When pointing at Dr. Assaad, the writer said,[...]
    ========================================================
    Yes, and the info the 'sender' provided wasn't true: he WASN'T a co-worker with Assaad. If he had had ANY personal familiarity with Assaad, he would have known the guy was a Coptic Christian and would have had as much interest in "jihad" as Mary Poppins. It's a provocation and a red herring. One you can't seem to see through.
    -------------------------------------------------
    (Above almost halfway down the thread)
    http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2012/05/may-13-to-may-19-2012-discussions.html

    ReplyDelete
  43. R. Rowley wrote: "Yes, and the info the 'sender' provided wasn't true: he WASN'T a co-worker with Assaad."

    I understand that's your BELIEF. I was talking about FACTS. Your BELIEFS are just BELIEFS and unproven. So, it's a waste of your time and mine to bring them up.

    Haven't you yet learned the difference between BELIEFS and FACTS?

    You seem incapable of seeing the difference.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  44. R. Rowley wrote: "Yes, and the info the 'sender' provided wasn't true: he WASN'T a co-worker with Assaad."

    I understand that's your BELIEF.
    ------------------------------
    What "belief"?!?!? The FBI never indicated they figured out who he was; after Ivins' suicide Jeff Taylor was asked about the TOWN OF QUANTICO letter at the Aug 6th 2008 press conference and here is how THAT part went:
    -------------------
    Do you think there's a connection between Ivins and what was known at the time of the Quantico letter? There was a letter sent in September of 2001 identifying an Arab-American scientist at Fort Detrick as a bioterrorist. The letter also threatened a bioterror attack and also death to Israel. Were you ever satisfied that you were able to run down that letter and the author of that letter?

    Taylor: I'm not aware of any connection. To my knowledge, there's no evidence linking the two.
    Joe?[And then the subject is dropped]
    ------------------------------------------------------
    "I'm not aware of any connection" does not equate to 'We figured out it was a coworker or acquaintance of Ivins'. All Taylor's saying there is: there's no connection because we see nothing relating it to Ivins. THEREFORE (because we hold Ivins guilty for Amerithrax) there's no connection (to the Amerithrax crimes)
    --------------------------------------------
    I should note that the questioner got some of the facts wrong, wrong because it was only SUBSEQUENTLY, ie some weeks or months after that press conference, that the text of the QUANTICO LETTER was made public.
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    And as I noted before a TRUE coworker would likely have known Assaad was a Coptic Christian and thus had no religious reason to hate either Israel or the US. The letter-write evidently did not know that.
    And Assaad himself evidently doesn't think a coworker wrote it.

    ReplyDelete
  45. R. Rowley wrote: " .. as I noted before a TRUE coworker would likely have known Assaad was a Coptic Christian and thus had no religious reason to hate either Israel or the US. The letter-write evidently did not know that."

    NONSENSE. That's just another one of your baseless BELIEFS.

    The letter doesn't say anything about Assaad's religion, but it seems to suggest that the letter writer either ASSUMED OR BELIEVED that Assaad was a Muslim. Therefore, he or she didn't know OR CARE that Assaad was a Coptic Christian.

    The facts say that the letter was from a co-worker of Assaad's who thought he was a "potential terrorist." There's nothing that connects the letter writer to any theory of yours, nor to Ivins or anyone else.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  46. R. Rowley also wrote: "And Assaad himself evidently doesn't think a coworker wrote it."

    WHO CARES what Assaad believed? His BELIEFS are as worthless as yours.

    Only FACTS matter.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  47. Ed Lake writes:

    "The odds are still in favor of him [Curtis] being the culprit."

    Ed Lake's BELIEFS are not supported by the FACTS.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous wrote: "Ed Lake's BELIEFS are not supported by the FACTS."

      The only "FACTS" in the case are that the culprit signed his name the way Curtis had signed his name, Curtis lived in the general area where the letters were mailed, and Curtis had a "motive."

      PLUS, the fact I mentioned: Frame-ups are very rare, compared to the number of claims of a frame-up.

      According to your local paper, "A one-sentence document filed by federal prosecutors said charges against Curtis were dropped, but left open the possibility they could be re-instated if authorities found more to prove their case."

      I don't have any particular "belief" about this case. There are "facts" which suggest that someone could have tried to "frame" Curtis, but there are also "facts" that Curtis is evidently mentally ill and seems to have motive for the crime.

      The "fact" that the charges were dropped "without prejudice" doesn't mean Curtis is innocent. It only means that the authorities don't have sufficient evidence to go forward with a prosecution, and they may have another possible suspect.

      Ed

      Delete
    2. Ed Lake's BELIEF that a First Grader wrote the Fall 2001 anthrax mailing similarly is not supported by the FACTS.

      Wrong about ricin.

      Wrong about anthrax.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous,

      I've listed the FACTS for you many times. And yet you just continue to mindlessly chant that there are no facts.

      You clearly cannot comprehend the difference between FACTS and baseless BELIEFS, which explains why you rely on BASELESS BELIEFS.

      If the 12 FACTS I listed aren't facts, why don't you explain to everyone why you BELIEVE they aren't facts?

      Ed

      Delete
  48. R. Rowley wrote: " .. as I noted before a TRUE coworker would likely have known Assaad was a Coptic Christian and thus had no religious reason to hate either Israel or the US. The letter-write evidently did not know that."

    NONSENSE. That's just another one of your baseless BELIEFS.
    =======================================
    You're the one with the "beliefs" in this area:

    you believe that the text of an anonymous letter writer
    should be taken at face value, despite the fact that
    he's denouncing an innocent man (the FBI did clear Assaad, that
    in an across-the-board manner). This belief of yours is similar to your belief that the anonymous letter-writer of the St Pete letter has knowledge of that geographical area, simply because he mentioned the sky-bridge in passing (again see the thread of about
    11 months ago: http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2012/05/may-13-to-may-19-2012-discussions.html with the sky-bridge bit brought up about here: Ed LakeMay 23, 2012 at 8:30 AM
    wherein Mister Lake ALSO takes at face value the contents of the Goldman-Sachs threatening/apology letter......in strange contrast to the citation on his website about THAT very topic:
    ----------
    http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/GS-thoughts.html
    According to The Daily News:

    "The investigators believe the latest letter may have been written by the same person, but they're not convinced the underlying story in the letter is the truth," said [FBI] spokesman James Margolin.
    ---------------
    So, it's not as if Mister Lake is OBLIGATED to take the contents of the Goldman-Sachs letter at face value, since the investigators remain skeptical, yet that is his position.


    ----------------------------------------------------------
    R. Rowley also wrote: "And Assaad himself evidently doesn't think a coworker wrote it."

    WHO CARES what Assaad believed? His BELIEFS are as worthless as yours.

    Only FACTS matter.
    ------------------------------------
    You've failed in 4 or 5 posts on the matter to cite a single fact that indicates the letter-writerwas a true co-worker of Assaad's.
    All you cite is this:
    ---------
    The facts say that the letter was from a co-worker of Assaad's who thought he was a "potential terrorist."
    ------------
    And what 'fact' is that? The mere ASSERTION of the letter-writer that he's a coworker/ex-coworker of Assaad's. But if he had been, he would likely have been idented. There's no indication he was indented.
    I could see a Bible-literalist taking a passage of Scripture at face value, but a letter of denunciation!?!?!?

    ReplyDelete
  49. R. Rowley wrote: "you believe that the text of an anonymous letter writer should be taken at face value, despite the fact that he's denouncing an innocent man"

    It's not a belief to have NO reason to believe the letter should NOT be taken at face value. The writer of the letter didn't accuse Assaad of any crime. The letter just said Assaad was a "potential terrorist." It even said, "I don't know if he is guilty."

    Your argument is like arguing that if I get an electric bill in the mail I shouldn't BELIEVE it's a true electric bill. I should assume it's some kind of plot from some master terrorist.

    Sorry. I take it at face value IF I HAVE NO REASON TO DO OTHERWISE.

    R. Rowley also wrote: "And what 'fact' is that? The mere ASSERTION of the letter-writer that he's a coworker/ex-coworker of Assaad's. But if he had been, he would likely have been idented. There's no indication he was indented."

    He would likely have been "idented"? I assume you mean "identified."

    It doesn't appear that there is enough information in the letter to identify the writer. The letter was typed, and there were probably dozens of people who worked with Assaad. You just have another BELIEF that the writer would have been "idented."

    There is absolutely NO reason not to take the Assaad letter at face value. To create fantasy BELIEFS tying the letter to some unnamed master criminal is just plain absurd.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  50. Ed, this is what I wrote.

    Your inability to accurate characterize what people write is related to the poor reasoning ability that causes you to believe it is 99% certain a First Grader wrote anthrax letters.

    Ed Lake writes:

    "The odds are still in favor of him [Curtis] being the culprit."

    Ed Lake's BELIEFS are not supported by the FACTS.

    Ed Lake's BELIEF that a First Grader wrote the Fall 2001 anthrax mailing similarly is not supported by the FACTS.

    Wrong about ricin.

    Wrong about anthrax.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous,

      Don't you have anything better to do than to repeat your baseless BELIEFS over and over and over?

      The FACTS say that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer.

      The FACTS say that Ivins used a child to write the letters.

      Your BELIEFS do not alter the facts.

      Ed

      Delete
  51. Posted by Mister Lake:
    --------------
    There is absolutely NO reason not to take the Assaad letter at face value.
    -------------------------------------
    Yes, there is, and I already wrote about this at this very venue.

    1) ANONYMOUS denunciations are always troubling to officials, since they frequently involve hidden motives on the part of the letter-writers.

    And not just in criminal cases in the US. Take Vichy France:
    authorities had to contend with MILLIONS of mostly anonymous denunciations.
    (partial)
    -----
    In contrast, various government officials discouraged informing and its self-interested motivations. In 1941, the mayor of Guéret (the administrative capital of the Creuse) published a notice in the local paper alerting residents to the fact that he "cannot take into any account letters that do not reveal the identity of their authors." Authorities would investigate and respond to accusations in signed letters, however.[8] A month later, the prefect of the Creuse and the Military Commandant for the department echoed the mayor's announcement. Calling anonymous letters "intolerable" and their authors "cowards," the officials declared that the authors, not the accused, would be the object of prosecution.[9] The day after Pétain's 1942 New Year's address, the Minister of the Interior sent a circular to the prefects of the free zone regarding anonymous letters and slanderous denunciations. Citing the growing number of false denunciations that created an atmosphere of suspicion and malaise contrary to the recovery of France, Pierre Pucheu enjoined prefects to employ "energetic" measures to put an end to the letters.
    ----------------
    http://quod.lib.umich.edu/w/wsfh/0642292.0031.017?rgn=main;view=fulltext
    -------

    2)as I noted on our previous discussion on this subject there are INTERNAL contradictions in the letter: first calling Assaad only a "potential terrorist", the letter writer then (next sentence!) says "I don't know if he is guilty..." (of what? Potentiality?!?!?!?). Then a few sentences on he writes "Please find out of he plans more terrorism." Of course, a "potential terrorist" cannot plan "more terrorism" as he never committed such acts to begin with. The letter-writer writes "I work with this religious fanatic." but there's no reason to think he did work with Assaad, and there's no independent reason to think Assaad is a 'religious fanatic', and if he HAD BEEN a religious fanatic it would have been as a Coptic Christian one whose main concern in Egypt and elsewhere was/is: radical Islam.

    3)the FOX News story* revealing the text of the Town of Quantico letter, included this bit (partial):
    (story was dated Sept 16th 2008 and written by Catherine Herridge and Ian McCaleb)
    ---------------------------------------------------
    The similarities between the typed Quantico letter and handwritten anthrax letters are also striking beyond the obvious connection to Ft. Detrick.

    Both warn of biological attacks in fall of 2001. Both express hatred for Israel. Both begin with the word “This,” which investigators say is a highly unusual stylistic quality.

    The letters also contain prominent spelling mistakes. In the Quantico letter, the spelling of the Jewish state is “Isreal.” In the anthrax letters, Penicillin is spelled “Penacilin.”
    ----------------------------------------------
    This written by the authors many months before I concluded via analysis that the letter was written by the Amerithrax mastermind.


    * http://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2008/09/17/fox-news-text-quantico-letter-2001-antrhax-attacks/

    ReplyDelete
  52. "He would likely have been "idented"? I assume you mean "identified.""
    ================================================
    Yeah, sorry, a bit of Signals Intelligence jargon I picked up in the 1970s: the military is great for that in general and since 'ident[ify]ing' signals and much more is integral to the work, "ident" was for me (and lingeringly still is)both a noun and a verb. Slips off the tongue once you are used to it.

    ReplyDelete
  53. From Mister Lake:
    ==============
    April 23, 2013 at 12:56 PM
    R. Rowley wrote: "I guess I wrote too soon in assuming that Paul Kevin Curtis was guilty of sending the ricin letters"

    I think "frame ups" are real in about 1 time out of 10,000 times they are claimed.
    ------------------------------------------
    You repeated that figure in your (A) comment of the 26th:
    ------------------
    But, for every real frame-up, there have probably been ten thousand claims about a frame-up.
    =====================================================
    Are you saying that 9,999 of every 10,000 persons arrested are guilty?!?! Or that 9,999 of every 10,000 persons arrested are FOUND guilty? Either way, it seems an improbable figure. Conviction rates are MUCH lower than that, though convictions don't always turn on 'frame ups' per se. And a subset of frame ups can ORIGINATE with law enforcement types:
    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2000/01/lapd-j28.html

    An ingenious frame up case in New York is here:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/nyregion/jerry-ramrattans-accuser-testifies-on-rape-and-frame-up.html

    ReplyDelete
  54. I wrote, "There is absolutely NO reason not to take the Assaad letter at face value."

    And R. Rowley responded: "Yes, there is, and I already wrote about this at this very venue.

    1) ANONYMOUS denunciations are always troubling to officials, since they frequently involve hidden motives on the part of the letter-writers."


    Taking a letter "at face value" doesn't necessarily mean that you believe everything in the letter. All I'm saying is that there is no reason to think that it was anything other than what it appears to be - a letter written shortly after 9/11 advising the authorities of a suspicious character.

    That CERTAINLY doesn't mean that everything in the letter is true. It's just someone's beliefs.

    There's no reason to believe it is connected in any way to the anthrax letters, to the ricin letters, or to any anthrax hoax letter.

    The misspelling of "Isreal" and "Penacilin" don't mean a connection. Lots of people misspell. Plus, we KNOW that the misspelling of "Penacilin" was deliberately done to emphasize that the highlighted A was significant and a key to decoding the hidden message in the letter.

    R. Rowley also wrote: "Are you saying that 9,999 of every 10,000 persons arrested are guilty?!?! Or that 9,999 of every 10,000 persons arrested are FOUND guilty?"

    No, that's just another one of your screwball interpretations. What I'm saying is guilty people very often argue that they were framed. It has nothing to do with what is actually said or proved in court.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  55. Ed Lake writes:

    "The odds are still in favor of him [Curtis] being the culprit."

    Ed Lake's BELIEFS are not supported by the FACTS. There was indented writing on the envelope containing Mr. Curtis' two former addresses. One of the street addresses was spelled wrong. Although there was probable cause for an arrest given the nature of ricin, the facts did not support Mr. Curtis' guilt. Instead, they pointed to someone wanting to frame him.

    In the Amerithrax case, there was not even an arrest.

    Ed Lake was wrong on anthrax and he was wrong on ricin.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Anonymous,

    According to Fox News, the FBI has just arrested Everett Dutschke of Tupelo, Miss. He's the guy who allegedly "framed" Curtis.

    So, if Dutschke is really the culprit, then he's one of the rare exceptions where someone tried to frame someone else.

    That doesn't change the odds by very much. It just makes it 2 out of 10,000 times that a frame up is claimed that it turns out to be true.

    It wasn't a "belief" that the odds were that Curtis did it. It was a fact. But, new facts now say that the previous facts were misleading. That's the way "facts" work. If you have few facts, you can easily be wrong. The more facts you have, the more certain you can be that you are right.

    The facts which say Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer are overwhelming and leave little room for doubt.

    It doesn't make any difference to me which one sent the ricin letters I don't know either guy, and I have no money wagered on who did it. I'm just glad they caught the guy -- IF they have the right guy this time.

    And, of course, it says that the culprit - once again - wasn't who R. Rowley thought it was.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  57. "The odds are still in favor of him [Curtis] being the culprit."

    The odd were not in favor of Curtis being the culprit.

    He would have had no reason to sign his name and use his trademark signature.

    Similarly, a mailer would have no reason to have a First Grader write the letters. He could just disguise his printing. Duh.

    If you argue that the mailer just learned to write English, well, okay. Thank you.

    As for your posts with Mr. Rowley, while I don't no what they concern, he has told me his theory privately and it is a total nonstarter.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Anonymous wrote: "He would have had no reason to sign his name and use his trademark signature."

    Or so you BELIEVE. All you can do is argue BELIEFS.

    The facts say Curtis was mentally ill. The facts say he was frustrated over some wrong that wasn't being corrected. People in such situations sometimes want to get arrested so that they can get a bigger audience for their arguments.

    Anonymous also wrote: If you argue that the mailer just learned to write English, well, okay."

    Or so you BELIEVE. In reality, an adult just learning to write English doesn't write anything like a child just learning to write. Adults do not have the hand-eye coordination problems that are exhibited in the anthrax writings. Adults do not write big and then learn to write small.

    This has all been explained to you before. You just persist in believing what you want to believe.

    I once learned to write Japanese. That's as different as someone learning to write English who previously wrote in Arabic. I did NOT have to learn to write big before writing normal size. I did NOT have to learn punctuation separately from drawing characters. I did NOT learn to write Japanese characters by copying them from a blackboard in Kindergarten and then learn the proper way in First Grade.

    The facts say that a child wrote the anthrax letters.
    The facts say an adult did NOT write the anthrax letters.

    "a mailer would have no reason to have a First Grader write the letters"

    Another BELIEF stated as if it were a fact.

    Bruce Ivins may have thought it was a BRILLIANT idea to use a child that way. It was not only a "perfect" way to disguise the handwriting, it would be a very nasty trick on his wife - which was something he apparently would have enjoyed doing.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  59. I don't know what the odds of Curtis' guilt WERE (and it probably depends on what stage of the investigation we're talking about), but I see almost no probability that Curtis is guilty NOW. Which means, if it isn't Dutschke, then the investigators have painted themselves into a corner: even if they (eventually)locate and convict the true culprit, their twin arrests of Curtis and Duschke will seem precipitant. You can't arrest the entire state of Mississippi in order to conduct searches (especially given that the mailings-------------all of them?------------were done in Memphis.

    ReplyDelete
  60. R. Rowley wrote: "Which means, if it isn't Dutschke, then the investigators have painted themselves into a corner: even if they (eventually)locate and convict the true culprit" ..

    I would think they'd have some solid evidence before arresting Dutschke. The FBI probably realizes the situation better than you do.

    On the other hand, it's not IMPOSSIBLE for them to drop the charges against Everett Dutschke and arrest a third person. If the evidence led them to a third person, they would HAVE NO CHOICE but to arrest the third suspect. They'd just have a LOT of explaining to do.

    I think the odds against there being a third arrest are pretty high ---- but it's NOT an impossibility.

    They're working with the facts, not with beliefs. They were misled by facts. But, when you have enough facts, you can be very certain that you are right.

    Others can be certain even if they have no facts, but that doesn't work when you have to take a case to court.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  61. Mister Lake quite a bit up the thread:
    ---------------
    The misspelling of "Isreal" and "Penacilin" don't mean a connection. Lots of people misspell. Plus, we KNOW that the misspelling of "Penacilin" was deliberately done to emphasize that the highlighted A was significant and a key to decoding the hidden message in the letter.
    =================================================
    Funny how we "know" that: in the ORIGINAL version of Mister Lake's a-child-printed-it hypothesis*, the PENACILIN misspelling
    was just another 'proof' that a child indeed printed it and that child was (this Mister Lake's take) 'sounding out' the word.
    Meaning it was a mistake, not something 'deliberately done'.
    Mister Lake held that opinion for several years, despite the facts that:

    1)the overall hypothesis is that the child is copying a written text (ie there's no need to sound out anything).

    2)"penicillin" wouldn't be in the vocabulary of, let's say, 99% of 6/7 year olds. Therefore there would be no basis for him/her to sound it out.

    But wisdom is justified by all her children.

    *Note: I did not bring this up in order to beat the dead horse of the child-printed-it hypothesis (which I leave to Mister Lake and anonymous), I simply bring up the 'misspelling' element to show that Mister Lake is glossing over what he held for years about the misspelling PENACILIN.

    ReplyDelete
  62. R. Rowley,

    You still do not understand how facts work. Facts can easily be misinterpreted - particularly if you don't have very many of them.

    When I wrote that the child misspelled "penacilin" that was what I interpreted the facts to be at the time. I had no better explanation.

    The FBI's explanation came much later and makes infinitely more sense.

    When copying a word, I think a child will read the word and then spell it out phonetically in his mind as he writes it. He doesn't typically copy a word character by character.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  63. Posted by Mister Lake:
    -------------
    1) ANONYMOUS denunciations are always troubling to officials, since they frequently involve hidden motives on the part of the letter-writers."

    Taking a letter "at face value" doesn't necessarily mean that you believe everything in the letter.
    ===============================================
    Once again, we are confronted by Mister Lake's idiolect, which doesn't match up to my own notions. So we go to Mister Lake's favorite source: a dictionary (of the online type):

    Source #1:

    take someone or something at face value

    to accept someone or something just as it appears; to believe that the way things appear is the way they really are.['] He means what he says. You have to take him at face value. I take everything he says at face value.[']
    See also: face, take, value
    take something at face value

    to accept something exactly the way it appears to be. [']I don't know whether I can take her story at face value, but I will assume that she is not lying. The committee took the report at face value and approved the suggested changes.[']

    take something at face value

    to accept something because of the way it first looks or seems, without thinking about what else it could mean
    Usage notes: The face value of a note or a coin is the number written on it.
    (often negative)[']These results should not be taken at face value - careful analysis is required to assess their full implications.[']
    http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/take+at+face+value
    =========================================================
    Source #2:
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    What does “to take someone at face value” mean?

    The opposite of "taking at face value" is to look for a hidden meaning or ulterior motives. Are they lying? Is this a trick? "Face value" means that there is nothing more than meets the eye and digging deeper isn't likely to reveal anything interesting.
    http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/20791/what-does-to-take-someone-at-face-value-mean

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R. Rowley,

      So, what's your point? You seem to agree that the letter is just what it appears to be: a letter someone wrote to the authorities about someone they thought was a "potential terrorist."

      "The opposite of "taking at face value" is to look for a hidden meaning or ulterior motives. Are they lying? Is this a trick?"

      Which is what you do. You look for ways to believe the letter is some kind of trick and something other than what it appears to be. You're rationalizing to make things fit your beliefs.

      Ed

      Delete
  64. R. Rowley,

    You still do not understand how facts work. Facts can easily be misinterpreted - particularly if you don't have very many of them.
    =============================================
    Whether "penacilin" was/is a deliberate mistake or not ISN'T a 'fact' (except to the person doing the printing), it is an interpretation (ie some effort by an analyst to figure out why the misspelling is there). But you cannot admit that because it doesn't fit in with your polemical typology.

    ReplyDelete
  65. R. Rowley wrote: "Whether "penacilin" was/is a deliberate mistake or not ISN'T a 'fact' (except to the person doing the printing), it is an interpretation (ie some effort by an analyst to figure out why the misspelling is there). But you cannot admit that because it doesn't fit in with your polemical typology."

    Nonsense. Do you even understand the words you use?

    It's not MY "polemical typology." For years, I thought the misspelling of "PENACILIN" was just a copying error, and I thought the highlighted characters were just a child's "doodling."

    That's what the facts seemed to say.

    But then the FBI presented us with a LOT more facts. The new facts changed some key details in the picture.

    The facts which said that a child wrote the letters didn't change at all. But the misspelling of "PENACILIN" and the use of the letter "A" were now clearly deliberate and part of the coding process for the hidden message in the letter. All the new pieces fit. My interpretation of a copying mistake was wrong.

    The new facts showed that the "doodling" was actually part of a coding process. The facts show the code came from a well-known book. All the new pieces fit. My interpretation of "doodling" was clearly wrong.

    I have no problem accepting new facts. I spend my days looking for new facts. I ask people to correct any errors they see on my web site. If I'm wrong, I want people to provide me with FACTS which PROVE I'm wrong.

    I'm not concerned about new facts causing me to change what I previously thought to be true. That's what intelligent people are supposed to do.

    It's the True Believers and "Truthers" who ignore new facts if those facts do not match with their beliefs. That's what you do.

    You cannot learn if you do not understand that new facts can change what was previously believed. It happens because prior interpretations were based upon too few and insufficient facts. It's what science and discovery is all about - finding new facts which verify or challenge old ideas and interpretations.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BTW,

      While I don't have any strong feelings one way or the other, it can still be argued that the child MAY have dropped a second "L" when copying "PENACILIN" and he MAY have changed "CANNOT" to CAN NOT" when copying the second letter.

      We'll probably never know for certain.

      Ed

      Delete
  66. R. Rowley,

    So, what's your point? You seem to agree that the letter is just what it appears to be: a letter someone wrote to the authorities about someone they thought was a "potential terrorist."
    =========================================================
    Gee, THAT'S not a fair reading of my attitude, and for that matter, it's not compatible with your next two sentences:
    --------------
    Which is what you do. You look for ways to believe the letter is some kind of trick and something other than what it appears to be.
    --------------------------------------
    So now thinking that the letter is "some kind trick" (it is!) is the same as holding that it's simply 'a letter someone wrote to the authorities about someone they thought was a "potential terrorist."'?????? Not in my book.

    It's clear to me that you are incapable of understanding my position in the matter and that's why your characterizations of my
    position are themselves wildly contradictory.
    --------
    And by the way, the part you have in italics here:
    --------
    "The opposite of "taking at face value" is to look for a hidden meaning or ulterior motives. Are they lying? Is this a trick?"
    --------
    (which I couldn't reproduce---the italics that is---- via copy and paste) wasn't me, it was the online source I cited, it is here and you can see it for yourself:
    http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/20791/what-does-to-take-someone-at-face-value-mean

    So my view of what "at face value" means coincides with both sites I found.

    (And just to finish off that section of Mister Lake's post):
    ---------------
    Which is what you do. You look for ways to believe the letter is some kind of trick and something other than what it appears to be.
    -----------------
    The only way to catch a trickster is to look a gift horse in the mouth and submit the text to a scrupulous scrutiny. That's how you pick up the contradictions in the text. The fact that the letter is MORE than a provocation isn't immediately obvious to the inexperienced analyst, but that it doesn't come from a true co-worker of Assaad is clear.

    ReplyDelete
  67. R. Rowley wrote: "Whether "penacilin" was/is a deliberate mistake or not ISN'T a 'fact' (except to the person doing the printing), it is an interpretation (ie some effort by an analyst to figure out why the misspelling is there). But you cannot admit that because it doesn't fit in with your polemical typology."

    Nonsense. Do you even understand the words you use?

    It's not MY "polemical typology." For years, I thought the misspelling of "PENACILIN" was just a copying error, and I thought the highlighted characters were just a child's "doodling."
    -------------------------------------------------------
    No, you don't understand what I mean by "polemical typology" so I'll explain it:

    1)you compulsively divide people into sheep and goats.

    2)the 'sheep' (it's a metaphor) are people like....Ed Lake, surprise!

    3)the 'goats' are people like....whoever is disputing anything with Ed Lake at a given moment (but since they tend to be 'recidivist offenders' in that regard, the population isn't as large as it could be).

    4)and how does Mister Lake KNOW he's a sheep and not a goat? "FACTS", a word he compulsively uses and abuses, and will never STOP abusing till he meets his maker(I know because, now going back a few years, I've pointedly noted his overuse/abuse of the word to him to no good effect).

    5)he uses this word not just for polemical effect (ie to put his opponents at a disadvantage), but because he himself doesn't feel comfortable in acknowledging the NECESSITY of interpretation*: interpretation in: science, in history, and----to matters closer at hand-----in analysis of criminal cases.

    *in this instance "interpretation" is more or less synonyous with : "hypothesizing", "analysis", "making inferences": etc.

    So the point was NOT about whether, in the past, Mister Lake "thought the misspelling of "PENACILIN" was just a copying error, and I thought the highlighted characters were just a child's "doodling.""

    Rather the point is: how did Mister Lake ARGUE the point originally? (For polemics=argument style, manner etc.). He argued it (STILL argues it) in terms of him knowing "FACTS" (the perpetual capitalisation a sign of how this distinction-----I'm the factual guy, everyone who disputes me is afactual--------- is central to his world-view), and his opponents being indifferent to same (rather than interpreting those facts differently).

    ReplyDelete
  68. Way up the thread, Mister Lake:
    --------------
    When I wrote that the child misspelled "penacilin" that was what I interpreted the facts to be at the time. I had no better explanation.

    The FBI's explanation came much later and makes infinitely more sense.
    -------------------------------------------
    Not to me it doesn't and, as I've noted before, the accolades the 'amino acid code' analysis has garnered are few and far between.
    --------------------------------------------
    When copying a word, I think a child will read the word and then spell it out phonetically in his mind as he writes it. He doesn't typically copy a word character by character.
    --------------------------------------------
    At 6 or 7?!!? I bet you're wrong. And what 6 or 7 year old would have a vocabulary that included "anthrax", "penicillin", and "Allah"?

    If somehow a 7 year-old spelled "anthrax" phonetically, it would likely come out "anthraks" or even "anthracs". If a 7 year-old spelled "Allah" phonetically, it would come out "Ala" since the 'h' is silent and the double 'l' is no more audible in "Allah" than it is in "penicillin".

    And, by the way, a child growing up in Maryland would be unlikely to reduce the second vowel of "penicillin" to a schwa or schwa-like sound (which is what the 'a' of 'penacilin' represents): that's something I hear a lot of here in the Midwest, but, to the best of my recollection, that's rare in the MidAtlantic state dialects.

    ReplyDelete
  69. "And, most absurd of all, Professor Tracy seems to believe he is the only human being on Planet Earth who is capable of figuring out what really happened."

    Ed, you are the only one -- out of the many dozens of people who have studied Amerithrax and commented on it -- who thinks a First Grader wrote the letters. What you say about this fellow Professor Tracy, whoever he is, in Amerithrax applies to you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous wrote: "Ed, you are the only one -- out of the many dozens of people who have studied Amerithrax and commented on it -- who thinks a First Grader wrote the letters."

      That is totally FALSE and you know it.

      When it suits your argument, you claim that I stole the idea from "Brother Jonathon."

      The idea did indeed originate with "Brother Jonathan." I state so on my web site. I just found a lot more FACTS to support his original hypothesis.

      (Anonymous now claims that Brother Jonathan no longer believes what he originally hypothesized, but I've seen no FACTS to support that claim.)

      REALITY isn't determined by how many people BELIEVE something. REALITY is determined by the FACTS. At one time, everyone on earth BELIEVED the earth was flat. That didn't make it flat.

      The FACTS say that a child wrote the anthrax letters. There are no better FACTS which say a child did NOT write the anthrax letters.

      The FACTS say that Professor Tracy is wrong. Professor Tracy just picks through the thousands of facts about the Boston Bombing and twists the few facts he can find that are vague enough to fit his BELIEFS and to make his arguments. He ignores all the SOLID FACTS which say he is wrong.

      And, of course, that is what "Anonymous" and "R. Rowley" do. They find a few facts that they can twist to make it appear they support their BELIEFS, and they ignore all the facts which show their beliefs to be wrong.

      I'm going to create a new thread about the subject of "RATIONALIZING" using examples from Professor Tracy, from "Anonymous" and from "R. Rowley." They all ignore the facts when it suits their purposes.

      Ed

      Delete
  70. R. Rowley wrote: "The fact that the letter is MORE than a provocation isn't immediately obvious to the inexperienced analyst, but that it doesn't come from a true co-worker of Assaad is clear."

    Nonsense. You are just rationalizing again.

    R. Rowley's other two posts are just incoherent babbling.

    FACTS say a child wrote the letters. I listed 12 of those facts in a video you can view by clicking HERE or you can go to the handwriting thread in this blog by clicking HERE.

    Why certain characters of he alphabet were traced over in the media letter was a separate issue. There were NO FACTS which fully explained it. My best guess was that it was doodling. My best guess about the spelling of "PENALICIN" was that it was copied wrong. I didn't state that those guesses were certainties. I knew there could be other explanations. I knew I could be wrong.

    I know I can be wrong about the handwriting being that of a child, too. That's why I never said it was a 100% certainty. But until I see solid FACTS which PROVE I'm wrong (as happened with the doodling and the spelling) I'm not going to be persuaded by silly arguments over someone else's BELIEFS.

    So, Mr. Rowley can argue his BELIEFS all he wants. They are just BELIEFS and have no value in any kind of intelligent discussion.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  71. "I know I can be wrong about the handwriting being that of a child, too. That's why I never said it was a 100% certainty."

    Right. You said it was a 99% certainty. It's time for a reality check, Ed. Take a deep breath. And realize that you fit this description. You should join the mainstream discussion and avoid the fringe. You write: "And, most absurd of all, Professor Tracy seems to believe he is the only human being on Planet Earth who is capable of figuring out what really happened." This fits you.

    As for Mr. Rowley, while I think he's a nice guy and writes well, I have no idea why you spend your days arguing against a theory where the fellow Richard doesn't like never even had access to Ames, was nowhere near the place of mailing etc. Such a theory is a non-starter. If Richard argues that the fellow -- who I know -- sent the powder just received by Quantico -- are you going to waste time debating that too? Do you think that discussing Richard's view or that other fellow's view makes your view seem reasonable? It doesn't. It just further demonstrates a lack of judgment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous wrote:

      No, it doesn't. You know the idea originally came from Brother Jonathan. Being the SECOND person to figure it out doesn't mean I think there can be only TWO of us. I get emails from others who agree. AND, I believe that "handwriting experts" would agree IF they just looked at the facts. Since they never mention the evidence which says that a child wrote the letters, the assumption has to be that the idea never occurred to them. (SOME people consider the idea to be preposterous, since they BELIEVE the culprit wouldn't leave a witness behind and would assume that the child would tell everyone that he wrote the letters. Ivins, being a sociopath, evidently saw things very differently.)

      I'm looking for the opinions of "handwriting experts" on how they interpret the 12 facts that I've spelled out.

      Until "experts" evaluate the facts, their opinions aren't worth spit.

      Ed

      Delete
  72. FACTS say a child wrote the letters. I listed 12 of those facts in a video you can view by clicking HERE or you can go to the handwriting thread in this blog by clicking HERE.
    ================================================
    Been there, done that. Five or six years ago.
    -----------------------------------------------
    So, Mr. Rowley can argue his BELIEFS all he wants. They are just BELIEFS and have no value in any kind of intelligent discussion.
    -----------------------------------------------
    What nonsense. The intelligent reader of these scribblings can see that Mister Lake wrote on this thread above:

    "There is absolutely NO reason not to take the Assaad letter at face value."
    ----------------------
    I then presented three (count 'em 3!) reasons not to take the Assaad letter at face value.

    Mister Lake COMPLETELY IGNORED the first two, which had to do with
    the historical fact that anonymous letters are notoriously unreliable (and I cited via copy and paste the horrendous situation with such letters in Vichy France), AND the readily discernible internal contradictions in the text of the Quantico letter itself (which is here:
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,423081,00.html
    (And by the way, even the headline of the story indicates the questionable nature of that letter: "FOX News Exclusive: Anonymous Note Casts Doubt on Anthrax Probe"

    Mister Lake only responded to the third point which was the observation by the authors of the Fox story that there were obvious correspondences (my word) between the Quantico letter and the Amerithrax texts proper.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The FBI says the Quantico letter is not connected to the anthrax mailings.

      Fox News may have a different OPINION and others may have different OPINIONS, but my OPINION is that the FBI is correct. I see no FACTS which disprove their findings.

      Ed

      Delete
  73. WAY up the thread:
    -----------------
    Ed Lake April 17, 2013 at 2:35 PM
    R. Rowley wrote: "No, "rationalizing" means claiming your theory has no flaws."

    No, it doesn't. "Rationalizing" means you dream up an explanation for everything to make it fit your theory. That has nothing to do with "flaws."

    You dream up a theory, and then you make up ways everything you want to fit the idea can fit the idea.
    =====================================================
    No, no, and triple no. I've corrected you on this point DOZENS of times now but you seem incapable of learning.

    1)My original theory(late 2005 to early 2007): a lone perpetrator, American did Amerithrax. Period.

    2)Months to years later, when the linguistic correspondences between/among the Amerithrax texts proper and the St Pete hoax letters, and the Quantico letter were deciphered via intense linguistic analysis I realized that "a long perpetrator" was a non-starter: there had to be accomplices for spatio-temporal reasons.

    This is very simple: lone perp vs. group. They are OPPOSITES. And I have pointed this out to you countless times. But you don't get it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R. Rowley,

      All you are saying is that you started with one OPINION and then developed another OPINION based upon what you see as "linguistic correspondences."

      I see no meaningful "linguistic correspondences." A misspelled word doesn't a case make - unless it's the same misspelled word done over and over.

      I think the idea that the St. Petersburg letters somehow match the anthrax letters or somehow match the Goldman Sachs letters or somehow match the Dallas hoax letters or somehow match the ricin letters is bad rationalizing. It is finding similarities to support a belief while ignoring the VAST differences which dispute the belief.

      Ed

      Delete
  74. Why certain characters of he alphabet were traced over in the media letter was a separate issue. There were NO FACTS which fully explained it. My best guess was that it was doodling.
    ------------------------------------------
    You didn't write "guess", you wrote that it was a "fact".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R. Rowley wrote: You didn't write "guess", you wrote that it was a "fact"."

      When you claim something like that, you should cite a source.

      On my web site I wrote:

      "12. Adults generally do not doodle when writing death threats.

      Why the writer only traced over A's and T's is a good question."


      On page 32 of my 2005 book I wrote:

      "This appears to be the idle doodling of a child. The most logical reason for this idle doodling is that it was done by a person waiting for someone to come and check what has been written."

      I may not use the word "guess," but I've made it clear everywhere that it is just what the facts say. And I look for new facts which would support or disprove what the facts currently say.

      That is NOT stating something as a fact. It is saying it is an analysis of the facts, and I am challenging everyone to find fault with my analysis by providing either a better analysis of the current facts or by providing NEW facts which are better than the old facts and show different results.

      I may not use "guess" or "surmise" or "suggest" or "theorize" in every sentence, but I make it clear that it is a HYPOTHESIS that I am seeking to verify with additional facts.

      I use "the scientific method":

      1. Formulate a question.
      2. Develop an hypothesis.
      3. Predict the consequences of the hypothesis
      4. Test the hypothesis.

      I am in step #4. I am testing the hypothesis by presenting it to the world and looking for people who can disprove it. So far, no one has even attempted to disprove it. People may not believe it, but they have NO FACTS which prove the hypothesis to be incorrect.

      I formulated the question when I first got the idea from "Brother Jonathan." The question was: Could his hypothesis be true?

      I developed my own hypothesis by examined the evidence and finding ADDITIONAL FACTS which supported Brother Jonathan's hypothesis.

      I predicted the consequences of the hypothesis when I predicted that the anthrax mailer would have had to have access to a child. (At the time, I thought the anthrax mailer was a bachelor scientist who lived in New Jersey and had no access to a child. The facts said that he had to have had some access I couldn't find.) When it was learned that Bruce Ivins' wife ran a day care center in their home and that Ivins had access to other children as well, the prediction was verified.

      I don't give a damn how many people disbelieve the hypothesis. At one time, nearly everyone on earth believed the earth was flat and no one believed that the shadow of the earth on the moon during a lunar eclipse was evidence that the earth was round. The number of people who believe in something has NOTHING to do with whether it is true or not.

      Ed

      Delete
  75. R. Rowley,

    All you are saying is that you started with one OPINION and then developed another OPINION based upon what you see as "linguistic correspondences."
    ==============================================
    Why are you substituting the word "opinion" for the word "hypothesis" or "theory"? (Answer: this is once again Mister Lake using words as polemical devices, yet blithely unaware that he is doing so).

    According to Mister Lake (and, for that matter, me)here is an 'opinion':
    ------------------------------
    Based on the selection of Anthrax as the "weapon" of choice by this individual, the offender:

    ■is likely an adult male.
    ■if employed, is likely to be in a position requiring little contact with the public, or other employees. He may work in a laboratory. He is apparently comfortable working with an extremely hazardous material. He probably has a scientific background to some extent, or at least a strong interest in science.
    ■has likely taken appropriate protective steps to ensure his own safety, which may include the use of an Anthrax vaccination or antibiotics.
    ■has access to a source of Anthrax and possesses knowledge and expertise to refine it.
    ■possesses or has access to some laboratory equipment; i.e., microscope, glassware, centrifuge, etc.
    ■has exhibited an organized, rational thought process in furtherance of his criminal behavior.
    ■has a familiarity, direct or indirect, with the Trenton, NJ, metropolitan area; however, this does not necessarily mean he currently lives in the Trenton, NJ, area.. He is comfortable traveling in and around this locale.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R. Rowley asked: "Why are you substituting the word "opinion" for the word "hypothesis" or "theory"?"

      Because an opinion does not generally involve an analysis of the facts.

      o·pin·ion /əˈpinyən/
      Noun: A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
      The beliefs or views of a large number or majority of people about a particular thing.


      From Wikidpedia:

      For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon which still has to be rigorously tested. In contrast, a scientific theory has undergone extensive testing and is generally accepted to be the accurate explanation behind an observation. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research.

      What you used as an example is a "PROFILE." That is NEITHER a hypothesis nor a opinion. It is a "tool" used by authorities when they have almost nothing else to go on. It tells the authorities the general TYPE of person who has committed such a crime in the past. That's all. The authorities fully understand that what happened in the past doesn't necessarily mean it has happened again. But, if you have nothing else to work with, it's a place to start.

      Ed

      Delete
  76. (Part 2)

    ■did not select victims randomly. He made an effort to identify the correct address, including zip code, of each victim and used sufficient postage to ensure proper delivery of the letters. The offender deliberately "selected" NBC News, the New York Post, and the office of Senator Tom Daschle as the targeted victims (and possibly AMI in Florida). These targets are probably very important to the offender. They may have been the focus of previous expressions of contempt which may have been communicated to others, or observed by others.
    ■is a non-confrontational person, at least in his public life. He lacks the personal skills necessary to confront others. He chooses to confront his problems "long distance" and not face-to-face. He may hold grudges for a long time, vowing that he will get even with "them" one day. There are probably other, earlier examples of this type of behavior. While these earlier incidents were not actual Anthrax mailings, he may have chosen to anonymously harass other individuals or entities that he perceived as having wronged him. He may also have chosen to utilize the mail on those occasions.
    ■prefers being by himself more often than not. If he is involved in a personal relationship it will likely be of a self serving nature.
    Pre-Offense Behavior

    ■Following the events of September 11, 2001, this person may have become mission oriented in his desire to undertake these Anthrax mailings. He may have become more secretive and exhibited an unusual pattern of activity. Additionally, he may have displayed a passive disinterest in the events which otherwise captivated the Nation. He also may have started taking antibiotics unexpectedly.
    Post-Offense Behavior

    ■He may have exhibited significant behavioral changes at various critical periods of time throughout the course of the Anthrax mailings and related media coverage. These may include the following;
    1. Altered physical appearance.
    2. Pronounced anxiety.
    3. Atypical media interest.
    4. Noticeable mood swings.
    5. More withdrawn.
    6. Unusual level of preoccupation.
    7. Unusual absenteeism.
    8. Altered sleeping and/or eating habits.

    These post-offense behaviors would have been most noticeable during critical times, including but not limited to: the mailing of the letters (09/18/01 and 10/09/01), the death of first Anthrax victim, media reports of each anthrax incident, and especially the deaths and illnesses of non-targeted victims.
    ---------------------------
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/famous-cases/anthrax-amerithrax/linguistic-behavorial-analysis-of-the-anthrax-letters

    Of course those opinions were labelled by the FBI "analysis", "behavioral assessment" etc.
    -----------------------------------------------
    If fact the DoJ did EXACTLY what Mister Lake accuses me of doing:
    they developed a hypothesis (lone perp) and ignored all indications that it wasn't a lone perp: ignored the St Pete hoax letters, ignored the Quantico letter, ignored any and all indications that a group was behind Amerithrax. THAT'S why they 'liked' first Hatfill, then Ivins: they couldn't see outside the confines of their own interpretive matrix. Rationalization with a vengeance.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R. Rowley wrote: "If fact the DoJ did EXACTLY what Mister Lake accuses me of doing:
      they developed a hypothesis (lone perp) and ignored all indications that it wasn't a lone perp: ignored the St Pete hoax letters, ignored the Quantico letter, ignored any and all indications that a group was behind Amerithrax. THAT'S why they 'liked' first Hatfill, then Ivins: they couldn't see outside the confines of their own interpretive matrix. Rationalization with a vengeance."


      That is total nonsense from beginning to end. The culprit - Dr. Bruce Ivins - was found by collecting evidence. Hatfill became a "person of interest" because scientists were pointing at him as being a likely person to have done it, they were going to the media with their theory, they were accusing the FBI of covering up for the killer, and the FBI didn't have any better "suspect" at the time.

      Ed

      Delete
    2. R. Rowley wrote: "If fact the DoJ did EXACTLY what Mister Lake accuses me of doing:
      they developed a hypothesis (lone perp) and ignored all indications that it wasn't a lone perp: ignored the St Pete hoax letters, ignored the Quantico letter, ignored any and all indications that a group was behind Amerithrax. THAT'S why they 'liked' first Hatfill, then Ivins: they couldn't see outside the confines of their own interpretive matrix. Rationalization with a vengeance."

      That is total nonsense from beginning to end[...]
      ===========================================
      No, it isn't and your highly defensive response is ample proof that it isn't.
      ----------------------------------------
      The culprit - Dr. Bruce Ivins - was found by collecting evidence.
      -------------------------------------------------

      The "evidence" they collected has to do with (in no particular order)

      1)a fondness for women's underwear (unrelated to the crimes)

      2)establishment that Ivins broke into a couple sorority houses over the years (ditto)

      3)establishment that Ivins sometimes mailed GIFTS* from other cities, so as to conceal, at least momentarily, whom they were from. (ditto)

      4)establishment that Ivins had ANCESTORS who lived in New Jersey (ditto)

      5)establishment that Ivins was mentally ill. (ditto)

      Etc.

      The RELEVANT_TO_THE_CRIMES evidence (spores at home or in vehicle, proof that Ivins did surreptitious drying/purifying of spores, evidence that he made at least one of the trips to Princeton in the right timeframe etc.) is conspicuously absent.

      If there's a benefit to the current ricin case in Mississippi, it's that that case will give us a look at what REAL (ie relevant to the crimes alleged)evidence looks like. By the media reports, they already found ricin-contamination at the guy's work/home locations.


      *in thinking over this bit about the gifts and how the DoJ thinks that this is EVIDENCE that Ivins committed Amerithax, I sometimes allowed myself to muse that maybe it's a pun, as the German word "Gift" means "poison", but then I catch myself and remember that line from MEN IN BLACK: 'We do not have any sense of humor that we are aware of'.

      Delete
    3. R. Rowley wrote: "your highly defensive response is ample proof that it isn't."

      That's the same kind of reasoning Professor Tracy uses: If the government has evidence that disproves Tracy's beliefs, Tracy sees that as proof that the government is faking evidence to disprove his beliefs.

      R. Rowley also wrote: "The RELEVANT_TO_THE_CRIMES evidence (spores at home or in vehicle, proof that Ivins did surreptitious drying/purifying of spores, evidence that he made at least one of the trips to Princeton in the right timeframe etc.) is conspicuously absent."

      TOTAL NONSENSE. You list things that were NOT used as evidence and argue that no evidence was found, while IGNORING all the SOLID evidence that says Ivins was the anthrax mailer.

      You have a double standard for evidence, just as the title of this thread states.

      If it's "evidence" to support your own theory, anything goes - even ridiculous assumptions. If it's evidence proving Ivins did it, you say it's not the kind of evidence you require and therefore it isn't evidence.

      The FACTS say that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer.

      All you have to argue your case is a disbelief in the real facts and a bizarre theory based upon conjecture and a belief in your own unique ability to analyze linguistics - a belief that no one else shares.

      Ed

      Delete
  77. R. Rowley wrote: You didn't write "guess", you wrote that it was a "fact"."

    When you claim something like that, you should cite a source.
    ====================================
    Unfortunately the ORIGINAL version of your child-hypothesis is no longer available (Quick, whose fault is that, yours or mine?). Come to that, I don't even think the SECOND version is available. What we have is the THIRD version on this webstie, plus the video (which I watched again this evening).
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    [Mister Lake] On my web site I wrote:

    "12. Adults generally do not doodle when writing death threats.

    Why the writer only traced over A's and T's is a good question."
    ----------------------------------------------------
    Of course, saying 'adults don't doodle' ASSUMES that it is doodling to begin with.
    "Assuming"=taking something for a fact, without the requisite testing, questioning, analysis etc.

    In my (now long-ago) correspondence to you (well, I think that that was a one-sided element of the correspondence: I wrote to you about your hypothesis but there was no return email) I scrupulously avoided that word ("doodling") since it is ALREADY an interpretation. I used 'tracing' 'retracing', extra-heavy strokes etc. How you label something channels what you think about it.

    You took for a fact that it was "doodling" and said 'adults don't doodle' in that situation, but children might. THAT in and of itself eliminates any 'amino acid code'.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    I don't give a damn how many people disbelieve the hypothesis. At one time, nearly everyone on earth believed the earth was flat and no one believed that the shadow of the earth on the moon during a lunar eclipse was evidence that the earth was round. The number of people who believe in something has NOTHING to do with whether it is true or not.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    I agree. But we disagree about what hypothesis best fits Amerithrax.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R. Rowley wrote: "Unfortunately the ORIGINAL version of your child-hypothesis is no longer available (Quick, whose fault is that, yours or mine?). Come to that, I don't even think the SECOND version is available."

      More nonsense. This time it's the result of faulty research on your part.

      I rarely remove anything from my site. If I made a mistake, I usually go back and put something on the page that explains that I made a mistake.

      My first web page about the handwriting is here:
      http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/writing1.html

      It was created in 2002 and last updated in 2004.

      My "current" web page about the handwriting is here:
      http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/WritingFacts.html

      It was created in 2009 after all the facts about Ivins started coming out.

      I don't recall there being any other page on the subject, but if there was, there still is.

      R. Rowley also wrote: "You took for a fact that it was "doodling" and said 'adults don't doodle' in that situation, but children might. THAT in and of itself eliminates any 'amino acid code'."

      Totally FALSE. I had no explanation for why the A's and T's were traced over, so I conjectured or hypothesized that they were doodling.

      As it turns out, the FACTS say they were NOT doodling. They were a hidden code. And that code was developed by an adult who - the facts say - asked the child to copy by tracing over the characters.

      New facts changed the entire picture. I adapted to the new facts. That is what an intelligent analysis is SUPPOSED to do.

      The alternative is to stick with beliefs regardless of what the facts say, which is what you appear to do.

      Ed

      Delete
  78. Way up the thread, Anonymous addressing Mister Lake:
    --------------------------------
    As for Mr. Rowley, while I think he's a nice guy and writes well, I have no idea why you spend your days arguing against a theory where the fellow Richard doesn't like [...]
    ----------------------------------------------
    I never wrote to anyone that I "don't like" the person I suspect.
    It's not the type of relationship that can be broken down into such simple terms as like/dislike. Certainly there were MANY months between the time I started studying Amerithrax (late 2005) and the time I concluded, even tentatively, that the guy I knew had done the writing of the letters. But that was all done via decipherment and linguistic sleuthing. As were subsequent determinations about the St Pete hoax letters, the Quantico letter etc.

    My primary emotional response was: astonishment (as opposed to malicious joy, which would have been the case had I had some grudge against the guy). He's very capable, a genius in fact and the tragedy of it when he's finally apprehended is: his crimes will overshadow the good he has done in his life....

    ReplyDelete
  79. Department of Redundancy Department:
    --------------------------
    R. Rowley also wrote: "You took for a fact that it was "doodling" and said 'adults don't doodle' in that situation, but children might. THAT in and of itself eliminates any 'amino acid code'."

    Totally FALSE. I had no explanation for why the A's and T's were traced over, so I conjectured or hypothesized that they were doodling.
    =================================================
    No, you STILL don't get what I wrote above: I quoted the very thing YOU SUPPLIED:
    --------------------------------------------------
    "12. Adults generally do not doodle when writing death threats.
    =================================
    And where and HOW did you establish that it was "doodling" in the first place?

    You didn't. You failed to even recognize it was NECESSARY to establish that it was doodling. There's a word for that in English: assumption. You assumed that if an "adult" did it, it was doodling. That's why what you, at least occasionally, deem "word games" or mere "sematics" is, in reality, central to the way that human beings think about things: the labels they give things determine, to a great extent, HOW they think about such things.

    (And again, that's AT LEAST the third version of your document, the previous ones didn't even hedge to that degree)

    ReplyDelete
  80. R. Rowley wrote: "And where and HOW did you establish that it was "doodling" in the first place?"

    I did NOT "establish" that.

    "You assumed that if an "adult" did it, it was doodling."

    NOT TRUE.

    The FACTS said that a child did the writing on the letters and envelopes. That was my first observation -- based upon what Brother Jonathan had written about first grade writing. The facts were clear and made perfect sense. People who disagreed weren't looking at the facts.

    The tracing over of the A's and T's didn't have any obvious explanation.

    I couldn't visualize a terrorist "doodling" on a threat letter. That didn't make any sense to me at all.

    But, since the FACTS said that a child wrote the letters, I just had to try to figure out an explanation for why a child would trace over the A's and T's. (The idea that it was a HIDDEN CODED MESSAGE didn't even occur to me.)

    One idea was that the child was "doodling" by tracing over the two letters of the alphabet that were his own initials.

    Another idea was that the child had heard the name "Atta" on TV, thought it was an odd name, and he traced over the A's and T's as "doodling" while waiting for the anthrax mailer to check his work.

    I had no other ideas. Doodling was the only idea I had.

    There's no ASSUMPTION involved. I didn't "assume" that it was doodling. I couldn't find any other explanation.

    The only people providing other explanations were those who said that the letters spelled out "ATTA," and that was proof that the letters were written by an adult terrorist. But, the FACTS said that the letters were written by a child, and it didn't make any sense that a terrorist would highlight Atta's name by tracing over 3 T's before tracing over an A. Why wouldn't they just trace over four letters: A, T, T, and an A?

    I was trying to UNDERSTAND what the existing facts said. There were no assumptions. It was just an analysis of the facts.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete