There are at least TWELVE FACTS which together combine to show that Dr. Ivins almost certainly manipulated a child into writing the anthrax letters and addressing the anthrax envelopes:
Fact #1. Between the writing of the Brokaw letter and the addressing of the Brokaw envelope, the writer seems to have learned the correct way to draw the letter R (and other characters of the alphabet).
Fact #2. Adults do not generally learn the correct way to draw letters of the alphabet between writing a letter and addressing an envelope.
Fact #3. Children are generally taught the correct way to draw letters of the alphabet in the first weeks of first grade.
Fact #4. The writing on the media letter and envelopes was roughly twice the size of the writing on the senate letter and envelopes.
Fact #5. Adults go not generally change the size of their handwriting.
Fact #6. Children are generally taught to write smaller in the first weeks of first grade.
Fact #7. The media letter did NOT use punctuation, while the senate letter mailed three weeks later DID use punctuation.
Fact #8. Adults generally write from habit and do not switch from not using punctuation to using punctuation.
Fact #9. Children are taught about punctuation in the first weeks of first grade.
Fact #10. The anthrax letters were sent out at about the same time as children were beginning the first weeks of first grade (September & October 2001).
Fact #11. Adults who attempt to disguise their handwriting generally do so by (A) writing with their "wrong" hand, (B) writing upside down, or (C) copying someone else's handwriting.
Fact #12. None of the above methods of disguising one's handwriting would result in a change in how characters of the alphabet are drawn, a change in writing size OR a change in the use of punctuation. Differences generally result from fluctuations between the disguised style they are attempting to use and the habitual style they regularly use.
I challenge anyone to explain how these TWELVE facts are not facts. If they cannot do that, I challenge anyone to provide ADDITIONAL facts which prove that those 12 facts are misleading and that an adult actually DID write the letters.
These facts were true when it was not yet known who sent the anthrax letters. The facts predicted that the anthrax killer would have access to a child just starting first grade. That was many years before it was known that Ivins' wife ran a day care center in their home. (There are other facts which also support the above facts and evidence, but for discussion purposes, the above facts should be sufficient.
Click HERE to view a YouTube video which describes the above 12 facts in much greater detail. Click HERE to view my 2009 analysis on the handwriting (updated as of 2011). Click HERE to view my 2002 analysis on the handwriting (updated as of 2005).
Ed
Ed argues that the writer appears to have just recently learned to write English.
ReplyDeleteOkay, Ed.
Keep up the good work.
Anonymous wrote: "Ed argues that the writer appears to have just recently learned to write English."
DeleteNo, that is NOT my argument. That is your deliberate misinterpretation of my argument.
The evidence also says that the writer just learned to WRITE. The language is irrelevant.
There are additional facts which show that the writer lacked hand-eye coordination. He/she didn't have the skills that an adult acquires after writing for many years. Those skills remain with an adult even when changing to a writing in a new language.
Example: An adult does not have to learn to write smaller.
Example: An adult already understands about punctuation from whatever writing he did before.
Example: An adult does not typically change how he draws characters of the alphabet between writing a letter and addressing an envelope.
The facts say that a child wrote the letters, NOT AN ADULT.
Ed
Ed argues that the handwriting evidence establishes that Dr. Ivins did not write the Fall 2001 anthrax letters.
ReplyDeleteOkay, Ed.
Keep up the good work.
Anonymous wrote: "Ed argues that the handwriting evidence establishes that Dr. Ivins did not write the Fall 2001 anthrax letters.
ReplyDeleteThe facts say that Ivins probably wrote the DATE on the media letter, and, of course, he composed the text and encoded the hidden message within the media letter. All the writer did was copy what Ivins had prepared for him to copy.
Ed
ReplyDeleteAnd we know that Dr. Ivins did NOT just learn to write and therefore -- on your evidence - we know that Dr. Ivins did not in fact write the letters.
Anonymous wrote: "we know that Dr. Ivins did not in fact write the letters"
ReplyDeleteYou're overstating the situation. The FACTS say that Dr. Ivins did not do the actual writing on the letters.
That doesn't make him any less guilty of sending anthrax-filled letters through the mails.
Ed
What's left to say, Ed? Your failure to understand something as basic as burden of proof in a criminal matters illlustrates well that you are not qualified to address these issues. I post at all only to bring your First Grader theory front and center and so any surfer immediately can assess your lack of critical reasoning and common sense.
ReplyDeleteYou are a true believer who persists in his First Grader even though it has no basis in fact -- or common sense.
You think that because you disagree with the scientists who explained the night and weekend checks -- and who said they would take a couple of hours -- that the burden of proof does not remain on the issue. You are just hopelessly confused and uninformed.
You have no understanding of the rabbit documents that have been uploaded.
Anonymous wrote: "You are a true believer who persists in his First Grader [hypothesis] even though it has no basis in fact -- or common sense."
DeleteHmmm. I list TWELVE FACTS which show that a first grader wrote the anthrax letters and you claim the hypothesis has "no basis in fact." You seem to lack critical reasoning and common sense.
I made a claim and I supported the claim with solid facts. I met the burden of proof. I also explained that I have MORE FACTS in addition to those 12 facts, and I proved it when you tried to ridiculously and mistakenly argue that the handwriting of an adult just learning English would show the same kinds of changes as a child just learning to write correctly.
Your failure to understand something as basic as burden of proof in a criminal matters illustrates well that you are not qualified to address these issues.
Anonymous also wrote: "You think that because you disagree with the scientists who explained the night and weekend checks -- and who said they would take a couple of hours -- that the burden of proof does not remain on the issue."
You fail to understand that Ivins himself couldn't come up with an explanation for his unexplained time in his lab. The best he could come up with was that he was in there sleeping to get away from his family, or that he went there to get away from a guard that annoyed him.
The FBI went through his reports and his in-out logs, and THEY couldn't find any explanation for the time he spent in his lab. A general claim that it takes "a couple hours" to do animal checks has no more meaning than Ivins' claim that he was in there sleeping or hiding from a guard who annoyed him.
You claim that he was doing routine work, but the time he spent in his lab was clearly NOT ROUTINE, since he'd never before spent so much time in his lab in the evening and on weekends.
The evidence says that Ivins was making anthrax powders in his lab during those "unexplained" hours. Unverifiable theories or claims that he was doing something else do NOT MEET THE BURDEN OF PROOF needed to show that Ivins was truly doing routine work and not making the anthrax powders.
You are just hopelessly confused and uninformed.
Anonymous also wrote: "You have no understanding of the rabbit documents that have been uploaded."
You obviously have no understanding of the rabbit documents that have been uploaded. If you did, you'd be able to explain how they prove what you believe they prove AND how the FBI and Ivins himself failed to realize the significance of these documents.
The burden of proof is on you to explain how the documents prove what you claim they prove. You cannot shift the burden of proof to others by claiming they don't understand the significance of the documents.
You are a true believer who persists in his rabbit theory even though it has no basis in fact -- or common sense.
Ed
Ed, what you consider facts relating to handwriting analysis involve a subject that requires expert testimony. No expert shares your view. If a First Grader wrote the letters, without more it would be grounds for acquittal because Dr. Ivins did not know any First Graders who could have taken dictation. Amanda has contacted you and explained that there was no basis for your opinion.
DeleteWith respect to what someone did a half decade earlier on a particular night, no one would have reason to know what they did a half decade earlier without resort to the records. Those documents were taken from him. Attorney Kemp has made this very clear and noted that the case was persuasively made to Ken and Rachel at their last meeting by Dr. Ivins -- you haven't spoken to Attorney Kemp and so you are just uninformed. Moreover, there's a great deal you don't bother to read. So even without the documents, his position even without the documents was that he was in the lab doing work with animals. And when the documents were obtained, they showed he was right.
Once the documents finally were obtained -- over the course of two years in hard fought FOIA requests -- they confirmed that 52 rabbits were challenged and killed that first week of October. Yet AUSA Lieber never mentioned the rabbits. She can explain to the GAO why she didn't.
I have no reason to explain the rabbits to you because it is unimportant what you think -- only what the GAO and Army thinks. And I can assure you that it has personally been confirmed to me that EVERYONE knows now about the rabbits. Except you. And you are just a fellow who thinks a First Grader wrote the letters so who cares.
Anonymous wrote: "Ed, what you consider facts relating to handwriting analysis involve a subject that requires expert testimony."
DeleteNo, it doesn't. This is not a courtroom. It is my blog. Besides, facts are facts no matter where they are presented.
Here's some information about handwriting analysis that you are probably not aware of:
"No forensic technique has taken more hits than handwriting analysis. In one particularly devastating federal ruling, United States v. Saelee (2001), the court noted that forensic handwriting analysis techniques had seldom been tested, and that what testing had been done "raises serious questions about the reliability of methods currently in use." The experts were frequently wrong--in one test "the true positive accuracy rate of laypersons was the same as that of handwriting examiners; both groups were correct 52 percent of the time."
Anonymous also wrote: "No expert shares your view."
No expert has looked at the facts as I've shown them and expressed an opinion. When experts did their own analysis, no two of them came to the same conclusion.
Anonymous also wrote: "I have no reason to explain the rabbits to you because it is unimportant what you think -- only what the GAO and Army thinks."
That's your explanation for why you have no explanation? Then why do you keep bringing it up?
You may BELIEVE that the GAO thinks the way you think, but, at this moment, the odds against seem to be 7,071,000,000 to 1 against that being true. So, it's not impossible, but it's certainly very unlikely.
Ed
As an example of your confusion, Ed, you thought the rabbit work was not done in the B3.
DeleteYou were just uninformed.
When your mistake was pointed out to you, you just persisted in your view.
There was no excuse for you not to know that the work with the rabbits was done in the B3. You just don't bother to study the documentary evidence on the subject.
Anonymous wrote: "When your mistake was pointed out to you, you just persisted in your view."
DeleteWell, we all make mistakes.
It's been pointed out to you countless times that the facts say that Ivins was the anthrax killer, but you just persist with your own view.
I think that is a far FAR greater error than failing to notice something totally irrelevant, like where the work with rabbits was done.
Ed
The evidence relied upon by the prosecutors was that his time in the B3 was unexplained. You did not realize that it was Dr. Ivins who was responsible to be in the B3 making the observations and performing the procedures that first week in October. After challenge on Oct 1, 2001, one of the investigators on rabbit/formaldehyde study was REQUIRED to observe the rabbits for the first 7 days after challenge. The AUSA and investigators never rmentioned the rabbits. You mistakenly thought that in killing 52 rabbits that everyone could punch a clock at 5 p.m. and no one needed to tend to things in the evening. That's because you did not inform yourself about the rabbit study by reviewing the documents or interviewing people involved in animal studies at USAMRIID. Instead, you just uncritically accepted the AUSA's assertion in a summary that did not even cite the documentary record evidence from 2001. It is human to make mistakes -- it is irresponsible not to correct them.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous wrote: "After challenge on Oct 1, 2001, one of the investigators on rabbit/formaldehyde study was REQUIRED to observe the rabbits for the first 7 days after challenge."
DeleteYou're just babbling and not proving anything of value. Was Ivins the ONLY "investigator" involved in the rabbit tests?
First, according to Lew Weinstein's blog, the rabbits weren't even delivered until long after the first mailing. They were "shipped the week of September 24, 2001."
So, the rabbits explain NOTHING about the first mailing or the unexplained hours prior to "the first week of October."
In my December 27, 2011 comment on my web site, I wrote:
"The Anthrax Truthers haven't provided any information about where the 52 rabbits were kept, but they assume it was somewhere within Suite B3, even though Suite B3 had no animal room for rabbits. The documents only show results as Ivins summarized them. Unlike with the mouse tests, there is no notebook page documenting the times when the rabbits were found dead. So, the facts say that Ivins had less to do with the care of the rabbits than he had with the care of the mice. The data was likely collected by "Veterinary Medicine Division animal caretakers" and reported to Ivins."
I did a search for some comment about rabbits on my site and on this blog for the first few months of 2012, and I couldn't find anything you posted that proves the rabbits were in Suite B3 (although I seem to remember something about how the rabbits were PLANNED to be housed in Suite B3).
The facts seem to indicate that Ivins started working on the anthrax powders for the second mailing on Friday, September 28. He worked roughly 1-1/2 hours in Suite B3 that evening and the next two evenings (Saturday and Sunday).
On October 1st and 2nd, he only worked about 20 minutes in Suite B3 each evening. So, when you say he started the work with rabbits, he wasn't spending much time in B3.
On the 3rd, 4th and 5th, he spent nearly 4 hours each evening in B3.
You claim he was working with rabbits. But, the FBI evidently couldn't find any records confirming that. And, Ivins couldn't provide any documents confirming that.
All you seem to have is a BELIEF without any proof. But, you probably want the FBI (or GAO) to find the proof for you - which the way Anthrax Truthers usually work. You will assume the proof is there until someone can prove it doesn't exist.
Prove where I made a mistake, and I'll correct it. Baseless claims are NOT proof.
Ed
Oops. On October 3, Ivins worked just under 3 hours in suite B3 in the evening:
DeleteWednesday, October 3 - 2 hours, 59 minutes
Thursday, October 4 - 3 hours, 33 minutes
Friday, October 5 - 3 hours, 42 minutes
Ed
Anonymous wrote: "You mistakenly thought that in killing 52 rabbits that everyone could punch a clock at 5 p.m. and no one needed to tend to things in the evening."
DeleteThat's just another one of your fantasies. I thought no such thing.
If I thought about the rabbit tests at all, I would assume that Ivins wasn't the only person involved in the tests. And, since he was a senior investigator, it would seem logical that that animal caretakers would do the evening work, particularly the disposal of dead animals. And, I would assume any necropsy work on the dead animals would be done during the day when there were others available to assist.
The key point is: Animal testing was NOT something that Ivins had never done before. Animal tests were routine work. So, the animal tests DO NOT explain the long evening and weekend hours in Suite B3 that Ivins never seemed to have worked before.
Ed
Here's what it says about Ivins' unexplained evening and weekend hours on page 30 of the Summary Report:
Delete"There was no big experiment or project going on in September/October 2001 that would justify all of the time in the hot suites. Even Dr. Ivins could not explain this extraordinary change in his work schedule."
So, even if Ivins did SOME work with rabbits during his time in Suite B3 in the evenings of October 3, 4, and 5, that work cannot justify ALL the time he spent in B3.
Your claim appears to be just a belief that Ivins was ONLY working with rabbits. And you want to shift the burden of proof for that claim to the government, demanding that they prove Ivins was NOT working ONLY with rabbits during that time.
Other facts say he was probably making the anthrax powders during that time. There are no facts which say he could NOT have been making anthrax powders during that time. At best, the rabbit tests would only account for SOME of his time.
It's totally possible that he could have finished his work on the anthrax powders for the second mailing before the rabbits arrived. But, his UNUSUAL AND UNEXPLAINED evening hours on the 3rd, 4th and 5th suggest that he was still working on the powders on those days.
I don't know how I can make these facts any more clear for you.
Ed
Ed's back to not knowing the rabbits were in B3 suite! I have uploaded all the documents and discussed it upon uploading it. Ed's failure to understand that the rabbits were in B3 is precisely the problem. Ed does not know that because he hasn't read or mastered the documents.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous wrote: "I have uploaded all the documents and discussed it upon uploading it."
DeleteThis argument is in the wrong thread on this blog. It should be in the "Burden of Proof" thread, under the cartoon where a guy is standing in a swamp and says, "I buried the proof of my claims out there somewhere. It's your responsibility to find it."
I have no interest in digging through the Weinstein "swamp" to find something you claim is there. I have countless better things to do.
If you have something to say, say it here.
Ed
I would be glad to say it here.
ReplyDeleteYou don't know what you are talking about.
Anonymous wrote: "You don't know what you are talking about."
DeleteThat's another claim that should be in the "Burden of Proof" thread, along with proof of your claim. :-)
Ed
Well since this rabbit business interests me, I'll give a long post from that other site with the constituent points (and corresponding links to the documents)here. But it's LONG.
ReplyDelete--------------------------------------------------------------
Additional documents, that are not yet uploaded, paint a picture that would cause you weep for Dr. Ivins and the unfairness that an Ivins Theory was not required to be supported by the evidence.
1. In a Sept 23, 2011 letter to Senator Grassley, the DOJ says that Dr. Ivins made the dried powder in B5 using the lyophilizer even though the DOJ has proved he was in B3 tending to the rabbits, not B5 (the BL-2 lab), at the time the DOJ alleges he made the dried powder. THAT is the contradiction.
Posted by Lew Weinstein on December 16, 2011
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/12/16/in-a-sept-23-2011-letter-to-senator-grassley-the-doj-says-that-dr-ivins-made-the-dried-powder-in-b5-using-the-lyophilizer-even-though-the-doj-has-proved-he-was-in-b3-tending-to-the-rabbits-not-b/
2. AMERITHRAX prosecutors and investigators have never discussed what the newly released documents show about Dr. Ivins work with rabbits involved and those same documents were available to the FBI before Dr. Ivins’ killed himself.
Posted by Lew Weinstein on October 14, 2011
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/10/14/amerithrax-prosecutors-and-investigators-have-never-discussed-what-the-newly-released-documents-show-about-dr-ivins-work-with-rabbits-involved-and-those-same-documents-were-available-to-the-fbi-bef/
3. Document produced today to DXer discussing shipment of 52 rabbits week of September 24, 2001 for formaldehyde study
Posted by Lew Weinstein on August 31, 2011
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/08/31/document-produced-today-to-dxer-discussing-shipment-of-52-rabbits-week-of-september-24-2001-for-formaldehyde-study/
4. The lyophilizer in Building 1425 was in Suite B5, not Suite B3 where Dr. Ivins was on the nights in question (where he was doing the study with the 52 rabbits)
Posted by Lew Weinstein on November 11, 2011
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/the-lyophilizer-in-building-1425-was-in-suite-b5-not-suite-b3-where-dr-ivins-was-on-the-nights-in-question-where-he-was-doing-the-study-with-the-52-rabbits/
5. In an Oct 5, ’01 email among the materials provided by USAMRIID this week, Dr. Ivins explains the results 3 days after the challenge of rabbits in the formaldehyde experiment; the word “rabbits” has never passed the prosecutor’s lips
Posted by Lew Weinstein on December 24, 2011
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/12/24/in-an-oct-5-01-email-among-the-materials-provided-by-usamriid-this-week-dr-ivins-explains-the-results-3-days-after-the-challenge-of-rabbits-in-the-formaldehyde-experiment-the-word-rabbits/
6. In Advance Of The October 1, 2001 Rabbit Challenge, The 52 Rabbits Nowhere Mentioned By Prosecutors Needed To Be Moved Into The B3 Suite 7 Days Earlier (And Documents Establish That They Were)
ReplyDeletePosted by Lew Weinstein on January 13, 2012
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/in-advance-of-the-october-1-2001-rabbit-challenge-the-rabbits-nowhere-mentioned-by-prosecutors-needed-to-be-moved-into-the-b3-suite-7-days-earlier-and-documents-establish-that-they-were/
7. As Dr. Ivins often explained, conducting a rabbit study such as the one involving 52 rabbits in early October 2001 always depended on the availability of hot suite space.
Posted by Lew Weinstein on November 1, 2011
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/11/01/as-dr-ivins-often-explained-conducting-a-rabbit-study-such-as-the-one-involving-52-rabbits-in-early-october-2001-always-depended-on-the-availability-of-hot-suite-space/
8. Handwritten notes produced by USAMRIID this week summarizing rabbit contract with Covance involving formaldehyde
Posted by Lew Weinstein on December 24, 2011
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/12/24/handwritten-notes-produced-by-usamriid-this-week-summarizing-rabbit-contract-with-covance-involving-formaldehyde/
9. In response to Dr. Ivins’ October 5, 2001 email discussing the rabbit deaths over the last three days, the participants in the study that day discussed by email the implications for further study
Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 4, 2012
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/in-response-to-dr-ivins-october-5-2001-email-discussing-the-rabbit-deaths-over-the-last-three-days-the-participants-in-the-study-that-day-discussed-by-email-the-implications-for-further-study/
10. NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION: 10 days after the rabbits had been challenged on October 1, 2001, Dr. Ivins presented preliminary results from the Battelle study involving the 5 year old preps of rPA vaccine w/ and w/o formaldehyde.
Posted by Lew Weinstein on December 24, 2011
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/12/24/not-for-public-distribution-10-days-after-the-rabbits-had-been-challenged-on-october-1-2001-dr-ivins-presented-preliminary-results-from-the-battelle-study-involving-the-5-year-old-preps-of-rpa-v/
11. Under The Protocol Involving Rabbits and Formaldehyde Implemented in Late September 2001 and Early October 2001, Dr. Ivins Was Tasked With Monitoring The Animals After Challenge
Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 1, 2012
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/01/under-the-protocol-involving-rabbits-and-formaldehyde-implemented-in-late-september-2001-and-early-october-2001-dr-ivins-was-tasked-with-monitoring-the-animals-after-challenge/
12. Hickory Dickory Doc: The mice ran up the clock and Dr. Ivins time in the BL-3 lab in late September 2001 but not as much as the rabbits did in early October 2001.
Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 4, 2012
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/hickory-dickory-doc-the-mice-ran-up-the-clock-and-dr-ivins-time-in-the-bl-3-lab-in-late-september-2001-but-not-as-much-as-the-rabbits-did-in-early-october-2001/
13. Under The Mouse Protocol (As Under The Rabbit Protocol), Dr. Ivins Was Tasked With Taking Part In Immunization, Bleeding, Challenge And Observation Of The Animals
ReplyDeletePosted by Lew Weinstein on January 1, 2012
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/01/under-the-mouse-protocol-as-under-the-rabbit-protocol-dr-ivins-was-tasked-with-taking-part-in-immunization-bleeding-challenge-and-observation-of-the-animals/
14. Under The Protocol Involving Rabbits and Formaldehyde Relating To The Early October 2001 Challenge, The Rabbits Were To Be Euthanized By Injection Of Euthasol By Animal Tech Lab Anthony Bassett, Who Can Describe The Experiment
Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 1, 2012
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/01/under-the-protocol-involving-rabbit-sand-formaldehyde-relating-to-the-early-october-2001-challenge-the-rabbits-were-to-be-euthanized-by-injection-of-euthasol-by-animal-tech-lab-anthony-bassett-who/
15. Did AUSA Lieber and Agent Montooth understand Dr. Ivins’ trips to the “AR” from the hot suites as trips to a locked cabinet in “Animal Resources” to get the Ketamine and Euthasol needed to anesthesize and euthanize moribund mice and rabbits? See DEA (part of DOJ) Controlled Substance log.
Posted by Lew Weinstein on December 11, 2011
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/12/11/did-ausa-lieber-and-agent-montooth-understand-dr-ivins-trips-to-the-ar-from-the-hot-suites-as-trips-to-a-locked-cabinet-in-animal-resources-to-get-the-euthasol-needed-to-euthanize-moribun/
16. 12 rabbits then died on day 3 and 4 and more on day 5; Ivins time then spent the extra time on those nights; AUSA Rachel Lieber got her facts seriously wrong in the investigative summary; DOJ should have required citations to the record.
Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 3, 2012
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/12-rabbits-then-died-on-day-3-and-4-and-more-on-day-5-ivins-time-then-spent-the-extra-time-on-those-nights-ausa-rachel-lieber-got-her-facts-seriously-wrong-in-the-investigative-summary-doj-should/
17. Standard Operating Procedures for Animal Assessment and Monitoring: the beautiful Amerithrax AUSA did not appreciate that Dr. Ivins was tasked to do this the first week of October with 52 rabbits.
Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 4, 2012
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/standard-operating-procedures-for-animal-assessment-and-monitoring-the-beautiful-amerithrax-ausa-did-not-realize-that-dr-ivins-was-tasked-to-do-this-the-first-week-of-october-with-52-rabbits/
18. In Week 9, the week (September 24th, 2001) the rabbits were shipped from Covance to USAMRIID Building 1425, Suite B3, how long did it take to bleed the 52 rabbits involved in the formaldehyde study?
Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 4, 2012
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/in-week-9-the-week-september-24th-2001-the-rabbits-were-shipped-from-covance-to-usamriid-building-1425-suite-b3-how-long-did-it-take-to-bleed-the-52-rabbits-involved-in-the-formaldehyde-study/
19, GAO: With respect to the rabbit formaldehyde study in late Sep and early Oct 2001 involving Bruce Ivins and Patricia Fellows — nowhere mentioned by AUSA Lieber in her investigative summary — did Dr. Fellows address the study in the deposition that the Department of Justice required to be shredded?
ReplyDeletePosted by Lew Weinstein on January 4, 2012
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/gao-with-respect-to-the-rabbit-formaldehyde-study-in-late-sep-and-early-oct-2001-involving-bruce-ivins-and-patricia-fellows-nowhere-mentioned-by-ausa-lieber-in-her-investigative-summary-did/
20. GAO should obtain the very best contemporaneous documentation relating to Dr. Ivins specific activities with the guinea pigs, mice and rabbits on the nights that DOJ claimed, without evidence, that he was making a dried powder to mail.
Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 6, 2012
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/gao-should-obtain-the-very-best-contemporaneous-documentation-relating-to-dr-ivins-specific-activities-with-the-guinea-pigs-mice-and-rabbits-on-the-nights-that-doj-claimed-without-evidence-that/
21. After Challenge On About Oct 1, 2001, One Of The Investigators On Rabbit/Formaldehyde Study Were Required To Observe The Control Rabbits For The First 7 Days After Challenge ; The AUSA and Investigators Never Mention The Rabbits
Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 2, 2012
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/after-challenge-on-about-oct-1-2001-one-of-the-investigators-on-rabbitformaldehyde-study-were-required-to-observe-the-control-rabbits-for-the-first-7-days-after-challenge-the-ausa-and-investiga/
22. FBI interview statement: If someone came in off hours it was to work on the animal experiments – this could take approximately two hours and was usually a one-person job.
Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 1, 2012
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/01/fbi-interview-statement-if-someone-came-in-off-hours-it-was-to-work-on-the-animal-experiments-this-could-take-approximately-two-hours-and-was-usually-a-one-person-job/
23. June 14, 2001 LACUS Subcommittee Meeting notice to consider Dr. Ivins’ proposal regarding formadehyde and rabbits.
Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 2, 2012
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/june-14-2001-lacus-subcommittee-meeting-notice-to-consider-dr-ivins-proposal-regarding-formadehyde-and-rabbits/
24. Before Issuing Its Report, GAO Should Seek To Obtain “Animal Room Environment Report” for B310 and B305 in Suite B3, Building 1425 for September – October (for the guinea pigs, mice and rabbits attended to by Dr. Ivins in the B3 under the various protocols implemented those months); Used for each animal room, the forms provide space to record animal observations, cage sanitation schedules, and more.
Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 2, 2012
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/before-issuing-its-report-gao-should-seek-to-obtain-animal-room-environment-report-for-b310-and-b305-in-suite-b3-building-1425-for-september-october-for-the-guinea-pigs-mic/
25. Justice Department Is Said To Be Arguing Against Itself But AUSA Rachel Lieber Has Not Even Yet Addressed The Issue Of The Rabbits Or Produced The Pertinent Contemporaneous Documents Relating To Dr. Ivins’ Work With The Rabbits.
ReplyDeletePosted by Lew Weinstein on January 29, 2012
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/justice-department-is-said-to-be-arguing-against-itself-but-ausa-rachel-lieber-has-not-even-yet-addressed-the-issue-of-the-rabbits-or-produced-the-pertinent-contemporaneous-documents-relating-to-dr/
26. Each of the 52 rabbits shipped the week of September 24, 2001 to USAMRIID Building 1425 to join Dr. Ivins in the Biolevel 3 lab had a unique identifying microchip.
Posted by Lew Weinstein on December 26, 2011
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/12/26/each-of-the-52-rabbits-shipped-the-week-of-september-24-2001-to-usamriid-building-1425-to-join-dr-ivins-in-the-biolevel-3-lab-had-a-unique-identifying-microchip/
27. http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/12/26/like-the-guinea-pigs-shipped-to-usamriid-building-1425-the-week-of-september-24th-and-acclimated-to-biolevel-3-for-one-week-before-being-challenged-the-mice-similarly-were-housed-in-building-1425/
28. Like the rabbits shipped to USAMRIID Building 1425 the week of September 24th and acclimated to biolevel 3 for one week before being challenged, the mice similarly were housed in building 1425, not building 1412
Posted by Lew Weinstein on December 26, 2011
29. The Animal Technician Shot Out The Cage Cards For The Rabbit Experiment Prior to 2004; the NCOIC, Small Animal Section Was Responsible For Retaining The Used Cards
Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 13, 2012
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/the-animal-technician-shot-out-the-cage-cards-for-the-rabbit-experiment-prior-to-2004-the-ncoic-small-animal-section-was-responsible-for-retaining-the-used-cards/
30. By January 2003, the animal caretaker had thrown away the individual cage cards on the formaldehyde experiment with the 52 rabbits that Dr. Ivins was doing those nights in the lab in B3 in early October 2001
Posted on November 1, 2011
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/11/01/by-january-2003-the-animal-caretaker-had-thrown-away-the-individual-cage-cards-on-the-formaldehyde-experiment-with-the-52-rabbits-that-dr-ivins-was-doing-those-nights-in-the-lab-in-b3-in-early-oct/
see also
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/14/in-new-foia-response-usamriid-reports-it-could-not-locate-the-animal-room-environment-report-for-b310-and-b305-in-building-1425-for-sep-oct-2001-those-documents-would-provide-contemporaneous/
31. Of The 52 Rabbits In The Early October 2001 Formaldehyde Experiment, How Many Were Exsanguinated Pursuant To This Procedure? All Of Them?
ReplyDeletePosted by Lew Weinstein on January 13, 2012
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/of-the-52-rabbits-in-the-early-october-2001-formalidehyde-experiment-how-many-were-exsanguinated-pursuant-to-this-procedure-all-of-them/
32. In an earlier experiment under the rabbit Protocol B00-03, the assistance of Dr. Ivins and two others was offered in connection with the bleeds over the two day period.
Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 4, 2012
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/in-an-earlier-experiment-under-the-rabbit-protocol-b00-03-the-assistance-of-dr-ivins-and-two-others-was-offered-in-connection-with-the-bleeds-over-the-two-day-period/
33. Numerous USAMRIID Standard Operating Procedures (all mandatory) controlled the animal husbandry baseline services rendered the rabbits, guinea pigs and mice involved in Dr. Ivins’ experiments in Sep-Oct 2001
Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 3, 2012
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/numerous-usamriid-standard-operating-procedures-all-mandatory-controlled-the-animal-husbandry-baseline-services-rendered-the-rabbits-guinea-pigs-and-mice-involved-in-dr-ivins-experiments-in-se/
34. Even in Later Protocols Involving Aerosol Challenges Conducted In Building 1412, the Rabbits Would Be Kept In Building 1425, Suite B3 Before And After Aerosol Challenge In 1412 (Where Monitoring Would Continue 21 Days)
Posted by Lew Weinstein on December 30, 2011
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/12/30/even-in-later-protocols-involving-aerosol-challenges-conducted-in-building-1412-the-rabbits-would-be-kept-in-building-1425-suite-b3-before-and-after-aerosol-challenge-in-1412-where-monitoring-wou/
35. Dr. Ivins explained that “what’s acceptable as a [rabbit animal protocol is constantly changing]” ; thus it is important that the GAO rely on the rabbit formaldehyde protocol as executed and not earlier draft versions.
Posted on December 9, 2011
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/12/09/dr-ivins-explained-that-whats-acceptable-as-a-rabbit-animal-protocol-is-constantly-changing-thus-it-is-important-that-the-gao-rely-on-the-rabbit-formaldehyde-protocol-as-executed-and-not/
36. After rabbits are challenged on the hot side, as many as three autoclaves are needed just processing cages and other items from the hotside, and it takes time to disinfect, decon and re-set up a room
Posted by Lew Weinstein on December 8, 2011
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/12/08/after-rabbits-are-challenged-on-the-hot-side-as-many-as-three-autoclaves-are-needed-just-processing-cages-and-other-items-from-the-hotside-and-it-takes-time-to-disinfect-decon-and-re-set-up-a-roo/
37. produced today by USAMRIID to the blog under FOIA: June 21, 2001 “PROTOCOL TITLE: Effect of formaldehyde on the potency stability of a candidate human anthrax vaccine in rabbits”
ReplyDeletePosted by Lew Weinstein on November 17, 2011
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/11/17/produced-today-by-usamriid-to-the-blog-under-foia-june-21-2001-protocol-title-effect-of-formaldehyde-on-the-potency-stability-of-a-candidate-human-anthrax-vaccine-in-rabbits/
38. In a rabbit protocol provided by USAMRIID today, there is familiar discussion of drugs to be administered to the rabbits – for the Sept/Oct 2001 period, is there a contemporaneous log relating to the administration of drugs such as there is in a hospital?
Posted by Lew Weinstein on November 15, 2011
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/11/15/in-a-rabbit-protocol-provided-by-usamriid-today-there-is-familiar-discussion-of-drugs-to-be-administered-to-the-rabbits-for-the-septoct-2001-period-is-there-a-contemporaneous-log-relating-to-th/
39. The scientist who made the large amount of virulent Ames that is missing, who was thanked by the former Zawahiri associate for providing technical assistance re the Ames, is the person who could explain about the rabbits ; but she’s not talking.
Posted by Lew Weinstein on November 9, 2011
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/11/09/the-scientist-who-made-the-large-amount-of-virulent-ames-that-is-missing-who-was-thanked-by-the-former-zawahiri-associate-for-providing-technical-assistance-re-the-ames-is-the-person-who-could-exp/
40. Bruce Ivins’ co-authors can explain the rabbit and other animal protocols that applied to the subcutaneous challenges in B3 in Building 1425 conducted in September and October 2001.
Posted by Lew Weinstein on November 9, 2011
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/11/09/bruce-ivins-co-authors-can-explain-the-rabbit-and-other-animal-protocols-that-applied-to-the-subcutaneous-challenges-in-b3-in-building-1425-conducted-in-september-and-october-2001/
41. Dr. Ivins preferred a parenteral (subcutaneous) challenge because you could fit 60 rabbits in one room whereas an aerosol challenge would require 4 rooms (1 for animals, 2 hood lines, and 1 spore and bacterial plating)
Posted by Lew Weinstein on October 31, 2011
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/dr-ivins-preferred-a-parenteral-subcutaneous-challenge-because-you-could-fit-60-rabbits-in-one-room-whereas-an-aerosol-challenge-would-require-4-rooms-1-for-animals-2-hood-lines-and-1-spore-an/
42. It would take 1 hour and 50 minutes to autoclave animal pans and cages (90 minute steam cycle and 20 minute drying cycle)
Posted by Lew Weinstein on October 31, 2011
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/it-would-take-1-hour-and-50-minutes-to-autoclave-animal-pans-and-cages-90-minute-steam-cycle-and-20-minute-drying-cycle/
Okay, I'm going to need some time to review all this stuff.
ReplyDeleteBut before I get down to it, questions for anonymous.
Are you saying:
1)all of Ivins' 'unexplained' time in B-3 is explained when one examines the documents in full? (Therefore there's no chance he did the drying/purifying when the gov't thinks he did)
2)most of Ivins' 'unexplained' time in B-3 is explained when one examines the documents in full? (Therefore it's unlikely he did the drying/purifying because he had insufficient time)
3)something less than most of Ivins' 'unexplained' time in B-3
is now explained?
Or, to put it another way: How does any of this in any way PROVE that Ivins DID NOT make the anthrax powders in his lab? Or isn't that the purpose of all this? If it isn't, what is the purpose?
DeleteHow do these posts explain ALL of Dr. Ivins' evening hours in Suite B3 during August, September or even the first week of October 2001? They don't appear to explain anything other that what kind of work was involved. Couldn't that work have been done during the day? Couldn't the menial evening work have been done by others?
Ed
In order to remind myself (and others?) exactly what the (sub-)claim of the DoJ is about Ivins' unexplained time in the lab, I'm going to copy and paste from the Final Report on that subject (page 29 on):
ReplyDelete----------------------
3. Dr. Ivins’s suspicious lab hours just before each mailing
Dr. Ivins created RMR-1029 in his lab, B-313 in Building 1425 (also referred to as “B3” or the “hot suites”), and stored the flasks in the walk-in cold-room there, among hundreds of
other flasks. By all accounts, Dr. Ivins was the sole custodian of this material. Investigators interviewed every co-worker of Dr. Ivins and every researcher at USAMRIID with access to the
cold-room in which RMR-1029 was stored, and everyone agreed that no one at USAMRIID legitimately used quantities of RMR-1029 without the authorization and knowledge of Dr. Ivins.14
In order to be able to grow the amount of material needed to fill the attack letters, especially at the level of purity and concentration observed in the evidentiary material, the mailer
would have needed access to sophisticated lab equipment such as that housed in B-313. Otherwise, he would not have been in a position to grow and store the material without being
noticed or raising concerns.15 Dr. Ivins’s own comments upon examining the evidentiary material support the conclusion that the anthrax spores used in the attack letters were not created
in someone’s garage, but rather in a high-tech lab by someone with knowledge and experience:
If this is a preparation of bacterial spores, it is an extremely pure preparation, and an extremely high concentration. These are not “garage” spores. The nature of the spore preparation suggests very highly that professional manufacturing techniques were used in the production and purification of the spores, as well as in converting the spores into a very fine powder.
See Attachment G.16
-------------------------
End Part I
Part II
ReplyDelete-------------
Drying the spores likely would have attracted attention unless the perpetrator accessed the equipment at night. Drying anthrax spores requires either a sophisticated drying machine called a
lyophilizer, a speed-vac, or a great deal of time and space to let the spores air-dry – that is, to allow the water to evaporate – in the lab. Because drying anthrax is expressly forbidden by various treaties, overt use of any of these methods, if noticed, would have raised considerable alarm and scrutiny.
A detailed review was conducted of off-hours access by USAMRIID researchers to B-313 during the time frame leading up to the mailings – August through October 2001 – and then generally over the preceding two years for which lab access records were available, and again for the year that followed. It was clear that, from time to time, Dr. Ivins would enter the lab during
evening and weekend off-hours. These entries generally can be supported by his lab notebooks, and those of the other researchers he was assisting, which detail the experiments he was working on that would require this off-hour lab time. However, beginning in the middle of August 2001, there was a noticeable spike in his evening and weekend access to B-313, which continued in spurts through October 2001, and then trailed off to his typical pattern. The data for 2001 revealed the following: January through July: eight hours and 48 minutes total in B-313 during off-hours; August: 11 hours, 15 minutes; September 2001: 31 hours, 28 minutes; October: 16
hours, 13 minutes; November: six hours, 20 minutes; December: three hours, four minutes. (See
Attachment H; see also Attachment I, depicting Dr. Ivins’s off-hours lab access over four years).
There was no big experiment or project going on in September/October 2001 that would justify all of the time in the hot suites. Even Dr. Ivins could not explain this extraordinary change in his work schedule.
---------------------------------------------------
End Part II
Part III
ReplyDelete-------------------
Dr. Ivins’s specific off-hours times and dates in the hot suites are listed below. It is important to note that entering and leaving B-313 is a time-consuming process. One must
disrobe and change into lab attire on the way in, and then, on the way out, change out of the lab-wear, shower, and get dressed. For each of the following times in the hot suites, Dr. Ivins was
Part IV
ReplyDelete------------------------
completely alone. He had unfettered access to the necessary tools to grow, harvest, and purify the anthrax, as well as to the equipment capable of performing the forbidden function of drying
the anthrax. Similarly, he could have easily loaded the anthrax into the letters without being seen or noticed during these times. Recall that the mailing window for the letters to the New York Post and Brokaw was between 5:00 p.m. on Monday, September 17, 2001, and noon on Tuesday, September 18, 2001.
I think it's also important to understand that, while it might take about 2-1/2 hours to air dry spores in a biosafety cabinet, the process does not require that the scientist sit there and watch the spores dry. So, if Dr. Ivins had some regular work to do, he could easily have done it while waiting for the spores to dry.
ReplyDeleteCentrifuging also takes time and doesn't require that the scientist sit there and watch.
So, for "Anonymous" to have any kind of argument, he'd have to PROVE that Ivins could not possibly have made the anthrax powders while also doing some work with rabbit tests.
I don't think even "Anonymous" thinks there is such proof in his postings to Lew's site. More likely, he just wants to make the claim and demand that the FBI prove his claim is false. And, if they don't, then he'll continue to assume that he is right.
That's the way Anthrax Truthers typically think.
Ed
Ed, you don't even understand even understand burden of proof in a criminal case. I have no idea why you blog on the subject.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous wrote: "Ed, you don't even understand even understand burden of proof in a criminal case."
DeleteIt appears I understand burden of proof better than you do.
My comment is about your need to prove the FBI & DOJ to be wrong.
I know you won't or can't explain anything, but you appear to claim that Ivins' work with rabbits somehow means he could not have been making the anthrax powders.
Just showing that Ivins MAY have ALSO worked with rabbits during that period in time doesn't affect the FBI/DOJ claim that Ivins was making powders. The only way you can prove that Ivins was NOT making powders is by showing solid evidence that Ivins had NO TIME OR CAPABILITY to make powders. You do not appear to have even attempted to do that.
If you claim that Ivins could NOT have been making the powders, you need to prove that Ivins could NOT have been making powders. Just pointing out that Ivins could also have been doing something else doesn't mean anything.
BTW, I didn't receive any notification that you had posted this message yesterday, nor did I receive any notification that you posted the message below. There's a glitch somewhere. My email system may have blocked your comment notifications for some reason. That's why I didn't respond earlier. I just noticed your messages because I was notified of Mr. Rowley's message (in the Burden of Proof thread), and when checking the queue for his message, I found your two comments were there in the queue, too. Just FYI.
Ed
It's pretty stupid for Ed to comment as he had about Mr. Epstein's book without reading it.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous wrote: "It's pretty stupid for Ed to comment as he had about Mr. Epstein's book without reading it."
DeleteI'm not sure what comment you're talking about, but Edward Jay Epstein has stated many of his mistaken beliefs over the years, and I've pointed them out on occasion. Plus, he actually said his "hobby" is conspiracies. I think it's valid to wonder if that means he just makes them up or if he seeks to find conspiracies where no one else can find them.
I've ordered a copy of his latest book, "The Annals of Unsolved Crime." It's supposed to arrive Thursday. I have no doubt it will be filled with errors, since he has stated his erroneous beliefs about the anthrax attacks of 2001 elsewhere. It should be fun to point out his errors.
Ed
Mr. Epstein has posted his views on Amerithrax in 2013 and I posted the entire chapter last month. You have not read it and yet presume to comment about it -- misrepresenting it. It's pretty stupid for you to comment without first reading it.
ReplyDeleteRelatedly, if you had read Toni Locy's 2013 book, you wouldn't be so confused about burden of proof.
Anonymous wrote: "I posted the entire chapter last month. You have not read it and yet presume to comment about it "
ReplyDeleteI HAVE read it. That's why I presume to comment about it.
I read all your posts to Lew's site about Epstein's book, and I've read what's on Epstein's site. Since you tend to take things out of context, I decided it wasn't a good idea to comment on what you posted. Plus, since I was going to buy the book anyway, I figured it would be better if I just waited until I could quote from the book directly.
If you think Tony Locy's book shows that your rabbit "evidence" means something, why don't you explain what it means? The fact that you cannot explain what it means says YOU do not understand and are confused about "burden of proof."
Ed