Thursday, July 4, 2013

Subject: Circumstantial Evidence - Part 2

Here's some information about "Circumstantial Evidence":
Circumstantial evidence is evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to a conclusion of fact, like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or the intervening inference.
On its own, it is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible. Inference from one piece of circumstantial evidence may not guarantee accuracy. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out.
Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to deduce a fact exists.  In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of facts in order to support the truth of assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt).
And a definition from another on-line dictionary:
Circumstantial Evidence: Evidence not bearing directly on the fact in dispute but on various attendant circumstances from which the judge or jury might infer the occurrence of the fact in dispute. 
An Anthrax Truther arguing on this blog persists in arguing that the fact that the hidden message in the anthax letters sent to the media decodes to "PAT" doesn't mean anything, because there are countless people named "Pat" in the world.  It doesn't have to pertain to Ivins' co-worker Pat Fellows. 

No one disagrees that "Pat" doesn't have to pertain to Pat Fellows.  As stated in the explanation of "circumstantial evidence" above, "it is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible." 

However, in court, it would be explained to the jury that (1) Bruce Ivins had sent other types of "coded messages" to Pat Fellows; (2) that Ivins was somewhat obsessed with his female co-workers, including Pat Fellows; (3) that the other way to decode the message produced "FNY," which appears to pertain to friendly arguments Ivins had with his other female co-worker, Mara Linscott, who was a fan of the New York Yankees, while Ivins disliked the Yankees; (4) and that Ivins once loaned a copy of the book Godel, Escher, Bach to Pat Fellows, and that book contained the key to decoding the hidden message Ivins had put in the media letter.

So, it would be explained to the jury that it is very likely that the decoded name "Pat" refers to Ivins' co-worker Pat Fellows.  It is a more likely explanation than any other explanation. 

The Anthrax Truther will probably argue that being "very likely" isn't good enough.  It must be a certainty.  In reality, it does NOT have to be a certainty.  It just has to be a logical way to decode the hidden message.  The jury will decide if it is "very likely" that was what Bruce Ivins intended the coded message to mean.

No one disputes that, by itself, the name "Pat" doesn't mean anything.  But when explained to the jury as part of a mass of evidence showing that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer, the jury will decide for itself if the explanation is logical and if it helps to convince them that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer.

Ed

86 comments:

  1. So, it would be explained to the jury that it is very likely that the decoded name "Pat" refers to Ivins' co-worker Pat Fellows. It is a more likely explanation than any other explanation.
    ==========================================
    This assumes that:

    1)PAT is a true decryption. As I've stated several times and as Mister Lake has never denied, there's no cryptological way to determine even whether the posited 'code' exists. If it DOESN'T exist, then the 'product' of that 'decryption' is just an artifact of the wayward creativity of people who have no idea what to look for. (Psst! it's a signature line!). Such an artifact doesn't need an "explanation", it needs a quick boot out the door! (Oops! Over 3 1/2 years too late!).

    2)PAT can be best explained by a person's name. Why would that be? (All of what Mister Lake has written above ASSUMES that a person's name is what is meant by PAT. Why can't it be 'point after touchdown' and indicate that the sender was a fanatical football fan with a particular interest in place kickers? Or maybe the sender is a cardiologist and PAT= paroxysmal atrial tachycardia. It makes just as much sense as the nonsense the Task Force came up with.)

    3)If the PAT is a person's name then it makes MUCH more sense that it's the name of the sender/author. This type of stuff happens all the time: graffiti artist 'signs' his work, even though this makes him easier to track and means that if/when caught he will get (prosecutorial) 'credit' for ALL his defacements. He signs it anyway.

    4)The basic idea of ALL codes is: person A (or: organization A) is communicating with person B (or: organization B). Is that what the Task Force thinks was going on? Did Pat Fellows OR Pat Worsham 'get the message' in 2001? 2002? 2003? 2004? 2005? 2006? 2007? 2008? No, if they read about the decryption of the 'amino acid code' it was in 2010 and it was in a newspaper article or similar news source. They received no message in 2001, wouldn't have known what you were talking about, if you had asked them then whether they 'got the message' in the Brokaw text. This bit means the 'code' flunks the most basic criterion: it wasn't a means to communicate with anyone. So, on that basis, not a real code in the general sense.

    ReplyDelete
  2. R. Rowley wrote: "This assumes that:

    1)PAT is a true decryption."


    No, it doesn't assume anything. It is just how Agent Steele decoded the message. So, it is what he'd state in court.

    R. Rowley also wrote: "2)PAT can be best explained by a person's name. Why would that be?"

    Because that's the conclusion arrived at by Agent Steele as a result of his knowledge of Bruce Ivis, and he'd so testify in court.

    R. Rowley aslo wrote: "3)If the PAT is a person's name then it makes MUCH more sense that it's the name of the sender/author."

    Only in your fantasy world. In the real world, the word "Pat" would pertain to whatever makes sense based upon Agent Steele's understanding of Ivins' past history and motivations.

    R. Rowley wrote: "4)The basic idea of ALL codes is: person A (or: organization A) is communicating with person B (or: organization B). Is that what the Task Force thinks was going on?"

    You are just making up your own absurd rules again. Many codes are devised by people so that no one else but that person can decipher what is being written. Diaries are sometimes written in code, for example, so that no one else can read it.

    I think there are MANY people in history who have written in code so that no one could decipher what they were writing - if the writer didn't want them to. Leonardo da Vinci is the best known example. He wrote all or most of his notes in code so no one else could read them. Click HERE for details.

    Ivins apparently put the hidden message in the media letter with the hope that only HE could decipher it. He apparently wanted to be able to prove that he wrote the letter, if it ever became to his advantage to do so. He may also have saved the originals AND the clipped off edges of the copies for that purpose.

    It appears that, in Ivins' mind, he was doing something that could make him a hero. He was warning America of the dangers of a bioweapons attack. Plus, from what we know of the way Ivins thought, if people were still wondering who sent the anthrax letters many years later, when Ivins died, he might somehow let the world know after his death that he was the one who sent the anthrax letters. The decoded message would be part of his proof.

    If you want to know why Ivins did something, you need to put yourself in Ivins' place and think like Ivins. You can't figure things out by just thinking the way you personally think.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To view some web sites about writing diaries in code, click HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE

      Ed

      Delete
    2. R. Rowley wrote: "4)The basic idea of ALL codes is: person A (or: organization A) is communicating with person B (or: organization B). Is that what the Task Force thinks was going on?"

      You are just making up your own absurd rules again. Many codes are devised by people so that no one else but that person can decipher what is being written. Diaries are sometimes written in code, for example, so that no one else can read it.

      I think there are MANY people in history who have written in code so that no one could decipher what they were writing - if the writer didn't want them to.
      =====================================================
      Granted (no pun intended). But they did MASSIVE searches of Ivins' house, office/lab etc. Where are the references in the FINAL REPORT to evidence that Ivins HIMSELF used personal or not-so-personal codes to keep diaries etc?
      I sure didn't see any in those pages of the report (Pages 58-61). Would they really OMIT the fact/evidence that Ivins did such encoding? Don't think so.

      Delete
    3. R. Rowley aslo wrote: "3)If the PAT is a person's name then it makes MUCH more sense that it's the name of the sender/author."

      Only in your fantasy world. In the real world, the word "Pat" would pertain to whatever makes sense based upon Agent Steele's understanding of Ivins' past history and motivations.
      =============================================
      Actually, it isn't just graffiti artists who do that.
      Frequently the serial killer gives himself a nickname and makes a cat and mouse gave via that nickname and what he attaches to it: Zodiac did that; Jack the Ripper did that;
      the Son-of-Sam did that; a Northwest long-haul trucker who was a serial killer did that with his 'Happy Face Killer' monicker etc.

      As to Agent Steele's understanding(s), I'm pretty sure that that would go under the heading of "speculation" on the part of the witness. I'm even SURER of that now, since a few days ago, a particular part of the testimony of the lead investigator of the Trayvon Martin homicide case,
      Chris Serino, was stricken by the trial judge, with the jury instructed to ignore it. His testimony: that he believed Zimmerman was telling the truth.(!!!!)

      Delete
    4. R. Rowley wrote: "Where are the references in the FINAL REPORT to evidence that Ivins HIMSELF used personal or not-so-personal codes to keep diaries etc?"

      You keep forgetting that the Amerithrax Investigation SUMMARY is a SUMMARY.

      Are you now arguing that no one can do anything for the first time?

      No one said that Ivins did such coding prior to the first anthrax letter. He may have. But, whether he did or not is irrelevant. You wrote: "The basic idea of ALL codes is: person A (or: organization A) is communicating with person B"

      I was just showing you that your beliefs are nonsense. There are other very common reasons for people to use codes.

      We don't know exactly why Ivins put the hidden message in the media letter. The facts just say he did it. And, since the solution says "PAT" and "FNY" which seem to relate to his co-workers (with whom he was somewhat obsessed), it would be obvious to the jury that those aren't his signatures. They refer to his co-workers. The jury can put 2 and 2 together and figure out for themselves what was in Ivins' mind. His past history with codes would show that putting "PAT" and "FNY" in a hidden message in a letter is something Ivins might easily do.

      R. Rowley also wrote: "As to Agent Steele's understanding(s), I'm pretty sure that that would go under the heading of "speculation" on the part of the witness. "

      Only if the prosecutor ASKS Steele to speculate. In court, Darin Steele would testify to what he figured out, and he figured out that the solutions are "PAT" and "FNY." "Figuring things out" is NOT speculation.

      Your ignorance of the law is profound. It's been explained to you that Steele can testify to what he "rationally perceived." He rationally perceived that the decoded messages are "PAT" and "FNY," and he could so testify in court. There is NO RULE preventing him from doing so. The jury has the option of believing him or not believing him.

      Ed

      Delete
  3. Mr. Rowley, here's a coded message for you to decipher:

    Xibu ep Dpmvncvt boe X. Mbgbzfuuf gbwf jo dpnnpo?

    It's a very easy code to decipher.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I remember from reading history that, during the Civil War, General McClellan dreamed up what he thought was a great way to send secret messages without risk that Rebels tapping into the telegraph lines could decipher them. He had his messages translated into Hungarian before sending them out. He assumed that no Rebel would know Hungarian.

      The problem was, however, that no Union soldier on the other end where the message was received could read Hungarian, either.

      Good idea, bad execution.

      I think I read that in General Grant's autobiography.

      Ed

      Delete
    2. The problem was, however, that no Union soldier on the other end where the message was received could read Hungarian, either.
      =================================================
      Better would have been: to get a few native American Union soldiers from a tribe whose range was limited to the North.

      The Iroquois, say. The likelihood of a Southerner knowing
      the Iroquois language would have been infinitesimal. Plus, even language identification would have been difficult in the extreme. Only question in my mind is: did Iroquois have a written form in the 1860s? And if so, would a set of Iroquois Union soldiers have been literate in the language?

      Delete
    3. Mr. Rowley,

      I assume you got that idea from the World War II practice of having Navaho "windtalkers" talk to each other in their native language on radios and walkie-talkies as a way of preventing the Japanese from figuring out what was being said.

      http://www.navajocodetalkers.org/

      Ed

      Delete
  4. I'm going to go to something I gave scant, if any, attention to previously.

    In criticizing the 'amino acid code' as a skein of evidence, I've pretty much stuck to the discrepancy between the level of knowledge needed to do such a decryption (or even ascertain the existence of such a code in the Brokaw text) and evaluate its relative reliability, AND the level of experience in such matters on hand in the Task Force personnel. That criticism centered on the failure of the Task Force to submit its 'amino acid code' to the FBI's own office on codes (see: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/scientific-analysis/crypt)AND the general view that none of the Task Force members were experienced in cryptology.

    But there's another, perhaps just as important factor at play.

    Genuine decipherers/decoders usually have a considerable degree of disinterestedness in their work. That doesn't mean that they don't find the work interesting. It merely means that there's an intellectual detachment towards whatever they find.

    So, an Egyptologist working on hieroglyphics
    found on a newly unearthed object would likely be very enthused: 'Boy, no one has read this in centuries! And I'll be the first one to know what it says in our era!'.

    But that inner enthusiasm will be matched by the
    intellectual detachment I noted: the Egyptologist won't much care whether the message he is about to decrypt says "Cleopatra swims in the nude!" or "King Tut wears pink underwear!" or "That shipment of wheat you sent last Tuesday
    sank in the Nile 5 miles outside of Alexandria. Please send another.". It is the activity of decryption/deciphering that is appealing, not (necessarily) what the exact message is.

    That detachment would have been entirely absent from the Task Force in the August 2008 to February 2010 period. They had:

    1)lost their main suspect (by some counts their ONLY remaining suspect)in July of 2008.

    2)were facing skepticism towards their claims, put forward in early August, 2008 that Ivins had done all the Amerithrax crimes without assistance.

    3)had no physical evidence that Ivins had gone to Princeton in Sept/Oct 2001.

    4)had no physical evidence that Ivins had done any drying of anthrax in calendar year 2001.

    5)had no physical evidence that Ivins had had powdered anthrax in his house or vehicle.

    6)had no physical evidence that Ivins had done drying/purifying of anthrax powder in his lab in 2001.

    What to do? They did retroactively 'flunk' Ivins on his polygraph tests (via the 'inconclusive' label), but most other items couldn't be changed in any way, and the long-cherished hope that Ivins would reveal multiple new skeins of evidence via a full-throated confession was dashed by Ivins' suicide.

    The highlighting of the Brokaw text was one of the few things that could be finagled: it was so ambiguous with the multiple partially-redone letters that a clever 'decryptor' could pick and choose AMONG those partially-redone letters and come up with whatever he wanted to. And Ivins throwing out Hofstadter's book meant: some version of Hofstadter's code would connect it to Ivins.

    Voila! So, in this scenario, Ivins 'changed' Hofstadter by 1)not entirely highlighting all the elements of the code surface text and 2) only chosing A's and T's.

    So, the 'solution' was directed by a group knowledge that it, the solution, HAD to point to Ivins, or else there would be no purpose to such a decryption. The very opposite of disinterestedness.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R. Rowley wrote: "So, the 'solution' was directed by a group knowledge that it, the solution, HAD to point to Ivins, or else there would be no purpose to such a decryption. The very opposite of disinterestedness."

      All you are doing is ONCE AGAIN showing your TOTAL IGNORANCE of how circumstantial evidence is used in court, AND you are ONCE AGAIN showing that you are mindlessly prejudiced toward believing your own personal theory and thus cannot rationally look at the evidence against Bruce Ivins. Your mindless prejudice says that the government made everything up. The facts say the Department of Justice had a VERY SOLID case and were presenting it to a grand jury when Ivins committed suicide rather than stand trial.

      Do you really think that your theory would make a better case in court than the mountain of evidence against Bruce Ivins? If so, why are you totally unable to convince anyone that you are right?

      Ed

      Delete
    2. R. Rowley wrote: "So, the 'solution' was directed by a group knowledge that it, the solution, HAD to point to Ivins, or else there would be no purpose to such a decryption. The very opposite of disinterestedness."

      All you are doing is ONCE AGAIN showing your TOTAL IGNORANCE of how circumstantial evidence is used in court, AND you are ONCE AGAIN showing that you are mindlessly prejudiced toward believing your own personal theory and thus cannot rationally look at the evidence against Bruce Ivins. Your mindless prejudice says that the government made everything up. The facts say the Department of Justice had a VERY SOLID case and were presenting it to a grand jury when Ivins committed suicide rather than stand trial.
      ===============================================
      This, and your subsequent paragraph have nothing WHATSOEVER to do with my post which involved:

      1)describing what "disinterestedness" is.

      2)listing the reasons why the Task Force in the August of 2008 to February 2010 period would have been totally lacking in disinterestedness in any "decryption"/"decipherment" it did of any alleged message/code in either Amerithrax texts (ie that they needed to tie it to Ivins at all costs, and it didn't much matter to them either how convoluted their 'decoding' was, nor how tendentious their reasoning).

      When judges are incapable of being disinterested, they either recuse themselves, or are called upon by one side or the other to recuse themselves.

      The point I made in my prior post does not depend in any way on: an alternate version of what the 'highlighting' means or, for that matter, having/presenting an alternate suspect to Ivins. It does not depend in any way on my being unprejudiced. It does not depend in any way on my being correct about Amerithrax. It's just a basic principle. Apparently one entirely alien to Mister Lake.

      Delete
    3. R. Rowley wrote: "It does not depend in any way on my being unprejudiced."

      Your argument shows prejudiced "disinterestedness" in the evidence of the case against Bruce Ivins. You just assume the government is lying. Making up nonsense about what you imagine the FBI task force did and turning it into a discussion of a "basic principle" doesn't change the fact that it is an argument based upon TOTAL IGNORANCE of the evidence against Bruce Ivins.

      Ed

      Delete
  5. R. Rowley wrote: "This assumes that:

    1)PAT is a true decryption."

    No, it doesn't assume anything. It is just how Agent Steele decoded the message. So, it is what he'd state in court.
    ===========================================
    Your denial just recapitulates the blunder, for by saying "how Agent Steele decoded the message"
    you are thereby assuming there IS a "message" and that that message can be ferreted out via 'decoding'. The very assumption I was criticising.

    ReplyDelete
  6. R. Rowley wrote: "Your denial just recapitulates the blunder, for by saying "how Agent Steele decoded the message" you are thereby assuming there IS a "message" and that that message can be ferreted out via 'decoding'. The very assumption I was criticising."

    All you are doing is showing your TOTAL IGNORANCE of how things work in court.

    No one is "assuming there is a message." The message is there for all to see. If you cannot see it, it is because you have your own theory and DO NOT WISH to see it.

    It's been explained to you MANY TIMES that Agent Steele was trying to figure out why Ivins threw away a copy of his favorite book "Godel, Escher, Bach" and a science magazine about the "Linguistics of DNA." Agent Steele was NOT assuming anything. He was trying to figure something out.

    During the process of figuring things out, he DISCOVERED that there was a hidden message in the media letter. DISCOVERING is just about the OPPOSITE of assuming.

    Agent Steele would testify in court to what he rationally perceived and how it led to discovering a hidden message in the media letter. NO ASSUMPTIONS.

    You just don't seem to be able to comprehend how someone can "discover" something without first assuming it was there. Isn't that what Columbus did when he DISCOVERED America? Columbus certainly wasn't assuming America was there. Isn't that what you did when you supposedly "figured out" that all those hoax letter were written by the same person or group? Or did you begin by ASSUMING that they were all written by the same person or group? It certainly appears that you began with an assumption. But, what you do does not mean that's what everyone does.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R. Rowley wrote: "Your denial just recapitulates the blunder, for by saying "how Agent Steele decoded the message" you are thereby assuming there IS a "message" and that that message can be ferreted out via 'decoding'. The very assumption I was criticising."

      All you are doing is showing your TOTAL IGNORANCE of how things work in court.

      No one is "assuming there is a message." The message is there for all to see. If you cannot see it, it is because you have your own theory and DO NOT WISH to see it.
      ====================================================
      Oh? Is this the same Ed Lake who wrote in the 2001-2005 period: (posted on prior thread)
      ------------------
      But the person who wrote the text of the letter did things very differently with the alphabetical character O. He not only completes ever single O, on all three O's in the text he went past the point were the circle would be complete and drew over part of the letter. He did the same thing on many of the O's and zeroes when addressing the envelopes.
      (http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/writing1.html)
      ?
      Cause THAT Ed Lake:

      1)did NOT see (and did not see in 2005-2010 either!) a "message [that] is there for all to see."

      2) did not know that the Task Force was going to come up with an "amino acid code" in early 2010 that would only admit that A's and T's were (partially) retraced.

      3)therefore he was unwise enough to tell us EXACTLY what he saw: 3 retraced O's. Retraced O's which eliminate any 'amino acid code' coming out the gate and are incompatible with the hypothesis that Ivins or anyone else used such a "code" to leave the name "Pat" or any other name or message in the Brokaw text therewith (which doesn't eliminate per se another manner of encryption and/or the plain text signature line that I see).

      Somehow I don't think it that "it is because you have your own theory and DO NOT WISH to see it." Rather I think it's because bowing to the greater wisdom of the Task Force is your prime directive.
      ------------------------------------------------------
      You just don't seem to be able to comprehend how someone can "discover" something without first assuming it was there. Isn't that what Columbus did when he DISCOVERED America? Columbus certainly wasn't assuming America was there.
      ====================================================
      It's funny you should bring up Columbus again, since I see you as the 'Columbus' of Amerithrax: no one has seen more clues about what happened with Amerithrax than you have. But you remain like Columbus apparently did to the end of his life: convinced he was in Asia.....

      Delete
    2. R. Rowley wrote: Rather I think it's because bowing to the greater wisdom of the Task Force is your prime directive."

      You're just spouting more mindless prejudice by claiming that any argument that supports the DOJ's case against Ivins must be an unthinking agreement with the government.

      The FACTS say that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer. Anyone who says otherwise is just IGNORING the facts because they have a personal theory of their own. NONE has presented any BETTER FACTS supporting their own theory. They just mindlessly argue that the government's evidence really isn't evidence. But their own "evidence" is sacred and unchallengeable, even if it makes no sense and wouldn't even be allowed in court.

      A person may not see a pattern in something new because they have no frame of reference. But, once it's pointed out to them, it becomes totally clear.

      That's the situation with the hidden message in the anthrax letter sent to the media. Without any knowledge of Godel, Escher, Bach and codons, no one will see the message. But, once the decoding process is explained, anyone can see it, except for people who refused to believe it because they have their own theories and mindless prejudices.

      Bringing up things I wondered about ten years ago before all the facts became known is meaningless. All it does is show that new facts make no difference to you. Learning is an unknown process to you. If it's what you believed in 2001, then it should be what you believe today, because if it isn't, then you were wrong then and cannot be believed now about anything.

      Your arguments just show mindless prejudice against the government and in favor of your theory, which seems to be based totally upon beliefs and not on facts.

      If you can't discuss the facts of the case without going into what people thought in 2001, you clearly cannot discuss the facts of the case intelligently.

      What was believed in 2001 is IRRELEVANT, since we now have MUCH MORE INFORMATION. Why can't you understand that?

      Ed

      Delete
    3. What was believed in 2001 is IRRELEVANT, since we now have MUCH MORE INFORMATION. Why can't you understand that?
      ===================================================
      No, the new "information" we have is about the subtyping of the Ames strain, NOT the meaning of the highlighting, partial and total. That remains open to interpretation. The Task Force's claims about an amino acid code encryption aren't endorsed, that I know of, by ANY agency, governmental or non-governmental, that deals habitually with codes, ciphers etc. It's an orphan.

      You, Mister Lake, WANT and NEED to believe in the efficacy of the 'amino acid code" precisely because 1)you want to believe in the Task Force/FBI and 2)you realize that the other evidence, except that dealing with access to the flask, is in the weak-to-non-existent range.

      Delete
    4. Bringing up things I wondered about ten years ago before all the facts became known is meaningless[...]
      ===============================================
      No, what I brought up were your OBSERVATIONS of 10 years ago. Observations that were NOT based on trying to uphold the government's case against.....ANYONE!

      That you want to repudiate those observations, I understand. But I think it would be better if YOU understood why you were repudiating them. (Your eyesight probably hasn't gotten any better in the intervening years!)

      Delete
    5. R. Rowley wrote: "No, the new "information" we have is about the subtyping of the Ames strain, NOT the meaning of the highlighting, partial and total. That remains open to interpretation."

      EVERYTHING REMAINS OPEN TO INTERPRETATION. So what? You are just once again showing your TOTAL IGNORANCE of how circumstantial evidence works in court.

      All you are saying is that you do not believe the FBI's findings. You prefer to interpret things differently - to make them fit your own theories.

      Everyone understands that. It's a free country. You can believe that the moon is made of angels' belly buttons for all I or anyone else cares.

      BUT, this is supposed to be a discussion of the Amerithrax investigation.

      Saying you do not believe the evidence even though you cannot show anyone any better evidence of your own stops all debate. You're doing as the cartoon at the top of this thread shows: You're arguing that you do not care what the facts say, you're going to believe whatever you want to believe.

      So, why are you arguing here? Without better facts and better evidence, you're not going to convince anyone of anything. Intelligent people aren't convinced by beliefs. They're convinced by undeniable FACTS.

      R. Rowlewy wrote: The Task Force's claims about an amino acid code encryption aren't endorsed, that I know of, by ANY agency, governmental or non-governmental, that deals habitually with codes, ciphers etc. It's an orphan."

      But that's required ONLY in your fantasy world. It has nothing to do with the way things work on this planet.

      Have you seen any agency, governmental or non-governmental, say that the coding is WRONG? Why don't you argue that that means it is right? Don't people NEARLY ALWAYS come forward when they have a BETTER explanation for things? Who comes forward when they just simply agree?

      R, Rowley wrote: "You, Mister Lake, WANT and NEED to believe in the efficacy of the 'amino acid code" precisely because 1)you want to believe in the Task Force/FBI and 2)you realize that the other evidence, except that dealing with access to the flask, is in the weak-to-non-existent range."

      You are as bad at "mind reading" as you are at logic and reasoning. The "other evidence in the case is SOLID and virtually UNDENIABLE. You appear to be TOTALLY ignorant of the evidence, and that's why you make such a preposterous argument.

      The unexplained hours Ivins spent in his lab are GOOD evidence.

      Testimony Ivins would allow old plates of anthrax bacteria to lay around in his lab in biosafety bags FOR WEEKS is GOOD evidence. (He was doing something that most scientists would consider to be STUPID.)

      Testimony that Ivins often drove hundreds of miles at night to do things that he didn't want traced back to him would be GOOD evidence.

      Testimony that Ivins tried to destroy evidence would be GOOD evidence of his guilt.

      I could go on and on and on and on and on.

      You can endlessly argue that each item of evidence is "weak" by itself. No one disagrees. But you seem incapable of understanding that, when ALL the evidence is presented to a jury it becomes UNDENIABLY STRONG CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, enough to convince any typical jury.

      Ed

      Delete
    6. R. Rowley wrote: "No, the new "information" we have is about the subtyping of the Ames strain, NOT the meaning of the highlighting, partial and total. That remains open to interpretation."

      EVERYTHING REMAINS OPEN TO INTERPRETATION.
      =====================================================
      No. That the strain used in Amerithrax was Ames is not open to interpretation. That a substrain of Ames was fairly convincingly indented does also not seem to be open to interpretation. But 'the amino acid code', so-called?
      Even Willman hasn't really endorsed it.
      ---------------------------------------------------
      Testimony that Ivins often drove hundreds of miles at night to do things that he didn't want traced back to him would be GOOD evidence.
      --------------------------------------------
      You left out the fact that those drives were to send GIFTS to people. A pretty big omission by my lights!

      Delete
    7. R. Rowley wrote: "That the strain used in Amerithrax was Ames is not open to interpretation."

      Okay, I SHOULD have written: "Just about everything that is evidence is open to interpretation."

      R. Rowley also wrote: "You left out the fact that those drives were to send GIFTS to people. A pretty big omission by my lights!"

      He also drove hundreds of miles to COMMIT BURGLARIES.

      The evidence isn't what he did on those other trips, the evidence is that driving hundreds of miles to do things in the middle of the night isn't something that anyone could argue that Ivins would NEVER do. It's evidence that Ivins WOULD DO such things.

      Ed

      Delete
    8. R. Rowley also wrote: "You left out the fact that those drives were to send GIFTS to people. A pretty big omission by my lights!"

      He also drove hundreds of miles to COMMIT BURGLARIES.
      ====================================================
      If "driving hundreds of miles" were the criterion then law enforcement would devolve into putting all long-haul truckers under 24-hour surveillance and making periodical checks of everyone's odometer to make sure they weren't committing 'crimes' in other states.

      We don't even know, INDEPENDENT of an Ivis-did-it-hypothesis that the Amerithrax mailer lived "hundreds of miles" from Princeton! Once again, you are ASSUMING the very thing under dispute: that because Ivins made long drives in the past (Me too! Up and down both coasts!), that that's a good indication he took a long drive on Sept 17-18th 2001 to Princeton, New Jersey for nefarious purposes. The one thing does not imply the other in the slightest.

      Delete
    9. R. Rowley wrote: "If "driving hundreds of miles" were the criterion then law enforcement would devolve into putting all long-haul truckers under 24-hour surveillance and making periodical checks of everyone's odometer to make sure they weren't committing 'crimes' in other states."

      Once again you demonstrate your TOTAL IGNORANCE of how circumstantial evidence works in court.

      If you insist on remaining TOTALLY IGNORANT of the way circumstantial evidence works, what's the point of discussing the case?

      I feel as if I should create some copy and paste answers to your ridiculous arguments, since they are the same nonsense over and over and over and over.

      Ed

      Delete
    10. All you are saying is that you do not believe the FBI's findings. You prefer to interpret things differently - to make them fit your own theories.
      =================================================
      I've come to believe that most of the Task Force doesn't really believe them either. But with no alternate suspect in sight, and a PR disaster, if the public came to understand that Ivins was innocent and was driven to suicide by the 'investigation', looming, the Task Force did the best with what they had.

      Delete
    11. R. Rowley wrote: "I've come to believe that most of the Task Force doesn't really believe them either."

      And the basis for that belief is undoubtedly your other beliefs - ALL OF WHICH ARE BASED UPON A TOTAL IGNORANCE OF THE CASE AGAINST BRUCE IVINS - PLUS AN UNWILLINGNESS TO EVEN LOOK AT THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE.

      Ivins testified before a GRAND JURY more than once before he committed suicide. He was given an offer to plead guilty in exchange for taking the death penalty off the table. He turned the offer down. That and other facts are SOLID EVIDENCE that the DOJ didn't just decide to blame Ivins after Ivins committed suicide.

      Your beliefs are just ignorant nonsense.

      Ed

      Delete
  7. However, in court, it would be explained to the jury that (1) Bruce Ivins had sent other types of "coded messages" to Pat Fellows;
    ======================================================
    Uh, but:

    1)I thought you said that this was like people keeping encoded diaries, account books (legal and illegal), etc? Ie, not sending a message to SOMEONE ELSE at all!

    2)what kind of "message" is "Pat" if the recipient's name is: Pat?
    If I write the word/s "Mister Lake" or "Ed Lake" or "Ed" or "Lake", have I sent you a message? Seems like a salutation at best to me!

    ReplyDelete
  8. R. Rowley wrote: "I thought you said that this was like people keeping encoded diaries, account books (legal and illegal), etc? Ie, not sending a message to SOMEONE ELSE at all!"

    Are you totally incapable of logic and reasoning?

    If Ivins sent a coded message to Pat years ago, that means sending CODED MESSAGES is something he had done in the past. The fact that what he did in the past is not exactly the same as the message in the media letter doesn't change the fact that Ivins liked codes.

    You just endlessly demonstrate that you have NO UNDERSTANDING of logic or evidence. You seem to think that, if Ivins didn't encode "Pat" in a previous message, then he could not have encoded "Pat" in the media letter. If Ivins didn't murder anyone in the past, then he couldn't have murdered anyone in 2001, because no one ever does anything for the first time. What kind of screwball reasoning is that?

    Ivins sent "other types of 'coded messages' to Pat Fellows." That is circumstantial evidence that he sends messages in code. It means nothing by itself, but together with all the other evidence it helps show that he was the anthrax mailer and put the hidden message in the media letter.

    Arguing with you is like arguing with someone totally incapable of basic reasoning.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R. Rowley wrote: "I thought you said that this was like people keeping encoded diaries, account books (legal and illegal), etc? Ie, not sending a message to SOMEONE ELSE at all!"

      Are you totally incapable of logic and reasoning?

      If Ivins sent a coded message to Pat years ago, that means sending CODED MESSAGES is something he had done in the past.
      ==============================================
      Make up your mind: was he SENDING a coded message (in the Brokaw text)? (if so, to whom? Neither Pat of his acquaintance saw any 'message' to them!)

      Or: was he encoding something for himself?

      You can't have it both ways. Oh, you're Mister Lake, so I guess you can!

      Delete
    2. R. Rowley wrote: "Make up your mind: was he SENDING a coded message (in the Brokaw text)? (if so, to whom? Neither Pat of his acquaintance saw any 'message' to them!)

      Or: was he encoding something for himself?"


      In the PAST he sent coded messages to other people. In the anthrax letter, he wasn't "sending" a coded message to anyone in the media, even though the letters were sent to people in the media. He was simply creating a way of PROVING that he wrote the letters, IF he ever needed to do so. He did it using a code he'd read about in a book that one of the females he was obsessed with gave to him.

      Ed

      Delete
  9. You just endlessly demonstrate that you have NO UNDERSTANDING of logic or evidence. You seem to think that, if Ivins didn't encode "Pat" in a previous message, then he could not have encoded "Pat" in the media letter
    =================================================
    What's the purpose of "encoding" the recipient's name, if there is no message BEYOND the recipient's name? And how would Worsham or Fellows be a recipient to begin with? The Amerithrax letters weren't sent to them, and chances are 90% of Americans of 2001 never even saw the originals to see the highlighting. Your 'hypothesis' needs to have some INTERNAL SENSE, and the Task Force's 'amino acid code' hypothesis has none whatsoever.

    ReplyDelete
  10. R. Rowley wrote: "What's the purpose of "encoding" the recipient's name, if there is no message BEYOND the recipient's name?"

    You just demonstrated once again that you have NO UNDERSTANDING of the evidence against Bruce Ivins.

    Pat Fellows wasn't the "recipient." You seem to understand that he letters were mailed to the MEDIA," but you cannot comprehend that the hidden message was evidently ONLY for Ivins to use if he needed to prove he sent the letters.

    We do not KNOW with absolute certainty what was going on in Ivins' mind when he put that hidden message in the letter, but from what we know of Ivins and all the facts of the case, we can DEDUCE that he did it because he thought the letters would awaken America to the dangers of a bioweapons attack, and the letters would put the stalled vaccine program back on track, and thus he would be a HERO if everything happened the way he HOPED they would happen.

    As I keep trying to explain to you: To understand why Ivins did something, you have to think like Ivins, not like you personally always think.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pat Fellows wasn't the "recipient." You seem to understand that he letters were mailed to the MEDIA," but you cannot comprehend that the hidden message was evidently ONLY for Ivins to use if he needed to prove he sent the letters.
      ---------------------------------------------------
      That's just you mind-reading, and not very plausibly mind-reading at that. What would Ivins need to "prove" he sent the letters for? So that Hatfill wouldn't go to the gas chamber?!?!? For that's the only good I could even POSSIBLY see coming from such a confession, even if believed!. And since Ivins (or the Anthrax Killer since it was not Ivins) had no way of knowing, on September 17th 2001 that the Task Force would latch onto Hatfill as a suspect and hold him in that role for 4 1/4 years, even that idea is pretty much out the window. If you are going to 'encode' a text for that purpose: 1) you would probably encode your own name (or at least initials)
      and 2) you would do it in such a way as to not require special pleading of the sort that is involved in the 'decoding' process of the Task Force: picking out this and that partially-retraced letter and ignoring this and that partially-retraced letter.
      But maybe that's just me.......

      Delete
    2. R. Rowley wrote: "What would Ivins need to "prove" he sent the letters for? So that Hatfill wouldn't go to the gas chamber?!?!?"

      As you say, Ivins knew nothing of Hatfill in 2001. So, why even mention it?

      It's not "mind reading" to try to figure out why someone did something. That's detective work.

      Ivins had multiple motives for the crime. It's been explained that it appears he thought he'd be a HERO for warning America about a potential bioweapons attack AND for putting the anthrax vaccine program back on track. That would have been a BIG DEAL for Ivins.

      R. Rowley wrote: "If you are going to 'encode' a text for that purpose: 1) you would probably encode your own name (or at least initials)"

      That's what YOU might do. But it was IVINS who put the hidden message in the letter. So, the only question is: Why would IVINS do things that way? If you study Ivins' past history, it all makes perfect sense.

      If you want to remain IGNORANT of the evidence against Bruce Ivins, then you can just continue to bumble around and claim it doesn't make any sense to you.

      Ed

      Delete
  11. As I keep trying to explain to you: To understand why Ivins did something, you have to think like Ivins, not like you personally always think.
    ====================================================
    I see no evidence WHATSOEVER that anyone on the Task Force, or even their shrink consultant, Dr Saathoff understood Ivins, let alone 'thought like him'. As I once wrote somewhat hyperbolically, the AMERITHRAX INVESTIGATIVE SUMMARY is about 95% psychology, and bad psychology at that. Cut that down to: 50% bad psychology, resulting in a forced suicide, and you're close to the truth of the matter.

    ReplyDelete
  12. R. Rowley wrote: "I see no evidence WHATSOEVER that anyone on the Task Force, or even their shrink consultant, Dr Saathoff understood Ivins, let alone 'thought like him'."

    Now you are demonstrating a TOTAL IGNORANCE OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS.

    Figuring out WHY a criminal (or a victim) did things is STANDARD PROCEDURE in almost any "mystery" that needs to be solved. Why did the burglar enter by the cellar window and not by the hall window? Why did the murderer take a picture off the wall when he left? Why did the victim go to 5th and Main if that was not any place he'd ever been before? Why did the arsonist bring kerosine instead of using the gasoline that was stored in a back room? Etc., etc.

    Your IGNORANCE of everything about this case and about how criminal investigations work is ASTOUNDING.

    This is my last post for today.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R. Rowley wrote: "I see no evidence WHATSOEVER that anyone on the Task Force, or even their shrink consultant, Dr Saathoff understood Ivins, let alone 'thought like him'."

      Now you are demonstrating a TOTAL IGNORANCE OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS.

      Figuring out WHY a criminal (or a victim) did things is STANDARD PROCEDURE in almost any "mystery" that needs to be solved. Why did the burglar enter by the cellar window and not by the hall window? Why did the murderer take a picture off the wall when he left? Why did the victim go to 5th and Main if that was not any place he'd ever been before? Why did the arsonist bring kerosine instead of using the gasoline that was stored in a back room? Etc., etc.
      =====================================================
      I did not say that TRYING to figure out the mind of a criminal was a bad thing, I merely said I saw no SUCCESS in that endeavor in Amerithrax on the part of the Task Force.
      Big difference.

      Delete
    2. R. Rowley wrote: "I did not say that TRYING to figure out the mind of a criminal was a bad thing, I merely said I saw no SUCCESS in that endeavor in Amerithrax on the part of the Task Force."

      That appears to be the result of your TOTAL IGNORANCE of the evidence against Bruce Ivins.

      Ed

      Delete
  13. One of the things that I like about discussing Amerithrax is: it makes me go back and check things. About the law, but also about the Case per se.

    In the past 24 hours I went back over pages 58 to 61 of the AMERITHRAX INVESTIGATIVE SUMMARY (on the 'hidden message'), and for the first time, I really understood the following: (in third paragraph of page 59), mid-paragraph:
    --------------------------
    In addition, on July 27, 2000, Dr. Ivins forwarded an e-mail to Former Colleague #1 which began “Biopersonals: I have single-stranded too long! Lonely ATGCATG would like to pair up with congenial TACGTAG,” along with a note “this is some cute humor for anyone who has ever had anything to do with biochemistry or molecular biology.”41
    ---------------------------------------------------
    For whatever reason, on all my PREVIOUS reads, I understood this to be Ivins encoding a message in nucleotide bases, and sending it on to "Former Colleague #1".

    But only now do I realize that "forwarding" means that Ivins HIMSELF had received this as part of an email (or possibly found it on a website), had done none of the encryption himself, and merely sent along the joke, with his remarks as to why he liked it. So "forwarded"="relayed" (to former colleague #1).

    Therefore, I don't think we actually have any examples of Ivins, outside of Amerithrax, encoding ANYTHING via nucleotide bases, so as to indicate his facility with them and readiness to encode via such as system.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R. Rowley wrote: "Therefore, I don't think we actually have any examples of Ivins, outside of Amerithrax, encoding ANYTHING via nucleotide bases, so as to indicate his facility with them and readiness to encode via such as system."

      So what? You just showed us that Ivins was AWARE of such things. Are you arguing again that no one ever does anything for the first time? That if they never did it in the past, then they can't ever do it? That would be a totally moronic argument, if that is what you are saying.

      You failed to note the DOJ's explanation for why they mentioned that forwarded note. It's in the footnote at the bottom of page 59:

      "This e-mail was notable not because of any particular meaning ascribed to those specific nucleic acids, but rather because it demonstrated Dr. Ivins’s familiarity with DNA, specifically As, Ts, Cs, and Gs."

      Ivins was not only aware of messages using A's and T's (and C's and G's) but he thought they were amusing. And he told Mara Linscott about it (the co-worker to whom "FNY" refers).

      Ed

      Delete
    2. R. Rowley wrote: "Therefore, I don't think we actually have any examples of Ivins, outside of Amerithrax, encoding ANYTHING via nucleotide bases, so as to indicate his facility with them and readiness to encode via such as system."

      So what? You just showed us that Ivins was AWARE of such things. Are you arguing again that no one ever does anything for the first time?
      ==================================================
      Well, then if Ivins had never had the habit of taking long drives out of town at night, the Task Force could say 'he did it on Sept 17-18th for the first time'! You could claim ANYONE did ANYTHING 'for the first time'. What then is the sense in citing ANY past behavior?
      ---------------------------------------------------
      Ivins was not only aware of messages using A's and T's (and C's and G's) but he thought they were amusing
      ----------------------------------------------------
      Oh, so now you're implying he (or someone) did Amerithrax for the sake of amusement?!?

      Delete
    3. R. Rowley wrote: "What then is the sense in citing ANY past behavior?"

      BECAUSE, IF HE DID IT BEFORE, IT'S EVIDENCE OF A PATTERN. If someone never did a certain thing before, then evidence is needed to show that this time he did do it, even though he never did it before.

      R. Rowley wrote: "Oh, so now you're implying he (or someone) did Amerithrax for the sake of amusement?!?"

      He seemed to enjoy plotting crimes. He told his psychiatrists about murders he planned and bombs he was making. Ivins may not have sent the anthrax letters purely for "amusement," but there are clearly things he did as PART OF the crime that were done just because he enjoyed screwing with people's minds.

      Ed

      Delete
    4. R. Rowley wrote: "What then is the sense in citing ANY past behavior?"

      BECAUSE, IF HE DID IT BEFORE, IT'S EVIDENCE OF A PATTERN. If someone never did a certain thing before, then evidence is needed to show that this time he did do it, even though he never did it before.
      =================================================
      But he didn't DO (ie encode) the thing he sent colleague #1, that's the whole point!
      What might seem like a "pattern" at first blush (first read) turns out to be nothing of the sort. They didn't find a real pattern, if they did there would have been a trail of bodies stretching back 2 decades, the 2 decades in which Ivins TOOK LATE NIGHT DRIVES, but never mailed any anthrax.

      Delete
    5. R. Rowley wrote: "But he didn't DO (ie encode) the thing he sent colleague #1, that's the whole point!"

      And, no one said he sent the email or that it was part of a pattern. The note at the bottom of page 59 says it is evidence "because it demonstrated Dr. Ivins’s familiarity with DNA, specifically As, Ts, Cs, and Gs."

      In a meeting with the DOJ and FBI on June 9, 2008, Ivins claimed he didn't know anything about codons or DNA coding. The email shows he knew about such things.

      Driving hundreds of miles at night isn't a "pattern" in the way you use the word. Maybe I didn't use the right argument. Driving hundreds of miles at night is something that Ivins would do. It was part of his modus operandi, his method of operation when playing games on women and committing burglaries.

      What it shows in court is that it fits with the way Ivins did things. If "pattern" isn't the right word, then use "modus operandi." Either way, it shows that driving hundreds of miles to do something secretive in the middle of the night would NOT be "totally out of character" for Ivins. It was something he was known to have done more than once in the past.

      Ed

      Delete
  14. From the comment section at the top of this thread: next to last paragraph:
    -------------------------------

    The Anthrax Truther will probably argue that being "very likely" isn't good enough. It must be a certainty. In reality, it does NOT have to be a certainty. It just has to be a logical way to decode the hidden message. The jury will decide if it is "very likely" that was what Bruce Ivins intended the coded message to mean.
    ==============================================================
    No, the jury's MAIN function is to determine whether Bruce Ivins WROTE the text, and the alleged "hidden code" is only useful to the extent it helps them to make that determination in accord with Due Process. You're putting the cart before the horse.

    ReplyDelete
  15. R. Rowley wrote: "No, the jury's MAIN function is to determine whether Bruce Ivins WROTE the text, and the alleged "hidden code" is only useful to the extent it helps them to make that determination in accord with Due Process. You're putting the cart before the horse."

    It is NOT the "jury's MAIN function" to "determine whether Bruce Ivins WROTE the text."

    The jury's ONLY function is to determine if the entirety of the evidence is sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt to convict Bruce Ivins of the crimes for which he was being charged.

    A juror might not believe the message is decoded properly or even that there WAS a message in the letter, and he could still vote to convict Ivins because of all the OTHER evidence that says Ivins is guilty.

    Your ignorance of the law is boundless.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  16. R. Rowley wrote: "No, the jury's MAIN function is to determine whether Bruce Ivins WROTE the text, and the alleged "hidden code" is only useful to the extent it helps them to make that determination in accord with Due Process. You're putting the cart before the horse."

    It is NOT the "jury's MAIN function" to "determine whether Bruce Ivins WROTE the text."
    ===================================================
    Yes it is, because of the details of the prosecution's claims: Bruce Ivins, acting alone, committed the crimes of Amerithrax. That means, FOR THE DOJ, there's no accomplices, no child-doodling, no other actors involved: if the jury finds that Ivins didn't do ANY of the task/subtasks, the government's case fails. Reasonable doubt.

    ReplyDelete
  17. R. Rowley wrote: "if the jury finds that Ivins didn't do ANY of the task/subtasks, the government's case fails. Reasonable doubt."

    Nonsense. The jury doesn't decide those things. They have no basis for deciding such things.

    They are presented with ALL the evidence. They weigh ALL the evidence and decide if it is sufficient to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

    If there is some item of evidence that doesn't make sense to them, that does NOT mean there's "reasonable doubt." They can ask for an explanation, or they can resolve it amongst themselves. "Reasonable doubt" refers to Ivins' guilt, not to the validity of any item of evidence.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  18. ""Reasonable doubt" refers to Ivins' guilt, not to the validity of any item of evidence. "
    ==================================================
    How else could you prove your innocence in a TRIAL SETTING without establishing that you could not, and therefore DID NOT do some element of the crime? It would be different if the
    government had left the door open for accomplices, but we know they did not. You seem to want to swerve into Senator Leahy's position------------maybe guilty, but with some help------but we can only discuss with even a dollop of reasonableness what the government has actually accused Ivins of: doing the crimes alone. All of them.

    ReplyDelete
  19. R. Rowley wrote: "How else could you prove your innocence in a TRIAL SETTING without establishing that you could not, and therefore DID NOT do some element of the crime?"

    You left out a critical qualifier: the word "critical."

    If Ivins could not have done some CRITICAL element of the crime, then it might create "reasonable doubt."

    However, as I understand it, the HANDWRITING on the letters and envelopes was not going to be part of the prosecution's case. They were just going to argue that it was disguised in some way. Witnesses would testify that the handwriting reminded them of Ivins' handwriting on notes they'd received in the past, but there would be no side by side handwriting comparison testimony from the prosecution.

    Other evidence would show that Ivins knew about the elements of the code used to put the hidden message in the media letter. Evidence would show that Ivins was fascinated with codes. Evidence would show that Ivins was obsessed with the two women indicated by the decoded messages "PAT" and "FNY." Evidence would show that, in the past, Ivins sent different kinds of "coded" messages to his co-workers. Evidence would show that Ivins did all of this in secret and alone.

    So, it would not be "critical" to the case if it was neither proved nor disproved that Ivins actually wrote the letters. The other facts would show that Ivins made the powders and had motive to do the crime. So, HOW he managed to disguise his handwriting would not be "critical" to the case. There would be no reason for that issue to create "reasonable doubt."

    R. Rowley also wrote: "we can only discuss with even a dollop of reasonableness what the government has actually accused Ivins of: doing the crimes alone. All of them."

    I think it is understood by everyone that Ivins used OTHER PEOPLE to commit his crime. He used postal employees to pick up the letters he put in the mailbox and to deliver those letters to their destinations. He couldn't do that "ALONE." If he also somehow tricked someone into helping him do some element of the crime without realizing it, that would NOT mean that Ivins didn't do the crime alone.

    To be charged as an accomplice, a person has to have been aware that a crime was being committed.

    So, Ivins committed the crime "ALONE" even though he may have used hundreds of INNOCENT people to help him commit the crime.

    Your hyper-literal interpretations of words may not be able to cope with that, but that's your problem. It doesn't affect the case.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R. Rowley also wrote: "we can only discuss with even a dollop of reasonableness what the government has actually accused Ivins of: doing the crimes alone. All of them."

      I think it is understood by everyone that Ivins used OTHER PEOPLE to commit his crime. He used postal employees to pick up the letters he put in the mailbox and to deliver those letters to their destinations. He couldn't do that "ALONE."
      ==============================================
      Okay, but that's like saying the bank robber 'used' the bank teller to commit his crime by having the teller put a lot of money in a sack. Remember, the phraseology------"The FBI is confident that the attacks were planned and committed by Dr. Bruce Ivins, acting alone,[...]" ---------is not mine, it's that of the DoJ. And it's reiterated by third party (but also governmental) accounts too: (the above by OMB director Orszag):


      http://www.bioprepwatch.com/news/veto-of-intelligence-spending-bill-could-halt-further-2001-anthrax-mailing-investigation/212549/

      And let's finish that sentence off so that we get it in it's entirety: (from story posted above): (last paragraph):
      ---------------

      "The FBI is confident that the attacks were planned and committed by Dr. Bruce Ivins, acting alone," the letter said. "The commencement of a fresh investigation would undermine public confidence in the criminal investigation and unfairly cast doubt on its conclusions."
      ==================================================
      That bit about 'undermine public confidence' is as close as you can expect a government agency to go in saying 'this is for public confidence'.....or in my more negative casting, a PR effort.
      ---------------------------------------------------
      Here's Jeff Taylor US attorney writing to Hatfill's attorney
      on August 8th 2008:
      (partial): (last sentence of second paragraph):
      ------------------------
      As the Department stated publicly on August 6, 2008, we believe that Dr. Ivins, acting alone, committed the anthrax mailings.
      http://www.wiltshiregrannis.com/siteFiles/News/F480368A911B38E7597D51CF28A6D191.pdf
      --------------------------------------------------
      Back to Mister Lake:
      -----------
      Your hyper-literal interpretations of words may not be able to cope with that, but that's your problem.
      --------------------------------------------------
      It will be news to everyone who knows me that I'm a hyperliteralist when it comes to words. On the contrary, I've written here, and that quite recently, that the final arbiter of a word's meaning is: the context. You're the one who's using "alone" in the most hyperliteral sense here; on this particular usage, I'm following the DoJ and the OMB.

      Delete
    2. R. Rowley wrote: "You're the one who's using "alone" in the most hyperliteral sense here;"

      I argued that hundreds of people may have unwittingly "helped" Ivins in his crime, yet he still acted "alone." That is the opposite of "hyperliteral."

      But this is another MORONIC argument over the meaning of a word. Your entire response is just being argumentative, you're looking for ways to interpret things so you can argue that the government is wrong.

      I think everyone fully understands your beliefs. The problem is that the facts disagree with your beliefs. Facts can change beliefs, but beliefs cannot change facts. So, we should be discussing facts.

      Ed

      Delete
    3. I argued that hundreds of people may have unwittingly "helped" Ivins in his crime, yet he still acted "alone." That is the opposite of "hyperliteral."
      ----------------------------------------------
      And in your PRIOR post you started it off with this sentence:
      "I think it is understood by everyone that Ivins used OTHER PEOPLE to commit his crime."
      ===============================================
      Using other people to commit a crime is the opposite of "acting alone" in committing the crime.

      And you don't have to be a hyperliteralist to know that, just a native speaker of English.

      But that's it for me in "debating" Lakespeak, at least on the phrase "acting alone".

      Delete
    4. R. Rowley wrote: "Using other people to commit a crime is the opposite of "acting alone" in committing the crime."

      The key word in that sentence is "using."

      If you are "using" people, they may not be aware of what you are doing. If they are unaware of what you are doing, FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, you are "acting alone" in whatever you are doing.

      We're in another MORONIC argument over words, but the key point here is that we're talking legalese NOT common meanings.

      "Lakespeak" in this case is legalese. Your argument seems to be about common speech.

      I keep telling myself I need to get you to explain yourself more. I think we'd have less arguments if you were doing the explaining, not me. I can see how you are thinking, but you seem incapable of seeing how I'm thinking.

      Ed

      Delete
  20. Mr. Rowley,

    I see that some testimony was rejected "in limine" in the Zimmerman trial. A source HERE says,

    "Also on Monday afternoon, Nelson granted the state's motion in limine that the defense's law enforcement expert cannot testify that Zimmerman was reasonable in his use of force against Martin, did not break the law and showed restraint before using deadly force."

    Notice that the "law enforcement expert" would have been stating that Zimmerman "did not break the law." That is prejudicial testimony. It is NOT evidence. The jury is supposed to decide if Zimmerman broke the law or not. That's what the trial is all about. Having an "expert" tell them them Zimmerman did NOT break the law, is too likely to prejudice the jury into believing that their verdict MUST be that Zimmerman is innocent.

    Also, another news source HERE says,

    The judge in George Zimmerman's murder trial on Wednesday rejected defense requests to allow into evidence photos and text messages from Trayvon Martin's phone as well as a computer animation of the slaying.

    Judge Debra Nelson said she will allow defense lawyers to show jurors the computer animation during closing arguments. But she rejected the defense bid to present the animation as actual evidence, which means the animation can't be reviewed by jurors during their deliberations.

    The animation, from a defense witness, depicts Trayvon walking up to Zimmerman and punching him -- and later shows the teen on top of Zimmerman when Trayvon is shot.

    The ruling concerning Trayvon's phone means the jury won't see text messages that discussed fighting, purchasing a gun and or see photo of a gun there.

    The text messages discuss Trayvon being sore after winning several rounds of a fight, Zimmerman's attorney, Don West said. Trayvon also discussed buying a gun and took pictures of a hand holding a gun, West said.

    Prosecutors said there's no way of proving Trayvon sent the text messages or took the photos. They also argued that the information from the cellphone doesn't have anything to do with the shooting and Trayvon's death.


    So, the animation is NOT evidence and cannot be viewed as evidence. It merely illustrates the defense's argument, and thus CAN be shown during the defense's closing argument.

    And we see that the PROSECUTION is doing what the defense normally does: Arguing that it cannot be conclusively proved that Trevon Martin sent the text messages and took the pictures. They got away with it because the text messages and photos do not "have anything to do with the shooting and Trayvon's death." They are therefore NOT RELEVANT to the matter being tried and would only prejudice the jury into believing that Martin was a dangerous person who was probably not an innocent victim.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, I take it you agree with all the judge's rulings on these matters?

      Delete
    2. R. Rowley wrote: "So, I take it you agree with all the judge's rulings on these matters?"

      I used her rulings to illustrate how the law is interpreted by a judge, as opposed to YOUR bizarre interpretations of the law.

      So, I take it you do NOT agree with all the judge's rulings on these matters, and you feel you understand the law better than she does?

      Ed

      Delete
  21. R. Rowley wrote: "So, I take it you agree with all the judge's rulings on these matters?"

    I used her rulings to illustrate how the law is interpreted by a judge, as opposed to YOUR bizarre interpretations of the law.
    ====================================================
    I never said the final decision on admissibility wasn't up to a judge, in ANY trial.
    -------------------------------------------------
    So, I take it you do NOT agree with all the judge's rulings on these matters, and you feel you understand the law better than she does?
    ====================================================
    No, I look at a trial like this as an opportunity to learn, NOT an opportunity to rail against "Truthers" or "Conspiracy theorists" or whatever...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R. Rowley wrote: "No, I look at a trial like this as an opportunity to learn, NOT an opportunity to rail against "Truthers" or "Conspiracy theorists" or whatever..."

      I merely pointed out that they used an "in limine" meeting in the case, and what was done supported MY argument, not yours about how "in limine" meetings work.

      I haven't been watching the trial at all, except when I don't have much choice - like when it's on the TV at the health club or when it's summarized on the evening news.

      I don't argue with judges or prosecutors UNLESS I have some reason to argue. If I disagree with something, I first try to figure out how I can be misunderstanding something. I don't assume that they are wrong. I assume I'm just not aware of all that's going on.

      The trial was on TV while I was at the health club a few minutes ago and I saw that the prosecutor was arguing that Zimmerman "started it." I.e., if Zimmerman had stayed in his car and hadn't confronted Martin, Martin would be alive today. On that basis, manslaughter seems like a possible verdict.

      But, as I said, I haven't been watching the case, so I don't know all the evidence or all the arguments. There could be plenty of reason to believe that Zimmerman acted in self defense, even if he "started it." It kind of depends upon what "started it" means. If it means Zimmerman was the first to speak, that's one thing. If Zimmerman was the first to touch or strike Martin, that's something else altogether.

      Ed

      Delete
    2. Hmm. I just read an article HERE that says,

      "Defense attorney Don West called the possible lesser charge of third-degree felony murder "outrageous" and a "trick" by the state. He said prosecutors asked for the inclusion at the last minute.

      "Just when I thought this case couldn't get any more bizarre, the state is seeking third-degree felony murder based on child abuse?" West said.

      The offense of third-degree felony murder would be premised on the idea that Zimmerman committed child abuse since 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was underage when he was fatally shot. Prosecutors said they will not pursue the lesser charge of aggravated assault, as they initially indicated."


      That's too far out in left field for me to even bother to try to understand. I've got better things to do that to dig into all the details of the Zimmerman trial.

      From what I see, Zimmerman will be acquitted. But there could be tons of stuff I don't know about.

      Ed

      Delete
    3. R. Rowley wrote: "No, I look at a trial like this as an opportunity to learn, NOT an opportunity to rail against "Truthers" or "Conspiracy theorists" or whatever..."

      I merely pointed out that they used an "in limine" meeting in the case, and what was done supported MY argument, not yours about how "in limine" meetings work.
      ================================================
      Okay, I don't follow that: how does your notion differ from mine on in limine hearings?

      Delete
    4. R. Rowley wrote: "how does your notion differ from mine on in limine hearings?"

      Your notion stated HERE is: "So, the defense would have filed pre-trial in limine motions to eliminate from presentation in front of the jury:

      2)all evidence related to 'amino acid code' in Amerithrax letters(in accord with Rule of Evidence 701 c)), unless presented by certified expert in cryptology (in accord with Rule of Evidence 702). "


      My notion of "in limine" from HERE is:

      "A motion in limine is most often made to exclude evidence by a party who believes that evidence would prejudice the jury against him or her. "

      You think ORDINARY evidence like Agent Steele's testimony about the hidden message in the letter is "prejudicial."

      I say it's ORDINARY evidence and NOT "prejudicial," it's just PART of the case against the defendant.

      Prejudicial generally means: "an opinion formed before the facts are known." An example would be: "the government is evil, so nothing they say can be trusted." Or, "foreigners must have done it, because all foreigners are untrustworthy and Americans are all good people."

      Prejudicial can also mean that it appeals to the EMOTIONS instead of to facts and logic, such as testimony about how terrible the defendant is or how horrific the crime was.

      In other words, no facts or evidence are needed, because prejudiced BELIEFS or EMOTIONS are sufficient to determine guilt or innocence. The matter has been pre-judged.

      In the Zimmerman trial, the "in limine" hearing was called to keep an "expert" from taking the stand to declare that Zimmerman didn't break any law. That's prejudicial testimony because the JURY is supposed to decide if Zimmerman broke the law or not. The "expert" had already PRE-JUDGED the case.

      In the Ivins' trial, Agent Steele's testimony about the hidden message in the letter would have been just be one more piece of evidence for the jury to consider before making their decision. There's nothing "prejudicial" about it because it doesn't say "Ignore all the other evidence because this BELIEF overrides all the facts and evidence."

      "In limine" meetings are NOT and CANNOT be held to exclude ordinary evidence. They're mainly held to exclude PREJUDICIAL testimony that is based upon BELIEFS or EMOTIONS and not upon facts and logic.

      Ed

      Delete
    5. Your notion stated HERE is: "So, the defense would have filed pre-trial in limine motions to eliminate from presentation in front of the jury:

      2)all evidence related to 'amino acid code' in Amerithrax letters(in accord with Rule of Evidence 701 c)), unless presented by certified expert in cryptology (in accord with Rule of Evidence 702). "

      My notion of "in limine" from HERE is:

      "A motion in limine is most often made to exclude evidence by a party who believes that evidence would prejudice the jury against him or her. "
      ===============================================
      The two statments are not in conflict.

      Delete
    6. You think ORDINARY evidence like Agent Steele's testimony about the hidden message in the letter is "prejudicial."

      I say it's ORDINARY evidence and NOT "prejudicial," it's just PART of the case against the defendant.
      ===================================================
      If it's so "ordinary" then just give me an example of an "amino acid code" being introduced into evidence in a MATERIAL way in a trial. Any trial. I don't think that
      there are any such instances. Furthermore, since no one in the Task Force in the years 2001-2009 claimed that that text HAD such an amino acid code, it must have been extraordinarily 'unordinary' to have escaped the attention of so many persons......That is NOT the typical transparent-as-can-be code generally used by drug dealers and the like that we already made reference to...

      Delete
    7. R. Rowley wrote: "If it's so "ordinary" then just give me an example of an "amino acid code" being introduced into evidence in a MATERIAL way in a trial."

      You're playing WORD GAMES again. I used the term "ordinary evidence" merely to indicate that it is just regular evidence that any lawyer could present in almost any court.

      "Ordinary" is NOT a legal term. Neither is "regular."

      So, you argue that it's not "ordinary" (and probably not "regular") because an "amino acid code" has never been used in a trial before.

      There is NO RULE that says that something cannot be presented as evidence if it's never been presented as evidence in a trial before.

      The "amino acid code" is "ordinary" or "regular" evidence because there is NO RULE that says such evidence cannot be presented in court.

      I used the term to distinguish it from "PREJUDICIAL" evidence as VIEWED BY THE LAW, i.e., evidence that doesn't have anything to do with the case but which may sway the jury anyway, like evidence that does nothing but show the defendant is a terrible person. That type of evidence CANNOT be presented. It does NOT help to resolve the issue being tried.

      In the Zimmerman trial, I think they used a slab of concrete as "evidence." How many times has a slab of concrete been used as evidence in a case before?

      There were 250 items of evidence entered. Do you think the judge somehow knows every one of the billions of items of evidence that have been used in American courts in the past 225 years, and then decides if each item has been used as evidence before, and if it hasn't they don't allow it? That is NOT the way things work in court.

      If an item of evidence helps resolve the issue being tried (i.e., Ivins' guilt or innocence) IT IS ALLOWED.

      The coded letter would be allowed because it helps to prove Ivins' guilt - which is the issue being tried.

      R. Rowley also wrote: "That is NOT the typical transparent-as-can-be code generally used by drug dealers and the like that we already made reference to... "

      WHO CARES? There is no rule that says a new kind of code cannot be used in court because it's never been used in court before.

      You keep claiming things cannot be presented as evidence because of rules that exist only in your mind.

      The laws were written with the assumption that no two cases are exactly alike. They do NOT write new laws every time something unusual pops up. The only rule governing the admissibility of the coded letter is whether or not the item helps resolves the issue being tried. If it helps, it is ALLOWED. If it doesn't help, it is NOT allowed.

      Ed

      Delete
  22. There was a story about a month ago, an AP story about how 'bite mark evidence' has proven unreliable in a number of instances, resulting in erroneous convictions, and there exists the real possibility that courts in the future may crack down on the use of such evidence in trials.

    Story is here: http://www.theleafchronicle.com/viewart/20130615/NEWS01/306150021/Bites-fall-out-favor-evidence

    Tail end of story:
    ------------------
    An AP analysis found that at least two dozen men had been exonerated since 2000, mostly as a result of DNA testing.

    Two court cases this month are helping to bring the debate over the issue to a head.

    One involves a 63-year-old California man who is serving a life term for killing his wife, even though the forensic dentist who testified against him has reversed his opinion.

    In the second, a New York City judge overseeing a murder case is expected to decide whether bite mark analysis can be admitted as evidence, a ruling critics say could kick it out of courtrooms for good.
    =================================================
    In other words (to clarify the first sentence)the DNA testing revealed the erroneous convictions wrought by 'bite mark evidence'.

    ReplyDelete
  23. R. Rowley wrote: "In other words (to clarify the first sentence)the DNA testing revealed the erroneous convictions wrought by 'bite mark evidence'."

    I know all about the "bite mark" evidence.

    What I don't know is why you mention it. What's your point?

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R. Rowley wrote: "In other words (to clarify the first sentence)the DNA testing revealed the erroneous convictions wrought by 'bite mark evidence'."

      I know all about the "bite mark" evidence.

      What I don't know is why you mention it. What's your point?
      ===========================================
      Well, what surprised me about it was: I pictured areas of expertise as an ever-expanding circle, but, if what they anticipate in this article holds true, then there might be some contractions in this area of evidence.

      Delete
    2. R. Rowley wrote: "Well, what surprised me about it was: I pictured areas of expertise as an ever-expanding circle, but, if what they anticipate in this article holds true, then there might be some contractions in this area of evidence."

      That explanation doesn't help at all. I still do not understand what you are trying to say. I think I understand the "ever expanding circle" part and the "contractions" part, but what's your POINT?

      Ed

      Delete
    3. R. Rowley wrote: "Well, what surprised me about it was: I pictured areas of expertise as an ever-expanding circle, but, if what they anticipate in this article holds true, then there might be some contractions in this area of evidence."

      That explanation doesn't help at all. I still do not understand what you are trying to say. I think I understand the "ever expanding circle" part and the "contractions" part, but what's your POINT?
      =================================================
      MY "point" is my interest in the subject matter quite apart from Amerithrax. Why aren't YOU interested in the role of realms of expertise used in criminal trials? It would seem to be an inevitable interest, naturally acquired after so much disputing on the role of such realms IN Amerithrax.

      But apparently for YOU the only way that someone has a "point" is if they are disputing you. Wny is that?



      Delete
  24. R. Rowley wrote: "Why aren't YOU interested in the role of realms of expertise used in criminal trials? It would seem to be an inevitable interest, naturally acquired after so much disputing on the role of such realms IN Amerithrax."

    I cannot make any sense of what you write: "the role of realms of expertise used in criminal trials"? It's like asking why I'm not interested in physics since physics is so important to criminal trials. Who says I'm NOT interested in physics?

    However, when someone says something like "things aren't the way I thought they were," the natural response is, "What's different?" or "What's not the way you thought it was?"

    You start an argument because I ask such a question.

    If you don't want a response, why bring it up?

    You seemed to be saying that you've learned something new (about the legal system, not just about bite marks), but you wouldn't say what it was. I was wondering what that was, and when I asked, you argue that I'm arguing.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  25. You start an argument because I ask such a question.
    ============================================
    You need remedial reading lessons: my last three posts have no "argument" (in any sense of that word) in them whatsoever:

    1)In my post of July 11, 2013 at 12:38 PM I comment on an AP story about the reliability of "bite mark evidence". No "argument" in any sense of that word. (But if you disagree, QUOTE ME and tell me WHAT I'm supposedly "arguing"! (in ANY sense of the word)).

    2)This was followed by Mister Lake asking "what's your point?" (!!!). (post of July 11, 2013 at 1:37 PM)
    My "point" was exactly what I wrote: that the reliability of bite mark evidence is in doubt and that there's a possibility its role in criminal trials of the future MIGHT change. Isn't that ENOUGH Of a point?!?!?

    3) My subsequent post (July 11, 2013 at 2:42 PM) was as follows: (trying to explain what's ALREADY crystal-clear to all other readers)
    ---------------
    Well, what surprised me about it was: I pictured areas of expertise as an ever-expanding circle, but, if what they anticipate in this article holds true, then there might be some contractions in this area of evidence.
    -------------------------------

    4)Mister Lake professed not to understand THAT either! (!!!!)
    ------------
    That explanation doesn't help at all*. I still do not understand what you are trying to say. I think I understand the "ever expanding circle" part and the "contractions" part, but what's your POINT?

    *What is there NOT to understand?!?!?!?!?
    =====================================
    Evidently in the Lakean "dialect" if you keep asking "what is your point?" after the person has ALREADY explained what their point is this constitutes 'contributing' to a conversation!
    =================================================
    What I see in the above posts between Mister Lake and me is: Mister Lake trying to start an argument via repeating "what's your point?" over and over and over again. You'll have to find another patsy for that.

    And as always when he's trying to start an argument, he accuses ME of trying to start one.

    (You be the judge, oh noble reader!)

    ReplyDelete
  26. R. Rowley wrote: "My "point" was exactly what I wrote: that the reliability of bite mark evidence is in doubt and that there's a possibility its role in criminal trials of the future MIGHT change. Isn't that ENOUGH Of a point?!?!?"

    It's not just a possibility. Your post said, the DNA testing revealed the erroneous convictions wrought by 'bite mark evidence'." The article for which you provided a link says,

    --------
    DNA has outstripped the usefulness of bite mark analysis: The FBI doesn’t use it and the American Dental Association does not recognize it.

    “Bite mark evidence is the poster child of unreliable forensic science,” said Chris Fabricant, director of strategic litigation at the New York-based Innocence Project, which helps wrongfully convicted inmates win freedom through DNA testing.

    -------

    So, it's another so-called "science" that is too unreliable to be used in court. With the Daubert ruling, the Supreme Court set new standards to weed out the kinds of "science" that can produce totally unreliable results like bite-mark evidence.

    I think everyone knows this. But, maybe you didn't.

    So, what you wrote was like saying, "Columbus discovered America."

    The response would be: "Yes. So what?"

    Asking "So what?" is not starting an argument. It's just a question about why you mention something that everyone already knows.

    You seem to have brought it up as a way of arguing some other point, like - if bite mark evidence is unreliable, who can say what other "scientific evidence" might also be unreliable?

    And, since we're supposed to be discussing the anthrax attacks, it would appear that you want to argue that some forensic evidence in that case MIGHT some day be shown to be unreliable. And, if so, why believe ANY scientific findings?

    I was trying to figure out your "point" to see if that is the "point" you were trying to make without actually making it.

    Otherwise, you were just making a statement that means nothing because it just says what everyone else already knows.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Posted by Mister Lake:
      -----------------
      So, it's another so-called "science" that is too unreliable to be used in court.
      ==========================================
      What do you mean "too unreliable to be used in court"? It's being used in court. Ted Bundy*, decades ago, was convicted partially on 'bite mark evidence'. It can't be any more 'used in court' than that! The only question is: will the recent reversals of convictions bring about 1)reform of 2)limitations to such "bite mark evidence" and/or the way that experts present it?
      ========================================
      You seem to have brought it up as a way of arguing some other point, like - if bite mark evidence is unreliable, who can say what other "scientific evidence" might also be unreliable?
      ==========================================
      No, that is just you ANTICIPATING stuff than I (and I'm sure other people) am (are) going to write/say.

      As I noted already, Amerithrax (but not just Amerithrax: any CONCRETE real-life case that I can sink my teeth into)makes me curious about the whole gamut of criminal investigation/procedural matters. And since, for 1-3 months now, we have been discussing expert vs lay testimony, this AP item caught my attention in a way it wouldn't have pre-Amerithrax (for me, pre-Amerithrax=pre-2005, though that's just my intellectual fascination with the topic, as I'm a Johnny-come-lately).
      ======================================================
      Otherwise, you were just making a statement that means nothing because it just says what everyone else already knows.
      ---------------------------------------------------
      Oh, so the next time you write something about a case I already know about, I should write (over and over and over again) 'What's your point?' ?????
      (And by the way, I do NOT remember that as being a humongous above-the-fold story in the NY TIMES about the bite-mark-evidence, and since I participate regularly at one newspaper blog section, it can't have made much of a national splash: a one-day story basically)


      *Least you misunderstand, I do NOT think Bundy was innocent.
      He probably killed 20 or 30 persons. I'm just talking about procedure.

      Delete
  27. R. Rowley wrote: "What do you mean "too unreliable to be used in court"? It's being used in court. Ted Bundy*, decades ago, was convicted partially on 'bite mark evidence'. It can't be any more 'used in court' than that!"

    What I meant was, "too unreliable to be used in court any more." As you say, the Ted Bundy case was years ago. The bite mark evidence issue came up years ago. There's a New York Times article from January 2007 HERE about it.

    Click HERE to view what the National Academy of Sciences thought about bite mark evidence in 2009.

    Cops can evidently still use bite mark evidence to ELIMINATE suspects, but not to convict suspects. So, it would probably never be used in court any more.

    Over the past 11 years I did a lot of reading about questionable scientific evidence and did a lot of research into effects of the 1993 Daubert v Dow Pharmaceuticals case. The evidence pointing to flask RMR-1029 had to meet the new standards set by the Daubert case. The Daubert case was about scientists using unverified scientific techniques to support a claim that the drug Bendectin caused the birth defects. As a result, the Supreme Court set new standards for scientific evidence. Bite mark evidence was a "science" that quickly proved to be largely unreliable.

    Certain ballistic evidence has also been shown to be unreliable, and lawyers now have to do a better job of proving ballistic evidence is reliable.

    And, of course, there was the case where fingerprint evidence was shown to be wrong in the train bomb case in Spain a while back. Fingerprint evidence pointed to a guy in Oregon who had never been to Spain. That story made headlines everywhere.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I forgot to mention hair and fiber analysis. There's a big study underway to see how many people may have been falsely convicted as a result of prosecutors overstating the reliability of hair and fiber analysis. Click HERE.

      The key point to all this is that everyone was extra careful when putting together the evidence against Ivins. Everyone has been extra careful since the Daubert decision in 1993, since the Daubert decision gave the defense ammunition to challenge any dubious science-based testimony.

      Ed

      Delete
    2. The key point to all this is that everyone was extra careful when putting together the evidence against Ivins.
      =============================================
      Your careless and habitual use of the word "everyone" or "everybody" is noted.
      ----------------------------------------------
      Everyone has been extra careful since the Daubert decision in 1993, [...]
      ======================================
      There he goes again: making blanket statements via promiscuous and unwarranted use of the words "everyone" and "everybody".

      Delete
  28. Here's a hypothetical debate between R and E:

    --------
    R: Bite marks are unreliable evidence.

    E: So?

    R: So, bite marks are unreliable evidence.

    E: What's your point?

    R: My point is that bite marks are unreliable evidence.

    E: Everyone knows that. So why bring it up?

    R: Because bite marks are unreliable evidence.

    E: I still don't see your point.

    R: Why are you arguing with me?

    E: I'm not arguing, I'm asking a question.

    R: You're arguing. I said that bite marks are unreliable evidence and you start an argument.

    E: So, now we're arguing about arguing?
    ---------


    Who started the argument?

    As I see it, the argument began when "R" made a false claim in the question: "Why are you arguing with me?"

    There was no argument before that point. R's question falsely implied that there WAS an argument.

    E then argued that there was no argument.

    I think that everyone understands that making a false statement is a way to start an argument.

    Of course, if a false statement isn't challenged, then there is no argument.

    But, is the argument started by the false statement or by the claim that the statement is false?

    It takes two to make an argument. So, simply ignoring false statements is one way to avoid arguments.

    But that's not why we're here. So, I think we should agree that making false statements is how arguments are started, not by challenging the false statement.

    Leaving false statements unchallenged promotes ignorance.

    Challenging false statements promotes finding the truth.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  29. R: My point is that bite marks are unreliable evidence.

    E: Everyone knows that. So why bring it up?
    ================================================
    "Everybody" does not know that. It was in one AP story in June.
    Does "everybody" read every AP story that comes down the pike?

    Answer: no they don't.

    Question: did Mister Lake HIMSELF mention this AP story with 24 hours of it coming out? No. 48 hours? No. Did Mister Lake EVER bring up this new development vis-a-vis the reliability of "bite make evidence" on the website prior to my introducing it to the thread? No, he did not. Unlike you, Mister Lake, I'm not psychic, so I don't know what you know, let alone what "everybody" knows (by the way, that's a fairly solipsistic "everybody"), save only in those instances where you discuss something in the Thoughts and Comments section. Which you did not do on this topic.

    You remind me of that Martin Short SNL character, who, smoking nervously, says to this or that statement, "I knew that. Why wouldn't I know that?".
    ------------------------------------------------------------


    Here's a hypothetical debate between R and E:
    ===================================================
    Why INVENT a "hypothetical debate" when upthread you've got a genuine, let's say, pseudo-debate, wherein you "ask" over and over and over and over again "what's you point?". And I answer it in various ways, until I see it's hopeless.....

    Should I ask every time you post about Tsarnaev Bros. "What's your point?". THAT (ie doing such a thing) would seem pointless.
    -------------------------------------------------
    Mister Lake wrote:
    Leaving false statements unchallenged promotes ignorance.
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    Since my post of July 11, 2013 at 12:38 PM on this thread
    I don't see you "challenging" any false statements, merely stating your bewilderment that I should offer true ones. True ones about things that "everybody" (!!) knows.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr. Rowley,

      Neither of your posts today is worthy of a response. You're just being argumentative.

      You don't even try to resolve issues. All you seem to do is argue about words. It's really getting tedious.

      Ed

      Delete
  30. A comment from my web site:

    -----------------
    October 17, 2004 - Although not specifically about the anthrax case, a new series in The Chicago Tribune about problems with forensic evidence titled "Forensics Under The Microscope" helps explain why there was a critical need to formally develop, recognize and validate the new science of "microbial forensics" before it could be put to use in identifying the anthrax mailer, or the originating lab, or anything else about the case.

    The article illustrates problems with forensic methods which have been in use or many years. A new method will definitely be challenged by the defense, so it's critical to make certain the first case to use the new science is rock solid.

    Here are a few key paragraphs from the article:

    In addition to the advent of DNA testing, U.S. Supreme Court rulings have sought to impose greater scientific rigor on forensic testimony.

    In a defining 1993 decision, Daubert vs. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, the court demanded that such testimony not simply meet the existing standard of "general acceptance" in its field, but also address some of the hallmarks of scientific inquiry--testing, peer review and rates of error.


    And:

    In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court created the stricter Daubert standard, which held that trial judges also "must ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable."

    So, along with last week's USA Today article about "sloppiness" in USAMRIID labs, it's begining to look like the case for the defense is developing even before there is a known culprit to defend. On the other hand, it appears that the FBI is aware of that and is doing all the "testing, peer review and rates of error" work to head off problems.
    --------

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  31. Parts of a comment from my web site:

    -------
    November 27, 2005 - During the past week I read sections of "Microbial Forensics", a book of scientific articles compiled and edited by Roger Breeze, Bruce Budowle and Steven Schutzer. (Roger G. Breeze works for Centaur Science Group in Washington, DC. Bruce Budowle is a senior scientist in the Laboratory Division of the FBI headquarters in Quantico, VA. Steven E. Schutzer is a physician-scientist who works in the Department of Medicine at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey at Newark.)
    ...



    Webster's defines "forensic" as "belonging to courts of judicature" and "used in legal procedings." The ultimate goal of forensic sciences is to find evidence or information that will either incriminate or exclude a subject, enabling arguments in court that can prove to a reasonable degree of certainty that the crime was or was not committed by the accused. As such, many signatures comprise a forensic study. One signature alone is must often insufficient to convincingly prove guilt or innocence. It is the great preponderance of evidence, rather than the "smoking gun," that most commonly convicts a criminal.

    The last chapter in the book is titled "Admission Standards for Scientific Evidence", and it describes what is required before a proscecutor or defendant's attorney can present in court any scientific evidence based upon new scientific techniques. As it says in my book, the standard being applied is called the "Daubert Standard" which resulted from a Supreme Court decision handed down in Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. And the best way to make certain that a new science will meet the "Daubert Standard" is to have the science developed under the auspices and guidance of a "working group." That was done with microbial forensics. The FBI helped create the Scientific Working Group for Microbial Genetic Forensics (SWGMGF) to make certain the new science would have a solid foundation before anyone took anything to court.
    ------

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  32. My May 14-15, 2006 comment on my web site goes into a lot of detail about the Daubert ruling and how it relates to the Amerithrax case.

    Here's a comment from 2008:

    -----------
    January 30, 2008 - Someone sent me a link to a site www.dauberttracker.com which seems to be designed to help defense lawyers fight criminal cases which involve new kinds of scientific evidence -- like microbial forensics. This seems to add to the list of reasons why the case against the anthrax killer might be a very difficult fight in court.
    ---------

    I wrote a lot about the Daubert ruling during January and February 2008.

    I also wrote about the Daubert Standard in my September 25, 2009 comment.

    And I wrote this in 2012:

    -----------
    October 16, 2012 (A) - Tomorrow, NOVA on PBS will be airing a documentary titled "Forensics on Trial." Part of the program description is as follows:

    There is a startling gap between the glamorous television world of “CSI” and the gritty reality of the forensic crime lab. With few established scientific standards, no central oversight, and poor regulation of examiners, forensics in the U.S. is in a state of crisis. In "Forensics on Trial", NOVA investigates how modern forensics, including the analysis of fingerprints, bite marks, ballistics, hair, and tool marks, can send innocent men and women to prison—and sometimes even to death row.

    Needless to say, Anthrax Truthers will be watching it to see what they can use to argue that the case against Bruce Ivins was flawed.

    Following NOVA, most PBS stations will be airing the NOVAScienceNow program "Can Science Stop Crime." Part of that program description is:

    What's the secret to stopping crime? David Pogue gives the third degree to scientists pushing the limits of technology, not only to solve horrific murders but also to try to prevent crimes before they even happen. Pogue learns the latest techniques, from unraveling the clues embedded in a decomposing corpse, to detecting lies by peering directly into a suspect's brain, to tracking the creation of a criminal mind.

    I don't expect the anthrax attacks of 2001 to be mentioned in either of these programs, but it might happen. Either way, they look like interesting programs to me. I've already set my DVR to record them.

    Someone who just read the above comment advised me that PBS Frontline had a show on the same topic on April 17, 2012. It was called "The Real CSI." From the show titles, the NOVA show seems to be about new problems with using forensic evidence in court, and the Frontline show was about how real life crime scene investigation differs from what is seen on TV. It looks like basically the same subject but different points of view.
    ------------

    In my February 27, 2013 comment I address Mr. Rowley's beliefs about "forensic linguistics" and how very little in that field would meet the new Daubert standards.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  33. In addition to what I personally wrote about how the Daubert standard and other matters were causing a crackdown on how forensic evidence is presented in court, I also provided links to some news articles on the subject. Here's one that can be found at http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/nyt3.html

    -----
    The New York Times
    Science Found Wanting in Nation’s Crime Labs

    By SOLOMON MOORE
    Published: February 4, 2009

    Forensic evidence that has helped convict thousands of defendants for nearly a century is often the product of shoddy scientific practices that should be upgraded and standardized, according to accounts of a draft report by the nation’s pre-eminent scientific research group.

    The report by the National Academy of Sciences is to be released this month. People who have seen it say it is a sweeping critique of many forensic methods that the police and prosecutors rely on, including fingerprinting, firearms identification and analysis of bite marks, blood spatter, hair and handwriting.

    The report says such analyses are often handled by poorly trained technicians who then exaggerate the accuracy of their methods in court. It concludes that Congress should create a federal agency to guarantee the independence of the field, which has been dominated by law enforcement agencies, say forensic professionals, scholars and scientists who have seen review copies of the study. Early reviewers said the report was still subject to change.

    The result of a two-year review, the report follows a series of widely publicized crime laboratory failures, including the case of Brandon Mayfield, a lawyer from Portland, Ore., and Muslim convert who was wrongly arrested in the 2004 terrorist train bombing in Madrid that killed 191 people and wounded 2,000.

    American examiners matched Mr. Mayfield’s fingerprint to those found at the scene, although Spanish authorities eventually convinced the Federal Bureau of Investigation that its fingerprint identification methods were faulty. Mr. Mayfield was released, and the federal government settled with him for $2 million.

    In 2005, Congress asked the National Academy to assess the state of the forensic techniques used in court proceedings. The report’s findings are not binding, but they are expected to be highly influential.

    “This is not a judicial ruling; it is not a law,” said Michael J. Saks, a psychology and law professor at Arizona State University who presented fundamental weaknesses in forensic evidence to the academy. “But it will be used by others who will make law or will argue cases.”

    Legal experts expect that the report will give ammunition to defense lawyers seeking to discredit forensic procedures and expert witnesses in court. Lawyers could also use the findings in their attempts to overturn convictions based on spurious evidence. Judges are likely to use the findings to raise the bar for admissibility of certain types of forensic evidence and to rein in exaggerated expert testimony.
    ------

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  34. Here's part of the 2004 Chicago Tribune article from my web site:

    ---------
    FORENSICS UNDER THE MICROSCOPE
    Unproven techniques sway courts, erode justice

    By Flynn McRoberts, Steve Mills and Maurice Possley, Tribune staff reporters. Tribune researcher Judith Marriott contributed to this report
    Published October 17, 2004
    The Chicago Tribune

    Settling into the witness chair of a Kane County courtroom, Stephen McKasson tutored jurors in a murder trial on the wonders of a rarely used divining tool: lip prints.

    The Illinois State Police crime lab examiner told them forensic science accepts that lips have unique creases and he could match the prints found on duct tape at the crime scene to the defendant, Lavelle Davis.

    Davis was convicted and sentenced to 45 years. The lip print, one juror in the 1997 trial recalled, "proved that he had actually committed the crime."

    There was just one problem: What McKasson asserted about lip prints isn't true.

    The story of how an unproven forensic theory helped send a man to prison might seem like a legal curiosity befitting an episode of "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation."

    But a Tribune investigation of forensics in the courtroom shows how Davis' conviction exemplifies the questionable science, flawed analysis and shoddy lab practices that sometimes undermine the quest for justice. Long considered unbiased and untainted, crime labs and analysts are facing new scrutiny and tough questions about their accuracy.

    At the center of this upheaval is the advent of DNA testing, which has injected a dose of truth serum into other forensic tools. With its dramatic precision, DNA has helped reveal the shaky scientific foundations of everything from fingerprinting to firearm identification, from arson investigation to such exotic methods as bite-mark comparison.

    It is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify precisely how many cases have been affected by faulty forensic testimony or poor analytical work, partly because defense attorneys often haven't challenged forensic evidence. Many lack the resources to do so, others assume the science is unassailable, and some simply don't bother.

    But the 200 DNA and Death Row exoneration cases nationwide in the last 20 years offer one clue. More than a quarter--55 cases with 66 defendants--involved forensic testing or testimony that was flawed.

    The Tribune investigation included hundreds of interviews across the country, an examination of thousands of court documents and an analysis of criminal cases that turned on forensic evidence. Among the findings:

    - Fingerprinting is so subjective that the most experienced examiners can make egregious mistakes. This year, in a stunning embarrassment, the FBI was forced to admit it wrongly linked an Oregon lawyer to the Madrid terror bombing case because of an erroneous fingerprint comparison.

    - Prosecutors continue to rely on experts who embrace debunked theories about arson. Among the hard-to-kill myths is "crazed glass"--glass lined with a spider web of cracks--which was thought to be evidence of an accelerant until researchers learned it could occur when hot glass is sprayed with water, as in putting out a fire.

    - Forensic dentists, who link suspects to bite marks left on crime victims, continue to testify despite having no accepted way to measure their rate of error or the benefit of peer review. DNA testing has shown that even the field's leading practitioners have made false bite-mark matches.

    - Scandals at labs from Maryland to Washington state have spotlighted analysts who have incorrectly assessed evidence, hidden test results helpful to defendants and testified falsely in court. The scandals underscore the often-ineffective standards governing crime labs.
    ----------

    Ed

    ReplyDelete