Tuesday, February 4, 2014

Subject: Certainty

“Certainty? In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes.”
― Benjamin Franklin

“One of the few certainties in life is that persons of certainty should certainly be avoided.”
Willy Russell, The Wrong Boy  

Positive, adj.: Mistaken at the top of one's voice.”
― Ambrose Bierce, The Unabridged Devil's Dictionary 

“There is no such uncertainty as a sure thing.”
― Robert Burns, The Works of Robert Burns  

At the core of all well-founded belief lies belief that is unfounded.”
Ludwig Wittgenstein, On Certainty 

"The quest for certainty blocks the search for meaning. Uncertainty is the very condition to impel man to unfold his powers."
Erich Fromm

"To teach how to live without certainty and yet without being paralysed by hesitation is perhaps the chief thing that philosophy, in our age, can do for those who study it."
Bertrand Russell

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man 



  1. In response to the suggestion that Ed Lake had "abandoned my "argument that it is 99% certain a first grader wrote the anthrax letters,' Ed reiterated that "a child almost certainly wrote the anthrax letters and addressed the envelopes."


    1. Anonymous wrote: "In response to the suggestion that Ed Lake had ..." yada yada yada.

      So, you're saying the facts don't mean anything to you? You're going to believe what you want to believe? And you're 100% certain of what you believe even though the facts say otherwise?

      That post fits very well in this thread.

      Thank you.


    2. Ed, why don't you have a fellow in your cartoon arguing it is 99% certain that a First Grader wrote the letters?

    3. Because whether Ivins did it or not is of more interest to more people than who actually wrote the letters. There's only one blogger who childishly brings up the subject of the first grader over and over and over again like he expects it to upset me. All it does is show me how infantile the guy is.


  2. There's only one blogger -- you -- who fails to address the facts and instead resorts to name-calling and labels -- your usual schtick. You are the True Believer, Ed. The dozens of scientists arguing against the FBI's Ivins Theory have described the substance underlying their views. You don't even bother to obtain and read the sworn testimony of the USAMRIID scientists with personal knowledge of the labs. Dr. Andrews, in his recently produced civil deposition, by the way, estimates that he is 95% certain that Dr. Ivins was not involved. These scientists are the experts and have the personal knowledge. You, on the other hand, are not qualified to address the issue.

    1. "Anonymous wrote: "The dozens of scientists arguing against the FBI's Ivins Theory have described the substance underlying their views."

      Yes. Their "views" are based upon near total IGNORANCE of the case against Bruce Ivins. They make false assumptions about how the spores were made and argue mistaken beliefs that have been thoroughly debunked - such as the weaponization of the spores.

      "These scientists are the experts and have the personal knowledge. You, on the other hand, are not qualified to address the issue."

      You constantly forget: The case against Bruce Ivins was compiled by THE FBI, not by me. All I've done is study the evidence in the case, which your "experts" clearly have NOT.

      The case compiled by the FBI says that the BELIEFS of SOME of Ivins' co-workers are wildly inaccurate and definitely self-serving.

      And, I seriously doubt that Pat Fellows and John Ezzell would ever argue that Bruce Ivins could not have made the anthrax powders.


    2. The civil depositions that you don't bother to obtain and read occurred after the FBI closed their case. It's okay that you remain uninformed. There is no need for you to be informed about the true crime matter. Good luck on getting your scifi manuscript published!

    3. "Anonymous" wrote: "The civil depositions that you don't bother to obtain and read occurred after the FBI closed their case."

      I know when the depositions were done. I paid good money to obtain the edited versions from PACER years ago. They're all on my site.

      All they provide are OPINIONS. I understand that you value OPINIONS more highly than FACTS AND EVIDENCE when opinions support your beliefs, but I don't.

      You're the one OBSESSED with trying to find some way to argue your beliefs. I'm not. So, why should I have bothered to obtain the depositions?

      You are uninformed about the FACTS and EVIDENCE against Ivins.

      I may be "uniformed" about the OPINIONS and BELIEFS of some of his co-workers, but only you would consider that to be significant.

      We're not all OBSESSED with the case the way you are. I've got better things to do.

      The only reason I sent in the FOIA request this morning is because I've got some spare time right now, and there MIGHT be something interesting in the depositions -- particularly the depositions by John Ezzell and Pat Fellows, if they are made available.


    4. As I've pointed out, John Ezzell was not deposed.

      As I've pointed out, Pat Fellows' deposition was shredded.

    5. Ah, yes. Too bad. Pat Fellows' deposition probably had her explaining how easy it would have been for Ivins to make the powders. And, I suppose there was no reason for Stevens' lawyers to depose John Ezzell, since they were arguing USAMRIID was careless, while the US attorneys were arguing that Ivins acted alone in a way that could not be prevented or predicted. Ezzell would also have said things that wouldn't fit with the case Stevens' lawyers were trying to make.

      That's another reason the depositions have no meaning. They don't include people who would explain how Ivins had all that was needed to commit the crime himself and in ways that were totally against all the established rules and procedures.


  3. From the quotations section above:
    “At the core of all well-founded belief lies belief that is unfounded.”
    ― Ludwig Wittgenstein, On Certainty
    If you look at the 'case against Ivins' in its totality, the underlying belief that is unfounded is this:

    Establishing that someone is mentally ill and is theoretically in a (temporal/spatial) position to commit crime X is tantamount to establishing that that person committed crime X.

    [Said another way, if you deleted from the Investigative Summary all the references to Ivins' mental condition and non-lethal odd/illegal behaviour up to Sept-Oct 2001,
    and from November 2001 until his death in July of 2008, you would have a tiny fraction of a remainder. The investigative finding is bad psychology masquerading as a trial-ready brief against Doctor Ivins.

    1. Mr. Rowley,

      Your argument makes no sense -- as usual. You seem to be arguing that, because Ivins was mentally ill, that makes him innocent.

      The case against Ivins is NOT based upon his mental illness. Ivins had means, motive AND opportunity.

      What you appear to be doing is trying to argue once again that unless people do things your way, they are doing things the wrong way.

      You CLAIM to have evidence that someone else sent the anthrax letters, but you say you cannot provide it. And you think simply arguing that you do not BELIEVE the case against Ivins makes your case better than the FBI's case against Bruce Ivins. NO ONE, not even your fellow Anthrax Truthers, agree with you on that.


    2. Mr. Rowley,

      Your argument makes no sense -- as usual. You seem to be arguing that, because Ivins was mentally ill, that makes him innocent.
      No, but the reverse is not true either: in what OTHER case have the authorities:

      1) gone into such detail about the psychology of the 'defendant'?
      (Not a rhetoric question: name such a case, double dare ya!) (And that largely in lieu of physical evidence).

      2) nevertheless, never even really gave a name/diagnosis to what he had (probably schizo-affective disorder, IMHO)?*

      3) adduced the UNNAMED illness as some sort of evidence that the defendant did the crimes?
      Back to Mister Lake:

      The case against Ivins is NOT based upon his mental illness.
      Yes, it largely is, as more than documented by the excessive attention it gets in the Amerithrax Investigative Summary (do you want to count the pages, or should I?) AND the so-called "Amerithrax Expert Behavioral Analysis Panel"'s write up, which is a white-wash of the bad psychology by the Task Force, written up by the Task Force's very own Dr Sat. Why would you even HAVE such a panel if the investigation's findings weren't based on (bad) psychological analysis? Despite their disclaimer that they would make no statement about Ivins' guilt/innocence, that is in there, as amply reflected by the headlines generated:



      *This lack of diagnosis is certainly NOT because of privacy/confidentiality concerns, since his privacy and his relationship with doctors/therapists was dealt with heavily in the documents. To an unbelievable degree really.

    3. What you appear to be doing is trying to argue once again that unless people do things your way, they are doing things the wrong way
      Last time you accused me of that(way back in the last thread!), you claimed that my citing the need for evidentiary skeins to be deemed admissible by the court (judge) was an invention by me (ie that THAT was "my way"), yet when I provided a dozen links to stories dealing with evidence whose admissibility WAS determined, Mister Lake had: no response (or explanation!).

    4. Mr. Rowley,

      Sorry, but I can't make any sense out of your arguments. Counting the number of pages in the Summary means nothing. Quoting newspaper headlines means nothing.

      And arguing that you provided meaningless links which I said were meaningless is meaningless.

      The criminal case against Ivins would be based upon the evidence. Testimony from psychologists would mostly just go to show motive. And it would show that criminal acts would not be "out of character" for Ivins. It would be a very small part of the case.

      You may have a different opinion, but I don't really care about opinions.


    5. Mr. Rowley,

      Sorry, but I can't make any sense out of your arguments.
      I know. Or Max's either. And he's REALLY smart. But that's life!

  4. The next civil deposition featured on Lew's blog likely will be the meaty deposition of Dr. Adamovicz.

    The order of civil depositions and deposition excerpts to be uploaded to this blog likely will be:

    The Videotaped deposition of COLONEL WILLIAM R. BYRNE, M.D. held on Tuesday, January 18, 2011

    The Videotaped deposition of SUSAN WELKOS, Ph.D. held on Wednesday, November 3, 2010

    The Videotaped deposition of ARTHUR M. FRIEDLANDER, M.D. held on Wednesday, June 8, 2011

    The depositions also are available to any requestor by emailed request to the address above at civil.Routing.FOIA@USDOJ.gov

    It has not cost anything but I have only sought the written transcript rather than the videotape (copying a videotape might cost).

    Some requestors are being given electronic copies. For whatever reason, I am being given only hard copies.

    While the fact that you had read 57% of some novel by breakfast is fascinating, if you are going to have a blog urging that a First Grader wrote the anthrax letters, you might as well obtain (and they are free) copies of the lengthy civil depositions by the scientists who have personal knowledge of the lab and Dr. Ivins.

    1. "Anonymous,"

      I sent in and FOIA request for the depositions this morning.

      The depositions you've presented so far merely show a lot of personal bias and ignorant opinions. But, there are some interesting details here and there. Example: The fact that Stephen Little NEVER went into any BSL-3 lab. That means his BELIEFS about what Ivins was doing in room B-313 are pure GUESSWORK.


    2. You'll recall that I told you that you would.

      You argued it was a threat.

      To the contrary, I just knew what I could make you do.

    3. "Anonymous" wrote: "I just knew what I could make you do."

      You knew I could show that the depositions are largely meaningless and just show ignorant opinions? How clever of you!


    4. Ed,

      As a quick example:

      How is the access on June 6, 2001 access by the civilian an opinion?

      How is the fact that it was Dr. Worsham who did the initial swabbing an opinion?

      Why on earth would you presume to know what someone has said in an 185 page deposition with 26 exhibits that you haven't read? You are what you call a True Believer.

      You didn't even ask for exhibits in your FOIA request!

      It's as if you stridently WANT to remain uninformed.

      Have you ever considered that the reason not even a single person agrees with your theory that a First Grader wrote the letters because you are so content to remain uninformed? You are so content to be singularly incurious. Jules Verne you aren't.

  5. "Anonymous" wrote: "How is the access on June 6, 2001 access by the civilian an opinion?"

    When they comment on the Ivins case in the depositions, it is just an OPINION.

    When they give their names and addresses, it is NOT an opinion.

    Do I have to spell everything out for you?

    What you are talking about now is IRRELEVANT information.

    You don't seem to realize that IVINS WAS A CIVILIAN. I seriously doubt that some civilian plumber from Frederick just walked into USAMRIID to install a sink. Chances are, it was a civilian contractor from FORT Detrick. And someone asked him to check the sink.

    But, it is all IRRELEVANT to the anthrax attacks. It happened months before the attacks. And the FACTS say that Ivins did the crime alone.

    So, all you have is some IRRELEVANT information that you are assuming is relevant to your beliefs -- until proven otherwise.

    Why would I be curious about what he was doing there? I don't have any OBSESSION with the case, nor do I have a theory to justify - as you do.


    1. Ed, when they explain that the civilian was coming out of the B3 on June 6, 2001, that is a fact. It is not an opinion. When Dr. Worsham explains that she was the one who first did the swabbing that is a fact, not an opinion. You have always been confused by what is an interpretation and what is a fact. You capitalization of the word FACT is a big red flag. It is your opinion a First Grader wrote the anthrax letters. Yours and yours alone.

    2. "Anonymous" wrote: "How is the access on June 6, 2001 access by the civilian an opinion?"

      When they comment on the Ivins case in the depositions, it is just an OPINION.

      When they give their names and addresses, it is NOT an opinion.

      Do I have to spell everything out for you?
      Mister Lake, I'm not an attorney, but chances are that 'names and addresses' are the FIRST thing they ask you in a deposition, since the line of questioning first tries to establish: who, in concrete terms, is being deposed.

      Since depositions are admissible/readable in a court of law, I hardly think the contents of the deposition are "mere" opinion. They may include opinion (I guess), but would also include items of fact/alleged fact. If you saw someone, without authorization, have access to a lab, that's as 'fact' as 'fact' could be when you put it in a deposition.

    3. Yes, Ed. He was a civilian contractor as explained in the deposition uploaded. As for whether or who someone asked, that is the reason for obtaining the documents attached as exhibits. The deposition testimony was that no one in the division knew. But in part of exploring access to Ames, one wants to know who entered the suite given that you base your theory on an Dr. Ivins' imagined exclusive custody and control of the genetically matching virulent Ames. It is just one of many facts one wants to develop in establishing access of others -- or an alleged lack of access by others.

    4. "Anonymous" wrote: "But in part of exploring access to Ames, one wants to know who entered the suite given that you base your theory on an Dr. Ivins' imagined exclusive custody and control of the genetically matching virulent Ames. It is just one of many facts one wants to develop in establishing access of others -- or an alleged lack of access by others."

      You keep forgetting. It is NOT my "theory." It is a criminal case investigated by the FBI and the DOJ. All I've done is look at the facts to try to understand them -- something you apparently cannot be bothered with.

      The FBI never said that Ivins had "exclusive custody" of "the genetically matching virulent Ames, and neither have I. You're just distorting things to make an argument.

      Unlike me, you have your own personal theory about who sent the anthrax letters. You have NO FACTS to support your beliefs, so you are looking for some kind of evidence you can argue means something. If there was some kind of unauthorized access to a BSL-3 suite, that is "evidence" in your mind that someone other than Ivins could have done it.

      Being a True Believer, you are looking for facts of any kind that you can distort to make it seem that your beliefs are correct. You started with a belief and you're now looking for facts to make that belief come true.

      Good luck.

      If the guy was in a BSL-3 suite, he had to have had a key card to get through the doors AND a pin number to open the air-lock. That probably means he had an all-areas key card and pin. Everyone knows people didn't follow proper procedures at USAMRIID before the attacks. Ivins was allowed to let autoclave bags full of anthax in Petri dishes sit in his lab for weeks -- something that it STRICTLY FORBIDDEN in virtually any other lab in the world.

      It's what allowed Ivins to grow the spores right under the noses of his co-workers.

      Your looking for "evidence" that fits your BELIEFS while ignoring solid evidence that disputes your BELIEFS.


  6. R. Rowley wrote: "Since depositions are admissible/readable in a court of law, I hardly think the contents of the deposition are "mere" opinion."

    First of all, the depositions were taken for the Stevens v USA civil lawsuit. They were NOT done for the Ivins v USA criminal trial.

    So, what was asked and said in the lawsuit deposition could have nothing to do with what would be asked and said in a criminal case deposition.

    When Stephen Little was being deposed and stated what he BELIEVED about whether or not Ivins committed the crime, it was JUST HIS OPINION. It almost certainly wouldn't be allowed as testimony on the stand in criminal trial.

    If there had been a trial of Bruce Ivins, the prosecution would have presented their case first. They would have laid out the FACTS which showed Ivins was guilty. OPINIONS CANNOT DISPUTE FACTS. So, no one is going to allow Stephen Little to get on the stand to say he didn't think Ivins could have done it UNLESS HE HAD SOLID FACTS WHICH SAID IVINS COULDN''T HAVE DONE IT. And, if he had such facts, there wouldn't have been a criminal trial in the first place.

    In the lawsuit, he MIGHT be allowed to state his beliefs. The matter being tried was whether the government was negligent or not. I'm not sure how his beliefs show anything, but a lawyer might use his beliefs to argue that people didn't know what was going on.

    The comments about the "civilian contractor" who was in a BSL-3 lab to install a sink would not be admissible in the criminal case, either. It has nothing to do with the criminal case against Ivins. In the Stevens case, however, it would probably be admissible since it would show NEGLIGENCE on someone's part, and the lawyers for Maureen Stevens were trying to PROVE NEGLIGENCE.


    1. Dr. Little knew that the lyophilizer was not in the B3. For the longest time, Ed did not. If Ed didn't remain intentionally ignorant, he would have made such a fundamental error as thinking that the lyophilizer was in the B3. Similarly, Ed would not have made the fundamental error that the rabbits were NOT in the B3. For many months, Ed strenuously argued that the rabbits were not in containment. If he had bothered to obtain the Little deposition or the related documents a couple years ago, he would have known that they were and avoided many months of false and mistaken statements.

      As for the admissibility of a civilian in the B3 unbeknownst to anyone in the Division, Ed of course is mistaken. The entire case involves a process of elimination -- the FBI reasons they could exclude the 100 at Detrick known to have access... and they didn't realize they had to exclude 100-200 more in Building 1412. (And this is just at Detrick -- before you get to other locations).

    2. Ed Lake wasted a couple years arguing the rabbits in Little's and Ivins experiment were not kept in the B3. Then he never corrected his mistakes.

      When it was shown to him that he was mistaken, he argued that the other investigator could have checked the rabbits on the weekend. (When if he had asked anyone or obtained the deposition, he would have understood that was not the case).

      Ed should just be quiet and upload the documents -- so as to avoid the continuing avalanche of factual errors.

    3. "Anonymous" wrote: "Dr. Little knew that the lyophilizer was not in the B3. For the longest time, Ed did not."

      I doubt that. As far as I can recall, I've always known that the lyophilizer was in Suite B5. It was always argued that the lyophilizer could not have been taken into Suite B3 from the first time it was mentioned.

      I've still see NO FACTS which CONCLUSIVELY show that the rabbits were kept in Suite B3. If they were in B3 AND Ivins was in charge of them, why didn't Ivins know when each one died? Why did he have to rely on information from others? Something does not make sense there.

      You have provided NO PROOF that the rabbits were in Suite B3. As I recall, you just supplied proof that that is where they were PLANNED to be.

      But, I admit I don't really pay that much attention to your rabbits blather.


  7. The comments about the "civilian contractor" who was in a BSL-3 lab to install a sink would not be admissible in the criminal case, either. It has nothing to do with the criminal case against Ivins.
    It would if, as you have suggested over a number of years, the prosecutors would have tried to get admitted (and SUCCEEDED in getting admitted) investigators' 'determination via elimination'----------a valid investigative technique, no doubt--------as an skein of evidence pointing to Ivins' guilt. You can't claim to have eliminated a whole pool of alternative 'spore stealers' if you can't be sure about having included all possible persons in that pool. An extra technician here and there (here and there since 1997 when that particular flask (RMR1029) was established) would do just that. The prosecutors would have thereby (thereby=by presenting the 'elimination' evidence/testimony) 'opened the door' on that line of questioning/evidence.
    On page 33 of Amerithrax Investigative Summary this part begins:

    4. Others with access to RMR-1029 have been ruled out
    (Continues on pages 34, 35, 36) And of course Mister Lake, for YEARS on the Internet, has cited this as "evidence", so how can he now say about the contractor or any other unauthorized personnel in that environment "It has nothing to do with the criminal case against Ivins."?
    OF COURSE non-authorized personnel in the lab constitute an adulteration, at the very least, of the oh-it-must-have-been-Ivins-since-we-eliminated-everyone-else! line.

  8. R. Rowley wrote: "OF COURSE non-authorized personnel in the lab constitute an adulteration, at the very least, of the oh-it-must-have-been-Ivins-since-we-eliminated-everyone-else! line."

    You and "Anonymous" are ignoring the FACTS. (1) A key card is required to get into the BSL-3 area. (2) A PIN-number is required to get into a BSL-3 suite. (3) The FBI wouldn't be just checking out people who were "authorized" to be in Suite B3. They would have checked out everyone who SHOWED UP ON THE LOGS as having been in B3. And the plumber would have shown up on the logs.

    You any "Anonymous" may have some FANTASY that the guy got in without a key card or pin and thus was truly "unauthorized," but that is just a BELIEF based upon a comment made in a deposition which is also a BELIEF.

    Until proven otherwise, the plumber had an ALL ACCESS card and pin that allowed him to get in there. He may not have been "authorized" by the people who ran the lab, but SOMEONE authorized it by giving him the card and pin.


  9. Mr. Lake, I'm just getting documents and uploading them. You are the one spinning your wheels in a snow emergency. As for you not having anything to prove -- and not expecting to prove your theory -- you are damned straight. If in 10 years you haven't even persuaded a single person that a FIrst Grader wrote the anthrax, it is understandable that you realize you have no hope. The question is why it doesn't serve as some sort of reality check.

  10. "Anonymous" wrote: " If in 10 years you haven't even persuaded a single person that a FIrst Grader wrote the anthrax, it is understandable that you realize you have no hope. The question is why it doesn't serve as some sort of reality check."

    First of all, you keep saying I haven't persuaded anyone that a child wrote the letters. And I keep telling you that is A LIE. MANY people agree with me. I'm just not going to identify them, since you will probably harass them.

    Secondly, I'm not trying to persuade anyone that a First Grader wrote the anthrax letters. All I'm doing is explaining WHAT THE FACTS SAY.

    What I'm doing is trying to get someone to show me MORE OR BETTER FACTS which either prove the hypothesis or prove something different.

    All you do is argue beliefs and opinions. Beliefs and opinions are MEANINGLESS when the subject is FACTS.

    Reality is based upon FACTS, not beliefs and opinion. So, since you rely totally on beliefs and opinions, it would seem that you are the one in need of a "reality check."


  11. Ed, no one agrees with you -- not even your sister.

    Tell all the lies you want.

  12. Ed, if there is anyone -- I mean, anyone -- who is persuaded a First Grader wrote the anthrax letters of 2001, it is a simple matter to safeguard their anonymity so as to avoid them feeling ridiculous. You could simply quote their email and delete their name. The reality is that you have not persuaded a SINGLE person -- and cannot quote a single email. That is the hypothesis By all means, prove something different.

  13. "Anonymous" wrote: Tell all the lies you want."

    The only lies being told here are your lies.

    Click HERE to view my video explaining the FACTS which show that a child wrote the anthrax documents.

    Note the comments. No one disagrees with the facts.

    So, I guess it's time for you to add a comment on how you don't believe it.


  14. I asked Ed Lake to provide evidence that anyone agreed with his theory and he pointed to 3 posts. These are the people who he points to as agreeing with his theory that a First Grader wrote the anthrax letters.

    "YoshiShell 3 weeks ago


    Now, Ed has previously concealed the identity of YoshiShell to avoid him being ridiculed.

    Thanks, man.

  15. Now then, I want you both to go to a neutral corner!

  16. Now the second of the three posters Ed says agrees that a FIrst Grader wrote the anthrax letters of 2001 is a proponent of the Illuminati, UFO's and the Illuminati.

    He writes: "Thanks man."

    His channel explains:

    Most viewed 911 conspiracy compilations on YouTube Home of the original Conspirtus Illuminati Series Video on the Illuminati, Occult, UF)s and Paranormal


    This is the home of the original Illuminati Conspiritus series that started in 2009. Topics covered: UFOs, the Occult, the Illuminati conspiracy and more.
    All videos here are edited and compiled by me, you don't need to ask for permission in order to share them.

    About me:

    Since late 2008 I have been researching the occult and the Illuminati conspiracy and have been compiling info I find in the videos you will find here. I cover rare stuff, stuff that is not well known and that people like Alex Jones do not cover.
    Before watching the videos here, I suggest you read up on the documentation on the book "PAWNS IN THE GAME" by William Guy Carr.

    Watching the videos here will give you a very good understanding of the Illuminati new world order conspiracy.

    This channel is ENTIRELY covering Illuminati related subjects. The goal here is to educate and share this info with the world."

    Ed, you crack me up.

  17. "Anonymous" wrote: "These are the people who he points to as agreeing with his theory that a First Grader wrote the anthrax letters."

    I didn't say that. You are distorting things again. I wrote: "No one disagrees with the facts."

    I first noticed those comments a few days ago. There's no way to read them without also viewing the video, and I haven't viewed the video in many months.

    But, it's interesting to see how you attack the guy who wrote: "Thanks man! Why didn't you also attack the guy who wrote "This is fascinating"?

    I think you've made it clear that you're going to viciously attack anyone who agrees with the hypothesis. That shows how truly OBSESSED you are.

    When I mentioned those YouTube video comments, I hadn't yet read your post where you wrote: "You could simply quote their email and delete their name." Note that you posted your message at 2:24 p.m. I posted mine at 2:28 p.m. and then signed off for the day. Your 2:24 message didn't appear in my inbox for moderation until this morning.

    The main problem with going through my emails is that there are 47,242 of them. They are in 64 different email files, with a maximum of 750 emails per file.

    The second problem is that YOU are the only person who really OBSESSES over this subject. It's rare for anyone else to even discuss it.

    So, what I'll have to do is search through each file. I'll try doing a search for the word "child" to see what shows up. It's a word that doesn't appear in the middle of other words - except for "children".

    File 64 contains an email from you dated June 5, 2013 which uses that word. It also contains several emails on different subjects that use the word "children." Example:

    "In the movie "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington", the Bad
    Guys setup Jimmy Stewart by, among other nasties,
    showing that he had a deed to the land the Feds were
    going to, at his instigation, buy up for a children's camp."

    I found a message dated August 26, 2013 that says:

    "Your repeated reference to a child copying the text begs the question: it was not dictated?

    I am very confident Ivins did it, but your "child wrote the letters" theory is very weak."

    So, he's not disagreeing. He just says the theory is weak.

    There are other posts on other subjects where the word "children" or "child" is used. And that's the end of file 64.

    In File 63 I find a post dated October 29, 2012, where someone who agrees that Ivins was the anthrax killer wrote:

    "One fact that you are not looking at is that, by your own argument, Ivins took great care and many precautions to maintain secrecy: he used untraceable paper, untraceable envelopes, he used gloves to avoid leaving fingerprints, etc. But then suddenly, against all expectation, he leaves a living witness to his crimes???!!! The facts that you yourself present say he wouldn't do that. He would do everything possible to avoid doing that, leaving a person alive who could make a positive identification of the perpetrator. This is one fact that I don't see you addressing. This is a fact that says a child did not do the printing. So, your presentation of the facts is selective, and you yourself, so far as I can see, do not consider ALL the facts, as you purport to do."

    So, we argued for a day or so, and his final message on October 30 was:

    "Well, you make a powerful case, I must admit."

    That isn't exactly an agreement, either. So, I'll have to go further back.

    I'll post further findings when I come across them. I'm at the 4,096 maximum size limit for posts. I can spend an hour on this, even though I've got other things I'd rather be doing.


    1. Ed, I am not attacking the fellow who advocates about the Illuminati who said "Thanks man." I am saying that his "Thanks man" does not constitute agreement and merely demonstrates that is a polite, respectful fellow.

      Similarly, the person who says your theory is weak does not constitute agreement.

      Nor does the fellow who noted that there were "666 views." I'm surprised you did not see that he was remarking the number "666" which is widely publicized "code." It is a number that, when it appears, people commonly might comment upon.

      And then of course you can't rely on my email to you recalling the plot about "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" that involved someone buying up a children's camp. I'm on record of thinking that your First Grader theory demonstrates a very serious lack of common sense (and much more). But keep searching for someone agrees -- but no fair counting the Illuminati's fellow's "Thanks man. He is just being polite like he is to the other Illuminati, UFO, paranormal-type theories. He can confirm by email to you that he thinks the theory is nutty.

      To find one person on the planet who you have persuaded in 10 years that a First Grader wrote the Fall 2001 anthrax letters, I still think your sister is your best. Good luck in your quest! But I've always recommended that there be a reality check especially if you are going to be marketing a manuscript. An agent is going to be sizing up the entire package -- and no publisher would want a platform be that the author thinks a First Grader wrote the anthrax letters. On the other hand, it would be okay if you just weren't critical of the FBI's case like the major media.

    2. "Anonymous,"

      I'm just commenting on emails I'm finding as I search for the ones who DO AGREE that a child wrote the letters.

      If you don't like the way I'm doing things, that's your problem.


  18. More findings from my email archives:

    From File 63, an email dated November 23, 2012:

    "You have certainly advanced a highly original theory, you have done a lot of analysis of the handwriting, and have given the matter a lot of thought, no question. But to me, your explanation is only one of many possibilities. To make your case solid, what you need to show is that the child theory is the only possible explanation of all the facts. In my view it is not. (In your view, it is.) To me, so long as there are other possibilities, your view is only one among the several competing possible explanations."

    Still not technically an "agreement."

    File #60 contains an email from April 2, 2011, that uses another word with "child" in it. It's in a quote from page 63 of the EBAP report:

    "Dr. Ivins also used “childish, block printing” in which “upper and lower case letters [were] mixed together” in sharing pornography and bondage materials with a male correspondent during the mid 1990s and early 2000s. Dr. Ivins used a false name — the name of KKG Sister #2’s husband — in conducting the correspondence. Neither Technician #2 nor the male correspondent kept the packages or envelopes they received from Dr. Ivins, so they could not be compared to the childish printing on the anthrax letters."

    From File 60, an email dated May 28, 2011:

    "A Child Wrote the Anthrax Letters
    - very interesting and your argument
    is compelling.

    Wait. There is one issue I would like to bring
    up, now that I remember it.

    There is a psychological experiment that
    you can to with people - it's friendly.
    Have them write or print their names on
    paper, and tell them to make the speed of
    the pen on the paper go very, very

    Make sure the pen does not
    move quickly on the paper, but barely
    crawls along.

    You can try it yourself.

    When you are done, take a look at it.

    It looks just like a child wrote it, maybe
    you just went back mentally in time,
    a sort of time travel event.

    You can try it out, and hopefully, you
    can ask people to do it, but without
    telling them what the purpose is.

    I must say that I do not believe that
    the Evil Doctor did this, because you
    analyzed the instances of the letter
    'R' in all the letters.

    Anyway, thanks again!"

    It's hard to figure out exactly what he's saying. He finds the argument that a child wrote the letters to be "compelling." And the second to last paragraph seems to say that he doesn't think the "Evil Doctor" wrote the letters using his writing very very slowly technique. If so, that means he agrees with me.

    But, I assume you would dispute that, since he's not being perfectly clear.

    So, I'll continue searching. I'll post further results in a separate post. I don't want to bump up against the 4,096 barrier again.


  19. From File 59, an email dated October 11, 2010 contains some suggestions for the book I was writing at the time:

    "what would make the handwriting chapter interesting is: interviews with parents in Ivins' neighborhood who sent their kids to his wife's daycare center at the time the anthrax letters were written......it would of course be difficult to research the daycare's clients and arrange the interviews, but the idea would be to ask questions like: Did Ivins himself spend much time with the kids in daycare?, did kids ever say he did handwriting exercises with them?, etc, etc..........your theory is that Ivin's used a kid (most likely a kid from his wife's daycare). So, curious readers will naturally wonder..... who was it? Who was this innocent child? Would could it possibly have been? We're talking about a small family business run out of Ivin's home. Small client list. It should be a tiny list of neighborhood kids who would have been the right age and enrolled in the daycare at the right time.....the parents in that neighborhood likely all know each other.....its just a matter of getting one parent to talk.....this is the kind of legwork that would really flesh out your theory and make the chapter interesting....

    Since the handwriting angle is the only real unsolved aspect of the Anthrax case, going the extra mile on that angle might jazz up the book. Just a suggestion."

    That's certainly not a disagreement, but "Anonymous" would undoubtedly argue that since he doesn't say "I agree with you" that it isn't an "agreement," either.

    From File 58 and an email dated March 4, 2010:

    "well........i just read with shock, amazement, and great interest the brand new revelations of a "secret code" found within Ivin's letters........i thought your theory concluded the extra lines were just "doodling" by the bored kid who wrote the letters, whilst he/she was awaiting Ivin's next instructions or something........now it turns out there was a "SECRET CODE"??????!!!!!! wow????.........has this caused u to cast any doubt whatsoever on your handwriting theory? Personally, I'm blown away....I had no idea of any secret code until your site laid it out for me, yet........i see no changes in your handwriting theory?

    I'm eagerly awaiting your new special page on the codes, and especially hope to see a section assessing how/if this new information impacts your handwriting theory (the "facts" have changed. no?). are u concluding that Ivins coached "the kid" through all the secret code bolding as well???????? seems unlikely. evidence of the secret code seems to bolster my theory that Ivins did the letters himself, or at least altered them himself."

    And, after I responded, he wrote:

    "the bolding within the letters is weak to say the least, which i admit lends creedence to your theory. the so-called bolding is extremely weak to the point of being questionable on some of those letters. not even really noticeable/indentifiable on some. as if Ivins was afraid to push it too hard, and wanted to keep it on the DL. as if he knew the code was a dead giveaway, and so he kept it low key, whether he or a child did the actual letters"

    Not exactly an agreement.

    From File 57 an email dated August 24, 2009:

    "What evidence, besides your handwriting analysis (I presume it’s yours) that a 6 year-old wrote the notes? And if that’s true why hasn’t the FBI found the writer? I assume the writer came from Frederick."

    Not an agreement. But not a disagreement, either. Just wants more evidence.


  20. From File 57 an email dated September 1, 2009:

    "Just read your new page on the handwriting.........but I still just don't know. I just can't help but continue to think how relatively easy it would have been for Ivins to write the letters himself. the letters were SO SHORT, and ALL CAPS.........and some of the main points on your new page reinforce my gut feelings on this"

    Not an agreement. But not a disagreement, either.

    From File 57 an email dated September 14, 2009:

    "i thought Ivins was simply trying to make it appear that a member of a group of radicals was purposely making his writing look like that of a child as part of the crime, because that would make it harder to trace. it was supposed to just look like an adult printing like a child, and be untraceable to Ivins. i agree that using a child from the daycare also seems very plausible, but more problematic. the "different in very specific ways" argument could be countered with the idea that Ivins simply mimicked 2 diff writing samples he grabbed from the wastebasket of the daycare. again the letters were very short."

    "Anonymous" would undoubtedly argue that this isn't an agreement, either.

    From File 57 an email dated September 27, 2009:

    "I totally believe someone could and would do this. BUT, if he had... surely someone would have known, yes? He couldn't just go into a school and ask kingergartners to write a letter for him without detection. Even if he was close to parents with kids kindergarten age he couldn't just ask the kids to write the letters unbeknownst to the parents. Maybe once he could do that... but again and again and again? Or write multiple rambling letters all at once, and the kids never mentioned it to the parents? Doubtful. If this guy was as mentally screwed up as your presume who would not take caution when creepy Dr Ivins comes to the door with stationary and a ball point pen, grinning? Well, maybe a parent who was a cohort to the plot.

    All I'm saying is... by your own facts you seem to prove some other adults MUST have had knowledge of what Dr Ivins was doing. Perhaps not criminally liable... but surely it means he did not act completely alone."

    So, he agrees about the handwriting, but thinks it can't be done without a parent or teacher knowing about it. Definitely not the kind of "agreement" that "Anonymous" is looking for.

    Still searching.


  21. From File 56 an email dated July 30, 2009:

    the simplest explanations: the R's are different...... maybe Ivins simply used 2 different writing samples as guidelines when he did the two batches of letters.
    would a person imitating a kindergartner DOODLE over some of the letters just to make it seem more childlike?...... why not? Ivins' concept was to make it seem like a kid wrote the letters.
    Joe Blow wouldn't even notice such tiny details......that's not valid. Ivins was definitely not Joe Blow.
    the way the question mark was drawn.........again, Ivins could have been simply mimicking the writing on some kid's paper "

    So, he thinks Ivins purposely wrote like a first grader, possibly copying some first grader's handwriting. Not what I'm looking for.

    From File 54 an email dated February 28, 2009:

    "I don't mean to harass you--I have tremendous respect for all you've accomplished on the Ivins case and agree with almost all of your conclusions and admire your handling and marshalling of the evidence--but just this morning I read your analysis of the handwriting on the letters and do have one observation. I do not at all challenge any of the factual evidence you so carefully present but there is one subject that you do not address, which is why Ivins would have used an accessory, even if it was a six-year-old. That goes against everything we know about him. He was a notorious loner committing a series of major crimes. Surely even a six-year old child would know something funny's going on if a friend asks him or her to write letters of such a nature. Wouldn't the kid tell his or her parents? Worse, the kid could at any time afterward be questioned by the police or FBI and directly implicate Ivins. Would Ivins have been so dumb as to have left himself open to that? Granted he was nuts, but he wasn't stupid."

    So, not an agreement because he doesn't think Ivins would have risked using a child.

    From File #53 an email dated December 11, 2008:

    "Dear Ed,

    You show a very interesting possibility with the handwriting. It seems conclusive from the evidence that the FBI does not have any match to Ivins' handwriting on the anthrax materials sent. They have officially stated so @ press conference. They mention that he may have disguised his handwriting.

    My question for you to consider Ed is why has the FBI refrained from announcing that a child (or another accomplice) may have written out the letters when the facts point in that direction? SOMEBODY wrote them and we both know it's not Ivins.

    Since the FBI has brought out many possibilities in their "evidence" against Ivins, it seems they have hit an insurmountable impasse with the handwriting. Does the FBI have PROOF or FACTS that Ivins disguised his handwriting? No, they do not. And no expert testimony, their own or independent. I agree with you 100% on the point that someone else, perhaps a child, hand-lettered the materials."

    Is that an agreement? "Anonymous" will probably argue that it is not.

    Still searching.


  22. From File #53 an email dated December 21, 2008, from an official in a Canadian police force:

    "In a chain of circumstances, any new link you add dramatically reinforces the odds.

    Hence, I am satisfied Dr Ivins was mad enough to be the perpetrator and knowing that he was also a long distance driver who loved far away mailboxes totally eliminates the need of yet another disturbed turnpike-happy and disturbed scientist "familiar with New Jersey" in the big picture.

    At this stage, you might be able to explain further a troubling aspect the handwritten letters charade.

    1- Are we to believe the addressing of the envelopes was made by photocopying the addresses already written in block letters on some other support? Otherwise would the young children have to wear little gloves when the scribbled the shaky letters on the mailers, if only to make sure no telltale child fingerprints were retrievable?
    2- While child handwriting on envelopes certainly supports the credibility of the Greendale Elementary School ruse, it is not clear why the perpetrator had to complicate his life further, --once the "cute" letters have made it past initial screening at the Senate--, by also using tediously produced handwritten text for the threatening messages INSIDE the envelopes. At that point, the missives could have easily been composed on a word processor and then PRINTED on a cheap and easily disposable dot matrix printer. And this, in one hundredth of the time otherwise needed to have a young child produce all the documentation used in the anthrax attacks.

    While this detail doesn't change anything in the overall picture, it remains yet another unanswered question."

    He sort of agrees that Ivins might have used a child to address the envelopes, but not to write the letters -- because it would take too long. Still not what I'm looking for.

    Here's another message from January 12, 2009 from the same Canadian police official:

    "While I agree with you, I would rather use the expression "preponderance of facts" to describe what you are debating in the present context.
    Others might use the "preponderance of evidence", but I think it somehow reflects a higher degree of solidity in the scale of demonstrations.
    All this being highly subjective.

    For instance, we might say at this stage that the preponderance of evidence leads to the conclusion that Dr Ivins and Dr Ivins alone was the perpetrator in Amerithrax.
    But in the case of your handwriting argumentation, it might be said that the preponderance of facts supports your conclusion that a child wrote the letters.
    You could just make you own mind on this nuance by staging a little safari in the wilderness of Google using both expressions.
    But this is a really minor point, juste for the sake of the discussion."

    I think he's agreeing that the facts say that a child wrote the letters, he just thinks I should say instead "the preponderance of evidence" says a child wrote the letters.

    Still looking.


  23. From File #52 an email dated September 26, 2008:

    "By the way, just what are the dates when the day care center operated? I wonder if the child who addressed the envelopes knows who he is now."

    Seems like an agreement, but "Anonymous" would undoubtedly argue that it isn't good enough for him.

    I'm getting into the period right after the announcement that Ivins was the anthrax killer. I was flooded with emails around that time. Many agree that Ivins was the killer but disagree that he would use a child that way if it was possible to do the writing himself.

    I'll just skip over all of those.

    Except for this one from file # 48 dated August 8, 2008:

    "It seems clear now that Ivins created the anthrax and sent the letters. The tracing of the anthrax to the flask he was responsible for and the late hours he put in at the lab prior to the mailings make that evident. I agree with the FBI on that.

    I agree that the anthrax was loaded into the letters inside the glove box. It’s logical to assume that he placed the letters inside another larger envelope or plastic bag, so as to keep them from sight.

    Could the addressing of the envelopes also have taken place inside the glovebox? Yes, what better way to hide your fingerprints. Also, since the glovebox was clean only minimal other contaminants could become attached to the paper. Since the letters were photocopies, it’s clear that they were prepared ahead of time.

    The fact that he was addressing the envelopes while wearing heavy rubber gloves may account for the handwriting. I print in all caps and write left handed. Without lines to guide me my writing tends to tail downward, especially when writing more than a few words. However, you learn to compensate for that. When writing with the left hand, you typically hold the paper with your right hand. But wearing large gloves with sleeves while writing on relatively small pieces of paper can lead to you NOT using your right hand to steady the paper. And if he was writing with his left hand to disguise his writing (was he a right or left handed writer?) he wouldn’t be aware of the downward slant until he was finished. He might even think that the slant would further disguise his identity."

    It's lunch time, and then it will be time for me to head to the health club for my workout. So, instead of spending an hour on this, I spent the whole morning, and I'm nowhere near being done. I'm only on File #48. So, I've got 47 left to go.


  24. Ed, note that you are mischaracterizing the last post. He is saying that a "preponderance of evidence" is a higher standard. Failing that, he is arguing that you cast your claim as "preponderance of facts."

  25. "Anonymous" wrote: "Ed, note that you are mischaracterizing the last post. He is saying that a "preponderance of evidence" is a higher standard. Failing that, he is arguing that you cast your claim as "preponderance of facts."

    Okay, I was definitely wrong in saying that he felt "I should say instead 'the preponderance of evidence' says a child wrote the letters." He's saying I should say that "the preponderance of facts" says a child wrote the letters. I wasn't really reading the posts, I was just copying and pasting.

    And then it's a matter of interpreting this: "it [presumably evidence] somehow reflects a higher degree of solidity in the scale of demonstrations."

    The FACTS say that a child wrote the anthrax letters, but FACTS aren't necessarily EVIDENCE. "Evidence" implies that it can be "demonstrated" that it helps prove something.

    Okay. Thanks for pointing that out. The preponderance of EVIDENCE probably ALSO says that a child wrote the anthrax letters. But, as he says, that becomes "subjective." I think so. But someone else might not think so. And it all depends upon what is presented as "evidence." The FBI has "evidence" in the form of testimony from Ivins co-workers that the handwriting looked like Ivins' handwriting when he would send them mysterious notes.

    Is that better evidence than what the facts say? A prosecutor who doesn't have testimony from the child might think so.

    Maybe that's why they went with what they could use in court.


  26. From Part 47 an email from August 2, 2008:

    "Dear Mr. Lake,
    Upon checking out your site recently, I was particularly interested in the handwriting analysis.....
    the notion of a child or children having possibly written the lettering on the envelopes.

    So upon hearing these developments concerning Ivins, I wondered whether he had young children that could have unknowingly been used to write onto the envelopes.


    This AP article states :

    Ivins is survived by his wife Diane and two adult children: a son, Andy, and a daughter, Amanda, as well as two brothers, Tom, of Middletown, Ohio, and Charles, of Etowah, N.C.

    Diane Ivins was a stay-at-home mom who ran a daycare center out of the family's home, and the Ivinses were heavily involved in their children's activities, Bonnie Duggan said.

    "They had this big red van and were always taking a bunch of kids to swim meets," she said.

    So apparently, he had plenty of access to children, in a learning environment. Perhaps the envelopes were disguised as handwriting exercises.

    This is purely speculation on my part, but I'm just putting two and two together here, and I wouldn't be surprised if the thought has already run through your mind by now."

    That certainly SEEMS like an agreement that the facts say a child wrote the anthrax letters. But, "Anonymous" could probably spin it to mean something else.

    An August 4, 2008 email has the subject: "Diane Ivins was a stay-at-home mom who ran a daycare center out of the family's home, and the Ivinses were heavily involved in their children's activities, Bonnie Duggan said."

    And the only text in the email is:

    "Could this have been the source of a child's handwriting on the envelope addresses?


    The link doesn't work anymore, but it presumably contains the words used in the subject of the post. And he's asking if those children could have done the handwriting.

    But, "Anonymous" would probably argue that a question isn't a statement of agreement.

    That's the last of the relevant emails mentioning the handwriting that I received AFTER Bruce Ivins was named as the anthrax killer.

    Prior to August 1, 2008, the discussions were only about the FACTS and the HYPOTHESIS that a child may have written the anthrax documents.

    After August 1, 2008, people first had to agree that Ivins was the anthrax killer and THEN agree that the handwriting was that of a child. That required a lot more convincing than just looking at what the facts said about the handwriting.

    So, there should be a noticeable difference in what the rest of the emails say.


    1. Now we've established that the license for the daycare wasn't until well after 9/11, so scratch that.

      And First Graders don't have swim meets, Ed. That would be the older kids.

      And the other kid you mention was a 1000 miles a way or so.

      And so by the process of elimination we've excluded your hypothesis -- which I still haven't seen a single person agree with, but I'm rushing.

      It is an ugly hypothesis and you should be ashamed for having raised it and intruded so on a family's grief. Shame on you, Ed.

    2. "Anonymous" wrote: "Now we've established that the license for the daycare wasn't until well after 9/11"

      Yes, she got a license AFTER the feds started sniffing around looking for the anthrax killer. Before that she ran an unlicensed day care center.

      The hypothesis was put forth SEVEN YEARS before Ivins was announced to be the anthrax killer. Ivins just fits the hypothesis PERFECTLY.

      I'm sorry that you don't like that, but that's your problem, not mine.


  27. From file #44 an email dated November 28, 2007, from a NYC public health official:

    "I would point out that there is no evidence that a child wrote the letters. No one saw a child write them and there is no letter written by a child that matches it. All you have is interpretation and opinion, which is not fact as you often correctly point out. It does not strike me as improbable that a person could imitate the handwriting of a child by copying a letter. Perhaps the perpetrator had a young niece or nephew who wrote to him. All conjecture, not fact."

    I show this because it relates to the comment from the Canadian police official. Facts are not evidence. Facts require interpretation.

    From File # 42 an email dated April 11, 2007 with the subject: "The child's writing style":

    "Just a quick comment on one aspect of this. You made note that the slant of the writing on the envelope is downward but almost perfectly straight on the letters themselves. I would suggest that when the letters were written "lined paper" was placed behind it to provide a guide. A fairly common trick for children. "

    That seems like an agreement to me, but "Anonymous" will undoubtedly find some reason to disagree.

    From File #41an email dated December 29, 2006:

    A child used for something like this would be home-schooled.

    Also the Serifs you pointed out is not the way children are taught how to write in school unless the person was told to copy something, which also means it probably wasn't dictated by voice by someone who doesn't know how to write."

    Sort of an agreement, but probably not sufficient for "Anonymous."


    1. I've got to go, Ed. Your First Grader theory is stupid. it's time you talk to someone about why you don't realize that -- and yet at the same time press on with your schtick about others being what you call True Believers.

      The major media outlets do not have find an Ivins Theory persuasive -- nor do many scores of scientists, both with personal knowledge of USAMRIID and those just with relevant expertise. I keep you talking about your First Grader theory so that people can quickly see the level of critical reasoning ability of the person who still supports an Ivins Theory.

    2. "Anonymous" wrote: "I've got to go, Ed. Your First Grader theory is stupid."

      Bye bye. I'm sorry you have to run away because you cannot discuss facts. But, I'll continue to go through my email archives to show people that you do not know what you are talking about when you claim no one agrees with the hypothesis that a child did the handwriting on the letters.


  28. From file # 39 an email from A PROFILER asking me for my thoughts on the person the profiler suspected of being the anthrax mailer:

    "I just want to make sure I don’t ignore a good suspect because his handwriting differed from the Anthrax mailings. He may have had his nonAmerican wife write them or maybe one of his kids or maybe school kids because he likes to teach. I want to be sure I rule him out before I drop him as a suspect."

    But, still not exactly what "Anonymous" requires.

    From File # 36 dated March 27, 2006:

    "Ed Lake:

    a few questions occur to me reading your site today:

    1. Your theory about the letters being written by a child is compelling....Does Dr. Hatfill or Dr. Berry have a niece, nephew, cousin, relative, etc. that would have been around age 4-5-6 or so at the time of the mailings? (or perhaps one of them had a neighbor or friend who has a child) have you checked into this? if a child wrote those letters, could the child remember doing it years later? maybe through hypnosis?

    2. Is there any indication that the FBI is taking your theory seriously about a child writing the letters? are they checking on children that Berry/Hatfill may have known?"

    If finding my analysis "compelling" the same as an agreement? I'm sure "Anonymous" would argue that it is NOT the same.

    From File # 35 an email dated January 27, 2006 with the subject "First Observation":

    "First letters sent probably written by a (home-schooled) child, as part of a "copybook exercise".
    There may have been dozens of such exercises.

    A second writer-probably an adult- added the date.

    "Doodles" you noted may be "editing" by writer #2. (Perhaps the letters were drawn a bit too lightly to copy well,and needed "reinforcement?)

    Senatorial letters, I'm not sure of.

    Could these have been written originally by child, then copied by adult (who wanted to LOOK like child ?)

    So far,quite interesting. I'm going to start the scientific chapter next."

    He certainly seems to agree with the theory. But, "Anonymous" would probably argue that he doesn't actually use the words "I agree with you."

    From File # 33 an email dated September 27, 2005:

    "Your recent commentary on the progression of the "R's" is compelling. In my last e-mail, I mentioned that the age you are focusing on is probably correct because the child wouldn't be able to actually read the content of the letter and therefore not spill the beans. However, I just thought of a glitch. The perpetrator would have to have the child wear gloves to do the writing (unless there are fingerprints on the letter that no one has mentioned), and as a mother quite familiar with children that age, I think that would be very risky. The child is fairly likely to comment to a teacher about this strange request. "

    But, once again, finding the evidence "compelling" isn't the same as being in agreement.


  29. From File #33 an email dated September 28, 2005:

    "Ed, they definitely write on special lined paper (very large horizontal spacing with a special dotted line in the middle of each row). I believe it is the same paper they use in kindergarten, but I will check on that and will ask some teachers about early first grade handwriting instruction. My info will be from public California schools.

    My personal experience with children at school is that they tend to tell their teachers a lot! However, usually girls tell more than boys, and based on the handwriting, this would almost certainly be a boy. I wouldn't think someone would take the risk, but each parent knows his/her child best. Perhaps the parent was certain his child wouldn't say anything. Perhaps the child is homeschooled.

    As you point out, I forgot that the letters were Xerox copies. So, assuming there's a way to wipe the envelopes of fingerprints, then it probably wouldn't have been that unusual to have made the project seem just like another practice writing assignment."

    Is that an agreement? I'd say it was. But "Anonymous" would likely disagree.

    From File # 30, part of an email dated March 8, 2005:

    "Using a child or disguised writing helps reduce the chance of someone recognizing his writing. Short notes are also much harder to work with in an investigation as they produce only a limited supply of exemplars."

    Sort of an agreement, but probably not what "Anonymous" requires.

    This is my last post for today. I'll start on File #29 tomorrow.


  30. Posted by Mister Lake upthread:
    After August 1, 2008, people first had to agree that Ivins was the anthrax killer and THEN agree that the handwriting was that of a child.
    I don't see that AT ALL.
    While I, personally, disagree vehemently with both hypotheses: that Ivins was guilty, AND that the printing is that of a child, I see no reason at all why person X or person Y couldn't think that the printing was that of a child, but that it was a child who was unconnected to Ivins in any way. Child yes, Ivins no. Simple as pie.

    Here, Mister Lake is using 'people' as a stand-in for himself. HE can't allow for the Task Force to be wrong, so for him a guilty Ivins comes first and is the sine qua non of the case, and then only a subhypothesis still arises about Ivins being the one who prevailed upon the child to do the printing.

  31. R. Rowley wrote: "I don't see that AT ALL."

    That's because you're thinking in terms of absolutes. I'm just describing what is happening.

    There are lots of people who accept that Ivins was the anthrax mailer but believe he could have disguised his own handwriting to make it appear "childlike."

    People who don't think Ivins was the anthrax killer won't even bother to look at the evidence that a child did the writing.

    The hypothesis that a child did the writing was put forth seven years before Ivins was shown to be the anthrax killer. Ivins fits the hypothesis PERFECTLY. His wife ran an unlicensed day care center in their home. And Ivins was not only mentally ill, he was the PERFECT personality to use a child that way.

    And, it doesn't really matter what you BELIEVE if the EVIDENCE says that Ivins was the anthrax killer and all you have to argue against that is empty CLAIMS and BELIEFS.


    1. I wrote: (first Mister Lake)
      After August 1, 2008, people first had to agree that Ivins was the anthrax killer and THEN agree that the handwriting was that of a child.
      I don't see that AT ALL.
      To which Mister Lake responded:
      That's because you're thinking in terms of absolutes.
      To which I respond:

      Huh? WHAT absolute?? I merely indicated that:

      1) the child-printed-it hypothesis can fit ANY perpetrator who potentially had access to a child. It isn't perp specific AT ALL. How is that observation at all "absolute"?!?!?! On the contrary it's as unabsolute as possible: it allows for a number of perpetrators. And note that I'm talking about Amerithrax-observers at large in this, no one in particular.

      2) the Ivins-did-the-crime hypothesis can a) allow for Ivins to have personally disguised his printing (as evidently the Task Force held) OR b) allow for Ivins to have gotten ANOTHER person to print the letters (which obviously could include a child or children). What's absolute about that!?!?!

      It was your own post paragraph that I was responding to that has the absolutist position: (Mister Lake's words again):
      After August 1, 2008, people first had to agree that Ivins was the anthrax killer and THEN agree that the handwriting was that of a child.
      No, people can think Ivins innocent and think (a) real perp(s) is/are still out there and that he(or they) had a child do the printing. The child-printed-it hypothesis doesn't depend on Ivins' guilt. And my observing same is not
      absolutist, it is anti-absolutist in the matter.

    2. R. Rowley wrote: "No, people can think Ivins innocent and think (a) real perp(s) is/are still out there and that he(or they) had a child do the printing."

      Yes, I know that is POSSIBLE. But I've never encountered any such person, and I seriously doubt I ever will.

      You're thinking in terms of "absolutes" because you're arguing that because something is POSSIBLE, it cannot be dismissed. You're saying that the only way it can be dismissed is if it is TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE -- an absolute. I dismiss it regardless of your absolutism.

      I really don't want to get into another ridiculous argument over words.


  32. From File # 26 an email posted to the coollist forum on August 5, 2004:

    "Hmmm...perhaps Ed's theory about a child's handwriting isn't so far off the mark. http://www.jaybaker.com/ICS/school.html"

    The discussion was about Dr. Kenneth Berry. Too bad the link doesn't work anymore.

    From File #26 an email dated August 7, 2004:

    "FACT: The handwriting is similar to a style of writing taught to school children.
    Hypothesis: A child wrote the anthrax letters.
    Hypothesis: An adult desguised his handwriting in a manner that resembles a child's.

    For a hypothesis to be valid, it must be able to be tested. Otherwise, it's an opinion.

    I suggest the following. Do a double blind test with experts. Have a sample group of adults write a letter with an attempt to make it look child like. Have a sample group of children do the same. Submit them to an expert and have them determine which group is which. "

    I just show this as another view of what is "fact" and what is "evidence." I think I'll be writing a comment about this for Sunday on my web site.

    Here's another:

    From File # 23 an email dated June 3, 2004:

    "But your logic is a bit flawed. You defend your hypothesis that a child wrote the anthrax letters even though there is no proof that one did. Your defense is that since no one can disprove that a child wrote it, then the hypothesis is valid.

    I would say there is no evidence either way. It's certainly possible that a child was involved but it's also possible that there was not.

    I tend to side with those who say that the "risk vs. benefit factor" comes into play. Someone smart enough to crop the edges of paper to avoid leaving telltale machine marks from a copier would seem unlikely to involve a child (even a trusted one) who might relate the letter writing exercise, even if he was incapable of reading his own words."

    Hmm. I just found an email I wrote to the coollist forum where "Anonymous" was a member. It's in File # 23 and is dated June 5, 2004:

    "When I mentioned the "doodling" on the first letter, my sister said it reminded her of what kids do when they are waiting for their work to be checked. Ah! Agreement on something! "

    So, I did discuss the handwriting hypothesis with my sister. "Anonymous" must have saved his copy of that email. But, of course, he distorted things to argue that my sister didn't agree with the hypothesis.

    I'd totally forgotten about that discussion that took place over 9 years ago.

    So, this analysis is definitely educational for me.

    From File # 22 an email to the coollist forum dated February 6, 2004:

    "That guy that said your theory about the handwriting being a child's handwriting was dopey, was being mean. I think it is probably a child's handwriting also but I have a different theory about why."

    I'd say that is a full agreement that the handwriting belongs to a child, even if she uses different reasoning for her conclusion.


  33. From File #21 an email dated December 4, 2003:

    " I was reading your website and your analysis of the handwriting style of the Anthrax letters. You wrote that you thought it was done by a child, possibly the terrorist's own child. That sparked my interest and I did some research based on my own son's writing style. He's in 4th grade this year and I noticed that his writing style is very different from what I was taught in school. I'm 34 years old, he's 9. I was in elementary school in, I think, 1975 to 1980, k-5th grades. His school district, now in 2003, is teaching a handwriting style called Denelian Modern Manuscript Handwriting. I did a search on the internet using Copernic Agent and I found quite a few sites that show this style as well as at least one website that lets you type in a name or phrase to make a practice worksheet for students. I didn't find any information on how long it's been taught or where exactly, just that "some" schools were teaching it. *Also, the schools are teaching children to address envelopes in the center instead of to the right as I was taught. I hope this helps with your investigation. "

    She certainly doesn't disagree with my hypothesis, and she provided some personal insight to try to help me prove or disprove the hypothesis.

    From File # 15 an email dated May 24, 2003:

    "Ed, I take it one of your specialties is questioned documents, and it certainly does appear the printing may have been done by a child.

    The writing on the letter sheets may have been done by placing a lined tablet under the plain paper, to guide the child's hand. This would add a bit to the "tracing" effects."

    That certainly seems like an agreement that the documents "may" have been written by a child, but "Anonymous" might find some reason to dispute that.

    From File # 9 an email dated November 10, 2002:

    "I think your theory about a child writing the letters and envelopes is spot on. I think photo copies were made because even if the person was able to get his own kid to create the letters, he is smart enough to know kids can be somewhat unreliable and unpredictable and it would be best not to have to use that resource any more than he needed to. Easier and safer just to make photocopies.

    Spot on means "FULL AGREEMENT." But, "Anonymous" will probably find some other meaning for it.


  34. From File # 7 an email dated September 11, 2002:

    "I take issue with your entire section on handwriting analysis of the letters. I know who mailed the letters and gave the info to the FBI last October, 2001. What they have done so far I don't know. What I can tell you--this person DID write the letters by himself and they were not at all written by a child. This person was born in Trenton, had a home in Princeton and was a physician. He also had foreign contacts in Iran, Russia and India. Hence, a domestic terrorist with foreign assistance. The writing was his own, although more deliberate and exaggerated. The motive? To see if he could pull it off. Anger, perhaps mostly towards himself, but targeted outwardly. Yes, a loner, but brilliant and methodical. It won't happen again. It's over. I'm waiting for justice. When will they figure out it wasn't Hatfill, although he is a curious man. The person who did this did not have to work in a bioweapons lab. He had the time, energy, know-how, plodding 2-plus years or more of trial and error to succeed.. Is there anyone out there who will listen to me and take action? I've given up on the FBI long ago."

    Obviously, this person does not agree with me. I'm just posting it as an interesting example of WHY she does not agree with me. Is she right? I doubt that any Truther would agree, since they each have their own theories.

    Here's another interesting email from someone who also disagrees with me. It's also from File # 7. It's dated October 4, 2002:

    "Hi, heard on NPR this AM your theory about a child copying a note, your analysis of the handwriting.

    I just want to put in two cents' worth to consider... the first thing I thought was how my dyslexic (sp.?) niece's handwriting looks like a 9-yr-old's scrawl, and I've even seen 9-yr-olds who write better than her. She is in her 30s! She is bright and can hold her own with intellectuals, but her handwriting is a complete disconnect. Incredibly childlike in size, shape, and inability to stay on a line. I can never believe it's really her writing like that. And it's not a hand tremor thing. She has
    very steady nerves.

    I respect your research and you may be absolutely right, but don't rule out the possibility of notes written by a very bright "adult" sicko who just happens to have dyslexia or some other reading disorder."


  35. From File # 7 an email dated October 4, 2002:


    The more I look at that handwriting, the more your child theory seems to fit (the larger caps are still odd)...if so, it makes this feel less like something done by a concerned scientest and more like something done by wired-up, militia-sympathizer, amateur-scientest like Harris...creepy to use a child that way, don't you think?"

    That seems like an agreement to me. I wonder how "Anonymous" would spin to to indicate something else.

    In File #6 I have a lot of posts to alt.true-crime, alt.conspiracy, alt.politics, and alt.security.terrorism from "Maurice Clayton," which is a name I believe "Anonymous" was using back then. He argues the same things.

    "Except for the fact that I think you are wrong on Al Qaeda (and the child argument), I like your style of argument."

    Then his message involves dozens of links to articles about al Qaeda and Muslim extremists. Then he concludes:

    "By Ed's omission of any discussion of these links (and his failure to link to most of them), he's the one that is offering uninformed opinion rather than addressing the relevant evidence relating to Al Qaeda's means, motive and opportunity to commit the crime."

    So, nothing has changed in the past decade and more.

    I also find in File #6 an email dated September 5, 2002, with no subject and only this text:

    "a child wrote the letters I agree"

    That looks like a full agreement. I just wish he'd have explained why he agrees.

    From File #5 an email dated July 8, 2002, with the subject "why do you assume the anthrax mailer is a man"

    And this is the complete text:

    "You seem to assume the mailer is a man: "someone he knows would never tell anyone about the letters. The obvious possibility: his own child."
    Perhaps, her own child. Perhaps Mrs. Hatfill."

    That seems like an agreement, even though he/she seems to think Hatfill did it in spite of my arguments that he didn't do it.

    From File # 4, part of an email dated May 7, 2002:

    "Whomever is doing this is educated and over the age of 25. This could be a group of people like a cult (or terrorist group), hence the ease of getting childrens writing. "

    Somewhat of an agreement.

    From File #2 an email dated January 23, 2002:

    "Is there anything in particular you are looking for? I can retrieve articles going back two years or more - and magazine articles going back more.

    Today the big newss was about the increase in the anthrax reward. Actually that is not much news in particular except that they are still intensely interested in solving the anthrax case.

    They began distributing flyers around the area in New Jersey where the anthrx was mailed.

    You know they really should be mailing handwriting samples (how many people have studied it carefully or even if they have how many would think the letters could have been written by a child) - they should be mailing it to all licensed teachers in New Jersey. Even if the child does not attend a regular school, still he could have come in for something. But that requires a certain kind of thinking and also a bit of bravery - but it is a good bet.

    Seems like an agreement to me, but "Anonymous" would probably find some reason to disagree.


  36. From File # 1 a post to a newsgroup dated December 19, 2001:

    "Ed, you have speculated that the two SQUARE letters may actually have been written by a child (or at least made to look that way). Well, now I think I've given you some idea where that child might actually be going to school--and where his parents may work. So I don't agree with you that the child is home-schooled. Somebody should go interview the teachers and principals of the Greenbrook School and the other schools in the South Brunswick School District, or talk to the local PTA."

    Seems like an agreement to me. But I doubt "Anonymous" would think so.

    And here's part of an email from "Anonymous" (using his real name) dated January 21, 2002, where he says the same thing he's saying today:

    "I'd dump both the child and Wisconsin aspects of your website. Under the "just the facts" approach of Jack Webb."

    I haven't "dumped" the handwriting part of my site because I keep finding more and more facts which support they hypothesis, and NO SOLID FACTS which dispute it.

    I dumped the "Wisconsin" part of my site because the FBI provided SOLID FACTS which showed my hypothesis was wrong. And, of course, "Anonymous" now argues that because I was wrong then, I must also be wrong in accepting the facts which say Ivins did it. "Anonymous" believes as he believed back in 2001, that Muslim extremists were behind the attacks. No evidence can change his mind. It's what he believes. And anyone who refuses to accept what he believes is a "true believer." That seems to be what he truly believes.

    And that's the last of the emails. I passed over DOZENS which argued that writing with the "wrong hand" would cause a person to write like a child, and DOZENS which argue that a foreigner just learning to write in English would write like a child. But, of course, this is NOT TRUE. Adults do NOT write like children, even when writing with the "wrong hand" or when they are writing in an unfamiliar language. They still have adult motor skills - hand-eye coordination. And deliberately writing like a child is not as easy as most people think, nor would it explain the change in the size of the handwriting, the change in the use of punctuation, the change in the way certain letter of the alphabet are drawn, etc.

    I'll count the people who agree with the child handwriting hypothesis and post the totals as a separate post.

    "Anonymous" wrote: "If in 10 years you haven't even persuaded a single person that a FIrst Grader wrote the anthrax, "

    I think it has been PROVEN that "Anonymous" doesn't know what he's talking about. But he'll probably ignore the facts and just continue to argue what he believes instead of what the facts say.


  37. I count 5 people who appear to totally agree that a child did the writing. I count 16 people who simply agree that a child appears to have done the writing. And I count 10 people who seem to agree that a child did the writing.

    I think I recall getting an email from some woman who argued that the handwriting was that of a girl, not a boy - as I've been suggesting. I didn't see that one in the batch, so maybe she didn't use the word "child."

    I might also find more by looking for "first grade."

    But, I think the point is made. "Anonymous" doesn't know what he's talking about when he repeatedly claims, "in 10 years you haven't even persuaded a single person that a FIrst Grader wrote the anthrax"

    But, I suppose he could now argue that some of these people were not persuaded BY ME. They figured it out themselves.

    "Anonymous" will find some way to believe what he wants to believe.