Monday, July 7, 2014

Subject: Discussions versus Arguments

In the prior two threads it was made perfectly clear that Mr. Rowley does not agree with the definitions of "Discussion" versus "Argument."  Below are definitions from a source HERE:
A discussion is an orderly confrontation based on a mutual willingness to learn from one another. It involves the presentation of evidence by each party and then a good-faith attempt of the participants in the discussion to come to agreement.

Discussion presupposes some degree of rational disagreement between us or at least a lack of consensus. If I agreed with you already, we would have nothing to discuss. In a discussion, I do not primarily want to disagree: I want to know the truth. If I do not think that what you say is true, then I disagree, stating my reasons as clearly as possible and without animosity. The same is true for you: you present me with your reasons. By sharing our ideas freely, we hope to arrive at a deeper truth. In a discussion, disagreement is for the sake of agreement.

An argument (emotional, not rational) is a disorderly confrontation based on an unwillingness to learn from one another. Desire for victory takes precedence over love of truth, with the result that agreement becomes impossible.

Although they may have rational grounds for disagreement in the first place, all arguments include an element of bad faith — we are not, with all honesty, pursuing the truth together. Rather, in an argument I simply want my position to be the right one and you to agree with me. I am, indeed, looking for agreement, but on my terms, not in terms of objective truth. Instead of my following reason and leaving passion aside, passion is primary, and reason (if it has a role) works in the service of passion. Quite often, in order to end an argument, we agree to disagree.
And, below is another definition from a source HERE:
When you argue over something, it does not naturally follow that you will arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. When you discuss a particular topic, you will arrive at a conclusion. This is the major difference between discussing and arguing.
Mr. Rowley appears to believe that these definitions should be reversed, since he argues that I'm the one doing the arguing.  From my point of view, I'm trying to discuss subjects of mutual interest to see where disagreements might be resolved.  But, Mr. Rowley seems to have NO interest whatsoever in resolving anything.  He only wants to state his beliefs/opinions.  And, if I don't agree, then I'm starting an argument with him.

I can provide probably a hundred instances where he just changes the subject or disappears if I try to discuss something.  But, for the sake of discussion, I'll provide just one.  Long ago on another blog, Mr. Rowley wrote this when arguing that he doesn't believe a child wrote the anthrax letters:
Said another (high falutin’) way: the pragmatics of the social situation make using a child a high-risk stratagem. And an unnecessary one: short term one can fake certain elements of one’s printing/handwriting.
And I responded:
We have a different point of view about how to look at evidence. From my point of view, the FACTS say that a child wrote the letters. From your point of view, that’s not the way an intelligent adult would PLAN things.

I’m talking about what the facts say in an actual crime.
You’re talking about the planning of a theoretical crime.

When the facts say that a child wrote the letters, the questions become: How did Ivins manage to keep the kid quiet? Why did Ivins do things that way?

You don’t say: I don’t believe it because that’s not the way I would do things, nor is it the way I would expect anyone else to do things. That is ignoring what the facts say and going with your beliefs, instead.
Analyzing this exchange, it's easy to see that Mr. Rowley was arguing "apples," while I was trying to discuss "oranges."

He was arguing that the anthrax killer would do things the way he believes they were done.  

In hopes of discussing things, I pointed out that we were not talking about the same things.  He was talking about what would happen in some theoretical crime - or what he believes happened in the anthrax case, and I was talking about what the evidence says in the actual anthrax case.

But, Mr. Rowley generally refuses to discuss the evidence.  He argues that there is no evidence that says Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer.  On rare occasions when I've managed to get him to discuss specific items of evidence, he will only argue that his interpretation of the law is correct and mine is wrong, regardless of how much evidence I show him that he is wrong.  His argument is that if the case isn't exactly the same as the Amerithrax case, then the law is different and one case cannot be used to discuss another.

There's no way to discuss something with a person if that person is not willing to accept the possibility that he is wrong.  As the definitions show, a discussion requires that the participants be willing to learn from one another.

I'm totally willing to discuss the evidence that a child wrote the anthrax documents.  For over a decade I've been looking for any compelling and overriding evidence that says a child did NOT write the anthrax documents. But, Anthrax Truthers will only argue that they do not believe it, therefore it cannot be true.  That leaves no room for discussion.

I'm totally willing to discuss the evidence that Dr. Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer.  But Anthrax Truthers simply argue that there is no such evidence.  That leaves no room for discussion.

I'm totally willing to discuss the evidence that some unnamed criminal mastermind was behind the anthrax murders and many other crimes.  But Mr. Rowley generally refuses to provide such evidence, and where he has provided it (click HERE), he refuses to stay on topic.  That ends any attempt at discussion.

Ed


40 comments:

  1. While "DXer" (a.k.a. "anonymous") is not allowed to post directly to this blog, because he will fill it with irrelevant material and vile and disgusting insults, I have no problem in showing his comments that do not fall into those categories.

    This afternoon, "DXer" sent me an email with the subject "Handwriting Forensics." He quoted some text I wrote for the heading of this thread:

    "I'm totally willing to discuss the evidence that a child wrote the anthrax documents. For over a decade I've been looking for any compelling and overriding evidence that says a child did NOT write the anthrax documents. But, Anthrax Truthers will only argue that they do not believe it, therefore it cannot be true. That leaves no room for discussion."

    And then he added some comments of his own:

    Ed, it's not possible to discuss the literature on handwriting forensics or the examination of the handwriting in the anthrax letters or even child hanwriting because you don't read the literature even when the articles are cited to you.

    If you are going to blog on a subject of forensics, you should read the literature."


    That's total nonsense, of course. It's just his way of avoiding any discussion by attacking me personally. "DXer" has repeatedly demonstrated that he will just post some irrelevant material and CLAIM it somehow confirms his beliefs. If I ask questions or see no meaning in what he has posted, he will attack me personally and say I'm unable to comprehend what is in the material.

    Someone who is truly interested in an actual discussion, on the other hand, would (1) quote a relevant passage from the document, (2) provide a link to the document so the validity and context of the quote can be verified, (3) EXPLAIN how the quote is relevant to a discussion of the Amerithrax case, and then (4) he'd ask "Isn't that correct?" or something to that effect.

    And then we'd all discuss whether he interpreted the document correctly, whether his explanation has any real bearing on issues in the case, etc.

    As stated in the text at the start of this thread, "a discussion requires that the participants be willing to learn from one another".

    "DXer's" email shows he is totally unwilling to learn anything I have to teach. All he wants to do is dump irrelevant crap into this blog and CLAIM it has meaning - without explaining anything.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yesterday evening, "DXer" (a.k.a. "anonymous") sent me another email. The subject was "literature." Here's the entire text of the email:

    Ed,

    If you don't understand how computers (CEDAR) aids handwriting forensics, read Dr. Srihari's 2002 article.

    You can obtain a free copy at your local university library.


    It appears to be just a snide personal attack (that I don't understand how computers (CEDAR) aid in handwriting forensics). It may also be an attempt to start an argument.

    I'm just posting it to show that when "DXer" has nothing of value to say about the anthrax attacks of 2001, he'll say something anyway.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hello,

    I just came upon your site, and was wondering your thoughts on the investigation from 2011 that turned up a couple details:

    --His lab time was not unusual, as he routinely spent a great deal of time in various labs (something omitted by the FBI). When the lab records from a single location are looked at out of context it appears suspicious.
    --The FBI characterization of his covering of his tracks by providing false samples was untrue.

    source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/anthrax-files/

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hello, "Anonymous," ---- if you truly are new to this blog.

    Unfortunately, there's someone who posts to this blog as "anonymous" who has been banned for making vile and disgusting personal attacks. And, he plays various childish games to show that he can still get me to post his messages, like using different names and pretending he's a new blogger. Your questions look like they might be from him.

    But, assuming they are not, just click HERE and you will be taken to a web page where I debunk most or all of the PBS Frontline claims.

    I think your specific questions are answered in my points #6, #8 and #9 on that web page.

    You can also go to my comments for the last 4 months of 2011, where I step through all the problems I see with the Frontline program. Click HERE. Do a search for "Frontline" or just go to October 2011 and you will see comment after comment about the Frontline show.

    It appears that Frontline reporters fell for the "yellow journalism" nonsense pitched by ProPublica.com and the McClatchy newspaper chain. I think their Frontline show "The Anthrax Files" was a dark stain on what was previously a pretty clean and outstanding series of news reports.

    I hope that answers your questions. If not, tell me what's still not clear and I'll try to explain.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  5. http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2012/02/feb-5-feb-11-2012-discussions.html

    It explains itself.

    ReplyDelete
  6. And from the thread I previously linked, a good bit of a post:
    -------------------------------------
    February 7, 2012 at 1:41 PM
    Partial post by Mister Lake:
    ---------------
    The fact that the FBI thought in 2001 that the handwriting might be useful as evidence is irrelevant.[...]
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    What about in 2005? or 2006? or 2007? or whenever it was that the Task Force decided that Ivins was the top suspect? Surely, THEY then must have had some such comparison (Ivins' exemplars on one side, AMERITHRAX exemplars on the other)done by qualified professionals. Why, in all of Jeff Taylor's double-talk, is there NO mention of what the PROFESSIONALS said about the likelihood that Ivins did that printing? Why is the only reference to the later period(2005-2008) and the printing super-vague references to "individuals with whom we spoke" and a "witness"*? I submit that the true experts told them (the Task Force) uncongenial things: it's a bad match to Ivins' printing. And that's why we only get blind reports (unnamed 'witnesses') saying things that are a BIT more congenial.

    ReplyDelete
  7. From same thread already linked: (entire post, followed by new comment)


    r. rowley February 9, 2012 at 1:53 PM

    Prediction: the GAO will discover that the Task Force engaged one or more graphological analysts (PROFESSIONALS, not "individuals with whom we spoke")in the 2005-2008 period and that those analysts came to the conclusion that Ivins' printing was a BAD match to the Amerithrax printing. The Task Force then 'buried' this information (via making to references to it in Aug 2008 and in the FINAL REPORT). This revelation (and any similar things they find in the raw files of the case)will give Rush Holt, Senator Grassley et alia plenty of ammo to use in pressing for a full-blown inquery into Amerithrax. Whether Holt/Grassley et alia will prevail or not, I can't say. It also would depend, to some extent, on the outcome of the election(s) in November.
    ============================================
    The FOIA request brought that out before the GAO could get to it.
    http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2012/02/feb-5-feb-11-2012-discussions.html

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mr. Rowley,

    I'm not sure what your point is. You seem to be suggesting there was something sinister in the way the FBI handled the handwriting analysis. Or they just didn't do things the way you feel it should have been done. Or maybe you're trying to make a point that they didn't check your suspect's handwriting.

    The evidence says that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer. The fact that the handwriting on the anthrax documents didn't match Bruce Ivins' handwriting shouldn't be any surprise. He would have been STUPID to use his own natural handwriting on those letters. Ivins wasn't stupid.

    So, the finding that it was not his NATURAL handwriting doesn't mean anything.

    In court they would have argued that Ivins disguised his handwriting in some way, since he was KNOWN to disguise his handwriting when sending things to his female co-workers that he didn't want traced back to him.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr. Rowley,

      I'm not sure what your point is. You seem to be suggesting there was something sinister in the way the FBI handled the handwriting analysis
      ========================================
      If dishonesty at that August 6th, 2008 press conference (reread the whole thread, it's all about Jeff Taylor avoiding answering the question asked and substituting some mumbo-jumbo double-talk) is "sinister" (Lake's word), then YEAH, it's sinister. If dishonesty in the Amerithrax Investigative Summary both on the handwriting (printing)[half-truths at best], AND on the lyophilizer (which they knew/should have known was unusable in Sept/Oct 2001) is "sinister", then yeah. How many half-truths/distortions would they have had to tell before you get it?

      Again, "sinister" is YOUR word. I maintain what I have always maintained:
      the Amerithrax Investigative Summary is a PR (public relations) document,
      first and foremost. If it were a true summary, then the truth about the printing comparisons, the (non-)availability of the lyophilizer in the fall of 2001 would have been in there*. But they realized that a BALANCED account of the investigation into Ivins would have made it difficult to close the investigation. And when you have a dead suspect, driven to suicide by the investigation itself, they were looking at a PR nightmare.

      Instead of "sinister", I would say they (Task Force/DoJ) went to full CYA ('cover your [behind]') mode. They calculated (correctly) that they could stonewall in 2008-2010, convince the general public Ivins was guilty (and they themselves wanted to believe him guilty), and subsequent revelations,
      coming out over YEARS (lyophilizer 2011, document examiner's handwriting comparison(s) 2014) would come to the attention of only a minute fraction of the populace, would be consigned to the back pages of newspapers.

      *On a prior thread I noted Montooth's admissions to Noah Shachtman that
      he(Mon.) didn't know when Ivins dried/purified the anthrax, didn't really know the motive and what's in the 'Investigative Summary' on those points is 'place-holder' info. Didn't the public deserve to know that in Feb 2010?

      Delete
    2. That August 6th news conference (transcript):

      http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2008/August/08-opa-697.html

      Delete
  9. R. Rowley wrote: "I maintain what I have always maintained: the Amerithrax Investigative Summary is a PR (public relations) document, first and foremost. If it were a true summary, then the truth about the printing comparisons, the (non-)availability of the lyophilizer in the fall of 2001 would have been in there"

    Well, that's your opinion. You seem to be arguing that the Department of Justice should do things YOUR way. If they don't, then they are being devious and dishonest.

    Your way appears to require that the DOJ present BOTH sides of the case. That's not the way things work in this world. On what planet does the prosecutor present both sides of the case?

    I'm sorry that you feel that the DOJ and FBI should do things your way, but there's nothing I can do about that.

    ARGUING that your way is a better way is pointless, since it's just your opinion, and I'm not willing to argue opinions.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  10. . Rowley wrote: "I maintain what I have always maintained: the Amerithrax Investigative Summary is a PR (public relations) document, first and foremost. If it were a true summary, then the truth about the printing comparisons, the (non-)availability of the lyophilizer in the fall of 2001 would have been in there"

    Well, that's your opinion. You seem to be arguing that the Department of Justice should do things YOUR way.
    ============================================
    What "your[ie my] way"? THEY used the questioned document specialist(s) to try to see whether there was a match. It was THEIR way, their evidence. They merely concealed that evidence from the public. Not something you would do if your case against the suspect were strong overall, even if you ignore the deceptiveness involved.

    Saying 'law enforcement/prosecutors' shouldn't conceal evidence from the public
    once the possibility of airing that evidence in a trial is gone, isn't anything exceptional. It is: common-sensical, logical. And you have provided, Mister Lake, no alternative (ie 'innocent') explanation of why they concealed the truth about the
    lyophilizer* and the handwriting analysis** from the public.

    *If it hadn't been for Maureen Stevens lawsuit, the DoJ would STILL be stonewalling
    on the lyophilizer.

    **If it hadn't been for FOIA requests on the handwriting analysis, the DoJ would STILL be stonewalling on that analysis.

    ReplyDelete
  11. R. Rowley wrote: "THEY used the questioned document specialist(s) to try to see whether there was a match. It was THEIR way, their evidence. They merely concealed that evidence from the public."

    What "evidence"? They didn't present any USPIS handwriting analyses as "evidence." The handwriting analyses done by the Postal Service did NOT produce any "evidence."

    Evidence is not "evidence" until it is presented in court as part of a case to convince a jury of something. In court, the DOJ would have presented witnesses to give testimonial evidence that the handwriting appeared to be Ivins' disguised handwriting. The handwriting on the anthrax documents looked to the witnesses like the disguised handwriting Ivins used when secretly sending anonymous messages to his female co-workers.

    You seem to believe that if the FBI looks for evidence in a certain place and doesn't find any evidence, that IS some kind of evidence, and they should tell the jury about it. That's just plain silly.

    If they look for evidence in a certain place and do not find any evidence. Then there is no evidence there to be used in court to make their case against Ivins.

    If they question Joe Blow to see if he could be a suspect, and find NO reason to suspect him, should that be presented as "evidence" in court, too? Evidence of WHAT?

    Your argument about the lyophilizer is equally specious and silly. You wrote:

    "If it hadn't been for Maureen Stevens lawsuit, the DoJ would STILL be stonewalling on the lyophilizer."

    Stonewalling about what? Ivins LIED when he said he didn't know how to use the lyophilizer. That's the only meaningful evidence in the case that is related to the lyophilizer, and all it helps prove is that Ivins tried to mislead the FBI.

    The DOJ would NOT have been presenting any lyophilizer-based evidence in court. They would have argued that Ivins could have dried the spores in several different ways, and there was no way to tell exactly which method he used. So, the DOJ would show that Ivins had the MEANS to dry the spores. It wouldn't be necessary for them to show exactly WHICH means Ivins used.

    The fact that some DOJ lawyer in the Stevens lawsuit didn't understand the evidence in the Ivins case is irrelevant. It has no meaning to the Ivins case.

    You seem to be ignoring the actual evidence against Ivins and complaining that you want the DOJ to confuse the jury by telling them about all the places where NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND. That makes no sense at all.

    You seem to be saying you want the DOJ to do things YOUR way. Instead of presenting a solid case against Bruce Ivins, you want the DOJ to bring up all sorts of meaningless information so that the jury will be totally confused and will find Ivins "not guilty for lack of sufficient evidence."

    Would you want the DOJ to also do that if they were presenting your case against your suspect to the jury? Or should the DOJ only confuse the jury when presenting evidence against someone you do not think did it?

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  12. R. Rowley wrote: "THEY used the questioned document specialist(s) to try to see whether there was a match. It was THEIR way, their evidence. They merely concealed that evidence from the public."

    What "evidence"? They didn't present any USPIS handwriting analyses as "evidence." The handwriting analyses done by the Postal Service did NOT produce any "evidence."
    ========================================
    You're mistaken. The handwriting analyses were EXCULPATORY evidence.
    That's exactly why they didn't present it publicly. But had a trial taken place, they (the prosecutors) would have been legally obligated by rules of discovery to present that evidence to the defense which, almost certainly, would have presented it, by calling as a defense witness that handwriting analyst(s), stressing the person's professionalism, experience etc. In an Ivins-acting-alone prosecution scenario, this alone would have provided reasonable doubt: 'He didn't print s[p]it, you must acquit' as a latter-day Johnny Cochran might say.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------
    Otherwise you'd have a situation where:

    1) 'match' indicates guilt=evidence.

    2) 'non-match' indicates innocence=non-evidence

    Doesn't that seem odd even to you, Mister Lake?

    ReplyDelete
  13. R. Rowley wrote: "The handwriting analyses were EXCULPATORY evidence."

    NOT TRUE. The handwriting analyses were NOT exculpatory in any way, shape, manner or form.

    R. Rowley also wrote: "But had a trial taken place, they (the prosecutors) would have been legally obligated by rules of discovery to present that evidence to the defense which, almost certainly, would have presented it, by calling as a defense witness that handwriting analyst(s), stressing the person's professionalism, experience etc."

    NOT TRUE. You are once again misunderstanding how trials and discovery work. There is NO trial-worthy "evidence" in the handwriting analyses, exculpatory or otherwise. During discovery, the prosecutors would be providing the defense with all the EVIDENCE they intended to use in the trial. But, the only "handwriting evidence" they would have used in the trial would have been the LAY witness testimony that the handwriting on the anthrax document resembled Ivins' disguised handwriting he would use when sending anonymous letters to he female co-workers.

    The negative findings from the USPIS expert merely said that the handwriting was not Ivins NORMAL block letter handwriting. It says nothing about whether it could be his DISGUISED handwriting. Therefore it is not exculpatory.

    To be exculpatory, they would have had to have found (1) that the handwriting belonged to some other suspect, or (2) that it was impossible for Ivins to have disguised his handwriting to make it look like the handwriting on the anthrax documents. Neither happened. Therefore, the handwriting findings were NOT exculpatory.

    And, since the findings by the USPIS expert were NOT going to be used as evidence, it's possible it wouldn't have been given to the defense during discovery. But, even if it had, the judge would probably not have allowed the DEFENSE to use it in court, because it is NOT evidence, it says nothing about DISGUISED handwriting, and it would be misleading to the jury.

    R. Rowley also wrote: "Otherwise you'd have a situation where:

    1) 'match' indicates guilt=evidence.

    2) 'non-match' indicates innocence=non-evidence

    Doesn't that seem odd even to you, Mister Lake?"


    That a non-match means "not evidence?" No, that does not seem odd. It's no different from finding a bullet in the victim does not match the gun owned by the accused. The accused could have used a different gun.

    All it says is that Ivins disguised his handwriting or took some other measure to make sure no one would match his handwriting the handwriting on terrorist threats. It would have seemed VERY ODD to me if Ivins had been stupid enough to write the letters without taking steps to prevent a match on his handwriting.

    Who is stupid enough to mail threatening letters using their own handwriting?

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  14. R. Rowley wrote: "The handwriting analyses were EXCULPATORY evidence."

    NOT TRUE. The handwriting analyses were NOT exculpatory in any way, shape, manner or form.
    ======================================
    Then you don't get what exculpatory evidence is.
    ------------------
    Exculpatory evidence is evidence favorable to the defendant in a criminal trial that exonerates or tends to exonerate the defendant of guilt.[1] It is the opposite of inculpatory evidence, which tends to prove guilt.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exculpatory_evidence

    "Tends to exonerate" fits. Especially since the government said that Ivins had no help whatsoever.

    If that analysis (those analyses) had been a match, then it would have been inculpatory evidence:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inculpatory_evidence

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R. Rowley wrote: "'Tends to exonerate' fits."

      In your opinion. In MY opinion it does NOT tend to exonerate -- unless you twist and distort the meaning of the word "tend." You tend to argue that there are only yes and no answers. But, in the real world, something that does NOT "tend to convict" does not automatically "tend to exonerate." It can "tend" to do NEITHER.

      I don't know how we can resolve this difference in opinion. It certainly wouldn't do any good to ask some civil lawyer who has similar fantasies.

      So, unless we can find some court case finding that we can BOTH agree upon, it's just an opinion versus opinion argument, which is a waste of time and accomplishes nothing.

      Ed

      Delete
    2. R. Rowley wrote: "'Tends to exonerate' fits."

      In your opinion. In MY opinion it does NOT tend to exonerate -- unless you twist and distort the meaning of the word "tend."
      ========================================
      What possible "meaning" of the word "tend" could render that as non-exculpatory? That's EXACTLY why the results (the analyses) were hidden for years. If the evidence had been inculpatory (a match) or even
      doubtful ('inconclusive') there would have been no reason to not mention it in the Amerithrax Investigative Summary.

      Delete
    3. R. Rowley wrote: "That's EXACTLY why the results (the analyses) were hidden for years."

      In your OPINION.

      R. Rowley also wrote: " If the evidence had been inculpatory (a match) or even doubtful ('inconclusive') there would have been no reason to not mention it in the Amerithrax Investigative Summary.

      I can't make any sense of that. If the handwriting evidence had MATCHED Ivins' handwriting, it would have been part of the evidence against him. If the handwriting analysis was "inconclusive," there's no reason they would mentioned it in the Summary. The Summary described the evidence against Ivins. "Inconclusive" evidence isn't evidence against Ivins. No prosecutor in his/her right mind would use "inconclusive" evidence in court. So, there's no reason to include it in the Summary, either. It's just your OPINION that they would have mentioned it. In my OPINION, they would have to be NUTS to use inconclusive evidence in the trial OR in the Summary.

      I just checked and the word "inconclusive" does not appear in the Summary. So, there is nothing ELSE that was "inconclusive" that they included.

      Ed

      Delete
  15. Ed Lake wrote: "Who is stupid enough to mail threatening letters using their own handwriting?"

    Apparently some people ARE that stupid:

    "FBI agents were able to match the handwriting on the threatening white powder letters to the handwriting of the defendant. The Secret Service was able to match the defendant’s handwriting to that of the threat letter sent to the president. Agents also matched fingerprints from some of the white powder letters to DeVaughn."

    Source: http://www.fbi.gov/denver/press-releases/2011/dn012811.htm

    Prosecutors told the judge they linked Taylor to the letters with evidence including handwriting analysis. They also found black fibers under some of the stamps that matched gloves found at Taylor's home, they said.
    ...

    "Although the powder contained in the envelopes mailed by the defendant contained non-biohazardous materials, they nonetheless caused anxiety and emotional distress to the recipients and incurred a disruption of government operations," Walleisa wrote.


    Source: http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2012-04-20/news/fl-white-powder-20120420_1_hoax-letters-mailing-powder

    A handwriting expert identified Cory Byrd as the author of a threatening letter sent to the wife of a witness against him. The identification happened during testimony Friday in Orange County Court, at Byrd's murder trial in the death of 4-year-old Marc Bookal.

    Byrd, 32, faces the charges in Marc's Dec. 14, 2009, disappearance and death. Marc was the son of Byrd's then-girlfriend, Christina Bookal.

    Byrd was alone with Marc at the family's home at 11 Benkard Ave., in Newburgh when the boy vanished.

    Khody Detwiler, a forensic document examiner from Martinsburg, Pa.-based Gus Lesnevich Inc., compared letters known to have been written by Byrd to other letters and writing suspected of being Byrd's, including a letter sent Nov. 7, 2011, to the wife of a man who said Byrd admitted to killing Marc.

    Based on striking similarities in the details of the characters and patterns of writing, Detwiler testified, the questioned letters were all written by the same person as the known samples: Cory Byrd.


    Source: http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120121/NEWS/201210308

    These examples, however, show that it takes someone PRETTY STUPID to write threat letters using his own handwriting. Ivins wasn't stupid.

    The problem is: If handwriting was used as evidence, they will mention it in the news. If handwriting was NOT used as evidence, there won't be any mention of handwriting. So, it's difficult to find instances where someone was tried and convicted of sending threat letters where there was NOT a match on handwriting.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  16. Very nice and accurate comment today.
    But as to the matter of what DXer means:
    --------------
    You forgot to mention that this expert report was not only not disclosed in the Amerithrax Investigative Summary-- it was mischaracterized.

    The Amerithrax Investigative Summary was claimed to have been INCONCLUSIVE when it in fact was NEGATIVE. The reason you seem not to know the difference is your continued failure to read the literature on the subject of the Amerithrax forensics.

    The USPIS report was "not disclosed" but it was "mischaracterized"? The Amerithrax Summary was claimed to be "inconclusive" but was in fact "negative"?

    There's no point in asking "DXer" to explain what he means,[...]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    We go back to the Q & A of August 6th 2008: (partial)
    (but the questions in full): (Jeff Taylor being asked):

    QUESTION: Jeff, did you find any handwriting samples or hair samples that would have matched Dr. Ivins to the envelopes where the hair samples were found in the mailbox?

    MR. TAYLOR: We did not find any handwriting analysis or hair samples in the mailbox. So there were no facts and circumstances of that part.

    QUESTION: You didn't take handwriting samples from Dr. Ivins? MR. TAYLOR: We examined handwriting samples but then there was no comparison made[...]
    --------------------------------------------------------
    But there were TWO comparisons made: one in 2005 (the 22-page document that included Ivins along with lots of other people's printing, AND the 2007 comparison when Ivins was the primary suspect. Both non-matches. But Taylor successfully
    confused his audience enough that they moved on to other questions. The Amerithrax Investigative Summary talks only and exclusively about (unnamed) "witnesses" when talking about Ivins' printing. Naturally, such unnamed witnesses (read: informants) cannot really be questioned. On account of their being unnamed.
    Bottom of page 89 AIS>
    http://www.justice.gov/archive/amerithrax/docs/amx-investigative-summary.pdf

    http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2008/August/08-opa-697.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R. Rowley wrote: "The Amerithrax Investigative Summary talks only and exclusively about (unnamed) "witnesses" when talking about Ivins' printing. Naturally, such unnamed witnesses (read: informants) cannot really be questioned."

      There was no reason for them to name witnesses in the Summary. It would have been improper and unethical to do so. The witnesses would be questioned on the stand during the trial. Besides, we KNOW who the witnesses are, since they are described as female co-workers to whom Ivins sent anonymous letters. There's only one person who fits this description:

      "In addition, a witness who had received a number of packages and cards over the course of several years in the late 1990s and early 2000s was shown copies of the letters and envelopes used in the anthrax attacks. The witness thought that the handwriting on the envelope addressed to Senator Daschle reminded the witness of Dr. Ivins’s writing.

      That witness is almost certainly Mara Linscott.

      The other witnesses are either Patricia Fellows or Nancy Haigwood or both of them.

      You're trying to create some devious or sinister activity where everything is honest, clear and above-board.

      You were doing the same thing when you suggested there was something devious or sinister in this statement: "We examined handwriting samples but then there was no comparison made.."

      Mr. Taylor was evidently using the word "comparison" in a different way than you are. There was "no comparison" because the differences in handwriting didn't allow for any "comparison." I.e., Ivins' handwriting did not match the handwriting on the documents.

      In the press conference on Aug. 8, 2008, Mr. Taylor said,

      "With respect to handwriting samples, we did have indications from individuals with whom we spoke that there appeared to be some similarities in handwriting that were apparent. That said, we did not have a scientifically valid conclusion that we thought would lead us to be able to admit that in evidence."

      So, Mr. Taylor was saying that they had witnesses who said things about the handwriting, but they didn't have any scientific handwriting evidence.

      Ed

      Delete
    2. R. Rowley wrote: "The Amerithrax Investigative Summary talks only and exclusively about (unnamed) "witnesses" when talking about Ivins' printing. Naturally, such unnamed witnesses (read: informants) cannot really be questioned."

      There was no reason for them to name witnesses in the Summary. It would have been improper and unethical to do so.
      =======================================
      We went over this once or twice (or thrice) before. On at least one of those iterations, I observed that it's entirely possible:

      1) that the investigators were asking leading questions ('Do you see the resemblance in the letter 'R'?' That will provoke a yes or no answer typically. But may not have produced such an affirmation, had an open-ended question been posed "What resemblances, if any, do you see between the Amerithrax printing(s) and those of Bruce Ivins AS YOU REMEMBER THEM*?")

      Then (in our previous discussion(s)) Mister Lake did not deny that this was entirely possible, ie that the 'witnesses' were led to their 'observations'.

      2) that it's even possible investigators talked in this vein (about MEMORY BASED* comparisons) with a far larger number of so-called 'witnesses' and 8 out of 10 (or 10 out of 12; or 13 out of 15 etc) told investigators that they saw no resemblances between Ivins' printing and
      that of the Amerithrax mailings. Since the Investigative Summary consistently shows a tendency to present inculpatory evidence only and to leave out exculpatory evidence (See: lyophilizer, PROFESSIONAL handwriting comparisons), this is far from far-fetched.

      Mister Lake did not deny that THIS (point #2)was possible.

      Which, to my mind, renders the 'witnesses''s non-testimony (testimony is a verbatim record of what was asked/replied) null and void and irrelevant to Ivins' guilt/innocence.

      *Memory-based comparisons of handwriting are excluded from trials of course. Even when done by professionals in the field.

      Delete
    3. R. Rowley wrote: "Which, to my mind, renders the 'witnesses''s non-testimony (testimony is a verbatim record of what was asked/replied) null and void and irrelevant to Ivins' guilt/innocence."

      Once again you show a mindless and irrational distrust of the government.

      You fantasize that the FBI manipulated the witnesses into testifying the way they did. And, you say that if I cannot prove that is impossible for the FBI to have done that, then you are just going to continue to believe what you want to believe. You want me to prove the negative.

      Okay. Believe what you want to believe. But, when you ask me to prove the negative, you leave no room for any discussion.

      Mr. Rowley also wrote: "Memory-based comparisons of handwriting are excluded from trials of course. Even when done by professionals in the field."

      Once again you show total ignorance of how evidence is presented in court. EVERYTHING eyewitnesses and lay witnesses testify to in court is memory based. They testify to what they remember seeing, hearing, smelling, etc. To argue that they cannot do that just displays a TOTAL IGNORANCE of what constitutes evidence in court.

      And your comment "Even when done by professionals in the field" compounds and further illustrates that ignorance, since "professionals in the field" (i.e., "expert witnesses") do NOT testify to what they remember personally witnessing, they testify to how a piece of evidence was scientifically determined to BE evidence and what it means to the legal case.

      Mr. Rowley, if you cannot understand or refuse to understand the basic principles of evidence as used in criminal courts, we have no basis for discussion here.

      Ed

      Delete
  17. Anthrax Truthers appear to have some bizarre misconception that the Amerithrax Investigation Summary was supposed to be a summary of all the arguments that Anthrax Truthers have started over the years
    ==========================================
    The writing analyst's report(s) isn't(aren't) an 'argument', it's raw data. What if the same thing had happened with fingerprints? What if there had been a fingerprint on
    one of the envelopes and/or the letters themselves? Suppose they then compared that to Ivins' fingerprints and found a non-match? Would it then be okay to conceal that information from the public, even as you blamed Ivins for the crime(s)?

    What about DNA? That's raw data too. If a lickable stamp had been used, DNA recovered from the saliva and that DNA was a non-match for Ivins, would it have been okay to conceal THAT from the public? You're halfway on the road to manufactured evidence when you give prosecutors a chance to suppress exculpatory evidence. And in the 'amino-acid code' you have no-doubt-about-it manufactured evidence.

    Those considerations are why we have an obligation, more on the prosecution than on the defense to disclose such evidence. Ivins would have been risking his life in an Amerithrax trial, the prosecutors risked only losing a case.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Discovery is also present in criminal cases, in which by law the prosecutor must turn over to the defense any witness statements and any evidence that might tend to exonerate the defendant. Depending on the rules of the court, the defendant may also be obliged to share evidence with the prosecutor.
    http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/discovery-term.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr. Rowley,

      You deliberately ignore part of what I wrote. Here's the full sentence you trimmed to suit your own devious purposes (the highlighted part is the part you ignore):

      "Anthrax Truthers appear to have some bizarre misconception that the Amerithrax Investigation Summary was supposed to be a summary of all the arguments that Anthrax Truthers have started over the years, plus a summary of all the investigative avenues which led nowhere."

      Ivins' fingerprints were not on the letters or envelopes. The FBI probably found LOTS of fingerprints on the envelopes, since the envelopes were handled by people at the post office. The Brokaw letter and Daschle letter were both opened by office personnel who could have left fingerprints. The NY Post letter was discarded after being handled by office personnel (in addition to post office personnel). All that is important is that those fingerprints did NOT match Ivins fingerprints nor anyone else under suspicion in the case.

      The same with the DNA. Ivins' DNA was not found.

      The same with the hairs and fibers found in the mail box. They did not match and hair and fibers associated with Ivins.

      No one is suppressing that kind of NON-evidence from investigative avenues that went nowhere. The suggestion that the prosecution would try to hide the fact that the handwriting did not match Ivins' handwriting is RIDICULOUS. The first thing everyone thinks about when looking at handwritten THREAT letters is the handwriting.

      The Amerithrax Investigative Summary is a summary of the EVIDENCE against Ivins. It is NOT a summary of all the work done in the case, including all the investigative avenues that went nowhere. The defense would either get the DNA findings during "discovery," or they could ask questions of the prosecution witnesses during trial.

      Defense Lawyer: Did you find Dr. Ivins DNA on the letter or envelopes?

      Witness: No.


      If the prosecution hadn't already mentioned that there was no DNA match during their questioning of their witness, they would do a "re-direct" of their witness after the defense brought up the subject.

      Prosecutor: What conclusion was drawn when Ivins' DNA was not found on the letters or envelopes?

      Witness: That Dr. Ivins took precautions to avoid leaving any DNA on the letters and envelopes. He was a scientist. He knew about such things.


      When you argue that the government would HIDE evidence in order to prove in court that Ivins was guilty, you are doing nothing but ARGUING YOUR OPINION. You have nothing to support YOUR OPINION. And you want me to argue MY opinion, which you will then argue is ONLY MY OPINION. In other words, arguing opinions is a total waste of time.

      In the Amerithrax Investigative Summary the FBI/DOJ summarized its evidence saying Ivins was the anthrax killer. They also provided thousands of pages of supplementary information. I've read it all and agree that Ivins was the anthrax killer. You evidently IGNORE it all, claiming it is not evidence, and argue only your opinion that the government is deviously pointing the finger at Ivins to satisfy the public, while in your reality, the FBI and DOJ don't have any real evidence.

      If you want to argue about EVIDENCE, pick some EVIDENCE that the DOJ would have used in court. Don't pick some investigative avenue that lead nowhere and argue your opinion that the NON-evidence would have been hidden from the defense. That is not just being argumentative, it is also just plain silly.

      Ed

      Delete
    2. You deliberately ignore part of what I wrote. Here's the full sentence you trimmed to suit your own devious purposes
      ================================
      Once again, that's projection. I honestly think Ivins innocent. So, if I argue a detail of why I think him innocent, there's nothing 'devious' about it. I'm not obliged to copy and paste entire sentences of any interlocutor on any blog. I ignored the last part of that sentence because that was not my focus. Duh! (and you have a reputation for distorting other people's writings, so it takes a lot of nerve for you to write that!)

      Delete
    3. So, let's go to the part of the sentence I ignored:
      "[...]plus a summary of all the investigative avenues which led nowhere."
      ===========================================
      What you are doing there is: labeling a bit of evidence whose import you don't like as 'evidence that led nowhere'. T'isn't so.
      Evidence that indicates that your primary suspect is possibly/probably innocent isn't 'evidence that led nowhere', it's evidence of a VERY valuable sort. There must have been LOTS of such evidence in the 4 1/2 years that the Task Force was focussed on Steven Hatfill. What took them so long to drop him? Naturally, the answer to that question is going to be multi-faceted, but surely ONE reason is: exculpatory evidence of Hatfill (the non-finding of spores in his residence(s), vehicle etc.) was ignored. Possibly ignored by a mental labeling of it as merely 'evidence (or a skein of evidence etc.) that led nowhere'.

      Some skeins of evidence MAY be of such a silly nature that they are no help in determining anything: the 'water charactistics' of the anthrax powder was once touted as significant, but subsequently dropped without real explanation. I would call THAT 'an investigative avenue that led nowhere'. But not something that was at least partially exculpatory, ESPECIALLY if it is exculpatory of your main suspect, for that's the only way to determine you have the wrong suspect!

      Delete
    4. R.Rowley wrote: "I ignored the last part of that sentence because that was not my focus. Duh!"

      It wasn't your "focus" because you cannot discuss anything meaningful and just want to argue opinions and beliefs.

      R. Rowley also wrote: "Evidence that indicates that your primary suspect is possibly/probably innocent isn't 'evidence that led nowhere', it's evidence of a VERY valuable sort."

      It has been explained to you that what you consider to be "exculpatory evidence" is NOT EVIDENCE AT ALL. To become evidence, an object, document or testimony has presented as supporting a claim.

      You may consider it to be "evidence" in support of your claim that the government didn't do things the way you think they should have been done, but it was NOT EVIDENCE in the DOJ's case against Ivins, and it would NOT likely have been "evidence" in the defense's case to argue that Ivins was innocent.

      You do not understand evidence, so you cannot understand what is "exculpatory evidence." "NOT FINDING EVIDENCE" MEANS THEY DID NOT FIND EVIDENCE. It does NOT mean they found "exculpatory evidence."

      Your unshakable and mistaken beliefs as to what constitutes "evidence" leaves no room for discussion. You're just going to believe what you want to believe, regardless of what the facts are.

      Ed

      Delete
  18. Ivins' fingerprints were not on the letters or envelopes. The FBI probably found LOTS of fingerprints on the envelopes, since the envelopes were handled by people at the post office.
    ===========================================
    We shouldn't have to speculate on that second part, we should know. I'm CONFIDENT Ivins' fingerprints weren't on any of the letters/envelopes, because that would have been inculpatory evidence. And therefore highlighted. Big time. And we've established (more or less) that: all (even from-left-field-and-inadmissible) inculpatory evidence is in the Investigative Summary, all exculpatory evidence omitted. Which makes it a PR or propaganda effort, rather than a balanced look at whether Ivins committed the crimes or not.

    ReplyDelete
  19. When you argue that the government would HIDE evidence in order to prove in court that Ivins was guilty, you are doing nothing but ARGUING YOUR OPINION.
    ===============================================
    They hid it from the American people. FOR YEARS. What they would have done at trial, I can only speculate on. For the American people to have an intelligent opinion on Amerithrax requires that they be informed in a balanced way, not fed DoJ talking points whose only purpose is to blacken Ivins' name (for that's what most of the psychological stuff does: it blackens his name without telling us anything about the probability he did Amerithrax).

    ReplyDelete
  20. R. Rowley wrote: "And we've established (more or less) that: all (even from-left-field-and-inadmissible) inculpatory evidence is in the Investigative Summary, all exculpatory evidence omitted. Which makes it a PR or propaganda effort, rather than a balanced look at whether Ivins committed the crimes or not."

    You just mindlessly argue the same things over and over. Nothing I say changes anything. You cannot discuss anything, because you cannot see any other point of view than your own.

    You do not understand what "exculpatory evidence" is.
    You believe "exculpatory evidence" is something it isn't.
    You have some screwball, inexplicable and unshakable BELIEF that the Amerithrax Investigative Summary should have been "balanced" instead of being what it is: the DOJ's case against Dr. Ivins.

    And you have no understanding of criminal investigations and how they work.

    You write: 'They hid it [the evidence against Bruce Ivins] from the American people. FOR YEARS."

    That is the way THINGS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE and MUST BE. Can't you understand that? Investigators do NOT tell the world about everything they find while investigating a crime. They do not tell the world about every test they did, every person they interviewed, every lead they followed. That would be STUPID, UNETHICAL AND ILLEGAL.

    "(d) The prosecutor should:

    (iv) seek in most circumstances to maintain the secrecy and confidentiality of criminal investigations. "


    Source: http://www.americanbar.org/publications/criminal_justice_section_archive/crimjust_standards_pinvestigate.html

    Findings in an ONGOING criminal investigation MUST be kept confidential, since releasing such information to the public would be (1) harmful to innocent people, (2) would impede the investigation, (3) would prejudice the jury pool, and (4) would make a criminal prosecution nearly impossible.

    Mr. Rowley, your beliefs about the way the government should do things has no basis in reality. It seem to be the product of some kind of irrational distrust of the government compounded by an unshakable belief that you can do a better job than the government can do.

    Without any basis in reality, you leave no room for any kind of intelligent discussion about the Amerithrax case.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  21. From today's comment:
    ----------------------
    The argument that a "typical" criminal would not use a child to write threat letters doesn't mean that Bruce Ivins wouldn't have done so.
    ----------------------
    Or that Steven Hatfill could not have done so.
    Or that Dr Kenneth Berry could not have done so.
    Or that [fill in blank] could not have done so.

    Along with its primitive reductionism in the fields of first grade curriculum, graphology, vocabulary etc., the child-printed-it hypothesis is, in the way that Mister Lake presents it, fundamentally unfalsifiable.

    http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/179-unfalsifiability

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr. Rowley,

      As usual, your argument is meaningless. You are either misunderstanding something, or you can't even remember your own arguments.

      The FACTS say that a child wrote the letters. But, in a comment HERE you argued, "Said another (high falutin’) way: the pragmatics of the social situation make using a child a high-risk stratagem. And an unnecessary one: short term one can fake certain elements of one’s printing/handwriting."

      I was talking about what the facts say in an actual crime.
      You talk about the planning of a theoretical crime.

      So, we weren't talking about the same thing.

      And now you're changing the argument to claim that the child-printed-it hypothesis is "unfalsifiable?" That's just plain NUTS. You are misunderstanding something else, like the word "unfalsifiable."

      HOW is "the child printed it hypothesis" unfalsifiable?

      The hypothesis can be proved by finding the child and examples of his handwriting.

      The hypothesis can be proved by doing an analysis of children's handwriting changes between the first and tenth weeks of first grade.

      The hypothesis can be disproved by showing that the culprit wrote the documents in a way that only SEEMS like they were written by a child.

      The hypothesis can be disproved by showing that children do NOT go through the kinds of handwriting changes the hypothesis says are relatively normal for the first weeks of first grade.

      To be "unfalsifiable," there would have to be no way to prove anything one way or the other. That is ABSOLUTELY NOT the case here.

      You just don't understand your own arguments. You shouldn't use words you do not understand.

      Ed

      Delete
  22. Mr. Rowley, your beliefs about the way the government should do things has no basis in reality
    ============================================
    So, lying to the public about the lyophilizer AND lying to the public about the handwriting comparisons is just "reality"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R. Rowley wrote: "So, lying to the public about the lyophilizer AND lying to the public about the handwriting comparisons is just "reality"?"

      There was NO LYING. (If there was any, YOU were doing it.) You are twisting things to support some screwball belief of yours that everyone in the government is a criminal.

      No one lied to the public about the lyophilizer.
      No one lied to the public about the handwriting.


      You are just SEEING THINGS THAT AREN'T THERE because you cannot accept "reality" and apparently do not understand facts and evidence.

      Ed

      Delete
  23. From a recent comment (today's?):
    --------------------
    An Anthrax Truther who posts to my blog had a very different idea of who was behind all those hoax letters. He believed it was most likely the same criminal mastermind who he insists was behind the anthrax letters and many other hoax letters. I suspect he'll have no problem either adjusting his theory to simply exclude all the letters Truong sent, or incorporating Truong into the conspiracy as one of his criminal mastermind's minions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since we don't know 'all the letters Truong sent', it would be presumptuous of me to exclude them. And we also don't know what the contents of the Super Bowl threat
    mailings were. If you check that thread in which I brought up the Rutherford Super Bowl mailings, you'll see I noted that to reach even a preliminary conclusion, one would need: the texts of the letters, and the postmarks(including dates). And I observed that I didn't expect the authorities to make that public. Whereupon Mister Lake invented his own conspiracy theory and attributed it to me!
    ========================================
    A bit of that exchange, near the end of that topic:
    -
    It would require SOLID evidence.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------
    Well, that would require the authorities releasing, at a bare minimum, the postmark locations and the texts(if any). I doubt that they are going to do that.
    ========================
    Which prompted Mr Lake to tax me(!!) with a 'conspiracy theory'. If you presume
    that investigators of a late Jan/early crime have already released all the details they are going to release by May/June, that hardly constitutes a 'conspiracy theory'!

    My first post on that subject: June 2, 2014 at 3:18 PM
    http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2014/05/subject-conspiracy-theorist-psychology.html

    ReplyDelete
  24. And back to the previous post's opening quotation from Mister Lake:
    ---------------
    He believed it was most likely the same criminal mastermind who he insists was behind the anthrax letters and many other hoax letters.
    ==========================
    The "he" in question is yours truly. Now that I've had the chance to review that old thread, it's clear that I did not say "most likely" or use a synonym for that. I merely noted the correspondences: New Jersey/NY-addressed letters*; one politician targeted (Giuliani), high visibility targets (because it was Superbowl time). I thought it a good surmise. Still do. But then the evidence against the arrestee is little brought to light (and seems to include a bit of forensic linguistics). Maybe he did all 500 mailings, maybe not.

    *Amerithrax letters were mailed FROM Princeton, but to make that comparison I would have needed the postmarks of the Super Bowl letters. Naturally a Dallas or North Texas postmark would itself suggest the same actor.

    ReplyDelete
  25. R. Rowley wrote: "Which prompted Mr Lake to tax me(!!) with a 'conspiracy theory'. If you presume that investigators of a late Jan/early crime have already released all the details they are going to release by May/June, that hardly constitutes a 'conspiracy theory'!"

    You have a conspiracy theory that a criminal mastermind who is still at large is involved in a massive criminal conspiracy with an unspecified number of "accomplices" to send out hoax letters in addition to the actual anthrax letters mailed in 2001.

    In a post HERE you listed some reasons you believed that the Superbowl hoax letters were likely sent by the same person who sent the anthrax letters. You also wrote:

    "No pattern of disgruntlement or a grudge would explain such targeting. Only someone out for maximum publicity."

    That logic turns out to be totally wrong. Truong was operating on a grudge. Publicity seems to have NOTHING to do with why he sent hoax letters.

    You argued that because some of the Superbowl hoax letters went sent to hotels in New Jersey, there was a "New Jersey angle." There were NO New Jersey TARGETS in the anthrax mailings. And because a politician was targeted, you considered that was another "connection" to the anthrax mailings. HUNDREDS of hoax letters are sent to politicians every year.

    And, you concluded, "So, white powder mailings for fun, rather than revenge, a sociopolitical motive etc."

    Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong on all counts. As I told you back then, there was no reason to connect the Superbowl letters to the anthrax letters. Your "reasoning" could tie almost ANY unsolved hoax letter case to the anthrax case. Your argument is that it's connected until it is proved that it is not connected. That's nuts.

    R. Rowley also wrote: "I did not say "most likely" or use a synonym for that." AND: "I thought it a good surmise."

    Okay. It was just a wild-ass guess. Surmise = an idea or opinion formed from inconclusive evidence, i.e., a guess.

    You are guessing how events can be twisted to fit your belief about a criminal mastermind being behind behind various hoaxes AND the anthrax mailings of 2001.

    I'm looking at the facts. The facts showed NO connection between the Superbowl hoax letters and the anthrax letters. That has now been confirmed.

    What you are doing is claiming there COULD be a connection between various hoax letter cases and the anthrax letters while IGNORING all the SOLID evidence that says otherwise.

    As always, you are working with beliefs and opinions instead of facts.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr. Rowley,

      I just read the entire argument we had about the Superbowl letters back in early June. Click HERE to go to the argument.

      Some of your nonsensical reasoning:

      I wrote: "Disgruntlement or a grudge" could easily be the motive." And you responded:
      -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      Oh, someone was fired from ALL SIX hotels?!?! And they used to work for Giuliani? And they don't like the Rutherford PO? "Nonsense" indeed!"

      It appears Truong's grudge was against the government in all of its forms, and he'd attack wherever he felt he could do the most harm.

      I wrote: "The fact that the hotels were in New Jersey isn't an "angle." And you responded:
      --------------------------------------------------------------------
      "Wow, someone whose knowledge of New Jersey geography is even worse than mine! No, it isn't 'just' that they are in the same state: they are all in Bergen County. They are all close to MetLife Stadium. The place the contest was held."

      And, you wrote:

      What is it that you don't understand?

      1) person X enjoys provocations of all sorts, including criminal ones involving sending threatening communications through the mail.

      2) he does this for years (figure at least 1997 onwards), until one day in 2001, in a certain lab I will not name, he gets a once-in-a-lifetime chance to steal a REAL toxic agent. Anthrax.

      3) He sends it first with a fan mail motif, then, after September 11th with a Muslim motif.

      4) For years afterwards he continues sending white powder and other threatening communications, mostly via his distribution network of like-minded pals (the Jersey guy, and the Florida guy).

      5) the way to determine whether it is potentially the same guy/group is:
      seeing what the targets are.

      6) the way to verify that is: via linguistic analysis. Linguistic analysis requires a text.


      You are endlessly rationalizing ways to make events fit your beliefs. And you want to "verify" you claims with "linguistic analysis," which is mostly just personal opinion, not a science.

      Ed

      Delete