The Purpose of this blog is to allow people to intelligently debate the comments I make on my web site at www.anthraxinvestigation.com.
All post are moderated. My hours are 9-5.
Please choose "Name/URL" in the "Comment as:" box and fill in a unique name, like "John Doe" or "Anonymous #4972." You can leave the URL blank.
Questions? My email address is detect (at) newsguy (dot) com
All post are moderated. My hours are 9-5.
Please choose "Name/URL" in the "Comment as:" box and fill in a unique name, like "John Doe" or "Anonymous #4972." You can leave the URL blank.
Questions? My email address is detect (at) newsguy (dot) com
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") attempted two posts to this blog overnight. In one he just quoted large sections of a news article that can be read by clicking HERE, so there's no reason for me to show it. The word "anthrax" isn't even mentioned in the article. DXer evidently wanted to post it because it's about a series of lectures on forensic science being given by Michael Garvey. As seen in DXer's comments in the previous thread, Dr. Garvey appears to agree with DXer on some minor points about the microbial forensic evidence in the Amerithrax investigation. It appears that, in DXer's world, if someone has an opinion that vaguely agrees with some of DXer's beliefs, that is validation of all of his beliefs. Here is DXer's second attempted post in its entirety:------------------I definitely agree that evidence is key — such as the strain of the bottle of anthrax spore concentrate that was removed prior to testing, the identity of the person who gave Rauf Ahmad the anthrax strains in 1999 at the second lab he visited, and the strains that were given. You are the one not interested in that evidence.And I agree that your opinion that a First Grader wrote the anthrax letters is irrelevant.But as for Dr. Michael Garvey’s qualifications to testify as an expert witness -- see his 2014 PhD Thesis -- note that he previously has testified while head of the Philadelphia forensic science organization about his organization’s work relating to genetics with the eminent Bruce Budowie, the former FBI scientist who laid the foundation for Amerithrax. Dr. Garvey previously worked for the FBI and CIA. Do you not know what Dr. Garvey did for the FBI and CIA? For you to dismiss his thesis as a "college thesis" indicates that you hadn't read it.We needn’t be interested in his opinion to want to be current in publications about the microbiological forensics of Amerithrax — and share them. Whenever I point out a new publication, you act as if it is something to be debated rather than something to be read. I mean only to inform you — I have no interest in debating you. You think a First Grader wrote the Fall 2001 anthrax letters!----------------------------Note that DXer clearly does not understand what constitutes evidence. In the first paragraph he argues that he believes that things that were apparently NOT tested MIGHT be evidence if further investigating and testing is done. He has no evidence, he just has an OPINION that there could be some evidence somewhere to support his beliefs and opinions. And he wants the FBI to hunt for it.Then he twists things to create a bogus argument that I said something about "Dr. Michael Garvey’s qualifications to testify as an expert witness." Total nonsense. I never said any such thing. I'll be glad to say it, however, if DXer thinks he can dream up some logical reason why Dr. Garvey would be called as an "expert witness" in a trial of Bruce Ivins.All DXer does in his post is show once again that he has no interest in facts and evidence. If he does not believe it, then he doesn't consider it to be either a fact or evidence.Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just dumped FOUR emails filled with gibberish into my inbox. --------------- 1 ----------Subject: Ed, can you link Dr. Garvey's important contribution? Thanks.Body: Ed, a few items:1. Can you link this? Thanks.Microbial Forensics and U.S. National Security: Science and StrategyGarvey, MichaelURI: http://hdl.handle.net/1920/8957Date: 2014-08http://digilib.gmu.edu/dspace/handle/1920/89572. Also, can you quote the instruction from the Al Qaeda chapter on Poisonous Letters about using the pharmaceutical fold?3. Finally, as to the place of mailing, I told you where Al-Hindi and El-Shukrijumah stayed while casing the NYC and DC targets in 2001, right?------------------------------------ 2 ----------------Subject: Ed, why do you think that in mimicking what they feared Al Qaeda would do, the powder was put in the middle of a pharmaceutical fold?Body: Ed, why do you think that in mimicking what they feared Al Qaeda would do, the powder was put in the middle of a pharmaceutical fold? See September 10, 2001 once-classified report titled “Risk Assessment of Anthrax Threat Letters”.The letter was prepared by putting BG spores in the center of a sheet of paper, folding it over into thirds, placing the folded sheet into the envelope ...."Is it that you haven't read the Al Qaeda Chapter on "Poisonous Letters"? Instead of relying on the fact of what it said, have you just made an assumption and refused to correct your mistake regardless of it being pointed out countless times?Link documents. That's the purpose you serve. And correct your errors -- you proliferate new ones daily.---------------------------------------------- 3 -----------------Subject; "Poisonous Letter" chapterBody: I've discussed the chapter and for well over a decade. For example, in November 2002, it was cited and linked in "Al Qaeda, Anthrax and Ayman: means, opportunities, motive, and modus operandi" in the heavily trafficked Cryptome."Sending poisonous letter bombs is part of Al Qaeda's modus operandi in that the Al Qaeda operations manual, the most recent version on CD-ROM, had a chapter on "Poisonous Letter." (69) As with the insertion of biologicals into food, the key is mass panic, not mass casualty."You appear not to have read the chapter on "Poisonous Letter" -- being highiy uninterested in the documentary evidence.http://cryptome.org/alqaeda-anthrax.htm ------------------------------------------------- 4 ------------------Subject: "Ed, don't ALL of the manuals -- that discuss mailing -- instruct that a pharmaceutical fold be used?Body: an image that I have no way to reproduce here.--------------------------------Key questions and my responses:DXer: "I told you where Al-Hindi and El-Shukrijumah stayed while casing the NYC and DC targets in 2001, right?"Did he? Why would I remember? Why can't DXer just EXPLAIN instead of fantasizing that every word he writes is memorable and should be remembered by everyone?DXer: "Is it that you haven't read the Al Qaeda Chapter on "Poisonous Letters"?"Why should I read such things? I'm interested in the anthrax attacks of 2001, and al Qaeda had nothing to do with that. If you BELIEVE they did, then it's your job to EXPLAIN things. Just arguing that I don't read what you read is meaningless and a waste of time.DXer: You appear not to have read the chapter on "Poisonous Letter" -- being highiy uninterested in the documentary evidence.Same answer as previous.DXer: Ed, don't ALL of the manuals -- that discuss mailing -- instruct that a pharmaceutical fold be used?Same answer as previous.Ed
DXer,If all you are going to do is argue that I don't read the same things you do, I'm not going to include the contents of such posts in future comments here. I'll just say that you once again complained that I don't read the irrelevant material you read.Also, I changed my Sunday comment, replacing the mention of the pharmaceutical fold with the fact that the letters also included MEDICAL ADVICE. It's a much better indicator that the mailer did not intend to harm anyone than the way he folded the letters. Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") attempted two more posts to this blog this afternoon. In one of them, he quoted from Dr. Garvey's thesis and then quibbled over whether a statement was true or not - distorting what was actually written.The post was pointless and without any value here, so I deleted it.The other said only:-------------------Ed, Adnan El-Shukrijumah's mom says he only wanted to cause "alarm." Do you think you know Adnan better than his mom?-------------------That shows how DXer thinks. He seems to have forgotten that he believes Mohamed Atta wrote the anthrax letters, and that el-Shukrijumah's role was just to take the letters to the mailbox. And who would believe what a mother says about her terrorist son? Only DXer -- when it suits his purposes. Ed
I just noticed this on page 94 of Dr. Garvey's thesis:" this author does not believe that the material recovered from OCONUS [Outside the CONtinental United States] missions was related to the 2001 anthrax attacks.So, all DXer is doing is arguing that because Dr. Garvey thinks that more work needs to be done to fully establish microbial forensics as an accepted scientific discipline, that somehow means the investigation was faulty. Dr. Garvey clearly does NOT support DXer's theory that the attack anthrax was made in some OCONUS (i.e. Afghan) lab. Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") sent me two more meaningless emails overnight. The subject of the first email was: Ed, Adnan El-Shukrijumah was trained using the manual at a camp in Afghanistan; the DOJ regularly uses such manuals as evidence in trialHas anyone disputed this? What is DXer's point? He won't explain.The text of the email was as follows:------------------------Ed, Adnan El-Shukrijumah was trained using the manual at a camp in Afghanistan; the DOJ regularly uses such manuals as evidence in trial.http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/audio_video/programmes/panorama/transcripts/transcript_28_10_01.txt12 October 2001Vice President DICK CHENEYWe know that he has, over the years, tried to acquire weapons of mass destruction, both biological and chemical weapons. We know that he's trained people at his camps in Afghanistan for example with copies of the manuals that they've actually used to train people with respect to how to deploy and use these kinds of substances. The fact that you did not bother to read the Chapter on Poisonous Letter to see that it included instruction on using a pharmaceutical fold illustrates that you rely on your assumptions, not on evidence of facts.http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/legacy/2002/10/08/manualpart1_1.pdfI have regularly pointed this out to you but you never corrected your "Al Qaeda theory."---------------------------It's just meaningless blather. I've corrected my web page about "The illogical al Qaeda Theory" TWICE in the past week. And who disputes the claim that al Qaeda was interested in poisonous letters? I don't. The dispute is over who sent the anthrax letters. The FACTS and EVIDENCE say Bruce Ivins sent the anthrax letters. Irrelevant material from some training manual won't change that. The subject of DXer's second email was: the Al Qaeda manuals used in training El-Shukrijumah (including the chapter on Poisonous Letters) are evidence of AQ's modus operandi, rather than your unsupported assertionsWhat "unsupported assertions"? The dispute isn't over "AQ's modus operandi." It's over DXer's screwball interpretations and beliefs.The entire text of the second email was as follows:------------------------The Chapter was always publicly available to you but you never bothered to read it.------------------------What reason is there for me to read irrelevant information? I've got better things to do. DXer is mindlessly OBSESSED with al Qaeda and evidently believes everyone else should be, too. He wants everyone to read what he reads. He evidently cannot understand that the rest of us are not OBSESSED with al Qaeda the way he is. The second email also contained a meaningless screen shot of some court exhibit. DXer's posts continue to be just a waste of time.Ed
Here's part of another attempted post of ridiculous gibberish from "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous"):-----------------------------------------Ed, what country do you think KSM was instructing Jafar the Pilot (through the 911 co-planner Ramzi Bin Al Shibh) to prepare to travel that required smuggling himself from Mexico? The letter was seized in September 2002.Did you notice the date of the letter or are you ignoring documents relating to Shukrijumah's travel to the United States?Are you just repeating your claim he didn't travel to the US rather than examine the facts? -----------------------------I made NO CLAIM that Shukrijumah or anyone else "didn't travel to the US." All I asked for was some MEANINGFUL FACTS or EVIDENCE to support DXer's UNSUPPORTED BELIEFS. DXer just provides meaningless gibberish and vague references that prove nothing. DXer has NO MEANINGFUL EVIDENCE that Shukrijumah was in the USA when the anthrax letters were mailed, much less that he mailed them.Questions are not evidence.Comments about vague plans are not evidence.Letters about vague plans are not evidence.DXer just continues to waste my time by twisting what I have said and by making bogus claims for which he has NO MEANINGFUL EVIDENCE.Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just attempted another post to this blog. It contains some slimy personal attacks, so I'm just going to delete it -- except for quoting a few sentences:QUOTE: "Ed all this time has pretended that Adnan El-Shukrijumah did not exist."That's a flat-out LIE. I never did any such thing. I just don't pay much attention to DXer's blather, since he has no meaningful evidence to support his beliefs.QUOTE: "Ed has remained willfully ignorant about Shukrijumah and has never been able to address the merits."Totally false. I've addressed the LACK of "merits" in DXer's theory repeatedly. HIS AL QAEDA THEORY HAS NO "MERITS."QUOTE: "He refuses to correct his webpage about "Other Theories" where he continues to pretend that Shukrijumah did not exist, was not Atta's associate, did not travel to the US, etc.The web page about "other theories" was created in 2002 before I ever heard of Shukrijumah. Since DXer cannot provide any meaningful evidence that Shukrijumah had anything to do with the anthrax attacks, I see no reason to change that page. I ask for evidence that Shukrijumah was in New Jersey in September and October to mail the anthrax letters, and DXer provides some blather about Shukrijumah POSSIBLY going to MEXICO at some time. He just endlessly demonstrates that he has no meaningful evidence to support his theory, while at the same time complaining that I don't describe the "merits" of a theory that HAS NO MERITS.Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") attempted another post overnight. It's just same-old same-old. So, I'll just show the most ridiculous parts.DXer wrote: "Ed, the FBI's announcement was that Shukrijumah had gone to the UNITED STATES -- having smuggled himself through Mexico."Since DXer doesn't give details, I'll just assume he's talking about an "announcement" made in 2003 which said NOTHING about when Shukrijumah actually entered the U.S. In fact, according to one source who tries to keep track of Shukrijumah:"Adnan G. El Shukrijumah, a key al Qaeda cell leader for whom the U.S. government has offered a $5 million reward, was spotted in July  in Honduras meeting with leaders of El Salvador’s notorious Mara Salvatrucha gang, which immigration officials said has smuggled hundreds of Central and South Americans mostly gang members into the United States."Another source HERE says:"An Al Qaeda terrorist on the FBI’s most wanted list for years crossed back and forth into the United States from Mexico to meet fellow militant Islamists in Texas and piloted an aircraft into the Cielo Dorado airfield in Anthony, New Mexico, law enforcement sources tell Judicial Watch."So, if that source is to be believed, Shukrijumah didn't "enter" the U.S. to mail the anthrax letters, he entered and left again, meeting with people in Texas.Another source HERE says,"The possible entry from Belize into Mexico's Quintana Roo state, south of Cancún, of a Middle Eastern migrant named Adnam Gushair Shukrijumah. His name reportedly matches one on a U.S. law enforcement watch list, Mexican officials said. Published reports in Mexico said the nation's law enforcement agencies have been warned by U.S. authorities that Mr. Shukrijumah previously had been tracked in Honduras and Panama.• Flight plans in December by two men – listed by Mexican authorities as Ali M. Safia and Can Azif – whose names also scored hits on U.S. watch lists. The pair arrived in Mexico in the winter of 2003 on one-way tickets from Europe, Mexican officials said. While in Europe they also had purchased one-way tickets for a flight from the western Mexican city of Culiacán to Los Angeles. The pair failed to show for the flight and have not been seen since.So, DXer needs to explain how Shukrijumah could have entered the U.S. via Mexico to mail the anthrax letters in 2001 when he didn't enter Mexico until the winter of 2003.Probably the most ridiculous part of DXer's attempted post was this:---------------------The quote you recite applies to YOU."When objective evidence disproves strongly held beliefs,what occurs, according to the theorists of 'cognitive dissonance'is not rejection of the beliefs but rigidifying, accompanied byattempts to rationalize the disproof.-------------------------------I'm attempting to get DXer to show EVIDENCE to support his rigid beliefs, and he cannot provide any such evidence. Yet DXer says I'm the one who won't accept "objective evidence"!!! When has DXer ever provided "objective evidence" about ANYTHING? All he does is state is BELIEFS.Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous" just attempted another post to this blog. As always, it's same-old same-old. This latest attempt begins with this:---------------------Ed, I've repeatedly cited the early 2003 BOLO in which the FBI explained that Jafar the Pilot entered sometime after September 1, 2001. But you only selectively let things through. You obviously haven't read the Senate Torture Report, the CIA rebuttal or the Republican position about Adnan El-Shukrijumah. Instead, your webpage discussion -- which was wrong at the tme you wrote it in May 2004 -- remains uncorrected.------------------------Yes, and I've repeatedly told DXer that 2003 IS "sometime after September 1, 2001." He needs to get more specific instead of citing a nearly UNLIMITED time frame.I've read parts of the documents he names, but they say nothing of value about the anthrax attacks of 2001. If DXer BELIEVES that they do, he needs to QUOTE, LINK AND EXPLAIN. Instead, he just claims there's something of value in a bunch of documents, and then he says you didn't read things carefully enough if you can't find anything of value in the documents. It's a GAME he plays to avoid EXPLAINING anything.If he believes I made an error on a web page, he needs to EXPLAIN what the error is and PROVE it is an error. All he does is make bogus claims. I criticized the wording in a NYT article, and DXer deliberately twists things to argue about something totally different.DXER NEEDS TO EXPLAIN. If he cannot explain, then he needs to ADMIT that he cannot explain anything, otherwise the assumption will be that he just does not UNDERSTAND anything well enough to explain it. Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonoymous") just attempted another post. Same-old same-old. He says he has explained things somewhere on Lew's site and expects me to hunt for it. If I can't find it, he'll just say I didn't look hard enough or don't recognize his kind of evidence when I see it.DXer also wrote: "You said Atta had no accomplices"Another BOGUS claim from DXer. I said NO SUCH THING and he probably KNOWS it, since he doesn't EXPLAIN or QUOTE me. In my previous post I explained why DXer constantly gets it wrong on that subject. The New York Times said: "If the hijackers did have anthrax, they would probably have needed an accomplice to mail the tainted letters ...." DUH! I wrote about how stupid that sentence was, since all the hijackers were DEAD at the time of the mailings. OF COURSE, they would have needed an accomplice. And DXer somehow twists this to claim I said the hijackers HAD no accomplices. I never said nor implied any such thing.DXer just endlessly demonstrates that he doesn't understand anything, and that's why he cannot explain anything.Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a "Anonymous") just attempted another post with another TOTALLY BOGUS CLAIM: "Ed's argument for a decade has been that if Atta had an accomplice the FBI would have been talking about him."I never made such a claim or argued any such thing. Now DXer is just making things up as he goes along, probably because he has nothing of any real substance to say.Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") attempted another silly, worthless post to this blog this afternoon. To illustrate my point, here it is in it's entirety:------------------------------------------ For over a decade, Ed has argued:"So, what do we know about this "accomplice" other than that he has apparently never been seen in any photograph and that he has never been associated with the dead al Qaeda members?If the fact that they were all dead is viewed as "proof" that there must have been an unidentified associate, then we are in the area where anything can be proven by the lack of evidence. In this area, the less evidence there is, the more "proof" there is that there is a cover-up or a conspiracy to hide the evidence or laziness on the part of government agents for failing to look in the right places for evidence."Indeed, as has been repeatedly pointed out to Ed for over a decade, there WAS an unidentified associate. And there is a federal lawsuit pending alleging that the evidence about El-Shukrijumah's association with Atta has been covered-up due to either laziness on the part of government agents or failing to look in the right places for evidence -- or a cover-up by people who wanted to hide the connection to an advisor of a Saudi prince.Anyone who read about the identification of Atta and El-Shukrujumah in the Congressional report knew this over a decade ago but Ed has refused to correct his webpage no matter how many times it was pointed out to him. He hasn't even dared to mention the names of people like Rauf Ahmad or Adnan El-Shukrijumah.Go ahead: look to see the date that Ed first named Shukrijumah and what he said about him!------------------------------------DXer just endlessly argues NONSENSE. The quote (which I changed to bold type) is from my web page HERE.There's nothing wrong with what I wrote (except for a typo that I'll correct). DXer just argues that, because he BELIEVES Mohamed Atta had an "accomplice" who mailed the anthrax letters, I should change my web page. That is just plain ABSURD. He says it's a "mistake" that needs to be corrected. Another ABSURDITY.Disagreeing with DXer is NOT a "mistake." It's common sense and usually required if one wants to avoid mistakes.DXer has NO MEANINGFUL EVIDENCE that Shukrijumah was anywhere near New Jersey at the time of the mailings, and he has NO MEANINGFUL evidence that Shukrijumah had anything to do with the anthrax mailings.All he's doing is rephrasing what the cartoon character says at the top of this thread: "What I believe is evidence is all I care about." He believes some information he has read somewhere is "evidence" that Shukrijumah was involved with the anthrax attacks, and he wants everyone to believe as he believes. And, if we don't, then we are making a "mistake." He cannot explain his case; he has no meaningful evidence to present; he just wants people to ACCEPT his beliefs. DXer is being ABSURD. To believe him would be beyond absurd, it would be SILLY.If he wants people to believe him, he needs to EXPLAIN his case and present evidence. Otherwise, he'll just be continued to be ignored as some silly Truther who has a theory which he cannot explain and cannot prove. Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just attempted another totally silly post to this blog. Here it is in its entirety:-------------------------------------No, Ed, it's YOU who has NO MEANINGFUL EVIDENCE that Bruce Ivins was anywhere near New Jersey at the time of the mailings. Shukrijumah had just come from meeting with Al Qaeda anthrax lab director Yazid Sufaat at a meeting at KSM's house in Kandahar. Ivins, in contrast, was home asleep in a small house with 3 adults. The FBI thought he had travelled that afternoon but then after his death learned he was at his regularly scheduled group sessions for his addiction. Sufaat was on a mission to use bioweapons against US targets whereas Ivins was on a mission to go to sleep because he had an early morning. Adnan had stayed in New Jersey casing the NYC and DC targets -- in contrast, someone in Ivins house had called the college board in New Jersey about the upcoming SAT.-------------------------------------DXer needs to look at a map. Frederick, Maryland, is thousands of miles closer to New Jersey than Mexico or Afghanistan where Shukrijumah may have been at the time of the mailings. The FBI's evidence says Ivins acted alone and that he had no alibi for the times of the mailings. Driving long distances to commit crimes was part of his modus operandi. He told the FBI he committed his previous night-time crimes without anyone in his home knowing what he was doing. He had connections to the crime scene. He threw away the code books he used to put the coded message in the media letters. Those and many many other FACTS showing Ivins' guilt PROVE that Ivins MUST have driven to New Jersey to mail the letters.Arguing that some FBI agent misspoke doesn't change what the evidence says. Ed
Okay, here's where I can come in as a middleman/adjudicator:1) DXer is right: there's no evidence Ivins made either trip to Jersey, no evidence he was in Jersey in the entire calendar year of 2001.2) Lake is right: there's no evidence that Shukrijumah was in New Jersey, or, for that matter, in the US in September-October of 2001.That doesn't exclude the possibility that such trips were made WITHOUT LEAVING ANY SIGN WHATSOEVER, but as to a 'skein of evidence', it simply does not exist for the trips for either suspect: the trips are merely being INFERRED: the 1) Ivins trips by Lake, and 2) the Shukrijumah trips by DXer.You may yet persuade people of your suspect's guilt by OTHER skeins of evidence, but not via a non-existent skein pointing to (merely putative) trips, trips which may never have been made.
R. Rowley wrote: "the trips are merely being INFERRED: the 1) Ivins trips by Lake, and 2) the Shukrijumah trips by DXer."True. The trips to New Jersey made by Dr. Ivins are "inferred" or logically deduced. That is how circumstantial evidence works. But no trip by Shukrijumah to New Jersey at the time of the mailings can be inferred by the available evidence. The evidence infers just the the OPPOSITE, that Shukrijumah was nowhere near New Jersey at the time of the mailings. DXer isn't "inferring" such nonsense, he is CLAIMING it without evidence.R. Rowley also wrote: "You may yet persuade people of your suspect's guilt by OTHER skeins of evidence, but not via a non-existent skein pointing to (merely putative) trips, trips which may never have been made."It's the "OTHER skeins of evidence" which "infer" that Ivins made the trips to New Jersey. No one has argued that Ivins' trips to New Jersey are evidence of his guilt.DXer, on the other hand, IS arguing that evidence that Shurkijumah MAY have been somewhere in the Western Hemisphere at some time after 9/11 is meaningful evidence that Shukrijumah was in New Jersey to mail the anthrax letters. It is NOT meaningful evidence of any kind related to the anthrax mailings.Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") sent me another silly email overnight. The subject was: "Ed, you are fundamentally confused about the facts relating to the records kept (not kept) relating to the distribution of the Ames strain ; your confusion is illustrated by your failure to upload this email."DXer is not talking about the email he sent me overnight, but about an email that Dr. Ivins sent on April 14, 2004. The body of DXer's email consisted of an image of Ivins' 2004 email. I have no way to reproduce that image here. The software for this blog doesn't allow images to be included in comments.So, DXer forced me to find the email on USAMRIID's web site. It's on page 31 in batch 55 of Ivins' emails, which can be accessed by clicking HERE. The key phrase that Ivins wrote which DXer probably mistakenly believes has some significance is as follows: " Prior to 2002 or 2001, I personally didn't keep any records of where the Ames strain went." The email is part of an exchange where Ivins says he has been asked to tell FBI investigators where the Ames strain was distributed WITHIN USAMRIID. And he says he didn't keep any such records. Note this is NOT about flask RMR-1029. It is about the Ames strain. There were HUNDREDS of samples of the Ames strain scattered around in labs at USAMRIID. They all needed to become part of the FBI's repository (FBIR). As usual, DXer doesn't explain what he is trying to imply. He just sends a cryptic email and says I'm confused if I fail to upload his email. I reality, he's the one who seems confused, apparently thinking the email says something other than what it actually says.DXer's emails are an endless stream of nonsense, just like his posts.Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonyous") attempted two more posts to this blog overnight. The second was just a rephrasing of what was in the first email, plus some irrelevant information about DXer's own pranks done while in college. So, I won't reproduce that second attempted post here.Here's the entire content of his first attempted post: ------------------------------Ed, he said he travelled to steal that sorority book the quarter century before -- before the kids -- when his wife was out of town that weekend. You just got your facts wrong and have refused to correct yourself on the point.On the code book, it has been pointed out that the "T" in NEXT was not in fact doublelined. See expert opinion and an optometrist. You just got your facts wrong and have refused to correct yourself.---------------------------As usual, DXer twists things to create false arguments. Ivins modus operandi was to drive long distances at night to do things in secret, without his family knowing about it. Ivins was married in 1975, and his kids were adopted shortly afterward. Some of Ivins' KKG burglaries were in 1980 to 1984. He opened a post office box to harass Nancy Haigwood and her boyfriend, and he committed acts of vandalism against Haigwood in 1982. In 2000 he was using the same modus operandi when he drove long distances a night to secretly put stuff on Mara's porch. He did this without his family knowing about it. He was also telling his mental health counselor that he was thinking of poisoning a young woman (Mara).The mailings fitted perfectly with Ivins' MO.As for DXer's BELIEF that the T in "NEXT" was not doublelined, it can be conclusively shown that the T in "NEXT" WAS doublelined by simply comparing it to other T's in the letter. When that is done, it is perfectly clear which T's are doublelined and which are not. The T in "NEXT" is clearly doublelined.DXer just BELIEVES what he wants to believe, regardless of what the facts and evidence say. That is HIS modus operandi. Ed
While I was typing the post immediately above this one, "DXer" attempted anther silly, cryptic post to this blog. Here it is in its entirety:--------------------------Does Richard even know where El-Shukrijumah stayed in New Jersey when he cased in the NYC and DC targets in 2001? --------------------------I won't even attempt to try to figure out what DXer is trying to say in that attempted post, nor why he's asking me.Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") has successfully (but temporarily) changed the argument from being about the total lack of any meaningful evidence pointing to Shukrijumah being the anthrax mailer to some argument over wording regarding when Ivins committed various crimes at night prior to the anthrax attacks.Here is yet another attempted post by Dxer in its entirety:--------------------------------Ed has not corrected his false claim about Bruce travelling to commit crimes -- when he stole the sorority books. He explained that he did that in the late 1970s when his wife was away for the weekend or some other period of time. And that was before the kids. The night of the mailing, there were three adults in the small home with Ivins. Ed hides the fact that the sorority books when his wife was out of town because acknowledging the FACTS demolishes his assumptions.-----------------------------------------------I'm not going to argue minor details about the case against Ivins. No matter how you look at the FBI/DOJ's case against Bruce Ivins, it is INFINITELY better than the silly case - based almost entirely on his personal BELIEFS - that DXer tries to argue when he claims Shukrijumah was the anthrax mailer.Ed
From the bottom of page 31 of the Amerithrax Investigative Summary:"Dr. Ivins’s own statements to investigators precluded any possibility that his wife could have provided him an alibi. For example, on February 18, 2008, Dr. Ivins stated that his wife never knew where he was, nor did she ever question him about his nocturnal wanderings.Ed
Here is another silly attempted post from "DXer" in its entirety: ---------------------------Ed and Richard, is it that you don't know that Adnan in New Jersey in 2001 stayed with Al-Hindi's cousin Meeta? Did you not bother to look up where Meeta lived? -------------------------If DXer continues to play stupid games, I'm just going to ignore future attempted posts like the one above. If DXer has something to EXPLAIN, he should EXPLAIN instead of asking silly questions in a childish game to see if others are as obsessed with tracking al Qaeda as DXer is.I'll begin by just ignoring another attempted post with another question from DXer that showed up while I was typing this comment.Ed
FWIW, I just deleted another attempted post by DXer where he again tried to argue some insignificant detail about Bruce Ivins instead of providing evidence in support of his BELIEF that Shukrijumah was the anthrax mailer.Ed
Mr. Rowley attempted a post to this blog overnight that includes what might be considered to be a lengthy attack upon Dr. Steven Hatfill. Mr. Rowley wrote about having 15 points which show Hatfill is guilty - based upon Mr. Rowley's screwball beliefs about how he thinks I think circumstantial evidence works.I don't think it would be right to show Mr. Rowley's arguments about Dr. Hatfill, who the FACTS say is an innocent man (and Mr. Rowley apparently also thinks Hatfill is innocent). But, that doesn't mean I can't show the first part of Mr. Rowley's attempted post where he demonstrates ONCE AGAIN that he has no understanding of how circumstantial evidence works. Here is the first part of his attempted post:---------------------------Mr Lake talking about what I wrote:------------True. The trips to New Jersey made by Dr. Ivins are "inferred" or logically deduced. That is how circumstantial evidence works[...]===============================Wrong. An inference is an inference, evidence is evidence. If you went 100% by inference and then (mis)LABELED that inference/those inferences 'evidence', then we'd still be blaming HATFILL for Amerithrax: he ADMITTED in the summer of 2002 (as part of his public relations offensive) that he had no alibi for the nighttime hours on BOTH occasions when the mailing could have(/likely did) occur.-----------------------------------Who ever said anything about going "100% by inference" on anything? Is Mr. Rowley deliberately misreading things, or is he just incapable of understanding how circumstantial evidence works?Mr. Rowley's argument about Dr. Hatfill is about making a "100% inference" case, which only Mr. Rowley would attempt to do. It's absurd.It is NOT an inference that Dr. Ivins was in charge of flask RMR-1029.It is NOT an inference that Dr. Ivins was an expert on making anthrax spores.It is NOT an inference that Dr. Ivins had the means to make the attack spores.It is NOT an inference that Dr. Ivins had the opportunity to make the attack spores.It is NOT an inference that Dr. Ivins' criminal MO matched that of the mailer.It is NOT an inference that Dr. Ivins tried to mislead the Amerithrax investigators.It is NOT an inference that Dr. Ivins had no alibi for the times of the crimes.It is NOT an inference that Dr. Ivins had multiple motives for the crime.Etc., etc., etc., etc.It IS an inference that all the OTHER evidence against Ivins INFERS that he drove to New Jersey to mail the anthrax letters.That is TOTALLY acceptable in any court in America - as is the inference or logical conclusion that Dr. Ivins was the anthrax killer.Here is a simple circumstantial evidence case:1. Joe and Moe were seen going into a barn together.2. Joe came out of the barn alone.3. Moe was found dead in the barn, stabbed in the back.4. Joe had a motive to kill Moe.5. No one else could have entered the barn to stab Moe.6. Moe could NOT have stabbed himself in the backInference: Joe stabbed Moe.Mr. Rowley is arguing that unless there are home movies of Joe stabbing Moe, there is NO evidence that Joe did it.All the courts in America (and most other countries) would disagree and fully accept that there is enough EVIDENCE to infer or logically conclude that Joe killed Moe.Ed
Mr. Rowley attempted a post to this blog overnight that includes what might be considered to be a lengthy attack upon Dr. Steven Hatfill. Mr. Rowley wrote about having 15 points which show Hatfill is guilty - based upon Mr. Rowley's screwball beliefs about how he thinks I think circumstantial evidence works.============================================No, I said those were 15 points adduced by me pointing to Hatfill's possible guilt, something confirmed because YOU, Ed Lake, deleted them on this blog months ago, and your 'explanation' for the deletion was that those 15 points 'incriminated' an innocent man, Hatfill. They couldn't incriminate him if they weren't valid points. In the Lakeian way that the term is used, circumstantial evidence. I merely observed that Hatfill's admission in summer of 2002 that HE, Hatfill, had no alibi for the night mailing times (ie the same ones that Ivins had/has no alibi for) would constitute a 16th 'fact' or point or skein of evidence.You aren't following your own logic to its inexorable conclusion. Guess why?------------------------------------------------------------------"Joe and Moe were seen going into a barn together."----"Seen" is the past passive participle of "to see" and indicates an eye-witness or eye-witnesses. DIRECT evidence, NOT 'circumstantial evidence'. Your confusion of these categories never ceases.
R. Rowley wrote: "They couldn't incriminate him if they weren't valid points."They don't "incriminate" him. And I never used the word "incriminate," so you are distorting things again to make a false argument.Click HERE to read what I wrote.Posting those points would be unethical, morally wrong and unnecessary. It's JUST PLAIN WRONG to use a real person as an example to show how circumstantial evidence can indicate he could be guilty. It's not much different from sleazy innuendo. It could be construed as slander. YOU ARE POINTING AT AN INNOCENT MAN to make a point that can easily be made some better way - such as with a hypothetical person.R. Rowley also wrote: ""Seen" is the past passive participle of "to see" and indicates an eye-witness or eye-witnesses. DIRECT evidence, NOT 'circumstantial evidence'. Your confusion of these categories never ceases."It is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, since it proves nothing other than that Joe went into the barn. By itself, it proves NOTHING ABOUT JOE'S GUILT. Therefore it is NOT "direct evidence" of guilt.Your confusion of these categories never ceases.Evidence is ONLY "evidence" when it is provided IN SUPPORT OF A CLAIM.If the claim is that Joe is guilty of murder, the witness testimony is only CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence, because, by itself, it does not prove Joe to be guilty.If the claim is that Joe went into the barn, the witness testimony is DIRECT evidence that he went into the barn. By itself it says Joe went into the barn.There is no DIRECT evidence to support the claim that Ivins drove to New Jersey. There is just CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE that he did so. That CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE says Ivins was the anthrax killer. Therefore, it is also INDIRECT or CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE that Ivins MUST have driven to New Jersey.I think Mr. Rowley needs to understand what "evidence" means. Here is a definition of the word "EVIDENCE": The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.Another definition:"Everything that is brought into court in a trial in an attempt to prove or disprove alleged facts."Another:"Something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter." You need to know what the claim (or belief or proposition or matter) is before you can state what the evidence is (and what kind of evidence it is) in support of the claim or belief or proposition or matter.Ed
I was looking at the wrong post when posted a link to where I explained why I deleted Mr. Rowley's 15 points pointing to Dr. Hatfill. It was back in early June that I deleted those 15 points. Click HERE for my explanation(s) for the deletion.Just as I said, the word "incriminate" does not appear in that entire thread. Mr. Rowley was making things up.Also, in my previous post I wrote that those 15 points might be "construed as slander." Technically, those 15 points might be construed as libel, not slander.Lastly, it occurs to me that Mr. Rowley might dig out those 15 points and use them in a comment about a "hypothetical" person - who clearly must be Dr. Hatfill. If Mr. Rowley tries to play that kind of childish game, I will again delete his post.Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just attempted another post to this blog. Here it is in its entirety:------------------- "In a trial [the science] would be no more important than an anonymous tip."--- Ed Lake--------------------What I actually wrote in my Sunday comment was:One could argue that catching the criminal needed to be done first, and then they could have refined the science. It typically takes a year or two to get to trial in a murder case. There would have been nothing between arrest and trial preventing the FBI from continuing to refine the statistics about how often different types of mutations form in Bacillus anthracis cultures and under what conditions. There's absolutely NO reason to think it would have changed anything. The science - questionable as it may be - led to the killer. But, the scientific evidence was NOT needed to convict Ivins. In a trial it would be no more important than an anonymous tip. It's the evidence which shows the culprit to be guilty, not the tip or any scientific finding that pointed investigators in the right direction.So, once again, DXer just distorts what I wrote to create a bogus argument.However, I can see that I overstated the argument. So, I've modified that part of my Sunday comment to read as follows:One could argue that catching the criminal needed to be done first, and then they could have refined the science. It typically takes a year or two to get to trial in a murder case. There would have been nothing between arrest and trial preventing the FBI from continuing to refine the statistics about how often different types of mutations form in Bacillus anthracis cultures and under what conditions. There's absolutely NO reason to think it would have changed anything. The science - questionable as it may be - led to the killer. But, the scientific evidence was NOT needed to convict Ivins. In a trial it would be as important as finding who owned the murder weapon. It's a piece of circumstantial evidence which by itself means nothing, since others also had access to it. The science just pointed investigators in the right direction. It didn't identify Bruce Ivins as the only possible killer. I just needed someone to point out that I overstated the case. DXer did that. And I appreciate his help.Ed
I'm going to have to do some thinking about ranking the evidence against Ivins to see how important each piece of evidence would likely be to a jury.It might make for an interesting comment for my site later in the week.Personally, the item of evidence that convinced me was the code in the media letter and the fact that Ivins threw away the code books.But, I can see that Ivins' unexplained hours in his lab would more likely be at the top of the list for a jury.The fact that he "controlled the murder weapon" would be lower down on the list.Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous" apparently has nothing better to do than to argue things that have been shown to be wrong many times before. Here is his latest attempted post in its entirety:---------------------- With the "T" in NEXT not in fact double-lined, and thus the code crock (see expert's explanation), that explains well the mistake in your entire thinking. ----------------------The T in NEXT is double-lined as anyone with an open mind can see. Click HERE to see what anyone should be able to see, "expert" or not. Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") attempted another post. Here it is in its entirety:------------------Ed, the link you provide shows that the "X" is double-lined. As what anyone should be able to see, "expert" or not.-------------------------No, it doesn't. There's a stray mark on the X, but it is NOT double-lined. Double-lining means to trace over a line. That stray mark goes off at an angle and isn't double-lining in any way, shape or form. The writer made similar stray marks on the the E in the first DEATH and on the second A in AMERICA. It seems the writer let the pen drag a bit on the paper before lifting it to move on to the next character.The top of the T in NEXT, on the other hand, is CLEARLY significantly darker than any other line in the word. It's also significantly darker than the the tops of the T's in both DEATHs. That's because the T in NEXT was traced over, a.k.a. "double-lined."Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just attempted another post to this blog. Here it is in its entirety:------------------Ed, Rush Holt received classified briefings on the House Intelligence Committee about Al Qaeda and anthrax. He is not ignorant of the details of an Ivins Theory. To the contrary, he has closely followed the matter. Upon leaving Congress, he is becoming the chief executive officer of American Association for the Advancement of Science. You may recall him as the fellow who beat IBM's "Big Blue" computer at Jeopardy------------------------Nothing that DXer wrote indicates that Rush Holt is knowledgeable about the evidence against Bruce Ivins. In fact, Rep. Holt demonstrates his ignorance of the case every time he opens his mouth. Here's his latest nonsense as reported in The New York Times:"On Friday, Representative Rush D. Holt, a New Jersey Democrat and physicist who requested the study, said the report “confirms what I have often said — that the F.B.I.’s definitive conclusions about the accuracy of their scientific findings in the Amerithrax case are not, in fact, definitive. The United States needs a comprehensive, independent review of the Amerithrax investigation to ensure we have learned the lessons from this bio attack.” Rep. Holt is making stuff up! I challenge everyone to find where the FBI ever said anything about "definitive conclusions " regarding "the accuracy of their scientific findings."Besides, Rep. Holt does NOT say he believes that Ivins was innocent. He says he believes that Ivins did not act alone. In politico-speak, that seems to mean that he feels people at USAMRIID should be charged with a crime for allowing Ivins to do what he did. Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just sent me an email with some details of the Bill that Rush Holt proposed. However, as usual, DXer provided no explanation for why he sent the email. He just said this in the subject line of the email: "before looking to his letter to the GAO, let's consider the language of his bill."The Bill can be read by clicking HERE.The key point in the bill seems to be:"(4) ascertain the full range of individuals who could have had access to the type of anthrax used in the attacks, and determine the full extent to which all such individuals were thoroughly investigated for any potential involvement in the attacks"In other words, he wants to find out if anyone besides Ivins should have been charged.Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just demonstrated once again that he is incapable of explaining anything or holding any kind of intelligent conversation. He just sent me a meaningless email with the subject: "here is a source on Holt's GAO letter - how about we use Holt's words rather than yours describe his views? (you never correct your mistakes)"Why does he want me to read Rush Holt's exact words? DXer doesn't say. Is there something in Holt's letter that has some relevance here? DXer doesn't say. It's just meaningless blather of the type he endlessly posts to Lew's blog.Click HERE to view part of the letter Rush Holt sent to the GAO to initiate the review the GAO just completed.Ed
I've once again allowed "DXer" (A.k.a. "Anonymous") to get me into an opinion versus opinion argument over something minor and irrelevant.On Christmas, DXer attempted the following post:------------------------"Besides, Rep. Holt does NOT say he believes that Ivins was innocent. He says he believes that Ivins did not act alone."Ed Lake is lying. He refuses to correct this even though he knows it is not true. Rep. Holt has repeatedly said that he believes that the FBI would not be able to prevail against Dr. Ivins -- that he would hate to be the prosecutor trying to prove its claim against Dr. Ivins. Lake simply does not correct his mistakes. --------------------------------I was mistaken. It was not Rush Holt who said he doesn't believe Ivins acted alone. It was Senator Patrick Leahy. Click HERE for a FOX news story about it. "If he is the one who sent the letter, I do not believe in any way, shape or manner that he is the only person involved in this attack on Congress and the American people. I do not believe that at all," Leahy said.He added: "I believe there are others involved, either as accessories before or accessories after the fact. I believe that there are others out there, I believe there are others who could be charged with murder. I just want you to know how I feel about it, as one of the people who was aimed at in the attack."Rep. Holt, on the other hand, just displays ignorance about how the legal system works. Example from HERE:The skeptical Holt, however, balks at signing off on the official conclusion to the investigation. There were no fingerprints, no witness accounts, no physical evidence linking Ivins to the incident, says Holt. The case against him was “entirely circumstantial,” and the FBI director personally acknowledged as much to him, the congressman says. The FBI “arbitrarily” closed the case based on evidence that “would not, I think, stand up in court,” he adds. That's the same kind of ignorant argument about circumstantial evidence that Mr. Rowley uses.According to another article HERE, “I think this just adds a little more circumstantial evidence that Ivins was the culprit,” Holt said in a telephone interview yesterday. “I don’t think it cinches the case.” ...“If I hadn’t personally witnessed the FBI make so many false steps and jump to so many conclusions I’d be more wiling to believe them,” he said. “I watched as they hunted and harassed Hatfill for years only to decide that he had nothing to do with it. They jumped to a conclusion there, what’s to prevent them from jumping to a conclusion with regard to Ivins?”That is not only an ignorant argument, it is a STUPID argument.But, the key point is: THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE SAY THAT BRUCE IVINS WAS THE ANTHRAX KILLER. It doesn't make one iota of difference what some politician BELIEVES or what his IGNORANT OPINION is.I'm going to make every effort to ignore all future arguments over opinions. It's a pointless waste of time. Only a discussion of FACTS AND EVIDENCE can solve anything.Ed
It is also important to note that direct evidence such as eyewitness identification and confessions given by suspects are fraught with potential problems as demonstrated by the investigations into 300-plus exonerations of wrongfully convicted individuals by the Innocence Project. The leading cause of wrongful convictions, especially in sexual assault cases is eyewitness misidentification, a prime example of direct evidence. Eyewitness identification has proven to be unreliable in approximately 75% of the 300 DNA exonerations, yet remains very persuasive as direct evidence for judges and juries. False confessions given by defendants, and incriminating statements made by jailhouse snitches and others have been found to occur in approximately 25% of all the DNA exoneration cases to date. Once jurors hear this type of direct testimony, it is nearly impossible to un-ring that bell.Click HERE for the source.QUESTION: Is circumstantial evidence enough for conviction?8% Say Yes92% Say NoOnly 11 people answered the question. The one person who disagreed with the other ten says,Most trials are based on CE [Circumstantial Evidence].Most criminal cases that go to trial are based on circumstantial evidence. If there is direct evidence like video they don't go to trial. Those cases are usually plea bargained. Cases that actually go to trial are almost always based on circumstantial evidence. It's difficult for the defense to get around a video that shows the defendant robbing the 7-11. Click HERE for the source.The one person who said yes is looking at the FACTS. The other ten are just voicing IGNORANT OPINIONS.Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") continues to twist and distort things to make them fit his beliefs. He just attempted another post to this blog. Here is what he wrote in its entirety:--------------------------Ed, it's important to get your facts right -- you shouldn't misrepresent Senator Leahy's views. What he said is a FACT. Let's look at what Senator Leahy years after your quote.Senator Patrick Leahy has never accepted the FBI’s decision to close the case in the series of anthrax-laced letters mailed to public officials in fall 2001. ”I still wonder who sent it and why they sent it.”In a brief interview Tuesday, he said he has “extreme doubts” about the case. “I’ve expressed those concerns to the FBI , and this report (the NAS report) adds to those concerns,” Leahy said.Source: Paul Kane, Washington Post (2/16/11).Not only do you not correct your factual assertions, but regularly proliferate new ones.--------------------------DXer does NOT provide a link to the article, of course. But he provided enough information for me to find it HERE.What DXer wrote is distortion of what was actually written in the article. Here is a DIRECT QUOTE from the article:To Leahy and others on Capitol Hill, a key issue is whether other scientists helped Ivins or handled the anthrax itself. The council's report, commissioned by the FBI, "did not definitively" demonstrate a link between the anthrax used in the deadly letters and that in a flask in Ivins's lab at the Army base in Maryland. It also questioned whether Ivins, as the FBI has alleged, was the only scientist at the base with the expertise to handle those anthrax spores.That left a sense of bewilderment among current and former officials on Capitol Hill."It is mystifying. Given the limited number of people who have experience with anthrax, you just wouldn't think it would be this hard," said another official who had been briefed on the Amerithrax investigation. The official requested anonymity to discuss a sensitive probe.Last month, Leahy said there was no question that others were involved in the anthrax attack, at least in helping Ivins hide his work from authorities."Were there people who at the very least were accessories after the fact? I think there were," he said. Leahy also finds it strange that one person would target such an odd collection of media and political figures in the anthrax letters, a motive that has never been fully explained by the FBI or Justice Department.DXer just endlessly twists and distorts things and than claims I am the one who is making a "mistake."Ed
MODEL (I.E. STANDARD EXAMPLE OF) JURY INSTRUCTIONS:--------------------------------------1.5 DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCEEvidence may be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is direct proof of a fact, such as testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did. Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence, that is, it is proof of one or more facts from which one can find another fact.You are to consider both direct and circumstantial evidence. Either can be used to prove any fact. The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence. It is for you to decide how much weight to give to any evidence.Comment"It is the exclusive function of the jury to weigh the credibility of witnesses, resolve evidentiary conflicts and draw reasonable inferences from proven facts. . . . Circumstantial and testimonial evidence are indistinguishable insofar as the jury fact-finding function is concerned, and circumstantial evidence can be used to prove any fact." United States v. Ramirez-Rodriquez, 552 F.2d 883, 884 (9th Cir. 1977) (quoting United States v. Nelson, 419 F.2d 1237, 1239-41 (9th Cir. 1969)). See also United States v. Kelly, 527 F.2d 961, 965 (9th Cir. 1976); and Payne v. Borg, 982 F.2d 335, 339 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing United States v. Stauffer, 922 F.2d 508, 514 (9th Cir.1990)).* * *It may be helpful to include an illustrative example in the instruction:By way of example, if you wake up in the morning and see that the sidewalk is wet, you may find from that fact that it rained during the night. However, other evidence, such as a turned-on garden hose, may provide an explanation for the water on the sidewalk. Therefore, before you decide that a fact has been proved by circumstantial evidence, you must consider all the evidence in the light of reason, experience, and common sense.--------------------------------From the 9th District Court. Click HERE for the source.Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") attempted another post to this blog last night. Here it is in its entirety:---------------------"Ed, it's not the 9th District Court. Please correct your post. Thx."---------------------Of course, he didn't explain what the proper terminology is. So, I probably should have written "United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit" or just "Ninth Circuit Court."Either way, it shows how DXer cannot explain anything - even on the extremely rare occasion when he's right. He'd rather just argue over minor details.Ed
"Dxer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous" just demonstrated once again how he does not understand evidence, and how he just believes what he wants to believe. Here is his latest attempted post in its entirety:------------------There was never any evidence, direct or circumstantial, that supported your theory a First Grader wrote the Fall 2001 anthrax letters. With 0% subscribing to the theory, you should have given up long ago, Ed.---------------------I list evidence and he says there is no evidence. Instead he argues about people's opinions. He cannot explain anything, he just argues mindlessly.That's a perfect example of why his posts are just a waste of time.Ed
I guess Mister Lake has to do in his last Sunday comment what he's been doing all along: misinforming the reader as to the situation: (Lake quotation)"Looking for new ways to explain the subject to Anthrax Truthers who simply cannot believe that circumstantial evidence would ever be allowed in any court[...]"------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I have never written in any context in this lifetime that "circumstantial evidence would [n]ever be allowed in any court..." and Mister Lake has never quoted me (even misquoted me!) to that effect here or in any other venue. DXer, who went to law school and became a lawyer, would certainly NEVER write in a denigrating way about 'circumstantial evidence' in any across-the board manner. Mister Lake shows, to the very end, that he doesn't understand arguments made time and again over years, in multiple venues. The evidence he touts against Ivins either is immaterial or it has only the most tenuous relationship with the details of the crimes of Amerithrax and/or Ivins' life, work etc. It's weak (in the extreme!) not because it's 'circumstantial' but because it has so little to do with the probability ofguilt (Ivins' guilt but really ANYONE'S guilt, for the principle is the same, whether suspect X is Ivins or Hatfill or whoever). And some of the most important evidence was hidden for years: professional handwriting examinations; Ivins' notebooks etc. BOTH of which are 'circumstantial' and are nevertheless highly indicative of probability of guilt. These items were hidden by the Task Force/DoJ, not by any 'truther'. The reader can figure out why.http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/immaterial
Mr. Rowley wrote: "I have never written in any context in this lifetime that "circumstantial evidence would [n]ever be allowed in any court..." and Mister Lake has never quoted me (even misquoted me!) to that effect here or in any other venue."Right. So why bring it up?Mr. Rowley also wrote: "DXer, who went to law school and became a lawyer, would certainly NEVER write in a denigrating way about 'circumstantial evidence' in any across-the board manner."DXer repeatedly says there is "no evidence" against Dr. Ivins. In reality, there's a MOUNTAIN of evidence against Dr. Ivins. Why do DXer and Mr. Rowley ignore the MOUNTAIN of evidence if it isn't because it's circumstantial evidence? Mr. Rowley also wrote: "The evidence he touts against Ivins either is immaterial or it has only the most tenuous relationship with the details of the crimes of Amerithrax and/or Ivins' life, work etc."In reality, of course, it is totally valid circumstantial evidence Mr. Rowley just BELIEVES such CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE would never be allowed in any court.Instead, he argues that things he IMAGINES to be "evidence" are "circumstantial evidence." Example:"And some of the most important evidence was hidden for years: professional handwriting examinations; Ivins' notebooks etc.BOTH of which are 'circumstantial' and are nevertheless highly indicative of probability of guilt."Mr. Rowley only IMAGINES the notebooks contain "evidence." Mr. Rowley only IMAGINES that the handwriting findings would be "evidence" of some kind.What Mr. Rowley does in his post is PROVE what I wrote: "Anthrax Truthers ... simply cannot believe that circumstantial evidence would ever be allowed in any court." He says it's "immaterial" or too "tenuous." He evidently cannot comprehend that a very strong hangman's noose can be woven by stringing together many very tenuous threads. Ed
"And some of the most important evidence was hidden for years: professional handwriting examinations; Ivins' notebooks etc.BOTH of which are 'circumstantial' and are nevertheless highly indicative of probability of guilt."Mr. Rowley only IMAGINES the notebooks contain "evidence."==========================================If the notebook is empty for the dates in question, then it is incriminatory evidence, for it buttresses the Task Force/DoJ claim that the nighttime hours were "unexplained". That's just logic 101. Logic 102 is realizing that there's a reason that they never gave the info to Ivins when he was alive, and why they never released it after his death. That reason is.....oh, the readers can figure that out for themselves!
R. Rowley wrote: "If the notebook is empty for the dates in question, then it is incriminatory evidence,..... That's just logic 101."NO, it's just more of Mr. Rowley nonsensical beliefs and "illogical logic." There are copies of Dr. Ivins' notebooks available on the USAMRIID site. Just click HERE. Then click on "Lab Notebooks" and a list of notebooks will appear at the bottom.Click HERE, for example, and you can read lab notebook #4383.The notebooks are nothing like Mr. Rowley's fantasies. They just consist of notes and clippings, usually with a hand-written date at the bottom. Like DXer, Mr. Rowley fantasizes that if Ivins did any work at all on a given day, then it MUST be an explanation for the unexplained hours. That is just a FANTASY. If Ivins did lab work during his normal daytime hours and made notes about it, those notes in NO WAY explain anything about his "unexplained" nighttime hours.Notes made during normal work says without a specific time mean NOTHING. Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") attempted another post to this blog overnight. It began with this:----------------------Richard, note that while he grossly misrepresented your statements, he will fail to correct himself. He simply refuses to correct his mistakes and tends to proliferate a new one every time he posts.----------------------DXer, once again, of course, does not EXPLAIN what "mistakes" he fantasizes I made.The rest of his post is about the Chemistry World article that was reprinted in Scientific American. DXer provides this quote from the article: The scientific evidence that the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) relied upon to investigate the October 2001 anthrax attacks – and ultimately identify the culprit after his suicide – was deeply flawed, according to a new report from the congressional Government Accountability Office (GAO). DXer, of course, fails to quote this part of that same article:The FBI issued a response saying it has ‘complete confidence’ in its scientific results. The agency said the genetic tests it used were ‘well validated’, and that it has reviewed the results of all scientific analysis conducted during the course of the investigation and is satisfied by its quality. The FBI further noted that the scientific results alone were not the sole basis for concluding that Ivins committed the attacks.So, we have scientists arguing that the science used in a CRIMINAL CASE wasn't up to scientific standards. And we have FBI and DOJ lawyers saying that the science used in the Amerithrax case was "well validated" for their purposes, and the scientific evidence was "not the sole basis for concluding that Ivins committed the attacks."If the LAWYERS in the Department of Justice feel that the scientific evidence was good enough to use in a trial, then it doesn't make any difference if some scientists feel it isn't good enough for purely scientific purposes. Lawyers and judges decide on evidence in legal cases.Scientists decide on evidence in scientific matters.Amerithrax was a legal case.End of story. Ed
Lawyers and judges decide on evidence in legal cases.Scientists decide on evidence in scientific matters.Amerithrax was a legal case.=============================================Not really. There was an investigation. There was no indictment, no trial."Lawyers and judges" essentially decided nothing vis-a-vis the central question: Who done it? Rather, we had an administrative determination made by the Task Force, buttressed by DoJ OUT_OF_COURT statements/PR releases/other paperwork, NEVER SUBMITTED to a legal proceeding. Never subject to the type of legal scrutiny that is part of Due Process.The word "legal" has at least two antonyms: "illegal" and "extra-legal".The Amerithrax finding was extra-legal, since the legally-constituted body looking into it, the grand jury, did not come up with an indictment. Everything that happened after Ivins' death, excluding the civil suit(s), was extra legal.
R. Rowley is playing ridiculous word games again. He wrote: "Not really. There was an investigation. There was no indictment, no trial."Yes, but it was a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, NOT A SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION. It was a LEGAL matter or issue.Mr. Rowley also wrote: "The Amerithrax finding was extra-legal" and "Everything that happened after Ivins' death, excluding the civil suit(s), was extra legal."Amerithrax was an investigation to see who broke the LAW. That makes it a LEGAL case.----------------------------DEFINITION of "EXTRA LEGAL": The definition of extralegal is something not governed by laws, or not within the scope of the law. When someone does something wrong to you that is mean but not illegal, this is an example of an extralegal situation, where your remedies to right the wrong are not governed by laws.outside of legal control or authority; not regulated by lawOutside of the domain of the law.----------------------MASS MURDER is NOT outside of the domain of the law. There ARE laws against it. Therefore MASS MURDER is a legal matter.The fact that the matter was not SETTLED in a court of law means it is NOT an officially adjudicated (or settled) LEGAL matter. It does not somehow become "extra legal" just because it is not officially settled.OUR DISCUSSIONS are not "extra legal." They are LEGAL. They are permitted by the First Amendment. The same with the releasing of Amerithrax details. It is legal. You are trying to twist the definition of "extra legal" to include everything that is not "illegal." It's ANOTHER STUPID WORD GAME.The purpose of this blog is to discuss the facts and evidence in the Amerithrax investigation. That is a legal activity.Arguing over screwball definitions of words is not illegal or "extra legal." It's just a POINTLESS WASTE OF TIME. Ed
Amerithrax was an investigation to see who broke the LAW. =======================================That's a matter adjudicated in courts, NOT by writing up a deceptive and misleading document (the AMERITHRAX INVESTIGATIVE SUMMARY) that has more holes in it than the average sieve. Very few persons who have an in-depth knowledge of both the investigation and the law, and who DON'T work for the DoJ/Task Force think the case against Ivins strong, and again, this doesn't have to do with 'circumstantial' vs 'non-circumstantial'. I can only think of THREE (count 'em! 3!) persons who are non-DoJ/Task Force, AND who are presumed to have considerable knowledge of the case, who are on record as thinking the gov't made its case:1) Ed Lake2) Senator Daschle3) David Willman.Naturally, I am NOT saying that there are no others who fit the general description, but the mere fact that I, having read voluminously on this topic since February of 2010, can only call to mind those three persons, NONE of which have a law degree/background, NONE of which have a degree in science, even at the undergraduate level (compare: Rush Holt's background in science, Senator Leahy's background in the law etc.) is something to be weighed. If the gov't made their case, then why are there so many KNOWLEDGEABLE people who don't think (at a bare minimum) that Ivins 'acted alone'? Senator Leahy for instance.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(Back to Lake):The purpose of this blog is to discuss the facts and evidence in the Amerithrax investigation. That is a legal activity.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Only in your peculiar idiolect. For everyone else, it's an intellectual exercise.
R. Rowley wrote: "That's a matter adjudicated in courts, NOT by writing up a deceptive and misleading document"Maybe Mr. Rowley doesn't understand this, but you cannot try a dead man in court.So, what is to be done when the "suspect" commits suicide and therefore cannot be tried in court?Should the DOJ simply have closed the case without showing that they had identified the killer? How could they even do that? Should they have just announced they were closing the case for "unspecified" reasons? Would the public have accepted that? The conspiracy theorists would have argued for all time that such an announcement is "proof" that the government was behind the attacks. The world would DEMAND to know why they were closing the case.There was NO CHOICE but to show the world what evidence they had and explain why they were closing the case. Leaving the case open was not an option. Mr. Rowley also wrote: "I can only think of THREE (count 'em! 3!) persons who are non-DoJ/Task Force, AND who are presumed to have considerable knowledge of the case, who are on record as thinking the gov't made its case"Most people don't CARE. They have lives to lead. They don't even want to be reminded of the case. The only people arguing the case are the numerous naysayers who have their own personal theories about the case (each theory different from the other) and the few people who find the subject to be fascinating for other reasons. Politicians have political motives. Mr. Willman is a journalist who followed the case and wrote articles and a book about it. I find the arguments between people with beliefs and people with facts & evidence to be fascinating.The key fact Mr. Rowley ignores is that all the people who do NOT accept the official findings have DIFFERENT reasons for their beliefs. They are NOT unified in anything, other than that they thing the FBI didn't solve the case. Each has his own personal theory about what "the truth" really is.Intellectual exercises are a legal activity. They are certainly NOT illegal nor "extra legal" (which would imply that there is something wrong or nasty with intellectual exercises). Ed
R. Rowley wrote: "That's a matter adjudicated in courts, NOT by writing up a deceptive and misleading document"Maybe Mr. Rowley doesn't understand this, but you cannot try a dead man in court.========================================I understand it perfectly well, but you seem to think that writing up a document(replete with distortions about the lyophilizer, deceptions about the handwriting comparisons, inclusion of 'place-holder' motivations attributed to Ivins, exclusion of even the name "Battelle" from the document, exaggerations about the reliability of the scientific findings etc), a document which fails to establish that Ivins likely did even a single subtask of the Amerithrax crimes, saving only the one he did all the time as part of his job (growing wet anthrax), is somehow persuasive. I can't help you there; the past 3 or 4 years have indicated that you are incapable of being skeptical of law enforcement in any way, and this general impression is merely ratified by your little cartoon above, which features a judge(!) rubber-stamping a policeman's word to convict an emblematic arrestee/defendant/convict (I'm surprised you didn't add the words 'Life imprisonment!' to the judge's speech balloon!). No prosecutor, no defense attorney, no jury. No Due Process. The perfect Lakeian version of "justice". Not mine. Not DXer's. You might want to add a caption though: Ed Lake's Kangaroo Court.
Intellectual exercises are a legal activity.=--------------------------------------------------Only in the sense that they are not illegal. They have, in themselves, no legal bearing.
Mr. Rowley says nothing worth quoting or commenting upon in his two latest posts above. He's either just arguing his beliefs, or he's arguing over the meanings of words. Meanwhile, I've been putting together a new subject for discussion. I'll "publish" it as a new thread as soon as I finish writing this. It explains the difference between "facts" and "evidence." Maybe (but it's totally unlikely) Mr. Rowley will see that he's arguing opinions and beliefs against overwhelming facts and evidence.Ed
Lake upthread:-------------Mr. Rowley also wrote: "I can only think of THREE (count 'em! 3!) persons who are non-DoJ/Task Force, AND who are presumed to have considerable knowledge of the case, who are on record as thinking the gov't made its case"Most people don't CARE. They have lives to lead. They don't even want to be reminded of the case. ===========================================That's exactly why I did NOT write about the public at large. I wrote about persons who 1) were (presumed) knowledgeable and/or 2) were involved. Daschle certainly fits 2) and I'm going to assume he fits 1).I did this before when I noted (thread of long ago) that except for Willman and Lake, ALL the other authors of books on Amerithrax (Coleman, Thompson, Graysmith, Guillemin etc.) had declined to endorse the Ivins-acting-alone hypothesis (thread is here:http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2014/09/911-truthers-versus-anthrax-truthers.html My post of: September 16, 2014 at 8:21 PM )And as I noted, they don't have their own hypotheses to promote, their own axes to grind. They certainly have the knowledge. They are merely evaluating how compelling the case against Ivins is, and declining to endorse it. Presumably because THEY find it weak.
Mr. Rowley says nothing worth quoting or commenting upon in his two latest posts above. He's either just arguing his beliefs, or he's arguing over the meanings of words. =============================================And what is YOUR next thread about? The meaning of "fact" and "evidence". Go figure!
R. Rowley wrote: "except for Willman and Lake, ALL the other authors of books on Amerithrax (Coleman, Thompson, Graysmith, Guillemin etc.) had declined to endorse the Ivins-acting-alone hypothesis"Mr. Rowley clearly doesn't understand the book business. No one wants to publish or read a book that says NOTHING DIFFERENT about a subject.Mr. Willman's book was different because it was filled with interviews of people who knew Ivins and who had never been interviewed before.Last Sept. 16, Mr. Rowley wrote this about Leonard Cole's book: "Cole's book had a second edition or update in late 2008 and he remained noncommittal on the subject of Ivins' guilt."Nearly everyone was probably "noncommittal" in 2008. We'd never heard of Bruce Ivins before, and very little was explained in the news conferences announcing that Ivins had died and was the main suspect in the case. It wasn't until the DETAILS came out in February of 2010 that we could study the evidence. And then you had to dig through the THOUSANDS of pages of supplemental information in order to really understand the case.Thompson's book came out in 2003. Graysmith's book came out in 2003.How could they endorse the findings in their book? And, after the findings came out, wouldn't they have to justify what they wrote in 2003?Graysmith felt that the J-Lo letter was the key to the case. The J-Lo letter had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CASE.A review of Guillemin's book in New Scientist magazine says:"As Guillemin relates in exhaustive detail, the ensuing investigation found no Al-Qaida connection. Instead, the perpetrator was most likely an American named Bruce Ivins, a civilian microbiologist at an army medical institute whose career was threatened by cuts to funding for anthrax research early in the Bush administration.Another review in the San Francisco Chronicle says:"But unlike "The Mirage Man," Guillemin does not presume Ivins' guilt. Instead, she follows the FBI investigation. Her descriptions of his activities - stalking women, spending late nights alone in his lab, making unauthorized cleanups of anthrax spills - make a strong indictment. Yet Guillemin admits that the FBI case against Ivins, who committed suicide as the net closed in, is "not airtight." And she notes how the bureau had compromised its credibility by falsely accusing other scientists."I have a copy of Guillemin's book (and Cole's book, and Graysmith's book, and Willman's book). Looking at what I've written about it, it appears she believes Ivins was the killer. She just wishes there was more conclusive proof. That's her OPINION.People who have contrary opinions will make news. People who support the official opinion don't make news. So, it means NOTHING that the news is about people with CONTRARY OPINIONS. Mr. Rowley also wrote: "what is YOUR next thread about? The meaning of "fact" and "evidence". Go figure!" My next thread isn't an ARGUMENT over words. It's an explanation of what the words mean so that we can fully understand them and use them correctly.If you want to have an intelligent discussion, you can't be constantly arguing over the precise meaning of words. You need to try to understand WHAT THE OTHER PERSON I SAYING, EVEN IF HIS WORDING ISN'T PERFECTLY PRECISE according to your own personal standards. Ed
Unfinished business upthread here:-------------------Mr. Rowley clearly doesn't understand the book business. No one wants to publish or read a book that says NOTHING DIFFERENT about a subject.-----------------------------------------------------------------I said nothing about the 'book business'. I wrote about the OPINIONS (free-standing) of former authors of books about Amerithrax. NONE has expressed any endorsement of the case against Ivins. Indeed if Graysmith or Thompson or one of the others HAD written a post-2008 book, and said it was someone else, Mister Lake would just dismiss them as 'have(ing) their own hypothesis'. It's because they DON'T have their own hypothesis/pet suspect that their silence is so telling. Just like Leahy's skepticism.---------------------------------------------------------------Mr. Willman's book was different because it was filled with interviews of people who knew Ivins and who had never been interviewed before.-------------------------------------------------------------If you are expressing admiration for much of Willman's book, I share it.Despite his overall conclusion. He really worked on that sucker.-----------------------------------------Last Sept. 16, Mr. Rowley wrote this about Leonard Cole's book: "Cole's book had a second edition or update in late 2008 and he remained noncommittal on the subject of Ivins' guilt."Nearly everyone was probably "noncommittal" in 2008. We'd never heard of Bruce Ivins before,[...]===========================================Okay but that was 6 1/2 years ago. Has Coleman EVER endorsed Ivins as the culprit? (You don't have to write a book to say you agree or disagree on something like that. Duh!) If not, WHY not?
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just attempted another post to this blog. It contained nothing but his bizarre OPINIONS on what is admissible in court and what is not.Without citing SPECIFIC EXAMPLES and providing EXPLANATIONS, there can be no meaningful discussion on evidence in the Amerithrax case. Just claiming that my hypothesis about the handwriting on the letters involves "ridiculous assertions" doesn't make it so.DXer also fantasizes about "exculpatory scientific evidence on subtilis, meglamine and diazatroate, the silicon signature, paper, ink, toner, and handwriting." But, NONE of that is "exculpatory" in any way.The fact that DXer is a civil lawyer means nothing, since Rachel Lieber is a criminal lawyer and she believes there was enough evidence to attempt an indictment of Dr. Ivins.If DXer believes something would not be allowed as evidence, he needs to cite a specific item and present his EXPLANATION for WHY he believes it would not be allowed as evidence. Just stating an OPINION doesn't mean the OPINION has any value.Ed
Yesterday and today, "DXer" posted over 15 silly messages to Lew Weinstein's blog, calling me "The Nincompoop" and stating his beliefs as if nothing I've said to him over the past decade has made any difference. Click HERE for the first message in the series. It's about the handwriting, of course. In that first post, he says no one agrees with my hypothesis, even though I explained and SHOWED him a series of emails I received where people DID agree with me. (Click HERE for the start of a discussion where I showed him THIRTY-ONE emails where people agreed with the child-handwriting hypothesis.) Yet, DXer just ignores it and continues to claim no one agrees with me.What's the point in arguing with someone who ignores the facts and just believes what he wants to believe? In the second post (click HERE), DXer says he disagrees that there is a hidden message coded in the anthrax letter sent to the media. Who cares if he disagrees? The facts and evidence SHOW that there is a coded message there. DXer argues that "forensic experts" would have to be called to validate the finding in court. Total nonsense. An FBI agent decoded the message. He'd testify to that in court. And it would be up to the JURY to decide if what he decoded is believable or not.DXer BELIEVES otherwise, and no facts or evidence will change his mind. What's the point in arguing with someone who ignores the facts and just believes what he wants to believe?Ed
In "DXer" 3rd "Nincompoop" post, he argues that the FBI could not possibly eliminate all the people with access to flask RMR-1029 or to samples taken from RMR-1029.His argument is with the FBI, not with me. DXer seems to believe that if he can dream up a way that someone could have accessed RMR-1029 samples, then the FBI must show HIM that they cleared that person. Until they convince him PERSONALLY that they did what they say they did, then DXer isn't going to believe them. Nothing I can say could ever possibly changes his mind.What's the point in arguing with someone who ignores the facts and just believes what he wants to believe?DXer's 4th post brings up the lyophilizer issue again, and his argument seems to be that if someone disagrees with the FBI about Ivins' ability to dry the spores, then the FBI must be wrong.What's the point in arguing with someone who ignores the facts and just believes what he wants to believe?There's no point in going through all of his posts, one by one, since they all say basically the same thing: If anyone disagrees with the FBI (or me) then both the FBI and I must be wrong. He even brings up his silly theory about Ivins was working with "52 rabbits" during those unexplained hours in his lab, and therefore the FBI is wrong and the hours can be explained. DXer's argument is that, if Ivins had ANYTHING legitimate he COULD have been doing during those "unexplained hours," then that is what he MUST have been doing.What's the point in arguing with someone who ignores the facts and just believes what he wants to believe? In one of his posts, DXer says this about Ivins' motive: "The FBI does not know what his motive would have been — there is only wide-ranging speculation." Ivins had MULTIPLE motives for committing the crime. But, it appears that in DXer's mind, nothing is valid unless Ivins actually stated what his motive was. DXer also says, "He [me] doesn’t even address what his motive would be for using a First Grader to write the letters — which would needlessly expose him to being discovered."I wrote a book which describes Ivins' most likely motive. It's a perfect way to get something written that won't show any trace of his own handwriting. It means no "handwriting expert" can connect him to the writing on the letters. Plus, using a child that way would drive the women around him NUTS if they ever found out. That would make it almost irresistible to him, since he had BIG problems with women he couldn't control.In another post, DXer argues one of his SILLIEST arguments: he argues that there are some times when it is KNOWN where Ivins was, so that somehow means Ivins "had an alibi." It means no such thing. Ivins had NO ALIBI. PERIOD. "Having an alibi" means you had NO UNACCOUNTED FOR TIME when you could have committed the crime. Ivins had all the unaccounted for time he needed.What's the point in arguing with someone who ignores the facts and just believes what he wants to believe?Ed
The rest of DXer's posts are just more of the same.He demonstrates that he doesn't understand "circumstantial evidence" by arguing that there is also some "circumstantial evidence" supporting his al Qaeda theory, and that somehow means something that he cannot explain.He argues that he doesn't approve of some of the people who assisted the FBI, and therefore he doesn't believe anything they say.It's all same-old, same-old. And so is an indecipherable email DXer sent to me while I was writing this post. He seems to believe that if a survey is taken, what the majority believes must be true. I wonder how many times I've explained to him that, at one time, nearly everyone on EARTH believed the earth was flat. That didn't make it flat. All those people were WRONG. Like DXer, they believed what they wanted to believe. It is what the FACTS AND EVIDENCE says that determines what is "true," NOT what "most people believe." And DXer just demonstrates over and over and over that he doesn't care what the facts and evidence say. He's going to believe what he wants to believe.Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") attempted another post to this thread last evening. Here it is in its entirety:---------------------------------The always erudite Richard mistakenly represents Senator Daschle’s view. Richard apparently is relying on his reported view on or about August 13, 2008 — when the nation was under the thrall of all the false premises and claims made by US Attorney Taylor at his August 8, 2008 press conference.Instead, I recommend Richard read Senator Daschle’s 2013 book for his views — rather than cite the views from over a half decade ago before scientists throughout the country began correcting US Attorney's Taylor's numerous claims in his press conference. (I reasonably presume those same false claims were repeated in a private briefing).In 2013, in his book touching on the anthrax mailings, Senator Daschle states: “To this day, authorities have not conclusively figured out who mailed those letters.”For that matter, you might want to ask David Willman his present views. He won his Pulitzer Prize for very sharp reporting in the health field. His Mirage Man was based on numerous interviews of investigators and prosecutors. Noah Schactman's "Wired" article evidenced some access to investigators and passed on the concerns of some that there had been a rush to judgment, but you may want to see what David is channeling today in 2014. You may also want to email Scott Decker and ask his view.But never assume people have not changed their mind. Polling shows otherwise.---------------------------------"DXer" post is addressed to Mr. Rowley, so I won't make any comment except to say it's another illustration of the kind of indecipherable blather DXer would endlessly post if I were to allow him to post here directly.Ed
My thanks to DXer for setting me straight on Daschle's most recent statement(s).I really SHOULD seek out his book. But I was only going for the broad strokes anyway: that, AT MOST, I could only think of 3 persons (not in DoJ/Task Force) who are presumed very interested and knowledgeable about Amerithrax, AND who find the Task Force/DoJ hypothesis proven. If it's only 2 persons, then so much the better.As to Willman, I'm far more familiar with his more recent statements as I've seen via youtube one or more lectures he delivered to college audiences (one was somewhere in Maryland!). He emphasizes Ivins' mental illness. I think that a mistake, especially since Ivins started seeing a psychiatrist in the late 1970s precisely because his violent impulses frightened him, hardly the picture of the'psychopath' that he was (mis-)labelled. Another negative spinoff of Amerithrax is: the general fear of mental illness is both exploited and exacerbated by this erroneous fingering of Ivins.But it won't stand.
Mr. Rowley,As usual, you are wrong. No one diagnosed Ivins as a "psychopath." He was diagnosed as a "sociopath."So, you are the one (mis-)labeling him.SOURCEEd
From the model (positive) review of Willman's book at Amazon: (partial):(From 'Doubting Thomas')"Author David Willman has done a fabulous reporting job tracing the sordid history of a psychopath from an abusive mother in an Ohio small town to a painful suicide from an intentional overdose of Tylenol. He was a man of bizarre obsessions for decades, while convincing at least some of his friends that he was just an eccentric,cheerful guy who loved to play music at church services.[...]""Psychopath" is used. "Sociopath" is not.Another superpositive review, this from I-tunes, includes this passage:"Here is one of the most amazing true crime, true life stories to come along in years. Bruce Ivins, a cheerful and eccentric scientist who was a top biowar researcher for the government, had a secret life as an obsessed psychopath who plotted murders and ultimately launched the worst biological warfare attach in the nation's history."https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/the-mirage-man/id427462840?mt=11"Psychopath" is used, "sociopath" is not.In fact, Willman, if memory serves, avoided committing to any such diagnostic label (but not to extensive use of mental illness as 'evidence' of Ivins' culpability in Amerithrax!). Jean Duley, that group therapy 'leader,' is the one who used "sociopath" in her request for a restraining order against Ivins, attributing it (the sociopathic label) (probably incorrectly) to one or more psychiatrists of Ivins. What little evidence is out there is: there was a mix of diagnoses (and here I mean DIRECTLY from the psychiatrists) given to Ivins:1) "anti-social personality disorder" (more or less=psychopathy), (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder#Psychopathy2) (paranoid) schizophrenia.Since Ivins thought his mother had had the latter, it makes the most sense. But, thanks to Willman, I realized at some point that Ivins' father had had bipolar disorder. So, Bruce Ivins apparently had a combination of schizophrenia + bipolar disorder= schizoaffective disorder.(For more reading on this topic:http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wicked-deeds/201401/how-tell-sociopath-psychopath
Mr. Rowley,Once again you show how pointless it is to argue with you. Instead of looking at quotes from his psychiatrists and psychologists or from official documents, you find a REPORTER's mistake and use that as an argument.That is just plain ABSURD. To argue that Jean Duley somehow misstated the diagnosis from Ivins' psychiatrist is just plain STUPID.And to add your own interpretation into an unsourced definition that is apparently of "sociopath" shows how you will distort things to make an misleading argument because you know the facts dispute your beliefs.Ed
Once again you show how pointless it is to argue with you. ----------------------------------------------------------------Why 'argue'? I had a pleasant exchange with DXer this thread. I felt no need to 'argue' with him, though I know his hypothesis and approach vary from mine. You seem to feel a NEED to argue that I find puzzling.THEN, at some point in the thread you announce that I'M(!!!) being "argumentative". Old Lake trick, that.===================================Instead of looking at quotes from his psychiatrists and psychologists or from official documents, you find a REPORTER's mistake and use that as an argument.-------------------------------------------------------------Quotes from Ivins' psychiatrists? Fine, produce them! So far, this mini-exchange on Ivins' condition and what it was 'labelled'* has seen me give4 links, and as many references, whereas you've produced: squat! Just Lakeian attitudinizing.-----------------------------------------------------------To argue that Jean Duley somehow misstated the diagnosis from Ivins' psychiatrist is just plain STUPID---------------------------------------------------------Ask yourself: what was Duley's GOAL in requesting the restraining order? Was it not to try to protect herself from Ivins? The stronger the language of the request, the more likely she would get the restraining order. In addition, there is evidence in the WORDING ITSELF that this was not her quoting accurately a psychiatrist: "In court records, Duley writes that Ivins’s psychiatrist had “called him homicidal, sociopathic with clear intentions.” "http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=jean_duley_1------That 'with clear intentions' bit is just not the way psychiatrists speak, let alone write. A psychiatrist, even HEARING such an expression, wouldgive a quizzical look and ask "Clear intentions of WHAT?!?!?". And rightly so. It sounds to MY EAR like something a cop or G-man would come up with. Since there's a good chance FBI agents encouraged her to file for the restraining order, it's not at all far-fetched to imagine they made suggestions as to the wording. At any rate, vis-a-vis what Ivins had psychiatrically, it's hearsay. Just writing down hearsay doesn't change its nature.-------------------------------------------------------------And to add your own interpretation into an unsourced definition[...]--------------------------------------------------I don't follow, I linked "psychopathy"/anti-social personality disorder.If you are talking about 'sociopathy', I skipped it because it isn't much used by psychiatrists anymore. What's more I don't think it was much used by psychiatrists back in 2001. And this is another sign that what Duley wrote in the restraining order request bore only the vaguest resemblance to the evaluations of Ivins made by his psychiatrist(s).(For the old-hat status of "sociopathy" see (and scroll down a bit):http://wellingtongoose.tumblr.com/post/46198391298/dear-sherlock-stop-calling-yourself-a-sociopath*notice in my post of January 7, 2015 at 8:22 AM, I nowhere say BY WHOM Ivins was (mis-)labelled a "psychopath", merely that he was so mislabeled. And when pressed produced evidence of same.
you find a REPORTER's mistake and use that as an argument.=======================================I quoted no 'reporter', I quoted TWO (positive) book reviewers of Willman's book (both reviewers using the term "psychopath"). I linked two URLs: one dealing with sociopath vs psychopath; the other a Wikiitem on "anti-social personality disorder". The 'reporter' you hallucinated.Unless you are referring to Willman, and all I said about him in the post is that he "avoided committing to any such diagnostic label (but not to extensive use of mental illness as 'evidence' of Ivins' culpability in Amerithrax!)." Incontestable.
R. Rowley wrote: "I quoted no 'reporter', I quoted TWO (positive) book reviewers"Okay, it was an anonymous REVIEWER on Amazon. My mistake. The point is: It was NOT someone worthy of quoting on the subject. It was NOT Willman or any psychiatrist.Mr. Rowley also wrote: "Ask yourself: what was Duley's GOAL in requesting the restraining order? Was it not to try to protect herself from Ivins? The stronger the language of the request, the more likely she would get the restraining order.You can use that kind of ridiculous logic to distort or ignore what anyone says. It's STUPID. She was QUOTING Dr. Irwin. What she said became a matter of public record. Plus, the Expert Behavioral Analysis Panel wrote this:"The Panel reviewed previous and early psychiatric treatment and multiple e-mail interactions as well as the testimony of coworkers. This review demonstrated a longstanding pattern: Dr. Ivins was skilled at appearing to function at one level while simultaneously, at another level, conducting covert activities and harboring intense rage and revengeful thoughts at specific persons. This ability to appear functional while operating at another level may be somewhat similar to the glib social skills often described as a component of sociopathic personalities or “engaging cons.”Mr. Rowley also wrote: "That 'with clear intentions' bit is just not the way psychiatrists speak, let alone write. A psychiatrist, even HEARING such an expression, would give a quizzical look and ask "Clear intentions of WHAT?!?!?". On the contrary, that is good psychiatrist lingo. Ivins was expressing "clear intentions" of homicide or some other dangerous act. It distinguishes him from some rambling lunatic who expresses no clear intentions of doing anything bad. Ivins was talking about building BOMBS and POISONING specific people. Those are"clear intentions," as opposed to just expressing vague feelings of anger or depression. Ed
R. Rowley wrote: "I quoted no 'reporter', I quoted TWO (positive) book reviewers"Okay, it was an anonymous REVIEWER on Amazon. My mistake. The point is: It was NOT someone worthy of quoting on the subject. It was NOT Willman or any psychiatrist.==============================================Mister Lake, there was a psychiatric panel that reviewed this case, and they did so in 2011, (ie 3 1/2 years ago) and THEY GAVE NO DIAGNOSIS! Not even a 'Psychiatrist X said Ivins likely had [fill in blank],whereas psychiatrist Y said that Ivins likely had [fill in blank]'*. You don't have to trust me on this: merely re-read the executive summary here:https://www.med.unc.edu/psych/forensic/files/EBAP_Report_ExSum_Redacted_Version.pdf (executive summary starts on page 11, though it is labeled page 1).Why would Willman, without a degree in either psychology or psychiatry, presume to make a determination that the panel, full almost exclusively of mental health professionals, did not make? Why would he take as gospel Jean Duley's request-for-restraining-order text when that text is, stylistically and content-wise, a mess? No reporter of any caliber would do that and Willman, whatever his limits, is a good reporter.*This despite the fact that there are Ivins-written emails on the Internet wherein he, Ivins, talks about the battling diagnoses of his psychiatrists.
Mr. Rowley also wrote: "That 'with clear intentions' bit is just not the way psychiatrists speak, let alone write. A psychiatrist, even HEARING such an expression, would give a quizzical look and ask "Clear intentions of WHAT?!?!?". On the contrary, that is good psychiatrist lingo.================================================It isn't. "Homicidal" isn't a diagnostic term, it's a criminal law term. "Sociopath", as already noted by me, is somewhat passé. You have a tin ear for language.Quote me one psychiatrist who says his patient has "clear intentions" without specifying what those intentions are. You won't be able to.
Ivins was talking about building BOMBS and POISONING specific people. Those are"clear intentions," as opposed to just expressing vague feelings of anger or depression. ==========================================That's not in Duley's 'narrative' so you would have to be clairvoyant to read that narrative (if you are the judge looking at it) and know what on earth she was talking about. That's not the way intelligent people communicate.Duley's restraining order text is here:http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/anthrax-suspect-homicidal-sociopathic (Click on "view the document" and go to page 2, I think.....it worked fine yesterday!)The pertinent passage of page 2: (partial) (lines 3, 4, 5)-----Dr. David Irwin, his psychiatristcalled him homicidal, sociopathicwith clear intentions--------------------------Is she QUOTING Irwin? No, she is not. When you quote someone in a text, you put it in quotations marks. Conspicuously absent here. That means that this is DULEY'S summary of both what (she thinks) Ivins hasand Irwin's (general) support of that. If Irwin would even use the term "sociopath" isn't clear. I rather doubt it. He certainly wouldn't use 'homicidal' in a DIAGNOSTIC context, since there is no such 'diagnosis'.The most recent DSM, DSM-5(or DSM-V), lists on the pertinent page (here: http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Personality%20Disorders%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf ) 6 personality disorders, apparently a regrouping of sorts. "Sociopathy" isn't one of those 6 personality disorders. A hard copy of the entire book lists 7 personality disorders, none of them "sociopathy".This on page 763. There is no listing whatsoever of 'sociopathy' or 'sociopath' in the (quite detailed) index, nor in the table of contents. This confirmed my general impression but doesn't give detail about how/when "sociopathy" was dropped as a diagnostic term in the DSM series. Perhaps I'll look into it later.
R. Rowley wrote: "Why would Willman, without a degree in either psychology or psychiatry, presume to make a determination that the panel, full almost exclusively of mental health professionals, did not make?"Sorry, but this discussion is becoming too DUMB to bother with. Did Willman make some "determination"? You were absurdly quoting ANONYMOUS reviewers on Amazon.R. Rowley also wrote, "Quote me one psychiatrist who says his patient has "clear intentions" without specifying what those intentions are."Maybe Mr. Rowley isn't aware of it, but psychiatrists do not go around telling the world about their patients. It's unethical. And it's another example of how DUMB this discussion has become.R. Rowley also wrote, "Is she QUOTING Irwin? No, she is not. When you quote someone in a text, you put it in quotations marks."Another example of how DUMB this discussion has become. Mr. Rowley is arguing that Jean Duley just made up the diagnosis she ascribed to Dr. Irwin because she didn't put quote marks around the diagnosis. The document can be read by clicking HERE. On the second page, Duley also wrote, "FBI involved, currently under investigation and will be charged w/ 5 capital murders". Was Duley making that up, too? It seems a lot more serious than her comment about Dr. Irwin. (As I recall, the FBI suggested she get a restraining order after Ivins made menacing phone calls to her from a mental hospital.)" "Clear intentions" is a perfectly understandable term for me. It means it is clear what is going on in a person's head. He has "clear intentions" to do something - usually something dangerous. Mr. Rowley also wrote, "He certainly wouldn't use 'homicidal' in a DIAGNOSTIC context, since there is no such 'diagnosis'."That comment is DUMB beyond belief. Why wouldn't a psychiatrist use the term "homicidal" in a DIAGNOSTIC context? "Homicidal" is a term that IMPLIES a DIAGNOSIS, since it is about what a person seems to be thinking and planning. Psychiatrists testify in court that a person is "homicidal" in order to get them locked up. It is their psychiatric DIAGNOSIS. The only way you can get a person locked up for what they are thinking is via a DIAGNOSIS that they are "HOMICIDAL" - either against themselves or against others."Homicidal ideation is a common medical term for thoughts about homicide." Click HERE for the source. "Homicidal ideation is noted to be an important risk factor when trying to identify a person's risk for violence. This type of assessment is routine for psychiatric patients or any other patients presenting to hospital with mental health complaints." Same source.Ed
Mr. Rowley also wrote, "He certainly wouldn't use 'homicidal' in a DIAGNOSTIC context, since there is no such 'diagnosis'."That comment is DUMB beyond belief.----------------------------------------------------------------Said the guy who didn't consult any edition of the DSM and probably doesn't know what the DSM is.---------------------------------------------------------------(Lake)"Homicidal ideation is a common medical term for thoughts about homicide."----------------------------------------------------------------The UNABOMBER has "homicidal ideation". The diagnosis before his trial was "schizophrenia". Other convicted killers have been diagnosed as "bipolar", "schizoid", "narcissistic" etc. All with 'homicidal ideation'. Yet other convicted killers were found to have no mental illness whatsoever (Duh!) So "homicidal ideation" isn't a diagnosis. Evidently Mister Lake has his own weird personal definition of what a "diagnosis" is too! All psychiatric terms are NOT 'diagnoses'! Yeah, the thread's dumb all right: Mister Lake is the dumber-down-in-chief.I'm the one providing the links; you've never come to grips (in 3 1/2 years!) with the fact that the phony 'outside-panel-that-was-as-inside-as-can-get' made no determination as to Ivins' diagnosis. Most of what I figured out about it came from 1) an email or emails that Ivins wrote about those battling diagnoses years ago 2) Willman's book/youtube lecture(s) which provide enough contextual info that one can figure out, with a fair amount of certainty, what Ivins had.Almost certainly: Schizoaffective disorder (page 89 and following in the DSM-5). Not really a distinct phenomenon but essentially a combination of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. The former from his dad, the latter from his mom.
The discussion with Mr. Rowley becomes DUMBER AND DUMBER and more pointless.Mr. Rowley wrote: "The UNABOMBER has "homicidal ideation". The diagnosis before his trial was "schizophrenia". Other convicted killers have been diagnosed as "bipolar", "schizoid", "narcissistic" etc. All with 'homicidal ideation'."SO WHAT?!Now Mr. Rowley writes, "All psychiatric terms are NOT 'diagnoses'!"True. But, if a psychiatrist says someone is "homicidal," it is still a professional DIAGNOSIS.Mr. Rowley seems to be playing word games again. Here's a word for his perusal:HYPERCORRECTIONDefinition: "In linguistics or usage, hypercorrection is a non-standard usage that results from the over-application of a perceived rule of grammar or a usage prescription. A speaker or writer who produces a hypercorrection generally believes that the form is correct through misunderstanding of these rules, often combined with a desire to appear formal or educated.Linguistic hypercorrection occurs when a real or imagined grammatical rule is applied in an inappropriate context, so that an attempt to be "correct" leads to an incorrect result.Mr. Rowley confuses the word "diagnosis" with the word "disease." He lists diseases and considers them to be diagnoses. A person can be diagnosed as "homicidal" without creating a new disease called "homicidal." A "diagnosis" is just the identification of a problem by analysis. My diagnosis of this discussion is that it is DUMB BEYOND BELIEF!I really don't have time to bother with such nonsense.Ed
Linguistic hypercorrection occurs when a real or imagined grammatical rule is applied in an inappropriate context, so that an attempt to be "correct" leads to an incorrect result.Mr. Rowley confuses the word "diagnosis" with the word "disease." He lists diseases and considers them to be diagnoses. ===============================================No, you are (as usual) wrong: the source I've cited, DSM-5(and 4), breaks out as "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders".Diagnostic, as in "diagnosis".As to "disease" vs. "diagnosis": "Diagnosis" is an opinion, albeit usually of a qualified person. It can include evaluating injuries (extent, sort, severity etc.) and 'syndromes' as well as diseases. But note that a doctor can't diagnose "[fill in the blank] Personality Disorder" unless the medical community recognizes the existence of such a disorder. So it is dependent on a professional recognition of the phenomenon.
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") is filling my inbox with emails and attempted posts about some error he believes I made and should correct. He's not even clear about what the error is, much less where I made it. Plus, he's continuing to rant about how he doesn't believe anything said by anyone who doesn't meet his standard of reliability. In other words, he doesn't care about the accuracy of what was said, only about who said it. He assumes that if it is said by someone who agrees with him, then the person is right. If it is said by someone who disagrees with him, then the person is wrong. That kind of reasoning is just too absurd to bother with. So, I'm going to ignore it.Ed
Plus, he's continuing to rant about how he doesn't believe anything said by anyone who doesn't meet his standard of reliability. ====================================================Actually courts in general have this 'thing' about reliability of evidence. It (reliability) along with the questions of materiality and (potential) prejudicial impression on a jury are the single most important factors that courts look at in determining whether to allow evidence into a trial.http://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Criminal-Trials-Reliability-Evidence-%E2%80%94-Part-3http://www.lawfirms.com/resources/criminal-defense/criminal-defense-case/evidence-at-trial.htmIn this you are throwing out DXer's legal expertise. Unwisely so.
So, I found online an "Index of Psychiatric Disorders" from DSM-4. It, DSM-4, came out around 1994 (ie 7 years before Amerithrax, 14 years before Duley applied for a restraining order). As can be seen, there is no listing for "sociopathy". There is one for "anti-social personality disorder", and one for "schizoaffective disorder".http://allpsych.com/disorders/disorders_alpha/
Mr. Rowley's two posts above are simply too POINTLESS to bother with. They are just more demonstrations of "HYPERCORRECTION."Ed
R. Rowley also wrote, "Quote me one psychiatrist who says his patient has "clear intentions" without specifying what those intentions are."Maybe Mr. Rowley isn't aware of it, but psychiatrists do not go around telling the world about their patients. It's unethical. ===========================================The psychiatric panel didn't have Ivins as a "patient". With the (possible) exception of Saathof, those psychiatrists had never laid eyes on him. They were going PRIMARILY on the medical records they had access to. In any such records kept by psychiatrists there's going to be a diagnosis, no matter how tentative, no matter whether it conflicts with a prior or subsequent one or not. Such a long report, so little that's informative in any way.
Just more of Mr. Rowley's hypercorrection and opinions. Ed
Have I corrected your GRAMMAR in this thread? Nope. What about your word usage? Yeah, because "homicidal" isn't a psychiatric diagnosis. People who don't care about being accurate in word usage shouldn't try to be screen-writers, or novelists, or anything involving language use. On account of accuracy there is fairly critical.But I can tell this is another word that Lake is going to overuse, misuse, and abuse till kingdom come........'Hypercorrection, and neener, neener, neener!' Lol!
A email (of 2000) from Ivins (partial):"June 27, 2000, "Even with the Celexa and the counseling, the depression episodes still come and go. That's unpleasant enough. What is REALLY scary is the paranoia...Remember when I told you about the "metallic" taste in my mouth that I got periodically? It's when I get these "paranoid" episodes. Of course I regret them thoroughly when they are over, but when I'm going through them, it's as if I'm on a passenger on a ride...Ominously, a lot of the feelings of isolation - and desolation - that I went through before college are returning. I don't want to relive those years again...I've been seeing the counselor once a week."----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------So Ivins complains, a year and 3 months BEFORE Amerithrax of depression andparanoia.So is depression a typical symptom of (old term) sociopathy? No.Anti-social personality disorder? No.What about paranoia? Is THAT a typical symptom of sociopathy? No.Anti-social personality disorder? No.Celexa, a brand name for Citalopram, doesn't seem to be a drug for either sociopathy or anti-social personality disorder. It seems to be for depression and/or obsessive-compulsive disorder.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citalopram#Medical_uses
Mr. Rowley continues his string of hypercorrection and screwball interpretations by citing what Ivins believed about himself, instead of how professional health care workers described his problems.Ed
Mr. Rowley continues his string of hypercorrection and screwball interpretations by citing what Ivins believed about himself==========================================No, you're not reading the emails: Ivins is reporting what his doctor(s)said, NOT simply his symptoms, and he's doing it a year or so BEFORE Amerithrax, so he's certainly not doing it to 'cover his tracks'.
Another email* from IvinsApril 3, 2000, Occasionally I get this tingling that goes down both arms. At the same time I get a bit dizzy and get this unidentifiable "metallic" taste in my mouth. (I'm not trying to be funny, ---. It actually scares me a bit.) Other times it's like I'm not only sitting at my desk doing work, I'm also a few feet away watching me do it. There's nothing like living in both the first person singular AND the third person singular!"----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------So, tingling in arms, metallic taste in mouth, dissociative episode(s). Are any of THESE symptoms particularly connected to sociopathy? Nope. Anti-social personality disorder? Nope.The metallic taste in his mouth is most likely a side-effect of whatever medicine(s) he was taking. As to the dissociative episode(s):Dissociation in community samples is most commonly measured by the Dissociative Experiences Scale. The DSM-IV considers symptoms such as depersonalization, derealization and psychogenic amnesia to be core features of dissociative disorders. However, in the normal population dissociative experiences that are not clinically significant are highly prevalent, with 60% to 65% of the respondents indicating that they have had some dissociative experiences. The SCID-D is a structured interview used to assess and diagnose dissociation.Above from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociation_(psychology)#Measurement_and_diagnosis_of_dissociative_disorder*Both emails from http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/img-src-http-www-talkingpointsmemo-com-images-anthrax2-muck-jpg-vspace-5-hspace-5-align-left-anthrax-scientist-s-emails-suggest-paranoia-mental-problems
Another Ivins email from 2000:July 4, 2000: "The thinking now by the psychiatrist and the counselor is that my symptoms may not be those of a depression or bipolar disorder, they may be that of a 'Paranoid Personality Disorder.'"Which, naturally, is not(and never was!) sociopathy.http://www.fredericknewspost.com/archive/article_9cc24aa4-5897-5e8e-a375-64ba3bd6803e.html?mode=jqm
More from Ivins: (same source, Frederick News Post)Aug. 12, 2000: "Last Saturday, as you probably guessed from my e-mail, was one of my worst days in months. I wish I could control the thoughts in my mind. It's hard enough sometimes controlling my behavior. When I'm being eaten alive inside, I always try to put on a good front here at work and at home, so I don't spread the pestilence ... I get incredible paranoid, delusional thoughts at times, and there's nothing I can do until they go away, either by themselves or with drugs."--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Paranoia and delusional thoughts aren't particularly associated with sociopathy.Or anti-social personality disorder.http://www.fredericknewspost.com/archive/article_9cc24aa4-5897-5e8e-a375-64ba3bd6803e.html?mode=jqm
Hmm. When I came home from the health club this afternoon, I found SEVEN posts by Mr. Rowley awaiting moderation. I was tempted to just ignore them, since they are nothing but more of Mr. Rowley's hypercorrections and opinions. Example:Mr. Rowley wrote: "Ivins is reporting what his doctor(s) said, NOT simply his symptoms, and he's doing it a year or so BEFORE Amerithrax, so he's certainly not doing it to 'cover his tracks'."Is he? Or was Ivins twisting and distorting what his doctors said in order to get sympathy from a woman with whom he is pathologically obsessed?Mr. Rowley also wrote: "I wrote about the OPINIONS (free-standing) of former authors of books about Amerithrax. NONE has expressed any endorsement of the case against Ivins."How do you know? Who's going to report on someone agreeing with the official findings? Why would they report on it? Who would care?For all you know, a reporter might call 99 people who agree with the findings and then write an article about the ONE person who disagrees with the findings because that is CONTROVERSIAL NEWS. Controversy sells newspapers and creates headlines. It is NOT "news" when people agree with the official findings. Ed
Hmm. When I came home from the health club this afternoon, I found SEVEN posts by Mr. Rowley awaiting moderation. I was tempted to just ignore them, since they are nothing but more of Mr. Rowley's hypercorrections and opinions.====================================================Bruce Ivins' emails are just "[my] opinions"?!?!?!?!?!?Apparently, Lake has his own definition of 'opinion' too, one that doesn't jibe with that of the population as a whole.Irony of ironies department: "hypercorrection" is actually a term from MY field, linguistics. It refers NOT to correct usage (the thing I'm trying to get Lake closer to) but to incorrect usage. The classic and near ubiquitous example of this is when people write/say "between George and I". "I" is incorrect there, but it's incorrect because the rule against using "me" as part of a compound subject has been overgeneralized(=hypercorrected) implicitly to 'don't use "me" in any compound involving "and".'But, as noted, Lake has once again stumbled onto a term and when he does thathe then proceeds to misuse it, overuse it etc. ad nauseam.=======================================================Mr. Rowley wrote: "Ivins is reporting what his doctor(s) said, NOT simply his symptoms, and he's doing it a year or so BEFORE Amerithrax, so he's certainly not doing it to 'cover his tracks'."Is he? Or was Ivins twisting and distorting what his doctors said in order to get sympathy from a woman with whom he is pathologically obsessed?==============================================That's Ed Lake SPECULATING about motive. I see no reason Ivins would get any more "sympathy" for saying that they now, in 2000 (tentatively) think he has "anti-social personality disorder" than for saying that they now think he has "sociopathy". Though the latter has been an obsolescent-to-obsolete term since at least 1994* in the medical community, it, to the extent that it bears any meaning, is a rough equivalent to 'anti-social personality disorder'. The first part, about the psychiatrist/counselor backing off of the old (tentative) diagnoses of bipolar disorder/(mono-polar) depression is buttressed by the very medicine he was taking,Celexa. Again, it's an anti-depression drug. NOT an anti-sociopathy drug.Mr. Rowley also wrote: "I wrote about the OPINIONS (free-standing) of former authors of books about Amerithrax. NONE has expressed any endorsement of the case against Ivins."How do you know?=====================================================I conduct searches, lots and lots of searches. Thompson, last I heard, was STILL in the news business. An editor with lots of chances to express herself. The others have interviews, lectures/ public appearances etc. No endorsements.You seem to be staking out the absurd territory that you and Willman have lots of company in buying the Task Force case against Ivins but all THOSE people are 'secret adherents' of that case. Ain't buyin'. And if our positions were reversed, YOU wouldn't buy it either.*since at least 1994. See my research on that upthread. I haven't been able to find any pre-1994 info (ie on DSM-3 or previous DSMs). Too long ago.
Mr. Rowley is demonstrating "HYPERCORRECTION" once again.He asks, "Bruce Ivins' emails are just "[my] opinions"?!?!?!?!?!?"Of course, no one said that Ivins' emails were Mr. Rowley's opinions. Mr. Rowley posted Ivins' emails and followed each with an OPINION that the symptoms described in the emails do not relate to sociopathy. Mr. Rowley also wrote: "Irony of ironies department: "hypercorrection" is actually a term from MY field, linguistics. It refers NOT to correct usage (the thing I'm trying to get Lake closer to) but to incorrect usage."Yes, I know. I supplied a definition in the first post where I mentioned the term. I was tempted to ask if the term was invented FOR him, since he seems to personify the term. I point out that he misused a word, and he'll flood me with posts arguing that I am the one who misuses the word. That is "hypercorrection."He provides another example in his post: He wrote, "That's Ed Lake SPECULATING about motive."I made no speculation. I asked a question.In the next section of his post he again fails to understand what was written. I pointed out that reporters aren't interested in "non-news" stories, like people who agree with the official findings. Reporters do not typically write about such people. They hunt for and write about people who disagree with the official findings, because that is "controversy," and "controversy" sells newspapers.How does Mr. Rowley respond? By misunderstanding the point. He says, "I conduct searches, lots and lots of searches."What good are searches if reporters do not write about people who agree with the official findings? What can you hope to find about people who reporters do not write about?Now I expect Mr. Rowley will demonstrate "hypercorrection" once again and argue that I'm not seeing words the way he sees them.Ed
From Lew Weinstein's site: (post of March 6, 2010, some one month AFTER the Amerithrax Investigative Summary was issued)-------------------------------------POLITICAL SCIENCE PROFESSOR LEONARD COLE, of Rutgers University, the only person outside law enforcement to have interviewed every one of the surviving inhalation-anthrax victims, along with the relatives, friends, and associates of those who died, as well as the public health officials, scientists, researchers, hospital workers, and treating physicians. says …“the evidence is circumstantial and no way can Ivins be considered guilty ‘beyond a reasonable doubt,’ as has been claimed by Justice Department and FBI officials, including FBI Director Robert Mueller.”“There remain important gaps in the evidence.”For example, Ivins lived and worked in Frederick, Maryland, and the letters were mailed from Princeton, New Jersey. “There are no witnesses or other evidence that placed him in Princeton at the times of the mailings.”Cole says that even if you concede that Ivins had developed and stored the strain of anthrax sent in the letters, “more than one hundred co-workers had access to his laboratory, which was at the Army’s Fort Detrick research facility”Dr. Cole holds a PhD in political science from Columbia University and teaches public policy at Rutgers University.==================================================I assume the embedded quotations are from Cole himself. But whether that was a personal communication with Weinstein or DXer, or an unspecified public interview that Cole did, I'm not sure. There's no link, except to the 2008 revised edition of Cole's book.If I run across other explicit opinions from other authors post-August 2008 or post-February 2010, I'll post them here.https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/rutgers-professor-and-amerithrax-expert-dr-leonard-coles-%E2%80%9Cthere-remain-important-gaps-in-the-evidence-%E2%80%9D/
My problem with Graysmith, for the longest time and continuing!, is that none of the local libraries or bookstores--------new or used!--------has his Amerithrax book. But after using a number of fruitless search terms combos, today I found by combining "robert graysmith" and "bruce Ivins" I came across sample pages from an epilogue to AMERITHRAX: THE HUNT FOR THE ANTHRAX KILLER.https://books.google.com/books?id=fy6dcvs0UvoC&pg=PT361&lpg=PT361&dq=%22robert+graysmith%22+%22bruce+ivins%22&source=bl&ots=mRxmkNWgzc&sig=Kb47NUApu1uL8W1rUb2Af0ZVQnE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=odCzVJKTH4SsyASgjYLAAg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22robert%20graysmith%22%20%22bruce%20ivins%22&f=falseSo evidently somewhat like Cole, Graysmith put out a slightly newer edition and it gives the summary of the case against Ivins in an epilogue. It's not a copy-and-paste compatible format, so I'll just give the very end the old-fashioned way:[Quoting Jeff Taylor]"Based on the evidence we had collected, we could prove his guilt to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. No other lab in the world stored RMR-1029, which Bruce Ivins himself created, and which nobody could obtain without going through him; he worked late hours in his lab, something he had never done before, and would never do again after the anthrax letters were mailed. The Justice Department believes that Dr. Ivins, acting alone, committed the anthrax mailings."But if Bruce Ivins was the Anthrax Killer, he had not acted alone. As the troubled scientist had written:I'm a little dream-self, short and stout.I'm the other half of Bruce-------when he lets me out.When I get all steamed up, I don't pout.I push Bruce aside, then I'm free to run about!========================================================End of Epilogue, End of Book, except for the bibliography etc.The tenor and tone of the epilogue seems skeptical to me, but certainly not in the explicit way that Leonard Cole is. The key interpretation is of this:"But if Bruce Ivins was the Anthrax Killer, he had not acted alone."Yeah, Graysmith is saying that if Ivins did it, then he had the 'bad Bruce' along, leading the show. But that's not the sort of formulation (the whole sentence) you'd write if you were totally convinced that Ivins did it.........(Naturally, that's my interpretation).
R. Rowley wrote: "If I run across other explicit opinions from other authors post-August 2008 or post-February 2010, I'll post them here."Why? What's the point? Who cares about their OPINIONS?No questions are going to be resolved here by referring to OPINIONS. Only an objective analysis of facts and evidence can resolve debates.Ed
R. Rowley wrote: "If I run across other explicit opinions from other authors post-August 2008 or post-February 2010, I'll post them here."Why? What's the point? Who cares about their OPINIONS?No questions are going to be resolved here by referring to OPINIONS.========================================Au contraire. YOU, Mister Lake, have claimed for YEARS that people disagree with you on the probability of Ivins' guilt because:1) they don't know the LAW. (..."how circumstantial evidence works..." blah blah, blah)2) they don't know the science. 3) they just don't know the facts of the case, the evidence against Ivins etc.In response, I adduced lawyer DXer, lawyer Senator Patrick Leahy etc.I adduced scientists as well: Rush Holt, Claire Fraser-Liggett, Paul Keim, the latter two intimately involved in the scientific end of the Case.I adduced persons who had previously written books on the subject (Amerithrax) and who would be presumed to have an ongoing interest and knowledge of the case.ALL such persons expressing (bare minimum) skepticism that Ivins acted alone OR skepticism that he acted at all. Heck, even WILLMAN doesn't claim the evidence against Ivins was of beyond-a-reasonable-doubt caliber!Back to 'opinions': your ongoing confusion on this is....hopeless.What do you think a jury's verdict is but a collective OPINION on the validity and weight of constellations of facts/evidence (including testimony)touching on a criminal case?!?!?!?!?!?!?What do you think the Henry Fonda character was trying to do in TWELVE ANGRY MEN but change the opinions of those 11 other jurors?!?!?!? Had he failed, the best he could have hoped for was to hold out for a hung-jury. Swaying opinions was CRITICAL: it was what the film was about! How the heck could you miss that?!?!?Opinion in legal proceedings is guided by procedure, logic, precedent and probably lots of other things that I'm overlooking at the moment. But, in the final analysis, it's always opinion that prevails, opinion based on analysis.
R. Rowley wrote: "YOU, Mister Lake, have claimed for YEARS that people disagree with you on the probability of Ivins' guilt because ..."Not true. I did NOT claim that people were disagreeing on the probability of Ivins' guilt because they didn't know the law or the science or the facts of the case. I claimed their arguments were nonsense because they didn't didn't understand the law or the science or the facts of the case. I claimed they were disagreeing on WHO did it because they had their own unshakable theories about who sent the anthrax letters. R. Rowley is also being "hypercorrective" once again. He is misusing the word "opinion." He wrote: "Opinion in legal proceedings is guided by procedure, logic, precedent and probably lots of other things that I'm overlooking at the moment. But, in the final analysis, it's always opinion that prevails, opinion based on analysis."Yes, in a court of law, a judge can issue an opinion. That's his job. And it is understood that his OPINION can be overruled by judges at a higher level. And those judges' OPINION can in turn be overruled by judges at a higher level. So, rulings by judges are a matter of opinion. That's because we humans haven't figured out a better way to handle such matters.But, there is no judge here.This blog is supposed to be more like a JURY ROOM. We're here to examine the evidence we have seen and to come to a mutual understanding and agreement on what "the facts are," i,e, based upon the evidence, is it a FACT that Bruce Ivins sent the anthrax letters, as the prosecution claims? Judges are not allowed in the jury room. Instead of looking at the evidence, however, all Mr. Rowley and DXer want to do is get OPINIONS from people outside of the jury room. They want to sway the rest of the jury (me) by arguing that smart and important people who have nothing to do with the case have OPINIONS that should be weighed INSTEAD OF doing what we're supposed to do: look at the facts and evidence and decide for ourselves.That is both WRONG and it is STUPID. I'm here to discuss the facts and evidence, NOT to be swayed by IRRELEVANT opinions from people who may or may not know the facts and evidence of the case.A jury doesn't issue an "opinion." A jury comes to a unanimous agreement and issues a "FINDING." FINDINGn. the determination of a factual question vital (contributing) to a decision in a case by the trier of fact (jury or judge sitting without a jury) after a trial of a lawsuit, often referred to as findings of fact. A finding of fact is distinguished from a conclusion [or opinion] of law which is determined by the judge as the sole legal expert.Ed
Mr. Rowley also wrote: "What do you think the Henry Fonda character was trying to do in TWELVE ANGRY MEN but change the opinions of those 11 other jurors?!?!?!?"He was trying to get them to look at THE EVIDENCE.The other jurors were all using OPINIONS AND BELIEFS based upon their own personal lives, instead of looking at the EVIDENCE. Fonda's character was trying to get them to stop thinking about their personal issues and do what they were supposed to do in the jury room: come to an agreement on the issue based upon a review of the evidence. Some jurors BELIEVED the defendant was guilty because he was "the type" to do such a thing, or because he was an ungrateful kid just like their own kid. Or they would vote guilty because they didn't want to disagree with the majority. Fonda's character got them all to look at the EVIDENCE instead of just going with their OPINIONS and BELIEFS. That's EXACTLY what I'm doing here. Ed
Mr. Rowley also wrote: "What do you think the Henry Fonda character was trying to do in TWELVE ANGRY MEN but change the opinions of those 11 other jurors?!?!?!?"He was trying to get them to look at THE EVIDENCE.======================================No,1) there was no defense witness named.2) there was no defense physical evidence referred to.There was only a REINTERPRETATION of the prosecutor's/police's evidence. First the Henry Fonda character does that on certain skeins, then the others join in.WHO here has been skeptical and skeptically analytic of the Task Force/DoJ's* purported evidence of Ivins guilt HERE (on the Internet in general and this blog)?1) by a long shot DXer has been outstanding in doing on the Internet FOR YEARS what the Henry Fonda character was doing in that jury room in 12 ANGRY MEN. I don't always agree with him on every detail (and frequently he's right and I'm wrong) but my hat's off to his doggedness and his ability to delve into multiple skeins of evidence.2) On a lesser scale-------because I'm a Johnny-Come-Lately, because I'm no attorney, and because I don't have the patience/time to go through document dumps, FOIA requests etc-----------and to a lesser degree, I (and others) have done somewhat similar stuff. Back around late last year/early this year I critically looked at the evidence on what mental illness(es) Ivins likely had. I did that by looking at the relevant emails, including ones where Ivins talked about his symptoms, his prescribed medicine, and the conflicting diagnoses by the shrinks, by observing that the Task Force AND the Saathoff Panel supplied no such diagnoses whatsoever. Astounding when you realize how much effort they put into trying to claim that mental illness was somehow evidence of guilt.Mister Lake has proven himself constitutionally unable to criticize:1) the Task Force2) the FBI3) the DoJ attorneys involved, excepting only when he senses a chance to blame those attorneys for what the Task Force got wrong (ie throwing Rachel Lieber under the bus for the lyophilizer disaster).He's an anti-juror #8.* Task Force/DoJ's*. Of course there was no Ivins trial but the entities named (Task Force and DoJ) correspond to the police and prosecutor in 12 ANGRY MEN.
Mr. Rowley wrote: "Mister Lake has proven himself constitutionally unable to criticize:1) the Task Force2) the FBI"I'm not here to criticize anyone. I'm here to discuss the evidence. Only IDIOTS sit around criticizing things instead of trying to understand them.Mr. Rowley appears to have a mindless distrust of the government, and he cannot discuss any evidence they present.I could criticize the WAY the lyophilizer evidence was presented. But, what would be the point in an argument where the other side has a closed mind and cannot see any other interpretation of events other than their own?The following argument from Mr. Rowley is just plain IGNORANT:-------------------- He was trying to get them to look at THE EVIDENCE.======================================No,1) there was no defense witness named.2) there was no defense physical evidence referred to.There was only a REINTERPRETATION of the prosecutor's/police's evidence.--------------------------------They were there to discuss the evidence, they DID SO by REINTERPRETING what some of it meant.There is no need for "defense witnesses" in a trial. And what kind of "physical evidence" could the defense produce in such a case? Mr. Rowley appears to have another screwball idea about how trials are held.Here's a comment from Juror #8:"NO. 8: All right. I had a peculiar feeling about this trial. Somehow I felt that the defense counsel never really conducted a thorough cross-examination. I mean, he was appointed by the court to defend the boy. He hardly seemed interested. Too many questions were left unasked."That's the only time the word "defense" is used in the script. All the defense lawyer did was cross-examine witnesses and give a summary. Mr. Rowley's argument is ignorant and bogus.Ed
I just did a search for the screenplay for "12 Angry Men" and found a couple copies on-line. Click HERE for a pdf file of one of the copies.Here's the description of the 12 jurors:FOREMAN: A small, petty man who is impressed with the authority he has and handles himself quite formally. Not overly bright, but dogged.JUROR NO. 2: A meek, hesitant man who finds it difficult to maintain any opinions of his own. Easily swayed and usually adopts the opinion of the last person to whom he has spoken.JUROR NO. 3: A very strong, very forceful, extremely opinionated man within whom can be detected a streak of sadism. He is a humorless man who is intolerant of opinions other than his own and accustomed to forcing his wishes and views upon others.JUROR NO. 4: Seems to be a man of wealth and position. He is a practiced speaker who presents himself well at all times. He seems to feel a little bit above the rest of the jurors. His only concern is with the facts in this case, and he is appalled at the behavior of the others.JUROR NO. 5: A naive, very frightened young man who takes his obligations in this case very seriously but, who finds it difficult to speak up when his elders have the floor.JUROR NO. 6: An honest but dull-witted man who comes upon his decisions slowly and carefully. A man who finds it difficult to create positive opinions, but who must listen to and digest and accept those opinions offered by others which appeal to him most.JUROR NO. 7: A loud, flashy-handed salesman type who has more important things to do than to sit on a jury. He is quick to show temper, quick to form opinions on things about which he knows nothing. Is a bully and, of course, a coward.JUROR NO. 8: A quiet, thoughtful, gentle man. A man who sees all sides of every question and constantly seeks the truth. A man of strength tempered with compassion. Above all, he is a man who wants justice to be done and will fight to see that it is.JUROR NO. 9: A mild gentle old man long since defeated by life and now merely waiting to die. A man who recognizes himself for what he is and mourns the days when it would have been possible to be courageous without shielding himself behind his many years.JUROR NO. 10 An angry, bitter man. He is man who antagonizes almost at sight. A bigot who places no values on any human life save his own, a man who has been nowhere and is going nowhere and knows it deep within him.JUROR NO. 11: A refugee from Europe who has come to this country in 1941. A man who speaks with an accent and who is ashamed humble, almost subservient to the people around him, but who will honestly seek justice because he has suffered through so much injustice. "Juror No. 8" is the part played by Henry Fonda. Here's the dialog where Fonda first votes against the other 11:NO. 10: (to NO. 8). Well, do you believe his story?NO. 8: I don't know whether I believe it or not. Maybe I don't.NO. 7: So what'd you vote not guilty for?NO. 8: There were eleven votes for guilty. It's not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first.NO. 7: Who says it's easy for me?NO. 8: No one.NO. 7: What, just because I voted fast? I think the guy's guilty. You couldn't change my mind if you talked for a hundred years.NO. 8: I don't want to change your mind. I just want to talk for a while.JUROR NO. 8 WANTS TO DISCUSS THE EVIDENCE.What is see on this blog is two Truthers who have made up their minds as to who did it, and they do not want to discuss the evidence. Sometimes they even absurdly claim "There is no evidence" against Dr. Ivins.They might as well be quoting Juror No. 7: "You couldn't change my mind if you talked for a hundred years."Ed
ver·dictˈvərdikt/nouna decision on a disputed issue in a civil or criminal case or an inquest."the jury returned a verdict of ‘not guilty.’"synonyms: judgment, adjudication, decision, finding, ruling, decree, resolution, pronouncement, conclusion, opinion; determination"the judge's verdict is final"an opinion or judgment."I'm anxious to know your verdict on me"
From the text of 12 ANGRY MEN: (partial)-----------TWO (timidly). Oh. Well … (Long pause) I just think he’s guilty. I thought it was obvious. I mean nobody proved otherwise.EIGHT (quietly). Nobody has to prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defendant doesn’t have to open his mouth. That’s in the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment. You’ve heard of it.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Compare the above exchange with what appears on this very site (the main one I mean) relating to Bruce Ivins: (partial, first overall heading, subheading)The Case Against Dr. IvinsThe facts say that Dr. Ivins was the anthrax mailer:19. There is no evidence that Dr. Ivins could not possibly have sent the anthrax letters.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Is the author of point #19 following the reasoning of juror EIGHT or juror TWO?Let the reader decide!https://docs.google.com/document/d/1irVXTuMAQESSwtoqOtQiC_-5dZa59LCmOxA_IQzlxww/edit?pli=1
Mr. Rowley is being "hypercorrective" again. And, as usual, instead of looking at ALL THE EVIDENCE, he argues just one point as if it is the ONLY EVIDENCE. All point #19 says is that there is nothing that says Ivins' couldn't possibly have done it. E.g., he had no alibi. And he had the capability.As I recall, I added point #19 only so I could have an even 20 points. It basically says the same thing as points #3 and #12. Ed
All point #19 says is that there is nothing that says Ivins' couldn't possibly have done it. ==================================That's what Juror #2 is saying about HIS defendant. Just in slightly different words. It's the PRINCIPLE that counts. But that (the concept of a principle), like 'hypercorrection'----------a word you've misused now repeatedly since 'discovering' it--------is a foreign language to you. You seem to have some sort of semantic aphasia.===========================================As I recall, I added point #19 only so I could have an even 20 points--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------So, you even have TRIVIAL reasons for taxing someone (deceased) with quintuple murder!
Like I said in another post, only IDIOTS sit around criticizing things. Mr. Rowley refuses to discuss the evidence. He can only criticize the way I and the government do things.It's clearly a total waste of time to try to get him to discuss anything.Ed
Mr. Rowley once again demonstrates "hypercorrection." He's wrong, but he'll argue forever that he is right by using arguments which do nothing but show he is wrong AND hypercorrective.synonym [sin-uh-nim]noun1. a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the language, as happy, joyful, elated.A verdict is NOT the same as an opinion, except in colloquial situations.In colloquial situations, a woman trying on a new dress can look to another woman for an opinion and ask, "What's the verdict?"In such a situation, it is understood that "opinion" and "verdict" have the same meaning.But, in FORMAL situations, such as in a courtroom, only an "expert" like a judge can have an "opinion" that is valid on some technical issue. A verdict, however, is NOT an "opinion" and it is not presented by the jury until AFTER the evidence is examined.But, I'm certain Mr. Rowley will see things his hypercorrective way.
A verdict is NOT the same as an opinion,============================================1) I did not write "a verdict is the same as an opinion".2) I wrote (copy and paste of my own statement above):"What do you think a jury's verdict is but a collective OPINION on the validity and weight of constellations of facts/evidence (including testimony)touching on a criminal case?!?!?!?!?!?!?"==============================================So, Lake proceeds to delete "collective", he goes on to delete (via making no reference to it) " on the validity and weight of constellations of facts/evidence (including testimony) touching on a criminal case"yet SOMEHOW Lake convinces himself that our disagreement is still being faithfully rendered!!!!! It ain't! You've misconstrued what I wrote (purposely I fear) and misrepresented it by disputing NOT the full range of stipulation ofmy original statement but by disputing your OWN severely (over)simplified/ warped version of what I wrote. You've been doing this to me FOR YEARS. Before I came along, before Amerithrax, you were doing it to OTHER PEOPLE on other subject matters: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.writing.screenplays/DGlPAX_p3HIThe link of 2000 is to a group that discussed screenplay writing and the originator of the thread, a LURKER, started it because Lake had misrepresented OTHER people in the group one time too many. Many of Lake's 'defenders' in the thread don't dispute his penchant for selective and misleading quoting/citing.
Mr. Rowley is just playing mindless HYPERCORRECTION games again. And he clearly cannot discuss anything. He can only criticize.Ed
Hmm. I just checked that link to the 2000 discussion about screenplays. Too bad it doesn't show what I actually wrote. It just shows the reaction to what I wrote.When I get some free time, I'll have to try to find out what it was that bothered the guy so much. I don't remember the discussion at all.Some people found what the guy wrote to be pretty stupid. So, looking at both sides of the story might be worthwhile.Ed
Hmm. I just checked that link to the 2000 discussion about screenplays. Too bad it doesn't show what I actually wrote. It just shows the reaction to what I wrote.==============================================Here's half of Ed Lake's first post there:Allison,Hmmm. It's kind of interesting to sign onto this newsgroup in themorning and to find a thread with 40 messages analyzing my character. Ifeel like a celebrity! :-)No one has ever called me a kook before. For some strange reason, Ifeel flattered. A lot of nonconformists and iconoclasts are calledkooks.For the record, I wasn't misquoting Kem Nunn, I was paraphrasing what he said in order to emphasize the stupidity of his remark. //snip//--------------------------------------------------------------------Of course if you 'paraphrase' people as a general practice PRIMARILY with a view to "emphasize the stupidity of [their] remark[s]" that's a guarantee that you are going to misrepresent them. Which you did 14-15 years ago talking about screenwriting, and which you have continued to do in talking about Amerithrax.--------------------------------------------------------------When I get some free time, I'll have to try to find out what it was that bothered the guy so much--------------------------------------------------------------------It's all in the first post and he ISN'T talking about one thing, he's talking about your predominant mode: (partial): (Gizmophreax)-------------Ed Lake, I am sick to death of you misquoting people and then turning it around against them. You do this most often against the successful writers who come here to help people. You ignore their advice, then belittle them, in particular by grossly misquoting them and then arrogantly pontificating about how much better you know.
So, you don't have to be an Anthrax Truther to have ignorant opinions - and to get upset when an argument is shown to be bogus. People in all kinds of areas can have ignorant opinions and get upset when their beliefs and opinions are challenged.I think everyone knows that.Ed