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?!?!?!?!?!?!?A jury's verdict, of course, is NOT a "collective opinion." It is a FINDING. The jury selection process is an attempt to get rid of any potential jurors who might have opinions about the case before they are admitted to the jury. During the trial, the jury first listens to the prosecution present their evidence intended to show that the defendant is guilty of the crime for which he or she is charged, and then the defense presents their arguments intended to show that the evidence presented by the prosecution is not conclusive. The jury is supposed to listen to both sides of the argument, then they go into a room where they are supposed to discuss the evidence to reach an agreed upon "finding" as to whether the prosecution's case was proven or not proven. If they cannot unanimously agree one way or the other, then the process starts all over again with a new trial.
Also interestingly, R. Rowley argued this:
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?!?!?!?The screenplay for "12 Angry Men" is on-line HERE, and it shows that all the Henry Fonda character ("Juror No. 8") wants to do was what they are supposed to do in the jury room: discuss the case and the evidence.
And, gradually, that is what they start to do.
In concept, all the jurors can still have the opinion that the defendant is guilty and yet agree that the prosecution's case is "not proven." If all the jurors feel that way, the "finding" or "verdict" must be "Not guilty due to insufficient evidence." In doing so, they do NOT decide that the defendant is "innocent." They merely decide that there is "reasonable doubt" about his guilt.
The jury deliberation process is intended to settle all misunderstandings. If a juror explains why he thinks the evidence says the defendant is guilty or not proven guilty, the other jurors will supposedly explain how they view the same evidence differently. Gradually, though explaining how they view the evidence, they are all supposed to agree on the "correct" way to view the evidence.
In "12 Angry Men," for example, some jurors saw the eye-witness testimony as being conclusive. But then someone pointed out that the eye witness saw the crime from her bed in the middle of the night. And then his conversation takes place between the jurors:
FOREMAN: Wait a minute! Did she wear glasses at all? I don't remember.
NO. 11: (excited). Of course she did! The woman wore bifocals. I remember this very clearly. They looked quite strong.
NO. 9: That's right. Bifocals. She never took them off.
NO. 4: She did wear glasses. Funny. I never thought of it.
NO. 8: Listen, she wasn't wearing them in bed. That's for sure. She testified that in the midst of her tossing and turning she rolled over and looked casually out the window. The murder was taking place as she looked out, and the lights went out a split second later. She couldn't have had time to put on her glasses. Now maybe she honestly thought she saw the boy kill his father. I say that she saw only a blur.
NO. 3: How do you know what she saw? Maybe she's far-sighted.
[He looks around. No one answers.]
NO. 3: (loudly). How does he know all these things?
[There is silence.]
NO. 8: Does anyone think there still is not a reasonable doubt?Minds were changed by looking at the evidence. However, no one argued that the defendant was "innocent." All they did by discussing the evidence was determine that the prosecution's case was not sufficient to eliminate "reasonable doubt." The final verdict was "Not guilty due to insufficient evidence."
The people who argue that they do not believe Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer refuse to discuss the evidence with people who feel the evidence says Ivins was the killer. I've been trying to get them to discuss the evidence for years, but to no avail. They even state that there is "no evidence" to discuss. It appears that, by denying the very existence of evidence showing Ivins to be guilty, they feel they can never be put in a position of having to discuss the evidence. And if they don't discuss the evidence, they can never be shown to be wrong in their beliefs.
When R. Rowley is show to be wrong on other matters, like the law or the definition of words, he becomes "hypercorrective" and endlessly argues that his interpretation is the only correct interpretation.
When DXer is shown to be wrong about other matters, he argues that I am not an official "expert" on the subject, and therefore my view is of no value no matter how much evidence I may have. When experts disagree with him, he finds something in their background to dismiss their views (right or wrong) as worthless. He argues that presenting facts and evidence is no different from arguing what is "possible." Nothing but what DXer believes means anything to him.
Ed
The final verdict was "Not guilty due to a lack of sufficient evidence."
ReplyDelete============================================
You've pulled this before. There is no such verdict (in any jurisdiction*) as
"Not guilty due to a lack of sufficient evidence."
There is only 'guilty'/'not guilty'. Or 'we could not agree on a verdict'. Hung jury. The underlying REASON may be 'lack of sufficient evidence'. But it may be because the jury didn't TRUST the evidence presented (ie as in the mountains of evidence of guilt of OJ Simpson). That's an EXPLANATION for the verdict, it isn't the verdict itself.
*Of course in civil suites it's liable/non-liable. Or legally responsible/not legally responsible.
The jury found petitioner "not guilty due to insufficient evidence."
DeleteClick HERE for the Cornell Law School source
Jury returns verdict of not guilty
Verdict recites: “not guilty due to insufficient evidence”
Click HERE for the South Texas College of Law ppt file.
The verdict was "not guilty due to insufficient evidence."
Click HERE for the Boston College Law School file.
In fact, the jury's verdict read, "not guilty due to insufficient evidence."
Click HERE for the Louisiana case.
I can find hundreds of mentions of "due to insufficient evidence," but none with use the wording "due to a lack of sufficient evidence." So, I'll change the wording in the text at the start of this thread.
Ed
R. Rowley has started another IDIOTIC argument over the meaning of words. He wrote: "There is no such verdict (in any jurisdiction*) as "Not guilty due to a lack of sufficient evidence.""
ReplyDeleteIt's the way verdicts are often stated by the jury. And it is what is MEANT by the verdict "not guilty." It IS what the verdict "Not guilty" MEANS.
One SOURCE says:
Not guilty is also a verdict in a criminal trial by a judge sitting without a jury or by a jury after finding that the prosecution has not proved the defendant guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt
Another SOURCE says:
What is VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY?
a verdict declaring the case is not proven against the defendant. It does not mean he is innocent
A verdict of "Not guilty" means that the prosecution did not prove its case. In other words, the prosecution didn't present sufficient evidence to convince the jury of the defendant's guilt.
The notion that the jury did not "trust" the evidence is Mr. Rowley's warped spin on things. A jury does not discuss "trusting" the prosecutors or the witnesses. They discuss the EVIDENCE. In the OJ Simpson trial, the jurors may have LIKED the defense lawyer more than the prosecutor, and that may have affected the verdict, but it is NOT part of the process. It's just something you have to live with when you ask humans to do something.
But, I can see that this is just going to lead into another MORONIC hypercorrection argument from Mr. Rowley. He'll argue that if a jury doesn't believe the evidence is sufficient, that is somehow the same as not trusting the evidence. It's NOT.
It's the difference between building a complete bridge and building a bridge that is not sufficient to get to the other side.
"Trust" is NOT an issue in a jury room. "DOUBT" is the issue.
In "12 Angry Men" they discuss the murder weapon. The prosecution stated that the knife that was used was rare and belonged to the defendant. One of the jurors found a knife just like it in a store near the crime scene. That means the knife is not as convincing as it was argued to be. There is room for DOUBT that it was actually the defendant's knife.
The same with the eyewitness in the case. It's not that the jurors do not TRUST the witness. It's that they have DOUBT about what she actually saw. "Trust" implies she (or the prosecution) could be doing something malicious. "Doubt" means that the evidence could not be as conclusive as it was argued to be because of human error.
But, I can see that Mr. Rowley will just use HYPERCORRECTION to argue that his interpretation of these words is the correct interpretation. And, he'll argue it forever, no matter what EVIDENCE I supply, because there is no middle ground in HYPERCORRECTION arguments with Mr. Rowley.
Ed
This is NOT a question of OPINION Mr Lake: you've seen in your lifetime hundreds, if not thousands, of courtroom dramas. NONE of them feature a jury foreman reading a 'verdict' of 'not guilty by reason of insufficiency of the evidence'. There's a reason for that: it's 'guilty' or 'not guilty'. Full stop.
DeleteThe 'dramas' are imitating life at least on that score. Anything beyond that verdict is speculative, anecdotal etc. Again, the underlying reason MAY be insufficiency of evidence or one of the twelve jurors might emphasize THAT aspect, another juror may emphasize-------if it's an acquittal----------strong rebutting evidence put on by the defense etc. The jurors DON'T have to agree on that (the underlying reason for an acquittal), they merely have go agree on the overarching verdict: guilty or not guilty.
(You might want to retire 'hypercorrection' as you've abused it enough for several lifetimes; and, by the way, the adjectival form is 'hypercorrective'.)
In "12 Angry Men" they discuss the murder weapon. The prosecution stated that the knife that was used was rare and belonged to the defendant. One of the jurors found a knife just like it in a store near the crime scene. That means the knife is not as convincing as it was argued to be. There is room for DOUBT that it was actually the defendant's knife.
Delete=========================================
That was undoubtedly a violation of the court's instructions, for jurors are supposed to judge based solely on what was presented to them IN COURT. If it had been the other way around (ie a juror turned up 'evidence' on his own pointing to guilt) it would be sufficient for a mistrial or a guilty verdict being thrown out on appeal.
R. Rowley wrote: "NONE of them feature a jury foreman reading a 'verdict' of 'not guilty by reason of insufficiency of the evidence'."
DeleteOn the contrary. I recall that term being used. That's why I used it. But, I don't know how to research it to see where it was used -- other than what I wrote in my Jan. 20, 8:27 AM comment HERE.
R. Rowley also wrote: "You might want to retire 'hypercorrection' as you've abused it enough for several lifetimes"
I'll retire it when you stop being hypercorrective. Previously, I used the term "word games." You never seemed to understand what that meant. Now I'm using a term you clearly do understand.
R. Rowley also wrote: "That was undoubtedly a violation of the court's instructions, for jurors are supposed to judge based solely on what was presented to them IN COURT."
Yes, I know that. But you brought up "12 Angry Men" as a model of some kind. And I was explaining how the evidence was examined in the movie. You should be able to understand that, instead of just being hypercorrective and ignoring the point.
Ed
R. Rowley wrote: "The jurors DON'T have to agree on that (the underlying reason for an acquittal), they merely have go agree on the overarching verdict: guilty or not guilty."
DeleteNo so. Just the opposite. It isn't the jury's job to determine if the defendant is "guilty" or "not guilty." It's their job to determine if the prosecutor has proved guilt or not.
In courts in some other countries, the verdicts are "proven" and "not proven." That's really what "guilty" and not guilty" mean. "Not guity" doesn't mean the guy didn't do it (as in the OJ Simpson case), it just means the guy was not PROVEN guilty because the evidence was insufficient to do so.
Ed
No so. Just the opposite. It isn't the jury's job to determine if the defendant is "guilty" or "not guilty." It's their job to determine if the prosecutor has proved guilt or not.
Delete===================================
I like your formulation better but OUR juries don't use the term "proven" or "not proven", so we're stuck with conventional American nomenclature.
As to 'insufficiency of evidence' that is going to cover just about all such acquittals, excepting only that tiny percentage of case where a verdict is "not guilty by reason of mental insanity/defect/whatever". For 'insufficiency' isn't primarily about numbers or variety....
R. Rowley wrote: "I like your formulation better but OUR juries don't use the term "proven" or "not proven", so we're stuck with conventional American nomenclature."
DeleteAgreed. We're stuck with "not guilty" even when we know in our bones that the defendant is guilty as hell, but there just wasn't enough evidence presented in court to prove it -- or the defense attorney was too good at finding what buttons to push on the jury to make them have "reasonable doubt."
Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just attempted another post, once again demonstrating why I should probably just ignore ALL of his posts, instead of commenting upon some of them. "DXer" wrote:
ReplyDelete---------------------------
Ed is mistaken. Assessing the demeanor of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony is very much part of the fact-finding role. For example, the statements in a file made by someone who got her instructions from an alien at night (as the counselor says she did here) likely would be given zero weight. More likely, the evidence would not be allowed to be presented to the jury.
---------------------------------------------
There's nothing in what I wrote that has anything to do with NOT "judging the demeanor of witnesses."
"DXer" was just posting another statement of his beliefs once again, arguing that a witness in the Ivins case does not meet his personal standards and therefore everyone should be required to ignore whatever she said.
Ed
Here in it's entirety is another attempted post by "DXer":
ReplyDelete--------------------------------
Ed wrote above:
"A jury does not discuss "trusting" ... the witnesses." Ed is mistaken. That is exactly what a jury does. They make credibility determinations. They relatedly determine the weight to be given a witness. Everyone but Ed knows that.
------------------
So, we have another argument over words: "trust" versus "credibility."
I'll conceded that credibility is a big factor on how witnesses are viewed by a jury. "Credibility" is defined as "the quality of being believed or accepted as true, real, or honest".
However, I personally probably wouldn't use the word "trust" when referring to a witness. For me, trust is EARNED. And it's a yes-no thing. I don't usually give trust to people I don't know. So, I wouldn't really "trust" any witness in a trial. I'd listen to what they have to say and decide if they are "credible" or not. If I didn't like their demeanor, I might be biased against accepting what they are saying. But, I think I'd still listen and decide if what they say is "credible" or not.
If I found them generally "credible," I probably still wouldn't "trust" them. Unless it's earned in some way, "trust" implies a blind faith or a bias. "Credibility" implies that an evaluation is being made on a point by point basis. The most convincing lies are lies that are mixed with lots of truth. So, a juror needs to evaluate, not trust.
But, I can see how some would see "credible" and "trustworthy" as the same thing. I wouldn't.
Ed
Problem with your links to TWELVE ANGRY MEN: things were changed from that (?original?) screenplay to what hit the movie screen in ?1958?). I can pick SOME of it out from memory:
ReplyDelete1) screenplay from link: jurors saw eye-witness wearing glasses as she testified. Identified as 'bifocals' (or at least that's what one juror says, but who knows whether the others saw something different or just never paid attention?).
Movie: elderly juror asks EG Marshal character (juror) why he rubs his nose from time to time. Marshal answers that the nose holders of his glasses irritate. Elderly juror then notes that one eyewitness (woman) was rubbing HER nose when she was on the stand. The jurors (or several of them) then INFER that witness probably frequently wore glasses, ones she was NOT wearing on the stand. THEN elderly juror asks Marshal if he wears glasses to bed. Marshal then says 'no, no one wears glasses to bed' (as a long-time eyeglass-wearer, I would call that an overstatement but what the heck!).
Inferential chain: EG Marshal (and other eyeglass wearers) rub(s) nose from time to time from the glasses; woman witness wearing NO GLASSES rubs her nose; inference is made that she (sometimes?) wears glasses; Marshal's statement that 'no one' wears glasses to bed is taken at face value; they infer that she MIGHT need them for distance seeing. This is cause of 'reasonable doubt' about her testimony.
Point: NONE of this was brought out at the trial, so none of it would be called identifiable 'evidence', since evidence that the prosecution/defense/judge don't know about simply isn't evidence in anything more than a generic sense(not a judicial sense). What you have is a discussion of, not evidence, but RELIABILITY of a witness's statement(s), based again, not on evidence(no evidence about witness's eyeglass wearing was presented at the trial), but on interpretations/opinions/etc. about the reliability of the inferences made about whether the witness wore glasses, whether she was wearing them at the time of the crime etc.
2) TV screenplay: one juror (#7) complains that he's missing out on his tickets to THE SEVEN YEAR ITCH(play, I guess)( or the movie?).
By contrast, in the movie #7 (played by Jack Warden) complains about missing the Yankee game (have no idea why they changed it, perhaps to make the character more working class?). He's depicted as more concerned about the game than the deliberations: BOTH when he votes 'guilty' and when he votes 'not guilty'.
I don't know how many other things were changed, I've only looked at a fraction of the screenplay.
R. Rowley wrote: "Point: NONE of this was brought out at the trial, so none of it would be called identifiable 'evidence', since evidence that the prosecution/defense/judge don't know about simply isn't evidence in anything more than a generic sense(not a judicial sense). What you have is a discussion of, not evidence, but RELIABILITY of a witness's statement(s), based again, not on evidence(no evidence about witness's eyeglass wearing was presented at the trial), but on interpretations/opinions/etc. about the reliability of the inferences made about whether the witness wore glasses, whether she was wearing them at the time of the crime etc."
ReplyDeleteIt appears Mr. Rowley is being hypercorrective again. He is trying to correct me in my statements that Juror #8 wanted to talk about the evidence, and that "Minds were changed by looking at the evidence."
Mr. Rowley incorrectly argues that eye witness testimony "simply isn't evidence in anything more than a generic sense(not a judicial sense)." He made the incorrect statement in an attempt to argue that I was incorrect. That is the definition of "hypercorrection."
He'll also argue that he didn't say that eyewitness testimony isn't evidence. He said that the topic of the witness needing glasses was not presented as "evidence" in the trial, and therefore is not evidence. But, those weren't the exact words he used either, so he'll be more hypercorrective and argue that I didn't use his exact words. His exact words are in his comment. What I'm doing is showing that his exact words demonstrate a hypercorrective misunderstanding of "evidence."
HYPERCORRECTION: "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."
Mr. Rowley somehow believes that discussing an eyewitnesses testimony - or the reliability of the eyewitness testimony - is NOT discussing the evidence. He couldn't be more wrong.
He argues that the fact that the witness wore glasses was not brought up in the trial and therefore cannot "be called 'identifiable' evidence."
He clearly doesn't understand what constitutes "evidence." The evidence is the eyewitness's TESTIMONY. When the jurors discuss her testimony, they are DISCUSSING THE EVIDENCE. When they discuss the "RELIABILITY of the witness's statement(s)," they are DISCUSSING THE EVIDENCE. When they discuss the witness's DEMEANOR or APPEARANCE, they are DISCUSSING THE EVIDENCE.
And since a person who is "hypercorrective" will just continue to argue his incorrect interpretations, insisting that they are correct, we can expect that Mr. Rowley will continue by arguing the meanings of specific words in order to make it appear that he was correct in some way.
Ed
P.S. I suspect that the difference between the TV screenplay and the movie are nothing but a director's or actor's change to "improve" the final product. (Referring to a play would "date" the movie to the time when that play was on Broadway. Referring to a baseball game won't show that the events depicted in the movie do not represent the current time.)
Ed
It appears Mr. Rowley is being hypercorrective again. He is trying to correct me in my statements that Juror #8 wanted to talk about the evidence, and that "Minds were changed by looking at the evidence."
Delete================================================
That's a lousy summary of my post. You should know that. My PRIMARY focus was showing that what we've been talking about for a few years now, the FILM, 12 ANGRY MEN, is not identical to the screenplay you linked.
There are important differences (important for people who care about the DETAILS of a criminal case, the method(s) of deliberation, the role of inference etc.), but it's clear that you want a black-and-white oversimplified version of trials and jury deliberations rather than the reality.
The rest of your post was similarly non-responsive to the eyeglasses, what they determined etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------
" When they discuss the witness's DEMEANOR or APPEARANCE, they are DISCUSSING THE EVIDENCE."
===================================
No, that's not what a lawyer would say (DXer or anyone else). Evidence is what a side ENTERS into a trial: 'Allow me to enter into evidence......'[whatever]. There's not supposed to be 'evidence' hidden from the attorneys involved.
That you don't make this distinction I understand: you don't make a distinction in linguistics (ie my field) between "language" and "writing system", as we discovered some time ago. You don't distinguish between "junk mail" and 'mail that has been/will be junked or discarded' etc. The list is endless. Which is why I think you have a case of semantic aphasia of the 'fluent' (sub)type. Link:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/semantic%20aphasia
Another: http://www.medilexicon.com/medicaldictionary.php?t=5436
Hypercorrection:
Delete"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.
============================================
That's what Mister Lake has done in the past with:
'junk mail' which he insisted on and on and on and on and on a couple years ago was simply mail that was/is about to be/will be 'junked' or discarded. He ignored all links and info to the contrary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_mail
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising_mail
THAT'S "non-standard usage" because I've never met a single American in my six plus decades who ever used 'junk mail' in that way. It is also an "over-application" of "junk" as an adjective. He seems to think if you merely ADD thusly: "junk" + "mail"= obvious meaning/usage of 'junk mail'. Sorry but morphology/semantics is trickier than that.
*Nor did Lake present any evidence that a living soul apart from him used 'junk mail' in the way he did(?still does?).
Lately, for a few weeks now, Lake has done the same with the term 'hypercorrection': not really understanding how/why/when linguistists use the term, he immediately seized it for his own (all-too-predictable) polemical uses. He's becoming a self-parody.
R. Rowley wrote: "'junk mail' which he insisted on and on and on and on and on a couple years ago was simply mail that was/is about to be/will be 'junked' or discarded. He ignored all links and info to the contrary. ...
DeleteTHAT'S "non-standard usage" because I've never met a single American in my six plus decades who ever used 'junk mail' in that way. It is also an "over-application" of "junk" as an adjective."
Does Mr. Rowley realize he his still arguing something that was STUPID to argue about TWO YEARS AGO? He's still insisting that his usage of the term "junk mail" is the only valid usage.
He is demonstrating what the term hypercorrective" means when he tries to correct something that is not incorrect, but he believes it is.
In a comment he made (click HERE) on June 6, 2013, Mr. Rowley argued that the term "junk mail" has a specific meaning and does not apply to mail that is routinely thrown away by news organizations. And HE'S STILL ARGUING HIS BELIEF!!!!!
Here's a dictionary definition of "junk mail":
mail that is not wanted : mail that consists mostly of advertising"
Here's another dictionary definition of "junk mail":
"Junk mail is defined as unwanted catalogs, advertisements, coupons and other offerings that are delivered to you via postal mail or email.""
Another definition:
"letters or emails, usually advertising products or services, that are sent to people although they have not asked to receive them
In other words, "junk mail" is something that is received in the mail that you did not ask for and DO NOT WANT.
Mr. Rowley needs to EXPLAIN why the term "junk mail" does not apply to unsolicited mail that the recipient DOES NOT WANT but may routinely receive.
The J-Lo letter was throw away as "junk mail" because it was UNSOLICITED and UNWANTED. The same with some of the anthrax letters sent to the media. It was recognized as UNSOLICITED and UNWANTED mail (i.e., "junk mail") and it was thrown away.
Does Mr. Rowley think "junk mail" only applies to advertising? I get advertising in the mail that I WANT (such as weekly ads from grocery stores). I wouldn't call it "junk mail." Nor would anyone else who WANTS to get those ads. We want to know what's on sale.
Does he think "junk mail" only applies to third class mail? The grocery store ads are sent third class.
Mr. Rowley is being "hypercorrective" in that he believes his definition is the ONLY definition, even though it does not agree with the definition in many dictionaries. Yet, he'll argue FOR YEARS that he is right.
I think just about EVERYONE EXCEPT Mr. Rowley understands that "junk mail" applies to most types of UNWANTED mail.
But, being "hypecorrective," Mr. Rowley will argue he PERSONAL DEFINITION until the end of time, no matter what evidence is presented to him.
Ed
R. Rowley wrote: THAT'S "non-standard usage" because I've never met a single American in my six plus decades who ever used 'junk mail' in that way. It is also an "over-application" of "junk" as an adjective. He seems to think if you merely ADD thusly: "junk" + "mail"= obvious meaning/usage of 'junk mail'. Sorry but morphology/semantics is trickier than that.
DeleteNo, there's nothing tricky about the word "junk." Everyone knows what it means. As a noun, the definition is "anything that is regarded as worthless, meaningless, or contemptible; trash."
As an adjective, the definition is: "cheap, worthless, unwanted, or trashy."
Junk mail is mail that is not wanted, and that is why it is thrown in the trash. There's nothing complicated about it. Mr. Rowley only BELIEVES there is something complicated about it, and he somehow inexplicably BELIEVES that everyone else BELIEVES as he BELIEVES.
Ed
Junk mail is mail that is not wanted, and that is why it is thrown in the trash.
Delete================================================
That's not the post office's definition, for them it's a CLASS of mail (whose formal designation is "advertising mail"). Whether it's wanted, unwanted, or temporarily wanted and then unwanted (like a LOT of first class mail----another category----is similarly 'wanted' but for only a time), depends on the tastes/needs/desires of the recipients. Not on anything intrinsic to the mail itself. This is par for the course with Mister Lake: making up his own (here not so unlikely sounding) meaning, based not on usage, but on this need to simplify(and/or to make some polemical point). At any rate, it's called paraphasia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphasia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receptive_aphasia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising_mail
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulk_mail
R. Rowley wrote: "That's not the post office's definition, for them it's a CLASS of mail (whose formal designation is "advertising mail")."
DeleteNote that Mr. Rowley makes a ridiculous claim and does not support it with anything other than his belief. If he thinks the post office considers advertising to be "junk mail," he needs to cite where the post office has used "junk mail" as a description of advertising mail.
He is just making things up.
I cited dictionary definitions of "junk mail", and Mr. Rowley cites a Wikipedia article about "advertising mail" which says that SOME people refer to "advertising mail" as "junk mail." Mr. Rowley also cites a Wikipedia article on "bulk mail," which says:
"Bulk mail broadly refers to mail that is mailed and processed in bulk at reduced rates. The term does not denote any particular purpose for the mail, but is sometimes used (incorrectly) as a synonym for "junk mail"."
I cite dictionary definitions of "junk mail" and he counters with definitions of other things which are sometimes INCORRECTLY referred to as "junk mail."
This argument is about as silly and ridiculous as any I've seen in the past 13 years.
Ed
I wrote: "When they discuss the witness's DEMEANOR or APPEARANCE, they are DISCUSSING THE EVIDENCE."
ReplyDeleteAnd R. Rowley compounded his error by responding: "No, that's not what a lawyer would say (DXer or anyone else). Evidence is what a side ENTERS into a trial: 'Allow me to enter into evidence......'[whatever]. There's not supposed to be 'evidence' hidden from the attorneys involved."
Click HERE for the source for the following jury instructions:
"It will be your duty to decide any disputed questions of fact. You will have to determine which witnesses to believe, and how much weight to give their testimony. You should give the testimony of each witness whatever degree of belief and importance that you judge it is fairly entitled to receive. You are the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses, and if there are any conflicts in the testimony, it is your function to resolve those conflicts and to determine where the truth lies.
You may believe everything a witness says, or only part of it or none of it. If you do not believe a witness’s testimony that something happened, of course your disbelief is not evidence that it did not happen. When you disbelieve a witness, it just means that you have to look elsewhere for credible evidence about that issue.."
No "evidence" is "hidden from the attorney's involved." In "12 Angry Men," juror #8 says that the defense attorney seemed to be just going through the motions. The defense attorney didn't ask questions that he should have asked. The jurors noticed something about the witness that the defense lawyer failed to notice. Nothing was "hidden" from him.
The jurors are not machines. Each one is an individual. That means each will bring his own personal experiences and attitudes into the court room. Some may notice something that others did not. The discussion of evidence should bring out the questions a juror may have so that others can help everyone find the answers. One piece of evidence may mean more to a particular juror than other pieces of evidence. The discussion of the evidence is supposed to resolve all these individual issues so that the jury can agree on a finding.
The second link you provided says, "1. aphasia in which objects are correctly named; little disturbance is found in the articulation of words; individual words are understood, but the broader meaning of what is heard cannot be grasped.
Mr. Rowley cannot grasp "the broader meaning of what is heard." A word has only one definition for him - HIS definition.
Mr. Rowley's semantic aphasia doesn't allow him to view as "evidence" all that is SEEN AND HEARD when a witness appears on the stand. It's clear he sees "a black-and-white oversimplified version of trials and jury deliberations rather than the reality." The reality is that some jurors may believe a witness while others may not. And each may have a different reason. When the jurors discuss the "evidence," they discuss not only what words were spoken by the witness, but the manner in which they were spoken and whether the words seem believable or not.
Ed
"There is no law on judging credibility. Judges and jurors receive guidelines and elementary observations in the form of stock instructions but are essentially free to decide for themselves. Because the entire trial process rests on persuasion, determining credibility is more than evaluating testimony. Although it is customary to speak of the credibility of witnesses and the persuasiveness of counsel, both deal with the same thing: the degree of belief we attach to what we see and hear.
ReplyDeleteA few brave souls have attempted to parse the elements of credibility, but this essential function is left largely to the mysteries of intuition. Although demeanor evidence can mislead, it is considered a reliable basis for finding credibility. Does the witness hesitate or stammer or show fear in answering questions? Reliance on demeanor vests wide discretion in the fact-finder. As Judge Jerome Frank, no slouch when it came to pushing the judicial envelope, observed, the methods of evaluating oral testimony “do not lend themselves to formulations in terms of rules and are thus, inescapably, ‘un-ruly.’”
Click HERE for the source.
"Jurors are instructed by most judges to use demeanor evidence to decide important questions of witness credibility. Although jurors use both a witness's demeanor and testimony as indicators of a witness' veracity, jurors are apt to avoid reliance on the witness's actual testimony and instead depend on the witness's demeanor. Moreover, when faced with conflicting testimony, jurors use demeanor evidence to attempt to determine which testimony is more reliable."
Click HERE for the source.
Ed
When they use the term "demeanor evidence", they mean it in the generic sense of
ReplyDeleteevidence:
"Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.[...]"
(And here the 'assertion' is implicit: the witness is honest/believable/reliable etc,)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence
=================================
It certainly isn't: evidence law enforcement has collected in investigating a crime.
It certainly isn't: evidence the prosecution is 'presenting' consciously to the jury.
It certainly isn't: counter-evidence collected and then presented by the defense.
The 'demeanor' of the prosecutor, the defense attorneys etc are ALSO things which may influence the jury's verdict to one degree or another, but that doesn't make such 'demeanor evidence' juridical evidence, since THAT is something that can be tested by the other side......and/or ruled inadmissible by the court itself.
Bruce Ivins' (out-of-court) 'demeanor' in talking to Task Force members may have been nervous at times, but that's explicable in terms of his schizoaffective disorder.
Not to mention the increasing accusatory tone of those Task Force members.
One doesn't have to go to 'consciousness of guilt' or any such mind-reading schtick. Bad psychology.
Mr. Rowley wrote: "When they use the term "demeanor evidence", they mean it in the generic sense of evidence
ReplyDeleteMr. Rowley needs to EXPLAIN what he means. He is being too literal when he argues what evidence ISN'T.
The argument is about EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY, which IS EVIDENCE commonly used in court.
Eyewitness testimony IS evidence that law enforcement collected while investigating the crime (although Mr. Rowley will probably be "hypercorrective" again and argue that the cops did not "collect" the eyewitness.)
Eyewitness testimony IS evidence that the prosecution is "'presenting' consciously to the jury."
Eyewitness testimony is what the witness SAYS, HOW SHE SAYS IT, AND HOW IT IS VIEWED AND UNDERSTOOD BY THE JURY. "Demeanor evidence" would be the part of the testimony that relates to the eyewitness's demeanor.
But, I understand that Mr. Rowley has his own personal definition of words, and cannot reconcile HIS definition to what is used in the courts, so he will undoubtedly argue that there is something WRONG with the way the term is used by everyone but him.
Note that he confuses "demeanor evidence" as applied to a witness in court with the "demeanor" of the defendant when "talking to Task Force members." One has nothing to do with the other.
Ed
The argument is about EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY, which IS EVIDENCE commonly used in court.
Delete=====================================
The "testimony" is available via transcript(for review by the jury if they so choose, but also available to appellate courts etc). "Demeanor" is something else. And may become, in the juryroom, merely anecdotal, observational, highly interpretive and strictly a matter of opinion*
'The witness kept rubbing his hands together nervously'
'I didn't notice any such thing!'
'He was rubbing his hands like I do when I get ink on them from those darned fountain pens, so may that's what happened to him.'
'That was nothing. What about the way he was always straightening his tie!"
'I only saw him do that once or twice.'
'And did you notice his weird accent?'
'What weird accent?'
Etc. In short, jury's observations, for that is what 'demeanor' is based on, are likely as not to be all over the map. And, whether their role in evaluating a witness/his credibility etc, is large or small, it's going to be an X-factor for the lawyers concerned. TESTIMONY, by contrast, is more definitive, focussed, immediately related to the crimes alleged, the likelihood of the guilt of the defendant (or the likelihood of the innocence of the defendant).
And something attorneys seeking appeal, and judges adjudicating appeal, can sink their (legal) teeth into.
*opinion. Note that this discussion BEGAN with talk about whether 'collective opinion' is a good description of a jury verdict. Mister Lake, who denies it, seems hellbent on sanctifying via the label "evidence" any and every SUB-opinion of the jury, including but not limited to their collective opinion of witnesses' demeanor.
R. Rowley wrote: "In short, jury's observations, for that is what 'demeanor' is based on, are likely as not to be all over the map. And, whether their role in evaluating a witness/his credibility etc, is large or small, it's going to be an X-factor for the lawyers concerned."
DeleteRight. Just like in the movie "12 Angry Men."
R. Rowley also wrote: "TESTIMONY, by contrast, is more definitive, focussed, immediately related to the crimes alleged, the likelihood of the guilt of the defendant (or the likelihood of the innocence of the defendant)."
Yes and no. Testimony can also be taken to establish a simple fact, like how someone's disguised handwriting looked like a sample of handwriting. And the testimony CAN be totally wrong. Eyewitnesses can be totally mistaken. Mistaken eyewitness testimony is the cause of about 75 percent of all false convictions.
R. Rowley also wrote: "And something attorneys seeking appeal, and judges adjudicating appeal, can sink their (legal) teeth into."
Not so. The only reasons for appeal are (1) the lower court made a serious error of law (i.e., the judge screwed up) and (2) the weight of the evidence does not support the verdict (i.e., the jury screwed up). Click HERE for the source on that.
R. Rowley also wrote: "Note that this discussion BEGAN with talk about whether 'collective opinion' is a good description of a jury verdict. Mister Lake, who denies it, seems hellbent on sanctifying via the label "evidence" any and every SUB-opinion of the jury, including but not limited to their collective opinion of witnesses' demeanor."
That is Mr. Rowley's opinion. I was just stating the FACT that a jury does NOT present a "collective opinion." They present a FINDING.
A "finding" is different from an "opinion" in that it is the result of a discussion of the EVIDENCE to determine what THE EVIDENCE (not any juror) says is "the truth." The result (if done correctly) should be NO ONE'S opinion. It should be what the evidence indicates to be "the truth" or "the facts," regardless of any opinions.
It is an agreement on what is true. It is NOT an opinion. It is NOTHING like an opinion. If anything, it is the OPPOSITE OF AN OPINION.
It is analogous to a scientific finding. The evidence is analyzed and the "finding" is what the evidence says is true, REGARDLESS OF ANY OPINIONS.
Ed
Once again, at your "new site" which is looking more and more in the comments section like your 'old site' you misstate (for the umpteenth time!) the actual course of discussion here:
ReplyDelete" Who except someone who is pathologically hypercorrective would restart a silly argument from two years ago as if it was a matter of utmost importance?"
Mister Lake has taken to recently claiming that I'm "hypercorrective" ie overly punctilious in my use of English and insistence that he do likewise, whereas my greater, overarching, critique is:
1) he probably has a form of "FLUENT semantic aphasia" which prevents him from understanding complex statements made by others, especially if those statements are presented in compound and/or complex sentences (this a conclusion I made after interacting with him for several years and doing some research on causes of reading difficulties). I provided a link or two:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/semantic%20aphasia
http://www.medilexicon.com/medicaldictionary.php?t=5436
2) I adduced evidence that his mis-summarizations go back 14 to 15 years, via the link to a thread of 2000 in which his fellow discussants of things involving screenplays remark on this tendency of his. Mister Lake chose, somewhat predictably, to deem this citation an 'attack' on him, ignoring its larger import: that Gizmophreax et alia were making the same observation that I've been making for years: that Lake's summaries of other persons' ideas bear little resemblance to what they actually wrote.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/misc.writing.screenplays/DGlPAX_p3HI/FU4b3Jupz3MJ
3) in addition, I noted no-doubt-about-it usages by Lake over the years which would not be deemed correct by most American native speakers of English. His explanation of 'junk mail' stood out in that regard, not only in that it was a VERY common (American) English expression, but because of his insistence, over several days, that his usage was correct/standard.
None of this (1, 2, or 3) is faithfully summarized in his recent comments. And that's just it: he can't see the larger picture AT ALL.
So here's a bit from a Thursday(B) comment: (first quoting dictionary definition)
"letters or emails, usually advertising products or services, that are sent to people although they have not asked to receive them
In other words, "junk mail" is something that is received in the mail that you did not ask for and DO NOT WANT.
----------------------------------------------
So Lake 'summarizes' a definition of junk mail with a 'summary' that is almost as long as the original (ie the thing he is summarizing) and OMITS entirely the reference to "usually advertising products or services", ie he omits the very thing under dispute so as to align the definition with his distorted notion of the meaning.
One may get a pleading letter from an ex-lover that one trashes without opening or reads for S &Gs and then trashes, but this doesn't make it 'junk mail' denotationally. (Naturally, via metaphorical extension, one can deem anything one doesn't like as 'junk').
Next time you get a check-up, Mister Lake, tell the doctor that 'some nut on the Internet' claims you have "fluent semantic aphasia". I trust if he, or more likely, a consulting neurologist, comes to that conclusion, you won't claim that we're part of a gigantic conspiracy against you........
Mr. Rowley demonstrates his pathological hypercorrective arguments once again: "So Lake 'summarizes' a definition of junk mail with a 'summary' that is almost as long as the original (ie the thing he is summarizing) and OMITS entirely the reference to "usually advertising products or services", ie he omits the very thing under dispute so as to align the definition with his distorted notion of the meaning."
DeleteI summarized THREE dictionary definitions into one, and I failed to highlight the word "usually." So, Mr. Rowley becomes pathologically hypercorrective by twisting and distorting everything to create a FALSE argument where he has no REAL argument.
No one ever said anything about advertising NEVER being "junk mail" or even that advertising isn't MOST of the junk mail that the average person receives. "Junk mail" just DOESN'T HAVE TO BE advertising as Mr. Rowley seemingly believes it does.
I'd expected him to argue that credit card and telephone bills are "unwanted" and therefore would be considered to be "junk mail" by the definitions in dictionaries. Instead he uses an "unwanted" letter from an ex-lover. Bills may be "unwanted" in that you do not "want" to have to pay them, but having credit collectors after you is "unwanted" even more. So, you "want" the bills in order to avoid the worse problem. Likewise, you don't "want" letters from an ex-lover, but you probably "asked for it" when you created the situation.
Mr. Rowley is twisting and distorting things to make them fit his invalid definition of "junk mail."
That is symptomatic of someone who is pathologically hypercorrective. He's using INVALID nonsense to argue in favor of his INCORRECT belief.
Evidently, in the mind of someone who is pathologically hypercorrective, a dictionary definition must explain IN DETAIL all possible uses of a phrase, otherwise Mr. Rolwey won't consider anyone's usage to be valid but his own.
For the average person, MOST of the "junk mail" they receive is unwanted advertising. But, if you are in the media, "junk mail" could be all sorts of UNWANTED mail from nut cases who want something from you or who are telling you their unwanted opinions about you. It's junk mail because it is both UNWANTED, and because you do not want to encourage them to send more "junk mail" by responding to their "junk mail."
And this is undoubtedly the STUPIDEST argument Mr. Rowley has initiated. Which is saying a lot.
Mr. Rowley needs to provide an EXACT definition of "junk mail" that fits his beliefs AND provide authoritative sources which verify his claim. Otherwise, the term is used as I have explained: "Junk mail" applies GENERALLY to mail that is unwanted, unneeded and unasked for, and which is just thrown away. That would be DIFFERENT for different recipients, and it would NOT apply to bills that are "unwanted" but needed. And it would not apply to advertising that is WANTED. It MIGHT apply to unwanted letters from ex-lovers, but it would depend upon the person, not upon any interpretation of any definition in any dictionary.
"Junk mail" is mail that is considered by the recipient to be "junk." It's a simple as that.
Ed
It is an agreement on what is true. It is NOT an opinion. It is NOTHING like an opinion
ReplyDelete=============================================
Juror #8 was trying to change the minds of the other 11 jurors about this and that skein of evidence. Here "minds" is a synonym for "opinions".
R. Rowley wrote: "Juror #8 was trying to change the minds of the other 11 jurors"
DeleteMr. Rowley gives us his INCORRECT OPINION once again. Juror #8 states what he wanted to do. He said:
NO. 8: I don't want to change your mind. I just want to talk for a while.
He wanted to discuss the case. He also said he didn't necessarily believe the defendant's story:
NO. 8: I don't know whether I believe it or not. Maybe I don't.
Juror #8 wanted to clarify things in his own mind. He wanted to do what a jury is supposed to do: discuss the case and come to a FINDING.
Ed
Juror #8 states what he wanted to do. He said:
DeleteNO. 8: I don't want to change your mind. I just want to talk for a while.
======================================
In the beginning, yes, that's what he says but we know that he then goes on to do QUITE a bit more than that: he goes to rather elaborate lengths in the movie to change their opinions about witnesses and physical evidence, and most of that via eye-popping methods(ie stuff beyond mere talk):
1) he marks off (or has someone else mark off) X number of feet and tries to imitate/reenact the crippled witness of the lower apartment who had to first hear a body (the victim's body) thump on the floor above and then get up and get to the door in time to spot the teenage defendant going down the stairs. The reenactment, not mere 'talk', changed the minds of other jurors (changed their opinions) about the likelihood that it happened as the witness claimed and it was something FAR MORE elaborate than merely reexamining the transcript of the witness' statement. Something FAR MORE elaborate than 'talk'.
2) he tries to convince the other jurors that the teenager's statement to his father "I'm gonna kill you!" was just an expression and one that neither showed motive nor a degree of malice that could result in homicide. Something like I tried to do posthumously for Bruce Ivins on the Internet: show that not all expressions/admissions of violent impulses are indicative of imminent or even delayed violent expression.
3) he draws other jurors into discussing the knife used, waits until one (Lee J Cobb?) makes some absolute statement about the uniqueness or specialness of the knife the teenager bought, then melodramatically takes out of his pocket the knife he (juror #8) had purchased the night before and stabs the table top with it.
Yes, juror #8 was trying to change minds/opinions. Then juror #9, the first one to switch his vote to 'not guilty', got the 'guilty' jurors to change their minds on one or two OTHER skeins/witnesses.
To not see 12 Angry Men as an effort to change other people's minds is to miss the forest for the trees.
From the Urban Dictionary (top entry):
Deletejunk mail
United States Postal Service sanctioned mail consisting of advertisements that 99.5% of the population doesn't want, but they insist on forcing down the captive postal customers throats anyway.
Dang junk mail, there is so much of it in my box clogging it that I'm being driven nuts!!!
by Piranha June 09, 2006
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=junk+mail
R. Rowley found a "dictionary" which defines "junk mail" as: "United States Postal Service sanctioned mail consisting of advertisements that 99.5% of the population doesn't want"
DeleteWhat about that other 0.5 percent? Evidently, to them advertisements are NOT "junk mail."
And why does Mr. Rowley resort to an "urban dictionary" for a definition? Doesn't the non-urban population have any say?
Before continuing this ASININE argument any further, Mr. Rowley needs to EXPLAIN what he is trying to prove (other than that he disagrees with me on nearly everything).
What does he think a dictionary is? He appears to believe it is some kind of LAW book, and if someone uses a word that doesn't fit his interpretation of "the law," that person has to be stopped and admonished.
In reality, a dictionary is a list of words and how they are pronounced and generally used in a specific language.
New words are frequently created and periodically added to new dictionaries. The new words are NOT created by judicial decree. They are created by people just making them up. If the word and its usage catches on, it becomes a new word and is added to the dictionary.
Click HERE for Merriam-Webster's current list of new words that people just made up. Examples:
gription : the purchase gained by friction...
ginormous : extraordinarily large...
woot : an exclamation of joy or excitement...
schwack : a large amount...
Mr. Rowley is losing gription and making a ginormous mistake if he thinks the way he uses a word is the only correct way. If someone considers unwanted mail that is NOT advertising to be "junk mail," there's NOTHING wrong with that. Everyone but Mr. Rowley will understand what is meant.
Mr. Rowley needs to take a chill pill and chillax. Maybe he is overthinking the subject. He seems to be catastrophizing. He needs to develop some soft skills so he can communicate with his frenemies.
(Click HERE for a list of new words recently added to the Oxford Dictionary of English (ODE).)
Everyone but Mr. Rowley would understand what is meant when it is said that the J-Lo letter was considered to be "junk mail" and was initially thrown in the trash. It was unwanted mail of a type that is considered by The National Enquirer to be junk. Mr. Rowley may not consider it to be "junk mail," but the usage would be fully understood by nearly everyone else. So, Mr. Rowley's complaint is just more of his schwack of jibber jabber.
Ed
And why does Mr. Rowley resort to an "urban dictionary" for a definition? Doesn't the non-urban population have any say?
Delete=======================================
Somehow I missed this remarkable bit of absurd literalness. I WANT to think that Lake is kidding here, but ya never know!
R. Rowley wrote: "I WANT to think that Lake is kidding here, but ya never know!"
DeleteI was kidding. That should be just as obvious as it is that Mr. Rowley is changing the subject in order to avoid admitting that he was WRONG in one argument after another - primarily in his argument that ONLY expert witnesses can testify about handwriting.
What's the point of discussing anything if Mr. Rowley is incapable of admitting his was WRONG?
Ed
Mr. Rowley continues his demonstration of pathological hypercorrection by posting this:
ReplyDelete------------------------
Juror #8 states what he wanted to do. He said:
NO. 8: I don't want to change your mind. I just want to talk for a while.
======================================
In the beginning, yes, that's what he says but we know that he then goes on to do QUITE a bit more than that: he goes to rather elaborate lengths in the movie to change their opinions about witnesses and physical evidence
------------------------------
In Mr. Rowley's view of the world, Juror #8 is out to change minds and manipulate people into believing what Juror #8 believes.
This says more about Mr. Rowley than it does about Juror #8.
Juror #8 is a FICTIONAL character. He's the central character of the movie/play and is probably generally viewed to be the hero, since Juror #8 wants to make certain that the jury does not make a serious mistake.
The author almost certainly did NOT intend for Juror #8 to be seen as a master manipulator who manipulates 11 other men into believing as he believes. Here is how THE AUTHOR viewed Juror #8:
"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 #8 is a man who seeks the truth. He is NOT a manipulator.
Juror #8 wants justice done. He is NOT out to get his own way.
Juror #8 is not certain the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and he wants the rest of the jury to do as they are supposed to do: discuss the case and come to a "finding."
He doesn't manipulate the rest of the jury. He states his reasons for wanting to talk things over. He admits that the defendant could be guilty. He just doesn't know if the defendant is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." He wants to talk it over to see if everyone agrees on that being the verdict.
Mr. Rowley also confuses story telling with reality. It simply makes better drama to have someone argue about the knife being "rare" and Juror #8 then pulls an identical knife out of his pocket to show that it is NOT "rare." In real life, that would almost certainly never happen and would be cause for a mistrial if it did. In the FICTIONAL story it is simply a source or cause for "reasonable doubt."
This is becoming another ASININE argument. I see no purpose to arguing over what was on the mind of a fictional character when the author STATES what the fictional character was created to show about human nature.
Does Mr. Rowley also believe that the author wrote a FALSE description of Juror #8 in order to manipulate readers of the screenplay into believing Juror #8 is "constantly seeks the truth" while, in reality, the author actually created Juror #8 as a master manipulator out to change the minds of the jury just for his own devious amusement?
Ed
For what it's worth, I have many dictionaries in my personal library. One of them is "The Dictionary of Americanisms" by John Bartlett. It was first published in 1848.
ReplyDeleteJust for the heck of it, I looked up "junk mail." It wasn't in that particular dictionary, but "junk-bottle" was. A "junk-bottle" is defined as: "The ordinary black glass porter-bottle."
That definition was probably sufficient in 1848, but it didn't make much sense to me. So, I did further research.
A "porter-bottle" is evidently a beer bottle made to contain porter, a type of beer.
Click HERE for further details. On that page it says, "These early black glass ale and porter bottles were referred to as "junk bottles" from at least the late 18th century through mid 19th century (McKearin & Wilson 1978)."
They were probably referred to as "junk bottles" because they were just thrown away when empty and not reused. NON-junk-bottles were probably bottles that could be reused and/or bottles that didn't contain something as ordinary as porter beer.
Someone just made up the term "junk bottle." It caught on, and was a common term for nearly a century, until it gradually fell into disuse. Now it's a term that very few people would understand.
I seriously doubt that if someone in 1848 called a dark colored ale bottle a "junk bottle," it would start a bar fight because it was an ale bottle and not a porter bottle. Either way, it was still a bottle that would become junk when empty. Everyone would likely understand that.
Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") attempted a post to this blog this morning. Following the pattern he has used for years, he provided three quotes without providing a link or source. Nor did he provide an explanation for WHY he wanted to post the quotes.
ReplyDeleteI had to do some research to find that the quotes weren't something from ten or more years ago, but from a new article on The National Interest web site titled "How To Get Terrorists To Talk".
Here's part of one quote: "Our concerns in this regard were heightened when Pakistani biologist Rauf Ahmed confessed in 2002 that he personally discussed causing a mass casualty attack in the United States using bacillus anthracis with Ayman Zawahiri."
The rest are more of the same, i.e., arguments that, prior to 9/11, al Qaeda members were thinking about launching an anthrax attack on the United States.
That has been known for fourteen years. So, what is DXer's point in mentioning it for the umpteenth time? He doesn't explain, of course.
Interestingly, the link didn't work the second time I tried to access it. It's by "subscription only." However, Google provided two other links to the same article. Click HERE for one that seems to work all the time.
Here's a FULL paragraph from the article:
"For example, we ultimately found the crude laboratory in Kandahar, Afghanistan, where Pakistani biologist Rauf Ahmed stashed equipment he had ordered to Ayman Zawahiri’s specifications. We went to the hospital laboratory in Kandahar where Malaysian “Anthrax CEO” Yazid Sufaat claimed to have isolated a virulent form of bacillus anthracis. There, a joint FBI-CIA-military team collected forensic samples and evidence of biological weapons-related activity, precisely as Sufaat had claimed under interrogation by Malaysian authorities.
It's one of the quotes DXer used. Does DXer realize it says that Suffaat ISOLATED a virulent form of anthrax in the lab? That implies that they found a LOCAL source for virulent anthrax. If you stole or bought or obtained some Ames anthrax somewhere, you wouldn't NEED to "isolate" anything. I.e., you wouldn't NEED to separate or isolate it from other bacteria that was found.
So, one could argue that DXer has provided evidence (or an authoritative quote) that the lab in Kandahar did NOT - repeat NOT have Ames.
Without any explanation from DXer about what he's trying to prove, all he has done is demonstrate once again that he cannot explain anything. The EVIDENCE says that Bruce Ivins sent the anthrax letters. DXer has NO EVIDENCE that says otherwise. All he has are some meaningless quotes that prove nothing.
But, we've known that for about fourteen years.
Ed
As expected, "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") is continuing his nonsense arguments. He just sent me an email that said in part,
ReplyDelete"We've now established that you were mistaken for over a decade in arguing that AQ was not working with virulent anthrax -- and that you do not correct your mistakes."
Here's a quote from my web page about the al Qaeda theory that I wrote sometime in 2002:
"No one is saying in any way that the al Qaeda wasn't looking into obtaining anthrax for possible use in terrorist attacks against the United States. They almost certainly were - and are. All that is being said on this web site is that the evidence indicates that the anthrax mail attacks of September and October 2001 were almost certainly NOT perpetrated by al Qaeda. The evidence indicates it was someone else - most likely an American scientist with an overwhelming compulsion to awaken America to the threat of bioterrorism, which he certainly accomplished - while killing 5 people in the process."
The rest of DXer's email was similar nonsense, arguing his belief that El-Shukrijumah mailed the letters because the the article "How to Get Terrorists to Talk" said, "the FBI had reports suggesting that Shukrijumah may have had contact with al-Qaeda operative Mohammed Atta in the US, prior to 9/11."
To DXer, a comment about a possibility that something MAY have happened which helps support his beliefs is far more important that ALL THE SOLID EVIDENCE that says he is wrong.
There's just no way to change the mind of a "True Believer" by using facts and evidence.
Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just attempted another post to this blog, once again arguing opinions and comments made by so-called "experts" about what MAY or MAY NOT be true regarding al Qaeda's possession of the Ames strain.
ReplyDeleteIn DXer's world, if an "expert" says something that can be interpreted as agreeing with his beliefs, it doesn't matter how many OTHER "experts" disagree and say something different - nor what the facts and evidence say. For DXer, only people who agree with him are the true "experts."
And he totally ignores the evidence that ties the attack spores to flask RMR-1029, because there is a possibility of the same morphs having been created elsewhere.
He just demonstrates once again that there is just no way to change the mind of a "True Believer" by using facts and evidence.
Ed
This morning, "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") attempted another one of his meaningless posts. It contains nothing that he hasn't posted before. It contains no explanation which would give it meaning. Without explanations for why the information is BETTER than than the FBI's findings against Bruce Ivins, it is just meaningless, irrelevant material and another illustration of why DXer is not allowed to post here.'
ReplyDeleteBelow is his attempted post in its entirety.
-----------------------
Ed didn’t realize that the country from which Shukrijumah was going to smuggle himself from Mexico was the United States — and declines to correct his error. Ed screens posts and omits material precisely so he can avoid correcting his unending stream of mistaken factual assertions.
On March 7, 2003, CIA Headquarters sent information on Jaffar al-Tayyar to the CIA’s DETENTION SITE BLUE, where KSM was located, for use in the interrogation of KSM.2040 The documents included the following: a “targeting study” on Jaffar al-Tayyar completed by the CIA in January 2003;2041 a letter from KSM to bin al-Shibh referencing “Jafar the Pilot” and indicating that “Jafar” “ought to prepare himself’ to smuggle himself from Mexico into an unspecified country; a letter from Jaffar al-Tayyar to Ramzi bin al-Shibh asking for clarification of KSM’ s letter; and …
“An email exchange the afternoon of March 18, 2003, between CIA personnel expressed the views of interrogators and officers at CIA Headquarters with regard to KSM and Jaffar al-Tayyar. The e-mail from KSM debriefer ________ stated:
“we finally gotten [KSM] to admit that al-Tayyar is meant for a plan in the US, but I’m still not sure he’s feting up to what Jafar’s role//plan really is.”
The CIA response to the report explained that debriefers — for all that KSM was telling him — was trying to protect Jaffar al-Tayyar. A bodyguard of lies protected precious truths. …
---------------------------
The issue about Mexico was argued before, as was everything else. Without a COMPARISON to the evidence against Ivins is it just MEANINGLESS and a WASTE OF TIME.
Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") attempted another post to this blog this afternoon, demonstrating once again the total worthlessness of his posts. Here is his latest attempted post in its entirety:
ReplyDelete-------------------------
Yes, and Ed in "arguing about Mexico" had no support to oppose the US government's finding that Jaffar Al Tayyar had entered the United States (sometime after September 1, 2001). He still refuses to correct his mistake.
-------------------------
Where did I say anything about opposing "the US government's finding that Jaffar Al Tayyar had entered the United States (sometime after September 1, 2001)"?
What "mistake" does he think I should correct?
DXer, of course, still seems totally incapable of explaining anything. So his post is just more meaningless blather. If he cannot post anything meaningful, I may start just totally discarding his posts.
Ed
I'm guessing this was tossed in my direction(partial):
ReplyDelete----
Foster said in an e-mail that he deeply regrets “ever having waded in[to] the minefield of examining documents” and having faced, as an expert witness, adverse parties who “introduced material dredged up on the Internet.”
So, Don Foster deeply regrets "ever having waded in the minefield of examining documents"? I hope that sentence has been read by a disciple of Foster's who used a version of Foster's illogical logic to identify someone who he probably still suspects of being the anthrax killer.
-------------
I never referred to myself as a disciple of Foster but I'll take it as a compliment.
As to the full range of Foster's regrets, I doubt we'll know, because it might include multiple elements:
1) very time-consuming to do analysis (especially when you have classes to teach, academic research to do). And consulting with attorneys and appearing in court takes up yet MORE time.
2) he got sued by Steve Hatfill and for a prof (or any single individual), it's a big hassle (and probably expensive to engage an attorney) and likely an unexpected one. The DoJ and FBI are probably being sued all the time and have legal departments just for that sort of thing, and even some magazines (like VANITY FAIR) may have their own attorneys on retainer.
I don't know what material dredged up from the Internet Foster is referring to, but it may be that in that (this) environment he was more speculative, and his speculations were used against him in court. But that's only a surmise. He did a good job on Amerithrax and I'm sure people will one day recognize it, but for him it's probably neither here nor there: he's well rid of the case.
Mr. Rowley,
ReplyDeleteI don't understand. Why do you feel some kind of need to apologize for Professor Foster's mistakes, arrogance and stupidity?
If the job of analysis is too "time-consuming" to do a good job, then maybe Prof. Foster shouldn't have been doing it at all. And that is particularly true when ACCUSING AN INNOCENT MAN OF MURDER.
Getting sued for defamation of character is a preventable problem. All you need to do is be certain of your information before you publish it.
I also don't know what "material dredged up from the Internet Foster is referring to." But, it could be the information that a crime he accused Dr. Hatfill of committing was PROVEN to have been committed by someone else.
Prof. Foster was out of his area of expertise when he went after Dr. Hatfill. He wasn't delving into "linguistics." He joined up with a bunch of conspiracy theorists and was playing "amateur detective." He accused Dr. Hatfill of a crime in Louisiana because Dr. Hatfill was in Louisiana around the time of the crime. That has nothing to do with "linguistics." It's putting 2 and 2 together and getting 571. He was just plain WRONG
Mr. Rowley says, "He did a good job on Amerithrax."
Prof. Foster did a SPECTACULARLY BAD JOB on Amerithrax. Apologizing for him and manufacturing excuses for his BAD analysis won't change that.
FYI, here's part of the lawsuit filed against Prof. Foster:
----------
27. Defendant Foster’s performance in the Ramsey investigation has significant points in common with his role in the anthrax investigation; indeed, the timelines of Foster’s involvement in the two cases are strikingly similar. First, defendant Foster attempts to insinuate himself into a high-profile case. Second, he ventures some possible solutions to the mystery, allegedly based on his “literary forensics.” Third, he obtains employment in some capacity, or failing that, criticizes investigators publicly for not recognizing how useful he could be. Fourth, he purports to apply himself more earnestly to his “literary forensic” analysis until all conflicting opinions disappear and the only remaining conclusions are such as would be found hospitable by the party engaging him. One can also find, both in Foster’s letter to Mrs. Ramsey and in his Vanity Fair article, numerous passages betraying his exaggerated sense of his own proficiency with “literary forensics.”
28. An Internet search on defendant Foster would also have disclosed to defendant CNP that his Vanity Fair article conflicted in significant ways with some of his own prior statements
-----------------
Ed
I don't understand. Why do you feel some kind of need to apologize for Professor Foster's mistakes, arrogance and stupidity?
ReplyDelete======================================
I don't see any arrogance or stupidity on Foster's part. Mistakes, by contrast, come with the territory of doing extremely interpretive analysis: if any of your assumptions prove wrong, you can have egg on your face. I'm rather sure Foster knew that pre-2003, and learned, on a more intimate basis, more about it thereafter.
--------------------------
28. An Internet search on defendant Foster would also have disclosed to defendant CNP that his Vanity Fair article conflicted in significant ways with some of his own prior statements
----------------------
I'm glad you adduced it, and it completely vindicates my speculation in the prior post: that 'statements' (which obviously can include preliminary interpretations/speculations) could be used against him in court. Lawyers aren't fussy that way (nor am I saying that they SHOULD be fussy that way: see Mark Fuhrman's OJ testimony and the way out-of-court statements by him were used to impeach his testimony; the defense there was opportunistic in a way that the system allows).
R. Rowley wrote: "Mistakes, by contrast, come with the territory of doing extremely interpretive analysis: if any of your assumptions prove wrong, you can have egg on your face."
DeleteMr. Rowley is inexplicably apologizing for Prof. Foster's mistakes, arrogance and stupidity again.
Or, maybe, instead of saying "apologizing" I should be saying "whitewashing" or "downplaying" or "minimizing."
I recall a line from some movie where a guy says, "Wearing white after Labor Day is a 'mistake,' and invading Russia in winter is also a 'mistake.' There are mistakes and then there are MISTAKES."
Pointing the finger at Hatfill in PRINT was NOT a minor mistake. It was a MAJOR mistake as well as a display of arrogance and stupidity.
Mr. Rowley also wrote: "it completely vindicates my speculation in the prior post: that 'statements' (which obviously can include preliminary interpretations/speculations) could be used against him in court."
I don't know what "prior statements" the lawsuit referred to, but arrogance will cause an ignorant person to declare things to be true that are later proven to be false. That is VERY different from stating that preliminary findings INDICATE such and such, and then later findings show something different. An arrogant person rarely says (or acknowledges) that what he is saying is only preliminary and could turn out to be totally untrue.
Ed
Mr. Rowley says, "He did a good job on Amerithrax."
ReplyDeleteProf. Foster did a SPECTACULARLY BAD JOB on Amerithrax. Apologizing for him and manufacturing excuses for his BAD analysis won't change that.
============================================
Questions:
1) how long exactly was he on the case? It may have been just a few weeks in late 2001.
2) what did he tell the FBI his analysis indicated? Certainly that the letter-writer was likely an anglophone pretending to be a foreigner, and that the letter-writer "MIGHT" well be a scientist (based, in my view, on one or two of the most speculative elements in his analysis, as described in that VANITY FAIR article).
3) whom did the FBI actually go after?
Hatfill: anglophone scientist. For about 4 1/2 years.
Ivins: anglophone scientist. For about 2-4 years (first as minor suspect, then as super-secret 'confidential' main suspect). And they went on post-mortem saying this anglophone scientist did it to the case-closure point of Feb, 2010.
Tough not to see at least THAT part of Foster's analysis not as a 'spectacular bad job' but as being vindicated. By the findings of the Task Force itself. Mr Lake wants to praise the latter without acknowledging how what they found (their 'finding') confirmed Foster's analysis.
Ironically, Mr Lake, because he thinks Ivins was guilty, should be praising Foster's work; I, because I think Ivins innocent, AND because I think non-scientists did Amerithrax, should be more critical of his work. Go figure.
The two elements of Foster's work that were critical for me were:
1) his description of the printing of at least one (I think two) of the St Pete 'hoax letters'
(to this very hour the only descriptions available to the public)
2) his observations that a subset of hoax letters was likely produced by the 'real' Amerithrax letter-writer.
Mr. Rowley is minimizing, whitewashing and downplaying Prof. Foster's mistakes again. He wrote " 1) how long exactly was he on the case? It may have been just a few weeks in late 2001."
DeleteNo one is talking about or cares about his time "on the case." The issue is that he was NOT officially on the case when he started arrogantly giving his OPINIONS to the MEDIA and pointing the finger at AN INNOCENT MAN.
I was pointing out Prof. Foster's idiotic arguments as early as August 2002. Check my web site entries for:
Aug. 30, 2002
September 5, 2003
September 7, 2003
September 14, 2003
September 15, 2003
September 27, 2003
November 21, 2003
and lots from 2004.
Here's what I wrote on Sept. 5, 2003: "And it's clear that the FBI did at least one thing right: They kept Don Foster out of their anthrax investigation."
Here's what I wrote on Aug. 30, 2002:
-----------------------
Aug. 30, 2002 - The newest "Boogie Man Theory" is from Professor Don Foster - who helped convict Unabomber Ted Kaczynski and unveiled Joe Klein as the author of the novel Primary Colors. Prof. Foster assists the FBI in matters of forensic linguistics.
Last night, in a program from the BBC called "Anthrax Detectives", which aired on The Learning Channel, Professor Foster outlined his theory - which had been previously mentioned in a BBC article on Aug. 18th. According to Foster, he has identified two suspects who had both worked for the CIA, the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) and other classified military operations, two individuals who he feels could be the anthrax culprits.
Foster’s theory is that the men are experts in forensics, and one of them sent the letters using Arab phases while knowing that it would be clear to experts that the letters were NOT sent by Arabs. Because the letters were sent from Central New Jersey, some former USAMRIID employees living in that area would automatically become suspects - thus diverting attention away from the real culprit(s): someone high up at USAMRIID who has access to personnel records. Key phrase:
"It's very frustrating. Ordinarily with the FBI if there's some documents needed - known writings - boom, they're on my desk the next day."
This phrase indicates to me that Prof. Foster is "out of the loop" on the anthrax case. And because he’s been left out of the loop, he is suspicious of the reasons.
But the reason he is "out of the loop" is most likely because the FBI is very concerned about leaks to the media, and Prof. Foster talks to the media. To me, Prof. Foster’s theory seems even more unlikely than Dr. Rosenberg’s theory about Dr. Hatfill. Prof. Foster’s theory is just too convoluted and depends too much upon some super-spy being able to do too many things without being detected.
-----------------
It appears that Don Foster began with a conspiracy theory involving multiple people, and then later joined the conspiracy theory group led by Barbara Hatch Rosenberg to specifically point at Hatfill.
Ed
Mr. Rowley is minimizing, whitewashing and downplaying Prof. Foster's mistakes again. He wrote " 1) how long exactly was he on the case? It may have been just a few weeks in late 2001."
DeleteNo one is talking about or cares about his time "on the case."
===========================================
You make no sense:
1) we are talking about a (then) long-running criminal case: Amerithrax
2) Foster's name comes up in that regard PRIMARILY because he was an FBI consultant in the case. The tenure (how long he was such a consultant), and therefore what he knew at the time and how he knew it become critical.
3) Evaluating the worth of Foster's work as such a consultant (ie the very stuff on which his magazine article of 2003 was based) involves comparing what Foster told the Task Force/FBI and what those organizations did about it. And their ultimate 'findings'.
4) Obviously there were MANY MANY elements (including 15 I posted here and which were deleted by Mister Lake) that pointed to Hatfill.
That was just his (Hatfill's) bad luck, not vindictiveness on the part of any Task Force member, any outside consultant, any observer of the case.
Foster never explicitly stated that Hatfill did it, he merely indicated why someone could 'like' him as a suspect (including but not limited to the fact that 'Greendale' was a placename in/around an African city in which Hatfill had lived many years earlier).
When Foster wrote the VANITY FAIR article he was no longer a consultant, so felt free to write anything non-libelous about the likelihood of someone like Hatfill being the culprit. By my lights, based on multiple readings of his article, he succeeded. But once you are sued all bets are off...........
NONE of the above post (by Mister Lake at March 5, 2015 at 2:01 PM)
Deletecontends with the fact that the description that Foster gave from the linguistics of the text (anglophone scientist) matched completely what the Task Force pursued from early 2002 to July 2008 (Hatfill then Ivins) and what they ultimately claimed in Feb, 2010: that anglophone scientist Bruce Ivins did Amerithrax.
-----------------------------------------
Side note: if the last several years on the Internet have taught me ANYTHING, it's not to trust the summaries by Mister Ed Lake of OTHER PEOPLE's positions........because they are almost always flawed, if not 180 degrees wrong.
R. Rowley wrote:
Delete"1) we are talking about a (then) long-running criminal case: Amerithrax
2) Foster's name comes up in that regard PRIMARILY because he was an FBI consultant in the case. "
NOT TRUE. Foster's name come up because he was NOT on the case when he started talking to the media about his THEORIES.
Mr. Rowley also wrote: "Foster never explicitly stated that Hatfill did it, he merely indicated why someone could 'like' him as a suspect"
It was STUPID either way.
Some comments I wrote for my web site:
----------------
November 21, 2003 - The current (December 2003) issue of "Reader's Digest" digests and excretes Don Foster's Vanity Fair article which clearly points the finger at Dr. Hatfill as being the anthrax mailer. Since Reader's Digest's circulation is roughly 12 million Middle Americans, versus Vanity Fair's circulation of roughly 1.1 million elite readers, the Digest reprint should vastly increase any damages Dr. Hatfill's lawyers may demand if and when they ever file their long-promised lawsuits.
September 7, 2003 - The new article by Shakespeare scholar Don Foster in the October 2003 issue of Vanity Fair magazine is titled "The Message In The Anthrax", but it probably should have been titled "Why I think Steven Hatfill is the anthrax killer".
Throughout the article, Foster gripes that the FBI hasn't been connecting hoaxes to the anthrax mailings. It appears to be Foster’s big issue - and he's being ignored by the FBI because of it. He says they just "place the documents in what's known as a zero file and never look at them again". And he repeats that again and again. And his claim seems to be totally invalid, since many hoax cases have been solved (check HERE) - including one that Don Foster blames on Dr. Hatfill.
The article says that at one point, Foster was told by the FBI that Dr. Hatfill had a "good alibi" and that "Good people in the Department of Defense, CIA, and State Department, not to mention Bill Patrick, had vouched for Hatfill." But that doesn't seem to matter to Foster - apparently because he thinks that Bill Patrick is almost as suspicious as Dr. Hatfill. (In a BBC interview from August of 2002, "Prof. Foster told the BBC he had identified two suspects who had both worked for the CIA, the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) and other classified military operations.") It can be interpreted that Prof. Foster and Dr. Rosenberg believe that Patrick and Hatfill "were in it together".
----------------------
Ed
R. Rowley wrote: "NONE of the above post (by Mister Lake at March 5, 2015 at 2:01 PM) contends with the fact that the description that Foster gave from the linguistics of the text (anglophone scientist) matched completely what the Task Force pursued from early 2002 to July 2008"
DeleteAll that says is that Prof. Foster read in the newspapers what the FBI had determined, and Foster modified his theory to incorporate the FBI's findings. It does NOT mean that Foster had anything to do with the findings or that his "linguistics" helped in any way, shape or form.
Ed
R. Rowley wrote:
Delete"1) we are talking about a (then) long-running criminal case: Amerithrax
2) Foster's name comes up in that regard PRIMARILY because he was an FBI consultant in the case. "
NOT TRUE. Foster's name come up because he was NOT on the case* when he started talking to the media about his THEORIES.
==============================
By "came up" I'm talking about the several threads, at several venues, including this one, in which I engaged you on the topic of Foster's analysis, its worth, its implications for the case etc.
What YOU mean by "came up" is vastly foggier: it seems to have to do with disputes YOU (but not I!) had on the Internet in the 2001 to 2005 timeframe. Sorry, but my interest in that is very attentuated, as is my interest in Foster's work on Shakespeare (something Lake brought up in past discussions with me about Foster, and something for which neither of us is qualified to give an intelligent opinion about).
*not on the case. Yet notice that Lake gives no timeframe. WHEN did Foster consult with FBI? It SEEMS to have been sometime in the Oct to Dec 2001 slot. How then could Foster have given an opinion on the case BEFORE then?!?!?!? He's not psychic, how could he know pre-Oct 2001 that there would BE such a case?
September 7, 2003 - The new article by Shakespeare scholar Don Foster in the October 2003 issue of Vanity Fair magazine is titled "The Message In The Anthrax", but it probably should have been titled "Why I think Steven Hatfill is the anthrax killer".
Delete====================================
As someone who, in the 2006 to the present timeframe, has probably read the article in question dozens of times (including partial reads) I can say that your summary--------for the umpteenth time, this is Lake citing as a source Lake(!!!!!)-----------is at best one-sidedly tendentious and at worst a distortion.
My off-the-cuff-summary:
1) the article is partly a primer for the general reader as to what forensic linguistics is, how it is done.
2) he gives his own background, at least in a general sense, both as an academic and as a prior-to-Amerithrax consultant on forensic linguistics-related cases, criminal ones and non-criminal (PRIMARY COLORS) ones.
3) he describes the materials he looked at, the ones supplied to him by the Task Force and those he had to press for via this or that connection he still had at the Bureau from a prior case.
4) he describes oddities of word usage, misspellings, and other odd or distinctive stuff from the materials he examined. The very stuff and pith of what a forensic linguist focuses on.
5) IN ADDITION to that (and probably stuff I'm forgetting) he presents what's in the public arena about Hatfill.
6) by this time (the fall of 2003) the Attorney General and at least one other official had called Hatfill a 'person of interest' (2002), had conducted multiple searches on Hatfill's residence(s) and vehicle(s) (also mid-2002), had been following Hatfill in a very obtrusive manner; one special agent had told Hatfill's girlfriend that 'we know your boyfriend did it' etc.
7) so far from leading the way, Foster was trailing the rumor-mill that the media all-too-typically are, a rumor mill exploited by DoJ elements for their own purposes, this the basis of Hatfill's successful-against-the-DoJ lawsuit.
Mr. Rowley wrote: "7) so far from leading the way, Foster was trailing the rumor-mill that the media all-too-typically are, a rumor mill exploited by DoJ elements for their own purposes, this the basis of Hatfill's successful-against-the-DoJ lawsuit."
DeleteAccording to Prof. Foster's Vanity Fair article:
---------------------
When I lined up Hatfill’s known movements with the postmark locations of reported biothreats, those hoax anthrax attacks appeared to trail him like a vapor cloud. But in February 2002, shortly after I advanced his candidacy to my contact at F.B.I. headquarters, I was told that Mr. Hatfill had a good alibi. A month later, when I pressed the issue, I was told, “Look, Don, maybe you’re spending too much time on this.” Good people in the Department of Defense, C.I.A., and State Department, not to mention Bill Patrick, had vouched for Hatfill. I decided to give it a rest. But first, I faxed a comparative-handwriting sample to F.B.I. headquarters, with examples of Hatfill’s printing on the left and printing by the anthrax offender on the right. I am not a handwriting expert, so I supplied the document without comment. A week later, I got a thank-you call.
---------------
and
-------------------
In April, I met Rosenberg for lunch at an Indian restaurant in Brewster, New York, and compared notes. We found that our evidence had led us in the same direction, though by different routes and for different reasons. The weeks dragged on. Prodded publicly by Rosenberg and privately by myself, the F.B.I.’s anthrax task force nevertheless seemed stubbornly unwilling to consider the evidence pointing toward a military insider or to examine the Quantico letter or those few “hoax” biothreats that I believed, and still believe, may shed
light on the anthrax murders.
----------------------
As I wrote, Foster's article "probably should have been titled 'Why I think Steven Hatfill is the anthrax killer'," since that is what it is all about. It's amateur detective work by Prof. Foster, and he had the stupid arrogance to WRITE in a public document WHY he believed that Hatfill was the anthrax killer.
He and Rosenberg were publicly and privately pushing the FBI to look at Hatfill more closely. This was MONTHS BEFORE the Attorney General called Hatfill a "person of interest." Hatfill became a "person of interest" BECAUSE of all the STUPID conspiracy theorists - like Foster - who were pointing their fingers at him.
Period, end of story.
Ed
If the job of analysis is too "time-consuming" to do a good job, then maybe Prof. Foster shouldn't have been doing it at all. And that is particularly true when ACCUSING AN INNOCENT MAN OF MURDER.
ReplyDelete==============================================
Since Ivins, as it happens, WAS innocent, and you've crucified the guy 20 ways till Sunday on the Internet posthumously (including a few years back some weird speculation(s) about a 'nanny cam' in his office, stuff TOTALLY outside the Amerithrax allegations), there's a certain irony in your above statement, including but not limited to the typically vehement capitalization of the last 6 words.
YOU (and anyone writing post-February 2010) have had the benefit of any and all evidence, analyses, interpretations, etc. (including those of Foster), yet come to the wrong conclusion. Foster, with only a fraction of that info in late 2001 to fall of 2003, remains to this day FAR closer to the truth of the matter than the Task Force ever came.....
R. Rowley wrote: "YOU (and anyone writing post-February 2010) have had the benefit of any and all evidence, analyses, interpretations, etc. (including those of Foster), yet come to the wrong conclusion. Foster, with only a fraction of that info in late 2001 to fall of 2003, remains to this day FAR closer to the truth of the matter than the Task Force ever came....."
DeleteWhat is true and what is not true is determined BY THE EVIDENCE, Mr. Rowley, NOT by some screwball belief you have.
THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT BRUCE IVINS WAS THE ANTHRAX KILLER.
Arguing or stating that you don't believe it, is just plain pointless and silly.
If you have BETTER EVIDENCE pointing to someone else, SHOW IT. Claiming that you have evidence but can't or won't show it to people, just PROVES you have NOTHING. Appearing incapable of explaining your beliefs just PROVES you have NOTHING.
Your past attempts to show bits of your "evidence" PROVES that you have NOTHING BUT BELIEFS. You appear to think your BELIEFS are better than all the evidence against Bruce Ivins.
That is just plain SILLY. Evidence is only evidence when it is OBJECTIVE evidence that ANYONE can see and understand. Your "evidence" is merely your SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION of things that others would not only see and interpret very differently, they could also EXPLAIN WHY YOUR INTERPRETATION MAKES NO SENSE.
Ed
. Rowley wrote: "YOU (and anyone writing post-February 2010) have had the benefit of any and all evidence, analyses, interpretations, etc. (including those of Foster), yet come to the wrong conclusion. Foster, with only a fraction of that info in late 2001 to fall of 2003, remains to this day FAR closer to the truth of the matter than the Task Force ever came....."
ReplyDeleteWhat is true and what is not true is determined BY THE EVIDENCE, Mr. Rowley, NOT by some screwball belief you have.
================================================
And every time I bring up one of those skeins of evidence, the findings of the Task Force's own handwriting analysis expert(s), especially the one that was held from the public for years and released in a document dump and I further observe:
1) it's exculpatory,
(Lake says nothing*)
2) they held it back for years BECAUSE it was exculpatory
(Lake says nothing*)
3) the work done, because it was a side-by-side comparison conducted by a qualified specialist, this in contrast to unspecified 'persons' reported on in the case-closing document, 'persons' whose MEMORIES could be unreliable(making it inadmissible as DXer confirmed years ago)
(Lake says nothing*)
4) that the totality of what Jeff Taylor said on August 6th 2008 and every other Task Force reference to the handwriting was PURPOSELY MISLEADING
(Lake says nothing*)
Who's running from the evidence there?
(The reader knows!)
*'says nothing'. Meaning he either changes the subject or trots out his own idiosyncratic undocumented hypothesis about a child printer, this as much at variance with the government's claims as any else's (sub)hypothesis.
R. Rowley wrote: "And every time I bring up one of those skeins of evidence ..."
DeleteMr. Rowley only brings up the "skeins of evidence" to argue that he does not believe the evidence. Instead, he nonsensically and preposterously argues that things that were not conclusively proven are "exculpatory." They ARE NOT EXCULPATORY. Mr. Rowley simply does not understand what "exculpatory evidence" is. He appears to believe it is anything that HE thinks should have been found by the FBI and wasn't. Not finding it is "exculpatory." That is absurd.
Mr. Rowley cannot discuss evidence because he doesn't understand what constitutes evidence in court. He demonstrates that over and over and over.
And he thinks he's a MIND READER. Example: "the totality of what Jeff Taylor said on August 6th 2008 and every other Task Force reference to the handwriting was PURPOSELY MISLEADING" Mr. Rowley has read the mind of Jeff Taylor and KNOWS what Mr. Taylor was thinking. And he considers his mind reading "results" to be "evidence" worthy of discussion. In reality, it is just a meaningless OPINION.
If Mr. Rowley does not understand and cannot intelligently discuss the evidence in the Amerithrax investigation, he should spend some time studying it instead of just arguing BELIEFS AND OPINIONS.
Ed
R. Rowley wrote: "And every time I bring up one of those skeins of evidence ..."
DeleteMr. Rowley only brings up the "skeins of evidence" to argue that he does not believe the evidence
====================================
No, I believe 100% that the Task Force conducted two separate handwriting examinations of Ivins: one in 2002, another some years later; I further believe 100% that those handwriting examinations said "probable non-match", or words to that effect; I further believe 100% that those results were hidden from the public in the August 2008 to February 2010 period, by which time there was no more Task Force existing to even admit what those results were; I further believe 100% that those results were hidden because they were exculpatory; Mr Lake HIMSELF discovered (one of?) those handwriting results in a document dump, now at least a year (or two?) ago, yet he has had nothing intelligent to say about the discovery.
He hasn't even the ghost of an innocent explanation for the years-long concealment.
The discerning reader will see that Lake's above post once again evades both the import of the handwriting analyses(that Ivins didn't do the printing in Amerithrax) AND the import of the concealment of that skein of evidence from the public (that the Task Force/DoJ knew it would sabotage the Ivins-did-it PR campaign). He merely tries to claim that I "[don't] understand what constitutes evidence in court."
Once again, the admissibility of handwriting comparisons is well-established: side-by-side comparison (check!), qualified document examiners (check!). Why would the Task Force not use qualified document examiners? Again, it's their OWN evidence that is exculpatory of Ivins.
http://www.frostbrowntodd.com/resources-1501.html
So, let's go to ANOTHER skein of evidence: the notebooks that recorded what Ivins was doing in the labs late at night in the fall of 2001.
These notebooks, the hard copies and the contents, were kept from Ivins until his dying day, THEN were kept from his attorney/the general public AFTER Ivins died. I believe THAT concealment is significant too: for if they had indicated Ivins had had no reason to be in the lab, the notebooks, or their contents, would have been revealed LONG AGO, as part of the case AGAINST Ivins: 'see, John Q Public, the guy had no reason to be in the lab late at night!'. The contents were concealed because they pointed in the other (exculpatory) direction.
https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/tag/dr-ivins-lab-notebooks/
So, two full skeins of exculpatory evidence concealed from the public.
R. Rowley demonstrates ONCE AGAIN that he has no understanding of evidence. He only has his BELIEFS.
ReplyDeleteMr. Rowley states his BELIEF as follows: "I further believe 100% that those results were hidden because they were exculpatory"
(1) He FALSELY BELIEVES he can read minds.
(2) He FALSELY BELIEVES material that is NOT presented as evidence are "hidden."
(3) He FALSELY BELIEVES that the handwriting evidence is "exculpatory."
The HANDWRITING EVIDENCE against Dr. Ivins is that the handwriting on the documents resembles his DISGUISED HANDWRITING. The DOJ has witnesses who would have testified to that in court.
There is NO EVIDENCE that Dr. Ivins could not possibly have DISGUISED the writing on the anthrax documents in some way. Therefore, THERE IS NO EXCULPATORY HANDWRITING EVIDENCE. PERIOD. Mr. Rowley is merely stating his NONSENSICAL BELIEFS.
R. Rowley also wrote this about his BELIEFS: "I believe THAT concealment is significant too: for if they had indicated Ivins had had no reason to be in the lab, the notebooks, or their contents, would have been revealed LONG AGO, as part of the case AGAINST Ivins"
There is NO REASON to believe the notebooks contain ANYTHING of importance to the Amerithrax investigation. The sections of the notebooks that HAVE been released show NOTHING that would indicate sections that were not released would be prove anything about the case. Furthermore, there is a REASON for not making the notebooks public: They are CONFIDENTIAL work papers, describing tests done at USAMRIID and the result of those tests. Releasing that information would give people access to information that could be harmful to national security.
Furthermore, Dr. Ivins ADMITTED that he had no work-related reason to be in his lab during those unexplained hours. He told people he went there just to get away from his family life and to stop some guard from bothering him.
Mr. Rowley's BELIEFS are NOT evidence in the Amerithrax case. They are only evidence that HE HAS NO EVIDENCE. He has only beliefs and opinions.
Ed
The HANDWRITING EVIDENCE against Dr. Ivins is that the handwriting on the documents resembles his DISGUISED HANDWRITING. The DOJ has witnesses who would have testified to that in court.
Delete---------------------------------------------
No, that was inadmissible because the STANDARD (in ALL cases involving handwriting identification) is:
1) side-by-side comparison (this has been pointed out to you DOZENS of times by me and DXer). And side-by-side comparisons ONLY.
http://www.frostbrowntodd.com/resources-1501.html
2) professional background/ability in doing such comparisons (ditto).
(same link talks about that)
The unnamed "witnesses" were (allegedly, we have no idea whether they were asked leading question or not, as Mister Lake once acknowledged) going EXCLUSIVELY by memory (that violates point #1) (they were comparing a REAL exemplar to a remembered one) and had no established/ background in the field.
That you cannot admit this is clear. But what you 'admit' and what is clear from case law, precedent, and the Rules of Evidence are frequently two different things.
The DoJ SUBSTITUTED an unreliable pseudo-comparison, inadmissible in a court of law for the considered judgement of their own Questioned Document Examiner, whose judgements WOULD have been admissible.
----------------------------------------------------
R. Rowley wrote: "No, that was inadmissible because the STANDARD (in ALL cases involving handwriting identification) is "
DeleteYou are TOTALLY MISTAKEN for the umpteenth time. This has been explained to you over and over.
You do NOT have to some kind of "expert" to provide witness testimony in court as to what you saw and thought, as long at that testimony is relative to the case being tried. PERIOD!
The witnesses (Patricia Fellows & Mara Linscott) could DEFINITELY AND INDISPUTABLY testify in court that the handwriting on the anthrax documents "strongly resembled" the DISGUISED handwriting Bruce Ivins used when he sent them notes he did not want them to know came from him. PERIOD!
R. Rowley also wrote:"The DoJ SUBSTITUTED an unreliable pseudo-comparison, inadmissible in a court of law for the considered judgement of their own Questioned Document Examiner, whose judgements WOULD have been admissible."
You are simply MINDLESSLY arguing that you IMAGINE "the DoJ" did something evil because they didn't do things the way you IMAGINE they should have been done. As always, YOUR BELIEFS ARE NONSENSE!!
The DoJ would submit evidence that supports and substantiates the case they are presenting in court. The report from the Document Examiner does neither. And since it makes no mention of DISGUISED handwriting, it would not likely be presented as "evidence" by the defense, either.
Mr. Rowley endlessly argues how he WANTS evidence to work in court, while totally ignoring how evidence is actually used in court. And his mind appears totally closed to reality, since reality would challenge all of his mistaken BELIEFS.
Ed
Mister Lake,
ReplyDeleteWhat do you remember and/or do your files tell you about this British series of hoax letters?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/1679925.stm
Central to my interest is: was anyone named/arrested/prosecuted/convicted in connection with THESE hoaxes?
Any info you can give me and/or links would be appreciated.
Thanks!
Mr. Rowley,
ReplyDeleteI do not recall ever reading about those hoax letters before. There's nothing in my files about them.
Since the letters were mailed shorty after the news broke about the real anthrax letters in America, the British hoaxes certainly appear to be the work of two "copy cats."
The first thing I did to check on it was search for larger versions of the pictures of the envelope and letter. I couldn't find any.
The next thing I did was to look for additional articles on the subject, with the hope that I'd find some that said the culprits were caught.
I found several additional articles from November 2001. Click HERE to read one that adds a few details:
One series of letters included a note saying "Allah is great. Death to USA/UK". The second said "Boooooo. You have been exposed to anthrax".
and
In the top left-hand corner of the envelope the hoaxer had written the name "James Brian" and given a false address, "293 Baltimour [sic] Rd, NW1".
A search for the phrase "Aaaaahhh. You have been exposed to anthrax" found an article on the subject from 2007 titled "Net closes in on terror trickster." Click HERE to read it. It begins with this:
THE net was closing in today (Thursday) on an anthrax hoaxer who caused chaos by posting 61 white powder packages from Manchester.
Police said they had a ''significant new lead'' after an appeal for information on last night's BBC Crimewatch show.
I can't find anything after that. The problem MAY be that I haven't used the right search phrases.
But, it seems more likely that there was no further news after 2007.
Ed
Click HERE to read about a different British hoax anthrax letter case where the culprit was caught. A passage from the article:
DeleteMagistrates were told the white powder and a note saying, "Anthrax - start taking antibiotics", were discovered when Pratt's sister, Sandra Berwick, opened the hand delivered letter.
Ed
It seems very likely that the article dated "2007" was actually from 2001. Click HERE for another article from "2007" which also makes no mention that the hoaxes occurred six years earlier. So, I strongly suspect that the dates on the 2007 articles are wrong and they're really from 2001.
DeleteEd
Thanks! You've been of great help to me.
DeleteNo problem. But, why do I have this feeling that you're going to include that "unsolved mystery" as being another crime committed by your favorite villain, even though such a conclusion - based only upon what is currently known - would be totally preposterous?
DeleteEd
Why "totally" preposterous? Are you not aware that I already hold (have held for several years now), that the London-mailed white-powder hoax letter (postmarked late November 2001) to Senator Daschle was likely sent by a member of the same Anthrax Gang? Why, then, should he have let it go at one measly hoax letter? How many Brits of 2001 knew or cared to know who Senator Daschle was?
DeleteAnd since the mastermind is an American, since the peripheral hoaxes were as much about his amusement as about producing investigation-stumping red herrings, these particular letters are, at least on the face of it, perfectly compatible with other hoax letters (St Pete, Quantico letter) associated, by my lights, with the true Amerithrax letters.
Now if they had caught and convicted someone in London, it would likely be impossible, but that doesn't appear to be the case. At least I can't explain why there are no news items about arrest/trial/conviction of anyone for these particular hoaxes.
R. Rowley wrote: "Why "totally" preposterous? Are you not aware that I already hold (have held for several years now), that the London-mailed white-powder hoax letter (postmarked late November 2001) to Senator Daschle was likely sent by a member of the same Anthrax Gang?
DeleteIt's "totally" preposterous because it shows there is no end to the preposterous way you put 2 and 2 together and get infinity. You just add some hoax to your theory because no one can prove it is IMPOSSIBLE to have happened the way you theorize. There's no sane logic or basis for claiming the British hoax letters came from the same person who sent the anthrax letters. It makes no sense at all. Plus, it's abundantly clear that the British hoax letters came from two DIFFERENT hoaxers.
The reason that the hoaxers evidently weren't caught is because hoax letters are EXTREMELY difficult to trace back to a sender. Not every unsolved hoax letter case was committed by your "person of interest." Believing that would be BEYOND preposterous.
Ed
You just add some hoax to your theory because no one can prove it is IMPOSSIBLE to have happened the way you theorize.
Delete------------------------------------------
Not at all. I rarely bring up my hypotheses here. What I go by are patterns: patterns in networking (here the London/Manchester connection/node); patterns in timing; patterns in addressees where appropriate (Daschle, as I noted, was not only likely obscure to most Brits, but was one of the two US senators we KNOW were sent Amerithrax letters); patterns in word usage/misspellings etc.
Those things are going (hopefully!) to be there whether mailing batch X was done via xeroxing, and mailing batch Y was done using crayons.
Writing implements (paper, pens/pencils etc) can be changed. Even printing/handwriting can be altered. Thematic tropes, habits of thought as expressed in writing are harder to change. And usually the writer doesn't WANT to change them, except in a masquerade-like fashion (Death to Israel!).
"Aaaaahhh" and "Boooooo." Are those expressions compatible with either an Islamic fundamentalist or someone with a serious domestic agenda? No, of course not. They are the verbal equivalent of someone sticking his tongue out at the world.
These mailings (Amerithrax proper and the attendant white powder hoaxes) were done for the sheer fun of it. And he (and his gang) did enjoy himself (themselves).
R. Rowley wrote: "These mailings (Amerithrax proper and the attendant white powder hoaxes) were done for the sheer fun of it. And he (and his gang) did enjoy himself (themselves)."
DeleteBut you're just assuming that all the letters YOU KNOW ABOUT where the sender wasn't arrested are from your "person of interest." That is PREPOSTEROUS.
There were HUNDREDS, maybe THOUSANDS of anthrax hoax letters prior to the actual attacks. As I recall, the hoax letter phenomenon began when some politician went on the Today show shortly after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and showed the world a bag of flour, saying that if it was anthrax it could kill half the population of New York City (or something like that).
Hatfill did a study prior to the anthrax attacks BECAUSE of all the hoax letters that were being sent through the mails. He wanted to know what a REAL anthrax letter attack might do.
The real anthrax attacks opened up a flood of even MORE anthrax hoax letters.
You're just picking the few hoaxes where there are pictures of the letters in the media, and you rationalize that they must all be part of the same scheme. What about the THOUSANDS of other hoax letters where there weren't any pictures in the media? What is our rational for ignoring all those hoaxes?
Ed
Click HERE to view a study I did in March 2002 on all the Internet discussions about anthrax prior to 9/11. And I provide a bunch of examples of comments about anthrax ON 9/11 and after (weeks BEFORE the actual attacks were in the news).
DeleteEd
Follow-up question (sorry to be a bother!):
ReplyDeleteI checked at timeline here:
http://www.npr.org/2011/02/15/93170200/timeline-how-the-anthrax-terror-unfolded
Next to the timeline is a photo with the caption:
"The Justice Department released photos on Oct. 16, 2001, of envelopes that contained anthrax, including this one sent to Sen. Leahy"
Question: Did the Justice Department simultaneously (ie on Oct 16th) release photos of the media and/or politician TEXTS, or was that later?
(I figure the LATEST it likely would have been was when the Linguistic/Behavioural Analysis document was released: November 9th 2001:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/famous-cases/anthrax-amerithrax/linguistic-behavorial-analysis-of-the-anthrax-letters
As you can perhaps infer, my thinking is this: had the TEXTS been released on Oct 16th (or earlier), a mere copy-cat actor could have imitated the slogans "Allah is great"; "Death to America', merely substituting 'USA/UK' for 'America', and included them in the Oct 18th British mailings, whereas if the texts were released to the public Oct 18th or later, an unrelated mailer in Britain would have had to stumble by chance onto the same phraseology. Not impossible, but less likely.
Again, you've probably got some old files with the exact dates of release.......
Thanks in advance!
R. Rowley wrote: "Question: Did the Justice Department simultaneously (ie on Oct 16th) release photos of the media and/or politician TEXTS, or was that later?"
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, the NPR photo caption is TOTALLY WRONG. The Leahy letter wasn't located until sometime in November.
The Brokaw letter was the first letter found. It was evidently found on Oct. 13. The Daschle letter was found and opened on Oct. 15. The NY Post letter wasn't found until Oct. 19. The mails were shut down, and it was only when they began testing sealed mailbags for anthrax that the Leahy letter was found in mid-November.
It's my understanding that the picture of John Ezzell holding the Daschle letter against the glass window of his lab was the first picture released. It was supposedly printed in just about every newspaper in the world.
Note that the British letters say "You have been exposed to anthrax," which is more like the senate text than the media text.
I haven't been able to find any specific newspaper which would show when the photo of the Daschle letter was first published. But Oct. 16 seems reasonable.
Ed
Regarding your comments of yesterday about my recent inquiries: I'm been accused of lots of stuff, true and untrue, in the past but showing 'fast thinking' sure isn't one of them!
ReplyDelete-------
"An interesting example of this came up on my old interactive blog yesterday. An Anthrax Truther found an article about two different series of anthrax hoax letters that were sent out from from northwest London and Manchester, England in October and November 2001. The Anthrax Truther posted a question to ask me about the letters."
-----
So far, so good (except for the 'interesting example' part!).
----
"It was immediately clear to me [...]"
----
THAT'S an example of 'fast thinking' when something is "immediately clear" to the thinker.
By contrast:
1) Amerithrax (and chronologically proximate events) occurred 13 full years ago.
2) I started studying it (and them) in late 2005, so 9 full years ago.
3) The official investigation was closed 5 full years ago. And really was just a more detailed version of what was presented in August of 2008, ie 6 1/2 years ago.
Though I have no concrete memory of it, it is not unlikely that sometime in the 2005 to 2011 period I came across the British white powder hoax story/ies in question and promptly dismissed them as 'mere hoaxes', and anyway in a different country (and therefore 'copy cats' etc).
But in any event, this is a matter of circling back on a case and trying to dot as many 'i's and cross as many 't's as possible. NOW at least I know what to look for.
I took my time with the Town of Quantico/Assaad letter, waiting some months before tackling it, and devoting a goodly amount of time on it. SLOW I can reasonably be accused of being, a 'fast thinker' only in puns......
[If you are still interested in more on the topic of fast thinking, I recommend Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blink_(book) ; however linguistic analysis is best done very deliberately.]
R. Rowley wrote: "I'm been accused of lots of stuff, true and untrue, in the past but showing 'fast thinking' sure isn't one of them!"
ReplyDeleteYou misunderstood what I wrote on my web site yesterday:
-----------------
It turns out that everyone thinks BOTH "fast" and "slow."
"Fast thinking" is basically an automatic reaction. ..."Slow thinking" is done when you need to figure things out or need to be very careful. ... Everybody does both types of thinking, but we don't always do them under the same circumstances.
--------------------
"Blink" appears to evaluate ONLY "fast thinking." It's important to understand BOTH kinds of thinking and when we do which kind.
You probably DID do a lot of "slow thinking" when you concluded that various unsolved mysteries involving letters were all done by your "Anthrax Group." That doesn't mean your thinking was correct. Nor does it mean it was incorrect.
Where you appear to do "fast thinking" is when you automatically assume that the government is wrong and that you are smarter than everyone else.
When someone argues with you, you use "fast thinking" to automatically assume they are mindless people who simply accept everything the government says. You refuse to discuss facts and evidence, and you just automatically attack people who disagree with you. That's all the result of "fast thinking." You use "slow thinking" to find reasons to justify your "fast thinking."
I do "fast [i.e., automatic] thinking, too." There's no way to avoid it. When I hear someone argue a conspiracy theory, I automatically assume they're wrong. It's not because I automatically believe "the government." Often "the government" hasn't even given an opinion yet. It's because I recognize a pattern to the conspiracy theorists' claims. I've seen that pattern many many times before. The Boston Marathon Bombing is a good example.
While I automatically assumed the conspiracy theorists were nuts, I also immediately shifted into SLOW thinking mode and start looking for facts and evidence to see who did it. In the Boston Bombing, the facts and evidence very soon made it very clear that the Tsarnaev brothers did it.
The conspiracy theorists, meanwhile, just assumed that all the facts and evidence were PLANTED by "the government." They assumed that all the people who disagreed with them are stupid and cannot see "the facts."
That same pattern is followed by nearly ALL conspiracy theorists - including YOU.
Instead of pointing to "the government," you believe some imaginary "Anthrax Gang" was behind the anthrax attacks and all the hoax letters. You refuse to provide any BETTER evidence proving your theory, you just argue that anyone who disagrees with you just mindlessly believes "the government."
You have programmed yourself to respond with "fast thinking" to simply ignore all arguments that you are wrong. You justify your beliefs by repeatedly arguing that you did a lot of "SLOW thinking" to come to your conclusions.
If you start out on a wrong path as a result of "fast thinking," it doesn't make any difference how much "slow thinking" you do to JUSTIFY taking that path. It is still the WRONG path.
To find the "right" path, you have to evaluate and compare the EVIDENCE for ALL SIDES. You REFUSE to do that. Instead, you argue that you do not BELIEVE the government's evidence and that the government's evidence doesn't meet your standards for evidence (or it isn't really evidence). And there is no way to get past your "fast thinking" biases.
That's why you just argue instead of trying to resolve the argument.
Ed
To find the "right" path, you have to evaluate and compare the EVIDENCE for ALL SIDES. You REFUSE to do that.
ReplyDelete===============================
Not at all. I presented upthread (for the umpteenth time!) two no-doubt-about-it skeins of evidence concerning Ivins, skeins that are indications of likely innocence and skeins that are 100% admissible (since there is no legal basis for even challenging their admissibility). Those skeins weren't developed by any 'truther', they were the Task Force's OWN skeins of evidence (the notebooks via confiscation, the handwriting comparisons via assignment to a qualified specialist (in the Postal Inspectorate, I believe)).
Mister Lake ignores the findings of the Task Force's own questioned document examiner and continually touts unnamed 'witnesses' (ie informants) whose testimony would be excluded for reasons adduced dozens of times in the past 3 or 4 years. To 'prove' (huh?) that Ivins' 'disguised' printing bears some resemblance (on how many points? No clue!) to the Amerithrax letters.
This is NOT me 'not believing', this is me evaluating: admissibility and a related feature: reliability, a word and a concept close to 100% absent from Mister Lake's now years-long discussion of the case against Ivins. Since reliability along with materiality is the main basis for court decisions regarding admissibility, that puts Mr Lake is a hole in discussing these matters.
R. Rowley wrote: "I presented upthread (for the umpteenth time!) two no-doubt-about-it skeins of evidence concerning Ivins, skeins that are indications of likely innocence and skeins that are 100% admissible (since there is no legal basis for even challenging their admissibility)."
DeleteThere is NO BASIS for admitting the notebooks into evidence. You only IMAGINE they contain something exculpatory. Your imagination would be IRRELEVANT in court. PERIOD.
As explained in my previous comment this morning (HERE), the handwriting evidence would be from LAY witnesses Pat Fellows and Mara Linscott. The DEFENSE might try to present the findings from the document examiner, but since his report says NOTHING about disguised handwriting, it would likely be inadmissible.
R. Rowley wrote: "This is NOT me 'not believing', this is me evaluating"
NO, it is you BELIEVING and using your MISTAKEN BELIEFS to "evaluate" and justify your own BELIEFS. YOUR BELIEFS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH REALITY.
-------------------------
RULE 701:
Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses
If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is:
(a) rationally based on the witness’s perception;
(b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue; and
(c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.
-------------------------------
The Lay Witness handwriting testimony by Pat Fellows and Mara Linscott would be rationally based upon their own perceptions, and it would NOT be based upon any "scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702." So, it would be fully admissible. PERIOD.
Why do you find that so difficult or impossible to understand? Examples have been shown to you. It's been repeatedly explained to you. But your mind appears to be totally closed to the FACTS and you just ignore how the RULES of EVIDENCE work and use your own IMAGINARY RULES instead.
Ed
R. Rowley wrote: "I presented upthread (for the umpteenth time!) two no-doubt-about-it skeins of evidence concerning Ivins, skeins that are indications of likely innocence and skeins that are 100% admissible (since there is no legal basis for even challenging their admissibility)."
DeleteThere is NO BASIS for admitting the notebooks into evidence.
==================================
1) the government CLAIMED that Ivins' evening hours in the lab(s) were
"unexplained" (the DoJ term, not mine).
2) the lab notebooks list any KNOWN AND DOCUMENTED activities
of Ivins in the lab(s), for the period in question. That is to say they are a documentation of explained activities.
How could anyone--------even a 10 year old child!-------------not see that that is as relevant/material/admissible as all get-out???????????
It's logic 101!
Lake has been given now multiple multiple multiple opportunities to give some 'innocent explanation' for why those notebooks were withheld and even his fertile imagination has come up empty.
R. Rowley wrote: "2) the lab notebooks list any KNOWN AND DOCUMENTED activities of Ivins in the lab(s), for the period in question. That is to say they are a documentation of explained activities."
DeleteONLY IN MR. ROWLEY'S FANTASIES. Many of the notebooks are on line. Just go to this link http://mrmc.amedd.army.mil/index.cfm?pageid=foia_reading_room.overview and click on the link that in the 6th column, 2nd row that says "Lab Notebooks." There you will get a dose of reality. The notebooks describe work Ivins was doing that required keeping notes. That work was mostly done DURING NORMAL WORK HOURS. Ivins RARELY mentions time of day. So, even if the notebooks you want to see are not ALREADY AVAILABLE, it seems clear and obvious that the notebooks would NOT likely provide any explanation for Dr. Ivins' unexplained activity in his lab.
How could anyone--------even a 10 year old child!-------------not see that that there is NO REASON to believe the notebooks are relevant/material/admissible????????????
It's logic 101!
IF there are other notebooks, they probably show little or nothing about time of day, either. And the reason they haven't been released is most likely BECAUSE THEY ARE CONFIDENTIAL WORK DOCUMENTS.
Ed
I wrote to Mr. Rowley: "To find the "right" path, you have to evaluate and compare the EVIDENCE for ALL SIDES. You REFUSE to do that."
ReplyDelete===============================
And Mr. Rowley responded: "Not at all. I presented upthread (for the umpteenth time!) two no-doubt-about-it skeins of evidence concerning Ivins, skeins that are indications of likely innocence and skeins that are 100% admissible"
Mr. Rowley once again MISUNDERSTANDS - probably deliberately. Instead of evaluating and comparing "the evidence for all sides," he just repeats his NONSENSICAL BELIEFS.
"Evaluating and comparing evidence for all sides" means what it says: You have to evaluate and COMPARE the evidence against Bruce Ivins to the "evidence" against Mr. Rowley's "Anthrax Gang." (And/or to DXer's "evidence" against al Qaeda.)
Instead, Mr. Rolwey makes NO COMPARISON. He only argues that he does NOT BELIEVE the evidence against Bruce Ivins.
Without making a comparison, he will accomplish NOTHING - other than to make it impossible to bring an end to the argument.
A COMPARISON works this way:
Dr. Ivins had access to spores that were genetically identical to the spores in the anthrax letters. That can be PROVEN BEYOND ANY DOUBT.
Can it be PROVEN that the "Anthrax Gang" had access to such spores?
Can it be PROVEN that al Qaeda had access to such spores?
Mr. Rowley just argues that he has such evidence somewhere, but he will not provide it because he wants to use it in a book he plans to write some day.
Meanwhile, DXer argues that no one can provide evidence to prove it is IMPOSSIBLE for al Qaeda to have had access to matching spores. And unless someone can prove it IS impossible, then it is true.
Mr. Rowley and DXer want to compare SOLID EVIDENCE to a BELIEF that it is POSSIBLE that there is some evidence pointing to their suspects.
That's why there is no way to resolve these debates. Mr. Rowley and DXer want OTHERS to find evidence for them. And, if the others do NOT find the evidence to prove they are wrong, they argue that that is proof they are right. It's just endless nonsense.
Now, I suspect that Mr. Rowley will argue that the fact that Dr. Ivins had access to identical spores is NOT proof that Ivins was the anthrax mailer, proving once again that Mr. Rowley does not understand how circumstantial evidence works in court. Another endless argument.
Mr. Rowley, please tell us either (1) how your "Anthrax Gang" obtained anthrax genetically identical to the spores in the anthrax letters, OR (2) tell us why not having no such access is not "exculpatory" for the "Anthrax Gang."
Ed
"Evaluating and comparing evidence for all sides" means what it says: You have to evaluate and COMPARE the evidence against Bruce Ivins to the "evidence" against Mr. Rowley's "Anthrax Gang." (And/or to DXer's "evidence" against al Qaeda.)
DeleteInstead, Mr. Rolwey makes NO COMPARISON.
======================================
I make no comparison on the Internet. That's not the same thing (and I shouldn't have to point this out!*) as "mak[ing] no comparison". What do you think I've been doing on the case since August of 2008? I won't quite say that I've been doing 'nothing but comparing', but that was a huge part of what I did from 2008 to 2011.
I not only have made comparisons (on my own), but I've sought similar, on the neurological/linguistic level, cases, and was able to solve the identity or puzzle question of MOST of those long-ago cases using the same methodology. Totally impossible if my psycho-linguistic paradigm was erroneous. And being correct about who did Amerithrax depends 100% on my psycho-linguistic paradigm being correct.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rowley, please tell us either (1) how your "Anthrax Gang" obtained anthrax genetically identical to the spores in the anthrax letters,
-----
It (the stuff from RMR-1029) was sent by USAMRIID to lab X. Lab X sent it to lab Y. Lab Y, I'm pretty sure**, at the time had no certified Biolevel 3 suites and sent it to partnership institution Z, for a specific purpose, one that can be discerned if you do hundreds (?thousands?) of Google searches using the right terms, as I did in 2011-2). The mastermind worked, had worked for years, at institution Z. Had the run of the place, 24/7. Keys to all labs. Own buildings key(s) and/or swipe card.
That's it in a nutshell, and, no, I'm not going to break out what X, Y, and Z stand for.
The transfers I doped out from Willman's book. Including footnotes.
*On the Internet. That's a weird thing I've found on the Internet in the past decade or so: the people who are truly 'Internet denizens' somehow assume that if something hasn't appeared on the Internet, hasn't been 'argued about', it either hasn't happened, hasn't been done, or doesn't exist! How foolish and illogical is THAT?!?!?!?
**I'm pretty sure. At least I can find no record of such facilities and the work I did find out about was done at institution Z. But it was on joint project(s): Y and Z's joint projects.
Mr. Rowley wrote, "being correct about who did Amerithrax depends 100% on my psycho-linguistic paradigm being correct."
DeleteThank you for acknowledging that your theory is based upon nothing but assumptions. You have shown that you have nothing to discuss. Your theory is just guesswork, assumptions and personal interpretations.
The DOJ's case against Dr. Ivins is clearly infinitely BETTER than anything you have. Any "comparisons" you make in secret have no meaning here. The only comparisons that would mean anything would be where EVERYONE can view the two arguments and OBJECTIVELY COMPARE them.
Ed