Wednesday, March 11, 2015

Subject: Handwriting evidence

R. Rowley continuously argues his mistaken beliefs about handwriting evidence over and over and over.   Click HERE for his latest argument, which went as follows:
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.
Here is Rule of Evidence #701:
  -------------------------
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.

-------------------------------
Mara Linscott, Patricia Fellows and possibly Nancy Haigwood would have testified as LAY WITNESSES that the handwriting on the anthrax documents - in their opinion - resembled Dr. Ivins disguised handwriting.  Here is what it says on pages 89 and 90 of the Amerithrax Investigative Summary about their planned testimony:
a witness who had received a number of packages and cards over the course of several years in the late 1990s and early 2000s was shown copies of the letters and envelopes used in the anthrax attacks. The witness thought that the handwriting on the envelope addressed to Senator Daschle reminded the witness of Dr. Ivins’s writing. If the witness were to receive a package with that writing on it, the witness would think of Dr. Ivins. The witness noted that, in particular, the style of the block letters with alternating heights stood out, as did the slant of the writing. The witness said that this was the type of writing Dr. Ivins used when he disguised his handwriting as part of a joke. As the witness studied the letters, the witness noted that the “E” and the “R” in the letter to the New York Post also looked familiar. The witness stated that these letters also reminded the witness of when Dr. Ivins disguised his handwriting as a joke. The witness described this “disguised” handwriting as being similar to Dr. Ivins’s standard handwriting, and that one could tell that he was trying to disguise his handwriting to a limited extent. Another witness familiar with the handwriting of Dr. Ivins in many contexts said the same thing.
The witnesses would have testified to this in court, under Rule #701.

1. They would NOT be testifying as experts.
2. Their testimony would be rationally based on their perceptions.
3. Their testimony would be deemed helpful in determining who wrote the letters.
4. Their testimony would NOT be covered by Rule 702.

Mr. Rowley inexplicably believes that such witnesses would have to be handwriting experts or they would not be allowed to testify about handwriting.  Click HERE for his latest post on this subject.  Rule #701 clearly says the lay witnesses the prosecution planned to use in the Amerithrax case CANNOT be such experts.  If they were such experts, they would have to testify under Rule #702, which covers "expert testimony."

When shown testimony about how handwriting testimony from lay witnesses was used in other cases, Mr. Rowley just argued that the circumstances were different.  In other words, he creates imaginary new rules to fit this case.  He seemingly cannot understand that Rule #701 covers lay witness opinion testimony in EVERY criminal case, not just cases which fit or don't fit his beliefs.

Plus, Mr. Rowley argues that an expert "document examiner" would testify in court, even though the prosecution would have NO REASON to call a handwriting "expert" who appears to have nothing relevant to say about Dr. Ivins' disguised handwriting or anything else proving Dr. Ivins' guilt. 

This purpose of this thread is to show Mr. Rowley once and for all time that his beliefs about handwriting evidence are NONSENSERule #701 CLEARLY says that lay witnesses CAN provide opinion testimony about handwriting they perceive as being familiar and relevant to the case.  Mr. Rowley had NO BASIS for arguing otherwise, yet he endlessly continues to do so.

Ed

71 comments:

  1. (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.
    =============================
    That's a negative REQUIREMENT. Repeat: requirement. That does NOT mean that you can get around the requirement by claiming 'the guy's not testifying as an expert in nuclear physics' because he's not a nuclear physicist. The layman is forbidden by the rules of evidence from testifying on nuclear physics. PERIOD.

    Here: handwriting comparisons=nuclear physics [or for that matter comparing blood evidence, DNA comparisons, any number of technical fields/specialities]
    ---------------------------------------------------
    Plus, Mr. Rowley argues that an expert "document examiner" would testify in court, even though the prosecution would have NO REASON to call a handwriting "expert" [...]
    ==========================
    The prosecution would have been required------repeat REQUIRED-------to inform the defense about the results of the handwriting analysis/ses, whether the prosecution intended to present that evidence or not. That's part of "discovery". We've been over this a million times before! The DEFENSE would have called the witness (the document examiner(s) who did the comparison). First question after credentials were established would likely be: 'Did you do a side-by-side comparison of Bruce Ivins' printing with the Amerithrax letters printing?'. OTHERWISE, even the expert couldn't testify. Side-by-side comparisons are another REQUIREMENT. Repeat: requirement.

    http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-when-the-prosecution-must-disclose.html
    http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/discovery.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr. R. Rowley has ONCE AGAIN nicely demonstrated his total misunderstanding of the Rules of Evidence AND why he cannot intelligently discuss anything.

      Exhibit #1:
      -------------
      (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.
      =============================
      That's a negative REQUIREMENT. Repeat: requirement. That does NOT mean that you can get around the requirement by claiming 'the guy's not testifying as an expert in nuclear physics' because he's not a nuclear physicist. The layman is forbidden by the rules of evidence from testifying on nuclear physics.

      --------------------

      Mr. Rowley's argument is nonsensical gibberish. Anyone can testify to what they observed. PERIOD. A lay person who is NOT a handwriting expert can testify to recognizing the handwriting of someone else. PERIOD. Recognition does not require a degree in handwriting forensics. Such testimony is NOT "based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702." It is something anyone can do. PERIOD. It is allowable testimony under Rule #701. PERIOD!

      In prior threads, I have shown testimony from other criminal cases where people recognized someone's handwriting and testified to that in court. Mr. Rowley just closes his mind to that and argues that the other case is somehow different (i.e., uses some different, imaginary Rules of Evidence).

      Exhibit #2:
      -------------
      Plus, Mr. Rowley argues that an expert "document examiner" would testify in court, even though the prosecution would have NO REASON to call a handwriting "expert" [...]
      ==========================
      The prosecution would have been required------repeat REQUIRED-------to inform the defense about the results of the handwriting analysis/ses, whether the prosecution intended to present that evidence or not.

      ------------

      This is a different argument and a CHANGE OF SUBJECT, because Mr. Rowley evidently cannot understand anything about how trials are conducted.

      I stated that "the prosecution would have NO REASON to call a handwriting expert ..."

      Instead of discussing that statement, Mr. Rowley argues something that is NOT IN DISPUTE, i.e., that the prosecution would be required "to inform the defense about the results of the handwriting analysis/ses."

      Then he repeats his MISUNDERSTANDING of the rules of evidence by arguing that "a side-by-side comparison of Bruce Ivins' printing with the Amerithrax letters printing" is a "REQUIREMENT" for any testimony about handwriting. THAT IS TOTAL NONSENSE. Lay testimony does NOT have such a requirement. PERIOD. I've provided RULE #701 to SHOW AND PROVE that there is no such requirement.

      Mr. Rowley, please show us where it says anything in Rule #701 about side-by-side handwriting comparisons.

      Ed

      Delete
    2. Mr. Rowley, please show us where it says anything in Rule #701 about side-by-side handwriting comparisons.
      =============================
      Rule #701 is a GENERAL RULE, it covers a myriad of instances. It is NOT specific to handwriting. Or nuclear physics. Or DNA analysis. DXer, the only lawyer among the three (3) of us, gave us the low-down on what determines that side-by-side criterion some time ago. I don't recall the details but it's probably the case law, ie precedent.
      (I'm sure, if you stopped deleting his posts for a spell, he might remind us!)

      Delete
    3. R. Rowley wrote: "Rule #701 is a GENERAL RULE, it covers a myriad of instances. It is NOT specific to handwriting.""

      No one said it was specific to handwriting. You argued that it only allows a handwriting expert to testify about handwriting.

      No one said it contained anything about "side-by-side criterion," either. You are just trying to change the argument to avoid admitting you were WRONG in arguing that only a handwriting expert can testify about handwriting in court.

      DXer is evidently a CIVIL lawyer. His OPINION on criminal law would have to be accompanied by citations and examples in order to be worthy of discussion. DXer's only attempted post in the past month was just another one of this ignorant opinions. Click HERE to view it.

      Ed

      Delete
  2. The handwriting comparisons were exculpatory evidence and the prosecution has a special obligation there:
    -------

    Exculpatory Evidence in Criminal Cases

    In order to facilitate fairness, the laws provide that prosecutors provide the defense with any evidence that may potentially benefit defendants as well during the discovery period. This exculpatory evidence may help establish a defendant’s innocence, and if not turned over, can result in the overturning of any conviction upon appeal. Typically, any information that may present any doubt concerning the guilt of a defendant, according to a reasonable juror, is deemed exculpatory evidence in most cases. To force the turnover of this information, defense attorneys usually make their requests from the onset, as well as interviewing other parties that might be aware of the existence of exculpatory evidence, such as directly interviewing police officers, other attorneys, and witnesses in the case both before and after a trial.
    -----------------
    http://www.lawfirms.com/resources/criminal-defense/criminal-defense-case/discovery.htm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one is arguing anything about what happens during discovery. Mr. Rowley is CHANGING THE SUBJECT because he cannot argue the actual facts of the case.

      There is NO exculpatory evidence regarding handwriting. Mr. Rowley may claim there is, but that's just the result of his apparent ignorance of the law and the rules of evidence.

      The evidence is that the handwriting on the anthrax documents resembled Dr. Ivins DISGUISED handwriting. To be "exculpatory," any contrary evidence would have to PROVE that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the handwriting on the anthrax letters to resemble Dr. Ivins' DISGUISED handwriting. There is no such evidence, because there cannot BE any such evidence. It requires proving the negative.

      Ed

      Delete
    2. No one is arguing anything about what happens during discovery.
      ==================================
      YOU argued (and I'm quoting) "Plus, Mr. Rowley argues that an expert "document examiner" would testify in court, even though the prosecution would have NO REASON to call a handwriting "expert"[...]
      ==================================
      YOU (not I!) are assuming there that because the prosecution wouldn't
      have called the document examiner, that the defense couldn't have called him! And that post (by Ed Lake at March 12, 2015 at 6:57 AM) is just a repetition of something you have claimed for YEARS: that because the prosecution wouldn't have called a witness, the defense couldn't have called him/wouldn't have know known about him. In all instances this flew (and flies) in the face of the discovery requirement. To my knowledge this is the first time Lake has even ACKNOWLEDGED that there is such a principle and only then because I stuck his nose in it!

      That's not "changing the subject", it IS the subject: how would the handwriting have played out as a skein of evidence in a trial of Bruce Ivins?

      Delete
    3. R. Rowley wrote: "YOU (not I!) are assuming there that because the prosecution wouldn't have called the document examiner, that the defense couldn't have called him! "

      NONSENSE! I never made any such assumption. I argued that it would be STUPID for the defense to call a HOSTILE prosecution witness to testify about handwriting. Click HERE for my reasons.

      Ed

      Delete
  3. Here is what it says on pages 89 and 90 of the Amerithrax Investigative Summary about their planned testimony:
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    The expression "planned testimony" is not used, nor is any near or proximate synonym used. You are IMAGINING that because the document (a PR document) uses the term "witness"*(instead of the proper "informant") that means that the person was legally eligible to testify about the printing. That is not so, nor does the document even imply that, let alone say it.

    As I noted several times, and as Lake did not deny on the threads in question:
    a witness is:

    1) someone named.
    (these persons on pages 89 and 90 are not named)[Why Lake chose to insert the name Patricia Fellows here is inexplicable: In the document the name is not used in relation to handwriting comparisons, even of the spurious sort related here]

    2) someone eligible for cross-examination
    (these persons were not).

    It's entirely fraudulent to call these persons 'witnesses'. They might be able to testify to some other matter in the case (conceivably) but certainly not the printing.

    For two reasons: it's a highly technical field, and they did no side-by-side comparisons. Verboten, streng verboten.

    * term "witness". As I noted a long time ago, the language of due process is being used incorrectly here and elsewhere to give the IMPRESSION of due process where the substance of due process is entirely absent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R. Rowley wrote: "(these persons on pages 89 and 90 are not named)[Why Lake chose to insert the name Patricia Fellows here is inexplicable"

      They are not named in the Amerithrax Investigative Summary, but they are clearly identified.

      "a witness who had received a number of packages and cards over the course of several years in the late 1990s and early 2000s was shown copies of the letters and envelopes used in the anthrax attacks."

      That person can only be Mara Linscott. The supplementary documents describe in detail all the packages and cards Ivins sent to Mara Linscott during that period in time.

      "Another witness familiar with the handwriting of Dr. Ivins in many contexts said the same thing.

      That person is almost certainly Patricia Fellows. The supplementary documents show that Patricia Fellows also received such cards.

      (I'll change the heading text to include Mara Linscott's name.)

      Mr. Rowley then demonstrates ONCE AGAIN his total ignorance of the Rules of evidence. He wrote:
      -----------------
      2) someone eligible for cross-examination
      (these persons were not).

      It's entirely fraudulent to call these persons 'witnesses'. They might be able to testify to some other matter in the case (conceivably) but certainly not the printing.

      ------------------

      There would be absolutely NO PROBLEM having Mara Linscott and Patricia Fellows (and maybe Nancy Haigwood) testify about their observations of the handwriting.

      There would be absolutely NO PROBLEM with allowing the defense to cross examine these witnesses about their testimony. PERIOD.

      Mr. Rowley just endlessly repeats his MISTAKEN BELIEFS about what is allowable under Rule 701.

      Ed

      Delete
    2. R. Rowley wrote: "(these persons on pages 89 and 90 are not named)[Why Lake chose to insert the name Patricia Fellows here is inexplicable"

      They are not named in the Amerithrax Investigative Summary, but they are clearly identified.

      "a witness who had received a number of packages and cards over the course of several years in the late 1990s and early 2000s was shown copies of the letters and envelopes used in the anthrax attacks."

      That person can only be Mara Linscott. The supplementary documents describe in detail all the packages and cards Ivins sent to Mara Linscott during that period in time.

      "Another witness familiar with the handwriting of Dr. Ivins in many contexts said the same thing.

      That person is almost certainly Patricia Fellows. The supplementary documents show that Patricia Fellows also received such cards.

      (I'll change the heading text to include Mara Linscott's name.)
      ==================================
      All you've done above is show how you:

      1) mix your OWN conclusions in with what the Task Force/DoJ has written.

      2) fail to tell your reader you have done so.
      ======================================
      There would be absolutely NO PROBLEM with allowing the defense to cross examine these witnesses about their testimony
      -----------------------------
      They have no 'testimony' because they have given neither a deposition nor appeared in a court of law under oath (the circumstances where one gives TRUE testimony). This is Lake HIMSELF misusing the terminology of due process to 1) confuse himself (as he has demonstrated serially over many years that confusion) 2) confuse any readers who don't follow the whole thing closely.

      The two mentioned informants of pages 89 and 90:

      1) are not witnesses.

      2) are not presented in the document as being eligible to testify about the printing. For that reason their 'witnesshood' is entirely honorary.

      3) would not have been eligible to testify about the printing under any circumstances.

      The author(s) of the Amerithrax Investigative Document aren't being scrupulously honest in the document but they aren't as clueless about the law as Lake is. Quite the contrary. Which is why they make no such claims.

      Mister Lake, as ever, is trying to circumvent the law by selectively taking something out of context and misrepresenting it.

      Delete
    3. R. Rowley wrote: "All you've done above is show how you:

      1) mix your OWN conclusions in with what the Task Force/DoJ has written."


      No, what you're doing is what you always do: You're complaining that the "Task Force" didn't do things the way you want them done. You want the Task Force to NAME witnesses, even though the case was closed and never went to trial. Naming witnesses prior to trial would be both unethical and improper. Anyone who has studied the case would know who the handwriting witnesses are.

      What I've done is STUDY THE CASE. You evidently haven't bothered to do so. You just reject everything because it doesn't fit your beliefs.

      R. Rowley also wrote: "They have no 'testimony' because they have given neither a deposition nor appeared in a court of law under oath (the circumstances where one gives TRUE testimony)."

      So, now you're going to argue that the case never went to trial, so there are no actual "witnesses" who have testified? You're playing STUPID games to avoid admitting you were wrong!

      The two mentioned informants of pages 89 and 90: ARE witnesses and (1) WOULD HAVE BEEN witnesses in court, (2) their eligibility to testify is clear, and (3) they WOULD have been eligible to testify about the printing in any court in this country.

      YOU JUST ARGUE YOUR BELIEFS!
      I SHOWED YOU PROOF THAT THEIR TESTIMONY WOULD BE ALLOWED.


      There's no point in discussing this with you if you are just going to IGNORE all the PROOF AND EVIDENCE I show you and continue to argue your IGNORANT BELIEFS.

      I can provide a lot more PROOF that lay opinions on handwriting are allowed in any court is this country. Your BELIEFS are nonsense.

      We are talking about a case that never went to trial because the culprit committed suicide. So, we are talking about what would have most likely happened IF Dr. Ivins had not committed suicide and had been put on trial. We're talking about what the law says is valid evidence.

      Lay witnesses can testify about handwriting in any court in this country.

      You are just wasting time and playing games to avoid admitting you are wrong about virtually EVERYTHING regarding handwriting in this case.

      Ed

      Delete
    4. Mr. Rowley, since your post is ABOVE my post HERE where I lay out PROOF that lay witness testimony about handwriting is fully acceptable in court, should I assume you didn't see that PROOF when you wrote your ignorant argument about your beliefs?

      Or are you just IGNORING that PROOF?

      Ed

      Delete
  4. Rule #701 CLEARLY says that lay witnesses CAN provide opinion testimony about handwriting they perceive as being familiar and relevant to the case.
    --------------------------------------------------------
    This is one of dozens of reasons why I think you have semantic aphasia: we go over the same thing multiple times and you still don't understand it. Not my fault.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R. Rowley wrote: "This is one of dozens of reasons why I think you have semantic aphasia: we go over the same thing multiple times and you still don't understand it. Not my fault."

      Yes, it IS your fault. And, if anyone has "semantic aphasia," it is you. But, that is your diagnosis of your condition. My diagnoses of your condition is that you are so certain of your own infallibility and superior intelligence that your mind is closed to any evidence proving that you are just plain WRONG.

      Rule 701 CLEARLY shows you are WRONG. But, you spin and twist it to fit your beliefs.

      Why don't you propose some way to PROVE who is right, other than by you just arguing you mistaken beliefs over and over and over and over?

      In the past, I did research into other cases where lay witnesses testified about recognizing handwriting. Mr. Rowley just ignored it.

      I can do more.

      Click HERE for a legal paper titled "Lay Opinion On Handwriting Permitted Under FRE 901(b)(2)". It begins with this:

      "In drug conspiracy prosecution, admitting DEA informant’s lay opinion that handwriting was the defendant’s, based on the informant’s testimony that he was familiar with the defendant’s writing because of their long association ..."

      Click HERE for the source for this:

      "a competent layperson may provide opinions on certain subjects that are specifically permitted by rule, statute, or case law. Some of these are:

      Another person's identity
      Another person's sanity
      Demeanor, mood, or intent
      IDENTIFICATION OF HANDWRITING
      Intoxication or sobriety ..."


      Click HERE for the source for this:

      "The so-called opinions of ordinary witnesses are received where it is impossible for the witness to detail all the pertinent facts in regard to a subject matter in such manner as will enable persons not eyewitnesses to form an accurate judgment in regard to it. So, an ordinary witness may give an opinion or conclusions upon questions involving identity, HANDWRITING, size, color, weight, value, time, distance, speed, visibility, audibility, physical appearances of fear, anger, excitement, intoxication, insanity, and in many other matters where it is not practicable to put the jury in possession of all the primary facts upon which the opinion is based."

      I could also go back and find the actual lay witness testimony about handwriting I used in prior arguments, but what would be the point? Mr. Rowley will just once again just state his BELIEFS and ignore all the evidence which clearly says he is WRONG.

      Or he'll just change the subject or disappear for awhile and then return to state the same TOTALLY INCORRECT BELIEF.

      Ed

      Delete
  5. Mr. Rowley,

    I just found another item of PROOF that you are wrong. Click HERE for a source about FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE (FRE) 901:

    -------------------
    Rule 901. Authenticating or Identifying Evidence

    (a) In General. To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.

    (b) Examples. The following are examples only — not a complete list — of evidence that satisfies the requirement:

    (1) Testimony of a Witness with Knowledge. Testimony that an item is what it is claimed to be.

    (2) Nonexpert Opinion About Handwriting. A nonexpert’s opinion that handwriting is genuine, based on a familiarity with it that was not acquired for the current litigation.

    ---------------------

    In other words, a lay witness's testimony about handwriting is acceptable IF it can be shown that the "familiarity" with the handwriting was not developed or "acquired" for the current case. I.e., the lay witness did not study the handwriting and become familiar with it just to testify about it in court on this case.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  6. "DXer" (a.k.a Anonymous) attempted a post to this blog March 13, 2015 at 7:38 AM. Here it is in its entirety:
    ----------------
    It's such a relied that Ed Lake has given up arguing that a First Grader wrote the Fall 2001 anthrax letters. That was pretty ridiculous!
    ----------------

    I have no idea what DXer meant when he wrote the word "relied," but, in no way, shape or form have I changed my mind or given up arguing that a First Grader wrote the anthrax documents.

    No one is discussing that subject right now.

    The subject being discussed is the FBI/DOJ's evidence that witnesses say the handwriting on the documents was Bruce Ivins' DISGUISED handwriting, and whether or not such testimony would be allowed in court.

    It's been PROVEN that it would be allowed in court. I'm just waiting for Mr. Rowley to acknowledge that he was WRONG, so that we can move on to discuss the next subject where Mr. Rowley was wrong.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  7. Since I don't see the point of beating the dead horse of the admissibility question further (after, what?, 3 to 4 YEARS?), I'd like to show WHY such a stratagem wouldn't be effective in a notional trial of Bruce Ivins.

    Focus will be on this sentence at bottom of page 89:
    "The witness described this “disguised” handwriting as being similar to Dr. Ivins’s standard handwriting, and that one could tell that he was trying to disguise his handwriting to a limited extent."
    -------
    Scenario I: (most likely in my opinion) prosecution doesn't even even attempt to call persons alluded to on pages 89-90 in relation to Ivins' handwriting.

    result: Prosecution takes the hit on the handwriting skein of evidence as the defense would:

    1) call the Task Force's OWN questioned document examiner as a witness and obtain testimony that Ivins' printing was a 'probable non-match' to that of the Amerithrax texts.

    2) call the defense's own questioned document examiner who could then, in painstaking detail, highlight all the differences-------likely in the dozens of features----------between Ivins' printing and that of the Amerithrax texts.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Scenario II: Prosecution DOES try to get persons alluded to on pages 89-90 to testify about the printing. This is met with an in limine motion, adjudicated as the judge sees fit.

    But really this can play out only in two ways here: Scenario II reverts to Scenarion I (non-appearance, with the jury none the wiser), or Scenario II reverts to Scenario III.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Scenario III: Prosecution successfully wins admissibility of persons alluded to on page 89-90.

    1)Since prosecution typically gives its case-in-main first, that results in eliciting testimony that:
    2 persons saw, via a process of recall over some years, that there's some resemblance between Ivins' disguised printing, as they remember it, and the Amerithrax text printing. Two characters mentioned "R" and "E".

    In cross examination the defense would elicit testimony from witnesses that Ivins' disguised handwriting when they saw it was so poorly disguised that one could readily recognize it. It was transparently his.

    Then when the defense case-in-main came, the defense would:

    2) call the Task Force's OWN questioned document examiner as a witness and obtain testimony that Ivins' printing was 'probably non-match' to that of the Amerithrax texts. With as many details as possible.

    3) call the defense's own questioned document examiner who could then, in painstaking detail, likely using a projector, highlight all the differences-------likely in the dozens of features----------between Ivins' printing and that of the Amerithrax texts.
    ============
    Upshot of scenario III in my view:
    During jury deliberations:

    Juror: 'So I think we can take it as a given that Ivins didn't do the printing: the prosecution's own witnesses said that his disguised
    printing was done so poorly that it resembled his undisguised printing. Yet we saw with our own eyes via the overhead projection
    and heard in considerable detain from the defense witness that Ivins' undisguised handwriting looks NOTHING like the Amerithrax printing. A complete mismatch......'
    ========================
    So Scenario III, by emphasizing the printing, actually plays into the hands of the defense: supplying reasonable doubt on the printing when the prosecution's hypothesis REQUIRES that Ivins himself did the printing.

    Scenario I gives the prosecution the best chance to both deemphasize the printing and to claim that the non-match is due to the oh-so-clever and thorough 'disguise' Ivins used in the printing. This is maximally persuasive (to the extent it IS persuasive) because there is no testimony presented saying that Ivins' disguised printing resembled transparently his undisguised printing.

    ReplyDelete
  8. R. Rowley wrote: "Since I don't see the point of beating the dead horse of the admissibility question further (after, what?, 3 to 4 YEARS?), I'd like to show WHY such a stratagem wouldn't be effective in a notional trial of Bruce Ivins."

    Mr. Rowley's comment illustrates why it is a waste of time discussing anything with him. He refuses to acknowledge that he was WRONG in arguing that ONLY "handwriting experts" can testify about handwriting in court.

    Instead, he wants to argue matters of OPINION, where nothing can ever be resolved. He creates fantasies about how he imagines things would be done in court, creating totally ridiculous situations.

    There is no point in responding further until Mr. Rowley ADMITS he was wrong about the admissibility of lay testimony about handwriting. When he has done that, then he can make a NEW CLAIM that we can discuss, using facts and evidence to determine what is CORRECT.

    Imaginary scenarios about what might have been are pointless and a total waste of time. I can create much more REALISTIC scenarios, but Mr. Rowley would just argue that they are only my "opinions," and his opinions are somehow better than my opinions. That would NOT be an intelligent discussion.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  9. Imaginary scenarios about what might have been are pointless and a total waste of time
    ------------------------------------
    Actually ANYTHING said about the trial of Bruce Ivins for Amerithrax------INCLUDING ADMISSIBILITY of this or that piece of evidence---------is just as 'imaginary'.

    You did well to skip law school, Mister Lake.

    ReplyDelete
  10. R. Rowley wrote: "Actually ANYTHING said about the trial of Bruce Ivins for Amerithrax------INCLUDING ADMISSIBILITY of this or that piece of evidence---------is just as 'imaginary'."

    NONSENSE. Admissibility of a specific type of evidence is a matter of law, not something imaginary.

    Mr. Rowley is just trying to sidetrack the discussion to avoid acknowledging that he was WRONG in arguing that ONLY handwriting experts can testify about handwriting in court.

    When Mr. Rowley admits he was WRONG, then I'll point out the IMAGINARY court proceedings in his post that would NEVER happen. And I'll explain why they would never happen. There's no point in doing that if Mr. Rowley still holds the DISPROVED BELIEF that only handwriting experts can testify about handwriting in court.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  11. "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") attempted another post to this blog yesterday evening. Here it is in its entirety:
    -------------------------------------
    There were a handful of letters using disguised handwriting sent a half decade earlier. Ed is confusing the situation with someone's knowledge of a person's normal handwriting -- that a person knows on an ongoing, recent basis. Ed, you should pull the actual case citations rather than wasting the remainder of your life posting on the internet about how a First Grader wrote the Fall 2001 anthrax letters. That's idiotic and you have no factual support.
    -----------------

    There is nothing in Rule 701 that says a lay witness can ONLY testify about "normal handwriting" seen "on an ongoing, recent basis." DXer is just showing his ignorance of criminal law.

    I posted legal citations HERE and in the post after that post. I have other legal citations that can also be posted. There is no point in citing actual cases. I've done that in the past, and Truthers then argue unresolvable OPINIONS about whether the case is sufficiently similar or not - which is irrelevant. The debate is not about OPINIONS over how similar some other case is, it's about what the LAW says.

    Note that DXer once again brings up the First Grader hypothesis. He brings that subject up nearly every time he attempts to post here. He appears obsessed with the subject, and demonstrates once again that he cannot intelligently discuss it. All he can do is demonstrate once over and over that he does not BELIEVE the facts and evidence.

    DXer's attempted post is another waste of bandwidth. I provided it only to show that he has nothing intelligent to say.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  12. "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") attempted two more posts to this blog this morning. I deleted his usual meaningless comment about the First Grader hypothesis. Here are the rest of his two posts in their entirety:
    -----------#1-------------
    Ed, how many years passed between the infrequent incidents involving disguised writing and the witness statements you rely on? Five years? Six years? Seven years? Can you quote the witness statement you rely on, note the date of the statement and the date of the incidents? Now compare that to the example you cite of the secretary who knows her boss' regular handwriting that she regularly sees. Even the inapposite authority you cite demolishes your argument.

    You are off in the weeds because you do not understand how case law operates. You should go to the online annotation of the federal rules to find the controlling law interpreting and applying the federal rule of your particular interest, taking into account any other rule that applies and is cited in the controlling case law.

    --------------#2--------------------
    The FBI's lab head, in his formal written opinion, found that Dr. Ivins probably did not write the Fall 2001 anthrax letters. Your suggestion that the defense would not call him is stupid and has no basis in common sense.
    -------------------------------------

    DXer doesn't seem to be able to comprehend that it was the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE who determined that Bruce Ivins was that anthrax killer, and THEY are the ones providing the evidence -- NOT ME.

    As before, he absurdly argues that the cases I cited are NOT IDENTICAL to the case against Dr. Ivins, and therefore the Rules of Evidence would somehow be different. If he has citations which show that the DOJ would not be able to call the lay handwriting witnesses, he needs to provide such citations. Anything I cite, he will just claim is DIFFERENT.

    IN MY OPINION, the defense would almost certainly NOT call USPIS handwriting expert Robert Muehlberger to testify for the defense because MUEHLBERGER would almost certainly be a HOSTILE WITNESS. If given an opportunity, he would likely explain that his analysis was NOT CONCLUSIVE, that it was BASED UPON NOT HAVING ADEQUATE HANDWRITING SAMPLES, that it was just his expert OPINION, and that there could be a hundred other handwriting "experts" who would disagree with his OPINION. He would very likely make the point that IVINS MAY HAVE INDEED WRITTEN THE DOCUMENTS using a method of disguising his handwriting that makes it appear he couldn't have done it. And Muehlberger might also tell the jury that HE BELIEVES IVINS WAS THE ANTHRAX KILLER, and that the handwriting doesn't change that OPINION one bit.

    If he defense doesn't allow Muehlberger to make such statements, the DOJ would allow him to do so on cross-examination.

    So, it would be STUPID for the defense to call such a potentially damaging HOSTILE witness.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. IN MY OPINION, the defense would almost certainly NOT call USPIS handwriting expert Robert Muehlberger to testify for the defense because MUEHLBERGER would almost certainly be a HOSTILE WITNESS.
      =================================
      His testimony would be all the more impressive to the jury: here was no defense "hired gun", here was someone who was either 100% neutral on Ivins' guilt, or who, because he was used by the Task Force/DoJ, could be deemed prejudiced AGAINST Ivins, yet he was saying the handwriting was a non-match.

      Again, Mister Lake establishes how he doesn't think like a defense attorney thinks.
      -------------------------------------------------
      If he defense doesn't allow Muehlberger to make such statements,[...]
      =====================
      Witnesses answer questions. They don't just bloviate as they so please.
      The prosecution would try to make the best of the situation. But a bad situation for the prosecution.

      Delete
    2. Mr. Rowley still hasn't admitted that he was WRONG in believing that lay witnesses cannot testify about handwriting.

      Now he argues even more ABSURD BELIEFS about the defense calling a HOSTILE witness because it would be "impressive to the jury." That's beyond absurd. It's just plain PREPOSTEROUS.

      Mr. Rowley claims, "he [Muehlberger] was saying the handwriting was a non-match."

      NOT TRUE! Here is EXACTLY what Muehlberger wrote:
      ----------------------------------------
      "FINDINGS:
      Bruce E. Ivins probably did not write the writings appearing on the "anthrax" envelopes and letters.

      REMARKS:
      The qualified findings expressed above are due to the lack of original documents from which the examination and comparisons were conducted. The submission of the original questioned and known writings could provide for more definitive findings. In addition, the submission of known exemplars reflecting the writings appearing on the "anthrax" envelopes and letters would need to be examined prior to fully eliminating Bruce E. Ivins as the writer of these questioned writings.

      ------------------------------

      In other words, it is POSSIBLE that Ivins DID do the writing by somehow disguising his handwriting.

      Mr. Rowley DELIBERATELY ignores what I posted and bloviates as follows: "Witnesses answer questions. They don't just bloviate as they so please."

      I'm aware of that. I indicated the defense lawyer might prevent Muehlberger from giving his FULL opinion. They could do that by limiting him to YES-NO answers (which will NOT impress a jury). But, once the defense calls a HOSTILE witness to the stand, there is nothing preventing the PROSECUTION from cross-examining the witness and allowing the witness to totally DESTROY the argument from the defense. The defense would have opened the door to allowing the prosecution to do that. That is why it would be STUPID for the defense to call Muehlberger. Muelberger and the prosecutor would make the defense lawyer look like an IDIOT.

      The prosecution would not be allowed to call Muehlberger to the stand to explain that it is POSSIBLE the writing is Ivins' DISGUISED handwriting. But if the defense calls Muehlberger, then the door is open for the prosecution to cross-examine and let Muehlberger explain how the handwriting COULD POSSIBLY BE IVINS' DISGUISED HANDWRITING.

      Ed

      Delete
  13. The Rules of Evidence SAY NOTHING about ANY limits on how long ago a witness may have seen something.

    If DXer has some screwball belief that there MIGHT BE some CASE LAW which sets a general time limit on every witness in every criminal case, then he needs to CITE that case law and explain HOW it would prevent the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE from calling its lay witnesses to testify about handwriting.

    Until then, DXer's belief that there is such case law is just plain STUPID.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  14. "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous) attempted two more posts to this blog overnight. They are filled with personal attacks and ignorant opinions, demonstrating once again why he is not allowed to post here. Below is the first of his two posts in its entirety:
    ------------------------
    Ed,

    When you have great documentary evidence, that's precisely when you want to call what you describe as a "hostile witness." So you think government experts are hostile, do you? As for the number of samples, are you saying the number of samples he had was inadequate? Do you even know how many he had? How many an expert requires? How many Mr. Muehlberger requires before he renders an opinion? Your suggestion that the defense would not want to call Muehlberger is extremely stupid. You lack common sense. There are NO handwriting experts who have issued a written opinion that Dr. Ivins probably wrote the anthrax letters. "Probably" and "probably did not" are formal terms of art used in rendering an handwriting opinion.

    -----------------------------

    Note the personal attack: "You lack common sense."

    Note the question demonstrating his ignorance of the facts: "are you saying the number of samples he had was inadequate?"

    No, the proposed WITNESS said that. He wrote: The qualified findings expressed above are due to the lack of original documents from which the examination and comparisons were conducted.

    Note how DXer distorts what was said in order to create a FALSE argument: "There are NO handwriting experts who have issued a written opinion that Dr. Ivins probably wrote the anthrax letters."

    No one said there was. All I said was that, during cross-examination, Robert Muehlberger might state that "there could be a hundred other handwriting "experts" who would disagree with his OPINION."

    Below is DXer's second attempted post:
    ----------------
    Ed Lake says that "The Rules of Evidence SAY NOTHING about ANY limits on how long ago a witness may have seen something."

    Ed, you both lack common sense and are not qualified to address the Federal Rules of Evidence.

    You have not noted the six or seven or whatever years that passed between some unidentified witness' observation of note or envelope is because you pay no attention to the FACTS. Just like you paid no attention to the number of exemplars that Muehlberger relied upon.
    Not only do you disregard all controlling case law, but you never even bother to turn to the documents and set forth the relevant facts.

    ---------------------

    It's just a lot of personal attacks and nonsense. If DXer has some "FACTS" he wishes to discuss about the handwriting, then he should provide those "facts" and EXPLAIN what he thinks they mean.

    IN MY OPINION, the OPINION that the defense would call Muehlberger as a defense witness is a STUPID OPINION. Anything Muehlberger might say could be turned back against the defense TEN FOLD during cross-examination.

    IN MY OPINION, DXer's OPINION that Case Law would somehow prevent a witness from testifying in accordance with the Rules of Evidence is STUPID BEYOND BELIEF. He needs to provide such case law and EXPLAIN it. Instead he wants me to find it, so that he can do as TRUTHERS always do: claim that I didn't look hard enough for evidence to support his belief, and that is why I didn't find anything.

    DXer just demonstrates over and over and over that showing his attempted posts is a waste of time and bandwidth.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") attempted another post to this blog this afternoon. Here is what he attempted to post in its entirety:
      --------------------------
      "Ed, Ivins' defense counsel appeared at the conference Lew moderated -- he sat to my side on the panel with me. He disagrees with you. Your entire argument, incredibly, is about what HE thinks -- about what Paul would do. Why don't don't you rely on what he said in that regard? The film of his presentation is on YouTube and posted on Lew's blog.
      -------------------------

      If Paul Kemp disagrees with me, exactly what does he disagree with? I have absolutely no reason to believe DXer when he claims Kemp disagrees with me. DXer has demonstrated that he MAKES THINGS UP and wildly distorts the facts when it suits his purposes.

      DXer asks, "Why don't don't you rely on what he [Kemp] said in that regard?"

      WHAT DID HE SAY? You claim he said something, but you do not quote him or say where his comment can be found.

      There's NOTHING I recall in Kemp's talk at the conspiracy theorist presentation that addresses the subject of Case Law. As I recall from viewing the video several times, Kemp was somewhat embarrassed to be among a bunch of conspiracy theorists, and he argued against their ranting nonsense by stating that he believed the FBI acted fairly in their treatment of Ivins.

      I can provide quotes to support that view:

      In the very first part of his talk HERE, Kemp says:

      "I want to begin by saying something that may not be very popular with some of the people here, but that is, as to the case agents I dealt with from the beginning of May 2007 through the death of Bruce Ivins at the end of July of 2008, and as to the assistant US Attorneys, with one major exception, I thought they were being truthful with me and with Dr. Ivins. I never felt as if they personally were out to railroad him. In the case of Rachel Lieber, one of the Assistant US District Attorneys assigned to the prosecution of the case, she actually took the trouble to call me at home one night in early July to let me know that Dr. Ivins had had what she considered - quote-unquote - a 'meltdown' and she felt he was in danger of doing harm to himself based upon the information she had received."

      At the 1:32 point in that same video, Kemp says:

      "It is NOT my view - and want to state this at the very beginning - that neither of the two assistant district attorneys nor either of the two case agents who were assigned to the case and who reported directly to the Director - Director Mueller of the FBI - were out to railroad Bruce or trying to play on his admitted mental problems to avoid a trial that I very desperately wanted to have if we ever got to that place. I think they wanted to develop their case which had not yet been developed to the point where they could seek an indictment and then try the case."

      It DXer believes Mr. Kemp argued in some way that CASE LAW would prevent lay witnesses to testify about the handwriting, DXer needs to point to the spot (as I did above) and provide quotes in support of his argument.

      Until then, DXer's claims about CASE LAW is just total NONSENSE.

      Ed

      Delete
    2. For what it's worth, I just watched the Kemp presentation again (probably for the FOURTH time), and it says NOTHING about CASE LAW. KEMP NEVER USES THE TERM

      Parts 2 and 3 are HERE and HERE.

      Mr. Kemp spends a big part of the second video arguing that, if Bruce Ivins was guilty, he would have CONFESSED to someone. That's total nonsense. It's a defense lawyer's argument that means NOTHING.

      Kemp also demonstrates a lack of understanding of the evidence. He complains that the FBI didn't do things the way he thinks they should have been done. It's all just defense-lawyer-blather intended to create "reasonable doubt" in the minds of the jury.

      Anyone with a good understanding of the evidence against Dr. Ivins could shoot down nearly EVERYTHING Mr. Kemp said during that conspiracy theorist seminar. Most of it is pure baloney due to his lack of understanding of the evidence and the science of the case.

      Ed

      Delete
  15. Mr. Rowley,

    I deleted your post asking about an Internet name I sometimes used in December 2001 to discuss what the existing evidence said at that time about the case.

    The only subject of interest right now is when you will admit that you were WRONG in believing that ONLY expert witnesses can testify about handwriting. I don't want to argue about whether I was "wrong" in December 2001 when I had far fewer facts than are available today. Such an argument would just be opinion versus opinion --- a waste of time.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  16. I deleted your post asking about an Internet name I sometimes used in December 2001 to discuss what the existing evidence said at that time about the case.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    So the 'name' and the hypothosis were YOURS?!?!?!?!?!?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R.Rowley wrote: "So the 'name' and the hypothosis were YOURS?!?!?!?!?!?"

      Yes, the name and hypothesis were mine. But, it was just an hypothesis based upon what was known in December 2001, which wasn't very much. And it only says that the culprit MAY fit the hypothesis.

      It proves that I change my views when I get better evidence. I LOOKED for better evidence and found it years later. Anthrax Truthers do just the opposite. They IGNORE better evidence and stick with their beliefs.

      Ed

      Delete
    2. Mr. Rowley,

      There are some very interesting comments in that alt.true-crime thread you found HERE. They show that I was still changing my mind from day to day.

      Martha asked upon what I based my idea that the anthrax killer lived in New York City. I replied:
      ------------------------
      Based mainly upon three things: (1) He picked the New York Post as a target, (2) Kathy Nguyen's unexplained death, and (3) it's an easy drive to Trenton from NYC.
      ---------------------

      Martha then asked what was the basis for me believing the culprit traveled to Indianapolis in the past year. I replied:

      ----------------
      Based upon the threatening letters the terrorist wrote and mailed from there. The letters are described in a story published by The New York Post on Nov. 1.
      ---------------------

      Martha argued that Dan Rather got an anthrax letter, too. I responded:

      ----------------
      Did he? It's my understanding that his mail was just cross-contaminated. I haven't seen any copies of his letter, and all authorities mention only the letters to Brokaw and the Post (and AMI, of course). If Rather got an actual anthrax letter, please show me some reference about that.
      -------------------

      Then, some time later, I changed my mind and wrote:

      ------------------------
      The 7-month-old son of an ABC producer was infected by anthrax at ABC, apparently because he visited the ABC mailroom. And Claire Fletcher (27) at CBS got the skin form of anthrax somehow.

      I'd been discounting these as cross-contamination, but I goofed on that. Any cross-contamination from the Brokaw and Post letters wouldn't have specifically hit CBS and ABC without hitting a lot of other places in NYC.

      So, there were apparently letters addressed to Rather and Jennings, too, but they were discarded and destroyed before anyone became aware of what was going on.

      That's going to force me to rethink my suggestion that he watches Brokaw - except for one nagging piece of information. It still looks like Brokaw got the original letter and the others got photocopies.

      -------------------

      I can't recall why I thought the Brokaw letter was the original. It may have been because of the SHAPE of the paper. I didn't know they'd been trimmed.

      A couple other interesting posts from me:

      -------------------
      It's really just a matter of probabilities. Yes, it's possible that it's a
      woman. But in the long history of terrorism, serial killers and mass murderers, most are male, and this one doesn't look like the work of a woman. I think the probabilities of it being a woman are less than 1 in 100. But that's just an opinion.

      -----------------
      I think you are totally wrong. You have to analyze the facts and the probabilities otherwise you will be spending too much of your time going off in all sorts of non-productive directions. There are only so many hours in a day, so you have to deal with probabilities whether you like it or not.

      A typical experienced cop can look at a crime scene and say, "This looks like the work of Sam Jones." He's using his experience. And he would look at Sam Jones as the prime suspect. The inexperienced cop looks at the crime scene and gives everything he sees equal weight can spend the rest of his life trying to track down who did it.

      If anything pops up that says the anthrax terrorist is a woman, it won't be ignored, it will just change the odds and open new avenues to pursue.

      In detective work you have to weigh the evidence and hypothesize. If something doesn't fit, you rehypothesize. It's called deduction.

      And, of course, once you've eliminated the impossible, what remains, however improbable, must be the truth. :-)

      ---------------------

      As these posts show, my mind was open to new evidence showing me to be wrong. And, when I found such evidence, I immediately changed my hypothesis.

      Ed

      Delete
  17. The only subject of interest right now is when you will admit that you were WRONG in believing that ONLY expert witnesses can testify about handwriting
    =================================================
    Once again your semantic aphasia has kicked in: a LOUSY summary of my position. You have the 'honor' of not only distorting my ideas more than any other person who ever lived, you have excelled all persons who ever lived COMBINED in that regard.

    My position, as expressed now over 2 to 4 years, is:

    A layman may not give testimony that constitutes a handwriting comparison.

    That's the province of the handwriting professional and he/she may do that only under the circumstances prescribed by the case law.

    Comparison. THAT'S why when we discussed this topic 2 to 4 years ago, Lake pulled his old I'll-relabel-it-and-that'll-make-the-problem-disappear act. So, he went into elaborate polemical contortions: 'oh, it's not a comparison AT ALL, it's merely people giving their perceptions', all this in order to get an obvious comparison into court testimony from a lay witness or witnesses.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R. Rowley wrote: "My position, as expressed now over 2 to 4 years, is:

      A layman may not give testimony that constitutes a handwriting comparison."


      NONSENSE! You are CHANGING your position in order to avoid admitting that you were WRONG, and you are distorting the facts.

      Below is what you stated two weeks ago, on March 10, in a comment HERE.
      --------------------
      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

      ---------------------

      The lay witness testimony would be about what they REMEMBER. The letters they received and are REMEMBERING no longer exist. So, they would NOT be doing (and NEVER DID) any side-by-side comparison.

      That is the situation in ALL lay witness handwriting testimony. They NEVER do any side-by-side comparisons, because side-by-side comparisons are the territory where only EXPERT witnesses can testify in court.

      You stated on March 10 that that is the standard "in ALL cases involving handwriting identification." That statement says that lay witnesses cannot give handwriting testimony about what they remember. PERIOD.

      Now you attempt to change your claim to say, "A layman may not give testimony that constitutes a handwriting comparison." You removed the words "side by side." And you are implying that simply REMEMBERING what someone's handwriting looked like is a "handwriting comparison."

      You are playing "word games" to avoid admitting you were WRONG.

      From now on, you will need to state a claim and explain your claim. I'm fed up with your word games and you changing your arguments to avoid admitting you were WRONG.

      A LAY WITNESS MAY TESTIFY TO RECOGNIZING SOMEONE'S HANDWRITING. Technically, that "constitutes a handwriting comparison," but it does NOT constitute the type of side-by-side "handwriting comparison" that can ONLY be done in court by an EXPERT in handwriting.

      Ed

      Delete
    2. R. Rowley wrote: "My position, as expressed now over 2 to 4 years, is:

      A layman may not give testimony that constitutes a handwriting comparison."

      NONSENSE! You are CHANGING your position in order to avoid admitting that you were WRONG[...]
      ===================================
      You, as always, suffer from chronic amnesia, not a particularly good trait if you are trying to follow the course of a years-long debate on a topic/substopic.
      -------------------------
      So, what did I write on the earliest threads dealing with this subject?
      Thread of August 5th to 11th, 2002 (ie 2 and a half years ago)[me, Lake,anonymous(DXer) on thread discussing little else BUT the printing]:

      Things really get underway vis-a-vis the expert vs amateur evaluations in my post of August 9, 2012 at 4:27 PM. That leads to my post of August 9, 2012 at 6:14 PM:

      I just clicked on the link that Mister Lake gave us about expert testimony: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Expert+Testimony
      Notice what he left out (first sentence):
      --------------------------------------------------
      Testimony about a scientific, technical, or professional issue given by a person qualified to testify because of familiarity with the subject or special training in the field.
      -----------------------------------------------------------
      It is in the context of THAT OPENING SENTENCE that the rest of what Mister Lake posted must be evaluated. I take it to mean that:

      1) only experts in ballistics may testify about ballistic tests

      2) only experts in blood may testify about blood tests

      3) only experts in DNA may testify about DNA

      Etc.
      Given that context, I find it improbable that non-experts would qualify to opine on Ivins' handwriting and its similarity to printing on Amerithrax letters/envelopes.
      ---------------------------------------------
      August 10th 10:40:

      Posted by Mister Lake a ways back:
      -------------------
      You're assuming that a judge would bar testimony from eyewitnesses who received packages from Ivins that had "child like" writing on them?
      ---------------------------------------------------------
      You are using the word "eyewitnesses" in a very peculiar manner.
      Usually 'eyewitnesses' are those who witnessed a crime or the aftermath of a crime (ie someone running away from a crime scene, driving away etc.)Occasionally, those who saw a suspect immediately BEFORE the crime. That's not what's being referenced here.

      From Mister Lake's usage of "eyewitness" we would have to say that he was an 'eyewitness' to the handwriting (printing) of literally thousands of persons over his lifetime (all the way back to first grade). Okay. Let's go with that definition: is it likely that Mister Lake has a SOLID memory of the handwriting of all the persons whose handwriting he ever witnessed? No, not unless he's one of those memory savants.
      Back to Mister Lake:
      -------------
      You're assuming that the defense would be allowed to produce experts who would show side-by-side comparisons of Ivins' handwriting and the writing on the letters and argue that they are not alike without any cross-examination by the prosecution?
      -----------------------------------------
      Delete the "without any cross-examination by the prosecution" part and yes, that's what I think would have happened in a trial of Bruce Ivins. Why? Because you, I, and anonymous (and I THINK everyone who has examined this and reported on blogs etc.) agree that the match to Ivins' printing is poor. So I'm only assuming that a professional would agree with (at least!) the three of us.

      Delete
    3. R. Rowley wrote:"Given that context, I find it improbable that non-experts would qualify to opine on Ivins' handwriting and its similarity to printing on Amerithrax letters/envelopes."

      What Mr. Rowley find "improbable" has no meaning here. The discussion is about what the LAW says. And RULE 710 clearly says that a lay witness CAN testify about recognizing another person's handwriting.

      Mr. Rowley just argues his BELIEFS and ignores the law. He demonstrates he cannot discuss the subject intelligently.

      There doesn't appear to be any reason to allow any further posts from Mr. Rowley if he cannot discuss anything without arguing that his BELIEFS and OPINIONS override the law and all other opinions.

      RULE 701 SAYS LAY WITNESSES CAN TESTIFY ABOUT RECOGNIZING IVINS' DISGUISED HANDWRITING.

      Until Mr. Rowley shows that he understands that his opinions do NOT override the law, I'm just going to delete his posts.

      Ed

      Delete
  18. Let's look at that paragraph one more time (pages 89-90 Amer. Invest. Summary)
    --------------
    In addition, a witness who had received a number of packages and cards over the course of several years in the late 1990s and early 2000s was shown copies of the letters and envelopes used in the anthrax attacks. The witness thought that the handwriting on the envelope addressed to Senator Daschle reminded the witness of Dr. Ivins’s writing. If the witness were to receive a package with that writing on it, the witness would think of Dr. Ivins. The witness noted that, in particular, the style of the block letters with alternating heights stood out, as did the slant of the writing. The witness said that this was the type of writing Dr. Ivins used when he disguised his handwriting as part of a joke. As the witness studied the letters, the witness noted that the “E” and the “R” in the letter to the New York Post also looked familiar. The witness stated that these letters also reminded the witness of when Dr. Ivins disguised his handwriting as a joke. The witness described this “disguised” handwriting as being similar to Dr. Ivins’s standard handwriting, and that one could tell that he was trying to disguise his handwriting to a limited extent.53 Another witness familiar with the handwriting of Dr. Ivins in many contexts said the same thing.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    If those so-called 'witnesses' had truly made an IDENTIFICATION (ie Ivins printing from mailed items= printing of Amerithrax texts), the author could have skipped the long 9-sentence paragraph and merely written something like this:
    ----------------------------------------------------
    Two witnesses who had received mailings from Bruce Ivins over a number of years signed affidavits affirming that the apparently disguised printing on those mailed items was identical to the printing in the Amerithrax texts.
    ==========================================
    One sentence. Three lines. But it isn't a bloated prose style or wordiness that prevented the author(s) of the Amerithrax Investigative Summary from being so concise. It was that the sentence that I wrote is what they wanted the readers to
    take away (ie interpret), even though the substance wasn't so.

    To wit:

    1) there apparently were no affidavits done on the handwriting. Affidavits would have made them true witnesses.

    2) the 'witnesses' were NOT making an identification. The verbs used "reminded"; "would think"; "reminded" again. etc.all indicate that. There's nothing in the paragraph that truly indicates the 'witnesses' thought it was Ivins' printing.

    3) the 'witnesses' apparently were induced to note: block letters w/alternating heights were something like Ivins' writing, and the 'slant of the writing'* had some resemblance to Ivins 'disguised writing' too. They noted some resemblance of the letters "E" and "R" in the NY Post text to Ivins "E" and "R". That's it.

    Consider: the Latin alphabet has 26 letters, 22 to 24 of which are undoubtedly in the combined text (letters and envelope external) writings[almost certainly "Q" and "X" aren't in the texts, at most 2 other characters from the alphabet].

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr. Rowley,

      Your OPINIONS are silly and worthless. They are not worthy of a response, other than so say IT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT that everyone in the world must do things the way you believe they should be done. You need to learn to accept that.

      Ed

      Delete
  19. That means that of the (barest minimum) 22 characters displayed in the texts, only two ("E" and "R") were affirmed/remembered as having any resemblance to Ivins'
    'disguised' version of those letters.

    So, no identification was made, but the write-up was a fairly clever way of camouflaging that. It was the written equivalent of Jeff Taylor's obfuscatory language at the Aug 6th 2008 news conference, when he was asked a yes-or-no question about (professional_) handwriting comparisons. That evasive answer by Taylor I analysed at great length in February of 2012 here:
    http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2012/02/feb-5-feb-11-2012-discussions.html#comment-form

    *'slant of the writing' is VERY ambiguous. There's the slant of the individual letters but there's also the slant of a line. Two different slants. So, which is meant here and why does one have to ask?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Mr. Rowley is changing the argument again. Instead of admitting he was WRONG in arguing that only HANDWRITING EXPERTsS can testify about in court about handwriting, he gives his unwanted worthless OPINIONS about the language used by a DOJ lawyer.

    OPINION VERSUS OPINION ARGUMENTS ARE NOT WANTED ON THIS BLOG.

    There can be no "intelligent discussions" where it is simply opinion versus opinion. This blog is for intelligent discussions about what the FACTS AND EVIDENCE say.

    Here are the FACTS:

    Opinion Testimony on handwriting by Lay Witnesses is accepted in court.

    If a witness is not testifying as an expert on handwriting, 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 handwriting testimony by the DOJ's lay witnesses would meet ALL of the above requirements. Therefore, such testimony would be allowed in court. PERIOD.

    Mr. Rowley needs to admit he was WRONG so that we can move on to discussing OTHER areas where Mr. Rowley was also WRONG.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  21. he gives his unwanted worthless OPINIONS about the language used by a DOJ lawyer.
    ===========================================
    It isn't an opinion. If you think the paragraph, the ONLY paragraph dealing with handwriting in that case-closing document, says they made an IDENTIFICATION of Ivins as the author of the Amerithrax texts, then simply present that passage from the paragraph. You can't do that, you HAVEN'T done that in 5 years that the document has been in the public venue, haven't done it for the best of reasons:

    1) you yourself have averred numerous times with me and DXer in threads that Ivins' printing looks NOTHING (yes, nothing) like the printing in Amerithrax. Why would such 'witnesses' see something 180 degrees different from what you, DXer, and I see?
    They aren't blind, ya know! And since they are reported as saying that Ivins 'disguised' handwriting resembled his "standard" handwriting, the mismatch should be as obvious as all get-out.

    2) you yourself have said on NUMEROUS occasions that you don't think the Amerithrax printing is disguised in ANY way, manner, shape or form (so, it being Ivins' disguised printing is thereby ruled out, by LAKE'S opinion, not mine)

    3) you yourself have said on multiple occasions on threads that the printing isn't even that of an adult (!!!!!, again Lake's opinion, not mine).

    So, it's not at all surprising that the so-called
    witnesses are NOT reported making an identification: they made no such identification. Just read the paragraph VERY slowly, and with an open mind and you'll reach the same conclusion.

    People, in reading texts, frequently do this: they make assumptions about what's there, when what's actually there is very different from their assumptions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr. Rowley,

      Your post is just incoherent gibberish.

      The paragraph from the Amerithax Summary where the witnesses made an IDENTIFICATION of Ivins as the author of the Amerithrax texts is at the top of this head. The passages you are asking for are highlighted in red. What is it you cannot see?

      What I've said about the handwriting has NOTHING to do with the DOJ's handwriting EVIDENCE against Ivins. Neither does what you have theorized about the handwriting. The discussion is about the DOJ's handwriting evidence, not about yours or mine.

      Why would the witnesses see something other that what I see? Because they are DIFFERENT PEOPLE, with different experiences who saw different things and have different views. Your question makes NO SENSE.

      The witnesses said that the handwriting on the anthrax documents reminded them of IVINS' DISGUISED HANDWRITING. I've seen no documents showing Ivins' DISGUISED handwriting, so I can't make any such judgements. I agree with the USPIS handwriting expert that Ivins' NORMAL handwriting does not look like the handwriting on the documents.

      My handwriting analysis is not based on the handwriting per se. It is based upon (1) the way the writer changed the way he drew certain characters of the alphabet, (2) the way the writer changed the SIZE of his handwriting, (3) the way the author changed his use of punctuation, and (4) the fact that those changes were being taught in school at that time. Neither the witnesses nor Muehlberger address those issues.

      You are making some kind of screwball assumptions about what is there, when what is there is very different from your assumptions.

      You make no sense.

      Ed

      Delete
    2. R. Rowley wrote: "you yourself have averred numerous times with me and DXer in threads that Ivins' printing looks NOTHING (yes, nothing) like the printing in Amerithrax."

      Mr. Rowley, why do you use the word "averred" when "stated" or "asserted" would be far less pretentious and more easily understood?

      Here are a couple quotes from "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman:
      -----------------1------------------
      If you care about being thought credible and intelligent, do not use complex language where simpler language will do.
      -----------------2------------------
      My Princeton colleague Danny Oppenheimer refuted a myth prevalent among undergraduates about the vocabulary that professors find most impressive. In an article titled “Consequences of Erudite Vernacular Utilized Irrespective of Necessity: Problems with Using Long Words Needlessly,” he showed that couching familiar ideas in pretentious language is taken as a sign of poor intelligence and low credibility.
      ------------------------------------------

      Those quotes really pertain to YOU, since you appear to have MISUSED the word.

      You wrote: "you yourself have averred numerous times with me ..."

      Clearly, when strongly asserting something, the proper usage would be: "you yourself have averred numerous times to me...

      If you are going to dig up new words and use them just to try to impress people, you should at least try to determine the proper way to use the word.

      Ed

      Delete
  22. R.Rowley wrote: "So the 'name' and the hypothosis were YOURS?!?!?!?!?!?"

    Yes, the name and hypothesis were mine. But, it was just an hypothesis based upon what was known in December 2001, which wasn't very much.
    ====================================
    It was 2 months after Stevens died. It was 6 weeks after the texts of the letters were made public, yet you

    1) reported seeing NO 'facts' in the writing that went into your subsequent child-printed-it document. Your 'take' was that the printer was an adult.

    2) wrote as though the author were a foreigner. Or likely a foreigner.

    3) you state that the 'lone perpetrator' must have driven to Indianapolis to commit the white-powder mailings of the immediate (2000-1) pre-Amerithrax period.
    Yet years later, when I stated that the Amerithrax perp was behind a number of white powder hoaxes, you ridiculed that idea!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R. Rowley wrote: "Yet years later, when I stated that the Amerithrax perp was behind a number of white powder hoaxes, you ridiculed that idea!!!!"

      OF COURSE! Years ago, after making those statements, learned about NEW facts and evidence, and I now understand that I was mistaken back then. You REFUSE TO learn or understand that YOU ARE MISTAKEN. You stick with your beliefs regardless of what the facts and evidence say.

      If you and I were 100,000 years old, it would be like me saying that I once believed the earth was flat and that the Sun is a god that goes around the earth. Over the years, I learned things. I now know I was mistaken back then. YOU, on the other hand, refuse to learn and still argue that the earth is flat and that the Sun is a god that goes around the earth. And you cannot understand why I disagree!

      I learn from new facts and evidence. Evidently, you do not. AND you evidently don't even understand the concept of learning you were wrong.

      That probably explains why you cannot admit to being WRONG about the lay witness handwriting testimony issue. LEARNING that you are WRONG is evidently a concept you cannot understand.

      Ed

      Delete
  23. For the record and for future reference, pages 19 and 20 of the FBI "302" file found HERE has Ivins describing for the FBI the PACKAGES he sent to people where he presumably disguised his handwriting while also taking other precautions to make certain people wouldn't immediately see that he was the one who sent the packages.

    Also, page 61 of the Amerithrax Investigative Summary contains this:
    ------------------------
    Dr. Ivins also liked to send “care packages” and other items in the mail, while disguising his identity in an effort to have the recipient – frequently [Mara Linscott] – “decode” who the sender was. For example, in an e-mail sent to [Linscott] on March 13, 2001, Dr. Ivins made the following reference to a series of packages he had sent her: “The detergent from Laundry Boy was mailed from Virginia during an IPT meeting. The gift certificate and birthday card were mailed from Gaithersburg. The jacket – when it finally came – was to be mailed from Gettysburg, but you had already figured out who sent you everything else, so I just went ahead and sent it from Frederick.”

    Since Ivins didn't want the recipient to know who sent them, there was presumably DISGUISED handwriting on all these packages and envelopes.

    The following is from pages 68 and 69 of the Expert Behavioral Analysis Panel report:
    ---------------------------------
    In a reflection of his obsession with Technician #2 [Mara Linscott], Dr. Ivins liked to send her gifts and packages through the mail. In the course of their relationship, he sent her more than a dozen, most of them “care packages” containing items like candy and cold remedies.
    Dr. Ivins would address the packages in a childish hand, in block printing. Although he knew that she would know when she opened them that he sent them, he sometimes went to great lengths to prolong her suspense. In a March 31, 2005 interview with the FBI, Dr. Ivins said he sometimes sent her packages from other cities “so she would not immediately perceive from the postmark that it was a package from him (which would have been indicated by a Frederick, Maryland postmark).” Dr. Ivins “advised that he went to this effort to add to the ‘surprise factor.’”
    Dr. Ivins also used “childish, block printing” in which “upper and lower case letters [were] mixed together” in sharing pornography and bondage materials with a male correspondent during the mid 1990s and early 2000s. Dr. Ivins used a false name — the name of KKG Sister #2’s husband — in conducting the correspondence. Neither Technician #2 nor the male correspondent kept the packages or envelopes they received from Dr. Ivins, so they could not be compared to the childish printing on the anthrax letters. But upper and lower-case letters are also mixed in those letters, and Technician #2 said that certain letters in the anthrax notes particularly reminded her of the lettering Dr. Ivins had used on her packages.

    -------------------

    It's known that "Technician #2" is Mara Linscott from the description they give of "Technician #2" on page 7: "In 1999, Technician #2 left the lab to pursue medical studies at a university in New York State."

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  24. Two minorish(?) corrections to things I wrote upthread:

    1) I said that the letter "x" didn't appear in the Amerithrax texts proper. I was (spontaneously) going by letter frequencies. My mistake: since the word "anthrax" is used ("We have this anthrax), naturally there is one instance of the letter "x" in those texts. So chances are only one or two letters ("Q"? "Z"?) from our 26 letter alphabet are missing from those texts and can't be compared, either mentally or via side-by-side comparisons.

    2) I erroneously wrote:
    "It was the written equivalent of Jeff Taylor's obfuscatory language at the Aug 6th 2008 news conference, when he was asked a yes-or-no question about (professional_) handwriting comparisons."
    The question, as asked, was MUCH more open-ended (ie didn't use the word/concept of 'professional'):

    "Jeff, did you find any handwriting samples or hair samples that would have matched Dr. Ivins to the envelopes where the hair samples were found in the mailbox?"
    ----
    Then follow-up question:
    ----
    You didn't take handwriting samples from Dr. Ivins?
    ========================
    So the question(s) actually could include both lay and professional comparisons.
    So, all the more important is Jeff Taylor's response: [his full answer]

    MR. TAYLOR: We examined handwriting samples but then there was no comparison made or a specific identification of the handwriting. It appears that when the analysts would look at it, that there was an attempt to disguise the handwriting. So it was unable to make a comparison.

    With respect to handwriting samples, we did have indications from individuals with whom we spoke that there appeared to be some similarities in handwriting that were apparent. That said, we did not have a scientifically valid conclusion that we thought would lead us to be able to admit that in evidence.
    -------------------------------------------------------
    So OBVIOUSLY 'individuals with whom we spoke'=persons mentioned as 'witnesses' on page 89/90 of the subsequent Amerithrax Investigative Summary.
    Back to Jeff Taylor's last sentence:

    " we did not have a scientifically valid conclusion that we thought would lead us to be able to admit that in evidence."

    And the previous part of the same response:
    "It appears that when the analysts would look at it, that there was an attempt to disguise the handwriting. So it was unable to make a comparison."
    Here by 'analysts' he probably means that questioned document examiner who was used and who gave 'probable non-match' as his evaluation.

    --------------
    He's saying in a VERY roundabout way, that nothing pertaining to handwriting identification [of an incriminating nature] turned up that could be 'admit[ted] in[to] evidence".

    And that about says it all vis-a-vis handwriting (printing) and Bruce Ivins.
    http://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2008/August/08-opa-697.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R. Rowley once again rambles on and on and says NOTHING. Plus he ends with this INDECIPHERABLE OPINION: "He's saying in a VERY roundabout way, that nothing pertaining to handwriting identification [of an incriminating nature] turned up that could be 'admit[ted] in[to] evidence".

      What does that babble mean? Is Mr. Rowley arguing that the handwriting evidence from the lay witnesses is not "incriminating," because, BY ITSELF, it does not "incriminate" Dr. Ivins? Did anyone ever say it did?

      At the link Mr. Rowley provided (click HERE), there is this relatively clear statement from US District Attorney Jeff Taylor, which Mr. Rowley broke into parts and buried in incoherent blather:
      ----------------
      MR. TAYLOR: We examined handwriting samples but then there was no comparison made or a specific identification of the handwriting. It appears that when the analysts would look at it, that there was an attempt to disguise the handwriting. So it [sic] was unable to make a comparison.

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

      --------------------------

      Mr. Taylor appears to be saying that, because the handwriting appeared to be DISGUISED, their handwriting experts could not make any "scientifically valid conclusion," EVEN THOUGH some lay witnesses said "there appeared to be some similarities in handwriting that were apparent."

      Mr. Taylor's comments were made in August 2008, shortly after Dr. Ivins' suicide. The Amerithrax Investigative Summary issued in February 2010 very clearly shows that the lay witness testimony WAS part of the case the DOJ had against Ivins.

      Mr. Rowley's post seems to be just indecipherable meaningless blather to avoid admitting that he was WRONG in arguing that lay witnesses would not be allowed to testify in court about handwriting.

      Ed

      Delete
    2. R. Rowley once again rambles on and on and says NOTHING. Plus he ends with this INDECIPHERABLE OPINION: "He's saying in a VERY roundabout way, that nothing pertaining to handwriting identification [of an incriminating nature] turned up that could be 'admit[ted] in[to] evidence".

      What does that babble mean?
      ==================================
      All you are doing here is self-reporting your own semantic aphasia. I can't help you on that score.

      What I wrote in that sentence is fairly simple and could be understood by most of the literate English-speaking world over the age of 12.

      Delete
    3. R. Rowley wrote: "What I wrote in that sentence is fairly simple and could be understood by most of the literate English-speaking world over the age of 12."

      So, Mr. Rowley is either INCAPABLE of explaining his nonsensical posts, or he is UNWILLING to explain his nonsensical posts.

      That means he has nothing of value to say in this blog and that I should just delete his posts.

      I'll think that over. I may do that UNLESS he learns to EXPLAIN what he means when he is asked what he means.

      Ed

      Delete
  25. "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just attempted to post another silly rant to this blog. I deleted some VILE personal attacks. His post also exceeds the 4,096 character limit for posts here (when my brief comments are added). So, I can only show the key parts of his post:
    ------------------------------
    Ed, you have failed to address the interplay with Rule 701 and the requirement under Rule 901 that there be “sufficient familiarity.” You are not qualified to address the Federal Rules of Evidence. ... You are not qualified to address the Federal Rules or controlling case law.

    [I removed the text of Rule 901 because I provided it in an earlier post HERE

    Notes of Advisory Committee on Proposed Rules:

    Subdivision (b). The treatment of authentication and identification draws largely upon the experience embodied in the common law and in statutes to furnish illustrative applications of the general principle set forth in subdivision (a).

    ***

    Example (2). Example (2) states conventional doctrine as to lay identification of handwriting, which recognizes that a SUFFICIENT FAMILIARITY with the handwriting of another person may be acquired by seeing him write, by exchanging correspondence, or by other means, to afford a basis for identifying it on subsequent occasions. McCormick §189.

    The Court of Appeals in Hall v. United Insurance of America, 367 F.32d 1255 (11th Circuit 2004) explained:

    "The novel issue presented in this appeal involves the interplay between two Federal Rules of Evidence: 901(b)(2), which allows non-expert opinion testimony about the genuineness of handwriting evidence based on sufficient familiarity, and 701, which allows lay opinion testimony that is rationally based on personal perceptions. [example deleted for space]

    The Court of Appeals continued:

    "Rule 701 governs lay witness opinion testimony generally and dictates that such testimony must meet three requirements, one of which is relevant here: the testimony must be "rationally based on the perception of the witness." Fed.R.Evid. 701(a). Rule 901(b)(2) is a more specific rule, governing lay witness opinion testimony as it relates to the identification of handwriting. This rule requires that "[n]on-expert opinion [testimony] as to the genuineness of handwriting [must be] based upon familiarity not acquired for purposes of the litigation." Fed.R.Evid. 901(b)(2) (emphasis added). Thus, testimony purporting to satisfy the specific requirements of Rule 901(b)(2) must also satisfy the general requirements in Rule 701. If either Rule is not satisfied, the testimony is inadmissible."

    I recommend you pull up annotations under the subrule and stop addressing the subject until you are informed on the case law applying the subrule.

    ------------------

    As previously indicated, the restrictions mentioned in Rule 901 were previously discussed by me. So, I'm familiar with them.

    Nothing in what DXer attempted to post says ANYTHING about setting TIME LIMITS on how recently a lay witness must have seen the other person's handwriting. His post contains only KNOWN information with NO EXPLANATION to give it meaning here. It's the kind of post that got him banned from posting here directly.

    DXer just demonstrates once again that he either doesn't understand criminal law, or he is just being an obnoxious troll.


    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  26. "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just attempted another meaningless post. Here it is in its entirety:
    -------------------------
    Ed,

    Indeed, any comparison to the Fall 2001 anthrax letters is necessarily acquired for the purpose of the prosecution. By the way, Bruce's former assistant, who left in 1999, thinks that Dr. Ivins is innocent. You apparently have not interviewed her. So Dr. Ivins' defense counsel would want to call both her AND the FBI's handwriting expert. The guy interviewed in 2008 about pornography he received in the mid-1990s is simply irrelevant to the case. The mere fact you have spent all this time discussing it says loads about your approach to evidence.

    Such testimony cannot be the result of knowledge acquired for litigation. Thus, no comparison could even be made.

    The Second Circuit in United States v. Samet explained:

    "Relying on the First Circuit's decision in United States v. Scott, 270 F.3d 30 (1st Cir.2001), the district court held that lay opinion testimony offered to authenticate handwriting must comport with both Rule 701 and Rule 901(b)(2).   Applying those Rules, the district court found that Thornton's familiarity with Hollender's handwriting was not acquired for purposes of litigation, within the meaning of Rule 901(b)(2), and that she did not give “expert-like testimony” that would be inappropriate under Rule 701. United States v. Samet, No. 01 CR 216, slip op. at 7 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2002).

    ***

    "Accordingly, we hold that lay witnesses who testify as to their opinion regarding someone's handwriting must not only meet the strictures of Rule 701, but must also satisfy Rule 901(b)(2) and have a familiarity with the handwriting which has not been acquired solely for purposes of the litigation at hand.   We also hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Thornton's testimony that authenticated Hollender's handwriting.”

    ***

    "Incorporating Rule 901(b)(2)'s limits into Rule 701 also helps maintain a critical difference between lay and expert opinion testimony.   While “[a] lay witness may not enter court, see for the first time two samples of handwriting, and identify the contested sample as written by the same person as the previously authenticated sample,” Scott, 270 F.3d at 50, that is precisely what an expert is charged with doing.   Thus, we hold that a lay witness who testifies as to her opinion regarding someone's handwriting pursuant to Rule 701 must satisfy Rule 901(b)(2)'s command that her familiarity with the handwriting was not acquired solely for purposes of litigation."

    ---------------------------

    Rule 901 says the lay witnesses' "FAMILIARITY" cannot have been acquired for purposes of the litigation. DXer TWISTS things to argue that a "COMPARISON" cannot be made for purposes of litigation. That is a STUPID AND MALICIOUS DISTORTION OF THE LAW.. So, what is the purpose of DXer's post other than to once again appear to be an obnoxious troll?

    If Ivins' assistant told someone she thinks Ivins was innocent, WHO CARES? The only matter of concern here is what she would have testified about in court.

    And DXer needs to understand that the DOJ accused Ivins of the crime. All I am doing is discussing THEIR evidence.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  27. Mr. Rowley,

    I just deleted THREE of your posts for the following reasons:

    The first post said nothing except that you are going to continue using "pretentious" words without any concern that it might make you appear "of poor intelligence and low credibility." That's fine with me. I was just trying to help you.

    The second post just shows you cannot argue intelligently. You wrote:
    -------------
    There must be dozens of methods a person (person X) COULD have used to disguise his handwriting, with each method producing a different 'look'. No 'layman' seeing a few instances of a particular 'disguised' handwriting, could reliably identify all instances of that person's disguised handwriting. It's a non-starter.
    ------------------------
    It's a meaningless post. No one asked any lay witness to "reliably identify all instances of that person's disguised handwriting."

    The third post I deleted contained this sentence: "The "WITNESSES" said that his 'disguised' writing looked like his 'standard' writing."

    According to the Summary report, ""The witness described this 'disguised' handwriting as being similar to Dr. Ivins’s standard handwriting"

    You distort the facts and then you argue that YOU looked at a random sample of Ivins' handwriting and didn't see what the witnesses saw. WHO CARES!?

    Those posts demonstrate why I am now DELETING your posts until you learn to intelligently discuss the case AND acknowledge that the Rules of Evidence say you do not have to be an expert witness to testify in court about recognizing someone's handwriting.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  28. For the record, "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just attempted a vile and disgusting post that convinced me that it is best to simply DELETE ALL of his future attempted posts without comment.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  29. Yesterday evening, R. Rowley attempted to continue his silly argument over the word "averred." He argues that I don't state his position using the same words he uses. He wrote: " 'aver' has been in my vocabulary since at least high school (ie over 40 years), that I don't consider it a "new word" in any sense, that I myself am always grateful for those writers who expand my vocabulary"

    Mr. Rowley should show us where he used the word (or any variation of it) before in this blog (or any blog). Otherwise, it's just another in a long string of obscure words he has used here in an apparent attempt to impress people. All I did as attempt to point out that a Nobel Prize winner wrote: "couching familiar ideas in pretentious language is taken as a sign of poor intelligence and low credibility."

    Mr. Rowley doesn't think the word is "pretentious." However, what he thinks is IRRELEVANT. When it comes to being pretentious, it is all about what OTHERS think.

    As I previously wrote (using slightly different words): From this point on, r. Rowley can use all the "pretentious" words he wants. I don't care. I was just trying to HELP him by getting him to understand how OTHERS view his use of pretentious words.

    This subject is ended. I'll post no more about it.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I just deleted another post attempt by Mr. Rowley. For some reason, Mr. Rowley continues to try to argue his OPINION about using "pretentious" words. I don't CARE what words he uses. I was just trying to HELP. And now I'm asking him to start discussing matters that can be RESOLVED, instead of going on and on about his OPINIONS and things no one cares about.

      His MISTAKEN OPINION that only "experts" can testify in court about handwriting can be resolved IF he would simply look at the facts instead of endlessly voicing only his beliefs and opinions.

      Ed

      Delete
    2. Sigh. I just deleted another post by Mr. Rowley where the continues to argue his OPINION about the word "aver." He wrote:

      -------------------------------
      Calling a word taught high schoolers for half a century "pretentious" and making THAT a basis for discussion, then deleting responding posts in no help in any way, shape or form. Don't help me, or anyone else.
      --------------------------

      In Mr. Rowley's opinion it doesn't help anyone. In my opinion it should have helped him, but he evidently doesn't want to be helped.

      Mr. Rowley also wrote:

      -------------------------
      Actually the word 'pretentious' is itself at least as high-falutin' as "aver".
      -------------------------------

      Another silly opinion. I was quoting Nobel Prize winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman who said, "couching familiar ideas in pretentious language is taken as a sign of poor intelligence and low credibility." That was further demonstrated when Mr. Rowley failed to use the word "averred" CORRECTLY.

      Plus, a look at the FACTS quickly PROVES that "aver" is an exceedingly RARE word. I PROVED that HERE,

      "Pretentious," on the other hand, is a relatively common word. A simply Google search for the word finds many examples:

      http://www.buzzfeed.com/lukelewis/the-most-pretentious-things-ever#.iba5p3vqy

      http://pretentiousglass.com/

      https://www.pretentiouspocket.com/products.aspx

      http://www.inquisitr.com/1911220/apple-announces-gold-macbook-dubbed-as-pretentious-absurd-by-the-media/

      http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/nov/28/prestige-novelist-christopher-nolans-batman-movies-boring-and-pretentious

      http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2014/09/the-end-of-the-pretentious-designer/

      Mr. Rowley also asks:

      -----------------------------
      WHEN, if ever, are you going to STOP deleting my posts and/or only presenting a part of what I have written? For what you've turned into here is a blog tyrant.
      ------------------------------

      Answer: When you stop arguing MEANINGLESS OPINIONS and start discussing FACTS AND EVIDENCE.

      Mr. Rowley argues:

      --------------------
      YOU, not I, changed the topic of the thread, yet when I try to respond on the very point YOU, not I raised, it's delete'sville! Is that fair? No, of course it isn't fair.

      And third party readers who have followed this blog are going to realize the arbitrariness of the deletions, even though they can't know the full contents of the posts deleted.

      --------------------------------

      My blog, my rules. I see no point in arguing opinions versus opinions. Such arguments are UNRESOLVABLE, particularly when one opinion versus opinion arguments just spawns another opinion versus opinion argument, then another and another, etc. I wanted to move on to discussing issues that CAN BE RESOLVED by analyzing FACTS AND EVIDENCE.

      Whether "aver" is a common word or a rare word should be a RESOLVABLE question. But what's the point in discussing it if Mr. Rowley will just continue to argue that his beliefs override all facts and evidence?

      I've got better things to do than to waste my time by endlessly arguing opinions versus opinions.

      Ed

      Delete
    3. Mr. Rowley,

      Regarding another "pretentious" word you use: "skein." You wrote HERE:
      --------------------
      "Juror #8 was trying to change the minds of the other 11 jurors about this and that skein of evidence."
      ----------------------
      "Skein" is another rare word which you use improperly.

      DEFINITION:
      ---------------
      skein skān
      noun: skein; plural noun: skeins

      a length of thread or yarn, loosely coiled and knotted.
      a tangled or complicated arrangement, state, or situation.
      "the skeins of her long hair"
      a flock of wild geese or swans in flight, typically in a V-shaped formation.

      ----------------------------

      If you look up the way other people use the word "skein," you will see the following:

      ---------------------------
      Making Sense of an Often Tangled Skein of Evidence

      when the slightest thread of the skein of evidence is secured

      a continuous skein of evidence

      The terror bombing of the Boston Marathon is yet one more item in a bloody skein of evidence that has emerged

      feel free to embroider your own bias onto the thinnest skein of evidence

      The tendency in that direction was strengthened by the unfolding skein of evidence

      -------------------------------

      Note that no one used the word "skein" the way you use it. They all use it as part of a metaphor alluding to a tangled, thin, bloody or unfolding THREAD of evidence. You seem to believe it is a synonym for "item" or "piece." The term "thread of evidence" has no meaning unless there is some modifier to explain how evidence can be like a "thread."

      Here is another example where you used the word and MADE NO SENSE:

      -------------------
      "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."
      --------------------

      Two other threads/witnesses? Makes no sense.

      Another:

      ------------------
      And every time I bring up one of those skeins of evidence
      -----------------

      You are clearly using it to mean "item" or "piece," which is INCORRECT.

      If you are going to practice using your "new word for today" on this blog, you should at least TRY to use the word correctly and understand what it means. Otherwise, you will just appear PRETENTIOUS.

      -------------
      pre·ten·tious prəˈten(t)SHəs/
      adjective: pretentious

      attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed.

      -----------------

      Ed

      Delete
    4. The third attempted post from Mr. Rowley overnight is below in its entirety:
      ---------------------------
      Note that no one used the word "skein" the way you use it. They all use it as part of a metaphor alluding to a tangled, thin, bloody or unfolding THREAD of evidence
      ===================================
      Mister Lake alternates in this lower part of the thread:

      1) he writes posts further elaborating on why he thinks 'aver' rare or 'pretentious'; draws in further lexical items like "skein of evidence" (which is a standard in the field(s): law enforcement/legal wrangling) and claims I'm misusing them.

      2) he demands that I not write about 'words'.

      Item #1 might make some sense alone. Item #2 might make some sense alone. But items #1 and #2 together make no sense.

      ---------------------------

      Note how Mr. Rowley distorts the facts. He argues his OPINION, ""skein of evidence" (which is a standard in the field(s): law enforcement/legal wrangling) even though the FACTS say otherwise. The facts (which I showed above) say that "skein of evidence" is always used AS A METAPHOR with other words included in the metaphor, while Mr. Rowley IMPROPERLY uses "skein" as if it were a synonym for "item" or "piece," as in "item of evidence."

      It is FAR MORE COMMON to use a metaphor something like "it's a weak link in the chain of evidence" than to say "it's a thin thread in the skein of evidence."

      Both of the above would be valid uses, but "skein of evidence" by itself MAKES NO SENSE the way Mr. Rowley uses it. Example: "every time I bring up one of those skeins of evidence" He doesn't bring up "chains" or "skeins" of evidence, he brings up ITEMS of evidence and claims that BY THEMSELVES they are NOT evidence.

      I'm simply suggesting to Mr. Rowley that he stop using words he doesn't understand because it makes him look PRETENTIOUS and gives him LOW CREDIBILITY. And then arguing that he used the words correctly just makes matters worse, since it OBVIOUS and it has been PROVED that he did not.

      I'm not "demanding" that he stop writing about words. I'm DEMANDING that he stop arguing IGNORANT OPINIONS AND BELIEFS and instead start discussing FACTS AND EVIDENCE related to the anthrax attacks of 2001. That's what this blog is for. It's NOT for arguing OPINIONS and BELIEFS about anything - not words, not rules of evidence, not court proceedings, not anything. This blog is for discussing facts and evidence about the anthrax attacks of 2001.

      Ed

      Delete
  30. "DXer" a.k.a. "Anonymous" sent me an EMAIL today. The EMAIL contained another vile and disgusting personal attack AND another illustration of his lack of common sense.

    DXer looked up "aver" on Google and got 157,000,000 results. Then he looked up "allege" and got 13,400,000 results.

    He hilariously concluded "Ed, aver is used 10Xs more often than allege."

    Anyone with experience using Google would have checked to see what the "results" from looking up "aver" actually looked like. Here are examples that show up immediately:
    ----------------------------------------------------
    About AVer Information Inc. — AVer is an award-winning provider of visual collaboration solutions that improve productivity and enrich lives.

    http://www.aver.com/

    http://www.averinformatics.com/

    American Veterans for Equal Rights [AVER] is offering this special pin as a gift to veterans and service members who join or renew their membership this year.

    http://www.dafont.com/AVER.font

    https://www.sc.com/sg/save/saving-esaver.html

    http://aver-gla.org/

    AVerMedia - C875 Live Gamer Portable (LGP) HD Game

    Viewer for AVerMedia ip cameras

    Nine West Women's Aver Leather Ballet Flat

    Dr. Alla Aver - Alla Aver DDS

    Welcome to the Texa$aver Program's Web Site!

    Pet$aver Superstore

    Allison Henry Aver

    Aver Family Vineyards - Wineries - Gilroy, CA

    Agrupamento de Escolas Aver-o-Mar

    --------------------------------

    NOWHERE in the first ten pages of results was the word "aver" ever used in a sentence, except in dictionary definitions.

    Looking up "allege" immediately finds the following:

    ---------------------
    Inmates who allege police abuse by Burge may get hearing ...

    Muslim Officers Allege Discrimination | Al Jazeera America

    A 26-year-old man was given a shock when attempting to sell his car after being the victim of an alleged attacked by two men with a stun gun


    etc., etc., etc.
    ------------------------

    So, was DXer just being a malicious troll when he argued that "aver" is used more often than "allege" or is he really so IGNORANT that he actually believes it?

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  31. R. Rowley just attempted another post to this blog. Here it is in its entirety:
    -----------------------------
    Plus, a look at the FACTS quickly PROVES that "aver" is an exceedingly RARE word. I PROVED that HERE,
    ====================
    What "proved"? Kids in junior and senior years of high school have that on vocabulary lists for the SATs and other college-entrance exams, how could that be a 'rare' word? You're arrogating to yourself the right to make snide remarks about people's word choices, then deleting the replies to those snide remarks. What 'rule' could that possibly be?!?!@?!? You're just arbitrary.

    --------------------------------

    I PROVED it by showing how rarely the word "aver" is used on the Internet. What BETTER method of proof would you prefer? The fact that it is on SAT tests doesn't make it a commonly used word. It makes it a RARE word that is part of a test to see how many students know the SELDOM USED word. For all we know, NONE of the students answered the question correctly.

    Mr. Rowley just demonstrates once again he doesn't understand how Facts and Evidence work when trying to resolve an issue. QUESTIONS do not resolve issues, ANSWERS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE resolve issues.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Overnight, Mr. Rowley attempted to post a response to the above comment. Here it is in its entirety:
      -------------------------
      I PROVED it by showing how rarely the word "aver" is used on the Internet. What BETTER method of proof would you prefer?
      =====================================
      There's a not-so-difficult way to find out how rare/common a word is (at least in English, not sure about other languages); for example, go here:
      http://www.wordandphrase.info/frequencyList.asp

      You'll find that 'aver' is the 24473th most common word by the methodology they used (combination of newspaper, magazine, book, academic, conversational uses). That's 24473th out of 60,000 on the list of words they examined.

      To relate that to something meaningful (ie to put it in context), one goes to someplace where they give average individual vocabulary inventories.

      Someplace like here:
      https://atkinsbookshelf.wordpress.com/tag/how-many-words-in-the-average-persons-vocabulary/

      There you'll find:

      " David Crystal, a linguist and world-renown[ed] expert on the English language, provides these estimates of how many words people know: a person starting school: 500-6,000; a person without a formal education: 35,000; a high-school educated person: 50,000; a college-educated person 50-75,000."
      ----------------------
      So, for a high-school educated person, "aver", if learned in the order given (ie the 24,437th word........a general (average) statistic with wide variations from individual to individual, obviously), would definitely likely be learned during the high school career. And that would be (tautologically) before the SECOND 25,000 or so words that were learned to make the (average) total of 50,000. A middle-of-the-pack word for a person with that level of eduction.

      *"avow" is further back, 29918th, and I don't consider that "rare" either.
      But to each his own.

      -----------------------------

      That's a VERY interesting post -- mostly interesting for what Mr. Rowley ignores and does NOT point out.

      The first link he provided HERE does indeed show "aver" to be #24,473 on a list of 60,000 words. Does that make it a "commonly used" word? NO!

      Look at the COMMON words people use instead of "aver":

      CLAIM is #875 on the list.
      MAINTAIN is #923 on the list.
      DECLARE is #1,245 on the list.
      ASSERT is #3,166 on the list.

      Those are COMMONLY USED words. ("Claim" is 28 TIMES more common than "aver".) Mr. Rowley laughably argues that he considers #24,473 to also be a "common" word because it's a word that a person without a formal education would supposedly KNOW.

      But what counts as a word? The word Mr. Rowley used ("averred") isn't considered to be a word on that list. Only "base" words are included.

      Mr. Rowley's second link HERE also tells a very different story from what Mr. Rowley contends.

      If you look up the author of the article, David Crystal, you will quickly find Mr. Crystal wrote an article titled "How Many Words" in which he makes the point that you have to know what counts as a word before you can count how many words a person knows.

      Crystal quotes "expert" Robert McCrumb who says that 15,000 words is probably what the average educated person knows. And "expert" John Barton who says 17,000 is probably the number. And "expert" Jane Bouttell who says 12,000 is probably a realistic number. AND, it appears that 12,000 includes claim, claimed, claiming and claims as 4 words.

      So, what have we learned? We've learned that "aver" is NOT a common word unless you twist and distort statistics to make them fit what you want them to fit.

      Ed

      Delete
    2. In the above post I couldn't provide a link to David Crystal's article "How Many Words" without exceeding the 4,096 character limit on posts. Click HERE to read the article.

      Ed

      Delete
  32. For the record, there is another uncommon word that Mr. Rowley misused in this thread: NOTIONAL. He used it HERE when he wrote:
    ---------------------------
    Since I don't see the point of beating the dead horse of the admissibility question further (after, what?, 3 to 4 YEARS?), I'd like to show WHY such a stratagem wouldn't be effective in a notional trial of Bruce Ivins.
    ----------------------------

    Checking a web page HERE that says, "This page provides all possible meanings and translations of the word notional," I find that the word means,

    -----------------------
    fanciful, imaginary, notional(adj)

    not based on fact; unreal

    "the falsehood about some fanciful secret treaties"- F.D.Roosevelt; "a small child's imaginary friends"; "to create a notional world for oneself"

    notional, speculative(adj)

    not based on fact or investigation

    "a notional figure of cost helps in determining production costs"; "speculative knowledge"

    ----------------------------

    It appears that Mr. Rowley also misused the word "notional," since it would be silly to argue about what would happen in an UNREAL trial of Bruce Ivins that was NOT BASED ON FACT OR INVESTIGATION.

    He clearly should have used one of the words everyone else uses: HYPOTHETICAL or THEORETICAL. The way he wrote it, Mr. Rowley was saying, "I'd like to show WHY such a stratagem wouldn't be effective in an unreal and totally imaginary trial of Bruce Ivins."

    WHO CARES about such a thing? An HYPOTHETICAL trial of Bruce Ivins would require that all laws be followed and all rules of evidence be obeyed. And it would use real evidence that the DOJ outlined in their Amerithrax Investigative Summary or elsewhere. THAT would have some value. An UNREAL trial where imaginary things happen is not worth discussing.

    I could probably find other uncommon words in other threads that Mr. Rowley misused while evidently trying to impress readers with his vocabulary, and failing miserably. (How can one claim to be a "linguist" if one is constantly misusing words that he shouldn't be using in the first place if he wishes to be understood?)

    Instead pointing out those other words Mr. Rowley misused, I'd much prefer that Mr. Rowley STOP ARGUING ABOUT WORDS and discuss facts and evidence instead. Then we can go back to me allowing him to post directly to this forum.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  33. Last night, Mr. Rowley attempted another post to this blog thread. Here it is in its entirety:
    ------------------------------
    "Instead pointing out those other words Mr. Rowley misused, I'd much prefer that Mr. Rowley STOP ARGUING ABOUT WORDS[...]
    ================
    Look upthread and you'll notice who started in about 'words'. And that's par for the course with you, Mister Lake. You dish it out but you can't take it.

    ------------------------

    As usual, Mr. Rowley doesn't understand.

    I have no desire to argue about words, BUT words seem to be all Mr. Rowley can argue about. And when I challenge him, he argues that I'm starting the argument about words.

    I'm not arguing about words. I'm using FACTS and EVIDENCE to show that Mr. Rowley repeatedly uses words he doesn't understand while at the same time claiming to be a "linguist." I'm EXPLAINING why Mr. Rowley cannot discuss facts and evidence, he can only argue his beliefs. He has no facts or evidence. When he provides what he BELIEVES is "evidence" to support his beliefs, more often than not the "evidence" PROVES HIM WRONG. (Click HERE for today's prime example.) He also claims to be a "linguist" but repeatedly uses words incorrectly. And then he argues that he did NOT use the words incorrectly by making FALSE AND DISTORTED CLAIMS about how the words are used.

    I'm not arguing about words. I'm arguing about Mr. Rowley's tactics, his REFUSAL to discuss facts and evidence, his REFUSAL to acknowledge it when he has been PROVED WRONG, and his constant arguing that his BELIEFS and OPINIONS outweigh all the facts and evidence.

    And his constant changing of the subject every time he is proved wrong.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  34. R. Rowley attempted another post to this blog last night. Here are the key parts of his post (in order to keep this post under 4,096 characters):
    -----------------------------
    You seem to be under the wholly false impression that I go out of my way to use the most common words I can. I never said I did. Why would I?

    So finding a synonym or near-synonym for any word I use, a synonym/near synonym that's more common, would not be difficult. Why would I want to write the way I did when I was 18 or 22 or 25?
    THEN I had a (relatively) small vocabulary, wasn't 1/10th the writer I am today (not just in terms of vocabulary size in a raw sense, but in ability to manage syntax, avoid unnecessary repetitions of words, say things more precisely etc).

    Just in the past 4 or 5 days, in conversations I:

    1) used the word "sleuthing" a couple times, ....

    2) used the (mostly British) expression "carrying coals to Newcastle" in speaking to a young woman in her mid-to-late 30s. .....

    So, even conversationally, I try to use as wide a variety of expressions as I can. Not to be 'pretentious' but because ultimately speaking and writing are forms of self-expression, .....

    That your attitude towards language is completely the opposite to mine I understand. Have understood for several years. That's your choice, and I have no urge to 'convert' you on that point, just as I have no urge to convert you to my hypothesis on Amerithrax.

    -------------------------------

    Mr. Rowley wrote: "You seem to be under the wholly false impression that I go out of my way to use the most common words I can. I never said I did. Why would I?"

    How could Mr. Rowley get such an mistaken impression? It MAKES NO SENSE. I've been doing JUST THE OPPOSITE. I've been pointing that that he frequently uses UNCOMMON words and he often uses the words INCORRECTLY.

    Mr. Rowley also wrote: "So, even conversationally, I try to use as wide a variety of expressions as I can. Not to be 'pretentious' but because ultimately speaking and writing are forms of self-expression,"

    That's fine in casual conversation. But it is a BAD PRACTICE when the objective is to get people to UNDERSTAND what you are saying.

    If you want to get people to UNDERSTAND your point of view, you need to be clear and precise. And that means using COMMON words that everyone understands, NOT misusing UNCOMMON words. When you MISUSE an UNCOMMON word - as you repeatedly do - you just make yourself appear non-credible and pretentious.

    Einstein said that you do not really understand something until you can explain it to your grandmother and get her to understand it, too.

    You're not going to accomplish that by misusing uncommon words. Misusing uncommon words just makes people think you do not know what you are talking about.

    Mr. Rowley also wrote: " I have no urge to convert you to my hypothesis on Amerithrax."

    THEN WHY ARE YOU HERE ON THIS BLOG? All you seem to be doing here is trying to convert me and other readers to your beliefs. Arguing that the FBI and I are wrong, just means you are trying to convert us to what you believe is right. And you're never going to be able to do that until you start coming up with BETTER facts and evidence than the FBI has against Bruce Ivins.

    You do not seem to understand what you are doing or what anyone else is doing. The great orator Demosthenes would practice speaking with pebbles in his mouth and recited verses while running, but he took the pebbles out of his mouth and stopped running when he wanted people to UNDERSTAND what he was saying.

    It appears you do not CARE if others understand what you are saying. To you that evidently just means they are not as intelligent as you are, or that they're not paying sufficient attention. To others it means you are being pretentious and are not credible.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  35. R. Rowley attempted FIVE posts this afternoon. They are all rambling complaints where Mr. Rowley just endlessly states his BELIEFS and OPINIONS instead of looking at facts and evidence.

    I tried to summarize them all into one long post, but the attempt exceeded 4,096 characters. So, I'll summarize #1, #2, #3 and #5 in this post and follow it with a summary of #4 (which is the most interesting).

    Post #1 just complains about me using the word "hypercorrection" too much in the past. And then he argues that he WAS truly a linguist about 40 years ago, even though the way he incorrectly uses uncommon words suggests he has probably forgotten nearly everything he learned back then. The post is all just opinions and pointless arguments.

    Post #2 quotes me and then says:
    -------------------
    As far as I can remember, Lake has NEVER used the word "notional" in any other context and, as with "hypercorrection', he seems to think that NON-familiarity + consulting a dictionary makes him the arbiter. Not so. Even BEFORE I realized Lake had fluent semantic aphasia last year, I never mistook him for a 'word-nerd', ie someone highly punctilious in his lexical usages.
    -------------------------

    Notice he does NOT address the FACT that he used the word "notional" incorrectly. Instead, he attacks me personally and rambles pointlessly that I never used the word "notional," and that he doesn't approve of checking facts and evidence to dispute HIS use of words.

    Post #3 is his response to my question asking him why he is posting here. His answer:
    --------------------
    "I've told you over and over and over and over again, that MY interest here is: 1) showing how weak(pathetically so, really!) the case is against Bruce Ivins and 2) letting third parties (aka 'lurkers' or, in plain language, readers) know that. Period.
    -----------------------

    In other words, it's just as I stated: He's trying to CONVERT me and the readers of this blog to his BELIEFS by arguing that the FBI/DOJ's evidence against Bruce Ivins doesn't meet Mr. Rowley's standards. He doesn't provide any better evidence. He just argues his BELIEFS the way a preacher tells a congregation they are all sinners. Inexplicably, Mr. Rowley somehow BELIEVES that other readers of this web site agree with his beliefs, even though DXer has stated on numerous occasions that Mr. Rowley's theory is a "non-starter."

    Post #5 is a complaint that he doesn't""contend" ANYTHING about frequencies of vocabulary items or the size of the average person's vocabulary. In other words, he didn't "contend" that "aver" was a common word. He just posted meaningless statistics to SUGGEST or IMPLY that it was a common word.

    In summary, Mr. Rowley's four posts were just his opinions and beliefs, which he is continuing to use to argue against facts and evidence.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  36. Today's Post #4 from R. Rowley is a long, tedious, incoherent tirade about the word "averred" and how I never "averred" that Ivins wrote the anthrax documents. His point seems to be in the following convoluted sentence:
    ----------------
    " Lake either gives it tacit 'acknowledgement' (ie by not denying it; he has NEVER denied it), or some polemical equivalent of throat-clearing for the sake of face-saving, because for Lake it's a Hobson's choice on the printing: either give up his beloved child-printed-it hypothesis and support the 'resemblances' of page 89-90 in the Amerithrax Investigative Summary OR say the Task Force was WRONG (shudder!) and the printing was a child's and therefore looks nothing like Ivins'.
    -------------------------

    Mr. Rowley, as usual, does not understand. I have stated repeatedly that the handwriting on the anthrax documents is almost certainly that of a child just starting first grade. AND it appears that Ivins used a child who was visiting his home to do the writing for him.

    Why would it be necessary to also say that Ivins didn't do the writing? Isn't that made perfectly clear? If a child did the writing, then Ivins did NOT do the writing. Isn't it also perfectly clear that I do not agree with the DOJ's "evidence" that the writing on the anthrax documents is Ivins' DISGUISED handwriting? When people argue that I believe everything the FBI/DOJ says, I have repeatedly made the point that I DO NOT AGREE THAT THE HANDWRITING ON THE ANTHRAX DOCUMENTS WAS DONE BY IVINS.

    What Mr. Rowley fails to understand or appreciate is that IT DOESN"T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE whether Ivins did the writing or tricked child into doing the writing for him. Either way it still helps prove that Ivins was the anthrax killer.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here's a quote from the July 27, 2014 comment I wrote for my old web site:

      "I was wondering if I should suggest to conspiracy theorists that they refer to me as a "geek," if they want to label or categorize me. "Government stooge" is certainly not valid, since I 've repeatedly demonstrated that I disagree with the FBI's case against Ivins on how the anthrax documents were written, and I state exactly how Ivins most likely made the anthrax powders, while the FBI just argues that Ivins had "the means." The term "Government shill" is equally invalid for similar reasons. I don't argue "the government's case." I argue MY understanding of the case against Dr. Bruce Ivins using evidence mostly gathered by the FBI, but with a lot of additional material I've gathered from other sources."

      I could probably find the instances where I made that point in this blog, but it would take time, since I'd have to do a lot of searches for various words that I may have used.

      Ed

      Delete
  37. Mr. Rowley just attempted FOUR more posts to this blog. The first includes this:
    --------------------
    What do you need to 'summarize' them [his posts] for?!?!?

    Just let them go through like you did for 2012, 2013, 2014 and let the reader decide whether my posts are "rambling" or not! You make no sense! Why have a blog wherein no one but you can post!??!!?!?
    I'm about to give up participating here, and there's no understudy in sight.

    You're sabotaging your own blog. Do you think that that's going to attracts new participants either here or at your new blog site? Quite the contrary.

    -------------------------

    I'm summarizing Mr. Rowley's posts because it seems to be the ONLY way to get him to stop posting his long, tedious, rambling, incoherent comments which do nothing but repeat his OPINIONS and BELIEFS. ASKING him to change his ways accomplishes NOTHING.

    I've got a million things I'd rather do than read more of Mr. Rowley's opinions and beliefs. So, if he cannot adapt to discussing facts and evidence, I will probably just start ignoring his posts entirely, the way I did with DXer.

    That means that Mr. Rowley will have to find some other place to preach his opinions and beliefs, and I'll be able to focus on the million other things I want to do.

    Mr. Rowley's second post contained this:
    -------------------------
    "Since YOU (not I ) brought up how "common" "aver" was/wasn't and provided no definition whatsover so as to determine what qualified as "common", what qualified as "rare", all I did was sought and found a site to quantify the concept of commonness/rareness.....Then you kvetched about it!
    ----------------------------

    In reality (or from my point of view), I asked Mr. Rowley to post some facts and evidence to support his contention that "averred" was a common word. Instead, AS USUAL, when he tried to use facts and evidence, the facts and evidence showed he was WRONG, and he distorted the facts and evidence. Of course, now we have Mr. Rowley reverting to arguing his BELIEFS and OPINIONS again.

    Mr. Rowley's attempted Post #3 is another complaint that I'm not doing things the way he wants them done. The post includes this:
    ---------------------------------
    Not only was the summary bad, but you neglected to note that I provided multiple links to sites explaining about military linguists (ie ones in the US Navy, Army, Air Force) ie my background from decades ago ....
    ---------------------------------

    Links to web sites which explain what linguists to in the military are MEANINGLESS. The argument is NOT about what generic linguists do, it is about what Mr. Rowley specifically is doing.

    Mr. Rowley's attempted post #4 isn't even worth summarizing, but I'll do so anyway. It is basically just a personal attack, once again claiming that I have "semantic aphasia." And Mr. Rowley argues that if someone 14 years ago disagreed with me, or didn't approve of the way I do things, then Mr. Rowley must be always right and I must be always wrong. It's just another SILLY post from Mr. Rowley, demonstrating why I am not allowing him to post to this blog directly any more.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete