tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post4008864555434046248..comments2023-05-06T02:39:25.916-07:00Comments on Debating the Anthrax Attacks of 2001: Feb. 26 - Mar. 3, 2012 DiscussionsEd Lakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comBlogger152125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-80783524269733038672012-03-19T06:53:53.880-07:002012-03-19T06:53:53.880-07:00You're distorting the argument. Yes, an attor...You're distorting the argument. Yes, an attorney working for the government represents "the government," but if you want to <b><i>understand</i></b> what happened, you can't talk about "the government" making a mistake when it was <b>an individual</b> who made the mistake.<br /><br />You seem to be saying that you do not want to <b>understand</b> what happened, you want to <b>argue</b> that "the government" was wrong.<br /><br />I'm just interested in what happened.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-21195446410335826962012-03-18T22:40:32.677-07:002012-03-18T22:40:32.677-07:00Since Mister Lake is bound to be sceptical of one ...Since Mister Lake is bound to be sceptical of one source on terminology, here's another:<br />http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/prosecutor<br />-------------------<br />Prosecutor:<br />One who prosecutes another for a crime in the name of the government.<br /><br />State and county governments employ prosecutors to represent their local communities in complaints against criminal defendants. On the federal level, the president appoints prosecutors to represent the United States in complaints against criminal defendants.<br />------------------snip snip--------------------------r. rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-50934725830130098522012-03-18T22:19:28.219-07:002012-03-18T22:19:28.219-07:00Partial post by Mister Lake:
---------------------...Partial post by Mister Lake:<br />---------------------<br />"I don't THINK the government is a "Borg collective" and NOTHING I have written on this blog (or ANY blog having to deal with Amerithrax)could be misconstrued to that effect."<br /><br />Whenever you talk about "the government" doing something in the Stevens lawsuit, you are talking like "the government" is a Borg Collective.<br />=============================================<br />This once again shows your unfamiliarity with standard legal jargon: when a plaintiff is suing a government agency, the defendant is, broadly speaking, the government. That's not terminology that I or any Amerithax sceptic made up. It's standard terminology.<br />In criminal and civil cases.<br />-----------------------------------------------------<br />See for example<br />http://library.thinkquest.org/2760/gloss.htm<br /><br />prosecutor - public official who presents the government's case against a person accused of a crime<br />-------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />In criminal trials the prosecutors(state or federal) generally refer to themselves (their side)as "the people". Naturally, the defense doesn't generally use that term, as it suggests something democratic and popular about a given prosecution, something the defense usually wants to dispute. <br /><br />Bob Stevens widow was suing the government. A Department of that Government was defending it. There's no better way to put it.r. rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-9780498299250765622012-03-08T09:20:56.861-08:002012-03-08T09:20:56.861-08:00Anonymous wrote: "Ed Lake is uninformed about...Anonymous wrote: "<i>Ed Lake is uninformed about the issue of the mutations and hasn't even read the article by an undisputed expert on the subject, Dr. Leppla.</i>"<br /><br />I consider myself to be VERY informed about "the issue of the mutations."<br /><br />If Dr. Leppla had something worthwhile to say, why don't you tell us what it is? Is it because you didn't understand a word of what he wrote? Or is it because he said nothing you can twist or distort to support your beliefs?<br /><br />You seem to be playing an idiotic game of "one-upsmanship" by suggesting because you HAVE a copy of a scientific article that you undoubtedly do not understand, that somehow means something about how informed I am on "the issue of mutations."<br /><br />For your information, being "informed" is about having read and <b>understanding</b> key material related to the issue, it's <b>NOT</b> about being the first to download something from the Internet.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-34005741509194102262012-03-08T07:58:45.586-08:002012-03-08T07:58:45.586-08:00Anonymous wrote: "Are you claiming that the F...Anonymous wrote: <i>"Are you claiming that the FBI could not identify the brand pen used?"</i><br /><br />I recall reading somewhere the brand of pen used, but I don't see any purpose in looking for that source, since it proved nothing. Besides, the pen was probably a pen the child had in his school back pack. <br /><br />Anonymous also wrote: <i>"What you perhaps mean to say on the ink, tape and photocopier toner issues is that nothing was found corroborative of the FBI's Ivins Theory </i>"<br /><br />This discussion is <b>about</b> the FBI's case against Ivins. Nothing about the ink, tape or photocopier proved anything one way or another in the case against Ivins. I.e., it was <b>inconclusive</b>.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-4348598637477620532012-03-08T07:52:34.296-08:002012-03-08T07:52:34.296-08:00Not being informed about the nature of the photoco...Not being informed about the nature of the photocopier toner issue -- and regularly confusing it with the issue of tracks -- you thought it mattered when the samples were retrieved.<br /><br />Even as to "tracks" it is a simple matter of pulling samples that were photocopied the same time period. It doesn't matter when the samples were obtained.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-66422665867222948612012-03-08T07:50:43.892-08:002012-03-08T07:50:43.892-08:00What you perhaps mean to say on the ink, tape and ...What you perhaps mean to say on the ink, tape and photocopier toner issues is that nothing was found corroborative of the FBI's Ivins Theory and that no matches were found among the hundreds of samples taken from Dr. Ivins' office and residence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-50969187176728441002012-03-08T07:48:53.720-08:002012-03-08T07:48:53.720-08:00Are you claiming that the FBI could not identify t...Are you claiming that the FBI could not identify the brand pen used? If so, what is your source? Identification of the brand used, rather than being "nothing conclusive" is gold standard in differentiation of inks.<br /><br />You write:<br /><br />"Ed knows that the tests of the inks found nothing conclusive."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-27962200515222461072012-03-08T07:25:03.080-08:002012-03-08T07:25:03.080-08:00Anonymous wrote: "Ed does not know the brand ...Anonymous wrote: <i>"Ed does not know the brand pen that was used to address the letters .."</i><br /><br />Ed knows that a different pen was used for the senate envelopes than was used for the media envelopes. Ed knows that the tests of the inks found nothing conclusive.<br /><br />Ed knows that the idea that anyone can prove that Ivins "never used such a pen" is <b>TOTALLY RIDICULOUS</b>.<br /><br />Ed knows that the idea that anyone can prove that Ivins never used the tape used in the letters is <b>TOTALLY RIDICULOUS</b>.<br /><br />Ed knows that the idea that anyone can prove that Ivins never used the type of copier used to copy the letters is <b>TOTALLY RIDICULOUS</b>.<br /><br />You've just proved once again what you've said so many times: All this science stuff is over your head.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-25981417686498163312012-03-08T07:11:56.126-08:002012-03-08T07:11:56.126-08:00Anonymous wrote: "As someone not qualified on...Anonymous wrote: <i>"As someone not qualified on the subject, your opinion is not worth anything."</i><br /><br />Generally speaking, I'm not giving my <b>opinions</b>. I discuss and evaluate <b>FACTS</b>.<br /><br />You, on the other hand, have stated MANY times, "<a href="http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/03/05/in-have-we-met-the-enemy-science-3-february-2012-vol-335-no-6068-pp-540-541-dr-david-relman-who-had-been-vice-chairman-of-the-nas-committee-explains/comment-page-1/#comment-16934" rel="nofollow">All this science stuff is over my head</a>."<br /><br />So, since "all this science stuff" is over your head, all you can do is distort facts and give <b>opinions</b> about things you <b>admit</b> you don't even understand.<br /><br />Anonymous wrote: <i>"Ed Lake says the FBI's experts such as Patricia Worsham are uninformed.</i><br /><br />Pat Worsham was NOT an FBI expert. She was a <b>possible suspect</b>. During Amerithrax, she worked for USAMRIID and did <b>BLIND testing</b> because the FBI had no real alternatives to using people at USAMRIID to do such tests. If she thinks Ivins couldn't have made the attack powders, she's not only uninformed, she's flat out <b>wrong</b>. <br /><br />Elsewhere, you talk disparagingly of John Ezzell being "an FBI scientist." Of course, he also worked for USAMRIID, not the FBI. And you never quote Ezzell who said that Ivins <b>COULD HAVE DONE IT</b>.<br /><br />You quote Worsham who never made anthrax powders and yet claimed Ivins couldn't have done it, and you do not quote Ezzell who made anthrax powders and <b>knew</b> Ivins could do it, too. <br /><br />You quote scientists who have <b>opinions</b> that agree with your opinions, and you attack and ignore the scientists who have FACTS that say you are wrong. <br /><br />You argue irrelevant matters incessantly, as if they were the most important subjects instead of being <b>totally irrelevant</b>.<br /><br />You think I should read a book about the occult because you have read it! What kind of screwball reasoning is that?<br /><br />If "all this science stuff" is over your head, why do you keep giving worthless opinions about it?<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-83441881471882062152012-03-08T07:01:10.339-08:002012-03-08T07:01:10.339-08:00Ed does not know the brand pen that was used to a...Ed does not know the brand pen that was used to address the letters and never requested under FOIA the FBI lab reports showing that Dr. Ivins never used such a pen.<br /><br />Ed does know the brand tape that was used to tape the letters and never requested under FOIA the lab reports show that Dr. Ivins never used that tape.<br /><br />Ed does not know the brand photocopier used to photocopy the letters and never requested under FOIA the FBI lab reports showing that Dr. Ivins never used such a photocopier.<br /><br />Ed has never interviewed Dr. Bartick, a leading FBI expert on these issues.<br /><br />By GAO's obtaining and releasing those reports, we can all inform ourselves of the findings by the FBI's forensic experts on these issues.<br /><br />We need more information and findings by the FBI's forensic scientists -- and fewer conclusory assertions by prosecutors and investigators to the media.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-37387797499778517992012-03-07T15:58:02.933-08:002012-03-07T15:58:02.933-08:00(%$#^%^%$&^%$!!
I was working on my income ta...(%$#^%^%$&^%$!!<br /><br />I was working on my income tax, and when I tried to install TurboTax it told me I needed an update to Windows XT. I applied the update, which took <b><i>THREE HOURS</i></b> and <b>IT DIDN'T WORK</b>. I had to un-install it, which took another hour and a half.<br /><br />So, I'm done for today. I see a post by Anonymous in my inbox, but I don't have the time to even read it today, much less respond to it. I'll do that in the morning.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-2081286012697402382012-03-07T12:54:36.096-08:002012-03-07T12:54:36.096-08:00Ed Lake says the FBI's experts such as Patrici...Ed Lake says the FBI's experts such as Patricia Worsham are uninformed. See her sworn testimony. To the contrary, it is Ed who is uninformed even by having read the relevant literature.<br /><br />Ed is confused about the nature of successful prosecutions. He thinks it suffices to put on a case by which they argue we "cannot say that it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for a lyophilized or Speed Vac to have been used."<br /><br />Ed Lake thinks Dr. Ivins's first counselor is a reliable witness. He is uninformed and has not read her 2009 book.<br /><br />Ed Lake thinks that Dr. Ivins' time was not occupied by working with the rabbits. He is unformed and has not mastered the documents --instead crediting the prosecutor's summary memo which shows the AUSA to have been unaware of the work or what it involved.<br /><br />Ed Lake is uninformed about the mass spec work done identifying the toner of the photocopier -- instead regularly confusing that issue with the issue of "track marks."<br /><br />Ed Lake is uninformed about the nature of handwriting analysis -- instead arguing that the letters were written by a First Grader.<br /><br />Ed Lake is uninformed about the issue of the mutations and hasn't even read the article by an undisputed expert on the subject, Dr. Leppla. <br /><br />Ed needs to inform himself about basic issues such as the instructions that a jury would be given in a prosecution. When the experts -- including government experts such as Patricia Worsham took the stand -- a jury would then assess the testimony of those experts, ignoring the internet postings by someone not at all qualified to address these issues. <br /><br />Photo analyst indeed.<br /><br />The way it would work, Ed, is if there is evidence to cite by qualified experts that the FBI relied upon -- see material submitted to the NAS -- then by all means cite it and discuss it. As someone not qualified on the subject, your opinion is not worth anything. You should be citing named experts and their presentation to the NAS. If such existed.<br /><br />Does it, Ed? The review by the NAS was a review of the science relied upon by the FBI.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-30034670202020157462012-03-07T10:34:08.251-08:002012-03-07T10:34:08.251-08:00Anonymous wrote: "Ed Lake thinks it is a DEDU...Anonymous wrote: <i>"Ed Lake thinks it is a DEDUCTION or CONCLUSION based upon the FACTS that a First Grader wrote the letters."</i><br /><br />Correct.<br /><br />And Anonymous thinks that opinions and beliefs override all deductions and conclusions based upon facts.<br /><br />He doesn't challenge the facts by finding factual errors or by presenting better and contradicting facts, he just believes what he wants to believe.<br /><br />End of story. <br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-29421804744828767752012-03-07T10:27:59.967-08:002012-03-07T10:27:59.967-08:00And Ed Lake thinks it is a DEDUCTION or CONCLUSION...And Ed Lake thinks it is a DEDUCTION or CONCLUSION based upon the FACTS that a First Grader wrote the letters.<br /><br />End of story.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-72622505185996696292012-03-07T10:26:51.345-08:002012-03-07T10:26:51.345-08:00Anonymous wrote: "But to simplify the issues,...Anonymous wrote: <i>"But to simplify the issues, we certainly can appreciate his conceding that a speed vac was not used (contrary to DOJ's suggestion)</i><br /><br />The DOJ made no such suggestion. You're creating straw man arguments. <br /><br />The <b>FACTS</b> say that Ivins was the anthrax mailer.<br /><br />People with <b>UNINFORMED OPINIONS</b> do not agree.<br /><br />You constantly cite people with <b>UNINFORMED OPINIONS</b> who disagree with the FBI's case against Bruce Ivins. <br /><br /><b>Who cares what people with UNINFORMED OPINIONS have to say?</b><br /><br />The FBI did NOT say that a lyophilizer or Speed Vac was used. They said that a lyophilizer or Speed Vac <b>COULD HAVE BEEN</b> used. Or to phrase it more accurately and in legal terms, they cannot say that it would have been <b>IMPOSSIBLE</b> for a lyophilizer or Speed Vac to have been used to create the attack powders. <br /><br />If any of your UNINFORMED "experts" can prove that it was IMPOSSIBLE to use either of those devices, they should present their case instead of just spouting ignorant opinions. <br /><br /><b>The FACTS say that the spores were <i>almost certainly</i> air dried</b>. However, anyone examining the FACTS cannot rule out the <b>REMOTE POSSIBILITY</b> that some other drying method was used.<br /><br />The "experts" you cite are IGNORANT of the facts. They <b>ridiculously and falsely <i>ASSUME</i></b> that if Ivins made the anthrax powders he would have used <b>standard lab procedures</b>.<br /><br />They <b>ridiculously and falsely <i>ASSUME</i></b> that if Ivins made the anthrax powders, he MUST have starting making the spores after 9/11. <br /><br />I've read hundreds of articles about the science used in the case, and I've read many books on the subject. You state that "<a href="http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/03/05/in-have-we-met-the-enemy-science-3-february-2012-vol-335-no-6068-pp-540-541-dr-david-relman-who-had-been-vice-chairman-of-the-nas-committee-explains/comment-page-1/#comment-16934" rel="nofollow">All this science stuff is over my head</a>." On that we can agree.<br /><br />You cite "experts" who have <b>OPINIONS</b> which agree with elements of your beliefs. <br /><br />I look at the facts. When "experts" disagree, I look very HARD at the facts to determine which expert is correct. It's usually very easy to do, since it's almost always one "expert" voicing his or her <b>uninformed OPINION</b> against another expert who has facts and states facts. <br /> <br />You don't need to go into a Suite B3 at USAMRIID to determine the difference between facts and opinions. Anyone can do that. You should try it sometime.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-49560989732927807472012-03-07T08:28:05.233-08:002012-03-07T08:28:05.233-08:00AUSA Rachel Lieber wrote in her Amerithrax Investi...AUSA Rachel Lieber wrote in her Amerithrax Investigative Summary:<br /><br />"This drying procedure would have required either the type of laboratory equipment, such as a lyophilizer or speed-vac system, that was present in each of the 15 labs, or considerable time and space to air-dry."<br /><br />Use of a lyophilizer has been thoroughly debunked -- Dr. Ivins was not working where the lyophilizer was located. It, in fact, was not in his B3 lab. (Dr. Kiel and others would point to damage caused by a lyophilizer which was not observed in the mailed anthrax; though the use of silica perhaps might have sufficed to avoid damage).<br /><br />Similarly, Ed Lake concedes that there is no indication a speed vac was used.<br /><br />As for Ed Lake's suggestion that air drying was done, “Knowing the layout of the BSL-3 suite, the implication that Bruce could have whipped out [anthrax mixture] in a couple of weeks without detection is ridiculous,” says Gerald P. Andrews, director of the bacteriology division and Ivins’ supervisor from 2000 to 2003.<br /><br />Dr. Serge Popov has made the same point.<br /><br />A leading FBI expert, Patricia Worsham, intimately familiar with the B3 at issue, has also made the same point in her sworn testimony.<br /><br />Thus, the prosecution's imagined case was still-born.<br /><br />Ed Lake has never been in any Biolevel 3, let alone the B3 in Building 1425 at USAMRIID. He has never worked with anthrax spores. He doesn't even read entire books and articles on the subject of Amerithrax.<br /><br />But to simplify the issues, we certainly can appreciate his conceding that a speed vac was not used (contrary to DOJ's suggestion).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-58275715795455770762012-03-07T07:09:56.407-08:002012-03-07T07:09:56.407-08:00Richard Rowley wrote: "So, it was the GOVERNM...Richard Rowley wrote: <i>"So, it was <b>the GOVERNMENT</b>, not Anonymous or yours truly who introduced this, and did it as part of a "revised filing" of last summer."</i><br /><br />And<br /><br /><i>"<b>The government</b> also retracted statements that suggested ..."</i><br /><br />And<br /><br />"<i>In its initial filing in the Stevens case, <b>the government</b> said..."</i><br /><br />And<br /><br /><i>"But in its revised declaration, <b>the government</b> said ..."</i><br /><br />And when I pointed out that "the government" is not a Borg Collective, Mr. Rowley wrote:<br /><br /><i>"I don't THINK the government is a "Borg collective" and NOTHING I have written on this blog (or ANY blog having to deal with Amerithrax)could be misconstrued to that effect."</i><br /><br />Whenever you talk about "the government" doing something in the Stevens lawsuit, you are talking like "the government" is a Borg Collective. <br /><br /><b>A Department of Justice lawyer from their civil division working on the Stevens lawsuit</b> wrote an incorrect sentence in a legal document. It was NOT some coordinated action by "the government" to do something improper. It was a "human error" committed by <b>an individual</b> in a different division not fully familiar with the Amerithrax case.<br /><br />Richard Rowley also wrote:<br /><br /><i>"in Amerithrax did so (erred) in a predictable direction: each one either was more prejudicial to Ivins, or made the case against him stronger-LOOKING. NO ERROR (that I'm aware of) made him look 'good' (ie less likely to have done the crime)."</i><br /><br />The error in the Stevens lawsuit document was such an error.<br /><br />In Amerithrax, the FBI and DOJ presented <b>their case against Ivins</b> in their summary report. If there are errors, you need to identify the errors and <b>PROVE THEY ARE ERRORS</b>, otherwise you are just talking nonsense. <br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-7598817920128065232012-03-07T06:42:49.798-08:002012-03-07T06:42:49.798-08:00Richard Rowley wrote: "it is SPECULATION that...Richard Rowley wrote: <i>"it is SPECULATION that he took a trip to Princeton. Pure speculation."</i><br /><br />NONSENSE. <b>It is a DEDUCTION or CONCLUSION based upon the facts.</b><br /><br />You seem totally incapable of understanding evidence. In the real world,<br /><br /> 1<br />+1<br />=2<br /><br />In your world, 1 does not equal 2, therefore no amount of 1's can equal 2. It's CRAZY.<br /><br />After looking at <b>ALL the evidence</b>, any reasonable person would CONCLUDE that Ivins drove to Princeton to mail the letters, even though no single piece of evidence is solid proof of that by itself.<br /><br />I'm really getting tired of explaining this BASIC LOGIC to you.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-63600778763111322892012-03-06T18:38:47.339-08:002012-03-06T18:38:47.339-08:00Partial post by Mister Lake:
-------------
Richard...Partial post by Mister Lake:<br />-------------<br />Richard Rowley wrote: But since both supervisors DON'T think that Ivins did it (didn't do the drying/purifying at work and didn't do the crime AT ALL) I hardly see how even the cleverest of prosecutors could obscure that point (THE major point in the whole case against Ivins)."<br /><br />Their opinions are largely irrelevant, since they are only opinions. They can only SPECULATE that Ivins didn't didn't do it. And, no judge is going to allow a witness onto the stand who can do nothing but speculate.<br />------------------------------------------------<br />So that same judge won't allow any witness:<br /><br />1) to speculate as to what Ivins was doing at his lab in the evenings from Aug to Oct 2001 (if so, you can kiss the government's whole case goodbye, because it is based on EXACTLY that speculation).<br /><br />2)to speculate on why the zip code 08852 was used on the return address.<br /><br />3)to speculate whether the proximity of the mailbox used to a KKG office might have any significance.<br /><br />4)to speculate that Ivins (twice!) took an undocumented car trip, once in Sept and once in Oct, down to Princeton (see point 1).<br /><br />Etc.<br /><br />We KNOW Ivins was in Frederick on Sept 17th and 18th (he worked at least part of both days and it is documented); it is SPECULATION that he took a trip to Princeton. Pure speculation. That's why the case against him is so weak: it is based on entirely on speculation. And potential.<br /><br />The supervisors wouldn't be speculating about Ivins' character (they knew him longer and more thoroughly than the investigators), the drying equipment available, the plausibility of ANYONE (ie not just Ivins ) to set up a surreptitious drying/purifying operation in the hotsuites without anyone noticing.r. rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-27307669694362955372012-03-06T18:22:40.167-08:002012-03-06T18:22:40.167-08:00If some government employee made a mistake, Mr. Ro...If some government employee made a mistake, Mr. Rowley evidently believes it wasn't really a mistake, it was part of some master plan.<br />-------------------------------------------------------------<br />The only "master plan" was to get the Task Force and the DoJ out from under Amerithrax. They succeeded, at least temporarily.<br />But history will be the final judge of what they did. It's unraveling already.r. rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-76258623961258140072012-03-06T18:18:41.686-08:002012-03-06T18:18:41.686-08:00Partial post by Mister Lake:
-----------
In Mr. Ro...Partial post by Mister Lake:<br />-----------<br />In Mr. Rowley's fantasy world, there are no such things as "human errors."<br />===================================================<br />Oh, not only do such human errors exist, they are part and parcel of why I finally turned against the death penalty. As I noted on this blog but in another thread recently.<br /><br />But as I noted a couple times already on other blogs: ALL the 'errors', overstatements, things that needed to be revised etc. in Amerithrax did so (erred) in a predictable direction: each one either was more prejudicial to Ivins, or made the case against him stronger-LOOKING. NO ERROR (that I'm aware of) made him look 'good' (ie less likely to have done the crime). Guess why? (the newsconference was a PR document, the Amerithrax Investigative Summary was a PR document, only the civil litigation-related stuff was dealing with the prospect of true <br />courtroom litigation and thus had to contend with accuracy, fair play, due process etc. Hence the revisions and retractions.)r. rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-80734063299483297852012-03-06T15:57:13.726-08:002012-03-06T15:57:13.726-08:00Richard Rowley wrote: "Furthermore (and I TOT...Richard Rowley wrote: "Furthermore (and I TOTALLY missed this on the first go-round)"<br /><br />You're still TOTALLY missing the fact that "the government" is NOT a Borg collective where everyone knows what everyone else knows, where everyone thinks alike, and where everything is done as if done by a single entity.<br />=========================================================<br />I don't THINK the government is a "Borg collective" and NOTHING I have written on this blog (or ANY blog having to deal with Amerithrax)could be misconstrued to that effect. And Mister Lake cites nothing that I ever wrote that could POSSIBLY be (mis)interpreted that way. And recently when he (Mister Lake) ascribed some grand (government) conspiracy theory to me, I demurred and ascribed their blundering to "governmental inertia and groupthink". For once he got it right in his comment section and quoted me to that effect. But I see from the above post that he is back on his old hobby-horse.<br /><br />As to this:<br />--------<br />In the real world, some lawyers in the Department of Justice's civil division didn't understand the details of the criminal division's case against Bruce Ivins and wrote a couple erroneous sentences in a court document.<br />-------------------------------------------------------------<br />I have NO IDEA what "error" Mister Lake is talking about. Is it:<br /><br />1)the citing of the lyophilizer in the first place? (since your average lawyer isn't going to know what a lyophilizer is, I hardly think the lawyers are to blame for that! They merely captured in prose what the Task Force claimed) But that was done TWICE, a year and a half apart: at the Aug 6th 2008 press conference, and then in February 2010 in the Amerithrax Investigative Summary (which according to Mister Lake was written not by Jeff Taylor but by Rachel Lieber, both of whom I take to be in the criminal division). That "error"-----if that's what Mister Lake is referring to-----was in place for yet ANOTHER year and a half. Until, that is, the government lawyers (I assume civil division) realized that the lyophilizer was untenable. THEN they changed it. Is THIS the error(2) Mister Lake is talking about?!? But if the lyophilizer IS untenable, then it wasn't an error.<br /><br />Mister Lake TOTALLY ignores the brunt of my prior post which is that FAR from the speed vac being something invented (ie dragged into the case) by Anonymous or me, it was what the government lawyers (again probably civil division) added as a possibility (ie a fall-back position behind the lyophilizer) in July of last year. And he ignores the fact that NONE of the lawyers (Criminal division: Jeff Taylor at the Aug 6th 2008 newsconference, Rachel Lieber in the Amerithrax Investigative Summary; civil division: in the "revisions" cites any "air drying". It appears to be another one of Mister Lake's ideas that he then ASCRIBES to the government's case against Ivins.r. rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-24633696085708372472012-03-06T13:43:13.878-08:002012-03-06T13:43:13.878-08:00Richard Rowley wrote: "Furthermore (and I TOT...Richard Rowley wrote: <i>"Furthermore (and I TOTALLY missed this on the first go-round)"</i><br /><br />You're still TOTALLY missing the fact that "the government" is <b>NOT</b> a Borg collective where everyone knows what everyone else knows, where everyone thinks alike, and where everything is done as if done by a single entity.<br /><br />In the real world, some lawyers in the Department of Justice's <b>civil</b> division didn't understand the details of the <b>criminal</b> division's case against Bruce Ivins and wrote a couple erroneous sentences in a court document.<br /><br />In Mr. Rowley's fantasy world, there are no such things as "human errors." If some government employee made a mistake, Mr. Rowley evidently believes it wasn't really a mistake, <b>it was part of some master plan</b>. <br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-66644653497673117352012-03-06T12:58:10.822-08:002012-03-06T12:58:10.822-08:00Since Mister Lake has left the reader of this thre...Since Mister Lake has left the reader of this thread with the impression that 'Truthers' introduced the idea of Ivins using a speed vac(uum) as a "strawman argument" (see above), I hunted it down: (from last July)<br />http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/07/29/v-print/118790/judge-allows-feds-to-revise-filing.html<br />(partial: 4th paragraph in its entirety):<br />---------------------------------------------------------------<br />The revised filing said that Ivins had access to a refrigerator-sized machine known as a lyophilizer, which can be used to dry solutions such as anthrax, at the facility in a less secure lab. In addition, it said that Ivins also had a smaller "speed-vac" that could be used for drying substances in his containment lab.<br />----------------------------------------------------------------<br />(No mention of "air drying" in revision).<br />So, it was the GOVERNMENT, not Anonymous or yours truly who introduced this, and did it as part of a "revised filing" of last summer. And they did that because their original claim, that the lyophilizer was used, was untenable. Hence, it's no 'strawman argument' to say the Government was citing the speed vac.<br /><br />Furthermore (and I TOTALLY missed this on the first go-round) (Paragraphs 8, 9, and 10 in their entirety):<br />--------------------------------------------------------------<br />The government also retracted statements that suggested that live anthrax spores from a flask in Ivins' lab had been distributed more widely than the FBI had asserted in making its case against Ivins.<br /><br />In its initial filing in the Stevens case, the government said that the spores were shipped to several private laboratories, including "at least" the Battelle Memorial Institute in West Jefferson, Ohio; Covance in Princeton, N.J., and BioPort in Lansing, Mich.<br /><br />But in its revised declaration, the government said that Battelle was the only lab known to have been sent live spores.<br />================================================================r. rowleynoreply@blogger.com