tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post5074722162202755968..comments2023-05-06T02:39:25.916-07:00Comments on Debating the Anthrax Attacks of 2001: Aug. 26 - Sept.. 1, 2012 DiscussionsEd Lakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comBlogger101125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-50987223840211263982012-09-06T06:52:08.948-07:002012-09-06T06:52:08.948-07:00I think there are two quotes really worth remember...I think there are two quotes really worth remembering in this thread:<br /><br />1. "<b>Proof of motive is not required in a criminal prosecution. In determining the guilt of a criminal defendant, courts are generally not concerned with why the defendant committed the alleged crime, but whether the defendant committed the crime.</b>"<br /><br />2. "<b>Motive, in itself, is not an element of any given crime; however, the legal system typically allows motive to be proven in order to make plausible the accused's reasons for committing a crime, at least when those motives may be obscure or hard to identify with.</b>"<br /><br />Murder trials are not about <b>WHY</b> the defendant killed someone else, they're about <b>WHETHER</b> the defendant did the killing. <br /><br />The only reason motive is brought up in the trial is to help the jury understand WHY the defendant COULD have committed such a terrible and unthinkable crime.<br /><br />This is done by presenting evidence showing motive. In Dr. Ivins' case, that evidence would have been testimony and emails showing that Ivins was upset that his first vaccine was being severely criticized and that his new vaccine wasn't getting the support it needed to be perfected. There would also have been testimony and evidence showing that he needed some event to turn his life around and to bring back the women he was obsessed with. And there would have been testimony and emails showing that Ivins was mentally ill, and as a result, his obsessions were driving his thinking and causing him to make decisions that eventually led to the death of five people and injury to 17 others.<br /><br />There would have been absolutely NO problem whatsoever in showing that Ivins had ample motive to send the anthrax letters.<br /><br />Ed Ed Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-42148571391071027122012-09-05T13:16:46.787-07:002012-09-05T13:16:46.787-07:00Richard Rowley wrote: "This document indicate...Richard Rowley wrote: "<i>This document indicates that the investigators/prosecutors (ie the people behind the FINAL REPORT) had a basis for knowing, quite independent of what Ivins said in 2007-8, why he was working extra hours in Sept/Oct 2001. But they wrote their 'narrative' as if they didn't have that knowledge.</i>"<br /><br />EXPLAIN! That's just your mumbo jumbo <b>beliefs and interpretations</b>. It's a complaint that the DOJ didn't do things the way you <b>FEEL</b> they should have been done to suit YOUR standards.<br /><br />Ivins had <b>NO VERIFIABLE explanation</b> for why he was working all those extra hours at night. He <b>claimed</b> that he'd just go in to lay around or putter around in order to get away from his wife and his home life. <br /><br />Richard Rowley also wrote regarding motive: "<i>Another Task Force/DoJ assertion unsupported by what we know.</i>"<br /><br />You're spouting total nonsense. You're arguing that because YOU do not fully understand Ivins' motives, he HAD no motives. That's your problem. <br /><br />The Summary report says on page 39:<br /><br /><b>1. Dr. Ivins’s life’s work appeared destined for failure, absent an unexpected event.</b><br /><br />Ivins needed to do something to get the anthrax vaccine program back on track. The letters did exactly that.<br /><br />On page 40, the Summary report says: <br /><br /><b>2. Dr. Ivins was being subjected to increasing public criticism for his work.</b><br /><br />Ivins needed to do something to get more funding for the NEW vaccine because the old vaccine was being criticized by people in the media and politicians.<br /><br />On page 41, the Summary Report says: <br /><br /><b>3. Dr. Ivins was feeling abandoned in his personal life.</b><br /><br />And on page 47 the Summary Report says,<br /><br /><b>2. Dr. Ivins’s own statements to investigators showed a man driven by obsessions.</b><br /><br />Ivins was mentally ill and driven by obsessions. The facts indicate that he hoped to get Nancy Haigwood to come to work for him if there was some reason for the anthrax vaccine program to get a higher priority. The facts indicate he was also hoping that Mara Linscott might come to work for him again, to help the country out of a crisis - <b>the crisis he created</b>. <br /><br />Ivins had CLEAR MOTIVES. Some relate to his obsessions, which were part of his mental problems. Those motives may not be the same motives OJ Simpson had or some other killer had, but <b>they were Ivins' motives</b>, and any juror would see that, even if you cannot.<br /><br />Ed Ed Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-51139073897516760532012-09-05T12:39:43.617-07:002012-09-05T12:39:43.617-07:00Posted by Mister Lake:
---------------------------...Posted by Mister Lake:<br />----------------------------<br />The prosecutor would explain that Ivins had a money motive, he had a motive related to his career and life's work, and he had a motive related to his mental problems. That establishes motive. It's PROOF that Ivins had a motive.<br />----------------------------------------------<br />Money motives are generally established by providing financial records (not in the FINAL REPORT), eliciting testimony from creditors/business partners (ditto) and/or providing statements by the defendant that he had financial concerns(ditto) etc. There's nothing of the sort in the FINAL REPORT. (Take a look at pages 38-41) <br /><br />"Motive related to his mental problems" is just a meaningless construction, a way of saying 'we think he did it cause he's nuts, but we have no idea in what way!'. That's PRECISELY why mere assertion doesn't work in a trial: for motive or for the other elements in a case. If trials allowed THAT as proved motive, law enforcement would devolve into an organized persecution (a persecution for the purpose of prosecution) of the mentally ill.<br /><br />Back to the statement "he had a motive related to his career and life's work". As already noted, Ivins received an evaluation of 'outstanding' for his work at USAMRIID, and he received it on September 11th, 2001 (ie one week BEFORE the first mailing). He was about 2 years away from receiving the highest award given to civilian employees at USAMRIID. His career was going great guns.<br />Another Task Force/DoJ assertion unsupported by what we know.<br />r rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-87788889773542305392012-09-05T12:06:10.526-07:002012-09-05T12:06:10.526-07:00You suggest this "was lost or buried by the T...You suggest this "was lost or buried by the Task Force/DoJ," but you are just once again twisting facts to make them seem like they say something they don't.<br />===========================================================<br />Okay, Ivins died on July 29th, 2008. It's a little over 4 years later. This document indicates that the investigators/prosecutors (ie the people behind the FINAL REPORT) had a basis for knowing, quite independent of what Ivins said in 2007-8, why he was working extra hours in Sept/Oct 2001. But they wrote their 'narrative' as if they didn't have that knowledge. As if Ivins' presence was unexplained/virtually inexplicable WITHOUT Ivins doing the Amerithrax crimes. Understandable if your ONLY PURPOSE in writing the REPORT is to blame the crimes of Amerithrax on Doctor Ivins, all but inexplicable if you really want to be honest about why he was working the extra hours.<br />Nor do I assume that's the only paperwork that was suppressed to try to make it look like the Task Force solved the case. <br />r rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-92131417720625153082012-09-05T07:28:06.931-07:002012-09-05T07:28:06.931-07:00Generally speaking, Bruce Ivins' work WAS abov...Generally speaking, Bruce Ivins' <b>work</b> WAS above average. It was his lack of concern for following established procedures, his awkwardness, his personality and his mental peculiarities that made him sometimes VERY difficult to work with. That's almost certainly why he was demoted to work for Pat Worsham.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-11355362911927382202012-09-05T07:22:34.096-07:002012-09-05T07:22:34.096-07:00Richard Rowley wrote: "when a prosecutor ESTA...Richard Rowley wrote: "<i>when a prosecutor ESTABLISHES motive, how is that typically done?</i>"<br /><br />Why would you believe what some acquaintance of mine says, while you refuse to believe what dictionaries and law books say?<br /><br />This subject had been explained to you numerous times.<br /><br />When a prosecutor ESTABLISHES motive, it is typically done by presenting <b>evidence</b> to show motive. In the Ivins case that evidence would be testimony that Ivins was angry at Leahy and Daschle, testimony that Ivins was upset about the fact that his vaccine work was going down the drain, etc., etc. <b>That ESTABLISHES motive.</b> <br /><br />Ricard Rowley also wrote: "<i>That's not "my" standard, that's the typical legal standard. It's a very simple principle: don't merely assert something, show/demonstrate/establish/prove it.</i>"<br /><br />But, all you do is spin what the was done in the OJ case as if that means something. It doesn't. <br /><br /><b>The motive in the OJ case may be more easy for you to understand than the motives in Ivins' case, but being easier for you to understand doesn't make it more valid or legal.</b> <br /><br />All that is needed to "establish motive" in court is to provide a <b>plausible</b> reason for why the defendant committed the crime. <br /><br />The DOJ provided numerous plausible reasons why Ivins sent the anthrax letters. The fact that you have other beliefs about how motive is "established" doesn't mean that your beliefs are valid. They're NOT valid.<br /><br /><b>"A motive, in law, especially criminal law, is the cause that moves people to induce a certain action. Motive, in itself, is not an element of any given crime; however, the legal system typically allows motive to be proven in order to make plausible the accused's reasons for committing a crime, at least when those motives may be obscure or hard to identify with.<br /><br />"Motive" describes the reasons in the accused's background and station in life that are supposed to have induced the crime.<br /><br />Motive is particularly important in prosecutions for homicide. First, murder is so drastic a crime that most people recoil from the thought of being able to do it; proof of motive explains why the accused did so desperate an act.</b>" <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motive_%28law%29#cite_note-Garner-0" rel="nofollow">SOURCE</a><br /><br />To establish motive in court, all the prosecution has to do is provide plausible reasons why the defendant committed the crime.<br /><br />You are obviously once again stuck on words. You think that the word "proof" means something that it doesn't. "Proof" to you seems to mean indisputable evidence which cannot be denied. That's not what it means at all. "Proof" is just evidence which will convince a judge or jury of something.<br /><br />The jury would want to know <b>why</b> Ivins committed those horrible murders.<br /><br />The prosecutor would explain that Ivins had a money motive, he had a motive related to his career and life's work, and he had a motive related to his mental problems. <b>That establishes motive.</b> It's PROOF that Ivins had a motive.<br /><br />OJ Simpson's motives may have been more clear, but Ivins' motives were just as valid for establishing in court that he had a reason to do what he did. <br /><br />So, I ask you once again:<br /><br /><b>HOW DO YOU PROVE MOTIVE ACCORDING TO YOUR STANDARDS?<br /><br />EXPLAIN.</b> Don't cite articles or cases that say the opposite of what you claim.<br /><br />Ed<br /> Ed Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-6272306231297008822012-09-05T06:37:57.440-07:002012-09-05T06:37:57.440-07:00Richard Rowley wrote: "Evidently one week bef...Richard Rowley wrote: "<i>Evidently one week before the Amerithrax mailing, Ivins received paperwork notifying him that his work was rated 'exceptional'</i>"<br /><br />Yes, but the document also says that, in the U.S. military's way of doing things, "exceptional" is a grade of <b>B</b> and a numerical ranking of <b>84%</b>. An A ranking is 85% to 100%. So, a B apparently just means "above average."<br /><br />You suggest this "was lost or buried by the Task Force/DoJ," but you are just once again twisting facts to make them seem like they say something they don't.<br /><br />Ed Ed Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-66595051619943803162012-09-04T17:21:31.399-07:002012-09-04T17:21:31.399-07:00Richard Rowley wrote: "Mister Lake, do you kn...Richard Rowley wrote: "Mister Lake, do you know any lawyers?"<br /><br />I've exchanged numerous emails and talked on the phone with Tom Connolly, Steven Hatfill's lawyer. Does that count? Years ago, a prisoner in a Michigan state prison tried to sue me for ten million dollars because I wouldn't argue on my web site in favor of some cause of his. I consulted a lawyer about the lawsuit papers the prisoner sent me. Does that count? I've also dealt with lawyers on tax matters and property sales. Does that count?<br />==============================================================<br />I meant: socially, so as to ask him a 'teeny-weeny question' gratis about motive and how it is established. I think this is one of those deals where you wouldn't believe me or anyone else who posts here because of my place in your Lakeian taxonomy: True Believer (or whatever). Ask an outsider: someone not into Amerithrax. And just ask them something along the lines of:<br />when a prosecutor ESTABLISHES motive, how is that typically done?<br />r rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-91683427591716267032012-09-04T17:02:09.194-07:002012-09-04T17:02:09.194-07:00Evidently one week before the Amerithrax mailing, ...Evidently one week before the Amerithrax mailing, Ivins received paperwork notifying him that his work was rated 'exceptional':<br />http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/09/04/on-september-11-2001-dr-ivins-was-notified-that-his-performance-was-assessed-as-exceptional/<br />----------------------------------------------------------<br />That's a good example of (here motive-related) material that was lost or buried by the Task Force/DoJ. And we know why. r rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-25693211709141918552012-09-04T16:49:34.806-07:002012-09-04T16:49:34.806-07:00Nothing shows how hopelessly lost Mister Lake is i...Nothing shows how hopelessly lost Mister Lake is in this motive businesss better than the above sentences, written by him today (ie after DAYS of having a chance to bethink himself:<br />--------------------------------<br />Richard Rowley also wrote: "Motive is like that: any person can ASSERT that another person had motive X. That does not establish motive."<br /><br />YES, IT DOES!!!!! <br />========================================================<br />You are equating:<br /><br />assertion of motive=establishment of motive.<br /><br />They are not equivalents. Any lawyer, any logician will tell you that.<br />==========================================================<br />I gave an example of proving motive from the OJ Simpson murder trial (the 911 call, the other domestic abuse incidents, one of which caused Simpson's arrest ALL directed against the primary murder victim, his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson). Therefore there was more (FAR MORE!) than an assertion of motive in the OJ Simpson murder case, there was proof of multiple prior jealous rages directed at the (primary) murder victim.<br /><br />There are no analogues to this evidence in the Bruce Ivins/Amerithrax instance. Nothing beyond bald assertion.<br /><br />That's not "my" standard, that's the typical legal standard. It's a very simple principle: don't merely assert something, show/demonstrate/establish/prove it.<br />------------------------------------------------------<br />Naturally, nowhere in Mister Lake's subsequent three (3) posts does he address the Simpson Case and HOW motive was (quasi?)* established. <br /><br />*I write 'quasi'-established here because Simpson was acquitted and in the post-trial swirl one or more jurors said they thought the domestic abuse evidence/testimony had NOTHING (!!!) to do with whether Simpson killed his ex-wife (and Goldman). Go figure!<br />I picked the Simpson trial because just about everyone over a certain age is familiar with it, and the proof of motive (jealousy/possessiveness/anger) is established to MOST people's satisfaction.r rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-27684346935304322252012-09-04T09:49:37.504-07:002012-09-04T09:49:37.504-07:00Richard Rowley,
HOW DO YOU PROVE MOTIVE ACCORDING...Richard Rowley,<br /><br /><b>HOW DO YOU <i>PROVE MOTIVE</i> ACCORDING TO YOUR STANDARDS?</b><br /><br />Explain. Don't cite things or cases that say the opposite of what you claim.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-52896502735513540162012-09-04T09:46:39.542-07:002012-09-04T09:46:39.542-07:00Richard Rowley wrote:" 1) Nowhere on this thr...Richard Rowley wrote:"<i> 1) Nowhere on this thread (or on any thread here or in any venue)did I say that you need proof of motive* FOR CONVICTION.</i>"<br /><br />And nowhere in this thread did I say anything about needing "proof of motive FOR CONVICTION." <br /><br />You are just creating another false argument so that you can shoot it down.<br /><br />The statement from the legal dictionary that includes the word "conviction" says: <b>"Proof of motive, without more evidence tying a defendant to the alleged crime, is insufficient to support a conviction.</b>"<br /><br />All that is saying is that, if you can prove or establish motive, that's not enough by itself to convict someone. I don't think anyone in their right might would say it was. <br /><br />Motive is just ANOTHER ITEM OF EVIDENCE. <b>By itself</b>, it proves nothing.<br /><br />You <b>seem</b> to argue that evidence isn't evidence unless <b>by itself</b> it proves guilt. But, you'll just argue that you never phrased it that way. Right, you never phrased it that way. <b>You avoid being clear about anything you say.</b> <br /><br />You wrote: "<i>All you've done there is ASSERT motives. In a courtroom venue you have to PROVE motives.</i>"<br /><br />And <b>how do you prove motives according to your standards?</b> You never explain anything. You seem to suggest that the motives <b>asserted</b> by the prosecution in the OJ case were <b>proved</b>, but HOW was it proved? All they did there is what they would have done in the Ivins case: They would have asserted or established or proved Ivins had motive <b>by presenting evidence showing he had motive</b>. <br /><br />Cite the law supporting your beliefs. When I cite the law, you just <b>claim</b> it isn't a good citation. When you "cite" the law, your "authority" says the opposite of what you claim.<br /><br />We're never going to get anywhere that way.<br /><br />Ed Ed Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-77796627420899568152012-09-04T08:44:52.555-07:002012-09-04T08:44:52.555-07:00Sorry for the delay in responding. I was writing ...Sorry for the delay in responding. I was writing a long comment for my web site about the latest theory from another Anthrax Truther and who he thinks did it.<br /><br />Richard Rowley wrote: "<i>Mister Lake, do you know any lawyers?</i>"<br /><br />I've exchanged numerous emails and talked on the phone with Tom Connolly, Steven Hatfill's lawyer. Does that count? Years ago, a prisoner in a Michigan state prison tried to sue me for ten million dollars because I wouldn't argue on my web site in favor of some cause of his. I consulted a lawyer about the lawsuit papers the prisoner sent me. Does that count? I've also dealt with lawyers on tax matters and property sales. Does that count?<br /><br />Richard Rowley also wrote: "<i>Motive is like that: any person can ASSERT that another person had motive X. That does not establish motive.</i>"<br /><br /><b>YES, IT DOES!!!!!</b> <br /><br />The law is very clear. All the prosecution needs to do to "establish motive" is to present <b>evidence</b> like emails from Ivins that he was upset because his vaccine program might be shut down, and/or cashed checks from Ivins that he made money from prior patents, and/or emails from Ivins that he was angry with comments from Daschle and Leahy. <b>That establishes motive <i>according to the law</i>.</b><br /><br />It may not "establish motive" according to your standards, but all you can cite is a case where you feel someone established motive and the guy got off anyway. What does that prove?<br /><br />Ed <br /><br /> Ed Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-70674736685859550622012-09-04T07:36:11.647-07:002012-09-04T07:36:11.647-07:00Mister Lake, do you know any lawyers? Normally, I ...Mister Lake, do you know any lawyers? Normally, I don't ask people personal questions on the Internet. Your greatest deficiency here is: you think you know a lot about the law (it's no better than your Spanish) but you don't.<br />=====================================================<br />As to the latest iteration of your VERSION of our disagreement:<br />No, you still don't understand after all my posts what I've been saying consistently but with slightly different wordings from post to post. I'll try ONE LAST TIME and then give it a rest:<br /><br />1) Nowhere on this thread (or on any thread here or in any venue)did I say that you need proof of motive* FOR CONVICTION.<br />(But for some reason, Mister Lake mentally inserts the words/idea "for conviction" every time he reads a post of mine dealing with the question of motive).<br /><br />2) What I have consistently said is that motive follows the same contours as the rest of the elements in a case: if you assert that the perpetrator was in NJ to mail an anthrax letter, you really need some proof that the guy was in NJ in the pertinent timeframe (and rather more than that (ie a closer proximity to the mailbox)if the perp lives in NJ to begin with!). You (the prosecutor) need to establish/prove what you are asserting.<br /><br />If you say the perp used a lyophilizer in preparing the powder(s) you have to establish that he had access to such a device, it was in working order(complete with hood!), that this too was in the right timeframe. And that where it was/ended up was compatible with its use for anthrax (ie hot suites).<br /><br />Motive is like that: any person can ASSERT that another person had motive X. That does not establish motive. How do you establish motive? Not by mindreading, but by referring to prior actions/prior statements of same: in the OJ Simpson murder trial<br />there was played a 911 call by Nicole Brown-Simpson that was in the middle of a domestic dispute, and I think there was other testimony about prior domestic disputes with Simpson smashing a car window and other inanimate objects. Those things didn't prove he KILLED anyone, but they did tend to prove motive of explosive jealousy, anger etc.(directed moreover at the very primary murder victim). If that (the domestic abuse evidence) wasn't necessary then ANY prosecutor could claim that ANY husband on trial for murder did it from jealousy, anger etc. and these things really need to be proved; otherwise we are convicting people for belonging to generic groups (ie husbands).<br /><br /><br /><br />*when I wrote "you need proof of motive" it meant "to establish, rather than merely assert motive", it did NOT mean 'to obtain a conviction'. For a number of reasons including the fact that for some crimes the motive remains unknown even AFTER conviction.<br />-------------------------------------------------<br />And that's it for me on this motive thing.r rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-45822631982459425752012-09-03T12:43:22.699-07:002012-09-03T12:43:22.699-07:00Richard Rowley,
Here's a little story that mi...Richard Rowley,<br /><br />Here's a little story that might help you understand how the law and courts work:<br /><br />Many years ago, I thought I might have to testify in a trial, so I went to a hearing in the case just to watch the proceedings. <br /><br />Before they hearing, they held traffic court. I found it <b><i>absolutely fascinating</i></b>.<br /><br />One after another, the ticketed drivers would stand up before the judge and plead their case, like so: <br /><br />"I had to speed up to pass someone driving slow ahead of me."<br />"I had to get to a meeting, so I was driving a little fast."<br />"I had to speed up to make the traffic light a block ahead."<br />"I had to get home before my son got out of school."<br />Etc., etc., etc.<br /><br />Sometimes the judge didn't even let them finish before he rapped his gavel, pronounced them guilty and ordered them to pay the fine.<br /><br /><b>NONE</b> of the drivers seemed to realize that the judge didn't care about <b>WHY</b> they broke the law. The judge only cared <b>IF</b> they broke the law.<br /><br />And, <b>NONE</b> of drivers seemed to realize that when they tried to explain <b>WHY they broke the law</b>, they were <b>CONFESSING TO BREAKING THE LAW.</b> And that was all the judge was interested in. As soon as they had confessed, he pronounced them guilty. <br /><br />Afterward, <b>NONE of the drivers seemed to understand why the judged didn't care about WHY they broke the law.</b> <br /><br />About the only reason you can have for breaking the law in such a a case is if it's a life-and-death situation. And, none of the drivers had such an excuse.<br /><br />The only guy I saw get pronounced "not guilty" claimed that there was another car just like his that was speeding, and the cop got the wrong car. The cop wasn't in the courtroom to argue against the driver, so the judge gave the driver the benefit of the doubt. <br /> <br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-77159045666403747012012-09-03T07:08:43.450-07:002012-09-03T07:08:43.450-07:00Richard Rowley wrote: "No comprendes."
...Richard Rowley wrote: "<i>No comprendes.</i>"<br /><br />Click <a href="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/motive" rel="nofollow">HERE</a> to go to a Legal Dictionary which explains:<br /><br /><i><b>MOTIVE</b>: An idea, belief, or emotion that impels a person to act in accordance with that state of mind.<br /><br />Motive is usually used in connection with Criminal Law to explain why a person acted or refused to act in a certain way—for example, to support the prosecution's assertion that the accused committed the crime. <b>If a person accused of murder was the beneficiary of a life insurance policy on the deceased, the prosecution might argue that greed was the motive for the killing.</b><br /><br /><b>Proof of motive is not required in a criminal prosecution. In determining the guilt of a criminal defendant, courts are generally not concerned with why the defendant committed the alleged crime, but whether the defendant committed the crime.</b> However, a defendant's motive is important in other stages of a criminal case, such as police investigation and sentencing. Law enforcement personnel often consider potential motives in detecting perpetrators. Judges may consider the motives of a convicted defendant at sentencing and either increase a sentence based on avaricious motives or decrease the sentence if the defendant's motives were honorable—for example, if the accused acted in defense of a family member.<br /><br />In criminal law, motive is distinct from intent. Criminal intent refers to the mental state of mind possessed by a defendant in committing a crime. With few exceptions the prosecution in a criminal case must prove that the defendant intended to commit the illegal act. <b>The prosecution need not prove the defendant's motive.</b> Nevertheless, prosecutors and defense attorneys alike may make an issue of motive in connection with the case.<br /><br />For example, if a defendant denies commission of the crime, he may produce evidence showing that he had no motive to commit the crime and argue that the lack of motive supports the proposition that he did not commit the crime. By the same token, the prosecution may produce evidence that the defendant did have the motive to commit the crime and argue that the motive supports the proposition that the defendant committed the crime. Proof of motive, without more evidence tying a defendant to the alleged crime, is insufficient to support a conviction.</i><br /><br />¿Lo entiendes ahora?<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-88961800948344957422012-09-02T14:03:08.113-07:002012-09-02T14:03:08.113-07:00Question posed by Mister Lake:
--------------
Comp...Question posed by Mister Lake:<br />--------------<br />Comprendo?<br />-------------------------<br />No comprendes. But it's no skin off my nose.r rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-71832629214939277532012-09-02T14:01:02.388-07:002012-09-02T14:01:02.388-07:00For those still interested on the subject matter t...For those still interested on the subject matter that began this<br />thread (the EBAP and Dr Saathoff), I recommend previous threads here: http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2012/03/mar-25-mar-31-2012-discussions.html<br />and:<br />http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2012/03/mar-18-mar-24-2012-discussions.htmlr rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-35548457439475872242012-09-02T12:49:00.544-07:002012-09-02T12:49:00.544-07:00Richard Rowley wrote: "Mister Lake: do you th...Richard Rowley wrote: "<i>Mister Lake: do you think that the Task Force ESTABLISHED motive on the part of Doctor Ivins to commit the Amerithrax crimes?</i>"<br /><br />Yes, of course I think they "established" motive. <b>They established MULTIPLE motives.</b> I listed some of them along with the evidence that "established" the motives in my previous post which you can read by clicking <a href="http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2012/08/aug-26-sept-1-2012-discussions.html?showComment=1346521975603#c5793176352029427935" rel="nofollow">HERE</a>.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-74341034136323130032012-09-02T12:39:58.148-07:002012-09-02T12:39:58.148-07:00Let me ask you a pointed yes-or-no question, Miste...Let me ask you a pointed yes-or-no question, Mister Lake: do you think that the Task Force ESTABLISHED motive on the part of Doctor Ivins to commit the Amerithrax crimes?r . rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-47238385825274850372012-09-02T12:04:57.099-07:002012-09-02T12:04:57.099-07:00Richard Rowley wrote: "I discussed the conten...Richard Rowley wrote: "<i>I discussed the contents vis-a-vis the admissibility of prior bad acts and the likely impact of same in a notional trial </i>"<br /><br />And the subject I was talking about was your absurd notion that the prosecution must furnish PROOF OF MOTIVE.<br /><br />So, your previous comment about "prior bad acts" had nothing to do with "proof of motive."<br /><br /><b>You need to try to keep track of what the current discussion is about.</b> And, when you argue a point, don't assume that I will remember some different argument from long ago and make some wild connection. I'm busy finishing up on my book, so discussions here are not foremost on my mind.<br /><br />Ed Ed Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-35925566202447638542012-09-02T11:58:41.704-07:002012-09-02T11:58:41.704-07:00Richard Rowley wrote: "You have the distincti...Richard Rowley wrote: "You have the distinction of being the ONLY person on this thread to not have referred to those Rules."<br /><br />If there's something in the Federal "Rules of Evidence" that says something other than what I cited, why don't you quote it?! Why just post a link?<br />-------------------------------------------------------<br />Just above that link is this sentence:<br />I did it[meaning referred/linked to the Rules] subsequently in my post of August 28, 2012 3:52 PM. <br />------------------------------------<br />If you had gone to that post, you would have seen that I both linked the site and 'copy and pasted' material there from the Rules of Evidence, specifically rule 404b. And under the copy and paste, I discussed the contents vis-a-vis the admissibility of prior bad acts and the likely impact of same in a notional trial (here of Ivins).r . rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-41390233317184179352012-09-01T14:07:10.877-07:002012-09-01T14:07:10.877-07:00Richard Rowley,
Your problem may be that, like no...Richard Rowley,<br /><br />Your problem may be that, like not understanding the facts about motive, you may also not understand the difference between "evidence" and "proof."<br /><br /><b>EVIDENCE</b> is something that is presented to support the claim that is being put before the court, i.e., the claim that Ivins was the anthrax mailer. So, time sheets would be evidence, testimony would be evidence, emails would be evidence, etc.<br /><br /><b>PROOF</b> is "what the trier of fact (a jury or a judge without a jury) needs to become satisfied" that "the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." <br /><br />So, EVIDENCE are things you can see and hear; PROOF is whatever turns the switch on inside your head to convince you that the case against the defendant is solid. It could be a single "smoking gun" or it could be the 77th item of evidence in a stack of 100 items of evidence. It's whatever convinces the jury or judge that the evidence is sufficient to prove guilt.<br /><br />Comprendo?<br /><br />Ed Ed Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-47973677074919498052012-09-01T13:28:58.136-07:002012-09-01T13:28:58.136-07:00Richard Rowley wrote: "I never claimed you ha...Richard Rowley wrote: "<i>I never claimed you have to INTRODUCE motive, I merely said that it (motive) follows the same general contours as the other elements of the prosecution's case: you cannot merely assert, you have to back it up.</i>"<br /><br />And I said that is <b>NONSENSE</b>.<br /><br />It would have been a big part of the case against Ivins to show he had MULTIPLE motives for committing the crime. And, I've already cited the kind of <b>evidence</b> that would be used to <b>show he had motive.</b> <br /><br />But <b>there is no requirement to PROVE <i>which</i> motive drove Ivins</b>. It isn't even necessary to show documents such as emails, or testimony from co-workers, which <b>INDICATE</b> he had a <b>POSSIBLE</b> motive to commit the crime. But, since the evidence is there, it would undoubtedly be used.<br /><br />Ed Ed Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-70830663110018265202012-09-01T13:21:32.729-07:002012-09-01T13:21:32.729-07:00Richard Rowley wrote: "You have the distincti...Richard Rowley wrote: "<i>You have the distinction of being the ONLY person on this thread to not have referred to those Rules.</i>"<br /><br />If there's something in the Federal "Rules of Evidence" that says something other than what I cited, <b><i>why don't you quote it?!</i></b> Why just post a link?<br /><br />Note that doing a search at that link for the word "motive" finds <b></b>.<br /><br />When you look at Rule 404, however, it says: <br /><br /><b>(a) Character evidence: <br /><br />(b) Crimes, Wrongs, or Other Acts.<br /><br />(2) Permitted Uses; Notice in a Criminal Case. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.</b><br /><br />So, it says that if the defendant's <b>character</b> indicates he is evil, <b>his character can be used to prove motive</b>. That would certainly include someone who repeatedly talked about poisoning people.<br /><br />Further down it indicates that <b>OPPORTUNITY</b> can also be used to prove motive. And we KNOW Ivins had the opportunity. He had NO alibi.<br /><br /><b>You are sending up a smoke screen instead of arguing facts.</b><br /><br />Have you <b><i>nothing</i></b> to support your beliefs other than a link that you cannot show has anything to support your beliefs?<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.com