tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post919396738231975487..comments2023-05-06T02:39:25.916-07:00Comments on Debating the Anthrax Attacks of 2001: Subject: Evidence vs OpinionsEd Lakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comBlogger111125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-37966031139862214362015-01-24T12:32:49.822-08:002015-01-24T12:32:49.822-08:00So, you don't have to be an Anthrax Truther to...So, you don't have to be an Anthrax Truther to have ignorant opinions - and to get upset when an argument is shown to be bogus. People in all kinds of areas can have ignorant opinions and get upset when their beliefs and opinions are challenged.<br /><br />I think everyone knows that.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-53802504449147448832015-01-24T10:53:42.284-08:002015-01-24T10:53:42.284-08:00Hmm. I just checked that link to the 2000 discussi...Hmm. I just checked that link to the 2000 discussion about screenplays. Too bad it doesn't show what I actually wrote. It just shows the reaction to what I wrote.<br />==============================================<br />Here's half of Ed Lake's first post there:<br /><br />Allison,<br /><br />Hmmm. It's kind of interesting to sign onto this newsgroup in the<br />morning and to find a thread with 40 messages analyzing my character. I<br />feel like a celebrity! :-)<br /><br />No one has ever called me a kook before. For some strange reason, I<br />feel flattered. A lot of nonconformists and iconoclasts are called<br />kooks.<br /><br />For the record, I wasn't misquoting Kem Nunn, I was paraphrasing what he said in order to emphasize the stupidity of his remark. //snip//<br />--------------------------------------------------------------------<br />Of course if you 'paraphrase' people as a general practice PRIMARILY with a view to "emphasize the stupidity of [their] remark[s]" that's a guarantee that you are going to misrepresent them. Which you did 14-15 years ago talking about screenwriting, and which you have continued to do in talking about Amerithrax.<br />--------------------------------------------------------------<br />When I get some free time, I'll have to try to find out what it was that bothered the guy so much<br />--------------------------------------------------------------------<br />It's all in the first post and he ISN'T talking about one thing, he's talking about your predominant mode: (partial): (Gizmophreax)<br />-------------<br />Ed Lake, I am sick to death of you misquoting people and then turning it around against them. You do this most often against the successful writers who come here to help people. You ignore their advice, then belittle them, in particular by grossly misquoting them and then arrogantly pontificating about how much better you know.r rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-80553021440388340082015-01-16T14:40:44.731-08:002015-01-16T14:40:44.731-08:00Hmm. I just checked that link to the 2000 discuss...Hmm. I just checked that <a href="https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.writing.screenplays/DGlPAX_p3HI" rel="nofollow">link to the 2000 discussion</a> about screenplays. Too bad it doesn't show what I actually wrote. It just shows the reaction to what I wrote.<br /><br />When I get some free time, I'll have to try to find out what it was that bothered the guy so much. I don't remember the discussion at all.<br /><br />Some people found what the guy wrote to be pretty stupid. So, looking at both sides of the story might be worthwhile.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-3486641404194910262015-01-16T09:54:37.571-08:002015-01-16T09:54:37.571-08:00Mr. Rowley is just playing mindless HYPERCORRECTIO...Mr. Rowley is just playing mindless HYPERCORRECTION games again. And he clearly cannot discuss anything. He can only criticize.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-21190321410465988782015-01-16T09:51:21.708-08:002015-01-16T09:51:21.708-08:00Like I said in another post, only IDIOTS sit aroun...Like I said in another post, only IDIOTS sit around criticizing things. Mr. Rowley refuses to discuss the evidence. He can only criticize the way I and the government do things.<br /><br />It's clearly a total waste of time to try to get him to discuss anything.<br /><br />Ed Ed Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-54348224597130285522015-01-16T09:42:20.953-08:002015-01-16T09:42:20.953-08:00Mr. Rowley wrote: "Mister Lake has proven him...Mr. Rowley wrote: <i>"Mister Lake has proven himself constitutionally unable to criticize:<br /><br />1) the Task Force<br /><br />2) the FBI"</i><br /><br />I'm not here to criticize anyone. <b>I'm here to discuss the evidence.</b> Only IDIOTS sit around criticizing things instead of trying to understand them.<br /><br />Mr. Rowley appears to have a mindless distrust of the government, and he cannot discuss any evidence they present.<br /><br />I could criticize the WAY the lyophilizer evidence was presented. But, what would be the point in an argument where the other side has a closed mind and cannot see any other interpretation of events other than their own?<br /><br />The following argument from Mr. Rowley is just plain IGNORANT:<br /><br />-------------------- <br /><i><b>He was trying to get them to look at THE EVIDENCE.</b><br />======================================<br />No,<br /><br />1) there was no defense witness named.<br /><br />2) there was no defense physical evidence referred to.<br /><br /><b>There was only a REINTERPRETATION of the prosecutor's/police's evidence.</b></i><br />--------------------------------<br /><br />They were there to discuss the evidence, they DID SO by REINTERPRETING what some of it meant.<br /><br />There is no need for "defense witnesses" in a trial. And what kind of "physical evidence" could the defense produce in such a case? Mr. Rowley appears to have another screwball idea about how trials are held.<br /><br />Here's a comment from Juror #8:<br /><br /><i><b>"NO. 8: All right. I had a peculiar feeling about this trial. Somehow I felt that the defense counsel never really conducted a thorough cross-examination. I mean, he was appointed by the court to defend the boy. He hardly seemed interested. Too many questions were left unasked."</b></i><br /><br />That's the only time the word "defense" is used in the script. All the defense lawyer did was cross-examine witnesses and give a summary. <br /><br />Mr. Rowley's argument is ignorant and bogus.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-57655939121407146082015-01-15T14:36:11.940-08:002015-01-15T14:36:11.940-08:00Mr. Rowley also wrote: "What do you think the...Mr. Rowley also wrote: "What do you think the Henry Fonda character was trying to do in TWELVE ANGRY MEN but change the opinions of those 11 other jurors?!?!?!?"<br /><br />He was trying to get them to look at THE EVIDENCE.<br />======================================<br />No,<br /><br />1) there was no defense witness named.<br /><br />2) there was no defense physical evidence referred to.<br /><br />There was only a REINTERPRETATION of the prosecutor's/police's evidence. First the Henry Fonda character does that on certain skeins, then the others join in.<br /><br />WHO here has been skeptical and skeptically analytic of the Task Force/DoJ's* purported evidence of Ivins guilt HERE (on the Internet in general and this blog)?<br /><br />1) by a long shot DXer has been outstanding in doing on the Internet FOR YEARS what the Henry Fonda character was doing in that jury room in 12 ANGRY MEN. I don't always agree with him on every detail (and frequently he's right and I'm wrong) but my hat's off to his doggedness and his ability to delve into multiple skeins of evidence.<br /><br />2) On a lesser scale-------because I'm a Johnny-Come-Lately, because I'm no attorney, and because I don't have the patience/time to go through document dumps, FOIA requests etc-----------and to a lesser degree, I (and others) have done somewhat similar stuff. Back around late last year/early this year I critically looked at the evidence on what mental illness(es) Ivins likely had. I did that by looking at the relevant emails, including ones where Ivins talked about his symptoms, his prescribed medicine, and the conflicting diagnoses by the shrinks, by observing that the Task Force AND the Saathoff Panel supplied no such diagnoses whatsoever. Astounding when you realize how much effort they put into trying to claim that mental illness was somehow evidence of guilt.<br /><br />Mister Lake has proven himself constitutionally unable to criticize:<br /><br />1) the Task Force<br /><br />2) the FBI<br /><br />3) the DoJ attorneys involved, excepting only when he senses a chance to blame those attorneys for what the Task Force got wrong (ie throwing Rachel Lieber under the bus for the lyophilizer disaster).<br /><br />He's an anti-juror #8.<br /><br />* Task Force/DoJ's*. Of course there was no Ivins trial but the entities named (Task Force and DoJ) correspond to the police and prosecutor in 12 ANGRY MEN.r rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-82218497954299808342015-01-15T13:57:42.613-08:002015-01-15T13:57:42.613-08:00A verdict is NOT the same as an opinion,
=========...A verdict is NOT the same as an opinion,<br />============================================<br />1) I did not write "a verdict is the same as an opinion".<br /><br />2) I wrote (copy and paste of my own statement above):<br /><br />"What do you think a jury's verdict is but a collective OPINION on the validity and weight of constellations of facts/evidence (including testimony)<br />touching on a criminal case?!?!?!?!?!?!?"<br />==============================================<br />So, Lake proceeds to delete "collective", he goes on to delete (via making no reference to it) <br /><br />" on the validity and weight of constellations of facts/evidence (including testimony) touching on a criminal case"<br /><br />yet SOMEHOW Lake convinces himself that our disagreement is still being faithfully rendered!!!!! It ain't! You've misconstrued what I wrote (purposely I fear) and misrepresented it by disputing NOT the full range of stipulation of<br />my original statement but by disputing your OWN severely (over)simplified/ warped version of what I wrote. <br /><br />You've been doing this to me FOR YEARS. Before I came along, before Amerithrax, you were doing it to OTHER PEOPLE on other subject matters: <br /><br />https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.writing.screenplays/DGlPAX_p3HI<br /><br />The link of 2000 is to a group that discussed screenplay writing and the originator of the thread, a LURKER, started it because Lake had misrepresented OTHER people in the group one time too many. Many of Lake's 'defenders' in the thread don't dispute his penchant for selective and misleading quoting/citing.r rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-76749156675477070612015-01-15T13:38:07.871-08:002015-01-15T13:38:07.871-08:00All point #19 says is that there is nothing that s...All point #19 says is that there is nothing that says Ivins' couldn't possibly have done it. <br />==================================<br />That's what Juror #2 is saying about HIS defendant. Just in slightly different words. It's the PRINCIPLE that counts. But that (the concept of a principle), like 'hypercorrection'----------a word you've misused now repeatedly since 'discovering' it--------is a foreign language to you. You seem to have some sort of semantic aphasia.<br />===========================================<br />As I recall, I added point #19 only so I could have an even 20 points<br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />So, you even have TRIVIAL reasons for taxing someone (deceased) with quintuple murder!r rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-28732534991867017702015-01-15T08:55:50.927-08:002015-01-15T08:55:50.927-08:00Mr. Rowley once again demonstrates "hypercorr...Mr. Rowley once again demonstrates "hypercorrection." He's wrong, but he'll argue forever that he is right by using arguments which do nothing but show he is wrong AND hypercorrective.<br /><br /><i>synonym [sin-uh-nim]<br /><br />noun<br />1. a word having the same or <b>nearly the same</b> meaning as another in the language, as happy, joyful, elated.</i><br /><br />A verdict is <b>NOT</b> the same as an opinion, <b>except in colloquial situations.</b><br /><br />In colloquial situations, a woman trying on a new dress can look to another woman for an opinion and ask, "What's the verdict?"<br /><br />In such a situation, it is understood that "opinion" and "verdict" have the same meaning.<br /><br />But, in FORMAL situations, such as in a courtroom, only an "expert" like a judge can have an "opinion" that is valid on some technical issue. A verdict, however, is NOT an "opinion" and it is not presented by the jury until AFTER the evidence is examined.<br /><br />But, I'm certain Mr. Rowley will see things his hypercorrective way.<br />Ed Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-2631308238117874012015-01-15T08:36:42.050-08:002015-01-15T08:36:42.050-08:00Mr. Rowley is being "hypercorrective" ag...Mr. Rowley is being "hypercorrective" again. And, as usual, instead of looking at ALL THE EVIDENCE, he argues just one point as if it is the ONLY EVIDENCE. <br /><br />All point #19 says is that there is nothing that says Ivins' couldn't possibly have done it. E.g., he had no alibi. And he had the capability.<br /><br />As I recall, I added point #19 only so I could have an even 20 points. It basically says the same thing as points #3 and #12. <br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-23761794481048947162015-01-15T08:20:37.839-08:002015-01-15T08:20:37.839-08:00From the text of 12 ANGRY MEN: (partial)
---------...From the text of 12 ANGRY MEN: (partial)<br />-----------<br /><br />TWO (timidly). Oh. Well … (Long pause) I just think he’s guilty. I thought it was obvious. I mean nobody proved otherwise.<br /><br />EIGHT (quietly). Nobody has to prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defendant doesn’t have to open his mouth. That’s in the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment. You’ve heard of it.<br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />Compare the above exchange with what appears on this very site (the main one I mean) relating to Bruce Ivins: (partial, first overall heading, subheading)<br /><br />The Case Against Dr. Ivins<br /><br />The facts say that Dr. Ivins was the anthrax mailer:<br /><br />19. There is no evidence that Dr. Ivins could not possibly have sent the anthrax letters.<br />------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />Is the author of point #19 following the reasoning of juror EIGHT or juror TWO?<br />Let the reader decide!<br /><br />https://docs.google.com/document/d/1irVXTuMAQESSwtoqOtQiC_-5dZa59LCmOxA_IQzlxww/edit?pli=1r rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-88562498266696795902015-01-15T07:50:59.620-08:002015-01-15T07:50:59.620-08:00ver·dict
ˈvərdikt/
noun
a decision on a disputed i...ver·dict<br />ˈvərdikt/<br />noun<br />a decision on a disputed issue in a civil or criminal case or an inquest.<br /><br />"the jury returned a verdict of ‘not guilty.’"<br /><br />synonyms: judgment, adjudication, decision, finding, ruling, decree, resolution, pronouncement, conclusion, opinion; determination<br />"the judge's verdict is final"<br /><br />an opinion or judgment.<br />"I'm anxious to know your verdict on me"r rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-37148947021206994612015-01-13T13:25:06.410-08:002015-01-13T13:25:06.410-08:00I just did a search for the screenplay for "1...I just did a search for the screenplay for "12 Angry Men" and found a couple copies on-line. Click <a href="http://fischersoph.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/12-angry-men-script.pdf" rel="nofollow">HERE</a> for a pdf file of one of the copies.<br /><br />Here's the description of the 12 jurors:<br /><br /><i>FOREMAN: A small, petty man who is impressed with the authority he has and handles himself quite formally. Not overly bright, but dogged.<br /><br />JUROR NO. 2: A meek, hesitant man who finds it difficult to maintain any opinions of his own. <b>Easily swayed and usually adopts the opinion of the last person to whom he has spoken.</b><br /><br />JUROR NO. 3: A very strong, very forceful, <b>extremely opinionated</b> man within whom can be detected a streak of sadism. He is <b>a humorless man who is intolerant of opinions other than his own and accustomed to forcing his wishes and views upon others.</b><br /><br />JUROR NO. 4: Seems to be a man of wealth and position. He is a practiced speaker who presents himself well at all times. He seems to feel a little bit above the rest of the jurors. His only concern is with the facts in this case, and <b>he is appalled at the behavior of the others.</b><br /><br />JUROR NO. 5: A naive, very frightened young man who takes his obligations in this case very seriously but, who finds it difficult to speak up when his elders have the floor.<br /><br />JUROR NO. 6: An honest but dull-witted man who comes upon his decisions slowly and carefully. <b>A man who finds it difficult to create positive opinions, but who must listen to and digest and accept those opinions offered by others which appeal to him most.</b><br /><br />JUROR NO. 7: A loud, flashy-handed salesman type who has more important things to do than to sit on a jury. He is quick to show temper, quick to form opinions on things about which he knows nothing. Is a bully and, of course, a coward.<br /><br />JUROR NO. 8: A quiet, thoughtful, gentle man. A man who sees all sides of every question and constantly seeks the truth. A man of strength tempered with compassion. Above all, <b>he is a man who wants justice to be done and will fight to see that it is.</b><br /><br />JUROR NO. 9: A mild gentle old man long since defeated by life and now merely waiting to die. A man who recognizes himself for what he is and mourns the days when it would have been possible to be courageous without shielding himself behind his many years.<br /><br />JUROR NO. 10 An angry, bitter man. He is man who antagonizes almost at sight. <b>A bigot who places no values on any human life save his own</b>, a man who has been nowhere and is going nowhere and knows it deep within him.<br /><br />JUROR NO. 11: A refugee from Europe who has come to this country in 1941. A man who speaks with an accent and who is ashamed humble, almost subservient to the people around him, but who will honestly seek justice because he has suffered through so much injustice. </i><br /><br />"Juror No. 8" is the part played by Henry Fonda. Here's the dialog where Fonda first votes against the other 11:<br /><br /><i>NO. 10: (to NO. 8). Well, do you believe his story?<br /><br />NO. 8: I don't know whether I believe it or not. Maybe I don't.<br /><br />NO. 7: So what'd you vote not guilty for?<br /><br />NO. 8: There were eleven votes for guilty. It's not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die <b>without talking about it first.</b><br /><br />NO. 7: Who says it's easy for me?<br /><br />NO. 8: No one.<br /><br />NO. 7: What, just because I voted fast? I think the guy's guilty. You couldn't change my mind if you talked for a hundred years.<br /><br />NO. 8: I don't want to change your mind. <b>I just want to talk for a while.</b></i><br /><br /><b>JUROR NO. 8 WANTS TO DISCUSS THE EVIDENCE.</b><br /><br />What is see on this blog is two Truthers who have made up their minds as to who did it, and they do not want to discuss the evidence. Sometimes they even absurdly claim "There is no evidence" against Dr. Ivins.<br /><br />They might as well be quoting Juror No. 7: <i><b>"You couldn't change my mind if you talked for a hundred years."</b></i><br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-15597116687418846362015-01-13T07:35:44.159-08:002015-01-13T07:35:44.159-08:00Mr. Rowley also wrote: "What do you think the...Mr. Rowley also wrote: <i>"What do you think the Henry Fonda character was trying to do in TWELVE ANGRY MEN but change the opinions of those 11 other jurors?!?!?!?"</i><br /><br /><b>He was trying to get them to look at THE EVIDENCE.</b><br /><br />The other jurors were all using OPINIONS AND BELIEFS based upon their own personal lives, <b>instead of looking at the EVIDENCE.</b> Fonda's character was trying to get them to stop thinking about their personal issues and do what they were supposed to do in the jury room: come to an agreement on the issue based upon a review of the evidence. <br /><br />Some jurors BELIEVED the defendant was guilty because he was "the type" to do such a thing, or because he was an ungrateful kid just like their own kid. Or they would vote guilty because they didn't want to disagree with the majority. <br /><br />Fonda's character got them all to <b>look at the EVIDENCE instead of just going with their OPINIONS and BELIEFS</b>. <br /><br />That's EXACTLY what I'm doing here. <br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-23721137329354921932015-01-13T07:20:50.238-08:002015-01-13T07:20:50.238-08:00R. Rowley wrote: "YOU, Mister Lake, have clai...R. Rowley wrote: <i>"YOU, Mister Lake, have claimed for YEARS that people disagree with you on the probability of Ivins' guilt because ..."</i><br /><br />Not true. I did <b>NOT</b> claim that people were <b>disagreeing on the probability of Ivins' guilt</b> because they didn't know the law or the science or the facts of the case. I claimed their <b>arguments</b> were nonsense because they didn't didn't understand the law or the science or the facts of the case. I claimed <b>they were disagreeing on WHO did it because they had their own unshakable theories about who sent the anthrax letters</b>. <br /><br />R. Rowley is also being "hypercorrective" once again. He is misusing the word "opinion." He wrote: <i>"Opinion in legal proceedings is guided by procedure, logic, precedent and probably lots of other things that I'm overlooking at the moment. But, in the final analysis, it's always opinion that prevails, opinion based on analysis."</i><br /><br />Yes, in a court of law, a judge can issue an opinion. That's his job. And it is understood that his OPINION can be overruled by judges at a higher level. And those judges' OPINION can in turn be overruled by judges at a higher level. <br /><br />So, rulings by judges are a matter of opinion. That's because we humans haven't figured out a better way to handle such matters.<br /><br />But, there is no judge here.<br /><br />This blog is supposed to be more like a <b>JURY ROOM</b>. We're here to examine the evidence we have seen and to come to a mutual understanding and agreement on what "the facts are," i,e, <b><i>based upon the evidence</i>, is it a FACT that Bruce Ivins sent the anthrax letters, as the prosecution claims?</b> Judges are not allowed in the jury room. <br /><br />Instead of looking at the evidence, however, all Mr. Rowley and DXer want to do is get OPINIONS from people <b>outside of the jury room</b>. They want to sway the rest of the jury (me) by arguing that smart and important people who have nothing to do with the case have OPINIONS that should be weighed INSTEAD OF doing what we're supposed to do: look at the facts and evidence and decide for ourselves.<br /><br />That is both WRONG and it is STUPID. I'm here to discuss the facts and evidence, NOT to be swayed by IRRELEVANT opinions from people who may or may not know the facts and evidence of the case.<br /><br />A jury doesn't issue an "opinion." A jury comes to a unanimous agreement and issues a "<b>FINDING</b>." <br /><br /><i><a href="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/finding" rel="nofollow">FINDING</a><br /><br />n. the determination of a factual question vital (contributing) to a decision in a case by the trier of fact (jury or judge sitting without a jury) after a trial of a lawsuit, often referred to as findings of fact. <b>A finding of fact is distinguished from a conclusion [or opinion] of law which is determined by the judge as the sole legal expert.</b></i><br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-89269843062183747332015-01-12T19:09:42.348-08:002015-01-12T19:09:42.348-08:00R. Rowley wrote: "If I run across other expli...R. Rowley wrote: "If I run across other explicit opinions from other authors post-August 2008 or post-February 2010, I'll post them here."<br /><br />Why? What's the point? Who cares about their OPINIONS?<br /><br />No questions are going to be resolved here by referring to OPINIONS.<br />========================================<br />Au contraire. YOU, Mister Lake, have claimed for YEARS that people disagree with you on the probability of Ivins' guilt because:<br /><br />1) they don't know the LAW. (..."how circumstantial evidence works..." blah blah, blah)<br /><br />2) they don't know the science. <br /><br />3) they just don't know the facts of the case, the evidence against Ivins etc.<br /><br />In response, I adduced lawyer DXer, lawyer Senator Patrick Leahy etc.<br />I adduced scientists as well: Rush Holt, Claire Fraser-Liggett, Paul Keim, the latter two intimately involved in the scientific end of the Case.<br /><br />I adduced persons who had previously written books on the subject (Amerithrax) and who would be presumed to have an ongoing interest and knowledge of the case.<br /><br />ALL such persons expressing (bare minimum) skepticism that Ivins acted alone OR skepticism that he acted at all. Heck, even WILLMAN doesn't claim the evidence against Ivins was of beyond-a-reasonable-doubt caliber!<br /><br />Back to 'opinions': your ongoing confusion on this is....hopeless.<br />What do you think a jury's verdict is but a collective OPINION on the validity and weight of constellations of facts/evidence (including testimony)<br />touching on a criminal case?!?!?!?!?!?!?<br /><br />What do you think the Henry Fonda character was trying to do in TWELVE ANGRY MEN but change the opinions of those 11 other jurors?!?!?!? Had he failed, the best he could have hoped for was to hold out for a hung-jury. Swaying opinions was CRITICAL: it was what the film was about! How the heck could you miss that?!?!?<br /><br />Opinion in legal proceedings is guided by procedure, logic, precedent and probably lots of other things that I'm overlooking at the moment. But, in the final analysis, it's always opinion that prevails, opinion based on analysis.r rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-20299566959446335382015-01-12T06:54:57.993-08:002015-01-12T06:54:57.993-08:00R. Rowley wrote: "If I run across other expli...R. Rowley wrote: <i>"If I run across other explicit <b>opinions</b> from other authors post-August 2008 or post-February 2010, I'll post them here."</i><br /><br />Why? What's the point? Who cares about their <b><i>OPINIONS</i></b>?<br /><br />No questions are going to be resolved here by referring to OPINIONS. <b>Only an objective analysis of facts and evidence can resolve debates.</b><br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-60453914800637637372015-01-12T06:19:25.893-08:002015-01-12T06:19:25.893-08:00My problem with Graysmith, for the longest time an...My problem with Graysmith, for the longest time and continuing!, is that none of the local libraries or bookstores--------new or used!--------has his Amerithrax book. But after using a number of fruitless search terms combos, today I found by combining "robert graysmith" and "bruce Ivins" I came across sample pages from an epilogue to AMERITHRAX: THE HUNT FOR THE ANTHRAX KILLER.<br />https://books.google.com/books?id=fy6dcvs0UvoC&pg=PT361&lpg=PT361&dq=%22robert+graysmith%22+%22bruce+ivins%22&source=bl&ots=mRxmkNWgzc&sig=Kb47NUApu1uL8W1rUb2Af0ZVQnE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=odCzVJKTH4SsyASgjYLAAg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22robert%20graysmith%22%20%22bruce%20ivins%22&f=false<br /><br /><br />So evidently somewhat like Cole, Graysmith put out a slightly newer edition and it gives the summary of the case against Ivins in an epilogue. It's not a copy-and-paste compatible format, so I'll just give the very end the old-fashioned way:<br /><br />[Quoting Jeff Taylor]"Based on the evidence we had collected, we could prove his guilt to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. No other lab in the world stored RMR-1029, which Bruce Ivins himself created, and which nobody could obtain without going through him; he worked late hours in his lab, something he had never done before, and would never do again after the anthrax letters were mailed. The Justice Department believes that Dr. Ivins, acting alone, committed the anthrax mailings."<br />But if Bruce Ivins was the Anthrax Killer, he had not acted alone. As the troubled scientist had written:<br /><br />I'm a little dream-self, short and stout.<br />I'm the other half of Bruce-------when he lets me out.<br />When I get all steamed up, I don't pout.<br />I push Bruce aside, then I'm free to run about!<br />========================================================<br />End of Epilogue, End of Book, except for the bibliography etc.<br />The tenor and tone of the epilogue seems skeptical to me, but certainly not in the explicit way that Leonard Cole is. The key interpretation is of this:<br />"But if Bruce Ivins was the Anthrax Killer, he had not acted alone."<br />Yeah, Graysmith is saying that if Ivins did it, then he had the 'bad Bruce' along, leading the show. But that's not the sort of formulation (the whole sentence) you'd write if you were totally convinced that Ivins did it.........(Naturally, that's my interpretation).r rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-28525981687900226982015-01-12T05:42:11.522-08:002015-01-12T05:42:11.522-08:00From Lew Weinstein's site: (post of March 6, 2...From Lew Weinstein's site: (post of March 6, 2010, some one month AFTER the <br />Amerithrax Investigative Summary was issued)<br />-------------------------------------<br />POLITICAL SCIENCE PROFESSOR LEONARD COLE, of Rutgers University, the only person outside law enforcement to have interviewed every one of the surviving inhalation-anthrax victims, along with the relatives, friends, and associates of those who died, as well as the public health officials, scientists, researchers, hospital workers, and treating physicians. says …<br /><br />“the evidence is circumstantial and no way can Ivins be considered guilty ‘beyond a reasonable doubt,’ as has been claimed by Justice Department and FBI officials, including FBI Director Robert Mueller.”<br /><br />“There remain important gaps in the evidence.”<br /><br />For example, Ivins lived and worked in Frederick, Maryland, and the letters were mailed from Princeton, New Jersey. “There are no witnesses or other evidence that placed him in Princeton at the times of the mailings.”<br /><br />Cole says that even if you concede that Ivins had developed and stored the strain of anthrax sent in the letters, “more than one hundred co-workers had access to his laboratory, which was at the Army’s Fort Detrick research facility”<br /><br />Dr. Cole holds a PhD in political science from Columbia University and teaches public policy at Rutgers University.<br />==================================================<br />I assume the embedded quotations are from Cole himself. But whether that was a personal communication with Weinstein or DXer, or an unspecified public interview that Cole did, I'm not sure. There's no link, except to the 2008 revised edition of Cole's book.<br /><br />If I run across other explicit opinions from other authors post-August 2008 or post-February 2010, I'll post them here.<br /><br />https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/rutgers-professor-and-amerithrax-expert-dr-leonard-coles-%E2%80%9Cthere-remain-important-gaps-in-the-evidence-%E2%80%9D/r rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-41651900735818393232015-01-09T13:36:32.983-08:002015-01-09T13:36:32.983-08:00Mr. Rowley is demonstrating "HYPERCORRECTION&...Mr. Rowley is demonstrating "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercorrection" rel="nofollow">HYPERCORRECTION</a>" once again.<br /><br />He asks, <i>"Bruce Ivins' emails are just "[my] opinions"?!?!?!?!?!?"</i><br /><br />Of course, no one said that Ivins' emails were Mr. Rowley's opinions. Mr. Rowley posted Ivins' emails and followed each with an OPINION that the symptoms described in the emails do not relate to sociopathy. <br /><br />Mr. Rowley also wrote: <i>"Irony of ironies department: "hypercorrection" is actually a term from MY field, linguistics. It refers NOT to correct usage (the thing I'm trying to get Lake closer to) but to incorrect usage."</i><br /><br />Yes, I know. I supplied a definition in the first post where I mentioned the term. I was tempted to ask if the term was invented <b>FOR</b> him, since he seems to personify the term. I point out that he misused a word, and he'll flood me with posts arguing that <b><i>I</i></b> am the one who misuses the word. That is "hypercorrection."<br /><br />He provides another example in his post: He wrote, <i>"That's Ed Lake SPECULATING about motive."</i><br /><br />I made no speculation. I asked a question.<br /><br />In the next section of his post he again fails to understand what was written. I pointed out that reporters aren't interested in "non-news" stories, like people who <b>agree</b> with the official findings. Reporters do not typically write about such people. They hunt for and write about people who <b>disagree</b> with the official findings, because that is "controversy," and "controversy" sells newspapers.<br /><br />How does Mr. Rowley respond? By misunderstanding the point. He says, <i>"I conduct searches, lots and lots of searches."</i><br /><br />What good are searches if reporters do not write about people who agree with the official findings? What can you hope to find about people who reporters do not write about?<br /><br />Now I expect Mr. Rowley will demonstrate "hypercorrection" once again and argue that I'm not seeing words the way he sees them.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-80501499258012403202015-01-09T12:23:02.836-08:002015-01-09T12:23:02.836-08:00Hmm. When I came home from the health club this af...Hmm. When I came home from the health club this afternoon, I found SEVEN posts by Mr. Rowley awaiting moderation. I was tempted to just ignore them, since they are nothing but more of Mr. Rowley's hypercorrections and opinions.<br />====================================================<br />Bruce Ivins' emails are just "[my] opinions"?!?!?!?!?!?<br />Apparently, Lake has his own definition of 'opinion' too, one that doesn't jibe with that of the population as a whole.<br /><br />Irony of ironies department: "hypercorrection" is actually a term from MY field, linguistics. It refers NOT to correct usage (the thing I'm trying to get Lake closer to) but to incorrect usage. The classic and near ubiquitous example of this is when people write/say "between George and I". "I" is incorrect there, but it's incorrect because the rule against using "me" as part of a compound subject has been overgeneralized(=hypercorrected) implicitly to 'don't use "me" in any compound involving "and".'<br /><br />But, as noted, Lake has once again stumbled onto a term and when he does that<br />he then proceeds to misuse it, overuse it etc. ad nauseam.<br />=======================================================<br />Mr. Rowley wrote: "Ivins is reporting what his doctor(s) said, NOT simply his symptoms, and he's doing it a year or so BEFORE Amerithrax, so he's certainly not doing it to 'cover his tracks'."<br /><br />Is he? Or was Ivins twisting and distorting what his doctors said in order to get sympathy from a woman with whom he is pathologically obsessed?<br />==============================================<br />That's Ed Lake SPECULATING about motive. I see no reason Ivins would get any more "sympathy" for saying that they now, in 2000 (tentatively) think he has "anti-social personality disorder" than for saying that they now think he has "sociopathy". Though the latter has been an obsolescent-to-obsolete term since at least 1994* in the medical community, it, to the extent that it bears any meaning, is a rough equivalent to 'anti-social personality disorder'. The first part, about the psychiatrist/counselor backing off of the old (tentative) diagnoses of bipolar disorder/(mono-polar) depression is buttressed by the very medicine he was taking,<br />Celexa. Again, it's an anti-depression drug. NOT an anti-sociopathy drug.<br /><br /><br />Mr. Rowley also wrote: "I wrote about the OPINIONS (free-standing) of former authors of books about Amerithrax. NONE has expressed any endorsement of the case against Ivins."<br /><br />How do you know?<br />=====================================================<br />I conduct searches, lots and lots of searches. Thompson, last I heard, was STILL in the news business. An editor with lots of chances to express herself. The others have interviews, lectures/ public appearances etc. No endorsements.<br /><br />You seem to be staking out the absurd territory that you and Willman have lots of company in buying the Task Force case against Ivins but all THOSE people are 'secret adherents' of that case. Ain't buyin'. And if our positions were reversed, YOU wouldn't buy it either.<br /><br />*since at least 1994. See my research on that upthread. I haven't been able to find any pre-1994 info (ie on DSM-3 or previous DSMs). Too long ago.r rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-64777497691977053422015-01-08T13:22:55.233-08:002015-01-08T13:22:55.233-08:00Hmm. When I came home from the health club this a...Hmm. When I came home from the health club this afternoon, I found <b><i>SEVEN</i></b> posts by Mr. Rowley awaiting moderation. I was tempted to just ignore them, since they are nothing but more of Mr. Rowley's hypercorrections and opinions. Example:<br /><br />Mr. Rowley wrote: <i>"Ivins is reporting what his doctor(s) said, NOT simply his symptoms, and he's doing it a year or so BEFORE Amerithrax, so he's certainly not doing it to 'cover his tracks'.</i>"<br /><br />Is he? Or was Ivins twisting and distorting what his doctors said in order to get sympathy from a woman with whom he is <b>pathologically obsessed</b>?<br /><br />Mr. Rowley also wrote: <i>"I wrote about the OPINIONS (free-standing) of former authors of books about Amerithrax. NONE has expressed any endorsement of the case against Ivins."</i><br /><br />How do you know? Who's going to report on someone agreeing with the official findings? Why would they report on it? Who would care?<br /><br />For all you know, a reporter might call 99 people who agree with the findings and then write an article about the ONE person who disagrees with the findings <b>because that is CONTROVERSIAL NEWS</b>. Controversy sells newspapers and creates headlines. It is NOT "news" when people agree with the official findings. <br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-34644979536098138762015-01-08T11:43:39.575-08:002015-01-08T11:43:39.575-08:00Unfinished business upthread here:
---------------...Unfinished business upthread here:<br />-------------------<br />Mr. Rowley clearly doesn't understand the book business. No one wants to publish or read a book that says NOTHING DIFFERENT about a subject.<br />-----------------------------------------------------------------<br />I said nothing about the 'book business'. I wrote about the OPINIONS (free-standing) of former authors of books about Amerithrax. NONE has expressed any endorsement of the case against Ivins. Indeed if Graysmith or Thompson or one of the others HAD written a post-2008 book, and said it was someone else, Mister Lake would just dismiss them as 'have(ing) their own hypothesis'. It's because they DON'T have their own hypothesis/pet suspect that their silence is so telling. Just like Leahy's skepticism.<br />---------------------------------------------------------------<br />Mr. Willman's book was different because it was filled with interviews of people who knew Ivins and who had never been interviewed before.<br />-------------------------------------------------------------<br />If you are expressing admiration for much of Willman's book, I share it.<br />Despite his overall conclusion. He really worked on that sucker.<br />-----------------------------------------<br />Last Sept. 16, Mr. Rowley wrote this about Leonard Cole's book: "Cole's book had a second edition or update in late 2008 and he remained noncommittal on the subject of Ivins' guilt."<br /><br />Nearly everyone was probably "noncommittal" in 2008. We'd never heard of Bruce Ivins before,[...]<br />===========================================<br />Okay but that was 6 1/2 years ago. Has Coleman EVER endorsed Ivins as the culprit? (You don't have to write a book to say you agree or disagree on something like that. Duh!) If not, WHY not?r rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-67578407614371755372015-01-08T10:57:04.495-08:002015-01-08T10:57:04.495-08:00Linguistic hypercorrection occurs when a real or i...Linguistic hypercorrection occurs when a real or imagined grammatical rule is applied in an inappropriate context, so that an attempt to be "correct" leads to an incorrect result.<br /><br />Mr. Rowley confuses the word "diagnosis" with the word "disease." He lists diseases and considers them to be diagnoses. <br />===============================================<br />No, you are (as usual) wrong: the source I've cited, DSM-5(and 4), breaks out as "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders".<br />Diagnostic, as in "diagnosis".<br /><br />As to "disease" vs. "diagnosis": "Diagnosis" is an opinion, albeit usually of a qualified person. It can include evaluating injuries (extent, sort, severity etc.) and 'syndromes' as well as diseases. But note that a doctor can't diagnose "[fill in the blank] Personality Disorder" unless the medical community recognizes the existence of such a disorder. So it is dependent on a professional recognition of the phenomenon.r rowleynoreply@blogger.com