My Sunday comment for this week was mostly about being ready to send out another query letter to a literary agent. I've cut 142 pages (28,000 words) from the previous version of the manuscript.
I also commented on when former Wisconsin Governor and former U.S. Secretary for Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson was talking with a group of Tea Party members recently, he mentioned the things he had to do after the 9/18 attack, and people assumed he meant 9/11. They ridiculed him for not remembering the right date.
Thompson meant the anthrax attack of 9/18. (September 18, 2001 was the date the first anthrax letters were postmarked.) Thompson evidently remembered that date very vividly, but, there probably wasn't a single person in his audience who remembered it.
That's the kind of mistake I made with the first version of my manuscript. I thought everyone - particularly literary agents - would vividly remember the anthrax attacks. But, it appears very few people do. So, when I made the changes, I cut out all the unnecessary detail and made it more readable for the average person.
The query letter I'll send out tomorrow uses a referral from a well-known author. If it fails, I have one more referral I can use before I either try to obtain more referrals or I self-publish the book.
Ed
The incident you relate about Tommy Thompson and Amerithrax is interesting. Unlike the air attacks that are mostly called "September 11th" or "9/11", the anthrax attacks never were given a fixed universally accepted name, and certainly not one based on when they were either launched or discovered: I avoid using the term "Amerithrax" (the official FBI name for the case) when I broach the subject with others because as often as not it draws only puzzled looks. So I usually say "anthrax attacks (through the mail)", with the "through the mail" part included when I want to be 100% sure I'm communicating with people.
ReplyDeleteAnd as time goes on this will only get worse: think of it: there are 18 year olds starting college this year who were 7 or 8 when Amerithrax occurred! Tempus fugit. Whether you're having fun or not!
I usually refer to "the anthrax attacks of 2001." But, I suppose "the anthrax letter attacks of 2001" could be a bit more helpful in getting people to remember.
ReplyDeleteEd
In the past two weeks I watched, yet again, the 1997 movie GATTACA.
ReplyDeleteIt brought to mind my 'GATTACA (sub-?)sub-hypothesis' which I'll get to in a bit.
GATTACA is a dystopian sci-fi thriller in which the human race is divided into genetically-engineered in-vitro fertilized births and "in-valids" (ie those conceived the genetically haphazard old-fashioned way). One of the latter, played by Ethan Hawke, has dreams, despite his genetic inferiority, of traveling to other planets/moons. So he needs to pass for a 'valid'.
Anyway, if you watch the opening credits, they are presented with a certain graphic style: the As,Cs,Gs, and Ts are the first letters of each actor's name to appear (same is true of behind-the-camera personnel). Then perhaps 1-3 seconds later, the OTHER letters of the name appear:
(example) T A A (held for a bit)
then ETHAN HAWKE (but with the above 3 letters remaining extra heavy)
-----------------------------------------------
My subhypothesis: the printer of the Brokaw text liked this style and used it as a sort of motif in that text. He didn't do his exactly the same way (in the film each time this is done, the ENTIRE letter is extra heavy; in addition the printer did made extra heavy OTHER characters).
I've got a DVD copy of "Gattaca" in my collection, even though it's NOT a favorite of mine. Looking at the titles, I see it works with C's, A's and T's:
ReplyDeleteCACT are highlighted in Columbia Pictures Presents
CT are highlighted in A Jersey Films Production
ACC are highlighted in A Film By Andrew Niccol
TAA are highlighted in Ethan Hawke
ATA are highlighted in Uma Thurman
And then all the letters are highlighted in GATTACA
All you're saying it that you have another baseless theory about the highlighting of the characters in the Brokaw letter that is NOT supported by any facts.
My original hypothesis was that the child was doodling, and A.T. or T.A. were the child's initials. Or the child saw something about Mohamed Atta on TV and was doodling on the A's and T's because of the odd name.
Douglas Hofstadter guessed that the letters might have something to do with the Italian spelling of ATTACK -- ATTACCA,
You can guess and speculate all you want, but the FACTS say that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer, and that means the only the code that makes sense is the code from Godel, Escher Bach and the codons from the DNA article. Ivins threw away the "code books" when the FBI started getting too close.
Ed
Hello Mr Lake.
ReplyDeleteDo not lose hope of publishing, Mr. Lake
“Finding the right form for your story is simply to realize the most natural way of telling the story. The test of whether or not a writer has divined the natural shape of his story is just this: after reading it, can you imagine it differently, or does it silence your imagination and seem to you absolute and final? As an orange is final. As an orange is something nature has made just right.”
—Truman Capote, The Art of Fiction No. 17, The Paris Review
Bye.
Joseph from Spain,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments. I think the story is in the right form. It's just a matter of finding an agent (and a publisher) who thinks it's a story that people still find interesting. Agents seem to think it's a story that has no current audience. Most Americans seem to have forgotten about the case.
And, too, the agent has to know enough about the subject to be able to sell it to a publisher who doesn't care about the case. The typical agent doesn't know anything about the case at all.
I suspect that I'll eventually have to self-publish. But, I've got my fingers crossed. Maybe some agent will find the book fascinating and want to try to sell it for me.
Ed
Posted by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete-------------------
You can guess and speculate all you want, but the FACTS say that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer, and that means the only the code that makes sense is the code from Godel, Escher Bach and the codons from the DNA article. Ivins threw away the "code books" when the FBI started getting too close.
---------------------------------------------
If one reads the above paragraph (reposted in full)carefully what's clear is: the conviction that Ivins "was the anthrax mailer" comes BEFORE the determination that 1)the 'code' is a derivative of the GEB book and 2) that Ivins throwing the book away is evidence of (true) guilt (rather than a paranoid belief of a self-confessed paranoid man that the book he used to try to DECODE the highlighted letters might be FALSELY interpreted by the Task Force as a sign he had used it to ENCODE the 'code').
So the belief in Ivins' guilt is a sort of guide to what an acceptable decoding/decryption of the highlighted letters is.
Trained cryptoanalysts, unaware of that 'guide, would not have been aware of the Task Force's prejudices in this area and would likely have come to (a) COMPLETELY different decryption(s).
USUALLY, evidence works in the reverse direction (of that indicated by the above Mister Lake paragraph): one pieces together evidence in a disinterested way to determine FIRST the independent meaning of a given skein of evidence, then makes a hypothesis as to whom that evidence points to.
Richard Rowley wrote: "USUALLY, evidence works in the reverse direction (of that indicated by the above Mister Lake paragraph)"
ReplyDeleteYou're just playing word games again.
The FBI had a case against Ivins. They told him so in the confrontation on November 1, 2007. And, they told him they were looking for more evidence.
A week later, in the middle of the night, Ivins threw out the code books. The FBI looked through the books and realized they explained the highlighted characters in the media letter. It was MORE evidence of Ivins' guilt.
The fact that he threw away the code books also showed "consciousness of guilt."
If "trained crypoanalysts" unaware of the code books could have come up with a better or even plausible alternative explanation for the highlighted characters in the media letter, WHY DIDN'T THEY? They had six years to come up with a good explanation. Or, do you believe that no "cryptoanalysts" ever saw the media letter during those six years, even though it was all over the news?
Ed
Richard Rowley wrote: "USUALLY, evidence works in the reverse direction (of that indicated by the above Mister Lake paragraph)"
ReplyDeleteYou're just playing word games again.
---------------------------------------------------
No, it's NOT a word game and it doesn't just apply to the "amino acid code".
If Joe Schmoe had sent the anthrax letters and this was provable via fingerprints (on the letters or envelopes) or an admission by Joe Schnoe that he had done it, would the investigators give a fig that Schmoe's grandfather hadn't lived in NJ in the 19th Century? Of course not! They would have seen it as irrelevant.
Would they have cared that neither Schmoe's father nor any other relative had gone to Princeton? Of course not!
It is the PREEXISTING belief of the investigators in Ivins guilt which guided them (not cryptoanalysts) to this spurious 'amino acid code'. That made them interested in where Ivins' father went to college etc.
Richard Rowley wrote: "It is the PREEXISTING belief of the investigators in Ivins guilt which guided them (not cryptoanalysts) to this spurious 'amino acid code'. That made them interested in where Ivins' father went to college etc."
ReplyDeleteNot true .... at least, not entirely true.
Obviously, if Joe Schmoe had confessed, there wouldn't be any NEED to check into where his grandfather lived. If there was a trial, the main item of evidence would be his confession.
But Bruce Ivins did NOT confess. And, he did a pretty good job of covering his tracks. As a result, it took years for the FBI to figure out who did it. And it was a matter of accumulating evidence bit by bit.
Initially, Ivins seemed like such a harmless guy, that no one really considered he could be the killer. Then, as they eliminated all the other possible suspects, they found they couldn't eliminate Ivins as a suspect.
The investigators started wondering why he was lying about things - like not knowing that he wasn't supposed to use the "single colony pick" method to inoculate slants for the FBIR. And why did he violate rules and do unauthorized cleanups of his lab and other areas?
Then they checked his in-out logs and found he unusual worked long hours in his lab at night and on weekends just before the mailings. Plus, he had all the expertise to make the powders. AND he had multiple motives.
But, they couldn't find enough to even make him a top suspect. They had to wait YEARS for the science to prove that flask RMR-1029 was the "murder weapon." Ivins controlled the "murder weapon." And he was continuing to lie and point at other people as being better suspects than he.
And he falsified evidence when he submitted false samples to the FBIR in April, 2002.
The FBI started to learn that Ivins left bags full of plates laying around in autoclave bags for weeks, and the attack anthrax was grown on such plates. Ivins lied about knowing how to operate the lyophilizer, when there was no reason to lie. And he was the guy who taught others how to use the lyophilizer.
When they checked his computer, they found he'd deleted all of his emails for 2001. That made him look even more guilty.
The FBI found that there was silicon on the spores in flask RMR-1030, which was entirely created by Ivins. So, his work caused silicon to appear in spores just as silicon had appeared in the attack spores.
The FBI continued to talk with him, and investigate him because he couldn't be eliminated as a suspect.
Then there was a change in management on the case, and the new top guy (Montooth) looked at the evidence and agreed that Bruce Ivins was the best suspect they had. The FBI subpoenaed his notebooks, and Ivins had to testify before a grand jury.
The FBI starts checking for his name in their computer files, and they find that Nancy Haigwood once pointed at Ivins as a likely suspect in the case. She talks with the FBI and tells them of Ivins' obsession with KKG.
An FBI agent does a Google search and finds that the mailbox that was used was the nearest mailbox to the KKG office in Princeton.
Then, on the evening of November 1, 2007, the FBI did a massive search of Ivins' office, his home and his vehicles. They question his family. And they advise Ivins that the attack spores originated in his flask RMR-1029.
The next week Ivins throws out his copy of Godel, Escher Bach and the other code book. The FBI watch as he does this. They look through the books and eventually figure out the code. BINGO! That's a direct connection to the letters.
Later, Ivins tells the FBI about his obsession with KKG and about all of his burglaries, vandalism and KKG-related crimes.
That's called "an investigation." You don't need to do anything as extensive if a guy confesses. Ivins didn't confess.
Ed
Richard,
ReplyDeleteBuilding a circumstantial case is like solving a complex puzzle. You might start by thinking person A is the most likely suspect, but as the evidence accumulates, you come to realize that person B is a far better suspect. And, as more evidence accumulates, you can see that it is clear person B did it. And, when you have accumulated enough evidence to eliminate all reasonable doubt, you get an indictment and put person B on trial. The jury will decide if the evidence is convincing or not.
The FBI didn't "become interested" in where Ivins' father went to college. That appeared as another piece of the puzzle that fell neatly into place. The same with the "Monmouth" connections between KKG and Ivins grandfather. They appeared as parts of the puzzle. The FBI didn't go hunting for such pieces. They were pieces that were there before them. It just took awhile to figure out how they fitted into the puzzle.
I could have explained things in a lot more detail, but each post is limited to 4096 characters. So, you'll have to wait for my book to see how ALL the pieces clearly fit together.
Ed
Richard,
ReplyDeleteI'm going to try to explain the case with an analogy:
Think of the case as being like a 500-piece picture puzzle. The FBI's search for clues found 1,000 pieces. Some turned out to be meaningless pieces belonging to a hundred other picture puzzles. But the FBI slowly managed to fit about 400 pieces together and they got a clear, undeniable picture showing that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer.
In my book, I put 70 or 80 additional pieces into the puzzle to almost complete the picture.
There might still be 20 or 30 pieces missing, but it is virtually impossible for those missing pieces to significantly change the picture that has already been assembled.
Ed
Posted by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete-----------
Think of the case as being like a 500-piece picture puzzle. The FBI's search for clues found 1,000 pieces. Some turned out to be meaningless pieces belonging to a hundred other picture puzzles. But the FBI slowly managed to fit about 400 pieces together and they got a clear, undeniable picture showing that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer.
-----------------------------------
It's been years (decades) since I put together a jigsaw puzzle but here is what I remember:
though one can (obviously) just randomly try fitting pieces together and eventually complete it, a more efficient way is to
1)go somewhat by the colors of the face surfaces.
2)consult the picture of what the finished puzzle will look like by looking at the cover of the box.
3)pay particular attention, especially at the outset, to the puzzle's extreme edge pieces, for they will each have at least one straight edge which tells you it IS an edge piece. And eventually you should be able to build the puzzle from the edges inwards.
=========================================
That's where the Task Force could have made some progress: looked at outlying 'pieces' to the puzzle: the Town of Quantico letter, the St Pete hoax letters, the pre-Amerithrax hoax letters sent from Trenton and Indianapolis to media figures.
This would have been very difficult, I admit, but it would have partially solved the puzzle.
Richard Rowley wrote: "That's where the Task Force could have made some progress: looked at outlying 'pieces' to the puzzle: the Town of Quantico letter, the St Pete hoax letters, the pre-Amerithrax hoax letters sent from Trenton and Indianapolis to media figures."
ReplyDeleteThey DID look at all those pieces. They looked at ALL the pieces they found.
Continuing with the picture puzzle analogy: They didn't just throw away pieces that didn't immediately fit with other pieces. They set those pieces aside and looked for pieces that DID fit with other pieces. It was only when the assembled pieces started to show that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer that they could determine that the extra pieces weren't part of the puzzle they were trying to solve.
You start with a picture that you believe is the solved puzzle and you try to fit the pieces together to create that picture. If the pieces don't fit, you trim them with scissors and use glue to make them seem like they fit. But you still have NOTHING that anyone but you would believe is a picture of the anthrax killer.
Ed