The Syracuse hoax anthrax letters were the major subject for discussion last week. Now things have gone quiet on that subject.
Presumably, the FBI is still sorting through the tips they received. Or, they may be in the process of making a case. I'm not sure what is needed to make an arrest in such a situation. It's a federal crime. Does that mean that the evidence has to be presented to a grand jury? Or, if they have solid evidence, can a judge simply sign an arrest warrant?
I would think that if an arrest warrant had been signed, we would hear about it almost immediately. So, it's more likely that the FBI is either still sorting through the tips (most likely), or they are presenting a case to a grand jury (less likely).
I keep thinking about the Dallas hoax letters, where the FBI announced a $150,000 reward back in May. There's been no news about that. I haven't heard about any arrest. And, I don't recall ever hearing of someone collecting such a reward posted by the FBI. But, that's probably because the recipient wants to keep it secret out of fear of some kind of retaliation from the culprit's family.
On this blog, there were some interesting discussions last week. I keep thinking I should build a list of Richard Rowley's beliefs and my responses to those beliefs. It would save a lot of time if I could just copy and paste a response each time he repeats the same argument.
Lastly, I sent out 3 more query letters to literary agents last week, but I received no responses. So, I'm planning to send out 5 more letters tomorrow. My Oct. 8 deadline is approaching. I could be done with the index for my book in a week or so. And, I need to either have something in the works with an agent, or I'm going to have to make a decision on how to self-publish.
Ed
Based on his comments today, I gather Mister Lake wanted me to respond to this: (repost)
ReplyDelete(Me and then him):
------------------------------------
just give us the EVIDENCE that Ivins did any drying in August to October of 2001. (you can't because there is none; if there were such evidence, it would have been in the FINAL REPORT)
Give us the EVIDENCE that Ivins drove (twice!) to Princeton in September/October 2001 (you can't because there is none; if there were such evidence, it would have been in the FINAL REPORT)
And I replied,
Ivins had the means, motive and opportunity to dry the spores in his lab. [...]
-------------------------------------------
(We don't agree about motive, but I'll respond as if we DID)
Those things (means, motive and opportunity) are enough for SUSPICION (ie for making a person a suspect, or if you prefer mealy-mouthed euphemisms like Mister Lake does, 'person of interest'); it does NOT suffice to convict. Again, analogies are in order: if there was a bank robbery 3 weeks ago on a Wednesday at 2 pm, there are going to be tens of thousands of people in a major metropolitan area (say in LA or New York)who will have all three things: They have a motive
(they could use the cash!), can't account for their time (ie have the 'opportunity') on Wednesday 2 pm (because they have bad memories, because they were cheating on their wives that afternoon, because they DO remember in general
terms but can't document it/don't have witnesses, because they were doing something ELSE illegal etc.), know how to shoot a gun or at least wave it around in a believably threatening fashion (means).
But tens of thousands of suspects do not necess-
arily produce even a single defendant. Because the requirement for 'guilt beyond a resonable doubt' is higher: it speaks not to mere potential, but to actuality.
----------------------------------
And yes, we've been over THIS before.
Richard Rowley wrote: "Because the requirement for 'guilt beyond a resonable doubt' is higher: it speaks not to mere potential, but to actuality."
ReplyDeleteI'm fully aware of what "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" is and means. But, you very clearly do NOT understand it.
For the 100th time: To argue that individual items of evidence in a circumstantial case do not prove guilt is RIDICULOUS. No one is saying that individual items in a circumstantial case prove guilt. In the Justice System, it's the combination of ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT PROVES GUILT beyond a reasonable doubt.
Looking at ALL THE EVIDENCE, it is clear that Ivins is guilty.
You refuse to do so. Instead, you just endlessly point to some specific item - like your current argument about "opportunity" - and argue that just because a person cannot account for his time doesn't mean he's guilty. THAT IS TOTAL NONSENSE! NO ONE SAID ANY SUCH THING.
The TOTALITY of the evidence says beyond a reasonable doubt that Ivins sent the anthrax letters, therefore he MUST have driven to New Jersey to do so. The fact that there is no specific piece of evidence showing him driving to New Jersey is meaningless. The OTHER FACTS say he did so. And there are no facts which say he could NOT have done it.
That really shouldn't be so hard for you to understand. It's been part of our Justice System and the justice systems of most other countries for hundreds of years. You really NEED to try and understand it.
Ed
Mr. Rowley,
ReplyDeleteYou're not accomplishing anything by creating ridiculous arguments.
You wrote: "Those things (means, motive and opportunity) are enough for SUSPICION (ie for making a person a suspect, or if you prefer mealy-mouthed euphemisms like Mister Lake does, 'person of interest'); it does NOT suffice to convict."
NO ONE SAID IT DID.
You wrote: "But tens of thousands of suspects do not necessarily produce even a single defendant."
NO ONE SAID IT DID.
What the DOJ and I are saying is that when you look at ALL THE EVIDENCE TOGETHER, it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer:
1. He had motive.
2. He had the equipment to make the powders.
3. He had the skills to make the powders.
4. He had the time to make the powders.
5. He was in control of the "murder weapon."
6. He couldn't explain his odd evening hours.
7. He had a history of driving long distances to commit crimes.
8. He was mentally ill and driven by obsessions.
9. He said that if he did it, he didn't remember doing it.
10. He tried to intimidate witnesses.
11. He repeatedly tried to destroy evidence.
12. He falsified evidence.
13. He lied to investigators.
14. He destroyed all of his emails for 2001.
15. He had no alibi.
16. He had connections to the scene of the crime.
17. He threw away the coding materials for the code in the media letter.
18. The code in the media letter related to his obsessions with his female-coworkers.
19. The envelopes were sold in his area.
20. He had all the spores he needed in his autoclave bags.
21. Two of his psychiatrists suspected him.
22. He'd voice plans for murder in the past.
23. He falsely believed the Ames strain was untraceable.
24. In emails before the letters were discovered, he used terms similar to what was in the letters.
25. Greendale school and 4th grade related to a charity of his.
26. He was upset with the two senators who were targeted.
27. He seemed to know about the anthrax attacks weeks before the first letter was found.
28. Everyone else could be eliminated as a suspect.
You can once again pick a single item from this list and argue that it doesn't prove guilt, and I'll just tell you once again that it isn't any single item that proves guilt, it's the ENTIRE LIST that proves guilt.
And, I've probably left some key items off the list.
Ed
16. He had connections to the scene of the crime.
ReplyDelete--------------------------------
If by "scene of the crime" you mean that mailbox, it's simply untrue.
I come from New York City. Not just via my ancestors (a la Ivins and Princeton), but by having lived there for 2 decades. Does THAT mean that I have "connections to the scene of any crime" I'm accused of committing there? I have connections to every mailbox and post office in the greater NY metropolitan area?!?! No, it's absurd.
This is Mister Lake once again mislabelling something, something that SOUNDS good but is faulty/untrue.
Ivins had no connection to the mailbox. If you have to drag in a shrink flunky of the FBI to aver that 'mystical connections'* to that mailbox 'may have' been involved, it means you have no real evidence of NON-mystical connections to the mailbox. Speculation out the roof!
*this expression is Mister Lake's own: "Ivins may have seen some mystical connection between his own ancestors from Monmouth, NJ, and the origins of the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority in Monmouth, IL."
http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2012/08/aug-26-sept-1-2012-discussions.html
----------------------------------------------
28. Everyone else could be eliminated as a suspect.
----------------------
No, and we went over THIS many times too. Elimination only works if:
a)you can be 100% sure of who had access from the years 1997 to Sept 2001 and at all locations. Impossible in most instances, and certainly here.
b)you can be 100% sure that EACH and EVERY alibi was true, AND that there were no accomplices doing what the ringleader was unable to do in order to set up the alibi. Again impossible.
====================================================
Unfortunately, creating humongous lists whose contents are faulty and/or tendentious will convince no one who doesn't already agree with you.
ONE solid piece of physical forensic evidence (fingerprints of Ivins on one of the envelopes say) would be more persuasive than
the entire 92 pages of the FINAL REPORT.
Richard Rowley wrote: "If by "scene of the crime" you mean that mailbox, it's simply untrue."
ReplyDeleteOnce again you show that you have no understanding of evidence, of the legal system, of facts or of logic. You just use your own private belief system. If you believe something is untrue, then it MUST be untrue. In the reality of the Justice System, it is very true.
Richard Rowley also wrote: "Elimination only works if:
a)you can be 100% sure of who had access from the years 1997 to Sept 2001"
And once again you show that you do not understand evidence and the concept of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." You state your beliefs and assume they are facts. In reality, they are just your beliefs and have nothing to do with reality.
We have no basis for discussion. I am here to discuss facts and evidence. All you can do is argue your beliefs as if they were facts.
Ed
Mr. Rowley,
ReplyDeleteIf we could stick to a subject for awhile, maybe I could explain to you where you are totally wrong in your beliefs.
I wrote: "16. He had connections to the scene of the crime."
And you wrote: "If by "scene of the crime" you mean that mailbox, it's simply untrue."
In court, the evidence connecting Ivins to the scene of the crime might be presented this way.
1. Ivins' on-the-record statements about his obsession with the KKG sorority would be presented as evidence. One of the FBI agents would probably testify to what Ivins said. If there was a transcript, it would be presented as an exhibit.
2. Ivins on-the-record statements about his burglaries of KKG sorority houses would be presented as evidence. One of the FBI agents would probably testify to what Ivins said. If there was a transcript, it would be presented as an exhibit.
3. Nancy Haigwood would testify that Ivins was obsessed with the KKG sorority. Her testimony would be testimony evidence
4. Ivins on-the-record statements that he researched all the KKG offices and houses on the East Coast would be presented as evidence. One of the FBI agents would probably testify to what Ivins said. If there was a transcript, it would be presented as an exhibit.
5. Ivins' father's graduation records would be presented as evidence that Ivins' father went to Princeton.
6. Ivins' on-the-record statements that he visited Princeton as a child would be presented as evidence. One of the FBI agents would probably testify to what Ivins said. If there was a transcript, it would be presented as an exhibit.
7. Ivins on-the-record statements about using the mails as part of past crimes would presented as evidence. One of the FBI agents would probably testify to what Ivins said. If there was a transcript, it would be presented as an exhibit.
8. A chart or map would likely be presented as evidence slowing the location of the KKG office in Princeton as related to Princeton University AND the mailbox used for the mailings.
The jury would see that the mailbox used in the crime was the closest mailbox to the KKG office in Princeton.
The prosecutor would very likely describe this as "Establishing Dr. Ivins' connection to the scene of the crime."
This is all routine court procedure. There is nothing in this that wouldn't be allowed in court.
Any belief you have that any of this would not be allowed is nonsense.
Ed