I also found that in the past year three different Anthrax Truthers have referred to the fictional Lt. Columbo of the Los Angeles Police Department as some kind of model for a good detective and investigator. "Columbo" was a TV detective show that ran from 1971 to 2003. Lt. Columbo was played the the late Peter Falk. I think I watched every episode, but why was that particular show so fascinating to Anthrax Truthers?
Then a possible answer occurred to me. Every episode of "Columbo" began with the audience witnessing the killer commit the murder. So, the audience knows who the killer is before Lt. Columbo arrives at the scene and begins his investigation. The audience knows more than the detective knows!
That is certainly not typical with most crime shows. Usually, the fun of the show is trying to figure out who the culprit is before the TV detective figures it out. On "Columbo," the fun was watching Lt. Columbo outwit a killer who continuously tried to mislead him, a killer who always thought he was smarter than the bumbling, disheveled and seemingly slow-witted Lt. Columbo.
All Anthrax Truthers believe they know who sent the anthrax letters of 2001, and they believe they know more about the case than the true-life professional investigators who worked the case. Anthrax Truthers may not agree amongst themselves about who actually sent the anthrax, but they all know the FBI was wrong in finding that Dr. Bruce Ivins did it and that Ivins acted alone.
How do they know? Evidently, they divine it. It occurs to them just as if they witnessed the crime on an episode of "Columbo." And, anyone who disagrees with them is just someone who has not seen the TV script that the Truther envisioned. They knew who did it before the real investigators showed up on the scene. And, facts found by the FBI are irrelevant, since the script the Truthers envision has other facts which will show who really did it. They just want the investigators to look in the right place for those facts.
Can it be that simple? The pieces certainly fit.
There probably won't be any more "Columbo" TV movies, since Peter Falk is dead and it's hard to imagine anyone else playing the role. (Someone might try, the way Steve Martin tried to play Inspector Clouseau after Peter Sellers died.) I would like to see an show where the killer commits his crime at an amateur detective convention. Lt. Columbo would then not only have to figure out who did it, he'd have to contend with a hundred amateur detectives trying to second guess him, all of whom have their own versions of the script in their heads, and they all know with absolute certainty that their version is the best version.
But, could there be such a show without Lt. Columbo losing his cool and punching out every amateur detective who argues beliefs against facts? Probably not. And Columbo's biggest fans wouldn't want their hero punching out the people who represent Columbo's biggest fans.
My Sunday comment also examines some bizarre beliefs that one Anthrax Truther has about "intelligence analysis." But, you can read what I wrote there. There's no need to repeat it here.
Meanwhile, if anyone is interested, I've finished a poster of pictures I took in Italy in the 1970's and 1980's. It's 36 inches wide and 24 inches tall, and looks like this:
Here's an index:
There are some terrific shots in the collage. (Click on the pictures below to view larger versions.) Here's one of my favorites from Southern Italy:
and here's one from Venice that I couldn't fit into the poster:
Okay, I'll bite! Mr Lake wrote:
ReplyDelete-------------------
So, I've got three Anthrax Truthers all using the fictional Lt. Columbo as some kind of master detective. Why Columbo? Why not any one of a hundred other fictional detectives on TV shows?
========================================
I cannot speak for the two others but I can tell you why I picked Columbo:
1)I saw many many episodes of it down through the years (decades) and, with the possible exception of the other show I mentioned (MURDER SHE WROTE), there's probably no other such detective show with which I am so familiar. Other shows I might have seen 3, 5, 8 times, but if the episodes were atypical, then any generalization about the show might be erroneous. 'Talk/write about what you know' is the principle (though I gather there are people who are trivia experts about Columboese: his stories about his wife, his dog, other minutiae etc. and I'd never taken it THAT far).
2)I brought up Columbo when we were talking about alibis, and I observed that in Columbo episodes much of the planning and machinations and what-not that go into the murder are with the purpose of either making it look like someone else was culpable/it was an accident/it was a suicide.
Not infrequently a mechanism of chronological manipulation is used: the death seems to have occurred when the 'bad guy' was elsewhere/otherwise occupied/with a witness. Columbo's task is to uncover the manipulation and expose the alibi as fallacious.
That's as far as I'll take it.
Mr. Rowley,
ReplyDeleteEvery detective show has a main character or two who has eccentricities. That's what makes them different from all the other detectives on TV.
And, in any planned crime, criminals always try to have an alibi and do all the things you say.
The one BIG difference between "Columbo" and nearly every other detective show is that "Columbo" nearly always began with the audience witnessing the culprit commit the crime. So, the audience always knew more about the case than Columbo did when Columbo appears on the scene.
You're just phrasing it differently. You're saying that "Columbo" showed you more about how the culprit went about committing the crime, planning his alibi, making it look like a suicide, etc.
So, instead of focusing on how Columbo went about figuring out who the culprit was and how and why the culprit committed the crime, your interest was more on how the culprit operated. And, you transfer that to how your "suspect" went about perpetrating the anthrax mailings.
It's just a way of justifying your beliefs. If your villain had an alibi, you can explain that by how the villains on "Columbo" went about establishing a false alibi. If the evidence points to Bruce Ivins, you can explain that by how villains on "Columbo" went about making the evidence point to someone else.
It's not about what the facts say, it's about how you can rationalize a way your "suspect" could have made the facts appear to point at Bruce Ivins instead of at himself.
It's just another way of rationalizing things to make them fit a fixed belief. It's a way of ignoring the facts which say that Bruce Ivins did it.
Ed
It's just a way of justifying your beliefs.
ReplyDelete--------------------------------------------------------------
I reference two of the most popular TV detective shows of the last 40-45 years and this is somehow a justification of my "beliefs"?!?!?!?
You must really be desperate for an argument to convince yourself of that. What were those OTHER tens of millions of people doing watching Columbo and MURDER SHE WROTE (for decades!) doing it for, to justify THEIR beliefs? Back to Mister Lake:
------------------------
And, in any planned crime, criminals always try to have an alibi and do all the things you say.
---------------------------------------
No, not necessarily (there are LOTS of dumb criminals out there, and if you have any doubts, just read THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER for a few months and you will see eye-popping lack of foresight, self-awareness, knowledge of basic forensics etc. Those people can't even SPELL "alibi" let alone come up with one).
Besides, the most common form of alibi-manufacture is just to have some pal falsely claim that the perp was with him (the pal)during the critical timeframe. But my recollection is: that was too ordinary for Columbo and it rarely went down that way: in most instances the alibi was so elaborate and mechanical and unobvious that even the perp's wife or girlfriend or best friend or (fill in blank) didn't know that the perp did it. Elaborate, complicated, not readily discernible.
Basically, COLUMBO was a(n?) hommage to "the perfect crime". Each week's villain's self-confidence/arrogance was not entirely based on the socio-economic chasm between him and the rumpled, seemingly blundering detective, nor on the innocuous-sounding questions Columbo would pose. No, a large part of the hubris was based upon how intricate the whole scheme was. How much time and planning and effort went into everything.
Mr. Rowley wrote: "What were those OTHER tens of millions of people doing watching Columbo and MURDER SHE WROTE (for decades!)"
DeleteWith "Murder She Wrote," they were trying to figure out who did the crime before Jessica Fletcher could do it. The same with nearly all other detective shows. The crime is a puzzle that the audience tries to solve along with the detectives.
The point is that "Columbo" was different. It was not like any other detective show I can think of. There was no puzzle. It was the only detective show where the audience nearly always KNEW who the culprit was from the very beginning.
So, it was as you describe it, a show where the audience gets watch the arrogant villain be outwitted by the bumbling, rumpled, seemingly slow-witted Lt. Columbo.
But, you didn't seem to be interested in the fact that Columbo always saw though the false alibis and caught the bad guy in 90 minutes or 2 hours. You were relating it to the anthrax case in some way. And, that way appears to be how a killer can create a false alibi and false evidence to point away from himself at at someone else.
Since you think that the FBI was wrong in identifying Bruce Ivins as the anthrax killer, it appears that you think that in that real life case the real killer must have planted false evidence that the FBI somehow believed. Or the FBI just couldn't put two and two together.
You evidently do not look at the anthrax case as an example of the FBI investigators methodically sorting through all the possible suspects and all the clues and gradually figuring out that Bruce Ivins committed the crime -- just like on Columbo. You're viewing it some other way. The same with "DXer."
Ed
PART II
ReplyDeleteMister Lake:
-------------
So, instead of focusing on how Columbo went about figuring out who the culprit was and how and why the culprit committed the crime, your interest was more on how the culprit operated.
--------------------------------------
It's called reconstructing the crime. Pretty basic, and not limited to anthrax or BW or terrorism cases.
In Amerithrax it tells you much about the NEED for collaborators.
And the need for collaborators all but eliminates Ivins.
END PART II
Mr. Rowley wrote: "It's called reconstructing the crime."
ReplyDeleteBut on "Columbo," did Lt. Columbo ever have to "reconstruct the crime?" The audience knew how the crime was committed, so any reconstruction would be telling them what they already knew. Columbo usually just had to figure out a way to get the bad guy in spite of all the false leads and false evidence the bad guy put in his way.
Mr. Rowley also wrote: "the need for collaborators all but eliminates Ivins."
Not so. My book explains how Ivins could easily commit the crime without any "collaborators." If you see a need for collaborators, you are misunderstanding something or you are distorting facts to make them fit your own theory of who did it.
Explain why the culprit needed "collaborators," and I'll show you where you are mistaken.
Ed
Mister Lake wrote:
Delete----------------------
Explain why the culprit needed "collaborators," and I'll show you where you are mistaken.
==============================================
The St Pete letters had the same author as the Amerithrax letters proper. Given the distance, the timeframe (when Ivins was certifiably working), etc
he could only have sent them via 1) overnight delivery
to 2) a collaborator in/near Florida who then dropped them in ordinary first class mail somewhere in St Pete.
I took up this on Feb 22nd 2012 10:28
http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2012/02/feb-19-feb-25-2012-discussions.html
And in some detail. For at least a couple days.
And in late May I start in again on the other mailings
r. rowleyMay 29, 2012 7:08 AM
http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2012/05/may-27-june-2-2012-discussions.html
And in August I take up the analysis via the suggested analogy of a jigsaw puzzle:
r. rowleyAugust 10, 2012 12:12 PM
http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2012/07/july-15-july-21-2012-discussions.html
Richard Rowley wrote: "The St Pete letters had the same author as the Amerithrax letters proper."
DeleteNo, they didn't. You are mistaken. The facts say that the St. Pete letters were NOT written by the same person who wrote the anthrax letters, nor were those letters mailed by the same person. The anthrax letters were mailed by Bruce Ivins. The identity of writer of the St. Pete letters has either not been determined or not made public.
Your arguments just state your beliefs. Your beliefs are contradicted by the facts.
Ed
Mister Lake wrote:
ReplyDelete--------------------
Since you think that the FBI was wrong in identifying Bruce Ivins as the anthrax killer, it appears that you think that in that real life case the real killer must have planted false evidence that the FBI somehow believed. Or the FBI just couldn't put two and two together.
========================================================
Well, those sound like comprehensive alternatives but I wouldn't endorse either 100%:
1)"the real killer must have planted false evidence"
Well, if you mean the red herring of the Quantico letter, and
similar MAILED red herrings, then, yes, you could call that (or any red herring skeins)"false evidence". But as I already noted elsewhere, those very communications give TRUE evidence as well:
evidence that it was a multi-man operation, that it spanned hundreds of miles, not only to the Northeast but to the Southeast as well. Sometimes a mask tells us something about the person underneath it.
2)"Or the FBI just couldn't put two and two together."
No. They just started in the wrong place and kept digging. Under the best of circumstances they might not have been able to solve the puzzle completely (because it just is unlike any case they've ever had (A CRIME UNLIKE ANY OTHER? Yes, in spades!)). But I AM a bit surprised that they couldn't eliminate Ivins, and couldn't figure out that it was a group sending the letters. But that's more like getting mixed up in geometry class than being unable to put two and two together. A tough nut to crack.
Mr. Rowley wrote: "They just started in the wrong place and kept digging."
ReplyDeleteAn interesting belief, but it has nothing to do with reality.
The evidence pointed to the right place, but it took years to figure out exactly who was responsible.
You believe it was "a group sending the letters" because you make connections where there really are no connections. You just believe there are connections. You argue beliefs against the facts.
The facts say that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer. The beliefs of people who have their own theories about the case don't change what the facts say.
How many people agree with your theory about who did it? If you haven't fully explained your theory to anyone, how do you ever plan to convince anyone that you're right? What are you waiting for?
Ed
Ed Lake wrote: But on "Columbo," did Lt. Columbo ever have to "reconstruct the crime?"
ReplyDeleteThe last episode of "Columbo" aired on January 39, 2003, 10 years ago. Although I probably watched it, I don't recall anything about it.
My memory of the series is that Columbo would sort-of "reconstruct the crime," but not in the way it was done on other detective shows. No blackboards. No diagrams. No analysis of bullet trajectories or blood spatter. Columbo would typically just mull things over and then explain to the villain some inconsistency that he couldn't figure out. And figuring out the reason for that inconsistency would gradually lead to understanding how the crime was perpetrated.
I've also been thinking about why "Columbo" was such a popular show for so many years. I'm pretty sure it had nothing to do with the crimes or how they were solved. The show was popular primarily because the audience liked the CHARACTER Lt. Columbo as played by Peter Falk. They loved all his peculiar habits, his unusual way of doing things, his beat-up car, his dog, his talk about his wife, etc. The audience just liked watching Lt. Columbo do "his thing." The case was just there to give Columbo something to do to entertain the audience.
The same with Jessica Fletcher, and the same with my current favorite detective or cop shows: (1) "The Mentalist," (2) "Castle," (3) "Elementary," and (4) "Justified." The lead characters are very interesting and entertaining, and it's good fun to watch them do their thing.
It's not the puzzle or the solution to the case that usually sticks in my memory, but some funny thing that one of the lead characters did. Patrick Jane on "The Mentalist" is always upsetting important or stuffy people by asking impertinent questions. Rick Castle on "Castle" is always coming up with ideas that are straight out of famous movies. Sherlock Holmes on "Elementary" is always making the same kind of unexpected observations that Holmes from the 1880s made. And Marshal Raylan Givens on "Justified" is always so incredibly cool when he goes nose to nose with some wildly angry bad guy.
I sometimes buy the DVDs for my favorite shows so I can watch them again when I'm in the right mood. I recently saw "Columbo" on sale at Best Buy for less than $15 a season, but I didn't buy any. It's just not a show I want to watch again. I'm not sure why.
Ed
Going back quite a ways: Mister Lake addressing me:
ReplyDelete------------------
You evidently do not look at the anthrax case as an example of the FBI investigators methodically sorting through all the possible suspects and all the clues and gradually figuring out that Bruce Ivins committed the crime -- just like on Columbo.
---------------------------------------------------------
I dispute that Columbo's PRIMARY method of solution was: an eliminative one. In fact the characteristic feature of the show was this: it was SO formulaic (super-rich-arrogant-guy-kills- someone-in-an-ingenious-way-and-eventually-Columbo-figures-it-out- and-indicates-that-in-the-climactic-scene)that EVEN WHEN THE PERP'S face/form isn't visible as the murder is depicted in the first 5 to 10 minutes of the show, we KNOW who did it: the perp and/or Columbo deliver something like 90% of the dialogue, have something close to 95% of the post-murder-opening screen time.
Heck, a Columbo fan could tune in 30 or 40 minutes late, miss the murder entirely and still say "I don't know what happened but I know Patrick McGoohan did it! Look, he's got a butler and a yacht!
Plus Columbo always has 'one more question, sir' for him!".
Back to Amerithrax: elimination works. It eliminates. But it can't usually prove that someone did something. That only works in Agatha Christie-esque works where the murderer had to be one of the 10 dinner guests because the room was locked when the lights went out and no one had a key. Real life rarely delivers such a situation.
In Amerithrax they did the best they could with the list(s) they drew up. But none of the perps worked at USAMRIID, nor would those perps have had any real connection to anthrax research (in order to be on the lists). All would have had convincing alibis if someone raised the (seemingly)absurd notion that they were involved.
But they did it.
Again Mister Lake addressing me:
ReplyDelete-----------------------
But, you didn't seem to be interested in the fact that Columbo always saw though the false alibis and caught the bad guy in 90 minutes or 2 hours. You were relating it to the anthrax case in some way. And, that way appears to be how a killer can create a false alibi and false evidence to point away from himself at at someone else.
======================================================
All entertainment of that sort has its realistic elements and its unrealistic elements. We viewers know going in that the crime will be (correctly!) solved in 90-120 minutes. But that hardly means that 1)you can time-table true crime investigations
2)that all crimes are solved (hence 'cold cases')and 3) that all crimes are CORRECTLY solved (hence "The Innocence Project" and other instances of the convicted being vindicated years later by DNA evidence and/or a confession by the true perp).
My focus in bringing up COLUMBO was a narrow one: to use it as a handy illuminator of the ways in which, at least theoretically, alibis can be manufactured if the perp(s) is/are clever enough/resouceful enough. As to the rest: it's not a super-realistic show. For that, something like LAW AND ORDER is better.
Mister Lake,
ReplyDeleteI really admire your photos. You have a true eye for composition.
Thanks. Photography has been a hobby of mine since I was in high school.
DeleteEd
Mr. Rowley wrote: "In Amerithrax they [The FBI] did the best they could with the list(s) they drew up. But none of the perps worked at USAMRIID, nor would those perps have had any real connection to anthrax research (in order to be on the lists). All would have had convincing alibis if someone raised the (seemingly)absurd notion that they were involved.
ReplyDeleteBut they did it."
Or so you believe. But, without any solid evidence, why do you even try to argue the case? Who is just going to simply accept your opinion?
The FBI followed the evidence and figure out who sent the anthrax letters. You seem to claim that the evidence means nothing, only your beliefs mean anything. There are others who feel the same way you do, but they have different suspects than you do.
Can't you see how illogical your argument is? Even your attempts to convince me an others that you are right without providing any kind of evidence to support your position is illogical. It makes no sense.
Why do you even keep trying? You cannot believe that without facts or evidence you can still change everyone's mind.
Ed
Mr. Rowley wrote: "But that hardly means that [...] 2)that all crimes are solved (hence 'cold cases')and 3) that all crimes are CORRECTLY solved"
ReplyDeleteNo one here ever suggested any such thing. But, the fact that SOME cases are "incorrectly" solved doesn't automatically mean that the FBI was wrong in finding Bruce Ivins to be the anthrax killer. A review of all the facts of the case clearly shows Ivins was the anthrax killer. AND, there are no known facts which indisputably say he couldn't have done it or that someone else did it.
Arguments that SOME cases are "incorrectly" solved is NOT an argument that the anthrax case was incorrectly solved. It's the same kind of reasoning conspiracy theorists use when they argue that the US government did secret experiments in the past, so the anthrax mailings could have been a secret government experiment. It's just a claim. And, it's a possibility. But it's not a convincing argument. It's the argument of someone who has no real evidence nor any valid argument.
Ed