The article uses a lot of "highfalutin" words to make many of the same observations I've been making about conspiracy theorists and True Believers for 11 years.
What I call "arguing beliefs against facts," they call "crippled epistemology."
What I call "illogical reasoning," they call "identifiable cognitive blunders."
And Sunstein and Vermeule use the term "degenerating research program," which just means using a bad hypothesis that requires that supporters constantly have to rationalize and explain away more and more evidence which shows their hypothesis is wrong. (A "progressive research program" is an hypothesis which new evidence tends to confirm.)
However, while I agree with Sunstein and Vermeule on many observations, I tend to disagree with them on others. Clearly they include among the "conspiracy theorists" many people who just think the government is incompetent, and that's why the government's "official explanation" doesn't explain what really happened. Such people have no conspiracy theory, therefore they cannot be labeled as "conspiracy theorists." They are "True Believers" who have the unshakable belief that they know "the truth" and the rest of the world doesn't.
Sunstein and Vermeule also seem to fail to recognize that each Truther (conspiracy theorists and True Believers) has his own unique theory, whether they be Anthrax Truthers, 9/11 Truthers, Moon Landing Truthers, Climate Change Truthers or any other kind of Truther. The only thing that makes them a "group" is the fact that they all believe the official version is wrong. They seem to either believe everyone will see that they are right if they can just convince the world that the government is wrong, or they believe that the first goal is to convince everyone that the government is wrong, and then they can all sort out who is right.
Furthermore, Anthrax Truthers often think that 9/11 Truthers are nuts, and vice versa. 9/11 Truthers often think that Moon Landing Truthers are nuts, and vice versa. Climate Change Truthers often think that Anthrax Truthers are nuts, and vice versa. So, there's not only disagreement within each group of Truthers, they also often disagree with each other on a group level.
Sunstein and Vermeule fail to make that a key point. I see it as THE key point.
My next chore is to learn more about epistemology. As I understand it,
False
propositions cannot
be known. Therefore, knowledge
requires truth. Something has to be true before it can be known.
However, if you don't believe a thing, you cannot know that thing. Therefore knowledge also requires belief.
But, belief is not knowledge. Therefore, knowledge also requires justification.
Justification assures that a belief is not just a wild guess.
So, truth, belief and justification are together necessary to have knowledge.
However, if you don't believe a thing, you cannot know that thing. Therefore knowledge also requires belief.
But, belief is not knowledge. Therefore, knowledge also requires justification.
Justification assures that a belief is not just a wild guess.
So, truth, belief and justification are together necessary to have knowledge.
But how do you convince True Believers that the false propositions they believe in so thoroughly are false because they are contradicted by an abundance of verifiable evidence, when True Believers seem to believe that no evidence is really evidence unless by itself it is undeniable proof? And, they can provide no such evidence (or even any meaningful evidence) to verify their own beliefs.
Ed
From Mister Lake's comments (Sunday), repeated above:
ReplyDelete--------------------------
My next chore is to learn more about epistemology. As I understand it,
False propositions cannot be known. Therefore, knowledge requires truth. Something has to be true before it can be known.
==================================
It seems to me that this is begging the question: the central epistemological question is: how do we "know" something and what does it mean to "know" something? And (a related one) what are the limits of our knowledge?
Mister Lake's above formulation, "Something has to be true before it can be known." seems to suggest that there exists something like a "truthometer" which can tell us, quite apart from our intellect (ie the mechanism that both "knows" and evaluates the surety of that knowledge), whether a proposition we adhere to is "true".
I submit that there is no such thing: debates about this or that crime/physical phenomenon/etc. eventually bog down into battling epistemologies (here I mean APPLIED epistemologies): how can we know something?
But most pertinently: how can we make a determination about THIS CASE/THIS PHENOMENON IN PARTICULAR?
As to your comments today about the meteor:
I would be more interested (but I think this is seldom provided in popular newspapers) in HOW the scientists come to make estimates (both the immediate and later ones) about meteor size. Are they going by:
1)the radar signature? (assuming it shows up on radar)
2) the size of the explosion when the thing explodes in the atmosphere?
3) some other metric I haven't thought up because I never paid much attention to meteors before?
R. Rowley wrote: " how can we know something?
ReplyDeleteBut most pertinently: how can we make a determination about THIS CASE/THIS PHENOMENON IN PARTICULAR?."
The web page about Epistemology that I was commenting on doesn't appear to be as helpful as I had hoped it would be. It's too theoretical and too unconnected to the real world. I agree that you cannot know something that is not true, but you can believe something that is not true.
However, it's not really a question of knowing or believing. The real question is how do we determine if something is true?
The answer appears to be: If the facts say it is true, and if there are no facts which prove it to be false, then it is true (as far as we know).
The problem comes in when some people argue that the FBI may believe something is true, but if the FBI would just look harder, they would find facts which show something different is true.
That is using a second belief to argue in favor of a first belief. It has nothing to do with facts or what is true.
Something is true if the facts say it is true, and it remains true until new facts are presented which explain the error and show something else to be true.
Facts are the "truthometer." The fact that the "truthometer" can sometimes be wrong doesn't mean that it can NEVER be trusted. Nor does it mean that because it is possible for the "truthometer" to be wrong, that it is okay to believe whatever you want to believe.
We can make a determination about this case in particular by looking at the FACTS. The FACTS say Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer. No one has presented FACTS which both explain how it could APPEAR that Bruce Ivins was the killer and also prove to a greater degree of certainty that someone else was really the killer.
What people with beliefs try to do is find ONE fact which they can argue says Ivins was innocent and use that ONE fact to argue that all the other facts showing Ivins to be the killer are meaningless. Example: It's a belief that it's a fact that 9/11 hijacker Ahmed Al Haznawi had an anthrax lesion on his leg. It's also a belief that it's a fact that Al Haznawi had an infected gash in his leg caused by bumping into the sharp corner of a suitcase.
So, clearly there are facts and beliefs supporting both arguments, and there doesn't appear to be any way to be absolutely certain which belief is true.
HOWEVER, MANY OTHER facts say Ivins was the anthrax killer. And that makes the gash or lesion on Al Haznawi's leg irrelevant until solid proof can be found to make it relevant. It's the totality of the evidence that says Ivins was the killer, NOT any "absolute certainty" about any single piece of evidence.
You and a lot of people have to understand that when investigating a crime absolute certainty is very rare. And, just because something cannot be proved to an absolute certainty, that doesn't mean that nothing has been proved at all. It's been proved "beyond a reasonable doubt." So, the case is closed UNTIL someone can provide BETTER facts which show something else to be true.
If you BELIEVE something else to be true, you have a problem - unless you can find solid proof to change what has been concluded to be true.
Ed
R. Rowley wrote: "HOW the scientists come to make estimates."
ReplyDeleteIt appears that the Russian scientist(s) who made the 10-ton estimate was just making an "educated guess" on what the minimum size would be for an object to cause that kind of shock wave.
Then, NASA scientists compiled data on the height of the vapor trail, the speed of the object, the time it took for the shock wave to hit the ground, and the damage caused by the shock wave, and they came up with it being at least a 7,000 ton object.
Then they refined the numbers and decided it was more like a 10,000 ton object.
Everyone was looking or the minimum size it could have been.
I don't think there were any radar readings. It all happened too quickly and unexpectedly. But, there were a lot of images to analyze and a lot of different angles to determine the size of the shock wave.
PLUS, there was a lot of calculated data about the 1908 meteor strike and what size that meteor must have been. I expect they used that one as the model for estimating the size of the 2013 meteor.
Ed
Here's what it says on the NASA web site about how they made their revised estimate:
ReplyDelete"These new estimates were generated using new data that had been collected by five additional infrasound stations located around the world – the first recording of the event being in Alaska, over 6,500 kilometers away from Chelyabinsk. The infrasound data indicates that the event, from atmospheric entry to the meteor's airborne disintegration took 32.5 seconds. The calculations using the infrasound data were performed by Peter Brown at the University of Western Ontario, Canada.
As I understand it, there was no "explosion." There was just an object entering the atmosphere at 33,000 miles per hour and mostly burning up due to friction with the air. The "explosion" was just the "sonic boom" caused by the wave of air being pushed aside by the object. The faster and bigger the object, the larger the "sonic boom."
Ed
Posted by Mister Lake addressing me:
ReplyDelete--------------
You and a lot of people have to understand that when investigating a crime absolute certainty is very rare.
------------------------------
Au contraire! In all my comments on Amerithrax I've, with only a handful of exceptions, stressed the ambiguity of many "facts", ie that a fact can have more than one explanation.
Examples:
1) guy passes polygraph test(s). Yeah, maybe he's found a way to 'beat' the test and/or he's a skilled liar to begin with.
HOWEVER, the results of someone (who is guilty) who has beaten the polygraph are going to be more or less IDENTICAL to an innocent man's results: no evidence (via polygraph) of deception.
Therefore....the raw 'fact' of a passed exam can't definitely tell us anything.
2) "suspicious statements" and 'suspicious actions' on the part of Ivins are merely that: suspicious.
Definition of SUSPICION
1a : the act or an instance of suspecting something wrong without proof or on slight evidence : mistrust b : a state of mental uneasiness and uncertainty : doubt
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suspicion
--------------------
Suspicions shouldn't be the basis to CONVICT someone of a crime, yet the FINAL REPORT is full of suspicions (ie unverified, and in some cases unverifiable, interpretations of bare fact(s)).
(This would cover sections H, I, and J of Part IV of the FINAL REPORT pretty much in their entirety: Part IV is: the Case Against Bruce Ivins).
END OF PART I(to be continued)
Part II
ReplyDelete(In Part I I was giving examples of areas where I was emphasizing the ambiguity of mere 'facts' and the lack of certainty in Amerithrax)
3) the printing. No, I don't want to re-debate the printing(s), merely to point out that a)the Task Force/DoJ says nothing much about it (but implies Ivins did it by refusing to countenance an accomplice/innocent helpmate) b)Mister Lake thinks a child was the printer c)Anonymous and I think Ivins' printing----there are samples on the Internet-----is a poor match for the letters' printing, with us two evidently splitting ways as to who we DO think did the printing. But what is diverging here isn't the raw 'fact' that there is printing, nor the further observation (call it a fact or interpretation) that there's an awkwardness about the printing but rather the interpretation of WHY that awkwardness is there.
4) Section F of Part IV of the Final Report is entitled:
The Envelopes Used in the Attacks Were Sold at a Post Office in the Maryland/Virginia Area.
Again that's a raw fact. But it invites more than one interpretation:
a)Ivins did the mailings and couldn't be bothered to purchase envelopes far away from his hometown (perhaps IN his hometown)
b)someone else (not Ivins)at USAMRIID did the mailings and couldn't be bothered to purchase envelopes far away from the area.
c)someone from another area took the trouble to go to Frederick, MD just for the purpose of buying the envelopes there/near there, so as to produce a red herring.
Same underlying fact, different interpretations.
R. Rowley wrote: "Suspicions shouldn't be the basis to CONVICT someone of a crime, yet the FINAL REPORT is full of suspicions (ie unverified, and in some cases unverifiable, interpretations of bare fact(s))."
ReplyDeleteSo you claim. But you do not cite any of these "unverifiable interpretations of bare facts." Instead, you write about the handwriting, which was NOT used as evidence against Ivins.
And, you talk about the envelopes once again as if the facts about the envelopes was the only piece of evidence pointing to Ivins.
Your arguments always come back to the same screwball belief: Evidence is not evidence unless by itself it proves someone guilty.
The envelope evidence was just one piece of evidence in a MOUNTAIN of evidence pointing to Ivins as the culprit. ALL THE EVIDENCE MUST BE VIEWED TOGETHER TO UNDERSTAND THAT IT SAYS IVINS WAS THE ANTHRAX KILLER. Looking at each item separately and claiming it proves nothing by itself is ridiculous. That is NOT the way evidence is viewed in court or by any objective person. It's the way you distort the facts in order to ignore the facts.
If you have a single piece of evidence which UNDENIABLY shows that your suspect was the anthrax killer, why haven't you presented it to the FBI? Obviously, you have no such evidence. You just require it from people who disagree with you. You have very different standards when it comes to your own theory.
Ed
Mr. Rowley,
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you require evidence to support your own beliefs?
You require undeniable evidence for things you do NOT believe, but you require NO evidence for things you do believe.
For example: You argue that the St. Petersburg letters were part of the same plot that resulted in the anthrax letters.
You have no evidence of this. It's just your belief. Yet, you seem to feel that you need no evidence BECAUSE it is what you believe.
Furthermore, you seem to feel that all evidence which disproves your beliefs (different handwriting, different mailing location, different wording) is not really evidence because you can dream up fantasy explanations for everything.
In your world, the only valid evidence acceptable from others is evidence that by itself proves guilt. But, you have no such evidence to prove your own suspect(s) is guilty.
How do you expect to be taken seriously when you have NO rules or logic for your own theory, but you demand that theories from others follow strict and unreasonable rules you cannot be bothered to obey?
Ed
Addressing me:
ReplyDeleteMr. Rowley,
Why don't you require evidence to support your own beliefs?
---------------------------------------
Oh, but I do. I do that not only for Amerithrax but for every other case that strikes me as amenable to my linguistic methodology. For the acid test of a methodology is: it should produce (reliable) results in more than one case.
Lately------past week or two------I've returned (I tend to rotate these cases in and out as the spirit moves me)to Jack the Ripper.
For that case there's an enormous pool of NAMED suspects. And thousands to millions of unnamed potential suspects from that era.
But as in Amerithrax the Jack the Ripper perp signed one or more communications: he just couldn't resist. That tends to confirm my hypothesis that people of that certain neurological condition (it has no name as yet) have a VERY strong need to 'claim credit' for what they've done, a need which overrides caution.
I don't guarantee that if I put out a book on it(Jack t Ripper), that will close the debate. Far from it. But the recalcitrance will be because of the mystique of the unsolved/unsolvable case, not from any legitimate criticism of my methodology, its weaknesses.
As to my writing about Amerithrax on the Internet, I had to draw the line somewhere: how much to reveal, WHAT to reveal about my hypothesis. I think I've handled it about right: any more info on my hypothesis would tend to 1)ensnare me in constant debate(s) and 2) take up to much time/energy and 3)rob any book I could write of its originality.
R. Rowley wrote: "As to my writing about Amerithrax on the Internet, I had to draw the line somewhere: how much to reveal, WHAT to reveal about my hypothesis. I think I've handled it about right: any more info on my hypothesis would tend to 1)ensnare me in constant debate(s)...."
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me (and probably everyone else) that you are out to ensnare yourself in constant debates, which are only debates because you start them and present NO real evidence to support your own theory while using absurd logic to argue against the FBI's findings.
Most people who follow news about the anthrax attacks of 2001 recall that Dr. Don Foster used "linguistic methodology" to make a total fool of himself in his writings about Dr. Hatfill in Vanity Fair magazine. Trying to prove something with "linguistic methodology" today is one step down from trying to prove something by reading chicken entrails.
What arguing a theory does is help you find flaws. But, you evidently believe your theory has no flaws. And if someone says it does, you won't believe them anyway. Good luck with that reasoning.
Ed
Another point by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete--------------------
For example: You argue that the St. Petersburg letters were part of the same plot that resulted in the anthrax letters.
You have no evidence of this. It's just your belief. [...]
------------------------------------------------
No, I have evidence. I merely refuse to present it on the Internet. The feature(s) I keyed on are shared by: the note sent to B'nai Brith in April of 1997, the Town of Quantico letter, the St Pete hoax letters. And in the case of the St Pete hoax letters that's in ADDITION to the fact that one or more was printed in pseudo-Cyrillic style, while the Brokaw Amerithrax letter was printed in pseudo-Hebrew style. Which I went over a bit about a year ago about half-way down this thread:
http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2012/02/feb-19-feb-25-2012-discussions.html
r. rowleyFebruary 20, 2012 at 5:11 PM
That was about a week after I explicated the Hebrew printing (sub) hypothesis here: (begins top of thread)
http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2012/02/feb-12-feb-18-discussions.html
Most people who follow news about the anthrax attacks of 2001 recall that Dr. Don Foster used "linguistic methodology" to make a total fool of himself in his writings about Dr. Hatfill in Vanity Fair magazine. Trying to prove something with "linguistic methodology" today is one step down from trying to prove something by reading chicken entrails.
ReplyDelete--------------------------------------------------
Well then I'll have to change your mind, Mister Lake. If I succeed in writing the book, I'll send you an early copy.
Linguistics is more powerful than you can imagine.
(I'm not going to defend Don Foster again, as I've done it before to no avail with you. But some of his findings on Amerithrax have been vindicated by yours truly)
Mister Lake addressing me:
ReplyDelete-------------------
It seems to me (and probably everyone else) that you are out to ensnare yourself in constant debates, which are only debates because you start them...
----------------------------------------
How "start them"? Because I don't agree with you and say so?!?!?
Isn't that what a discussion section of a blog is for? But I don't see myself as having gone TOO far in that direction: in the first half o 2012 my participation as measured by posts per week was much higher than it is this year. That's because once you've expressed yourself on a subtopic of Amerithrax there's no need to go over it again in such detail and hence lately I've posted a number of links to our past discussions so as not to be too repetitive.
R. Rowley wrote: "No, I have evidence. I merely refuse to present it on the Internet."
ReplyDeleteFor this or any discussion, refusing to present evidence is the same thing as having no evidence.
R. Rowley also wrote: Linguistics is more powerful than you can imagine."
I have a pretty good imagination. My imagination says that linguistics is a lot less powerful than you imagine.
R. Rowley also wrote: "How "start them"? Because I don't agree with you and say so?!?!?
Isn't that what a discussion section of a blog is for?"
The discussion section of a blog is for discussions which would hopefully resolve issues. You don't engage in any discussions to figure out what the facts are. You just argue over and over that no fact means anything and no item of evidence means anything unless by itself it proves guilt. That is a FALSE argument that shows either that you have no concern for the realities of facts and evidence, or it's a FALSE belief that no facts or evidence can change your mind about.
I present facts and evidence. You ignore the facts and evidence and claim you have something that trumps all facts and evidence, but you cannot tell anyone what it is because you MIGHT someday need it for a book. That's not a discussion, that's talking to a wall.
The facts and evidence say you have NOTHING OF VALUE, you only have A BELIEF that what you BELIEVE is better than all the facts and evidence that says Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer.
Your belief is evidently shared by NO ONE. It's a belief that no one else agrees with. There's absolutely no reason for anyone to think that if or when you write your book it's going to say anything of interest. It'll just be your beliefs and nothing more. It's only value will be to allow people to examine how your mind works.
I've been studying the introduction to the new book by conspiracy theorist Professor Lance deHaven Smith from Florida State University. The book will be called "Conspiracy Theory In America" and allows people to examine how the mind of a conspiracy theorist works. It can be absolutely fascinating. But, how many people want to buy a book that describes some absurd theory just so they can examine how the author's mind works?
R. Rowley also wrote: "I've posted a number of links to our past discussions so as not to be too repetitive."
All your links do is show that nothing I or anyone else says can change your mind about anything. You have beliefs that no facts or evidence can alter. So, people can either talk to a current wall or click on a link and view a previous wall.
Ed
Mr. Rowley,
ReplyDeleteI don't mean to imply that talking to a wall has no value. If our "discussions" had no value, I wouldn't continue responding to your posts. The value, however, doesn't come from anything you say, since you never say anything new. The value comes from seeing what I write in response. I try to write something different every time, even if it was the same thing you've said a hundred times before.
Writing something different allows me to see things from new angles. It also allows me to search for words and phrases that have the best and most clear meaning. It's practice for writing another book and for making comments on my web site.
In a comment I made in this thread at 7:51 AM on February 20, I wrote:
The web page about Epistemology that I was commenting on doesn't appear to be as helpful as I had hoped it would be. It's too theoretical and too unconnected to the real world. I agree that you cannot know something that is not true, but you can believe something that is not true.
However, it's not really a question of knowing or believing. The real question is how do we determine if something is true?
The answer appears to be: If the facts say it is true, and if there are no facts which prove it to be false, then it is true (as far as we know)."
It's thinking about what I wrote that is of value. How could I have phrased that better? How should I continue with that line of thought?
If you cannot be certain about important things - like the guilt of a defendant in a trial, how do you conclude what is true?
The answer is, of course, you present the facts and evidence to a jury of 12 people who were selected because they had no preconceived ideas about the defendant and you see if they can all agree that the facts and evidence say "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the defendant is guilty.
One person's opinion wouldn't be of much value, but if 12 people can agree, then that's usually good enough.
Yes, sometimes the verdict is wrong and additional facts show that someone else committed the crime. But, there is no better way to do things. Letting all criminals go because it's virtually impossible to be certain beyond ANY doubt that a person is guilty is not a workable alternative.
And, of course, it means that people like you can argue endlessly that you know the truth even if you are the only person on earth who can see it and no one agrees with you.
You are free to believe what you want to believe, and others are free to try to figure out how someone could possibly believe something that appears to everyone else to be total nonsense.
Ed
The discussion section of a blog is for discussions which would hopefully resolve issues. You don't engage in any discussions to figure out what the facts are. You just argue over and over that no fact means anything[...]
ReplyDelete=====================================
If you've written that once, about me about others, you've written that 20 or 30 times. And, as always, I respond that there are facts about Amerithrax that count (both positive and negative)most heavily:
1)Ivins passed two lie detector tests regarding Amerithrax, the first in Feb 2002, so as to continue working at USAMRIID (and he continued, like other employees, to work there for YEARS subsequent) and a later one when he became a suspect. Passed them
both.(about this PARTICULAR fact Mister Lake has nothing meaningful to say except to parrot the DoJ line that those tests were, YEARS LATER, labelled "inconclusive" (hint: if they HAD been truly inconclusive, they would have been readministered within the week; no such readministrations were done)).
2)there's no evidence in the Final Report (or anywhere else) that Ivins was in the State of New Jersey in either September or October of 2001. I've mentioned this DOZENS of times.
(to this fact Mister Lake has nothing meaningful to say. But think of analogous situations: Mister X is accused of robbing banks in Princeton on such-and-such dates, but there's no evidence
Mister X was ever in the State of New Jersey in the ENTIRE MONTHS the banks were robbed. Barring some use of surrogates-----excluded in the Ivins case by the government's brief itself-----that all but precludes the person being guilty).
3)the investigators failed to find anthrax spores in Ivins' vehicle, his domicile. That's another fact, one, like the above facts, CENTRAL to the issue of guilt/innocence. Again, Mister Lake and any would-be DoJ defenders on Amerithrax have nothing meaningful to say. But that doesn't mean that it isn't both a fact and a fact most pertinent to determinations of his guilt/innocence.
Etc. But if you want a pithy presentation of the "etcetera" see here:
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/richard-rowley%E2%80%99s-summary-of-the-fbi%E2%80%99s-non-case-vs-dr-bruce-ivins/
It's from 3 years ago, and it's about "facts", the ones most central to the issues surrounding Ivins' guilt/innocence.
Going back quite a ways up the thread: Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete----------------------
R. Rowley wrote: "Suspicions shouldn't be the basis to CONVICT someone of a crime, yet the FINAL REPORT is full of suspicions (ie unverified, and in some cases unverifiable, interpretations of bare fact(s))."
So you claim. But you do not cite any of these "unverifiable interpretations of bare facts." Instead, you write about the handwriting, which was NOT used as evidence against Ivins.[...]
=======================================
Of course! Because the NON-match was: vindicating or exculpatory evidence, evidence broadly incompatible with the government's case. THAT'S exactly why I brought it up (boy, was I too subtle?!?): anything of that sort is excluded from the document
but wouldn't have been excluded from a notional trial of Ivins: the defense itself would have brought it up.
--------------------------------
As to "unverifiable interpretations of bare facts", one would be whether Ivins had been (in 2001) ENCRYPTING an "amino acid" code into the Brokaw text, or (caution, alternative interpretation follows!)whether he was trying (sporadically, let's say, in the late 2001 to mid 2008 period) to DECRYPT what he took to be a code in the Brokaw text. Naturally, the LATTER interpretation is incompatible with his guilt, and so there's no mention of it (as even a POSSIBILITY) in the FINAL REPORT. But I would argue---------and I HAVE argued right here------that the latter interpretation is more likely, given what we know about what he wrote to himself in emails, going back to at least 2005, given what he told friends, colleagues, even, for that matter what he told investigators.
R. Rowley wrote: 1)Ivins passed two lie detector tests regarding Amerithrax"
ReplyDeleteWho cares? Lie detector tests aren't admissible in court BECAUSE THE RESULTS ARE UNRELIABLE, PARTICULARLY WITH SOCIOPATHS.
R. Rowley also wrote: "20 there's no evidence in the Final Report (or anywhere else) that Ivins was in the State of New Jersey in either September or October of 2001. I've mentioned this DOZENS of times."
Same old, same old. The evidence that says he WAS in New Jersey is all the other evidence that says Ivins did it. And, there is NO evidence that says he could NOT have been in New Jersey. I've stated that DOZENS of times.
R. Rowley also wrote: "3)the investigators failed to find anthrax spores in Ivins' vehicle, his domicile."
Same old, same old. A lack of evidence is NOT evidence. Ivins had been working with anthrax for decades. Obviously he knew how to clean up after himself. The suggestion that he would suddenly not know how to clean up after himself is ridiculous.
R. Rowley also wrote: " the NON-match [handwriting] was: vindicating or exculpatory evidence, evidence broadly incompatible with the government's case."
Nonsense. The government's experts felt that Ivins disguised his handwriting in some way, perhaps by using his "wrong hand." It appears that no two "handwriting experts" had the same theory about the handwriting. So, the handwriting was not part of the case. The case was SOLID without it.
Your fantasy about the "hidden message" in the media letter doesn't even make sense. The evidence was that the decoded message pointed to Ivins' two co-workers. The code itself came from one of Ivins' favorite books. Ivins was observed throwing out the code materials after his home was searched. PLUS, Ivins was fond of codes and had written similar coded messages.
This is just going over the same territory again and again. It's pointless. It's like talking to a wall.
Since you refuse to discuss your own theory, perhaps something productive can be achieved by discussing your beliefs which do not involve your suspect.
Some NEW questions:
1. What is your basis for believing that your understanding of evidence is better than that of the Department of Justice?
2. Why do you think the FBI failed to name your suspect as the anthrax killer? (A) Do you think there is some kind of massive conspiracy involving thousands of government workers to blame the crime on Ivins in order to protect your suspect? Or (B) do you think you are just a better investigator than everyone in the FBI?
3. Why do you refuse to look at all the evidence as a case against Ivins? (A) Is it because you know you have no argument if you do not do things that way? Or (B) is it because you do not accept the way American courts, juries and judges look at evidence?
Ed
R. Rowley wrote: 1)Ivins passed two lie detector tests regarding Amerithrax"
ReplyDeleteWho cares? Lie detector tests aren't admissible in court BECAUSE THE RESULTS ARE UNRELIABLE, PARTICULARLY WITH SOCIOPATHS
==============================================
Then the FBI shouldn't administer them at all. But if they ARE going to administer them, they should be held accountable for fudging on the results: if Ivins passed in Feb 2002, he passed, and the fact that the FBI didn't readminister a polygraph to Ivins in Feb or March or April or May or June or July etc. for YEARS means=he passed. And the (organizational) chutzpah to then claim years later that the results were "inconclusive" (gee, just like the handwriting comparisons!)is a disgrace and a transparent misrepresentation of the situation.
R. Rowley wrote: "Then the FBI shouldn't administer them at all."
ReplyDeleteSo, you DO believe you know more about investigations than the FBI, and that the entire world should do things your way!!
Lie detector tests are sometimes administered as part of an investigation. While the results are not admissible in court, very often they provide investigative leads. And they can sometimes show that the investigation is on a wrong track. It's just a TOOL, not the Holy Grail.
If Ivins passed twenty lie detector tests, and other evidence clearly showed that Ivins was the the anthrax killer, then the results are inconclusive. The fact that no one said the results were "inconclusive" when Ivins first took the test just means no one knew at that time that Ivins could beat the test. No one said passing the test was "conclusive." It was just an indicator that Ivins might be innocent, nothing more.
But, if you feel you know more than the FBI about how lie detectors should be used, I don't see how anything I or the FBI can say will change your mind.
Ed
On Feb. 20, I wrote about the Russian Meteor: "As I understand it, there was no "explosion." There was just an object entering the atmosphere at 33,000 miles per hour and mostly burning up due to friction with the air."
ReplyDeleteThat's still my understanding, but that understanding isn't reinforced by today's statements from NASA that
"Initially traveling at about 20 kilometers per second, its explosive deceleration after impact with the lower atmosphere created a flash brighter than the Sun."
And
"An estimated 500 kilotons of energy was released by the explosion of the 17 meter wide space rock with a mass of 7,000 to 10,000 tons."
The rock entered the atmosphere and immediately started to burn up and disintegrate. Is that the same as an "explosion"? It hit the atmosphere like a rock hitting water in a swimming pool, creating a big splash, a.k.a. "shock wave." Is a "splash" the same thing as an "explosion"?
My Webster's defines an "explosion" as "blowing up; detonation" or "the sound made by exploding."
There was no "blowing up." There was no "detonation." There was no "sound made by exploding."
There was the "impact" of the rock hitting the atmosphere, and there was the "flash" made by the rock as it quickly broke up and friction burned up everything but small pieces.
How can anyone make a point when the "experts" use terms that do not support the point and just confuse the issue. Maybe the people at NASA are conspiring to make me appear to be incorrect! Or are they conspiring to change the definition of "explosion" to fit their own diabolical purposes?
Hmmm.
Ed
Entire post by Mister Lake, addressing me:
ReplyDelete------------------------
R. Rowley wrote: "Then the FBI shouldn't administer them at all."
So, you DO believe you know more about investigations than the FBI, and that the entire world should do things your way!!
Lie detector tests are sometimes administered as part of an investigation. While the results are not admissible in court, very often they provide investigative leads. And they can sometimes show that the investigation is on a wrong track. It's just a TOOL, not the Holy Grail.
If Ivins passed twenty lie detector tests, and other evidence clearly showed that Ivins was the the anthrax killer, then the results are inconclusive. The fact that no one said the results were "inconclusive" when Ivins first took the test just means no one knew at that time that Ivins could beat the test. No one said passing the test was "conclusive." It was just an indicator that Ivins might be innocent, nothing more.
But, if you feel you know more than the FBI about how lie detectors should be used, I don't see how anything I or the FBI can say will change your mind.
==============================================
That's the entire post related to the polygraph question and notice what's NOT in the post:
1) any denial of the chronology I presented ("facts") relating to the two (2) polygraphs Ivins was given.
2) any denial that Ivins continued to work at USAMRIID after each polygraph (and therefore that he "passed" by the normal criteria).
3)any denial that the Task Force then, years later, nullified their own polygraph test results, NOT based on anything 'polygraphic', but because, for reasons having nothing to do with polygraphy(?), they 'liked' Ivins better and better as a suspect.
To anyone not named Ed Lake, that's going to seem an absurd law enforcement/prosecutorial standard. IMHO.
Let me repost one of Mister Lake's sentences from above:
---------
If Ivins passed twenty lie detector tests, and other evidence clearly showed that Ivins was the the anthrax killer, then the results are inconclusive.
-----------------------------------------
No, the results remain what they were before that "other evidence" was developed (why do you think it's called "other evidence" except to distinguish it from the polygraph test results?).
I never called the polygraph results infallible, let alone the 'Holy Grail' but, in conjunction with 1)Ivins' comprehensive denials of guilt over at least 3 years, 2)the lack of physical evidence tying him to either the crime scene (in Princeton) or the preparatory activity (drying/purifying spores, 3)the lack of evidence that he printed the letters (non-match as to his own printing style), 4) the lack of evidence he photocopied the texts anywhere etc. the case for Ivins' innocence is very strong.
3. Why do you refuse to look at all the evidence as a case against Ivins?
ReplyDelete---------------------------------------------------
I have read the FINAL REPORT in its entirety. What is there isn't very impressive to anyone with: an open mind; a skeptical attitude; a good intuitive grasp of human psychology ; certain analytic skills.
If the DoJ comes up with more evidence against Ivins that's not in the FINAL REPORT, let me know. I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by Mister Lake, addressing me:
ReplyDelete------------------
2. Why do you think the FBI failed to name your suspect as the anthrax killer? (A) Do you think there is some kind of massive conspiracy involving thousands of government workers to blame the crime on Ivins in order to protect your suspect?
No. And that "thousands of government workers" bit is a tad exaggerated: even most FBI agents would have followed Amerithrax only loosely, as most FBI agents from 2001 to 2008 were NOT working on Amerithrax. On the prosecutorial side you are talking perhaps (guesstimate) 10 to 20 US attorneys with detailed knowlege, including our pals Jeff Taylor, Rachel Lieber. And even that knowledge would have varied from person to person over the 7 1/2 years of the course of the investigation: those involved in Amerithrax (both FBI, US attorneys) in the 2001-2005 would have had little knowledge of the case against Ivins, since he was not a TOP suspect until March(?)2005, and most of the evidence against him was collected from about that time to mid 2008, with the Task Force reduced by that time to something under 20 agents (FBI/Postal Inspectors).
(End Part I)
(Part II) responding to the two-way alternatives presented to me by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete------------
Or (B) do you think you are just a better investigator than everyone in the FBI?
----------------------------------
As noted in Part I of my response, it isn't "everyone" in the FBI who was assigned to Amerithrax, and agents perforce have to keep their noses out of cases NOT assigned to them. So the AVERAGE FBI agent would have been following Amerithrax mostly through media accounts. Like the rest of us.
My attitude toward "investigation" is this: I would have made a TERRIBLE investigator, because investigation involves talking to large numbers of people, and I'm not psychologically suited to that. I'm good at analysing stuff, particularly linguistic stuff.
Luckily Amerithrax in its entirety (Town of Quantico letter, St Pete hoax letters, Brokaw text, Daschle text etc) is relatively rich in texts to examine, so someone with the right mix of curiosity, linguistic skills, tenacity, and je-ne-sais-quoi is going to be in a good position to make a contribution there. Especially in the age of the Internet where such documents are made available for public perusal.
R. Rowley wrote: "To anyone not named Ed Lake, that's going to seem an absurd law enforcement/prosecutorial standard. IMHO."
ReplyDeleteYou do not understand. The things you mention relate to THE INVESTIGATION. They have NOTHING to do with "prosecutorial standards" or anything of the kind.
If you do not understand that, how can you hope to produce a book which argues that someone else did it? What is your book going to be called, "How I Figured Out Who the Anthrax Killer Really Was by Using Guesswork and an Active Imagination"?
R. Rowley also wrote: "the case for Ivins' innocence is very strong."
There IS NO case for Ivins' innocence. A lack of imaginary evidence is NOT evidence.
R. Rowley also wrote: "If the DoJ comes up with more evidence against Ivins that's not in the FINAL REPORT, let me know.
First, the Final Report was NOT a legal document describing the case against Ivins. It was a SUMMARY of evidence against Ivins. A SUMMARY by definition doesn't include everything.
Second, the Final Report was accompanied by 9,600 pages of additional documents describing details of the investigation.
Third, Ivins committed suicide before he could be brought to trial. So, there is no indictment document describing the actual legal case against Ivins.
All this means that you have to study all the available materials from the case to see how Ivins did the crime. Or, of course, you can buy a copy of my book. In my book I step through what Ivins did, detail by detail, explaining virtually everything in great detail. But, my book includes a lot of information that would not be part of the legal case.
Ivins had the means, motive and opportunity. The facts say he did it. There are NO facts which say he didn't do it.
Ed
If you do not understand that, how can you hope to produce a book which argues that someone else did it? What is your book going to be called, "How I Figured Out Who the Anthrax Killer Really Was by Using Guesswork and an Active Imagination"?
ReplyDelete----------------------------------------------------
I'm not going to name the person (I'm not THAT crazy!) but yes, if space considerations didn't enter into it, "How I Figured Out Who the Anthrax Killer Was" would make an apropos SUBtitle, at least for that section of the book that deals with it.
THAT PART, once I get to the actual text, won't be the hard part. The hard part will be the tedious task of: recapitulating the crimes, recapitulating the course of the investigation. But since it would be for the general reader, AND that material would have to come first, that part will have to be the best written/most compelling part, as readers not familiar with Amerithrax will have to be given a gripping (I almost wrote "griping"!) narrative, or they won't continue reading/get to the alternate solution. That, the tedium of the description of Amerithrax in main, is why I was toying last year with seeking a co-author. But now I'm leaning toward keeping it solo.
R. Rowley wrote: "thousands of government workers" bit is a tad exaggerated: even most FBI agents would have followed Amerithrax only loosely, as most FBI agents from 2001 to 2008 were NOT working on Amerithrax. On the prosecutorial side you are talking perhaps (guesstimate) 10 to 20 US attorneys with detailed knowlege"
ReplyDeleteAnd
"it isn't "everyone" in the FBI who was assigned to Amerithrax, and agents perforce have to keep their noses out of cases NOT assigned to them. So the AVERAGE FBI agent would have been following Amerithrax mostly through media accounts. Like the rest of us."
But, you're saying that all the agents who had knowledge of the case - even if it was just from reading about it in the newspapers - kept silent about evidence that you do not see as evidence, facts which you do not see as facts, and conclusions which you do not see as valid conclusions.
And, everyone at the Department of Justice did the same.
You believe that "agents perforce have to keep their noses out of cases NOT assigned to them." Therefore, anyone in the FBI or Department of Justice who might have proof that Ivins was innocent would keep their mouths shut and hide the truth in order to allow an innocent man to be convicted.
And, none of the other people who worked on the case, such as government scientists, would come forward if they saw an injustice was being done.
I think when you add together all the people who - according to your beliefs - were required to keep silent in order for the FBI to make its case against Ivins, you are in the thousands - maybe tens of thousands.
R. Rowley also wrote: "My attitude toward "investigation" is this: I would have made a TERRIBLE investigator, because investigation involves talking to large numbers of people, and I'm not psychologically suited to that."
So, you found out who really did it without doing any kind of investigation? Interesting.
"I'm good at analysing stuff, particularly linguistic stuff."
Who says you are good at analyzing stuff, particularly linguistic stuff? You? The facts would certainly suggest otherwise - that you are terrible at analyzing stuff.
"someone with the right mix of curiosity, linguistic skills, tenacity, and je-ne-sais-quoi is going to be in a good position to make a contribution there. Especially in the age of the Internet where such documents are made available for public perusal."
But, you aren't making a "contribution." You're saying that your methods - which do not involve any kind of investigation - are better than what the FBI did. You're saying the FBI - which DID an investigation - should have done things your way: make a decision based upon the highly questionable art of linguistic analysis.
Instead of relying on age-old proven techniques, you're saying that everyone should be able to see that your "analysis" is not just a "contribution" to add to the overall understanding of the case, it's a blockbuster, exculpatory finding that overturns the work done by everyone else.
When you write your book about all this, aren't people going to be asking why your findings are superior to those of professional investigators who actually did an investigation? Why would anyone believe your findings?
You've certainly confirmed that you are NOT a conspiracy theorist. You just truly believe that you are better at solving this crime than the FBI or anyone else.
Ed
R. Rowley wrote: "I'm not going to name the person (I'm not THAT crazy!)"
ReplyDeleteIf you do not name the person, what's the purpose of the book? To explain your beliefs? How can you even explain your beliefs without naming the person?
If you have solid facts proving a specific person was guilty of the crime and that Ivins was innocent, everyone is going to be asking why you didn't inform the authorities.
Do you think you can present all your "evidence" against this person without anyone figuring out who the person is? If you cannot figure out who the person is by the evidence against him, then the evidence can't be very meaningful or verifiable.
R. Rowley also wrote: "The hard part will be the tedious task of: recapitulating the crimes, recapitulating the course of the investigation. But since it would be for the general reader, AND that material would have to come first, that part will have to be the best written/most compelling part, as readers not familiar with Amerithrax will have to be given a gripping (I almost wrote "griping"!) narrative, or they won't continue reading/get to the alternate solution."
It's difficult to understand what you mean. It appears that the first part of the book will be a "gripping" tale of how the FBI bungled the investigation, and then you'll present your method and how you figured out who REALLY did it without telling anyone who REALLY did it.
That's not a book. It's a practical joke. It's tricking people into believing you're going to do something important and then doing nothing at all - except thanking them for being fools to buy your book.
Ed
Back to Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete--------------------
R. Rowley wrote: "To anyone not named Ed Lake, that's going to seem an absurd law enforcement/prosecutorial standard. IMHO."
You do not understand. The things you mention relate to THE INVESTIGATION. They have NOTHING to do with "prosecutorial standards" or anything of the kind.
=============================================
Okay, I misspoke (miswrote?) in talking about "prosecutorial standards" but why did you write nothing about investigative standards? It's like being in school and flunking math, and then having the teacher say 'well, since you flunked Math, we decided to give you an "incomplete" in English, even though technically you passed English'. The one thing has nothing to do with the other: Math is one subject, English is another subject. Polygraphy and the other elements of the investigation are separate and distinct skeins of 'evidence' (in the generic sense).
Would you apply-------I can scarcely believe I have to point this out!!!!!-----------the same thing to: DNA testing? To blood typing testing?
"Sorry, Mister Kaelin, your DNA did not match any at the crime scene on Bundy Drive or the secondary crime scene of N. Rockingham, but since we believe you guilty of Nicole Brown's murder for reasons having nothing to do with DNA, we are now going to designate those DNA results as "inconclusive"."
Forget "prosecutorial standards" and "investigative standards" for the moment, what you are suggesting is ILLOGICAL. And if it IS 'SOP', it seems to me that it should not be so.
R. Rowley also wrote: "The hard part will be the tedious task of: recapitulating the crimes, recapitulating the course of the investigation. But since it would be for the general reader, AND that material would have to come first, that part will have to be the best written/most compelling part, as readers not familiar with Amerithrax will have to be given a gripping (I almost wrote "griping"!) narrative, or they won't continue reading/get to the alternate solution."
ReplyDeleteIt's difficult to understand what you mean. It appears that the first part of the book will be a "gripping" tale of how the FBI bungled the investigation, and then you'll present your method and how you figured out who REALLY did it without telling anyone who REALLY did it.
----------------------------------------------------
This is you, Mister Lake, projecting your own combative, pugnacious nature onto me. I seldom use words like "bungled" (perhaps you are confusing me with someone else at Lew Weinstein's site?). I don't think I ever used "bungled" or a synonym for it in referring to the investigation. I think the investigators did the best they could with a very difficult and confusing set of circumstances. I would try, in a book, to objectively describe the course of that investigation, as best I could. Probably no more than 5% would be in any sense negatively critical about the outcome of the case. And that would only be for the purpose of EXPLAINING why they latched onto Ivins in those last 3 years, and why they took him to be the anthrax killer. I'm NOT anti-FBI.
R. Rowley wrote: "why did you write nothing about investigative standards?"
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what you mean by "investigative standards." Every investigation is different. The investigation goes where the facts take it.
As I see it, the problem here isn't the FBI's "investigative standards," it's your bizarre belief that there ARE "investigative standards" which the FBI did not follow which show the LACK of evidence in some situations to BE evidence.
You seem to believe that if the FBI didn't find Ivins DNA in the mailbox, that is evidence that Ivins did not use that mailbox. That is CRAZY. It assumes that everyone who uses a mailbox leaves DNA in the mailbox that will still be there months later.
You seem to believe that if any test does not provide solid evidence, then it is proof of Ivins' innocence or should not have been performed at all. That is CRAZY.
R. Rowley also wrote: "what you are suggesting is ILLOGICAL. And if it IS 'SOP', it seems to me that it should not be so."
That's where your problem lies. You believe things which are ILLOGICAL are LOGICAL, and things which are LOGICAL are ILLOGICAL.
You seem to believe that "Standard Operating Procedures" that have proved correct for decades and even hundreds of years should be abandoned in favor of something else - like intuition.
You seem to believe that no test should be done unless the result either proves guilt or innocence.
That is CRAZY. When you do not know who committed a crime, tests can provide only LEADS. And there's no guarantee that the leads won't lead nowhere.
You live in a fantasy world that has nothing to do with reality.
Ed
R. Rowley wrote: "why did you write nothing about investigative standards?"
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what you mean by "investigative standards." Every investigation is different. The investigation goes where the facts take it.
As I see it, the problem here isn't the FBI's "investigative standards," it's your bizarre belief that there ARE "investigative standards"[...]
==================================================
So, claiming a test (forget what type of test) that produced a DEFINITE result that you subsequently find embarrassing is now "inconclusive" not because you discovered the person was using drugs prior to taking the test or anything else pertinent TO SKEWING THE TEST ITSELF but merely because you think the person guilty DESPITE THE TEST RESULTS is okay? Not logically indicated.
R. Rowley wrote: "I don't think I ever used "bungled" or a synonym for it in referring to the investigation. I think the investigators did the best they could with a very difficult and confusing set of circumstances. I would try, in a book, to objectively describe the course of that investigation, as best I could. Probably no more than 5% would be in any sense negatively critical about the outcome of the case. And that would only be for the purpose of EXPLAINING why they latched onto Ivins in those last 3 years, and why they took him to be the anthrax killer. I'm NOT anti-FBI."
ReplyDeleteI don't follow you. You think the FBI identified the WRONG MAN, but you don't think they "bungled" the investigation?
Isn't finding the wrong man to be guilty the same as "bungling" an investigation?
Even if it was all just a "natural mistake" and not incompetence, it's difficult to see how you can believe it was a "natural mistake" when you constantly argue they didn't use proper investigative techniques or standards. Using bad investigative techniques and improper standards is not a "natural mistake." It is "bungling."
Ed
By Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete--------------------
"someone with the right mix of curiosity, linguistic skills, tenacity, and je-ne-sais-quoi is going to be in a good position to make a contribution there. Especially in the age of the Internet where such documents are made available for public perusal."
But, you aren't making a "contribution." You're saying that your methods - which do not involve any kind of investigation - are better than what the FBI did.
=====================================================
True. But that's hardly my fault: they had a top-notch forensic linguist on retainer and either they fired him or caused him to resign. About 4 years before I began studying Amerithrax. And, as it happens, linguistics is the key to the case. I would still call it a contribution.
Richard Rowley wrote: "So, claiming a test (forget what type of test) that produced a DEFINITE result that you subsequently find embarrassing is now "inconclusive"
ReplyDeleteIf someone stated that a test was "definitive" and then later said the test was "inconclusive," that would be an error. But no one did that.
So, you are arguing about something that never happened -- except in your imagination.
R. Rowley also wrote: "as it happens, linguistics is the key to the case. I would still call it a contribution."
And I would still call that nonsense.
Linguistics is an art, not a science. That means its worth is in the eye of the beholder. What one person says is evidence another can say with equal justification is total nonsense.
A theory is neither true nor false until proved to be either true or false. Your linguistics-based theory is meaningless because you will not open it up to investigation. You say it proves someone is guilty, but you will not say who that person is or exactly how the linguistic evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that your suspect was the killer.
You are using ridiculous "investigative standards" while claiming that the FBI's tried and true investigative standards are wrong.
Ed
R. Rowley wrote: "I don't think I ever used "bungled" or a synonym for it in referring to the investigation. I think the investigators did the best they could with a very difficult and confusing set of circumstances. I would try, in a book, to objectively describe the course of that investigation, as best I could. Probably no more than 5% would be in any sense negatively critical about the outcome of the case. And that would only be for the purpose of EXPLAINING why they latched onto Ivins in those last 3 years, and why they took him to be the anthrax killer. I'm NOT anti-FBI."
ReplyDeleteI don't follow you. You think the FBI identified the WRONG MAN, but you don't think they "bungled" the investigation?
Isn't finding the wrong man to be guilty the same as "bungling" an investigation?
====================================================
Well, to me "bungled" is too pejorative. It suggests that there's something obvious that they overlooked from carelessness, arrogance or something of that nature.
I mentioned my involvement of late in analysing the Jack the Ripper murders. Two police departments were involved: London City and Metropolitan. The case was kept open for 4 years but never solved. I, personally, wouldn't say that they 'bungled' it. Rather I would say that they lacked the forensic tools that developed over the subsequent century (and a quarter), and, barring luck or continued murders in the same area of London (Whitechapel), there was little more that they could do than what they did do.
In Amerithrax the paucity of physical evidence (DNA, fingerprints etc.) almost set the Task Force back to the situation in 1888. They did a good job in developing anthrax genetic sub-typing and that will be of use in any future cases....
Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete--------------
You seem to believe that if the FBI didn't find Ivins DNA in the mailbox, that is evidence that Ivins did not use that mailbox. That is CRAZY.
======================================
I never wrote (or said or thought) any such thing. I pointed out, among other ways via analogy: if it were a New Jersey bank being robbed twice in Sept/Oct of 2001, and an out-of-state man were accused, the jury would want to see some evidence that the guy made one or both trips to Jersey as a BARE MINIMUM. I wrote nothing about requiring Ivins' DNA inside the mailbox, that's just Mister Lake making stuff up. In the older version of this strawman tactic, Mister Lake used to claim that I (and every other Amerithrax skeptic) wanted to see VIDEO FOOTAGE of Ivins dropping letters into the mailbox(!!!!). To my knowledge no one has ever asked for such a specific piece of evidence.
What we seek is: not mere speculation that Ivins was in New Jersey in the right timeframe but evidence (of any sort).
As would be the case if it were a bank robbery, burglary etc.
Richard Rowley wrote: "So, claiming a test (forget what type of test) that produced a DEFINITE result that you subsequently find embarrassing is now "inconclusive"
ReplyDeleteIf someone stated that a test was "definitive" and then later said the test was "inconclusive," that would be an error. But no one did that.
=================================================
Implicitly they did that:
1) the PURPOSE of the Feb 2002 polygraphs (Ivins and all others at USAMRIID) was to eliminate the possibility that the perp STILL worked there, still had access to anthrax.
2)the fact that Ivins and, as far as we know, everyone else continued working there is tantamount to saying that all those persons passed the polygraph (a truly 'inconclusive' result would have brought on a re-test).
Mister Lake, quite a bit up the thread:
ReplyDelete--------------------
When you write your book about all this, aren't people going to be asking why your findings are superior to those of professional investigators who actually did an investigation? Why would anyone believe your findings?
==================================================
No, the applicability of the linguistic approach won't be subtle, it won't be something that needs polemics on my part to 'sell'.
The linguistic elements are pervasive (ie in all the texts), plain enough for non-specialists to appreciate. Readers will either accept it or not. But they won't need any persuasion beyond a presentation of the evidence.
Mister Lake about 1/3rd way up the thread addressing me:
ReplyDelete--------------------
R. Rowley also wrote: "If the DoJ comes up with more evidence against Ivins that's not in the FINAL REPORT, let me know.
First, the Final Report was NOT a legal document describing the case against Ivins. It was a SUMMARY of evidence against Ivins. A SUMMARY by definition doesn't include everything.
Second, the Final Report was accompanied by 9,600 pages of additional documents describing details of the investigation.
Third, Ivins committed suicide before he could be brought to trial. So, there is no indictment document describing the actual legal case against Ivins.
===========================================
Okay, I'm not interested in point 3, nor am I interested in reading thousands and thousands of pages of documents whose relevance to the big picture is dubious.
I know what a summary is: I used to write them. First rule: put in the most important stuff. The 'most important stuff' for the DoJ was: strongest indications of guilt of Ivins. So, I don't think my 'ignorance' of those thousands and thousands of pages is what is making me think Ivins is innocent.
If DX-er or you or anyone else wants to delve into all the raw data stuff, be my guest. And if DXer presents something that catches my interest, I'll read it. If you do the same here, I'll read it. But for me the personal analysis of Amerithrax ended about mid-2012. Now I mostly try to relate Amerithrax to Jack the Ripper and other cases (some very famous, some not so famous).
I'm guessing no one else on the planet is doing that.
I don't follow you. You think the FBI identified the WRONG MAN, but you don't think they "bungled" the investigation?
ReplyDeleteIsn't finding the wrong man to be guilty the same as "bungling" an investigation?
Even if it was all just a "natural mistake" and not incompetence, it's difficult to see how you can believe it was a "natural mistake" when you constantly argue they didn't use proper investigative techniques or standards.
===================================================
Well, the only standard I think I criticised was: disbelieving and ruling 'inconclusive' their own tests results for reasons having nothing to do with the efficacy of those results.
Which reminds me of a scene in a movie: Rendition (2007).
Scene: hard-core CIA supervisor Meryl Streep is conferring with her subordinate, J.K. Simmons, about the Arab-American whom they have had, in effect, kidnapped off a flight to Chicago.
(My paraphrase: )
Streep: did you polygraph him?
Simmons: Yeah, he passed.
Streep: Doesn't mean squat.
Simmons(with s[p]it-eaten grin on face)We always say that when they pass!
While I was out shopping, R. Rowley wrote in the first of SIX posts: "Well, to me "bungled" is too pejorative. It suggests that there's something obvious that they overlooked from carelessness, arrogance or something of that nature."
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think they overlooked your linguistics "evidence" if you don't think it was due to "carelessness, arrogance or something of that nature?" Was it because it was nothing that could be used in court and therefore worthless?
In R. Rowley's second post he wrote: "What we seek is: not mere speculation that Ivins was in New Jersey in the right timeframe but evidence (of any sort)."
No you don't. It's been explained to you many times that the facts and evidence say that Ivins was in New Jersey to mail the letters. You just DEMAND additional types of evidence that Ivins would have taken every precaution to avoid creating. And, you claim that if such evidence doesn't exist it means Ivins was innocent. That's just plain ridiculous.
In R. Rowley's third post he wrote: "the fact that Ivins and, as far as we know, everyone else continued working there is tantamount to saying that all those persons passed the polygraph (a truly 'inconclusive' result would have brought on a re-test)."
Only in your fantasies. Polygraph results cannot be used in court because it is KNOWN that there are many ways to defeat a Polygraph AND it can give wrong results for some people. It is therefore KNOWN that Polygraph test results are "inconclusive."
BUT, such tests are NOT WORTHLESS. If the test indicates a person was lying, that's reason for checking that person out more thoroughly. If the test indicates that person was telling the truth, it DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHING. The Polygraph test is really just a "preliminary" test to see what is found. It COULD result in identifying a potential suspect right away. So, it's worth doing - even if it isn't proof that can be taken to court.
R. Rowley wrote in his fourth post: "The linguistic elements are pervasive (ie in all the texts), plain enough for non-specialists to appreciate."
Like a polygraph test? An "indicator," but nothing that can be used in court? Then why is the evidence that's "pervasive" also not "persuasive" to the professionals who investigate crimes and prosecute criminals?
R. Rowley's post #5 just shows he can't be bothered to look at the facts of the Amerithrax investigation.
R. Rowley's post #6 just shows once again that he doesn't understand the reason for any kind of test that isn't 100% conclusive.
And R. Rowley's posts also say he's working on trying to relate Jack the Ripper to the anthrax case, even though the former is a serial killer case and the latter is a mass murder case. Plus, the former was a case of deliberate murder, while the evidence in the latter case shows the killer took numerous precautions to avoid harming anyone.
The facts show no similarities, but linguistics can evidently override all the facts - or so Mr. Rowley believes.
Ed
R. Rowley wrote: "What we seek is: not mere speculation that Ivins was in New Jersey in the right timeframe but evidence (of any sort).
ReplyDeleteAs would be the case if it were a bank robbery, burglary etc."
What kind of evidence do you think Ivins MUST leave behind if he drove secretly to New Jersey and didn't want to leave any evidence of it?
You say you aren't demanding home movies of him dropping the letters in the mail box. But you want something equally persuasive. What would that be? Since you think that NOT finding such evidence indicates innocence, you must believe that here is something that EVERY criminal leaves at or near the scene of a crime. What would that be? Many thousands of investigators would really like to know. Me, too.
It's interesting that you say that you would expect evidence in a burglary to show that the culprit was at the scene. But, burglaries are the ONE crime where the culprit very rarely leaves behind any evidence of being at the scene. Only the stupidest burglar leaves behind his wallet or fingerprints.
Burglars are sometimes identified as a result of their M.O. (modus operandi or method of operation).
It was Ivins' M.O. to drive long distances to commit his burglaries. He admitted to it. And, that admission was evidence that driving long distances in secret at night was PART of his M.O.
Burglars are sometimes identified because they have specialized knowledge that was required to commit the burglary.
Ivins had that specialized knowledge for his crimes.
Burglars don't have alibis for the time of the crime. Therefore they COULD have been at the scene. It is NOT necessary to have separate evidence placing him at the scene.
Ivins didn't have an alibi for the time of the crime. Therefore he COULD have been at the scene. It is NOT necessary to have separate evidence placing him at the scene.
Burglars are convicted because they had the means, motive and opportunity.
Ivins had the means, motive and opportunity.
The idea that there MUST be specific evidence placing the suspect at the scene of the crime is absurd. All that needs to be proved is that the evidence says he did it, and there is no evidence that says he could NOT have done it. An alibi would be evidence that he could NOT have done it. Ivins had no verifiable alibi. Therefore, he COULD have done it. And other facts clearly say he did indeed do it.
Ed
Why do you think they overlooked your linguistics "evidence" if you don't think it was due to "carelessness, arrogance or something of that nature?" Was it because it was nothing that could be used in court and therefore worthless?
ReplyDelete================================================
Well, since you've read at least a PORTION of those thousands and thousands of pages you were encouraging me to read, you tell me:
after Don Foster was fired/quit, with what forensic linguist did they replace him? The answer to that question might be the answer to your question.
By Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete------------------
It's interesting that you say that you would expect evidence in a burglary to show that the culprit was at the scene. But, burglaries are the ONE crime where the culprit very rarely leaves behind any evidence of being at the scene. Only the stupidest burglar leaves behind his wallet or fingerprints.
Burglars are sometimes identified as a result of their M.O. (modus operandi or method of operation).
==================================================
Here you're mixing (to your own confusion)IDENTIFYING who the likely person is with PROVING (in court) who it was.
In the cases of burlaries and bank robberies, when there is no accomplice turning state's evidence, the usual most compelling evidence is: finding the loot/bags of money at the residence/in the vehicle of the accused. There is, that I can see, no analogue to this in Amerithrax: the mailer likely took nothing from the mailbox area in Princeton.
Partial by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete-----------------
In R. Rowley's second post he wrote: "What we seek is: not mere speculation that Ivins was in New Jersey in the right timeframe but evidence (of any sort)."
No you don't. It's been explained to you many times that the facts and evidence say that Ivins was in New Jersey to mail the letters.[...]
=====================================
No, I explained to you many times that what you are doing is ASSUMING that Ivins was in NJ, since the government's case makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER if he did not make such trips. There's a difference between making such an assumption and proving the guy went to NJ.
R. Rowley asked: "after Don Foster was fired/quit, with what forensic linguist did they replace him?"
ReplyDeleteHiring a "forensic linguist" is like hiring a horse whisperer. If you don't know you have a horse with a problem, you don't need one. You don't hire a "forensic linguist" unless you have a REASON to hire a "forensic linguist." There was no reason for one in the anthrax case - although a "forensic linguist" with a screwball theory might think there is.
R. Rowley also wrote: "There is, that I can see, no analogue to this in Amerithrax: the mailer likely took nothing from the mailbox area in Princeton."
So, what evidence do you think the FBI should have found if Ivins went to Princeton to mail the letters? You claim that because they didn't find anything, that somehow indicates he was innocent. How does it indicate that? No evidence is not evidence.
While there is no evidence that Ivins drove to New Jersey, there IS a MOUNTAIN of evidence that he made the powders and prepared the letters. The analogy with a burglary would be finding a safe the burglar had practiced on, and it was the same model as the safe that was robbed, and finding he had a tool exactly like the tool that was used to open the safe, and finding metal particles on the tool that match the metal of the safe, and the burglar had talked about the safe that was robbed before it was robbed, and the burglar came into money after the robbery that he didn't have before the robbery - money he couldn't explain. That would all be evidence in addition to his M.O. and expertise and lack of an alibi that he was the burglar.
R. Rowley also wrote: "There's a difference between making such an assumption and proving the guy went to NJ."
I know there is, but you apparently do not. I've explained to you many times that NO ONE IS ASSUMING ANYTHING. The evidence says Ivins made the powders and prepared the letters. Therefore he MUST have driven to New Jersey to mail the letters, since that is where the letters were mailed. It's not an "assumption," it's a DEDUCTION or a CONCLUSION based upon the facts.
In court, ALL the facts of the case would be presented to a jury and the jury would come to a conclusion as to whether Ivins drove to New Jersey to mail the letters. The facts say he made the powders and prepared the letters; the facts say he routinely drove long distances to commit crimes and to do other things in secret; and he had no alibi for the times of the mailings. Therefore, the jury would almost certainly arrive at the LOGICAL CONCLUSION that Ivins drove to New Jersey to mail the letters.
It's really not that complicated. I cannot see why you cannot understand the difference between an "assumption" and a "logical conclusion based upon all the facts."
Ed
Mister Lake quite a ways up the thread:
ReplyDelete-----------------
And R. Rowley's posts also say he's working on trying to relate Jack the Ripper to the anthrax case, even though the former is a serial killer case and the latter is a mass murder case.
==========================================================
The definitions in the typologies diverge a bit but they always include for serial offenses:
1) a number (at LEAST 2 or greater) of offenses.
2) a cooling-off period between offenses (again, the exact length of which varies)
I would call the 3 weeks between the Brokaw mailings and the Daschle mailings enough of a cooling-off period. So then it's just a matter of (somewhat arbitrarily) selecting a number.
But more fundamental in Mister Lake's underlying assumptions is:
that the Amerithrax Killer never killed before or after the fall of 2001. That is not my assumption.
Partial by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete--------------------
Ivins had the means, motive and opportunity.
The idea that there MUST be specific evidence placing the suspect at the scene of the crime is absurd. All that needs to be proved is that the evidence says he did it, and there is no evidence that says he could NOT have done it.
=============================================
Once again (I pointed this out to you before) you are putting the cart before the horse:
1)the whole PURPOSE of documenting (in some fashion) a purported trip to Princeton in Sept/Oct 2001 is to prove that Ivins did the crimes of Amerithrax in general.
2) the whole PURPOSE of documenting (in some fashion)a purported drying/purifying of anthrax by Ivins in the Aug-Oct 2001 period is to prove that he did the crimes of Amerithrax in general.
3) the whole PURPOSE of documenting (in some fashion) Ivins having purportedly printed the texts is to prove that he did the crimes of Amerithrax in general.
4) the whole PURPOSE of documenting (in some fashion)Ivins' purported photocopying of those texts is to prove that he did the crimes of Amerithrax in general.
These are the FUNDAMENTAL subtasks of Amerithrax and, barring the role of an accomplice (as the gov't's brief does), the central evidence of whether Ivins did do Amerithrax rests on proving that those subtasks were done by him.
What Mister Lake is doing is reversing that: claiming based on the most general of 'facts/principles' (he was mentally ill, he committed a few burglaries in the past, he vandalized some woman's
residence in the past, he made trips to places to mail GIFTS as a surprise etc.), that Ivins "must" have done it. The only specific things in the entire case against him (here I mean specific to the crimes themselves) are: his access to Ames and the sub-type used in Amerithrax and his familiarity with handling that toxic substance. That's just not enough to convict someone.
Way up the thread again:
ReplyDelete------------------------------
R. Rowley wrote: "What we seek is: not mere speculation that Ivins was in New Jersey in the right timeframe but evidence (of any sort).
As would be the case if it were a bank robbery, burglary etc."
What kind of evidence do you think Ivins MUST leave behind if he drove secretly to New Jersey and didn't want to leave any evidence of it?
You say you aren't demanding home movies of him dropping the letters in the mail box. But you want something equally persuasive.
====================================================
I NEVER wrote "equally persuasive". Why do you insist on making stuff up and attributing it to me?!?!?
I wrote: (copy and paste this thread):
------------------------------------
What we seek is: not mere speculation that Ivins was in New Jersey in the right timeframe but evidence (of any sort).
-------------
The "we", evident by the context, is: all those who think Ivins innocent. Ask yourself, is "evidence (of any sort)" a synonym for
'equally persuasive to Ivins' DNA in the mailbox'? Or 'equally persuasive to video tape of Ivins dropping the letters in the mailbox'? Don't think so.
Examples (some of which I gave as far back as 3-4 years ago) of evidence of a drive by Ivins to Princeton:
1) speeding ticket
2) parking ticket
3) credit card receipt or just cash register receipt for purchase made in right time frame on the road between Frederick and Princeton. Purchase of gasoline, food, anything.
4) bridge/tunnel toll receipt for trip (It's been years since I drove up the East Coast so I don't remember the options on the tunnels and bridges across the Chesapeake).
(Other stuff I'm overlooking?)
None of this stuff would be as "persuasive" as either Ivins' DNA in the mailbox itself or a videotape of him mailing the letters. But in conjunction with OTHER subtask-specific evidence would probably have led to a conviction.
R. Rowley wrote: "But more fundamental in Mister Lake's underlying assumptions is:
ReplyDeletethat the Amerithrax Killer never killed before or after the fall of 2001. That is not my assumption."
Once again you assume that I am making assumptions when I am really just looking at the evidence and arriving at conclusions based upon the evidence.
There is NO EVIDENCE of any kind that Ivins killed anyone before he unintentionally killed 5 people with his anthrax letters. When there is no evidence, but you assume something that is totally unsupported by any evidence and seems contrary to all the evidence, that would be an assumption. It's what you do, not me.
R. Rowley also wrote: "The only specific things in the entire case against him (here I mean specific to the crimes themselves) are: his access to Ames and the sub-type used in Amerithrax and his familiarity with handling that toxic substance. That's just not enough to convict someone."
If you would just look at the evidence, you would see that there is a LOT more evidence that says he did it.
(1) He was observed throwing out the code books for the hidden message he put in the media letters.
(2) Ivins had a life-long fascination with codes.
(3) Ivins admitted to breaking into a KKG office to steal their cypher book (i.e., code book).
(4) The hidden message in the media letters related to his two assistants.
(5) Ivins couldn't explain the unusual hours he spent in his lab during the times when the spores would have been made.
(6) Ivins tried to destroy evidence.
(7) Ivins tried to intimidate witnesses.
(8) Ivins tried to mislead the investigation.
(9) Ivins created spores containing silicon just like what was in the attack spores.
(10) Ivins had multiple motives for sending the letters.
(11) Ivins had multiple connections to the scene of the crime.
(12) Ivins controlled the murder weapon.
Etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.
R. Rowley also wrote: "Examples (some of which I gave as far back as 3-4 years ago) of evidence of a drive by Ivins to Princeton:
1) speeding ticket
2) parking ticket
3) credit card receipt or just cash register receipt for purchase made in right time frame on the road between Frederick and Princeton. Purchase of gasoline, food, anything."
I is absolutely RIDICULOUS to believe that someone who repeatedly drove long distances to commit crimes would suddenly - when committing his most serious crime - get speeding tickets and leave behind a trail of receipts and parking tickets issued in the middle of the night to a person who had no reason to stop anywhere for more than a minute or two.
You create an absurd scenario and argue that if Ivins didn't follow your absurd scenario then that means he didn't drive to New Jersey.
You ignore the solid evidence against Ivins and just claim there is no evidence against Ivins. You create preposterous ideas of what evidence a real criminal would leave behind, and you claim that if Ivins didn't leave behind those items of evidence, then he must be innocent.
Your view of evidence has nothing to do with reality. You live in a fantasy world and argue that your fantasies make a better case than the hard facts presented by the FBI. Unbelievable!
Ed
I(t) is absolutely RIDICULOUS to believe that someone who repeatedly drove long distances to commit crimes would suddenly - when committing his most serious crime - get speeding tickets and leave behind a trail of receipts and parking tickets issued in the middle of the night to a person who had no reason to stop anywhere for more than a minute or two.
ReplyDelete======================================================
I said nothing about what anyone "would do", I merely supplied a realistic mini-list of indicators that someone had made a 6 to 7 hour trip in the middle of the night to mail something out of state. And by "realistic" I mean, much more likely than the stuff Mister Lake TOTALLY INVENTED and then attributed to me: a video tape of Ivins mailing the letters, and, the perp's DNA inside the mailbox. Those are infinitely less realistic: video surveillance of mailboxes must sometimes be done, but only if a crime involving the mailbox is anticipated (via tip-off or prior crime).
In discussing this before (many months ago)I pointed out to Mister Lake that David Berkowitz, the 'Son of Sam' gunman, illegally parked on, I think, his LAST shooting outing, and got a parking ticket and this was one of the things that pointed to him. So the fact that Berkowitz 'repeatedly' drove to commit his shootings didn't seem to make him more cautious. To the contrary.
R. Rowley wrote: "So the fact that Berkowitz 'repeatedly' drove to commit his shootings didn't seem to make him more cautious. To the contrary."
ReplyDeleteYour logic is screwed up. Berkowitz probably became more confident as a result of committing many crimes and getting away with it.
Ivins probably felt the same way.
The fact that Berkowitz got a parking ticket because it took a long time to commit his type of crime doesn't mean that Ivins would also get a parking ticket even though there was absolutely NO reason for him to park anywhere for a long time.
Your logic is illogical -- as usual.
Ed
The fact that Berkowitz got a parking ticket because it took a long time[...]
ReplyDelete==========================================
You cite nothing to establish that Berkowitz was away a "long time": he usually committed his shootings at night.
From Wiki:
"At the scene of the Moskowitz and Violante shooting, a local resident named Cecilia Davis had been walking her dog when she saw a parked car being ticketed near a fire hydrant"
So it isn't necessary in NYC to be gone for long to get a ticket at a fire hydrant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berkowitz#Arrest
Mister Lake wrote:
ReplyDelete----------------
. Rowley wrote: "But more fundamental in Mister Lake's underlying assumptions is:
that the Amerithrax Killer never killed before or after the fall of 2001. That is not my assumption."
Once again you assume that I am making assumptions when I am really just looking at the evidence and arriving at conclusions based upon the evidence.
There is NO EVIDENCE of any kind that Ivins killed anyone[...]
===============================
I wasn't talking about Ivins, I was talking about the Anthrax Killer.
R. Rowley wrote: "it isn't necessary in NYC to be gone for long to get a ticket at a fire hydrant."
ReplyDeleteBut it took longer to commit the type of crime that Berkowitz committed than it takes to put letter into a mailbox that is next to the curb. That was my point.
R. Rowley also wrote: "I wasn't talking about Ivins, I was talking about the Anthrax Killer."
Same thing. The facts say that Ivins was the anthrax killer.
Ed