I don't see any reason to repeat the entire comment here, but I suppose I should outline some key points:
1. They seem to imply that Dugway was the source of the attack powders because Dugway weaponized spores with silicon in the past, and some spores also contained tin, which was found in trace amounts in the attack spores. They ignore the fact that water isotope ratios found in the attack spores indicate that the spores were made in and East Coast lab and that Utah is one area that does not have those isotope ratios.
2. They repeatedly imply that anthrax spores microencapsulated with a silicon compound would look like the spores used in the attacks. But, their references show just the opposite. One reference even has an illustration which shows that microencapsulated spores would look nothing like what was found in the anthrax letters. Here's that illustration:
I could go on and on. I had to write most of the comment this morning, trying to get it done by 10 or 10:30 a.m., when I normally post my Sunday comment. As a result, it contains a lot of repetition, and not everything is as well stated or well researched as I would like. During the course of the day, I'll be going back over it to make improvements.
I'm also looking forward to what others might have to say and write about this article. Will the New York Times mention it on their first page as they did with the previous nonsense from the same Truther Trio? Will other scientists shoot it down? Or is it old news and not worth bothering with? It seems almost certain that the McClatchy Newspaper chain will jump on it as "proof" of something.
Whatever is written, it should give me something to comment about. It's been a long time since there was any "news" about the anthrax attacks of 2001.
Ed
"Anonymous," a.k.a. "DXer" from Lew Weinstein's blog was so anxious to comment on this comment that he posted his argument to last week's blog entry instead of waiting for me to write today's entry.
ReplyDeleteHere's what he wrote:
Ed, you are really confused.
Making virulent powder would not be illegal.
Dugway has specifically (and publicly) said that it is sometimes necessary to use the virulent Ames in order to test whether a decontaminant actually works.
Why would there need to be large amount? And why would it need to be "stockpiled"?
You don't understand what you read -- on the rare occasion you actually read something.
Of course, I never said that making a "virulent powder" was illegal. I'm not even sure why "Anonymous" thinks someone would "legally" make a virulent powder. It appears he's making a personal attack which is intended to show I don't understand things, while his comment just proves he is the one who doesn't understand things.
USAMRIID and everyone else primarily either uses "wet anthrax" in test aerosols or they use irradiated dead spores in tests. Making "virulent powders" may not be "illegal," but it's very dangerous and rarely done. If Dugway uses "virulent Ames" to see if decontaminants work, so what?
Testing decontaminants would seem to be a test that is done on a plate. You add some decontaminant to the plate to see if it will kill the spore and/or the living germ. It's a far simpler test than seeing whether a vaccination works, and it doesn't seem to have anything to do with anything relevant.
As far as having a large amount of microencapsualated spores and a stockpile, that was about what was implied in the Truther Trio's article, not what was actually said. My comment was about what they wrote versus what they implied.
Conspiracy theorists aren't interested in tiny test amounts. They're interested in stockpiles of illegal bioweapons. The tactic is to talk about small amounts, which when acknowledged, the conspiracy theorists can then use to imply that there must also be stockpiles.
There's no purpose to the article other than to imply that the attack powders came from an (illegal) stockpile of weaponized spores at Dugway.
Since I posted "Anonymous's" comment here, I deleted it from last week's thread.
Ed
The FBI was pretty concise and clear on the topic of isotope ratios, weren't they? And don't the FBI scientists conclude that no conclusions can be drawn from that analysis because of confounding variables? You are relying on an MSNBC news story when both the outside scientist and the FBI disagree with you. Indeed, his actual map provides no support for your claim. You never even bothered to interview the scientist who did the work even though he has written a lengthy law review article on the subject. (Which like most things you didn't read).
ReplyDeleteThe week before you conjectured that I had called someone and told them to post on your board. You had no evidence supporting the conjecture -- you just made it up.
Stop making stuff up Ed.
A good man knows his limitations.
Just as you reasoned a First Grader wrote the anthrax letters on the first day of school without checking on the date of the first day of school, you are writing at length on these subjects without being familiar with the published literature.
Read more. Pontificate less.
*Countries do such classified testing in small amounts on what might be used against them by an adversary.
"Anonymous" wrote: "The FBI was pretty concise and clear on the topic of isotope ratios, weren't they?"
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be confused and mistaken. I didn't mention anything stated by the FBI, nor did I mention anything from MSNBC. My comment was about findings from the University of Utah. I made that very clear.
However, in researching what I wrote in my book, I found that I screwed up on the references. The reference I should have used was the one used in my web page "How Ivins Made the Anthrax Powders ... Allegedly." On that web page, I explain:
FBI/NAS file B1M9, pages 32 through 44 are a February 22, 2004 report titled "Stable Isotope Characteristics of Anthrax Sample SPS 02.266." (SPS 02.266 is the Leahy spores.) The report is by Drs. James Ehleringer and Helen Kreuzer-Martin of the University of Utah. Page 34 says:
With these important limitations, the isotope ratio data from sample 02.266 are
* inconsistent with the spores having been produced with water from Dugway Proving Ground
* inconsistent with the spores having been grown in liquid medium made with any known meteoric water source
* consistent with the spores having been grown on solid medium, perhaps for an extended period of time.
So, the findings by Ehleringer and Kreuzer-Martin show the Leahy spores probably weren't from Dugway, weren't grown in a liquid medium, and appear to have been grown on "solid medium" agar plates over an "extended period of time."
So, your criticisms have nothing to do with reality. What you say about me really applies to you: " you are writing at length on these subjects without being familiar with the published literature.
Ed
FBI Conclusions: the results were inconclusive due to the large number of variables such as sources of water and the ratio of hydrogen and oxygen atoms found in the culture medium.
DeleteYou don't correct your mistakes, Ed.
For example, did you correct the nonsense you wrote -- without even bothering to read the article -- about limits of detection? You didn't understand that microencapsulation can make detection of an aerosol being used in an attack more difficult.
As another example in the past week, did you correct your baseless conjecture that I had called some anonymous scientist that you think posted on your board?
You do not correct your mistakes. And mistakes occur in each post you make. You just leave them up for days, attempting to mislead anyone who reads them.
It remains a fact you never interviewed the scientist who did the isotope ratio work -- and yet could do so today by email or telephone.
At GMU, in Northern Virginia, Ali Al-Timimi shared a suite with the DARPA researchers who in Spring 2001 coinvented what John Kiel calls a microencapsulation patent that involves growing anthrax in silica. Yet you don't even understand that microencapsulation makes detection of an aerosol more difficult.
"Anonymous,"
DeleteYou're just babbling mindlessly. You are claiming I said things I did not say. However, I can understand that you were writing this latest comment (posted at 9:39 a.m. PT) while I was responding to your email with a post at 9:13 a.m. PT, therefore you did not see what I wrote.
Why on earth would I want to bother the "scientist who did the isotope ratio work"? I can see that a conspiracy theorist or True Believer might want to do so in order to get them to say something that fits their beliefs, but I certainly have no reason to do so. What they wrote is sufficient for me.
I did no "baseless conjecture." I usually describe the basis for my "conjecture."
I understand that "microencapsulation" can make it more difficult for air testing equipment to detect anthrax spores floating around in the air, but what does that have to do with anything?
Babbling irrelevant nonsense isn't winning you any arguments.
Ed
"Anonymyous" (a.k.a. "DXer") just sent me a page from some document without mentioning the source - as usual. But, it appears to be a page from the NAS report.
ReplyDeleteThe subject of the email was "FBI Conclusions: the results were inconclusive due to the large number of variables such as sources of water and the ratio of hydrogen and oxygen atoms found in the culture medium." And the document was a table with an entry that says the NAS concluded, "It was not possible to identify the location where the spores were prepared."
Once again, "Anonymous" fails to understand. No one ever said it was "conclusive" that the attack spores were not made at Dugway. And, it can be argued that Martin Hugh-Jones et al did not argue that the attack spores must have been made at Dugway.
All I did was mention "evidence" which Hugh-Jones et al failed to mention that contradicts their beliefs.
Plus, the NAS is only saying that it is not scientifically possible to state exactly where the attack spores were made. There is, however, an abundance of legal evidence that shows the attack spores were made - beyond any reasonable doubt - by Dr. Ivins in his lab at USAMRIID.
Ed
The document was page 13 of the NAS report. Click HERE to view it.
DeleteEd
Dr. Hugh-Jones wrote:
Delete"The finding, via stable isotope analysis (B1M9, p.44), that Dugway water is unlikely to have been used to grow the attack spores is probably not relevant; Dugway’s report (B1M13) on preparation of the surrogate samples mentions the use of “sterile water for irrigation” and “sterile water for injection,” which are generally purchased in small bottles from distant providers. The FBI laboratory, in analysing media components (B1M7), included “Baxter sterile water for irrigation”.
There's at least one on-line report which says that Dugway uses "sterile tap water." Click HERE to view that report and go to page 23.
DeleteIt's easy for you to rationalize that they shipped in sterile water from some distant location to satisfy your beliefs, but even if they used purchased sterile water, why would they get it from a distant location?
Since you always feel that people should just call and get the answers, why don't you and/or Martin call Dugway and ask what source they use for their sterile water?
Ed
Yes, and you say there is an abundance of legal evidence that shows a First Grader wrote the anthrax letters. Got it. Everyone understands that you are mistaken.
ReplyDeleteSenator Leahy in February 2011 says the case is not closed. See the Wash Po article. You disagree with him. Okay. He is a seasoned prosecutor and has had access to the files. You don't have relevant experience and haven't had access to the files.
DeleteThe New York Times and Washington Post have repeatedly editorialized agreeing with Hugh-Jones et al. on the need for these issues to be reinvestigated. You disagree. Okay. You are entitled to your opinion.
But the fact that not a single person agrees with you that a first grader wrote the letters should give you pause. You, Ed, are the true believer.
"Anonymous" wrote: "You disagree with him."
DeleteOnce again, you fail to understand or even read what is written.
It is THE FBI and THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE that has said the case is closed. I had nothing to do with it. How can I argue that the case is not closed if they say it is closed?
Senator Leahy may want more, and that's his right. I would like to see more information, too, but that doesn't mean the case isn't closed or that they didn't identify the right culprit.
I'm not opposed to re-investigating issues in the case. I've proposed ways to verify how the silicon got into the attack spores, and I've suggested several times (including once today) that the GAO perform a series of three tests to VERIFY how Ivins made the spores. That information would help quash all the lamebrain theories from conspiracy theorists.
I don't see any reason to "re-open" the case. There are no meaningful facts which say that Ivins didn't do it or that someone else did. But, I'd very much like to see some controversial issues clarified.
As stated in another post, the facts say that a child wrote the letters. If "not a single person agrees," they are disagreeing with the facts. Why should that matter to me? You claim it's a matter of belief, because facts mean nothing to you. If provided with solid facts that a child did not write the letters, I would happily start saying that the facts say a child did NOT write the letters. It makes no difference to me. It's just what the facts say. When provided with new and better facts, I've changed my mind countless times - including many times in the anthrax case.
Maybe you just cannot understand that. You seem to think that a person should believe things with absolute certainty - the way you do - or they should remain silent. That is the way True Believers think. I don't think that way. It is by examining the facts provided by others that the "truth" is most often found.
Ed
Anonymous wrote: "Yes, and you say there is an abundance of legal evidence that shows a First Grader wrote the anthrax letters. Got it.""
ReplyDeleteSometimes, you seem incapable of understanding anything.
The FACTS which say that Dr. Ivins used a child to write the anthrax letters are not anything that would be used in court. Therefore, they are not "legal evidence" in any sense of the term. They are just what the facts say. And, there are NO FACTS which prove otherwise.
You suggest that I call someone to ask them if their child was secretly manipulated by Dr. Ivins into writing the anthrax letters without the parent's knowledge.
That is a totally ridiculous suggestion. The fact that the parent wasn't informed says that the parent won't know about it. And, it implies that I know exactly which parent to ask.
You seem to truly believe with absolute certainty and without any shadow of a doubt that some al Qaeda agent mailed the anthrax letters. Most people in this world have a different view of what is certain and what is not:
"In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes." - Benjamin Franklin
"Doubt is not a pleasant mental state, but certainty is a ridiculous one." - Voltaire
"Convictions are more dangerous of truth than lies." - Frederick Nietzche
The FACTS say a child wrote the letters. Arguing that you do not believe it or that no one believes it doesn't change the facts.
Beliefs do not change facts, no matter how certain you are of your beliefs.
If my facts are incomplete, then provide me with additional facts which show or prove that a child did NOT write the letters, and I'll weigh those facts.
As you know, I once thought that a scientist in New Jersey sent the anthrax letters - because a few facts said so, and there were no facts which said otherwise. When the FACTS were released that showed that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer, it was clear that those additional facts far outweighed the meager facts I had previously. And, I changed my mind. But, all you see is that I was "wrong" and therefore must be wrong again.
Facts may mean nothing to you. But your opinions mean nothing to me. So, repeatedly stating your beliefs as if they mean something is a total waste of time.
Ed
Okay, I thought I would add a comment or two about today's observations: (Mister Lake citing the authors)
ReplyDelete-----------------------------
On pages 11 to 13, they list six common thought processes of conspiracy theorists. Here are abbreviated versions of those six thought processes:
First, conspiracy theorist always assume the government's intentions are evil. They never find a conspiracy to do good.
=================================================
Well, assuming that we are talking about a GOVERNMENT conspiracy (not necessarily the whole government but enough elements to achieve it), that's pretty much a tautology. Conspiracies are secret machinations that involve actions that are combinations of
1) being controversial and/or 2) being unpopular and/or 3) being illegal.
Another way of saying it is: how many 'good conspiracies' has a typical American been involved in in his life? Maybe at some time or another a person may want to conceal from, say, a spouse for the purposes of 'surprise' an expensive gift (new car, trip to Mexico etc.). Then there are "surprise birthday parties" but aside from those (rather trivial) examples, conspiracy implies
something untoward, something not-quite-right. And frequently involves misconduct of some sort. So NOT finding a government conspiracy to "do good" isn't that surprising: 'good' government policies can usually see the light of day with no problem. Indeed
politicians rarely let an opportunity to be connected to some 'good' project go by without a very public photo opportunity:
a speech, a ribbon-cutting ceremony etc.
And once again commenting on Mister Lake's summary of "recursive fury", another point was this:
ReplyDelete-------------------
Fourth, to the conspiracy theorist, nothing happens by accident. Thus, small random events are woven into a conspiracy narrative and reinterpreted as indisputable evidence for the theory.
-------------------------------------------------
Well, I have to say that that happens.
HOWEVER:
1) one of the most difficult things to determine can be:
what is a random event?, what is "non-random"?
Same way for physical phenomena: what is a product of random forces?, what is a product of human (or super-human) design?
Our ancestors (broadly speaking) looked at the night sky and saw all manner of animals, men, weapons etc. outlined and named the constellations accordingly. I don't know whether they all took those to be willfully constructed shapes or not. But the broader take-home message (at least for me) is: man is a creature who looks for patterns. And no pattern is more 'recognizable' than a pattern one has already seen: the Greeks never saw in the night sky a "Platypus Constellation" because they never encountered platypusses(sp?)here on earth, so they had no 'matrix' or mold on which to draw.
2) since this always (understandably) gets back to Amerithrax,
I would say that several elements of the case against Ivins draw on this "nothing happens by accident" mindset:
a) the his-grandfather-lived-in-NJ-in-the-19th Century point (as small one it's true) is certainly explicable as a random or 'accidentl' fact.
b) so is the his-father-went-to-Princeton fact.
(And I could make this list longer but I'm trying to avoid recapitulations of arguments from the past)
R. Rowley asked, "Another way of saying it is: how many 'good conspiracies' has a typical American been involved in in his life?"
ReplyDeleteActually, probably a lot. Certainly the typical American is involved in many more "good" conspiracies than "criminal" conspiracies. The authors of the article cite surprise birthday parties as an example of a "good conspiracy."
A criminal conspiracy is by definition evil. But the word "conspire" just means to plan and act together. (The word is from French and literally means to breathe together.) It is generally used to describe some criminal act, but a conspiracy does NOT have to be the act of planning a crime.
When parents conspire to surprise a child with some gift on Christmas, or when a father and child conspire to surprise the mother on Mother's day, that's still a conspiracy. It's two or more people conspiring (i.e., planning) together to do something nice for someone.
Ed
Hmmm. I was just thinking about the Moon Hoax Truthers who believe that man never went to the moon, and that it was all just a government conspiracy to make people think we did. Would that be a "good conspiracy," even if the supposed reason was to fool the Russians into thinking we did it?
DeleteThe problem is: I remember the "scientific" reasons the Moon Hoax Truthers think sending men to the moon cannot be done and wasn't done, but I don't recall the reasons why they think the U.S. government created the hoax. If it was to fool the Russians, that might also be a "good conspiracy." If it was to fool the entire world, then it is less "good." If it was to give people jobs, it would be "good." If it was done just for the hell of it, then it would be less "good."
Ed
“Wise men never argue with fools, because people from a distance can’t tell who is who.”
ReplyDelete-- Yazid Sufaat
Wise men may avoid arguing with fools, but wise men do not assume everyone who disagrees with them is automatically a fool. It may take some argument to discover that they are arguing with a fool.
DeleteWise men also say, "Never say never."
"In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes." - Benjamin Franklin
"Doubt is not a pleasant mental state, but certainty is a ridiculous one." - Voltaire
Wise men argue to learn. If people in the distance cannot tell who in the argument is the fool, they are fools to think that there must be a fool in the argument.
Ed
Yazid Sufaat explained to KSM that he and his two assistants were vaccinated against anthrax because they were working with virulent anthrax. What does David Relman, vice-chair of the NAS, say that tests indicate as to what strain Yazid was using? see his article in SCIENCE.
DeleteThe facts and the FBI say David Relman was wrong. He assumes that three false-positives were right and 1,500+ verification tests are wrong. You pick the "expert" who agrees with your beliefs and you assume that any expert who disagrees with you is wrong.
DeleteThe anthrax case has been plagued with idiotic opinions from scientists with impressive credentials from the very beginning. And, it's still going on.
The most interesting part of the anthrax case has always been determining which expert is just expressing his personal beliefs and which expert is actually evaluating what all the facts say.
All the facts say that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer. "Experts" with personal opinions may disagree, but they have NO FACTS which prove their beliefs to be superior to what the experts with facts have said.
Ed
If you say that Dr. David Relman was wrong that the tests pointed to Ames being the strain, then what strain do you think it was that Yazid Sufaat was using? See discussion of Yazid Sufaat anthrax program in Edward Jay Epstein's excellent new chapter on the subject or in today's news.
Delete"Anonymous" wrote: "If you say that Dr. David Relman was wrong that the tests pointed to Ames being the strain, then what strain do you think it was that Yazid Sufaat was using?"
DeleteWhat difference does it make what strain I "think" Yazid Sufaat was using? I've never really thought about it.
The FACTS say that Ames is a very rare strain, and its distribution was limited to about 18 labs. So, the FACTS say that it would be extremely unlikely that Yazid Sufaat was using the Ames strain.
One might assume that he was using the Vollum strain, since it is the strain of choice for bioweapons. But, one could also assume that he was using a local strain. I have no idea what strain he was using. Nor do I particularly care, since which strain he was using doesn't make him more or less of a terrorist.
Ed
"What difference does it make what strain I "think" Yazid Sufaat was using?"
DeleteExactly. But it does matter what the Vice-Chair of the NAS review committee thinks. That's why he's the guy publishing in SCIENCE.
"I've never really thought about it."
Exactly.
Now are you equally incurious as to the lab that Rauf Ahmad visited for Ayman Zawahiri to acquire virulent anthrax? The visit after which he wrote that he had achieved the targets. He was the fellow who went in 1999 and 2000 to the conference attended by Bruce Ivins sponsored by Porton Down Ames experts.
"Anonymous" wrote: "it does matter what the Vice-Chair of the NAS review committee thinks. That's why he's the guy publishing in SCIENCE."
DeleteIt matters to YOU, because he wrote something that agrees with your beliefs. What about the FBI's report which disagrees with your beliefs? Why doesn't that also matter?
The Ames strain is not well suited to bioweapons. Almost any antibiotic can kill it. It makes no sense that anyone other than Ivins would use the Ames strain in the letters when there are so many other strains of anthrax that are better suited to that purpose.
As it is made very clear in my book, Ivins thought that the Ames strain was totally untraceable and used in labs all over the world. That's why he used it. It was the key mistake that led the FBI to him.
But, if some terrorist overseas has to HUNT for a sample of the Ames strain, he would quickly learn that it was NOT a common strain used in labs all over the world. So, why use it? Why not use some BETTER stain?
You are not looking at the facts objectively. You are trying to distort the facts to make them fit your beliefs. And what you get is reasoning that is illogical.
Ed
Ed, if you want to have the credibility of a David Relman, the first step is to accurate characterize what people say. The second is to address the facts.
DeleteYou do neither in your post today. One reason you do not address the facts is you do not inform yourself of them. Amerithrax Science Update (B3D1, p. 270) States that missions By FBI personnel detected DNA from the Ames strain of Bacillus anthracis on both the May 2004 and November 2004 missions; samples from the first mission were processed by NBFAC and samples from the second mission were processed at Aberdeen Proving Ground. Dr. Relman discusses the implications of those findings in his piece in SCIENCE. Everyone is tired of your ad hominem schtick -- and instead is interested in news developments bearing on issues that are material to analysis.
Anonymous wrote: "Everyone is tired of your ad hominem schtick ..."
DeleteWho is "everyone"? Are you sure it isn't just YOU? Or do you think you speak for "everyone"?
Part of my comment on Friday was about the observation in the "Recursive Fury" paper that "conspiracy theorists" (and True Believers) believe they represent a much larger group than they really do. It appears that when you say "everyone," you just mean you.
You need to provide some FACTS which show that "everyone" is tired of my "ad hominem schtick." Otherwise, "everyone" is probably just going to assume it is another of your baseless beliefs.
Ed
Edward Jay Epstein, in contrast, the author of 14 books, promotes his Annals of Unsolved Crimes (see his Facebook page on the book) by noting that 92 percent of all criminal indictments involve conspiracies. His publisher explains that he sets forth what is known about a crime -- and points out what is not known, what is not proved. You in contrast talk about speculative inferences that might be drawn by a jury. You ignore altogether -- because you haven't even thought of them or read on the subject -- issues material to analysis such as the strain of anthrax Yazid Sufaat was using. You just assume it was not Ames. Zawahiri says the koran and hadiths direct that they use the weapon of their enemy. Yazid does not deny to me that the strain he was using was Ames. The first grader you argue wrote the letters, in contrast, does not even exist.
DeleteAnonymous wrote: "You in contrast talk about speculative inferences that might be drawn by a jury."
DeleteYou keep trying to argue that I'm the only one who thinks that Ivins was the anthrax killer. What you consider to be "speculative inferences" are the EVIDENCE that the Department of Justice was preparing to take into court to convict Ivins. So, I'm NOT the only one who thinks Ivins was the anthrax killer. The FBI and Department of Justice officially think so, too. I'm just the only one who has the patience to argue with you and others who have their own personal theories about the case.
It really doesn't make any difference if Yazid Surfaat had the Ames strain or not. The FACTS still say that Ivins was the anthrax killer. The strain of anthrax used by Yazid Surfaat is irrelevant to everyone except people with a personal belief that some Muslim terrorist sent the anthrax letters. You assume it was Ames just the way you assume that every one who agrees with you is right and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong.
You now claim that "the Koran and Hadiths direct that they use the weapon of their enemy," but when it is explained to you that the culprit took precautions to make sure that no one was harmed, you find some reason in the Koran and Hadiths to explain why Muslim Terrorist took precautions to avoid harming anyone. You twist the facts to fit your beliefs.
You believe that the first grader who wrote the letters does not exist. If you can prove that Ivins had no access to ANY first grader ANYWHERE during that time, you might have a valid argument. But, right now it's just another argument of beliefs against the facts. The facts say that a child wrote the anthrax letters. There are no facts which say otherwise. Your beliefs are NOT facts, even though you may consider them to be superior to facts.
Ed
Ed Lake writes:
Delete"The facts say that a child wrote the anthrax letters. There are no facts which say otherwise."
Ed Lake writes:
"It really doesn't make any difference if Yazid Surfaat had the Ames strain or not."
But it does, Ed. The distribution of virulent Ames is a crucial step in the true crime and counterintelligence analysis.
Anonymous wrote: "The distribution of virulent Ames is a crucial step in the true crime and counterintelligence analysis."
DeleteMy point was: Even if Yazid Surfaat somehow gained access to the Ames strain, the facts still say that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer.
I should also have written, "There are no facts which challenge the facts which say a child wrote the letters."
David Willman found a handwriting "expert" who believed that Ivins somehow disguised his handwriting when writing the letters. But, such testimony is without proof of any kind and thus falls far short of challenging the very clear facts which say a child wrote the letters.
Ed
Well, we can agree that the handwriting on the letters is exculpatory of Dr. Ivins.
DeleteWe can agree that there is zero evidence, not a "scintilla of evidence," that Dr. Ivins wrote the anthrax letters.
Anonymous,
DeleteWe do NOT agree about the handwriting. It certainly is NOT exculpatory of Dr. Ivins. The facts say he manipulated a child to do the writing for him. However, the facts also indicate that he personally added the date at the top of the media letter.
And, there are experts who could testify in court that Ivins could have altered his handwriting to write the letters. That would be "evidence." But, if they had done that, the defense could have brought in their own experts to argue that there was no reasonable way that Ivins could have disguised his handwriting to look like what was in the letters.
In court they would have shown that Ivins prepared and mailed the letters. It would thus have been inferred that he also wrote the letters. OR, they might have brought in proof that a child wrote the letters for Ivins. The fact they they have never mentioned such evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Ed
In court, if the subject of the handwriting probably wouldn't have come up at all.
DeleteThe prosecution said the handwriting evidence was "inconclusive," so they wouldn't have brought it up.
The defense could not prove that it was not possible for Ivins to have written the letters himself. So, they wouldn't have brought it up.
The case would have been about all the other evidence which said Ivins was the anthrax killer.
Ed
Ha! Right, Ed. Like your star witness, the first counselor, who thought she was being pursued by nasty astral entities trying to kill her -- and thought she was controlled by an alien who had implanted a microchip in her butt.
DeleteOr the evidence about the 52 rabbits that the prosecutor stuffed down a hat.
Or the lyophilized the US Attorney said he used which has been shown was not available to be used.
R. Rowley wrote: "a) the his-grandfather-lived-in-NJ-in-the-19th Century point (as small one it's true) is certainly explicable as a random or 'accidentl' fact.
ReplyDeleteb) so is the his-father-went-to-Princeton fact."
You believe they are random facts. But, the FBI sees them as fitting a pattern.
Who is right? There are more than enough facts to make it a certainty that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer, but there could still be some pure chance elements in the case.
In my book I suggested that Ivins was probably planning to mail the letters in Franklin Park, but his obsession with the KKG sorority caused him to stop in Princeton, and, once he'd stopped he may have decided he'd driven far enough. So, he mailed the letters in Princeton instead of continuing on another ten miles to Franklin Park.
His over-all objective was to have the letters blamed on Muslim terrorists, and he evidently intended to mail the letters as near as he could get to Newark that night. (One of the 9/11 hijacked aircraft had started its flight in Newark.) The fact that Princeton and Monmouth Junction were along Ivins' route to Newark may be just a coincidence, but it does not appear to be a coincidence that he incorporated the ZIP code for Monmouth Junction into the return address on the letters, nor does it appear to be a coincidence that he mailed the letters in the mailbox nearest to the KKG office in Princeton.
I think a jury would see that they were NOT coincidences. Open minded people can see that one or two things might be a coincidence, but when fact after fact after fact points to Ivins being the anthrax killer, those facts eventually add up to "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
Ed
One of the world's leading and most oft-quoted experts on anthrax explained the importance of the distribution of Ames:
ReplyDelete"Martin Hugh-Jones, an epidemiologist with Louisiana State University, was one of them. The school has one of the labs that studied the Ames strain anthrax -- and Hugh-Jones said FBI agents swarmed the campus conducting interviews and collecting the names of former lab employees.
Hugh-Jones said he felt a key method used by investigators -- determining the rate of genetic mutations across generations of bacteria to try to find the lab of origin -- has proved inconclusive. He also cast doubt on a recent revelation that the anthrax spores involved in the attacks were made less than two years ago. The dating was reportedly done with radiocarbon analysis, which can only pinpoint the age of a substance within a couple of years, Hugh-Jones said."
Source: USA Today, June 24, 2002.
FBI mystified by anthrax attacks
Hugh-Jones et al separately explains on a different subject:
ReplyDelete"The finding, via stable isotope analysis (B1M9, p.44), that Dugway water is unlikely to have been used to grow the attack spores is probably not relevant; Dugway’s report (B1M13) on preparation of the surrogate samples mentions the use of “sterile water for irrigation” and “sterile water for injection,” which are generally purchased in small bottles from distant providers. The FBI laboratory, in analysing media components (B1M7), included “Baxter sterile water for irrigation”."
Anonymous wrote: "[Hugh-Jones] cast doubt on a recent revelation that the anthrax spores involved in the attacks were made less than two years ago. The dating was reportedly done with radiocarbon analysis, which can only pinpoint the age of a substance within a couple of years, Hugh-Jones said."
ReplyDeleteHugh-Jones was misreading the data. (1) The data on the date of manufacture was NOT done only with radio carbon dating, but also with other similar methods. So, it was verified.
It is known that such dating methods cannot be more accurate than to within two years. The attack spores showed NO difference in age from spores made that same day, which means the tests indicated the attack spores were made sometime within the past two years. It could have been a week ago, or it could have been two years ago. There's no way to be more accurate than that. BUT, if it was more than two years ago, the tests would have been able to detect that.
So, Hugh-Jones cast no doubts. He just showed ignorance of what the test results really were.
Ed
Anonymous wrote: "“sterile water for irrigation” and “sterile water for injection,” which are generally purchased in small bottles from distant providers.
ReplyDeleteYou've argued this before. Click HERE to go to the same argument in this same thread where I explained that there is a report which shows that Dugway sometimes used "sterile tap water," and that claiming that they could have used sterile water from some distant location doesn't make it true nor even logical.
Ed
Anonymous wrote: "the evidence about the 52 rabbits that the prosecutor stuffed down a hat.
ReplyDeleteOr the lyophilized the US Attorney said he used which has been shown was not available to be used."
You are just distorting things and making up things to argue against the facts.
There is NO EVIDENCE regarding 52 rabbits. There's just your theory that the 52 rabbits mean something to the case.
NO US Attorney ever said that a lyophilizer was used to make the spores. It was accidentally implied in a court document, but that document was later corrected.
You are just distorting what was said about lyophilizers to make things fit your mistaken beliefs.
Ed
Anonymous just sent me an email which had this as the subject: "I posted a passage of the transcript where US Attorney Taylor claimed Ivins used a lyophilizer but Ed didn't post it?"
DeleteAnd this as the complete text:
"Why? Because he CANNOT believe a US Attorney might be mistaken about such a central fact."
I saw no such post. There's nothing pending in the "moderate" or "spam" files.
Yesterday, when I tried to add a comment next to the post where "Anonymous" mentioned the lyophilizer, it wouldn't work. So, I added it above. Maybe there was a glitch of some kind.
But, since he's now turned paranoid and assumes I didn't post his "evidence," I did some checking to see what he might have been talking about.
In the Summary Report on page 15 it says:
"This drying procedure would have required either the type of laboratory equipment, such as a lyophilizer or speed-vac system, that was present in each of the 15 labs, or considerable time and space to air-dry."
That can't be it. The Summary also says on page 30,
"Drying anthrax spores requires either a sophisticated drying machine called a lyophilizer, a speed-vac, or a great deal of time and space to let the spores air-dry – that is, to allow the water to evaporate – in the lab."
That can't be it, either. The Summary also says on page 36:
"It also requires access to particular laboratory equipment such as a biological safety cabinet or other containment device, an incubator, a centrifuge, a fermentor or a shaker with appropriate flasks, a lyophilizer or other drying device, and various personal protective gear, all of which Dr. Ivins had readily accessible to him through his employment at USAMRIID."
That can't be it, either. On page 38 the Summary says,
"Dr. Ivins gave conflicting statements over time regarding whether he knew how to use a lyophilizer – a sophisticated drying machine that MAY have been used to dry the spores used in the mailings."
That can't be it, either.
At the Roundtable discussion of Aug. 18, 2008, Dr. Majidi said,
"You know we really -- we really don't have the -- we don't really have any answers for what process was used to grow additional spores or what methodology was used to dry them. I think that a lot of folks focus on the issue of lyophilizer. You can ask any of the folks and the panel members, and they will tell you that you can dry biological samples in one of dozens of ways. lyophilizer is one of them. You can let the samples heat-dry. You can let the samples -- the water evaporate. You can -- "
That certainly isn't it.
In Rachel Lieber's Oct. 10, 2011 PBS interview she said,
"The fact is that Dr. Ivins did have extensive experience in drying Bacillus material, whether or not it’s anthrax or some other Bacillus. He had a lyophilizer, which is large piece of laboratory equipment. It’s drying equipment. And this is significant [because] again, it goes back to the number of statements that Dr. Ivins made, … which is his initial claims he has no idea how to dry material, Bacillus of any kind. This was a statement made in the fall of 2001 maybe, or early 2002: no experience in drying."
That can't be it. She's just talking about how Ivins lied about knowing how to dry things in a lyophilizer.
That's all I can find. So, if "Anonymous" has something relevant to say about the lyophilizer, I urge him to try posting it again.
Ed
One more go at this thread (which is already last week's) and then I'll give it a rest.
ReplyDeleteMister Lake's last post addressing me: (partial)
---------------------------------
R. Rowley wrote: "a) the his-grandfather-lived-in-NJ-in-the-19th Century point (as small one it's true) is certainly explicable as a random or 'accidentl' fact.
b) so is the his-father-went-to-Princeton fact."
You believe they are random facts. But, the FBI sees them as fitting a pattern.[...]
------------------------------------------------
You've given me an opening here on something I thought about long ago but never got around to mentioning:
The Task Force and Mister Lake and I have talked about those two facts (Ivins' grandparents lived in NJ; Ivins' father went to HS/college in NJ, and in Princeton in particular) as if they were two utterly separate and distinct 'facts'.
But chances are they are not: the grandfather spends a great deal of his life in NJ, evidently Central New Jersey. Naturally, Princeton U, even back in the 19th Century, had a big reputation.
It was New Jersey's only Ivy League college and produced some
high profile overachievers. The grandfather not only would have had a GENERAL knowledge of this but chances are that down through the years he met people who either themselves had gone to Princeton and/or whose relatives went there.
But the family moves to Ohio (for whatever reason) and the grandfather inculcates in his (quite intelligent) son the idea that Princeton is THE place to get a first rate post-secondary education. And so it proceeds: the son (Bruce Ivins' father) goes to HS and then college in Princeton as a DIRECT RESULT of paternal advice/encouragement etc. The father's choice of colleges is thus not a separate 'fact' in the sense of being utterly unconnected to the prior generation's homestead but essentially a direct result of it.
Something like 'linked genetic traits' if I understand that concept correctly.
Richard Rowley wrote: "The father's choice of colleges is thus not a separate 'fact' in the sense of being utterly unconnected to the prior generation's homestead but essentially a direct result of it."
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but you leave out the fact that Ivins was obsessed with the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority, and that obsession seems to have been a bigger factor in the evidence than Ivins' father and grandfather.
There are many complex aspects to that obsession. So, it's difficult to pinpoint exactly what part of that obsession caused him to do what.
However, Ivins evidently saw some kind of mysterious connection to the KKG sorority because it was founded at Monmouth College in Monmouth, Illinois, and Ivins' ancestors on his father's side came from Monmouth, New Jersey. That seems to be why Ivins used the Monmouth Junction ZIP code on the media envelopes.
The fact that Ivins' father went to Princeton seems to be secondary to the fact that there was a KKG office across the street from Princeton. It was evidently his interest in the KKG office that caused him to use the nearest mailbox, not the fact that Princeton was across the street. But, the fact that his father's alma mater was across the street from the mailbox cannot be ignored, since we cannot be certain exactly what was going on in Ivins' mind.
Ed