The main comment I wrote on Sunday, March 18 was about my finally getting started on the second draft of my new book. I'm currently trying to figure out what to write about the "non-demotion" that Ivins seems to have been informed of in August 2001. Ivins seems to have been told that Patricia Worsham was going to be promoted to become his supervisor, effective in early 2002. I know Ivins knew of the change in September 2001, because he wrote a nasty letter related to the "non-demotion" on Sept. 27, 2001. But, I've only got an "impression" or just a "feeling" that he was informed of it in August. He was going to be working for a woman, which would be a real problem for Ivins. And, that woman was younger and less experienced than Ivins was. That would have been a real blow to Ivins' ego, and a bigger motivator than a lot of other concerns he had at the time.
However, another topic for discussion on this blog could be the comment I wrote on Saturday, when I mentioned how an Anthrax Truther on Lew Weinstein's web site "outed" another Truther's "suspect" and criticized a third Truther's theory at the same time. And he explained that the third Anthrax Truther's "suspect" is a fourth Anthrax Truther.
Publicly naming a Truther's "suspect" was a true breach of confidence, but the Truther on Weinstein's site has also made it a practice to repeatedly and publicly name a suspect I had back in 2001 (He got the name from newspaper articles, not from me). I had to delete a post on this blog when he tried to do it here.
I thought the posting on Lew's site was a good illustration of how the Truthers each has his own suspect, and each thinks all the others are totally wrong. The only thing they agree about is that the FBI must be wrong, because if the FBI is right, then every one of their own individual theories must be wrong. And none of them believes his own theory can be wrong.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Mar. 11 - Mar. 17, 2012 Discussions
The main subject in my comment for Sunday, March 11, is the lunatic theories from the Lunatic Fringe which argue that inconclusive evidence should be considered conclusive toward proving Bruce Ivins to have been innocent.
If, seven years after the attack, Bruce Ivins didn't have the pen that was used to address the anthrax envelopes, the Truthers argue that should mean he was innocent.
Or, isn't that what they're claiming? They don't actually make claims. Instead they make statements: "Experts determined that there was not a single exemplar written by him in which the distinctive “fluid-like” ink used on the envelope was a match." So what!? They don't exactly say why they made such a statement, but they IMPLY that it means something.
It's probably too late to do anything in the Amerithrax case, but it seems like it might be a good idea to create a new law that would authorize the creation of a Special Inquest in situations of national importance where a jury trial cannot be held because the accused killer either died or in some other way became unable to stand trial. It could also be a jury trial in absentia, which occasionally take place when a person on trial escapes custody and thereby waves his constitutional right to face his accusers.
The Anthrax Truthers currently seem to be hoping the Government Accountability Office (GAO) will somehow overturn the DOJ's closing of the Amerithrax case. When that doesn't happen, they'll be claiming that the GAO is part of "the government's" coverup of what really happened.
Many others (including me) hope that some kind of Congressional Investigation of the Amerithrax case will take place. But that seems highly unlikely.
The Internet is giving the Lunatic Fringe a bigger voice in public matters than they ever had in the past. No one wants to cut off their freedom of speech, but many people seem to have the bizarre, almost INSANE belief that dead people should always be presumed innocent because they cannot stand trial. And Anthrax Truthers constantly make up new rules of evidence to suit themselves.
So, it seems that -- in crimes of great national interest -- it might be worthwhile to hold trials or inquests in absentia to allow a jury to decide if the evidence really says beyond a reasonable doubt that a dead person did commit the crimes for which he's accused.
If nothing else, such a trial would stop all the endless arguments about what a jury would or would not have done.
If, seven years after the attack, Bruce Ivins didn't have the pen that was used to address the anthrax envelopes, the Truthers argue that should mean he was innocent.
Or, isn't that what they're claiming? They don't actually make claims. Instead they make statements: "Experts determined that there was not a single exemplar written by him in which the distinctive “fluid-like” ink used on the envelope was a match." So what!? They don't exactly say why they made such a statement, but they IMPLY that it means something.
It's probably too late to do anything in the Amerithrax case, but it seems like it might be a good idea to create a new law that would authorize the creation of a Special Inquest in situations of national importance where a jury trial cannot be held because the accused killer either died or in some other way became unable to stand trial. It could also be a jury trial in absentia, which occasionally take place when a person on trial escapes custody and thereby waves his constitutional right to face his accusers.
The Anthrax Truthers currently seem to be hoping the Government Accountability Office (GAO) will somehow overturn the DOJ's closing of the Amerithrax case. When that doesn't happen, they'll be claiming that the GAO is part of "the government's" coverup of what really happened.
Many others (including me) hope that some kind of Congressional Investigation of the Amerithrax case will take place. But that seems highly unlikely.
The Internet is giving the Lunatic Fringe a bigger voice in public matters than they ever had in the past. No one wants to cut off their freedom of speech, but many people seem to have the bizarre, almost INSANE belief that dead people should always be presumed innocent because they cannot stand trial. And Anthrax Truthers constantly make up new rules of evidence to suit themselves.
So, it seems that -- in crimes of great national interest -- it might be worthwhile to hold trials or inquests in absentia to allow a jury to decide if the evidence really says beyond a reasonable doubt that a dead person did commit the crimes for which he's accused.
If nothing else, such a trial would stop all the endless arguments about what a jury would or would not have done.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Mar. 4 - Mar. 10, 2012 Discussions
On Sunday morning I uploaded two PDF files showing FBI photographs of Bruce Ivins' office and laboratory which I obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request.
Click HERE to view the photos of Ivins' Laboratory.
Click HERE to view the photos of Ivins' Office.
I also commented on the continuing attack from Kazakhstan, and on a new problem with someone in China who seems to have a badly written search-engine-type program that changes IP addresses with every read and runs all day long, causing my statistics to show hundreds of visitors that are really only that one guy.
I also commented on last week's arguments on this blog where the Anthrax Truthers continue to distort the facts in the case against Ivins in order to argue that there's something wrong with the evidence. Meanwhile, of course, they continue to avoid showing what kind of evidence they have proving their own suspects are the real culpits, because they they have no real evidence. They seem to think that by discrediting the FBI's case with distortions they can somehow make people think that their own cases have validity.
Click HERE to view the photos of Ivins' Laboratory.
Click HERE to view the photos of Ivins' Office.
I also commented on the continuing attack from Kazakhstan, and on a new problem with someone in China who seems to have a badly written search-engine-type program that changes IP addresses with every read and runs all day long, causing my statistics to show hundreds of visitors that are really only that one guy.
I also commented on last week's arguments on this blog where the Anthrax Truthers continue to distort the facts in the case against Ivins in order to argue that there's something wrong with the evidence. Meanwhile, of course, they continue to avoid showing what kind of evidence they have proving their own suspects are the real culpits, because they they have no real evidence. They seem to think that by discrediting the FBI's case with distortions they can somehow make people think that their own cases have validity.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Feb. 26 - Mar. 3, 2012 Discussions
One topic mentioned in my Sunday comment on February 26 was the argument I've been having with an Anthrax Truther on this blog. It's probably the first time I've ever gotten a Truther to explain his beliefs, and it was very illuminating.
He argued that the reason there are some traced over characters in the anthrax letter sent to the media is because, in Hebrew writing, "1)straight horizontal lines tend to be extra thick" and "2)straight vertical lines tend to be the thinnest line."
In other words, the writer was trying to imitate writing in Hebrew.
I pointed out to the Truther that the thick and thin form of writing is brush-stroke-calligraphy and has nothing to do with normal writing done with a pencil or modern pen.
The Truther went silent for a day or two and then countered by writing this:
"So if you ARE trying to print something in Latin letters and yet give it a 'pseudoHebrew' style, the way to go is to follow the thickness/thinness style of that first "book print" Aleph, and to do that for ALL the letters which you wish to give that style."
And, of course, I pointed out that "the writer of the anthrax letters did NOT do it with ALL the letters. The writer wasn't consistent with highlighting A's and T's. The T's in DEATH are not highlighted. The A in TAKE is not highlighted, neither is the A in AMERICA or the second A in ALLAH nor the A in ISRAEL."
Any theory about the highlighted characters in the media letter has to explain the following:
1. Why are the first and last characters in the first and last lines highlighted?
2. Why is the A in the misspelled word "PENACILIN" highlighted instead of the A in "TAKE"?
3. Why are only T's and A's clearly highlighted.
4. Why aren't all T's and A's highlighted?
5. Why does every sentence in the letter consist of only three words?
The Anthrax Truther's theory answers none of those questions. The only theory that does answer all five questions is the theory provided by the FBI HERE.
In my Sunday comments, I also mentioned that I'm working on creating a couple pdf files that will show the photographs of Ivins' lab and office that I received via an FOIA request. I created a 2 page test file HERE. It looks like a good way to do it.
Other subjects I mentioned in my Sunday comments were the Portland hoax letters, the continuing attack on my web site from someone in Kazakhstan, and the statement in former Senator Russ Feingold's new book which says this about the anthrax attacks of 2001: "We may never know who really committed this crime."
It seems to me that all that is needed to "know" who committed the crime is to look at the facts. But, some seem to need an "official" finding of some kind -- a different official finding than that which has already been provided. But, would they accept any "official" finding if it doesn't agree with their beliefs? History has definitely indicated that they will not.
He argued that the reason there are some traced over characters in the anthrax letter sent to the media is because, in Hebrew writing, "1)straight horizontal lines tend to be extra thick" and "2)straight vertical lines tend to be the thinnest line."
In other words, the writer was trying to imitate writing in Hebrew.
I pointed out to the Truther that the thick and thin form of writing is brush-stroke-calligraphy and has nothing to do with normal writing done with a pencil or modern pen.
The Truther went silent for a day or two and then countered by writing this:
"So if you ARE trying to print something in Latin letters and yet give it a 'pseudoHebrew' style, the way to go is to follow the thickness/thinness style of that first "book print" Aleph, and to do that for ALL the letters which you wish to give that style."
And, of course, I pointed out that "the writer of the anthrax letters did NOT do it with ALL the letters. The writer wasn't consistent with highlighting A's and T's. The T's in DEATH are not highlighted. The A in TAKE is not highlighted, neither is the A in AMERICA or the second A in ALLAH nor the A in ISRAEL."
Any theory about the highlighted characters in the media letter has to explain the following:
1. Why are the first and last characters in the first and last lines highlighted?
2. Why is the A in the misspelled word "PENACILIN" highlighted instead of the A in "TAKE"?
3. Why are only T's and A's clearly highlighted.
4. Why aren't all T's and A's highlighted?
5. Why does every sentence in the letter consist of only three words?
The Anthrax Truther's theory answers none of those questions. The only theory that does answer all five questions is the theory provided by the FBI HERE.
In my Sunday comments, I also mentioned that I'm working on creating a couple pdf files that will show the photographs of Ivins' lab and office that I received via an FOIA request. I created a 2 page test file HERE. It looks like a good way to do it.
Other subjects I mentioned in my Sunday comments were the Portland hoax letters, the continuing attack on my web site from someone in Kazakhstan, and the statement in former Senator Russ Feingold's new book which says this about the anthrax attacks of 2001: "We may never know who really committed this crime."
It seems to me that all that is needed to "know" who committed the crime is to look at the facts. But, some seem to need an "official" finding of some kind -- a different official finding than that which has already been provided. But, would they accept any "official" finding if it doesn't agree with their beliefs? History has definitely indicated that they will not.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Feb. 19 - Feb. 25, 2012 Discussions
The first topic mentioned in my regular Sunday comment on my web site for February 19 was the connections between Ivins, the KKG sorority and places named "Monmouth." In arguments on this interactive blog, it is more circumstantial evidence connecting Ivins to the attacks that Anthrax Truthers who are "in denial" don't see as being evidence at all.
The second topic was the discovery that Franklin Park, NJ, the town used in the return address on the senate envelopes was just ten miles farther than Princeton along the Lincoln Highway on the way from Frederick, MD, to Newark, NJ. That suggests that Franklin Park was probably where Ivins planned to mail the letters. But, when he reached Princeton, he either spent too much time looking over the KKG office or he simply figured he'd driven far enough and needed to turn around and head home again. So, he mailed the letters in Princeton.
I also realized that the reason that there was no return address on the media letters may have been because the child doing the writing wrote too large, and perhaps ruined an envelope or two before Ivins decided to just use the destination addresses on the envelopes to NBC, CBS, ABC, AMI and the New York Post.
In my Sunday comment, I also mentioned that there has been no dispute of any kind regarding my discovery that the Emerson radio/CD player in Ivins' lab was most likely a "nanny cam" TV spy camera.
And, I also mentioned once again that Anthrax Truthers do not agree with each other about who sent the anthrax letters. But, they ignore that fact in order to appear united in their belief that the FBI was wrong in naming Ivins as the anthrax mailer.
The second topic was the discovery that Franklin Park, NJ, the town used in the return address on the senate envelopes was just ten miles farther than Princeton along the Lincoln Highway on the way from Frederick, MD, to Newark, NJ. That suggests that Franklin Park was probably where Ivins planned to mail the letters. But, when he reached Princeton, he either spent too much time looking over the KKG office or he simply figured he'd driven far enough and needed to turn around and head home again. So, he mailed the letters in Princeton.
I also realized that the reason that there was no return address on the media letters may have been because the child doing the writing wrote too large, and perhaps ruined an envelope or two before Ivins decided to just use the destination addresses on the envelopes to NBC, CBS, ABC, AMI and the New York Post.
In my Sunday comment, I also mentioned that there has been no dispute of any kind regarding my discovery that the Emerson radio/CD player in Ivins' lab was most likely a "nanny cam" TV spy camera.
And, I also mentioned once again that Anthrax Truthers do not agree with each other about who sent the anthrax letters. But, they ignore that fact in order to appear united in their belief that the FBI was wrong in naming Ivins as the anthrax mailer.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Feb. 12 - Feb. 18 Discussions
My Sunday comment on February 12 began with details about the completed first draft of my book. (The second draft probably won't be done any sooner than four months.)
I then posted a few of the 52 photographs I received from the FBI in response to a Freedom Of Information Act request I'd filed.
I commented on the photos I posted. They show how cramped and filled with equipment the lab was. And, the only window was the window in the door.
Lastly, I mentioned the discussions from last week which indicate that I'm arguing with one person (Richard Rowley) who truly believes that the person who sent the anthrax letters had Hebrew as his first language. And the other person in last week's arguments ("Anonymous") truly believes that some Muslim sent the anthrax letters. Their arguments seem almost diametrically opposed, yet they don't argue with each other, and they don't present evidence in support of their beliefs. They only argue that the FBI must be wrong - not due to any kind of criminal conspiracy - but due either to incompetence or to laziness and "group think."
A second comment posted on Sunday shows that an Emerson CD player seen in Ivins' lab is also sold as a "nanny cam" that can be used to spy on people. And Ivins was known to purchase and use such spy equipment.
I then posted a few of the 52 photographs I received from the FBI in response to a Freedom Of Information Act request I'd filed.
I commented on the photos I posted. They show how cramped and filled with equipment the lab was. And, the only window was the window in the door.
Lastly, I mentioned the discussions from last week which indicate that I'm arguing with one person (Richard Rowley) who truly believes that the person who sent the anthrax letters had Hebrew as his first language. And the other person in last week's arguments ("Anonymous") truly believes that some Muslim sent the anthrax letters. Their arguments seem almost diametrically opposed, yet they don't argue with each other, and they don't present evidence in support of their beliefs. They only argue that the FBI must be wrong - not due to any kind of criminal conspiracy - but due either to incompetence or to laziness and "group think."
A second comment posted on Sunday shows that an Emerson CD player seen in Ivins' lab is also sold as a "nanny cam" that can be used to spy on people. And Ivins was known to purchase and use such spy equipment.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Feb. 5 - Feb. 11, 2012 Discussions
The main topic of my Sunday comment this week is an examination of inconsistencies and errors in an official police report about the death of Bruce Ivins in July 2008. The intent was to show that humans make mistakes, even in critical situations. So, it can take some analysis to figure out exactly what happened.
The Washington Post "reporter" who re-hashed an error in a court document filed in the Stevens vs USA lawsuit should have realized that mistakes happen and that it DID NOT mean a change in direction for the case, nor was it any evidence of a disagreement between civil and criminal divisions in the DOJ. It was just a human error, which is totally understandable in a case as complex as the Amerithrax case.
Also, last week's news reports that, last October, a university professor in Pakistan mailed some anthrax to the Pakistani Prime Minister seems to have stirred up the Lunatic Fringe. They seem to see it as being connected to the anthrax attacks of 2001 -- until proved otherwise to their satisfaction. But, of course, it can never be proved otherwise to their satisfaction, since facts mean absolutely nothing to Anthrax Truthers and The Lunatic Fringe.
The Washington Post "reporter" who re-hashed an error in a court document filed in the Stevens vs USA lawsuit should have realized that mistakes happen and that it DID NOT mean a change in direction for the case, nor was it any evidence of a disagreement between civil and criminal divisions in the DOJ. It was just a human error, which is totally understandable in a case as complex as the Amerithrax case.
Also, last week's news reports that, last October, a university professor in Pakistan mailed some anthrax to the Pakistani Prime Minister seems to have stirred up the Lunatic Fringe. They seem to see it as being connected to the anthrax attacks of 2001 -- until proved otherwise to their satisfaction. But, of course, it can never be proved otherwise to their satisfaction, since facts mean absolutely nothing to Anthrax Truthers and The Lunatic Fringe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)