Justice Department lawyers filed a brief on July 15 that said Bruce Ivins did not have access to equipment in the Fort Detrick hot suites that would have enabled him to make the dried anthrax found in letters to two Senators.
... the filing in a Florida court did not explain where or how Ivins could have made the powder, saying only that the lab “did not have the specialized equipment’’ in Ivins' secure lab “that would be required to prepare the dried spore preparations that were used in the letters.”The filing was in response to a lawsuit against the government filed by the family of Bob Stevens, the first person to die from mailed anthrax in 2001.
Justice department lawyers have also claimed that
“drying anthrax is expressly forbidden by various treaties,” and “overt use of any of these methods, if noticed, would have raised considerable alarm and scrutiny.’’Yet the government has dried anthrax, and contracted with the corporation Battelle to produce dried anthrax for a government project. Our government has in the past used the argument that only offensive programs are banned by the Biological Weapons Convention, and that if the intent is to use dried anthrax for a defensive purpose, then it is allowed.
The increased hours started in the middle of summer because that it when the problems with Bioport arose and they were tasked to help.
ReplyDeleteThey did not continue in 2002 because it was no longer permitted. The entire arguments was an artifact.
The Amerithrax Investigative Summary explains:
"Drying the spores likely would have attracted attention unless the perpetrator accessed the equipment at night. 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. Because drying anthrax is expressly forbidden by various treaties, overt use of any of these methods, if noticed, would have raised considerable alarm and scrutiny. "
The lab notes showing what Dr. Ivins was doing in the lab on the dates that the government claimed he had no reason to be in the lab were withheld by the DOJ -- indeed they still have been not been produced by DOJ. For each of the dates, the Army has produced the lab notes showing that the DOJ's claim that Dr. Ivins had no reason to be in the lab was mistaken. The first of such lab notes, sufficient without more to demolish the DOJ's claim, were produced on May 11, 2011. But there are still more documents being withheld by DOJ which were removed from USAMRIID and thus are not available to be produced by the Army. GAO should investigate the withholding of the the highly pertinent documents by DOJ that was key to setting up its false claim."
DOJ has refused to produce the documents produced in Stevens -- those not subject to a protective orders -- on the grounds that the public would not be benefited from being informed on the matter. Compliance with FOIA should be addressed by GAO in its probe.
Village Voice blog -
ReplyDeleteBruce Ivins, who committed suicide in 2008, was officially labeled the Anthrax killer posthumously, accused of killing five people with contaminated letters and spooking all of the post-9/11 United States. Though much of the U.S. press, including the Washington Post and CNN, initially accepted Ivins's guilt as fact, certain media critics like Salon's Glenn Greenwald have long questioned the FBI's version of events. (The Post, along with the New York Times, would later call for further investigation on their opinion pages.) "[O]ne of the most glaring of the many deficiencies in the FBI's case is the complete lack of evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, placing Ivins at the New Jersey mailboxes (the proverbial 'scene of the crime') on either of the two dates on which the anthrax letters were sent," Greenwald wrote in the summer of 2008. Lo and behold, in February, the Times and others relayed the findings of a new report which concluded that "the bureau overstated the strength of genetic analysis linking the mailed anthrax to a supply kept by Bruce E. Ivins." This month, a closer look casts even more doubts.
PBS Frontline reports, "On July 15 ... Justice Department lawyers acknowledged in court papers that the sealed area in Ivins' lab -- the so-called hot suite -- did not contain the equipment needed to turn liquid anthrax into the refined powder that floated through congressional buildings and post offices in the fall of 2001."
Ivins is "more likely than not" the Anthrax killer, the government maintains. But! "Searches of his car and home in 2007 found no anthrax spores, and the FBI's eight-year, $100 million investigation never proved he mailed the letters or identified another location where he might have secretly dried the anthrax into an easily inhaled powder."
A PBS documentary on the case, in association with McClatchy Newspapers and ProPublica, is currently in the works.
The specialized equipment is not plastic plates in plastic bags?
ReplyDeleteThe weapons treaty folks didn't realize you can just air dry it?
It seems like the government is giving up on the whole he grew it in plastic bags in the trash bin theory.
Tell us again about all that extra time Ivins spent in the lab making Anthrax powder Ed.
ReplyDeleteAnthrax Sleuth wrote: "Tell us again about all that extra time Ivins spent in the lab making Anthrax powder Ed."
ReplyDeleteThe only thing interesting about this "news" story from McClatchy is what they DID NOT report.
They did NOT report that the information they found was in a Motion for a Summary Judgment filed the by government.
Some months ago, Maureen Stevens' lawyers changed their lawsuit because they could not win if Ivins was the culprit. If Ivins was the culprit, the government couldn't be held responsible for the actions of a lone mentally ill scientist who performed a criminal act in secret, entirely on his own and against all established rules and procedures.
So, Maureen Stevens' lawyers had to change their case to argue that Ivins didn't do it, and the government is therefore liable for what some UNKNOWN culprit did despite all the established rules and procedures at USAMRIID.
Today's Frederick News-Post explains why the government filed a motion to have the case thrown out or closed in their favor:
Dismissing the notion that Ivins was the killer also negates the lawsuit, the Justice Department argues, because not being able to prove who the killer was and what his or her methods were means the plaintiffs [Stevens] cannot prove where the government showed negligence.
The other motion to dismiss the case revolved around the argument that, regardless of whether Ivins was the real killer, the plaintiffs cannot prove that USAMRIID policy or procedure, or the breach thereof, led to anthrax attacks.
The blahblah about the lyophilizer is pure nonsense. The government never said that a lyophilizer was required to make the dry powder. They said it was just one way to dry spores. The lyophilizer came up mostly because Ivins LIED about not knowing how to use it. He was the custodian of the item, and he taught others how to use it.
This is all much ado about nothing.
It may become something if Judge Hurley agrees with the government and puts an end to Maureen Stevens' lawsuit.
At one time, I thought Maureen Stevens had a solid case. But, I've learned a lot about how "negligence" is determined in a court of law. She's got an extremely tough case -- if she has any case at all.
Ed
Old Atlantic Lighthouse wrote: It seems like the government is giving up on the whole he grew it in plastic bags in the trash bin theory.
ReplyDeleteNo, the government never even attempted to argue exactly how Ivins made the anthrax powders.
That was a very smart move, since if you try to state exactly how you figure something was probably done, you are on a fool's errand.
It's better to just state that Ivins had MULTIPLE ways to make the anthrax, and, if pressed, the government could show one or two different ways without ever claiming that any way is the "exact" way that Ivins did it.
Other facts show that Ivins was the anthrax mailer, not the specific techniques he used to make the attack powders.
Ed
"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."
ReplyDeleteNot exactly. But the alternative technique could not have been undertaken on Fort Detrick property without someone noticing. (And if attempted at home, Mrs. Ivins would have noticed as well!).
The FBI states that there is no evidence that Ivins had access to any additional clandestine workspace.
Unless he had access to an ultracentrifuge that he could have used without notice for an extended period of time (an ultracentrifuge contains a refrigerated vacuum chamber where the rotor is normally placed).
Even then, its use would have had to remain undiscovered for an extended period of time (48 hours or more?).
An ultracentrifuge is a very expensive specialized piece of equipment. I don't think they had a lot of these sitting around unused in the hot suites.
For the reasons explained by Dr. Worsham and Dr. Little...
ReplyDeleteand Dr. Byrne and Dr. Heine and Dr. Andrews and and Dr. Adamovicz... he did not have multiple ways. As they explain in their sworn testimony, he didn't have any.
Not only did he have a reason to be in the lab on each of the days -- contrary to DOJ's claim -- but he could not have used the lyophilizer as US Attorney claimed in his press conference and as prosecutors urged on July 29 to Paul Kemp.
In a July 18 report, emptywheel reminded us of the Byrne and Andrews depositions. They are just as powerful as the Worsham deposition. I liked the Worsham deposition given that she was such an authoritative speaker before the NAS, as she led off the explanation about the 4 morphs on behalf of the FBI.
ReplyDeleteBut the Little deposition is the most powerful of all given its concrete particulars.
Government Inches Closer to Admitting It Hasn’t Solved Anthrax Attack
Posted on July 18, 2011 by emptywheel
As a number of you have noted, ProPublica is out with a story on yet more evidence why Bruce Ivins was probably not the anthrax killer. Here’s the deposition they cite in their story; his former colleague Patricia Worsham described how USAMRIID didn’t have the facilities to dry the anthrax used in the attack, and certainly not the quantities that were used in the attack.
I think I summarized it before to a certain extent, in that I don’t believe that we had facilities at USAMRIID to make that kind of preparation. It would have taken a great deal of time; it would have taken a huge number of cultures; it would have taken a lot of resources that would have been obvious to other people within containment when they wanted to use those resources.
We did not have anything in containment suitable for drying down anything, much less a quantity of spores. The lyophilizer that was part of our division was in noncontainment. If someone had used that to dry down that preparation, I would have expected that area to be very, very contaminated, and we had nonimmunized personnel in that the area, and I might have expected some of them to become ill.
Just as interesting is the argument the lawyers for Maureen Stevens–Bob Stevens’ wife–made when withdrawing their earlier stipulation that Bruce Ivins was the killer. They cite two former supervisors of Ivins, William Russell Byrne and Gerard Andrews, explaining why they thought Ivins couldn’t have made the anthrax used in the attacks.
Byrne argued that, had Ivins used the lypholizer to dry the anthrax, it would have left evidence.
He reiterated that if the laboratory’s equipment (lypholizer) had been used to lypholize that powder, you would have been able to find evidence of it pretty easily (76/23). The powder would have gotten everywhere insider the lypholizer.
And Andrews explained that the volume the equipment in Ivins’ lab was insufficient to make the amount of spores used in the attack.
Dr. Andrews stated: “No, I don’t believe he had the equipment, in my opinion.” He said that the equipment in BSL3 had limitations in that the lypholizer was a low-volume lypholizer that could handle maybe up to 50 mils at a time in separate small tubes. He opined “where would he do it without creating any sort of contamination is beyond me, but it has been speculated that the lypholizer may have been moved into a Class 2 Biological Safety Cabinet to prevent spores from flying everywhere. I would think the physical size of the lypholizer would be difficult to get the entire, or the speed vac to get the entire apparatus under the hood. It might be possible to get the apparatus under the hood; however, there would be contamination of it inside the hood if that was the case.
Byrne and Andrews also address Ivins’ training–that is, lack of training on weaponizing anthrax.
Right now, to try to salvage this suit, the government is arguing that the plaintiffs have no evidence of anyone else making the anthrax, but that since Ivins’ supervisors didn’t think he had the capability to make the anthrax, the government can’t be held liable for the anthrax that killed Bob Stevens.
But along the way, evidence like this–as well as further evidence that Ivins didn’t have sole control of the anthrax–is making it more and more clear that the government hasn’t solved this case.
Ed,
ReplyDeleteIf Ivins was legitimately busy after hours during the weeks prior to the attacks and did not use the lyophilizer, how and when did he likely produce the weapons?
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete-------------------------------
The blahblah about the lyophilizer is pure nonsense. The government never said that a lyophilizer was required to make the dry powder. They said it was just one way to dry spores. The lyophilizer came up mostly because Ivins LIED about not knowing how to use it. He was the custodian of the item, and he taught others how to use it.
This is all much ado about nothing.
---------------------------------
But it was Ivins' 'extra time' in the lab that was supposedly so 'suspicious' and 'unexplained' etc. If he wasn't making powdered anthrax there------and these latest revelations are pointing in the direction that there's little chance he was-------then who cares WHAT he was doing?
Let's see what the government was saying a week after Ivins committed suicide: the August 6th newsconference: (speaker is U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor)
----------------------------------
Second[bit of evidence among 6 listed at that time], as a renowned expert in the production and purification of anthrax spores, Dr. Ivins was one of a handful of scientists with the capability to create spores of the concentration and purity used in the attacks. The affidavits allege that, not only did Dr. Ivins create and maintain the spore batch used in the mailings, but he also had access to and experience using a lyophilizer. A lyophilizer is a sophisticated machine that is used to dry pathogens, and can be used to dry anthrax. We know others in Dr. Ivins' lab consulted him when they needed to use this machine.
---------------------------------
Leaving out the fact that Ivins couldn't have used the lyophilizer amounts to deception via omission. A pattern with the government's case.
US Attorney Taylor continued:
---------------------------------
Third, in the days leading up to each of the mailings, the documents make clear that Dr. Ivins was working inordinate hours alone at night and on the weekend in the lab where the flask of spores and production equipment were stored. A review of his access records revealed that Dr. Ivins had not spent this many "off hours" in the lab at any time before or after this period. When questioned about why he was in the lab during those off hours prior to each of the mailings, Dr. Ivins was unable to offer any satisfactory explanation.
-----------------------------------
This too has been exposed as at best a half-truth.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93415845
Worthwhile on the above: (alibi)
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/02/27/dxer-dr-bruce-ivins-alibi-and-the-withholding-of-information-required-by-law-to-be-disclosed/
(inexplicability of silicon content) http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/silicon-additive-clearly-observed-in-daschle-powder-the-fbi-tried-for-8-years-to-duplicate-this-obvious-silicon-additive-and-failed-they-cannot-explain-it-nor-can-they-link-it-to-dr-ivins/
(alibi again)http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/dxer-the-big-picture-may-seem-complicated-but-most-simply-dr-ivins-in-fact-had-an-alibi-on-917-that-was-when-his-group-therapy-met/
Etc.
One of the Anonymi wrote: "But it was Ivins' 'extra time' in the lab that was supposedly so 'suspicious' and 'unexplained' etc. If he wasn't making powdered anthrax there------and these latest revelations are pointing in the direction that there's little chance he was-------then who cares WHAT he was doing?"
ReplyDeleteI don't know where you got that misunderstanding, but it could be from the PBS NewHour clip that suggested that kind of total nonsense.
Ivins was almost certainly making anthrax powders in his lab on those evening and weekend times for which he had no explanations.
The PBS interview suggests that the civil division of the DOJ somehow suggested that Ivins did not use his lab at all to make the attack anthrax. I've seen no suggestion of that anywhere except in that PBS news clip.
It's ridiculous. It's bad reporting by PBS. If it were true, the "Notice of Errata" filed by the government yesterday would have included a lot more than just a correction about the lyophilizer, and the Anthrax Truthers would be trumpeting it all over the place.
It's bad reporting from PBS.
"Leaving out the fact that Ivins couldn't have used the lyophilizer amounts to deception via omission.
In your opinion. In reality, the DOJ was just leaving open all the possible ways Ivins could have dried the powders. The fact that it would have been extremely difficult for Ivins to use the lyophilizer isn't proof that he didn't use the lyophilizer.
"This too has been exposed as at best a half-truth."
On the contrary, the links you provide to arguments on Lew Weinstein's web site are links to nonsensical, bogus claims. The posters make claims but provide NO EVIDENCE in support of their claims. They show documents but the documents prove the government's argument, not the arguments by "DXer" and others posting to Weinstein's site.
There is absolutely NOTHING that shows that Ivins had alibis for the time of either one of the mailings. The posters to Lew's site will claim that the "window of opportunity" for the first mailing isn't as large as the government says. Maybe not, but there was still plenty of unaccounted-for time for Ivins to drive to Princeton and back for both mailings. And that means Ivins had no abibi.
Ed
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/07/frontline-investigation-shows-government-walking-fine-line-in-anthrax-case.html
ReplyDeletePastial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete----------------------------
There is absolutely NOTHING that shows that Ivins had alibis for the time of either one of the mailings.
==================================
But the "time" of the October mailing was never nailed down by the investigators! It could have been October 9th, October 8th, October 7th, even October 6th.
How then can you expect ANYONE to "prove" (and this is the investigation's burden, not the suspect/defendant's)what he was doing on the night of X, if you don't tell him when the night of X was?!?!?!?
Another volcano-crater-size hole in the government's case that would never have passed muster in a real court of law. Only the PR offense launched from August of 2008 to the issuance of the Final Report could obscure such investigative failings. But PR isn't the same thing as law.
One of the Anonymi wrote; "How then can you expect ANYONE to "prove" (and this is the investigation's burden, not the suspect/defendant's)what he was doing on the night of X, if you don't tell him when the night of X was?!?!?!?"
ReplyDeleteThat's the problem, then. You don't understand the law, and you don't understand what an alibi is.
The government showed with other evidence that Ivins committed the crime. Ivins claimed he didn't.
The first mailing explains the problem with alibis better. Ivins had no alibi for the period between 11:30 p.m. on the 17th of September and 7:15 a.m. or so on the 18th. He claimed he was at home asleep, but he couldn't prove it. And he had talked often about how he would leave on long trips, and he wife wouldn't know anything about where he went. So, his "alibi" for those 8 hours or so was that he was at home asleep.
Alibi's are a matter of proof when the defendant says he has an alibi. Ivins had no real proof.
So, it would have been up to the jury to decide whether he really had an alibi or not. If Ivins said his alibi was that he was at home asleep, but the rest of the evidence says he committed the crime, then the jury can decide he was NOT at home asleep. His alibi was a lie.
The same basic facts hold true for the second mailing. It's up to the jury to decide if he could have done the crime during the period when he could not account for his time.
It isn't up to the government to find an alibi for every moment of Ivins' time.
Ed
I failed to notice that on the 20th, one of the Anonymi asked me, "If Ivins was legitimately busy after hours during the weeks prior to the attacks and did not use the lyophilizer, how and when did he likely produce the weapons?"
ReplyDeleteThe question, of course, is a trick question because it assumes that Ivins was "legitimately busy" during the times he spent in his lab at night and on weekends when the could not explain what he was doing there. He was NOT legitimately busy during those times. If he had been, he could have explained what he was doing.
And, the facts say he didn't use the lyophilizer to dry the spores. He most likely air-dried the spores, probably adding heat to dry them faster.
Ivins knew how to air-dry spores because it would happen naturally every day if he didn't take measures to prevent it from happening.
If you know how to prevent spores from drying out, you also know how to dry spores.
(1) Ivins most likely accumulated his supply of spores by scraping them off of culture plates that had been allowed to grow to maturity inside autoclave bags for weeks. He most likely kept the supply in a beaker in the cold room, where no one would question an extra beaker among hundreds.
(2) Ivins most likely simply centrifuged the media spores to get rid of excess water, and then he air-dried the media powders. That's why the powder appeared non-homogenous. It was the result of centrifuging a non-homogenous glob that was 90% matrix material and only about 10% spores.
(3) For the senate letters, he most likely spent those unexplained evening times repeatedly centrifuging and washing his remaining supply of spores to get rid of the matrix material. He then air-dried those purified spores and put them in the senate letters.
(4) During his unexplained, unsupervised night-time hours, he most likely air-dried the spores inside one or more bio-safety cabinets to prevent contamination of the lab.
The facts indicate he started accumulating spores long before 9/11 - possibly as much as a year before 9/11. 9/11 was just the trigger that caused him to turn a very vague plan into a specific plan.
He had the spores, he had the time, he had the equipment, and he had multiple motives
Among his motives was an expectation that he could get the vaccine development program going full speed again and get his life's work back on track. He succeeded in doing that - until the evidence began to accumulate showing him to be the anthrax mailer.
Ed
Partial post by Mister Lake (responding to me):
ReplyDelete-------------------
One of the Anonymi wrote; "How then can you expect ANYONE to "prove" (and this is the investigation's burden, not the suspect/defendant's)what he was doing on the night of X, if you don't tell him when the night of X was?!?!?!?"
That's the problem, then. You don't understand the law, and you don't understand what an alibi is.
-----------------------------------
I notice this is an old rhetorical trick of yours: you announce A PRIORI (before even showing where your interlocutor is ALLEGEDLY in error) that the person who disputes your position is lacking in understanding in a field.
---------------------------------
(back to Mister Lake):
The government showed with other evidence that Ivins committed the crime. Ivins claimed he didn't.
----------------------------
That "with other evidence" part is a bait-n-switch. Why can't you keep to the topic: WHOSE responsibility it is to prove the person was, or LIKELY was, at the scene of the crime in a timely way?
(Short answer: the investigator/prosecutor's responsibility, not the suspect's/defendant's; but if they DO claim the 'lack of an alibi' is somehow key, then THEY have to say when the crime took place). But I'm willing to be proven wrong: you simply have to cite cases where the Supreme Court ruled that:
1)defendants have an obligation to come up with alibis.
2)prosecutors don't have to say when a crime occurred and the defendant STILL has to come up with an alibi.
---------------------------------
But I'll save you a LOT of time, Mister Lake, dragging out hefty volumes in the old law library: there are no such SC rulings, no such precedents.
'Lack of alibi' as a form of evidence in the government solution to Amerithrax isn't based on law, it's based on PR. PR you've been boostering for about 3 years now.
More from Mister Lake (addressing me):
ReplyDeleteThe first mailing explains the problem with alibis better.
---------------------------------
Don't think so, but I'm willing to entertain the possibility
--------------------------------
(back to Mister Lake)
---------------------------------
Ivins had no alibi for the period between 11:30 p.m. on the 17th of September and 7:15 a.m. or so on the 18th. He claimed he was at home asleep, but he couldn't prove it. And he had talked often about how he would leave on long trips, and he wife wouldn't know anything about where he went. So, his "alibi" for those 8 hours or so was that he was at home asleep.
-----------------------------------
This, in TYPICAL Ed Lake style leaves out the most important things:
1) they didn't ask Ivins for an 'alibi' for YEARS (2001-2004 at the least).
2) THEREFORE when they finally DID ask him what he was doing Sept 17-18th 2001 he probably gave an attempted reconstruction: 'I usually sleep between midnight and six at a bare minimum, so chances are I was asleep MOST of that time'.
Is this 'having an alibi'? It is if there's no reason to believe the man was in Princeton, New Jersey!
And the investigation gave NO evidence Ivins was in NJ, either in Sept or Oct of 2001 (ie the entire months!). In baseball, the tie goes to the runner. In our judicial system, the benefit of doubt goes to the defendant.
---------------------------------
(back to Mister Lake):
Alibi's are a matter of proof when the defendant says he has an alibi. Ivins had no real proof.
---------------------------------
(Ironic parenthenical note: But according to the FBI/Ed Lake, Ivins was never even a suspect, let alone a 'defendant', only a 'person of interest'!)
Again, as in so many areas, Mister Lake has REVERSED the burden of proof and convinced himself that it is HIS OPPONENTS who don't understand the law!
Last of 3 comments: Written by Ed Lake:
ReplyDelete-------------------------
It isn't up to the government to find an alibi for every moment of Ivins' time.
----------------------------------
No, it's up to the government to come up with a PLAUSIBLE TIMELINE of when (and where and how) a crime was committed. And one that fits the KNOWN whereabouts of the supect.
That's all the more true when the government is making de facto accusations about crimes that took place YEARS previously (when Ivins committed suicide, it was 6 1/2 years after the Amerithrax crimes) and when those crimes took place HUNDREDS of miles away from a person's residence/workplace.
The government never placed Ivins within a hundred miles of Princeton in the relevant timeframe. Major hole in the case.
One of the Anonymi wrote: "1) defendants have an obligation to come up with alibis.
ReplyDelete2) prosecutors don't have to say when a crime occurred and the defendant STILL has to come up with an alibi.'
You're distorting the argument and misstating the law.
The government does NOT have to determine the exact time of a crime such as the mailing of a threat letter. They just have to show that the letter WAS mailed, and it MUST have been mailed by the defendant during some general time frame.
The defendant does NOT have to come up with an alibi. It is better for his defense if he can do so, but he is presumed innocent, and it's up to the prosecution to convince the jury that he committed the crime, regardless of the exact time of the mailing.
Here's the definition of "Alibi" from a law dictionary:
Alibi. A STATEMENT OR CONTENTION by an individual that he or she was so distant when a crime was committed, or so engaged in other provable activities, that participation in its commission was impossible.
So, providing an alibi is the responsibility of if the defendant. It's his primary proof of innocence. If he cannot provide an alibi, that fact can and will be used against him in court.
The idea that the government cannot prosecute anyone for murder unless they catch him before he forgets his alibi is preposterous. There is no Statute of Limitations for murder.
You wrote: "it's up to the government to come up with a PLAUSIBLE TIMELINE of when (and where and how) a crime was committed. And one that fits the KNOWN whereabouts of the supect."
The second part of that statement is totally ridiculous. It is NOT - repeat NOT - the government's responsibility to know where the suspect was at any time.
It IS the government's responsibility to come up with a plausible timeline for when the crime was committed. And they did that. And the government must show evidence that the defendant could have committed the crime during that general time frame. They did that, too.
The time when Ivins mailed the senate letters is established by knowing when the letters were picked up from the mailbox. Due to the Columbus Day Holiday, the letters picked up and postmarked on October 9 could have been sitting in the mailbox since the 6th.
Ivins had an alibi for some of the time from the 6th to the 9th. For example, the logs show he worked in his lab on the evening of the 8th. So, he couldn't have been in Princeton at that time. But there was plenty of time during those four days for Ivins to drive to Princeton and back.
The evidence says that Ivins worked alone when he created the anthrax powders. And he openly admitted to sneaking out of his house to go on long drives to commit other crimes or to do things that couldn't be traced back to him.
The fact that there is no way to pinpoint the exact time when the letters were placed in the mailbox would be accepted by the jury as fully understandable.
There have been hundreds of successfully prosecuted cases involving letters sent through the mail, and it is doubtful that ANY required knowing exactly when the suspect dropped the letter into the mailbox. It is not necessary to know the exact time of a mailing to determine that a person MUST have mailed the letter during a general time frame.
The jury would have seen and heard all the evidence against Ivins, and they would have found Ivins guilty without concern for the exact times of the mailings.
Juries understand it it's not possible to know where someone was at every moment in time years ago. They take that into consideration when they render their verdict.
Ed
I ran into the 4,096 space limit when posting my previous post. So, I'll add a few points in this new post:
ReplyDeleteOne of the Anonymi wrote: "Mister Lake has REVERSED the burden of proof"
Totally false. I didn't claim that the defendant has to prove himself innocent. I just said that if the prosecution shows that Ivins MUST HAVE mailed the senate letters sometime on the 6th, 7th, 8th or 9th of October, the prosecution is not required to account for every minute of Ivins' time during those four days.
If Ivins could account for his time, then it would be good for his defense, but it is not a requirement that he do so, either.
Everyone in the world (with one possible exception) knows that it is not always possible to account for a person's every minute during a four day period six years ago.
Everyone in the world (with one possible exception) knows that it is not always possible to fix the exact time of a crime.
The jury looks at what IS possible and also at what IS NOT possible.
Some murder cases begin with finding a body that has been dead for months or years, and it is not possible to establish the time of death any more precisely than to within a week or month - or year.
Burglaries are very good examples of crimes that can be committed at unknown times. For example, a break-in home burglary could have been committed at any time during the two weeks when a family was on vacation. Or, a burglary of a store could have occurred at any time between when the store was closed on Saturday afternoon and when it was opened up again on Monday morning.
If they catch the burglar (or the murderer), OTHER EVIDENCE will be used to show that he committed the crime. The prosecution probably wouldn't even attempt to establish the exact time of the crime. It's not necessary. It's only necessary to show that the accused committed the crime, regardless of the exact time.
If the accused can provide a solid alibi, the case would never get to court.
The case goes to court because the evidence says the accused committed the crime AND because he has no solid alibi.
The defendant does NOT have to provide a defense. But, if he has a solid alibi, it would be a good idea to tell someone about it before the case goes to court.
The prosecution is required to show the defense any exculpatory evidence before going to court. Evidence of a solid alibi would be exculpatory evidence.
If neither side can provide a solid alibi, then it's up to the jury to decide if the evidence shows that the defendant was guilty or not.
Ed
I just noticed that one of the Anonymi wrote: "But according to the FBI/Ed Lake, Ivins was never even a suspect, let alone a 'defendant', only a 'person of interest'!"
ReplyDeleteThat's preposterous. No one in the FBI nor I ever said or implied such a thing.
Ivins was a suspect about to be indicted for multiple murders and terrorism.
It was HATFILL who was never formally identified as a "suspect" by the FBI. It was HATFILL who was identified as a "person of interest" by Attorney General John Ashcroft.
Page 67 of FBI File #847444 is an April 11, 2007 document requesting "periodic surveillance" of Ivins because "Bruce Edwards Ivins is an extremely sensitive suspect in the 2001 anthrax attacks."
Ed
Just imagine for a moment the absurdity about this case.
ReplyDeleteMister Ed and the FBI swear it must have been the mild mannered, non violent scientist.
It can't be the self admitted murderer who kept his victim's shoes as a souvenir.
According to Mr Ed and the FBI it had to be the church going organ player.
Never mind that the FBI found a freakin' silencer when they searched the self admitted murderer's belongings.
Never mind that the FBI found Cipro hidden in a coffee can in the self admitted murderer's belongings.
When the DOJ handed out $6 million to this self admitted murderer even my Mom said "that means the FBI was involved."
And when I think back to the TV news stating how the agents searching the self admitted murderer's belongings were at the same time apologizing to him; when I think back to the things the Special Agent I was dealing with said; things like "go ahead and search through your trash, your on the antibiotics." Or, "You can't tell anyone about this." And, my favorite "You can stop taking the antibiotics." A blatant practicing of medicine without a license.
I believe Mom is correct.
Partial post by Ed Lake, denying that Hatfill, but not Ivins, was a suspect:
ReplyDelete-------
Page 67 of FBI File #847444 is an April 11, 2007 document requesting "periodic surveillance" of Ivins because "Bruce Edwards Ivins is an extremely sensitive suspect in the 2001 anthrax attacks."
==================================
And what do we know of Hatfill's travail? Among OTHER things, Hatfill had his foot run over by a G-man surveillance vehicle! Some "person of interest"! THEN the G-man (or perhaps the G-man riding shotgun) added literal insult to injury by citing HATFILL for 'creating a hazard' (evidently his foot caused some danger to the vehicle?)
---------
In case Mister Lake STILL doesn't get it: "person of interest" is a euphemism for 'suspect', which is why the treatment of Hatfill and Ivins was so similar. To wit:
1)the surveillance (allegedly in the 2002 to 2006 period this was to prevent 'person of interest' Hatfill from sending MORE anthrax letters through the mail(something a SUSPECT would possibly do)); in the case of Ivins it involved (but was not limited to) sending one or more femaile FBI agents on a cruise Ivins was taking to both observe him and to get some incriminating statement from him. In vain. The naive Ivins had to be TOLD by a pal (Heine?) that the female attention was just the usual undercover surveillance.
2)multiple residence and/or vehicle searches. In BOTH the Hatfill and Ivins cases this produced: nothing. (I have the impression the draining of that Maryland pond was connected to a Hatfill-done-it scenario too, but I could be wrong). At any rate: if they get VOLUNTARY access to your house (as Hatfill gave them to do the first search) and then they get a search warrant for FURTHER searches, you're a suspect, whether the G-men use that term or some pretentious euphemism.
3)social isolation. Both Hatfill and Ivins experienced this: the government told friends/acquaintances/coworkers to avoid them because of, you got it, the investigation. For Ivins this was one of a few fatal factors. Anyone who saw Hatfill's interview on NBC some time ago realizes that Hatfill is STILL shaken by his expereinces as a suspect (oops! My euphemism slipped! "Person of interest".)
4)Dangling a lot of money in front of loved ones. Both Hatfill and Ivins experienced this: Hatfill's girlfriend was told 'We know Hatfill did it; we just need you to confirm that he admitted it behind closed doors'. The (Malaysian?) girlfriend stood firm (and of course Hatfill had made no such admission and of course such an approach says 'suspect', big time.) In Ivins' case it was his children who were told the same thing by the G-men (though the reward money may have grown by that time). (There are other elements to unit the Hatfill and Ivins treatments at the hands of the G-men but I'll leave off here)
One of the Anonymi wrote: "Partial post by Ed Lake, denying that Hatfill, but not Ivins, was a suspect"
ReplyDeleteOnce again: Hatfill was NEVER an official suspect. Ivins WAS an official suspect.
"In case Mister Lake STILL doesn't get it: "person of interest" is a euphemism for 'suspect'"
No. There is no legal meaning to "person of interest," but cops sometimes use it when referring to someone who is NOT a suspect, but who has information or who could become a suspect.
The public (and some in the media) sometimes consider "person of interest" to be a euphemism for "suspect."
There is no similarity whatsoever in the way Hatfill and Ivins became media personalities.
Hatfill was fingered by conspiracy theorists, the media and politicians who DEMANDED that Hatfill be investigated as a suspect in the anthrax mailings. There was never any evidence indicating Hatfill was the anthrax mailer. But the conspiracy theorists claimed that was because the FBI was covering up for Hatfill. The facts always said that Hatfill didn't do it.
Ivins didn't become a "suspect" until sometime around 2004 when the facts started to point to him. From that point on, the facts just continued to accumulate.
Unlike the searches of Hatfill's apartment, the searches of Ivins' home were done totally out of the public eye. The public didn't know that Ivins was a suspect until AFTER he committed suicide.
The tactics used by police to rattle a suspect and to get him to make some kind of confession or incriminating mistake may seem improper to people who think the person is innocent, but they are totally within the law.
The FBI and Post Office investigators checked the alibis and facts about HUNDREDS of "persons of interest." They found evidence to eliminate all of them except Ivins as potential suspects.
You may not think it is proper to check into the life of an innocent person, but there's often no way of finding out who is guilty except by an investigation that separates the definitely innocent from the possibly guilty.
No one would ever have heard of Hatfill if the conspiracy theorists hadn't gone to the media to try to get them to believe that the FBI was covering up for Hatfill. The Hatfill situation is an example of the media putting an innocent man on trial in public. They became a brainless lynch mob. The FBI and DOJ's actions are an example of effect that can result from such brainless actions by conspiracy theorists, the media and politicians pandering to the media and the public.
Ed
Any time someone uses the term conspiracy theorist they instantly lose all credibility.
ReplyDeletePartial post by Ed Lake:
ReplyDelete---------------
One of the Anonymi wrote: "Partial post by Ed Lake, denying that Hatfill, but not Ivins, was a suspect"
Once again: Hatfill was NEVER an official suspect. Ivins WAS an official suspect.
"In case Mister Lake STILL doesn't get it: "person of interest" is a euphemism for 'suspect'"
No. There is no legal meaning to "person of interest," but cops sometimes use it when referring to someone who is NOT a suspect, but who has information or who could become a suspect.
===================================
Somehow I don't think 'cops' do. LAWYERS are another thing. PR people are another thing.
And what you really mean by "official suspect" is: PUBLICLY PROCLAIMED SUSPECT. But just because something isn't proclaimed publicly doesn't mean it isn't the reality.
Your claim that Hatfill was "NOT a suspect" when they had him under 24 hour surveillance, obtained and executed search warrants on his residence (even after he submitted to a voluntary search of his residence), told his girlfriend that they 'knew' Hatfill did it and merely wanted her confirmation, ran over his foot with a surveillance vehicle etc. isn't going to convince anyone.
But it DOES undermine your personal credibility in the matter.
-------------------------------
(Another partial by Mister Lake)
-------
The tactics used by police to rattle a suspect and to get him to make some kind of confession or incriminating mistake may seem improper to people who think the person is innocent, but they are totally within the law.
--------------------------------
Let me repeat the key phrase from the above: "rattle a suspect".
So Hatfill was a 'suspect' after all, huh? Since the 'tactics' were identical to those used against ("sensitive") suspect Ivins.
---------------------------------
(Back to Ed Lake)
The FBI and Post Office investigators checked the alibis and facts about HUNDREDS of "persons of interest." They found evidence to eliminate all of them except Ivins as potential suspects.
================================
A hint: if they are 'checking' your 'alibi', you're a suspect. It's obvious and Mister Lake's reluctance to admit the obvious means that every judgement he makes in this case is tilted in the government's favor (ie he'll swallow anything the FBI puts out, including the absurd 'amino acid code' whose efficacy impressed no one BUT Mister Lake).
==================================
(more by Ed Lake)
----
No one would ever have heard of Hatfill if the conspiracy theorists hadn't gone to the media to try to get them to believe that the FBI was covering up for Hatfill. The Hatfill situation is an example of the media putting an innocent man on trial in public. They became a brainless lynch mob.
=================================
I wonder if you ever asked Mister Hatfill about that. I'm fairly confident that although he (obviously)might be a little sore at Nicholas Kristof, Barbara Hatch Rosenberg (though neither one of those two worthies ever publicly gave his name and only described his background in terms that those who ALREADY knew him would be able to identify him)et alia. his real sense of outrage was/is likely directed at the investigators/leakers. Since they cost him his post at LSU and just made his life miserable. Once he gave his press conference in August(?) of 2002 the so-called 'lynch mob' had hurt him as much as it could. It was the investigation that crucified him for YEARS thereafter.
Absurd when you realize:
1)he hadn't worked at USAMRIID since 1999 (ie 2 years before Amerithrax).
2)he had worked in the virology division (ie hadn't even had access to bacteria like anthrax in 1997-9).
(continued)
ReplyDelete3)he had dedicated his life(like Ivins) to PROTECTING people from toxic biological agents.
4)he was a suspect for various (bad) psychological (mis-)readings of him as a person.
Add me to the list of those who maintain that if Hatfill had committed suicide in the 2002-2005 period, he would likely have been the fall guy.
One of the Anonymi wrote: "I wonder if you ever asked Mister Hatfill about that."
ReplyDeleteActually, yes, I did. He called me, and we talked on the phone five times in mid-2003. And I've talked with his lawyer a few times.
Hatfill called me in mid-2003 after Rosenberg went on another one of her rants and was claiming that a mockup of a mobile lab that Hatfill had constructed for use by troops preparing to invade Iraq was actually a working lab. It was just a "shell" Hatfill designed to help soldiers and pilots to identify such a lab so they won't blow them up.
The problem with dealing with Rosenberg was that she was a little old lady in her 70s who didn't have a dime to her name. So, suing her could simply generate sympathy for her. Thus, there was no effective way to stop her from voicing her conspiracy theories - particularly since she never mentioned Hatfill by name.
The FBI agents following Hatfill around were generally sympathetic to his plight. Hatfill would talk with them from time to time. They knew they didn't have any evidence against him, and all the evidence they had said he was totally innocent. BUT, there was pressure coming down from above to either fully clear him or find something that could be used to arrest him.
As I recall, Hatfill told me that it was the lawyers in the DOJ who were applying all the pressure on the FBI to find evidence that they could use to stop the pressure that was coming down from up high.
Of course, Hatfill didn't win any friends in the FBI when he ditched their tail on him while he was driving back to Maryland from Louisiana. That pissed off a lot of FBI agents by making them look like fools.
The actions to quash the job he was seeking in Louisiana came from the DOJ, not the FBI.
The Hatfill matter was highly complex. The FBI had no evidence that he did it, but they had powerful people applying pressure on them to find the evidence. And, in a situation like that, you can also have a few FBI agents who think that Hatfill MIGHT have done it.
Officially, though, while some DOJ lawyers and some FBI agents might have suspected that Hatfill could have been the anthrax mailer, there was never any evidence against him, never any pending indictment, and he was never officially a suspect.
Rosenberg was Kristoff's source. Kristoff DID eventually name Hatfill and state that all his columns about "Mr. Z" were really about Hatfill. Hatfill filed a lawsuit against the New York Times. It was tossed out because Hatfill was considered a "public figure," and therefore he'd have to establish MALICE to win. The NY Times articles resulted from stupidity, not malice.
Hatfill filed a lawsuit against Vanity Fair and Readers Digest. I think he probably collected twice as much from them as he collected from the government.
No one is entirely free from blame in the Hatfill mess, but it all began with Rosenberg and a few of her cronies when they developed their conspiracy theory and went public with it.
"AnthraxSleuth" is still arguing on this forum and elsewhere that Hatfill was the anthrax mailer.
Ed
"The Hatfill matter was highly complex. The FBI had no evidence that he did it" --ED
ReplyDeleteWrong as usual Ed.
The FBI continues to ignore a material witness and physical evidence.
But, by all means keep preaching your agenda.
Perhaps Ed, you can explain to us all how you were so sure that Hatfill was innocent the week his name surfaced in the media.
""AnthraxSleuth" is still arguing on this forum and elsewhere that Hatfill was the anthrax mailer. "--Ed
That's b/c I have the goods to back that argument up.
AnthraxSleuth wrote: "Perhaps Ed, you can explain to us all how you were so sure that Hatfill was innocent the week his name surfaced in the media."
ReplyDeleteIt was pretty clear that Barbara Hatch Rosenberg was a conspiracy theorist and that she had nothing to support her theories. There were news stories stating that she was a conspiracy theorist. Her statements required vast conspiracies involving thousands of people. It was clear that the Nicholas Kristoff at the New York Time was buying into total nonsense, because he couldn't produce anything that didn't come from Rosenberg.
Plus, the FBI kept saying that her theories were nonsense.
That was all before I heard the name "Steven Hatfill" for the first time. When he appeared on the news to defend himself, his statements made a thousand times more sense than anything ever said by Rosenberg. For example, the CIA "safe house" Rosenberg talked about was a condo owned by a friend, and Hatfill had never been there except to parties.
"The FBI continues to ignore a material witness and physical evidence."
"That's b/c I have the goods to back that argument up."
Clearly, you don't. If you did, you could simply take it to the media. But, obviously they don't believe your "evidence" any more than the FBI does.
As I recall from emails you sent me years ago, you cannot even get a laboratory to agree that the so-called "anthrax" you claim to possess is actually anthrax.
So, you have nothing, but you continue to claim you have "evidence."
If you have "evidence," why do you think that no one in the FBI, the media or in the entire world believes you or your "evidence"?
Ed
"a condo owned by a friend, and Hatfill had never been there except to parties." --ED
ReplyDeleteI love how you talk in circles.
Never been there... except he had been there. Your just funny Ed.
Almost as funny as the FBI's contradictory circle jerk. My FOIA result: The FBI can't release your file b/c it would reveal investigative techniques. But here is a page from your file that states, "We did not investigate this."
Perhaps you should go back to your original theory that a bowling alley attendant did it Ed.
And like I said. Ignored material witness that named your "person of interest" in November of 2001. And ignored physical evidence.
In cop world it's called fumbling the case. And it's something that's done when the cops know where the evidence leads and don't want to go there.
Personally, from my experience with a certain "Special Agent" He seemed to know from day one to cover this up.
Special Agent: "You can't tell anyone about this."
And another one of my favorite quotes. After discussing being in the same message board at the same time as 2 of the victims I got this.
Special Agent: "That's just a coincidence."
Spin all you want Ed.
I have the goods and the docs.
AnthraxSleuth wrote: "I have the goods and the docs."
ReplyDeleteThen why don't you take your "goods" and "docs" to the media?
There are media people hunting for evidence that the FBI was wrong about Ivins. McClatchy newspapers and ProPublica.org would LOVE to find evidence that Ivins didn't do it.
If you have taken it to the media, why don't they believe you?
Do you think the media also "doesn't want to go there?" Why? They certainly seem to want to go there.
Ed
"There are media people hunting for evidence that the FBI was wrong about Ivins. McClatchy newspapers and ProPublica.org would LOVE to find evidence that Ivins didn't do it." --ED
ReplyDeleteAfter witnessing the New York Times sit on the Bush admin illegal wire tapping story for 2 years, through a national election no less, you really believe that Ed? Really? Seriously?
Allow me to educate you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1E7s7XaV7E&playnext=1&list=PLFCCC4E4CBE2BD7F2
AnthraxSleuth wrote; "After witnessing the New York Times sit on the Bush admin illegal wire tapping story for 2 years, through a national election no less, you really believe that Ed? Really? Seriously?"
ReplyDeleteOkay, let's sum up your beliefs:
1. You believe that you have "goods" and "docs" to prove that Ivins was not the anthrax mailer. Your "goods" and "docs" point to someone else.
2. You believe the FBI has some kind of agenda to falsely accuse Bruce Ivins, and that is why they aren't interested in your "goods" and "docs."
3. You believe the government controls the media and won't let them use your "goods" and "docs," even though some in the media seem to take pleasure in exposing even the tiniest mistake by the government.
4. No one else in the world believes your "goods" and "docs" prove anything of value.
5. The fact that no one believes your theory just means that everyone in the world is either controlled by the U.S. government, or they are too stupid to understand your "goods" and "docs."
So, because absolutely no one believes your "goods" and "docs," your plan is to post your beliefs on various web sites until you convince everyone that you are the only person in the world who really knows the truth.
In all the years you've been posting to forums, have you made any progress at all in converting people to accept your theory?
Ed
AnthraxSleuth,
ReplyDeleteYou are very articulate and a pleasure to read. But you should provide the evidence you claim or sit on your hands.
Your insistence over years that you received anthrax (combined with your failure to have it tested) is as nutty as Mr. Lake's insistence that is 99% certain a First Grader wrote the letters.
Ed believes he has the goods and docs that prove his case -- no one who looks at the docs he has uploaded agree with him.
No one in the world believes in that the docs he uploaded prove anything of value.
The fact that no one agrees his theory just demonstrates that they are too stupid to understand the docs given that Ed has insisted for a decade that they show it is 99 % that a First Grader wrote the letters. He thinks it demonstrates that they are "True Believers" when instead his argument demonstrates that HE is the True Believer. He shows an incredible lack of self-awareness that the arguments he makes apply to him.
So because no one believes in his goods and docs, Ed plans on maintaining a website until he can convince everyone so they really know the truth. He regularly reports that he is writing his "book" in which he tries to make his idiocy look reasonable. (And yet he doesn't even read the books published on the subject or consult the literature).
In all his years of posting he has made no progress in having a single person accept the theory (beyond the web poster he stole the idea from in December 2001).
The crazy belief that they were targeted with anthrax is actually not uncommon -- I know of two others. One a woman in Florida and one, a PR executive who had a very responsible position, in NYC. (Unlike Ed, he was very self-aware and his theory actually was plausible).
Obsessions with children, OTOH, usually is associated with an obsession with sexual matters. They involve different pathologies.
But the key is: put up or shut up. You say that two of the victims posted in a forum you were in. That's not true. With google archive, the messages or fact of posting could be confirmed if it were true. In any event, they did not even post on the internet.
By analogy, here, Dr. Ivins' first counselor claimed she travelled to WTC each night upon receiving instructions and that she got sick from the debris. That's not true. Similarly, she claims she travelled to Afghanistan each night and was chased by nasty Taliban astral entitles. That's not true. And so when she claims that Dr. Ivins attempted and took steps to poison a woman friend of his, there is zero reason to think it is true. There is no corroboration contrary to what Ed claims. Those that checked on the story found the counselor's concerns were not in fact justified.
Anthrax Sleuth, you are a pleasure to read but stick to making claims for which you actually provide the supporting evidence.
"Anthrax Sleuth, you are a pleasure to read but stick to making claims for which you actually provide the supporting evidence."--Anon
ReplyDeleteThanks for the support. And I mean that seriously. I have no problem with constructive criticism.
Let me just say. Taking on the DOJ in their own rigged forum ie. courtroom, is very difficult, expensive and time consuming.
I will release everything. I promise you that. Complete with the names of everyone involved and all supporting documentation.
I have also taken measures to insure this release should something happen to me. So it's coming out no matter what.
"You say that two of the victims posted in a forum you were in. That's not true. With google archive, the messages or fact of posting could be confirmed if it were true. In any event, they did not even post on the internet."--Anon
Not true, there are many things scrubbed from the web. Ottillie and Cathy used their real names when posting. The screen name I posted under in that message board was bubbajclinton. Using Google archive I can not find any of my own postings. And I assure you I posted for about 3-4 weeks after 911. Where are those posts?
As I said. I will "put-up".
However, let me just say I never wanted to be an author and I certainly never wanted to be involved in this mess.
When the feds starting investigating Hatfill I figured I would sit tight and let them do their job. I was also urged to do this by someone working inside the investigation with the feds. I have sent verification of this to Dr. Nass. She could confirm this if she pleases.
I am working on a release as fast as I can.
Stay tuned and thanks again for the support. It is a good motivator.
"So because no one believes in his goods and docs, Ed plans on maintaining a website until he can convince everyone so they really know the truth."--anon
ReplyDeleteI could not agree with you more about Ed. I do wonder what his motivation to be obsessed with this case is. My motivation should be clear. A jerk poisoned me and then stalked me. The stalking only ceased after the feds starting breathing down his neck. So, my motivation is personal.
Another point about google archive and google cache. After your comment I did some research and neither show my employer's cached site or my original website from that time.
So, the idea that anything that was live on the internet 10 years ago should still be able to be located in archives or cache just is not the case.
I do hope the news network that this evidence would be located at does have an archiving system for their websites from that period. Of course as the "Special Agent" told me: "That's a coincidence."
AnthraxSleuth wrote: "I could not agree with you more about Ed. I do wonder what his motivation to be obsessed with this case is."
ReplyDeleteFinding something fascinating is not the same as being obsessed. One thing I find fascinating is the psychology of those who do not accept the FBI's findings.
Here we have two different people ("Anonymous" and "AnthraxSleuth") with two totally different theories. The only things they agree about is that the FBI is wrong, and, because I find the FBI's case to be compelling, I must also be wrong.
One has a theory that Muslims did it. The other has a theory that an American scientist (NOT Bruce Ivins) did it.
Neither has anything approaching the amount of evidence against Bruce Ivins to support their own theories. They simply do not believe the FBI's evidence, they believe their own evidence, as meager and vague as it may be.
Why do they think the FBI is wrong? Because if the FBI is right, that would mean "Anonymous" and "AnthraxSleuth" must be wrong, and that appears to be inconceivable - for both of them.
Yet, they don't agree with each other. But they stand united against the FBI's case - and against anyone who accepts the FBI's evidence.
That's fascinating.
BTW, the FBI's mountain of evidence against Bruce Ivins omits a couple items that are either "inconclusive" or "undetermined."
The handwriting evidence is "inconclusive." No two "experts" seem to agree on how the writing was done, since most agree that it doesn't appear to match Bruce Ivins "normal" handwriting.
The exact method Ivins used to create the attack powders is "undetermined," since it could have been done in many different ways, and there is nothing that definitively proves which method was used by Ivins.
I have an hypothesis about the handwriting that I offer up to everyone to disprove. No one can. It stands as the best hypothesis, since all other hypotheses can either be seriously challenged by "experts" or involve unproven theories about some other culprit.
I have an hypothesis about how Ivins created the attack anthrax that I offer up to everyone to disprove. No one can. It stands as the best hypothesis because it explains ALL the facts.
There's a big difference between having an hypothesis about some "inconclusive" or "undetermined" piece of evidence in the Ivins case and having a totally different theory about who committed the anthrax attacks of 2001 that no one else in the entire world seems to believe.
Ed
Dr Nass' principal posters are
ReplyDelete(1) someone who thinks that Mrs. Lundren, aged 94, who provably did not own a computer or have access to one, posted on a forum with him, and that he received anthrax that he never bothered to have tested in 10 years, and never even bothered to scan the outside of the envelope. Even through a triple baggy, it is a simple matter to scan.
and
(2) a guy who thinks that it is 99% certain a First Grader wrote the letters.
Dr. Nass should moderate her forum.
In the meantime, y'all can continue wasting your time.
I'm NOT the previous anonymous. I just had to write to point out (another) mistake in Mister Lake's presentation of the situation, this in his comment of today at his site (partial):
ReplyDelete-----------------
But, unlike the twenty-five others, I am not alone in my conclusion that Bruce Ivins sent the anthrax letters. There are thousands at the FBI and DOJ who also believe that Ivins sent the anthrax letters. Plus the Expert Behavioral Analysis Panel. Plus Paul Keim (per page 337 of David Willman's book), Nancy Haigwood (who identified him as a possible suspect to the FBI), probably John Ezzell and Patricia Fellows (who wore a microphone to tape Ivins), and many many others. On the other hand, when you find people (like Ivins' friends, Henry Heine, Gerard Andrews and Russell Byrne) who do not believe the FBI's evidence, each of those people will almost certainly have their own unique theory about who did do it. So it will be 1 against the world over and over and over and over and over again.
---------------------------------
It is merely Mister Lake's CONTENTION that 'thousands' at the FBI and DOJ believe Ivins the culprit. Short of a poll, conducted in secret, of the entire DOJ it is difficult (ie one can only speculate), how many persons INVOLVED IN AMERITHRAX----and why would you want to know the opinion of persons at DOJ who were busy with OTHER cases?-----are subrosa dissenters on Ivins' guilt. I'm PRETTY SURE special agents aren't encouraged to publicly express doubts about cases closed by their superiors. Career considerations.
Ed knowingly mischaracterizes Dr. Keim's present view:
ReplyDeleteAnthrax Redux: Did the Feds Nab the Wrong Guy? | Magazine
www.wired.com/magazine/2011/03/ff_anthrax_fbi/all/1
Mar 24, 2011 – But the facts showed that Army biodefense researcher Bruce Ivins was the ... Among them was Paul Keim, who first identified the anthrax ... “I don't know if Ivins sent the letters,” he says with a hint of both irritation and sadness. ..
Initially, Dr. Keim was subject to the same misinformation as everyone else at United States Attorney's August 6, 2008 press conference.
This was pointed out to Ed but he did not correct his mistake.
American Anthrax: Fear, Crime, and the Investigation of the Nation’s Deadliest Bioterror Attack by Jeanne Guillemin. Times Books (320 pp.).
ReplyDeleteAt Amazon.com (This title will be released on September 13, 2011.)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805091041/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=redwearev-20&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399373&creativeASIN=0805091041
We may never know who was responsible for the attacks, says the author.
One of the Anonymi wrote: "Ed knowingly mischaracterizes Dr. Keim's present view:"
ReplyDeleteFrom page 337 of David Willman's book "The Mirage man":
Paul Keim had always deflected the paramount question surrounding the anthrax investigation, saying that the answer was outside his discipline as a scientist. But as we began conversing over burgers and cold beers, I asked him directly: How would he vote if he were a juror weighing Ivins's guilt or innocence? The circumspect geneticist replied without hesitation: "I think he did it."
Another one of the Anonymi wrote: "It is merely Mister Lake's CONTENTION that 'thousands' at the FBI and DOJ believe Ivins the culprit.'
True. The evidence clearly says that Ivins was the anthrax mailer, so I logically concluded that the people who collected and analyzed the evidence would agree with what the evidence says, and so would any other investigators and lawyers who looked at the evidence. But, I don't know that there were "thousands" involved, so I have no problem with going back and changing that sentence to read, "There are presumably large numbers of people at the FBI and DOJ who also believe Ivins sent the anthrax letters."
"I'm PRETTY SURE special agents aren't encouraged to publicly express doubts about cases closed by their superiors."
True. However, I'm PRETTY SURE that if any had solid evidence that Ivins was NOT the anthrax mailer and that someone else did it, they would try make the evidence public somehow. There are countless reporters willing to listen and to keep the identities of their "reliable sources" secret.
Ed
Just to clarify Paul Keim's comments:
ReplyDeleteIf you put his two comments together, you get:
"I don't know if Ivins sent the letters," but "I think he did it."
The two statements are NOT contradictory nor incompatible.
Plus, it fits with this sentence by a reviewer of Jeanne Guillemin's upcoming book:
"We may never know who was responsible for the attacks, says the author."
In other words, no "smoking gun" evidence may ever be found, but that wouldn't have prevented a jury from finding Ivins guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.
Ed
In the above comment by Ed Lake he EQUATES (!!!!)
ReplyDelete1)Paul Keim saying "I think [Ivins] did it"
with
2) In other words, no "smoking gun" evidence may ever be found, but that wouldn't have prevented a jury from finding Ivins guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.
But that's EXACTLY what 'smoking gun' evidence is: something so proximate, so material, so direct etc. to the crime itself that NO 'reasonable doubt' can really exist!
A juror who merely "THINKS" the defendant did it should vote for acquittal: proof, not general opinionizing is what is called for in our system of jurisprudence.
The above post by Mister Lake shows the muddle in his mind better than anything anyone else could write.
"(1) someone who thinks that Mrs. Lundren, aged 94, who provably did not own a computer or have access to one, posted on a forum with him, and that he received anthrax that he never bothered to have tested in 10 years, and never even bothered to scan the outside of the envelope. Even through a triple baggy, it is a simple matter to scan.
ReplyDelete"--anon
Assume much? Know how to spell it? Well the only one being made an ass of is yourself.
I have tried for ten years to get my samples tested. Only to be shut down by the FBI and State health dept. My state went so far as to have the Governor issue an executive order that all testing for Anthrax in my state would only be done by the CDC after it was leaked that the Westgate postal facility which handles all mail for my state tested positive for Anthrax.
A local lab I took samples to even tried to get their competitors to test it. To no avail. If you can find a way to get the CDC to test my samples I will give you $100.
As for "who provably did not own a computer or have access to one" I would love to see you prove that statement. My memory is a little rusty after 10 years but I seem to recall the feds removing a computer from her house after her death.
One of the Anonymi wrote: "A juror who merely "THINKS" the defendant did it should vote for acquittal: proof, not general opinionizing is what is called for in our system of jurisprudence."
ReplyDeleteNonsense. You obviously have no understanding of criminal law. There are two basic types of evidence:
1. Prima facie, direct or "smoking gun" evidence, i.e., an item of evidence so conclusive that it leaves virtually no doubt about guilt. Example: Closed circuit TV tapes showing the face of the defendant as he robs a bank.
2. Circumstantial evidence or "indirect evidence," i.e., an item of evidence which by itself proves nothing, but in combination with other items of circumstantial evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Examples: No alibi, motive, past patterns, capabilities, and other items of evidence in almost every jury trial where the defendant is found guilty.
When there is prima facie evidence, there is almost never a trial, since it would be a waste of everyone's time. Instead, the culprit either admits to the crime and "throws himself on the mercy of the court," or, in order to save time and money, the prosecutors offer a deal with the defendant to plead guilty in exchange for some kind of leniency on sentencing.
"No reasonable doubt" is NOT the same as "no possible doubt of any kind."
When a jury votes, they vote on whether or not they THINK the combined evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime. They do NOT vote on whether there is any possibility that he could be innocent. People can always dream up "possibilities" that cannot be disproved, but such "possibilities" are not "reasonable."
It really gets tedious trying to get people on this forum to understand that circumstantial evidence is REAL evidence, and nearly all trials are about circumstantial evidence, not prima facie evidence. These are not issues in dispute. They are clearly described in any book or website about criminal law.
Ed
Partial post by Ed Lake (addressing me):
ReplyDelete---------------
One of the Anonymi wrote: "A juror who merely "THINKS" the defendant did it should vote for acquittal: proof, not general opinionizing is what is called for in our system of jurisprudence."
Nonsense. You obviously have no understanding of criminal law. There are two basic types of evidence:
==================================
As I noted before, Mister Lake has a rhetorical trope on the Internet: he announces before anything else that the person he is debating has "no understanding" of the subject matter under discussion. Ineffective to the observant reader: the whole purpose of reading the exchanges in their entirety is to determine who understands in a basis way the subject (here the legal requirement(s) to come to a guilty verdict).
Another partial post by Ed Lake (addressing me):
ReplyDelete--------
It really gets tedious trying to get people on this forum to understand that circumstantial evidence is REAL evidence,[...]
-------------------------------
Once AGAIN you misstate your opponents' arguments. I wrote NOTHING about "circumstantial evidence". That's another trope of yours that is self-deceptive: at every turn you announce that your opponents are hung-up on their misunderstanding of the role of "circumstantial evidence". We're not; you are.
To wit:
1)a parking ticket issued to Ivins' vehicle in Princeton NJ on one of the (potential)mailing nights would be "circumstantial evidence". And it would be MATERIAL to the anthrax case.
2)a speeding ticket issued to Ivins' on a highway between NJ and Maryland in the right timeframe would be "circumstantial evidence". It would also be MATERIAL to the anthrax case.
3)a credit card receipt or other record of a purchase Ivins made somewhere between Frederick and Princeton on a night the mailings likely occurred would ALSO be "circumstantial evidence". It would also be MATERIAL to the anthrax case.
The biggest problem for Mister Lake is: he doesn't know the difference between material evidence and non-material evidence and this shortcoming is camouflaged, if you will, by his contant harping on the word "circumstantial".
Circumstantial ya got. Material ya ain't got!
Just a followup to posts 49 and 50: Mister Lake might benefit enormously from repeated viewings of "Twelve Angry Men", the film with Henry Fonda. I recently saw it decades after seeing it as a child on TV. What really struck me in my last viewing was:
ReplyDelete1)at the end of the film the jury reaches a unanimous not-guilty verdict, reversing an 11-1 vote in favor of 'guilty' in the first few minutes of deliberation.
2)yet the one holdout at the beginning (Fonda) acknowledges that the defendant might well have done the murder.
3)their judgement is a judgement on the prosecutor's case: did that case establish 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that the teenager killed his father?
4)ultimately they decide that the case did not meet that requirement, though it is only by sifting through numerous details of seemingly certain eye/ear witness testimony that they come to this conclusion.
One of the Anonymi wrote: "The biggest problem for Mister Lake is: he doesn't know the difference between material evidence and non-material evidence and this shortcoming is camouflaged, if you will, by his contant harping on the word "circumstantial".
ReplyDeleteCircumstantial ya got. Material ya ain't got!"
Your arguments are becoming absurd.
Bruce Ivins was an admitted, experienced burglar who would often drive long distances to commit his crimes.
The idea that he couldn't drive a few hundred miles without leaving a record in the form of a parking ticket, a speeding ticket or a credit card receipt is just plain absurd. Plus, Ivins didn't become a "suspect" until about 3 years after the crime was committed, and many things - like video surveillance tapes - are only kept for a very short time.
You now indicate that you do not understand what "material evidence" is. It is simply RELEVANT evidence. There is no such thing as "non-material evidence." If something is not material (not relevant) to the case, then it cannot be evidence. It is immaterial, meaning it is irrelevant. It is not "non-material."
Evidence is something which is brought into court to support or challenge an legal case. If it is immaterial or irrelevant - like the price of tea in China - it cannot be used as "evidence." It cannot become evidence.
Thus, the case against Bruce Ivins consists ENTIRELY of material evidence. If you do not believe that the evidence against Ivins is relevant and material, you need to understand that your mistaken beliefs are irrelevant and immaterial to the case.
Another one of the Anonymi wrote: "Mister Lake might benefit enormously from repeated viewings of "Twelve Angry Men"
I have a DVD copy of "Twelve Angry Men." Prior to buying the DVD, I had it on tape for decades. I've probably seen the movie a dozen times or so. It's one of my all time favorites.
You do not need to go all the way back to 1957 to find a situation where a jury disagrees with the prosecution's case. It happened just a month or so ago in the Casey Anthony case. And, it probably happens every day somewhere.
That's why we have juries, to make certain the prosecution has a case that 12 citizens will agree is valid beyond a reasonable doubt.
The fact that some juries find that the prosecution's case was not adequate to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt has NO MEANING to the case against Bruce Ivins. How a jury would have viewed all the evidence in the Ivins case is open to debate, but the only people who think that a jury couldn't possibly have convicted Ivins are people who do not BELIEVE the evidence or who have not even looked at the evidence. Or people who have no understanding of what juries do.
Ed
One brief addition to my previous comment:
ReplyDelete"Material evidence" is defined in my legal dictionaries as evidence that is both relevant and significant.
So, while all the evidence that the prosecution would be allowed to present must be "relevant," some relevant evidence may be more significant than other relevant evidence.
The fact that, in the return address on the Senate letters, Ivins used the ZIP code for the location where his father's relatives had lived for over a hundred years is "relevant" evidence, but it may not be "significant" by itself.
However, the fact that, in the middle of the night, Ivins threw away the code books for the "hidden message" in the media letters, and the fact that the decoding of the "hidden message" related to the two women with whom Ivins was obsessed could be considered "significant evidence," and so could the evidence showing that Ivins tried to mislead the investigation and tried to destroy evidence.
It's "material evidence," which means the prosecution's case would be severely damaged if a judge ruled that they could not present it in court.
But, what is "significant evidence" in a case and what is merely "relevant evidence" could be viewed differently by the prosecution lawyers and defense lawyers.
Ed
Partial post by Ed Lake (responding to me):
ReplyDelete----
Circumstantial ya got. Material ya ain't got!"
-----
Your arguments are becoming absurd.
Bruce Ivins was an admitted, experienced burglar who would often drive long distances to commit his crimes.
----------------------------------
Uh, the Amerithrax crimes did not involve any burglaries (unless someone who did NOT work at USAMRIID-----ie had no work-related access to Ames strain---
burglarized a lab that contained Ames anthrax). This is all the more proof that Mister Lake hasn't a clue as to what "material" means in a legal context. "Absurd" indeed!
Another partial post by Ed Lake(addressing me):
ReplyDelete----------
The idea that he couldn't drive a few hundred miles without leaving a record in the form of a parking ticket, a speeding ticket or a credit card receipt is just plain absurd.
+=============================
No one said (boy, are you a master of distorting what your opponents on blogs write!) that Ivins "couldn't" make the trip (two or three times, if we are being realistic) without leaving such evidence. I merely wrote (and if you would read a little more carefully it would be appreciated!) that this is the very sort of "circumstantial evidence" that is: specific to the charges against Ivins, not based on prejudice (against the mentally ill, against amateur 'burglars', against cross-dressers, against goofy and emotionally needy nerds etc) that makes up so much of the government's case. It is "circumstantial" evidence, but it is material. Which most of the 'evidence' adduced by the government and parroted by Mister Lake is not.
And while we're on about "cirumstantial evidence" that would be material to Amerithrax, it would ALSO include (but not be limited to):
ReplyDelete1)finding dried anthrax spores of the right strain/substrain in Ivins vehicle (the envelopes leaked, remember?)
2)finding dried anthrax spores of the right strain/substrain in Ivins residence (ditto)
3)finding equipment-use records indicating that Ivins used some equipment at USAMRIID that was suitable for the drying of anthrax AND indicating the right timeframe (summer to fall 2001).
One of the Anonymi wrote: "boy, are you a master of distorting what your opponents on blogs write!"
ReplyDeleteI'm not "distorting" what you write, I'm interpreting what you write, just the way you interpret what I write.
That's how every discussion between human beings always works. We aren't mindless robots who automatically interpret everything the same way. You write something based upon your life experiences and understandings that I interpret it based upon my life experiences and understandings. And, vice versa. The idea is that, eventually, we understand each others' points of view. And, when we both understand both points of view, in theory we may be able to find a "mutual understanding" (although I seriously doubt that will happen here).
I'm interpreting your latest comments as you believing that there is only one way to interpret things, and that is your way.
As proof, you also wrote: "the very sort of "circumstantial evidence" that is: specific to the charges against Ivins, not based on prejudice (against the mentally ill, against amateur 'burglars', against cross-dressers, against goofy and emotionally needy nerds etc"
So, you clearly interpret evidence against Bruce Ivins as being prejudice against Ivins. Wow! That is definitely a very unique interpretation.
The fact that Ivins would drive long distances to commit crimes without getting a traffic ticket, is not a prejudice against Ivins, it is EVIDENCE that Ivins could also have driven to Princeton to commit the crime of terrorism by mailing the anthrax letters, without getting a traffic ticket. It is NOT a prejudice against "amateur burglars."
If Ivins HAD gotten a speeding ticket somewhere east of Frederick on October 6, 2001, what would that prove? It would be circumstantial evidence that Ivins was off in that general direction at that time of night, but it would NOT be proof that he was driving to Princeton to mail the letters. It would be more "circumstantial evidence," but it wouldn't be "material evidence," since it wouldn't be crucial to the case. The case against Ivins, as it exists, is very solid without it.
If all evidence of the ticket was accidentally burned up in car fire on its way to the courthouse, that wouldn't cause a dismissal of the case or a withdrawal of charges. Therefore, the ticket would NOT be "material evidence."
Or do you believe that because the ticket was made from "material," i.e. paper, that it is "material" evidence?
You view evidence in terms of prejudices, not as evidence. You want some kind of evidence which YOU cannot possibly view as a prejudice against Ivins.
In other words, you are totally biased against the government and totally support Bruce Ivins because you personally KNEW Ivins and you cannot believe that YOU could have been so wrong about him. Your arguments are about YOU, not about the legal case against Ivins.
I never knew Ivins, so I have no biases one way or the other. For years, until all the evidence against Ivins was made public, I thought the culprit most likely lived in New Jersey. But, looking at the evidence, I see it shows that Ivins was the culprit beyond any reasonable doubt.
I'm looking at the evidence. You are looking at how Ivins' guilt reflects upon you and your powers of observation.
But, I can see that you will undoubtedly interpret the situation differently.
Ed
Partial post by Mister Lake (going quite a way back):
ReplyDelete-------
When a jury votes, they vote on whether or not they THINK the combined evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime. They do NOT vote on whether there is any possibility that he could be innocent. People can always dream up "possibilities" that cannot be disproved, but such "possibilities" are not "reasonable."
===================================
Okay, now we are getting somewhere: in TWELVE ANGRY MEN Henry Fonda is yelled at by two bullying jurors who are convinced he (Fonda) is just some 'bleeding heart (liberal)' and that the 'facts' all indicate 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that the boy did the murder. Fonda, unsure of himself (his position), repeatedly asks "is it POSSIBLE (that the eye witness is mistaken; that the boy forgot what movie he saw that night; that someone used a knife with a handle just like that of the boy's; that the boy didn't really mean the threat he said ('I'll killl you')?
I see Mister Lake as a composite of the Lee J Cobb, EG Marshall, and Ed Begley characters. And like Cobb and Begley, Mister Lake is too vehement by half.
One of the Anonymi wrote: "I see Mister Lake as a composite of the Lee J Cobb, EG Marshall, and Ed Begley characters. And like Cobb and Begley, Mister Lake is too vehement by half."
ReplyDeleteAnd I see Mister Lake as being like Henry Fonda, calm and easy going, but looking at the evidence instead of working from personal prejudices. I have no reason to be "vehement." Ivins guilt or innocence doesn't matter to me one bit. I didn't know the man. And I have no axes to grind. But, calmly looking at the evidence, it is clear that Ivins was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
I'm the one person on this forum who argues against everyone else, just as Fonda did. That's because, the situation here is the REVERSE of what it was in "Twelve Angry Men." The majority on this forum wants to let a mass murderer go free simply because they don't trust "the government" - and because each has his or her own theory about the case.
However, Mister Lake wouldn't have been so stupid as to bring a duplicate knife into the jury room to present as evidence that had not been presented in court. Henry Fonda's character could have been thrown in jail for that. And, in real life, the trial would have been declared a "mistrial."
My movie viewing records show that the last time I watched "Twelve Angry Men" was September 18, 2005. So, I'm not as clear on which character believed what. But, the movie isn't really about a kid's guilt or innocence. It was an examination of the different points of view that people bring into a jury room.
I remember Lee J. Cobb was the last hold out, because he was burning with anger at the way his son was so ungrateful or unappreciative of Cobb's efforts as a father.
That's more like one of the Anonymi here who has a true hatred for "the government" and believes everything "the government" says is just lies - particularly on the subject of weaponization with silicon.
Other Anonymi here would never get on the jury because they knew the defendant and are thus totally biased about his innocence, since they can never admit they never had a clue that Ivins was a mass murderer.
Others on the jury in the movie were simply willing to go along with the majority. An ad executive (Robert Webber) was there only because he had to be there, and he didn't really care if the kid was guilty or not.
The elderly guy was initially willing to go along with the majority, but when he saw that Fonda was really concerned about getting a correct verdict, the elderly guy supported Fonda just so Fonda could have his say.
Here's how The Internet Movie Database describes what happens in the jury room:
"As the deliberations unfold, the story quickly becomes a study of the jurors' complex personalities (which range from wise, bright and empathetic to arrogant, prejudiced and merciless), preconceptions, backgrounds and interactions. That provides the backdrop to [Fonda's] attempts in convincing the other jurors that a "not guilty" verdict might be appropriate."
It might be interesting if someone turned "Twelve Angry Men" into a new movie about the trial of Bruce Ivins - with someone like Lee J. Cobb as the lone holdout. It would show how the hold-out juror is so angry with and distrusting of the government that he convinces everyone to let a mass murderer go free rather than believe what "the government" says.
That might appeal to everyone else here, but not to me.
Ed
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete------------
One of the Anonymi wrote: "boy, are you a master of distorting what your opponents on blogs write!"
I'm not "distorting" what you write, I'm interpreting what you write, just the way you interpret what I write.
================================
Okay, but what did I ORIGINALLY write on this score?
Repost of my words going quite a way back,:
-------
To wit:
1)a parking ticket issued to Ivins' vehicle in Princeton NJ on one of the (potential)mailing nights would be "circumstantial evidence". And it would be MATERIAL to the anthrax case.
2)a speeding ticket issued to Ivins' on a highway between NJ and Maryland in the right timeframe would be "circumstantial evidence". It would also be MATERIAL to the anthrax case.
3)a credit card receipt or other record of a purchase Ivins made somewhere between Frederick and Princeton on a night the mailings likely occurred would ALSO be "circumstantial evidence". It would also be MATERIAL to the anthrax case.
==================================
How could ANY of the above points be "interpreted" as saying (here's Mister Lake again): "The idea that he couldn't drive a few hundred miles without leaving a record in the form of a parking ticket, a speeding ticket or a credit card receipt is just plain absurd."
So how could one possibly 'interpret' a list of material circumstantial evidence indicating Ivins took a trip north (possibly as far as Princeton)as saying that WITHOUT THAT PRECISE EVIDENCE Ivins couldn't have made the trip? I was GIVING EXAMPLES, that's all. And space (and time)limitations preclude making such lists exhaustive.
Another partial post by Mister Lake from his last above:
ReplyDelete----------
If Ivins HAD gotten a speeding ticket somewhere east of Frederick on October 6, 2001, what would that prove?
==================================
It would prove: he drove out of town on that night (nowhere else in evidence). And SOME evidence (of the trip being made) beats NO evidence every time.
--------------
Let's go at it another way, in a way Mister Lake apparently understands. On HIS website he constantly claims that it is the Amerithrax sceptics who rely on 'beliefs' (his word). I would say that to buy the Final Report, you have to BELIEVE an awful lot which has no evidence for it:
1)Ivins dried and milled the anthrax into a powder WITHOUT BEING SEEN at USAMRIID (this is sheer belief because there is NO evidence of even a circumstantial nature to indicate this occurred).
2)Ivins wrote the letters and put the dry anthrax inside (ditto).
3)Ivins drove up to Princeton and mailed the letters (ditto).
4)Ivins returned to his home or work six hours later without being missed. (ditto)
5)6)7)8)Ivins repeated 1)2)3)4) about 3 weeks later (ditto).
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete-----------
So, you clearly interpret evidence against Bruce Ivins as being prejudice against Ivins. Wow! That is definitely a very unique interpretation.
The fact that Ivins would drive long distances to commit crimes without getting a traffic ticket, is not a prejudice against Ivins, it is EVIDENCE that Ivins could also have driven to Princeton to commit the crime of terrorism by mailing the anthrax letters, without getting a traffic ticket. It is NOT a prejudice against "amateur burglars."
==================================
As already noted by me, there are NO indications that a burglary or burglaries were involved in Amerithrax. So why even bring it up? Furthermore since there is no way to know from where and by what conveyance (if any) the mailer arrived at the Princeton mailbox, citing trips Ivins took for TOTALLY different reasons (to send people gifts, to swipe a sorority book)has no bearing on whether he took a trip to mail a toxic agent in Princeton. This is an example of immaterial and prejudicial "evidence" that would never have made it to trial. Inadmissible. But then the Final Report doesn't have to play by the Rules of Evidence.
One of the Anonymi wrote: "I was GIVING EXAMPLES, that's all. And space (and time)limitations preclude making such lists exhaustive."
ReplyDeleteYou were giving examples of things you think would be "material evidence" (but which would NOT be "material evidence") while suggesting that your non-existent "material evidence" would be better than the actual evidence in the case.
I was trying to interpret or decipher what you were saying to figure out what you actually meant.
You seem to be suggesting that because your evidence involves pieces of paper, that makes it "material evidence" and more meaningful than the book and magazine that Ivins threw out to get rid of evidence that he devised the hidden message in the media letter, even those were paper, too.
Because you picked three imaginary items that could have resulted from a fast drive to Princeton from Frederick, you seemed to be suggesting that Ivins could NOT have driven there without getting such paper documents. Otherwise, why pick those three things?
You seem to be saying because a traffic ticket is paper it proves something. But paper documents don't prove anything if the paper is a book or magazine that you do not personally feel are meaningful.
I'm trying to interpret what you meant to say when you made mistaken claims that a speeding ticket, a parking ticket or a credit card receipt would be "material evidence" more important than the real evidence.
If Ivins had gotten a speeding ticket, he would just have claimed he was out for a drive and didn't go anywhere near Princeton.
He claimed he never read the part of Godel, Escher, Bach with the coded message similar to the message he used in the media letter.
Why is one "material evidence" in your fantasies while the other isn't?
As I see it, unless Ivins got the speeding ticket in front of the mailbox, it wouldn't mean anywhere near as much as the evidence showing that Ivins put the coded message in the media letters.
Ed
Partial post by Ed Lake (addressing me):
ReplyDelete------------
In other words, you are totally biased against the government and totally support Bruce Ivins because you personally KNEW Ivins and you cannot believe that YOU could have been so wrong about him. Your arguments are about YOU, not about the legal case against Ivins.
================================
Huh? Where did you ever get THAT idea?!?!? I never even heard of Bruce Ivins until the newspapers reported his death. I have no Ivins connection whatsoever. You've really got me puzzled on that.
Partial post by Ed Lake:
ReplyDelete--------
I'm trying to interpret what you meant to say when you made mistaken claims that a speeding ticket, a parking ticket or a credit card receipt would be "material evidence" more important than the real evidence.
If Ivins had gotten a speeding ticket, he would just have claimed he was out for a drive and didn't go anywhere near Princeton.
=================================
It's simple:
1)the government POSITS Ivins dried and milled(?) anthrax in order to send it through the mail. This is a necessary (but in and of itself insufficient) action on his part to fulfill the Ivins-alone-done-it scenario.
(There's no evidence OF ANY KIND that Ivins did this, but it would be material evidence if there WERE such evidence....because of the scenario itself)
2)The government POSITS that Ivins drove (at least)twice to Princeton New Jersey, once on the night of September 17th-18th, and once on either October 6th, October 7th, October 8th, October 9th, in each instance to do a mailing.
This too is a necessary (but in and of itself insufficient) action on his part to fulfill the Ivins-alone-done-it scenario.
(There's no evidence OF ANY KIND that Ivins did this, but it would be material evidence if there WERE such evidence....because of the scenario itself).
A scenario of an Ivins-did-it-alone sort imposes greater restrictions on the constituent elements: you can't just say 'Oh, an accomplice did it(the mailings), because in the gov'nt scenario there IS no accomplice.
Without such evidence the presumption has to be: Ivins was in his hometown, likely in at least some of the evening hours asleep. That could be viewed as a constituent element of the presumption of innocence afforded any criminal defendant. Otherwise all sorts of people could be randomly accused of driving hundreds of miles during their (usual) sleeping hours, committing crimes and returning home undetected. This would make for many miscarriages of justice.
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete--------
Because you picked three imaginary items that could have resulted from a fast drive to Princeton from Frederick, you seemed to be suggesting that Ivins could NOT have driven there without getting such paper documents. Otherwise, why pick those three things?
================================
I picked those three things because
1) they have to do with the government's scenario, a scenario that has to be analyzed piece by piece.
2)unlike so much of the government's case, it (the tickets, the receipt)doesn't rely on (bad)psychology, on trying (vainly) to read Ivins' mind.
3)stuff like this happens: a criminal will take care of the big things (fingerprints, DNA etc.) and overlook the little things.
4)I remembered that the 'Son of Sam' killer parked too near a fire hydrant on one of his 'jobs' and that was one of the things (the resulting ticket) that led to Berkowitz.
One of the Anonymi wrote: "Where did you ever get THAT idea?!?!? I never even heard of Bruce Ivins until the newspapers reported his death. I have no Ivins connection whatsoever. You've really got me puzzled on that."
ReplyDeleteHow many different people here are called "Anonymous"? How am I supposed to tell them apart? Someone here called "Anonymous" wrote that she knew Ivins, and you seemed to be that same writer.
This morning I seem to have at least a half dozen new messages from "Anonymous," some of which appear to have been posted before some of my replies, so things are coming to me out of sequence, too.
And, an eloquent comment I made a couple days ago about "Twelve Angry Men" hasn't shown up at all.
I'm doing my best to try to keep straight what one "Anonymous" is arguing versus what another "Anonymous" is arguing.
One of the Anonymi wrote: "there are NO indications that a burglary or burglaries were involved in Amerithrax. So why even bring it up?"
Because it shows that Ivins drove long distances at night to commit crimes, and that experience means he knew better than to leave a trail of speeding tickets, parking tickets and gas receipts.
You seem to be arguing that if Ivins drove to the store to get a loaf of bread, that wouldn't prove that he'd know how to drive to the store to get a bottle of milk. It's an argument just to be argumentative.
"1)Ivins dried and milled the anthrax into a powder WITHOUT BEING SEEN at USAMRIID (this is sheer belief because there is NO evidence of even a circumstantial nature to indicate this occurred)."
Nonsense. First, he did not MILL the anthrax. If there was any "milling" done, it was done by the postal machines. Second, he was working alone at night, which says he had plenty of time to do it without being seen.
You are not looking at the evidence all together. You are picking out one item and claiming it does not prove anything by itself. Agreed. But, when viewed with other evidence, it proves Ivins was guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.
The other 4 items are the same thing. It's not a matter of "belief," it's a matter of what ALL the evidence says.
And all the posts that showed up this morning are the same thing over and over: They are claims that each item by itself is not proof that Ivins committed the crimes. Correct. But, altogether they prove that Ivins committed the crimes.
One of the Anonymi wrote: "they have to do with the government's scenario, a scenario that has to be analyzed piece by piece."
NO! The evidence MUST BE ANALYZED IN ITS ENTIRETY, IT MUST NOT BE "ANALYZED PIECE BY PIECE." Juries are instructed to view all the evidence together. That is how circumstantial evidence MUST be viewed.
So, you do nothing but look at evidence INCORRECTLY, and you claim that because Ivins didn't make silly mistakes, he couldn't have done committed the crime.
Your arguments are arguments based upon fantasies, not upon the way evidence is presented in court.
What's the point of arguing your fantasies? We should be discussing evidence as it is viewed by a jury.
We can't get anywhere unless we are talking about the same things.
Ed
This is a test to see if there is an easy way to separate one Anonymous from another.
ReplyDeleteIf it works, I'll be posting as "Anonymous #239".
I'll have done it by using the Anonymous option, but then clicking on Name/URL and filling in "Anonymous #239".
Ed
Okay, this is another test, to see if there isn't a simpler way to post anonymously, while at the same time enabling people to tell one "anonymous" from another.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to click on Name/URL and then just fill in "Anonymous #496" in the Name field, nothing else.
It should work. It doesn't require the use of a web site address or leaving an email address, and it's just as anonymous as clicking on "Anonymous."
Ed
I know this is going to work, but I'm posting just that, instead of clicking on "Anonymous," I can click on Name/URL and fill in a unique and meaningful name that everyone else can use to tell one anonymous poster from another.
ReplyDeleteOne of the Anonymi wrote; "I remembered that the 'Son of Sam' killer parked too near a fire hydrant on one of his 'jobs' and that was one of the things (the resulting ticket) that led to Berkowitz."
ReplyDeleteYes, and I remember that Ivins' emails show he thought that the Ames strain was a common strain that could not be traced. It was a mistake that led to him being identified as being the killer.
I also remember that Ivins emails show that he thought that his method of seeding flasks and fermentors would prevent the development of mutations. It was a mistake that led to him being identified as the killer.
The ticket that Berkowitz got was the key clue to that case, just as the mutations were the key clue in the Ivins case. But, the ticket meant absolutely NOTHING by itself. It was only when combined with all the other circumstantial evidence that the police realized that Berkowitz was the Boston Strangler.
The jury convicted Berkowitz by looking at all the evidence together, not by just looking at the parking ticket.
Evidence Examiner
Oops. I should have looked up the Boston Strangler before posting my previous post. I see Wikipedia says,
ReplyDeleteDeSalvo was not initially suspected of being involved with the stranglings. It was only after he was charged with rape that he gave a detailed confession of his activities as the Boston Strangler. He initially confessed to a fellow inmate, George Nassar. Nassar reported the confession to his attorney, F. Lee Bailey, who also took on DeSalvo's case. The police were impressed at the accuracy of DeSalvo's descriptions of the crime scenes. Though there were some inconsistencies, DeSalvo was able to cite details which had not been made public. However, there was no physical evidence to substantiate his confession. As such, he stood trial for earlier, unrelated crimes of robbery and sexual offenses in which he was known as The Green Man and The Measuring Man respectively. Bailey brought up the confession to the stranglings as part of his client's history at the trial in order to assist in gaining a 'not guilty by reason of insanity' verdict to the sexual offenses but it was ruled as inadmissible by the judge.
So, the Berkowitz case isn't exactly an ideal case for use as a comparison to an imagined trial of Bruce Ivins.
Evidence Examiner
Partial post by EE:
ReplyDelete------
Yes, and I remember that Ivins' emails show he thought that the Ames strain was a common strain that could not be traced. It was a mistake that led to him being identified as being the killer.
=================================
Uh, when Ivins wrote the email, there WAS no genetic subtyping of anthrax. So what he wrote was, in general, true. And Ames IS a common strain of research anthrax: it is preferred for all those researchers working on: vaccines, (post-infection)treatments, etc. Preferred precisely because it is so virulent: a vaccine offering protection against Ames will likely work on the vast majority of OTHER strains that might be used offensively, by militaries, by terrorists.
Another partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete--------------------------------
One of the Anonymi wrote: "they have to do with the government's scenario, a scenario that has to be analyzed piece by piece."
NO! The evidence MUST BE ANALYZED IN ITS ENTIRETY, IT MUST NOT BE "ANALYZED PIECE BY PIECE." Juries are instructed to view all the evidence together. That is how circumstantial evidence MUST be viewed.
===================================
Then you REALLY need to rewatch TWELVE ANGRY MEN. You will find that analyzing the evidence piece by piece is EXACTLY what they did.
Another partial post by Mister Lake addressing me:
ReplyDelete------------
One of the Anonymi wrote: "there are NO indications that a burglary or burglaries were involved in Amerithrax. So why even bring it up?"
Because it shows that Ivins drove long distances at night to commit crimes, and that experience means he knew better than to leave a trail of speeding tickets, parking tickets and gas receipts.
You seem to be arguing that if Ivins drove to the store to get a loaf of bread, that wouldn't prove that he'd know how to drive to the store to get a bottle of milk. It's an argument just to be argumentative.
==================================
Driving to buy one grocery item is roughly equivalent to driving to buy another grocery item. But driving to swipe a code book or to look at a sorority house, or to send a gift to someone isn't the same as driving to committ an act of terrorism. Is that really so difficult to understand?!?!?!?
Partial post by EE:
ReplyDelete---------
The jury convicted Berkowitz by looking at all the evidence together, not by just looking at the parking ticket.
===================================
Quite right. And I wrote that the parking ticket was ONE of the things that LED to Berkowitz. Not convicted him.
Partial post by Ed Lake (addressing me):
ReplyDelete----------
Your arguments are arguments based upon fantasies, not upon the way evidence is presented in court.
==================================
No. Evidence is presented SEQUENTIALLY in court, in part because human language is sequential. Sequential ends up meaning 'piece by piece'. Otherwise it would just be a giant jumble, which, come to think of it, wouldn't be a bad monicker....oh, I see it's taken!
One of the Anonymi wrote: "Uh, when Ivins wrote the email, there WAS no genetic subtyping of anthrax. So what he wrote was, in general, true."
ReplyDeleteNo, it WAS NOT. The statement has nothing to do with genetic subtyping. It has to do with how common the Ames strain was. Ivins thought it was used in thousands of laboratories and totally untraceable. It turned out to be very rare, used in only 18 laboratories, and eminently traceable.
After today, Ed Lake will no longer respond to posters who call themselves "Anonymous." If they cannot be bothered with picking a unique name, Ed Lake cannot be bothered with trying to tell one "Anonymous" from another.
Evidence Examiner (a.k.a. Ed Lake)
One of the Anonymi wrote: "Then you REALLY need to rewatch TWELVE ANGRY MEN. You will find that analyzing the evidence piece by piece is EXACTLY what they did."
ReplyDeleteLike all juries, they were presented with ALL the evidence and then asked to make a decision based upon ALL the evidence. In the jury room, people will always argue about the evidence item by item, but they must not ignore the fact that each item is part of the whole.
The jury in "Twelve Angry Men" didn't discover that the kid was innocent, they came to the opinion that they couldn't be certain of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. He could still have killed his father.
As I stated in a post that Dr. Nass didn't allow, "Twelve Angry Men" is FICTIION, and in it Henry Fonda brings evidence into the jury room that he found himself, which was not presented in court. That is ILLEGAL and would cause a mistrial. "Twelve Angry Men" is about the characters, about how different people with different views of the world must come to an agreement. It's not a true story.
After today, Ed Lake will no longer respond to posters who call themselves "Anonymous." If they cannot be bothered with picking a unique name, Ed Lake cannot be bothered with trying to tell one "Anonymous" from another.
Evidence Examiner (a.k.a. Ed Lake)
One of the Anonymi wrote: "Driving to buy one grocery item is roughly equivalent to driving to buy another grocery item. But driving to swipe a code book or to look at a sorority house, or to send a gift to someone isn't the same as driving to committ an act of terrorism. Is that really so difficult to understand?!?!?!?"
ReplyDeleteBoth situations involve driving long distances to commit crimes without getting caught. The fact that they are different types of crimes is irrelevant. The evidence relates to Ivins practice of driving long distances to commit crimes, NOT to what kind of crime he was committing on what occasion. Is that really so difficult to understand?!?!?!?
After today, Ed Lake will no longer respond to posters who call themselves "Anonymous." If they cannot be bothered with picking a unique name, Ed Lake cannot be bothered with trying to tell one "Anonymous" from another.
Evidence Examiner (a.k.a. Ed Lake)
One of the Anonymi wrote: "Evidence is presented SEQUENTIALLY in court, in part because human language is sequential. Sequential ends up meaning 'piece by piece'. Otherwise it would just be a giant jumble"
ReplyDeleteNonsense. Evidence is presented as pieces of a puzzle, which when complete shows a "complete picture" proving that the defendant is guilty. A finished puzzle is not a "giant jumble," it's a completed case against the defendant.
The idea that it's a "giant jumble" is just plain preposterous. The purpose of presenting evidence to a jury is to make them understand the whole picture no matter how complex all the pieces might seem to be.
After today, Ed Lake will no longer respond to posters who call themselves "Anonymous." If they cannot be bothered with picking a unique name, Ed Lake cannot be bothered with trying to tell one "Anonymous" from another.
Evidence Examiner (a.k.a. Ed Lake)
One of the Anonymi wrote: "I wrote that the parking ticket was ONE of the things that LED to Berkowitz. Not convicted him."
ReplyDeleteRight. And you or another one of the Anonymi wrote that parking tickets are "material evidence," and "material evidence" is evidence so important that there may be no case without it.
So, either you are arguing with yourself, or you are arguing with another one of the Anonymi.
After today, Ed Lake will no longer respond to posters who call themselves "Anonymous." If they cannot be bothered with picking a unique name, Ed Lake cannot be bothered with trying to tell one "Anonymous" from another.
Evidence Examiner (a.k.a. Ed Lake)
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete---------
One of the Anonymi wrote: "I wrote that the parking ticket was ONE of the things that LED to Berkowitz. Not convicted him."
Right. And you or another one of the Anonymi wrote that parking tickets are "material evidence," and "material evidence" is evidence so important that there may be no case without it.
==================================
Uh, that last part is the WORST summary I've ever read! You make it sound as though I MADE UP the terms 'material evidence' and 'material witness' (hint: this latter is what Jean Duley would NEVER HAVE BEEN in Amerithrax, unless Ivins had made a confession to her, which he didn't).
These are all ESTABLISHED TERMS, going back, I'm sure, since before Mister Lake was born. And they express established law. So what's the big surprise?!?!?!?
Unnumbered one (anonymous of the last 15 to 20 posts)
Another post by Ed/EE/whatever:
ReplyDelete------
One of the Anonymi wrote: "Driving to buy one grocery item is roughly equivalent to driving to buy another grocery item. But driving to swipe a code book or to look at a sorority house, or to send a gift to someone isn't the same as driving to committ an act of terrorism. Is that really so difficult to understand?!?!?!?"
Both situations involve driving long distances to commit crimes without getting caught. The fact that they are different types of crimes is irrelevant.
---------------------------------
That's not what a judge would say. And from a legal standpoint that's all that matters. Inadmissible.
Partial post by EE:
ReplyDelete-------
One of the Anonymi wrote: "I wrote that the parking ticket was ONE of the things that LED to Berkowitz. Not convicted him."
Right. And you or another one of the Anonymi wrote that parking tickets are "material evidence," and "material evidence" is evidence so important that there may be no case without it.
================================
No. Once again you are using "Lakespeak" rather than the language of the law. I NEVER wrote that "material evidence" is (inherently and ipso facto) "importnat". I wrote that material evidence has bearing----and this is really a tautology!---because it bears on some claim of the prosecution (whether Ivins drove to Princeton in a given timeframe, whether Ivins dried anthrax into a powder in a given timeframe etc.).
In contrast, Ivins could have committed 300,000 burglaries in his lifetime and it would have no bearing on whether he sent a toxic agent through the mail. Apples and oranges.
richard rowley (anonymous of at least the last 15 posts)
Richard Rowley wrote: "Ivins could have committed 300,000 burglaries in his lifetime and it would have no bearing on whether he sent a toxic agent through the mail. Apples and oranges."
ReplyDeleteThe fact that Ivins committed burglaries has no connection to sending anthrax through the mails. That's true. But, driving long distances to commit crimes DOES HAVE A BEARING on the case.
The claim by Anthrax Truthers is that Ivins couldn't have driven to Princeton without someone knowing about it. That is a FALSE CLAIM, because Ivins openly admitted that he often drove long distances at night to do things, and his wife and family never had a clue as to what he was doing. They figured he was either at work or on some other USAMRIID business somewhere.
Ivins was experienced at driving long distances to commit crimes without leaving evidence behind. That is valid, relevant circumstantial evidence that can be used in court to rebut any claims that Ivins couldn't have driven to Princeton without leaving evidence behind. The fact that his earlier crimes are not the same crimes as his later crimes is not the issue.
The fact that those burglaries involved secret codes, and his anthrax letters also included secret codes is a different and separate issue that can be used in court.
The fact that those burglaries showed the same kind of penchant for taking risks (and disregard for the law) as the preparation of the anthrax letters is a different and separate issue that can be used in court.
"Relevant" vs "Material"
The issue of what is "relevant" and what is "material" began with the message posted by one of the Anonymi on August 27 at 11:30 AM. That message indicated that "material" means the same as "relevant." It doesn't.
Relevant evidence bears on some claim by the prosecution that relates to the issues of the trial.
"Material evidence" is defined this way in "The Plain Language Law Dictionary":
Material evidence. Legitimate, pertinent evidence that is so important and so related to the issues being disputed that a judge or jury may consider it as the vital, decisive factor in the case.
"Material" is defined this way in "The People's Law Dictionary":
Material: adj. relevant and significant. In a lawsuit, "material evidence" is distinguished from totally irrelevant or of such minor importance that the court will either ignore it, rule it immaterial if objected to, or not allow lengthy testimony about such a matter.
So, as I previously wrote, you cannot get evidence admitted if it isn't relative to the issues, however, "material evidence" is relevant evidence that is also crucial to the case.
Therefore, something like a speeding ticket on the night of a crime would definitely be relevant to the case, showing that Ivins was out on that particular night, but it wouldn't necessarily be "material evidence," since Ivins would undoubtedly claim that he was out driving around, but didn't go anywhere near Princeton.
Evidence Examiner
I realize I've made a lot of mistakes and I'll try to do better.
ReplyDelete"That is a FALSE CLAIM, because Ivins openly admitted that he often drove long distances at night to do things, and his wife and family never had a clue as to what he was doing. They figured he was either at work or on some other USAMRIID business somewhere."
ReplyDeleteEd is mistaken. Dr. Ivins explained in the 2008 302 uploaded that he travelled when his wife was out of town. Moreover, the family in their 302s alibi Dr. Ivins.
Ed would make fewer errors if limited himself to what the documents actually say.
And of course the children were not born when he stole the sorority ritual books 30 years ago.
ReplyDeleteUnder Ed's logic, every adulterer or would-be adulterer is guilty of the anthrax mailings.
Many adulteress go many years making love to other women without it being known by their wife -- even taking their mistresses on exotic vacations without being discovered. The material evidence relates to the documentary evidence of Dr. Ivins whereabouts and activities in September and October 2001 -- which Ed shows no interest in. He is content to rely only on the evidence he has been spoon fed. That's not analysis. That's not research. That's pontificating on the internet.
Moreover, if he was familiar with the record, he would know that Dr. Ivins in fact was stopped when he drove up to Ithaca.
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete------------
The fact that Ivins committed burglaries has no connection to sending anthrax through the mails. That's true. But, driving long distances to commit crimes DOES HAVE A BEARING on the case.
===============================
Why? He presumably drove long distances under a number of circumtances for the same reason OTHER people drive long distances:
1)too far to walk.
2)in a hurry.
3)no convenient public transit alternative.
4)taking a taxi or limo too expensive etc.
----------------------------------
And since we know he ALSO drove long distances to do perfectly legal things like mail gifts anonymously there's hardly anything intrinsic to the driving that proves anything.
The government's (self-imposed) challenge was to prove Ivins drove to Princeton (or, at a bare minimum to New Jersey) on the days/nights in question. Given that 3 solid years have passed since Ivins' death, it's a safe bet that that will never happen.
Not fatal to the case against him if the government:
1)posited a mailing accomplice.(The government didn't)
2)could prove Ivins dried anthrax in the right timeframe (summer to fall 2001).
But they failed in that too.
Partial post by Ed Lake:
ReplyDelete-------------
Therefore, something like a speeding ticket on the night of a crime would definitely be relevant to the case, showing that Ivins was out on that particular night, but it wouldn't necessarily be "material evidence," since Ivins would undoubtedly claim that he was out driving around, but didn't go anywhere near Princeton.
---------------------------------
No. You are flat-out wrong about that (and most-----all?-----of your G-man pals could set you straight if you don't believe me).
The fact that Ivins or his lawyer or (posthumously) an Ivins defender would say that Ivins "was out driving around, but didn't go anywhere near Princeton...." has no bearing on whether a speeding ticket issued to Ivins on a highway north of Maryland would be considered material evidence(the call of the judge). If it is in the right direction (on a highway leading to NJ) and is in the right timeframe (the night(s) when the mailing(s) allegedly occurred)it is "material evidence". Because it would be in accordance with the government's scenario of accusations.
It's then up to the jury to decide how much WEIGHT to give the speeding ticket. AND how much weight to give the 'explanation' offered by the defense.
You are confusing "material" with "irrefutable".
Richard Rowley wrote: "The government's (self-imposed) challenge was to prove Ivins drove to Princeton (or, at a bare minimum to New Jersey) on the days/nights in question."
ReplyDeleteThat is technically NOT TRUE. The government does NOT have to prove that Ivins drove to Princeton (or New Jersey) on the nights in question.
They just have to show that he MUST HAVE driven to Princeton on the nights in question.
That's how circumstantial evidence works. OTHER evidence says that Ivins made the anthrax spores, that he encoded a hidden message in the media letters, that he had motive, that he had no alibi, and that he had all the necessary time, opportunity, material and equipment.
When one looks at ALL THE EVIDENCE TOGETHER, it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that Ivins must have driven to Princeton on the nights in question to mail the letters. It's the only way that all the evidence fits together.
That's the way circumstantial evidence works. You can prove A, B, C, D, E and F, and together they say that G must be true. And there is no evidence that G is false, so it can be reliably concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that G is true.
That's how burglars are typically caught. A burglar might claim he was at home on the night of the burglary, and he just happened to find the stolen goods in the street. But, the evidence says he's an experienced burglar, the crime fitted his modus operandi, he was seen casing the scene of the burglary a few days before the burglary, and he had no proof that he was at home asleep. There is no "direct evidence" of him committing the crime, such as closed circuit TV pictures showing his face as he committed the burglary, but the circumstantial evidence would be enough to convince a jury beyond any reasonable doubt that he committed the burglary.
Richard Rowley also wrote: "You are confusing "material" with "irrefutable"."
No, the argument has nothing to do with "irrefutable."
If Ivins got a speeding ticket, and the ticket were presented in court, it would be "irrefutable" that he got a ticket. But, so what? The question is about what the speeding ticket shows as evidence in the case. What would it support? What would it refute?
It would refute any claim by Ivins that he was at home asleep on that night. So, it would be relevant to the case, and it might even be "material" evidence, since it would be solid evidence that Ivins lied about being asleep, and that he was doing as the prosecution claimed, he was out driving somewhere.
But, if Ivins claimed that he was just out for a drive that night and didn't go anywhere near Princeton, the ticket would still be relevant evidence showing that Ivins wasn't in bed asleep, but it wouldn't refute any claim.
And, according to all the law dictionaries, it wouldn't be "material" evidence, either.
I don't think this argument about the difference between "relevant" and "material" is productive. It's clear you have your own interpretation, while I rely on what the law dictionaries say. And, we can argue until the end of time, and you will still believe what you want to believe.
Evidence Examiner
Partial post by Ed Lake:
ReplyDelete------------
Richard Rowley also wrote: "You are confusing "material" with "irrefutable"."
No, the argument has nothing to do with "irrefutable."
If Ivins got a speeding ticket, and the ticket were presented in court, it would be "irrefutable" that he got a ticket. But, so what? The question is about what the speeding ticket shows as evidence in the case. What would it support? What would it refute?
=================================
No. I DID NOT say "irrefutable" about the fact that he got a ticket. I MEANT (and apparently everything has to be spelled out for Mister Lake) 'irrefutable' about the fact that Ivins went to at least New Jersey (and possibly)
to Princeton. The reason I pointed this out is: way back Mister Lake wrote this:
------
Therefore, something like a speeding ticket on the night of a crime would definitely be relevant to the case, showing that Ivins was out on that particular night, but it wouldn't necessarily be "material evidence," since Ivins would undoubtedly claim that he was out driving around, but didn't go anywhere near Princeton.
----------------
So, Mister Lake is claiming that a speeding ticket(on a crucial night) "wouldn't necessarily be 'material evidence'"; but it would. Not because there couldn't be a rejoinder from the defense (there is almost ALWAYS a rejoinder from the defense) but because it goes to the heart of one of the subclaims (subaccusations) of the prosecutors: Ivins drove to New Jersey on the night of Sept 17th/18th.
In this, as in so much Mister Lake conflates the assigned roles (and assigned constraints) of a number of legal participants:
1)law enforcement
2)prosecutors
3)the judge
4)the jury.
Another example of the same thing would be (contrary to fact condition follows): a claim, backed by paperwork, that Ivins' car was in the shop and unusable from September 16th to September 20th 2001. This paperwork (if ruled authentic) would AUTOMATICALLY be considered material evidence because it bears once again on the prosecution's claims. (And if the prosecutor objected the judge would overrule him for the same (legal)reason).
The fact that the prosecutor could then (perhaps) claim that Ivins took/borrowed/stole someone else's car on the night in question has no bearing on whether the paperwork is material.
Another partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete-----------
Richard Rowley wrote: "The government's (self-imposed) challenge was to prove Ivins drove to Princeton (or, at a bare minimum to New Jersey) on the days/nights in question."
That is technically NOT TRUE. The government does NOT have to prove that Ivins drove to Princeton (or New Jersey) on the nights in question.
They just have to show that he MUST HAVE driven to Princeton on the nights in question.
================================
This last sentence is just as wrong as wrong can be. It isn't merely legally wrong; it's illogical. For the PRIMARY reason we want to know:
1)whether Ivins drove to Princeton on the night of September 17/18th
2)whether he dried anthrax into a powder in late summer/fall 2001
3)whether his block printing matches that of the Amerithrax letters
4)whether he xeroxed the letters
etc. (etc.= any and all subtasks of Amerithrax)
is so that we can determine whether Ivins did the crime in the first place. The one thing jurors must NEVER do is assume guilt, and then say 'he must have done this subtask because he's guilty!'. That's putting the cart before the horse.
Another partial post by Ed Lake:
ReplyDelete------------
I don't think this argument about the difference between "relevant" and "material" is productive. It's clear you have your own interpretation, while I rely on what the law dictionaries say.[...]
---------------------------------
I'm a bibliophile and lover of lexicography, but to love anything is to come to grips with its limits and merely consulting a legal dictionary to define the word won't suffice. There are precedents and proceedures (and undergirding principles of logic) involved in the law which determine HOW and BY WHOM a judgement of 'what is relevant' is made. In THAT sense(ie by ignoring all the legal procedures involved), it is Mister Lake who 'has his own interpretation'.
Mine is rather quotidian and shopworn.
A couple days ago, I wrote "They just have to show that he MUST HAVE driven to Princeton on the nights in question."
ReplyDeleteThen, Richard Rowley wrote: "This last sentence is just as wrong as wrong can be. It isn't merely legally wrong; it's illogical."
And, "The one thing jurors must NEVER do is assume guilt"
Jurors DECIDE if a defendant is guilty or not guilty.
Deciding is not the same as assuming. Or are you now going to argue that jurors should never decide anything, either?
The prosecution will present all the evidence showing that Ivins was the anthrax mailer, and that evidence will also enable the jurors to DECIDE that Ivins MUST HAVE driven to Princeton to mail the letters, because that's what the evidence says.
You may "want to know" exactly which route Ivins took to get to Princeton, and where he stopped for gas, and how he managed to pay cash instead of using a credit card, and how he managed to do it without getting a speeding ticket, but you are not on the jury. The jury does not have to know those details to DECIDE that Ivins did indeed drive to Princeton to mail the letters. OTHER evidence says he did.
Arguing the difference between "material evidence and "relevant evidence" with you is clearly a waste of time, since you state that "merely consulting a legal dictionary to define the word won't suffice" and imply that your interpretation of "precedents and procedures" overrides what legal dictionaries say. There's no productive way to debate an issue where opinions and beliefs override actual definitions.
Evidence Examiner
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete-------------
A couple days ago, I wrote "They just have to show that he MUST HAVE driven to Princeton on the nights in question."
Then, Richard Rowley wrote: "This last sentence is just as wrong as wrong can be. It isn't merely legally wrong; it's illogical."
And, "The one thing jurors must NEVER do is assume guilt"
Jurors DECIDE if a defendant is guilty or not guilty.
Deciding is not the same as assuming. Or are you now going to argue that jurors should never decide anything, either?
=================================
No. And I have NO idea where you got that idea from (that I would think anything of the sort): I'VE been the one citing repeatedly the (admittedly fictional but)instructive film TWELVE ANGRY MEN wherein the jury, initially passive and ready to rubberstamp the 'obviously true' allegations of the prosecutor, eventually is prodded to make MAJOR reevaluations of various skeins of evidence. HOW then could you possibly think that I think 'jurors should never decide anything'??!?!?!?!!? Makes no sense and makes me think Mister Lake is incapable of understanding my position.
Just in case Mister Lake doesn't really know what I mean by an assumption, let me TRY to be clear: Mister Lake's statement:
ReplyDelete-------
A couple days ago, I wrote "They just have to show that he MUST HAVE driven to Princeton on the nights in question."
===============================
What does the phrase "MUST HAVE driven" mean? Surely, any English speaking person would say that that phraseology is used when
1) there's no direct (or even circumtantial) evidence for something.
2)nevertheless the speaker/write BELIEVES it occurred because it is necessary for the overarching hypothesis.
Here the overarching hypothesis is: "Ivins, ACTING ALONE, did the Amerithrax crimes".
An assumption (the driving, but tellingly NOT the driving alone: the drying, the letter-printing, the Xeroxing), plain and simple.
Another partial from Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete---------
Arguing the difference between "material evidence and "relevant evidence" with you is clearly a waste of time, since you state that "merely consulting a legal dictionary to define the word won't suffice" and imply that your interpretation of "precedents and procedures" overrides what legal dictionaries say. There's no productive way to debate an issue where opinions and beliefs override actual definitions.
--------------------------------
That's like saying that because I've consulted "A Dictionary of Computer Terms" (and similar reference works) dozens of times in the last decade, any IT professional disputing with me about something in the IT field is wrong because he introduces stuff that's not in the dictionaries I consulted!
WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. Dictionaries are fine but they only take you so far. You would have done better to have watched LAW AND ORDER during its 20 year run and to have INTERNALIZED the fairly accurate use of terms like 'material', 'inadmissible' etc. Words in CONTEXT are halfway to being understood. You're trying to use them without context. To appalling effect.
Richard Rowley wrote: "Dictionaries are fine but they only take you so far."
ReplyDeleteI understand. You do not want to argue facts, you want to argue interpretations and opinions.
I have no interest in arguing interpretations or opinions. It's a total waste of time. There's no reason for anyone to change their opinion if they refuse to look at the facts.
I'm only interested in discussing facts and weighing evidence.
The evidence says, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Bruce Ivins sent the anthrax letters.
Evidence Examiner
Unfortunately one or perhaps two of my prior posts has not made its appearance, so either it's a glitch or Dr Nass didn't care for it/them. Back to Ed Lake:
ReplyDelete----------
Richard Rowley wrote: "Dictionaries are fine but they only take you so far."
I understand. You do not want to argue facts, you want to argue interpretations and opinions.
I have no interest in arguing interpretations or opinions. It's a total waste of time.
===================================
That's funny, I thought the tail end of your post WAS an 'opinion'.
----------
The evidence says, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Bruce Ivins sent the anthrax letters.
================================
What on earth would you call that if NOT an opinion?!?!
I have no problems with the fact that people have differing opinions about a wide range of topics. For most of those topics it goes with the territory.
What I object to is the pretense that one can AVOID giving "interpretations" and "opinions" when talking about a highly complex legal case.
To repeat that partial post by Mister Lake, it went like this:
ReplyDelete-----------
The evidence says, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Bruce Ivins sent the anthrax letters.
==================================
You think that because you make no distinction WHATSOEVER between generic "evidence" and evidence that has a ghost of a chance of actually being ruled admissible in a court of law. MOST of what you continuously cite in that regard on your website would NOT be ruled admissible. Not because I personally have an 'interpretation' in that direction but because the law has much more stringent requirements as to materiality and the like than you do.
Richard Rowley wrote: "What on earth would you call that if NOT an opinion?!?!"
ReplyDeleteIt's an analysis of the facts.
Opinions tend to ignore the facts.
When people look at the facts, then it becomes a matter of discussing what the facts say. People can have different opinions about what the facts say, but the discussions are about the facts, instead of just restating opinions over and over and over.
Opinion arguments go this way:
Yes, it is.
No, it isn't.
Yes, it is.
No, it isn't.
Yes, it is.
No, it isn't.
etc. etc. ad nauseam.
Fact-based arguments should go this way:
Person A: The anthrax letters were placed in a mail box just 175 feet from the entrance to an office for the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority. Ivins had an obsession with Kappa Kappa Gamma.
Person B: That doesn't prove anything. It could just be a coincidence.
Person A: But, the mail box was also across the street from Princeton University, Ivins' father's alma mater.
Person B: That still isn't enough to prove anything.
Person A: The ZIP code Ivins used on the senate letters was the ZIP code for the location where Ivins' father's family lived for over a hundred years.
Person B: That could also be a coincidence.
Person A: And the fact that the envelopes were sold in the area where Ivins lived? And the fact that Ivins made a practice of driving long distances to commit criminal acts? And the fact that he sometimes used the mails to do terrible things in secret that would put the blame on someone else? And the fact that the anthrax powders could be traced to a flask controlled by Ivins? All those could just be a coincidence, too?
Person B: Yes, I think they could be.
Person A: And you have better evidence against someone else? Evidence that cannot be dismissed as coincidences or proof of nothing?
Person B: I think so.
Person A: Okay. Let's hear it. Let's stack up the evidence side by side and see which is the more convincing.
---------
Of course, no discussion on these forums ever gets to that point, since the people who think that someone else mailed the letters have no real evidence to support their beliefs. That's why they only argue against the FBI's findings, never for their own case.
If you argue for your own case, you make your "evidence" available to examination and criticism.
However, you can't do that, because your case is based upon fantasy, it's based upon the argument that the FBI hasn't looked in the right places, and that's why the FBI hasn't found all the evidence that would support your theory.
You argue that, in your opinion, the evidence gathered by the FBI and presented in court by the lawyers at the Department of Justice would not be admissible. You say,
"MOST of what you continuously cite in that regard on your website would NOT be ruled admissible. Not because I personally have an 'interpretation' in that direction but because the law has much more stringent requirements as to materiality and the like than you do."
And, as the above quote shows, part of your fantasy is to argue that the evidence against Ivins is Ed Lake's evidence, not evidence gathered by the FBI and presented by the DOJ to a grand jury.
And, another part of your fantasy is that, in your opinion, you know more about evidence and the law than the FBI and DOJ combined.
Right?
Ed
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete---------
Fact-based arguments should go this way:
Person A: The anthrax letters were placed in a mail box just 175 feet from the entrance to an office for the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority. Ivins had an obsession with Kappa Kappa Gamma.
Person B: That doesn't prove anything. It could just be a coincidence.
Person A: But, the mail box was also across the street from Princeton University, Ivins' father's alma mater.
Person B: That still isn't enough to prove anything.
Person A: The ZIP code Ivins used on the senate letters was the ZIP code for the location where Ivins' father's family lived for over a hundred years.
Person B: That could also be a coincidence.
Person A: And the fact that the envelopes were sold in the area where Ivins lived? And the fact that Ivins made a practice of driving long distances to commit criminal acts? And the fact that he sometimes used the mails to do terrible things in secret that would put the blame on someone else? And the fact that the anthrax powders could be traced to a flask controlled by Ivins? All those could just be a coincidence, too?
Person B: Yes, I think they could be.
Person A: And you have better evidence against someone else? Evidence that cannot be dismissed as coincidences or proof of nothing?
Person B: I think so.
Person A: Okay. Let's hear it. Let's stack up the evidence side by side and see which is the more convincing.
================================
That's a FANTASY 'argument' dreamed up by Mister Lake to avoid having to come to grips with:
1)requirements of materiality
(neither the mailbox location, nor the alma mater of Bruce Ivins' father would NECESSARILY be ruled admissible: you have to show some concrete "relevance" (Mister Lake's gloss on materiality) to the actual crime: either its motivation (what, he was trying to impress his deceased father by mailing a toxic substance from Princeton??!?!? And he was trying to 'frame' KKG by mailing the letters down the street from their office? Makes no sense!), or some real connection to the commission of the crime (if Ivins lived 200 feet from the mailbox it might be a different story, would likely be admissible since it reflects on the ease with which Ivins could THEN have possibly committed the crime).
[TO BE CONTINUED]
2)need for logical consistency. Proving a person, under intense pressure from government investigators, deteriorated psychologically doesn't establish anything about the guilt or innocence of the person years earlier when he wasn't being isolated, lied to etc. by the government's investigators. And that's especially true when there's such a mismatch between the 'murderous' threats of the later period and the cold-blooded execution of the earlier crimes (Amerithrax).
ReplyDelete[TO BE CONTINUED]
3)meaningful psychological analysis.
ReplyDeleteThe FINAL REPORT is just a melange of half-truths (about the xerox machine(s) at USAMRIID, about the presence of/requirement for the lyophilizer in the area where Ivins is alleged to have done the drying etc.), none more numerous than in the psychological analysis: we have Jean Duley's request for a restraining order saying one thing, the overall picture of Ivins' mental health (and non-violent life) saying quite another. Remarkable when you realize that the 'case' against Ivins is basically 95% psychology and 5% that flask 1029.
Another partial by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete---------
And, another part of your fantasy is that, in your opinion, you know more about evidence and the law than the FBI and DOJ combined.
==================================
It isn't that the FBI and DOJ don't know that most of what is in the FINAL REPORT would have been inadmissible in a court of law, it's that they don't CARE (there's a difference): since Ivins' death there's been no possibility that his guilt/innocence would be tested in a criminal proceeding (the wrongful death suit(s), of course, are civil not criminal matters).
The FINAL REPORT is a PR document, and PR people aren't interested in materiality and other fine, and NOT-SO-FINE points of the law. They assume------correctly I'm afraid-----that the average American views even realistic TV legal dramas strictly for entertainment value and has neither the interest, the background, the motivation, or the stick-to-it-tiveness to delve into even the summaries of the summary that is the FINAL REPORT. In that sense someone like Lew Weinstein is among the rarest of observers.
Richard Rowley wrote: "neither the mailbox location, nor the alma mater of Bruce Ivins' father would NECESSARILY be ruled admissible: you have to show some concrete "relevance"
ReplyDeleteAre you suggesting that the location of the mailbox is irrelevant? Haven't you been arguing that the distance from Ivins' home to the mailbox requires evidence to show that he used that mailbox?
Or, are you saying that connections between Ivins and the mailbox location aren't evidence of connections between Ivins and the mailbox location?
Richard Rowley also wrote: "need for logical consistency. Proving a person, under intense pressure from government investigators, deteriorated psychologically doesn't establish anything about the guilt or innocence'"
So, if the defendant threatens a witness, that isn't evidence that the defendant didn't want evidence against him presented in a court of law?
Richard Rowley also wrote: "The FINAL REPORT is just a melange of half-truths"
So, you simply dismiss the Final Report because you do not believe what it says?
That appears to be an attempt to start another pointless argument over your beliefs in order to avoid looking at the facts.
Richard Rowley also wrote: It isn't that the FBI and DOJ don't know that most of what is in the FINAL REPORT would have been inadmissible in a court of law, it's that they don't CARE"
Ah! You not only know more about words than dictionaries do, and more about the law than the FBI and the Department of Justice, but you also can read the minds of the lawyers at the DOJ who prepared the Final Report?
Richard Rowley also wrote: "The FINAL REPORT is a PR document'
And, as stated above, all you can do is argue that you do not BELIEVE the FBI/DOJ's findings or that the FBI's evidence isn't really evidence. You have no evidence of your own to show that someone else did it.
So, it's another pointless argument about opinions:
You: I do not believe the evidence.
Me: The case is about evidence.
You: I do not believe the evidence.
Me: The case is about evidence.
You: I do not believe the evidence.
Me: The case is about evidence.
You: I do not believe the evidence.
Me: The case is about evidence.
You: I do not believe the evidence.
Me: The case is about evidence.
You: I do not believe the evidence.
Me: The case is about evidence.
etc. etc. ad nauseam.
What's the point of such a debate? The FBI and DOJ have presented their case against Ivins in their Final Report. You reject the Final Report as a "PR Document," and suggest that it's just a "melange of half-truths" and the facts in it "would have been inadmissible in a court of law."
So, only your beliefs are proof of anything?
And the FBI is just making stuff up in order to prove you wrong?
Really?
Evidence Examiner
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete----------
So, it's another pointless argument about opinions:
You: I do not believe the evidence.
Me: The case is about evidence.
You: I do not believe the evidence.
Me: The case is about evidence.
You: I do not believe the evidence.
Me: The case is about evidence.
You: I do not believe the evidence.
Me: The case is about evidence.
You: I do not believe the evidence.
Me: The case is about evidence.
You: I do not believe the evidence.
Me: The case is about evidence.
etc. etc. ad nauseam.
=================================
Anyone who has read (or will read) the last 20 posts of this thread will recognize that Mister Lake's 'summary' bears no resemblence to what I've actually written. I can only conclude that he is incapable of understanding my point of view. A pity.
Another partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete-----------
"MOST of what you continuously cite in that regard on your website would NOT be ruled admissible. Not because I personally have an 'interpretation' in that direction but because the law has much more stringent requirements as to materiality and the like than you do."
And, as the above quote shows, part of your fantasy is to argue that the evidence against Ivins is Ed Lake's evidence, not evidence gathered by the FBI and presented by the DOJ to a grand jury.
=================================
Oh, I don't think even a single Internet opponent of yours supposes that you aren't toeing the government line to the hilt. And that's just the trouble: you don't have the background or wherewithal to form and stick to an independent position on even a small subcontroversy. The closest you came to 'apostasy' was when you vehemently championed for years the child-printed-it subhypothesis. ALL those who opposed that subhypothesis were people who refused to look at 'facts' (your word, your mantra). Until, that is, the 'doodling' was ruled by the DOJ to be part of an 'amino acid code' and then Mister Lake couldn't rejoin the fold fast enough: it not only wasn't doodling, it was "smoking gun" evidence that the hapless Ivins was the perp. Not even others who thought Ivins LIKELY guilty were so impressed by the 'code' but then they hadn't been apostates either!
Another partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete---------------
Richard Rowley also wrote: It isn't that the FBI and DOJ don't know that most of what is in the FINAL REPORT would have been inadmissible in a court of law, it's that they don't CARE"
Ah! You not only know more about words than dictionaries do, and more about the law than the FBI and the Department of Justice, but you also can read the minds of the lawyers at the DOJ who prepared the Final Report?
==================================
Mister Lake:
1) WHERE did I say "I know more about words than dictionaries do"?
------------
I THINK I said that dictionaries have real but limited value (I spent 3 years of my life as a translator and have a VERY good idea of the value of dictionaries).
Their value is especially limited when they deal with highly complex issues of logic, and procedure, and precedent such as is the case in the law. OTHERWISE our law schools would simply give incoming students a very large legal dictionary and tell the students to memorize everything in the next 3 years. They don't do that for a reason.
2)It isn't necessary to be able to read anyone's mind to know that the purpose of the FINAL REPORT was to close the case at any price.
And to claim that IVINS ALONE did the crime (for the possibility of accomplices would keep the case open)
----------
Again, I'm absolutely AMAZED at the snideness in tone on Mister Lake's part in all this. Completely uncalled for.
Richard Rowley wrote: "I can only conclude that he is incapable of understanding my point of view."
ReplyDeleteI understand Mr. Rowley's point of view. Mr. Rowley just doesn't agree with my understanding, because he sees his beliefs as correct, while I see his beliefs as incorrect.
So, when I summarize Mr. Rowley's beliefs, it's guaranteed that he will not agree with the summary.
Richard Rowley wrote: "I'm absolutely AMAZED at the snideness in tone on Mister Lake's part in all this."
My dictionary defines "snide" this way:
snide, adj. sly and malicious: as, a snide remark.
There's nothing malicious in my remarks. Disagreeing with you is far from malicious, it's intended to be educational and enlightening.
I'm just voicing a different opinion from a different point of view. You may view a different point of view as "malicious" if it debunks your beliefs, but that isn't maliciousness, it's the presumed purpose of this forum: to educate and enlighten via open discussions of the issues.
Example: You now write: "It isn't necessary to be able to read anyone's mind to know that the purpose of the FINAL REPORT was to close the case at any price."
That's your point of view based upon your beliefs about what was in the minds of the people who wrote the report (a.k.a. "mind reading).
My point of view involves looking at the evidence as presented in the Final Report and weighing the facts against other facts - if there are any other facts.
Your "point of view" seems to involve closing your eyes to the evidence because you believe that the FBI's motives are impure.
My "point of view" involves looking at all the evidence regardless of the source and rejecting only the facts which are disproved by other facts. I piece the evidence together to see if it it all fits together, and question pieces that do not fit.
We have very different points of view, so it's natural that our points of view about our points of view do not agree.
Evidence Examiner
Mr. Lake is unable to distinguish between assertion and evidence. No evidence is contained in the Final Report -- it is mere assertion. There should have been citation to evidence that in turn should have been contained in an appendix -- but there wasn't. Many of the assertions are in fact contradicted by the documentary evidence.
ReplyDelete"Mr. Lake is unable to distinguish between assertion and evidence."
ReplyDeleteOn August 29, Mr. Lake posted this several times:
After today, Ed Lake will no longer respond to posters who call themselves "Anonymous." If they cannot be bothered with picking a unique name, Ed Lake cannot be bothered with trying to tell one "Anonymous" from another.
Evidence Examiner
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete-------
Richard Rowley wrote: "I can only conclude that he is incapable of understanding my point of view."
I understand Mr. Rowley's point of view. Mr. Rowley just doesn't agree with my understanding, because he sees his beliefs as correct, while I see his beliefs as incorrect.
So, when I summarize Mr. Rowley's beliefs, it's guaranteed that he will not agree with the summary.
==============================
It isn't a matter of 'agreeing' or disagreeing with the 'summary', it's whether we are even speaking the same language. To wit:
1)my post of September 3rd (in full)
-----
Another partial post by Ed Lake:
------------
I don't think this argument about the difference between "relevant" and "material" is productive. It's clear you have your own interpretation, while I rely on what the law dictionaries say.[...]
---------------------------------
I'm a bibliophile and lover of lexicography, but to love anything is to come to grips with its limits and merely consulting a legal dictionary to define the word won't suffice. There are precedents and proceedures (and undergirding principles of logic) involved in the law which determine HOW and BY WHOM a judgement of 'what is relevant' is made. In THAT sense(ie by ignoring all the legal procedures involved), it is Mister Lake who 'has his own interpretation'.
Mine is rather quotidian and shopworn.
=========================
2)This was 'summarized' by Mister Lake as follows:
"
Ah! You not only know more about words than dictionaries do,[...]"
===============================
Any English-speaking person without major aphasia will be able to see that that's no 'summary' but an obvious distortion of what I wrote.
Partial post by Ed Lake:
ReplyDelete--------
My "point of view" involves looking at all the evidence regardless of the source[...]
============================
That's funny, I don't recall your citing anything Lew Weinstein or DXer discovered via FOIA documents.
Plus "regardless of the source" could mean "from totally unreliable sources". Is that really the way to evaluate Amerithrax?!!?!?
Is it the way to evaluate ANY criminal matter? Even your G-men 'consider the source'.
Partial post by Mister Lake (going back quite a ways):
ReplyDelete---------------------------------
Richard Rowley wrote: "neither the mailbox location, nor the alma mater of Bruce Ivins' father would NECESSARILY be ruled admissible: you have to show some concrete "relevance"
Are you suggesting that the location of the mailbox is irrelevant? Haven't you been arguing that the distance from Ivins' home to the mailbox requires evidence to show that he used that mailbox?
Or, are you saying that connections between Ivins and the mailbox location aren't evidence of connections between Ivins and the mailbox location?
=================================
I'm saying:
1)if the anthrax letters had been mailed in the mailbox nearest Ivins' house in Frederick, Maryland, this would have had PROBATIVE value (because it would have reflected on the EASE with which Ivins could have done the mailings). But probative value only.
2)the fact that Ivins' father went to Princeton decades earlier has no known probative value.
Said another way, if 499 of Ivins' ancestors and living relatives had attended Princeton, it would tell us NOTHING about the probability that Ivins mailed a toxic substance from Princeton, NJ. No probative value.
Another partial post by Ed Lake:
ReplyDelete-------
Example: You now write: "It isn't necessary to be able to read anyone's mind to know that the purpose of the FINAL REPORT was to close the case at any price."
That's your point of view based upon your beliefs about what was in the minds of the people who wrote the report (a.k.a. "mind reading).
=============================
Okay, then upon what BASIS do they claim that Ivins had no accomplices? (Basis==evidence)
As you know, I tend to agree with Richard Rowley, who I find very eloquent, even though I am only agreeing with my interpretation of his assessment of the evidence that he asserts to be credible. While I rarely see things from the point of view of Ed Lake, I respect his right to be wrong, even though I wish he would stick to the actual material evidence, instead of confusing matters by gratuitous and meaningless digressions. But I, too, will no longer address "Anonymous" unless it turns out that he is Mr. Rowley, in which I case I tend to agree with him -- or at least his assertions regarding the evidence. I think.
ReplyDeleteRichard Rowley wrote: "Any English-speaking person without major aphasia will be able to see that that's no 'summary' but an obvious distortion of what I wrote."
ReplyDeleteOkay, I shouldn't have said that you claim to know more than dictionaries do. I should have said that you claim that dictionaries are worthless and each of us should create our own definitions based upon what we think the words mean.
You wrote: "merely consulting a legal dictionary to define the word won't suffice. There are precedents and procedures (and undergriding principles of logic) involved in the law which determine HOW and BY WHOM a judgement of 'what is relevant' is made."
That very clearly says that a dictionary "won't suffice" when trying to define the meaning of a legal term. Instead, you suggest that each of us study the "precedents and procedures" and come up with our own definitions.
That, of course, means that we'll never have any basis for agreement, since we all have different points of view.
I use legal dictionaries for "standard definitions" of legal terms. You just use whatever definition fits your argument.
If we can't even agree on what standard to use for seeking an agreement, then there is no possibility of agreement. So, why bother discussing anything?
Evidence Examiner
I would like to circle back to something I previously referred to: in talking about the 'half-truths' in the FINAL REPORT, I mentioned the fact that, although the FINAL REPORT tries to give the impression that Ivins' "mysterious" Sept 2001 trips to the USAMRIID library (which had a copying machine) explained when and where the xeroxed copies of the original Sept 18th-mailed Amerithrax letter were made(by Ivins), the truth is that the investigators ascertained THAT THAT WAS NOT THE COPIER USED.
ReplyDeleteI bring this up now because in the past 24 hours I read the MIRAGE MAN treatment of this matter and it too leaves the impression that the USAMRIID library copier could have been used for this purpose.
This is an EXCELLENT example of 'evidence' that is (falsely)used in a PR vein to try to indicate the suspect's guilt when it's exculpatory evidence. And could have been exposed as exculpatory evidence in a trial setting.
The Sept. 19 4:04 AM post by "Evidence Examiner" is not from me, of course. It's just a childish post from one of the Anonymi using my pseudonym.
ReplyDeleteAlso, there were 111 message on this thread before Dr. Nass stopped updating, and now there are 120. I don't see 9 new messages. I only see 6. The other 3 must have been added between earlier posts, instead of at the end.
On Sept. 18 at 10:14 PM, Richard Rowley wrote; "I don't recall your citing anything Lew Weinstein or DXer discovered via FOIA documents."
Lew Weinstein and DXer post FOIA documents and ask questions. They don't "discover" anything. So, there's nothing to cite. If they explained what they see in the documents and how it proves something different from what the FBI claimed, I'd probably cite it. But, they don't do that. If the documents have any relevance at all, they usually confirm what the FBI said.
In the same post mentioned above, Richard Rowley made up the term "totally unreliable source".
Is there any such thing as a "totally unreliable source"? If there is, obviously no one is going to believe anything they say, because they'd even be lying about their name. "Totally unreliable sources" are a fiction you create just to start another meaningless argument. My G-men "consider the source," but that just makes them cautious and wary, it doesn't mean they automatically disbelieve and ignore everything from that source.
On Sept. 18 at 10:34 PM, Richard Rowley starts a new argument about the word "probative." It's just nonsense, since multiple connections between Ivins and the site of the mailboxes definitely has "probative value," i.e., it tends to confirm the other evidence which shows that Ivins was the anthrax mailer.
On Sept. 18 at 11:38 PM, Richard Rowley wrote: "Okay, then upon what BASIS do they claim that Ivins had no accomplices?"
(1) In-Out logs show that Ivins worked alone in his lab at the time he was making the anthrax powders. (2) Ivins did all of his previous criminal acts alone. (3) Ivins didn't trust anyone else. (4) The investigation cleared everyone else. (5) There's nothing in what Ivins did that would require an "accomplice."
On September 21 at 1:02 PM, Richard Rowley wrote about "'half-truths' in the FINAL REPORT."
Your so-called "half-truths" are really just unresolved questions. It's not known for certain which copier was used. They evidently didn't examine the copy machine in the library until years after the attacks. It may not have been the same machine, or it may have been repaired and parts replaced. So, it may only be mentioned as a possibility.
Richard Rowley wrote: "the truth is that the investigators ascertained THAT THAT WAS NOT THE COPIER USED."
Please tell us where to find the details behind your claim that the investigators "ascertained" such a thing. How would that be possible without locating another copy machine along with undeniable proof showing that it was the machine that was used? Why haven't we heard about this other machine?
Evidence Examiner
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete-------------
Richard Rowley wrote: "the truth is that the investigators ascertained THAT THAT WAS NOT THE COPIER USED."
Please tell us where to find the details behind your claim that the investigators "ascertained" such a thing.
==================================
This is a matter of logic:
I)There is NO DIRECT CLAIM (in the FINAL REPORT or any other DoJ finding related to Amerithrax to this very hour) that the copier at USAMRIID was the one used to copy the Amerithrax letters (something readily testable).
II)To leave out such testing, either in the very beginning of the investigation (late 2001/early 2002) OR (for a second time) after the investigation had narrowed the investigation down to one and only one "sensitive" suspect who worked at USAMRIID (Bruce Ivins) would have been gross negligence. Gross negligence under two different heads of the task force (the one in the early years, the one at the end of the investigation).
So, if they DIDN'T do the testing, then they're incompetent. If they DID do the testing, then it cleared any and all copiers available to Ivins (and others) at USAMRIID.
Don't see any other LOGICAL possibilities. But I'm open to them. (See: I'm NOT a conspiracy theorist)
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete-----------
Okay, I shouldn't have said that you claim to know more than dictionaries do. I should have said that you claim that dictionaries are worthless and each of us should create our own definitions based upon what we think the words mean.
===============================
And, again, what did I say ORIGINALLY?
-------
(partial)I'm a bibliophile and lover of lexicography, but to love anything is to come to grips with its limits and merely consulting a legal dictionary to define the word won't suffice.
--------------------------------
I followed that up with (what I hoped was) a further clarification:
---------
(partial)I THINK I said that dictionaries have real but limited value (I spent 3 years of my life as a translator and have a VERY good idea of the value of dictionaries).
Their value is especially limited when they deal with highly complex issues of logic, and procedure, and precedent[...]
=================================
If you insist that the above means:
(Mister Lake again)"each of us should create our own definitions based upon what we think the words mean." , there's not much I can do.
=================================
I'm saying:
1) I didn't make up the word "materiality" in a legal context.
2)lawyers, even actors PLAYING lawyers on TV, use it all the time.
3)it is 'relevance' but relevance of a particular sort.
4)this particular sort of relevance determines what a jury sees/hears about a case (since 'materiality' is a part, a big part, of 'admissibility').
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete----------
You wrote: "merely consulting a legal dictionary to define the word won't suffice. There are precedents and procedures (and undergriding principles of logic) involved in the law which determine HOW and BY WHOM a judgement of 'what is relevant' is made."
That very clearly says that a dictionary "won't suffice" when trying to define the meaning of a legal term. Instead, you suggest that each of us study the "precedents and procedures" and come up with our own definitions.
That, of course, means that we'll never have any basis for agreement, since we all have different points of view.
===============================
As I pointed out in a post I did last night, most of this disagreement about 'terms' centers on the word 'material'. Mister Lake insists that this merely means "relevant".
But if that WERE true (it is not) then anyone and everyone would have their own 'opinion' about what is relevant, making even the presentation of evidence (the main part of a trial) impossible.
Trials are RULE-BASED activities, and if they weren't, the FIRST OJ Simpson trial would STILL be going on (1 and 1/2 decades later).
"Material" refers to what courts (read: judges) in general, and a particular judge in a particular case under adjudication, find 'relevant' as prescribed by rules of evidence, legal precedent, the US Constitution, given state constitution, legal precedent(s), logic etc.
Contrary to Mister Lake's impression, this doesn't mean "that we'll never have any basis for agreement", since the basis for that agreement are those very things: the rules of evidence, legal precedent, yadda yadda yadda.
It is Mister Lake's take ("materiality"= any old 'relevance' by any old participant in the trial) that draws us into a quagmire of opinion and attitudinizing. And this is exactly what legal procedure is designed to avoid.
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete--------
On Sept. 18 at 10:14 PM, Richard Rowley wrote; "I don't recall your citing anything Lew Weinstein or DXer discovered via FOIA documents."
Lew Weinstein and DXer post FOIA documents and ask questions. They don't "discover" anything. So, there's nothing to cite. If they explained what they see in the documents and how it proves something different from what the FBI claimed, I'd probably cite it. But, they don't do that[...]
--------------------------------
Actually they do. For example, here
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/screen-shot-2011-03-15-at-1-37-04-pm.png
there's a FOIA-released document written by Ivins, on Sept 12th 2001 about the ongoing rabbit experiments (48 rabbits receiving the vaccine, 4 rabbits as control subjects for a total of 54 animals). These were the very reason Ivins worked 'mysterious off hours'. And how is this treated in the FINAL REPORT? By being ignored in the text of the REPORT and being reduced, in a footnote on page 32, to some (apparently completely different but also possible) OTHER reason involving mice: (the footnote in full):
-----------
21
It bears mention that during the first five days of this second phase, Dr. Ivins did make
notations regarding the health of some mice involved in a study being conducted by another
colleague – thus justifying his presence in the lab for a short time on each of those days (Friday,
September 28 through Tuesday, October 2). However, the first three of those days, he was in the
hot suites for well over an hour, far longer than necessary to check to see if any mice were dead.
And for the three nights before each mailing window, Dr. Ivins was in the hot suites for between
two and four hours each night, with absolutely no explanation.
--------------------------------
Yeah, any report like that is going to have some errors, some lacunae (see: the lyophilizer that was "required", or not...) but all such in THIS report 'err/omit' in a predictable direction. And it ain't towards exoneration.
Okay, I stand corrected on one point: the FINAL REPORT does admit (in a roundabout way) that the USAMRIID library copier wasn't used in Amerithrax: page 13:
ReplyDelete------------------------------
All four of the recovered anthrax envelopes contained a white, photocopied letter on
paper cut to irregular size by trimming one to three edges of the page. The letters to the New
York Post and Brokaw contain identical handwritten text, and the letters to Senators Daschle and
Leahy likewise contain the same handprinted text. Three “trash marks,” or copy imperfections,
of forensic value were found on the letters to Senators Daschle and Leahy, but not on the letters
to the New York Post and Brokaw. These trash markings were compared to letters maintained in
the FBI Anonymous Threat Letter File and to 1,014 photocopier exemplar sets collected from
copy machines located inside or near the vicinity of every known biological laboratory that
possessed virulent Ames anthrax in 2001. No matches were found.
================================
No matches were found. So how come when the report moves from this general area (above from page 13)
to the now-we-look-at-evidence-against-Ivins part (pages 25-92)
there's no carry-over of this discovery? "No matches were found".
So neither Ivins nor any Amerithrax perp could have done the copying in the USAMRIID library. End of 'mystery'.
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:TOc8VlXHcz0J:www.justice.gov/amerithrax/docs/amx-investigative-summary.pdf+%22these+trash+markings+were+compared+to+letters%22&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgUp6bcPByEruSnA4Csaocadc-uViofYlhiABDO47Ps5pAy7PstIpya-6_MZRAlX2oGuiY7EAqLVmXws4MxXUzzI18VhCrFmfVSoJTouTe6k-YcN-uhWH-DeNbT2DMiNDGty_Ao&sig=AHIEtbTpCV_FWBVm7QKG9JbL9VyicuT7lg
Richard Rowley wrote: "As I pointed out in a post I did last night, most of this disagreement about 'terms' centers on the word 'material'. Mister Lake insists that this merely means "relevant"."
ReplyDeleteNot true. I wrote on August 24: "'Material evidence' is defined in my legal dictionaries as evidence that is both relevant and significant."
I wrote: "Bruce Ivins was an admitted, experienced burglar who would often drive long distances to commit his crimes."
And Richard Rowley responded: "Uh, the Amerithrax crimes did not involve any burglaries "
But the Amerithrax crimes involved driving long distances to commit those crimes. That's the point.
Richard Rowley wrote: "So neither Ivins nor any Amerithrax perp could have done the copying in the USAMRIID library."
Not true. I have already answered that argument with this: "They evidently didn't examine the copy machine in the library until years after the attacks. It may not have been the same machine, or it may have been repaired and parts replaced."
The FBI was checking copy machines in New Jersey, where it was assumed the letters originated. There were news stories about checking copy machines at Rutgers and at private labs in New Jersey. There was a CBS story that they'd found the machine, but it turned out to be a bogus report.
So, the point is that the machine in the library at USAMRIID could have been used, but there's no way to prove it, since they didn't look at USAMRIID's machines until years after the mailing. The fact that they can't prove something doesn't mean it isn't true. It just means they can't prove it's true.
Richard Rowley wrote this about FOIA documents from Lew Weinstein and DXer: "there's a FOIA-released document written by Ivins, on Sept 12th 2001 about the ongoing rabbit experiments (48 rabbits receiving the vaccine, 4 rabbits as control subjects for a total of 54 animals). These were the very reason Ivins worked 'mysterious off hours'."
So, the claim is that, if Ivins was doing normal work during the day, he must also have been doing normal work alone at night?
That's absurd, and it's not supported by the documents.
You are confirming what I said about FOIA documents from Lew Weinstein and DXer. They prove nothing. Weinstein and DXer just imply that they mean something, but they don't explain HOW they mean anything. And when they make a claim, the documents either say the opposite or are irrelevant to the claim.
To counter the FBI's claim that Ivins had no explanation for what he was doing in his lab at night, they need to show evidence of what Ivins was doing. You can't just assume that it was the same thing he was doing during the day. The facts say it was NOT the same thing, since he didn't make any notes and he didn't produce any recorded results. And the hours he worked at night prior to the attacks were extremely unusual for him.
Evidence Examiner
Partial post by Ed Lake:
ReplyDelete----------
Richard Rowley wrote this about FOIA documents from Lew Weinstein and DXer: "there's a FOIA-released document written by Ivins, on Sept 12th 2001 about the ongoing rabbit experiments (48 rabbits receiving the vaccine, 4 rabbits as control subjects for a total of 54 animals). These were the very reason Ivins worked 'mysterious off hours'."
So, the claim is that, if Ivins was doing normal work during the day, he must also have been doing normal work alone at night?
=================================
Now I'm going to ask you what YOU mean by "normal work". I ASSUME that animal experiments to test the potency of the vaccine(s) were done from time to time. But whether that means once a year, every other year or some other time frame I have NO IDEA. I don't think that Mister Lake has any idea either, which means that he has no idea how 'normal' (in the sense of frequent) such trials are.
So, if it is every 18 months (arbitrarily picked by me) that such trials are done, does that constitute "normal work"?
YOU, Mister Lake (and the task force/FBI/DoJ) are the ones who have the burden of proof: establish when and where (and how):
1)the anthrax was dried.
2)the letters were printed/copied.
3)the drives to Princeton were done.
Etc.
It's been 3 years since Ivins' death, 10 years since Amerithrax. This sort of hard evidence hasn't come up. So Mister Lake, like the cleverly written FINAL REPORT, uses innuendo and smear and a jiu-jitsu like reversal of that burden of proof as a substitute for evidence. It wasn't up to Ivins to 'clear' himself, it was up to the investigation to prove him guilty. They failed. Failed by the criteria of other criminal investigations and the rule of law.
Ed Lake appears to be unaware of the FBI's examination of the toner. The science relating to mass spec allows a copier to be excluded at a high level of confidence -- even 99%. It is totally separate from the issue of "tracks" caused by the gripper. Ed Bartick now in Boston could tell a journalist that the USAMRIID copiers were excluded if a journalist bothered to interview him. The mass spec science depends on the brand and model -- not its state of repair or usage. The GAO should have produced this testing which the FBI has withheld from public view.
ReplyDeleteEd Lake suggests that the rabbit study would only be done during "normal work hours" apparently not understanding that animal protocols require visits 3X's to monitor death and suffering of the animals. Thus, someone is tasked with doing the work at night and weekends. Indeed, the meta data in his documents show what time they were created.
ReplyDeleteSince Mister Lake is freezing out anyone with the name 'anonymous' I thought I'd repost the above:
ReplyDelete-----
Anonymous said...
Ed Lake appears to be unaware of the FBI's examination of the toner. The science relating to mass spec allows a copier to be excluded at a high level of confidence -- even 99%. It is totally separate from the issue of "tracks" caused by the gripper. Ed Bartick now in Boston could tell a journalist that the USAMRIID copiers were excluded if a journalist bothered to interview him. The mass spec science depends on the brand and model -- not its state of repair or usage. The GAO should have produced this testing which the FBI has withheld from public view.
================================
This makes lot of sense to me (though some of the details are a bit over my head). As I tried to indicate several posts ago, had the USAMRIID library copier been the one, this would have been front-and-center evidence, even before the FINAL REPORT was written. And Mister Lake would have been touting it as (another)"smoking gun". But it wasn't the copier used.
As to the fact that DXer and Lew Weinstein (mostly?) ask questions about facets of the case exposed by FOIA documents, I find that all to the good. If you stop asking questions, you stop learning.
Richard Rowley wrote: "YOU, Mister Lake (and the task force/FBI/DoJ) are the ones who have the burden of proof: establish when and where (and how):
ReplyDelete1)the anthrax was dried.
2)the letters were printed/copied.
3)the drives to Princeton were done."
NOT TRUE. Yes, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. But, you are making it clear once again that you do not understand evidence. The FBI proved beyond any reasonable doubt that Ivins was the anthrax mailer. That proof does not require knowing details of how
(1) the anthrax was dried
It is only necessary to show that Ivins knew multiple ways of drying anthrax and and he had the means to do so.
(2) the letters were printed/copied
It is not necessary to locate the exact copier used to print the letters. It's only necessary to show that Ivins had the means to make copies somewhere.
(3) the drives to Princeton were done.
It is not necessary to know Ivins exact route, or other details about the trips to Princeton. It is only necessary to show that he had the opportunity to make the drives.
It is the combination of other evidence that shows Ivins had the means, motive and opportunity to commit the crime. Means, motive and opportunity are what is needed to prove guilt. And in the anthrax case, that evidence is combined with facts showing he tried to mislead the investigation, he tried to intimidate witnesses, he tried to destroy evidence, etc., etc.. When presented in court, all that evidence would convince any attentive jury that Ivins was guilty beyond any reasonable doubt - even if no one had home movies of Ivins mailing the letters in Princeton at 3 in the morning.
Yesterday, on the subject of the copy machine, I wrote: "The fact that they can't prove something doesn't mean it isn't true. It just means they can't prove it's true."
To explain further:
(1) The culprit placed the original letter on the glass of the copy machine, closed the cover, and made the copies.
(2) The underside of the copy machine cover had marks on it which were vaguely visible on the copies.
(3) The FBI hunted around New Jersey for the copy machine which would produce identical marks on copies.
(4) They didn't find the machine.
(5) Years later, when evidence started pointing to USAMRIID, they tested the copy machines at USAMRIID. They didn't produce the marks, either.
Does that mean that the copy machine in the library at USAMRIID wasn't the one used? NO, it doesn't.
A. The copy machine cover could have been cleaned to get rid of the identifying marks.
B. Ivins could have read about the testing of copy machines in New Jersey, and he could have done something to the machine he used to make sure that it would be thoroughly cleaned or parts would be replaced.
So, the fact that the copy machine in the library did not produce copies with the identifying marks does NOT mean it wasn't the copy machine that was used by the anthrax mailer. I just means that the FBI cannot prove that it was the copy machine that was used by the anthrax mailer
Evidence Examiner
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete------------
Richard Rowley wrote: "As I pointed out in a post I did last night, most of this disagreement about 'terms' centers on the word 'material'. Mister Lake insists that this merely means "relevant"."
Not true. I wrote on August 24: "'Material evidence' is defined in my legal dictionaries as evidence that is both relevant and significant."
===============================
Well, that STILL doesn't explain
1)at what stage in the proceedings this determination of relevance/significance is made.
2)by WHOM this determination is made.
3) HOW (by what criteria) that person makes the determination
etc. (ie the very things I dealt with above)
In other words, adding the word "significant" doesn't really help......unless your purpose is not to understand how the legal system works (ie how the term/concept of materiality is concretely used in real courtrooms) but to merely substitute one word/phrase ("relevant and significant") for another ("material").
Just one more remark about the USAMRIID library copying machine:
ReplyDeleteTHIS insinuation------and that's all it is, an insinuation------doesn't match up well with the other aspects of the allegations against Ivins.
To wit:
1)the nonsense about his father's alma mater aside, basically the idea of the Ivins-drove-to-Jersey hypothesis is: he made a trip (twice!) of 6 or 7 hours round trip to CONCEAL the location of the perp (Ivins).
2)the he-must-have-or-at-least-coulda-used-the-USAMRIID-library-copier is making it out that he was too lazy to go to Kinko's and Kinko's-like businesses, somewhere between Frederick and Princeton.
(A scientist like Ivins would surely be aware that features of copies could be tested and matched to the copier used, so this would have constituted either colossal bone-headedness or a wish to be found out)
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete-------------------------------
B. Ivins could have read about the testing of copy machines in New Jersey, and he could have done something to the machine he used to make sure that it would be thoroughly cleaned or parts would be replaced.
==================================
"Could have"?!?!?!?
"Objection, your Honor! This is unadulterated speculation on the part of the witness. And the 'witness' has no known or established expertise in the maintenance, repair or design of copiers!"
"Objection sustained. The jury will disregard all the comments just made by the 'witness'."
----------------------------------
THAT'S how 'materiality' works in a true court setting.
What would the brand of copy machine toner have proved?
ReplyDeleteIt couldn't prove the copy machine in the library was used to produce the letters, unless it was the only copy machine in a thousand miles that used the same kind of toner.
If the toner was a match and it was the only machine in a thousand miles using that kind of toner, people would still argue that it could have been used by anyone working at USAMRIID. It didn't have to be Ivins who used it.
If the toner on the letters did NOT match the toner used by the copy machine in the library, that would just mean Ivins used some other copy machine somewhere else. It wouldn't mean that Ivins was innocent.
The FBI generally doesn't waste time on investigating details that won't prove anything of importance.
Richard Rowley also wrote: "1)at what stage in the proceedings this determination of relevance/significance is made.
2)by WHOM this determination is made."
"Significance" is generally determined by the side presenting the evidence, but the judge can disagree. Significance is determined by how important it is to the issue on trial.
A "material witness" is generally considered to be a witness whose testimony makes the case, and without that "material witness" there may be no case - or the case is severely weakened.
"Material evidence" is also generally considered to be evidence the case cannot do without. The anthrax letters were "material evidence." If they were destroyed in a fire, it would have been very difficult to try the case. Copies generally cannot be used as evidence, since copies can be altered.
The FBI reports say that Ivins could not explain what he was doing in his lab all those evenings and weekends just prior to the attacks. He claimed he would just go into the lab to get away from his home life. His records only accounted for a few hours or so.
If there's anything in Ivins' records that shows the FBI is mistaken, that evidence should be presented and explained in detail. Everyone would be interested. Just claiming the records prove the FBI is wrong doesn't mean the records actually prove the FBI is wrong. Conflicting evidence needs to be presented side by side, so it can be weighed.
Richard Rowley wrote: "If you stop asking questions, you stop learning."
If you just ask questions to create doubt and do not listen to or care about the answers, you do not learn anything.
Evidence Examiner
Richard Rowley wrote: "1)the nonsense about his father's alma mater aside, basically the idea of the Ivins-drove-to-Jersey hypothesis is: he made a trip (twice!) of 6 or 7 hours round trip to CONCEAL the location of the perp (Ivins)."
ReplyDeleteSo, your argument is that if he was going to drive a long distance to mail the letters, he wouldn't have gone to a place that was connected to his father?
But, THE FACTS SAY HE DID.
There were several connections between the location of the mailbox and Bruce Ivins. There are too many connections for them to all be coincidences.
We cannot know exactly what was going on inside his head. But we can look at the facts.
So, the question should be: What do the facts say about why Ivins chose that particular location to mail the anthrax letters?
(1) We know it was the nearest mailbox to the Kappa Kappa Gamma (KKG) office in Princeton. We know he was obsessed with KKG. We know he'd burglarized other KKG offices. We know he'd done other long drives to "case" KKG offices as possible burglary sites. So, the drive clearly gave him the opportunity to "case" the KKG office in Princeton.
(2) We know that Ivins took risks that "normal" people would never take - such as his burglaries, his unauthorized cleanings at USAMRIID, juggling knives, etc. So, Ivins felt he understood risks.
(3) The facts indicate that Ivins believed he was smarter than almost anyone else and could talk himself out of almost any risky situation.
(4) The letters contained codes that connected him to the mailings. So, the facts indicate that he didn't think that anyone would be smart enough to decipher the codes and use them as evidence against him.
Thus, the facts indicate that Ivins chose that mailbox in Princeton because it meant something to him, and he figured no one else would ever be able to make the same connections and connect him to the mailings - unless he wanted them to.
You can argue that you wouldn't have done things that way, therefore Ivins wouldn't do things that way, either. But, the facts say that Ivins did things his way for his personal reasons.
Evidence Examiner
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete----------
Richard Rowley wrote: "1)the nonsense about his father's alma mater aside, basically the idea of the Ivins-drove-to-Jersey hypothesis is: he made a trip (twice!) of 6 or 7 hours round trip to CONCEAL the location of the perp (Ivins)."
So, your argument is that if he was going to drive a long distance to mail the letters, he wouldn't have gone to a place that was connected to his father?
=================================
I'm saying that:
1)if we were talking about a bank robbery, the fact that some relative of the suspect had once had an account at the bank would have no probative value whatsoever.
(Because you don't have to have a connection to the bank to rob it)
2)in this instance (Princeton) the same principle applies. Princeton MAY have been chosen because it was convenient (travel-wise or in some other way). It may have been chosen because the person wanted to throw some suspicion on some particular biologist at Princeton. We really have no way of knowing that. So we shouldn't 'mind-read' and pretend that that's evidence.
3)if the suspect in this case were a (deceased) physicist, rather than a deceased biologist, would the Princeton location indicate that the physicist had an Albert Einstein fixation and that this was the reason that Princeton was chosen? Almost certainly not. But even if it were so, it would be impossible to prove. To prove in even the slightest way. Even if the physicist had a KNOWN fixation on Einstein. Here there is nothing in evidence that Ivins had a 'father fixation' of any sort.
4)Have you ever heard of the game "Six Degrees of Separation"?
I don't know whether it's a board game or a parlor game like charades but I know the PRINCIPLE: each person (let's say in the US) is somehow connected to every other person via one or two or three or four or five or (at most) six 'links': connections to intermediate persons.
I myself, thought I've never been to the state of Wisconsin, have at least 5 links of this sort (ex-brother-in-law, ex-army buddy, ex-work colleague etc.)
However, my Wisconsin connections, entirely unsought (and really unnoticed) by me, are connections that have NOTHING to do with the fact that I am discussing Amerithrax with Mister Lake of some town in Wisconsin. Almost certainly some of my past Wisconsinite acquaintances have some connection to Mister Lake (either at one remove, or two, or three etc.). So what? This is really making something out of nothing.
Richard Rowley wrote: "This is really making something out of nothing."
ReplyDeleteLet me try again to get you to understand how circumstantial evidence works in court:
When an item of evidence is presented in court, they do NOT immediately send the jury out to debate that single item of evidence.
They wait until ALL the evidence has been presented and challenged by the defending attorney, and after the judge has instructed the jury that they must view all the evidence together. Then they send the jury out to discuss whether the evidence says the defendant is guilty (or not guilty due to lack of sufficient evidence).
So, continuously claiming that a some single piece of evidence doesn't really prove anything is just a waste of everyone's time. It just shows you do not understand circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence must be viewed all together, because individual items of circumstantial evidence may be meaningless by themselves. However, when viewed all together they become very meaningful.
So, saying over and over that an individual item of evidence is meaningless by itself is ridiculous and a waste of everyone's time. We all know that.
Evidence Examiner
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete---------------
So, the fact that the copy machine in the library did not produce copies with the identifying marks does NOT mean it wasn't the copy machine that was used by the anthrax mailer. I just means that the FBI cannot prove that it was the copy machine that was used by the anthrax mailer
==============================
"Cannot prove"= no evidence of assertion.
Plus the discovery requirement(s) would mean--------if we are being realistic in our imaginary 'murder trial of Bruce Ivins'-------that Ivins' lawyers would get the 'no match' documents on the copiers from the prosecution.
The defense would then introduce these documents (with or without a cross-examination of the investigator(s)), and this aspect of the case would redound to the benefit of the defendant. Evidence that (tends to be)exculpatory. See:
http://www.lawfirms.com/resources/criminal-defense/criminal-defense-case/discovery.htm
Another partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete---------------------------------
If the toner on the letters did NOT match the toner used by the copy machine in the library, that would just mean Ivins used some other copy machine somewhere else.
=================================
Again, you are letting your (obviously deeply held) convictions of the validity of the overall hypothesis ('Bruce Ivins, acting alone, did the Amerithrax crimes')color your ability to judge the individual strands of evidence.
Yeah, if the copying was done anywhere on the East Coast, the government could then (outside of a courtroom setting) tweak its case and claim that somehow and sometime, when he should have been sleeping, Ivins sneaked out of the house without his wife being any the wiser and did the copying.
I grant that no Ivins defender could then 'prove' that this wasn't the case. But that's because a moving target------ie the particulars of the case against Ivins that have changed in the past 3 years------ is much harder to hit than a stationary one.
Another partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete---------------
(1) We know it was the nearest mailbox to the Kappa Kappa Gamma (KKG) office in Princeton. We know he was obsessed with KKG. We know he'd burglarized other KKG offices. We know he'd done other long drives to "case" KKG offices as possible burglary sites. So, the drive clearly gave him the opportunity to "case" the KKG office in Princeton.
===================================
Whoa! That's really skipping stuff (like the timeframe of his burglaries for one thing). But I'd like to focus on the last sentence here to show the way Mister Lake is jumping to conclusions:
------
So, the drive clearly gave him the opportunity to "case" the KKG office in Princeton.
===============================
In the course of ONE SENTENCE Mister Lake assumes a drive by Ivins to Princeton was done in a pertinent timeframe (nowhere in evidence in the FINAL REPORT or in any other DoJ document on this case); he then says that this unattested drive gave Ivins the opportunity to 'case' KKG.
But I thought the purpose of this (as far as we know) imaginary drive was to mail anthrax-bearing letters. So which is it?!?!?
You (and the taskforce) are trying to 'mix and match' quite different concepts here. And you both seem oblivious to this fact.
Another partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete----------------------------
So, saying over and over that an individual item of evidence is meaningless by itself is ridiculous and a waste of everyone's time.
================================
No, you are underestimating the sweep of my criticism. I'm saying
1)most of the 'evidence' in the FINAL REPORT would be inadmissible
on the grounds of materiality and/or its prejudicial nature.
2)therefore it would have been only 'evidence' in some generic Ed Lake-ian sense of the term.
3)it would NOT have passed muster so as to be presented to a jury. (It would not have been TRIAL evidence)
4)therefore it would not have 'accumulated' so that at the end of the trial the jury would have found that the whole was greater than the sum of its parts. Because so many of the parts just wouldn't have been heard/seen by the jury.
5)in addition much of the 'case' against Ivins just doesn't make any kind of LOGICAL sense (the KKG connection, the 'father connection' etc.)
And if Mister Lake could achieve greater critical distance, he would see that too.
Richard Rowley wrote: "Cannot prove"= no evidence of assertion.
ReplyDeleteI think you need to understand the difference between a comment made in this discussion and a claim made in a court of law. I was merely explaining why the FBI couldn't prove whether the copy machine in the library was or was not the copy machine used for the letters.
They couldn't specifically identify the exact copier used to create the attack letters, so continuing to argue about the subject is a waste of everyone's time.
Richard Rowley also wrote: "But I thought the purpose of this (as far as we know) imaginary drive was to mail anthrax-bearing letters. So which is it?!?!?"
I do not read minds. Ivins could have had a hundred reasons for using that particular mailbox. The facts merely show that Ivins had many connections to the location of the mailbox.
In court, they would explain his connections to the site. They would show patterns in his behavior. And, they would most likely do it in a way that would allow the jury to see what could have been in Ivins' mind at the time. They wouldn't try to tell the jury what Ivins may have been thinking, since the judge wouldn't allow it. They'd give the jury the information to let them figure it out for themselves.
You ask questions about why Ivins would use that mail box. I respond with possible reasons. No one knows Ivins' EXACT reasons.
Richard Rowley also wrote: "1)most of the 'evidence' in the FINAL REPORT would be inadmissible on the grounds of materiality and/or its prejudicial nature."
Nonsense. The Summary Report is a "summary report." It isn't a script for what the lawyers would say in court and how the evidence would be presented.
The actual presentation of the evidence would likely have gone on for weeks. The Summary Report boils everything down to make it easily readable by the general public.
Richard Rowley also wrote: "5)in addition much of the 'case' against Ivins just doesn't make any kind of LOGICAL sense"
That's your problem, then. You do not UNDERSTAND the logic of the case against Ivins - probably because you believe someone else did it, and you cannot understand why everyone else in the world doesn't see things your way.
The case against Bruce Ivins in eminently logical. The evidence is useable in court beyond any doubt.
It appears the problem isn't with the case, it's with you. You have a different theory, and that theory distorts everything.
I had a different theory, but I didn't have very much evidence to support it. So, when I saw all the evidence against Bruce Ivins, my original theory went out the window.
I accept the evidence against Ivins. It's solid and undeniable -- except by people who do not believe what the facts say because they have unproven theories of their own.
Evidence Examiner
I hope that this will pass muster with Dr Nass: over at Lew Weinstein's blog, DXer posted today about some FOIA info regarding yet other 'mysterious' and 'unexplained' activity by Bruce Ivins when, the government posits, he was allegedly drying the attack anthrax:
ReplyDelete----------------------------------
2.DXer said
October 8, 2011 at 4:36 am
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/09/29/what-was-department-of-army-inspector-generals-response-to-this-foia-request-for-ig-report-by-mcclatchy/
Rachel Lieber argues that Dr. Ivins’ time in the lab in late September 2001 was unexplained. In particular, she references his return to the lab on September — which although she does not tell you is when 52 rabbits arrived from Covance. She had not produced the email showing what the documents show he was doing. He was cleaning up the lab as directed by Pat Worsham.
On Wednesday ( September 26, 2001) at 10 PM he explained in the email withheld by DOJ that on Tuesday evening (September 25, 2001) he had removed the ceiling lights to clean them.
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/08/31/september-26-2001-email-from-bruce-ivins-released-to-dxer-under-foia-today/
Now compare the Amerithrax Investigative Summary and you’ll see that is when she argues he was making a dried powdered anthrax.
To the contrary, they were cleaning up the lab in preparation for the arrival of the 52 rabbits which were to be challenged subcutaneously.
--------
Above from: http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/08/31/september-26-2001-email-from-bruce-ivins-released-to-dxer-under-foia-today/comment-page-1/#comment-14906
Richard Rowley wrote: "the email withheld by DOJ that on Tuesday evening (September 25, 2001) he had removed the ceiling lights to clean them."
ReplyDeleteIt looks like that email would be released by USAMRIID, not by the DOJ.
If it's a fact that Ivins removed the ceiling lights in his 11 foot by 17 foot lab on the 25th, that doesn't explain what he what he was doing for the rest of the hour and 42 minutes he was in the lab.
I question where Ivins removed ceiling lights because his in-out logs show that he also spent time that evening somewhere outside of Suite B3.
And, of course, the evening of September 25th was just the first time from lot of times that he spent in his lab prior to the second mailing.
Explaining a few minutes out of many many hours proves nothing.
Ed
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete-------
Richard Rowley wrote: "Cannot prove"= no evidence of assertion.
I think you need to understand the difference between a comment made in this discussion and a claim made in a court of law. I was merely explaining why the FBI couldn't prove whether the copy machine in the library was or was not the copy machine used for the letters.
==================================
Then why do testing in the first place if you can't prove anything one way or the other? It makes no sense. OF COURSE they could prove that that copier wasn't used. And they could prove it using ESTABLISHED (ie established long before the fall of 2001)forensic testing techniques.
That's EXACTLY why they had over a thousand 'exemplars' from copiers in the labs (and their vicinities) that had Ames anthrax to compare the Amerithrax letter copies with: to do the testing. And IT WOULD HAVE BEEN admissible evidence in a trial of Ivins: because it's MATERIAL circumstantial evidence (in contrast to the IMMATERIAL circumstantial evidence that constitutes so much of the FINAL REPORT and is so frequently adduced by Mister Lake).
Partial post by Ed Lake:
ReplyDelete----------
It appears the problem isn't with the case, it's with you. You have a different theory, and that theory distorts everything.
==================================
Yes. I do have a different notion of what Amerithrax was about. But I don't think that one needs THAT, don't think that one needs to have ANY NOTION WHATSOEVER about the true culprits to notice how spare, how minimalist, how tangential the case against Ivins was/is.
Another partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete-----------------
You ask questions about why Ivins would use that mail box. I respond with possible reasons. No one knows Ivins' EXACT reasons.
===================================
But the problem is: your thought processes:
1)first you ASSUME a trip by Ivins to that mailbox.
2)then you adduce "possible reasons" for the exact mailbox.
(And to top it off, the SUM of 1) and 2) is then held up as evidence!)
================================
I HOPE you see what's wrong with 1): we mustn't assume anything in a criminal case and there's not a SHRED of evidence Ivins drove to Princeton in September or October of 2001, not 'circumstantial evidence', not 'eye witness' evidence. NOTHING. This makes for an oddly academic further 'speculation'.
As to 2) this just does not compute with my experience: since I'm in my mid-50s, for most of my life there was no Internet for most people: no email. If you wanted to mail something you used the Post Office.
I have NEVER IN MY LIFE thought, or heard other people express the thought(s) along the following lines:
1)"Well, the nearest mailbox is two blocks away, but if I take the subway seven stops I can drop this letter in the box nearest grandma's house!"
2)"Well, the nearest post office is a quarter of a mile away, but if I take the freeway and drive for a half hour, I can use the post office nearest UCLA where my uncle matriculated!"
3)"Well, the nearest mailbox is around the block but if I drive for 3 solid hours, I can use the mail box within 200 feet of Zeta Phi [Whatever]!"
People, even mentally ill people, don't think like that: they, like the rest of us, choose mail dropoff points for reasons of convenience and practicality: because just like in email/the Internet, once it's in the 'system', it's going to get to its destination, unless there is some (unforseeable) mishap.
Sometimes to send something anonymously, people will drive long-distances, but then the consideration is distance and unconnectedness of the location to the mailer, not long-ago connections to relatives, living or dead.
An instructive practical example (in a criminal matter) would be the Unabomber who mailed some (but not all) of his bombs. He made sure (if I recall correctly) to avoid mailing them from the state he lived in (Montana) and he did sometimes go to familiar locations (the Chicago area, the Bay area)but there's no evidence that I'm aware of that the Unabomber chose mailing points even in Chicago and Berkeley that had any special significance to him personally: family connections and the like.
So, it's not even PLAUSIBLE speculation!
Worthwhile from a human interest view:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/anthrax-files/exclusive-the-intern-who-opened-an-anthrax-letter/
Partial post by Mister Lake (going back a ways):
ReplyDelete-----------
To explain further:
(1) The culprit placed the original letter on the glass of the copy machine, closed the cover, and made the copies.
(2) The underside of the copy machine cover had marks on it which were vaguely visible on the copies.
(3) The FBI hunted around New Jersey for the copy machine which would produce identical marks on copies.
(4) They didn't find the machine.
(5) Years later, when evidence started pointing to USAMRIID, they tested the copy machines at USAMRIID. They didn't produce the marks, either.
================================
WHAT?!?!?!? YEARS LATER?!?!? If this chronology is correct, then the task force really WAS negligent in a big way. When you have an biological attack via mail using the (limitedly distributed) Ames strain, you don't check the copier at the national BW headquarters FOR YEARS?!?!?!?
I find that hard to believe/swallow (in this instance I'm giving the government the benefit of the doubt: I think Mister Lake's chronology is wrong).
Richard Rowley wrote: "Then why do testing in the first place if you can't prove anything one way or the other?"
ReplyDeleteBecause you don't know that you can't prove anything until after you do a test.
As I understand it, the test was to see if they could see the same marks from the underside of the copier cover that could be seen in the anthrax letters.
When they ran blank sheets of paper through the copy machine in the library at USAMRIID, they couldn't see the marks.
If they had seen the marks, it would be solid proof that it was the same copier that the culprit used.
Because they didn't see the marks, however, it proves nothing. The absence of the marks could be explained by cleaning, by replaced equipment, etc.
Richard Rowley also wrote: "Yes. I do have a different notion of what Amerithrax was about."
And you think that your "evidence" proving your theory of the case is far better than all the evidence the FBI has provided?
Why don't you show us all this evidence that meets your standards of evidence so that we can see how your evidence is clearly better than the FBI's evidence against Ivins?
Evidence Examiner
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete----------
Richard Rowley wrote: "Then why do testing in the first place if you can't prove anything one way or the other?"
Because you don't know that you can't prove anything until after you do a test.
=================================
Okay, does ANYONE (that includes you, anonymous) who is NOT named Ed Lake understand the previous sentence? This is no joke: I would like a 'translation' if any reader is up to it.
It looks to ME like this is just another version of the "Heads we (the investigators) win, tails you (the suspect) lose!" scenario which is an integral part of this investigation. No WONDER they had to take 4 or 5 years to clear Hatfill: they wouldn't accept the results of their own tests!
Another instance: the polygraph test Ivins passed, but only until they REALLY liked Ivins as a suspect, then the test was declared 'inconclusive'. The tests for anthrax in his vehicle, in his house etc.
If you are their suspect and they don't want to give you up as such, you can never pass (in their eyes) a test. Even if you do.
That's not how tests (are supposed to) work: either you get a POSITIVE or you get a negative. (Or in other types of tests you get some reading that needs to be interpreted).
"No matches were found." For my money that says it all.
Of course, that doesn't mean, in and of itself, that Ivins is innocent. I'm just making a stink about this little strand of evidence because the investigation tries to make it out that Ivins did the copying in the USAMRIID library (which is why Willman writes it up that way). But that's not true.
Posted by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete------------
Why don't you show us all this evidence that meets your standards of evidence so that we can see how your evidence is clearly better than the FBI's evidence against Ivins?
=================================
'Cause I'm too shy.
Plus I have to get Jack the Ripper out of the way first!
Richard Rowley wrote: "Okay, does ANYONE (that includes you, anonymous) who is NOT named Ed Lake understand the previous sentence?"
ReplyDeleteIt's not really that complicated. But it's something you definitely need to understand about evidence.
If Joe Blow's fingerprints are found at a murder scene, it is evidence that Joe Blow was at the scene at some point in time.
If Joe Blow's fingerprints are NOT found at the murder scene, it proves nothing. It certainly does NOT prove Joe Blow to be innocent. Joe Blow could still have been at the scene wearing gloves, or he could have managed to avoid leaving fingerprints.
See? It's really very simple.
And the fact that you won't show us the evidence which supports your beliefs is evidence that your beliefs are not supported by believable evidence. :-)
Evidence Examiner
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete--------
It's not really that complicated. But it's something you definitely need to understand about evidence.
If Joe Blow's fingerprints are found at a murder scene, it is evidence that Joe Blow was at the scene at some point in time.
If Joe Blow's fingerprints are NOT found at the murder scene, it proves nothing. It certainly does NOT prove Joe Blow to be innocent. Joe Blow could still have been at the scene wearing gloves, or he could have managed to avoid leaving fingerprints.
See? It's really very simple.
=================================
Well, my criticism WASN'T just about your thinking, it was about your sentence structure.....I think MAJOR mind-reading was necessary to tease anything out of that sucker. But I'm willing to get back to the merits....
ALL skeins of evidence are limited.
In THIS (and just about this only) I like to think that Mister Lake and I are in agreement.
I'm not going to go too much further into this copier business. Not just out of fatigue but because I realized somewhere along the line that it's more complicated than I thought:
1)in my idiolect I use "copier" "photocopier" "Xerox machine" etc. pretty much interchangeably.
2)but a true photocopier is using a true 'photographic method'.
3)a true Xerox machine is using something called "Xeroxography" (duh! what else?)
4)then there are OTHER types of copiers (I think)
So, the test or tests actually done would depend on a lot of variables which are likely beyond my (present) ken and which don't really change the fact that on page 13, the FINAL REPORT is admitting 'no matches' were found (at ALL lab locations and their vicinities where Ames was kept) and elsewhere they make Ivins' visits to the library sound suspicious, mysterious. And this 'mysteriousness' is rife in anti-Ivins presentations of all sorts: 'mysterious drives' to send anonymous gifts (what's so mysterious? If you want to conceal your identity/be anonymous, you have to conceal your postal location!). Perhaps more later.
Okay, it's time once again to grouse about the FINAL REPORT. Specifically, this section (page 89-90)
ReplyDelete-------------
In addition, a witness who had received a number of packages and cards over the course of several years in the late 1990s and early 2000s was shown copies of the letters and envelopes used in the anthrax attacks. The witness thought that the handwriting on the envelope addressed to Senator Daschle reminded the witness of Dr. Ivins’s writing. If the witness were to receive a
package with that writing on it, the witness would think of Dr. Ivins. The witness noted that, in
particular, the style of the block letters with alternating heights stood out, as did the slant of the
writing. The witness said that this was the type of writing Dr. Ivins used when he disguised his
handwriting as part of a joke. As the witness studied the letters, the witness noted that the “E”
and the “R” in the letter to the New York Post also looked familiar. The witness stated that these letters also reminded the witness of when Dr. Ivins disguised his handwriting as a joke. The witness described this “disguised” handwriting as being similar to Dr. Ivins’s standard handwriting, and that one could tell that he was trying to disguise his handwriting to a limited extent.53 Another witness familiar with the handwriting of Dr. Ivins in many contexts said the
same thing.
=================================
And what do we know about the handwriting? We know it was a NON-match to that of Ivins. And we know that the FBI employed PROFESSIONAL GRAPHOLOGISTS in the Amerithrax Case. So why this anecdotal reliance on two and only two (unnamed)"witnesses" when they have available the studied professional opinion(s) of one or more graphologist in the matter?
To ask such a question is to all but answer it.