tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post4724373082111020257..comments2024-02-26T22:44:34.925-05:00Comments on Anthrax Vaccine -- posts by Meryl Nass, M.D.: Justice Department Filing Casts Doubt on Guilt of Bruce Ivins, Accused in Anthrax Case/ PBS, McClatchy, ProPublicaMeryl Nass, M.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/07001997291638442225noreply@blogger.comBlogger158125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-11330293926801911762011-10-12T16:41:33.938-04:002011-10-12T16:41:33.938-04:00Okay, it's time once again to grouse about the...Okay, it's time once again to grouse about the FINAL REPORT. Specifically, this section (page 89-90)<br />-------------<br />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<br />package with that writing on it, the witness would think of Dr. Ivins. The witness noted that, in<br />particular, the style of the block letters with alternating heights stood out, as did the slant of the<br />writing. The witness said that this was the type of writing Dr. Ivins used when he disguised his<br />handwriting as part of a joke. As the witness studied the letters, the witness noted that the “E”<br />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<br />same thing.<br />=================================<br />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?<br />To ask such a question is to all but answer it.richard rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-17369217199814449332011-10-12T09:13:02.653-04:002011-10-12T09:13:02.653-04:00Partial post by Mister Lake:
--------
It's not...Partial post by Mister Lake:<br />--------<br />It's not really that complicated. But it's something you definitely need to understand about evidence.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />See? It's really very simple.<br />=================================<br />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....<br /><br />ALL skeins of evidence are limited.<br />In THIS (and just about this only) I like to think that Mister Lake and I are in agreement.<br /><br />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:<br /><br />1)in my idiolect I use "copier" "photocopier" "Xerox machine" etc. pretty much interchangeably.<br /><br />2)but a true photocopier is using a true 'photographic method'.<br /><br />3)a true Xerox machine is using something called "Xeroxography" (duh! what else?)<br /><br />4)then there are OTHER types of copiers (I think)<br /><br />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.richard rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-30557872270301980292011-10-11T17:45:59.642-04:002011-10-11T17:45:59.642-04:00Richard Rowley wrote: "Okay, does ANYONE (tha...Richard Rowley wrote: <i>"Okay, does ANYONE (that includes you, anonymous) who is NOT named Ed Lake understand the previous sentence?"</i><br /><br />It's not really that complicated. But it's something you definitely need to understand about evidence.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />If Joe Blow's fingerprints are NOT found at the murder scene, <b>it proves nothing</b>. 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.<br /><br />See? It's really very simple.<br /><br />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. :-)<br /><br />Evidence ExaminerEvidence Examinernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-85388809154365210602011-10-10T19:55:13.569-04:002011-10-10T19:55:13.569-04:00Posted by Mister Lake:
------------
Why don't ...Posted by Mister Lake:<br />------------<br />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?<br />=================================<br />'Cause I'm too shy.<br /><br />Plus I have to get Jack the Ripper out of the way first!richard rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-79308172124989571892011-10-10T19:40:56.718-04:002011-10-10T19:40:56.718-04:00Partial post by Mister Lake:
----------
Richard Ro...Partial post by Mister Lake:<br />----------<br />Richard Rowley wrote: "Then why do testing in the first place if you can't prove anything one way or the other?"<br /><br />Because you don't know that you can't prove anything until after you do a test.<br />=================================<br />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.<br /><br />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!<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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).<br /><br />"No matches were found." For my money that says it all.<br /><br />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.richard rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-11503306841268003662011-10-10T17:08:54.528-04:002011-10-10T17:08:54.528-04:00Richard Rowley wrote: "Then why do testing in...Richard Rowley wrote: <i>"Then why do testing in the first place if you can't prove anything one way or the other?"</i><br /><br />Because you don't know that you can't prove anything until after you do a test.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />When they ran blank sheets of paper through the copy machine in the library at USAMRIID, they couldn't see the marks. <br /><br />If they <b>had</b> seen the marks, it would be solid proof that it was the same copier that the culprit used.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Richard Rowley also wrote: <i>"Yes. I do have a different notion of what Amerithrax was about."</i><br /><br />And you think that <b>your</b> "evidence" proving <b>your</b> theory of the case is far better than all the evidence the FBI has provided? <br /><br />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?<br /><br />Evidence ExaminerEvidence Examinernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-76578629628517905682011-10-10T14:26:58.930-04:002011-10-10T14:26:58.930-04:00Partial post by Mister Lake (going back a ways):
-...Partial post by Mister Lake (going back a ways):<br />-----------<br />To explain further:<br /><br />(1) The culprit placed the original letter on the glass of the copy machine, closed the cover, and made the copies.<br /><br />(2) The underside of the copy machine cover had marks on it which were vaguely visible on the copies.<br /><br />(3) The FBI hunted around New Jersey for the copy machine which would produce identical marks on copies.<br /><br />(4) They didn't find the machine.<br /><br />(5) Years later, when evidence started pointing to USAMRIID, they tested the copy machines at USAMRIID. They didn't produce the marks, either.<br />================================<br />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?!?!?!?<br /><br />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 rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-69022557118503537102011-10-10T14:13:47.102-04:002011-10-10T14:13:47.102-04:00Worthwhile from a human interest view:
http://www....Worthwhile from a human interest view:<br />http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/anthrax-files/exclusive-the-intern-who-opened-an-anthrax-letter/richard rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-23936639963719762312011-10-10T12:25:19.356-04:002011-10-10T12:25:19.356-04:00Another partial post by Mister Lake:
-------------...Another partial post by Mister Lake:<br />-----------------<br /><br />You ask questions about why Ivins would use that mail box. I respond with possible reasons. No one knows Ivins' EXACT reasons.<br />===================================<br />But the problem is: your thought processes:<br /><br />1)first you ASSUME a trip by Ivins to that mailbox.<br /><br />2)then you adduce "possible reasons" for the exact mailbox.<br /><br />(And to top it off, the SUM of 1) and 2) is then held up as evidence!)<br />================================<br />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'.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />I have NEVER IN MY LIFE thought, or heard other people express the thought(s) along the following lines:<br /><br />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!"<br /><br />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!"<br /><br />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]!"<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />So, it's not even PLAUSIBLE speculation!richard rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-28866663919168812342011-10-10T09:31:38.337-04:002011-10-10T09:31:38.337-04:00Partial post by Ed Lake:
----------
It appears the...Partial post by Ed Lake:<br />----------<br />It appears the problem isn't with the case, it's with you. You have a different theory, and that theory distorts everything. <br />==================================<br />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.richard rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-17866526319628073872011-10-10T09:27:42.265-04:002011-10-10T09:27:42.265-04:00Partial post by Mister Lake:
-------
Richard Rowle...Partial post by Mister Lake:<br />-------<br />Richard Rowley wrote: "Cannot prove"= no evidence of assertion.<br /><br />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.<br />==================================<br />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.<br /><br />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).richard rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-80926316272984348632011-10-09T13:27:31.155-04:002011-10-09T13:27:31.155-04:00Richard Rowley wrote: "the email withheld by ...Richard Rowley wrote: <i>"the email withheld by DOJ that on Tuesday evening (September 25, 2001) he had removed the ceiling lights to clean them."</i><br /><br />It looks like that email would be released by USAMRIID, not by the DOJ.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />I question <b>where</b> Ivins removed ceiling lights because his in-out logs show that he also spent time that evening somewhere outside of Suite B3. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />Explaining a few minutes out of many many hours proves nothing.<br /><br />EdEvidence Examinernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-79127271174069203822011-10-08T16:27:18.038-04:002011-10-08T16:27:18.038-04:00I hope that this will pass muster with Dr Nass: ov...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:<br />----------------------------------<br />2.DXer said<br />October 8, 2011 at 4:36 am <br />http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/09/29/what-was-department-of-army-inspector-generals-response-to-this-foia-request-for-ig-report-by-mcclatchy/<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/08/31/september-26-2001-email-from-bruce-ivins-released-to-dxer-under-foia-today/<br /><br />Now compare the Amerithrax Investigative Summary and you’ll see that is when she argues he was making a dried powdered anthrax.<br /><br />To the contrary, they were cleaning up the lab in preparation for the arrival of the 52 rabbits which were to be challenged subcutaneously.<br />--------<br />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-14906richard rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-29907923158324144372011-10-08T11:51:31.375-04:002011-10-08T11:51:31.375-04:00Richard Rowley wrote: "Cannot prove"= no...Richard Rowley wrote: <i>"Cannot prove"= no evidence of assertion.</i><br /><br />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. <br /><br /><b>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.</b><br /><br />Richard Rowley also wrote: <i>"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><br /><br />I do not read minds. <b>Ivins could have had <i>a hundred reasons</i> for using that particular mailbox.</b> The facts merely show that Ivins had many connections to the location of the mailbox.<br /><br />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 <b>could have been</b> 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.<br /><br />You ask questions about why Ivins would use that mail box. I respond with <b>possible</b> reasons. No one knows Ivins' EXACT reasons.<br /><br />Richard Rowley also wrote: <i>"1)most of the 'evidence' in the FINAL REPORT would be inadmissible on the grounds of materiality and/or its prejudicial nature."</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />Richard Rowley also wrote: <i>"5)in addition much of the 'case' against Ivins just doesn't make any kind of LOGICAL sense"</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />The case against Bruce Ivins in eminently logical. The evidence is useable in court beyond any doubt. <br /><br />It appears the problem isn't with the case, it's with you. You have a different theory, and that theory distorts everything. <br /><br />I <i><b>had</b></i> 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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />Evidence ExaminerEvidence Examinernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-55219471563563236462011-10-07T20:58:47.997-04:002011-10-07T20:58:47.997-04:00Another partial post by Mister Lake:
-------------...Another partial post by Mister Lake:<br />----------------------------<br />So, saying over and over that an individual item of evidence is meaningless by itself is ridiculous and a waste of everyone's time.<br />================================<br />No, you are underestimating the sweep of my criticism. I'm saying<br /><br />1)most of the 'evidence' in the FINAL REPORT would be inadmissible<br />on the grounds of materiality and/or its prejudicial nature.<br /><br />2)therefore it would have been only 'evidence' in some generic Ed Lake-ian sense of the term.<br /><br />3)it would NOT have passed muster so as to be presented to a jury. (It would not have been TRIAL evidence)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.)<br /><br />And if Mister Lake could achieve greater critical distance, he would see that too.richard rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-3316556465633549802011-10-07T14:44:10.828-04:002011-10-07T14:44:10.828-04:00Another partial post by Mister Lake:
-------------...Another partial post by Mister Lake:<br />---------------<br />(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.<br />===================================<br />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:<br />------<br />So, the drive clearly gave him the opportunity to "case" the KKG office in Princeton.<br />===============================<br />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.<br /><br />But I thought the purpose of this (as far as we know) imaginary drive was to mail anthrax-bearing letters. So which is it?!?!?<br /><br />You (and the taskforce) are trying to 'mix and match' quite different concepts here. And you both seem oblivious to this fact.richard rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-72790721016402835912011-10-07T14:00:08.393-04:002011-10-07T14:00:08.393-04:00Another partial post by Mister Lake:
-------------...Another partial post by Mister Lake:<br />---------------------------------<br />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. <br />=================================<br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.richard rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-51733268411466237072011-10-07T13:42:25.157-04:002011-10-07T13:42:25.157-04:00Partial post by Mister Lake:
---------------
So, t...Partial post by Mister Lake:<br />---------------<br />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 <br />==============================<br />"Cannot prove"= no evidence of assertion.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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:<br />http://www.lawfirms.com/resources/criminal-defense/criminal-defense-case/discovery.htmrichard rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-91567876633672250072011-10-07T11:56:23.778-04:002011-10-07T11:56:23.778-04:00Richard Rowley wrote: "This is really making ...Richard Rowley wrote: <i>"This is really making something out of nothing."</i> <br /><br />Let me try again to get you to understand how circumstantial evidence works in court:<br /><br />When an item of evidence is presented in court, they do NOT immediately send the jury out to debate that single item of evidence. <br /><br />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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><b>Circumstantial evidence must be viewed all together, because individual items of circumstantial evidence may be meaningless by themselves. <i>However, when viewed all together they become very meaningful.</i></b><br /><br />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.<br /><br />Evidence ExaminerEvidence Examinernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-55535954788416759292011-10-07T09:24:24.905-04:002011-10-07T09:24:24.905-04:00Partial post by Mister Lake:
----------
Richard Ro...Partial post by Mister Lake:<br />----------<br />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)."<br /><br />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?<br />=================================<br />I'm saying that:<br /><br />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.<br />(Because you don't have to have a connection to the bank to rob it)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />4)Have you ever heard of the game "Six Degrees of Separation"?<br />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.<br /><br />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.)<br /><br />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 rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-58805192123954304222011-10-06T11:07:08.498-04:002011-10-06T11:07:08.498-04:00Richard Rowley wrote: "1)the nonsense about h...Richard Rowley wrote: <i>"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)."</i><br /><br />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?<br /><br />But, <b>THE FACTS SAY <i>HE DID</i></b>.<br /><br />There were several connections between the location of the mailbox and Bruce Ivins. There are too many connections for them to all be coincidences. <br /><br />We cannot know exactly what was going on inside his head. But we can look at the facts.<br /><br />So, the question should be: <b>What do the facts say about <i>why</i> Ivins chose that particular location to mail the anthrax letters?</b><br /><br />(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. <br /><br />(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.<br /><br />(3) The facts indicate that Ivins believed he was smarter than almost anyone else and could talk himself out of almost any risky situation.<br /><br />(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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 <b>his</b> way for <b>his</b> personal reasons.<br /><br />Evidence ExaminerEvidence Examinernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-20008968628489311032011-10-05T11:37:24.259-04:002011-10-05T11:37:24.259-04:00What would the brand of copy machine toner have pr...What would the brand of copy machine toner have proved? <br /><br />It 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.<br /><br />If the toner was a match and it <b>was</b> 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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />The FBI generally doesn't waste time on investigating details that won't prove anything of importance. <br /><br />Richard Rowley also wrote: <i>"1)at what stage in the proceedings this determination of relevance/significance is made.<br /><br />2)by WHOM this determination is made."</i><br /><br />"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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />"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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />Richard Rowley wrote: <i>"If you stop asking questions, you stop learning."</i><br /><br />If you just ask questions to create doubt and do not listen to or care about the answers, you do not learn anything.<br /> <br /><br />Evidence ExaminerEvidence Examinernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-61323477629293385702011-10-04T22:10:03.900-04:002011-10-04T22:10:03.900-04:00Partial post by Mister Lake:
---------------------...Partial post by Mister Lake:<br />-------------------------------<br />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.<br />==================================<br />"Could have"?!?!?!?<br /><br />"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!"<br /><br />"Objection sustained. The jury will disregard all the comments just made by the 'witness'."<br />----------------------------------<br />THAT'S how 'materiality' works in a true court setting.richard rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-68041642712124284632011-10-04T20:45:21.173-04:002011-10-04T20:45:21.173-04:00Just one more remark about the USAMRIID library co...Just one more remark about the USAMRIID library copying machine:<br />THIS insinuation------and that's all it is, an insinuation------doesn't match up well with the other aspects of the allegations against Ivins.<br /><br />To wit:<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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. <br /><br />(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)richard rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-28055839173924562532011-10-04T11:28:43.072-04:002011-10-04T11:28:43.072-04:00Partial post by Mister Lake:
------------
Richard ...Partial post by Mister Lake:<br />------------<br />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"."<br /><br />Not true. I wrote on August 24: "'Material evidence' is defined in my legal dictionaries as evidence that is both relevant and significant."<br />===============================<br />Well, that STILL doesn't explain<br /><br />1)at what stage in the proceedings this determination of relevance/significance is made.<br /><br />2)by WHOM this determination is made.<br /><br />3) HOW (by what criteria) that person makes the determination<br />etc. (ie the very things I dealt with above)<br /><br />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").richard rowleynoreply@blogger.com