Bio-collapse ping?
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 11/30/2010 9:43:41 AM PST by EdLake
WASHINGTON -- The FBI may have closed its Amerithax case against Fort Detrick scientist Bruce Ivins nine months ago, but some experts are not willing to let the issue die quite so easily.
A group of about 25 scientists, professors, writers, terrorism experts and more convened Monday afternoon to discuss the particulars of the investigation and to debate who the real perpetrator may have been.
(Excerpt) Read more at fredericknewspost.com ...
Bio-collapse ping?
For example, there's this brown recluse bite:
You can find black widow bites that are similar, and even centipede bites that get infected.
And the other pic was bacterial infection, but not anthrax.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Reportedly it is the nicotine pesticide as well as a mite or some sort of virulent pest.
It’s a 1, 2 blow that’s doing them in . . . neither alone would do it.
I need to know if the lesion was painful or not.
The first one was similar to what I saw but not exact.
Anthrax is not a painful lesion. Unless you get some sort of a secondary infection.
My classmate stated: It only hurts when I look at it. The physician gave her Clyndamycin. She survived.
She told me what they had used in grams. To me it was shocking to hear that many grams. If it were usual they should have re-figured it in kilograms or something else.
454 grams to the pound.
I’m not sure this is a Brown Recluse. The ones I have seen were not new, pretty old, where the surface of the skin sloughs off, and much bigger, but on large areas of the body.
Standard EPA reporting is often done on forms with standard units that are not converted, so they can be entered into database records that are consistent and so there aren’t conversion/unit errors.
I’ll buy that. The thousands of grams just struck me as odd.
It also isn't really that much overtime. Even in September, the month with the most number of o/t hours spent in BSL3, that's only 1-2 hours per day. Or it could include a couple of weekend days. Those kinds of hours are nothing unusual for a scientist. Scientists do not have predictable 9-5 schedules; their work hours can vary widely depending on their project.
The other thing is that the o/t started in August, not September--which would mean that if he were, in fact, preparing anthrax, he would have had to know about 9/11 before it happened. Which I find rather hard to believe, because none of our intelligence agencies whose job it is to try to find out stuff like that knew, and Ivins was just an ordinary citizen.
Looking at PubMed, I see that Dr. Ivins published in Apr 2001, Sept 2001, and Jan 2002. Hmm. Just maybe, those BSL3 hours were spent generating data for those papers (all of which discussed an anthrax vaccine).
There's other evidence that indicates that Ivins was thinking about sending at least one letter containing anthrax through the mails prior to 9/11. For example, the date on the media letter seems to have been added later with a different pen.
And the "hidden message" he put in the letter is another indicator that he was working on the letter prior to 9/11. It doesn't seem likely he would have come up with that if he started after 9/11.
It appears that 9/11 turned an vague idea into an actual project.
It appears that you can rationalize anything that Ivins did and say it's just normal routine. But, that's the way circumstantial evidence works. You can rationalize this and you can rationalize that, but when you look at all the evidence together, it's clear that Ivins was the culprit.
He destroyed evidence; he tried to mislead the investigation; he had no alibi; he controlled flask RMR-1029, which was the "murder weapon"; he had a history of driving long distances to mail things so they wouldn't be traced back to him; he had all the necessary skills; he was observed throwing out the code books used for the "hidden message" in the media letters; he made non-denial denials several times, where he suggested that if he did it and just couldn't remember, he certainly didn't mean to harm anyone.
I could go on and on. And you can dream up ways each item could be "normal," but they wouldn't appear "normal" to a jury when all of the evidence is viewed together.
Yeah, no doubt written by a 6 year old.
Yeah, no doubt written by a 6 year old.
You keep pointing at things that are perfectly normal for scientists, and reading all kinds of sinister motives into them. Furthermore, every single piece of "evidence" is completely circumstantial and/or coincidental. There is absolutely no "smoking gun" that would have tied him (or anyone else) to the anthrax letters. However, there are plenty of reasonable explanations for his activities, which I'm sure his lawyer would have made very good use of to plant that "reasonable doubt" in the jurors' heads had poor Ivins not been so stressed by the FBI's relentless hounding that he killed himself.
With the kind of evidence that supposedly damns Ivins, I'm surprised you haven't had an arrest warrant issued for exDemMom yet, because I am just as guilty of working odd hours, having periods of intense lab activity, and working with things that can kill people.
Having worked in a lab, I am in complete agreement with you.
Ed, who has never set foot in the lab, relies solely on Internet publications as “proof” of Ivin’s guilt.
Notice he has not responded to my “hearsay” post above.
Sorry Ed, I know you’re busy on your Sunday morning posting.
I started with this journey in my life about 2 seconds after I heard that ISU had destroyed their entire collection of anthrax.
I use this example of why this was so wrong and so telling of something.
Let's say that a person in a lime green Buick robs a bank at the drive through window. There are some sketchy witnesses but the Buick scraped the posts that protect the side of the bank. So we have a chemical analysis and they tell us that this lime green paint was left by a 1960 Buick. Obviously, the vehicle will show damage that will correspond to the side of the bank.
The authorities can access registration records and determine that there are 100 lime green Buicks in existence. They begin to track them down and determine that only 12 were in the vicinity of the bank at the time of the robbery.
But one owner, one day after the robbery, has taken his lime green Buick to the crusher and had it destroyed. Well it didn't run right and people made fun of it and it was costly to repair because of its age, etc. etc.
How guilty does this one owner look?
Same with ISU. Some of these samples cannot be found anywhere else. And what about the records of what was there, and who had access. Was all that destroyed too?
This is so obvious to me. I don't think I am making any leaps of faith here. The people who destroyed it were anthrax researchers, folks who well knew that the DNA sequence for anthrax had been analyzed in 1999. This was their job, they knew that some authority would ask for their samples and be able to tell one vial from the next. No one else destroyed their collections.
And I wondered why didn't they just get rid of the stuff that was missing? Well the obvious answer is, they didn't know what was taken or how much or who took it. So they had to destroy it all to CYA.
So, first guy hit, is first guy to show up with anthrax, and so on.
The big problem for most has been the DELAY between that first case and the later cases ~ my "it's in the mail" thesis takes care of that quite rationally.
She imagined she could hassle the federal government enough to manipulate the investigation AWAY from her and her friends, and it turned out she was absolutely correct.
That doesn't mean her friends did the work ~ but her credentials were such the FBI and others were compelled to address her suspicions and speculations before those of others.
The peculiarly formatted addresses on the envelopes were written exactly as they appeared in a publication issued by an organization to which Ivin's wife belonged.
Postal Experts understood immediately how peculiar those addresses were and looked for them on the internet ~ and found them!
The atypical structure and content of the addresses is much more than a Koinkydink ~ and it can be dealt with two ways ~ that maybe Ivins did it (which the FBI would love to believe) or that maybe the conspiracy was a bit more widespread and sophisticated than we've imagined and someone decided Ivins could be blamed for it and measures were taken to make sure that happened.
A state agent would have taken action to cover its tracks. This latest item ~ that the FBI KNEW Ivins had ODd on Tylenol and didn't tell anyone else ~ suggests that sort of thing was still going on during the very time the FBI was telling us Dr. Ivins did the job.
If there was a state agent involved I think this runs us down to a couple of folks, one of whom is a Moslem at the FBI.
So, Ed, it ain't over 'til it's over! And it ain't over.
I don't know what you mean by "Internet publications," but I don't relay on the media for ANYTHING regarding Ivins. I rely on FBI documents and discussions with scientists involved in the investigation - and on conversations with people who knew Ivins.
Before Ivins' suicide, I thought the anthrax mailer was a scientist in New Jersey. But, I always said (and I stated in my book) that the FBI might have a mountain of evidence pointing to someone else that I didn't know anything about. That turned out to be the case.
From the time I first heard of Ivins in August of 2008, I've been studying every document I can find about him and about the FBI's evidence. The media hasn't been of much help at all.
The statement by Ivins' therapist in the court document isn't "hearsay." It's not a rumor or something heard from some unknown person. It's a statement by a member of a group about what a leader of the group told her. I don't think that would qualify as "hearsay."
There appear to be a lot of documents from Ivins' psychiatrists that are still "under seal" due to doctor/patient confidentiality. They probably would have been used in court, since doctor/patient confidentiality doesn't apply when the patient threatens to kill people (as Ivins did). There are even indications from confidential sources I cannot identify that Ivins confessed to his psychiatrist that he was the anthrax mailer.
Yes, it took me a long time to respond to your post because I had to write a Sunday morning comment for my web site.
And now I've got to go back to other things before I'll find time to post here again.
“Before Ivins’ suicide, I thought the anthrax mailer was a scientist in New Jersey”
And you were right!
(By the way, your “response and run” comments are ludicrous.)
“Before Ivins’ suicide, I thought the anthrax mailer was a scientist in New Jersey”
And you were right!
(By the way, your “response and run” comments are ludicrous.)
Ed, hearsay is information gathered by one person from another concerning some event , condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience
“There are even indications from confidential sources I cannot identify that Ivins confessed to his psychiatrist that he was the anthrax mailer.”
That is utter nonsense!
Like I said, it is NOT hearsay. The therapist who made the statement worked with the psychiatrist she cited and both treated Bruce Ivins. So, she had direct experience, and that means her statement was NOT hearsay.
You'll probably rationalize and dream up some explanation for it, but there is a "smoking gun" that points to Ivins and no one else: the hidden message in the letters to Brokaw and the New York Post. Ivins was observed throwing away the code books used to encode the hidden message.
Plus, it's clear he tried to mislead the investigation on several occasions. I've recently been discussing the two occasions where he supplied improperly prepared slants to the FBI's repository (FBIR).
The first time he supplied the slants of material in flask RMR-1029, in February of 2002, he violated protocols and used homemade slants instead of Remel slants, he used the wrong media, and he violated chain of custody rules when turning the slants over to FBIR.
He was enraged when he was told that his homemade slants were not acceptable, and the slants were rejected.
Then, instead of being extra careful on supplying replacement slants in April of 2002, he provided FALSE samples that were the polar opposite of what was in flask RMR-1029. When questioned, he claimed he couldn't even remember who prepared the slants, how they were prepared, or if protocols were again violated by not getting a representative sample.
Ivins helped draw up the protocols that would be used, yet he claimed that he didn't know what the protocols were. He claimed everything was just a mistake.
Yes, scientists make mistakes. But these where clearly DELIBERATE actions by an experienced scientist who did not want to provide evidence to the FBI that could be used against him.
Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant, while testifying at trial or a hearing offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. See Federal Rule of Evidence 801(c). Put more simply, it is a statement being repeated by someone other than the person who actually made the statement which is used at trial or in a hearing to prove the truthfulness of the statement.
Courts will generally not allow hearsay statements or evidence to come into court.
And that has nothing to do with what we're arguing about. The therapist and the psychiatrist work together on treating and counseling patients. No one is repeating something someone else said. A therapist is stating the diagnosis of the psychiatrist she worked for and with.
This is becoming a "Yes, it is" "No, it isn't" "Yes, it is" "No, it isn't" argument. It's pointless to continue. You're just going to continue to twist things to fit your beliefs. And, you'll undoubtedly claim I'm twisting things to fit my beliefs. So, why continue? I've got better things to do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.