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 ...
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.