Evidence that Hatfill visited the location of his victims, you say, after not receiving news they had been infected is something you should have no problem in sharing with us now. Given we know that the FBI spent $250,000 just to drain the pond, we know they have “left no stone unturned.”
Perhaps SAIC timesheets contradicted your claim as to his whereabouts. Have you seen his timesheets?
Or perhaps they already know of his visit to that locale.
FBI Special Agents and Postal Inspectors on the Task Force would have no motive to cover anything up. They are just under a lot of pressure to solve the matter. It’s got to be very frustrating and boring not to cross the finish line. Given the compartmentalization that was imposed between the two squads after the leaking, it may very well be true that the divergence in opinion within the Task Force was fed by which squad the investigator was on. Some leaking was done at a high level.
The more interesting thing to make about Ed’s criticisms of BHR is that he has always had the same bioevangelist theory. In announcing his bioevangelist he linked and endorsed her webpage. He then was surprised and bummed it turned out to be some guy he had never heard of. Instead, he imagines the perp as hooked up with a former Battelle employee that the FBI ruled out 6 years ago. He has zero evidence. But his theory isn’t as nearly as intriguing as a Hatfill theory.
If you’re not going to share what you think is probative, then there’s no way of showing you it contradicts SAIC timecards or that it is redundant with what is known about his travel. Similarly, there is no way to be persuaded by it. Here, at the FR, we are all from the “show me” state. If this is the sort of evidence that causes someone to subscribe to a Hatfill theory, then it is corroborative that there is no “there there.”
Ed recognized his theory that the letters were written by a First Grader —which he borrowed from someone on a news group — was “wild speculation” (his phrase). Then lo and behold, it has been transformed into FACT.
That illustrates “cognitive rigidity” (his phrase).
Actually, doesn't it indicate just the opposite? You did the research on this. You found a discussion on a Newsgroup back in late 2001 where I considered the idea that a child wrote the letters to be "wild speculation." Then, as the facts began piling up year after year, I started saying it was "most likely" that a child wrote the letters. And then, on September 25, 2005, I found the evidence which caused me to start saying that it was a "near certainty" that a child wrote the letters.
At no time was anything changed to a "fact." NEW FACTS changed my thinking about whether or not a child wrote the anthrax letters. That indicates just the opposite of “cognitive rigidity.”