More of your bulls**t. The article you mention was from The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and is dated October 4, 2001. Among other things, it says this about events back in 1999:
Battelle "had reason" to search the man's home after he was fired the second time, the affidavit says.
We don't know what the reason for that search was nor what they were looking for, but as you keep saying, this senior research scientist who has a doctorate in nuclear and environmental chemistry is now working in a bowling alley.
And THREE MONTHS after that October article there was a sudden FLOOD of news stories about the man. One of the December articles stated that on December 20, 2001 FBI sources were saying the man was "not a prime suspect in the anthrax mailings but has not been ruled out."
So, AFTER THREE MONTHS all they could say was that he was not a PRIME suspect but that he had not been ruled out. And you claim there was "no further investigation?"
What was going on at that time that suddenly put this senior research scientist all over the news? According to The New York Times, at that time
investigators said they were convinced they had their culprit. They passed the word of a pending arrest up the chain of command to President Bush, but their hopes were dashed when their quarry proved innocent.
Is it just a coincidence that at the time the FBI believed they had the culprit, the bowler was suddenly all over the news? Yes, he "proved innocent," but in this country isn't everyone "innocent" until proven guilty?
The guy had a PERFECT alibi: At the time of the first mailing on September 18, before anyone except the culprit even knew there was a mailing, he was 800 miles away from Trenton talking with the police, who were searching his home for anthrax because he told them "he was building an anthrax delivery system in his basement." They found no anthrax.
So, his PERFECT alibi says he was NOT the anthrax mailer. And I've been saying he was NOT the anthrax mailer. I've been saying for nearly SIX YEARS the anthrax mailer lives and works in Central New Jersey.
If you want to feed people bulls**t, feed them bulls**t about al Qaeda being behind the anthrax mailings. Don't tell them lies about what my analysis says.
Ed, I certainly agree that relying on your words is the most compelling way of describing your theory.
On December 9, 2001, you wrote:
View profile
More options Dec 9 2001, 7:09 pm
Debby,
Your comment that it was his ex-wife who reads the tabloids really got me to thinking, and I mentioned that comment on my web page at
http://extra.newsguy.com/~detect/anthrax.html
I don’t know how young the child is, but he/she would have to be young enough to not realize what was happening. It’s a really great theory. I’d been trying to figure out how he could get a kid to write the letters for him, and then your comment made it clear: he used his own kid! It’s probably just wild speculation, but it sure fits.
Thanks for the feedback. I really appreciate it.
Ed”