Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: EdLake
"The fact that anthrax might stick to money is IRRELEVANT if all the rest of the evidence says the anthrax entered AMI via a letter." - EdLake

There's no such letter. The FBI looked. The AMI building was gutted. Nothing.

There was no anthrax letter at the Florida AMI building.

Yet the cover story hinges upon such a letter existing.

Too bad.

75 posted on 09/21/2010 10:19:25 AM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies ]

To: Southack
"There's no such letter."

You're becoming repetitious. Stephanie Dailey testified that she threw out the letter after opening it. The EVIDENCE says she opened the letter at her desk. The fact that it was thrown out doesn't mean it never existed. Why can't you understand that?

As if it doesn't matter that the 9/11 terrorists were handing monthly wads of cash to people who frequented the one building in Florida contaminated with anthrax circa 9/18/2001!

Right. It's irrelevant. It's also irrelevant that Iraq had an anthrax weapons program. It's also irrelevant that Dugway made bioweapons in the 1950s. It's also irrelevant that Russia made massive amounts of anthrax back in the 1970s. It's also irrelevant that Joe Blow at USAMRIID could have gone into Ivins' refrigerator without Ivins knowing about it. It's also irrelevant that the CIA made anthrax powders at Battelle.

Those are all irrelevant facts, just like your irrelevant fact that the 9/11 terrorists paid their landlord with cash. IT MEANS NOTHING unless relevancy can be established. You haven't done that.

Random facts are meaningless unless relevancy to the case can be established.

Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence defines the term as follows:

"Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

The fact that the 9/11 terrorists paid their rent in cash doesn't make ANYTHING about the case more or less probable.

In order to be relevant, your "facts" need to address the EVIDENCE in the case. The EVIDENCE says that the anthrax arrived at AMI in a letter that was mailed from the Trenton area at the same time as the other anthrax letters to the media. The fact that the letter wasn't found is also irrelevant. There is TESTIMONY and EVIDENCE that it DID exist before it was thrown out.

Your bizarre belief that the fact that the terrorists FLEW from Florida to New Jersey somehow caused anthrax spores to appear in mailbags and in post offices along the exact route the anthrax letter took to get to Boca Raton is preposterous.

Your bizarre belief that because Stephanie Dailey threw out the letter, that means it never existed is preposterous.

You can evidently accept that ABC and CBS threw out their letters, but you cannot accept that AMI threw out their letter even though there is testimony and evidence of exactly what happened. Your logic is without logic.

Ed at

77 posted on 09/21/2010 1:35:02 PM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson