Posted on 04/21/2010 9:45:30 AM PDT by Justice Department
I’m still not sold that Hatfill is innocenct. Yes, he won the case of INVASION OF PRIVACY, and this was based on the absence of an indictment or arrest, which came because of insufficient evidence. I know I’m alone in this, but there were a number of things at the time that indicated he had some involvement, and I still wonder if he wasn’t either a dupe or was being blackmailed in some way to give AQ some help.
Can someone here tell me WHAT the FBI has EVER done RIGHT?
Ping
Exactly, which is why Hatfill “got off.” Doesn’t change that I think he is involved, only that they didn’t PROVE it and let the evidence out way too early.
One thing for certain, the FBI did not do right by Bruce Ivins.
Circumstantial, yes. But it is a LOT of circumstantial evidence.
The Ivins theory of the case is the one theory so far proposed that best fits the known facts.
Of course, that is where the argument becomes epistemological. Whence comes our ‘knowledge’ of these facts? Previously, our understanding of the ‘facts’ in this case came from respected ‘authorities’ such as Barbara Hatch Rosenberg (Federation of American Scientists), Don Foster, PhD (identifier of “Anonymous” Joe Klein) and Pulitzer Prize-winning NYT journalist Nicholas Kristof. How much more credible and authoritative can one be? And yet, QED, they were mostly full of crap.
Now our “facts” are being fed to us by... the Feds. They haven’t covered themselves in glory either. Who, and what, to believe?
It is not unlike Schrodinger’s Cat. Ivins did, or Ivins didn’t. Ivins did AND didn’t. We can’t know until we look in Schrodinger’s box. Unfortunately, the Feds are the keepers of the box, and we aren’t going to get a direct view inside.
Are there possible alternative explanations? Sure. However, the Ivins theory is the one that makes the most sense when laid alongside the meager few independently verifiable facts. That is good enough for Ed, and coincidentally, me. That is, at least until we can get a look inside the box. But for now, I won’t lose sleep.
I like it.
People conveniently forget that for years I thought that a scientist living and working in New Jersey was most likely the anthrax mailer. But, I also knew that my evidence was VERY circumstantial and the FBI could have a lot more evidence against someone else I never heard of.
That turned out to be the case. When I looked at all the evidence against Bruce Ivins it was UNDENIABLE that he was the anthrax mailer. I changed my mind and went with the evidence. So, I am NOT "set in my ways."
Unfortunately, the FBI and DOJ hasn't done a very good job of explaining the case against Ivins. I've taken some of the facts and explained their significance in great detail (and hopefully with greater clarity) at these links:
The Errors That Snared Dr. Bruce Ivins
Bruce Ivins' Consciousness of Guilt
The Coded Message in the Media Letters (the "smoking gun")
I'm working on a couple others, too, including a timeline for Ivins which shows all the times he was interviewed by the FBI, when he started telling the FBI he wouldn't talk with them any further without his lawyer, when the FBI started tailing him, etc. The nonsense that Ivins only became a suspect after he committed suicide is shown to be total nonsense by looking at the facts.
I love you like a brother Ed but you’re barking up the WRONG TREE.
Fools gold
Wake up and smell the anthrax
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.