If you're having trouble finding it, "Page 61" is the 65th page in this PDF.
Also: Awesome! But now I'm scared to have that book in my house - it's got so many topics that they could always find something to "prove" that I was planning anything.
I wasn't sure which numbering scheme to use. I figure some people are going to read the PDF in their browser or some reader without external page numbers.
If you don't own any books that would make police suspicious, you're probably either boring or super paranoid. Looking through my library ( http://www.librarything.com/catalog/AngryParsley ), I've got a couple: Applied Cryptography, Machiavelli's Prince, and a book with a favorable opinion of US gun culture.
It's not that the book itself made him appear suspicious, it's that there are shared elements between the book and the letters. Further, it wasn't just that he owned a copy of the book, he threw it away in a manner that indicates a consciousness of guilt.
[not that I necessarily agree with the above - it's just my interpretation of the passage]
Yeah, I read that passage with my Suspicious Hat on (nobody gets geek culture! nobody!), but if all the facts they lay out are factual, I can't object to the chain of inference there; it is at least plausible.
I was expecting a very thin connection - "Oh, GEB has sections on DNA, the letters in this messgae could be DNA codons" - but seeing the "bolded letter" code from the letters explained in GEB is more than just a tentative connection.
Much is made in this "analysis" of Dr. Ivins' throwing out of GEB (a book he apparently loved), then making sure the garbage was picked up, and then looking out in to the parking lot and wooded area across from his home.
According to the report, this is all supposed to be evidence of Ivins' "guilty conscience".
But there could be plenty of alternative explanations for this behavior, foremost among them Ivins' (justified) suspicion that he was under surveillance.
And if Ivins suspected he was under surveillance, why would he throw out something so damningly incriminating (according to the DOJ's view) like GEB? Wouldn't it make more sense to throw out something completely innocuous and then check if it's been tampered with?
Or perhaps Ivins merely threw out GEB by mistake, or regretted throwing it out, and then went out to check to see if the garbage had already been picked up in an attempt to retrieve the book.
The report does not describe how the investigators got their hands on Ivins' garbage. But, if one of their agents actually went to Ivins' house and pulled out the garbage bag out of Ivins' garbage can in plain sight while Ivins witnessed this theft, that would also explain Ivins coming out of his home, checking his garbage can, and then peering in to the parking lot and woods across from his house to see if the garbage thief was there.
The "analysis" also makes much of GEB containing references to DNA (the "Genetic Code"), to the amino acids in DNA, and to codes.
I wonder, considering GEB was a huge bestseller, and considering it dealt with these subjects (DNA, etc..) how many biologists have it on their bookshelf? Is it really so suspicious that he, along with probably a significant fraction of other biologists, had a copy?
I agree with you, I was just interested in the bit about the code and GEB. That said, earlier in the summary the FBI does lay out some decent evidence of guilt. DNA testing shows the anthrax almost certainly came from a flask in Ivins' possession. He also spent an inordinate amount of time in the lab in September and October of 2001. There are still some loose ends (like the amount of silica in the anthrax) but I'm guessing the FBI doesn't want to say, "There was probably someone else and he made a clean getaway."
It's true that the report is quite effective at casting suspicion on Ivans. However, it's based completely on circumstantial evidence. Also, the investigators seem to assume that only one person was involved.
For example, the investigators eliminate other suspects with the requisite knowledge, access, and means to make the anthrax that was used in the mailing simply because the suspects must have been at work or far away at the time the letters were mailed. The investigators don't even consider the possibility that the letters might have been mailed by accomplice(s) while the scientists who actually prepared the anthrax were at work.
Ivans' actions and words were subject to intense scruitiny, and found to be suspicious. But what about the actions and words of those other suspects, which were prematurely cleared of suspicion? Their own actions and words might have been equally suspicious, but the investigators apparently did not scrutinize them nearly as closely (or at all?), because they thought that merely because the suspects couldn't have mailed the letters they couldn't have been involved in the crime.
Another glaring fault of the investigation is that although the investigators looked at records of deaths from "unknown causes" following the mailings (because of the possibility that whoever made/sent the letters might have died through contact with the anthrax) the investigators only checked for such suspicious deaths in the New Jersey county where the letters were mailed from. But even Ivans himself was from Maryland, not New Jersey. If the person who mailed/made the anthrax died of "unknown causes" anywhere outside the New Jersey county the investigators looked in, they'd never know.
The report also never mentions why the foreign laboratories that contained the Ames strain were discounted as possible sources of the anthrax. And were their records and personnel as closely scrutinized as those of the American labs?
Finally, footnote 13 states "In the summer of 2009, the National Academy of Sciences began an 18-month study to
review the scientific conclusions in the case." Since cutting-edge, possibly unreliable science was so critical in determining the alleged source of the anthrax, it'll be interesting to see what this study comes up with. If the science turns out to be suspect, the conclusions of the investigation would be jeopardized.
i probably would have thrown away the book too just to mess with the FBI, though now I know better.
wow, the FBI's analysis doesn't inspire much confidence, considering how easy it is to make meaningless, after-the-fact connections--"you misspelled penicillin with an A and your mother's maiden name has an A in it".
13 comments
[ 5.8 ms ] story [ 44.4 ms ] threadAlso: Awesome! But now I'm scared to have that book in my house - it's got so many topics that they could always find something to "prove" that I was planning anything.
If you don't own any books that would make police suspicious, you're probably either boring or super paranoid. Looking through my library ( http://www.librarything.com/catalog/AngryParsley ), I've got a couple: Applied Cryptography, Machiavelli's Prince, and a book with a favorable opinion of US gun culture.
[not that I necessarily agree with the above - it's just my interpretation of the passage]
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870454100457501...
The report makes no mention of Livermore labs, I wonder if there is a significance in that...
According to the report, this is all supposed to be evidence of Ivins' "guilty conscience".
But there could be plenty of alternative explanations for this behavior, foremost among them Ivins' (justified) suspicion that he was under surveillance.
And if Ivins suspected he was under surveillance, why would he throw out something so damningly incriminating (according to the DOJ's view) like GEB? Wouldn't it make more sense to throw out something completely innocuous and then check if it's been tampered with?
Or perhaps Ivins merely threw out GEB by mistake, or regretted throwing it out, and then went out to check to see if the garbage had already been picked up in an attempt to retrieve the book.
The report does not describe how the investigators got their hands on Ivins' garbage. But, if one of their agents actually went to Ivins' house and pulled out the garbage bag out of Ivins' garbage can in plain sight while Ivins witnessed this theft, that would also explain Ivins coming out of his home, checking his garbage can, and then peering in to the parking lot and woods across from his house to see if the garbage thief was there.
The "analysis" also makes much of GEB containing references to DNA (the "Genetic Code"), to the amino acids in DNA, and to codes.
I wonder, considering GEB was a huge bestseller, and considering it dealt with these subjects (DNA, etc..) how many biologists have it on their bookshelf? Is it really so suspicious that he, along with probably a significant fraction of other biologists, had a copy?
For example, the investigators eliminate other suspects with the requisite knowledge, access, and means to make the anthrax that was used in the mailing simply because the suspects must have been at work or far away at the time the letters were mailed. The investigators don't even consider the possibility that the letters might have been mailed by accomplice(s) while the scientists who actually prepared the anthrax were at work.
Ivans' actions and words were subject to intense scruitiny, and found to be suspicious. But what about the actions and words of those other suspects, which were prematurely cleared of suspicion? Their own actions and words might have been equally suspicious, but the investigators apparently did not scrutinize them nearly as closely (or at all?), because they thought that merely because the suspects couldn't have mailed the letters they couldn't have been involved in the crime.
Another glaring fault of the investigation is that although the investigators looked at records of deaths from "unknown causes" following the mailings (because of the possibility that whoever made/sent the letters might have died through contact with the anthrax) the investigators only checked for such suspicious deaths in the New Jersey county where the letters were mailed from. But even Ivans himself was from Maryland, not New Jersey. If the person who mailed/made the anthrax died of "unknown causes" anywhere outside the New Jersey county the investigators looked in, they'd never know.
The report also never mentions why the foreign laboratories that contained the Ames strain were discounted as possible sources of the anthrax. And were their records and personnel as closely scrutinized as those of the American labs?
Finally, footnote 13 states "In the summer of 2009, the National Academy of Sciences began an 18-month study to review the scientific conclusions in the case." Since cutting-edge, possibly unreliable science was so critical in determining the alleged source of the anthrax, it'll be interesting to see what this study comes up with. If the science turns out to be suspect, the conclusions of the investigation would be jeopardized.
wow, the FBI's analysis doesn't inspire much confidence, considering how easy it is to make meaningless, after-the-fact connections--"you misspelled penicillin with an A and your mother's maiden name has an A in it".