USDOJ Reveals Why They're So Retarded (Anthrax case)
Kathleen
lPick...@cdc.gov, Durlan...@yale.edu, Aa...@columbia.edu,
gary_w...@nymc.edu, scientifi...@ostp.gov,
pkru...@princeton.edu, Stanle...@fiu.edu,
margaret...@hhs.fds.gov, emcsw...@niaid.nih.gov,
afa...@niaid.nih.gov, Spin...@yahoogroups.com, kshe...@calea.org,
fit...@gmail.com, patrick.f...@usdoj.gov,
model...@sbcglobal.net, jdr...@nejm.org, let...@courant.com,
Jgerb...@cdc.gov, michae...@ct.gov, con...@po.state.ct.us,
executiv...@nytimes.com, managin...@nytimes.com, news-
ti...@nytimes.com, biz...@nytimes.com, for...@nytimes.com,
nati...@nytimes.com, dv...@cdc.gov, brigidc...@optonline.net,
tr...@hotmail.com, illino...@aol.com, jle...@courant.com,
tinaj...@yahoo.com, jhorn...@fff.org, thomas...@usdoj.gov,
thoma...@ct.gov, kur...@washpost.com, georg...@washpost.com,
p...@allegorypress.com, commissi...@po.state.ct.us,
brans...@comcast.net, vts...@comcast.net, o...@po.state.ct.us,
freet...@charter.net, scott....@po.state.ct.us,
govern...@po.state.ct.us, attorney...@ct.gov,
randall...@usdoj.gov, Robert....@yale.edu, editor@greenwich-
post.com, harol...@yale.edu, sedm...@nswbc.org, rrmcg...@aol.com,
fr...@nytimes.com, saint....@sbcglobal.net, rre...@berkeley.edu,
pcal...@tribune.com
Cc: fra...@ucia.gov, dr-ahma...@president.ir,
eugener...@washpost.com, bmi...@newstimes.com, tr...@hotmail.com,
rast...@aol.com, billc...@gmail.com, amcg...@rms-law.com,
rjmu...@aol.com, paulcrai...@yahoo.com,
criminal...@usdoj.gov, karla.d...@usdoj.gov,
christophe...@usdoj.gov, richar...@yale.edu,
harol...@yale.edu, james.p...@yale.edu, inq...@aldf.com,
ly...@idsociety.org, meganm...@theatlantic.com
Subject: USDOJ Reveals Why They're So Retarded (Anthrax case)
Date: Feb 15, 2011 1:23 PM
ARTICLE BELOW ABOUT FBI AND THE ANTHRAX
MAILER CASE
==================================
Lawyers really don't understand
how science works. And we all continue
to pay for their intellectual incompetence.
There is definitely something wrong with
lawyers' minds. They cannot think in
pictures and have even told me that
"scientists should think more like lawyers."
Impossible. A real scientist is interested
in the Truth only. Facts don't take sides.
Facts don't worry about how people feel
about them.
Here we see the USDOJ's malicious
indifference towards truth.
If for example, the USDOJ was interested
in whether Lyme was a crime, they would look
into whether there were other scientists who
agreed with Erol Fikrig that anti-borrelial
specific flagellin was the primary way and the
accurate way to diagnose Lyme, since that's the
antigen most Lyme victims reliably have:
http://www.actionlyme.org/CRYMEDISEASE_CHP1.htm
If they did, they would.
And if the USDOJ asked the FDA Bioanalytics
Division if there were rules for the validation
of a method (is the *method* true, reliable,
predictable, repeatable, doesn't detect other
things, scalable?), the USDOJ would find that
Fikrig developed a *valid* method:
http://www.actionlyme.org/CRYMEDISEASE_CH1.htm
and that that method was TRUE and should have
been used to assess the outcome of Fikrig's other
patent, LYMErix.
Lawyers somehow think they're above facts.
Same for psychiatrists, which is why ILADS.org
did not sue IDSociety.org.
Lawyer or psychiatrist is a personality disorder,
by definition. They have no concern for how
lies/frauds affect other people.
KMDickson
http://www.actionlyme.org
http://www.relapsingfever.org
=====================================================
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/15/panel-casts-doubt-on-fbi-scientific-evidence-in-anthrax-case/
An independent panel of scientists has determined that the FBI did not
have enough scientific evidence to produce a conviction in the case of
the 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people.
The National Academies of Sciences released a review Tuesday of the
science used in the investigation. The $1.1 million report, which was
commissioned by the FBI, concluded that the man accused in the case,
Bruce Ivins, could have carried out the attacks, but the science alone
did not prove it.
In October and September of 2001, letters containing anthrax killed
five people and infected 17 others. Recipients included NBC News, The
New York Post, Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT).
Even after over 600,000 investigator work hours spent by the FBI's
"Amerithrax Task Force," the case against Ivins was largely
circumstantial.
Ivins killed himself in 2008 just as the government was prepared to
indict him. The Justice Department closed the case last year,
concluding Ivins had acted alone in stealing the spores from the
government lab where he worked.
The report released Tuesday questioned the link between a flask of
anthrax found in Ivins' office and the letters.
"The scientific link between the letter material and flask number
RMR-1029 is not as conclusive as stated in the DOJ Investigative
Summary," the report said.
The panel added that another explanation for the link "was not
rigorously explored" by the FBI.
"This shows what we've been saying all along: that it was all
supposition based on conjecture based on guesswork, without any proof
whatsoever," Paul Kemp, a lawyer who represented Ivins, told The
Washington Post.
"The FBI has long maintained that while science played a significant
role, it was the totality of the investigative process that determined
the outcome of the anthrax case," the Justice Department and the FBI
said in a joint statement. "Although there have been great strides in
forensic science over the years, rarely does science alone solve an
investigation."
In a September 2007 e-mail to himself, Ivins said he knew of the
identity of the anthrax killer. Before his death in 2008, he told
friends that government agents had hounded him and his family. These
details have given rise to a wide variety of conspiracy theories about
the case ever since.
KMDickson