I need to see the optometrist

I don't know what state your peepers are in, but don't waste money on an optometrist, well, I take that back, an exam might be good, if all you need are reading glasses. Get them if you need them.

They are often required after 40 something.

And there's nothing like glasses to lend an air of verisimilitude. Perhaps a lorgnette or monocle is more your style.

Also good, strong light.

All that, a strong constitution and a good digestion are necessary to get through a thread here at Glenn's. I usually burn a couple joss sticks and davan a bit before I get started.

Well, LWM, it's back to the "pack trolling". I get a horrendous phone bill, but it's all worth it.

The idea of taking the Hatfill "evidence" and comparing to the Ivins "evidence" is a brilliant one.

Here's another one to ask the FBI about:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/08/14/anthrax.hatfill/index.html

(or click on signature)

In addition to the letters that actually contained anthrax, a hoax letter was sent to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle's office from London around the same time.

Clawson said Hatfill did visit Britain last year, for training as a U.N. weapons inspector, but he said Hatfill is unsure if he was even there when the letter was mailed because the FBI has seized all of Hatfill's travel documents.

"He didn't mail anything to anyone while he was on that trip to the UK," Clawson said.

So if the hoax letter is part of the evidence - part of the case against Hatfill, how is it explained by Ivins as a suspect?

----------------------

You notice something - perhaps this set of facts cannot be explained by FBI's favored theory - a lone perpetrator. Just a thought.

I was actually able to read most of that section through the semi-obscure redaction ink and here's what I came up with:

07-529-M-01 Bottom of page 15 and top of page 16:

"CW-2(case witness 2) was living in Gaithersburg Maryland at the time the letter to the editor was published. CW-2 has known and communicated with Dr. Ivins for the past 30 years and(?) the letter (?) was brought to it's attention, shortly after its publication in the paper, it denied writing it [unintelligible] contacted the Frederick News-Post and complained. The paper informed CW-2 that the letter appeared legitimate, possibly because its return address was provided with the letter, they did not feel the need to authenticate the letter prior to publishing" *"case witness two" added by me.

I get the feeling that this part of the case relies on the suspicion that Dr. Ivins was impersonating a member of the KKG organization in order to defame them by defending hazing practices in a public forum.

For whatever it's worth.

I just glanced through the Affidavit linked to in Glenn's posting. The thing which immediately bothered me, on the top of page 3, was the restatement of what the notes said. There was a discrepancy which I find curious. According to the affidavit the date on the notes is given as

9-11-01

The actual notes, as I well recall, used the more unusual form

09-11-01

Two questions:

(1) Why might the leading "0" have been left off in the affidavit?

(2) Who might write the month in the format "09"? Perhaps someone with a military background? Any opinions on this out there?

More gems from 08-084-M-01 Search Warrant Affidavit (This is the request for e-mail from, among others, "MSN Hotmail Micrososft [sic] Corp." (This is the warrant )

page 17: "(1) Use of false names": This heavily-redacted section seems to imply that Ivins rented a post office box in 1993 and listed it as a place to receive mail for himself and a [redacted name]. The [redacted individual and/or organization] was shown the P.O. box application and "stated that it had never rented a P.O. Box anywhere and had never met, nor had any social or professional association with, a Dr. Ivins." My comment: His "false name" was an "it?"

pages 18-19: Bruce Ivins engages in edit wars on Wikipedia regarding KKG. In the end, the investigator sounds more obsessed with KKG than Ivins! The investigator spends on awful lot of paragraphs on KKG with zero attachment to anthrax - except for the office in NJ near the mailbox. That's it. It's like someone spent so much time on a weak lead and just couldn't give it up. It'd be worth counting the words devoted to KKG.

page 23: What researcher hasn't sent e-mails to themselves when they have a complex idea they want to capture?

On multiple occasions, pen registers have captured Dr. Ivins sending e-mails from one of his e-mail accounts to another ... This e-mail is dated November 19, 2005 and outlined 11 reasons for Ivins's theory [regarding possible anthrax mailers].

Gotta love the MSN employee response in "08-082-M-01 Search Warrant Return":

MSN was unable to determine the user of the email account based on the terms provided, specifically "[at]" instead of "@", and "[dot]", instead of ".".

This affidavit doesn't scream "careful investigative work" to me.

or show cause and get a court order ....

My guess is that if asked, the Ivins family told them to fuck the fuck off (or something similar) ... as I would have done ... and absent the authority or the evidence to push for custody of the "the body" ... they demurred.

God only knows how many scans and other tests the man had in his last days ...

JACHO and the AMA are pushing hard for more autopsies to confirm assumed diagnoses. In some families, they are "tradition" and automatic, as with my relative. Many folks really get squeamish and hate.hate.hate the idea.

In yet another job, I've been the one to ask for permission. In my experience, most families will agree if a reason is explained. Absent a "good" reason to disembowel their recently dead relative, it is often seen as almost unimaginable, abhorrent, verging on desecration, and, no, it's not okay.

I'm uncertain if Roman Catholics have a bias. Jews and Moslems have a serious time constraint on death to internment that can make autopsies problematic.