

DOJ's anthrax letter summary analyzes Godel Escher Bach. (pages 61-64) - AngryParsley
http://www.justice.gov/amerithrax/docs/amx-investigative-summary.pdf

======
gnosis
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?

~~~
AngryParsley
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."

~~~
gnosis
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.

------
runT1ME
Interestingly enough, this report contradicts a lot of what the WSJ recently
claimed.

[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870454100457501...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704541004575011421223515284.html?mod=WSJ-
newsreel-opinion)

The report makes no mention of Livermore labs, I wonder if there is a
significance in that...

------
sp332
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.

~~~
AngryParsley
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.

~~~
bmm6o
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]

~~~
jerf
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.

------
defen
Fascinating. I was hoping they would explain Typographical Number Theory
though.

