The anthrax killings: A troubled mind/ LA Times

In a lead-up to the release of his book in June, David Willman writes about Bruce Ivins’ eccentricities and threats of violence.  The problem is, the story fails to make clear who Willman’s sources are.  How does Willman know Ivins carried a gun on campus?  How does Willman know Psychiatrist David Irwin said Ivins was the scariest patient he’d ever treated?  

A psychiatrist who treated him in the late 1990s, Dr. David Irwin, confided to a therapist that Ivins was the “scariest” patient he had ever known…

On July 18, 2000, Ivins told a mental health counselor that he had recently planned to poison his former assistant, Mara Linscott. In addition to having cyanide, he said that he had once obtained ammonium nitrate, to make a bomb.

He saw himself, Ivins said, as an “avenging angel of death.”

Did these comments originate with the alcohol counselor, who was herself under house arrest at the time for DUI and had a long list of old police charges, including assault and possession of drug paraphernalia?

This piece does appear to shed additional light on Ivins’ history and odd habits, but much better sourcing is needed for Willman’s work to add significantly to the anthrax letters narrative.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
145 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ed Lake
Ed Lake
11 years ago

Dr. Nass wrote: "The problem is, the story fails to make clear who Willman's sources are."

The book makes clear who all the sources are. David Willman seems to have interviewed just about everyone Ivins knew when he was young and when he was in school. There is so much information about the sources and what they said about Ivins when he was young, that it even gets kind of tedious at times when multiple sources say the same things.

Willman also appears to have had access to an unredacted copy of the Expert Behavioral Analysis Panel report.

The book contains over a hundred of pages of "notes" explaining where he got his information.

Ed

anonymous
anonymous
11 years ago

Sounds like the same old regurgitated Jean Duley rants to me. Except "therapist" and "Ft. Detrick" are spelled correctly.

Anonymous
Anonymous
11 years ago

No…."therapist" and "Ft. Detrick" are spelled correctly.

Ed Lake
Ed Lake
11 years ago

Anonymous wrote: "Sounds like the same old regurgitated Jean Duley rants to me."

The Willman article says where the information came from:

"Near his new place of work, the Defense Department's Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md., Ivins spilled out his feelings about Haigwood to a psychiatrist, Dr. Naomi Heller. He said he experienced Haigwood's brush-off as a replay of his mother's mockery of him during childhood.

"Ivins confided that he had thought through plans to kill Haigwood."

Dr. Heller was Ivins' psychiatrist in 1978 and 1979, thirty years before Ivins first met Duley.

More from the book:

"On July 18, 2000, Ivins told a mental health counselor that he had recently planned to poison his former assistant, Mara Linscott. In addition to having cyanide, he said that he had once obtained ammonium nitrate, to make a bomb.

He saw himself, Ivins said, as an "avenging angel of death."

That counselor is also named in the book. She was interviewed by Willman.

Duley didn't become Ivins' therapist until 2008, eight years later.

Ed

Anonymous
Anonymous
11 years ago

It is common to confide one's thoughts and dreams to a psychiatrist. But scary thoughts do not make a person dangerous. Indeed, violent thought is human nature, particularly in times of anger. The difference between a dangerous person and a normal person is whether a person acts on dangerous thoughts.

It's difficult to see how dangerous thoughts Ivins may or may not have confided to a mental health professional could be viewed as indicating a potential for criminality absent evidence Ivins converted dangerous thought into dangerous action. Indeed, evidence of dangerous thoughts combined with evidence that such thoughts were historically never converted to dangerous action points away from any reasonable expectation of criminality, as these facts indicate the individual is capable of, and has a history of self control. Moreover, the very fact that an individual is willing to reveal, rather than hide, violent thoughts would also appear to be a healthy indication, as one who actually desires and intends to engage in violent actions isn't likely to reveal this to someone who might stop them.

So where is any evidence that Ivins engaged in any violent actions?

Simply put, if scary thought or scary imagination is the test of criminality, best to start every investigation in Hollywood with all those "criminals" creating movies about violence and murder. Indeed horror movies and horror themes found in various works of fiction are incredibly scary down to the level of fine detail, and certainly must reflect criminal minds. And let's not forget the damning evidence of scary terrorism novels penned by earlier FBI target Dr. Steven Hatfill.

In short, with no evidence of dangerous actions by Dr. Ivins, we're right back at the same question the FBI hasn't ever been able to answer about the Ivins investigation. Where's the beef?

Anonymous
Anonymous
11 years ago

The 'fact' that Ivins not only carried a 'loaded' gun on campus but fired it in 'empty'(?) buildings seems rather self-contradictory to me:

1)guns tend to make noise regardless of who fires them (what?, no silencer? That would have made the story at least INTERNALLY sensible, to some degree).

2)the bullets tend to tear holes in even 'empty buildings', holes readibly visible to: faculty, staff, students, custodians, and, oh yeah, the university police.

3)this is not (repeat: NOT) the type of thing that is best adjudicated by some 'admission' Ivins made at some point in his life, but rather by examining common sense social and physical restrictions that are part and parcel of being on a large (or even small) campus. If this stuff had happened the young Ivins would have faced MAJOR repercussions: legal, social, academic etc.

Not credible at all.

Ed Lake
Ed Lake
11 years ago

Anonymous wrote: "The difference between a dangerous person and a normal person is whether a person acts on dangerous thoughts."

Not true. A dangerous person is also someone like Ivins who continually has thoughts of killing people, but manages to restrain himself. However, he cannot prevent himself from performing non-lethal actions to punish those same people. "Normal people" do not act that way.

Ivins was a walking time bomb. He was taking chances of all kinds to commit acts of revenge. He was burglarizing sorority houses, he vandalized other people's property, he stole important work from people he was also planning to kill, he plotted and executed complex plans for revenge that nearly destroyed the career of his victim.

What would have happened if someone had caught Ivins in an act of burglary? Would he just have given himself up, allowed himself to be arrested for a felony and let his life and career go down the drain, or would he have tried to prevent the person who discovered him from telling anyone else?

It's been clear since Day One, that the anthrax mailer didn't intend to kill anyone. But he killed five people.

The pattern to the letters is the same pattern Ivins had for all those other criminal and unethical acts he performed: He was acting out against people and organizations who angered him in some way.

Ivins was a DANGEROUS person who had the luck to get away with dangerous actions for more than thirty years, but finally he did something that was so dangerous that even he didn't realize just how dangerous it was, and he ended up murdering five people.

Ed

Ed Lake
Ed Lake
11 years ago

Anonymous wrote: "The 'fact' that Ivins not only carried a 'loaded' gun on campus but fired it in 'empty'(?) buildings seems rather self-contradictory to me"

It's what Ivins told his psychiatrist in 1978 or 1979. It's evidently part of the redacted information in the Expert Behavioral Analysis Panel report.

Bruce Ivins told his psychiatrist that he carried a gun while in college and once shot at a wall clock and destroyed it.

Was Ivins lying to his psychiatrist? Maybe. He certainly made a practice of lying to just about everyone, including his psychiatrists. But, there's no reason to believe his psychiatrist in 1978 and 1979 was lying when she wrote down what Ivins had told her about the gun and how he used it.

Ed

Anonymous
Anonymous
11 years ago

"Ivins was a DANGEROUS person who had the luck to get away with dangerous actions for more than thirty years.."

Luck?!!!

Dr. Naomi Heller should have contacted law enforcement.

The 2000 mental health counselor should have contacted law enforcement.

The only therapist who contacted law enforcement was social worker Jean. C. Duley who had a history of convictions for driving under the influence and charges of battery. A self-described former motorcycle gang member and drug user: "Heroin. Cocaine. PCP. You name it, I did it." Duley was under house arrest when she applied for an order of protection from Ivins who had no criminal record.

How did he make it?
Where did he make it?
What tools did he use?
How was he not observed?
Why weren't spores found in his vehicles? Or his home?
Why is command at USAMRIID still preventing co-workers and colleagues from discussing any of these questions? If the feds "got" the right guy what could they possibly be afraid of?

Anonymous
Anonymous
11 years ago

@Ed Lake

Do you even bother to think before posting? You claim it is "not true" that The difference between a dangerous person and a normal person is whether a person acts on dangerous thoughts. You then propose a dangerous person test requiring analysis of a person's actions. Hello??

Just to be clear, criminality requires criminal action.

Moreover, your hypothesis that a dangerous person is one who engages in "non-lethal actions to punish [other} people", is more than just a little simplistic. Your post, for example, could be seen as such a punitive action against the original poster. Did you make your illogical post because you could or couldn't control yourself? Does it make any difference?

Lawful actions to punish other people happen to be quite commonplace by law abiding citizens. Lawful punitive activities are abundant and cover a wide spectrum of actions. Some punitive activities are constitutionally protected by freedom of speech. Other lawful punitive activities are embodied in rules of organizations like Better Business Bureaus. Federal, State, and Municipal Courts of law provide a venue for punitive civil actions to redress non-criminal wrongs. Etcetera.

As to the stories of Ivin's illegal activities while attending University, such activities are decades in the past. The three decades in which Ivins performed documented professional activities for the benefit of US citizens including yourself, are on the other hand, devoid of proven unlawful and dangerous activities targeted at anyone.

Although you ignore it, the actual evidence is that Ivins restrained himself against acting on any of the alleged dangerous thoughts he may or may not have had. What Dr. Ivins actions actually demonstrate is a long history of lawful and productive self control.

The fact that you and the FBI are ready to convict Dr. Ivins without evidence of actions tying him to the Anthrax Attacks crimes, or any other unlawful actions, is much more scary than the thoughts of a patient confided to a mental health professional for the purpose of achieving improved mental health.

Anonymous
Anonymous
11 years ago

Partial post:
———–
The pattern to the letters is the same pattern Ivins had for all those other criminal and unethical acts he performed:[…]
———————————
Au contraire: the actual criminal actions by Ivins were 1)property crimes and 2)committed in person.
They showed a man in the heat of some passion or other and exhibited no real careful planning.
They (the obsession(s) with the sorority and the breakins)were readily admitted to by Ivins himself.

NONE of the above features matches up with Amerithrax:

1)it was NOT a property crime (like a breakin)

2)it was NOT a spur of the moment thing (it was planned for many weeks even according to the government).

3)it was NEVER admitted to by Ivins (neither to the interrogators, nor to his friends, nor via emails).

4)it involved ostensible targets (Senators Leahy, Daschle) will no clear connection to Ivins.

Anonymous
Anonymous
11 years ago

Most of the off-the-wall stuff was reported TO the FBI by Bruce himself. Anyone who knew Bruce knew he was an open book. He didn't hide anything from the feds. Perhaps he was a little too forthcoming but he knew he was quirky and he sought help. NO one mentions the fact that he voluntarily went to rehab twice in the last year of his life. The FBI was relentless in driving him to an extreme act. The only person he hurt was himself.

Anonymous
Anonymous
11 years ago

Expert Behavioral Analysis Panel ??!!!

The FBI continues to try to "try" the case with these so called expert witnesses after the science didn't support their "slam dunk":

The Chair, Dr. Gregory Saathof, has been serving, according to the bio on the website, with the FBI since 1996, an obvious conflict of interest. Dr. Saathof should have not have been allowed on the committee at all, let alone serve as Chair.

The presence of the two Red Cross executives on the committee, neither of whom is a psychiatrist, is inexplicable.

COL David Benedek is listed as a professor at USUHS and a former director of the National Capital Consortium Forensic Psychiatry fellowship at WRAMC. MAJ Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, is a graduate of USUHS and had completed a psychiatry residency at WRAMC before being sent to Fort Hood. The history of any contact, interaction, and involvement of COL Benedek with MAJ Hasan is an obvious issue for anyone intending to assess COL Benedek's capabilities for the recognition and assessment of criminal behavior and activity.

The 299 page book "The Amerithrax Case: Report of the Expert Behavioral Analysis Panel" by Dr. Saathof et al, available from Lulu.com (the internet self-publishing company) for $41.73. To some, that looks like the most egregious violation of HIPAA ever perpetrated, and now the committee is making money off it.

Reporters are unable to question the members of this panel.

Anonymous
Anonymous
11 years ago

The Chair, Dr. Gregory Saathoff, actively participated in the lengthy meetings in 2007 and 2008 about how to approach Bruce Ivins, in which aggressive tactics were used such as testing the semen on his panties and promising that his family would learn about it. The psychiatrist who later issued the report of the "independent" panel was an active part of the investigation. It is no different than if Inspector Dellefara or Agent Alexander issued a report now saying that they still think Dr. Ivins is guilty. What would be his motivation for going beyond the federal court judge's direction? CYA, for one.

By the way, Hatfill had a silencer. If you want scary, a silencer is far scarier than a gun because it serves no purpose of self-defense. The NRA would be displeased to see exercise of a Second Amendment right used as evidence of the anthrax mailings at the same time the proponents of the theory fail to address the key documentary evidence now finally revealed.

Proponents of an Ivins Theory like Ed Lake have never even addressed the lab notebook pages confirming that the reason he was in lab on the specific nights that the FBI claimed, without basis that he had no reason to be in the lab.

The one whose comment they rely upon in arguing that his time was not warranted was Patricia Fellows (see 302). The bloodhounds alerted to Patricia Fellows. It was her notebook pages (among others) being withheld! (We learn this mindblowing information for the first time in Mr. Willman's book. Scott Shane brilliantly addressed the bloodhound evidence in an October 2002 Baltimore Sun article. At the time the leaker (the father of Al-Timimi's pro bono lawyer who ran the investigation) only said that the dogs alerted to Hatfill. Seikaly steered the reporter(s) away from the fact that they also alerted to Patricia Fellows, the aerobiology expert who was growing the large amount of virulent Ames that is now missing.

The US Attorney was also wrong about the pattern of hours (the 2 hour rule precluded the same pattern). He was wrong about the federal eagle stamp (it was no sold exclusively at Ivins' post office but throughout Maryland and Virginia). He was wrong about the genetic match was in both 1412 and 1425 and not merely 1425. These major outrageous mistakes at the press conference are not mentioned — and yet they dwarf any errors in analysis under a Hatfill Theory.

Ivins in fact has an alibi established in the 302s of the family that Ed Lake never even bothered to FOIA. His alibi on that day is further established by the email to Mara Linscott that Dave Willman and Ed Lake never bothered to FOIA.

Importantly, the code imagined is specious because all the letters for the code are not in fact double-lined. The FBI was even looking at a possible coding based on musical notation as recent as August 2008, after Dr. Ivins death. See 302.

Watch how Ed has to rely on the fact that Bruce had a creepy private life given that the new lab notebooks demolish his theory. His theory is that a First Grader was working with Bruce Ivins and wrote the anthrax letters. Ed's theory about the First Grader is demolished because Dr. Ivins' time in the B3 is now explained. See also 302 about how long it takes to autoclave dead animals. Ed has never corrected his webpage on this issue of his caring for the animals. He did not even know that "AR" in the time records meant "Animal Room" and further corroborated his alibi for the nights in question. Did David Willman even interview Patricia Fellows?!?

Ed Lake
Ed Lake
11 years ago

Hmm. FIVE postings from one person who calls himself "Anonymous," but probably not the same "Anonymous" who was previously posting as "Anonymous."

"The 2000 mental health counselor should have contacted law enforcement."

SHE DID. According to the Washington Post, she contacted the Frederick police department, but they told her there wasn't anything they could do because she didn't have enough details to identify who Ivins was planning to poison. (The counselor is identified by name in David Willman's new book.)

"Lawful actions to punish other people happen to be quite commonplace by law abiding citizens.

Burglary is NOT a lawful action.
Vandalism is NOT a lawful action.
Harassment is NOT a lawful action.

"What Dr. Ivins actions actually demonstrate is a long history of lawful and productive self control."

What Dr. Ivins actions demonstrate is that he could make his gullible co-workers think he was a nice guy who wouldn't harm a fly, even though he had a history of burglaries, vandalism, harassment and mental illness. He was able to hide his mental problems and all of his crimes from them, including making powdered anthrax right under their noses while they smiled at him and patted him on the back.

"The fact that you and the FBI are ready to convict Dr. Ivins without evidence of actions tying him to the Anthrax Attacks crimes …"

There is a mountain of evidence proving that Ivins was the anthrax killer. Click HERE for a list of 50 items of evidence side by side with 50 ways people who think Ivins was innocent try to rationalize away the evidence.

"Anyone who knew Bruce knew he was an open book."

None of his co-workers or "friends" knew anything about his vandalism and harassment against Nancy Haigwood, nor about his burglaries. Most of them didn't even known that he'd been seeing psychiatrists for THIRTY YEARS because of what he considered to be paranoia and schizophrenia.

Ivins was a case study of a man who kept countless secrets from his "friends" and co-workers and manipulated them into believing he was just a harmless eccentric.

Your dismissal of the excellent work done by the Expert Behavioral Analysis Panel because you do not like who was on the panel or how they published their report is just ignoring the solid facts found by the panel. Ivins should never have been allowed to work with dangerous pathogens.

"NONE of the above features matches up with Amerithrax:

1)it was NOT a property crime (like a breakin)"

Ivins was illegally using the property of the US Army for his own personal plans for vengeance.

"2)it was NOT a spur of the moment thing (it was planned for many weeks even according to the government).

None of Ivins criminal actions were "spur of the moment" things. His burglaries were carefully planned. His vicious harassment of Nancy Haigwood for THIRTY YEARS certainly wasn't "spur of the moment."

3)it was NEVER admitted to by Ivins (neither to the interrogators, nor to his friends, nor via emails).

Ivins told people that IF he committed the crimes, he didn't remember doing it.

4)it involved ostensible targets (Senators Leahy, Daschle) will no clear connection to Ivins.

Leahy and Dashle were perfect targets for Ivins to pick to get the government to take action on Ivins' goals for his vaccine. And he was upset with them for their actions to protect the civil rights of innocent Muslims.

Ed

Anonymous
Anonymous
11 years ago

Anonymous wrote:
"The Chair, Dr. Gregory Saathof, has been serving, according to the bio on the website, with the FBI since 1996, an obvious conflict of interest. Dr. Saathof should have not have been allowed on the committee at all, let alone serve as Chair."

In fact Saathof's role is even deeper than that. According to David Wilman's new book "Mirage Man", Saathof was actually the orignal architect of the FBI's questioning strategy of Bruce Ivins. It was Saathof who proposed the psychological attack on Dr Ivins which ultimately led to his suicide.

And then Saathof calls his panel "independent". Outrageous.

Anonymous
Anonymous
11 years ago

Not only is conflict of interest a problem but it seems that there is suspicion that the FBI may have been involved in influencing the psychological data itself. For example, it seems strange that Ms. Duley who lacked credentials to diagnose or even work without supervision cites Dr. David Irwin as a source on her court order when she never worked with David Irwin. The psychiatrist who actually was responsible for Ms. Duley's position has never been quoted or even mentioned in any of the 'leaked' documents. Further, an investigative reporter said that a representative of the FBI was in the court coaching Ms. Duley about what to say in her court order. When some of us looked up Dr. Irwin we found that in addition to his 'practice' he contracted as a forensic psychiatrist for government agencies. I don't even know if Dr. Irwin was responsible for Bruce Ivin's care or if he was recruited as an agency profiler. As mentioned by the previous Anonymous, the whole agency that formed the Expert Behavioral Analysis Panel, its board of directors and the panel itself is rife with close ties with the FBI, and one of these groups has a description that sounds amazingly like its function is to produce believable spin. The board of directors include Mr. Meese and several others connected with the previous Republican Administration. The whole thing and David Wilman's book stink as far as I am concerned.

Anonymous
Anonymous
11 years ago

Why can't Bruce's coworkers talk?

Anonymous
Anonymous
11 years ago

They were determined to pin it on someone at USAMRIID and Bruce, for obvious reasons, was the weakest link.

Anonymous
Anonymous
11 years ago

How did he make it?
Where did he make it?
What tools did he use?
How was he not observed?
Why weren't spores found in his vehicles? Or his home?
Why is command at USAMRIID still preventing co-workers and colleagues from discussing any of these questions?

Ed Lake
Ed Lake
11 years ago

Anonymous wrote: "I don't even know if Dr. Irwin was responsible for Bruce Ivin's care or if he was recruited as an agency profiler."

You should do more research. According to the EBAP report, in early 2000, when Ivins started having thoughts about murdering Mara Linscott (who had left USAMRIID the previous year), Ivins contacted the psychiatrist who had treated him in 1978 and 1979, Dr. Naomi Heller. Dr. Heller had retired and was no longer taking patients, so she referred Ivins to Dr. David Irwin.

Dr. Irwin, however, was expensive and his office was a bit far for Ivins to drive, so, after a few months, Irwin recommended that Ivins transfer to Dr. Allen Levy's clinic.

Note, that this took place in early 2000, before the anthrax attacks, so claiming that Dr. Irwin was working for the FBI back then is like claiming that some secret agency planted President Obama's birth announcement in a Hawaiian newspaper back in 1961 so that when he ran for President in 2008, he'd be able to show evidence that he was an American citizen.

"Why can't Bruce's coworkers talk?"

It's not a conspiracy. Talking about Ivins would be a violation of confidentiality. Plus, it's always been a rule that federal employees are forbidden from discussing work-related matters with the media. "Free Speech" doesn't include telling the media whatever you want to tell them about a former employee and what he did at work. Everything has to go through an agency spokesperson.

Former employees can talk with the media about certain things, but they cannot be FORCED to talk with the media or anyone else. So, they may choose not to talk with someone who is just going to attack them for failing to support poor dead, innocent Bruce Ivins who cannot defend himself.

Ed

Anonymous
Anonymous
11 years ago

Partial post by Ed Lake:
———————
Hmm. FIVE postings from one person who calls himself "Anonymous," but probably not the same "Anonymous" who was previously posting as "Anonymous."
———————————-
NOT by "one person": I was the anonymous whose post starts out "Partial post:
———–
The pattern to the letters is the same pattern Ivins had for all those other criminal and unethical acts he performed:[…]
———————————
Au contraire:[…]
===================================
but I did NOT write the subsequent 3 anonymous postings, nor the anonymous one immediately before the one I just reposted the beginning of. But I hardly see the relevance of determining who is writing what….

Let me try this from another angle:

1)the government (and Mister Lake) claim that Ivins never (to our knowledge) actually hurt any human being physically until October/November 2001.

2)by that time (2001) he was 55 years old.

3)in the intervening years he HIMSELF sought medical help from professionals, help with his obsessions and violent thoughts.

4)he also reported to one or more mental health professional down through the years the nature of the obsessions and the violent thoughts.
———————————-
The government (and Mister Lake) would have us believe that this is a TYPICAL PATTERN among violent offenders. It is anything but:

1)serial violent offenders typically start in their teens or twenties (ie young).

2)they may progress from 'mere' property crime (say, a crime-for-profit break-in to violence, either
because of environmental factors (being caught unawares by a homeowner and thus having to shoot or stab ones way out of the situation) or because the nature of their condition deteriorates (they begin to like frightening and hurting people).

3)or they may jump to violent offenses right away, because, well, they just don't like (other) people.

4)they typically DON'T seek psychiatric care for violent thoughts because, to them, violence is okay (at least FOR THEM).

Alas, the government's case is based upon psychology, a very poor psychology indeed. But they won't admit it until they discover the true culprit(s).

Anonymous
Anonymous
11 years ago

Partial post by Ed Lake:
————-
Ivins was a case study of a man who kept countless secrets from his "friends" and co-workers and manipulated them into believing he was just a harmless eccentric.
———————————
I don't see that as a bad thing. If I have a coworker who has chronic, say, flatulence, would I need to know that?!? I mean other than finding out by being in a smallish office or lab? Some things are private/personal, even intensely so. This gotcha!-he-didn't-tell-everyone-he-was-cheating-on-his-wife attitude is just silly.

This applies all the more in the mental health area. There are few things in Western society more stigmatized than mental illness. The sensationalism and misunderstandings in this area abound. And that is equally true posthumously in the Bruce Ivins' case.(Many persons, observing the Amerithrax Case, will conclude that patient confidentiality is a joke: it is ignored when it serves the government's purposes, ie to make someone 'look guilty')

Because he admitted things (about his mental health/unwanted thoughts) to psychiatrists and, later, to investigators, this material is:

1)made public in a very prejudicial fashion.

2)trumpeted (falsely) as some 'evidence' that Ivins did something (kill 5 persons injure 17 or 18) totally unrelated to his past behaviour/obsessions.

Ed Lake
Ed Lake
11 years ago

One of the Anonomi wrote: "The government (and Mister Lake) would have us believe that this is a TYPICAL PATTERN among violent offenders."

No one ever claimed that Bruce Ivins was a "violent" man, not "the government," not me, not anyone.

Distorting facts is a tactic used by people who can't argue the real facts.

"Alas, the government's case is based upon psychology, a very poor psychology indeed."

The government's case is based upon numerous examples of solid circumstantial evidence which show beyond any reasonable doubt that Ivins was the anthrax mailer. The psychology only goes to explain MOTIVE.

"(Many persons, observing the Amerithrax Case, will conclude that patient confidentiality is a joke: it is ignored when it serves the government's purposes, ie to make someone 'look guilty')"

Again you distort the facts. The evidence against Bruce Ivins at the time of his suicide did NOT involve anything provided by any of his psychiatrists or mental health care counselors. It only included things that Ivins himself told FBI agents.

The Expert Behavioral Analysis Report was begun a YEAR after Ivins' death. Here is what the report says about when and why it was initiated:

"In July 2009, Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia authorized a report from the Expert Behavioral Analysis Panel. Chief Judge Lamberth authorized the Panel to examine "the mental health issues of Dr. Bruce Ivins and what lessons can be learned from that analysis that may be useful in preventing future bioterrorism attacks." The Panel was granted access to the Amerithrax investigative materials as well as the sealed psychiatric records of Dr. Ivins. The Panel was asked to provide insights into how the country can be better defended from such attacks and to provide a better understanding of Dr. Ivins himself."

There are important lessons to be learned from the way the Army allowed a mentally ill person like Bruce Ivins to work with dangerous pathogens alone and unsupervised at night in his lab.

You may not like what the EBAP had to say about an admitted burglar, vandal and alleged mass murderer, but it's important information that overrides any need to keep the personal psychiatric records of a mass murderer private.

"I don't see that as a bad thing. If I have a coworker who has chronic, say, flatulence, would I need to know that?!?"

If you have a co-worker who makes copies of co-workers' keys to gain access to their private things, who admits to committing burglaries, who admits to vandalism and despicable acts against former associates, wouldn't you need (or want) to know that?

You may view Bruce Ivins as a harmless puppy because it suits your own theories about the case, but Ivins wasn't a harmless puppy, he was more like a rabid Beagle just waiting to be provoked.

Ed

Anonymous
Anonymous
11 years ago

..speaking of rabid Beagles…

Anonymous
Anonymous
11 years ago

Partial post by Ed Lake:
———–
You may view Bruce Ivins as a harmless puppy because[…][
———————————
And there you go putting words in the mouths of countless 'lunatic fringers' to suit your rhetorical purposes of the moment.(By the way, you might want to drop that and many other epithets you are constantly dragging into these discussions as they, the epithets, do nothing to illuminate the true nature of our disagreements). And you do it in the very post in which you complain that you and the government are being unfairly characterized as having called Ivins 'violent'. Well, excuse me, but that is the gist of so much of what has been written about him: it is just, so the argument goes, that THIS time (Amerithrax) Ivins got caught.

As to me personally, I believe that MOST human beings, when put in the right situation, are capable of violence, even extreme violence. Which is one of the lessons of the My Lai massacre, the religious wars of Europe through the centuries, the concentration camps of the 20th Century etc.

YOU, by contrast, went through a period when you could hardly write Ivins' name without putting in apposition the epithet "a DIAGNOSED SOCIOPATH" (emphasis very much Mister Lake's, as always); for instance here:

http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/01/17/for-the-fbi-a-tough-job-from-the-beginning-is-still-unresolved/
(Mister Lake talking about Jean Duley, this at Lew Weinstein's blog)
(partial)
Maybe she quit after learning that she had been put in a situation where she was dealing with a diagnosed sociopath, and she wasn’t told of Ivins’ diagnosis until after Ivins started talking about murdering his co-workers. And, when her bosses wouldn’t take action to get Ivins locked up, she[…]

So, post factum, Mister Lake is justifying getting Ivins locked up for reporting his feelings of anger and betrayal to A THERAPIST! But there's no basis for such a course of action unless you truly think the patient is within a short step of ACTING ON those feelings of anger (and of following through on them).

Which brings me back to the main point I was trying to make here: when Ivins was feeling great anger at someone, he expressed that verbally and sometimes in great detail: he told Duley the caliber of the gun he was going to use etc.

There is no analog of that warning in the Amerithrax Case: there the anger, if it indeed existed, was sublimated, subdued. The persons who were bound to be contaminated were assistants to and secretaries of the big-wigs targetted: the two Senators, the three network anchors, the NEW YORK POST editor. In short, there was no evidence whatsoever of some personal score being settled in Amerithrax, at least in any Ivins-did-it scenario. It was an impersonal crime or series of crimes…..

I understand Ivins to have been a man of honor, one who both fought the demons in his psychological makeup, only succumbing when external pressures (ie from the investigators)made his life truly unliveable, AND who devoted his professional life to protecting people from the anthrax bacterium.

Ed Lake
Ed Lake
11 years ago

One of the Anonymi wrote: "the epithets, do nothing to illuminate the true nature of our disagreements"

On the contrary, that is the purpose of epithets – to illuminate.

"An epithet … or byname is a descriptive term (word or phrase) accompanying or occurring in place of a name and having entered common usage. It has various shades of meaning when applied to seemingly real or fictitious people, divinities, objects, and binomial nomenclature. It is also a descriptive title. For example, Frederick the Great."

"Lunatic Fringe" is a very apt "descriptive title" for the people who endlessly argue that Muslims were behind the anthrax attacks in spite of all the evidence that it was Bruce Ivins.

"Conspiracy theorist" is a very apt "descriptive title" for people who believe in bizarre, unproven conspiracy theories.

"True Believer" is a very apt "descriptive title" for people who have beliefs that cannot be shaken by solid facts. (Some True Believers are proud to be called "True Believers." Harold Camping being a recent example.)

And "Anthrax Truthers" is a very apt "descriptive title" for people who believe they know the "truth" about the anthrax case, even though they have no facts to support their beliefs.

"So, post factum, Mister Lake is justifying getting Ivins locked up for reporting his feelings of anger and betrayal to A THERAPIST! But there's no basis for such a course of action unless you truly think the patient is within a short step of ACTING ON those feelings of anger (and of following through on them)."

Duh! Ivins told his therapist and 12 to 15 other members of his group that he had body armor and he knew where to get a gun (after the FBI took away all of the other guns he owned) and that he planned to MURDER his co-workers and "go out in a blaze of glory." He told them that he was about to be indicted for five murders.

Only a person in the "Lunatic Fringe" would believe that isn't a VERY GOOD REASON to have someone locked up for observation.

Besides, Jean Duley didn't call the police on her own. She first consulted every available psychiatrist who knew Ivins (including "Dr. David Irwin who considered Ivins to be sociopathic," and she talked with the company lawyers to see if Comprehensive Counseling Associates (CCA) could be held liable if they did NOT tell the police about Ivins and then Ivins actually did what he said he was going to do.

Attacking Jean Duley because she notified the police is insane. She should have been given a medal.

Eight years earlier, a different therapist at CCA, Judith McLean, had also called the police when Ivins was talking about murdering Mara Linscott. But Ivins hadn't provided enough information for the police to take any action at that time.

"I understand Ivins to have been a man of honor, one who both fought the demons in his psychological makeup, only succumbing when external pressures (ie from the investigators)made his life truly unliveable, AND who devoted his professional life to protecting people from the anthrax bacterium."

I understand. You don't care what the facts say, you're going to believe what you want to believe.

The "epithet" (i.e., descriptive term) for such people is "True Believer."

Ed

Anonymous
Anonymous
11 years ago

Okay, although this is a bit of a jump (ie to Mister Lake's latest comments at his website on the new book out on Ivins), I can't resist this look at the last 3 paragraphs, presented in full of Mister Lake's take on the question of whether a child wrote(printed) the Amerithrax letters:
——————————
The new facts in Willman's book explain so much. Among other facts, the reason the handwriting was so good for a first grader seems to be explained: The child's mother is a schoolteacher.

The new facts in Willman's book leave only one missing piece to the puzzle. And, therefore, there is still a possibility that the letter writer was some other first grader in Diane Ivins' day care center during that time — and the remote possibility that Ivins wrote the letters himself.

The one unanswered question is: Did the schoolteacher actually have a six year old child at the time of the mailings?
———————————-
I've read the above 3 paragraphs multiple times and for the life of me I can't figure out what Mister Lake is claiming that the author of the book, David Willman, is claiming.

Lake (but not NECESSARILY Willman) seems to be saying:

1)that the mother of the child who printed the letters is a teacher.

2)and that this is a FACT ("fact" in the Ed Lake sense of the word).
[above understood from the first paragraph above](from that first paragraph: "Among other facts, the reason the handwriting was so good for a first grader seems to be explained: The child's mother is a schoolteacher."

but we learn in the 3rd paragraph:

3)there's a possibility that the teacher didn't have a six year old child!
[this based on the 3rd paragraph of Mister Lake's from the above:
"The one unanswered question is: Did the schoolteacher actually have a six year old child at the time of the mailings?"

But if the 'schoolteacher' didn't have a six year old child at the time of the mailings, how on EARTH could that school teacher's profession have anything to do with explaining why the 'child' prints so well?!? And if there's a real possibility that the 'schoolteacher' had no such six year old, then doesn't that ALSO mean that the six year old had no mother who was a schoolteacher? And so how could it be a "fact" that the child-printer had a mother who was a schoolteacher?!?!?

My guess(haven't read the book)is:

1)somewhere in the book Willman SPECULATES that a child could have printed the letters and SPECULATES that is was the son(daughter?) of a schoolteacher.

2)this speculation is rhetorically jacked up by Mister Lake into a 'fact', because the apparently wholly notional child has been a pet hypothesis of his for years.

http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/#comments

Ed Lake
Ed Lake
11 years ago

One of the Anonymi wrote: "I can't figure out what Mister Lake is claiming that the author of the book, David Willman, is claiming."

David Willman isn't claiming anything about the handwriting. As I recall, in the book he just says the analysis of the handwriting is "inconclusive," which is the same thing the FBI says.

However, in his book, Willman has a great deal of new information about various people. He mentions people who were acquaintances of Ivins who I have never seen mentioned anywhere else before. And, he sometimes provides interesting details about those people.

It's the facts about one of those people that fits with the other evidence that a child wrote the anthrax letters.

You don't seem to understand what facts are.

By themselves, facts often mean nothing. Example: The ZIP Code in the return address on the senate anthrax letters is the ZIP Code for the area where Ivins' father's ancestors lived for over a hundred years.

That's an interesting fact that means little by itself, but when combined with all the other facts about the anthrax letters which relate to Ivins, the facts become something else – they become evidence. The facts say: all these connections to Ivins cannot be just a string of dozens of random coincidences. The odds against that are astronomical.

The Facts say: A Child Wrote The Anthrax Letters. David Willman's book contains some additional facts which seem to pinpoint WHO that child was.

But, I've done a lot of research on the schoolteacher mentioned several times in the book, and I cannot find any solid FACT stating that she had a child of about 6 years of age in September of 2001. I found that she had a son and daughter aged 12 and 13 at the time, and I've been told that she had other children. That's all I know so far.

So, I have no solid facts saying she had a child who was 6 years old, BUT other facts say: If she had a child who was six years old at that time, Bruce Ivins would have had access to that child, and, because of who that child was, Ivins' psychology and past history says that he would have found it nearly irresistible to not use the child in some way in his schemes.

So, I'm not saying that a child wrote the anthrax letters or that the schoolteacher's child was the letter writer. I'm saying the FACTS say that.

I'm open to any facts which say otherwise. But, no one has provided any such facts. The handwriting "experts" all have different opinions, and their findings are officially "inconclusive." And the Anthrax Truthers just say that they don't believe it, so it cannot be true. They have no facts which say it isn't true.

"this speculation is rhetorically jacked up by Mister Lake into a 'fact',"

No, there is no speculation. And no one is stating that it is a fact that a child wrote the anthrax letters. The only statement is: THE FACTS SAY that a child wrote the anthrax letters.

So, any discussion on this subject should be a discussion of the facts, not arguments over who believes what.

Arguments over who believes what are just ways of avoiding discussing the facts and what the facts say.

Ed

Ed Lake
Ed Lake
11 years ago

One problem here seems to be that some people cannot understand the concept of being 75% (or 30% or 99%) certain.

They seem to believe that you either know something or you don't know. No percentages.

I'm 99% certain that a child wrote the anthrax letters. They are 100% certain that I'm wrong.

I have evidence. They don't care about evidence. They do not believe it, and thus it cannot be true. The Latin term for such arguments is: argumentum ad ignorantiam or arguments from incredulity.

Back in 2002, when I first heard the hypothesis that a child wrote the letters, I was dubious. But, the facts added up. So, I was maybe 30% convinced.

Then more facts showed up, the new facts supported the hypothesis, and there were no facts disputing the hypothesis. When I discovered that the writing on the senate letter and envelopes was about half the size of the writing on the media letter and envelopes, I became 65% convinced. (Children learn to write smaller in first grade.) That was probably the percentage when I wrote my book.

Then, after I wrote my book in 2005, I noticed the way the writer drew R's and how the writing clearly showed he had learned the proper way to draw R's during the period between the writing of the Brokaw letter and the writing of the Leahy letter. I was then about 90% percent convinced.

The biggest problem I had at that time was that the person the media thought was the anthrax mailer (Hatfill) was unmarried and didn't have any apparent access to children. The same with the person living in New Jersey who I saw as the most likely person to be the culprit: No known access to children.

Then Ivins was identified as the anthrax mailer. BOOM. Ivins wife ran a day care center. The percentage of certainty jumped to 99%.

Then someone argued that Ivins wife didn't apply for a license until January 2003, so she couldn't have been running a day care center in September of 2001.

I argued that it must have been an unlicensed day care center. But, the certainty percentage dropped to 98.5%.

Then David Willman's book stated that Diane Ivins started her day care center in the early 1980's. Bingo! The percentage went back to 99%.

And now, there's a possibility that there was a child spending time in the Ivins' home who would have been a perfect target for Ivins schemes. But, that's not enough to go above 99% certainty.

However, if it turns out the schoolteacher had a child of six at the time of the mailings, then the certainty factor would edge up to to 99.2%.

About the only way to get to 100% certainty is for the schoolteacher and child to go on TV and for the mother to say, "Yes, my child wrote the anthrax letters," and for the kid to show examples of his handwriting from that time while recalling writing the letters for Mr. Ivins.

The Anthrax Truthers, of course, would then be 100% certain that the mother and child are just shills for the FBI, or they are involved in some kind of scheme to make money off of their claims.

C'est la vie.

Ed

Anonymous
Anonymous
11 years ago

Partial post by Mister Lake:
———————-
"this speculation is rhetorically jacked up by Mister Lake into a 'fact',"

No, there is no speculation. And no one is stating that it is a fact that a child wrote the anthrax letters. The only statement is: THE FACTS SAY that a child wrote the anthrax letters.
———————————–
And the task force ignored those facts, why exactly? 'Bruce Ivins ACTING ALONE' did the Amerithrax crimes. "Acting alone" apparently means in Mister Lake's idiolect 'acting in concert with an innocent six year old'!

This is hardly something the DoJ would forget to include in a final report on Amerithrax. And is there anything about the 'child' in the thousands of pages they released afterwards? They ignored it ('the child') because it was never a hypothesis that they seriously entertained for long (based on facts, (ie interpretations in opposition to those of Mister Lake's on the matter), that Mister Lake denies).

And the 'child' might have prevented them from closing the case. Couldn't have that!

AnthraxSleuth
AnthraxSleuth
11 years ago

"So, I have no solid facts saying she had a child who was 6 years old, BUT other facts say: If she had a child who was six years old at that time, Bruce Ivins would have had access to that child, and, because of who that child was, Ivins' psychology and past history says that he would have found it nearly irresistible to not use the child in some way in his schemes."

Put the pipe down Ed.

Anonymous
Anonymous
11 years ago

This past Wednesday, Paul Kemp, attorney for Ivins, gave a presentation to the lunchtime Rotary Club at Dutch's Daughter. This is not the first time I have heard Kemp demolish the case against Ivins. Kemp describes in detail item after item in the government's case, which clearly amounts to fabrication, distortion and flagrant illogic.

But Kemp covered ground on Wednesday that I had not heard him focus on before. For example, he referred to the company Battelle as the operator of biolabs for the CIA that had access to the very same anthrax variety that incriminated his client, and he pointedly questioned how the FBI managed to exclude Battelle personnel as suspects in the case. Battelle is the company contracted by the Department of Homeland Security and the National Institutes of Health to operate the new biolab facilities at Detrick, whose construction is complete.

Amerithrax breakthroughs continue to occur. Kemp referred to a McClatchy Newspapers article published May 19 that focuses on lab data that did not emerge until the National Academy of Sciences report on Amerithrax was released, one year after the Justice Department formally closed the case against Ivins. This lab data shows "unusual levels of silicon and tin in [the] anthrax powder … that could be used to weaponize the anthrax … so [the lethal spores] could be readily inhaled …

"'There's no way that an individual scientist [like Ivins could] invent a new way of making anthrax using silicon and tin … It requires an institutional effort to do this …'"

The emergence of this lab data led Congressman Jerrold Nadler 10 days ago to send a letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller demanding an explanation for why, when the congressman requested the data back in September 2008, the FBI provided "incomplete and misleading" information.

Proof of an FBI cover-up continues to mount. This is the cover-up of an "institutional effort" from within to weaponize anthrax …

Anonymous
Anonymous
11 years ago

Why is Wilman taking credit when the FBI wrote it?

Ed Lake
Ed Lake
11 years ago

One of the Anonymi wrote: "And the task force ignored those facts, why exactly? 'Bruce Ivins ACTING ALONE' did the Amerithrax crimes. "Acting alone" apparently means in Mister Lake's idiolect 'acting in concert with an innocent six year old'!"

The handwriting experts used by the FBI found the handwriting to be "inconclusive." That seems to mean that no two of the experts could agree on who wrote the letters or on how Ivins disguised his handwriting if he wrote the letters.

I've talked with some of those experts. They basically say, they have provided their opinions to the FBI and aren't about to change their opinions.

If the DOJ doesn't use certain evidence in the case, it usually means that their case is better without it. If no two of their experts can agree on anything about the handwriting, then it's best to avoid presenting any expert testimony about the handwriting. Let the defense argue about handwriting, and then the prosecution can counter their arguments.

The DOJ was able to close the case without the handwriting evidence.

Ed

Anonymous
Anonymous
11 years ago

Partial post by Mister Lake from a post some ways back:
—————————
One of the Anonymi wrote: "the epithets, do nothing to illuminate the true nature of our disagreements"

On the contrary, that is the purpose of epithets – to illuminate.

"An epithet … or byname is a descriptive term (word or phrase) accompanying or occurring in place of a name and having entered common usage. It has various shades of meaning when applied to seemingly real or fictitious people, divinities, objects, and binomial nomenclature. It is also a descriptive title. For example, Frederick the Great."

"Lunatic Fringe" is a very apt "descriptive title" for the people who endlessly argue that Muslims were behind the anthrax attacks in spite of all the evidence that it was Bruce Ivins.
==================================
Points:

1)"lunatic fringe" is a pejorative ephithet whose purpose is to dismiss uncommon and/or unpopular ideas out-of-hand.

2) avoiding such a pejorative DOESN'T mean that one agrees, even partially, with the ideas held by such persons.

3) but using such pejoratives tends to poison the waters of a fruitful and many-sided discussion of any topic (because it evinces a rush to judgement about persons' sanity ("lunatic"), reasoning, and/or openness to changing their minds).

4) though I don't support a Muslim(s)-did-it scenario for Amerithrax, I don't find that scenario any more 'fringy' than Mister Lake's graphological analysis. To my knowledge, no discussants here has tried to put Mister Lake down by using similar negative epithets about him.

5)if we, the Amerithrax sceptics, are really so far out of it, then there's no reason to debate us at all: our ideas will eventually fall by the wayside.

6) in particular our defense of Ivins has centered on the lack of physical evidence (of any sort save the contents of one flask at Fort Detrick), the improbability of drying anthrax at Ft Detrick without tipping off co-workers, the unlikely (and in the case of the October 9th mailing unspecified) timeline, the incoherent psychological analysis of Bruce Ivins and several other factors related directly to guilt or innocence. Hardly 'lunatic' or 'fringy'.

Anonymous
Anonymous
11 years ago

LA Times book review –

"Regrettably, though Willman's reporting is solid, the text reads like a series of newspaper articles stitched together, supplemented by poorly incorporated additional research. The impact of compelling pieces of evidence is muffled by repetition. Willman details Ivins' suspicious stints in the hot suite, for example, in a chapter relating the events of September-October 2001; then he gives the same information again 180 pages later, when the FBI learned about it in 2007. The chronology is also bumpy. Too often, Willman backtracks from an intriguing development to go off in another direction. We're in late February 2002 hearing about anthrax samples on one page, thrown back to late 2001 on the next, then forward to April 2002 for a convoluted exposition of incidents involving stray anthrax spores sprayed with bleach that seem significant, but the author neglects to explain exactly why.

Such problems hinder full understanding of a complex case. …"

Anonymous
Anonymous
11 years ago

Reads like a cheap detective novel.

BugMaster
BugMaster
11 years ago

"But Kemp covered ground on Wednesday that I had not heard him focus on before. For example, he referred to the company Battelle as the operator of biolabs for the CIA that had access to the very same anthrax variety that incriminated his client, and he pointedly questioned how the FBI managed to exclude Battelle personnel as suspects in the case."

Fort Detrick, apparently through the National Cancer Institute, subcontracted to BDP (SAIC Fredrick) for the production of clinical trials material of Ivin's next generation rpa-102 anthrax vaccine. SAIC Fredrick then subcontracted the project to Battelle. (See Ivins "bag of worms" September 7, 2001 email. The initial version in the affidavit for search warrent was redacted less that the final version in the FBI's summary report)

Later (?), Vaxgen got involved, and Battelle produced all the vaccine clinical trials material. Vaxgen would later manufacture once FDA approval was granted.

Thus the reason for the tranfer of the RMR-1029 material to Battelle (almost 10% of the total), to provide challenge isolate for vaccine development (stability studies, adjuvant effects?) and QC verification.

I have found no indication that there was ever any CIA sponsered project involving actual dried material derived from RMR-1029.

Interestingly enough, however, was Ivins comment in the late 90s regarding the use of dried anthrax spores to challenge the rpa-102 vaccine. Apparently, some felt that only dried material would provide an effective enough challenge for testing the rpa-102 vaccine under development.

A source told me that Battelle insisted that it never used dried material in its vaccine challenges, instead only using the accepted nebulized wet process for animal challenges, due to safety (and obviously other) concerns.

Also note that in his "bag of worms" email, Ivins states that it was the Battelle rpa-102 project "in limbo" at the time, not his AVA vaccine project in Fredrick.

Ed Lake
Ed Lake
11 years ago

A reviewer on RealClearPolitics.com wrote:

"The Mirage Man" should be required reading in every journalism school, and law school, in this country. It should be the textbook of a case study at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Va. — and police academies everywhere. It should be taught in college government classes, and handed out to freshman members of Congress when they arrive in Washington, and to staffers assigned to the Capitol Hill committees and the White House National Security Council.

Ed

Anonymous
Anonymous
11 years ago

Just finished the book. No new information about the actual case.I am convinced more than ever that Bruce is innocent.

Anonymous
Anonymous
11 years ago

Though I haven't read it, I would anticipate that the book is well done.

There's an inherent problem in doing a narrative about a long-time many-faceted criminal investigation like Amerithrax: many of the important elements in the early years lead nowhere. Some background stuff is impossible to tease out. And then, unexpectedly, some suspect jumps onto the stage. In THAT sense it is almost inevitable that a serious book like this one will read like a series of newspaper articles.

So, for example, 2001 to 2005 would be mostly about Dr Hatfill. The years 2005 to 2008 only retrospectively about Ivins. Etc.

Just because a book doesn't uphold Ivins' innocence as we Amerithrax skeptics do, doesn't mean it isn't a good introduction to the case for the general reader.

But it's just an introduction. For the case isn't half over. And the Feds will be the most surprised by the final chapters!

BugMaster
BugMaster
11 years ago

""The Mirage Man" should be required reading in every journalism school, and law school, in this country. It should be the textbook of a case study at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Va. — and police academies everywhere. It should be taught in college government classes, and handed out to freshman members of Congress when they arrive in Washington, and to staffers assigned to the Capitol Hill committees and the White House National Security Council."

Ed, even the most greenhorn of journalists understands the importance of verifying one's sources.

In otherwords, one should not repeatedly and without question rely on and reference information obtained from a person who claims to talk to rocks and based on her own writings finds discerning reality from fantasy a challenge(Judith Mclean, the so-called "first therapist").

Willman has a bit of an objectivity problem here. His reputation, as far as I'm concerned, has broken up into a million little pieces.

Bantam should consider pulling his book.

Pearlie Guerrier
Pearlie Guerrier
11 years ago

He is very scary. He makes his plans and states them. There is no telling what might be going on in his warped mind. I am not afraid of ghosts. I do fear someone like him.

DXer
DXer
11 years ago

The book Ascension Journey can be purchased for about $10 and is online.

She describes that in 2000/2001, she was a medium, an exorcist, could remote view, was being chased by nasty Taliban entities (who could poison her; bacteria exists in astral realm too);… she says in 2001 she got sick for about a year because the astral recovery work she was doing at Ground Zero was so exhausting. She talked not only to rocks, but bushes. Her husband shielded her from a psychiatric diagnosis, despite the urging of her bishop after the incident that an extraterrestial granted her all her psychic powers. She says she got sick because she had an allergic reaction to the debris at ground zero. She would get her bi-location assignment each night. This has been Ed's star witness for a long while now. It is the #1 point he makes — witness he relies upon. Yet the book she wrote has been online long before Mr. Willman interviewed her repeatedly – and then relied on her claims about what the dead guy told her and what others said. If he had ever emailed me, I could have told him about it in 1999. It was a simple matter to google.

Now he is spreading what she said in a two month book tour. I predict that Bantam will be sued for millions of dollars if Mr. Willman does not add much needed balance on such a central issue of witness credibility. The fact Dr. Ivins was driven to commit suicide does not end the question in some states where he is promoting the book. It's a case lots of lawyers would take pro bono. Bantam's lawyers should brief him on the law before it is too late.

Anonymous
Anonymous
11 years ago

her first contact with an extraterrestial:

“”My experience with beings who claim to be extraterrestial dates back to 1980 when I had my first spontaneous kundalini experience. I perceived a being appearing before me who I assumed to be Jesus. When I asked the being if he was Jesus, he said, “No” and explained that he was a savior from another planetary system. At that time, i could not assimilate the information and its subsequent impact. I had to substitute the image of Jesus from my own comfort’s sake. Since then, I have experienced many kinds of extraterrestial incidents and visitations. I concluded that most phenomena occur in the astral realms, but there are times when I have observed enttities whose energy calibrates far beyond the astral realm of consciousness.”
"It seems perfectly normal to me to believe that telepathy, bilocation, and a dimensional change consciousness allow us to be in contact with life from other planetary systems and other dimensions.”

evil spirits of Ms. Judith McLean’s clients attached themselves to her:

“I once had a male client who came to me with the diagnosis of multiple personalities. He was physically abused as a child and it was evident to me that an entity had attached itself at that time. Subsequently the child’s, and later adult’s, personality changed and that of the abusive spirit came forth. I exorcised this entity from client, but found the entity then attached itself to me with a murderous intent.”

–no longer uses a rattle in performing exorcisms. She uses a violet vortex of light.

–did bi-location work in both New York City and Afghanistan.

“As I traveled in astral form at night and came back into my body in the morning, I found there were occasions where I was followed by Taliban entities. I became aware that many of the terrorists who died in Afghanistan during our war with them were entities who followed me. They had continued their terrorist activities in the astral plane and were encouraged and advised by spirt adopts working negatively on the astral planes.”

–“”They had continued their terrorist activities in the astral plane and were encouraged and advised by spirit adepts working negatively on the astral planes. Once I was aware of these beings, I had to be very careful about self-protection and working with other beings of light. When I left my body at night, I went through a portal of energy that I had created. The portal of energy was a spiral vortex formed as an entrance into the astral plane. This had to be closed down after my discovery of the entities. A new portal of energy was constructed through which these entities would not follow. After a month or more of doing bilocation work i Afghanistan and at the World Trade Center site, I found myself physically exhausted. My allergies worsened, and I was aware I was bring back toxins from the World Trade Center debris and its surrounding air into my physical body. It took me three months to recover my normal energy level.”

— protects herself from cranky Taliban spirits, toxins and the like from the astral plane by a shield:

“One form of self-protection I often use is to take the white light energy and build a geode crystal energy shield around myself that seems impenetrable. I imagine hundreds of tiny crystals are projecting from outside the aura shell forming a barricade of crystals that reflect back negativity and protect the etheric body from absorbing astral viruses, bacteria, or negativity from the astral environment.”

–“Being very sensitive has its blessings, but also gives me a somewhat permeable energy field. I pick up telepathic thoughts with clairaudience and hear and clairvoyantly view things others cannot. But this awareness also heightens my susceptibility ot being attacked by those entities that do not want me to work for the good of humankind.”

Anonymous
Anonymous
11 years ago

remote viewed the corpse of her cousin’s fiance’s murdered body.

“In 1996, my mother called and informed me that my cousin’s fiance was missing. … That night in meditation, I received instructions that I should go to Joan. Using remote viewing (viewing long distance events through clairvoyance), I saw Joan in a forested area near or in a state park. I saw her lifeless body in a ravine. I bilocated my astral body to this area and tried to rouse her spirit. It seemed Joan had been drugged, causing her spirit to be confused, very groggy, and unaware of what had happened to her. I helped her remove herself from her physical body. Then, in a slow process, we moved together until I aw a vortex of light open from another dimension. Joan was afraid to move on and wanted to immediately incarnate again. It took some time to help her move through the dimensional vortext to the spirt helpers in the other realm. Throughout the next couple of days, I moved into tha tother dimensional awareness to make sure she was recovering. Her determination to reincarnate immediately was strong for quite a period of time…. A few days after this happened, I called the police in Oregon and gave them a description of the area in which I had seen Joan’s body. Fortunately, they accepted psychic impressions. I described the type of area I had seen. They informed that she had just been found. She had been located in a forested area in a ravine, as I had described to them. Police discovered Joan had been murdered.”

Anonymous
Anonymous
11 years ago

— consulted regarding cemetery near massage parlor near her home, Judith McLean says the spirits were opening up the bathroom doors at inopportune times.

— says that spirits may find it hard to move on because of their addictions. For example, someone addicted to drinking might hang out at bars.

— says you can be infected by a bacteria from an astral entity. She says she was pursued by Taliban astral entities but protected herself with a shield of light.

— says she had to throw her books on being a medium into the garbage because she was attracting too many spirits.

–) an example of her psychic work as a medium upon the death of her mentor:

“”During the preparation of the ceremony and while I was staying in Paula’s home, she guided us telepathically as to what she wanted and who was to have certain personal items o fhers. She also wanted her genealogical records placed in three different archives, so with her children’s permission, I gathered them, sorted, and collated the records, and had them placed at three different archive locations.”

— describes that being a medium can pose health problems:

“Mediums are also often subjected to health problems. When they merge their essence with that of another, they can easily bring back negativity in a variety of forms. Some forms of negativity are mental and astral viruses, confusion, agitation and untruths.

“”There are many reports of long term immune system problems, nervous system impairment, and psychological illness resulting from mediumship.”

Anonymous
Anonymous
11 years ago

–“Visions may be illusions from the astral realm or predictors of a future event. An apparition can be a genuine being of light and high consciousness or an illusion caused by mass hysteria thinking. The path to understanding these visions is learning to be discerning and careful.”

–“I have visitations from countless Jews in my meditation. At first they came one or two at a time and later in large groups. This occurred in the year when the National Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. was about to open. Most of these spirits indicated that they had died in the pogroms and concentration camps of World War II.”

— says that in her work as a medium, some of the spirits are cranky — particularly the Taliban.

–“As my mediumistic skills grew through researching genealogy and spirit releasing work, I realized deceased spirits are like humans. Some are wonderful and loving, and others are cranky oar “mean spirited. … While I had a few encounters with negative spirits, particularly with the Taliban after September 11th, they have been very few and far between.”

–on a trip to Egypt, David Willman’s featured witness was psychically attacked in the catacombs of Alexandria:

“In the catacombs of Alexandria, I felt a dreaded sense of evil and was psychically attacked. I quickly left the catacombs with a couple of others who helped me to spiritually ward off these entities. The rest of the group remained in the catacombs. Following that excision, many of the group members became ill. I was able to clairvoyantly see attached entities, astral forms and debris, thoughtforms, and etherics poisons in their fields.”

— she was bestowed her psychic abilities by an extraterrestial.in her 2009 book which is a must-read — but especially if an exorcist is needed. The reverend explains that she used to use a rattle in performing exorcisms but now she uses a violet vortex of light. In performing exorcisms, she writes: “I generally use telepathy to talk to the entity in a calm and compassionate way.”

— describes her visions and personal experience with mediumship:

“My own experience with visions is long and varied… Psychic visions and skills have at times led me into delusional realms of information, so learning discernment has been a primary goal. Its importance cannot be underestimated.”

— says her husband protected her from being diagnosed mentally ill or going to a psychiatrist — though she describes long period of illness to include 1 full year after 9/11 due to how exhausting it was to astral travel to Afghanistan and Ground Zero and do the recovery work there.

What does Ed Lake's think of Ed's First Grader Theory — that it is nearly certain a First Grader wrote the letters? She thinks it is creepy.

Scroll to Top