The Anthrax Attacks – You are on the Jury

In My Humble Opinion
1

If you are on the Jury and the basic case made public against Suspect X presented by the DA is this:

MEANS
He was among the 50 to 100 people that the FBI believed to have both access to anthrax and the scientific expertise to produce the refined material found in the Daschle and Leahy letters.

MOTIVE
The FBI Profile of the Suspect matches him:
FBI psychologists, handwriting analysts and forensic experts used the letters to produce an early behavioral profile of the perpetrator. The analysis took into account the words and phrases chosen by the writer, the style of punctuation and the selection of intended targets. The conclusion: The killer was most likely a middle-aged white male with scientific expertise who had some recent beef with the government and chose media and political targets for maximum visibility. It was likely, FBI analyst James Fitzgerald said, that the criminal had timed the letters to take advantage of the 9/11 panic and hoped to use them to draw attention to his special, as yet unknown cause.

**SUSPICIOUS COINCIDENCES **
He went to a Medical School in Harare, Zimbabwe, in a suburb called Greendale. The fictional return address on two of the anthrax letters read “Greendale School.” Defense says he never lived in Greendale

He had periods of explosive temper, he seemed unbalanced and a few such run-ins with the law (public drunkenness)

The Second Daschle letter was sent from London when Suspect X was in Swindon, England – about 70 miles from London – training to become a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq.

He lied on Resume about his PHd., & His Military Service

He got a prescription of Cipro (the Anthrax cure) before the Attacks Defense says is for a lingering sinus infection

DEFENSE
Besides the above he had time cards showing he was in McClean Virginia when 3 of the letters were probably sent from Princeton NJ {~4ish hours away}. He says the FBI found out the type of Anthrax probably came from a US program in roughly July of the next year and immediately focused on him. No Anthrax was found on him or in his apartment.

VERDICT
I would vote a shaky Guilty. But if other, better suspects were put forward or if some of this needs further qualification or if some is wrong OK.

Do you have better suspects or case to make?

I figure that there may be Bush bashing and am looking for people to point out the flaws in each other’s theories. But really this is a lot of opinion and so I am putting this here. If it is felt this is more appropriate to GD I am intentionally trying to be a jerk.

2

Ifs & buts & maybes.

No physical evidence, no witnesses = no conviction.

At least, from my point of view.

3

No direct evidence tying him to the crime. I’d say there’s definitely a reasonable doubt.

I would not convict.

4

No evidence, I agree.

5

Not even close to a conviction. If all they have is a profile and some coincidences, then the only thing missing to make their case complete would be some shred of evidence actually connecting the defendant to the crime. I wouldn’t even have to hear from the defense in this case.

6

That sounds like you have reasonable doubt. Would you really find the person guilty in an actual court? The fact that you call it “shaky” is pretty significant.

7

Graphologists or Forensic Document Examiners?

One’s a science, the other’s bullshit.

8

I wouldn’t even convict based on the lesser civil standard.
Means: One of fifty to a hundred people the FBI thinks had access? Not only would that not be enough to push towards conviction (without substantially more), but it doesn’t recognize that the “fifty to a hundred” is only as large as the FBI was able to make it. The number of possible others is much higher than that.

Motive: Profiling success is pure fiction, and should stay relegated to television. The veracity of their claims is one of those recurring subjects in GQ. This is not evidence, it’s guesswork. Might as well say they had a psychic reading.

**Coincidences: **
Went to school in Greendale. If it was one of an overwhelming number of coincidences, possibly it would cast some small, minute doubt on the truth of his assertions. But as it stands it adds nothing to the prosecutor’s case.

Anger issues. You have to be kidding me.

England. Similar to Greendale, it would take a host of such coincidences to add up to some weight towards conviction.

Resume: Again, you have to be kidding me that this has any bearing on guilt. Of *any *crime, save lying on a resume or something very closely related.

Head cold. Another tiny tiny itsy-bitsy coincidence that is far too common to be considered evidence. If there was evidence it was a very specialized medication (i.e., Anti-Anthraxacillian) without any other use, and the doctor who prescribed it offered countervailing testimony, that would be different. But as you listed it, it’s nonsense.

Defense: Frankly, I don’t see he even needs one, as the prosecutors didn’t raise a shadow of guilt, let alone approach beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Is this all the evidence they had against the man who just settled with the government? If so, I’m not weighing in on his award, but I do think the people who leaked his name should be fired, as should any prosecutor vile enough to bring this to trial (though I leave open the possibility that there was more to the case than in this thread.)

9

It looks suspicious. But there’s just too much room for a reasonable doubt.

10

I don’t know. All I know is what is in the public domain and they say what I wrote “handwriting analysts and forensic experts”

It is basically all that is public. They say that the Bloodhounds picked up his scent and reacted and he said that was because he petted them - both sides of which I don’t get how they are significant.

They (seem) to know the photocopier that was used but that was held close - so I have no idea where it was - and what the evidence either way would show.

I think it is clear several colleagues in the Biodefense Industry said “loose nut” “screw loose” and pointed at him to the FBI (and Media before he was a person of interest as the FBI said in Court in this case) while the FBI was floundering but what they specifically said & would testify to under oath & what weight that would be given I don’t know.

As far as I know that is all the evidence.

11

As a screenwriter who deals in crime procedurals, I can tell you that the case, as presented above, wouldn’t get far in the writer’s room :wink: It’s got “more than just reasonable doubt” written all over it.

That said – who knows what some people can spin out of circumstantial evidence… fear and a clever DA can do many wonderful things.

(Also: What’s out in the public domain and what’s still sealed/gagged/undisclosed may be pieced together to reveal two very different animals…)

12

Sorry, what does “petted” mean?

An illegal search that the gov. couldn’t use/admit to would add an interesting twist, but that would be straying into Elenfair’s territory plausibility-wise.

13

FBI “Criminal Profiles” are pseudoscientific nonsense; they’ve never passed a blind test-you just hear about the ones that happen to match. Handwriting analysis of the sort described (personality evaluation, as opposed to “this sample was written by the same person who wrote this other sample”) is equally useless.

My jury feelings would be irrelevant, because any halfway competent lawyer would get the case thrown out if they attempted to make it on the above, and I’d never get to hear it. Add some polygraph results and a psychic, and you’re all set!

14

Well I kind of wondered what would happen if the Government took this to Court. I am a little surprised how lopsided it is. It is 10-1 at this point without really a defense & (to Timewinder’s point) If we were a Grand Jury & no defense was offered at all, then we clearly wouldn’t indict.

So maybe the Government understood that (altho without the Libel settlement and Iraq Intel failure in front of us - If they had tried to bring him to trial in 2003 I wonder if this may have been closer).
**
Rhythmdvl** Where you trying to be snarky with me ? “petted” is a verb both the American Heritage & Random House Dictionaries

To stroke or caress gently; pat. See Synonyms at caress.

15

Even if the prosecution managed to convince me it was suspicious, I’d still have to vote “not guilty.” Unless there’s something the gummint’s not telling us, this is Richard Jewell all over again. I’m not saying he’s innocent–although this is a strong possibility–but no way could he get convicted of this in a fair trial.

16

Oh no, not at all! Sorry if it came accross that way; I didnt’ think you meant bloodhouds literally—that actual, physical pooches were somehow involved. I thought you meant bloodhouds in the metephorical sense, that as soon as wind of his involvment came everyone tracked down everything they could about him, or something like that. I thought you were using ‘petted’ in a slangy or other sense, and was curious, since not thinking them real fidos made the whole sentece seem off. Sorry!

17

I’m guessing that 50% of the membership of the SDMB fits the profile. Better open up a new wing in Guantanamo.

18

Rhythmdvl OK sorry if I was overdefensive - thanks for your contribution.

Yes, I agree with the anti-Profile crowd that says that the profile the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit worked up with their collaborators at various Universities needs to be caveated that this is just based on probabilities and can’t be taken as gospel & the media (& me in this thread) didn’t do that