First off;
An affidavit is a formal sworn statement of fact, signed by the declarant (who is called the affiant or deponent) and witnessed (as to the veracity of the affiant's signature) by a taker of oaths, such as a court officer or a notary public.
So technically it is a fact according to the person who gives it, or the truth as they know it at the time of the declaration. In all actuality, the truth could be challenged/unconfirmed under cross-examination, or with the introduction of other sworn testimony by a more knowledgeable individual who is even more familiar with the evidence that is being presented.
Without corroboration an affidavitt is not the truth/fact, it is only the truth as the individual making the statement knows it too be.
In American jurisprudence, under the rules for hearsay, admission of an unsupported affidavit as evidence is unusual especially if the individual declaring the statement is not available for cross-examination with regard to material facts. Affidavits from persons who are dead or otherwise incapacitated, or who cannot be located or made to appear may be accepted by the court, but once again usually only in the presence of corroborating evidence.
I will say I am intrigued with the statement that he provided a bogus sample for testing to the FBI, which does not match the actual strain it was presented as. Now if this could be corroborated, with the actual dated documents, the test results and signatures dated and confirmed showing that he did indeed attempt to deceive the FBI much of the circumstantial evidence would indeed be (*)(*)(*)(*)ing to the wacko doctors admission of guilt.
But there is plenty of reasons to be suspicious of the FBI, the gov’t and/or the establishment, whomever they may be. But the commentary below says it all.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/06/AR2008080602834.html
Quote:
Such evidence, even when seemingly overwhelming and conclusive, is the very sort of circumstantial argument that pegged Richard Jewell as the Atlanta bomber, that linked Oregon attorney Brandon Mayfield to the Madrid bombings, that fingered Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee as a spy, and that cast biodefense expert Steven Hatfill as the original anthrax suspect. In each of those investigations, the news media were largely complicit, conveying incriminating details of the government's case as if they were the gospel.
And yet, in each of those cases, the government was wrong -- shaking public confidence even as it eroded individual civil liberties, produced groundless prosecutions and diverted precious time and resources in pursuit of bogus cases.
His death deprives the Justice Department, the press and the public of the one thing that was most needed: a full-dress trial. That would have been the surest way to begin to remove the taint of suspicion and corruption that has attended the handling of the anthrax investigation and others like it. No matter how strong the evidence presented by the Justice Department -- and at first blush, it appears (*)(*)(*)(*)ing -- it is an ex parte presentation and will never be subject to the scrutiny and challenge of the other side.
The anthrax case was particularly toxic to the integrity of prosecutorial standards and judicial process, a process warped by post-Sept. 11 hysteria and a compulsion to cut corners and try individuals in the court of public opinion. It was this investigation that presented the spectacle of then-U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft declaring Hatfill a "person of interest" -- reflecting insufficient evidence to charge him with a crime, but enough suspicion to condemn him to the status of public pariah. (Among other evidence, dogs had sniffed him out.) In June, the government agreed to a settlement with Hatfill valued at $5.8 million. Neither it nor the press, which was only too eager to link arms with the Justice Department in carrying the stories that stripped Hatfill of everything he had, has offered an apology or conceded wrongdoing.
Against this background, who could be blamed for imagining that an innocent Ivins was hounded to his death? Can we discount the accounts that suggest the government repeatedly harassed Ivins's family, offering his son a reward and sports car if he would turn his father in?
The antidote to our skepticism is not a de facto conviction -- especially one that is posthumous and undefended. If Ivins was indeed responsible for those harrowing attacks, it is good that he no longer poses a threat. But how will we know?
|
This is actually a bad thing for the government because this case will now be tried in the court of public opinion and not a court of law.
The other hair raising fact is that if this unstable, babbling, incoherent at times, wacka-doodle scientist was working with/among the FBI on regular basis, and always seemed to just skid under the radar until the case crumbled lately against the other innocent scientist. How does someone with a long history of homicidal threats remain employed in such a position? You might think this nothing but it sure seems grounds for scrutiny of those gathering important evidence...
About the freeze dryer from your source;
Quote:
|
Ivins also had access to a sophisticated freeze-dryer, which could have been used to turn the wet bacteria into a dry form. Ivins' co-worker Jeff Adamovicz says he remembers the unit, called a lyopholizer, in the hallway and says it was used to dry protein samples for vaccine work. Adamovicz said the dryer was signed out to Ivins. Adamovicz remembers FBI agents testing the dryer, but they never hauled it away, a sign that it most likely came up clean. (BUT) An additional (KEY) piece of equipment would also have been required (never found) to mill the dried spores into a powdered form.
|
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93426239
Quote:
Paul Kemp who was Ivins' attorney. Response to charges;
Evidence, the flask,
RESPONSE: Kemp says (should be easy enough to prove) the University of New Mexico and a Battelle lab in Ohio had received portions of the anthrax in the flask. "There are dozens ... if not hundreds, of scientists, contractors, students, professors, who used that same anthrax — the very anthrax that would have the same genetic component" as the flask Ivins had, Kemp says.
Evedence, the samples he provided;
RESPONSE: Ivins' lawyer says there was confusion about what kind of sample the FBI had wanted — a "pure" sample or one that captured the mix of spores in the flask. Kemp says Ivins submitted a pure sample at first.
Evedence, envelopes;
RESPONSE: These are "post offices that service the entire width of the state of Maryland and then the biggest post office in the state of Virginia," Kemp says. He says there is no evidence that Ivins ever purchased any of those envelopes.
Evidence, long work hours;
RESPONSE: Kemp says the hours were "characteristic of [Ivins'] long-term work patterns" and that Ivins continued to work long hours through the end of 2001.
Evidence, the sorority house;
RESPONSE: "Where is a witness that can put him in New Jersey?" Kemp asks. Ivins' lawyer says his client never hid his interest in the sorority from investigators. Kemp adds that the office near the mailbox is not a sorority house where students actually live.
The governments case;
RESPONSE: "It is nothing but speculation, the government's case," Kemp says. "We don't convict people on the idea that they demonstrate eccentric behavior, or that they had the opportunity to commit a crime, or the knowledge to commit a crime, and that's what the government's saying."
|
So once again I say, It’s very possible that he could be the guilty party and if he is Amen! But if he isn’t…
__________________
There are only two things wrong with this great nation of ours, democrats and republicans! 
Not necessarily in that order. 
|
08-12-2008, 11:56 AM
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
