Extracts from published reports of the FBI’s investigation
of the 2001 anthrax case
August 6, 2008 … Department of Justice/FBI Press Conference – Jeff Taylor, United States
Attorney for the District of Columbia
“Over the past seven years, hundreds of thousands of agent-hours have
been dedicated to solving this crime as well as I may add, many hours of
prosecution time
“Dr. Ivins died of an overdose on July 29, 2008, and, at the time of his
death, was the sole suspect in the case
“In the weeks prior to his death, we had been in conversations with his
attorneys regarding the direction of the investigation because we believed that
based on the evidence we had collected, we could prove his guilt to a jury
beyond a reasonable doubt
“Based upon the totality of the evidence we had gathered against him, we
are confident that Dr. Ivins was the only person responsible for these attacks
“We are now beginning the process of concluding this investigation.
“Once this process is complete, we will formally close the case.”
August 4, 2008 … Science
Used In Anthrax Probe Still Uncertain … by
David
Kestenbaum – National Public Radio
Sources close to the
FBI’s anthrax investigation say that new genetic information from the spores
helped them narrow their search, and that the work allowed scientists to
determine the spores were a mixture of different types. But the research has
not been made public, and it’s unclear how much weight the evidence would carry
in court
August 5, 2008 … The anthrax case may be the latest botched
investigation by the bureau … by Gabriel Schoenfeld, Commentary
Magazine
The FBI’s
investigation of the deadly 2001 anthrax attacks was the most complex and
important in the bureau’s history. Immense resources were invested in the
search for the perpetrator … Yet for all that, the “Amerithrax”
investigation, as the FBI dubbed the case, dragged on for seven years and,
until quite recently, got nowhere … If Bruce E. Ivins, the Ft. Detrick, Md.,
microbiologist who died in an apparent suicide last week, was indeed the
perpetrator, the prime suspect was directly under the FBI’s nose for years …
If he was not the perpetrator, as many of his fellow scientists at Ft. Detrick
are insisting, we’re back at square one … The bureau’s horrific track record
before 9/11, and its single-minded focus on Hatfill after the anthrax attacks,
raises the suspicion that, in the dramatic events of last week, we are
glimpsing yet another monumental screw-up, one fully worthy of the FBI’s
inglorious recent past.
August 5, 2008 … Pressure
Grows for F.B.I.’s Anthrax Evidence … By Scott Shane and Nicholas
Wade – New York Times
After
four years of painstaking scientific research, the F.B.I. by 2005
had traced the anthrax in the poisoned letters of 2001 to a single flask of the bacteria
at the Army biodefense laboratory at Fort Detrick, Md., according to government
scientists and bureau officials. But at least 10 scientists had regular access
to the laboratory and its anthrax stock — and possibly quite a few more,
counting visitors from other institutions, and workers at laboratories in Ohio
and New Mexico that had received anthrax samples from the flask at the Army
laboratory.
August 6, 2008 … Justice
Dept. Set to Share Details in Anthrax Case … By Eric Lichtblau and Scott
Shane – New York Times
In the
face of growing questions about the strength of the evidence, the Justice
Department is preparing to declare the 2001 anthrax case
solved and to make its case publicly
Officials
at the Federal Bureau of Investigation are particularly eager to
close the case and publicly rebut accusations from defenders of the scientist, Bruce
E. Ivins, that the bureau may have hounded an innocent man into committing
suicide
In June,
the Justice Department agreed to pay a settlement worth $4.6 million to another
scientist, Steven J. Hatfill, after publicly pursuing
him as a suspect for years.
Members
of Congress have demanded that Mr. Mueller explain why the case remained
unsolved for so long. One Congressional official briefed on the case said he
was not persuaded that the F.B.I. had made a credible case in singling out Dr.
Ivins in the group of people at Fort Detrick who had access to anthrax samples
linked to the 2001 attacks.
August 7, 2008 … Anthrax trail went from global to FBI back yard … By
Lara Jakes Jordan and Matt Apuzzo, Associated Press Writers
The investigation spanned six
continents, but in the end, federal investigators say they found the anthrax
killer in their own back yard. The government declared the 2001 attacks solved
Wednesday, pointing the blame at former Army scientist Bruce Ivins, who
committed suicide last week as prosecutors prepared to bring charges. The
Justice Department said it was confident it could have convicted the scientist
… It was enough for the Justice Department to declare solved a case that had
been one of the most prominent unsolved cases. But it was not enough to
convince Ivins’ supporters and may not be enough to quiet critics who say the
FBI was looking for someone to blame after focusing on the wrong man for too
long.
August 7, 2008 … Gov’t still looking for evidence in anthrax
case … By Lara Jakes Jordan, Associated Press Writer
The government is still searching
for evidence that Bruce Ivins was solely responsible for the 2001 anthrax
attacks despite declaring the case solved. Search warrants and other documents
filed Thursday in federal court in Washington show the FBI wants to look
through computers Ivins used at his local library before he killed himself last
week. Agents are looking for anything he may have written about plans to kill
or hurt people, a suicide note or other data linking him to the attacks that
killed five people in 2001.
August 8, 2008 … Identifying the Anthrax Killer –
New York Times Editorial
The
F.B.I. seems convinced that it has finally solved the long-festering case of
who mailed the anthrax letters that killed five people in 2001.
Yet its
description of the evidence pointing to a mentally disturbed Army bioweapons
expert as the sole culprit leaves us uncertain about whether investigators have
pulled off a brilliant coup after a bumbling start — or are prematurely
declaring victory, despite a lack of hard, incontrovertible proof.
None of
the investigators’ major assertions have
been tested in cross-examination or evaluated by outside specialists. It is
also critical for officials to explain more fully how they eliminated the many
other people with access to the material.
The
investigators came up with lots of circumstantial evidence to bolster their
case. But there is no direct evidence of his guilt.
No
witness who saw him pouring powdered anthrax into envelopes. No anthrax spores in
his house or cars. No confession to a colleague or in a suicide note. No
physical evidence tying him to the site in Princeton, N.J., from which the
letters are believed to have been mailed.
Because
Dr. Ivins killed himself before he could be indicted, there will be no
opportunity for an adversarial testing of the F.B.I.’s conclusions.
The
bureau, unfortunately, has a history of building circumstantial cases that seem
compelling at first but ultimately fall apart. Congress will need to probe the
adequacy of this investigation — and to insist that federal officials release
as much evidence as possible, so the public can be assured they really did get
the right person this time.
August 9, 2008 … The Case
Still Isn’t Closed – Michael Isikoff – NEWSWEEK
(there are) a number of seemingly misleading passages, gaps and omissions
that are raising questions about just how airtight the government’s case
against Ivins actually is. At a press conference last week, U.S. Attorney for
the District of Columbia Jeffrey Taylor said Justice officials were
“confident” that Ivins, who committed suicide last month, was
“the only person responsible for these attacks.”
Many of Ivins’s former colleagues are unconvinced, noting unanswered
questions about the FBI’s scientific tests, most of which have not been
peer-reviewed, as well as the lack of direct evidence showing Ivins actually
mailed the fatal letters.
Despite repeated searches, for instance, the FBI could not find any trace
of the deadly anthrax in Ivins’s home, cars or clothing.
“I’d say the vast majority of people [at Fort Detrick] think he had
nothing to do with it,” said Jeffrey Adamovicz, who served as one of
Ivins’s supervisors in the facility’s bacteriology division.
What’s more, Kemp said, the FBI omitted evidence that might have been
exculpatory, including that Ivins kept his security clearance after passing a
polygraph in which he was questioned about the anthrax investigation.
August 9, 2008 … FBI investigation – Keith Olbermann
interview with Gerald Posner
Olbermann: The FBI released
evidence against a dead man who was never charged, let alone tried or
convicted, declaring that evidence conclusive. The government declares Ivins
the only person responsible, despite an admitted lack of any direct evidence
… the flask of anthrax with identical spores, ostensibly their strongest
piece of evidence, what do you make of it?
Posner: That’s what they make
it sound like, but it’s not. The lay public hears this, they think that’s the
evidence, those are the spores that got people sick from the envelopes. Not
true. That was liquid anthrax in that flask. Even if the FBI can tie to that
flask, they can’t explain how it was made into this extremely sophisticated
type of weapon with small milligrams, with electric charges to it, with
polyglass coating on top of it, all to go deep inside the lungs, to spray into
the air. This was weaponized military anthrax. They cannot explain how it went
from that glass flask in a liquid form into the form that was sent out in the
envelopes. That they don’t have the evidence on.
Olbermann: As to motive, they
mentioned it, but almost as if it was in passing. Is that a weak part of the
case? Did they offer anything that made any sense?
Posner: I thought it was a weak part of the case. I
thought they were fishing; they don’t have a good motive. But they don’t need
to, because the primary suspect, the only suspect, is dead. They’re going to
close this case.
Olbermann: the insistence is he
did it by himself, the lone mad scientist. Did they get anywhere near
confirming that?
Posner: No. As a matter of fact, that’s my major
problem with this. I spoke to enough experts in the last few days who convinced
me, who know how this process works, that these spores that were sent out were
not the work of one lone scientist. And that I believe is the case.
August 13, 2008 … Nagging Questions in
Anthrax Case – TIME – By Laura Fitzpatrick
As probable
bioterrorists go, Bruce Ivins was a near perfect suspect. The FBI says the
government biodefense researcher acted alone in the 2001 anthrax mailings that
killed five people and sickened 17. But as anthrax experts begin seeking hard
data behind the eerie and suggestive details of the case, they are left with
nothing but questions.
For one thing, the
FBI says its anthrax evidence is based on “new and sophisticated
scientific tools” — i.e., new DNA technology that the agency says is more
accurate than older methods — which investigators have used to trace the
anthrax from the deadly mailings back to Ivins. No scientist has ever been able
to accomplish a feat of such precision before, not even those familiar with the
subtle variations of the anthrax genome — but the FBI won’t reveal its methods.
Equally troubling,
scientists say, is the complete lack of forensic evidence in the FBI dossier.
Documents reveal, for instance, that investigators swabbed Ivins’ home and cars
for anthrax DNA and spores, but they don’t say whether the subsequent lab tests
linked those samples to the 2001 envelopes.
Scientists also say
that the FBI’s recent bungling of certain high-profile investigations throws
doubt on federal investigators’ ability to understand scientific evidence. The
most obvious and recent example is the agency’s unwarranted fingering of Steven
Hatfill in 2001 as a “person of interest” in the same attacks for
which Ivins is now believed responsible.
Hatfill’s reputation
was irreparably damaged by the accusation, which was never supported by
concrete evidence. The government officially absolved Hatfill this month and
awarded him $5.8 million in damages.
The scientists’ best
hope to budge the FBI may be through Congress. Iowa Senator Charles Grassley and
New Jersey Congressman Rush Holt — whose district is home to the Princeton,
N.J., mailbox from which the FBI says Ivins mailed the anthrax letters — are
pushing for a government inquiry into the FBI investigation.
August 14, 2008 … Hair Samples in Anthrax Case Don’t Match – By Carrie Johnson,
Washington Post Staff Writer
Federal
investigators probing the deadly 2001 anthrax attacks recovered samples of
human hair from a mailbox in Princeton, N.J., but the strands did not match the
lead suspect in the case, according to sources briefed on the probe.
Authorities released sworn statements and search warrants last week at a news
conference in which they asserted that Ivins was their sole suspect.
Defense lawyer
Paul F. Kemp yesterday said he wonders “where Ivins could have possibly
stored this anthrax without any employees seeing it, or if he took it home, why
there was no trace” of the deadly spores, despite repeated FBI searches
over the past two years of Ivins’s car, his work locker, a safe-deposit box and
his house.
Meanwhile,
government sources offered more detail about Ivins’s movements on a critical
day in the case: when letters were dropped into the postal box on Princeton’s
Nassau Street, across the street from the university campus. Investigators now
believe that Ivins waited until evening to make the drive to Princeton on Sept.
17, 2001. He showed up at work that day and stayed briefly, then took several
hours of administrative leave from the lab, according to partial work logs. Based
on information from receipts and interviews, authorities say Ivins filled up
his car’s gas tank, attended a meeting outside of the office in the late
afternoon, and returned to the lab for a few minutes that evening before moving
off the radar screen and presumably driving overnight to Princeton. The letters
were postmarked Sept. 18. Nearly seven years after the incidents, however,
investigators have come up dry in their efforts to find direct evidence to
place Ivins at the Nassau Street mailbox in September and October 2001.
August 14,
2008 … Anthrax scientist Bruce Ivins slipped under the radar because of FBI
obsession – Los Angeles Times – By David Willman
As federal authorities
pursued the wrong suspect in the deadly anthrax mailings of 2001, they ignored
or overlooked a series of early clues that pointed to Army scientist Bruce E.
Ivins, a review of investigative records by the Los Angeles Times shows.
The long delay in focusing on Ivins and solving the case also left elected
officials guessing about the origin of the threat that had traumatized the
nation as they debated multibillion-dollar policies intended to counter
bioterrorism: In the end, the FBI and the Justice Department concluded that the
mailed anthrax came not from a foreign state or an Islamic terrorist — but
from someone within the U.S. government.
Another critical aspect of the investigation, the genetic analysis of the
powder, was first performed in spring 2002 and suggested, but did not prove,
that Ft. Detrick was the most likely source. Federal officials say proof came
with more sophisticated testing capabilities developed more recently.
Several officials told reporters last week that they did not turn to Ivins as a
suspect until last year because they had lacked the breakthrough scientific
data and other recently gathered evidence tying him to the mailings.
In his first public remarks regarding the evidence amassed against Ivins, FBI
Director Robert S. Mueller III told reporters last week in Vermont: “I do
not apologize for any aspect of the investigation that was undertaken over the
years.” Mueller said it would be “erroneous to say there were
mistakes.”
The government in June agreed to pay Hatfill $5.8 million to settle a lawsuit
in which his lawyers elicited sworn testimony from law enforcement officials
who admitted that they leaked investigative information about him to the news
media.
The investigation’s years-long fixation with Hatfill angered some FBI agents
who believed that, as a result, other potential leads and suspects received
inadequate attention. The agents formally complained to the bureau’s Inspection
Division about the official who directed the probe from late 2002 through the
summer of 2006, Richard L. Lambert.
Results of the Inspection Division’s review, first reported by The Times on
June 29 of this year, have yet to be made public. In late August 2006, Mueller
transferred Lambert away from the anthrax investigation, naming him special
agent in charge of the bureau’s field office in Knoxville, Tenn.
August
19, 2008 … Anthrax suspect’s
attorney chides FBI’s ‘evolving’ case - Neal
Augenstein, WTOP Radio
While the FBI and
federal prosecutors are confident the case against the sole suspect in the 2001
anthrax attacks would have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, Bruce Ivins’
attorney says the government is not providing enough information to allow the
public to judge for itself. Attorney Paul Kemp tells WTOP the FBI and
prosecutors are tweaking the case against Ivins in a way that wouldn’t be allowed
in court. “They get to control the flow of information and are doing so
selectively and speculatively in a way that they’re trying to implicate Dr.
Ivins. Every day you can see this case evolving and it goes from, ‘He’s the
only person who had access to the anthrax’ — to — ‘More than a 100 people had
it, but we’re convinced he is the one that did it.’”
August 20, 2008 … New York Times EDITORIAL – Too
Little Information
An F.B.I.
briefing on Monday was supposed to bolster the agency’s conclusion that a lone,
disturbed bioterrorism scientist was responsible for the 2001 anthrax attacks.
It fell short of its goal.
The F.B.I.
spent years pointing a finger at a different suspect. It is not enough for the
agency to brush off continuing skepticism. A group of independent experts needs
to look hard at the F.B.I.’s technical analysis and detective work that
combined to convince investigators that the mailed anthrax must have come from
Dr. Bruce Ivins, a scientist at the Army’s bioterrorism lab in Fort Detrick in
Maryland.
Standard
police work eliminated all other suspects and found circumstantial evidence
incriminating Dr. Ivins. None of this circumstantial evidence has been subjected
to close outside scrutiny.
September 16, 2008 … FBI’s Mueller to Be
Queried by House Panel About Evidence Against Researcher – Washington Post – By Carrie Johnson
The case relies on a
patchwork of circumstantial and scientific evidence tracing anthrax spores back
to a beaker in Ivins’s lab and a series of work logs, unusual e-mails and
behavior patterns that Ivins exhibited. It adds up, officials argue, to a
portrait of a man who had the know-how, motive and opportunity to pull off the
largest biological attack in U.S. history.
But the material
and a series of private briefings by Justice Department and FBI officials have
yet to convince a small but vocal group of lawmakers that the government has
solved the case. Last week, staff members for Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.)
pressed U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor and two FBI officials to say when the
anthrax case will be closed and why investigators had fixed on Ivins six months
after notifying him in April 2007 that he was not a target. Investigators told
congressional aides that they are still pursuing leads in the
“Amerithrax” investigation, sources said.
“I just see
so many loose ends in the case that I question whether the FBI is in the right
frame of mind to bring this matter to the kind of closure that the public
needs,” said Rep. Rush D. Holt (D-N.J.).
September 16, 2008 … House Judiciary Committee hearings
reveal no new anthrax information – Frederick News – By Justin M. Palk
Observers
hoping the House Judiciary Committee would grill FBI Director Robert Mueller
III about the investigation into the 2001 anthrax mailings Tuesday left
disappointed.
September 17, 2008 … Leahy: Suspect had help in anthrax attacks – By
LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer
The chairman of the of Senate
Judiciary Committee said Wednesday he does not believe that Dr. Bruce Ivins
acted alone in the deadly 2001 anthrax attacks. At a hearing in front of his
committee, the Vermont Democrat told FBI Director Robert Mueller that he thinks
other people must have been involved.
The Justice Department and FBI
have yet to close the case on the “Amerithrax” investigation after
declaring Ivins its only suspect last month. Ivins killed himself in July after
learning that prosecutors were preparing to indict him.
October 29, 2008 … Holt
Asking Hard Questions About Anthrax – Princeton Town Topics – Ellen Gilbert
Representative Rush Holt (NJ-12), chair
of the House Select Intelligence Oversight Panel, wondered, for example,
whether any of the FBI’s scientific findings are inconsistent with the Bureau’s
conclusions, whether other scientific tests not carried out by the FBI might
refute its conclusions, and whether the FBI followed “all accepted evidence-gathering,
chain of possession, and scientific analytical methods.”
November 2, 2008 … SCIENTISTS SLAM FBI ‘THRAX PROBE IN BID TO
CLEAR BUDDY ‘DR. DOOM’ – New York Post – By Susannah Cahalan
It was an
open-and-shut case, the FBI said. But three months after agents pinned the
post-9/11 anthrax mailings on Army scientist Bruce Ivins – who committed
suicide as the FBI closed in on him – his former colleagues have approached a
lawyer to sue the feds for fingering the wrong man. They argue that the FBI abused
its power and violated its own policies as they probed an innocent man for six
months.
Together, those
closest to Ivins cited a laundry list of holes in the feds’ conclusions. They
include:
1) Ivins could not have made dry anthrax spores in his lab without
sickening people.
2) Records show that Ivins logged an average of only two hours of
overtime in the weeks leading up to the attacks – and even at those times, he
could not have gone undetected.
3) The FBI called Ivins the “sole custodian” of the strain of
anthrax used in the mailings. But at least 200 people had access to the strain
created by Ivins at Fort Detrick.
4) The FBI has not released any physical evidence linking Ivins to the attacks
or defined a motive.
5) The FBI investigation was filled with inconsistencies and bordered on
harassment.
FBI spokeswoman
Debbie Weierman said: “The FBI is still handling administrative business
and closing the loop on outstanding issues. Therefore, the investigation is
still pending. However, the case has been solved; as the FBI and the Department
of Justice have stated publicly. “The FBI is absolutely positive that Dr.
Bruce Ivins and only Dr. Bruce Ivins was responsible for the anthrax mailings.”
November 26, 2008 …
New details on FBI’s false start in anthrax case – International Herald Tribune
– By Scott Shane and Eric Lichtblau
A federal court on
Tuesday unsealed documents that shed new light on why FBI anthrax investigators
spent years pursuing the wrong man, Steven J. Hatfill, who was exonerated by
the government this year and received a $4.6 million settlement. The Hatfill search
warrant material shows how an accumulation of claims from acquaintances can
cast an innocent person in a highly suspicious light, said Mark Grannis, a
lawyer for Dr. Hatfill.
As an example of how
innocent details can be made to look suspicious, Grannis said Dr. Hatfill was
taking Cipro, a widely prescribed antibiotic, after sinus surgery in 2001.
Search warrants, Grannis said, often use hearsay and unconfirmed information to
convince a judge that a suspect is worthy of further investigation. “Whether
or not it was right for the government to rely on this kind of information to
obtain a search warrant in 2002, we know in 2008 that Steven Hatfill had
nothing to do with the anthrax attacks,” Grannis said.
The FBI affidavits
were used to obtain a search warrant in August 2002 for Dr. Hatfill’s apartment
and a basement storage room in his building in Frederick, Maryland, as well as
his car and a storage locker he rented in Ocala, Florida The agency had
conducted a search with Dr. Hatfill’s permission two months earlier, but it was
considered inconclusive. Dr. Hatfill was never charged in the anthrax case, but
the searches and government leaks identifying him as a leading suspect drew
widespread news coverage.
He lost a teaching
job at Louisiana State University after officials at the Justice Department,
which was paying for the courses, objected to his employment. For months, FBI
surveillance teams followed Dr. Hatfill every time he left home. Dr. Hatfill
later sued the FBI and the Justice Department for leaking information about
him.
* A Good Conviction … reader comments
Posted by Lew Weinstein on February 6, 2009
Readers have posted comments about “A Good Conviction” on amazon.com.
* Reader Comments (on amazon.com) for “A Good Conviction”
in addition, the following comments were received from readers of a pre-publication serialized version of “A Good Conviction”
… I am really into this story! I feel so bad for Josh. I love to read books that I feel close to the characters and that’s how I feel with this one!
… I love crime novels and this one doesn’t disappoint. The stark contrast in the opening chapters between Joshua Blake’s, until then, seemingly charmed life and the brutal reality of Sing Sing prison is chilling. You can’t help but think ‘What if that were me?’
… The story is gripping. It keeps you turning the pages with twists and turns to the plot.
… The characters engage you. Watch them develop – not just Josh as he is forced to face unimaginable challenges just to survive in jail, but those who take up the challenge of trying to prove his innocence. What motivates them? Why does NYPD Lieutenant Kerrigan put himself on the line? What drives Darleen to stand by Josh? And look out for Josh’s defence lawyer – he may not inspire confidence to begin with but develops as a quiet force.
… You’ve got me hooked me now! I started reading the 2nd segment last night, and couldn’t put it down until I was done. Are you going to let that poor guy out of jail, or what? (please, don’t answer that) Please send me the next segment !
… More, more, send me more, please. What a teaser this first segment was.
… Well, you’ve got me hook, line and sinker after Segment 1. So…..would you please send me Segment 2 so I can continue this adventure. Thanks for the opportunity!
… I like the style, the way you change back and forth from Joshua being at Sing Sing to his free days and then to his time at Rikers Island. Makes for interesting reading that way.
… I absolutely love this book. I read a lot of mysteries by Michael Connelly (all he has written so far) and James Patterson and Len Deighton and just finished last week a book by Nicholas Evans called The Divide. This book of yours is right up there. I am intrigued by it and once I begin reading, I remain until I have read the final word of the segments you have sent. This should definitely be on the NY Times best reads. I anxiously await more. Thank you so much for giving me this opportunity.
… I finished the book a few days ago. I very much enjoyed A Good Conviction. You made Josh and Darlene very sympathetic yet real characters. I liked them. You also did a good job of manipulating the tension level in the book so that I was extremely worried that Darlene would get hurt and was quite pleased when she was rescued by Detective Watson. That alone should indicate how well you reached this reader. I abhor ADA Claiborne. You made him into a villain but did it in a way that did not make him a caricature. I cannot think of a character in your book who was not drawn well. The best thing I can say about any book is that I am sorry to see it end. I was sorry to reach the end of your book.
… I am ready for Segment 3! I read Segment 2 the same day I got it.
… Having anxiously awaited this novel after reading The Heretic with our book club in South Jersey, I have been gripped by the story’s reality and intensity. We’d like to think such injustices don’t happen, but recent advances in forensics have proven that many innocents are incarcerated. The old saw about everybody in jail professing innocence is not so humorous today. What’s scary about Josh Blake’s situation is that as it unfolds it strikes you as being entirely plausible. Loved the attention to detail about the story’s New York locations – provided a reality foundation which made the story more startling. I am thoroughly enjoying this serialized email format – keeps the reader on the edge of his/her seat – or should I say, at the edge of his/her keyboard.
… Every page forces me to confront the very real issue in our society of someone who lives the horror of a wrongful conviction and life in the realities of prison.
… Your attention to detail is great — I feel I am in New York with Josh! Next segment please !
… I liked the court room scene and thought it moved quickly in a compelling manner.
… I am ready for the next segment of A Good Conviction. I read it all in one swoop – I could not stop. I found it thoroughly readable with all the “parts” in the right places. Thank you so much; I look forward to my next read.
… I am really enjoying this book. Please send the next part ASAP.
… I just finished Segment 2 and I’m really looking forward to receiving the next segment. Nothing like being kept in suspense. Poor Joshua Blake, he can’t get a break I just know there has to be a point where this poor guy’s luck, or lack of it, has to change! Please send along the next segment as soon as you can. Thank you very much!
… Just want you to know that my eyes were riveted to each sentence in your book. I can’t get to each segment fast enough; my other emails can wait, the book I was reading can wait, I just want to read your story. It just grabs your attention and compels you to read on and on. Thank you so much – I look forward to reading more.
… Wow! That’s some story. I am ready for segment 3.
… Can you send me #3. It’s really good and so scary that this could actually happen!
… I’m back again in search of Segment 5 this time. I really am enjoying the story and all the suspense that it holds.
… It’s scary to think how many like Josh are trapped in our legal system. I’m ready for Segment 5.
… Quick, send me Segment 2, I’m on the edge of my seat.
… Finished segment 2. I am loving it. The poor kid. I feel like I am watching Law & Order where you recognize so many of the places. Can you forward the next installment??
… Time for segment 6. You do tell a good story.
… The tension is increasing. Send me Segment 8.
… My heart is breaking for this kid, but I’m ready for more.
Posted in * A Good Conviction, ** reviews & comments | Leave a Comment »