The New York Times says the FBI’s anthrax case has “too many loose ends.” Find out where some of those looses ends might have originated in my novel CASE CLOSED. Sure it’s fiction, but many readers, including a highly respected member of the U.S. Intelligence Community, think my premise is actually “quite plausible.”
Excerpts from a post by Dr. Meryl Nass at …
To prove that a person committed a crime, they must be shown to have all three of the following: means, motive and opportunity.
Has the FBI proven that Ivins had all three?
- Means: Retired colleagues have said he did not have the equipment to make Daschle-quality anthrax in the amounts required using equipment available to him at Fort Detrick. Anonymous colleagues at Fort Detrick claim he could.
- FBI has failed to clarify this major issue.
- FBI has not been able to “reverse engineer” the anthrax and therefore does not know what equipment was needed to produce it.
- FBI has made a series of changing claims over time about silicon found in the spore preparation.
- FBI has not identified the Bacillus strain contaminant (found in the first letters) in the Fort Detrick lab, suggesting the spore material was made elsewhere.
- Motive: The FBI has alleged a variety of motives at different times, but none of them seem to make any sense.
- The latest report has errors of fact in its discussion of motive.
- Opportunity: Could Ivins have made it to the Trenton/Princeton area to mail letters and returned to Frederick in time to meet his other obligations?
- The FBI’s first reported (2008) scenario of how this may have occurred was incorrect.
- I have not read a convincing scenario since.
LMW COMMENT …
Has the FBI proven any of the three?