* Attorney Paul Kemp: the FBI investigation revealed no evidence against Ivins because he was not guilty
Posted by Lew Weinstein on June 3, 2011
******
- Dr. John Ezzell, Lew Weinstein, Ross Getman, Dr. Meryl Nass, Dr. Ivins’ Attorney Paul Kemp and Dr. James Van de Velde at the November 29 anthrax seminar sponsored by the University of California Institute for Global Conflict and Cooperation and the UC Washington Center
******
Katherine Heerbrandt writes for Gazette.net (6/2/11) …
- Frederick attorney Paul Kemp believes he failed his former client, suspected anthrax killer Bruce Ivins, by not inspiring him to have more faith in the justice system.
- Kemp identified holes in the FBI’s evidence against Ivins.
- Despite nine search warrants that included his house, car and any vehicle he drove, the FBI obtained no solid evidence of Ivins’ complicity in the anthrax murders, Kemp said.
- Nor could the FBI prove that Ivins was anywhere near Princeton, N.J., the source of the mailings, during the time in question.
“The investigation revealed no evidence against Ivins
because he was not guilty,” Kemp said.
- A May 19 article in the Miami Herald accuses the FBI of not pursuing other leads that could have led investigators to different conclusions, including the chemical makeup of the aerosolized anthrax in the FBI’s own laboratory reports.
- In February, a panel of independent scientists questioned the veracity of the science used to name Ivins the killer.
- Congressman Holt has called for a congressional commission to investigate the anthrax attacks, but that has been tabled for now because the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is in the process of reviewing the FBI case and plans to have a report out in the fall.
Kemp is convinced that the government
could not have convicted Ivins
on the evidence it had at the time of his death.
read the entire article at … http://www.gazette.net/stories/06022011/frednew164248_32546.php
DXer said
Attorney Grafft in “Analysis of the Search Warrants of the Amerithrax Investigation” writes:
“Interestingly, the first three items mentioned in the search warrant return document were cardboard boxes labeled “Paul Kemp … attorney client privilege.” Although the issue of search and seizure of privileged documents has not yet been clearly resolved in the courts, the seizure of documents clearly marked “attorney client privilege” during an ongoing “person of interest” investigation seems to seriously impede a defense counsel’s ability to represent his client against future charges.”
DXer said
A Legal Analysis of the Search Warrants of the Amerithrax Investigation
Grafft, Courtney
Citation Information: Journal of Biosecurity, Biosafety and Biodefense Law.Volume 3, Issue 1
July 31, 2012
Abstract
One of the nation’s most complex investigations in its history stemmed from the 2001 anthrax attack letters. Filled with dead-ends, false leads, and flustered FBI and Postal Inspection officers trying to grapple with intricate scientific details, the Amerithrax investigation caused many to question the efforts of America’s forefront investigative entity. The specialized American bioweapons community remained in a constant state of paranoia from late 2001 to 2008, and over 30,000 members of the American Society for Microbiology received a letter indicating the high probability “that one or more of you know” the anthrax killer. Finally, in 2007 the Amerithrax Task Force named Dr. Bruce Ivins, a civilian bioweapons specialist at the United States Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), who only a few years before helped the officers sort through the complicated task of studying the weaponized anthrax, as the prime suspect. Investigative efforts ratcheted up in fall of 2007 when a series of warrants were issued to search Dr. Ivins’ home, office, and vehicles.Since the ratification of the Fourth Amendment in 1791, the United States has recognized the importance of a system with laws designed to prohibit unfettered investigations by the leaders of our country. This paper analyzes the search warrants utilized in the Dr. Ivins’ investigation and discusses the Fourth Amendment implications. First, a brief review of the state of America in September 2001 is detailed. Next, the paper discusses the facts of the Amerithrax investigation, including the mishap involving Steven Hatfill. Section III explains some Fourth Amendment search warrant basics before getting to the meat of this analysis: the actual search warrants of the Amerithrax investigation.
Comment: Coming back from the Constitution Center in Philadelphia last week, my 12- year-old asked if a locked box in a school locker was subject to warrantless search. The Fourth Amendment raises an endlessly fascinating array of balancing choices that need to be made in balancing the interests at stake.
At the time of the November 2007 search, Dr. Ivins explained that the reason he was so physically upset was that they would find a plastic bag of panties in the basement (that turned out to be semen-stained). In July 2008, the FBI swabbed him for DNA for the purpose of comparing it to the semen — as if that had anything at all to do with Amerithrax. The authorities were putting huge psychological pressure on a man that they knew to be very fragile and had previously attempted suicide a few months earlier. They had every reason to be motivated to cover their ass. Attorneys like Tom Connolly, who successfully represented Steve Hatfill and a Blackwater defendant (both cases in which Ken Kohl was the prosecutor), often get their training at the Department of Justice.
Zicon said
Perhaps Mr Kemp/Law Firm could have kept a better handle on Bruce and knowing full well that he would have been just fine… Also seeing that he was given the right amount of support from any family friends down to a competent psychologist/Dr./MD. etc. Based on everything that has been presented by the FBI/DOJ & if I were a juror and even in the eyes of the “correct law” not what Washington wanted to make up as they went along, Bruce Ivins would have been proven and or found “INNOCENT ALL DAY LONG”… I guarntee that there would have been a lot of things done differently on both sides…A little to late for that one.. We all know that Ivins DID NOT DO THIS… & so does the DOJ/FBI including BUSH Jr. at the time.., & so does Obama. Just my opinon that is still working just as dilligent behind the scenes on it all no matter what anyone does or says. Also no matter what part it has to do with… every bit is just as important no matter which order it’s in or where it comes from…