CASE CLOSED … what really happened in the 2001 anthrax attacks?

Archive for May, 2009

* trying to learn if the FBI has answered any of the questions asked by Congress

Posted by Lew Weinstein on May 31, 2009

LMW COMMENT

This week, I will be contacting the offices of …

Senator Grassley

Congressman Conyer

Congressman Nadler

Congressman Holt

… to try to learn if the FBI has ever answered any of the many excellent questions these legislators have been asking for at least the last 8 months, in some cases much longer than that.

I am also pleased to announce that my novel about the anthrax case, CASE CLOSED, is now available at amazon in both paperback and Kindle editions.

CASE CLOSED begins where the facts of the real anthrax case leave off, and presents a fictional scenario to explain why the FBI failed to solve the case. 

* purchase CASE CLOSED (paperback)

* purchase CASE CLOSED (Kindle)

CASE CLOSED

Posted in * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments »

* Dead Silence: Fear and Terror on the Anthrax Trail

Posted by Lew Weinstein on May 31, 2009

Just published …

Dead Silence

Dead Silence: Fear and Terror on the Anthrax Trail  by Bob Coen and Eric Nadler

purchase on amazon.com at …

http://www.amazon.com/Dead-Silence-Terror-Anthrax-Trail/dp/158243509X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243765644&sr=8-1

Publisher’s description:

Dead Silence—the first in-depth look into the new biological arms race—tells the inside story of the U.S. anthrax attacks and their connection to the existence of a frightening global germ warfare underworld. Their investigation intensifies to include the mysterious deaths of some of the world’s leading germ war scientists in the wake of 9/11, including that of Bruce Ivins—the man the tabloids called “Doctor Doom” and the FBI controversially insists is the lone perpetrator of the anthrax attacks.

LMW COMMENT

CASE CLOSEDThe more truth we learn about the anthrax attacks and the failed FBI investigation, the more we will be disgusted with the continuing failure to solve a case of mass murder that terrorized America. So I welcome the publication of Dead Silence and look forward to reading it.

Sometimes fiction can be as powerful a means of informing and influencing as non-fiction.

In my novel CASE CLOSED, I also raise the question that maybe Dr. Ivins did not die of suicide. It was just too convenient for the FBI to be able to blame the entire anthrax attacks (Ivins the sole perpetrator) on a dead man who could not defend himself.

This was one poignant example in a continuing stream of FBI refusals to testify under oath on these matters. Every time FBI Director Mueller says “I don’t know” or “I’ll get back to you later,” with no intention of ever getting back to anybody, it increase suspicion that the FBI is hiding dark secrets.

I deal with these possible secrets in a fictional way in CASE CLOSED, revealing stunning abuses of power at the highest levels of government.

Does my novel tell what actually happened? Of course not. It’s a novel!

But many readers, including one well place source in the Intelligence Community, have told me my story of conspiracy and murder is, unfortunately, “all too plausible.”

CASE CLOSED is now available on amazon …

* purchase CASE CLOSED (paperback)

* purchase CASE CLOSED (Kindle)

 

Posted in * FBI refusal to testify, * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation, * recent anthrax news | Tagged: , , , , , , | 43 Comments »

* FBI Director Mueller has consistently refused to answer relevant questions about the FBI’s failed anthrax investigation; the FBI has pursued a consistent pattern (see Hatfill and Ivins) of never testifying under oath; anyone who thinks the FBI isn’t hiding a terrible truth is simply not paying attention

Posted by Lew Weinstein on May 31, 2009

Glen Greenwald of Salon wrote (9-16-08) …

Conyers

Congressman John Conyers (D-Mich)

  • House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (Mich.) and two other Democrats on the panel have signaled they will scrutinize the FBI’s work today.
  • This month, they wrote FBI Director Robert Mueller asking about missteps in identifying the anthrax strain used in the attacks and tracing it back to Ivins.
  • But after just an hour of the hearing, it is painfully clear that — as is true in virtually all of these hearings now before a pitifully powerless Congress — Mueller won’t provide the Committee with even a single answer of import, won’t even pretend to, and the Committee has no intent to compel him to do so.
  • the hearing began with an angry statement from Chairman Conyers about the fact that the FBI, in general, simply ignores all inquiries for information and answers from the Committee for months and months and months and then shows up at these hearings unprepared to answer even the questions they are advised will be asked, knowing that each member only has five minutes and can’t actually accomplish anything.
  • (Congressman Jerrold) Nadler (D-NY) than asked one of the most central questions in the anthrax case: 
    • he pointed out that the facilities that (unlike Ft. Detrick) actually have the equipment and personnel to prepare dry, silica-coated anthrax are the U.S. Army’s Dugway Proving Ground and the Battelle Corporation, the private CIA contractor that conducts substantial research into highly complex strains of anthrax. 
    • Nadler asked how the FBI had eliminated those institutions as the culprits behind the attack. 
    • Mueller’s response was this: I don’t know the answers to those questions as to how we eliminated Dugway and Battelle. I’ll have to get back to you at some point.
  • Nadler then ended by asking whether Mueller would object to an independent commission or other body to review the FBI’s evidence and its accusations against Ivins and whether the FBI would cooperate with such an independent inquiry.
    • Mueller pretended to answer by telling Nadler that the FBI intended to ask some members of the National Academy of Science to review the FBI’s scientific claims, but that didn’t answer the question as to whether the FBI opposed a full-scale independent review of the FBI’s case and whether the FBI would cooperate with it.

read the entire post at … http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/09/16/oversight/

see also … * the (apparent) refusal of the FBI to answer Sen. Grassley’s September 2008 questions raises further suspicions of a continuing FBI cover-up of its failed anthrax investigation

LMW COMMENT

It is frustrating but understandable that FBI Director Mueller refuses to testify about the FBI’s investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks, since the investigation itself was so pathetic and unproductive. It is inexplicable that the FBI …

  • took 6 years harrassing one USAMRIID scientist (Dr. Steven Hatfill),
  • then paid Hatfill $5.8 million to settle his law suit and thus avoid having to testify under oath,
  • then charged another USAMRIID scientist (Dr. Bruce Ivins) as the sole perpetrator of the attacks, but not until after Ivins had committed suicide and thus could not defend himself, again allowing the FBI to avoid testifying under oath.

CASE CLOSED

 

It was the FBI’s nonsensical announcement about Dr. Ivins that prompted me to write CASE CLOSED, a novel that presents a fictional scenario of what happened in the attacks and the subsequent FBI investigation. My theory in the novel is that the FBI didn’t solve the case because they were told not to.

Does CASE CLOSED report what actually happened in the anthrax attacks and FBI investigation. Of course not. It’s a novel!

But many readers, including a well placed source in the Intelligence Community, have told me my novel is all too plausible.

CASE CLOSED is now available at amazon.com … 

* purchase CASE CLOSED (paperback)

Posted in * FBI refusal to testify, * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

* FBI Director Mueller Not Forthcoming (Meryl Nass, M.D., Sept 2008)

Posted by Lew Weinstein on May 31, 2009

I’d like to refer readers of this blog to a 9-16-08 post by Meryl Nass, M.D., on her blog at http://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/

What Dr. Nass reports continues to be very relevant today in view of the continuing (apparent) failure of the FBI to answer questions posed by Senator Grassley, also in September 2008.

Extracts from Dr. Nass’s blog follow  …

  • Eleven or twelve members attended the House Judiciary Committee’s FBI oversight hearing today. Mueller
  • Repeatedly, they expressed disappointment with the FBI’s continuing failure to answer their questions, and to respond to written questions.
  • (FBI Director) Mueller spoke in generalities, failing to answer specific questions.
  • Only Rep. Nadler asked about anthrax, and to his credit inquired pointedly about the Silicon signature and weaponization. Mueller had no answers.
  • It’s FBI’s investigation that is unsatisfactory in every way, requiring an independent appraisal.
  • Don’t be fooled by an expensive and time-consuming NAS smokescreen.

read the entire post at … http://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2008/09/fbi-director-mueller-not-forthcoming.html

also see … * the (apparent) refusal of the FBI to answer Sen. Grassley’s September 2008 questions raises further suspicions of a continuing FBI cover-up of its failed anthrax investigation

Posted in * FBI anthrax statements, * FBI refusal to testify, * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

* followup with Senator Grassley’s office regarding FBI answers to the Senator’s September 2008 questions about their investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks

Posted by Lew Weinstein on May 30, 2009

LMW COMMENT …  

see previous post … * the (apparent) refusal of the FBI to answer Sen. Grassley’s September 2008 questions raises further suspicions of a continuing FBI cover-up of its failed anthrax investigation

******************************************

On Friday May 30, I again called Senator Grassley’s DC office seeking answers regarding any FBI response to  the Senator’s September 2008 questions directed to FBI Director Meuller.

Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa)

Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa)

 

I was told to contact Brian Downey on the Senate Finance Committee which I was told has oversight responsibility on this issue. I asked if I could send an email to Mr. Downey and was very graciously told by the person in Senator Grassley’s office that she could not give me Mr. Downey’s email address but if I sent an email to her, she would forward it to Mr. Downey.

I sent the following email on Friday afternoon …

Thank you for trying to help me reach Brian Downey.

Here are my questions for him …

Last September, Senator Grassley sent a letter to the then Attorney General Michael Mukasey and FBI Director Robert Mueller, asking 18 excellent questions about the FBI’s investigation of the anthrax case and the FBI’s determination that USAMRIID scientist Dr. Bruce Ivins was the sole perpetrator of the 2001 anthrax attacks. 

Eight months have passed.

has the FBI responded to the Senator’s questions? 

if yes, when did they respond?

if yes, may I have a copy of the FBI’s answers? 

if no, what is the Senator doing about the FBI’s unwillingness to answer?

 

 

Posted in * FBI refusal to testify, * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation, * recent anthrax news | Tagged: , , , , | 3 Comments »

* Bush admits torture to gain information regarding the anthrax attacks

Posted by Lew Weinstein on May 29, 2009

Eartha Jane Melzer of the Michigan Messenger writes (5-29-09) …

Bush & Cheney

  • Former President George W. Bush, in a nearly 90-minute-long unscripted address to the local economic development club in this down-trodden southwest Michigan city (Benton Harbor), said Thursday evening he was honored to have served during “some unusual times,” making repeated references to the challenges he faced as commander in chief amid the “fog of war.”
  • … the former president spoke indirectly of his administration’s authorization of the use of torture against detainees captured during the War on Terror, avoiding the words “torture” and “abuse.”
  • “You have to make tough decisions,” Bush said. “They’ve captured a guy who murdered 3,000 citizens … that affected me … They come in and say he may have more information
  •  …and we had an anthrax attack … and they say he may have more information. What do you do?“
  • Bush was firm and defended his record as president: “I will tell you that the information gained saved lives.”

read the entire article at … http://michiganmessenger.com/19945/bush-on-his-presidency-there-is-such-a-thing-as-the-fog-of-war

LMW COMMENT

It sure seems like former President Bush has admitted torturing a prisoner to gain information about the anthrax attacks.

How can this be reconciled with the FBI’s determination, very early on, that the anthrax used in the attacks came from a U.S. lab? Or the FBI’s current insistence that USAMRIID scientist Dr. Bruce Ivins was the sole perpetrator of the 2001 attacks?

What Bush (and Cheney) were doing, in my view, was trying desperately to tie the anthrax attacks to Saddam Hussein, in order to add another justification for invading Iraq.

If this is true, Bush and Cheney tortured, not to save lives, but to justify a war of choice that has so far killed over 4,ooo Americans and many tens of thousands of Iraqis, while advancing no discernible national interest.

CC - front cover - small

Questions that cry out to be answered.

Who was tortured in connection with the anthrax attacks?

Who did the torturing? (FBI Director Meuller has said the FBI did not torture anyone)

What questions were asked? What information was gained?

Was the information obtained by torture shared with the FBI (assuming it wasn’t them doing the torturing)? 

What was done with that information?

In my new novel CASE CLOSED, I present a fictional scenario to explain why the FBI failed to solve the 2001 anthrax case. My theory is that the FBI failed to solve the case because they were told not to. Who would have the power to squelch an FBI investigation in a mass murder carried out in a terrorist fashion? Why?

Posted in * Iraq & anthrax, * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation, * recent anthrax news | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

* the (apparent) refusal of the FBI to answer Sen. Grassley’s September 2008 questions raises further suspicions of a continuing FBI cover-up of its failed anthrax investigation

Posted by Lew Weinstein on May 29, 2009

Televangelists Finances

Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa)

LMW COMMENT … 

Last September, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) sent a letter to the then Attorney General Michael Mukasey and FBI Director Robert Mueller, asking 18 excellent questions (see below) about the FBI’s investigation of the anthrax case and the FBI’s determination that USAMRIID scientist Dr. Bruce Ivins was the sole perpetrator of the 2001 anthrax attacks.

Eight months have passed.

I have recently called Senator Grassley’s office several times, asking …

  • has the FBI responded to the Senator’s questions?
  • if yes, will you release the FBI’s answers?
  • if no, what are you going to do about the FBI’s unwillingness to answer?

To date, I have been shunted around by the Senator’s staff but have received no answers to my questions. What’s going on here? Who’s covering up what?

If the FBI has refused to answer, that is a disgrace; Senator Grassley and the Congress should not let the FBI get away with that. 

If the FBI has answered, why haven’t their answers been made known?

If the FBI truly believes the case is solved, what more could they possibly have to hide?

Of course, if the FBI knows it has not solved the case, as I and many others believe, they have much to hide.

Senator Grassley is of course from Iowa, where Iowa State University had the infamous Ames Anthrax and then destroyed it soon after the first of the 2001 anthrax attack mailings. There has never been an adequate explanation for the destruction of the Ames Anthrax and the FBI’s role in “ordering” or “approving” or “not objecting” to that destruction, and this subject was, curiously, not among those addressed by Senator Grassley’s questions.

Marcia Chamber’s excellent series of posts on this blog (see * MARCIA’S STORY ) tells her story of what she saw at Iowa State University in 1990, and expresses her belief that it was anthrax stolen in 1990 from a lab at Iowa State University which was later used in the 2001 mailings. Marcia’s observations have never been adequately investigated, despite her numerous attempts to convince the FBI and Postal Inspectors of the potential importance of what she saw. There is no question in my mind that the destruction of the Ames Anthrax by Iowa State University remains a puzzling and troubling aspect of the case which has not received sufficient investigative attention.

CC - front cover - small

The longer such information is withheld, the more it appears that the FBI investigation was indeed a sham and that their case against Dr. Ivins is one which could not be proven in court.

It was my anger at the FBI’s August 2008 announcement naming the recently deceased Dr. Ivins as the sole perpetrator of the 2001 anthrax attacks that prompted me to write my latest novel CASE CLOSED.

CASE CLOSED picks up where the facts of the actual anthrax case leave off and presents a fictional scenario to explain who committed the anthrax attacks and, equally important, why the FBI failed to solve the case. My premise in CASE CLOSED is that the FBI didn’t solve the case because they were told not to.

Does CASE CLOSED tell what actually happened in the anthrax attacks and subsequent FBI investigation. Of course not. It’s a novel!

But many early readers, including a well placed member of the Intelligence Community, have told me that my story, while fiction, is all too plausible.

A video introducing CASE CLOSED may be seen on YouTube at …

* see CASE CLOSED VIDEO on YouTube

CASE CLOSED may be purchased at amazon.com (in Kindle format) …

* purchase CASE CLOSED at amazon (Kindle format)

CASE CLOSED paperback edition is scheduled to be available at amazon.com and other bookselling locations within the next week.

 

**********************************************

Here are the 18 questions asked in Senator Grassley’s September 2008 letter …


  1. What is the date (month and year) that the FBI determined that the anthrax came from a specified flask in Ivins’s lab (“RMR-1029”)?
  2. When (month and year) did the FBI determine that Dr. Hatfill never had access to the anthrax used in the killings?
  3. How did the FBI determine that Dr. Hatfill did not have access to the anthrax used in the killings?  Was that because the FBI determined that Dr. Hatfill no longer worked at USAMRIID when the powder was made?
  4. Was Dr. Hatfill or his counsel informed that Dr. Hatfill had been cleared of any involvement in the anthrax killings before the Department of Justice offered a settlement to him?  Was he informed before signing the settlement agreement with him?  If not, please explain why not.
  5. Was Judge Walton (the judge overseeing the Privacy Act litigation) ever informed that Dr. Hatfill had been eliminated as a suspect in the anthrax killings?  If so, when.  If not, please explain why not.
  6. Was Dr. Ivins ever polygraphed in the course of the investigation?  If so, please provide the dates and results of the exam(s).  If not, please explain why not.
  7. Of the more than 100 people who had access to RMR 1029, how many were provided custody of samples sent outside Ft. Detrick?  Of those, how many samples were provided to foreign laboratories?
  8. If those with access to samples of RMR 1029 in places other than Ft. Detrick had used the sample to produce additional quantities of anthrax, would that anthrax appear distinguishable from RMR 1029?
  9. How can the FBI be sure that none of the samples sent to other labs were used to create additional quantities of anthrax that would appear distinguishable from RMR 1029?
  10. Please describe the methodology and results of any oxygen isotope measurements taken to determine the source of water used to grow the spores used in the anthrax attacks.
  11. Was there video equipment which would record the activities of Dr. Ivins at Ft. Detrick on the late nights he was there on the dates surrounding the mailings?  If so, please describe what examination of the video revealed.
  12. When did the FBI first learn of Dr. Ivins’ late-night activity in the lab around the time of the attacks?  If this is powerful circumstantial evidence of his guilt, then why did this information not lead the FBI to focus attention on him, rather than Dr. Hatfill, much sooner in the investigation?
  13. When did the FBI first learn that Dr. Ivins was prescribed medications for various symptoms of mental illness?  If this is circumstantial evidence of his guilt, then why did this information not lead the FBI to focus attention on him, rather than Dr. Hatfill, much sooner in the investigation? Of the 100 individuals who had access to RMR 1029, were any others found to suffer from mental illness, be under the care of a mental health professional, or prescribed anti-depressant/anti-psychotic medications?   If so, how many?
  14. What role did the FBI play in conducting and updating the background examination of Dr. Ivins in order for him to have clearance and work with deadly pathogens at Ft. Detrick?
  15. After the FBI identified Dr. Ivins as the sole suspect, why was he not detained?  Did the U.S. Attorney’s Office object to seeking an arrest or material witness warrant?  If not, did anyone at FBI order a slower approach to arresting Ivins?
  16. Had an indictment of Dr. Ivins been drafted before his death?  If so, what additional information did it contain beyond the affidavits already released to the public?  If not, then when, if ever, had a decision been made to seek an indictment from the grand jury?
  17. According to family members, FBI agents publicly confronted and accused Dr. Ivins of the attacks, showed pictures of the victims to his daughter, and offered the $2.5 million reward to his son in the months leading up to his suicide.  These aggressive, overt surveillance techniques appear similar to those used on Dr. Hatfill with the apparent purpose of intimidation rather than legitimate investigation.  Please describe whether and to what degree there is any truth to these claims.
  18. What additional documents will be released, if any, and when will they be released?

Posted in * FBI refusal to testify, * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation, * recent anthrax news | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 14 Comments »

* Jeffrey Taylor, prosecutor in anthrax case, resigns

Posted by Lew Weinstein on May 29, 2009

doj-press-conference-photo3

 AP reports (5-28-09) …                                                                                                                   

  • Washington U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor, a holdover from the Bush administration, will leave the Justice Department on Friday. 
  • He will join the auditing firm Ernst & Young, where he will lead their fraud investigation practice.
  • The Justice Department declared that Army scientist Bruce Ivins was responsible for the anthrax mailings that killed five people in 2001. 
  • Ivins killed himself before he could be indicted.
  • Taylor previously served as counselor to Attorney Generals John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales.
  • Taylor took the top job in Washington on an interim basis in 2006 

 

 

 

read the entire article at …  http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i6Aan9jetkMwlfB1qQepYQDUWqxQD98FB8480

Posted in * FBI anthrax statements | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

* copy-cat anthrax attacks linked to FBI failure to solve 2001 anthrax case

Posted by Lew Weinstein on May 28, 2009

The Baltimore News reports (5-27-09) …

  • Maryland State Police are trying to find the person behind the first anthrax scare they’ve had to respond to in nearly a year.
  • The incident happened Wednesday at a set of Maryland District Court administrative offices in Annapolis in the 900 block of Commerce Road.
  • Police said an employee at the location opened an envelope just before 9 a.m. and “When the employee opened it up, a white powdery substance came out of the envelope.
  • Employees from the court administration office and two other companies were evacuated for nearly four hours until the Anne Arundel County Fire Department tested the substance and determined that it was baking powder.
  • However, the crime will still hold serious consequences. Betts said investigations into these types of incidents are time consuming and costly.

read the entire article at … http://www.wbaltv.com/news/19582725/detail.html

LMW COMMENT … I can’t help but believe that the FBI’s floundering incompetence in their failure to solve the original 2001 anthrax case has contributed to these dangerous and costly copy-cat attacks.

Posted in * recent anthrax news | Tagged: , | 2 Comments »

* Bruce Ivins Wasn’t the Anthrax Culprit

Posted by Lew Weinstein on May 26, 2009

Richard Spertzel wrote in the Wall Street Journal (8-5-09) …

  • Over the past week the media was gripped by the news that the FBI was about to charge Bruce Ivins, a leading anthrax expert, as the man responsible for the anthrax letter attacks in September/October 2001.
  • But despite the seemingly powerful narrative that Ivins committed suicide because investigators were closing in, this is still far from a shut case.
  • I believe this is another mistake in the investigation.
  • The spores could not have been produced at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, where Ivins worked, without many other people being aware of it.
  • Furthermore, the equipment to make such a product does not exist at the institute.
  • The latest line of speculation asserts that the anthrax’s DNA, obtained from some of the victims, initially led investigators to the laboratory where Ivins worked. But the FBI stated a few years ago that a complete DNA analysis was not helpful in identifying what laboratory might have made the product.
  • The FBI has not officially released information on why it focused on Ivins, and whether he was about to be charged or arrested.
  • And when the FBI does release this information, we should all remember that the case needs to be firmly based on solid information that would conclusively prove that a lone scientist could make such a sophisticated product.
  • From what we know so far, Bruce Ivins, although potentially a brilliant scientist, was not that man.

Mr. Spertzel, head of the biological-weapons section of Unscom from 1994-99, was a member of the Iraq Survey Group. Read the entire article at … http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121789293570011775.html

LMW COMMENT

CC - front cover - smallIt seems that the case against the FBI is far stronger than the FBI’s supposed case against Dr. Bruce Ivins. It is infuriating that the FBI would charge a man in a crime of mass murder with so little factual basis to support its conclusions.

It was skepticism like that expressed by Mr. Spertzel that prompted me to write CASE CLOSED. My focus in the novel is on why the FBI failed to solve the case. It is my theory that they were told not to.

Who would have the power to divert the FBI investigation?

And why would they do it?

see an introduction to CASE CLOSED at … * see CASE CLOSED VIDEO on YouTube

CASE CLOSED is on amazon (Kindle now, paperback in mid-June) … * purchase CASE CLOSED at amazon (Kindle format)

Posted in * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »