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

* Case Not Closed; Congress must investigate

Posted by DXer on May 20, 2009

DXer has just posted a comment summarizing many compelling statements that the FBI has failed to solve the 2001 anthrax case. I think this comment is worth making into a post to give it higher visibility. Excerpts from DXer’s comment are shown below …

Senator Chuck Grassley:

  • If the case is solved, why isn’t it solved?  It’s all very suspicious, and you wonder whether or not the F.B.I. doesn’t have something to cover up and that they don’t want to come clean.”  

Senator Patrick Leahy:

  • “I believe there are others involved, either as accessories before or accessories after the fact.  I believe there are others who can be charged with murder.”

 Bruce Ivins’ defense counsel Paul Kemp:

  • “In this country, we prosecute people, not beakers.”  

 “Case Not Closed” … Nature – the International Weekly Journal of Science (8/21/08):  

  • … neither the conclusions drawn from the scientific analysis, nor such crucial legal elements as the veracity of the provenance and handling of samples, have been tested in court.
  • So far only one side of the story has been heard: that of the prosecution.
  • The FBI should explain why it thinks the scientific evidence implicates Ivins himself, and not just the flask.
  • As (Paul) Kemp aptly puts it: “In this country, we prosecute people, not beakers.”
  • The absence of such a full disclosure can only feed suspicions that the FBI has again targeted an innocent man in this case — as it did with former Fort Detrick researcher Steven Hatfill.
  • This case is too important to be brushed under the carpet.
  • Science and law share a conviction that conclusions require evidence, and that the evidence be debated openly.
  • It is essential that such an enquiry takes place.   
  • to read the entire NATURE article, click …


CC - front cover - small

LMW COMMENT … Before I wrote CASE CLOSED about the anthrax case, I wrote the novel A GOOD CONVICTION, describing the case of a young man convicted of a murder he did not commit by a New York City prosecutor who knew he was innocent. In the course of researching A GOOD CONVICTION, I read everything I could find about prosecutorial abuse. I learned that many prosecutors are quite willing to withold evidence, make up evidence, and break the law in other ways in order to get a conviction. It seems that the FBI and the DOJ are following exactly that route in the anthrax case. Desperate to gain a conviction (finally, after seven years) they switched from Dr. Hatfill to Dr. Ivins in a heartbeat, losing whatever scant credibility they might still have had after seven years of failure. Why did the FBI fail to solve this case? We don’t yet know, but I have created a fictional answer to that question in CASE CLOSED.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: