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

* It wasn’t Ivins. So why does the FBI say it was Ivins? And WHY did the FBI fail to solve the case?

Posted by DXer on July 22, 2009


why did the FBI fail to solve the 2001 anthrax case?

CASE CLOSED offers a “fictional” answer




A comment to the CASE CLOSED blog earlier today included the analyses reproduced below.

  • I urge you to read through these points carefully.
  • As you read, I think it will become abundantly clear to you that the FBI case against Dr. Ivins is a fraud
  • The FBI has not proven that Dr. Ivins was the sole perpetrator of the 2001 anthrax attacks.

But the really important questions have to do with why the FBI failed to solve the case.

  • I personally don’t think the FBI is incompetent.
  • I think it is unreasonable to believe the FBI could spend seven years, hundreds of thousands of man hours, and millions of dollars in the largest investigation in the history of the FBI and come up with so little.
  • I think the FBI knows that Dr. Ivins is not the sole perpetrator.

Isn’t that frightening? If I’m right, the FBI has accused a dead man who can’t defend himself  based on a case that on its face is laughable.

Why? … The truth is we don’t know why.

In my novel CASE CLOSED I present a fictional scenario that shows …

… the FBI didn’t solve the anthrax case because they were told not to solve it.

Which leads to two other questions.

… who benefitted from not solving the case?
… who had the power to divert the FBI investigation for seven years?

Again, we don’t know the answers to those questions.

In CASE CLOSED, my fictional story line is that the President and Vice President of the United States, in order to add another plank to their bundle of lies supporting their war of choice in Iraq, wanted the FBI not to solve the case so they could continue, as Colin Powell actually did at the United Nations, to raise the specter that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons and the means to deliver them to the U.S., which of course was nonsense.

Is the CASE CLOSED hypothesis true?  …  I don’t know.

Does it sound like it might be true?  …  Sure does, as many of the readers of CASE CLOSED have said.

We need to know the truth!

We need Rush Holt’s proposed Anthrax Investigation Commission to become a reality.

  • Somebody – not Dr. Bruce Ivins – unleashed a murderous attack against America, and the organizers and perpetrators of that attack are still at large.
  • And there’s a reason the FBI failed to solve the anthrax case.
  • Knowing that reason is even more important than knowing the names of the actual perpetrators.

I urge you to read CASE CLOSED.  …  Not because it answers these questions, but because it asks them.

America must ask these questions.

Our government owes us answers to these questions.




Here are the analyses previously posted as a comment on this blog …

Access to RMR-1029:

  • Everybody at Ft. Detrick could have taken a sample before 1999 when it was transferred to a more secure location, up to then it was in an easily accessible place.
  • It was sent out to several laboratories at which point again a large number of persons (including cleaning personnel for all we know) could have taken 1 microliter to start a new culture.
  • Despite that, only one laboratory had RMR-1029/daughter thereof when the FBI collected samples indicating a less than perfect sample acquisition method. Due to the fact that a huge number had access to RMR-1029 it’s almost impossible to exclude everybody else.
  • Simply because nobody can have an air tight alibi for multiple days (As there is not a single defined timepoint when the letters have been sent but a 2/3 day long timeframe) unless he was in another country.
  • The alibi also loses importance if one is not preoccupied by the one culprit theory and includes the possibility of multiple culprits. It is entirely irrelevant who worked with RMR-1029 at the time of the attack since the attack spores where made of a daughter culture.

The Where (Overtime, Unsupervised Work, Bleachings):

  • While the location of the mailbox, the pre-stamped envelopes and RMR-1029 point in the general direction of Ft. Detrick we don’t know where exactly the attack spores were produced.
  • The only FORENSIC EVIDENCE we have is that the airfilters at Ft. Detrick did NOT show unusual high CFU counts (Dried spores would ultimately end up in the filtration system of the AC, as we know they get easily airborn) indicating that this is NOT WHERE the attack spores were produced.
  • That this is not preposterous claim is shown by the FBI’s Hatfill case as well as the claims by the FBI how easy such spores are produced.
  • In addition, this the B. subtilis found in the first attack was not found at Ft. Detrick. Finally, other personnel at Ft. Detrick claims that Ivins could not have done it. So:
    • Ivins overtime / unsupervised work is actually an alibi because we know he was not where the spores were produced.
    • Ivins secret bleaching, which he reported to a friend AND we only know of because Ivins told us; took place where the spores were NOT produced.
    • Since Ivins could bleach without anybody noticing we can assume any number of people could have done so, just they did not reveal it.

The When (Overtime, Unsupervised Work,  Bleachings):

  • There is no evidence for the timeline. But experience tells us that the refinement of the protocol observed by the difference of quality between the two attack waves CANNOT be achieved in three weeks, working only in evenings and in secrecy. I personally doubt that it can be achieved in three weeks working exclusively on this.
  • This makes his overtime / unsupervised work / bleaching irrelevant as we don’t know when the production has taken place.

The How (Equipment and Experience):

  • We don’t know how the spores were prepared therefore we can only guess whether Ivins had access to the necessary equipment.
  • However if the boasts of the FBI are true, no special equipment was required at all to produce the spores (Incubator, centrifuge etc. can be obtained easily), supporting the theory that the spores were not necessarily produced INSIDE of Ft. Detrick.
  • The how also could tell us about the expertise needed; what we know is that they did not work with dried spores at Ft. Detrick.
  • We also know that the wet growing of anthracis is well published and can be reproduced by anyone. Therefore anyone working on DRIED bacillus spores (e.g. Dugway people but also many other labs) should be considered more experienced when it comes to dried anthracis spore production.

The Alibi:

  • Sure Ivins has no conclusive Alibi for time when the letters were sent.
  • We DON’T HAVE: Ivins was at the place where the letters were sent, at the time they were sent.
  • We HAVE: Ivins cannot prove he was not there at that time.
  • Fortunately, you don’t have to prove your innocence; your guilt has to be proven.

The Silicon:

  • Low concentrations of silicon such as found in RMR-1030 are naturally occurring as claimed by the FBI and might be the result of the addition of silicon anti foaming agent.
  • None of the ~200 protocols tested by the FBI resulted in silicon concentrations as high as found in the attack spores clearly indicating that a very specific protocol was used which resulted in this.
    • Ivins would not have deviated from the well known and documented protocols.
    • The high silicon count cannot be the result of some obscure purification method because it did not add to the deadliness and therefore there is no reason to enrich it.

Dr. Ivins’ Mental Health:

  • If Ivins psyche was a problem, why was he allowed to work at Ft. Detrick?
  • And why did none of his colleagues notice/report it?
  • We should also not that he was in treatment /therapy all the time, so he was open and honest about his mental problem.

Driving a Distance to the Mailbox:

  • Well, that is the most obvious thing to do; everybody with half a brain would drive a couple of miles before placing the letters into the mailbox. It’s the most logical thing to do.

The Motive:

  • On the patents Ivins is only listed as provider of the spores and would as such not have profited much, leaving people with access to RMR-1029 AND much more direct interests.

Misleading the Investigators:

  • Ivins did not mislead the investigators:
    • Sample 1 was the wrong tube but sent in before official specifications (Wrong tube = obvious, the FBI also immediately realized that it was the wrong tube).
    • Sample 2, as sample 1, contained culture from RMR-1029 but first set of tests failed, only later the FBI realized this with two new tests (using the duplicate from Dr. Keim, which raises the questions what had happened to the sample they have gotten? Used up? Destroyed?).
  • The error is not with Ivins but with the FBI.
    • Obviously others misled the FBI because only one sample containing RMR-1029 or derivate was recovered from outside Ft. Detrick even though it was sent out multiple times to multiple institutions.
    • Alternatively, the test of the FBI is not so reliable and they did not repeat it with the new methods on all samples.
  • Dr. Ivins also admitted to the bleaching, something we wouldn’t know without him generally indicating that he did not try to mislead the FBI.

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: