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

Archive for September 20th, 2009

* DOJ letter to NAS (9/15/08) regarding the proposed NAS review of the FBI’s anthrax science

Posted by DXer on September 20, 2009

CASE CLOSEDclick here to … buy CASE CLOSED by Lew Weinstein

Here’s what readers say about CASE CLOSED  …

“An action/thriller that makes you think … The writing is sparse, driven by a plausible plot that allows the reader to think through the crime/mystery along with the protagonist.”

“You will not want to stop reading … Lew Weinstein addresses this case with the pen of a highly skilled investigator.”



I have recently received a copy of a 3-page letter from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) dated September 15, 2008, outlining the possible areas of investigation that NAS might undertake in a review of the science used by the FBI in its anthrax investigation. The letter appears in its entirety below.

  • The expectation of an independent panel and the list of topics certainly establishes a basis for the kind of solid review all of us want to see.
  • Of course, we can only hope that these sentiments and particularities made it into the eventual $880,000 contact between the FBI and the NAS, since that contract has not been made public.
  • There was certainly no mention in the August 2008 letter about sequestering FBI-submitted documents until the end of the NAS review, a condition which apparently did become part of the executed agreement.

I would like to draw attention to the following excerpt from p 3 of the letter …

DOJ to NAS - 9-15-08 p 3 of 3 - extract

Reading this excerpt in connection with the NAS/FBI decision to delay production of FBI-submitted documents until the conclusion of the NAS review raises some questions and observations …

  1. if the reason for withholding documents is because they are classified, that is of course proper
  2. but if that is the reason, why would the documents then become available under FOIA after the NAS review is completed?
  3. and why wouldn’t NAS simply say the documents to be withheld were classified?
  4. is it logical then to suppose that the withheld documents are not classified?


DOJ to NAS - 9-15-08 p1

DOJ to NAS - 9-15-08 p 2DOJ to NAS - 9-15-08 p 3 of 3

Posted in * NAS review of FBI science, * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , , | 33 Comments »