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

Archive for September, 2009

* no news regarding the FBI’s “on the verge of closing the case” or the NAS decision to sequester FBI-submitted documents … in this case, “no news” is the news

Posted by DXer on September 22, 2009

CASE CLOSEDclick here to … buy CASE CLOSED by Lew Weinstein

Here’s what readers say about CASE CLOSED  …

“Lew’s  story is a quick read. In July 2008 a physician employee of the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases dies. The FBI immediately not only declares the death a suicide, but also announces that the doctor had been their prime suspect in the 2001 anthrax murders by mail. “I don’t @#$%ing think so!” says the director of the nation’s Defense intelligence Agency (DIA) and a covert investigation of the FBI itself begins.”

******

For those keeping track of such matters …

… Anonymous Scientist reported yesterday “We are now at T+ 58 days since the FBI announced they were ‘on the verge’ of closing the anthrax case.”

… nor has the FBI responded to my questions as to whether the Amerithrax case is still ongoing or not.

… it is also 14 days since I was advised that the NAS has agreed with the FBI to sequester FBI-submitted documents until the end of the NAS review. I questioned that decision and have received no response to my questions. Thus, I sent another email today …

email to NAS 9-22-09

******

see related posts at …

* the NAS needs to explain its decision to sequester FBI-submitted documents in apparent violation of FOIA law

* the FBI, so certain a year ago, may now be terrified to expose its unconvincing case to public scrutiny, or may now have reason to believe that Dr. Ivins may not have been the SOLE perpetrator, or even involved at all

.


Posted in * FBI refusal to testify, * NAS review of FBI science, * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , , | 19 Comments »

* a just released U.S. government report casts serious doubt on the FBI’s assertion they have proven Dr. Ivins to be the SOLE PERPETRATOR of the 2001 anthrax attacks, or even involved at all

Posted by DXer on September 22, 2009

CASE CLOSED

click here to … buy CASE CLOSED by Lew Weinstein

Here’s what readers say about CASE CLOSED  …

“Lew Weinstein is a meticulous researcher and a determined storyteller.”

“This book will keep you up at night — reading, then worrying.”

“This scary scenario is as close to truth as fiction can come.”

******

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has just issued a report on High Containment Laboratories which contains several devastating passages as to inventory controls at the Ft. Detrick USAMRIID lab before October 2001.

These portrayals of inattention and incompetence at Ft. Detrick cast serious doubts on the FBI’s contention that they have proven Dr. Bruce Ivins to be the SOLE PERPETRATOR of the 2001 anthrax attacks, or even involved at all.

******

GAO Sept 09 - cover

******

Extract #1  from the GAO report …

GAO Sept 09 - 2nd page - extract

  • It hardly seems necessary to point out that this frightening description applies not only to Dr. Ivins but also to all of the others at Ft. Detrick, and perhaps elsewhere, who had access to flask RMR-1029.

******

Extract #2 from the same page …

GAO Sept 09 - 2nd page - extract 2

  • It seems clear from this extract that the GAO does not support the FBI’s conclusion that Dr. Ivins has been proven to be the SOLE PERPETRATOR of the 2001 anthrax attacks.

******

a third extract is even more devastating to the FBI’s case …

GAO Sept 09 - 3rd page

******

So … the FBI has no science, no witnesses, and no physical evidence.

… where is the FBI’s case against Dr. Ivins?

… what is the FBI hiding?

… why?

*

Here are the complete pages from which the first two excerpts above are taken …

GAO Sept 09 - ist page

GAO Sept 09 - 2nd page

Posted in * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , , | 8 Comments »

* 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.”

******

NAS & FBI

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 »

* NAS schedules hearings for Sept 24-25; will someone ask the NAS Committee to comment on the administrative decision to sequester FBI-submitted documents until the end of its review?

Posted by DXer on September 19, 2009

CASE CLOSEDclick here to … buy CASE CLOSED by Lew Weinstein

Here’s what readers say about CASE CLOSED  …

“Is it really fiction? … The author states loud and clear that this book is fiction. But, anyone who has witnessed the last eight years of American history sees great similarities in the underhanded way the last Administration dealt with issues and the way this “fictional” Administration worked.”

“Weinstein raises some very interesting and disturbing theories. If it was not meant to make one think about the real situation, the book would still be a great read. It is suspenseful and a real page turner. Please tell me it’s not true!”

******

Hearings for the NAS “Review of the Scientific Approaches used During the FBI’s Investigation of the 2001 Bacillus Anthracis Mailings” are scheduled for Thur, Sept 24th and Fri, Sept 25th

NAS & FBI

There will be open sessions on both days (see details below) and a closed data-gathering session on September 24th. The meetings will be held at the Keck Center, 500 5th Street NW, Washington DC 20001.

There is one discussion period scheduled on September 24 from 4:45pm to 6:00pm.

… Although I cannot attend myself, I am hopeful that someone will raise the issue of the NAS/FBI decision to sequester FBI-submitted documents until the conclusion of the review (perhaps 17 months from now).

My suggestion is not to question the actual decision to sequester the documents, which was most likely not the Committee’s decision, but rather to ask whether the Committee feels that keeping the FBI-submitted documents from the public will help or hinder the Committee’s task.

If you would like to attend the open sessions of this meeting, including the discussion period, you must register at http://www.surveygizmo.com/s/178053/second-meeting-of-the-committee-on-the-review-of-the-scientific-approaches-used-during-the-fbi-s-investigation-of-the-2001-bacillus-anthracis-mailings

The NAS Science Committee is not the same as NAS/FBI administration of the Committee’s review

  • It is very important to distinguish the actual review of the information provided by the FBI and others, as conducted by Committee members and their staff, from the administrative measures imposed on the Committee by the NAS/FBI contract (not made available) and NAS administrative decisions (not explained).
  • The questions asked by Committee members at the first hearing in July of this year clearly demonstrated an intense interest in honestly evaluating the science used by the FBI in what many of us believe to be its severely flawed anthrax investigation.
  • The Committee, however, may be restricted in accomplishing its task by the terms of the contract between NAS and the FBI, and also by the failure to release the FBI-submitted documents upon FOIA request.
  • As is clear to anyone who has read the comments submitted on this CASE CLOSED blog, there are questions are being raised and information is being presented which could be very helpful to the NAS committee.
  • It would seem that restricting access to the FBI-submitted documents will constrain the potential value of such input from the public and thus make the Committee’s work less valuable than it might otherwise be.

We – you and I – are paying $880,000 to the NAS to conduct this study.

  • We deserve our fair look at the documents and a fair opportunity to comment upon and provide input during the course of the ongoing NAS review, not just when it has been completed.

******

NAS Meeting Agendas

September 24, 2009

  • 2:00 Use of Preliminary Validated Assays in Exigent Circumstances, Steven Schutzer, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey
  • 2:30 Overview of the Scientific Investigation, Rita Colwell, University of Maryland College Park and Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health
  • 3:00 Identification of Bacillus anthracis Ames Strain, Paul Keim, Northern Arizona University
  • 3:45 Identification of Morphological Variants, Patricia Worsham, USAMRIID
  • 4:15 Genetic Analysis of Bacillus anthracis Ames Strain, David Rasko, Institute for Genome Sciences, University of Maryland School of Medicine
  • 4:45 – 6:00 … Discussion

September 25, 2009

  • 9:00 Microscopy/Weaponization of Bacillus anthracis, Joseph Michael, Sandia National Laboratory
  • 9:40 Nano-scale secondary ion mass spectroscopy, Peter Weber, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

******

Closed Session

The closed session to be held on September 24, 2009 from 10:00 am–1:00 pm will not be open to the public under Subsection 15(b)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., as amended by the Federal Advisory Committee Act Amendments of 1997, PL 105-153, December 17, 1997, 111 STAT. 2689. The Academy has determined that to open this session to the public would disclose information described in 5 U.S.C. 552(b).

… Participants in the CASE CLOSED blog are invited to comment on the NAS’s justification for keeping this session closed to the public. Do you think it is appropriate?

******

see related post at ...

* the NAS needs to explain its decision to sequester FBI-submitted documents in apparent violation of FOIA law

******

read the entire NAS release at … http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/meetingview.aspx?MeetingID=3821&MeetingNo=2

Posted in * NAS review of FBI science, * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , , | 20 Comments »

* the NAS needs to explain its decision to sequester FBI-submitted documents in apparent violation of FOIA law

Posted by DXer on September 18, 2009

CASE CLOSED

click here to … buy CASE CLOSED by Lew Weinstein

one reader says …

“The whole Anthrax episode is unquestionably a dark moment in American history.

But what makes it fascinating is how it was handled (or should I say mishandled) by the administration and the various agencies involved.

CASE CLOSED is a must read for anyone who wondered … what really happened? … Who did it? … why?” … and finally, why didn’t they tell us the truth?”

******

NAS needs to explain its decision to sequester FBI-submitted documents in apparent violation of FOIA law

It is now over a week since my email to NAS asking for the specific legal authority they are citing to permit them to sequester FBI-submitted documents until the end of their study (perhaps 17 months from now). I have received no response, which is unusual since all of my other emails were answered almost immediately.

Accordingly, I sent the following email to NAS today … BILL … I wonder if you could let me know the status of any response to my 9/10/09 email. Are you in the process of preparing a response? When can I expect to receive a response? … LEW

Here’s the essence of the email I sent to the NAS on 9/10/09 …

  • You say that much of the FBI material is exempt from release under the FOIA law, but you do not cite the specific legal authority under which such exemptions are claimed.
  • It is my understanding that there are several reasons for possible exemption from release. Which reasons do you specifically cite for each category of FBI material you claim is exempt?
  • Also … I note that you say “much” of the FBI material is exempt, which means that some is not exempt.
  • Could you please advise which FBI material you believe is not exempt, and how the non-exempt FBI material differs from the FBI material which you say is exempt?
  • Finally, how does one go about requesting the FBI material which you say is not exempt?

It is hard to avoid concluding that the FBI is engaged in a very conscious effort to restrict information about its Amerithrax investigation. Here’s a brief review of the known chronology …

  • September & October 2001 … anthrax letters were mailed; 5 people died, 17 others were infected, an attempt was made to murder Congressman Daschle and Senator Leahy.
  • August 8, 2008 … after a 7 year investigation, the FBI announced that Dr. Bruce Ivins (recently deceased) was the SOLE PERPETRATOR of the 2001 anthrax attacks, and that, after completing a few administrative details, they would close the case.
  • August 2009 … the FBI announced it was “on the verge” of closing the Amerithrax case.
  • September 2009 … the FBI refused to answer my questions as to whether the Amerithrax investigation is still ongoing.
  • September 2009 … the NAS stated (in an email to me) that, by terms of its undisclosed contract with the FBI, most materials submitted by the FBI will not be subject to FOIA requests until the conclusion of their review.
  • September 17, 2009Senator Charles Grassley called the FBI refusal to answer his questions as “beyond unacceptable,” asked if the FBI has “something to hide.”

What might the FBI have to hide?

  • If the FBI is still investigating the Amerithrax case, then that suggests they no longer believe Dr. Bruce Ivins was the SOLE PERPETRATOR, an admission that would open serious questions as to why they said so in the first place.
  • If Dr. Ivins was indeed the SOLE PERPETRATOR, what else is there to investigate?
  • If the FBI is not still investigating the Amerithrax case, but yet has not officially closed the case, what are they waiting for?
  • One possible (likely?) answer is that once the case is officially closed, many investigative documents will become available under the FOIA law.

What’s going on between the FBI and the NAS?

  • What sort of arrangement did the FBI impose on the NAS regarding documents the FBI has and will turn over to the NAS during the course of the NAS review of the FBI’s anthrax science?
  • The NAS has said (in an email to me) that they will turn over the FBI submitted documents at the conclusion of their review.
  • DXer asserts (in a prior comment on this blog) that the FOIA law does not provide for such delayed disclosure, that if the documents are subject to FOIA requests at the end of the study, they must be subject to such requests now.
  • Will the NAS make available the FBI-submitted material it said (in the email to me) was not subject to any FOIA exemption?
  • Why hasn’t the NAS cited the specific FOIA exemptions it claims apply to the FBI submitted material?
  • And, if there are such exemptions, by what provision of the FOIA law do the exemptions apply now but not at the end of the review period?

America needs Congressman Holt’s Anthrax Review Commission

Congressman Rush Holt has submitted legislation for an Anthrax Review Commission to look into what really happened in the attacks and what the FBI has been doing for the past eight years to solve the case. That legislation, which still sits in the House Judiciary Committee chaired by Congressman Conyers, needs to become law. And the questions raised above about the FBI/NAS relationship need to be added to the inquiry agenda.

Posted in * NAS review of FBI science, * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 12 Comments »

* Sen. Grassley says he will hold nominees at the DOJ until he receives long overdue answers from the FBI

Posted by DXer on September 18, 2009

CASE CLOSEDclick here to … buy CASE CLOSED by Lew Weinstein

readers of CASE CLOSED say …

“Weinstein raises some very interesting and disturbing theories.”

“Responsible Americans who believe in holding our government accountable for its actions should read CASE CLOSED to be more informed of the facts of the case, regardless of whether they come to agree with the author’s theory. More investigation is needed.”

******

Senator Grassley

Senator Grassley

Excerpts from U.S. Sen. Grassley’s statement on FBI oversight hearing … 9/17/2009

In March of this year, Director Mueller testified before this Committee and I expressed my concerns and frustration at the lack of responsiveness from the FBI in answering questions submitted by all members of the Judiciary Committee.

Director Mueller shared in my frustrations noting that the FBI had provided responses to outstanding questions to the Department of Justice for review, but that the Department has not yet provided them to Congress.

As we stand here today we have questions from a previous FBI Oversight hearing dated March 2008 that remain outstanding and unanswered. That hearing was held over a year and a half ago.

Not having responses to these questions is beyond unacceptable.

So, the question is did the Department simply forget to get back to the Committee or do they have something to hide?

Mr. Chairman, we have a real issue with the Department of Justice and until this culture of late and unresponsive answers to our questions is changed, I will exercise my rights to begin holding nominees at the Department.

read Sen. Grassley’s entire statement at … http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=170440

Posted in * FBI refusal to testify, * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , , , | 28 Comments »

* the first (of many expected) emails from Dr. Bruce Ivins in the crucial 2000-2001 time frame

Posted by DXer on September 16, 2009

click here to … buy CASE CLOSED by Lew Weinstein … one reader says … Case Closed reads fast and well. It could have happened just the way the author said. Full of intrigue mixed in with almost current events. The real people are just behind the fictional ones.”

******

DXer … has forwarded several of Dr. Ivins’ emails recently received from USAMRIID. He reports that many more pages are expected and that he appreciates the hard work of the people overseeing the FOI production from USAMRIID.

Dr. Bruce Ivins

Dr. Bruce Ivins


Ivins email 5-1-00

******

Ivins email 5-4-00

******

Ivins email 9-16-00

Posted in * NAS review of FBI science, * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , , | 15 Comments »

* I’m an optimist; I think the NAS will soon respond and explain their FOIA basis for sequestering the FBI-submitted documents; or if there is no basis, they will release the documents

Posted by DXer on September 14, 2009

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *

buy CC - why, who, readers

Anonymous Scientist points out that “We are now at T+ 51 days since the FBI announced they were “on the verge” of closing the anthrax case.”

FBI-DOJ press conference

It is more than 13 months since August 2008 when the FBI said they would complete a few administrative details and then close the case, having charged the recently deceased Dr. Bruce ivins as the sole perpetrator (which prompted me to write my novel CASE CLOSED).

It is but a week or so since the NAS said they would sequester FBI-produced documents until the end of their study but declined (so far) to provide the legal authority upon which they base their decision to do so.

I remain an optimist.

I believe the NAS to be an agency of integrity.

I believe the NAS will not be bullied by the FBI into passive acceptance of wrongheaded directives.

I believe the NAS will look at the documents it has, compare those with the exceptions in the FOIA law, and conclude that, as DXer said, if they can be released at the end of the study, they must be released now.

Or, if there are statutory exceptions to FOIA disclosure which apply, NAS will advise what they are.

I remain an optimist; I think we’ll have some answers soon.

see related posts at …

******

NAS Publications

NAS Publications

Posted in * NAS review of FBI science, * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , , | 7 Comments »

* new NAS response asserts that “much” of the FBI material it has received is exempt from FOIA disclosure, but fails to cite specific legal authority for such exemption; is this a wilful breach of NAS’s responsibility under FOIA?

Posted by DXer on September 10, 2009

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *

buy CC - why, who, readers

NOTE: for prior correspondence between NAS and LMW on this topic, see related post …  * the NAS has sequestered FBI submitted documents and will not make these available until the end of the study, over a year hence … the legal rationale for this sequestering is now expected next week.

******

Update 9/11/09 …

email from LMW to NAS …

BILL …  I’m forwarding to you excerpts from a comment received on the CASE CLOSED blog after posting your response earlier today. I hope you will respond to the issues raised in that comment as well the underlying issue of whatever legal authority you are claiming to withhold FBI material …  LEW

Excerpts from comment by DXer …

  • Lew, start with an easy one.  Have him put a copy of the contract in the Public Access File or quote language that the FBI included that prevented its release and the release of those documents not exempt under FOIA.
  • There is nothing in the statute that permits the withholding until after their review is done.  To the contrary, it holds the opposite and makes FOIA applicable.
  • If it is producible at the end of their review, it is producible now.  Thus,  his present position constitutes a wilful breach.
  • Why is the Public Relations person giving NAS’ legal opinion rather than the General Counsel?
  • Charging for the 100 pages also is inconsistent with FOIA.

******

Update 9/10/09 … email from LMW to NAS …

BILL

Thank you for your response, although I must say it seems inadequate.

You say that much of the FBI material is exempt from release under the FOIA law, but you do not cite the specific legal authority under which such exemptions are claimed.

It is my understanding that there are several reasons for possible exemption from release. Which reasons do you specifically cite for each category of FBI material you claim is exempt?

Also … I note that you say “much” of the FBI material is exempt, which means that some is not exempt.

Could you please advise which FBI material you believe is not exempt, and how the non-exempt FBI material differs from the FBI material which you say is exempt?

Finally, how does one go about requesting the FBI material which you say is not exempt?

I’m sure you agree that release of “thousands of pages” of  FBI materials at the end of your study is very different from release of these materials as they become available during the course of the study. There are many people who wish to assist in the analysis of the FBI material, and who can provide the kind of help I believe NAS has stated it wants from the public.

You can facilitate that assistance by releasing material promptly; you will surely inhibit such assistance by holding it all until the end, when it will be too late to be meaningful.

LEW

******

Update … email from NAS to LMW (9/10/09) …

Lew, below is my response to how we’re handling material from FBI.  Before it is a link to FACA sections applying to NAS and under which we operate, so you can see the language with which we comply.  Sorry it took me a few days to get back to you.

http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ABOUT_FACA

The study committee expects to receive thousands of pages of material from the F.B.I. in the course of its study. Some has already been received; more will be coming as the study progresses.

Much of this material is exempt from mandatory release to the public under the Freedom of Information Act.

However, we have an agreement with the F.B.I. that all of the material will be made available to the public at the same time that our report is released, so that everyone will be able to review the information that was available to the committee in reaching its conclusions.

Posted in * NAS review of FBI science, * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , , | 17 Comments »

* the NAS has sequestered FBI submitted documents and will not make these available until the end of the study, over a year hence … the legal rationale for this sequestering is now expected next week.

Posted by DXer on September 4, 2009

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *

buy CC - why, who, readers

NOTE: for subsequent conversations between NAS and LMW, see related post … * new NAS response asserts that “much” of the FBI material it has received is exempt from FOIA disclosure, but fails to cite specific legal authority for such exemption; is this a wilful breach of NAS’s responsibility under FOIA?

LMW COMMENT (9/6/09) …

I’m actuallyimpressed with this answer on the Sunday of Labor Day weekend. There is no question in my mind that the NAS information office is being as responsive as they can. Now we’ll see what the NAS legal department has to say, and when.

******

UPDATE … NAS to LMW (9/6/09) …

I was out sick Friday and now it’s Labor Day weekend. I’ve asked our general counsel for the legal language you requested but I don’t know if I’ll have it for you before Tuesday.

******

UPDATE … LMW to NAS (9/6/09) …

BILL

Up until now, you have always answered my emails with hours, indeed minutes. But now it is several days and no answer.

The mystery over he missing FBI documentrs is beginning to cast doubts over the legitimacy of the NAS/FBI relationship. Could you please address the legal authority you claim to sequester the FBI documents when it seems that all documents received by the committee should have been available for public disclosure.

The failure to disclose the contract between NAS and the FBI contributes to the growing skepticism.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

LEW

******

UPDATE … LMW email to NAS (9/4/09) …

BILL

I wonder if you could explain what seems on the face of it to be an inconsistency. If material received by the committee is supposed to go into a public access file, why is material from the FBI excluded from that requirement. What is your lawful authority to sequester the FBI-provided material?

LEW

******

UPDATE 9/4/09 … RESPONSE FROM MR. KEARNEY …

Lew, the NAS is a nonprofit private institution that operates under a congressional charter and the Section 15 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act which requires that material presented to our committees as part of their data gathering go in our Public Access Office files. Some material given to the anthrax committee is aleady in that file and I’ll ask someone from public access to send you link to list. However, the FBI case documents periodically being givenp to the committee will not go in the public access file until the end of the study. Fyi. The next committee meeting will be Sept 24-25 and an agenda should be available in our current projects database late next week or so. Sorry, I don’t have urls handy because I’m out of office today.

******

The following email was sent to our NAS contact (9/4/09) …

BILL

Many of us at the CASE CLOSED blog followed the opening hearings of the NAS study panel with great interest. The questions asked by panel members suggested that the study is off on exactly the right foot. There have since been reports of documernts received by the NAS panel, which documents are preumably now being reviewed. My question is whether these documents can now be made available, and if so, what is the procedure (FOIA?) for requesting them. Thanks again for your help in this matter of such great interest and importance to our country.

LEW

Posted in * NAS review of FBI science | Tagged: , , , | 35 Comments »