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

Archive for October 30th, 2009

* NAS has still not provided any legal justification for its decision to withhold and sequester FBI-submitted documents related to the NAS review of the FBI’s anthrax science

Posted by DXer on October 30, 2009

CASE CLOSEDCASE CLOSED is a novel which answers the question “Why did the FBI fail to solve the 2001 anthrax case?” … click here to … buy CASE CLOSED by Lew Weinstein

Here’s what readers say about CASE CLOSED  …

“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?”

“Fiction?? Maybe?? But I don’t think so!! More likely an excellent interpretation of what may have really happened.”

******

NAS has still not provided any legal justification

for its decision to withhold and sequester

FBI-submitted documents related to

the NAS review of the FBI’s anthrax science

******

LMW 10/30/09 email to the Deputy Executive Director &
Director of Media Relations, Office of News & Public Information
National Academy of Sciences

On September 4, 2009, you emailed me as follows …

“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 already in that file and I’ll ask someone from public access to send you link to list. However, the FBI case documents periodically being given to the committee will not go in the public access file until the end of the study.”

I have been asking you for the past two months to provide legal authority for the decision to sequester and withhold FBI-submitted documents until the end of the study. You have indicated twice that you had referred the matter to NAS counsel.

Now we have the NAS/FBI contract document, which provides no legal justification for withholding the FBI-submitted documents until the end of the study or for failing to provide the specific exemptions for any documents NAS is currently withholding.

Could you please provide an update on current NAS intentions by answering the following questions …

Temporarily withholding FBI-submitted documents until the end of the study.

  • Does NAS still plan to withhold some or all FBI-submitted documents until the end of the study?
  • If so, will NAS provide a list of withheld FBI-submitted documents?
  • If NAS is planning to withhold some or all FBI-submitted documents until the end of the study but release them at that time, what legal authority does NAS cite for doing so?

Permanently withholding access to FBI-submitted documents.

  • Will NAS provide a list of any FBI-submitted documents which NAS is intending to permanently restrict from access, indicating in each case the specific exemption which is being cited to justify that action?

Thanks for your assistance in this matter.

LEW

******

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

* does the NAS/FBI contract support the sequestering of FBI-submitted documents until the end of the NAS study?

Posted by DXer on October 30, 2009

CASE CLOSEDCASE CLOSED is a novel which answers the question “Why did the FBI fail to solve the 2001 anthrax case?” … click here to … buy CASE CLOSED by Lew Weinstein

Here’s what readers say about CASE CLOSED  …

“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?”

“Fiction?? Maybe?? But I don’t think so!! More likely an excellent interpretation of what may have really happened.”

.

******

does the NAS/FBI contract

support the sequestering of FBI-submitted documents

until the end of the NAS study?

******

NAS-FBI contract extracts - FOIA disclosure

LMW COMMENTS …

The NAS/FBI contract refers to possible exemptions from FOIA disclosure requirements and states that the FBI “will mark any information provided to the Contractor (NAS) as exempt from FOIA and list one of the exemptions.”

The NAS/FBI contract also provides that “if a request for information … is requested under FOIA” the Government (???) “shall have the right to disclose any information” … “to the extent provided under the FOIA, notwithstanding any restrictive legends that may have been placed upon it in accordance with the FBI Central Record System.”

The term “Government” is not defined in the contract. The NAS is referred to as “Contractor” and the FBI is referred to as “FBI.”

The above cites are the only references to FOIA which I found in the NAS/FBI contract.

There is no reference in the NAS/FBI contract to withholding information until the end of the NAS study.

There is no reference in the NAS/FBI contract to withholding information without specific listing of a FOIA exemption.

******

Posted in * NAS review of FBI science, * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , , , , | 9 Comments »

* does the NAS/FBI contract permit the NAS to draw conclusions regarding the guilt or innocence of Dr. Bruce Ivins?

Posted by DXer on October 30, 2009

CASE CLOSEDCASE CLOSED is a novel which answers the question “Why did the FBI fail to solve the 2001 anthrax case?” … click here to … buy CASE CLOSED by Lew Weinstein

Here’s what readers say about CASE CLOSED  …

“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?”

“Fiction?? Maybe?? But I don’t think so!! More likely an excellent interpretation of what may have really happened.”

******

Extracts from NAS/FBI contract

regarding issue of guilt or innocence

******

NAS-FBI contract extracts - guilt or innocence

LMW COMMENTS …

The NAS/FBI contract asks the NAS to determine whether “the FBI reached appropriate scientific conclusions” from use of various scientific approaches.

The NAS/FBI contract also says the NAS will not undertake “an assessment of the probative value of the scientific evidence” and will “offer no view on the guilt or innocence of any person(s).”

These two clauses from the NAS/FBI contract seem to be inconsistent.

Since the FBI bases its case against Dr. Ivins on the fact that he, and only he, derived the attack anthrax from Flask RMR-1029, if the NAS ultimately concludes that the scientific evidence does not lead to that conclusion, and that the scientific evidence only identifies the beaker and not the perpetrator, would that not be a conclusion regarding the provable guilt or innocence of Dr. Ivins?

******

Posted in * NAS review of FBI science, * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

* here is the complete NAS/FBI contract for review of FBI anthrax science

Posted by DXer on October 30, 2009

CASE CLOSEDCASE CLOSED is a novel which answers the question “Why did the FBI fail to solve the 2001 anthrax case?” … click here to … buy CASE CLOSED by Lew Weinstein

Here’s what readers say about CASE CLOSED  …

“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?”

“Fiction?? Maybe?? But I don’t think so!! More likely an excellent interpretation of what may have really happened.”

.

******

NAS/FBI contract for review of FBI anthrax science

******


NAS-FBI contract01 copy……….

NAS-FBI contract02

…………

NAS-FBI contract03

………….

NAS-FBI contract04

………….

NAS-FBI contract05

……………

NAS-FBI contract06

…………….

NAS-FBI contract07

………………

NAS-FBI contract08

……………..

NAS-FBI contract10

…………….

NAS-FBI contract11

…………….

NAS-FBI contract12…………

NAS-FBI contract13

…………..

NAS-FBI contract14

…………….

NAS-FBI contract15

…………….

Posted in * NAS review of FBI science | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »