“Why did the FBI fail to solve the 2001 anthrax case?”
Here’s what readers of CASE CLOSED have to say …
“Weinstein raises some very interesting and disturbing theories.”
“CASE CLOSED is a great read, suspenseful and a real page turner. Please tell me it’s not true!”
Click here to buy CASE CLOSED by Lew Weinstein
Where is the FBI’s evidence
that Dr. Bruce Ivins
is the sole perpetrator
or even involved
in the 2001 anthrax attacks?
DXer’s comment re-posted …
Director Mueller has said that no mistakes were made in Amerithrax. Yet the leaks continued in 2003 only because no proper leak investigation was done after the August 2002 leaks.
US Attorney Roscoe Howard says that the three people in the loop in his office were not asked whether they had been the source of the leak. It turns out that the lead criminal prosecutor –whose sister-in-law and brother were arguing that terrorism should not be attributed to Bin Laden — was the source of the leaks. His sister says to be born in Palestine is necessarily to be political. See Wash Po. He was born in Haifa in 1948. His daughter came to represent the other “anthrax weapons suspect” pro bono.
Director Mueller’s response, rather than ensure a proper leak investigation was done, was to compartmentalize the squad over chief investigator’s Lambert’s objection that they would not be able to “connect the dots.” Wasn’t that a big mistake?
I’m not a big proponent that polygraphs should have been done given their unreliability. But doesn’t Director Mueller find Roscoe Howard’s claim at deposition that no one in his office was asked whether he was the source of the leak a mistake? (Perhaps Mr. Howard was not being precise and in fact Mr. Seikaly was asked — and his and Howard’s entry into private practice was the result).
And so perhaps the issue of the leak and any failure to forthrightly address the issue when it first arose eventually was adequately addressed. But then were there still the consequence of the compartmentalization that led to a failure to connect the dots?
Where is the evidence that indicates Ivins is guilty?
- The false suggestion by the former schoolmate that Ivins followed her to Gaithersburg a quarter-century earlier?
- The false claim that it was stored in 1425 under Ivins’ exclusive control?
- The report of the addictions counselor on house arrest for drunk driving?
- The opinion of the FBI’s forensic psychiatrist?
- Ivins’ upset that his life and career was in ruins?
- The fact that he kept letters to the editor he wrote?
- The fact that the genetics had winnowed the field from 1,000 to up to 300?
- The fact that Bruce wrote a cute poem?
- The fact that he followed the major outlet press about a fatwa being issued and the FBI in some affidavits mischaracterized that as coming before the anthrax mailings rather than after the first one?
How were the investigators in the Third Squad supposed to be able to connect the dots? How were the investigators in the squad pursuing Ivins supposed to connect the dots? Did the FBI even interview the relevant people? Won’t that, without more, be provably a really big mistake?
Were Taylor, Persichini and Montooth up to the challenge of connecting the dots without the help of people spending full-time on the details? Taylor was a political appointee from the Bush Administration.
Will Amerithrax have proved a career-ender for anyone who thinks that what was disclosed against Ivins constitutes sufficient evidence on which to close Amerithrax?
Isn’t the week that the largest number of CIA personnel have died a good time in which to end bureaucratic practices that make connecting the dots less likely?