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

Archive for December 12th, 2009

* Take another look at just how weak (pathetic!) the FBI case against Dr. Ivins is …

Posted by DXer on December 12, 2009

CASE CLOSED is a novel which answers the question “Why did the FBI fail to solve the 2001 anthrax case?” Here’s what readers of CASE CLOSED have to say …

“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.

“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


Every once in awhile, it’s good to re-visit just how weak the FBI case against Dr.Bruce Ivins actually is.

Here are extracts from the August 2008 press conference, as reported by CNN …



Anthrax Attacks News Conference; Aired August 6, 2008 – 16:00   ET


FBI announces - August 8, 2008 - that Dr. ivins is the sole perpetrator and the case will soon be closed

QUESTION: Jeff, did you find any handwriting samples or hair samples that would have matched Dr. Ivins to the envelopes where the hair samples were found in the mailbox?


JOSEPH PERISCHINI JR., ASST. DIR. IN CHARGE, FBI WASHINGTON FIELD OFFICE: We did not find any handwriting analysis or hair samples in the mailbox. So there was no forensics for that part.

QUESTION: Did you take handwriting samples from Dr. Ivins?

PERISCHINI: We examined handwriting samples, but then there was no comparison made or a specification identification of the handwriting. And it appears that if the analysts would look at it, that there was an attempt to disguise the handwriting. So he was unable to make a comparison.

TAYLOR: With respect to handwriting samples, we did have indications from individuals with whom we spoke that there appeared to be some similarities in handwriting that were apparent. That said, we did not have a scientifically valid conclusion that we thought would lead us to be able to admit that in evidence.

QUESTION: Do you think there’s a connection between Ivins and what was known at the time as the Quantico letter? That was the letter sent in September of 2001 identifying an Arab-American scientist at Fort Detrick as a bioterrorist. The letter also threatened a bioterror attack, and also “Death to Israel.”

Were you ever satisfied that you were able to run down that letter and the author of that letter?

TAYLOR: Not aware of any connection. To my knowledge, there’s no evidence linking the two.

QUESTION: In your affidavits, there’s a footnote that notes — indicates you searched, you had probable cause to search “other individuals,” more than one. Can you talk about the scope of the number of people you searched that you had probable cause on?

TAYLOR: I’m not going to get into the details of other investigative techniques that were handled — that were used in this case with the other individuals. We’re here today to say, based on all that investigation, we stand here today firmly convinced that we have the person who committed those attacks, and we are confident that had this gone to trial, we would have proved him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt — Mark.

QUESTION: Can you tell us how Dr. Ivins was able to get the anthrax out of the lab and he did not get sick himself?

Also, were you able to place him at the mailboxes in Princeton?

TAYLOR: With respect to your first question about getting the anthrax out of the site, Dr. Ivins — and correct me if I’m wrong, Ken — had vaccinated himself against anthrax.

With respect to the mailbox, as I laid out before, there is ample evidence in this case pointing to Dr. Ivins as the individual who drove to Princeton to mail those letters. He had the hours in the hot suite (ph) during the relevant times. We looked at the records when he was at work and when he would have had time to drive to Princeton, New Jersey, and it’s clear from those records that he had time on the relevant occasions to drive to Princeton, mail the envelopes, and come back. There’s also evidence I’ll refer you to in the affidavits concerning where that mailbox was located in Princeton, New Jersey, in relation to some obsessive conduct on his part with regard to a sorority.

Again, it’s a chain of evidentiary items that, assembled together, leads to one reasonable conclusion, and that is Dr. Ivins mailed that anthrax in those envelopes from that mailbox in Princeton.


QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) a gas receipt or that shows he was there? I mean, actually proves that he was in that area?

TAYLOR: We don’t have that piece of direct evidence you mentioned.

QUESTION: Sir, two questions. Is there any evidence at all that Dr. Ivins, based on his knowledge of his co-worker, somehow framed or set up Dr. Hatfill?

TAYLOR: There’s no evidence to indicate anything like that.


Posted in * FBI anthrax statements, * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , | 157 Comments »