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

Archive for December 24th, 2009

* what is compelling evidence? … when will we know if the FBI has produced a compelling case in the 2001 anthrax attacks?

Posted by DXer on December 24, 2009

I wrote … “I will believe nothing the FBI says if it is not accompanied by compelling evidence.

Ed asked … And who determines what is “compelling evidence”?

Ed has raised a most valid point. Compelling evidence is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of

  • a plausible narrative
  • plus actual evidence to prove that narrative.

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

Underlying anything that might be called compelling evidence that a particular person was the sole perpetrator of the anthrax attacks must be a plausible narrative, a description of what “could have happened” that accounts for all of the known details. This means that the alleged perpetrator must be shown to have had access to the particular anthrax used in the attacks, and that he (or she) could have delivered it to those mailboxes where it is alleged to have been mailed.

The science and the timelines must fit.

So far the FBI has not come close to a plausible narrative.

But even a plausible narrative is not enough;

it is necessary but not sufficient.

There must also be evidence to prove that what “could have happened” in fact did happen.

  • Does the anthrax the alleged perpetrator had match (by means of valid scientific tests properly conducted) the anthrax which killed five people and was disbursed widely in post offices and other places?
  • Is there real physical evidence that the alleged perpetrator actually delivered the attack anthrax as it was believed to have been delivered?

If there is no physical evidence to link the alleged perpetrator to the crimes, and it seems there is none, then it must be established that there are no other possible perpetrators who are just as likely as the one charged to have committed the attacks, based on the actual evidence.

  • Did others have access to the attack anthrax? It seems as if at least 100 other scientists, and countless possible accomplices, did have access.
  • Could any of these others (who had access) have delivered the anthrax (by themselves or with accomplices)?

Dr. Bruce Ivins

So far the FBI has presented no evidence to isolate the one they accuse (Dr. Bruce Ivins) from any of the other possible perpetrators.

The FBI has refused to answer many valid questions raised by the media, Congress, and contributors to this blog.

The FBI has (seemingly) hamstrung the ongoing NAS review of the science it used.

The FBI case is (so far) a fraud

which could never be proven in any court.

Which raises the question of why the FBI, which I do not believe is as incompetent as their Amerithrax performance would suggest, has stubbornly focused on Dr. Ivins when they cannot (or at least so far have not) prove their case.

To me, that’s the most frightening question of all, the question I raised and answered (fiction!) in my novel CASE CLOSED.

Click here to

buy CASE CLOSED by Lew Weinstein


Posted in * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , , , | 91 Comments »