.
The New York Times says the FBI’s anthrax case has “too many loose ends.” Find out where some of those looses ends might have originated in my novel CASE CLOSED. Sure it’s fiction, but many readers, including a highly respected member of the U.S. Intelligence Community, think my premise is actually “quite plausible.”
.
DXer says …
Office paper can be differentiated. It is very wrong for the United States Department of Justice to accuse the late Bruce Ivins of murder — and go so far as to say he was copying the letters at the Building 1425 library on the specified dates — without disclosing that the Department of Justice knows that the paper used in that library machine does not match the paper used in the anthrax letters. (It is a simple matter to identify copies made on the machine during the time period as well as divine the paper used from invoices and photocopy exemplars made by the FBI in late 2001). The DOJ attorneys have withheld the information due to careerist motivations rather than the furtherance of justice. When the FBI Director Mueller and the US Attorney say the “buck stops here,” and yet these forensic findings are not disclosed, it then becomes an injustice perpetrated by those officials, and all officials in the chain of command with the relevant responsibility.
see related post … * the case of the copier that wasn’t used by Dr. Bruce Ivins to photocopy the anthrax letters
LMW COMMENT …
The failure to disclose such relevant exculpatory material by DOJ/FBI is enough reason, by itself, to support the review of the anthrax case proposed by Congressman Holt. President Obama must not oppose this review. In fact, if he believes in the transparency he has praised, he must support the study, wherever it goes.
******
CASE CLOSED ... what really happened in the 2001 anthrax attacks? 