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

* Casebook – What if government shared information as efficiently as people do on facebook?

Posted by DXer on April 14, 2010

The FBI’s case against Dr. Ivins is clearly bogus: no evidence, no witnesses, an impossible timeline. The real question is why the FBI persists in sticking to such a pathetic story. What are they hiding? I offer one “fictional” scenario in my novel CASE CLOSED, judged by many readers, including a highly respected official in the U.S. Intelligence Community, as “quite plausible.”

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *

10 Responses to “* Casebook – What if government shared information as efficiently as people do on facebook?”

  1. DXer said

    The FBI has a new computer system.

    NYPD has a crime tracking system.

    Let’s hope that behind-the-scenes there is now an efficient means of sharing information.

  2. DXer said

    To summarize my reaction to the Atlantic article, there’s nothing new about Hatfill (except some very minor details) and David Freed doesn’t demonstrate any familiarity with the Ivins Theory — which has strong parallels with the FBI’s Hatfill Theory.

    So he missed the real story and told one suitable for 5 years ago.

    • BugMaster said

      A professional journalist reports the facts and sticks to the story, providing non-biased information so the reader can come to his or her own conclusions, DXer.

      This story was about Dr. Hatfill’s ordeal. I don’t think you should fault David Freed for not editorializing.

      • DXer said

        I was faulting him (in a minor respect) for editorializing about Ivins.

        • BugMaster said

          I am more interested in what Stephan J. Hatfill’s views are regarding the FBI’s claim that Ivins was responsible.

        • DXer said

          “Hatfill was surprised when the FBI ultimately pinned the anthrax murders on a fellow American scientist.”

          “I thought it would eventually be proven that al-Qaeda was behind the attacks,” he says.”

        • DXer said

          editorialize –

          3 : to express an opinion (as on a controversial issue)

        • DXer said

          For example, at the same time the author criticizes the media for accepting what is spoonfed to him, he states in the lead sentence of the paragraph:

          “Ivins had been the sole custodian of a large flask ….”


          “He had been unable to provide a good explanation for the many late nights he’d put in at the lab…”

          I think the correct understanding is that the

          the DOJ reports that up to 377 at Ft. Detrick alone had access to the flask which was kept in an unlocked freezer, and

          DOJ has failed to produce the contemporaneous handwritten observations Dr. Ivins made concerning what he was doing in the lab where he was attending to his scheduled duties.

          Now, was DF wearing the hat of Pulitzer Prize winning investigative reporter for those 2 brief sentences in a very major feature? Or was he wearing the hat of screenwriter when he didn’t look behind the government’s unsupported allegation with respect to the fellow who under the same pressure DID commit suicide. The piece is well-done. I highlight the Ivins point only because a lot of people reading it — too busy to study the matter — will come away thinking both the journalist and Hatfill think Ivins is guilty.

          When an Ivins Theory was even weaker than a Hatfill Theory. At least Dr. Hatfill claimed on his resume a working knowledge of working with dry powders and had forged his PhD diploma in gaining access to ebola.

        • DXer said

          Note that the reason the people in 1412 were deemed to have access would include the fact that used aerosol was left in garbage bags in the basement until someone got around to autoclaving it. (US Attorney Jeff Taylor was mistaken in reasoning in August 2008 that those in 1425 had access and that was revised, however casually, in the Investigative Summary).

          If their switch was so facile in their Investigative Summary, one can appreciate that their elimination of the additional couple hundred who had access at 1412 was also.

          But as the article noted, lack of access is the issue on which the USG justified its change of position.

  3. DXer said

    The Wrong Man
    In the fall of 2001, a nation reeling from the horror of 9/11 was rocked by a series of deadly anthrax attacks. As the pressure to find a culprit mounted, the FBI, abetted by the media, found one. The wrong one. This is the story of how federal authorities blew the biggest anti-terror investigation of the past decade—and nearly destroyed an innocent man. Here, for the first time, the falsely accused, Dr. Steven J. Hatfill, speaks out about his ordeal.

    By David Freed

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: