* AFIP data shows massive silicon concentrations in the Daschle and New York Post powders … does this mean the silicon was not a contaminant, but was added deliberately?

.

The FBI’s case against Dr. Ivins is bogus: no evidence, no witnesses, an impossible timeline, science that proves innocence instead of guilt. So what really happened? And why? The “fictional” scenario in my novel CASE CLOSED has been judged by many readers, including a highly respected official in the U.S. Intelligence Community, as “quite plausible.”

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *

.

******

AFIP data shows massive silicon concentrations

in the Daschle and New York Post powders

******

After being withheld by the FBI for almost nine years, AFIP finally released their much talked about (but never seen) laboratory report on the Daschle and New York Post anthrax powders.

This is the report that resulted in USAMRIID’s major General John Parker stating “We know we found silica” and AFIP (Florabel G. Mullick, MD, ScD, SES, AFIP Principal Deputy Director and department chair ) stating “Ft Detrick sought our assistance to determine the specific components of the anthrax found in the Daschle letter.”

AFIP experts utilized an energy dispersive X-ray spectrometer (an instrument used to detect the presence of otherwise-unseen chemicals through characteristic wavelengths of X-ray light) to confirm the previously unidentifiable substance as silica. “This was a key component,” Mullick said. “Silica prevents the anthrax from aggregating, making it easier to aerosolize.”

Now we can see exactly why AFIP reached that conclusion.

• It seems that the silicon is hardly a contaminant
• in the New York Post powder it appears to be the MAJOR ELEMENTAL COMPONENT!
• Which raises the question of whether it was added deliberately.

The FBI has said that AFIP got it all wrong and the silicon is really a low concentration “contaminant.”

Do these results show that AFIP was correct all along?

******

* summary of the FBI’s case … extracted from Roberto’s comment

.

The FBI’s case against Dr. Ivins is bogus: no evidence, no witnesses, an impossible timeline, science that proves innocence instead of guilt. So what really happened? And why? The “fictional” scenario in my novel CASE CLOSED has been judged by many readers, including a highly respected official in the U.S. Intelligence Community, as “quite plausible.”

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *

.

******

summary of the FBI’s case extracted from Roberto’s comment …

The FBI assumes, as I infer from the summary, several basic things that seemingly have no evidential basis:

1. that the mailings were the work of an individual and not a group,
2. that their universe of people who had *access* to genetically identical anthrax identical to what was contained in RMR1029 is a certain size,
3. that the anthrax was made mail-ready only after 911.

Seems to me the FBI is the one with the theory to which they are trying to attach facts. That’s how we wound up with Hatfill.  The sum total of their case only leaves us with the mere possibility that Ivins *could* have done it, especially if one allows for the incredible.

The techniques the FBI used are ones that are used when there is no evidence:  Psyche profiles, handwriting analysis (codes!), witnesses out of jail, constant pressure, selective data, hyperbolic language, leaks, etc.

There are myriad lost opportunities for hyperlinking and/or footnotes in that summary. Why? With the lack of citations, it wouldn’t even pass as a senior college thesis.  The FBI describes this as the biggest, most expensive, intensive investigation ever, but the lack of rigor is remarkable.

Instead of telling me Ivins had a kinky side, tell me how he did it and when he did it.

• What equipment did he use exactly?
• What technique?
• Where’s the photocopier?
• How long did it take to make it?
• When did he plan it?
• Where are the artifacts that show he did some research specific to the mailed anthrax?

This appears to be their case:

1. RMR1029 originated in his lab,
2. everyone else interviewed by the FBI couldn’t have done it,
3. Ivins was weird,
4. he did it.

I have a hard time believing a lawyer could go into a courtroom with THAT narrative and prevail.

LMW COMMENT …

My thoughts exactly. Also Senators Specter and Grassley, Congressmen Holt and Nadler, and many others, plus many competent scientists.

What’s really disturbing is that the FBI sticks to its pathetic case while offering no substantive evidence to support it.

Why does the U.S. Attorney General allow this travesty to continue?

• Did the FBI fail to solve the case, and Ivins is just their conveniently deceased dupe?
• Or did the FBI solve the case but they’re hiding the true perpetrators?

These are both frightening questions, especially since there does not seem to be a third option.

******