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

* Ed Lake does not distinguish assertions from evidence … he does not understand the grand jury process … nor does he believe that every person is innocent until PROVEN guilty

Posted by DXer on April 22, 2010


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 *


Ed Lake

does not distinguish assertions from evidence

… he does not understand the grand jury process

… nor does he believe that every person is innocent

until PROVEN guilty


ED LAKE says … But that was NOT the case with Ivins.  With Ivins it was ALL ABOUT FACTS. As the Amerithrax investigation proceeded, the facts just kept accumulating and pointing to Ivins.  Any “theory,” if there was a theory, was a theory that Ivins didn’t do it alone.  The conspiracy theorists held that theory.  However, <b>he FACTS showed that theory to be untrue.  No one could find ANY facts which showed that Ivins had a partner in the crime.  All the known facts said Ivins did it by himself. The grand jury had enough facts to indict Ivins.  Ivins had no defense.  He was given a chance to ask for a deal, but he didn’t ask.  So, he was facing the death penalty.

Perhaps, Ed, you could make a list of what these facts are that you keep referring to.

  • What evidence shows that only Ivins had access to the RMR1029 access?
  • Where is the evidence that eliminates the many others who had access?
  • What evidence shows that Ivins could have produced the anthrax powder, or that he could have done so without attracting attention? Did anyone see him do it?
  • What evidence says he went to Princeton to mail the letters, or that his absence was noted by a single human being?

Regarding your statements about a grand jury, do you have any idea how unlikely it would be for any grand jury to refuse to indict on a case of this magnitude, regardless of the weakness of the evidence? Do you understand that no defense case is ever presented to a grand jury? That no defense lawyer ever gets to review and question the assertions made by the prosecution to a grand jury?

Did you ever serve on a grand jury? I did, and I can tell you that prosecutors get close to 100% indictments, many on paper-thin cases. On my grand jury, with me taking the lead, that percentage was reduced to about 35% indictments, and the prosecutors were still talking about it 25 years later.

Do you have evidence that a plea bargain was offered to Ivins? If so, what were the terms? Regardless of the terms, any attorney who suggested that Ivins take a plea bargain in the face of the FBI’s pathetic case should be disbarred for incompetence. There was no case.

The FBI got very lucky when Ivins allegedly committed suicide (have you ever seen an autopsy report?) because now they had a suspect who could never defend himself in court, a very convenient outcome for the FBI/DOJ/Bush administration.

Ed, just saying that Ivins was guilty, as you and the FBI (and no one else that I know) assert, is not evidence.

It is frightening to me that any intelligent person does not understand the difference between assertions and evidence, or so blithely ignores the fundamental proposition that any person is innocent until PROVEN guilty.

4 Responses to “* Ed Lake does not distinguish assertions from evidence … he does not understand the grand jury process … nor does he believe that every person is innocent until PROVEN guilty”

  1. DXer said

    There never was a factual basis for Ed Lake’s First Grader Theory but he remains undaunted. Today he writes:

    “Although David Willman himself appears to believe that Ivins wrote the anthrax letters and somehow disguised his handwriting, possibly by writing with the “wrong hand,” there are new facts in his book “The Mirage Man” which virtually pinpoint the 6-year-old child who Ivins talked into writing the letters and addressing the envelopes.

    The child is so clearly identified (if you are looking at facts and not ignoring the facts because they don’t support your beliefs), that I have to wonder: Does the FBI know who the letter writer is? Are they withholding the information because it could ruin the child’s life? Since Bruce Ivins is dead, what point is there in turning an innocent 16 year old into “The boy who wrote the anthrax letters”?

    On the other hand, the child and his parents might be totally unaware that the evidence says that a child wrote the letters. The child may never have seen the anthrax letters on TV. (What sort of 6-year-old child watches The Evening News?) And the parents may have been assuming for 10 years that some Muslim wrote the letters.

    The new facts in Willman’s book explain so much. Yet, there is still a remote possibility that it was some other first grader in Diane Ivins day care center during that time.

    There is just one unanswered question that would make it a near certainty: Did the schoolteacher have a six year old child at the time of the mailings?


  2. DXer said

    Ed Lake thinks it is 99% certain a First Grader wrote the letters and that Col. Sellin is ignorant of the facts in suggesting that the supporters of the Salafist-Jihadis are responsible.

    I think it is 100% certain that he has not read the PhD thesis of Tarek Hamouda, the former Zawahiri associate who headed the DARPA project and worked alongside Bruce Ivins with virulent Ames. Moreover, Ed has not once acknowledged that the FBI anthrax expert (at USAMRIID)John Ezzell made a dried powder anthrax at the request of DARPA using Ames from Flask 1029 and gave it to John Hopkins-Applied Physics Lab, where the former Zawahiri associate tested his decontamination agent (in addition to Dugway, LSU and apparently Edgewood).

    He maintains his nonsensical theory only by avoiding the material facts.

  3. DXer said

    Ex-USAMRIID Scientist Defends Bruce Ivins Using Back-of-the-Envelope Math
    by Yudhijit Bhattacharjee on April 22, 2010 6:39 PM

    A microbiologist who once worked with suspected anthrax mailer Bruce Ivins mounted a spirited defense of his colleague today after giving a presentation to a National Academies panel that’s reviewing the science behind the case. Henry “Hank” Heine, who left the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) in February 2010 after testing antibiotics there for 11 years, told reporters during an impromptu press conference this afternoon that by his estimates, it would have taken Ivins at least a year of dedicated work to grow the total amount of anthrax spores contained in the 8 letters. And that would have been impossible to do in secrecy. However, Heine said he had no experience making anthrax stocks himself.

    However, Adam Driks, an anthrax researcher at Loyola University Chicago in Illinois who routinely makes anthrax stocks for research, says Heine’s assertion about the effort required to prepare the attack material did not appear to be true. “I don’t think it would be that laborious to generate that amount of material,” Driks told ScienceInsider. Making 10 to 15 liters of anthrax—which is approximately how much would have been required—“might have meant having to use many, many little flasks (20 to 50 milliliters each) over a number of days,” says Driks, who makes anthrax stocks routinely for his research. “With an iPod, you could work through it without too much pain.”

    Heine, who was himself a suspect early on in the investigation—along with several other USAMRIID researchers, told reporters that he had serious misgivings about how the Federal Bureau of Investigation had handled the case. “I have a strong desire to clear Bruce’s name,” he told reporters.

  4. DXer said

    Ed Lake thinks that it is 99% certain that a First Grader wrote the letters.

    He claims that there is expert testimony that Ivins could have made the spores. Dr. John Ezzell, the FBI’s expert, says Dr. Ivins could not have made the Leahy and Daschle product. See Meryl Nass page. (Dr. JE is a qualified expert — having made a dried powder that he reports of was of higher concentration.)

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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: