* Richard Rowley’s summary of the FBI’s “non-case” vs Dr. Bruce Ivins … why does the FBI continue to assert this unproven and probably unprovable case against a dead man who cannot defend himself?

******

Richard Rowley’s summary of the FBI’s “non-case” …

To commit even the bare-boned Amerithrax crimes

(the media letters and the Senators Daschle and Leahy ones),

the perp(s) would have had to do the following :

1. grow wet anthrax (ie get spores and culture them).
2. dry them to a powder and purify to one degree or another.
3. write (ie print) the originals of the two Amerithrax texts (media text and politician text). Print outside of envelope.
4. photocopy each original text (likely done some days or weeks apart: first the media letters, then the politician letters).
5. insert finished powder in fold of letters.
6. go to Princeton, New Jersey some hours before the mail pickup at the mailbox just off campus.
7. return home/to work from that mailbox in Princeton without anyone being the wiser.

So, how many of the above tasks do we KNOW

(from the government’s case against him)

that Ivins actually did in September and October of 2001?

One and only one …

1)grow wet anthrax (ie get spores and culture them).

We know that because THAT WAS (part of) HIS JOB!

And had been his job for 2 solid decades before Amerithrax.

All the rest in this case is commentary.

And that’s why the FINAL REPORT is so long and tedious:

a) since they don’t have evidence that Ivins printed the letters (his block printing was a non-match) the government finessed that in the usual way: graphological comparison ‘inconclusive’. Same with the polygraph test Ivins passed: results ‘inconclusive’ (I think it was Mister Lake who added the interesting twist that if suspect X passes a polygraph test centered on crimes A and B, then that PROVES the suspect is a ‘sociopath’ since they can lie cleverly and thus it is proof that suspect X actually committed crimes A and B! I would call this ‘Jesuitry’ but I think it gives even the Jesuits a bad rap!

b) since they don’t have evidence that Ivins drove to New Jersey at any time in September and October of 2001, they spend lots to time and space highlighting Ivins driving, over the years, long distances to OTHER TOWNS/STATES to check out chapters of Gamma Gamma Delta or to deliver gifts in such a way so as the recipient doesn’t know who the gift is from.

c)since they were unable to match any photocopier that Ivins would regularly use (due to proximity)to the Amerithrax letter copies, they use INNUENDO to imply that there’s a real possibility he used one at Fort Detrick. That’s the focus here, but it is part of a pattern: the FINAL REPORT glosses over anything and everything that is pointing in the direction of Ivins’ innocence (that is exculpatory) and via a cleverness that is facile but false implies many things it cannot prove.

d) there’s no evidence whatsoever that Ivins did ANY drying of wet anthrax in September or October of 2001 (or for that matter in any month of 2001). But that fact is buried amid nonsense about a ‘code’ etc.

e) they never found any spores in Ivins’ vehicle or residence. But that’s one of the dirty little secrets of the investigative dead end.

******

LMW COMMENT …

The FBI’s publicly presented case against Dr. Ivins is clearly bogus: no evidence, no witnesses, an impossible timeline, science that proves innocence instead of guilt. So what really happened? And why doesn’t the FBI offer America a credible story?

As regular readers of this blog well know, I can imagine only 3 possible “actual” scenarios …

1. The FBI has more evidence against Dr. Ivins but is, for some undisclosed reason, withholding that evidence … POSSIBLE BUT NOT SO LIKELY
2. The FBI, despite the most expensive and extensive investigation in its history, has not solved the case and has no idea who prepared and mailed the anthrax letters that killed 5 Americans in 2001 … EVEN LESS LIKELY
3. The FBI knows who did it (not Dr. Ivins) but is covering up the actual perpetrators, for undisclosed reasons …THE MOST LIKELY SCENARIO

 

CASE CLOSED is a novel

about the FBI’s failed investigation

of the 2001 anthrax attacks

******

read the opening scene of CASE CLOSED …

* CASE CLOSED – opening scene … the DIA re-investigates the FBI’s failed case

******

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *

******

 

 

* the FBI’s excellent response to questions raised by the Senate Fort Hood Report

FBI Response to Senate Fort Hood Report

Washington, D.C.February 03, 2011

FBI National Press Office(202) 324-3691

The FBI released the following statement in response to the report issued by Chairman Joseph Lieberman and Ranking Member Susan Collins, of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, on the events surrounding the shootings at Fort Hood on November 5, 2009.

The FBI recognizes the value of congressional oversight and agrees with much in the report and many of its recommendations. During the internal FBI review undertaken immediately after the attack at Fort Hood, we identified several of the areas of concern outlined in the report, and, as noted in the report, have implemented changes to our systems and processes to address them. We will review each of the report’s recommendations and adopt them, as appropriate.

While concluding that the FBI’s transformation to an intelligence-driven organization remains a work in progress, the report recognizes the FBI’s substantial progress and many successes, led by Joint Terrorism Task Forces, in disrupting terrorist plots by homegrown extremists.

In addition, we look forward to the recommendations of Judge William H. Webster, who is conducting an independent, outside review of the FBI’s actions with respect to Fort Hood. Judge Webster and his team are evaluating the corrective actions taken to determine whether they are sufficient and whether there are other policy or procedural steps the FBI should consider to improve its ability to detect and prevent such threats in the future.

******

LMW COMMENT …

This is an excellent response on the part of the FBI to questions from Congress. Would that they offered such thoughtful and open answers to questions regarding the anthrax investigation.

******