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

* Whose initials appear in connection with the April 2002 FBIR Submission by Ivins’ Lab?

Posted by DXer on March 14, 2011

******

******

14 Responses to “* Whose initials appear in connection with the April 2002 FBIR Submission by Ivins’ Lab?”

  1. DXer said

    http://vault.fbi.gov/Amerithrax/amerithrax-part-52-of/view

    “On June 8, 2007, _____________ contacted SA _______ to notify ___ of a phone call _______ had with BRUCE IVINS. ________ provided the following information:

    IVINS had tried to contact ____ four to five times earlier in the morning. When _________ returned IVINS’ calls, _____ said that he was rambling. He was talkinga bout not being able to remember details associated with his submissions to the FBI Repository (FBIR).______________________
    IVINS mentioned that he went to __________ to get his suite access records for that time frame, however __________informed him that they no longer had those records for that time frame. IVINS complained that he can neither remember nor obtain access to the information that he needed. IVINS also felt as if his “I don’t know” answer to FBI questions, was not enough.”

  2. DXer said

    Here is the chain of custody log relating to the FBIR submissions. Whose initials are they? Are they PF? Dr. Ivins said that Patricia Fellows submitted the samples to the FBIR.

  3. DXer said

    In a July 27, 2011 request to USAMRIID, Frontline seeks:

    Any USAMRIID records referencing submissions of Bacillus anthracis made by
    Bruce Ivins that were eventually collected for the FBI repository for use in the
    Amerithrax investigation

    o Any records on the following Bacillus anthracis samples submitted by USAMRIID
    to the FBI or seized from USAMRIID by the FBI for their Amerithrax investigation:
    FBIR O44-040, FBIR 049-004, FBIR 049-006, FBIR 049-008, FBIR 049-016, FBIR 052-
    026, FBIR 053-070, FBIR 054-076, FBIR 066-044

    o Any and all notebooks or written documentation maintained by Ms. Pat
    Worsham that reference any Bacillus anthracis submissions made by Bruce
    Ivins in connection with the FBI’s Amerithrax investigation

    o Any and all notebooks or written documentation maintained by Ms. Terry
    Abshire that reference any Bacillus anthracis submissions made by Bruce Ivins
    in connection with the FBI’s Amerithrax investigation

    o Any and all records possessed by USAMRIID indicating dates of submissions by
    Ivins

    o Any and all records indicating which Bacillus anthracis samples submitted by
    Ivins and/or other’s at USAMRIID to the FBI were originally created from
    material taken from the RMR 1029 flask

    o Any and all records stating or indicating which samples Bruce Ivins knew were
    originally created from the RMR 1029 Flask and/or indicating if there were any
    samples he had no knowledge about the origins of

    o Any and all records possessed by USAMRIID about any transfers of Bacillus
    anthracis samples from Bruce Ivins (or any of his subordinates) to Terry Abshire,
    Pat Worsham, John Ezzell or other USAMRIID employees that was in any way
    connected with the Amerithrax investigation, even if the transfers were not
    intended for submission to the FBI directly

  4. DXer said

    Did the DOJ/FBI produce this document (Item 25) from the search of Dr. Ivins’ residence? If not, why not? The GAO should obtain it and make it available for public inspection.

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:GIeKhc6C_d4J:www.justice.gov/amerithrax/docs/08-430-m-01app.pdf+%22Kristie+Friend%22+USAMRIID&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

    Item 25:
    “Notes on submission & Kristi Friend directions to Kristie Friend.”
    Room K
    Left corner of bed
    PI Garcia

  5. DXer said

    Rather than citing the documentary evidence, David Willman in Mirage Man on this critical issue cites an interview with Lawrence Alexander, in 2010. (p. 391) This document is probative evidence on the issue and conflicts on this central point with Agent Alexander’s Ivins Theory.

    Once you get rid of the points in conflict with the documents — such as the lab notes produced last week showing what Dr. Ivins was in the B3 — there is NOTHING left of an Ivins Theory except rubbish speculation based on the view of Dr. Ivins as creepy. Those who knew him liked and respected him. What do Patricia Fellows initials look like?

  6. DXer said

    re project with the particle sizer –

    _____does recall the 2002 subpoena request for Bacillus anthracis (Ba) strains as hallway talk during _________________ along with SA __________ went through stocks of samples during the subsequent consent search of USAMRIID in _______ did not know ____________or whether or not _______ was made aware of, or complied with the 2002 subpoena.”

    279A-WF-222936-USAMRIID – 1/16/2007

  7. DXer said

    The Amerithrax Investigative Summary states:

    “Dr. Ivins was told that his second submission to the FBIR did not contain the four variants, and that this suggested that he knowingly provided a misleading sample. He was first advised of this fact in a lengthy interview on March 31, 2005. His initial response was one of surprise, and he offered no explanation, though he was adamant that RMR-1029 had been submitted to the FBIR. During his numerous subsequent interviews, however, he specifically refused to take responsibility for preparing these submissions to the FBIR.

    When pressed on the fact that it must have been he who prepared the April 2002 submissions because it was his handwriting on the labels, Dr. Ivins suggested that either of his lab technicians could have actually streaked the slant, claiming that it was not uncommon for one researcher to prepare a label while the other prepared the actual slant. In an interview on August 13, 2003, and again on December 12, 2003, before investigators even knew about the discrepancy between the samples, he claimed that his senior lab technician prepared all four slants in April 2002. This claim was inconsistent with the evidence obtained by the investigation for a few reasons. First, Dr. Ivins’s lab technicians at that time both refuted this claim. Neither of the two could ever recall an instance where one researcher would prepare a label and leave the actual preparation of the submission to another. Further, according to the senior technician, she only prepared slants for one of the two submissions, and that was the rejected February submission. As for the junior technician, she was reassigned to work DSD during the time frame …”

    The junior technician was tasked with supporting DSD but was her work actually done in Dr. Ivins lab? Isn’t that the background of the contamination in April 2002 which caused so much controversy? (see recent sworn statement uploaded unredacted to explain her work in support of DSD and her concern that her work area in Dr. Ivins lab was thus contaminated….

    https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/from-foia-response-today-here-is-a-statement-by-dr-ivins-regarding-decontamination-associated-with-dsds-operation-noble-eagle-with-certain-redactions-removed-after-his-death/

    “Finally, Dr. Ivins himself hand-delivered the slants to the repository on April 10, 2002, a fact supported by both keycard access and the FBIR log.”

    How does the FBIR log support the claim that Dr. Ivins himself hand-delivered the slants. Those aren’t his initials, are they?

    Compare the initials on the FBIR log to the “BI” intiials (pictured) on RMR 1029 (pictured)
    https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/03/14/whose-initials-appear-in-connection-with-the-april-2002-fbir-submission-by-ivins-lab/

  8. DXer said

    Dr. Saathoff is just repeating the FBI’s assertions that Dr. Ivins prepared the samples rather than his assistant.
    Whose initials are “AB”? Are they the initials of his assistant Anthony Bassett?

    “In any event, government scientists tested these new, April 2002
    samples and found them negative for the four genetic markers they
    had preliminarily identifi ed.

    What the scientists did not recognize — what was not understood for
    several more years, when scientifi c advances made the insight possible
    — was that Dr. Ivins had deliberately altered his April submission in a
    manner that minimized the potential for identifying mutations. He had
    effectively smudged the evidence, and done so in a way so
    sophisticated that no one recognized it.6 As a result, the trail of
    evidence leading to Dr. Ivins remained cold. Investigators focused
    elsewhere, especially on Dr. Hatfill.”

  9. DXer said

    As I recall (from speaking to a chief of bacteriology), at some point when the FBI wanted a sample from it, the flask was brought from Rm 1412 to Rm 1425 by Anthony Bassett, a lab technician. When did AB start working for Dr. Ivins? Are these his initials in connection with the April 2002 samples?

  10. Old Atlantic said

    Is there one April 2002 submission? Is this the one from RMR-1029?

    Were there several submissions April 2002? More than one had 3 or more morphs from Ivins lab?

  11. Old Atlantic said

    Hypothesis: DOJ, FBI have normal teams/modes to handle normal crimes. Those are done by people who are missing a little bit and make it easy to convict them. Then they have a special team/mode to close cases by fixing the evidence around a suspect. This closing team/mode came in and finished the case.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: