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

* Here is a sample of Dr. Bruce Ivins’ handwriting – note the distinctive “f’s” and the varying way he makes his “a’s”.

Posted by Lew Weinstein on April 6, 2011

to learn more about Lew Weinstein and his novels,

go to … http://lewweinsteinauthorblog.com/

******

******

******

Advertisements

4 Responses to “* Here is a sample of Dr. Bruce Ivins’ handwriting – note the distinctive “f’s” and the varying way he makes his “a’s”.”

  1. DXer said

    In the formal handwriting examination conducted for Amerithrax, it was concluded that Bruce Ivins probably did not write the anthrax letters.

    Forensic Laboratory Examination Report

    United States Postal inspection Service
    Forensic Laboratory Services

    224-33 Randolph Dr

    Dulles, VA 20104-1000

    March 08, 2007

    USPlS\RJMuehlberger

    Case No. – Lab File No. 9-957-002016

    Type of Examination: Questioned Documents
    Request Date(s) 1/2007

    SA FBI Washington Field Office
    7799 Leesburg Pike
    Falls Church, VA 22043

    PROBLEM:

    ALL FBI
    PEREII-I IS
    DATE dlciil

    Determine whether or not the questioned entries appearing in the printed digital images
    (also contained on CD) of three labels; one depicting the writing “Ames strain RMR

    from Dugway Bruce Ivins (1997) 2/27/02” and two

    depicting the writing “Dugway Ames

    spores – 1997” were written by Bruce E. Ivins, whose known writings are depicted in the
    photocopies of various course of business documents.

    Determine whether or not the questioned entries appearing in the printed diqital images

    (also contained on CD) of two parcels; one addresse

    second addressed

    known writings are depicted in the photocopies ot

    |and the

    ere written by Bruce E. Ivins, whose
    arious course of business documents.

    Determine whether or not the questioned entries appearing on the “anthrax” envelopes and
    letters (photographic copies retained in the laboratory) were written by Bruce E. lvins,
    whose known writings are depicted in the photocopies of various course of business

    documents.

    FINDINGS:

    Bruce E. Ivins probably wrote the original of the questioned entries appearing in the printed

    digital images of the three labels described above.

    Bruce E. Ivins probably wrote the original of the questioned address entries appearing in the

    printed digital images of the two parcels.

    Bruce E. Ivins probably did not write the writings appearing on the “anthrax” envelopes and

    letters.

    REMARKS:

    The qualified findings expressed above are due to the lack of original documents from
    which the examination and comparisons were conducted. The submission of the original

    • richard rowley said

      So, aside from the envelopes themselves, their contents (the Ames strain, RMR-1029 sub-strain), the postmarks on the envelopes and the defects in the envelopes, there’s no more
      physical evidence in Amerithrax proper……therefore the Task Force sure misrepresented the printing (since “inconclusive” doesn’t summarize a finding FROM THEIR OWN POSTAL EXPERTS that Ivins probably did NOT do the printing ).

    • DXer said

      There’s lots of other physical evidence — exculpatory of Dr. Ivins. For example, they could exclude the photocopiers at USAMRIID based on the examination of the toner but those forensic reports on the toner are being withheld.

  2. DXer said

    The DOJ in the Amerithrax Investigative Summary says that it is clear that Dr. Ivins and his lab assistant each prepared 2 of the 4 labels submitted in April 2002.

    https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/03/22/are-ausas-ken-kohl-and-rachel-lieber-mistaken-that-based-on-the-handwriting-on-the-labels-from-the-slants-it-was-clear-that-dr-ivins-and-his-lab-technician-each-prepared-two-labels-in-april/

    Crediting the DOJ’s assertion (although the DOJ has not provided a copy of a report from its handwriting expert), the two samples that have the distinctive “f” and “a” are the

    “Primary subculture from original slant – 1985 – Bruce Ivins”

    and

    “Ames strain from 1985 – multiple passages.”

    The distinctive “f” and “a” letters do NOT appear on the sample for Flask 1029.

    isnt the inference to be drawn, crediting the DOJ’s assertion in the Investigative Summary, that his assistant prepared that sample?

    Who was his assistant who prepared the other two samples?

    Was it the lab technician (PF, Former Colleague #2; Technician #1) who was thanked by the former Zawahiri associate for providing technical assistance in connection with the virulent Ames supplied him by Bruce Ivins in connection with the DARPA research (for which a dried powder was made out of Flask 1029 by the FBI anthrax expert)? Had he asked her regarding spore production as indicated by the lab notebook mentioned in an Ivins interview?

    Is there anyone who can appreciate that given that it was the FBI expert who made a dried powder out of Flask 1029 (and this information was suppressed) then maybe we need a review that it is truly independent?

    And one by the longterm partner of FBI Quantico is not in fact independent?

    https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/the-fbi-should-provide-gao-with-a-copy-of-the-report-of-its-handwriting-expert-in-connection-with-the-fbir-submissions/

    Is GAO familiar with conflict of interest principles as I think they are?

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: