* 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 DXer on April 6, 2011
to learn more about Lew Weinstein and his novels,
go to … http://lewweinsteinauthorblog.com/
******
******
******
CASE CLOSED ... what really happened in the 2001 anthrax attacks? 
DXer said
Upstate NY TV stations receive new ‘Chinese Zodiac Killer’ letters; FBI investigating
Updated: Dec. 13, 2021, 6:41 p.m. | Published: Dec. 13, 2021, 9:50 a.m.
https://www.syracuse.com/state/2021/12/upstate-ny-tv-stations-receive-new-chinese-zodiac-killer-letters-fbi-investigating.html
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.
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?