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

* DXer: some of the crucial information the FBI doesn’t know … or hasn’t released

Posted by Lew Weinstein on April 25, 2011


FBI Assistant Director John Miller ... so certain it was Ivins ... and so wrong


a recent comment by DXer …

  • FBI Assistant Director, John Miller in defending the FBI’s conclusions in August 2008 said:
  • “I don’t think it’s helpful to respond to piecemeal judgments by individuals who are not informed about the case or the evidence,”FBI Assistant Director John Miller said yesterday.
  • Comment: I’ve read the 3500 pages produced by the FBI and the 9600 pages produced by the NAS. Has former FBI Assistant Director John Miller?
  • Does he know whose initials are on the April 2002 submission? (No). (Or does he just know the assertions in the Amerithrax Investigative Summary unsupported by any cite to the record).
  • Does he know the time of the September 17, 2001 email from Bruce Ivins to Mara Linscott? (No)
  • Has he seen the lab notebook pages on September 28, 29, 30, October 1 and October 2? (No).
  • How can anyone consider themselves informed on the facts of the case if they haven’t seen the contemporaneous notes made by Dr. Ivins on the dates the investigators speculate he was powderizing anthrax?
  • Does John Miller know who was working alone in Building 1412 on the dry aerosol work?
  • He should inform himself on those matters and encourage the FBI to comply with FOIA.
  • Then everyone will be more likely to be on the same page.
  • Dr. Saathoff similarly has not seen the lab notebook pages September 28, 29, 30, October 1 and October 2. He and Ronald Schouten should have withheld a professional opinion on the subject until they were given those contemporaneous notes and the other material documents that the FBI has not yet produced yet.



6 Responses to “* DXer: some of the crucial information the FBI doesn’t know … or hasn’t released”

  1. DXer said

    Report details deficiencies in plans for proposed Detrick facility
    Originally published April 30, 2011
    By Brian Englar
    News-Post Staff


    It took two years for JAG to produce Dr. Ivins’ emails in dribs and drabs.

    USAMRIID’s lack of transparency is extreme and the flow of information is specifically manipulated — in this case by JAG.

    USAMRIID has not even produced the FOIA responses in which Dr. Ivins’ first learned (after 911) that Detrick of the dried aerosol project (before 911).

    Moreover, USAMRIID has not produced the documents given Plaintiff Stevens in civil litigation.

    Until USAMRIID overcomes it past lack of transparency, I would put the proposed Detrick facility on hold.

    The Congressional investigation, if Holt’s bill is passed, should include a probe of JAG’s withholding of documents relating to Amerithrax.

    Remember: FOIA specifically provides for statutory exemptions from production. And it goes without saying that information exempt from production need not be produced upon appropriate invocation of exemption applicable to a particular category of document.

    Here, it is critical for the public to understand the timing, extent and nature of the dried aerosol project at Ft. Detrick — to include where the experiments were moved (so as to avoid the perception problem relating to the “dual use” nature of the experiments.

    We don’t need more proliferation and pork fueled spending without appropriate transparency on such an issue.

    • DXer said

      For example, USAMRIID has failed to produce under FOIA all documents provided Plaintiff Stevens in connection with Amerithrax. They are not exempt from production.

  2. DXer said

    The US Army is acting as if the documents responsive to FOIA requests does not have to be produced just because it was removed from the library by Army lawyers. For example, the claim that the US Army does not have in its possession Lab Notebook 4010 is untrue.

    This would not avoid an award of attorneys fees in a suit brought under FOIA.

    Scientific panel urges more Army transparency in planning for Fort Detrick animal lab

    First Posted: April 29, 2011 – 12:35 pm
    Last Updated: April 29, 2011 – 12:36 pm

    FREDERICK, Md. — A panel of civilian scientists is urging the Army to be more transparent about its plans for an animal biodefense laboratory at Fort Detrick in Frederick.

    The National Academy of Sciences committee expressed its concerns Friday in a letter to the commander of the Army’s Medical Research and Materiel Command.

    The Army sought the academy’s help in preparing an Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed laboratory. The facility would be used for animal studies on pathogens and countermeasures that require a high level of containment to prevent human exposure.

    After reviewing the Army’s proposal for assessing the exposure risk, the committee is recommending that the Army reveal more information about the pathogens that are likely to be tested.

  3. DXer said

    About 230 pages (with some redactions) of some lab notebooks are being produced.

    The notebook numbers are 3745, 3921, 4000, 4103, 4237. Those are 5 notebooks in USAMRIID’s possession. I believe the pages produced will span the years 1998-2001.

    There are 50 additional pages from Lab Notebook 4010 that the FBI will make available to you if you ask.

    • DXer said

      The plaintiff Stevens in civil discovery was keen to obtain a Department of Army Inspector General document. Reporters could obtain the copy of that document now that it was provided to the civil litigant.

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: