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

* Judge Allows Feds to Revise Filing in Anthrax Case

Posted by DXer on July 30, 2011


IT WASN'T IVINS ... and the FBI must by now know that they drove the wrong man to suicide


Greg Gordon, McClatchy Newspapers, Mike Wiser, FRONTLINE, and Stephen Engelberg, ProPublica, July 29, 2011 …

  • Justice Department lawyers, defending a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the family of the first victim of the 2001 anthrax letter attacks, won a judge’s approval Friday to withdraw a court filing that seemed to undermine the FBI’s assertion that an Army researcher was the killer.
  • U.S. District Judge David Hurley of West Palm Beach, Fla., accepted a government attorney’s declaration that the FBI and federal prosecutors didn’t alert the government defense team to 10 errors in a statement of facts until after it had been filed in court on July 15.

Initial Filing

  • The initial filing asserted flatly that the U.S. bioweapons facility that employed researcher Bruce Ivins, whom the FBI accused of manufacturing the anthrax, did not have “specialized equipment” needed to produce the deadly powder in the secure biocontainment lab where Ivins had a workspace.

Revised Filing

  • The revised filing said that Ivins had access to a refrigerator-sized machine known as a lyophilizer, which can be used to dry solutions such as anthrax, at the facility in a less secure lab. In addition, it said that Ivins also had a smaller “speed-vac” that could be used for drying substances in his containment lab.

read the entire post at …



10 errors in a statement of facts … does that inspire confidence in the DOJ attorneys or what?


2 Responses to “* Judge Allows Feds to Revise Filing in Anthrax Case”

  1. Old Atlantic said

    The FBI has cracked the D.B. Cooper case. It was the pilot.

    They found old psych reports on the pilot back in the Korean war that clinched it.

    Sure there are a few loose ends, like how he was flying the plane and also in the cabin making threats and jumping off, but those are details.

  2. richard rowley said

    This is a good jumping off point:

    1) a) Ivins used a lyophilizer. Or a speed-vac. Or perhaps something else. Whatever.

    b) No biggie.

    2) a) Ivins drove to Princeton to do the October mailing on Oct 9th. Or Oct 8th. Or Oct 7th. Or Oct 6th. Whatever.

    b) No biggie.

    3) a) Ivins printed the Amerithrax letters. Or he used a child to copy them (which would explain in its own way the non-match in printing features). Whatever.

    b) No biggie.

    4) a) the presence of subtilis could be a key identifying characteristic. Or not. Whatever.

    b) No biggie.


    I’m reminded of that old saw “The devil is in the details”. So would we say that the government’s case is bedeviled or non-bedeviled? Whatever, no biggie!

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 )

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: