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

* DXer comments … The Amerithrax Investigative Summary is an unsourced and unmitigated crock — not supported by citation to any documentary evidence for good reason. An analysis sourced to the documentation tells a quite different story … LMW: The buck stops with FBI Director Robert Mueller. Congress should demand an explanation of the pathetic FBI anthrax investigation.

Posted by DXer on August 31, 2011


FBI Director Mueller & the man the FBI drove to suicide ... after which they charged (in a press conference, not a courtroom) a dead man who could not defend himself


DXer’s comment … 

  • In a lengthy interview, AUSA Rachel Lieber recently affirmed her confidence to Frontline interviewers in Dr. Ivins guilt.
    • Yet when you go to the February 2010 Amerithrax Investigative Summary that she wrote — which reflects her understanding of the facts — there is no mention whatsoever of the 52 rabbits over which Dr. Ivins had charge and which were the reason he was in the lab.
    • The rabbits delivered on September 25 and subject of the experiments in early October 2001.
    • The word “rabbit” nowhere appears in her lengthy report!
    • Instead, at page 32, in a footnote, she refers to only some mice needing his attention and says that they would not have explained all his time.
    • Rather than relying on a review of the documents, she relied on Pat Fellows’ self-serving characterizations.
  • In short, in the rush of events in July 2008, it is understandable that Rachel had not mastered the facts — alleged to Ivins’ counsel that Dr. Ivins used a lyophilized etc.
    • Heck, she had the private knowledge of what the first counselor, Judith (who reports she feared nasty astral entities were trying to kill her) had said about what the murderous Dr. Ivins had told her in July 2000 about his murderous plans.
    • With that fueling their suspicion of Dr. Ivins, who wouldn’t be suspicious?
    • And the first counselor’s delusions are explained quite clearly in her 2009 book that was available to Rachel to read before issuing her 2010 report.
  • But what’s her excuse for failing to explain in February 2010 the reason Dr. Ivins was in the lab –which is established by the documentary evidence she nowhere mentions and that DOJ has not uploaded?
  • What’s her excuse for telling me that we would never get the lab notebooks showing how he had spent his time under FOIA?  
  • After Dr. Ivins killed himself, there was no meaningful reassessment of the case.  Ken Kohl was busy dealing with the aftermath of the botching of the Blackwater murder prosecution.
  • The Amerithrax Investigative Summary is an unsourced and unmitigated crocknot supported by citation to any documentary evidence for good reason.
  • An analysis sourced to the documentation tells a quite different story. 
    • As an example, all the letters claimed by Rachel to have been double-lined in fact were not.
  • Isn’t the country sick and tired of the CYA motivation of federal officials potentially putting the country at peril?
  • The Amerithrax Investigative Summary should have been sourced to the documents which should have been provided in an Appendix.
  • They now should be uploaded under FOIA — before 9/11 please.


The buck stops with FBI Director Robert Mueller. Congress should demand an explanation of the pathetic FBI anthrax investigation.

It is this purposely misleading behavior by FBI Director Mueller and Attorney General Holder and their subordinates which infuriates me. That fury caused me to write my novel CASE CLOSED, which posits an alternative (fictional) scenario for what really happened in the anthrax attack and in the FBI investigation which followed.

Read the opening of CASE CLOSED (below) and then buy a copy at …

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *

* special offer for readers of this blog … purchase CASE CLOSED on Kindle for $5.00

this is the opening scene of Lew Weinstein's novel CASE CLOSED


11 Responses to “* DXer comments … The Amerithrax Investigative Summary is an unsourced and unmitigated crock — not supported by citation to any documentary evidence for good reason. An analysis sourced to the documentation tells a quite different story … LMW: The buck stops with FBI Director Robert Mueller. Congress should demand an explanation of the pathetic FBI anthrax investigation.”

  1. DXer said

    The buck — and the baton — was passed on to Mr. Comey. Now, upon confirmation as FBI Director, it seems to be on to Chris Wray. Attorney Wray was the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division from 2003-2005, when Amerithrax appears to have gone astray. Maybe Mr. Wray could prod the FBI to comply with FOIA.

    Anthrax, Al Qaeda and Ayman Zawahiri: The Infiltration of US Biodefense

  2. DXer said

    Amerithrax is very simple: AUSA Lieber stuffed 52 rabbits into a hat.

  3. DXer said

    Vahid Majidi writes:

    “during Director Mueller’s tenure which spans over the entire Amerithrax case, the FBI has been a trustworthy agency!”

    Let’s narrow our focus a bit from the FBI to the Amerithrax. (Personally, I’m a really big fan of the FBI and the IC and their mission).

    In Amerithrax, the lead AUSA, Ken Kohl, was the subject of an unprecedented federal district court opinion lambasting Attorney Kohl for prosecutorial misconduct. It was brought to light, ironically, by Dr. Hatfill’s attorney, Connolly. Thus Ken apparently had no time to check or correct your insights based on your work experience rather than the documents. He was neck-deep in doo-doo in a different, high-profile matter.

    So rather than cheerleading, how about being a little more fact-bound.

    For example, elsewhere Vahid emphasizes the rules that FBI agents need to learn without noting that the head of the Amerithrax investigation, Mr. Persichini, resigned after the August 2008 press conference for cheating on the open book test in 2008 on those rules. So he too was distracted from catching Vahid’s mistakes.

    Dr. Majidi is advertising the book to his contacts on Linked-In. I suppose people who don’t know about the matter or the facts could be persuaded and appreciate its readability. But any FBI forensic scientist should be far more evidence-based — his book should be filled with citations to the documents in the record and scientific studies. Otherwise, it is all just CYA on its face.

  4. DXer said


    With this collection of commentaries, Center experts mark the 10th anniversary of the 2001 anthrax attacks by taking stock of progress to date and making recommendations for change that would help build resilience and preparedness against biological threats. (September 2011)
    A Crossroads in Biosecurity (Tom Inglesby and Anita Cicero)
    Post-9/11 Challenges of a Crisis (D.A. Henderson)
    Managing the Insider Threat in High-Containment Laboratories (Gigi Kwik Gronvall)
    Connecting the Dots on Biosurveillance (Jennifer Nuzzo)
    Time for Crisis Standards of Care (Dan Hanfling)
    Preparing Hospitals for Large-Scale Infectious Disease Emergencies (Eric Toner and Amesh Adalja)
    Four Ways to Reduce the Time and Cost of Anthrax Cleanup (Crystal Franco)
    Community Resilience: Beyond Wishful Thinking (Monica Schoch-Spana)

  5. DXer said

    John Young has graciously sent me a copy of the 250,000 Wikileaks documents given I sometimes find it hard to find things online. I’m not expecting anything of note on Amerithrax or anthrax but will share what there is (assuming it is full-text searchable).

  6. DXer said

    Professor Guillemin, in her lucidly written book explains:

    “In December 2010, the Bureau supplied more than 600 pages of new material. Far from being fully appeased, the committee expressed its discontent with both the thoroughness of the FBI’s scientific approach and the aps in information about the investigative process overall — leaving the door open for a 911-type commission that members of Congress were proposing.” (at p. 249)

  7. richard rowley said

    You know, Amerithrax is one of those subjects where people with a strong opinion seldom change it in the slightest. But this type of info tells me that, although ‘government conspiracy’ is too strong and harsh a word, several persons involved in the writeup of the closing of the Amerithrax investigation realized that the case against Bruce Ivins was far weaker than the ‘summaries’ would make you think. Deception via omission. And they prefer to leave it that way.

    • Lew Weinstein said

      Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, well-reasoned or not.

      But as has been said many times, no one is entitled to their own facts.

      It is the hiding of facts, the removal of lab books, the failure to respond to legal FOIA requests, the destruction of the Ames samples, the refusal to answer questions of Congressmen, the failure to turn over relevant documents to the NAS review committee, the enforced silence of key witnesses, the list goes on and on … it is these things that have made the facts so difficult to know, and raised quite reasonable questions about the reasons for the withholding of same.

      • Anonymous said

        Daschle’s latest statement from a new anthrax review:

        What do you think of the investigation into the

        attacks? In your mind, what questions remain


        Unfortunately, the investigation has been a

        very arduous, frustrating and controversial experience.

        With both early and ongoing fits and

        starts, it is accurate to acknowledge that the

        confidence level relating to assertions by the

        Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that the

        case has now been successfully closed is much

        lower than it should be.

        I am reasonably satisfied that the FBI’s conclusion

        is the correct one, but I must also recognize

        the legitimate concerns and questions

        posed by many skeptics since the case was officially

        closed. Was this attack the work of a lone

        scientist? If so, what was his motivation? Have

        we done everything within our means to prevent

        another attack in the future?

  8. DXer said

    How could the AUSA have not mentioned rabbits in the Amerithrax Investigative Summary given the numerous documents confirming that was what he was doing?

    Covance study planning documents indicate planned challenge of rabbits (scheduled for October 2) was to be subcutaneous (by injection) rather than aerosol

    Posted by Lew Weinstein on March 15, 2011

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: