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

* Stephanie Yamkovenko of Frederick Gorilla summarizes elements of the FBI’s non-existent case against Dr. Ivins

Posted by DXer on December 2, 2011


the FBI has charged a dead man without proof, and the Director must know it



 Stephanie Yamkovenko writes on

the Government stated (in Stevens case) and later retracted that Ivins could not be the anthrax killer …

  • federal lawyers submitted a filing stating that the Justice Department’s alleged, sole perpetrator, USAMRIID research scientist and Frederick resident Bruce Ivins, could not have been the anthrax killer. The stated reason: He did not have the equipment necessary to weaponize liquid anthrax into the lethal, aerosolized powder contained in the death-dealing letters.
  • Within 24 hours, the case’s presiding judge allowed the government lawyers to amend their problematic statements.
  • “The filing by the Justice Department—under oath, by the way—proves that the dried anthrax used in the letter attacks could not have been made at Fort Detrick,” says Rockville attorney Paul Kemp, Ivins’ former lawyer. “Their filing destroys any potential link between the attack anthrax and Dr. Ivins.”

behavioral analysts support DOJ assertion of Ivins guilt … without ever meeting him …

  • in July 2009, a federal judge asked a group of expert behavioral analysts to review Ivins’ mental health records.
  • The panel is on record as having said it entered into the review without presuming Ivins’ guilt or innocence. Once finished, however, they concluded that the records did support DOJ’s determination of Ivins’ guilt.
  • “Dr. Ivins did many things and said many things that demonstrated his guilt,” the panel’s final report states. “Dr. Ivins’ profound mental health struggles provide both a context for his motive to commit the crime and an explanation for how this person could commit such a horrific and tragic offense.”

 NAS holds that science does not prove Ivins guilt …

  • in early 2011, the National Academy of Sciences, which was asked by the FBI to review its procedures, published their findings. They held that it was not possible to definitively determine the origin of the anthrax in the letters.

by charging a dead man, the DOJ/FBI avoided the inconvenience of having to prove their assertions …

  • Because Ivins will never get to stand trial, he may never have his name cleared, even if he was innocent.
  • “I want Dr. Ivins’ friends and family to know that the validity of his science has never been challenged; that there is no case proving that he committed any crime and that he was betrayed by the mental health therapists in whom he reposited his trust for treatment of his various problems,” Ivins’ onetime lawyer Kemp says.
  • “They trash Dr. Ivins’ reputation, even though they have not shown a single link between Dr. Ivins and the letter attacks or the dried anthrax,” he adds. “

read the entire article at …

2 Responses to “* Stephanie Yamkovenko of Frederick Gorilla summarizes elements of the FBI’s non-existent case against Dr. Ivins”

  1. DXer said

    Duties and Difficulties of Investigating and Prosecuting Biocrimes

    Danley, Lisa
    Citation Information: Journal of Biosecurity, Biosafety and Biodefense Law. Volume 3, Issue 1, Pages –, ISSN (Online) 2154-3186, DOI: 10.1515/2154-3186.1032, July 2012
    Publication History:
    Published Online:

    Biological warfare has been used longer than most conventional weapons, yet international and domestic response protocol and regulations designed to effectively manage, investigate, and prosecute biocrimes have only recently been implemented. Even with such protocol and regulations, significant difficulties arise in the investigation and prosecution of perpetrators. This article will identify and describe many of these challenges, beginning with the scope of biocrimes, which can generally be defined as a malevolent use of pathogens or toxins to harm others. Other challenges surrounding the investigation of biocrimes which will be addressed within this article include: identifying what biological agent caused an illness or disease outbreak; characterizing the event as a deliberate attack or a naturally occurring outbreak; and balancing an infected person’s civil liberties with conducting a thorough and accurate investigation. The final significant challenge of investigation and prosecuting biocrimes is the extremely high cost of mistakes. Ultimately, this article recommends ways to remove some the challenges to investigating and prosecuting biocrimes through greater information sharing and standardized investigative and prosecutorial training.

  2. DXer said

    Regarding the “Fast and Furious” controversy:

    Instead, “it is about a failure that seems to be pervasive within [the Department of] Justice that investigations play fast and loose with the expectations of what is right or wrong when it comes to … collateral damage. This isn’t the first time the FBI and other agencies have been involved in investigations in which bad people are allowed to continue doing bad things in the name of going after bad people,” Issa said.

    False statements to Congress are prosecutable so the only way to avoid a false answer is to provide gobbledygook and pretend it was a typo.
    Congress, for oversight to be meaningful, should demand straight answers.

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: