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

* Dr. Ivins could not possibly have continued to work alone without a buddy in 2002; thus AUSA Lieber’s premise on which she based her Ivins Theory — the pattern of hours (and fact it did not continue past 2001) — is specious

Posted by DXer on December 8, 2011



6 Responses to “* Dr. Ivins could not possibly have continued to work alone without a buddy in 2002; thus AUSA Lieber’s premise on which she based her Ivins Theory — the pattern of hours (and fact it did not continue past 2001) — is specious”

  1. DXer said

    Dr. Majidi argues that Dr. Ivins never worked the late hours alone after the mailings.

    First, that’s just false. He worked late hours in November and December 2001.

    That’s right. Dr. Majidi’s central argument is false from the get-go.

    But more importantly, he and US Attorney Taylor seem unaware — even thought it has been oft pointed out — that a two-person rule implemented in January 2002 precluded those hours.

    His long hours, by the way, coincided with both the problems at Bioport and installation of a laptop in the B3 that went missing (and he liked surfing porn).

    According to his assistant, it would take two hours to check the animals and that was what he was doing on the specified dates — although the public would not know that because in an outrageous withholding, the FBI withheld all documents relating to the experiment with the 52 rabbits that caused him to be in the lab.

    Did Dr. Majidi not know about the documents relating to the 52 rabbits? If not, why not?

    If he had seen the documents, why didn’t he see that they were produced?

  2. richard rowley said

    Okay, I’m convinced: another specious argument by the government.

    What about hot suite access records for the years 1981 to 1999? Are they available anywhere? They would give us a better feel for how typical/atypical Ivins’ off-hours work in the hot suites was in 2001

    • DXer said

      You raise a good point. This past week I requested the May 1998 hot suite records. In connection with correspondence about that request, I have asked for confirmation from USAMRIID that key card access system was first installed in mid-1998. I noted that I do not know what system of record-keeping existed prior to then. The FOIA officer is going to check. Apart from whether this particular system existed before summer 1998, what was the system before that? And what records exist under that system? The one thing that is clear, though, is that person’s names will be redacted.

      I sent a flurry of FOIA requests recently and so I am holding off on requests given I so appreciate the FOIA officer turning yesterday to the pending requests in the time she has — after an uptick in requests over the weekend. The public is seldom so well served.

      A key subject of requests that has not been touched relates to the dried aerosol program that USAMRIID launched. Dr. Ivins did not know about it. It was very hush-hush given the PR problem implicated. (A Dugway scientist, for example, has said that sometimes a virulent dried powder is needed to do proper experiments). One possibility is that it was merely moved off-site before virulent strains were used.

      Separately, I notice that a FOIA request has been submitted for all documents showing work between USAMRIID and SRI 1999-2001, to include but not limited to research involving PF and BI.

      I try to keep my FOIA requests extremely targeted. For example, please provide page 10 of the 2001 annual report that was omitted and shows who visited USAMRIID the latter half of September 2001 and first part of October. I am trying to make a loaf of bread out of crumbs. But a major media organization should submit a FOIA request about the dried aerosol program because there are quite a few 302 interview statements about it and it is highly relevant. Certainly, GAO should obtain the documents.

    • DOJ/FBI spent their money on what? They keep acting like they had a 100,000 dollar budget for this project.

  3. This undermines the DOJ/FBI credibility. Either they didn’t learn the evidence or they have misrepresented it. When the DOJ does this it is justilying.

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: