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

* extracts from a recent DXer comment identify several important issues – all established by the documentary evidence now available under FOIA – for the GAO to consider in its review of the FBI’s anthrax investigation

Posted by DXer on December 17, 2011



An Ivins Theory only seemed plausible

because of the documents that the DOJ selectively produced.

That selectivity — and the withholding of key documents —

was a very conscious decision by DOJ and FBI senior management.

GAO should obtain the emails to and from J. Peterson at USMRC

to see specific examples of documents that DOJ and FBI correspondents

asked be withheld.

  • When permitted to examine the documentary evidence withheld under FOIA, it seems that Ivins can be established not to have been involved.  
  • when one studies what letters actually were double-lined, one sees that the FBI’s code theory was crock.
  • When one obtains the scientific study on the USAMRIID photocopy toner, one sees that Rachel’s innuendo about the using the photocopiers  was baseless (and time in the library is exculpatory rather than inculpatory) etc.
  • Consider the example of the hours that Dr. Ivins spent on tending to the rabbits — and the fact the word “rabbits” never has passed the lips of the prosecutors or investigators.  The DOJ claims he had no reason to be in the lab
  • the assistant to the FBI scientist who made the dried powder out of Ames out of RMR 1029 — and who did not submit a sample — is a very key witness for the FBI.  Her failure to submit a sample is established by the documentary evidence.


3 Responses to “* extracts from a recent DXer comment identify several important issues – all established by the documentary evidence now available under FOIA – for the GAO to consider in its review of the FBI’s anthrax investigation”

  1. DXer said

    Court-appointed counsel issues report harshly critical of Stevens prosecutors
    By Terry Frieden, CNN
    updated 6:18 PM EDT, Thu March 15, 2012
    The case against former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens was thrown out in 2009. He died in a plane crash in 2010.

    • The case against Sen. Ted Stevens was tossed out after prosecutorial problems emerged
    • Prosecutors failed to disclose evidence that could have helped the defense, a new report says
    • The fate of the government attorneys involved in the case remains uncertain
    • Stevens lost a re-election bid in 2008; he died in a small-plane crash in 2010

    Washington (CNN) — A blistering new report reveals details about the intentional mishandling of evidence and other missteps by Justice Department attorneys in the flawed prosecution of then-Sen. Ted Stevens.

    The report from court-appointed independent counsel Henry Schuelke was ordered by U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan in Washington. It focuses heavily on the failure of the prosecutors to disclose evidence to Stevens’ legal team as required by law.

    The “exculpatory” evidence would have aided Stevens’ defense, says the report, released Thursday.

    The report details prosecutorial misconduct including encouraging false testimony at trial by the government’s key witness against Stevens.

    Comment: Why did it serve justice for the DOJ to produce only documents that served to support the theory it had concocted such as information dating to the early 1980s that made Dr. Ivins look bad — while withholding the forensic reports on the photocopier toner, then pen and ink, the tape, and the type of paper used?

    If GAO goes to John P’s in box, GAO would see a roadmap for the emails that DOJ and FBI personnel asked be pulled (without the pulling of those emails being reflected by a list identifying the pulled emails).

  2. DXer said

    OldAtlantic, I certainly agree with you that there is no reason for the room numbers from over 10 years ago to be redacted. In fact, I believe there has been extensive reconstruction. (The animals were in biolevel 3 when challenged and dying, as Bruce frequently explained in the emails). I mentioned it to the FOIA officer but it may have been lost in the shuffle of the 8 pending requests I have pressed to get before the holidays.

    GAO should see those documents before issuing its report. (Of course, there may be additional FOIAs as I have not recently asked for an update of my FOIA of all FOIAs.)

    The requests are as follows:

    1. Controlled substance log relating to Euthasol and Ketamine administered to the rabbits and mice and guinea pigs in September 01 – October 01.

    2. The protocol relating to Dr. Ivins’ formaldehyde study involving rabbits (the rabbits arrived the week of September 24th and challenged in early October 2001).

    3. Passive mouse protocols from 2001, especially the one implemented in late Sep 01 that document what Dr. Ivins was doing in the lab on those nights (the prosecutor and investigators acknowledge the mice were in B3). (In an oversight, I haven’t yet asked for guinea pig protocols but that also needs to be obtained for all protocols implemented in Sep and October 2001.)

    4. Page 10 of the annual history report which is the page that had the chronology of highlights at USAMRIID in the latter half of Sep 01 and first half of Oct 01.

    5. Keycard access to B3 in 1425 in the first week of May 1998, in whatever form they exist (or keycard access relating to work done by University of Michigan researchers alongside BI, PI and ML, at whatever BL-3 lab it was done).

    6. All documents relating to contact with University of Michigan researchers from 1998-2001.

    7. All documents relating to work done by USAMRIID and SRI during the 1999-2001, to include but not limited to any work done by BI and PF.

    8. Records of decontamination of 1425 facilities, including B3 and/or B5 in September 01 or October 01.

  3. One issue is that in some of the documents, the room numbers are redacted. This has been the subject of recent debate as to which rooms exactly the animals were in or subjected to challenge, etc.

    In some cases, we have documents with the room numbers redacted that would answer these questions. Those should be unredacted. The Warren Commission didn’t redact this type of key information. The room numbers don’t have any real security value especially given the diagram that is already available of the B suites.

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: