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

* The Instructions For Preparing and Shipping TSA Slants for B. anthracis Ames Expressly Note That An Equivalent Can Be Used; Special Pathogens Laboratory Itself Submitted Home-made Slants In May 2002

Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 9, 2012

******

******

Advertisements

6 Responses to “* The Instructions For Preparing and Shipping TSA Slants for B. anthracis Ames Expressly Note That An Equivalent Can Be Used; Special Pathogens Laboratory Itself Submitted Home-made Slants In May 2002”

  1. DXer said

    In the subpoena to Bruce Ivins dated February 2002 — which was produced today — the instructions EXPRESSLY specify that an equivalent can be used. This may have been USG boilerplate intended to avoid problems arising from specifying a private vendor’s product. And perhaps someone then decided that there should be standardization. But don’t blame Dr. Ivins for submitting his sample on an “equivalent” — and then find some fault arising from the fact that the FBI’s expert threw out the slant (although other submissions on home-made slants were NOT thrown out). See FBIR inventory. Instead, find fault with anyone not abiding the protocol of preserving all potentially relevant evidence. There was no reason it could not have been preserved while requiring another sample be submitted. It’s no different that retaining drafts of a manuscript. Rather than evidencing a fault on the part of Dr. Ivins … which is all speculation .. without any speculation it evidences a fault on the part of the expert collecting samples for the FBI.

  2. DXer said

    The instructions expressly contemplated that an equivalent could be used. Yet the Amerithrax prosecutors and investigators made it seem like Dr. Ivins lab had done something wrong.

  3. DXer said

    Kurt Eichenwald in 500 DAYS, writes:

    “In February, he put together eight samples, including two from a batch he had developed 1029 — the source of the anthrax used in the attacks. The FBI had included instructions to the researchers for preparing the anthrax, and Ivins followed them precisely with six of the submissions. But he disregarded them for the two from RMR-1029, making them useless for any analysis. One of the researchers who received a subpoena was Bruce Ivins.

    “It was an attempt at a cover-up, it worked perfectly — at least for now.”

    Those few sentences are dense with numerous errors.

    First, the subpoena was to USAMRIID as an institution.

    Second, he submitted the initial key sample before the institution received the subpoena.

    Third, that sample was then inexcusably thrown out by the scientists working for the FBI who had made a dried powder out of Ames from Flask 1029.

    Fourth, his assistants prepared a number of the samples. Most samples were submitted in April.

    As authority, Kurt cites what he calls the Anthrax Panel Report, the Amerithrax Report, and the first Arredondo affidavit.

    He also cites Washington Field Amerithrax 3, “Title” Amerithrax: Major Case 184,” June 27, 2005.

    In studying the documentary evidence rather than parroting — even distorting — the conclusory allegations of a prosecutor or investigator, consider the actual relevant documentary evidence. We should turn as well to the sources cited.

    1. Does Bruce Ivins’ submitting a sample even before the FBI repository is up and running show a guilty conscious or an earnest eagerness to help?
    Posted by Lew Weinstein on March 22, 2011

    https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/03/22/does-bruce-ivins-submitting-a-sample-even-before-the-fbi-repository-is-up-and-running-show-a-guilty-conscious-or-an-earnest-eagerness-to-help/

    2. The Instructions For Preparing and Shipping TSA Slants for B. Pathogens Laboratory Itself Submitted Home-made Slants In May 2002

    Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 9, 2012

    https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/the-instructions-for-preparing-and-shipping-tsa-slants-for-b-anthracis-ames-expressly-note-that-an-equivalent-can-be-used-special-pathogens-laboratory-itself-submitted-home-made-slants-in-may-2002/

    3. Who in Dr. Ezzell’s lab threw out Ivins’ initial February 2002 sample which contained the 4 morphs?

    Posted by Lew Weinstein on March 22, 2011
    https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/03/22/who-in-dr-ezzells-lab-threw-out-ivins-february-2002-sample-which-contained-the-4-morphs/

    4. Did the FBI Scientist Throw Out The Other Slants That Did Not Use Specified TSA Remel Slant Or Only Dr. Ivins’ February 2002 Submission From RMR 1029 From Which Its Scientists Had Made A Dried Powder? Who Threw It Out?
    Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 7, 2012
    https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/did-the-fbi-scientist-throw-out-the-other-slants-that-did-not-use-specified-tsa-remel-slant-or-only-dr-ivins-february-2002-submission-from-rmr-1029-from-which-its-scientists-had-made-a-dried-powd/

    5. GAO Should Obtain From The FBI The Laboratory Chain-Of-Custody Form that has a space that identifies who destroyed the Feb. 02 sample submitted by Dr. Ivins and states the reasons it was not preserved (such as the others that were preserved using different slants)

    Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 7, 2012
    https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/gao-should-obtain-from-the-fbi-the-laboratory-chain-of-custody-form-that-has-a-space-that-identifies-who-destroyed-the-feb-02-sample-submitted-by-dr-ivins-and-states-the-reasons-it-was-not-preserv/

    6. Terry Abshire in a document produced t under FOIA explains that the genetically matching sample she had in her lab was not submitted in the initial set ; instead, wasn’t her lab provided genetically matching material in August 2000 for DARPA research in which Dr. Ezzell made a dried powder out of the Ames and gave it to the DARPA researchers?

    https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/10/06/terry-abshire-in-a-document-produced-this-week-under-foia-explains-that-the-genetically-matching-sample-she-had-in-her-lab-was-not-submitted-in-the-initial-set-instead-wasnt-her-lab-provided-ge/
    Posted by Lew Weinstein on April 2, 2011

    7. Most of the Ames Samples In Ivins’ Lab Were Made By Dr. Ivins’ Assistant and not Ivins.
    https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/most-of-the-ames-samples-in-ivins-lab-were-made-by-dr-ivins-assistant-and-not-ivins/
    Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 7, 2012

    8. discussing one of the April 2002 samples and who prepared it

    Posted by Lew Weinstein on March 14, 2011
    https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/03/14/discussing-one-of-the-april-2002-samples-and-who-prepared-it/

    9. The GAO should obtain colored copies of the April 2002 sample submission (that Ivins says was submitted by his assistant) to see the color ink that was used.
    https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/04/02/the-gao-should-obtain-colored-copies-of-the-april-2002-sample-submission-that-ivins-says-was-submitted-by-his-assistant-to-see-the-color-ink-that-was-used/

    10. Whose initials appear in connection with the April 2002 FBIR Submission by Ivins’ lab. They are not Bruce’s initials.
    https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/whose-initials-appear-on-the-chain-of-custody-log-relating-to-the-april-2002-submission-of-the-ames-samples-to-the-fbir/

    11. Meglumine and Diatrizoate were both detected in the USAMRIID RMR 1029 sample — but Meglumine and Diatrizoate were NOT detected in the 2001 letter spore evidence
    Posted by Lew Weinstein on March 10, 2011

    https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/meglumine-and-diatrizoate-were-both-detected-in-the-usamriid-rmr-1029-sample-but-meglumine-and-diatrizoate-were-not-detected-in-the-2001-letter-spore-evidence/

    12. Even as of May, instructions on preparing slants was slow in coming.
    who wrote this email? who submitted the slants to the FBI?

    Posted by Lew Weinstein on April 5, 2010
    https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/who-wrote-this-email-who-submitted-the-slants-to-the-fbi/

  4. BugMaster said

    Also note that by following the instructions to incubate the slants for 12 to 18 hours after transfer to assure viability, what is actually being submitted is an actively-growing SUBCULTURE of the original material requested.

    Wrong, Wrong, Wrong!!!!

  5. As we know the slants Ivins prepared worked, because a copy were kept and tested at another location. That is experimental proof that the Ivins slants were equivalent in fact.

    That is admissible evidence in court that the Ivins’ slants were equivalent. It was done by a DOJ controlled lab against interest of the DOJ party to prove the slants were equivalent and did comply with the protocol.

    • DXer said

      The slants he prepared were TSA slants — just as the slants prepared in May 2002 by Special Pathogens were TSA slants. See also Dr. Ezzell’s description of the slants in interviews; he is available online. Laboratory made slants are the equivalent and in fact the norm in many large laboratories. Source: Bugmaster. It is when a highly motivated attorney went to spin things in July 2008 that there came to be confusion on the issue. It is Alice-in-Wonderland approach to take the destruction of evidence and then use it affirmatively against the person of interest. The ones throwing it out had made a dried powder out of RMR-1029 and kept that secret from the public for 8 years — and had not themselves submitted a sample.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: