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

* Who Was The Only Person In [Redacted] Spoke To About The Dried Aerosol Project? Was It Ivins Assistant, The Aerosol Expert Pat F.? It Was Not Ivins Because His Name Would Not Have Been Redacted.

Posted by DXer on January 11, 2012



8 Responses to “* Who Was The Only Person In [Redacted] Spoke To About The Dried Aerosol Project? Was It Ivins Assistant, The Aerosol Expert Pat F.? It Was Not Ivins Because His Name Would Not Have Been Redacted.”

  1. DXer said

    “Due to [redacted] previous experience with the [long redaction ] was originally tasked by [long redaction] believes that [she] worked on this project for about [long redaction] that they had to stop working with dried powder aerosolization due to its duel [ sic FBI misspelling] use implications.”

    [redacted] worked on this project along in building 1412 suite [redacted] ) only parts of this suite are classified as a containment area).

    Follows heavily redacted passages about duration of study and who was knowledgeable and were lab notebooks would be.”

    It was Pat who was thanked by the former Zawahiri associate for providing technical assistance. Was she the one working on the dried aerosol project? Or was it Joany? Was it Terry? Both were JE’s assistants and he had made a dried powder for DARPA.
    All of the women worked in Building 1412. Which one was working alone on the dried aerosol project?

    It seems that GAO would need access to these lab notebooks to reconstruct the dried aerosol work done at USAMRIID. It also would want unredacted copies of these FBI interviews about the dried aerosol project at USAMRIID.

    The excerpt of Pat’s civil deposition filed and civil court was sealed. Then DOJ shredded the entire civil deposition.

    The anthrax expert at USAMRIID, John E., who made dried anthrax for DARPA worked for the FBI (which is part of DOJ). Then DOJ shredded the deposition that might shed light on the dried anthrax powder work done at USAMRIID. Meanwhile, USAMRIID and DOJ have kept from the public the documents relating to testing the sworn testimony that Ivins had animal experiments in the B3 those nights and weekends in late September 2001 and early October 2001.

    The FBI’s anthrax expert deemed unnecessary to submit a sample to the repository at the same time samples were being demanded by subpoena of researchers across the country.

    It relatedly was deemed okay to throw out a submitted sample from RMR 1029 (the sample had 4 morphs).

    The FBI’s “Ivins Theory” was cobbled together premised in large part on insinuations that Dr. Ivins hid or manipulated evidence. Yet Dr. Ivins was a lot more transparent on issues than some at the DOJ and FBI have been. For example, Dr. Ivins told them in 2007 that he was extremely upset that they were going to find a bag of panties. At the hotel that night where they had brought him, he needed to be medicated. He committed suicide after the humiliation of being swabbed for DNA after they found a second bag of semen-stained panties was found in spring of 2008. Henry Heine says that at his polygraph there were 7 questions asking for information that might be used as blackmail — he thinks of Bruce as the “sixth victim” of the anthrax mailings.

    GAO should press the FBI for greater transparency so that sound and persuasive conclusions can be drawn — both as to the distribution and potential access to Ames and as to Dr. Ivins’ reason for being in the B3 in Building 1425 those nights.

    In parsing together the dried aerosol project at USAMRIID and Southern Research Institute, it is important to keep in mind that Yazid Sufaat has not denied responsibility for the Fall 2001 anthrax mailings. He invokes the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination. He has said in a public interview that the CIA is not going to hear it from his mouth.

  2. DXer said

    If a leading reporter was able to interview Pat Fellows, the public’s understanding of Amerithrax could be greatly advanced.

  3. DXer said

    The Second Circuit Court of Appeal is going to hear oral argument in a case which involves the fact that the USG hid the fact that USAMRIID made a dried powder out of the Ames strain — indeed, it was the DOJ’s own anthrax expert who made the dried powder out of RMR 1029. Under the precedent that controls, does that bear on whether it is correct to find the claim time-barred? Should plaintiffs be time-barred and charged with notice of what the USG actively concealed from them? When I worked at the Court, the issue on appeal related to a plaintiff who did not reasonably know of the claim. I won’t presume to speak to the precedent controlling the issue at bar but we observers can understand the issue in the context of the fact that even at the time of its August 2008 press conferences the DOJ did not acknowledge this. If you study the 302 interiew statements, you see that the DOJ and USAMRIID knew a lot about the dried aerosol project at USAMRIID and kept it secret. … even from Dr. Ivins.

  4. DXer said

    United States Postal Inspector Cortez in a June 30, 2009 letter

    “At the time of his death, the Amerithrax investigation was focused on Dr. Ivins, but it is inaccurate to assume his arrest was imminent….” See United States District Court of Claims May 2011 decision. (The docket has the actual letter).

  5. DXer said

    January 9, 2008 302 interview

    “__________noted IVINS was excluded from certain ”projects,” meaning USAMRIID research that directly supported the U.S. Intelligence Community.”

  6. DXer said

    2/12/2003 302 Ivins interview statement refers to emails provided “regarding request to find out of USAMRIID made dried, powdered anthrax Ba spores.”

    Those emails have not been provided and should have been.

    GAO, if you obtain the emails from the DOJ and FBI correspondents with John Peterson, you will be able to develop a comprehensive list of emails that were culled. Each individual batch was subject to long delays as people weighed in what needed to be redacted or pulled. FOIA required that documents pulled were marked — and justified — by a statutory exemption.

  7. This is not FOIA this is undermining FOIA by executive action.

    • DXer said

      Anthrax jabs stockpiled in biological terrorism alert
      Nicholas Cecil, Deputy Political Editor
      11 Jan 2012

      More than 500 health workers have also been vaccinated against smallpox, enabling them to respond to a biological terror attack.Britain is building up stocks of vaccine to cope with an anthrax attack at the Olympics, the Standard can reveal.

      The Government is replenishing its anthrax jabs stockpile in time for April to safeguard the 2012 Games as part of London’s biggest security operation.

      The supply of inoculations to combat anthrax poisoning to the Department of Health was hit by delays between October 2009 and March 2011. The resulting shortfall in supply is set to be made up within the next four months.

      Terrorists have rarely used anthrax but fear swept through America in 2001 when letters containing anthrax spores were sent to news media offices and two Democratic US senators. Five people were killed and 17 others infected.

      Leading US scientist Bruce Ivins, who was suspected of the attacks, died in August 2008 after taking an overdose of painkillers.

      Comment: They might save a lot on biodefense if they spent less on magic marker ink. The GAO should address and/or overcome the obscuration resulting from the FBI’s overbroad redaction of scientific matters under FOIA b6, b7C and b7D “Personal Privacy” exemptions.

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: