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

* Justice Department Is Said To Be Arguing Against Itself But AUSA Rachel Lieber Has Not Even Yet Addressed The Issue Of The Rabbits Or Produced The Pertinent Contemporaneous Documents Relating To Dr. Ivins’ Work With The Rabbits.

Posted by DXer on January 29, 2012



25 Responses to “* Justice Department Is Said To Be Arguing Against Itself But AUSA Rachel Lieber Has Not Even Yet Addressed The Issue Of The Rabbits Or Produced The Pertinent Contemporaneous Documents Relating To Dr. Ivins’ Work With The Rabbits.”

  1. DXer said

    Mark Kortepeter writes in his new book that after 9/11 was Heine was stuck abroad and Ivins took over his animal checks.

    “Bruce, living right there, could walk up and get in and was doing everyone’s animal checks,” for their experiments, including his own. “Bruce was kinda taking care of everybody’s stuff. When did Bruce have time to grow up and harvest anthrax, turning anthrax into powder?” Hank asks.

    • DXer said

      Mark Korpeteter writes:

      “Hank [Henry Heine] believes it would have taken Bruce nine months or more to produce the number of spores in the letters, not the few weeks around 9/11 when the FBI presumed he did.”

  2. DXer said

    In his new book, Mark Kortepeter writes:

    “Since Bruce’s death, the handling of the anthrax case has been questioned by several government authorities and other agencies. …

    A National Academy of Science committee “challenged the FBI and the U.S. Justice Department’s conclusion that a single-spore batch of anthrax maintained by Ivins in his laboratory at Fort Detrick was the parent material for the spores in the anthrax letters. Even different branches of the Justice Department appeared to have trouble deciding what to believe, as its own civil attorneys “contradicted their own department’s conclusion that Ivins was unquestionably the anthrax killer” ….”

  3. DXer said

    Is the reason AUSA Rachel Lieber never addressed the contemporaneous documents about the rabbits because she threw them out? Is that why the FBI claims that they cannot find the five withheld emails identified by Plaintiff Dillon? The FBI specified the emails as of special importance — and yet did not keep them? That’s not right.

    Anthrax, Al Qaeda and Ayman Zawahiri: The Infiltration of US Biodefense

  4. DXer said

    Graeme McQueen in his book “2001 Anthrax Deception” (Clarity 2014) writes:

    “The filing of this motion for summary judgment by the DOJ civil division lawyers was apparently followed by panic and shouting matches within the Department. The upshot was that the civil division lawyers “got scolded” and were made to settle the case without a trial as quickly as possible.81 The settlement discussions were initiated in August, 2011 and the final settlement was agreed to on November 28 of that year. The Stevens family received $2.5 million with no admission of liability by the U.S. government.”


    A federal undercover — or was he a Battlelle undercover working under a CIA contract awarded to Battelle, beats me — did my graphics. (My electronic record-keeping is way better than the FBI’s).

    I was always amused and impressed by his talent. The graphic was always better than whatever I submitted and proposed — while being a faithful execution of the substance and content and never going beyond or departing what I had provided. Any mistakes are entirely my own. (I’ve mentioned two minor mistakes that I know about).

    I’m told it is illegal to expose an undercover. I wouldn’t know. I haven’t researched the law.

    But I do know what motivates me. And working for free isn’t it.

    At the same time, there was actionable interference with unrelated and potentially lucrative projects.

    So like I told that FBI Agent once. You want to know what kind of lawyer I am? Well, then violate my constitutional rights and you may very well find out.

  5. DXer said

    FBI is still withholding from the public and GAO the notebook pages relating to the research involving the virulent Ames spores provided in 1998 to the DARPA researchers researching this decontamination agent described in this August 2012 patent; Flask 1029 distributions to researchers doing work at USAMRIID were not recorded on the Flask 1029 inventory where it was done at USAMRIID.

    • DXer said

      Trial OKd in 9/11 suit against 2 airliners

      Published: September 5, 2012 12:41 AM
      By PATRICIA HURTADO. Bloomberg News

      AMR Corp.’s American Airlines and United Continental Holdings Inc. must face a federal trial over negligence claims tied to the hijacking of jetliners used in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that killed about 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, a judge ruled.

      As the former WTC 1993 prosecutor once said, IMAGINE THE LIABILITY.

    • DXer said

      There is an August 7, 2012 patent involving a decontamination agent that Bruce Ivins, Patricia Fellows and Mara Linscott worked on in the B3 at USAMRIID using virulent Ames supplied the University of Michigan researchers from Flask 1029. Lew is in Dublin but maybe he’ll upload some relevant images after he starts his day.

  6. DXer said

    Dr. Majidi, did you know about Dr. Ivins’ work with the rabbits? If so, why didn’t you require it be disclosed in the Amerithrax Investigative Summary?

    • anonymous said

      Because I was being payed to lie for the FBI silly. Anyway, I have a nice new civilian job now, so who cares.? I was just an opportunist who saw my chance to shine.

  7. DXer said

    Defendants not told of bad lab work?

    Published: April 17, 2012 at 2:21 AM

    WASHINGTON, April 17 (UPI) — Innocent people may have been imprisoned and even executed because prosecutors kept quiet about questionable work at the FBI lab, The Washington Post reports.


    Justice Department officials told the Post they met their legal responsibility, alerting prosecutors to potentially exculpatory evidence, and were not required to notify the defense.

    The newspaper said its review found some prosecutors never alerted defense lawyers to exculpatory material or did so very late. Others did so quickly.

  8. DXer said

    The New York Times came down in favor of an “open files” policy.


    Justice and Open Files

    Published: February 26, 2012

    Prosecutors have a constitutional duty to disclose significant evidence favorable to a criminal defendant. But too often that duty, as laid out by the 1963 Supreme Court decision Brady v. Maryland, is violated.

    To help ensure compliance, some prosecutors, criminal defense lawyers and legal scholars have sensibly concluded that prosecutors’ files, as a general rule, should be made open to defendants. In cases where turning over evidence might endanger a witness, for example, a judge could allow an exception.

    A small number of state and local governments have adopted open-file policies that require prosecutors to make available well before trial all information favorable to the defense, without regard to whether such information is likely to affect the outcome of the case. North Carolina and Ohio and places like Milwaukee have found that such policies make prosecutions fairer and convictions less prone to error. The Justice Department should join this movement and set a national example. But instead, it continues to take half-measures in response to its own failures to meet disclosure requirements.

    It responded to several cases of Brady violations by its attorneys — including egregious misconduct in the case of the late Senator Ted Stevens — by providing more training and by directing each United States attorney’s office to set forth clearly its version of the department’s Brady policy, which is to turn over favorable evidence only if it is “material,” meaning likely to make a difference in the case’s outcome.

    Those changes are not sufficient because the Brady rule is too easily skirted. It allows prosecutors to withhold favorable evidence that they deem not to be material, leaving defense lawyers unaware of evidence that may be owed them. Ninety-six percent of federal criminal cases are resolved by plea bargains, so the rule puts defendants at a disadvantage in negotiation: without access to information in the government’s files, they don’t know the evidence they face and can’t assess their odds at trial.

    This weakness in the Brady rule also means there is no way of knowing how many violations are buried by plea bargains. The few that become known, through trials or post-trial challenges, are no index of the problem’s true dimensions, but they can show how deeply rooted it is.

    After the Justice Department dropped the case against Senator Stevens in 2009 because of prosecutorial misconduct, including the withholding of exculpatory evidence, Judge Emmet Sullivan of the Federal District Court in Washington, D.C., chose to appoint outside counsel to investigate what went wrong rather than trust the Justice Department to do it.

    In 2009, Judge Mark Wolf in Boston likewise found that the long-standing problem eroded his trust in federal prosecutors. “In the District of Massachusetts,” he wrote, “the government has had enduring difficulty in discharging its duty to disclose material exculpatory information to defendants in a timely manner.”

    In both the federal and state court systems, it is essential that rules about disclosing evidence be followed in ways that promote justice. An open-files policy would come closer to meeting this important standard.

  9. DXer said

    For an Ivins Theory to be viable as to this claim by Rachel and Ken that his time was unexplained, the DOJ should produce the withheld documents. For example, they removed key notebooks from USAMRIID and then USAMRIID was not able to produce them under FOIA.

    The DOJ withheld all documents relating to rabbits and made no mention of it.

    1. In an Oct 5, ’01 email among the materials provided by USAMRIID this week, Dr. Ivins explains the results 3 days after the challenge of rabbits in the formaldehyde experiment; the word “rabbits” has never passed the prosecutor’s lips
    Posted by Lew Weinstein on December 24, 2011

    2. NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION: 10 days after the rabbits had been challenged on October 1, 2001, Dr. Ivins presented preliminary results from the Battelle study involving the 5 year old preps of rPA vaccine w/ and w/o formaldehyde.
    Posted by Lew Weinstein on December 24, 2011

    3. In new FOIA Response, USAMRIID Reports It Could Not Locate The “Animal Room Environment Report” for B310 and B305 in Building 1425 for Sep – Oct 2001; Those Documents Would Provide Contemporaneous Descriptions Of The Exanguination Of 52 Rabbits During The Week That DOJ Had Speculated That Dr. Ivins Made A Dried Powder In That Suite. GAO: Does The FBI Have A Copy?
    Posted on January 14, 2012

    4. Of The 52 Rabbits In The Early October 2001 Formaldehyde Experiment, How Many Were Exsanguinated Pursuant To This Procedure? All Of Them?
    Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 13, 2012

    5. In Advance Of The October 1, 2001 Rabbit Challenge, The 52 Rabbits Nowhere Mentioned By Prosecutors Needed To Be Moved Into The B3 Suite 7 Days Earlier (And Documents Establish That They Were)
    Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 13, 2012

    6. GAO should obtain the very best contemporaneous documentation relating to Dr. Ivins specific activities with the guinea pigs, mice and rabbits on the nights that DOJ claimed, without evidence, that he was making a dried powder to mail.
    Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 6, 2012

    7. Standard Operating Procedures for Animal Assessment and Monitoring: the beautiful Amerithrax AUSA did not appreciate that Dr. Ivins was tasked to do this the first week of October with 52 rabbits.
    Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 4, 2012

    8. Hickory Dickory Doc: The mice ran up the clock and Dr. Ivins time in the BL-3 lab in late September 2001 but not as much as the rabbits did in early October 2001.
    Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 4, 2012

    9. 12 rabbits then died on day 3 and 4 and more on day 5; Ivins time then spent the extra time on those nights; AUSA Rachel Lieber got her facts seriously wrong in the investigative summary; DOJ should have required citations to the record.
    Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 3, 2012

    10. As explained in the protocols, the rabbits did not start dying until 2-4 days after challenge; after the Oct 1 challenge, the rabbits did not start dying immediately and his time in the B3 at night was negligible
    Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 3, 2012

    11. Numerous USAMRIID Standard Operating Procedures (all mandatory) controlled the animal husbandry baseline services rendered the rabbits, guinea pigs and mice involved in Dr. Ivins’ experiments in Sep-Oct 2001
    Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 3, 2012

    13. After Challenge On About Oct 1, 2001, One Of The Investigators On Rabbit/Formaldehyde Study Were Required To Observe The Control Rabbits For The First 7 Days After Challenge ; The AUSA and Investigators Never Mention The Rabbits
    Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 2, 2012

    14. June 14, 2001 LACUS Subcommittee Meeting notice to consider Dr. Ivins’ proposal regarding formadehyde and rabbits.
    Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 2, 2012

    15. Under The Protocol Involving Rabbits and Formaldehyde Implemented in Late September 2001 and Early October 2001, Dr. Ivins Was Tasked With Monitoring The Animals After Challenge
    Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 1, 2012

    16. Under The Protocol Involving Rabbits and Formaldehyde Relating To The Early October 2001 Challenge, The Rabbits Were To Be Euthanized By Injection Of Euthasol By Animal Tech Lab Anthony Bassett, Who Can Describe The Experiment
    Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 1, 2012

    17. Even in Later Protocols Involving Aerosol Challenges Conducted In Building 1412, the Rabbits Would Be Kept In Building 1425, Suite B3 Before And After Aerosol Challenge In 1412 (Where Monitoring Would Continue 21 Days)
    Posted by Lew Weinstein on December 30, 2011

    18. Each of the 52 rabbits shipped the week of September 24, 2001 to USAMRIID Building 1425 to join Dr. Ivins in the Biolevel 3 lab had a unique identifying microchip.
    Posted by Lew Weinstein on December 26, 2011

    19. Like the rabbits shipped to USAMRIID Building 1425 the week of September 24th and acclimated to biolevel 3 for one week before being challenged, the mice similarly were housed in building 1425, not building 1412
    Posted by Lew Weinstein on December 26, 2011

    20. On October 14, 2001, when Dr. Ivins spent 1 1/2 hours in B3, do DEA Controlled Substance records indicate that he was euthanizing and exsanguinating the surviving rabbits?
    Posted by Lew Weinstein on December 12, 2011

    21. After rabbits are challenged on the hot side, as many as three autoclaves are needed just processing cages and other items from the hotside, and it takes time to disinfect, decon and re-set up a room
    Posted by Lew Weinstein on December 8, 2011

    22. At USAMRIID, subcutaneous challenge of rabbits was ALWAYS done in the hot suite ; the hot suite is unavailable for subcutaneous challenge (or making a dried powder) when being decontaminated
    Posted by Lew Weinstein on December 8, 2011

    23. The scientist who made the large amount of virulent Ames that is missing, who was thanked by the former Zawahiri associate for providing technical assistance re the Ames, is the person who could explain about the rabbits ; but she’s not talking.
    Posted by Lew Weinstein on November 9, 2011

  10. DXer said

    Comment: In Amerithrax, I would simply produce everything not exempt under FOIA. But another approach might be for GAO to apply the new guidance under the DOJ memorandums mentioned in this Roll Call article.

    If you look at the Amerithrax Investigative Summary you see that AUSA Lieber and Kohl nowhere mention the rabbits — only the mice in late September. Those rabbits are why Dr. Ivins was in the lab in early October. You then may appreciate that the claimed lack of reason to be in the lab was the cornerstone of their case.

    Sure. Things don’t add up on issues like the SIlicon SIgnature and the method of drying. But the outrage over withholding is far more extreme — Ken and Rachel have literally tried to stuff dozens of rabbits back into a hat in concocting a narrative they could spin based on things from the early 1980s that made Dr. Ivins look bad. And they had a psychiatrist who orchestrated the approach to Ivins that led him to suicide spin the account of the counselor, Judith McLean. They neglected to tell you thought she received her instructions from an alien each night and had implanted a microchip in her butt. The psychiatrist sold his report while neither interviewing her or disclosing her 2009 online book.

    In a national security case the first step is to arrive at a correct understanding of the facts given the botched intelligence analysis.
    The judge who presided over the Stevens trial appointed Henry F. Schuelke to investigate the prosecutors who handled the case. Schuelke’s 524-page report, which was unsealed this week, paints a picture of a prosecution team so hampered by infighting that disgruntled attorneys cut corners by assigning document-review duties to FBI and IRS agents who were left largely unsupervised. Crucial information — including the fact that trial witness Bill Allen had once bribed a child prostitute, whom he’d had a relationship with, to commit perjury, and that the home repairs in question were worth hundreds of thousands of dollars less than originally alleged — was never given to Stevens’ defense team.
    The Senator’s defense rested on notes he had sent his friend Allen, then the top executive of the Alaskan oil pipeline service and construction company VECO Corp., which had performed the repairs on his home. In the notes, Stevens requested a bill for the work and referenced his need to comply with ethics rules. Defense attorneys had the notes but didn’t know Allen had been inconsistent with prosecutors about whether he thought Stevens was really asking for a bill or whether he was “just covering his ass.”
    Schuelke asked prosecutors about Allen’s back-and-forth view of Stevens’ notes, but none of the DOJ lawyers could recall when Allen first told them the notes were disingenuous. Schuelke wrote that the prosecution team’s “collective memory failure strains credulity.”
    He concluded that two of the six prosecutors “intentionally withheld and concealed significant exculpatory information,” and he made no conclusion about a third prosecutor, who committed suicide in September 2010.
    Attorneys familiar with high-profile white-collar investigations say this sort of behavior is all too common.
    Though Supreme Court cases dictate that federal prosecutors must hand over any exculpatory evidence that might exonerate a defendant, it is largely an honor system in which prosecutors are left to determine what may or may not be useful to the defense team.
    “It’s like asking a basketball team to call fouls for both teams when both teams want to win,” Zeidenberg said. “To say that the system is imperfect doesn’t begin to describe it.”
    There has been some effort to amend the rules to clarify when and what evidence the government must hand over — in the wake of the Stevens trial, for example, the DOJ implemented a series of new training initiatives and issued additional guidance. But lawyers who represent clients in these types of cases say the efforts have not gone far enough. The DOJ memorandums are not enforceable in court.

    Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) introduced legislation this week backed by the American Bar Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups that would create a nationwide standard for when prosecutors must disclose evidence to defendants in federal court cases. Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said he intends to have Schuelke testify at a hearing in the near future.
    As an example, the FBI took the only copy of key notebooks from USAMRIID making them unavailable for USAMRIID to process under FOIA. That is wrong under any standard.
    But lawyers questioned whether a Congressional effort to clarify the disclosure of exculpatory evidence will be enough.
    “The bill in Congress is a great step, but that’s already the law, essentially,” said Richard Marmaro, a partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. “The problem is that you allow the prosecutor to determine what is exculpatory, and in their zeal to win cases they either overlook or intentionally hide evidence that will hurt their case. There’s an inherent conflict.”

  11. DXer said

    Did Ivins Move the Refrigerator? New Cold Facts Cast Further Doubt on Amerithrax Conclusions
    Posted on January 31, 2012 by Jim White

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: