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

* in the Stevens case, prosecutors hide evidence to get conviction … again!!! … real life imitates Lew’s novel “A Good Conviction”

Posted by DXer on March 16, 2012



** purchase A GOOD CONVICTION by Lew Weinstein at


from the NYT – 3/15/12 …

  • “The investigation and prosecution of U.S. Senator Ted Stevens (by Federal prosecutors) were permeated by the systematic concealment of significant exculpatory evidence which would have independently corroborated Senator Stevens’s defense and his testimony, and seriously damaged the testimony and credibility of the government’s key witness,” wrote Henry F. Schuelke, the investigator assigned to the case.
  • The report “confirms that the prosecution of Senator Ted Stevens was riddled with government corruption involving multiple federal prosecutors and at least one F.B.I. agent,” said Mr. Sullivan in a written statement.
  • they worked together to win at all costs in an attempt to convict a sitting United States senator in an ill-conceived prosecution.”



This sort of cheating by prosecutors and police happens far more often than most Americans suspect. It is a cancer on the U.S. judicial system. And it will never be corrected until those prosecutors and cops are themselves prosecuted and held accountable for their actions, which almost never happens except in a few high-profile cases like the Stevens and Duke matters.

If you’ve been following the posts on this blog, you may suspect that there has been purposeful withholding of evidence which is exculpatory to Dr. Ivins.

Of course, since Dr. Ivins committed suicide a few days before the FBI announced he was the sole perpetrator of the anthrax attacks, there was, conveniently for the prosecution, no trial, so the circumstances are different from the Stevens case.

The principle of justice, however, is identical, although the aggrieved party is not a defendant in a criminal matter but rather the American people, who need to know the truth about the worst bioterrorist attack in our history.

If this issue concerns you, you might like my novel A Good Conviction which tells the story of a young man found guilty of a murder he didn’t commit by a prosecutor who knew he didn’t do it and hid the evidence from the defense.


7 Responses to “* in the Stevens case, prosecutors hide evidence to get conviction … again!!! … real life imitates Lew’s novel “A Good Conviction””

  1. DXer said

    Why Won’t Prosecutors Make Amends for Flawed Investigations?

    APR 18 2012, 3:27 PM ET 1

    For years, federal lawyers, prosecutors, and law enforcement officials failed to inform defense attorneys about inaccuracies in scientific evidence.


    “This is not an old story. This is an ongoing story, and a big one, because every day an innocent man or woman languishes in prison constitutes a new wrong. The Clinton administration screwed up, the Bush administration screwed up, and now the Obama administration is screwing up, too, even as it wants to pretend that it has done what it was supposed to do to make things right. The Post story establishes that it hasn’t. For an administration that once prided itself on transparency this is yet another grievous disappointment.

    The Senate Judiciary Committee should hold hearings on this — now, not later this year — with a focus upon getting direct answers to the most important questions here: how many tainted cases remain and what more must federal and state prosecutors do to finally put things right? Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) has long been an outspoken advocate for the concept of ” justice for all.” Here’s an opportunity for him to show how serious he is about changing government policies that have for decades now resulted in injustice to many.

    In every single flawed case, or potentially flawed case, prosecutors should be required to notify defendants and defense attorneys of the specific problem with the forensic evidence at issue in the case. Every trial judge should be notified as well to better ensure that the post-conviction rights of defendants are satisfied. That this should have been done 15 years ago, or 10 years ago, or five years ago, makes it no less worthy of being done now. This is a terrible scandal and I hope that The Post’s work in reminding us of it finally generates the relief those wrongfully convicted people deserve.”

  2. DXer said

    For an Ivins Theory to be viable as to this claim by the prosecutors in the B3 lab 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

    12. 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

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

    14. 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

    15. 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

    16. 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

    17. 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

    18. 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

    19. 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

    20. 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

    21 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

    22. 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

    23. “AR” on the Floor Plan For USAMRIID Building Floor Plan Stands For “Animal Resources” – WHat was Dr. Ivins doing in “AR” — working with animals like his lab notes and emails show.

    24. As Dr. Ivins often explained, conducting a rabbit study such as the one involving 52 rabbits in early October 2001 always depended on the availability of hot suite space.

    Posted by Lew Weinstein on November 1, 2011

    25. Did Dr. Ivins’ trips to the “AR” from the hot suites as trips to a locked cabinet in “Animal Resources” to get the Ketamine and Euthasol needed to anesthesize and euthanize moribund mice and rabbits? See DEA (part of DOJ) Controlled Substance log.

    26. June 14, 2001 LACUS Subcommittee Meeting notice to consider Dr. Ivins’ proposal regarding formadehyde and rabbits.

    Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 2, 2012

    27. Dr. Ivins preferred a parenteral (subcutaneous) challenge because you could fit 60 rabbits in one room whereas an aerosol challenge would require 4 rooms (1 for animals, 2 hood lines, and 1 spore and bacterial plating)

    Posted by Lew Weinstein on October 31, 2011

  3. DXer said

    Investigating flaws in forensics

    A Washington Post investigation reveals that Justice Department officials have known for years that flaws in forensic techniques and weak laboratory standards may have led to the convictions of innocent people across the country, raising the question: How many more are out there?

  4. DXer said

    The Special Prosecutor In the Stevens case recently found that two AUSAs from the DC US Attorneys Office advised that it was the practice of that office not to produce FBI 302s as Jencks material.

    What is GAO’s position on whether such 302s should be disclosed?

    • DXer said

      Might it be discovered that a key witness thought her actions were governed by an alien who gave her instructions each night and who controlled her actions by a microchip implanted in her butt?

  5. DXer said

    In the months leading up to release of the February 2010 Amerithrax Investigative Summary, the lead Amerithrax prosecutor was found to have been engaged in prosecutorial misconduct that resulted in the dismissal of the Blackwater murder charges.

    Judge Cites Prosecutorial Misconduct In Blackwater Dismissal ……/judge-cites-prosecutorial-misconduct-in-bla...
    Jan 1, 2010

    Dr. Hatfill’s lawyer, Tom Connolly, represented the defendant and was the movant.

    The lead Amerithrax prosecutor, as a practical matter, would not have had time to devote to correct the errors in the Amerithrax analysis made by the other AUSA, Rachel Lieber, who has embraced the role of accusing Dr. Ivins on national television while withholding the relevant documents.

    Prosecutors have a very challenging and important job. None of us should presume that we could do better (or as well) in solving a difficult (perhaps unsolvable) mystery.

    But it is too important a matter to not have the gaps in proof probed by people at GAO who have the time to do so — and don’t have the same vested interest that arose as the result of Dr. Ivins’ suicide.

    In the NAS review, the FBI withheld centrally important documents until late 2010 instead of producing them no later than February 2010. Why? What could possibly explain the withholding the results of the overseas testing so that they might be the subject of expert comment?

    The DOJ has withheld still additional documents on the grounds that they were classified and would undermine relations with foreign governments. (That does not seem to justify withholding of such evidence or providing the detailed answers sought by the NAS in a series of questions).

    Amerithrax represents the greatest failure in intelligence analysis in the history of the United States and DC and NYC face the threat of a mass aerosol release of anthrax as a result.

    Failure is not an option.

    At the same time the lead Amerithrax prosecutor was being found guilty of prosecutorial misconduct, the leadership of the FBI DC FIeld Office (including the head of Amerithrax, Mr. Persichini) was removed for cheating on an open book exam on how to conduct a national security investigation. The time to recognize how these events led to a failure to correct the conclusions reached in July 2008 is now — not after the next 911.

    • DXer said

      Even though no doubt a hardworking official acting in good faith, the head of Amerithrax — who was at the podium with AUSA Kenneth Kohl in early August announcing the conclusions — similarly was in no position to reassess the analysis in Amerithrax beginning in late 2008.

      He was the center of allegations of widespread cheating on an open book exam relating to how to conduct national security investigations. While the irregularities varied, the head of Amerithrax ran afoul of the rule, as a technical matter, upon being texted answers by an unidentified DOJ lawyer and stating on the test that he hadn’t been helped by anyone.

      While being given incredibly important work and being greatly overburdened by the number of important matters in DC relating to countintelligence, FBI officials are subject often to unforgiving agency personnel rules.

      The mission at hand is not to find fault with individuals in the proposed solution of a challenging mystery, but to appreciate that the personnel who would have been in a position to double-check the soundness of the FBI’s conclusions were majorly distracted by other, acutely personal, concerns.

      Then people out of their own self-interest have not acknowledged the flaws and weaknesses and gaps in the analysis.

      Head of D.C. FBI Joseph Persichini Jr. Leaving Under Cloud Involving Test Scandal; 2 Other Top Officials Also Face Scrutiny

      Joseph Persichini Jr./fbi photo

      By Allan Lengel

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: