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

* GAO: Who is responsible for withholding this notebook showing what Dr. Ivins was doing in the lab the first week of October 2001?

Posted by Lew Weinstein on September 4, 2012

******

NOTE from DXer: it was FBI and not USAMRIID

doing the withholding of these notebooks

******

Anonymous Nice FBI tactic. Confiscate the only copy of the notebook – then ask someone what they were doing in the lab on the evenings of early October 2001, 8 years after the fact. Then claim that since they couldn’t provide an explanation from memory (without the help of a confiscated notebook) they must be guilty of capital murder. Case solved. People should go to jail for this.

******

******

******

******

******

******

******

Advertisements

12 Responses to “* GAO: Who is responsible for withholding this notebook showing what Dr. Ivins was doing in the lab the first week of October 2001?”

  1. DXer said

    Iraq: How the CIA Says It Blew It on Saddam’s WMD

    By Mark Thompson | @MarkThompson_DC | September 6, 2012

    Read more: http://nation.time.com/2012/09/06/iraq-how-the-cia-says-it-blew-it-on-saddams-wmd/#ixzz25mnjGJcV

    A liability of intelligence analysis is that once a party has been proven to be an effective deceiver, that knowledge becomes a heavy factor in the calculation of the analytical observer.

  2. DXer said

    I’ve emailed AUSA Lieber again for Dr. Ivins’ remaining Notebooks. The first time I wrote (a couple years ago), through a spokesman I was told that we had been given all the documents under FOIA that we were ever going to get. But we all just want the correct analysis. Perhaps with the GAO review still ongoing the busy prosecutors can appreciate that someone should take a moment to shoot the electronic file of the remaining notebooks over to USAMRIID. Sandra the FOIA person can make any redactions necessary. I appreciate that these AUSAs have huge workloads and even greater responsibilities. And can only admire and envy them for facing their challenging and exciting jobs. I sent AUSA Lieber a copy of Dr. Ivins’ email where he lists the notebooks for which the FBI took the only copy and then did not return.

    • DXer said

      My message to AUSA Lieber bounced. (I was using an email from a couple years ago). Could someone at DOJ arrange for the production of Dr. Ivins’ remaining notebooks (for which FBI has the only copy) and emails (which were culled by DOJ and FBI officials) without further delay? Just shoot them over to Sandra at USAMEDD and as the originating agency she can do any necessary redactions under (b)(6) etc.

  3. DXer said

    “Now might be a good time for you to get angry.”

  4. richard rowley said

    Wow! Nice work!

    • DXer said

      Richard,

      It is my understanding that it is Frontline that took an appeal and prevailed as to these 3 notebooks. I can only hope that they persist and prevail with the other notebooks. They were all relevant enough that they are the ones that the FBI kept. But we should not stop thanking Frontline in any event.

  5. anonymous said

    Nice FBI tactic. Confiscate the only copy of the notebook – then ask someone what they were doing in the lab on the evenings of early October 2001, 8 years after the fact. Then claim that since they couldn’t provide an explanation from memory (without the help of a confiscated notebook) they must be guilty of capital murder. Case solved.
    People should go to jail for this.

    • DXer said

      I’ll be satisfied if there is now a full document production — of all documents consistent with FOIA.

      But time is running short on those still withholding documents — and there are a massive number of critical documents not exempt under FOIA still being withheld from the public… and more still that should have been given the GAO.

      The primary goal here is full document production permitting the most accurate analysis — rather than fingerpointing which doesn’t make the country safer.

      I once asked AUSA Lieber by email for this notebook .. for these contemporaneous notebook pages… and through a spokesman she responded that I got all I ever was going to get under FOIA. I have to urge her again to join those urging the fullest production possible. She should assume that I not only know what was withheld but know more than that.

      We all just want the correct analysis to be established. We actually aren’t at odds at all.

  6. DXer said

    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

    https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/12-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/

    from a recent DXer comment: If you know what AUSA Kohl and AUSA Lieber withheld from you … documents inconsistent with the finely spun narrative in the Amerithrax Investigative Summary … you would weep for Dr. Ivins.

    Posted by Lew Weinstein on April 20, 2012

    https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/dxer-if-you-knew-what-ausa-kohl-and-ausa-lieber-withheld-from-you-documents-and-evidence-inconsistence-with-the-finely-spun-narrative-in-the-amerithrax-investigative-summary-you-would-weep-f/

    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 Lew Weinstein on January 29, 2012

    https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/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/

    GAO: With respect to the rabbit formaldehyde study in late Sep and early Oct 2001 involving Bruce Ivins and Patricia Fellows — nowhere mentioned by AUSA Lieber in her investigative summary — did Dr. Fellows address the study in the deposition that the Department of Justice required to be shredded?

    Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 4, 2012

    https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/gao-with-respect-to-the-rabbit-formaldehyde-study-in-late-sep-and-early-oct-2001-involving-bruce-ivins-and-patricia-fellows-nowhere-mentioned-by-ausa-lieber-in-her-investigative-summary-did/

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: