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

Archive for October 10th, 2013

* DXer points to numerous flaws in Dr. Majidi’s new analysis of the FBI’s investigation of the 2001 anthrax case

Posted by DXer on October 10, 2013

Majidi - cover


In dozens of posts over the past week or so, DXer has commented on Dr. Majidi’s book, and found numerous significant flaws.

The FBI has utterly failed to make a coherent case against Dr. Ivins, who it implausibly accuses of being the sole perpetrator of the 2001 anthrax attacks.

Meanwhile, the GAO, which is reviewing the FBI’s investigation and is the last hope for the truth in this matter, a truth which the FBI has worked hard to keep hidden, has yet to issue its report or even a progress report with a date when the report can be expected.

Here are some of DXer’s comments (all of which are found in their entirety on this blog) …

  • Although Dr. Majidi claims that the FBI produced all scientific reports, to the contrary, Dr. Majidi WITHHELD all forensic reports on the photocopy toner, ink, paper etc. Why? They were exculpatory of Dr. Ivins. Such selective production of documents is totally inexcusable.
  •  Dr. Majidi’s nonsensical approach to the distribution of Ames is right up there with his failure to address the 52 rabbits explaining why Dr. Ivins was in the lab — which is nowhere mentioned in the Amerithrax Investigative Summary or by Dr. Majidi. His manuscript unintentionally serves as a clear road-map of how Amerithrax was so badly botched.
  •  Vahid Majid in his new manuscript attempting to defend the FBI’s investigation of the Fall 2001 anthrax mailings — and falling far short — he says that the FBI selectively culled documents that it did not think needed to be provided to the NAS. In addition to the documents that he considered “owned” by other agencies, for example, they withheld anything that they found to be “hyperbole.” In producing documents, it is not for the party producing the documents to do such culling. Such selective production in civil discovery would be sanctionable and subject to an award of monetary damages.
  •  In failing to swab suspect labs for the contaminating subtilis — which Vahid Majidi admits in his new manuscript — the FBI relied upon on-the-book labs and formally retained and archived strains voluntarily submitted by the institutions. By its nature, the approach pretty much excluded off-the-books, surreptitious production. The approach assumed that the perpetrator would cooperate.
  •  In the 12,000 pages of declassified FBI documents on the case, there is little indication of testing conducted on other anthrax scientists’ laboratory areas or their caches of the bacillus subtilis material. The federal investigator would not answer how many researchers’ work spaces were analyzed.
  •  Subpoenas went out early — in 2001 — to LSU and Michigan…. well in advance of the subpoenas sent more widely several months later. There is every reason to think that others were not as clueless as Dr. Majidi seems to be in his book.
  •  Dr. Majidi was relying on self-submission of samples — which is curious. Why would a perp send in something that might incriminate him or her?
  •  Dr. Majidi should have swabbed the labs of the scientists supplied virulent Ames by Bruce Ivins. That was a no-brainer. In comparison, Dr. Majidi’s reliance on an interview of a brother who had not spoken to his brother in a quarter century (and was resentful of Bruce’s education) is an embarrassment to all forensic science.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 10 Comments »