* Trentonian (10/20/13) … Congressman Rush Holt: “Myriad questions remain about the anthrax attacks and the government’s response to the attacks.

Congressman Holt is Dr. Bruce Ivins only chance for a deserved exoneration

***

http://www.trentonian.com/general-news/20131020/state-watch-ready-for-anthrax-sequel

By Dave Neese, The Trentonian … POSTED: 10/20/13, 7:21 PM EDT

 ***

• The anthrax probe at first came to focus intensely on government scientist Stephen Hatfill. The federal government eventually awarded him $5.8 million to settle a lawsuit charging that the massive investigation had violated his constitutional rights.

• The investigative chase in 2005 started down a new trail, this time in pursuit of Bruce Ivins, another government scientist. In July 2008 he committed suicide with an overdose of Tylenol. A month later the FBI declared him the sole suspect behind the anthrax letters. On Feb. 19, 2010, it officially closed the investigation, declaring Ivins the perpetrator.

• The FBI said psychological profiles, damning unrefuted circumstantial evidence, and Ivins’ own evasive or false statements to agents all pointed to his guilt. Most damning of all, said the FBI, was the fact that Ivins had access to anthrax identical to that dropped in the Princeton mailbox. Other scientists who had access were able to fully account for their whereabouts and their handling of anthrax in their labs. But Ivins, according to the FBI, never gave a straight story on why in the nights leading up to the attack he logged late hours in his government lab at Ft. Detrick, Md.

LMW NOTE: The FBI’s pathetic case against Dr. Ivins

has been thoroughly refuted on this blog and elsewhere.

• The skeptical Holt, however, balks at signing off on the official conclusion to the investigation.

• There were no fingerprints, no witness accounts, no physical evidence linking Ivins to the incident, says Holt. The case against him was “entirely circumstantial,” and the FBI director personally acknowledged as much to him, the congressman says.

• The FBI “arbitrarily” closed the case based on evidence that “would not, I think, stand up in court,” he adds.

• In 2011, after reviewing the anthrax analyses in the case, the National Academy of Sciences reported that it was “impossible to reach any definite conclusion about the origins of anthrax in the letters based solely on the available scientific evidence.”

• Going on the fifth year now, Holt has tenaciously, but futilely, advocated the creation of a blue-ribbon commission to review the anthrax attack. With subpoena power and “such appropriations as necessary,” Holt’s panel authorized by the “Anthrax Attack Investigation Act” would seek to determine:

• Whether “all credible leads and information regarding the potential perpetrator of the attacks were pursued with due diligence by federal investigators.”

• The “full range of individuals who could have had access to the type of anthrax used in the attacks….”

• The “full extent of the federal government’s preparedness for and immediate response to the attacks …”

LMW NOTE: The GAO has been promising a report

on its ongoing review of the FBI’s investigation for years.

Where is their report? What/who is holding it up?

• Despite bipartisan backing, however, the Democratic Holt’s legislation has never progressed beyond the confines of the House Judiciary Committee.

• Staff sources of both parties say there’s a reluctance on Capitol Hill to be seen as second-guessing law enforcement, especially the FBI, and a dread of unwittingly encouraging endless conspiracy speculations such as the assassination of President Kennedy inspires to this day.

“Myriad questions remain about the anthrax attacks

and the government’s response to the attacks,” insists Holt.

***

LMW NOTE … There are only three possible explanations for the FBI’s continued unsupported assertion that Dr. Ivins was the sole perpetrator of the anthrax attacks (or that he was involved at all).

1. The FBI has more evidence against Ivins that it has so far refused to make public … VERY UNLIKELY

2. The FBI has not solved the case and has no idea who perpetrated the 2001 attacks … POSSIBLE BUT NOT LIKELY

3. The FBI knows who perpetrated the attacks but won’t say who it was … MOST LIKELY

***