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

* Dr. Worsham, Dr. Andrews and Dr. Adamovicz have provided sworn civil deposition testimony on Ivins’ work on numerous animal experiments in Fall 2001

Posted by Lew Weinstein on November 27, 2013

Screen shot 2013-11-27 at 4.09.18 AM

Advertisements

7 Responses to “* Dr. Worsham, Dr. Andrews and Dr. Adamovicz have provided sworn civil deposition testimony on Ivins’ work on numerous animal experiments in Fall 2001”

  1. DXer said

    Dr. Ivins did not have available his emails from 2001 that reflected what he was doing. In 2004, he was told by IT that “If more than two years have passed, it is not possible to retrieve email.”

    https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/a-truly-pathetic-interchange-of-emails-between-dr-bruce-ivins-and-a-colleague-name-withheld-by-usamriid-in-the-spring-of-2007/

    DXer said

    March 13, 2011 at 7:29 am

    “3/25/2004 interview

    IVINS consulted with _________ at USAMRIID Computer Services and learned that electronic mail (email) can be retrieved for a two year period, however it is expensive to do so. If more than two years have passed, it is not possible to retrieve email.”

    Even without the benefit of the emails, in Fall 2007 and January 2008, Dr. Ivins explained his projects at the lab. Paul Kemp thought that Dr. Ivins did well in explaining his hours. His presence in the lab in the lab, Attorney Kemp says, is a red herring. When they asked him about his hours, the focus, according to Kemp, was on August and September 2001. (As I mentioned, Dr. Ivins spent more time at night in the lab in the 10 days BEFORE 911 than the 20 days after 911.)

    After his death, when focus turned to the first week in October 2001, the DOJ continued to withhold for many years the only copy of his Lab Notebook 4241 that addressed the challenge to the 52 rabbits that week.

  2. DXer said

    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

    https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/standard-operating-procedures-for-animal-assessment-and-monitoring-the-beautiful-amerithrax-ausa-did-not-realize-that-dr-ivins-was-tasked-to-do-this-the-first-week-of-october-with-52-rabbits/

  3. DXer said

    * Animal Protocol B1-011 (Produced Today) Required Ivins Observe the 52 Rabbits For Illness Or Debilitation For The First Week Of October 2001
    Posted by Lew Weinstein on November 15, 2013
    https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2013/11/15/animal-protocol-b1-011-produced-today-required-ivins-observe-the-52-rabbits-for-illness-or-debilitation-for-the-first-week-of-october-2001/

    • DXer said

      The B01-11 protocol expressly notes that “Dr. Ivins will help and challenge the rabbits.” I have always pointed to the importance of obtaining the relevant documents. The DOJ refused to give Ivins his Lab Notebook 4241 — and failed to provide him his emails — so he was not able to reconstruct his time from 5 years earlier. No one would without the documents.

      The FBI coughed up Lab Notebook 4241 in September 2002.
      https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/09/04/three-notebooks-from-the-fbi-have-now-been-released-on-the-foia-website/

      He asked USAMRIID for his emails but he was advised they couldn’t be retrieved more than two years back.

      https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/a-truly-pathetic-interchange-of-emails-between-dr-bruce-ivins-and-a-colleague-name-withheld-by-usamriid-in-the-spring-of-2007/

    • DXer said

      The BACKGROUND OFFICIAL, who wished to remain anonymous, explained at the science briefing: it’s difficult to separate the investigation from the intelligence from the science, we are, in fact, going to attempt to do that today because we’re limited.

      By separating the intelligence from the investigation and the science, the DOJ and FBI had an investigation and science that was not informed by intelligence.

      But when the withholding of documents was overcome, we found that the investigation that was not informed by — and was contradicted by — the contemporaneous documents.

      UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

      The Science: ANTHRAX PRESS BRIEFING
      Monday, August 18, 2008

      Federal Bureau of Investigations
      J. Edgar Hoover Building
      William H. Webster Conference Room
      935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
      Washington, D.C. 20535-0001

      BACKGROUND OFFICIAL: Thanks, everybody, for coming today. It’s great to see so many Justice regulars flanked by their best science friend. As advertised, today’s briefing will be designed to shed more light on the scientific aspects of the investigation into the Anthrax mailings. And what we said before, and I’ll say today, it’s difficult to separate the investigation from the intelligence from the science, we are, in fact, going to attempt to do that today because we’re limited.

      At the same time that the DOJ and FBI are moving toward making more documents available, it’s still an open investigation and we remain limited today what we can discuss, which will be emphasized, I’m sure, time and time again; and that for a number of reasons. And when that status changes, obviously, there’ll be more information available to you.

      As stated on the advisory, today’s briefing is on the record with respect to the individuals who are identified here. At the same time, we have a number of investigators, prosecutors, and other scientists who are going to be available to clarify points, or, in some cases, make sure we stay within the boundaries we need to stay today.

      ***

      BACKGROUND OFFICIAL: — my statements are not for attribution. They’re for background only. Thank you. To give you a little bit of a background as to the process that was followed for the scientific part of the investigation. The investigators early on worked very hard to try and identify the source of the Anthrax, but the first job was to identify which strain was used, and Dr. Keim, his work was really a central work in identifying it as the Ames strain. So the investigators had to then identify what laboratories had the Ames strain. That was a process that took a lot of work, and over the course of several years through the process of subpoenas and the execution of warrants for search, a collection that we call the FBI repository, was collected. This amounted to well over a thousand samples of the Bacillus Anthracis Ames that was collected both domestically and internationally. That repository is the evidence that we used, that we screened, for forensic signatures to assist the investigation. It was noted early on in the examination of the Anthrax powders that there were some unusual characteristics of the Anthrax in those powders. There were many different variants of the Ames strain that were noted in the Anthrax powders that had a different appearance.

      Those colonies with different appearance had their DNA purified by Dr. Keim’s lab and that DNA was sent to the Institute for Genomic Research, for sequencing of the entire genome. And through those efforts it was noted that many of those variants had mutations that were most likely associated with the change in the characteristics. Some of those mutations were further exploited in the development of very specific assays, genetic assays, to identify those mutations in an overwhelming background of wild-type Ames. And it was those scientific assays that were used to examine that repository of over a thousand Ames strains that were collected throughout the course of the investigation. The results of that scientific work and the screening of the repository resulted in the identification of eight samples that had the combination of four genetic markers that were all characteristic of the Anthrax in the letters. And that’s the background for what you’ve been hearing of the genetic screening of the Anthrax.

  4. DXer said

    Excerpt from Plaintiff’s filing in Amerithrax civil suit explaining why Dr. Ivins is not perpetrator: Dr. Andrews deposition
    Posted by Lew Weinstein on April 30, 2011
    https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/04/30/excerpt-from-plaintiffs-filing-in-amerithrax-civil-suit-explaining-why-dr-ivins-is-not-perpetrator-dr-andrews-deposition/

    Jeffrey Adamovicz and Gerry Andrews, the people who knew Dr. Ivins and his lab capabilities better than anyone else, make powerful arguments that the FBI has not made its case … and Adamovicz says “he feels morally obligated to continue to pursue the case.”
    Posted by Lew Weinstein on October 11, 2011
    https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/10/11/jeffrey-adamovicz-and-gerry-andrews-the-people-who-knew-dr-ivins-and-his-lab-capabilities-better-than-anyone-else-make-powerful-arguments-that-the-fbi-has-not-made-its-case-and-adamowicz-says/

    former USAMRIID scientists Jeff Adamovicz and Gerry Andrews … “The scientific evidence clearly shows that the (anthrax) wasn’t produced in our laboratory (USAMRIID).” … ie, IT WASN’T IVINS!!!
    Posted by Lew Weinstein on October 8, 2011
    https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/10/08/jeff-adamovicz-and-gerry-andrews-the-scientific-evidence-clearly-shows-that-the-anthrax-wasnt-produced-in-our-laboratory-usamriid-ie-it-wasnt-ivins/

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: