* All of Amerithrax “Ivins Theory” was a crock.
Posted by DXer on February 23, 2014
DXer commented on * Did the FBI Scientist Throw Out The Other Slants That Did Not Use Specified TSA Remel Slant Or Only Dr. Ivins’ February 2002 Submission From RMR 1029 From Which Its Scientists Had Made A Dried Powder? Who Threw It Out?
****** ****** ****** ****** ******
DXer: It was the lab that threw out Dr. Ivins’ slant that admits to having made a dried powder out of RMR 1029. Ivins didn’t. The expert working for the FBI did. All of Amerithrax “Ivins Theory” was a crock. And the FBI says Ivins acted deceptively? It was the FBI that never disclosed its expert had made a dried powder out of RMR 1029.
CASE CLOSED ... what really happened in the 2001 anthrax attacks? 
DXer said
Dr. Ivins’ assistant, Kristi Friend, worked for Dr. Ivins’ beginning in June 1999. She worked along Terry Abshire in Dr. Ezzell’s lab in testing and collecting samples in connection with the Fall 2001 anthrax letters. Her full civil deposition is downloadable at this URL. It was provided yesterday by DOJ Civil FOIA.
Click to access Friend%20Deposition_Redacted.pdf
DXer said
The best way to get people on the “same page” is to literally get them on the same page.
A request for Ivins’ assistant Kristie Friend’s depo is pending and through Lew’s great help I’ll upload it the day I get it.
But I’ve decided to ask for Alnora Robinson’s civil depo before Susan Welkos and Arthur Friedlander and the other two I mentioned. She testified at civil deposition about the security clearance of foreign nationals and private company employees visiting USAMRIID. I will ask for all the exhibits, Exhibit 272-384 which include email strings from November 2001.
Attorney-in-Charge James K. at DOJ FOIA civil and/or his colleagues stand ready to quickly provide you (if experience is any guide) requested documents filed as exhibits also.
But it is important to be very specific in what you are requesting to avoid delay.
For example, after the unproblematic full civil depositions are released, the legal beagles can noodle over why Ivins’ polygraph is not disclosable under FOIA.
Currently, it is under seal. Dr. Ivins has passed away. The case is closed. Just because it would not be admissible in court is not justification for its withholding under FOIA.
Given James Kovakas’ encyclopedic knowledge of FOIA law, one would not want to request such exhibits without having considered the legal precedent.
# 23 Exhibit AB-40, Polygraph Report
http://www.amerithrax.wordpress.com