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

* The February 15, 2002 Subpoena Produced Today Directed To Ivins EXPRESSLY Allowed Him To Use An Equivalent Slant ; others using an equivalent slant were not thrown out by the FBI’s scientist who had made the dried powder — only Ivins’ submission (which had the four morphs)

Posted by Lew Weinstein on May 22, 2014

Screen shot 2014-05-22 at 2.39.50 PM

***

Screen shot 2014-05-22 at 2.41.25 PM

***

Screen shot 2014-05-22 at 2.40.12 PM

 

Advertisements

3 Responses to “* The February 15, 2002 Subpoena Produced Today Directed To Ivins EXPRESSLY Allowed Him To Use An Equivalent Slant ; others using an equivalent slant were not thrown out by the FBI’s scientist who had made the dried powder — only Ivins’ submission (which had the four morphs)”

  1. DXer said

    Scott Decker, who has a forthcoming book on Amerithrax forensics coming out in Spring 2018, played a key role in pressing an Ivins Theory. He, for example, reported that his notes from February 15, 2002 indicated that Dr. Ivins called him and acknowledged the subpoena and said a sample would be prepared “per the subpoena” (according to Dr. Decker’s notes). Dr. Decker spun this as evidence that the way that Ivins or his assistant prepared the sample was inaccurate — that he intentionally did not follow instructions. Yet the subpoena expressly allowed an equivalent slant to be used. Some yet unidentified scientist working for the FBI threw out Ivins’ submission while keeping others that merely used an equivalent slant rather than the referenced branded slant. In his book, does Decker identify who threw out the slant? Does he correct the record and misleading innuendo about what the subpoena actually instructed?

  2. DXer said

    On this issue of slant, GAO has special expertise in addressing such questions – the GAO as an agency addresses disputes when disappointed bidders on government contractors protest the award of a bid. For example, in 2010 they addressed the solicitation of bids of STU-100 Scent Transfer Units by the FBI and found that the alternative product was not acceptable because the solicitation had specified that it be electric powered, and the competitor’s unit offered as an equivalent was gas-powered. The question presented here is: Did JE’s lab also throw out the others submitted on equivalent slants? (TSA slants that were not Remel – see list).

    JE was very forthright in answering questions but I did not think to ask him and then lost touch after the conference in DC when he was taken to the hospital. The priority is not to find fault with JE’s lab on this issue so much as to emphasize that it is unfair to use the issue as evidence of Ivins’ guilt. If an equivalent TSA slant was not acceptable the FBI should not have said that it was in the subpoena’s directions. (The subpoena, by the way, had not even issued yet).

    • DXer said

      JE’s lab that threw out Ivins’ slant had made a dried aerosol out of Ames supplied by Ivins from Flask 1029. An Army General was denying that USAMRIID worked with dried powder. Fast forward 13 years, JAG now is advising USAMRIID to lawyer up and not provide the documents about the dried aerosol work provided the FBI in response to the February 2002 subpoena.

      This discarding of the slant greatly sharpens the acute conflict of interest that the FBI’s WMD Science people always knew existed — and should have avoided. (Perhaps Dr. Murch’s recent powerpoints should have addressed this issue of conflicts of interest. The colleciton of these slants fell on him and he knew that JE had prepared the dried aerosol from the largest supply of Ames anthrax that there was. The destruction of evidence is evidence of the investigation being botched — not evidence of Bruce Ivins’ guilt. Dr. Ivins did nothing wrong — the FBI scientists working for the FBI hazmat unit who destroyed the evidence should not have done so.

      Government accountability starts with preservation of evidence.

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: