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

* FBI had, then tossed anthrax type … but they still insist Ivins was the one … they have no case … first they were stupid, then arrogant

Posted by DXer on August 22, 2014

Will Mueller ever admit they were wrong?

DXer reminds us … 

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 …

WASHINGTON (AP) — FBI scientists early on had — but destroyed — the unique strain of anthrax used in the deadly 2001 attacks that years later would lead them to Dr. Bruce Ivins, the government’s top suspect in the nation’s biggest bioterror case.

FBI Assistant Director Vahid Majidi said Monday the initial anthrax sample that Ivins took from his Army lab in February 2002 and gave investigators did not meet court-ordered conditions for its preparation and collection.

In a briefing for reporters, Majidi said the sample kept at the FBI lab was destroyed because the bureau believed it might not have been allowed as evidence at trial.

“Looking at hindsight, obviously we would do things differently today,” Majidi said.


2 Responses to “* FBI had, then tossed anthrax type … but they still insist Ivins was the one … they have no case … first they were stupid, then arrogant”

  1. DXer said

    US government labs plan biohazard-safety sweep

    29 Aug 2014 | 16:13 BST | Posted by Sara Reardon

    “Given the magnitude of the response that these three incidents have provoked, it is unsupportable to keep secret the details of [these] incidents in general. The poorly justified ‘security’ reason for keeping such incidents secret cannot outweigh the need to understand and learn from them.”


    The take-home on the dried powder document request is that there was more than one occasion — there was one in 1997 using Ames and there was one in 2000.

    But no additional documents were forthcoming. So the lab that threw out Ivins sample is the lab that made a dried powder out of Flask 1029 on more than one occasion. USAMRIID then did not produce the documents relating to the dried powder made out of the Ames in 2000 in response to the February 2002 subpoena. JE was a member of the hazmat group founded by FBI scientist Randall Murch in 1996. The people who played a key role in the scientific investigation were the ones involved in making a dried powder out of Flask 1029, not Bruce Ivins. Yet there was never any disclosure for the duration of the investigation.

  2. DXer said

    The AP article says “FBI scientists.” Note, however, that more precisely it was a USAMRIID scientist, who was helping the FBI in its investigation. The Investigative Summary says it was JE’s lab but does not identify the individual. That same lab made a dried powder out of Flask 1029 but did not submit a sample of the Ames to the repository. (I believe JE’s lab, located in Building 1412, kept its virulent Ames in an unlocked refrigerator).

    By formal denial yesterday, USAMRIID refused to identify the labs that received virulent Ames from USAMRIID prior to 9/11. Specifically, USAMRIID refused to provide the enclosure identifying the pre-911 anthrax shipments (even in redacted form).

    Separately, USAMRIID has failed to provided the enclosures relating to its dried aerosol project — what it described as it simulant project.

    The formal denial received yesterday to provide the enclosures under FOIA only related to RIID’s refusal to identify the labs that were shipped virulent Ames. I have asked the wonderful FOIA officer send a separate response on the issue of the “Simulants” enclosure. A document previously provided referred to a withdrawal in 1997 but did not address the withdrawal in 2000 by the “FBI scientist” to make a dried powder out of Flask 1029. I do not believe that the document provided was the enclosure provided to the FBI, as requested by the FOIA request. Instead was just an information sheet about a dried powder that was made in 1997. I am more interested in the dried powder made out of the genetically matching Flask 1029 in 2000.

    USAMRIID’s refusal to provide this information — under the legal guidance of JAG — highlights the need for GAO intervention. JAG’s good faith is presumed. Although I will be reviewing the statute’s application, FOIPA is also a privacy statute with specified statutory exemptions, including some that relate to national security.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: