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

Archive for June, 2016

* In suppressing exculpatory info about Ivins in Amerithrax, the FBI has failed to identify the agency or agencies with which it has to consult before producing the 16 pages, thus avoiding accountability for the continued withholding of exculpatory information

Posted by DXer on June 30, 2016


unnamed (37)

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments »

* SECRETS- The FBI refuses to produce the 16 pages relating to an Ivins Theory in the “Interim Case Management Summary” without referring to another agency (even though the FBI is the originating agency).

Posted by DXer on June 30, 2016


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 4 Comments »

* The CART documents from Sep 01- Oct 01 that FBI has failed to give Dillon under FOIA may relate to the “server archive” documents

Posted by DXer on June 22, 2016


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »

* Who at the FBI and Army is accountable for failing to produce Notebook 4037. 4282 and 4010 relating to the murder of 5 people in Fall 2001?

Posted by DXer on June 16, 2016


unnamed (36)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 18 Comments »

* Of the 10 Ivins notebooks seized by the FBI that USAMRIID has but is known not to have uploaded, is the one involving the former Zawahiri associate’s research with Ames in the B3 Notebook 4037?

Posted by DXer on June 15, 2016

unnamed ames.png

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 6 Comments »

* Part 04 of 59 of FBI’s Vault: USAMRIID failed to produce the dozens of highly relevant pages relating to Amerithrax that the FBI referred for processing

Posted by DXer on June 15, 2016

unnamed USAMRIID

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 5 Comments »

* Ivins/Amerithrax-Notebook 4282 FOIA follow-up by DXer

Posted by DXer on June 13, 2016

Re Ivins/Amerithrax-Notebook 4282

Sandra and Joseph,

Did Medcom inquire of DOJ about Notebook 4282?  If Medcom inquired of DOJ, did Medcom get a reply?

The notebook has an entry on the date of the first mailing of anthrax in 2001 that murdered 5 people.  I am informed and believe that it also has entries on 9/14/2001 and 9/15/2001, the date that the FBI theorized Ivins prepared the anthrax.

The FBI claims Ivins had no legitimate reason to be in the lab.  In contrast, I think the notebook will evidence a virulence study that shows Ivins was responsible for the nighttime and weekend animal checks.  (According to lab tech Mara Linscott, such checks were a one-person job and took a couple hours, such as what was observed).

I have suggested instead that an Al Qaeda operative Adnan El-Shukrijumah from Florida was responsible — was the mailer.  He was an associate of Mohamed Atta who met with Atta in a Sarasota residence.  Adnan told his mother on or about September 11, 2001 that he was coming back into the country.  Adnan was staying with Al Qaeda’s #3 KSM.  KSM was getting briefed by Al Qaeda’s lab director Yazid Sufaat, who I have interviewed.  Sufaat does not deny responsibility for the anthrax mailings and instead pled the Fifth.

The Army and FBI has not treated the issue with the expedition warranted under the FOIPA statute.

Sometimes, as in the case of the Florida Pulse shooter, the FBI closes a case upon lack of evidence when actually the problem is that the evidence was available but not efficiently obtained.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | 16 Comments »

* Dr. Ken Dillon appeals FBI’s wrongful stonewalling of documents from the September-October 2001 time period of the anthrax mailings

Posted by DXer on June 6, 2016

dillon jun 2016


dillon p2 Jun 2016


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 26 Comments »

* The FBI’s David Hardy recently wrongfully withheld documents relating to Bruce Ivins pursuant to (b)(3) without specifying the statute allegedly requiring that the documents be withheld

Posted by DXer on June 5, 2016





unnamed (34)


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

* Governmental lack of transparency relating to dangerous pathogens includes facts relating to the murder of 5 people in 2001

Posted by DXer on June 3, 2016


Mueller & Ivins composite


DXer writes in a recent post:

Newly disclosed CDC biolab failures ‘like a screenplay for a disaster movie’

Alison Young, USA TODAY 5:43 p.m. EDT June 2, 2016


USAMRIID turns out to be suffering the lack of transparency.  In a May 26, 2016 email I copied to Alison Young (USA Today) and Richard Ebright (quoted in the title of today’s article), I wrote:


It’s been a couple of weeks I asked about these (b)(6) redactions.  Has there been time for a decision on whether the names can be unredacted given the public interest involved on the precise issue of inventory control of virulent anthracis Ames during the period leading up to the five murders in 2001?”

In an earlier May 13, 2016 email copied to Alison Young and Professor Ebright, I wrote:

Sandra Rogers

Sandra, Dr. Ivins told a superior that he would not have the Ames that he should have.
If there is someone who knows of a justification for the missing virulent Ames (see produced emails) used to kill 5 people in 2001, doesn’t the public have a right to know?
In balancing the interests, why would it be an unwarranted invasion of privacy? The disclosure, instead, is clearly warranted.

DOJ gives guidance:

“Exemption 6 protects information about individuals in “personnel and medical files and similar files” when the disclosure of such information “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” …

In order to determine whether Exemption 6 protects against disclosure, an agency should engage in the following two lines of inquiry: first, determine whether the information at issue is contained in a personnel, medical, or “similar” file covered by Exemption 6; and, if so, determine whether disclosure “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” by balancing the privacy interest that would be compromised by disclosure against any public interest in the requested information.”

The emails at issue have been uploaded here.

In case you cannot access the web link, the dates and times of the 3 emails are as follows:

(1) December 18, 2006, 9:06 a.m.
(2) December 17, 2006  7::39 a.m.
(3) December 18, 2006   9:14 a.m.

If you, John Peterson or anyone else would further briefing of the applicable precedent, let me know.

It seems an issue that warrants appeal and litigation if necessary given the public interest.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 4 Comments »