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

* Wrongfully Withheld Sept 7, 2001 email shows what Ivins was really doing late at night: sharing fart humor

Posted by DXer on January 19, 2018


32 Responses to “* Wrongfully Withheld Sept 7, 2001 email shows what Ivins was really doing late at night: sharing fart humor”

  1. DXer said

    Did the Zodiac Killer Lead a Bomb-Making, Bear-Slaying Youth ‘Posse?’
    William Bredderman

  2. DXer said

    In tonight’s made-for-tv show, are you going to hear about this email written by Ivins at a time when some speculated he was making powderized anthrax? Or will it be intentionally overlooked.

  3. DXer said


    ORDERED that, within thirty days of the date of this Order, DOJ shall file a notice with the Court that provides possible explanations for why the FBI did not release the three emails purportedly sent to Mara Linscott that Dillon identified in his February 2018 letter to government counsel;

    Dated: January 17, 2019 RUDOLPH CONTRERAS United States District Judge

    Case 1:17-cv-01716-RC Document 26 Filed 01/17/19 Page 1 of 1

  4. DXer said

    Another of the emails culled from production was a late night September 26, 2001 email from Bruce Ivins to the expert Worsham explaining what he was doing in the lab on September 26, 2001 — and yet the FBI’s theory of the case was that he had no reason to be in the lab. This email was found in a search of hard copy records by someone at the behest of the ever-patient and scrupulous USAMRMC FOIA Officer Rogers.

    September 26, 2001 email from Bruce Ivins released to DXer under FOIA today
    Posted by Lew Weinstein on August 31, 2011

    Indeed, the email was to FBI’s key consultant on its genetics case who was not persuaded by the FBI’s scientific theory or theory on the facts.

    Dr. Patricia Worsham, a leading anthrax and genetics expert who testified before the NAS, was not persuaded by the FBI’s argument on the issue of “morphs” and sample submissions
    Posted on January 14, 2014

    The FBI’s key witness on the “morphs” (see NAS presentation) disputed the DOJ/FBI characterization on key factual issues.

    Deposition Excerpt of Patricia Worsham in Stevens v. United States: Product Could Not Have Been Made At USAMRIID With Equipment She Has Seen At USAMRIID
    Posted on July 16, 2011

    The FBI regularly has concocted a theory of exclusive control that was contradicted by the facts available to it in emails that it has never disclosed.

    See, e.g., June 15, 2001 email from Dr. Worsham to Colonel Kortepeter “about civilian who entered an animal room in suite B3” … “without the knowledge of division personnel”

    Posted by Lew Weinstein on February 4, 2014

    • DXer said

      In his recent book, former FBI Agent R. Scott Decker discusses this key scientist, Dr. Worsham, consulting with the FBI at pp. 89, 01, 92, 98, 100, 107, 110, 117, 118, 119, 128, 132, 144, 161, 180, 192, 202, 215, and 230.

      Yet he never devotes even a single sentence to say that the FBI’s leading consulting scientist thought his scientific and factual conclusions were wrong and unpersuasive.

      Scott had read Worsham’s sworn testimony at the time he wrote these passages. His book, like the Amerithrax Summary, constitutes a revisionist and a highly misleading and selective presentation.

      Page 89 …if that’s what they are,” Ezzell said. “You might go see Pat Worsham in …
      Page 91 …day, Stanley drove back to USAMRIID to meet with Pat Worsham …
      Page 92 Worsham and her laboratory technician diluted miniscule amounts of the …
      Page 98 … Worsham begin to experiment and characterize the variants…
      Page 100 …sent to Arizona and then to TIGR. Even given to Pat Worsham. W…
      Page 107 …having Ames.1 While Scott Stanley worked with Pat Worsham …
      Page 110 …us as we took seats around the conference table. Pat Worsham, Ivi…
      Page 117 …to push the genetics forward. Working with Pat Worsham, Stanl…
      Page 118 …us to keep trying and agreed that if the variants Pat Worsham ha…
      Page 119 … Worsham examined the attack spores, the more apparent it bec…
      Page 128 …he transferred them to Pat Worsham. Stanley asked Worsham…
      Page 132 …morphology variants be added to the pipeline. Worsham s…
      Page 144 …we would begin testing our repository. With Pat Worsham’s help, St…
      Page 161 …available if one of the scientists felt a need to confide. Pat Worsham …
      Page 177 …at the end of March, in the commander’s office with Pat Worsham…
      Page 180 …had been in the powder before the envelope sealed.6 Pat Worsham h…
      Page 192 …in late March with Scott Stanley during which Pat Worsham had …
      Page 202 …in March 2002—the meeting presented by Pat Worsham on h…
      Page 215 …of the total, correct?” “Yes,” I answered. “Pat Worsham estima…
      Page 230 …the Bacteriology Division at USAMRIID. 11. P. L. Worsham …

  5. DXer said

  6. DXer said

    In the second lengthy page of a September 7, 2001 email from Bruce Ivins to Mara Linscott that was wrongfully culled from production — and not produced to FOIA requestor Ken Dillon pursuant to his request until just recently — Ivins wrote about a similar poem:

    “Here’s the poem, and it IS just a joke, although I know that I am not easiest person to be around all the time, that I do get moody, etc. (I’m doing a lot better about not interrupting people in conversation, as well as not asking lots of questions in a row. I’m also trying hard not to start such digressive sentences, but stick to the subject.”

    The FBI’s extreme selectivity in pitching an Ivins Theory was very unfair to Ivins, given that he was not here to defend himself.

    Fantasy Worlds Of Bruce Ivins And The FBI

    Posted on April 10, 2010

  7. DXer said

    In addition to September 15, 2001, which is of special importance because it is shortly before the first mailing, emails not produced to Ken Dillon include, but are not limited to, September 21, 2001 and September 26, 2001. One citable, public source is the book by the author channeling the FBI Agents’ Ivins Theory (David Willman). The FBI has made available the emails to an author spinning an Ivins Theory but is withholding them from the researcher who wants to put them to a different use — testing the FBI’s finely spun use of the emails.

    As additional examples, Mr. Hardy also failed to produce, as an example, an April 3, 2000 email, June 27, 2000, June 29, 2000, July 7, 2000, July 23, 2000, July 30, 2000, August 12, 2000, August 14, 2000, and August 23, 2000.

    The FBI should pay Dillon’s attorneys fees. A half decade of stonewalling is beyond outrageous.

    It is very wrong for the FBI to give the documents to their friend who will buy what they are selling and spin their yarn in order to gain access to sources — and then to withhold the very same emails from another researcher.

    There is no exemption under the statute that would allow for this and thus the FBI needs to pay Dillon’s attorneys fees — after providing the emails.

    Source: David Willman, “The Mirage Man: Bruce Ivins, the Anthrax Attacks, and America’s Rush to War, by David Willman, 375, 377 & 378.

    • DXer said

      And don’t get me wrong: the FBI did not merely withhold emails from Bruce Ivins to Mara Linscott to include the one it is still wrongfully withholding from September 26, 2001. For example, the FBI culled from production this September 26, 2001 email at 9:57 p.m. to its own scientific consultant, Patricia Worsham, explaining what he was doing in the lab. I had to go into the land of lost and mislaid documents myself and rescue this sweet one.

      • DXer said

        The September 26, 2001 email from Bruce Ivins to Patricia Worsham at 9:57 p.m. is below.

        Ivins’ time was only hard to corroborate because of the FBI swept the evidence under the rug and kept its dirty deeds from public view.

        Ask yourself: what is the name of the DOJ or FBI employee responsible for telling USAMRMC John Peterson to cull this email from production. There would be no justification under FOIA — it simply is wrongful conduct to hide evidence like was done.

      • DXer said

        Here is the cpecification of requested items in Dillon’s appeal of June 19, 2015:

        “Here are the records that FBI needs to release in order to be responsive.

        Emails: FBI has never released Ivins’s emails to or from Patricia Fellows, Mara Linscott, Nancy Haigwood, or other individuals, even though it selectively used them in its Investigative Summary. Such emails include those to and from Ivins’s work email account and those to and from his personal accounts.

        Laboratory Notebooks: FBI needs to release Notebook 4010 regarding Ivins’s Flask 1029 as well as relevant pages from Notebooks 3655, 3945, and 4251. To be fully responsive to the need of the American people to understand this important case, all pages of all relevant notebooks for all dates should be released.

        Paper and Computer Files: These include all records for September and October, 2001 related to the computer installed in Ivins’s B3 suite in summer, 2001: Macintosh MMCN E7380. They also include all paper and computer files, including on other work and personal computers used by Ivins.

        Information about Meetings: All relevant records related to meetings Ivins attended during September and October, 2001 form part of this request.

        Telephone and credit card records, etc.: These are important for determining Ivins’s activities and whereabouts. In regard to activities and whereabouts, entry and exit records for Building 1412 at USAMRIID, where genetically matching anthrax was stored, would also be responsive. Lastly, records relating to Ivins’s animal experiments, including with 52 rabbits, in September and October, 2001 show his activities and whereabouts and so should be released.”

      • DXer said

        Dillon has a PhD in history from Cornell as I recall. It is pretty cool that after studying history, he is about to make history once the federal court judge looks at the documents referenced in the Ivins section of the Lambert memo — sees that they are not exempt from production and yet have been withheld by the FBI (as its former lead investigator claims) — and then orders them produced. I’ve only met him Dillon once in passing (when he moderated the conference at which the FBI’s expert John Ezzell, who made the dried powder out of Ames supplied from Ivins Flask 1029, courageously came to speak). But I’m so proud of Dillon. And so appreciative of Lew’s hosting this blog. Before truth can result in counterintelligence analysis, one often needs to obtain the relevant information and contemporaneous documents. Scott Decker: we don’t need more self-serving spin. Shame on you. We need compliance with FOIA.

        NYT interview of former lead Amerithrax investigator Richard Lambert: “a staggering amount of exculpatory evidence” regarding Dr. Ivins remains secret
        Posted by Lew Weinstein on July 16, 2016

      • DXer said

        Let me provide another example of a document they are withholding you. Bruce Ivins wrote a September 6, 2001 to an old friend Rick Sams. See Willman, p. 376 n. 6, which cites “E-mail from Bruce Ivins to Rick Sams, September 6, 2001. On information and belief, it is one of the emails sitting in John Peterson’s office of emails that were culled at the request of the DOJ/FBI officials vetting the production of emails. If Dillon’s expert FOIA counsel were to suggest that Peterson, upon deposition, would be required to identify all the culled emails, it might motivate DOJ’s cooperation.

        It would be easiest if the DOJ assumed I knew everything they are withholding and the only way for individuals to impose serious sanctions is to comply with FOIA.

        Professor Sams advises me that he had a fairly steady correspondence for many years until about 8 months before his death. Bruce and Rick talked about mutual friends, family, world events, their professional work, politics, sports, photography, and humor. Bruce frequently shared jokes that were being shared on the internet and he often shared beautiful photos that he encountered. Bruce was the high school photographer and he and Professor Sams both had an interest in photography so they shared an interest in and appreciation for photography.

        Bruce often expressed frustration with the government’s policies, particularly those of the Bush administration. He frequently ridiculed Dick Cheney and the policies that he promoted. Bruce often spoke about his desire for world peace and tolerance.

        When he did speak about his wife and children, it was with love and kindness.

        Bruce’s father owned and operated a pharmacy across the street from the pharmacy in which Professor Sams worked during high school and summer and holiday vacations. His mother also worked in the Ivins pharmacy and Professor Sams knew both his parents because he was often asked by the owner of the pharmacy in which he worked to go across the street to borrow a drug or other product that a customer desired. Mrs. Ivins frequently came to the pharmacy in which he worked for the same reason. Both of Bruce’s parents were somewhat older than Rick’s parents but were friendly and often engaged Rick in conversations when he was around them. He was in their home on numerous occasions to visit with Bruce.

        Bruce gave no hints that he had anything to do with the anthrax mailings. He deplored the act and talked about the increased workload that resulted from it.

        Professor Sams has a number of newspaper articles from the local newspaper from the 1960s that report on Bruce’s accomplishments as a high school scholar and has copies of photographs from the high school yearbook.

        If you want to get a picture of a person, don’t go to the FBI Agents who are withholding documents and spinning it to assuage their guilt over driving a guy to commit suicide. Go to the people who knew the person.

        And if you have any doubt that Bruce’s much older brother Tom was seriously estranged, Bruce’s friend Rick advises me that Tom referred to his brother in an interview with a reported from the Western Star in the 1980s as “the late Bruce Ivins.”

        Professor Sam told me that he read that story and thought that Bruce had died and it was only later when he read a scientific article on anthrax that was authored by Bruce that he learned that he was still living and decided to contact him by email.

        • DXer said


          As corrected:

          Let me provide another example of a document they are wrongfully withholding. Bruce Ivins wrote a September 6, 2001 to an old friend Rick Sams. See Willman, p. 376 n. 6, which cites “E-mail from Bruce Ivins to Rick Sams, September 6, 2001. On information and belief, it is one of the emails sitting in John Peterson’s office in a folder of emails that were culled at the request of the DOJ/FBI officials vetting the production of emails. If Dillon’s expert FOIA counsel were to suggest that Peterson, at civil deposition, would be required to identify all the culled emails, it might motivate DOJ’s cooperation.

          It would be easiest if the DOJ assumed I knew everything they are withholding and the only way for individuals to avoid imposition of serious sanctions is to comply with FOIA.

          Here is where the September 6, 2001 email to Sams should have been produced — but instead was wrongfully culled by DOJ/FBI officials vetting USAMRMC’s production.

          Click to access 20010831_batch34(redacted).pdf

      • DXer said

        Now why would AUSA Lieber (or someone else) cull the September 6, 2001 email to Rick Sams? She or someone may have been trying to use her unsupported characterization to spin the idea that Bruce Ivins sent anthrax to boost his employment prospects.

        Another of Bruce Ivins’ many friends scoffs at the suggestion.

        John Barnard posted his views articulately in August 2008 both at the funeral and on Meryl Nass’ blog. He stands behind his views today which he can further elaborate.

        “From 1992 through 1995, I worked with Dr. Bruce Ivins at Fort Detrick where he helped me develop anthrax vaccines during my postdoctoral research. Despite reports that he threatened a social worker and verbally threatened coworkers shortly before his death, everything in me tells me that Bruce would not and could not have perpetrated the 2001 anthrax attacks.

        A Los Angeles Times article has accused Bruce of performing the attack so that he could profit from a vaccine he patented. This accusation is absurd. The US government routinely patents work that might eventually be marketable and these products almost never become developed or sold. Even if one of Bruce’s vaccines had been mass produced, the primary beneficiaries would have been the producer and the government, not Bruce.

        The accusation that Bruce was motivated by greed is also absurd to anyone who knew him. I never heard Bruce talk about money or getting rich. His life was about the work that he loved and the people he loved. Although he could be irritable, he was usually jovial and he was always the first person I turned to when I had problems with my anthrax project. His knowledge went well beyond what I could find in published studies and his enthusiasm made him seem younger than me even though he was 15 years older.

        Bruce’s love for his work has led some people to accuse him of perpetrating the attack as a way to promote the research he was doing, which is also absurd. The collapse of the Soviet Union and its biological weapons program did lead to cutbacks at Fort Detrick; however, Bruce’s job was never in danger and the cutbacks were reversed due to fears that unemployed Soviet bioweapons experts were being hired by Saddam Hussein and other potential enemies.

        According to information obtained by the Washington Post, the case against Bruce relies heavily on circumstantial evidence and I believe that federal investigators have erred gravely. They have used complex and expensive DNA sequencing methods to collect evidence that points at Bruce; however, I think that their enthusiasm over finally finding a suspect has caused them to end their investigation prematurely. They have followed one trail but have only looked for what they wanted to find. I want to see their evidence because I believe that a critical analysis of it will show that they stopped far too soon and have pushed an innocent man to his death.

        Dr. Nass, thank you for talking about the man we knew who we still respect. I hope that the truth will be told.

        John Barnard, Ph.D.
        Pittsburgh, PA”

      • DXer said

        As an example of another key document the FBI has wrongfully failed to produce (and I first made the request, as I recall) is the 302 reflecting the interview with his wife and the alibi that (like her children) provided Ivins. See Scott Decker’s new book (which is selling for $38) in which he reports that they said he was home. (He reasons that at he could have slipped out of the house for 7 hours while they were asleep, pulling an all-nighter on those two nights without them knowing it).

        Mrs. Ivins has said:

        “You know, he’s been incredibly, incredibly stressed, because of the way he’s been hounded by the F.B.I.,” Mrs. Ivins would later tell Frederick police officers in a recorded interview. “They’ve always treated him as if he was guilty, and I just felt that he couldn’t take it anymore.”

        Rather than profiting from the man’s death, Decker should encourage his former colleagues to produce the documents relevant to how Ivins spent his time in September 2001 and October 2001, to include the 302 interview statements by the family in which Decker says his family offered the alibi of him being home.

        The FBI has culled from production ALL emails to his wife and children.

      • DXer said

        Note that the emails culled by the FBI are on top of 300 emails (as I best recall the number) that JAG culled that were personal correspondence
        — that I eventually shamed USAMRMC into coughing up. If Army JAG (Jeffrey Miller, as I recall his name offhand) is the one who wrongfully culled the emails still being withheld, by all means, that is who should be sanctioned.

        Click to access 20000307_batch88(redacted).pdf

        With the FBI having closed the case and no longer having jurisdiction, one of Ivins’ emails to Mara Linscott from October 6, 2005 slipped through.

        “As far as the FBI goes, they grilled me on going to on sending you – I forget what it was – something from Gaithersburg.
        I remember telling you that if you ever needed something, I’d do it for you,
        and I remember sending you lots of emails when I was going through depression early on, but really hadn’t done
        anything about it yet. (I had to get my prescription records to find out that I started taking Celexa in 2000.)
        They actually pulled out one email of mine to you that said something about my being paranoid, and they strongly
        suggested that my mental state would cause me to be a terrorist and a mass murderer. The fact that I don’t know beans
        about making a bio-warfare weapon wasn’t important, it was that I knew how to make anthrax spores, and I had
        emailed lots of very personal things to you. After that awful interview, if they want to talk to me about
        anthrax – with my lawyer present – I’ll be happy to do so. Anything else is off the table. If they want to
        call me in front of a grand jury to testify, I’ll tell them that I didn’t mail anthrax spores or bioweaponize
        them, but any other questions I’m not going to answer. I’m just so weary and irritated after 2-3 dozen
        interviews that my willingness to go out of my way to help them has been transformed into being willing
        to answer anthrax-specific questions in front of my lawyer. I’ve had to look up tons of things for them.
        My memory stinks, so most of the information has come from what I”ve been able to get from
        notebooks and computer files. It used to be fun enjoyable and satisfying to work here, but now it’s just
        a job, basically. I’ve become so jaded.”

      • DXer said

        An email withheld for years shows that in contrast to his wife and daughter, Bruce Ivins’ views on abortion were decidedly the opposite of what some FBI Agents speculated. (That had been suggested as a motive for sending the anthrax). I believe the email below is to Rick Sams:

        “From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
        RE: gift certificate
        Date Wednesday, February 23, 2005 10:00:00 AM

        Bush does not seem to be a patron of the arts, and scientists are left largely out of the loop in policy
        making. I’m almost betting that there will be a big push to get brother Jeb to run for President in 2008.
        Look for wonderful things in our country. Like madatory prayer in schools. Outlawing of ALL abortion
        (even when the mother’s life is threatened). Teaching of Creationist “Science” along with (or instead of)
        evolution. Because remember, as we’re so often reminded, this is a Christian Nation, whose laws should
        be based upon the Gospel, or at least totally compatible with it. Please spare me.”

        • DXer said

          Anthrax Suspect’s Abortion Stance Eyed As Motive : NPR

          Aug 7, 2008 – Bruce Ivins may have targeted Sens. Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy with anthrax-laced letters in 2001 because he saw them as bad Catholics owing to their pro-choice votes, officials close to the investigation say.

          Now, officials close to the investigation say another possible motive could have been that Ivins saw the senators as bad Catholics because of their votes in favor of abortion rights.


          In a July 10, 2002, e-mail cited in the affidavit, Ivins wrote: “I’m not pro-abortion, I’m pro-life, but I want my position to be one consistent with a Christian.”


          In 2001, the Catholic anti-abortion movement was openly critical of Catholic members of Congress who voted in support of abortion rights for women. Two of the more prominent lawmakers who fell into this category were Daschle and Leahy. The Ivins affidavit mentions an article in the September/October 2001 issue of the Right to Life of Greater Cincinnati newsletter that singled out Daschle, Leahy and Sens. Edward Kennedy and Joseph Biden for criticism because of their abortion rights votes.

          The article was part of a longer dispatch by the leader of the Netherlands-based International Right to Life, Dr. John Wilke. The small article, titled “Pro-Abortion Catholic Senators?”, ended with: “We should stop labeling these men Catholic, for anyone who directly aids abets or gets an abortion, by Catholic teaching, excommunicates themselves.”

          The affidavit stops short of saying that Ivins read the article. But officials close to the case say the newsletter was found in a search of his home.


          “They questioned him about that,” Kemp told NPR. “And he denied that had ever been something that he was ardently involved with.”

          Comment: The email withheld for years debunks the FBI’s theory. It was his wife who was passionate on that issue, and who with one of the children had publicly taken an anti-abortion stance.

          Bruce Ivins, in contrast, in the withheld email that R. Scott Decker and Scott Stanley had and presumably read, explained his criticism of Bush Administration:

          “Look for wonderful things in our country. Like mandatory prayer in schools. Outlawing of ALL abortion
          (even when the mother’s life is threatened). Teaching of Creationist “Science” along with (or instead of)
          evolution. Because remember, as we’re so often reminded, this is a Christian Nation, whose laws should
          be based upon the Gospel, or at least totally compatible with it. Please spare me.”

          If Scott Stanley or R. Scott Decker did not understand what Ivins was saying, then they should appreciate that by sharing the emails, others can explain it.

      • DXer said

        Mara Linscott was worried that the FBI would misunderstand or misconstrue their email exchanges.

        The FBI has sought to ensure that we could not assess whether their characterization was fair by withholding them.

        Click to access 20000307_batch88(redacted).pdf

        Sent: Wednesday,
        October 05, 2005 7:45 PM
        To: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
        Subject: RE: FW: Bracelet of Friendship

        Hi Bruce
        here are some pictures of
        I guess I didn’t attach them to my last e-mail
        I’m physically and emotionally drained from my last shift in
        Very busy.
        We lost _______________save him.
        This month is taking a lot out of me.
        Next month will be better.
        Sorry to hear about your herniated discs and GERD.
        Also sorry to hear about your depression.
        I worry often that I may have not done a good enough job explaining e-mails and things that went on
        at usamriid to the FBI.
        We all of course know that your trips were all done out of
        kindness and I swear I did my best to put everything in context.
        I’m sorry for all the pain you must have gone through and for any part I may have played.
        I hope things are more calm at the moment for you.
        Time to watch a little playoff baseball and then collapse in a sleep heap.
        Oh ps I also attached a picture of my
        They may be coming with me to _____ house over thanksgiving so I can send them home
        with my parents so they can watch them while
        doesn’t know this yet 🙂 If you’re in town maybe we could have tea or
        diet coke since I’ll be in town be with you and if you’re willing he’d like to meet you too.

    • DXer said

      One of the emails still being wrongfully withheld by the FBI is the email dated September 21, 2001. It should have been produced years ago — in 2010 — but it was culled from production by the DOJ/FBI.
      Why? Why was the FBI accusing a fellow of murder by saying he had no reason at work Friday September 21, 2001 and then withhold contemporaneous emails and laboratory notes from that day and week?

      Click to access 20010912_batch35(redacted).pdf

      The September 21 email to Mara Linscott, still not yet produced by the FBI, states:

      “Things are still on edge here. He told Mara that he had told his therapy group about how he had “carried a gun for years,” hoping that a mugger would mug him. “I used to walk in a bad part of town hoping someone would trying something so I could use it.” (Willman, at 75).

      Now did the FBI withhold this email because it proved he attended his group therapy session on September 18, 2001? (Which he did, and the FBI should have known that long before it announced its Ivins Theory.)

      Ivins continued:

      “There are several people in our group who belong to the ‘bad mothers club.’ We all had mothers from hell, who physically or mentally or verbally abused their kids, were never satisfied with their performance, etc.”

      Hey FBI FOIA’s David Hardy: Produce the email. It should have been produced to Dillon at least a couple years ago. The FOIA statute does not permit FBI employees to flout the statute — producing the emails only to the favored authors willing to do its bidding and spin someone’s guilt for murder based on nothing. It does not allow the FBI to base Ivins guilt on the quoted email while pretending that they cannot find it so people can view the quoted language in context.

      The email may describe what he was doing at work that week, like so many other of his emails to Mara do.

      • DXer said

        Is it so simple that David WIllman’s friend at the FBI gave him these emails — and pulled them from production — so they could be exclusively spun in the way the Agent wanted? Scott Decker says he had a complete set of emails.

      • DXer said

        The September 26, 2001 that the FBI’s David Hardy is continuing to wrongfully hold — like the September 21 email — appears to confirm that Ivins attended his therapy session on Monday, September 17, 2001.

        So given that Decker had all of these emails at the time an Ivins Theory was announced, he should have already known.

        The September 26 email being wrongfully withheld states:

        “Of the people in my ‘group,’ everyone but me is in the depression/sadness/flight mode for stress. I’m really the only scary one in the group. Others are talking about how sad they are or scared they are, but my reaction to the WTC/Pentagon events is far different.”

        In the same e-mail, Ivins linked the perpetrators of September 11 to anthrax:

        “I just heard tonight that the Bin Laden terrorists for sure have anthrax and sarin gas…”

        The CBS Evening News reported that U.S. intelligence analysts,” credited bin Laden with a rudimentary capabilty to produce both sarin and anthrax.” See “New Hints of Emerging US Military Plan for the War on Terrorism in Afghanistan,” CBS Evening News, September 26, 2001.

        Yet, even though he was just reporting what he heard on the news, the FBI used this as somehow evidence of his guilt!

        Even though the FBI Scientists had all of his emails, they acted like that did not confirm he made his therapy session until after they had announced an Ivins Theory in August 2008.

        The email should be produced. It is unlawful for the FBI to have provided it to the author channeling their views — while withholding it for years from the general public.

        It is especially important that the FBI produce all emails from September and October 2001 because of how they might bear on the issue of alibi and how he was spending his time.

        The federal court judge — upon a finding that the withholding has been contrary to the statute — should take names and find out who was responsible for the culling of this September 26, 2001 email from production, and who has been responsible for its continued withholding.

      • DXer said

        It turns out that from the emails now produced — after years of wrongful withholding — that the FBI DID know at the time of the early August 2008 press conferences — and they just hid that fact from the public. The FBI had claimed that the clinic’s computer had crashed and so they did not learn that he had attended those sessions until after the August 2008 press conferences.

        But Scott Decker already knew he had attended those sessions — and thus KNEW he had an alibi for that evening — BEFORE US Attorney Taylor and Majidi falsely spun the Ivins Theory to the public and claimed he had no alibi.

        NYT interview of former lead Amerithrax investigator Richard Lambert: “a staggering amount of exculpatory evidence” regarding Dr. Ivins remains secret
        Posted on July 16, 2016

        It was only after Dr. Ivins’ death that the FBI acknowledged and confirmed he went to his group therapy session the evening of 9/17 on 10/8 — just as he had claimed. Why didn’t they corroroborate and acknowledge such a critical fact sooner?
        Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 11, 2012

        DXer: The big picture may seem complicated. But, most simply, Dr. Ivins in fact had an alibi on 9/17. That was when his group therapy met.
        Posted by Lew Weinstein on February 22, 2011

        October 8, 2001, the same dates the FBI says he was mailing the anthrax letters
        Posted by Lew Weinstein on March 9, 2010

      • DXer said

        Not content just to cherry pick, the FBI has wrongfully withheld ALL emails from September 21, 2001. For example, the FBI has wrongfully withheld a September 21 email that it heavily and expressly relied upon in spinning its “cotton candy” Ivins theory. It culled from production the September 21 email from Bruce Ivins to Nancy Haigwood dated September 21, 2001. Date is discernable from USG Amerithrax Summary (p. 48) and Willman’s book (p. 131) The FBI made a big deal of his email to Haigwood and yet, on information and belief, then culled it from the production of Ivins’ emails by USAMRMC by instructing — by email to John Peterson — to pull it from production. JP should be called to testify at a civil deposition if the FBI doesn’t cough it up.

        Whoever pulled it from production should have the opportunity to explain why he or she should not be individually sanctioned as contemplated by the FOIA statute for its continued withholding. The AUSA wrote in the Amerithrax Summary:

        “According to Dr. Ivins, some time after the anthrax attacks he
        sent Graduate Colleague an e-mail and they became reacquainted. In fact, he sent her an e-mail
        on September 21, 2001 – after the first anthrax letters were mailed, but before they were
        discovered – describing the increased security measures at USAMRIID in the wake of 9/11, and
        inquiring about whether she was still active in KKG. He also included Graduate Colleague in a
        group e-mail he sent after the anthrax attacks, in which he stated “we were taking some photos
        today of blood agar cultures of the now infamous ‘Ames’ strain of Bacillus anthracis,” and
        attached a photograph of himself handling the plates ….”

        Now when I contacted AUSA Lieber for help in obtaining the documents showing that Ivins was in the B3 working on the small animal experiments, she told me (as I best recall) that I had gotten all the documents under FOIA that I ever was going to get. It’s time for a United States federal court to show that such an approach is not how the United States government, to include the Department of Justice, rolls. Above all, the Department must stand for the rule of law, which includes compliance with FOIA.

        You can see that all the September 21, 2001 emails were pulled from production.

        Click to access 20010912_batch35(redacted).pdf

      • DXer said

        Another email that FBI FOIA head Dave Hardy is withholding from FOIA requestor Ken Dillon is dated October 27, 1999.
        It echoed his feelings expressed in March 2008 shortly before his attempted suicide:

        “other e-mails, such as the
        one he sent to Former Colleague #1 on October 27, 1999, in which he expressed feelings that
        Former Colleague #2 had betrayed him:
        It’s getting to be lately that I’ve felt there’s nobody in the world I
        can confide in. You’re gone now, and one of the reasons I was so
        sorry to see you go was a very selfish one – I could talk to you
        openly and honestly, and that was in itself a great lifter of my
        spirits. Losing [Former Colleague #2] as someone I can spill my
        guts to is crushing – it would mean that I am truly alo
        completely alone. I know that you and [Former Colleague #2] are
        such great friends – when you two are together, I’ve frequently felt
        like I totally don’t belong. . . . I have come to learn, much to my
        surprise and disappointment, that [Former Colleague #2] has been
        saying some very negative things behind my back. Apparently I
        am being made to appear mentally ill or just plain mean. It’s hard
        to understand, especially since I’ve never spoken about her in other
        than glowing terms. It seems that whatever I say or do can get
        twisted, exaggerated or misconstrued by her, and now the bond of
        trust that I thought I had with her is gone. . . . Also, I know that the
        two of you are great friends, but please don’t tell her that I told you
        about this. The whole thing is very disheartening.

        At the time of these e-mail messages, Dr. Ivins had stolen Former Colleague #2’s
        computer password and was reading her e-mails, something he admitted to the prosecution team
        in the February 2008 on-the-record interview.”

      • DXer said

        So, you ask. How many emails from Bruce Ivins is the FBI withholding from Ken Dillon?
        Well, according to the DOJ, “literally hundreds and hundreds.”FN/

        For example, one that they are expressly relying on in spinning an Ivins Theory is dated December 15, 2001 and contained a short, amusing poem. (The Amerithrax Summary, p. 46)

        The should have been produced here but was wrongfully culled from the production of emails.

        Click to access 20011113_batch38(redacted).pdf

        One reason the emails were culled is that they often describe the work Ivins was doing in the lab — the small animal challenges that the FBI wanted so desperately to pretend didn’t exist. Some of the emails discuss the University of Michigan researchers who were supplied virulent Ames anthrax.

        Anthrax, Al Qaeda and Ayman Zawahiri: The Infiltration of US Biodefense

        FN/”Over the course of her first few years after she left USAMRIID, Former Colleague #1 was
        inundated with e-mails from Dr. Ivins, literally hundreds and hundreds of them, many of
        extraordinary length and detail.” (The Amerithrax Summary, p. 46)

      • DXer said

        On October 3, 2001, Bruce Ivins was in the middle of a small animal experiment that had him dealing with a lot of dead animals at the same time the FBI speculated he was making a deadly powder. Not only do they try to avoid the topic of the small animal challenge as the reason he was in the lab for the animal checks on nights and weekends, but they have withheld key emails that they rely upon, to include an October 3, 2001 email a few days before the second mailing of anthrax.

        Hickory Dickory Doc: The mice ran up the clock and Dr. Ivins time in the BL-3 lab in late September 2001 but not as much as the rabbits did in early October 2001.
        Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 4, 2012

        The Amerithrax Summary selectively extracts from the email the following passage, as if it somehow were evidence of murder:

        “On October 3, 2001, the day before he sent this e-mail to the CDC, Dr. Ivins sent an e-
        mail to Former Colleague #1 regarding a possible bioweapons attack by terrorists:

        “I remember mentioning to you the possibility that after you get
        your degree you might be interested in being an “on call” physician
        for any suspected BW attacks in the country. With your experience
        (and the fact that you’ve been immunized against different agents)
        and with people in high places talking about BW terrorism being
        likely, your knowledge, skills and abilities could be a real asset.
        I’m hoping such an attack doesn’t happen, of course. On a more
        humorous note, if a BW ‘crop duster’ ever does buzz through your
        city, you can just look up in the sky, knowing your immune system
        iis ready, and give him the finger.”

      • DXer said

        Take, as another example, the January 7, 2007 email that the FBI is witholding from plaintiff Ken Dillon. The DOJ insinuates it evidences guilty consciousness when it is the DOJ and FBI’s withholding of the email does! The former lead investigator Richard Lambert has publicly said that the FBI is withholding a staggering amount of information that is exculpatory of Bruce Ivins. AUSA Lieber should (1) get a f—– clue about what constitutes evidence, and (2) understand that she should stand behind what she asserts by providing the underlying documents, rather than just her spin. Other people might interpret the documents she relies upon differently and point out errors in her analysis.

        The Amerithrax Summary states:

        For example, in January 2007, Dr. Ivins sent the following e-mail to Former Colleague #1:
        Now the Postal Service people are all over RIID. They talked to
        [four USAMRIID researchers], and others, and they’re going to
        talk to [another researcher] at the end of he month. What’s more is
        that all of the people above have come back and said the same
        thing – “They were asking lots of questions about you.” (“You”
        meaning me.) They asked [a researcher] about my showing him
        how to use the lyophilizer. They talked to [two researchers] about
        the fermentor that was on my hand receipt, and then disappeared
        off it.

        A few days later he added more to this original email: “The FBI are back too. Fun City. They
        talked to [a USAMRIID researcher] for a long time last week, and they talked to [one of the
        above-mentioned researchers] for over three hours.”

      • DXer said

        It seems that one of the prosecutors or FBI Agents took a straightforward approach to culling emails.

        If it involved Ivins assistant 1 or 2, or was quoted and relied upon by the FBI in the Dellefera affidavit or the Amerithrax Summary,
        it simply was not produced. This way no one would be able to point out related context and seek to undermine the FBI’s interpretation and spin.

        All of the emails on which the FBI rested its reasoning were culled from production.

        For example, do you think this June 7, 2007 discussing the reality and the perils of the investigation was produced? Nope.

        (Ivins had correctly pointed out that even failure to secure Ames from being taken and used — for example, even if a scientist did comply with the regulations implemented in late 1997 relating to transfer of pathogens — the scientist might be subject to them to a murder charge as an accessory before the fact).

        No, it was not produced by the Army or DOJ. I guess rank has its privileges.

        The Army is complicit in the wrongful withholding.

        Click to access 20070521_batch77(redacted).pdf

        The Amerithrax Summary explains:

        “On June 7, 2007, in an e-mail to a USAMRIID scientist discussing, among other things,
        the anthrax investigation, Dr. Ivins made the following barely-veiled threats:
        Do you realize that if anybody gets indicted for even the most
        remote reason with respect to the anthrax letters, something as
        simple as not locking up spore preps to restrict them from only
        people in [the] lab – they face the death penalty? Playing any part,
        even a minor part such as providing information about how to
        make spores or how to make them in broth, how to harvest and
        purify . . . that could wind up putting one or more hapless persons
        on death row. Not pleasant to think about.
        In one of your recent e-mails you said that it would all be over
        soon. If they indict someone, that means that innocent people are
        going to get dragged through the mud by both the defense and the
        prosecution as the pre-trial and trial procedures move forward.”

        Who was the scientist who told him that it would be over soon — was it the superior who told him that everything was under control?

        When he complained to the supervisor that his records might not square with what he was supposed to have, he was
        told, in so many words, to shut his trap.

        Who told Ivins on December 17, 2006 not to tell anyone about missing samples — that the FBI situation was under control — and that “justification” for missing samples could be provided if necessary?
        Posted by Lew Weinstein on October 7, 2015

        Anthrax, Al Qaeda and Ayman Zawahiri: The Infiltration of US Biodefense

      • DXer said

        Byron York: Congress seeks answers after FBI claims texts missing in Trump-Russia probe
        by Byron York | Jan 21, 2018, 9:07 PM

        “Given the amount of texting that went on between Strzok and Page, who were having an extramarital affair, that probably meant thousands of missing documents.”

        Comment: Was an extramarital affair central to Amerithrax going off the rails? Is that why the AUSA played hide-the-ball with the Ivins/Linscott emails discussing the laboratory experiments that Ivins was working on? Have hundreds of emails have gone missing because DOJ did not preserve them?

        Was Ivins targeted because he was easy to smear? Like Hatfill with his forged PhD and Berry with his forged will signature?

        Given the absence of any direct evidence, does one dollop of smear, two slices of conjecture and three pieces of innuendo serve up a sandwich that the FBI thought a grand jury would be willing to indict?

        The DOJ/FBI is about to announce that they cannot find Ivins’ missing emails. (That has been their position for the past couple years). The loss of those emails constitutes spoliation of evidence.

    • DXer said

      As yet another example of an email that the FBI is withholding — even though it relied upon it in spinning its Ivins Theory — is Bruce Ivins’ June 24, 2000 email to Mara Linscott. According to the Amerithrax Summary,

      “Similarly, on June 24, 2000, he sent an e-mail to Former Colleague #1 [Mara Linscott]:
      I talked very briefly to [Former Colleague #2 Patricia Fellows] yesterday about my
      problems, and it was a VERY hard thing to do. You two are the
      only two people I’ve told about it. I also told her that I hoped
      maybe the two of you could talk. I can see that such a request may
      be quite out of line, and I certainly don’t want to burden you or her
      with that responsibility.”

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 )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: