* Take another look at just how weak (pathetic!) the FBI case against Dr. Ivins is …

CASE CLOSED is a novel which answers the question “Why did the FBI fail to solve the 2001 anthrax case?” Here’s what readers of CASE CLOSED have to say …

“The whole Anthrax episode is unquestionably a dark moment in American history. But what makes it fascinating is how it was handled (or should I say mishandled) by the administration and the various agencies involved.

“Weinstein raises some very interesting and disturbing theories. CASE CLOSED is a great read, suspenseful and a real page turner. Please tell me it’s not true!”

Click here to buy CASE CLOSED by Lew Weinstein

******

Every once in awhile, it’s good to re-visit just how weak the FBI case against Dr.Bruce Ivins actually is.

Here are extracts from the August 2008 press conference, as reported by CNN …

******

THE SITUATION ROOM

Anthrax Attacks News Conference; Aired August 6, 2008 – 16:00   ET

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

FBI announces - August 8, 2008 - that Dr. ivins is the sole perpetrator and the case will soon be closed

QUESTION: Jeff, did you find any handwriting samples or hair samples that would have matched Dr. Ivins to the envelopes where the hair samples were found in the mailbox?

JEFFREY TAYLOR, U.S. ATTORNEY FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA:: Do you want to take that?

JOSEPH PERISCHINI JR., ASST. DIR. IN CHARGE, FBI WASHINGTON FIELD OFFICE: We did not find any handwriting analysis or hair samples in the mailbox. So there was no forensics for that part.

QUESTION: Did you take handwriting samples from Dr. Ivins?

PERISCHINI: We examined handwriting samples, but then there was no comparison made or a specification identification of the handwriting. And it appears that if the analysts would look at it, that there was an attempt to disguise the handwriting. So he was unable to make a comparison.

TAYLOR: With respect to handwriting samples, we did have indications from individuals with whom we spoke that there appeared to be some similarities in handwriting that were apparent. That said, we did not have a scientifically valid conclusion that we thought would lead us to be able to admit that in evidence.

QUESTION: Do you think there’s a connection between Ivins and what was known at the time as the Quantico letter? That was the letter sent in September of 2001 identifying an Arab-American scientist at Fort Detrick as a bioterrorist. The letter also threatened a bioterror attack, and also “Death to Israel.”

Were you ever satisfied that you were able to run down that letter and the author of that letter?

TAYLOR: Not aware of any connection. To my knowledge, there’s no evidence linking the two.

QUESTION: In your affidavits, there’s a footnote that notes — indicates you searched, you had probable cause to search “other individuals,” more than one. Can you talk about the scope of the number of people you searched that you had probable cause on?

TAYLOR: I’m not going to get into the details of other investigative techniques that were handled — that were used in this case with the other individuals. We’re here today to say, based on all that investigation, we stand here today firmly convinced that we have the person who committed those attacks, and we are confident that had this gone to trial, we would have proved him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt — Mark.

QUESTION: Can you tell us how Dr. Ivins was able to get the anthrax out of the lab and he did not get sick himself?

Also, were you able to place him at the mailboxes in Princeton?

TAYLOR: With respect to your first question about getting the anthrax out of the site, Dr. Ivins — and correct me if I’m wrong, Ken — had vaccinated himself against anthrax.

With respect to the mailbox, as I laid out before, there is ample evidence in this case pointing to Dr. Ivins as the individual who drove to Princeton to mail those letters. He had the hours in the hot suite (ph) during the relevant times. We looked at the records when he was at work and when he would have had time to drive to Princeton, New Jersey, and it’s clear from those records that he had time on the relevant occasions to drive to Princeton, mail the envelopes, and come back. There’s also evidence I’ll refer you to in the affidavits concerning where that mailbox was located in Princeton, New Jersey, in relation to some obsessive conduct on his part with regard to a sorority.

Again, it’s a chain of evidentiary items that, assembled together, leads to one reasonable conclusion, and that is Dr. Ivins mailed that anthrax in those envelopes from that mailbox in Princeton.

Yes?

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) a gas receipt or that shows he was there? I mean, actually proves that he was in that area?

TAYLOR: We don’t have that piece of direct evidence you mentioned.

QUESTION: Sir, two questions. Is there any evidence at all that Dr. Ivins, based on his knowledge of his co-worker, somehow framed or set up Dr. Hatfill?

TAYLOR: There’s no evidence to indicate anything like that.

******

* it is now 442 days since the FBI said it expected to close the anthrax case “tomorrow”

CASE CLOSED is a novel which answers the question “Why did the FBI fail to solve the 2001 anthrax case?” … click here to … buy CASE CLOSED by Lew Weinstein

Here’s what readers say about CASE CLOSED  …

“Author Lew Weinstein does a terrific job telling this fictionalized account of an inter agency post-mortem investigation of the (real) failed FBI investigation.”

“This scary scenario is as close to truth as fiction can come.”

******

it is now 442 days

since the FBI said it expected

to close the anthrax case

“tomorrow”

******

Anonymous Scientist reminds us …

FBI announces - August 8, 2008 - Dr. Bruce Ivins is the SOLE PERPETRATOR of the 2001 anthrax attacks

This old Washington Post article from August 3 2008 is quite interesting.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/02/AR2008080201632.html

• “Investigators are so confident of Ivins’s involvement that they have been debating since Friday whether and how to close the seven-year-old anthrax investigation. That would involve disbanding a grand jury in the District and unsealing scores of documents that form the basis of the government’s case against Ivins.
• Negotiations over the legal issues continue, but a government source said that the probe could be shuttered as early as tomorrow. The move would amount to a strong signal that the FBI and Justice Department think they got their man — and that he is dead, foreclosing the possibility of a prosecution. No charges are likely against others, that source added.
• Once the case is closed, the FBI and Justice Department will face questions — and possibly public hearings — from congressional oversight committees, which have been largely shut out of the case the past five years. The investigators have cited the ongoing nature of the case, as well as accusations of leaks to the media, for the information blackout to Capitol Hill.”

Hmmm – so an anonymous FBI source leaked on August 3 2008 that the case could be closed as early as “tomorrow”. That would have been August 4 2008. 442 days have passed since then – and the case is still not closed. I wonder if the “grand jury in the District” is still active? And, if so, what on earth they are hearing evidence on?

The article also uses an anonymous FBI source to state:

• “One bioweapons expert familiar with the FBI investigation said Ivins indeed possessed the skills needed to create the dust-fine powder used in the attacks. At the Army lab where he worked, Ivins specialized in making sophisticated preparations of anthrax bacteria spores for use in animal tests, said the expert, who requested anonymity because the investigation remains active.
• Ivins’s daily routine included the use of processes and equipment the anthrax terrorist likely used in making his weapons. He also is known to have had ready access to the specific strain of Bacillus anthracis used in the attack — a strain found to match samples found in Ivins’s lab, he said.
• “You could make it in a week,” the expert said. “And you could leave USAMRIID with nothing more than a couple of vials. Bear in mind, they weren’t exactly doing body searches of scientists back then.”

But others, including former colleagues and scientists with backgrounds in biological weapons defense, disagreed that Ivins could have created the anthrax powder, even if he were motivated to do so.”

I’m not surprised this was from a leaker who wanted anonymity. It has already been demonstrated in this CASE CLOSED blog that it would be impossible to make the mailed material in one week …

******

see related post … * 55 flasks of anthrax prep … now where can I hide these?

******

* What’s wrong with this equation: no witnesses + no physical evidence + no conclusive science = we’re convinced it was Dr. Ivins

why the FBI failed to solve the 2001 anthrax case

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon

* see CASE CLOSED VIDEO on YouTube

* win a free copy of CASE CLOSED (until July 6)

What’s wrong with this equation:

no witnesses + no physical evidence + no conclusive science

= we’re convinced it was Dr. Ivins

Last night’s presentation from Nova Science Now on PBS contained a segment about how researchers determined the source of the anthrax used in the 2001 anthrax attacks.

Here are two quotes from that show …

Dr. Fraser-Liggett

• Thomas Dellafera, U.S. Postal Inspector … “Every member of the task force is convinced it was Dr. Ivins.”
• Dr. Claire Fraser-Liggett, University of Maryland Medical School … “I don’t think the science will ever be able to say who the perpetrator was. The best the science can do is to lead investigators to a potential source.”

Let’s follow the logic …

• There seems to be no doubt that the FBI has no witnesses and no physical evidence to link Dr. Ivins to the anthrax attacks.
• Dr. Fraser-Liggett says the science cannot pin the crime on Dr. Ivins.
• The anthrax from flask RMR-1029 was distributed widely, to perhaps 100 to 300 different researchers.
• The FBI has never explained how all of the other labs which had RMR-1029 were excluded as suspects, nor how they are sure none of these many anthrax sources were ever lost or stolen.

With no witnesses, no physical evidence, and no science, how in the world can the FBI be convinced that Dr. Ivins was the sole perpetrator?

It makes no sense. I wrote CASE CLOSED to try to explain the inexplicable.

see the entire NOVA show at … http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/0401/02.html (thanks to DXer)

* letter to NAS with additional questions … and the NAS response received within one hour

CASE CLOSED by Lewis Weinstein

explores the FBI’s failed investigation of the 2001 anthrax case …

* see CASE CLOSED VIDEO on YouTube

* purchase CASE CLOSED (paperback)

**********

Mr. Kearney of the NAS Office of News & Public Information

responded to the questions below within one hour, as follows …

Lew, again, I’ll try to reply in general, and more specific answers may be available when project starts this summer.  I’d note that this study will be carried out no differently than any other study we do.  Yes, the names and bios of those nominated to the provisional committee will be posted in our Current Projects web site and there is a 20-day public comment period on the committee makeup.  As far as conflict of interest, here’s a link to our policyhttp://www.nationalacademies.org/coi/index.html.  The committee will be made up of members with appropriate expertise to carry out charge.  We never issue “progress reports” although we sometimes issue interim reports if those are called for in a statement of task that is approved by our governing board before the study starts; there is no interim report planned for this study.  A public report will be issued by committee.  We’ll let you know when committee gets posted and when first meeting will be as soon as that information is available.  I’ll be on travel for a bit, so my colleage Jennifer Walsh will let you know if I’m not around.  Bill.

***********

letter to NAS with additional questions

The following letter was emailed this morning to Mr. William Kearney in the NAS Office of News & Public Information, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. I want to thank all of the readers of this CASE CLOSED blog who contributed to shaping and refining the questions asked. These are all procedural questions. As I indicated in the letter, there are more questions related to the science, all of which came from readers of this blog, which will be organized and sent in a separate letter …

******

Dear Mr. Kearney,

Thank you very much for your prompt reply to my questions of June 19, 2009.

Along with many readers and contributors to my CASE CLOSED blog, I truly appreciate that the NAS has undertaken this difficult task, one which is vital to our understanding of what really happened in the anthrax attacks and in the ensuing FBI investigation. In fact, many are looking to the NAS as the chief hope for an impartial resolution of this now eight year old mass murder. Not many accept the FBI’s conclusion that Dr. Ivins was the sole perpetrator, at least not on the basis of the evidence thus far made known.

Your answers have of course generated more questions.

I want to emphasize that the skepticism expressed in these questions is not related to the NAS, which is highly respected by all, but rather to the FBI, which is generally regarded as not fully forthcoming in this whole anthrax business.

Here are the additional questions …

1. NAS-FBI contract … Has NAS ever made a contract public? Will NAS consider doing so in this case? Is NAS prohibited from doing so by the provisions of the contract?
2. Chair and Committee to perform study … Will the names and academic affiliations of the study chair and team be made public when they are appointed? Will the study team consist of a broad range of scientists from the physical sciences as well as life sciences, including chemical engineers, aerosol specialists, and analytical chemists?
3. Chair and Committee – Conflict of interest (1) … Will employment at a Battelle-managed lab constitute a disqualifying conflict of interest? Will any scientist who works for or at a lab managed by a corporation or other party that had virulent Ames be disqualified? Will any scientist who works for or at a lab managed by a corporation or other party supplied Ames by Bruce Ivins be disqualified?
4. Chair and Committee – Conflict of interest (2) … One commenter on this CASE CLOSED blog points to a gathering arranged by the FBI and CIA at a resort in Naples, Florida … in which he says 40 biodefense or emerging disease scientists were paid to work full-time for 30 days from mid-June and mid-July 2008. Participation in the conference was kept confidential … it may even have been classified “secret.” … an FBI scientist presented the FBI’s Amerithrax genetics findings at the gathering. The government personnel socialized with the gathered scientists throughout the 30-day period and one purpose of the conference was so that their assistance could be recruited on such matters. Under NAS conflict of interest policy, will scientists who participated in that conference be allowed? If so, will those scientists be required to disclose that participation so that it can be taken into account by the public?
5. Coordination with FBI … What rights, if any, does the FBI have by contract to prohibit, delay or modify specific study tasks or the publication of study findings and conclusions? Is the FBI point person specified in the contract? Doesn’t NAS know who the FBI coordinator will be, or are you prohibited from releasing that information?
6. Final Report … Will the report which is eventually released to the public be the complete report? Does the contract with the FBI allow them or anyone else to limit which portions of the report can be made public? Will all supporting findings be made public in addition to the conclusions based on those findings?
7. Progress Reports … Has NAS issued progress reports in other studies? Is the absence of a progress report in this study the result of a specific provision of this contract with the FBI?
8. Questions from the public … Will the study team be made available to answer the public’s and the media’s questions? Is the policy regarding public and media interaction in this study consistent with NAS policy in other studies or is it the result of specific provisions/restrictions in the contract for this study? Will NAS encourage agencies from whom it receives information to upload and make available to the public all relevant FOIA eligible documents of which NAS has become aware? Will NAS identify such relevant FOIA eligible documents, whether uploaded or not, as soon as it becomes aware of them?

Many other questions were proposed by readers and contributors to the CASE CLOSED blog. These additional questions are of a scientific rather than procedural nature. It will take longer to sort through the very substantial material submitted to the blog in the past several days and to summarize specific questions for the NAS from this material, but I will communicate again with you when this has been done.

Yours very truly,

Lewis M. Weinstein

* Senator Grassley pushes for FBI answers to questions about its anthrax investigation asked in September 2008; FBI Director Mueller says the questions have been answered and sent to the DOJ

Lew’s new novel CASE CLOSED

explores the FBI’s failed investigation of the 2001 anthrax case …

* see CASE CLOSED VIDEO on YouTube

* purchase CASE CLOSED (paperback)

***

Senator Grassley pushes for answers

***

June 17, 2009 … Senator Chuck Grassley, in a written statement prepared for the Senate Judiciary Committee oversight hearing of the Department of Justice, questioned Attorney General Eric Holder, and warned the department that “until we start getting some answers to these outstanding requests, I’m noticing my intention to hold certain Justice Department nominees.” Grassley said he has had letters go unanswered and questions for the record from hearings a year ago have yet to be answered.

Extracts from Senator Grassley’s statement are presented here (the entire statement is below) …

• During the last three oversight hearings—with the department and FBI—I’ve started off my questions with a
  

  Senator Grassley

  request for an explanation as to why I have not received answers to QFRs from both the FBI and the department.

• I asked FBI Director Mueller at the March FBI Oversight hearing why the FBI has questions outstanding from the March 2008 and September 2008 hearings.
• Director Mueller stated that the FBI had answered the questions and provided them to the department for approval.
• He added that those responses were forwarded by the FBI to the department by December of 2008, some as early as June 2008.
• I find this unacceptable and contrary to the repeated promises from nominees from the department to provide answers to Congress in a timely fashion.
• Mr. Attorney General, at your confirmation hearing in January, you stated that you would “try to do all that we can, to make sure that we respond fully.  And in a timely fashion…”
• You also asked for time to “check on the internal workings of the department to make sure that we’re doing it as quickly as we can.  And if we’re not, if I can’t give it to you, at least I can give you an explanation.”
• Well it has now been five months since you’ve been confirmed, so I want to hear an explanation to why these answers are outstanding.

Here are the 18 questions asked in Senator Grassley’s September 2008 letter to FBI Director Mueller …

1. What is the date (month and year) that the FBI determined that the anthrax came from a specified flask in Ivins’s
   

   FBI Director Mueller

   lab (”RMR-1029″)?

2. When (month and year) did the FBI determine that Dr. Hatfill never had access to the anthrax used in the killings?
3. How did the FBI determine that Dr. Hatfill did not have access to the anthrax used in the killings?  Was that because the FBI determined that Dr. Hatfill no longer worked at USAMRIID when the powder was made?
4. Was Dr. Hatfill or his counsel informed that Dr. Hatfill had been cleared of any involvement in the anthrax killings before the Department of Justice offered a settlement to him?  Was he informed before signing the settlement agreement with him?  If not, please explain why not.
5. Was Judge Walton (the judge overseeing the Privacy Act litigation) ever informed that Dr. Hatfill had been eliminated as a suspect in the anthrax killings?  If so, when.  If not, please explain why not.
6. Was Dr. Ivins ever polygraphed in the course of the investigation?  If so, please provide the dates and results of the exam(s).  If not, please explain why not.
7. Of the more than 100 people who had access to RMR 1029, how many were provided custody of samples sent outside Ft. Detrick?  Of those, how many samples were provided to foreign laboratories?
8. If those with access to samples of RMR 1029 in places other than Ft. Detrick had used the sample to produce additional quantities of anthrax, would that anthrax appear distinguishable from RMR 1029?
9. How can the FBI be sure that none of the samples sent to other labs were used to create additional quantities of anthrax that would appear distinguishable from RMR 1029?
10. Please describe the methodology and results of any oxygen isotope measurements taken to determine the source of water used to grow the spores used in the anthrax attacks.
11. Was there video equipment which would record the activities of Dr. Ivins at Ft. Detrick on the late nights he was there on the dates surrounding the mailings?  If so, please describe what examination of the video revealed.
12. When did the FBI first learn of Dr. Ivins’ late-night activity in the lab around the time of the attacks?  If this is powerful circumstantial evidence of his guilt, then why did this information not lead the FBI to focus attention on him, rather than Dr. Hatfill, much sooner in the investigation?
13. When did the FBI first learn that Dr. Ivins was prescribed medications for various symptoms of mental illness?  If this is circumstantial evidence of his guilt, then why did this information not lead the FBI to focus attention on him, rather than Dr. Hatfill, much sooner in the investigation? Of the 100 individuals who had access to RMR 1029, were any others found to suffer from mental illness, be under the care of a mental health professional, or prescribed anti-depressant/anti-psychotic medications?   If so, how many?
14. What role did the FBI play in conducting and updating the background examination of Dr. Ivins in order for him to have clearance and work with deadly pathogens at Ft. Detrick?
15. After the FBI identified Dr. Ivins as the sole suspect, why was he not detained?  Did the U.S. Attorney’s Office object to seeking an arrest or material witness warrant?  If not, did anyone at FBI order a slower approach to arresting Ivins?
16. Had an indictment of Dr. Ivins been drafted before his death?  If so, what additional information did it contain beyond the affidavits already released to the public?  If not, then when, if ever, had a decision been made to seek an indictment from the grand jury?
17. According to family members, FBI agents publicly confronted and accused Dr. Ivins of the attacks, showed pictures of the victims to his daughter, and offered the $2.5 million reward to his son in the months leading up to his suicide.  These aggressive, overt surveillance techniques appear similar to those used on Dr. Hatfill with the apparent purpose of intimidation rather than legitimate investigation.  Please describe whether and to what degree there is any truth to these claims.
18. What additional documents will be released, if any, and when will they be released?

Related Post …

* Who will lift the veil of secrecy

regarding the FBI investigation

of the 2001 anthrax attacks?

Here is the complete text of Grassley’s June 17, 2009 statement …

Prepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley

Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Oversight hearing on the U.S. Department of Justice

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Chairman Leahy, thank you for calling this hearing today on oversight of the Department of Justice.  I appreciate you holding these oversight hearings to keep an open dialogue between the department and the committee.  I also appreciate Attorney General Holder appearing today.  Everyone on the committee knows that oversight is important to me and I’ve repeatedly asked tough questions of the department, regardless of who’s sitting in the White House.  While my duties as the Ranking Member of the Finance Committee will keep me away from today’s hearing, I will submit this prepared statement and some questions for the record (QFRs) for Attorney General Holder.

First, I am requesting information from Attorney General Holder about the role the acting U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California—and the department—had in referring allegations of misconduct by Inspector General Gerald Walpin, the Inspector General for the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), to the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE).  Specifically, I want to know whether department regulations require a U.S. Attorney to obtain prior approval of any allegations of misconduct by non-department government officials prior to a referral for investigation or sanction.  If there are regulations, I want to know if they were followed in this instance by the acting-U.S. Attorney and who at the department knew of and who approved the allegations of misconduct prior to the referral.

I also want to ask the Attorney General about a letter I sent him about the department’s implementation of recommendations issued by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) earlier this year in a report about cooperation between the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).  The GAO report made specific recommendations for both agencies, including: (1) DOJ and DHS rework existing memorandums of understanding (MOUs) to clarify their jurisdiction in counternarcotics investigations (2) DOJ and DHS develop a more efficient cross-designation procedure for counternarcotics agents, and (3) increase ICE participation at DOJ run fusion centers.

As GAO noted, these “long-standing jurisdictional disputes have led to conflicts between DEA and ICE, with the potential for duplicating investigative efforts and compromising officer safety.”  It is my understanding the departments are close to an agreement, but that it is not yet finalized.  If and when that agreement is complete, I expect all the recommendations GAO made to be fully implemented.  Failure to implement all of these recommendations increases the risk to federal law enforcement agents and our ability to combat the flow of illegal narcotics.  I want to see leadership from Attorney General Holder and Secretary Napolitano to fix this problem immediately.

Finally, I want to point out my serious concerns with the department’s continued failure to respond in a prompt manner to letters and other inquiries from members of the Judiciary Committee.

During the last three oversight hearings—with the department and FBI—I’ve started off my questions with a request for an explanation as to why I have not received answers to QFRs from both the FBI and the department.  I asked FBI Director Mueller at the March FBI Oversight hearing why the FBI has questions outstanding from the March 2008 and September 2008 hearings.  Director Mueller stated that the FBI had answered the questions and provided them to the department for approval.  He added that those responses were forwarded by the FBI to the department by December of 2008, some as early as June 2008.  It has now been well over a year since those first QFRs were sent to the department by the FBI.

I also have a number of letters that have gone unanswered by the department.  I say unanswered because I’ve received a response to some of the letters and believe they fail to answer the questions asked.  In fact, I presented a full binder of outstanding letters and document requests I’ve made to the department and its subordinate agencies to Mr. Holder when he was making the rounds during his nomination.  I told Mr. Holder that he may want to clean up these outstanding requests from by the last administration so the new administration could start fresh.  So far, the responses I’ve received to those letters are insufficient and in some cases fail to answer the questions.

I find this unacceptable and contrary to the repeated promises from nominees from the department to provide answers to Congress in a timely fashion.  For example, Mr. Attorney General at your confirmation hearing in January, you stated that you would “try to do all that we can, to make sure that we respond fully.  And in a timely fashion…”  You also asked for time to “check on the internal workings of the department to make sure that we’re doing it as quickly as we can.  And if we’re not, if I can’t give it to you, at least I can give you an explanation.”  We’ll it has now been five months since you’ve been confirmed, so I want to hear an explanation to why these answers are outstanding.

I also questioned Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legislative Affairs, Ron Weich, about responding to congressional inquiries.  I asked Mr. Weich for his commitment to timely, responsive, and complete answers.  He stated that if he was confirmed he looked forward to responding to requests in a timely fashion.  Well, we confirmed Mr. Weich and it still seems to be business as usual at the department.

I’m tired of hearing nominees say one thing and do another.  At the March FBI Oversight hearing, the Chairman stepped out for a minute and I asked his staff to take note of something I’ve learned over the years.  I’ve learned that holding up nominees for an executive branch agency is an effective tool to get answers.  I don’t take the decision to hold up nominees lightly.  That said, I believe it’s time that the department got down to business and answered our questions.  So, until we start getting some answers to these outstanding requests, I’m noticing my intention to hold certain Justice Department nominees.  I’ll make sure my holds are open and transparent so that the department knows what they need to produce before I release the nominee.  Hopefully, this will get the attention of the Attorney General and the rows of Justice Department staffers sitting behind him.

I hope the Attorney General will provide answers to these important questions and work to provide the committee with the outstanding document and information requests I have.

* Ike Solem & Ed Lake argue about 6 questions the FBI either has or has not answered

Lew’s new novel CASE CLOSED

explores the FBI’s failed investigation of the 2001 anthrax case …

* see CASE CLOSED VIDEO on YouTube

* purchase CASE CLOSED (paperback)

IKE SOLEM comments …

Six Anthrax Science Questions the FBI Has Yet to Answer

1. What were the four mutations the FBI says it used to link the anthrax in the envelopes to Bruce Ivins at USAMRIID?
2. What are the odds of a false positive—that is, the odds that the spore populations in Ivins’s flask RMR-1029 and in the envelopes weren’t related but shared the same four mutations by chance?
3. Eight samples had anthrax with all four mutations; one of those came from a lab other than USAMRIID. On what basis was this lab ruled out as the origin of the letters?
4. How did the FBI rule out the possibility that others at USAMRIID with access to Ivins’s lab prepared the envelopes?
5. How exactly did Ivins, if he was the perpetrator, produce an easily dispersible powder from his anthrax culture?
6. What led the FBI to suspect Steven Hatfill in the earlier years of the investigation?

ED LAKE responds …

Almost all of the answers to your questions have been known for a long time.

1. There were “well over a dozen” mutations in the attack anthrax.  Experts selected the four that were most stable and which would be most easy to detect in other samples.  Those four were used to go through the 1,070+ samples to find samples that included those mutations.  Ed: the FBI needs to identify the 4 mutations.
2. Since mutations are basically random and occur very rarely (about once in a billion generations), the odds of the same four mutations showing up in a sample by pure chance is virtually non-existent.  It would be many trillions to one. Ed: what scientist calculated these odds?
3. Presumably, they used the other mutations in the attack anthrax to determine the exact source.  It’s like using race to reduce the number of possible fathers in a paternity suit, and when you’ve reduced the number down that way, you then use other DNA factors to find the exact father.  If they didn’t do it that way, it was done with standard police procedures. Ed: not “presumably” … the FBI needs to say what it actually did.
4. The same way that you reduce the number of suspects in any murder case: You check alibis, motivation, capabilities, etc.  Ed: this answer doesn’t cut it. The FBI needs to say how they ruled out others.
5. He routinely made purified spores.  So, that wasn’t a problem.  The only thing he did that is not normally done is to dry the spores.  And there are many ways to do that.  The spores will dry all by themselves if you don’t take precautions to prevent it. Ed: this is your opinion. The FBI needs to say what they think and the basis for their conclusions.
6. Dr. Hatfill was never a “suspect.”  A number of scientists acting as amateur detectives and led by Dr. Barbara Hatch Rosenberg decided that Dr. Hatfill was the most likely person to have sent the anthrax letters.  They campaigned for SEVEN MONTHS to get Dr. Hatfill publicly investigated.  The New York Times joined in on the campaign, and so did a few other media outlets.  The campaign included speeches at universities and at conferences, and persuading people to call their congressmen.  Eventually, after SEVEN MONTHS of campaigning, Dr. Rosenberg was called before some senate staffers who listened to her arguments, and then those staffers virtually demanded that the FBI investigate Dr. Hatfill.  About a week later, Dr. Hatfill’s apartment was publicly searched for the first time – making him a household name. Ed: Dr. Hatfill was named a “person of interest” by Attorney General Ashcroft and hounded by the FBI for years before they paid him $5.8 million to go away. The FBI are big boys who are rarely known to respond to public, media or even Congressional pressure. It isn’t logical to blame the FBI’s actions regarding Dr. Hatfill on Dr. Rosenberg.

* President Obama was well aware, in August 2008, that the FBI had failed to solve the anthrax case; did he change his mind less than a month later, when the FBI announced that Dr. Bruce Ivins was the sole perpetrator?

President Obama (on July 16, 2008, during the presidential campaign), mentioned that the FBI had still failed to solve the 2001 anthrax attacks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f84sfDJgfNM

the mention begins about 9 min 20 seconds into the speech

LMW COMMENT … It would be fascinating to know if President Obama’s views changed with the FBI announcement less than one month later, in August 2008, that Dr. Bruce Ivins was the sole perpetrator of the anthrax attacks, or if he shares the skepticism which has been robustly expressed on this blog and elsewhere. The FBI had stubbornly refused to brief the U.S. Senate when Obama was a Senator. Since becoming President, has he asked the FBI for the whole story, and if so, what have they told him?

NOTE: this YouTube video was found through … http://labs.google.com/gaudi … a really powerful tool which actually spots the reference to the second.

* FBI Director Mueller Not Forthcoming (Meryl Nass, M.D., Sept 2008)

I’d like to refer readers of this blog to a 9-16-08 post by Meryl Nass, M.D., on her blog at http://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/

What Dr. Nass reports continues to be very relevant today in view of the continuing (apparent) failure of the FBI to answer questions posed by Senator Grassley, also in September 2008.

Extracts from Dr. Nass’s blog follow  …

• Eleven or twelve members attended the House Judiciary Committee’s FBI oversight hearing today.
• Repeatedly, they expressed disappointment with the FBI’s continuing failure to answer their questions, and to respond to written questions.
• (FBI Director) Mueller spoke in generalities, failing to answer specific questions.
• Only Rep. Nadler asked about anthrax, and to his credit inquired pointedly about the Silicon signature and weaponization. Mueller had no answers.
• It’s FBI’s investigation that is unsatisfactory in every way, requiring an independent appraisal.
• Don’t be fooled by an expensive and time-consuming NAS smokescreen.

read the entire post at … http://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2008/09/fbi-director-mueller-not-forthcoming.html

also see … * the (apparent) refusal of the FBI to answer Sen. Grassley’s September 2008 questions raises further suspicions of a continuing FBI cover-up of its failed anthrax investigation

* Jeffrey Taylor, prosecutor in anthrax case, resigns

 AP reports (5-28-09) …                                                                                                                   

• Washington U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor, a holdover from the Bush administration, will leave the Justice Department on Friday. 
• He will join the auditing firm Ernst & Young, where he will lead their fraud investigation practice.
• The Justice Department declared that Army scientist Bruce Ivins was responsible for the anthrax mailings that killed five people in 2001. 
• Ivins killed himself before he could be indicted.
• Taylor previously served as counselor to Attorney Generals John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales.
• Taylor took the top job in Washington on an interim basis in 2006 

 

 

 

read the entire article at …  http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i6Aan9jetkMwlfB1qQepYQDUWqxQD98FB8480

* Keith Olbermann: anthrax, silicon, Iraq … government scientist conveniently changes his mind

 

Keith Olbermann

Keith Olbermann on Countdown …watch the Olbermann video at … http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP60

GOVERNMENT CLEARLY NOT FORTHCOMING ABOUT ANTHRAX INVESTIGATION

LMW COMMENT …

The original government position was that silicon was added to the anthrax by the person who prepared the powder for mailing.

SInce Iraq was one of 3 countries with that capability (the U.S. and Russia are the others), the silicon addition allowed suspicion to fall on Iraq and add another plank in the case for invading Iraq in the Bush/Cheney war of choice. See Colin Powell at the U.N. waving a vial of anthrax and warning that Iraq had bioweapons and the ability to deliver them to the eastern shores of the U.S.

Now, however, Dr. Bruce Ivins has been identified by the FBI as the sole perpetrator, and there seems to be a concensus that Ivins did not have the capability or wherewithall to add silicon.

OOPS!

Suddenly, the government scientist has changed his view. How convenient.

DkbpCTo