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

Archive for the ‘* NAS review of FBI science’ Category

* FBI slides – D. Christian Hassell – Scientific Approaches to the 2001 Anthrax Letters Investigation

Posted by DXer on February 1, 2010

CASE CLOSED is a novel which answers the question … Why did the FBI fail to solve the 2001 anthrax case?

Here’s what readers say about CASE CLOSED …

“CASE CLOSED takes headline events and weaves a credible scenario around the anthrax scare and government departments working under the radar.”

“Lew Weinstein is a meticulous researcher and a determined storyteller. CASE CLOSED  will keep you up at night — reading, then worrying.”

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

.

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *

.

******

Scientific Approaches to the 2001 Anthrax Letters Investigation

D. Christian Hassell, PhD

FBI Laboratory

30 July 2009

National Academy of Sciences

*****

click here >>>

Hassell Slides – July 2009 – NAS

Dr. David Christian (Chris) Hassell ... FBI Laboratory Director

NOTE: Slide 14 is particularly interesting when read in context with:

Differentiation of Spores of Bacillus subtilis Grown in Different Media by Elemental Characterization Using Time-of-Flight Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry … John B. Cliff, Kristin H. Jarman, Nancy B. Valentine, Steven L. Golledge, Daniel J. Gaspar, David S. Wunschel, and Karen L. Wahl

Applied and Environmental Microbiology, November 2005, p. 6524-6530, Vol. 71, No. 11

http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/full/71/11/6524?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=subtilis&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=630&resourcetype=HWFIG

******

(slides courtesy of Anonymous Scientist)

******

Advertisements

Posted in * NAS review of FBI science | Tagged: , , , , , , | 14 Comments »

* NAS continues to participate in the FBI’s stonewalling efforts to keep the truth about the 2001 anthrax attacks away from public scrutiny

Posted by DXer on January 15, 2010

On December 8, 2009, I wrote to NAS spokesperson Willian Kearney as follows …

BILL … It is utterly incredible to me, and very disappointing, that you, and thus the NAS, have simply ignored the questions I have asked regarding the FBI-submitted information. If you have reasons for not releasing information, why not state them? Do you have any intention of ever responding, even if only to tell me that in your judgment my questions are inappropriate? … LEW

This was in followup to questions posed in prior emails …

  • Could you please provide an update on current NAS intentions by answering the following questions …
  • Does NAS still plan to withhold some or all FBI-submitted documents until the end of the study?
  • If so, will NAS provide a list of withheld FBI-submitted documents?
  • If NAS is planning to withhold some or all FBI-submitted documents until the end of the study but release them at that time, what legal authority does NAS cite for doing so?
  • Will NAS provide a list of any FBI-submitted documents which NAS is intending to permanently restrict from access, indicating in each case the specific exemption which is being cited to justify that action?

To date, there has been no response to my December 8 email. NAS has apparently decided to participate in the FBI’s stonewalling efforts to keep the truth about the 2001 anthrax attacks away from public scrutiny, regardless of the laws regarding disclosure of information.

******

CASE CLOSED is a novel which answers the question … Why did the FBI fail to solve the 2001 anthrax case?

Here’s an early discussion by the (fictional) DIA team investigation the FBI anthrax investigation …

“Let’s start with the assumption the Bureau is not dumb,” Sowickey began. “So that can’t be the excuse for the lamebrain way they conducted this supposedly high priority investigation. Nor can it explain the way they failed to establish links between pieces of information they clearly had. Nor why they hinted for years that Farmer was the perp and then gave him $5.8 mil to go away. There was, by the way, even less evidence implicating Dr. Farmer than there was on Dr. Ingram, which is close to nothing. After seven years.”

Click here to …  buy CASE CLOSED by Lew Weinstein

******

Posted in * FBI refusal to testify, * NAS review of FBI science, * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 21 Comments »

* it’s well past time for the Congress and President Obama to insist that the FBI tell the truth about the 2001 anthrax attacks

Posted by DXer on January 6, 2010

CASE CLOSED is a novel which answers the question … Why did the FBI fail to solve the 2001 anthrax case? Here’s an early discussion by the (fictional) DIA team investigating the FBI anthrax investigation …

“Let’s start with the assumption the Bureau is not dumb,” Sowickey began. “So that can’t be the excuse for the lamebrain way they conducted this supposedly high priority investigation. Nor can it explain the way they failed to establish links between pieces of information they clearly had. Nor why they hinted for years that Farmer was the perp and then gave him $5.8 mil to go away. There was, by the way, even less evidence implicating Dr. Farmer than there was on Dr. Ingram, which is close to nothing … after seven years.”

Click here to buy CASE CLOSED by Lew Weinstein

in paperback or kindle

******

it’s well past time for the Congress and President Obama

to insist that the FBI tell the truth

about the 2001 anthrax attacks

******

DXer comments …

FBI Director Mueller

  • Didn’t FBI Director Mueller’s well-intentioned order compartmentalizing the Task Force not merely prevent the “connecting the dots” but also exercising such personal responsibility?
  • An early internal FBI memo talked about how only creative and self-starting investigators should be assigned to Amerithrax.  But lead Investigator Lambert appears to have been right in objecting in a written memo to Director Mueller’s order of compartmentalization.
  • Director Mueller strikes me as a stand-up and very smart guy who, despite his numerous and overwhelming responsibilities, will do all he can to reach a successful and correct Amerithrax resolution — despite the obstacles.   He no doubt understands that dozens of scientists, attorneys, intelligence analysts, and prosecutors have cast serious skepticism about the FBI’s characterization of its evidence against Dr. Ivins.  The validation of the science by the NAS is an irrelevant sideshow given the nature of the gaps in the evidence presented thus far by the FBI.
  • Their characterization of the proof of Ivins’ guilt profoundly undermined the public’s confidence.  It is as if the investigators and officials were motivated by a fear of being sued for Dr. Ivins’ death.
  • There is something worse than being sued. That’s getting the Crime of the Century wrong — when a threatened aerosol attack of a major city using anthrax may be at stake.

Anonymous Scientist comments …

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

  • I think the situation for the FBI/DOJ is very complex. They were clearly hoping that the Taylor/Persichini presentation of August 2008 was not going to met with such skepticism from elected officials, scientists, the media and the public.
  • Since August 2009, their position has gotten worse – there is even more skepticism as the details of the science are looked at deeply – the impossibility of one person making the spores, one person creating the powder, presence of silicon etc.
  • If it were not for the huge skepticism, unusually bipartisan with high-profile senators even openly accusing the FBI of a cover-up, the case would likely have been closed last year.
  • But it wasn’t. It’s very interesting that the two likely main architects of the “Ivins dead-man” resolution to Amerithrax are the DOJ’s Jeffrey Taylor and the FBI’s Washington DC head Joseph Persichini. These guys seem to be at the heart of the joint DOJ/FBI decision to accuse Ivins. They staked their reputations on it – and you would think they would have been keen to formally close the case. Clearly something happened to ensure that the case was not closed in a timely manner (of course we’ve heard the usual feeble excuses like “tying up loose ends” etc. – but clearly something major happened.
  • Taylor resigned in May of last year – about 2 months before the supposed July 24 2009 date for closing the case (which never happened). Persichini was removed from his position has FBI DC head in December 2009 (purportedly for cheating at an exam).
  • Thus the two architects of the “Ivins dead man” resolution are no longer there. So what will happen now with closing the case? Will Taylor and Persichini’s replacements embrace the “Ivins dead man” resolution? How could anybody in good conscience buy into this?
  • More importantly, what does Mueller do? Let’s start with the premise that if the DOJ/FBI are forced to change their minds that Ivins did it alone – that Mueller could not survive and would have to resign. Surely there could be no other path left for Mueller if that turns out to be the case.
  • With this premise in mind, Mueller’s future tenure may be at stake on the entire Amerithrax resolution. Will Mueller gamble that some new narrative that Ivins acted alone be bought by the same senators, scientists, media and public that are today so skeptical. Or will he feel this is too much of a gamble and would only make him and the FBI look worse if they try it?
  • On the other hand if the FBI change their mind about Ivins acting alone – isn’t that still enough to force Mueller to resign?
  • Is the above the reason why nothing is happening?
  • Because any outcome has a bad ending?

LMW COMMENT …

Either the FBI

  • has in fact solved the 2001 anthrax case and is covering up the real perpetrators by putting forth its pathetic “Ivins did it all” theory,
  • or they didn’t solve the case and are using the “Ivins did it all” theory to cover their own failure.

Which is worse?

And isn’t it well past time for the Congress and President Obama to insist that the FBI tell the American people the truth?

******


Posted in * FBI refusal to testify, * NAS review of FBI science, * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , , | 76 Comments »

* an open email to Dr. Ralph Cicerone, President, National Academy of Sciences

Posted by DXer on December 10, 2009

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

“CASE CLOSED is entirely too plausible and is probably just te tip of the iceberg on what else was covered up.”

“Fiction?? Maybe?? But I don’t think so!! More likely an excellent interpretation of what may have really happened.”

Click here to buy CASE CLOSED by Lew Weinstein

******

An open email

to Dr. Ralph Cicerone, President

National Academy of Sciences

******

Dear Dr. Cicerone,

I am the author of CASE CLOSED, a novel dealing with the FBI’s failure to solve the 2001 anthrax case, and also the host of a very active blog on the same topic.

For some months now, I have been attempting to understand the NAS failure to comply with the law or offer any lawful reason for its failure to comply with the FOIA requirement to disclose documents received by the NAS from the FBI in conjunction with its review of the FBI’s anthrax science.

Please see …  https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/nas-continues-to-stonewall-will-not-provide-fbi-submitted-documents-nor-state-reasons-for-not-providing/

… for my specific questions and the non-answers provided by Mr. William Kearney of the NAS.

I think the NAS is doing itself a serious disservice in this matter, and is tarnishing its otherwise superb reputation as a result.

You are creating the impression that you are complicit with the FBI in illegally keeping from the public information about the horrendous 2001 bioterrorist attack which resulted in 5 deaths and which directly targeted members of the U.S. Senate.

You are also undermining and embarrassing what I have no reason to believe is anything but a sincere and honest effort on the part of those prominent scientists who have volunteered to be part of the NAS panel.

I hope you will take this matter under review and reverse whoever has made this so far unfortunate decision. I look forward to hearing from you shortly as to what action you have decided to take.

Lewis Weinstein

see related posts …

* does the NAS/FBI contract support the sequestering of FBI-submitted documents until the end of the NAS study?

* here is the complete NAS/FBI contract for review of FBI anthrax science

******

Posted in * NAS review of FBI science | Tagged: , , , , , | 22 Comments »

* NAS continues to stonewall, will not provide FBI-submitted documents nor state reasons for not providing

Posted by DXer on December 10, 2009

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

“CASE CLOSED is entirely too plausible and is probably just te tip of the iceberg on what else was covered up.”

“Fiction?? Maybe?? But I don’t think so!! More likely an excellent interpretation of what may have really happened.”

Click here to buy CASE CLOSED by Lew Weinstein

******

Lew’s Correspondence with NAS

10/30/09

12/8/09

12/9/09

******

Lew to NAS Oct 30, 2009 …

I have been asking you for the past two months to provide legal authority for the decision to sequester and withhold FBI-submitted documents until the end of the study. You have indicated twice that you had referred the matter to NAS counsel.

Now we have the NAS/FBI contract document, which provides no legal justification for withholding the FBI-submitted documents until the end of the study or for failing to provide the specific exemptions for any documents NAS is currently withholding.

Could you please provide an update on current NAS intentions by answering the following questions …

Temporarily withholding FBI-submitted documents until the end of the study.

  • Does NAS still plan to withhold some or all FBI-submitted documents until the end of the study?
  • If so, will NAS provide a list of withheld FBI-submitted documents?
  • If NAS is planning to withhold some or all FBI-submitted documents until the end of the study but release them at that time, what legal authority does NAS cite for doing so?

Permanently withholding access to FBI-submitted documents.

  • Will NAS provide a list of any FBI-submitted documents which NAS is intending to permanently restrict from access, indicating in each case the specific exemption which is being cited to justify that action?

Thanks for your assistance in this matter.

Lew to NAS Dec 8, 2009 …

It is utterly incredible to me, and very disappointing, that you, and thus the NAS, have simply ignored the questions I have asked regarding the FBI-submitted information.  If you have reasons for not releasing information, why not state them?  Do you have any intention of ever responding, even if only to tell me that in your judgment my questions are inappropriate?

NAS to Lew Dec 9, 2009 …

per earlier statement, the material is exempt from mandatory public release under the Freedom of Information Act, but we have agreement with FBI to make it public when our report is released: The study committee expects to receive thousands of pages of material from the F.B.I. in the course of its study. Some has already been received; more will be coming as the study progresses. Much of this material is exempt from mandatory release to the public under the Freedom of Information Act. However, we have an agreement with the F.B.I. that all of the material will be made available to the public at the same time that our report is released, so that everyone will be able to review the information that was available to the committee in reaching its conclusions.

LMW COMMENT …

NAS continues to avoid stating the specific FOIA exemption, and does not state any basis for withholding information until the end of the study.

Posted in * NAS review of FBI science | Tagged: , , , , | 8 Comments »

* NAS has still not provided any legal justification for its decision to withhold and sequester FBI-submitted documents related to the NAS review of the FBI’s anthrax science

Posted by DXer on October 30, 2009

CASE CLOSEDCASE 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  …

“CASE CLOSED is a must read for anyone who wondered … what really happened? … Who did it? … why?” … and finally, why didn’t they tell us the truth?”

“Fiction?? Maybe?? But I don’t think so!! More likely an excellent interpretation of what may have really happened.”

******

NAS has still not provided any legal justification

for its decision to withhold and sequester

FBI-submitted documents related to

the NAS review of the FBI’s anthrax science

******

LMW 10/30/09 email to the Deputy Executive Director &
Director of Media Relations, Office of News & Public Information
National Academy of Sciences

On September 4, 2009, you emailed me as follows …

“Lew, the NAS is a nonprofit private institution that operates under a congressional charter and the Section 15 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act which requires that material presented to our committees as part of their data gathering go in our Public Access Office files. Some material given to the anthrax committee is already in that file and I’ll ask someone from public access to send you link to list. However, the FBI case documents periodically being given to the committee will not go in the public access file until the end of the study.”

I have been asking you for the past two months to provide legal authority for the decision to sequester and withhold FBI-submitted documents until the end of the study. You have indicated twice that you had referred the matter to NAS counsel.

Now we have the NAS/FBI contract document, which provides no legal justification for withholding the FBI-submitted documents until the end of the study or for failing to provide the specific exemptions for any documents NAS is currently withholding.

Could you please provide an update on current NAS intentions by answering the following questions …

Temporarily withholding FBI-submitted documents until the end of the study.

  • Does NAS still plan to withhold some or all FBI-submitted documents until the end of the study?
  • If so, will NAS provide a list of withheld FBI-submitted documents?
  • If NAS is planning to withhold some or all FBI-submitted documents until the end of the study but release them at that time, what legal authority does NAS cite for doing so?

Permanently withholding access to FBI-submitted documents.

  • Will NAS provide a list of any FBI-submitted documents which NAS is intending to permanently restrict from access, indicating in each case the specific exemption which is being cited to justify that action?

Thanks for your assistance in this matter.

LEW

******

Posted in * NAS review of FBI science, * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »

* does the NAS/FBI contract support the sequestering of FBI-submitted documents until the end of the NAS study?

Posted by DXer on October 30, 2009

CASE CLOSEDCASE 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  …

“CASE CLOSED is a must read for anyone who wondered … what really happened? … Who did it? … why?” … and finally, why didn’t they tell us the truth?”

“Fiction?? Maybe?? But I don’t think so!! More likely an excellent interpretation of what may have really happened.”

.

******

does the NAS/FBI contract

support the sequestering of FBI-submitted documents

until the end of the NAS study?

******

NAS-FBI contract extracts - FOIA disclosure

LMW COMMENTS …

The NAS/FBI contract refers to possible exemptions from FOIA disclosure requirements and states that the FBI “will mark any information provided to the Contractor (NAS) as exempt from FOIA and list one of the exemptions.”

The NAS/FBI contract also provides that “if a request for information … is requested under FOIA” the Government (???) “shall have the right to disclose any information” … “to the extent provided under the FOIA, notwithstanding any restrictive legends that may have been placed upon it in accordance with the FBI Central Record System.”

The term “Government” is not defined in the contract. The NAS is referred to as “Contractor” and the FBI is referred to as “FBI.”

The above cites are the only references to FOIA which I found in the NAS/FBI contract.

There is no reference in the NAS/FBI contract to withholding information until the end of the NAS study.

There is no reference in the NAS/FBI contract to withholding information without specific listing of a FOIA exemption.

******

Posted in * NAS review of FBI science, * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , , , , | 9 Comments »

* does the NAS/FBI contract permit the NAS to draw conclusions regarding the guilt or innocence of Dr. Bruce Ivins?

Posted by DXer on October 30, 2009

CASE CLOSEDCASE 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  …

“CASE CLOSED is a must read for anyone who wondered … what really happened? … Who did it? … why?” … and finally, why didn’t they tell us the truth?”

“Fiction?? Maybe?? But I don’t think so!! More likely an excellent interpretation of what may have really happened.”

******

Extracts from NAS/FBI contract

regarding issue of guilt or innocence

******

NAS-FBI contract extracts - guilt or innocence

LMW COMMENTS …

The NAS/FBI contract asks the NAS to determine whether “the FBI reached appropriate scientific conclusions” from use of various scientific approaches.

The NAS/FBI contract also says the NAS will not undertake “an assessment of the probative value of the scientific evidence” and will “offer no view on the guilt or innocence of any person(s).”

These two clauses from the NAS/FBI contract seem to be inconsistent.

Since the FBI bases its case against Dr. Ivins on the fact that he, and only he, derived the attack anthrax from Flask RMR-1029, if the NAS ultimately concludes that the scientific evidence does not lead to that conclusion, and that the scientific evidence only identifies the beaker and not the perpetrator, would that not be a conclusion regarding the provable guilt or innocence of Dr. Ivins?

******

Posted in * NAS review of FBI science, * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

* here is the complete NAS/FBI contract for review of FBI anthrax science

Posted by DXer on October 30, 2009

CASE CLOSEDCASE 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  …

“CASE CLOSED is a must read for anyone who wondered … what really happened? … Who did it? … why?” … and finally, why didn’t they tell us the truth?”

“Fiction?? Maybe?? But I don’t think so!! More likely an excellent interpretation of what may have really happened.”

.

******

NAS/FBI contract for review of FBI anthrax science

******


NAS-FBI contract01 copy……….

NAS-FBI contract02

…………

NAS-FBI contract03

………….

NAS-FBI contract04

………….

NAS-FBI contract05

……………

NAS-FBI contract06

…………….

NAS-FBI contract07

………………

NAS-FBI contract08

……………..

NAS-FBI contract10

…………….

NAS-FBI contract11

…………….

NAS-FBI contract12…………

NAS-FBI contract13

…………..

NAS-FBI contract14

…………….

NAS-FBI contract15

…………….

Posted in * NAS review of FBI science | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

* the NAS will provide FBI-submitted documents and the NAS/FBI anthrax study contract

Posted by DXer on October 21, 2009

CASE CLOSEDCASE 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  …

“CASE CLOSED is a must read for anyone who wondered

… what really happened? … Who did it? … why?”

… and finally, why didn’t they tell us the truth?”

******

the NAS will provide FBI-submitted documents

and the NAS/FBI anthrax study contract

******

DXer reports he has received an email from NAS clearly stating that all materials submitted to NAS by external sources will be included in the Public Access File.

  • This presumably includes the FBI-submitted documents which NAS had previously said would be sequestered until the end of their anthrax study.
  • In addition, NAS has indicated that the anthrax study contract between NAS and the FBI will also be made available.

NAS is to be commended for its decision.

I second DXer when he says … “Thanks again to the Public Affairs Office for their hard work in juggling many important matters on a wide range of issues.”

Here’s an extract from the email DXer received …

From: Public Access Records Office
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 9:46 AM

This project is subject to Section 15 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA); which states that all written materials presented to the committee (at data-gathering meeting, between such meetings, or at any other time in the course of the project) by any organization (whether government or private) or by individuals who are not officials, agents, or employees of the institution are subject to public disclosure and must be listed in the Public Access File.”

******

see related post … * It’s well past time for the NAS to be frank and honest about what it has agreed with the FBI regarding the sequestering of FBI-submitted documents in apparent violation of FOIA requirements

******

Posted in * NAS review of FBI science, * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »