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

Posts Tagged ‘AUSA Rachel Lieber’

* Justice Department Is Said To Be Arguing Against Itself But AUSA Rachel Lieber Has Not Even Yet Addressed The Issue Of The Rabbits Or Produced The Pertinent Contemporaneous Documents Relating To Dr. Ivins’ Work With The Rabbits.

Posted by DXer on January 29, 2012



Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 25 Comments »

* DXer’s analysis of the current state of the evidence … on the refusal of David Willman and others to confront evidence that disputes their claims … on the LA Times for allowing Willman to cover the case when it is clearly a conflict of interest … and on Frontline for failing to include the rabbit evidence which totally demolishes the FBI’s assertions about what Dr. Ivins was doing in his lab when investigators and prosecutors without basis claim he was making the attack anthrax

Posted by DXer on October 16, 2011


David Willman & Judith McClean & their books


DXer on David Willman (from a recent comment) …

David Willman, like Ed Montooth, in a Los Angeles Times article (for which he writes again) still relies on the events in July 2000 reported by counselor Judith McLean and the homicidal plot she described.  (Ed Montooth mentioned it also when he was interviewed by Frontline.  see transcript).

The investigators and psychatrists in 2008 could not have known that in 2009 Dr. Ivins’ first therapist, Judith M. McLean, who described the plot, would write of how she acquired her psychic abilities in her book available for sale — from a being from another planet …

In addition to helping the FBI with Amerithrax, the psychic relied upon the government prosecutors and investigators helped with 911 by her astral travelling and retrieval of etheric body parts at Ground Zero … she thought she was being pursued by murderous astral entities.

Judith McLean annotated the notes of the psychiatrists.  Gregory Saathoff never spoke to the counselor or the psychiatrists in his EBAP report.  ( Dr. Saathoff released the report after the FBI closed the case but prosecutors and investigators had relied upon it in their decision-making; he incredibly spun his role as independent and did not make plain that he had guided the aggressive approach to Dr. Ivins from the start.)

Dr. Saathoff never corrected their report that they provided to federal district court judge Lamberth; separately, the DOJ has moved to exclude it in the Florida litigation on the grounds that the EBAP report was neither endorsed nor commissioned by the DOJ.

But Ed Montooth continues to rely on the July 2000 events.

And David Willman has never withdrawn his reliance on this central witness in his book.

Mr. Willman’s key witness (see his book and its index) got her instructions at night from an alien who had granted her psychic powers and controlled her through a device in her butt.  I don’t know what would be more startling.

Equally startling is the fact that neither Mr. Willman, investigator Montooth, or prosecutor have ever mentioned the word “rabbits” or explained what the new documents show as to why Dr. Ivins was in the lab.

Mr. Willman writes  “Other records showed that in the weeks preceding the mailings, he spent unusual late-night hours alone in his specially equipped Army lab.” without addressing the new documents showing his reason for being in the lab.

It is very wrong for the Los Angeles Times to rely on a book author promoting book sales to cover the issue — instead a different LA Times journalist should have written up the newly produced documents showing why Dr. Ivins was in the lab … and the notes and his night checks and the dozens of animals relate to each and every night that the prosecutors and investigators claimed he had no reason to be in the lab.  Like the prosecutors and investigators, Mr. Willman seeks to shove 52 rabbits back into the hat.

On the science, which Mr. Willman  addressed in an appendix to the epilogue in his book, he still frames the issue in terms of the FBI’s straw man argument of floatability rather than microencapsulation which instead is done to make spores more stable and resistant to being destroyed by sunlight and heat.  See DARPA budget documents that have been linked showing that mass spec work that was testing the effect of a sonicator and corona plasma discharge on Ames spores from Ivins’ RMR 1029 flask was also testing spores that had been microencapsulated… to see if the mass spec could make a correct identification through the matrix.

Willman quotes Michaels saying:  “But Michaels said that if tin or silicon had been intentionally added, it probably would have coated the exterior surfaces. He said he found trace levels of tin and silicon only inside the spores.”  Michaels is speaking beyond his expertise and continues to prove an FBI sock puppet.  Instead, in the microdroplet cell culture, the silica-based substance is put in the growth medium and would be incorporated through natural processes… just as Dr. Majidi, lead WMD scientist, says.

As for the other scientists, the lead genetics expert says she would acquit.  The lead FBI and CIA internal genetics person says the genetics evidence would not have been admissible because it had not been validated.  (And Keim agrees).  Was Rachel really telling a suicidal and depressed guy (who had been calculatedly alienated from his friends) she was seeking the death penalty when she had not shared the documents concerning rabbits and she had been told the genetics expert was inadmissible? If she had given Paul Kemp the rabbit documents he would have realized that she was desperately trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear because of the pressure she felt back at the office to close the case.

Dr. Majidi has said that the forensics indicate that the silicon signature likely was due to being absorbed from the growth medium. (This would apply to the tin signature also).  That points to the DARPA-funded patent that arrived in Ali-Al-Timimi’s in-box in Spring 2001.  He shared a suite with leading Ames researchers Alibek and Bailey.  After serving as the acting commander of USAMRIID, Bailey worked for years for DIA on threat assessment while still at USAMRIID in Building 1425.  In 2001 and before, Southern Research Institute in Frederick did the B3 work with virulent Ames for the DARPA Center for Biodefense.

The Los Angeles Times ombudsman should address

why they do not have such stories addressed by a journalist

not promoting book sales on the very subject.  

If the critique of the science, then his book should be filed in the circular file.  That constitutes a huge conflict of interest.

If allowed to write on the subject he should have taken this opportunity to acknowledge the issue rather than rely on the first counselor and her story again by reference to homicidal plot. In his book, he does an admirable job in providing copious and detailed footnotes recounting what interviews he conducted  Because of his detailed footnotes, you can thus see his missteps — to include reliance on the first counselor who he interviewed on a number of occasions. One is left to wonder why neither he nor Dr. Saathoff nor commentator Barbara Martin read the book available for $10 at amazon by the counselor explaining her acutely paranoid psychotic delusions that dominated her daily life and her time with Dr. Ivins.  Dr. Saathoff chose to spend $38,000 in expenses on a psychiatric report without spending $10 on a book destroying his analysis.  The first counselor says she was protected by a psychiatric diagnosis by her husband who was in military personnel.  She quit the profession and left the state in 2001 due to her exhaustion from the psychic attacks by murderous psychic astral entities. (She would protect herself each night returning from Afghanistan in 2001, for example, by closing a vortex of light that the nasty astral entities couldn’t pass; in Afghanistan each night, she was doing psychic DNA reconstruction).
When I mentioned Mr. Willman’s failure to address the issue to a reporter, he said well reporters tend to dig in and defend a position they staked out.   Huh?   Instead, reporters are supposed to do things like press for new documents and new information and then write them up. Not even Frontline has written up the documents about Dr. Ivins work with rabbits produced in the last 2 months by USAMRIID. And instead Frontline merely panned over lab notes produced in May 2011. The rabbit documents, without more, demolish the FBI’s science case that was premised on unexplained time in the lab.  Patricia Fellows and Anthony Bassett should be interviewed on those same documents.

Not even Frontline has written up the documents about Dr. Ivins work with rabbits produced in the last 2 months by USAMRIID.  And instead Frontline merely panned over lab notes produced in May 2011.

The rabbit documents, without more,

demolish the FBI’s science case

that was premised on unexplained time in the lab.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 17 Comments »

* DXer comments … The Amerithrax Investigative Summary is an unsourced and unmitigated crock — not supported by citation to any documentary evidence for good reason. An analysis sourced to the documentation tells a quite different story … LMW: The buck stops with FBI Director Robert Mueller. Congress should demand an explanation of the pathetic FBI anthrax investigation.

Posted by DXer on August 31, 2011


FBI Director Mueller & the man the FBI drove to suicide ... after which they charged (in a press conference, not a courtroom) a dead man who could not defend himself


DXer’s comment … 

  • In a lengthy interview, AUSA Rachel Lieber recently affirmed her confidence to Frontline interviewers in Dr. Ivins guilt.
    • Yet when you go to the February 2010 Amerithrax Investigative Summary that she wrote — which reflects her understanding of the facts — there is no mention whatsoever of the 52 rabbits over which Dr. Ivins had charge and which were the reason he was in the lab.
    • The rabbits delivered on September 25 and subject of the experiments in early October 2001.
    • The word “rabbit” nowhere appears in her lengthy report!
    • Instead, at page 32, in a footnote, she refers to only some mice needing his attention and says that they would not have explained all his time.
    • Rather than relying on a review of the documents, she relied on Pat Fellows’ self-serving characterizations.
  • In short, in the rush of events in July 2008, it is understandable that Rachel had not mastered the facts — alleged to Ivins’ counsel that Dr. Ivins used a lyophilized etc.
    • Heck, she had the private knowledge of what the first counselor, Judith (who reports she feared nasty astral entities were trying to kill her) had said about what the murderous Dr. Ivins had told her in July 2000 about his murderous plans.
    • With that fueling their suspicion of Dr. Ivins, who wouldn’t be suspicious?
    • And the first counselor’s delusions are explained quite clearly in her 2009 book that was available to Rachel to read before issuing her 2010 report.
  • But what’s her excuse for failing to explain in February 2010 the reason Dr. Ivins was in the lab –which is established by the documentary evidence she nowhere mentions and that DOJ has not uploaded?
  • What’s her excuse for telling me that we would never get the lab notebooks showing how he had spent his time under FOIA?  
  • After Dr. Ivins killed himself, there was no meaningful reassessment of the case.  Ken Kohl was busy dealing with the aftermath of the botching of the Blackwater murder prosecution.
  • The Amerithrax Investigative Summary is an unsourced and unmitigated crocknot supported by citation to any documentary evidence for good reason.
  • An analysis sourced to the documentation tells a quite different story. 
    • As an example, all the letters claimed by Rachel to have been double-lined in fact were not.
  • Isn’t the country sick and tired of the CYA motivation of federal officials potentially putting the country at peril?
  • The Amerithrax Investigative Summary should have been sourced to the documents which should have been provided in an Appendix.
  • They now should be uploaded under FOIA — before 9/11 please.


The buck stops with FBI Director Robert Mueller. Congress should demand an explanation of the pathetic FBI anthrax investigation.

It is this purposely misleading behavior by FBI Director Mueller and Attorney General Holder and their subordinates which infuriates me. That fury caused me to write my novel CASE CLOSED, which posits an alternative (fictional) scenario for what really happened in the anthrax attack and in the FBI investigation which followed.

Read the opening of CASE CLOSED (below) and then buy a copy at …

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *

* special offer for readers of this blog … purchase CASE CLOSED on Kindle for $5.00

this is the opening scene of Lew Weinstein's novel CASE CLOSED


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 11 Comments »

* DXer … the priority now is to turn to the documentary evidence available on the disputed issues

Posted by DXer on May 30, 2011

see also …

* DXer on David Willman’s “The Mirage Man”


… we invite Mr. Willman to re-think some of his conclusions

based on dramatic information

which was not available to him when he wrote “The Mirage Man.”


Excerpts from DXer’s recent comment 

see the entire comment at …


The priority now  is to turn to the documentary evidence available

on the disputed issues

  • It turns out that Gregory Saathoff, author and initiator of the psychiatrist report, was intimately involved in planning how the FBI interrogated Dr. Ivins throughout the Spring of 2008
    • Dr. Saathoff was definitely a stakeholder and not independent.  He was an active part of the investigation of Dr. Ivins.   He was the FBI’s expert.

I don’t see any evidence that Dr. Ivins was involved

in the anthrax mailings,

although I see lots of fascinating potential leads

in the documentary evidence.

  • All I see is a theory that has strong parallels to a Hatfill Theory accompanied by dramatic withholding of documents and mischaracterization or misunderstanding of the documents.
  • Respectfully, Special Agent Lawrence Alexander and his colleagues should ask that the DOJ FOIA office produce the nonsealed documents in the Stevens litigation.
  • Lawrence Alexander and AUSA Rachel Lieber should have DOJ produce the September 17, 2001 email from Bruce Ivins to Mara Linscott dated September 17, 2001.  Rachel claimed it had been written from Dr. Ivins work computer.  But USAMRC FOIA people emphatically dispute that after careful double-checking.

Let’s produce all of Dr. Ivins lab notebooks from the period

and develop the timeline.

  • I see an awful lot of disclosure about whether Dr. Ivins blindfolded Teddy Bears when he was 6 but so far have overlooked any disclosure that the FBI falsely told Dr. Ivins that Dr. Heine had fingered him.
    • They had told him that they were going to call his vulnerable daughter before the grand jury.
    • They insisted to Amanda that Dr. Ivins was a murderer.
    • Dr. Ivins fiercely loved his daughter and son and was very protective of Amanda given her previous suicide attempt.
  • I see an awful lot of effort to claim that Dr. Ivins made a dried powder on those specific dates — and at the same time AUSA Rachel Lieber  refused my written request to produce the lab notebook pages written on those nights.

Key lab notebook pages are still being withheld

and the GAO needs to probe

who is responsible for any continued withholding.

  •  The FBI took the only copy from USAMRIID and so USAMRIID cannot produce them.
  • The DOJ investigators and prosecutors should back full production under FOIA of Dr. Ivins lab notebooks for the relevant period — 1998 – 2001, as well as production of a copy of the 9/17/2001 email to Mara Linscott.

so certain ... and so wrong


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 27 Comments »

* The newly released lab notebook pages demonstrate Dr. Bruce Ivins was tending to dead animals on the nights it was alleged by the FBI he was preparing dry anthrax. In light of an Ivins theory being demolished by such astonishing evidence, GAO should ask why were investigators told Ivins’ time in the lab was “unjustified”? How will Dr. Pat Fellows, AUSA Rachel Lieber and AUSA Kenneth Kohl respond?

Posted by DXer on May 14, 2011



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

* FBI & DOJ slam the door: you cannot have Dr. Bruce Ivins’ Lab Notebook containing Ivins’ handwritten notes about what he was doing on the dates the DOJ speculates he was preparing powderized anthrax for mailing

Posted by DXer on March 4, 2010


The New York Times says the FBI’s anthrax case has “too many loose ends.” Find out where some of those looses ends might have originated in my novel CASE CLOSED. Sure it’s fiction, but many readers, including a highly respected member of the U.S. Intelligence Community, think my premise is actually “quite plausible.”

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *



you cannot have Dr. Bruce Ivins’ Lab Notebook 4010

containing Ivins’ handwritten notes

about what he was doing on the dates the DOJ speculates

he was preparing powderized anthrax for mailing


Dr. Bruce Ivins

DXer sent a letter to Assistant US Attorney Rachel Lieber …

Could you have DOJ upload the contemporaneous handwritten passages in Lab Notebook 4010 detailing his observations on the health of the animals?  I don’t understand why they were not provided.

the response from Ben Friedman, Public Information Officer, U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia …

AUSA Lieber forwarded your e-mail to me for response.  Although I appreciate your interest in the Amerithrax case, we are unable to respond to specific requests for investigative information, beyond what was released in the lengthy Investigative Summary that was already released to the public.

DXer is not happy …

DXer suggests that a lawyer who won’t provide the underlying documents he or she characterizes is playing hide-the-ball, a game unworthy of the United States Department of Justice.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 14 Comments »