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

Posts Tagged ‘Congress investigates FBI anthrax investigation’

* and then there were three … Congressman Nadler joins Holt and Bartlett in calling for Congressional review of the failed FBI anthrax investigation … waiting for Senators Grassley and Specter

Posted by Lew Weinstein on March 4, 2010

 

.

Congressmen Bartlett, Holt & Nadler

******

and then there were three …

Congressman Nadler joins Holt and Bartlett

in calling for Congressional review

of the failed FBI anthrax investigation

******

 

Senators Grassley & Specter

now where are Senators Charles Grassley and Arlen Specter,

who have in the past expressed strong doubts

about the FBI’s case against Dr. Bruce Ivins

******

Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, reiterated his call for an independent investigation into the 2001 anthrax attacks which killed five people and sickened 17.

He issued the following statement:

  • “Despite the FBI’s assertion that the case of the anthrax attacks is closed, there are still many troubling questions.
  • For example, in a 2008 Judiciary Committee hearing, I asked FBI Director Robert Mueller whether Bruce Ivins was capable of producing the weaponized anthrax that was used in the attacks.
  • To this day, it is still far from clear that Mr. Ivins had either the know-how or access to the equipment needed to produce the material.
  • Because the FBI has not sufficiently answered such questions, I join Congressman Holt in urging an independent investigation of the case.”

******

Advertisements

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

* Evidence that the FBI lied to obtain records it had no legal authority to have, and then covered up its illegal activities, does not build confidence that the FBI is telling the truth in its 2001 anthrax investigation.

Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 28, 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 is entirely too plausible”
“it’s probably just the tip of the iceberg on what else was covered up.”
“Fiction?? Maybe?? But I don’t think so!!”
“CASE CLOSED is a must read for anyone who wondered what really happened?

******

Evidence that the FBI lied to obtain records

it had no legal authority to have,

and then covered up its illegal activities,

does not build confidence

that the FBI is telling the truth

in its 2001 anthrax investigation

******

thanks to Chris for making me aware of this the article

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

  • The Federal Bureau of Investigation used lies and trickery to illegally obtain thousands of records, then issued after-the-fact approvals in an attempt to cover it up, a Justice Department (Inspector General) investigation released on Wednesday revealed.
  • One of the main problems surrounds the FBI’s unlawful misuse of the already-unconstitutional informal requests known as “exigent letters” to demand information.
  • And they knew it was illegal.
  • According to the DOJ report agents repeatedly and knowingly violated the law by invoking non-existent “terror emergencies” to get access to information they were not authorized to have.
  • “We concluded that the FBI’s acquisition of these records constituted a complete breakdown in the required department procedures for approving the issuance of grand jury subpoenas to obtain reporters’ toll billing records,” said the Inspector General’s report.
  • The FBI acknowledged in a statement released after the Inspector General’s report was made public that “the Bureau did not have in place adequate internal controls to ensure that the appropriate process was used and that appropriate records were kept,” though it insists that it has taken steps to purge illegally obtained records and to prevent similar occurrences in the future.
  • Some members of Congress have already reacted to the report as well. “This was not a matter of technical violations. If one of us did something like this, we’d have to answer for it,” said Senate Judiciary Chairman Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont. “This was authorized at high levels within the FBI and continued for years.”

Josh Meyer writes in the LA Times (1-21-10) …

  • FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III was unaware of the widespread use of the exigent letters until late 2006, when it was uncovered by the inspector general investigation, and he has since taken steps to correct the problem, according to the report and Mueller’s testimony Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
  • Mueller acknowledged that there were “substantial weaknesses, substantial management and performance failures in our internal control structure as it applied to obtaining telephone records.” But he added that better internal controls and changes in policy and training have substantially minimized the possibility of similar errors in the future.
  • “We’ll look at the conduct and assign discipline as warranted,” Mueller said.

read the entire LA Times story at … http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-fbi-phones21-2010jan21,0,1861531.story

******

Read the Inspector General’s report on which these stories are based at … http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/oig/exigent.pdf

LMW COMMENT …

Evidence that the FBI lied to obtain records it had no legal authority to have, and then covered up its illegal activities, does not build confidence that the FBI is telling the truth in its 2001 anthrax investigation. And, since Mueller admits he was aware of these matters in 2006, is it not time to ask if any discipline has been “assigned.”

******

Posted in * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , , , | 6 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 Lew Weinstein 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 »

* Glenn Greenwald … the case against Ivins doesn’t hold up, the anthrax attacks contributed to the war of choice in Iraq, and there is little apparent interest in learning the truth

Posted by Lew Weinstein on November 29, 2009

CASE CLOSED is a novel which answers the question “Why did the FBI fail to solve the 2001 anthrax case?” … Here’s an excerpt from the CASE CLOSED story; 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 (ie, Hatfill) 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 (ie, Ivins), which is close to nothing. After seven years.”

*** click here to buy CASE CLOSED by Lew Weinstein

******

the case against Ivins doesn’t hold up,

the anthrax attacks contributed to the war of choice in Iraq,

and there is little apparent interest in learning the truth

******

Glenn Greenwald writes for Salon (11-27-09) …

  • Yesterday, the British Ambassador to the U.S. in 2002 and 2003, Sir Christopher Meyer (who favored the war), said attitudes towards Iraq were influenced to an extent not appreciated by him at the time by the anthrax scare in the US soon after 9/11.
  • On 9/11 Condoleezza Rice, then the US national security adviser, told Meyer she was in “no doubt: it was an al-Qaida operation” . . .
  • the anthrax scare “steamed up” policy makers in Bush’s administration and helped swing attitudes against Saddam
  • the anthrax attack was exploited by leading media and political figures to gin up intense hostility towards Iraq.
  • The case against Ivins is so riddled with logical and evidentiary holes that it has generated extreme doubts not merely from typical government skeptics but from the most mainstream, establishment-revering, and ideologically disparate sources.
  • Even our leading mainstream, establishment-serving media outlets — and countless bio-weapons experts — believe that we do not have real answers about who perpetrated this attack and how.
  • And there is little apparent interest in investigating in order to find out.

read the entire article at … http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/11/27/anthrax/index.html

LMW COMMENT …

******

My novel CASE CLOSED is all about the FBI’s purposeful failure to solve the anthrax case, specifically in order to allow it to be used as another lie in the argument for the war of choice in Iraq.

Is my story true? It’s a novel, but here’s what readers have to say …

  • “CASE CLOSED is entirely too plausible and is probably just the 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.”
  • 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?”
  • “Please tell me it’s not true!”

Meanwhile, in the real world, the case remains unsolved, and the FBI remains intransigent.

Maybe when President Obama gets a minute to take on yet another issue, he will consider just how important it is to know who conducted a bio-terrorist strike at the U.S. and why the case remains unsolved.

*** click here to buy CASE CLOSED by Lew Weinstein


******

Posted in * FBI refusal to testify, * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , , , , | 72 Comments »

* the NAS needs to explain its decision to sequester FBI-submitted documents in apparent violation of FOIA law

Posted by Lew Weinstein on September 18, 2009

CASE CLOSED

click here to … buy CASE CLOSED by Lew Weinstein

one reader says …

“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.

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?”

******

NAS needs to explain its decision to sequester FBI-submitted documents in apparent violation of FOIA law

It is now over a week since my email to NAS asking for the specific legal authority they are citing to permit them to sequester FBI-submitted documents until the end of their study (perhaps 17 months from now). I have received no response, which is unusual since all of my other emails were answered almost immediately.

Accordingly, I sent the following email to NAS today … BILL … I wonder if you could let me know the status of any response to my 9/10/09 email. Are you in the process of preparing a response? When can I expect to receive a response? … LEW

Here’s the essence of the email I sent to the NAS on 9/10/09 …

  • You say that much of the FBI material is exempt from release under the FOIA law, but you do not cite the specific legal authority under which such exemptions are claimed.
  • It is my understanding that there are several reasons for possible exemption from release. Which reasons do you specifically cite for each category of FBI material you claim is exempt?
  • Also … I note that you say “much” of the FBI material is exempt, which means that some is not exempt.
  • Could you please advise which FBI material you believe is not exempt, and how the non-exempt FBI material differs from the FBI material which you say is exempt?
  • Finally, how does one go about requesting the FBI material which you say is not exempt?

It is hard to avoid concluding that the FBI is engaged in a very conscious effort to restrict information about its Amerithrax investigation. Here’s a brief review of the known chronology …

  • September & October 2001 … anthrax letters were mailed; 5 people died, 17 others were infected, an attempt was made to murder Congressman Daschle and Senator Leahy.
  • August 8, 2008 … after a 7 year investigation, the FBI announced that Dr. Bruce Ivins (recently deceased) was the SOLE PERPETRATOR of the 2001 anthrax attacks, and that, after completing a few administrative details, they would close the case.
  • August 2009 … the FBI announced it was “on the verge” of closing the Amerithrax case.
  • September 2009 … the FBI refused to answer my questions as to whether the Amerithrax investigation is still ongoing.
  • September 2009 … the NAS stated (in an email to me) that, by terms of its undisclosed contract with the FBI, most materials submitted by the FBI will not be subject to FOIA requests until the conclusion of their review.
  • September 17, 2009Senator Charles Grassley called the FBI refusal to answer his questions as “beyond unacceptable,” asked if the FBI has “something to hide.”

What might the FBI have to hide?

  • If the FBI is still investigating the Amerithrax case, then that suggests they no longer believe Dr. Bruce Ivins was the SOLE PERPETRATOR, an admission that would open serious questions as to why they said so in the first place.
  • If Dr. Ivins was indeed the SOLE PERPETRATOR, what else is there to investigate?
  • If the FBI is not still investigating the Amerithrax case, but yet has not officially closed the case, what are they waiting for?
  • One possible (likely?) answer is that once the case is officially closed, many investigative documents will become available under the FOIA law.

What’s going on between the FBI and the NAS?

  • What sort of arrangement did the FBI impose on the NAS regarding documents the FBI has and will turn over to the NAS during the course of the NAS review of the FBI’s anthrax science?
  • The NAS has said (in an email to me) that they will turn over the FBI submitted documents at the conclusion of their review.
  • DXer asserts (in a prior comment on this blog) that the FOIA law does not provide for such delayed disclosure, that if the documents are subject to FOIA requests at the end of the study, they must be subject to such requests now.
  • Will the NAS make available the FBI-submitted material it said (in the email to me) was not subject to any FOIA exemption?
  • Why hasn’t the NAS cited the specific FOIA exemptions it claims apply to the FBI submitted material?
  • And, if there are such exemptions, by what provision of the FOIA law do the exemptions apply now but not at the end of the review period?

America needs Congressman Holt’s Anthrax Review Commission

Congressman Rush Holt has submitted legislation for an Anthrax Review Commission to look into what really happened in the attacks and what the FBI has been doing for the past eight years to solve the case. That legislation, which still sits in the House Judiciary Committee chaired by Congressman Conyers, needs to become law. And the questions raised above about the FBI/NAS relationship need to be added to the inquiry agenda.

Posted in * NAS review of FBI science, * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 12 Comments »

* Sen. Grassley says he will hold nominees at the DOJ until he receives long overdue answers from the FBI

Posted by Lew Weinstein on September 18, 2009

CASE CLOSEDclick here to … buy CASE CLOSED by Lew Weinstein

readers of CASE CLOSED say …

“Weinstein raises some very interesting and disturbing theories.”

“Responsible Americans who believe in holding our government accountable for its actions should read CASE CLOSED to be more informed of the facts of the case, regardless of whether they come to agree with the author’s theory. More investigation is needed.”

******

Senator Grassley

Senator Grassley

Excerpts from U.S. Sen. Grassley’s statement on FBI oversight hearing … 9/17/2009

In March of this year, Director Mueller testified before this Committee and I expressed my concerns and frustration at the lack of responsiveness from the FBI in answering questions submitted by all members of the Judiciary Committee.

Director Mueller shared in my frustrations noting that the FBI had provided responses to outstanding questions to the Department of Justice for review, but that the Department has not yet provided them to Congress.

As we stand here today we have questions from a previous FBI Oversight hearing dated March 2008 that remain outstanding and unanswered. That hearing was held over a year and a half ago.

Not having responses to these questions is beyond unacceptable.

So, the question is did the Department simply forget to get back to the Committee or do they have something to hide?

Mr. Chairman, we have a real issue with the Department of Justice and until this culture of late and unresponsive answers to our questions is changed, I will exercise my rights to begin holding nominees at the Department.

read Sen. Grassley’s entire statement at … http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=170440

Posted in * FBI refusal to testify, * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , , , | 28 Comments »

* even if the FBI now finally “closes” the anthrax case, it cannot be a CASE CLOSED until we know what needs to be known.

Posted by Lew Weinstein on July 27, 2009

* buy CASE CLOSED

******buy CC graphic

the anthrax case cannot be closed

until someone forces the FBI

to come forward with

all of the facts

******

Devlin Barrett writes in the Washington Times (7-27-09) …

  • A year after government scientist Bruce Ivins killed himself while under investigation for the lethal anthrax letters of 2001, the Justice Department is on the verge of closing the long, costly and vexing case.
  • Officials told AP that the decision to close the case has been put off for what may be weeks, as the FBI and Justice Department continue to wrestle with an investigation that has led many to question the quality of their work and the certainty of their conclusions.
  • In preparation for an announcement that prosecutors had decided to close the “Amerithrax” case, investigators wrote a 110-page summary of their work, laying out the timeline of events over the past eight years, officials said.
  • That 110-page review was pared down to about 40 pages and then a still-shorter version.
  • Now it’s unclear whether any of those documents will be released.

read the entire article at … http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/27/anthrax-case-near-closure/

LMW COMMENT …

After mounting what is said to be the largest investigation in the FBI’s history, the FBI still seem to have serious doubts about what to do.

  • They paid their first suspect (Dr. Hatfill) $5.8 million to go away, and then just a few weeks later charged a dead man (Dr. Ivins), conveniently avoiding the need to ever present their case in court, under oath.
  • The FBI has consistently refused to answer legitimate questions from Senators, Congressmen and the press; they have also apparently failed to release documents which should be available under FOIA guidelines.
  • Now they cannot even write a report to properly summarize their work.

Why does the FBI continue to have such monumental struggles with this case?

Any cop anywhere in the world knows the answer.

  • Maybe when you are making up a story on the fly, it is very difficult to keep all the pieces in order; maybe the FBI is just confused.
  • Maybe different FBI agents and others who worked on the case know different things, and maybe the FBI wants to make sure those different things don’t get clearly associated, because they are contradictory, and because they raise serious doubts that Dr. ivins was the sole perpetrator, or even involved at all.
  • Maybe it’s very hard for the FBI to explain their case in any more detail than just blatant assertions, because real proof demands a consistent factual pattern, and those blasted details keep getting in the way of the simple story the FBI wants us to believe.
  • Maybe the whole investigation was compromised by forces not unlike those I described in my novel CASE CLOSED, and the FBI and others are terrified that the real truth will emerge.

Absent full disclosure, and certification of that full disclosure by someone who is widely trusted, the FBI’s version of this case will never be accepted by anyone who understands the many glaring holes and inconsistencies they have put forth over the years.

Here’s what we need …

  • We need a comprehensive report from the NAS that reaches into all the scientific issues, not just the ones the FBI wants to focus on.
  • We need the NAS, despite its protestations to the contrary, to render judgment as to whether the science does in fact lead exclusively to Dr. Bruce Ivins, as the FBI claims.
  • We need Congressman Rush Holt’s Anthrax Investigation Commission
  • We need Congressman John Conyers to move Congressman Holt’s bill from its stalled position in the House Judiciary Committee (of which Conyers is Chairman) into law.
  • We need the press and media in this country to stop accepting the FBI’s spoon fed conclusions and do some real investigative reporting.

Why do we need all this, you ask. The case is 8 years old. It’s over.

  • If the real perpetrators have not been apprehended, the case is not over.
  • If we don’t know for sure where the attack anthrax came from and how it was prepared, the case is not over.
  • If we’re not convinced that there wasn’t an FBI cover up directed from higher up in the government, the case cannot be over.

Even if the FBI now finally “closes” the case, it cannot be a CASE CLOSED until we know what needs to be known.

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

* Dr. Bruce Ivins was not the only bioweapons expert who died in a strange way

Posted by Lew Weinstein on July 16, 2009


CASE CLOSED

why did the FBI fail to solve the 2001 anthrax case?

CASE CLOSED offers a “fictional” answer

* buy CASE CLOSED

.

.

**********

Dr. Bruce Ivins was not the only bioweapons expert

who died in a strange way

**********

LMW COMMENT …

Sue Read has written a terrifying article about a series of strange deaths of bioweapons experts.

Are the questions about these deaths … Kelly – Que – Wiley – Pasechnik – Ivins the unproven rattling of conspiracy theorists? Or is there a pattern here that is truly terrifying?

The death of Dr. Bruce Ivins, and the FBI’s charge just 8 days later that he was the sole perpetrator of the 2001 anthrax attacks, is simply too convenient to accept without full investigation. And it is quite clear to any independent observer that we have not had anything near full disclosure of the basis for either scientific or investigative aspects of the FBI’s case. New doubts arise whenever any new facts are presented.

The FBI’s case just doesn’t wash.

In my novel CASE CLOSED, I put forward a fictional scenario to explain this and other aspects of the case where the official version of the facts seem less than believable.

I don’t contend that my fictional account is what really happened, but I am convinced I have raised the right questions and that the FBI has yet to provide adequate answers.

Please contact your Congressman and demand that Rush Holt’s Anthrax Investigation Commission, currently awaiting action in the House Judiciary Committee, become a reality.

*****************

Sue Read writes in Mail Online, Published by Associated Newspapers Ltd, Part of the Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday & Metro Media Group (7-16-09) …

Dr. David Kelly died in Oxfordshire on July 17, 2003 …

  • To this day, there are many unanswered questions about how Dr. Kelly died
  • The day Dr David Kelly took a short walk to his death in the Oxfordshire countryside, an unopened letter lay on the desk of his book-lined study.
  • No one has ever explained why the eminent scientist and UN weapons inspector did not open the letter, but everyone close to him is convinced he knew its contents.
  • It was designed to silence him because his Ministry of Defence bosses had discovered that not only was he secretly talking to journalists, but was also preparing to write an explosive book about his work.
  • Dr Kelly had examined the Government’s ‘sexed up dossier’ which declared that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction which could be activated in just 45 minutes. The claim was used by Tony Blair in 2002 as the central justification for the Iraq war.
  • In one final phone conversation he told a caller he wouldn’t be surprised ‘if my body was found in the woods’.
  • And so it was to be. The official inquiry into his death later decided that he committed suicide  –  by slashing his wrist and consuming a cocktail of painkillers.
  • But this week, 13 respected doctors declared that it was medically impossible for Dr Kelly to have died in this manner. They are mounting a legal battle to overturn the suicide verdict.
  • A new film, Anthrax War, to be released in London this weekend, also asserts that Dr Kelly had spent hours writing a tell-all book which would violate the Official Secrets Act by exposing Britain’s dubious authority for toppling Saddam Hussein.

‘You couldn’t commit suicide like that’

  • A detailed medical dossier by the 13 British doctors, however, rejects the Hutton conclusion on the grounds that a cut to the small ulnar artery is not deadly.
  • The dossier is being used by lawyers to demand a proper inquest and the release of Dr Kelly’s autopsy report, which has never been made public. Their evidence will be sent to Sir John Chilcot’s forthcoming Iraq War inquiry.

Dr. Benito Que died in Miami five weeks later …

  • Five weeks later, Dr Benito Que, a cell biologist known to Dr Kelly, was found in a coma near his Miami laboratory.
  • Dr Que, 52, was found unconscious outside in the car park of his lab and died in hospital. Officially, he suffered a heart attack  –  although his family say he was struck on the head. Police refused to re-open the case.

Ten days later, Dr. Don Wiley died …

  • Ten days after Dr Que’s death, another friend of Dr Kelly died. Dr Don Wiley, 57, one of America’s foremost microbiologists, had a U.S. Government contract to create a vaccine against the killer Ebola fever and other so-called doomsday germs.
  • His rental car was found abandoned on a bridge across the Mississippi. The keys were in the ignition and the petrol tank full. There had been no crash, but Dr Wiley had disappeared.
  • The FBI visited Wiley’s laboratory and removed most of his work. A month later his body was found 300 miles downstream, with evidence of severe head injuries. No forensic examination was performed and his death was ruled ‘accidental’.

Dr. Vladimir Pasechnik died on November 22, 2001 …

  • And there is more. The most mysterious death of them all happened to Dr Vladimir Pasechnik  –  a Soviet defector Dr Kelly knew well.
  • As chief director of the Institute for Ultra-Pure Biological preparations in St Petersburg, Pasechnik had developed killer germs. ‘I want the West to know of this. There must be a way to stop this madness,’ he told Dr Kelly in a safe house.
  • The two scientists became friends. And soon Vladimir had set up the Regma Biotechnologies laboratory, near Porton Down. He seemed healthy when he left work on the night of November 21, 2001.
  • Returning home, the 64-year-old cooked supper and went to sleep. He was found dead in bed the next day.

read the entire article at …  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1200004/Did-MI5-kill-Dr-David-Kelly-Another-crazy-conspiracy-theory-amid-claims-wrote-tell-book-vanished-death.html#ixzz0LOAkXrPX

Posted in * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , , , | 72 Comments »

* Lew’s CASE CLOSED interview with Bill Becker on US1Radio

Posted by Lew Weinstein on June 24, 2009

Lew Weinstein

Lew Weinstein

*

Bill Becker

Bill Becker

Lew Weinstein was heard this morning in an interview by Bill Becker that was available to a national audience on http://www.us1radio.com.

The interview ranged over many aspects of the real anthrax case as well as the fictional scenario Lew has imagined in CASE CLOSED to explain why the FBI did not solve the case.

*****

*****

click here to listen to >>>

Lew’s interview with Bill Becker

NOTE: after listening to the interview (12 min) …

CLICK RETURN KEY (<-) to come back here

*****

click here to >>> * purchase CASE CLOSED

CASE CLOSED

click here to >>> * see CASE CLOSED VIDEO on YouTube

NOTE: after watching the video (1.5 min) …

CLICK RETURN KEY (<-) to come back here

Posted in * about CASE CLOSED, * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation, Ames anthrax | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

* NAS answers to questions regarding the NAS-FBI study of science issues related to the FBI investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks lead to follow-up questions; readers of this blog are invited to help shape the new questions

Posted by Lew Weinstein on June 20, 2009

Lew’s new novel CASE CLOSEDCC - front cover - small

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

* see CASE CLOSED VIDEO on YouTube

* purchase CASE CLOSED (paperback)

***

readers of this blog are invited

to help shape the new questions

***

NAS Publications

NAS Publications

Yesterday, I sent questions to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Media Relations Office regarding the announced NAS-FBI study of scientific issues related to the FBI investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks.

I received a very prompt response a few hours later, in the form of an email from William Kearney, Deputy Executive Director & Director of Media Relations, Office of News & Public Information, National Academy of Sciences. Mr. Kearney has also graciously considered to entertain additional questions.

Before I send the follow-up questions back to Mr. Kearney, however, I’d like to allow readers of this blog to add your thoughts, and thus to enhance and improve the new round of questions.

When I respond to Mr. Kearney, I intend to state clearly that the skepticism expressed in the original questions and even more so in the follow-up questions has to do with what many of us regard as the FBI’s reluctance to be forthcoming in this matter, and should not in any way be taken as a reflection on the NAS.

I will emphasize how much I, and the whole country, appreciate that the NAS has undertaken a difficult but vitally important task in the effort to get to the truth of the anthrax attacks and the FBI’s investigation.

Below are my original questions (labelled Q), Mr. Kearney’s answers (labelled A), and my draft follow-up questions (labelled LMW) …

***

Q1: May I have a copy of the contract between the NAS and the FBI for the proposed anthrax related study?

A: Our contracts are not publicly available.

LMW: This is troubling. Without the details of the contract, it will be difficult to know the precise scope of the study and, more importantly, what constraints, if any, have been placed on NAS by FBI. Even if it is consistent with NAS policy to keep contracts confidential (and I have no reason to doubt that), perhaps in this case where public interest is so intense, the contract could be made public. Has NAS ever made a contract public? Will NAS considered doing so in this case? Is NAS prohibited from doing so by the provisions of the contract?

***

Q2 (two of the original questions combined): Who is heading the study for NAS and who else will be working on it? Has the study begun and if not, when will it begin?

A: We haven’t appointed a chair to the committee that will carry out this study (we expect to soon, however). We expect to appoint a provisional committee soon.

LMW: This study has been announced for some time, and was probably known by NAS before it was announced. It seems strange that the FBI would commission a study of this magnitude ($880,000) without knowing who was going to conduct it. Is it normal for NAS to accept a study and public announcement of a study without having designated the person who will head it and the team which will carry it out? Who at NAS made the decision to accept this study? When was that decision made? Will the names of the study chair and team be made public when they are appointed?

****

Q3 (three of the original questions combined): How will the study team coordinate with the FBI during the course of the study? What role will the FBI  play in directing the study? Will the FBI have any opportunity to censor or otherwise limit the course of the study or the results reported to the public?

A: We are a private, nonprofit institution.  We were chartered by Congress in 1863 to advise the government on scientific matters, but we operate independently from the agencies that sponsor our studies.

LMW: That doesn’t quite answer the questions. 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? That’s one reason it’s so important to see the contract.

***

Q4: Who has been designated by the FBI to coordinate and monitor the study from their end?

A: You’ll have to ask the FBI who their point person is for our review.

LMW: Is this not specified in the contract? Doesn’t NAS know who the FBI coordinator will be? Or are you prohibited from releasing that information? If so, what else is the NAS prohibited from doing or saying?

***

Q5: When is the study expected to be completed?

A: It’s an 18-month study from start of contract, which arrived in April I believe.

LMW: So the target completion date is October 2011?

***

Q6: Will the complete report of the study be made available to the public?

A: Our reports undergo anonymous peer review by outside experts before they are approved for public release.  A public report will be issued at that time.

LMW: The answer doesn’t quite respond to the question. 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?

***

Q7: Will there be progress reports available to the public as the study goes on?

A: There is no plan to issue an interim report.

LMW: This effectively puts a lid on all information on this topic until at least October 2011 (18 months from April 2009), which will be, by the way, 10 years from the anthrax attacks of the fall of 2001. To me this is the FBI’s attempt (I’m not blaming the NAS) to put a lid on this case for as long as possible. Has NAS issued progress reports in other studies? Or is the absence of a progress report in this study the result of a specific provision of this contract with the FBI?

***

Q8: Will the study team be made available for questions and interviews?

A: The public is invited to submit material or comments to the committee during the course of the study.  All material submitted to the committee will be available in a public access file.

LMW: The answer seems to be that the study team will not be made available for public interaction. Is this true? Does this apply after the study is completed as well as during it? 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 the result of specific provisions in the contract for this study?

***

Q9: Why is the project not listed in the Current Projects System (CPS) intended to provide information about current committee activities?

A: We expect to appoint a provisional committee soon, at which point the names and statement of task will be posted to our current projects site.

LMW: Is it typical that there be a public announcement of a project as in this case, without listing that project in the CPS? Has this happened before? Are there any restrictions in the NAS-FBI contract which limit what NAS can say publicly regarding its statement of task?

Posted in * anthrax science, * FBI refusal to testify, * NAS review of FBI science, * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments »