Posts Tagged ‘* Congressman Holt & anthrax’
* Ivins was told that the spore powder used in the Fall 2001 anthrax attacks was almost exactly the same as spore powder that had been made at USAMRIID
Posted by Lew Weinstein on October 2, 2015
Posted by Lew Weinstein on December 20, 2014
DEC. 19, 2014
A congressional inquiry into the F.B.I.’s scientific work on the anthrax mailings of 2001 has identified major gaps in genetic evidence that purportedly links the germs to Bruce E. Ivins, the Army microbiologist blamed for attacks that killed five people, sickened 17 others and shook the nation.
The Government Accountability Office study, requested in 2010 and made public on Friday, echoes earlier criticism from the National Academy of Sciences. In 2011, its expert panel found that the bureau’s analysis of the genetic evidence “did not definitively demonstrate” a firm link between the mailed anthrax spores and a sample taken from Dr. Ivins’s laboratory at Fort Detrick in Maryland, and more generally was “not as conclusive” as the bureau had asserted.
The G.A.O. had better access to F.B.I. records and deepened the genetic critique, finding that the bureau’s investigation “lacked several important characteristics” that could have strengthened its case. “A key scientific gap,” the 77-page report said, was the bureau’s failure to investigate whether samples of anthrax spores could naturally mutate enough to obscure their putative links to Dr. Ivins.
In 2008, shortly after he killed himself, the bureau laid out a sweeping but circumstantial case against Dr. Ivins, an Army microbiologist, saying he had acted alone in conducting the nation’s first major bioterrorist attack. It called the case Amerithrax and said that unique mutations in the anthrax spores had helped put Dr. Ivins under the spotlight.
In an interview, Timothy M. Persons, the G.A.O.’s chief scientist, credited the bureau with working hard to correct some of its science deficiencies but said its evidence fell short in the anthrax case, which was officially closed in 2010. “They needed better science and measurement in order to be more conclusive,” he said. “It sounds nitpicky, but that’s important in building up the scientific evidence for an important case.”
The bureau said it agreed with the G.A.O.’s advice on improving its forensic science.
On Friday, Representative Rush D. Holt, a New Jersey Democrat and physicist who requested the study, said the report “confirms what I have often said — that the F.B.I.’s definitive conclusions about the accuracy of their scientific findings in the Amerithrax case are not, in fact, definitive. The United States needs a comprehensive, independent review of the Amerithrax investigation to ensure we have learned the lessons from this bio attack.”
Mr. Holt has repeatedly called for a national commission on the anthrax mailings that would serve as a kind of scaled-down version of the panel that studied the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The anthrax letters were sent from a mailbox in Princeton, N.J., which is in his district.
The deadly wisps of anthrax, coming just after the September attacks, set off new waves of panic. Over the years, a growing number of outside expertshave asked whether federal investigators got the right man and whether the F.B.I.’s long inquiry brushed aside important clues.
To the regret of independent scientists, the report made no mention of an issue beyond genetics: whether the spores displayed signs of advanced manufacturing. They have pointed to distinctive chemicals found in the dried anthrax spores that they say contradict F.B.I. claims that the germs were unsophisticated.
Evidence of special coatings, they say, suggests that Dr. Ivins had help in obtaining his germ weapons or was innocent.
Martin E. Hugh-Jones, an authority on anthrax at Louisiana State University, said the report was disappointing.
* Congressman Rush Holt has raised questions about the FBI investigation of the anthrax attacks for years … He has asked the GAO to investigate … but no answers are forthcoming … is the GAO now part of the coverup?
Posted by Lew Weinstein on March 2, 2014
For years, Congressman Rush Holt has raised questions about the FBI investigation of the anthrax attacks. He has called for Congressional reviews. He has asked the GAO to investigate.
But nothing has happened. No reports have issued.
The FBI’s Ivins case has been thoroughly demolished on this blog and elsewhere.
DXer’s recent comment (3/2/14): I’m going to be bummed if a GAO report issues without all this great stuff and powerful testimony uploaded. We’ve seen Adamovicz, Little, Andrews, Worsham, Byrne and others demolish the FBI’s “Ivins Theory.”
Does anyone still care about what seems to be an enormous coverup of the truth regarding the 2001 anthrax attacks?
The only thing we know with almost total certainty is that it wasn’t Dr. Bruce Ivins.
Here are links to just a few of the many posts on this blog regarding Congressman Holt’s lonely efforts to get the truth …
posted December 10, 2010
* Congressman Holt’s letter to FBI Director Mueller: ” … it now appears that the FBI—which has consistently botched and bungled this case from the beginning—may be seeking to try to steer or otherwise pressure the NAS panel to reach a conclusion desired by the Bureau. I ask that you meet with me this week to explain the FBI’s troubling conduct in this matter …”
posted March 30, 2011
* the GAO review of the FBI’s anthrax investigation has begun … a report is expected to be issued by September 30, 2011 … *** UPDATE: a series of fascinating comments to this post suggest many pertinent questions that GAO might want to consider .
posted September 18, 2011
posted July 30, 2013
* 10 questions related to USAMRIID’s secret dried aerosol project … all previously asked on this blog … that the GAO report should have answered … except there is no GAO report!
Posted by Lew Weinstein on February 25, 2014
In March 2011, in response to a request from Congressman Rush Holt (D, NJ), the Government Accountability Office (GAO) undertook to review the seriously flawed FBI investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks.
The GAO suggested it would report within 9 months to a year. But now, 3 years later, there is no report.
Congressman Holt has announced he will not run for re-election. Will there ever be a GAO report? Has the GAO become part of the coverup?
DXer has assembled these 10 questions
related to USAMRIID’s secret dried aerosol project …
1. Who Was The Only Person In [Redacted] Spoke To About The Dried Aerosol Project? Was It Ivins Assistant, The Aerosol Expert Pat F.? It Was Not Ivins Because His Name Would Not Have Been Redacted.
Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 11, 2012
2. The Dried Aerosol Project At USAMRIID Was to Determine The Breakthrough Point for the Recombinant Protective Antigen Vaccine; Equipment Was Purchased and Preliminary Experiments Were Performed : Dugway Was Considered As Supplier Of Dried Virulent Spores
Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 1, 2012
3. Was the sample that Dr. Ivins says he was told was from Iraq — but wasn’t — actually from the dried aerosol project that had been launched at USAMRIID unbeknownst to Dr. Ivins? Who brought it to him? Where did it come from?
Posted by Lew Weinstein on December 14, 2011
4. Dr. Ivins reports he had not known the FBI anthrax expert made a dried powder out of Ames from RMR 1029 for DARPA until after 9/11; did the FBI scientist and his assistants participate in the dried aerosol project at USAMRIID?
Posted by Lew Weinstein on December 13, 2011
5. Who did this dried aerosol study at USAMRIID?
Posted by Lew Weinstein on November 27, 2011
6. Who worked alone on the dried aerosol project in Building 1412 and what does he or she say about the research? Was virulent Ames ever made into a dried powder in Maryland or Virginia?
Posted by Lew Weinstein on April 23, 2011
7. The dried aerosol work in Aerobiology did not continue because dried agents are difficult to contain and decontaminate and because dried agents have dual use implications
Posted by Lew Weinstein on April 19, 2011
8. More on dried aerosol project: Was it Southern Research Institute that was considered for the contract? Who thought he was above the investigation?
Posted by Lew Weinstein on April 19, 2011
9. DXer: John Ezzell forthrightly (to my way of thinking, heroically) answered all my questions relating to the DARPA research in which Flask 1029 (the “murder weapon” to borrow US Attorney Taylor’s term) was used to make a dried powder Ames aerosol.
Posted by Lew Weinstein on December 10, 2010
10. why did the FBI keep evidence of John Ezzell’s dried powder from the NAS?
Posted by Lew Weinstein on March 21, 2011
* Why doesn’t the FBI offer America a credible story? Why don’t we know who is responsible for the 2001 anthrax attacks?
Posted by Lew Weinstein on February 22, 2014
It should be completely clear to anyone who has read the many posts on this blog that the FBI has no credible case against Dr. Bruce Ivins. The FBI assertion that Ivins was the sole perpetrator, or even that he was involved – has been totally demolished.
The FBI’s case against Dr. Ivins is clearly bogus:
science that proves innocence instead of guilt.
So what really happened?
And why doesn’t the FBI offer America
a credible story?
Yet the FBI will admit nothing. There is still stonewalling of FOIA requests. The GAO, which years ago was asked by Congressman Rush Holt, to review the FBI investigation, is way past any deadline any reasonable person would have set for a response.
I can imagine only 3 possible “actual” scenarios …
The FBI has more evidence against Dr. Ivins but is, for some undisclosed reason, withholding that evidence … POSSIBLE BUT NOT SO LIKELY
The FBI, despite the most expensive and extensive investigation in its history, has not solved the case and has no idea who prepared and mailed the anthrax letters that killed 5 Americans in 2001 … EVEN LESS LIKELY
The FBI knows who did it (not Dr. Ivins) but is covering up the actual perpetrators, for undisclosed reasons … THE MOST LIKELY SCENARIO
Who will come forward to demand a full disclosure?
America deserves to know.
* Trentonian (10/20/13) … Congressman Rush Holt: “Myriad questions remain about the anthrax attacks and the government’s response to the attacks.
Posted by Lew Weinstein on October 21, 2013
By Dave Neese, The Trentonian … POSTED: 10/20/13, 7:21 PM EDT
The anthrax probe at first came to focus intensely on government scientist Stephen Hatfill. The federal government eventually awarded him $5.8 million to settle a lawsuit charging that the massive investigation had violated his constitutional rights.
The investigative chase in 2005 started down a new trail, this time in pursuit of Bruce Ivins, another government scientist. In July 2008 he committed suicide with an overdose of Tylenol. A month later the FBI declared him the sole suspect behind the anthrax letters. On Feb. 19, 2010, it officially closed the investigation, declaring Ivins the perpetrator.
The FBI said psychological profiles, damning unrefuted circumstantial evidence, and Ivins’ own evasive or false statements to agents all pointed to his guilt. Most damning of all, said the FBI, was the fact that Ivins had access to anthrax identical to that dropped in the Princeton mailbox. Other scientists who had access were able to fully account for their whereabouts and their handling of anthrax in their labs. But Ivins, according to the FBI, never gave a straight story on why in the nights leading up to the attack he logged late hours in his government lab at Ft. Detrick, Md.
LMW NOTE: The FBI’s pathetic case against Dr. Ivins
has been thoroughly refuted on this blog and elsewhere.
The skeptical Holt, however, balks at signing off on the official conclusion to the investigation.
There were no fingerprints, no witness accounts, no physical evidence linking Ivins to the incident, says Holt. The case against him was “entirely circumstantial,” and the FBI director personally acknowledged as much to him, the congressman says.
The FBI “arbitrarily” closed the case based on evidence that “would not, I think, stand up in court,” he adds.
In 2011, after reviewing the anthrax analyses in the case, the National Academy of Sciences reported that it was “impossible to reach any definite conclusion about the origins of anthrax in the letters based solely on the available scientific evidence.”
Going on the fifth year now, Holt has tenaciously, but futilely, advocated the creation of a blue-ribbon commission to review the anthrax attack. With subpoena power and “such appropriations as necessary,” Holt’s panel authorized by the “Anthrax Attack Investigation Act” would seek to determine:
Whether “all credible leads and information regarding the potential perpetrator of the attacks were pursued with due diligence by federal investigators.”
The “full range of individuals who could have had access to the type of anthrax used in the attacks….”
The “full extent of the federal government’s preparedness for and immediate response to the attacks …”
LMW NOTE: The GAO has been promising a report
on its ongoing review of the FBI’s investigation for years.
Where is their report? What/who is holding it up?
Despite bipartisan backing, however, the Democratic Holt’s legislation has never progressed beyond the confines of the House Judiciary Committee.
Staff sources of both parties say there’s a reluctance on Capitol Hill to be seen as second-guessing law enforcement, especially the FBI, and a dread of unwittingly encouraging endless conspiracy speculations such as the assassination of President Kennedy inspires to this day.
“Myriad questions remain about the anthrax attacks
and the government’s response to the attacks,” insists Holt.
LMW NOTE … There are only three possible explanations for the FBI’s continued unsupported assertion that Dr. Ivins was the sole perpetrator of the anthrax attacks (or that he was involved at all).
1. The FBI has more evidence against Ivins that it has so far refused to make public … VERY UNLIKELY
2. The FBI has not solved the case and has no idea who perpetrated the 2001 attacks … POSSIBLE BUT NOT LIKELY
3. The FBI knows who perpetrated the attacks but won’t say who it was … MOST LIKELY
* a selection of posts from the CASE CLOSED blog making the case AGAINST the FBI’s assertions that Dr. Bruce ivins was the anthrax attacker
Posted by Lew Weinstein on April 30, 2013
This CASE CLOSED blog site contains 1272 posts and almost 16,000 comments. Here is a selection of the most important posts raising the questions which thoroughly discredit the FBI’s assertion that Dr. Bruce Ivins was the sole perpetrator of the 2001 anthrax attacks, or even that he was involved in any way …
Evidence for the Source of the 2001 Attack Anthrax
Martin E. Hugh-Jones1*, Barbara Hatch Rosenberg2, and Stuart Jacobsen3
New Documents Cast Doubt on Federal Anthrax Case
by Mike Wiser, FRONTLINE; Greg Gordon, McClatchy Newspapers; and Stephen Engelberg,ProPublica
Bruce Ivins Maybe Didn’t Send the Anthrax, Government Admits in Court Papers
By Joe Coscarelli Tue., Jul. 19 2011
Frontline, partnering with McClatchy and ProPublica, has done important work in assessing the FBI’s conclusion in Amerithrax.
A detailed analysis of Laurie Garrett’s new book
The unsolved anthrax murder mystery
BY LAURA H. KAHN | 23 MARCH 2011
THE ANTHRAX ATTACKS OF 2001, AN UNSOLVED MYSTERY (pdf)
clinical science, epidemiology, basic science and forensics
Colleague Says Anthrax Numbers Add Up to Unsolved Case
by Gary Matsumoto, Special to ProPublica, April 23, 2010, 11:45 a.m.
Nadler Renews Call for Independent Investigation of Anthrax Attacks
Mar 4, 2010
Widow Of Anthrax Victim Doubts FBI’s Conclusion
Derailing Justice Again
Norman M. Covert (former USAMRIID public affairs officer)
Ivins Minus the Technicolor
Norman M. Covert (former USAMRIID public affairs officer)
Al Qaeda anthrax lab tech says he had been part of Malaysian Armed Forces biological weapons program
Al Qaeda anthrax lab technician tells DXer that he realizes that by addressing these issues he may “jack myself up” but says that the “plan is on the way” — what does he mean when he says the “plan is on the way”?
Atta Was Coordinating With Jdey’s Associate Al-Hazmi, First In Fort Lee, NJ In Late August 2001 And Then In Laurel, MD in September 2001 ; Jdey’s Associate Nawaf Al-Hazmi Had Been At The Planning Meeting At Yazid Sufaat’s Kuala Lumpur Condo With Anthrax Planner Hambali And Anthrax Lab Director Yazid Sufaat And Yet The FBI Never Told The Public That Jdey Had Been Detained Along With Moussaoui In August 2001 (With Biology Textbooks) And Then Released
NSA ORCON: CIA and FBI Dropping the Ball In Anthrax Mailings and 9/11 Involved Same Failure To Track And Intercept Al-Midhar And Nawaf After Meeting At Kuala Lumpur Condo Of Anthrax Lab Tech Sufaat and Anthrax Planner Hambali
In today’s installment of a continuing series, Al Qaeda anthrax lab technician Yazid Sufaat defends his decision to go to Afghanistan to work on his “anthrax project” for Al Qaeda
Anthrax Lab Director Yazid Sufaat Wrote This Letter Of Introduction For Zacarias Moussaoui, Who Made The Cropduster Inquiries
On The Question Whether Yazid Sufaat Was Using Virulent Ames (see NAS Report), We Need One Of These Top-Flight Journalists To Succeed In Getting Substantive, On-The-Record Responses From Yazid
The “Hatfill Theory” was part of the same unstoppable train wreck as the “Ivins Theory.” There was a change of cars (investigators), but it was the same flawed train of reasoning and the investigators never overcame the earlier truncated emphasis of the investigation.
U.S. Senator Grassley … “There are no more excuses for avoiding an independent review and assessment of how the FBI handled its investigation in the anthrax case.”
Senator Grassley asks the FBI to explain why it retracted a Justice Department filing (in the Stevens case) that Dr. Bruce Ivins lacked access in his lab to the “specialized equipment” needed to dry wet anthrax spores into airborne powder
In a Sept 23, 2011 letter to Senator Grassley, the DOJ says that Dr. Ivins made the dried powder in B5 using the lyophilizer even though the DOJ has proved he was in B3 tending to the rabbits, not B5 (the BL-2 lab), at the time the DOJ alleges he made the dried powder. THAT is the contradiction.
Baltimore Sun/Frontline … if Ivins was not the person who sent the anthrax, then that killer is still on the loose … and we are left with an FBI that not only failed to solve such a huge case, but overstated and maybe lied about what it did accomplish.
Deposition Excerpt of USAMRIID Scientist Stephen Little: Bruce Ivins would not have had skill, equipment, or ability to decontaminate equipment
Deposition Excerpt of Patricia Worsham in Stevens v. United States: Product Could Not Have Been Made At USAMRIID With Equipment She Has Seen At USAMRIID
USAMRIID Scientist Susan Welkos deposition excerpt : No data suggesting Dr. Ivins is guilty
Ayman Zawahiri, Anwar Awlaki, Anthrax, and Amerithrax: The Infiltration Of US Biodefense
Justice Dept. takes on itself in probe of 2001 anthrax attacks
By Jerry Markon,January 27, 2012
Was FBI too quick to judge anthrax suspect the killer?
Greg Gordon | McClatchy Newspapers
last updated: April 21, 2011
Scientist Innocent of Anthrax Mailings, Former Colleague Says
April 23, 2010
Science falls short in anthrax investigation
Nature 454, 917 (21 August 2008) | doi:10.1038/454917a; Published online 20 August 2008
Case not closed
The FBI says it has evidence showing that Bruce Ivins was behind the 2001 anthrax attacks — but with his death, this will not be tested in court. A full enquiry into the case is needed if justice is to be done.
January 24, 2010, 7:33 p.m. ET
The Anthrax Attacks Remain Unsolved, by Edward Jay Epstein
THE FANTASY WORLDS OF BRUCE IVINS AND THE FBI (video)
Posted On: March 5, 2010
Anthrax Redux: Did the Feds Nab the Wrong Guy? | Wired Magazine
NPR: FBI Faulted For Overstating Science In Anthrax Case
Serious doubt cast on FBI’s anthrax case against Bruce Ivins – Salon …
Feb 16, 2011 – A scientific panel concludes the Government overstated its genetic evidence against Bruce Ivins.
NAS Panel Member Nancy D. Connell in new treatise: Amerithrax May Never Be Solved
“Tellingly, it was a target of the 2001 anthrax letters – Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont – who told Mueller at a 2008 hearing that he seriously doubted the findings of the FBI’s long and complicated anthrax investigation.”
“FBI’s longtime director faces criticism of bureau again,” Apr 27, 2013
PR’s John Dankowsky interviews Stephen Engleberg, Paul Keim and David Relman … RELMAN: the evidence linking the anthrax material in the letters to the material in the flask in Bruce Ivins’ lab was consistent with an association but was not conclusive or definitive … KEIM: there’s no scientific test that can prove that it came from Fort Detrick, Maryland.
former USAMRIID scientists Jeff Adamovicz and Gerry Andrews … “The scientific evidence clearly shows that the (anthrax) wasn’t produced in our laboratory (USAMRIID).” … ie, IT WASN’T IVINS!!!
Posted by Lew Weinstein on October 8, 2011
Richard Spertzel in WSJ: Bruce Ivins Wasn’t the Anthrax Culprit
Washington Post editorial (10/21/11) calls for independent review of FBI investigation of Dr. Bruce Ivins in 2001 anthrax attacks
Posted by Lew Weinstein on October 22, 2011
NYT editorial, showing no confidence in the FBI’s unraveling case against Dr. Bruce Ivins, calls for an independent review of the FBI’s anthrax investigation to assure that the culprits are not still at large … LMW: it is long past time to hold Director Mueller accountable for the FBI’s investigative failures and for the FBI’s purposeful withholding of documents that are required to be released by FOIA
NY Post editorial: a group of eminent scientists have found that the FBI’s Amerithrax conclusions may be shockingly wrong … (the FBI) clearly can’t be trusted to judge cases that reflect badly on its own conduct
an interview with David Relman, vice chair of the NAS review committee, reveals clearly that the science cannot prove that Dr. Bruce Ivins is the sole perpetrator or even involved … and, by the way, it seems Al Qaeda had Ames anthrax
Bioweapons expert Jonathan Tucker noted in his 2010 NATO briefing that skeptics had pointed out numerous holes in the FBI’s “Ivins Theory” (and see 2013 book)
Rutgers professor and Amerithrax expert Dr. Leonard Cole … there remain important gaps in the FBI’s evidence against Dr. Bruce Ivins
Jeffrey Adamovicz and Gerry Andrews, the people who knew Dr. Ivins and his lab capabilities better than anyone else, make powerful arguments that the FBI has not made its case … and Adamovicz says “he feels morally obligated to continue to pursue the case.”
Army microbiologist Dr. Henry Heine, until now forbidden to speak, says … Ivins is absolutely not the anthrax attacker … it was impossible that the deadly spores had been produced undetected in Dr. Ivins’s laboratory, as the F.B.I. asserts … whoever did this is still running around out there
International anthrax expert Dr. Hugh Martin-Jones challenges the government to test his team’s hypothesis in a lab instead of with “lawyer talk” … “I hope [the findings] will add to the pressure that the investigation be actively reopened.”
Doubts about anthrax story
Daily Journal Online-12 hours ago
After 9/11, there was a lethal (still unsolved) anthrax attack
•Feb 27, 2010 – The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s report on Dr. Bruce Ivins leaves too many loose ends to be taken as a definitive verdict.
Who Mailed the Anthrax Letters? – NYTimes.com
Editorial: Decade after anthrax mail attacks, questions still remain
Published: Tuesday, October 11, 2011, 6:55 AM
By Times of Trenton Editorial Board
Justice Department Filing Casts Doubt on Guilt of Bruce Ivins, Accused in Anthrax Case
by Mike Wiser, PBS Frontline, Greg Gordon, McClatchy Newspapers, and Stephen Engelberg, ProPublica, July 18, 2011, 7:03 p.m.
The Bioterrorist Attacks on America, by Yuril V. Ezepchuk (Director of Biological Sciences, University of Colorado) … hypothesis: the hijacker Ahmed Alhaznawi had been infected with the skin form of anthrax
Posted by Lew Weinstein on September 4, 2012
New leads in anthrax case
By DAILY PRINCETONIAN STAFF
Published: Wednesday, October 12th, 2011
Obama Obstructs Oversight of FBI in Anthrax Case
By Cliff Kincaid
ProPublica, McClatchy Newspapers and PBS’ Frontline … the FBI’s case against anthrax suspect rife with questions
Posted by Lew Weinstein on October 11, 2011
Laurie Garrett … the FRONTLINE program has convinced me that Dr. Bruce Ivins is innocent of the 2001 anthrax mailings
Posted by Lew Weinstein on October 13, 2011
Frederick News Post: the FBI’s case against Dr. Bruce Ivins is in tatters … *LMW: we must support Congressman Holt’s call for a re-investigation … we must learn the truth
Posted by Lew Weinstein on February 21, 2011
In Have We “Met the Enemy”?, Science 3 February 2012: Vol. 335 no. 6068 pp. 540-541, Dr. David Relman, who had been vice-chairman of the NAS Committee, explains:
Claire Fraser-Liggett: the genetic analysis of the spores in Ivins’ flask does not indicate Ivins is guilty
an article by Drs. Hugh-Jones, Rosenberg & Jacobsen highlights key unanswered questions in the FBI anthrax investigation … such as where and how were the anthrax spores in the attack letters prepared?
Melanie Ulrich: “Ex-colleague [assistant] questions government’s case against anthrax suspect”
August 08, 2008|By ANDREW SCHOTZ
Congressman Holt: the FBI’s “botched investigation” must be reopened … LMW: please write to your Congressman or woman and urge support for Holt’s Anthrax Commission bill
HOLT, ANTHRAX and JEOPARDY: “He mailed the anthrax-laden letters in Fall 2001. Who is _______?”
Congressman Rush Holt: The FBI repeatedly bungled the anthrax investigation … I have introduced legislation that would create a special committee to investigate the anthrax attacks
Hartford Courant: Anthrax Attacks Still A Mystery After 10 Years …
Posted by Lew Weinstein on October 4, 2011
AP: statements by scientists in Florida court case raise doubts regarding the FBI conclusion that Dr. Bruce Ivins prepared the anthrax used in the 2001 attacks
Posted by Lew Weinstein on May 19, 2011
Washington Post editorial calls for Congressional commission to probe all evidence in the anthrax case
Posted by Lew Weinstein on February 18, 2011
Book author Edward Jay Epstein writes on his blog:
Keith Olbermann interviews investigative reporter Gerald Posner … the FBI anthrax case is severely flawed
Frederick News-Post columnist Barry Kissin – the lynching of Bruce Ivins
selected extracts from the presentation of anthrax vaccine MD Dr. Meryl Nass at the Nov 29, 2010 anthrax seminar
Stephanie Yamkovenko of Frederick Gorilla summarizes elements of the FBI’s non-existent case against Dr. Ivins
Excerpts from “I Heard The Sirens Scream” by by Pulitzer Prize winning author Laurie Garrett
slide presentation at the Nov 29 anthrax letters seminar
Dr. Alan Zelicoff, the head of Saint Louis University’s Institute in Biosecurity, has serious doubts about the government’s official explanation of Amerithrax
Ken Dillon asks … Who Was the Real Anthrax Mailer? … the key people in the anthrax mailings were not Bruce Ivins or Steven Hatfill … instead, they appear to have been Ali al-Timimi and Abderraouf Jdey.
Congressman Mike Pence & Pulitzer prize winning science writer Laurie Garrett agree on Anthrax Mailings.. Pence: “I don’t know who sent it” — I am afraid we may have missed the off-ramp to the truth.” … Garrett: “I get outraged because the FBI completely botched the investigation on the anthrax.”
Doubts Persist About FBI’s Anthrax Investigation 10 Years Later …
4-page summary of analysis
Ayman Zawahiri, Anwar Awlaki, Anthrax, and Amerithrax: The Infiltration Of US Biodefense
* the FBI continues to stonewall Congress and the American people on anthrax investigation … it is a frightening display of power by our national police force which flies in the face of what a democracy of the people is supposed to be
Posted by Lew Weinstein on October 16, 2011
Greg Gordon, McClatchy Newspapers, Stephen Engelberg, ProPublica, and Mike Wiser, PBS’ Frontline Oct. 14, 2011 …
despite evidence of FBI bungling,
new probe into anthrax killings unlikely
- Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, says it would take a powerful grassroots movement or startling new evidence to reopen the Justice Department’s investigation that branded a now-deceased Army researcher as the anthrax mailer who killed five people a decade ago.
- Even if he were the committee chairman, Grassley said, “I would question my capability of raising enough heat (to reopen the case) when you’re up against the FBI. And I’ve been up against the FBI.”
- Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., who has criticized the FBI investigation as “botched” and from whose district the deadly letters were mailed, said he may try for a third time to win support for legislation creating a special commission to investigate the attacks.
- “There are so many reasons to want to get to the bottom of it,” Holt said in an interview. “I hate to think of what lines of investigation have been shut off.”
read the entire article at … http://www.propublica.org/article/despite-evidence-of-fbi-bungling-new-probe-into-anthrax-killings-unlikely
LMW COMMENT …
FBI Director Mueller continues to stonewall Congress and the American people regarding the FBI’s investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks. Despite continuing and compelling evidence that the FBI’s case against Dr. Bruce Ivins is not supported by anything but flimsy innuendos and weak circumstantial evidence, the FBI will not, so far, move from its pedantic repetition of its assertion that Dr. Ivins was the sole perpetrator.
It is frightening that, in a democracy, the national police force has so much power over the people’s elected representatives. The FBI, in this case, is behaving more like the KGB than like a srvrant of the American people. They won’t answer questions asked by Congress. They won’t release documents they have no right to keep hidden.
And they surely will give no credence to the ongoing demolition of their pathetic case against Dr. Ivins.
I have been furious about the FBI’s behavior ever since watching the August 2008 press conference where they asserted, with no physical evidence, no witnesses, and (it turns out) no science, that Bruce Ivins was the sole perpetrator of the anthrax attacks. It was clear to me the FBI had not even proven that Ivins was involved, let alone that he was the sole perpetrator.
It seemed to me then, and still seems so today, that there are only 3 possible “actual” scenarios …
- The FBI has more evidence against Dr. Ivins but is, for some undisclosed reason, withholding that evidence … POSSIBLE BUT NOT SO LIKELY
- The FBI, despite the most expensive and extensive investigation in its history, has not solved the case and has no idea who prepared and mailed the anthrax letters that killed 5 Americans in 2001 … EVEN LESS LIKELY
- The FBI knows who did it (not Dr. Ivins) but is covering up the actual perpetrators, for undisclosed reasons …THE MOST LIKELY SCENARIO
Being a novelist, I wrote a novel, presenting what I (and others, including a respected representative of the U.S. Intelligence Community) thought was a plausible scenario of what might have happened. My novel CASE CLOSED has been published and is available in paperback and kindle formats on amazon.
Here is the first scene from CASE CLOSED,
where I have the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)
begin a re-do of the FBI’s failed investigation …
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: * Congressman Holt & anthrax, ** CASE CLOSED by Lew Weinstein, *** 2001 anthrax attacks, *** Amerithrax, *** Dr. Bruce Ivins, *** FBI anthrax investigation, FBI Director Mueller, Senator Grassley & anthrax | 1 Comment »
* International anthrax expert Dr. Hugh Martin-Jones challenges the government to test his team’s hypothesis in a lab instead of with “lawyer talk” … “I hope [the findings] will add to the pressure that the investigation be actively reopened.”
Posted by Lew Weinstein on October 12, 2011
Henry Rome writes in The Daily Princetonian (10/12/11) …
- International anthrax expert Martin Hugh-Jones, molecular biologist Barbara Hatch Rosenberg and chemist Stuart Jacobsen assert …
the Army microbiologist accused of mailing anthrax-laden letters
did not, in fact, have the technical skill needed to manufacture the spores.
- In response to a statement issued by Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd dismissing the team’s claims, Dr. Hugh-Jones said in an email to The Daily Princetonian that he challenged the government to test his team’s hypothesis in a lab in order to take the discussion “out of the realm of lawyer talk of you said/we say nonsense.”
- “The DOJ forgets that we are scientists and all ‘speculation’ are hypotheses which are subject to testing to see if they have any basis in hard fact,” he said. “I hope [the findings] will add to the pressure that the investigation be actively reopened.”
- The team claims that the particles of tin and silicone found in the anthrax spores are not random contaminants. Instead, they argue, the particles are indicators of the complex coating used in the mass production of pharmaceutical products.
- These recent findings come less than a year after the National Academy of Sciences issued a review that criticized the FBI’s scientific analysis of the anthrax spores.
- New Jersey Rep. Rush Holt has also condemned the FBI’s handling of the investigation … Holt has called for a commission, styled after the 9/11 commission, to investigate the mailings.
read the entire article at … http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2011/10/12/29020/
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: * Congressman Holt & anthrax, ** NAS anthrax study, *** 2001 anthrax attacks, *** Amerithrax, *** Dr. Bruce Ivins, *** FBI anthrax investigation, dean boyd, Dr. Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, Dr. Martin Hugh-Jones, Dr. Stuart Jacobsen | 7 Comments »
* Congressman Rush Holt: The FBI repeatedly bungled the anthrax investigation … I have introduced legislation that would create a special committee to investigate the anthrax attacks
Posted by Lew Weinstein on September 18, 2011
Congressman Rush Holt – D,NJ – writes (9/16/11) …
- I (have long been) concerned about the processes and professionalism of government investigators.
The FBI’s practices for taking evidence, I saw, were sloppy and even illogical.
- One of the FBI’s first steps, for instance, should have been to examine immediately all of the mailboxes that fed into the Trenton mail facility where the letters were known to have been processed.
- Yet nine months passed before the FBI swabbed public mailboxes and identified a contaminated public mailbox on Nassau Street in Princeton as the apparent source of the letter.
- Only then did the FBI begin asking passers-by whether they remembered anything unusual happening at that box the previous fall.
- For years, the FBI investigation focused myopically on Steven Hatfill, a bioweapons expert, even after it became clear that Hatfill lacked access to the strain of anthrax used in the attacks. Hatfill later sued the Department of Justice, and he settled for $5.8 million.
The FBI’s bungling of the case squandered five years of investigative time
while the real culprit or culprits remained at large.
- Finally, after the better part of a decade of false leads and vague public statements, the FBI announced in August 2008 that it had identified a suspect: Dr. Bruce Ivins, a vaccine specialist who worked at Fort Detrick and who days earlier had committed suicide.
As FBI Director Robert Mueller ultimately acknowledged to me,
the case against Ivins was almost entirely circumstantial.
- On the basis of this (circumstantial) evidence, the FBI declared that Ivins was the culprit, that he had acted alone and that the investigation into the anthrax attacks was considered closed.
Yet the FBI has said that it does not have
any direct, physical evidence tying Ivins to the attack.
- Further investigations, including a report from the National Research Council, have cast questions on whether the FBI conclusively demonstrated that the anthrax used in the attack originated in Ivins’ lab.
- Indeed, as the NRC report noted, multiple individuals had access to the flask that allegedly contained the attack material.
- And Ivins had no experience in making, nor the proper equipment to produce, the kind of refined, easily aerosolized spores that were used in the attacks.
- In Congress, I have introduced legislation that would create a special committee, modeled after the 9/11 Commission, to investigate the anthrax attacks, including our pre-attack preparations, the incidents, the public health response, the forensic response and the subsequent improvements made.
- Such an investigation would help us understand what really happened, why and whether America has grown better prepared to deter biological attacks.
I believe that many of America’s most dangerous overreactions,
particularly the invasion of Iraq, which Bush administration officials
at first tried to link to the anthrax attacks,
can be traced directly to the panic induced by the anthrax mailings.
- Our sense that terrorists were everywhere, that even an action as innocent as opening the mail could be fatal, set the United States on a path that will haunt us for years.
LMW COMMENT …
The FBI has clearly failed to solve the anthrax case, and is just as clearly trying to stonewall any attempts to get to the truth. FBI Director Robert Mueller needs to be brought on the carpet to explain his management of this case and to tell the American people the truth about the anthrax attacks.