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

Posts Tagged ‘Dr. Henry S. Heine’

* 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 …

https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/05/28/dxer-on-david-willmans-the-mirage-man/comment-page-1/#comment-13295

******

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 »

* Dr. Ivins committed suicide only after the FBI swabbed him for DNA to test the semen on the panties

Posted by DXer on April 14, 2011

******

******

Dr. Heine says that the FBI told Dr. Ivins that Dr. Heine had implicated Bruce.

He said as a result Bruce flew into a rage and wanted to kill him.

Dr. Heine said that he said no such thing.

On the question of the FBI’s testing of the semen on the panties, did the FBI already have his DNA from taking the coffee cup as evidence in May 2007?

******

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 18 Comments »

* According to former co-worker of Ivins and former USAMRIID microbacteriologist Henry Heine, the science doesn’t seem to support Ivins’ guilt

Posted by DXer on February 4, 2011

Dr. Bruce Ivins

******

According to former co-worker of Ivins

and former USAMRIID microbacteriologist Henry Heine,

the science doesn’t seem to support Ivins’ guilt

  • Heine told the panel that the most common way of growing bacteria at USAMRIID is in flasks.
    • Based on the number of envelopes mailed out (eight to 10), the concentration of spores in the powder (10 to the 12th power spores per gram) and the number of grams of anthrax per envelope (1 to 2 grams), he calculated there were at least 10 to the 13th power anthrax spores in the attacks. Under ideal conditions, growing anthrax in a flask could produce only 10 to the 11th power spores — one hundredth of the total needed.
  • …The committee also asked Heine how the anthrax could have been dried into a powder.
    • He replied that the FBI had asked him the same question in October 2001, and he said then and still thinks a lyophilizer would be the simplest way to dry large quantities of spores.
    • But “the idea of lyophilizing this actually scares the hell out of me, this material is so fine.” It would have contaminated the whole room when the air and moisture was vacuumed out, he said.
    • He said the lyophilizer at USAMRIID was not in the containment area, and if it had been used to prepare anthrax there would have been a trail of dead animals and people leading investigators to it.
    • USAMRIID had a speed-vac that someone could have used, but that would dry only 30 to 40 milliliters at a time.
    • Heine told the FBI the only other way he could think to dry the anthrax would be to use acetone, which would pull out the water.
    • “I have no idea what that would do to the spores and whether they’d still be viable,” he said, adding there would likely be evidence that acetone was used.
  • Add to that some investigatory bungling:
    • He said the whole investigation was filled with lies.
    • Officials told different USAMRIID researchers their co-workers accused them of committing the attacks, just to see their reaction.
    • They searched his vacation house and car without warrants.
    • They misled him about the questions they would ask him in front of a grand jury.
    • And they tried to get him to seek a restraining order against Ivins, only days before he committed suicide, by saying Ivins had threatened to kill Heine during a group therapy session.

“At least among my closest colleagues,

nobody believes Bruce did this.”

Heine thinks the FBI went after Ivins because “personality-wise,

he was the weakest link.”

******


CASE CLOSED is a novel

about the FBI’s failed investigation

of the 2001 anthrax attacks

******

read the opening scene of CASE CLOSED …

* CASE CLOSED – opening scene … the DIA re-investigates the FBI’s failed case

******

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *


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

* continued withholding of documents by the FBI and National Academy of Sciences (NAS) … hiding mistakes? hiding lies? surely hiding the truth!

Posted by DXer on May 1, 2010

.

The FBI’s case against Dr. Ivins is bogus: no evidence, no witnesses, an impossible timeline, science that proves innocence instead of guilt. So what really happened? And why? The “fictional” scenario in my novel CASE CLOSED has been judged by many readers, including a highly respected official in the U.S. Intelligence Community, as “quite plausible.”

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *

******

could it possibly be more clear that

only an independent investigation

has any hope of producing the truth?

President Obama … it’s in your hands

******

extracts from a recent DXer comment …

  • It is now more than two months since the FBI closed Amerithrax, but the gag order remains in effect.
  • When you consider what Dr. Henry Heine has to say, it is obvious as why the FBI (and the FBI’s superiors) would want to keep USAMRIID mouths closed.
  • Megan Eckstein reported in The FNP that Heine said “the whole investigation was filled with lies.”
    • Not mistakes. Lies.
  • Fundamentally, there is the lie that the “FBI science” comes anywhere close to establishing Ivins’ guilt.”
    • But does the FBI science rely on the science at all?
    • They don’t, do they?  Not really.
  • Hasn’t the entire NAS review merely served to delay production of key documents for 2 years?
    • Is there anything under the Federal Advisory Committee Act that exempts the documents produced to the NAS by the FBI from production?  (No).
    • So hasn’t NAS been part of the problem, rather than part of the solution?

******

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 109 Comments »

* Who was the colleague with whom Dr. Heine says he did research regarding antifoam in creating aerosols?

Posted by DXer on April 25, 2010

.

The FBI’s case against Dr. Ivins is bogus: no evidence, no witnesses, an impossible timeline, science that proves innocence instead of guilt. So what really happened? And why? The “fictional” scenario in my novel CASE CLOSED has been judged by many readers, including a highly respected official in the U.S. Intelligence Community, as “quite plausible.”

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *

.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 6 Comments »

* Is a network analysis that relies on Bruce Ivins’ publications sufficient?

Posted by DXer on April 24, 2010

.

The FBI’s case against Dr. Ivins is bogus: no evidence, no witnesses, an impossible timeline, science that proves innocence instead of guilt. So what really happened? And why? The “fictional” scenario in my novel CASE CLOSED has been judged by many readers, including a highly respected official in the U.S. Intelligence Community, as “quite plausible.”

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *

.

******

Is a network analysis that relies

on Bruce Ivins’ publications

sufficient?

******

Dr. Heine talks about the missing interviews from 2002 and says they, for example, focused on these experiments that were of the FBI’s keen interest.  He says that the FBI was focused on what happened to the samples.

  • Who was in Henry Heine’s group that did the experimenting with silicon or silicone?
  • When were the experiments done?
  • Who was involved?
  • Did the experiments involve Flask 1029?
  • What was the purpose of the experiments?
  • Were they the encapsulation and aerosolization experiments for which withdrawals were made from Flask 1029?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 35 Comments »

* 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

Posted by DXer on April 23, 2010

.

The FBI’s case against Dr. Ivins is bogus: no evidence, no witnesses, an impossible timeline, science that proves innocence instead of guilt. So what really happened? And why? The “fictional” scenario in my novel CASE CLOSED has been judged by many readers, including a highly respected official in the U.S. Intelligence Community, as “quite plausible.”

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *

.

Scott Shane writes in the NYT (4/22/10) …

  • A former Army microbiologist who worked for years with  Bruce Ivins told a National Academy of Sciences panel on Thursday that he believed it was impossible that the deadly spores had been produced undetected in Dr. Ivins’s laboratory, as the F.B.I. asserts.
  • Asked by reporters after his testimony whether he believed that there was any chance that Dr. Ivins, who committed suicide in 2008, had carried out the attacks, the microbiologist, Henry S. Heine, replied, “Absolutely not.”
  • At the Army’s biodefense laboratory in Maryland, where Dr. Ivins and Dr. Heine worked, he said, “among the senior scientists, no one believes it.”
  • Dr. Heine told the 16-member panel, which is reviewing the F.B.I.’s scientific work on the investigation, that producing the quantity of spores in the letters would have taken at least a year of intensive work using the equipment at the army lab. Such an effort would not have escaped colleagues’ notice, he added later, and lab technicians who worked closely with Dr. Ivins have told him they saw no such work.
  • He told the panel that biological containment measures where Dr. Ivins worked were inadequate to prevent the spores from floating out of the laboratory into animal cages and offices. “You’d have had dead animals or dead people,” he said.
  • The public remarks from Dr. Heine, two months after the Justice Department officially closed the case, represent a major public challenge to its conclusion in one of the largest, most politically delicate and scientifically complex cases in F.B.I. history.
  • The F.B.I. declined to comment on Dr. Heine’s remarks on Thursday.
  • Members of the panel, whose chairwoman is Alice P. Gast, a chemical engineer and president of Lehigh University, declined to comment on Dr. Heine’s testimony or his remarks to reporters. The panel is expected to complete its report this fall.
  • Asked why he was speaking out now, Dr. Heine noted that Army officials had prohibited comment on the case, silencing him until he left the government laboratory in late February.
  • Dr. Heine said he did not dispute that there was a genetic link between the spores in the letters and the anthrax in Dr. Ivins’s flask — a link that led the F.B.I. to conclude that Dr. Ivins had grown the spores from a sample taken from the flask. But samples from the flask were widely shared, Dr. Heine said. Accusing Dr. Ivins of the attacks, he said, was like tracing a murder to the clerk at the sporting goods shop who sold the bullets.
  • “Whoever did this is still running around out there,” Dr. Heine said. “I truly believe that.”

read the entire article at … http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/us/23anthrax.html?emc=tnt&tntemail1=y

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 73 Comments »