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

Posts Tagged ‘Ed Lake’

* Ed Lake does not distinguish assertions from evidence … he does not understand the grand jury process … nor does he believe that every person is innocent until PROVEN guilty

Posted by DXer on April 22, 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 *


Ed Lake

does not distinguish assertions from evidence

… he does not understand the grand jury process

… nor does he believe that every person is innocent

until PROVEN guilty


ED LAKE says … But that was NOT the case with Ivins.  With Ivins it was ALL ABOUT FACTS. As the Amerithrax investigation proceeded, the facts just kept accumulating and pointing to Ivins.  Any “theory,” if there was a theory, was a theory that Ivins didn’t do it alone.  The conspiracy theorists held that theory.  However, <b>he FACTS showed that theory to be untrue.  No one could find ANY facts which showed that Ivins had a partner in the crime.  All the known facts said Ivins did it by himself. The grand jury had enough facts to indict Ivins.  Ivins had no defense.  He was given a chance to ask for a deal, but he didn’t ask.  So, he was facing the death penalty.

Perhaps, Ed, you could make a list of what these facts are that you keep referring to.

  • What evidence shows that only Ivins had access to the RMR1029 access?
  • Where is the evidence that eliminates the many others who had access?
  • What evidence shows that Ivins could have produced the anthrax powder, or that he could have done so without attracting attention? Did anyone see him do it?
  • What evidence says he went to Princeton to mail the letters, or that his absence was noted by a single human being?

Regarding your statements about a grand jury, do you have any idea how unlikely it would be for any grand jury to refuse to indict on a case of this magnitude, regardless of the weakness of the evidence? Do you understand that no defense case is ever presented to a grand jury? That no defense lawyer ever gets to review and question the assertions made by the prosecution to a grand jury?

Did you ever serve on a grand jury? I did, and I can tell you that prosecutors get close to 100% indictments, many on paper-thin cases. On my grand jury, with me taking the lead, that percentage was reduced to about 35% indictments, and the prosecutors were still talking about it 25 years later.

Do you have evidence that a plea bargain was offered to Ivins? If so, what were the terms? Regardless of the terms, any attorney who suggested that Ivins take a plea bargain in the face of the FBI’s pathetic case should be disbarred for incompetence. There was no case.

The FBI got very lucky when Ivins allegedly committed suicide (have you ever seen an autopsy report?) because now they had a suspect who could never defend himself in court, a very convenient outcome for the FBI/DOJ/Bush administration.

Ed, just saying that Ivins was guilty, as you and the FBI (and no one else that I know) assert, is not evidence.

It is frightening to me that any intelligent person does not understand the difference between assertions and evidence, or so blithely ignores the fundamental proposition that any person is innocent until PROVEN guilty.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 4 Comments »

* Adam Behsudi ( … the CASE CLOSED blog keeps questioning the FBI’s anthrax case

Posted by DXer on July 26, 2009

WHY did the FBI fail to solve the 2001 anthrax case?CASE CLOSED

WHO had the power to divert the FBI from the truth?

CASE CLOSED offers a fictional scenario that answers those questions

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon



the CASE CLOSED blog keeps questioning the FBI’s anthrax case


Adam Behsudi wrote several stories about the anthrax case in today’s (7-26-09) The story excerpted below, headlined Anthrax Case: Amerithrax debate lives online, shows the important role our CASE CLOSED blog is continuing to play in raising relevant questions about the FBI’s anthrax investigation …

  • For the past year, government officials have remained quiet on the case accusing Fort Detrick scientist Bruce Ivins of the deadly anthrax letter attacks.
    • Not so on the Internet, where a handful of people have turned Amerithrax into an ongoing discussion.
    • … bloggers have been filing Freedom of Information Act requests and working sources just as any experienced reporter would.
  • “I think it’s kept it alive. Its provided a place for reporters and others to go from time to time and look for facts and opinions,” said Lew Weinstein, who wrote a fictional novel based on the Amerithrax case titled “CASE CLOSED.”
  • Weinstein said the facts, or what he perceives as a lack thereof, infuriated him to the point of writing CASE
    Lew Weinstein

    Lew Weinstein

    CLOSED. He maintains a blog with the same name, trying to debunk the FBI case against Ivins.

  • Weinstein, who splits his time between Key West, Fla., and Collioure, France, was once a congressional candidate, has degrees from Princeton and the Harvard Business School and retired in 2005 as the CEO of a biomedical research organization.
  • “I am amazed at the level of scientific discourse that’s taking place on my blog,” said Weinstein, who called from a trip he was taking with his wife to Lithuania. “This is not simply a crime story. There’s more to it than that,” he said.
  • Ed Lake has been studying the case since 2001. Eight years ago he started a website to compile facts, documents and his own analysis. Unlike Weinstein, Lake has found the FBI case against Ivins solid.
  • Despite opposing viewpoints, Lake and Weinstein share an interest in the Amerithrax case that goes beyond the curiosity of most people.

read the entire article at …

Posted in * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , , , | 3 Comments »

* Ike Solem & Ed Lake argue about 6 questions the FBI either has or has not answered

Posted by DXer on June 16, 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)

IKE SOLEM comments …

Six Anthrax Science Questions the FBI Has Yet to Answer

  1. What were the four mutations the FBI says it used to link the anthrax in the envelopes to Bruce Ivins at USAMRIID?
  2. What are the odds of a false positive—that is, the odds that the spore populations in Ivins’s flask RMR-1029 and in the envelopes weren’t related but shared the same four mutations by chance?
  3. Eight samples had anthrax with all four mutations; one of those came from a lab other than USAMRIID. On what basis was this lab ruled out as the origin of the letters?
  4. How did the FBI rule out the possibility that others at USAMRIID with access to Ivins’s lab prepared the envelopes?
  5. How exactly did Ivins, if he was the perpetrator, produce an easily dispersible powder from his anthrax culture?
  6. What led the FBI to suspect Steven Hatfill in the earlier years of the investigation?

ED LAKE responds …

Almost all of the answers to your questions have been known for a long time.

  1. There were “well over a dozen” mutations in the attack anthrax.  Experts selected the four that were most stable and which would be most easy to detect in other samples.  Those four were used to go through the 1,070+ samples to find samples that included those mutations.  Ed: the FBI needs to identify the 4 mutations.
  2. Since mutations are basically random and occur very rarely (about once in a billion generations), the odds of the same four mutations showing up in a sample by pure chance is virtually non-existent.  It would be many trillions to one. Ed: what scientist calculated these odds?
  3. Presumably, they used the other mutations in the attack anthrax to determine the exact source.  It’s like using race to reduce the number of possible fathers in a paternity suit, and when you’ve reduced the number down that way, you then use other DNA factors to find the exact father.  If they didn’t do it that way, it was done with standard police procedures. Ed: not “presumably” … the FBI needs to say what it actually did.
  4. The same way that you reduce the number of suspects in any murder case: You check alibis, motivation, capabilities, etc.  Ed: this answer doesn’t cut it. The FBI needs to say how they ruled out others.
  5. He routinely made purified spores.  So, that wasn’t a problem.  The only thing he did that is not normally done is to dry the spores.  And there are many ways to do that.  The spores will dry all by themselves if you don’t take precautions to prevent it. Ed: this is your opinion. The FBI needs to say what they think and the basis for their conclusions.
  6. Dr. Hatfill was never a “suspect.”  A number of scientists acting as amateur detectives and led by Dr. Barbara Hatch Rosenberg decided that Dr. Hatfill was the most likely person to have sent the anthrax letters.  They campaigned for SEVEN MONTHS to get Dr. Hatfill publicly investigated.  The New York Times joined in on the campaign, and so did a few other media outlets.  The campaign included speeches at universities and at conferences, and persuading people to call their congressmen.  Eventually, after SEVEN MONTHS of campaigning, Dr. Rosenberg was called before some senate staffers who listened to her arguments, and then those staffers virtually demanded that the FBI investigate Dr. Hatfill.  About a week later, Dr. Hatfill’s apartment was publicly searched for the first time – making him a household name. Ed: Dr. Hatfill was named a “person of interest” by Attorney General Ashcroft and hounded by the FBI for years before they paid him $5.8 million to go away. The FBI are big boys who are rarely known to respond to public, media or even Congressional pressure. It isn’t logical to blame the FBI’s actions regarding Dr. Hatfill on Dr. Rosenberg.

Posted in * FBI anthrax statements, * FBI refusal to testify, * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 14 Comments »

* disturbing questions about the FBI’s anthrax investigation have been raised on this CASE CLOSED blog

Posted by DXer on May 19, 2009

Over the past several days, as interest in this blog has sky-rocketed, a new (to me) voice has been heard. Ike Solem has posted a series of comments expressing his belief that neither Dr. Ivins nor Dr. Hatfill was the anthrax attack perpetrator, and that the FBI investigation was derailed from its good start in a very suspicious manner.

I have taken brief extracts from some of Ike Solem’s comments and brought them together in this post. There are some who disagree with Ike’s facts and his conclusions, including Ed Lake. In fact, the dialogue between Ed Lake and Ike Solem on my CASE CLOSED blog is fascinating, and I’m pleased that I have been able to provide a forum for this expression of views. If the questions raised here resonate with you, I urge you to follow that discussion, including the comments of other contributors, and reach your own conclusions as to what you think is true.

CC - front cover - small

The last of Ike’s comments below, where he quotes an FBI agent asking that we not question the FBI’s investigative approach, is particularly chilling. Because we surely must question the FBI’s performance as well as its conclusions.

This is exactly what I have done in my novel CASE CLOSED, which will be published in June 2009. I started with the facts of the actual case, and the many troubling questions the FBI investigation has raised, and have written a fictional account of what might have happened in the anthrax attacks and the failed FBI investigation. Does my story portray what actually happened? Of course not. It’s a novel! But many early readers think my story is “all too plausible.”


the bottom line

SOLEM: I think we should go ahead with what Rep Holt, D – NJ, wants to do – a complete Congressional investigation into the entire business, from start to finish.  LMW NOTE: On this point, Ike Solem and Ed Lake seem to be in full agreement. As am I. Only Congress can bring FBI agents and others to testify on these matters under oath.

two different preparations

SOLEM: The 9/18 letters go through the mail to various news outlets, and one man gets sick in Florida and dies. There is little public reaction. Then, a second set of letters is sent on 10/9, with a more potent preparation and a letter that says “anthrax” (unlike the 9/18 ones) – and they go to the Senate. Numerous people are infected, hundreds go onto antibiotics, and the entire Hart Office Building is evacuated. Mass panic ensues. Mission accomplished? Clearly, two different preparations, one far different from the other … there seems no doubt that the preparations were indeed different, and that the Daschle/Leahy letters were far more dangerous.

different preparations point away from Ivins

SOLEM: Doing this (preparing the powder) without killing yourself or contaminating everything around you is apparently very difficult, and is the kind of technology only found within leading biological warfare defense labs in just a few locations around the world. Technically, the (FBI) arguments would all have been destroyed in a court of law – and it’s very hard to see how Ivins could have made two preparations – certainly not the Daschle-Leahy preparations. Isn’t it odd that we’ve heard no results at all on the silicon content of the first round of letters? Apparently, it wasn’t tested at all – and now the FBI seems bent on claiming that the two preparations were one and the same, manufactured by Ivins at the same time – and that’s just preposterous.

FBI changes team, focuses on Hatfill; why?

SOLEM: The initial FBI case was broken into two parts, Amerithrax I and Amerithrax II, which was a reasonable decision – one group went to work on forensics, the other on classic detective work. The field agents in the anthrax case did a very good job early on, even tracking the spores back to Princeton, NJ – and that’s when the FBI appointed a new lead, Richard Lambert. Richard Lambert took over immediately after the Princeton spores were discovered, and his tenure lasted through 2006, and he made sure that Hatfill was “the sole suspect.” I think the original FBI team (who only lasted for three months or so before being transferred off the case and forced into retirement, I believe) had the right answer, and everything since then has been a cover up effort, led first by Richard Lambert, and then by the third FBI team, leadership unknown. The sacking of the original FBI team and the replacement with Richard Lambert and the “lone wolf” theory of Steven Hatfill smells rotten. Who doubts that they would have declared ‘case closed’ had Hatfill committed suicide under pressure?

FBI – don’t second guess our investigative approach

SOLEM: conventional detective work—such as checking lab notebooks and shipment records—helped rule out everyone but Ivins who had access to the spores, says Vahid Majidi, head of the agency’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate. He declined to give details. “I’m asking you not to second guess our investigative approach,” he said.

Posted in * anthrax science, * FBI anthrax statements, * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , , | 19 Comments »

* Ed Lake believes a child wrote the anthrax letters; which, if true, means the FBI was wrong in identifying Dr. Bruce Ivins as the sole perpetrator

Posted by DXer on May 18, 2009

Ed Lake writes …

  • In the Amerithrax case, the preponderance of facts show very clearly that a child almost certainly wrote the anthrax letters and addressed the envelopes. 
  • Yes, it is possible that the writing is that of an adult who knew exactly how to write like a child in every detail. 
  • But, while that may be “possible,” it seems extremely unlikely.


If Ed Lake is right, and his analysis is compelling, it means that Bruce Ivins had to have accomplices if he was even involved at all.

Which, if true, means the FBI was wrong when they said on 8/6/08 that Bruce Ivins was the sole perpetrator.

CC - front cover - small

The FBI’s case is, in my judgment, a pack of misrepresentations and unsubstantiated allegations, probably purposeful. Only Congressional hearings have any chance to get at the truth.

What really happened, in the anthrax attacks, and in the FBI anthrax investigation? No one knows.

In my novel CASE CLOSED, to be published in the next few weeks, I propose a fictional scenario to explain the FBI’s inexplicable failure to solve the case. Does my story say what actually happened? Of course not. It’s a novel. But many early readers say that what I have written is “all too plausible.”

Read Ed Lake’s entire analysis of the handwriting from the anthrax letters at …

Posted in * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , | 11 Comments »

* Ed Lake’s May 17, 2009 blog included comments on this CASE CLOSED blog

Posted by DXer on May 18, 2009

Since Mr. Lake’s web site does not provide a means to post comments there (at least I didn’t find any), I am posting my reaction to Mr. Lake’s post here.

ED LAKE … The Anthrax Traveling Circus continued to perform at Lew Weinstein’s blog site last week.  I’ve been thinking of calling our act “The CTTB Virus.”  (CTTB = Conspiracy Theorist/True Believer.)  The show seems to act like a virus, jumping from host to host, infecting people until the intrepid Virus Hunter (me) enters to try to bring it under control by injecting a shot of reality. 

LEW WEINSTEIN … I don’t think serious discussion about what I regard as the FBI’s failed anthrax investigation is a joke. It is a serious business. Numerous scientists, journalists, U.S. Senators and Congressmen, and others have expressed serious doubts about the conclusions and the integrity of the FBI investigation. To claim that Dr. Bruce Ivins was the sole perpetrator, but only after he had conveniently committed suicide, and after chasing Dr. Hatfill for years and then paying $5.8 million to settle his lawsuit, is ludicrous on its face. Those who blindly defend the FBI are, in my view, in denial, or somehow associated with the agency they refuse to criticize.

ED LAKE: I was totally unaware of Lew Weinstein’s blog until I received an email advising me of the comments by Dr. Jeff Adamovicz.  The person who sent the email presumably believed that finding someone from USAMRIID who agreed with the conspiracy theorists and True Believers was proof that that the conspiracy theorists and True Believers were spreading “the truth.”  Since the host of the blog clearly feels the same way and has even written a novel which evidently supports such beliefs, it appears that a lot of gestation and fermentation took place before this particular version of “The CTTB Virus” was released on the blog. 

CC - front cover - small


LEW WEINSTEIN … CASE CLOSED is due to be published in the next 4 weeks. It is a novel, which starts with the basic facts of the actual case and then develops a fictional narrative to explain the otherwise inexplicable failure of the FBI to solve the case. Many who have read a pre-publication version of CASE CLOSED have observed that the questions I raise in my story about the anthrax attacks and the FBI investigation deserve answers. I agree with those who have suggested that a full scale Congressional inquiry, with FBI agents and scientists testifying under oath, may be the only way to ever know the truth about an attack which took 5 lives and panicked our country.





ED LAKE: Lew Weinstein’s blog seems oddly organized … it’s difficult finding the start of the anthrax discussion and even more difficult to put things in order. 

LEW WEINSTEIN … People who are used to blogs have no trouble navigating my site. However, many new readers of my blog are not familiar with the tools WordPress provides, so I have made a post called NAVIGATING THIS SITE to explain how to find what you want to read.

Posted in * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , | 4 Comments »

* Ed Lake’s credentials

Posted by DXer on May 15, 2009

Those of you who have followed this blog in recent days have seen several posts from Ed Lake. These have been detailed, full of scientific terms and concepts, and with conclusions vastly different from postings and comments from Dr. Jeffrey Adamovicz, Dr. Stuart Jacobson and others.

I wrote to Mr. Lake … Thanks for your comments. I welcome your input on our blog. I wonder if you could give me a little biographical information to establish for my blog readers your credentials regarding the scientific details you are discussing.

Mr. Lake responded …  

My primary background is in business systems analysis, although I once ran a small hydraulics company for a year (and patented an hydraulic bi-directional flow meter).  I’m primarily an analyst by nature and profession.   But I also write for pleasure and profit (I have a weekly feature in an Australian magazine).  I’ve written a number of unproduced screenplays and one self-published book.  Time Magazine published an article about me and my work in 2002:

I knew nothing about anthrax prior to the attacks of 2001.  But, when scientists began arguing with each other on the subject in late 2001, I became interested and started doing research to see which scientists were right and which were wrong.   That’s what my analysis is all about – figuring out what is correct when “experts” disagree with each other. 

I’ve interviewed ALL the top anthrax scientists – Bill Patrick (who wrote a great review for my book), Ken Alibek, Matthew Meselson, Martin Hugh-Jones, Sergei Popov, Joe Michael, etc.  If I have questions that cannot be answered by searching the Internet, I go to them for the answers.  If I have questions about a scientific paper, I contact the author.  I also have contacts within the FBI.  I began my web site in November of 2001, and since then I’ve accumulated every bit of information about the anthrax attacks of 2001 that I can find.   

My objective is to figure out which “experts” are right and which “experts” are wrong.   It’s not that difficult if you look at the facts instead of just listening to opinons.

I have written papers for my web site which explain details about van der Waals forces, about how Dugway weaponized spores, etc.  And those papers were all reviewed and approved by top scientists.   If anyone points out errors, I correct the errors.  It states at the very top of my web site that I WANT people to show me any errors I’ve made so that I can check them out and correct them if they are truly errors.

My credentials won’t impress anyone with a PhD, but I’ll match my knowledge of the subject of anthrax against any conspiracy theorist or True Believer any day of the week.  

When conspiracy theorists and True Believers lose arguments, they often attack my credentials.   It just shows that they have no real arguments or facts.   I may not have “the proper credentials” to do what I’m doing, but the top experts who provide me with accurate information about anthrax and the anthrax attacks of 2001 do have proper credentials.

Posted in * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , | 3 Comments »

* Ed Lake disagrees with Jeff Adamovicz and Stuart Jacobsen (5-12-09)

Posted by DXer on May 12, 2009

Two recent postings on this blog, by Dr. Jeffrey Adamovicz and by Stuart Jocobsen, have attracted the ire of the very active anthrax commentator Ed Lake, who seems largely to support the approach and conclusions of the FBI investigation. Posting on his site, Analyzing the Anthrax Attacks, Mr. Lake begins …


  • The conspiracy theorists are abuzz this morning over some blog postings by Lewis M. Weinstein, and some interesting responses to his postings.  


  • Mr. Lake presented an extended discussion of Dr. Adamovicz’s assertions and conclusions, which I find impossible to summarize, but it seems he disagrees with just about everything in Jeff’s post.
  • Mr. Lake then addresses and disagrees with comments made by Stuart Jacobsen in a prior post.
  • Mr. Lake concludes with some comments about the proposed NAS study …


  • I certainly don’t expect that the NAS is going to hire a bunch of conspiracy theorists to do the review.  
  • I think the NAS will assemble the best team of experts they can find, and that team will do their best to review the scientific work done in the Amerithrax investigation.  
  • And that review will be published by the NAS for all the world to see.  
  • Everyone will presumably do the best job they know how.  
  • And that’s the most we can hope for.


  • I had no trouble understanding the posts made on this blog by Jeff Adamowicz and Stuart Jacobsen, which make sense to me, but I could not generally follow what seemed to me to be the convoluted arguments of Mr. Lake. 
  • Perhaps it would be good for NAS to include some “conspiracy theorists” to participate in its study; it might be very helpful to demand answers to questions the FBI doesn’t want asked.
  • In any case, we won’t hear from NAS for 15 months at least, which will further extend the FBI’s failure to convince many scientists, the media, Congress, or me, that it has solved the anthrax case.

Mr. Lake has posted a comment to this blog. His entire post can be found at his site …

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