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

Posts Tagged ‘FBI Director Meuller’

* DXer … the FBI, before July 2008, was mistaken. After that, by failing to acknowledge and correct mistakes, they became immoral, outrageous and pathetic.

Posted by Lew Weinstein on December 23, 2014

Mueller & Ivins composite

DXer’s recent post …

I don’t think of the FBI’s performance as being pathetic up to July 2008.

I just see it as being mistaken. I think an Ivins hypothesis was just as reasonable as a Hatfill hypothesis. I’ve yet to see any critic demonstrate that they could do better.

It does come to be immoral, though, when mistakes are not corrected — and we all make mistakes. For example, we now know that Dr. Ivins did have reason to be in the lab those nights and weekends. He had an experiment with 52 rabbits in the B3. It took years to obtain the documents under FOIA — which have been uploaded. (If you haven’t read them and still subscribe to an Ivins Theory, it is evidence your theory is uninformed or that you have a reading comprehension problem). Where does Vahid Majidi in his ebook correct himself? That book is all about urging that his former supervisor Comey has his back. That is as CYA as it comes.

It only becomes outrageous when the FBI scientists and prosecutors do not correct themselves — and when the scientists like Vahid Majidi continue to make the same fraudulent points about the two-person rule, the imagined code etc.

It only becomes outrageous when the FBI withholds documents about Adnan El-Shukrijumah. When it continues to withhold information about the second lab that Rauf Ahmad visited. When it withholds documents about the CIA’s finding of Ames in Afghanistan. When the FBI does not disclose that the boots on the ground did not recover the bottle of anthrax spore concentrate harvested in April 2001, before he set up Yazid Sufaat’s lab in May 2001 upon delivery of the new equipment. It only becomes outrageous when conflicts of interest are allowed to run rampant — and samples are thrown out and key results discarded.

It only becomes outrageous when there is no transparency on these issues of conflict of interest.

It only becomes outrageous when the FBI scientists and consultants market and sell books that rely on the counselor who says she was controlled by an alien who had implanted a microchip in her butt — and argue that the Ivins case represents a case study of relying on unreliable personnel. She thought she was being pursued by murderous astral entities attached to her clients.

It only becomes outrageous when the FBI scientists fail to disclose the forensics on the photocopier toner — while the report drops a footnote with innuendo about Ivins’ time in the library where there was a copier. The forensic report being withheld shows that copier could be EXCLUDED. Or when they fail to disclose the forensics on the ink and paper — all of which was exculpatory of Ivins.

It only becomes outrageous when they withhold the handwriting comparison showing Ivins probably did not write the letters for years — and then pretend that there was another overriding opinion.

But as for how they all came together upon Ivins suicide? I think the scientists were somewhat aghast that they were pushed to the front and expected to defend closing of the case…. when they hadn’t even been privy to investigative aspects. Then they understandably wanted credit for developing science in the emerging field of microbial forensics. And all these scientists strike me as darn smart.

AUSA Lieber got reprimanded for visiting a jihadi in jail. Superiors said a “deal had been cut.” And so I even credit her good faith — she was in a difficult position given what she faced in that office and the turmoil during that period.

And so I think we can credit the FBI’s good faith and efforts up until the time that they failed to acknowledge mistakes after they were pointed out. Then it is not merely pathetic but outrageous and immoral.

I’m a big fan of the FBI and CIA — precisely because they so often correct their mistakes. The recent audit of the evidence handling is a good example. That demonstrates an organization commitment to integrity.

If you trace back some comments, you will find that information has remained classified and/or withheld to avoid embarrassment to a third country.

That of course is unacceptable reason to withhold any of the information described above.

As Senator Leahy has said, when governments screw up, they just mark the documents SECRET. That allows the government workers to go on to lucrative second careers and be promoted within government.

Anthrax, Al Qaeda and Ayman Zawahiri: The Infiltration of US Biodefense
http://www.amerithrax.wordpress.com

Advertisements

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 15 Comments »

* Epstein (WSJ 1-24-10) … The FBI says Ivins was the sole perpetrator, but it has presented no evidence to support that conclusion … and the largest case in FBI history is still open

Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 25, 2010

CASE CLOSED is a novel which answers the question … Why did the FBI fail to solve the 2001 anthrax case?

The (fictional) DIA team considers the role of the President and Vice-President in the early days of the FBI’s anthrax investigation …

“Then a curious thing happens. A second attack is made against the great country, this time with lethal anthrax powder mailed in envelopes. Is it a coincidence that this occurs within days of the launching of a massive retaliatory attack on Osama? The answer to that question is currently outside the bounds of this fable, although if it was not a coincidence, our tale becomes much, much darker.

“The very best police force in the land is assigned to track down the person or persons who prepared and mailed the lethal anthrax envelopes. But even before any evidence is obtained, the great leader announces the desired result – there may be some possible link to Saddam, he says; I wouldn’t put it past him. The great vice-leader also chimes in, saying that Saddam had henchmen who were trained in the use and deployment of these kinds of substances, so you start to piece it all together.

“I would ask you to note that these instantaneous, unsupported allegations are directed at Saddam; Osama, who sent the planes, is not mentioned.”

******

The FBI says Ivins was the sole perpetrator,

but it has presented no evidence to support that conclusion

… and the largest case in FBI history is still open

******

Edward Jay Epstein writes in the Wall Street Journal (1-24-10) …

  • The investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks ended as far as the public knew on July 29, 2008, with the death of Bruce Ivins.
  • Less than a week after his apparent suicide, the FBI declared Ivins to have been the sole perpetrator of the 2001 Anthrax attacks.
  • The FBI’s six-year investigation was the largest inquest in its history, involving 9,000 interviews, 6,000 subpoenas, and the examination of tens of thousands of photocopiers, typewriters, computers and mailboxes.
    • Yet it failed to find a shred of evidence that identified the anthrax killer—or even a witness to the mailings.
    • Eventually, the FBI zeroed in on Ivins.
    • The FBI turned the pressure up on him, isolating him at work and forcing him to spend what little money he had on lawyers to defend himself.
    • He became increasingly stressed. Then came his suicide (which) provided an opportunity to close the case.

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

  • But there was still a vexing problem—silicon.
    • Silicon was used in the 1960s to weaponize anthrax.
    • since weaponization was banned by international treaties, research anthrax no longer contains silicon, and the flask at Fort Detrick contained none.
    • Yet the anthrax grown from it had silicon, according to the U.S. Armed Forces Institute of Pathology.
    • This silicon explained why, when the letters to Sens. Leahy and Daschle were opened, the anthrax vaporized into an aerosol. If so, then somehow silicon was added to the anthrax.
  • But Ivins, no matter how weird he may have been, had neither the set of skills nor the means to attach silicon to anthrax spores.
    • At a minimum, such a process would require highly specialized equipment that did not exist in Ivins’s lab—or, for that matter, anywhere at the Fort Detrick facility.
  • The FBI’s answer was that the anthrax contained only traces of silicon, and those, it theorized, could have been accidently absorbed by the spores from the water and nutrient in which they were grown.
    • No such nutrients were ever found in Ivins’s lab, nor, for that matter, did anyone ever see Ivins attempt to produce any unauthorized anthrax (a process which would have involved him using scores of flasks.)
    • Natural contamination was an elegant theory that ran into problems after Congressman Jerry Nadler pressed FBI Director Robert Mueller in September 2008 to provide the House Judiciary Committee with a missing piece of data: the precise percentage of silicon contained in the anthrax used in the attacks.
  • The answer came seven months later on April 17, 2009.
    • According to the FBI lab, 1.4% of the powder in the Leahy letter was silicon.
    • “This is a shockingly high proportion,” explained Stuart Jacobson, an expert in small particle chemistry. “It is a number one would expect from the deliberate weaponization of anthrax, but not from any conceivable accidental contamination.”
  • in an attempt to back up its theory, the FBI contracted scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Labs in California to conduct experiments in which anthrax is accidently absorbed from a media heavily laced with silicon.
    • When the results were revealed to the National Academy Of Science in September 2009, they effectively blew the FBI’s theory out of the water.
    • The Livermore scientists had tried 56 times to replicate the high silicon content without any success.
    • Even though they added increasingly high amounts of silicon to the media, they never even came close to the 1.4% in the attack anthrax. Most results were an order of magnitude lower, with some as low as .001%.
    • “If there is that much silicon, it had to have been added,” Jeffrey Adamovicz, who supervised Ivins’s work at Fort Detrick, wrote to me last month.
  • If Ivins had neither the equipment or skills to weaponize anthrax with silicon, then some other party with access to the anthrax must have done it.
  • So, even though the public may be under the impression that the anthrax case had been closed in 2008, the FBI investigation is still open—and, unless it can refute the Livermore findings on the silicon, it is back to square one.

Read the entire article at … http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704541004575011421223515284.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

******

LMW COMMENT …

Readers of this CASE CLOSED blog have been aware of everything in Mr. Epstein’s article, and much more, for months.

The FBI’s case has always been unfounded, and the FBI’s insistence that Dr. Ivins was the sole perpetrator does a disservice to our nation.

It’s time for Director Mueller to fess up. Either the FBI doesn’t know who perpetrated the attacks, or they do know and they’re covering up the truth.

Which is worse?

Posted in * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , , , | 46 Comments »

* the FBI’s answers to questions posed by members of the House Judiciary Committee in September 2008 as to certain aspects of the FBI’s investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks are insulting and demeaning to the U.S. Congress and to the American people

Posted by Lew Weinstein on June 12, 2009


* the FBI’s answers …

Congressman Conyers’ office referred me to Renata Strauss at the House Judiciary Committee of which Congressman Conyers is Chairman. Ms. Strauss provided a copy of the FBI’s answers, dated April 17, 2009, to questions posed by members of the Committee during testimony of FBI Director Robert Mueller on September 16, 2008. Three of those questions had to do with the FBI’s anthrax investigation.

Rep. Conyers

Rep. Conyers

Question Posed bv Chairman Conyers …

When did the FBI originally inform the Defense Department that Dr. Bruce Ivins was the prime suspect in the Amerithrax investigation?

This is the FBI’s complete verbatim response:

  • In October 2007, when Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutors and FBI SAs (Special Agents) accumulated sufficient evidence to demonstrate probable cause to believe Ivins was involved in the mailings, the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) was notified of this possible involvement.
  • USAMRIID was additionally notified when a United States District Judge approved search warrants for Ivins’ home, office, and vehicles, and it is the FBI’s understanding that USAMRIID immediately restricted Ivins’ access to areas containing biological agents and toxins.
  • The Department of Defense (DoD) was notified when the FBI began the anthrax investigation, well before Ivins was identified as the main suspect, and worked cooperatively with FBI investigators throughout the investigation.
  • From 2002 through 2005, the FBI had numerous contacts with USAMRIID regarding those who had access to the Ames strain of anthrax.
  • In November 2006, the focus of the anthrax investigation was on the universe of employees who had access to a flask of Bacillis anthracis spores at USAMRIID.
  • As the investigation continued, senior personnel at USAMRIID were informed in January 2007 that the spores in the letter attacks genetically matched spores at USAMRIID and that the FBI believed someone from USAMRIID was the mailer.
  • Senior officials at USAMRIID offered continued cooperation in the investigation and took steps both to increase operational security and to assist the investigation.
Nadler

Rep. Nadler

Questions Posed by Representative Nadler …

Rep. Nadler: What is the percentage of weight of the silicon in the powder used in the 2001 anthrax attacks?

This is the FBI’s complete verbatim response:

  • FBI Laboratory results indicated that the spore powder on the Leahy letter contained 14,479 ppm of silicon (1.4%).
  • The spore powder on the New York Post letter was found to have silicon present in the sample; however, due to the limited amount of material, a reliable quantitative measurement was not possible.
  • Insufficient quantities of spore powder on both the Daschle and Brokaw letters precluded analysis of those samples.

Rep. Nadler: How, on what basis, and using what evidence did the FBI conclude that none of the laboratories it investigated were in any way the sources of the powder used in the 2001 anthrax attacks, except the U.S. Army Laboratory at Fort Detrick, Maryland? Please include in your answer why laboratories that have publicly identified as having the equipment and personnel to make anthrax powder, such as the U.S. Army’s Dugway Proving Grounds in Dugway, Utah and the Battelle Memorial Institute in Jefferson, Ohio, were excluded as possible sources.

This is the FBI’s complete verbatim response:

  • Initially, the spores contained in the envelopes could only be identified as Bacillus Anthracis (Anthrax).
  • They were then sent to an expert, who “strain typed” the spores as Ames.
  • Once the strain type was identified, the FBI began to look at what facilities had access to the Ames strain.
  • At the same time, science experts began to develop the ability to identify morphological variances contained in the mailed anthrax.
  • Over the next six years, new scientific developments allowed experts from the FBI Laboratory and other nationally recognized scientific experts to advance microbial science.
  • This advancement allowed the FBI to positively link specific morphs found in the mailed anthrax to morphs in a single flask at USAMRIID.
  • Using records associated with the flask, the FBI was able to track the transfer of sub samples from the flask located at USAMRIID to two other facilities.
  • Using various methods, the FBI investigated the two facilities that received samples from the parent flask and eliminated individuals from those facilities as suspects because, even if a laboratory facility had the equipment and personnel to make anthrax powder, this powder would not match the spores in the mailed envelopes if that lab had never received a transfer of anthrax from the parent flask.

LMW COMMENT

If you carefully parse the answers to Congressman Conyers’ question, you will see that the FBI said essentially nothing. The words “prime suspect” which were the essence of the question appear nowhere in the answer. Instead there is reference to “probable cause to believe Ivins was involved in the mailings” and “numerous contacts with USAMRIID regarding those who had access to the Ames strain of anthrax” and that (in January 2007!) “the FBI believed someone from USAMRIID was the mailer.” No mention is made of the fact that Dr. Hatfill, also of USAMRIID, was considered a “person of interest” right up until the FBI paid him $5.8 to settle his lawsuit, in the summer of 2008, shortly after which Dr. Ivins is alleged to have committed suicide.

These are not answers to the simple question that Congressman Conyers asked.

Regarding the first of Representative Nadler’s question, the FBI mentions only four letters, and of those, the percentage of silicon is indicated just once. The other anthrax letters are not even mentioned, so the FBI doesn’t tell the Congressman if they knew what the silicon content was in those letters.

The FBI never answered Rep. Nadler’s question as to how other laboratories were excluded as possible sources, never mentioned any other laboratories which were investigated and then excluded, and totally ignored Rep. Nadler’s specific question regarding the U.S. Army’s Dugway Proving Grounds in Dugway, Utah and the Battelle Memorial Institute in Jefferson, Ohio.

If I was a U.S. Congressman asking the questions posed by Representatives Conyers and Nadler and receiving the answers given by the FBI, after six full months had elapsed, I would be absolutely furious. It is insulting and demeaning for the FBI to answer in such an incomplete and unforthcoming manner. How is the Congress to perform its constitutional oversight role in the face of such intransigence?

It is impossible not to believe that, even in these simple questions dealing with relatively small parts of the FBI’s enormously extensive and expensive anthrax investigation, the FBI is purposely refusing to tell Congress what went on.

Why does Congress, and why should the American people, put up with this refusal of the FBI to answer straightforward questions about an investigation that cost the American taxpayers millions of dollars and has failed to produce conclusions which are acceptable to almost anyone?

What dark secrets is the FBI hiding?  Why didn’t the FBI solve the case?

It is terrifying to think that the answer I proposed in my novel CASE CLOSED, a fictional scenario I invented in my imagination, with no access to any secret documents or witnesses, might indeed include elements of what actually happened.  Did the FBI fail to solve the case, and does the FBI still to this day refuse to reveal what they learned and when they learned it, because they were told not to solve the case?

That is so frightening I hope with all my heart that it is not true.

I have again asked the person I was referred to in Congressman Holt’s office (Patrick Eddington), by voice mail and email, the status of the legislation which would establish a Commission to investigate the anthrax case and the FBI investigation. But why should we believe that the FBI would be any more forthcoming at a Commission investigation than they have been so far before various committees of Congress?

******

Posted in * FBI refusal to testify, * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments »

* FBI stonewalling seems to be working

Posted by Lew Weinstein on June 4, 2009

LMW COMMENT …  

Here’s an update on my efforts to learn whether Congress has succeeded in extracting answers to its questions regarding the FBI  investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks …

Congress

Senator Grassley … I have been calling and emailing to this office for almost a month now, without receiving the courtesy of a return call. I have been told that Brian Downey (at the Senate Finance Committee) is the person to talk to, and yesterday I left yet another message for him. I don’t know why the Finance Committee has oversight responsibility in this matter, but that’s what I’ve been told.

Congressman Conyers … This was the best response I got. I was referred to a specific person at the House Judiciary Committee, and I left a message for a Renata Strauss.

Congressman Nadler … I spoke to Max who took my questions and said he would try to find someone who could answer, but even he seemed doubtful.

Congressman Holt … I was referred to a Patrick Eddington and left a voice message for him. I am specifically looking for information about the progress of the Anthrax Attacks Investigation Act of 2009, legislation introduced in March 2009 by Congressman Holt and others that would establish a Congressional commission to investigate the 2001 anthrax attacks and the federal government’s response and investigation of the attacks. 

It seems to me that the questions I’m asking are rather easy to answer …

  • Did the FBI answer specific questions put forward by the legislators?  … yes or no
  • If so, can you share their answers? … yes or no
  • If not, what are you doing about this apparent refusal of a Federal agency to respond to Congressional oversight? ... something or nothing

It may be too soon to draw conclusions, and I will continue making a pest of myself in these various Congressional offices, but so far would it not be fair to say that the FBI stonewalling seems to be working? FBI Director Meuller just seems to ignore questions, and he seems to be getting away with it.

I’ll try again tomorrow. Any suggestions?

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

* Glenn Greenwald’s 3/4/09 article, which summarizes the widespread doubts that the FBI is not telling the truth when it says Dr. Ivins was the sole perpetrator and that the case should be closed, is worth re-reading

Posted by Lew Weinstein on June 2, 2009

Glenn Greenwald (Salon) wrote (3/4/09) …  Glenn Greenwald

  • One of the best and smartest members in the U.S. Congress, Rep. Rush Holt: “All of us – but especially the families of the victims of the anthrax attacks – deserve credible answers about how the attacks happened and whether the case really is closed,”
  • I’ve written repeatedly about the huge questions that still remain with regard to the anthrax attacks, with a particular focus on the early and quite successful efforts (aided by ABC News’ Brian Ross) to blame the attacks in the public’s mind on Saddam Hussein.  
  • The FBI’s case is riddled with glaring inconsistencies and numerous internal contradictions, enormous evidentiary holes, and pretenses of scientific certainty that are quite dubious. 
  • One of the two Senate targets of the attack, Sen. Pat Leahy, flatly stated at a Senate hearing last September that he does not believe the FBI’s case against Ivins, and emphatically does not believe that Ivins acted alone. 
  • GOP Sen. Arlen Specter, at the same hearing, told the FBI they could never have obtained a conviction against Ivins in court based on their case — riddled, as it is, with so much doubt — and he also demanded an independent evaluation of the FBI’s evidence.  
  • GOP Sen. Charles Grassley has been a long-time skeptic of the FBI’s anthrax investigation and has expressed serious doubts about the case against Ivins.
  • The ultimate establishment organ, The Washington PostEditorial Page, issued numerous editorials expressing serious doubts about the FBI’s case against Ivins and called for an independent investigation.   
  • The New York Times Editorial Page echoed those views.   
  • Even The Wall St. Journal Editorial Page, citing the FBI’s “so long and so many missteps,” argued that “independent parties need to review all the evidence, especially the scientific forensics” and concluded that “this is an opportunity for Congress to conduct legitimate oversight.”
  • In the wake of the FBI’s accusations against Ivins, the science journal Nature flatly declared in its editorial headline — “Case Not Closed” — and demanded an independent investigation into the FBI’s case. 
  • After the FBI publicly disclosed some of its evidence against Ivins, The New York Times reported “growing doubts from scientists about the strength of the government’s case.”  
  • The Baltimore Sun detailed that “scientists and legal experts criticized the strength of the case and cast doubt on whether it could have succeeded.”  
  • Dr. Alan Pearson, Director of the Biological and Chemical Weapons Control Program at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation — representative of numerous experts in the field  — expressed many of those scientific doubts and demanded a full investigation.
  • … an investigation by Congress itself — is far inferior, as anyone who has observed any so-called “Congressional investigation” over the last decade should immediately recognize (here, as but one example, is the account I wrote about a House hearing last September attempting — with cringe-inducing ineptitude and total futility — to “grill” FBI Director Robert Mueller about the FBI’s case against Ivins). 
  • How effective an independent investigative Commission like this will be will depend on the details of its structure — its subpoena powers, punishments for defiance, and the independence of its members. 
  • That Rush Holt will play a key role, if not the key role, in overseeing its creation is a reassuring feature that the bill he introduced can be actually productive.
  • The importance of full disclosure of all facts surrounding the anthrax attacks cannot be overstated.  This was the opposite of a run-of-the-mill crime.  To the contrary, the anthrax attacks — by design, as everyone acknowledges — had an immense political impact on the country.  Contrary to endless claims from Bush supporters that Bush allowed no more terrorist attacks on “the homeland” after 9/11, the anthrax attack was exactly such a terrorist attack.
  • For reasons I’ve detailed previously, I actually believe that the anthrax attacks played a larger role than the 9/11 attack itself in elevating America’s fear levels to hysterical heights, which in turn put the citizenry into the state of frightened submission that enabled so many of the subsequent events of the Bush presidency.  
  • The 9/11 attacks appeared to be a one-time extraordinary event, but it was multi-staged anthrax attacks — coming a mere four weeks later — that normalized and personalized the Terrorist threat. 
  • Whatever one’s views are on the abstract 9/11-anthrax comparison, there is no question that the anthrax attacks were a major political crime.  According to the FBI, the anthrax letters were directed at U.S. Senators (Leahy and Daschle) due to their political views (specifically their opposition to the Patriot Act, their allegedly “soft on terrorism” approach, and their pro-choice views).  
  • And perhaps most importantly, the anthrax attacks — again, according to the FBI itself — came from a U.S. Army laboratory, perpetrated by a U.S. Government scientist. 
  • As the aforementioned Dr. Pearson put it: If Ivins was indeed responsible for the attacks, did he have any assistance? Did anyone else at the Army lab or elsewhere have any knowledge of his activities prior to, during, or shortly after the anthrax attacks? . . . .
  • It appears increasingly likely that the only significant bioterrorism attack in history may have originated from right within the biodefense program of our own country.  The implications for our understanding of the bioterrorism threat and for our entire biodefense strategy and enterprise are potentially profound.

read the entire post at … http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/04/anthrax/

LMW COMMENT

CASE CLOSEDCan any reasonable person still believe the FBI has actually solved the anthrax case? So why does the FBI continue to claim that Dr. Bruce Ivins was the sole perpetrator when it is obvious that he wasn’t? Why does the FBI refuse to anser questions posed by members of Congress? What is the FBI trying to keep hidden from the American people?

I wrote my just-published novel CASE CLOSED in order to address questions like these in a fictional account which provides much more leeway than a stright reporting of the facts.

My premise in CASE CLOSED is that the FBI didn’t solve the anthrax case because they were told not to. A terrifying thought! Who would have the power to squelch an FBI investigation? Why?

Do I believe that CASE CLOSED presents what actually happened in the anthrax attacks and subsequent FBI investigation? Of course not. It’s a novel!

But … many early readers, including a well placed source in the Intelligence Commnity, have told me that my story is, unfortunately, all too plausible.


* purchase CASE CLOSED (paperback)

* see CASE CLOSED VIDEO on YouTube


                              


Posted in * FBI refusal to testify, * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments »

* Dead Silence: Fear and Terror on the Anthrax Trail

Posted by Lew Weinstein on May 31, 2009

Just published …

Dead Silence

Dead Silence: Fear and Terror on the Anthrax Trail  by Bob Coen and Eric Nadler

purchase on amazon.com at …

http://www.amazon.com/Dead-Silence-Terror-Anthrax-Trail/dp/158243509X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243765644&sr=8-1

Publisher’s description:

Dead Silence—the first in-depth look into the new biological arms race—tells the inside story of the U.S. anthrax attacks and their connection to the existence of a frightening global germ warfare underworld. Their investigation intensifies to include the mysterious deaths of some of the world’s leading germ war scientists in the wake of 9/11, including that of Bruce Ivins—the man the tabloids called “Doctor Doom” and the FBI controversially insists is the lone perpetrator of the anthrax attacks.

LMW COMMENT

CASE CLOSEDThe more truth we learn about the anthrax attacks and the failed FBI investigation, the more we will be disgusted with the continuing failure to solve a case of mass murder that terrorized America. So I welcome the publication of Dead Silence and look forward to reading it.

Sometimes fiction can be as powerful a means of informing and influencing as non-fiction.

In my novel CASE CLOSED, I also raise the question that maybe Dr. Ivins did not die of suicide. It was just too convenient for the FBI to be able to blame the entire anthrax attacks (Ivins the sole perpetrator) on a dead man who could not defend himself.

This was one poignant example in a continuing stream of FBI refusals to testify under oath on these matters. Every time FBI Director Mueller says “I don’t know” or “I’ll get back to you later,” with no intention of ever getting back to anybody, it increase suspicion that the FBI is hiding dark secrets.

I deal with these possible secrets in a fictional way in CASE CLOSED, revealing stunning abuses of power at the highest levels of government.

Does my novel tell what actually happened? Of course not. It’s a novel!

But many readers, including one well place source in the Intelligence Community, have told me my story of conspiracy and murder is, unfortunately, “all too plausible.”

CASE CLOSED is now available on amazon …

* purchase CASE CLOSED (paperback)

* purchase CASE CLOSED (Kindle)

 

Posted in * FBI refusal to testify, * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation, * recent anthrax news | Tagged: , , , , , , | 43 Comments »

* FBI Director Mueller has consistently refused to answer relevant questions about the FBI’s failed anthrax investigation; the FBI has pursued a consistent pattern (see Hatfill and Ivins) of never testifying under oath; anyone who thinks the FBI isn’t hiding a terrible truth is simply not paying attention

Posted by Lew Weinstein on May 31, 2009

Glen Greenwald of Salon wrote (9-16-08) …

Conyers

Congressman John Conyers (D-Mich)

  • House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (Mich.) and two other Democrats on the panel have signaled they will scrutinize the FBI’s work today.
  • This month, they wrote FBI Director Robert Mueller asking about missteps in identifying the anthrax strain used in the attacks and tracing it back to Ivins.
  • But after just an hour of the hearing, it is painfully clear that — as is true in virtually all of these hearings now before a pitifully powerless Congress — Mueller won’t provide the Committee with even a single answer of import, won’t even pretend to, and the Committee has no intent to compel him to do so.
  • the hearing began with an angry statement from Chairman Conyers about the fact that the FBI, in general, simply ignores all inquiries for information and answers from the Committee for months and months and months and then shows up at these hearings unprepared to answer even the questions they are advised will be asked, knowing that each member only has five minutes and can’t actually accomplish anything.
  • (Congressman Jerrold) Nadler (D-NY) than asked one of the most central questions in the anthrax case: 
    • he pointed out that the facilities that (unlike Ft. Detrick) actually have the equipment and personnel to prepare dry, silica-coated anthrax are the U.S. Army’s Dugway Proving Ground and the Battelle Corporation, the private CIA contractor that conducts substantial research into highly complex strains of anthrax. 
    • Nadler asked how the FBI had eliminated those institutions as the culprits behind the attack. 
    • Mueller’s response was this: I don’t know the answers to those questions as to how we eliminated Dugway and Battelle. I’ll have to get back to you at some point.
  • Nadler then ended by asking whether Mueller would object to an independent commission or other body to review the FBI’s evidence and its accusations against Ivins and whether the FBI would cooperate with such an independent inquiry.
    • Mueller pretended to answer by telling Nadler that the FBI intended to ask some members of the National Academy of Science to review the FBI’s scientific claims, but that didn’t answer the question as to whether the FBI opposed a full-scale independent review of the FBI’s case and whether the FBI would cooperate with it.

read the entire post at … http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/09/16/oversight/

see also … * the (apparent) refusal of the FBI to answer Sen. Grassley’s September 2008 questions raises further suspicions of a continuing FBI cover-up of its failed anthrax investigation

LMW COMMENT

It is frustrating but understandable that FBI Director Mueller refuses to testify about the FBI’s investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks, since the investigation itself was so pathetic and unproductive. It is inexplicable that the FBI …

  • took 6 years harrassing one USAMRIID scientist (Dr. Steven Hatfill),
  • then paid Hatfill $5.8 million to settle his law suit and thus avoid having to testify under oath,
  • then charged another USAMRIID scientist (Dr. Bruce Ivins) as the sole perpetrator of the attacks, but not until after Ivins had committed suicide and thus could not defend himself, again allowing the FBI to avoid testifying under oath.

CASE CLOSED

 

It was the FBI’s nonsensical announcement about Dr. Ivins that prompted me to write CASE CLOSED, a novel that presents a fictional scenario of what happened in the attacks and the subsequent FBI investigation. My theory in the novel is that the FBI didn’t solve the case because they were told not to.

Does CASE CLOSED report what actually happened in the anthrax attacks and FBI investigation. Of course not. It’s a novel!

But many readers, including a well placed source in the Intelligence Community, have told me my novel is all too plausible.

CASE CLOSED is now available at amazon.com … 

* purchase CASE CLOSED (paperback)

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

* FBI Director Mueller Not Forthcoming (Meryl Nass, M.D., Sept 2008)

Posted by Lew Weinstein on May 31, 2009

I’d like to refer readers of this blog to a 9-16-08 post by Meryl Nass, M.D., on her blog at http://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/

What Dr. Nass reports continues to be very relevant today in view of the continuing (apparent) failure of the FBI to answer questions posed by Senator Grassley, also in September 2008.

Extracts from Dr. Nass’s blog follow  …

  • Eleven or twelve members attended the House Judiciary Committee’s FBI oversight hearing today. Mueller
  • Repeatedly, they expressed disappointment with the FBI’s continuing failure to answer their questions, and to respond to written questions.
  • (FBI Director) Mueller spoke in generalities, failing to answer specific questions.
  • Only Rep. Nadler asked about anthrax, and to his credit inquired pointedly about the Silicon signature and weaponization. Mueller had no answers.
  • It’s FBI’s investigation that is unsatisfactory in every way, requiring an independent appraisal.
  • Don’t be fooled by an expensive and time-consuming NAS smokescreen.

read the entire post at … http://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2008/09/fbi-director-mueller-not-forthcoming.html

also see … * the (apparent) refusal of the FBI to answer Sen. Grassley’s September 2008 questions raises further suspicions of a continuing FBI cover-up of its failed anthrax investigation

Posted in * FBI anthrax statements, * FBI refusal to testify, * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

* followup with Senator Grassley’s office regarding FBI answers to the Senator’s September 2008 questions about their investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks

Posted by Lew Weinstein on May 30, 2009

LMW COMMENT …  

see previous post … * the (apparent) refusal of the FBI to answer Sen. Grassley’s September 2008 questions raises further suspicions of a continuing FBI cover-up of its failed anthrax investigation

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

On Friday May 30, I again called Senator Grassley’s DC office seeking answers regarding any FBI response to  the Senator’s September 2008 questions directed to FBI Director Meuller.

Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa)

Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa)

 

I was told to contact Brian Downey on the Senate Finance Committee which I was told has oversight responsibility on this issue. I asked if I could send an email to Mr. Downey and was very graciously told by the person in Senator Grassley’s office that she could not give me Mr. Downey’s email address but if I sent an email to her, she would forward it to Mr. Downey.

I sent the following email on Friday afternoon …

Thank you for trying to help me reach Brian Downey.

Here are my questions for him …

Last September, Senator Grassley sent a letter to the then Attorney General Michael Mukasey and FBI Director Robert Mueller, asking 18 excellent questions about the FBI’s investigation of the anthrax case and the FBI’s determination that USAMRIID scientist Dr. Bruce Ivins was the sole perpetrator of the 2001 anthrax attacks. 

Eight months have passed.

has the FBI responded to the Senator’s questions? 

if yes, when did they respond?

if yes, may I have a copy of the FBI’s answers? 

if no, what is the Senator doing about the FBI’s unwillingness to answer?

 

 

Posted in * FBI refusal to testify, * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation, * recent anthrax news | Tagged: , , , , | 3 Comments »

* Bush admits torture to gain information regarding the anthrax attacks

Posted by Lew Weinstein on May 29, 2009

Eartha Jane Melzer of the Michigan Messenger writes (5-29-09) …

Bush & Cheney

  • Former President George W. Bush, in a nearly 90-minute-long unscripted address to the local economic development club in this down-trodden southwest Michigan city (Benton Harbor), said Thursday evening he was honored to have served during “some unusual times,” making repeated references to the challenges he faced as commander in chief amid the “fog of war.”
  • … the former president spoke indirectly of his administration’s authorization of the use of torture against detainees captured during the War on Terror, avoiding the words “torture” and “abuse.”
  • “You have to make tough decisions,” Bush said. “They’ve captured a guy who murdered 3,000 citizens … that affected me … They come in and say he may have more information
  •  …and we had an anthrax attack … and they say he may have more information. What do you do?“
  • Bush was firm and defended his record as president: “I will tell you that the information gained saved lives.”

read the entire article at … http://michiganmessenger.com/19945/bush-on-his-presidency-there-is-such-a-thing-as-the-fog-of-war

LMW COMMENT

It sure seems like former President Bush has admitted torturing a prisoner to gain information about the anthrax attacks.

How can this be reconciled with the FBI’s determination, very early on, that the anthrax used in the attacks came from a U.S. lab? Or the FBI’s current insistence that USAMRIID scientist Dr. Bruce Ivins was the sole perpetrator of the 2001 attacks?

What Bush (and Cheney) were doing, in my view, was trying desperately to tie the anthrax attacks to Saddam Hussein, in order to add another justification for invading Iraq.

If this is true, Bush and Cheney tortured, not to save lives, but to justify a war of choice that has so far killed over 4,ooo Americans and many tens of thousands of Iraqis, while advancing no discernible national interest.

CC - front cover - small

Questions that cry out to be answered.

Who was tortured in connection with the anthrax attacks?

Who did the torturing? (FBI Director Meuller has said the FBI did not torture anyone)

What questions were asked? What information was gained?

Was the information obtained by torture shared with the FBI (assuming it wasn’t them doing the torturing)? 

What was done with that information?

In my new novel CASE CLOSED, I present a fictional scenario to explain why the FBI failed to solve the 2001 anthrax case. My theory is that the FBI failed to solve the case because they were told not to. Who would have the power to squelch an FBI investigation in a mass murder carried out in a terrorist fashion? Why?

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