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

Posts Tagged ‘FBI withholds evidence’

* evidence which contradicted the FBI’s spin was held for years AFTER Dr. Ivins committed suicide (2008) and the FBI one week later asserted he was the sole perpetrator of the 2001 anthrax attacks

Posted by DXer on April 26, 2013

The FBI has no case against this man ... but meanwhile he is dead and the real perpetrators are still out there.

The FBI has no case against this man … but meanwhile he is dead and the real perpetrators are still out there.

***

USAMRIID eventually uploaded thousands of Dr. Ivins’ emails.

Produced months, even years, after Dr. Ivins committed suicide,

they contradicted the government’s assertions.

But by the time the Ivins exculpatory correspondence was produced,

Dr. Ivins was long buried and forgotten,

and interest in the FBI contradictions was virtually non-existent.

***

Advertisements

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 5 Comments »

* Congressman Jerrold Nadler complains to FBI Director Robert Mueller that questions he first asked in September 2008 regarding silicon content in the anthrax in several of the 2001 attack letters were answered incorrectly … previous posts on this blog assert that the correct information may be very relevant to determining who the real perpetrator(s) of those attacks were

Posted by DXer on May 27, 2011

******

UPDATE 5/27 … Greg Gordon writes …

  • The FBI said the bureau had received the letter and would respond directly to Nadler.

LMW: let’s hope it doesn’t take 7 months to answer this time

******

UPDATE 5/27 … Jim White writes on firedoglake …

FBI Ignored, Hid Data Potentially Excluding Bruce Ivins as Anthrax Killer

  • The FBI ignored as potentially erroneous a measurement of silicon in one anthrax sample and then hid this information from Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY).
  • Even more importantly, the high silicon measurements in at least two samples also were coupled with high tin measurements, opening up the possibility that silicon was added to the attack material in a form that is not mentioned in any of the FBI documents.
  • Significantly, it is virtually impossible that Bruce Ivins, whom the FBI has concluded acted on his own to carry out the attacks, would have been able to perform the necessary chemical manipulations involved in this treatment of the spores.
  • Ivins likely also would not have had access to the necessary laboratory equipment to perform this treatment.

http://my.firedoglake.com/jimwhite/2011/05/20/fbi-ignored-hid-data-potentially-excluding-bruce-ivins-as-anthrax-killer/

******

Congressman Nadler & FBI Director Mueller

******

 Congressman Jerrold Nadler writes to FBI Director Mueller (5/25/11) …

Nadler specifically asked Mueller why the FBI appears to have provided incorrect information on the case to Nadler and the Judiciary Committee subsequent to a September 16, 2008 oversight hearing on the FBI.

excerpts from Nadler’s letter are shown below …

see the entire letter at … 

http://nadler.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1665&Itemid=132

******

see also …

* Greg Gordon (McClatchy): the apparent failure of the FBI to pursue this avenue of investigation raises the ominous possibility that the killer is still on the loose … Stuart Jacobsen: it is “outrageous” that the scientific issues haven’t been addressed.

* RMR-1029 was registered as #7737 in Building 1412 ; what were particulars of #7736? Was it from same seed stock? Did it have a silicon signature?

* Did the anthrax grown in soil reported at the June 2001 anthrax conference by Dr. Ezzell and his colleagues contain a Silicon Signature?

* Silicon Signature – what were samples 040030-2 and 040255-1 that showed Silicon Signature? If one was Flask 1030, what was the other? Dugway?

* the GAO review of the FBI’s anthrax investigation has begun … a report is expected to be issued by September 20, 2011 … *** UPDATE: a series of fascinating comments to this post suggest many pertinent questions that GAO might want to consider

… among many other posts and comments on this blog dealing with the silicon signature

and its often ignored significance in identifying the perpetrator(s) of  the anthrax attacks

******

excerpts from Congressman Nadler’s letter

******

  • On September 16, 2008 …  I asked you the following:  “[W]hat was the percentage of weight of the silicon in the powders that your experts examined?”

LMW NOTE: it took 7 months for Director Mueller to respond

to what was a very simple factual question !!!

  • On April 17, 2009, (the FBI) responded with the following answer:
    • FBI Laboratory results indicated that the spore powder on the Leahy letter contained 14,470 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 quantifies of spore powder on both the Daschle and Brokaw letters precluded analysis of those samples.
  • A February 15, 2011 report by the National Academy of Sciences (“NAS report”) … raises three questions about this DOJ/FBI response to me.
    • First, with respect to the anthrax on the letter sent to Senator Leahy, the NAS report shows on pages 66 and 67 (Table 4.4) that the silicon content found by the FBI was 1.4% in one sample and 1.8% in a second sample.

Nadler: Why were both figures not provided to me

in response to my questions?

    • Second, the NAS report shows on pages 66 and 67 (Table 4.4) that the FBI found the silicon content in the New York Post letter anthrax to be 10% when the bulk material was measured by mass and 1-2% when individual spore coats were measured by mass per spore.

Nadler: Why was neither piece of data provided to me

in response to my questions?

    • Third and finally, the NAS report raises questions about the appropriateness of the measurements taken of the anthrax on the letter to the New York Post.
      • (the NAS said) … additional samples should have been analyzed to determine representativeness.  
      • If such data exist, they were not provided to the committee. 
      • Lacking this information, one cannot rule out the intentional addition of a silicon-based substance to the New York Post letter, in a failed attempt to enhance dispersion.  
      • The committee notes that powders with dispersion characteristics similar to the letter material could be produced without the addition of a dispersant.

Nadler: Were additional samples tested to determine the extent

to which the ones examined were representative

of the New York Post letter material? 

If not, why not? 

  • If the FBI did do these additional tests, please provide the resulting data to me and NAS.

******

LMW COMMENT …

It seems clear from Congressman Nadler’s letter that FBI Director Mueller has been less than forthcoming to the House Judiciary Committee on crucial issues regarding the investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks.

The Congress and the American people need to know the truth and also why Director Mueller has avoided fully stating that truth.

The FBI’s publicly presented case against Dr. Ivins is clearly bogus:

… no evidence, 

…. no witnesses, 

…. an impossible timeline, 

…. science that proves innocence instead of guilt. 

So what really happened? And why doesn’t the FBI offer America a credible story?

As regular readers of this blog well know,

I can imagine only 3 possible “actual” scenarios …

  1. The FBI has more evidence against Dr. Ivins but is, for some undisclosed reason, withholding that evidence … POSSIBLE BUT NOT SO LIKELY
  2. 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
  3. The FBI knows who did it (not Dr. Ivins) but is covering up the actual perpetrators, for undisclosed reasons …THE MOST LIKELY SCENARIO

******

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 24 Comments »

*DXer … the FBI suppressed the information for a decade … that fact alone constitutes an irremovable taint on its mountain of innuendo and inferences adverse to Dr. Ivins

Posted by DXer on January 7, 2011

******

from DXer …

  • the FBI suppressed the information for a decade that its expert had made a dried powdered aerosol out of the Ames in the so-called “murder weapon” Flask 1029.
  • That fact alone constitutes an irremovable taint on its mountain of innuendo and inferences adverse to Dr. Ivins.

Other investigators and prosecutors

less focused on humiliating Dr. Ivins

by testing the semen on the panties

might have made inferences unfavorable

to the former Zawahiri associate

supplied virulent Ames from Flask 1029.

Ayman al-Zawahiri

******

LMW COMMENT …

The FBI’s publicly presented case against Dr. Ivins is clearly bogus: no evidence, no witnesses, an impossible timeline, science that proves innocence instead of guilt. So what really happened? And why doesn’t the FBI offer America a credible story?

As regular readers of this blog well know, I can imagine only 3 possible “actual” scenarios …

  1. The FBI has more evidence against Dr. Ivins but is, for some undisclosed reason, withholding that evidence … POSSIBLE BUT NOT SO LIKELY
  2. 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
  3. The FBI knows who did it (not Dr. Ivins) but is covering up the actual perpetrators, for undisclosed reasons …THE MOST LIKELY SCENARIO

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 perhaps more plausible than the FBI’s unproven assertions regarding Dr. Ivins.

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

* more details about the FBI hiding evidence to convict the innocent in Boston case … who is safe when those responsible for upholding the law can break it to gain a conviction?

Posted by DXer on August 30, 2009

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *

buy CC - why, who, readers

Jonathan Saltzman writes in the Boston Globe (8/28/09) …

  • A federal appeals court upheld yesterday a landmark ($101 million) verdict for four men framed by the FBI in a gangland slaying.
  • when we take into account the severe emotional trauma inflicted upon the scapegoats,’’ the appeals court wrote of the wrongly imprisoned men, “we cannot say with any firm conviction that those awards are grossly disproportionate to the injuries sustained.’’
  • Limone, now 75, of Medford, spent more than 33 years in prison as a result of his wrongful conviction in the 1965 murder. Salvati, now 76, of the North End, was in prison for more than 29 years. The other two men, Greco and Tameleo, died in prison after decades of imprisonment.
  • In a dramatic ruling on July 26, 2007, Gertner found the FBI “responsible for the framing of four innocent men’’ in the murder of a small-time criminal, Edward “Teddy’’ Deegan, in a Chelsea alley.
  • She concluded after a 22-day bench trial that the FBI deliberately withheld evidence of the four men’s innocence and helped hide the injustice for decades.
  • The discovery of secret FBI files that were not handed over during the men’s 1968 state murder trial prompted a state judge in 2001 to overturn the murder convictions of Limone and Salvati. Limone was immediately freed from prison. Salvati had been paroled in 1997. The convictions of Tameleo and Greco were later set aside posthumously.
  • Documents in the Deegan slaying showed that the FBI knew that the key witness in the case, notorious hitman-turned-government witness Joseph “The Animal’’ Barboza, may have falsely implicated the four men while protecting one of Deegan’s real killers, Vincent “Jimmy’’ Flemmi, an FBI informant.
  • Gertner found that the FBI protected Barboza and Flemmi because both provided valuable information against the Mafia, which was the bureau’s top priority at the time.

read the entire article at … http://wrongful-convictions.blogspot.com/2009/08/fbi-loses-appeal-of-1017m-verdict.html

LMW COMMENT …

In the Boston case, the FBI thought they had a good reason to break the law, so they went right ahead and broke it, withholding evidence and convicting four innocent men of a crime they didn’t commit.

It is not clear how high the decision went in the FBI hierarchy. Who authorized the withholding of evidence?

Another question is whether any FBI agent or official will be charged with withholding evidence and prosecuted? Criminal behavior by law enforcement officials is a frightening event. Who is safe when those responsible for upholding the law can break it to gain a conviction?

Are there any similarities between this long ago case in Boston and the anthrax case? Is the FBI withholding evidence in the anthrax case? Did they purposely implicate a dead man so they would never have to prove an unwinnable case in court? Will the truth ever come out?

I feel very strongly about the illegal misconduct of prosecutors, police and FBI agents, strong enough to write a novel about a young man convicted of a murder by a NYC prosecutor who knew he was innocent. Law enforcement officials who commit acts like that are rarely punished, but they should be. They are a black mark on the many good and honest prosecutors, police officers and FBI agents who follow the law. My novel about prosecutorial misconduct is called A GOOD CONVICTION and is available at amazon.

******

A Good Conviction is a novel, written by Lew Weinstein, about a young man convicted of murder by a NYC prosecutor A GOOD CONVICTIONwho knew he was innocent.

A reader comment about A Good Conviction

This gripping story demonstrates how one’s life can take a 180 degree turn in a moment. Weinstein is a great story teller and this is a very well crafted story.”

click here to … * buy A GOOD CONVICTION by Lew Weinstein

******

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