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

Posts Tagged ‘National Academy of Sciences’

* still no answers from NAS … no report … no documents … no explanation … who do they think pays their salaries?

Posted by Lew Weinstein on November 19, 2010

FBI looms over the NAS

I sent the following email to Steven Kendall at NAS. No response.

STEVE

  • Is there any specific information regarding the “reported” FBI/NAS contract extension?
  • Any up-to-date estimate on when the NAS report will be issued?
  • Will all documents submitted to NAS be made available at the same time as the report?
  • I’d like to be able to report your answers at the anthrax seminar scheduled for 11/29 in DC.
LEW
******

come to the Anthrax Mailings Investigation Seminar on Nov 29

see the full Anthrax Seminar program at …

https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2010/11/16/youre-invited-to-the-anthrax-mailings-investigation-a-seminar-to-discuss-the-investigation-the-scientific-aspects-the-lessons-learned-and-the-broader-implications-of-the-case/

Advertisements

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 36 Comments »

* Witnesses DXer recommends present at next NAS meeting on Review of Amerithrax Science

Posted by Lew Weinstein on April 13, 2010

The FBI’s case against Dr. Ivins is clearly bogus: no evidence, no witnesses, an impossible timeline. The real question is why the FBI persists in sticking to such a pathetic story. What are they hiding? I offer one “fictional” scenario in my novel CASE CLOSED, judged by many readers, including a highly respected official in the U.S. Intelligence Community, as “quite plausible.”

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *

.

DXer recommends  as witnesses for the 5th Meeting on the Review of Scientific Approaches Used By the FBI In The Amerithrax Investigation:
(1) FBI scientist Dr. Bartick be called re photocopy toner examination ;

(2) FBI scientist Dr. Rex Stockham be called on use of bloodhounds and Transfer Scent Unit-100; and

(3)  FBI’s anthrax expert at USAMRIID, John Ezzell,  who examined the mailed anthrax for the FBI.  He tells me made dried powder using anthrax from Flask 1029 that had been gamma irradiated.  He made it at the request of DARPA and gave it to the Johns Hopkins researchers.  He used a lyophilizer on the spores that were gamma irradiated while in the slurry.  His testimony is critical to a proper understanding of the issues.

(4) the FBI’s top expert on polygraphs.  see reliance on evidence in Investigative Summary in rationalizing that Dr. Ivins used countermeasures in passing polygraphs;

(5)   Drs. Hedlund, Dr. Adamovicz and Dr. Andrews, all former Chiefs of the Bacteriology Division, could present, as well as Dr. Heine who recently was interviewed on these issues; and

(6)  Although it should be in a closed presentation, Dr. John Kiel, who headed the Air Force lab, could testify about the controlled experiments his lab did on the reason for the silicon signature.  They involved a silanizing solution in the slurry before drying. He is an expert in making anthrax simulant, whose lab  in April 2007 did controlled experiments on the precise question presented — it is important he be invited to present if he hasn’t already done so.

******

You can register to attend

the open sessions of this meeting

at http://www.surveygizmo.com/s/267282/xzlr3.

Thursday, April 22, 2010

1:00-3:45 pm

******

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 8 Comments »

* status report on the NAS anthrax study … it’s due to be released this summer

Posted by Lew Weinstein on March 20, 2010

.

The New York Times says the FBI’s anthrax case has “too many loose ends.” Find out where some of those looses ends might have originated in my novel CASE CLOSED. Sure it’s fiction, but many readers, including a highly respected member of the U.S. Intelligence Community, think my premise is actually “quite plausible.”

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *

.

NAS Publications

BILL … It’s been some time since I’ve seen any updates from NAS regarding the status of the Amerithrax study. Can you provide any information regarding … recent meetings, nature of testimony given, anticipated report date? … LEW

The answer from NAS (3/19/10) …

The report is expected to be released this summer. I need to check on meeting schedule but I believe they’re deep into writing of report, which needs to be peer reviewed prior to approval for release.

******

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

* Antipolygraph.org provides a fascinating analysis of the FBI’s unsupported assertions regarding Dr. Bruce Ivins’ polygraph tests

Posted by Lew Weinstein on February 23, 2010

.

The FBI’s 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? 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.

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *

******

******

Antipolygraph.org provides a fascinating analysis

of the FBI’s unsupported assertions

regarding Dr. Bruce Ivins’ polygraph tests

******

Excerpts …

  • The DOJ maintains that Dr. Bruce Ivins, who in 2002 passed a polygraph test regarding the anthrax attacks, was the sole perpetrator.
  • In an investigative summary, the DOJ characterizes Ivins’ passing of the polygraph as part of an effort to “stay ahead of the investigation,” alleging (at p. 84, fn. 51) that he used countermeasures to fool the polygraph.
  • While FBI and DoD polygraphers claim that Ivins showed “classic” signs of countermeasure use, it should be noted that no polygraph operator has ever demonstrated the ability to detect polygraph countermeasures.
  • The question of whether an alleged biological terrorist fooled the polygraph is a crucial one for national security. The polygraph remains the centerpiece of America’s personnel security policy–despite the conclusion of the National Academy of Sciences that it’s junk science.
  • In addition, comments that Ivins allegedly made regarding his polygraph examination suggest that he really did not understand polygraph procedure.

For the entire fascinating analysis, click … https://antipolygraph.org/blog/?p=392

******

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 32 Comments »

* what is compelling evidence? … when will we know if the FBI has produced a compelling case in the 2001 anthrax attacks?

Posted by Lew Weinstein on December 24, 2009

I wrote … “I will believe nothing the FBI says if it is not accompanied by compelling evidence.

Ed asked … And who determines what is “compelling evidence”?

Ed has raised a most valid point. Compelling evidence is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of

  • a plausible narrative
  • plus actual evidence to prove that narrative.

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

Underlying anything that might be called compelling evidence that a particular person was the sole perpetrator of the anthrax attacks must be a plausible narrative, a description of what “could have happened” that accounts for all of the known details. This means that the alleged perpetrator must be shown to have had access to the particular anthrax used in the attacks, and that he (or she) could have delivered it to those mailboxes where it is alleged to have been mailed.

The science and the timelines must fit.

So far the FBI has not come close to a plausible narrative.

But even a plausible narrative is not enough;

it is necessary but not sufficient.

There must also be evidence to prove that what “could have happened” in fact did happen.

  • Does the anthrax the alleged perpetrator had match (by means of valid scientific tests properly conducted) the anthrax which killed five people and was disbursed widely in post offices and other places?
  • Is there real physical evidence that the alleged perpetrator actually delivered the attack anthrax as it was believed to have been delivered?

If there is no physical evidence to link the alleged perpetrator to the crimes, and it seems there is none, then it must be established that there are no other possible perpetrators who are just as likely as the one charged to have committed the attacks, based on the actual evidence.

  • Did others have access to the attack anthrax? It seems as if at least 100 other scientists, and countless possible accomplices, did have access.
  • Could any of these others (who had access) have delivered the anthrax (by themselves or with accomplices)?

Dr. Bruce Ivins

So far the FBI has presented no evidence to isolate the one they accuse (Dr. Bruce Ivins) from any of the other possible perpetrators.

The FBI has refused to answer many valid questions raised by the media, Congress, and contributors to this blog.

The FBI has (seemingly) hamstrung the ongoing NAS review of the science it used.

The FBI case is (so far) a fraud

which could never be proven in any court.

Which raises the question of why the FBI, which I do not believe is as incompetent as their Amerithrax performance would suggest, has stubbornly focused on Dr. Ivins when they cannot (or at least so far have not) prove their case.

To me, that’s the most frightening question of all, the question I raised and answered (fiction!) in my novel CASE CLOSED.

Click here to

buy CASE CLOSED by Lew Weinstein

******

Posted in * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , , , | 91 Comments »

* an open email to Dr. Ralph Cicerone, President, National Academy of Sciences

Posted by Lew Weinstein on December 10, 2009

CASE CLOSED is a novel which answers the question “Why did the FBI fail to solve the 2001 anthrax case?” … Here’s what readers say about CASE CLOSED …

“CASE CLOSED is entirely too plausible and is probably just te tip of the iceberg on what else was covered up.”

“Fiction?? Maybe?? But I don’t think so!! More likely an excellent interpretation of what may have really happened.”

Click here to buy CASE CLOSED by Lew Weinstein

******

An open email

to Dr. Ralph Cicerone, President

National Academy of Sciences

******

Dear Dr. Cicerone,

I am the author of CASE CLOSED, a novel dealing with the FBI’s failure to solve the 2001 anthrax case, and also the host of a very active blog on the same topic.

For some months now, I have been attempting to understand the NAS failure to comply with the law or offer any lawful reason for its failure to comply with the FOIA requirement to disclose documents received by the NAS from the FBI in conjunction with its review of the FBI’s anthrax science.

Please see …  https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/nas-continues-to-stonewall-will-not-provide-fbi-submitted-documents-nor-state-reasons-for-not-providing/

… for my specific questions and the non-answers provided by Mr. William Kearney of the NAS.

I think the NAS is doing itself a serious disservice in this matter, and is tarnishing its otherwise superb reputation as a result.

You are creating the impression that you are complicit with the FBI in illegally keeping from the public information about the horrendous 2001 bioterrorist attack which resulted in 5 deaths and which directly targeted members of the U.S. Senate.

You are also undermining and embarrassing what I have no reason to believe is anything but a sincere and honest effort on the part of those prominent scientists who have volunteered to be part of the NAS panel.

I hope you will take this matter under review and reverse whoever has made this so far unfortunate decision. I look forward to hearing from you shortly as to what action you have decided to take.

Lewis Weinstein

see related posts …

* does the NAS/FBI contract support the sequestering of FBI-submitted documents until the end of the NAS study?

* here is the complete NAS/FBI contract for review of FBI anthrax science

******

Posted in * NAS review of FBI science | Tagged: , , , , , | 22 Comments »

* NAS continues to stonewall, will not provide FBI-submitted documents nor state reasons for not providing

Posted by Lew Weinstein on December 10, 2009

CASE CLOSED is a novel which answers the question “Why did the FBI fail to solve the 2001 anthrax case?” … Here’s what readers say about CASE CLOSED …

“CASE CLOSED is entirely too plausible and is probably just te tip of the iceberg on what else was covered up.”

“Fiction?? Maybe?? But I don’t think so!! More likely an excellent interpretation of what may have really happened.”

Click here to buy CASE CLOSED by Lew Weinstein

******

Lew’s Correspondence with NAS

10/30/09

12/8/09

12/9/09

******

Lew to NAS Oct 30, 2009 …

I have been asking you for the past two months to provide legal authority for the decision to sequester and withhold FBI-submitted documents until the end of the study. You have indicated twice that you had referred the matter to NAS counsel.

Now we have the NAS/FBI contract document, which provides no legal justification for withholding the FBI-submitted documents until the end of the study or for failing to provide the specific exemptions for any documents NAS is currently withholding.

Could you please provide an update on current NAS intentions by answering the following questions …

Temporarily withholding FBI-submitted documents until the end of the study.

  • Does NAS still plan to withhold some or all FBI-submitted documents until the end of the study?
  • If so, will NAS provide a list of withheld FBI-submitted documents?
  • If NAS is planning to withhold some or all FBI-submitted documents until the end of the study but release them at that time, what legal authority does NAS cite for doing so?

Permanently withholding access to FBI-submitted documents.

  • Will NAS provide a list of any FBI-submitted documents which NAS is intending to permanently restrict from access, indicating in each case the specific exemption which is being cited to justify that action?

Thanks for your assistance in this matter.

Lew to NAS Dec 8, 2009 …

It is utterly incredible to me, and very disappointing, that you, and thus the NAS, have simply ignored the questions I have asked regarding the FBI-submitted information.  If you have reasons for not releasing information, why not state them?  Do you have any intention of ever responding, even if only to tell me that in your judgment my questions are inappropriate?

NAS to Lew Dec 9, 2009 …

per earlier statement, the material is exempt from mandatory public release under the Freedom of Information Act, but we have agreement with FBI to make it public when our report is released: The study committee expects to receive thousands of pages of material from the F.B.I. in the course of its study. Some has already been received; more will be coming as the study progresses. Much of this material is exempt from mandatory release to the public under the Freedom of Information Act. However, we have an agreement with the F.B.I. that all of the material will be made available to the public at the same time that our report is released, so that everyone will be able to review the information that was available to the committee in reaching its conclusions.

LMW COMMENT …

NAS continues to avoid stating the specific FOIA exemption, and does not state any basis for withholding information until the end of the study.

Posted in * NAS review of FBI science | Tagged: , , , , | 8 Comments »

* NAS has still not provided any legal justification for its decision to withhold and sequester FBI-submitted documents related to the NAS review of the FBI’s anthrax science

Posted by Lew Weinstein on October 30, 2009

CASE CLOSEDCASE CLOSED is a novel which answers the question “Why did the FBI fail to solve the 2001 anthrax case?” … click here to … buy CASE CLOSED by Lew Weinstein

Here’s what readers say about CASE CLOSED  …

“CASE CLOSED is a must read for anyone who wondered … what really happened? … Who did it? … why?” … and finally, why didn’t they tell us the truth?”

“Fiction?? Maybe?? But I don’t think so!! More likely an excellent interpretation of what may have really happened.”

******

NAS has still not provided any legal justification

for its decision to withhold and sequester

FBI-submitted documents related to

the NAS review of the FBI’s anthrax science

******

LMW 10/30/09 email to the Deputy Executive Director &
Director of Media Relations, Office of News & Public Information
National Academy of Sciences

On September 4, 2009, you emailed me as follows …

“Lew, the NAS is a nonprofit private institution that operates under a congressional charter and the Section 15 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act which requires that material presented to our committees as part of their data gathering go in our Public Access Office files. Some material given to the anthrax committee is already in that file and I’ll ask someone from public access to send you link to list. However, the FBI case documents periodically being given to the committee will not go in the public access file until the end of the study.”

I have been asking you for the past two months to provide legal authority for the decision to sequester and withhold FBI-submitted documents until the end of the study. You have indicated twice that you had referred the matter to NAS counsel.

Now we have the NAS/FBI contract document, which provides no legal justification for withholding the FBI-submitted documents until the end of the study or for failing to provide the specific exemptions for any documents NAS is currently withholding.

Could you please provide an update on current NAS intentions by answering the following questions …

Temporarily withholding FBI-submitted documents until the end of the study.

  • Does NAS still plan to withhold some or all FBI-submitted documents until the end of the study?
  • If so, will NAS provide a list of withheld FBI-submitted documents?
  • If NAS is planning to withhold some or all FBI-submitted documents until the end of the study but release them at that time, what legal authority does NAS cite for doing so?

Permanently withholding access to FBI-submitted documents.

  • Will NAS provide a list of any FBI-submitted documents which NAS is intending to permanently restrict from access, indicating in each case the specific exemption which is being cited to justify that action?

Thanks for your assistance in this matter.

LEW

******

Posted in * NAS review of FBI science, * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »

* does the NAS/FBI contract support the sequestering of FBI-submitted documents until the end of the NAS study?

Posted by Lew Weinstein on October 30, 2009

CASE CLOSEDCASE CLOSED is a novel which answers the question “Why did the FBI fail to solve the 2001 anthrax case?” … click here to … buy CASE CLOSED by Lew Weinstein

Here’s what readers say about CASE CLOSED  …

“CASE CLOSED is a must read for anyone who wondered … what really happened? … Who did it? … why?” … and finally, why didn’t they tell us the truth?”

“Fiction?? Maybe?? But I don’t think so!! More likely an excellent interpretation of what may have really happened.”

.

******

does the NAS/FBI contract

support the sequestering of FBI-submitted documents

until the end of the NAS study?

******

NAS-FBI contract extracts - FOIA disclosure

LMW COMMENTS …

The NAS/FBI contract refers to possible exemptions from FOIA disclosure requirements and states that the FBI “will mark any information provided to the Contractor (NAS) as exempt from FOIA and list one of the exemptions.”

The NAS/FBI contract also provides that “if a request for information … is requested under FOIA” the Government (???) “shall have the right to disclose any information” … “to the extent provided under the FOIA, notwithstanding any restrictive legends that may have been placed upon it in accordance with the FBI Central Record System.”

The term “Government” is not defined in the contract. The NAS is referred to as “Contractor” and the FBI is referred to as “FBI.”

The above cites are the only references to FOIA which I found in the NAS/FBI contract.

There is no reference in the NAS/FBI contract to withholding information until the end of the NAS study.

There is no reference in the NAS/FBI contract to withholding information without specific listing of a FOIA exemption.

******

Posted in * NAS review of FBI science, * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , , , , | 9 Comments »

* does the NAS/FBI contract permit the NAS to draw conclusions regarding the guilt or innocence of Dr. Bruce Ivins?

Posted by Lew Weinstein on October 30, 2009

CASE CLOSEDCASE CLOSED is a novel which answers the question “Why did the FBI fail to solve the 2001 anthrax case?” … click here to … buy CASE CLOSED by Lew Weinstein

Here’s what readers say about CASE CLOSED  …

“CASE CLOSED is a must read for anyone who wondered … what really happened? … Who did it? … why?” … and finally, why didn’t they tell us the truth?”

“Fiction?? Maybe?? But I don’t think so!! More likely an excellent interpretation of what may have really happened.”

******

Extracts from NAS/FBI contract

regarding issue of guilt or innocence

******

NAS-FBI contract extracts - guilt or innocence

LMW COMMENTS …

The NAS/FBI contract asks the NAS to determine whether “the FBI reached appropriate scientific conclusions” from use of various scientific approaches.

The NAS/FBI contract also says the NAS will not undertake “an assessment of the probative value of the scientific evidence” and will “offer no view on the guilt or innocence of any person(s).”

These two clauses from the NAS/FBI contract seem to be inconsistent.

Since the FBI bases its case against Dr. Ivins on the fact that he, and only he, derived the attack anthrax from Flask RMR-1029, if the NAS ultimately concludes that the scientific evidence does not lead to that conclusion, and that the scientific evidence only identifies the beaker and not the perpetrator, would that not be a conclusion regarding the provable guilt or innocence of Dr. Ivins?

******

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