FBI Admits It Destroyed Evidence In Anthrax Case

[Galileo]

FBI Admits It Destroyed Evidence In Anthrax Case

According to the Associated Press:


"FBI scientists early on had — but destroyed — the unique strain of anthrax used in the deadly 2001 attacks that years later would lead them to Dr. Bruce Ivins...:

***

[This was anthrax that] Ivins took from his Army lab in February 2002 and gave investigators"
The FBI's excuse for destroying the anthrax sample which Ivins gave them?

"The sample kept at the FBI lab was destroyed because the bureau believed it might not have been allowed as evidence at trial."
However, every trial lawyer in the country will tell you that prosecutors don't destroy evidence just because they are not sure a judge will allow the evidence to be introduced at trial. Instead, lawyers keep all the evidence. If more bullet-proof evidence comes along, only then would a prosecutor be less attached the earlier evidence.

But even then, he would still hold onto the earlier evidence as a backup, in case the better evidence is lost, or the authenticity, reliability of chain of custody of the better evidence is challenged in court.

The FBI's explanation is so shallow that Rolf Lindgren suggests that reporters ask the following question at the next FBI news conference:

"Now that Dr. Ivins is dead and he won't have a trial, no evidence will ever be admitted. Have you destroyed the rest of the evidence yet?"
Posted by George Washington at 3:44 PM
Older Post Home

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/08/fbi-admits-it-destroyed-evidence-in.html

[Galileo]

MORE ANTHRAX UPDATES!

The Bruce Ivins coverage, not so good.
by Elizabeth Ferrari
http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Bruce-Ivins-coverage--by-Elizabeth-Ferrari-080818-600.html

Glenn Greenwald
Monday Aug. 18, 2008 08:04 EDT
Doubts over the anthrax case intensify -- except among much of the media
(updated below - Update II - Update III)
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/18/anthrax/

Six Questions About the Anthrax Case
Commentary: The Bush administration has increased the likelihood not just that terror will come to "the homeland," but that it will come from the homeland.
By Tom Engelhardt
August 18, 2008
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/tomdispatch/2008/08/six-questions-about-the-anthrax-case.html

FBI sweeps anthrax under the rug
http://www.opednews.com/articles/FBI-sweeps-anthrax-under-t-by-Sheila-Casey-080818-921.html

Defending the Dead Part IV: Blinding Us with Science
http://www.leighannlittle.com/2008/08/defending-dead-part-4-blinding-us-with.html

Scientific data so far lacking
http://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2008/08/scientific-data-so-far-lacking.html

[exstatic]

http://cr4.globalspec.com/PostImages/200709/TinFoil_DB52B2F1-0E7F-A983-F0F9D799A20B06C8.jpg

[Nbadan]

:lol at Sperminator playing the conspiracy card........

[cool hand]

dude's dead leave it alone.

[Galileo]

http://cr4.globalspec.com/PostImages/200709/TinFoil_DB52B2F1-0E7F-A983-F0F9D799A20B06C8.jpg

defending an innocent man is a conspiracy theory?

[ChumpDumper]

When the FBI sought scientific help in analyzing powder recovered from the mailings, it turned to USAMRIID -- and to Ivins. Officials who addressed the media Monday acknowledged for the first time that Ivins had helped the FBI compose the "protocol" for early subpoenas that sought anthrax samples from USAMRIID scientists, including Ivins.

In February 2002, even before his subpoena arrived, Ivins submitted a sample that violated the protocol, the officials said. And because FBI officials concluded that the protocol violation would make Ivins' sample inadmissible in court, the bureau destroyed it. In April 2002, Ivins gave the FBI a second sample, which did not match the RMR 1029 parent strain.

A break in the case came in 2006, when a microbiologist assisting in the probe, Paul Keim of Northern Arizona University, confirmed to investigators that he had received a duplicate of the February 2002 sample. Subsequent analysis of that duplicate sample matched it to the powder used in the 2001 letters.

Federal officials said they view with suspicion Ivins' deviation from the protocol with his first sample and his submission of the non-matching second sample. Ivins was the only USAMRIID scientist who did not follow the protocol, said a prosecutor who attended the briefing Monday.

Majidi said that, "looking at hindsight, obviously," the FBI should not have destroyed Ivins' first sample. But overall, he said, the methods and techniques used to build the case against Ivins had been "highly validated" in consultation with a range of experts. He and other officials said the underlying raw data would be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals; no timetable was provided.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-anthrax19-2008aug19,0,1086707.story

[Galileo]

When the FBI sought scientific help in analyzing powder recovered from the mailings, it turned to USAMRIID -- and to Ivins. Officials who addressed the media Monday acknowledged for the first time that Ivins had helped the FBI compose the "protocol" for early subpoenas that sought anthrax samples from USAMRIID scientists, including Ivins.

In February 2002, even before his subpoena arrived, Ivins submitted a sample that violated the protocol, the officials said. And because FBI officials concluded that the protocol violation would make Ivins' sample inadmissible in court, the bureau destroyed it. In April 2002, Ivins gave the FBI a second sample, which did not match the RMR 1029 parent strain.

A break in the case came in 2006, when a microbiologist assisting in the probe, Paul Keim of Northern Arizona University, confirmed to investigators that he had received a duplicate of the February 2002 sample. Subsequent analysis of that duplicate sample matched it to the powder used in the 2001 letters.

Federal officials said they view with suspicion Ivins' deviation from the protocol with his first sample and his submission of the non-matching second sample. Ivins was the only USAMRIID scientist who did not follow the protocol, said a prosecutor who attended the briefing Monday.

Majidi said that, "looking at hindsight, obviously," the FBI should not have destroyed Ivins' first sample. But overall, he said, the methods and techniques used to build the case against Ivins had been "highly validated" in consultation with a range of experts. He and other officials said the underlying raw data would be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals; no timetable was provided.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-anthrax19-2008aug19,0,1086707.story

Dr. Ivins never violated any protocol. The FBI says that becasue Ivins is dead.

It is the FBI who violated protocol by destroying evidence.

The Scarlet A: Links between the Anthrax Attacks and 9/11

By Barbara Honegger

(The author is a senior military affairs journalist, and former White House Policy Analyst and Special Assistant to the President in the first Reagan Administration. She is the author of the 9/11 expose “The Pentagon Attack Papers” http://physics911.net/pdf/honegger.pdf and October Surprise (Tudor, 1989), the first book to reveal the true origins of the Iran side of the Iran/Contra scandal.)
http://www.barrettforcongress.us/

[ChumpDumper]

Dr. Ivins never violated any protocol.Please list the entire protocol since you obviously know every aspect of it.

[ChumpDumper]

A slightly more detailed account:

Led by Fraser-Liggett and Jacques Ravel, also of the Institute for Genome Sciences, researchers fully sequenced 12 samples of anthrax from the mailings, with the hope that DNA would lead back to the mother stock. Four mutations — specific insertions or deletions known as “indels” that appear in the genetic code of many organisms — were identified as significant. To determine which labs were using stock with these same four mutations, investigators obtained more than 1,000 samples of Ames strain anthrax from 16 labs in the United States and some in Canada and Sweden.

Ivins consulted with investigators in 2002 regarding the sampling protocol that should be outlined in the subpoena for collecting anthrax samples, the panel reported. But Ivins then submitted a sample without following the requested lab protocol. The FBI destroyed this sample, not because it was tainted, but because all samples needed to be collected in exactly the same way in order to hold up in court. New samples submitted by Ivins did not contain the four mutations.

Later, investigators realized that Keim, whose lab was keeping a backup of every sample collected, might have the backup of the original sample Ivins submitted. This sample did have the four mutations, investigators reported Monday. Other samples from Ivins’ lab confirmed this finding. The panel would not speculate why Ivins would have submitted two different samples.

Researchers were mum about many of the specifics, saying the results eventually will appear in peer-reviewed journals.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/35503/title/FBI_reveals_more_details_of_anthrax_investigation

Let us know the journals in which all your 9/11 peer-reviewed articles can be found, Galileo.

[Galileo]

A slightly more detailed account:

Led by Fraser-Liggett and Jacques Ravel, also of the Institute for Genome Sciences, researchers fully sequenced 12 samples of anthrax from the mailings, with the hope that DNA would lead back to the mother stock. Four mutations — specific insertions or deletions known as “indels” that appear in the genetic code of many organisms — were identified as significant. To determine which labs were using stock with these same four mutations, investigators obtained more than 1,000 samples of Ames strain anthrax from 16 labs in the United States and some in Canada and Sweden.

Ivins consulted with investigators in 2002 regarding the sampling protocol that should be outlined in the subpoena for collecting anthrax samples, the panel reported. But Ivins then submitted a sample without following the requested lab protocol. The FBI destroyed this sample, not because it was tainted, but because all samples needed to be collected in exactly the same way in order to hold up in court. New samples submitted by Ivins did not contain the four mutations.

Later, investigators realized that Keim, whose lab was keeping a backup of every sample collected, might have the backup of the original sample Ivins submitted. This sample did have the four mutations, investigators reported Monday. Other samples from Ivins’ lab confirmed this finding. The panel would not speculate why Ivins would have submitted two different samples.

Researchers were mum about many of the specifics, saying the results eventually will appear in peer-reviewed journals.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/35503/title/FBI_reveals_more_details_of_anthrax_investigation

Let us know the journals in which all your 9/11 peer-reviewed articles can be found, Galileo.

The 4 genetic markers were unknown in 2002. So Ivins would have no idea if the samples had them of not. This is bullshit.

[ChumpDumper]

The 4 genetic markers were unknown in 2002. So Ivins would have no idea if the samples had them of not. This is bullshit.Ivins knew that the anthrax used in the attacks came from his lab because he sent it. His actions -- screwing up the first sample and sending a completely different strain of anthrax the second time -- show he knew the anthrax might eventually be traced back to him.

[Galileo]

Ivins knew that the anthrax used in the attacks came from his lab because he sent it. His actions -- screwing up the first sample and sending a completely different strain of anthrax the second time -- show he knew the anthrax might eventually be traced back to him.

16 labs had the same anthrax strain, not just Ivins. Ivins sent the correct anthrax to the FBI, then they destroyed it. So you can't prove that Ivins sent the wrong anthrax. The FBI says they destroyed the anthrax because it "might not be admissible in court". More FBI bullshit.

Thge anthrax letters had weaponized anthrax. Ivins was dedicated to saving lives by making anthrax vaccines. He has a clean criminal record. No one at the Ft. Detrick lab had the training or equipment to make weaponized anthrax.

[ChumpDumper]

16 labs had the same anthrax strain, not just Ivins. Ivins sent the correct anthrax to the FBI, then they destroyed it. So you can't prove that Ivins sent the wrong anthrax.The second sample sent in April 2002 wasn't destroyed. That was the sample determined to be from a different strain of anthrax.


Thge anthrax letters had weaponized anthrax. Ivins was dedicated to saving lives by making anthrax vaccines. He has a clean criminal record. No one at the Ft. Detrick lab had the training or equipment to make weaponized anthrax.I suggest you read the entire articles I linked:



Among the new details Monday was that, contrary to statements made over the years by other government officials, the mailed anthrax had not been coated with additives to "weaponize" it, or make it more deadly. Silicon was detected within the spores, said several of the eight scientists who met with reporters, but it occurred naturally, not as a result of weaponizing.

The silicon did not make the anthrax more buoyant when exposed to air, said James Burans, associate laboratory director of the National Bioforensic Analysis Center.

"The silicon would not have contributed to the fluid-like qualities of the anthrax powders," he said. But loading the powder into envelopes, and their handling by the Postal Service, would have made it more electrostatically charged and difficult to contain, he said.

Burans also said that high-speed mail processing machinery could have crushed the powder more finely -- evidenced by plumes that rose 30 feet above the floor at a postal annex in Washington.

On the other hand, he and the other scientists did not offer an exact explanation of how Ivins was able to prepare the fluffy, dry, powdered anthrax. Ivins, they said, could have used a lab-issue drier called a lyophylizer, but not necessarily.

However it was done, said Majidi, "it would have been easy to make these samples at" Ft. Detrick, Md., home of the Army's infectious diseases research facility.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-anthrax19-2008aug19,0,1086707.story

And--


There was no evidence that anything was added to the spores of the rod-shaped bacteria to make them disperse more easily, Majidi said. Preliminary tests suggested that some of the mailed spores contained silica and oxygen, resulting in speculation that the spores were mixed with something that would make them extra buoyant and perhaps more dangerous. But transmission electron microscopy localized the silica signal to inside the spore coat, said Joseph Michael, a materials scientist at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, N.M. The bacterium may naturally incorporate environmental silica into its spore coat as it develops, the researchers said.

Spores of Bacillus anthracis easily drift through the air and take on charge, which makes them stick to everything, said James Burans, associate laboratory director at the National Bioforensic Analysis Center in Frederick, Md. That’s why labs typically work with anthrax only in liquid form. “People describe it as having a mind of its own,” Burans said.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/35503/title/FBI_reveals_more_details_of_anthrax_investigation

[Galileo]

The second sample sent in April 2002 wasn't destroyed. That was the sample determined to be from a different strain of anthrax.

I suggest you read the entire articles I linked:



Among the new details Monday was that, contrary to statements made over the years by other government officials, the mailed anthrax had not been coated with additives to "weaponize" it, or make it more deadly. Silicon was detected within the spores, said several of the eight scientists who met with reporters, but it occurred naturally, not as a result of weaponizing.

The silicon did not make the anthrax more buoyant when exposed to air, said James Burans, associate laboratory director of the National Bioforensic Analysis Center.

"The silicon would not have contributed to the fluid-like qualities of the anthrax powders," he said. But loading the powder into envelopes, and their handling by the Postal Service, would have made it more electrostatically charged and difficult to contain, he said.

Burans also said that high-speed mail processing machinery could have crushed the powder more finely -- evidenced by plumes that rose 30 feet above the floor at a postal annex in Washington.

On the other hand, he and the other scientists did not offer an exact explanation of how Ivins was able to prepare the fluffy, dry, powdered anthrax. Ivins, they said, could have used a lab-issue drier called a lyophylizer, but not necessarily.

However it was done, said Majidi, "it would have been easy to make these samples at" Ft. Detrick, Md., home of the Army's infectious diseases research facility.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-anthrax19-2008aug19,0,1086707.story

And--


There was no evidence that anything was added to the spores of the rod-shaped bacteria to make them disperse more easily, Majidi said. Preliminary tests suggested that some of the mailed spores contained silica and oxygen, resulting in speculation that the spores were mixed with something that would make them extra buoyant and perhaps more dangerous. But transmission electron microscopy localized the silica signal to inside the spore coat, said Joseph Michael, a materials scientist at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, N.M. The bacterium may naturally incorporate environmental silica into its spore coat as it develops, the researchers said.

Spores of Bacillus anthracis easily drift through the air and take on charge, which makes them stick to everything, said James Burans, associate laboratory director at the National Bioforensic Analysis Center in Frederick, Md. That’s why labs typically work with anthrax only in liquid form. “People describe it as having a mind of its own,” Burans said.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/35503/title/FBI_reveals_more_details_of_anthrax_investigation

all this is the opposite of what the FBI said 5 years ago. Where is the evidence for what the FBI said 5 years ago. Destroyed perhaps?

The FBI has a lot of gall to claim Dr. Ivins "mislead" anyone. The FBI has been misleading the public and feloniously leaking confindential information on this case for years.

I do not believe a word th FBI says. If they release evidence and someone else look it over, I might be interested.

Paul Kemp, Ivins attorney, is the most reliable source so far in this case. he sasys he's looked over all the evidence and concluded that Ivins is innocent, which contradicts what the FBI is saying.

[ChumpDumper]

all this is the opposite of what the FBI said 5 years ago. Where is the evidence for what the FBI said 5 years ago. Destroyed perhaps?The evidence was always there. They just developed new ways of analyzing it. The march of science and all that.


The FBI has a lot of gall to claim Dr. Ivins "mislead" anyone. The FBI has been misleading the public and feloniously leaking confindential information on this case for years.What "confindential" information? And what specific felony did they commit?


I do not believe a word th FBI says. If they release evidence and someone else look it over, I might be interested.You'll note that both stories mentioned that all the evidence will be further explained in peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals. I will hold your conspiracy theories to the same scrutiny. Where are all those peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals that back up all the claims you have made in this forum?


Paul Kemp, Ivins attorney, is the most reliable source so far in this case. he sasys he's looked over all the evidence and concluded that Ivins is innocent, which contradicts what the FBI is saying.Yes, defense attorneys are by far the least biased parties when it comes to discussing their clients :lmao

[Galileo]

The evidence was always there. They just developed new ways of analyzing it. The march of science and all that.

What "confindential" information? And what specific felony did they commit?

You'll note that both stories mentioned that all the evidence will be further explained in peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals. I will hold your conspiracy theories to the same scrutiny. Where are all those peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals that back up all the claims you have made in this forum?

Yes, defense attorneys are by far the least biased parties when it comes to discussing their clients :lmao

6 years ago, the FBI said the anthrax had an extra special chemical manufactured by Iraq. They said Saddam Hussein made the anthrax. Dr. Ivins had no access to this special chemical. That rules out Ivins as a suspect.

He's innocent.

[ChumpDumper]

6 years ago, the FBI said the anthrax had an extra special chemical manufactured by Iraq. They said Saddam Hussein made the anthrax. Dr. Ivins had no access to this special chemical. That rules out Ivins as a suspect.

He's innocent.Link to where the FBI said Saddam Hussein definitely made the anthrax.

[Wild Cobra]

Can we agree that there is enough misinformation and secrecy about this issue that the media accounts are likely in error, and we will probably never know the truth?

[ChumpDumper]

No.

[Galileo]

Link to where the FBI said Saddam Hussein definitely made the anthrax.

I saw it on TV a long time ago.

[ChumpDumper]

I saw it on TV a long time ago.:lmao

We all know how reliable you are.

[Galileo]

Can we agree that there is enough misinformation and secrecy about this issue that the media accounts are likely in error, and we will probably never know the truth?

how do you know the that the media accounts were in error? More likely, the FBI was in error.

Because if the media was in error, the FBI would have corrected them at the time.

btw - did you know its a felony crime for FBI agents to leak shit to the media?