Reply With Quote
Are you telling me a scientist who regularly worked with anthrax never took any precautions against exposure to anthrax?
You'll have to provide a link for that.
I bet I can find a link saying he did.
Saddam wasn't in NJ on September 18, 2001.
Are you telling me a scientist who regularly worked with anthrax never took any precautions against exposure to anthrax?
You'll have to provide a link for that.
I bet I can find a link saying he did.
I'll concede that. I think Ivins was taking Cipro along with all the other scientists at his lab.
But Cheney didn't work at an anthrax lab.
No, he was just the vice-president of the United States after a terrorist attack. He obviously was planning to send anthrax to himself and blame it on Saddam but forgot to. He was too busy making sure all the steel from WTC 7 was being melted and all the detcord and thermite residue removed from ground zero and bringing in burned cadavers of homeless people into the Pentagon. Then he had the FBI frame the one American and paid him six million dollars instead of just killing him like they did the other guy they framed six years later.
It all makes perfect sense.
Doubts persist on Ivins' guilt
Scientists and legal experts skeptical
By Stephen Kiehl and Josh Mitc | Sun reporters
August 8, 2008
1 2 next A day after the Justice Department released hundreds of do ents purporting to link Bruce E. Ivins to the 2001 anthrax killings, scientists and legal experts criticized the strength of the case and cast doubt on whether it could have succeeded.
Federal investigators presented a raft of cir stantial evidence this week intended to prove Ivins' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But officials lacked direct evidence, such as hair fibers, DNA samples or handwriting analysis, that the eccentric microbiologist created the deadly powder in his Fort Detrick lab. Questions also remain about Ivins' ability to convert the spores stored in his lab into the powder sent through the mail.
More than half a dozen experts in law and bioterrorism pointed out yesterday what they consider major flaws in the government's case and said they were not convinced that Ivins acted alone in mailing the letters that killed five people - or that he was involved at all. They said that the science that led the FBI to Ivins has not been explained and that the other evidence did not amount to conclusive proof.
Because Ivins committed suicide last week, that evidence will never be tested at trial, but his attorney has repeatedly insisted that the scientist was innocent.
Related link
Jean Marbella: Holes in anthrax case not novel
Questions
Scientists and legal experts skeptical of the government's case against Bruce E. Ivins point to several lingering questions:
• How would Ivins have made the anthrax? The FBI said Ivins used his lab to convert anthrax spores into powdered anthrax but has presented no proof that he had the equipment or expertise to do so.
• What motive would Ivins have had? The FBI speculates Ivins might have wanted to heighten the need for a vaccine he was working on, but relatives and co-workers doubt that motive.
• How did the FBI rule out other labs and scientists who had access to the anthrax used in the attacks?
• Why did the anthrax in some of the letters differ from the anthrax found in others? Two letters contained a harmless bacterial contaminant, but the FBI has not shown where it came from or if they tried to trace it to Ivins.
The FBI said it used a sophisticated mapping technique to connect the anthrax in the letters with a flask in a Fort Detrick lab where Ivins worked. But that technique is so new that in the hands of a skilled defense lawyer, it could be "unraveled in front of a jury," said Michael Greenberger, a professor at the University of Maryland Law School.
Not all legal experts were skeptical of the case. Former federal prosecutor E. Lawrence Barcella said the FBI appeared to have done a remarkably thorough investigation. "They've made a very strong cir stantial case, an extremely strong cir stantial case," Barcella said.
Others said the focus on Ivins' lab raised concerns. The government said that 16 government, commercial and university labs had the strain of anthrax with the same genetic mutations as the anthrax used in the attacks. Only one of those 16 was in Maryland or Virginia - where the government thinks the envelopes used in the attacks were purchased.
That lab is the one where Ivins worked.
"I thought that was a bit of a stretch," said Jonathan D. Tucker, a biological warfare expert on a federal commission to prevent terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. "It's such a key piece of their argument, and it's based on inference. We don't know which other labs had the strains with the mutations."
And even at Fort Detrick, the government said that more than 100 people had access to the flask, creating a lot of room for reasonable doubt.
"There is a classic defense mechanism - to raise reasonable doubt by presenting the jury with viable options as to how the crime was perpetrated," Greenberger said. "This case would have been a very, very difficult case to prove."
The FBI defended its work Wednesday, saying the painstaking investigation could lead to only one conclusion: Ivins was solely responsible for the attacks. They said the fact they had only cir stantial evidence did not weaken their case, which they now consider closed.
"Thousands of prosecutors in thousands of courthouses across this country every day prove cases beyond a reasonable doubt using cir stantial evidence," Joseph Persichini, assistant director of the FBI's Washington field office, said Wednesday.
In addition to the flask connection, Barcella said the time logs that show Ivins used his lab late at night just before the anthrax mailings raise strong su ions. He said prosecutions based solely on cir stantial evidence were common and that the strongest such cases relied on the premise that all other alternative scenarios have been ruled out.
That's what happened with the anthrax case, Barcella said. The FBI "eliminated every possibility until they were left with one, which is a tedious but very thorough way to do an investigation," he said.
But other experts say the FBI has not shown how it cleared the 100 or more other people who had access to the flask - the kind of detail that would be forced out at trial. Lacking a trial in this case, experts said Congress should hold hearings or order an independent review of the evidence.
"If those questions are not resolved, there will always be a residue of doubt that the perpetrator will still be at large and that an innocent man may have been accused," said Tucker, of the federal anti-terrorism commission. "It's very important to tie up these lingering loose ends and address the gaps."
Among the unresolved questions:
•How do officials believe Ivins made the anthrax? The FBI says Ivins used his lab to convert anthrax spores into powdered anthrax, but no proof has been presented that he had the equipment or the expertise to do so.
"I'm waiting for it to be shown that the quan y and the quality of the powders in the anthrax letters could have been produced in those suites" at Fort Detrick, said W. Russell Byrne, who retired from Fort Detrick in 2003 and was Ivins' supervisor from 1998 to 2000. "I don't know how to make the stuff," he said.
He also said that so many people were going in and out of the labs at odd hours to check on experiments that it's unlikely Ivins would have gone undetected if he had been working on something illicit, even at night.
1 2 next
READ THE REST:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nat...1.story?page=1
MORE ANTHRAX NEW FLASHES!
Holes in anthrax case not novel
Jean Marbella
August 8, 2008
In case I ever turn up dead while being investigated by the Feds, and they release all the su ious stuff they've uncovered about me, let me explain right now why I recently Googled "novel kill scientist poisoned strawberry."
READ MORE:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nat...5925973.column
Is Bruce Ivins the American David Kelly?
Posted by Lew Rockwell at August 7, 2008 10:42 PM
Good for Philip Weiss for printing his dialog with Nancy Horn. Phil, 'fraid I have to side with Dr. Horn. Oh, and David Kelly might well have been murdered.
READ MORE:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/022287.html
Ivins Could Not Have Applied High-Tech Coating to the Killer Anthrax
As everyone knows, the government initially tried to blame Iraq for the anthrax attack. One of the claims made was that the anthrax contained bentonite clay, which was also used by Iraqi anthrax bioweapons makers to "weaponize" the anthrax by decreasing the tendency of anthrax spores to clump together. (Clumping makes them less deadly since clumping reduces the amount of spores which end up in the target's lungs).
The government later disclaimed that assertion. However, the FBI now claims that the killer anthrax contained silicon. Silicon can be used as an anti-clumping agent to weaponize anthrax.
READ MORE:
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.co...ed-killer.html
Ivins' Latest Crime: He was a Catholic
Posted by Casey Khan at August 8, 2008 08:23 AM
The keystone cops at the FBI have come up with another explanation to Ivins' motivation. Besides being obsessed with New Jersey sorority chicks, Ivins of all things was a Catholic. The horror. Not only was he a Catholic, he was one of those pesky pro-life Catholics, you know folks who are against violence in the womb aimed to destroy innocent life.
NPR reports:
READ MORE:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/022293.html
Three key questions still unanswered in anthrax case
By Greg Gordon | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — Despite the Justice Department's pronouncement that former Army microbiologist Bruce Ivins unleashed the 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people, three central questions about the case remain unanswered:
_ Can the FBI prove that a flask of anthrax in Ivins' bioweapons laboratory at Ft. Detrick, Md., contained the same mutated strain of finely milled powder that was in the envelopes that were mailed to two U.S. senators?
_ Did Ivins, who committed suicide last week, have the technical capability to produce that form of anthrax?
_ Why, after he came under su ion in 2005 or earlier, was Ivins allowed to retain a high-level security clearance that enabled him to continue working in the bioweapons laboratory at Ft. Detrick, apparently until this summer?
READ MORE:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/46774.html
Anthrax Case Raises Doubt On Security
Gaps in Lab Safeguards Prompt Calls for Investigations
By Nelson Hernandez and Philip Rucker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, August 8, 2008; A01
Revelations about anthrax scientist Bruce E. Ivins's mental instability have exposed what congressional leaders and security experts call startling gaps in how the federal government safeguards its most dangerous biological materials, even as the number of bioscience laboratories has grown rapidly since the 2001 terror attacks.
An estimated 14,000 scientists and technicians at about 400 ins utions have clearances to access viruses and bacteria such as the Bacillus anthracis used in the anthrax attacks, but security procedures vary by facility, and oversight of the labs is spread across multiple government agencies.
READ MORE:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...703462_pf.html
The Anthrax Follies and the Bizarro Effect
The case against Bruce Ivins is pathetic
by Justin Raimondo
The release of the FBI's "evidence" against Bruce Ivins, the now-deceased Ft. Detrick scientist targeted by the FBI as the alleged culprit in the 2001 anthrax letters case, demonstrates either (1) the FBI is covering for the real culprits, or (2) what we are witnessing is a dramatic drop in the intelligence of the average FBI official – maybe it's something in the water.
In making the case for the latter, I offer as exhibit number-one the FBI's contention [.pdf file] that the origin of the return address on some of the anthrax-laden envelopes – "Greendale School" – was explained by Ivins' membership in the American Family Association, a group of Christian fundamentalists who often lobby and litigate on behalf of conservative causes:
READ MORE:
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13270
Anthrax investigation should be investigated, congressmen say
Sen. Charles Grassley and Rep. Rush Holt want hearings into the Justice Department and FBI's handling of the case.
By Josh Meyer, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
August 8, 2008
WASHINGTON -- After seven long years, the FBI and the Justice Department say they are closing the books on the anthrax investigation.
But the investigation into the investigation is only beginning, and it will focus on what Congress members described Thursday as apparent missteps by authorities that dramatically prolonged the probe, unfairly maligned an innocent government scientist, and raised questions about whether federal agents had conclusively ruled out other suspects besides microbiologist Bruce E. Ivins.
READ MORE:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,2258246.story
From an Active-Duty Marine
Posted by Lew Rockwell at August 8, 2008 12:35 AM
"I've been watching the cable news channels (your tax dollars hard at work) and no matter who reports on it, no one ever asks what Mr. Ivins's motive was, nor do they ask why Daschle and Brokaw were targeted. Certainly they never report about how the anthrax attack was blamed on Islamist terrorists (or Iraq) back in '01. Oh and by the way, these attacks that used a biological agent created in our own military labs was the biggest reason why I was forced to receive a potentially harmful vaccine against said substance last year."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/022290.html
Did Bush manipulate the anthrax scare?
ABC News should reveal its ‘anonymous sources’ and clear up the scare that led to war on Iraq
Just five weeks shy of the seventh anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks on the Trade Towers and the Pentagon, a mystery linked to those attacks has burst once again into active life, prompting a hail of speculation about just how far Bush and Cheney were prepared to go in inflaming public fears, as part of their master plan to justify the attack on Iraq in the spring of 2003.
The mystery concerns the envelopes of white powder containing anthrax spores that were mailed out to prominent Americans, starting on September 18, 2001. They went to US Senate Majority leader Tom Daschle, to US Senator Pat Leahy, to NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw. Directly inhaled into the lungs, the spores can be deadly. In the post-September 11 mailings five died.
Back in the autumn of 2001 the anthrax envelopes convinced millions of Americans
reeling from the collapse of the Trade Towers that Yes, this was war and Islam was the enemy. The crudely written notes accompanying the spores said "Death to America, Death to Israel, Allah is Great."
If this was the spoor of al-Qaida, then California’s wine industry had been taken over by Osama bin Laden
Within hours the Bush administration was leaking stories to the effect that analysis of the anthrax in the envelopes disclosed the presence of bentonite and this chemical footprint - so the anonymous sources insisted to their favoured outlet, Brian Ross of ABC News - was characteristic of products from the bio-terror labs of Saddam Hussein.
Oddly enough, the mention of bentonite had a soothing effect on me. If this was the spoor of al-Qaida, then California's wine industry had been taken over by Osama bin Laden.
Bentonite is a derivative of lava and has many homely applications, from sealing leaky ponds to purging wine of unsightly protein haze. I use it myself to clarify my home-made cider.
But ABC's stories about bentonite-laced anthrax spores carried the day and were hugely effective in helping prepare public sentiment for the attack on
READ THE REST:
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/45079,...-anthrax-scare
Investigating the FBI
Just for fun, let's investigate some facets of the FBI's case:
1. Leaks last weekend claimed that Ivins was about to be charged with committing the anthrax crime. Turns out, FBI had not yet brought its evidence against Ivins to a grand jury. And one of his attorneys denies that he was told he was to be charged: "It had never been made clear to him nor to us that he was 'the suspect,'" says DeGonia, Ivins' co-counsel.
2. The FBI said it couldn't produce its case till after the victims and their families were briefed, which took until 8 days after Ivins' death. This gave FBI time to create the story and select the evidence it wanted to present.
3. After Ivins died, FBI agents scrambled to obtain two computers Ivins had used a few days earlier, from a Frederick public library. Only this week did they obtain the search warrant normally required.
4. Remember how this story began one week ago? The following were released: pictures and audio from the hearing where a "Peace Order" had been issued against Ivins a week earlier. The order had been obtained by his substance abuse therapist, herself a recovering multi-substance abuser. But the therapist was on probation for substance abuse (DUI's) and had had an FBI agent suggest she get the order, as well as coach her in the crimes that were about to be laid at Ivins' feet. Could she be interviewed directly? No--she had retreated to an undisclosed location, where she apparently remains.
5. Video of a crazed, estranged older brother named Tom Ivins hit the TV screens, though he had not seen Bruce in 23 years. This guy indicated Bruce thought he was God, had been coddled by their mother, and wasn't a real man, as Tom was. Brother Tom was really scary, but the national media were only too happy to put him in front of the cameras to cast aspersions on Bruce.
6. Only two months ago, the Justice Department had settled with "person of interest" Steven Hatfill, for 5.8 million dollars--but they wouldn't exonerate him or admit liability. Suddenly today (after I mentioned how odd it was that FBI refused to acknowledge Hatfill's innocence, given its claim to have an airtight case against Ivins) the formal exoneration appears.
What is the logical conclusion?
FBI was not ready to prosecute a case against Ivins when he fortuitously killed himself the Tuesday before last. If the evidence of Ivins' guilt had been unequivocal, Hatfill would have been cleared a lot earlier. Looks like the FBI was still hanging onto Hatfill as a possible fallback guy, if they couldn't pin the deed on someone else. You know how the line would go: 'the judge made us pay him off, but he's guilty in our book.'
The FBI then scrambled to come up with enough juicy dirt to clinch the case in the media: producing a mad scientist, fixated on women, poisoning people even before the anthrax letters, thinking he's omnipotent. Even though the two people who were used in this audio-video dog and pony show were themselves highly flawed, the media bit: hook, line and sinker. (Looks like the FBI can play the media a lot better than it plays gumshoe.)
Then, when a few folks, followed by the media, pointed out the profusion of fallacy, fluff and absence of hard evidence during 3 days of successive leaks, the FBI started scrambling to find some evidence--quick--and plug some holes. They are still at it.
Looks like Ivins' death was a precondition for FBI to "close the case."
Posted by Meryl Nass, M.D. at 7:25 PM
4 comments:
http://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2...ating-fbi.html
Holes in the Anthrax Case?
The nation and the FBI would benefit from an independent review of the investigation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...803381_pf.html
Ivins' Lawyer on where the envelopes came from
http://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2...opes-came.html
Through surveillance, was FBI complicit in Ivins' death?
http://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2...-in-ivins.html
Sander Hicks: The “Mad Scientist” Ivins, and Other 9/11 Legends
http://www.911blogger.com/node/17040
Anthrax Hysteria
http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=13276
The US Government Is the Real Bioterror Threat
http://www.antiwar.com/eland/?articleid=13279
Is cutting and pasting all you can do?
Too bad Ivins tried to up the investigation. Must have been an honest mistake.
All three or four times.
Chumpy has no explanation for WTC7 and he has no explanation how Ivins weaponized Anthax spores
Fire and dozens of hours of unsupervised lab time.
That was easy.
I'll bump the 9/11 thread so you can give all of us your explanation about WTC7.
Source: Suspect took leave to mail anthrax letters
AND..Officials said biodefense researcher Bruce E. Ivins was responsible for mailing anthrax-laced mail.
The source said records show Ivins reported to work at his Fort Detrick lab on the morning of September 17, 2001, but stayed only a short time before taking leave hours.
Though they have no direct proof, investigators believe Ivins used the time to drive to Princeton, New Jersey, where the letters were mailed. Princeton is about 160 miles from Frederick, Maryland, the home of Fort Detrick.
Ivins returned to the lab for a late afternoon appointment, according to the source, who asked not to be named.
An attorney for Ivins, Tom Degonia, emphasized there is no direct evidence showing Ivins mailed the letters or drove to New Jersey that day.
The U.S. government Wednesday declared Ivins the lone culprit in the anthrax attacks, saying he had a history of mental illness and that he created and mailed the spores used to kill five people.
CNNThe investigation examined Dr. Ivins's laboratory activity immediately before and after the window of opportunity for the mailing of the Post and Brokaw letters to New York which began at 5:00 p.m. Monday, September 17,2001 and ended at noon on Tuesday, September 18, 2001.
Frederick, MD to Princeton, NJ is a 3 1/2 hr drive, let's say 3 hrs speeding. So if he made a 4:XX meeting, he left Princeton at 1:XX on Monday the 17th. There's no way, using the leave hours cited, the Dr. Ivins could have made the window needed to mail the first batch of anthax.
USDOJ Website
Who says the meeting was at 4?So if he made a 4:XX meeting
You?
I'm sure dan could tell us all why Ivins was spending so much time in Suite B-3 after hours at Fort Dietrick around the time of the attacks.
Ivins sure couldn't.
Great find!
more anthrax info here: www.barrettforcongress.us
I thought it was 198 miles?
If there is an actual timeline somewhere, I'd like to see it.
I agree much of the evidence against Ivins is cir stantial, but no one here has given an explanation as to why he was in B-3 around the time of the attacks, or why he tried to give the FBI bogus samples during their investigation.
He never gave the FBI bogus samples:
Full NPR Interview With Ivins' Attorney Paul Kemp
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=93423750
In April 2002, researchers noticed an anthrax-laced deposit on the outside of a flask outside the biocontainment area. The contamination spawned an investigation and a 361-page Army report, during which Dr. Ivins admitted his unauthorized office cleanup.
He told Army investigators that he had cleaned his office the previous fall, and then again without permission in April, because "I had no desire to cry 'Wolf!' " and blame someone else for the spill....
[quite convenient timing, and why didn't he just admit to it at the time(s)?]
Meanwhile, Dr. Ivins developed hypotheses about other suspects. In a search of his house, the FBI found an email in which Dr. Ivins names two fellow scientists, providing 11 reasons for their possible guilt. He sent the email from a personal account to his Army account. It isn't clear whether Dr. Ivins was puzzling over the case or whether he was plotting to divert su ion.
[searching for the real killers, just like OJ]
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1218...googlenews_wsj
If you guys can convict Larry Silverstein of mass murder for saying the word "pull", I'm sticking with Ivins as the prime suspect in the anthrax case.
an email naming 11 suspects is evidence of innocence, especially given that FBI won;t tell us what the reasons are.
the FBI is subs uting a mistake and their lack of memory, for a "su ious" action.
It was 2 suspects.
You can't even read.
Providing a sample from a completely different culture than was requested months after not following protocol is su ious.
His lawyer did nothing to refute either claim.
CNN before they went back and edited their piece because they realized that the lies weren't meeting up with their own timeline....
Strands From Mailbox in Princeton Are Not From Ivins, Investigators Say
By Carrie Johnson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 14, 2008; Page A02
Federal investigators probing the deadly 2001 anthrax attacks recovered samples of human hair from a mailbox in Princeton, N.J., but the strands did not match the lead suspect in the case, according to sources briefed on the probe. FBI agents and U.S. Postal Service inspectors analyzed the data in an effort to place Fort Detrick, Md., scientist Bruce E. Ivins at the mailbox from which bacteria-laden letters were sent to Senate offices and media organizations, the sources said.
The hair sample is one of many pieces of evidence over which researchers continue to puzzle in the case, which ended after Ivins committed suicide July 29 as prosecutors prepared to seek his indictment. Authorities released sworn statements and search warrants last week at a news conference in which they asserted that Ivins was their sole suspect. But the materials have not dampened speculation about the merits of the investigative findings and the government's aggressive pursuit of Ivins, a 62-year-old anthrax vaccine researcher. Conspiracy theories have flourished since the 2001 attacks, which killed five people and sickened 17 others.
Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee announced it will call FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III to appear at an oversight hearing Sept. 17, when he is likely to be asked about the strength of the government's case against Ivins. A spokeswoman for Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), a vocal FBI critic, said he would demand more information about how authorities narrowed their search. The House Judiciary panel, meanwhile, is negotiating to hold a separate oversight hearing in September with bureau officials, in a session that could mark the first public occasion in which Mueller faces questions about the FBI's handling of the anthrax case.
Friends and former colleagues of Ivins, who died before he could see the full array of evidence prosecutors had gathered, continue to demand information about the DNA advances that authorities say led them to a flask in Ivins's lab. Defense lawyer Paul F. Kemp yesterday said he wonders "where Ivins could have possibly stored this anthrax without any employees seeing it, or if he took it home, why there was no trace" of the deadly spores, despite repeated FBI searches over the past two years of Ivins's car, his work locker, a safe-deposit box and his house. ...
Nearly seven years after the incidents, however, investigators have come up dry in their efforts to find direct evidence to place Ivins at the Nassau Street mailbox in September and October 2001.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
