Anthrax Case

[yeahwho]

What is it about this case that seems so wrong? The one guy the FBI says is now solely responsible for the attacks, Bruce Ivins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_E._Ivins) is dead, suicide. That makes it pretty damn interesting in itself.

I've been obsessing over this case for the past week. The Washington Post seems to be almost as if it's a CIA propaganda newsletter, the NYTimes is slightly more objective. While Ivins very well may of done this the nagging question I have is larger than any answers I'm getting from the media. If this investigation avoided Ivins from the beginning and focused on the wrong guy, Steven Hatfill, really how stupid is that? It seems like incredibly poor detective work. Which fills me with doubt over the whole "tag the dead guy with it" scenario.

This story is huge and I could bombard this post with voluminous legitimate links, trust me, this tidbit from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks) will suffice for now.

For some time, the FBI focused its investigation on Steven Hatfill, considering him to be the chief suspect in the attacks. In March 2008, however, authorities exonerated Hatfill and settled the lawsuit he initiated for $5.8 million. According to ABC News, some in the FBI considered Ivins a suspect as early as 2002. FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III changed leadership of the investigation in late 2006, and at that time Ivins became the main focus of the investigation. The FBI thought Ivins, who had complained about the limits of testing anthrax drugs on animals, might have sent the anthrax letters in order to test a vaccine he had been developing.

After Hatfill was no longer considered a suspect, Ivins began "showing signs of serious strain". As a result of his changed behavior, he lost access to sensitive areas at his job. He began being treated for depression and expressed some suicidal thoughts. On March 19 2008 police summoned to Ivins' home in Frederick, MD, found him unconscious and sent him to the hospital.

Here is a quick take on the happenings of the past year. 2007-2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks#2007-2008)

Does this case seem as bizarre to any of you as to me? It raises way more questions than answers.

[kaiser soze]

I highly doubt this attack was executed by one man.....he may be guilty and dead but he is not alone

[Bob]

bush did 9/18

[yeahwho]

I highly doubt this attack was executed by one man.....he may be guilty and dead but he is not alone

That is another aspect that comes to mind, who else is complicit in this case. It would of been neat and tidy if he was the original suspect. The major part of the case against Bruce Ivin's is his time-line in the lab after hours as this document (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/amerithrax/) compiled by the FBI presents. It is convincing, especially the time worked, time taken off and the actual mailing of the letters.


By late 2006, investigators had conducted 9,100 interviews, sent out 6,000 grand jury subpoenas and conducted 67 searches, the F.B.I. said. The focus steadily narrowed: first to the Army infectious diseases laboratories at Fort Detrick, then to Dr. Hatfill and, most recently, to Dr. Bruce E. Ivins, who apparently committed suicide on Tuesday.

It took two and a half years to gather up this time-line? Isn't Bruce Ivins, who at the very beginning of the investigation the "go to guy" a little bit more than just of passing interest? Something is more than slightly off bubble. This evidence is coming in rapid and strong, yet the accused is dead and gone, forever.

[ms.peachy]

I dunno. when the guy first committed suicide, I was very skeptical and inclined to think perhaps he had been pushed to the brink by aggressive investigators. But the more that has emerged over the past couple of weeks about his mental state, based on his personal correspondence and such, in the months before 9/11 - well, I don't know. It does look like this is a guy that was just unravelling bit by bit. And, you know, not to be too flippant but crazy people are capable of doing some crazy shit, especially crazy people who are quite intelligent, methodical and disciplined, as this fellows colleagues attest that he was. It is not too hard for me to believe that this went down the way the FBI is saying it did.

Of course, it's also not to hard for me to believe that these guys have the power and incentive to fabricate the whole case either, so...

[yeahwho]

Conspiracy theorist's in general annoy me. The usual events they rant and rave about are unbelievable because they were unthinkable acts, such as 9/11, Kennedy, etc.

This case is unique due to the time and effort put into the investigation. Maybe an honest investigation has loose ends and bad timing. What do I know. Everything so perfectly adds up to somebody who's dead, coincidentally at the time charges were to be brought forth.

And what about the person calling him mentally unstable, she seems like an easy mark to get to do what needs to be done.

"Jean C. Duley (http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Olbermann_Anthrax_case_conspiracy_nightmare_%5BVID EO.DE%5D_0805.html), Ivins's counselor, sat down with The Post's Anne Hull to discuss the wrenching decision to override patient confidentiality and report Ivins to law enforcement following a threat he made against his co-workers, a move that brought her into a sprawling FBI investigation cloaked in secrecy and surveillance."

I guess that makes her a hero, like that gal who got captured by the Iraqis. Hell, let's have a holiday in honor of her waiving the patient-physician privilege (never mind that she's not even licensed).

And there's more, so much more going on with this case, I have been reading everything, including this site by Leigh Ann Little (http://www.leighannlittle.com/), which is actually more of a recap of accumulated information, but good, really good. Especially considering the investigation by the FBI is little more so far than hyperlinks and media overload.

So here it is seven years after the fact when we were all to believe some Middle East terrorist's had spread the Anthrax, now the case is called Amerithrax (http://www.usdoj.gov/amerithrax/) and it's solved!

I can sleep better knowing we have finally closed this chapter with the help of America's finest on the job.

But the nagging question is wasn't Bill Ivin's once considered America's finest? Why does America's finest keep turning on their own Country?

I'll never get to sleep.

[ms.peachy]

yw, I'm not really following your arguments, to be honest. i don't know anything about this counselor who waived anonymity; I've come to my (albeit weak) conclusions based on the excerpts of Ivan's personal correspondence that have been released. Also I am not sure why you say we were "all to believe" that some Middle Eastern terrorists were spreading the anthrax; to the best of my recollection, pretty much straight from the beginning there was widely published speculation that the anthrax attacks might well have been a 'home' job, put out there by someone with an axe to grind, real or imagined, who would have access to biological stores. Ivins was initially one of the go-to guys because, well, he was one of the go-to guys. There aren't all that many weapons-grade anthrax experts out there, you know? If the guy was truly mentally unstable and psychopathic, as the investigators are claiming, I don't see how you can say he "turned on his country". It's more an act of self-gratification.

[yeahwho]

It's my writing and the size of the case, I'm not capturing the scope or the sense of "who, what when where and how" very well at all. I'm at 50/50 as far as this case against Ivin's goes and I'm actually leaning towards something more sinister may be happening. How does he trick the Feds that easily?

Jean Duley (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-daschle4-2008aug04,0,5569575.story)was a counselor in Ivin's psych-therapy sessions who came to the FBI July 24th with information on his state of mind. She is going to be one of the cornerstones of this case, she already is in the US media's case.

Bruce Ivins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_E._Ivins#Education_and_career) was a scientist for 36 years and senior biodefense researcher at the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) in Fort Detrick, Maryland for 18 years. Ivins had published at least 44 scientific papers dating back to May 18, 1969. In a 2006 paper in the prestigious journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, he writes with his co-authors; "Shortening the duration of antibiotic postexposure prophylaxis in a bioterrorism event.

Ivin's is considered to be one of the brightest minds in America not only in micro-biology but also in Anthrax research, before all this he was known as a good guy. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/06/AR2008080602875.html) He worked for the US government.

In the very beginning the Anthrax investigation weighed heavily towards Al Qaida and Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthrax_attack#Investigation), by none other than the President of the United States. The media which I'm using today in many of my links went along for the ride.

[yeahwho]

This interview with Charles Ivins on NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93203213) has me re-thinking again about this investigation. Here is an excerpt from NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93483076) as Bruce Ivin's brother goes through the FBI's affidavits,

After several minutes of reading, he looked ashen. "I'm stunned now, I am just totally stunned," he said.

He picked up the affidavits and straightened them on the table before him. Then he sank into himself and put his face in his hands. "The evidence that you showed me today has really gotten me." He thought for a moment. "It threw me for a loop, really did, really just flabbergasted me."

As Charles and his wife read the affidavits, they appeared to fill in the blanks — the way only people who knew Bruce could do. They read the poems he wrote about feeling like he was two people, instead of just one. They read about Bruce sending packages to someone with a fictitious return address. They winced. They seemed to know who Bruce was sending packages to, even though the name on the affidavit was redacted. Then Charles sighed.

"It's just tough for me to deal with, that's all. Just tough for me to deal with," he said.

Asked if it seemed like the brother he knew, Charles said, "No, it does not, that's the part that just stuns me."

Did things in the affidavit seemed to ring true? Did others seem hollow or false? Charles shook his head.

"I'm not going to go there," he said. "I don't know what to think. It's difficult."

Asked if he thought it was possible that the FBI was right, Charles said, "Ah, well, it is always possible the FBI is right."

Charles emphasized that he didn't necessarily think the FBI was right this time about his brother. But he didn't rule it out either.

I'm still right at 50/50 as far as Bruce Ivin's innocence or guilt, but things seem a little less sinister today.

[yeahwho]

Hair Samples in Anthrax Case Don't Match (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/13/AR2008081303731.html)

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.

Daschle buys Ivins as sole culprit in 2001 anthrax attacks (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-08-13-anthrax_N.htm)

The most compelling evidence Daschle heard was that the DNA "fingerprint" of the anthrax could be traced to a flask controlled by Ivins.

"That's as close to a smoking gun as I think you're going to get," Daschle said.

Ivins also spent an unusual amount of time for no apparent reason in the lab in the two months before the letters were sent, he said.

As to a motive for the attacks, Daschle noted three possibilities:

• Ivins and his wife were "vehement right-to-life advocates," while Daschle and Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat who also received an anthrax-tainted letter, are supporters of abortion rights.

• Ivins did not believe Daschle and Leahy were sufficiently supportive of the Patriot Act, a controversial package of security measures approved by Congress after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

• Ivins was involved in developing an anthrax vaccine and did not believe the government was promoting it adequately. An anthrax scare was calculated to change that, Daschle said.

And finally one of the more well thought out pieces on this case to date comes from ScienceNOW, daily news. It's written a bit technical but really even-handed in it's approach to the case. Actually the most educational piece I've read so far about the case and anthrax.

The Anthrax Case: From Spores to a Suspect (http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/812/1)

Armed with the four tests, the FBI examined more than 1000 anthrax isolates, collected from 16 labs that had the Ames strain in the United States and several more in Canada, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. In only eight of those samples, they found all four mutations seen in the envelope samples; and each of these eight, the affidavit says, was "directly related" to a "large flask" of spores, identified as RMR-1029, which Ivins had created in 1997 and of which he was the "sole custodian."

Science aside, the affidavit relies heavily on circumstantial evidence. For instance, it notes unexplained spikes in Ivins's nighttime lab activity right before the two waves of letters were sent. It also claims that he tried to mislead investigators to hide his involvement. In April 2002, he submitted samples from his lab that tested negative for the four mutations, according to the affidavit; but on 7 April 2004, an FBI agent seized the RMR-1029 flask, which tested positive for all four. Ivins insisted he had given agents RMR-1029 the first time around, however.

One of the weak points in the affidavit is Ivins's motive, says Gregory Koblentz, a biodefense specialist at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia. The FBI suggests that Ivins was afraid of losing his job if the government ended a project he was working on that was trying to solve regulatory issues around the so-called AVA anthrax vaccine. It "seems a bit of a stretch" that Ivins would have thought his job hinged on that project, says Koblentz. His group "would have had plenty of other anthrax vaccine-related work to keep them busy." A glaring omission, meanwhile, is any evidence placing Ivins in Princeton, New Jersey, on any of the days the envelopes could have been mailed from there.

A spokesperson for the FBI's laboratory declined a request to interview Budowle and referred scientific questions to the FBI's Washington, D.C., field office. "In the near future the FBI will determine the best way to address the science involved in the anthrax case," she e-mailed Science. Many suspect that with so many burning questions, a full account of the evidence--including the scientific details--is now just a matter of time.

It's probably boring to most, but I find this stuff fascinating. Still completely undecided, but I am becoming impressed at the complexity of this case.

[yeahwho]

Who Cares he's dead. Move on with Life. Is all this really over the suicide of a man who's life and professional credibility was destroyed after being relentlessly hounded by the FBI. That's nothing new, happens all the time. Get on with your cliché ass life and get over it, you live in a police state what do you expect when your guilty until accidentally proven innocent.

[yeahwho]

Defending the dead in the court of the main stream media (http://www.mddailyrecord.com/article.cfm?id=6311&type=UTTM).


Kemp’s strategy and statements to the media were praised by other veteran defense attorneys who have worked on high-profile cases.

“It’s consistent with what any attorney would assert when the government’s case is so lopsided,” said Joseph Murtha, who represented Linda Tripp when she was prosecuted for recording her phone conversations with Monica Lewinsky regarding Lewinsky’s affair with then-President Clinton.

“It’s a very unique circumstance. The government is going to try [Ivins] in the press,” said Joshua R. Treem, whose past clients have included Lee Boyd Malvo, convicted in the beltway sniper cases. “I think what he is doing, quite appropriately in these circumstances, is defending his client.”

Dean Boyd, a spokesman for the national security division of the Department of Justice, said prosecutors are in the process of closing the case.

“We’re confident that Dr. Ivins was the sole person responsible for the attacks based on the totality of the evidence,” he said, reiterating the prosecution’s position.

Kemp first received a media call about Ivins on July 31 from The Los Angeles Times, which disclosed publicly the scientist’s connection to the anthrax investigation the following day. Since then, Kemp has received more than 250 phone calls from reporters around the world.

He still cites attorney-client privilege when discussing Ivins; asked his reaction upon learning of Ivins’ death, Kemp declined to comment, saying his feelings were linked to his interactions with Ivins and therefore should be considered privileged.

Kemp has noted in interviews the government has no evidence placing Ivins in Princeton, N.J., on Sept. 18, 2001, which is where and when the first anthrax letters were mailed. He has challenged the strength of the government’s evidence, which even prosecutors have admitted was partly circumstantial. He has criticized prosecutors for connecting Ivins’ history of mental illness to the mailings, telling the Associated Press on Aug. 7, “They’re taking a weird guy and convicting him of mass murder.”

[yeahwho]

It's been a month, the FBI would of liked to closed this case a few days from now. That was the intention. Unfortunately for them some very bright people are asking some very tough questions, probably one of the toughest questions asked is this,

“If the case is solved, why isn’t it solved?”

The complexity and scientific knowledge of this case makes for some great reading, the FBI are basically saying one of our own trusted government employees unleashed deadly Anthrax because of his religious beliefs and need to sell a vaccine for Anthrax.

Yet they want to charge a dead man and use only cumulative evidence. No physical evidence. Then call it a day.

So anyway I know nobody is prolly as interested in this as I am and I also have the feeling this will become huge before it's over. Unless it goes classified, which some of it already is.

From todays NYTimes, 8/7/2008 Seeking Details, Lawmakers Cite Anthrax Doubts (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/washington/07anthrax.html?hp)

“Despite the F.B.I.’s scientific and circumstantial evidence, I and many of Dr. Ivins’s former colleagues don’t believe he did it and don’t believe the spore preparations were made at Detrick,” said Dr. Gerry Andrews, a microbiologist who worked at the Army laboratory for nine years and was Dr. Ivins’s boss for part of that time.

Laboratory records obtained by The New York Times show that the anthrax supply labeled RMR-1029, which the F.B.I. linked to the attacks, was stored in 1997 not in Dr. Ivins’s laboratory, in Building 1425, but in the adjacent Building 1412. Former colleagues said that its storage in both buildings at different times from 1997 to 2001 might mean that the bureau’s estimate of 100 people with physical access to it was two or three times too low.

Some microbiologists question the time records documenting Dr. Ivins’s night hours, pointing out that one F.B.I. affidavit said he was in the secure part of the laboratory for exactly 2 hours and 15 minutes three nights in a row — an unlikely coincidence that they said raised questions about the accuracy of the records.

Confusion remains about silicon found in the mailed powder. Some F.B.I. critics say it shows that there was a sophisticated additive that might point away from Fort Detrick as a source, but the bureau concluded that it was merely an accident of the way the anthrax was grown.

Dr. Majidi said many technical details would be cleared up by the papers published by bureau scientists and consultants over the next year or more. “It’s the collective body of evidence that’s really strong,” Dr. Majidi said.

Without witnesses or forensic experts linking the killings directly to Dr. Ivins, the Justice Department’s public case against him relies largely on “opportunity evidence,” said Robert J. Cleary, the lead prosecutor a decade ago in the Unabomber attacks.

“What prosecutors have to do to persuade the public that this was the guy is to show the uniqueness of the strain of anthrax and to eliminate everyone else who had opportunity and access to it.” That, Mr. Cleary said, “is a challenge.”

This is really a very frightening story. That may end with no real conclusive evidence. The Anthrax and it's link to 9/11/ Iraq (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/08/03/this-week-tom-ridge-hedges-on-anthrax-investigation/) that were portrayed by this administration are too indelible to ignore.