u brought it up dude not me....LOL
---------------------------------
Doubts grow on FBI's anthrax evidence
By Eric Lichtblau and David Johnston
Published: August 16, 2008
WASHINGTON: Growing doubts from scientists about the strength of the government's case against the late Bruce Ivins, the military researcher named as the anthrax killer, are forcing the Justice Department to begin disclosing more fully the scientific evidence it used to implicate him.
In the face of the questions, FBI officials have decided to make their first detailed public presentation next week on the forensic science tracing the anthrax used in the 2001 attacks to a flask kept in a refrigerator in Ivins's laboratory at Fort Detrick, Maryland. Many scientists are awaiting those details because so far, they say, the FBI has failed to make a conclusive case.
"That is going to be critically important, because right now there is really no data to make a scientific judgment one way or the other," Brad Smith, a molecular biologist at the Center for Biosecurity at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. "The information that has been put out, there is really very little scientific information in there."
FBI officials say they are confident that their scientific evidence against Ivins, who killed himself last month as the Justice Department was preparing an indictment against him, will withstand scrutiny, and they plan to present their findings for review by leading scientists. But the scrutiny may only raise further questions.
The bureau presented forensics information to congressional and government officials in a closed-door briefing held in the past week, but a number of listeners said the briefing left them less convinced that the FBI had the right man, and they said some of the government's public statements appeared incomplete or misleading.
For instance, the Justice Department said this month in unsealing court records against Ivins that he had tried to mislead investigators in 2002 by giving them an anthrax sample that did not appear to have come from his laboratory. But FBI officials acknowledged at the closed-door briefing, according to people who were there, that the sample Ivins gave them in 2002 did in fact come from the same strain used in the attacks. Because of limitations in the bureau's testing methods and Ivins's failure to provide the sample in the format requested, the FBI did not realize that it was a correct match until three years later.
In addition, people who were briefed by the FBI said a batch of misprinted envelopes used in the anthrax attacks - another piece of evidence used to link Ivins to the attacks - could have been much more widely available than bureau officials had initially led them to believe.
Representative Rush Holt, a New Jersey Democrat who has followed the anthrax case closely and requested the briefing from the FBI, said in an interview that he was not ready to draw any firm conclusions about the investigation. But he said: "The case is built from a number of pieces of circumstantial evidence, and for a case this important, it's troubling to have so many loose ends. The briefing pointed out even more loose ends than I thought there were before."
Naba Barkakati, an engineer who is the chief technologist for the Government Accountability Office and who also attended the briefing, said of the FBI's forensics case against Ivins: "It's very hard to get the sense of whether this was scientifically good or bad. We didn't really get the question settled, other than taking their word for it."
The bureau's laboratory work has come under sharp criticism in recent years for problems over DNA analysis, bullet tracing and other important forensic technology. In 2004, the laboratory mismatched a fingerprint taken from the Madrid terror bombings to a lawyer in Portland, Oregon, Brandon Mayfield, who was then arrested. He won a $2.8 million settlement.
With their main suspect in the anthrax killings dead, FBI officials say they realize they will again face tough scrutiny over the strength of their scientific evidence against Ivins. Indeed, conspiracy theories are already flourishing on many Web sites, with skeptical observers asking whether the Maryland scientist was set up to take the fall for the attacks or, worse yet, was a murder victim. The fact that the bureau pursued another scientist, Steven Hatfill, for years before agreeing to pay $4.6 million to settle a lawsuit he had filed and then later exonerating him has only fueled the skepticism.
In its case against Ivins, the FBI developed a compelling profile of an erratic, mentally troubled man who could be threatening and obsessive, as in his odd fascination with a sorority from his college days. But investigators were never able to place him at the New Jersey mailboxes where the anthrax letters were dropped, and the case against him relied at its heart on the scientific evidence linking the anthrax in Ivins's laboratory to the spores used in the attacks.
It took the FBI several years to develop the type of DNA testing that allowed them to trace the origins of the "attack strain," as it was called, and they concluded that the anthrax that Ivins controlled was the only one of more than 1,000 samples they tested that matched it in all four of that strain's genetic mutations.
Dwight Adams, a former director of the FBI laboratory who was deeply involved in managing the anthrax genetic research until he left the bureau in 2006, said he was confident that the groundbreaking forensic effort would be validated by the broad scientific community.
Recalling the early skepticism that a genetic fingerprint of an anthrax could ever be obtained, Adams said, "I think the bureau and the national assets, including the national labs and others, that were applied as a team can very easily defend what they did and the results."
But had Ivins lived and faced trial for the anthrax killings, Thomas DeGonia 2nd, one of his lawyers, said, his legal team would have quickly tried to have the genetic testing of the anthrax strains thrown out of court as unreliable. The type of testing the FBI developed, he said "has never been proven or tested by the courts."
Even if a jury had heard evidence about the genetic testing, DeGonia said, the lawyers would have tried to show that many other scientists had access to that same strain of anthrax. He said the fact that the Justice Department had Ivins under investigation for perhaps two years or longer - and that it was executing search warrants in the case even after his death - suggests that the department itself had doubts.
"It's interesting that they're still attempting to gather evidence," he said, "if the case is as strong as they say it is."
---------------------------------
Doubts grow on FBI's anthrax evidence
By Eric Lichtblau and David Johnston
Published: August 16, 2008
WASHINGTON: Growing doubts from scientists about the strength of the government's case against the late Bruce Ivins, the military researcher named as the anthrax killer, are forcing the Justice Department to begin disclosing more fully the scientific evidence it used to implicate him.
In the face of the questions, FBI officials have decided to make their first detailed public presentation next week on the forensic science tracing the anthrax used in the 2001 attacks to a flask kept in a refrigerator in Ivins's laboratory at Fort Detrick, Maryland. Many scientists are awaiting those details because so far, they say, the FBI has failed to make a conclusive case.
"That is going to be critically important, because right now there is really no data to make a scientific judgment one way or the other," Brad Smith, a molecular biologist at the Center for Biosecurity at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. "The information that has been put out, there is really very little scientific information in there."
FBI officials say they are confident that their scientific evidence against Ivins, who killed himself last month as the Justice Department was preparing an indictment against him, will withstand scrutiny, and they plan to present their findings for review by leading scientists. But the scrutiny may only raise further questions.
The bureau presented forensics information to congressional and government officials in a closed-door briefing held in the past week, but a number of listeners said the briefing left them less convinced that the FBI had the right man, and they said some of the government's public statements appeared incomplete or misleading.
For instance, the Justice Department said this month in unsealing court records against Ivins that he had tried to mislead investigators in 2002 by giving them an anthrax sample that did not appear to have come from his laboratory. But FBI officials acknowledged at the closed-door briefing, according to people who were there, that the sample Ivins gave them in 2002 did in fact come from the same strain used in the attacks. Because of limitations in the bureau's testing methods and Ivins's failure to provide the sample in the format requested, the FBI did not realize that it was a correct match until three years later.
In addition, people who were briefed by the FBI said a batch of misprinted envelopes used in the anthrax attacks - another piece of evidence used to link Ivins to the attacks - could have been much more widely available than bureau officials had initially led them to believe.
Representative Rush Holt, a New Jersey Democrat who has followed the anthrax case closely and requested the briefing from the FBI, said in an interview that he was not ready to draw any firm conclusions about the investigation. But he said: "The case is built from a number of pieces of circumstantial evidence, and for a case this important, it's troubling to have so many loose ends. The briefing pointed out even more loose ends than I thought there were before."
Naba Barkakati, an engineer who is the chief technologist for the Government Accountability Office and who also attended the briefing, said of the FBI's forensics case against Ivins: "It's very hard to get the sense of whether this was scientifically good or bad. We didn't really get the question settled, other than taking their word for it."
The bureau's laboratory work has come under sharp criticism in recent years for problems over DNA analysis, bullet tracing and other important forensic technology. In 2004, the laboratory mismatched a fingerprint taken from the Madrid terror bombings to a lawyer in Portland, Oregon, Brandon Mayfield, who was then arrested. He won a $2.8 million settlement.
With their main suspect in the anthrax killings dead, FBI officials say they realize they will again face tough scrutiny over the strength of their scientific evidence against Ivins. Indeed, conspiracy theories are already flourishing on many Web sites, with skeptical observers asking whether the Maryland scientist was set up to take the fall for the attacks or, worse yet, was a murder victim. The fact that the bureau pursued another scientist, Steven Hatfill, for years before agreeing to pay $4.6 million to settle a lawsuit he had filed and then later exonerating him has only fueled the skepticism.
In its case against Ivins, the FBI developed a compelling profile of an erratic, mentally troubled man who could be threatening and obsessive, as in his odd fascination with a sorority from his college days. But investigators were never able to place him at the New Jersey mailboxes where the anthrax letters were dropped, and the case against him relied at its heart on the scientific evidence linking the anthrax in Ivins's laboratory to the spores used in the attacks.
It took the FBI several years to develop the type of DNA testing that allowed them to trace the origins of the "attack strain," as it was called, and they concluded that the anthrax that Ivins controlled was the only one of more than 1,000 samples they tested that matched it in all four of that strain's genetic mutations.
Dwight Adams, a former director of the FBI laboratory who was deeply involved in managing the anthrax genetic research until he left the bureau in 2006, said he was confident that the groundbreaking forensic effort would be validated by the broad scientific community.
Recalling the early skepticism that a genetic fingerprint of an anthrax could ever be obtained, Adams said, "I think the bureau and the national assets, including the national labs and others, that were applied as a team can very easily defend what they did and the results."
But had Ivins lived and faced trial for the anthrax killings, Thomas DeGonia 2nd, one of his lawyers, said, his legal team would have quickly tried to have the genetic testing of the anthrax strains thrown out of court as unreliable. The type of testing the FBI developed, he said "has never been proven or tested by the courts."
Even if a jury had heard evidence about the genetic testing, DeGonia said, the lawyers would have tried to show that many other scientists had access to that same strain of anthrax. He said the fact that the Justice Department had Ivins under investigation for perhaps two years or longer - and that it was executing search warrants in the case even after his death - suggests that the department itself had doubts.
"It's interesting that they're still attempting to gather evidence," he said, "if the case is as strong as they say it is."
and results of public presentation
------------------------------
FBI had, then tossed anthrax type used in attacks
By LARA JAKES JORDAN and SETH BORENSTEIN – 1 day ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Months after the deadly 2001 anthrax mailings, FBI scientists had — but destroyed — the unique strain of the bacteria used in the attacks that years later would lead them to Dr. Bruce Ivins, now the government's top suspect.
FBI officials admitted Monday that destroying the initial Ivins sample was a mistake, but said it didn't really hinder the investigation because the technique used to trace the source of the anthrax to Ivins had not been developed yet. Luckily, a copy of that first sample was sent to an outside professor, who years later used it to help further link Ivins to the killer strain.
Ivins, 62, took a fatal dose of acetaminophen last month as prosecutors prepared to indict him for murder.
Top FBI officials and a handful of prominent scientists who aided the investigation presented more — but not all — of the scientific case against Ivins in a two-hour-and-fifteen-minute news conference to try to quell suspicions of outside scientists, some of whom were friends of the suspect.
At times the officials and scientists contradicted themselves, even down to the number of flasks containing the anthrax Ivins had. They eventually agreed it was one one-liter triangular flask capped with cheesecloth that linked Ivins to the attacks.
"There were a lot of lessons learned," FBI Assistant Director Vahid Majidi said. "Were we perfect? Absolutely not. We've had missteps, and those are the lessons learned. ... It was over the last few years that we were able to incorporate all of the lessons learned that we have throughout this investigation."
The complete genome mapping of the unique killer strain — the cornerstone of the forensic case — won't be public for months, maybe more than a year, because it will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals that take time. The outsiders who had questions about the government's case wanted to see the complete genomic map sooner.
"There are still many nagging questions about this," said Dr. Michael Stebbins, who directs the Federation of American Scientists' biosecurity project and wasn't at the Monday's briefing. "Unfortunately a lot of them are not going to be able to be answered in the immediate future."
Majidi understands that: "I don't think, No. 1, we're ever going to put the suspicions to bed. There's always going to be a spore on the grassy knoll."
FBI officials spent much of their time going into more detail about the specific four mutations in the strain of anthrax that led back to Ivins' Army lab at Fort Detrick, Md. They weren't easy to find, rare like red or green M&Ms in a flask mostly full of blue candies, Majidi said.
FBI officials and scientists had to come up with a technique for looking at the DNA of anthrax to whittle down the list of labs and suspects who could have produced it, creating a new field of forensic microbiology. That scientific technique to connect a lab with a unique strain wasn't available until after the FBI had destroyed its first sample from Ivins.
In February 2002, the FBI sent subpoenas around the world to labs handling the Ames strain of anthrax, which was the strain that killed five people in 2001. They got 1,070 samples and destroyed only one: the first one from Ivins. It was destroyed because Ivins didn't use the proper test tube and growth medium so it may have not been useful as evidence in court, officials said.
Ivins was one of the first to respond to FBI subpoenas, but his sample was deemed useless and he was asked to submit another. He gave investigators a second sample of anthrax from his lab in April 2002 to comply with standards in a subpoena issued in the case. But that sample contained a different strain than what he submitted two months earlier in what prosecutors call an attempt to deceive or confuse investigators
When Ivins sent his initial sample to the FBI, a duplicate went to the lab of Dr. Paul Keim, a geneticist at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, Ariz.
Keim still had his RMR-1029 sample in 2006 when the FBI realized it could match Ivins to two batches of anthrax-laced letters that were mailed in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
Stebbins said the fact that Keim kept his sample was key in building the case, something Keim played down after the news conference.
FBI officials and scientists also played down any significance of the element silicon in the killer anthrax strain, saying it seemed more of a natural occurrence than deliberate weaponizing as once theorized early in the investigation.
One of the targets of the letters was former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle, who on Monday called the evidence against Ivins convincing — even if he is not completely sure the investigation focused on the right person.
In an interview, Daschle praised the investigation and said his two-hour FBI briefing last week was "complete and persuasive." Still, he said, there are some open questions. He said the evidence should be scientifically reviewed.
Daschle said the most compelling evidence to him is the odd, extended hours that the Army scientist kept shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks.
"He had no real explanation for the significant increase," Daschle said. "His only response was that he wanted to hang out there, which was not a very compelling reason."
Daschle and fellow Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont both received anthrax-laced letters in their Senate offices. Both senators have received recent briefings from FBI Director Robert Mueller on the evidence against Ivins.
Associated Press writer Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.
------------------------------
FBI had, then tossed anthrax type used in attacks
By LARA JAKES JORDAN and SETH BORENSTEIN – 1 day ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Months after the deadly 2001 anthrax mailings, FBI scientists had — but destroyed — the unique strain of the bacteria used in the attacks that years later would lead them to Dr. Bruce Ivins, now the government's top suspect.
FBI officials admitted Monday that destroying the initial Ivins sample was a mistake, but said it didn't really hinder the investigation because the technique used to trace the source of the anthrax to Ivins had not been developed yet. Luckily, a copy of that first sample was sent to an outside professor, who years later used it to help further link Ivins to the killer strain.
Ivins, 62, took a fatal dose of acetaminophen last month as prosecutors prepared to indict him for murder.
Top FBI officials and a handful of prominent scientists who aided the investigation presented more — but not all — of the scientific case against Ivins in a two-hour-and-fifteen-minute news conference to try to quell suspicions of outside scientists, some of whom were friends of the suspect.
At times the officials and scientists contradicted themselves, even down to the number of flasks containing the anthrax Ivins had. They eventually agreed it was one one-liter triangular flask capped with cheesecloth that linked Ivins to the attacks.
"There were a lot of lessons learned," FBI Assistant Director Vahid Majidi said. "Were we perfect? Absolutely not. We've had missteps, and those are the lessons learned. ... It was over the last few years that we were able to incorporate all of the lessons learned that we have throughout this investigation."
The complete genome mapping of the unique killer strain — the cornerstone of the forensic case — won't be public for months, maybe more than a year, because it will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals that take time. The outsiders who had questions about the government's case wanted to see the complete genomic map sooner.
"There are still many nagging questions about this," said Dr. Michael Stebbins, who directs the Federation of American Scientists' biosecurity project and wasn't at the Monday's briefing. "Unfortunately a lot of them are not going to be able to be answered in the immediate future."
Majidi understands that: "I don't think, No. 1, we're ever going to put the suspicions to bed. There's always going to be a spore on the grassy knoll."
FBI officials spent much of their time going into more detail about the specific four mutations in the strain of anthrax that led back to Ivins' Army lab at Fort Detrick, Md. They weren't easy to find, rare like red or green M&Ms in a flask mostly full of blue candies, Majidi said.
FBI officials and scientists had to come up with a technique for looking at the DNA of anthrax to whittle down the list of labs and suspects who could have produced it, creating a new field of forensic microbiology. That scientific technique to connect a lab with a unique strain wasn't available until after the FBI had destroyed its first sample from Ivins.
In February 2002, the FBI sent subpoenas around the world to labs handling the Ames strain of anthrax, which was the strain that killed five people in 2001. They got 1,070 samples and destroyed only one: the first one from Ivins. It was destroyed because Ivins didn't use the proper test tube and growth medium so it may have not been useful as evidence in court, officials said.
Ivins was one of the first to respond to FBI subpoenas, but his sample was deemed useless and he was asked to submit another. He gave investigators a second sample of anthrax from his lab in April 2002 to comply with standards in a subpoena issued in the case. But that sample contained a different strain than what he submitted two months earlier in what prosecutors call an attempt to deceive or confuse investigators
When Ivins sent his initial sample to the FBI, a duplicate went to the lab of Dr. Paul Keim, a geneticist at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, Ariz.
Keim still had his RMR-1029 sample in 2006 when the FBI realized it could match Ivins to two batches of anthrax-laced letters that were mailed in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
Stebbins said the fact that Keim kept his sample was key in building the case, something Keim played down after the news conference.
FBI officials and scientists also played down any significance of the element silicon in the killer anthrax strain, saying it seemed more of a natural occurrence than deliberate weaponizing as once theorized early in the investigation.
One of the targets of the letters was former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle, who on Monday called the evidence against Ivins convincing — even if he is not completely sure the investigation focused on the right person.
In an interview, Daschle praised the investigation and said his two-hour FBI briefing last week was "complete and persuasive." Still, he said, there are some open questions. He said the evidence should be scientifically reviewed.
Daschle said the most compelling evidence to him is the odd, extended hours that the Army scientist kept shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks.
"He had no real explanation for the significant increase," Daschle said. "His only response was that he wanted to hang out there, which was not a very compelling reason."
Daschle and fellow Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont both received anthrax-laced letters in their Senate offices. Both senators have received recent briefings from FBI Director Robert Mueller on the evidence against Ivins.
Associated Press writer Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.
<TABLE class=tborder style="BORDER-TOP-WIDTH: 0px" cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR title="Post 5670506" vAlign=top><TD class=alt1 align=middle width=125>Willie99</TD><TD class=alt2>Maybe MS got mad that we ruined his thread "that proved his point beyond reasonable doubt".
:lol: </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Michael Scott was right - he didnt commit suicide because he thought they were "closing in on him."
He was "suicided" because- as Tiz's articles suggest- he would have easily beaten the rap if it wenr to court. The "facts" or evidence the govt had was weak at best and completely laughable at worst.
Tell us some of the "facts" that you firmly believe prove he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt- and dont forget that suicide isnt a "confession." Especially if its been staged to look like one.
Read the history of the Bio-weapons program at Ft. Deitrick giong back to Dr Assaad - an Egyptian who received rupulsive racist literature and other harrassment. They caught the man responsible who was forced to resign after being identified as not only the ringleader but the same man who was let into the facility to steal specimens of the anthrax used in the letters sent to Daschule and others.
Its no coincidence that the MSM treats him like he doesnt have a name or even exist.
But we know that is not true dont we- because WE know the name-----
DR. PHILLIP ZACK
Until I hear anyone in the MSM or Michael Scott who himself tried to steer away from it or even you Willie if you seriously want to solve this case dares ask why this man was allowed to leave the country without being questioned or given a lie-detector test then youre just looking foolish bringing this up again.
Its not what they say- its what they dont say- that counts in this "reality"
we are presently forced to endure however nauseating it has become.
You always were a glutton for intellectual punishment though. :nohead:
:lol: </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Michael Scott was right - he didnt commit suicide because he thought they were "closing in on him."
He was "suicided" because- as Tiz's articles suggest- he would have easily beaten the rap if it wenr to court. The "facts" or evidence the govt had was weak at best and completely laughable at worst.
Tell us some of the "facts" that you firmly believe prove he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt- and dont forget that suicide isnt a "confession." Especially if its been staged to look like one.
Read the history of the Bio-weapons program at Ft. Deitrick giong back to Dr Assaad - an Egyptian who received rupulsive racist literature and other harrassment. They caught the man responsible who was forced to resign after being identified as not only the ringleader but the same man who was let into the facility to steal specimens of the anthrax used in the letters sent to Daschule and others. Its no coincidence that the MSM treats him like he doesnt have a name or even exist.
But we know that is not true dont we- because WE know the name-----
DR. PHILLIP ZACK
Until I hear anyone in the MSM or Michael Scott who himself tried to steer away from it or even you Willie if you seriously want to solve this case dares ask why this man was allowed to leave the country without being questioned or given a lie-detector test then youre just looking foolish bringing this up again.
Its not what they say- its what they dont say- that counts in this "reality"
we are presently forced to endure however nauseating it has become.
You always were a glutton for intellectual punishment though. :nohead:
TR, reading between the lines and stretching a mole hill into the Rocky Mountains is your specialty, not mine.
I realize we don't know the facts just yet, we've just heard the accusations, thus "I'm waiting for the facts to come out".
I know enough to reserve judgement, others prefer to jump to conclusions. I think it's kinda silly (actually fucking stupid) for somebody to think they unraveled a conspiracy within days of the death, as one of your ilk had done pertaining to this subject matter.
I realize we don't know the facts just yet, we've just heard the accusations, thus "I'm waiting for the facts to come out".
I know enough to reserve judgement, others prefer to jump to conclusions. I think it's kinda silly (actually fucking stupid) for somebody to think they unraveled a conspiracy within days of the death, as one of your ilk had done pertaining to this subject matter.
Willie-get real... Zack has been a prime suspect for years. A man breaks into youre house after you've installed a CCTV - catches his face on camera in your bedroom where your wifes jewelry box is. You take the tape to the police. Do you really think they are going to say "What good is this? Get us some real evidence?" No- they are going to identify and arrest this man. Ask him a few questions like why were you breaking into this mans house and where are the diamonds you stole?
By the same token Zack had broken in to someones house. He had been fired. Without proper authorization Zack was caught on camera entering the storage area where the Anthrax was kept. If this is a mole hill to you then you are lying to yourself for some reason. Surveillance showed Zack being let in at 8:40 p.m. on Jan. 23, 1992 by Dr. Marian Rippy, a lab pathologist,
Lethal samples of anthrax, ebola and hantavirus disappeared. Remember how there was a hanta virus epidemic they had in the southwest shortly after that? Zack was responsible for breaking in and stealing these specimins.
The FBI questioned Dr Assaad didnt they? They had gotten an anonomyous letter a few days after 9/11 but before anyone knew the anthrax laced letters were out there.
The letter stated in part: "Dr. Assaad is a potential biological terrorist," and "I have worked with Dr. Assaad, and I heard him say that he has a vendetta against the U.S. government and that if anything happens to him, he told his sons to carry on."
When Assaad was cleared - he told FBI to interrogate the man who was fired for his racial harrassment in the early 90's. It was revealed that In 1991 Dr. Assaad got the eight-page poem in his mailbox. The poem was lewd and mocking. The poem also referred to a rubber camel that was being passed around the lab.. It had various sexually explicit appendages. The poem in part reads:
``In Assaad's honor we created this beast; it represents life lower than yeast.''
It noted that the rubber camel will be given each week ``to who did the least.''
He and Zack had once worked together..Since the letter established this person knew intimate details of Assaad's life and professional history and the operation at Ft. Deitrich would it be a stretch to - after Assad was cleared of the charges- go looking for Zack? Yet they did not or were prevented from doing so. So they were heavily incompetent or heavily compromised wouldnt you say?
Ask yourself a question. Why would the FBI not follow up on a good lead like this? Why was Zack never questioned? Why was he allowed to flee the country? How is his innocence so obvious to you?. Are you saying that you- Willie -vouch for his innocence in this matter? Thats good - because thats exactly what Homeland Security did. They let him go. Why?
Those are the real facts Willie. Its not a molehill. Its the inconvient truth for alot of you I know but its the truth.
hno:
By the same token Zack had broken in to someones house. He had been fired. Without proper authorization Zack was caught on camera entering the storage area where the Anthrax was kept. If this is a mole hill to you then you are lying to yourself for some reason. Surveillance showed Zack being let in at 8:40 p.m. on Jan. 23, 1992 by Dr. Marian Rippy, a lab pathologist,
Lethal samples of anthrax, ebola and hantavirus disappeared. Remember how there was a hanta virus epidemic they had in the southwest shortly after that? Zack was responsible for breaking in and stealing these specimins.
The FBI questioned Dr Assaad didnt they? They had gotten an anonomyous letter a few days after 9/11 but before anyone knew the anthrax laced letters were out there.
The letter stated in part: "Dr. Assaad is a potential biological terrorist," and "I have worked with Dr. Assaad, and I heard him say that he has a vendetta against the U.S. government and that if anything happens to him, he told his sons to carry on."
When Assaad was cleared - he told FBI to interrogate the man who was fired for his racial harrassment in the early 90's. It was revealed that In 1991 Dr. Assaad got the eight-page poem in his mailbox. The poem was lewd and mocking. The poem also referred to a rubber camel that was being passed around the lab.. It had various sexually explicit appendages. The poem in part reads:
``In Assaad's honor we created this beast; it represents life lower than yeast.''
It noted that the rubber camel will be given each week ``to who did the least.''
He and Zack had once worked together..Since the letter established this person knew intimate details of Assaad's life and professional history and the operation at Ft. Deitrich would it be a stretch to - after Assad was cleared of the charges- go looking for Zack? Yet they did not or were prevented from doing so. So they were heavily incompetent or heavily compromised wouldnt you say?
Ask yourself a question. Why would the FBI not follow up on a good lead like this? Why was Zack never questioned? Why was he allowed to flee the country? How is his innocence so obvious to you?. Are you saying that you- Willie -vouch for his innocence in this matter? Thats good - because thats exactly what Homeland Security did. They let him go. Why?
Those are the real facts Willie. Its not a molehill. Its the inconvient truth for alot of you I know but its the truth.
hno:grassley from iowa asking some questions
here's a good blog read raising alot of questions as well
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/18/anthrax/
--------------------------------------------------------------
For Immediate Release
August 7th, 2008
GRASSLEY SEEKS ANSWERS TO FBI’S AMERITHRAX INVESTIGATION
WASHINGTON – Senator Chuck Grassley today began asking tough questions of the Department of Justice and the FBI following the release of documents implicating Dr. Bruce Ivins as the only suspect in the Amerithrax investigation.
“This has been a long investigation full of missteps and mistakes. There’s been too much secrecy up to this point and it deserves a full and thorough vetting,” Grassley said. “There are clearly a lot of unanswered questions and it’s time to start a dialogue so we can get answers.”
Here is a copy of the text of Grassley’s letter.
The Honorable Michael B. Mukasey
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20530
The Honorable Robert S. Mueller, Director
Federal Bureau of Investigation
935 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20535
Dear Attorney General Mukasey and Director Mueller:
Thank you for ensuring that Congressional staff received an advanced briefing yesterday of the information released to the public in the Amerithrax investigation. The three affidavits provided represent an important, but small first step toward providing Congress and the public a full accounting of the evidence gathered by the FBI.
At yesterday's briefing, Justice Department and FBI officials invited follow-up questions after there had been time to read the affidavits. Indeed, there are many important questions to be answered about the FBI's seven-year investigation, the basis for its conclusion that Dr. Bruce Ivins conducted the attacks alone, and the events leading to his suicide. To begin this inquiry, please provide complete and detailed answers to the following questions:
1. What is the date (month and year) that the FBI determined that the anthrax came from a specified flask in Ivins’s lab ("RMR-1029")?
2. When (month and year) did the FBI determine that Dr. Hatfill never had access to the anthrax used in the killings?
3. How did the FBI determine that Dr. Hatfill did not have access to the anthrax used in the killings? Was that because the FBI determined that Dr. Hatfill no longer worked at USAMRIID when the powder was made?
4. Was Dr. Hatfill or his counsel informed that Dr. Hatfill had been cleared of any involvement in the anthrax killings before the Department of Justice offered a settlement to him? Was he informed before signing the settlement agreement with him? If not, please explain why not.
5. Was Judge Walton (the judge overseeing the Privacy Act litigation) ever informed that Dr. Hatfill had been eliminated as a suspect in the anthrax killings? If so, when. If not, please explain why not.
6. Was Dr. Ivins ever polygraphed in the course of the investigation? If so, please provide the dates and results of the exam(s). If not, please explain why not.
7. Of the more than 100 people who had access to RMR 1029, how many were provided custody of samples sent outside Ft. Detrick? Of those, how many samples were provided to foreign laboratories?
8. If those with access to samples of RMR 1029 in places other than Ft. Detrick had used the sample to produce additional quantities of anthrax, would that anthrax appear distinguishable from RMR 1029?
9. How can the FBI be sure that none of the samples sent to other labs were used to create additional quantities of anthrax that would appear distinguishable from RMR 1029?
10. Please describe the methodology and results of any oxygen isotope measurements taken to determine the source of water used to grow the spores used in the anthrax attacks.
11. Was there video equipment which would record the activities of Dr. Ivins at Ft. Detrick on the late nights he was there on the dates surrounding the mailings? If so, please describe what examination of the video revealed.
12. When did the FBI first learn of Dr. Ivins’ late-night activity in the lab around the time of the attacks? If this is powerful circumstantial evidence of his guilt, then why did this information not lead the FBI to focus attention on him, rather than Dr. Hatfill, much sooner in the investigation?
13. When did the FBI first learn that Dr. Ivins was prescribed medications for various symptoms of mental illness? If this is circumstantial evidence of his guilt, then why did this information not lead the FBI to focus attention on him, rather than Dr. Hatfill, much sooner in the investigation? Of the 100 individuals who had access to RMR 1029, were any others found to suffer from mental illness, be under the care of a mental health professional, or prescribed anti-depressant/anti-psychotic medications? If so, how many?
14. What role did the FBI play in conducting and updating the background examination of Dr. Ivins in order for him to have clearance and work with deadly pathogens at Ft. Detrick?
15. After the FBI identified Dr. Ivins as the sole suspect, why was he not detained? Did the U.S. Attorney’s Office object to seeking an arrest or material witness warrant? If not, did anyone at FBI order a slower approach to arresting Ivins?
16. Had an indictment of Dr. Ivins been drafted before his death? If so, what additional information did it contain beyond the affidavits already released to the public? If not, then when, if ever, had a decision been made to seek an indictment from the grand jury?
17. According to family members, FBI agents publicly confronted and accused Dr. Ivins of the attacks, showed pictures of the victims to his daughter, and offered the $2.5 million reward to his son in the months leading up to his suicide. These aggressive, overt surveillance techniques appear similar to those used on Dr. Hatfill with the apparent purpose of intimidation rather than legitimate investigation. Please describe whether and to what degree there is any truth to these claims.
18. What additional documents will be released, if any, and when will they be released?
Please provide your responses in electronic format. Please have your staff contact (202) 224-4515 with any questions related to this request.
Sincerely,
here's a good blog read raising alot of questions as well
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/18/anthrax/
--------------------------------------------------------------
For Immediate Release
August 7th, 2008
GRASSLEY SEEKS ANSWERS TO FBI’S AMERITHRAX INVESTIGATION
WASHINGTON – Senator Chuck Grassley today began asking tough questions of the Department of Justice and the FBI following the release of documents implicating Dr. Bruce Ivins as the only suspect in the Amerithrax investigation.
“This has been a long investigation full of missteps and mistakes. There’s been too much secrecy up to this point and it deserves a full and thorough vetting,” Grassley said. “There are clearly a lot of unanswered questions and it’s time to start a dialogue so we can get answers.”
Here is a copy of the text of Grassley’s letter.
The Honorable Michael B. Mukasey
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20530
The Honorable Robert S. Mueller, Director
Federal Bureau of Investigation
935 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20535
Dear Attorney General Mukasey and Director Mueller:
Thank you for ensuring that Congressional staff received an advanced briefing yesterday of the information released to the public in the Amerithrax investigation. The three affidavits provided represent an important, but small first step toward providing Congress and the public a full accounting of the evidence gathered by the FBI.
At yesterday's briefing, Justice Department and FBI officials invited follow-up questions after there had been time to read the affidavits. Indeed, there are many important questions to be answered about the FBI's seven-year investigation, the basis for its conclusion that Dr. Bruce Ivins conducted the attacks alone, and the events leading to his suicide. To begin this inquiry, please provide complete and detailed answers to the following questions:
1. What is the date (month and year) that the FBI determined that the anthrax came from a specified flask in Ivins’s lab ("RMR-1029")?
2. When (month and year) did the FBI determine that Dr. Hatfill never had access to the anthrax used in the killings?
3. How did the FBI determine that Dr. Hatfill did not have access to the anthrax used in the killings? Was that because the FBI determined that Dr. Hatfill no longer worked at USAMRIID when the powder was made?
4. Was Dr. Hatfill or his counsel informed that Dr. Hatfill had been cleared of any involvement in the anthrax killings before the Department of Justice offered a settlement to him? Was he informed before signing the settlement agreement with him? If not, please explain why not.
5. Was Judge Walton (the judge overseeing the Privacy Act litigation) ever informed that Dr. Hatfill had been eliminated as a suspect in the anthrax killings? If so, when. If not, please explain why not.
6. Was Dr. Ivins ever polygraphed in the course of the investigation? If so, please provide the dates and results of the exam(s). If not, please explain why not.
7. Of the more than 100 people who had access to RMR 1029, how many were provided custody of samples sent outside Ft. Detrick? Of those, how many samples were provided to foreign laboratories?
8. If those with access to samples of RMR 1029 in places other than Ft. Detrick had used the sample to produce additional quantities of anthrax, would that anthrax appear distinguishable from RMR 1029?
9. How can the FBI be sure that none of the samples sent to other labs were used to create additional quantities of anthrax that would appear distinguishable from RMR 1029?
10. Please describe the methodology and results of any oxygen isotope measurements taken to determine the source of water used to grow the spores used in the anthrax attacks.
11. Was there video equipment which would record the activities of Dr. Ivins at Ft. Detrick on the late nights he was there on the dates surrounding the mailings? If so, please describe what examination of the video revealed.
12. When did the FBI first learn of Dr. Ivins’ late-night activity in the lab around the time of the attacks? If this is powerful circumstantial evidence of his guilt, then why did this information not lead the FBI to focus attention on him, rather than Dr. Hatfill, much sooner in the investigation?
13. When did the FBI first learn that Dr. Ivins was prescribed medications for various symptoms of mental illness? If this is circumstantial evidence of his guilt, then why did this information not lead the FBI to focus attention on him, rather than Dr. Hatfill, much sooner in the investigation? Of the 100 individuals who had access to RMR 1029, were any others found to suffer from mental illness, be under the care of a mental health professional, or prescribed anti-depressant/anti-psychotic medications? If so, how many?
14. What role did the FBI play in conducting and updating the background examination of Dr. Ivins in order for him to have clearance and work with deadly pathogens at Ft. Detrick?
15. After the FBI identified Dr. Ivins as the sole suspect, why was he not detained? Did the U.S. Attorney’s Office object to seeking an arrest or material witness warrant? If not, did anyone at FBI order a slower approach to arresting Ivins?
16. Had an indictment of Dr. Ivins been drafted before his death? If so, what additional information did it contain beyond the affidavits already released to the public? If not, then when, if ever, had a decision been made to seek an indictment from the grand jury?
17. According to family members, FBI agents publicly confronted and accused Dr. Ivins of the attacks, showed pictures of the victims to his daughter, and offered the $2.5 million reward to his son in the months leading up to his suicide. These aggressive, overt surveillance techniques appear similar to those used on Dr. Hatfill with the apparent purpose of intimidation rather than legitimate investigation. Please describe whether and to what degree there is any truth to these claims.
18. What additional documents will be released, if any, and when will they be released?
Please provide your responses in electronic format. Please have your staff contact (202) 224-4515 with any questions related to this request.
Sincerely,
