Posted on 08/15/2008 6:43:33 PM PDT by Shermy
WASHINGTON —
...F.B.I officials say they are confident that their scientific evidence against Dr. 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 fresh questions.
The bureau presented forensics information to Congressional and government officials this week in a closed-door briefing, but a number of listeners said the briefing left them less convinced that the F.B.I. had the right man, and they said some of the government’s public statements appeared incomplete or misleading.
For instance, the Justice Department said earlier this month in unsealing court records against Dr. 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 F.B.I. officials acknowledged at the closed-door briefing, according to people who were there, that the sample Dr. Ivins gave them in 2002 did in fact come from the same strain used in the attacks, but, because of limitations in the bureau’s testing methods and Dr. Ivins’s failure to provide the sample in the format requested, the F.B.I. did not realize that it was a correct match until three years later.
In addition, people who were briefed by the F.B.I. said a batch of misprinted envelopes used in the anthrax attacks — another piece of evidence used to link Dr. Ivins to the attacks — could have been much more widely available than bureau officials had initially led them to believe.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
New New York Times article well worth reading.
Turns out Ivins’ lawyer was correct about the FBI’s “Ivins gave us the wrong strain” story.
If Ivans was as unstable as they are trying to make us believe he was, what in the HELL was he doing working with biological warfare materials?
This doesn’t pass the “smell test” for me.
The early leaks politely said the Hatfill case had to be brought to an end first.
I think if Hatfill’s lawyers knew about this Ivins stuff, they would ask for a lot more money. Also, the Hatfill judge might have been miffed too.
In recent reports explaining why certain agents were ‘obsessed” with Hatfill Feds made the argument that Hatfill didn’t have access to anthrax, but Ivins did. But that’s what Hatfill’s been saying from day 1!
“could have been much more widely available than bureau officials had initially led them to believe.”
I would give the officials a break here. Their understanding probably came from the same court documents we can now see.
The underlings probably jazzed-up the allegations in the applications to get their warrants from the judge.
Either they are totally incompetent, or they made an early decision not to pin it on the Muslim terrorists who appeared to be linked to the case, so they had to find a fall guy.
They’d rather hound an innocent man to death than admit they were wrong.
And I still think that Sessions is one of the worst appointments Bush ever made. Instead of fixing an FBI that was corrupted under clinton, he appears to have made things worse.
I am so tired of the FBI and their lame attempt to put the blame on a dead man who cannot refute their so called evidence.
If they have evidence they should have used it earlier to put the guy behind bars. Now is not the time to try and make the case.
FBI - you blew it big time and lost. Give it up. A dead man cannot clear his name and you should now not sully it - no matter the evidence.
Once again, you screwed up. Get on with life.
God, I hate incompetence.
The FBI, ATF, IRS- all of them should be scrapped.
Sam
I recall they admitted to make the evidence fit the crime.
“For instance, the Justice Department said earlier this month in unsealing court records against Dr. 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.”
IIRC the Feds didn’t make the claim earlier that it came from outside the lab, but that Ivins gave them the wrong batch from within the lab. But I haven’t read all the documents released.
at first I thought the business with the envelopes was their strongest evidence.
Turned out that was exaggerated too.
hoo boy.
Mueller is antigun and pro CAIR islamofascist ratbag.
Bureaucrate cops cannot understand that terrorists are not scientists in general, they are button pushers. Atta did not want to learn how to land the airplane, he could care less. This is the mental profile of terrorists, and no right scientist fits this... on the other hand, idiot autocratic bureaucrates sometime behave without care. This is why they go after scientist whose job they don’t understand, fearing the competent, ignoring leads leading to people of similar profiles to their corruptedness.
It is scary. It’s how fascists behave and it is also a topic in the old series “V”.
So after a couple of weeks of snow-job, they think they NOW have the scientific evidence? Gee, did they discover it on Monday? After more than 6 years?
So, FBI scenario number 1 was that Ivins used his position to mislead FBI and cover up his tracks by NOT providing FBI with the right samples that could incriminate him if he did so.
And FBI scenario number 2 is that FBI screwed up because Ivins did provide the right samples, but in improper "format" (obviously hoping that this would screw FBI up) and they didn't have the right testing methods or equipment anyway (and Ivins must have known and relied on that to get away with the crime).
Did I read that right and describe it accurately? Because if I did, I can't believe my eyes...
Oh, and just to be on the safe side, how did they finally "realize" that they had the "right sample" and how did they find it and where and how was the sample kept, because it was submitted in different "format" (this is anthrax sample after 3 years we are talking about).
Mind-boggling.
Today’s FBI is not your grandfather’s FBI....
It certainly comes across as simply another Federal clap trap full of incompetent boobs.
Shermy,
The allegation that a false sample had been submitted was the most powerful element of the weak case alleged in the probable cause warrant. Now it turns out that the sworn statement was untrue.
The bit about the letter was perhaps the third most significant element. Now it turns out that statement was untrue.
Let me give you another example of a sexy tidbit that in a week or two you can expect to be a fishy story. The government made a tantalizing suggestion that Dr. Bruce Ivins one day went walking out in the backyard and made a raking or digging motion. It was raining. Egads, you say. Given we know — or were led to believe he had submitted a false sample — what was he doing walking out the rain and raking a spot in the yard during the rain? He must have hid a vial of powderized anthrax! Or at least something suspicious. Give the FBI a search warrant quick! (It is reminscent of the hand-over of left-overs in the Pennsylvania backyard observed by a neighbor).
Well, Shermy, this seems like Hatfill all over again when, for example, the cabin in the woods evaporated as the fog lifted. The Greendale School turned out not to even exist. The talk of Cipro was part of some banter among friends.
Here, I’ll tell you what Dr. Ivins was doing out raking the yard in the rain. He was looking for earthworms. We had the shaggy dog story relating to the bloodhounds. Let’s call this “another fish story.”
Now only the family and Attorney Kemp would be able to confirm I’m right and I’ve not checked with them as Attorney Kemp no doubt will develop his argument as time permits.
So let me offer my tentative proof. Bruce used the screen name “kingbadger7@aol.com” in posting comments on the News-Post’s website. (My real name is not Zack or Pook in the interests of full disclosure; and I have the nagging suspicion Badabing is not her real name).
Kingbadger7 commented on a story published in May 2006 about a man who was detained at his Tuscarora house after he went to look for a trash can lid, which had blown off the back of his pickup truck.
As Slate Magazine explained:
“The man, Dave Twigg, held a flashlight out of his truck late April 30 to search for the lid. An officer with the Department of Natural Resources then tried to stop Twigg, but Twigg continued driving until he reached a lighted area — his driveway.
The officer threatened to charge Twigg for fleeing and eluding a police officer and illegally hunting deer by blinding them with bright lights, according to the article. kingbadger7@aol.com wrote:
- “I’ve known Dave Twigg for a long time, and he’s a great, honest, law-abiding guy. The DNR agent was more than a bit over-reactive and (testosteronal) in what he did to Dave ... Dave should sue the DNR and the officer involved for what happened.”
- “Great ... that’s all that night predators need to know: That they can stop anybody, anywhere, for practically any reason and say that they’re ‘DNR.’ Dave Twigg wasn’t running from anybody, so the ‘attempting to flee’ charge is completely bogus — What’s next? Arresting kids who have flashlights and are looking in their yard for nightcrawlers?”
- “ ... you can go online and purchase ‘police car’ lights for your vehicle. Scary, huh? Knowing that, how many of us would tell our loved ones to stop at night on deserted roads when unmarked, supposed police cars flashed their lights? As to comment in the previous post about ‘salivating lawyers,’ I think that the DNR officer’s actions would cause many reasonable people to consult an attorney.”
Well, I think we may be able to the writing on the walls here. Bruce Ivins perhaps was looking for nightcrawlers in his backyard. We know Dr. Ivins thought the FBI was overreaching in its actions. We can speculate, even without knowing legal stuff, that Dr. Ivins’ estate is preparing to sue US DOJ.
As you know, I’m a big fan of the US DOJ. The US DOJ should ahead of this and apologize for the false statement in the context of a press conference that Dr. Ivins submitted a false sample. He was a scientist and it is was a serious charge indeed in the context of a scientist helping with the investigation. The decontamination was also and is the subject of a 361 page US Army report, I believe, obtained by the Frederick paper in a FOIA. The fact of the clean-up — at a time Ft. Detrick was being hammered in the press — can be explained by a desire not to have co-workers or himself exposed to anthrax and a desire to avoid further trouble and bad press. But the decontamination had these legitimate alternative explanations. Submission of a false sample would not. US Attorney Jeffrey Taylor should publicly apologize to the family. The US DOJ should get ahead of this. Otherwise, this failure, without more, may forever doom the US Attorney Office’s credibility in this matter, thus dooming any possibility of a successful resolution. Then we can all move on and this false sample issue can be considered as already addressed by the time of any hearings. All this criticism of the US DOJ and FBI might best be understood in the context of this question: Could we do any better? Probably not. We should all be working together to get the right answer.
I hope Attorney Kemp can confirm this nightcrawler issue — for example, by confirming, if it is true, that he was planning on going fishing.
Shermy,
The FBI’s press conference on the science is at 9 a.m. Monday.
Yes. Frankly, the FBI has been pretty bad for a long time, but it was really broken under Clinton, with criminal enablers promoted into the top ranks, and Mueller has done absolutely nothing to fix it. Apparently he likes it the way it is.
This anthrax story, has joined the JFK massacre class, no matter what we learn, we will never know if it is the truth.
The reportedly false allegation that he submitted a false sample was made in a sworn statement as recent as August 7, 2008. The Special Agent making the statement has been an agent for 3 years. (We’ve had lulls in the news of the investigation longer than that.) If you as a scientist was being falsely accused of having submitted a false sample — and they don’t believe your strident denials that you didn’t — might you be driven to suicide? When did they first learn that the false sample issue was incorrect? I expect Attorney Kemp to come out like a steamroller. The US DOJ might best start out with an apology BEFORE Kemp brings out the cannons. It is a consideration — how quickly action is taken after the error is discovered.
“”If you as a scientist was being falsely accused of having submitted a false sample — and they don’t believe your strident denials that you didn’t — might you be driven to suicide?””
Especially when you know you can’t prove the truth because the FBI “seized the flask”.
Who know what’s in that flask now. Or where it is.
I thought I followed the case closely...but backyard diggin allegation against Ivins? I missed that one.
The more I think about this...are all the documents released from court records? Can one sue the government on the basis that lies were made to judges in order to get warrants and this drove Ivins to suicide?
Good luck with that.
Since Dr. Ivins is dead, there is no way to refute whatever fancy lie the fibbies want to concoct. As over-exposed as Dr. Ivins has been in this debacle, I am sure that were he an avid fisherman that would have been reported.
The US DOJ should ahead of this and apologize ...
Like that will happen.
The only 'apology' that the DoJ or the rest of the alphabet soup have ever given have been after they've been caught and 'punished' with lawsuits; most of their perpetrators were advanced in paygrade, awarded honours, or allowed to retire -- with the taxpayers funding their 'apology'. The whole department needs to be overhauled from top to bottom, but that won't happen in this political climate.
Or did you forget about the Weavers from Idaho; Koresh and the members at Mt. Carmel 7DA Church; Limone, Salvati, Tameleo, Greco - all from Boston; and myriad others.
We've seen their 'apology'.
Apparently he worked with animals.
Maybe he dug up the worms to give the animals at work treats.
This other fellow submitting affidavits, making the same claim about a false sample being submitted, has been a Postal Inspector for 20 months. That affidavit was in mid-July. How would you refute such a claim? His life’s work, reputation and life as he knew it was over. These new inspectors and agents, I’m sure, did not first arrive at the conclusion that a false sample was submitted. It may have even predated their employment. What was the origin of the claim? Who made that assessment? That is what the briefing on Monday morning should address, along with explaining the strength of the genetic investigation which limits known isolates to 8 samples with 100 known people with access. But this false sworn claim made against Ivins is about the only thing that had powerfully incriminated him. It needs to be forthrightly addressed Monday morning.
I think the science is important,
but it’s also the palpable,
like the envelopes with the defect...how much wider than Virginia and Maryland post offices were they found. In New Jersey? How about New York City? (NY Post, Nguyen)
and,
also, microscopic photos of the attack anthrax should be given.
US Attorney Jeff Taylor said:
“Fourth, the affidavits indicate Dr. Ivins had engaged in behavior and made a number of statements that suggest consciousness of guilt. For example, one night shortly after a search warrant was executed on his house, Dr. Ivins took highly unusual steps to discard a book and article on DNA coding while under 24/7 surveillance. In addition, he had submitted a questionable sample of anthrax from his flask of parent spores to the FBI, presumably to mislead investigators.”
US Attorney Taylor may not appreciate that we are a bit non-plussed after authorities made such a hoo-hah over Dr. Hatfill putting things in his dumpster before his planned move to Louisiana. He expressly said: “In addition, he had submitted a questionable sample of anthrax from his flask of parent spores to the FBI, presumably to mislead investigators.” Now the New York Times is reporting that is not true. Either US Attorney should address and resolve this issue definitively or he should resign.
“Dr. Ivins took highly unusual steps to discard a book and article on DNA coding while under 24/7 surveillance.”
Such drama after they tore up his home!
Hatfill redux. Unusual dumping, check. But this time no Tinkerbell the Magic Sniffer Dog.
BTW, another thing—the FBI (or is it the postal inspectors) always spin that if these guys had an interest in the case, especially solving it, it makes them probably guilty. Hatfill, check. Ivins, check.
And most famously,
Richard Jewell, big check.
Absolutely. That was Ed’s theory in telling the FBI I was a terrorist. He said I thought of myself as a hero. Well, when I learned the reason the FDA was not recalling soft drinks that my lab showed had high levels of benzene, and found out that the FDA Commissioner Crawford had always known about it, had $62,000 in Pepsi stock and $78,000 in the food lunch company stock (which had not been disclosed, and he had previously been the industry’s chief advisor while advising the grocery manufacturer’s association), you can imagine it makes you want to do something heroic.
The FDA Commissioner resigned by email to everyone in his office Friday morning after I emailed him Wednesday afternoon (after getting his email from someone at Justice). But these facts never came out. He pled to two misdemeanors and no connections were drawn or explanation given as to why he resigned so precipitously. The US Attorney’s Office, politically minded, did not require that these facts come out in the allocution. ( Jeff Taylor the US Attorney used to be the advisor for Gonzalez.)
So I’m telling the DC US Attorney’s Office, put things in order on Monday at 9 a.m. and be very forthright about all issues. Your science on the mixed strains and inverted plasmid is very sound. Don’t screw that up by sloppy shoe leather work and new investigators and agents. Big picture, it has been the compartmentalization that has been part of the problem just as Lambert said it would be. If Director Mueller had just required a proper leak investigation in 2002, there would not have been the continued leaks by Seikaly in 2003. (His daughter now represents anthrax weapons suspect Ali Al-Timimi bono). So put your house in order ASAP because there are those, conservatives and liberals alike, who are activist on the issue of good and honest government. And if there are Special Agents who want to profile people because they want to save the world, screw them. Or at least let me take them out to lunch.
It’s called self-actualization in Maslow’s hierachy.
Returning to the merits, what was the biological pathogen that it is claimed in an anonymous leak that Aafia Siddiqui wanted to use in poisoning former Presidents? Are the US Al Qaeda operatives she has named to authorities getting a bit nervous?
The FBI PR machine is now prepared to roll out this piece of equipment — a SpeedVac — in urging that Ivins was the culprit. Battle stations, everyone.
August 8, 2008
Ex-colleague questions government’s case against anthrax suspect
By ANDREW SCHOTZ (andrews@herald-mail.com
http://www.herald-mail.com/?cmd=displaystory&story_id=200518&format=html
Ivins’ alleged use of a lyophilizer to make powdered anthrax. Ulrich said Ivins signed out a SpeedVac, but not a lyophilizer, which is too large to fit in a containment hood, or secure protective area.
She said it would take about an hour to dry one milliliter of wet anthrax spores in one vial in a SpeedVac. It would have been impossible for Ivins to have dried more than a liter, which would have been required for the amount of anthrax sent in the letters, in the time frame they were mailed, Ulrich said.
Ulrich was a principal investigator in the diagnostic systems division at USAMRIID.
The microbial vac is a US-Army funded device that existed in prototype at the time that concentrated anthrax samples by a factor of 10 (to a trillion spores) while sequentially filtering the sample. It can only be used for weaponization on a small scale, its inventor tells me. Here is a video explaining the advantages of the Speed Vac which the US DOJ mistakenly thinks was used.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hvJOZCCm_M
Freeze Dryer vs. Speed Vac
http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/proteins/2003-March/011065.html
His screen names included
KingBadger7@aol.com
goldenphoenix111@hotmail.com
jimmyflathead@yahoo.com
EdIvings
BigSky
prunetacos
Forgive me if this has already been done. I was on vacation when the story broke. But has anyone studied, perhaps using the Wayback Machine if necessary, what posts he made in September 2001 and October 2001?
Aafia reportedly wanted to kill former presidents using a biological agent in their drinks. She was married to the fellow helping the 911 hijackers in association with al-Hawsawi, KSM’s assistant. Al-Hawsawi had anthrax spraydrying documents on his computer. Are other US operatives going to be indicted with her in an amended indictment?
An Assistant United States Attorney once said in federal court, in the Paracha trial opening argument, that Aafia was willing to help with an anthrax attack if asked. What biological agent had she wanted to use to kill the former Presidents? If she hasn’t told her lawyers where she’s been for the past 5 years, or at least lent some clarity, is it because she is cooperating with authorities?
http://www.thenews.com.pk/print1.asp?id=130532
Still grey
8/18/2008
The Grey Lady of Bagram has become the Grey Lady of New York. Since Aafia Siddiqui appeared in a US court we have learned little more about her or the circumstances in which she lived during her ‘missing’ years — than we knew before. We do not know if she was in the custody of any country or agency or whether she was quietly keeping a low profile knowing that assorted American agencies were keen to have a quiet chat with her in-between sessions with the waterboard. We do not know where her children are — although there seems to be an assumption in some sections of the press that they are in America. We also do not know if she was tortured, as a careful reading of the statement by one of her lawyers, Elizabeth Fink, reveals…”The woman has been tortured. I believed she has been tortured based on my experience with people with post-traumatic stress disorder.” This is not the same as saying ‘Aafia Siddiqui has been tortured.’
There is a world of difference between Ms Fink believing she was tortured and Ms Siddiqui saying so. The lawyers, of which there seem to be no shortage, are also keen not to reveal anything about the whereabouts of the missing children. We know that she had a young male child with her when she was allegedly arrested in Ghazni. We do not conclusively know that it was her own child and we do not know what happened to the boy since he was last seen. We know that she is injured but we do not know the precise nature of her wounds and we do know that she has — finally — been seen by a female doctor. We know that she has been visited by a Pakistani consular representative but that this is something of an irrelevance as her prosecution appears to be as an American citizen — she holds dual nationality. (Those of her children born in the US will automatically have American citizenship. It is unclear if any of them are Pakistani nationals as well.) We also know that her lawyer told her to say nothing - beyond confirming who she was — to the Pakistani consular representative; especially about the children.
We know, then, remarkably little in purely factual and objective terms about a woman who it many commentators presume to know so much. And not only the commentators — the Internet, natural home to every hue and stripe of conspiracy theorist — is awash with tales of Aafia Siddiqui, all of them unsubstantiated and unsourced. The Grey Lady of Bagram, the ghostly Prisoner 650, is no more substantial to us than she was when she made her reappearance on 17th of July in circumstances yet far from clear themselves. She is due in court again on September 3, but whether we will learn anything more or new about this very grey affair is very much a matter for conjecture.
A different friend emails what serves in substance as a rebuttal to the point made by Dr. Melanie Ulrich, Ivins colleague. She and other experts should be contacted to see if they agree. He is oft-quoted and has a distinguished University position.
“Two points :
“(1) A SpeedVac, when coupled to a dry ice trap or condenser (the
configuration most frequently encountered in biomedical research labs),
functions as a lyophilizer. (In many, if not most, cases in which
post-1980s biomedical research papers state that a sample was “lyophilized,”
the papers refer to use of a SpeedVac.)
“(2) 1-4 g of wet bacterial cells or spores occupies a volume less than 5
ml.
(A 1 liter culture presumably would be required to produce 1-4 g of dried
bacterial cells or spores...but more than 99.5% of the 1 liter starting
volume first would be removed, in seconds to minutes, by decanting,
centrifugation, or filtration, leaving less than 0.5% of the 1 liter
starting volume to be dried.)
In short:
(1) SpeedVac = lyophilizer.
(2) If it would take 1 h to process a 1 ml sample, then it would take 1 h to
five 1 ml samples (since a SpeedVac, as most frequently configured, holds,
and simultaneously processes, up to 1 ml samples), and thus it would take 1
h to dry sufficient spore paste to yield 1-4 g of dried spores.
Here are some URLs relevant to the 2 P.M. briefing.
If I were a science writer there, I would ask for their explanation of what the FBI calls the “silicon signature,” the issue of isotope ratios (which MSNBC indicated that the culture had been grown in the Northeastern United States), and the issue of subtilus contamination.
On the issue of the genetic inquiry, the key take-how is that it narrowed it only to 8 known isolates (at how many labs, 4?), and 100 known people KNOWN to have access. The phrasing “sole custodian” as to Ivins in the FBI affidavits creates a misleading impression. He was the “sole custodian “ of the flask but not of the stream of genetically identical isolates downstream from the flask. The flask did not have a silicon signature. The flask did not have subtilus contamination.
Investigation of Bioterrorism-Related Anthrax, United States, 2001: Epidemiologic Findings,” Emerging Infectious Diseases, October 2002
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol8no10/02-0353.htm
“First Case of Bioterrorism-Related Inhalational Anthrax in the United States,” Palm Beach County, Florida, 2001, Emerging Infectious Diseases, October 2002
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol8no10/02-0354.htm
“First Case of Bioterrorism-Related Inhalational Anthrax, Florida, 2001: North Carolina Investigation,” Emerging Infectious Diseases, October 2002
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol8no10/02-0389.htm
“Opening a Bacillus anthracis–Containing Envelope, Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C.: The Public Health Response,” Emerging Infectious Diseases, October 2002
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol8no10/02-0332.htm
“Inhalational Anthrax Outbreak among Postal Workers, Washington, D.C., 2001,” Emerging Infectious Diseases, October 2002
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol8no10/02-0330.htm
“Bacillus anthracis Aerosolization Associated with a Contaminated Mail Sorting Machine,” Emerging Infectious Diseases, October 2002
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol8no10/02-0329.htm
“Epidemiologic Investigations of Bioterrorism-Related Anthrax, New Jersey, 2001,” Emerging Infectious Diseases, October 2002
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol8no10/02-0322.htm
“Surveillance for Anthrax Cases Associated with Contaminated Letters, New Jersey, Delaware, and Pennsylvania, 2001,” Emerging Infectious Diseases, October 2002
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol8no10/02-0399.htm
“Bioterrorism-Related Anthrax Surveillance, Connecticut, September–December, 2001,” Emerging Infectious Diseases, October 2002
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol8no10/02-0398.htm
“Environmental Sampling for Spores of Bacillus anthracis,” Emerging Infectious Diseases, October 2002
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol8no10/02-0355.htm
“Call-Tracking Data and the Public Health Response to Bioterrorism-Related Anthrax,” Emerging Infectious Diseases, October 2002
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol8no10/02-0390.htm
“Coordinated Response to Reports of Possible Anthrax Contamination, Idaho, 2001,” Emerging Infectious Diseases, October 2002
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol8no10/02-0390.htm
“Bioterrorism-Related Anthrax: International Response by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,” Emerging Infectious Diseases, October 2002
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol8no10/02-0345.htm
Beecher, Douglas J., “Forensic Application of Microbiological Culture Analysis To Identify Mail Intentionally Contaminated with Bacillus anthracis Spores,” Applied and Environmental Microbiology, Aug. 2006, p. 5304-5310
Bowen, G. J., J. R. Ehleringer, L. Chesson, E. Stange, and C. E. Cerling. 2007. “Stable isotope ratios of tap water in the contiguous USA,” Water Resour. Res. 43:W03419.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006WR005186.shtml
Budowle B, Harmon R., “HIV legal precedent useful for microbial forensics,” Croat Med J. 46(4):514-21 (Aug 2005).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=16100753&ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Budowle, B., M. D. Johnson, C. M. Fraser, T. J. Leighton, R. S. Murch, and R. Chakraborty. 2005. “Genetic analysis and attribution of microbial forensics evidence,” Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 31:233-254.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=16417203&dopt=AbstractPlus
Budowle B, Murch R, Chakraborty R., “Microbial forensics: the next forensic challenge,” Int J Legal Med. 119(6):317-30 (Nov 2005).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=15821943&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Budowle, B., S. E. Schutzer, M. S. Ascher, R. M. Atlas, J. P. Burans, R. Chakraborty, J. J. Dunn, C. M. Fraser, D. R. Franz, T. J. Leighton, S. A. Morse, R. S. Murch, J. Ravel, D. L. Rock, T. R.
Slezak, S. P. Velsko, A. C. Walsh, and R. A. Walters. “Toward a system of microbial forensics: from sample collection to interpretation of evidence,” Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71:2209-2213 (2005).
http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/full/71/5/2209?ijkey=11f63da16d84d14221469a04d0917d00b4ae7e74&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
Budowle, B., S. E. Schutzer, A. Einseln, L. C. Kelley, A. C. Walsh, J. A. L. Smith, B. L. Marrone, J. Robertson, and J. Campos. Building microbial forensics as a response to bioterrorism. Science 301:1852-1853 (2003).
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/301/5641/1852?ijkey=6c5eda5d0b0d4dec11807281f555d5087c756235&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
Cliff, J. B., K. H. Jarman, N. B. Valentine, S. L. Golledge, D. J. Gaspar, D. S. Wunschel, and K. L. Wahl, “Differentiation of spores of Bacillus subtilis grown in different media by elemental characterization using time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry,” Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71:6524-6530 (2005)
http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/71/11/6524?ijkey=8feb323b80876abedc9727959678c8b67e431489&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
Horita, J., and A. A. Vass, “Stable-isotope fingerprints of biological agents as forensic tools,” J. Forensic Sci. 48:122-126 (2003)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=12570211&dopt=AbstractPlus
Keim et al., “Microbial forensics: DNA fingerprinting of Bacillus anthracis (anthrax),” Analytical Chemistry, 2008 Jul; 80 (13): 4791-9
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/ancham/80/i13/html/0708feature_keim.html
Kreuzer-Martin, H. W., L. A. Chesson, M. J. Lott, J. V. Dorigan, and J. R. Ehleringer, “Stable isotope ratios as a tool in microbial forensics. 2. Isotopic variation among different growth media as a tool for sourcing origins of bacterial cells or spores,” J. Forensic Sci. 49:961-967 (2004).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=15461095&dopt=AbstractPlus
Kreuzer-Martin, H. W., L. A. Chesson, M. J. Lott, and J. R. Ehleringer, “Stable isotope ratios as a tool in microbial forensics. 3. Effect of culturing on agar-containing growth media,” J. Forensic Sci. 50:1372-1379 (2005).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=16382831&dopt=AbstractPlus
Kreuzer-Martin, H. W., M. J. Lott, J. Dorigan, and J. R. Ehleringer, “Microbe forensics: oxygen and hydrogen stable isotope ratios in Bacillus subtilis cells and spores,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100:815-819 (2003).
http://www.pnas.org/content/100/3/815.abstract?ijkey=fab4cbbab441ba7dff87548c7f41866771a131bb&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
J.B. Petro, and D.A Relman, “Understanding Threats to Scientific Openness, Science, December 12, 2003
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;302/5652/1898/DC1
Shoham, Dany & Jacobsen, Stuart “Technical Intelligence in Retrospect: 2001 Anthrax Letters Powder,” International Journal for Intelligence and Counterintelligence, October 2006
Wahl, K. L., N. B. Valentine, S. C. Wunschel, D. S. Wunschel, K. H. Jarman, and C. E. Petersen. Microorganism analysis and identification by MALDI-TOF-MS. Abstr. Pap. Am. Chem. Soc. 226:U121 (2003).
Wunschel, D. S., E. A. Hill, J. S. McLean, K. Jarman, Y. A. Gorby, N. Valentine, and K. Wahl. Effects of varied pH, growth rate and temperature using controlled fermentation and batch culture on matrix assisted laser desorption/ionization whole cell protein fingerprints. J. Microbiol. Methods 62:259-271 (2005).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=15979749&dopt=AbstractPlus
Wunschel, S. C., K. H. Jarman, C. E. Petersen, N. B. Valentine, K. L. Wahl, D. Schauki, J. Jackman, C. P. Nelson, and E. White. Bacterial analysis by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry: an inter-laboratory comparison. J. Am. Soc. Mass Spectrom. 16:456-462 (2005).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=15792714&dopt=AbstractPlus
It’s my understanding that they are not taking questions this afternoon. So perhaps no one will have a chance to ask: what was the origin of the false claim that a false sample had been submitted (which would drive any sane man to suicide given it represented the destruction of his career, reputation and life’s work).
It's my understanding that it will be a roundtable discussion and that there will be a Q&A session. BUT, there will be no one-on-one interviews afterward.
Presumably, the Q&A session will only be about the scientific matters discussed in the presentations. They won't answer questions about investigative or prosecutorial aspects of the case.
What bothers me is that, if there are a hundred reporters present, we're likely to get a hundred different points of view of what was said.
Greg Greenwald, “Doubts over the anthrax case intensify — except among much of the media,” Aug. 18, 2008
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/18/anthrax/
“FBI Agrees To Release More Details From Anthrax Probe, Backpeddles On Key Elements,” August 18, 2008
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/fbi_agrees_to_release.php
Let’s consider how this same US Attorney’s Office screwed the pooch last time in regard to Dr. Hatfill. The source of the fishy, shaggy dog stories that derailed public understanding of the investigation pled the Fifth Amendment. His daughter then came to represent the “anthrax weapons suspect” of the other Amerithrax investigative squad.
The investigative squads were compartmentalized, and kept separate from the forensic study — leaving it all to be integrated by the same folks that brought you Hatfill. Anyone remember the phrase “the investigators were confident that...”
In early August 2002, the head of the District of Columbia Field Office initiated a leak investigation related to Amerithrax information. The first leak investigation concerned leak of bloodhound story to Newsweek (according to email discussed in deposition of lead prosecutor Daniel Seikaly in which he repeatedly pled the Fifth Amendment). A memo from DC Field Office head Van Harp read:
TO: OPR
NSD
From: Washington Field
ADIC’s Office: Harp Van A (202) xxx-xxxx
***
Title: UNSUB
UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE AND/OR
MEDIA LEAK IN CONNECTION WITH THE
AMERITHRAX INVESTIGATION
***
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
The appearance of this information in the media affects the conduct of this investigation as well as the morale of the dedicated personnel who have expended enormous energy and effort on this investigation.
As such, I am requesting that either a media leak or OPR investigation be initiated. In the event a leak investigation is initiated then the enclosed LRM should be hand delivered to AAG Chertoff. [REDACTED]
The investigation was closed in October 2002. The memo read:
Date: October 8, 2002
To: Mr. H. Marshall Jarrett
Counsel
Office of Professional Responsibility
United States Department of Justice
From: David W. Szady
Assistant Director
Counterintelligence Division
Subject: [REDACTED[
The purpose of this memorandum is to notify your office of the closing of the FBI’s criminal investigation of the captioned media leak matter. It is the understanding of the FBI that your continUed investigation of this matter will be pursued by your office.
[REDACTED]
***
After a January 9, 2003 “exclusive” report by ABC’s Brian Ross that the FBI was focusing on Hatfill and was going to conduct a second round of interviews with other former and current government scientists so that they might rule them out by the process of elimination, the FBI initiated a second media leak investigation. This time it was to proceed with “extreme zeal.”
The memo read:
Precedence: PRIORITY Date: 1/13/2003
To: Director’s Office
Washington Field
From: Washington Field
Contact Richard L. Lambert 202-xxx-xxxx
Approved by: Harp Van
Lambert Richard L
Title: AMERITHRAX
MAJOR CASE 184
00: WFO
Synopsis: To request the opening of new OPR media leak investigation regarding captioned case.
[large redacted passages]
To demonstrate the seriousness with which the FBI views this matter, it is requested that the OPR inquiry commence with an interview of IIC Rick Lambert who will waive all Fifth Amendment privileges and accede to a voluntary polygraph examination to set a tone of candor, forthrightness and cooperation.
[redacted]
The instant matter is the second unauthorized media disclosure to occur in this investigation. Its potential detriment to the effective prosecution of the case is substantial. Accordingly, in the interests of both specific and general deterrence, the Inspector in Charge requests that this OPR inquiry be pursued with unprecedent zeal.”
A June 2003 email then shut the barn door long after the horse had left the barn door:
From: DEBRA WEIERMAN
To: Lisa Hodgson
Date: Wed, June 4, 2003 12:18 PM
Subject: AMERITHRAX INVESTIGATION
Lisa: Please disseminate to all WFO employees. Thanks, Debbie
For the information of all recipients, Director Mueller has ordered that no one discuss the AMERITHRAX case with any representative of the news media. The WFO and Baltimore Media Offices have released several media advisories, which were coordinated with the US Attorney and FBIHQ, to explain specific milestones in the case. However, NO FBI WFO EMPLOYEE, INCLUDING MYSELF AND INSPECTOR RICK LAMBERT, WHO IS IN CHARGE OF AMERITHRAX, IS TO RESPOND TO ANY MEDIA INQUIRIES, THE ONLY EXCEPTION IS DEBBIE WEIERMAN IN THE MEDIA OFFICE. All inquiries from reporters or journalists received by any WFO employee are to be immediately referred to Debbie at xxx-xxxx, and she will handle.
I thank everyone at WFO for their dedication to the job and to this office. I also thank you for your cooperation in this very important matter.
Mike Rolince
In October 2007, the former Criminal Chief of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, Daniel Seikaly, was deposed in the civil rights action by Steve Hatfill about whether he was the source of leaks relating to Steve Hatfill in connection the use of bloodhounds in the anthrax investigation and the draining of ponds in Frederick, Maryland. Key stories appeared in Newsweek and Washington Post. Attorney Seikaly pled the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination in connection with most substantive questions.
Attorney Seikaly has had a very distinguished career. In 2001, Mr. Seikaly went from being Assistant Inspector General for Investigations at the Central Intelligence Agency to Criminal Chief of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia. There he supervised eighty-five Assistant United States Attorneys involved in the prosecution of all federal offenses in the District of Columbia. He also served as a technical expert for U.S. Department of State funded rule of law programs in Croatia, Estonia, Kazakhstan, and Thailand. Before accepting the appointment to Criminal Chief of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, Mr. Seikaly was Assistant Inspector General for Investigations at the Central Intelligence Agency. While with the CIA, a profile at his current law firm’s webpage explains, “he conducted and supervised numerous investigations concerning allegations of misconduct by employees, contractors and vendors involved in CIA programs. In that position, he routinely interacted with senior officials within the intelligence community, other executive branch agencies and Congress concerning intelligence investigations.” The profile continues: “From 1996 to 1998, Daniel served as an Associate Deputy Attorney General at the Department of Justice and was Director of the Department’s Executive Office for National Security. There he was responsible for the coordination and oversight of the national security activities of the Department of Justice, including intelligence operations, international law enforcement, relations with foreign countries and the use of classified information. Reporting directly to the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General and acting with their authority in national security matters, Daniel was a primary point of contact between the Department of Justice and other executive branch agencies with national security interests such as the National Security Council, the Department of State and the Department of Defense.”
Here are some excerpts from the deposition:
“Q. … calls this article, quote ‘An exclusive look at the search for the perpetrator of America’s worst bioterror attack.” Did you tell Mr. Klaidman [of Newsweek] that you were giving him an exclusive on this information?
[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]
Q. Did you tell Mr. Klaidman that the FBI was acting on a tip when it searched the pond in Frederick?
…
Q. Did you tell Mr. Klaidman that FBI agents had interviewed the acquaintance of Dr. Hatfill’s that was supposedly the tipster?
[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]
Q. Did you tell Mr. Klaidman that the acquaintance had told the FBI that Dr. Hatfill said toxic bacteria could be made in the woods and the evidence could be tossed in the lake?
[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]
Q. Did you tell Mr. Klaidman that the FBI might drain the entire pond the month after this report?
[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]
[Lawyer defending deposition] Mark, let me say something on the record so we all understand the assertion because the manner in which — or the type of questions you’re asking here. My client has been instructed to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege regardless of whether or not the answer to the question would be yes or no, because even if the answer were to be no, if he answered no to certain questions, I think an inference could be drawn from that as to what he does or doesn’t know.
So I just want to make sure you understand in terms of our Fifth Amendment assertion here is that he’s asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege to questions that may have a yes or no answer, and it’s not fair to assume that the answer to every one of these questions would be yes or no if he were to answer the questions. Does that make sense?
Q. It makes sense, but we will be seeking an adverse inference as to all questions where the fifth amendment is taken.
***
Q. Mr. Seikaly, do you deny any of the statements attributed to you by Mr. Klaidman with respect to the [Newsweek bloodhound story]
[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]
Q Is it actually even true whether the search of the pond was prompted by a tip?
Q. Are you aware of any information that might have been used as a predicate for the pond search having been obtained as the fruits of electronic surveillance?
[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]
Q Did you tell Mr. Klaidman that agents might be looking for a wet suit that could have been used to dispose of — that could have been used and disposed of by the anthrax attacker?
[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]
***
Q. Did you give Allan Lengel of The Washington Post any information reflected in this article?
[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]
Q. Mr. Lengel has testified that you told him the FBI search of the pond in Frederick was tied to Steven Hatfill and that it was triggered by a hypothetical statement Dr. Hatfill has made about anthrax; is that correct?
A. That Mr. Lengel testified about that?
Q. Is it correct that you told Mr. Lengel about those things?
[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]
Q. How did you know that the FBI’s search of the pond in Frederick was tied to Steven Hatfill?
[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]
***
Q. Why did you decide to disclose information to Mr. Lengel about the pond search?
[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]
***
Q Did you tell Mr. Lengel that the items recovered from the pond up to that point included a clear box with holes that could accommodate gloves?
[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]
***
Q Did you tell Mr. Lengel that the items recovered from the pond up that point included vials wrapped in plastic?
[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]
Q. Do you specifically deny making any statement that Mr. Lengel has attributed to you?
[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]
***
Q. How did you know that tests for the presence of anthrax
bacteria on the equipment were continuing after two rounds of tests produced conflicting results?
[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]
Q. Why did you disclose that information to Mr. Lengel?
[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]
***
Q Did you tell Mr. Lengel that the search of the pond in Frederick netted nothing but a hodgepodge of items that did not appear to be linked to the case?
[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]
***
Q If we take the dates from Exhibits …, it appears that you disclosed investigative information to Mr. Lengel for articles that appeared in January 2003, May 2003, June 2003 and August 2003. Is that right?
[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]
***
Q. … Do you know whether you ever saw this e-mail before?
A. I don’t believe I have.
Q. Okay. Let’s look at the partially redacted paragraph. It says, quote, “WFO [Washington Field Office] has opened a leak investigation in an attempt to find out who spoke to Newsweek Magazine over the weekend about the bureau’s use of bloodhounds in the anthrax investigation,” closed quote. Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. And the date of the email is August 5th, 2002.
A. That’s correct.
Q. The investigation that’s referenced here is about the story that you gave Mr. Klaidman, is it not?
A. Assert my Fifth Amendment Privilege in response.
***
Q. Okay. In the bottom e-mail, when Blier begins, “here is a summary of my conversation with Glen about the anthrax leak investigation.” Now, Bill Blier worked for you, did he not?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you know what Mr. Blier was referring to when he referred to, quote, the anthrax leak investigation?
A. I believe that it was an investigation involving the possible compromise of classified information is my understanding. I did know about an investigation in that.
***
Q And do you know whether that had anything to do with bloodhounds or Newsweek?
A I don’t believe it did but I don’t know.
***
Q You were aware of an anthrax investigation, yes?
A. I was — I was aware that there was a discussion of an investigation involving the compromise of classified information arising from the anthrax investigation, the Amerithrax investigation. I do recall knowing that we were — we and the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the Justice Department were concerned about this and were seeking to find out who compromised the classified information.
***
Q. Did you think it remarkable in any way that bloodhounds could track a scent from anthrax letters that were ten months old to a Denny’s in Louisiana where someone had eaten the day before?
[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]
His daughter has represented Ali Al-Timimi pro bono in defense of his prosecution for sedition.
My preference would be that former USA Today reporter Toni Locy, found in contempt by a District Court judge in the Hatfill civil rights action, just end the circus by confirming that her source was (if it was) the head of the criminal division in the District of Columbia, Dan Seikaly, who repeatedly pled the Fifth on the general subject at civil deposition. He had consented to being named by the reporters who contacted him and asked for a waiver of confidentiality. If he is the source, Ms. Locy’s refusal to more promptly contact her sources might be much ado about nothing. Based on her description in in her second deposition, Ms. Locy made only what seemed a half-hearted effort to contact a third and fourth source to ask for a waiver of confidentiality before her deposition (when that was the entire purpose of the second deposition). At her second deposition, she said: “I don’t know. I’ve just begun the process of reaching out to people.” She said that she had not spoken to Mr. Seikaly since her last deposition.
No one disputes, for example, in connection with the pond draining story that the Maryland ponds were in fact drained. Her article reports that one official said that they were just looking to avoid criticism in the future that they had not aggressively pursued all theories. One person of interest as the third federal law enforcement source is the Criminal Chief of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia who pled the Fifth Amendment on these issues at deposition. Was he Ms. Locy’s third “federal law enforcement source” on the subject? (The prosecutor providing the information about the pond draining had released two other reporters, when asked, from a promise of confidentiality, out of fairness to them).
Another article she wrote titled “Anthrax Investigators tail scientist 24/7? states that the sources “requested anonymity because the anthrax probe is active.” That article refers to “four law enforcement sources.” It claims that Dr. Hatfill’s response to questioning in a polygraph on the subject of the attacks was “evasive.” Polygraph results are inadmissible in federal court and almost all state courts because they are deemed unreliable. If the report was that the alleged witch drowned upon being dunked, should we be so quick to protect the source of the report? What if it turns out that the leak was from the lawyer who would not be able to admit the claimed polygraph finding in court?
The USA article concluded: “One of the law enforcement sources says investigators sometimes wonder whether they focused on Hatfill too soon and ignored someone who deserved more attention. So much has gone into investigating Hatfill, the source says, that abandoning the focus on him ‘would be like starting all over.’ ” The press has been so focused in defending itself from the charge that it was unfair to Dr. Hatfill — and law enforcement officials have been so chastened by the civil rights suit brought by Dr. Hatfill — that five years ago there stopped being meaningful coverage of Amerithrax by the mainstream press altogether. Given that it seems the press nowadays only ever has the budget to take spin handed under the table to them by government officials anyway, perhaps the First Amendment is not as worth prioritizing, in the balance of competing interests, as it used to be. Maybe we would learn more if Dr. Hatfill were allowed a meaningful day in court and then bloggers uploaded the transcript. The wisdom of the fictional City Desk Editor at the Baltimore Sun on the HBO’s series “Wired” in parsing out such First Amendment issues involving competing considerations — and that of Professor Archibald Cox — will be sorely missed.
All we know for sure. If we don’t learn from history we are bound to repeat it.
Again, leave me off the “To:” window when the related post is long.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.