Scientists’ Analysis Disputes F.B.I. Closing of Anthrax Case

The New York Times ^ | 09 Oct 2011 | WILLIAM J. BROAD and SCOTT SHANE

[FritzG]

A decade after wisps of anthrax sent through the mail killed 5 people, sickened 17 others and terrorized the nation, biologists and chemists still disagree on whether federal investigators got the right man and whether the F.B.I.’s long inquiry brushed aside important clues.

Now, three scientists argue that distinctive chemicals found in the dried anthrax spores — including the unexpected presence of tin — point to a high degree of manufacturing skill, contrary to federal reassurances that the attack germs were unsophisticated. The scientists make their case in a coming issue of the Journal of Bioterrorism & Biodefense.

F.B.I. documents reviewed by The New York Times show that bureau scientists focused on tin early in their eight-year investigation, calling it an “element of interest” and a potentially critical clue to the criminal case. They later dropped their lengthy inquiry, never mentioned tin publicly and never offered any detailed account of how they thought the powder had been made.

The new paper raises the prospect — for the first time in a serious scientific forum — that the Army biodefense expert identified by the F.B.I. as the perpetrator, Bruce E. Ivins, had help in obtaining his germ weapons or conceivably was innocent of the crime.

Both the chairwoman of a National Academy of Science panel that spent a year and a half reviewing the F.B.I.’s scientific work and the director of a new review by the Government Accountability Office said the paper raised important questions that should be addressed.

Alice P. Gast, president of Lehigh University and the head of the academy panel, said that the paper “points out connections that deserve further consideration.”

[Mind-numbed Robot]

It must be remembered that this took place under Bill Clinton’s reign.

[ClearCase_guy]

Years ago the WSJ ran an op-ed which (to me) made a strong case that Ivins had no background that would enable him to make weapon-grade anthrax. The op-ed said that only two conclusions made sense:

1) Making weapon-grade anthrax is actually incredibly easy and we should all live in fear.
OR
2) Ivins was falsely accused and driven to suicide because the FBI wanted to protect the actual party that was responsible.

And which of these two possible conclusions is the worst?

[the invisib1e hand]

The new paper raises the prospect — for the first time in a serious scientific forum — that the Army biodefense expert identified by the F.B.I. as the perpetrator, Bruce E. Ivins...conceivably was innocent of the crime.

My favorite blog said it years ago.

Dr. Ivins was harassed to death.

The known, verifiable facts are that Dr. Ivins is something of a scientific prodigy whose pastimes spoke of doing service for the benefit of good: he served his country by his work (36 years an expert in his field), his community through Church and the American Red Cross, the cause of life by his convictions. Those are the facts. Innuendo, suspicion and systematic character defamation cannot outweigh them.

Somebody at the FBI probably won't lose his job if they can pin this on someone. But Dr. Bruce Ivins got crushed, and his reputation, and the dignity of his surviving wife and twins, publicly demolished...

Case closed?

Hardly.

[Dave346]

2001 investigation flashback...

Hijacker given anthrax flask by Iraqi agent

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/558172/posts

[tsomer]

Bush’s first term.

It happened around October as I recall, after 9/11.

[gonzo]

The Anthrax attacks happened after 9/11/2001 - GWB’s first year ............................... FRegards

[Wolfstar]

It must be remembered that this took place under Bill Clinton’s reign.

Huh? The anthrax attacks occurred nearly simultaneously with the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks. President Bush was in office just over seven months at the time. So if by "this" you mean the attacks, you're incorrect. If you mean whatever occurred to enable manufacture of the anthrax, you're probably right, although without any solid evidence to go on, no one can know for certain.

[Allan]

Any of you people still around and remember this??

[muawiyah]

The FBI thesis is complete if and only if the manufacturing is done well before 2001.

[muawiyah]

Peeps still around.

One more time ~ the FBI does not believe its own thesis; else they'd paid me off. That has not happened.

There are several things going on here. One is the anthrax source. Another is who done it. A third is where did they get that interesting address set in that format.

It was remarkably easy to nail down the address set ~ it came from the June 2001 issue of the Jews For Life newsletter/magazine. Doc Ivins wife appears to have been a member.

The FBI knows that.

This happens to have been a remarkable clue because, if followed (just look at the mailing list for the organization and start visiting everybody with a biochemist in the home) the FBI would have been ON THE SCENE of where they are now stuck way back in 2001.

Once there they'd either had the goods on Doc Ivins, or been able to get to some associate of his that may have been involved. If he'd taken the periodical to work and it'd disappeared, that'd be a clue. If the periodical was sitting on the dining room table that'd been another clue.

A vast number of false leads would have been discounted instantly ~ and that means the false leads provided by Barbara Hatch Rosenberg and her running dog lackeys on the Left at Columbia University would have not gotten in the way of the investigation.

I have no doubt the FBI could have done a better job without some folks running interference to protect their friends from investigation.

So, yeah, I remember this. And I'm still waiting for the FBI to let me know where to get my check.

[EdLake]

What bothers me about the New York Times article by William Broad and Scott Shane is: Why are they suddenly printing nonsense by conspiracy theorists?

The Times' article is about a paper written by Martin Hugh-Jones of Louisiana State University and two well-known conspiracy theorists, Barbara Hatch Rosenberg and Stuart Jacobsen.

The Hugh-Jones et al paper was previously published back in June on the BioWeapons Prevention Project's web site. It's been on-line since then HERE. Now it will supposedly be published in The Journal of Bioterrorism and Biodefense, an Internet publication where articles are distributed free to anyone who wants them.

So, the paper is NOT new and the journal is NOT a science journal. Why is it "news" for the New York Times?

The Broad-Shane article should have been in the Times' humor page (if they have a humor page) showing how there's no amount of evidence that can ever change the mind of a conspiracy theorist.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

[Battle Axe]

And where's my check.

I can still identify the guy in the middle hovered over the sink in 103 Ash House on the campus of Iowa State University on the day that the woman across the table got a package addressed to a Pakistani from Faisalabad. She thought it had seeds. That Pak never graduated but had a roommie who had worked on genetically engineered corn. The corn engineer had left the US and then returned to teach at a University in Michigan for fall semester of 2001.

I sent two Navy intel guys up to Iowa State to nose around and this corn guy was there at the time; the head of a plant genomics lab, and he split after that.

When the Postal Inspectors interview me in 2005, he had gone back to India and was selling seeds.

The sores that I saw were consistent with the runny sores from the mailing.

Muawiyah has done great work, he should have his share, but I'd like a few dollars for my eleven years of work too. I'll use it to take Muawiyah to dinner!

Yes, we are still here with the same story and one day....there will be a knock at the door....maybe they will just bust in and hand us those checks.

[Battle Axe]

Compare Ivins and Hatfil. They were on opposite ends of the pole.

Ivins offed himself because of the discovery of the ladies undies with his semen on them. That was the straw.

[Battle Axe]

After watching Frontline, I thought of the Susan Smith case. Someone did a story on her and I found the same flaw in both. There was an assumption made early in the investigation that was faulty and it lead them down the wrong path.

In Susan Smith's case, they assumed that the car would only float so far. So that is how far they looked under the water. They got the info out of some book that the car would float x distance. When in fact her car was a different make and was more water tight and floated much farther than they looked.

So when they couldn't find the car at distance x, they went off on the black male carjacker deal and it took them in a direction that was wrong.

In anthrax, since it was Ames or genotype 62, they wrongly assumed it came from USAMRIID. They needed to look at all the collections of anthrax to see who else had it.

But Iowa State University destroyed all their samples 2 days after it was determined to be Ames. Scientifically a huge no-no. I say they were destroying evidence that they held copies of it.

Now did the perp who stole it from ISU know which one he took? Probably not. Just reached in and Murphys Law took over.

They were trying to steal it and lo and behold they already had it. Someone is laughing.

If they had those testers that can pick up one spore or so, they should go to the ISU library and find out which books the woman with the sore checked out. There was a small stack of book sitting on the table. I can still see them. Some small little books, almost like children's books, but maybe monographs.

They also need to look at all the records of the students who lived in her apartment or in 103 Ash house. Did anyone else come down with it??

Physician thought it was a spider or bug bite.

[John W]

Just read the most recent book on this. Not a shadow of a doubt in my mind that Ivins did this.

[jpl]

Any of you people still around and remember this??

I'm still around, and yes, I remember it very well.

I'm pretty well convinced that Ivins was the perp. Innocent people who are accused of doing something they didn't do generally don't commit suicide before the trial even takes place.

[okie01]

It must be remembered that this took place under Bill Clinton’s reign.

Since the anthrax attack was essentially co-terminous with 9/11 (2001), I really don't think Bill Clinton had anything to do with it.

Unless, of course, it was cocaine that was in the envelopes instead of anthrax spores...

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Thank you. Several others have corrected me but I appreciate your doing it, too.

[Battle Axe]

He had been accused of being the anthrax perp for some time. It was only when they found his semen on 13 our of 14 pairs of ladies undies that he had swiped from the sorority that he offed himself.

What was he unable to live with? Not being the anthrax perp, but the source of the semen on the stolen panties.