Posted on 09/18/2010 7:25:47 AM PDT by Justice Department
The Government Accountability Office has launched an investigation into the scientific methods used by the FBI to determine that Fort Detrick researcher Bruce Ivins was the sole perpetrator of the 2001 anthrax attacks. U.S. Rep. Rush Holt, who represents the New Jersey district from which the letters were mailed, requested GAO's involvement as early as 2007, but renewed his efforts after the FBI announced it had closed its Amerithrax investigation last February.
Holt and four other lawmakers originally proposed a list of 10 questions for GAO to help answer, including how the anthrax spores used in the attacks compared to anthrax produced in this country and in locations around the world, what amount of time and material would go into creating the quantity of anthrax spores used in the attacks, and why the FBI had not yet been able to close the case.
The FBI questioned Ivins, a researcher at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, throughout the entire investigation, but named him as the suspect only after he committed suicide in July 2008.
Many of Ivins' former co-workers and several lawmakers -- including Sen. Chuck Grassley, one of the four who helped Holt pursue the GAO investigation and who has been a vocal critic of the FBI's work on the case -- are still not convinced the FBI adequately proved Ivins' guilt.
"The American people need credible answers to many questions raised by the original attacks and the subsequent FBI handling of the case," Holt said in a news release. "I'm pleased the GAO has responded to our request and will look into the scientific methods used by the FBI."
Specifically, the GAO investigation will seek to answer three main questions:
n What forensic methods did the FBI use to conclude Ivins was the sole perpetrator, and how reliable are those methods?
n What scientific concerns and uncertainties still remain regarding the FBI's conclusion?
n What agencies monitor foreign containment labs, and how do they monitor those labs?
Holt had also requested that several House of Representatives committees question the FBI's methods and results, and he has called for a commission similar to the one that looked into the government's response to the Sept. 11 attacks. Neither effort has made much progress thus far.
"It's still a priority for him," said Holt spokesman Zach Goldberg. "He continues to get supporters for it, but it hasn't gotten traction in the larger Congress, which is certainly disappointing. He still feels that this is something that needs to be looked at for a variety of reasons -- that the families deserve answers to a myriad of questions."
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, who represents Western Maryland, was not part of the group that signed the letter to GAO but has been working to get more answers since the FBI closed the Amerithrax case.
"I welcome the forthcoming investigation by the Congress' General Accounting Office of a series of important unanswered questions about the FBI's investigation," Bartlett said.
"These questions have undermined the credibility of the FBI's conclusions."
The GAO investigation will be the first congressionally directed review of the FBI's case; another review, done by the National Academy of Sciences, was requested by the FBI itself two years ago.
The NAS investigation is scheduled to wrap up by the end of the year. In GAO's letter to Holt confirming it would look into the FBI investigation, Ralph Dawn Jr., GAO managing director of congressional relations, wrote that to avoid any overlap between the two groups' investigations, they would first review the NAS study before determining the scope of the GAO one.
Goldberg said the GAO would start its investigation soon, if it hadn't begun already. He said the GAO hadn't announced a timeline for its investigation but said that Holt wasn't worried about rushing things along.
"Of course (Holt) wants it to be comprehensive and not rushed in any way," Goldberg said. "The important thing is that the questions get addressed."
I apologize. I thought you were a conspiracy theorist. I now realize you are a True Believer.
You only claim that there was a "cover up" because you have no other explanation for why the FBI and the Postal Inspectors and everyone else does not see things your way. You can't claim they are all just too dumb to see what you see, so a "cover up" is the best explanation you can come up with - even though you cannot explain WHY the Bush and Obama administrations would cover up an attack by al Qaeda. (The Bush administration truly WANTED al Qaeda to have been behind the attacks, but the evidence said otherwise - and they couldn't fight the evidence the way you do.)
You simply ignore most facts. But sometimes you conjure up explanations that make absolutely no sense.
"but there WAS NO ANTHRAX LETTER sent to Florida.
You are claiming evidence that does not exist."
No, I'm providing the evidence. You are denying the evidence.
EVIDENCE: There was a trail of anthrax spores through the postal system, showing that an letter traveled from New Jersey to the Lantana area in Florida and then to AMI in Boca Raton.
EVIDENCE: Stephanie Dailey testified that she opened a powder-filled letter at about the time a letter mailed with the other anthrax letters would have arrived at her desk. She testified that she threw the letter away.
EVIDENCE: The area around Stephanie Dailey's desk was the most contaminated area area in the AMI building.
EVIDENCE: Stephanie Dailey tested positive for exposure to anthrax spores.
EVIDENCE: Ernesto Blanco, who picked up the letter at the post office and delivered it to Stephanie contracted inhalation anthrax.
EVIDENCE: Stephanie Dailey was the person who opened mail addressed to the National Enquirer, and the National Enquirer had recently moved from Lantana to the AMI offices in Boca Raton, confirming that the letter was sent to the old Lantana address.
You deny all this evidence and simply believe that the anthrax spores got into AMI via rent money, even though the landlord and her husband did NOT test positive for exposure to anthrax, there was no unusual amount of anthrax in the area where the husband worked, there were no traces of anthrax anywhere the 9/11 terrorists stayed, and there isn't even any logical explanation for why the rent money would have been taken into the AMI building.
Does anyone else in the world believe as you believe?
How do you expect to convince anyone you are right if you ignore all the evidence and just claim your unsupportable beliefs are the only true facts?
I don't see any point in arguing this further. It's clear you think I'm wrong, and it's clear that no amount of evidence is going to convince you that you are wrong.
But, it's been interesting. Thank you.
Nonsense. The explanation is easy: the anthrax attacks were originated in Pakistan, and we didn't want to nuke an ally off the planet for hitting us with a WMD attack.
Pakistan cooperated in the War On Terror, thus giving them some limited immunity from the original 2001 behavior of rogues on their soil.
You are providing, at best, weak circumstantial claims of an official cover story.
What you *can't* provide is an anthrax attack letter in Florida...because there wasn't one there.
Moreover, Ivins had no connection to the AMI building in Florida.
In contrast, the 9/11 terrorists were renting an apartment and paying rent money in cash to the wife of an employee at the Florida AMI building.
What you *deny* is that anthrax is carried on cash (like rent money!) just like cocaine.
But your denial is not factual. Of course, neither is your cover story.
So, President Bush attacked Afghanistan because he didn't want to attack Pakistan? And everyone in the government just went along with it?
And there was no conspiracy involved? Hmmm.
That another interesting belief totally unsupported by any facts while contradicting all known facts.
But there's testimony and EVIDENCE that there was a letter.
Are you claiming there where no letters sent to ABC or CBS, because those letters were never found, either?
"Ivins had no connection to the AMI building in Florida."
Ivins didn't send the letter to the AMI building. He sent the letter to The National Enquirer in Lantana. It was a major magazine available all over the country. It was the same connection Ivins had to NBC, ABC, CBS and The New York Post. They were all large media organizations who would tell the world that they were attacked.
"What you *deny* is that anthrax is carried on cash (like rent money!) just like cocaine."
I don't deny it. I've just never seen any example of it. It's totally illogical that the entire AMI building could be contaminated by trace amounts of anthrax on money. And all the facts say the anthrax arrived in a letter that Stephanie Dailey testified she opened and threw away.
Nope. Once again you fail Logic 101.
Fact: we didn't nuke Pakistan. In contrast, your claim is that my theory is "totally unsupported by any facts while contradicting all known facts."
Nope. I just gave you one fact that supports my theory. There are more.
I don't see any point in arguing this further. It's clear you think I'm wrong, and it's clear that no amount of evidence is going to convince you that you are wrong.
But, it's been interesting. Thank you.
Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com
Here's the thing, Ed. You *can't* let it go. Oh sure, you can *pretend* that you are running away from this discussion, but the reality is that you have to keep coming back to respond every time that I poke holes in your cover story.
No, and we covered this in the above posts already, so you are simply killing time by repeating agitprop.
Yes, there were anthrax letters sent to ABC and CBS.
No, there was no an anthrax letter sent to the AMI building in Florida.
It's the AMI building's anthrax contamination in Florida that shows that Ivins (who had no connection to it) didn't do the anthrax attacks.
Of course, there are other ways to contaminate a building with anthrax besides in a letter.
Rent money, for example, can do the same. Anthrax sticks to paper cash just like cocaine sticks to it.
...and who was paying rent money in cash to the wife of an employee at the AMI building in Florida?
The 9/11 terrorists.
I should have added that, according to your reasoning, there must be tens of thousands of people who are also conspiring to "cover up" not "nuking" Pakistan by creating evidence showing that Bruce Ivins was actually the killer.
Yet, in spite of claiming that there is a "cover up," you also claim that there is no conspiracy.
Don't you realize your beliefs are totally devoid of logic?
You are hyper-ventilating and making utterly no sense.
In contrast, I’m pointing out that there is no conspiracy. Thousands of people cooperating to cover up the truth is silly.
It’s just a bad FBI cover story that doesn’t align with facts and evidence.
The FBI cover story depends on an anthrax letter in Florida that doesn’t exist.
There is no such envelope in the evidence locker, just one or two “witness statements” per the cover story that amount to “trust us, we saw the anthrax letter but we just can’t find it.”
I thought we were just going in circles. But then you provided an explanation for why you believe the U.S. government framed Bruce Ivins: to protect Pakistan.
That was NEW. I had to respond.
I'll continue to respond as long as it isn't the same arguments over and over and over. If it's the same arguments over and over and over, then I'm done.
Now just keep in mind that EdLake claims that not a single fact supports my view.
In short, EdLake is saying that the 9/11 terrorists weren't renting an apartment from the wife of an AMI building employee (a fact). EdLake is saying that the 9/11 terrorists didn't pay their rent in cash to said wife (another fact). EdLake is claiming that anthrax doesn't stick to paper money like cocaine (yet another fact).
Fact after fact supports my view.
Oh Ed. You *have* to respond to it all. You can't let it go.
I'm just sitting here listening to Count Basie, calmly sipping my morning coffee and pondering your bizarre thought processes.
"I’m pointing out that there is no conspiracy. Thousands of people cooperating to cover up the truth is silly."
But the FBI says Ivins was guilty. The FBI is not just one person, it involves hundreds of agents. The Department of Justice says Ivins was guilty. That involves hundreds of laywers. The Postal Inspectors also say that Ivins was the killer. More people. They all supplied DOCUMENTS showing the evidence. That's more agents and Postal Inspectors. Hundreds of scientists assisted in developing the evidence showing that the attack anthrax came from a flask controlled by Bruce Ivins. Other scientists helped find other evidence against Ivins.
All those people must be involved because they said that Ivins did it. And by saying that Ivins did it, they are also saying that your theory is baloney. They are saying that al Qaeda did NOT do it.
And there is NO ONE among all the people involved in the investigation who has come forward with any kind of proof that it was really al Qaeda. They say they started with the theory that it could have been al Qaeda, but the EVIDENCE did not support such a theory.
Plus, if someone is covering up for al Qaeda and Pakistan, it has to be someone with a reason to do so. And the FBI has no such reason. That means there must be even more people involved.
So, you have a choice: You can either claim that they are all involved in an illegal coverup - a conspiracy to frame Bruce Ivins in order to protect al Qaeda (and Pakistan), or you can claim that they are all STUPID or IGNORANT, and only you know the true facts.
Which is it?
No RELEVANT fact supports your view.
The fact that anthrax might stick to money is IRRELEVANT if all the rest of the evidence says the anthrax entered AMI via a letter.
The fact that 9/11 terrorists rented an apartment from a woman whose husband worked at AMI is IRRELEVANT if no anthrax was found in that apartment or anywhere else they went.
The fact that the 9/11 terrorsts paid their rent in cash is IRRELEVANT if there is no evidence those al Qaeda members had access to the flask controlled by Bruce Ivins - which was PROVEN to be the source of the attack anthrax.
Your "facts" support your view, but they are IRRELEVANT facts. They are not supported by any actual EVIDENCE in the case.
There's no such letter. The FBI looked. The AMI building was gutted. Nothing.
There was no anthrax letter at the Florida AMI building.
Yet the cover story hinges upon such a letter existing.
Too bad.
LOL! You're laughable, Ed. As if it doesn't matter that the 9/11 terrorists were handing monthly wads of cash to people who frequented the one building in Florida contaminated with anthrax circa 9/18/2001!
You're becoming repetitious. Stephanie Dailey testified that she threw out the letter after opening it. The EVIDENCE says she opened the letter at her desk. The fact that it was thrown out doesn't mean it never existed. Why can't you understand that?
As if it doesn't matter that the 9/11 terrorists were handing monthly wads of cash to people who frequented the one building in Florida contaminated with anthrax circa 9/18/2001!
Right. It's irrelevant. It's also irrelevant that Iraq had an anthrax weapons program. It's also irrelevant that Dugway made bioweapons in the 1950s. It's also irrelevant that Russia made massive amounts of anthrax back in the 1970s. It's also irrelevant that Joe Blow at USAMRIID could have gone into Ivins' refrigerator without Ivins knowing about it. It's also irrelevant that the CIA made anthrax powders at Battelle.
Those are all irrelevant facts, just like your irrelevant fact that the 9/11 terrorists paid their landlord with cash. IT MEANS NOTHING unless relevancy can be established. You haven't done that.
Random facts are meaningless unless relevancy to the case can be established.
Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence defines the term as follows:
"Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
The fact that the 9/11 terrorists paid their rent in cash doesn't make ANYTHING about the case more or less probable.
In order to be relevant, your "facts" need to address the EVIDENCE in the case. The EVIDENCE says that the anthrax arrived at AMI in a letter that was mailed from the Trenton area at the same time as the other anthrax letters to the media. The fact that the letter wasn't found is also irrelevant. There is TESTIMONY and EVIDENCE that it DID exist before it was thrown out.
Your bizarre belief that the fact that the terrorists FLEW from Florida to New Jersey somehow caused anthrax spores to appear in mailbags and in post offices along the exact route the anthrax letter took to get to Boca Raton is preposterous.
Your bizarre belief that because Stephanie Dailey threw out the letter, that means it never existed is preposterous.
You can evidently accept that ABC and CBS threw out their letters, but you cannot accept that AMI threw out their letter even though there is testimony and evidence of exactly what happened. Your logic is without logic.
Do you believe that because you fantasize that the rent money was covered with anthrax spores that somehow means that they were actually covered with spores and your beliefs are usable as evidence in court? Your beliefs mean nothing in court, just as they mean nothing here.
It has been PROVEN that the anthrax use in the attacks originated in flask RMR-1029, which was created and maintained by Bruce Ivins.
You need to PROVE how the 9/11 hijackers obtained a sample of that preparation and how it got onto the money or your beliefs will never be heard in court. So, if you think that YOUR BELIEFS are somehow going to change the case and cause the FBI's findings to be disregarded BY ANYONE, you are simply out of your mind. Comprendo?
It's now shut-down time for me. I'll be back tomorrow to see if you have anything new to say.
Something else occurred to me this morning. Cocaine gets onto money because people roll up paper money to create tubes through which they snort cocaine. And because the powder is so fine, tiny amounts of cocaine can then get transferred to any other paper money the contaminated bill touches - just as the anthrax letters cross-contaminated other letters as they went through the postal system.
Is it your theory that the 9/11 terrorists were snorting anthrax?
What’s your take on the J-Lo letter?
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.