Posted on 08/07/2008 11:30:43 PM PDT by CutePuppy
Thanks for posting that additional info, piasa.
The people who did the anthrax mailings are CONNECTED TO IRAQ according to the International Journal of Intelligence and Counter-Intelligence, March 2007 issue :
http://newsdetails.blogspot.com/2007/05/technical-intelligence-in-retrospect.html
Experts say the Ames anthrax didn’t match any of the Fort Detrick components.
“The Federal Bureau of Investigation, suspecting that components from the Delta trainer might have been used to make the anthrax mailed in late 2001, examined the unit, officials and experts said. But investigators found no spores or other evidence linking it to the crime, they said.”
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE6DB133AF931A35754C0A9659C8B63
Hi Dr. ZZ.
I assume you read all the links posted in post no. 4.
I’ll also post this for you.
If you any additional info you believe the FBI may be lacking,
please contact them.
I’m just a housewife and posting on this thread as a fyi courtesy.
#
http://www.fbi.gov/page2/august08/amerithrax080608.html
“ANTHRAX INVESTIGATION
Closing a Chapter”
08/06/08
PRESS RELEASE SNIPPET: “That science—creating a DNA equivalent of a fingerprint—allowed investigators to pinpoint the origins of the anthrax. The FBI Laboratory, in conjunction with the best experts in the scientific community, developed four highly sensitive and specific tests to detect the unique qualities of the anthrax used in the 2001 attacks. This took several years to accomplish, but in early 2005 the groundbreaking research successfully identified where the anthrax used in the mailings had come from.
Another key piece of evidence was provided when investigators were able to identify a limited geographic area where the anthrax envelopes were purchased based on a forensic investigation that revealed printing defects in certain batches of envelopes.”
adding 1 word to post no. 23: If you HAVE any additional info...
That has no bearing on the point I was making.
His lawyer is the one who claims he was beloved by his friends and family.
I just pointed out that the lawyer isn’t being entirely honest. He knows about the estranged brother, and he knows it isn’t truthful to imply that he was beloved by his whole family.
Anthrax case : Ivins is innocent, suspected for political reasons - VANITY
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2058470/posts
Ivins’s writings didn’t match the letters’s samples.
The letters were written by “non English native Speaker” according to studies.
It is a proof Ivins simply did not write the letters. So FBI is lying when it says Ivins is the only one responsible.
This “Amerithrax” investigation is pure crap.
Thanks for your feedback Dr ZZ.
If you have information for the FBI here is there web site:
Have a good day.
According to Senator Grassley, there will be a full Congressional investigation into the matter. Knowing him, there will not be any stone left unturned.
If there is a problem, and judging by the evidence, he** will be raised.
A lawyer not being entirely honest? You are kidding!
But, just for the heck of it, let’s parse what the lawyer actually said. Does “family” include only immediate family or parents and all siblings who were not living together with Bruce Ivins? And am I just not seeing the “whole” quoted in “his friends and family”? And is “estranged brother” that had not seen Bruce Ivins for 20 years and said he “was not sorry to see him dead” really a “family”?
And do we really need to be like some in FBI and nitpick a “family” to “prove” that his lawyer “isn’t being entirely honest”? I’ll take it as a given.
Obviously, there are elements within the government — Clintonoids, for starters — who are as dedicated to the “Bush Lied” mantra as the whackjobs over at DU and Daily Kos. They would have a vested interest in seeing to it that Iraq is not connected with the anthrax letters, a certain sign that Saddam not only had WMD, but was using it.
The Left’s entire house of cards is built on the “Bush Lied” meme. When you consider that, so many things that seem perplexing become crystal-clear.
So...did this paranoid, prolix, prolific encre pisseur pause to pen a suicide note?
No, not even something like “WSJ slimed me” by late Vince Foster...
Maybe he expected people / FBI would find it in his palindromes...
Oh, but wait, that’s one of the best parts in FBI theory - they watched him sneaking into the library, and using 2 computers to get his email and they suspect that a suicide note might be on one of them, so they “requisitioned” these 2 computers (apparently librarians didn’t object the intrusion into privacy in this case) to find his “suicide note”. Would not it be fascinating if they find a “note” where he described exactly how and why he did what he did and what reasons led to him choosing all “his” victims?
It’s not “some in the FBI” nitpicking his famly to prove a lawyer was lying, it was me.
I just made a comment that pointed out a fact, no need to get all emotional about it.
Of greater concern is an apparent relationship to Dr. Meryl Nass, and choice of lawyer. Ivins may have been responsible for putting some of the heat on Hatfill and others; that and a relationship with a peculiar leftwing Cuban-indoctrinated no-account anti-vaccine Dr. from Maine, who belongs to a little outfit called Physicians for Social Responsibility, [see Win Without War] an organization that was aiding the regime of Saddam Hussein on the matter of sanctions, should raise an eyebrow at minimum, particularly because while Nass’s friends on the left were taking potshots at other scientists, they overlooked both Ivins and al Timimi.
It may be Nass overstated her familiarity with Ivins. That’s what I thought at first, and I assumed he was getting the Hatfill treatment and she was just sticking her nose in to promote her website. But that may not be the case. I suggest taking a breath before automatically assuming he’s another Hatfill getting railroaded by the eeeeevil FBI. More than the FBI Hatfill was attacked by the left.
I’m not sure about Ivins and he shouldn’t be assumed to be anything at this point. One thing I don’t believe is that if he is guilty he was alone. I don’t think this was a one-person job, and I don’t think an anti-abortion stance was the motive, though if he is guilty that will be the press’s angle on it, rather than on his other politics. I have thought all along that the anthrax attackers were linked to the anti-vaccine effort, and a true link to Nass should- pardon the pun- raise red flags.
I’m not convinced of Ivins’ guilt. I have a vague recollection that I read somewhere yesterday or the day before that Ivins was working on an athrax vaccine. If he were opposed to vaccines, then why would he be trying to develop one. The FBI was suggesting that Ivins had a financial motive for the anthrax mailings and that he wanted to scare lawmakers and the public into funding vaccine research.
I’m too lazy at the moment to try to find where I read such. I could have heard it on the radio. Who knows! :-)
Or maybe, I became obtuse due to temporary lack of quality sleep and meat and bacon in my Kibbles and Bits. This too shall pass, FRiend.
Now, to the meat of the issue. Considering (from what I read) that Ivins was an active Democrat (though, apparently, anti-abortion) and must have had Democrat friends, the "choice" of lawyer may not be surprising. I don't know who recommended CCA for his counseling (and how and why Duley with her police record became his "counselor"), and I don't know who recommended (or imposed) this lawyer to him.
I asked some of these questions here : http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2057540/posts
I can only surmise that when the left found Ivins was the subject of FBI investigation they wanted to take control of the spin and be on the inside of the investigation (through his lawyer) no matter what Ivins' "involvement" with Amerithrax was - an expert, helping investigators and co-inventor of vaccine, or perpetrator. Reminds me a little bit of Libby who was answering question hoping to help Plamegate "investigation"...
One thing that could help find this out would be to learn when Paul Kemp became his lawyer, and correlate that with when he became a "subject" of FBI investigation. We need a lot more information than bits and pieces provided so far by FBI. There must be some people in Maryland who could help provide some of these answers.
I don't make any conclusions about guilt or innocence of Ivins, in fact I don't know that much about the case, just trying to find and post some relevant information and ask some questions. And so far, on the basis of what FBI produced and the caliber of their witnesses (like Jean Duley) compared to opinion of many of his colleagues at the lab (who hardly have much of a reason to cover things up, especially after Hatfill experience), it's very thin, to say the least. It's like they are throwing multiple charges against the wall, hoping that one or the other will stick with one or the other "groups" of people - after all, they are taking their case to the "court of public opinion". And they are playing what amounts to "identity criminal politics" with this case.
Most of Ivins' idiosyncrasies could be easily explained by psychology of many brilliant men, which he undoubtedly was, and the stress of being under investigation and harassment. Whether Ivins was a willing or unwitting participant, or not a participant at all in the anthrax attacks, this case should not be "closed" - and that's exactly what [some people at] FBI and DOJ are so obviously anxious to do, for whatever reasons, and in a very deceitful way. And that raises yet another "red flag". And that's exactly why we should keep questioning entire Amerthrax investigation, and keep digging the facts from [more] reliable sources.
That's one of the "theories" about "motive" that FBI is throwing out, but it's very doubtful. Ivins was on the "inside" and after the attacks could simply suggest this to appropriate people without raising his profile, and he was smart enough to know to keep low profile, yet he seemingly was doing exactly the opposite, writing letters and emails. There was enough panic about anthrax and potential follow-up attacks and daily talks about Cipro and vaccines.
Now, the "avian flu" and need for vaccine or facing the death of quarter of Earth population, on the other hand, was mostly hype.
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.