Attempts To Deceive Investigators
PROSECUTION: Investigators say that in 2002 Ivins submitted two samples of anthrax from the flask in question and that neither of those genetically matched the spores used in the attacks. Agents later seized the flask and found the anthrax in it did in fact match the spores used in the attacks. Taylor said Ivins did this "presumably to mislead investigators."
DEFENSE: Ivins' lawyer says there was confusion about what kind of sample the FBI had wanted — a "pure" sample or one that captured the mix of spores in the flask. Kemp says Ivins submitted a pure sample at first.
--------------------------------------------------
The mailed letters were photocopies. Early in
the investigation, much was made about the Feds
search for the machine that produced them.
Has there been any word about evidence on
that front?
You’re kidding? They were about to indict this guy, they drove him to suicide, and they have “not fully explained” the presence of silicon?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/08/08/ST2008080803414.html
Since the fall of 2001, federal officials have made contradictory statements about whether the powdered anthrax contained a form of the mineral silicon. The presence of silicon dioxide — also known as silica — would be highly significant, suggesting that the bioterrorist took additional steps to ensure that the powder would not clump and would penetrate deeply into victims’ lungs. Silica was part of the recipe for a particularly deadly anthrax weapon made by Soviet military scientists.
On Nov. 7, 2001, then-Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge said at a news conference that the anthrax powder contained silica, a statement that implied that the bioterrorist had access to secret government formulas for making biological weapons.
But in the documents released this Wednesday, the FBI clarified Ridge’s statement. The powder contained not silica but silicon, which was present “within the spores,” the documents said. There was no silica coating on the spores, as would be expected if someone had deliberately added the material to keep the spores from clumping.
Two government scientists with knowledge of the FBI’s investigation said the presence of silicon, while not fully explained, does not appear to be significant. The scientists, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the silicon was probably an inadvertent contaminant and might have been introduced when the bacteria was being grown in the lab.
Still, numerous scientists and biodefense experts continued to complain that the FBI has not publicly addressed questions about silicon as well as other technical facets of the case. Many scientists, including colleagues of Ivins, say the evidence presented so far has not conclusively linked Ivins to the anthrax letters.