The problem with responding to your distorted nonsense is that you sometimes become totally irresponsible. That prevents me from posting a link to another article because it gives the name of the "bowler." And I know how you like to put his name all over the Internet and accuse me of pointing the finger at him, even though all I'm doing is saying the FBI once had him as a "person of interest."
When you claim that "They have never suspected the bowler," that is a distortion of the truth. He was a "possible suspect" and he was not ruled out as being a suspect.
The other article is dated a day after Brian Ross's article and says,
FBI sources said Thursday that [the bowler] is not a prime suspect in the anthrax mailings but has not been ruled out.
"We have developed no information that he ever had access to anthrax while he was at Battelle, and there was no anthrax in his home," said one FBI official who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
"He is one among many we have interviewed as possible suspects," said another FBI official.
And while he was once a "possible suspect," I always make it VERY clear that I do not believe he is the anthrax mailer. If he was involved at all, it would have been as the supplier of the anthrax. And he would have done that as much a TWO YEARS before the attacks, which would mean he probably wasn't part of any "conspiracy," either.
So, please stop lying and feeding people bulls**t about what my analysis says.
Ed, the FBI conducted no further investigation after early October 2001.
The idea that someone sending lethal anthrax to someone in the mail would arrange to have attention drawn to them is really silly. A perp would want to remain just one of many tens and tens of millions.
It is even sillier than Dr. Boyle’s suggestion that the DIA would manufacture correspondence from Ayman which then Ayman failed to address and ridicule.
Scientist’s anthrax claim was bogus
Man with doctorate degree in chemistry was drunk, police say
By GRETCHEN SCHULDT
of the Journal Sentinel staff
Last Updated: Oct. 4, 2001
A week after the terrorist attacks on America, a highly educated scientist told Milwaukee police that he was building an anthrax delivery system in his basement, according to documents filed in federal court.
In these times of heightened alert, the remark earned the man a visit from FBI agents armed with a search warrant, who took the man’s computer, and keypads from a telephone and a microwave oven, according to court records. But no deadly anthrax.
As it turns out, police were responding to a neighbor dispute, and the man was intoxicated when he made the anthrax comments to police.
FBI spokeswoman Cathy Fahey said no further investigation is planned ...
Over the past 6 years, the FBI’s investigatory powers have been focused on things like the alleged message from Bin Laden to the imam asking him about flight schools and aircraft. The imam’s number was found at various Ansar al-Islam locations. Michael Scheuer says he knows to a certainty that Ansar al-Islam was doing research on anthrax in the Summer of 2002. (I don’t know of any corroboration but the CIA’s former OBL chief is pretty darn good authority and claimed to be relying on humint and sigint, in addition to satellite imagery). (Scheuer opposed the invasion of Iraq so it is not a pretextual neocon argument).
“Among those reasons is an FBI report from an informant, which indirectly linked Aref to a terrorist network. The informant stated that only weeks after the 9/11 attacks, a messenger from al-Qaida approached him delivering an explicit message: Osama bin Laden was looking for information about flight schools and “how close the individual could get to an (redacted) aircraft.”
Given that the FBI has continued to spend thousands of agent hours investigating the theory that US-based supporters of AQ were responsible for the anthrax mailings, to remain wilfully ignorant indicates that your analysis is not a serious attempt at true crime analysis. You just latched onto a discredited ABC report — more tightly even than any proponent of an Iraq theory held on to the mistaken bentonite report by ABC, which was discredited just as quickly.
Everyone of your points against an AQ theory are contradicted by the facts. You would know that if you followed the developments relating to the FBI’s investigation of the US-based infrastructure.
You have what you describe as cognitive rigidity.
I believe Steve Emerson has a new website that looks to provide a lot of documentary materials, such as indictments.
Your theory is just a BHR-variant (as she modified it in March 2002) and so it is highly ironic you are so critical of her. Her theory was plausible and needed to be exhaustively pursued. Your theory is silly.