Anthrax attack suspect found dead

dicktater's picture

Uh, I have a thought. What if FBI director Robert Mueller changed the leadership of the September 11th investigations now? Who will end up committing suicide?

"Federal investigators moved away from Mr Hatfill and concluded Ivins was the culprit after FBI director Robert Mueller changed leadership of the investigation in 2006."

Anthrax attack suspect found dead

http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5gArsHbaymW90AcpAOrugW48znZwg

A top US biodefence researcher committed suicide just before being charged over the anthrax mailings that traumatised America after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

The scientist, Bruce E Ivins, 62, who had worked for the past 18 years at the US government's biodefence labs at Fort Detrick, Maryland, had been told about the impending prosecution.

The laboratory was at the centre of the FBI's investigation of the anthrax attacks, which killed five people. Ivins died of a drug overdose on Tuesday at Frederick Memorial Hospital in Maryland.

Henry Heine, a scientist who worked with Ivins on inhalation anthrax research at Fort Detrick, said he and others on their team have testified before a federal grand jury in Washington that has been investigating the anthrax mailings for more than a year.

Ivins was the co-author of numerous anthrax studies, including one on a treatment for inhalation anthrax published in the July 7 issue of the journal Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

Last month, the US government exonerated another scientist at the Fort Detrick lab, Steven Hatfill, who had been identified by the FBI as a "person of interest" in the anthrax attacks.

The government paid Mr Hatfill 5.82 million dollars (£2.9 million) to settle a lawsuit he filed against the Justice Department in which he claimed the department violated his privacy rights by speaking to reporters about the case.

Federal investigators moved away from Mr Hatfill and concluded Ivins was the culprit after FBI director Robert Mueller changed leadership of the investigation in 2006.

The new investigators instructed agents to re-examine leads and reconsider potential suspects. In the meantime, investigators made progress in analysing anthrax powder recovered from letters addressed to two US senators.

Besides the five deaths, 17 people were made ill by anthrax that was posted to politicians on Capitol Hill and members of the news media in New York and Florida just weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks. The victims included postal workers and others who came into contact with the anthrax.

More anthrax news:

http://news.google.com/news?q=anthrax&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn

Anthrax kills 25 bison on Ted Turner's Montana ranch

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/07/31/turner_bison_ant...

"I'm not the first rancher to deal with an anthrax outbreak, and certainly not the last," Turner said. "Other outbreaks have been successfully managed throughout the U.S. and Canada, and I am confident we will do the same."

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Chris's picture

bullshit.....

THE HIDDEN ANTHRAX LETTERS SUSPECT

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/anthraxsuspect.html

 

FBI Closes in on Anthrax Terrorist

Prime Suspect is a Zionist

 

http://www.aztlan.net/zack.htm

gretavo's picture

seriously, how convenient is this?

Oh, we had our man, but he done gone and commited suicide, so I guess the case is closed. No trial, no evidence, etc. etc. Phillip Zack? No no no, Ivins was our guy, but you see, now that he's dead there's no point in pursuing this case. Motives? What does it matter? He's dead! Present our case for his presumed guilt? Come on, we're not gonna kick a guy when he's down--like, really down as in dead! He's dead, you see. The Anthrax Killerâ„¢ is dead. Please don't ask us about this anymore.

gretavo's picture

way too bizarre to be legit...

Some brother, eh?  Notice he didn't sing like a canary about anything Anthrax related, and that his wife would not comment, i.e. would not claim he was innocent or admit he may have been guilty either.  So what I want to know is what his motive was for making it look like the anthrax was mailed by Israel and America hating muslims... And how much you all wanna bet that certain fake truth 911 blogging sites will be claiming that Ivins must have been an "NWO Bilderberger scum?"

 Ivins, the son of a Princeton-educated pharmacist, was born and raised in Lebanon, Ohio, and received undergraduate and graduate degrees, including a doctorate in microbiology, from the University of Cincinnati.

The eldest of his two brothers, Thomas Ivins, said he was not surprised by the events that have unfolded. 

”He buckled under the pressure from the federal government,” Thomas Ivins said, adding that FBI agents came to Ohio last year to question him about his brother.

”I was questioned by the feds, and I sung like a canary” about Bruce Ivins’ personality and tendencies, Thomas Ivins said.

”He had in his mind that he was omnipotent.”

Ivins’ widow declined to be interviewed when reached Thursday at her home in Frederick. The couple raised twins, now 24.

My guess is they made this guy and his family an offer they couldn't refuse in order to get him to fake his death. We may even see some bizarre confession letter surface soon where he will detail the hows and whys of his anti-muslim frame-up job.

gretavo's picture

i take it back...

Some of the good guys left 911B have already made the connection to Zack... we'll have to wait and see if Jon Gold deigns to express an opinion on this one!

Chris's picture

yeah, Reprecensor must be

yeah, Reprecensor must be asleep at the wheel today. by the way, ive been having major problems with the site today. lots of HTTP 500 errors and im having a hard time commenting. everything ok?

Chris's picture

i dont know, i kind of think

i dont know, i kind of think they probably just killed him. these guys are good at making suicides look good and it just seems safer from their perspective to kill him and move on. no risk of our media actually pursuing the story either way, but with him dead there are no loose ends(possibly his family but whos to say they dont fall for the same bullshit most americans do? not to mention being scared into silence). but im open to the idea that he went the Ken Lay way.  coincidentally like this suicide, i was talking about the anthrax attacks with a friend just yesterday. im so beyond being surpised by any of this anymore, but it makes me even more cynical, if thats even possible.

gretavo's picture

sure, but the family would have to be pretty clueless...

...not to suspect foul play. instead they don't seem to take issue with the suicide story--the brother seems quite eager to prop it up, as well as to imply his brother's guilt. That's odd. And yes, the errors have been bad, ever since I removed all IP blocking rules (because I had inadvertently blocked some legit users!)

Tahooey's picture

reminds me of

the unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, also thrown under the bus by his brother.

I read some strange conspiracy stuff about that whole case not long ago; here it is
http://www.unabombers.com/

juandelacruz's picture

The family could be scared

The family could be scared to rock the boat and precipitate an accident on top of the suicide.

gretavo's picture

sure, or being handsomely paid...

There's the chance too that Ivins didn't actually die--I know people hate when I suspect faked deaths, but it seems to be in vogue these days. In my opinion the likely scenario is that he was in fact one of the good guys and was indeed murdered because he knew too much and couldn't be corrupted...

juandelacruz's picture

a new baltimore sun article

A new baltimore sun article by Stephen Kiehl dated aug 5 says the suspect's daughter was intimidated by the fbi to link him to the anthrax attack.

"The New York Times reported that investigators intensively questioned his children, Andrew and Amanda, now both 24. One former colleague, Dr. W. Russell Byrne, said the agents pressed Ivins' daughter repeatedly to acknowledge that her father was involved in the attacks.

"It was not an interview," Byrne said. "It was a frank attempt at intimidation.""

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.anthrax05aug05,0,7051572....

gretavo's picture

yup, and his son was bribed with money and a car...

who knows.... all that is clear is that we are witnessing theater here...

Jpass's picture

Carefull With That Source Eugine

Careful Chris.

The source for this article (aztlan) is not exactly known for it's unbiased-ness.

As far as I can tell, Dr. Zack is not a Zionist or Jewish (as if that would matter).

This 'suicide' seems way to easy for the FBI. The Anthrax attacks were blamed on Muslims at the same time that the 9/11/2001 attacks were being blamed on Muslims.

So let me see...Muslims were responsible for defeating the most heavily guarded defense aparatus in history with 3 planes on one day....collapsed 3 buidlings....but the Anthrax attacks were random acts of destruction from one guy who we've never heard of...who just happened to commit suicide on the day his story is released? Oh...and it the same story the FBI decides to drop the hint that the case is being close because of the suicide?

Yea, right.

gretavo's picture

quite right, Zack is a suspected Catholic! :)

http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/PhilipZack.html

I think the point here is that a) the Ames strain came from Ft. Detrick and b) there was an anti-Arab clique at Ft. Detrick. If these are true facts, and they seem to be, then it is reasonable to want to know who all the members of that clique were and have them treated as suspects until they are cleared by an investigation. Whetehr or not the person who did it was Zack, whetehr or not the person who did it was a Zionist, these aren't the most important points. The most important point is that arabs and muslims were framed and that there seems to be an attempt to forego further revelations by declaring the alleged "main suspect" dead.

Jpass's picture

Hey Gret...

"The most important point is that arabs and muslims were framed and that there seems to be an attempt to forego further revelations by declaring the alleged "main suspect" dead."

Sounds like the other infamous attack on the United States that happened weeks before the Anthrax attacks...and were...coincidentally...blamed on Muslims just like the Anthrax attacks.

Now, after over 7 years, we find out that the two attacks whose operational objectives were so similar and occurred during the same moments of the 9/11/2001 attacks & aftermath...are not even connected!

The most frustrating thing today is that the media can report 100% total conformable bullshit. We all sit around and say "hey...that's bullshit!". But it doesn't matter because whoever put this together knows it looks like bullshit, knows we will call it bullshit, and doesn't care.

gretavo's picture

more on anthrax... watch out for Reprehensor disinfo...

Reprehensor just directed his minions to an article containing this:

UPDATE II: Ivins' local paper, Frederick News in Maryland, has printed several Letters to the Editor written by Ivins over the years. Though the underlying ideology is a bit difficult to discern, he seems clearly driven by a belief in the need for Christian doctrine to govern our laws and political institutions, with a particular interest in Catholic dogma. He wrote things like this:

Today we frequently admonish people who oppose abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide or capital punishment to keep their religious, moral, and philosophical beliefs to themselves.

Before dispensing such admonishments in the future, perhaps we should gratefully consider some of our country's most courageous, historical figures who refused to do so.

And then there's this rather cryptic message, published in 2006:
Rabbi Morris Kosman is entirely correct in summarily rejecting the demands of the Frederick Imam for a "dialogue."

By blood and faith, Jews are God's chosen, and have no need for "dialogue" with any gentile. End of "dialogue."

On a note related to the main topic of the post, macgupta in comments notes the numerous prominent people in addition to those mentioned here -- including The Wall St. Jorunal Editors and former CIA Director James Woosely -- who insisted rather emphatically from the beginning of the anthrax attacks that Saddam was likely to blame. Indeed, the WSJ Editorial Page -- along with others on the Right such as Michael Barone of U.S. News & World Report and Fox News -- continued even into 2007 to insist that the FBI was erring by focusing on domestic suspects rather than Middle Easterners.

The Nation's Michael Massing noted at the time (in November, 2001) that as a direct result of the anthrax attacks, and the numerous claims suggested that Iraq was behind them, "the political and journalistic establishment suddenly seems united in wanting to attack Iraq." There has long been an intense desire on the neoconservative Right to falsely link anthrax to Saddam specifically and Muslims generally. ABC News was, and (as a result of its inexcusable silence) continues to be, their best friend.

-- Glenn Greenwald

We need to keep an eye on the synergy between the fake truth movement and the fake left/MSM on this issue...

dicktater's picture

I assume that you read Greenwald's entire piece

I assume that you read Greenwald's entire piece. I'm kinda curious why you left out several paragraphs of that particular update.

There are now a total of six updates. Greenwald appears to have serious doubts that the government isn't lying about Ivins being the mastermind and sole perpetrator. I found it interesting that Greenwald felt the need to add this one:


UPDATE V: I tried to be careful here to avoid accepting as True the matter of Ivins' guilt. Very early on in the article, I framed the analysis this way: "If the now-deceased Ivins really was the culprit behind the attacks, then that means that the anthrax came from a U.S. Government lab," and I then noted in Update II that Ivins' lawyer vehemently maintains his innocence. My whole point here is that the U.S. Government now claims the anthrax attacks came from a Government scientist at a U.S. Army lab, and my conclusions follow from that premise, accepted as true only for purposes of this analysis.

It's worth underscoring that it is far from clear that Ivins had anything to do with the anthrax attacks, and someone in comments claiming (anonymously though credibly) that he knew Ivins personally asserts that Ivins was innocent and makes the case as to why the Government's accusations are suspect. As I see it, the more doubt there is about who was responsible for the anthrax attacks, the greater is the need for ABC News to reveal who fabricated their reports linking the attacks to Iraq.

It sure seems like he he just couldn't have been the only one involved.

Update IV has interesting bits on roles McCain and Lieberman apparantly played in catapaulting the propaganda, too.

McCain discusses with Lettrman evidence that the anthrax came from Iraq - October 18, 2001.


Joe Lieberman went on Meet the Press (on October 21, 2001)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcript...

Probably too late to catch Greenwald live though, there may be an archive available:

UPDATE VI: I'll be on Rachel Maddow's radio show tonight at 8:30 p.m. EST to discuss this story. Local listings and live audio feed are here.

http://airamerica.com/maddow

Vital unresolved anthrax questions and ABC News
Glenn Greenwald
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/01/anthrax/

gretavo's picture

two disgusting whores plying their trade

nuff said

Tahooey's picture

White Housers gulping Cipro

the week of 9/11 seems to have been ridiculously coincidental.

Kind of like Ashcroft stopped flying domestic due to 'unspecified threats' 

gretavo's picture

oh and the previous patsy Hatfill

apparently settled with the gov for 5.8 million very recently... so much to clean up before the end of the Bush admin!

http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/Hatfill162-1.pdf

kate of the kiosk's picture

ah thanks chris - that's what i

was looking for...or had seen before

thought this was an interesting blog post from Pravda:

http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php?t=221180

gretavo's picture

i recall something about the anthrax strain...

not being in use in 1992 at Ft. Detrick--I think I read that at the anthraxinvestigation site. Lots of these details could well be false leads. The point is that a) weaponized anthrax was sent b) muslims were framed and the letters were dated 9/11 c) the mailings were seized on to pass the patriot act and to scare people into supporting the "war on terror". If indeed it was the Ames strain it doesn't point to who sent it, it only points to where the anthrax was obtained--not by whom or by what means.

gretavo's picture

Why did Barbara Hatch Rosenberg so ardently try to frame Hatfill

And isn't it interesting that the New York Times (specifically Nicholas Kristoff) seems to have helped her?

http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/campaign.html
Conspiracy Theories at the BTWC

When Barbara Hatch Rosenberg arrived at the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention in November of 2001, she was already on a warpath. According to Science Magazine, even though she wasn't a representative of any government, she "plopped herself down" on a chair on the main floor until the official U.S. delegation to the conference "forced her to move back to the gallery". The article goes on:

Rosenberg's supporters and detractors already knew she was a hard-nosed and vocal activist who's unmovable once she takes a stand. "Barbara obviously makes no bones about her views," says Stephen Morse, an epidemiologist at Columbia University in New York City and a longtime friend. A government scientist who's battled Rosenberg for years puts a sharper edge on his description of her: "What she brings [to discussions] is an attitude."
It appears that for the entire duration of the conference she was circulating her theory that a "renegade" scientist associated with some illegal government program, or who worked in a laboratory connected with some illegal government program, was the anthrax mailer. On November 21, 2001, she said it in a formal speech. According to CNN,
The Federation of American Scientists on Wednesday told a 144-nation conference on banning germ warfare that the U.S. anthrax attacks were "almost certainly" derived from a U.S. government laboratory.
"I'm a New Yorker," said Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, chairwoman of the federation's working group on biological weapons. "My city has been attacked, first by foreign terrorists, then by an American using a weaponized biological agent."
Where did her "theories" come from? According to The Global Security Newswire,
Rosenberg said she developed her theories by analyzing publicly available evidence and with input from other scientists, and from "inside" sources.
In other words, she was getting her information from newspaper reports and from people who had no reason to actually know about Dr. Hatfill's deeds, capabilities or whereabouts. She was summing up what she felt that others thought. She was rumor mongering. And in conspiracy theory tradition, if no one could prove her wrong, that meant she was right.
According to The New York Times, at that time Dr. Rosenberg's theories included a massive government conspiracy that went back decades:

Dr. Rosenberg contends that the Ames strain probably did not originate in 1980 or 1981, as is often asserted, but arose decades earlier and was used in the secret American program to make biological weapons.
That same article gives indications that she was already talking about Dr. Hatfill:
The killer, Dr. Rosenberg concludes, is "an American microbiologist who had, or once had, access to weaponized anthrax in a U.S. government lab, or had been taught by a U.S. defense expert how to make it. Perhaps he had a vial or two in his basement as a keepsake."
According to The Global Security Newswire, when she presented her theory, a U.S. representative at the conference walked out. But, it wasn't just official U.S. government representatives to the conference who didn't believe her.
"Nothing I’ve seen points it to being a government worker," said [Majorie] Pollack [an epidemiologist based in Brooklyn]. The perpetrator could be a former scientist, but might also be a disgruntled lab worker or doctoral student in the biological sciences, she said.
Pollack argues equipment that could be used to produce dry anthrax powder, like that used in the attacks, is commonly employed in commercial industries and the drying process is well described in a journal that can be found on the Internet.

"It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to translate this particle size research and get the equipment to do it," she said. "It’s a whole industry out there and if I can find this online so can somebody else."
And this:
"This is one extreme in the theorizing," Dr. Ebright [of Rutgers University] said. "There are elements that are reasonable, but elements that are not. I'm confident that she started with the insider conclusion and then selected the facts."
And Colonel Friedlander, a physician and leading anthrax expert at USAMRIID didn't buy it either:
He went on to dismiss the insider idea as improbable. Whoever made the killer anthrax, he said, "clearly knew what they were doing."
"But to make the leap that this came out of a government lab is somewhat large," he added.
He emphasized that no one in his organization, the Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, a leader in developing germ defenses, even knew how to make dry anthrax, as was found in the letters used in the attacks. Instead, he said, scientists there used wet anthrax, which is far easier to make. It is used in developing vaccines and testing their effectiveness.
We haven't had an offensive program for a long time," Colonel Friedlander said. Nobody at the Army's laboratory, he added, "has that kind of expertise."
Dr. Rosenberg's paper, "A Compilation of Evidence and Comments on the Source of the Mailed Anthrax," was dated November 29, 2001, and, according to The New York Times, was distributed on that day by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, an arms control group. (However, people from that group tell me Dr. Rosenberg merely posted it to a discussion forum on that day, and The New York Times received a copy via that forum.) It may also have been on the Federation of American Scientists' web site, but, if so, the original was replaced by a version dated December 2, 2001, before I could make a copy.
Dragging Feet at the FBI

Science Magazine wrote: "She just seems to be too anxious to pin this on [Hatfill]," says Peter Jahrling, a senior USAMRIID researcher, who says Rosenberg's comments about the case led him to decide early on that she had Hatfill in mind.

In December of 2001 and January of 2002 there were reports of the FBI having at least one suspect in the case - a suspect who did not match Dr. Hatfill's description - and, according to The New York Times, "at one point investigators said they were convinced they had their culprit. They passed the word of a pending arrest up the chain of command to President Bush, but their hopes were dashed when their quarry proved innocent". There was also news about the FBI checking copy machines at Rutgers University and Princeton University, plus there was endless speculation about the death of a Harvard University biochemist Don Wiley. There was nothing in the news about Dr. Hatfill, much less about him being a suspect.

The leaks about potential suspects apparently caused the FBI to "compartmentalize" the anthrax case, making it difficult for reporters to get information by keeping the critical information within a closed group intent on avoiding damaging leaks while trying to solve the case.

This was apparently intolerable for Dr. Rosenberg, because, in February of 2002, she again went on the offensive, becoming even more explicit in her claims that the culprit was known to the FBI and the FBI was covering up for the culprit.

"Is the FBI Dragging Its Feet?" was published on February 5, 2002. It begins,

For more than three months now the FBI has known that the perpetrator of the anthrax attacks is American. This conclusion must have been based on the perpetrator's evident connection to the US biodefense program.
She begins by jumping to conclusions and then goes into a long long list of connections which she sees as relating to the anthrax case because they happened at about the same time. The fact that that particular time was immediately after 9-11 and authorities all over the country (and around the world) were swamped with hoaxes and false alerts apparently didn't matter to her. Nor did the fact that postal authories and the FBI were investigating more than one anthrax hoax a week before 9-11. Somehow, she concludes, all the incidents that she picks from the list must be connected to the anthrax mailer.
Tying the anthrax mailer to hoaxes is pure innunendo! There's no proof for any of it!

Her theme is stated very clearly:

This evidence permits a more refined estimate of the perpetrator's motives. He must be angry at some biodefense agency or component, and he is driven to demonstrate, in a spectacular way, his capabilities and the government's inability to respond. He is cocksure that he can get away with it. Does he know something that he believes to be sufficiently damaging to the United States to make him untouchable by the FBI?
In other words, the FBI is not arresting her "suspect" because the FBI and the Bush administration are afraid the culprit will divulge secret and illegal bioweapons projects which are in violation of the BTWC.
A couple weeks later, she made a speech to about 65 students, faculty members and others at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University.

On February 19, 2002, The Daily Princetonian reported:

Barbara Hatch Rosenberg is the proponent of a new conspiracy theory. Rosenberg, a molecular biologist leading an independent investigation into last fall's anthrax attacks on behalf of the Federation of American Scientists, said in a speech yesterday that many U.S. government insiders agree on one likely perpetrator whom they believe is responsible for the attacks.
But according to Rosenberg, the government may not want to prosecute this person because he is a government insider. Taking this insider to court might require making aspects of America's secret bioweapons program public.
It wasn't really a "new conspiracy theory". It was the same old theory she'd been preaching since November: The U.S. government was making illegal biological weapons and they were covering up for the culprit because the culprit might divulge information about those illegal weapons projects.
Rosenberg noted that the U.S. government may not want to prosecute the sender of the anthrax letters publicly, because doing so might force government officials to reveal the extent of the U.S. bioweapons program.
When people at the lecture tried to reason with her, she would have none of it. According to The Trenton Times:
Another man wondered if the FBI and other investigators might be focusing too narrowly on one scientist, saying, "New Jersey is the epicenter of the international pharmaceutical industry," and many people in those labs presumably have the skills to handle and refine anthrax.
"I think your argument would have been a good one earlier on, but I think that the results of the analyses (of the letters and the anthrax in them) show that access to classified information was essential," Rosenberg said. "And that rules out most of the people in the pharmaceutical industry. . . . It's possible, but they would have had to have access to the information," Rosenberg said.
To her, the anthrax must have been developed via a secret process known only to certain people working on secret (and illegal) government projects, and it is inconceivable to her that anyone could have created the anthrax without access to that knowlege. She makes that point clearly:
"It became clear from congressional testimony that the reason for this rejection was the need to protect our secret projects," Rosenberg said.
The next day, the 20th, The Trenton Times gave the FBI's reaction:
The assertion by a biological and chemical weapons control advocate that the FBI has a prime suspect in the deadly anthrax letters case is flat-out wrong, several bureau sources said yesterday.
However, Dr. Rosenberg definitely found believers in the audience, because the news accounts generated letters and calls to Congressmen. Here's what Congressman Chris Smith has on his web site dated just three days later, February 22, 2002:
Smith took the opportunity to amplify concerns raised to him about the investigation by his constituents over the past four-plus months. A significant portion of the briefing focused on troubling allegations raised by Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, director of the Federation of American Scientists’ Chemical and Biological Weapons Program, regarding the probe.
Dr. Rosenberg's accusations and speeches were getting people upset and they were writing to their Congressmen!
And, if she didn't tell them, reporters were beginning to learn or figure out who Dr. Rosenberg's suspect was. Scott Shane of the Baltimore Sun checked out the rumor about the biocabinets for his Feb. 26 article, talking with people at USAMRIID and with Dr. Hatfill.

"We're focused that it may be an individual, possibly with an accomplice, but we're not excluding a group, either domestically or internationally," the FBI's Washington Bureau Chief Van Harp said to The Washington Post around March 4.

The Hartford Courant reported on March 4,

"These last two months, [FBI agents] have probably interviewed everyone at Fort Detrick and didn't find a suspect," he said. "They don't want to publicly rule anyone out, but their actions suggest that's what's going on. They don't think it's anybody who currently works at Detrick."
One scientist who is undoubtedly on the FBI's list of "persons of interest" is Joseph Farchaus, who co-authored a paper on inhalation anthrax before he left his job at Fort Detrick in 1999.
But top government officials, including White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, broke their silence twice in the past two weeks, both times to deny reports that they have focused their search on a single former Fort Detrick scientist. Fleischer announced that the FBI actually had a "handful" of suspects, prompting bureau officials to clarify that they had a "floating list" of about 20 names, but that none was considered a suspect.
The current round of speculation about a suspect appears to have stemmed largely from statements by Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, a microbiologist and expert in bioweapons control for the Federation of American Scientists.
The Frederick News-Post went a bit further, with this:
No Fort Detrick scientist, past or present, is probably a suspect in the anthrax letter case, according to the Hartford, Conn., Courant.
On March 11, 2002, The New Yorker printed the results of an interview with Dr. Rosenberg in which she all but named Dr. Hatfill, and concluded that the culprit was trying to make a point about how competent he is and how his "career setbacks" were unwarranted. The New Yorker adds,
In a more benign way, Rosenberg is trying to prove a point, too. The United States officially forswore biological-weapons development in 1969, and signed the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention, along with many other nations. But Rosenberg believes that the American bioweapons program, which won't allow itself to be monitored, may not be in strict compliance with the convention. If the perpetrator of the anthrax attacks is who she thinks it is, that would put the American program in a bad light, and it would prove that she was right to demand that the program be monitored.
While the number of people actually under suspicion was probably still very small, Dr. Rosenberg probably would have been climbing the walls if she read the April 9, 2002, report in USA Today:
Potential suspects with the scientific expertise to carry out last year's deadly anthrax attacks are believed to number in the ''thousands,'' far more than the dozens previously reported, a senior federal law enforcement official said Monday.
Dr. Hatfill is Fired
Dr. Hatfill claims that the attention he was receiving from the media that March as a result of Dr. Rosenberg's campaign caused him to lose his job with Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), a contractor for the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency.

Yet, the media attention was still far from what it would be in a few months. So, Dr. Hatfill was able to get another job with Louisiana State University. And he remained in Maryland for awhile, delaying his move to Louisiana, in order to complete work (unpaid) that he'd begun at SAIC. While Barbara Hatch Rosenberg didn't like him, clearly a lot of people who actually knew him did like him and his work.

Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal on June 3, 2002, in spite of all logic, was continuing to point at Iraq and al Qaeda as the most likely source of the anthrax mailings. As far as the WSJ was concerned, "The 'lone wolf' theory is evidence of the Bureau's ineptitude." And they called for FBI reform.

The media seemed to know how to play only three anthrax songs: "Dr. Hatfill Did It", "Arabs Did It", and "The FBI Is Incompetent And Doesn't Have The Slightest Idea Who Did It"... Rag.

(During the past year and a half, I've been in contact with between one and two dozen people who have told the FBI about people they "suspect" of being the anthrax mailer - "suspects" which range from scientists to next door neighbors to politicians and right wingers. And I've talked with reporters who have had similar contacts. "Everyone has a theory." The one trait that is universal among these "FBI informants" is that they couldn't get the FBI to hop to it, to thoroughly investigate their "suspect" and to report back with the findings. Apparently Dr. Rosenberg had the same problem.)

When Barbara Hatch Rosenberg didn't get what she wanted from the FBI, she prepared another scathing document detailing the FBI's lack of acceptance of her innuendoes and conspiracy theories. It launched a new, major offensive:

"What The FBI Knows"

On June 13, 2002, Dr. Rosenberg distributed a paper that detailed her "case" and how it was being ignored by the FBI. The original is HERE. That paper created a furor unlike anything she'd previously accomplished. What follows is the entire document with my comments added.

The Anthrax Case: What the FBI Knows
13 June 2002
Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, PhD

On February 5 I raised the question "Is the FBI Dragging Its Feet?" Nearly four months later, the question is
more urgent than ever. In the interim I have largely avoided commenting on the situation, not wishing to interfere with investigation of promising leads the FBI had received. Now, however, nearly everyone who has followed the situation closely-knowledgeable biodefense insiders, investigative reporters (who have turned up a great many pertinent facts that have not yet been reported), and interested outsiders like myself--knows who a likely perpetrator is. The FBI continues to claim that it has no suspects and few clues, but it continues to focus on biodefense scientists with anthrax experience.

Interpretation: She and others have sent "pertinent facts" to the FBI, but neither those "facts" nor the result of the FBI's investigation of those "facts" has been reported in the media. The person she and her fellow amateur detectives believe is the "likely perpetrator" is still free.

The Available Evidence
All the information below has been in the hands of the FBI for a long time. Some of it-but perhaps not all-is widely known. It has been necessary, for obvious reasons, to describe some pieces of evidence in attenuated form, and to omit some altogether.

1. The Anthrax Strain-All the genetic evidence presently available points to the US Army Medical Research
Institute for Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) as the source of the Ames strain anthrax in the letters. Additional analyses may implicate some additional laboratories (that were originally supplied with the Ames strain by USAMRIID) as possible sources.

[Why did the FBI wait until March before collecting samples from all laboratories possessing the Ames strain,
and why have they still not been analysed? Was it inefficiency or did the FBI have reason to believe from the
start that USAMRIID was the source?]

Interpretation: The FBI isn't telling the world about her "information", so she's going to do it. Evidence Item #1: the anthrax came from USAMRIID or from some source supplied by USAMRIID, but the FBI has been too slow in collecting information to prove it. Is that because they already know who did it but are covering up for him?

2. Properties and Composition of the Anthrax Samples-A biodefense insider who has hands-on experience in
weaponizing anthrax says the Daschle sample corresponds to state-of-the-art US anthrax preparations. A number of other inside experts concur. The perpetrator may well be one of those who helped perfect the US technique. No other country is known to have comparable capability.

Interpretation: Some "inside experts" believe the anthrax was made with state-of-the-art US technology, and it doesn't matter that other experts who have actually seen the anthrax say this is nonsense and that it could have been made by any competent biology grad student.

3. US Official Statements-Ever since late October, soon after the anthrax letters were first recognized (Oct. 12),
US officials have stated their belief that the attack was domestic.
[Either that belief was based entirely on the nature of the anthrax, or something more, not yet revealed, was
known early on by officials. The longer the investigation drags on without results, the more plausible becomes
the question of a possible cover-up.]

Interpretation: Any attempt by the FBI to be certain of who did it and how it was done is proof of a cover-up.

4. The Pool of Possible Suspects-Biodefense scientists have estimated that there are between 50-100 persons
with the necessary expertise and access to do the job. Of these, most could probably be readily eliminated on the basis of circumstances, current immunization, personality, etc., leaving, in the estimation of knowledgeable
experts, a likely pool no larger than 10.
[Why has the FBI continued to cast a very broad net?]

Interpretation: Experts may believe that any biology grad student could have made the anthrax, but she doesn't.

5. The Likely Suspect--Early in the investigation, a number of inside experts (at least five that I know about)
gave the FBI the name of one specific person as the most likely suspect. That person fits the FBI profile in most respects. He has the right skills, experience with anthrax, up-to-date anthrax vaccination, forensic training, and access to USAMRIID and its biological agents through 2001.

Interpretation: Amateur detectives have told the FBI that Dr. Steven J. Hatfill is the culprit, but the FBI isn't releasing that information to the entire world. And they are not reporting back to the cabal.

6. The Anthrax Letters-According to experts the handwriting is disguised, the text is intentionally "foreign," the letters show evidence of forensic expertise.
[An FBI consultant who was asked to analyse the letters months ago has not yet been supplied with writing
examples by possible suspects, for purposes of comparison.]

Interpretation: While FBI handwriting experts may have found that Dr. Hatfill's handwriting doesn't match that on the anthrax letters, the FBI hasn't allowed publicity hungry Shakespeare scholar Don Foster to give an official opinion. Is that proof of a cover-up?

7. Relevant False-Anthrax (Hoax) Letters-Following the anthrax letters, at least three of the five anthrax letter
targets (NBC, NY Post, Sen. Daschle) were sent letters similar in handwriting and text to the anthrax letters but
containing an innocuous powder. (It is possible that the other two targets (National Observer, Sen. Leahy) were
also sent hoax letters that were lost because of mail complications.) Additional, similar hoax letters were also
sent to two other media: the NY Times and the St. Petersburg Times. All but one of these five hoax letters were mailed BEFORE anything was known about the anthrax letters. The likelihood that the hoax letters were
coincidental is therefore small.
[But these hoax letters were assigned to a separate FBI task force, presumably investigating a large number of
other, mostly irrelevant hoax letters, rather than to the anthrax task force. The anthrax document analyst has
not yet been given all the relevant hoax letters. Even an FBI agent on the anthrax case has been unable to
access some possibly relevant hoax letters.]

Interpretation: Everything that happened around that time must be connected, yet the FBI is investigating anthrax hoaxes as if they are not connected. Is this proof of a cover-up?

8. The London Hoax Letter-The exceptional hoax letter, to Senator Daschle, was mailed from London in
mid-November. This could be an important piece of evidence, depending on the whereabouts and activities of
likely suspects at that time.
[Whether there has been any follow-up on this clue is not known. At the least, however, there is ancillary
evidence that has not been pursued. Furthermore, the FBI has not given this letter to the anthrax letter
analysts.]

Interpretation: This particular hoax letter was mailed while Dr. Hatfill was in England - and the writer tried to "mimic" the anthrax letters. The fact that Dr. Rosenberg and some of the other amateur detectives in her cabal were also in Europe at that same time to attend the BTWC in Geneva appears to be immaterial to her. And, to her, the fact that the letter is "the focus of a criminal investigation" seems to be proof of a cover-up.

9. The Accusatory Letter-On Sept. 21, three days after the first anthrax mailing and before any letters or anthrax cases were in the news, an anonymous typed letter was mailed to Quantico accusing an Egyptian-American scientist, formerly of USAMRIID, of plotting biological terrorism. The accused scientist was quickly exonerated by the FBI. The letter's writer displayed familiarity with work at USAMRIID and claimed to have formerly worked with the accused scientist.
[This letter is not part of the anthrax investigation! Because it was received before the anthrax attacks were
known, it was assigned to the Sept. 11 investigation, and the anthrax investigators have displayed no interest in
it. But whether it was sent by the anthrax perpetrator, a colleague of his, or someone else, the letter may
constitute a significant piece of evidence. The odds are high that it was written by a Federal scientist.
Admittedly, an anonymous letter of accusation is not a capital offense; is the FBI therefore squeamish about
investigating an official?]

Interpretation: The FBI isn't persuing the anthrax case the way Dr. Rosenberg thinks it should be persued.

10. The Suspect's Home and Computer-The FBI was warned early on that the Suspect probably prepared the
anthrax on his own and that he might have cultures or equipment at his home. Moreover, his computer/copier/fax may have been used to make the photocopied letters that were mailed with the anthrax.
[Although there was a "reasonable indication of criminal activity" when the FBI was advised to search, they did not do so until months later, with the permission of the Suspect.]

Interpretation: Dr. Hatfill's apartment wasn't immediately searched as soon as Dr. Rosenberg and her band of amateur detectives told the FBI that Dr. Hatfill may have incriminating equipment and anthrax cultures there. It was only searched later and with the suspect's permission.

11. Preparation of Anthrax Simulant-Did the Suspect prepare and provide certain government officials with
powdered spores of B. globigii, an anthrax simulant?
[If so, did the FBI investigate the properties of this material and the place where it was prepared?]

Interpretation: Dr. Hatfill used powdered spores of B. globigii as an anthrax simulant in some secret training for American forces preparing to go into Afghanistan and elsewhere. Where did the simulant come from? (Dr. Hatfill worked with William Patrick III on some of these training exercises and William Patrick III indicated in a PBS TV appearance on NOVA that the simulant was made in a lab at USAMRIID. There's no indication of exactly how it was made.)

12. Remote Location-The Suspect had access to a conveniently-located but remote location where activities
could have been conducted without risk of observation. According to insider experts, there are methods by which the perpetrator alone could have made the anthrax and filled the letters in such a location. Details of the methods have been communicated to the FBI.
Recent information obtained by the NY Times (3 May 02) that the NBC and NY Post anthrax samples contained
vegetative cells suggests that the perpetrator made two anthrax preparations: one of lower quality, made
hurriedly after Sept. 11 and mailed on Sept. 18; and another, more refined, mailed on Oct. 9. The finding that the tape used to seal all the letters came from the same roll indicates that the containment set-up used for making the anthrax and filling the letters must have remained accessible from before Sept. 18 until close to Oct. 9 (otherwise the roll used in the first instance would have been destroyed in decontaminating the first set-up). This suggests the perpetrator had confidence in his clandestine arrangements.

There is also evidence,which can't be cited publicly at this time, that the Suspect knew in October that the remote site was contaminated with anthrax.

[Did the FBI search this site as soon as they learned about it?]

Interpretation: This is about the so-called "secret cabin in the woods" which turned out to be a three bedroom home owned by a friend of Dr. Hatfill and where Dr. Hatfill attended parties. The reference to the "remote site" being contaminated is probably a reference to Dr. Hatfill's comments about Cipro.

13. The Suspect's Whereabouts-Where was he between Sept. 11 and Oct. 9?
[There is reason to doubt that the Suspect's employer/colleagues were asked about this before the facts had faded from memory.]

Interpretation: If Dr. Rosenberg doesn't know what the FBI learned about Dr. Hatfill's whereabouts at the time of the mailings, then the FBI can't know anything. (According to The New York Times, the FBI actually "compiled a minute-by-minute timeline of Dr. Hatfill's whereabouts on days when the anthrax-tainted letters were mailed.") The FBI may have investigated Dr. Hatfill's whereabouts down to minute-by-minute detail, but they weren't reporting back to Dr. Rosenberg, and that made her upset!

14. Bioterror Scenarios-It has been part of the Suspect's job to devise bioterror scenarios. Some of these are on record. He is known to have acted out at least one of them (in hoax form), perhaps as part of an assignment to test responses. Some hoax events that have never been solved, including several hoax-anthrax events, also
correspond to his scenarios and are consistent with his whereabouts.
[Are any of these past hoaxes being investigated in the context of the anthrax investigation? The lack of access
by anthrax investigators to hoax information suggests that the answer is no.]

Interpretation: If Dr. Hatfill was in the same hemisphere where an anthrax hoax occurred, he probably did it.

15. Secret Projects-The Suspect worked at USAMRIID at one time, probably in a secret project, with access to
top secret agents. He has also had other interesting connections.
[Has the FBI asked USAMRIID for his lab notebook from that period? Did he have one? Is there fear that the
Suspect might divulge secret information, or even threaten to release a biological agent, if he were threatened
with arrest? Are DOD and CIA withholding information from the FBI about his relevant activities? According to ABC News (Apr. 4) and The American Prospect (May 20), FBI investigators are concerned that the US military is not telling them all they need to know about secret biodefense programs. There is also a rumor that DOD has conducted an internal investigation at USAMRIID to prevent leaks to the FBI.]

Interpretation: It's all part of a secret and illegal government program.

16. Clique of Colleagues-The Suspect is part of a clique that includes high-level former USAMRIID scientists
and high-level former FBI officials. Some of these people may wish to conceal any suspicions they may have
about the identity of the perpetrator, in order to protect programs and sensitive information. This group very
likely agreed with David Franz, former Commander of USAMRIID, when he said "I think a lot of good has come from it. From a biological or a medical standpoint, we've now five people who have died, but we've put about $6 billion in our budget into defending against bioterrorism" (ABC News, 4 Apr. 02).
[By the end of May, not all of these people had been questioned by the FBI. Will they be polygraphed? Are the
polygraph questions specific and tough?]

Interpretation: Everyone who opposes adding an inspections clause to the BTWC is suspect. They're all scheming together.

17. Motivation-Late last summer the Suspect had a career setback that challenged his high ambitions and left
him angry and depressed. Quite possibly he interpreted the event as indicating lack of appreciation both for him
and for the magnitude of the biological weapons threat. Perhaps he decided to mount an anthrax attack that
would kill few people, if any, but would wake up the country and prove that he was right. Or perhaps the letters
were actually an official assignment (after all, in the '60s DOD sprayed our own service men with nerve gas to
test their protective equipment, according to Pentagon documents made public on May 23).

Interpretation: Either Dr. Hatfill sent the anthrax letters on his own accord or he was working for the Bush administration in a plot to undermine the BTWC.

18. Containment of the Suspect-Not long ago, actions were taken that could curtail the Suspect's career and
separate him from sensitive matters; but there is also evidence for efforts by some officials to reverse the
situation.
[Will the Suspect gradually fade from sight? Has a deal been made? Or will he be rehabilitated and rewarded
for his service? Will there be no prosecution, no public notice, no deterrence of similar acts by others in the
future?]

Interpretation: If a band of rumor mongers and amateur detectives point at a suspect, that suspect should never be allowed to work in the government ever again - and any attempt to allow him to work is a criminal act.

19. The FBI-The anthrax attack was a crime by an American against Americans. Solving such crimes has been
the FBI's mission. Failure cannot be blamed on lack of foreign intelligence.
[In the face of hundreds of domestic anthrax hoaxes in recent years, the FBI told the Wall St. Journal (25 Mar.
02) that it was ready for other modes of bioattack, but never anticipated delivery by mail! However, the FBI's
behavioral analysis of the perpetrator, released in November 2001, indicated that he may have utilized the mail
(without actual anthrax) for harassment on previous occasions. Meanwhile, before Sept. 11 the Canadians
carried out two studies of anthrax delivery by mail, and their results may have been available to Fort Detrick in
advance of the attacks.]

Intepretation: Although the FBI and postal authorities investigated about 80 anthrax hoaxes a year prior to 9-11, they should have realized that someone would actually send anthrax through the mails after 9-11?

The FBI has stated more than once that it insists upon 100% proof before making an arrest in this case-a very
stringent requirement. Why? --Either the FBI is under pressure from DOD or CIA not to proceed because the
Suspect knows too much and must be controlled forever from the moment of arrest; [For the good of the country, is it really more important to hide what he knows than to let justice be served?]
--or the FBI is sympathetic to the views of the biodefense clique;
--or the FBI really is as incompetent as it seems.
Fragmentation of investigative activities and undue control of investigators by a less-informed hierarchy seem to be the hallmarks of the anthrax investigation. This profoundly unscientific approach eliminates the
cross-fertilization that can occur when seemingly isolated facts are brought together. There has been a tendency to write off a direction of inquiry, or to swing radically in the opposite direction, on the basis of superficial results or incomplete data. The likely outcome for the investigation is continued stalemate, marking time on the off-chance that an unknown informer will turn up with a smoking gun. Maybe time is not a factor in the typical FBI case, but in the anthrax case, rapid resolution is critical. The significance of the anthrax attacks and our response to it cannot be overstated. By breaking the taboo on the use of bioweapons, this event has engendered a future threat that could dwarf 9/11.

Interpretation: Forget about facts! If a bunch of rumor mongers and amateur detectives think that Dr. Hatfill did it, that should be enough to arrest him! If it isn't, that's proof that the FBI is either involved in a conspiracy or incompetent.

A Meeting With Senate Staffers

Here's what one reporter says happened next:

Soon after releasing "What the FBI Knows," Rosenberg presented her paper to Sen. Tom Daschle and Sen. Patrick Leahy, both of whose offices received anthrax-laced letters in 2001. She was then invited to brief the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee. She became the most well-known watchdog on the case. "I was very frustrated," she says now, adding that soon after her presentation before Congress, the FBI started to become much more aggressive in its investigation. In other words, the FBI went after Hatfill publicly.
Other reports say that she just met with Senate staffers, so it's not certain she actually talked to Daschle and Leahy, much less to those committees. Those reports also say that representatives of the FBI were there for the meeting and were "livid" over her accusations that they were covering up for Dr. Hatfill.
Whether it was part of her plan or not is unknown, but her meeting with the Senate staffers did the trick. The FBI finally did what she wanted.

The FBI Reacts!

On June 25, 2002, the FBI searched Steven J. Hatfill's apartment - and the media was there in force. It was a media feeding frenzy. How did the media learn about it? On an NPR report, the FBI said that they had questioned all the FBI personnel involved, and none of them leaked anything to the media ahead of time. And a letter from Assistant Attorney General to Senator Charles Grassley dated November 4, 2002, says:

When the FBI conducted a consensual search of Dr. Hatfill's apartment on June 25, 2002, in Frederick, Maryland, the mainstream media immediately interpreted this search as confirmation of all the speculation that had been previously circulating about Dr. Hatfill. The FBI was asked whether Dr. Hatfill was a suspect in the case and when an arrest was anticipated. It was under these circumstances that unnamed sources at the FBI first described Steven Hatfill as one of many "persons of interest". ... The phrase was never used by the FBI or the Department of Justice to draw media attention to Dr. Hatfill. On the contrary, the phrase was used to deflect media scrutiny from Dr. Hatfill and to explain that he was just one of many scientists who had been inteviewed by the FBI and who were cooperating with the anthrax investigation.
Other stories were saying that the media were tipped off by Dr. Hatfill's neighbors. However the media learned about the search, it was a media event.
While The Washington Postonly mentioned the search without identifying the person, The New York Times put Dr. Hatfill's name in the public domain:

Dr. Hatfill, 48, had been the subject of Web site gossip among scientists, journalists and other professionals about possible domestic suspects in last year's anthrax attacks. After reporters pursued him, he was fired in March from his job at Science Applications International Corporation, a contractor for the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency that helps the government with germ defenses.
The Baltimore Sun also reported on Dr. Hatfill by name:
Dr. Steven J. Hatfill, 48, has not been charged or identified by the FBI as a suspect. He worked at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, the top military bioterrorism research facility, for about two years in the late 1990s.
Like other researchers in the field, he has been vaccinated against anthrax, has had access to labs where it is stored and has some knowledge of its use as a weapon, according to former colleagues. Those factors brought his name to the attention of the FBI several months ago.
Reporters began calling everyone Dr. Hatfill ever knew to find out what they could learn. There was a deluge of media stories about Dr. Hatfill, examining every detail of his life and speculating on every aspect of the case.
And the media began to learn that all the "evidence" Barbara Hatch Rosenberg and her fellow amateur detectives had was mainly innuendo and rumor - the vast majority of which was total baloney! The secret cabin in the woods was a three bedroom home owned by a friend of Hatfill's, he was not up-to-date on his anthrax shots, he had never worked with anthrax, he didn't have the "bench skills" to make the anthrax, etc.

The Hartford Courant asked, Is Dr. Hatfill "a pawn in an FBI attempt to recharge its stalled anthrax investigation, or a potential suspect who holds critical clues to solving the case"?

The July 23, 2002, issue of Newsday said this:

"Dozens of theories as to who was responsible have appeared in the media since last fall, mostly relying on information from non-FBI sources. FBI insiders, however, say no published account has correctly disclosed the investigation's leading hypotheses."
Meanwhile, Dr. Hatfill's new employer, The Louisiana State University, was also contacted, giving this information to The Baltimore Sun:
Hatfill started July 1 as associate director of Louisiana State University's National Center for Biomedical Research and Training, which is supported by grants from the Justice Department to train emergency personnel to handle bioterrorist attacks.
Stephen L. Guillot Jr., director of the center, said he was contacted by the FBI a few days after agents searched Hatfill's apartment near Fort Detrick and a storage unit he had rented in Ocala, Fla.
"They told me Steve was not a suspect and was not on any list," Guillot said. He said he was satisfied that Hatfill had been cleared of any role in the anthrax mailings.
On August 1, 2002, the FBI conducted another search of Dr. Hatfill's apartment after he began throwing out trash prior to moving to Louisiana. The media went wild over this. Was he throwing out evidence?
CBS reported this in the morning:

Federal law enforcement sources told CBS News that Dr. Steven Hatfill was "the chief guy we're looking at" in the probe. The sources were careful not to use the word suspect, but said they were "zeroing in on this guy" and that he is "the focus of the investigation."
But in the afternoon version all that was missing. Instead of being the "central focus" of the investigation, Hatfill was changed to "a central figure".
In one of the more unbelievable articles about the case, Newsweek told of bloodhounds being used to match scents from the anthrax letters to Hatfill. Even though those scents were taken from envelopes which had been handled by many people and stored away from months, they were apparently so powerful that the dogs began barking as soon as they approach Hatfill's apartment building, and they reportedly also reacted at a Denny's restaurant where Dr. Hatfill had eaten the day before. It seemed to be obvious nonsense to many experts. Some authorities even said that Newsweek got it "completely wrong", and the FBI said they gave no such information to the media.

Newsweek did say, "Officials have been particularly careful to point out that Hatfill is one of 'around 12' people they are looking at. They say he is not a suspect, or even a target of the investigation." But then Newsweek explained that the FBI didn't want another Richard Jewell situation.

Other articles reported that the FBI was checking Dr. Hatfill's background from the time he spent in Africa a decade earlier. Did he really help infect ten thousand Africans with anthrax? Apparently no innuendo was too ridiculous to investigate. And the fact that the FBI was investigating seemed to many to be proof that there was something to the Hatfill "case".

But at least one observant reporter asked if the media was generating a false cloud of suspicion over Dr. Hatfill. And in August The Washington Times reported that Dr. Rosenberg had been contacted by the FBI asking "whether a team of government scientists could be trying to frame Steven J. Hatfill".

Dr. Hatfill went before the media twice to try to explain what was being done to him, but it just seemed to make matters worse. It put a face to all the rumors and innuendo being reported by the media.

Why didn't the debunking of all the rumors and innuendo cause the media to turn away from listening to Dr. Rosenberg? Apparently because the media wasn't thinking, they were only reacting. And they had no one else to focus their attention upon! Dr. Rosenberg was the only game in town.

The media dug and dug but could find nothing that would incriminate Dr. Hatfill, and they found only the opposite - that the rumors were false - so they seemed to settle on the fact that he had some incorrect information on some of his resumés. Major articles were written about information in his resumés. The implication seemed to be that if a person wasn't 100 percent truthful on his resumé he could definitely be a mass murderer.

In mid-August the FBI did what nearly everyone considered to be absolute lunacy. Almost a year after the letters had been mailed, and after Dr. Hatfill had been on nearly every TV in the country, the FBI went door to door in Princeton to ask people if they had ever seen Dr. Hatfill in the vicinity!

How could they do such a thing? At that point in time, it could only hurt any legal case they might have against Dr. Hatfill. But apparently the amateur detectives led by Dr. Rosenberg had learned how to push the FBI's buttons to get them to act. And the FBI was hopping to it.

Next the rumor mongers apparently pushed the button to get Dr. Hatfill fired from his new job at Louisiana State University. Dr. Hatfill was suddenly fully unemployed, and it was beginning to look like he'd never be employed again if the rumor mongers could do anything about it.

There were many news articles questioning the FBI's handling of the investigation, particularly as it related to Dr. Hatfill. But Dr. Rosenberg's role in starting it all was virtually forgotten.

However, she was still around, and it seems that she or someone with the same frame of mind pushed that FBI button again that winter.

The Pond Probe

When I first heard that the FBI was actually going to spend money investigating a hypothetical idea Dr. Hatfill told someone at a cocktail party, I was stunned. Had this idiotic snowball of innuendo really gotten totally out of control?

The story broke on December 12 and 13, 2002. Fox, ABC, UPI, The Baltimore Sun and The Frederick News-Post all had articles about it. The Hatfill case was alive again! Divers were going to look for evidence in a frozen pond in the Maryland mountains!

They found nothing incriminating, of course. But that didn't mean anything. To conspiracy theorists, if you haven't found the proof they know is there, it just means you haven't searched hard enough.

The following spring the FBI returned to spend a quarter million dollars to drain the pond and to poke through the muck at the bottom. They found a plastic box, and the media was filled with speculation about it. Could it be a makeshift glovebox? Was it used underwater to protect the culprit from the anthrax? (The insanity of this suggestion is mind-boggling.) Maybe it was used elsewhere and thrown into the pond. The idea that it might just have been a simple plastic box that someone threw into the pond was apparently never considered. Nor were basic questions of why there were apparently no traces of the long rubber gloves that would have had to have been used to turn the plastic "sweater box" into a biological glovebox. Gloves were found, but they were not gloves that belonged to a glove box.

It was just plain ridiculous, but the media bought into it hook line and sinker. When asked about it, the answer appeared to be "There's no proof that what the FBI found was NOT evidence, so until they say it is just typical junk from the bottom of a pond, the assumption is that it is evidence." If the FBI is spending so much time and money on this, there must be something to it!

How can the FBI ever state with certainty that such junk is not related to the anthrax case?

Barbara Hatch Rosenberg's "Hypothesis"

Until July 17, 2003, Barbara Hatch Rosenberg had been maintaining the claim that she had never mentioned anyone by name and that if the FBI was investigating anyone, it must mean that the FBI had good reason to do so. She put this on the Federation of American Scientists web site:

I have never mentioned any names in connection with the anthrax investigation, not to the FBI, nor to media, nor to Senate Committees or staffs, not to anyone. I have never said or written anything publicly that pointed only to one specific person. Anyone who sees parallels is expressing his own opinion.
It is the FBI that has gone out of its way to make one suspect's name public. I presume they must have had some good reason for doing that; only time will tell. But if the publicity was not an important part of their investigative strategy, I think it was reprehensible.
Dr. Hatfill's name had returned to the media again on July 2, 2003, when The New York Times broke the "news" that Dr. Hatfill had been training the military on how to locate, identify and destroy biological weapons facilities. This was "news" that anyone following the case knew long ago because of the debunked stories that he had used some discarded biocabinets to do his dirty deeds. Those cabinets, according to an article in The Baltimore Sun dated February 22, 2002, were used "in a classified Defense Department project that [Hatfill] could not discuss". (The cabinets were later destroyed as part of a military exercise.)
The fact that Dr. Hatfill worked on a mock-up of a trailer that would be used in training soldiers was somehow seen as sinister to many in the media. And they were saying that it was this training that led the FBI to look at Dr. Hatfill as a "person of interest" in the case! No mention of Barbara Hatch Rosenberg's role in pointing to Dr. Hatfill. And little interest in the truth. The New York Times reported that the mock-up contained a fermenter and a mill for grinding anthrax. Other sources - including people who actually saw the mock-up say it was just an empty shell and had no such equipment. Moreover, it wasn't designed to be a mock-up for a lab that would manufacture bateria! The New York Times apparently knew this, but chose to report on the fermenter and milling equipment anyway.

It was this article that caused Barbara Hatch Rosenberg on July 17, 2003, to submit to a Federation of American Scientists discussion forum an "hypothesis" regarding the mock-up bioweapons labs Dr. Hatfill had helped to build. Her "hypothesis" showed up in my e-mail:

Hypothesis regarding US trailer lab

Based on articles in NY Times 2 July 03, Washington Post 3 July 03 and Baltimore Sun 3 July 03 and on discussions with knowledgeable sources
Barbara Hatch Rosenberg
1. Hatfill started collecting and storing BW-relevant equipment in 2000 or perhaps before, on his own. He may or may not have had a clear purpose in mind.
2. In September 01, right after 9/11 and concurrent with the anthrax letters, the purpose was clear. He began to construct a BW production unit on a trailer at a metalworking plant on the outskirts of Frederick, MD.
3. Then, or at some time in the next few months, he proposed to DTRA that they support the project, and they agreed to do so through SAIC. Joseph Soucup and William Patrick (both connected with SAIC) were collaborators on the project.
4. In March 02, when Hatfill was fired by SAIC, the project was not finished yet (this indicates that he must have been doing it mostly single-handedly). He then continued to work on it, either on his own or with continuing DTRA support at least for construction costs, with or without going through SAIC. The project was completed in the summer of 02.
5. The FBI, which was keeping an eye on Hatfill in the summer of 02, undoubtedly was aware of his work on the trailer. FBI agents spent two weeks studying it in Frederick (according to a “source close to the case” cited in the Balt. Sun, probably an FBI source) and apparently found no anthrax evidence.
6. There is no reason to suppose that ALL of the equipment collected earlier was used for the trailer project.
7. The trailer was then hidden in order to prevent the FBI from confiscating it.
8. When the question of possible Iraqi mobile BW facilities came to the fore last fall, the Delta Force at Ft. Bragg became interested in using the trailer for training. The trailer was located and hauled to Fort Bragg. On the way, “FBI agents and experts” checked it again and tried to confiscate it but were prevented by DOD.
9. Training at Ft. Bragg, using the trailer, was conducted last fall by Hatfill and Patrick. SAIC says Hatfill did no work for them and received no pay after March 02. Whether Hatfill (who no longer had any form of clearance and was under investigation by the FBI) received payment from DOD for his training work at Fort Bragg is unknown.
10. Several weeks before the news abroke on 2 July 03, the Washington Post reporter was told about the trailer by a friend of Hatfill’s, as a demonstration of Hatfill’s patriotism and public service. Shortly before the news broke, the reporter spoke with another close friend of Hatfill’s. Word got back to the NY Times and government officials, who, realizing that the story was about to become public, quickly gave their desired spin on it to the NY Times, allowing them to scoop the Post.
The "hypothesis" was so filled with false information, crass innuendo and screwball logic that it was difficult to determine where to begin when debunking it. It certainly demonstrated that Dr. Rosenberg had not learned to check facts before releasing innuendo.
According to the July 3, 2003, Frederick News-Post:

Dr. Hatfill was regarded as an expert in the bioweapons field and worked as a consultant, providing technical expertise in the construction of some mock exercise sites involving weapons of mass destruction, according to a Department of Defense spokesman.
"He had a role in acquiring models or old unusable equipment that could be placed in these labs," said Col. Bill Darley, spokesman for the U.S. Special Operations Command in Tampa, Fla. "He had a role putting together labs that looked like the kind of labs we could see in other countries."
So, Dr. Hatfill was doing what he was hired for by a government agency. To some who totally distrust everything the government does, that is undoubtedly very sinister. The article went on:
According to the DOD, there are more than one of these labs in the United States, which have been built at various locations. The mobile germ labs are mock-ups and completely nonfunctional. Special Operation forces use the units to learn how to detect and disarm mobile germ labs such as the ones suspected in Iraq and other countries.
So, there were more than one of these nonfunctional mock-up labs. The News-Post article then added:
Dr. Hatfill did not have unsupervised or unrestricted access to the facilities or equipment he helped build, the DOD said.
"You would not have a contractor have unescorted access to a site," Col. Darley said.
Col. Darley also said that the government frequently contracts with businesses, such as A.F.W. Fabrication, even with sensitive activities like the construction of the mobile germ labs.
So, contrary to what Barbara Hatch Rosenberg implied, Dr. Hatfill clearly did NOT work alone at building the mobile lab. The fact that it took so long could have been more related to how long it took to scrounge up the scrapped and nonfunctioning equipment than to the fact that only one person was working on it. And the equipment had to be located, negotiated for and transported to A.F.W. Fabrication.
It seemed to be really really sleazy innuendo and totally crazy to suggest that Dr. Hatfill dreamed up the idea of a mobile lab right after 9-11 and was able to initiate such a project at a government contrator A.F.W. Fabrication on such short notice and with his own money. And Dr. Rosenberg seemed to be suggesting that he was not only building the mock-up lab by himself but also making highly-refined anthrax somewhere all by himself.

As soon as I put her "hypothesis" on my web site I received received this e-mail:

Dear Mr. Lake,
Mr. Hatfill just called us here at the Federation of American Scientists (FAS). He was upset about an email that Barbara Rosenberg had sent out regarding her hypothesis about Hatfill. Rosenberg is not an employee of FAS. She is affiliated with FAS through her participation with the Biological Weapons Working Group. The Working Group is focused primarily on issues related to the verification protocol of the biological weapons convention. In the past, she has used her FAS affiliation when speaking about Mr. Hatfill. FAS takes no position regarding Mr. Hatfill. We have a disclaimer to that effect on our website. In two cases in which Rosenberg’s FAS affiliation has been noted in newspaper articles, we have written letters to the editor disavowing her speculation (although the letter was published in only one case). What she has done in this case is send an email out to a distribution list through the FAS server. It is clear from your introduction that she is not representing an FAS position but it is perhaps possible that someone who is familiar with the history and is so predisposed could come away with the impression that she is. So I am hoping, for the benefit of FAS and of Mr. Hatfill, that you could include in your next update just one sentence reminding your readers that this is Rosenberg speaking, not FAS. If you want to speak to me directly, please feel free to call at [xxx-xxx-xxxx].

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,
Ivan Oelrich

Director
Strategic Security Project
Federation of American Scientists

I called Director Oelrich and asked if I could place his entire e-mail message on my site. He readily gave his approval.
Why isn't the proof that Dr. Hatfill couldn't have done it reported more widely? He was working long hours at the time of the mailings, and the FBI did a minute-by-minute check to confirm that. Dr. Hatfill says he never worked with anthrax, and there's no one who has ever contradicted that. He says he passed his lie detector test when asked about the anthrax attacks. No one says he didn't. The FBI says they have no information that he was anywhere near Trenton area at the time of the mailings. They say he doesn't have the necessary bench skills to make the anthrax. How can such facts be unimportant while rumor and innuendo is considered so important and newsworthy?

Occasionally, new "evidence" pops up that helps show that Dr. Hatfill could not have been the anthrax mailer. For instance, on NPR's Morning Edition for July 24, 2003, they explained where Dr. Hatfill was on the weekend before the Oct. 9 mailing. People had argued that, because Monday Oct. 8, 2001, was Columbus day and there were no mail pickups, Dr. Hatfill could have driven to Princeton on the weekend to mail the letters. But the NPR feature said that it had been confirmed that on Saturday
October 6, Dr. Hatfill was at a wedding in Baltimore with his girlfriend. And on Sunday the 7th he was "sleeping it off" at his girlfriend's apartment in the Washington area.

It wouldn't convince any true believers, of course. Only a firm statement by the FBI might do that. And it would have to be more than just endlessly repeating that Dr. Hatfill is not a "suspect" and had never been a "suspect" in the anthrax mailings. The American public was conditioned to seeing such statements as just a double-talk way of saying that Dr. Hatill really was a "suspect" but the FBI doesn't want to say so because it would put Dr. Hatfill in the public eye as had the FBI had done with Richard Jewell. So, the FBI wasn't going to make that same mistake again.

What Should The FBI Do?

Assuming that the FBI did cave in and allow innuendo and rumor mongering from amateur detectives - plus political pressure from Congressmen - to push them into that public search of Dr. Hatfill's apartment which truly turned his life into a living hell and a media circus, is there any way the FBI can correct the situation? What are the FBI's options? There don't seem to be very many:

1. Could the FBI simply shut down the Hatfill "surveillance" and walk away from it? Would that work if the amateur detective scientists and the media will use that as "proof" that the FBI is covering up for Hatfill and that the FBI has been ignoring "evidence" provided by the scientists? Would the public go along? Would the Congressmen and their staffers go along? How would the FBI explain all the money they spent on investigating and tailing Dr. Hatfill 24 hours a day, 7 days a week?

2. Could the FBI just declare Dr. Hatfill innocent? Is that even possible if they haven't fully determined who actually did sent the anthrax letters? How can they know that Dr. Hatfill didn't somehow manage to do it and beat the lie detector tests, etc.? And what would happen if the day after the FBI declared Dr. Hatfill to be innocent - and left him alone - there was another mailing? (I don't think the real mailer would mail any more anthrax - even if he HAD any more anthrax, which I don't think he does. BUT it could be something the FBI and others in the government might seriously worry about.)

3. Could the FBI just lay out the facts for the American public? Could the Justice Department or the FBI explain to all America that all the real evidence says Dr. Hatfill didn't do it, and all the rumors and innuendo used by the scientists has proven to be just that - rumor and innuendo? And could they say that the FBI was going to leave Dr. Hatfill alone regardless of what the rumor mongering scientists and the media and Congressmen say - unless, of course, any of them come up with solid proof of some kind. No more silly innuendo. No more idiotic rumors. But is there anyone in the Department of Justice willing to tell that to the media and the American public? Would they also have to fully explain why they spend so much time and money tracking down nutcase rumors that they never believed in?

It's a difficult situation that isn't going to get much better over time.

Here's what Barbara Hatch Rosenberg had to say July 24, 2003, on NPR - referring to her meeting with the Senate staffers in June of 2002:

"I put together all the of evidence I knew about … about the perpetrator. But I didn’t put it in full detail. Some items I left rather vague because I didn’t, again, want to be pointing finger at any particular person. It was interesting that the FBI then started to work harder on the investigation. And they seem to have kept going ever since, so I feel good about that."
When one separates rumor and innuendo from known facts, however, the picture is quite different.
It appears that she and her band of rumor mongering amateur detectives caused the FBI to waste considerable time and money on investigating an innocent man - time and money that should have been spent on the anthrax case. And by focusing the media's attention on Dr. Hatfill she may also have made it more difficult for the Justice Department to make a circumstantial case against the real culprit. How many of her True Believers will line up to testify on behalf of the real culprit because they believe that Dr. Hatfill is the villain and that the FBI did not thoroughly investigate all their "evidence"?

Clearly Barbara Hatch Rosenberg has made up her mind about who is guilty, and no facts will change that. Historian Barbara W. Tuchman explained why in her book "The March Of Folly":

"When objective evidence disproves strongly held beliefs,
what occurs, according to the theorists of 'cognitive dissonance'
is not rejection of the beliefs but rigidifying, accompanied by
attempts to rationalize the disproof. The result is 'cognitive rigidity';
in lay language, the knots of folly grow tighter."

However, the story is far from over.

HOME

This is a bio of Barbara Hatch Rosenberg extracted from a list of attendees at a bioweapons conference held on January 23-24, 2003, at John Jay College:

Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, PhD, was a founder of the Federation of American Scientists Chemical and Biological Weapons Program in 1989 and is its current Director. She chairs the FAS Working Group on Biological Weapons, volunteer experts who monitor the Biological Weapons Convention and have contributed some 50 working papers and reports aimed at strengthening the Convention and the norm against biological weapons. The Working Group is one of the few NGO's devoted to biological weapons control. Dr. Rosenberg has also been active in tracking the source of the anthrax attacks that occurred in the fall of 2001.

Dr. Rosenberg was a member of a panel of scientists that advised President Clinton, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Health on biological weapons issues in 1998, and was an Advisor to the OTA study of Weapons of Mass Destruction in 1993-4. She is now a member of the National Academy of Sciences Working Group on Biological Weapons.

She is also an officer of ProMED-mail, the global electronic rapid reporting system for outbreaks of emerging diseases, a spin-off of the FAS Working Group that was launched in 1994 at FAS as a prototype and later became an independent entity.

Trained in molecular biology, Dr. Rosenberg was for many years a cancer researcher at Memorial-Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and was Associate Professor of Biochemistry at Cornell Medical College. She left these positions to become Research Professor of Environmental Science at the State University of New York at Purchase, where she is able to devote much of her time to biological weapons issues.

(c) 2003 by Ed Lake
All Rights Reserved

First Draft: July 30, 2003
Minor revisions: August 9, 2003

Chris's picture

guess whos on Olbermann

guess whos on Olbermann right now talking about the Anthrax "suicide"? Gerald Posner. FUCK i hate that guy. always pops up when "conspiracies" occur and the "official" story needs propping up(seeJFK,9/11 etc.). somebody do a backround check on that fucking shill.

gretavo's picture

oh no! not POSNER!!

yeah he's slimy. and now that you mention him, I was gonna say before that he and Evan Kohlmann bear a slight resemblance but I couldn't remember Gerald's name... those two and Michael Shermer are probably drinking buddies...

Chris's picture

slimy isnt harsh enough......

Shermer and Posner are 2 of the worst, the mere mention of either of their names sends me into an irrational rage. seriously, you should have seen me a few minutes ago........ but yeah, between Posner and Kohlmann i'd say Olbermann is being played like a fucking fiddle. that is if he doesnt already realize what his role is(partisan steam valve).

Big_D's picture

LOL.

I sympathize with ya Chris. If I hear one more Sheeple bleat "They're fighting for our freedumbs" I'm gonna lose it!

casseia's picture

So I'm watching FOX and CNN simultaneously

at the gym, because they're like a car wreck and I can't look away (or stop reading the closed captions), and I see the guy's brother being interviewed. He has absolutely no sympathy and blames his bro for getting mixed up with the wrong sort of people (paraphrasing). But of course, investigators are sure he acted 100% completely alone, solo, tout seul. I would like to know who the f these "wrong people" are, wouldn't you? Wouldn't following up on "wrong people" be the next scene on Law & Order?

dicktater's picture

Ivins involuntarily committed only 4 weeks before suicide

The plot sickens. Check out one of the pages of documents filed by the theripist (sic) below. I'm not sure this person even graduated from high school.

Anthrax Suspect "Homicidal, Sociopathic"
Counselor sought restraining order against biodefense researcher

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0801081anthrax1.html

AUGUST 1--The government biodefense researcher who committed suicide as federal prosecutors reportedly prepared to indict him in connection with the 2001 anthrax attacks was committed to a Maryland psychiatric hospital last month after making death threats against a counselor, according to court records. Bruce Ivins, 62, who died Tuesday of a drug overdose, had been scheduled to appear yesterday in a Frederick County court in connection with a protective order application filed by Jean Duley, program director of Comprehensive Counseling Associates. In her July 24 petition, a copy of which you'll find below, Duley referred to Ivins as a "client" who "has a history dating to his graduate days of homicidal threats, actions, plans, threats & actions towards therapist." Duley added that Ivins's psychiatrist called him "homicidal, sociopathic with clear intentions," and that "FBI involved, currently under investigation & will be charged w/ 5 capital murders. I have been subpoena to testify before a federal grand jury August 1, 2008 in Washington, D.C.." Duley's court filing was apparently triggered by several threatening phone messages left by Ivins early last month. Her petition for a peace order, which was granted by a District Court judge, added that Ivins was hospitalized last month at Frederick Memorial Hospital and then transferred to Sheppard Pratt, a psychiatric facility. Ivins, Duley stated, "was to have commitment hearing July 16th/signed in vol. to get himself out." On July 25, a sheriff's deputy sought to serve Ivins with court papers at Fort Detrick, but was advised by an Army official that Ivins "has been barred from the property," according to a return of service form filed by the Frederick County Sheriff's Office. The peace order against Ivins was formally dismissed yesterday in light of his death. Ivins, an anthrax researcher, worked for 36 years at the U.S. Army's Fort Detrick facility, according to an obituary. Fort Detrick has been has been a focus of federal investigators probing the 2001 attacks, which killed five people, since scientists there, including Ivins, have done extensive research on inhaled anthrax spores. According to the Los Angeles Times, federal prosecutors were about to file criminal charges against Ivins, and that the researcher had "been informed of his impending prosecution." (7 pages of document scans)
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0801081anthrax1.html

gretavo's picture

what BS - so obviously fake!

they're doing everything they can to make this guy sound like a raving lunatic--who just happened to work in the same military lab for 26 years? uh huh. yup.

dicktater's picture

JEAN CAROL DULEY, IS THAT YOU?!?!?

From whatreallhappened.com:

It has been reported that the woman who swore out the legal complaint against suicided scientist Bruce Ivins, Jean C. Duley, is 45 years old.

It has also been reported that the "C" stands for "Carol".

After agreeing to the terms, fill in Jean Carol Duley for the name and search all records. You will find 7 cases for driving under the influence. The year of birth is correct for a 45 year old woman.

http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry/inquiry-index.jsp

If this is indeed the same Jean C. Duley who set up Bruce Ivins, it goes a long way to explaining just why her specialty is counseling addicts, and why she might need a few favors from higher up to keep her driver's license! After all, Maryland has a "three strikes" law for drunk driving.

gretavo's picture

if true, it does sort of explain...

why she would be involved in this latest case of patsification. so let's recap--the anthrax letters were of a particular strain that anyone with access to it could have used or given to their favorite "Country A" to use. Knowing this, the USG is essentially admitting that it does not suspect evil arab muslim terrorists, but proceeds to cast suspicion on a series of Americans, first Hatfill now Ivins, neither of whom can be shown to have much motive. These suspects came to be suspected in part because of allegations by two different barely credible women, Hatfill by Barbara Hatch Rosenberg and Ivins by this Duley person. Could it be that the culprit's true identity is known, that it is neither one of these American patsies nor the default arab muslim patsies and that the clear purpose of the letters, to cast suspicion on evil arab muslims and link America and Israel as "being in this together" might plausibly lead to the conclusion that this is yet another false flag attack by Israel and that they obtained this particular strain through an agent who had access to it?

dicktater's picture

"Ah, yes politics. Where

"Ah, yes politics. Where greed wears the mask of morality."
— Clouseau

kate of the kiosk's picture

that's my read

and those letters with their phony  "death to America! death to Israel" Allah is great whatev....made to look like coming from Arabs, yet directed at key press and congress ...very scary intimidation - don't even dream about getting in our way!.  where is there a good link to that story regarding Daschle and Feingold being targeted?...

as i posted above, the statement by Ivins' defense attorneys, i believe, attests to the man's character. 

kate of the kiosk's picture

statement from Ivins' lawyers:

Statement from Attorneys Representing Dr. Bruce Ivins During Anthrax Investigation

Last update: 12:57 p.m. EDT Aug. 1, 2008

ROCKVILLE, Md., Aug 01, 2008 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- The following is a statement issued by Venable LLP attorneys Paul F. Kemp and Thomas M. DeGonia in response to questions surrounding the sudden death of Dr. Bruce Ivins.

"For more than a year, we have been privileged to represent Dr. Bruce Ivins during the investigation of the anthrax deaths of September and October of 2001. For six years, Dr. Ivins fully cooperated with that investigation, assisting the government in every way that was asked of him. He was a world-renowned and highly decorated scientist who served his country for over 33 years with the Department of the Army. We are saddened by his death, and disappointed that we will not have the opportunity to defend his good name and reputation in a court of law. We assert his innocence in these killings, and would have established that at trial. The relentless pressure of accusation and innuendo takes its toll in different ways on different people, as has already been seen in this investigation. In Dr. Ivins' case, it led to his untimely death. We ask that the media respect the privacy of his family, and allow them to grieve."

Paul F. Kemp Thomas M. DeGonia Venable LLP Contacts: Allan Ripp, 212-262-7477, arippnyc@aol.com Charles Wilkins, 202-344-8253, cfwilkins@venable.com

SOURCE Venable LLP

Copyright (C) 2008 PR Newswire. All rights reserved

dicktater's picture

Jean C. Duley... tell us again...

More on the mysterious "theripist."

http://www.atlargely.com/2008/08/jean-c-duley-te.html

August 03, 2008

Jean C. Duley... tell us again...

Posted by Larisa Alexandrovna on August 03, 2008 at 11:45 PM

Okay, well the more research I do into the now infamous Ms. Jean C. Duley - the "therapist" who filed a restraining order against the alleged anthrax attacks suspect Bruce E. Ivins - the more her story sounds like a whole load of crap.

Let's rehash Ms. Duley's role in the whole saga.

According to The Smoking Gun, documents they obtained and posted show that Ms. Duley filed a restraining order request against Bruce Ivins on July 24th. In that complaint, she wrote the following (the errors are hers):

client has a history dating to his graduate days of homicidal threats, actions, plans, threats & actions toward theripist. Dr. David Irwin his psychiatrist called him homicidal, sociopathic with clear intentions will testify with other details FBI involved,  currently under investigation & will be charged with 5 capital murders. I have been subpoena to testify before a federal grand jury August 1, 2008 in Washington, D.C.

It is hard to know where to begin with this piece of work, but let us start with the obvious:

1. FBI Investigation into Domestic Bioterrorism Attacks Is Open to Duley?

How does Duley know that Ivins "will be charged with 5 capital murders?" She has yet to testify to the grand jury, which means the grand jury has yet to indict him. And why on earth would the FBI investigators read Duley into the case details?

2. Death Threats, Terra Threats, and "theripist" threats, oh my?

The complaint alleges that on July 9th Duley got threats of a homicidal nature, see here. Now, I don't know about you, but I would not wait roughly three weeks to report homicidal threats from a bio-weapons expert, nor would I wait that long to report threats that were made only against me. I have had some personal experience with stalkers. You don't wait when you are frightened like she claims to be. If you are that frightened, you go straight away to the police. She says that on July 10, Ivins is committed to Shepard Pratt psychiatric facility. I have yet to read any account of anyone validating this. But let us assume that he was, Duley alleges that he signed himself out on July 16th, after Ivins went to have a commitment hearing.

Again, if a bio-weapons expert is making homicidal threats and is committed, he does not get to check himself out and if he actually attended a commitment hearing and was granted release, then clearly someone at Shepard Pratt that that Ivins was stable. But in any case, he is out on July 16th, so why is she still not filing a restraining order against him? Why does she wait until July 24th?

In addition to this series of strange claims by Duley, the most obvious issue here is if Ivins had a history "dating back to his graduate days" - so some 30 years ago - of homicidal threats and plans (whatever the hell that means), how was he able to gain access and security clearences to work with Anthrax?

And just what kind of therapist cannot spell the term of her own profession, spelling it "theripist?" She got subpoena right, which is far more difficult to spell (although the tense is wrong) and yet a term that is used on a daily basis in the field that she actually works in she could not get right?

3. Dr. David S. Irwin, come on down...

According to Duley, Ivins was described by a psychiatrist as "homicidal, socipathic with clear intentions" although she does not specify what the intentions are. Again, I have to ask what kind of psychiatrist a). makes these statements to some twit fresh out of school in violation of HIPAA laws, but b). does not file a police report given who the patient is, and c). does nothing to notify Ft. Detrick?

Okay, now with these basics in hand, let's examine Ms. Duley;

1. According to her boyfriend of 7 years, she is in an undisclosed location because she wants privacy. Okay, then why is her boyfriend Mike giving statements to the press?

Mike McFadden, spoke to The Frederick
News-Post on Saturday from their home in Williamsport and provided a
statement on her behalf.

"Jean is currently at an undisclosed location," McFadden said.

2. Duley's boyfriend says she was "reluctant to become involved in the FBI investigation" and then turns around and says "Jean is the kind of person who believes her life is insignificant in comparison with the kind of damage Dr. Ivins is capable of...She sacrificed all this stuff because she wanted to do the right
thing. She'll soon reveal what many wouldn't because they didn't want
to be involved with it
." Which is it, was she reluctant or willing to sacrifice everything because she felt her life was insignificant?

And what is with this cryptic statement:  "she'll soon reveal what many wouldn't because they didn't want to be involved with it."

She will soon reveal? Um, this is a terrorism case, it is not for her to reveal anything, rather, it is for the FBI/DOJ to reveal information. And if she had something to reveal, why does she simply not reveal it? She wants privacy, but dangles this little morsel over the heads of hungry journos?

3. What kind of therapist was Ms. Duley? Well, as of 07/08 she had made the Dean's list of a small and extremely expensive liberal arts college called Hood College, which costs $24k p/y to attend. So I am not entirely clear what degree she was going for or how she was able to pay for it on a social worker's salary. Also interesting is that in 1999 she had gotten a Chapter 7 Discharge, which again makes one wonder how she was able to pay for tuition.

Record 1:
Civil Record Verification: Confirm Case # 9920549 at the Court House
Defendant: DULEY, JEAN Case Number: 9920549
Filing Type: CHAPTER 7 DISCHARGED Entity Type: INDIVIDUAL RECORD
Filing Date: 19990907 Address: 343C FIELDPOINTE BV 103
City: FREDERICK State: MD
Zip: 21701 Schedule 341 Date: 19991008
Attorney: STEVEN COHEN Attorney Phone: 3019899000
Attorney Address: 15316 SPENCERVILLE CT Attorney City: BURTONSVILLE
Attorney State: MD Attorney Zip: 20866
Assets Available: N Court Code: MD002
Court Name: GREENBELT Judge Initials: DWK
Unlawful Detainer: N

4. If you go back to the statement by her boyfriend above and read the full article, he also says of Duley "She had to quit her job and is now unable to work, and we have spent our savings on attorneys."

Okay, I give up. Why did this woman have to spend all her money on attorneys? She clearly filed the restraining order herself. So how is it that she incurred any attorney fees? Unless, of course, her boyfriend means that she incurred attorney fees for her DUI jury trial in 06 and ongoing fees relating to her probation? Why did Ms. Duley lose her job? Is it because as a "therapist" working with drug addiction cases, she was found driving under the influence?

I don't know what to make out of all of this. Is this woman jumping on the bandwagon hoping to pen a book deal or something? Is she simply lying? Is she telling the truth about Ivins? Is she as nutty as she claims him to be? I don't know. What I think, however, is that if this witness was dragged into a court in which I was the defense attorney, her credibility would quickly be shot down. Somehow, I think, we will soon see a Fox Noise exclusive interview with this woman and her boyfriend who will "reveal" what it is that they know. At this point, I am not buying this story and I am not sure why the media has jumped on her claims as though they were gospel.

Thoughts?

dicktater's picture

NYT Changes Anthrax Story…As I Was Reading It!

Not as I was reading the NYT article but, as this blogger, willyloman, was reading it. It looks as if they are still tweaking the framing of Ivins. The current NYT article copied here way down below.

http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2008/08/01/nyt-changes-anthrax-storyas-i...

All over the MSM sites was the anthrax story being finally solved (just after the main suspect was found not guilty, I might add. what a coincidence! And this new suspect ”killed himself” so there will be no investigation. Case closed! My story to follow this) and I was reading the New York Times article which had some interesting facts that the other MSM sources didn’t.

Guess what? That 2 page story, as I was reading it, when I went from page one to page two, refreshed page 1… because that is all that was there. THEY REPOSTED THE STORY WITHOUT THE ODDITIES THAT THE OTHER MSM DIDN’T HAVE!!!

They shortened the story to one page by taking out some KEY information that they had originally posted with the story. I knew I should have copy and pasted it! (If anyone still has the original, please let me know!)

What they took out was very interesting. They quoted a doctor, who worked with the guy who is now being accused of the anthrax attacks, as saying he didn’t think the guy did it. They took that part out! They also took out the part where this guy received the highest Pentagon award a civilian can get for his research into an anthrax vaccine to be given to our troops in 2003. They took that out!And they also took out the part where this guy was cited for testing areas outside the restricted area for anthrax spores. And he found them, in someones secretary’s desk and keyboard! Remember how this stuff was found on the mail from the drop box? It bleeds through the envelope. So, when he found it in someones secretary’s desk and then on her keyboard, that might be a good place to start looking for the culprit. But they took that part out!

But they did add one thing. The reason I was reading the story again was because I was/am working on a story about the one thing they missed: motive. The guy had no motive and the original story lacked any mention of a motive….

Nowhere in the first story and many other MSM versions of this do they mention a possible motive. Nowhere. Well, it seems whomever is checking up on the “official” stories out there caught that little tidbit as well, and they have now added one. On line now in the story that was NOT in the original;

“Authorities were investigating whether Ivins released the anthrax as a way to test his vaccine, officials said.” NYT.

There we have it! The “official story” complete with motive from the ghostly, unnamed, who the heck were they… ”officials”. Because that is what “they” said.

The problem with that? It makes no sense!

How could he test the vaccine that he hadn’t GIVEN TO THOSE PEOPLE???!!! He didn’t send a vaccine to the reporter in Florida! He didn’t give it to those Senators! This is ridiculous. Moronic! Pathetic “thought police”, Ministry of Truth propaganda! It is offensively stupid.

And there it is, for all to see with some poor writers name on it. After he produced a good piece of journalism on the very important subject of who used anthrax against our press and our legislature, and then this is what happens when the Ministry of Truth gets ahold to his story. They chop it up, censor it, and put it out there for the MSM pundits to regurgitate for the masses.

That’s it! Case closed! The guy who “killed himself” did it and there will be no further investigation into the matter. You will accept this, write this and only this. And you will NOT INVESTIGATE further than what the “officials” tell you.

But, there's more. willyloma has since updated his blog:

****UPDATE**** they have completely REPLACED the article they had, with one from the AP!!! The exact same article that Fox News has on there site!!! and the AP is still editing it, they just added a comment from Dana Perino.

*****UPDATE 2**** The NYT has just replaced the AP vesion of the story with one written by the same two people that wrote the first version of the one I read and reported on this morning. They posted it at 10:30pm this evening but the article itself says it is published on Aug. 2 2008.

This is a GOOD article. I suggest you you take a look at it. It bring up some very interesting points about whether or not Dr. Ivins even had access to weapons grade anthrax, and whether he had the ability to create that level of weaponized anthrax from the spores he used for his tests. The fact is, that Dr. ivins worked on vaccines, NOT producing weapons grade anthrax.

The NYT article also delves into motive; as in, he had none. Plus, why would this guy pick those targets. It’s a VERY good article. Let’s hope it stays around for a while.

------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/02/washington/02anthrax.html?_r=1&hp=&ore...

August 2, 2008
Scientist’s Suicide Linked to Anthrax Inquiry
By SCOTT SHANE and ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON — After four years pursuing one former Army scientist on a costly false trail, F.B.I. agents investigating the deadly anthrax letters of 2001 finally zeroed in last year on a different suspect: another Army scientist from the same biodefense research center at Fort Detrick in Frederick, Md.

Over the last 18 months, even as the government battled a lawsuit filed by the first scientist, Steven J. Hatfill, investigators built a case against the second one, Bruce E. Ivins, a highly respected microbiologist who had worked for many years to design a better anthrax vaccine.

Last weekend, after learning that federal prosecutors were preparing to indict him on murder charges, Dr. Ivins, a 62-year-old father of two, took an overdose of Tylenol with codeine. He died in a Frederick hospital on Tuesday, leaving behind a grieving family and uncertainty about whether the anthrax mystery had finally been solved.

The apparent suicide of Dr. Ivins, a Red Cross volunteer and amateur juggler who had won the Defense Department’s highest civilian award in 2003, was a dramatic turn in one of the largest criminal investigations in the nation’s history. The attack, the only major act of bioterrorism on American soil, came in the jittery aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks. It killed five people, sickened 17 others and set off a wave of panic.

In the early days after the letter attacks, in September and October 2001, Dr. Ivins joined about 90 of his colleagues at the Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases in a round-the-clock laboratory push to test thousands of samples of suspect powder to see if they were anthrax. Later, in April 2002, he came under scrutiny in an Army investigation of a leak of potentially deadly anthrax spores outside a sealed-off lab at Fort Detrick. He later admitted he had discovered the leak but not reported it.

Whether the focus on Dr. Ivins had resolved the case of the anthrax letters was unclear. A federal law enforcement official said that Dr. Ivins had been regarded as a strong suspect and that agents had been nearing an arrest, and a lawyer familiar with the investigation said he believed that prosecutors had planned to charge only Dr. Ivins. The link between Dr. Ivins’s suicide and the federal investigation was first reported on Friday in The Los Angeles Times.

But the Federal Bureau of Investigation declined on Friday to make public its case against Dr. Ivins, noting that evidence was under court seal as part of a grand jury investigation. Officials said they were briefing the victims of the anthrax letters — those who recovered, as well as family members of those who died — and would need to go to court to have evidence unsealed before it could even be summarized for the public.

A lawyer who had represented Dr. Ivins since May 2007, Paul F. Kemp, insisted that Dr. Ivins was innocent and had been driven to suicide by false suspicions.

“For six years, Dr. Ivins fully cooperated with that investigation, assisting the government in every way that was asked of him,” Mr. Kemp said in a written statement, calling the microbiologist “a world-renowned and highly decorated scientist who served his country for over 33 years with the Department of the Army.”

“We assert his innocence in these killings and would have established that at trial,” Mr. Kemp said. “The relentless pressure of accusation and innuendo takes its toll in different ways on different people, as has already been seen in this investigation.”

Mr. Kemp was clearly referring to the case of Dr. Hatfill, who was the focus of intensive F.B.I. and news media attention in the case beginning in mid-2002 and received a $4.6 million settlement from the government in June to settle a lawsuit accusing the F.B.I. and the Justice Department of destroying his career and personal life with leaks.

Whatever the cause of his suicide, Dr. Ivins had been behaving bizarrely in the weeks before his death. He was hospitalized briefly for depression and, according to a complaint filed with the police, threatened to kill a social worker who had treated him in group therapy, among others, in rants referring to his expectation that he would be charged with five counts of capital murder.

“It’s out of character,” said Norman M. Covert, a former spokesman and historian for the Army biodefense center who served with Dr. Ivins on an animal care committee. “But if the F.B.I. was really leaning on him, what a tremendous load that was on him.”

A spokesman for the Frederick police, Lt. Clark Pennington, said he could not say whether Dr. Ivins had left a suicide note because the anthrax investigation remained open.

Investigators in the huge inquiry traveled to many countries and by late 2006 had conducted 9,100 interviews, sent out 6,000 grand jury subpoenas and conducted 67 searches, the F.B.I. said. But the prime focus steadily narrowed: first to the Army infectious diseases laboratories, apparently linked to the letters by genetic analysis, then to Dr. Hatfill, a medical doctor who had become a bioterrorism consultant, and finally to Dr. Ivins, who worked in the same building as Dr. Hatfill and lived two blocks away from him outside the gates to Fort Detrick.

Two puzzles have haunted investigators from the beginning: the motive of the perpetrator and his skills. Because the notes in some of the letters mailed to news media organizations and two senators included radical Islamist rhetoric, investigators initially believed the letters might have been sent by Al Qaeda.

But the F.B.I. quickly settled on a different profile: a disgruntled American scientist or technician, perhaps one specializing in biodefense, who wanted to raise an alarm about the bioterrorism threat. That theory accounted for the letters’ taped seams and the notes’ use of the word anthrax, a warning that allowed antibiotic treatment — not to be expected from a Qaeda attack intended mainly to kill.

That theory of a biodefense insider placed many scientists at the infectious diseases institute and other laboratories under scrutiny, even as they helped the F.B.I. analyze the anthrax powder in the letters.

“The F.B.I. would be remiss not to look at us, especially those of us who worked with anthrax,” said John W. Ezzell, an anthrax researcher who hired Dr. Ivins at the institute and knew him well. “We were all subjected to lie detector tests. We were all interviewed.”

Mr. Ezzell called Dr. Ivins “intense about his work, but a popular guy.” Asked whether he was aware that Dr. Ivins had become a more serious suspect, Mr. Ezzell declined to comment.

The other puzzle involved the skills necessary to produce the high-quality aerosol powder contained in the letters addressed to the senators, Tom Daschle, Democrat of South Dakota, and Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont.

Scientists familiar with germ warfare said there was no evidence that Dr. Ivins, though a vaccine expert with easy access to the most dangerous forms of anthrax, had the skills to turn the pathogen into an inhalable powder.

“I don’t think a vaccine specialist could do it,” said Dr. Alan P. Zelicoff, a physician who aided the F.B.I. investigation when he worked at the Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque.

“This is aerosol physics, not biology,” Dr. Zelicoff added. “There are very few people who have their feet in both camps.”

Mr. Ezzell said Dr. Ivins had worked on many projects involving anthrax spores and the toxin they produce, including experiments in which animals were exposed to anthrax to test vaccines. But he said the experiments, to his knowledge, involved anthrax spores in liquid and not in the dry powder form used in the letter attacks.

By their own admission, the F.B.I. and the Postal Inspection Service had little expertise in biological weapons in 2001, when they first loosed hundreds of agents on the investigation. Since then, at least 19 government and university laboratories have worked on the investigation, using clues like the genetic fingerprints of the anthrax, and radioactive isotopes in the water used to grow it, to try to trace it to a source.

The source, several officials said, was the infectious diseases institute, where the trail led to just a handful of vials in a single lab.

But the scientific evidence, some of it found using new methods, now may never be tested in a criminal trial, leaving questions about just how compelling it is.

“I would urge the bureau to publish its evidence if it declares the case solved and closed,” said Dr. Claire Fraser-Liggett, the former director of the Institute for Genomic Research, where the anthrax genome was decoded.

On Capitol Hill, where anthrax contamination in 2001 led to the evacuation of many offices, several members of Congress voiced skepticism about reports that the hunt for the anthrax killer might be over.

Representative Rush Holt, a Democrat whose district includes the Princeton, N.J., mailbox where investigators believe the letters were mailed, said the F.B.I. should provide a full briefing.

“What we learn,” Mr. Holt said, “will not change the fact that this has been a poorly handled investigation that has lasted six years and already has resulted in a trail of embarrassment and personal tragedy.”

William J. Broad and Nicholas Wade contributed reporting, and Jack Begg, Kitty Bennett and Barclay Walsh contributed research.

gretavo's picture

More Utterly Bizarre BS in Anthrax Case

This is unbelievable. The claim now is that a "new DNA technology" was used to analyze DNA from three anthrax victims, whereby the strain of Anthrax used was tracked to Ivins' lab in Ft. Detrick.

First--how does DNA reveal that? How does an anthrax infection affect ones DNA?

Second--what evidence does the FBI have that Ivins sent the letters with the anthrax? How do they know that someone didn't simply steal anthrax from the Ft. Detrick lab?


dicktater's picture

Posted earlier as a part of

Posted earlier as a part of a longer post but, I'm putting in again separately as a reply to yours with some selected text in bold::

August 2, 2008
Scientist’s Suicide Linked to Anthrax Inquiry
By SCOTT SHANE and ERIC LICHTBLAU

[COMMENT: Oh, by the way. They mean the suicide note that no one has seen yet and may never see?]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/02/washington/02anthrax.html?partner=rssn...

WASHINGTON — After four years pursuing one former Army scientist on a costly false trail, F.B.I. agents investigating the deadly anthrax letters of 2001 finally zeroed in last year on a different suspect: another Army scientist from the same biodefense research center at Fort Detrick in Frederick, Md.

Over the last 18 months, even as the government battled a lawsuit filed by the first scientist, Steven J. Hatfill, investigators built a case against the second one, Bruce E. Ivins, a highly respected microbiologist who had worked for many years to design a better anthrax vaccine.

Last weekend, after learning that federal prosecutors were preparing to indict him on murder charges, Dr. Ivins, a 62-year-old father of two, took an overdose of Tylenol with codeine. He died in a Frederick hospital on Tuesday, leaving behind a grieving family and uncertainty about whether the anthrax mystery had finally been solved.

[Mike Rivero said that he died in the hospital while he was there as a psychiatric hospital patient. I haven't confirmed this yet.]

The apparent suicide of Dr. Ivins, a Red Cross volunteer and amateur juggler who had won the Defense Department’s highest civilian award in 2003, was a dramatic turn in one of the largest criminal investigations in the nation’s history. The attack, the only major act of bioterrorism on American soil, came in the jittery aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks. It killed five people, sickened 17 others and set off a wave of panic.

In the early days after the letter attacks, in September and October 2001, Dr. Ivins joined about 90 of his colleagues at the Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases in a round-the-clock laboratory push to test thousands of samples of suspect powder to see if they were anthrax. Later, in April 2002, he came under scrutiny in an Army investigation of a leak of potentially deadly anthrax spores outside a sealed-off lab at Fort Detrick. He later admitted he had discovered the leak but not reported it.

Whether the focus on Dr. Ivins had resolved the case of the anthrax letters was unclear. A federal law enforcement official [COMMENT: a dubious anonymous source?] said that Dr. Ivins had been regarded as a strong suspect and that agents had been nearing an arrest, and a lawyer familiar with the investigation said he believed that prosecutors had planned to charge only Dr. Ivins. The link between Dr. Ivins’s suicide and the federal investigation was first reported on Friday in The Los Angeles Times.

But the Federal Bureau of Investigation declined on Friday to make public its case against Dr. Ivins, noting that evidence was under court seal as part of a grand jury investigation. Officials said they were briefing the victims of the anthrax letters — those who recovered, as well as family members of those who died — and would need to go to court to have evidence unsealed before it could even be summarized for the public.

A lawyer who had represented Dr. Ivins since May 2007, Paul F. Kemp, insisted that Dr. Ivins was innocent and had been driven to suicide by false suspicions.

“For six years, Dr. Ivins fully cooperated with that investigation, assisting the government in every way that was asked of him,” Mr. Kemp said in a written statement, calling the microbiologist “a world-renowned and highly decorated scientist who served his country for over 33 years with the Department of the Army.”

“We assert his innocence in these killings and would have established that at trial,” Mr. Kemp said. “The relentless pressure of accusation and innuendo takes its toll in different ways on different people, as has already been seen in this investigation.”

Mr. Kemp was clearly referring to the case of Dr. Hatfill, who was the focus of intensive F.B.I. and news media attention in the case beginning in mid-2002 and received a $4.6 million settlement from the government in June to settle a lawsuit accusing the F.B.I. and the Justice Department of destroying his career and personal life with leaks.

Whatever the cause of his suicide, Dr. Ivins had been behaving bizarrely in the weeks before his death. He was hospitalized briefly for depression and, according to a complaint filed with the police, threatened to kill a social worker who had treated him in group therapy, among others, in rants referring to his expectation that he would be charged with five counts of capital murder.

“It’s out of character,” said Norman M. Covert, a former spokesman and historian for the Army biodefense center who served with Dr. Ivins on an animal care committee. “But if the F.B.I. was really leaning on him, what a tremendous load that was on him.”

A spokesman for the Frederick police, Lt. Clark Pennington, said he could not say whether Dr. Ivins had left a suicide note because the anthrax investigation remained open. COMMENT: How convenient and allows time to create the perfect suicide note.]

Investigators in the huge inquiry traveled to many countries and by late 2006 had conducted 9,100 interviews, sent out 6,000 grand jury subpoenas and conducted 67 searches, the F.B.I. said. But the prime focus steadily narrowed: first to the Army infectious diseases laboratories, apparently linked to the letters by genetic analysis, then to Dr. Hatfill, a medical doctor who had become a bioterrorism consultant, and finally to Dr. Ivins, who worked in the same building as Dr. Hatfill and lived two blocks away from him outside the gates to Fort Detrick.

Two puzzles have haunted investigators from the beginning: the motive of the perpetrator and his skills. Because the notes in some of the letters mailed to news media organizations and two senators included radical Islamist rhetoric, investigators initially believed the letters might have been sent by Al Qaeda.

But the F.B.I. quickly settled on a different profile: a disgruntled American scientist or technician, perhaps one specializing in biodefense, who wanted to raise an alarm about the bioterrorism threat. That theory accounted for the letters’ taped seams and the notes’ use of the word anthrax, a warning that allowed antibiotic treatment — not to be expected from a Qaeda attack intended mainly to kill.

That theory of a biodefense insider placed many scientists at the infectious diseases institute and other laboratories under scrutiny, even as they helped the F.B.I. analyze the anthrax powder in the letters.

“The F.B.I. would be remiss not to look at us, especially those of us who worked with anthrax,” said John W. Ezzell, an anthrax researcher who hired Dr. Ivins at the institute and knew him well. “We were all subjected to lie detector tests. We were all interviewed.”

Mr. Ezzell called Dr. Ivins “intense about his work, but a popular guy.” Asked whether he was aware that Dr. Ivins had become a more serious suspect, Mr. Ezzell declined to comment.

[COMMENT: The writers of this article never provided even one suspected motive though, I have seen two mentioned elsewhere. (1) Investments in vaccine products. (2) Letters to local newspaper where his supposed religious beliefs indicate a certain level of Islamophobia and/or preference to the 'chosen people'.]

The other puzzle involved the skills necessary to produce the high-quality aerosol powder contained in the letters addressed to the senators, Tom Daschle, Democrat of South Dakota, and Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont.

Scientists familiar with germ warfare said there was no evidence that Dr. Ivins, though a vaccine expert with easy access to the most dangerous forms of anthrax, had the skills to turn the pathogen into an inhalable powder.

“I don’t think a vaccine specialist could do it,” said Dr. Alan P. Zelicoff, a physician who aided the F.B.I. investigation when he worked at the Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque.

“This is aerosol physics, not biology,” Dr. Zelicoff added. “There are very few people who have their feet in both camps.”

Mr. Ezzell said Dr. Ivins had worked on many projects involving anthrax spores and the toxin they produce, including experiments in which animals were exposed to anthrax to test vaccines. But he said the experiments, to his knowledge, involved anthrax spores in liquid and not in the dry powder form used in the letter attacks.

By their own admission, the F.B.I. and the Postal Inspection Service had little expertise in biological weapons in 2001, when they first loosed hundreds of agents on the investigation. Since then, at least 19 government and university laboratories have worked on the investigation, using clues like the genetic fingerprints of the anthrax, and radioactive isotopes in the water used to grow it, to try to trace it to a source.

The source, several officials said, was the infectious diseases institute, where the trail led to just a handful of vials in a single lab.

[COMMENT: And now for the money shot.]

But the scientific evidence, some of it found using new methods, now may never be tested in a criminal trial, leaving questions about just how compelling it is.

“I would urge the bureau to publish its evidence if it declares the case solved and closed,” said Dr. Claire Fraser-Liggett, the former director of the Institute for Genomic Research, where the anthrax genome was decoded.

On Capitol Hill, where anthrax contamination in 2001 led to the evacuation of many offices, several members of Congress voiced skepticism about reports that the hunt for the anthrax killer might be over.

Representative Rush Holt, a Democrat whose district includes the Princeton, N.J., mailbox where investigators believe the letters were mailed, said the F.B.I. should provide a full briefing.

“What we learn,” Mr. Holt said, “will not change the fact that this has been a poorly handled investigation that has lasted six years and already has resulted in a trail of embarrassment and personal tragedy.”

William J. Broad and Nicholas Wade contributed reporting, and Jack Begg, Kitty Bennett and Barclay Walsh contributed research.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
Privacy Policy Search Corrections RSS First Look Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map

gretavo's picture

money shot is right

that's the key right there--the seeming hurry to brush it all under the carpet and close the case--what else can that mean but that they know who did it and can't tell us, for whatever reason? and what more likely reason than that, like the truth about 9/11, it leads to Israel? look for the usual gang of shills to claim that all of this points to a Bush/CIA connection or some such by now very old drivel. The game is obvious at this point. Blame muslims and arabs, and if that fails, blame Americans. Never ever allow anyone to be blamed who might be linked to Israel. Fuck this, it couldn't be more obvious at this point, and Americans are gonna be pissed when they wake up to the truth. And I can't say I blame them.

gretavo's picture

took the blog right out of my mouth...

Voices
08/04/08
12:58:09 pm, Categories: Voices, 1455 words
'Suicide’ of Anthrax Scientist–Another Mossad Frame Up?
Mark Glenn

The FBI released this photograph on Oct. 31, 2001, of the letter con-
taining anthrax that was sent to then Senate Majority Leader Tom
Daschle. (Getty Images)

The last week of July, all across America could be heard an almost audible sigh of relief as headlines blared the news on the hour every hour that ‘he’ had finally been caught, the ‘he’ in this case being the infamous bioterrorist (unknown and unnamed up to this point) who sent deadly anthrax through the US mail system a mere week after the attacks of 9/11, leading to the deaths of 5.

What should have been heard across America however was a disquieting ‘hmmmm,’ as Americans scratched their heads and pondered the likelihood that the story being fed them concerning the ‘suicide’ of Ft. Dietrich bioweapons lab scientist Bruce E. Ivins was just another in a long string of lies, that it was not a suicide at all, but rather just one more cog in a Zionist-organized cover-up that has continued now for almost 7 years, beginning with 9/11.

There are good reasons for Americans to be skeptical about the recent news concerning the ‘suicide’ of bioweapons researcher Bruce Ivins (undoubtedly destined to be dubbed ‘Dr. Anthrax’ now that he is not here to defend his name) not the least of which is the timing of this event. In the first case, the news of his death arrived only a month after the US government was forced to pony up almost 6 million dollars to Steven Hatfill, the bioweapons researcher whose good name and reputation were destroyed as a result of the US Justice Department naming him a ‘person of interest’ shortly after the attacks when the only ‘evidence’ linking him to the infamous crimes came from a mouthy disinformation agent named Barbra Rosenberg. Secondly, it is a mere month before the anniversary of 9/11, and the fact that for the last 7 years the largest criminal investigation in US history (codenamed ‘Amerithrax’ for maximum effect) has turned up a big goose egg does not help things at a time when Uncle Sam is suffering from a serious credibility problem, both at home and abroad.

Those not recognizing the relevance of the aforementioned case involving Hatfill should keep in mind that the US DoJ losing a civil case against him (despite the scant news coverage it received) is like the town crier announcing to all within earshot that the case involving the anthrax attacks is not closed, and that the killer (or killers) is still on the loose. Obviously, given that the FBI always ‘gets its man’ this is gravely embarrassing, to say the least.

But more importantly, as any good cop will testify, a case not closed means a case still open, which means going back to square one and reviewing the evidence all over again in the hopes of finding something possibly missed. Obviously this means looking at information certain entities (and particularly those interested in dragging the US into Israel’s dirty wars) can’t afford to have exposed to public scrutiny, and in particular the evidence revolving around a certain Lt. Col. Phillip Zack.

For those who bought into the made-in-Israel storyline following the 2001 anthrax attacks that ‘the Ay-rabs did it,’ Zack was a researcher at the same Ft. Dietrich bio-weapons lab where the now ‘suicided’ Bruce Ivins worked. Along with Zack and Ivins was also one Ayyaad Assaad, an Egyptian-born scientist who became the butt of a concerted anti-Arab, anti-Islamic campaign organized and executed by Zack and some of his cohorts at the lab who collectively called themselves ‘the Camel Club’. A few days after 9/11 an anonymous letter turned up at a Marine base in Quantico Virginia accusing Assaad of being a terrorist planning biological attacks against America. According to Assaad’s testimony to the FBI agents who interviewed him, the personal information contained in the letter could only have been written by a co-worker at the lab, and surprise, surprise, a few days later, anthrax turns up in the mail. Furthermore, a security film caught Zack entering the Ft. Dietrich facility after hours at a time he no longer worked there, and more importantly, caught him on tape entering a secure section of the facility where the very same strain of anthrax used in the attacks later turned up missing. Given that the anthrax attacks amounted to the use of a weapon of mass destruction against the United States, naturally investigative eyes were on all persons considered relevant to the case, and–almost as if on cue–just about the time Zack and his anti-Arab bigotry started to circulate as clues in the case, the previously-mentioned Barbara Hatch Rosenberg floated the idea that Steven Hatfill should be put under the microscope, which he was, while all investigation of Zack slipped out the proverbial back door, never to be mentioned again.

In sum, Hatfill being exonerated means all bets are off and that more-likely culprits stand a good chance of being reconsidered for their possible (or probable) roles in the anthrax attacks following 9/11. More importantly though, it also means possible public exposure of the fact that the anthrax attacks were part of a carefully-coordinated false flag operation cooked up in the petri dish called Mossad headquarters aimed at inflaming Americans into going to war against Israel’s enemies, specifically Iraq.

And then, like a bolt out of the blue comes the ‘suicide’ of one Bruce Ivins who worked at the facility, and along with this a truck load of ‘evidence’ to suggest he was the culprit. Court testimony from a social worker claiming he was a dangerous psychopath planning on killing scores of people given a mere week before his ‘suicide’, along with the supportive testimony of psychiatrists who supposedly examined him.

Those who think it really is an open and shut case of suicide on the part of a guilty culprit should ask a few questions. If he really was ‘the guy’, why was he allowed to keep his security clearance at the weapons lab where he worked and (more importantly) where other infectious diseases that could have been used in additional attacks on America were stored? If he truly was about to be indicted for the anthrax attacks, why was he not scooped up by the FBI immediately, lest he flee the country, or worse, ‘go out in a blaze of glory’ as the previously-mentioned social worker claimed he swore he would do? Was Ivins about to go public with information he had concerning the real person (s) behind the attacks? And more importantly, where is Lt. Col Phillip Zack, the anti-Arab bigot filmed going into a secure area of Ft. Deitrich where the Ames strain of anthrax used in the attack was stored, after hours, where few (if any) witnesses could be found? Can rational persons assume he is sitting on a beach somewhere in Israel, far away from this discussion and–more importantly–from this investigation that the US DoJ is now saying will be closed as early as this week?

To anyone who recognizes the proclivity towards lying, frame-ups and cover-ups that exist on the part of Israel’s friends in Washington DC, the case involving Ivins wreaks of yet another in a long line of similar crimes. Just as Iraq was framed for 9/11 when not a microbe of evidence existed tying the two together, so too does it appear Bruce Ivins been framed for the anthrax attacks in order to protect the identity of the real perpetrators, the emphasis falling on the synonym of the second half of that word–‘traitors’.

Sadly–and despite the fact that the present made-in-Israel wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost them dearly–Americans will no doubt assume (as planned) that the suicide of the bioweapons scientist indicates his guilt. Just like Israel’s assassination of JFK (blamed on Lee Harvey Oswald) to Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty (that both the Jewish state and John McCain Sr ruled was an accident) to Israel’s role in 9/11, Americans will move on with their lives like dutiful little sheep, not realizing that the death of Ivins, the war, and the rising cost of fuel, food and just about every other necessary commodity are all directly related to each other.

Meanwhile, in places like New York, Tel Aviv and Washington DC, the persons responsible for all the aforementioned planned chaos will get together, and amidst smiles, snickers and handshakes and plot the next event designed to shyster American parents into sending their beloved sons and daughters off to fight and die for the Jewish state.

¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤

© 2008 Mark Glenn

SOURCE: http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/%e2%80%98suicide%e2%80%99-o...

kate of the kiosk's picture

excellent piece

and good site

"If he really was ‘the guy’, why was he allowed to keep his security clearance at the weapons lab where he worked and (more importantly) where other infectious diseases that could have been used in additional attacks on America were stored?" 

yeah, for the past 18 years or 33 years...homicidal ideation my ass...

hope people who read and watch mainstream are scratching their heads...

juandelacruz's picture

There is no definitive

There is no definitive reason to allege that Mossad was involved in the anthrax case in the Mark Glenn article. While I subscribe to Mossad's involvement in the WTC attacks, there is as yet no evidence or account linking them in the anthrax attack.

The anthrax case, even though I think it is part of the overall 9-11 script and was at its top under the direction of Israelis and Neocons, could have been subcontracted to operatives who were not linked to Mossad. They should be high on the suspect list though specially with the original intended patsy being Iraq.

dicktater's picture

It may even mean that...

... they really don't know who's responsible and don't even want to know as long as they have a dead patsy most people can swallow. A scenario where by the MSM does most of the hard-selling, catapaulting the propaganda so to speak, that still serves as needed misdirection away from the ones what really done it.

dicktater's picture

I don't know why they had to

I don't know why they had to spend all that money on analyzing DNA. Couldn't they just get samples of the powdered anthrax taken off mirrors, razorblades, and soda straws?

And, then there's the handwriting of what appears to be a left-handed nerd.

gretavo's picture

GW at 911blogger proves me right...

He says: "Therefore, whether Ivins or another scientist working for the U.S. government carried out the anthrax attacks is actually not the primary question. The main question is who within the U.S. government framed Arabs for the attacks, and whether the attacks were motivated primarily as a justification for war against Middle Eastern oil countries or to intimidate the U.S. Congress and the American people into accepting fascism."

Who within the US government? How do you know it was someone within the US government? What if it was someone working for the Israeli government GW? Oh, I see, because the only possible motives are to justify attacking the "oil countries" (whose friendship and oil would be ours cheap if we didn't support Israel) or to get Americans to accept fascism. I mean, couldn't be Israel trying to trick us into fighting wars against our interest and in theirs...

dicktater's picture

An Anthrax tip...

More from Larisa Alexandrovna

http://www.atlargely.com/

An Anthrax tip...

http://www.atlargely.com/2008/08/an-anthrax-tip.html

Posted by Larisa Alexandrovna on August 04, 2008 at 04:33 PM

UPDATE BELOW

To my colleagues in the press running around after the Anthrax story, I have gotten an interesting comment that could be a tip worth following. Let me be clear, I do not know who this is or if the person is using their real name or if any of the allegations are true. But I am also not investigating this story for an article as I am traveling for a different story at the moment. I have the commentators email and will share it with reputable journalists so long as there is an agreement that the person's contact information remain private until you are able to get a release from him. Contact me at my RS account.

For those of you on this story, I think you should see if you can locate the person named and see if you can authenticate that it was them who posted the comment. If it pans out, then your next question to the FBI will be obvious (hint: the son):

I have been a close friend of Dr. Bruce Ivins for years. The FBI needed a scapegoat, especially after Stephen Hatfill, whose foot the FBI ran over, won a $5.2 M lawsuit against them.

The new FBI director needed a capture in this case. So, they took all of the Ft. Detrick anthrax researchers and put them under intense interrogation.

Bruce was a mild, meek and sensitive scientist. The FBI showed his clinically depressed daughter, who was institutionalized in a mental hospital, photos of the anthrax victims, and said "your father did this." They offered his son $2.5 M and a sportscar if he would "rat" on his father.

Bruce could not stand stand up to the constant harrasment by the FBI. So we have lost a very talented researcher, so that the FBI can close the case...

Posted by:Dr. Gerry Higgins |
August 04, 2008 at 07:02 AM

UPDATE ONE       

A number of well respected journalists have taken the tip. So I think we are going to see some stories either way, depending on the source information. I have had a few conversations with some FEEBS I know and thus far - right now anyway - it would appear that the FBI put some incredibly unethical pressure on this man. If what I have thus far heard pans out and is reported in the next few days, then you will see what I am talking about and if it is true, then there should be an investigation into illegal FBI activities and methods. I will keep you posted.

Is this Dr. Gerry Higgins???

Gerald Higgins, PhD
Laerdal Medical
(301) 565-3388
Gerry.Higgins@laerdal.com

Bio:

http://www.hypercosm.com/company/people/higginsg.html

dicktater's picture

Ivins Was a Registered Democrat

BLOGGED BY Brad Friedman ON 8/4/2008 6:13PM  

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6245

Party Affiliation of the Now-Deceased Bruce Ivins, as Confirmed by His Local County Board of Elections, Adds Yet Another Curious Question to the Increasingly Troubling Investigation into the Post-9/11 Terrorist Attacks on American Soil...


-- Brad Friedman

Bruce E. Ivins, reportedly on the verge of being indicted for capital murder in the anthrax killings, was a registered Democrat, according to the Fredrick County, MD, Board of Elections. He had been registered there since 1982 and records indicate that he voted in "every election since 1996," including Democratic primaries, according to the official who responded to a request from West Virginia-based radio host Bob Kincaid.

The party affiliation of the bio-terror researcher who worked at U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Disease (USAMRIID) adds a notable twist to the ever increasing questions surrounding the bizarre case following Ivins' reported suicide last week. He was, according to media reports, soon to be indicted for charges related to the post-9/11 terror attacks that rocked the nation and, as Salon's Glen Greenwald has very effectively argued, served as a crucial influence in marching the country towards war with Iraq.

Last week, as the story of Ivins' reported suicide were breaking, The BRAD BLOG excoriated the corporate mainstream media for failing to note that the targets of the multiple post-9/11 terror attacks on American soil were primarily powerful men, perceived as "liberals" by the Republican right wing. Nonetheless, despite two senior Democratic U.S. senators, Tom Daschle of SD and Patrick Leahy of VT, having been the only known governmental targets in the deadly letter campaign, which also included perceived "liberal" media figurehead Tom Brokaw, the MSM coverage --- almost uniformly --- failed to note the obvious correlations in the attacks. Most even failed to even mention the names of those who were directly targeted in what was clearly meant to appear as a follow-up attack from Muslim extremists.

Furthermore, as we also noted on Friday, despite a parade of reporters who had contacted Ivins' oldest brother Thomas that day for comment, not one of them --- until us --- bothered even to inquire about Bruce's political leanings or affiliations.

That it now turns out Ivins was a registered Democrat adds yet another curious twist to a story which is already revealing bizarre and potentially exculpatory evidence and other cracks in the government's reported (though, as yet, not publicly disclosed) case against him. Today, the New York Times noted, as we similarly did yesterday, that the FBI's case against Ivins appears to be almost entirely circumstantial, at least based on the information so far available...

As the Times, The BRAD BLOG, and many others have now noted, the case appears to hinge largely on the testimony of a social worker, Jean C. Duley, who had treated Ivins for a number of months in group therapy. As it turns out, however, Duley herself has a criminal history (as detailed by both Larisa Alexandrovna and Greenwald) and is no longer working at the Fredrick, MD, facility where Ivins was being treated, according to Bloomberg News.

A physician, bio-terror specialist, and former colleague of Ivins, Meryl Nass raised significant questions about the veracity of Duley's testimony against Ivins on her blog devoted to the topic.

Further, the Washington Post noted on Friday (before they scrubbed the story from their website, but then re-asserted the charges on Sunday) that colleagues of Ivins and other experts felt Ivins couldn't have carried out the attacks, as "he had no access to dry, powdered anthrax" of the type used in the attacks at the Army lab in MD where he worked.

While it was too late to reach anyone for confirmation at the Frederick County, MD, Board of Elections, our source for this report, Bob Kincaid, creator and host of the progressive Head-On Radio Network, has been a long-time trusted friend of The BRAD BLOG. He detailed the information he gathered and how he gathered it.

After he informed us of his findings late this afternoon, we asked if he had documents from the BoE to support the claim that Ivins was a Democrat.

He replied, via email, that he had no physical documentation, at this time, since "The nature of Maryland law was such that I had to provide them with a written request for info, signed by yrs trly."

He "complied by e-mailing a scan of a signed request letter" and was told that he could either wait for the information in response to his request to be sent via the U.S. mail or he could be notified by phone. "They...informed me that the Board isn't allowed to e-mail such info in response" to such requests, Kincaid wrote and later confirmed when we chatted about the matter later on the phone, and on his radio program late this afternoon. (The MP3 of that interview is now posted as an update at the bottom of this article.)

"I didn't want to wait for the snail mail, so I requested they let me know by phone," Kincaid told us during the follow-up call.

"I asked for Bruce Ivins," he explained while detailing his call to the BoE. "I spelled the name, and they were well familiar with who I was talking about. I can't imagine that there could be many other Bruce Ivins in Frederick, Maryland."

The BRAD BLOG has reviewed the signed request that Kincaid says he sent to Stuart Harvey, Supervisor of the BoE, in which Kincaid noted that "Any response [to the request] may be made telephonically to the number above or to [his email address]. Inasmuch as this is information for a story on deadline, there is no need to mail the response."

"The purpose of this correspondence is to provide you with a written request," Kincaid wrote to Harvey, "pursuant to Maryland law as you expressed it to me, for all public voter registration information for an individual by the name of Bruce Ivins, included, but not limited to name, address of registration, party affiliation and elections/primaries in which the registrant has voted."

Kincaid was later called back by a deputy to the Supervisor of the Fredrick County BoE and informed that Ivins had been a registered Democrat and had voted in every election since 1996. The pertinent part of the initial email from Kincaid follows:

The nature of Maryland law was such that I had to provide them with a written request for info, signed by yrs trly. I complied by e-mailing a scan of a signed request letter.

They then informed me that the Board isn't allowed to e-mail such info in response. She instead conveyed the information by phone, said info being received by my lovely wife, Agnes. That information via Noreen, the deputy to Stuart Harvey, Supervisor of the Frederick County, Maryland Board of Elections, is as follows: Bruce Ivins, Date of Registration 24 November 1982. Party of Registration: Democrat. Records indicate he voted in every election since 1996.

Kincaid confirmed again, on the air today, that his understanding was that Ivins had voted in every Democratic Primary election in Frederick County since '96, since Maryland has a "closed" primary system, allowing only members of each political party to vote in their own primaries. "So it wasn't an Operation Chaos type of thing," Kincaid explained on the air, referring to rightwing radio host Rush Limbaugh's campaign to encourage Republicans to vote for Hillary Clinton in this year's Democratic Primary contests.

Little otherwise seems to be known so far about Ivins' political affiliation and little has been reported on what would seem to be a crucial element in the case. The toxic letters sent to the Democratic senators were written so as to have appeared to be from a Muslim extremist, and were used to further back the Administration's early allegations that the 9/11 attacks were from similar entities.

Ivins was known to have been a practicing Roman Catholic and a regular attendee of his local parish, according to a number of media accounts. He had sent Letters to the Editor of his local paper, the Frederick News, over the years. The paper printed several of them.

Greenwald reported on the cryptic clues, perhaps revealed by those letters, regarding Ivins' ideology. The letters, which seem to indicate, contrary to his party registration, that he leaned politically rightward, were excerpted by Greenwald on Friday as follows:

Though the underlying ideology is a bit difficult to discern, he seems clearly driven by a belief in the need for Christian doctrine to govern our laws and political institutions, with a particular interest in Catholic dogma. He wrote things like this:

Today we frequently admonish people who oppose abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide or capital punishment to keep their religious, moral, and philosophical beliefs to themselves.

Before dispensing such admonishments in the future, perhaps we should gratefully consider some of our country's most courageous, historical figures who refused to do so.

And then there's this rather cryptic message, published in 2006:

Rabbi Morris Kosman is entirely correct in summarily rejecting the demands of the Frederick Imam for a "dialogue."

By blood and faith, Jews are God's chosen, and have no need for "dialogue" with any gentile. End of "dialogue."

Given the similarities in the perceived political ideology among the targeted victims of the anthrax letters, the political affiliation or leanings of whoever was responsible for the attacks would seem key to the government's still-undisclosed case. Yet that aspect continues to be largely overlooked in the media coverage since Ivins' death.

Greenwald noted this interesting exchange from a Vermont Daily Briefing interview with Leahy late last year, which highlights the political undertones in the case [emphasis Greenwald's]:

Leahy: What I want to know --- I have a theory. But what I want to know is why me, why Tom Daschle, why Tom Brokaw?

VDB: Right. That all fits into the profile of a kind of hard-core and obviously insane ideologue on the far Right, somebody who would fixate on especially Tom Daschle, who at that point was the target of daily, vitriolic attacks on Right-wing talk radio.

Leahy: [Slowly, with a little shake of the head] I don't think it’s somebody insane. I'd accept everything else you said. But I don’t think it's somebody insane. And I think there are people within our government --- certainly from the source of it --- who know where it came from. [Taps the table to let that settle in] And these people may not have had anything to do with it, but they certainly know where it came from.

While Ivins' registration as a Democrat, originally filed as far back as 1982, doesn't necessarily mean he continued to hold the same political leanings today --- many voters who are registered, but who haven't moved, simply do not bother to change their party affiliation, even as their political beliefs morph over the years --- it's certainly another point of interest in an increasingly troubling case.

Kincaid, who conceded during our interview that the revelation of Ivins' party registration, in and of itself, was not necessarily "probative," still found it difficult to believe that someone as virulently rightwing as the author of the anthrax letters was believed to have been, would continue year in and year out to vote in Democratic primary elections.

Why it has taken the mainstream corporate media this long to ask and investigate similar questions about the political affiliation of Ivins, or even probe their many unnamed "government official" sources who have been feeding them reports, is just one more troubling mystery in the ever-growing mountain of troubling aspects in this story.

UPDATE: As promised, here is our hour-long interview today with Bob Kincaid, from his Head-On program, concerning the latest developments, issues and concerns in the anthrax case. Details concerning his findings on Bruce Ivins' Democratic Party registration in Maryland are discussed in the final 15 minutes or so of the hour.

Thanks to Ben Burch of White Rose Society for the MP3! Download it here

gretavo's picture

Ivins' Letters to the Editor

Let's deconstruct this a little, shall we? 
Though the underlying ideology is a bit difficult to discern, he seems clearly driven by a belief in the need for Christian doctrine to govern our laws and political institutions, with a particular interest in Catholic dogma. He wrote things like this:

 

Today we frequently admonish people who oppose abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide or capital punishment to keep their religious, moral, and philosophical beliefs to themselves.

Before dispensing such admonishments in the future, perhaps we should gratefully consider some of our country's most courageous, historical figures who refused to do so.

You know what, that doesn't sound like a dogmatist to me--sounds like someone who is opposed to anti-religious dogma.  But hey, they gotta try to make him sound like a right wing christian nut, right?  I think that the intro to the quote above is quite tellingly overstated given the actual content not being much proof of what it claims is so obvious...

And then there's this rather cryptic message, published in 2006:

Rabbi Morris Kosman is entirely correct in summarily rejecting the demands of the Frederick Imam for a "dialogue."

By blood and faith, Jews are God's chosen, and have no need for "dialogue" with any gentile. End of "dialogue."

Uh oh--looks like Ivins might have been a not so closeted "jew-hater!"  Or does no one else read this as totally sarcastic?

I think it's becoming clear why Ivins has been framed--he does seem to have probably known more than he should have and was apparently not too fond of Jewish supremacists.  Hmmmm.

gretavo's picture

WSJ op-ed says Ivins unlikely to be Anthrax culprit

Now the question is, who ARE they going to try to blame it on if not Ivins? Iraq? Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? Note that this guy says the anthrax was produced according to the "Russian recipe". Hmmm... do we know any countries with strong ties to the Russian mafia? Nonetheless, othe routlets keep printing salacious stories about Ivins. It seems that there are always a few versions to a story: 1) the one for mass consumption by Britneyphiles and their ilk, in this case linking Ivins to a sorority; 2) the one for self-identified skeptics who know the "official story" is always bogus and who go looking for alternatives--thus an alternative is provided for them, usually a red herring--this may end up being some allusion to al Qaeda, the CIA, Iraq--we'll see I'm sure; and 3) the truth, which can be mentioned but only by people acting like dickheads, i.e. neo-nazi racists, etc. Considering the source, this may be a #2...

OPINION

Bruce Ivins Wasn't the Anthrax Culprit
By RICHARD SPERTZEL
August 5, 2008; Page A17

Over the past week the media was gripped by the news that the FBI was about to charge Bruce Ivins, a leading anthrax expert, as the man responsible for the anthrax letter attacks in September/October 2001.

But despite the seemingly powerful narrative that Ivins committed suicide because investigators were closing in, this is still far from a shut case. The FBI needs to explain why it zeroed in on Ivins, how he could have made the anthrax mailed to lawmakers and the media, and how he (or anyone else) could have pulled off the attacks, acting alone.

I believe this is another mistake in the investigation.

Let's start with the anthrax in the letters to Sens. Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy. The spores could not have been produced at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, where Ivins worked, without many other people being aware of it. Furthermore, the equipment to make such a product does not exist at the institute.

Information released by the FBI over the past seven years indicates a product of exceptional quality. The product contained essentially pure spores. The particle size was 1.5 to 3 microns in diameter. There are several methods used to produce anthrax that small. But most of them require milling the spores to a size small enough that it can be inhaled into the lower reaches of the lungs. In this case, however, the anthrax spores were not milled.

What's more, they were also tailored to make them potentially more dangerous. According to a FBI news release from November 2001, the particles were coated by a "product not seen previously to be used in this fashion before." Apparently, the spores were coated with a polyglass which tightly bound hydrophilic silica to each particle. That's what was briefed (according to one of my former weapons inspectors at the United Nations Special Commission) by the FBI to the German Foreign Ministry at the time.

Another FBI leak indicated that each particle was given a weak electric charge, thereby causing the particles to repel each other at the molecular level. This made it easier for the spores to float in the air, and increased their retention in the lungs.

In short, the potential lethality of anthrax in this case far exceeds that of any powdered product found in the now extinct U.S. Biological Warfare Program. In meetings held on the cleanup of the anthrax spores in Washington, the product was described by an official at the Department of Homeland Security as "according to the Russian recipes" -- apparently referring to the use of the weak electric charge.

The latest line of speculation asserts that the anthrax's DNA, obtained from some of the victims, initially led investigators to the laboratory where Ivins worked. But the FBI stated a few years ago that a complete DNA analysis was not helpful in identifying what laboratory might have made the product.

Furthermore, the anthrax in this case, the "Ames strain," is one of the most common strains in the world. Early in the investigations, the FBI said it was similar to strains found in Haiti and Sri Lanka. The strain at the institute was isolated originally from an animal in west Texas and can be found from Texas to Montana following the old cattle trails. Samples of the strain were also supplied to at least eight laboratories including three foreign laboratories. Four French government laboratories reported on studies with the Ames strain, citing the Pasteur Institute in Paris as the source of the strain they used. Organism DNA is not a very reliable way to make a case against a scientist.

The FBI has not officially released information on why it focused on Ivins, and whether he was about to be charged or arrested. And when the FBI does release this information, we should all remember that the case needs to be firmly based on solid information that would conclusively prove that a lone scientist could make such a sophisticated product.

From what we know so far, Bruce Ivins, although potentially a brilliant scientist, was not that man. The multiple disciplines and technologies required to make the anthrax in this case do not exist at Army's Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases. Inhalation studies are conducted at the institute, but they are done using liquid preparations, not powdered products.

The FBI spent between 12 and 18 months trying "to reverse engineer" (make a replica of) the anthrax in the letters sent to Messrs. Daschle and Leahy without success, according to FBI news releases. So why should federal investigators or the news media or the American public believe that a lone scientist would be able to do so?

Mr. Spertzel, head of the biological-weapons section of Unscom from 1994-99, was a member of the Iraq Survey Group.

juandelacruz's picture

hi G and the gang,Besides

hi G and the gang,

Besides the Russian recipe which I cannot verify, is there anything wrong or perhaps disinfo about this op-ed. I am looking for critical articles to repost in other forums and find this rather level headed and coming from a conservative source which cannot be accused of being liberal biased.

gretavo's picture

well, just consider the source...

As a relatively high level player the author must lean one way or another on important related issues, so it shouldn't be too hard to determine his bias one way or another... I have a feeling that there is a struggle at high levels to "stop the madness" and I suspect it boils down to those who think Israel must be protected at all costs and those who realize that that can only be done at the expense of American sovereignty...

gretavo's picture

source considered, and it says a lot!

This Spertzel guy is keen for Ivins not to take the rap because he wants to pin it on evil arab muslims... It's reminiscent of the apparent desire by some to blame Palestinians for 9/11, the apparent reluctance of some others to do that, and the decision to pick another patsy (i.e. bin Laden). Here the patsy is Ivins, but some people are upset about that and want the blame to fall on arab muslims. Someone needs to grow the balls or ovaries to just go with the awful truth instead of continuing to play this silly game...

FROM THE OPINIONJOURNAL ARCHIVES
AFTER THE WAR

The Politics of Mass Destruction
Of course Iraq had forbidden weapons.
by RICHARD SPERTZEL
Sunday, June 29, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT

Even as evidence is uncovered that Saddam Hussein was planning to revive his nuclear-weapons program at the earliest possible date, politicians and pundits alike lament the failure of coalition forces to find a "smoking gun." Despite the recent discovery of plans and parts for a uranium-enrichment centrifuge, some presidential candidates have accused the Bush administration of lying about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to justify the war with Iraq.

Such assertions ignore all that has been learned and has transpired during the past 12-plus years. As I've said time and again, expecting any inspection regime to find a massive cache of WMDs is a lesson in self-delusion. Such folly can only bring cheer to those who opposed the war in the first place and to those who simply oppose the Bush administration.

Recall that during the first Gulf War, Iraq stored its biological-agent-filled munitions in pits dug in the sand or in abandoned railroad tunnels. Such sites are not easily found. Good intelligence emanating from those Iraqi personnel responsible for the deployment, protection and control of such storage sites will be required. Indeed, it was an Iraqi scientist who last week led coalition forces to the site where the uranium-enrichment equipment was buried. But many WMD personnel were part of the Special Security Organization under Saddam's younger son, Qusay. The information is not likely to be obtained easily.

Some pundits question, if Iraq had WMDs, why did it not use them? Iraq learned from the first Gulf War that coalition forces headed by the U.S. could advance very rapidly. Iraq also indicated in testimony to the U.N. Special Commission, or Unscom, that biological weapons would have little effect in stopping an advancing military force. Rather, their interest was to use biological weapons to intimidate their neighbors and cause them to "see things Iraq's way." Thus its failure to use biological WMDs should not be a surprise to anyone. The failure to use chemical WMDs is also not surprising considering the apparent confusion within the Iraqi command structure during the race to Baghdad.
Then, why have such weapons not been found? The answer may lie in the training and experience of the inspectors. The initial team looking for WMDs in Iraq was more reminiscent of site exploiters than inspectors. True, if they found a bomb or missile warhead, they were capable of further exploitation of the find to determine its contents. But they apparently did not have testing instruments capable of detecting trace amounts of biological-weapons agents.

The next iteration of the coalition inspectors was supposed to have a number of inspectors that had extensive experience in Iraq and has been so misrepresented in the media. I was asked in February to propose a list of Unscom experienced biological inspectors (a so-called A team) that had multiple inspection trips to Iraq. These were to be from the U.S., the U.K. and Australia. In March, after the concept was approved, I was asked to contact those on my list to assure they were willing and able to devote the time. All but one agreed to the deployment. None of the individuals on that list ever made it to Iraq.

A few weeks ago David Albright, writing in the Washington Post, stated that he had been contacted by several Iraqi nuclear scientists who asserted that they were afraid to talk to the coalition inspectors because of the way they were being treated by the inspectors--interrogation, threats, etc., rather than with any degree of respect. The interviewing of Iraqi scientists is where extensive experience would have been most valuable. One doesn't need to like what was done or the individual scientist to treat them with respect. Experienced inspectors knew this. Furthermore, experienced inspectors knew what, when, and how to pursue a subject that is unlikely to occur to a neophyte.

There is nothing that the U.S. could threaten the Iraqi scientists with that could approach what they've endured these past 30 to 40 years. A scientist I remain in contact with had been imprisoned by Iraq for 17 months in the 1990s. In early March this year, with tensions building, he was again arrested for fear he would disclose information Iraq did not want disclosed.

It is encouraging that the third and current iteration under the CIA is headed by David Kay, which may account for the recent breakthrough in uncovering the uranium-enrichment plans. In regard to other WMDs, Iraq imported or retained over the last several years key pieces of equipment that could not readily be carried off by looters. If located, extensive intrusive sampling with the right test system might tell wonders about Iraq's biological-weapons programs.
Let there be no doubt, Iraq retained an active biological-weapons program. Unscom had adequate evidence of such. In 1998, presented with the evidence, the leading biological-weapons experts from the U.S., U.K., Russia, France, Sweden, Australia, Germany, Switzerland, Ukraine, Romania and Canada all agreed with the Unscom findings and observations. Incredibly, U.S. and British politicians with little or no knowledge of biological weapons and biological warfare are choosing to believe otherwise.

Mr. Spertzel was head of the biological-weapons section of Unscom from 1994-99.

juandelacruz's picture

i am hoping that the op-ed

i am hoping that the op-ed is one of those grains of truth that fell through the cracks while the conspirators are caught off guard by some error or issue caused by their own bumbling operatives. Remember the fox news report that focused on the Israeli kiosk workers and the dancing Mossad?

I try to inject crtical articles from conservative or mainstream websites into some forums which are policed by conservatives. If i source articles from liberal and truth websites, they get removed or locked killing further discussion.

gretavo's picture

i dont know about that...

I don't think this is an accident, Spretzel or whatever his name is seems to have a clear agenda, which is to villify arabs and muslims. Pinning this with ridiculous "evidence" on an American may well have been a strategy designed to get people to reject the "inside job" theory and jump naturally to the "it MUST have been evil arab muslims, since the inside job case is so flimsy" position. Of course the most likely scenario in my view is that people acting on behalf of Israel mailed the anthrax, which they could have stolen from anywhere, including Ft Detrick, possibly with the help of Phillip Zack but not necessarily. The circumstancial evidence is clear and we'd be fools to believe that they are actually going to release any evidence that points the finger of suspicion towards Country A....

juandelacruz's picture

thanks, nice find on the

thanks, nice find on the spretzel wmd article.

gretavo's picture

yeah, someone should tell the folks at 911B

http://www.911blogger.com/node/16957

But then again, they also probably want to blame it on evil arab muslims--that IS their MO after all... let's see if anyone points it out!

Couldn't believe this came out of WSJ, but it did ...
Bruce Ivins Wasn't the Anthrax Culprit

By RICHARD SPERTZEL
August 5, 2008

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121789293570011775.html?mod=googlenews_w...

The author is saying that the strain of anthrax is so sophisticated that even Ft. Detrick could not have created it much less a lone scientist.

Submitted by joann on Tue, 08/05/2008 - 12:40pm.

dicktater's picture

Anthrax Attack Classic False Flag Operation Targeting Arabs

"yeah, someone should tell the folks at 911B"

Looks like someone did.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/16949

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/08/government-framed-arabs-fo...

The Anthrax Attack Was a Classic False Flag Operation Targeting Arabs

Whether or not Bruce Ivins had a role in the anthrax attacks, trying to now blame him alone for the attacks is ignoring the elephant in the room: the anthrax attack was a classic false flag attack blamed on Arabs. For example:

  • Senator Patrick Leahy said:
And I think there are people within our government -- certainly from the source of it -- who know where it came from. [Taps the table to let that settle in] And these people may not have had anything to do with it, but they certainly know where it came from.

In other words, people knew, but weren't admitting, that the source was an insider.

Therefore, whether Ivins or another scientist working for the U.S. government carried out the anthrax attacks is actually not the primary question. The main question is who within the U.S. government framed Arabs for the attacks, and whether the attacks were motivated primarily as a justification for war against Middle Eastern oil countries or to intimidate the U.S. Congress and the American people into accepting fascism.

The fact that the government is now trying to blame it all on American does not change the fact that it was - for 7 years - blamed on Arabs. The government is trying to neatly tie up the whole mess and bury the story. But the "war on terror" has already been raging for close to a decade, and the Iraq war for some 5 years. The damage - caused by the false flag operation - cannot so easily be erased.

juandelacruz's picture

What if the anthrax attack

What if the anthrax attack was ordered by the Neocons rather than the Israelis. Just making this up to make sense of events. Assuming the anthrax attack was linked to the Neocons operationally, the Israeli Zionists may be using the media to pressure the Neocons to push a war with Iran.

Lets wind back a bit. What if the Neocons organized the anthrax affair. They do it as partners in the whole 9-11 grand plan, but the Israelis are hands off and cannot be traced in the anthrax op. The operation succeeds in pushing the Patriot act but fails to paint Iraq as the patsy. The fbi then tries to pin it on alternate fall guys but could not make it stick. The case is then burried for a while. Much later, the FBI finds another patsy and pressures him to suicide if not doing him in. The fbi tries to close the case and initially media goes along. The Israelis however take notice and having been spurned by the Neocons about attacking Iran decide to take advantage of the situation. Instead of letting the fbi close the case quietly, the Zionists make the WSJ and NYT start to express doubts and question the investigation. The neocons are thus blackmailed to either deliver on Iran or else face being linked to the anthrax plot.

gretavo's picture

why would the FBI try to pin it on alternate fall guys?

the way I see it people like Feith and WIlliam Safire among other neocons were in charge of pushing the desired reaction--BLAME IRAQ and al Qaeda! Operationally someone had to weaponize the anthrax (from what I can tell the anthrax at Ft Detrick was used to research vaccines, not as part of a weapons program--it also seems that security was notoriously lax and that there were all kinds of shenanigans going on)and put it in envelopes and deliver it. Either a lone crazy American scientist (not likely) or a team (more likely). If as is likely a team was involved, we return to the same kind of question as involved in "who rigged the towers for demolition?" You'd have to consider the USG populated by evil psychopaths to believe that a team could be recruited for such vile treasonous acts with no one blowing the whistle even if secretly to SOMEONE. On the other hand, a team of non-americans who see Americans as mere pawns in their game of strategic dominance by deception could easily be assembled from a foreign nation, especially one whose citizens are supposed to be trustworthy to americans...

casseia's picture

offtopic

but could you fix the formatting in this thread and then tell me what you did? I looked at the html in dicktater's post and can't figger it out.

gretavo's picture

sure...

for the embedded responses I added < / span > < / p > < / div > (kind of randomly) at the end of affected posts to close whatever might still be open.

the extra width i'm sure has to do with the big picture of the handwritten note embedded in the Duley post I think...

casseia's picture

thx

eom

gretavo's picture

yw

xyz pdq

juandelacruz's picture

Perhaps the plotters did not

Perhaps the plotters did not get everyone in the disinfo chain to cooperate. It seems the FBI had to submit the evidence to the US Army to analyze, then somebody let the cat out of the bag that the anthrax was a highly processed form and of a strain that nobody would believe came from Iraq. We know that ABC and some other media did try to link the anthrax to Iraq, but this effort was later abandoned. Very early on the Egyptian guy from the Army lab seemed to be the fall guy, then Iraq, next was Hatfill, finally it was Ivins. The FBI seems to be shopping for a patsy which makes it obvious that something was botched.

The team (i dont buy lone operator) that did the anthrax procurement,weaponization and mailing could be anyone including Israeli, US military and/or private contractors, its just not defined by the evidence at this point.

There are mercenaries for hire in every country, and I don't think there is any reason for Israeli operators to have a monopoly on vileness. US kids and adults have initiated school schooting massacres, what's to stop a sociopathic American adult from weaponizing and mailing out anthrax to fellow Americans for profit.

dicktater's picture

Everyone except Dr. Zack

"By way of deception, thou shalt do war" -- Motto of some certain foreign intelligence agency with direct ties to U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Very early on the Egyptian guy from the Army lab seemed to be the fall guy, then Iraq, next was Hatfill, finally it was Ivins. The FBI seems to be shopping for a patsy which makes it obvious that something was botched.

So many rabbit holes, so little time. Which one? Which one?

Everyone's a suspect. Everyone except Dr. Zack:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/anthraxsuspect.html?q=anthraxs...

juandelacruz's picture

Yes, Dr. Zack looks like one

Yes, Dr. Zack looks like one of the plotters to me. Why was he let off the hook after being caught on camera entering a secure area to which he had no authorization at the time? Why did he try to draw suspicion on Dr Asaad, the Egyptian lab guy? I suppose there was a mole in the FBI investigation or higher up who protected Dr. Zack. Whoever instigated the anthrax attack itself is only half the story, the other half is who are running the coverup.

Some of the people who I think should be questioned are Dr. Zack, Dr. Rosenberg who accused Dr. Hatfill, Jean Duley who accused Ivins, and the FBI investigating team itself.

Chris's picture

Alex Jones calls out Dr.

Alex Jones calls out Dr. Zack on the John Gibson show and is called anti-semitic:

 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/alex-jones-on-john-gibson-80408.html

 

say what you will about AJ, he has his faults no doubt, but at least hes not afraid to speak Zacks name like all other media appears to be.

kate of the kiosk's picture

thanks, chris

Actually it sounds like he was baited to appear anti-"semitic" or anti-Jew by the interviewer's remarks. Jones is a driven, loud-mouth piece-of-work, but he does the research and has the balls. glad he mentioned the fired, but with access to level 4 Dr. Zack and with more info on that angle than i had gleaned previously.  Unfortunately, on other occasions,  AJ has blamed Arabs for "owning everything in this country..."...so not quite sure where he stands on the issues of Israeli versus Arab involvement in the crimes of 9/11.  is he still in the Saudi Arab-hijacker hang?

 

 

kate of the kiosk's picture

the AM talk radio crowd

 i do think the intention of the producers of this stupid show was to inviteon a persona they know to be an excitable, nutty 9/11 conspiracy crackpot - AJ -  so as to disparage the 9/11 truth movement.

that being said, i don't think AJ came off that bad, actually. he's so AM talk he beat them at their game....

Chris's picture

well, he actually said hes

well, he actually said hes working on a movie about Israeli "involvement" in 9/11, whatever that means to him. i'll believe it when i see it though. honestly, i was kind of surprised he even mentioned Zack as a suspect in the anthrax attacks. he has a history of "not going there" like most of our MSM(and "alternative" media) when it comes Israel/Mossads biggest crimes. that said, i gotta give credit where its due, if i was listening to that interview without knowing who AJ was and without knowing the facts of the anthrax case i would have come away from it thinking he came off much better than the childish ass who interviewed him and with a desire to know more about the anthrax case. knowing who he is, im still kind of impressed with how he did, he laid out the facts and the zombies who listen to John Gibson will have to decide for themselves who came off better, the guy simply laying out facts or the guy who tried to race bait and play games.

gretavo's picture

well it's the people who let him on the air...

...who make the decision. I would mention Zack's name if they would invite me on their show, but they don't! AJ on the other hand gets on the MSM, right after his website is pimped negatively by the MSM by virtue of its connection to the Jason Robo "bumper stickers on a plane" stunt. now if anyone mentions Dr. Zack in polite company they will be accused of being "just like that kook conspiracy theorist whose cult followers disrupt airline travel with their ridiculous bumper stickers." This of course to me suggests that Zack is indeed a person of interest--I just don't think it helps get the truth out for Alex Jones to be the one associated with the story. If we in the truth movement have qualms about him imagine how skeptical the folks in the "mainstream" of anything and everything he claims to be true! also by suggesting that he is anti-semitic it makes people like us look like we're... well, whatever is worse than "anti-semitic" these days.

dicktater's picture

You gotta love this. Before

You gotta love this. Before bringing on AJ, Scott Allen Miller, who was filling in for Gibson says:

Part 1

"So, we haftuh be very elaborate how we set this up."

Ah. So, not only do they have to set something up, they have to do so elaborately. Though I doubt they will, I hope that the show's regular listeners would wonder why.

AJ at least gets out that Ivins died while in government custody in a mental hospital. Most anyone familiar with the story, if asked, probably thinks that Ivins overdosed at home and later died in a hospital after being taken there by ambulance.

Later, in Part 2, Miller says:

"I believe ya. I believe ya, Alex."

"We're talking about Israel, the United States, and England who've all been caught staging false flag terror events over and over, and over and over again."

Part 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REw7DKp12SQ&feature=related

Like him or not, AJ pounds this Miller guy and proves that it is legitimate to question the suspicious and repeated lying by the FBI.

Miller:

"So, we have a government that's willing to kill its people to make its point."

AJ:

"Tuskegee."

Miller:

"Just like those chicken places making black men sterile.

AJ:

"Tuskegee is not funny."

Miller:

"I'm not trying to be funny. I'm talking about chicken."

AJ:

"God help you."

juandelacruz's picture

My bad, the person who sent

My bad, the person who sent a letter that tries to implicate Dr. Asaad in the anthrax attack has not yet been publicly identified by the FBI. I wrote above that Dr. Zack tried to draw suspicion to Dr. Asaad, that is a jump to a conclusion not supported by any evidence. Dr. Zack has other documented offences against Dr. Asaad.

gretavo's picture

right...

which is why I think it's reasonable to assume that it WAS Zack. but the important thing is that people be aware of the existence of this letter and that an honest attempt be made to determine who sent it and bring them to account.

kate of the kiosk's picture

hello juan

mr michael chertoff...isn't he at the top of the heap? who do have to question him?

juandelacruz's picture

Hi Kate, Yeah I think

Hi Kate,

Yeah I think Chertoff is a high ranking actor in the 9-11 plot. I would think the top guys however are Benjamin Netanyahu, Richard Cheney, and maybe people we don't even know of.

The high level guys would include Chertoff, perhaps AG Ashcroft, Rudolph Giuliani, et al.

If you are asking who would question them, I am hoping US citizens would take it upon themselves to replace its leaders with a clean slate then demand a thorough investigation. But perhaps a future international investigation can bring in suspects from Israel, UK and all places where these criminals are.

Chris's picture

dont forget Dov Zakheim. you

dont forget Dov Zakheim. you think it was him or Rummy who decided to make that announcement on Sept.10,2001? either way, i believe the planes were remotely controlled and that would be Dovs territory.

juandelacruz's picture

Most likely Larry

Most likely Larry Silverstein is involved as well. I don't really have a list of who are the particular persons involved and what they did, I just think that these people are suspects since their actions or affiliations seem connected to or in support of the conspiracy.

gretavo's picture

what about the letter accusing Assaad BEFORE the mailings?

We don't yet know if it was Zack who sent it but it sure looks like it was him. The key here is that the letter accusing Assaad of plotting biowarfare was sent before the anthrax mailings. It seems plausible that the intent was to make Assaad the default suspect once the mailings were sent. Moreover, see this article that states the FBI is withholding the accusatory letter--that was back in 2003 when Hatfill was still an alleged suspect. What is their excuse now? SO it becomes obvious to th eperps that the Assaad trick is transparent so they instead try to frame Hatfill, who apparently is a bit of a right winger (blame arabs, then blame a white right winger? hmmm...) When Hatfill fights back they are stuck either telling the truth or...

Source: Washington Times, August 10, 2003

Accused scientist says letter links to anthrax mailers

By Guy Taylor, THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The FBI won't release an anonymous letter, which in the days before the 2001 fatal anthrax mailings, accused an Egyptian-born scientist of plotting biowarfare against the United States, saying it would divulge secret sources in the continuing investigation.

In a July 7 note citing the sources, the FBI denied Ayaad Assaad, the letter's subject, access to the evidence. Mr. Assaad said he's convinced it is linked to a person or a group responsible for the anthrax mailings that killed five persons.

"They know damn well that this letter is connected to the anthrax sender," he said, adding that the FBI's refusal to provide a copy suggests "they're trying to protect whoever sent it."

He said he suspects it led investigators to the Army's biodefense lab at Fort Detrick.

Asked about the anonymous letter Friday, a spokeswoman at the FBI's Washington field office said it is "unrelated to the anthrax mailings."

However, that assertion hasn't stopped the bureau from withholding it for nearly two years from Mr. Assaad. According to the July 7 note to him, in which the Justice Department denied his latest request for a copy of the letter, releasing it "could reasonably be expected to disclose the identities of confidential sources and information by such sources."

About two weeks before the anthrax mailings became known, the FBI was given the unsigned letter describing Mr. Assaad, who once worked at Fort Detrick, as an anti-American religious fanatic with the means and expertise to unleash a bioweapons attack.

He has been seeking a copy of the letter ever since agents with the FBI's Washington field office questioned him about it on Oct. 3, 2001.

The Hartford Courant first reported the FBI's continued refusal to release it last month. During an interview with The Washington Times on Thursday, Mr. Assaad said he's baffled by what he calls the FBI's contradictory actions.

"They're trying to protect someone who hurt me," he said, explaining that from what he saw of the letter it was laden with false and negative statements about him. While it didn't specify his religion, he said it called him a "religious fanatic."

Mr. Assaad, who holds graduate degrees from Iowa State University and has lived in the United States since the mid-1970s, claims he was discriminated against when he worked at the Army's Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick. He now works as a toxicologist for the Environmental Protection Agency.

He said when the FBI questioned him about the anonymous letter, agents told him he could file a Freedom of Information-Privacy Acts request to get a copy of it. When the interview was completed, the agents cleared him and said he was free to go.

However, he said when he made repeated calls to the FBI asking if agents wanted to speak with him again or if his past work with bioweapons could assist in their investigation, he was turned away.

Meanwhile, he said, the FBI had given him a wrong case number for filing the request to obtain a copy of the letter. FBI agents recently were seen near Fort Detrick unsuccessfully squishing through the muck at the bottom of a drained pond in search of evidence in the anthrax mailings. They reportedly were hunting for something tangible to connect the anthrax mailings to scientist Steven Hatfill, whom authorities have called a "person of interest" in the case.

No charges have been filed against Mr. Hatfill, but investigators who searched his apartment twice last year are said to have him under 24-hour surveillance.

Mr. Hatfill denies involvement in the anthrax mailings. He worked at Fort Detrick for two years, until 1999, before taking a job with defense contractor Science Applications International Corp., where he worked as a senior scientist until March 2002.

According to a report last month in The New York Times, he was involved in building mock biological weapons labs to train special operations personnel on what to look for in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere.

gretavo's picture

here is why Hatfill was picked after the evil arab muslim...

Just like OKC.  Try to frame the arabs.  Then try to frame the "white christians"  (read hmmm... racists!)  Make sure everyone knows that if you tell the truth you will suffer consequences.  These are classic Zionist tactics.  The idea of emphasizing the "inside job" scenario is to divide Americans and to make them distrust each other.  It's not hard to do because a) we do have collaborators in our midst, b) we have not always been perfect with domestic or foreign policy, and c) we suffer from the effects of a divisive and polarizing media tradition.  We can't confuse the efforts to cover up the truth and take the "offer that can't be refused" with ultimate agency--but that is exactly what the fake truth movement tries to make us do, in order that we not come to the realization that the enemy is not really domestic, although it has a domestic component.

"In his statement, Hatfill did refer to mistakes in his past, saying "there are things I would do or say differently than I did 10, 20 or more years ago." He may have been referring to published reports of extreme right-wing political views and claimed service in military units of the former white government of Zimbabwe, then Rhodesia. Hatfill lived abroad from 1978 to 1995, attending medical school in Zimbabwe and conducting medical research in South Africa and England."

juandelacruz's picture

I sort of think that Arabs

I sort of think that Arabs were the only patsy intended in the Anthrax attack. The threat letter was proof that they were the primary spin. The attempt to link Dr. Asaad was badly coordinated (perhaps prematurely sent) but still points to an Arab did it story. I think the shift to find another patsy only came about because someone from either the Army or FBI leaked info that the anthrax was highly sophisticated in its processing and traceable to the US Army labs. This could have been a deliberate attempt by some good guy to scuttle the Arab patsy story.

In the case of the OKC bombing, I dont have a good explanation why they had to bring in a white supremacist and at the same time allegedly having Arab looking men driving around. Maybe only the white supremacists were the intended patsy and the Arab looking guys driving around were not involved. I really dont get that case.

Trying to pin the blame on two none compatible patsies does not make much sense because the second story makes the first story less believable. In which case the spin masters lose credibility which is the opposite of what they would want to achieve.

dicktater's picture

That article is still

That article is still available here:

http://www.washtimes.com/news/2003/aug/09/20030809-110412-5744r/

So, do you have any guesses as to who might be the FBI's secret sauce, er uh I mean secret source who wrote the letter? Any bets that the letter author is "a slight woman with short graying hair and deeply concerned hazel eyes, who works out of a small office at the State University of New York at Purchase", who's name starts with an R and end with a G?

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2002/03/18/020318ta_talk_lemann

Was Assad ever able to obtain a copy of the letter?

juandelacruz's picture

Dr. Zack and his group at

Dr. Zack and his group at the Army lab have previously acted with hostility towards Dr. Asaad so I would count them as suspects. The letter accusing Dr. Asaad displayed familiarity with work at the lab further making Zack and his group suspect*. Dr. Rosenberg is claimed by the New Yorker article to be motivated by concerns that the US Army is violating bio weapons conventions**. Whether this is true, or just a cover for a disinfo agent, it would be inconsistent with her sending the letter accusing Asaad to a US Marine base in Quantico where it was first received.

*from The Hartford Currant article:
"But Assaad said he believes the note's timing makes the author a suspect in the anthrax attacks, and he is convinced that details of his work contained in the letter mean the author must be a former Fort Detrick colleague."

**The New Yorker article

dicktater's picture

Thanks for that.

I was thinking that since Rosenberg was involved in leading them on the Hatfield wild goose chase, that if the letter was from her, it would be pretty embarassing that they were allowing her to lead them on another.

gretavo's picture

I don't think Rosenberg sent the first letter framing Assaad

and I have no idea if it was Dr. Zack, but that's hardly the point. The point is that SOMEONE tried to frame an Arab for biowarfare activities shortly before the anthrax mailings. Then when the feds didn't bite, Barbara Rosenberg seems to have been behind the charge to point the finger at Hatfill, who has what many would consider an unsavory past and right wing proclivities--neither of which make him guilty as we have seen. After a costly effort to pursue Hatfill, we are given Ivins, another guy with perhaps an unorthodox personal life as a suspect with little apparent evidence, and who cannot defend himself or be tried for the crime. All of this points to me that there are a number of people (a conspiracy) trying to conceal the actual nature of the anthrax attacks. These conspirators have blamed first an arab and then a white right wing type and finally on a Catholic. All of these are known to be disliked militant Zionists. Even Ivins is quoted as criticizing in a letter to the editor a rabbi's decision not to have a dialogue with a local Imam. I don't think there is any doubt about what is being covered up in this case or with 9/11.

Keenan's picture

"You'd have to consider the

"You'd have to consider the USG populated by evil psychopaths to believe that a team could be recruited for such vile treasonous acts with no one blowing the whistle even if secretly to SOMEONE. On the other hand, a team of non-americans who see Americans as mere pawns in their game of strategic dominance by deception could easily be assembled from a foreign nation, especially one whose citizens are supposed to be trustworthy to americans"

I would have to disagree with this. It seems to me that there are certainly enough psychopaths in key positions in the "USG" to be willing to assemble a small little team of psychopaths to do "such vile treasonous acts" against Americans. And by definition, psychopaths will never feel the pangs of conscience to move themselves to blow the whistle to anyone.

Do you mean to say that you DON'T believe the USG is populated by evil psychopaths, at least in key positions? If not, why not? Of course, we can both agree that the ENTIRE USG is not made up of psychopaths. But that's not necessary. to be able to carry out vile treasonous acts and get away with it. Logically, the rate of psychopathy filling USG positions goes up exponentially the higher in the hierarchy you go. I think you can be reasonably sure that the higher levels of power positions have been rotting and festering for decades with the pathocracy (rule by psychopaths) having worked out and established the methods to ensure that only "their kind" maintain control over those key positions.

Remember, the population at large is estimated to have about 2-4% of psychopaths. It doesn't even take that high of a percentage of positions in the USG to be able to maintain complete control and secrecy of their true agenda, and I think we can be reasonably sure that the rate of psychopathy within the most powerful societal roles, such as government, is WAY higher than the overal rate in the population.

juandelacruz's picture

I agree. The biggest number

I agree. The biggest number of US deaths in 9-11 is actually in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am sure that some psycopaths in the military top brass were well aware that 9-11 was not due to Al Quaeda or Iraq. Despite the high number of casualties which can be expected of any war, the whole command of officers still executed the war without anyone significant resigning in protest and exposing the false intel. That alone illustrates that a number of sociopathic individuals were either not willing to oppose the conspiracy or were in fact active participants, US soldiers lives regardless. Sending men to kill and be killed for false reasons is as vile as blowing up or infecting innocent citizens with lethal germs. Of course the officers need not all be in the plot, but a few key players in the right places to keep everyone marching to the tune would have been sufficient. Think of how it works in the media, not everyone would be part of the plot, but I am sure a few key editors, publishers and perhaps reporters were in it from the start.

Israel is surely a culprit in 9-11, being the beneficiary of the crime, advocating the motive, having operatives sighted and arrested in the act, but the whole plot could not have moved as is without their conspiratorial partners in the US GOV and mass media.

gretavo's picture

What I think...

"Do you mean to say that you DON'T believe the USG is populated by evil psychopaths, at least in key positions? If not, why not? "

I think that "evil psychopath" is an inadequate term. I don't think it's accurate and I don't think it accounts for the nuances involved. I do not think that Rumsfeld and Cheney, to use two examples, are necessarily "evil psychopaths". Their behavior is also consistent with that of shameless opportunists, for instance. There are people I consider friends who act utterly irrationaly when it comes to 9/11 truth, etc. I do not doubt their sanity, but I understand that psychology is complex. I do not believe that Cheney or Rumsfeld are the evil geniuses behind everything. I don't think the people behind everything ARE evil geniuses. They are conspirators, they are criminals, they are shameless, they are egotists, and they are ideologically motivated. That's more than enough to account for their actions. Then there is the fact that the system itself dictates what people do and how they act. I am no longer going to go easy on those who want to make everything as simple as "evildoers!". The world is not as pathetically simple as Alex Jonesheads think (if indeed they do.) All the crap he spews is pretty much a blueprint for "how to dumb down honest and well meaning folk who may not be that bright to begin with."

Keenan's picture

Sigh...

"I am no longer going to go easy on those who want to make everything as simple as "evildoers!". The world is not as pathetically simple as Alex Jonesheads think (if indeed they do.) All the crap he spews is pretty much a blueprint for "how to dumb down honest and well meaning folk who may not be that bright to begin with."

What does Alex Jones have to do with anything I said? Yes, Alex Jones does indeed oversimplify everything down to his brainwashed (or purposeful Psyop misdirected) Christian/Illumanit bullshit - "It't the Illuminati gay-orgy-loving globalists!" - all that silly heaven and hell stuff, the evil of 'Pornography'-shock horror, burn in hell,yada yada yada nonsense. I think we both agree on that.

I'm talking about the very real and documented problem of psychopathy/sociopathy that affects 2-4%s of the population - and more specifically Political Ponerolgy - the scientific study of they ways in which these types of individuals infiltrate and take over political regimes and social movements, which cuts accross boundaries of conventional explanations of normal/simple human ecotism, shameless opportunism, ideology, culture, whatever. For years I've tried to study the human condition and found that these conventional explanations just don't adequately explain what is going on.
I've come to the conclusion that you can't really understand what is happening and find a way out fo this recurring cycle of calamity without understanding this psychological dimension - specifically the fact that in every culture/ethnicity there are humans who are very different from the rest of us, primarily in that they LACK certain essential human qualities, such as syntonic (social) emotions: those responsible for bonding and empathy. They are unable to feel guilt.

Gretavo, I cannot recommend enought the book Political Ponerology by Andrew M. Lobaczewski. I think you can really expand your understanding with this study.

Pathocracy is a disease of great social movements followed by entire societies, nations, and empires. In the course of human history, it has affected social, political, and religious movements as well as the accompanying ideologies… and turned them into caricatures of themselves…. This occurred as a result of the … participation of pathological agents in a pathodynamically similar process. That explains why all the pathocracies of the world are, and have been, so similar in their essential properties.

…Identifying these phenomena through history and properly qualifying them according to their true nature and contents - not according to the ideology in question, which succumbed to the process of caricaturization - is a job for historians. […]
The actions of [pathocracy] affect an entire society, starting with the leaders and infiltrating every town, business, and institution. The pathological social structure gradually covers the entire country creating a “new class” within that nation. This privileged class [of pathocrats] feels permanently threatened by the “others”, i.e. by the majority of normal people. Neither do the pathocrats entertain any illusions about their personal fate should there be a return to the system of normal man. [Andrew M. Lobaczewski Political Ponerology: A science on the nature of evil adjusted for political purposes]

gretavo's picture

another anthrax/ft detrick story from 2002

I wonder why the Hartford Courant is the source for so much of this. I imagine someone should be talking to Jack Dolan and Dave Altimari...

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20020121&slug=a...

Monday, January 21, 2002 - Page updated at 12:00 AM

Deadly specimens disappeared from Army research lab in '90s
By Jack Dolan and Dave Altimari

The Hartford Courant

Lab specimens of anthrax spores, Ebola virus and other pathogens disappeared from the Army's biological-warfare research facility in the early 1990s during a turbulent period of labor complaints and recriminations among rival scientists there, documents from an internal Army inquiry show.

The 1992 inquiry also found evidence that someone was secretly entering a laboratory late at night to conduct unauthorized research, apparently involving anthrax. A numerical counter on a piece of lab equipment had been rolled back to hide work done by the mystery researcher, who left the misspelled label "antrax" in the machine's electronic memory, according to the documents obtained by The Hartford Courant.

Experts disagree on whether the lost specimens pose a danger. An Army spokeswoman said they do not, because they would have been killed by chemicals used to prepare them for microscopic study. A prominent molecular biologist said, however, that anthrax spores could be retrieved from a treated specimen.

In addition, a scientist who once worked at the Army facility said that because of poor inventory controls, it is possible some of the specimens went missing while still viable, before being treated.

Not in dispute is what the incidents say about disorganization and lack of security in some quarters of the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, or USAMRIID, at Fort Detrick, Md., in the 1990s. Fort Detrick is believed to be the original source of the Ames strain of anthrax used in the mail attacks last fall, and investigators have questioned people there and at a few other government labs and contractors.

It is unclear whether Ames was among the strains of anthrax in the 27 sets of specimens reported missing at Fort Detrick after an inventory in 1992.

One of the 27 sets was later found and is in the lab; an Army spokesman said it might have been in use when the inventory was taken. The fate of the rest remains unclear. In addition to anthrax and Ebola, the specimens included hantavirus, simian AIDS and two labeled "unknown" — an Army euphemism for classified research.

The 27 specimens were reported missing in February 1992, after a new officer, Lt. Col. Michael Langford, took command of what Fort Detrick brass viewed as a dysfunctional pathology lab. Langford, who is no longer at Fort Detrick, said he ordered an inventory after he recognized there was "little or no organization" and "little or no accountability" in the lab.

More troubling to Langford than the missing specimens was what investigators called "surreptitious" work being done in the pathology lab late at night and on weekends.

Mary Beth Downs told investigators she had come to work several times in January and February of 1992 to find that someone had been in the lab at odd hours, clumsily using the sophisticated electron microscope to conduct some kind of off-the-books research.

After one weekend that February, Downs discovered that someone had been in the lab using the microscope to take photos of slides and apparently had forgotten to reset a feature on the microscope that imprints each photo with a label. After taking a few pictures of her own slides that morning, Downs was surprised to see "Antrax 005" emblazoned on her negatives.

Downs also noted that an automatic counter on the camera, like an odometer on a car, had been rolled back to hide the fact pictures had been taken over the weekend. She wrote of her findings in a memo to Langford, noting that whoever was using the microscope was "either in a big hurry or didn't know what they were doing."

It is unclear if the Army ever got to the bottom of the incident, and some lab insiders believed concerns about it were overblown. Lab technician Charles Brown, who conducted the inventory for Langford, said the scientific process doesn't always follow a 9-to-5 schedule.

"People all over the base knew that they could come in at any time and get on the microscope," Brown said. "If you had security clearance, the guard isn't going to ask you if you are qualified to use the equipment. I'm sure people used it often without our knowledge."

Documents from the inquiry show that one unauthorized person who was observed entering the lab building at night was Langford's predecessor, Lt. Col. Philip Zack, who at the time no longer worked at Fort Detrick. A surveillance camera recorded Zack being let in at 8:40 p.m. on Jan. 23, 1992, apparently by Marian Rippy, a lab pathologist and close friend of Zack's, according to a report filed by a security guard.

Zack could not be reached for comment. In an interview last week, Rippy said that she doesn't remember letting Zack in, but that he occasionally stopped by after he was transferred off the base.

"After he left, he had no (authorized) access to the building. Other people let him in," she said. "He knew a lot of people there and he was still part of the military. I can tell you, there was no suspicious stuff going on there with specimens."

Zack left Fort Detrick in December 1991, after a controversy over allegations of unprofessional behavior by Zack, Rippy, Brown and others who worked in the pathology division. They were accused of harassing Egyptian-born Ayaad Assaad, a former Fort Detrick scientist who had extensive dealings with the lab and who later sued the Army, claiming discrimination.

Assaad said he had believed the harassment was behind him until October, when it suddenly surfaced after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

He said that is when the FBI contacted him, saying someone had mailed an anonymous letter — a few days before the existence of anthrax-laced mail became known — naming Assaad as a potential bioterrorist. After interviewing Assaad, FBI agents decided the note was a hoax.

But Assaad said he believes the note's timing makes the author a suspect in the anthrax attacks, and he is convinced that details of his work contained in the letter mean the author must be a former Fort Detrick colleague.

Brown said he doesn't know who sent the letter, but that Assaad's nationality and expertise in biological agents made him an obvious subject of concern after Sept. 11. Brown said the tipster might have been acting in the country's best interest.

"It probably was someone from Detrick," he said. "Some people are more patriotic than others."

dicktater's picture

OT but, tangentially related

I know that the errors that have been plaguing the site are most important but...

Like other thread that grown longer than one page, when following links to comments that appear on page 2, I'm always taken to the top of Page 1, have to scroll to the bottom to go to page 2, then scan to find the comment. Why doesn't Drupal take you directly to the comment like on Page 1?

Can you add a Page menu to the top of the threads?

Can you add a "more" link to the "Recent Comments" menu?

dicktater's picture

AP: FBI used aggressive tactics in anthrax probe

Wow! The entire article is pretty damning of the FBI's aggressive tactics. Is this more evidence of the government's use of psycho-torture and FBI becoming the new STASI? God knows what they did to Ivins when they had him in the mental hospital.

FBI used aggressive tactics in anthrax probe

Aug 5, 9:19 PM (ET)
By PETE YOST

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080806/D92CFQ1O0.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - Before killing himself last week, Army scientist Bruce Ivins told friends that government agents had stalked him and his family for months, offered his son $2.5 million to rat him out and tried to turn his hospitalized daughter against him with photographs of dead anthrax victims.

The pressure on Ivins was extreme, a high-risk strategy that has failed the FBI before. The government was determined to find the villain in the 2001 anthrax attacks; it was too many years without a solution to the case that shocked and terrified a post-9/11 nation.

The last thing the FBI needed was another embarrassment. Overreaching damaged the FBI's reputation in the high-profile investigations: the Centennial Olympic Park bombing probe that falsely accused Richard Jewell; the theft of nuclear secrets and botched prosecution of scientist Wen Ho Lee; and, in this same anthrax probe, the smearing of an innocent man - Ivins' colleague Steven Hatfill.

In the current case, Ivins complained privately that FBI agents had offered his son, Andy, $2.5 million, plus "the sports car of his choice" late last year if he would turn over evidence implicating his father in the anthrax attacks, according to a former U.S. scientist who described himself as a friend of Ivins.

Ivins also said the FBI confronted Ivins' daughter, Amanda, with photographs of victims of the anthrax attacks and told her, "This is what your father did," according to the scientist, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because their conversation was confidential.

The scientist said Ivins was angered by the FBI's alleged actions, which he said included following Ivins' family on shopping trips.

Washington attorney Barry Coburn, who represents Amanda Ivins, declined to comment on the investigation. An attorney for Andy Ivins also declined to comment.

The FBI declined to describe its investigative techniques of Ivins.

FBI official John Miller said that "what we have seen over the past few days has been a mix of improper disclosures of partial information mixed with inaccurate information and then drawn into unfounded conclusions. None of that serves the victims, their families or the public."

The FBI "always moves aggressively to get to the bottom of the facts, but that does not include mistreatment of anybody and I don't know of any case where that's happened," said former FBI deputy director Weldon Kennedy, who was with the bureau for 34 years. "That doesn't mean that from time to time people don't make mistakes," he added.

Dr. W. Russell Byrne, a friend and former supervisor of Ivins at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, Md., said he had heard from other Ivins associates that investigators were going after Ivins' daughter. But Byrne said those conversations were always short because people were afraid to talk.

"The FBI had asked everybody to sign these nondisclosure things," Byrne said. "They didn't want to run afoul of the FBI."

Byrne, who retired from the lab four years ago, said FBI agents interviewed him seven to 12 times since the investigation began - and he got off easy.

"I think I'm the only person at USAMRIID who didn't get polygraphed," he said.

Byrne said he was told by people who had recently worked with Ivins that the investigation had taken an emotional toll on the researcher. "One person said he'd sit at his desk and weep," he said.

Questions about the FBI's conduct come as the government takes steps that could signal an end to its investigation. On Wednesday, FBI officials plan to begin briefing family members of victims in the 2001 attacks.

The government is expected to declare the case solved but will keep it open for now, according to two U.S. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation. Several legal and investigatory matters need to be wrapped up before the case can officially be closed, they said.

Some questions may be answered when documents related to the case are released, as soon as Wednesday. For others, the answers may be incomplete, even bizarre. Some may simply never be answered.

It is unclear how the FBI eliminated as suspects others in the lab who had access to the anthrax. It's not clear what, if any, evidence bolsters the theory that the attacks may have been a twisted effort to test a cure for the toxin. Investigators also can't place Ivins in Princeton, N.J., when the letters were mailed from a mailbox there.

Richard Schuler, attorney for anthrax victim Robert Stevens' widow, Maureen Stevens, said his client will attend Wednesday's FBI briefing with a list of questions.

"No. 1 is, 'Did Bruce Ivins mail the anthrax that killed Robert Stevens?'" Schuler said, adding, "I've got healthy skepticism."

Critics of the bureau in and out of government say that in major cases, like the anthrax investigation, it can be difficult for the bureau to stop once it embarks on a single-minded pursuit of a suspect, with any internal dissenters shut out as disloyal subordinates.

Before the FBI focused on Ivins, its sights were set on Hatfill, whose career as a bioscientist was ruined after then-Attorney General John Ashcroft named him a "person of interest" in the probe.

Hatfill sued the agency, which recently agreed to pay Hatfill nearly $6 million to settle the lawsuit.

Complaints that the FBI behaved too aggressively conflict with its straight-laced, crime-fighting image of starched agents hunting terrorists.

During its focus on Hatfill, the FBI conducted what became known as "bumper lock surveillance," in which investigators trailed Hatfill so closely that he accused agents of running over his foot with their surveillance vehicle.

FBI agents showed up once to videotape Hatfill in a hotel hallway in Tyson's Corner, Va., when Hatfill was meeting with a prospective employer, according to FBI depositions filed in Hatfill's lawsuit against the government. He didn't get the job.

One of the FBI agents who helped run the anthrax investigation, Robert Roth, said FBI Director Robert Mueller had expressed frustration with the pace of the investigation. He also acknowledged that, under FBI guidelines, targets of surveillance aren't supposed to know they're being followed.

"Generally, it's supposed to be covert," Roth told lawyers in Hatfill's lawsuit.

In the 1996 Atlanta Olympic park bombing that dragged Jewell into the limelight, the security guard became the focus of the FBI probe for three months, after initially being hailed as a hero for moving people away from the bomb before it exploded.

The bomber turned out to be anti-government extremist Eric Rudolph, who also planted three other bombs in the Atlanta area and in Birmingham, Ala. Those explosives killed a police officer, maimed a nurse and injured several other people.

In another case, the FBI used as evidence the secrets that a person tells a therapist.

In the Wen Ho Lee case, Lee became the focus of a federal probe into how China may have obtained classified nuclear warhead blueprints. Prosecutors eventually charged him only with mishandling nuclear data, and held him for nine months. In what amounted to a collapse of the government's case, prosecutors agreed to a plea bargain in which Lee pleaded guilty to one of 59 counts.

In 2004, the FBI wrongly arrested lawyer Brandon Mayfield after the Madrid terrorist bombings, due to a misidentified fingerprint. The Justice Department's internal watchdog faulted the bureau for sloppy work. Spanish authorities had doubted the validity of the fingerprint match, but the U.S. government initiated a lengthy investigation, eventually settling with Mayfield for $2 million.

---
Associated Press writer David Dishneau contributed to this report from Hagerstown, Md.

juandelacruz's picture

I think all this new legs

I think all this new legs exhibited by the press and media being so critical of the government is symptom of a power struggle at the top. Somebody is pissed and letting the controlled media loose on the FBI like a pack of hounds (not that they dont deserve it). The Associated Press being harsh? Why now? I do not think it is a simple case of making the FBI fall on its sword like the CIA was for Iraq intel. All this media pressure makes it difficult for the FBI to close the case around their new found and recently deceased patsy.

What gives.

gretavo's picture

what gives...

My take is this. The FBI, knowing it can't just tell the truth (Zionists were behind this and 9/11) is trying to make the case go away. they may even be doing a poor job of it so as to invite suspicion in the hope that the truth will out without them outing it.

On the other hand, the neocons are not content having those evil arab muslims let off the hook so easily so they insist, through their media friends that no no no, Ivins is a patsy, the FBI is incompetent. Because of course they can't possibly come up with a reason for why the FBI would be protecting al Qaeda, bin Laden, or Saddam, or Ahmedinejad.

The power struggle seems to be the same as from the beginning--between the Bush Sr. pragmatic types who like to keep their oil buddies (the arab muslims) as happy as possible and with the neocons who used Dubya to get their hands on the wheel, the "crazies" including Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Feith, Wolfowitz and other PNAC signatories.The crazies keep pushing the envelope and the pragmatists keep trying to slow them down or stop them, with the media (e.g. William Safire, et al) taking the side of the crazies. What the pragmatists know they can't say of course is--"Look everyone, this is all bullshit, 9/11 was a fraud, etc." Why? Some of them may fear for their safety, others for their deep dark secrets, and some may simply not be that much against what the crazies are doing. Others may EVEN believe the myths! To think that what's been happening could happen with NO ONE in elite circles taking issue with it is absurd. Those who aren't psychotic or radically militant either have to be bought off or intimidated for the attempted coup to continue.

juandelacruz's picture

That is a very illuminating

That is a very illuminating take on the affair. Reports claim the FBI will soon release the case files.

juandelacruz's picture

The FBI has released new

The FBI has released new info.

Here is a Q and A by the AP:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hZJoOQ2zobZWgozHAy3u6IqxKAeQD92D2KDG3

A Q&A on the anthrax case: What's the evidence?

By The Associated Press – 6 hours ago

Court documents unsealed Wednesday lay out much of the government's case against former Army scientist Bruce Ivins, who was described by the Justice Department at a news conference as "the only person responsible" for the 2001 anthrax attacks. The documents don't go that far, but they address many of the lingering unanswered questions in the case. Among them:

Q: How could Army scientist Bruce Ivins gain access to powdered anthrax, since the biological defense program at Fort Detrick, Md., where he worked did not deal with the toxin in that form?

A: Investigators said he has used devices called lyopholizers, which can convert anthrax to powder, as well as biological safety cabinets, incubators and centrifuges in vaccine research. Such devices are considered essential for the production of the highly purified powdered anthrax that was mailed to two Senate offices, as well as to news media organizations and elsewhere in the fall of 2001. But some colleagues say it would have been difficult, if not impossible, for Ivins to do the conversion unnoticed. The court documents say Ivins was unable to provide "an adequate explanation for his late laboratory work hours" around the time of the attacks.

Q: How can the FBI link Ivins to the anthrax for certain?

A: The closest they come is connecting the particular strain of anthrax to a flask in Ivins' lab. The government used new, sophisticated genetic testing techniques developed for this investigation. Others may have had access to that flask but they would have had to go through Ivins to get it. Prosecutors say they ruled out everyone else as suspects but did not explain how.

Q: What motive would Ivins have had to unleash an attack?

A: It's not clear, but the documents mention the stress of his job and his poor mental state. Documents say Ivins was under pressure at work at the time of the attacks to assist a company that lost its federal approval to produce an anthrax vaccine the Army needed. Ivins believed the vaccine was essential for the anthrax program at his facility. He was criticized for his work with a vaccine additive that was suspected of causing Gulf War syndrome. Also he had said he had "incredible paranoid, delusional thoughts at times."

Q: Did Ivins travel to Princeton, N.J., where the anthrax letters are believed to have been mailed?

A: The Justice Department said he could have driven to Princeton during that period, although there is no direct evidence of his presence there. Authorities say Ivins had a bizarre fascination with a sorority, Kappa Kappa Gamma, that had office space near the mailbox from where the letters were mailed.

Q: Why target media organizations and politicians?

A: Ivins was angry when an investigative reporter sought information from his notebooks on the vaccine additive. He said in an e-mail, "We've got better things to do than shine his shoes and pee on command." He also said he was anti-abortion, and the Catholic anti-abortion movement has criticized Catholic lawmakers who voted for abortion rights. The documents pointed out that two prominent lawmakers in this category were former Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., and Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., both recipients of the 2001 anthrax mailings.

Q: Has the FBI matched handwriting samples from the letters?

A: There was no such evidence in the documents.

-------------------

Here is an article with discussion of the new methods used to identify the anthrax via dna.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/05/washington/05anthrax.html?em

gretavo's picture

WHOA! JDL Goons were Hatfill's biggest accusers!

Really amazing stuff here...

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/Bioter/huntinghatfill.html

3 Where does the notion that Hatfill is a racist come from?

Hatfill has lived in two different African countries formerly ruled by white minority regimes, and he appears in the past to have claimed a "military background" or "combat experience" in one of those countries, and "reserve" and "consultant" relationships with the army of the other. What these claims might mean, and what part of them is true, are wide open questions that probably can't and won't be settled until Hatfill comes forward with a clarification. For now, he is operating under an attorney's instructions not to answer media inquiries about his past. So there remains a quite considerable leap of speculation between what is known for certain about Hatfill's student days, on the one hand, and the widely circulating charge, on the other, that he "served in the armed forces of two white racist governments," as New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof has put it. Documentary and testimonial corroboration of this "fact" (sometimes attached to vaguely sourced "suspicions" that Hatfill helped the racists kill black people with germs) is very hard to find, as it happens. And, oddly enough, what little, shaky evidence there is, insofar as anyone ever bothers to cite it, inevitably traces from -- or through, or back to -- an outfit called the Jewish Defense Organization (JDO).

That group's current role as a central clearinghouse of Hatfill demonology is never acknowledged by mainstream reporters who make use of the material -- and for obvious reasons. JDO is located at the farthest, shadowy margins of American public life. It was founded in the 1980s as a radical, breakaway faction of Meir Kahane's already-quite-radical Jewish Defense League (JDL) by a man named Mordechai Levy. And under Levy, JDO has established a long record of scurrilous, sometimes even homicidal attacks on its real or imagined enemies. One day in August 1989, for example, when process servers attempted to present him with legal papers in a libel action brought against the JDO by a leader of the rival JDL, Levy mounted the roof of a Manhattan apartment building and opened fire on his visitors with an automatic rifle, missing the intended targets and wounding a 69-year-old bystander instead. For which crime Levy was sent to prison. More recently, in April 2000, Levy pled guilty to charges of assault after a 12-year-old boy told police that the man had kicked him in the face and testicles.

Levy and the JDO have not yet threatened Dr. Hatfill with bodily harm, though visitors to the organization's website -- every American reporter on the anthrax beat has surely been there -- immediately discover that its top-featured section (www.jdo.org/hatfill.htm) includes a lovingly imagined account of some future day, very soon, when "Dr. Steven 'Mengele' Hatfill," having first "attempted suicide," will be "awakened at 4 a.m. and transported to a cold, damp, and dirty holding cell," then tried, convicted, and given a lethal injection, "just like the lethal injection his former boss, Wouter Basson, gave to hundreds of black South Africans." This and much, much else besides is contained in an extraordinary, 50-some-page, always expanding dossier, "soon to be a paperback book," entitled The Bioevangelist and purporting to prove that "he did it."

To wit: Hatfill is a "Nazi" who "participated in genocide." Hatfill's "mentor" at the Godfrey Huggins School of Medicine was supposedly one Robert Burns Symington, "father of Rhodesia's biological warfare program." Hatfill helped Symington and the "white supremacist regime" start an epidemic of anthrax "in the latter phase of Zimbabwe's liberation war." The White Man having lost that war, Hatfill then took his wares to the "Medical Special Operations Battalion of the South African Army founded in 1981 by Wouter Basson," the Afrikaner regime's notorious biowarfare capo. While in South Africa, Hatfill was a "close associate of Eugene Terre Blanche," head of the Afrikaner Resistance Movement and a convicted murderer. And so on.

Trouble is, nothing in the many, impressive-looking footnotes appended to The Bioevangelist substantiates these assertions. Nothing links Hatfill to Robert Burns Symington. Nothing links Symington to anthrax, and nothing explains how Hatfill, then a first-year medical student with no biochemical laboratory training, could have helped Symington weaponize anthrax spores in the first place. Nothing links Hatfill to a "Special Operations Battalion" in South Africa. Nothing links Hatfill to Wouter Basson. And nothing links Hatfill to Eugene Terre Blanche (Terre Blanche denies the connection) -- except a risibly amateurish South African news-service story, which cites a photograph that no one can find, and an unnamed "former colleague" who says Hatfill once claimed to have run a Resistance Movement training session (whose leader denies that).

Trouble is, too, that transparent innuendo like this -- in sanitized, journalism-school, "some say," "is alleged" form -- has now entered the American news-media bloodstream (thanks most prominently to New York Times columnist Kristof), casting an awful cloud of "racism" over Steven Hatfill's head.

Asked by e-mail for his name, and for additional evidence to buttress his case against Hatfill the "Nazi," the author of The Bioevangelist has sent The Weekly Standard a reformatted version of the same essay, with many additional but entirely peripheral citations, and he has identified himself as A.J. Weberman.

4. Who is A.J. Weberman?

During the 1970s, A.J. Weberman was briefly famous (in certain circles) for having decided, by virtue of extremely close, drug-fueled analysis of the lyrics to Bob Dylan songs, that Dylan was a heroin addict. In an effort to prove the point, Weberman then began collecting . . . things. He took out newspaper classified ads: "If anyone has a sample of Dylan's urine, please send it to me." He once broke into Dylan's home to confront the singer. And, most notably, he developed a habit of going through Dylan's garbage can and publicizing whatever he found. Weberman retains a casual interest in Dylan even today, it would seem. (A Dylan song plays in the background on the JDO Bioevangelist web page, if you have the right browser.) But Weberman eventually suspended his full-time practice of Dylan "garbology," moving on to the trash bins of such as Jackie Kennedy and Norman Mailer. And Weberman then, at some point, abandoned garbology altogether -- and hooked up with Mordechai Levy and the JDO.

It was from the rooftop of A.J. Weberman's apartment building that Levy sprayed lower Manhattan with automatic rifle fire that day in 1989; the two men were named co-defendants in the libel action Levy was attempting to evade. And it was with A.J. Weberman as named co-defendant that Levy and his organization were very recently and successfully sued for libel again -- by a man whom JDO's website had called a "pathological liar" and "psychopath." Six months ago, a Brooklyn, New York, jury unanimously assigned Weberman responsibility for $300,000 of a total $850,000 judgment.