Posted on 09/18/2010 7:25:47 AM PDT by Justice Department
The Government Accountability Office has launched an investigation into the scientific methods used by the FBI to determine that Fort Detrick researcher Bruce Ivins was the sole perpetrator of the 2001 anthrax attacks. U.S. Rep. Rush Holt, who represents the New Jersey district from which the letters were mailed, requested GAO's involvement as early as 2007, but renewed his efforts after the FBI announced it had closed its Amerithrax investigation last February.
Holt and four other lawmakers originally proposed a list of 10 questions for GAO to help answer, including how the anthrax spores used in the attacks compared to anthrax produced in this country and in locations around the world, what amount of time and material would go into creating the quantity of anthrax spores used in the attacks, and why the FBI had not yet been able to close the case.
The FBI questioned Ivins, a researcher at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, throughout the entire investigation, but named him as the suspect only after he committed suicide in July 2008.
Many of Ivins' former co-workers and several lawmakers -- including Sen. Chuck Grassley, one of the four who helped Holt pursue the GAO investigation and who has been a vocal critic of the FBI's work on the case -- are still not convinced the FBI adequately proved Ivins' guilt.
"The American people need credible answers to many questions raised by the original attacks and the subsequent FBI handling of the case," Holt said in a news release. "I'm pleased the GAO has responded to our request and will look into the scientific methods used by the FBI."
Specifically, the GAO investigation will seek to answer three main questions:
n What forensic methods did the FBI use to conclude Ivins was the sole perpetrator, and how reliable are those methods?
n What scientific concerns and uncertainties still remain regarding the FBI's conclusion?
n What agencies monitor foreign containment labs, and how do they monitor those labs?
Holt had also requested that several House of Representatives committees question the FBI's methods and results, and he has called for a commission similar to the one that looked into the government's response to the Sept. 11 attacks. Neither effort has made much progress thus far.
"It's still a priority for him," said Holt spokesman Zach Goldberg. "He continues to get supporters for it, but it hasn't gotten traction in the larger Congress, which is certainly disappointing. He still feels that this is something that needs to be looked at for a variety of reasons -- that the families deserve answers to a myriad of questions."
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, who represents Western Maryland, was not part of the group that signed the letter to GAO but has been working to get more answers since the FBI closed the Amerithrax case.
"I welcome the forthcoming investigation by the Congress' General Accounting Office of a series of important unanswered questions about the FBI's investigation," Bartlett said.
"These questions have undermined the credibility of the FBI's conclusions."
The GAO investigation will be the first congressionally directed review of the FBI's case; another review, done by the National Academy of Sciences, was requested by the FBI itself two years ago.
The NAS investigation is scheduled to wrap up by the end of the year. In GAO's letter to Holt confirming it would look into the FBI investigation, Ralph Dawn Jr., GAO managing director of congressional relations, wrote that to avoid any overlap between the two groups' investigations, they would first review the NAS study before determining the scope of the GAO one.
Goldberg said the GAO would start its investigation soon, if it hadn't begun already. He said the GAO hadn't announced a timeline for its investigation but said that Holt wasn't worried about rushing things along.
"Of course (Holt) wants it to be comprehensive and not rushed in any way," Goldberg said. "The important thing is that the questions get addressed."
I see on your website that you’re an Ivins-did-it hugger.
Hey Ed, if I were you I would strongly consider postponing the writing of your second anthrax whodunit book, lest you be eternally embarrassed.
Just saying.
No, actually I'm a "facts hugger." I collect and analyze facts about the anthrax case. I've been doing it for over 9 year. The facts clearly say that Bruce Ivins sent the anthrax letters.
I'm not worried. First of all, it's not a "whodunit book." We know who did it. So, it's a "what happened" book. It explains everything in layman's terms.
Plus, it's going to take me months to write the book. The NAS review will certainly be done long before I finish. The chances of the NAS finding anything seriously wrong with the FBI's scientific investigation is about nil. The FBI used the top scientists in every concerned field. Since the top scientists worked on the investigation, the NAS has to use lower-level scientists. They're still good scientists, of course, but they're not likely to uncover any serious mistakes.
And the GAO will probably be using even lower level scientists.
The GAO's review won't even begin until the NAS review is done. So, the first question in the GAO's review will very likely be answered by the NAS:
The first GAO question: What microbial and technical forensic methods did the FBI use to conclude that Dr. Bruce Ivins was the perpetrator of the 2001 anthrax attack; how reliable and reproducible were those methods; and were the methods validated?
Those are the EXACT questions the NAS will address.
It's anyone's guess what the GAO will find about question #2, since there should be lots of concerns about mentally unstable American scientists secretly creating their own anthrax powders in government labs.
The second GAO question: What scientific concerns and uncertainties, if any, remain?
And question #3 doesn't have anything to do with the NAS review or with the anthrax attacks of 2001. It appears to be a balm to soothe Rep. Holt's anxieties that some evil foreigners may actually have been behind the attacks.
The third GAO question: What agencies, including intelligence agencies, are responsible for monitoring high containment laboratories in the U.S. and abroad; how do they monitor these laboratories; and how effective is their monitoring?
The GAO isn't even certain they can answer the third question, since it involves some very high-level security matters.
There’s no fool like an old fool
“The second GAO question: What scientific concerns and uncertainties, if any, remain?
And question #3 doesn’t have anything to do with the NAS review or with the anthrax attacks of 2001. It appears to be a balm to soothe Rep. Holt’s anxieties that some evil foreigners may actually have been behind the attacks.”
Rush Holt is not looking for “some evil foreigners”.
He’s looking for the truth of the matter.
And, of course, "the truth" is whatever fits his beliefs. If it doesn't fit his beliefs, then it isn't "the truth." Right?
Do you really believe that only people like Rush Holt are concerned about "the truth?"
The last thing "truthers" want is "the truth." They just want to argue their beliefs.
I guess this means you won’t invite me to your new apartment warming party?
By the way,”truthers” is the buzzword you should rise above
Either way, I look forward to the reviews by the NAS and the GAO. Presumably, they will be examining the FACTS, and I have nothing to fear from the facts. I've seen the facts.
“I’ve seen the facts. “
What you’ve seen is the FBI’s elaborate cover story to finally close the case, in which they’ve suffered years of embarrassment.
Remember Steve Hatfill remember Dr. Berry.
Holt graduated with a B.A. degree in physics from Carleton College in Minnesota, and holds M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in physics from New York University. The title of his doctoral dissertation is “Calcium absorption lines and solar activity: a systematic program of observations” and is available from University Microfilms International as document number 8127915.
Holt served as a faculty member at Swarthmore College from 1980 to 1988 where he taught physics, public policy, and religion courses. During that time, he also worked as a Congressional Science Fellow for U.S. Representative Bob Edgar of Pennsylvania. From 1987 until 1989, Holt headed the Nuclear and Scientific Division of the Office of Strategic Forces at the U.S. Department of State.
From 1989 until his successful congressional campaign in 1998, Holt was the Assistant Director of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory at Princeton University, the University’s largest research facility and the largest center for energy research in New Jersey.
I remember Steven Hatfill. What you forget was that I said Dr. Hatfill was innocent from the very beginning. The FACTS said he was innocent.
What you totally IGNORE is the attempt to LYNCH Dr. Hatfill that went on for EIGHT months before the FBI was virtually ORDERED by Senate Staffers to check into the claims the lynch mob was making about Dr. Hatfill. During those eight months, the FBI stated over and over and over that Dr. Hatfill was NOT a suspect.
Check the facts: Click HERE
Dr. Berry was connected to Dr. Hatfill via Bill Patrick. That was his connection to the case and the reason that same lynch mob demanded that he be investigated.
You seriously need to look at the facts.
Nap time?
That's one of the truly amazing things about the anthrax case. There are people with Ph.D's and all kinds of fancy degrees who have the STUPIDEST beliefs imaginable.
The debates about the anthrax case aren't typically debates between people with advanced degrees and people with only high-school diplomas. The main debates are between people with Ph.D's. They are debates between Ph.D's who argue BELIEFS and Ph.D's who argue FACTS. That's what has kept me interested for nine years.
The fact that someone has advanced degrees means nothing when someone else with advanced degrees says just the opposite. That's when YOU need to look at the facts. That's when I look at the facts.
As it says in my book, some of the DUMBEST people I've ever encountered in my life have Ph.D's.
“You seriously need to look at the facts. “
Know the facts Ed, however, as the purveyor of the most comprehensive anthrax website, (and I’ll buy your new book when it comes out) you should not put this case to sleep on the basis of FBI “propaganda”.
“some of the DUMBEST people I’ve ever encountered in my life have Ph.D’s. “
Sour grapes?
"I guess this means you won’t invite me to your new apartment warming party?"
"Nap time?"
Evidently those are the best arguments you have. You make my point for me. Thanks.
LMAO!! Put down the crack pipe.
Since when would a foul scumbag like Holt give a rat's behind about "the truth"?
The vial the FBI destroyed, or why there will always be a spore on a grassy knoll
Does this case hinge on the first samples Ivins gave to the FBI, of which one was sent to Dr. Paul Keim in Arizona? Why does that sample matter, if the flask the FBI later confiscated had the same strain and genetic variability?
Furthermore, if Keim’s sample is critical to the case, one must ask, “was Keim its sole custodian?” — i.e., was it definitely the sample Ivins provided? Is there a bulletproof chain of custody?
Why was the FBI’s sample destroyed, while an identical sample was considered adequate to be sent to Keim in Arizona? And if the sample was destroyed, as claimed, because it “would never stand up to scientific or legal scrutiny” then why was Keim’s (identical) sample used by FBI?
If, as stated, Ivins helped design the protocol for sample submission, it is bizarre that he would have submitted a sample improperly. Might someone have told him to submit it in a special way? Might he have been misdirected regarding sample submission, in an attempt to set him up as a potential suspect?
And why would Ivins send the FBI a first sample that would help to incriminate himself? And then change the sample to further incriminate himself? He had a security clearance, worked in a high-profile, specialized government biodefense lab, and could have lost his job and reputation if he submitted false samples for the investigation.
Cute!
Nap time?
That sample isn't vital to the case. It's just PART of the evidence.
"Why was the FBI’s sample destroyed, while an identical sample was considered adequate to be sent to Keim in Arizona?"
The FBI's sample was destroyed because wasn't properly created to be used as evidence in court. It was worthless for legal purposes. Ivins knew the rules, but he didn't follow the rules when creating the sample.
Paul Keim kept his sample because he wasn't concerned about courtroom procedures. He was only concerned about the DNA of the sample and how it matched samples in his anthrax archives.
"And if the sample was destroyed, as claimed, because it “would never stand up to scientific or legal scrutiny” then why was Keim’s (identical) sample used by FBI?"
Keim's sample was used to show that it was improperly prepared by Ivins. That's different evidence.
The two samples Ivins improperly prepared in February of 2002 were from flask RMR-1029. As you say, later the FBI confiscated flask RMR-1029 and tested the material in it for themselves. Thus, the samples Ivins prepared in February of 2002 were no longer needed to show what was in flask RMR-1029. They were only evidence that Ivins attempted to mislead the investigation by preparing evidence that could not be used in court - even though he had many years of experience in preparing such samples.
"If, as stated, Ivins helped design the protocol for sample submission, it is bizarre that he would have submitted a sample improperly. Might someone have told him to submit it in a special way? Might he have been misdirected regarding sample submission, in an attempt to set him up as a potential suspect?"
Ivins was asked to prepare samples from flask RMR-1029. What options did he have? Do you think he should have destroyed flask RMR-1029? Do you think that would have been a better idea? It would have be a DELIBERATE act to destroy evidence. Ivins chose to prepare samples that could not be used against him in court. The only other option he had was to FAKE a sample and tell everyone that it was from flask RMR-1029. That's what he did when the FBI asked for another sample in April because the sample from February was improperly prepared.
"And why would Ivins send the FBI a first sample that would help to incriminate himself? And then change the sample to further incriminate himself?"
What other options did he have? To refuse to participate? To refuse to give the FBI any samples? Do you think that would have kept him from becoming a suspect?
You seem to be arguing that because Ivins did things that incriminated him, that must mean he was framed, because criminals don't do things that incriminate themselves - particularly smart criminals. That may be true on some other planet, but not on this planet.
Maybe you are fantasizing that Ivins could have kept flask RMR-1029 a secret and not even let the FBI know it existed.
That wasn't an option. Flask RMR-1029 was created in 1997 at great expense after getting approvals for the time and money, and agreement with Dugway. It was Ivins' personal stock for years. Everyone knew about it. Ivins wrote about it in countless emails. It was identified in various lab records.
There's no way Ivins could have pretended it didn't exist. If he had tried, it would have been evidence that he tried to mislead the investigation by hiding evidence.
He was mistaken. The Ames strain was actually a RARE strain used mainly by USAMRIID.
It was the BIG error by Ivins that eventually led to him being identified as the anthrax killer. His other incriminating acts were all the result of things he had to do because he made that first mistake.
He also believed incorrectly that the "single colony pick" method he used when preparing samples prevented the creating of mutations. It didn't. It almost guaranteed that there would be LOTS of mutations. That was the second error he made that helped the FBI make their case against him.
See my page about this HERE.
Smart people sometimes make very STUPID mistakes.
1. It's not so clear to me, even in the enlarged picture, that the T's and A's you specify are the only highlighted letters. (For instance the second A in 'Allah' looks like it has had some additional work. Some of the the O's, E's, and H's look funny too.) Maybe my eyesight is not so good. Maybe Ivins purposefully made it hard to detect. Maybe one has to compare all the anthrax letters to see it. It seems to me that you should clarify this in your book.
2. Why wouldn't a scientist like Ivins pick something more esoteric than Godel, Escher, Bach? He's probably working with DNA all the time. Why does he need GEB and a 1992 article on "DNA linguistics" to figure out a DNA-based code?
3. You make a point concerning the GEB idea of the framing of the code. But if Ivins wanted to step in later as the hero, he wouldn't have needed to point out that there was a code before this point. So he must have had a desire on some level for the code to be discovered earlier. Based upon your description of the code, it is not unlikely that a random person with a little familiarity with DNA could have eventually discovered the code. This would probably have narrowed the suspect list greatly, undermining the steps Ivins took to not be identified. Perhaps this makes some sort of weird sense if Ivins did not expect anyone to die. But surely he could have expected to be in a lot of trouble anyway.
4. If Ivins identified himself as the sender of the letters, he would also be identifying his obsession with his coworker and his obsessive hatred of New York. These probably wouldn't be compatible with Great American Hero status.
5. The three-word sentences thing might just be used to stress the number three. But maybe there’s another code as well. Sometimes a single strand of DNA can contain two overlapping codes.
Yes. Some other letters look slightly highlighted, and one or two of the code letters doesn't seem highlighted enough (like the T in NEXT). I don't address this in my web page about the coded message in the letters, but I do address it in the notes I added at and near the end of my web page about the handwriting.
I will be trying to make all of this more clear in my new book.
"2. Why wouldn't a scientist like Ivins pick something more esoteric than Godel, Escher, Bach?"
Now you're asking me to get inside Ivins' mind. To him it was probably a brilliantly clever idea. It wasn't a code he had to invent. It wasn't a code that no one could break. It was a code that was explained in a Pulitzer Prize winning book. But, it was also a code that no one would likely realize was there. GEB explains the steps that you have to go through to realize the code is there. Step #1: You have to be looking for a coded message. Who would expect a coded message inside a threat letter?
What Ivins did makes sense if you accept that Ivins was a sociopath with a big ego who evidently enjoyed doing things right in front of other people without them realizing what he was doing. It evidently amused him to fool people that way. It would show how much smarter he was than they were, because they were so easily fooled.
"3. You make a point concerning the GEB idea of the framing of the code. But if Ivins wanted to step in later as the hero, he wouldn't have needed to point out that there was a code before this point. So he must have had a desire on some level for the code to be discovered earlier.
I don't follow your reasoning. The coded message was there in case he needed it. It was a message that he could decode and explain to others WHEN NECESSARY. It would have been a disaster if the code was deciphered before he was ready - as it turned out to be.
"Perhaps this makes some sort of weird sense if Ivins did not expect anyone to die. But surely he could have expected to be in a lot of trouble anyway."
I suspect he believed he would be saving millions of people, and although he didn't do it in a legal way, his methods might be forgiven if he was seen as a true hero. That's the way a sociopath with a big ego might think.
"4. If Ivins identified himself as the sender of the letters, he would also be identifying his obsession with his coworker and his obsessive hatred of New York. These probably wouldn't be compatible with Great American Hero status"
Maybe. The "PAT" part of the code wouldn't by itself say anything about any obsession. People with obsessions don't usually realize they have obsessions. Ivins would have viewed his obsession as just a caring admiration.
And the "FNY" code comes as part of the package. I don't know if he could have coded "PAT" without also coding "FNY." If it concerned him, he probably rationalized he could joke it away by explaining that it was about his co-worker's interest in the New York Yankees.
Very interesting questions. I hope I've answered them satisfactorily.
Maybe. If you find a better code that means something more significant, please let me (and the FBI) know. :-)
The FBI files say that the book that convinced Ivins to become a scientist was Sinclair Lewis's book "Arrowsmith."
According to the FBI's analysis of "Arrowsmith," it's about doctors who believe that when doing vaccine research, people might have to die for the "greater good." (You test vaccines by giving it to some people and giving a saline solution to others. If everyone given saline dies, and everyone getting the vaccine lives, then the vaccine works.)
I think that's the way Ivins saw his plan to warn America with the anthrax letters. He didn't want anyone to die, and he didn't expect anyone would die, but he felt what he was doing was for "the greater good." And he probably expected that the world would see things his way if he ended up saving millions - even if a few people were harmed.
I don't follow your reasoning. The coded message was there in case he needed it. It was a message that he could decode and explain to others WHEN NECESSARY. It would have been a disaster if the code was deciphered before he was ready ...
Exactly. If it would be a disaster to have the code discovered too early, why provide clues that there is a code?
I'm still not following you. What clues did he provide?
As far as I know, no one even imagined that there was a code in the media letters until Ivins was observed throwing away "the code books" at around 1 a.m. on the morning of November 8, 2007. I imagine it even took considerable time for them to figure out WHY Ivins threw out those materials.
That act was hardly a "clue" that Ivins knew he was providing to the FBI. His home, cars, office, safe deposit box and everything else he owned was searched on November 1 and 2. Because it is COMMON for guilty persons to destroy evidence after such searches so it won't be found in the next search, the FBI watched Ivins home and, sure enough, he threw the materials into the garbage and made sure the garbage truck had hauled it away.
But the FBI agents stopped the truck when it was out of site of Ivins' home and did their search there.
I wouldn't call that "providing clues." I'd call that "making a common mistake." You might argue - with 20/20 hindsight - that he should have burned the "code books" somewhere inside his house, mixed the ashes with granola and fed it to birds in his backyard. Yeah, but he didn't know that the FBI was watching. He looked around and didn't see them. He was acting the way guilty people act when they think they are getting away with a crime.
The problem with that is that it doesn't explain why there are so many other A's and T's highlighted. Why wouldn't ATTA just highlight the 4 letters in the right order if he was putting his name into the letter? And why do it that way in the first place? Why not just sign the letter?
Someone had to read through GEB and realize that the image on page 404 was similar to the highlighted characters in the media letter. Then they'd have to realize that the condons described in the magazine article could be the code.
I hope some FBI agent writes a book some day about how they figured that out. How many people were trying to figure out why Ivins threw away one of his favorite books? How many other possible reasons could there have been?
There's some interesting stuff in what we discussed today.
Anthrax suspect passed 2 polygraphs
Handwriting analysis also failed to tie Ivins to letters
Bruce Ivins
Casting further doubt on the FBI’s anthrax case, accused government scientist Bruce Ivins passed two polygraph tests and a handwriting analysis comparing samples of his handwriting to writing contained in the anthrax letters, U.S. officials familiar with the investigation say.
The Justice Department yesterday closed the case, announcing the late “Dr. Ivins was the only person responsible for these attacks.”
Ivins passed the first polygraph to satisfy a security requirement prior to working with the FBI as part of a team of scientists at the Fort Detrick, Md., lab who originally helped analyze the anthrax letters. He passed a second exam after he became a suspect.
WND has learned that the FBI was so frustrated with the exam results that last October authorities asked a judge for permission to search Ivins’ home and vehicles specifically for evidence of any materials, such as books, that would have helped him “defeat a polygraph.”
Also, officials confirm that FBI handwriting analysts were unable to conclusively match samples of Ivins’ handwriting with the writing on the anthrax envelopes and letters, which sounded as if they were written by jihadist accomplices of the 9/11 hijackers. The crude notes declared: “DEATH TO AMERICA. DEATH TO ISRAEL. ALLAH IS GREAT.”
Investigators also failed to uncover other critical evidence linking Ivins directly to the letters. For instance:
No textile fibers were found in his office, residence or vehicles matching fibers found on the scotch tape used to seal the envelopes;
No pens were found matching the ink used to address the envelopes;
Samples of his hair failed to match hair follicles found inside the Princeton, N.J., mailbox used to mail the letters.
Also, no souvenirs of the crime, such as newspaper clippings, were found in his possession as commonly seen in serial murder cases.
What’s more, the FBI could not place Ivins at the crime scene with evidence, such as gas station or other receipts, at the time the letters were mailed in September and October 2001.
While acknowledging the circumstantial nature of their case against Ivins, prosecutors argue they’re confident they would have been able to prove his guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt” in court.
They say they used new forensic technology to narrow the deadly spores used in the attacks down to a batch stored in Ivins’ lab. However, they concede that more than 100 other people – including some Arab-American scientists – had access to the batch and that the virulent Ames strain was found elsewhere.
Also, the FBI sent the anthrax letters to the same lab for analysis within days of the attacks, which might explain the match.
Still, prosecutors also point to the fact that Ivins spent an inordinate amount of time working in his lab in the days before the attacks, possibly preparing the poison. They say the number of his late nights spiked in September and October of 2001.
They cite an e-mail Ivins wrote to a colleague in which he expressed anger toward the 9/11 terrorists but also toward those in government who didn’t do enough to protect the country. Prosecutors speculate one of the reasons he targeted Democratic leaders in Congress was because he felt they were soft on terrorism.
However, lab records reviewed by WND show the number of late nights Ivins put in at the lab first spiked in August 2001, weeks before the 9/11 attacks.
Ivins told FBI agents that he was putting in more late hours to escape problems at home, an explanation prosecutors found “unsatisfactory.”
Prosecutors highlighted another Ivins’ e-mail to a colleague in which they say he used language similar to the threats used in the anthrax letters. The partial text of the quote the officials first leaked to the media was “Bin Laden terrorists for sure have anthrax” and have “just decreed death to all Jews and all Americans.”
However, the full text of the first line of the e-mail cited in the government affidavit for a search warrant read as follows: “I heard tonight that Bin Laden terrorists for sure have anthrax and sarin gas.” (The e-mail was sent after 9/11 when al-Qaida was in the news.) The next line in the e-mail begins, “You ... “ followed by a blacked-out line.
Prosecutors redacted the rest of the sentence from the copy of the affidavit unsealed for the press. The government did not provide an explanation.
Ivins, in an apparent suicide, last week overdosed on Tylenol 3 with codeine. His lawyers say he was depressed and driven to suicide by overly aggressive FBI agents who stalked him and his family.
They say the government’s case against him amounted to “heaps of innuendo” and that their client would have been acquitted if he had survived. They point out that the government’s evidence was not even strong enough to present to a grand jury, let alone a trial jury.
Indeed, prosecutors had not delivered the case to a grand jury for indictment. And the Pentagon had not revoked Ivins’ security clearance.
Prosecutors were equally confident another scientist, Steven Hatfill, was the anthrax culprit before recently agreeing to pay him $6 million in damages.”
Someone had to read through GEB and realize that the image on page 404 was similar to the highlighted characters in the media letter. Then they'd have to realize that the codons described in the magazine article could be the code.
They didn't need GEB. All they had to do is:
1. Notice the highlighted A's and T's.
2. Remember that A's and T's are used in the description of DNA sequences.
3. Construct the codons and translate to a protein sequence. (This would be a standard thing to do for anyone with the slightest background with DNA.)
I hope some FBI agent writes a book some day about how they figured that out.
If they had already noticed the highlighted A's and T's, it doesn't speak well of the FBI that they didn't think of a DNA connection, especially when all their suspects were biologists.
I'm still not following you. What clues did he provide?
You're the one who wrote about the "attention-drawing features" of the message.
Handwriting Analysis Details
by
Ed Lake
(last updated June 6, 2004)
Many people have stated that they do not believe that a child wrote the letters. But their statements really have nothing to do with the handwriting. It’s just people voicing an unwillingness to accept or believe that an adult would use a child that way - or that the terrorist would risk using a child that way. These are beliefs and have nothing to do with facts.”
That's your 20/20 hindsight at work. Things always seem "obvious" after someone figures them out.
The letters were printed in the media. Every scientist at USAMRIID, and possibly every microbiologist in the world saw copies of the letters somewhere, yet no one ever contacted the FBI to explain, "it's obviously a code using condons and here is what it means.
Your reasoning is pure 20/20 hindsight.
Besides, there's a lot more to DNA than A's and T's. Even condons also contain G's and C's. The FBI reports includes an interview with a scientist at USAMRIID after the FBI figured out what the A's and T's in the media letter were all about. FBI file #847547 contains the interview on pages 19-23. Even after it's explained what the code is, the scientist still suggests that the code could be "ATTACCA," which is Italian for "attack," even though no C's are highlighted. And he suggests reading the letters right to left, the way Arabic is written. He seems convinced that a Muslim wrote the letters, and he's looking for proof of it - ignoring what the FBI is telling him.
How many people saw the letters in the media, and how many figured out the code before the FBI? Doesn't your line of reasoning say it should be at least 50,000 or so - the number of microbiologists belonging to the American Society of Microbiologists?
Ah! Yes, countless people noticed the highlighted characters. But how many of those people immediately began looking for a hidden message?
The vast majority believed that Muslim terrorists were behind the anthrax letters. Why would a Muslim terrorist put a hidden message that requires knowledge of condons in a threat message, particularly if the terrorist couldn't even spell "penacilin" correctly?
How many people have read GEB? Lots. (I have a copy.) How many people who have read GEB would make the connection between the code described on page 404 and the code in the letters? The answer appears to be 1. And, that person only made the connection AFTER Ivins was observed throwing away his copy of GEB and a magazine about condons.
Ivins gave a copy of GEB to another scientist at USAMRIID, and when the scientist didn't read it, Ivins asked for the book back.
Your 20/20 hindsight says it's so obvious that every biologist in the world should have seen it. But they didn't. Why?
They didn't see it because it didn't occur to them to look for it.
The "attention-drawing features" attracted the attention of countless people. Many figured it had something to do with Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers. I thought it was "doodling" of some kind, but why would a terrorist doodle on a threat letter?
You need to view things the way they were viewed BEFORE the answers were found. 20/20 hindsight assumes that everyone in the world was smart enough to figure out the facts BEFORE the facts were actually discovered by anyone.
Many people have also stated that they do not believe that there is a hidden message in the media letters - even AFTER all the details are explained.
Newsweek recently had an article titled "The Limits of Reason" which was subtitled "Why evolution may favor irrationality." The article explains that "humans are really, really bad at reasoning."
Instead of using reasoning to find answers, humans prefer competition. The survival of the fittest. Thus, they will try to win arguments with FORCE or ATTACKS instead of with reasoning. It's Nature's way.
"Investigators also failed to uncover other critical evidence linking Ivins directly to the letters. For instance:
No textile fibers were found in his office, residence or vehicles matching fibers found on the scotch tape used to seal the envelopes;
No pens were found matching the ink used to address the envelopes;
Samples of his hair failed to match hair follicles found inside the Princeton, N.J., mailbox used to mail the letters.
Also, no souvenirs of the crime, such as newspaper clippings, were found in his possession as commonly seen in serial murder cases.
What’s more, the FBI could not place Ivins at the crime scene with evidence, such as gas station or other receipts, at the time the letters were mailed in September and October 2001."
Another FBI fubar was redacting a line out of Ivan's email.
There's simply nothing about national security worthy of a redaction from a dead "suspect."
Anything to stop the story that foreign terrorists used a WMD on Americans...
Who was stopping "the story that foreign terrorists used a WMD on Americans"? And why?
Most conspiracy theorists claim the attacks were part of a conspiracy to persuade America that foreigners were behind the attacks.
You're claiming it was a conspiracy to persuade America that it was NOT foreigners?
How many tens of thousands of people were involved in this conspiracy? Obviously, it must have included the entire FBI, the entire Justice Department, all the scientists who helped the FBI, and, presumably, both the Bush administration and the Obama administration. Why would they all do what you claim?
Ivins didn't become a key suspect until 2005 or so, FOUR YEARS after the attacks. Do you still have the scotch tape you bought four years ago?
Do you always shed hair into a mailbox when you mail a letter?
Ivins wasn't a "serial killer." He was a mass murderer. But, how do you know he didn't save the originals of the letters? How do you know he didn't save the irregular edges he trimmed off the letters? He put a hidden message in the letters that he knew how to decode. He threw away the "code books" when the FBI started closing in. He could have thrown away the original letters and trimmings years earlier, when he told the FBI he wouldn't talk with them without having his lawyer present.
Information redacted from Ivins' emails typically isn't about Ivins. It's about innocent people who had nothing to do with the case.
Keep trying, Ed. Someone, somewhere will believe your cover story someday. Maybe.
Is that it?
MY cover story? Do you believe that I am the mastermind who convinced the FBI and the Department of Justice that Ivins was behind the anthrax attacks?
Your logic lacks logic. Your reasoning lacks reasoning.
Your fascination with the FBI’s cover story for the anthrax attacks is only logical.
The actual FBI cover story, however, is not. The “suspect” is dead so he can’t defend himself. How quaint.
Your attacks on me, however, have no such limitation. That you choose to attack everyone who doesn’t swallow the FBI’s “Ivin’s was the lone gunman with the magic bullet in the school book depository” story says a good bit about you.
One hole in the FBI’s cover story is that Ivin’s had no connection to the Florida anthrax attack, but the 9/11 bombers did (renting an apartment from the AMA building manager’s wife, if my memory serves me).
Anthrax is readily carried by and spread by cash, just as cocaine sticks to dollar bills, so too does anthrax. Since the 9/11 terrorists often paid their rent in cash, there is a clear connection from the 9/11 terrorists to the AMA building that was infected with anthrax spores (where no anthrax letter was ever found...convenient witness sotries to the contrary failing to turn up said physical letter).
So Ivin’s didn’t do it; the 9/11 terrorists did (this also explains the hospital visit by one 9/11 terrorist for a lesion on his leg).
So, you consider anyone who disagrees with you to be attacking you? That's typical. That really confirms what I wrote about arguments being viewed as a competition, not a search for the facts.
You have a theory that requires a massive conspiracy, but I gather you do not consider yourself to be a "conspiracy theorist."
"One hole in the FBI’s cover story is that Ivin’s had no connection to the Florida anthrax attack, but the 9/11 bombers did"
The fact that the 9/11 terrorists took flight training in Lantana, Florida was in the news BEFORE the letters were mailed. That could be one reason why Ivins chose to send an anthrax letter to a media outlet in Lantana, Florida. So, people like you would make the connection.
"Anthrax is readily carried by and spread by cash, just as cocaine sticks to dollar bills, so too does anthrax."
And you have scientific reports to substantiate this? Why don't you post them?
If you are interested in "holes in stories," let's look at the holes in your theory:
If the 9/11 terrorist paid their rent in cash, why wasn't their landlord infected? Why wasn't anthrax found in any place the terrorists stayed? And do you really believe that anthrax on cash paid to a landlord somehow contaminated the entire AMI building just because the landlord's husband worked at AMI?
Why was the greatest concentration of spores around the desk of Stephanie Dailey who testified that she remembered opening an envelope with powders and throwing it away. Is she part of the conspiracy, too? Have you determined where in the building the husband of the landlord worked? Why wasn't the area around his workplace as thoroughly contaminated as the area around Stephanie Dailey's desk?
The CBS and ABC letters were also thrown away. No letters were found at those locations, but people there contracted cutaneous anthrax. Do you think those letters were destroyed as part of the government's sinister plot, too?
I gather it doesn't mean anything to you that the NY Post letter was found UNOPENED and filled with anthrax. How does you cash theory explain that? How does it explain the two letters to the senators, which were also found? One was found unopened and full of anthrax. The other was opened and witnesses saw the anthrax puff out.
Those seem like pretty BIG holes in your theory.
But, you help to make the point I tried to make about how people are really, really bad at reasoning. Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.