Conclusive evidence of means, motive and opportunity are missing
Case Analysis in a Nutshell
1. Ivins cannot be placed at the Princeton mailbox at either of the two times he would have to have been there.
2. There are additional hoax letters that have not been discussed by FBI in the information released Wednesday; may we assume Ivins could not be placed at those mailbox locations during the requisite windows of opportunity?
3. No official evidence has come forward indicating the nature of the Daschle/Leahy spore preparation, nor whether Ivins possessed the knowledge regarding its production, or access to the necessary equipment.
4. No convincing motive has been presented, although a variety of implausible motives have been suggested.
5. Although many other people with a strong motive can be identified, there is no evidence they were investigated by FBI and exculpated
6. “The FBI sought out the best experts in the scientific community and, over time, four highly sensitive and specific tests were developed that were capable of detecting the unique qualities of the anthrax used in the 2001 attacks.” However, details about the microbial forensic analysis have not been released, and may not be available for months or years pending publication. Scientists doubt that any forensic analysis can do more than identify the precise strain of anthrax.
7. The pre-franked envelopes could not be identified as coming from Ivins’ post office, as initially claimed, but were instead sold in multiple post offices, none of which was definitely in Frederick.
8. Ivins was not the “sole custodian” of the RMR-1029 strain; over 100 people had access to it and they may have shared it with others. How was Ivins selected as a suspect and the others exonerated?
9. Handwriting analysis has not linked him to the crime.
10. He could not be linked to the Quantico letter that fingered Dr. Assaad. He could not be linked to any efforts to finger Dr. Hatfill.
11. No physical evidence links him to the crime: this includes the tape on the letters, fibers, human DNA, spores in his car, home or personal effects, evidence of any kind he travelled to the areas where the letters were mailed, including purchasing enough gasoline for a 7 hour trip to Princeton, twice.
12. He passed two polygraph examinations at Fort Detrick.
13. Since the FBI has been unable to build a convincing case against any one individual in the 7 years since the letters were sent, why didn’t it focus on identifying a conspiracy of individuals who together may have been able to perform the complex actions required to send the anthrax letters and hoax letters?
Posted by Meryl Nass, M.D.
Kristof Eases Guilty Conscience With a Series of ‘What If’ Scenarios
It’s not easy being mean
You have to give Nicholas Kristof his due, the man is not totally incapable of feeling. After using the New York Times for his personal vigilante crusade to take down the men who instigated the anthrax attacks in 2002, Kristof has been feeling guilt pangs for perhaps being over-zealous with his information to the FBI.
This is relevant now because the man that Kristof originally fingered as the culprit, Dr. Steven J. Hatfill, was exonerated while the purported real criminal, Bruce Ivins, recently committed suicide before he was able to be tried. And Nicholas bucks it up like a true gentleman and issues a public retraction and apology to Hatfill, albeit eight years after the fact.
But Nick isn’t content to let the matter drop, and wants the American public to walk a mile in his shoes with these fun hypothetical scenarios. What would you do if you were presented with questionable information of the “maybe wrong” variety but realized you were perhaps sitting on a big story?
Hypothetically speaking, of course, what would you do if:
You learn that the local high school girls’ basketball coach has been repeatedly accused of sexual misconduct and has left three previous schools under a cloud of suspicion. The school authorities seem paralyzed and are encouraging the teacher to move again before the next school year, but the police have not been involved. The coach says he is leaving the area and probably teaching. He pleads with you to let the matter drop and hints that a scandal might drive him to kill himself. Do you write anything?
There should be a whole book of these questions that they pass out in Journalism 101. The line between professional and personal integrity can sometimes be murky, to be sure, but is using an exercise from Donnie Darko really the best method for pleading your case?
“No Duh” is a product of fear, Kristof.
http://www.jossip.com/kristof-eases-guilty-conscience-with-a-series-of-what-if-scenarios-20080828/