Unfortunately, I’ve been gone all day today, with appointments beginning at the crack of ridiculous, and now, going on about 3 hours of sleep, I’m on deadline for an article elsewhere at the moment. So I’m way behind in reviewing the summary of claims released by the FBI today in the Bruce Ivins anthrax case. They say he’s the one, and he acted alone, in the largely circumstantial case put forward today.
For the moment then, I’ll simply refer you, without comment, to the NYTimes‘ initial coverage today, which I was able to check while on the roll.
Likely of much more value are both the actual released documents themselves, and (undoubtedly more valuable still) expert Glenn Greenwald’s early, cursory review of their “selective release” in which he does have a comment or two about the NYTimes’ report. Beyond that, his caveat, as he began looking through the case today, seems worth sharing:
Beyond that, as always, I’ve got an open mind and will share any thoughts — either way — that I may have on things, as determined to be of note. Your comments on the information released today, especially since you guys may be way ahead of me, are always welcome.
UPDATE: This NPR article, as recommended in a late update by Greenwald, is very well done, as it offers replies from Ivins’ attorney Paul Kemp, offering rebuttal to the main points in the one-sided case put forward today by the FBI.
I don’t think the FBI can just declare a case solved and everybody just packs up and goes home, but if they can, or if that’s what they are going to do even if they can’t, just like the rest of this administration, that’s all the more reason to suspect he was suicided.
Well maybe the FBI is on a run…maybe they have solved the Clinton Curtis Whistle Blower case .You know the one that resulted in thousands of deaths (both directly and indirectly)from compromised electronic voting machines and ballot tabulators .
That should go before a Grand Jury.
I tells ya, go and read Meryl Nass’ blog.
The one thing that I surmised is that the reporter, Gary Matsumoto, is inside, check this out:
(bold mine)
Link
When it hits MSM 6 o’clock news, you know they are trying to sell the public so they can call the case solved and officially closed. There is absolutely nothing they have offered that in any way resembles concret evidence. Mr. Ivins unfortunately had some help . . . yah suicide!
I read on one of the sites that Ivins gave himself the anthrax vaccine every six months in order to continue working in the lab. It had to be given that frequently because it doesn’t last very long. By one estimate he had been vaccinated 33 times against anthrax. Now it is reported that he had been suffering for a number of years from serious mental illness. I have to wonder what effect the anthrax vaccine had on him. It is believed by many to be responsible for Gulf War Syndrome. It is know to carry a number of high risks. If he had a tendency toward depression and paranoia, God only knows how this condition might have worsened with each shot. Of course, since vaccines are generally considered sacred cows (“the benefits outweight the risks”), I seriously doubt anyone in the mainstream will even raise this question.
While the NPR story seems pretty good, it, the initial AP story, and the initial NYT story all have a significant inaccuracy. This inaccuracy was used to lead the NYT story and I believe was the main thrust of the initial AP story.
The error, in all three stories and others I’ve found, claimed that “a few days before the attacks” (worded slightly differently in the different stories), Ivins sent an email warning “Bin Laden terrorists for sure have anthrax and sarin gas.” Sounds extremely suspicious written like that — as though he were planning to pin the attacks on Muslims in advance of doing them, which is what the letters enclosed in the attacks do. But, within those affidavits for warrants are the email in question. And guess what? The email in question was sent eight days AFTER the first attacks were postmarked, on the same day the Washington Times did a story saying bin laden was trying to get sarin and anthrax. And all three stories omitted Ivins’ phrase “I just heard tonight” before “Bin Laden terrorists for sure have anthrax and sarin gas.” I wonder when the lab was first told about someone getting a letter? I imagine they must’ve arrived by Sept. 26. And even if the letters hadn’t been tested for anthrax, the letters included the word “anthrax.” Could it be that this email — painted as so damning — was something he sent after being told about the anthrax mailings at work?
Regardless, Ivins’ Sept. 26 email is not particularly suspicious at all when one doesn’t lie about when it was sent and omit “I just heard tonight.” Why’d they all get the story wrong? At least part of the reason is probably that the postal inspector summarized the email incorrectly in the exact same way at the top of the warrant. I wonder if the feds were also still pushing that lie/distortion as a talking point. It seems likely since it led at least two major stories.
I contacted the NYT and AP last night and their stories have been corrected. I contacted NPR today, so hopefully that article will be corrected soon. The NYT deleted a comment I had left complaining about the error and then noting that it was corrected, once it was (more than an hour after I complained). That’s too bad, because there’s a much larger point than just correcting the error — somehow multiple news sources are getting this information wrong. Information that at least two of the publications saw as important enough to lead their stories on the feds’ case. And it’s important to note that the top of the warrant is misleading and actually wrong. The phrase “sole custodian” has also been bandied about, despite the fact that apparently 100 people had access to that anthrax. This is a serious obfuscation.
It just goes to show the need for a full and impartial vetting of all of the claims and to see the actual evidence. Maybe he is guilty. But, I’m not just going to take the claims at face value with no examination of the evidence. This is too important to our nation to do that. If Dr. Ivins were not responsible, or even if he was not solely responsible, the culprit(s), who committed an extremely successful attack and helped propel policies of wars, torture, indefinite detention, and spying on Americans are still free to continue plotting, killing, and manipulating public policy. And after the Hatfill mess, why would we assume the case is solved correctly? And even the feds admit their case is circumstantial and that they can’t tie him to driving to NJ/the mailbox. I still don’t even know if he COULD make weaponized anthrax.
Gary Matsumoto is really inside this investigation:
Oh Yeah Link
A challenge, for everyone. Worse case scenario. What do you think the truth is? A question. Is the underlying general consensus now “suspecting murder”.
If so, lets hear you worse case scenario.
Anthony, I’m getting the feeling that getting rid of Ivins was a two-fer now:
1-Solving Anthrax attacks
2-Getting rid of any evidence that he had that ties the anthrax vaccine to Gulf War Syndrome
The plot thickens
More from that Vaccine-A site:
Did Ivins know anything about this?
Link
Thar she blows Matey!:
Military official who leaked memo on problems with Anthrax vaccine.
Raw Story
Does anyone know when the first anthrax letter was reported to authorities? Not when it was tested postive for anthrax, but when the first person opened it, read it, and called authorities?
I want to know if it was before or after Dr. Ivins’ Sept 26 email. Regardless, I think the letter is not particularly suspicious (as long as one doesn’t cut the phrase “I just heard tonight” and lie about its date). If the feds are not only lying about the letter’s timing, and deleting an important phrase, but also knew that the authorities already had known about an anthrax letter by then, that’s pretty major.
Found the date the anthrax letters were discovered
I think I found the answer to my question: I don’t think any of the letters were reported to authorities by 9/26. It looks like the NBC one was opened soon after Sept. 18, but the person opening it didn’t realize for awhile that it could be dangerous and seemingly did not report it. ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14785359/ ) It sounds like the others weren’t opened, or at least reported, for at least a couple of weeks. http://www.ph.ucla.edu/EPI/biot...Post%20envelop The NY Post one was also recovered, it was found on Oct. 19.
They only inferred that there were letters sent to ABC, it was not recovered. There was apparently a letter addressed to Jennifer Lopez with a Star of David that they think was the National Enquirer letter, which ws not recovered.
I pulled this excerpt from an MSNBC article, which actually questions why ivins continued to work at Ft Dietrick after he was being investigated by the feds…
“Privacy concerns, bureaucratic loopholes, the demands of a criminal investigation — all combined to let Ivins keep his job and stay out of jail for years. And in the high-security lab until last November.
Or was it just that the government’s evidence was too weak to act? That’s what Ivins’ attorney says.
“If it’s such earth-shattering stuff, what’s been going on since 2005?” Paul F. Kemp asked Wednesday after the government made its case with a news conference and a pile of documents. “Why is he on the street if they think it’s that important?”
That question goes beyond the criminal investigation. It goes to the heart of how secure the nation’s nearly 1,400 biological defense labs are and whether the estimated 14,000 scientists working with deadly toxins are being screened for the kind of mental illness Ivins exhibited.”
What really caught my attention was the use of the term “biological defense labs”. They are not just defense labs, they are weapons labs. If they were in Iraq, they’d for sure be weapons labs, and we’d have an excuse to invade. Sure hope the Chinese aren’t gearing up to disarm us from our WMD, being the threat to world peace that we are.
Is anyone even interested in this anymore?
I still am.
What would you say if Jean Duley was formerly Jean Wittman, biker chick/substance abuser , but now is a paid FBI witness?
Could be.
I was on the right track, good motive for bumping him off, but no proof he did it.
From NYT:
And the motive?, a cover up IMO (bold mine)
case closed? Not by a long shot
Link
Do the math, “more than 570,000 military personnel” received the vaccine times, lets say, a half a million a piece settlement?
Is that a motive or what?
One more question,
Did the Rumsfeld run, Carlisle funded lab that manufactured the vaccine alter the formula that Ivins used in any way that made it more toxic?