Monday, August 11, 2008

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?


Anonymous said...

Yours and just about every other Americans convictions are being brought to the fore front. It is clear The FBI has no case, and never did.

There is growing concern that passing the Patriot Act through the Senate of The 107th Congress, was the motive for "whichever" entity (person or persons) involved. People aren't buying the FBI's take of the story. Action with regard to the media, must be taken NOW before Congress goes into break for the year starting October 1, and the elections coverage clogs all media reports.

This is why it is imperative to make a call for justice to our Congressmen (Senators and Representatives) to bring forth a Congressional Commission to review the facts, bring forth testimony under oath, and declassify the information we are not being told.

Accountability is the most precious thing need in government and law.

I find it extremely strange, even scary, that with intrusive tools and powers of laws like The Patriot Act, The FBI has only presented us with circumstantial evidence.

More can be read on "How the Anthrax Letters Conveniently took away your freedoms" at:

Washingtons Blog said...

Dr. Nass,

My newest essay argues that the anthrax attack was a state-sponsored act.

Please disregard any implications which you think are unfounded, and look at the science and history referenced.

Obviously, the views contained in the essay do NOT necessarily reflect your views, the views of anyone referenced on your website, or the views of anyone other than the author.

If nothing else, please look at the FBI's sudden unfounded change of position, then form your own conclusions.

Thank you for all you do.

Anonymous said...

George Washington is correct. We only need to look at scientists at Ft. Detrick and history to reveal what his conclusions are. Dr. Frank Olson was one of these cases.

If I were at scientist working at Ft. Detrick on a special program, I would probably have resigned by now.

Anonymous said...

Although both can provide investigative leads, neither handwriting analysis nor polygraph are science, and therefore cant be used to prove either guilt or innocence.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Nass: I found an Aug 2002 article on Hatfill. The NYTs say the FBI had every minute of his whereabouts mapped out. The contrast with the treatment of Bruce Ivins is astonishing.

Great job on Guy's show yesterday.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Nass, I put this up @ OpEdNews and at DemocraticUnderground, fyi.

I will continue to follow this story.

Unknown said...

Outstanding work, Dr. Nass. I've sent links to your blog to everyone I know.

Anonymous said...

Dear Dr. Nass,
I have worked fabricating and customizing nuclear magnetic resonance wave guide systems (the forefront of research at the time) for a Dr. Physicist not unlike Doctor Ivins.

My mentor was extremely bright had attended Einstein’s classes while completing his masters degree at Princeton. He had more brains - I suspect - than many at the FBI.
I’m am convinced more than ever that, Dr, Ivins has been railroaded - not unlike Dr. Robert Oppenheimer (one of my idols).

If the government though congress or the military complex establishment can railroad such an innocent scientist - as history has proved. They can railroad anyone - especially if they r dead!

In my view,
The allegation that Dr. Ivins was involved in this anthrax saga is one of the biggest canard’s perpetrated yet by this totally corrupt administration.

A terrorist certainly would not use the primitive methods demonstrated in this case.

It’s well known in the corporate-government world, that staff do not open their own mail. It’s opened in a mail room by clerks or by their secretaries who read and process it accordingly - classifying it as to priority, re-route it, etc. Otherwise a lot of highly paid staff would be spending their time on mundane tasks.

If I were a terrorist, which I’m not, and wanted to target someone, I would send the letter to their home address.

If I wanted to terrorize the country and bring it to its knees, I wouldn’t use simpleton type anthrax envelopes. I would use standard and diverse envelopes of all sizes; professional, authentic looking letters; and correct addresses with proper postal/zip codes. r u still with me FBI? I don’t want to lose u.

Addressed to both business and the general populace, no one knows which letter is hot. Business and government come to a screeching halt. An economy without mail is no economy.

Only three people received the "weaponized" version of the anthrax, those people happened to be: Democratic Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy (who were impeding the passage of the Patriot Act) and Robert Stevens, who worked for the National Enquirer in Boca Raton, Florida.

What could possibly have motivated Dr. Ivins to target those particular individuals is the question.

And the real irony is that you don’t need any kind of advanced anthrax spores in order to incite panic or terror.

This canard was concocted in order to pass the Patriot Act - make no mistake about that.

Anonymous said...

I found another very interesting fact yesterday, Ivins "administrative" time off on Sept 17 would not have allowed him to mail the letters since the FBI themselves say that they would have to be deposited in the box after 5:00 pm to get a Sept. 18th postmark. So Ivins time off during the day is irrelevant. He may have been able to get up to Princeton after his 4:00 or 5:00 pm appointment in order to post the letters with a mark of the 18th, but this makes the whole story about his "being away from work" on the 17th completely irrelevant. This is all so unclear. No word yet on what the FBI found on the library computers? Anything at all on either an autopsy or cremation, or anything about his body or records during his multi-day hospital stay? Very curious.

Anonymous said...

OMG, your 2002 article is right on the money Dr. Nass!

You nailed it then: the attacker had to work on a level 3 facility, possibly Fort Derrick.

Keep up the good work!