Sunday, September 7, 2008

If the case is solved, why isn’t it solved?

The Scott Shane/Eric Lichtblau New York Times article, titled "Seeking Details, Lawmakers Cite Anthrax Doubts," is found in today's Sunday paper, although it went online yesterday. It deserves its own post, because it is so important to this developing story.

It is chock full of interesting information and quotes, like this one about how the FBI solves a multiple murder case:
“Who had the means, motive and opportunity?” said John Miller, assistant F.B.I. director for public affairs. “Some potential suspects may have had one, some had two, but on the cumulative scale, Dr. Ivins had many more of these elements than any other potential suspect.”
and this one by Senator Grassley:
“If the case is solved, why isn’t it solved?” Mr. Grassley asked. “It’s all very suspicious, and you wonder whether or not the F.B.I. doesn’t have something to cover up and that they don’t want to come clean.”


Anonymous said...

Miller says Bruce Ivins had more motive, means and opportunity than any of their other suspect -- which begs the question that he had any of these.

They've yet to establish even one of those aspects. The Bureau may be "certain" and "feel strongly" but their claims that their evidence is "overwhelming" and "powerfully persuasive" remind me of my students insisting they have an argument instead of presenting one.

And I tend to pick this bone:

"Even the strongest skeptics acknowledged that the bureau had raised troubling questions about Dr. Ivins’s mental health and had made a strong scientific case linking the mailed anthrax to a supply in his laboratory."

Who are these strong skeptics who believe the scientific case for the mailed anthrax is strong? I must be missing something. That's two "strongs" in one sentence but is there any substance to this?

And, similarly, it's not enough to point to a mental health issue as if its mere existence unambiguously proves anything. Is there any evidence whatsoever that a mental health issue led to any criminal activity during the time frame of the anthrax attacks? There's a better case to be made that Bruce Ivins handled his situation very well until the FBI started stalking him and his family.

The FBI has misled people into asking the wrong questions, which good PR can sometimes do. Instead of asking why Bruce Ivins had a security clearance, the question should be, was there any clinical reason to withdraw that clearance during the time the anthrax mailings were done?

Because taking Dr. Ivins status after being harassed and threatened for a year and projecting it backward to 2001 is inappropriate and doesn't speak to the crime he has been accused of although it may speak to the tactics used by the FBI and their consequences.

Ellen Byrne said...

It's all just spin and bluster. They've blown it again and are trying to save face.

Calling Inspector Clouseau!

Anonymous said...

Troubling Questions About The RMR-1029 Anthrax Spore Batch

The FBI Anthrax Briefing of Aug 18 revealed that originally there were two flasks containing the RMR-1029 anthrax spore batch. The two RMR 1029 flasks held a total of "about a liter" of concentrated anthrax spores which had been recovered from over 164 liters of lower concentrate spores. The liter of concentrated spores in the two flasks was originally prepared in 1997.

By the time the FBI seized the RMR-1029 spore batch in April 2004, "it had been reduced into one flask -- [a] one-liter flask of several hundred milliliters."

Assuming "several hundred milliliters" means a quantity of less than about a half a liter, we can reasonably conclude that a half liter or more of the original RMR-1029 batch had disappeared by the time the FBI seized the remainder in 2004.

Can the FBI account for the missing RMR-1029 material?

To date, no one at the FBI or DOJ has said they can.

In an interview reported by NPR, Dr. Ivins' attorney, Paul Kemp, said that numerous people got samples from the RMR-1029 anthrax batch, but "nobody knows the quantities, how much, when they took it, what they did with what that they didn't use."

A half liter or more of the original RMR-1029 batch is apparently unaccounted for.

The documents released by the Justice Department do include qualitative information as to some of the missing RMR-1029 anthrax spore batch. A sworn affidavit states on page 6 that "sixteen domestic government, commercial and university laboratories... had virulent RMR-1029 Ames strain Bacillus anthracis material in their inventory prior to the attacks."

But according to The FBI Anthrax Briefing of Aug. 18, when the FBI collected samples from these laboratories, they found only eight anthrax samples derived from RMR-1029, and these eight samples came exclusively from "USAMRIID [Fort Detrick] and one other institution".

So what happened to the "virulent RMR-1029" anthrax inventoried by the other fourteen or fifteen "domestic government, commercial and university laboratories" prior to the attacks?

Based on the information released to date, the FBI is either clueless or considers the answer unimportant.


Anonymous said...

The FBI has refused to give a straight answer as to exactly when and why the focus shifted to Ivins. There's an obvious explaination for this reluctance: the focus shifted not because the evidence against Ivins was overwhelming, but simply because the FBI had no better ideas.

But "we have no other ideas" is not exactly the same as "we've solved the case", is it?

Anonymous said...

The FBI evidence aimed at “proving” Ivins guilt appears to be actually proving his innocence.
1. Ivins suffered from chronic eczema and was always shedding skin and hair so absence of his hair or any of his DNA in any of the physical evidence collected by the FBI is truly remarkable.
2. Absence on the tape used on the Anthrax envelops of any fibers associated with any fabrics in Ivins’ house, car, office or laboratory strongly speaks against Ivins as a suspect.
3. The envelopes are so “clean” with regard to DNA or Fiber evidence that it would not be unusual to propose that the perpetrators were professionals in covert activities and not a research scientist.
4. There is no evidence linking Anthrax letter Ink or penmanship analyses to Ivins.
5. Ivins submitted to two polygraph tests which were each negative.
6. The expensive genetic analyses of the Anthrax spore preparations do seem to identify the RMR 1029 flask as a primary source for secondary cultures that found their way into the Anthrax Letters. This limits the number of potential suspects to hundreds from the "sixteen domestic government, commercial and university laboratories that had virulent RMR-1029 Ames strain Bacillus anthracis material in their inventory prior to the attacks" rather than the thousands originally tested. The Scientist’s evidence shows that the RMR 1029 Flask that Ivins had in his laboratory was NOT the immediate source of the Anthrax spores found in the letters.
7. None of Dr. Ivins Anthrax preparations had Bacillus subtilis contamination but the Anthrax letters did. One of the numerous recipients of pure cultures from Ivins flask must have grown the spores used in the letters and when he or she did that the culture got contaminated with Bacillus subtilis. Ivins’ Anthrax preparations were not contaminated.
8. There is no physical or witness evidence indicating that Ivins traveled to New Jersey on the critical dates when the letters would have had to be mailed, and it would be virtually impossible for him to have left USAMRIID and returned the same day to attend a 4 o’clock meeting.
9. Since when is mental illness prima facie evidence of guilt? This country has millions of persons who were more unstable than Dr. Ivins and the percentage of these who have committed capital crime is probably less than the percentage of so-called mentally stable people (i.e those who haven't gotten treatment).
The circumstantial evidence around the Soviet defector having “Means, Motive & Opportunity” is more complete, more credible and substantive than that attributed to Bruce Ivins.
Because the Soviet defector was so well positioned among Republican lobbyists, Legislators and Staffers, as mentioned in David Willman's July 1, 2007 article, it is possible that he never came under suspicion, and if he was suspected at all I imagine that his testing was not as rigorous as that used with Hatfill or Ivins.

Anonymous said...

Here's my favorite paragraph from the Shane article:

Confusion remains about silicon found in the mailed powder. Some F.B.I. critics say it shows that there was a sophisticated additive that might point away from Fort Detrick as a source, but the bureau concluded that it was merely an accident of the way the anthrax was grown.

A little "accident" with silicon - that's all it was! An itsby, bitsy, teensy, weensy little silicon accident. Maybe Ivins accidently twice in a row created a nuclear cold fusion reaction in the flask and this resulted in the formation of elemental silicon. Do the FBI science labs even know why an element is called an element? Do they think microbes can create their own elements naturally?
Their "naturally occurring accidental silicon" line would be humorous if it wasn't associated with such an important event.
Every so-called FBI scientist at that FBI briefing should be fired for gross incompetence - if they are going to spin a story to cover up why they really don't understand what all that silicon means at least they should know better than to explain it with voo-doo.

Washingtons Blog said...

I have written up anonymous' excellent points here. I would have credited anon if I knew a name.

Washingtons Blog said...

said Ivins didn't kill himself and he was innocent!

Anonymous said...

"Who had the means, motive and opportunity?"

Machinery: Assuming Ivins knew how to make it, he would need the machines. First, they said he could access a "lypholizer" in his unit. But, when shown this is not enough they said "Ft. Detrick" has the other equipment, not his unit necessarily, which begs the obvious question-where was this other equipment and who had access to it (and knew how to use it.)

2. Opportunity: Putting aside whether Ivins had the skills, not how many "days," but how many hours would it take for a skilled person to make the amount of attack anthrax used. Does this jibe with the ominously invoked "overtime" hours? And what exactly were the purpose of Ivins "long drives". The FBIs lack of full disclosure about something they know the details about rings warning bells. Was he just giving gifts?

3. Motive: Here it is true, they have "cummulative" case against Ivins. As the legend evolved, the perp was first "angry right wing male guy." Then it was "bioevangelist wanting to wake up people to the danger." Then it was "biodefense profiteer" motive. Which one? How about all three for Ivins! Jackpot! Though each has been debunked or softened in some way now.

Anonymous said...

Lichtblau et al story from 11/2001.

Check out the reporting on the then FBI profile:


Loner Likely Sent Anthrax, FBI Says


WASHINGTON -- The FBI is increasingly convinced that the person behind the recent anthrax attacks is a lone wolf within the United States who has no links to terrorist groups but is an opportunist using the Sept. 11 hijackings to vent his rage, investigators said Friday.

Based on case studies, handwriting and linguistic analysis, forensic data and other evidence, authorities do not believe at this point in their five-week investigation that Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network was behind the anthrax attacks, FBI officials said.

Instead, FBI investigators said at a news briefing that they are probably looking for an adult male with at least limited scientific expertise who was able to use laboratory equipment easily obtained for as little as $2,500 to produce high-quality anthrax. FBI officials, in offering their most expansive public assessment to date of their probe, are hoping that the rough profile they have developed of the anthrax culprit could produce a redux of their 1996 capture of the infamous Unabomber.

In that case, an 18-year rampage of bombings led authorities to Theodore Kaczynski only after his brother recognized his writing style in a lengthy manifesto that was released publicly.

Anonymous said...

Fwiw, the FBI case sounds like the pseudo logic that people use during psychotic episodes.

As soon as you try to address a concern, the goal posts shift. There is no pinning any point down, ever. They only get recycled.

That's what the FBI has done -- although now I have my doubts about how much control they actually have over the presentation of this case to the public as opposed to, say, the Bush Justice Department.

The Bureau has multiple stories about why it began to focus on Dr. Ivins -- the spill, the sample, the "DNA". They can't even present that one point clearly and consistently.

My bet is that they will now continue to focus attention on mental health issues that most people fear and know little about and on science that most people don't understand. That is not solving a crime. That is pitching a story.

Anonymous said...

Re the jackpot of "motives" anon cited.

Bruce Ivins' own pile of correspondence and email refutes all three motives. Not a profiteer, not more angry than your average informed voter, not a bioevangelist but a guy thinking about his project and wondering about the future just as we all were during those months in 2001.

The very email and letters the FBI tries to point to as evidence clears him. Someone bet that no one would push through the accusation and actually read what Ivins wrote.

Just as they bet no one would do the math for the physcally imposible 9/17 drive to Princeton.

Just as they thought no one in the science community would question the little silicon "accident" or that his so called "therapist" had a criminal record and no sobriety herself.

Just as they tried to suppress the polygraphs he passed or the fact that their searches turned up nothing at all.

Washingtons Blog said...

Dr. Nass,

I wrote a short essay touching on 2 of your points in the "Building on 'Outstanding Questions'" essay. I'm not sure I added anything useful or original.

By the way, Ken Alibek was one of the main people who say he DIDN'T see silica. However, he or his associates may be some of the most likely culprits.

Old Atlantic Lighthouse said...

Re "Soviet Defector" from above. The following is not an accusation, just background for the public and in effect a petition to Congress to investigate this and resolve doubts.

At the 1991 G7 meeting, donor countries, led by the U.S., told the embattled Soviet president that there would be little aid on offer unless he embraced radical free-market reforms that bore no resemblance to his plans for transforming the Soviet states into Scandinavian social democracies. When Gorbachev hesitated, his usefulness was suddenly and violently called into question by elite western media, enamored with the newly christened “Washington Consensus.”

"In 1992 he defected to the United States"

Whatever, Alibek's motives or knowledge, his defection helped convince the US to give aid to Russia. Alibek said Russia had a huge and frightening lead in bioweapons and know-how. So the US had a big motive to give money strings free to Russia.

The US through the IMF gave over 20 billion dollars to Russia, and Russia ultimately defaulted in 1998 as it diverted much of the money to oligarchs. The USAO Mass investigated Harvard econ department. The loans to Russia from IMF were under the control of MIT and Harvard econ profs loaned to IMF and US Treasury. Putin publicly offered one of them a job in Moscow in June 2001.

So Russia got the money and was able to use it to enrich individuals who were connected. A real win for them. The US got some peace of mind about Russia's bioweapons and other weapons.

This is not an accusation about any person, just background info for the public and Congress that has already been gone over many times in the 1990's and 2000's.

Just as an interesting point the current head of US counter-intelligence is an antitrust lawyer with a (non econ) Ph.D. from the London School of Economics. That is the head, not the head legal counsel. His JD is from Harvard Law School.

Anonymous said...

Bad Science In The FBI’s Anthrax Briefing

The Aug. 18 FBI Anthrax Briefing revealed various scientific aspects of the investigation into the Anthrax mailings. Some of the scientific work may well, as claimed, lay the foundation for "a legitimate new discipline, namely microbial forensics". Nevertheless, some conclusions reported in the briefing were based on speculation rather than science and could have far reaching implications for other aspects of the FBI's investigation.

In particular, FBI scientists reported their findings that the anthrax recovered from the anthrax attacks contained "no additives", despite previous reports that the materials contained extremely high levels of silicon that was chemically associated with oxygen. The FBI's "no additives" finding was based on analysis of thin sections of anthrax spores using a scanning transmission electron microscope to determine that the silicon and oxygen were present in a layer within the spore itself (the spore coat). No silicon and oxygen were found on the outer surface of the spores.

According to the FBI scientists, the "silicant" (silicon and oxygen) was the result of "a natural occurrence", and could have resulted from silicon in the growth media and/or water used to prepare the spores.

Nevertheless the FBI scientists reported other information that completely undercut the scientific validity of their "no additives" finding. They had been unable to prepare any anthrax samples having a silicon "signal" like that of the anthrax attack powders; and they said they could not quantify the silicon and oxygen levels within the anthrax spore. Moreover, they reported no research directed to the question of whether additives could deposit silicon and oxygen onto the spore coat within the anthrax spore.

The hallmark of a finding based on science is proof. Without proof that anthrax can incorporate silicon as "a natural occurrence" to provide a silicon signal comparable to the anthrax attack powders, the "no additives" conclusion of the scientists is nothing more than a postulate, i.e., speculation.

Scientific proof of the FBI's postulate would also require evidence of quantitative equivalence between, (i) the silicon and oxygen identified by the transmission electron microscope as being within the anthrax spores, (ii) the total silicon and oxygen as determined by SEM analysis (which had been previously reported, and which the FBI scientists admitted they had also seen in their own SEM studies).

Moreover, the postulate of "no additives" would further require direct evidence that additives cannot be applied to anthrax spores to provide silicon and oxygen in subsurface anthrax layers comparable to the silicon and oxygen in the anthrax attack spores. It is noteworthy in this regard that actual scientific permeability studies carried out in 1961 on dormant bacillus spores resulted in the finding that "[the] spores were permeable to all types of small molecules. The extent of uptake varied and seemed to reflect more the chemical nature of the molecule than active selectivity of the cell."

It is somewhat ironic that the FBI presentation included a discussion of a study reported in 1980 showing the presence of silicon in bacillus pores. The FBI obtained the original spores used in that study and found "the silicant incorporation was very similar to what we saw in the anthrax letters [although the quantity of silicon was apparently much lower]." According to the FBI scientists, the authors of the previous work had been unable to account for the silicon, and "even thought it was a possible laboratory error resulting from the silicone antifoaming agent." Without bothering to test the hypothesis of the prior authors, the FBI scientists concluded "we now have documented proof that with bacillus, the genus bacillus, that mineralization [occurs] -- including mineralization of silicant -- below the exosporian". Nevertheless various silicone antifoaming agents of low molecular weight are readily available and presumably capable of permeating the outer layer of anthrax spores in view of the 1961 bacillus spore permeability studies. Thus, the FBI's "documented proof" is based on speculation, not science.

Ed Lakes's Anthrax Attacks site is particularly noteworthy in providing additional background information, documentation, and reasoned postulates supporting the use of siloxane additives in anthrax spore production.

Finally, it is significant that the FBI bases its case against Dr. Ivins, in part, on oxygen isotope measurements. The FBI claims that the isotope measurements allow determination of the source of water used to grow the spores used in the anthrax attacks. However, as indicated above various oxygen-containing additives might very well be incorporated within the interior of anthrax spores used in the anthrax attacks and could account for all or a portion of the oxygen isotope distribution results that the FBI has used to postulate water source location.

Anonymous said...

This is in response to anonymous's intriguing post (Bad Science in the FBI's Anthrax Briefing) concerning the silicon content. Anonymous correctly states that the FBI directed the release of selective information on the silicon signature and carefully avoided the all-important QUANTitative elemental analysis of the silicon in the attack spores.
Their "naturally occurring" silicon narrative would have immediately fallen apart if they had been forced to state exactly how much silicon was there. A dry weight Si percentage above even 1% immediately points to deliberate addition. And if addition is deliberate it immediately follows that that addition had a purpose - and the fact that the FBI have been unable to replicate it strongly suggests that however it was done took considerable efforts to achieve by the person(s) who manufactured it.
Do the FBI even know how much silicon is in the attack spores? They almost certainly do - another lab other than Sandia (who only did QUALitative elemental analysis) likely performed this work. One possible lab is the authors of this paper:

This group showed that TOF-SIMS could be used for very accurate quantitative analysis of elements present in spores even using less than 1 mg sample sizes. Calcium is usually the biggest element present outside of carbon. Ironically in the above study of Bacillus subtilus the authors found more trace silicon in the graphite sample holder than in the spore sample - not much "naturally occurring" Si present there.
Even when antifoaming agents are used in preparation the authors of this article:

showed that the level of Si is still only a fraction of 1%(estimated from EDS peaks).

The bottom line here is obvious. It is highly likely that the % Si in the attack spores is high - very high. Higher than can be explained and at a level that would make the "naturally occurring" narrative look like a childish hypothesis created to distract from the obvious. This simple number (expressed as a weight %) should be relentlessly sought by the media and by congressional hearings. There is no excuse for not providing it - it immediately reveals the true nature of the powder employed in the attacks.

Anonymous said...

Question for either of the posters immediately above (or, anyone understanding better than I do):

Is the crux here that Dr. Ivins had no means to introduce an additive? Is that why the FBI keeps trying to explain the SI was "naturally occurring"?

Anonymous said...

Eliz. re: Jackpot of motives.

Apparently my sarcastic humor was off. I meant it sarcastically.

But it is true, they did use three different profiles to fit on Ivins.

No one is writing about our government's theory about Matsumoto and the NBC letter. Is it so embarrassingly bad that even critics cringe from thinking about it? I think so.

You are interested in journalism. Why not take a historical view on how the leaks were made? The earliest stuff was very nasty and vicious coming from the government. Start with the Los Angeles Times' first story with the FBI feeding the compliant reporter with the brother in Ohio, not bothering to say he hadn't spoke to Ivins in 20 yrs. Journalistic malpractice.

Anonymous said...

My reading is off, not your humor.

The brother was one of the early dissonant notes that drew my attention to the serial journalistic sloppiness in the reporting.

They did have three profiles. And they didn't seem to care very much which one worked. That's strange. You'd think that after all these years, someone would care which hat fit and what that particular hat meant. You'd think they'd care more than six years ago, not less.

Unless it didn't matter. And at that point you have to ask, why doesn't the FBI (or Justice or DHS) care if they have a plausible profile and a compelling motive?

Anonymous said...

In response to Elizabeth Ferrari/ San Francisco

I'm the "Bad Science In The FBI’s Anthrax Briefing" Anonymous. The crux of my analysis is simply this;
in order to get the right answers, one has to ask the right questions. In an investigation, unfounded assumptions can result in the failure to investigate the avenue(s) which hold the answer to that which one is investigating.

The question of silicon-oxygen additives is one that has been quite controversial in this investigation. It is clear that the attack anthrax included unusually large amounts of silicon (the element silicon). If the silicon had been present in the form, as some believe, of tiny silica (silicon dioxide) particles, there would be a potential implication that military technology had been involved in the anthrax production.

But there are apparently other unique attributes of the anthrax powders used in the second letters beyond the issue of silica (silicon dioxide), and other silicon-oxygen compounds could have played a role here. For example, the anthrax powders were apparently nearly 100% pure anthrax spores. Some of Ivins' coworkers, and others knowledgeable in the field have said that it is extremely difficult to produce powders of this purity (even the weapons grade researchers of years ago apparently had difficulties producing materials of this purity). Some organic/silicon compounds called "surfactants", could have played a role here in that surfactants can greatly enhance removal of undesirable materials (soap and detergents are basically surfactants which function to allow materials such as oils, that are normally not susceptible to removal by water, to be readily removed by water).

Apparently, other organic silicon compounds are sometimes used to enhance spray-drying processes and/or in wet milling processes. The latter process can allow conversion of solid clumps (agglomerates) into a more uniform dispersal of small particles.

Could Ivins had obtained and used these additive materials? Easily if he knew what to look for. But his work didn't involve addressing these particular problems. So identifying these materials as the solution to problems he hadn't previously faced would have been, at least arguably, a 'find the needle in the haystack' type of situation that should have taken a great deal of time to solve. Also Ivins probably would have left a trail in obtaining the materials.

So the "additives" issue is important for many different reasons; some obviously political, but others non-political in that from a technical standpoint, if one can identify unique additives, one should investigate whether people with access to RMR-1029 obtained, had, or used such additives.

There's also the issue of the FBI's "water source" "isotope distribution" analysis. This one's even more obscure, but apparently the FBI analyzed the oxygen and hydrogen isotopes in the anthrax powders to determine who to investigate. This was a "you are what you eat" analysis (I can't take credit for this terminology, I read it somewhere). Basically as the anthrax spores are grown, they incorporate the water used to grow them. But it turns out that water in different parts of the US and the world differs from place to place, from a nuclear standpoint (the tiny amounts of radioactive hydrogen and oxygen contained in the water varies from place to place). So the FBI used this type of analysis to conclude that the spores were grown in the Northeast US and apparently limited their investigation to suspects located there (Note I say "apparently" -- I don't know for a fact that the investigation was so limited -- someone needs to ask what role the isotope analysis played in eliminating suspects). But at any rate, if there are organic silicon compounds incorporated into the anthrax spores via permeation, then they will include hydrogen and oxygen atoms and isotopes representative of where the additives were made. (A lot of chemicals are manufactured in New Jersey). Bottom line, when the FBI thought it was determining what water was used to grow the anthrax spores, it may have been misled by additives it didn't know were present.

OK, sorry for being long-winded. But if you've gotten this far, I want to add one last comment. There's no doubt in my mind that there are many dedicated women and men in the FBI, and among the scientists they've used, who are committed 24/7 to doing what's right, and giving everything they've got to doing that. And everything they've said may turn out to be correct. But until something is proven sufficiently in science, one shouldn't treat it as such in a proper scientific investigation because errors tend to compound themselves over time.

So, everything's clear as mud now; I guess.

Anonymous said...


Profiles are helpful, but can lead to inside the box thinking, the safest place in bureaucracy away from later criticism and retribution. Motive? From day 1 for pc and economic stability ("keep buying!") reasons many in the government pushed the domestic loner theory without any proof. Domestic loner is the least scary possibility. Domestic, not foreign, Arab. Loner, just one person, limited capacity.

It is remarkable how the profiles, from a personality perspective, were wrong for Hatfill and Ivins. For one, both were sociable, relatively outgoing.

Washingtons Blog said...

World’s Top Anthrax Experts Say The Killer Anthrax was Weaponized

Washingtons Blog said...

Here is another comparison on anthrax and 9/11: The Government as Wizard of Oz in Anthrax and 9/11 Investigations. . . "Don't Look at the Man Behind the Curtain".

Again, the views are SOLELY mine and NOT necessarily those of Dr. Nass or anyone else who posts or is referenced in this site.

Ellen Byrne said...

I pray that Grassley and others at the "Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation" scheduled for Sept 17th ask the right questions. And I pray that an impartial scientist can be there to challenge the presentation erroneous information.

There should be a full investigation of the FBI's outrageous behavior in hounding Bruce befoe his death, assasinating his good name and character after his untimely death, and lying about their process and evidence. Heads should roll on this.

This is worse than Watergate.

Anonymous said...

Looking into the Soviet anthrax program is a good place to start. However, I do not believe Ken Alibek was responsible for the anthrax preparation. If he is guilty of anything then perhaps it would be his close association with the FBI’s game plan. He seems to be one of those on call to respond to the claim there were no additives in the Senate letter anthrax.

Once the investigators realized the Senate anthrax was the best stuff seen to date, they turned to our NATO allies for help. I’m convinced former Soviet scientists had a hand in the anthrax preparation; that is, Soviet scientists who relocated to Ness Ziona, Israel. You can find the details in my article “The Anthrax Mystery: Solved”

Anonymous said...

"Bad Science" anon: (That sounds like a nickname for a 12 Step group.)

Thank you.

I'm sure there are many good people working in the FBI, too. Unfortunately, they are working for the most corrupt department in an administration that has been no respecter of science.