FBI: Yes We Still Have Our Anthrax Shiny Object
I agree with all the comments littering bmaz’ trash talk thread: the new anthrax story still does nothing to prove that Ivins was the lone gunman. First and foremost, that’s because the FBI is still doing what it has been doing from the start–boasting of their fancy new technology to prove that the anthax came from a flask in Ivins’ office, without making an affirmative case Ivins was the one who used the material in the flask, and certainly without providing any evidence that Ivins was the one who mailed it. Even if Ivins prepared the anthrax, after all, that’s a far cry from driving to Princeton to mail it.
But even within their shiny object story about the flask, there are reasons to doubt. For example, when the story dismisses a second flask because of an erroneous lab notebook entry, we get no detail about what that entry is or who made it.
Initially, agents thought Ivins divided his spores into two flasks and kept one in a different building, which would have increased the number of people with potential access. That belief was based on a lab notebook entry that turned out to be erroneous, agents said.
After all, if the FBI’s own lab book has these errors, then why should we trust them? If it’s an error in Ivins’ own lab notebook, are they suggesting he was trying to confuse them? The error, by itself, certainly doesn’t dismiss the concerns.
Then there’s the question of the different qualities of the anthrax samples used in the attack.
Differences between the two grades of anthrax powders used in the attacks — the earlier batch sent to New York news outlets was coarser and darker than the powder mailed to the Senate — confirm that there were at least two production runs. Bureau officials knew they were looking for someone who had repeated access to Ivins’s flask as well as talent for sophisticated spore preparations.
As freep points out, there’s no reason to believe someone accessed the flask in Ivins’ office twice, just that someone created samples specific to each attack. Furthermore, how can you make this argument without having some explanation for who sent Judy Miller fake anthrax? There’s every reason to believe that her non-attack was part of the larger scare; if so, then you’d need to acknowledge that some of the attack anthrax wasn’t anthrax at all.
Here’s how they dismiss the many complaints that no one at Detrick had experience drying liquid anthrax into powder:
Ivins normally worked with liquid anthrax spore solutions, not dry powders, investigators acknowledge. Ivins’s colleagues insist that he had no experience with "dry aerosols" of anthrax spores and would not have known how to make them.
But drying the spores turned out to be no obstacle at all, FBI scientists said. It required only one more step, using a common laboratory machine known as a lyophilizer. Ivins had one in his lab.
"Because he grew spores on a daily basis, he was in a position to make [the powder], and no one would be the wiser," Montooth said.
Apparently, the FBI has dismissed all the issues about expertise drying anthrax to the consistency of that used in the attack by pointing to a piece of equipment. No really–it was as easy as toasting a bagel in a toaster oven.
Finally, the thing that disgusts me is the way the WaPo ends the article, suggesting that all those associated with victims of the crime believe it is solved:
The only solace, he said, came on the day the Amerithrax team sat down with family members of the victims of the attacks. In an FBI conference room, Montooth laid out the still-secret details of the seven-year investigation.
"They thanked us," Montooth said, recalling the families’ reaction. "They said, ‘We believe you got the right guy.’ "
Ending the article that ways seems to give it a sense of finality: if the families of victims are convinced, then of course the FBI must be right!
Funny, no one thought to ask Patrick Leahy, the recipient of one of the attack letters, whether he "believes the FBI got the right guy." Because we know that he still has all the concerns we’ve got about the case.
I resemble that remark!
I agree that they gloss over the “second flask” issue way too easily. I think we need a lot more information on that point.
I still also feel that they have the sequence backwards. They are claiming Ivins used his flask as an inoculum to produce and then refine new batches of spores. I think the attack material could have been produced directly from RMR 1029 [or its missing evil twin?] with only about 1% of its contents. It would be a natural thought in the first attack to use a “filler” to make a larger volume of material to work with.
The article’s closing graph is code for, “Move along all you who dare to question our investigative skills.”
Keep questioning EW.
I still think Judy needs to be drilled on this. Especially with the timing of her book. The Judy timeline reeks.
With all due respect,
if the FBI is getting it so wrong, then
1. Who did it?
2. Will you have any more faith in the FBI when Obama is President?
3. If we fire the FBI, then what should take it’s place?
vaccine manufacturer; yes; see #2
I didn’t have faith when Clinton was President. Remember the botched investigation of the 1996 bombing at the Olympics in Atlanta?
The point isn’t which party is in power rather that law enforcement be accountable for botched investigations.
Is it possible to ensure that the Justice Department (and by extension the FBI and ATF) is subject to legitimate oversight?
Thanks ew.
digg
Everything stated in this article leaves doubt and room for more facts, more questions. The biggest red herring to me that offers no fact, only suspicion is Judy Miller getting fake anthrax. (the timing and that we don’t have the sender for that fake stuff either…seems so important to this picture but I am uncertain as to what it means).
I pray someday we find our answers…It reminds me of the way I feel about the deepest parts of the ocean, and the universe at large (string theory or big bang? because it plumbs the depth of depravity in the human mind and because we still know so little).
That feeling, that we may never know, drives me to distraction.
At the risk of repeating something someone else already said (I haven’t read the comments on the other thread):
You note:
Furthermore, how can you make this argument without having some explanation for who sent Judy Miller fake anthrax? There’s every reason to believe that her non-attack was part of the larger scare; if so, then you’d need to acknowledge that some of the attack anthrax wasn’t anthrax at all.
That Judy Miller, of all people, got fake anthrax and you (following this much more closely than I have) have every reason to believe her fake anthrax was part of the larger scare, leads me to one conclusion. I think it fairly inescapable that whomever was behind sending her the fake anthrax (and by implication killing a bunch of people with real anthrax) was someone who decided (1) that she was worth having around for later and (2) it would be worthwhile to the ultimate objective(s) of sending the anthrax and scaring everyone to have her among the targets.
I do not want to jump to my conclusion, but Scooter Libby comes immediately to mind, though using Judy like that would be playing very roughly.
We have pretty much concluded – in the absence of any real proof – that the objectives of sending the anthrax were severalfold: (1) exploit the fear then present in the society at large to generate more and different kinds of fear, (2) push the so-called USA PATRIOT Act through Congress, (3) put the Democratic party even further into the camp of weak, pussilanimous softies and thereby push Republican prospects for the coming 2002 election, and (4) push the go-to-war-with Iraq line long since decided-upon.
So, assuming those to be the objectives, cui bono?
But, the issue remains whether those really were the objectives. And, if the objectives were different than I posit, what were they and then, cui bono therefrom?
It’s always easier and neater for the FBI to push forward a lone wacko as The Guy. This, particularly when it avoids the necessity of the FBI looking into the snakepit of DC, where its own masters may well have been the moving forces behind the crimes, and recognizing that the FBI itself is being used by them for thier own ends.
This is classic police work: “We have to charge someone, and soon. The public needs someone to pay. Get me someone, anyone. We need to put this one to bed.”
I would like to see the investments and trading profiles of not only this Admin’s principals, but also of their friends’, neighbors and political allies.
And that includes the hedge funds.
We already know that Rumsfeld made a small fortune off Cipro (the antidote of choice for anthrax – remember how panicked people were all stocking up on it?). Let’s see who else did well by themselves while in government service.
Yeah – timelines are A critical tool, but associational graphs can be as much if not moreso, and there are too many barriers at this point to make any useful one here.
But I daresay it’s safe to conclude that some one is – or ones are – concerned that some time following Nov 4 some of those barriers should come down, and there will be found his picture, right at the critical intersection, white gloves on and directing traffic.
Perhaps Judy was given a private look at the gloves.
A a lab notebook entry that turned out to be erroneous…
This allusion in the article in WaPo reminds me of biotech copyright litigation misdirection. Which is to say, the legal and technical people reading that broad statement interpret it significantly differently from the vernacular reading of its meaning. The International Standards Organization, and standalone labs similarly, have procedure definitions intended to control for aberrant ‘discoveries’ and processes outside the normal handling methods. Tangentially, re: the Judy branch, given her prominent work in reporting in the specialized field, and her dashing to NYT with breathless prose about ostensible discoveries after the invasion, her own poison letter event may have completely different motivation and sources. One obvious difference, being her polity as widely divergent from the other targets. Local media throughout the US were reporting powders scares in the same timeframe.
It would be worthwhile to elaborate more about what kind of mistaken entries were found in lab notes, and to trace the authorship of subsequent edits. WaPo’s story attempts to image what it considers the important variables in the narrative, yet, all emerge into the light of journalism with plausibly still hidden wrinkles, much of the data still inaccessible to media. One positive note might be the FBI nanotech forensics developed in the investigation, a concept I am not sure I buy, would be useful in support of efforts by arms control organizations. What I see in the WaPo article is little of new technical substance, but considerable promise for enhancing FBI’s utility in controlling a dangerous form of wmds.
wolfie said TWO GUILTY VERDICTS for toobz stevens
guilty ON ALL COUNTS
The end of the article ticked me off, too. It’s one of those if-we-could-tell-you-everything-but-we-can’t, and others-we-told-agree, and we’ve-got-a-secret-and-if-only-we-could-tell-you-all-would-be-swell routines. An insult.
http://anthraxvaccine.blogspot…..bi-to.html