My Sunday comment was largely about the discussions I had last week with "Anonymous" (a.k.a. "DXer" from Lew Weinstein's web site). "Anonymous's" argument seems to be that because I do not read what he reads, I'm not adequately informed about the case. And, to "Anonymous," that means he is right and I am wrong.
But, I also argued with another Anthrax Truther who believes the anthrax killer was also responsible for the "Chicago Lipstick Murders" which took place before Ivins was born.
Meanwhile, I continue to work on the "Notes & Resources" section of my book while I wait for responses from two large literary agencies. My plan is to self-publish about 300 copies of my book. But, if a regular publisher wants to publish it, I certainly wouldn't object. I'm just not relying upon that to happen.
"For MONTHS he's been arguing that the fact that Ivins was doing some experiments with rabbits during normal work hours in 2001 means Ivins had reason to be working long evening hours in his lab at night and on weekends before the anthrax letters were mailed. "
ReplyDeleteEd, Ivins was doing the night checks -- and weekend checks. If you obtained and read the documents, you would know that. See, e.g., Mara Linscott's 302 explaining it would take a couple of hours and was a one-person job. See the calendar. You should stop mischaracterizing people. You should respond to what they actually say.
Anonymous wrote: "Ivins was doing night checks -- and weekend checks"
ReplyDeleteAnimal checks only take a few minutes. And the in-out logs shows that Ivins was typically NOT in Suite B3 when the animal checks were being done. The anthrax powders were made by Ivins in Suite B3.
Anonymous also wrote: "Mara Linscott's 302 explaining it would take a couple of hours and was a one-person job."
Mara Linscott was stating that it would take two hours out of her weekend to drive to USAMRIID, to go through the decontamination entry process, to spend a few minutes checking the animals, to go through the decontamination exit process and to drive home again.
It didn't take two hours to check on the animals if you were already at USAMRIID. To claim that it did is absurd.
If you have proof that Ivins was spending his long hours at night and on weekends dealing with the rabbits, PROVIDE THE PROOF AND EXPLAIN IT, don't just claim it exists. The facts say that Ivins had no explanation for the long hours he spend in his lab during evenings and on weekends during the critical periods in 2001. Your claims to the contrary are just unproven claims.
Ed
First off the animal checks do take longer than a few minutes even if you are already in the B3 suite not just in USAMRIID; especially if you are required to collect samples. So that time is not absurb. Some of the in and out in short times is close checks when animals are expected to pass and the time checks were for exact as possible times. I know there was a rabbit study going on at that particular weekend because he was doing the time checks for me the weekend in question. We (many at USAMRIID to include myself) have give the information and proof, however it is simply left out. There was no powder made in B3, there was no equipment that could do it. The only place something of that concentration could be made at was out in Dugway. When the powder was reconstituted it matched what was sent prior to 2001 by Dugway but was completely removed from USAMRIID during one of the "visits".
DeleteOne of the "Anonymi" wrote: "First off the animal checks do take longer than a few minutes even if you are already in the B3 suite not just in USAMRIID; especially if you are required to collect samples. So that time is not absur[d]."
DeleteYes, but Dr. Ivins NEVER had to work such long hours before to take care of animals. Plus, if that is what he was doing, why didn't he say so? He was unable to explain what he was doing in his lab for all those hours at those critical times. His primary explanations were that he just went in there to get away from some guard who annoyed him, and/or he just went in there to get away from his home life. He never claimed to have been working with animals or working on any kind of experiment during those times. He had no records showing that that was what he was doing. So, the records indicated that was NOT what he was doing.
"Anonymous" also wrote: "There was no powder made in B3, there was no equipment that could do it."
There was no powder officially or legally made in B3. And Ivins had all the equipment needed to make the powders.
The facts (and records) say that when Dr. Ivins did serial dilutions to test dosage amounts for animals, he created hundreds of plates durin the time in question. He created enough plates for mouse tests to account for ALL the powders in the letters. After counting the colonies on the plates, the plates where then discarded by tossing them into autoclave bags.
The facts also say that Dr. Ivins allowed such bags filled with plates to remain in his lab or elsewhere UNSTERILIZED for weeks. There are statements from people who opened the bags and found the plates fully grown over with anthrax.
Ivins had all the equipment, all the time and all the expertise needed to turn the contents of those plates into powders.
The powder in the media letters was 6% agar, indicating that the powders came from spores grown on plates.
The powder in the media letters was spores embedded in dried matrix material (slime). It was about 10 percent spores and 90 percent matrix material (and agar). That is about exactly what one would expect to get if the spores from fully overgrown plates were used in the letters. Furthermore, the serial dilutions were of spores grown from aliquots taken from flask RMR-1029. So, all the facts say Ivins made the spores in his lab from those plates.
Furthermore, the facts say that Dugway was NOT involved. Their water supply does not have the isotopes that were in the water used to produce the spores.
Ed
Anonymous,
DeleteYou may not be aware of it, but I have written a book which describes step by step, detail by detail, nearly day by day, how Dr. Ivins created the powders found in the anthrax letters and how the FBI figured out that he did it. It's called "A Crime Unlike Any Other: What the Facts Say About Dr. Bruce Edwards Ivins and the Anthrax Attacks of 2001." I turned that title into a link. Just click on it and you will be taken to Amazon.com where you can buy a copy.
All the equipment Dr. Ivins needed to make the powders was a centrifuge and a biosafety cabinet. He had those in his lab.
To argue that "The only place something of that concentration could be made at was out in Dugway" ignores the fact that Ivins made spores of that purity when he created the contents of flasks RMR-1029 and RMR-1030. Purifying spores was his specialty.
Arguing that he didn't make dried spore powders as part of his normal job ignores the fact that this was done illegally, not as part of someone's job.
Ed
Ed, you need to read the documents bearing on the animal studies, to include Mara Linscott's 302 statement that it took a couple of hours. Quote it -- don't mischaracterize it. As Mara explained, the work with the animals would take a couple of hours. In the couple dozen documents I obtained under FOIA and uploaded, the nature of the work is described in detail. By taking AUSA Lieber's use of Pat's comment, you are spinning things rather than addressing the documents. (You take a very uncritical approach to a prosecutor's narrative -- when instead you should be linking the relevant documents that explained what the work with the rabbits involved. ) That is the problem I pointed out. You have not read the relevant documents and evidence no awareness of what they say. You accept the prosecutor's spin without addressing the documents that contradict her spin. AUSA Lieber makes no mention of the rabbits AT ALL. You have no basis to spin the documents the way you do about driving to USAMRIID etc. Instead, if you want to take a principled approach, you link the document and then quote the document that explains what is involved. Best of luck to you. I have linked the documents for GAO's convenience. They need the documents -- not someone's characterization.
ReplyDeleteThe couple dozen documents are explained here.
Deletehttp://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/04/27/chemical-and-physical-signatures-for-microbial-forensics-2012-excerpt-from-preface/comment-page-1/#comment-17499
Now compare that to AUSA Lieber's claim that he had no reason at all in the first week of October and you can see why it is important that the GAO go over these documents with AUSA Lieber in a transcribed interview -- and obtain the DOJ emails reflecting whether the prosecutors knew about his work with the rabbits. If you see her summary, you'll see she evidences awareness only about mice involved in a different study. Her emails and Ken's emails will reflect whether they knew about the rabbits -- and study of the meta documents in the Word documents will show who wrote, and who edited, what.
Your link says NOTHING of value. You just ASSUME and CLAIM that it means something because it's about rabbits and about Ivins. There is NOTHING at that link that says Ivins was spending his evenings working with rabbits.
DeleteIf Ivins had been working with rabbits during those unusual hours, why didn't he say so? Why did he claim he would just go into the lab to get away from his family?
Ed
Anonymous,
DeleteAt the link it says: "The DOJ withheld all documents relating to Dr. Ivins’ work with the 52 rabbits. GAO should question the prosecutors and scientists and agents on these documents and obtain all documents still being withheld by the DOJ."
If you can't understand your own words, it says that no documents have been released explaining what Ivins was doing with the rabbits. And the reason is obvious: Ivins work with the rabbits has no meaning to the case -- except in your over-active imagination.
Ed
Anonymous wrote: "Ed, you need to read the documents bearing on the animal studies, to include Mara Linscott's 302 statement that it took a couple of hours. Quote it -- don't mischaracterize it."
ReplyDeleteI quoted it in my January 12, 2012 (A) comment. It's from FBI file #847425, page 23. Replacing the redacted name with Linscott's name it says:
"Linscott perceived the normal laboratory hours to start between the morning hours of 7:00AM to 9:00AM and last through 5:00PM, although there would be occasions when someone would come in later. If someone came in on the weekend it was to look at the animals/count the dead animals. This could take approximately two hours and was usually a one-person job."
So, it would take a couple hours out of a weekend. It would NOT take a couple hours to check on animals.
On page 32 of the FBI summary report it says,
"However, the first three of those days, he was in the hot suites for well over an hour, far longer than necessary to check to see if any mice were dead."
So, even an hour is "far longer" than necessary to check on animals.
That's what the FACTS say. If you have FACTS that say otherwise, produce them. Don't just mischaracterize what was involved in animal checks by claiming that it also involved performing necropsies and autoclaving. It didn't. That's ridiculous.
The only relevant documents are Ivins' in out logs and records of nighttime animal checks.
Ed
Thank you, Ed, for illustrating that AUSA Liebers evidences awareness only of the mice and not the 52 rabbits in the same suite the last week of September.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteThe fact that Lieber didn't mention the rabbits doesn't mean she was unaware of them. She didn't mention the Great Wall of China or the International Space Station, either, but she was undoubtedly aware of them. Why didn't she mention them? Because they were NOT relevant.
You fantasize about relevance, but it's just a fantasy. You prove nothing.
Ed
If she was aware of them, then she was guilty of prosecutorial misconduct for the false claims. AUSA Kohl was found by a federal district court in a historic opinion to have been guilty of prosecutorial misconduct about the same time in Blackwater. You don't at all evidence that you have read them either.
ReplyDeleteI would be glad to walk you through them given you appear unfamiliar with them.
ReplyDelete1. In an Oct 5, ’01 email among the materials provided by USAMRIID this week, Dr. Ivins explains the results 3 days after the challenge of rabbits in the formaldehyde experiment; the word “rabbits” has never passed the prosecutor’s lips
Posted by Lew Weinstein on December 24, 2011
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/12/24/in-an-oct-5-01-email-among-the-materials-provided-by-usamriid-this-week-dr-ivins-explains-the-results-3-days-after-the-challenge-of-rabbits-in-the-formaldehyde-experiment-the-word-rabbits/
2. NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION: 10 days after the rabbits had been challenged on October 1, 2001, Dr. Ivins presented preliminary results from the Battelle study involving the 5 year old preps of rPA vaccine w/ and w/o formaldehyde.
Posted by Lew Weinstein on December 24, 2011
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/12/24/not-for-public-distribution-10-days-after-the-rabbits-had-been-challenged-on-october-1-2001-dr-ivins-presented-preliminary-results-from-the-battelle-study-involving-the-5-year-old-preps-of-rpa-v/
3. The 52 Rabbits In The Early October 2001 Formaldehyde Experiment Were Exsanguinated Pursuant To The Established Protocol
Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 13, 2012
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/of-the-52-rabbits-in-the-early-october-2001-formalidehyde-experiment-how-many-were-exsanguinated-pursuant-to-this-procedure-all-of-them/
4. In Advance Of The October 1, 2001 Rabbit Challenge, The 52 Rabbits Nowhere Mentioned By Prosecutors Needed To Be Moved Into The B3 Suite 7 Days Earlier (And Documents Establish That They Were)
Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 13, 2012
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/in-advance-of-the-october-1-2001-rabbit-challenge-the-rabbits-nowhere-mentioned-by-prosecutors-needed-to-be-moved-into-the-b3-suite-7-days-earlier-and-documents-establish-that-they-were/
5. Standard Operating Procedures for Animal Assessment and Monitoring: the beautiful Amerithrax AUSA did not appreciate that Dr. Ivins was tasked to do this the first week of October with 52 rabbits.
Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 4, 2012
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/standard-operating-procedures-for-animal-assessment-and-monitoring-the-beautiful-amerithrax-ausa-did-not-realize-that-dr-ivins-was-tasked-to-do-this-the-first-week-of-october-with-52-rabbits/
6. The mice ran up the clock and Dr. Ivins time in the BL-3 lab in late September 2001 but not as much as the rabbits did in early October 2001.
Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 4, 2012
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/hickory-dickory-doc-the-mice-ran-up-the-clock-and-dr-ivins-time-in-the-bl-3-lab-in-late-september-2001-but-not-as-much-as-the-rabbits-did-in-early-october-2001/
7. 12 rabbits then died on day 3 and 4 and more on day 5; Ivins time then spent the extra time on those nights; AUSA Rachel Lieber got her facts seriously wrong in the investigative summary; DOJ should have required citations to the record.
Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 3, 2012
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/12-rabbits-then-died-on-day-3-and-4-and-more-on-day-5-ivins-time-then-spent-the-extra-time-on-those-nights-ausa-rachel-lieber-got-her-facts-seriously-wrong-in-the-investigative-summary-doj-should/
8. As explained in the protocols, the rabbits did not start dying until 2-4 days after challenge; after the Oct 1 challenge, the rabbits did not start dying immediately and his time in the B3 at night was negligible
ReplyDeletePosted by Lew Weinstein on January 3, 2012
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/as-explained-in-the-protocols-the-rabbits-did-not-start-dying-until-2-4-days-after-challenge-after-the-oct-1-challenge-the-rabbits-did-not-start-dying-immediately-and-his-time-in-the-b3-at-night/
9. Numerous USAMRIID Standard Operating Procedures (all mandatory) controlled the animal husbandry baseline services rendered the rabbits, guinea pigs and mice involved in Dr. Ivins’ experiments in Sep-Oct 2001
Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 3, 2012
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/numerous-usamriid-standard-operating-procedures-all-mandatory-controlled-the-animal-husbandry-baseline-services-rendered-the-rabbits-guinea-pigs-and-mice-involved-in-dr-ivins-experiments-in-se/
10. After challenge on about Oct 1, 2001, one of the investigators (as distinguished from technicians) on the rabbit/formaldehyde study were required to observe the control rabbits for the first 7 Days After Challenge ; The AUSA and Investigators Never Mention The Rabbits
Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 2, 2012
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/after-challenge-on-about-oct-1-2001-one-of-the-investigators-on-rabbitformaldehyde-study-were-required-to-observe-the-control-rabbits-for-the-first-7-days-after-challenge-the-ausa-and-investiga/
11. June 14, 2001 LACUS Subcommittee Meeting notice to consider Dr. Ivins’ proposal regarding formadehyde and rabbits.
Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 2, 2012
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/june-14-2001-lacus-subcommittee-meeting-notice-to-consider-dr-ivins-proposal-regarding-formadehyde-and-rabbits/
12. Under the protocol involving the rabbits and formaldehyde implemented in late September 2001 and early October 2001, it was Dr. Bruce Ivins who was tasked with monitoring the animals after challenge
Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 1, 2012
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/01/under-the-protocol-involving-rabbits-and-formaldehyde-implemented-in-late-september-2001-and-early-october-2001-dr-ivins-was-tasked-with-monitoring-the-animals-after-challenge/
13. Under the protocol involving rabbits and formaldehyde relating to the early October 2001 challenge, the rabbits were to be euthanized by injection of euthasol by animal lab tech Anthony Bassett, who can describe the experiment to the GAO
ReplyDeletePosted by Lew Weinstein on January 1, 2012
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/01/under-the-protocol-involving-rabbit-sand-formaldehyde-relating-to-the-early-october-2001-challenge-the-rabbits-were-to-be-euthanized-by-injection-of-euthasol-by-animal-tech-lab-anthony-bassett-who/
14. Each of the 52 rabbits shipped the week of September 24, 2001 to USAMRIID Building 1425 to join Dr. Ivins in the Biolevel 3 lab had a unique identifying microchip.
Posted by Lew Weinstein on December 26, 2011
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/12/26/each-of-the-52-rabbits-shipped-the-week-of-september-24-2001-to-usamriid-building-1425-to-join-dr-ivins-in-the-biolevel-3-lab-had-a-unique-identifying-microchip/
15. Like the rabbits shipped to USAMRIID Building 1425 the week of September 24th and acclimated to biolevel 3 for one week before being challenged, the mice similarly were housed in building 1425, not building 1412
Posted by Lew Weinstein on December 26, 2011
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/12/26/like-the-guinea-pigs-shipped-to-usamriid-building-1425-the-week-of-september-24th-and-acclimated-to-biolevel-3-for-one-week-before-being-challenged-the-mice-similarly-were-housed-in-building-1425/
16. DEA Controlled Substance records indicate that he was euthanizing and exsanguinating the surviving rabbits. They appear to have been spoliated.
Posted by Lew Weinstein on December 12, 2011
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/12/12/on-october-14-2001-when-dr-ivins-spent-1-12-hours-in-b3-do-dea-controlled-substance-records-indicate-that-he-was-euthanizing-and-exanguinating-the-surviving-rabbits/
17. After rabbits are challenged on the hot side, as many as three autoclaves are needed just processing cages and other items from the hotside, and it takes time to disinfect, decon and re-set up a room
Posted by Lew Weinstein on December 8, 2011
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/12/08/after-rabbits-are-challenged-on-the-hot-side-as-many-as-three-autoclaves-are-needed-just-processing-cages-and-other-items-from-the-hotside-and-it-takes-time-to-disinfect-decon-and-re-set-up-a-roo/
18. At USAMRIID, subcutaneous challenge of rabbits was ALWAYS done in the hot suite ; the hot suite is unavailable for subcutaneous challenge (or making a dried powder) when being decontaminated
Posted by Lew Weinstein on December 8, 2011
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/12/08/at-usamriid-subcutaneous-challenge-of-rabbits-was-always-done-in-the-hot-suite-the-hot-suite-is-unavailable-for-subcutaneous-challenge-or-making-a-dried-powder-when-being-decontaminated/
19. The scientist who made the large amount of virulent Ames that is missing, who was thanked by the former Zawahiri associate for providing technical assistance re the Ames, is the person who could explain about the rabbits ; but she’s not talking.
Posted by Lew Weinstein on November 9, 2011
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/11/09/the-scientist-who-made-the-large-amount-of-virulent-ames-that-is-missing-who-was-thanked-by-the-former-zawahiri-associate-for-providing-technical-assistance-re-the-ames-is-the-person-who-could-exp/
20. “AR” on the Floor Plan For USAMRIID Building Floor Plan stands for “Animal Resources” – Ed mistakenly for the longest time thought it meant Autoclave Room. Dr. Ivins doing in “AR” — working with animals like his lab notes and emails show.
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/dr-ivins-card-access-records-in-late-september-2001-and-early-october-2001-corroborate-his-work-with-animals-ar-on-the-floor-for-usamriid-building-floor-plan-stands-for-animal-resources/
21. As Dr. Ivins often explained, conducting a rabbit study such as the one involving 52 rabbits in early October 2001 always depended on the availability of hot suite space.
ReplyDeletePosted by Lew Weinstein on November 1, 2011
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/11/01/as-dr-ivins-often-explained-conducting-a-rabbit-study-such-as-the-one-involving-52-rabbits-in-early-october-2001-always-depended-on-the-availability-of-hot-suite-space/
22. T trips to the “AR” from the hot suites as trips to a locked cabinet in “Animal Resources” to animal supplies - for example, that is where the Ketamine and Euthasol needed to anesthesize and euthanize moribund mice and rabbits is located. See DEA (part of DOJ) Controlled Substance log.
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/12/11/did-ausa-lieber-and-agent-montooth-understand-dr-ivins-trips-to-the-ar-from-the-hot-suites-as-trips-to-a-locked-cabinet-in-animal-resources-to-get-the-euthasol-needed-to-euthanize-moribun/
23. Here is the June 14, 2001 LACUS Subcommittee Meeting notice to consider Dr. Ivins’ proposal regarding formadehyde and rabbits.
Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 2, 2012
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/june-14-2001-lacus-subcommittee-meeting-notice-to-consider-dr-ivins-proposal-regarding-formadehyde-and-rabbits/
24. Dr. Ivins preferred a parenteral (subcutaneous) challenge because you could fit 60 rabbits in one room whereas an aerosol challenge would require 4 rooms (1 for animals, 2 hood lines, and 1 spore and bacterial plating)
Posted by Lew Weinstein on October 31, 2011
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/dr-ivins-preferred-a-parenteral-subcutaneous-challenge-because-you-could-fit-60-rabbits-in-one-room-whereas-an-aerosol-challenge-would-require-4-rooms-1-for-animals-2-hood-lines-and-1-spore-an/
Well, with due respect, she didn't mention the polygraph test Ivins passed in Feb 2002 (as related by David Willman in MIRAGE MAN), the one that kept Ivins working with pathenogens at USAMRIID in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005.....nor did she mention the SECOND polygraph test that Ivins passed. You know the 2 polygraph tests he passed until the TASK FORCE decided he was the culprit and THEN ruled them "inconclusive" (does that sound reasonable to ANYONE?!?!?). In fact there's no exculpatory* evidence in the FINAL REPORT whatsoever because the PURPOSE of the FINAL REPORT was a one-sided PR effort to pin the crimes on Ivins so Mister Lake's take on the rabbits:
ReplyDelete---------
If you can't understand your own words, it says that no documents have been released explaining what Ivins was doing with the rabbits. And the reason is obvious: Ivins work with the rabbits has no meaning to the case -- except in your over-active imagination.
-----------------
This take might not be true: it MIGHT be that what Ivins was doing with the rabbits (and when and for how long)didn't jibe with the Task Force's conclusion (Bruce Ivins acting alone yadda yadda yadda)and was left out for THAT reason.
*By "exculpatory evidence" I mean stuff that TENDS to make Ivins either look innocent or would lead a reasonable person to question the assertions of his guilt.
Richard Rowley wrote: "Well, with due respect, she didn't mention the polygraph test Ivins passed in Feb 2002"
ReplyDeleteNot true. At the bottom of page 84, the Summary report has a lot of information about the Polygraph test that Ivins passed:
"In some sense, Dr. Ivins’s efforts to stay ahead of the investigation began much earlier. When he took a polygraph in connection with the investigation in 2002, the examiner determined that he passed. However, as the investigation began to hone in on Dr. Ivins and investigators learned that he had been prescribed a number of psychotropic medications at the time of the 2002 polygraph, investigators resubmitted his results to examiners at FBI Headquarters and the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute for a reassessment of the results in light of that new information. Both examiners who independently reassessed the results determined that Dr. Ivins exhibited “classic” signs of the use of countermeasures to pass a polygraph. At the time the polygraph was initially examined in 2002, not all examiners were trained to spot countermeasures, making the first analysis both understandable under the circumstances, and irrelevant to the subsequent conclusion that he used countermeasures."
So, your entire argument is false. You just failed to do research.
What information do you have on the "SECOND polygraph test that Ivins passed"?
Ed
Anonymous wrote: "I would be glad to walk you through them given you appear unfamiliar with them."
ReplyDeleteYour information is meaningless since it pertains to Ivins NORMAL WORK. There is no information in what you wrote that explains his unexplained unusual evening and weekend hours.
You CLAIM it does, but it doesn't. And you apparently KNOW it doesn't, because you also claim that the government is hiding the information.
Ivins did animal testing during his entire career at USAMRIID, but he NEVER worked the unusual hours he worked just prior to the anthrax attacks.
So, your arguments are meaningless. They were meaningless on Lew's site and they're meaningless when you re-post them here.
The FACTS say the Ivins was making the anthrax powders during those unusual hours he spend in Suite B3 during August, September and October of 2001. Nothing you've posted says otherwise. You just CLAIM it does.
Ed
Ed, I would be glad to explain given that it doesn't appear that you are familiar with the applicable protocols relating to the animal experiments. Tot understand the pattern of hours, you need to have obtained and studied the documents -- especially the protocols -- to understand how they are reflected in the pattern of hours:
Delete1) the hours presented by the DOJ only relate to Building 1425, not 1412. Immediately, upon a shift from 1412 to 1425 for efficiency's sake -- because of the fewer personnel that were needed -- the hours then came to be incurred at the 1425 B3 rather than the 1412 B3.
2) night checks occurred and were reflected in Building 1425 only when they were called for by the protocols;
3) the protocols regularly changed which was it was necessary for me to obtain them all and consult with a member of the Animal Care committee who spoke of the requirements that were added;
4) sometimes they specified an Investigator rather than technician performed the checks; relatedly sometimes the involvement of the Investigator only extended for a required number of days (such as reflected by the pattern of hours).
5) the protocols identified who among the researchers would be conducting the checks and performing other duties;
6) the additional animal studies were needed due to the increasing work presented, to include the Bioport problems;
7) the pattern continued into December 2001;
8) the 2 person rule was implemented in early 2002 and thus the representation by the AUSAs and US Attorney that the pattern did not continue in 2002 was especially specious.
9) the prosecutors never mention the rabbits and if you are correct that they knew about the research, then that is a very serious matter that needs to be taken up by the GAO. I don't presume that they knew it and withheld it -- falsely claiming that there were no animal experiments in the first week of October. But Ken and Rachel can address the documents with the GAO personnel.
The reason you don't know this is that you have no read or linked the protocols or other documents relevant to the pattern of hours.
Instead, you merely uncritically accept a prosecutor's assertions.
That is not analysis at all. That is just uncritically accepting a prosecutor's assertions.
Anonymous wrote: "Ed, I would be glad to explain given that it doesn't appear that you are familiar with the applicable protocols relating to the animal experiments."
DeleteProtocols are irrelevant. The only information of relevance here is evidence which would support your CLAIM that Ivins was working with rabbits during those UNEXPLAINED long evening and weekend hours prior to the attacks. Protocols apply to daytime hours as well as evening hours, so they are irrelevant. They prove absolutely NOTHING of importance. You may believe they do, but your beliefs are also irrelevant to the case.
Ed
You obviously have not read the protocols or interviewed any Animal Care committee members who addressed these issues.
DeleteIf you had a pet -- or if you had read the protocols and understood their purpose -- you would know that it would be inhumane not to alleviate suffering that occurred outside the 9-5 daytime hours. The requirements stem from the need to treat animals humanely.
Your confusion takes many forms.
DeleteFor months, you argued the rabbits weren't in B3!
Then for additional months, you didn't know what B3 encompassed!
Now you think that the protocols contemplate poisoning the rabbits with anthrax and then punching out at 5 p.m. -- leaving them to die a long painful death. You need to inform yourself by the documents USAMRIID has produced in the past two years so as to avoid basic errors ... which by the way you would avoid simply by interviewing those who worked under the protocols. Lots of such folks are readily available by email and are highly responsive to requests.
Anonymous wrote: "You obviously have not read the protocols..."
DeleteActually, I DID read the protocols. They are irrelevant if you do not have documentation which shows that some animal was found to be suffering and had to be euthanized so he wouldn't continue to suffer through the night.
And, even then, you'd have to know who took care of the animal. You'd have to know it wasn't taken care of by some animal caretaker working the NIGHT SHIFT.
You fantasize. I look for facts.
Ed
Anonymous wrote: "For months, you argued the rabbits weren't in B3!"
DeleteThere have been a lot of things I have been mistaken about over the years. When I learn the facts, I make corrections. We learn from our mistakes.
You should try it. It would help you get out of your fantasy world.
Ed
The Amerithrax Investigative Summary expressly relies on the evidence as evidence of Dr. Ivins' GUILT! See p. 51.
ReplyDeleteNow that's making a silk purse out of a sow's ear -- which is a high compliment to a litigator.
But not a basis to rely on in closing a case.
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2010/02/23/antipolygraph-org-provides-a-fascinating-analysis-of-dr-ivins-and-the-fbi’s-unsupported-assertions-regarding-his-polygraph-tests/
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2010/04/12/why-hasnt-nas-heard-a-witness-on-the-fbis-extensive-reliance-on-polygraphs-in-amerithax/
You don't address the documents and there is no evidence you have even read them given that your assertions are contradicted by the documents. You just repeat your assertions. The reason you have no credibility, Ed, is because you repeat your assertions rather than mastering the documents, citing them, linking them etc.
ReplyDeleteYou don't even link these documents on your page. You are all about unpublishable schtick and hide-the-ball.
Anonymous wrote: "You don't address the documents and there is no evidence you have even read them"
ReplyDeleteYou're back to your main argument again: If I don't read what you read, that means you are more knowledgeable about the case than I am.
It was nonsense the first time you made that claim and it will continue to be nonsense every time you make it.
Ed
Anonymous wrote: "The Amerithrax Investigative Summary expressly relies on the evidence as evidence of Dr. Ivins' GUILT!"
ReplyDeleteDuh! Ivins was guilty. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT PROVES HE WAS INNOCENT.
Your mistaken beliefs don't count.
Ed
The AR Management System system relating to Protocols confirms Dr. Ivins’ challenges (and the other challenges using virulent Ames from RMR 1029) were done under Biolevel-3 conditions. There was never any factual basis for you to claim otherwise -- as you did for months and years. Contact with any USAMRIID scientist could have avoided your confusion.
ReplyDeletehttp://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/12/24/the-ar-management-system-system-relating-to-protocols-confirms-dr-ivins-challenges-and-the-other-challenges-using-virulent-ames-from-rmr-1029-were-done-under-biolevel-3-conditions/
For example, this 21 page rabbit animal protocol involved AEROSOL challenge in 2000 and thus had to be done in Building 1412. As a result -- because aerosol challenges had to be done in Building 1412 -- the hours recorded in connection with this protocol related to Building 1412, not 1425. The "spike" in hours results because of a shift to cutaneous challenge and conduct of the experiment in Building 1425.
ReplyDeleteDOJ has withheld those documents from Building 1412 and GAO should obtain them if they want to get at the question of hours.
By selectively producing only the 1425 hours -- and withholding the hours from Building 1412 -- the DOJ confused the issue that had actually resulted in the difference in hours. It may very well be that the FBI agent who developed the argument (whose experience was in undercover drug transactions in DC) may not have had college statistics. In statistics 101, the common saying is that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Experiments that involved aerosol challenge necessarily resulted in late hours in Building 1412. Source: GA, former chief of bacteriology.
Source:
USAMRIID FOIA has uploaded an earlier 21 page rabbit animal protocol from 2000 regarding potency testing and will provide the protocol, as approved, that governed the experiment in September / October 2001 by next week.
Posted by Lew Weinstein on November 23, 2011
https://mrmc-www.army.mil/content/foia_reading_room/Email%20Attachments/FOIA_6_Jan_2000.pdf
Dr. Ivins explained that “what’s acceptable as a [rabbit animal protocol is constantly changing]” ; thus it is important that the GAO rely on the rabbit formaldehyde protocol as executed and not earlier draft versions.
ReplyDeletehttp://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/12/09/dr-ivins-explained-that-whats-acceptable-as-a-rabbit-animal-protocol-is-constantly-changing-thus-it-is-important-that-the-gao-rely-on-the-rabbit-formaldehyde-protocol-as-executed-and-not/
Would you agree that KSM taught Nawaf al-Hazmi english?
ReplyDeleteThe Attack Looms - National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon ...
govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch7.htm
In detention, KSM denies that al Qaeda had any agents in Southern California. ..... He admitted helping Hazmi to learn English
Would you agree that this is an exemplar of his handwriting?
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/SD00405.jpg
To informally explore your theory that the letters indicate that they were written by someone who just wrote English, you will want to do a detailed analysis of those operatives who had just learned english -- such as Nawaf Al-Hazmi. Not the three that you did.
I'll scan and send out exemplars with examples of "R" which you suggest is especially noteworthy and get it to you when it is uploaded. More importantly, I'll send them to qualified handwriting experts.
As for Al-Hazmi's background, note that in Spring 2001, Nawaf Al-Hazmi associated with both Anwar Awlaki and also Ali Al-Timimi, who shared a suite with the leading DARPA-funded virulent Ames researchers.
Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 27, 2012
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/in-spring-2001-nawaf-al-hazmi-associated-with-both-anwar-awlaki-and-ali-al-timimi-who-shared-a-suite-with-the-ames-researchers/
Atta Made the 911 Reservation With Nawaf Al-Hazmi At Yuricom; If No Cars Were Passing And He Had Been There A Month Or Two Earlier, He Could Have Seen The Particulate Mixer Being Delivered By The Delivery Truck
Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 27, 2012
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/atta-made-the-911-reservation-with-nawaf-al-hazmi-at-yuricom-if-no-cars-were-passing-and-he-had-been-there-a-month-or-two-earlier-he-could-have-seen-the-particulate-mixer-being-delivered-by-the-de/
GAO, isn't Nawaf Al-Hazmi's "R" identical to the one described and featured (and enlarged) on by Ed on his page in which he alleges that only someone who just learned English would write like that?
ReplyDeleteIt is very important that GAO obtain the handwriting expert opinion comparing Nawaf's handwriting to the anthrax letters.
Moreover, GAO has qualified handwriting experts readily available to do the analysis.
By way of background Al-Hazmi was coordinating with Atta, first In Fort Lee, NJ in late August 2001 and then in Laurel, MD in September 2001 ; Jdey’s associate Nawaf Al-Hazmi had been at the planning meeting at Yazid Sufaat’s Kuala Lumpur condo with anthrax planner Hambali and anthrax Lab Director Yazid Sufaat and yet the FBI never told the public that Jdey had been detained along with Moussaoui In August 2001 (with biology textbooks) and then reeleased
Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 25, 2012
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/atta-was-coordinating-with-jdeys-associate-al-hazmi-first-in-fort-lee-nj-in-late-august-2001-and-then-in-laurel-md-in-september-2001-jdeys-associate-nawaf-al-hazmi-had-been-at-the-planning/
Nawaf had just learned to speak English and Ed has argued for 10 years that the letters appear to have been written by someone who had just learned to write English... without ever bothering to compare, for example, Nawaf's "Rs" with the distinctive "Rs" on the anthrax letters.
My FB friend Yazid Sufaat, the Al Qaeda anthrax lab director, can confirm that Nawaf Al-Hazmi, who stayed at his condo in Kuala Lumpur for the planning meeting, didn't speak English and needed instruction by KSM. I'll ask him for any additional handwriting exemplars (beyond things like car rental agreement, post office box agreements etc.)
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteThe SIX messages you posted overnight are meaningless and irrelevant. They are just CLAIMS. They prove nothing and explain nothing.
The handwriting example from Nawaf Alhazmi that you provided is another handwriting example that clearly does NOT match the anthrax handwriting. Alhazmi mixes upper and lower case characters, which the anthrax letter writer did NOT do. Alhazmi's R in "ArABiA" is a lower case R, so any claim that it compares to the anthrax letters is ridiculous.
If you cannot post anything meaningful, I'm going to stop letting your posts go through. You post this kind of nonsense on Lew Weinstein's site. There's no reason to post it here, too.
You're just wasting my time and the time of anyone else who reads this blog.
Ed
The professional handwriting experts prefer to rely on a minimum of 5 exemplars, preferably original. But a minimum, the best copy available so as to not mistake a skipped pen for a small "r" made along with the capital letters. By all means, read something on handwriting analysis so that you understand how experts do it.
ReplyDeleteEd,
ReplyDeleteFormer anthrax lab director Yazid Sufaat tells me on FB and chat that "the plan is on the way." What do you think he means?
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI have no idea. Maybe he's just screwing with you.
It's not in my areas of expertise. I have to leave some mysteries to others to figure out.
Ed
And if Yazid Sufaat says he was using the Ames strain of virulent anthrax -- and even after wiping down the locations with insecticide -- molecular testing still showed positive for Ames (as distinguished from other strains), is there solid reason excluding Al Qaeda operatives living in New Brunswick connected to KSM who were subtilis researchers working with mutations?
ReplyDeleteDo you know the nature of the contamination that the FBI assumes occurred in its laboratory regarding the testing for Ames? Or are you just crediting the FBI's assertion.
Concluding that Dr. Ivins is guilt on the basis of being able to exclude all the others is specious when it is not possible to exclude those others -- particularly those located in New Brunswick and those whose whereabouts are unknown. In contrast, Battelle scientists can pretty readily be determined to have been at a particular place in Ohio at the time of the mailings. With the forensic examination of modern communications possible, including company issued equipment, alibi evidence is pretty easy to come by when someone is as far away as Ohio.
David Relman, vice-chair of the NAS review panel explained:
ReplyDelete"The FBI still might not have found other matches, because there’s no guarantee that the bureau had assembled a comprehensive library of lab strains. The newly revealed, but inconclusive, information about possible B. anthracis Ames at an al Qaeda overseas location highlights this issue.
In addition, the instructions in the subpoena the FBI sent to scientists known to be in possession of the B. anthracis Ames strain lacked specificity, so there’s no certainty that scientists who were subpoenaed submitted samples of all the mutant strains in their possession."
Sufaat is a happy guy and probably most bemused that he did not receive a subpoena for virulent Ames from the FBI like the others did in March 2002 -- and yet the logic of the FBI's analysis and conclusions in Amerithrax is that he did.
By then he was in detention in Malaysia. Even though it was known in December 2001 that he had been captured, the FBI didn't even bother to ask him any questions until November 2002.
p.s. The documents show that the sites in Afghanistan were decontaminated.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous wrote: "is there solid reason excluding Al Qaeda operatives living in New Brunswick connected to KSM who were subtilis researchers working with mutations?"
ReplyDeleteRead the DOJ's Summary report. It explains everything.
First the investigators determined the "universe" they needed to check.
Then the investigators eliminated those in that "universe" who didn't have what they were looking for.
You're talking about some other universe that YOU believe also needed to be checked.
Dr. David Relman supposedly wrote: "so there’s no certainty that scientists who were subpoenaed submitted samples of all the mutant strains in their possession."
The FBI and DOJ explained Relman's misunderstanding. And I explained it to you last week. Click HERE to go to the post.
Absolute certainty was not required. It wasn't a scientific investigation requiring 100% scientific certainty. It was a criminal investigation. The science provided LEADS, not absolute evidence of guilt.
Relman's abysmal ignorance of criminal investigations is obvious in his comment. There was no way for anyone to know what "mutant strains" they had "in their possession." Asking for "mutant strains" would have been idiotic. The subpoena was sufficiently specific: It asked for samples from EVERY Ames anthrax container in the lab's possession.
Your own ignorance of science is evident in your questions:
"if Yazid Sufaat says he was using the Ames strain of virulent anthrax -- and even after wiping down the locations with insecticide -- molecular testing still showed positive for Ames (as distinguished from other strains), is there solid reason excluding Al Qaeda operatives living in New Brunswick connected to KSM who were subtilis researchers working with mutations?"
Is there any way to determine the strain of a spore that's been killed with bleach or insecticide? How is it done?
"Do you know the nature of the contamination that the FBI assumes occurred in its laboratory regarding the testing for Ames?"
Which contamination incident are you asking about?
Ed
Ed writes:
ReplyDelete"Read the DOJ's Summary report. It explains everything.
First the investigators determined the "universe" they needed to check.
Then the investigators eliminated those in that "universe" who didn't have what they were looking for.
You're talking about some other universe that YOU believe also needed to be checked."
No, Ed. They specifically reference the subtilis researcher in New Brunswick with the connections to the WTC 1993 bombers. He was calling the number associated with the WTC 1993 plotter right up to the time the Blind Sheik was arrested. He lived a few miles from the mailbox. The point is that you merely accept the assertion that he could be excluded.. It is not a different universe -- it is one squarely presented by the Investigative Summary.
Now if the exclusion was lack of access to virulent Ames, then one turns to the testing pointing to Ames in Afghanistan -- as well as Yazid's recent claims.
Ed, with respect to the positives regarding Ames in the testing of Ames, that testing had been done after decontamination using insecticide. You presume that there would not be a robust finding or any finding on the lyophilized in Building 1425 because it could have been decontaminated. Yet you don't reach the same conclusion even though the documents SHOW that the labs in Afghanistan were decontaminated.
The FBI dismissed the "positive" finding for Ames based on what they presumed contamination in the FBI lab. Are you familiar with the nature of the lab contamination at the FBI lab? Or do you merely accept the FBI's assertion without the related underlying documentation. Isn't it true that you have not seen any documents corroborating the FBI's claim that its lab was contaminated in regard to that testing?
Anonymous wrote: "It is not a different universe -- it is one squarely presented by the Investigative Summary."
ReplyDeleteThe "universe" was every lab KNOWN to have a sample of Ames based upon records of how and where the Ames strain was distributed.
Your "universe" is the rest of the world.
"You presume that there would not be a robust finding or any finding on the lyophilized in Building 1425 because it could have been decontaminated."
You're just babbling nonsense. I don't presume any such thing. Your comment doesn't even make sense.
"Are you familiar with the nature of the lab contamination at the FBI lab?"
It's my understanding that the FBI lab didn't have any BSL-3 or BSL-4 containment capabilities, so NO live anthrax was ever examined there. I recall some instances of "contamination" that occurred elsewhere, but I don't know which one you are talking about?
Ed
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI've deleted your two most recent attempts to post here. Don't waste my time by just endlessly repeating questions about whether I've read what you've read.
And, if you've posted questions to Lew's site, don't post them again here.
This blog is for DISCUSSIONS, not for your preachings.
I asked some questions of you, and instead of answering the questions, you just change the subject. Does that mean you are incapable of participating in an intelligent discussion?
Ed
Ed, do you agree with the NAS that the FBI should preserve all evidence and case materials relating to Amerithrax so that in the event of a future attack it can be examined? Do you agree that no additional case material should be deleted, thrown out or shredded?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteWhere does the NAS make such a suggestion? Why make people hunt for what the NAS actually said?
Is there anyone who would disagree? It's a "no brainer."
Ed
Would you agree that after issuance of that recommendation the DOJ caused to be shredded the sworn testimony of Patricia Fellows and Mara Linscott relating to these issues?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteYou're talking about their testimony in the Stevens V USA lawsuit.
That material was destroyed because it was classified and could not be made part of the public record.
That doesn't mean that copies weren't kept by the parties in the lawsuit, nor noes it mean that the documents contained anything that would disprove the finding that Ivins was guilty. Presumably, it was mostly opinions and discussions of internal procedures.
Conspiracy theorists look for things like that to claim that the government is trying to destroy evidence. But, it's idiotic to suggest that everything related to the case is "evidence" and cannot be destroyed.
And, even the NAS should be able to understand that the Stevens v USA lawsuit was NOT part of the Amerithrax investigation. So, what was destroyed was NOT evidence in the Amerithrax investigation -- even if conspiracy theorists try to make it seem so.
Ed
Ha! No it wasn't classified.
ReplyDeleteHa! Yes, it means that the copies were not kept by the parties. They were shredded.
You need to get basic facts right.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteThe only "basic fact" is that it was not part of the Amerithrax investigation.
I don't have time to research the answers to your questions. So, from now on you will have to provide the source information details when you ask questions. Otherwise, I won't bother to even let the questions get posted.
Ed
The DOJ's shredding of the Fellows and Linscott materials constitutes spoliation of relevant evidence and needs to be addressed by the GAO.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous wrote: "The DOJ's shredding of the Fellows and Linscott materials constitutes spoliation of relevant evidence .."
ReplyDeleteHow do you know it's "relevant evidence"? Do you have a copy? If so, why don't you give your copy to the the GAO?
As it stands now, you just have and OPINION that it is "relevant evidence." And your opinions are meaningless to the case.
Ed
Why do I know the deposition of Patricia Fellows and Mara Linscott is relevant evidence?
ReplyDeleteThey were the assistants of Bruce Ivins. They were #1 and #2. Patricia Fellows was working with Dr. Ivins in late September 2001 and early October 2001. Mara Linscott was central to the FBI's "Ivins Theory."
You apparently are not qualified to address what is a very basic concept if you don't understand that their sworn testimony would be relevant material for the purpose of a spoliation analysis.
The entire nature of spoliated material is that it is no longer available.
Duh.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteWho is doing this "spoliation analysis"?
Is that another fantasy of yours? Is it something you fantasize that the GAO is doing?
You fantasize about what the GAO is doing, and you fantasize that the destruction of testimony in the Stevens v USA lawsuit would be considered by the GAO to have some relevance to the Amerithrax investigation.
Everything you argue is fantasy.
You're just wasting my time and yours.
Ed
By way of analogy, if in the "Fast and Furious" matter, if Attorney General Holder were to explain that the sworn testimony of the two key witnesses had been shredded, how do you think the DOJ Inspector General or Congress -- or in this case -- should react?
ReplyDeleteEd, it would constitute an obstruction of justice to delete relevant emails. You can be sure that the FBI will upload emails that Dr. Bruce Ivins wrote rather than get in trouble with GAO for culling his emails. I have suggested that the in-box of John Peterson at USMRC is a roadmap to the emails that were asked to be pulled. And, no, Ed, working jointly with folks to encourage the production of documents is never a waste of time. Whistleblowers, of course, will have the fullest protection under the law.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteYou're just preaching and repeating yourself. It's getting very tiresome.
You claim that "relevant" materials were destroyed, and now you suggest that someone was thinking of destroying Ivins' emails. You're claims are just your beliefs. Your suggestions are just baseless suggestions.
You're just wasting your time and mine.
Ed
Here is DOJ's FOIA response that came in the mail to me yesterday.
ReplyDeletehttp://caseclosedbylewweinstein.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/112_0069.jpg
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteOkay. I suppose we can always use more evidence of Ivins' guilt.
The letter says the emails are "within a database of other emails by Bruce Ivins which will be processed together."
So, you evidently asked for emails between Ivins and someone specific. But, we're going to get all of his emails.
Doesn't it seem likely that they're going to redact the names on the emails? They redacted the names of innocent parties everywhere else. And, since the emails you requested will be mixed in with others, there may not be any way to tell which are the ones you were asking for.
However, if all you're interested in are the emails from the time Ivins was taking the anthrax letters to Princeton and had no alibi, do you really fantasize you're going to find something that the FBI failed to notice?
And, if you don't find anything to fit your beliefs, aren't you just going to argue that the FBI is still withholding things?
But, it should be interesting when the emails appear. Maybe I'll have to revise my book, if there's something in them that really helps confirm Ivins' guilt.
Ed
DOJ For 4 Years Withheld This Email (Message 0438) Written By Bruce Ivins On The Date Of Alleged Mailing Of Deadly Anthrax ; GAO Should Obtain A Full Set Of Emails From DOJ, Including Those That DOJ Has Still Failed To Produce
ReplyDeletePosted by Lew Weinstein on March 1, 2012
**
GAO can note that this is message 0438. One can identify the precise emails that DOJ and FBI officials asked John Peterson of USMRC in writing (see his inbox) to pull based on identifying the gaps in the email numbers in the series.
It was a large group pf individuals on the email list reviewing emails. Source: JP. Rule No. 101 of litigation document review: Never cull sequentially numbered documents without being able to specify an applicable exemption from production. The emails contained meta information.
A corollary: Never cull documents required to be produced in a committee. It is basic computer forensic analysis for GAO to obtain the gaps in the sequence from DOJ/FBI.
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/03/01/doj-for-4-years-withheld-this-email-message-0438-written-by-bruce-ivins-on-the-date-of-alleged-mailing-of-deadly-anthrax-gao-should-obtain-a-full-set-of-emails-from-doj-including-those-that-doj/
JAG relented on 300 emails of the messages of a particular type that had been culled and produced them, as I recall, in a last batch. But there are many more.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteMessage #0438 was sent at 10:20 a.m. on Sept. 17th, 2001, and says nothing of interest. We already knew from Ivins' in-out logs that he was at work at that time, so the time on the email means nothing. It certainly doesn't give him any kind of alibi. And, there's nothing in the text that can be considered important.
Your seem to be making a big deal out of the fact that the email wasn't released as fast as you wanted. But, since the email really contains nothing of value, the question is: So what?
And, the same with the 300 emails released by JAG. If they contained something of value, I would assume that you'd point it out instead of just talking about how long it took to obtain them.
Is that your purpose? To show that "the government" doesn't produce documents as fast as you think they should be produced?
Do any of the documents prove anything about the case that wasn't proved before?
I'm very interested in seeing the Ivins emails that the FBI is going to produce. There's a chance that they might answer some questions I have. But, what is it you want from them? Do you really believe that you're going to find proof that Ivins had an alibi for the time of the mailings and the FBI failed to find it (or covered it up)?
Ed
My last comment for the week: they NEVER suspect the state lotteries! Bwahahaha!
ReplyDeleteYou make assumptions about documents you haven't seen say, spin books and articles you haven't read, and accept conclusory assertions without even a citation to the record evidence. Others request and obtain documents and upload them -- and press for compliance with the Freedom of Information Act.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous wrote: "You make assumptions about documents you haven't seen"
ReplyDeleteNo, that's what YOU do. You assume that there are documents out there that will prove that Ivins had an alibi for the time of the mailings, and documents that will prove Ivins was doing routine work during his non-routine evening and weekend hours, and that the FBI and DOJ failed to notice them or are covering them up.
I look at what HAS been produced already, and I see that it's clear that government investigators are NOT lying and NOT covering things up, since that would involve a massive conspiracy involving HUNDREDS or possible THOUSANDS of people. I just don't see it being possible for that to happen without dozens of whistleblowers telling the media.
I just noticed this comment from you on Lew's site: "The FBI has failed to produce the emails from Bruce Ivins to Mara Linscott (e.g., dated 9/15/2001 and 9/26/2001) that have times that would confirm her statement that he would go to the B3 to use the internet; she would know – he was emailing her."
Is that what you're looking for? Haven't you checked the times of Ivins' emails that have already been make public against his in-out logs to determine if they were sent from his office or from his lab?
If you assume that the government is hiding the emails that prove Ivins was innocent, does it make any sense that they would provide the emails to you to prove they are covering things up?
Ed
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI just noticed this posting from you on Lew's site: "For example, in the email Bruce sent to Mara on September 17, 2001 at 10, you know that he was writing that email rather than doing something else at the time."
Are you certain that the email was from Mara?
Studying the email, it seems more likely that it was from his daughter Amanda.
1. Ivins wrote "it sounds as if you are getting to do a lot of really neat things ..."
That's the way a parent talks to a child.
2. He tells her to not worry about not writing.
That's what a parent tells a child who's very busy.
3. He talks about sending her some melatonin to reset her biological clock and help her sleep.
Does it seem realistic that he'd say that to a medical student?
There are other things in the email, too, that suggest it was a letter to Amanda.
And that would suggest that the reason the letter was withheld for so long was because it was a family email and private.
Ed
Ha! That's the problem, Ed, in not reading the materials.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteSo, you agree that the Sept. 17 email was most likely to Amanda and NOT to Mara? And you agree that you just never read it carefully?
Ed
No, Ed. He was responding to the email from Mara.
ReplyDeleteI have the email from Mara.
You don't even know what he did that afternoon! You speculated that he was making final preparations to mail the anthrax! Ha!
ReplyDeleteAnonymous wrote: "I have the email from Mara."
ReplyDeleteDon't you mean you have an email that you ASSUME is from Mara?
If the name of the addressee on Ivins' response is redacted, why wouldn't the name of the sender be redacted on the email sent to Ivins?
Ed
Ha!
ReplyDeleteThat's your best argument?
DeleteAnonymous wrote: "You don't even know what he did that afternoon!"
ReplyDeleteObviously, it wasn't anything that proved his innocence or you would have made a big deal of it.
Ed
And they say vaudeville is dead! (Just joking, and I guess I broke my word about last post of the week!)
ReplyDeleteEd, there are 9000 pages already produced under FOIA relating to Amerithrax that you haven't seen.
ReplyDeleteNever bothered to obtain.
Am I supposed to walk through each one -- quote each one?
Anonymous wrote: "Am I supposed to walk through each one -- quote each one?"
ReplyDeleteOnly when you make claims that aren't supported by any known facts.
You don't seem to have found ANYTHING in those 9,000 pages that supports your beliefs. So, this is obviously just another claim that you've read more about the case than I have, and somehow you believe that makes you always right and me always wrong.
As I've said: It's not about how much you read, it's about how much you understand. And, you don't seem to understand anything -- otherwise you couldn't possibly believe what you believe.
Ed
Your confused understanding of the plain language of the September 17, 2001 as one written to his daughter demonstrates your poor powers of comprehension, Ed. His daughter and son were living in the house with him and their mom. Duh. In the email, he was discussing with Mara why he needed to take the time off that afternoon to address a personal matter that had arisen with his daughter.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteYou always demand proof when I say something, but you just make unsubstantiated claims about what you believe, not providing any support of any kind.
I stated in the post to my web site:
"However, if it isn't a private family email, and if it really is an email to Mara Linscott, it would seem that Ivins is talking to Mara as if she were a young daughter and not an adult medical student with whom he was infatuated."
So, I'm open to proof that it was a letter to Mara.
I've seen nothing in other emails to Mara where he talks to her as if she's a child.
The letters was written in September 2001, when Amanda would have been 17 or 18. That means she could have been just starting college. If she was going to college in some other time zone, that could explain why Ivins offered to send her melatonin to fix her "biological clock."
Mara was going to school in Buffalo, which is in the same time zone as Frederick, MD, so what reason would there be for Mara's "biological clock" to be out of sync?
And, from what is in the redacted email, it seems that Ivins could have been discussing with Amanda a matter that had arisen withe Diane. Unless you have the unredacted version, you could just be interpreting things differently - without proof.
Ed
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteMara Linscott left USAMRIID to start medical school in July 1999.
So, her first year of medical school began in 1999.
And her second year of medical school began in 2000.
And her third year of medical school began in 2001.
Why would Mara have a hard time sleeping while starting her THIRD YEAR of medical school?
And what "neat things" would she be getting into that she hadn't gotten into in years 1 and 2?
I'm not saying that the letter was NOT to Mara. I'm saying that there are lots of things that do not make any sense if it WAS to Mara. And, if it can be PROVED that it WAS to Mara, it would give a very very different picture of Ivins' relationship with Mara.
Ed
I wrote: "if it can be PROVED that it WAS to Mara, it would give a very very different picture of Ivins' relationship with Mara."
ReplyDeleteThe FBI/DOJ Summary Report says on page 46 that the email was from Mara. So, what I have is a VERY different picture of the relationship between Ivins and Mara than what I had before.
It was more two-way than I previously thought. I thought that Ivins was doing nearly all the email writing and Mara was just answering to be polite. Now I can see that wasn't the case. There was a kind of father-daughter relationship going on there, maybe with incestuous undertones. But, it wasn't just Ivins being obsessed with Mara in the same way he'd been obsessed with Nancy Haigwood. His relationship with Mara was very different.
Any day when I learn something new is a good day. And today I definitely learned something new. :-)
Ed