The Case Against the FBI:In a Nutshell

(Dr. Nass, has complied one of the best resources for exposing the FBI’s fraudulent anthrax investigation.  It is straight forward and easy to comprehend. You see, part of what they do when they attempt to frame someone in the press with no real evidence, is they try to spread the investigation out so thinly against the backdrop of the media that it seems like an insurmountable task, addressing each fraudulent claim, one at a time. So, enter Dr. Nass. What follows the break is her dead-on expose, point by point, of how the FBI has not just failed to find the real killer, but how they have purposefully created a fall guy to wrap this whole thing up. I think we need to start seriously looking at Dr. Ivins cause of death, and the fact that he didn’t leave a suicide note.)

Conclusive evidence of means, motive and opportunity are missing

Case Analysis in a Nutshell

by Dr. Meyrl Nass, published here.

1. Ivins cannot be placed at the Princeton mailbox at either of the two times he would have to have been there.
2. There are additional hoax lettersthat have not been discussed by FBI in the information released Wednesday; may we assume Ivins could not be placed at those mailbox locations during the requisite windows of opportunity?
3. No official evidence has come forward indicating the nature of the Daschle/Leahy spore preparation, nor whether Ivins possessed the knowledge regarding its production, or access to the necessary equipment.
4. No convincing motive has been presented, although a variety of implausible motives have been suggested.
5. Although many other people with a strong motive can be identified, there is no evidence they were investigated by FBI and exculpated
6. “The FBI sought out the best experts in the scientific community and, over time, four highly sensitive and specific tests were developed that were capable of detecting the unique qualities of the anthrax used in the 2001 attacks.” However, details about the microbial forensic analysis have not been released, and may not be available for months or years pending publication. Scientists doubt that any forensic analysis can do more than identify the precise strain of anthrax.
7. The pre-franked envelopes could not be identified as coming from Ivins’ post office, as initially claimed, but were instead sold in multiple post offices, none of which was definitely in Frederick.
8. Ivins was not the “sole custodian” of the RMR-1029 strain; over 100 peoplehad access to it and they may have shared it with others. How was Ivins selected as a suspect and the others exonerated?
9. Handwriting analysis has not linked him to the crime.
10. He could not be linkedto the Quantico letter that fingered Dr. Assaad. He could not be linked to any efforts to finger Dr. Hatfill.
11. No physical evidence links him to the crime: this includes the tape on the letters, fibers, human DNA, spores in his car, home or personal effects, evidence of any kind he travelled to the areas where the letters were mailed, including purchasing enough gasoline for a 7 hour trip to Princeton, twice.
12. He passed two polygraph examinations at Fort Detrick.
13. Since the FBI has been unable to build a convincing case against any one individual in the 7 years since the letters were sent, why didn’t it focus on identifying a conspiracy of individuals who together may have been able to perform the complex actions required to send the anthrax letters and hoax letters?

About these ads