Serious doubt cast on FBI’s anthrax case against Bruce Ivins

by Glenn Greenwald, Salon

…  yesterday, the National Academy panel released its findings, and it produced a very unpleasant surprise for the FBI (though it was entirely unsurprising for those following this case).  As The New York Times put it in an article headlined “Expert Panel Is Critical of F.B.I. Work in Investigating Anthrax Letters”:  “A review of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s scientific work . . . concludes that the bureau overstated the strength of genetic analysis linking the mailed anthrax to a supply kept by Bruce E. Ivins“; while the panel noted that the genetic findings are “consistent” with the claim that Ivins mailed the letters and can “support” an association, the evidence is far from “definitive,” as the FBI had long suggested.  The report, commissioned by the FBI, specifically concluded that “the scientific link between the letter material and [Ivins'] flask number RMR-1029 is not as conclusive as stated in the DOJ Investigative Summary.”  This morning’s Washington Post article — headlined:  “Anthrax report casts doubt on scientific evidence in FBI case against Bruce Ivins” — noted that “the report reignited a debate that has simmered among some scientists and others who have questioned the strength of the FBI’s evidence against Ivins.”

… It is hard to overstate the political significance of the anthrax attacks.  For reasons I’ve described at length, that event played at least as much of a role as the 9/11 attacks in elevating the Terrorism fear levels which, through today, sustain endless wars, massive defense and homeland security budgets, and relentless civil liberties erosions.

… That there’s so much lingering doubt about who was responsible for this indescribably consequential attack is astonishing, and it ought to be unacceptable.  Other than a desire to avoid finding out who the culprit was (and/or to avoid having the FBI’s case against Ivins subjected to scrutiny), there’s no rational reason to oppose an independent, comprehensive investigation into this matter.

[read the rest, here]

Panel casts doubt on FBI scientific evidence in anthrax case

(So, the FBI did not have enough evidence to convict Bruce Ivins for the anthrax attacks. In fact their entire case was circumstantial according to a new study.)

from Raw Story

An independent panel of scientists has determined that the FBI did not have enough scientific evidence to produce a conviction in the case of the 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people.

The National Academies of Sciences released a review Tuesday of the science used in the investigation. The $1.1 million report, which was commissioned by the FBI, concluded that the man accused in the case, Bruce Ivins, could have carried out the attacks, but the science alone did not prove it.

In October and September of 2001, letters containing anthrax killed five people and infected 17 others. Recipients included NBC News, The New York Post, Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT).

Even after over 600,000 investigator work hours spent by the FBI’s “Amerithrax Task Force,” the case against Ivins was largely circumstantial.

[read the rest, here]

False Flag Terror Coming to South Korea?

by Scott Creighton

After failing to provoke North Korea into retaliating for South Korea’s highly provocative live-fire drills in the disputed waters in the Yellow Sea this past Sunday, South Korean officials have claimed that the North’s remarkable show of restraint was simply “political posturing”, and now they fully expect large-scale “terrorist” attacks on their own civilian population centers to be carried out by the North in stealth.

In order to defend themselves from this possibility, South Korea is going to “strengthen” their intelligence services, like the CIA or the FBI.

If that doesn’t scare the shit out of every single South Korean, I don’t know what would.

Continue reading

Bruce Ivins’ attorney calls for case to be re-opened

(The 92 page report issued recently by the FBI relied heavily on conversations Ivins had with “a witness close to the suspect”. That “witness” was Jean Duley, the woman I and many others have written extensively about. She got paid by the FBi to set Ivins up then led him in carefully scripted secretly recorded phone conversations, on behalf of the FBI, while she was supposedly acting as his counselor in group meetings he was court ordered to attend. It was that betrayal that angered Ivins which was then used by the FBI to insinuate that Ivins was going to attack Duley.)

by Tina Redlup, BPW

An attorney for the alleged anthrax killer Bruce Ivins has said that he does not believe that the case against Ivins should not be closed.

“There’s not one shred of evidence to show he did it,” Paul F. Kemp, Ivins’ attorney, told

Continue reading

John Kiriakou Unwittingly Exposes Brian Ross as an ABC News “Mockingbird”

by Scott Creighton

The other day I posted an article about why I think Brian Ross should be fired from ABC News.

Time and time again Brian Ross has not only ended up on the wrong side of every single important issue since 9/11, but he also has a disturbing tendency to rely almost exclusively on unnamed sources to support his arguments (arguments that are almost always on the side of the CIA backed imperialist agenda). 1. The Iraq connection with the anthrax attacks (wrong, Mr. Ross), 2.  illegal use of torture as a justifiable and “useful” practice (wrong again, Mr. Ross), 3.  Iran having enough material to make a nuclear weapon by 2009 (so, so wrong, Mr. Ross), and finally what I pointed out as his latest forray into his imperialist collaborations… 4. the president  and possibly the CIA has the right to kill U.S. citizens at will (apparently this is a “law” that George W. Bush just made up after 9/11… but Mr. Ross fails to point out the root of this assumed presidential authority in his recent article).

You might start to think that Brian Ross is nothing more than the CIA’s man at ABC with all these pro-imperialist agenda positions Mr. Ross has been taking over the years. You think that might be possible? Is Brian Ross nothing more than a well-dressed over-paid Mockingbird? Inquiring minds want to know.

Continue reading

Anthrax War and the Peace Prize Winner

by Scott Creighton

As the Peace Prize winner ranted on about how wonderful and necessary it is to continue the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive, unilateral, elective warfare for “preventative” reasons against nations that “might” someday pose a threat of some kind (existential maybe?) or not, his administration had just refused to sign on to the Land Mine Ban treaty ensuring another couple years with the indiscriminate killers and at least a few more limbless children.

But as disturbingly ironic as that is, it’s actually the “feel good” story the week when compared with another little political development that took place.

You see, the Peace Prize winning Obama administration also refused to support UN Weapons inspections of biological warfare labs all across the world. It would seem that Obama doesn’t want UN weapons inspectors looking at our biological weapons programs?  Now who does that sound like?  I wonder why that is.

 “While the United States remains concerned about state-sponsored biological warfare and proliferation, we are equally, if not more concerned, about an act of bioterrorism, due to the increased access to advances in the life sciences,” she added, stressing the importance of bolstering the treaty.

However, the new US administration is still against an additional protocol that would authorize international inspections of biological weapons sites.

The Obama Administration will not seek to revive negotiations on a verification protocol to the Convention,” said Tauscher.

“We have carefully reviewed previous efforts to develop a verification protocol and have determined that a legally binding protocol would not achieve meaningful verification or greater security,” she added.

At BWC talks in 2001, the Bush administration scuttled negotiations for such a protocol, saying that intrusive checks could compromise US security and trade secrets.  Global Research

Here’s a great film called Anthrax War. It’s about the biological warfare industry. 

See if you can wrap your head around this: after the anthrax attacks of Sept. 2001, and we now know that the anthrax came from a strain created in our labs and probably weaponized in one of our labs, instead of cranking down on all of these labs and creating more oversight in the production and studying of these deadly materials, they actually used the attacks to justify MORE PRIVATE CONTRACTOR LABS to do more work with the weaponised anthrax. 

$50 billion was poured into the industry of biological weapons as a result of the anthrax attacks. Much of it to private contractors with little or no oversight.

The justification of these programs is the following: they work to produce the most horrendous viral weapons they can think of, because they figure “the terrorists” just MIGHT do it as well, then they figure out how to create an antivirus or something to counter it (Kinda like the Cipro doses given to members of the Bush administration prior to the anthrax attacks?).  Well, I don’t know how many multimillion dollar labs they have in the caves in Afghanistan (guess they got plenty of room since those “command bunkers” that Colin Powell described to the UN didn’t exist) but my guess is, not many.  So what exactly is the purpose of all these private contractors creating horrific viral weapons at the tax-payers expense?

And now, the Obama administration wishes to keep UN inspectors from looking at what these PRIVATE CONTRACTORS are actually doing with these biological weapons. The same administration that seems to have embraced the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive, first strike warfare? As the film points out, millions of our troops have already been given anthrax vaccines and we have hundreds of companies, at the cost of billions of dollars, doing work with weaponized anthrax that our White House doesn’t want the UN to inspect?  Under the new pre-emptive warfare doctrine, when does defensive bioweapons research turn into offensive bioweapons production?  What kinds of warning signs are there?  Have we already missed them?

Part 1

Continue reading

Scientific impossibility: Did FBI get their man in Bruce Ivins?

By Deborah Rudacille  Baltimore Examiner

mrs-ivinsBruce Ivins was a cold-blooded murderer, a deranged psycho-killer, who in the fall of 2001, cooked up a virulent batch of powdered anthrax, drove to Princeton, N.J., and mailed letters loaded with the lethal mix to five news organizations and two U.S. senators.

At least, that’s what the FBI says.

The letters infected 22 people, killing five, including two Maryland postal workers.

The sixth victim of the madness was Ivins himself, a 62-year-old biodefense researcher at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, who committed suicide rather than face charges.

Case closed? Neatly wrapped up? Not so fast.

Continue reading

9/11 and The Just War

by Scott Creighton

One hour after the first plane struck the North Tower on Sept. 11th 2001, the media began to “teach” us that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were responsible for the attacks.

They have, for the most part, never questioned that conclusion despite mounds of evidence to the contrary. We are told we must accept their story as truth, we must teach their story to our children as gospel, and we must revere the very mention of their story, “The Global War on Terror”, as we do our flag, our anthem, and our troops.

All this based on… one suitcase that just happened to have all the evidence in it, as well as the hijackers last will and testament (that he tried to take on the doomed plane with him, for some reason), the water-board induced “confession” of a ring leader that took 5 years (the FBI never allowed the 9/11 Commission to interview him or the people that interviewed him, or even see the interrogation tapes themselves because they got burned up by accident), and a grainy video of a fat bin Laden (that has never been confirmed by the CIA or the FBI as authentic. Like they did with his last real video where bin Laden says he didn’t attack us on 9/11).

As the FBI’s manufactured case against Dr. Ivins falls completely apart right before our eyes, and the story of the civilian killings in Afghanistan reveal not only the fact that we didn’t even target ‘terrorists” but that Fox News and their “reporter” Ollie North just completely lied about every aspect of the incident to cover up for the Pentagon, as all these things unfold like the countless lies that come before these… we are still forced to listen to Obama and Biden and the myriad of “progressive” sites rage on about “The Just War”.

Continue reading

As the FBI’s Case Against Dr. Ivins Collapses, Jean Duley’s Melodramatic Story Fades As Well

by Scott Creighton

The New York Times is running an article about leading members of congress demanding more information from the FBI about the anthrax attacks and how they came to the conclusion that this was the work of Dr. Ivins. Apparently they don’t think the FBI has proven their case.

Some very interesting information has surfaced about the case, namely that the Department of Justice sent Dr. Ivins a letter in April of 2007 informing him that he was not the subject of the investigation. Also, as it turns out, the FBI waited till a week before his death to collect a sample of Dr. Ivins’ DNA for testing. As these and other serious problems with the FBI’s case against Dr. Ivins bubble to the surface of public attention, their lead witness, just a short month ago, seems to have vanished into thin air, never to be heard from again. What ever happened to Jean Duley and why aren’t the FBI investigators touting her claims as proof they got the right man?  Especially now that all of their other “evidence” is going down in flames?

In April 2007, after the mailed anthrax was genetically linked to Dr. Ivins’s laboratory and after he was questioned about late-night work in the laboratory before the letters were mailed, prosecutors sent Dr. Ivins a formal letter saying he was “not a target” of the investigation. And only a week before Dr. Ivins died did agents first take a mouth swab to collect a DNA sample, officials said.” NYT.

Continue reading

FBI Sweeps Anthrax Under The Rug

(The American Everyman has done a great deal of work on this subject. (see articles here) This article from RCFP is probably one of the most comprehensive that I have seen. I would only like to add, is that the ‘new dna evidence” that the FBI produced to claim that is what directed them to start looking at Dr. Ivins actually came from early 2002, as I showed in this article.)

by The Rock Creek Free Press.

Anthrax letters

By Sheila Casey and Barry Kissin

US Attorney Jeff Taylor was sweating on August 6, as he laid out his case against the late Dr. Bruce Ivins at a news conference-and with good reason. Anyone familiar with the case is well aware that Dr. Ivins was railroaded, and that the news conference was a flimsy web of lies.

Ivins had nothing to do with the 2001 anthrax attacks. The attacks were almost certainly carried out by the only group that had the means to produce the highly weaponized anthrax in the letters: the CIA, its contractor Battelle Memorial Institute of West Jefferson, Ohio., and the Army at Dugway in Utah.

The DOJ-FBI frame-up of Ivins rests heavily upon the claim of new advances in genetic testing which supposedly prove that the killer anthrax could have come only from Ivins’ flask.

Continue reading

Three Weeks in September

by Scott Creighton

Do you remember the story of the “white Mitsubishi“? It’s a hard to find article these days, as most MSM sources have scrubbed it from their archives. But it’s still out there, if you look hard enough.

A Mitsubishi sedan impounded at Logan Airport was rented by Atta, sources said. The car contained materials, including flight manuals, written in Arabic that law enforcement sources called “helpful” to the investigation.” CNN story reposted, here.

Do you remember that story when it first came out on Sept. 12th 2001? Do you remember seeing this picture all over the news and the printed press? This story was brought to you by the FBI as well; just like the Dr. Ivins story is now. Only problem? Just like the Dr. Ivins frame up, it was completely fake.

Continue reading

CIA and Others Had Access to the Weaponized Ames Strain in 2001

(GW from Georgewashingtonblog, has compiled a great source of informational links to exactly how many other sites and people had access to this strain of anthrax in 2001.)

“CIA Had Killer Anthrax”

from George Washington, from OPED NEWS here.

We previously heard that 16 labspossessed the RMR-1029 anthrax used in the 2001 attacks. It appears that we should now add the CIA and its contractors.

A December 2001 Washington Post articlestates that the CIA had Ames anthrax.

Indeed, the articles states that “The FBI is focusing on a contractor that worked with the CIA”.

The contractor could very well have been Battelle Memorial Institute, a long-time CIA contractor which had carried out anthrax experiments for decades. As the BBC noted:

“CIA is in this [anthrax] business too, though presumably only through contractors. But we don’t know how many contractors. One contractor is now publicly disclosed, Battelle, that did one of those projects.”

Continue reading

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.)

Continue reading

Anthrax Case Had Costs for Suspects

(Do you remember the DC Madame? She took her life as well. So did another person involved in that case; another woman who could have named politicians and ruined careers. And just like so many others, the FBI gets involved and suddenly, poof, people start dying. Robert Muller says that they did nothing wrong during this investigation. I guess 5.8 million dollars just doesn’t mean a thing to him. I wonder why he’s not worried about being fired? Well, it’s a good thing Dr. Ivins killed himself, huh; at least it is for the FBI, because from what I can see, a Grand Jury would never have returned indictments on this hodge-podge of hearsay, innuendo,  and circumstantial evidence that Muller proudly puts forward to the media as his “case”. Anyone know if the FBI has access to anthrax?)

By WILLIAM J. BROAD and SCOTT SHANE from the NYT, here.

When Perry Mikesell, a microbiologist in Ohio, came under suspicion as the anthrax attacker, he began drinking heavily, family members say, and soon died. After a doctor in New York drew the interest of the F.B.I., his marriage fell apart and his practice suffered, his lawyer says. And after two Pakistani brothers in Pennsylvania were briefly under scrutiny, they eventually had to leave the country to find work.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s path to Bruce E. Ivins, the Army scientist who committed suicide late last month as federal officials moved closer to indicting him for the 2001 anthrax letter attacks, was long and tortuous. Before the investigators settled on Dr. Ivins – and his defenders still say the F.B.I. hounded an innocent man to death – they had focused on Steven J. Hatfill, another Army researcher, for several years.

But along the way, scores of others – terrorists, foreigners, academic researchers, biowarfare specialists and an elite group of Army scientists working behind high fences and barbed wire – drew the interest of the investigators. For some of them the cost was high: lost jobs, canceled visas, broken marriages, frayed friendships.

Continue reading

F.B.I. Says It (illegally) Obtained Reporters’ Phone Records

(Under the guise of investigating “terrorists” (which of course they can’t verify for “national security” reasons) the FBI was caught illegally investigating reporter’s phone records. Maybe they wanted a whistle-blowers name or to track down someone with inconvenient evidence. I wonder what happened to the person they tracked down? Think he might have decided to kill himself with some asprin or something? Who else is this SS agency investigating? The world may never know.)

from the NYT, here.

 The Federal Bureau of Investigation said Friday that it had improperly obtained the phone records of reporters for The New York Times and The Washington Post in the newspapers’ Indonesia bureaus in 2004.

Robert S. Mueller III, director of the F.B.I., disclosed the episode in a phone call to Bill Keller, the executive editor of The Times, and apologized for it. He also spoke with Leonard Downie Jr., the executive editor of The Washington Post, to apologize.

Continue reading


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 847 other followers