Dr. Ivins was innocent ...
My Conversation With a Ft. Detrick Scientist
Submitted by Galileo on Sat, Aug 9, 2008 - 3:39pm
Today (August 9), I spoke with a PhD scientist who works at Ft. Detrick. The scientist knows Dr. Bruce Ivins very well and has worked with him for many years.
The scientist is an acquaintance of mine who I've known for about five years.
The scientist is a specialist in infectious diseases, including airborne diseases.
The scientist does not want their name given out. The FBI has told all the scientists at Ft. Detrick they cannot speak with the media or they will be fired.
[Its interesting to note that scientists at Ft. Detrick can't exercise their first amendment rights, but the FBI can illegally leak confidential investigative information to the media. Its also interesting that some of the info leaked to the media by FBI informants is not legitimate investigative material, but instead, material meant to character assassinate Dr. Ivins. Its also interesting that the FBI leakers can avoid detection, given the Patriot Act.]
The scientist's eyewitness statements and expert opinions are based on personal knowledge, not media reports, and the scientist has not read hardly any news articles about Dr. Ivins. The scientist has heard media reports that have character assassinated the good name of Dr. Ivins. I will be sending some important news articles regarding the anthrax case to the scientist today.
The scientist's political views tend to lean on the right side, while the views of Dr. Ivins tend to lean on the left side. This is based on the fact that the scientist tends to vote republican or conservative libertarian, while Dr. Ivins was a regular voter in democratic primaries. Therefore, the statements of the scientist have nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with the facts.
The scientist says that "Dr. Bruce Ivins is innocent and that all the scientists who worked with him know he is innocent".
The scientists says that "Dr. Ivins doesn't have a motive to kill anyone", and was instead, "dedicated to saving lives by making anthrax vaccines". "Dr. Ivins has 30 years of service in protecting human life".
The scientist says that "Dr. Ivins did not make weaponized anthrax, does not know how to make weaponized anthrax, and does not have the equipment to make weaponized anthrax".
The scientists says that this holds true for every scientist at Ft. Detrick, and "none made weaponized anthrax, none know how to make, nor do any have the equipment to make it".
The scientist says all the scientists at Ft. Detrick have been harassed by the FBI. The scientist says that the "FBI harassment has been totally awful and disgusting the way the scientists were treated".
The scientist says that "two doctors who came over form the Soviet Union and work at the facility think the FBI's behavior is worse than the KGB".
The scientist says that "Dr. Ivins was driven crazy and racked with fear from the FBI harassment which amounted to psychological torture".
The scientist says the "FBI essentially murdered Dr. Ivins by driving him crazy".
The scientist says that "Dr. Ivins is innocent and doesn't know who sent the anthrax".
============= COMMENTS =================
Investigating the FBI
Just for fun, let's investigate some facets of the FBI's case:
1. Leaks last weekend claimed that Ivins was about to be charged with committing the anthrax crime. Turns out, FBI had not yet brought its evidence against Ivins to a grand jury. And one of his attorneys denies that he was told he was to be charged: "It had never been made clear to him nor to us that he was 'the suspect,'" says DeGonia, Ivins' co-counsel.
2. The FBI said it couldn't produce its case till after the victims and their families were briefed, which took until 8 days after Ivins' death. This gave FBI time to create the story and select the evidence it wanted to present.
3. After Ivins died, FBI agents scrambled to obtain two computers Ivins had used a few days earlier, from a Frederick public library. Only this week did they obtain the search warrant normally required.
4. Remember how this story began one week ago? The following were released: pictures and audio from the hearing where a "Peace Order" had been issued against Ivins a week earlier. The order had been obtained by his substance abuse therapist, herself a recovering multi-substance abuser. But the therapist was on probation for substance abuse (DUI's) and had had an FBI agent suggest she get the order, as well as coach her in the crimes that were about to be laid at Ivins' feet. Could she be interviewed directly? No--she had retreated to an undisclosed location, where she apparently remains.
5. Video of a crazed, estranged older brother named Tom Ivins hit the TV screens, though he had not seen Bruce in 23 years. This guy indicated Bruce thought he was God, had been coddled by their mother, and wasn't a real man, as Tom was. Brother Tom was really scary, but the national media were only too happy to put him in front of the cameras to cast aspersions on Bruce.
6. Only two months ago, the Justice Department had settled with "person of interest" Steven Hatfill, for 5.8 million dollars--but they wouldn't exonerate him or admit liability. Suddenly today (after I mentioned how odd it was that FBI refused to acknowledge Hatfill's innocence, given its claim to have an airtight case against Ivins) the formal exoneration appears.
What is the logical conclusion?
FBI was not ready to prosecute a case against Ivins when he fortuitously killed himself the Tuesday before last. If the evidence of Ivins' guilt had been unequivocal, Hatfill would have been cleared a lot earlier. Looks like the FBI was still hanging onto Hatfill as a possible fallback guy, if they couldn't pin the deed on someone else. You know how the line would go: 'the judge made us pay him off, but he's guilty in our book.'
The FBI then scrambled to come up with enough juicy dirt to clinch the case in the media: producing a mad scientist, fixated on women, poisoning people even before the anthrax letters, thinking he's omnipotent. Even though the two people who were used in this audio-video dog and pony show were themselves highly flawed, the media bit: hook, line and sinker. (Looks like the FBI can play the media a lot better than it plays gumshoe.)
Then, when a few folks, followed by the media, pointed out the profusion of fallacy, fluff and absence of hard evidence during 3 days of successive leaks, the FBI started scrambling to find some evidence--quick--and plug some holes. They are still at it.
Looks like Ivins' death was a precondition for FBI to "close the case."
Posted by Meryl Nass, M.D. at 7:25 PM
4 comments:
http://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2008/08/investigating-fbi.html
Holes in the Anthrax Case?
The nation and the FBI would benefit from an independent review of the investigation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/08/AR200808...
Ivins' Lawyer on where the envelopes came from
http://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2008/08/ivins-lawyer-on-where-envelop...
Through surveillance, was FBI complicit in Ivins' death?
http://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2008/08/bombshell-was-fbi-complicit-i...
Sander Hicks: The “Mad Scientist” Ivins, and Other 9/11 Legends
http://www.911blogger.com/node/17040
Anthrax Hysteria
http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=13276
The US Government Is the Real Bioterror Threat
http://www.antiwar.com/eland/?articleid=13279
source
www.911blogger.com/node/17058
The FBI's selective release of documents in the anthrax case by Glenn Greenwald
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/06/fbi_documents/index.ht...
The Anthrax Case: Solved(?) But Unresolved by Ted Gup, Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/06/AR200808...
Ross Responds to "Vital Questions" About Anthrax Report
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/abc/ross_responds_to_vital_questions...
US DOJ release of selected Amerithrax Court Documents
http://www.usdoj.gov/amerithrax/
Anthrax Timeline, Two Emptywheel at FireDogLake.com
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/08/06/anthrax-timeline-two/#more-...
Anthrax widow's lawsuit blames US for death by Curt Anderson, Associated Press (This lawsuit was filed in 2003; now that the US government is admitting it’s the source of the Anthrax, will it be held liable for victim’s suffering and death?)
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iYq-3oDjg7-cA3vuv_cEAd1w7Q7wD92CDF6O1
Three More Questions for ABC News: Getting to the bottom of the bentonite sourcing story by Justin Peters, Columbia Journalism Review
http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/three_more_questions_for_abc_n.php
Is ‘Anthrax Killer’ Bruce Ivins Just The Latest Richard Jewell? By David Neiwert, FireDogLake.com
http://firedoglake.com/2008/08/05/is-anthrax-killer-bruce-ivins-just-the...
Doubts about anthrax story: Survivors, relatives wonder if dead scientist was truly the culprit By Stephen Kiehl, Sun Reporter
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.anthrax05aug05,0,7051572....
ABC's Sources on Anthrax/Iraq...
http://www.atlargely.com/2008/08/abcs-sources-on.html
Ivins Went Nuts . . . But It Was the FBI Who Drove Him Crazy
One of the FBI's pieces of "evidence" against Dr. Ivins is that he sounded nutty, and thought the FBI was out to get him.
Maybe, he might have been a fruitloop, but:
- The FBI had mercilessly harassed him, showing his daughter pictures of dead anthrax victims and saying "your father did this", and attempting to bribe his son for millions
- It was the FBI's idea for social worker Jean Duley to report Ivins and get a restraining order against him
- Ivins' colleagues have noted other abuses, and the FBI undoubtedly harassed Ivins in ways which we have not even heard about
As leading reporter Larisa Alexandrovna writes:
"The FBI alleges that Ivins lost his mind and told the counseling group he was attending that he was a target in the FBI investigation and made threats. Remember, this is AFTER the man had been stalked and threatened for several years, and his children harassed, including an attempted (allegedly) bribe of his son. Yes, he lost his mind, but was that not the point after all?"
Indeed, the FBI's tactics in driving Ivins batty and then saying "see, he must have done it" are similar to the government's tactics of torturing the Gitmo detainees until they were literally crazy, and then getting "confessions" from them once they were nuts.
Anthrax investigation should be investigated, congressmen say
Sen. Charles Grassley and Rep. Rush Holt want hearings into the Justice Department and FBI's handling of the case.
By Josh Meyer, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
August 8, 2008
Source: LATimes.com
WASHINGTON -- After seven long years, the FBI and the Justice Department say they are closing the books on the anthrax investigation.
But the investigation into the investigation is only beginning, and it will focus on what Congress members described Thursday as apparent missteps by authorities that dramatically prolonged the probe, unfairly maligned an innocent government scientist, and raised questions about whether federal agents had conclusively ruled out other suspects besides microbiologist Bruce E. Ivins.
Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and Rep. Rush D. Holt (D-N.J.), frequent critics of the FBI, demanded a far more detailed release of documents by the bureau and the Justice Department to support the government's case, as well as congressional hearings into the investigation.
Grassley sent a three-page letter Thursday evening to Atty. Gen. Michael B. Mukasey and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III, giving them two weeks to respond to 18 questions that raised concerns about virtually every aspect of the probe.
Holt, who represents the district from which the anthrax-laced letters were mailed, said in an interview that he was reaching out to other House members to discuss a combined inquiry of sorts by the judiciary, intelligence, science and technology, and government oversight committees.
"We don't want this to be another Lee Harvey Oswald case where the public says it is never solved to their satisfaction," said Holt, referring to conspiracy theories surrounding President Kennedy's 1963 assassination. "Somebody needs to finish the job that would have been finished in a court of law."
Other than Congress, he said, "I'm not sure where else to do it."
Ivins, a researcher at the government's biodefense lab at Ft. Detrick, Md., apparently killed himself last week as authorities were preparing to charge him with murder. The 2001 attacks killed five people, sickened at least 17 others, and sparked one of the largest and costliest criminal investigations in U.S. history.
On Wednesday, senior officials in the Justice Department and the FBI gave private briefings to those affected by the attacks and to members of Congress; released a trove of previously sealed documents; and held a news conference, all in an effort to convince the public that they could have proved in court that Ivins was the lone culprit -- if they'd had the chance to charge and prosecute him.
But by Thursday, a chorus of skeptics had taken to talk radio shows and the Internet. They homed in on government admissions that at least 100 other people may have had access to the particular batch of anthrax that was ultimately linked to the deadly mailings, and that Ivins had never been conclusively placed near the mailbox in New Jersey from which the letters were sent. They also questioned why the FBI and the Postal Inspection Service allowed the public to believe that another researcher at Ft. Detrick, Dr. Steven Hatfill, was the sole culprit for more than a year after they apparently began to believe he was innocent. Hatfill recently received a $5.8-million settlement from the government.
Maureen Stevens, the widow of Robert Stevens, a Florida photo editor who was the first victim of the attacks, held a news conference Thursday calling on the government to admit to faults in its investigation and pay additional millions to her and possibly to other victims.
And numerous scientists and legal experts questioned the reliability of the evidence presented by the government, particularly the novel genetic tests that the FBI said proved that Ivins alone carried out the attacks. One of them was Holt, a physicist turned congressman, who said he wanted to see some level of independent inquiry that involved a wide array of experts who could deconstruct the scientific aspects of the investigation.
In his letter, Grassley also wanted to know how exactly the government zeroed in on Ivins, whether he had taken a lie-detector test, what was known about his deteriorating mental condition, and how investigators could be sure that no one else might have helped him in preparing or mailing the letters.
"The FBI has a lot of explaining to do," said Grassley, whose staff has already started consulting experts and collecting information.
"They have been less than forthcoming with Congress throughout this entire process, and it deserves a full and thorough vetting."
The government's central piece of evidence against Bruce Ivins is that it has found anthrax in Ivins' lab that matches the anthrax letters exactly.
Pretty persuasive, right?
No, actually . . .
According to a story today in Time Magazine:
"It is hard to understand why the match could not simply be explained by the lab's prominent involvement in the federal investigation, notes Randall Larsen, a retired Air Force colonel and a senior associate at the Center for Biosecurity, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.
The FBI itself sent the anthrax letters to Ivins and his colleagues at the biodefense lab for analysis "almost immediately" following the attacks in 2001, confirms Caree Vander-Linden, a spokesperson for the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, where Ivins worked."
Note: Even if the presence of anthrax in Ivins' office was not so easily explainable, there were still perhaps a dozen people who had access to whatever anthrax Ivins was handling. As the Time article points out:
"A group of people have access to the anthrax at any given lab. 'What you can do with all those forensic techniques is trace the anthrax to a lab, but you can't trace it to a person,' says Meryl Nass, a Maine doctor who studies the anthrax vaccine and was a professional acquaintance of Ivins for over 15 years. What's more, Nass adds, the link is not accurate with 100% certainty. 'You can't convict someone with that evidence.' "
Okay, well the more research I do into the now infamous Ms. Jean C. Duley - the "therapist" who filed a restraining order against the alleged anthrax attacks suspect Bruce E. Ivins - the more her story sounds like a whole load of crap.
Let's rehash Ms. Duley's role in the whole saga.
According to The Smoking Gun, documents they obtained and posted show that Ms. Duley filed a restraining order request against Bruce Ivins on July 24th. In that complaint, she wrote the following (the errors are hers):
client has a history dating to his graduate days of homicidal threats, actions, plans, threats & actions toward theripist. Dr. David Irwin his psychiatrist called him homicidal, sociopathic with clear intentions will testify with other details FBI involved, currently under investigation & will be charged with 5 capital murders. I have been subpoena to testify before a federal grand jury August 1, 2008 in Washington, D.C.
It is hard to know where to begin with this piece of work, but let us start with the obvious:
1. FBI Investigation into Domestic Bioterrorism Attacks Is Open to Duley?
How does Duley know that Ivins "will be charged with 5 capital murders?" She has yet to testify to the grand jury, which means the grand jury has yet to indict him. And why on earth would the FBI investigators read Duley into the case details?
2. Death Threats, Terra Threats, and "theripist" threats, oh my?
The complaint alleges that on July 9th Duley got threats of a homicidal nature, see here. Now, I don't know about you, but I would not wait roughly three weeks to report homicidal threats from a bio-weapons expert, nor would I wait that long to report threats that were made only against me. I have had some personal experience with stalkers. You don't wait when you are frightened like she claims to be. If you are that frightened, you go straight away to the police. She says that on July 10, Ivins is committed to Shepard Pratt psychiatric facility. I have yet to read any account of anyone validating this. But let us assume that he was, Duley alleges that he signed himself out on July 16th, after Ivins went to have a commitment hearing.
Again, if a bio-weapons expert is making homicidal threats and is committed, he does not get to check himself out and if he actually attended a commitment hearing and was granted release, then clearly someone at Shepard Pratt that that Ivins was stable. But in any case, he is out on July 16th, so why is she still not filing a restraining order against him? Why does she wait until July 24th?
In addition to this series of strange claims by Duley, the most obvious issue here is if Ivins had a history "dating back to his graduate days" - so some 30 years ago - of homicidal threats and plans (whatever the hell that means), how was he able to gain access and security clearences to work with Anthrax?
And just what kind of therapist cannot spell the term of her own profession, spelling it "theripist?" She got subpoena right, which is far more difficult to spell (although the tense is wrong) and yet a term that is used on a daily basis in the field that she actually works in she could not get right?
3. Dr. David S. Irwin, come on down...
According to Duley, Ivins was described by a psychiatrist as "homicidal, socipathic with clear intentions" although she does not specify what the intentions are. Again, I have to ask what kind of psychiatrist a). makes these statements to some twit fresh out of school in violation of HIPAA laws, but b). does not file a police report given who the patient is, and c). does nothing to notify Ft. Detrick?
Okay, now with these basics in hand, let's examine Ms. Duley;
1. According to her boyfriend of 7 years, she is in an undisclosed location because she wants privacy. Okay, then why is her boyfriend Mike giving statements to the press?
Mike McFadden, spoke to The Frederick News-Post on Saturday from their home in Williamsport and provided a statement on her behalf.
"Jean is currently at an undisclosed location," McFadden said.
2. Duley's boyfriend says she was "reluctant to become involved in the FBI investigation" and then turns around and says "Jean is the kind of person who believes her life is insignificant in comparison with the kind of damage Dr. Ivins is capable of...She sacrificed all this stuff because she wanted to do the right thing. She'll soon reveal what many wouldn't because they didn't want to be involved with it." Which is it, was she reluctant or willing to sacrifice everything because she felt her life was insignificant?
And what is with this cryptic statement: "she'll soon reveal what many wouldn't because they didn't want to be involved with it."
She will soon reveal? Um, this is a terrorism case, it is not for her to reveal anything, rather, it is for the FBI/DOJ to reveal information. And if she had something to reveal, why does she simply not reveal it? She wants privacy, but dangles this little morsel over the heads of hungry journos?
3. What kind of therapist was Ms. Duley? Well, as of 07/08 she had made the Dean's list of a small and extremely expensive liberal arts college called Hood College, which costs $24k p/y to attend. So I am not entirely clear what degree she was going for or how she was able to pay for it on a social worker's salary. Also interesting is that in 1999 she had gotten a Chapter 7 Discharge, which again makes one wonder how she was able to pay for tuition.
| Record 1: | |||
| Civil Record Verification: Confirm Case # 9920549 at the Court House | |||
| Defendant: | DULEY, JEAN | Case Number: | 9920549 |
| Filing Type: | CHAPTER 7 DISCHARGED | Entity Type: | INDIVIDUAL RECORD |
| Filing Date: | 19990907 | Address: | 343C FIELDPOINTE BV 103 |
| City: | FREDERICK | State: | MD |
| Zip: | 21701 | Schedule 341 Date: | 19991008 |
| Attorney: | STEVEN COHEN | Attorney Phone: | 3019899000 |
| Attorney Address: | 15316 SPENCERVILLE CT | Attorney City: | BURTONSVILLE |
| Attorney State: | MD | Attorney Zip: | 20866 |
| Assets Available: | N | Court Code: | MD002 |
| Court Name: | GREENBELT | Judge Initials: | DWK |
| Unlawful Detainer: | N | ||
4. If you go back to the statement by her boyfriend above and read the full article, he also says of Duley "She had to quit her job and is now unable to work, and we have spent our savings on attorneys."
Okay, I give up. Why did this woman have to spend all her money on attorneys? She clearly filed the restraining order herself. So how is it that she incurred any attorney fees? Unless, of course, her boyfriend means that she incurred attorney fees for her DUI jury trial in 06 and ongoing fees relating to her probation? Why did Ms. Duley lose her job? Is it because as a "therapist" working with drug addiction cases, she was found driving under the influence?
I don't know what to make out of all of this. Is this woman jumping on the bandwagon hoping to pen a book deal or something? Is she simply lying? Is she telling the truth about Ivins? Is she as nutty as she claims him to be? I don't know. What I think, however, is that if this witness was dragged into a court in which I was the defense attorney, her credibility would quickly be shot down. Somehow, I think, we will soon see a Fox Noise exclusive interview with this woman and her boyfriend who will "reveal" what it is that they know. At this point, I am not buying this story and I am not sure why the media has jumped on her claims as though they were gospel.
Thoughts?
www.atlargely.com/2008/08/jean-c-duley-te.html
the more research I do into the now infamous Ms. Jean C. Duley - the "therapist" who filed a restraining order against the alleged anthrax attacks suspect Bruce E. Ivins - the more her story sounds like a whole load of crap. Webmaster's Commentary: Blame the dead guy, protect the guilty, hide the accomplices, and wave movie stars at us until we forget.
Earth's magnetic field:
Why would you be in hiding if the guy who threatened you is dead?
It has also been reported that the "C" stands for "Carol".
After agreeing to the terms, fill in Jean Carol Duley for the name and search all records. You will find 7 cases for driving under the influence. The year of birth is correct for a 45 year old woman.
If this is indeed the same Jean C. Duley who set up Bruce Ivins, it goes a long way to explaining just why her specialty is counseling addicts, and why she might need a few favors from higher up to keep her driver's license! After all, Maryland has a "three strikes" law for drunk driving.
Fort Detrick, Maryland, and his attorney, Paul F. Kemp, were actually negotiating a plea bargain with elements of the U.S. Justice Department that would have led to the indictment of former Fort Detrick laboratory scientist, dual ISRAELI-U.S. citizen, Dr. Philip M. Zackerie aka Dr. Zack, for sending the anthrax letters that led to the death of numerous people post 9/11.
... and there is the motive for the "wet work."
After a Friday story from Washington Post raised series questions about the ability of Bruce Ivins to have carried out the anthrax attacks -- he reportedly "had no access to dry, powdered anthrax," according to experts quoted in their report -- the paper inexplicably spiked their article, without explanation or notice, and replaced it with a wholly different story. Yet, on Sunday, the paper revived the same troubling questions. What the hell is going on here?
It is an online battle between truth and lies.
The last one to stand back up, wins.
Odds are the 'rats' in our US government are trying to close off the trail so people will quit cornering them again and again with the truth of their obvious attempts not to investigate the anthrax attacks and bring the true guilty parties to justice.
Odds are these same US government rats were the perpetrators of that anthrax attack.
So, how did he get his hands on enough Tylenol #3 to commit suicide in a mental ward???????
Those places don't leave that sort of thing just lying around.
Or maybe he was sent to a psych facility for the same reasons that the Soviet Union committed dissidents to psych hospitals. Maybe Ivins couldn’t stand it anymore, and was about to blow the whistle on the real anthrax killers, so they ginned up some claims that he was dangerous and had him hospitalized.
But this guy did!So, Bruce Ivins, latest patsy to protect the real anthrax killer, did not even have access to the type of anthrax used in the letters.
But this guy did!
So, Bruce Ivins, latest patsy to protect the real anthrax killer, did not even have access to the type of anthrax used in the letters.
But this guy did!
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/anthraxsuspect.html?q=anthraxsuspect.html
#9 As I recall, all and I mean all, mental health professionals maintain client privacy. The whole story gets dumber and dumber
Regarding some comments above:
1) HIPAA requirements allow for the sharing of information between health care professionals. If the psychiatrist believed that Duley was certified, there would be nothing illegal or unethical about him sharing a patient's case history with her.
2) When Ivins was hospitalized for earlier overdoses and alchohol abuse, he almost certainly would have been assigned an in-house counselor. This could explain how he happened to be associated with a counselor of minimal qualifications.
This is one of the weirdest cases I have ever seen. Not only is there this whole business of Duley, which has been explored pretty thoroughly here, but get a whiff of THIS: apparently, unnamed officials say that the motive for the anthrax attacks is (I am not making this up)obsession with a sorority from 30 years ago. (which fits nice and neat with Duley's odd "going back to his graduate days" statement.)
Here's the deal - the anthrax was supposedly mailed from a mailbox on campus in Princeton NJ. This mailbox sits about 100 yards away from a Kappa Kappa Gamma storage facility. (There is no actual sorority house on campus.) So, Ivins was reportedly spurned by a sorority girl at HIS college, 30 years ago, prompting him to send the poison from that location. I know - WUT?
There is no mention of why the anthrax was mailed to media sources and politicians rather than hot college girls (incidentally - Hood College is right down the street from both his house and Ft. Detrick, and full of them), but that's not important. (The *officials* did not mention it, but Ivins' DAD was actually a Princeton guy! That is proof, for sure.) Ivins' has no apparant personal history with Princeton.
Now get this: The *officials* say that there is no proof that Ivins was in NJ, but that he "could have gone after work". Put this in context. The first mailing was postmarked a week after 9/11. Yes, THE nine-eleven. NJ is about a 3-4 hour drive from Frederick MD, at best. What do you suppose the possibility is that Ivins could show up 6-8 hours late from work, and that his wife would not have already called the FBI? Remember it was a WEEK after 9/11. This guy worked in a bio-weapons lab. hello? At the very least, if something so weird had happened, so soon after that, she would have REMEMBERED it. It was a Tuesday. There is obviously no indication that he missed work that day or the next.
Does anyone else think that the FBI is grabbing at straws here? The BS about tracking the DNA is just that - BS. But even if it weren't BS - the fact remains that many people had access to the anthrax. Security was lax back then.
And one of the most important aspects of this case is that Ivins lacked the skills and ability to turn HIS anthrax into the powder form. That is apparently a very specific technical ability, and one which no one believes he had.
Sorry to ramble, but I live in Frederick, and though I didn't know him, I know many people who did. Not one is willing to even speculate that he "could have" done this. Every one is adamant that he didn't. I have never seen anything like it.
A blogger over at DU has found something interesting regarding the FBI timeline, which after she posted it, was apparently changed in the original CNN report:
The Washington Post is still up on this:
Either way, the FBI time-line and the source supplied time-line (assuming same source) do not match. What I find remarkable is that neither news source even noticed this issue.
The Case Of Dr. Hatfill - FBI
Anthrax Mail Suspect Or Pawn
By Dave Altimari, Jack Dolan, and David Lightman
Hartford Courant Staff Writers 6-28-2
- In the late 1970s, when Hatfill was in Rhodesia, an anthrax outbreak killed hundreds and sickened thousands of villagers. In 1993, an African news agency reported that a former officer from the white minority army's special forces claimed that the anthrax outbreak that killed 182 and sickened more than 10,000 people between 1978 and 1980 was launched by the army.
-
- All of the fatalities, and all but a handful of those sickened, were black. Other members of the white government's army have denied that the outbreak was a deliberate attack, claiming it was part of a natural pattern of anthrax in the region.
-
- On his college biography and his resume, Hatfill says he worked with the Rhodesian army and a group called the Selous Scouts during the time frame of the anthrax outbreak. The Selous Scouts were an elite unit of the white Rhodesian government's army that specialized in tracking and killing enemy units in the back country.
-
- One former classmate, Mark Hanly, who is now a pathologist in Georgia, said he always doubted Hatfill's military claims.
-
- Another classmate remembers Hatfill as a military enthusiast.
-
- "He carried a lot of weapons around all the time, RPGs [rocket propelled grenades] and stuff like that. On the weekends he would go with the army and they would do special forces kind of stuff," said David Andrewes, a classmate who now lives in Massachusetts.
-
- Like dozens of other current and former employees of labs known to have handled the strain of anthrax used in the mail attacks, Hatfill fits many aspects of a profile of the killer released by the FBI last November. That profile stated the FBI believed the culprit was a lone, disgruntled, former military scientist.
-
- Hatfill has been immunized against anthrax and had access to the bacteria while he worked as a research fellow at the Fort Detrick lab in the late 1990s. He is also very comfortable working with extremely hazardous material. Hatfill studied the deadly Ebola virus in the Army's highest level "hot suite" during his stint at the Maryland lab.
-
- Hatfill later became a member of UNSCOM, the United Nations-sponsored group that went into Iraq after the gulf war to look for that country's biological weapons stockpiles.
-
- Another member of UNSCOM was David Franz, who later became the colonel in charge of the Fort Detrick infectious disease center. Hatfill worked at the center from 1997 to 1999 in the virology department. He has never claimed to have worked with anthrax, but in 1999 he was involved with a CIA-run course on chemical and biological weapons.
-
- Hatfill is a protege of William Patrick, a former bioweapons expert at the Fort Detrick center when it ran an offensive biological weapons program in the late 1960s. Patrick has acknowledged helping scientists at Dugway Proving Ground in Utah make dry or "weaponized" anthrax a few years ago.
-
- On his resume, Hatfill states he has "a working knowledge of the former U.S. and foreign BW [biological weapons] programs, wet and dry BW agents and large-scale production of bacterial, rickettsial, and viral BW pathogens and toxins."
-
- The FBI's sudden focus on Hatfill comes shortly after its investigation appeared to be at a standstill. The agency recently announced that it wanted to interview and polygraph more than 200 current and former employees of the Fort Detrick center and Dugway, a process that will take several months.
-
- In the meantime, congressional leaders have promised to hold a hearing on the anthrax investigation to try to get their questions answere
From Patricia Doyle, PhDFrom Jim Rarey
6-27-2
After the Oct. 5, 2001, death from anthrax exposure of Sun photo editor Robert Stevens
Anthrax or woolsorter's disease is an acute infectious disease caused by the spore-forming bacterium, Bacillus anthracis. Though common primarily in livestock, humans and other animals are also susceptible to infection. Anthrax is most common in agricultural areas of Africa, the Middle East, Central and South America, and Asia. The disease is rare in the United States with only 18 cases reported during the 1900s.
B. anthracis is a large, Gm+ aerobic, non-motile, endospore-forming rod occurring in chains. The spores are resistant to many disinfectants, but are found to be susceptible to 2% glutaraldehyde formaldehyde and 5% formalin.
Laboratory indications:
Pathogenesis
Infection can occur three ways, cutaneous, inhalation, and gastrointestinal. B. anthracis spores are extremely resilient and may remain naturally viable in the soil for decades. Humans are most commonly infected by handling diseased animals or by inhaling spores.
Virulence factors are an edema toxin, lethal toxin and a capsular polypeptide antigen, D-glutamic acid. With cutaneous infection, the organism enters through a break in the skin and multiply, producing a necrotizing toxin. Even with effective therapy started early, the hemorrhagic lesion still develops and sloughs off. When dust particles containing spores are inhaled, the organisms are deposited in the terminal alveoli where they are engulfed by macrophages and transported to the lymph nodes. Once in the lymph nodes, vegetative cells multiply and produce toxin causing extensive necrotic hemorrhaging. Exact pathogenesis of gastrointestinal infection is not known, but bacteria invade intestinal mucosa where they colonize and produce toxins.
Manifestations
The incubation period varies depending upon how the disease was contracted, but generally, symptoms appear within seven days of infection.
Cutaneous infection accounts for most cases of anthrax, about 95%. The bacterium enters via open lesions or cuts in the skin. Symptoms appear with a raised bump that may resemble an itchy insect bit, but progresses to an ulcer surrounding necrotic tissue in the center. Though fatalities are rare when treated with antibiotics, if left untreated, death occurs in about 20% of cutaneous anthrax cases.
Pulmonary anthrax, caused by inhalation of spores, is probably the most serious form of the disease as it is usually fatal. An infectious dose would require inhalation of roughly 8,000-50,000 organisms. Initially, symptoms resemble those of a common cold, but gradually progress to breathing difficulty and eventual shock. Death occurs in nearly 100% of cases.
Intestinal anthrax usually results from consuming tainted meat from animals that carry the disease. This very rare form is characterized by acute inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract. Early symptoms include appetite loss, nausea, vomiting, and fever, but are followed by severe abdominal pain, vomiting of blood, and diarrhea. Death occurs in 25% to 60% of cases.
Treatment
Anthrax is not highly contagious and, therefore, is rarely spread from person-to-person. The only known cases of transmission are with the cutaneous form. The disease is initially diagnosed by isolating B. anthracis from blood, skin lesions, or respiratory secretions. Further testing requires measuring levels of antibodies in the blood of individuals suspected to have the disease.
Antibiotics are used to treat anthrax, with penicillin being preferred, however ciprofloxacin, tetracylines, erythromycin, doxycycline, and chloramphenicol are also used. Treatment should be initiated early; if the disease is left untreated or if symptoms are allowed to progress, it can be fatal.
Prevention
Due it's potential as a weapon of biological warfare, all active duty U.S. military personal involved in potential conflicts are vaccinated against the disease. The vaccine is a cell-free filtrate and is 93% effective in preventing the disease. Immunization consists of three injections, given two weeks apart. Three additional subcutaneous injections are given at the sixth, twelfth, and eighteenth months. Annual boosters of the vaccine are highly recommended.
If traveling or residing in countries where anthrax is common in livestock, avoid direct contact with the animals and ensure that meat has been properly slaughtered and adequately cooked.