| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Lurid Crime Tales- |
| Bruce Ivins Wasn't the Anthrax Culprit |
| 2008-08-06 |
| The FBI has not officially released information on why it focused on Ivins, and whether he was about to be charged or arrested. And when the FBI does release this information, we should all remember that the case needs to be firmly based on solid information that would conclusively prove that a lone scientist could make such a sophisticated product. From what we know so far, Bruce Ivins, although potentially a brilliant scientist, was not that man. The multiple disciplines and technologies required to make the anthrax in this case do not exist at Army's Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases. Inhalation studies are conducted at the institute, but they are done using liquid preparations, not powdered products. The FBI spent between 12 and 18 months trying "to reverse engineer" (make a replica of) the anthrax in the letters sent to Messrs. Daschle and Leahy without success, according to FBI news releases. So why should federal investigators or the news media or the American public believe that a lone scientist would be able to do so? Mr. Spertzel, head of the biological-weapons section of Unscom from 1994-99, was a member of the Iraq Survey Group. from WSJ. more at link. |
| Posted by:Nimble Spemble |
| #18 If the FBI is seen as Nifong with a better tailor Better, Nimble Spemble? That's awfully sad. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-08-06 18:38 |
| #17 Nimble, thats part of the problem. Bush is too loyal and should have chopped some heads for this mess in the Hatfield case, especially since it had large security implications, i.e. we were chasing the wrong guy and left a gaping hole unaddressed the whole time. As for the indictment, it takes time to thread a case together, and after the Hatfield settlement, they were probably being even more cautious. Plus some of the decisive DNA techniques were not developed and reliable until 2006. All in all its the "get a conviciton" motivation, rather than the "solve the crime" that this case, and many others, devolved into once they selected their culprit (Hatfield). For another example see the Jon-benet Ramsey case. They were so hellbent on convicting the Ramsey family (especially Patsy) that the real killer is gone and the alternative sources of evidence long since deteriorated. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-08-06 18:17 |
| #16 It's too damn bad that the good uns are hurt real bad by the BAD ONES.. Case in point my Uncle in Dearborn, MI, intelligent, honest and worked like hell. Sorry to say, he long since retired and passed away just a few years ago... |
| Posted by: Red Dawg 2008-08-06 17:47 |
| #15 If the FBI has such a slam dunk case, why couldn't they get an indictment years ago after they paid $6+ million to Hatfill? I'm not saying that Ivins is innocent or guilty, only that the FBI has very little credibility and driving people to suicide without bringing the case against them to court doesn't restore it. A credible FBI is critical to fighting the war on terror as it morphs more and more into policing and lawfare. If the FBI is seen as Nifong with a better tailor, we've got a big problem. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-08-06 16:56 |
| #14 Fox just did a live broadcast of the Justice department Spokesman giving the evidence. They knew in 2005 that the anthrax was one specific strain that Dr. Ivins had developed and were investigating everyone involved with that strain. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2008-08-06 15:59 |
| #13 Fob, thanks. Good to have input from the "Agricultural Research" facility down from Ft Meade (when I was NSA, you'd not beleive the RUMINT swirling about that place and Dietrick. Compartmentalization, such fun) |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-08-06 15:37 |
| #12 I believe that 5 of 9 infected persons were cured of Anthrax infection. And the first 2 victims are known to have sniffed the powder directly. |
| Posted by: McZoid 2008-08-06 15:15 |
| #11 I worked at USAMRIID some time ago. I was lower enlisted, (Spec 4, 92B) a type of research assistant / gopher. The media has seen fit to portray Anthrax as difficult to weaponize, and it may be, but from my experience - it isn't that hard make it into a form that can be spread easily. I don't really know what "weaponize" means. I may have something to do with being able to sustain heat and pressure to remain viable after delivery - wether that is by ballistic missile, artillery, gravity bomb or vector release. The Anthrax in this case was delivered by US mail, not a very harsh environment. Our lab samples were grown in a liquid media broth. Glycerol was added to the media tubes and then dispensed into smaller sample vials for freezing. The glycerol was used to prevent the shell of the spore from rupturing and killing the cell. This is common laboratory technique. I don't know how to freeze dry a specimen, but if you did freeze dry this material, you'd have powdered Anthrax. Just add it to a growth media (like moist lung tissue) and the spores will germinate. You might not even need to freeze dry it, maybe scrapping the colonies from an Agar plate and allowing them to dry is enough. While I was at Detrick (85-88) there was a 7 story brick building that was abandonded and bricked (concreted) up. The story was that a lab accident in the 70's with Anthrax occured there and the site could not be suffiecently cleaned. The building was periodically checked for Anthrax and the samples always came back hot. Anthrax forms spores and can survive for extended periods in soil or dust - to be re-animated when conditions warrant. I never processed a sample from the building, nor did I ever go inside or see anyone else go inside, but that is the story on the "anthrax building" My point is that, if the "anthrax building" story is factual, and the building is still dangerous, then you don't need to have some high-tech gear to weaponize this bacteria, simply having the cultures will suffice. The bacteria will form a persistant agent by itself by allowing it to dry out. That is why I'm certain that one person could be responsible for these events. |
| Posted by: Rob06 2008-08-06 14:42 |
| #10 I would suggest that there is a major problem in this post as well. Suggesting that because it takes a team a long time to reverse engineer something does not mean it would take one man that amount of time. The one man isn't looking for an exact match so his end game is a lot easier. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-08-06 12:53 |
| #9 If anything, the FBI deserves the stinkeye on this for failing to follow ALL leads - they basically decided on Hatfield, and ignored anything that didnt fit him. That was why a lot of this Ivins case sat itdle and was not even looked at until the AIC was trhown out by the director and fresh eyes put on the case. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-08-06 12:31 |
| #8 The infaliable FBI strikes again. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2008-08-06 12:14 |
| #7 A wise federal judge just unsealed the documents that led to Ivins for the families affected, making the opinion article a moot point. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,398483,00.html |
| Posted by: Danielle 2008-08-06 11:47 |
| #6 Ivins used a drying gadget to weaponize liquid anthrax at Fort Detrick, name escapes me but I saw it on FOX News, which also was reportedly not available there. Just like it was impossible for Saddam or Ahmadinejad to have sophisticated WMD's. |
| Posted by: Danielle 2008-08-06 10:13 |
| #5 Well at least the WSJ put this in the "Opinion" section. It is an uninformed opinion. A day or two ago I read about the genetic studies that OldSpook referenced. Bruce Ivins chose suicide over the contempt, humiliation, and prison that he was about to face for the rest of his life. Maybe he didn't make the material, but he was in charge of the material that was a conclusive match and there were circumstantial ties too. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2008-08-06 10:05 |
| #4 The FBI spent between 12 and 18 months trying "to reverse engineer" (make a replica of) the anthrax in the letters sent to Messrs. Daschle and Leahy without success I have a profound amount of respect for Dick Spertzel, but I think Dick may be incorrect or at least partially incorrect on this one. The tragedy so far is that law enforcement may not be able to determine if Ivins acted alond. The Bureau not being able to "reverse engineer" the anthrax...well, hardly surprising. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2008-08-06 08:34 |
| #3 Cops look at motive, means and opportunity. They got it all in this case. |
| Posted by: McZoid 2008-08-06 03:53 |
| #2 Dead WRONG. The specific strains in Ivins personl care matched those that were in the mailed envelopes. There were geneitc marker techniques that were not availble until 2006, and that is why tyhe investigation changed. This guy may know bio, but he's ignorant as hell of the particualrs in this case. Lets see- this author is one of Scott Ritter's chums, and worked for Hans Blix. Credibility? None. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-08-06 02:22 |
| #1 "A lone scientist" > HMMMMMM, INTEL or MAFIA, etc. it would be rare for one person to work alone. FARK.com > D *** NG IT, Iff ONLY PAULA "COCONUT-KILLER" ABDUL COULD REMEMBER IFF IVINS, ETC. WAS AT PENN STATE THE SAME TIME AS VALERIE PLAME THE SAME TIME AS MUHAMMED ATTA THE SAME TIME AS THE SHOW BOMBER THE SAME TIME AS ... AS ... AS.... AS.... AS.............................@etc!? But I digress. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2008-08-06 00:32 |