Slashdot Mirror
New Scientific Evidence Emerges In Anthrax Case
sciencehabit writes "A Science Magazine investigation uses clues from a key document unveiled last week to reconstruct the trail that led the FBI to Bruce Ivins. Among the revelations: Anthrax fingerprinting was not critical to the investigation, as many reports have suggested. Rather, brute-force genetic sequencing, with the help of the J. Craig Venter Institute, helped crack the case. New potential motivations by Ivins are also revealed."
This was a really well done article. One quote reminded me of something odd about this case:
FTA:
I keep hearing this when they interview government types. It's weird, it seems like they're trying to sow doubt about their case, because:
Ivins's lawyer (from NPR):
Response:
Weak...
OK, now you're getting somewhere! Why is it they only go to the relevant part when pressed?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
It assumes competence. I could see something on the level of say, an anthrax attack being possible to arrange with a minimum amount of people involved. Most of the other events you mention would require too many participants to enforce secrecy. I've worked in classified settings for the government, and not to denigrate my coworkers in the least, but secrecy within an organization is a joke. While external secrecy is fairly good, the secrets aren't morally outrageous. I somehow doubt people would take their oaths particularly seriously if they discovered the U.S. government organized any of the above events.
Now if you want to argue that it was a sin of inaction, that someone high up knew an attack was coming and chose to do nothing, that might be plausible, since less people would need to be involved. I wouldn't rule it out completely, though my faith in humanity would be shattered if it were the case. I'm not inclined to believe even that much.
Personally, I think the attacks were unexpected. The people you accuse of conspiracy did not aid them in any way, they just took obscene advantage of the situation.
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
So if we base a clever article on a leaked document, shouldn't we first assume that the document is truthful?
When a high-profile person commits suicide because of the pressure of an investigation, the authorities will always try to justify their action. This was observed many times. I do remember a big scandal where a perfectly honest corner shop owner was investigated by the IRS and harassed in the worst possible ways. He turned out that his books were perfectly clean, but there was nevertheless an attempt at a smear campaign against the poor guy after his death.
I am sure that this suicide is embarrassing some higher-ups at the FBI and that they will do their best to avoid being blamed.
So I'd take these revelations with a grain of salt.
Fantasy: http://ferrisfantasy.blogspot.com/
Call me paranoid, but I'm instinctively suspicious when the guy who unexpectedly ends up dead and thus isn't around to defend himself is revealed by the government to be TEH GENIUS CRIMINAL MASTERMIND!!!1.
It's likely. And even makes sense. What happens when there isn't enough of an antidote for everyone and you warn the public of a possible attack? So who do you warn? Those that you need to keep the country afloat in case it really happens, for which you do have enough antidote.
The problem is that you can't even justify it later without risking an outrage. It is, from a purely intellectual point of view, the most sensible thing to do. But you can't justify it "morally" that you play god and decide who may live and who will die should it really happen.
And this is how conspiracies are born.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Not really, it only implies someone thought an attack using anthrax was possible. In other it means nothing except someone was intelligent enough to realize anthrax was a plausible biological weapon. Conspiracy theories exist because human brains are pattern matching machines and if you look enough at something you'll find some form of pattern by pure chance. Science and statistics exist because someone realized that without rigorous standards the conclusion we draw are often less than worthless.
In this case, the question to be answered is what makes us think it was Ivans rather than someone else in the lab. This part of the case is weak. It seems that many people had access. Other people likely had as strong a motive. Why him specifically?
Evidence that he went to NJ is not strictly necessary, except that so many other areas are weak. Holes don't matter if the rest of the case is very strong, but they can sink a weak case.
suggests the actions of a loan deranged scientist as more likely than some sort of conspiracy
it always amazes me how the same people that talk of the federal government in terms of utter incompetence in one sentence, the next sentence they are suggesting a multiorganizational airtight conspiracy has been meticulously arranged
motive? right! warhawks hellbent on invading iraq... zzz
warhawks DO exist. but most everything that happens in the realm of tricky manipulation is usually due to the individual initiative of individual warhawks. not some sort of grand poobah conspiracy of warhawk cabals, or whatever. this is called paranoid schizophrenia, not intelligent insight
i think some people have been watching too many steven seagal movies. real life is far more mundane than your fantasy life suggests, i'm sorry about that
but don't mind me, i'm obviously an agent of the illuminati, come to cast aspersions on armchair intelligence anaylsts and their cutting insights
oops! gotta go, someone's chatting about the vince foster suicide cover up on an obscure message board... gotta cover that up... brb
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I realize I'm expecting a lot, but couldn't a Slashdot summary be accurate, just once.
First, its Bruce IVINS. Not IVANS. The Russians had nothing to do with this.
Second, the linked article doesn't provide any new information at all regarding IVINS' alleged motivations. It just repeats what's been reported already. And those don't make a lot of sense (the claims that he was psychologically unstable make much more sense, if those are reliable).
Third, yes anthrax fingeprinting was crucial to this case. Yes they brute forced the DNA sequencing (duh!) but the main evidence against Ivins is a statistical fingerprint based on four specific mutations in the anthrax that the FBI claims was present in the anthrax mailed to Congress critters, etc. and the anthrax in a vial that only Ivins controlled. But as the linked article points out, without knowing more you can't really conclude much from that. For example, the similarities could occur in portions of the anthrax DNA that are hypervariable which would significantly reduce their value.
So, so far it looks like the FBI case is based largely on two facts: a) Ivins began working late nights in the weeks prior to the anthrax mailings -- he apparently claimed he had trouble at home and found solace in his work which the FBI apparently found absurd; b) a statistical similarity in certain unspecified mutations among the anthrax mailed out and the anthrax in a vial that only Ivins had access to.
The Science article also suggests that the FBI assumed that because the envelopes used to mail the anthrax were purchased in Maryland or Virginia that the anthrax *had* to be produced there, so they then used as a basis for their investigation that the anthrax *had* to come from USAMRIID . . . which is why they focused on Hatfill so intensely.
Maybe Ivins was the killer, but the Science article seems to raise more questions about how solid the FBI's case really is. Maybe future, more detailed information releases will bring this more into focus, but so far this doesn't appear to be the slam dunk that the FBI has so far made it seem.
Where to start?
Well for one, it's spelled "thermite" not "thermate." And while it does indeed burn quite hot, it doesn't even remotely approach the temperature at the core of the sun. Not by a factor of more than a thousand. Also, it takes an enormous amount of heat to initiate the thermite reaction - burning jet fuel won't cut it.
The buildings coming down at freefall speed? Well duh, they're 90% air. Once the tops, which weighed half a million tons, got moving, nothing was going to stop them due to intertia.
People coming out with injuries due to explosives? Not suprising, since the planes impacting the buildings caused GIANT EXPLOSIONS that set multiple entire floors on fire.
Seriously, Bushco is guilty of plenty enough crimes that they actually committed to deserve the deaths of traitors - no need to make shit up.
let me be perfectly clear: distrust of government is the mark of a healthy society
i repeat: distrust of government is the mark of a healthy society
have i made myself crystal clear?
meanwhile, rabid kneejerk hobbling distrust is the mark of someone with a personality disorder
you can distrust TOO MUCH just as much as you can trust too much. got that?
you are correct, it is 100% possible to trust too much. but it is also possible to distrust too much. it's a balance
so when you see someone who is trying to balance trust and distrust, you are not allowed to accuse them of trusting to much, simply because they do not share with you your impoverished level of distrust. your distrust is on the far end of the specturm. it is not healthy. of course, there are those on the far end of too much trust too. they are unhealthy too. i view them, and you, with incredulity
but don't mind me, right? i'm obviously a blind fooled sheeple. you've got it all figured out from your basement and your vast collection of intartube links. i should trust your fantasy life based on b-grade hollywood movies as superior to dem evil gubmints
baaaaah
baaaaah
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
If there was one person whose opinion on this subject I didn't listen to, it would be you. There's something fishy about this case, but your government conspiracy theories are of no help on the issue.
And how does Richard Cohen, a Washington Post columnist, qualify as one of the "right people"? You need bloggers and columnists to keep the country afloat? (In case magazine sales start to flag, for instance?) Right ...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
There have been so much lies and ridiculous claims about this case. That its hard to judge what you can believe. It al started with blaming Al Qaida for sending anthrax letters to politicians that where opposed to Bush and his war(!!). And it just went downhill from there.
"It is not because no one sees the truth that it becomes a mistake" (Mahatma Gandhi)
"Bruce Ivins could not have done it alone"
..
What 'evidence' is ther that Irvins was involved, traces of that particular strain was found near by, well they would find it, as he initially helped with the analysis of the anthrax-tainted envelopes. They only turned on Irvins, when the other 'suspect' (Steven Hatfill) refused to roll over
davecb5620@gmail.com
URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121789293570011775.html
Bruce Ivins Wasn't the Anthrax Culprit
By RICHARD SPERTZEL
August 5, 2008
PageA17
Over the past week the media was gripped by the news that the FBI was about to charge Bruce Ivins, a leading anthrax expert, as the man responsible for the anthrax letter attacks in September/October 2001.
But despite the seemingly powerful narrative that Ivins committed suicide because investigators were closing in, this is still far from a shut case. The FBI needs to explain why it zeroed in on Ivins, how he could have made the anthrax mailed to lawmakers and the media, and how he (or anyone else) could have pulled off the attacks, acting alone.
I believe this is another mistake in the investigation.
Let's start with the anthrax in the letters to Sens. Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy. The spores could not have been produced at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, where Ivins worked, without many other people being aware of it. Furthermore, the equipment to make such a product does not exist at the institute.
Information released by the FBI over the past seven years indicates a product of exceptional quality. The product contained essentially pure spores. The particle size was 1.5 to 3 microns in diameter. There are several methods used to produce anthrax that small. But most of them require milling the spores to a size small enough that it can be inhaled into the lower reaches of the lungs. In this case, however, the anthrax spores were not milled.
What's more, they were also tailored to make them potentially more dangerous. According to a FBI news release from November 2001, the particles were coated by a "product not seen previously to be used in this fashion before." Apparently, the spores were coated with a polyglass which tightly bound hydrophilic silica to each particle. That's what was briefed (according to one of my former weapons inspectors at the United Nations Special Commission) by the FBI to the German Foreign Ministry at the time.
Another FBI leak indicated that each particle was given a weak electric charge, thereby causing the particles to repel each other at the molecular level. This made it easier for the spores to float in the air, and increased their retention in the lungs.
In short, the potential lethality of anthrax in this case far exceeds that of any powdered product found in the now extinct U.S. Biological Warfare Program. In meetings held on the cleanup of the anthrax spores in Washington, the product was described by an official at the Department of Homeland Security as "according to the Russian recipes" -- apparently referring to the use of the weak electric charge.
The latest line of speculation asserts that the anthrax's DNA, obtained from some of the victims, initially led investigators to the laboratory where Ivins worked. But the FBI stated a few years ago that a complete DNA analysis was not helpful in identifying what laboratory might have made the product.
Furthermore, the anthrax in this case, the "Ames strain," is one of the most common strains in the world. Early in the investigations, the FBI said it was similar to strains found in Haiti and Sri Lanka. The strain at the institute was isolated originally from an animal in west Texas and can be found from Texas to Montana following the old cattle trails. Samples of the strain were also supplied to at least eight laboratories including three foreign laboratories. Four French government laboratories reported on studies with the Ames strain, citing the Pasteur Institute in Paris as the source of the strain they used. Organism DNA is not a very reliable way to make a case against a scientist.
The FBI has not officially released information on why it focused on I
Woopty Doo Basil, what does it all mean?!