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)
For those who aren't yet aware of it, Glen Greenwald at Salon.com has been making a rather thorough analysis of the holes in the DOJ's case against Ivins, and is not sparing the media coverage, either.
Read and judge for yourself.
I can see the fnords!
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/
You say: Personally, I think the attacks were unexpected.
But just below your post another /.ter mentions another article which says:
"The attacks were not entirely unexpected. I had been told soon after Sept. 11 to secure Cipro, the antidote to anthrax. The tip had come in a roundabout way from a high government official, and I immediately acted on it. I was carrying Cipro way before most people had ever heard of it.
I hear this claim not the first time, and there should be plenty of physical evidence to support this claim if it's true (such as receipts for Cipro retained at pharmacies.) And if this is true then the attacks were expected, and the "right people" were advised to act ahead of time.
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.
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.
Your assumption that there is no evidence that he wasn't in Princeton might be false (see Glenn Greenwald's reporting). In addition, the fed are painting contradictory pictures of Ivins when it suits them: was he a sorority-obsessed homicidal madman in the middle of a psychiatric breakdown or a meticulous criminal mastermind leaving no detail to chance?
How does an anti-terrorist bioweapons expert in the service of US military turn to a domestic terrorist right after terrorists attacked USA, and decide to launch a terrorist attack of his own?
All within one week, creating his own strain of anthrax, getting the stuff needed for manufacturing it and mailing it, all without leaving any evidence? Or was Ivins prepared to carry out the anthrax attacks even before 9-11 took place?
It is apparent that people with GOP connections received warnings and went on Cipro before any of the anthrax letters were even mailed.
Ivins was also a part of the investigation team, which would be standard CIA procedure, if this was a CIA op. (This is why FBI agents and coroners are used for assassinations inside USA, because they can be used to coverup the crimes.) Ivins would also likely have been easy to talk into the op since he was a rabid arab hater and neocon, as well as easy to blackmail later to take the blame, since he had a wife and 2 kids.
A lone person just doesn't spontaneously feel motivated to join al-Qaeda terrorist attacks against their own nation, especially if they work for the US military anti-terrorim team, even if their invention were to get more use.
This Salon guy has lots more discrepancies in the official story:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/01/anthrax/index.html
It is clear to me that FBI is covering up one of the GOP's illegal Casus Belli operations for Iraq war. You can keep your head in the sand, while calling others paranoid, but it won't make you any more secure.
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.
They can't place him there because he couldn't have been there. According to the FBI's warrants, etc. the letters were mailed from a specific box in Princeton, NJ after 5 pm on September 17, 2001. Ivins was out of the office in Frederick VA earlier in the day (after coming in briefly in the morning), but was back before 5 pm for a meeting. There is no indication that they have cracked his alibi from 5 on sufficiently to allow him to make the round trip during the time window.
Unless they have a real whopper saved up (he hired his secret twin brother to sleep with his wife that night?) Bruce Ivins could not have done it alone. Which (right on the tail of the Hatfill fiasco and the Siegelman fiasco and all the rest) might lead a reasonable person to wonder if he was involved at all.
--MarkusQ
P.S. The best way I've heard of salvaging their case would be if Ivins drove up in the daytime (he might just barely have had time) and asked someone to mail the letters for him. If they had this (presumably innocent foil) in witness protection or something they might actually have a better case than they've shown. But in any case he would have needed an accomplice of some sort.
http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2008/08/is-there-anything-you-wouldnt-believe.html
I'm sorry, but I can't help mulling over the preposterousness of the FBI's case against Bruce Ivins. The anthrax attack was made with state-of-the-art - let me correct myself, beyond-state-of-the-art - weaponized anthrax. The Russians couldn't have made it, the Chinese couldn't have made it, hell, even the Iraqis (ha!) couldn't have made it. Only one tiny group of people in the world could have made it, a handful of scientists at . . . Fort Detrick. I hate to even bring it up, but developing this expertise is completely illegal under treaties signed and ratified by the American government. The main point is that the manufacturing process needed to make this stuff was beyond the ability of anyone other than a tiny number of American scientists, and Bruce Ivins wasn't one of them.
The case against Ivins is based entirely on (questionable) DNA analysis which is said to prove that he had custody of a flask of the base anthrax material from which the weaponized powder was made. How do we get from anthrax spores to weaponized powder? According to the FBI, Ivins made it all by himself in his spare time at night.
Ivins was an immunologist. He worked on vaccines. He had neither the expertise - remember, it is beyond-state-of-the-art - nor the equipment to turn the spores into weaponized anthrax. It is as if he was trained as an accountant and the FBI told us his night-time hobby was brain surgery. Or better, manufacturing gasoline out of crude oil in the oil refinery he built in his lab, without anybody noticing. Or better, manufacturing gasoline out of crude oil in the oil refinery he built in his lab, using beyond-state-of-the-art refining techniques developed over years of experimentation, without anybody noticing.
And yet, we're told he must have done it, as he had custody of the flask. Others, some of whom were part of a team that actually had made beyond-state-of-the-art weaponized anthrax based on years of (illegal) experiments using the most sophisticated equipment and techniques, also had access to the contents of the flask, but they have been 'ruled out'. Somehow Ivins, without training in the right field, the proper equipment, years of (illegal) experiments, and a team of scientists, turned the contents of his flask into beyond-state-of-the-art weaponized anthrax in his spare time at night without anybody noticing. On top of this, he did it without getting any of the notoriously hard-to-contain spores on himself or his car or his home. If you believe this, is there anything you wouldn't believe? I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."