Slashdot Mirror
Researchers Dispute Closing of the Bruce Ivins Anthrax Case
Stirling Newberry writes "The New York Times reports that an upcoming paper by Martin E. Hugh-Jones, Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, and Stuart Jacobsen – all of whom have long questioned the closing of the Bruce Ivins anthrax case – points to the presence of tin in the spore samples as a sign that the samples mailed had been processed beyond what Ivins alone could have done. While not disputing that the spores came from Ft. Detrick, Hugh-Jones, who has co-authored several papers on anthrax signatures, contends according to the Times: 'it appears likely that Dr. Ivins could not have made the anthrax powder alone with the equipment he possessed, as the F.B.I. maintains. That would mean either that he got the powder from elsewhere or that he was not the perpetrator.' For a good summary of the case from a medical standpoint, this paper in the Annals of Internal Medicine is an excellent place to start. A review by the National Resources Council that stated the evidence available was not sufficient to locate the source of the spores is also available."
...that once the police "get their man", their effort is spent proving that he was the guy, not to look for things that disprove their theory, correct?
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
seems to be success pressure in high profile cases. Showing results is paramount over doing it right and just.
Troy Davis being one recent example and Bruce Ivins may have been another casualty to this pressure, seeing the injustice and facing the witch-hunt could have driven him to suicide which makes it easy to label him guilty: SUCCESS!
Trust to US justice system and other institutions (FBI, CIA, Police) is reduced more and more.
While only tangentially related it seems many in Law Enforcement are not too keen on the idea of chemistry in general.
All too often they will arrest someone who has a DIY home lab setup, for running a meth lab, despite not having the necessary supplies to make meth. All you need as far as LE goes is a few beakers and a Bunsen burner and you're making meth.
The researchers found a single inconsistency in the FBI's case: the sample has too much tin. This alone is not enough to disprove it. There are alternative explanations.
As well, anecdotally, apparently even the most open and shut cases have at least one extremely odd occurrence that is hard to explain. And by open and shut cases I mean cases where the murderer took the police to where he had buried the bodies.
For example, the murderer drove in 10 minutes a distance than normally takes 25 minutes. Or a disgruntled former employee who lives nowhere the scene of the crime happened to walk by at the same time the guilty person was committing the murder.
On the other hand, it is also true that once policemen zero in on a potential target they have a really hard time retargeting their sights. This happened to Richard Jewell, who on the basis of the evidence should have been declared not a suspect much much earlier. But the FBI had become convinced he was guilty and kept on ignoring and rejecting exculpatory evidence.
Over the weekend, I watched a CNN documentary (and they usually rerun sporadically for months) about the anthrax case. I also saw that there's a new Frontline that airs this week about the anthrax case too. (The CNN documentary didn't cover this dispute.)