Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Researchers Dispute Closing of the Bruce Ivins Anthrax Case

Posted by Soulskill on from the it-was-the-one-armed-bioterrorist dept.

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."

10 of 82 comments (clear)

  1. You do realize... by tkrotchko · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...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
    1. Re:You do realize... by MartinSchou · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While this may be true, it is a dangerous way to proceed. If you spend too much time focusing on suspect A, and it later turns out that A did not do what he was suspected of, you now, essentially, have no case (depending on how long you spent focused on A).

      Like this particular case. Suppose that these researchers are correct - Bruce Ivins couldn't have done this on his own or he wasn't the perpetrator. There is no way to hold the responsible people accountable now, and there is no incentive to do so either - in fact it might even be career suicide to try to restart an investigation like this, simply because of the number of people who will lose face.

      To some extent, police investigations fail scientific rigor. They come up with a hypothesis and try their hardest to find evidence to support it, rather than coming up with a hypothesis and trying to disprove it.

    2. Re:You do realize... by maxume · · Score: 5, Funny

      I demand control murders!

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    3. Re:You do realize... by 1s44c · · Score: 3, Interesting

      To some extent, police investigations fail scientific rigor. They come up with a hypothesis and try their hardest to find evidence to support it, rather than coming up with a hypothesis and trying to disprove it.

      The court system is meant to try and disprove it. In practise they are more interested in finding loopholes in law than proving or disproving facts.

    4. Re:You do realize... by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Let's see: On the hand you've got a huge, government-funded agency with hundreds of people working with fancy equipment, etc. trying to prove a case.

      On the other you've got ... whatever the defendant can afford to pay.

      Are you surprised they go for loopholes rather than trying to prove their innocence via facts/evidence?

      --
      No sig today...
    5. Re:You do realize... by einhverfr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is true. But it makes you wonder how many are wrongly convicted. I suspect the number of innocent in prison is quite a bit higher than we'd like to think.

      In terrorism investigations you also have the problem today of Randy Weaver-style entrapment. I presume this was not present in the anthax case, but it's hard to rule it out.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  2. The main issue with identifying felons in US by no-body · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:The main issue with identifying felons in US by failedlogic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Look at the Olympic Park Bombing in Atlanta. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centennial_Olympic_Park_bombing

      The President even said we'll find the guy who did it. Not much more high profile than that.

      The media made a frenzy as soon as the police found a suspect or rather a list of suspects. One of them was a hero - tried to clear others away after spotting a suspicious package. Found not guilty. Still suffers from serious harm to his reputation. I'm not mentionning the name if only to avoid another Google link to his name and the incident. I hope this would help him out. A recent interview on television just this year (15 years after the incident) and he says it still effects him - the way others view him, financial problems ....

  3. LW does not like chemistry by firex726 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  4. Disproving a case by Alomex · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.