Panel: FBI Overstated Case for Accusing Ivins in Anthrax Probe
Findings 'Consistent' But Not Definitive
The supposedly slam dunk case against the late Dr. Bruce Ivins in the 2001 anthrax attack was “overstated” according to a 16-member panel that probed the FBI’s case against Ivins.
Alice P. Gast, the chairwoman of the panel, said that the scientific evidence gathered in the investigation was “consistent” with the FBI’s story of what happened but was “not as definitive as stated.”
The Justice Department formally ended its investigation into the 2001 attacks a year ago, sticking with the official story that Dr. Ivins, who committed suicide in 2008, was responsible for the attack and acted alone. The release of documents at the time included a “transcript” from 2008 which suggested that Dr. Ivins’ protestations of his innocents meant he may have simply “forgotten” that he did the attack.
But the bizarre “he forgot” claim aside, the evidence against Dr. Ivins never appeared particularly strong to the casual skeptic, and today’s panel report suggests it was even worse than that. This will likely lead to the belief that Ivins, as with Steven Hatfill, the initial suspect who successfully sued the Justice Department for identifying him in the media, may have simply been a convenient scapegoat for incompetent investigators who had no real clue who the culprit really was.
Last 5 posts by Jason Ditz
- Pentagon Spurned Kerry Efforts to Attack Syria - June 19th, 2013
- US Struggles to Reassure Karzai, But Are Taliban Talks Dead? - June 19th, 2013
- Obama: US 'Not Ready' to Attack Syria - June 19th, 2013
- Karzai Pulls Out of Afghan Peace Talks - June 19th, 2013
- In Drills, US and Jordan Prepare to Attack Syria - June 18th, 2013
persnipoles
February 15th, 2011 at 10:03 pm
Not sure about the incompetence theory. The Hoover Boyz dragged the media to Hatfill's apartment for a Hazmat Suit Film Festival (Hatfill on Today Show), but later found another target to harass to death. That's a pin-a-patsy game. As Iraq had long been associated with anthrax in the press, the first thought for someone over thirty during the period of the letters would have been Iraq (it was certainly my first thought). Coincidentally, that's where the US was headed. I'd keep it open that the intent is to lead away from someone. They sold two wars on widespread tensions from unsolved cases from that period. Don't let them off the hook.
Hacklheber
February 16th, 2011 at 12:59 am
"As Iraq had long been associated with anthrax in the press, the first thought for someone over thirty during the period of the letters would have been Iraq"
My first thought was "that's an opportunistic homebrew action".
Andrew
February 16th, 2011 at 3:34 am
Mine was – "that's a coup"
MvGuy
February 16th, 2011 at 7:22 am
"may have simply been a convenient scapegoat for incompetent investigators who had no real clue who the culprit really was."
Come on Jason, there is enough intentional duplicity to fill a canyon… They decided to bump this guy off and they did….. Don't you remembers Justin's articles about these attacks..?? Here is the document that was used to arrest Ivins… http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/anthrax-suspect… …. Notice last word third line down… "theripist" Rather strange when a professional misspells their OWN job title.> And there is this one, Are random ladies in the Midwest solving this?? http://www.newsgarden.org/columns/anthrax/anthrax…
Rosevelt
February 16th, 2011 at 9:40 am
Jason, you fail to note the known facts in this case, in addition to unknown, (now I am sound like Rumsfeld). The source of the anthrax is known, it was identified as manufactured at fort detrick bioweapons lab which is a highly secure facility with limited access to a limited number of people, all of whom work for the US military. It's impossible to have an unknown breach of security.
After ten years of obfuscation from investigators with no alternative evidence to point to any other source except the clearly demonstrated false accusations to Hatfil and Ivins, we can make some inference from the known source (US military) and no evidence to point to rogue actors, it was an internal military attack on our country. That much is apparently known based on the available facts.
We could pursue this further:
Why would a false flag attack be choreographed by US Military against US Politicians?
What did the US Military have to gain? Who benefited?
If it was a rogue military agent attempting to frame the military, as certainly is possible, then what would be the point of discrediting the US Military?
Who would benefit from discrediting the US Military?
persnipoles
February 17th, 2011 at 11:16 am
Whoops. Keep honest, aye.