Notice: Use of undefined constant DISCLAIMER - assumed 'DISCLAIMER' in /home1/improba1/public_html/911truth/includes/fair_social.php on line 3
Notice: Use of undefined constant FAIR_USE - assumed 'FAIR_USE' in /home1/improba1/public_html/911truth/includes/fair_social.php on line 10
Monday, February 21 2011 - Anthrax
Expert Panel Is Critical of F.B.I. Work in Investigating Anthrax Letters
By Scott Shane
WASHINGTON -- A review of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's scientific
work on the investigation of the anthrax letters of 2001 concludes that the
bureau overstated the strength of genetic analysis linking the mailed anthrax
to a supply kept by Bruce E. Ivins, the Army microbiologist whom the investigators
blamed for the attacks.
The review, by a panel convened by the National Academy of Sciences, says the genetic analysis "did not definitively demonstrate" that the mailed anthrax spores were grown from a sample taken from Dr. Ivins's laboratory at Fort Detrick in Frederick, Md. It does add, however, that the evidence is "consistent with and supports an association" between Dr. Ivins's flask and the attack anthrax.
The academy's report faults the F.B.I. as failing to take advantage of scientific methods developed between the mailings in 2001 and its conclusion after Dr. Ivins's suicide in 2008 that he was the sole perpetrator.
"In subsequent years, the investigators did not fully exploit molecular methods to identify and characterize" anthrax samples, the report said.
Nothing in the 170-page academy report directly refutes the conclusion of what was by most estimates the most expensive and manpower-intensive criminal investigation in American history. The academy panel, which was paid $1.1 million by the F.B.I. for its review, assessed only the scientific aspects of the investigation and not the traditional detective work.
Alice P. Gast, chairwoman of the 16-member scientific panel and president of Lehigh University, said Tuesday at a news conference that it "could be fruitful" for any future review to consider both scientific and police work. But Dr. Gast said the exclusive scientific focus permitted her panel to go into depth on the role played by science in the "national emergency" set off by the anthrax attacks.
Dr. Gast, a chemical engineer, said the panel reached no conclusion as to Dr. Ivins's guilt or innocence.
The academy said the 9,600 pages of F.B.I. documents it used in its review would be made available to the public on request. The last 500 pages were provided by the F.B.I. only in November, after the bureau was given the final draft of the report for review and objected to some conclusions, leading to some changes to the report.
In a joint statement, the F.B.I. and the Justice Department did not directly dispute the weaknesses the academy identified. Instead, the statement said the panel of scientists "reiterates what is and is not possible to establish through science alone in a criminal investigation of this magnitude."
The F.B.I. "has long maintained that while science played a significant role, it was the totality of the investigative process that determined the outcome of the anthrax case," the statement said. It said Dr. Ivins "was determined to be the perpetrator of the deadly mailings."
Representative Rush D. Holt, a New Jersey Democrat and physicist who has followed the case, said he thought the academy's review showed that "the F.B.I. attached too much certainty to the scientific parts of the case."
"I also think it shows the case was closed prematurely," Mr. Holt said.
He said he was reintroducing a bill to create a national commission, similar to the Sept. 11 panel, to take a more comprehensive look at the anthrax case and its implications.
In an interview, three investigators who spent years on the case expressed frustration with the academy's findings but said the report raised no questions that change the conclusion about Dr. Ivins. The investigators, who were not authorized to speak on the record, said the academy report merely underscored the difference between pure science and the reality of gathering evidence in a criminal case.
"The totality of the evidence incriminating Dr. Ivins is overwhelming," one investigator said.
He noted, among a long list of circumstantial evidence, the unusual late hours Dr. Ivins spent alone in his lab in the days leading up to the two anthrax mailings and a recorded conversation with a colleague in which Dr. Ivins made equivocal statements about whether he was involved in the anthrax mailings.
Dr. Ivins's guilt has been adamantly denied by many of his colleagues at the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, where he was seen as an eccentric but popular character. The academy's report is likely to renew claims by the F.B.I.'s critics that the bureau merely took advantage of Dr. Ivins's suicide to close the case.
The academy report calls for another look at tests that indicated the possible presence of anthrax at a primitive lab used by Al Qaeda; the report does not give its location, but such a lab was found in Afghanistan after the American invasion. The anthrax investigators said an exhaustive review, including interviews with Qaeda operatives who used the facility, found no evidence that it was capable of producing the anthrax powder in the mailings.
The anthrax letters were dropped in a Princeton, N.J., mailbox in September and October of 2001, and killed five people and sickened at least 17 others. Coming shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, the letters set off a national scare over bioterrorism and led to a huge increase in government spending on biodefense.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author, who is solely responsible for its content, and do not necessarily reflect those of 911Truth.org. 911Truth.org will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.
Fair Use Notice
This page contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political issues relating to alternative views of the 9/11 events, etc. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.