The Anthrax Case
First of all this case was always going to be made on “circumstantial evidence” because the perpetrator(s) was/were very knowledgeable about the evidence gathering techniques of law enforcement. The envelopes were standard Postal Service pre-stamped that can be bought anywhere, and everything else involved, except the spores, was readily available all over the country.
All of Dr. Ivins friends and colleagues are saying that he wasn’t the type of person to do something like this. The people who knew the guy in Canada arrested after decapitating a fellow passenger, are saying the same thing sorts of things. I had a fellow investigator tell me one day that he had concluded that if you a saw someone helping a little old lady across the street, you should kill them immediately, because only murderers seem to do that. It should be noted that he was finishing up a murder investigation with a cast iron case against a nun who was beloved by thousands of students and coworkers.
The BBC article, Scientist ‘lone anthrax attacker’, gives you an overview of the evidence, while the CNN article, FBI accused of hardball tactics in anthrax case, covers some of the naysayers.
It related news, I read earlier that the Army had revised its policy on working at bio-weapons facilities, and is now barring people with a record of psychological problems. Apparently, being crazy was not an impediment to working with WMDs prior to this week.
The therapist who requested an order of protection against Dr. Ivins apparently had earlier dealings with the criminal justice system. That doesn’t alter the fact that she presented evidence in court of Dr. Ivins’s problems, and obviously had access to his records showing a long history of these problems. He wasn’t undergoing therapy because he was a happy camper, and the therapy predates the investigation.
While a lot has been said about access to a lab, you don’t need lab equipment to prepare what was shipped around. Some of it was “weapons grade” and other samples weren’t, but all were the same strain. Under lab conditions you would expect uniformity, but if you were doing this in your kitchen, things wouldn’t be as consistent. If you are an expert who is already vaccinated against anthrax, you don’t need a laboratory, and Clorox will kill it as long as you contain it.
The weakest part of the case is motive, and I would look at weapons lab funding in that search. Remember, the Hedgemony was already cutting back in their first year. Ashcroft pretty much eliminated the counter-terrorism budget for the Department of Justice on September 10, 2001. I’m betting that the lab was in line for some major budget cutting under the Rumsfeld regime. The attacks started immediately following 9/11, highlighting the importance of the lab in countering terrorism. Ivins was an anthrax researcher, and that limits him to the government and possibly a single drug company for a job. If the lab shut down he was a man in his mid-50s with no employment prospects, looking at flipping burgers until he was old enough to retire. That’s a pretty powerful motive.
14 comments
Bryan, good point about the little old ladies crossing the street. Ha!
But what do you think about this , from the same CNN article to which you link?
As for the weakest part of the (new, improved) Government case, I think one better nominee is the “therapist”. She looks to me like just one of that type which has proliferated, alas, over the last three decades to dilute the integrity of the professional social work class. Not just her well-documented background of criminality involving drugs and alcohol, but the documents she apparently wrote out herself strike me as worse than unprofessional; they are the messy work of a loosely wrapped moron.
Time was when “social worker” or “therapist” meant a Masters Degree in Psychiatric Social Work, or higher. Now it can mean any bozo with a GED who hangs out a shingle or, more commonly, is willing to work for near minimum wage for a state or county agency too strapped to hire the real thing.
Don’t take offense, but I think Glenn remains the go-to source. And possibly this doubting scientist he links to.
Sorry to disagree, but I am still skeptical. To be sure, the FBI always gets their man… but their man isn’t always the perp.
You may be on to something with your last paragraph, Bryan. According to the Los Angeles Times, Ivins was one of the coinventors on an anthrax vaccine that was rushed into production under less-than-squeaky-clean procedures after 9/11 and the anthrax attacks. The company couldn’t deliver and the contract was cancelled, also under suspicious circumstances, in 2006.
John, the therapist is not important to the case, she would be called only as a point of access to the records on Ivins’s mental problems. You don’t rely on a social worker for interpretation, you go with the psychiatrists for expert testimony. The press was obsessed with what she was doing, but she was a bit player. They can’t attack the message so they attack the messenger.
As I said John, you don’t need specialized lab equipment to create what was sent around the country, and the lack of uniformity in what was found in the letters argues against lab conditions.
Some are saying Ivins didn’t know how to make “weaponized” anthrax, a claim that is ludicrous on its face: he was one of the world’s experts on the use of anthrax with decades at a bio-weapons lab, of course he knew how to make it. You have to know how something is made to defend against it.
I think the FBI was going for a “bridge too far” and trying to prove “intent to cause death” which I don’t think was ever part of the crime. I think it was done to cause panic. The majority of the people who died were not actual targets, but victims of the mail sorting equipment at postal centers that spread the contamination. I think this push for a “death penalty case” as well as an abundance of caution after the Hatfill debacle was the reason they didn’t arrest Ivins earlier. They should have gone with “depraved indifference” rather than shooting for “premeditation”, but it probably takes the death penalty off the table.
The so-called “weaponized version” may have been accidental, rather than intentional, if it wasn’t produced in a lab. The brown silica that was found could have been from a chlorinated household cleanser used on the cookie sheet put into the oven. If you take the process out of the lab, and replace the object with panic rather than death, there are a lot of explanations available that no one has looked at.
Glenn is a First Amendment attorney, not a criminal law attorney, so I don’t necessarily go along with everything he says. Criminal law has its own rules, and under those rules the FBI had a good case if they had the documentation to back up their evidence.
Given the problems that have been associated with the anthrax vaccine, and the number of times Ivins has been vaccinated, you have to wonder if Ivins mental state wasn’t affected by it, as well as the pressure.
C&Land Olbermann are covering this too, and pretty much agree with you/us. 🙂
Countdown: Nothing About The FBI’s Anthrax Story Adds Up
and here:
Anthrax Bruce Ivins wins highest civilian award from Defense Dept. in March, 2003
It’s always about the money. 😉
Oh… And another member of the *Gang Of Perverts* has been indited for sexual assault on a 14yo girl. Rep. Scott Muschany, R-Frontenac. And of course, we know he’s guilty as hell because in 2006 he co-sponsored a bill that toughened sex offender laws. LOL I suggest that any politician that sponsors a bill for a particular law should be arrested on suspicion of committing the crime the bill addresses. Would save a lot of time and resources. And probably have a 75%+ success rate given the history of such things.
Amazing, really.
OOps! I meant to add this link too…
Bruce Ivins-Anthrax Scientist/FBI Story is a joke. Investigation needed of the FBI
Yeah… What I want to know is… was it simply incompetence on the FBI’s part (believable these days), or orders from on high (also believable), or both (ditto)? As john says, it smells really, really bad.
At some point I’ll write about the more complete statement about Ivins’s mental condition, but one thing that people are missing about the early investigation is that the administration was pushing the Islamic terrorists line. That may have been the initial problem with the investigation, they were looking for someone with possible Islamic connections.
Ivins was pushing that meme, and the strain was the same one Reagan gave to Saddam, so it was a valid path of investigation. Just because someone is crazy, it doesn’t mean they are stupid. Ivins was, by all accounts, an excellent researcher, and added to what we know about anthrax. As the acknowledged expert in the field, he was able to manipulate the investigation.
i read through some of the technical papers at some of those links. if they’re not lying or otherwise misrepresenting the facts, all the materials — chemicals and equipment [other than the anthrax bacteria, of course] — needed to “weaponize” anthrax are fairly standard in biochemistry laboratories, and have been since long before 2001.
it’s true that lyophilizing bacteria mkes them clump together when dried [spray-drying seems to be the preferred method these days, lots less clumping] but that’s not an insurmountable problem. i’m pretty sure i could overcome it reasonably well [not perfectly] in a few hours, possibly a few days, given the run of even a halfway decently equipped lab.
oh, and i also help little old ladies cross the street. fear me. 😈
We do hipparcia! 😀 LOL Though, I am sure you are used to being feared by men. I am told that most American men fear an intelligent woman. Just ask any Repuglican! LOL
So… I’m bad… sue me. 😉 LOL
Heh… to get serious for a moment… I don’t doubt for a second you are right. 🙂 When the Bushmorons started all the fearmongering about nuclear clouds over the horizon… I was asking a very dear friend, who has a PhD in Nuclear Physics from Oxford in the 60’s, and he laughed and said that anyone who has studied physics and especially nuclear physics before the 80’s (and there are many) could easy make it work. Because, he said, unlike physicists today, those had to know how to make the tools to make the tools to make the parts… because they couldn’t just order equipment from a catalog, or online, it didn’t exist! Because of his work for his PhD and after, he was also made a Fellow if the Institute of Engineers (in several countries) as were many others. 🙂
I know it was the same in my chosen field’s (industrial Design & Electronics Engineering) and am certain it was the same in any field of Chemistry. So I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there were many who could produce a militarized bug like anthrax (given time and money and some basic resources). I had to learn how to make things go *BANG* without access to an armory, and we had to learn how to procure or make other useful (in certain situations) items, including various useful, if nasty, chemicals etc! EG, I was taught how to make a titanium bolt melt or become fragile enough to shatter. And I know there were many trained as I was. 🙂 I am sure Bryan can also add to that.
Hey, I always wanted to ask… Don’t little old ladies these days scream for the cop’s when someone tries to help them cross a street? Maybe they know something. 😉 LOL
Don’t little old ladies these days scream for the cop’s when someone tries to help them cross a street?
i have a very trustworthy face. 🙂 besides, i like little old ladies.
my favorite part of advanced p-chem lab was designing and making our own instruments [they didn’t teach us to shatter titanium bolts though, darn it, now i’m jealous]. i was majoring in physical chemistry [and my best friend was majoring in chemical physics over in the physics dept, we were in nearly identical programs, but whoever heard of chemists and physicists actually getting along together?] when i visited one of my old work-study employers one day, and they told me i had i job waiting for me in their lab if i’d change to biochemistry. sounded like a winner to me, so i did. and now i [apaprently] know how to weaponize anthrax! cool!
I am told that most American men fear an intelligent woman.
i’ve always been told that too. but even in this benighted corner of the world, i’ve discovered that the men who like intelligent women more than make up for the fearful ones. so i kinda get to have it both ways. not a bad deal, i’m thinking. 😉
LOL No… not a bad deal at all! 😀
I have a photo of a 1″ diameter titanium bolt that was used to hold together a huge pump designed for oil rigs (amongst other things), that had been half melted. Amazing what super-heated acid can do! 🙂 Hmmm… Now I’ll have to find that photo and scan it and post it! Wonder which box it is in… *shrug* I have to sort them all out one of these days anyway. 🙂
Most of those things I learned in counter-terrorism training in the 80’s. We had to learn to think like a terrorist (the real ones, not the Bushworld ones) so we could do something about them. *Takes one to know one!* 😉 LOL We (Aus) always thought that oil rigs would make perfect targets for terrorists. I spent over a year studying security for rigs, refineries, pipelines, etc in various parts of the Mid-East (officially, I was a *consultant* for Aramco with a couple others). We concluded that without an army the size of China… it was virtually impossible to secure it all (As the US is discovering belatedly in Afghanistan and Iraq). However, we could minimize the consequences of an attack on some part of it, and the pumps were seen to be a major target. Fairly easy to destroy, very difficult to quickly replace, and very expensive.
Fact is, it’s relatively easy for a terrorist organization to wreak havoc if they choose. The reasons they don’t often are many and complex. 🙂
wreaking havoc, the how-to, i know a little bit about. i’d love to hear more about the reasons why terrorists don’t do so more often. do tell [or not].
and do post photos if you find them.
security for oil pipelines — that would solve our un/underemployment problems.
One of the problems we suffer from is we are all intelligent people who paid attention in class and learned how to solve problems and locate any additional information we needed.
We have done things, so we know how to do things, or at least how to figure out how to do things.
The majority of people today are not being taught the basics. They depend on calculators because they never had to learn how to do it without a calculator. Something needs to be done and they don’t have any idea what tools are needed.
They don’t attack the pipeline because they don’t know how to attack it. Usually they blow up a section of pipe, which is a one day fix. They don’t know to blow up a control point, because they don’t know how the system works.
You have all of the people who kill themselves puncturing a gasoline pipeline, not aware that they could steal a saddle tap, install it, and keep supplying themselves with free gasoline for months without spilling out hundreds of gallons and creating an explosive environment.
The problem isn’t the mass, it’s the specialists. Mass arrests of worker bees is a waste of time and money, which is why military action doesn’t work. Military action can deal with the mass, but it can’t target the specialists, the people who train the mass.
You don’t want the people who attend terrorist training camps, you want the people who teach there. You have to follow the evidence back to the core people and neutralize them. Having thousands of people who don’t know anything useful or dangerous in confinement gives terrorists the opportunity to train them. Just as prisons are schools for criminals, internment camps are schools for terrorists.
It sounds like you could build something with a heat gun to produce the powdered stuff, or a liquid gas for freeze drying. There are a lot of options if you understand the life cycle and limits of whatever piece of nastiness you are working with and have some tools in your garage.
As with nuclear weapons, the hard part is getting the core material. If you can obtain that, the rest is finding out what works.
Terrorism is a very complex issue. There are as many reasons for a person or group to commit acts of terrorism as there are for murder. And there are many types of terrorists. Political, religious, ideological, psychological, commercial. There is domestic terrorism and international terrorism, and groups that claim no affiliate with any nation. Generally, terrorism falls into one of three broad categories, individual, non-state and state-sponsored terrorism. Of these three, the state-sponsored terrorism has been the most effective and most difficult to guard against, usually because of the resources available by the state. The USA has been engaged in state-sponsored terrorism. 🙂 And it’s not new. The USA sponsored Saddam, Bin Laden, Pol Pot… in fact, the USA has been a sponsor of most of the worst terrorist leaders of the past 4 decades. An intelligent person might reasonably conclude that after having been bitten so hard on the ass by the same terrorists they sponsored time and again, that it might be wise to stop doing it. But stupidity, ignorance and arrogance are their own reward. 🙂
Terrorists come in all shapes and sizes. From the anti-social, the angry, the disenchanted, to the extreme fanatic. State-sponsored terrorism is generally either politically or ideologically motivated. It’s seen as a tool in the arsenal, usually a tool of last resort, though some, especially the Israeli’s tend to use it at any time, which is primarily why (along with continued meddling by the USA) state-sponsored and other forms of terrorist groups have been growing in the Mid East. Many of the non-state sponsored groups are well known to the states that sponsor their own groups (such as Turkey, Russia, Israel and Pakistan for example) and are kept on a leash. An outside group will be allowed some freedom, but if they try to do anything that the State(s) believe to be detrimental to their goals, will he severely dealt with. The states allow them because they are useful for recruitment, and as a disinformation tool, and also to take the fall if/when needed. Most states allow. and even encourage, some mavericks as they keep the eyes of the World on themselves. It’s all a very complicated chess game, and there are some experienced masters at the game. The States keep an eye on each other, and ensure that their interests aren’t compromised. For most, what terrorism they will allow or enable is subject to a serious risk and cost-benefit analysis of sorts. 🙂 If they believed that destroying a major refinery, or drilling platform was in their interests, they would do it. Terrorism is not really about creating fear as an end in itself, fear is simply a means to either force a nation or group to react, or to make them hesitate, or to generate some emotional or physical response, or to drain resources, etc. You only have to look at the USA for the past eight years to see how it works. Everything that has gotten the USA where it is today, the USA did themselves in reaction to a single act of terrorism. Al-Qaeda or whatever state(s) sponsored them certainly received a massive return on their investment. If the goal was to retard growth in the USA, or force massive financial losses, or to make the USA seem impotent, they succeeded. Most American’s (even at high levels of Government) don’t even understand who Al-Qaeda is. They were originally a Sunni Islamic movement (and still are), and the Sunni are the largest Islamic denomination (roughly equivalent to the Catholic Church). And so long as Al-Qaeda follows Sunni Islamic belief and law, the Sunni’s will help them. The original objective of Al-Qaeda’s include the end of foreign influence in Muslim countries and the creation of a new Islamic caliphate. The USA was seen to be the biggest (though not the only one by far) meddler here. Even today, nobody (at least outside of the Sunni) knows how big Al-Qaeda is, where they are located, how they are funded and supplied, etc. This fact alone was enough for me and many others to believe as soon as the announcement was made that the Invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with stopping Al-Qaeda. Afghanistan was a known training ground, but so were other countries, such as the Sudan and Pakistan.
Of course, there are many questions regarding the events of 9/11/2001, but one thing I (and anyone who’s had any training in these things) knows, it’s that it couldn’t have happened without significant inside support.
Well, this is turning into a dissertation. As I said, it’s a complex subject and there are no simple answers. However, thinking that a terrorist per se is simply some kind of low caste evil person, is a very foolish mistake. Whatever way I look at the actions of Americans before, during and after the events of 9/11, all I see are more questions! Anyone who is familiar with Ockham’s Razor would know that this chaos within the USA is being carefully and artificially maintained. As an aside, though what has become known as Ockham’s razor is attributed to William Ockham, he is not in fact the sole creator . It is thought that though Ockham stated the principle in various ways, the most popular version in use today was written by John Ponce in 1639. IN any case, the tenets have stood the test of time. Alternatively, one could use the simpler to understand *Engineering Maxim*, that is: “Keep It Simple, Stupid” (also known as the KISS principle). Thus, by the way, proving Ockham’s Razor! 😉 LOL One of the tenets of the maxim is attributed to Thomas Aquinas: “If a thing can be done adequately by means of one, it is superfluous to do it by means of several; for we observe that nature does not employ two instruments where one suffices.” I will have to admit that I do prefer KISS, possibly because of my engineering background. 😉
In most cases the “terrorists” are interested in getting their slice of the pie and don’t want to destroy the “cash cow”.
“True Believers” lack the profit incentive and will destroy anything and everything, so no one really wants to sponsor them. That was a major problem of financing the anti-Soviet campaign in Afghanistan, it gave resources to a lot of “True Believers” and there is no way of controlling them.
Fortunately Atta was suicidal, because he knew how to formulate and execute a plan.