Senate remains skeptical of FBI on Bruce Ivins

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy, one of the targets of the 2001 anthrax attacks, says he believes Bruce Ivins did not act alone. And he said so today while FBI Director Robert Mueller was in front of his committee.

Mueller is giving the appearance of giving in to Senate pressure though, and has named an independent review, from the National Academy of Sciences, to take a close look at how the FBI has handled the case.

For more analysis, here’s Mueller is giving in to Senate pressure though, and has named Glen Greenwald’s take. He notes that Mueller’s panel of scientists will ONLY review the scientific methods used and NOT the full FBI case.

In other words, Mueller refuses to submit the FBI’s deductive reasoning, dot-connecting, etc., to scrutiny, which caught the attention of Sen. Charles Grassley.

Color Congress skeptical on Bruce Ivins

FBI overlooks the obvious — Ivins would have been the perfect person to frame if someone else in his lab actually is the guilty party.

Almost riffing on “Skeptic’s Dictionary” author Bob Carroll, plenty of Members of Congress are skeptical about the
FBI official line on Bruee Ivins as the “lone anthrax gunman.”

“My conclusion at this point is that it’s very much an open matter,” Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the top Republican on the Senate committee, said

No doubt he once again trotted out his Warren Commission credentials, but, snark aside, if Specter wants to be a bulldog on legal lines of reasoning, he can.

The NYT story is full of tidbits, such as noting that as late as April 2007, Ivins was officially NOT an FBI “target.”d

Also, after its history of screwups on this case, plus Richard Jewell, the Unabomber, et al, did the Men In Black think Congress would give their claims a blank check? Apparently so, per Rep. Rush Holt:

“I think they’re probably surprised by the level of skepticism.”

Here’s the main deal the Eff-Bee-Eye apparently hasn’t even had come across its collective radar screen.

The same variety of circumstantial evidence it says point to Ivins as the culprit also point to something else.

Ivins would have been the perfect person to frame if someone else in his lab actually is the guilty party.

Did the Bureau ever check to see who might have a grudge aginst Ivins, and stuff like that? How thoroughly they interview his coworrkers, many of whom think the square nuts (Google it) folks are full of crap:

“Despite the F.B.I.’s scientific and circumstantial evidence, I and many of Dr. Ivins’s former colleagues don’t believe he did it and don’t believe the spore preparations were made at Detrick,” said Dr. Gerry Andrews, a microbiologist who worked at the Army laboratory for nine years and was Dr. Ivins’s boss for part of that time.

Read the full story for the complete flavor of the incredulousness leve.

Ivins case — where’s the motive?

While depression, or more serious mental illness, if true, may be an explanatory factor in lowering inhibitions that “normal society” has in mind, it is NOT a motive.

Even in criminal cases involving an insanity defense, the mental state is an exculpatory factor, not a motive.

Now, if we had a specific act, connected to mental condition, like Ivins writing a “Taxi Driver” letter to the Princeton chapter of Kappa Kappa Gamma, we’d have motive. But we don’t have such a thing and never will. If it existed, the FBI would be trumpeting it.

Justin Raimundo, before going a bit around the bend, notes that the government seems intent on playing this up as the pervert angle on Ivins.

Ditto as far an anthrax vaccine and motive.

The only way that mere work on an anthrax vaccine could be considered as motive would be if Ivins had been psychiatrically diagnosed as suffering Munchausen by proxy.

And he hasn’t.

Otherwise, if we had information that Ivins had talked to Pfizer or Glaxo about commercial production of a vaccine he had developed, then we’d have a motive.

Again, though, we have no record of such talks, because they obviously didn’t happen.

Beyond that, it looks like the FBI is throwing crap at the wall and seeing what sticks, such as claiming that Ivins’ ardent pro-life stance is a motive.

I’m not alone in asking these questions. One of the anthrax letter targets, Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, is asking the same thing. Supposedly, Leahy met with FBI director Robert Mueller late Thursday, but so far, nobody’s talking about what was said.

And, per Vermont Public Radio, Mueller may or may not tell us more, saying more details may be released in the future.

Well, Sen. Charles Grassley wants him to start talking NOW, along with Attorney General Mike Mukasey, not just about Ivins but also about the botched deliberately heavy-handed investigation of Steven Hatfill. He’s got an 18-point questionnaire on the subject is a motive.

Key points:
1. Was there a polygraph of Ivins? If so, show it.
2. Who besides Ivins, of the more than 100 people who had access to anthrax strain RMR 1029, was provided custody of samples sent outside Fort Detrick?
3. What, if any, late-night video surveillance did Fort Detrick have?
4. If the FBI now believes (or claims to believe) Ivins’ mental health was such a factor, when did it first know about his mental health history and why did it not focus attention on him instead of Hatfill then?
5. What more are you going to release?

Grassley’s phone number is 202-224-3744. Call him and comment him for the effort, and to stay the course.


Oh, and beyond Hatfill, let’s not forget the FBI’s botched deliberately heavy-handed investigation of botched deliberately heavy-handed investigation of Steven Hatfill. He’s got an Richard Jewell.

Maybe some of Ivins’ relatives could try suing the FBI over wrongful death by forced suicide.

Hold the phone more on Bruce Ivins

I blogged yesterday that Gerald Posner questioned the guilt of alleged “anthrax terrorist” Dr. Bruce Ivins.

Now, the Wall Street Journal weighs in with more questions.

Way down in the seventh graf, the article notes that the FBI has yet to postulate a motive for Ivins, if he was the anthrax attacker. Related to that is both the lack of a suicide note and what appears to be a facile assumption that Ivins’ suicide reflects the biblical proverb that “the guilty flee when nobody pursues.”

Well, in the case of depression, sometimes the innocent flee tyranny and bullying, even if the “fleeing” is life-ending.

From there, the story goes to the biggest evidentiary issues:

More than 100 people had access to the anthrax in question, a larger number than many had previously believed. The FBI didn't find any anthrax spores in Dr. Ivins’s three cars or in his house.

As a result of these and other issues, scientists in this field are split on the strength of the evidence.

The New York Times adds more thought on the issue of scientific skepticism, in the last few grafs.

So, too are some Members of Congress skeptical:

New Jersey Democrat Rep. Rush Holt, who was briefed by phone by FBI Director Robert Mueller, said there are “still big questions” about whether Dr. Ivins acted alone. “So maybe there is still a murderer at large.” Mr. Holt's district is home to some of the anthrax victims and to the mailbox where the letters were mailed. “My measure of when we can call this case closed is when the people of central New Jersey ... feel that they have closure. I would say so far it's probably not good enough to put all their fears to rest.”

Read the whole story. It’s got information on how Ivins could have accessed his lab late at night, with graphics, and more.

And, yet one other telling point against the airtightness of the government’s case — why isn’t either FBI Director Robert Mueller or Attorney General Mike Mukasey hogging headline space and microphone airtime to announce the conclusion of this allegedly successful investigation?

Gerald Posner says ‘hold on’ on Bruce Ivins

I greatly respect the author of “Case Closed,” “Why America Slept” and “Killing the Dream” for his journalistic research and, definitely, for his debunking of conspiracy theories in his JFK and MLK assassination books, “Case Closed” and “Killing the Dream,” the two definitive works in the field.

So, when Posner says wait a minute on fingering Dr. Bruce Ivins as the “anthrax terrorist,” I’m willing to listen.

Part of why Posner doesn’t trust the government case is that social worker Jean Duley, who said she was so worried about Ivins she got a restraining order against him, has a boatload of her own problems. And, he raises this point:

“How does a biological weapons expert with fantasies, supposedly, of mass murder, get to sign himself out of a psychiatric facility, and what’s the deal with this woman?”

Follow the link to find out what “the deal with this woman” is, and to see Posner’s “Countdown” video with Keith Olbermann.

Now, the Wall Street Journal weighs in with more questions.

Update: More thoughts of mine on Ivins here.