You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

What we learned from the FBI's scientists today. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-19-08 03:23 AM
Original message
What we learned from the FBI's scientists today.
Advertisements [?]
Edited on Tue Aug-19-08 03:55 AM by mhatrw
  • Anybody working in a government microbiology lab can easily turn a single anthrax spore into an infinite supply of mailable murder and mayhem that is almost impossible to contain. "It would have been easy to do this at USAMRIID."

Well, except for making it with silicon. That couldn't be done easily. It actually couldn't be done at all even though the silicon was "imported naturally by the anthrax spores from their environment." We "attributed that to natural variability." Oh, and by our own estimate, producing this easy-bake mass killer would have taken 3 to 7 days to produce (without drawing any suspicion from even a single witness while working in a lab that could not be locked in the days just after 9/11).

  • The FBI traced the mailed anthrax to a sample they collected from Dr. Bruce Ivins.

Well, actually we threw out this sample "because Dr. Ivins did not follow protocol in the way it was submitted, making it more difficult to use in court." On the other hand, this other sample this private scientist kept in his fridge that we never thought to ask about for four years was totally cool to use as evidence! And the four year delay didn't matter one bit because we were busy inventing the entire science of bioforensics that allowed us to catch that lone nut the whole time!

  • The FBI matched the mailed anthrax to a second sample it collected from Ivins.

Well, it "should have carried the Fort Detrick signature" but did not. This lead us "to conclude that the second sample he had submitted was falsely labeled." Of course, we can't "explain why Ivins would submit one sample of anthrax matching RMR-1029, then later submit a sample that did not match."

  • The FBI relied "primarily" on "scientific evidence" to solve this case.

Well, except that, by own own estimation, this "scientific evidence" only narrowed the list of suspects to some undisclosed number "more than 100." But, don't worry. All of the matching samples were from "RMR-1029 or its descendant" and everyone knows how hard it is to get bacteria to descend.

  • The FBI showed how it eliminated the other 100+ suspects.

Well, um, no. However, "the simple check of a lab notebook could be one way to do it; shipment records would be another way to do it."

  • The FBI identified some of the other 100+ suspects.

Well, um, no. Maybe sometime later. But we'll try to have our people talk to your people about this soon. Next month, perhaps, if we're not too busy.

  • The FBI connected the murder weapon anthrax directly to Ivins' person.

Well, um, no.

  • The FBI explained how such deadly anthrax could be created, handled, transported and mailed without leaving any forensic trace until placed in a mailbox.

Well, um, no.

  • The FBI linked Ivins to the New Jersey mailbox the letters were mailed from.

Well, um, no.

  • The FBI produced evidence showing that Ivins could have mailed the letters from New Jersey.

Well, um, no.

  • The FBI linked Ivins' handwriting to the anthrax letters.

Well, um, no.

  • The FBI produced evidence showing that Ivins could have disguised his handwriting in the manner of the anthrax letters.

Well, um, no.

  • The FBI explained how Ivins passed his two polygraph tests.

Well, um, no.

  • The FBI produced Ivins' motive for targeting the photo editor of The Sun.

Well, um, no.

  • The FBI explained why it initially reported the anthrax was weaponized to a superior military grade using silica. The FBI explained why the official Armed Forces Institute of Pathology study that stated this was mistaken.

Well, um, no.

  • The FBI explained how the hoax anthrax letters were addressed and mailed by Ivins or somehow made to read and look like the anthrax-laden letters Ivins' supposedly addressed and mailed.

Well, um, no.

  • The FBI discussed how it determined Ivins acted alone.

Well, um, no.

  • The FBI released the results of its forensic investigation into Ivins' alleged suicide.

  • What? OK, out, out! Corporate media only, dammit!
  • Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
      -What we learned from the FBI's scientists today. mhatrw  Aug-19-08 03:23 AM   #0 
      - Science is fun! n/t  mhatrw   Aug-19-08 06:07 AM   #1 
      - You just made the closing argument in the trial that acquits Ivins.  LiberalHeart   Aug-19-08 07:27 AM   #2 
      - All I did was ask the questions any actual non-state media organization would  mhatrw   Aug-19-08 01:55 PM   #3 
      - Blinding us with science. n/t  mhatrw   Aug-19-08 03:12 PM   #4 
      - apparently enough dots were connected for Daschle and David Kastenbaum  Supersedeas   Aug-19-08 03:31 PM   #5 
      - From Daschle's own statements, this took exactly three dots.  mhatrw   Aug-19-08 06:32 PM   #7 
      - New information about the FBI's ineptitude.  mhatrw   Aug-19-08 05:11 PM   #6 
         - I'd still like to know exactly what was in the flask...  AntiFascist   Aug-20-08 06:05 AM   #8 

    Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

    Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
    Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

    Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

    Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

    About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

    Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

    © 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC