http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7207/full/454917a.htmlEditorial
Nature 454, 917 (21 August 2008)
Case not closed
The FBI says it has evidence showing that Bruce Ivins was behind the 2001 anthrax attacks — but with his death, this will not be tested in court. A full enquiry into the case is needed if justice is to be done. Was Bruce Ivins a scientist-gone-wrong who single-handedly orchestrated the 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States? Or was the 62-year-old anthrax-vaccine researcher at Fort Detrick, Maryland, an emotionally unstable innocent whose profile made him a convenient fall guy for the FBI? The jury is still out on those questions — or rather, it would be if one had ever had a chance to hear the evidence. Ivins's apparent suicide last month means there will not be a trial, which makes it all the more important that the government release the evidence it planned to use to accuse him.
In full. Now.On 6 August, the FBI's parent agency, the US Department of Justice, released what it described as hundreds of pages of evidence against Ivins, and declared it would close the case because it was satisfied it had its man. But Ivins's attorney, Paul Kemp, has described these documents as "heaps of innuendo and a staggering lack of real evidence". He has a point.
Only full disclosure can lift suspicions that the FBI has again targeted an innocent man.For example, many of the documents are just search warrants — a reminder that, despite extensive searches of Ivins's house and cars, the FBI failed to come up with any physical evidence directly implicating him in the attacks. Similarly, the bureau has no evidence to place Ivins at the postboxes in Princeton, New Jersey, from which the anthrax-laden letters were sent. The core of the case against Ivins, as released so far, is contained in just a couple of dozen pages of affidavits — only four paragraphs of which discuss what the FBI says is the smoking gun: the genetic analysis of the anthrax powder from the letters. ...
Although this openness about the techniques is commendable, neither the conclusions drawn from the scientific analysis, nor such crucial legal elements as the veracity of the provenance and handling of samples, have been tested in court. So far only one side of the story has been heard: that of the prosecution. ... The FBI should explain why it thinks the scientific evidence implicates Ivins himself, and not just the flask. As Kemp aptly puts it: "In this country, we prosecute people, not beakers." The absence of such a full disclosure can only feed suspicions that the FBI has again targeted an innocent man in this case — as it did with former Fort Detrick researcher Steven Hatfill. This case is too important to be brushed under the carpet. ... It is essential that such an enquiry takes place.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
