RE: Ivins - The FBI only has two pieces of evidence worth spitting at...

[Junkdrawer]

1.) The spiffy, new, non-peer reviewed DNA methodology that puts the Senate anthrax in Ivins' flask.

2.) The spike in his Suite B3 accesses before each of the anthrax attacks.


Now, I'm sure people more qualified than me will have at the DNA evidence. As for the Suite B3 access record, I'd like to ask a few questions:

1.) What is the chain of custody of the evidence? Did the FBI seize the records and then analyze them without witnesses present?

2.) Did the FBI confront Ivins and his attorney with this evidence? The affidavit says they confronted Ivins, but, golly, he's not here to confirm that.

3.) Was Ivins' supervisor aware of these unusual hours?

4.) Can Ivins' family confirm these unusual hours?

5.) How hard would it be for someone to forge a card to access the lab and make it LOOK like Ivins did it?

Sorry to be such a skeptic, but I think that the FBI's behavior in this case warrants skepticism.

[Muttocracy]

1. Many questions on both of those - I'll add a few:

1) was he ALONE when accessing the lab? Is this based on videotape of him, or just doorway access?

2) did someone else have his key/card/id/whatever?

3) what was going on in the lab in summer 2001 that might have put pressure on him - say, need for more vaccines before the troops head off to war in Afghanistan and Iraq in a few months?

:tinfoilhat:

As for the "new DNA technology", what is this new mystery technology given we've been able to sequence entire bacterial genomes for years?

As for the flask itself, what special flask was this, that it had to be (a) physically attached to Ivins or (b) openable only by Ivins and that it is IMPOSSIBLE for any liquid to be removed from this flask and put into another container!

Apparently, there was spontaneous generation in that flask (sorry Pasteur, ya had it all wrong) - the anthrax in there is the ONLY ONE OF ITS KIND!!!!1111

[Junkdrawer]

2. Yeah, How fast does anthrax mutate?

Seems odd that they can isolate victim's anthrax and put it THAT flask.

[Muttocracy]

5. I don't know what the relative mutation rates are...

if it's slower than E. coli, why so long to figure it out. If it's faster than E. coli, how statistically valid is the link?

on edit - they should be using DNA to solve this case, and if anthrax mutates fast, it may support this theory, but what the heck is this new technology them claim, and there needs to be a statistic attached to any "match" calculation.

[AntiFascist]

3. Excellent point in your last paragraph...

I had read in previous reports that this particular anthrax came from the Dugway Proving Ground in Utah. Now, I really doubt that the military wants this story spread to the general public, eventhough it did come out in anonymous reports in 2001. Dugway produced weaponized anthrax in large quantities at one point in time, some of which may have been sold by the CIA to Saddam Hussein.

[bicentennial_baby]

4. !

"Apparently, there was spontaneous generation in that flask (sorry Pasteur, ya had it all wrong) - the anthrax in there is the ONLY ONE OF ITS KIND!!!!1111"

:rofl:

The science geek in me LOL'd at that. :D

[Muttocracy]

6. This science geek is having none of this

x(

[bicentennial_baby]

11. Same here...It's all a little too convenient and contrived

Plus, the numerous sub-plotlines (Sorority obsession, porn, ACLU, vaccines, etc) are over the top. Plus, they apparently think we're all to stupid to see through the sudden and obvious bullshit they're peddling. Until I see some hard and credible evidence, which I'm not holding my breath for, I believe that Dr Ivins is innocent.

[Muttocracy]

13. this is not passing basic logic, much less Bio 101. nt

[bicentennial_baby]

19. Exactly

:thumbsup:

[mrs_p]

25. me too

:tinfoilhat:

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

7. Regarding a couple of your questions...

1.) What is the chain of custody of the evidence? Did the FBI seize the records and then analyze them without witnesses present?


What sort of witnesses? A law enforcement agency doesn't usually have outside witnesses present during analysis of evidence.


2.) Did the FBI confront Ivins and his attorney with this evidence? The affidavit says they confronted Ivins, but, golly, he's not here to confirm that.


But his attorney certainly is, so this should be easy to determine. I would assume he was questioned in the presence of his lawyer, but who knows.

[EFerrari]

10. So, we don't know the chain of custody and we don't know

if in the 25 times the FBI questioned Ivins, if or when his attorney was present. :shrug:

We trust them? :shrug:

[EFerrari]

8. We have no context for the alleged "spike" in his late night hours.

We don't know what the lab was working on. We don't know if that happened every month, for that matter. We only have the cropped window FBI wants us to have. :shrug:

[Muttocracy]

9. when did Cheney start taking Cipro?

:think:

[suffragette]

14. Nor do we know if other people were also putting in long hours

Given the other items they selectively released, it looked like they were under pressure to perform which usually ends up in people putting in overtime.

[EFerrari]

16. If there was a puch to renew a contract, who else was there?

Good point.

[suffragette]

33. Heck, it takes me a long time just to move papers from one pile to another,

or to sort through ones I've accumulated while researching a topic and to decide what to keep, toss or shred. And the best time to do that is when the office is quiet. Not much time to do it during the work day, especially in the midst of events and project deadlines.

[lonestarnot]

36. And the real anthraxer could have set him up for a spike in those visits.

[EFerrari]

40. I don't see how only one person could have done this, anyway.

It's too difficult and there were too many parts to it. :shrug:

[Junkdrawer]

12. Over at Glenn Greenwald, someone posted this comment:

Night work

A possible explanation for working late with nothing to show for it: If Ivins was hiding a porn habit by using a PO box, presumably he didn't read (or use) it at home. A late stay at a quiet deserted office would be just the thing.

This isn't farfetched just because it's a secure facility. A friend some years ago worked in a very secure facility where everyone had a super-duper clearance, a level higher than Top Secret. The tradition there was that anyone who went on a business trip brought back an example of the worst porn they found. They kept the collection in the most secure part of the office and occasionally read it there, I'm sure. One day it vanished, stolen by someone who had a security clearance


http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/06/fbi_documents/permalink/c06544975cf881377ece81352bbf105e.html

[EFerrari]

15. Not to mention that people who work mostly on their own

like researchers, really never stop working. We don't do nine to five necessarily. :shrug:

[Muttocracy]

17. When I used to work in a lab sometimes I'd be there all night

if it took me a long time to get an instrument set up, calibrated, and running properly.

[EFerrari]

20. I used to go back into my office to relax and think

because it was quiet, perfect place to do that. I wasn't always even working. Sometimes I just sat there. If you'd asked me for a reason, I don't know what I would have said. I was cruising for an idea in the best environment to have one. :shrug:

[Muttocracy]

22. between that and caring about politics, I guess we're terrorists now. nt

[screembloodymurder]

26. Who assigns his work load?

Is it up to him?

[mrs_p]

18. "possible explanation for working late with nothing to show for it"

geeze louise, that's called science. how about my whole damn summer and nothing to show for it - god damn cloning!!

seriously though, does anyone have a leak to this non-peer reviewed DNA methodology paper? maybe it could help me?

[Muttocracy]

21. no - at press conference today they announced it's unpublished!

[bicentennial_baby]

23. How credible!!

:sarcasm:

Can I start passing off my unpublished papers as evidence in a Federal investigation? :D

[Muttocracy]

24. Good idea - I never published part of my thesis - but I swear it worked out just like I said! nt

[lonestarnot]

38. Certainly! Just send it to your local postal inspector!

He'll eat it up! Real investigative gang there OMG fucking A. If this so called investigation is to be any more seriously botched, just give them some more shit to do.

[librechik]

27. In their own evidence they contradict the "odd to be working at night" assertion

On p. 22 of 27 in 08-082-M-01 search warrant affidavit.pdf in the context of evidence proving that he often took long drives to mail stuff, they say:

This information is significant because Dr. Ivins regularly worked at night, and could legitimately use it as an excuse with his family to explain his absence from home.

So, he often worked at night, but his working at night after the anthrax attack was unusual.


Thanks to William Ockham at emptywheel for this tidbit.

[suffragette]

29. Great catch!

[seemslikeadream]

28. So, he was working on all this before 9/11? What's that all about

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/9454

[Junkdrawer]

30. Yeah. Was Ivins in on 9/11, or was fake-id-card-Ivins in on 9/11?

:shrug:

[Junkdrawer]

31. Or maybe, just maybe, it was simply a matter of a pulse of work..

and/or Ivins blowing off steam in a private place.

[seemslikeadream]

32. Are you sure it wasn't an instruction manual?

;)

[Supersedeas]

34. Many others had access to that flask--and that was wet not dry--so who dried it and where

[Muttocracy]

35. yeah, the story on KO nailed that. I don't buy the one flask or the "new science".

[lonestarnot]

39. prollee postal inspector science.

[TexasObserver]

37. they can't even make a case against this guy with him dead