Finally, NYTs is paying attention to the no case FBI has against Bruce Ivins.

[EFerrari]

Seeking Details, Lawmakers Cite Anthrax Doubts

By SCOTT SHANE and ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: September 6, 2008

WASHINGTON — A month after the F.B.I. declared that an Army scientist was the anthrax killer, leading members of Congress are demanding more information about the seven-year investigation, saying they do not think the bureau has proved its case.

In a letter sent Friday to Robert S. Mueller III, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Democratic leaders of the House Judiciary Committee said that “important and lingering questions remain that are crucial for you to address, especially since there will never be a trial to examine the facts of the case.”

The scientist, Bruce E. Ivins, committed suicide in July, and Mr. Mueller is likely to face demands for additional answers about the anthrax case when he appears before the House and Senate Judiciary Committees on Sept. 16 and 17.

snip

Laboratory records obtained by The New York Times show that the anthrax supply labeled RMR-1029, which the F.B.I. linked to the attacks, was stored in 1997 not in Dr. Ivins’s laboratory, in Building 1425, but in the adjacent Building 1412. Former colleagues said that its storage in both buildings at different times from 1997 to 2001 might mean that the bureau’s estimate of 100 people with physical access to it was two or three times too low.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/washington/07anthrax.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp

Good work, contrarians!

[EFerrari]

1. Dr. Meryl Nass has written a great analysis at her blog:

Saturday, September 6, 2008
New Information on FBI's Case Against Ivins from NY Times and the FBI Briefing of Aug. 18
Today's excellent NY Times piece by Scott Shane and Eric Lichtblau reveals that Ivins as "sole custodian" of the RMR-1029 anthrax flask was a fiction. The flask was not always stored in Ivins' laboratory, but kept in another building at different times between 1997 and 2001, greatly increasing the number of those who had access to 200-300, and weakening the claim that access was controlled by Ivins. Furthermore, the FBI sent Ivins a formal letter in April 2007 stating that he was "not a target" of the investigation. And the FBI only took a mouth swab for DNA a week before Ivins died.

Careful reading of the August 18 FBI briefing transcript suggests that the FBI became suspicious of Ivins as a result of Ivins' first sample not meeting the requirements of their protocol, and his second sample not containing the expected 4 mutations. An unnamed official at the briefing stated, "We had reason to believe that there was something wrong with the April submission. It didn't have these mutations, and so that caused the investigative team to say that it (sic) might be something more to this." In response to a question about when suspicion first turned to Ivins, FBI's Majidi reiterated what the unnamed official had said: "Investigatively, after we saw various mutations outside the RMR-1029, it all pointed back to RMR-1029, so the question became “Why are we seeing these mutations in these samples, and we know where they're coming from and why are we not seeing it in their origin?” '

Yet the FBI admits this behavior, initially deemed "suspicious," is now being called simply "questionable." And that the protocol for sample submission had not even been established at the time Ivins submitted his first sample. But later another official disagreed, saying Ivins had received a subpoena with protocol before he submitted a sample... yet his was the first sample FBI received. Back in 2002, when Ivins' samples were submitted, the methodology to trace the anthrax origin by looking at various insertions and deletions did not exist, so Ivins could not have been specifically trying to thwart it.

The FBI said that all 8 of 1070 Ames samples that had the same 4 mutations as Ivins' first sample came from the RMR-1029 flask originally. How many others of the 1070 samples also came from that flask but lacked all 4 mutations? It seems obvious that if a pure culture were obtained from the flask (one or even a few spores) it could not contain all four mutations, since each occurred in less than one per cent of colonies derived from samples in the flask. Might others have submitted pure samples though their culture had an RMR-1029 origin as well? Did the FBI do its own collecting at all the labs with Ames anthrax? I don't think so.

http://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2008/09/new-information-on-fbis-case-against.html

[autorank]

2. k*r a bit ago. NOW THIS IS INTERESTING, Very

You're killing me with this Ivins stuff, it is such an amazing story. Killing me kingly;)

Isn't this interesting (from the article)

"'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,'d 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.

Laboratory records obtained by The New York Times show that the anthrax supply labeled RMR-1029, which the F.B.I. linked to the attacks, was stored in 1997 not in Dr. Ivins’s laboratory, in Building 1425, but in the adjacent Building 1412. Former colleagues said that its storage in both buildings at different times from 1997 to 2001 might mean that the bureau’s estimate of 100 people with physical access to it was two or three times too low.

So it's not certain that it was even manufactured there - which means it may never have arrived at Detrick AND we have 3 X's the number of people at Detrick with access to whatever was there. Pretty underwhelming in court.

You mentioned that Conyers had Meuller at the plate on 9/17 or close to that. Maybe Meuller is going to start pointing fingers at those in Justice or whereever, who are mucking this up. It would be a smart mo ve on his part. He may also just roll over and take the blame. But it will be interesting.

Maybe the real culprit has a name just too hot for anybody to say.

[EFerrari]

3. There's a whole bunch of people at Ft. Detrick that are loudly

silent and not agreeing with FBI / Bush Justice Department.

So far, there is not one scientist that isn't BushCo connected who has signed off on their new "science". Not a single guy.

:shrug:

[autorank]

4. It's like global warming

The naysayers are on the energy industry largess program.

Government scientists are not a rowdy bunch either. For them to be outspoken means this
really "doesn't compute" at all.

[countryjake]

5. "The word would be agnostic,” said Dr. Thomas V. Inglesby, an expert on bioterrorism...

They still don’t feel they have enough information to judge whether the case has been solved."

I like that, ha!

[EFerrari]

6. I like that, too. And where is the unembedded bioterrorism expert

that agrees with the FBI's so called "science"? The article says even "strong skeptics" do. I haven't seen one.