Begin forwarded message:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: August 2, 2008 3:01:15 AM PDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: "Anthrax Killer" Had NO ACCESS to Powdered Anthrax
Purported 'Anthrax Killer' Had 'No Access to Dry, Powered Anthrax,'
According to Expert, Lab Officials
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6239
Brad Friedman, 8/1/2008 7:21PM
Earlier today we singled out the media's failure to note the purported
"liberal" leanings of those targeted by the "Anthrax Killer" (such as
two leading Senate Democrats) in their coverage of the reported
suicide of suspect Bruce E. Ivins.
Those reports noted that Ivins was soon to be indicted in the case.
But was he the one who really dunnit?
A BRAD BLOG reader points us to this curious note, near the end of a
late-afternoon story from today's Washington Post coverage, noting
that Ivins had "no access to dry, powdered anthrax" at the Fort
Detrick lab where he worked [emphasis ours]:
Several scientists who worked with Ivins also question whether he
would have had the technical skills to create the sophisticated powder
used in the anthrax attack. Creating the kind of highly lethal, easily
dispersible powder used in the 2001 attacks requires unique skills not
normally associated with vaccine specialists.
"He had no access to dry, powdered anthrax, according to Fort Detrick
spokespersons, who said that only liquid anthrax was used at the Fort
Detrick facility in animal aerosolization experiments," said Meryl
Nass, a physician and bioterrorism expert. "If he had been making dry
anthrax, it would have been detectable."
So is the latest, now-deceased, "Anthrax Killer" suspect actually the
guilty party? Or is he simply another Steven Hatfill (with whom the
government just settled last month for $5.8 million after originally
fingering him as the suspect) or Richard Jewell (originally fingered
by the FBI as the Olympic Park bomber in Atlanta, who was eventually
exhonerated and received settlements in libel cases against the media)?
A few other points in the WaPo article are similarly curious and would
seem to cast doubt on the Feds' case against Ivins:
[H]is name never surfaced as a potential suspect in the mailings case.
"He was not on my radar," said a Senate source whose office was
briefed on the FBI's progress.
He also never raised the suspicions of coworkers, many of whom
remained convinced that Ivins had nothing to do with the anthrax attack.
"Almost everybody at 'RIID believes that he has absolutely nothing to
do with Amerithrax," said a USAMRIID [U.S. Army Medical Research
Institute for Infectious Diseases] employee, referring to the FBI code
name for the investigation. "The FBI has been hounding him mercilessly."
The employee, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the
sensitivity of the investigation, said the FBI had visited his lab on
"numerous" occasions over the last several years, seizing lab samples,
records and equipment.
The constant scrutiny "really pushed this poor guy to the edge," the
employee said, and noted that his colleagues were upset at the way
Ivins had been treated.
Your guess is as good as mine, at this point. But surely, our
government wouldn't mislead us on something as important as this,
right? (Sigh...)
Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget? Read
reviews on AOL Autos.
