Showing posts with label Bruce Ivins. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bruce Ivins. Show all posts

20 July 2011

WHIPLASH Alert--Justice Department Retracts Court Filings That Undercut FBI's Anthrax Case

- OPEN SOURCE  US/1; ATTN:
ANX-SG(A)


[ed.note: It is now official: even the BlackNET can get whiplash…and migraines…

At least it doesn’t work at the DOJ, where all the USAMIID BlackLYOPHILIZERs are actually stored. Yesterday's original ProPublica/Frontline/McClatchy story is post on the BlackANX page http://blacknetintel.blogspot.com/p/blackanx.html]

 Justice Department Retracts Court Filings FBI’s Anthrax Case


This story was co-published with PBS Frontline and McClatchy.


WASHINGTON -- Rushing into court to undo a major blunder, Justice Department lawyers defending a civil suit Tuesday retracted statements that question the FBI's finding that a former Army microbiologist mailed the anthrax-filled letters that killed five people in 2001.


But the unusual seven-page correction, filed in federal court in Florida, does not erase testimony from government scientists who challenged the FBI's finding that the late Bruce Ivins was the perpetrator.

The department's legal dance stems from its two seemingly conflicting roles: backing up the FBI's finding that Ivins, who committed suicide in July 2008, was the killer; and defending an Army bio-weapons lab at Fort Detrick, Md., against allegations of negligence.


The department's Civil Division is attempting to limit federal liability over the death of the first anthrax victim, a Boca Raton, Fla., man whose family is seeking $50 million in damages for alleged negligence by the lab at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), where Ivins worked on anthrax vaccines.


In trying to minimize USAMRIID's liability, government lawyers have had to walk a fine line, because the FBI says Ivins produced the anthrax powder at the facility while the civil lawyers seemed to suggest it could have been prepared elsewhere.


Tuesday's retraction came a day after a collaborative report by McClatchy, the Public Broadcasting System's Frontline news magazine and ProPublica, disclosing what appeared to be an explosive Justice Department revelation.


In a legal filing last week, department lawyers in the civil case said that the lab lacked the "specialized equipment in a containment suite" needed for Ivins to have dried the deadly powder.


That and other statements raised hackles at the FBI and among prosecutors in the criminal case, leading to hurried huddles at the Justice Department.


In a statement Tuesday, department spokesman Dean Boyd said that Civil Division lawyers had submitted "inaccurate information" and that "the Justice Department and FBI stand behind their findings that Dr. Ivins had the necessary equipment in the containment suite" to produce the spores.


They noted that Ivins had ordered his own machine, known as a lyophilizer, that could be used for drying anthrax spores. The machine was labeled "property of Bruce Ivins" and was located in a nearby biocontainment suite.


Although it amended the filing, the Justice Department could not take back what government scientists had said in sworn depositions.


Stephen Little, a technician at the Army lab, was asked whether the equipment could have been used to make the dried spore preparation used in the letters.


"Not any equipment I have seen," Little replied.


Little said that there was "no way" Ivins could have moved the lyophilizer to the into the biocontainment suite, where Ivins' lab space was located.


"The thing is as big as a refrigerator," Little said.


Another scientist, Susan Welkos, said, "We don't have any way to produce the massive amount of (anthrax) material that would have been necessary to grow up and dry in a way that wouldn't have killed everybody in the institute."


Both quotations were highlighted by Justice Department lawyers in their submission to the court last week.


Friday's filing also said that Ivins sent anthrax from a flask in his lab—a flask that the FBI contends provided the parent material for the letter anthrax—to two outside laboratories, the Battelle Memorial Institute in West Jefferson, Ohio, and a lab operated by BioPort in Lansing, Mich.


The amended filing said that Ivins sent the spores only to Battelle, narrowing the number of parties who might have been considered suspects.


Boyd said that the department and the FBI "have never wavered from that view that Dr. Ivins mailed the anthrax letters."


Ivins overdosed on Tylenol and two other drugs not long after learning that federal prosecutors were preparing to indict him on capital murder charges.


It was unclear how the court filings by the Civil Division ended up so at odds with the narrative developed by prosecutors, and the department did not offer an explanation.


[Information contained in BKNT E-mail is considered Attorney-Client and Attorney Work Product privileged, copyrighted and confidential. Views that may be expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of any government, agency, or news organization.]

28 May 2011

Rep. Nadler Seeks ANTHRAX Answers From a 'Dissembling' FBI

- OPEN SOURCE
US/1; ATTN: HST/2

WEDNESDAY, 25 MAY 2011
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, sent a letter to Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Robert Mueller requesting answers to remaining questions in the investigation into the 2001 anthrax attacks.  Nadler specifically asked Mueller why the FBI appears to have provided incorrect information on the case to Nadler and the Judiciary Committee subsequent to a September 16, 2008 oversight hearing on the FBI.

Text of the letter follows:

May 25, 2011
The Honorable Robert S. Mueller, III
Director
Federal Bureau of Investigation
J. Edgar Hoover Building
935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20535-0001
Dear Director Mueller:

I am writing with respect to the investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) into the 2001 anthrax attacks and information provided by the Department of Justice (DOJ)/FBI to me about that case, which appears to have been incomplete and misleading.
On September 16, 2008, the House Committee on the Judiciary, on which I sit, conducted an oversight hearing of the FBI at which you testified.  At that hearing, I asked you the following:  “[W]hat was the percentage of weight of the silicon in the powders that your experts examined?”  You testified that you would get back to me.  On November 26, 2008, I sent to you this follow-up question in writing:  “What was the percentage of weight of the silicon in the powder used in the 2001 anthrax attacks?”
On April 17, 2009, then-Acting Assistant Attorney General M. Faith Burton, of the DOJ Office of Legislative Affairs, responded with the following answer:

FBI Laboratory results indicated that the spore powder on the Leahy letter contained 14,470 ppm of silicon (1.4%). The spore powder on the New York Post letter was found to have silicon present in the sample; however, due to the limited amount of material, a reliable quantitative measurement was not possible. Insufficient quantifies of spore powder on both the Daschle and Brokaw letters precluded analysis of those samples.
A February 15, 2011 report by the National Academy of Sciences (“NAS report”), in which the NAS included its review of the FBI’s data and scientific analysis in the anthrax investigation, raises three questions about this DOJ/FBI response to me.  First, with respect to the anthrax on the letter sent to Senator Leahy, the NAS report shows on pages 66 and 67 (Table 4.4) that the silicon content found by the FBI was 1.4% in one sample and 1.8% in a second sample.  Why were both figures not provided to me in response to my questions?
Second, the NAS report shows on pages 66 and 67 (Table 4.4) that the FBI found the silicon content in the New York Post letter anthrax to be 10% when the bulk material was measured by mass and 1-2% when individual spore coats were measured by mass per spore.  Why was neither piece of data provided to me in response to my questions?
Third and finally, the NAS report raises questions about the appropriateness of the measurements taken of the anthrax on the letter to the New York Post.  Specifically, on page 77, the NAS report says:
ICP-OES analysis indicated a silicon content of the bulk New York Post letter material of 10 percent by mass, while SEM-EDX performed by SNL demonstrated silicon in individual spore coats at a level corresponding to 1 percent by mass per spore. At the January 2011 meeting, the FBI attributed this difference to a limited amount of sample available (only one replicate was performed for ICP-OES analysis) and the heterogeneous character of the New York Post letter.  An explanation based on the heterogeneous character implies that the specific samples analyzed were not representative of the letter material.  In such a case, additional samples should have been analyzed to determine representativeness.  If such data exist, they were not provided to the committee. Lacking this information, one cannot rule out the intentional addition of a silicon-based substance to the New York Post letter, in a failed attempt to enhance dispersion.  The committee notes that powders with dispersion characteristics similar to the letter material could be produced without the addition of a dispersant.
Were additional samples tested to determine the extent to which the ones examined were representative of the New York Post letter material?  If not, why not?  And, if the FBI does not have this data, how would you respond to the NAS that, without it, one cannot rule out the possibility that silicon was intentionally added?  If the FBI did do these additional tests, please provide the resulting data to me and NAS.
If you have any questions, please contact Andrew Ginsburg on my staff at 202-225-3218.  I look forward to your prompt response.

Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Jerrold Nadler
Member of Congress
For CITATION click here...
[Information contained in BKNT E-mail is considered Attorney-Client and Attorney Work Product privileged, copyrighted and confidential. Views that may be expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of any government, agency, or news organization.]

15 February 2011

NAS ANTHRAX Report Released at 1100 ET...Standby for More..

Channel
                Intelligence –  
 flash

-  LIMITED DISSEMINATION
HD/23; US/99; US/1; ATTN: HST/2


[ed.note: Hat tip to US/99 and HD/23. Suhkran and Sookria…LIMITED DISS until 1100 ET.]


Subject: EMBARGOED: NAS Anthrax report


Per your request, here are the news release and copy of the report, Review of the Scientific Approaches Used During the FBI’s Investigation of the 2001 Anthrax Letters.  The report and news release are embargoed until today, Feb. 15 at 11 a.m.  As a reminder, members of the committee that wrote the report will discuss the report’s findings and recommendations and take reporters’ questions at a one-hour press conference and public briefing today starting at 11 a.m. ET. at the Marian Koshland Science Museum of the National Academy of Sciences,  525 E St., N.W., Washington, D.C. (Entrance is at corner of 6th and E) Those who cannot attend may watch a live video webcast and submit questions via e-mail at hhtp://www.national-academies.org.  

-----------------------------------------------------

CyBER-BlackSEC Debate

BlackNIGHT Target Practice

SEAL Team SIX - Iron Will from CBS News

The Devil's Advocate?

In 1991, [the late former Secretary of State Lawrence 'Just call me George'] Eagleburger explained to The Post why all of his sons were named Lawrence.

“First of all, it was ego,” he said. “And secondly, I wanted to screw up the Social Security system.”