You be the judge and jury - Dr. Bruce Ivins "Guilty" or "Not Guilty?"

Good Day Readers:

This is an excerpt from another outstanding documentary that appeared on Prairie Public Television last night. Shortly we'll be e-mailing Mr. Morgan Jenkins, Community Engagement Coordinator for Public Prairie Broadcasting to ask when The Anthrax Files will be re-broadcast in its entirety and will share this information with you.

The segment shown does not cover the earlier case of Dr. Steven Hatfill a bio-weapons expert who was publicly identified by the US Department of Justice/FBI as a person of interest in a series of anthrax attacks that occurred in 2001. The documentary chronicles how The Bureau applied maximum pressure investigative techniques in an attempt to break Steven Hatfill, however, unexpectedly he fought back by going public to hold press conferences denying any involvement.

After an 8-month intensive investigation the FBI was unable to gather sufficient evidence to support a charge. Dr. Hatfill subsequently successfully sued the government for $5.8. Undisclosed out of court settlements were reached with both Vanity Fair and Readers' Digest for stories they had published. A suit against The New York Times was dismissed.

With this backdrop fast forward to the case of army scientist Dr. Bruce Ivins. For the FBI it was deja vu as it again applied maximum pressure on their suspect (e.g. 24 hour surveillance, an unprecedented background check, etc.). While the Agency uncovered quirky personality traits did this constitute guilt? We will never know for certain because under the ever increasing pressure Dr. Ivins committed suicide.

In an extraordinary move after Bruce Ivins death then FBI Director Robert S. Mueller turned over all evidence in it's possession for independent, third-party evaluation by the National Acadamy of Sciences. In July of this year it reported some of it had been over valued but more importantly it was not prepared to state unequivocally beyond a shadow of a doubt Dr. Ivins was responsible. Hence the Frontline documentary. You be the judge and jury did he do it or is there insufficient evidence?

The FBI was swift to react to the joint ProPublica-McClatchy-PBS documentary. Read on.

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk

Postscript

We urge readers to continue to support Prairie Public Broadcasting in any way you can so it can continue to promote excellence in investigative journalism by airing superb documentary series such as Frontline.
__________________________________________________
The FBI Responds To Our Anthrax Stories
By Tom Detzel, Propublica and Mike Wiser, PBS Frontline
Thursday, October 28, 2011

A sign on the door of a Biosafety Level-4 laboratory at the U. S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases in Fort Detrick, Maryland (Patrick Semansky)

In a letter to the editor [1] of The New York Times, a top FBI official today disputed recent reports by ProPublica, PBS’ “Frontline” and McClatchy that challenged evidence in the agency’s investigation of the 2001 anthrax letter attacks and its conclusion that Army scientist Bruce Ivins was the perpetrator.

The letter from FBI Assistant Director for Public Affairs Michael P. Kortan followed editorials in The Times [2] and The Washington Post [3] that called for new, independent investigations into the anthrax case, which the FBI officially closed 18 months after Ivins committed suicide in the summer of 2008.

Kortan’s letter largely repeats prior claims in defense of the case, some of which were covered in our stories. Here are key points from the letter and what we reported:

Ivins’ suspicious lab hours

Ivins was a top anthrax researcher at the U.S. Army Research Institute of Infectious Diseases in Fort Detrick, Maryland. He produced vaccines and tested them on lab animals. The FBI has said a spike in Ivins’ nighttime lab hours before the mailings explains when he prepared the letters.

What we reported: Ivins’ evening hours were above average just before the mailings, but lab access records also showed it was not unusual for Ivins to work late at other labs and offices [4] throughout the Army complex. Further, Ivins’ colleagues said he was conducting animal experiments at the time.

What Kortan wrote: “[I]t was directly relevant that Dr. Ivins worked long hours alone during the time of the mailings in the laboratory’s ‘hot suites,’ where the anthrax that was genetically linked to the attack spores was produced and handled. He had not done that before the mailings, nor did he ever do it again.”

Ivins’ anthrax samples

Once the FBI determined the letters contained a strain of anthrax common in labs, the bureau asked scientists to submit samples of their spores. The FBI has said Ivins tried to hide his guilt by sending a false sample from his spore collection. Genetic tests later showed the spores in Ivins’ flask – RMR-1029 – matched the letter spores.

What we reported: An email shows that Ivins’ offered his spores for genetic tests [5] in December 2001. Though samples he submitted from his flask in April 2002 were not a genetic match, Ivins maintained it was an innocent mistake. Furthermore, an FBI memo and Army document show that Ivins had given another sample of RMR-1029 to a different colleague [6] around that time.

Email messages and lab notebooks show that two years later Ivins helped a colleague collect a sample of RMR-1029 specifically for FBI evidence. Finally, the very first sample Ivins gave the FBI in February 2002 was rejected because it was in the wrong type of test tube. It was later tracked down, and tests determined it to be a close match to the letter spores.

What Kortan wrote: “Dr. Ivins submitted an intentionally misleading sample in April 2002 that was free of genetic markers. Samples of his anthrax spores that contained the genetic markers were either submitted before he realized the markers might trap him or were seized later by the F.B.I., not made available by Dr. Ivins.”

Was the anthrax treated?

FBI and other scientists who examined the attack spores found that they contained silicon, tin and some other elements. The presence of those elements fueled speculation that the spores were treated – weaponized – to make them more dispersible. The FBI has said its studies show the silicon was the result of a natural process.

What we reported: A National Academy of Sciences committee that reviewed the investigation’s scientific findings concluded the unusually high amount of silicon measured in spores sent to the New York Post was unexplained [7] – something the panel’s vice chairman, David A. Relman, told us remained a “big discrepancy” in the FBI case.

What Kortan wrote: “[S]cientists directly involved in the lengthy investigation into the anthrax mailings — both from within the F.B.I. and outside experts — disagree with the notion that the chemicals in the mailed anthrax suggest more sophisticated manufacturing.”