• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Anthrax Case Solved?

Oy.

This story is not going to end well. Either someone's life will be destroyed through character assassination or the investigation is going to turn into the same kind of media circus that the OJ trial was.
 
Pardalis said:
I agree with boloboffin, for it to be an "inside job" you would need evidence of government complicity.
Click to expand...

What more evidence do you need than an insider who works for the government? If not, then define "government complicity".

McVeigh worked for the US army, does that mean the Oklahoma City bombing was an inside job? Of course not.
Click to expand...

As far as I know, McVeigh was not officially enlisted with the Army at the time of the OKC bombing, and thus didn't use his position in the Army as an "insider". This is far different from a biological warfare scientist in an Army bio-weapons lab releasing weapons grade anthrax on the public.

Your particular brand of naivety is well suited for insiders who conspire to do these sorts of things, and then murder a scapegoat while posthumously portraying him as a homidical/suidical maniac, whether that's really what happened or not.
 
Tippit said:
What more evidence do you need than an insider who works for the government? If not, then define "government complicity".
Click to expand...

Government complicity.

Your particular brand of naivety is well suited for insiders who conspire to do these sorts of things, and then murder a scapegoat while posthumously portraying him as a homidical/suidical maniac, whether that's really what happened or not.
Click to expand...

Your particular brand of "truth" and "justice" seeking is called fascism.

One needs evidence in order to convict people, or groups of people of a crime.
 
GreNME said:
There is supposedly evidence that some of the mailing materials came from close to where he lived, and there is the evidence that places him in a position to acquire the anthrax (which has been traced back to his lab).
Click to expand...

On the whole a very good post by you . I would like to comment on this sentence, however.

I would say the anthrax has SUPPOSEDLY been traced back to his lab. But can we trust the FBI in this? Can we trust the LA times in reporting everything? Remember, this is the same FBI that told us Vince Foster was depressed (when he clearly was not if you believe the initial statements from his doctor, family, friends and work associates). The FBI in that case clearly tampered with the evidence (turning written notes that said "prescription" into typewritten forms that said "depression", for instance) and badgering witnesses into changing their stories. And the LA Times never reported that.

It's hard to believe that "new team" did what the FBI and government should have done years ago in this case ... examine the spores closely. Afterall, if one is trying to find the source, that would be the logical thing to do. But NOW they want us to believe they only got around to cross-referencing who had access to those types of spores?

And just because Ivins lived within 200 miles of New Jersey where at least some of the letters were mailed isn't all that definitive. Because we know that some of the hijackers also lived in New Jersey at the time. For example, Hani Hanjour and Salem Alhazmi rented a one-room apartment in Paterson, New Jersey. Nawaf Alhazmi, Saeed Alghamdi, and Mohamed Atta were seen coming and going by neighbors. And that was only one of the places they frequented in New Jersey over the months before 9/11. They even had several bank accounts in the state.

I've an open mind. Just explain how the first case was infected and the curious coincidence that the case worked only a few miles from where some of the hijackers were living in Florida. If they can show that Ivins could have known where they were at the time the letter that passed through AMI was mailed, then they might be on the right track. But until then, call me skeptical. Especially since there are facts suggesting that letter was mailed BEFORE 9/11. :D
 
This website is disgusting! You kick men who are down, now you kick a man who is dead and no longer able to defend himself. Anonymous leaks that slander Dr. Irvins, a man helping the Anthrax investigation, and you people run with the rumors! Sick!!
 
BeAChooser said:
On the whole a very good post by you . I would like to comment on this sentence, however.

I would say the anthrax has SUPPOSEDLY been traced back to his lab. But can we trust the FBI in this?
Click to expand...

Since it wasn't the FBI who did the tracing, but instead a number of biochemical scientists doing a number of analyses (including some scientists in Ivins' lab), I'd say the FBI doesn't quite factor in so much as the determiner of whether the facts presented are accurate. I'd agree that I should have put a 'supposedly' in there because analysis of the samples aren't quite 100% conclusive, but so far they are more conclusive for there than other known labs on the Eastern Seaboard.

BeAChooser said:
Can we trust the LA times in reporting everything?
Click to expand...

I don't care about the LA Times. I equally don't care about CNN, MSNBC, and so on. They are all providing commentary and a few details, and none of them are capable of presenting this case in its entirety to anyone's satisfaction if they want a full view of the case. Since doing so isn't the function of any of those companies, I'm not sure what you're asking me to require of the LA Times.

BeAChooser said:
Remember, this is the same FBI that told us Vince Foster was depressed (when he clearly was not if you believe the initial statements from his doctor, family, friends and work associates). The FBI in that case clearly tampered with the evidence (turning written notes that said "prescription" into typewritten forms that said "depression", for instance) and badgering witnesses into changing their stories. And the LA Times never reported that.
Click to expand...

So, what is the price of tea in China? I'm talking about facts and "what we know" and you're giving me character attacks against an agency that is known to not have 100% accuracy. Since I'm already trying to approach this with a reasonable amount of skepticism I'm not sure what your "reminder" is supposed to accomplish. Could you clarify?

BeAChooser said:
It's hard to believe that "new team" did what the FBI and government should have done years ago in this case ... examine the spores closely. Afterall, if one is trying to find the source, that would be the logical thing to do. But NOW they want us to believe they only got around to cross-referencing who had access to those types of spores?
Click to expand...

Um, they did examine the samples closely. Ivins was one of the many scientists who were brought on early on to examine the samples. I believe it was stated that Ivins and his lab were brought on as early as October of 2001 to examine the earliest samples. I don't know what you're talking about with implying that the actual anthrax samples hadn't been examined early on.

BeAChooser said:
And just because Ivins lived within 200 miles of New Jersey where at least some of the letters were mailed isn't all that definitive. Because we know that some of the hijackers also lived in New Jersey at the time. For example, Hani Hanjour and Salem Alhazmi rented a one-room apartment in Paterson, New Jersey. Nawaf Alhazmi, Saeed Alghamdi, and Mohamed Atta were seen coming and going by neighbors. And that was only one of the places they frequented in New Jersey over the months before 9/11. They even had several bank accounts in the state.
Click to expand...

You might not be aware that the FBI is claiming to have evidence that some of the materials used in the mailing (the postage) was acquired near Ivins' home. Perhaps you're mixing that detail up with the location of where the anthrax was mailed. They aren't the same thing.

BeAChooser said:
I've an open mind. Just explain how...
Click to expand...

Woah there, pilgrim. I'm looking for information and have relayed what I know. I'm not providing an explanation. In fact, I'm explicitly cautioning everyone-- both 'debunker' and 'truther' alike-- to refrain from trying to apply any specific explanation to the case until way more information than what is currently available is known. The reason is because at this point there is mostly circumstantial evidence present for digestion by the public. There is plenty of likelihood the story isn't going to be either open-and-shut or an obvious conspiracy of some sort. Instead, this looks more and more like there are too many things complicating getting the full story.

Look on the bright side: even Daschle is making public statements that the FBI should not close the case immediately and should be more open with what they believe gives them enough to conclude the case should be closed in the first place.
 
The only person to have claimed Ivins was unstable is this Jean Duley woman who describes herself as a "theripist" (sic). Considering the fact that she (rather than Ivins) had a criminal record and had recently been contacted by the FBI, her statements sound very much like she had been fed a pile of garbage by them.

Check out salon.com and Glenn Greenwald. Her convictions are there and she most certainly wasn't a therapist!
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/02/AR2008080201632.html?hpid=topnews

Scientists Question FBI Probe On Anthrax

Ivins Could Not Have Been Attacker, Some Say

... snip ...

August 3, 2008

... snip ...

Yet, colleagues and friends of the vaccine specialist remained convinced that Ivins was innocent: They contended that he had neither the motive nor the means to create the fine, lethal powder that was sent by mail to news outlets and congressional offices in the late summer and fall of 2001. Mindful of previous FBI mistakes in fingering others in the case, many are deeply skeptical that the bureau has gotten it right this time.

"I really don't think he's the guy. I say to the FBI, 'Show me your evidence,' " said Jeffrey J. Adamovicz, former director of the bacteriology division at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases, or USAMRIID, on the grounds of the sprawling Army fort in Frederick. "A lot of the tactics they used were designed to isolate him from his support. The FBI just continued to push his buttons."

... snip ...

"USAMRIID doesn't deal with powdered anthrax," said Richard O. Spertzel, a former biodefense scientist who worked with Ivins at the Army lab. "I don't think there's anyone there who would have the foggiest idea how to do it. You would need to have the opportunity, the capability and the motivation, and he didn't possess any of those."

Another scientist who worked with Ivins acknowledged it would have been technically possible to manufacture powdered anthrax at Fort Detrick, but unlikely that anyone could have done so without being detected.

"As well as we knew each other, and the way the labs were run, someone would discover what was going on," said the scientist, "especially since dry spores were not something that we prepared or worked with."

... snip ...

Jaye Holly, who lived next door to the Ivinses until she and her husband moved to New York a month ago, said she couldn't believe that her former neighbor, who was obsessed with grass recycling and who happily drove a 20-year-old faded red van, would endanger others for financial gain.

"I can't imagine him being involved in a scheme to make money or to make a profit, especially one that would put people at risk or even die," Holly said. "That's not the Bruce we knew. He was sweet, friendly. I mean, he was into grass recycling."
Click to expand...
 
Galileo said:
This website is disgusting! You kick men who are down, now you kick a man who is dead and no longer able to defend himself. Anonymous leaks that slander Dr. Irvins, a man helping the Anthrax investigation, and you people run with the rumors! Sick!!
Click to expand...

would you like to see this website banned and the posters you disagree with imprisoned for treason?
 
BeAChooser said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/02/AR2008080201632.html?hpid=topnews
Click to expand...

Do you understand the concept of "quote mining" and why it's frowned upon as unreliable?

Like I said, the evidence for where isn't completely certain yet, and I've already clarified that I should have been more clear. However, to claim they didn't have guys examining the evidence early on is plain wrong. The problem was that, early on, the ABC debacle and the continued attempt by the administration to link the anthrax to Iraq hampered the scientific side of the investigation.
 
nothing solved :) no evidence presented. only suspects.
this case will never be solved, those who did it are investigating it. what do you expect.
 
If Ivins is guilty his suicide may help the investigation. GreNME points out the seeming contradiction of having a sociopathic homicidal individual with security clearance and access to dangerous pathogens. It remains to be seen--this is entirely speculation on my part--but this may come down to the confidentiality of the doctor-patient relationship and associated psychiatric records. It may be much easier for the FBI to get access to these records now that Ivins is dead.
 
I would caution using his apparent suicide as evidence of any homicidal or sociopathic tendencies. Even if it was the result of a depression it wouldn't have necessarily precluded a biological condition (meaning a biochemical depression as a previous condition), since depressions can be situational or emotional based as well.
 
GreNME said:
If you're going to just play word games, then we're not really having a conversation.
Click to expand...

I'm just curious why you say highlighting certain text from the Washington Post makes it unreliable? Have I misrepresented what they said?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom