Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Can anyone outside of the government - and I ask this earnestly - validate that people actually died in the post-911 mailing from 'actual' anthrax contact?
Can we in the digital Salon really ever know what was swabbed from the floors of Congress or the Enquirer?
I am not suggesting that people did not die in this case – but asking can we be so sure that a killer’s weapon is what 'they' say it is?
Along this same vane can someone point me to a recent work of non fiction I have failed to remember about a somewhat famous magician from England (?) who I believe was the father of the fake battle tanks and other false perception tactics used to fool the Axis.
I did a Google search to see if the internal review by Commonwealth Biotechnologies was ever reported by the MSM and found only three article. If anyone can find a story in one of the major media outlets I'd love to have a link.
Commonwealth Biotechnologies, Inc. Completes Internal Review of...
Free with registration - Business Wire - AccessMyLibrary.com - Mar 23, 2005
RICHMOND, Va. -- In its role as subcontractor, Commonwealth Biotechnologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: CBTE) reported a positive test outcome for the presence of B. ...
Firm issues statement on anthrax scare.
Free with registration - America's Intelligence Wire - AccessMyLibrary.com - Mar 23, 2005
Commonwealth Biotechnologies said it is unclear whether the accuracy of the sample that caused the evacuation of 300 people March 14 at the Defense ...
No anthrax contamination in lab says firm.(UPI Science Report)
Free with registration - UPI NewsTrack - AccessMyLibrary.com - Mar 24, 2005
Commonwealth Biotechnologies, Inc., of Richmond, Va., found samples taken March 10 from a detached mail facility on the Pentagon grounds were positive for ...
Considering the company he keeps, he won’t be easy to find. I think he’s the boogeyman my mother kept warning me about. If she was live, she would probably know where he is. Anybody checked The Dark One’s safe? I here it is huge. Doubt he ever reads anything that isn’t marked Secret so maybe there isn't room for Spertzel.
I do not believe science will identify the laboratory or country from which the present anthrax spores are derived. December 5, 2001, Richard Spertzel, in testimony before the House Committee on International Relations
This guy is really starting to freak me out.
Remember, he also told the Washington Post that there are only four or five people on earth who know how to make that material and he's one of them. -- Jim White
Earlier today you stated that many people had the skill level
necessary to create the mailed anthrax samples, so why would that 7
year old assertion strike you as important this evening? Even
assuming it's more difficult than you believe, if small samples of
highly purified, weaponizable anthrax were readily sent to other
labs for research purposes, his expertise in making it is of
limited importance. As with the notorious flask in Dr. Ivins lab,
it's who had regular access to the stuff that matters, more than
who can make it.
Also, Jim, how do you account for the reported (varying?) purity of
the samples, and their concentration? Do the c. 2001 newsmedia
allegations that the samples increased in potency &
concentration with each mailing still hold true, or have they been
debunked?
I admit that I have read only half of the posts in response to Glenn’s Greenwald’s latest article. Perhaps someone else has covered the following. If not, here goes. As noted by others, the Frederick News-Post published portions of the transcript of the audio-recording of social worker Jean Duley’s sworn testimony. I’ve listened to the entire ten-minute recording many times, and have drafted a more comprehensive transcript. I will post the transcript below. (For purposes of brevity, I have omitted the names of the speakers. The questions were posed by Duley’s attorney, and the answers were by Duley.)
I have several thoughts about Duley’s testimony. The most important question involves the purpose of the hearing, which was suggested by the FBI: Did Duley need PROTECTION from Ivins, or did the FBI need PUBLICITY indicating that Ivins was a sociopathic homicidal killer who was the subject of a grand jury proceeding? It was the FBI that suggested that Duley request an order of protection, knowing that it would draw the noose around Ivins tighter. If the FBI had doctors who would testify that Ivins was homicidal, they could have kept him locked up at Sheppard Pratt under an involuntary commitment to prevent both homicide AND suicide. Instead, the FBI’s tactic was to follow Ivins as soon as he was released from the hospital, which would prevent homicide but not suicide, and to have Duley seek the order of protection, so that the world would know how that Ivins was a man who “plots and plans.”
Q: Ms. Duley, state your full legal name for the court, please.
A: Jean Carol Duley.
Q: And how old are you, ma’am?
A: Forty five.
Q: It’s my understanding that you’ve asked this court to keep your addresses, both personal and professionally, confidential, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: During the course of the last six months, where were you employed?
A: Uh, Psychiatric Center, Frederick
Q: And in what capacity, what was your job title?
A: Uh, Program Director.
Q: And during your time at that location, did you run group therapeutic sessions?
A: Group and individual counseling.
Q: And during the course of your employment, did you come into contact with the person who you named as the respondent in your petition?
A: Yes.
Q: Did there come a point in time in the last couple of weeks where you were contacted by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation?
A: Yes.
Q: And as a result of their investigation, were you issued a subpoena to testify before a federal grand jury?
A: Yes.
Q: And did the Federal Bureau of Investigation contact you regarding investigation alleging that the named respondent in this action had been involved in some very serious federal criminal offenses?
A: Uh, yes, um hum.
Q: And have you been cooperating with the FBI in that regard?
A: Yes, very much so.
Q: And if you could name the special agent who’s in charge of the investigation for the record.
A: I have to put on my glasses; I apologize. Hold on. Uh, one of them is Daniel Boorsuk {sp?)
Q: Okay. How long have you known the person that you’ve named as the respondent in this action?
A: Six months.
Q: And how often did you see him?
A: On a weekly basis, once a week, and on an individual basis, approximately every other week.
Q: During the course of your involvement with him professionally did he ever make any threats that were what you would consider to be homicidal in nature?
A: Yes.
Q: Did he make any threats that you would consider to be threatening to your personal safety during the course of those six months?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: Okay. Most recently what brings you before the court is a number of instances involving him that you feel are threatening to your personal safety at this time, is that correct?
A: Yes, very much so.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
