Letters to the Editor
-
The genetics arguments in the first search warrant
I have a post at Achieving Our Country where I take a first look at the genetics and other technical information linking the attack material to Ivins. I find more questions than answers.
It's still not clear from what is said in the warrant whether the attack material was treated with sophisticated materials to render it more deadly. It is clear that Ivins referred to the key flask by two names, RMR-1029 and "Dugway Ames Spores - 1997", so there is a very good chance the flask came from Dugway.
The key questions then revolve around who produced the material in that flask, how it was processed, where it was produced, and, if it was produced at Dugway, does the flask in Ivins' control represent all of the material produced in that batch?
-
Tips for reading redacted documents
Many of the affidavits are redundant. This is actually very helpful because, in my experience, what is and isn't redacted seems to be a random process. Even within the same document, information will be redacted in one place but not in another. Comparing different documents allows us to use one to fill in holes of the others.
ps
In the document 7-529-M-01, text is visible underneath the redactions. My eyes will need some help making out some of the text though.
pps comedy
Camus' the Plague was seized in search.
MSN was confused by the FBI using [at] instead of "@" and [dot] instead of '.'
The FBI + MS == Hilarity
-
A little more specificity
7-529-M-01 search warrant affidavit.pdf
Only some of the redactions are "transparent."
-
keep up the good work
That is a bunch of documents! I do not envy anyone who needs to wade through that mess in a hurry, but I want you to know I appreciate what you do.
There are many men in prison today convicted by circumstantial evidence, and wrong doing by the prosecution. I hope that you help make sure that the truth is served in this case -- wherever that leads; and that a dead man is not unfairly convicted as this case is tried in the press.
-
One more ps
You might want to grab 7-529-M-01 search warrant affidavit.pdf while you still can.
-
MSM take note
"One critical caveat to keep at the forefront of one's mind is that when one side is in exclusive possession of all documents and can pick and choose which ones to release in full or in part in order to make their case, while leaving out the parts that undercut the picture they want to paint - which is exactly what the FBI is doing here -- then it is very easy to make things look however you want."
Amen Brother
-
First Pass
7-529-M-01 search warrant affidavit.pdf
pg 4--only redaction
[I am having trouble reading the first line except the last word] Federal
Grand Jury subpoenas to include the Task Force with samples from their [various?] Ames strain [unreadable italic text two words?] inventories for analysis and genetic typing. To date the task force has
---
-
inconsistency in story about Ivins' plan to kill coworkers
Thanks for your great points, as usual.
I noticed a fairly important inconsistency in the sworn testimony of the feds/Duley.
She testified in court that Dr Ivins said he "had bought a bulletproof vest, had obtained a gun, a very detailed plan to kill his co-workers."
The search warrant affidavit says, "He said he had a bullet-proof vest, and a list of co-workers, and added that he was going to obtain a Glock firearm from his son within the next day .."
(http://www.usdoj.gov/amerithrax/08-432%20affidavit.pdf)
Did Dr. Ivins say he had a gun or planned to obtain one? I sure would like to see some corroboration of what he said at group therapy.
-
very preliminary reaction
I'm going to withhold any kind of judgment on Ivins' guilt or innocence and just try to weigh each piece of evidence on its own merits, as well as consider how cohesive and substantial the overall case seems to be. The numbers are from the DOJ affidavit.
1) the flask of anthrax spores with "certain genetic mutations" over which Ivins had "sole custody" - did these spores originate with Ivins or did he receive from from some other source and only had "sole custody" at the time? How rare were the "certain genetic mutations"?
2) What constitutes an "adequate explanation" of Ivins' late night work? If Ivins, apparently a workaholic, was staying late at the lab doing something nefarious, the least of his troubles should have been concocting a plausible excuse.
3),6)It is revealing that Ivins had mental health issues in the fall of 2001. I hadn't seen this confirmed before, but with his family and personal history this plausible and, of course, in and of itself not evidence he was a murderer.
However, Ivins' mental state does provide a critical context for reading the email "evidence". Stating shortly after the 9/11 attacks that "Bin Laden terrorists have anthrax..." is not a startling thing for a possibly paranoid scientist working on anthrax vaccine to speculate about. Nor is stating that the terrorists "have just decreed death to all Jews and Americans", in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, a particularly outrageous or telling statement - how many neocons were running around saying exactly this at precisely the same time? That a note purporting to be from terrorists would call for death to America and Israel just seems like "fake terrorist threats" 101. Anyway, we don't have the full email or know in what context Ivins' statements were made.
4) Submitting false samples, if true, would be more direct evidence of criminality. But it would be nice to know specifically how the FBI "knew" these samples were "false".
5) The "private company" pressure Ivins was under at the time of the attacks undoubtedly didn't help his mental state any. It is not inconsistent with what we know about Ivins for such pressure to have exacerbated his mental health problems to the extent that he reacted irrationally.
-
Par for the course
7-529-M-01 search warrant affidavit.pdf
pg 5 footnote - only redaction
I am not touching this one with a ten foot pole because it refers to other suspects in this case.
The FBI is so fucking incompetent. The can't even redact a document correctly.