« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Capitol Hill Questions FBI Anthrax Investigation: Where's The Polygraph?
Concerns about the FBI's circumstantial case against military microbiologist Bruce Ivins are reaching Capitol Hill.
Last night, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) sent a three-page letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey and FBI Director Robert Mueller III, asking them to respond to 18 questions about virtually every aspect of the probe.
In the House, Rep. Rush Holt, a Democrat who represents the New Jersey district where the anthrax-laced letters were mailed, says he's talking to other House members about a combined inquiry involving the judiciary, intelligence, science and technology, and government oversight committees.
Grassley has some pretty good questions. For example:
Was Dr. Ivins ever polygraphed in the course of the investigation? If so, please provide the dates and results of the exam(s). If not, please explain why not.
And
What role did the FBI play in conducting and updating the background examination of Dr. Ivins in order for him to have clearance and work with deadly pathogens at Ft. Detrick?
Read more for the full text of the letter.
The Honorable Michael B. Mukasey
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20530
The Honorable Robert S. Mueller, Director
Federal Bureau of Investigation
935 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20535
Dear Attorney General Mukasey and Director Mueller:
Thank you for ensuring that Congressional staff received an advanced briefing yesterday of the information released to the public in the Amerithrax investigation. The three affidavits provided represent an important, but small first step toward providing Congress and the public a full accounting of the evidence gathered by the FBI.
At yesterday's briefing, Justice Department and FBI officials invited follow-up questions after there had been time to read the affidavits. Indeed, there are many important questions to be answered about the FBI's seven-year investigation, the basis for its conclusion that Dr. Bruce Ivins conducted the attacks alone, and the events leading to his suicide. To begin this inquiry, please provide complete and detailed answers to the following questions:
1. What is the date (month and year) that the FBI determined that the anthrax came from a specified flask in Ivins's lab ("RMR-1029")?
2. When (month and year) did the FBI determine that Dr. Hatfill never had access to the anthrax used in the killings?
3. How did the FBI determine that Dr. Hatfill did not have access to the anthrax used in the killings? Was that because the FBI determined that Dr. Hatfill no longer worked at USAMRIID when the powder was made?
4. Was Dr. Hatfill or his counsel informed that Dr. Hatfill had been cleared of any involvement in the anthrax killings before the Department of Justice offered a settlement to him? Was he informed before signing the settlement agreement with him? If not, please explain why not.
5. Was Judge Walton (the judge overseeing the Privacy Act litigation) ever informed that Dr. Hatfill had been eliminated as a suspect in the anthrax killings? If so, when. If not, please explain why not.
6. Was Dr. Ivins ever polygraphed in the course of the investigation? If so, please provide the dates and results of the exam(s). If not, please explain why not.
7. Of the more than 100 people who had access to RMR 1029, how many were provided custody of samples sent outside Ft. Detrick? Of those, how many samples were provided to foreign laboratories?
8. If those with access to samples of RMR 1029 in places other than Ft. Detrick had used the sample to produce additional quantities of anthrax, would that anthrax appear distinguishable from RMR 1029?
9. How can the FBI be sure that none of the samples sent to other labs were used to create additional quantities of anthrax that would appear distinguishable from RMR 1029?
10. Please describe the methodology and results of any oxygen isotope measurements taken to determine the source of water used to grow the spores used in the anthrax attacks.
11. Was there video equipment which would record the activities of Dr. Ivins at Ft. Detrick on the late nights he was there on the dates surrounding the mailings? If so, please describe what examination of the video revealed.
12. When did the FBI first learn of Dr. Ivins' late-night activity in the lab around the time of the attacks? If this is powerful circumstantial evidence of his guilt, then why did this information not lead the FBI to focus attention on him, rather than Dr. Hatfill, much sooner in the investigation?
13. When did the FBI first learn that Dr. Ivins was prescribed medications for various symptoms of mental illness? If this is circumstantial evidence of his guilt, then why did this information not lead the FBI to focus attention on him, rather than Dr. Hatfill, much sooner in the investigation? Of the 100 individuals who had access to RMR 1029, were any others found to suffer from mental illness, be under the care of a mental health professional, or prescribed anti-depressant/anti-psychotic medications? If so, how many?
14. What role did the FBI play in conducting and updating the background examination of Dr. Ivins in order for him to have clearance and work with deadly pathogens at Ft. Detrick?
15. After the FBI identified Dr. Ivins as the sole suspect, why was he not detained? Did the U.S. Attorney's Office object to seeking an arrest or material witness warrant? If not, did anyone at FBI order a slower approach to arresting Ivins?
16. Had an indictment of Dr. Ivins been drafted before his death? If so, what additional information did it contain beyond the affidavits already released to the public? If not, then when, if ever, had a decision been made to seek an indictment from the grand jury?
17. According to family members, FBI agents publicly confronted and accused Dr. Ivins of the attacks, showed pictures of the victims to his daughter, and offered the $2.5 million reward to his son in the months leading up to his suicide. These aggressive, overt surveillance techniques appear similar to those used on Dr. Hatfill with the apparent purpose of intimidation rather than legitimate investigation. Please describe whether and to what degree there is any truth to these claims.
18. What additional documents will be released, if any, and when will they be released?
Please provide your responses in electronic format. Please have your staff contact (202) 224-4515 with any questions related to this request.
Sincerely,
Josh
Zachary
It's sad that, over the past couple of generations, our federal government has proven itself to be so corrupt and inept that almost EVERYTHING it does is questioned.
In dictatorships, this is naturally a common occurance, but it appears to be more and more prevalent in our democracy. The fact that mistakes are made and inefficiencies are ordinary in a beauracracy is not all that destructive. However, when commoners are constantly questioning the honesty of the folks in charge it becomes more of and endemic problem and a social crisis.
In my belief, this process is probably more of a cause of the total destruction of governments (at least internally) than anything else.
Of course, if very few of the common folk actually realize what is happening... especially due to complacency... the destruction can be much more severe and the powers are more apt to have the ability to take complete control of the processes... something which is becoming more obvious here.
Just think how many more (even percentage wise) folks with guns and authority from the federal government are running around today compared to even during the major war era. Look at how many state folks with weapons and powers to arrest are operating today. Check out the number of prisons now available for the population, complete with guards. Then look at the total lack of accountability at the top of the food chain.
This brings me back to my main point. We now have a government we can no longer trust for being honest in any way, but no longer have the ability to put checks upon its power... other than voting them out, of course... except that the only folks who we apparently able to replace them with are the ones the same corrupt powers have chosen for us... and so few folks pay attention to the operations in Washington that even those choices are in jeapardy of being lost... IMHO
August 8, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Two other important questions to ask:
What about handwriting analysis between Ivins and the letters?
Most importantly, as Ivins' colleague Dr. Meryl Nass asks, where is the evidence putting Ivins at the scene of the crime (the NJ P.O.) on the dates in question?
I know there are many good FBI agents, but overall, it looks like the F*d up Bureau of Investigation. For example, despite Colleen Rowley's best efforts, the Kops dead-ended her intelligence, thus paving the way for the attacks on the Twin Towers. And let's not forget their stellar work at Ruby Ridge, Waco and Atlanta, where their supreme terror-fighting intelligence bagged the wrong guy, Richard Jewell.
Now, with the 'Amerithrax' case, the FBI is batting 0 for 2 on 9/11--are they willfully stupid, or are they in on the take? How stupid do they think we are?
August 8, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are a number of very disturbing points contained in the documents released by the government on this issue. In no particular order of importance:
1) Reference is made to a single flask of RMR-1029. It would be very unusual to maintain a single container or any particular strain or sample, especially an important one. The more usual practice is to have multiple small samples, aliquots, of important strains in storage. This is done to for a number of reasons including prevention of contamination. If only one container of a particular strain exists and it inadvertantly becomes contaminated, then that strain is lost.
2) Specimens are not stored in 'flasks' or 'beakers', they would be stored in small sealable tubes specifically designed for the purpose.
3) The manufacture of anthrax spore powder is a very complicated and time consuming process. If one were to start with spores, they must first be grown in culture medium to a certain density, then they are removed from the growth medium and placed in a special nutrient deficient medium that stresses them and induces the formation of spores. Then this spore containing medium must be put through a clean up process and then freeze dried. Doing all of these tasks would necessarily consume a notable quantity of supplies, two types of medium, culture flasks, pipettes, protective clothing etc. and would also take quite a bit of time and effort. This would be a quite notable departure from routine maintenance activities and unless some extra material was made in the course of normal laboratory activities, it would almost certainly been noticed by co-workers.
4) Given the amount of work involved in making spore powder, and the timing of the suspect laboratory use, it would have been very difficult to start work on a project of this type, successfully produce two or three batches of powder, and then mail them over the few days that the suspect access events occurred. While it could have been done, it would have taken a nearly full time effort which would have been noticed. In the alternative, some spore powder could have been prepared and stored and only packaged in the suspect time period, but again, laboratory audits of sample storage would likely have shown extra or unusual quantities of material.
5) Nothing is reported on identification of any spores or traces of the final powders from the letters that were recovered during the search warrants.
6) Silicon is listed as being identified in some of the delivered letters. There is technology using silica as a non-clumping/dispersion aid for powdered bioweapons, but not silicon or silicone.
7) The search warrants make reference to isotopic studies identifying the water used as having come from the northeast. Laboratory work of this nature does not make use of tap water supplies. The water would have come from one of three sources, first commercially produced bottled ultra high purity water prepared for cell culture work. The second source would be derived from municipal supplies that would have been subjected to several exhaustive purification steps in the laboratory to produce water of the purity necessary to do this type of work. The third source would be commercially available medical grade water for injection. All of these processed grades of water will have particular contaminant profiles and oxygen isotope ratios. Ivins certainly would not have used raw tap water.
8) The critical need is to examine the data from all of the laboratory work the FBI commissioned.
9) As others have noted, what about all of the other people and institutions that had samples of this particular culture?
August 8, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if the FBI is rethinking the "closed" nature of the case, now that so much public attention has been directed at it.
If the research community is correct about the holes in the science/chain of custody issues, their assumptions may not hold, and they will be obliged to re-open the case.
Hatfill's settlement was 5 million. I wonder what a wrongful death suit will generate if Ivin's family can show that the FBI investigation contributed to the the death of a man who may have been innocent.
Ivins' son may be able to get that sports car after all.
August 8, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if the FBI is rethinking the "closed" nature of the case, now that so much public attention has been directed at it.
If the research community is correct about the holes in the science/chain of custody issues, their assumptions may not hold, and they will be obliged to re-open the case.
Hatfill's settlement was 5 million. I wonder what a wrongful death suit will generate if Ivin's family can show that the FBI investigation contributed to the the death of a man who may have been innocent.
Ivins' son may be able to get that sports car after all.
August 8, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
This Mr.dr.Ivins case involves a lot of science. That I do not know about. But you know who is spooky apart from Mr.Dr.Ivins? THat weirdo social worker who got the court order against him. Unless I was totally high, the news said she was on probation for DUI but was teaching a drug and alcohol rehab class? Now, I have nothing against people with DUIs, many people have got them. But tre bizzarre that the alc/drug rehab teacher has got one. It's like that blind-leading-the-blind saying.
August 8, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
An effective addiction treatment program on the needs of each individual resident.
===================
Taylor
washington drug rehab
November 13, 2008 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink