5 ms·

I agree with you, I was just interested in the bit about the code and GEB. That said, earlier in the summary the FBI does lay out some decent evidence of guilt.

I agree with you, I was just interested in the bit about the code and GEB. That said, earlier in the summary the FBI does lay out some decent evidence of guilt. DNA testing shows the anthrax almost certainly came from a flask in Ivins' possession. He also spent an inordinate amount of time in the lab in September and October of 2001. There are still some loose ends (like the amount of silica in the anthrax) but I'm guessing the FBI doesn't want to say, "There was probably someone else and he made a clean getaway."

gnosis 17y ago
It's true that the report is quite effective at casting suspicion on Ivans. However, it's based completely on circumstantial evidence. Also, the investigators seem to assume that only one person was involved. For example, the investigators eliminate other suspects with the requisite knowledge, access, and means to make the anthrax that was used in the mailing simply because the suspects must have been at work or far away at the time the letters were mailed. The investigators don't even consider the possibility that the letters might have been mailed by accomplice(s) while the scientists who actually prepared the anthrax were at work. Ivans' actions and words were subject to intense scruitiny, and found to be suspicious. But what about the actions and words of those other suspects, which were prematurely cleared of suspicion? Their own actions and words might have been equally suspicious, but the investigators apparently did not scrutinize them nearly as closely (or at all?), because they thought that merely because the suspects couldn't have mailed the letters they couldn't have been involved in the crime. Another glaring fault of the investigation is that although the investigators looked at records of deaths from "unknown causes" following the mailings (because of the possibility that whoever made/sent the letters might have died through contact with the anthrax) the investigators only checked for such suspicious deaths in the New Jersey county where the letters were mailed from. But even Ivans himself was from Maryland, not New Jersey. If the person who mailed/made the anthrax died of "unknown causes" anywhere outside the New Jersey county the investigators looked in, they'd never know. The report also never mentions why the foreign laboratories that contained the Ames strain were discounted as possible sources of the anthrax. And were their records and personnel as closely scrutinized as those of the American labs? Finally, footnote 13 states "In the summer of 2009, the National Academy of Sciences began an 18-month study to review the scientific conclusions in the case." Since cutting-edge, possibly unreliable science was so critical in determining the alleged source of the anthrax, it'll be interesting to see what this study comes up with. If the science turns out to be suspect, the conclusions of the investigation would be jeopardized.

gnosis 17y ago

It's true that the report is quite effective at casting suspicion on Ivans. However, it's based completely on circumstantial evidence. Also, the investigators seem to assume that only one person was involved. For example, the investigators eliminate other suspects with the requisite knowledge, access, and means to make the anthrax that was used in the mailing simply because the suspects must have been at work or far away at the time the letters were mailed. The investigators don't even consider the possibility that the letters might have been mailed by accomplice(s) while the scientists who actually prepared the anthrax were at work. Ivans' actions and words were subject to intense scruitiny, and found to be suspicious. But what about the actions and words of those other suspects, which were prematurely cleared of suspicion? Their own actions and words might have been equally suspicious, but the investigators apparently did not scrutinize them nearly as closely (or at all?), because they thought that merely because the suspects couldn't have mailed the letters they couldn't have been involved in the crime. Another glaring fault of the investigation is that although the investigators looked at records of deaths from "unknown causes" following the mailings (because of the possibility that whoever made/sent the letters might have died through contact with the anthrax) the investigators only checked for such suspicious deaths in the New Jersey county where the letters were mailed from. But even Ivans himself was from Maryland, not New Jersey. If the person who mailed/made the anthrax died of "unknown causes" anywhere outside the New Jersey county the investigators looked in, they'd never know. The report also never mentions why the foreign laboratories that contained the Ames strain were discounted as possible sources of the anthrax. And were their records and personnel as closely scrutinized as those of the American labs? Finally, footnote 13 states "In the summer of 2009, the National Academy of Sciences began an 18-month study to review the scientific conclusions in the case." Since cutting-edge, possibly unreliable science was so critical in determining the alleged source of the anthrax, it'll be interesting to see what this study comes up with. If the science turns out to be suspect, the conclusions of the investigation would be jeopardized.