CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Anthrax Killer commits suicide
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Anthrax Killer commits suicide

post #1 of 26
Thread Starter 
From Yahoo:

By ADAM GELLER, AP National Writer
Fri Aug 1, 7:38 PM ET



It's been nearly seven years, but folks in Oxford, Conn., still remember the workers in hazmat suits, scouring the pews of Immanuel Lutheran Church for unseen spores of anthrax.

They remember lining up to be tested for the toxin, and being afraid to open their mail. They remember 94-year-old Ottilie Lundgren — a church-going widow, long-retired legal secretary and a bioterrorist's most unlikely victim.

"Something like that you never really get over," Thomas Condon, a friend of Lundgren's, said Friday. "It always stays in your memory."

For the rest of us, the years between then and now have made it easy to forget the dread and terror that seized the nation during the anthrax-by-mail attacks, and to lose track of the frustrated investigation that long failed to solve them.

On Friday, all those memories came flooding back.

After years of futility, investigators said they had been preparing to charge a government scientist, Bruce E. Ivins, with hatching the plot, before he committed suicide this week. The final answers may well have died with him.

When the anthrax attacks began, smoke was still rising from the charred pit of the World Trade Center. U.S. jet fighters moved into position, ready to unleash their bombs on Afghanistan's defiant regime.

Any moment now, Americans told each other, the terrorists might well act again. Nobody could say where or when or, most ominously, how.

Still, when a Florida photographer, Bob Stevens, died of inhaled anthrax on Oct. 5, 2001, it captured relatively little notice and stirred more sorrow than fear. Then one of Stevens' co-workers was diagnosed. And another.

Days later, an assistant at the New York offices of NBC News was diagnosed. Investigators traced it to the powder contained in a mysterious letter. It was postmarked Sept. 18 and, in what would become a familiar detail, dispatched from a mailbox in the tidy downtown of Princeton, N.J.

Soon after, a similar letter, also pre-stamped and without any return address, arrived at the Capitol Hill offices of the Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. Inside, a worker found the same powder and a chilling message.

"You're going to die," it read.

Even before the first report of anthrax, post-9/11 worries had sent a book on germ warfare up to the No. 2 spot on Amazon.com's list of best-sellers. Now the hypothetical bioterror threat was becoming real.

"I could probably drop a package of Sweet n' Low and evacuate this building," a Florida county official, Ken Pineau, said at the time.

At some Army-Navy stores, clerks imposed limits on how many gas masks a single customer could buy. At pharmacies, sales of ciprofloxacin — the antibiotic used to combat anthrax — multiplied by 10.

"In Cipro we trust," a solemn Tom Brokaw told his "NBC Nightly News" audience.

By November 2001, five people were dead — Ottilie Lundgren the last among them — and 17 others were sickened. Workers in bubble suits decontaminated federal office buildings in Washington after anthrax letters were discovered there. The attacks shut some postal substations for years.

Who would do this?

The letter to Daschle hailed Allah, and speculation focused on Arab terrorists. The first victim, it was noted, lived in Lantana, Fla. near an airfield where 9/11 terrorist Mohamed Atta rented planes. Perhaps that was the key.

But there was no evidence to back that up, and hoaxes did not clarify the situation. Letters containing white powder were sent to scores of Planned Parenthood clinics, fueling conjecture that the plot was the work of far-right zealots.

But investigators who analyzed the anthrax dismissed both ideas. The toxin was a sophisticated form, carefully manufactured by someone who was highly skilled.

By the early months of 2002, investigators were zeroing in on 20 to 30 scientists they said had both the knowledge and opportunity to send the anthrax letters.

The only name that surfaced: Steven J. Hatfill, a biowarfare expert who had worked at the Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, Md. Federal officials repeatedly identified him as a "person of interest."

By August of that year, it was clear Hatfill was the prime suspect. FBI agents wearing protective gloves searched his apartment and a storage locker. They found no trace of anthrax.

"I want to look my fellow Americans directly in the eye and declare to them, 'I am not the anthrax killer," Hatfill said. "I know nothing about the anthrax attacks. I had absolutely nothing to do with this horrible crime."

But the investigation continued to focus on him.

In June 2003, investigators drained 1.45 million gallons of water from a pond eight miles from Fort Detrick. The drastic step came after divers found a plastic box with two holes cut into it that some investigators theorized could have been used to safely fill envelopes with deadly anthrax spores.

The pond produced a gun, a bicycle and fishing lures — but no further evidence.

Later that summer, Hatfill sued the Attorney General John Ashcroft and other federal officials, accusing them of turning him into a scapegoat.

The investigation ebbed and flowed, with little outward sign of progress. In 2006, the FBI changed the leadership of the team investigating the attacks.

It's not clear when their attention turned to Ivins.

The microbiologist had briefly been the subject of some controversy in late 2001, when Army internal reports showed he decontaminated an area of Fort Detrick lab's for anthrax without reporting it to his superiors.

Ivins apologized and was not disciplined. In fact, he was praised.

In 2003, he shared the Decoration for Exceptional Civilian Service, the highest honor given to civilians Defense Department employees, for his work on a vaccine for anthrax.

Years later, investigators turned their attention from Hatfill to him. They interviewed the latter man's family and colleagues, developing a picture of a man both brilliant and emotionally unstable.

Maryland court documents show he recently received psychiatric treatment and was ordered to stay away from a woman he was accused of stalking and threatening to kill.

Friends said he knew the FBI was on his tail and that he felt hounded. Investigators raided his home twice. Agents in cars with tinted windows conducted regular surveillance.

In late June, the Justice Department settled its suit with Hatfill, agreeing to pay him $5.8 million — and, at least in the public perception, exoneration.

About two weeks later, police were called to Fort Detrick to speak with Ivins. He was taken to a hospital for psychiatric evaluation because of concern he was a danger to himself or others. He was eventually released.

This past Tuesday, he committed suicide at Frederick Memorial Hospital in Maryland. His lawyer blamed the death on the government's "relentless pressure of accusation and innuendo."

The scientist's death brought back memories of the terror visited by the anthrax attacks, but leaves many questions unanswered.

"I think the FBI owes us a complete accounting of their investigation and ought to be able to tell us at some point, how we're going to bring this to closure," Daschle told The Associated Press.

"It's been seven years, there's a lot of unanswered questions," he said, "and I think the American people deserve to know more than they do today."



The thing is, we don't really know that he was the killer. There are so many weird aspects to this story. A serial killer who is "activated" by the 911 attacks. A totally random wacko being confused with Al Queda , Osama Bin Ladins message that America was killing itself as a result of the attacks (he was referring to the Anthrax deaths). Congress being evacuated when they found a contaiminated envelope. Strange days....
post #2 of 26
I thought this said Anthrax singer commits suicide.
post #3 of 26
Left out by the AP is the congressional targets of the attack - Senators Leahy and Daschle, both of whom were roadblocking the Patriot Act. Also left out is the administration's false claim that the anthrax showed signs of originating in Iraq. But the guy "committed suicide," so no arrest, no trial. Maybe this whole thing is fishy, or maybe I'm just paranoid.
post #4 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
Left out by the AP is the congressional targets of the attack - Senators Leahy and Daschle, both of whom were roadblocking the Patriot Act. Also left out is the administration's false claim that the anthrax showed signs of originating in Iraq. But the guy "committed suicide," so no arrest, no trial. Maybe this whole thing is fishy, or maybe I'm just paranoid.
That's one of the first things that came to mind; "was this guy a patsy?"
post #5 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
Maybe this whole thing is fishy, or maybe I'm just paranoid.
Just because it's fishy doesn't mean you're not paranoid.
post #6 of 26
Indeed. So, as the Feds prepare to close the book on the Anthrax case, actual journalists are pondering exactly what's being swept under the rug here (though not on the corporate news, of course).

Read Larisa Alexandrovna's thoughts here.
post #7 of 26
The naysayers would be just a bit more credible if at least they let the government make the case. Perhaps the people investigating this for 7 years know a bit more about it than your random bloggers.

I like how blogs now are cited as a better alternative to the "corporate media", I have a blog too, that must make me more reliable than the NY Times or Washington Post!
post #8 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
Left out by the AP is the congressional targets of the attack - Senators Leahy and Daschle, both of whom were roadblocking the Patriot Act. Also left out is the administration's false claim that the anthrax showed signs of originating in Iraq. But the guy "committed suicide," so no arrest, no trial. Maybe this whole thing is fishy, or maybe I'm just paranoid.
It is fishy. And if you're not paranoid by now you ought to be.

Quote:
I like how blogs now are cited as a better alternative to the "corporate media"
Depends on the story. And, importantly, it depends on the blogger. Christ, I hate that word.

Quote:
I have a blog too, that must make me more reliable than the NY Times or Washington Post!
That's a false correlation. Though again, it depends on the story, and the circumstances. Certainly I take a dim view of the Judy Miller Times and the Woodward Post.
post #9 of 26
He neither did "kill" anyone, nor did he commit "suicide". Same shitty coverfuck as always. Someday this thing will make a nice little documentary.
post #10 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post
I like how blogs now are cited as a better alternative to the "corporate media", I have a blog too, that must make me more reliable than the NY Times or Washington Post!
Sooo... was he a patsy?
post #11 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by myk View Post
Sooo... was he a patsy?
He was nothin' but a dirty patsy! A mook. A mug. A Sally. A canary. A greaseball. A wet portion. A wet sock. A jelly bean. He wasn't keen on the kibosh so he went down kippy.

Myeah shee.
post #12 of 26
But certainly we must forget all the pundits and politicians who were sure the anthrax attacks were based from Iraq. I mean, those people have never led us astray, correct?
post #13 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
Left out by the AP is the congressional targets of the attack - Senators Leahy and Daschle, both of whom were roadblocking the Patriot Act. Also left out is the administration's false claim that the anthrax showed signs of originating in Iraq. But the guy "committed suicide," so no arrest, no trial. Maybe this whole thing is fishy, or maybe I'm just paranoid.
Leahy and Daschle, along with every other Senator but Russ Feingold, voted for the Patriot Act. So what exactly are you suggesting, yt? That the Bush Administration tried to off two senators who ended up supporting the bill?
post #14 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe LeFors View Post
Leahy and Daschle, along with every other Senator but Russ Feingold, voted for the Patriot Act. So what exactly are you suggesting, yt? That the Bush Administration tried to off two senators who ended up supporting the bill?
Nope. I'm just suggesting what I posted.
post #15 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
Left out by the AP is the congressional targets of the attack - Senators Leahy and Daschle, both of whom were roadblocking the Patriot Act.
So....what are you suggesting, then?

(Also, those two senators did support the Patriot Act. I'm not just making that up.)
post #16 of 26
The Patriot Act was introduced in Congress at the beginning of October 2001. Senate majority leader Daschle had issues with aspects of it and expressed doubts that it would pass in the one week timetable sought by the administration.
Washington Post, 10/3/01

A few days later, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy accuses the administration of reneging on a compromise in the bill.
Washington Post, 10/4/01

The letters are mailed on October 9, but the stalemate in the senate continues.

The Patriot Act is signed into law on October 26, without public or congressional debate, without the majority of congresspeople having the opportunity to even read it.

While you're right that Feingold was the only Senator with the stones to vote against the Patriot Act, there was dissent. This is in the days immediately following 9/11, when dissent is being characterized as unpatriotic, and fear is seemingly the prevailing motivator behind policy. When suddenly two dissenters in positions of authority in the Senate are targeted for this kind of attack, I for one think it's urgently important that the facts surrounding the case be fully disclosed -- even if it turns out that Ivins is a "lone nut." I'd like to see the proof that it was him and see a case built for why he would then target Daschle and Leahy at this particular moment in time, even though he had been working in a high security job at Ft. Detrick for over two decades. None of this makes you at all curious?
post #17 of 26
Oh, I'm certainly curious as to why he did this, but your theory about the administration plotting to kill Daschle and Leahy just doesn't make any sense. First off, my point about the two of them actually supporting the bill. And, regardless of their objections, they did vote for it.

Second, and maybe even more importantly: it doesn't make sense logistically. Everyone knows that Senators don't open, or even see, their own mail. So, best-case scenario, the letter makes it to Daschle's office, and kills some 19 year-old intern form Sioux Falls. If the administration had wanted to kill Daschle (which is really a pretty dumb and offensive notion to begin with), I think they could have done a little bit better than this.
post #18 of 26
I'm not saying I know the answers or that my theory is correct, just that this is an important investigation - there are a lot of threads to it that, taken separately, can be shrugged off, but put together create a much stranger picture.

And, no, I don't think that if Daschle and Leahy were targeted over the Patriot Act that the goal would be to kill them. But it makes an immediate and intimidating point.

There are other interesting factors to this that I don't think should die with this suspect, who is being unfairly dragged through the mud without his side of the story being vetted in court.
post #19 of 26
I tend to trust the Wall Street Journal on this one, these idiots have been wrong twice, they spent months intimidating everyone at that Lab until they found a weak link which was Ivins. Lt. Col. Philip Zack is the most likely suspect and no one seems to be looking at him.

Quote:
Bruce Ivins Wasn't the Anthrax Culprit
By RICHARD SPERTZEL
August 5, 2008; Page A17

Over the past week the media was gripped by the news that the FBI was about to charge Bruce Ivins, a leading anthrax expert, as the man responsible for the anthrax letter attacks in September/October 2001.

But despite the seemingly powerful narrative that Ivins committed suicide because investigators were closing in, this is still far from a shut case. The FBI needs to explain why it zeroed in on Ivins, how he could have made the anthrax mailed to lawmakers and the media, and how he (or anyone else) could have pulled off the attacks, acting alone.

I believe this is another mistake in the investigation.

Let's start with the anthrax in the letters to Sens. Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy. The spores could not have been produced at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, where Ivins worked, without many other people being aware of it. Furthermore, the equipment to make such a product does not exist at the institute.

Information released by the FBI over the past seven years indicates a product of exceptional quality. The product contained essentially pure spores. The particle size was 1.5 to 3 microns in diameter. There are several methods used to produce anthrax that small. But most of them require milling the spores to a size small enough that it can be inhaled into the lower reaches of the lungs. In this case, however, the anthrax spores were not milled.

What's more, they were also tailored to make them potentially more dangerous. According to a FBI news release from November 2001, the particles were coated by a "product not seen previously to be used in this fashion before." Apparently, the spores were coated with a polyglass which tightly bound hydrophilic silica to each particle. That's what was briefed (according to one of my former weapons inspectors at the United Nations Special Commission) by the FBI to the German Foreign Ministry at the time.

Another FBI leak indicated that each particle was given a weak electric charge, thereby causing the particles to repel each other at the molecular level. This made it easier for the spores to float in the air, and increased their retention in the lungs.

In short, the potential lethality of anthrax in this case far exceeds that of any powdered product found in the now extinct U.S. Biological Warfare Program. In meetings held on the cleanup of the anthrax spores in Washington, the product was described by an official at the Department of Homeland Security as "according to the Russian recipes" -- apparently referring to the use of the weak electric charge.

The latest line of speculation asserts that the anthrax's DNA, obtained from some of the victims, initially led investigators to the laboratory where Ivins worked. But the FBI stated a few years ago that a complete DNA analysis was not helpful in identifying what laboratory might have made the product.

Furthermore, the anthrax in this case, the "Ames strain," is one of the most common strains in the world. Early in the investigations, the FBI said it was similar to strains found in Haiti and Sri Lanka. The strain at the institute was isolated originally from an animal in west Texas and can be found from Texas to Montana following the old cattle trails. Samples of the strain were also supplied to at least eight laboratories including three foreign laboratories. Four French government laboratories reported on studies with the Ames strain, citing the Pasteur Institute in Paris as the source of the strain they used. Organism DNA is not a very reliable way to make a case against a scientist.

The FBI has not officially released information on why it focused on Ivins, and whether he was about to be charged or arrested. And when the FBI does release this information, we should all remember that the case needs to be firmly based on solid information that would conclusively prove that a lone scientist could make such a sophisticated product.

From what we know so far, Bruce Ivins, although potentially a brilliant scientist, was not that man. The multiple disciplines and technologies required to make the anthrax in this case do not exist at Army's Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases. Inhalation studies are conducted at the institute, but they are done using liquid preparations, not powdered products.

The FBI spent between 12 and 18 months trying "to reverse engineer" (make a replica of) the anthrax in the letters sent to Messrs. Daschle and Leahy without success, according to FBI news releases. So why should federal investigators or the news media or the American public believe that a lone scientist would be able to do so?

Mr. Spertzel, head of the biological-weapons section of Unscom from 1994-99, was a member of the Iraq Survey Group.
post #20 of 26
It's now looking like the administration pressured the FBI to blame al Qaida and more recently the FBI hounded Ivins to the extent of intimidating his kids.

Zack is an interesting thread to follow, as he was observed unlawfully entering the lab at Ft. Detrick and evidently went on to work at a biotech firm tied to Rumsfeld.

Clearly this is a complicated story, and Ivins is being unfairly exposed in the media. From what I've read, the earlier FBI team assigned to the case was actually investigating, while the subsequent team started trying to pin it on Ft. Detrick scientists, resulting in the $5.8 mil Hatfill lawsuit.
post #21 of 26
At this point the next Democrat who gets into office will have to purge every single government agency and rebuild them from the bottom up. When you cannot trust the FBI then shit is over,.
post #22 of 26
So, shit's been over since J. Edgar Hoover, then?
post #23 of 26
post #24 of 26
Hmmm. A little while ago David Kelly, the UK weapons inspector who sort of blew the whistle about the WMDs in Iraq being bullshit, committed suicide. And now the 'Anthrax Killer' does the same. Seems like someone's doing his spring cleaning early. Taking care of some post 9/11 loose ends. Do you think Colin Powell should start looking over his shoulder more?

Damn I love conspiracy theories.
post #25 of 26
Maybe I'm daft, but I don't see where in the article it says he was exonerated? It says he couldn't have been the sole perpetrator, but I'm not seeing anything that exonerates him.
post #26 of 26
No, the article doesn't say he is exonerated but judging from their single hypothesis as to how he could have done it was shredded by their tests I think it's clear that he wasn't involved. He was incapable of doing what he would have had to have done to be involved. Ergo: the FBI (once again) had the wrong guy whom they evidently hounded into suicide.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Anthrax Killer commits suicide