Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Ed Lake Reports That the FBI Amerithrax Investigation May Close in Late January

"There is...ongoing criminal and civil litigation concerning the Amerithrax investigation and information derived therefrom, and an independent review of the FBI’s 'detective work' at this time could adversely affect those proceedings."---FBI Director Mueller (September 15, 2009)

Ed Lake, a retired computer expert who has been chronicling the investigation of the anthrax mailings, has been told that the FBI hopes to officially close the Amerithrax case in late January 2010.

Mr. Lake writes (12-27-09 (B):

Back in July of this year, several people told me that the FBI was notifying victims, victims' families and everyone who had cooperated with the Amerithrax investigation that the case was going to be officially closed on Friday, July 24. Like everyone else, I waited for it to happen. But, at the last moment, the Department Of Justice decided that there were still things that needed to be done, and they kept the case open. You may remember that, a couple days later, the media reported that the DOJ had been "on the verge" of closing the case before backing off.

The first part of that process appears to be happening again. The FBI is notifying people, but they can't give an exact date because the DOJ will again be making the decision about when to make the official announcement. So, people are being told the closing of the case is expected to take place "at the end of January." The FBI will try to call everyone again after the exact date is given to the FBI, which may be at 4 p.m. on the day before an 8 a.m. announcement.

...Something evidently happened in mid-November that finally brought an end to the Amerithrax investigation. After it happened, all the remaining FBI personnel investigating the case were then reportedly reassigned to other cases. The only remaining chore may have been the writing, editing and getting acceptance of the case summary...

The rumors about the happenings in mid-November are numerous but not very clear. They all relate to this statement made by FBI Director Mueller in a September 15 letter:

"There is also ongoing criminal and civil litigation concerning the Amerithrax investigation and information derived therefrom, and an independent review of the FBI’s 'detective work' at this time could adversely affect those proceedings."

One rumor from early November indicated that someone was about to be indicted on a charge of "accessory after the fact" in the Amerithrax case. Another rumor from late November indicated that the same person was actually indicted on a charge of "lying to a federal officer." There's been nothing in the media about any of this. But there are rumors explaining that, too, rumors which I'd better keep to myself.

"Accessory after the fact" is defined this way in one legal dictionary:

"An accessory after the fact is someone who knows that a crime has occurred but nonetheless helps to conceal it."

"Lying to a federal officer" might mean that, when asked, that same person lied and said he or she knew nothing, i.e., "helps to conceal" the crime. What's most interesting, of course, is that if charges were made and if an indictment was actually handed down, that means that there is evidence proving that the person indicted did indeed have critical knowledge of exactly who committed the anthrax attacks of 2001.

The truly surprising part of this is that the person supposedly indicted is not a scientist and did not work at Ft. Detrick. Yet, it's easy to understand how others might know details about the murders allegedly committed by Dr. Ivins when you recall that Dr. Ivins evidently saw no problem with emailing others to tell them about his suspicious actions before and after the attacks. He also didn't have any problem telling his psychotherapy group that he planned to murder his co-workers at Ft. Detrick in order to go down in a blaze of glory before he could be arrested for mass murder and terrorism. And, he was a diagnosed sociopath, which could mean that he didn't see anything wrong with what he did and would want to explain his actions to other people.

After analyzing all these rumors, one might deduce that, at some point in time, Dr. Ivins actually told someone that he had sent the anthrax letters. And others somehow heard or learned what Dr. Ivins said to that person. But that is just an interpretation. No rumor actually mentions any such a thing.

Yet, if it were true, spending time to clarify and document exactly what Dr. Ivins told that person would certainly be worth delaying the closing of the Amerithrax investigation. It would be as near as we're likely to get to an actual confession. And once all the details are clarified and documented, it would be all over. Investigators could be assigned to other cases, and a time could be set for the official closing of the case -- like at the end of January. [Read the full text of the 12-27-09 (B) remarks.]


Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is the fellow who is 99% certain that a First Grader wrote the anthrax letters. See website.
In comparison, how certain is he of the rumor he is spreading that he explained elsewhere was mailed to him anonymously? He explained on the CaseClosed blog that he did know who emailed him anonymously with the rumor. Something you neglect to note because he neglected to disclose in starting the rumor.

He also has explained that he is the only one who was mistaken and did not know that there were 8 identical isolates and up to 300 individuals with access -- rather than just one isolate and one individual (i.e., Ivins).

It seems, Snapple, that there is an attribution issue and a related credibility issue, eh?

5:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ed wrote:

"I have two sources. Source A is someone who knew Dr. Ivins. I know the identity of Source A, and I know Source A’s connection to Dr. Ivins. Source A wrote me: “The close date for the case is the end of Jan.” Source A was notified of that approximate date by the FBI. Source A was notified because Source A will be one of many people mentioned in the released documents and, as a result, Source A will undoubtedly have to deal with a media onslaught. When the exact date has been determined, Source A and the others will be notified on the day before that date so that they can be prepared."

[Comment: "A" is a scientist who is not privy to the investigative aspects of the case and whose contact is limited to FBI scientists, who similarly are not privy.]

Source B is evidently someone who knows people who knew Dr. Ivins. I do not know the actual identity of Source B. I just get occasional emails. Source B stated that a person who knew Dr. Ivins was indicted for “lying to a federal officer.” The “lies” were in the form of documents, not verbal statements. Person B also stated that the last FBI agent on the case was shifted over to other cases at that same time. The indictment apparently occurred in mid-November. I know the name of the person who was allegedly indicted, and I know the connection between that person and Dr. Ivins. The indicted person is not a scientist and does not work for Ft. Detrick. The indicted person is also NOT Source A but has a connection to Source A.

The FBI was not “misled” by the false documents. The FBI saw that the documents did not match was was already known and therefore had the DOJ charge the perpetrator with “lying to a federal officer.”

I do not know the nature of the lies. But knowing who allegedly did the lying, I can make guesses as to the general nature of the lies and the reasons for the lying.

However, as I said before, Source B is almost certainly not privy to the whole picture. So, while I have absolutely no reason to doubt what Person B has told me, I have to assume that there is more to the story and the missing parts would explain why the DOJ felt it was necessary to go to the extreme of getting an indictment in order to (apparently) force the person indicted to supply the REAL documents."

Snapple, if you want to deal with the documents and facts, rather than internet rumormongering where Ed doesn't even know the identity of the person starting the rumor, see

"USAMRIID RMR records – Dr. Bruce Ivins’ flask 1029 – two documents don’t match"


5:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Look how Ed interpreted the FoxNews report, based on the email that Ivins wrote, through the lens of his beliefs.

He wrote:

“March 30, 2008 (B) – The Fox News story titled “FBI Focusing on ‘About Four’ Suspects in 2001 Anthrax Attacks” is still the hot topic of discussion and continues to float all by itself in the pool of current news.

Ed writes:

“When I first heard the mention of “4 suspects,” I couldn’t help but wonder if someone hadn’t misinterpreted something, since my analysis indicates that there may have been 4 people involved in the anthrax attacks of 2001: The Supplier, The Refiner/Mailer, The Letter Writer [ie., the First Grader] and someone I’ve referred to as “The Speaker.”
But, the more times I read the Fox News article and listened to the video, the more it seems that the whole Fox story is a concoction put together to create a controversy. Why on earth would a single “law enforcement source” suddenly come forward at this point in time to talk about “four suspects” with three of them at Ft. Detrick? And where did the email come from that describes something that clearly happened years ago?”

[The email was written by Bruce Ivins. ]

Ed continues:

“It seems far more likely that this story has been around for years and, as a result of the controversy over Toni Locy’s Contempt of Court ruling, someone at Fox just decided it was the right time to make a story out of it.
The things in the Fox News story about 4 suspects seem to be just a belief or a theory or, perhaps, an interpretation by that single “law enforcement source.” It is totally unsupported information.”

[ It was a report by a DOJ correspondent at a national news outlet. ]

5:52 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home