Re: That Old Anthrax Case

On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 07:46:57 -0500, "Harry Thompson" <me@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


"George Z. Bush" <georgezbush@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:suKmk.10975$QX3.2062@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Why does the aroma of fish fill the air about this case? When all is said
and done, the FBI (and/or the administration) wants me to believe that it
took them five whole years to develop the DNA evidence needed to decide
such
a high profile matter in which the ENTIRE resources of the federal
government were at the disposal of the investigators throughout its life.
More to the point, that it brought it to the public's attention only
AFTER
their "chief suspect" was no longer alive to defend himself in any way.
Why
do I have the feeling that any federal grand jury would have tossed their
case out on its keister anywhere along the line if it had been presented
to
them?

To me, this has the same stench as one more WMD that could never be found
even after we owned the battlefield. Five years and we couldn't get
around
to doing anything until we perhaps drove the "chief suspect" to suicide
and
now we're able to make all of the accusations we wish since the target
will
no longer be able to refute a single one of them.

To me, it stinks and I remain unconvinced that they got the real culprit.

George Z.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WASHINGTON (AP) - Advanced DNA testing led federal investigators to
suspect
a government scientist in the 2001 anthrax killings. The scientist's
behavior, e-mails and unusual work hours convinced them they had the right
man.

[snip]

I'm suspicious too, in part due to the tone of the reporting. It seems to me
that AP is enthusiastically reporting FBI PR handouts uncritically. It just
has the tone of FBI self-exoneration with nothing substantial to support it.

"Advanced DNA testing?" Oh, boy. Razzle-dazzle science to the rescue! As I
recall this DNA testing was performed very soon after the 2001 incidents.
But the tone of the news implies that this is new testing just done that
absolutely, positively proves the FBI's case. But it doesn't actually say
the testing is new, it just implies so. This testing was performed right
after the incident, not now. That is why the FBI first pinned the crime on
Steve Hatfill, does anybody remember? It is that misdirection of time which
arouses my suspicions.

As for Ivins having psychological problems, perhaps. But that is indicative
of nothing, certainly it is not proof of guilt. A prosecutor's trick to win
convictions is to present some oddity of behavior, and put a bad
interpretation on the oddity. In logic, it is the red herring fallacy.

Let me give an alternative theory.

Does anybody remember our military (Army I think it was) releasing germs
over San Francisco in the early fifties to test dispersion patterns for
biological warfare? They thought the germs were harmless, but some people
got sick, and I think some died from it.

Suppose our military is testing aerosols for targeted assassinations by
germs. The ostensible targets of this test weren't actually harmed, after
all. They were practically tipped off. But the military didn't figure that
there might be leakage caused by post office sorting machines. Oops, back to
the drawing board.

Would our military test weapons on our own citizens? Why not? It's for our
own good, isn't it? Remember San Francisco?

To put this in perspective, back in the 60's while attending ABC
school on Treasure Island in San Francisco Bay, I saw a training film
on that release of bacteria -- a film that was made long before the
*** hit the fan. The bacteria in question were believed to be
completely harmless to humans -- let me repeat -- believed to be
completely harmless. Keep in mind that at this very moment your own
body is crawling with bacteria -- the air and soil are filled with
them, and in any nursery you can buy bacteria to spray in your garden.
Anyhow, the bacteria were released from a car cruising along (as I
recall) a road in Twin Peaks overlooking the city. Monitoring stations
around the city were set up to detect the bacteria and determine the
vulnerability of a city like San Francisco to bacteriological attack.
Those bacteria drifted into a hospital and gave an already gravely ill
man pneumonia, and killed him. Clearly in retrospect it was a bad
idea, but it certainly demonstrated the vulnerability of US cities to
bacteriological attack. It was an accident, and an ill advised screw
up, but to this day it continues to be fodder for left wing lunatic
conspiracy theorists. And Harry, if you and George aren't sure who I'm
referring to as a lunatic, it's who you think it is. (-8

The FBI doesn't even have to be a part of it. From on high, they would be
told "Look here" "Forget that lead" so that the FBI spins its wheels.

I think it is best not to draw conclusions one way or the other. This is not
a solved case and it is not going to be.




.