"The [FBI] says the evidence, including hundreds of pages of unsealed documents, proves that Dr. Ivins was the sole person responsible for the 2001 anthrax mailings. ... He committed suicide on July 29 after federal prosecutors informed him they intended to charge him in the attacks that killed five people and injured 17. ... U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor [JT] ... said there was no physical evidence that tied the researcher to the mailbox in Princeton. where the letters were mailed, but said authorities reached a 'reasonable conclusion' that it was possible he had done so, based on his past actions. ... Paul Kemp, Dr. Ivin's attorney, accused federal prosecutors of conducting 'an orchestrated dance of carefully worded statements, heaps of innuendo and a staggering lack of real evidence.' ... The FBI now faces a major challenge: making its version of events stick over the many competing narratives that have arisen in the intervening years, and over its own prior mistakes. ... 'We believe we could have proven Dr. Ivin's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,' said Mr. Taylor the U.S. Attorney", my emphasis, Evan Perez, Siobhan Gorman, Gary Fields and Elizabeth Williamson at the WSJ, 7 August 2008.
"It sounds like a very bad made-for-televison move: a mad scientist--a violent sociopath, a 'nerd with a dark side,' who had already tried to kill several people, is obsessed with pornography, and is fixated on a particular college sorority--unleashes a strain of anthrax through the U.S. mail, killing five, infecting 17 others, and terrorizing the country. His motive, aside from sheer antisocial vindictiveness: he holds the patent for an anthrax vaccine, and he also wants to direct the nation's attention to the supposedly overlooked and underfunded problem of bio-terrorism, That'll teach 'em! It sounds like some pretty execrable fiction, yet the FBI is peddling this farrago of shopworn cliches as the facts surrounding the alleged guilt of Bruce E. Ivins, whose suicide the other day ostensibly closes the 7-year-old anthrax terrorism case that has baffled investigators and shown a cruel light on the Bureau's methods and standards of conduct. ... The real topper has got to be the 'sorority obsession'. ... This passes muster in Hollywood, of course, since it embodies all the social prejudices so beloved by that temple of cultural corruption, yet in the real world one looks at it askance and wonders: are these guys kidding? ... Clearly, the whole purpose of bringing this sorority angle up is to smear a dead man as a pervert and cast him in the sinister light suitable for the villian in this crude media narrative. ... For all the 'genome tracing' and scientific detective work conducted by the FBI over a period of years, the reality is that they can trace the anthrax to a particular lab--but not, as several experts have pointed out, to a particular person. That would require real detective work of the gumshoe variety, as opposed to farming it out to scientists, many of whom are (or were) on the FBI's suspect list. (Ivins himself was recruited to this task.) Yet the FBI is not that concerned with the facts: what they're after is a good story, one that the media--and therefore, they think the public--will swallow without thinking about it too much. ... They aren't trying to convince a jury; after all, the guy is dead. ... Well, they didn't arrest him because there wasn't enough evidence. So they drove him to suicide, as the only alternative to confessing to a crime he didn't commit. ... Did they drive Ivins to suicide because he knew too much? ... Surely a lone nut could not have carried out this technically difficult and logistically complicted scheme", Justin Raimondo (JR) at antiwar.com, 6 August 2008.
"The anthrax murder case has become an epic embarassment for the [FBI], and the suicide of Ivins on July 29 forced the government to go public with its case against him before it was ready", my emphasis, Amada Ripley/Frederick at Time, 18 August 2008.
"Paul Kemp, Ivin's lawyer, said some of what's presented in the unsealed affidavits are 'speculative; theories that would never be admissible in court ... What's more, Kemp said, the FBI omitted evidence that might have been exculpatory, including that Ivins kept his security clearance after passing a polygraph in which he was questioned about the anthrax investigation", Michael Isikoff at Newsweek, 18 August 2008.
More sloppy WSJ reporting. How does the WSJ know what the DOJ's "caution" stems from? The most the WSJ could say is the DOJ "stated" where its caution stems from.
Who conducted this investigation? The FBI or Russia's FSB? "Skeptical reception"? You bet. I'm here. The "FBI would turn off the security cameras". How nice. Criminal lawyers should see a problem here. Many police agencies film arrests when possible. Why? To avoid lawsuits. Why did the FBI turn off those cameras? Will it say to look for things in the lab and not "compromise" its investigation, or to plant things in the lab? Even so, it could have kept the cameras on, given the films immediately to say a Texas Ranger or Michigan State Policeman, part of the "team", stationed at the lab, for safekeeping. Why do I suggest those agencies? They're not federal and still have good reputations. I see the FBI's turning off the cameras as "res gestae", i.e., "things done". Res gestae are admittable in criminal cases to show: motive, plan, intent, absence of mistake, etc. West's criminal law keys 351 and 364-370 include concealment as res gestae! I assume JT knows this. Yet he permitted it. Hmmm. As Justice Louis Brandeis once wrote, "sunlight is often the best disinfectant". The DOJ and FBI need lots of sunlight here.