Hair Samples in Anthrax Case Don't Match

[mhatrw]

Source: Washington Post

Hair Samples in Anthrax Case Don't Match

Strands From Mailbox in Princeton Are Not From Ivins, Investigators Say

By Carrie Johnson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 14, 2008; Page A02

Federal investigators probing the deadly 2001 anthrax attacks recovered samples of human hair from a mailbox in Princeton, N.J., but the strands did not match the lead suspect in the case, according to sources briefed on the probe. FBI agents and U.S. Postal Service inspectors analyzed the data in an effort to place Fort Detrick, Md., scientist Bruce E. Ivins at the mailbox from which bacteria-laden letters were sent to Senate offices and media organizations, the sources said.

The hair sample is one of many pieces of evidence over which researchers continue to puzzle in the case, which ended after Ivins committed suicide July 29 as prosecutors prepared to seek his indictment. Authorities released sworn statements and search warrants last week at a news conference in which they asserted that Ivins was their sole suspect. But the materials have not dampened speculation about the merits of the investigative findings and the government's aggressive pursuit of Ivins, a 62-year-old anthrax vaccine researcher. Conspiracy theories have flourished since the 2001 attacks, which killed five people and sickened 17 others.

Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee announced it will call FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III to appear at an oversight hearing Sept. 17, when he is likely to be asked about the strength of the government's case against Ivins. A spokeswoman for Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), a vocal FBI critic, said he would demand more information about how authorities narrowed their search. The House Judiciary panel, meanwhile, is negotiating to hold a separate oversight hearing in September with bureau officials, in a session that could mark the first public occasion in which Mueller faces questions about the FBI's handling of the anthrax case.

Friends and former colleagues of Ivins, who died before he could see the full array of evidence prosecutors had gathered, continue to demand information about the DNA advances that authorities say led them to a flask in Ivins's lab. Defense lawyer Paul F. Kemp yesterday said he wonders "where Ivins could have possibly stored this anthrax without any employees seeing it, or if he took it home, why there was no trace" of the deadly spores, despite repeated FBI searches over the past two years of Ivins's car, his work locker, a safe-deposit box and his house. ...

Nearly seven years after the incidents, however, investigators have come up dry in their efforts to find direct evidence to place Ivins at the Nassau Street mailbox in September and October 2001.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/13/AR2008081303731.html

---

How in the hell did they expect anyone (other than our bought and sold media and politicians) to buy any of this crap?

[Alexander]

1. I wonder whose hair that is.

I'd like to ask that person some questions.

[LisaL]

Might be anyone's not related to the case.

Hair transfer. How does anyone know who it belonged to, and if it had any connection to the case at all? I am not at all convinced Ivins had anything to do with antrax, but whoever is the owner of that hair probably didn't have to do with it.

[EFerrari]

16. It could be the letter carrier's, for pete's sake. n/t

[miles 2 go]

27. that's the most likely source

the carrier opens the box and removes the letters. He would likely be the only one who would leave his hair behind while he is in there. I don't think most people would leave hair just by putting a letter into the box. It would seem that one would be extra careful if putting a letter of that sort in there, to not leave evidence behind.

[EFerrari]

34. Hi there, miles to go.

How have you been?

Bruce Ivins must be the most careful person ever because not only did he, his car and his home test clean but so did both of his polygraph tests. :crazy:

[miles 2 go]

35. lol.

If the poor guy was alive, it would almost be laughable. Makes you wonder how many other people they have done this to as well.

I am so sick of our government and also of the idiot people that look at us as being loony when we try to tell them the truth about what's going on. I know it's not the ignorant peoples fault as much as the media's fault but it still sickens me.

I would like our media to be tried for treason as well as the cabal.

[EFerrari]

36. One of the creepiest parts of watching this case has been seeing how

the AP, the WaHo and the NYTs have been floating trial balloons for the FBI/Feds.

We have to try our best to support the independent media. :hi:

[Alexander]

18. Given how badly they botched framing Ivins, I think anything is possible.

[eppur_se_muova]

41. Look for someone who's losing his.

[mike_c]

2. if a hundred people a day drop mail into that box...

...a positive match would be a slam dunk, but a negative result is meaningless.

[LisaL]

4. Exactly.

[mhatrw]

6. Not meaningless. Critical.

Considering that the FBI has no witnesses, credit card receipts, cell phone records, car GPS evidence or anything else tying Ivins to the New Jersey mailbox that the letters were mailed from that is located 3 hours each way from Ivins' workplace and home.

[mike_c]

7. no, utterly meaningless....

It just means that those hair samples were not Ivins'. If everyone who dropped mail in the box left forensic evidence (that could be found, of course) THEN the lack of evidence might be meaningful, but without that assurance, i.e. without knowing that EVERYONE who dropped mail into the box left hair samples too, the absence of a match with Ivins' hair simply means that the hair in question was not his. It doesn't prove anything else at all. Maybe he dropped anthrax laden envelopes in the box but didn't add any hair. Maybe he left hair but no one found it. Maybe he was never there at all. Unfortunately, absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

[mhatrw]

8. The absence of evidence IS the absence of evidence.

And that summarizes the FBI's complete "case" against Ivins.

[lligrd]

9. In Other Words, Ivins Can't Prove His Innocence?

Perhaps they should attempt a match of the hair sample with some of Cheney's pals.

[LisaL]

12. Finding someone's hair in a public mailbox used by many

people is not going to prove anything, and I fail to see how it could possibly be evidence of someone's innocence or guilt.

[crimsonblue]

15. This evidence is called exculpatory evidence

In a criminal trial, evidence that does not point to someone's guilt therefore is circumstancial proof of innocence. The prosecution is required to turn over any and all exculpatory evidence to the defense. Willing failure to do so is obstruction of justice.

[LisaL]

24. You are talking about hair found in a public place

used by many people. Hello? Regardless of prosecution turning it in or not, it proves absolutely nothing about hair's owner.

[Ignis]

31. "Hello?" indeed.

Crimsonblue is making a legal point, not a common sense point.

Just because it makes sense to you doesn't mean it's the law.

[LeftyMom]

44. Thank you for trying.

I know that pushing logical thinking can be an uphill battle here sometimes, just wanted to let you know I appreciate it.

[mike_c]

46. .

:hi:

[seemslikeadream]

3. How do you feel now Daschle?

[EFerrari]

5. Boy, is this stupid.

[bjobotts]

10. There's as much evidence it wasn't Ivins as there is that say it was him

They are just in a hurry to close the case and obviously they want it to be him rather than some right wing gumbo in the Bush administration or working for Cheney.

[nikto]

11. It is THE WORST COVER-UP IN U.S. SCANDAL HISTORY!

[Beam Me Up]

13. No, 9/11 is far worse. n/t

[EFerrari]

14. They can't place him at the scene. There is no evidence

Ivins mailed those letters. :shrug:

[mhatrw]

29. I haven't seen a shred of evidence to make me think it was Ivins.

Not a single shred. No motive, no means and no opportunity.

Just a bunch of transparent smears of a weird dude.

[EFerrari]

37. And their story keeps changing. n/t

[aquart]

17. Oops.

[EFerrari]

19. This is the money shot, right here:

"Investigators now believe that Ivins waited until evening to make the drive to Princeton on Sept. 17, 2001. He showed up at work that day and stayed briefly, then took several hours of administrative leave from the lab, according to partial work logs. Based on information from receipts and interviews, authorities say Ivins filled up his car's gas tank, attended a meeting outside of the office in the late afternoon, and returned to the lab for a few minutes that evening before moving off the radar screen and presumably driving overnight to Princeton. The letters were postmarked Sept. 18."

* * *

They're still trying to place him at the scene. Still *trying*.

[LiberalEsto]

25. He then brushed his hair

and cleaned the brush, dropping the wad of hair into the postal box ...


and I'm the tooth fairy

[superconnected]

20. Gotta wonder why it's so important they pin it on Ivins. It's like they

don't want the investigation to go further or someone else to get caught for it.

[EFerrari]

21. The lead liar at their presser last week got his job from Alberto Gonzalez.

Jeffrey Taylor.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/dc/US_Attorney/index.html

He was disgusting. Vito Corleone wouldn't have given him the time of day.

[Lost4words]

26. BINGO! We have a winner!

8643

[judasdisney]

22. How much longer before we see "Conspiracy Debunkers" show up here on DU about Ivins? Any minute now

[SpiralHawk]

23. "You can absolutely trust your noble republicon government. Smirk." - Timmy Troll

"Republicons are defeaterizing evil. Republicons are preventerating terra by stamping out Evil Doers. Republicons are boosterizing the economy to the stratosphere of prosperity. Republicons are, like, all about integrity, and just love America. Smirk."

- Timmy Troll

[EFerrari]

33. The FBI is getting thumped over at the WaHo.

And rightfully so.

[mhatrw]

30. I really don't think this CAN be debunked.

DU's resident 9/11 debunkers won't touch this with a 10 foot containment chamber.

[EFerrari]

40. That WaHo article had a baited hook.

We were supposed to focus on the hair evidence (or, on the hair no evidence) but at the same time, a new narrative for Ivins driving to the scene was seeded. We weren't supposed to notice that last part, just take it in as a given.

(Thanks, Scott, for my course on Propaganda 1A.)

[mhatrw]

42. Exactly, We were supposed to focus on the lack of "evidence of absense"

rather than the glaring absence of evidence.

[PATRICK]

28. Hair evidence

is crap unless there is some new development there. It is the stuff that insults one's intelligence nowadays, an old bag of tricks to pin the rap on the person of concern. the more they use bad witnesses and cheap inconclusive evidence hand in hand with their open and shut bums' rush the worse their clear case appears.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[autorank]

38. Can you imagine the pressure on the investigators to do what they're doing

It's well known that the political bosses push around the bureaucracy to get their policies validated.

In this case, it may be just like the intel assessments prior to the Iraq invasion. They're saying
"Get sombody, NOW!" and this is what happens.

Now consider this concept - the investigators are so pressured that they're flubbing the basis for
the charges, in some cases, to send a message that this is bogus.

Relax, it's just a wacky theory presented for your amusement :think:

[EFerrari]

39. I can totally imagine a scenario where the Alberto Gonzalez appointee

Jefferey Taylor sends out that signal. :shrug:

[The_Casual_Observer]

43. "Slam Dunk"

or so they say.

[Supersedeas]

45. no matter, Tom Daschle is convinced

[daggahead]

47. Two Words ...

Dick Cheney.