Everyone's A Skeptic About Ivins

The NY Times has an editorial suggesting that the FBI could be wrong about Ivins and his mailing anthrax from Fort Detrick to various news outlets and to certain congressional persons. Now, it's okay to have one's doubts about the case, given that Ivins committed suicide prior to being tried in a court of law. But this reasoning is just a little ridiculous.

The F.B.I.’s conclusion rests in large part on pioneering laboratory techniques that matched genetic mutations in the anthrax that was mailed with identical mutations in a batch of anthrax created and maintained by Dr. Ivins. ["Pioneering techniques," as in peer-reviewed scientific methodology using state-of-the-art equipment] The National Academy of Sciences will complete a review of that lab work in coming months. But the techniques were devised with the aid of some of the country’s most sophisticated scientists, so they are presumably reliable. [Presumably? It is the NAS, not Northern Virigina Community College. The FBI used DOD experts as well as independent scientists in their forensics investigation. It's pretty air-tight that the anthrax came from Fort Detrick. But let's not trust science and lab reports... And at the same time, let's not put our trust in the NAS, they just might confirm what the FBI said, and then we'd need a reason to say that they're not reliable either]

More problematic is the investigative work that led the F.B.I. to conclude that only Dr. Ivins, among perhaps 100 scientists who had access to the same flask, could have sent the letters. [The FBI narrows down the list of suspects from thousands of people down to less than a 100, and then interviews them all. This is a bad thing? It's called detective work, NYT. It's what they do. They look for the guy that stands out and who could have had motive and intent.]

The case has always been hobbled by a lack of direct evidence tying Dr. Ivins to the letters. No witnesses who saw him prepare the powdered anthrax or mail the letters. [Because he worked alone and wasn't part of a larger group, maybe?] No anthrax spores in his house or car. [Imagine that, an anthrax scientist who didn't bring his work home from the BL-3 lab] No incriminating fingerprints, fibers or DNA. [Really? Letters go through the mail system and don't retain fingerprints, fibers or DNA? Wow. If only "CSI Miami" were on the case] No confession to a colleague or in a suicide note, just opaque ramblings in e-mail that the F.B.I. interprets as evidence of guilt. [Did you read the ramblings? The guy was not well]

The agency’s 92-page report sets forth a mass of circumstantial evidence that points to Dr. Ivins. He worked alone in the laboratory at night and on weekends just before the mailings, outside his usual pattern. He often made long drives to mail letters from distant post offices using pseudonyms. [and that's normal behavior for most all of us, right? It certainly asks for explanation, which is why he was a suspect after all]

Although he was a vaccine expert, not a weapons expert, [He was an ANTHRAX expert] he apparently had the skill and equipment to produce the highly purified spores used in the letters. That conclusion in particular ought to be validated by independent analysis. [Yes, because we might find doubt in the story that a highly-skilled scientist with years of experience handling anthrax, one who received excellence awards from his employer, one who had access to a great deal of lab equipment and material, might have been able to do something that many (thoughtless) talking heads say "can be done in a bathtub."]

This is awfully weak reasoning and more worthy of paranoid Tea-Baggers. The NY Times editorial board needs to spend less time watching "Law and Order" and "CSI Miami" and more time talking to real legal professionals. As I've said before, it's ridiculous to nit-pick the science and ignore the overall investigative process. The investigation, taking eight years and involving thousands of people, is pretty tight. As for the House's demands for continued investigations, that's just political fodder to feed the paranoia of their constituents. It's shameful.

Comments

[James]

Your last paragraph is the most telling: the same people who scream loudest about how easy it is for terrorists to create and use bioweapons are arguing that Ivins, a Phd who spent the last twenty years studying anthrax, lacked the expertise to fashion it into a crude weapon. This is a pretty good indication of the intellectual dishonesty and paranoia that pervades any discussion of national security in this damned country.

[George Smith]

It's also fair to state the New York Times and Nick Kristof were sued by Steven Hatfill when the latter, in the opinion pages, fingered him as the anthrax culprit. The case was not successful. However, it certainly makes reasonable the argument the Times is in no position to write without bias on the case. Kristof went off to Darfur as penance where he did some real journalism.

[Stormcrow]

The central problem here is that the FBI spent 6 years basically lying to everyone about this case and where they were with it.

And Ivins suicided before he could be formally charged and tried.

So, even though Ivins appears a more likely candidate than any heretofore presented, there will always be questions.

This is what you can expect to happen when the police lie about a case. Even if they tell the truth later on, some will never believe it, and others will never be sure.

Once credibility has been forfeited this way, it's gone.

[George Smith]

It's a shame, really.

And here's some more analysis and agreement with this post.

[Sean Sailor]

Author appears to be an imbecile.

[Gopherit]

Here is a link to a much more thorough argument (from the Wall Street Journal):

http://www.promedmail.org/pls/apex/f?p=2400:1202:2999529785589466::NO::F2400_P1202_CHECK_DISPLAY,F2400_P1202_PUB_MAIL_ID:X,81074

It's really hard to argue with the weaponization issue. There's a lot more here to be investigated.