• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

So who is the anthrax killer?

Bob001

Penultimate Amazing
B
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
16,613
Location
US of A
PBS' "Frontline" ran a compelling hour Tuesday night regarding the FBI investigation of the "anthrax killer," who mailed envelopes containing anthrax spores to government and media offices in 2001, resulting in five deaths. The spores were apparently all from one unique, identifiable strain that was processed in an exceptionally sophisticated way. The FBI first focused on scientist Steven Hatfill, even naming him publicly as a suspect, and he pushed back hard. After five years the FBI cleared him and paid him $5,000,000 in damages. Then the FBI focused on Bruce Ivins, a government scientist who originally had been enlisted by the FBI to analyze the spores. The FBI focused on Ivins' and his family intensely, determining that he was an odd man with psychiatric problems and a strange obsession with a college sorority. After he killed himself, the FBI announced that he was in fact the anthrax killer and they would have proven it in court. But an independent investigation raised doubts about the FBI's claims, and "Frontline" obtained documents and interviews with scientists that seem to indicate that the FBI may have mispresented Ivins' work time sheets and research records, and that Ivins did not have the skills or the lab facilities to do what the killer did. So what's the verdict? Did the FBI frame this guy? Did he do it with the help of others? Is the anthrax killer still out there?

http://video.pbs.org/video/2151158114
 
I saw the Frontline episode. I think the FBI got really overzealous and hounded this guy to death (literally) in the interests of finding someone, ANYONE, to pin the crimes on.

It made me wonder, if I were ever unlucky enough to find myself in the FBI's crosshairs based on flimsy evidence, what sort of private tidbits would they dig up on me to prove that I was psychologically unhinged and was thus capable of mass murder?

ETA: The anthrax killer...the REAL one...escaped justice, in my opinion. This is part of the problem with just finding a convenient scapegoat instead of admitting you don't have enough evidence at present to solve the crime.
 
Last edited:
aggle-rithm said:
I saw the Frontline episode. I think the FBI got really overzealous and hounded this guy to death (literally) in the interests of finding someone, ANYONE, to pin the crimes on.

It made me wonder, if I were ever unlucky enough to find myself in the FBI's crosshairs based on flimsy evidence, what sort of private tidbits would they dig up on me to prove that I was psychologically unhinged and was thus capable of mass murder?
Click to expand...

Your posting record.
 
Bob001 said:
PBS' "Frontline" ran a compelling hour Tuesday night regarding the FBI investigation of the "anthrax killer," who mailed envelopes containing anthrax spores to government and media offices in 2001, resulting in five deaths. The spores were apparently all from one unique, identifiable strain that was processed in an exceptionally sophisticated way. The FBI first focused on scientist Steven Hatfill, even naming him publicly as a suspect, and he pushed back hard. After five years the FBI cleared him and paid him $5,000,000 in damages. Then the FBI focused on Bruce Ivins, a government scientist who originally had been enlisted by the FBI to analyze the spores. The FBI focused on Ivins' and his family intensely, determining that he was an odd man with psychiatric problems and a strange obsession with a college sorority. After he killed himself, the FBI announced that he was in fact the anthrax killer and they would have proven it in court. But an independent investigation raised doubts about the FBI's claims, and "Frontline" obtained documents and interviews with scientists that seem to indicate that the FBI may have mispresented Ivins' work time sheets and research records, and that Ivins did not have the skills or the lab facilities to do what the killer did. So what's the verdict? Did the FBI frame this guy? Did he do it with the help of others? Is the anthrax killer still out there?

http://video.pbs.org/video/2151158114
Click to expand...

The anthrax was made in a bio-weapons lab. It was the most advance and deadliest material ever seen. A team prepared the anthrax.

So the question is who are the killers?

Anthrax Powder: State of the Art?
http://cryptome.org/anthrax-powder.htm
 
Wired Magazine published an article in April 2011 which I think is a good detailed account of the anthrax investigation. I think it shows where the FBI suspected Ivins as well as some of the holes and circumstantial evidence used against him are.

The link to the article:
Anthrax Redux: Did the Feds Nab the Wrong Guy?

Did I think Ivins did it? I don't know. But I think the FBI was acting on the best evidence they think they had.
 
Ixion said:
Wired Magazine published an article in April 2011 which I think is a good detailed account of the anthrax investigation. I think it shows where the FBI suspected Ivins as well as some of the holes and circumstantial evidence used against him are.

The link to the article:
Anthrax Redux: Did the Feds Nab the Wrong Guy?

Did I think Ivins did it? I don't know. But I think the FBI was acting on the best evidence they think they had.
Click to expand...


Very interesting article.

But despite all these flaws, the circumstantial evidence remains compelling. It could just be a coincidence that the killer spores were ultimately traced back to a single parent flask and that this flask just happened to be overseen by a depressed scientist with occasional violent fantasies. It could just be a coincidence that this same scientist screwed up his anthrax submission to the FBI—even though he helped develop the submission protocols. It could just be a coincidence that his after-hours work spiked right before the mailings. But put all of those coincidences together and something stronger than happenstance emerges. For the Justice Department, it’s enough to prove Ivins was the anthrax mailer.
Click to expand...


I found this part especially interesting (if only because it involves one of my favorite books):


About a week after the search, a surveillance agent spotted Ivins at around 1 am in his long underwear, throwing out a copy of Douglas Hofstadter’s classic book Gödel, Escher, Bach. Ivins had lots of books in his house. Why throw out that one?

The book contains a lengthy section dealing with codes—specifically, nucleotide bases that make up DNA, represented by the letters A, T, C, and G. Investigators had long believed that at least two of the anthrax mailings contained a code, too. Some of the As and Ts were bolded, and the misspelled word penacilin had a bold A in the middle. Maybe Hofstadter’s coding was the answer.

The agents knew that groups of three bases—called codons—will reliably form certain amino acids, which can also be represented by letters. When they lifted out just the bolded letters, investigators got TTT AAT TAT. The amino acids that form from these codons start with the letters P, A, and T. It was the first name of a female colleague that Ivins seemed to have a peculiar interest in: Pat Fellows. The letters that officially represent these amino acids are F, N, and Y. Maybe that meant “**** New York”; investigators knew Ivins hated New York City. In the end, though, they could only guess at the meaning.
Click to expand...
 
Another piece of circumstantial evidence is the mailing from the Nassau Street box is one block from a Kappa Kappa Gamma office, an object of Ivin's obsession. He also spoke of his fantasy of going out with a blaze of glory and killing off a bunch of his coworkers right before he killed himself. Yes, the FBI was overzealous and overstated their evidence, but in the end, I think Ivins was the guy.
 
I don't know enough to have an opinion but I saw most of the Frontline documentary. I hoped maybe somebody at JREF was aware of more information or better analysis.

I tend to believe people when they deny something unequivocally and Ivins did that. However, I suppose most people that are guilty of a crime lie about it and profession of innocence is probably a pretty poor indicator of actual innocence.

The FBI did seem to lie (meaning they knowingly misrepresented) about the strength of evidence against Ivins but that doesn't mean they were wrong with their idea that he was guilty. Maybe this is just one of those things we will never know the truth about.
 
I haven't seen the new show yet, but I know its got some potential for greatness, considering the holes in this case... I see more skepticism here than I expected.

I did some old research around 2003 and then haven't followed since. I lost most of it, but I recall the Hartford Courant ran a great series of articles, and the theories of Dr. Barbara Hatch-Rosenberg are worth a read. I mention these to see if anyone else can do the work of re-assessing that alongside anything new, which I feel too busy to attempt.

Dr. Hatfill was apparently the "Mr. Z" referred to in these articles, whom the FBI was all but forced to finally look at. At the time, I thought he was possibly innocent, partly because he was the official suspect. The clues pointing to him also seemed a little too perfect. He might've been framed, I thought.

IIRC, he wrote anovel about a guy like him doing about what he was alleged to be doing, had some good clues dredged from a pond near his house, and had been working on biowarfare stuff in Zimbabwe/Rhodesia back when they had that mysterious anthrax outbreak that killed quite a few people. There are a number of other rather striking things I can't recall ATM.

When Ivins appeared as the replacement suspect, I was unimpressed. That's definitely not it, I thought, so... Was the case a little "too good" because it was just that clear? Did an egomaniacal Hatfill do it after all, pointing right at himself, then somehow staring it all down (with high-up help?), securing a $5 mil payday plus continued high-paywork for DoD, and get a handy posthumous patsy assigned to plug his case with?

It's a sickening thought.

Two questions on slightly newer developments: When did they finally stop pursuing Hatfill, and for what given reasons?

And how good is the case against Ivins? I wasn't impressed, and my gut said no, but I admit I didn't ever look into it.
 
One point the Frontline program doesn't mention (but the recent CNN documentary did) was Ivins had a known history of utilizing correspondence and/or the mail service to (in a depraved passive/aggressive manner) harm people.

Namely, it is confirmed that , impersonating a female acquaintance of his (by signing her name to the letter) he sent a newspaper a "letter to the editor" which espoused various creepy thoughts and attitudes.
 
lane99 said:
One point the Frontline program doesn't mention (but the recent CNN documentary did) was Ivins had a known history of utilizing correspondence and/or the mail service to (in a depraved passive/aggressive manner) harm people.

Namely, it is confirmed that , impersonating a female acquaintance of his (by signing her name to the letter) he sent a newspaper a "letter to the editor" which espoused various creepy thoughts and attitudes.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. But again, unimpressed. It'slike a lot of the stuff against Megrahi - if you had nothing else, it might be the best fit you can find. But there's not nothing else.

A quick Google search suggests while Hatfill was let off, at least he hasn't been able to shake the accusations of working with the Rhodesian Sealous Scouts during the time this deliberate anthrax outbreak occurred there, even bragging how his additions made it deadlier:
http://www.anthraxvaccine.org/zimbabwe.html

Ivins? Previous postal oddities.

See:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/05/the-wrong-man/8019/
http://jewishdefense.org/hatfill/
 
-A quick note to mention my previous comment was not in response to your post #12. I actually had post #10 in mind, if any. But in fact was just generally adding another piece to the puzzle I hadn't seen mentioned yet.

-Speaking of Megrahi, if the evidence against him is, relatively speaking, of the same magnitude as that which exists against Ivins, then I'm not surprised many people came to believe Megrahi is guilty.

-Your above post is not claiming Steven Hatfill has bragged about participating in an anthrax attack targeting human beings, is it?? That would amount to bragging about committing a crime against humanity.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Who is Megrahi?
Click to expand...

"Lockerbie bomber"

lane99 said:
-A quick note to mention my previous comment was not in response to your post #12. I actually had post #10 in mind, if any. But in fact was just generally adding another piece to the puzzle I hadn't seen mentioned yet.
Click to expand...

Didn't take it as one. Just another example of why Ivins falls relatively flat. The Hatfill clues to me go beyond coincidence -either he did it, or someone with the capability did it and framed him (because his own novel manuscript and past activities set him up for it so perfectly)

-Speaking of Megrahi, if the evidence against him is, relatively speaking, of the same magnitude as that which exists against Ivins, then I'm not surprised many people came to believe Megrahi is guilty.
Click to expand...

I had the impression you at least thought you knew how good that evidence was? In fact I'm not in a good spot to compare, knowing little of what they've got against Ivins. I remember a catchy little crazy version of "I'm a little teapot," the postal activities you mentioned,and some Christian-Zionist leaning.

-Your above post is not claiming Steven Hatfill has bragged about participating in an anthrax attack targeting human beings, is it?? That would amount to bragging about committing a crime against humanity.
Click to expand...
Yes, but it's only an alleged conversation. It's not provable either way, but a guy says Hatfill says he made it more deadly with his amazing skills. It's in one of those links, I think.

I still haven't seen the show - does it point the finger at anyone in particular? Or just poke holes in the case against Ivins?
 
portlandatheist said:
Another piece of circumstantial evidence is the mailing from the Nassau Street box is one block from a Kappa Kappa Gamma office, an object of Ivin's obsession. He also spoke of his fantasy of going out with a blaze of glory and killing off a bunch of his coworkers right before he killed himself. Yes, the FBI was overzealous and overstated their evidence, but in the end, I think Ivins was the guy.
Click to expand...

It is an interesting link, KKG and the mailbox. However there were more circumstantial evidence linking Dr. Hatfill with the attacks especially the anthrax hoax letter mailed to Senator Daschle from London when Hatfill was there for training. In the end the government has to acknowledge Hatfill was innocent.
Interesting Hatfill links:

2nd Daschle Letter Said to Be a Hoax
http://articles.latimes.com/2002/jan/04/news/mn-20249

The Message in the Anthrax
http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/messageanthrax.html

The Hunting of Steven J. Hatfill
http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/huntinghatfill.html

Hatfill timeline
http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/HatfillTimeline.html
 
Caustic Logic said:
I haven't seen the new show yet, but I know its got some potential for greatness, considering the holes in this case... I see more skepticism here than I expected.

I did some old research around 2003 and then haven't followed since. I lost most of it, but I recall the Hartford Courant ran a great series of articles, and the theories of Dr. Barbara Hatch-Rosenberg are worth a read. I mention these to see if anyone else can do the work of re-assessing that alongside anything new, which I feel too busy to attempt.

Dr. Hatfill was apparently the "Mr. Z" referred to in these articles, whom the FBI was all but forced to finally look at. At the time, I thought he was possibly innocent, partly because he was the official suspect. The clues pointing to him also seemed a little too perfect. He might've been framed, I thought.
IIRC, he wrote anovel about a guy like him doing about what he was alleged to be doing, had some good clues dredged from a pond near his house, and had been working on biowarfare stuff in Zimbabwe/Rhodesia back when they had that mysterious anthrax outbreak that killed quite a few people. There are a number of other rather striking things I can't recall ATM.

When Ivins appeared as the replacement suspect, I was unimpressed. That's definitely not it, I thought, so... Was the case a little "too good" because it was just that clear? Did an egomaniacal Hatfill do it after all, pointing right at himself, then somehow staring it all down (with high-up help?), securing a $5 mil payday plus continued high-paywork for DoD, and get a handy posthumous patsy assigned to plug his case with?

It's a sickening thought.

Two questions on slightly newer developments: When did they finally stop pursuing Hatfill, and for what given reasons?

And how good is the case against Ivins? I wasn't impressed, and my gut said no, but I admit I didn't ever look into it.
Click to expand...

Hatfill was framed, by the Mossad. They first picked up on him in South Africa and began to create a series of anthrax hoax letters and incidents to indicate his responsibility when the real anthrax attacks were launched.
See article above, The Message in the Anthrax.
 
davefoc said:
I tend to believe people when they deny something unequivocally ...
Click to expand...


I want to.

But I've seen too many cases where people have lied.

I never had sexual relations with that woman.

people lie when they're afraid of being caught and facing the consequences.

And they do a very convincing job of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom