PDA

View Full Version : FBI Admits It Destroyed Evidence In Anthrax Case




Galileo Galilei
08-18-2008, 06:02 PM
FBI Admits It Destroyed Evidence In Anthrax Case

According to the Associated Press:


"FBI scientists early on had — but destroyed — the unique strain of anthrax used in the deadly 2001 attacks that years later would lead them to Dr. Bruce Ivins...:

***

[This was anthrax that] Ivins took from his Army lab in February 2002 and gave investigators"
The FBI's excuse for destroying the anthrax sample which Ivins gave them?

"The sample kept at the FBI lab was destroyed because the bureau believed it might not have been allowed as evidence at trial."
However, every trial lawyer in the country will tell you that prosecutors don't destroy evidence just because they are not sure a judge will allow the evidence to be introduced at trial. Instead, lawyers keep all the evidence. If more bullet-proof evidence comes along, only then would a prosecutor be less attached the earlier evidence.

But even then, he would still hold onto the earlier evidence as a backup, in case the better evidence is lost, or the authenticity, reliability of chain of custody of the better evidence is challenged in court.

The FBI's explanation is so shallow that Rolf Lindgren suggests that reporters ask the following question at the next FBI news conference:

"Now that Dr. Ivins is dead and he won't have a trial, no evidence will ever be admitted. Have you destroyed the rest of the evidence yet?"
Posted by George Washington at 3:44 PM
Older Post Home

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/08/fbi-admits-it-destroyed-evidence-in.html

MORE ANTHRAX UPDATES!

The Bruce Ivins coverage, not so good.
by Elizabeth Ferrari
http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Bruce-Ivins-coverage--by-Elizabeth-Ferrari-080818-600.html

Glenn Greenwald
Monday Aug. 18, 2008 08:04 EDT
Doubts over the anthrax case intensify -- except among much of the media
(updated below - Update II - Update III)
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/18/anthrax/

Six Questions About the Anthrax Case
Commentary: The Bush administration has increased the likelihood not just that terror will come to "the homeland," but that it will come from the homeland.
By Tom Engelhardt
August 18, 2008
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/tomdispatch/2008/08/six-questions-about-the-anthrax-case.html

FBI sweeps anthrax under the rug
http://www.opednews.com/articles/FBI-sweeps-anthrax-under-t-by-Sheila-Casey-080818-921.html

Defending the Dead Part IV: Blinding Us with Science
http://www.leighannlittle.com/2008/08/defending-dead-part-4-blinding-us-with.html

Scientific data so far lacking
http://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2008/08/scientific-data-so-far-lacking.html

forsmant
08-18-2008, 06:28 PM
The FBI was born from corruption. It has not changed for the better.

amy31416
08-18-2008, 06:31 PM
That's BS man, it's easy to store strains of bacillus, especially a strain from a case as important as this one.

Edit: The decision-making when cleaning up lab storage facilities, according to GLP (Good Laboratory Practices) is to always be very conservative when deciding what to destroy and what to keep--and that's just in industry.

forsmant
08-18-2008, 06:34 PM
This particular case may be BS, but the FBI has a history of fraudulent evidence. The Massacre at Union Station in KC in 1933 is the greatest example.

Anti Federalist
08-18-2008, 06:34 PM
That's BS man, it's easy to store strains of bacillus, especially a strain from a case as important as this one.

What, the government lie, cover up, destroy evidence, in a terror case that had it's orgins within our own government???

The hell you say...

;)

amy31416
08-18-2008, 06:37 PM
What, the government lie, cover up, destroy evidence, in a terror case that had it's orgins within our own government???

The hell you say...

;)

I never, ever claimed that I didn't think the gov't was chock full of thieves, liars and criminals. How the hell else would I have become so smitten with Ron? ;)

forsmant
08-18-2008, 06:38 PM
Your unusual affinity towards small men in their 70's?

Anti Federalist
08-18-2008, 06:38 PM
I never, ever claimed that I didn't think the gov't was chock full of thieves, liars and criminals. How the hell else would I have become so smitten with Ron? ;)

A thousand pardons.:p

Anti Federalist
08-18-2008, 06:39 PM
Your unusual affinity towards small men in their 70's?

Ack,

SNORT

Bwahahahhahahah!!!!!!:D:D:D

Oh that was low dowwwnnnnn.:D

Anti Federalist
08-18-2008, 06:42 PM
That's BS man, it's easy to store strains of bacillus, especially a strain from a case as important as this one.

Edit: The decision-making when cleaning up lab storage facilities, according to GLP (Good Laboratory Practices) is to always be very conservative when deciding what to destroy and what to keep--and that's just in industry.

Seriously, clip the article and tell us, with your professional background, why the Feeb's story is bullshit.

I want to have this on record. (and no, not just to be dredged up at some later date for argument's sake)

Thanks!:)

amy31416
08-18-2008, 06:43 PM
Your unusual affinity towards small men in their 70's?

L-O-L. Okay, ya cantankerous, contrary SOB--ya really made me laugh out loud. Nice work.

Galileo Galilei
08-18-2008, 06:46 PM
Not sure if you guys noticed, but two weeks ago when the FBI announced that Dr. ivins was the lone nut, they cited his evasivness as evidence. The FBI said when they asked him for an anthrax sample in 2002, Ivins gave them the wrong sample, then the FBI had to go back and get the correct sample in 2004. The FBI said that hindered and slowed their investigation.

Now, only two weeks later, it turns out Ivins gave the FBI the correct sample and was NOT evasive, while the FBI destroyed the evidence and had to ask for a second sample.

This is total BS! The FBI is being evasive, not Dr. Ivins!

amy31416
08-18-2008, 06:46 PM
Seriously, clip the article and tell us, with your professional background, why the Feeb's story is bullshit.

I want to have this on record. (and no, not just to be dredged up at some later date for argument's sake)

Thanks!:)

I'll have to dredge through a bunch of written data that I have on GLP or see if it's available online. When I was running the enviro lab and we saved peculiar or pesky strains, it was common for us to keep them for a minimum of five years in case there was ever any occurrence of contamination in the products. And the FDA grilled the hell out of me for disposing of a 10yr old irrelevant sample.

I'll see what I can find and give you the sources, it may take some digging though.

Anti Federalist
08-18-2008, 06:59 PM
I'll have to dredge through a bunch of written data that I have on GLP or see if it's available online. When I was running the enviro lab and we saved peculiar or pesky strains, it was common for us to keep them for a minimum of five years in case there was ever any occurrence of contamination in the products. And the FDA grilled the hell out of me for disposing of a 10yr old irrelevant sample.

I'll see what I can find and give you the sources, it may take some digging though.

I don't want to make a whole bunch of work for you, but if you get a chance.

Thanks again.:)

amy31416
08-18-2008, 07:39 PM
I don't want to make a whole bunch of work for you, but if you get a chance.

Thanks again.:)

Crap, the GLP does not state a specific amount of time (often the Federal regulations were quite vague, allowing them to smack you for whatever they want.) The specific amounts of time must have been in the SOP's, which are often based off of verbal FDA recommendations (meaning, they come in, cite you for discarding a specimen and the current scientist in the lab re-writes the SOP's to satisfy the FDA officer.) So, often there's nothing in their official rules.

Here's what the GLP states:


(b) There shall be archives for orderly storage and expedient retrieval of all raw data, documentation, protocols, specimens, and interim and final reports. Conditions of storage shall minimize deterioration of the documents or specimens in accordance with the requirements for the time period of their retention and the nature of the documents or specimens. A testing facility may contract with commercial archives to provide a repository for all material to be retained. Raw data and specimens may be retained elsewhere provided that the archives have specific reference to those other locations.

http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/21cfr97.htm

What I do know, is that it is outrageous to discard samples when there has been an obvious issue. I consider intentionally killing human beings to be a much more important case than a recall that had a false positive. And we were required to go far beyond five years retention for specimens involved with a recall. I think that any microbiologist would agree that bacilli are one of the easier organisms to maintain.

No excuse for destroying the samples unless they're hiding something. Even gross incompetence can't explain that.

Anti Federalist
08-18-2008, 07:41 PM
No excuse for destroying the samples unless they're hiding something. Even gross incompetence can't explain that

Exactly.

Thanks for the info, saved.

Galileo Galilei
08-19-2008, 02:03 PM
The Scarlet A: Links between the Anthrax Attacks and 9/11

By Barbara Honegger

(The author is a senior military affairs journalist, and former White House Policy Analyst and Special Assistant to the President in the first Reagan Administration. She is the author of the 9/11 expose “The Pentagon Attack Papers” http://physics911.net/pdf/honegger.pdf and October Surprise (Tudor, 1989), the first book to reveal the true origins of the Iran side of the Iran/Contra scandal.)
http://www.barrettforcongress.us/