Colleague Comes Forward To Defend Anthrax Suspect 164
Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times writes about Henry S. Heine, a former Army microbiologist who worked for years with Bruce E. Ivins, whom the FBI has blamed for the anthrax letter attacks that killed five people in 2001. Heine told a 16-member National Academy of Sciences panel reviewing the FBI's scientific work on the investigation that he believes it is impossible that the deadly spores could have been produced undetected in Ivins's laboratory, as the FBI asserts. Heine told the panel that producing the quantity of spores in the letters would have taken at least a year of intensive work using the equipment at the army lab, an effort that would not have escaped colleagues' notice. Lab technicians who worked closely with Ivins have told Heine they saw no such work. Heine adds that, in addition, the biological containment measures where Ivins worked were inadequate to prevent the spores from floating out of the laboratory into animal cages and offices. 'You'd have had dead animals or dead people.' Asked why he is speaking out now, almost two years after Ivins's suicide, Heine says that Army officials had prohibited comment on the case, silencing him until he left the government laboratory. Although Heine does not dispute that there was a genetic link between the spores in the letters and the anthrax in Ivins's flask, Heine says samples from the flask were widely shared. 'Whoever did this is still running around out there. I truly believe that.'"
Silence != Truth (Score:5, Interesting)
Army officials had prohibited comment on the case, silencing him until he left the government laboratory.
I'm sure he told the Army & FBI about this. Sounds like anthrax killed a scapegoat named Bruce E. Ivins to me.
suicide? (Score:3, Interesting)
No kidding. (Score:5, Interesting)
Can you say inside job? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a case that will never be solved because whoever it was in the government that did it, has covered their tracks.
Army investigation was botched (Score:5, Interesting)
Everyone is assuming that all that weaponized anthrax came from the lab by its genetic makeup. Its possible only a sample was taken, and "mass produced" elsewhere. Yeah, it takes "special equipment", but its not like you need nuclear tools or there's only 7 machines in the world like it. Like the Kennedy assassination, and 9/11, we're never going to get the complete truth out of this.
Re:Can you say inside job? (Score:3, Interesting)
They blamed the dead guy before he killed himself.
Re:Silence != Truth (Score:5, Interesting)
This story never made sense.
The way I see it there are three possibilities. When the anthrax events were taking place, you'll recall that this was high-grade weaponized anthrax containing silica, that indicates a high level of technical competence. So that leads to the first possibility, a sufficiently competent person can, on their own, weaponize anthrax from a culture. This, to me, is the most frightening, but also the least likely possibility. If one person could do it, someone else would have. I don't doubt that there are sufficiently motivated and financed terror groups who would have repeated the procedure if this were possible. This stuff was supposedly (although there are contradictory statements) better than the soviet weaponized anthrax.
The second possibility is that Ivins had nothing to do with this, except possibly supplying the culture to a third party - a third party who stopped the attacks for some unknown reason.
The third - and this is where I put on my tinfoil hat - is that the US maintains stores of weapons grade anthrax in contradiction to our biological warfare treaty obligations that someone, probably Ivins, pilfered.
Re:Silence != Truth (Score:3, Interesting)
you'll recall that this was high-grade weaponized anthrax containing silica, that indicates a high level of technical competence
There was a lot of press initially about the anthrax being high end weapons grade with silica. The truth is, the initial reports of silica are very dubious. That highlights one of the issues in a case like this - you don't even know what basic facts to believe. Almost all of the evidence against Ivins is circumstantial and claims by the government haven't always held up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks#Silicon_content_too_high [wikipedia.org]
Re:Anthrax... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not saying that Vice President Cheney was involved in any way, but you've got to admit that his agenda, formed long before September of 2001, got a big boost from the attacks.
Obviously though, he's far too nice of a guy to ever do anything underhanded.
Re:That's two... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Silence != Truth (Score:2, Interesting)
quote: The third - and this is where I put on my tinfoil hat - is that the US maintains stores of weapons grade anthrax in contradiction to our biological warfare treaty obligations that someone, probably Ivins, pilfered.
------------------
Spot on! I think that is exactly what could have happened, as all else just doesn't make any sense.
Silly conspiracy theories like "Dick Cheney" did it, overlook the lynching party that would have happened on Capitol Hill, would that have ever come out.
Its not like those lawmakers would have appreciated attempts to kill them in one of the most gruesome manners imaginable.
But the US secretly hidding that stuff and then someone getting his hands on it for abusive purposes, would explain why they would be covering it up - and even why Obama also would not announce the truth about it now.
If it would have been only "evil Bush" people that did it, it would give the Dems the ammo they'd need to get rid of Rep competition for decades to come.
But imagine the scandal of US presidents since Jimmy Carter & Ronald Reagan secretly hidding tons of that stuff underground. The US could never, ever again credibly demand that rogue regimes do not engage in Biological warfare research.
This way even the most liberal regime in DC would have to hide such truths, or they'd loose all credibility on WMD issues.