US anthrax 'suspect' found dead

Kernel

From BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7536890.stm

A top US scientist suspected of anthrax attacks in 2001 has apparently killed himself just as he was about to be charged, a newspaper reported.

The Los Angeles Times said Bruce Ivins, 62, had taken an overdose of painkillers. It said he had recently been told of the impending prosecution.

There has been no official comment but unnamed sources said prosecutors were to indict and seek the death penalty.

Five people died when anthrax was posted to the media and politicians.

The incidents took place shortly after the 11 September attacks in 2001.

Security measures in the wake of the anthrax attacks temporarily closed a Senate building and increased the public's fear of their vulnerability to terrorism.

As well as the five deaths, 17 other people were made ill.

Another part of the 'war on terror' resolved I see.

meglome

Like nearly everyone else I only know what the media are saying about this. But let's look at this for a moment.

1. The guy worked in a bio-weapons lab, doesn't exactly make him Mother Theresa for starters.
2. It looks like he sent anthrax in the mail and killed five people, shows him to be at least dangerous and quite possibly disturbed.
3. If he was indeed disturbed then taking his own life when his back was to the wall doesn't seem that weird at all.
4. The strain of anthrax used was American and if the American government wanted to fool the public surely it would be better to use an old Soviet strain (or equivalent)?
5. The BBC is mainstream media how can we believe them?

Kernel

meglome wrote: »

Like nearly everyone else I only know what the media are saying about this. But let's look at this for a moment.

1. The guy worked in a bio-weapons lab, doesn't exactly make him Mother Theresa for starters.
2. It looks like he sent anthrax in the mail and killed five people, shows him to be at least dangerous and quite possibly disturbed.
3. If he was indeed disturbed then taking his own life when his back was to the wall doesn't seem that weird at all.
4. The strain of anthrax used was American and if the American government wanted to fool the public surely it would be better to use an old Soviet strain (or equivalent)?
5. The BBC is mainstream media how can we believe them?

Bit of a coincidence that he sent anthrax packages to two members of the committee opposed to the Patriot Act......... No, the people who received the packages were deliberately targeted to further an agenda.

Oracle

There's another angle I've just discovered (or been fed by the media depending on your point of view) According to the LA Times this scientist potentially stood to gain millions from an anthrax panic. This is because, Federal records show, Ivins is listed as a co-inventor on two patents for a genetically engineered anthrax vaccine. The article says he is also listed separately as a co-inventor on an application to patent an additive for various biodefense vaccines.

It an interest story and highly plausible. But what would concern me is the caveat "Federal records show." Who knows how those records got there or if they're genuine. I think his death is highly suspicious. Is he being used as a scapegoat to cover-up and effectively end the entire affair? Was he killed because he, or his defense team, might reveal damaging information during the course of a prosecution? Or is there something else far more sinister going on? This sounds uncannily similar to the Dr. Kelly case in the UK, another high ranking government scientist who apparently committed suicide.

Nick_oliveri

Although it does seem to be a little suspicious, you have to remember this is several years after the event. Being used as a scapegoat for a subject that most people (incuding me) had effectively forgotten about? I did get the impression that there had been a high degree of paranoia in that lab since the incident.

A point that i would like to stress, imagine you work there and co worker was accused of doing this, soon after this co worker clears his name and sues the state, you have to remember if your co worker didnt have the right defence his name probably wouldnt have been cleared and he wouldnt have recieved his apology cheque.

Now, you are still been held under scrutiny, as are your (other) co workers. Have you ever felt paranoid about being blamed for an act that you didnt commit? You can see why the accuser might think that you are guilty. Imagine that for all the years that have passed since that incident.

The fact that his co worker was accused and then won a settlement through his innocence gives insight into a mishandled investigation. They wanted to wrap it up, their conscious unaffected by blaming innocent men (or man, IMHO).

Any evidence gathered at this stage on the "accused" would have probably been circumstantial coupled with the fact that an innocent man had already been accused...
The defence would have a lot to fall back on.

A lot of people have stressed that a chemist who works with "WMD's" would have taken a more productive and effective chemical. It seems to be a correct assumption. Although the timing has to be considered. When was he told and was this all he was able to get a hold of.

Edit: although speculating on such things might seem a bit insensitive/creepy.

Edit2; read up on how they tried to smear Stephen Hatfill.

up to and including the possibility that he has a history of white-supremacist violence

Oracle

I'd agree there's no question the investigation was mishandled. But could the entire investigation be just a cover up for a government sponsored domestic terrorism operation? The fact is that letters containing anthrax, that originated from US government military labs, were sent to US citizens. These anthrax letters provoked widespread public fear, panic and anxiety. It also caused the temporary shut down the US postal service. The only questions remaining are why it was done and who carried out the attacks.

We may never know how, why or who carried out those attacks. We do know where the anthrax came from and the effect the attacks caused nationwide in the US and around the world. It's incredible that the FBI would have us believe that civilian government employees in U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) a top US military bio-weapons establishment can just get some anthrax whenever they need it. It would almost be laughable if the situation wasn't so serious. Some people died from exposure to the anthrax in the letters. It's almost like the FBI expect us to believe an employee can just say to their manager, "Oh I need a little anthrax for a project I'm doing at home, is that alright?" The manager says "Oh yeah sure, just sign it out when you're leaving." Among all the conspiracy theories surrounding the anthrax letters, this is the least believable.

Nick_oliveri

Monday, April 15:

USAMRIID microbiologist Dr. Bruce Ivins takes unauthorized samples outside the laboratory containment areas.

Dr. Ivins tests more than 50 samples from the men's change room, the area outside the passbox and his office. He finds heavy growth of Ames-strain anthrax, a pathogenic, or disease-causing, form of the agent, on rubber molding surrounding the non-containment side of a passbox.

In his office area, he finds Ames anthrax spores. The men's change room tests positive for Ames spores and a few colonies of Vollum 1B, a pathogenic form of anthrax.

Tuesday, April 16:

Dr. Ivins tells the USAMRIID Bacteriology Division chief of the preliminary results of the anthrax contamination.

USAMRIID begins testing for contamination in and around the passbox and the cold side of the female change room area.

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/special_sections/detrick/timeline.htm

In 2002 this guy tested his own office, knowing he was the one that sent those letters? And then goes on to commit suicide in 2008 because of the indictment....

Mahatma coat

Very much shades of the Kelly incident, albeit from a different angle,

didnt people say fromthe beginning that the Anthrax attacks didn't look like teh work of 'Al Quaieda' or whatever you wanna call that group.

very suspect indeed.

Course ya know someone is gonna come along and tell us that its all just a

Coincidence

An awful lot of odd things happening at the same time tho

the_syco

They go after someone, epic fails, he sues them for libel, etc.

They find a depressive, and tell him that he's to come in for question. He tops himself, and EVERYTHING is blamed on him.

bonkey

Oracle wrote: »

It an interest story and highly plausible. But what would concern me is the caveat "Federal records show."

Who's (unofficial) records would you prefer?

Oracle

Yes that's a good point Bonkey. We probably have no choice but to believe the records presented, unless a journalist is willing to investigate the matter further. My reference to "Federal records show" was to suggest that even official Federal records can be altered, planted or tampered with. Also it was the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) who were prosecuting him. So there's a potential conflict of interest. The FBI have a vested interest in showing federal records that may suggest a motive, and to show the suspect in a negative light.

The news about Ivins apparent suicide was reported on August 1st. The LA Times had the anthrax vaccine patent story the day after on August 2nd. It's likely the FBI released the information to the press. Their haste in doing so raises some questions. The FBI naturally would have wanted some good news to be be published after all the bad publicity the mismanagement of the case, and the multi-million dollar court fine, had caused them. But was there more to it than that? The prompt release of the information about Ivins didn't only provide evidence of a motive. It also served to distract attention away from the suicide, removed suspicion of any third party involvement and cast him as the ruthless, greedy anthrax killer who was out for profit.

bonkey

Oracle wrote: »

Yes that's a good point Bonkey. We probably have no choice but to believe the records presented, unless a journalist is willing to investigate the matter further. My reference to "Federal records show" was to suggest that even official Federal records can be altered, planted or tampered with.

By that standard, anything can be altered, planted, or tampered with. The fact that the records were federal nature doesn't change that.

Incidentally, those "federal records" were what we would commonly call patents. Not only that, but they included patents for stuff which had been turned into a product. This would tend to rule out the notion that his name has just been tacked on in retrospect...unless we want to start following the inevitable "involved party explosion" that would ensue if we start looking at who could reasonably be expected to have seen the patent before any alleged alteration date, and would therefore be required to keep quiet.

Also it was the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) who were prosecuting him. So there's a potential conflict of interest.

I'm not sure I see the conflict of interest between the Patent Office and the FBI.

The FBI have a vested interest in showing federal records that may suggest a motive, and to show the suspect in a negative light.

By this line of reasoning, it is impossible for any federal agency to investigate another federal agency. Thus, the only investigation of a federal agency could be by a private agency.

Of course, to do so, the private agency would require federal approval, and thus be automatically disqualified on the grounds of being federally selected, and thus federally controlled.

Their haste in doing so raises some questions.

Yes, it does. The biggest question I would have is how it has subsequently been announced that they know this guy acted alone, and thus case-closed.

Then again, if I were an investigation agency, and I believed two people were involved, one got wind and committed suicide before I got my case...I'd probably announce that I was certain he acted alone until such times as I was ready to nail the other guy.

The FBI naturally would have wanted some good news to be be published after all the bad publicity the mismanagement of the case, and the multi-million dollar court fine, had caused them. But was there more to it than that?

There is almost always more to it than is released. The point is that unless and until we have evidence of some sort, we have no idea what that "more" is. idle speculation is all well and good...as long as we remember and acknowledge that its idle speculation. Reaching conclusions where "it all fits" often leads people to lose track of the "but its still just idle speculation" rider that should accompany their musings.

The prompt release of the information about Ivins didn't only provide evidence of a motive. It also served to distract attention away from the suicide, removed suspicion of any third party involvement and cast him as the ruthless, greedy anthrax killer who was out for profit.

Ironically, I would have said that the FBI announcement all-but-proved third party involvement, in that it strongly suggests that the reason the guy committed suicide is because he had found out that his days were numbered.

I don't believe it was co-incidental timing that this guy decided to top himself when he did. Therefore, there is a requirement for third-party involvement.

You don't need to pull the trigger to be involved.