Proof that Ivins Couldn’t Have Done It (At Least Not Alone)

According to the FBI, Ivins made the killer anthrax in his lab at Fort Detrick all by himself in something like 12 hours (pages 8-9).

Is that plausible?

Well, one of the handful of people who actually can produce the kind of high-tech weaponized anthrax used in the attacks said:

"In my opinion, there are maybe four or five people in the whole country who might be able to make this stuff, and I'm one of them," said Richard O. Spertzel, chief biological inspector for the U.N. Special Commission from 1994 to 1998. "And even with a good lab and staff to help run it, it might take me a year to come up with a product as good."

In addition, scientists at Ft. Detrick say that no one there had the equipment or knowledge to make weaponized anthrax of the type used in the letters (more on this in a later esasy).

If it would take one of the handful of people who have the know-how and a good lab with staff a year, and if no one at Ivins’ lab knew how to do it, how could Ivins have made it all by himself in 12 hours without the proper equipment?

100% credit goes to jimd3100 for this essay. I just edited what he wrote in a comment to another blog. Nice work, jimd3100!

The real Guilty parties

Dr Irvins collegues and co workers are on the record as being very skeptical that he was the anthrax killer. Here are just a few from one article there are several more.....

"Bruce Ivins's colleagues allege that, armed with this evidence, the FBI began to pressure the people at the laboratory and singled out Ivins because he was most susceptible to being intimidated."

"Dr. W. Russell Byrne said that FBI harassed Ivins’s daughter repeatedly to acknowledge that her father was involved in the attacks, showing her gruesome photographs of victims of the anthrax letters and telling her that Ivins was responsible. They also tried to "bribe" his adopted son by suggesting that he might be able to collect the $2.5 million reward for solving the case and buy a sports car."

"Another Ivins colleague, Dr. Kenneth W. Hedlund, backed Byrne's allegations and said that the FBI scapegoated Ivins because they thought he was the weakest one in the team and they needed to find somebody to blame for the unsolved attacks. Yet another scientist, David R. Franz, said that it is highly unlikely, very improbable, that Bruce Ivins could have manufactured the anthrax powder at the government facility without being noticed."

"Most of Ivins' co-workers testified that they did not notice anything amiss in Bruce Ivins' behavior before his mental health began deteriorating following the recent investigation. He would apparently weep at his desk, and was unable to do his work."

But there is one person that goes along with Irvins being guilty..... that had this to say about Irvins.....

"That's bull----," said one former senior USAMRIID official. "If there's contamination, you always reswab. And you would remember doing it."

"The former official told The Times that Ivins might have hedged regarding reswabbing out of fear that investigators would find more of the spores inside or near his office.",...

Notice his name is not mentioned but that he was a "former senior USAMRIID official".

Remember when Brian Ross senior investigative reporter for ABC News reported that he had several well placed sources that were "in a position to know" that claimed the anthrax was coated with bentonite, which proved that the anthrax was from Iraq? Well, if a reporter wanted to confirm this wouldn't a person "in a position to know" be a senior USAMRIID official, since that was where the anthrax was being analyzied? Well, this is for sure....a senior official at USAMRIID would know the report was wrong wouldn't he? Did this official say anything at the time like that? And here we have an official that clearly doesn't mind talking to reporters as long as his name isn't mentioned.

Is this a "person in a position to know"--yes. Is he one of Brian Ross sources? Why don't you tell us Brian or forever be dis trusted which destroys your credibility as an "investigative reporter".

Which is why Brian Ross and his reputation should be forever smeared unless and until he names his sources, for lieing to him and the American people.

Good and rare interview with Dr. Ivins attorney

Attorney: Ivins never knew he was 'the suspect'

An interesting audio interview with Ivin's attorney can be heard on the above site, see listing under audio on left side of page. The fact that Dr. Ivins memorial was attended by many military and fellow scientist speaks volumes, and something the mad announcers from MSM fail to voice.

Thank You, Joann--good find!

Ivin's lawyer stating he was never advised of his client's status as a formal suspect. It's only after Ivin's death that he was identified as a suspect.

Great Find, Joann!

...don't believe them!

Mad Scientist

Hey George Wash.,

I usually like your postings, and I really appreciate that you provide links to the sources of your statements.

However, in the post above I wish more people would look at the source links, because it seems from the supportive comments you receive people are too lazy to check and realize they do not exactly support 100% the theme you are promoting. E.g. where does the FBI base it's case on Ivan's making the anthrax in the Deitrick Lab in "something like 12 hours", by my count of the hours logged it is considerably more.

Anyway, the links provide a fountain of implicating details about Ivin's, such as promoting the mad scientist meme. E.g. found within your linked source this gem allegedly in an email from Ivins to an email friend:

" I'm a little dream-self, short and stout.
I'm the other half of Bruce - when he lets me out.
When I get all steamed up, I don't pout.
I push Bruce aside, them I'm Free to run about!
Hickory dickory Doc - Doc Bruce ran up the clock.
But something then happened in very strange rhythm.
His other self went and exchanged places with him.
So now, please guess who
Is conversing with you.
Hickory dickory Doc!
Bruce and this other guy, sitting by some trees,
Exchanging personalities.
It's like having two in one.
Actually it's rather fin!" "
- by Bruce Ivins

All I'm saying is please consider your objectivity before reaching a conclusion and then presenting only those facts which support your desired point of view. We trust people like you to give a balanced view, when objectivity is lost it can make us all look like fools.

"Do the orders still stand?"

Wrong Romill

Romill says..."E.g. where does the FBI base it's case on Ivan's making the anthrax in the Deitrick Lab in "something like 12 hours", by my count of the hours logged it is considerably more."

Page 8-9 just like he says...and frankly the total time was much less than 12 hours, GW was being generous. Here is exactly what it says....
Day Date Time in Building 1425 total time in B3
Friday September 14 8:54 p.m. to 12:22 a.m. 2 hours 15 minutes
Saturdav September 15 8:05 p.m. to 1159 p.m. 2 hours 15 minutes
Sunday September 16 6:38 p.m. to 9:52 p.m. 2 hours 15 minutes

That means it took 6 hours and 45 minutes to make. Now if you want to go ahead and total the other hours that are provided after these dates you go right ahead, but since the first anthrax letter was post dated Sept 18, that would mean the anthrax sent on Sept 18 was already made doesn't it? And when did he make it according to the FBI? I just showed you. And it's impossible, according to experts such as Barbara Hatch Rosenberg,Federation of American Scientists who said........"There was only one week between Sept 11 and Sept 18, when the first two letters (and probably another letter, never found, to AMI) were postmarked. This suggests that the anthrax was already in hand, and the attack largely planned, before Sept 11."
And Richard O. Spertzel, chief biological inspector for the U.N. Special Commission who said...."with a good lab and staff to help run it, it might take me a year to come up with a product as good."

So if you want to complain about GW not giving the correct time to make the first batch of anthrax you're right. It was even less than 12 hours. 6 hours and 45 minutes to be exact.
And the poem means nothing. Just like the evidence they have that he drove after work for 4 hours on the 17th to mail the letter then drove 4 hours back and was back at work on the morning of the 18th. Did his wife wonder where he was? Notice her interview isn't in the report? He had to buy gas right? Notice no credit card receipts of this trip? Notice how he can't be located on any video cams? There is no proof he made this anthrax in less than 7 hours and no proof he made the trip to mail the letter, and a stupid poem means nothing.

My first assumption is . .

that the Feds are lying . . . batting a thousand so far.

As one scientist told the New York Times,

there are very few people who have a grasp of and access to both the aerosol technology and microbiology needed to pull the anthrax mailing off. This implicates upper management, not a foot soldier like Ivins.

911 Truth-The Anthrax Unit...

It just doesn't get any better than the awsome humans in 911 Truth Movement.

Thanks for all the amazing, detailed and bright work.

Love, Peace and Progress...

Robin Hordon


The quote from the 2002 Washington Post article saying that only a very few could make the weaponized anthrax, and that it would have taken the commenting expert over a year to do it is a great catch.

I spent a few minutes scanning the FBI document you reference for the 12 hour figure for the amount of time spent by Ivins in preparing the anthrax, and I did not find it. You could improve this to a world-class piece by posting the quote, or explaining how you arrived at that figure in detail.

12 hours to make anthrax

GW gives this link to FBI documents..

Anthrax letters were mailed on two different dates. Sept 18 and Oct 9

In order to mail anthrax on Sept 18 you have to make it first. Page 8 gives the times he was in the lab after work hours and by himself and therefor according to the FBI had the opportunity to make the anthrax. 6 hours and 45 minutes total. Before Sept 18.

Then on page 9 they have the times he was alone after the 18th and before Oct 9 where he supposedly would have made the next batch to be sent on Oct 9. If you add the totals of these times it's around 15 hours. So add the two a grand total of 22 hours or avg of 11 hours per batch.


That looks like a reasonable interpretation. I suppose a generous (to the FBI) interpretation would be that he was putting the finishing touches on the anthrax which had already been prepared, but I agree that the natural way to read the FBI document gives the narrative you describe.

I think that this is a VERY important post. I really hope that GW will update it with a complete argument that this is the right interpretation of the FBI's docs. I think there are two main points:

1) All by itself the 2002 statement by a real expert and insider that only a very few could make the anthrax at all, and that as one of those very few, it would take him over a year - I think that alone is damning to the FBI's case.

2) When you add in that the FBI's narrative states or implies that Ivins made the 2 batches in about 12 hours each ... that narrative is clearly a joke.


This one's going to bite them

The first letters were postmarked on the 18th, not the 17th.

There must be a saboteur at the WP.

“On the altar of God, I swear eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson

Fort Detrick Scientist: Ivins Innocent, FBI Worse Than KGB!

Fort Detrick Scientist: Ivins Innocent, FBI Worse Than KGB!

Q: If Dr. Bruce Ivins was

Q: If Dr. Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer, why didn't he kill himself with anthrax?


Conclusive evidence of means, motive and opportunity are missing

Conclusive evidence of means, motive and opportunity are missing
Case Analysis in a Nutshell

1. Ivins cannot be placed at the Princeton mailbox at either of the two times he would have to have been there.

2. There are additional hoax letters that have not been discussed by FBI in the information released Wednesday; may we assume Ivins could not be placed at those mailbox locations during the requisite windows of opportunity?

3. No official evidence has come forward indicating the nature of the Daschle/Leahy spore preparation, nor whether Ivins possessed the knowledge regarding its production, or access to the necessary equipment.

4. No convincing motive has been presented, although a variety of implausible motives have been suggested.

5. Although many other people with a strong motive can be identified, there is no evidence they were investigated by FBI and exculpated.

6. "The FBI sought out the best experts in the scientific community and, over time, four highly sensitive and specific tests were developed that were capable of detecting the unique qualities of the anthrax used in the 2001 attacks." However, details about the microbial forensic analysis have not been released, and may not be available for months or years pending publication. Scientists doubt that any forensic analysis can do more than identify the precise strain of anthrax.

7. The pre-franked envelopes could not be identified as coming from Ivins' post office, as initially claimed, but were instead sold in multiple post offices, none of which was definitely in Frederick.

8. Ivins was not the "sole custodian" of the RMR-1029 strain; over 100 people had access to it and they may have shared it with others. How was Ivins selected as a suspect and the others exonerated?

9. Handwriting analysis has not linked him to the crime.

10. He could not be linked to the Quantico letter that fingered Dr. Assaad. He could not be linked to any efforts to finger Dr. Hatfill.

11. No physical evidence links him to the crime: this includes the tape on the letters, fibers, human DNA, spores in his car, home or personal effects, evidence of any kind he travelled to the areas where the letters were mailed, including purchasing enough gasoline for a 7 hour trip to Princeton, twice.

12. He passed two polygraph examinations at Fort Detrick.

13. Since the FBI has been unable to build a convincing case against any one individual in the 7 years since the letters were sent, why didn't it focus on identifying a conspiracy of individuals who together may have been able to perform the complex actions required to send the anthrax letters and hoax letters?

Posted by Meryl Nass, M.D. at 9:45 AM


Open Questions on a Closed Case

by Gerry Andrews

ON Wednesday, the United States Justice Department revealed its evidence that Dr. Bruce E. Ivins, on his own, committed the worst act of bioterrorism in the country’s history. This 18-year veteran scientist of the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick in Frederick, Md., is accused of killing five people and sickening 17 others in the fall of 2001. Dr. Ivins died on July 29 of an apparent suicide without a chance to give his side of the story.

After reading the affidavits and listening to the Justice Department briefing, I was both disheartened and perplexed by the lack of physical evidence supporting a conviction.

Dr. Ivins was a friend and colleague of mine for nearly 16 years. We worked together at Fort Detrick. He was a senior scientist, and I was, first, a bench scientist and, from 1999 to 2003, the chief of the bacteriology division.


Gerry Andrews is an assistant professor of microbiology at the University of Wyoming.