from: http://wwplanet.blogspot.com/2008/09/ivins-didnt-do-it.html

Ivins Didn't Do It

Bruce Ivins is not responsible for the 2001 anthrax letter attacks. How can I be so sure? Because the facts say he didn’t do it. Let’s examine the FBI’s “evidence” against Ivins:
Using a new process, the anthrax material has been genetically traced to the beaker (the murder weapon, as the FBI calls it) that Dr. Ivins controlled. Sounds convincing, doesn’t it? Sounds like there’s undisputable scientific evidence that points to Ivins, right? However, this new genetic tracing process has never been peer reviewed. This means it has never been objectively tested. No independent scientist has reproduced the kind of accuracy that the FBI is claiming. Beyond the FBI saying it works, there is no evidence that it does work. Had there been a trial, this vaunted genetic evidence against Ivins would have crumbled under cross-examination. With the genetic evidence gone, the link to Ivins’ lab and to the “murder weapon” beaker is gone.

Ivins had access to the kind of equipment necessary to create the highly weaponized anthrax spores that were present in the letters. The FBI indicates that Ivins had access to a machine called a lyophilizer that he used to create the spores.

However, a lyophilizer cannot create the kind of weaponized anthrax that was found in some of the attack letters. The truth is that no known device or process can create the kind of spores that were in the 2001 letters. This is one of the enduring mysteries of the case – the anthrax that some of the attack letters contained was actually beyond the capability of present day known science to create! So how did Ivins create the spores with a lyophilizer? Well, he didn’t. And he certainly didn’t bake them in an oven as some news outlets have suggested. Nor was it unusual for Ivins to be working with a lyophilizer since the device can be used to create anthrax vaccines. Ivins’ job was to create anthrax vaccines.

The FBI tries to escape this supermassive black hole in their case by claiming flatly that the anthrax was not weaponized. They supply no evidence to support this claim, however. On the other hand, every independent microbiological expert who has examined the anthrax in the letters has stated that the anthrax was indeed highly weaponized. Here is what some of the experts have said:
Dr. Richard Spertzel, a former biodefense scientist who worked with Ivins at the Fort Detrick lab, has stated (to CNN) that there was "no way" a lyophilizer could have created the fine anthrax spores used in the attack letters. Spertzel states that the quality of the anthrax in the letters "far exceeds that of any powdered product found in the now extinct U.S. Biological Warfare Program." He further states that, "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. 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 a commentary published for the WSJ on 08/05/08, Spertzel wrote: “The FBI spent between 12 and 18 months trying "to reverse engineer" (make a replica of) the anthrax in the letters sent to Messrs. Daschle and Leahy without success, according to FBI news releases. So why should federal investigators or the news media or the American public believe that a lone scientist would be able to do so?”
William C. Patrick III, former chief of the Product Development Division of the Agent Development and Engineering Directorate for the Army's Biological Warfare laboratories at Fort Detrick and a consultant to the C.I.A., has stated of the anthrax in the Leahy and Daschle letters, "It’s high-grade. It’s free flowing. It’s electrostatic free. And it’s in high concentration. It appears to have an additive that keeps the spores from clumping."
Dr. Byron Weeks, a former Air Force doctor and retired colonel who has studied infectious diseases and bio warfare for decades, has stated, "Yes, of course it was weaponized anthrax. There's no question."
W. Russell Byrne, Ivins' supervisor at Fort Detrick from 1998 to 2000, has said, "I'm waiting for it to be shown that the quantity and the quality of the powders in the anthrax letters could have been produced in those suites" at Fort Detrick. "I don't know how to make the stuff."
It is doubtful that at trial the FBI’s unsupported claim that the anthrax was not weaponized could have withstood the counter claims by experts that the anthrax was in fact highly weaponized. If this strikes you as a fatal flaw in their case against Ivins, you are right.
Ivins was a homicidal, mentally unstable individual perfectly capable of committing such a heinous crime. This claim has certainly proven to be the most interesting one to investigate. At first blush – going by mainstream news sources - there appear to be multiple psychiatrists who have diagnosed Ivins to be essentially deranged. Look at some of these headlines:
Therapist: anthrax suspect tried to poison people – Associated Press
Counselor: Anthrax Scientist Was 'Homicidal' – ABC News
Anthrax Suspect "Homicidal" – CBS News
Scientist a `homicidal killer' – Toronto Star
Doctor: Anthrax suspect was 'homicidal'
Biologist had long history of mental illness – Washington Times
Dig a little deeper into the story, however, and you discover that there are exactly two individuals within the mental health community who share this opinion, Jean Duley and Dr. David Irwin. Duley, a young drug counselor trainee, claims that Ivins described planned homicidal attacks during a group session and later threatened her life. Dr. Irwin has been credited in numerous news articles with saying that Ivins has a history of homicidal behavior going back to his days as a graduate student. The impression created in a number of articles I’ve read is that Ivins had been a patient of Dr. Irwin. How else would he know Ivins psych history, right? Dig deeper, though, and you discover that Dr. Irwin has never made a public statement about Ivins. The quote about Ivins having a homicidal history going back to grad school comes from Duley. In a request for a peace warrant against Ivins, she had written the assertion about Ivins’ history on a court document and attributed it to Dr. Irwin. See below.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_llfyZ3p1rso/SMaTGWiG4LI/AAAAAAAAABI/XUwciVuR-1Y/s1600-h/Ivins+1.jpg

So the Irwin “diagnosis” that so many journalists have passed off as definitive is in fact second hand. But who is this Dr. David Irwin who Duley claims told her Ivins has a long history of homicidal behavior? Is he really Ivins’ psychiatrist? If so, why was he sharing confidential information about his patient with Duley? The clue to this mystery is revealed in Duley’s testimony for the peace warrant. When the judge asked her to explain why she thought Ivins was a threat, she replied:
"As far back as the year 2000, the respondent has actually attempted to murder several other people either through poisoning. He is a revenge killer. When he feels he that he has been slighted or has had ... especially towards women ... he plots and actually tries to carry out revenge killing. He has been forensically diagnosed by several top psychiatrists as a sociopathic homicidal killer."
Apart from slandering Ivins, notice that Duley says that Ivins had been forensically diagnosed as opposed to simply diagnosed. This is interesting because it turns out that Dr. David Irwin is a forensic psychologist. Forensic psychologists work with courts and law enforcement to determine the mental state of suspects. This raises the strong possibility that Dr. Irwin was working with the FBI on the case and that what has been passed off in the press as an independent psychological assessment is in fact just another assertion by the FBI. How did Dr. Irwin arrive at his alleged forensic diagnosis? Had he ever met Irvins? Are there really “several top psychiatrists” who have forensically diagnosed Ivins or was Duley just exaggerating her case? These things are not yet known, but it is fairly clear that Dr. Irwin was not Ivins’ psychiatrist.
And what of Jean Duley, who it turns out is the lone source for all the stories of Ivins’ mental instability? Who is she? Well, she is no doctor, that’s for sure. As an entry-level drug counselor, she is not even permitted to conduct her group sessions without a supervisor being present to observe her. She has a checkered history including documented heroine and cocaine abuse and several recent DUIs. It’s safe to say that she would have been a very problematic witness for the FBI had there been a trial.
Beside Jean Duley and the mysterious Dr. Irwin. nobody else in Ivins’ life had the impression that he was homicidal or somehow dangerous. In fact, he appears to have been beloved. Hundreds of people showed up for his memorial service and funeral. (How many people would come to your funeral?) Says W. Russell Byrne, Ivins ex-supervisor, "If he had mental health problems, he was taking care of them well. Could he have been so smart that he completely fooled me? Yeah, it's possible, but I doubt it."

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_llfyZ3p1rso/SMWnU2UXiiI/AAAAAAAAAA4/BbCC3bnl5L8/s1600-h/PH2008080103728.jpg
(Dr. Ivins teaching children to juggle.)

Ivins had a grudge against NBC journalists and was an anti-abortion fanatic. This explains why he sent the anthrax letters to.Tom Brokaw (of NBC News) and left-leaning politicians. However, Ivins was a registered Democrat, which undermines the notion that he was a fanatical rightist.
The NBC journalist he supposedly had a grudge against? That reporter actually worked for ABC. And the only evidence that he had a grudge against the reporter is an email Ivins sent that expressed exasperation at the reporter’s frequent FOI requests. Does this sound like a motive to go on a killing spree? This part of the FBI’s case is basically a smorgasborg of speculation – very little of which would actually be admissible during a trial. Included in the mix is the assertion that Ivins’ stood to gain financially if demand for anthrax vaccines increased. This has been shown to be false, however, as a government employee, the amount of income that Ivins was permitted to earn from his patents is $100,000. In addition, everything about Ivin’s life and lifestyle indicates that money was not one of his primary motivators.
Ivins worked unusually long hours at the lab just before the 2001 anthrax letter attacks. Sounds suspicious, right? However, people familiar with Ivins’ work habits say that working nights was not unusual for him at all. And so, this is not “evidence” that really helps the FBI’s case.
Exculpatory evidence
Let’s move on to the exculpatory evidence that the FBI has been careful not to mention. Were you aware that:
Ivins had passed three lie detector tests related to the anthrax investigation.
Despite repeated searches, no anthrax material has ever been found in or on Ivins’ person, clothes, car, or residence.
An expert handwriting analysis had concluded that Ivins did not write the text on the attack letters.
There was never going to be a trial
Even a casual examination of the case the FBI has laid out against Ivins reveals profound flaws. With in-depth analysis, it disintegrates completely. The FBI has essentially rammed a square peg into a round hole and called it a perfect fit. It’s inconceivable that they would have risked exposing this case to the rigors of a trial. I don’t believe there ever was going to be a trial. Ivins, it turns out, had never been sent a target letter from the grand jury and so an indictment was not in fact imminent as the FBI conveniently claimed after the man’s death. Would they have been trying to bribe his children or hounding him night and day if they already had the goods on him?

Postcript: The August 18, 2008 News Conference
At a news conference on 8-18-08, the FBI executed damage control on its deteriorating case against Ivins, offering patches for the holes that various journalists and bloggers had exposed during the previous several weeks. First, the FBI was forced into a devastating admission when it revealed that Ivins had not – as they’d previously claimed - tried to deceive them with the anthrax sample he’d submitted for testing. He’d submitted the correct sample it turns out and it was an FBI error that led to the sample not being properly analyzed. That’s quite a different story, isn’t it? Here’s a sample of the kind of headlines that the FBI’s misleading claim created:
Ivins tried to mislead FBI on anthrax – USA Today
To counter the continuing claim by many scientists that Ivins didn’t have access to the kind of equipment needed to create weapons grade anthrax, the FBI repeated its assertion that the anthrax was not weaponized. To explain how perfectly uniform silica (which helps give weaponized anthrax its deadly characteristics) became attached to the spores, the FBI said that “the silica had been imported naturally by the anthrax spores from their environment...” In other words, the FBI is saying that it was a freak accident of nature that the spores in the Daschle and Leahy letters looked and behaved exactly like weaponized anthrax. This explanation is ridiculous. It is so weak and nonsensical that it serves as a de facto admission that there is no case against Ivins. If Ivins could have done the crime only if the anthrax spores magically grew their own perfectly uniform silica, then any measure of rationality says Ivins didn’t do it. Why does the FBI cling so tenaciously to such an untennable position? Because to concede that the anthrax was weaponized wipes out not only their case against Ivins, but the whole notion that a lone person committed the crime.

from: http://wwplanet.blogspot.com/2008/09/ivins-didnt-do-it.html