Katherine Heerbrandt 08/08/08 FNP

Finding Dr. EvilOriginally published August 08, 2008By Katherine Heerbrandt

A USA Today article in October 2004, opens with a description of Bruce Ivins' mindset during the anthrax leaks at USAMRIID:

"Bruce Ivins was troubled by the dust, dirt and clutter on his officemate's desk, and not just because it looked messy. He suspected the dust was laced with anthrax."
Given years of sloppy practices, highlighted in a 361-page Army report, some experts questioned the ability of prosecutors to ultimately make a case against the anthrax killer.
"Any defense lawyer should read this report carefully and keep it in mind when DNA results are being quoted against his (or) her client," says Martin Hugh-Jones of Louisiana State University, a leading expert on anthrax.

Fast forward four years. The FBI is satisfied. Case closed. The deadly missives were apparently sent by none other than a researcher who'd assisted in the investigation.
So the perpetrator was in the FBI's own backyard from the start, just not the one it investigated for years. Not until some breakthrough science technique was developed did the FBI go back to square one.

Never mind the mile-wide holes concerning motive, opportunity and the lack of direct evidence in the case. (Nothing turned up in the search of Ivins' home or car that ties him to the mailings. The new science that nailed him has yet to be vetted by outside experts. He cannot be placed in Trenton, N.J., when the letters were mailed, and his extracurricular lab work began in August 2001, making it possible Ivins was working on his anthrax vaccine that had just lost FDA approval.)

Forget that Ivins was convicted without contributing to his defense. And as Hugh-Jones said, a defense attorney could have a field day with the case.

That's only part of the problem.

The FBI zeroed in on another kooky scientist, pouring millions into sniffing after him for any connection to the crime. This is the same agency that waited nine months to canvass New Jersey drop boxes, the same agency that believed the anthrax came from Detrick, but entrusted a large part of its investigation to Detrick scientists.

When doubts surfaced about Ivins, why was he allowed anywhere near the labs? From FBI accounts, Ivins was a dangerous man who became increasingly crazed when he came under the FBI microscope, yet he was allowed to continue his work at Detrick. Talk about insanity.
Whether you believe the FBI got its man or there's more to the story, a review of the investigation is in order. If in fact Ivins was the country's own Dr. Evil, what does that say about our ability to be victorious in the "war against terror?"

The killer targeted government and the media and the FBI embarked on its most costly and exhaustive investigation in history. Fear helped catapult us into the Patriot Act and a war that's cost the lives of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of civilians. This deserves more than pinning it on a dead man and walking away.

House Republican and chairman of the Intelligence Oversight Panel Rush Holt is skeptical and he should be.

In an e-mail statement, Holt wants to know "why investigators remained focused on Dr. Hatfill long after they had begun to suspect Dr. Ivins of the crime and why investigators are so certain that Ivins acted alone. In addition, there are important policy questions for handling any future incidents of bioterrorism. I will continue to conduct additional oversight on this issue over the course of the next several months."

We'll be watching.
kheerbrandt@yahoo.com