FBI Agrees To Release More Details From Anthrax Probe, Backpedals On Key Elements

Remember when the FBI told us that military microbiologist Bruce Ivins gave investigators a bogus sample of the anthrax from his lab in 2002 — suggesting an effort to mislead and cover up his own connection to the 2001 anthrax attacks?

Well, that might not be true, according to the New York Times. Ivins did give investigators a sample of his own anthrax — which allegedly matched the strain used in the attacks — but the FBI botched the testing process.

But F.B.I. officials acknowledged at the closed-door briefing, according to people who were there, that the sample Dr. Ivins gave them in 2002 did in fact come from the same strain used in the attacks, but, because of limitations in the bureau’s testing methods and Dr. Ivins’s failure to provide the sample in the format requested, the F.B.I. did not realize that it was a correct match until three years later.

That closed-door briefing came as the FBI has agreed to begin providing more details about the science underpinning its case against Ivins.

The bureau is coming forward with more information at least partly in response to the experts who have publicly expressed skepticism about the FBI’s case, which concluded that Ivins was the one and only person involved in the attacks.

Last week the Department of Justice gave a private briefing to Congress and this week the DOJ plans to make the new details public, the Times reports.

According to those who attended last week’s briefing, the FBI appears to be backpeddling on some initial components of its case against Ivins.

In addition to the new version regarding the anthrax sample Ivins provided in 2002, investigators now say the envelopes used in the mail attacks were more widely available than initially suggested.

Investigators said two weeks ago that the envelopes were unique and easily traced back to the Maryland post office near Ivins’ home. But reports from the close-door session say that is not the case.

Many scientists are looking forward to hearing details of the investigation, but do not expect the science to persuade all the skeptics.

“I expect people to be dazzled by the science. I am worried that people will confuse solid science (and I expect the science to be very good) with a solid case,” Gigi Gonvall, a senior associate at the Center for Biosecurity at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, told TPMmuckraker this morning.

“The science will only take you so far.”