Expert: Anthrax suspect ID'd By JOSEPH DEE Staff Writer PRINCETON BOROUGH -- An advocate for the control of biological weapons who has been gathering information about last autumn's anthrax attacks said yesterday the Federal Bureau of Investigation has a strong hunch about who mailed the deadly letters. But the FBI might be "dragging its feet" in pressing charges because the suspect is a former government scientist familiar with "secret activities that the government would not like to see disclosed," said Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, director of the Federation of American Scientists' Chemical and Biological Weapons Program. Rosenberg, who spoke to about 65 students, faculty members and others at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, said the FBI has known of the suspect since October and, according to her "government insider" sources, has interrogated him more than once. The investigation into five anthrax-laced letters and several other hoax letters -- all mailed last fall, including several processed by Trenton Main Post Office in Hamilton -- was the focus of Rosenberg's talk. She also gave her thoughts about what the government should do to control biological weapons. "There are a number of insiders -- government insiders -- who know people in the anthrax field who have a common suspect," Rosenberg said. "The FBI has questioned that person more than once, . . . so it looks as though the FBI is taking that person very seriously." She said it is quite possible the suspect is a scientist who formerly worked at the U.S. government's military laboratory at Fort Detrick, Md. more excerpts: She said the evidence points to a person who has experience handling anthrax; who has been vaccinated and has received annual booster shots; and who had access to classified government information about how to chemically treat the bacterial spores to keep them from clumping together, which allows them to remain airborne. "We can draw a likely portrait of the perpetrator as a former Fort Detrick scientist who is now working for a contractor in the Washington, D.C., area," Rosenberg said. "He had reason for travel to Florida, New Jersey and the United Kingdom. . . . There is also the likelihood the perpetrator made the anthrax himself. He grew it, probably on a solid medium and weaponized it at a private location where he had accumulated the equipment and the material. click for entire article
"This was state sponsored, I guarantee it. " - Treeman, Oct 25 "This is not a sinister US conspiracy. It is a sinister Iraqi / Al Qaeda conspiracy. Clear as day." - Treeman, Oct 26
I admit it: I was wrong. Unlike many people here, I am big enough to admit it when I am wrong... I have never claimed that I am always right. Although this is the first major item I have been wrong on so far... Aside from this, I've still got a great track record. My assumptions were sound, but... Most of the "experts" were wrong on this one as well, so I'm not alone in my wrongness. This was deemed as the least likely possibility by the vast majority of the nation's experts - an American traitor.... Hang the guy. And BTW, Major, it is not a sinister US conspiracy. It is apparently a lone madman - kinda hard for a lone nut to compose a conspiracy...
Actually, most of the "experts" were pretty quick in labelling it likely domestic, in my memory. There were some who did otherwise... but without good evidence. It was more sensationalistic to say that it was probably foreign... mostly people who wanted to sell books, imo. And I don't think Major's as annoyed with you being wrong, so much with the degree of certainty that you often declare such things with. The truth is, nobody knows "for certain" about such things. We can only draw reasonable conclusions from the available data. Even if your conclusion was "reasonable," at the very least, you significantly overstated your cas.e
Glynch: Would you like me to dredge up some of the many instances where you have been dead wrong, O Perfect One? You have yet to be correct on anything, so you probably shouldn't be the one jumping up and down now that there's a "1" in the loss column on my track record... haven: I think your memory fails this time. I actually kept up with this... I can remember *one* expert who testified to congress that she believed that this was domestic. *everyone else* (and there were many) testified that it was almost certainly state sponsored, and that the most likely candidates were either Iraq or an Iraq/Al Qaeda partnership... As for overstating my case, Obviously I did so. But I am not the only person who did so. See, I can lose a bit of credibility on a BBS (I have none in a few minds here anyway, so no big loss); those guys who went on TV, published periodical articles and/or books, or testified in congress lost alot more than I did. They were all pretty certain, too.
I am still curious how anthrax ended up at two American businesses in Pakistan. No one has yet explained that one... Ah well. I guess the lone nut did it...
It is s-o-o-o pathetic when the anointed have to rub it in. Are they so seldom right that they can't let the opportunity pass them by?
From today's Dow Jones New Source... 02/19 4:24P (DJ) DJ FBI Says Report Of Anthrax Suspect `Purely Speculative' Story 6498 (G/FBI, G/JUS, G/USG, N/DJN, N/DJWI, N/911, N/DJRT, N/EMT...) <i>TRENTON, N.J. (AP)--A report by an advocate for biological weapons control that the FBI has a clear suspect in the anthrax mailings is "purely speculative," the Federal Bureau of Investigation said Tuesday. In a lecture at Princeton University, Barbara Hatch Rosenberg said the FBI might be "dragging its feet" in the investigation. Rosenberg, who is director of the Federation of American Scientists' Chemical and Biological Weapons Program, said she believed the suspect is a former government scientist who is familiar with "secret activities that the government would not like to see disclosed," The Times of Trenton Reported Tuesday. FBI spokeswoman Sandra Carroll dismissed Rosenberg's account. "When and if we have a suspect in mind certain precautions have to be taken, but we will move aggressively on that individual," Carroll said. Carroll said as far as she knew, Rosenberg hasn't been involved in the investigation. In her lecture, Rosenberg cited as her sources news conferences, congressional hearings and "government insiders" she wouldn't name. Five people have died of anthrax since contaminated letters were mailed from a Hamilton mail processing center in September and October. More than a dozen people were infected in New York, New Jersey, Florida and Washington. The Hamilton office, which handles mail for 46 area post offices, has been closed since Oct. 18 after 32 of 80 environmental samples taken there tested positive for anthrax.</i> (END) DOW JONES NEWS 02-19-02 04:24 PM Additional Codes ( M/NND, P/APNY, R/DC, R/FL, R/NJ, R/NME, R/NY, R/US, R/USE, R/USS) Uh Huh!?
I'm not sure how much creedence I can give to this particular claim regarding the culprit responsible for the anthrax letters. So treeman, even though you and I disagree about the probable cause of this, I'd hold up before admitting you're wrong. There's still alot of ?????? surrounding all this.
Great. Does this mean that if it does turn out to be a lone nut, then I'm going to get it piled on twice for the same subject? That's not fair...
I'm afraid that's the price you pay for loudly (of course, how loud is a message board?) insisting how right you are much of the time. But never fear, you'll have the same opportunity to pile on the rest of us when we're wrong. This is an equal opportunity board .
The only person I pile it on is glynch, and then only because he gives me so many opportunities, it is irresistable. And 'boy' I guess, since his every post is an opportunity... That's not fair. Ah well, I can take it.
Mr. Treeman -- Given your somewhat vocal and outspoken position on Iraq, I think it's safe to say you're going to get a proverbial enima every time you're wrong on the subject. I wouldn't take it personaly, it's only natural. Given that, I can't help but remember another example of most people being blatently wrong, specifically, the Richard Reid thread. I find it really intresting that that thread died pretty quickly when it turned out that his name was Richard Reid, and he wasn't actually of arab descent. I'm also sure that I've been wrong quite a bit around here. I find it very gracious and (perhaps a bit suprising) that you'd post an admission that you were wrong, given what appears to be a tendancy to blame more or less everything on Iraq. I'm impressed.
treeman, To those that didn't listen to you in the first place, now they feel justified. To those of us who do listen to you, we will continue to do so (at least I will). It was your prediction and your opinion. No harm done, IMO. Glad you're keeping good spirits about it!
Ottomaton: Please, point to any instance where I have been incorrect about Iraq. Do you doubt that we are going into Iraq? This is one subject I know very well. Of course, I know the terrorism subject pretty well too, and I remind you that virtually every other "expert" in the country (world) that that an Iraq or Iraq/Al Qaeda link was most probably... Sue me for being wrong. Sue everyone else for being wrong, too. Oh, how could I possibly make such a mistake??? The man A) looked Arabic, and B) had several Arabic aliases. Gee, how could I possibly have thought he was Arabic? "blame more or less everything on Iraq"? What do you mean by this? I thought they were responsible for the anthrax, just like almost everyone else did. My main mistake was being too vocal about it. But what else have I blamed on Iraq - that they didn't actually do? And incidentally, it has not been proven that I am wrong yet, as mc mark's article indicates. Of course I may very well be wrong, so I might as well admit that I was wrong ahead of time...
Princess: For some reason everyone appears to believe that prediction is one of those games where scoring a 100% accuracy rate is possible. Most futurists are thrilled to get 10% of their predictions correct... I know. I've studied with them. I am very impressed with my record, even if they are not; they don't know how good a 90% or 80% hit rate is. Hell, they don't realize how good a 50% hit rate is. Their loss. (glynch - a 0% hit rate is still bad)
Yeah... I think it's funny the sort of things some people will stake their reputations on. I guess it's just a gamble, if you're more interested in your career than what's "really" going on... Book sales and notoriety are the devil, when it comes to corrupting experts...
