DOJ's anthrax letter summary analyzes Godel Escher Bach. (pages 61-64)
justice.gov
justice.gov
According to the report, this is all supposed to be evidence of Ivins' "guilty conscience".
But there could be plenty of alternative explanations for this behavior, foremost among them Ivins' (justified) suspicion that he was under surveillance.
And if Ivins suspected he was under surveillance, why would he throw out something so damningly incriminating (according to the DOJ's view) like GEB? Wouldn't it make more sense to throw out something completely innocuous and then check if it's been tampered with?
Or perhaps Ivins merely threw out GEB by mistake, or regretted throwing it out, and then went out to check to see if the garbage had already been picked up in an attempt to retrieve the book.
The report does not describe how the investigators got their hands on Ivins' garbage. But, if one of their agents actually went to Ivins' house and pulled out the garbage bag out of Ivins' garbage can in plain sight while Ivins witnessed this theft, that would also explain Ivins coming out of his home, checking his garbage can, and then peering in to the parking lot and woods across from his house to see if the garbage thief was there.
The "analysis" also makes much of GEB containing references to DNA (the "Genetic Code"), to the amino acids in DNA, and to codes.
I wonder, considering GEB was a huge bestseller, and considering it dealt with these subjects (DNA, etc..) how many biologists have it on their bookshelf? Is it really so suspicious that he, along with probably a significant fraction of other biologists, had a copy?
For example, the investigators eliminate other suspects with the requisite knowledge, access, and means to make the anthrax that was used in the mailing simply because the suspects must have been at work or far away at the time the letters were mailed. The investigators don't even consider the possibility that the letters might have been mailed by accomplice(s) while the scientists who actually prepared the anthrax were at work.
Ivans' actions and words were subject to intense scruitiny, and found to be suspicious. But what about the actions and words of those other suspects, which were prematurely cleared of suspicion? Their own actions and words might have been equally suspicious, but the investigators apparently did not scrutinize them nearly as closely (or at all?), because they thought that merely because the suspects couldn't have mailed the letters they couldn't have been involved in the crime.
Another glaring fault of the investigation is that although the investigators looked at records of deaths from "unknown causes" following the mailings (because of the possibility that whoever made/sent the letters might have died through contact with the anthrax) the investigators only checked for such suspicious deaths in the New Jersey county where the letters were mailed from. But even Ivans himself was from Maryland, not New Jersey. If the person who mailed/made the anthrax died of "unknown causes" anywhere outside the New Jersey county the investigators looked in, they'd never know.
The report also never mentions why the foreign laboratories that contained the Ames strain were discounted as possible sources of the anthrax. And were their records and personnel as closely scrutinized as those of the American labs?
Finally, footnote 13 states "In the summer of 2009, the National Academy of Sciences began an 18-month study to review the scientific conclusions in the case." Since cutting-edge, possibly unreliable science was so critical in determining the alleged source of the anthrax, it'll be interesting to see what this study comes up with. If the science turns out to be suspect, the conclusions of the investigation would be jeopardized.
wow, the FBI's analysis doesn't inspire much confidence, considering how easy it is to make meaningless, after-the-fact connections--"you misspelled penicillin with an A and your mother's maiden name has an A in it".
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870454100457501...
The report makes no mention of Livermore labs, I wonder if there is a significance in that...
Also: Awesome! But now I'm scared to have that book in my house - it's got so many topics that they could always find something to "prove" that I was planning anything.
If you don't own any books that would make police suspicious, you're probably either boring or super paranoid. Looking through my library ( http://www.librarything.com/catalog/AngryParsley ), I've got a couple: Applied Cryptography, Machiavelli's Prince, and a book with a favorable opinion of US gun culture.
[not that I necessarily agree with the above - it's just my interpretation of the passage]