Report Casts Doubts on Scientific Findings in Anthrax Case

WASHINGTON -- A report released today on the scientific methods used to investigate the deadly anthrax attacks disputes a key conclusion by the FBI -- and has triggered calls for an independent review of the entire case.

Investigators have concluded that government scientist Bruce Ivins mailed anthrax-laden letters to members of Congress and the media in 2001. Five people were killed and 17 others sickened. Ivins committed suicide in July 2008 before charges could be filed.

Ivins' attorney said the new report casts doubt on the allegations against the scientist.

"The smoking gun is now just smoke and mirrors," Paul F. Kemp told AOL News. "Every time more gets released it shows more weakness in their case. I think it's time for a public hearing for somebody to systematically and carefully and dispassionately review this."

Sen. Chuck Grassley also called for an independent review.

"For years the FBI has claimed scientific evidence for its conclusion that anthrax spores found in the letters were linked to the anthrax bacteria found in Dr. Ivins' lab. The National Academy of Sciences report released today shows that the science is not necessarily a slam dunk," Grassley said in a statement.

"There are no more excuses for avoiding an independent review and assessment of how the FBI handled its investigation in the anthrax case," the Iowa Republican said.

The 170-page report by the National Research Council -- which was commissioned by the FBI -- found that the Justice Department overstated its case when it definitively concluded that the anthrax used in the deadly mailings came from a flask from Ivins' laboratory at Fort Detrick in Maryland labeled RMR-1029. The report said it did not rule out other possible sources.

"The scientific link between the letter material and flask number RMR-1029 is not as conclusive as stated in the DOJ Investigative Summary,'' the report said.

However, Lehigh University President Alice P. Gast, who led the 16-member National Research Council Committee that reviewed the cutting-edge science used in the investigation, said: "We find the scientific evidence to be consistent with their conclusions but not as definitive as stated."

The National Research Council committee's report focuses solely on the science behind the investigation, which spanned multiple continents and used some science considered cutting edge. The report did not examine any of the typical forensics, such as fingerprints, or other investigative techniques, such as interviews, polygraphs and psychological profiles. It avoided any conclusions as to whether Ivins was the culprit.

In any event, the message was clear: Science alone could not establish the source of the anthrax, contrary to what the Justice Department had stated.

The Justice Department declined to comment on the calls for an independent review. FBI spokesman Paul Bresson told AOL News, "We stand by the conclusions that were outlined in the prosecutorial summary."

In a statement issued before the report's release, the agencies did not dispute the criticisms in the scientific report, but emphasized that both science and investigative techniques were used to conclude that Ivins was behind the mailings.

"The FBI has long maintained that while science played a significant role, it was the totality of the investigative process that determined the outcome of the anthrax case," the agencies said.

The statement went on to say that scientific methods "established a critical lead as to the origins of the anthrax used in the attacks, allowing investigators to focus investigative resources and efforts. Ultimately, the late Dr. Bruce Ivins was determined to be the perpetrator of the deadly mailings. The FBI and Department of Justice were preparing for prosecution at the time of Dr. Ivins' death."

Ivins' attorney and several fellow scientists have been highly skeptical of the conclusion that Ivins mailed the letters. Before Ivins, FBI investigators for years had suspected Fort Detrick scientist Steven Hatfill, based on circumstantial evidence. The government eventually settled a lawsuit and paid Hatfill $5.8 million for harming his reputation and livelihood by publicly calling him a "person of interest" and leaking information.

But by the time the lawsuit was settled, the FBI had already turned its attention to Ivins.

"They were wrong for six years about Hatfill, and my contention is they were wrong for two years about Ivins," Kemp said of the FBI.

The scientific report released today also noted that the anthrax found in the New York letters came from a different batch than the materials found in the Washington and that it was unclear how long it took to make the anthrax -- "as little as 2 to 3 days to as much as several months."

"Given uncertainty about the methods used for preparation of the spore material, the committee could reach no significant conclusions regarding the skill set of the perpetrator," the report says.

Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., said he planned to reintroduce the Anthrax Attacks Investigation Act, which would establish a congressional commission to investigate the 2001 attacks. The bill failed to go anywhere in the past.

"Too many questions remain about the anthrax attacks and the government's bungled response to the attacks," Holt said in a statement. "A high-level commission, like the 9/11 Commission, would be a start-to-finish examination of the many outstanding questions, and it would help American families know that the government is prepared to protect them and their children from future bioterrorism attacks."