Legal News

A Rift Between DOJ and FBI Over Whether to Release Ivins Evidence?

By Dan Slater

Bruce Ivins in a 2003 photo. (Frederick News Post/Associated Press)

On today’s WSJ opinion page, Richard Spertzel, the former head of the biological weapons section of Unscom — the U.N. commission charged with inspecting Iraq’s suspected chemical and biological weapons capabilities — lays out a forensic defense of Bruce Ivins. The piece, entitled “Bruce Ivins Wasn’t the Anthrax Culprit,” is, at once, persuasive and mostly over our head. (Polyglass? Hydrophilic silica? How, exactly, does one mill an anthrax spore?)

Spertzel writes: “[D]espite the seemingly powerful narrative that Ivins committed suicide because investigators were closing in, this is still far from a shut case. The FBI needs to explain why it zeroed in on Ivins, how he could have made the anthrax mailed to lawmakers and the media, and how he (or anyone else) could have pulled off the attacks, acting alone. . . .I believe this is another mistake in the investigation.”

(For more on the science side of the Ivins story, see this NYT article. For speculation that Ivins borrowed from the Fort Detrick lab a lyopholizer — a drying device that could help investigators explain how he might’ve been able to send letters containing deadly anthrax spores — see this WaPo report.)

Mistake or no mistake, it’s show-time for federal law-enforcement officials. According to this WSJ report, the FBI and DOJ, amid rising pressure from Congress, continue to deliberate the release of evidence against Ivins — and there might be a rift developing between Justice and the Bureau. The Journal reports that, at meetings in recent days, some DOJ officials have urged a slow approach, apparently still skittish over mistakes that caused investigators to focus on Stephen Hatfill. (In June, the DOJ settled with Hatfill for $5.8 million.) This stance by the DOJ has prompted clashes with some FBI officials who believe their case is secure enough, according to officials close to the situation.

Yet, an FBI official played down any friction, saying, “We had very good talks across all camps, came up with a plan, emailed it around on the weekend and got agreement. Everything is on track.”

Correction: An earlier version of this post characterized an article in the Washington Post as having suggested that Bruce Ivins stole a lyopholizer. As a reader points out, the article says Ivins borrowed it.

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on August 05, 2008 (boomark / email).