Who We Are

ProPublica is an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest. We strive to foster change through exposing exploitation of the weak by the strong and the failures of those with power to vindicate the trust placed in them.

More...

Ivins Told Ethics Officer About Anthrax Clean-up

by Eric Umansky, ProPublica - August 5, 2008 5:03 pm EST
Tags: Anthrax, Bruce Ivins, FBI, Fort Detrick

Credit: Mark Wilson/Getty Images When the Los Angeles Times first broke the story that the government had been "about to file charges" in the anthrax case, it pointed to a few pieces of apparent evidence against Bruce Ivins. Perhaps most damning was this:

Ivins, employed as a civilian at Ft. Detrick, earlier had attracted the attention of Army officials because of anthrax contaminations that Ivins failed to report for five months. In sworn oral and written statements to an Army investigator, Ivins said that he had erred by keeping the episodes secret -- from December 2001 to late April 2002. He said he had swabbed and bleached more than 20 areas that he suspected were contaminated by a sloppy lab technician.

The detail about Ivins' apparent failure to report anthrax contamination was picked up by too many news outlets to count.

But a tidbit buried in today’s Wall Street Journal offers a slightly different take on the episode. Countering the vast expanses of anonymice-filled coverage, the Journal talks to a named source, Col. Arthur Anderson, who it turns out says Ivins quickly told him about the clean-up:

Col. Anderson says Dr. Ivins told him about the lapse in safety shortly after it occurred, contradicting Army findings in 2002 that Dr. Ivins had told no one. Dr. Ivins's failure to immediately report the incident to his superiors is now seen by law-enforcement authorities as key evidence against him.

"He didn't tell the safety office, he didn't tell the commander, but he told me," said Col. Anderson, director of the office of human use and ethics.

Not telling a safety officer or one’s commander about a spill and subsequent cleanup of deadly pathogens is certainly suspicious. But at the least, the incident doesn’t appear to be as clear as it was made out in the first report . And that report -- of Ivins' "secret clean-up" -- is still being picked up.

Interested in what Eric Umansky is reading today? Read the articles around the Web he’s sharing.

Need to know more? Get ProPublica headlines delivered by e-mail every day.

Related Articles by Tag

The End of FBI’s Terror Trade-Off?
by Paul Kiel - October 20, 2008 10:44 am

Did Lehman Bros. Lie to Investors?
by Eric Umansky - October 6, 2008 10:46 am

Feds Probing AIG for Concealing Losses
by Paul Kiel - September 25, 2008 10:28 am

The FBI Is on the Case, OK?
by Paul Kiel - September 24, 2008 11:07 am

Coming This Week
by Sharona Coutts - September 15, 2008 2:02 pm

Related Articles by Category

I Beg Your Pardon: Who Will Bush Let Off the Hook?
by Dafna Linzer - November 20, 2008 9:48 am

McCain Advisor Says Voter Fraud is a “Perception” that “Plants Seeds of Doubt”
by Chisun Lee - November 2, 2008 8:10 am

The End of FBI’s Terror Trade-Off?
by Paul Kiel - October 20, 2008 10:44 am

Another Economic Election Issue: Supreme Court Nominations
by Chisun Lee - October 17, 2008 10:27 am

NY AG Threatens AIG Over Exec Payments and Retreats
by Paul Kiel - October 15, 2008 5:05 pm


© Copyright 2008 Pro Publica Inc. The original content on this site is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.