{"id":548,"date":"2011-02-16T17:46:32","date_gmt":"2011-02-16T21:46:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/?p=548"},"modified":"2021-12-06T02:42:46","modified_gmt":"2021-12-06T07:42:46","slug":"the-inconvenient-issue-of-alleged-anthrax-killer-bruce-ivins-polygraph-results","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/2011\/02\/16\/the-inconvenient-issue-of-alleged-anthrax-killer-bruce-ivins-polygraph-results\/","title":{"rendered":"The Inconvenient Issue of Alleged Anthrax Killer Bruce Ivins’ Polygraph Results"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

\"\"<\/a>On Tuesday, 15 February 2011, the National Research Council made public its Review of the Scientific Approaches Used During the FBI’s Investigation of the Anthrax Letters<\/a>, seriously undermining the Bureau’s case against U.S. Army researcher Bruce Ivins, whom the FBI maintains was the sole perpetrator of the anthrax mailings.<\/p>\n

Polygraphy was not among the scientific approaches reviewed by the National Research Council–appropriately so, as it has no scientific basis<\/a>. Nonetheless, the FBI did rely extensively on polygraphy in its investigation of the anthrax mailings, and Ivins passed<\/em> a 2002 polygraph examination regarding the anthrax attacks. The FBI avers that Ivins passed the polygraph by using countermeasures.<\/p>\n

Jeff Stein of the Washington Post<\/em> addresses Ivins’ polygraph results in a new SpyTalk column titled, “Ivins Case’s Inconvenient Issue: His Polygraph.”<\/a><\/p>\n

For prior commentary on Ivins’ polygraph examination, see “DOJ Rationalizes Away Polygraph’s Failure to Catch Alleged Anthrax Killer Bruce Ivins”<\/a> and Scott Horton’s interview<\/a> of AntiPolygraph.org co-founder George Maschke.\u00a0For insightful commentary on the latest (non-polygraph related) developments in the Ivins case, see Salon.com columnist Glenn Greenwald’s article, “Serious Doubts Cast on FBI’s Anthrax Case Against Bruce Ivins.”<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On Tuesday, 15 February 2011, the National Research Council made public its Review of the Scientific Approaches Used During the FBI’s Investigation of the Anthrax Letters, seriously undermining the Bureau’s case against U.S. Army researcher Bruce Ivins, whom the FBI maintains was the sole perpetrator of the anthrax mailings. Polygraphy was not among the scientific …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[83,82,81,64,85,30,84],"class_list":{"0":"post-548","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-polygraph","7":"tag-amerithrax","8":"tag-anthrax","9":"tag-bruce-ivins","10":"tag-countermeasures","11":"tag-doj","12":"tag-fbi","13":"tag-terrorism","14":"anons"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/548","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=548"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/548\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4622,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/548\/revisions\/4622"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=548"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=548"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=548"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}