Richard Lambert - FBI in Charge of Anthrax Investigation

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-opperman-report--1198501/support.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:39):
It's the Opperman Report.

Speaker 2 (00:41):
Joined digital forensic investigator in PI ed Opperman for an
in depth discussion of conspiracy theories, strategy of New World
Order resistance, high profile court cases in the news, and
interviews with expert guests and authors on these topics and more.
It's the Opperman Report. And now here is investigator at Opperman.

Speaker 1 (01:08):
Okay, welcome to the Opperaman Report. I am your host,
Private Investigator at Ackman. This show is brought to you
by audible dot com. Now you go to Audibleprial dot
com front slash Operaman Report, you sign up for free
yourt stuff, a free audiobook. Tonight we are live on
talksuperstation dot com, Public Streaming, radionetwork dot com, Awake Radio US,

(01:31):
Awake Radio, UK, Wolf Spirit Radio dot com, eighteen hundred online.
She says, radio JUSTUS Radio Network, Scottish Sovereigns on the land,
my radio stream listen to on tune in dot com,
on spreaker dot com and also on iHeartRadio. Then we're
going to be replayed this week on high Point Radio
seventeen hundred AM one hundred point five FM in New York,

(01:55):
New Jersey and Pennsylvania will be replayed Monday morning on
Penny Entertainment blog. Talk Radio will be replayed Monday on
Talk I mean on Saturday. Talk Superstation plays US Saturday
mornings as well. Cave Radio Broadcasting plays US twice a
week Saturday evening seven pm. You can find us on
Para X Radio that's a CBS radio station, and then

(02:16):
we'll replay it again. Let's see Thursday, Tuesday afternoons late
night in the Midlands. Wednesday's fire Horse Network every single
day ten am to ten am in the morning on
fp r N Radio dot com. You can find us
and the world so you can find us now too
on Stitcher dot com, Stitcher radio dot com as well

(02:37):
as iHeartRadio on demand. We had a really big show tonight. Really,
I guess that I've been really trying to get for
a while now. He's a Richard Lambert, retired FBI agent
in charge of the anthrax investigation, and we will have
him for an hour, so I want to get to
him right away. So, mister Lambert, are you there. I

(02:57):
am here, ed thank you so much to tell us
about yourself and about your background and your career in
the FBI.

Speaker 3 (03:04):
Well, I started out my professional career as an assistant
city manager and then went to law school. I practiced
law in Austin, Texas for a couple of years, practicing
administrative law, representing cities and towns and municipalities before the
regulatory agencies there, and then in nineteen eighty eight I
joined up with the FBI as a special agent. Served
with them for twenty four years, and was fortunate to

(03:26):
spend the last six years of my career in Knoxville, Tennessee,
as the Agent in charge of the Knoxville Field Office.
But as you mentioned, prior to that, from two thousand
and two to two thousand and six, I served as
the inspector in charge of the FBI's investigation into the
anthrax attacks of two thousand and one.

Speaker 1 (03:45):
Yeah, that's pretty much why we brought you on the
show because just recently you had to file a lawsuit
against the FBI, and pretty much you're saying that the
FBI's investigation into the anthrax crime, which is a serious
crime where several people died, is a seriously flawed investigation.

Speaker 3 (04:05):
Well, the information that's in my complaint of the legal
filing is in there for a reason, and that is
to help the court understand why it is that the
FBI would issue a legal opinion concerning me that has
no basis in law or in fact, And my complaint

(04:26):
in federal court contends that the FBI issued this legal
opinion about me in retaliation for a prior whistleblower complaint
that I filed in two thousand and six outlining a
number of performance dererelections with regard to the management of
the Anthrax investigation. Now, that whistleblower complaint was never intended

(04:51):
to become public. It was filed within the Department of
Justice and was simply intended as a recitation of lessons
learned so that when the next biological WND attack comes along,
we don't repeat some of the same mistakes that were
made in the anthrax investigation, which was co NATed A.
Marithrax is the name that you may remember. So it

(05:14):
is indeed unfortunate that I had to include that information
in there. But I do believe that that fire whistleblower
complaint was ultimately the basis for the legal opinion that
the FBI issue after my retirement, which caused me to
lose my job with the Department of Energy that I
was working for. So all of this unfortunately comes to

(05:39):
light unintended on my part.

Speaker 1 (05:44):
Yeah, but I think it's a good thing that it has,
because now that we hear these things, I think the
public is very concerned that the people that have heard
about this. Now. Has there been a lot of press
covering your lawsuit.

Speaker 3 (05:58):
Well, there has been quite a bit, and most of
it has been very confused. The media outlets that have
picked up on it try to reduce it down to
a sound bite, and that's very difficult to do. In
this instance, my lawsuit essentially contends that I was fired

(06:19):
from my job with the Department of Energy as a
senior counter intelligence officer because the FBI issued a legal
opinion that I was violating post employment conflict of interest restrictions,
and that certainly was not the case. In fact, prior
to me taking a post FBI job as a senior
counter intelligence officer with DOE, for the last fifteen years,

(06:43):
retired FBI agents had taken employment in the exact same
type of position, and in fact, when I took the position,
there were three other retired FBI special agents in charge
currently serving in the position of senior counter intelligence officers.
So this legal opinion that the FBI. Jude stating that

(07:04):
I was violating post employment conflict of interest restrictions was
really something new. That's an allegation and accusation that had
never been made in the last fifteen years, despite all
the FBI agents previously serving in those positions. And when
I look at it, there really is only one reason
for that, and that has to be the whistleblower complaint

(07:27):
that I filed back in two thousand and six, which, again,
unfortunately because of civil litigation back during the Anthrax investigation,
CBS News was able to get its hands on some
of the allegations in the whistleblower complaint, and they actually
publicized some of that on an episode of Sixty Minutes,

(07:48):
And as you might imagine that that certainly did not
go over well with the FBI.

Speaker 1 (07:53):
Before we get to that, though, this post employment conflict
of interest, these laws were passed for reasons of people
lobbying the FBI for contracts and things like that, right.

Speaker 3 (08:06):
Well, yeah, Essentially, what the law says is that if
you retire from the FBI as a senior executive, you
are prohibited for a one year period from having any
contact with FBI employees current on board FBI employees for
the purpose of influencing them, And the statute is set
up to prevent me, for example, from retiring from the

(08:27):
FBI one day going to work for IBM and the
next day picking up the phone and calling my colleagues
back in the field office and saying, Hey, you guys
want to buy some IBM computers. That's what it's set
up to do. So there is a provision in the statute,
an exception that says that the statute does not apply
if you are talking to the FBI employees on behalf

(08:51):
of the United States. Now, I was hired by the
Department of Energy to be a senior counterintelligence officer, and
in my job description and in the job posting, it
specifically enumerated one of my duties as conducting liaison and
working with the FBI to protect the Oakridge National Laboratory
from terrorist attack and the activities of foreign intelligence services.

(09:15):
So the job that Doe hired me to do was
specifically to liaison and to assist the FBI. And then
after I took the job, the FBI Legal Office is
issuing an opinion stating that that is a conflict of
interest for me to do so.

Speaker 1 (09:31):
So just imagine if terrorists are showing up at the
door of this nuclear plant where you're employed to protect,
you're not allowed to call the FBI and report.

Speaker 3 (09:41):
That FBI headquarters legal staff.

Speaker 4 (09:45):
That is correct and ill.

Speaker 3 (09:48):
That's exactly what got us into trouble in nine to
eleven is the lack of information sharing, the lack of
connecting the dots.

Speaker 1 (09:55):
Now has anybody else because they they actually tried to
invite you with charge. Correct, your office was raided after
you were fired.

Speaker 3 (10:03):
Yeah, the day after I was fired based on this
legal opinion, you know, armed agents showed up at my office.
They seized, searched the office, and seized documents and carried
those off with them. And for about a year, the
Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General conducted investigation,
and that investigation was directed by the Public Integrity Section

(10:25):
at the Department of Justice.

Speaker 4 (10:26):
So this was.

Speaker 3 (10:27):
Given a very thorough and comprehensive look.

Speaker 1 (10:30):
Well, I guess during that period of time there were
no child pornographers or drug deal Is there anybody on
the loose that needed the FBI's attention during this period
when they wanted to come after you for making phone
calls to the FBI.

Speaker 3 (10:42):
Well, yes, I mean I believe the investigation was politically Yeah, certainly.
You know, there was no evidence of any wrongdoing. It
was uncovered. The Public Integrity Section issued an opinion that
they weren't going to criminally prosecute anybody because they found
no wrongdoing. So, you know, I'm glad it's been put

(11:05):
to rest. But the fact remains that everybody knows that
I was investigated reportedly for violations of the federal criminal
Ethics statutes, and very few people know or understand what
the result of that investigation was. And so as a result,
there's a stigma associated with that, and it's made it

(11:25):
very difficult for me to find employment. Nobody wants to
hire somebody who's been accused of federal ethics violations, even
though they've been cleared.

Speaker 1 (11:32):
Well, let me ask you this now, when this happened, Well,
first let me ask you two questions. Are there any
other cases of FBI agents around the same period of
time being treated the same way for the same type
of technical violation.

Speaker 3 (11:45):
Over the last as I said, over the last fifteen years. No,
it's been routine for FBI senior executives to retire and
take these positions as DOE senior counterintelligence officer recently or
in the last fifteen years have been subject to this
type of allegation. In fact, currently right now, the former

(12:09):
FBI Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division is serving as
a senior counterintelligence officer at Los Alamos National Laboratory, and
these types of allegations have never been leveled against Tim.
And his duties were exactly the same as mine, and
that is to liaison and to assist the FBI in
every way that he can.

Speaker 1 (12:27):
So there can be no doubt in anybody's mind that
you were targeted for retribution. And you believe it's because
of the whistleblower, Mammo that you sent you superiors within
the FBI, not you don't go public anything. You did
this within the FBI. He sent them a man.

Speaker 3 (12:43):
I did it within the FBI. But as I say,
unfortunately a good bit of it did become did become
public because, as I say, through civil litigation that was filed,
the sixty Minutes was able to get its hands on
some of my reporting and they did feature that in
an article or an online magazine article, And specifically it

(13:06):
had to do with the FBI's director's edict that the
America ex case be compartmentalized. That means that essentially all
of the investigators, the thirty five or so agents and
postal inspectors working on the case, could only know and
be privy to that particular facet of the case that

(13:27):
was assigned to them. And that edict came from the
director in an attempt to stem the tide of leaks
that were so prevalent in the case as it was ongoing.

Speaker 1 (13:42):
How do you think that this mammo got leaked to CBS.

Speaker 3 (13:48):
Well, the Bureau I believe, actually had to produce it
pursuant to discovery demands in earlier civil litigation. So once
it was produced to the plaintiffs lawyers, my speculation would
be that the plane off layers then turned it over
to the meeting.

Speaker 1 (14:07):
And in that memory, you had a lot of complaints
about the way that the investigation had been handled and
how this one of the main I guess persons of interest,
this Ivans Uh, doctor Ivans was treated in the investigation,
and late after his death pretty much they closed the
case is a close case, now, isn't it?

Speaker 3 (14:28):
According to the FBI, Yes, it is is a closed case.
And and if Congress is satisfied with that, that is fine.
It has been my contention all along that there is
a wealth of exculpatory evidence regarding Bruce Ivans that would

(14:49):
have precluded a conviction of him beyond reasonable doubt, as
is required in seederal court to obtain a conviction. Now,
I'm know that the FBI after his death laid out
all of the evidence that they felt was indicative of
his guilt. But I do not believe that all of

(15:13):
the evidence covidi of its innocence has been shared, And
I don't know whether it's been shared with Congress. Perhaps
it has, and perhaps they're very comfortable with what they see.
I don't know. I'm not here to advocate one way
or the other that the investigation should be reopened. All
I'm saying is that the information that the American people

(15:35):
have been treated to is a highly selected presentation of
the facts that contains a lot of material omissions. They
don't have the full story. Perhaps Congress does. And again
it's I think it's it in Congress's laugh as to
what they want to do, if.

Speaker 1 (15:52):
Anything, Well, how comfortable do you feel, though, like right
now you are in charge of this investigation. How do
you feel right now that that we should feel safe,
Let's put it that way, that what took place is resolved.

Speaker 3 (16:13):
Well, I think that, you know, I don't have any
concern about the safety of the American public. Certainly, we
are much better prepared now as a nation to deal
with a biological attack than we were in two thousand
and one. We were wholly and totally unprepared two thousand
and one. I do have concerns, though, that we don't

(16:35):
have a full story about what happened. And I'm not
saying that Bruce Ivans was not the anthrax mailer. He
may very well have been. But again, there is a
wealth of exculpatory evidence, and you know, at this point,
I would not consider the case to be closed. I

(16:58):
think it's a cold case. I understand the FBI has
closed it, but again, in my mind, it certainly is
not solved. And I left the case in two thousand
and six after three years, simply because the lack of
urgency became exceptionally frustrating and it was apparent to me

(17:24):
that the things were not going to move any more
quickly than they had been. And at that point I
had invested basically four years of my life, seven days
a week working the case. The director was immensely interested
in it, the Vice president immensely interested in it. But
essentially that is where the interest stopped.

Speaker 1 (17:44):
And which Vice President Channing change.

Speaker 3 (17:47):
Yes, but it was very difficult to get resources for
the case. The FBI at the time had nine special
agents who had a PhD in microbiology. I was unable
to get it. Was unable to get those agents who
are in other field offices assigned to Washington, d C.

(18:08):
Even on a temporary basis to assist with the investigation.
And the FBI laboratory was moving very slowly with regard
to forensic and scientific analyzes, and no scientific analyzes which
had been done to date. We're not going to be
admissible in federal court until significant validation testing had been done.

(18:30):
And not to get too technical here, but Federal Rule
of Evidence seven o two provides that scientific evidence is
not admissible in court unless it has the techniques have
been shown to be reproducible and produce reliable and consistent results.
And so anytime you develop a new forensic technique, it's
got to undergo a period of validation testing to show

(18:53):
that the test does in fact produce reliable and consistent
results time after time, and just because of the lack
of engagement, it was apparent to me that it was
going to be two, if not three more years before
we were able to advance case any further.

Speaker 1 (19:12):
Let me ask you that in the beginning of this investigation,
at least on the news, we were all hearing that
there were connections to all Cata because it happened right
after September eleventh, the World Traits enterbroming the connections to
call Cata. There were connections to Sadam was saying, because
you know, he had anthrax and the barrels of it. Now,
when you were seeing this on the news, what was

(19:33):
your reaction being involved in the investigation.

Speaker 3 (19:37):
Well, you're exactly right, and you know, I think that
even today, the public has a misperception that this investigation
early on was focused or targeted on one particular individual
or one particular group of individuals, and nothing could be
further from the truth. I think the reason people have
that perception is because of the leaks coming out of

(19:59):
Washington about the case certainly indicated that that or gave
people that perception because they didn't know about all the
other moving parts of the investigation that had not been leaked,
but the investigation when I took it over in two
thousand and two, it had been ongoing for one year,
and what we wanted to do was make sure that

(20:19):
we were considering every possibility. And of course we had
to consider that this attack was perpetrated by international terrorists,
by al Qaeda or another radical Islamic extremist group because
of the close proximity to the NNI eleven attacks. We
also had to consider the possibility that it was perhaps

(20:39):
some sort of domestic terrorist group. We also had to
think about whether it was a lone wolf attack, but
maybe perhaps some kind of disgruntled government scientist or a
disgruntled commercial scientists throughout matter, and then we even had
to look at, you know, whether this was some sort
of test by an adversary onlyybe North Korea or Iran

(21:03):
coming at US as a government entity, just sort of
testing our defenses in the wake of nine to eleven
to see how vulnerable were. So all of those possibilities
were on the board and had to be investigated and
had to be considered, and they were in fact considered
and investigated.

Speaker 1 (21:21):
Well it's my understanding that the letters were dated September eleventh,
two thousand and one. Were they also mailed on their dayton.

Speaker 3 (21:30):
No, the first letters were mailed I believe on September
the eighteenth, okay, seven days after the attack, and then
twenty one days later, on October the ninth, we had
a second set of mailings that went to Washington, d C.
So the letters that were in the envelopes that were
laden with anthrax, they do make reference to the nine

(21:52):
to eleven date, indicating that there is a connection or
a tie, and.

Speaker 1 (21:58):
So the person or persons or group had to be
kind of ready to get going. You know, they only
had a week from nine to eleven. You know, they
had to be planning this prior to September eleventh in
order to have the antras ready, and that these letters,
you know, right.

Speaker 3 (22:15):
Well, that's exactly right, And you know it has now
been declassified and it's out there in the media. And
what we know is that al Qaeda had a very
robust bioweapons program that was getting very close to having
an anthrax weapon developed. They were moving quickly in that direction.

Speaker 1 (22:37):
They had.

Speaker 3 (22:39):
They had a microbiologist that they had hired they had
a laboratory set up outside of Kandahar in Afghanistan and
they were actively seeking pathogens. So you know, in my mind,
I believe what happened is that the nine to eleven
attacks actually pre empted an anthrax attack by Al Kada

(23:01):
because clearly they were moving in that direction and that
that was their design and that was being directed by
a police chick Muhamma.

Speaker 1 (23:09):
But the actual anthrax that was in these envelopes here
in the United States van anthrax came from military labs
here in the United States.

Speaker 3 (23:15):
Correct, Well, we don't. What I can say is this,
it was the aim strain of anthrax. AMES is one
of two hundred and eleven different strains of anthracks that
are out there. AMES was first discovered in nineteen eighty.
It was isolated from a dead cow in Serita, Texas,

(23:38):
and it was sent by veterinarians at Texas A and
And University to the US Army Medical Research Institute of
Infectious Diseases in Fort Dietrich, Maryland for them to look
at and study. And one of the functions of you
samrid in Fort Dietrich, Maryland. It's an Army forciacility and

(24:01):
one of the purposes of that facility is to test
the efficacy or the effectiveness of the anthrax vaccine that
we give our troops. So when the scientists at USAMRID
received this isolate of antrax from the vets at Texas
A and M, and they tested it, they found it
to be extremely virulent, meaning to be very robust, very

(24:23):
strong strain of anthrax, and they decided that the AIMS
would make a great vaccine challenge eight. So that basically,
if our anthrax vaccine that were giving our troops, if
it works against the AIM strain, it will generally work
against anything. And so that's how AIMS began to be

(24:43):
used within the government military facilities is as a vaccine
challenge agent. So we certainly know it was at USAMRID,
but there were also sixteen other labs in the United
States that had the AIM strain prior to the attacks. Now, ultimately,
through some genetic anomalies that were discovered in the anthrax

(25:08):
from the mailings, we were able to go to those
sixteen labs and see whether the AMES isolates that the
sixteen laboratories possessed contained any of those any of those
genetic abnormalities, and in fact, there were only a couple
of labs where the same type of abnormality was discovered

(25:32):
in the ame strain in the laboratories holdings as was
in the mailings, and that was Usamrit and also Bettel
Memorial Institutes. So those are the two laboratories that appear
to have anthract holdings that contain the same type of
genetic markers that we saw in the antracts used in

(25:54):
the mailings themselves. And that's public information that's been released
by the Yet yet.

Speaker 1 (26:00):
So too, wasn't this weaponized grade anthrax? And that it
was so light and aromatic, I guess you might say
that it would immediately dispersed into the air.

Speaker 3 (26:12):
Well the the you know weaponization. When we say weaponized,
there are a set of characteristics that would indicate that
something has been produced to be used as a weapon.

(26:32):
And there are a lot of things that can be
done to anthrax to make it more effective as a weapon.
One would be the particle size. Anthrax spores are are
very very small, and you want a particle size such
that the particles remain aloft in the air so that
they can be inhaled. Anthrax particles also have a natural

(26:58):
electrostatic charge, meaning that they tend to stick the thing
to things, just like dust tends to stick to your
television set. So if you can eliminate that electrostatic charge,
it also allows them to remain airborne for a longer
period of time. Also, the moisture content is another thing,

(27:19):
so there are a number of things that can be
done to anthract to make it more effective as a weapon.
Would I would be hesitant to characterize the anthrax in
either one of the mailings as weaponized. The first anthrax

(27:41):
that was sent to New York City was very different
in character, and you can see that in pictures that
the FBI has released, is very different in character from
the anthrax that was mailed to New York twenty one
days later, the anthrax that was mailed to it was
mailed to to New York in the first set of mailings,

(28:04):
it really is brown and granular. It almost looks like
it has the consistency of sand. And then twenty one
days later, the anthrax that was mailed to New York City,
it has more of the character. It's of a more
refined product. It almost looks like flower. So two very
distinct and different batches and again, photos of both batches

(28:29):
have been released by.

Speaker 1 (28:29):
The Well, okay, that's fascinating because because we know from
the handwriting on the envelopes and stuff like that, that
seemed I was looking at the videos today that looks
identical to me. But for whoever the source to mail
these anthracs to have access to two different grades of anthrax,
that's a pretty serious situation, don't you think.

Speaker 3 (28:52):
Well, it just simply means that you two different production
methodologies were used to produce it. And to make an
anthrax powder like we see in the envelopes, you first
have to take anthrax in it's a vegetative cell state,

(29:13):
and then you have to force it to spoiulate. And
you basically force bacteria to spoiulate either by depriving them
of nutrients or you heat shock them at a certain temperature.
And then once they've spoiulated, you have to purify them
with means that you simply have to wash away the
growth media and sort of exogenous trash that is surrounding

(29:37):
them so that you're left with nothing but spores. And
then once you do that, you have a slurry of spores,
a wet slurry, and you need to dry that down
in some way, and you could simply let the spores
dry out with air. You could put them in an oven,
you could use a food desiccator, or you could use
something as sophisticated as a ryofalizer, which is a freeze

(29:59):
dryer that is used in laboratories to quickly freeze something
the very low moisture content.

Speaker 1 (30:09):
Okay, we don't want to give too much of a recipe,
but it did seem to be though also too. That's
a you would think that once they mail out this
first batch that they would feel that the heat is
on and they'd be kind of keeping a more lower profile,
and they wouldn't have access to this equipment to come
up with a better grade, wouldn't you think?

Speaker 3 (30:30):
You know, that is a I think that's a very
good question, and there's a big question mark surrounding that
is why we have two batches that are so very
different and very distinct.

Speaker 1 (30:42):
And what do you think.

Speaker 5 (30:45):
I I.

Speaker 3 (30:48):
Honestly don't know. I don't know the reason for that.

Speaker 1 (30:52):
Okay, honest okay, let's take a little break here and
we'll be right back with more of a retired FBI
agent Richard Lambert was the FBI agent in charge of
the anthrax investigation of two thousand and one and left
the FBI, and it's kind of been targeted.

Speaker 4 (31:09):
You know.

Speaker 1 (31:09):
It seems obvious to me that he was targeted for
his dissatisfaction with the course of the investigation. If that's
fair to say.

Speaker 3 (31:16):
Richard, I think that's fair to say.

Speaker 1 (31:18):
Okay, Greg, we'll take these messages and we'd be right
back with more of a retired FBI agent Richard Lambert,
And now a word from our sponsors.

Speaker 6 (31:27):
We all have questions. Did he do it or did
he not? We all have opinions, but do we really
know the truth? New evidence will now be presented and
the ultimate answers will be revealed in the explosive documentary
Serpents Rising, inspired by the best seller Double Cross for Blood,
an independent investigation of the trial of the century, the live,

(31:51):
the myths, and the concealed evidence. Don't miss Serpents Rising.

Speaker 1 (31:57):
This excellent documentary film is available at Serpent Rising at
Vimeo Videos on demand watch it for one dollar and
ninety nine cents. Remember, all these shows on Awake are
brought to you by email revealer dot com. You can
go to email revealer dot com and get a copy
of my book How to Become a Successful Private Investigator.

(32:18):
You also do all the kind of different services for
you at online dating service investigations called an online infidelity investigation,
and that's where you give us your husband or your boyfriend,
your girlfriend's email address and we trace it back to
their online dating websites and we return a list of
all the dating sites that that email is registered to.
We can expand our night investigation and trace it back
to porn sites, esports service sites, swinger sites, gambling websites,

(32:42):
and even prescription drug websites, and all kinds of digital
forensics computer and cell phone digital forensics where we can
recover deleted content from an email or a hard drive
and produce a report for you that you can use
in court. That's Email revealer dot com, or you can
contact me at Opperman Investigations at gmail dot com.

Speaker 7 (33:03):
WPR Rebuddle covering the side the story miss by Wisconsin
Public Radio bring you narratives. The UW System Board regents
won't allow shedding the light on perspectives. The owners of
WPR don't want you to hear Every Thursday at twelve
thirty Central time, WPR Rebuttal is your destination for grassroots

(33:24):
journalism in Saut County and beyond. Our Hoax Center. JPO
provides asightful analysis and the stories that are only superficially
covered by mainstream press. Our recent inventory of topics includes
college graduate under employment, yellow journalism in the media, and
favoritism in the public sector. Hiring process. Get your WPR

(33:45):
rebuttal fixed Thursdays at twelve thirty Central time.

Speaker 1 (33:49):
Subash Technosis is a search engine optimization and website design
company located in India. So you know you're going to
save a lot of money and get top quality service
to booth. They offer all kinds of services business process outsourcing,
data entry, banking, BPO services, recruitment, process outsourcing, software testing,
offshore research, networking, customer care, press release, content writing and distribution,

(34:14):
and much much more. They offer website development, e commerce solutions,
mobile responsive designs Now. I've personally worked with subash for
over ten years. This is the man that puts out
my press releases. They've done work on my websites, so
I can personally recommend subash Technosis dot com. You can
find a link to subash Technosis at Oppermanreport dot com

(34:36):
and also Awake Radio dot us check out kartking dot
com eight seven seven nine eighty six seven seven seven one.
Have you ever thought about opening your own mobile cart
or chiosk business. Perhaps your current business wants to add
multiple point of sale locations across the country quickly. Maybe
the facility you managed could kickstart revenue by adding coffee,

(34:58):
food or retail services. Likely say you'll own an office
building or a warehouse. Put one of these carts there
in the lobby well. Carking dot com can be the
answer to your needs. Cartking dot com is a North
American designer and manufacturer of the finest mobile retail, coffee
and food carts and kiosks money can buy. For twenty years,
cartking dot com has been working with clients and corporations

(35:19):
across America to provide indoor and outdoor carts and kiosks
for any application, from large, heated and secure outdoor retail
or food casks to smaller, more mobile coffee kaosks or
coffee stations coffee karts. Cartking dot com designs and builds
them all. Carts and kiosks are fun, and so are
the dozens of designs on the website. Carking dot com

(35:39):
please visit today at Carking dot com or just call
them at eight seven seven nine eighty six seven seven
seven one. Tell them at Oppermansension you get a good deal. Okay,
we are back with the Opperman Report. I am your
host private investigator at Opperman and we are here with
the retired FBI agent in charge of the anthrax investigation,

(36:03):
mister Richard Lambert Rick. I have another question for you.
You had mentioned before that Dick Cheneing was was on
top of this.

Speaker 3 (36:14):
Set ye at the time. You know, you may remember
the just almost the public hysteria surrounding uh, these attacks.
I mean people were putting their mail in ovens, baking
their mail before they opened it. Uh, And so this
was something that was on everybody's top priority list back

(36:37):
at Washington. So I spent a lot of time briefing, uh,
you know, cabinet level officials in the Wright House also
about the developments and the investigation, because obviously there was
intensive and extreme interest there. And I'm sorry, Ed, I
do need to make just one departure here in state
what I know is obvious, but I do want to

(36:58):
make it plain that I am here today simply in
my capacity as a private citizen commenting on a matter
of public concern. I don't work for the FBI anymore.
I don't work for the United States government anymore. And
the views that I'm expressing are purely Nile, not those
of the FBI or the US government. But but you
are correct. The bite House was very, very intensely concerned

(37:23):
and interested about this, as was the director. But unfortunately
that sense of urgency sort of stopped there and it
was not prevalent in the lower levels of the FBI,
which really hampered the investigation significant.

Speaker 1 (37:37):
Okay, And that's one of the basis of my question. Now,
couldn't you go to them and say, Hey, guys, I
need help over here in the FBI. Can you put
the heat on these guys for me? I mean, if
you got tick Cheney on the phone, I need help
over here. Help put some heat on the.

Speaker 3 (37:52):
Guys, right, I had too much effect, Okay, Director to
bring that sort of scrutiny and criticism to him at
that point in time. I tried to deal with his
subordinates as he instructed me to do. He was the
director was very interesting in the details of this investigation,
its progression, and its advancement. But in terms of resources

(38:17):
that were needed to keep it going, expertise that was needed,
getting people to conduct computer forensic analyzes, and those sorts
of things, those sorts of issues he delegated to his
deputies and had me speak with them, and I did
so repeatedly. But unfortunately, as I say, the same sense

(38:38):
of urgency and concern and engagement that the director evidence
was not there with his subordinates.

Speaker 1 (38:46):
Okay, and I've read your concerns both in the lawsuit
and in some different online articles, and just one point
was that only twelve or the twenty agents assigned to
this case had any prior investigative experience.

Speaker 3 (39:02):
Which, sadly, the investigation became sort of a political plan
in I guess in a larger struggle of egos back
in Washington. The director, Robert Miller, was very hands on,
supremely capable, exceptionally smart, probably the brightest man I ever worked,

(39:26):
but he had some ideas about management of the case.
It really violated about a one hundred year old paradigm
in the FBI, and that paradigm was simply this. The
FBI has fifty six field offices across the country, and
those field offices are headed by special agents in charge,
and they generally view themselves as teams of their fiefdoms

(39:47):
and that they will run their investigations without hindrance or
interference by FBI headquarters. Well, when this case came along,
the anthrax attacks, the director rightly viewed it as so
significant from a national security perspective that he made an
unusual decision and an unprecedented decision that he was going

(40:08):
to run that investigation from FBI headquarters. And so he
took it out of the hands of the Washington Field Office.
He put me in charge of it. I was assigned
to the FBI Headquarters Inspection Division, and I was told
to run it. And that's all well and good. I
was very comfortable with that responsibility. Unfortunately, commensurate authority did

(40:31):
not go with that charge of responsibility. So what happened is,
in retaliation for the investigation being taken away from the
Washington Field Office, they decided that they would only assign
agents right out of the FBI academy to the task Force.

(40:52):
And it seemed almost me a deliberate attempt to obstruct
or to make the investigation fail. I mean, the FBI
has got some incredibly competent, seasoned investigators who have just
done remarkable work over the years. But getting those agents
assigned to the case was just an incredible struggle. And

(41:14):
so for that reason, we had a lot of agents
assigned the case who had absolutely no investigative experience at all.
You know, it would be like if you took a
first year of medical resident and told him, Okay, tomorrow
you're going to perform brain surgery.

Speaker 1 (41:29):
Yeah, the biggest investigation in the country.

Speaker 4 (41:31):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (41:32):
I mean he could probably do it, but not well.
And you know, I had this very simple idea or
notion in my mind that given the significance of this attack,
you know, five people died, seventeen I also got sick
and ultimately recovered, the best and brightest that the FBI

(41:54):
has among its eleven thousand agents should have been assigned
to this case. And that is one of the lessons
learned for the next bio terrorism attack in this country
is we need to and we've got a the FBI
has got a list of all the people who have
the specialized expertise, and they need to be brought to
there immediately upon the problem and upon the investigation. And

(42:17):
that simply did not happen and uh, and I think
we spent years catching up as a result of that.

Speaker 1 (42:23):
Okay, but mister Lambert, you write this off as to
political egos and infighting and politics and red tape kind
of stuff, even after they've targeted you to the extreme
that they have.

Speaker 3 (42:41):
Well, I mean it is, it is what it is.
Should the investigation have been handled differently? Yes, I think
that you know now we have learned a lot of
things about about process for investigating these w m D attacks,
and I think we're much better prepared today. The FBI

(43:04):
is especially to deal with the next bioterrorism attack. But
you know that preparation and being better prepared comes from
hard lessons learned and failures and performance to their elections.
In the Anthrax investigators, well, you.

Speaker 1 (43:23):
Listened a whole bunch of concerns both in your lawsuit.
Can you give us a list of some of us
concerns about the investigation that that had you so upset?

Speaker 3 (43:32):
Well, one of the things that had me particularly upset
was this edict from the director to compartmentalize the investigation
so that the agents working on it only were aware
of that facet that was specifically assigned to them. I mean,
if nine to eleven teaches us anything, it's that you know,
when you've got a major case like this, everybody really

(43:52):
needs to know everything so that you can connect the
dots and you can, you know, make those associations and
understand those relationships between things as they as they occur.
And that edict was put in place, and I understand
why it was is to try to stem that tide
of leaks in the investigation. And in fact, ultimately those

(44:14):
leaks resulted in our Privacy Act litigation in which one
rodigant was successful in the American taxpayers actually paid out
I think about five point six million dollars to one
so called person of interest because of leaks in the
case that violated that individual's privacy right. So I understand
why the director did it, but it really had immense consequences.

(44:38):
And when he brought this up about these leaks, and
he brought it up repeatedly that I needed to make
them stop, I repeatedly told him that I did not
believe the leaks were coming from anybody on the task force,
but they were coming from senior officials either in the
Department of Justice or in the FBI. And my offer
to him was this we were setting around I remember

(45:00):
the director's conference table one day with all of his
assistant directors, and I said, if we want these leaks
to stop, what we need to do is afford everybody
in this room with polygraph examination and I'll take the
first run. I'll go first. And he looked at me
and said, We're not going to do that. And so
as a result, we you know, the case was ordered

(45:20):
to be compartmentalized. And again that really hindered and impeded
and slowed things down because now you've got people working
in isolation on specific parts of the case and they
can't share what they're learning with other individuals. And the
result of that was that I ended up being the
only individual who understood all of the pieces and parts
of that investigation that were on goal, which is not

(45:43):
a healthy thing.

Speaker 1 (45:44):
No, when you have the largest investigation agency in the world,
you know.

Speaker 3 (45:51):
The planet exactly, and especially when you know I'm not
that smart. Would it would have helped to have had
other brain power on this, investigating other people who also
understood all of the different facets and aspects of it.
As the case was developing.

Speaker 1 (46:08):
Well, one of the things that struck out at me
was these two PhD microbiologists that were sent to take
Arabic language classes for eighteen months during the investigation. What
justification could they be for that? What was more important
for them to learn Arabic than to this investigation had
nothing to do with Arabic? Did it? No?

Speaker 4 (46:28):
Not at all.

Speaker 3 (46:30):
Again, I believe that was just a politically motivated attempt
to stym me the investigation, you know, based upon the
Washington Field Office's dissatisfaction with the fact that it was
being run out of FBI headquarters. That again, that was
really unprecedented and unless you sort of steeped in and
experience with the FBI's culture, it's hard to understand how

(46:54):
that could be perceived as such a slight or an
offense to an agent and are to the field office.
But that is definitely how it was perceived.

Speaker 1 (47:03):
Now, Now, were you in touch with the Dashell's office
in Lady's office as well as they steph calling you
up and trying to coordinate and get information stuff?

Speaker 3 (47:12):
Oh?

Speaker 1 (47:12):
Yes, okay, because it seems to be from the videos
I watched today that they're dissatisfied with the investigation. They
kind of felt like they were kept in the dark.

Speaker 3 (47:21):
Well again, they were, but that is because as we
briefed them, some of the staffers turned around and leaked
that information to the media pretense of the investigation. So
ultimately it reached the point where we could not brief
them anymore because what we told them immediately appeared in
the newspapers the next day. And you know, the individual

(47:43):
out there who perpetrated the attacks, obviously, if he knows
the course and the scope and the direction of the investigation,
you know, that provides him with an opportunity to conceal evidence,
to develop alibis, temper with witnesses, and do all sorts
of things. So that had to be brought to an end.

Speaker 1 (48:01):
Okay, we're getting down to like the last twelve minutes.
So what am I failing to ask you? What would
you like to get out?

Speaker 3 (48:12):
You know, I don't know ed other than other than
this is just all very unfortunate. Obviously, I did not expect,
as a retired FBI agent, to have to be suing
the FBI and the Department of Justice for them issuing
a legal opinion that had no basis in allow of fact.
As a result of this retaliation against me, it's it's

(48:35):
a disappointment, but it is. It is what it is,
and you know, we'll see how it comes out in court.

Speaker 1 (48:44):
Yeah, I can see that. You know, you're a true
and true a company man. You're an FBI man, you know,
twenty four years now and you still protect it of
this agency that you love. But don't you feel now
that if this litigation were to continue, that more what's

(49:06):
the word of my more dirty laundry about this investigation
will come out in the litigation.

Speaker 3 (49:14):
Well, I mean it may or it may not. Actually,
the whistleblower aspect of it is is only a minor
part of the litigation from a legal standpoint in terms
of proving up a pause of action and prevailing in court.
You know, the fact is the FBI was was negligent

(49:35):
here in issuing a legal opinion. So this is very
much a legal malpractice case. As a result of that
erroneous legal opinion, I was fired from my job and
suffered damages. And so that's really what the case is about.
It's a legal malpractice case. And what the FBI's motivation
was for that negligence, for acting so grossly negligent and

(49:58):
issuing that opinion. I don't really think that's going to
be enough concern to the court. They don't really aren't
really going to care that much about why it happened.
The reason, again, I have included that in the lawsuit
is because it is such an anomaly, given that so
many people who retired from the FBI preceding me went
into the exact same job without these kinds of allegations

(50:22):
ever having been leveled. So that's the reason that it's
in there. I hope no more dirty laundry comes out.
You know, as you say, the FBI is filled with
lots of hard working, very dedicated people. Unfortunately, we just
had the perfect storm of clashing egos in this case
that really set it back. And I think that I

(50:46):
learned a lesson from that, and I don't think that
it will happen.

Speaker 1 (50:49):
I have a couple of questions, just at my own
curiosity that always just kind of said, hey, this is weird.
One thing is this Robert Stevens who worked for this
National Inquirer right office, and he was like one of
the first victims, right.

Speaker 3 (51:04):
He was the first victim what they call the index case. Yes,
and he worked at the AMI building in Voca Raton,
and AMI is the company that publishes the supermarket tabloids
that you see saw some the Inquirer and those sorts
of things. And Bob Stevens was a photographer for the
the AMI group. And unfortunately, despite extensive searches that were

(51:31):
done at the AMI building, no letter, no anthrax laden letter,
was ever recovered from that facility. I'm not sure exactly
why that is. There was and this is again all
public information, but there was extensive anthrax contamination found within
the AMI building, including within the mail room. So it
appears that certainly a letter did come into the facility.

(51:54):
Whether it was disposed of, you know, before it could
be recovered from the building is unknown. Maybe that you know,
as you know, anthrax has a latency period, It takes
a little while to infect the body, and then once
it does infect you, particularly inhalational anthras, it manifests the

(52:16):
same symptoms as the flu. And so given that lapse
of time between Steven's exposure and the time he actually
died and it was determined to be an anthrax infection,
I believe it's probable that that letter was probably disposed of,
just went out with trash, probably when he opened it

(52:37):
or had got access to it, thought that perhaps it
was a prank for a joke and just threw it away.
That would be my speculation.

Speaker 1 (52:43):
But my question is why would that building be targeted.
All the other targets were Congress and the New York CBS.
You know, why that building in Florida?

Speaker 3 (52:55):
You know, I don't know other than the fact that
it was again the publisher of those supermarket tabloids, and
those tend to, as you know, published stories that are
somewhat sensational and fanciful anyway, So I don't know if
if the perpetrator was simply hedging his bets by sending
it to the Ami building as well as you know,

(53:18):
the editor of the New York Post and then Tom
Broke Ott NBC. You sort of got the full spectrum
there of media outlets. I don't know. I don't know
what thought process was there.

Speaker 1 (53:30):
And wasn't there something up in Reno, Nevada as well
that involved Filipino porn And I think it was a
Google or IBM office or something that's a computer office
up there with antext is foundut there as well, wasn't it?

Speaker 3 (53:46):
Not that I can recall. But again we're going back
now nine years it's certainly possible, but that particular uh
set of facts. It's not ringing a bell with me.

Speaker 1 (53:59):
Okay, all right, it's okay, oh boy, okay, let's think
what else here? Well, anything else with the tapping your
head you like to share with us before we go,
you know?

Speaker 4 (54:15):
Just that.

Speaker 3 (54:15):
I think people should understand that that we are much
better prepared now as the nation. Law enforcement is better prepared,
the FBI is better prepared, the postal services is much
better prepared to detect and prevent this sort of attack
before it ever happens. I do believe that we will

(54:37):
We'll see it again because of the success and the
notoriety surrounding this. We know that anthrax and biological weapons
continue to be high on the list of terrorist intended operations.
So we will see this again in the United States
and again. My concern is that those who are in
senior leadership positions know and understand and learned from the

(55:01):
history of this amrithrax case, so that we don't make
the same sort of mistakes that we made in that investment.

Speaker 1 (55:08):
What do you think about people who say that the
motive for this could have been to intimidate the politicians
that were not in favor of signing the Patriot Act.

Speaker 3 (55:18):
Well, you know, that was one of the things that
we looked at. You know, we had a number of
criteria for persons of interest, and motive is always something
that you look at. When you look at the spectrum
of motive, you know, it could have been an ideological motive,
such as the one you're suggesting those who were not

(55:41):
behind the Patriot Act. It could have been a profit motive.
Let's say, for example, somebody had invented some sort of
device that would shut down a building AHPAC system that
anthrax were detected. An individual like that who had patented
such a device would there stood a lot to gain
from these anthrax attacks. The motive also could have been

(56:01):
victims specific. You know, maybe Tom Brokaw or the editor
at the New York Post was editorializing and said something
that the perpetrator didn't like about it vertically. So we
just don't know. But victimology a motive was something that
we took a very hard book at.

Speaker 1 (56:21):
Very interesting. So it would have to be someone who
had access to anthract first of all, in a high
grade of anthrax, and be able to process it like
you described before.

Speaker 3 (56:30):
Yeah, that was the first criteria absolutely over did this
had to have access to the aim strain of anthrax.

Speaker 1 (56:38):
What do you think about the possibility that the person
who would be behind this would also be able to
stifle the investigation in the FBI.

Speaker 3 (56:48):
I don't think that was a possibility. I think one
of the things that made this case so very difficult
is that the FBI at that point in time was
lacking the experts keys in microbiology and in anthrax, and
so we were forced to draw upon a number of
technical experts in the government and the commercial scientific community.

(57:11):
And the reality is is that any of those experts
that you're drawing on for help and assistance could also
be the perpetrator. And that makes it very unusual, and
it also makes it very incumbent upon the FBI make
sure they vet those individuals that they're asking assistance from,
so that you're not actually setting down with the perpetrator

(57:33):
and asking him to help you aid help aid the investigator.

Speaker 1 (57:38):
And it's one of the things that happened with this
gentleman Ivans who want to committing suicide is he was
recruited by the FBI to help examine these envelopes, I believe,
and then later on became a suspect. Yes, oh boy,
I came. I'd love to spend a couple more hours
with you. It's all these details I got to tell you,

(58:02):
but it is a tragic situation. I want to thank
you for coming on. Now. You don't have a book
or a website or anything.

Speaker 3 (58:09):
I don't right now I'm contending with this litigation. I
do have a book and draft that will have to
undergo FBI prepublication review, and so it may be years
before that ever sees the light of day, if at all.

Speaker 1 (58:21):
What if other people want to contact you for interviews.

Speaker 3 (58:25):
Well, my email address is actually in the complaint that's
been filed in federal court, and that is Lambert L.
A N B E R T six one eight at
gmail dot com, so they can get a hold of it.

Speaker 1 (58:39):
It's on LinkedIn too, That's how I find you on LinkedIn.
Thank you, Thank you very much, sir. I really appreciate
you coming on and giving us all this this incredible insight.
I can't tell you how much I appreciate it, and
God bless you and I wish you well with this lawsuit.
And it seems like it's opening shut to me. Really,
we'll see.

Speaker 3 (59:00):
I appreciate it. Thank you so much for the opportunity.

Speaker 1 (59:02):
Thank you, sir. That is Richard Lambert, a former FBI
agent retired now and in brom in litigation against the
FBI over his whistleblower activities. And we'll be right back
after these commercial messages. Thank you, Richard.

Speaker 3 (59:18):
Thank you.

Speaker 7 (59:50):
WPR rebuddle covering the side of the story missed by
Wisconsin Public Radio. Bring you narratives. The u w A
system boarder regents won't allow shedding the light on perspectives
the owners of WPR don't want you to hear. Every
Thursday at twelve thirty Central time, WPR Rebuttal is your
destination for grassroots journalism in saust County and beyond our

(01:00:13):
Hoax Center. JPO provides insightful analysis and the stories that
are only superficially covered by mainstream press. A recent inventory
of topics includes college graduate under employment, yellow journalism in
the media, and favoritism in the public sector hiring process.
Get your WPR Rebuttal fixed Thursdays at twelve thirty Central time.

Speaker 1 (01:00:38):
It's the Opperman Report.

Speaker 2 (01:00:40):
Join Digital Forensic Investigator in PI ed Opperman for an
in depth discussion of conspiracy theories, strategy of New World
Order resistance, hi profile court cases in the news, and
interviews with expert guests and authors on these topics and more.
Is the Opperman Report. And now here is investigator that Operaman.

Speaker 1 (01:01:08):
Okay, welcome back to the Operaingport. I'm your host, private
investigator at Opera. Let's see. That was our guest tonight,
Rick Lambert. He was the retired FBA eye agent in
charge of the anthrax investigation. And there you got, man,
there's a true believer. Man still believes in the FBI
and still a carrying water for him even after they

(01:01:29):
raided his office and got him fired from his job
through charges against them. But what are you gonna do? So?
I got about two hours I gotta kill tonight. Maybe
I'll pass out, who knows, uh? So make a couple
of little announcements here, then take some calls, maybe come
up with another topic. If somebody wants to call and
discuss anthrax with me, that'd be great. I got a lot,

(01:01:50):
a bunch of notes on it. Are probably given a
little bit of information I have on that myself, as
a matter of fact, wanted to get into that first, uh,
funny story. Funny thing happened to be on the way
through the radio show today, okay, as I was asking
him about the anthrax investigation that went on up in Reno, Okay,
because I know a little bit about that. And what

(01:02:13):
happened was is during the Art Bell feud back around
ninety seven, there was this big feud with the Art
Bell and some of his former guests. In fact, one
of his former guests was named Robert Stevens, who pointed
out he was the first victim of the anthraxx case
as well. But Art had this big feud going on
with the David John Oates and Robert Stevens, who claims

(01:02:37):
he was a Navy seal and all this sustine was
going back and forth, and one of the we all
got to know each other. Everybody's in involved in this feud.
I want to give it an aff of David for
Art and to help him to negotiate a settle with
this whole crazy business. But in this feud was this
character that was from Reno. And so when this thing
happened in two thousand and one, because he worked up

(01:03:00):
there in RINOs, I had some friends up Arina and
I said, you know this guy and he says, hey,
we know who he is. Eh. So then later on
in two thousand and one, when this anthrax investigation went on,
it came out that this Filipino porn was in an
envelopes with some suspected anthrax or with anthrax in it,

(01:03:20):
and it passed through this Reno post off. So I
talked to my friend up there about something else, and
he goes ay, ed, you know, remember you were asking
me about that guy you knew? And I says, yeah, yeah,
what about him? And did you hear from me? What's
going on? He goes, you know, the FBI was asking
about him because of this anthrax investigation. So the FBI
was actually investigating one of the people involved in the

(01:03:42):
art Belt feud, suspecting perhaps that they had passed along
this anthrax up there in the Reno post office back
in two thousand and one. That's kind of a little
funny connection that I had to it a couple other
funny things. I ask you, my yea, he really can't
call it funny. But because anthrax was a series thing,
I'd like to pull people die. Like you said, whole
bunch got sick. But one of the things was that

(01:04:05):
we didn't get a chance to talk about was that
on September eleventh, everyone in the White House and people
in Congress and stuff like that were giving the medication Cipro,
which is an anti antibiotic, and there was a theory
at the time that zipro could combat anthrac So when

(01:04:29):
you had the attack in September eleventh.

Speaker 8 (01:04:32):
Suddenly everybody in the White House and everybody in Congress,
and I the Supreme Court, everybody probably in people big
shots in the media and stuff like that, all the
big powerful people in Washington, the elite in this country world, given.

Speaker 1 (01:04:43):
This drug cipro. Right, they supposedly would combat anthracs. Even
before they even started getting the anthraxs in the mail.
Somehow they knew they might need it.

Speaker 4 (01:04:52):
Right.

Speaker 1 (01:04:54):
So when you look up the side effects for this drug, cipro,
and anybody could look it up Google, common side effects
of zipro include diarrhea, and I imagine you got ten percent,
let's say ten percent when people get diarrhea to take
this drug. Five percent got five percent. Of the whole
Congress is on the toilet. Right, they're supposed to be

(01:05:14):
investigating nine to eleven doing all this stuff like that,
you know, but they're they're on the toilet because they
got diarrhea, fuzziness, drowsiness, headache, stomach upset, abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting,
blurred vision, nervousness, confusion. You got the whole White House,

(01:05:37):
A good percentage of them gets the side effect of confusion, hallucinations, depression,
unusual thoughts or behavior, anxiety, agitation, sleep problems, insomnia or nightmares,
and red So I just imagine, you know, when you
talk about you know, who has the motive and the

(01:05:57):
opportunity to pull up this anthrax scam. The chemical came
from a somewhere on a military base. You so you
had to have access to this. So you know, the
average person can't make this. That's one. And then somehow
you half the people in the government all have hallucinations

(01:06:22):
and depression and confusion. How do you pull out off?
And then, like he says, you know, from the top
of the FBI, the investigation is hindered in monkey wrench
thrown into the investigation. I always thought that was a
fascinating little side note there on the anthrax investigation, that
they were all put on this drug that causes hucinations
and sleep problems, nightmares, unusual behavior. Another thing that always

(01:06:49):
stuck out at me about this anthract thing especially, was
that that building that we discussed, the American Media Building
in buc Raton, Florida, just got Robert Stevens died. He
worked for this National Choir type build They were on
all of them. They were all owned by the same company,
Globe National Choir. Oh. When this building was infected with anthrax,

(01:07:17):
a real estate investor bought this building for forty thousand dollars. Okay,
you can look up this building, look up the American
Media Building in book Raton, Florida, and put in anthrax
to it. You see the size of his building. It's
like one of those big Hampton suites, one of those
big little hotels in a little motel. Huge building in

(01:07:38):
Boca Raton, Florida, sold for forty thousand dollars, and then
the investor that bought it made a plan to lease
it to a company called Buyo One. Okay, now the
financial terms of this agreement have not been disclosed blah
blah blah. But Buyo one was this company that we
just started up that they can clean out anthrax. They

(01:07:59):
got the experts he's and then know how to take
care of anthrax. Don't worry about it. It's going to clean
this out there for you, and then we're going to
rent this building from you. Byle One is owned by
Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York City. Happens to
own the company that went in and had this deal

(01:08:20):
to buy up this building and then lease it back
after cleaning it up. They buy her forty thousand dollars
a day clean it up.

Speaker 4 (01:08:29):
I get this.

Speaker 1 (01:08:30):
I found something else here to clean up the Brentwood
Post Office in Washington cost one hundred and thirty million dollars. Okay, Now,
so if you're looking for suspects, you know, who could
have been behind this anthrax deal and started companies to
clean it up for one hundred and thirty million dollars,

(01:08:50):
You know, I would take a look at those people
as well, you know, to see who owned these companies
and sort of these cleaning companies for anthwerract cleanup jobs.
He was discussing this character Ivans, doctor Ivans, who was

(01:09:10):
driven to suicide by this investigation. By the way, and
then after his death, the FBI pretty much announced that
the case was closed, and he had to be this
guy Ivans. He had to have done it because he
was an alcoholic and you know, he was depressed and
bizarre connections. One connection that they claimed it had to

(01:09:32):
be him was because he had an obsession with a
college sorority near Princeton University, and that his obsession was
that he edited some comments on Wikipedia about this sorority

(01:09:53):
and that the post office where he mailed the anthrax
letter was next to a storage locker that's the sorority
used for their ceremonial gowns and pledges and stuff like that,
where they kept an office for some equipment, not where
the sorority house was, but bore they had some office
to take care of some storage. And because it was

(01:10:16):
three hundred feet from there, that it had to be
connected to him because he had a question in the
sorority because of Wikipedia, you know, and disart, it just
happened to have an office by this mailbox. Just a
outrageous connection. But this guy Ivans, that was one of
the accusations against him, and also too that he spent
a lot of time late in his office there with
his uh but he never had the type of anthrax.

(01:10:36):
He had liquid anthracks. He never had the type of
anthrax that was the type that was placed in these envelopes.
But after the ward came back that he was going
to be arrested fatal overdose of time and all. But
there was no autopsy. They did the blood.

Speaker 4 (01:10:57):
What is that called.

Speaker 1 (01:10:58):
A tox level lean out to find him was in
his blood there and they came up but it was
a talent all. Either it was talentyl coding, which was
in the autopsy of the medical examiners report, or it
was in the police report, was that he had purchased
two bottles of talentol PM. So the name talents and

(01:11:18):
we don't know if it's time well PM or talnel
with coding. But that was in two thousand and eighty.
The government declared that he was responsible for the anthidrrex
letter attacks. H they're also accusing this guy Halffield for
a while, and I know there's other people. I know
a j webman has his target on half field and
so he did it. So if you want to call

(01:11:42):
in and talk about the anthrax and you give me
call seven oh two six oh five four eight nine
four seven oh two six five four eight nine four.
You can skype me at edz dot Opperman. This guy
Irvin two For a while there he was involuntarily committed
to a psychiatric hospital, okay, and the FBI had either

(01:12:07):
an agent or wire taps who knows, or an agent
or an informant in one of his therapy sessions, and
he made some very bizarre statements were ford to believe
the FBI report. And one thing he says is, uh,
I can tell you I don't have it in my
heart to kill anybody. I don't have any recollection of
ever doing anything like that. As a matter of fact,

(01:12:29):
I have no clue how to how to make a
bio weapon. I don't even want to know. Another statement
he says is, I can tell you I'm not a
killer at heart. Then he says, if I found out
I was involved in some way, and and then another
quote is I don't think of myself as a vicious, nasty,
evil person. Then he says, I don't like to hurt

(01:12:53):
people accidentally in any way. And several science wouldn't do that.
You mentioned the scientists that this USA, UH wouldn't do it,
and in my right mind wouldn't do it. Then he laughs.
But it's still I feel responsibility because the anthrax wasn't
locked up at the time, so it's a very bizarre statements.

(01:13:15):
We got a call coming in from six four six, Hey,
six four six, Hello, Hey, how are you.

Speaker 5 (01:13:26):
Right?

Speaker 1 (01:13:27):
Hi?

Speaker 5 (01:13:31):
I just wanted to talk about the interview.

Speaker 1 (01:13:33):
Okay, what do you got?

Speaker 5 (01:13:36):
I just started fascinating because it was just like this,
it was like putting well, I read his lawsuit, so
he's talking about it. It's like this incredibly sophisticated an tracks
that's so light, and that was like no what was
reported at all? You know in the paper that was

(01:13:56):
like this, you know, it was obviously this it's anthrax.
I was like really simple, you know, like was made
by you know, Alkena and you know, all this stuff
and it's but he wasn't putting any of the pieces together.
Does he really think it was just like some rogue
government political sol I mean, who does he think sent it?

Speaker 1 (01:14:23):
Well, you gotta understand, first of all the guys that
he's in the middle of a lawsuit, right, I got that. Yeah. Secondly,
a Hatfield you know one a lawsuit against the FBI,
you know, because they were accusing him of this, you know,
so so so legally he's been cleared. No one can
point the finger at him. I haven't.

Speaker 4 (01:14:41):
I wasn't.

Speaker 5 (01:14:41):
I wasn't continuating with him or anything like that.

Speaker 1 (01:14:44):
Yeah, but I'm saying that's why the guests couldn't really
point the finger at anybody. You know, he's in the
middle of a lawsuit. And but that's a good question.
I don't know he I guess he seems to think
that it's a still some foreign threat or no. No, I
think he thinks it's a it has to been local threat,
you know. But we really couldn't couldn't get that out
of them. And it's the kind of guess I need

(01:15:06):
a couple of hours with Tayta should that's really yeah.

Speaker 5 (01:15:10):
Facing because it wasn't like the usual you know, conspiracy
crew guest. It was like, you know, kind of like
you said, like a company company guy, right, So I
was pretty I was pretty fascinated by by by it.

Speaker 1 (01:15:25):
Yeah. It takes a little more work, you know, it
takes a little more time, a little more work, you know,
but we'll get to it. I'm hoping I can get
them for a membership section show and really sit a
couple hours with them off the air and get up
to relax a bit. I think, especially too after this litigation.
I think we get more out of this guest. But
this won't be the last anthrax show we do by
any means.

Speaker 5 (01:15:47):
Because it's always the closure.

Speaker 4 (01:15:48):
I mean, I know nine to.

Speaker 5 (01:15:49):
Eleven people always say like building seven, building seven, but like,
really the antracks like that kind of a key, you know,
it just like came out. They had really good timing.
You have to believe that. I guess someone was inspired
by nine to eleven.

Speaker 1 (01:16:06):
And just happened to have this weapons great anthrax sitting
in their drawer.

Speaker 5 (01:16:11):
You know, yeah, really great answer, and then got really
lucky that the government was doing all this infighting and
the theor part of what he said was that no
one was allowed to talk to each other, and so
you know, we're sitting here. It was like saying, you know, well,
can you imagine an investigation like in a police department

(01:16:32):
where nobody's allowed to talk to anybody else in the
police department if they're investigating a murder, Like, how well
that investigation would go but they're not allowed you know,
it's like everybody segregated from one another. How well that
would go? If they were working together as a team.

Speaker 1 (01:16:46):
It's not well worse than that I can say right now,
because if twelve agents out of twenty agents had just
come out of the academy, these were kids. So you
got twenty, yeah, twenty guys working for you, there's only eighty.

Speaker 5 (01:17:00):
Need to talk to you know what, I smacking the head.

Speaker 1 (01:17:03):
That's all the guys you know, you know, stumbling over
each other, you know, trying to find it where the
water cooler is.

Speaker 5 (01:17:08):
Literally, you know, this isn't an important public safety issue.

Speaker 1 (01:17:15):
So let's take you.

Speaker 5 (01:17:16):
Know, our greatest guys on this, and I'm not allowed
to talk to each other. Let me that'll make it
go really well.

Speaker 1 (01:17:22):
You know, I didn't have to changing on the phone
every day. You know.

Speaker 5 (01:17:28):
My other favorite thing is that was from a cow
in Texas that I didn't get from from reading the lawsuits. No, no, no, no,
that's where they have said cow.

Speaker 1 (01:17:38):
Yeah, that's where they get the strains. And then they
have to you know, they you know, develop it, you know,
and then it gets the you know, you have to
have to have that source. You know, originally it's a
it's a biological source. But uh, I thought I was
going to say to it, but it talking about the

(01:17:58):
twenty agents that there's only eight guys. You can really
oh no, no, no, you're right even with this, but
get this man. This guy did some really good work
because they were told they were able to locate the
actual mailboxes that these envelopes were placed in, you know,
so that that's why. So they went to every single

(01:18:20):
mailbox and tested every mailbox with traces of anthrax and
found it. That's a ton of leg work. That's really
serious work. Man. So and only had twenty guys. It
sounds like eight of them were just you know, I'm
sitting around a twelve minutes and doing nothing picking.

Speaker 5 (01:18:37):
Two to two go gethers.

Speaker 4 (01:18:40):
Yeah, they got the bottom of it.

Speaker 5 (01:18:42):
It was just it was fascinating, fascinating interview. You know,
they're also different, but this one was you know, you
kind of felt like, I don't know, I guess as
a listener, I felt like I was like yelling at
the radio like you don't get it, Like maybe you
could put those and I know maybe he does get it,
but you know, you get kind of frustrated as a

(01:19:06):
frustrated and fascinated you know, as a listener. Blissard, you know,
put it together.

Speaker 4 (01:19:12):
Yeah, all the little things.

Speaker 1 (01:19:14):
Trust me, I know what you're saying. Man, It's it's
very frustrating, and especially too, we've been under such a
tack lately too, that demon, you know, Like we didn't
get the equipment fixed and up and running and working
until like a half an hour before the show.

Speaker 4 (01:19:30):
Oh boy.

Speaker 1 (01:19:31):
Yeah, two weeks ago when we did that show with
about the al Qaeda visas and about how while Obama's
a CIA. Uh, five minutes before that show, one of
the guests sent me over a PDF with his bio
on it, and I said, when I tried to open
up and said, hey, is malicious malburn here?

Speaker 3 (01:19:51):
You know?

Speaker 1 (01:19:51):
But I said that, you know, and it's opened up anyway,
and uh, it shut down SAM the broadcasting software and
call notes, the recording software. Everything else is fine, but
to shut down lists too soft. Forth And uh, I've
been trying to fix it for two weeks and we
had it fixed this morning, and then when I went
to open it up again, it was broken again. So
it wasn't untill a half hour before the show we

(01:20:12):
finally got to fix. So that's the kind of stuff
we're dealing with over here, guys. If you have any idea.

Speaker 5 (01:20:16):
Swine by seeing your pants, you know.

Speaker 4 (01:20:19):
Yeah, well we'll do a great job.

Speaker 5 (01:20:22):
So, I mean, I hate just saying my social rights
is really tougher because you know, I gotta be in
on Friday nights.

Speaker 1 (01:20:29):
Yeah, well me too. These guys can catch the repeats,
you know. But I got to sit here no matter what.
But I got no social life anyway. I'm done forgetting me.

Speaker 5 (01:20:36):
Such a I'm such a geek, and not you.

Speaker 4 (01:20:41):
I'm such a gee.

Speaker 5 (01:20:42):
I gotta you're at least producing them, you know. So
what's coming up?

Speaker 1 (01:20:47):
Coming up? Next week? We have John Potash coming back
to talk about his new book about how the uh
the government has been using drug addiction against us and
against activists. And uh, we're gonna be talking about all that.
Oh that's not got another poll is Dead show coming up?

Speaker 5 (01:21:05):
Uh well yeah, I don't know. I don't know about
that one. I can't I can't go there. But I'm
fascinated by those too. But I just that's a lot
of work, you know, to replace an entire human being.

Speaker 1 (01:21:20):
Yeah, I agree with you.

Speaker 4 (01:21:22):
Yeah, he would think that like.

Speaker 5 (01:21:23):
A nurse, would you know, you know, like there's National
Inquirer stories it's always like the nurse that like gives
it up, you know, to the National Inquirer for it
seems like someone would give it up, you know.

Speaker 1 (01:21:36):
Well and a nurse assuming that the first McCartney's dead,
but it could be they were just swapped out and
they're both alive because there was a guy living in
McCartney's house that looked just like him. Uh, and he
was living in his childhood home. Who knows. There's so
many factors in that all that, but there's so much
weird stuff with with lan and hypnotism and Mark David

(01:21:57):
Chapman and Yoko who the home.

Speaker 5 (01:22:00):
Colona was just she was you know, we both went
to the same college team. Just what a weirdo you know.

Speaker 1 (01:22:10):
Yeah, well, yo, Colonna is an escape mental patient.

Speaker 5 (01:22:13):
I know you just like left her kid. Yeah yeah,
no maternal think it all, yes, and the fact and
didn't she has her son on the same birthday as John.

Speaker 1 (01:22:27):
Oh no, I didn't know that. I didn't hear that part.

Speaker 5 (01:22:29):
Now, Yeah, like Sean, I think is born on the
same day. And I you know, I know she was
older when she had I was wondered if, like, you know,
she was just so weirdy and occult if she had
you know, planned that out, you know for the astrological.

Speaker 1 (01:22:45):
Definitely weird and supposedly there's a lot of stuff that
came out in her album Shattered Glass. There's like a
lot of occult references in air too, about about her
regrets actually about being involved in any cult. But that's
on walking on thin ice, you know.

Speaker 5 (01:23:02):
Yes, Oh, there's a big there's a big show in
New York coming up with all her you know, her music,
her fantastic music because at the I don't know if
it's that say, it's at the maybe and it's one
of those game museums and maybe the whitnear the net
or whatever. There's a big yogo no show coming up.

(01:23:26):
And I just can't believe that people still give her
any any credit at all for being some you know,
an auiost or a musician or anything, you know, besides
being married to someone very terrible.

Speaker 1 (01:23:39):
Yeah, I hear you. And now a word from our sponsors.
Have you ever thought about opening your own mobile KRT
or kiosk business. Perhaps your current business wants to add
multiple point of sale locations across the country quickly. Maybe
the facility you manage could kickstart revenue by adding coffee,
food or retail services well, Kurtking dot can be the

(01:24:00):
answer to your needs. Cartking dot com is a North
American designer and manufacturer of the finest mobile retail, coffee
and food carts and kiosks money can buy. For twenty years,
cartking dot com has been working with clients and corporations
across America to provide indoor and outdoor carts and kiosks
for any application, from large, heated and secure outdoor retail

(01:24:22):
or foodchaosts to smaller, more mobile coffee station carts. Cartking
dot com designs and builds them.

Speaker 4 (01:24:29):
All.

Speaker 1 (01:24:30):
Carts and casks are fun, and so are the dozens
of designs on the website. Please visit them today at
cartking dot com. That's cartdesh king dot com, or just
call them at one eight seven seven nine eighty six
seven seven seven to one. That's eight seven seven nine
eighty six seven seven seven to one. The Operaman Report

(01:24:52):
is brought to you by subash technosis dot com. Subash
Technosis is a search engine optimization and website design compan
They're located in India, so you know you're going to
save a lot of money and get top quality service.
They offer all sorts of business process outsourcing, data entry, banking,
BPO services, recruitment, process outsourcing, software testing, offshoring, research network,

(01:25:16):
customer care, press release, content writing and distribution, and much
much more. Now you can get a hold of subash
Technosis by email at info at subash technosis dot com.
Their website is www dot subash technosis dot com and
their Skype is a n U s h A s

(01:25:37):
U b A s h. Okay, we are back with
the Opperaman Report. I am your host prior investigator at Opperman.
Last week we did that show on Marilyn Monroe.

Speaker 4 (01:25:47):
Uh, that was interesting.

Speaker 1 (01:25:50):
That was the highest rateed show we've ever done. And
we got more. Oh yeah, but by far, and we
have we got more response to the blog and to
the the Amazon you know dot com. We didn't go
to my blog and you click on the book, I
can see the Amazon hits like three hundred times our
second most popular show. That was our most popular show

(01:26:12):
by far in a long long time.

Speaker 4 (01:26:15):
Wow.

Speaker 1 (01:26:16):
Yeah. And by coincidence, Buddy Greco who was up there
at the cal Neva lot it was owned by Frank Sinatra.
That weekend when when Marilyn was raped with like our
guest was talking about has the last photographs of Marilyn
Monroe when she was alive? He took the pictures and
he's putting them up for sale right now. I don't
know if you heard about the show right I don't know,

(01:26:36):
but oh it.

Speaker 5 (01:26:37):
Wasn't bird Stern. He did that book. The last sitting
said those were the last photographs. But oh that's interesting, Okay, yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:26:45):
Buddy, Greg, he's saying it's the last photographs of Marilyn
Minoe before she died. The other ones by professional photos.
These are like, you know, candid photos. Oh, neither are
just like okay, yeah, And he just decided to put
them up for sale. So I contacted him about coming
on the show on talking about it and promoting the
seal of those books. I'd love to hear what happened
that last weekend because he knows the world, but he

(01:27:06):
knows all these guys. Uh gee, I know.

Speaker 5 (01:27:12):
As a listener, could I could listen to maybe? I
don't know if this says about me, but like ten thousands,
you just did nothing but West Memphis three shows from
now on. Yeah, with the call in part because I
live for you can present people who think that they're
innocent with ten hundred tons of evidence and he will

(01:27:34):
still call in and tell you that it was pop.
Like just whatever you say, whatever you throw at them,
they go withago. They'd be like, he had an hour
to kill three kids with no motive in the middle
of the in the mihooter, like while you're looking for

(01:27:56):
his dead stepsne like, oh yeah, three different ways or whatever.
I can listen to like one hundred of those episodes
and meanwhile of them.

Speaker 1 (01:28:06):
Yeah, the killers that confessed were seen walking down that
road covered in mud. You know, you know, it's just
it's insane. But see, one of the things with this, though,
is with this uh, this this blood sacrifice, with these
ritual murders, is I believe that the people that do
them can can lie and get people to believe their lies,

(01:28:30):
and they can also get people to lie for them convincing.
I've seen that in other situations with this this blood
sacrifice and stuff. So and this this guy echoes. Man,
he's supposed to be a big shot with.

Speaker 5 (01:28:43):
The two dude, I mean really, in those documentaries are
so amazing because you know, I first thought that I'm like, oh,
this is such a mischarage of justice. Oh my lord,
you know, and then you can interview with him and
you're like, oh gosh, that's really creepy. And then you're
looking to it further and you're like, whoa. And you

(01:29:03):
should have known, like or I should have known when
I watched the documentary when he says he turns to
his lawyer at one point and he says, I think
we've got the case beat, really, And I think nobody
who's you know, innocent, is going to say we beat
the You know, you're not going to beat a case
if you're in, you know, really beat a case if
you're you know. I mean, that's just how I do language.

(01:29:26):
But I should have known then. But it's just really
creepy being in the same city as this guy, and
I think he.

Speaker 9 (01:29:31):
Just go and the more time he's out, the more,
you know, he comes out with all this stuff.

Speaker 5 (01:29:37):
I mean, you did that great show with William Ramsay
about you know, his membership in the the one called
the I t O? But what is the Crowley Organization?

Speaker 3 (01:29:52):
Is that.

Speaker 5 (01:29:54):
The OHTO? But you know, the longer it gets, the
more like he just can't have enough creepy, a cold tattoo.
He can't do enough really scary creepy work and creepy
tweets and and uh, you know, I guess I guess
the yoga woman, uh maybe woke up to some kind

(01:30:15):
of realization that I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:30:18):
No, I think there's been no. I think they canceled
that appearance, but there's they've been photographed together since then,
and well, yeah, yeah, yeah, I predict.

Speaker 3 (01:30:30):
That.

Speaker 5 (01:30:30):
I guess she'll maybe she's into it, maybe she's cult
and witching, and.

Speaker 1 (01:30:34):
Well, yeah, well the people around him, they all are.

Speaker 4 (01:30:38):
There's really like.

Speaker 5 (01:30:39):
Half of them are. I think half of them really
think he's iness and and I think the other half
are just like witching and occult.

Speaker 1 (01:30:45):
And I can tell you all the all the top
people from the from the beginning, all know that he's guilty.
And I also think that it's gonna he's gonna come
out and admit it in a couple of years that
he did this, you know, for for you know, cult practices,
you know, and and uh and and start advocating that
they can't convict him again.

Speaker 4 (01:31:02):
And I think that's what happened with his wife.

Speaker 5 (01:31:04):
You think he can't. I mean, she hasn't been seen
in a year right now.

Speaker 1 (01:31:08):
They've recently been photographed together again too. They did in
a parents together.

Speaker 5 (01:31:14):
Yeah, yeah, I know there was a while she was missing.

Speaker 3 (01:31:19):
You know.

Speaker 5 (01:31:19):
Of course I had the fan I say that, like
he can he had some late night confession or something,
but obviously that didn't or maybe that did happen, and
you know, or maybe she knows. I would think that
he would. He seems so into his identity as a
victim and a wrongly accused guy. I can imagine him
like admitting it to like, you know, a few witchy people,

(01:31:40):
but I can't imagine him like publicly coming out.

Speaker 1 (01:31:44):
But I see it coming.

Speaker 4 (01:31:47):
See.

Speaker 1 (01:31:47):
The thing is, and I would like to do more
shows about it too. But the thing is that there's
such the fans are such stalkers and just the most rudest,
and you deal with just more crap and BS dealing
with that. We already want a couple more shows coming
up on that. I have one of the witnesses who
testified that the trial is going to come on the show,
who's never done a show before.

Speaker 4 (01:32:07):
And I got his attention, which one I can say.

Speaker 5 (01:32:10):
I don't wanted to say probably.

Speaker 1 (01:32:13):
Yea, right, because yeah, we had Pam Hicks, Terry Hobb's
wife was supposed to come on and they threatened her
and then tyrestd herm and then just scared her. And
that thing's coming on.

Speaker 3 (01:32:23):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (01:32:23):
I'm still working on that though, and it's it's ten
times more trouble than any show. Uh, you have no
idea because you can't even post the you can't announce it.

Speaker 3 (01:32:35):
You know.

Speaker 5 (01:32:36):
And just in young girls too. I noticed on Twitter
that you know a lot of young girls will will
you know, say supportive things about him or be doing
book reports or you know, saying he's dreaming, and it's
really really creepy.

Speaker 4 (01:32:54):
Oh boy.

Speaker 1 (01:32:54):
And people still saying, oh, I wear black or I
was I listened to metal that they totally missed the
whole you know, they was only.

Speaker 5 (01:33:02):
You know, I know and even though the prosecutors like
it's not about the metal, my kids wore black and
listened to heavy metal. I like heavy metal myself. You know,
whatever you say, it's just it doesn't penetrate nothing, nothing,
nothing penetrate.

Speaker 1 (01:33:21):
Well, Jesse Mskelli's father said, he says, what are you
talking about? All those kids dressed like that, They all
look like that. They all were wearing a heavy metal
and listens to the metal mews a long kid. You know,
this is the nineties. This wasn't mebery RFD you know
in the in the fifties. This was you know, the
nineties Walmart and uh trail kids. But the difference was

(01:33:44):
is that Eccles was walking around telling people it was
going to sacrifice his baby when the baby was born,
if it was a boy, you know, all kinds of it,
putting in mental institutions.

Speaker 5 (01:33:53):
The best point, yeah, you know, I mean just there's
so many dog animal lovers, including myself. If you would
think just the dog killing, forget the kids, the child's killing.

Speaker 1 (01:34:05):
Would be enough to turn people off, right, But that
doesn't the guys who saw him kill the dogs too,
the guys who saw him kill the German shepherd took
a polygraph and passed by the way. Every polygraph would
have to be one hundred percent wrong. Everyone who saying
killed in criminalis and everybody who say if they would
all have to wanted not what Polygraphs aren't ad messible
and not one hundred percent. But these are one hundred

(01:34:25):
percent Because if you believe you didn't do it. They're
all one hundred percent wrong, you know, right, he's just.

Speaker 5 (01:34:31):
Mixed with his interviews where he lies about everything that
really that's the person you're gonna trust, the guy who
lies about everything about having to watch his back when
he's in like a solitary cell twenty four hours a
day because he's a great of getting shamed. There's nobody
else there. Like he lies about everything.

Speaker 1 (01:34:51):
Well, you know what, he and the guy in the
cell next to him, they removed a brick between their
selfing did you know the story?

Speaker 5 (01:34:59):
Yes? But do they do know the story? So he
could crawl into.

Speaker 1 (01:35:04):
The other cell and have sex with this guy and
then crawl back to put the break back and then
sue the the jail for saying they weren't protecting him,
you know, like I was twice the size. You couldn't
fit through that hall.

Speaker 4 (01:35:19):
Something's crazy.

Speaker 5 (01:35:21):
I think. I think there are some members of the
public that aren't Michi did are just convinced of the
DNA evidence with their hair because they say it's an
exact mat to you know, to Terry Hobbs, when it's
you know, not an exact man. As one point, you know,
five percent of the population and the kid lived with him,

(01:35:44):
you know, but I think I think that is somehow
persuasive in some ways to with this incredible revis like
incredibly you know, biased and ridiculous documentary. But but once
they make up their mind, they're really rigid too though,
you know, it's really hard to I don't care, it's

(01:36:06):
just that's so fascinating. They all have no problem about
calling up and you know, just sticking to their their
opinion no matter what, you know, what evidence was presented.

Speaker 4 (01:36:18):
It's really fascinating.

Speaker 1 (01:36:19):
Oh yeah, Like the comments on YouTube, you can tell
that they didn't even listen to the especially the show
where you know, we pretty much lay it out a
really good case that he's a member of the OTO.
They named the library after him. He was. He signed
up to the OTO ministry group while he was in prison,
while he was claiming he was a Buddhist. The OTO
has a u talking about the best type of child

(01:36:42):
sacrifice to do. You know, all this stuff is there,
but they don't even listen to the interview. Oh, this
case had nothing to do it to come. Anybody who
thinks it is it does didn't follow the case. And
it's funny too. That's one of the reasons why I
brought on uh, Sean Wheeler. But he's coming back to
by the way, Sean whel he's going to.

Speaker 4 (01:36:59):
Do all Oh yeah, yeah, he really knows the case.

Speaker 1 (01:37:02):
Gin He's he is the guy that started all this.
He was the only guy arguing the guilt and so,
and he knew the case so well that it became
a badge of honor, became a mark of expertise in
the case to memorize the case because he had the
case memorized. So now all these they got to memorize

(01:37:24):
this case. They got to know every little freaking detail.
How many you know, every little who is the cousin
or an uncle? You know?

Speaker 4 (01:37:31):
They got Yeah, And then they think just because.

Speaker 1 (01:37:33):
They have memorized better that they have to be right
about it. But because they're based on that on Sean
Wheelers encyclopedic knowledge of this case way back in ninety
seven and ninety eight, when he knew this thing back
when and forward, he's the one who got all those documents.

Speaker 5 (01:37:47):
Oh really, yeah, on Callahan got you know, five k
or whatever.

Speaker 1 (01:37:52):
Yeah, I say about about half of the docs on
Caleahan Wheeler got first easily background ten years fifteen years ago.
You know, Wow, that's all work, I know, And then
these kids will come along and say, why I never
heard of Sean Whaler?

Speaker 4 (01:38:09):
Who's that?

Speaker 1 (01:38:09):
All the way? They allot this?

Speaker 4 (01:38:12):
You know, what did you say? His handle was like
public enemy, public nimbor.

Speaker 1 (01:38:19):
One of them was public Enemy numero who so he called,
and then another one later on was necromancer you know,
isn't that you know? And he had a whole bunch
of bloods.

Speaker 5 (01:38:32):
Yeah. Also noticed just with a general like that, that
young kids aren't being taught to critically think. So like
when the Bill Cosby accusation came out, you know, I
was I just caught like a little clip of like
the Talk or one of those women talk shows, and
I think something like maybe it was like thirteen or

(01:38:54):
fourteen women had all come out with the same exact
story about Bill Cosey and the woman who is getting
talking points and know, and her her comment was something like, well,
you know, there's a lot of stuff on the internet
and you know Bill Cosby. I don't even know if

(01:39:16):
I could be just in articular that she was Bill Cosby.
You know, we don't know, we weren't there, So it's
not a quarter I don't even think she said a
quarter of law. But what she meant was, you know,
he hasn't been tried or convicted in a court of law,
so we can't say he's guilty. And I wasn't there,
so I don't know. But can't you think after thirteen

(01:39:38):
women all have the same story, you know, tell exactly
the same story, that the likelihood of it being true
with no financial incentive, that the likelihood that it may
be true is greater than not.

Speaker 1 (01:39:57):
Yeah, you would think so. And the same people that say, well, no,
he's a the Illuminati is coming after him because he
talks about blacks taking responsibility for themselves. And the Illuminati
went after Michael Jackson because he was exposing them, you know,
and they set him up and they you know, they
did a list. You know, my god, you know you
gotta be so uh, there's no quick thinking anything.

Speaker 5 (01:40:18):
Sons killing was weird. That was always strange to me.
To kill the guy was on his way to kill
somebody or do a drug deal or something and just
like saw him on the side of the road right
and didn't take anything and just shot him. And then
and then like didn't go to trial. He didn't want
to go to trial and uh just learned to close

(01:40:41):
the case and take Islam. And then like that's very
odd thing. I mean that I think is more. I
don't even like the word luminami, but I want to
talk about some kind of conspiracy. That the son's killing
so odd.

Speaker 1 (01:40:53):
And then less than a week later, he has his
daughter arrested for claiming that she was extorting him. And
if this love child that he had, you know, proclaim,
he has his daughter arrested, you know, and that's she's
back out now, you know, making saying the same things
that she's his daughter. Uh so she's still saying it.

Speaker 4 (01:41:15):
Yeah, and I think he paid money for for years? Yeah, years, Yeah,
I mean do you think I mean.

Speaker 5 (01:41:23):
It's could it be possible that one of these women
that he drugged or something that could have been a
revenge killing.

Speaker 1 (01:41:31):
I don't know about that.

Speaker 4 (01:41:32):
They to do with a daughter or the or I
don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:41:36):
But the killing was weird. And it was funny too
because when if you listen to the first interview I
did with Mark Ebner, he brought up Bill Cosby, assuming
that I would know what he was talking about about
the rapes, you know, but the drug and the rapes
because he's been talking about this for years and years.

Speaker 4 (01:41:51):
Did they mark ed Mark Eddner?

Speaker 5 (01:41:53):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (01:41:54):
So, and and he says, well, what about Bill Cosby?
And I says, yeah, what about that when his son
got shot and then he he gets his order arrested
and he wanted to talk about the rapes though, but
I totally missed it. I should go back and listen
to that myself and see what was going on with that,
because he had some stuff he wanted to say that
I wasn't let.

Speaker 5 (01:42:11):
Yeah. Yeah, his book was it was interesting which one
they weren't interrupted? Yeah, I always wonder about I don't know.
I didn't think that at the time, but now with
Johnny Depp supporting Damien Echos, it's also strange. On Halloween
at River Phoenix died right, you know, right in from

(01:42:34):
his club.

Speaker 1 (01:42:34):
Yeah, when Phoenix was dating his ex girlfriend.

Speaker 4 (01:42:38):
Yeah, so generous and all that.

Speaker 5 (01:42:40):
Yeah, because I wonder about that.

Speaker 1 (01:42:44):
But yeah, someone else said that the River Phoenix took
a drink and that's what was.

Speaker 4 (01:42:51):
In that book.

Speaker 5 (01:42:52):
Yeah, the book. And I was like, I've never heard
of a speedbal being put in a drink, so I
thought that was but I don't know, but then gb
H was going around then too, did that Did they
check for GDH? Would that have come up?

Speaker 1 (01:43:10):
I had no idea.

Speaker 5 (01:43:12):
I have no idea because I remember Billie idol collapse
like right around that same time of a gb H overgoes.
I mean there's a ton of another weird thing is
that in his autosy is like they said, oh he
took a cold pale And I was like, well, m
maybe it was like crystal mass back then, and they

(01:43:35):
didn't make a connection. I don't even I don't know
if it was even made from cocktails back then, or
if it could have even been confused in the same way.

Speaker 1 (01:43:43):
Well, you know, if you could you could die if
you take like niquill and then you take some uh
talent ol PM at the same time. That's lethal, that
could kill you easier. Oh yeah, that's what this guy,
uh I even died from. Talent Talent talent PM is
a dangerous freaking drug. And they sell it in those
big giant bottles for what reason? If someone those big

(01:44:03):
giant bottles were and a friend of mine that worked
for a nine one one dispatch told me, she says,
you know what, man, get that stuff out of your house,
she goes, because all of them, all the overdoses are
the talent of PM.

Speaker 5 (01:44:16):
Well, just my daughter told me that just thail it all.
You know, other christ Apron ibuprofen are the second with
toxic drugs that can only to chemot arapy. Drug told
me that, you know, I'm not saying do an inert

(01:44:37):
taking if you have a headache, but he's just said
to be you know, really got a point and a
lot of peo taking a lot of accor and giving
me a huge lecture about it because you're so toxic
to your liver.

Speaker 1 (01:44:48):
Really, I take a lot of I know silent I
was bad for your livery, but I take a lot
of iproven.

Speaker 5 (01:44:54):
That's in there the same thing exact get back cut
back from the uh anyway, and I heard that I'm
just really sad that there about Dave McGowan being so sick,
and yeah, it's terrible.

Speaker 1 (01:45:15):
Well, the Nick Bryant thing, I haven't confirmed yet, but
Dave McGowan for people that don't know, we found out
that Dave McGowan is in the hospital with stage four
cancer and it was a very sudden kind of thing,
you know, and he was saying we saw pictures him
where he said he was sick and he thought he
had the colder. Some of his face was all swelling.
He looked horrible and so but his brother tells us

(01:45:38):
now that he wasn't even sleeping at night and couldn't
sleep through the night and would have that sleep happening
kind of thing where you know, we couldn't breathe see,
we'd go to bed at night, wasn't even sure he's
gonna wake up the next day was so bad. So
Dave he went to the hospital and I don't just
started him on chemo and we're all praying for him. Uh, well,

(01:46:00):
we'll know if this first stage of chemo helps. If not,
this the second stage they can do. And but the
diagnosis is really bad. They're saying that the best case
scenario would be like five years. It's like a two
percent chance. But other people are coming forward saying, hey,
you know we had the same thing and they lived seven, ten,
fifteen years. So you don't know what the starctors tell you.

Speaker 5 (01:46:21):
Well, such a special guy. And I guess listeners can
donate through his Dave's web page to his PayPal.

Speaker 1 (01:46:28):
Yeah, there's a PayPal.

Speaker 5 (01:46:29):
Don gets the extra support that he needs.

Speaker 1 (01:46:32):
Yeah, because you got to remember, okay, and a lot
of people making these comments to me. I got a
couple of emails this week saying, oh, what does Dave
need money for? If he's on his bed. You know,
he's not going to be thinking about money. But he
can't work, you know. And his website is Dave's web
dot cnhost dot com, and right at the top there's
a donate button. I forgot to put the link on

(01:46:54):
the blog last week and my most biggest show too,
I should get it on their fast but yeah, but
there's a donate button on there, and that you can understand.
He can't work now while he's sick like this, okay,
and he's just like all of us, living paycheck to paycheck.
His brother while he's sitting by his bedside, can't work
and support his family. So they need our support. And

(01:47:15):
people got to start taking this serious. I know there's
a lot of bull crap out there, but when you
look at people, if if Nick Brian, if it's true
about him, I know Vinnie Eastwood man, he has no
money to pay his rent this week and live Dave
is done his quote unquote death bed. You know, and
you know, people are putting their necks out for you,

(01:47:38):
and a lot of other people on the other end
are kind of treating it like a game, like it's
a joke or you know, it's a hobby or something
fun entertainment. Look at Reverend Pinkney. Reverend Pinkney is in
jail seven years. They got sixty seven years old, was
in Joe for seven years. He's facing serving already in there.
So you know, and I have no doubts.

Speaker 4 (01:47:58):
Well, look yeah, I think so.

Speaker 5 (01:48:00):
You know, if you've been through something horrible, you know
it's it doesn't just affect you know you, you know,
it affects you, you know, your whole family and even
if you know even right down to your you know
your dog right and you know, dog food, rent family, everything.
You know, it's it's not it's not just it's not
just you, right, because and if you want and today

(01:48:24):
people who are suggesting something like it's available in California,
it's some kinds of like alternative treatment or even just
you know for not here control, you know, with marijuana.
Not that I'm suggesting it, but if he chooses to
go with that's not free, that's not covered under your
health plan, those kind of things. You know, this is

(01:48:46):
a really aggressive team that he's going through.

Speaker 9 (01:48:49):
Yeah, a personal health decisions, you can, you know, have
to make that. At least you should have.

Speaker 4 (01:48:55):
A you know option, right.

Speaker 1 (01:48:57):
Yeah, he doesn't have a good health insurance. I could
say that right now, and neither does the brother. And
this is going to bankrupt the family, you know. So
the point is, though, Okay, if we're serious about what
we come on here talking about, we got to stick
together and we got to help each other out. And
I know, like even with the members section, I set
up the new member section to help support me and

(01:49:19):
support our situation here. And we've got a lot of
people complaining, you know that we don't have new content up.
We got our own problems over here too as well.
You know, I haven't heard from Christopher in about two weeks.
You know, he's not a well guy either.

Speaker 3 (01:49:33):
You know.

Speaker 1 (01:49:34):
With the webmaster who volunteers to do this stuff for us,
does the all volunteer man, this is not no one's
getting richer. We're taking money out of our pockets to
do this for you. Even right before this show tonight,
thank god that Tracy from Awake Radio Tracy Kennedy from
the Turtle Island News found a copy of the software

(01:49:57):
for me and sent it over to me. She sent
me over like ten of them. None of them were
working because we're my bread. I was just some crap
going out of my computer here. So but otherwise I
would have to buy more another program or or rent
to do fifteen dollars a month for another expense for
all this and this all this money's not growing on trees.
It's this is work, guys. This is a lot of work.

Speaker 3 (01:50:17):
You know.

Speaker 1 (01:50:18):
Even to my research today on this Anthex thing was
hours and hours and hours. And that's with guys, by
the way too. We're just settling my custody thing with
my daughter this weekend. Okay, we're gonna be signing this payboard.
It's going to end all this stuff. My daughter's gonna
be with me five days a week.

Speaker 5 (01:50:34):
Oh that's great, yeah, which is.

Speaker 1 (01:50:35):
All we wanted from the beginning. So we had to
go a whole to the year and a half, two
years in litigation, and so oh yeah, that's yeah. You
have no idea how bad it was. And this kid
went through hell. But but but I'm dealing with that
as well. Besides this stupid radio show. Any extra after
shows which we are recording and we are taping them.
I have them, I just can't I don't know how

(01:50:56):
to upload them to the website. So if anybody has
any kind of experience doing that, you want to get
a hold of me and help out. While Christopher is
on the mend, you know, get a hold of me
and help out. But you know, but don't give us
a hard time about it. Man, We're all trying to
do this together, you know. And any amount of money
you guys can send me, trust me, I spent ten
times putting out here in doing this nonsense.

Speaker 4 (01:51:18):
Okay, So let's do like a quick review.

Speaker 5 (01:51:20):
So if you want to help out, ways to help.

Speaker 4 (01:51:24):
Out daily, become a member. The first thing is website.

Speaker 1 (01:51:30):
The most urgent thing right now is Dave's on his
uh you know, heal web right, Dave's web doe cnhost
dot com. But if you just google Dave McGowan and
it's a donate button right there at the top. And
if anybody from the group, the Weird Scenes Group or
Dave's family wants to call in, we're gonna be on
for another hour and give us an update. That'd be

(01:51:51):
great too. We'd love that you want to help out
with the show. There's this free content, this extra content
in the member sect that you can sign up on
operamandreport dot com.

Speaker 5 (01:52:00):
Which is excellent. By the way, I can say.

Speaker 1 (01:52:03):
Yeah, there's good stuff in there, right that that's a
Jananski woman.

Speaker 4 (01:52:07):
Yeah, I know.

Speaker 5 (01:52:09):
But I feel like a little guilty because I feel
like that mix of people who are complaining when there's
not new stuff up there, Like, you know, I think
the same thing, like, get some new stuff up there.

Speaker 4 (01:52:21):
We're just you know, here's here's what I got to know.

Speaker 1 (01:52:24):
Let me look this up here.

Speaker 5 (01:52:26):
I just want to bug you. It's just, I know,
I know, we just like we just like the show.

Speaker 4 (01:52:32):
How do we get it up?

Speaker 1 (01:52:33):
Do you know how to do it? I didn't get
the passwords.

Speaker 5 (01:52:40):
They know someone who knows.

Speaker 1 (01:52:41):
That get them for me. I didn't get the password
to do this two days ago. I just got the passwords. Okay,
But we just did an interview with Neil Sanders about
mind Control.

Speaker 5 (01:52:53):
That's the one I'm dying here. I know.

Speaker 1 (01:52:55):
Yeah, it's pretty good.

Speaker 4 (01:52:56):
It's good.

Speaker 1 (01:52:58):
Doug Valentine, that's a really good interview. Doug Valentine was
the guy who wrote the book at the Phoenix Program
and he actually he got up there. It's it's not
up yet. No, it's it's not but I did it.
I recorded it, and he he loved this interview is
one of his favorite interviews he's ever done. And he
wants to come back really quick. Okay, and he has.

Speaker 5 (01:53:21):
Are you serious? Yeah, I think my boyfriend can do it.

Speaker 1 (01:53:25):
Oh good, I'm coming. I'm coming, Tom.

Speaker 5 (01:53:29):
Do you have you have this number right?

Speaker 4 (01:53:30):
It came up?

Speaker 5 (01:53:32):
Yeah, Okay, that's just that's.

Speaker 1 (01:53:34):
Douglas Valentine was wrote a book at the Phoenix Program, okay,
and about how the CIA was extorting people done in
in the Vietnam and how it went on until Salvador
and goes on to this day, how these CI agents
went into the drug enforcement agents. Okay. He was telling
me about how he met Colby and used to visit
Coolby and he has all the recordings of all these

(01:53:55):
interviews with these CIA agents and Coolby and he'll make
them available to us.

Speaker 4 (01:54:00):
Oh wow, oh wow, Yeah, I know.

Speaker 1 (01:54:02):
Kathy Scott wrote the book about the Robert Durst murder. Okay,
Neil Sanders mind Control. So we got a lot of
great content up there that's about to come up. I'm
gonna be doing another Marilyn Minue show, another pol Is
Dead show. I got John Draper, the phone freak guy.

Speaker 4 (01:54:20):
It was it bad.

Speaker 3 (01:54:22):
He was.

Speaker 1 (01:54:23):
He used to live across the street from Yippy headquarters,
and back in the seventies, he came up with a scheme.
He found out that if you took the whistle that
came inside a box of Captain Crunch as a toy,
that you could blow it into the phone and make
free phone calls with it. So he went on to
do a whole bunch of crazy stuff. Yeah, he's a character,
and he got arrested a couple of times. Just some stuff,

(01:54:46):
but fascinating guy. Oh by the way, too, I'm being
told by Anne Romney that Dave's website also is called
Center for Informed America America. That's right, Yeah, Center for
Informed America. So you can also google that and find it.
But a few google Dave rams it comes up right away.

Speaker 5 (01:55:05):
Yeah, because it was growing up, Abby Hoffman probably like
lived in my house for like a year and stayed
over out here, gone on to him, Yeah, and and
Abbie Hoffman stay over front, and it was like way
it was right before. It was like a couple of

(01:55:26):
years before he committed to that. Oh really, it had
all that facework from you know, being on the run
that was around this really nice true and he also
just really like I guess my impression as like a
twelve or thirteen year old was, you know, when you

(01:55:47):
go up against the government, it just takes everything out
of you. He's kind of like a shell of a
shell of a person.

Speaker 1 (01:55:55):
Yeah, yeah, no, yeah, and I that's around the same
time I met him, So it was right before the suicide.
And dude, you're right.

Speaker 4 (01:56:00):
He was.

Speaker 1 (01:56:06):
Broken, broken man, you know, and just arguing. You know,
I wanted to argue about every little thing. Uh, just unhappy,
unhappy guy, very unhappy.

Speaker 5 (01:56:15):
Yeah, that was the is very variant, unhappy.

Speaker 1 (01:56:20):
But still working to me because when I met him,
it was at a meeting of the Night PERG, the
New York publican insist research group had a fundraiser and
so he came on there and helped out with that.
Did like an appearance.

Speaker 5 (01:56:33):
Oh kay, he moved. My father is a writer and
he's actually he's got himself like elected as the only
guy who didn't vote.

Speaker 4 (01:56:46):
For Reagan at the.

Speaker 5 (01:56:48):
St re publishing National Convention in eighty four, which is
weirdly the one the guy saying the national anthem, the
reason the Franklin scandal, whom I thinking it, Larry King,
Laurence King, so uh, the holy What was going on

(01:57:09):
was a big fight against the pumping station pumping water
to cool and nuclear power plant. And the whole town
area was a gangstand and they were fighting the Philadelphia
Electric Company for years and my mother was arrested multiple
pimes and it was just a big, big fight. And

(01:57:29):
that's why he was brought, you know, brought in to
you know, to kind of rally the troups.

Speaker 1 (01:57:38):
Okay, listen, we gotta We're gonna take a break. Okay,
then we have another hour to go. We're gonna be
dropping p s N and dropping Talk superstations. So guys,
thank you so much, Thank you Angel, and thank you
Diamond Joe for putting us on tonight. Uh And next
week we have John Pottish coming on. But if you
want to, we'll take a little five minute break and

(01:57:59):
if everybody wants to call in seven O two six
oh five four eight nine four seven o two six
oh five four eight nine four might have my daughter
call in, uh talk about our litigation ending and might
be fun and she's addressed for the graduation coming up.

Speaker 5 (01:58:15):
Well fantastic.

Speaker 1 (01:58:16):
Okay, so let me play a long.

Speaker 5 (01:58:18):
I forgot we were on the I forgot we were.

Speaker 4 (01:58:19):
On the radio.

Speaker 1 (01:58:20):
Yeah, I know that happens, right, I never forget that
because I go ahead from it.

Speaker 5 (01:58:23):
Call my boy friend Tom about the about the uploading.

Speaker 1 (01:58:27):
I will, I will, Okay, okay, okay, all right, can
I You can call it back if you want. All right,
So we're gonna say goodbye to PSN and talk superstation.
Can I. Guys, we love you. It's a live on
Wake radio dot US dot UK. It's the live on
speaker and now a word from our sponsors. Have you

(01:59:29):
ever thought about opening your own mobile cart or kiosk business?
Perhaps your current business wants to add multiple point of
sale locations across the country quickly. Maybe the facility you
manage could kickstart revenue by adding coffee, food or retail services. Well,
cardking dot com can be the answer to your needs.
Cardking dot com is a North American designer and manufacturer

(01:59:49):
of the finest mobile retail, coffee and food carts and kiosks.
Money can buy. For twenty years, cardking dot com has
been working with clients and corporations across to provide indoor
and outdoor carts and chiosks for any application, from large,
heated and secure outdoor retail or food casts to smaller,
more mobile coffee station carts. Cartking dot com designs and

(02:00:13):
builds them. All carts and casts are fun, and so
are the dozens of designs on the website. Please visit
them today at cartking dot com. That's cartdeshking dot com.
We'll just call them at one eight seven seven nine
eight six seven seven seven to one. That's eight seven
seven nine eighty six seven seven seven to one.