New book - front cover

Click HERE to Order
from the Printer!


Click HERE to order from Amazon.com!

Analyzing the Anthrax Attacks
(2009-2014 Edition)

Commentary
& Analysis
by
Ed Lake

IF YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR SEE ANY ERRORS ON THIS SITE, PLEASE CONTACT ME AT:
detect (at) newsguy (dot) com

The discussion blog for this web site is at
anthraxdebate.blogspot.com

New book - front cover

Click HERE to Order
from the Printer!


Click HERE to order from Amazon.com!
Click HERE to buy the Kindle version!

Click Here to order from Barnes & Noble!
My original analysis and working hypothesis,
and everything from prior to January 1, 2005, 

can still be accessed by clicking HERE.
All the information gathered and analyzed from
January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2008,
can still be accessed by clicking HERE.
Click HERE to buy the Kindle version!

Click Here to order from Barnes & Noble!
 
CONTENTS

(click on the Section to go to it)

Overview
Thoughts and Comments
  Latest references (top)
Latest references (end)

VIDEOS
  12 FACTS which  show that a child wrote the anthrax letters
Ed Lake describes his book "A Crime Unlike Any Other"

KEY SUPPLEMENTAL PAGES

(click on the name to link to the page)
Where & When Bruce Ivins Made the Anthrax Powders ... Allegedly
How Bruce Ivins Made the Anthrax Powders ... Allegedly
FOIA Pictures of Bruce Ivins' Laboratory
FOIA Pictures of Bruce Ivins' Office
The Bruce Ivins Timeline
The Errors That Snared Dr. Bruce Ivins
Bruce Ivins' Consciousness of Guilt
The Coded Message in the Media Letters (the "smoking gun")
Dr. Ivins' "Non-Denial Denials"
Evidence vs. Beliefs
The Mysteries of the AFIP "Report"
The Facts Say: A Child Wrote The Anthrax Letters

The Attack Anthrax Pictures
The annotated version of the Aug. 18, 2008, roundtable discussion
Van Der Waals Forces & Static Electricity: How they affect bacillus spores
The Steven Hatfill Timeline/The Attempted Lynching of Steven Hatfill
The Campaign to Point the Finger at Dr. Hatfill
Dr. Hatfill & The "Clueless" Media
The Media & Iowa State University
PBS Frontline vs. The Anthrax Facts
Anthrax, Assaad, Terror and the Timeline
Other Theories About the Anthrax Case
The Illogical al Qaeda Theory
Mohamed Atta did NOT write the anthrax letters
Reviews of my first book
My comments about other anthrax-related books

Overview

This web site was started on November 22, 2001 to keep track of facts related to the anthrax attacks which had become a major news event during the previous month.  I found that most people only wanted to discuss beliefs, opinions and conspiracy theories.  I wanted to see what the facts said.  Plus, news stories were appearing and then being deleted, and I needed a place to retain the articles which contained new information.  So, for the next seven years I accumulated facts and references and analyzed all the data I could find.  In March of 2005, I even self-published a book describing what the first three years of my analysis had found. 

On August 1, 2008, the news broke that the person the FBI believed to be the anthrax mailer had committed suicide.  His name was Dr. Bruce Ivins, and he worked at the USAMRIID labs at Ft. Detrick, MD.

The conspiracy theorists and True Believers who had argued their beliefs and opinions for the prior seven years were not persuaded by the FBI's evidence.  They continue to argue their beliefs and opinions, claiming that the FBI cannot prove Dr. Ivins was guilty.  After all, if the FBI was right, that would mean they have been wrong for seven years.  And that couldn't be, even though they don't even agree with each other about key facts:

Some still believe al Qaeda was behind the attacks.
Some still believe Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks
Some still believe a vast Jewish conspiracy was behind the attacks.
Some still believe the Bush administration was behind the attacks.
Some still believe the CIA was behind the attacks.
Some still believe pharmaceutical companies were behind the attacks.
Some still believe a writer was behind the attacks in order to sell books.
Some still believe Dr. Steven Hatfill was behind the attacks.
Some still believe a different scientist was behind the attacks.
Some still believe that a military person was behind the attacks.
Some still believe their next door neighbor was behind the attacks.

Some still believe the attack spores were "weaponized" with silica or silicon and that anyone who says otherwise is either lying or incompetent.  They still believe there must be some vast criminal conspiracy to cover up the real facts, because they simply do not believe anything the government - and particularly the FBI - says.

Some still believe that Dr. Ivins did not have the ability to make the attack anthrax. 

And, perhaps most bizarre of all, some still believe that there is some similarity between the "investigation" of Dr. Steven Hatfill (who was eventually exonerated) and the investigation of Dr. Bruce Ivins.  The facts show that the two cases could not be more different.  Dr. Hatfill was the victim of an attempted lynching by conspiracy theorists, people in the media and some politicians.  They worked together for six months to get Dr. Hatfill arrested for a crime he didn't do.  The FBI's Hatfill "investigation" was purely political and based upon "tips" from those same conspiracy theorist scientists who claimed the FBI was "covering up" for Dr. Hatfill when the FBI's investigation found nothing to tie him to the mailings.  The Ivins investigation, on the other hand, was the result of years of detailed scientific analysis and an equally detailed criminal investigation.

The Case Against Dr. Ivins

The facts say that Dr. Ivins was the anthrax mailer:

1.  He was in charge of the RMR-1029 flask containing the "mother" spores which produced the attack anthrax "daughter" spores.  He was in charge of "the murder weapon."

1.1  He tried to destroy "smoking gun" evidence that he had encoded a hidden message inside the media letters, but the evidence was recovered and clearly points to Dr. Ivins as the anthrax mailer.

1.2  He was a diagnosed sociopath.  In 2000, a year before the anthrax mailings, Ivins had talked with his mental heath counselor about his plan to poison a "young woman."  The counselor called the police, but because Ivins hadn't provided a name, there wasn't anything they could do.  The facts indicate the woman was Ivins' former assistant, Mara Linscott.  Ivins evidently changed his mind about poisoning her.

2.  The FBI investigated everyone else who had access to the RMR-1029 flask and eliminated all of them as suspects.  Eliminating potential suspects is routine police procedure.

3.  He had worked with Bacillus anthracis for over 20 years and had all the necessary expertise and equipment to prepare the spores in the anthrax letters.  He could routinely make a trillion spores a week.

4.  He accessed the locked suite (B3) where the RMR-1029 flask of spores was stored at the times the attack anthrax would have been prepared.

5.  He worked alone and unsupervised in his lab for long hours at night and on weekends during the time the attack anthrax would have been prepared.

6.  He had no scientific reason or verifiable explanation for working those hours or at those times.

7.  In December of 2001, Dr. Ivins secretly swabbed and bleached more than 20 areas in his lab, destroying possible evidence.   In April of 2002, he did it again.  Both cleanings were unauthorized and against protocol.  His explanations for doing it were contradictory to his actions.

8.  Investigators examined another flask of Ames anthrax spores created by Dr. Ivins for his own use in his work and found that a percentage of the spores in flask RMR-1030 contained silicon just like what was in the attack spores.

9.  It was not commonplace for him to work long evening hours in the Bacteriology Division's Suite B3 before the anthrax attacks or in the months after the anthrax attacks.  His long hours in Suite B3 at that time broke his normal work pattern.  Suite B3 was a BioSafety Level-3 area.


10.  He had multiple motives for sending the anthrax letters.

11.  He tried various ways to mislead investigators when they started to suspect him.

12.  He had no verifiable alibi for the times when he could have driven to New Jersey to mail the letters.

13.  He was known to drive long distances and to use various methods to mail letters and packages so they could not be traced back to him.

14.  He had various connections to the New Jersey area where the anthrax letters were mailed.  The ZIP Code used in the return address on the senate letters was 08852.  It belongs to Monmouth Junction, NJ.  According to a letter in Ivins' files, his ancestors on his father's side came from an area then known as Monmouth, NJ.  Plus, Monmouth College in Monmouth, IL, is where the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority (an obsession of Ivins') was founded.

15.  He had serious mental problems, which appear to include murderous impulses.   He'd been seeing psychiatrists since 1978.

16.  The pre-stamped envelopes which were used in the attacks had print defects, and one of the post offices which sold those envelopes was a post office which Dr. Ivins used.

17.  His wife ran a day care center at the time of the attacks, Ivins had many contacts with children, and the facts indicate that a child of about 6 was used to do the actual writing on the anthrax letters.

18.  Investigations found no evidence that someone other than Dr. Ivins sent the letters.

19.  There is no evidence that Dr. Ivins could not possibly have sent the anthrax letters.

20.  People commit suicide to escape justice.  People who are unfairly accused sue their tormenters.

Although the case was officially closed on February 19, 2010, there may still be some additional facts pointing to Dr. Ivins' guilt which have not yet been disclosed by the FBI, specifically information related to his sessions with his psychiatrist or psychologist.  That information is still "under seal" by court order.

Meanwhile, those who cannot accept the FBI's findings continue to use every tactic they can to cast doubt upon the FBI's findings.  They have no proof of Dr. Ivins' innocence, so all they can do is try to make it appear that if there is any doubt - reasonable or not - about Dr. Ivins' guilt, then he must be innocent.

Conspiracy Theorists and True Believers 

Because they often support each other in opposing the FBI's official findings, it is sometimes difficult to tell a Conspiracy Theorist from a True Believer.  But, there is really are very distinct differences:

Conspiracy theorists often do not know or care who sent the anthrax letters, they only know that "the government" cannot be trusted, "the government" is lying about something, and they want to expose it.

True Believers feel they know beyond any doubt who sent the anthrax letters, and anyone who does not believe as they believe - including the FBI - is just not looking at the right facts.

Both will do anything and everything they can to get the undecided and uncertain to join with their cause.  And there are differences in their tactics as the go about their recruiting: 

The #1 tactic used by conspiracy theorists is junk science.  They wildly misinterpret facts about the case, they claim their bizarre misinterpretations prove something, and they demand that those misinterpretations and baseless claims be either accepted or disproved.
 
The #1 tactic used by True Believers is to accuse the non-believer of being "closed minded" and to wear down the non-believer as he tries to prove he is not "closed minded."

There's really no point to arguing with a True Believer.  Back in 1951, Eric Hoffer published his landmark book "The True Believer" in which he stated that the only way to change a True Believer's mind is to convert him to a different belief.  So, unless you are prepared to do that, it's best to just avoid them.  They will bury you in irrelevant facts if you don't avoid them, they'll claim that if you do not read everything they read and interpret everything the way they interpret them, then you are ill-informed and your opinion is worthless.

Conspiracy theorists, however, appear ready to debate some of the relevant facts of the case.  They just move on to different facts if they are proven wrong about their first set of facts.  Example:

The initial theory about the anthrax being "weaponized" was that the attack spores were coated with bentonite and the government was covering up that fact.  That theory was quickly shown to be false.  When the next theory that the attack spores were coated with fumed silica was also disproved, they moved on to a new theory that the attack spores had tiny particles of silica glued to them to defeat van der Waals forces.  When that was shown to be nonsense, they moved on to a theory that the spores were treated with a waterproofing substance that would coat the spore coat without leaving any trace on the exosporium. 

The conspiracy theorists and True Believers seem to have a few followers in Congress.  Perhaps there will also be some Congressional hearings.  I hope so.  Congressional hearings seem to be the only way to clarify certain details about others who were caught up in the investigation. 

Thoughts and Comments
by Ed Lake

Updates & Changes: Sunday, November 23, 2014, thru Saturday, November 29, 2014

November 23, 2014 - For awhile, I didn't have any on-topic subjects to write about this morning.  There's been nothing in the news.  The Anthrax Truthers have stopped arguing on my interactive blog, which means they aren't providing any new absurdities for me to write comments about.   "DXer's" recent posts to Lew Weinstein's blog seem to be about screwball side issues that have little or nothing to do with the Amerithrax investigation.  So, there was nothing worthwhile there for me to comment about, either. 

But, then my daily Google news search for "anthrax+2001"  turned up an "in-depth" interview with conspiracy theorist Graeme MacQueen, the author of
"The 2001 Anthrax Deception : The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy."  What's most interesting about that interview is that it shows a conspiracy theorist explaining his reasoning.

For example, the interviewer, Julian Charles of TheMindRenewed.com, says
, "Then they turned to Bruce Ivins, and that was successful  in the sense that the case was closed.  But you, along with many others, maintain that that case was extremely flimsy, almost to the point of non-existence."  And then the interviewer asks, "Could you give us an idea of how implausible that case was against Dr. Ivins?"

And MacQueen explains!  Here's a small part of his explanation:

So the FBI then has a field day: “Oh well, the fact that he took his own life just shows his guilty conscience”, and they write a document in which the case against Ivins is made. (I think it’s something like 90 pages long; you can find it on the Internet). You have to realise how outrageous this is. The man is dead, and you’re making a case against him, a case on the most flimsy, circumstantial evidence, slander, and all the rest of it.  He has no chance to rebut this. He had a lawyer, but the lawyer really has no function anymore because Ivins is dead.  This, by the way, is part of a common pattern that we find in fraudulent events. This is the Lee Harvey Oswald phenomenon. Remember that Oswald supposedly killed Kennedy, and then just happened to be murdered in the presence of 70 Dallas police officers. Well, that meant, of course, that he would never be able to tell his story; he would never be tried; he would be convicted by slander, not by a legal process. I believe this is a fairly common pattern with these things.

MacQueen's explanation shows he is seeing patterns between things that happened decades apart under different Presidential administrations.  That's a clear indicator that he is seeing "the government" as evil, regardless of who is in the White House.  For him, everyone in the entire government is - and always has been - part of a vast criminal conspiracy to cover up all their evil deeds.

However, I found this comment in a different paragraph to be particularly interesting:


He [Ivins] himself wrote a note to someone saying something like this: “The state demands its blood sacrifice, and it appears I am to be that sacrifice.”

I didn't recall reading that quote before.  Researching the supposed quote, I found something like it mentioned in a February 2010 New York Times article by Scott Shane:

Long before he became a serious suspect, Dr. Ivins, one of the government’s most experienced anthrax researchers, was a valued consultant to the F.B.I. investigators on the letters case. Only after path-breaking genetic analysis led to his lab did investigators consider that their genial scientific adviser might actually be their quarry.

As they focused on Dr. Ivins and read his e-mail messages, the report said, they began to be increasingly convinced that he was the mailer. And as he became aware that he was under scrutiny, he directed the F.B.I. repeatedly to other potential suspects. Once, in 2007, he wrote what the F.B.I. calls “an illogical 12-point memo” suggesting that the two female former colleagues with whom he was obsessed might have mailed the letters.

When one of the women, made aware of the memo, confronted Dr. Ivins about it in 2008, he wrote to her, blaming an alternate personality he called “ ‘Crazy Bruce,’ who surfaces periodically as paranoid, severely depressed and ridden with incredible anxiety.” He complained that “it seems as though I have been selected as the blood sacrifice for this whole thing.”


I noticed that the two quotes did not match.  And, I still couldn't recall Ivins ever saying such a thing.  Checking further, I found this on page 69 of the Amerithrax Investigation Summary:

As his depression took on a new level of severity in the spring of 2008, and he was briefly hospitalized for his first articulated suicide plan, Dr. Ivins sent a number of e-mails that are both evidence of his fixation with and reliance on Former Colleague #1 and evidence of his guilty conscience.  For example, in an e-mail to Former Colleague #1 [Mara Linscott] and her close relative [probably her sister] on March 19, 2008, at approximately midnight, just prior to this first hospitalization, he said the following:

I miss the days that all would say that I was sane without a snicker.
I miss the days when I felt that we were doing what was
worthwhile for our soldiers. I miss the days when I believed that
our undertakings were worthy and honest and sacrificial. I miss the
days since I could talk to you!

O, Healer! O devoter of your life to the lives of others! I can hurt,
kill, and terrorize, but others place me with the vilest of the
vile. . . . Go down low, low, low as you can go, then dig forever,
and you’ll find me, my psyche. I can kill none but myself. I can
terrify none but myself, but I can love and hug and turn toward the
good, all who are willing. Give[n] my long-distant and non­
productive past. Our pasts shape our futures, and mine was built
on lies and craziness, and depression, and thievery, and things that
make an honest man and woman cry. Alone. The farther I go, it’s
alone. The state smells its carniverous death-blood sacrifice. I
look into the mirror and cry out who it is.

I'd say that Graeme MacQueen and Scott Shane both took those two final sentences out of context and significantly distorted what Ivins actually wrote.  Why wasn't this the headline?:

"I can hurt, kill and terrorize,"
  Dr. Bruce Ivins confessed!


Why didn't they also quote Ivins as saying that his life was "built on lies and craziness, and depression, and thievery, and things that make an honest man and woman cry"?

What exactly was Ivins trying to say in that incoherent, rambling email?  It certainly was NOT that he was an innocent man being sacrificed by "the state."  The DOJ says it shows "evidence of his guilty conscience."  I agree.  And, to me, it seems that Ivins was saying, "I've killed and committed terrorism; the government wants to devour the killer; I look in the mirror, and I cry out that the killer is me."

But, I digress.  In the Graeme MacQueen interview, Mr. Charles asks more questions:

What kind of weaknesses were there with the evidence?  Can you drag up a couple of things to give us an idea?

And Graeme MacQueen again explains!
 
Well, the FBI claims that he had the capacity, the requisite tools and equipment, and presumably some motivation to make this product, and so on.  All of this is unsupported by the evidence. He did work with anthrax; he worked at the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), a US military lab.

and

Anyway, the point is, he didn’t work with the kind of anthrax that was sent, especially the anthrax sent to the senators; he worked with it in a liquid form.  They got a highly-refined dried form of anthrax.  There’s no evidence he knew how to do that; there’s no evidence that he had the equipment to produce this product, which was not merely refined and dried, but which had also, as I said before, undergone this micro-encapsulation process—tin added and silicon. There’s no evidence that Ivins could have done that, or that he had the equipment to do that.  So, from a scientific point of view, this is very far-fetched.  And, by the way, colleagues of his – a former boss of his – have come out and said this.  They’ve also said, “Where do you think he made it?  Do you really think he made it in his lab at Fort Detrick?  I mean, we would have noticed.  And furthermore, it would have taken him something like 10,000 hours, not the couple of dozen hours that you’re claiming.”
and

Fort Detrick was badly equipped to produce this product.  The two most likely suspects are laboratories at either Battelle Memorial Institute, which does a tremendous amount of work for the US intelligence agencies, and specialises in aerosols, and so on.  And, the other would be the Dugway Proving Ground.  Dugway also works for the US military; it’s part of the military-industrial complex, and it’s also possible that Dugway and Battelle worked together on this. Ivins had nothing to do with them; he didn’t have access to their equipment.  Over the years I’ve referred to a number of quite technical articles on the anthrax spores used in the attacks, and it’s looking increasingly as if this product was taken from the US bioweapons programme.  It was probably taken from stores that already existed; it wasn’t created specially for the Anthrax Attacks.  This was most likely anthrax that was kept either at Dugway or Battelle.

That is all so totally wrong and ignorant!  In his lab, Dr. Ivins had all he needed to make the dry anthrax powders.  The people who say he didn't are simply ignorant of the facts.  They are either being self-serving in arguing that Ivins could not possibly have done something totally illegal right under their noses, or they believe total nonsense, such as the spores being "weaponized" with tin and silicon and that Dr. Ivins would have to have followed standard procedures when creating an illegal powder.

The problem, of course, is that if an official of the US government comes forward to show how wrong and ignorant the Anthrax Truthers are, a silly argument by Truthers that is only of interest to a tiny group on the Internet will instantly become front page news.

In my supplemental web page HERE, I explain how easy it would have been for Ivins to create the anthrax powders.  I think that's the "most likely" way that Ivins did it.  For years I've challenged anyone and everyone to find fault with that analysis.  But, I'm just a guy on the Internet.  The Anthrax Truthers cannot be bothered with arguing facts and evidence with "some guy on the Internet."  They want to argue with an official of the US Government so that the issue will become front page news.  And then a whole new group of "concerned citizens" and media commentators can complain that the US Government is giving terrorists a detailed description of how to cheaply and easily make lethal, dry anthrax spores.  It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

And, of course, the Anthrax Truthers will then demand proof that Ivins knew how to do things that he hadn't been formally taught to do.  The Anthrax Truther argument is: If Ivins didn't do it as part of his job, and if he didn't take a course in doing it, then he didn't know how to do it - no matter how simple it may be.

In the Graeme MacQueen interview, there are several other interesting explanations which show how a conspiracy theorist thinks and reasons.  Like all Anthrax Truthers, he starts with a belief and then only discusses "evidence" which he feels support his belief, while ignoring any facts and evidence which totally debunks his belief.

I look forward to the General Accountability Office publishing its long-awaited review of the Amerthrax Investigation.  I don't think there's any chance that it's going to argue that Ivins was "an innocent man," but they might offer some suggestions on how to deal with Truthers who do not accept the "official" version of anything and rely instead on their own personal beliefs and the support of others who disagree with the government.

Meanwhile, I'd really like to see a public debate between
the experts with the facts and evidence showing it was incredibly easy for Ivins to create the anthrax powders, and the so-called "experts" who think it was "impossible" for Ivins to have created the anthrax powders.  I think it would be very educational for everyone interested in this subject.

Updates & Changes: Sunday, November 16, 2014, thru Saturday, November 22, 2014

November 20, 2014 - The two Truthers who were arguing with me on my interactive blog seem to have gone away for awhile - probably because they were shown to be wrong.   That's usually what happens when they're proved wrong.  They disappear for awhile, and then they reappear to argue the same wrong idea again, as if nothing ever happened.

Meanwhile, there's still no news about when the Amerithrax investigation review will be published by the General Accountablilty Office (GAO).

And I've been spending nearly all my time lately trying to get my new laptop computer up to speed.  I'm having a real problem getting the SeaMonkey browser on my laptop to receive emails.  I've been discussing the problem on a SeaMonkey discussion forum, and I've been showing illustrations of the problem in a test web page I created HERE on my newguy web site.  A picture is often worth a thousand words. 

Once I get the email problem solved, then I'll have to try to figure out how I can update my web sites via my laptop.  It will probably involve all new programs, too.  And, I'll probably have to ask for help on Newsguy's support forum. 

Busy busy busy.

November 18, 2014 - A discussion on my interactive blog brought back an interesting detail about the Amerithrax investigation that I've discussed before, but maybe I should mention again.  It's about one of the eight (or nine) samples that contained the morphs that matched the contents of flask RMR-1029  It's about item #053-070 on the FBI Repository (FBIR) list below:

FBI Repository list of matching samples

That matching sample was created by Bruce Ivins sometime in late January or early February 2001.  Terry Abshire felt she might need some "standard" sample of the Ames strain to use when examining all the FBIR samples they were expecting to start receiving.  
She asked Ivins for a sample, and Dr. Ivins took a sample from flask RMR-1029 and gave it to Terry Abshire.  But, then John Ezzell apparently decided they would use a different method for comparison, and that sample was no longer needed.  So, Terry Abshire put it into cold storage and totally forgot about it.  She explains it all in a document from Lew Weinstein's site that can be found HERE - or you can try to read the smaller version below (I haven't been able to track down the exact source file):

Terry Abshire statement
What's so interesting about sample 053-070 is that it's another sample that was created by Ivins from flask RMR-1029 that contained all 4 morphs.  He created it when he didn't know that flask RMR-1029 contained the four morphs that were also in the attack spores he'd grown.  Everyone remembers the two samples he created in response to the subpoena in February 2002.  He improperly prepared those two samples, making them unuseable as evidence.  Because her copy was not properly prepared, Terry Abshire threw her sample away and asked Ivins for another sample (while Paul Keim kept his copy).  And everyone remembers the replacement sample that Ivins supplied in April of 2002 after he realized that the attack spores might be traced back to RMR-1029.  That replacement sample did NOT contain the morphs. 

That first sample that was created for used as a "standard" was found by the FBI in 2005 where Terry Abshire had put it and forgot about it.  Since it matched the contents of RMR-1029, the FBI wanted to know where it came from.  When questioned, Abshire couldn't remember and had to do research.  The page of text above explains what her research found.

The point of all this is: It's further evidence that, in January and February of 2002, Ivins didn't realize that the spores he had created for the anthrax letters could be traced back to RMR-1029.  Therefore, he had no problem supplying valid samples from RMR-1029 to anyone.  But, when it became clear to him that the FBI was looking for a source for the attack spores by checking on morphs that came from the source, he provided an invalid sample when was again asked to provide a sample from RMR-1029.  Since he did it correctly TWO times in February, it's less likely to be pure happenstance when he prepared that invalid sample in April (after being instructed on how to prepare samples.)

This issue came up a few day ago when "DXer" sent me an email making some kind of vague insinuation about that sample.  He wrote this in reponse to a comment I wrote for this web site:

You should not mischaracterize posts. I was not insinuating anything, you liar. I was quoting where the expert on the mophologies [sic] said the Dugway Spores did not look like the mailed anthrax.

And this is the attempted post to my blog he was referring to:

Abshire says that the "Dugway Ames Spores "did not look like the spores from the preparations , but that some of her own Bacillus anthracis (Ba) spore preparations resemble the material contained in the letters."

As usual, DXer is mistaken.  The FBI questioned Terry Abshire about the source of the vial they had found in her cold storage room.  Contrary to DXer's beliefs, she didn't know the sample contained the morphs.  She was only looking at a photograph of the vial, trying to remember where it came from.  She couldn't remember immediately, but later recalled and gave the FBI the explanation in the illustration I showed above.  And in another document HERE the connection between the photograph and sample 053-070 is made in the last paragraph.

So, I guess the point is:  All the details have been figured out about that sample.  DXer was wrong about virtually everything.  And only one mystery remains:  What was DXer trying to insinuate?

November 16, 2014 - Last week, I created a new thread on my interactive blog.  I also created a new illustration for the subject the thread is intended to discuss.  The subject is: "Explaining what you understand."  Here's the illustration:

Einstein quote

The idea is that, if you cannot simplify the subject to the point where you can get some other person to understand it, then maybe you don't fully understand it yourself.

I looked around to see if there was more to the quote.  I'd hoped the full quote would say, "You don't really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother and get her to understand, too."

What my research found was some doubt as to whether Albert Einstein actually said that.  Nobody seems to have been able to track it down to a specific recorded or written statement from Prof. Einstein.  One source suggested it might be a paraphrase of a quote from Kurt Vonnegut's book "Cat's Cradle."  In chapter 15 of that book it says,

Dr. Hoenikker used to say that any scientist who couldn't explain to an eight-year-old what he was doing was a charlatan.

Which is usually trimmed down and paraphrased as:

Any scientist who can't explain to an eight-year old what he is doing is a charlatan.

The Einstein and Vonnegut quotes both say basically the same thing, but there's no reason to believe that one was derived from the other.  Both could be originals.

The reason I bring up those quotes is because I've been trying to get DXer from Lew Weinstein's blog to explain his beliefs.  But, he seems totally incapable of explaining anything.   (When pressed, he argues that it is beneath him to explain things to me.)

Last week, I was trying different ways to explain to him the basic scientific principle that allows anthrax spores to dry all by themselves in a biosafety cabinet.  It seemed he couldn't understand that the water in the spores will "evaporate" if the spores are left in an open Petri dish in a biosafety cabinet.  DXer seemed fixated on super-scientific equipment being the only way to dry anthrax spores.  The idea that spores can dry in a Petri dish the same way a wet bathing suit will dry on a bench just didn't sink in.  

When I tried explaining the concept of air drying in different ways, he simply argued that I wasn't a microbiologist, and therefore I wasn't qualified to claim that spores will dry all by themselves.  I told him Dr. Majidi of the FBI stated it in the August 18, 2008 press conference, and it's stated on page 31 of the Amerithrax Investigation Summary.  In response, DXer argued that Dr. Majidi also isn't a microbiologist, and therefore Majidi isn't qualified to claim that anthrax spores will dry all by themselves.  I explained that it happens in nature.  DXer ignored that explanation.  I explained that it caused a lab contamination incident.  DXer ignored that explanation.

That made me realize that neither the Einstein quote nor the Vonnegut quote allows for your grandmother or the eight-year-old to be dead set against trying to understand what you are explaining.  If their minds are closed, and all they want to do is find fault and show you are mistaken, even Albert Einstein and Kurt Vonnegut wouldn't be able to get such people to understand what they were tying to explain.

But, somewhere along the line -- perhaps after DXer consulted with a microbiologist -- he must have realized how simple and basic it is for something to air dry, because then DXer did what he always does when proved wrong: He changed the subject.  He started to argue what seemed to be some sleazy insinuation that a different USAMRIID employee could have been involve in the anthrax mailings because that employee once met or was photographed with a Muslim scientist.

Meanwhile, I've been trying to explain
to a different Anthrax Truther how circumstantial and direct evidence work in court.  I've been trying to explain it to him for month after month (possibly for years) in many different ways.  Is the following explanation of how circumstantial evidence works really too difficult to understand?:

Multiple people had a motive for the crime. Ivins was one of them.
Multiple people had access to flask RMR-1029. Ivins was one of them.
Multiple people were vaccinated against anthrax. Ivins was one of them.
Multiple people could make purified spores. Ivins was one of them.
Multiple people had the time to purify the spores.  Ivins was one of them.
Multiple people knew how to dry spores. Ivins was one of them.
Multiple people had the facilities to make spores. Ivins was one of them.
Multiple people had access to a supply of spores.  Ivins was one of them.
Multiple people had the equipment to make spores. Ivins was one of them.
Multiple people could have bought the envelopes. Ivins was one of them.
Multiple people could have made Xerox copies.  Ivins was one of them.
Multiple people have disguised their handwriting.  Ivins was one of them.
Multiple people could have mailed the letters. Ivins was one of them.
Multiple people had connections to the crime scene. Ivins was one of them.
Multiple people had no alibi for the time of the crime. Ivins was one of them.

BUT

The ONLY person who fits all the above evidence is Dr. Bruce Ivins.

I've been arguing some of these same things for 13 years, yet I still find the arguments can occasionally be very fascinating.  Every so often, an Anthrax Truther comes up with new argument and demonstrates once again that he knows next to nothing about the evidence against Bruce Ivins.  Whenever the Truthers do that, it just makes it more clear that they have no facts or evidence to challenge the case against Bruce Ivins.

But, every once in a great while, the arguments uncover something new.  That happened on Friday when DXer reminded me that the FBI proved that the lyophilizer could be used in Suite B5 without contaminating the surrounding area, contrary to what some of Dr. Ivins friends and DXer himself had been arguing.  Somehow, DXer thought that if a lyophilizer could be safely used in Building 1412 without contamination, that meant it could NOT be safely used in Building 1425 without contamination.  It appears he didn't understand the difference between "contamination" and "containment."  For me, the joy of finding some new information about the case (or about the thought processes of some Anthrax Truther) is best described in Chapter 17 of Vonnegut's "Cat's Cradle."  It says,

"New knowledge is the most valuable commodity on earth. The more truth we have to work with, the richer we become."

Updates & Changes: Sunday, November 9, 2014, thru Saturday, November 15, 2014

November 13, 2014 - Yesterday, via my interactive blog, "DXer" made it very clear that he doesn't bother reading anything that disagrees with his beliefs.  We were arguing about the lyophilizer and how Ivins didn't need it to dry the spores.  Then DXer wrote:

By all means, Ed, if there was other equipment in the B3 he could use, then name it. He didn't have a spraydryer. He didn't have a fluidized bed dryer. So by all means, Lake, name the equipment he had available to use.

How many times have I written that Ivins almost certainly air-dried the attack spores?  It seems like hundreds.  I must have explained it to DXer at least a dozen times.  It's made clear in my book, and I explain everything in detail on my web page "How Bruce Ivins Made The Anthrax Powders."   Here's what that page says about how Dr. Ivins made the powders he put in the media letters:

For the media letters, it appears that Dr. Ivins removed the top three layers from the tube, spread the still-wet material on a plate and allowed it to air dry inside a biosafety cabinet - perhaps adding some heat to speed up the drying process.  Depending upon how much water was still left in the material, the material could have easily dried in 2 to 2½ hours.  One plate per letter would have been sufficient.

And here is what it says about how Ivins made the powders in the Senate letters:

When Ivins was satisfied that he'd gotten what he needed, the next and final step was to dry the pure spores he'd set aside.  Dr. Ivins didn't have access to a spray dryer, and using the lyophilizer (freeze dryer) in Suite B5 was out of the question, since there was no way to get the refrigerator-size machine into Suite B3 without attracting attention and without thoroughly contaminating the lyophilizer.  Chemical drying was another technique, but it might leave behind chemical evidence that could be traced back to his lab.  That left just the simplest method: air drying -- the same method he used for the first batch.

When the powders were dry inside the biosafety cabinet, Ivins would have scraped the dried powders off the plates and into the two letters.

Yet, suddenly, DXer doesn't know how I figure Ivins dried the attack spores.

Meanwhile, a different Anthrax Truther is arguing about direct versus circumstantial evidence.  It's a fairly interesting argument.  It turned out to be about how an item of evidence can be both direct evidence in one claim and circumstantial evidence in another claim.  For example, direct evidence proving the claim that Ivins drove to New Jersey at the time of the mailings would be good circumstantial evidence helping to prove the claim that Ivins was the anthrax killer.

The Truther listed some examples of evidence he'd like to see showing that Ivins drove to Princeton, New Jersey at the time of the mailings:

Evidence of the drives to Princeton would be: toll receipts on a road heading to/from NJ; CC television footage of Ivins on any road leading to New Jersey; a parking ticket issued in NJ ; a speeding ticket issued on a highway going to/from New Jersey; receipts for gasoline or any other purchase on the way to/from New Jersey; someone who wrote down/remembered Ivins tag numbers for some reason on the night(s) in question, etc. And, please note, ALL of the above would be "circumstantial evidence" save only the eyewitness jotting down the tag numbers.

I explained to him that "CC television footage of Ivins" driving to New Jersey would be direct evidence that Ivins drove to New Jersey.  The Truther is demanding direct evidence that Ivins did many of the things necessary to commit the crime (i.e., write the letters, Xerox the letters, dry the anthrax, and drive to Princeton), before he'll accept any of it as circumstantial evidence that Ivins actually committed the crime.  He won't accept circumstantial evidence that Ivins drove to Princeton or did any of those other things.  That's why he says there's no evidence that Ivins did it.

He requires direct evidence to prove a circumstantial case.   But, if you have all the direct evidence that Ivins did the various steps, would you really need anything else to show Ivins was the culprit?  If you have direct evidence that Ivins Xeroxed the letters, what more do you need to convict?  If you have direct evidence that Ivins wrote the letters, what more do you need to convict?

When I tried to get the Truther to explain himself, his response was that someone could have stolen Ivins' car.  Therefore, the "CC television footage of Ivins on any road leading to New Jersey" would just be circumstantial evidence that Ivins drove to New Jersey.  I'm now waiting for him to explain how that can be. 

November 12, 2014 (B) - I keep forgetting to look for the places where Ivins claimed he didn't know how to make powders. 
DXer seems to have been arguing that the DOJ was deliberately lying when they wrote this on page 38 of the Amerithrax Investigative Summary:

For example, in an interview on January 29, 2002, Dr. Ivins said he had no involvement in the anthrax mailings and had no training in how to make powders. Similarly, in an e-mail to an international anthrax expert, dated February 7, 2002, he stated: “We work with anthrax spore suspensions here and have neither the expertise nor the equipment for generating ‘spore powder.’” When asked about the lyophilizer again a year later, in April 2003, Dr. Ivins stated that he had been trained on how to use it, but had not actually done so since the mid1990s.

This morning, I did a search for "2002" in my NOTES file, and quickly found the January 29, 2002, interview with Ivins in my  "Part 29 of 59" notes.  However, I'd made no notes which matched what was mentioned in the Summary.  So, I went to the FBI's "Part 29 of 59" pdf file,  where I quickly found this near the bottom of page 12:

Ivins said that he had no involvement in the anthrax mailings and has had no training in making powders.

And I added it to my NOTES file.

Looking through Ivins' emails for the February 7, 2002 email, I quickly found it on page 44 of Batch 40.  It says exactly what the Summary says it said:

From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXX
Subject: RE: A possible discussion
Date: Thursday, February 07, 2002 11:15:54 AM

 The only place that I know of that makes the anthrax spore powder is Dugway Proving Ground. They also made Ames spores (liquid suspensions) for us in 1997 in several fermentor runs. We work with anthrax spore suspensions here and have neither the expertise nor the equipment for generating "spore powder."
- Bruce

Then I searched through my notes for the words "April"  and "2003," but I couldn't find the interview mentioned in the Summary report.   I have no doubt that it exists.  I just failed to make a note about it.  If anyone has any further information about which FBI file contains that particularly interview with Dr. Ivins, please let me know. 

Meanwhile, I've shown that, contrary to DXer's beliefs, the FBI and DOJ were not lying in the Summary report when they wrote what they wrote about two of the instances.

November 12, 2014 (A) - I'm still not seeing any sign that the General Accountability Office is about to release their review of the Amerithrax investigation.

The arguments with Anthrax Truthers are on-going.   One Truther is once again endlessly showing how many people agree that the government's case against Bruce Ivins is not convincing.   He does the same on my interactive blog.  And I just tell him over and over that it doesn't make any difference how many people believe in something, reality is determined by what that facts and evidence say.   After all, at one time nearly everyone on earth believed the earth was flat.  That didn't make it flat. 

The other Anthrax Truther is arguing for the umpteenth time that only direct evidence is allowed in court.  And circumstantial evidence is worthless and proves nothing.   He doesn't phrase his argument that way, of course.  But that's his argument, nevertheless.

Meanwhile, I'm still trying to learn how things work on my new laptop computer.  So, the fact that I haven't posted any comments for two days doesn't mean nothing's happening.  It just means that it's mostly same old, same old.  Actually, I'm so busy with so many different things that it's almost ridiculous. 

November 9, 2014 (B) - Ah!  In a post to Lew Weinstein's blog this morning, and in an attempted post to my interactive blog at around the same time, "DXer" inadvertently provided an explanation of his thought processes regarding the lyophilizer.  While he doesn't actually explain anything, of course, his thought processes can be deduced from what he posted.  Here is his attempted post to my blog in its entirety:

Ed, the US Attorney stood up in the front of the room in announcing the FBI's Theory along with the lead AUSA Ken Kohl and the FBI Field Office head Persichini.

He said

"TAYLOR: Second, as a renowned expert in the production and purification of anthrax spores, Dr. Ivins was one of a handful of scientists with the capability to create spores of the concentration and purity used in the attacks. The affidavits allege that, not only did Dr. Ivins create and maintain the spore batch used in the mailings, but he also had access to and experience using a lyophilizer. A lyophilizer is a sophisticated machine that is used to dry pathogens, and can be used to dry anthrax. We know others in Dr. Ivins’ lab consulted him when they needed to use this machine."

The FBI immediately backpedaled from the claim on which US Attorney says he rested his conclusion. His statements are on film and there is a transcript available. He explained his conclusions on national TV.

The FBI was right to backpedal on the claim given that the claim was baseless."

There is, of course, no claim of any kind whatsoever in what US Attorney Jeff Taylor said.  But, unfortunately, Mr. Taylor addressed two different subjects in the same comment: (1) Ivins had the ability to make the attack spores, and (2) Ivins was an expert on the use of the lyophilizer.  The Anthrax Truthers, as usual, incorrectly put 2 and 2 together and got 597.  The Truthers interpreted this as a "claim" that Ivins made the attack anthrax using the lyophilizer

The post to Lew's blog begins the same way, but then says:

DXER: THE FORMER CHIEFS OF BACTERIOLOGY ALL SAY THAT THE LYOPHILIZER COULD NOT HAVE BEEN USED. IT WAS IN AN UNCONTAINED AREA – IN THE HALLWAY.”

Proponents of an Ivins Theory immediately backpedaled when it was pointed out that the lyophililzer was not in fact available to be used — and that Ivins was in the B3, not the B5, the nights he was working with the rabbits.

No one "backpedaled."  It probably became clear very quickly that what Mr. Taylor said on August 6, 2008, had been misinterpreted by a lot of people.  

Mr. Taylor is a lawyer, not a scientist.  But, in the minds of the Anthrax Truthers, all employees of the government are just like one big Borg-like collective where everyone knows what everyone else knows and everyone thinks alike.  So, it wasn't simply Mr. Taylor being unclear, it was "the government collective" attempting to tell the American people another lie.  (The same Truther reasoning was used when a lawyer in Florida on the Stevens case made a mistake and the Truthers immediately jumped on it as a reversal of position by "the U.S. government.")

So, twelve days after Mr. Taylor's news conference, another news conference was held, this time with a scientist, Dr. Majidi, in charge.  Dr. Majide made it very clear that the lyophilizer was just one of the various methods that Ivins could have used to dry the anthrax spores that were in the attack letters.  To the Anthrax Truthers, however, this is "backpeddling" from a "false claim."

There was no "claim," but the Anthrax Truthers believe what they want to believe.  And nothing and no one can change their collective minds.

November 9, 2014 (A) - When the Department of Justice (DOJ) released the Amerithrax Investigation Summary report on February 19, 2010, they also released 2,720 pages of "supplementary documents" in the form of 30 files in pdf format.  The pdf files contained mostly collections of "302 reports" that FBI agents write to document the events and findings in a civil or criminal investigation.  The 30 Amerithrax pdf files where identified by file numbers, ranging from #847357 to #897541.

I read through those files in 2010 and compiled 55 pages of notes in a .doc file which I kept in my computer for my own use. 

Some time later, possibly in 2012, the FBI changed the numbers they were using to identify all the Amerithrax documents and put them in their archive HERE.   Because everything was renumbered, I didn't immediately notice that they had added 29 additional pdf files.  All the files are now numbered "01 of 59" through "59 of 59." 

So, I read through the 29 new pdf files and made an additional 36 pages of notes.

The .doc file of notes has very often come in handy during arguments with Anthrax Truthers, when I needed to find support for some claim or argument.  A couple days ago, I decided my Notes file should really be in .html (web site) format, and it should be a file on this web site where everyone can use it.  This morning, I added it to this site.  Click HERE to view my Notes file.  I've also added a link on the main page right after the link to the FBI files in my References section, so it can be easily found again when needed.

During the past few days, I have been arguing on my interactive blog with two Truthers who seem to believe that when a scientist at USAMRIID, like Dr. Ivins, comes in in the evening or on a weekend to check on test animals, he will also immediately perform necropsies on any animals that are found dead, he will incinerate their carcasses, he will autoclave their cages, etc.  The argument was that performing all those extra duties would explain Ivins' "unexplained" overtime hours in Suite B3.  (DXer has been ranting for a long time that Dr. Ivins was checking on 52 rabbits during those "unexplained" overtime hours.  He uses a document about routine USAMRIID procedures as "evidence," and he simply and absurdly assumes that all the procedures are done by Dr. Ivins and they must be done as soon as an animal is found dead.  And until someone proves otherwise, he will continue to believe what he wants to believe.)


Previously on my interactive blog, a different Truther argued that

the animal maintenance people, as I understand it, AREN'T dealing with infected animals, are mostly feeding the animals and cleaning their cages, not autoclaving, which doesn't fall under the category of 'caring for animals'.

So, I did a search through my notes for the word "animal" and found this note that I wrote about "file 32 of 59":

Page 91 mentioned that Ivins was odd and refers to his "home life" versus his "work life."  The bottom of the page says, XXXX stated the animal caretakers were the individuals that ran the autoclave, however, [she] did not recall any of the caretakers names.  [She] was not aware of the destruction protocols.   

That note can be found in my Notes file by clicking HERE.  The link will take you directly to my notes for "part 32 of 59." 


That same search also found this in that same "file 32 of 59": 

Page 11: Because of the nature of their job and the number of night and weekend animal deaths, veterinarians have access to every hot suite at USAMRIID.

So, "animal maintenance people," a.k.a. "veterinarians," DO deal with infected animals and they DO perform the autoclaving of cages and other cleanup tasks.

There's also an endless argument on my blog about how long it takes to check on animals.  DXer repeatedly cites a comment from "file 04 of 59" which says on page 23:
 
[Linscott] perceived the normal laboratory hours to start between the morning hours of 7:00AM to 9:00AM and last through 5:00PM, although there would be occasions when someone would come in later. If someone came in on the weekend it was to look at the animals/count the dead animals. This could take approximately two hours and was usually a one-person job.

The argument is whether or not those "two hours" to check on animals on the weekend also includes the time it takes to drive into work, to shower and to change clothes twice in order to get in and out of Suite B3.  In "file 03 of 59" it says on page 80:

After reviewing the XXXX hot suite access charts, XXXXX was unable to explain the extended late night and weekend hours for XXXXXXX IVINS.  XXXXX explained that when [he] went into the hot suites after hours or on weekends XXXXXXXXXX it took [him] longer to drive to and from work, get dressed to enter the hot suites and shower up after entering the hot suites, then to perform the actual task within the hot suites.

And on page 65 of "file 05 of 59" it says:

XXXX can think of no reason for Ivins to be working long nighttime hours in the August to October 2001 time-frame. There was not much work going on in Ivins' lab at that time and the only study being conducted was the guinea pig strain study, which may have required entry into the suites to check on animals. However, checking the animals would only have taken approximately 30 minutes.

Again we don't know if that 30 minutes includes changing clothes and showering twice.

The Amerithrax Investigation Summary says on page 32:

It bears mention that during the first five days of this second phase, Dr. Ivins did make notations regarding the health of some mice involved in a study being conducted by another colleague – thus justifying his presence in the lab for a short time on each of those days (Friday, September 28 through Tuesday, October 2). However, the first three of those days, he was in the hot suites for well over an hour, far longer than necessary to check to see if any mice were dead. And for the three nights before each mailing window, Dr. Ivins was in the hot suites for between two and four hours each night, with absolutely no explanation.

It would be nice to have someone at USAMRIID explain exactly what is done when they check on animals at night and how much time is involved.  I don't think any Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request would provide that information.  Whatever might be found via an FOIA request would likely still require asking questions about context, i.e., does the time mentioned include going through BSL-3 biocontainment procedures, or is it just the time spent inside the animal room checking on animals?

My Notes file currently only contains notes about what I thought was interesting back in 2010 and 2012.  I made some notes about use of the lyophilizer, but there could be lots and lots of additional information in the FBI files that, in 2010, I didn't think was interesting enough to write a note about.  But, now it might seem very interesting, or might end some long-running debate.  So, from time to time from now on, when I find new information that isn't in my Notes file, I may add that information.

A search for the word "lyophilizer," which is another endlessly debated topic, finds some interesting notes.  Examples:

From "File 24 of 59":

Pages 56 - 57 contain information about the lyophilizer, how Ivins acquired it, but it was rarely used and even less rarely cleaned.  It was noisy to operate.

From  "File 32 of 59:

Page 16: XXXX does not think that an incubator, shaker, or lyophilizer would have been necessary to prepare the type of dry spores that were seen in the anthrax letters.

From "File 43 of 59":

Page 9: XXXXXXX does not believe it is possible to use a lyophilizer to create anthrax spores with the particle size of those in the anthrax-laced letters.  XXXXXXX believes that a lyophilizer would generate particles in the 12 to 18 micron range.  A smaller particle size, ranging from 3 to 5 microns would be achieved with rapid freezing and then drying of the biological agent.  A freeze drier would be used to obtain smaller particles.

Pages 9-10: XXXX stated [he] believes it would have been easy for someone to have created the anthrax in a laboratory at USAMRIID.  XXXXXX advised that all the equipment needed to pull it off is located at USAMRIID, and someone with permission to work in the laboratories could have worked late at night making the material without drawing any suspicion.  Scientists like free movement in and out of their laboratories and work areas and do not like to be bothered with signing in and out.  Previous to recent changes, security at USAMRIID was based on this premise.  Equipment and materials could have been easily decontaminated, leaving no trail.  Dry spores could be stored anywhere, although they should be kept below 60% humidity.

I had to do a different search, looking for the word "lyophilized" to find the following note from "File 22 of 59":

Also on page 25:

In IVINS' experience, freezing "wrecks" spores.  He has never seen lyophilized spores which were not damaged or in poor condition.  For this reason, IVINS does not believe the material in the anthrax-laced letters was lyophilized.  If it was lyophilized, something was probably added to protect the spores.


Somehow, Anthrax Truthers have gotten the screwball idea that the FBI and DOJ have claimed that Ivins used a lyophilizer to make the attack spores.  In reality, the FBI and DOJ have made it very clear that Ivins could have dried the spores in any one of a dozen different ways, and they do not attempt to say which method is "most likely."  However, while doing research for this comment, 
I stumbled across the following information about Ivins "unexplained" evening hours on page 31 of the Amerithrax Summary:

Date               Time in Building 1425       Total Time in B3
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Fri., Sept. 14     8:54 p.m. - 12:22 a.m.      2 hours, 15 minutes
Sat., Sept. 15     8:05 p.m. - 11:59 p.m.      2 hours, 15 minutes
Sun., Sept. 16     6:38 p.m. - 9:52 p.m.       2 hours, 37 minutes
    
And that information is connects to Footnote #17, which contains this information:

Numerous microbiologists have concurred that two hours and 15 minutes would be enough time to dry Ba spores, depending on factors such as the quantity of starting material, the volume of liquid in which it was suspended, and whether a centrifuge was used to eliminate most of the water, leaving behind a pellet, or paste, capable of being dried in well under two hours.

It can be argued that this information doesn't specifically say that they are talking about air drying anthrax spores, but that seems to be the most logical conclusion.

My point in writing this lengthy comment is to show that on this web site there is now a new research source for finding information about the anthrax attacks of 2001.

When I find other items of interest within the 59 FBI files that I didn't include in my original notes, I'll add them.  For example, page 38 of the Amerithrax Summary contains this information which DXer seems to believe is all lies:

For example, in an interview on January 29, 2002, Dr. Ivins said he had no involvement in the anthrax mailings and had no training in how to make powders. Similarly, in an e-mail to an international anthrax expert, dated February 7, 2002, he stated: “We work with anthrax spore suspensions here and have neither the expertise nor the equipment for generating ‘spore powder.’” When asked about the lyophilizer again a year later, in April 2003, Dr. Ivins stated that he had been trained on how to use it, but had not actually done so since the mid1990s.

When I get some time, I'll see if I can find those sources.  When I do, I'll provide DXer with the links.  If the two interviews aren't already among my notes, I'll add them.

Meanwhile, I've got about 5,243 other things I need to do - including getting my apartment ready for winter.

Updates & Changes: Sunday, November 2, 2014, thru Saturday, November 8, 2014

November 6, 2014 - I don't know if this will be of interest to anyone, since it is way way off topic, but this morning I awoke realizing I should have checked Google to see if anyone else is having the same kind of problem I'm having with the touchpad on my new laptop.  So I did a search for two+finger-scrolling+not+working.  The results of the search were page after page of people discussing the topic.  Many have solutions, but no two of the solutions seem to be the same.  And, it appears to be a problem on both Windows and Apple computers.  That leads me to think that it might actually be a problem for which there currently is no permanent solution.  If so, I wonder if the technicians who are currently looking at my laptop are allowed to tell me that.  I can see how it might cause a typical customer to explode.  But, having constantly dealt with conspiracy theorists and Truthers for the past 13 years, I'm accustomed to finding problems for which there appears to be no current or foreseeable solution.

One such problem that came up today was in the form of an email from "DXer" with the subject "Explanation."  But, it's not any kind of explanation of anything.  It's just another rambling discourse on various ideas about "microencapsulating" spores with silicon (which has NOTHING to do with the attack anthrax), and some kind of problem DXer has with Dr. Ivins' first submission to the FBI Repository being thrown out.  He explains NOTHING about how he interprets these things or what they mean to the Amerithrax investigation.  He just rambles on and on incoherently.

I don't think it would be fair to show his entire email on my interactive blog, because it appears to contain what seems to be some sleazy innuendo and insinuations that people he names who worked at USAMRIID around 2001 were involved in some kind of illegal development of bioweapons.   He doesn't explain anything, of course.  And it doesn't appear to have anything to do with his basic theory that al Qaeda was behind the anthrax attacks.  I've already argued against that nonsense times before, without "solving the problem" that he doesn't seem to understand anything, so he can't explain anything.

DXer also sent a much shorter second email this morning which begins with this:

It is in the public domain, but overlooked, that the DARPA program at USAMRIID in Building 1412 involving the FBI’s expert, John Ezzell — whose lab threw out Ivins’ February 2002 sample — involved both live virulent Ames (from Ivins Flask 1029) and the use of microencapsulated agents and subtilis. Senator Leahy’s anger on these issues is fully justified.

When I read this, I have to ask, "So what?"  And, "Exactly where does Senator Leahy express his anger over these 'issues,' whatever the 'issues' may be?  What is the link?"  And what does Senator Leahy's anger have to do with anything?  Who cares if he's angry?  Politicians are always angry about something.

DXer does provide a meaningless link to a pdf document HERE, and he implies that that document has some meaning to the issue of "microencapsulated agents."   The nearest I can figure is that DXer believes it relates to the silly conspiracy theorist paper published by Martin Hugh-Jones et al which argued that the attack spores were weaponized with silicon.  Simply repeating a silly idea doesn't explain anything.   

Trying to communicate with conspiracy theorists and Truthers may just be another problem with no current or foreseeable solution.

November 5, 2014 - Groan!  I'm really swamped with things I need to do, many with high priorities.  I'm having a problem with the touchpad on my new laptop computer.  I've also learned that the touchpad is really only worthwhile when you're in an airplane or in bed or when you're a passenger in a car and using the mouse is not practical.  But, I still need to get the touchpad problem fixed, just in case there comes a time when I'll really need it.

Meanwhile, this morning someone sent me a link to an on-line article about testing sewage for dangerous microorganisms.  The article contains this interesting paragraph:

Even a disease like anthrax, which came to national attention during the "Amerithrax" scare shortly after 9/11 when (as we finally determined) a sociopath was mailing anthrax laden letters around the country, has a basic background level of under a dozen cases per year. And despite the best or worst efforts of Bruce Ivins, PhD, the letter sender, he only murdered five people and there wasn't a single case of secondary (ie, person-to-person infection).

Also meanwhile, "DXer" is sending me screwball emails like this (the entire message was in the subject of the email):

ha!  Yes, he had no lyophilizer available to him (contrary to the US Attorney Taylor's claim in announcing that he was the perpetrator)

What kind of screwball reasoning is that?  Ivins had no available lyophilizer, so he couldn't be the perpetrator?  What about the other (EASIER and BETTER) ways of secretly drying anthrax spores that Dr. Ivins had available to him?

Also meanwhile, DXer seems to have shifted into pure conspiracy theory mode and is apparently now arguing that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice were trying to frame Dr. Ivins by not allowing him to access his notebooks, which prevented him from proving that he was doing legitimate work (with rabbits) during all those "unexplained" evening and weekend hours Ivins spent in Suite B3. 

Also meanwhile, as part of that same attempt to frame Dr. Ivins, DXer seems to be arguing that the DOJ was deliberately lying when they wrote this on page 38 of the Amerithrax Investigative Summary:

For example, in an interview on January 29, 2002, Dr. Ivins said he had no involvement in the anthrax mailings and had no training in how to make powders. Similarly, in an e-mail to an international anthrax expert, dated February 7, 2002, he stated: “We work with anthrax spore suspensions here and have neither the expertise nor the equipment for generating ‘spore powder.’” When asked about the lyophilizer again a year later, in April 2003, Dr. Ivins stated that he had been trained on how to use it, but had not actually done so since the mid1990s.

He wants me to find the FBI reports and the email where those things were said or written by Ivins.  Until I find them, DXer is evidently assuming they were just made up by the DOJ.  The question is: When I find them, will he say the emails and FBI 302 files were also made up?

That exchange made me realize I should put on this web site a supplementary web page showing the 55 pages of notes I made while reading the 2,720 pages of supplementary documents that were made public with the Amerithrax Summary.  It's currently in .DOC format.  I just need to change it to .html format and add some links.

Also meanwhile, during the past 12 hours or so, another Anthrax Truther posted SEVEN messages to my interactive blog.  He argues that he wasn't "tag-teaming" me with DXer, therefore my comment yesterday was incorrect.  (I just corrected that comment to say they "seemed to have been 'tag-teaming' me".)  He inexplicably also argues that it is "speculation" to say that spores will dry if you leave them in the open air.  And he says it's "speculation" for me to claim on my blog that using the lyophilizer in Suite B5 to dry the attack spores would have been "stupid."  All the nay-sayers at USAMRIID and all the Truthers have been arguing for years how it would have been extremely dangerous and impossible or next to impossible.  However, they never used the word "stupid."  So, is it "speculation" to say it would have been "stupid"?  I don't think so.

I'm trying to figure out how to write quick responses to his seven posts, but first I need to hop over to the electronics store to have their experts look at my laptop touchpad.

And, of course, someday I really need and want to get back to writing my sci-fi novel. 


November 4, 2014 - The only comment I can make this morning is that I haven't had time to find something interesting to write about because "DXer" and another Anthrax Truther seem to have been '"tag teaming" me on my interactive blog.  While doing research to find new ways to respond to their old old questions, I noticed that at the August 18, 2008 press conference, this exchange took place:

QUESTION: Can I ask a question about the equipment and what was used to make this, potentially, and whether it was at Fort Detrick? Was it just a lyophilizer or something more sophisticated?

DR. MAJIDI: You know we really -- we really don't have the -- we don't really have any answers for what process was used to grow additional spores or what methodology was used to dry them. I think that a lot of folks focus on the issue of lyophilizer. You can ask any of the folks and the panel members, and they will tell you that you can dry biological samples in one of dozens of ways, lyophilizer is one of them. You can let the samples heat-dry. You can let the samples -- the water evaporate. You can --

QUESTION: Do speed vac.

QUESTION: What was that?

QUESTION: Use a speed vac.

DR. MAJIDI: So again, I don't want to get wrapped around the issue of how was a sample processed. The critical issue --

QUESTION: Isn't that part -- an important part of the evidence, though?

DR. MAJIDI: Well, no. The important part of the evidence is that the materials of the letter with the genetic mutations could exclusively be related only to RMR-1029. 

So, it was clearly and undeniably stated that the lyophilizer was NOT an important part of the evidence against Dr. Ivins.

Why?  The answer is in the earlier part of the exchange.  A lyophilizer is only one of "dozens of ways" you can dry biological samples and get identical results.  If you can't be absolutely certain which method was used, you cannot testify in court about which method was used.  You can only testify that Ivins had the means.

November 2, 2014 - I'm still waiting for some news about the General Accountability Office's (GAO's) review of the Amerithrax investigation.  It was supposed to be released  "sometime this fall."  We're now almost half way through fall, and I've seen nothing official whatsoever about when the review report might be available to read. 

Yesterday, I neglected to mention that October showed another increase in the number of visitors to this web site.  There were 24,215 visitors, versus 22,546 in September and 19,651 in August.  It's the highest number of visitors since August 2008, the month when it was announced that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer.

Except for short comments like the two above, I'm once again finding it very difficult to find anything to write about on this web site - unless I write about screwball postings by Anthrax Truthers.  So, here we go again: 

Recently, "DXer" brought to my attention a five-page chapter about the anthrax attacks in a book from 2010 titled "Challenges in Intelligence Analysis" by Timothy Walton.  The book describes every vague link between the 9/11 terrorists and the anthrax attacks that ever appeared in the media or books on the subject, even though those links are just possibilities and not evidence.  The author doesn't seem convinced that Bruce Ivins was the culprit, or he doesn't care, since he uses as his only references a couple books from 2003, which was long before Ivins was identified as the culprit.  T
he chapter about the anthrax case ends with a few very easily answered questions:

How strong was the evidence of a link between the 9/11 plotters and the anthrax attacks?

MY ANSWER: It was extremely weak. 

How was it not convincing?

MY ANSWER:  Because the evidence connecting the 9/11 hijackers to the anthrax attacks was extremely weak, while the evidence connecting Bruce Ivins to the anthrax attacks was very strong.

Is there another hypothesis, besides Ivins, that would better fit the disparate evidence?

MY ANSWER: No.

What else would an analyst need to know to formulate and assess a range of alternative hypotheses?

MY ANSWER: He'd need to know magic (how to pull evidence from out of hat) or how to lie convincingly (to manufacture alternative hypotheses where none really exist).

What questions and techniques from counterintelligence investigations might be helpful in resolving this case?

MY ANSWER:  Look at all the evidence and see how the facts fit together.  Follow the evidence to the resolution.  Don't try to make the facts and evidence fit the resolution you want.

The only other subject I have to write about this morning is the latest nonsense from "DXer."  He seems to be going off into true Lunatic Fringe territory.  His most recent post - as of this moment - contains this:

The same scientists who made the dried powder out of Flask 1029 Ames (Dugway Spores) collected the submissions of Ames for the FBI’s repository of samples in the Amerithrax investigation. This posed an acute conflict of interest notwithstanding the presumed good faith of all involved.

Huh?  "Conflict of interest"??  How so?  DXer, of course, doesn't explain.  In an earlier post from the 30th, he wrote something similar:

Dr. Ezzell was working for the FBI in the Amerithrax investigation. He or his assistant Terry Abshire threw out Ivins’ sample which would have shown the missing Ames to have been the origin of the murder weapon, if not the murder weapon itself. See Amerithrax Investigation Summary.

The FBI’s Ivins Theory theory was dead on arrival because of the massive conflict of interest.

It seems clear DXer doesn't explain anything because he doesn't understand anything.  And, if he tried to explain, he'd make it very clear that he doesn't understand anything.

When the FBI went to USAMRIID to get help in analyzing the spores in the anthrax letters, everyone was fully aware that they could be working with the person who actually sent the anthrax letters.  But, there were no viable alternatives, and there would be FBI agents working side by side with the USAMRIID scientists at every step.

Here's some more of DXer's indecipherable thinking from that same post:  

 “As I recall Dr. Ivins 302 interview, which is online, it was sent on varying dates in mason jars. 7, I think. 6 were combined into the two 500 ml Ehrlenmeyer flasks (you have seen one pictured; one was used up a long time ago). The 7th shipment from Dugway, Dr. Ivins says, was not up to snuff and he set it aside for autoclaving. He did not have a specific recollection that it was autoclaved. Certainly, if there was not documentation, that is extremely notable and it should be a top governmental priority to try to track down the 7th mason jar sent from Dugway. It may not even have been purified by Renocal (after one or two attempts). And so the 7th shipment from Dugway, which was NOT put into the flask is of keen interest given that no traces of renocal were detected.”
......

Perhaps the 7th mason jar sent from Dugway that was not put into 1029 and was not purified by renocal (and thus would have fit the mailed anthrax w/r/t meglumine and diatrozoate. Perhaps it was just diverted provided directly to Ezzell for the JHU-APL / DARPA research.

And, perhaps, around 1997, al Qaeda scientist Yazid Sufaat disguised himself as Bruce Ivins and infiltrated USAMRIID, and perhaps no one at USAMRIID realized it wasn't Ivins.  And perhaps this went on until 2008, when the real Bruce Ivins was brought back from a prison in Afghanistan and placed on the bathroom floor in his home.

DXer appears to be making up screwball scenarios about things he doesn't understand, rather than try to understand what really happened.

There's no reason to believe the "7th shipment from Dugway" contained all the morphs (morphological variants) found in the attack spores.   Logically, it's far more likely that there was only ONE morph in each of three of the shipments from Dugway (and NONE in the other FOUR shipments), and one morph could have originated with the supply of spores Bruce Ivins created at USAMRIID.  It is totally possible - and very likely - that only when combined into one container were all four morphs finally together.

The 7th shipment could easily have contained NONE of the key morphs.

But, DXer obviously doesn't care what the facts and evidence say.   He's dreaming up screwball scenarios based upon total ignorance and then displaying his conclusions on Lew's blog for all the world to see.

Of all the screwball rantings in that one posting on the 30th by DXer, I may have left out the screwball-est:

IMO, it was really, really wrong for the FBI scientists and prosecutors to not disclose the documents relating to the missing 98 vials. Which of the FBI scientists and prosecutors serving as spokespersons, advocates and book authors on the subject knew about this? Randall Murch? Vahid Majidi? Scott Decker? AUSA Rachel Lieber? AUSA Ken Kohl? Investigator Edward Montooth? Investigator Richard Lambert? Is that why Investigator Lambert wrote him memo to FBI Director Mueller saying that compartmentalization of the investigation might prevent solution of the investigation?

"The missing 98 vials" seem to be DXer's interpretation of what he read on page 3 of a document (click HERE) that he obtained from the USAMRIID via an FOIA request.  The vials contained irradiated spores, so they couldn't have had anything to do with the anthrax attacks.  The idea that there are 98 "missing" vials seems to be DXer's interpretation of what he read on page 3.  The document indicates that there could have been "less than 100 vials," and it says NOTHING about any of them being "missing."  Why couldn't they have simply been used up during the period between 1997 when they were created and 2002 when the report was written?  That would seem far more logical than to just assume the 98 vials somehow suddenly went "missing" (and were then found and the spores were somehow un-killed by al Qaeda for use in the anthrax letters).

DXer could try citing facts and evidence and explaining his interpretations, but I can see how that would be a "conflict of interest" for someone who has only beliefs.   

All prior Thoughts and Comments are also available.
Click HERE for year 2014 - Part 3.
Click HERE for year 2014 - Part 2.
Click HERE for year 2014 - Part 1.
Click HERE for year 2013 - Part 3.
Click HERE for year 2013 - Part 2.
Click HERE for year 2013 - Part 1.
Click HERE for year 2012 - Part 3.
Click HERE for year 2012 - Part 2.
Click HERE for year 2012 - Part 1.
Click HERE for year 2011 - Part 3.
Click HERE for year 2011 - Part 2.
Click HERE for year 2011 - Part 1.
Click HERE for year 2010 - Part 2.
Click HERE for year 2010 - Part 1.
Click HERE for year 2009 - Part 2.
Click HERE for year 2009 - Part 1.
Click HERE for year 2008.

Click HERE for year 2007.
Click HERE for year 2006.
Click HERE for year 2005.
Click HERE for year 2004.
Click HERE for years 2001, 2002 and 2003.


References:

The FBI's summary report of the Amerithrax case
The revised version of the FBI' summary report of the Amerithrax case
Search warrants and attachments to the Summary report from the DOJ's web site
The 2,720 pages of supplementary files for the Amerithrax case in the FBI's "vault" (Click HERE for my notes about those pages)
Dr. Bruce Ivins' emails while at Ft. Detrick from USAMRIID's web site
NAS "Review of the Scientific Approaches Used During the FBI's Investigation of the Anthrax Attacks of 2001"
HistoryCommons.org - Timeline of the 2001 Anthrax Attacks

Edited version of the Hatfill v Ashcroft et al lawsuit Court Docket
Edited version of the Hatfill v Foster/Vanity Fair/Readers Digest Court Docket
Edited version of the Hatfill v The New York Times Court Docket
Edited version of the Maureen Stevens vs The United States lawsuit Court Docket (with full depositions)
Edited version of the Maureen Stevens vs Battelle Memorial, et al lawsuit Court Docket
UCLA's "Disease Detectives" site about the anthrax outbreak of 2001
Frederick Police Department's report on Ivins' Suicide
Report of the Expert Behavioral Analysis Panel

Click HERE to view references from 2005 through 2008.
Click HERE to view pre-2005 references.

NOTE: The (X) following references below includes a link to my copy of the articles, which may or may not be visible on-line.

2009

The New York Times - Jan. 3, 2009 - "Portrait Emerges of Anthrax Suspect’s Troubled Life - (X)
Scientific American - Jan. 5, 2009 - "A steady stream of clues pointed to Ivins during FBI anthrax investigation" (X)
CNN - Jan. 6, 2009 - "'Let me sleep,' anthrax suspect wrote before suicide" (X)
Associated Press - Jan. 6, 2009 - "Records reveal anguish of anthrax suspect's wife" (X)
The Frederick News-Post - Jan. 23, 2009 - "
Army releases some Ivins e-mails" (X)
The New York Times - Feb. 4, 2009 - "Science Found Wanting in Nation's Crime Labs" (X)
Science Magazine - Feb. 7, 2009 - "
U.S. Army Lab Freezes Research on Dangerous Pathogens" (X)
The New York Times - Feb. 9, 2009 - "Army Suspends Germ Research at Maryland Lab" (X)
The Baltimore Sun - Feb. 10, 2009 - "Biodefense lab starts inventory of deadly samples" (X)
WTOP.com - Feb. 10, 2009 - "Lawer: Evidence against Bruce Ivins 'Undercut'" (X)
The Washington Post - Feb. 10, 2009 - "Most Research Suspended at Fort Detrick" (X)
Scientific American - Feb. 10, 2009 - "Army anthrax lab suspends research to invertory its germs" (X)
Nature - Feb. 25, 2009 - "Anthrax investigation still yielding findings" (X)
New Scientist - Feb. 27, 2009 - "Revealed: Scientific evidence for the 2001 anthrax attacks" (X)
Rush Holt - Mar. 3, 2009 - "Holt Introduces Anthrax Commission Legislation" (X)
MyCentralJersey.com - Mar. 3, 2009 - "Holt seeks congressional anthrax commission" (X)
FBI Press Release - Mar. 6, 2009 - "FBI responds to Science issues in Anthrax case" (X)
FoxNews.com - Mar. 7, 2009 - "FBI's Evidence in Anthrax Case Leaves Puzzling Scientific Questions" (X)

Associated Press - Mar. 7, 2009 - "Ruling lets anthrax suit go forward" (X)
Los Angeles Times - Mar. 8, 2009 - "Anthrax hoaxes pile up, as does their cost" (X)
USA Today - Mar. 10, 2009 - "15,300 government workers have access to agents of bioterror" (X)
The Times of Trenton (Opinion by Rush Holt) - Mar. 12, 2009 - "Preventing Bioterrorism" (X)
New Scientist - Mar. 13, 2009 - "Columbus innocent over anthrax in the Americas" (X)
USA Today - Mar. 14, 2009 - "Tracing anthrax's American roots" (X)
Associated Press - Mar. 24, 2009 - "Letters mimicking anthrax scare sent to Congress" (X)
Associated Press - Mar. 31, 2009 - "Judge dismisses lawsuit over anthrax letter" (X)
The Scotsman - Apr. 4, 2009 - "Dorothy H. Crawford: World waits for ground-breaking anthrax evidence" (X)
Seed Magazine - Apr. 14, 2009 - "The Anthrax Agenda" (X)
The Palm Beach Post - Apr. 15, 2009 -
"Judge urges settlement in 'National Enquirer' anthrax case" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (Columnist/Opinion) - Apr. 22, 2009 - "Cold Comfort" (X)
The Washington Post - Apr. 22, 2009 - "Deadly Pathogens May Have Gone Missing at Fort Detrick" (X)
Sciencemag.org - May 6, 2009 - "FBI Anthrax Investigation Under Scientific Review" (X)
The New York Times - May 7, 2009 - "F.B.I. to Pay for Anthrax Inquiry Review" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (editorial) - May 14, 2009 - "End Of Story?" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (commentary by Barry Kissin) - May 24, 2009 - "The Lynching Of Bruce Ivins" (X)
Associated Press - May 28, 2009 - "Prosecutor in anthrax, Blackwater cases resigns" (X)
Frederick News-Post - June 17, 2009 - "USAMRIID finds more than 9,200 unrecorded disease samples" (X)
Associated Press - June 17, 2009 - "9,200 Uncounted Vials Found At Army Biodefense Lab" (X)
The Washington Post - June 18, 2009 - "Inventory Uncovers 9,200 More Pathogens" (X)
Frederick News-Post - July 2, 2009 - "Committee to review FBI anthrax investigation" (X)
Microbe - July 2009 - "Questions Linger over Science behind Anthrax Letters" (X)
Frederick News-Post - July 26, 2009 - "
Anthrax case: Amerithrax debate lives online" (X)
Frederick News-Post - July 26, 2009 - "Anthrax case: Seeking an Ending" (X)
Frederick News-Post - July 26, 2009 - "
Anthrax case: Studies scrutinize lab security, shy away from federal investigation" (X)
Associated Press - July 26, 2009 - "US on verge of closing anthrax probe after 8 years" (X)
The Washington Times - July 30, 2009 - "Lessons learned from the anthrax letters" (X)
Associated Press - July 30, 2009 - "Review begins of FBI science in anthrax case" (X)
Frederick News-Post - July 31, 2009 - "Group begins scientific review of FBI's anthrax investigation" (X)
Frederick News-Post (editorial) - July 31, 2009 - "Dubious study" (X)
Nature - July 31, 2009 - "Anthrax investigation probe undeway" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Aug. 1, 2009 - "Experts urge panel to deepen forensic understanding" (X)
The Washington Post - Aug. 1, 2009 - "Lawmaker 'Skeptical' of Anthrax Results" (X)
USA Today - Aug. 3, 2009 - "Anthrax case not closed: Panel reviews Bruce Ivins, mail probe" (X)
Frederick News-Post (Opinion) - Aug. 12, 2009 - "A Shocking Mockery" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Aug. 13, 2009 - "Fort Detrick passes national accreditation" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Sept. 25, 2009 - "Panel continues study of anthrax mailings" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Sept. 26, 2009 - "Expert: Anthrax spore coatings not unique" (X)
USA Today - Oct. 5, 2009 - "Behind the scenes, system sniffs for biological attacks" (X)
BBC - Dec. 17, 2009 - "Anthrax found in dead heroin user from Glasgow" (X)
The Wall Street Journal - Dec. 19, 2009 - "A Conspiracy-Theory Theory" (X)
Newsweek - Dec. 21, 2009 - "Red Mind, Blue Mind" (X)
Digital Journal - Dec. 27, 2009 - "NH Woman Critically Ill With Anthrax" (X)
The Associated Press - Dec. 27, 2009 - "Drums a possible source of anthrax in N.H. woman" (X)
Medical News Today - Dec. 29, 2009 - "Anthrax Found in Drums Linked to Infected Woman" (X)
Associated Press - Dec. 30, 2009 - "Anthrax case: Drum suspicions are detailed" (X)

2010
Washington Examiner (Opinion) - Jan. 1, 2010 - "Who was behind the September 2001 anthrax attacks?" (X)
The Associated Press - Jan. 11, 2010 - "Fed panel wants more scrutiny of biolab workers" (X)
The Wall Street Journal (Opinion) - Jan. 24, 2010 - "The Anthrax Attacks Remain Unsolved" (X)
The Washington Examiner (Opinion) - Jan. 29, 2010 - "Anthrax attacks still unexplained" (X)
The Wall Street Journal (Letter to Editor) - Jan. 31, 2010 - "Anthrax Case: FBI Used Good Science" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Feb. 19, 2010 - "
Ivins' attorney: Anthrax case to be closed today" (X)
The Associated Press - Feb. 19, 2010 - "AP Source: FBI formally closes anthrax case" (X)
The New York Times - Feb. 19, 2010 - "F.B.I., Laying Out Evidence, Closes Anthrax Letter Case" (X)
Reuters - Feb. 19, 2010 - "Anthrax investigators looked at 1,000 suspects" (X)
USA Today - Feb. 19, 2010 - "'Ġodel, Escher, Bach' author downplays FBI anthrax case link" (X)
USA Today - Feb. 19, 2010 - "Q&A: Anthrax and Ivins Case" (X)
The Baltimore Sun - Feb. 19, 2010 - "Anthax investigation closed" (X)
The Los Angeles Times - Feb. 20, 2010 - "U.S. closes case on anthrax letters" (X)
The Washington Post - Feb. 20, 2010 - "FBI investigation of 2001 anthrax attacks concluded; U.S. releases details" (X)
The Palm Beach Post - Feb. 20, 2010 - "U.S. closes 2001 anthrax case" (X)
USA Today - Feb. 20, 2010 - "Anthrax myth persists despite evidence" (X)
The New York Times (opinion from Nov. 10, 2001) - Feb. 20, 2010 - "On the trail of the anthrax killers" (X)
The Wall Street Journal - Feb. 20, 2010 - "U.S. Closes Case in Anthrax Attacks" (X)
AntiPolygraph.org - Feb. 20, 2010 - "DOJ Rationalizes Away Polygraph's Failure to Catch Alleged Anthrax Killer" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Feb. 20, 2010 - "Government  closes 'Amerithrax' case" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Feb. 23, 2010 - "FBI report fails to end questions about Ivins' guilt" (X)
The Daily Princetonian - Feb. 24, 2010 - "FBI closes anthrax letter investigation" (X)
The New York Times - Feb. 24, 2010 (opinion) - "Haste Leaves Anthrax Case Unconcluded" (X)
Asia Times - Feb. 25, 2010 - "Doubts cloud closing of anthrax case" (X)
The Baltimore Sun - Feb. 26, 2010 -
"Bill for more investigation of '01 anthrax case passes House."  (X)
The Times of Trenton - Feb. 26, 2010 - "Holt: Last word not in on anthrax case" (X)
The New York Times (editorial) - Feb. 28, 2010 - "The F.B.I.'s Anthrax Case" (X)
The Frederick News-Post - Feb, 28, 2010 - "FBI reports chronicle Ivins investigation" (X)
TheSmokingGun.com - Mar. 1, 2010 - "The Strange World of Dr. Anthrax" (X)
FoxNews.com - Mar. 1, 2010 - "Anthrax Letter Scientist 'Obsessed' with Bondage, Sorority"  (X)
The Trentonian - Mar. 1, 2010 - "The Smoking Gun reports: Anthrax mastermind was cross-dresser" (X)
The Register (UK) - Mar. 2, 2010 - "The anthrax scare: Case and flask closed" (X)
The Frederick News-Post - Mar. 4, 2010 - "Police: Ivins not linked to other unsolved cases" (X)
The Frederick News-Post - Mar. 4, 2010 - "Holt seeks investigation into FBI's case against Ivins" (X)
Anderson Cooper 360 - Mar. 5, 2010 - "Inside the mind of the suspected anthrax killer" (X)
Courier News (opinion) - Mar. 7, 2010 - "Bioterror preparedness needs a boost from congress" (X)
AOLnews.com - Mar. 10, 2010 - "Lawer Doubts Case Against Anthrax Suspect" (X)
CNN (opinion) - Mar. 12, 2010 - "Can the House trust the Senate?" (X)
Bloomberg - Mar. 15, 2010 - "Obama Veto Is Threatened On 2010 Intelligence Budget Measure" (X)
Bloomberg - Mar. 15, 2010 - "Obama Veto Is Threatened On 2010 Intelligence Budget Bill (Update 1)" (X)
RawStory.com - Mar. 15, 2010 - "Protecting agencies from oversight, Obama threatens to veto intelligence funding" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Mar. 20, 2010 - "Adminstration rejects call to further probe Amerithrax" (X)
Pittsburgh Review-Journal (Opinion) - Mar. 21, 2010 - "Anthrax questions" (X)
Accuracy In Media - Mar. 24, 2010 - "Obama Obstructs Oversight of FBI in Anthrax Case" (X)
The Huffington Post - Apr. 14, 2010 - "Crying Wolf: The Terrorist Crop-Duster" (X)
The Atlantic - Apr. 16, 2010 - "The Wrong Man" (X)
MSNBC - Apr. 16, 2010 - "Exonerated anthrax suspect: FBI harassed me" (X)
Foreign Policy - Apr. 19, 2010 - "The Elite Med Squad That Saved You from Anthrax" (X)
Salon.com (Glenn Greenwald) - Apr. 21, 2010 - "Unlearned lessons from the Steven Hatfill case" (X)
UPI (Opinion) - Apr. 22, 2010 - "Outside View: Anthrax Letters: Was Bruce Ivins Hounded to Death?"  (X)
The New York Times - Apr. 22, 2010 - "Colleague Disputes Case Against Anthrax Suspect" (X)
Science Magazine - Apr. 22, 2010 - "Ex-USAMRIID Scientist Defends Bruce Ivins Using Back-of-the-Envelope Math" (X)
ProPublica.org - Apr. 23, 2010 - "Colleague Says Anthrax  Numbers Add Up to Unsolved Case" (X)
PhysicsToday.org - Apr. 27, 2010 - "Co-worker says Ivins didn't make anthrax letter spores" (X)
Frederick News-Post (Opinion) - May 1, 2010 - "Anthrax attacks, cont'd" (X)
The Racine Journal-Times - June 11, 2010 - "The Armchair analyst: Ed Lake has spent nine years tracking the anthrax investigation" (X)
The Wall Street Journal (blog) - Sept. 16, 2010 - "GAO to Take Look at FBI Anthrax Probe" (X)
The New York Times - Sept. 16, 2010 - "New Review in Anthrax Inquiry" (X)
The Times of Trenton - Sept. 16, 2010 - "Holt: FBI anthrax investigation is itself subject of probe" (X)
The Frederick News-Post - Sept. 17, 2010 - "GAO to review FBI's Ivins investigation" (X)
The Washington Post - Oct. 4, 2010 - "William C. Patrick III, 84, dies (X)
The New York Times - Oct. 10, 2010 - "William C. Patrick III, Expert on Germ Warfare, Dies at 84" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (Opinion by Barry Kissin) - Oct. 16, 2010 - "In the shadow of 9/11" (X)
The Frederick News-Post -Nov. 30, 2010 - "Amerithrax experts debate FBI findings, insist Ivins was innocent" (X)
The Baltimore Sun - Dec. 5, 2010 - "Researcher tells how anthrax may have been made" (X)
The Frederick News-Post - Dec. 5, 2010 - "Ivins' lawyer, colleague share details FBI left out" (X)
Homeland Security Today - Dec. 9, 2010 - "Science Report on FBI Anthrax Probe Delayed Again" (X)
The New York Times - Dec. 9, 2010 - "F.B.I. Asks Panel to Delay Report on Anthrax Inquiry" (X)
The Miami Herald - Dec. 9, 2010 - "FBI seeks delay in outside review of anthrax probe" (X)
The Frederick News-Post - Dec. 10, 2010 - "Amerithrax review delayed after FBI releases more docs" (X)
Science Magazine - Dec. 10, 2010 - "New FBI Material Delays Academy Report on Anthrax Attacks" (X)
The Frederick News-Post - Dec. 11, 2010 - "National Academy of Science review panel surprised by FBI's last-minute document release" (X)

2011

Gazette.net - Feb. 14, 2011 - "Report on FBI's anthrax findings to be released Tuesday" (X)
The New York Times - Feb. 15, 2011 - "Review Faults F.B.I.'s Scientific Work in Anthrax Investigation" (X)
The Washington Post - Feb. 15, 2011 - "Anthrax report cast doubt on scientific evidence in FBI case against Bruce Ivins" (X)
The Los Angeles Times - Feb. 15, 2011 - "Evidence linking anthrax to Bruce Ivins 'not as definitive as stated,' panel says" (X)
CNN - Feb. 15, 2011 - "Scientific review reaches no conclusion on source of anthrax" (X)
NPR - Feb. 15, 2011 - "FBI Faulted For Overstating Science In Anthrax Case" (X)
ABC News - Feb. 15, 2011 - "Panel Review Questions FBI Theory in Anthrax Attacks after 9/11" (X)
USA Today - Feb. 15, 2011 - "Panel can't rule out other sources of deadly anthrax spores" (X)
The Washington Post - Feb. 15, 2011 - "Ivins case's inconvenient issue: his polygraph" (X)
Nature - Feb. 15, 2011 - "Science falls short in anthrax investigation" (X)
CIDRAP News - Feb. 15, 2011 - "NRC: Data insufficient for firm conclusion in anthrax case" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Feb. 16, 2011 - "Report casts doubt on FBI's investigation of anthrax attacks" (X)
Salon.com (opinion) - Feb. 16, 2011 - "Serious doubt cast in FBI's anthrax case against Bruce Ivins" (X)
New Scientist - Feb. 16, 2011 - "Scientists critical of FBI's anthrax conclusions" (X)
The Washington Post - Feb. 16, 2011 - "Sen. Leahy on anthrax case: 'It's not closed.'" (X)
CIDRAP News - Feb. 16, 2011 - "Anthrax expert says NRC report supports FBI" (X)
The Washington Post (Editorial) - Feb. 17, 2011 - "Answers in 2001 anthrax attack are still elusive" (X)
Frederick News-Post (Opinion) - Feb. 19, 2011 - "NAS on Amerithrax" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Feb. 20, 2011 - "One year after FBI closes Ivins case, doubts still linger" (X)
Frederick News-Post (Opinion) - Feb. 21, 2011 - "Flawed Science" (X)
The Boston Globe (Editorial) - Feb. 22, 2011 - "Consider the case solved" (X)
The Brown and White - Feb. 25, 2011 - "Gast heads panel discussing anthrax letters" (X)
Stanford Medicine - Feb. 25, 2011 - "New review of anthrax case discussed by review committee vice chair" (X)
The Baltimore Sun - Feb. 28, 2011 - "Trouble in the air at Ft. Detrick" (X)
The New York Times (letter to the editor from Rush Holt) - Mar. 1, 2011 - "The Anthrax Attacks" (X)
University of Maryland (press release) - Mar. 7, 2011 - "University of Maryland School of Medicine publishes scientific paper on 2001 anthrax attacks" (X)
UPI - Mar. 8, 2011 - "Science behind anthrax letters revealed" (X)
News-Medical.net - Mar. 8, 2011 - "Institute for Genome Sciences plays key role in investigation of anthrax attacks" (X)
ScienceBlog.com - Mar. 8, 2011- "Now, the story can be told - how scientists helped ID 'Amerithrax'" (X)
NPR - Mar. 9, 2011 - "Lab Vs. Courtroom: Different Definitions Of Proof" (X)
LiveScience.com - Mar. 14, 2011 - "Anthrax in 2001 Letters was Traced to Maryland by Genetic Mutations" (X)
DiamondbackOnLine.com - Mar. 17, 2011 - "UMD: Anthrax Investigation" (X)
VillageSoup.com - Mar. 18, 2011 - "Q&A: Meryl Nass" (X)
The Los Angeles Times - Mar. 22, 2011 - "Report  Faults Army in 2001 anthrax mailings" (X)
The New York Times - Mar. 23, 2011 - "Panel on Anthrax Inquiry Finds Case Against Ivins Persuasive" (X)
CNN - Mar. 23, 2011 - "Suspect in 2001 anthrax case had long history of mental problems" (X)
Associated Press - Mar. 23, 2011 - "Expert panel faults Army in anthrax case" (X)
The Miami Herald - Mar. 23, 2011 - "FBI's anthrax suspect is likely killer, panel concludes" (X)
MSNBC - Mar. 23, 2011 - "Medical records point to doctor in anthrax attacks, report says" (X)
ABC - Mar. 23, 2011 - "Report: 2001 Anthrax Attacks Were Preventable" (X)
The Washington Times - Mar. 23, 2011 - "Panel: Anthrax-attack suspect sent up red flags" (X)
Reuters - Mar. 24, 2011 - "U.S. Experts: Army researcher was anthrax attacker" (X)
Wired Magazine - Mar. 24, 2011 - "Anthrax Redux: Did the Feds Nab the Wrong Guy?" (X)
The Times (Trenton, NJ) - Mar. 25, 2011 - "Holt remains skepical about conclusions in anthrax investigation" (X)
Wired Magazine - Mar. 28, 2011 - "Postage Stamps Delivered Anthrax Suspect to FBI" (X)
The Gazette - Apr. 7, 2011 - "Joe Volz: Frederick massacre averted?" (X)
The Washington Post - Apr. 16, 2011 - "How anthrax sleuths cracked the case by decoding genetic 'fingerprints'" (X)
The Miami Herald - Apr. 20, 2011 - "Was FBI too quick to judge anthrax suspect the killer?" (X)
TheRealNews.com - Apr. 21, 2011 - "Did FBI Target Wrong Man as Anthrax Killer" (X)
ProPublica.com - April 23, 2011 - "Colleague Says Anthrax Numbers Add Up to Unsolved Case" (X)
Palm Beach Post - Apr. 30, 2011 - "Doubt of anthrax suspect's role resurfaces in lawsuit" (X)
BioPrepWatch.com - May 2, 2011 - "Attorneys contest Ivins' guilt" (X)
McClatchy Newspapers - May 19, 2011 - "FBI lab reports on anthrax attack suggest another miscue" (X)
TickleTheWire.com - May 26, 2011 - "Rep. Nadler Criticizes the FBI in Letter to Director Mueller Over Anthrax Probe" (X)
McClatchy Newspapers - May 26, 2011 - "Congressman presses FBI for anthrax information" (X)
The Los Angeles Times - May 29, 2011 - "The anthrax killings: A troubled mind" (X)
The Daily Beast - June 3, 2011 - "Anthrax Attacker Bruce Ivins' Obsessions" (X)
Associated Press - June 3, 2011 - "The anthrax scare and one deeply troubled man" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (Opinion by Barry Kissin) - June 4, 2011 - "Lessons from Amerithrax" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (Opinion) - June 6, 2011 - "A marathon, not a sprint" (X)
The Gazette - June 9, 2011 - "A treasure trove of information about Amerithrax" (X)
RealClearPolitics.com - June 9, 2011 - "Anthrax Attacks and America's Rush to Judgment" (X)
The Washington Post (Opinion) - June 10, 2011 - "Inside our own labs, the threat of another anthrax attack" (X)
The Los Angeles Times - June 12, 2011 - "Book Review: 'The Mirage Man' by David Willman" (X)
The Boston Globe (Opinion) - June 15, 2011 - "Revisiting Mueller and the anthrax case" (X)
Clinical Psychiatry News - June 21, 2011 - "Use of Psychological Profile to Infer Ivins' Guilt is Problematic" (X)
The Philadelphia Inquirer (book review) - July 17, 2011 - "Bungled pursuit of a killer" (X)
The Boston Herald - July 18, 2011 - "Justice Department lawyers contradict FBI findings in anthrax case" (X)
Salon.com - July 19, 2011 - "DOJ casts serious doubt on its own claims about the attack anthrax" (X)
Frederick News-Post - July 19, 2011 - "Justice Department filings poke holes in Ivins' case" (X)
The New York Times - July 19, 2011 - "U.S. Revises Its Response To Lawsuit On Anthrax" (X)
Associated Press - July 19, 2011 - "Justice Department corrects court filing in anthrax suit" (X)
The Washington Post - July 19, 2011 - "Justice Department corrects legal filing regarding anthrax attacks" (X)
MSNBC - July 19, 2011 -
"Government lawyers backtrack on anthrax case" (X)
Village Voice (blog) - July 19, 2011 - "Bruce Ivins Maybe Didn't Send Anthrax, Government Admits in Court Papers" (X)
The Macon Telegraph - July 19, 2011 - "Justice Department retracts court filings that undercut FBI's anthrax case" (X)
The Sacramento Bee - July 20, 2011 - "Justice Dept backtracks on anthrax claims" (X)
Wired Magazine - July 20, 2011 - "Justice Department Trips in Anthrax Case.  Again" (X)
Miami Herald - July 20, 2011 - "Justice Department waffling in anthrax case could be costly, experts say" (X)
ProPublica.org - July 20, 2011 - "Government Anthrax Flip-Flop Could Boost Victim's Lawsuit" (X)
CIDRAP news - July 20, 2011 - "DOJ defense of Army lab stirs up anthrax case controversy" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (Opinion) - July 25, 2011 - "Another Ivins twist" (X)
The New York Times - July 26, 2011 - "Suspect's Manifesto Points to Planned Anthrax Use, But Also to a Lack of Expertise" (X)
ProPublica - July 26, 2011 - "Stephen Engelberg on the FBI's Anthrax Case" (X)
Global Security Newswire - July 27, 2011 - "Norway Killer Wrote of Anthrax Attacks" (X)
Kansas City Star - July 27, 2011 - "Judge says US must show 'good cause" to revise anthrax filing" (X)
The Miami Herald - July 29, 2011 - "Judge allows feds to revise filing in anthrax case" (X)
The Washington Post (review) - Aug. 11, 2011 - David Willman's 'The Mirage Man'" (X)
WMD Junction - Aug 22, 2011 - "New Questions About the FBI's Anthrax Case" (X)
NPR (Laurie Garrett interview) - Aug. 26, 2011 - "A look back at 9/11 in 'I Heard the Sirens Scream'" (X)
National Journal - Sept. 1, 2011 - "After 9/11, Anthrax Attacks Seemed Too Natural" (X)
CIDRAP news - Sept. 1, 2011 - "Public health leaders cite lessons of 2001 anthrax attacks" (X)
The Kansas City Star - Sept. 2, 2011 - "Sen. Grassley asks Justice Department to explain contradictory acts on anthrax" (X)
Montgomery Life - Sept. 7, 2011 - "9/11 Ten Years Later" (X)
Ames.Patch.com - Sept. 8, 2011 - "Ten Years after 9/11: ISU Recalls Anthrax Scare" (X)
The Journal Gazette (Fort Wayne, IN) - Sept. 11, 2011 - "Pence: 'Remember the triumph of freedom'" (X)
Wired Magazine - Sept. 11, 2011 - "Terror and Bioterror: 9/11 to 10/4 - Part 1" (X)
Arizona Daily Sun - Sept. 12, 2011 - "NAU researcher thrust into the maelstrom" (X)
National Review - Sept. 14, 2011 - "Saddam: What We Now Know" (X)
The Guardian - Sept. 15, 2011 - "The anthrax scare: not a germ of truth" (X)
New Scientist - Sept. 15, 2011 - "Did research funding lead to anthrax attacks?" (X)
Asbury Park Press - Sept. 16, 2011 - "Another 10th Anniversary: Anthrax Attacks" (X)
The Wall Street Journal (Book Review) - Sept. 17, 2011 - "When Death Came Hand-Delivered" (X)
Wired Magazine - Sept. 18, 2011 - "Terror and Bioterror: 9/11 to 10/4 - Part 2" (X)
Wired Magazine - Sept. 25, 2011 - "Terror and Bioterror: 9/11 to 10/4 - Part 3" (X)
USA Today - Sept. 30, 2011 - "Strides in biodefense follow 2001 anthrax scare" (X)
CNN - Oct. 1, 2011 - "Strange sorority fixation was link that led to anthrax suspect" (X)
USA Today - Oct. 2, 2011 - "Al Qaeda lab lingers in anthrax story" (X)
Wired Magazine - Oct. 2, 2011 - "Terror and Bioterror: 9/11 to 10/4 - Part 4" (X)
The Daily Mail (UK) - Oct. 3, 2011 - "The laboratory crush that led the FBI to the U.S. Anthrax killer" (X)
Annals of Internal Medicine - Oct. 3, 2011 - "The Anthrax Attacks 10 Years Later" (X)
The Hartford Courant - Oct. 5, 2011 - "Anthrax Attacks Still A Mystery After 10 Years" (X)
PBS (Press Release) - Oct. 5, 2011 - "Frontline Investigates the Anthrax Mailings" (X)
University of Wyoming News - Oct. 7, 2011 - "UW Professors: Accused Anthrax Killer Couldn't Have Done It" (X)
Aberdeen News - Oct. 9, 2011 - "Ten years since Daschle received anthrax-laced letter" (X)
The Times of Trenton - Oct. 9, 2011 - "A decade on, legacy of anthrax attack lingers in Mercer County and beyond" (X)
The New York Times - Oct. 9, 2011 - "Scientists' Analysis Disputes F.B.I. Closing of Anthrax Case" (X)
The Baltimore Sun - Oct. 9, 2011 - "Frontline's 'Anthrax Files' takes hard look at FBI role in suicide of Ft. Detrick scientist" (X)
The Kansas City Star - Oct. 10, 2011 - "Fresh doubts raised on 2001 anthrax attacks" (X)
PBS Frontline - Oct. 10, 2011 - "Clair Fraser-Liggett: 'This Is Not an Airtight Case By Any Means'" (X)
PBS Frontline - Oct. 10, 2011 - "Edward Montooth: 'The Mandate Was to Look at the Case with Fresh Eyes'" (X)
PBS Frontline - Oct. 10, 2011 - "Rachel Lieber: 'The Case Against Dr. Bruce Ivins'" (X)
PBS Frontline - Oct. 10, 2011 - "Paul Keim: 'We Were Surprised It Was the Ames Strain'" (X)
PBS Frontline - Oct. 10, 2011 - Nancy Haigwood: “I Had a Gut Feeling It Was Bruce”  (X)
PBS Frontline - Oct. 10, 2011 - "New Evidence Adds Doubt to FBI’s Case Against Anthrax Suspect" (X)
PBS Frontline - Oct. 10, 2011 - "Did Bruce Ivins Hide Attack Anthrax from the FBI?" (X)
PBS Frontline - Oct. 10, 2011 - "Was FBI’s Science Good Enough to ID Anthrax Killer?" (X)
The Miami Herald - Oct. 11, 2011 - "Decade-old anthrax attacks included hit to Boca Raton offices" (X)
Science Magazine - Oct. 11, 2011 - "New Challenge to FBI's Anthrax Investigation Lends an Ear to Tin" (X)
The Macon Telegraph - Oct. 11, 2011 - "Was FBI's science good enough to ID anthrax killer?" (X)
Caspar Star-Tribune - Oct. 11, 2011 - "University of Wyoming professors seek to clear former colleague's name in anthrax controversy" (X)
The Gazette - Oct. 12, 2011 - "Questions remain 10 years after anthrax mailings" (X)
The Miami Herald - Oct. 12, 2011 - "Newly released files cloud FBI's anthrax finding" (X)
Council on Foreign Relations (opinion by Laurie Garrett) - Oct. 12, 2011 - "The Anthrax Letters" (X)
Journal of Bioterrorism & Biodefense - Oct. 13, 2011 - "The 2001 Attack Anthrax: Key Observations"
ProPublica.com - Oct. 15, 2011 - "Despite Evidence of FBI Bungling, New Probe Into Anthrax Killings Unlikely" (X)
The Los Angeles Times - Oct. 16, 2011 - "Science in anthrax letter case comes under attack" (X)
The New York Times (editorial) - Oct. 17, 2011 - "Who Mailed the Anthrax Letters?" (X)
Fox News - Oct. 18, 2011 - "Doubts Persist About Anthrax Investigation 10 Years Later" (X)
The Daily Reveille - Oct. 20, 2011 - "Professor is worldwide anthrax specialist" (X)
The Washington Post (editorial) - Oct. 21, 2011 - "New questions about FBI anthrax inquiry deserve scrutiny" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (opinion by Barry Kissin) - Oct. 22, 2011 - "Anthrax whodunit" (X)
The Vancouver Sun - Oct. 22, 2011 - "Was this man the anthrax killer?" (X)
The New York Post - Oct. 23, 2011 - "Anthrax and the FBI" (X)
The Vancouver Sun - Oct. 24, 2011 - "The Hunt for America's anthrax killer" (X)
ProPublica.com - Oct. 24, 2011 - "Secret Reports: With Security Spotty, Many Had Access to Anthrax" (X)
The New York Times - Oct. 27, 2011 - "The Anthrax Investigation: The View From the FBI" (X)
The Palm Beach Post - Oct. 28, 2011 - "Lantana anthrax widow settles $50 million lawsuit against federal government" (X)
NPR - Oct. 29, 2011 - "Scientific Case Still Open on 2001 Anthrax Case" (X)
Associated Press - Oct. 30, 2011 - "Settlement reached in anthrax death lawsuit" (X)
Reuters - Oct. 30, 2011 - "Deal reached in U.S. 2001 anthrax death suit: filing" (X)
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - Nov. 1, 2011 - "Amerithrax review: Lessons for future investigations" (X)
AAAS - Nov. 1, 2011 - "Ten Years After Deadly Anthrax Mailings, AAAS Event Explores Lingering Questions"  (X)
Patch.com - Nov. 21, 2011 - "The Day Terror Came to Oxford" (X)
Associated Press - Nov. 29, 2011 - "U.S. to pay widow $2.5M in 2001 anthrax death" (X)
AP & Time Magazine - Nov. 29, 2011 - U.S. to pay widow $2.5M in 2001 anthrax death" (X)
CNN - Nov, 29, 2011 - "Family of 2001 anthrax victim settles with government" (X)
Palm Beach Post - Nov. 29, 2011 - "U.S. to pay Lantana widow $2.5 million for the 2001 anthrax attack that killed her husband" (X) (X)
The Washington Post - Nov. 29, 2011 - "Federal government settles suit in fatal anthrax attacks" (X)
The New York Times - Nov. 29, 2011 - "U.S. Settles Suit Over Anthrax Attacks" (X)
ProPublica.org - Nov. 29, 2011 - "Government Settles Case Brought By First Anthrax Victim For $2.5 Million" (X)
Palm Beach Post - Nov. 30, 2011 - "Anthrax victim's wife: $2.5 million settlement brings 'a little finality'" (X)

2012

Journal of Bioterrorism & Biodefense - Jan. 31, 2012 - "Letter to the Editor in response to 'The 2001 Attack Anthrax: Key Observations"
The Washington Post - Jan. 27, 2012 - "Justice Dept. takes on itself in probe of 2001 anthrax attacks" (X)
Slate Magazine - Jan. 30, 2012 - "How fake bioterrorism attacks became a real problem" (X)
Gazette.Net - Mar. 22, 2012 - "Paul Gordon: An exercise in futility"  (X)
The Cavalier Daily - Mar. 23, 2012 - "Panel reviews 2001 attacks" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Apr. 8, 2012 - "Beyond the breach: Officials take a look at security and safety a decade after anthrax scare" (X)
BusinessInsider.com - Nov. 26, 2012 - "Nick Kristof: Here Are 3 Things I've Been Very Wrong About."
Racine Journal-Times - Dec. 8, 2012 - "Local Man self-publishes book about anthrax attacks"
Journal of Bioterrorism & Biodefense - Dec. 17, 2012 - "Evidence for the Source of the 2001 Attack Anthrax"

2013

NewsWithViews - Apr. 20, 2013 - "The Media Wants Arabs Exonerated" (X)
Frederick News-Post - July 28, 2013 - "Questions on anthrax suspect linger"  (X)
Frederick News-Post - July 29, 2013 - "Scientists who worked with Ivins still question government's methods" (X)
The Trentonian - Oct. 20, 2013 - State Watch: "Ready for Anthrax Sequel? (X)


2014

Hartford Courant - April 14, 2014 - "Oxford Woman, 94, An Unlikely Victim Of Anthrax Attacks" (X)
Accuracy in Media - May 21, 2014 - "Lies of the 9/11 'Truth' Movement" (X)
The Atlantic - Oct. 26, 2014 - "21 Days" (X)
The Los Angeles Times - Oct. 27, 2014 - "The Atlantic trots out a dubious source to support an Ebola quarantine" (X)


© 2001-2014 by Ed Lake

All Rights Reserved.