December 26, 2004 - My December 17 interview with Russian bioweapons expert  Dr. Ken Alibek cleared up a serious misconception I'd had about the difficulty of purifying spores. What I thought was a very complicated step turns out to be one of the simplest steps.  (I don't want to go into details, but I can say this: Purification is a chemical process, not a mechanical process involving centrifuges, filters, etc., as I'd mistakenly believed.)  As a result of learning this lesson, I had to change the section on this site about Refining Anthrax.  And, because things are simpler than I previously believed, it now seems even more certain that the attack anthrax did not require any massive government industrialized process. 

Dr. Alibek also cleared up a false assumption I made about why he, Matthew Meselson and William Patrick III were all so certain the attack anthrax was not milled.

I assumed that milling would chip some of the spores and the chips and the chipped spores could be easily seen via an electron microscope.  In reality, it's even easier to see than that.  Milling produces very visible effects: The single spores and the particles with multiple spores would all have a somewhat rectangular appearance.  Milling spores does not create round objects, it creates objects which are flat on one or more sides.  So, the simple fact that the attack spores looked like natural round spores was clear proof that the spores had not been milled - another major indicator that the attack anthrax did not come from any massive government industrialized process. 

I don't think I mention that anywhere on this site, but I certainly talked about the likelihood of milling producing chipped spores in e-mail conversations.  My bad.

Clearing up these misconceptions tends to verify my "working hypothesis" that the spores were made in an ordinary lab by a scientist who lives and works in Central New Jersey and not by some massive, illegal government bioweapons program. 

Other parts of my conversation with Dr. Alibek made that even more clear, particularly when we talked about coatings and silica.  To illustrate that, I'm going to provide a word for word transcription of part of our telephone conversation.  (Dr. Alibek speaks with a heavy Russian accent, so his speech patterns reflect that, and occasionally it was difficult to be certain of the exact word he was using.)

We had been talking about relative particle sizes (spores vs silica vs resin) in the powder Dr. Alibek made for Russian bioweapons when the subject of silica came up:

Alibek: It was Soviet type principle.  Nobody would ever pay attention to silica.  Nobody actually analyzed whether or not the silica was distributed well, so on and so forth.   Because it was not a big deal.  It was just for improving parameters, not in terms of flyability.  In terms of just to prevent  … ah … to prevent ah, what you say, to prevent clomming.

Lake:  Clumping, right. 

Alibek: Yeah, clumping.  To prevent agglomeration in the process of storage.

Lake:  Right.  Is it true to say that spores are not actually COATED with silica, they are MIXED with silica?

Alibek:  (laughing)  Yeah, because there is no principle for coating.  This is one mistake, hopefully, which just comes from the media.

Lake:  (laughing) Right.

Alibek:  The talk about coating spores is just ridiculous.

Lake:  Yeah, to me, if you coat a spore you prevent it from germinating.

Alibek:  Yeah, but I would put it a different way: Spores do not require coating.

Lake:  Right.

Alibek:  My calculations were developed for [viable] and for vegetative cells, [viable] agents of the vegetative cells, because they are less stable than spore forms.  In this case it was realized that … the spores have natural protection by the exosporium and the endosporium.  [Note: Although I replayed the tape dozens of times, I can't be certain the word Dr. Alibek was actually using was "viable".]

Lake:  Right, but the reason this coating thing comes up is because this [name deleted] character believes that van der Waals forces will cause spores to stick together like glue if they are not coated with silica and all those little separators that he imagines are there.

Alibek:  Yes, it is no more than his assumption, but actually, in this case, I don’t know what kind of residual moisture was in the spores.  Because usually the concentration of  residual moisture should be no more than six percent just to consider the particle absolutely dry.

Lake:  Right.

Alibek:  If it’s absolutely dry, then it could be kept without any silica, but there is a big threat of agglomeration.  But if moisture is higher, what must have been kept in mind, silica in large amounts would take some residual moisture from the spores. 

Lake: Right.

Alibek: That could be the case.  But whether or not there was silica, I don’t know.  But I didn’t see any silica.

The subject of silica came up again after we talked about purifying spores.  I asked about November of 2001, when the FBI showed him micrographs of the Daschle anthrax.   We talked about how the FBI went about it, and then this was said:

Lake:  Okay.  Well, my question was basically, did they mention the fact that there was silica detected with a spectrograph but there was no silica there and they were wondering why?

Alibek:  At that time I don’t remember that we discussed the issue of silica.  They wanted to find out if it was sophisticated anthrax or not.  You have to remember that it was three years ago.

Lake: Right.

Alibek:  After that time there was so many different talks.  What was discussed I just don’t remember.

Lake:  Right.  I’ve been going through the details of that particular time frame, hour by hour almost, to see exactly how some of these errors came about.   Apparently AFIP, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, detected silica in the spores and they wrote a report on that, and that kind of started all the talk.

Alibek: But there is a second reason for silica to appear.

Lake:  Yeah.

Alibek:  There is an old microbiology or chemical technique to dry out some stuff.  Actually it involves silica gel.

Lake:  Okay.

Alibek:  That’s what you need to keep in mind.  Because, if you remember when you buy shoes what you got inside shoes is silica gel.

Lake:  Yes, right.

Alibek:  So, you got silica gel.

Lake:  Right.

Alibek:  It was put in there for a specific purpose - to remove moisture. 

Lake:  Yes, I remember a quote from you saying that it was a "primitive technique".

Alibek:  Yeah.  I still believe it was a primitive technique.  It was not stolen from any lab.  I can’t imagine there was a lab in the United States manufacturing dry powder.

Lake:  I assume that when it was taken it was probably taken in frozen form and the spores were made by the guy who sent the letters.

Alibek:  It could be done this way, it could be done a  little different way, because as microbiologists we understand, for example, if you got into the room, if you got a swab and put it in a tube, .  If you take it with you, you’ve got spores.  It’s not necessary to have grams or even milligrams.  You just have to have one spore.

Lake:  Right.

Alibek:  One spore and you start growing it.  Period.  That’s what you say "the beauty of microbiology".

When I pointed this out to one of the conspiracy theorists who believes that the attack spores were coated with silica, he provided me with an extremely interesting report from the Cab-O-Sil company which manufactures fumed silica.  His intent was to show how particles are "coated" with silica and why the attack anthrax must  also have been coated in a similar way.  In reality, the article proves just the opposite. 

Here's the key information from page 12 of the Cab-O-Sil report:

The free-flow and anti-caking characteristics which are imparted to the powder coating are the result of several actions.  First, the submicron particle size of the fumed silica allows it to move easily between the larger particles of the coating.  It is believed to form a layer on the surface of the larger particles (Figure 8).  This layer of fumed silica acts as tiny, mobile "ball bearings" easing the slippage of the particles by physical spacing.  Secondly, the hydrophilic grades of fumed silica are able to absorb any moisture on the surface of the particles.  The surface tension of the water binds the particles together to form clumps whenever the particles come into contact.

But he'd been saying for a year that the silica particles were GLUED to the spores, even saying the glue was some kind of "organic resin".  This report clearly says the fumed silica moves like "tiny, mobile 'ball bearings'" between the powder particles.  Nothing is glued in place.

It's known that AFIP had to scan across the surface of the spores to find the silica particles.  This article shows that the surface of the powder particle is almost totally covered with fumed silica.  That is NOT what AFIP detected in the Daschle anthrax.

He'd been saying that van der Waals forces would bind the powder particles together unless silica particles separate the powder particles.  The report indicates it's just friction which prevents "free-flow" of the powder, and the "ball bearings" of the fumed silica reduce that friction.

But most important, the report explains how moisture causes clumping in dry powders, including powders containing anthrax spores and simulants of such powders.

The article says that the fumed silica absorbs moisture.  Fumed silica keeps the surface of the powder particles dry so that the powder particles do not stick together.  If the surface of the powder particles (or spores) were to get wet, van der Waals forces attraction between WATER MOLECULES in or on the surfaces would cause the particles to bind together.

To put it another way, totally dry powders do not clump.  But if moisture is added, the tiny molecules of moisture will seep into or cling to the dry powder particles.  And because van der Waals forces work between molecules of a single substance like water (causing water molecules to grab onto one another to turn a vapor to water droplets and to turn small droplets into larger droplets - the same force which creates surface tension allowing tiny bugs to walk on water), the moisture in one spore will cling to the moisture in another spore and cause the spores to clump.  It's water clinging to water via van der Waals forces.  It doesn't happen if the spores is totally dry, and it certainly has nothing to do with particle size (as the conspiracy theorist believed and as Gary Matsumoto's Science article reported).

[NOTE:  The scientific terminology used in the above two paragraphs is not entirely correct.  For better terminology and a good explanation of van der Waals forces, see the entry for February 11, 2005.]

The conspiracy theorist is now in a state of deinal and continues to believe as he wants to believe, even though everyone has seen how powders will clump if exposed to moisture in the air for too long.  (Instant coffee is a prime example.  The coffee powder always seems to turn into one big clump before the jar is even half used up.)  And it's an effect that's been known at least since the days of Fennimore Cooper and "The Last Of The Mohicans", when "keep your powder dry" meant "be careful".

Gunpowder, like other dry powders will absorb moisture from the air and clump.  And if you are in a life-and-death situation and need to pour some from a powder horn into the muzzle of your flintlock, it had better be nice and dry and pour easily.  If it has clumped, you might end up with your head clumped by a Iroquois battleaxe.

December 21, 2004 - I won't put any of the actual discussion between Dr. Alibek and I on this site until after Christmas, and then it will only be the sections of the discussion which were about coatings and silica.  Meanwhile, in keeping with the latest rewrite of my book, the discussions I'm having with conspiracy theorists about the interview have illustrated another bizarre misconception that is scientifically preposterous, but they evidently don't care. 

One of the widely-held, mistaken beliefs about the anthrax found in the Daschle letter in 2001 is that it the spores were coated with silica, which made the spores "fly" farther and more easily. 

This has always seemed to be total nonsense to me, because adding the weight of silica to a spore can only make it fly less well and less far.  And spores "fly" perfectly well without silica, as has been demonstrated by countless cases of inhalation anthrax throughout history.

A conspiracy theorist provided a link to a CBC story about Alibek and anthrax which he felt proved that silica makes anthrax spores fly four times as far.  The article contains this paragraph:

In the years since the Sverdlovsk accident, Alibek and a research team had taken the Soviet military's anthrax and made it even more deadly. He developed a process to take ground up anthrax spores and coat each particle in plastic and resin. It kept the anthrax aloft four times longer, increasing its ability to infect people.

In terms of a military bioweapon, the author (and the conspiracy theorists who got their "facts" from him) believed a bioweapon would work like this (using example numbers):  Without the coating of silica and resin, a mortar shell filled with spores would burst over the battlefield and create a cloud 30 feet across, and the spores would drift in the wind contaminating everyone in an area 30 feet wide and a half mile long until all the spores settled.  With the coating of silica and resin, they believe, the mortar shell would burst over the battlefield and create a cloud 30 feet across which would drift in the wind much longer contaminating everyone in an area 30 feet wide and two miles long. 

No one seems to have challenged the bizarre notion that added weight will somehow make a spore fly farther.  When asked, they just give the usual conspiracy theorist answer, "I don't know how it works, I just know that's what happens."

In the interview with Dr. Alibek I found out how it works.

The silica has little to do with anything regarding "flying".  It's just there to absorb excess moisture so that the spores remain absolutely dry and as light as possible.

The resin in the mix is the "trick", not the silica.  Because of certain easily understood characteristics of the resin, when the mortar shell bursts over the battlefield, instead of a cloud 30 feet across, there will be a cloud 120 feet across.

The cloud will drift over the battlefield and the spores will contaminate everyone in an area 120 feet by one half mile - four times the coverage you'd get without the resin. 

In other words, the author interpreted things incorrectly.  The spores weren't kept aloft four times longer, the spores covered an area four times as wide.  And, of course, the spores were not COATED with silica and resin, they were MIXED with silica and resin.

I didn't convince the conspiracy theorist, of course, since he reverted to another standard conspiracy theorist argument: "I can't believe that so many people could believe something that isn't true.  It has to be true.  Alibek has to be lying."

My standard reponse to that argument is, of course, "At one time, everyone on earth believed the earth was flat.  That didn't make it flat.  The number of people who believe in something has nothing to do with whether it is true or not."

December 19, 2004 - On Friday, I was privileged to be able to interview Dr. Ken Alibek, a famous Russian bioweapons expert and authority on weaponized anthrax.  We talked for 35 minutes on the phone, and hopefully we'll talk again after the holidays.  It's going to take me awhile to transcribe the conversation so that I can thoroughly study all that was said, but one fact immediately came out which helps explain some of the nonsense in Gary Matsumoto's November 28, 2003, article in Science Magazine. 

During the discussion, Dr. Alibek told me that when the Russians prepared anthrax bioweapons munitions during the Cold War, the payload consisted of 25 percent anthrax spores, 2-3 percent silica and the rest (72-73 percent) was resin.   One of the "experts" who had assisted Matsumoto on his article challenged those numbers and said the true numbers he'd heard were 73% spores, 25% silica and 2% resin.

As it turns out, the percentages represent mixing versus testing, i.e., mine are the volume numbers for mixing what goes into a weapon, the "expert's" percentages are for testing particle dispersal after detonation.  Or, to put it another way, his numbers reflected the percentages for the three types of different size particles in the weapons.

The resin particles were very large - up to a thousand times larger than a spore,  - so it takes very few of them to make up a large part of the volume of what goes into a weapon.  As the numbers indicate, while only 2 percent of the particles are resin, they make up 72-73 percent of the volume of a shell or bomb.  And, because silica particles are very small, they make up 2-3 percent of the volume but 25 percent of the number of particles.

Using a totally invalid interpretation of these numbers, an "expert"assisting Gary Matsumoto assumed that the resin was a glue which binds the silica coating to the spores.   In reality, there is no coating, because none is required.  One purpose of the resin is to protect the spores from the shock waves of detonation.  (If the resin was 2% of the volume, it certainly couldn't accomplish that function.) The purpose of the silica is to absorb moisture to help keep the spores from clumping.  The silica particles do not stick to the spores and they are certainly not glued to the spores. 

Instead of checking out the reason for the differences in numbers, it appears some theorists just automatically assume that there is a conspiracy to hide the truth.

December 18, 2004 - Today's Los Angeles Times has more about the subpoenas issued in Dr. Hatfill's lawsuit against John Ashcroft et al.  The Associated Press also has an article about it.  In the LA Times, there's this comment:

"News organizations are supposed to gather news, as opposed to spending their time performing research and testifying in court on behalf of various parties with axes to grind," Dave Tomlin, the assistant general counsel for AP, said in a report published by the wire service.

It would be nice if the case was over and we knew for certain what was true and what was false, but we don't.  I support "Freedom of the Press", but I can also see an exception similar to the exception to "Freedom of Speech", i.e., it doesn't include the right to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire.

Since the Dr. Hatfill case is really about a conspiracy theory, popularized by the media, where the FBI is supposedly covering up for Dr. Hatfill and some illegal American bioweapons program, one would think that we'd want to know the truth.  How will covering up for people who leaked and printed false information give us the truth?

December 17, 2004 - Today's edition of Editor& Publisher says that Dr.Hatfill's lawyers have begun issuing subpoenas.  The first went to NPR and the Associated Press.  The article also says, "There are rumors of as many as a dozen other subpoenas circulating in several Washington bureaus."

December 15, 2004 - Today's Washington Post contains an editorial called "Anthrax Killer at Large" which restates the Post's point of view that the only valid "sign of progress" in the anthrax case would be an arrest.  It seems a very odd point of view for a "liberal" newspaper, and it seems to echo Barbara Hatch Rosenberg's thinking: Make an arrest now and worry about finding proof later:

The FBI has stated more than once that it insists upon 100% proof before making an arrest in this case -a  very stringent requirement.  Why?

December 12, 2004 - Today I finished what I hope is the final draft of my book.  I think it's a significantly better book.  I know it's significantly different.  Unlike prior versions,  even if there were an arrest in the case today, this version of the book could still stand on its own as a debunking of the conspiracy theories that have surrounded the anthrax case for the past three years.  (You do not have to prove your own argument to prove that someone else's facts are totally wrong.  Wrong is wrong.) 

I've updated the book proposal to reflect the changes.   (The changes also include a reworking of the Introduction.)  The book is now 350 pages, 66,000 words.  After Christmas I'll start another round of query letters to agents and publishers.  This time, however, I'll include smaller publishers and not just major New York publishers. 

If I haven't found a publisher by the end of January, I have enough faith in the book so that I'll start seriously looking at self-publishing.  (If there's an arrest in the case, I also have 30 percent of a follow-up book written, assuming I'm right about who did it.)

No publisher has yet read any version of the book.  Without the right credentials and/or a good referral, it's extremely difficult to get a book read by a publisher.  For example, I sent a query letter to the Alfred A. Knopf company on January 2, 2004, and received a form letter rejection slip on November 23, 2004, nearly 11 months later.  A couple other publishers still haven't responded to other queries sent at that same time.

So, if anyone knows a book editor or publisher who might be interested in a completed book about the anthrax case that is different from anything anyone else could possibly write, and which should generate major controversy for exposing critical mistakes in the way the case was handled by virtually everyone concerned, I'd appreciate any help.  Please contact me at detect@newsguy.com.

December 6, 2004 - While working on a new draft of my book, I uncovered more evidence that the Senate anthrax was not coated.  The evidence also helps explain how the whole coating conspiracy theory got started. 

Rereading the anthax-related chapters in the book "The Demon in the Freezer" by Richard Preston, I noticed things I hadn't noticed before.  First, when Tom Geisbert at USAMRIID did his initial examination of the Daschle anthrax, he was examining a sample which had come from the Hazmat team which recovered the anthrax and the letter from Senator Daschle's office.  That sample was in a small test tube and in a "white, milky liquid" form, i.e., spores in some kind of liquid, possibly bleach or alcohol. 

Geisbert put a droplet on a wax holder, let it dry, then made sure the spores were dead by dipping them in chemicals.  He viewed this sample under a Transmission Electron Microscope (TEM), which is specifically designed to examine specimens much smaller than a spore.  He saw "goop" oozing from the spores when he turned up the power.  (The TEM is designed to look inside tiny specimens, so the electron beam was undoubtedly heating up the interior of the spore and causing some substance to ooze out.)  The "goop" was almost certainly related to the "white, milky liquid" or, more likely, to the chemicals he used to make certain the spores were dead.

 Later, when he looked at a different sample which was in its dry form directly from the envelope, he made sure those spores were dead by radiating them.  He examined those spores under a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM), and he saw no "goop", just dry, clumped spores.

A second thing I never paid proper attention to before is that when Geisbert did his initial examination of the spores using the TEM, he was actually hunting for smallpox viruses.  People at USAMRIID at the time were very afraid that the spores were laced with smallpox to make them far more deadly than just plain anthrax.

A smallpox virus is about 1/5th the size of a spore and can be examined in detail under a TEM, which is probably the reason why Geisbert used the TEM.

But the key fact is that, even though he was using a TEM and hunting for objects much smaller than spores,  he saw nothing but pure spores.  That should be solid proof to any reasonable person that there was no silica coating on the spores and no silica additives mixed with the spores. 

However, at a classified White House briefing on October 24, 2001, Peter Jahrling showed pictures of the "goop" to Cabinet members, FBI officials, CIA spooks and others.  He told them he thought the "goop" might be an additive.  The next morning, the story of finding an additive was in the New York Times, and scientists were already speculating about it, and so was The Washington Post.  The leaks didn't include the pictures of the "goop" oozing out of the spores, so scientists were free to use their imaginations about what had actually been found.  Their assumptions were based upon past experiences with weaponization using true additives.  There was no stopping the speculation, particularly after there was another leak about AFIP detecting silica.  The speculation continues today, even though it may have been all a misunderstanding.  And any attempt to correct the speculation generates cover-up conspiracy theories.

December 2, 2004 - While studying Judge Hilton's memorandum dismissing the lawsuit Dr. Hatfill filed against The New York Times and Nicholas Kristoff, I couldn't help but notice several things which to me seem like grounds for appeal.  I'm no lawyer, but on page 3, for example, regarding Kristof's May 24, 2002, column, Judge Hilton writes:

there were probably only a handful of individuals who had the ability, access and motive to send the anthrax.  [...]  Kristof criticized the FBI for being painstakingly slow in investigating the small group who should be checked out

On page 6, regarding Kristof's columns of July 2, July 12, and July 19, 2002, Judge Hilton writes:

These columns were written in the context of a high degree of public attention focused on the anthrax investigation, and extensive reporting by news organizations, on their news pages about specific, potential suspects.

On page 7, regarding Kristof's August 13, 2002, column, Judge Walton writes:

Kristof praised the FBI for the recent newfound energy of its anthrax investigation, and expressed hope that the bureau may soon be able to end this unseemly limbo by either exculpating Dr. Hatfill or arresting him.

On page 14, Judge Hilton writes what seems to be a gross error:

The last column accurately describes Hatfill as the overwhelming focus of the [FBI's] investigation into the anthrax attacks

Judge Hilton appears to have made the critical error of believing the media, not the evidence.

November 30, 2004 - Once again it is interesting to look at how various reporters (and their newspapers and media outlets) view a specific event.  This time the event is Judge Claude M. Hilton's dismissal of the lawsuit filed by Dr. Hatfill against Nicholas Kristoff and the New York Times.  The first report, as usual, was from The Associated Press wire service.  It came in late yesterday afternoon.  And this morning we have reports from The Washington Post and The New York Times.  The AP report and the NY Times report are similar, but the Washington Post report has some interesting twists.

Matthew Barakat of The Associated Press wrote:

Hilton ruled that Kristof's columns did not defame Hatfill, and that they accurately reflected the state of the FBI's investigation, in which Hatfill was labeled ``a person of interest'' by Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Hilton's ruling, issued Wednesday, noted that the primary target of Kristof's columns was the FBI, for its handling of the investigation. While several columns accused the FBI of failing to investigate Hatfill thoroughly, Kristof also wrote that Hatfill was entitled to a presumption of innocence.

``It is evident that the Op-Ed pieces highlighting the perceived shortcomings of the FBI are not reasonably read as accusing Hatfill of actually being the anthrax mailer,'' Hilton wrote. 

In an opinion made public yesterday, the judge, Claude M. Hilton of the Federal District Court in Alexandria, Va., ruled that Mr. Kristof had directed his columns primarily at the handling of the investigation by the F.B.I. and had not accused Dr. Hatfill of responsibility for the attacks. Judge Hilton wrote that "it is evident that the Op-Ed pieces highlighting the perceived shortcomings of the F.B.I. are not reasonably read as accusing Hatfill of actually being the anthrax mailer."

A federal judge in Alexandria has dismissed a lawsuit filed by a former Army scientist against the New York Times Co. and columnist Nicholas D. Kristof, ruling that Kristof accurately reported that the scientist was a focus of the FBI probe of the 2001 anthrax attacks.

Chief Judge Claude M. Hilton said that Kristof had not accused Hatfill of guilt and that the columnist was correctly reporting that Hatfill was the "overwhelming focus" of the FBI probe as of last fall.

So, while the Post says Dr. Hatfill was "a focus" and not "the focus" of the FBI probe, they also believe Kristoff was correct in reporting that Hatfill was the 'overwhelming focus' of the FBI probe. 

One could conclude that some people in the media still believe that Dr. Hatfill was the "overwhelming focus" of the FBI and not just the "overwhelming focus" of the media.  And being the "overwhelming focus" of the FBI means either Dr. Hatfill is guilty or the FBI is wrong.   There can be no error by the media.

November 28, 2004 - I just realized that last week was the third anniversary of this web site.  I created this site on November 22, 2001, to keep track of facts needed to resolve endless arguments about the anthrax attacks.  Back then, it looked like the case would be resolved before Christmas of 2001 - which just goes to show how wrong I can be.

And today is the first anniversary of Gary Matsumoto's article in Science Magazine, which means that article has been the subject of constant arguments for one solid year. 

Interestingly, during this week's arguments, something new was actually uncovered.  According to a source involved in the writing of the article,

the original version of the Science article went into much more detail concerning AFIP detecting silica. There were more quotes from [General] Parker where he talked about the simultaneous appearance of Si and O peaks whenever the e-beam rastered across the silica nanoparticles.

Up until last week, the conspiracy theorist's argument had been that the spores were coated with "polymerized glass" which binds the "silica nanoparticles" to the spore.  (That would be silica atop silica with no gaps, so there would be no need to raster to find silica. Silica would totally cover the spore.)  This is the way the Science article describes it:

Also known as "sol gel" or "spin-on-glass," polymerized glass is "a silane or siloxane compound that's been dissolved in an alcohol-based solvent like ethanol," says Jacobsen. It leaves a thin glassy coating that helps bind the silica to particle surfaces.

In other words, he now argues that the "silica nanoparticles" were glued to the spores in a way that would serve no purpose except to fool lesser scientists into thinking that the silica was there from natural causes.  But he was not fooled like the others.

As far as I'm concerned, the absurd coating argument is now dead.  AFIP detected only specks consisting of silicon and oxygen.  They may have jumped to conclusions about additives and "weaponization", but in reality they only detected specks of silica which were almost certainly absorbed into the spores' natural coating from the environment during sporulation.  AFIP saw no coating; they saw no additives; they saw only a spike on a graph.   Oddly enough, the Science article actually confirms that:

"There was silica there," said [Frank Johnson, chief of AFIP's Chemical Pathology Division], "there was no mistaking it." Maj. Gen. John S. Parker, commander of the U. S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command at the time of the attacks, says he saw AFIP's lab reports. "There was a huge silicon spike" consistent with the presence of silica, he says. "It peaked near the top of the screen."

While it may still be possible that there is some illegal U.S. bioweapons lab somewhere, there is absolutely no reason to believe it produced the anthrax used in the 2001 mailings.  As USAMRIID scientist Peter Jahrling said in a meeting in the White House on October 24, 2001, (according to Richard Preston's book "The Demon In The Freezer"): "This anthrax could have come from a hospital lab or from any reasonably equipped college microbiology lab." And, as stated elsewhere on this web site, the intense work in microbial forensics for the past two and a half years has been to figure out which lab made it and to be able to prove it in court.

Here is what Michael Mason, the Assistant FBI Director in charge of the Washington Field Office and the anthrax case told me last week:

I would tell you that any suggestion that the government is covering up for anyone is absolutely, categorically absurd [...]  I wouldn't care if you lined up "experts" from every renowned university on earth... It simply is not true. [...]

I and the Amerithrax team are simply not part of some grand conspiracy, the objective of which is to keep the truth from the public...the mere thought is insulting to me and to all the people who have worked so hard on this case for the past three years.  I wish this thing were more sexy, but it is not.   It is dedicated public servants, some of the absolute best and rightest in this country, working extremely hard to find the person or persons responsible for the anthrax attacks of 2001....it's just that simple.

November 22, 2004 - Yesterday's Oxford, CT, Republican-American provides a nice summary of what's happened in the anthrax case during the past three years - and a bit about what's happening now:

Thirty-one FBI special agents work the case full time, said Debra Weierman, an FBI field office spokeswoman in Washington. That's in addition to 13 postal inspectors, one U.S. attorneyand a scattering of support staff.

"This is the type of case the likes of which we've never had," Weierman said when asked why, three years later, the case remains unsolved. "Make no mistake, it is being intensely investigated."

Through October, the FBI conducted 48 searches, some of higher profile than others. 

Interestingly, the number of FBI agents working on the case appears to be up.  Now it's 31 FBI agents plus 13 postal inspectors, 1 US Attorney and "a scattering of support staff".   In October of 2003, according to Weierman via the Hartford Courant,"there were 30 FBI agents and 18 postal inspectors working full time on the investigation".  But in March of this year, the Washington Post said the investigative team consisted of "25 FBI agents and 12 postal inspectors".   So, as of now we have more full time FBI agents on the case than anytime in more than a year, and one more postal inspector than in March. 

Plus there is a U.S. Attorney working full time on the case.  Just a month ago someone closely following the case told me that they weren't aware of any U.S. Attorney being on the case full time, and he said he wouldn't get excited about any so-called progress in the investigation until that happened.  However, FBI Assistant Director Michael Mason tells me, "There has been a full-time Assistant United States Attorney assigned to this case since it's beginning."

November 22, 2004 - According to the court docket for the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria), there was a hearing in the Hatfill vs Foster et al lawsuit on Friday, Nov. 19, which was concerned with motions to transfer venue - and was filed by Readers Digest and Conde Nast.  The motions were granted.  The court docket doesn't say much, but the change of venue moves the case to United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which is centered at 500 Pearl Street in New York City.  The docket says nothing about denying any motion to dismiss.  Presumably, those motions will now be heard in a New York courtroom.

November 21, 2004 - According to an e-mail source, the hearing in the Hatfill v Foster lawsuit was held on schedule Friday, but, evidently, no one in the media has bothered reporting on what was said or done. 

Meanwhile, The New York Times reports today that turf wars between the FBI and NYC Health Department officials have been resolved. 

The anthrax investigations, and several subsequent inquiries into suspected germ attacks, were strained by tension between health and law enforcement officials over turf and procedures.

And The Bulletin Of The Atomic Scientists reminds us that even scientists will continue to believe what they want to believe about the anthrax case until they are officially proven wrong (and maybe even beyond that):

the culprit (or culprits) who sent letters containing anthrax spores through the mail in September 2001 has not been apprehended, and his or her identity remains a mystery, at least to the public--this despite the fact that the perpetrator used a strain of anthrax known to be of U.S. origin, that it was milled in a highly sophisticated manner, also suggesting it was likely produced in one of a limited number of facilities, and that in all likelihood the perpetrator works or worked among a fairly limited universe of possible suspects in government or government-contract laboratories.

November 19, 2004 - According to some sources on the Internet, there is supposed to be a hearing today regarding the defendant's motion to dismiss Dr. Hatfill's lawsuit against Don Foster, Vassar College, Vanity Fair Magazine and Readers Digest.  Presumably, the motion will be denied by Judge Leonie M. Brinkema, since motions to dismiss are routine and routinely denied in situations like this. 

E-mails about the hearing caused me to finally locate a copy of the lawsuit.  Unlike the Hatfill v. Ashcroft case, documents from the US District court in Alexandria, VA, are not as easily accessable on-line.

Paragraphs 50-52 of the lawsuit pertain to Vassar College and a poster they used to advertise a forum at which Don Foster was a "Faculty Presenter".  As of yesterday,  Vassar's web site now includes this "Clarification":

Clarification

Earlier this year, Vassar College convened a conference called “Teaching with Technology.” One of the presentations at that conference was called “Crime and Close Reading,” and it juxtaposed a picture of Dr. Steven J. Hatfill with other images in a way that might have suggested to some viewers that Dr. Hatfill was responsible for the anthrax attacks that occurred in the fall of 2001. This presentation was later posted on Vassar’s web site.

No innocent person would want to have his photograph placed in the spot where Dr. Hatfill’s photograph appeared, and Vassar regrets that Dr. Hatfill’s image was used in this way. The College is posting this clarification on its website in order to alert anyone who may have seen the “Crime and Close Reading” poster that the College did not intend in any way to suggest that Dr. Hatfill is guilty of committing, or even suspected of committing, any crime or wrongdoing in connection with the anthrax attacks.

November 17, 2004 - The resignation of Colin Powell seems to be another "milestone" in the anthrax case.  The images of Powell before the UN Security Council holding up a vial of anthrax simulant to justify the invasion of Iraq may be the "defining moment" of his tenure.  It certainly appears to be the favorite news clip. 

Meanwhile, according to the Wisconsin State Journal, Tommy Thompson's tenure as head of the Department of Health and Social Services may have a very different "defining moment".  They write:

The one thing even his most severe critics admit about Tommy Thompson is that he gets things done. Shortly after 9/11, when there was a nationwide anthrax scare, Thompson took some flack about not taking the threat seriously - but we haven't seen another anthrax scare.

November 11, 2004 - Some who have written me about the government's boilerplate- filled response to Dr. Hatfill's lawsuit have failed to see anything significant in it.  The fact that no one in the media even bothered to mention it seems to confirm that.

How  "significant" it is may be debateable, but the fact that the FBI and DOJ confirmed Dr. Hatfill's allegation that Barbara Hatch Rosenberg named Dr. Hatfill as the "person most likely responsible for the mailings" in the Senate staffer meeting of June 18, 2002, seems very important to me. 

Not only does it contradict what Barbara Hatch Rosenberg has repeatedly said about not naming names, it also confirms that, on June 18, the Senate staffers and everyone else in the room knew who Barbara Hatch Rosenberg had been talking about for the prior 7 months.  They knew his name: Dr. Steven Jay Hatfill.  Therefore, any of them could have informed the media.  And, as a result, there should have been no surprise that the media was alert and waiting when the FBI did the first search of Dr. Hatfill's apartment a few days later.

Those who believe that only the FBI could have alerted the media now have other possibilities they must consider.

November 10, 2004 - The resignation of Attorney General John Ashcroft and the rapid naming of his replacement has generated more discussion about the politics of the anthrax case.   It's all pure speculation, but, if Ashcroft did anything to delay the arrest until after the election, quickly removing him from the scene will make it more difficult for anyone to gain political points by claiming he caused the delay.

Whether or not it happened, there was certainly good political reason to delay until after the election the arrest of someone who sent anthrax to the two Senate Democrats who were leading the fight against Ashcroft's "Patriot Act".  It would not only have been awkward to arrest someone for "helping" Ashcroft, but how would it have affected all the Bush supporters who believed that al Qaeda or Iraq was behind the attacks? 

It's also interesting that, as far as I can tell, not a single newspaper or media outlet reported anything about the government's response to the Hatfill lawsuit.

November 9, 2004 - In response to the order from Judge Walton, the US Government finally filed its response to the Hatfill lawsuit yesterday.  A .pdf copy of the response is HERE.  In order to understand what it contains, however, you also need to have Dr. Hatfill's complaint.  A .pdf copy of that is HERE.  The response answers each item in the complaint, one by one, often sentence by sentence within an item.

Most of the response is "boilerplate", which is legal slang for provisions in a contract, form or legal pleading which are apparently routine and often preprinted - as if they could have been copied and pasted from countless other legal documents. 

Here’s a summary of the response:

Item 1 - They deny Dr. Hatfill’s claim that the FBI went after him "to promote their own personal and political interests".

Item 2 - 7  Same.  Most begin with the same boilerplate sentence:  "This paragraph contains legal theories and conclusions, to which no response is required."

Item 8a - The government "admits" that "public comment by prosecutors or law enforcement officials on investigative procedures and evidence outside of formal criminal processes could, in some circumstances, compromise potential prosecutions by tainting the jury pool and creating prejudice against a future criminal defendant." 

Item 8b - In another frequently repeated boilerplate response, the government says, "The Agency Defendants can neither admit nor deny the allegations in this sub-paragraph because to do so would require the disclosure of sensitive information concerning an ongoing criminal investigation and protected by law enforcement privilege".

Item 25 - The third and fourth sentences of Dr. Hatfill’s complaint read, "Over several months, the FBI interviewed Dr. Hatfill several times.  He volunteered to take a polygraph examination and was informed by the examiner that he had passed, indicating that he had no involvement in the anthrax mailings."  The government’s response is: "The Agency Defendants admit the allegations in the third sentence.  The Agency Defendants deny the allegations in the fourth sentence."  In other words, they acknowledge that Dr. Hatfill was interviewed several times, but they deny that (whether or not Dr. Hatfill passed) the results of the polygraph test indicated anything regarding his guilt or innocence.

Item 27 - In response to the charge that Barbara Hatch Rosenberg "embarked on a campaign to convince investigators that [Dr. Hatfill] should be their primary suspect in the anthrax mailings", the government responded with the same boilerplate: "The Agency Defendants can neither admit nor deny the allegations in this paragraph because to do so would require the disclosure of sensitive information concerning an ongoing criminal investigation and protected by law enforcement privilege".

Item 29 contains an oddity.  Dr. Hatfill’s complaint says, "On June 18, 2002, Ms Rosenberg received an audience with members of the staffs of Senators Leahy and Daschle…".  The response says the government "lack sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny whether the date of the meeting was June 18, 2002.  However, they admit that Van Harp "attended the meeting".

Sentence #4 of Item 29 in Hatfill’s complaint reads, "In this meeting, Ms Rosenberg, who had no official authority, no investigative experience, and most significantly no access to the forensic tests conducted on the anthrax letters or the FBI’s investigative file, informed the Daschle and Leahy Staff members that her suspicions led her to believe that Dr. Hatfill was the person most likely responsible for the mailings."

The response is, "With respect to the fourth sentence, the Agency Defendants admit that, in this meeting, Ms Rosenberg informed the Daschle and Leahy staff members that her suspicions led her to believe that Dr. Hatfill was the person most likely responsible for the mailings, and otherwise can neither admit nor deny the allegations in the fourth sentence because to do so would require the disclosure of sensitive information concerning an ongoing criminal investigation and protected by the law enforcement privilege."

This appears to be the first official acknowledgment that Ms Rosenberg specifically named Dr. Hatfill in that meeting with the Senate staffers. 

Ms Rosenberg has denied ever specifically naming Dr. Hatfill.  Here's her statement in her own words from her "Analysis of The Anthrax Attacks" dated 11 August 2002, less than two months after the meeting with the Senate staff:

I have never mentioned any names in connection with the anthrax investigation, not to the FBI, nor to media, nor to Senate Committees or staffs, not to anyone. I have never said or written anything publicly that pointed only to one specific person.  Anyone who sees parallels is expressing his own opinion.

It is the FBI that has gone out of its way to make one suspect's name public. I presume they must have had some good reason for doing that; only time will tell. But if the publicity was not an important part of their investigative strategy, I think it was reprehensible.

"I put together all the of evidence I knew about … about the perpetrator.  But I didn’t put it in full detail. Some items I left rather vague because I didn’t, again, want to be pointing finger at any particular person.  It was interesting that the FBI then started to work harder on the investigation.  And they seem to have kept going ever since, so I feel good about that."

The scientist who helped steer the FBI towards Hatfill, Dr Barbara Hatch Rosenberg of the Federation of American Scientists, says she has no regrets. "I know I've gotten a lot of flak. I don't care about that," she said, stressing that she never named Hatfill as a suspect. "My whole point was to make certain they were investigating some evidence that I learnt about from people with more knowledge than I in the case but who couldn't talk."

However, the government denies that "Special Agent Harp, anxious to respond to those concerns, directed the FBI’s full attention in the direction of Dr. Hatfill following the Rosenberg meeting."

This is one of those instances where exact wording is important.  From this and other comments, it appears that the attention given Dr. Hatfill was far from the FBI’s "full attention", but was mainly a separate matter handled by other agents and employees and did not detract from work being done on the Amerithrax investigation.   In other words, if no agents were taken off Amerithrax to investigate Dr. Hatfill, the FBI's investigation of Dr. Hatfill in no way affected or delayed or hindered Amerithrax.  The Dr. Hatfill matter was, in effect, a separate matter handled by other agents.

Item 34 - The government responds that "after reasonable inquiry, the Agency Defendants are unable to admit or deny whether an employee of the FBI leaked information to the news media regarding the consensual  search of Dr. Hatfill’s apartment."

Items 41 through 48 are responded to with identical boilerplate which, in effect, says that all the complaints about Dr. Hatfill losing his job at LSU because of actions by DOJ employees are covered in a motion to dismiss which is still pending.

Item 49 response says that the Agency Defendants "admit that, on August 22, 2002, during a press conference at the Robert Rodino Federal Building in Newark, New Jersey, Mr. Ashcroft, in response to press inquiries, refused to identify Dr. Hatfill as a suspect and instead stated that ‘Mr. Hatfill is a person of interest to the Department of Justice, and we continue the investigation.  For me to comment further, it would be inappropriate". 

Item 52 in Hatfill’s complaint contains this as the third sentence: "The designation ‘person of interest’ has no significance to any formal criminal process, but has been used recently as a euphemism for ‘the individual the government suspects is responsible for the offense."  The response is that the Agency Defendants "deny the allegations" in that sentence. 

Item 75 response is "Agency Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny whether government agents leaked to ABC News information concerning anything recovered from any government search of Dr. Hatfill’s computer."

Item 76 response is the same thing regarding leaks to Newsweek about the bloodhounds.

Item 77 response is the same thing regarding leaks to Nicolas Kristoff. 

Item 85 response is the same thing regarding whether or not "investigators with the FBI or DOJ provided information to ABCNEWS.COM concerning Dr. Hatfill" and how the FBI was attempting to clear everyone else so they could "focus entirely on Hatfill". 

Item 86 is the same thing regarding reports on CBSNEWS.COM.

Item 87 is the same thing regarding reports in The Washington Post about the Maryland pond search.

Items 95 to 120 are all boilerplate. 

Summing up: The government’s response appears to be mostly boilerplate denials.  Other than acknowledging that Ms Rosenberg specifically named Dr. Hatfill at the Senate briefing, they just acknowledge established facts and deny all allegations.

And they say they have no information that any FBI or DOJ employee ever leaked any confidential findings to the media, which is what the ongoing discovery meetings are all about.  Who did leak the information?  The media says it was unnamed "law enforcement officials" and FBI insiders.  It may have been.  But who?  To find the answers, Dr. Hatfill’s lawyers will have to use the waiver forms from potential sources to persuade reporters to divulge their sources.  And the media will fight tooth and nail against revealing sources, even if those sources provided totally wrong information. 

Meanwhile, there’s nothing in the government’s response that clears Dr. Hatfill, nor anything that points to him.  But that won’t prevent people from making their own interpretations - including me.

November 6, 2004 - According to The (NJ) Star-Ledger, Dr. Berry pleaded guilty today to assaulting his wife and stepdaughter, receiving two years probation and a $1,000 fine.  The anthrax case connection is summed up this way:

FBI spokesman Joseph Paris said the agency is still conducting the anthrax investigation, but would not comment on Berry's involvement in the case. 

November 5, 2004 - Yesterday two motions were filed in the Hatfill vs. Ashcroft case which give a tiny glimpse into what's going on.  They appeared today on the US Courts filing system.  It appears that after arguing for weeks about a protective order that would be broad enough to facilitate the exchange of information, the two parties could not agree on how to do it.  So, each sent Judge Walton their proposed method, in effect asking for him to decide.  The Plaintiff's Motion describes the disagreement this way:

Pursuant to Rule 26(c) and this Court's Order of October 21, 2004, plaintiff Steven J. Hatfill, M.D. hereby proposes the attached Protective Order to prevent public disclosure of the extremely limited information the agency defendants have offered to produce in response to plaintiff's discovery requests.  The parties met and exchanged various drafts for a protective order that could be jointly proposed, but unfortunately no agreement was reached.

The only information at issue here is a list of names of non-supervisory personnel who have participated in or have been briefed about the anthrax investigation.

This would have the effect of actually restricting plaintiff's ability to use information that is already in his possesion.

Releasing the names of such persons to the public could result in annoyance, harassment, and interference with an ongoing investigation.  Line-level agents may take on undercover roles, and widespread dissemination of their identities is a danger to them and the the investigations on which they work.  Moreover, non-supervisory personnel, like all other citizens, have a compelling interest in maintaining their privacy; given the level of public interest in the anthrax investigation, it is possible that members of the public who gain access to the names of persons associated with the investigation will see direct access to those persons in order to ask questions about or register criticism of the anthrax investigation, or, worse, to intimidate or threaten those persons.

The passion with which these people believe they are right about who did it is sometimes very scary - even when the only contact I have with them is via e-mail.  I can only imagine what it would be like to talk with them face to face. 

This, of course, has nothing to do with Judge Walton's order that the government respond by November 7 to the allegations in Dr. Hatfill's complaint.  I'm still waiting on that.  Since the 7th is a Sunday, presumably, that response will come Monday and be available on the US Courts site on Tuesday.

November 3, 2004 - I'm checking the status of the Hatfill vs. Ashcroft lawsuit every day in anticipation of a government response to the allegations in the lawsuit.  Back on October 7, Judge Walton gave the government 30 days to come up with a response.  Those 30 days will be up this coming Sunday.

Presumably, the response would address allegations like this one from page 2 of Dr. Hatfill's complaint:

The early stages of the anthrax investigation were motivated by a desire to apprehend the real murderers who mailed the anthrax letters.  However, as time wore on and the investigation stalled, the Attorney General and his subordinates came to understand that for their own personal and political interests, as well as the institutional interests of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") and the Department of Justice ("DOJ"), it was essential to appear to know who committed these crimes.  Thus, in the summer of 2002, they embarked on a highly public campaign to accuse Dr. Hatfill without formally naming him a suspect or charging him with any wrongdoing.

October 31, 2004 - While the presidental candidates seem unwilling to speculate on the significance of Osama bin Laden's recent message, at least one person who truly believed al Qaeda was behind the anthrax attacks has decided to give up and remove himself from the Internet debates.  It simply made no sense to him that Osama would take credit for 9-11 but not the anthrax attacks - unless al Qaeda had nothing to do with the anthrax attacks.  And that realization came as a second blow after Judge Walton's comment on the 21st:  "There are some very unique things the government is doing at this time.  If ... this were to be known to the perpetrator, it could have an adverse impact on the investigation."  There is just no way the FBI would be concerned about tipping off some al Qaeda member.  If some al Qaeda member was a  suspect, the FBI would make an arrest first and do the investigation afterward.
     Of course, others continue to believe al Qaeda did it.  To them, the fact that Osama failed to mention the anthrax attacks is part of some sinister plot.  And they see the fact that the FBI seems to be concentrating on some American scientist as proof that the FBI is incompetent.  To them, if the FBI hasn't found evidence that al Qaeda as behind the anthrax attacks, it just means that the FBI hasn't been looking hard enough. 

October 30, 2004 - NBC's fictional "Medical Investigation" show about anthrax last night was probably more accurate than The History Channel's "documentary" earlier in the week.  But, to have ten people get inhalational anthrax from the leather covering  a drum is ... quite a stretch ... so to speak. 

I thought that I'd get e-mail saying the show was far-fetched.  Instead, the only e-mail received was one stating the show was evidently based upon a real incident.

October 25, 2004 - The History Channel lived up to its name last night by presenting a show about the anthrax attacks which is well-known history.  In fact, except for a brief mention of the Dr. Berry searches, it could have been filmed and aired two years ago.  It showed Barbara Hatch Rosenberg voicing her conspiracy theories, Don Foster backing her up, and Marilyn W. Thompson of the Washington Post agreeing.  Pat Clawson was there to support Dr. Hatfill, and all four of them harmonized on the same theme "The FBI is either inept or covering up who did it."

The "Voice of Reason" on the show was C. J. Peters, former Assistant Director at USAMRIID, who said the FBI would have its own goals and wouldn't cover up for USAMRIID.  Government agencies may cover up their own mistakes, but they don't cover up for other agencies.   Such a cover-up "makes no sense," he said. 

For those who missed it, the show will repeat Wednesday, Oct. 26, at 11 p.m. ET, and on Saturday, Oct. 30, at 5 p.m., ET.

October 24, 2004 - In addition to the History Channel program about the anthrax attacks, which is on tonight (see the 2nd entry for Oct. 22 below), NBC's fictional medical show "Medical Investigation" also explores the subject of anthrax this week:

ALIENATION 
"Medical Investigation"
NBC - Friday
10pm Eastern time - Oct. 29, 2004 

THREAT OF ANTHRAX PLAGUE HAS CONNOR AND N.I.H. TEAM SCOURING PHILADELPHIA FOR SOURCE -- After a bride-to-be becomes violently ill at her bridal shower in Philadelphia, Dr. Connor (Neal McDonough) and his NIH team glove up and suspect a lethal form of anthrax is in play as more patients pile up -- and unless they quickly connect the dots to the source, a local newspaper will publish a news story that could terrorize the entire city. As Connor, Dr. Durant (Kelli Williams) and their crew get vaccinated, they suspect the victims somehow came into contact with tainted animal products, and a sickly Nigerian man could provide their best clue. Christopher Gorham, Troy Winbush and Anna Belknap also star. TV-14

October 22, 2004 - This morning USA Today, The Washington Post and The New York Times all contain articles about yesterday's hearing in the Hatfill lawsuit.  As usual, it's interesting to see how each reporter interprets what was said in the hearing.

While yesterday's report by Hope Yen of The Associated Press is headlined this way in The Boston Globe: "Journalists can be queried in anthrax-case lawsuit",  Toni Locy at USA Today headlines her story this way: "Judge: Hatfill can't query scientists in anthrax case".   She also begins her article with this valuable information:

A former Army lab researcher identified by the Justice Department as "a person of interest" in the 2001 anthrax attacks cannot question scientists consulted by the FBI because the investigation into the deadly mailings is at "a critical stage," a federal judge said Thursday.

U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton told lawyers for Steven Hatfill, 50, that depositions of scientists and other experts could "tip the hat" if made public and give the anthrax killer clues about the probe.

"I hope Dr. Hatfill didn't do this. I don't know if he did. I don't think anybody knows," the judge said. "There are some very unique things the government is doing at this time. If ... this were to be known to the perpetrator, it could have an adverse impact on the investigation."

Investigators also have been working with biologists and others to develop scientific tests that could be used in court to link a suspect to the anthrax mailings.

On Thursday, Walton gave investigators until April 22. If they don't solve the anthrax mystery by then, the judge said, he likely will allow the lawsuit to move forward.

Scott Shane begins his article in The New York Times this way:

In a development that could undercut reporters' ability to obtain confidential information, Justice Department officials agreed Thursday to distribute to dozens of federal investigators in the 2001 anthrax case a document they can sign to release journalists from pledges of confidentiality.

Journalists and free-speech advocates yesterday decried the maneuver as an attack on the public's right to know and news organizations' right to gather information from confidential sources.

"There's a full frontal assault on the First Amendment and the press," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. "The government is saying, 'We won't give you what you want, but we'll make it possible for the media to violate all of their fundamental principles.' There's something wrong with this picture."

October 22, 2004 - The History Channel has an upcoming episode about the anthrax attacks in their series "Conspiracy?"  The episode is described this way:

"Anthrax Attacks"

Airs on Sunday, October 24 at 10:00pm ET

Two weeks after the 9/11 tragedy, news outlets in New York and Florida became targets of the first biowarfare attack in U.S. history as recipients of letters tainted with anthrax. Soon, prominent U.S. Senators received tainted envelopes. Within weeks, five people were dead, 17 seriously sickened, and thousands exposed to the bacterium. The second pair of letters contained refined anthrax that could only be prepared by scientists in tightly controlled environments. The most startling discovery--it was a variety of the Ames strain, long favored by and under the control of the U.S. biodefense community. Can the FBI solve this mystery? Or is it anxious to protect our government from questions about rogue scientists and a bioweapons program supposedly discontinued in 1972? TVPG 

Also, under provisions of the unusual agreement, the Justice Department will circulate waiver forms to its employees next month that would release journalists from any agreements to protect anonymous sources. If Justice employees choose to sign them, Hatfill's attorneys would then proceed to depose reporters.

At the hearing Thursday, Walton agreed to extend a stay protecting Justice officials from depositions until April, citing the danger of inadvertent disclosure of sensitive information in an ongoing investigation. But he said Hatfill should be able to question journalists about leaks if their government sources don't object.

"This is an extraordinary concession," responded government lawyer Elizabeth Shapiro, who agreed to the proposal after Walton urged the parties to speed up the case after months of delays - or face a court order.

Judge Walton's order is HERE.

The next key "event" should be in early November when Judge Walton has demanded that the government respond in writing to the charges in the Hatfill lawsuit.  But hopefully tonight we'll also get other reports on today's hearing which may include additional information about what happened and what was said.

October 17, 2004 - Although not specifically about the anthrax case, a new series in The Chicago Tribune about problems with forensic evidence titled "Forensics Under The Microscope" helps explain why there was a critical need to formally develop, recognize and validate the new science of "microbial forensics" before it could be put to use in identifying the anthrax mailer, or the originating lab, or anything else about the case.

The article illustrates problems with forensic methods which have been in use or many years.  A new method will definitely be challenged by the defense, so it's critical to make certain the first case to use the new science is rock solid. 

Here are a few key paragraphs from the article:

In addition to the advent of DNA testing, U.S. Supreme Court rulings have sought to impose greater scientific rigor on forensic testimony.

In a defining 1993 decision, Daubert vs. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, the court demanded that such testimony not simply meet the existing standard of "general acceptance" in its field, but also address some of the hallmarks of scientific inquiry--testing, peer review and rates of error.

In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court created the stricter Daubert standard, which held that trial judges also "must ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable."

October 15, 2004 - An article in yesterday's USA Today shows once again that even the top labs in the country make mistakes when they encounter something unexpected.   The article says:

The formal probe of how the contamination occurred began April 24 [2002], led by an Army investigator from Walter Reed Army Institute of Research. In 20 interviews over two weeks, investigators learned that some lab workers had been concerned about possible exposure for months, beginning with the botched handling of the Daschle letter that sent 16 people to the infirmary for preventive antibiotics.

The article also seems to confirm that the FBI's search of several USAMRIID labs back in July may have been about the reports of "sloppiness" rather than any actual search for "new evidence". 

And experts say the "sloppiness" documented in the report may complicate prosecution if the anthrax killer is ever caught, especially if defense lawyers can cast doubt on USAMRIID'S reliability.

"Any defense lawyer should read this report carefully and keep it in mind when DNA results are being quoted against his (or) her client," says Martin Hugh-Jones of Louisiana State University, a leading expert on anthrax. "I now understand why the FBI (anthrax) letter team is so fascinated by USAMRIID."

October 14, 2004 - A visitor to this site pointed out something I missed:

The quote from NBC News says that "agents have now determined that 16 U.S. laboratories actually had the strain of anthrax used in the attacks..."

The BHR list of fifteen labs includes three NON-U.S. labs.  Therefore, there is not one missing lab, but four.

BTW, in case you can't find the three non-US labs  on BHR's list, #14 - Suffield (CA) is in Canada.  The other two are in the UK.

October 14, 2004 - As the result of an argument about how much the powder in the envelopes weighed, - whether it was two grams per letter as countless articles say, or less than that as I remembered - I found an old article from The New York Times which provides an official amount:

Federal investigators saw the Leahy anthrax as an opportunity to clear up ambiguities and deepen the analysis. Since no powder had been lost in the letter's opening, they had more to work with. Still, the amount, typical of the tainted letters, was remarkably small — just 0.871 grams. A pat of butter weighs 10 grams.

October 10, 2004 - As soon as I produced a list of the four most likely sources of the attack anthrax, I got an email from a follower of the case who was upset because I didn't put The University of New Mexico on the list.  He forwarded an article from the Albuquerque Journal dated Dec. 19, 2001, which backed up his claim that UNM needed to be on the list.  There's nothing about the article that indicates UNM is more of a suspect source than any other, and, beyond the first three, I see very little difference in who is #4, but I changed yesterday's entry to include UNM as number 4c. 
     I didn't have the article in my collection, so I added it.  Interestingly, it is another article which mentions milling and the idea of grinding down anthrax to a smaller size.  It also reports the debunked myth that the Ames originally came from Iowa.  It illustrates that a lot of misunderstandings have been cleared up over the years.  But there can still be tidbits of good data among the misunderstandings.  The problem is sorting them out.

October 9, 2004 - While it may be "news" that the FBI has reportedly narrowed the list of labs which could have made the attack anthrax from 16 down to just four, it's not earthshattering news.  Mostly it's just confirmation.  A couple years ago, Barbara Hatch Rosenberg produced this list of labs which have worked with the Ames strain:

1. USAMRID 
2. Dugway Proving Ground (Utah) 
3. Naval Research Medical Center/Armed Forces Institute of Pathology and other associated military labs (MD) 
4. Battelle Memorial Institute (Ohio; plus laboratories in many other locations) 
5. Duke University Medical School, Clinical Microbiology Lab (NC)
6. VA Medical Center, Durham (NC)
7. USDA laboratory and Iowa State College of Veterinary Medicine, Ames (Iowa)
8. LSU College of Veterinary Medicine 
9. Northern Arizona State University (Arizona) 
10. Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute (IL)
11. University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, Albuquerque (NM)
12. Chemical and Biological Defense Establishment, Porton Down (UK) 
13. CAMR, Porton (UK) 
14. Defense Research Establishment, Suffield (CA) 
15. BioPort Corp (MI)

She furthermore indicated that the 8 labs listed above in red obtained their Ames directly or indirectly from USAMRIID.  And since it's known that the DNA of the attack anthrax matches that from USAMRIID, that means the seven labs in black can be removed from a list of possible sources for the attack anthrax.  Furthermore, Porton Down (#12) is known to have only a modified version of Ames which would not match the attack anthrax. (Correction made on July 26, 2005: Porton Down had both the original and the modified version of Ames.  They obtained the original from USAMRIID and modified some of it.)

There are only 15 labs on this list and NBC says there were actually 16.   We don't know which lab is the 16th.  (Correction: A second reading of the NBC article indicates there may be three more "unknown" labs.  See the comment for Oct. 14, 2004.)

For the past couple years, the general assumption by the media appears to have been that the anthrax came from USAMRIID.   The "news" is that that assumption was never actually known to be true.  And now we have confirmation that it isn't necessarily true.

In fact, at least one person who follows the case thinks there's a high probability that the attack anthrax did not come from USAMRIID. 

Among those who follow the case closely, the list has always been narrowed down to just these three

1. USAMRID 
2. Dugway Proving Ground (Utah) 
3. Battelle Memorial Institute (Ohio; plus laboratories in many other locations)

with the possible addition of one of the following four:

4a. LSU College of Veterinary Medicine 
4b. Northern Arizona State University (Arizona)
4c. University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, Albuquerque (NM) 
4d. Chemical and Biological Defense Establishment, Porton Down (UK) [Added July 26, 2005]

So, the report that the list has been narrowed down to just four isn't BIG news.  It's really just confirmation.  But these days, confirmation of anything is also news.  (Of course, there's no guarantee that the FBI determined the source was one of these same four labs, but that's the way the betting would go.) 

What would be true news is if the list was further narrowed down to just one lab, and that lab was not USAMRIID.  However, I think it's pretty safe to figure that when that kind of real news is announced, it won't be just a one-line mention in a small article written by only one media outlet. 

October 8, 2004 - For a while yesterday I feared that AP would be the only media source to mention the latest developments in the Dr. Hatfill lawsuit.  But, this morning I find articles from NBC News, from Scott Shane who is now at The New York Times, and from The Washington Post.  So, we now have other reporters' views and interpretations of what happened yesterday.

NBC News reports something no one else mentions:

In a potentially key new development, the FBI say its agents have now determined that 16 U.S. laboratories actually had the strain of anthrax used in the attacks and the bureau has identified more than 1,000 employees of those labs who had access to it, all of them since questioned.

The most recent analysis, NBC News has learned, has further narrowed the number of potential source labs to four, though officials decline to specify which facilities are on that list.

In one sign that there's still a long way to go, the FBI has not yet ruled out the possibility that the anthrax was made overseas.

A federal judge who reviewed a classified update on the F.B.I. investigation of anthrax-laced letters that killed five people in 2001 said on Thursday that he saw little chance of the case's being solved in the next six months.

"Candidly, from my review of the classified information, it doesn't seem to me that anything is going to happen in the near future that's going to change the status quo," said Judge Reggie B. Walton of United States District Court.

Elizabeth J. Shapiro, a lawyer in the civil division of the Justice Department, did not dispute the judge's conclusion but emphasized the difficulty in finding the anthrax attacker.

Raising his voice and shaking his finger, Walton told government lawyers that he was "extremely troubled" by recent newspaper articles that quote anonymous law enforcement sources as saying the FBI remains interested in Hatfill

Law enforcement sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, recently said that they still have interest in Hatfill along with a small group of other scientists. No charges have been filed in the probe.

[One of Dr. Hatfill's attorneys, Thomas G.]Connolly complained that Justice and FBI officials continue to engage in a "whisper campaign" against his client. The news accounts that prompted Walton's anger were quotes from confidential sources close to the investigation, published in Washington Post articles in March and July, which Connolly read aloud in court.

Meanwhile, NBC's report does give us some information we never had before: "16 U.S. laboratories actually had the strain of anthrax used in the attacks", and the FBI has "narrowed the number of potential source labs to four". 

So, while the anthrax case almost certainly has nothing to do with Dr. Hatfill, Dr. Hatfill's lawsuit has a lot to do with the anthrax case.  And, since we aren't getting regular news updates from the FBI , following the lawsuits seems one of the few ways to pick up tidbits of information about how things are going with the Amerithrax investigation. 

Next update in two weeks?  Another in 30 days?

October 7, 2004 - Again there's another delay in the Dr. Hatfill lawsuit against the government.  And, as anticipated, Judge Walton is very upset by it.  According to the Associated Press, 

Walton told both sides to reach an agreement in two weeks, or face a court order. He also ordered government lawyers to file a written response to Hatfill's allegations — made more than a year ago — within 30 days.

So, it continues.  But something might happen in two weeks.  Or maybe not.

I contacted Assistant FBI Director Michael Mason (the chief of the Washington Field Office) and asked him a couple questions.  When I asked if there had been any change in the management of the anthrax case, he replied, "Inspector Lambert remains in charge of the investigation."  When I asked about the "self-imposed Oct. 1 deadline" Brian Ross of ABC reported, Mason replied, "There was no self-imposed date in October to bring this investigation to resolution."

So, things remain unchanged.

Meanwhile, I'm being bombarded with e-mails from people saying, "I told you so".   One wrote, "This was indeed predictable. The FBI has no case against anyone. They haven't got a clue who sent the anthrax."

Stepping back from things a bit to take a look at the whole picture, here's what I see: 

First, I see no reason to believe that Dr. Hatfill is or ever was a suspect in the case.  Second, I think the anthrax refiner/mailer lives and works in Central New Jersey.  Third, I think the FBI is working very hard to build a circumstantial case against the actual anthrax refiner/mailer.  They've been working at it for nearly three years.

Therefore, the Hatfill lawsuit really has nothing to do with the anthrax investigation.

Plus, since the FBI is trying to make a case against the actual refiner/mailer, they can't allow any of their agents to sit down and be deposed by Dr. Hatfill's lawyers, because that might result in Dr. Hatfill and his lawyers being able to figure out who the FBI is looking at.  It could jeopardize the anthrax case by turning the real anthrax mailer into the subject of a new media frenzy before the anthrax case is ready for court.

It might be analyzing or it might be rationalizing, but the fact that the FBI won't allow Dr. Hatfill's lawsuit interfere with the anthrax investigation doesn't change anything.  The anthrax case is evidently still "intensely active".   It will be resolved when it's resolved.  What happens in the Hatfill and Stevens lawsuits won't change anything. 

All we can hope to get from these hearings is some tidbit of information that can be interpreted and argued about, like the statement that the case is "intensely active". 

October 7, 2004 -  Today there should be something happening in Dr. Hatfill's lawsuit against the goverment.

Back on March 30 of this year, Judge Reggie Walton said he would "with reluctance" put off the bulk of the Hatfill vs Ashcroft lawsuit until Oct. 7.  According to the Baltimore Sun: "The judge agreed to put off until at least October requiring the government to answer most of hundreds of questions submitted by Hatfill's lawyers."

I suppose it's possible that the government will ask for another delay, but there's no indication that they will.   It's possible they may also answer some of the questions submitted by  Hatfill's lawyers and argue about answering the other questions.

What bothers me as I await some news is that, as far as I can tell, NBC was the only media outlet to report that Hatfill filed a lawsuit against Don Foster on Monday.  How many media people will be at today's court session?  Some argue that the anthrax case is all but forgotten, yet the number of visitors to this web site is now double what it was in the past. 

All the reasons given for delaying the case seem to have had plenty of time to get done.  The work on formalizing "microbial forensics" is done.   If there's still investigation work to be done, it would seem to be more like a matter of dotting i's and crossing t's.

The government might attempt to  delay procedings until after the election.  But what excuse could they give to a judge who seemed impatient to "get on with it" six months ago?

And we're still waiting news on the motion to dismiss the Maureen Stevens case.  Does movement in that case depend upon the Dr. Hatfill case?

I'm going to wear a hole in the carpet from pacing the floor.  I need to know if my working hypothesis is right, totally wrong or somewhere in between! 

October 4, 2004 - Just three days before Dr. Hatfill's case is again scheduled to be heard before Judge Walton, NBC News reports that Dr. Hatfill's lawyers have finally filed the long-expected libel lawsuit against Don Foster, a practitioner of “literary forensics,”  who teaches English at Vassar University.   The  lawsuit seeks $10 million dollars in damages for defaming Dr. Hatfill in the article Foster wrote for the October 2003 issue of Vanity Fair Magazine.
     The anthrax case just keeps getting more and more interesting every day. 

October 3, 2004 - Today's New York Times contains an article about Dr. Berry which reports one new item of information which might help explain why Dr. Berry became a subject of scrutiny: 

First, there's an item we've all heard before:

Indeed, federal investigators say that the raids were aimed more at eliminating the doctor as a suspect than at incriminating him. "They've actually said that they're doing all this to clear him," said John Moustakas, a lawyer for Dr. Berry.

In late 2000, Dr. Berry persuaded Mr. Patrick, the biodefense expert, to give him a two-day course on using pathogens, including anthrax, as weapons. Mr. Patrick agreed to the request but found it suspicious, he said in an interview.

"The guy tried to pay me with a personal check, and that bothered me," Mr. Patrick said, adding that Dr. Berry had presented himself as a contractor for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. "If he worked for D.T.R.A., why wasn't D.T.R.A. paying for the course?" Mr. Patrick said.

Which brings to mind the explanation the FBI gave to The Washington Post for draining that pond in Maryland: 

Law enforcement sources said FBI officials knew the laborious undertaking was a long shot but, after much internal debate, decided to proceed rather than be second-guessed as to whether they were being thorough enough.

October 3, 2004 - After months of arguing about coatings and other details of the anthrax case (arguments where the construction of the universe was used as "evidence" at one point), I finally decided that the previous introduction to my book was too light-hearted and didn't provide the true reason I am so fascinated by the case.  What keeps me fascinated is not the fact that I have time on my hands.  Nor is it the fact that there are so many interesting details to research.  It's the fact that the arguments about the case are absolutely fascinating to the point of being mind-boggling.   And the arguments aren't just about the evidence, they are about how and why different people can look at the same evidence and come to totally different conclusions.   So, I rewrote the introduction to my book proposal.  In a month or so I'll be starting a new campaign to get my book published - assuming that this situation - where it seems something is about to happen at any moment - finally comes to an end one way or the other, i.e., with an arrest or with some indication that there isn't likely to be enough evidence to make an arrest.

October 2, 2004 - The FBI's "self-imposed deadline", which Brian Ross at ABC news said was set for yesterday, appears to have come and gone with no news.  Some might say it's further proof that the FBI is going nowhere.  Others might say it's further proof that you can't believe the media when they don't name sources.  Or, maybe, because we don't know the exact nature of the "self-imposed deadline", we don't know when and how the results will show up.   Will we read months from now that someone was taken off the case?  Or will soon we read that the investigation was actually completed yesterday?  A "self-imposed deadline" certainly doesn't imply immediate public disclosure of results.

Meanwhile, according to The Star-Ledger, 

Yesterday, the FBI refused to discuss the Berry case specifically, but a spokesman said the investigation into the anthrax mailings is "intensely active."

Earlier in the summer, Berry had refused to voluntarily let the FBI search his New York home, and three months later he found himself the subject of a search that was publicized nationwide, Lazzaro [Dr. Berry's lawyer] said.

But, with this "news" comes another "mystery".  The Star-Ledger also reports:

Lazzaro said his client expects to be cleared in a matter of months and then would seek a written letter of apology from the FBI.

October 1, 2004 - October begins with some actual news.  According to the Associated Press, Dr. Berry claims it was his family who first started the fights that got Dr. Berry arrested.  Also, AP reports that he's still in New Jersey somewhere.  This may not be "good news", and it may not be "important news", but it is news.

September 29-30, 2004 - "Close enough for government work" is a statement I remember people saying very often went I was in the military long, long ago.  I still hear it used occasionally when people talk about accuracy in government reports.  The full context of what they are saying is: "It may not be totally right, but it's close enough for government work."  In short: "Who cares about minor errors?"

The General Accountability Office (GAO) just released a report related to the anthrax attacks which they titled "U.S. Postal Service - Better Guidence Is Needed to Ensure An Appropriate Response to Anthrax Contamination".   While it's an admirable work, and their unbiased efforts should be applauded, when they refer to the anthrax attacks of 2001 they still lapse into some common mistakes, common misunderstandings, common misinterpretations and bad terminology that were part of the initial response problem.  It may be "nit picking" on my part, but such errors make it very difficult to hold an intelligent discussion when people cite government reports as "proof" of their beliefs, and I have to argue that those government reports are not quite accurate or very questionable.

Examples:

1.  In the footnote at the bottom of page 14 it says, 

Investigators believe that she [Kathy Nguyen] was probably exposed to mail that had been cross-contaminated by its proximity to one of the letters containing the anthrax spores.

2.  On page 26 it says,

Over time, other important differences between the substances in the recovered letters became apparent.  For example, on October 31, 2001, CDC testified before the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs that it initially assumed that the characteristics of the anthrax in all of the letters were the same.  However, according to the descriptions that CDC received after the letters were recovered, the substance in the letter to NBC was brown and granular, whereas the substance in the letter to the New York Post was sandy.

3.  Also on page 26, it says,

Furthermore, according to a report issued in February 2003 about the decontamination of the Morgan facility, the substances in both the NBC and New York Post letters contained compounds that did not appear in the highly milled and potent white powder that CDC was told that was found in the letters to Senators Daschle and Leahy.

Plus, three years after the attack, they still use the term "milled" to mean that  there were no large clumps, even though top experts have said the attack anthrax was not "milled".  The fact that there were no solid clumps in the Senate powder was because of the nature of the materal, not because of any milling.

4.  On page 46 it says,

although CDC asked the FBI for information on the size of the spores in the Daschle letter ...

5.  ... because the same paragraph includes this:

According to the testimony of the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command before the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs on October 31, 2001, the Army Institute's analyses revealed particles ranging from single spores to aggregates of spores up to 100 microns or more in diameter.  Furthermore, the spores had a "propensity to pulverize".

In summary, there was a lot of bad information in circulation prior to the anthrax attacks  about particles, spore sizes, compounds, milling and reaerosolization, and that bad information helped cause the delays in proper responses after the discovery that anthrax had been sent through the mails.  So, it's important to both clear confusion about terms and to use proper terminology.  Sometimes it may be okay to say, "It may not be totally right, but it's close enough for government work."  But this isn't one of those times.

September 27-28, 2004 - A different kind of anthrax-related "October surprise" may be coming up.  Or maybe not.  The word is that Gary Matsumoto's new book, an exposé about problems with the anthrax vaccine used on troops in Iraq, may or may not be published on October 19th.  According to Publisher's Weekly, the book now has the title "Vaccine A: The Covert Government Experiment That's Killing American Soldiers", and it was originally scheduled for publication by Basic Books last week.  But earlier in the year that was changed to October 19.  Now there's some question as to whether October 19 will be the date.  Amazon.com says October 12 is the date.  Publisher's Weekly indicates that some were wondering if it will ever be published at all.

Although the book isn't about the anthrax case, it apparently goes after Bioport, which many conspiracy theorists see as one of the Big Pharma "usual suspects" in the case.

Part of Amazon.com's synopsis is as follows:

Not only have military scientists performed unethical experiments on U.S. and British soldiers; not only are they refusing to admit either the experiments or the effects they caused; not only are they continuing to use a deadly substance in experimental vaccines - this substance is being developed for use in vaccines intended for mass immunization around the globe.

September 26, 2004 - New information seems to come from odd sources these days.  Last night I was watching a TV show called "Medical Investigation" (which I'd taped a while back).  On it, the fictional "medical detectives" from NIH were tracking down the cause of a mysterious epidemic - which eventually turned out to be hanta virus infections.  They mentioned how the virus came from re-aerosolized particles from the urine or dried droppings of mice.

Looking for further details about the hanta virus on the Net I found:

The disease is caused by a microbe found in mice droppings, and the drier they become, the more dangerous they become, because the disease is pulmonary. The tiniest particle of it breathed into the lungs replicates, and causes death in 45%

The viral particles are coated with secretions from the host and, as in the case for bacteria, there may be one to many in a single droplet.  The size of a single viral particle is very small (a small fraction of a µm), but infectious droplets more usually occur within a larger size range (1 to 10 µm).

So, it would appear that re-aerosolization of spore-size particles is known to occur with the hanta virus.  Those who think such re-aerosolization of spores is impossible without a silica coating have to rethink.  Re-aerosolization is the normal way hanta-laden particles manage to infect people.  There are probably many other examples in nature, too.