Analyzing the Anthrax Attacks
(2005-2008 Edition)
New book - front cover
Click HERE to Order from the Printer!
Click HERE to order from!
Click HERE to buy the Kindle version!
Click Here to order from Barnes & Noble!
& Analysis
Ed Lake

detect (at) newsguy (dot) com

As a result of an attempt to shut down this web site, some articles have been removed, and the links no longer work.
Click HERE & HERE for info.

New book - front cover
Click HERE to Order from the Printer!
Click HERE to order from!
Click HERE to buy the Kindle version!
Click Here to order from Barnes & Noble!

This is no longer the main page of this web site.
To view comments, updates, references, etc. after December 31, 2008, click HERE.

My original analysis and working hypothesis, and everything from prior to January 1, 2005, 
can still be accessed by clicking HERE.

(click on the Section to go to it)

1. Overview
2.  "New" Information since Jan. 1, 2005
3. Lawsuits
4.  Thoughts and Comments
5.  Latest references (top)
Latest references (end)

(click on the name to link to the page)
The Attack Anthrax Pictures
The annotated version of the Aug. 18, 2008, roundtable discussion
Clash of the True Believers - or - Dr. Philip M. Zack is a Catholic
Van Der Waals Forces & Static Electricity: How they affect bacillus spores
Analyzing The J-Lo Letter
The Story of Suzy the Spore
Analyzing the Handwriting of 2 Terrorists
Reviews of my book
My comments about other anthrax-related books
Thoughts about the Goldman Sachs Threat Letters
Particles, Spores & Van Der Waals Forces (obsolete)

Key Supplements from the 2001-2004 Main Page
(click on the name to link to the page)
The Campaign to Point the Finger at Dr. Hatfill
Dr. Hatfill & The "Clueless" Media
Other Theories About the Anthrax Case

1. 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.

I didn't expect the investigation to last very long.  But it did.  And my analysis of the facts became more and more detailed as I examined the handwriting on the letters, various conspiracy theories, the nature of the anthrax, the nature of bioweapons, etc.

As the years passed, the site got bigger and bigger, until people who only had dial-up modems started complaining that it was taking forever to access the main page just to see if there was any news or any new comments.  So, early in 2005 I created the new "first page" which you are now reading and froze the original main page, leaving it basically as it was at that time.

In addition, in December of 2004, some key facts had suddenly fallen into place for me, facts which - when viewed from the proper angle - suddenly revealed exactly how the media got nearly everything about the case so terribly wrong.  That realization seemed to wrap up my analysis, as far as I was concerned.  All that I needed from that point on was to see if my analysis was correct or incorrect.  On March 1, 2005, I self-published my book "Analyzing The Anthrax Attacks" to summarize my analysis.  (The key realization about how the media got onto the wrong track is detailed in the Sample Chapter.)  My primary findings were as follows (on Aug. 6, 2008, I began striking through findings which appear to have been proven wrong):

1.  Dr. Steven Jay Hatfill is innocent of any connection to the anthrax attacks, and his life was ruined by a band of politically-motivated conspiracy theorists  who conned the media, the public and government officials into forcing the FBI to publicly investigate him.  Links: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - CONFIRMED

2.  The culprit almost certainly used a child to write the anthrax letters and to address the anthrax envelopes.  Links: 1 - 2

3.  In the tense and panicky first few days of the investigation, mistakes were made at USAMRIID and the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) which were unfortunately leaked to the media.  The result was that the silly mistakes and false assumptions were turned into false headlines which misled the world and continue to mislead the world about the nature of the attack anthrax to this day.  Links: 1 - 2 - 3 - CONFIRMED

4.  Despite all the erroneous media headlines and made up theories, the attack anthrax did not contain any visible additives as so many scientists and media people believe.  That basic misconception has caused much of the scientific community and the media to look in the wrong direction for the culprit.  Links: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - CONFIRMED

5. The cause of Kathy Nguyen's anthrax exposure was never properly investigated because the investigators were caught up in the thinking of the moment and didn't look at the "whole picture".  Link: 1

6. The common belief that Bob Stevens was exposed to anthrax as a result of examining the so-called "J-Lo letter" is total nonsense and just more of the thinking of the moment.  It doesn't stand up against facts.  Link: 1 - 2 - PROVEN

7.  The anthrax powder in the attack letters was a "garden variety" powder and was most likely made in either a commercial lab, a university lab or a hospital lab in Central New Jersey that is still in use.  Link: 1Partially wrong.

8.  The anthrax mailer most likely lives and works in Central New Jersey and has not been arrested because the FBI has not yet obtained sufficient evidence to make an arrest.  It is hoped (and possibly expected) that the new science of microbial forensics will produce the evidence that is lacking for a conviction.  Link: 1 - 2  Partially wrong.  The rest: CONFIRMED.

9.  The motivation for the attacks was almost certainly to awaken America to the danger of a bioweapons attack by Muslim terrorists - particularly any Muslim terrorists that might be living or staying in Central New Jersey.  Link: 1Partially wrong.  The rest: CONFIRMED.

10.  The anthrax mailer probably had no direct connection to any source of the Ames strain of anthrax and probably never worked for any government lab. Link: 1Totally wrong.

11.  The person who removed the Ames anthrax from the lab where it was being used for medical research is almost certainly not the same person who refined and mailed the anthrax.  Link: 1  Totally wrong.

12.  Al Qaeda was not involved with the anthrax attacks in any way. Link: 1 - CONFIRMED

While my analysis was "complete", the case was definitely not closed.  New information was still being uncovered by poking through the old facts to see if anything was missed, by examining the facts from new angles, and by debating the known facts with people who have totally different viewpoints.

When new "information discoveries" were made, I described them in the Thoughts & Comments section of this new main page.  When the "new" information is particularly noteworthy, I also include it in the following section:

2.  "New" Information since Jan. 1, 2005:

Click on the date link to go to the detailed comments.

Learning R's and P's

On September 25, 2005, I laid out in detail my analysis of the way the anthrax letter-writer wrote R's and P's.  Looking at the examples, it now seems almost certain that the writer was a child in the first weeks of first grade.  Perhaps more importantly, it seems absolutely clear that learning took place between the writing of the Brokaw letter and the addressing of the Brokaw envelope.  When the writer wrote R's on the letter he drew the top of the R's as little circles like this:

The drawing of small circles seems to be a kindergarten style that the writer figured out, but was not taught.  When he addressed the Brokaw envelope, however, he no longer drew the tops of R's as circles, he drew them in a more proper way as would be taught in first grade, like this:

One can actually see that the writer was told to start the loop at the top of the vertical line, since the 3 smaller R's show he started the loop near but not directly atop the vertical line.

All forensic handwriting experts agree that the handwriting examples (with the possible exception of the date on the media letter) are from the same writer.  Yet, there is a significant difference in abilities between these two writing samples.  One would expect they would be written only minutes apart, but there are clear indications that enough time passed between the writing of the Brokaw letter and the addressing of the Brokaw envelope for the writer to learn the proper way to write R's.  Was it minutes? Hours? Days?  The text of the letter ("THIS IS NEXT") clearly indicates the media letter was written on or after 9/11, even though the date on the letter was apparently added minutes, hours or days later by a different hand.

On the New York Post envelope he was still having a hard time getting it right:

This seems to confirm what I wrote in my book about the handwriting, and this information would definitely be included in any expanded edition.

The Culprit's First Words

On August 28, 2005, I realized that my book doesn't put enough emphasis on the first words in the letter to the media sent by the anthrax mailer.  The first crime is typically the crime that truly defines the nature of the criminal.  The media letters were the first letters sent by the culprit.  And here are the first two lines of the anthrax-filled media letters:


The full meaning of those words couldn't be more clear:


Can there be any other interpretation?

The other three lines in the letter are just familiar slogans to make it appear that some Muslim terrorist sent the letters.  But would a Muslim terrorist warn America (via letters to the media) that a biological attack was coming next?  And would a Muslim terrorist tell you that there was a cure for what was in the letters?  Hardly.

So, it's never been more clear that the culprit was warning America that a biological weapons attack was (or could be) coming next, and he was telling America that people can be protected against the effects of such an attack - if they are alert to the danger.  If you ignore the danger and are infected, even penicillin may not save you.

While I do point this out in my book, a new look at the first two sentences of the first letter confirms what I wrote.  I should have put more emphasis on those two sentences in the book.

"Smoking Gun" Evidence

On July 3, 2005, I completed an analysis of information which came about as a result of the subpoena and deposition of Virginia Patrick, wife of William Patrick III.  The information seems to confirm that the FBI was telling people that bloodhounds had been used to find "smoking gun" evidence proving that Dr. Hatfill was a mass murderer, while, in reality, they were telling a false story to cover up the fact that they'd lost their tail of Dr. Hatfill on a trip back from Louisiana.  There is no logical reason for the FBI to have dogs sniff Mrs. Patrick ten months after the mailing except to see if she'd recently met with Dr. Hatfill.  (A hug could easily have put his scent on her.)  It also reminds me that I made a mistake by failing to mention in my book that the FBI impounded the Camaro which Dr. Hatfill had evidently driven to Louisiana.  Impounding the Camaro makes no sense except that they needed it to help find out where Dr. Hatfill had been during the period he wasn't being tailed.

Silica vs Polymerized Glass vs Surfactants

On September 21, 2006, I reported that Dr. Douglas Beecher, a scientist at the FBI labs, had released a scientific report stating very clearly that it was a "misconception" that the anthrax spore powders contained additives and/or that "sophisticated engineering" was required to make the powders.  Dr. Beecher also very pointedly suggests that articles printed by The Washington Post, The Washington Times and Science Magazine (among others) "may misguide research and preparedness efforts and generally detract from the magnitude of hazards posed by simple spore preparations."  This is a significant verification of what I wrote in my book.

On July 30, 2006, it was realized that the silicon and oxygen detected by AFIP in the Daschle anthrax powder could be trace amounts remaining from coating the wet spores with a surfactant prior to drying.  The purpose and significance of a surfactant is explained in an October 29, 2001, article in New Scientist Magazine.

Previously, beginning on April 28, 2005, it was believed that the silicon and oxygen detected by AFIP in the Daschle anthrax powder could have been in the form of "polymerized glass", not in the form of silica as had been previously assumed by just about everyone (including me).  It was also realized that when this finding was uncovered by Gary Matsumoto in his article in Science Magazine, no explanation for the presence of polymerized glass could be given by any recognized bioweapons expert, so Matsumoto found a scientist with no expertise in bioweapons who was willing to simply make up an explanation for the polymerized glass which would perpetuate the conspiracy theory that the powder was from some top secret (and illegal) bioweapons lab.  (There are many places in this web site where I state that the silicon and oxygen were "most likely" the result of lab contamination.  Surfactant traces would not be "lab contamination", but I'm not certain that is the "most likely" source of the silicon and oxygen, either.)

But utilizing a surfactant when drying spores is evidently a common practice in microbiology, and it appears to be something known even to most microbiology students.  Although the New Scientist article talks only about bioweapons manufacturing, the use of surfactants is definitely not something restricted only to bioweapons facilities.

These findings seem to confirm the working hypothesis in two ways: (1) It seems to confirm that the anthrax did not have to come from a bioweapons lab, and (2) it seems to confirm that the silicon and oxygen detected by AFIP was could be trace amounts of a surfactant left after drying the spores or it could be lab contamination or both.  It was not something supersophisticated, but something almost any microbiologist could use to create a dry powder of pure spores.

The "Near-Ubiquitous" Ames Strain

August 15, 2006 - A report from a well-informed source indicates that "The Ames strain of Bacillus anthracis used in the attacks is distributed throughout the world, making it difficult to track down a potential source."  On August 7 we learned that another informed source said Ames was "exchanged all over the world", and on July 30 we learned another well-informed source said the Ames strain is "near-ubiquitous".  We don't know what was learned which changed the official word on this from saying it was in "limited distribution" to it being "near-ubiquitous", but it appears that the original beliefs were wrong -- and the original beliefs are probably in my book somewhere.  However, this also means that the anthrax culprit could have obtained the Ames strain a lot more easily than previously believed.  (After the suicide of Bruce Ivins, it was revealed that there were only 16 U.S. labs in possession of the Ames strain, plus there were others in Canada, Sweden and the United Kingdom.  News stories, however, say that Russia also had a sample.  However, only two labs had Ames with the specific mutant markers that were found in the anthrax letters.)

Detecting Silicon & Oxygen

On April 6, 2005, I checked out Ari Fleischer's book "Taking The Heat: The President, the Press, and My Years in the White House".  It confirmed that "the anthrax could have been made in a small, well-equipped lab by a Ph.D. or a microbiologist" and didn't have to come from some super-sophisticated, top secret government lab.  Fleischer also says he personally contacted AFIP to learn what they had found in the Daschle anthrax, and he was told that "the Daschle anthrax contained silicon and oxygen".  That tends to confirm that when AFIP used an energy dispersive X-ray spectrometer to search for anything out of the ordinary in the anthrax, they only detected those two elements, and they jumped to conclusions when they said they had found silica.

S.P. Velsko on Bioforensics

On October 9, 2005, I discovered that a scientific paper dated Feb. 15, 2005, by S. P. Velsko appears to confirm that (1) the anthrax spores in the attacks of 2001 were not coated with silica, and (2) that the media's reportage of such a coating was evidently unconfirmed and doubted by scientists working with the FBI in the field of bioforensics.

Ignorance is Not a Point of View

On December 25, 2005, I realized that, contrary to what I suggest in my book, there is no dispute between engineers and microbiologists over van der Waals forces and the need to have coatings on the attack anthrax spores.  The dispute is actually between experts who know about spores and bioweapons ... and "experts" who do not.  It's now clear that conspiracy theorists in the media began with a false premise that the attack spores were coated with silica, even though the FBI and microbiologists and bioweapons experts who know about such things indicated otherwise.  So, the media found experts who knew about coatings on substances - but who knew nothing about spores and used them to "verify" the conspiracy theories.  There is apparently no shortage of "experts" willing to provide to the media their "scientific opinions" regarding scientific matters totally outside of their areas of scientific expertise and about which they are totally ignorant.

On January 29, 2006, I displayed an e-mail from Science magazine which acknowledged that the Gary Matsumoto article in Science magazine was a "News article" and not a science article, that it did not involve "original research" and depended instead on "views of science", and they also seem to confirm that it was a political article and not a science article, since they felt a retraction would be "censoring" the author.

Storing anthrax

On April 23, 2006 and April 25, 2006, I learned that it isn't uncommon to store anthrax spores.  On page 45 of my book I suggest that it is.  While storing anthrax spores in powder form may still be uncommon, clearly there are reasons to store anthrax cultures resulting from tests, and those cultures (which may often contain spores) appear to be routinely stored in a liquid to prevent aerosolization of the spores.  Therefore, it is no longer "most likely" that the anthrax used in the attacks of 2001 were in frozen bacteria form when stolen.  It's still very unlikely that the powders in the letters were used in exactly the same form as stolen, but I now know there are ways of storing anthrax which seem more likely to be open to theft than frozen bacteria.

Made in the "northeastern U.S."

On November 12, 2006, I discussed an NBC report that the attack anthrax was made using water from a source in the "northeastern U.S."   It seemed to confirm what is said in my book and on this web site, i.e., that the anthrax was made in Central New Jersey.  But, the facts about Bruce Ivins showed that Maryland could beconsidered to be in the "northeastern U.S.", too.

Kathy Nguyen's Exposure

On November 28, 2007, I was informed that the Tom Brokaw letter was taken to the NYC Public Health Laboratory at 455 First Avenue, not to the Health Department facility located at 125 Worth St., as I stated in my book.  It changes nothing else in my analysis.

An FBI "Sting" traps a leaker?

On or around December 23, 2007, my analysis showed that the deposition of Daniel S. Seikaly may explain how and why the false information was released to Newsweek about the bloodhounds getting Dr. Hatfill's scent off of the anthrax letters.

The Microbial Forensics Lectures

On February 3, 2008, I analyzed the January 24, 2008, lectures that were given on the subject of getting the new science of microbial forensics accepted in court.  The slide presentations seem to make it clear that the FBI is pushing to get microbial forensics accepted so that they can arrest the anthrax mailer without fear that the evidence will be thrown out of court and the culprit let free.

Dr. Bruce Ivins

On August 1, 2008, The Los Angeles Times broke the news that the man the FBI suspected of committing the anthrax attacks of 2001 had committed suicide.  The initial media reports included a jumble of irrelevant information about Dr. Ivins' mental state in the last years of his life, but, eventually, new details about the FBI's scientific investigation came out, followed by details about Dr. Ivins' activities at USAMRIID in the days before the anthrax attacks, and it soon became clear that Dr. Bruce Ivins was almost certainly the anthrax mailer.

3.  Lawsuits:

Hatfill v Ashcroft et al:  On June 27, 2008, the case was settled.  The government paid Dr. Hatfill $2.825 million in cash plus an annuity of $150,000 per year for 20 years.  The Settlement Agreement is HERE.

Hatfill v Foster, Vanity Fair & Readers Digest: A change of venue was granted to move the case from Alexandria, VA, to New York City and the case was handled there. The lawsuit was settled on or around February 23, 2007.  My "comment" for March 4, 2007, provides details.

Hatfill v The New York Times: An appeal filed in the Hatfill vs The New York Times lawsuit  resulted in the dismissal being overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th circuit on July 29, 2005, and by the full 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on October 14, 2005.   According to the Docket, on November 8, 2005, the case was "stayed" while The New York Times filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court.  That appeal was denied on March 27, 2006.  So, the lawsuit will proceed in an Alexandria, VA, court.  The final pre-trial conference occurred on schedule on November 16, 2006.  On October 20, 2006, Judge Liam O'Grady Ordered the New York Times to divulge 3 confidential sources.  The Times refused.  The case was dismissed in a Summary Judgment on January 12, 2007.  The appeals were heard on March 21, 2008, and the dismissal was upheld by the appeals court on July 14, 2008.  The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and was rejected by the Supreme Court on Dec. 15, 2008.

Stevens v United States: The government's motion (filed in July of 2004) to dismiss the Maureen Stevens lawsuit against the government was finally denied on April 18, 2005.  According to The Palm Beach Post, Judge Hurley ordered the government to respond to the lawsuit by June 2, 2005.  On June 10, 2005, according to the Docket, however, some aspect of the case was turned over to a Magistrate Judge and to mediation.  In October of 2008, The Florida Supreme Court ruled that the wrongful death case can go forward in Florida court.

Stevens v The Battelle Memorial Institute et al:  Maureen Stevens' lawsuit against The Battelle Memorial Institute is evidently in the discovery phase.  The Docket is available by clicking HERE.

4.  Thoughts and Comments:

Recent Updates to this Site
Thoughts about what it all means
Ed Lake

This is no longer the main page of this web site.
To view comments, updates, references, etc. after
December 31, 2008, click HERE.

Updates & Changes: Sunday, December 28, 2008, thru Wednesday, December 31, 2008

December 31, 2008 - If there's anyone out there who thinks that no one any longer believes that Dr. Hatfill was the anthrax mailer, check out the posting on December 30th, 2008 at 7:54 pm by "AnthraxSleuth" on The Blogger News Network.  He writes:

I have facts and evidence, Physical evidence that Steven Hatfill is the Anthrax Mailer.
 [...]  I have facts and more physical evidence that the FBI, one agent in particular, have fallen all over themselves to not investigate the real culprits. [...] 
the truth is coming out, I’m making damn sure of it.
Maybe he's writing a book or starting a web site.  Let's hope it's nothing crazier than that.

December 30, 2008 - This morning, Dr. Meryl Nass's blog contains a correction to her earlier comments about mutants found in the attack anthrax.  The correction also contains errors, but it is a step in the right direction.

Meanwhile, the long discussion on The Blogger News Network shows why I like arguing with conspiracy theorists so much.  They sometimes try to argue science.  And, when pressed, they will describe the science that they feel supports their argument.

One current scientific argument boils down to this:

The FBI stated that they used four key DNA mutations to find the source of the attack anthrax.  The source was determined to be the flask known as RMR-1029, which was controlled by Dr. Bruce Ivins.

The search identified eight samples with the key four mutations from the attack anthrax.  A total of about 1,070 samples from over 15 labs were tested. 

The FBI states that RMR-1029 was one of those eight samples, and RMR-1029 was the "parent" of the attack anthrax and the "parent" of the other seven samples.

It can undoubtedly be proven via documents and paper trails that RMR-1029 was the "parent" of the other seven samples.

However, in the discussion, "BugMaster" argues that it is impossible to prove that one of the other seven samples couldn't be the "parent" of the attack anthrax instead of RMR-1029.  The argument is evidently based upon a belief that Bacillus anthracis does not mutate fast enough to allow anyone to distinguish DNA differences between RMR-1029 and any sample grown from spores in RMR-1029.

In the roundtable discussion on August 18, however, Dr. Paul Keim made statements which seem to suggest that when using the entire DNA, it is now possible to distinquish which batch is the parent and which is the descendant.  I pointed that out to "BugMaster," but she/he claimed that if that is indeed what Dr. Keim said, then he is WRONG.

Ah!  Love it! Love it!  Love it!  A dispute between scientists that can seemingly be easily resolved by getting more information!  I'm attempting to do so.

Meanwhile, the discussion has been taken over by a True Believer who posts endless and irrelevant messages which he wants everyone to read.  And, if they don't, that is proof to him that others don't have all the information about the case that he has, and they don't care about the "truth" as he sees it.  That's why I avoid (whenever possible) arguing with True Believers.  But some things he says are interesting.  Consider the statement he made on December 28th, 2008 at 8:08 p.m.   It begins this way:

I’ve had a long heart-to-heart with the anthrax mailer. He’s convinced me that the US DOJ has problems that are far more difficult to resolve than the embarrassment over ...
That looks like it may have come from some Book of Revelations, Chapter 1, Verse 1.

December 29, 2008 - On Christmas, I mentioned a discussion on The Blogger News Network  where some people were arguing that comments on Dr. Nass's web site about an unclear statement in a slide presentation by Dr. Jacques Ravel somehow indicated that the FBI was in error and

the morphologic variations in spore colonies were not entirely identical between the NY Post and Leahy letters 
Checking with Dr. Ravel, he tells me that the slides referred to a list of morphotypes/wild type isolates (a.k.a mutants) that were sequenced.  It didn't refer to the number of mutants in the NY Post and Leahy letters nor whether they were identical or not.   So, it was just another example of people assuming that any discrepancy found anywhere shows the FBI was wrong, when, in reality, it just shows that people misunderstood what they were seeing and didn't bother to find out why things didn't agree. 

As a bonus, Dr. Ravel confirmed that the four identical mutations were present in each of the anthrax letters and in flask RMR1029.

BTW, if you want to see an extremely lively discussion of the current status of the anthrax investigation, click on that Blogger News Network link above.

December 28, 2008 - Although there are still a few days left in 2008, this seems a good time to summarize certain facts for the past year.  A chart showing activity for this web site explains a lot:

Clearly, August was an unusual month.  It was on August 1 that the news broke about Dr. Ivins allegedly being the anthrax mailer.  As I recall, there were days during that month when I had over 400 unread emails in my inbox.  I'm still trying to absorb all the new information that came out that month.

I wrote about 115,000 words of comments during 2008, far more than in any previous year.   Add in another 14,000 words in the new supplemental sections I wrote, and the total comes to well over the number of words that would be in 2 novels.

Things have quieted down significantly since August, however.  The conspiracy theorists and True Believers rarely send me emails these days, although they still discuss their beliefs on public forums such a Dr. Meryl Nass's blog, and as added comments to articles on The Blogger News Network and elsewhere.

2009 looks like it should be the wrap-up year.  The promised scientific reports detailing facts about the scientific elements of the Amerithrax investigation should be published.  The promised Congressional hearings into the processes and findings of the Amerithrax investigation should take place.  We may even see a book or two from insiders in the case.  And each of those activities should spur heated reactions from people with contrary beliefs and opinions.

Personally, I'm looking forward to 2009 very much. 

Updates & Changes: Sunday, December 21, 2008, thru Saturday, December 27, 2008

December 25, 2008 - How did I spend my Christmas, you ask?  I spent it enjoying myself.  What I enjoy most these days - and for most of the past seven years - is arguing about the anthrax attacks of 2001.  And things get particularly enjoyable when something new is learned or when some complex issue is clarified.

The discussions which greatly clarified for me the issue of the mutants in the attack spores took place HERE, but some of the discussion by "anonymous" was carried over from Dr. Meryl Nass's web blog, where Dr. Nass recently made this comment:

To make a big deal about 4 morphologic findings that were present in the anthrax letters--and then to learn one sample had 3 and the other 5, MEANING THEY WERE NOT IDENTICAL--defies understanding.

IS FBI simply practicing its own version of Hitler's Big Lie? As paraphrased by the OSS: "People will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it."

And "anonymous" commented:
One sample having 5 and the other 3 must mean that the first had all 4 of the morphological varients plus the orginal (for a total of 5), while the second had only 2 plus the original (for a total of 3).

So one had all four, but the other only 2.

Hey guys, this is FBI science we're talking about here, not real science. The FBI invented their own laws of science a long time ago

Looking at my copy of the roundtable discussion of August 18, 2008, the facts appear to be as follows:

1.  There were "well over a dozen" mutations or "morphological varients" in the attack anthrax.  That was noticed almost immediately.

2.  Using scientific procedures which had never before been applied to microbial forensics, scientists selected four of those mutants as key search criteria when they went through the approximately 1,070 samples of the Ames strain the FBI collected from over 15 different labs around the world.

3.  They found only eight samples from among the 1,070 which had all four mutants.  All eight samples came from just two labs: USAMRIID and one other (presumably Battelle).

4.  None of the other samples contained 3 of the key mutations.  Some contained 1 or 2.

5.  DNA testing showed that seven of the eight matching samples were "daughters" of the "mother" spores in the eighth sample, the RMR-1029 flask controlled by Dr. Ivins.

6.  The attack spores were also "daughters" of the mother spores in the RMR-1029 flask.

The above facts say that the attack anthrax could not possibly have come from any of the other 1,062 sources.  And since "daughter" spores can presumably only produce "granddaughter" spores, the only possible known source is RMR-1029.

The information on Dr. Nass's web page needs clarification, but no valid interpretation will change the fact that the attack anthrax was grown from spores in flask RMR-1029.  The seven samples of daughter spores couldn't produce it, and no other known source had the three mutants found in the media anthrax, much less the five in the senate anthrax.

Mutations are random, although certain types of mutations are more common than others.  If a viable mutation occurs early in the growing process, there should be many of that mutation in the final product.  If a viable mutation occurs late in the growing process, there should be very few of that mutation in the final product.  The four key mutations were probably picked because there were many of them in the attack anthrax (but still far less than 1% of the total), and they were specific mutations which would be easily and reliably identified. 

And since mutations are random, the chances of three mutations exactly matching those in the attack anthrax growing spontanously in new growth is virtually nonexsistant. 

We all need to wait for the scientific papers which will go into the details. Two quotes from the roundtable discussion seem to make that very clear:

It is important to emphasize that the science used in this case is highly validated and well accepted throughout the scientific community. The novelty is in the application of these techniques for forensic microbiology.
One other aspect of this is that we’re trying to preserve the peer reviewed scientific publishing process, so we’ve identified a number of papers that will come out of this also, so again, these are multiple layers of validation. We talked about the various ways that — we had the working groups that advised on the approach, how we develop the process; we had many people work on the actual samples themselves and on the repository. There were so many people involved in this that participated we want allow them another layer of validation, which is the peer review process. So this will be made public. We have more than 10 papers that we have tentatively identified to be published on this. We’re just preserving the ability to do that. If we disclose everything here then we will not be able to publish those papers.
Unfortunately, every day that passes before these scientific papers are published is another day when conspiracy theorists can distort or misinterpret the known facts in order to dream up a dozen or more new theories.

December 24, 2008 - FWIW, I took the chart of Dr. Ivins' overtime hours in lab B3 that was in search warrant applications and re-did it to show year 2000 and 2001 separately, instead of as overlapping graphs.  Here is the result: 

While the chart makes it clear that Ivins spent a LOT of time in lab B3 at the time the culprit would have been preparing the attack anthrax, far far more than at any other time in the two years, the most curious thing the graph shows is that he began working long hours in lab B3 in August of 2001, the month before 9/11.

That seems to indicate that whatever he was doing, it wasn't entirely connected to the events of 9/11.

But, then again, if he was worried about a possible anthrax attack and/or the lack of available anthrax vaccines and/or the future of his work, there's no reason to believe that those worries would have suddenly popped into his head on 9/11.

One could conclude that he was experimenting or practicing in August.  The fact that he had no explanation for what he was doing suggests that whatever it was, it wasn't something he wanted the authorities to know about. 

December 22, 2008 - This morning, on NPR's "Morning Edition," they have a story titled "Survey Reports Scientists 'Suspicious' Of FBI."  I can testify to that.  Many of the scientists with whom I talk are suspicious of the FBI.  But that's mainly because I often talk with conspiracy theorists, and there seem to be a large number of conspiracy theorists among scientists.  Some even have downright hatreds for the FBI and just about every department in every branch of the government. 

Interestingly, the article says:

Only 15 percent of scientists who responded to the survey had ever had any professional contact with law enforcement agents.
So, it isn't direct contact with the FBI that causes the suspicions.  It's what they read in the media or see on TV.  The article also says:
[Michael] Stebbins [the director of biology policy at the Federation of American Scientists]  is surprised though, by what he sees as an "unhealthy level of paranoia" among scientists. Researchers worried that the FBI would inhibit their ability to conduct research, or would want to classify their work, read their personal e-mails, or ask them to monitor the work of their colleagues.
Daniel Cloyd, who runs the FBI's Counterintelligence Division, says misconceptions about law enforcement are widespread.

"In movies, we tend to run the gamut," he says. "We're either supermen and women who can do no wrong, or we're bumbling fools who can do nothing right." Neither is accurate, he adds.

On the positive side, 
the vast majority of scientists seemed open to helping the FBI under certain circumstances. Just over 90 percent reported that requesting technical expertise in a specific area was a "good or excellent" reason to be consulted by the FBI. Eighty percent said helping with an ongoing investigation would be a "good or excellent" reason to help.
So, one might conclude that scientists are suspicious of the FBI because the FBI asks other scientists about scientific matters and not them.  By nature, scientists tend to be suspicious of anything they haven't tested and checked out for themselves.

December 21, 2008 - I've been so busy arguing for the past week that I didn't have any time to think about what I'd write for today's comment.  I awoke this morning thinking I'd write about how Internet archivers are recording arguments that in the past would have purely oral and lost forever, but today they are in a visual format and are recorded forever.  I was particularly fascinated by the ongoing conversations HERE and HERE which seemed to hit home on one of my main themes: Some people will argue beliefs as if they were facts and dismiss facts as absurd beliefs - no matter how much evidence there is to support the facts. 

Back in 2001 or 2002, when I first heard the suggestion that a six-year-old child might have written the anthrax letters, I just dismissed the idea.  It didn't seem logical that anyone would use a child that way.  It seemed too risky.  But, as arguments about the handwriting continued, with some claiming it was disguised and others claiming it was an Arab who was just learning to write with Roman characters, facts started piling up which truly pointed toward a child having written the letters.  I changed from dismissing the idea to saying it was "possible," to saying it was "likely," to saying it was "very likely," and finally when some key evidence appeared, to saying it was "a near certainty."  When the FBI identified Bruce Ivins as the culprit, and it turned out that Bruce Ivins' wife ran a day care center and he had a lot of contact with children of the right age, it was just icing on the cake.  However, I can't go beyond "a near certainty," since without sworn statements from the writer or the culprit or other solid evidence, there is always the possibility of another explanation, and I need to keep an open mind for that.  But, some will argue that just shows that I have a "closed mind," since anyone with an "open mind" would immediately see that the whole idea is foolish and would dismiss the idea completely without even looking at the evidence. 

But, this morning the argument changed.  Suddenly, the person I was arguing with seemed to accept the possibility that I might be right.  What happened?  The only thing I can see is that I mentioned that what we were arguing about was not my original idea.  It came from someone else.  My web site says I got the idea from someone on a news discussion group.   Later I learned the idea may have originally come from Brother Jonathan.  Did the fact that it wasn't my idea change things?  Did that somehow change it from one person's screwball idea to a possibly valid idea shared by other people? 

This morning, there was an email in my inbox from a law enforcement official in another country who regularly reads this web site, and he was impressed by the discussion, but he felt there was still the unanswered question of how the culprit avoided getting the child's fingerprints all over the envelopes.  I don't know.  I  don't know that fingerprints can't simply be wiped off a letter.  I don't know that a scientist wouldn't have ways to get rid of fingerprints.  I don't know that the culprit didn't simply show the child how to avoid getting the letter "messy" by putting a piece of paper under the hand that was holding the envelope in place.   I remember doing that when I was a kid.  The hand holding the pen wouldn't leave fingerprints if the adult was on hand to make sure it didn't.  And there could be other answers as well. 

And I certainly don't know why the culprit chose to use a child instead of one of the hundred other methods of disguising handwriting that have been suggested over the years.  Maybe he just thought it was a different way that had never been done before and no one would expect it.  Maybe he figured they'd assume one of the other routine methods was used.  Or they'd believe that an actual Muslim terrorist wrote the letters.

Last week I also discussed other things with other people, but as I write these words a new idea has occurred to me.  If Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer, how would he have reacted when he saw on my web site I was claiming that a child wrote the letters?  We know he was at least an occasional visitor to this site.  He paid a visit a few days before he committed suicide.  And he used a method that regular visitors use to get to my site: He typed my name into Google.  It requires fewer key strokes than typing in my web site name or almost any other search argument.   With all the records that are kept of what people do on the Internet, I wonder what information is out there about Ivins' searches that hasn't yet been found.  And how much can be solidly connected to Ivins?

If more people were thinking of ways to find evidence related to Bruce Ivins instead of looking for ways to prove the FBI was wrong about him, I wonder what would turn up.   I've been discussing an idea with the FBI that might produce a "smoking gun" if proper records are kept by the right people for long periods.

For nearly seven years, the debate was over who did it.  Now that the culprit has been identified, I'd like to see some debate over ways to confirm it was Ivins.  Discussing theories about how the FBI is totally wrong and part of some conspiracy seems much more a waste of time today than it did before the facts about Ivins became known. 

Updates & Changes: Sunday, December 14, 2008, thru Saturday, December 20, 2008

December 17, 2008 - It's strange that over seven years after the anthrax attacks of 2001, a question that has never been asked before can still generate a very interesting finding.  In an on-line discussion HERE, I was asked, “Ed: Do you think that it is likely that the mailer waited until the FBI was looking at the mail before they mailed the Senator letters?”

The person asking the question had a theory that the culprit decided to send the Senate anthrax letters after seeing a CNN report on the 8th of October which mentioned that the FBI was on the case.  I couldn't see any reason for that being a factor.  Besides, it took at least a week to prepare the letters.  How could he get a motive on the 8th and mail the letters that same night? 

My previous thinking was that the letters were prompted by reports in the media that Bob Stevens' infection may have come from natural sources.  But, that was also pushing the time needed to prepare the anthrax.  Those stories came out on the 4th and 5th.

So, I took a look at the headlines for around the time when the facts say that Dr. Ivins would have had the minimum time needed to prepare the anthrax - 7 to 10 days prior to the mailing.  Suddenly, boom.  There was a headline on page 16 of The Washington Post on September 29, 2001, that said:

Demand Growing for Anthrax Vaccine 
Fear of Bioterrorism Attack Spurs Requests for Controversial Shot
The article describes how there was a great demand for the vaccine by the public, but there were very few stocks of the vaccine around.  The article says:
More than 1,000 people in the past two weeks have tried to get shots directly from the vaccine's maker, BioPort of Lansing, Mich. Callers there are being shunted to a recorded message that reflects what doctors everywhere are saying: 

   "All the stockpile that currently exists is owned by the Department of Defense. At this time there is no opportunity for any commercial sales." 

That reality has infuriated some. 

I can easily imagine that that article would be very interesting reading for a scientist whose whole life was built around the creating of anthrax vaccines!  Particularly at a time when there was a demand for commercial sales and the program was in jeopardy of being shut down!  And even more particularly more than ten days after the first anthrax mailing and there had been absolutely no news about it in the media. 

I believe The Post's issue for the 29th actually comes out on the evening of the 28th.  Plus, for an article like that, Dr. Ivins may even have been called - although his name isn't mentioned in the article.  I began to wonder: What was Dr. Ivins doing on the evening of the 28th?  We have a source that tells us:

Beginning on September 28, Dr. Ivins worked eight consecutive nights which consisted of the following times in building 1425 with time spent in Suite B3:
Day Date Time in Building 1425 Total Time in B3
Friday September 28 7:16 p.m. to 10:59 p.m. 1 hour 42 minutes
Saturday September 29 8:02 p.m. to 11:18 p.m. 1 hour 20 minutes
Sunday September 30 9:53 p.m. to 12:04 a.m. 1 hour 18 minutes
Monday October 1 9:14 p.m. to 10:43 p.m. 20 minutes
Tuesday October 2 7:24 p.m. to 9:39 p.m. 23 minutes
Wednesday October 3 7:25 p.m. to 10:55 p.m. 2 hours 59 minutes
Thursday October 4 6:10 p.m. to 10:12 p.m. 3 hours 33 minutes
Friday October 5 7:40 p.m. to 12:43 a.m. 3 hours 42 minutes

I suppose some will argue that he was working hard on perfecting a new vaccine.  But, wasn't he working hard on that before?  And how come nothing new came from his sudden hard work on a new vaccine?  And why didn't he tell FBI investigators that is what he was doing?  Instead, the facts seem to indicate he was working hard to generate further interest in putting more effort into vaccine development.  And one way to do that would be to send the anthrax filled letters to Senators Daschle and Leahy. 

December 15, 2008 - According to The Associated Press this morning, the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected Dr. Hatfill's appeal in his lawsuit against the New York Times.  I think that ends the last of Dr. Hatfill's lawsuits.  The court decided that Dr. Hatfill was a celebrity at the time of the articles and would therefore have to prove actual malice, which the court felt he hadn't proved.  More details HERE and HERE

December 14, 2008 - While there was absolutely nothing new about the Amerithrax investigation in the main stream media last week, it was a week of many discussions of the subject, including the lengthy ones on-line HERE and HERE.  Even when I'm just arguing with the same people I've been arguing with for seven years, sometimes bits of new and worthwhile information come to the surface.   Or new questions are asked. 

In one conversation, it occurred to me that a critical factor in making the attack anthrax would have been speed.  The culprit would almost certainly have made the powders using the fastest method he could use.  That poses a basic question: Does Bacillus anthracis grow fastest in a fermenter, in shaking flasks, in solid medium on plates, or some other way?  I think I know the answer, but I'm trying to confirm it.  The answer might also say something about the source of the silicon found in the spores.

In another conversation, or maybe it was the same one, a scientist mentioned a bizarre interpretation of what he'd read in the news.  He seemed to be saying that he and some other scientists were sitting around chuckling to themselves while awaiting the FBI's publication of a scientific paper where the FBI would try to argue that the rate of mutant generation in Bacillus anthracis can be used to precisely determine the exact time that a spore was made.   It's a crazy idea, since growth rate and mutation rates are easily slowed down or speeded up by adjusting the environment.  Plus, mutation rates are only averages, like one per billion replications.  Plus, many mutations are not viable, and the mutant does not reproduce.  But then I realized that the scientist mistakenly believed that FBI scientists were trying to use such a ridiculous method, and he and other scientists were just waiting around for the FBI scientists to publish their findings so they could tear them apart.  Wow. 

In another part of the discussions, an interesting question was brought up: Should we all stop discussing Adolph Hitler?  After all, Hitler committed suicide before he could be tried for his crimes.  And isn't everyone innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?

In an email conversation, I learned that it is only in the movies where scientists are absolute masters of precise wording.  I had to use very precise questions to make absolutely certain that a scientist who repeatedly uses "on" when he really means "in" really meant "in."  It would be funny if it wasn't so frustrating.

Clearly, it is also only in the movies where scientists always insist on discussing facts instead of beliefs.  Trying to discuss facts with some scientists last week just resulted in them leaving the conversation.  They would only discuss beliefs. 

Lastly, in the on-line discussions, it was again demonstrated that those who think that Bruce Ivins is innocent may all agree that the FBI is wrong, but each has his own personal theory about who sent the antrhax letters.  And their theories are based entirely on beliefs, not facts.   While there is a clear distinction between the ways True Believers and conspiracy theorists think, if the only way a True Believer can justify his belief that the FBI is wrong about Bruce Ivins is to conjure up a conspiracy by the government to cover up crimes by al Qaeda, then so be it.  Try to prove it isn't  possible.

Fascinating stuff, but when you argue with the same people year after year, they soon learn how to end a conversation when it's clear they aren't making any progress.   Most just disappear.  But one person endlessly reminds me of Matthew Harrison Brady, the True Believer role played by Frederick March in the movie "Inherit The Wind."  When Brady found that arguments based upon his beliefs were in a losing fight, he simply began reciting (or preaching) endlessly from his gospel.  The Internet equivalent is to start cutting and pasting endless irrelevant material, until, as in the movie, everyone just gets up and leaves.  It turns what could be a very good and enlightening discussion into something mind-numblingly tiresome and meaningless. 

Updates & Changes: Sunday, December 7, 2008, thru Saturday, December 13, 2008

December 12, 2008 - While a debate rages HERE about whether or not the Bush administration was framing Dr. Ivins in order to cover up for al Qaeda (!!!!), and another debate rages HERE about whether the FBI has any real evidence against Dr. Ivins or not, someone notified me about a brief radio segment from the National Academy of Engineering where the questions about the silicon found in the anthrax spores are raised once again.  The segment raises more questions than it answers and seems to take things out of context.  I'll try to contact the people who were interviewed to see what they actually said and meant. 

December 11, 2008 - A Blogger News Network post titled "Leading Theories of the Anthrax Mailings Case" generated some comments which have caused me to think a bit about the handwriting on the anthrax letters.

For years I've been stating that the facts seem to make it a near certainty that a child of about 6 did the actual writing on the anthrax letters (except, perhaps, the date on the media letter) and the anthrax envelopes.  The "person of interest" I had in New Jersey didn't have any access to children, as far as I knew.  But, facts are facts.  So, either he had some access I didn't know about, or the handwriting was evidence that the scientist in New Jersey was innocent

The situation with Bruce Ivins is very different.  Ivins' wife ran a daycare center in their home.  Daycare centers mainly take care of pre-schoolers younger than 5 or 6, but they also routinely take care of older children for short periods before and after school when their parents have to work and the children are still too young to be at home alone, e.g., kindergarteners and first graders - children who are 5 or 6. 

In addition, there are reports that Ivins sometimes played piano in a "humble little school auditorium" and that his eulogy praised him for "His Devotion to Children."  So, if a child of about 6 did write the letters and address the envelopes, it appears Dr. Ivins would definitely have had access to children of that age. 

None of this conclusively proves anything, of course, but when people say they find it "impossible to believe" that the FBI "could persuasively rule out the other 99 (or perhaps as many as 299) scientists who had access to the virulent strain of anthrax from the flask Ivins kept" or they find it "impossible to believe" that anyone would use a child to write the anthrax letters, they are saying the facts have no meaning to them because the facts are "impossible to believe."  That makes me wonder: 

When someone finds something is "impossible to believe" in spite of what the facts say, does that say something about the facts or about the person?  Or both?

If both, and, if many people find using a child to write terrorism letters "impossible to believe," would presenting such evidence to a jury do more harm than good?  Could any evidence be good enough if many people would always find the evidence "impossible to believe?"  Testimony might work.  But, would a jury believe the testimony of a 13 year old recalling what he says he believes he did when he was 6?  Or might that, too, be "impossible to believe?" 

December 7, 2008 - Because the anthrax murder case has been solved, I've been mulling over creating a new first page for this web site, which would be implemented on January 1, 2009.  The whodunnit mystery is over.  The only real question remaining is: Can anything convince the conspiracy theorists and True Believers that the case is solved?

Here the facts of the case against Dr. Bruce Ivins, as I see them:

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

2.  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.

3.  He accessed the locked room where the RMR-1029 flask of spores was stored at the times the attack anthrax would have been prepared.

4.  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.

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

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

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

8.  He had no alibi for either of the times when he could have driven to New Jersey to mail the letters.

9.  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.

10.  He had multiple connections to the New Jersey area where the anthrax letters were mailed.

11.  He had serious mental problems, which appear to include murderous impulses.

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

13.  His wife ran a day care center at the time of the attacks, and the facts indicate that a child of about 6 was used to do the actual writing on the anthrax letters.

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

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

There may also be other facts pointing to Dr. Ivins which have not yet been disclosed by the FBI.  The case has not been officially closed.  And it is known that many scientific reports with details of the scientific investigation are being written, are going through the peer-review process and/or are awaiting a publication date in scientific journals.

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.  After all, if Bruce Ivins is guilty as the evidence clearly indicates, then the conspiracy theorists and True Believers must be wrong in what they are trying to get people to believe.  And they can never accept that.

And, because they cannot accept it, for years to come there may be an ongoing need to disprove the myths and nonsense being spread by the conspiracy theorists and True Believers.

An alternative idea for the future of this web site was to continue with the evaluation of where I was right and where I was wrong in my analysis.  But that seems of limited value.  When a case or project or investigation is complete, there can be great value in looking back at all the missteps and wrong paths that were taken, so that lessons can be learned which might help make future cases, projects or investigations go more smoothly.  But only investigations which are complete in about 48 hours tend to be similar to other investigations.  Investigations which go on for years are usually different from all prior investigations, and that is one key reason they go on for years. 

The facts now say that the FBI had "persons of interest" in November and December of 2001, but their investigations could not find solid proof that any of them were the anthrax mailer.  In fact, that's what they repeatedly old us: They had a list of 12 to 20 "persons of interest," with names being added and removed as facts were collected, but none could be solidly proven to be responsible for the attacks.

Prior to Bruce Ivins' suicide, the facts indicated to me that the FBI knew as early as November or December of 2001 who had sent the anthrax letters, but they just couldn't prove it.  And they were working on the new science of "microbial forensics" in hopes that the would be able to use that science to prove who sent the letters.

I was right about what they hoped to get from "microbial forensics."  But I was wrong in believing that it would prove some already known suspect to be guilty.

The facts now indicate that they had no viable suspects for several years after the attacks, as the science of microbial forensics was being validated.   It was during that time that Dr. Hatfill appeared to be the focus of the FBI's attention as a result of "tips" from scientists and pressures from the media, politicians and the public.  With no true viable suspects, it's quite possible that even some FBI agents felt that Dr. Hatfill might be the anthrax mailer.  After all, respected scientists were pointing at him. 

The first item of microbial  forensic evidence they were hoping to use to narrow down the search for the killer -- the "silicon signature" -- proved to be of little or no value.  My thinking was that it could have come from the glass container used to grow the bacteria.   I thought they might be able to trace the "polymerized glass" back to a manufacturer and then to a specific lab.  But, the silicon evidently turned out to be just silicon that was in the nutrients or water used to grow the bacteria.  The silicon got into the spores the same way iron gets into a human body if you eat raisins, or zinc gets into a human body if you eat peanuts.  It comes from what you eat or drink.

That might have been proof of something if it could have been shown that no one else working with anthrax used nutrients or water or food additives with that form of silicon.  But, no one could show that.  Plus, the crime happened years ago, and criminals do not keep accurate records of every detail of their crimes. 

The same with the Bacillus subtilis bacteria found in the media letters.  They might examine ten thousand samples from a thousand different labs today, but what would those samples prove about what was happening in September and October of 2001?

Then, in late 2003 or early 2004, came the breakthrough.  A scientist at Ft. Detrick noticed that there were viable mutants of the Ames strain bacteria in the attack anthrax.  And those mutants appeared in only a few of the many Ames samples collected from labs around the world.

Eventually, the investigation found that the lengthy production runs which created the spores in the RMR-1029 flask had produced those viable mutant bacteria.  And of the 1,072 samples of the Ames strain that were tested from 16 or more labs, the key mutants found in the attack anthrax only showed up in 8 other samples.  Those 8 samples came from only 2 sources.  And one of those 2 sources was Ft. Detrick.  And it could be shown that the bacteria in the 7 of the 8 samples and the anthrax letters were all "daughter" bacteria grown from the source of the 8th sample: the "mother" spores in the RMR-1029 flask controlled by Dr. Bruce Ivins.  That flask was the "smoking gun."

True, there were others who had access to the RMR-1029 flask.  But it is standard police work to check out and eliminate people from a list of "possible suspects."  It's a routine matter of checking out alibis (opportunity), of checking out capabilities (means), and of looking for possible motives.   It took years to check out the hundreds of people who might have had access to RMR-1029.  And when all but one of those "possibles" were eliminated as suspects (along with all the others whose names had come up in the past years), the investigators were left with only one viable suspect: Dr. Bruce Ivins.  And, as seen in the 15 facts listed above, there is an abundance of circumstantial evidence that Dr. Ivins was indeed the one and only anthrax mailer. 

So, instead of looking for facts about who committed the crime, which we now have, it appears the future will be mostly about disproving the junk science that conspiracy theorists will continue to use to argue that the case is not solved.  The True Believers will continue to claim that anyone who disagrees with them is "closed minded," but they've already been doing that for seven years, so nothing is different there.

Hopefully, in 2009 there will be hearings and investigations into the Amerithrax findings which will help clarify everything - as will all the scientific reports that are in the works.  None of it will change the minds of True Believers and determined conspiracy theorists, of course.  But, like what happened with those who insist that the moon landings were some vast government hoax, in time their arguments will almost certainly be viewed as they should be viewed: The arguments from the ever-present Lunatic Fringe.

All prior comments and updates are also available.
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 HEREfor years 2001, 2002 and 2003.

5. References: - 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
Edited version of the Maureen Stevens vs Battelle Memorial, et al lawsuit Court Docket

Click HEREto view pre-2005 references.

The Washington Post - Jan. 12, 2005 - "Search for Banned Arms In Iraq Ended Last Month"
CNN - Feb. 1, 2005 - "Lone wolves - Solitary threats harder to hunt"
Lawrence Livermore Labs - Feb. 15, 2005 - "Physical and Chemical Analytical Analysis: A key component of Bioforensics" or HERE.
Associated Press - Feb 16, 2005 - "National Enquirer moving headquarters from Florida to New York City"
Associated Press - Feb 20, 2005 - "Veterinary Manual Takes Page From Current Events"
ABC News - Feb. 24, 2005 - "Anthrax Attacks Left a Lingering Mistrust"
The Washington Post - Mar. 1, 2005 - "Scientists Object to NIH's Bioterror Focus"
The New York Times - Mar. 1, 2005 - "U.S. Germ-Research Policy Is Protested by 758 Scientists"
Associated Press - Mar. 1, 2005 - "Official: U.S. Prepared to Fight Anthrax"
ABC News - Mar. 9, 2005 - "Secret FBI Report Questions Al Qaeda Capabilities"
The Daily Mirror - Mar. 10, 2005 - "Al-Qaeda ..Have We All Lost The Plot?
1010WINS - Mar. 11, 2005 - "NJ Post Office to Reopen After Anthrax Cleanup"
Associated Press - Mar. 12, 2005 - " Postal facility at center of anthrax attacks is ready to reopen"
Newsday - Mar. 14, 2005 - "Post office opens more than 3 years after anthrax mailings"
The Washington Post - Mar. 15, 2005 - "Mail Facilities Remain Closed After Alerts"
Associated Press - Mar. 15, 2005 - "Anthrax Detected at Two Defense Mailrooms"
The Washington Post - Mar. 15, 2005 - "Initial Pentagon Test Is Positive for Anthrax"
The New York Times - Mar. 15, 2005 - "Washington Awaits Results of 2 Anthrax Tests"
Reuters - Mar. 15, 2005 - "US stocks fall on anthrax worries" (X)
Fox News Channel - Mar. 15, 2005 - "Samples Test Positive for Anthrax" - Mar. 15, 2005 - "Bioterror CSIs Target Germs"
New Scientist - Mar. 16, 2005 - "US anthrax scare blamed on sample mix-up"
The Los Angeles Times - Mar. 16, 2005 - "After 2-Day Scare, Tests Show No Anthrax at Mail Facilities"
The New York Times - Mar. 16, 2005 - "Anthrax Scare Is Attributed to a Testing Error"
The Washington Post - Mar. 16, 2005 - "New Tests For Anthrax Negative"
The Washington Post - Mar. 16, 2005 - "Anthrax Alarm Uncovers Response Flaws"
The Chicago Tribune - Mar. 17, 2005 - "Chertoff vows accuracy in wake of anthrax scare"
The Washington Times - Mar. 17, 2005 - "Anthrax deaths remain a mystery"
Newsday - Mar. 17, 2005 - "The 2001 anthrax mystery lingers"
Minneapolis Star-Tribune - Mar. 18, 2005 - "Cold case: The 2001 anthrax killings remain unsolved"
UPI - Mar. 18, 2005 - "Anthrax alert at Bolling Air Force Base"
The Hartford Courant - Mar. 20, 2005 - "Anthrax scare highlights problems similar to those in 2001"
UPI - Mar. 21, 2005 - "Two labs confirmed Pentagon anthrax"
The Richmond Times-Dispatch - Mar. 22, 2005 - "Anthrax matches 2001 strain"
The Sun-Sentinel - Mar. 24, 2005 - "Content in Boca's AMI building set for anthrax decontamination"
The Palm Beach Post - Mar. 24, 2005 - "Photos set for anthrax cleanup"
Fox News - Mar. 25, 2005 - "Homeland Security to Launch Anthrax Review"
Associated Press - Mar. 27, 2005 - "Tabloid Photo Collection Part Of Anthrax Cleanup"
The Washington Post - Mar. 27, 2005 - "Biohazard Procedures To Change"
The Wellsville Daily Reporter - Mar. 27, 2005 - "Berry speaks out; Trying to get custody of son, life together after FBI anthrax raids in Wellsville, New Jersey"
The Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette - Mar. 28, 2005 - "Pentagon reshapes anthrax response"
The Washington Times (AP) - Mar. 29, 2005 - "Anthrax dumped near Saddam palace"
Medical News Today - Mar. 31, 2005 - "Scientists seek answers on what activates deadly anthrax spores"
Associated Press - Apr. 4, 2005 - "Pentagon Found Too Slow on Anthrax Alarm"
Columbia News Service - Apr. 5, 2005 - "Years later, anthrax attack remains a mystery"
The Richmond Times-Dispatch - Apr. 5, 2005 - "Officials fault Pentagon after anthrax scare"
The Washington Post - Apr. 5, 2005 - "Bioterror Plans Inadequate, GAO Says"
The Washington Post - Apr. 6, 2005 - "Errors Cited in Anthrax Scare"
The Sun-Sentinel - Apr. 14, 2005 - "Fumigation of photos begins at anthrax-infected Boca building"
The Sun-Sentinel - Apr. 17, 2005 - "Future of AMI office debated"
The Buffalo News - Apr. 18, 2005 - "Doctor in anthrax case is left with broken pieces of a life"
The Los Angeles Times - Apr. 22, 2005 - "Ex-Army Scientist Can Interview Officials"
The Washington Post - Apr. 23, 2005 - "U.S. Yields In Anthrax Lawsuit Standoff"
The New York Times - Apr. 23, 2005 - "Ashcroft Must Answer In Anthrax Suspect's Suit"
The Palm Beach Post - May 14, 2005 - "Lawsuits could shed light on anthrax probe"
The Palm Beach Post - May 15, 2005 - "AMI employee who contracted anthrax ready to go back to old building"
The New York Times - May 21, 2005 - "Qaeda Letters Are Said to Show Pre-9/11 Anthrax Plans"
Forbes - June 6, 2005 - "Spore Wars"
Palm Beach Post (Editorial) - May 22, 2005 - "Stay on anthrax trail"
Associated Press - May 24, 2005 - "Hatfill's lawyer seeks to revive libel claim" (Editorial) - May 26, 2005 - "Why Police and the FBI Should Be Wary to Use "Person of Interest"
Associated Press - May 31, 2005 - " Pakistan Will Deport al-Qaida Suspect"
AAP - June 1, 2005 - "Biological agent a bacillus: Howard"
The Daily Telegraph (Sydney) - June 2, 2005 - "Poison letter: innocence lost"
The Courier-Mail - June 2, 2005 - "Terror shame over bio attack"
The Australian - June 2, 2005 - " 'Cowardly' attack on embassy"
Australian Broadcasting Corp. - June 2, 2005 - "Indonesian police join embassy threat probe"
Seven News - June 2, 2005 - "Embassy substance not anthrax: police"
The Daily Telegraph (Sydney) - June 3, 2005 - "Racist rants and a murderous threat"
The Los Angeles Times - June 2, 2005 - "Disgust and Admiration at FBI"
The Sydney Morning Herald - June 4, 2005 - "All talc, no action"
The Sydney Morning Herald - June 4, 2005 - "Political class pushes the envelope"
The Age (Australia) - June 5, 2005 - "Terrorism threats in the post"
The New York Times - June 7, 2005 - "After a Shower of Anthrax, an Illness and a Mystery"
The Sun-Sentinel - June 10, 2005 - "Expired contract stops anthrax cleanup of AMI building in Boca"
The Ft. Detrick Standard - June 23, 2005 - "USAMRIID ready for 'new era in biodefense'"
Memorandum by Steven Hatfill - Filed June 27, 2005 - Includes a Declaration by Virginia Patrick
Memorandum by the US DOJ - Filed June 28, 2005 - A response to Dr. Hatfill's Memorandum
The Wall Street Journal - July 11, 2005 - "U.S. Struggles for Drugs to Counter Biological Threats"
The Washington Post (Editorial) - July 12, 2005 - "The Overlooked Attack"
Associated Press - July 28, 2005 - "Appeals Court Reinstates Hatfill's Libel Suit"
Reuters - July 28, 2005 - "Appeals court reinstates anthrax libel lawsuit" (X)
4th Court of Appeals - July 28, 2005 - Court Decision Order
The New York Times - July 29, 2005 - "Appeal Restores Libel Case Against Times"
The Washington Post - July 29, 2005 - "Court Reinstates Anthrax Defamation Suit Against N.Y. Times"
10NBC (Rochester, NY)  - Aug. 4, 2005 - "I-Team 10 follow up: Anthrax investigation"
The Times Herald - Aug. 5, 2005 - " Friend says FBI ceased probe of Wellsville doctor"
The Times of London - Aug. 9, 2005 - "Saddam's germ war plot is traced back to one Oxford cow"
Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) - Aug. 10, 2005 - "Iraq's anthrax source traced back to Britain"
The Boston Phoenix - Aug. 12, 2005 - "Journalism’s next big battle"
Associated Press - Aug. 17, 2005 - "Hundreds of cattle dead; anthrax leaves ranchers scrambling"
The Washington Post - Sept. 16, 2005 - "Little Progress In FBI Probe of Anthrax Attacks"
The New York Times - Sept. 17, 2005 - "In 4-Year Anthrax Hunt, F.B.I. Finds Itself Stymied, and Sued"
The Washington Post - Sept. 17, 2005 - "Judge Rejects 2 Claims in Hatfill's Lawsuit"
Associated Press - Sept. 18, 2005 - "Two claims rejected in anthrax lawsuit"
The Trentonian - Sept. 19, 2005 - "Mystery of the spores"
The Washington Post (Editorial) - Sept. 22, 2005 - "The Anthrax Metaphor"
The Palm Beach Post - Sept. 22, 2005 - "Photographer sues AMI over images in anthrax-tainted site"
The Sun-Sentinel - Sept. 23, 2005 - "Photographer sues tabloid publisher over unreturned images from anthrax building"
Associated Press - Sept. 23, 2005 - "McKinney's panel drums up more Sept. 11 conspiracy theories"
The Times of London - Sept. 24, 2005 - "Anthrax terrorists outfox the FBI"
New Scientist - Sept. 24, 2005 - "US army plans to bulk-buy anthrax"
The Albuquerque Tribune - Sept. 26, 2005 - "N.M. labs help national center create plan to fight bioterrorism"
Associated Press - Sept. 27, 2005 - "Labs help against bioterrorism"
The Washington Post (Michael Mason letter to editor) - Sept. 29, 2005 - "The FBI Is Still on the Anthrax Trail"
Fort Detrick Standard - Sept. 29, 2005 - "Lab sweet Lab"
USA Today (AP) - Sept. 30, 2005 - "A new class of evidence for the courtroom"
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review - Oct. 3, 2005 - "Doctor out of work since anthrax probe"
CBS News - Oct. 5, 2005 - "Anthrax Investigation Grows Old"
Newsday (AP) - Oct. 12, 2005 - "AP Interview: FBI 'book still open' on Yale bombing, anthrax case"
The Toledo Blade - Oct. 14, 2005 - "Toledo postal center installs biohazard-detection system"
The Lima News - Oct. 15, 2005 - "Postal Service has new anthrax watchdog"
The Boston Globe (commentary) - Oct. 18, 2005 - "Wanted, dead or alive: Where's bin Laden now?"
San Diego Union Tribune (AP) - Oct. 18, 2005 - "Appeals court allows scientist to pursue libel lawsuit about anthrax against NY Times "
The New York Times - Oct. 19, 2005 - "Court Rebuffs The Times Co. Over Lawsuit"
The Richmond Times-Dispatch - Oct. 19, 2005 - "Libel suit against Times in anthrax case to proceed"
The Daily Record - Oct. 20, 2005 - "Times may end challenges to Hatfill’s day in court"
Sandia Labs - Oct. 25, 2005 - "Sandia researchers determine that common anthrax sampling methods need improvement"
Newsday (AP) - Oct. 27, 2005 - "Washington Postal workers seek to revive lawsuits over anthrax" - Oct. 28, 2005 - "I. Lewis Libby: The Plight of a Disciplined Risk-Taker"
Seattle Post-Intelligencer (AP) - Oct. 29, 2005 - "Some experts scoff at terror WMD threat"
The Mainichi Daily News - Oct. 30, 2005 - "In a world full of microbes, will billions of dollars build biodefenses?"
The Palm Beach Post - Nov. 5, 2005 - "Anthrax victim's widow breaks four-year silence"
The Sun-Sentinel - Nov. 5, 2005 - "Anthrax victim's widow frustrated with 'pattern of delay'" - Nov. 8, 2005 - "Anthrax Widow's Outburst"
New York Law Journal - Nov. 8, 2005 - "Lawsuit Goes Forward in Anthrax Mailing Case"
The Christian Science Monitor (Commentary) - Nov. 10, 2005 - "Anthrax whodunit: Is it a cold case file?"
Tooele Transcript-Bulletin - Nov. 11, 2005 - " Area 51, aliens and anthrax? Dugway boss dismisses rumors" - Nov. 16, 2005 - "Anthrax Revisited - Too Many Coincidences"
The Baltimore Sun - Nov. 18, 2005 - "Hospital sued by family of anthrax victim"
The Baltimore Sun (AP) - Nov. 21, 2005 - "U.S judge sends anthrax suit back to state court"
Press Release - Nov. 28, 2005 - "Cleaning Millions of Celebrity Photos on File"
The New York Sun - Nov. 29, 2005 - "Giuliani Firm Anthrax Work Ends in a Feud"
The Sun-Sentinel - Nov. 30, 2005 - "Anthrax cleanup starts again on Boca Raton office building"
Sidney (Montana) Herald - Dec. 7, 2005 - "Local veterinarian discusses anthrax threat during 2005 Bovine Connection"
Daily Press - Dec. 9, 2005 - "How a company cashed in on anthrax"
The Daily Targum - Dec. 12, 2005 - "Foreign students face lab limits"
The Wall Street Journal - Dec. 28, 2005 - "A Building Boom for Labs"
The Colorado Springs Gazette - Jan. 1, 2006 - "Detection program for anthrax criticized"
The New Yorker - Jan. 9, 2006 - Jan. 9, 2006 - "Why are the courts leaning on journalists?" (AP) - Jan. 31, 2006 - "Journos Want Supreme Court To Block Secret Sources Order"
American Journalism Review - Feb. 1, 2006 - " Dilemma of Interest" (AP) - Feb. 6, 2006 - "Moussaoui trial jury questionnaire"
ABC News (AP) - Feb. 7, 2006 - "Brentwood Anthrax Survivors Take Case to High Court"
Front Page Magazine - Feb. 8, 2006 - "Saddam's WMD's: The Syrian Connection"
The Boston Globe - Feb. 10, 2006 - "BU's biolab and the law"
Cybercast News Service - Feb. 15, 2006 - "Secret Saddam WMD Tapes Subject of ABC Nightline Special"
ABC News - Feb. 15, 2006 - "EXCLUSIVE: The Secret Tapes -- Inside Saddam's Palace"
TVC News - Feb. 16, 2006 - "ABC Saddam Tapes Translation Said to be Wrong"
Cybercast News Service - Feb. 17, 2006 - "Interpreter of 'Saddam Tapes' Disagrees With ABC's 'Take' on the Story"
PR Newswire - Feb. 19, 2006 - "Cheney Believed He, His Family and Staff May Have Been Exposed in an Anthrax Attack After 9/11; Was False Alarm But Story Kept Quiet"
The National Review - Feb. 20, 2006 - “He Shall Direct Thy Paths to the Weapons of Mass Destruction.”
Newsweek - Feb. 27, 2006 - "The Shot Heard Round the World" 
Reuters - Feb. 22, 2006 - "New York man accidentally poisoned by anthrax" (X)
CNN - Feb. 22, 2006 - " New York man falls ill with anthrax symptoms"
Associated Press - Feb. 22, 2006 - "NYC Man in Pa. Said Infected With Anthrax"
The New York Times - Feb. 22, 2006 - "New York Anthrax Case Believed to Be Accidental"
Newsday (AP) - Feb. 22, 2006 - "NYC man contracts anthrax"
The New York Daily News - Feb. 22, 2006 - "Call for calm as anthrax is back" - Feb. 23, 2006 - "Anthrax Strikes"
The New York Times - Feb. 23, 2006 - "Officials Try to Trace the Journey of a Disease"
Associated Press - Feb. 23, 2006 - "Students at Mansfield University learn of anthrax case"
NY1 News - Feb. 23, 2006 - "Anthrax Investigation Finds No Other Exposures" - Feb. 23, 2006 - "Man recovering after contracting inhalation anthrax"
The New York Times - Feb 23, 2006 - "A Dancer Apparently Felled by the Animal Skins on Drums"
The New York Times - Feb. 23, 2006 - "Health Officials Take Samples in Anthrax Case"
Newsday - Feb. 24, 2006 - "Three more treated in anthrax case"
The New York Times - Feb. 24, 2006 - "Drum Maker in Brooklyn Has No Fear of Anthrax"
The New York Times - Feb. 24, 2006 - "Where Tracking Anthrax Begins With the Honor System"
The New York Daily News - Feb. 24, 2006 - "Anthrax list adds 3"
The New York Daily News - Feb. 24, 2006 - "Experts baffled by case"
Newsday (AP) - Feb. 24, 2006 - "Officials: Anthrax patient's life in danger"
Village Voice - Feb. 24, 2006 - "Anthrax: City Hunts Hides"
The New York Times - Feb. 25, 2006 - "Anthrax Traces Found at 3 Sites as Victim Worsens"
The New York Times - Feb. 26, 2006 - "City Officials Await Anthrax Tests Results"
The Journal News - Feb. 26, 2006 - "Officials say no anthrax threat after drum maker's visit to Hastings"
The New York Times - Feb. 27, 2006 - "An Apartment in Brooklyn Is Cleared in Anthrax Test"
The Washington Post - Feb. 27, 2006 - "Fort Detrick Neighbors Jittery Over Expansion"
The Journal News - Feb. 28, 2006 - "Doctors: Hastings children face no anthrax risk"
CIDRAP News - Feb. 28, 2006 - "Tests back hides as anthrax source in New York case"
WNYC News - Feb. 28, 2006 - "Anthrax Case Tests Public Health Preparedness" - Feb. 28, 2006 - "Questions and Answers: Anthrax and Animal Hides"
The New York Times - Mar. 1, 2006 - "Tenants Irked as Anthrax Keeps a Brooklyn Warehouse Closed"
The Amsterdam News - Mar. 1, 2006 - "Concern and doubt: New York community uneasy over Anthrax case"
The Staten Island Advance - Mar. 2, 2006 - "Anthrax fears shake Island school" - Mar. 2, 2006 - "Anthrax fears rain on Queens parade tradition"
The Villager - Mar. 1-7, 2006 - "Anthrax drums up scare, as Village man is stricken"
The New York Times - Mar. 3, 2006 - "Federal Workers Decontaminate Anthrax Victim's Home"
NY1 News - Mar. 6, 2006 - "Anthrax Cleanup Continues Inside Brooklyn Warehouse"
WCBS-TV (AP) - Mar. 6, 2006 - "Anthrax Victim's Condition Improves"
NY1 News - Mar. 7, 2006 - "Manhattan Man's Apartment Still Has Traces Of Anthrax"
ABC (Australia) - Mar. 8, 2006 - "Australia reports first human anthrax infection since 1998"
The Villager - Mar. 10, 2006 - "Cleaning service takes on new meaning in the Village"
NY1 News - Mar. 10, 2006 - "Manhattan Man Who Contracted Anthrax Suffers Health Setback"
The New York Times - Mar. 11, 2006 - "Anthrax Patient's Condition Slips to Serious" - Mar. 11, 2006 - "Rutgers microbiologist criticizes security measures at U.S. labs"
The Star-Ledger - Mar. 11, 2006 - "Warning raised on lax biolab controls"
NY1 News - Mar. 13, 2006 - "Manhattan Man With Anthrax Said To Be Improving"
Technology Review - Mar.-Apr., 2006 - "The Loss of Biological Innocence"
Technology Review - Mar. 13-15, 2006 - "The Knowledge - Part 1, Part 2, Part 3"
The New York Daily News - Mar. 21, 2006 - "Anthrax victim improving in hosp"
Sayre Morning Times - Mar. 22, 2006 - "Man with anthrax could be released soon"
The New York Times - Mar. 23, 2006 - "Back on His Feet, Anthrax Patient Plans to Dance Again"
Newsday (AP) - Mar. 23, 2006 - "Anthrax victim released from Pa. hospital, thanks doctors"
Sayre Morning Times - Mar. 23, 2006 - "Anthrax patient says he will dance again"
WABC News - Mar. 23, 2006 - "Anthrax victim released from hospital"
The (Towanda, PA) Daily Review - Mar. 23, 2006 - "Anthrax victim awaits release from Robert Packer Hospital"
The New York Post - Mar. 23, 2006 - " A Miracle Dance By Anthrax Survivor"
The Wall Street Journal - Mar. 23, 2006 - "Blogging Biochemist Tracks Bird Flu, But Scientists Remain Skeptical"
The (Towanda, PA) Daily Review - Mar. 24, 2006 - " Sayre Anthrax patient released"
The Associated Press - Mar. 27, 2006 "Justices: Suit Against Times Can Proceed"
Reuters - Mar. 27, 2006 - "Top court won't review anthrax libel ruling" (X) - Mar. 27, 2006 - "New York Times Loses U.S. High Court Bid to Stop Hatfill Suit"
Reporters Committee - Mar. 27, 2006 - "High court refuses to stop anthrax libel suit"
The New York Times - Mar. 28, 2006 - "Court Rebuffs Times on Libel Suit Appeal"
NewsDay (AP) - Mar. 29, 2006 - "Anthrax victim returns to New York; supporters question cleanup"
The Hartford Courant - Apr. 6, 2006 - "Ottilie's Legacy May Save Lives"
The Villager - Apr. 5-11, 2006 - "Drummer beats anthrax, but cleanup has him reeling"
The New York Post - Apr. 10, 2006 - "'Thrax Dancer 'Burned'"
The Hartford Courant - Apr. 10, 2006 - "At Odds Over Anthrax"
Forbes (AP) - Apr. 11, 2006 - "Lawyers Seek Leak Sources in Anthrax Suit"
The Washington Post - Apr. 12, 2006 - "Depositions Taken In Anthrax Case"
The Washington Times - Apr. 13, 2006 - "FBI defends directive limiting supervisors' terms" - Apr. 18, 2006 - "Fort Detrick had multiple anthrax leaks in 2001-02, report finds"
Asbury Park Press - Apr. 21, 2006 - "Inventory check shows liquid anthrax missing from state lab" - Apr. 21, 2006 - "Anthrax Unaccounted for in NJ" - Apr. 22, 2006 - " State lab can't account for 2 anthrax test tubes"
The Philadelphia Inquirer - Apr. 22, 2006 - "Anthrax inventory doesn't add up at lab"
The Courier- Post - Apr. 22, 2006 - "2 anthrax samples missing"
The Newark Star-Ledger - Apr. 22, 2006 - "Anthrax vials could be missing, but health aides play down risk"
The Star-Ledger - Apr. 25, 2006 - "Anthrax stolen? FBI expresses doubt as it talks to lab workers" - Apr. 25, 2006 - "Plague-Infested Mice, Anthrax Missing From N.J. Labs"
The Asbury Park Press - Apr. 26, 2006 - "Officials seek reform amid search for anthrax, mice"
The Newark Star-Ledger - Apr. 27, 2006 - "Probe continues into 2 missing anthrax vials" - Apr. 27, 2006 - "Clerical mistake remains focus of 'missing' anthrax"
The Birmingham News - Apr. 30, 2006 - "Anthrax error in 2004 revealed lab problems"
The Newark Star-Ledger - May 3, 2006 - "2 anthrax samples found mislabeled in state lab cache"
The Washington Business Journal - May 5, 2006 - "BioPort wins $120M anthrax-vaccine contract" (AP) - May 16, 2006 - "Supreme Court declines to hear lawsuits over anthrax"
The Press Gazette - May 23, 2006 - "Photographer sues Enquirer for pics lost in anthrax attack"
The Richmond Times-Dispatch - May 27, 2006 - "Anthrax case over; problems persist"
The New York Sun - June 5, 2006 - "Deal With Wen Ho Lee Begets Warning of Yet More Claims"
The New York Post - June 5, 2006 - "The FBI's Failure"
The New York Post (Editorial) - June 6, 2006 - ". . . and Chuck's Biowar Warning"
Slate magazine - June 6, 2006 - "Wen Ho Ho Ho Lee Gets Last Laugh"
The New York Daily News - June 8, 2006 - "A dancer beats drum & anthrax"
The Baltimore Chronicle (Commentary) - June 14, 2006 - "How Fort Detrick Expansion Threatens Town of Frederick, Md.—and Humanity"
The Frederick News-Post (Commentary) - June 15, 2006 - "Jack be NIMBY"
The Villager - June 21-27, 2006 - "Dancer is riding high after recovery from anthrax"
The Washington Times - June 23, 2006 - "FBI's Mason to head investigations"
The Sun-Sentinel - July 9, 2006 - "Persistent disputes keep Boca Raton AMI building sealed off"
The Washington Post - July 27, 2006 - "New FBI Division To Probe Weapons Terrorists May Use" (The Washington Post) - July 30, 2006 - "The secretive fight against bioterror" (X)
The Baltimore Sun - July 30, 2006 - "A Spy Among Us?"
Chemical & Engineering News - July 31, 2006 - "Select Agents"
The Seattle Times (The Washington Post) - Aug. 1, 2006 - "Custom-built pathogens raise bioterror fears"
The Washington Post - Aug. 2, 2006 - "9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon"
The Mercury News - Aug. 7, 2006 - "The person who mailed anthrax spores in 2001 remains at large"
BBC News - Aug. 16, 2006 - "Man dies from 'rare anthrax bug'"
The Scotsman (Reuters) - Aug. 16, 2006 - "Man dies from anthrax"
The Scotsman - Aug. 18, 2006 - "Bongo fears in anthrax probe"
CBC News - Aug. 24, 2006 - "Sask. records second human anthrax case"
Applied and Environmental Microbiology - August, 2006 - Dr. Douglas Beecher's article.
Science & Technology Review (pages 13-19) - Sept. 2006 - "Decoding the Origin of a Bioagent"
The Washington Post - Sept. 3, 2006 - "Hardball Tactics in an Era of Threats"
The Scotsman - Sept. 5, 2006 - "9/11 anthrax scientists brought in to trace source of dead man's infection"
The New York Sun - Sept. 8, 2006 - "Judge Dismisses Photographer's Anthrax Lawsuit"
The Guardian (UK) - Sept. 9, 2006 - "Whatever happened to ... the anthrax attacks?"
NBC News - Sept. 13, 2006 - "My anthrax survivor's story" (X)
The Palm Beach Post - Sept. 14, 2006 - "Anthrax victim's widow wants answers"
The South Florida Sun-Sentinel - Sept. 14, 2006 - "Widow of Boca anthrax victim tries to keep case in spotlight after 5 years"
The Winchester Star - Sept. 15, 2006 - "Anthrax victim left with few answers"
The Houston Chronicle - Sept. 16, 2006 - "5 years after terror of anthrax, case grows colder" - Sept. 18, 2006 - "Anthrax Investigation A 'Cold Case?'" (X) - Sept. 18, 2006 - "FBI official leading anthrax probe off the case"
San Francisco Chronicle - Sept. 20, 2006 - "5 years later, anthrax deaths a mystery"
The Hartford Courant - Sept. 22, 2006 - "New Anthrax Theory Offered"
CBS News - Sept. 23, 2006 - "Is Mail Safer Since Anthrax Attacks?"
The Washington Post - Sept. 25, 2006 - "FBI Is Casting A Wider Net in Anthrax Attacks"
Slate Magazine - Sept. 25, 2006 - "Anthrax for the Memories - The Washington Post's 'rowback.'"
US News & World Report (Opinion) - Sept. 25, 2006 - "Anthrax"
The New York Times - Sept. 26, 2006 - "Anthrax Not Weapons-Grade, Official Says"
The Mercury News - Sept. 26, 2006 - "After 5 years, mystery of anthrax attacks widens"
Congressman Rush Holt - Sept. 27, 2006 - Letter to FBI Director Mueller
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer - Sept. 27, 2006 - "Congressman wants FBI anthrax briefing"
FBI Asst. Dir. Eleni P. Kalisch - Sept. 28, 2006 - The FBI's response to Congressman Holt
Associated Press - Sept. 28, 2006 - "FBI denies overestimating anthrax power"
The Register (UK) - Sept. 29, 2006 - "Low-tech anthrax still deadly? FBI research widens suspect list"
The International Journal for Intelligence and Counterintelligence - Oct. 2006 - "Technical Intelligence in Retrospect: The 2001 Anthrax Letters Powder"
The Sun-Sentinel - Oct. 1, 2006 "Five years after anthrax attacks, are we any safer?"
Congressman Rush Holt - Oct. 2, 2006 - Response to response from FBI
Chemical & Engineering News - Oct. 2, 2006 - "Anthrax Redux"
Seed Magazine - Oct. 2, 2006 - "Some Lessons Learned From The Anthrax Attacks"
The Times of New Jersey - Oct. 3, 2006 - "Anthrax probe update sought"
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer (AP) - Oct. 3, 2006 - "Hunt for anthrax killer still going on"
The Frederick News-Post - Oct. 4, 2006 - "Five years later, and few answers in anthrax probe"
The Palm Beach Post - Oct. 5, 2006 - "Anthrax attacks fodder for rumors"
The Sun-Sentinel - Oct. 5, 2006 - "Days of fear, turmoil still vivid after 5 years after anthrax attacks in Boca"
The Miami Herald - Oct. 5, 2006 - "Solving case may take many years"
USA Today - Oct. 5, 2006 - "Anthrax suspect as elusive as bin Laden"
The South Florida Sun-Sentinel - Oct. 6, 2006 - "Chronology of anthrax events"
Boca Raton News - Oct. 6, 2006 - "Anthrax still real concern five years after AMI attack"
The Washington Post - Oct. 7, 2006 - "Probe of Anthrax Attacks Casts Shadow on Brothers"
The Hartford Courant - Oct. 8, 2006 - "Security Fears At Anthrax Labs"
The Newark Star-Ledger - Oct. 9, 2006 - "Questions on anthrax swirl anew for the FBI"
Investors Business Daily - Oct. 9, 2006 - "How FBI Blew The Anthrax Case By Profiling Everyone But Muslims"
BBC News - Oct. 12, 2006 - " Discovery in Anthrax death probe"
ABC 7 News (AP) - Oct. 13, 2006 - "Hearing to Be Held in Suit Over Newspaper Anthrax Columns"
The South Florida Sun-Sentinel - Oct. 15, 2006 - "Anthrax attacks remain unsolved"
The Washington Post (Opinion) - Oct. 15, 2006 - "The Unsolved Case Of Anthrax"
The Washington Times (Commentary) - Oct. 16, 2006 - "Anthrax in review"
The Times (of New Jersey) - Oct. 16, 2006 - "Recalling anthrax terror" (Los Angeles) - Oct. 18, 2006 - "Anthrax Threat Five Years Later; Are We Safer?" (X)
The Washington Post (AP) - Oct. 23, 2006 - "Judge: Times Must Reveal Anthrax Sources"
The Associated Press - Oct. 23, 2006 - "Times ordered to disclose sources in anthrax libel suit"
Senator Grassley - Oct. 23, 2006 - Letter to Attorney General Gonzales
The Washington Post - Oct. 24, 2006 - "New York Times Columnist Must Reveal Sources, Judge Rules"
The New York Times - Oct. 24, 2006 - "Times Is Ordered to Reveal Columnist’s Sources"
The New York Sun - Oct. 24, 2006 - "Federal Judge Orders New York Times To Identify Confidential Sources"
NBC News - Oct. 24, 2006 - "Congress, FBI battle over anthrax investigation" (X)
The Washington Times - Oct. 25, 2006 - "FBI hit for anthrax 'dead-ends'"
The New York Sun - Oct. 25, 2006 - "Top GOP Senator Joins Critics of FBI Anthrax Probe"
The Washington Post - Oct. 25, 2006 - "Anthrax Mystery and Misery Linger for Postal Workers"
Reporters Committee - Oct. 25, 2006 - "New York Times ordered to reveal sources in anthrax case"
The New York Sun - Oct. 26, 2006 - "New York Times Gets Two Extra Days To Disclose Confidential Sources"
The Journal News - Oct. 30, 2006 - "Federal anthrax lawsuit pending in White Plains"
The Knoxville News-Sentinel - Oct. 30, 2006 - "Senator questions anthrax probe"
The Washington Post - Oct. 31, 2006 - "Suspect and A Setback In Al-Qaeda Anthrax Case" - Oct. 31, 2006 - "Senators seek audit of more than $18 billion in biodefense spending"
The New York Sun - Nov. 2, 2006 - "N.Y. Times Must Disclose Sources for Anthrax Columns, Judge Rules"
The Washington Post (AP) - Nov. 3, 2006 - "N.Y. Times Must Disclose Anthrax Sources"
The New York Times - Nov. 3, 2006 - "Setback for Times in Anthrax Suit"
The Los Angeles Times - Nov. 3, 2006 - "Many fear FBI's anthrax case is cold"
The New York Sun - Nov. 16, 2006 - "Steven Hatfill Demands Fines for N.Y. Times"
Reporters Without Borders - Nov. 16, 2006 - "The New York Times refuses to reveal one of its journalists’ sources and risks being fined"
The New York Times - Nov. 18, 2006 - "Judge’s Ruling Bars The Times From Using Sources’ Information in Defense Against Suit"
Newsday (AP) - Nov. 18, 2006 - "Judge bars N.Y. Times from using sources in libel defense"
Reporters Committee For Freedom Of The Press - Nov. 20, 2006 - "Judge limits Times defense in libel suit"
Associated Press - Nov. 20, 2006 - "Judge bars N.Y. Times from using info from 2 sources in lawsuit"
The Slate - Nov. 28, 2006 - "Hatfill v. Hatfill - The bio-warfare scientist and his dueling lawsuits"
South Florida Sun-Sentinel - Nov. 29, 2006 - "Anthrax site cleanup may finally near end"
The New York Times - Dec. 2, 2006 - "Times Asks End to Suit on Anthrax Inquiry"
Associated Press - Dec. 2, 2006 - "Times Asks Judge to Dismiss Libel Suit"
Chemical & Engineering News - Dec. 4, 2006 - "Science aids a nettlesome FBI criminal probe"
The Houston Chronicle (AP) - Dec. 6, 2006 - "Senators rap FBI over domestic spying program"
CNN - Dec. 6, 2006 - "Mueller, senators tangle"
Associated Press (Newsday) - Dec. 7, 2006 - "FBI Probes Media Leaks in Corruption Cases"
Middle East Times - Dec. 11, 2006 - "Anthrax attack on US Congress made by scientists and covered up by FBI, expert says"
Letter to Attorney General Gonzales - Dec. 11, 2006 - Request for briefing of Senate on status of case
The Houston Chronicle (AP) - Dec. 12, 2006 - "Congress demands answers on anthrax"
The Washington Times - Dec. 13, 2006 - "Bipartisan Hill group seeks briefing by FBI"
The Sun-Sentinel (AP) - Dec. 13, 2006 - "Anthrax cleanup near conclusion in Boca"
The Sun-Sentinel (Columnist) - Dec. 14, 2006 - "Anthrax investigation has no answers, but secrecy abounds"
Free-Market News - Dec. 21, 2006 - "Boyle: Feds Were Behind Anthrax Attacks


Infectious Disease Society - Jan. 4, 2007 - "Anthrax attack posed greater potential threat than thought" (AP) - Jan. 6, 2007 - "Hatfill's lawyer: Times editor warned columnist on anthrax piece"
The New York Times - Jan. 6, 2007 - "Editor’s E-Mail May Be Used in Suit Against The Times"
USA Today - Jan. 8, 2007 - "Study: People outside Senate office infected with anthrax"
The San Francisco Chronicle (AP) - "Judge Dismisses NY Times Libel Case"
The New York Times - Jan. 12, 2007 - "Judge Rejects Defamation Suit Against The Times"
The Washington Post - Jan. 13, 2007 - "Suit Against Times to Be Tossed Out"
Melbourne Independent Media Center - Jan. 21, 2007 - "Anthrax: Who and Why" (X)
FAS - Secrecy News - Jan. 22, 2007 - "The State Secrets Doctrine and the Hatfill Case" (AP) - Jan. 29, 2007 - "New York anthrax victim to thank doctors in Pa. dance performance"
FAS - Secrecy News - Jan. 30, 2007 - "More on State Secrets and the Hatfill Case"
The New York Times - Feb. 2, 2007 - "Judge Explains His Dismissal of Scientist’s Suit Against Times"
The Washington Post - Feb. 2, 2007 - "Judge Explains Tossing Out Suit Against N.Y. Times"
The New York Sun - Feb. 2, 2007 - "Judge Gives Rationale for Tossing Hatfill Suit Against Times" (AP) - Feb. 2, 2007 - "Judge explains dismissal of anthrax libel case against NY Times"
The Miami Herald - Feb. 8, 2007 - "Building is free of anthrax, but mystery remains"
The Palm Beach Post - Feb. 8, 2007 - "Former AMI building declared free of anthrax contamination"
Florida Today (AP) - Feb. 12, 2007 - "Quarantine lifted after anthrax attack"
The Sun-Sentinel - Feb 22, 2007 - "Signs of life return to Boca Raton anthrax building"
The Palm Beach Post - Feb. 22, 2007 - "AMI building officially reopens, to be renamed Crown Commerce Center"
The Washington Times (Columnist) - Feb. 24, 2007 - "Terrorism is not rocket science"
The New York Sun - Feb. 27, 2007 - "Hatfill Settles $10M Libel Lawsuit"
Hatfill v Foster et al - Feb.,  2007 - Settlement Statement from Dr. Hatfill's lawyers
The Journal News - Mar. 1, 2007 - "'Person of interest' in '01 anthrax attacks settles defamation case"
The Muskegon Chronicle - Mar. 1, 2007 - "Deadly anthrax mystery still at an official dead end"
Congressman Rush Holt - Mar. 2, 2007 - Letters requesting a hearing on the Amerithrax investigation
The Trenton Times - Mar. 3, 2007 - "Holt wants status of anthrax probe"
Homeland Defense News - Mar. 5, 2007 - "LAW and ORDER Meets BIO Crime"
The Times of New Jersey (Editorial) - Mar. 7, 2007 - "Unfinished Business"
The Washington Post (AP) - Mar. 10, 2007 - "U.S. Struggles With Bioterror Defenses"
CBS News - Mar. 9, 2007 - "Tables Turned In Anthrax Probe"
CBS - 60 Minutes - Mar. 11, 2007 - "Tables Turned In Anthrax Probe" (#2)
The Wall Street Journal - Mar. 16, 2007 - "KSM's World War" - Mar. 27, 2007 - "Grassley Statement at The FBI Oversight Hearing"
The New York Sun - Apr. 4, 2007 - "Judge Urges Hatfill To Compel Outing of Sources" (commentary) - Apr. 5, 2007 - "National journalists believe you should trust them"
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press - Apr. 6, 2007 - "Judge urges plaintiff in anthrax case to uncover sources" (commentary) - Apr. 9, 2007 - "The unresolved story of ABC News' false Saddam-anthrax reports"
American Thinker (commentary) - Apr. 9, 2007 - "Anthrax: some new findings"
Asbury Park Press - Apr. 11, 2007 - "Holt wants answers from FBI on anthrax"
The Newark Star-Ledger - Apr. 11, 2007 - "Postal union leaders protest probe into anthrax attacks" - Apr. 11, 2007 - "New Leads in Anthrax Case?" (commentary) - Apr. 11, 2007 - "Response from ABC News re: the Saddam-anthrax reports"
The Princeton Packet - Apr. 13, 2007 - "Anthrax postal attacks remain unsolved, five years later"
The New York Sun - Apr. 18, 2007 - "Free Press Battle Looms in Hatfill Case"
The Star-Ledger - Apr. 28, 2007 - "Bioterror scientist cites lack of funds"
The Blog of "Legal Times" - May 1, 2007 - "The Media's Strange Ally"
The San Francisco Chronicle - May 3, 2007 - "Bipartisan bid in Congress for law to shield journalists"
The Palm Beach Post - May 16, 2007 - "Tabloid building bargain for buyer"
The Examiner - June 1, 2007 - "Pentagon to run biohazard cleanup test"
The Gainesville Sun (AP) - June 11, 2007 - "State justices asked to resolve legal question in anthrax lawsuit" - June 21, 2007 - "Whitman Criticizes Giuliani Admin. On Handling Of Anthrax Scare"
Croatian Medical Journal - June 27, 2007 - "Role of Law Enforcement Response and Microbial Forensics in Investigation of Bioterrorism" or HERE
The Los Angeles Times - July 1, 2007 - "Selling the threat of bioterrorism"
The Washington Post - July 4, 2007 - "Scientist Presses Case For Reporters' Sources"
The Associate Press - July 4, 2007 - "Hatfill Seeks Reporters' Anthrax Sources"
New Scientist Magazine - July 5, 2007 - "Plague of bioweapons accidents afflicts the US" - July 17, 2007 - "US admits anthrax attacks still a mystery" (AP) - Aug. 13, 2007 - "Reporters Told to Testify in Leak Case"
The Washington Post - Aug. 14, 2007 - "Source Disclosure Ordered in Anthrax Suit"
The New York Times - Aug. 14, 2007 - "5 Reporters Ordered to Testify About Government Sources"
Reporters Committee For Freedom Of The Press - Aug. 14, 2007 - "Five journalists ordered to reveal Hatfill sources"
Reporters Without Borders - Aug. 17, 2007 - "New threat to confidentiality in judge’s decision ordering five journalists to disclose sources of reports on anthrax attacks
Marin Independent Journal - Aug. 25, 2007 - "Peter Scheer: Congress needs to approve a federal shield law for reporters"
The Times of New Jersey - Sept. 2, 2007 - "Antidote or sleight of hand?"
The Danbury News-Times - Sept. 5, 2007 - "Two members of Danbury family contract anthrax"
The New York Times - Sept. 6, 2007 - "Anthrax Is Found in 2 Connecticut Residents, One a Drummer"
The New York Times - Sept. 6, 2007 - "Connecticut Property Contaminated With Anthrax Spores"
The Danbury News-Times - Sept. 9, 2007 - "Anthrax has long history"
The Los Angeles Times (Opinion) - Sept. 11, 2007 - "More reasons to shield journalists"
The Danbury News-Times - Sept. 12, 2007 - "Anthrax poses ‘no risk’ to public"
The Danbury News-Times - Sept. 15, 2007 - "Crews work to rid Padanaram Road house of anthrax"
The Waco Tribune Herald - Sept. 17, 2007 - "Editorial: Free flow of information needed"
The New York Sun - Sept. 28, 2007 - "Journalist Ross of ABC Ordered To Disclose Sources"
Associated Press - Oct. 2, 2007 - "Scientist Seeks Contempt for Journalists" - Oct. 3, 2007 - "Postal workers union wants more answers on 2001 anthrax scare"
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press - Oct. 3, 2007 - "Hatfill seeks contempt citations for journalists"
The Los Angeles Times - Oct. 3, 2007 - "Study of bioterror agents adds to risk"
The Dallas Morning News - Oct. 4, 2007 - "Texas A&M hearing reveals lack of oversight in country's biodefense labs"
The Palm Beach Post - Oct. 5, 2007 - "Scripps helps on anthrax fighter"
The Palm Beach Post - Oct. 6, 2007 - "Widow wants answers"
The Denver Post - Oct. 10, 2007 - "Newspaper execs speak out"
The Blogger News Network - Oct. 16, 2007 - "An Interview With Terry Turchie About Hunting The American Terrorist"
American Thinker - Nov. 9, 2007 - "Startling implications of a Jihadi letter"
CBS News - Nov. 13, 2007 - "Anthrax And Al Qaeda" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (Columnist) - Nov. 19, 2007 - "Detrick meeting tonight" (X)
The Kansas City Star - Nov. 24, 2007 - "U.S. remains vulnerable to anthrax attack, experts say" (X)
The Badger Herald - Nov. 30, 2007 - "Barrett continues conspiracy theory" (X)
The Los Angeles Times - Dec. 2, 2007 - "New anthrax vaccine doomed by lobbying" (X)
The Arizona Republic - Dec. 16, 2007 - "Finding link to anthrax, professor set NAU apart" (X)
The Associated Press - Dec. 20, 2007 - "Reporters Say Hatfill Partly to Blame" (X)

2008 - Jan. 2, 2008 - "Former CBS Newser Defies Court, Won’t Reveal Sources" (X)
The Los Angeles Times - Jan. 11, 2008 - "Lawsuit claims 3 leaked name in anthrax case" (X)
The Los Angeles Times - Jan. 12, 2008 - "U.S. attorney's office accused of anthrax case leaks" (X)
Newsweek - Jan. 28, 2008 - "Fishing for a Way to Change the World" (X)
American Spectator (Laurie Mylroie) - Jan. 29, 2008 - "Mystery of the WMDs" (X)
BusinessWeek - Feb. 1, 2008 - "Creating a Great Place to Work" (X)
The Times (of New Jersey) - Feb. 19, 2008 - "Ex-mayor in Texas to share anthrax insight"
Associated Press - Feb. 19, 2008 - "Judge May Hold Reporter in Contempt" (X)
Reporters Committee - Feb. 19, 2008 - "Reporters Committee calls for shield law after Locy held in contempt" (X)
USA Today - Feb. 19, 2008 - "Judge holds reporter in contempt in anthrax case"(X)
The New York Times - Feb. 20, 2008 - "Reporter Held in Contempt in Anthrax Case" (X)
The Wall Street Journal (Opinion by Judith Miller) - Feb. 21, 2008 - "Journalism on Trial" (X)
The Times West Virginian - Feb. 21, 2008 - "WVU students get firsthand knowledge on anonymous sources" (X)
The Wall Street Journal - Feb. 23, 2008 - "Refusing to Name Sources, Reporter May Face Big Fines" (X)
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review - Feb. 25, 2008 - "Reporter risks ruin to protect sources"(X)
US News & World Report - Feb. 25, 2008 - "Hair Tells Tale of Where You've Been" (X)
The Huffington Post (Opinion) - Feb. 25, 2008 - "Sacrificing the First Amendment" (X)
The New York Sun - Feb. 27, 2008 - "U.N. Inspector Gets a Rash, Raising Contamination Suspicion" (X)
The Reading (PA) Eagle - Feb. 28, 2008 - "Shield law needed to protect sources" (X)
The Los Angeles Times - Mar. 2, 2008 - "Crying wolf over bioterrorism" (X)
The Washington Post - Mar. 3, 3008 - "Time for a Shield Law" 
The Associated Press - Mar. 7, 2008 - "Anthrax Reporter Held in Contempt"(X)
The Cleveland Plain Dealer - Mar. 9, 2008 - "Judge accused of trying to bankrupt ex-reporter" (X)
The Associated Press - Mar. 10, 2008 - "Reporter Tries to Block Daily Fines" (X)
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (Press Release) - Mar. 10, 2008 - "Reporter's Toolkit: Toni Locy contempt citation" (X)
The L.A. Times - Mar. 11, 2008 - "Anthrax case judge orders ex-reporter to reveal sources or pay fines" (X)
The Charleston (WV) Daily Mail - Mar. 11, 2008 - "WVU professor defying U.S. judges"(X)
The Associated Press - March 11, 2008 - "Court Blocks Fines Against Reporter" (X)
Editor & Publisher - March 11, 2008 - "Media Coalition Letter Urges Shield Law Approval" (X)
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (editorial) - March 11, 2008 - "Wretched judiciary" (X)
USA Today (Editorial) - March 12, 2008 - "The real cost of fining a reporter" (X)
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (opinion) - March 13, 2008 - "Wrong, Trib, wrong" (X)
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram (Editorial) - March 13, 2008 - "A clash of less than titanic import?" (X)
USA Today (Opinion) - March 14, 2008 - "'Whistle-blowing' or just blowing smoke?" (X)
The Wall Street Journal (Opinion) - March 15, 2008 - "Justice and the Press" (X)
The Associated Press - March 15, 2008 - "Recently Subpoenaed Journalists" (X)
Seattle Post-Intelligencer - March 15, 2008 - "Media shield law remains in doubt" (X)
American-Statesman - March 16, 2008 - "USA Today case builds momentum for reporter shield law" (X)
The New York Times - March 17, 2008 - "With Order to Name Sources, Judge Is Casting a Wide Net" (X)
American Journalism Review - March 20, 2008 - "'Hell on Heels'" (X)
The Daily Press (AP) - Mar. 21, 2008 - "Attorneys argue anthrax libel case filed against New York Times" (X)
The Philadelphia Inquirer - Mar. 23, 2008 - "The Point: Media - and public - need strong shield law" (X)
The Wall Street Journal - Mar. 26, 2008 - "Appalling Intrusion Into Journalistic Process" (X)
The Chicago Tribune (Opinion) - Mar. 27, 2008 - "The news media vs. the innocent" (X)
The San Francisco Chronicle (Opinion) - Mar. 27, 2008 - "Federal shield law protects the public interest" (X)
Fox News - Mar. 28, 2008 - "FBI Focusing on 'About Four' Suspects in 2001 Anthrax Attacks" (X)
The Associated Press - Mar. 28, 2008 - "Reversal Urged in Journalist's Case" (X)
The New York Post - Mar. 29, 2008 - "CLOSING IN ON ANTHRAX FIEND" (X)
The Statesman - Apr. 7, 2008 - "The Justice Department fights PR battle over media shield bill" (X)
USA Today - Apr. 14, 2008 - "McCain, Obama back law shielding reporters" (X) - Apr. 17, 2008 - "Source Hygiene" (X)
The New York Times (Opinion) - Apr. 20, 2008 - "Squeezed by the Courts" (X)
The Associated Press - May 5, 2008 - "Florida court to hear arguments in anthrax death lawsuit" (X)
The Fort Mill (SC) Times - May 5, 2008 - "Supreme Court hears arguments in anthrax death lawsuit" (X)
Associated Press - May 9, 2008 - "Reporter challenges ruling over sources in anthrax case" (X)
The WV Record - May 23, 2008 - "Judge who found WVU prof in comtempt honored at WVSU ceremony" (X) - June 20, 2008 - "National Press Club Honors Outstanding Journalism" (X)
Associated Press - June 27, 2008 - "$5.8 million for scientist in anthrax lawsuit" (X)
Los Angeles Times - June 27, 2008 - "U.S. settles with anthrax mailings 'person of interest' Steven Hatfill" (X)
USA Today - June 27, 2008 - "Scientist in anthrax lawsuit gets $5.8M" (X)
The New York Times - June 28, 2008 - "Scientist Is Paid Millions by U.S. in Anthrax Suit" (X)
The Washington Post - June 28, 2008 - "U.S. Settles With Scientist Named in Anthrax Cases" 
The Los Angeles Times - June 28, 2008 - "Leaks, focus on single suspect undercut anthrax probe" (X)
The Wall Street Journal (Opinion) - June 30, 2008 - "The Anthrax Fiasco"(X)
ABC News - June 30, 2008 - "EXCLUSIVE: How the FBI Botched the Anthrax Case"(X)
The Register (UK) - July 2, 2008 - "$5.8m payout draws line under FBI's anthrax screw-up" (X)
The Washington Post (Editorial) - July 3, 2008 - "The Hatfill Case" 
Reason Magazine - July 3, 2008 - "What Price Justice?" (X)
The Palm Beach Post (Editorial) - July 5, 2008 - "Still an anthrax mystery" (X)
The Hill - July 9, 2008 - "Mukasey takes heat, but not like Gonzales did" (X)
ABC News - July 14, 2008 - "Cheney Thought He Had Lethal Anthrax Dose" (X)
The New York Sun - July 14, 2008 - "Times Wins in Libel Suit Brought By Former Anthrax Suspect" (X)
Associated Press - July 14, 2008 - "Court rules for NY Times in anthrax libel case" (X)
The New York Times - July 15, 2008 - "Dismissal of Suit Against Times Is Upheld" (X)
The Reporters Committee - July 15, 2008 - "Appellate court affirms summary judgment in Hatfill libel suit" (X)
The Washington Post - July 16, 2008 - "Obama Remarks On Confronting Terrorist Threats"
ABC National Radio (Australia) - July 17, 2008 - "The forensic guy from the FBI" (X)
ABC News - July 19, 2008 - "At the FBI, Cold Cases Are Not a Thing of the Past"(X)
The Maryland Daily Record - July 21, 2008 - "No malice found in Hatfill case" (X)
The Los Angeles Times - Aug. 1, 2008 - "Anthrax suspect dies in apparent suicide" (X)
The Washington Post - Aug. 1, 2008 - "Md. Anthrax Scientist Dies in Apparent Suicide" 
The Associated Press - Aug. 1, 2008 - "Dead Army vaccine scientist eyed in anthrax probe" (X)
The Miami Herald - Aug. 1, 2008 - "Anthrax survivor: Suspect's suicide `makes me feel secure'" (X)
The Washington Post - Aug. 1, 2008 - "Anthrax Victims React to Ivins' Death With Mixed Emotions"
Scientific American - Aug. 1, 2008 - "Government scientist accused of masterminding 2001 anthrax mailings dies in apparent suicide" (X)
ABC News - Aug. 1, 2008 - "Anthrax Scientist Kills Himself as FBI Closes In" (X)
Frederik News-Post - Aug. 1, 2008 - "Detrick anthrax scientist commits suicide as FBI closes in" (X)
The New York Times - Aug. 2, 2008 - "Vindication May Be Near for Hatfill" (X)
The New York Times - Aug. 2, 2008 - "Scientist’s Suicide Linked to Anthrax Inquiry" (X)
The New York Times - Aug. 2, 2008 - "Anthrax Suspect’s Death Is Dark End for a Family Man" (X)
The New York Post - Aug. 2, 2008 - "'THRAX MAN WAS A SPORE LOSER" (X)
The New York Post (Editorial) - Aug. 2, 2008 - "ANTHRAX: STILL NO ANSWERS" (X)
The Hartford Courant - Aug. 2, 2008 - "New Hope For Answers In Anthrax Case"(X)
The Los Angeles Times - Aug. 2, 2008 - "Anthrax scientist Bruce Ivins stood to benefit from a panic" (X)
The Wall Street Journal - Aug. 2, 2008 - "Anthrax Suspect Commits Suicide" (X)
Washington Post - Aug. 2, 2008 - "Scientist Set to Discuss Plea Bargain In Deadly Attacks Commits Suicide" 
Associated Press - Aug. 2, 2008 - "After Suicide, Feds Consider Closing Anthrax Case" (X)
New York Daily News - Aug. 2, 2008 - "FBI was told to blame Anthrax scare on Al Qaeda by White House officials" (X)
The Baltimore Sun - Aug. 2, 2008 - "Long under suspicion" (X) (audio) - Aug. 2, 2008 - "Colleagues: Ivins' Suicide Not Proof Of Guilt"
The New York Times - Aug. 3, 2008 - "Anthrax Case Renews Questions on Bioterror Effort" (X)
Associated Press - Aug. 3, 2008 - "Daschle criticizes FBI's handling of anthrax probe" (X)
The Baltimore Sun - Aug. 3, 2008 - "Ivins' old neighbors questioned in anthrax case" (X)
Associated Press (LONG) - Aug. 3, 2008 - "Scientist: DNA led agents to anthrax suspect" (X)
Associated Press (short) - Aug. 3, 2008 - "Scientist: DNA led agents to anthrax suspect"(X)
Associated Press - Aug. 3, 2008 - "Is another Bruce Ivins lurking in a biolab?" (X) - Aug. 3, 2008 - "Anthrax Indictment May Have Been Weeks Away" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Aug. 3, 2008 - "Woman's ties to anthrax case unclear" (X)
USA Today - Aug. 3, 2008 - "Q&A about anthrax and the investigation" (X)
The Los Angeles Times - Aug. 4, 2008 - "Anthrax blend led FBI to Ivins" (X)
The New York Times - Aug. 4, 2008 - "Anthrax Evidence Is Called Circumstantial" (X)
CNN - Aug. 4, 2008 - " Anthrax suspect obsessed with sorority, officials say" (X)
The Wall Street Journal - Aug. 4, 2008 - "Forensics Gave Investigators Little to Work With" (X) - Aug. 4, 2008 - "Anthrax suspect’s colleague blames FBI for suicide" (X) - Aug. 4, 2008 - "Case Closed? Does Anthrax Suspect's Suicide Mean the Investigation Into 2001 Attacks Is Over?" (X)
KLTV (Jacksonville) - Aug. 4, 2008 - "Lake Tyler Man Explains Anthrax Connection" (X)
Associated Press - Aug. 4, 2008 - "Anthrax suspect was a prolific scientific author" (X)
The Register (UK) - Aug. 4, 2008 - "Inside the tent, the best bioterrorist money could buy?" (X)
The Washington Post - Aug. 5, 2008 - "Anthrax Dryer a Key To Probe"
The Wall Street Journal - Aug. 5, 2008 - "Pressure Grows to Release Evidence in Anthrax Case" (X)
The Wall Street Journal (Opinion) - Aug. 5, 2008 - "Bruce Ivins Wasn't the Anthrax Culprit" (X)
The New York Times - Aug. 5, 2008 - "Pressure Grows for F.B.I.’s Anthrax Evidence" (X)
Time Magazine - Aug. 5, 2008 - "How Solid is the Anthrax Evidence?" (X)
The Los Angeles Times - Aug. 5, 2008 - "Not the FBI's proudest moment" (X)
Associated Press - Aug. 5, 2008 - "Some of the remaining gaps in the FBI anthrax case"(X)
Associated Press - Aug. 5, 2008 - "Some answers, but not all, likely in anthrax case" (X)
The Boston Globe - Aug. 5, 2008 - "Anthrax deaths turned attention toward Iraq"(X)
New Scientist - Aug. 5, 2008 - "Anthrax genes will point to perpetrator" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Aug. 5, 2008 - "'I'm scared to death' of Ivins, Duley testifies" (X)
The New York Post - Aug. 5, 2008 - "Dr. Anthrax was Kreepy Kappa Lover" (X) - Aug. 6, 2008 - "Transcript of Amerithrax Investigation Press Conference"
The Los Angeles Times - Aug. 6, 2008 - "FBI to reveal evidence in anthrax case" (X)
The Hartford Courant - Aug. 6, 2008 - "Anthrax Vaccine Safety Complaints Part Of Ivins Case" (X)
The Wall Street Journal - Aug. 6, 2008 - "FBI's Anthrax Case Relies on Spores Discovered on a Flask" (X)
The New York Times - Aug. 6, 2008 - "Justice Dept. Set to Share Details in Anthrax Case" (X)
The Washington Post - Aug. 6, 2008 - "Tales of Addiction, Anxiety, Ranting"
The Washington Post - Aug. 6, 2008 - "FBI to Show How Genetics Led to Anthrax Researcher" - Aug. 6, 2008 - "U.S. Judge Unseals Documents In Anthrax Case" (X)
TVNewser - Aug. 6, 2008 - "Ross Responds to "Vital Questions" About Anthrax Report" (X)
Associated Press - Aug. 7, 2008 - " Despite demons, Ivins stayed at high-security lab" (X)
Senator Grassley - Aug. 7, 2008 - "Grassley Seeks Answers to FBI’S Amerithrax Investigation" (X)
The New York Times - Aug. 7, 2008 - "F.B.I. Presents Anthrax Case, Saying Scientist Acted Alone" (X)
The Washington Post - Aug. 7, 2008 - "Documents List Essential Clues"
The Washington Post - Aug. 7, 2008 - "Acquaintances and Counselor Recall the Scientist's Dark Side"
The Baltimore Sun - Aug. 7, 2008 - "Doubts persist on Ivins' guilt" (X)
The NY Daily News - Aug. 7, 2008 - "Anthrax mailer feared his life's work was over, prosecutors say" (X)
New Scientist - Aug. 7, 2008 - "Investigators 'confident' Ivins was anthrax attacker" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Aug. 7, 2008 - "Excerpts from e-mails Bruce Ivins sent to a friend" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Aug. 7, 2008 - "Ivins alone responsible for attacks, feds claim" (X) - Aug. 7, 2008 - "The Adventures of Jimmy flathead - The Internet postings of Bruce Ivins" (X)
The Wall Street Journal - Aug. 7, 2008 - "Veteran Investigators Played Pivotal Roles in FBI Probe" (X)
The Wall Street Journal - Aug. 7, 2008 - "FBI Paints Chilling Portrait Of Anthrax-Attack Suspect" (X)
Leader-Telegram (Madison, WI) - Aug. 7, 2008 - "Anthrax case link to Wisconsin examined" (X)
The Washington Post - Aug. 8, 2008 - "New Details Show Anthrax Suspect Away On Key Day"
The New York Times - Aug. 8, 2008 - "From a Helper to the Suspect in the Anthrax Case" (X)
The New York Times (Editorial) - Aug. 8, 2008 - "Identifying the Anthrax Killer" (X)
The Los Angeles Times - Aug. 8, 2008 - "Anthrax investigation should be investigated, congressmen say" (X)
Associated Press - Aug. 8, 2008 - "Army post tarnished by 'devastating' anthrax claim" (X)
Olean Times Herald - Aug. 8, 2008 - "Four years after FBI raid, Dr. Berry moving on with life" (X)
The Oregonian - Aug. 8, 2008 - "Director of Oregon's primate lab says she was stalked by anthrax suspect" (X)
The Herald-Mail - Aug. 8, 2008 - "Ex-colleague questions government’s case against anthrax suspect" (X)
The Wall Street Journal - Aug. 8, 2008 - "The Ivins Dossier" (X)
The New York Post - Aug. 8, 2008 - "DR. DOOM MOURNED VA. TECH. WOMAN" (X) - Aug. 8, 2008 - "Full NPR Interview With Ivins' Attorney Paul Kemp" (X)
The New York Times - Aug. 9, 2008 - "Scientist Officially Exonerated in Anthrax Attacks" (X)
The Washington Post - Aug. 9, 2008 - "Prosecutors Clear Hatfill in Anthrax Case" 
The New York Times - Aug. 9, 2008 - "Doubts Persist Among Anthrax Suspect’s Colleagues" (X)
The New York Times (Opinion) - Aug. 9, 2008 - "Open Questions on a Closed Case" (X)
Bloomberg - Aug. 9, 2008 - "Army to Probe Security of U.S. Laboratory That Handles Anthrax" (X)
The Wall Street Journal - Aug. 9, 2008 - "In Anthrax Case, Hindsight Shifts View of Ivins" (X)
The Associated Press - Aug. 9, 2008 - "Analysis: What if a jury heard the anthrax case" (X)
The Associated Press - Aug. 9, 2008 - "Ivins remembered for intelligence, compassion" (X)
Newsweek - Aug. 9, 2008 - "The Case Still Isn’t Closed" (X)
The Burlington [VT] Free Press - Aug. 9, 2008 - "Leahy waits for anthrax answers" (X)
The New York Times - Aug. 10, 2008 - "Anthrax Case Had Costs for Suspects"(X)
The Baltimore Sun - Aug. 10, 2008 - "Anthrax suspect said to have been curious and compassionate" (X)
The Philadelphia Inquirer - Aug. 10, 2008 - "Chester man wants his name cleared in anthrax case" (X)
The Philadelphia Inquirer - Aug. 10, 2008 - "DNA is just anthrax clue, not clincher" (X)
The (Hanover, PA) Evening Sun - Aug. 10, 2008 - "Fairfield resident recalls time at Fort Detrick" (X)
The Hartford Courant - Aug. 11, 2008 - "State Officials Surprised By Ivins' Possible Motive" (X)
The Philadelphia Inquirer - Aug. 11, 2008 - "For anthrax victim, suicide opens questions" (X)
The Miami Herald (Editorial) - Aug. 11, 2008 - "FBI sows doubt" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (Opinion) - Aug. 12, 2008 - "Dutiful decision" (X)
The Wall Street Journal (Opinion) - Aug. 12, 2008 - "What If the FBI Is Right About Bruce Ivins?" (X)
The New York Times (Opinion) - Aug. 12, 2008 - "The Killers in the Lab" (X)
The Palm Beach Post (Editorial) - Aug. 12, 2008 - "Settle with the widow in Boca anthrax killing" (X)
Science Magazine - Aug. 12, 2008 - "The Anthrax Case: From Spores to a Suspect" (X)
The Los Angeles Times (Opinion) - Aug. 13, 2008 - "Our own worst bioenemy"(X)
Frederick News-Post - Aug. 13, 2008 - "Talk Back: Do you believe Bruce Ivins was responsible for the anthrax attacks?" (X)
USA Today - Aug. 13, 2008 - "Daschle tells reporters about briefing on anthrax investigation" (X)
HSToday - Aug. 13, 2008 - " Army Review of Anthrax Access May Yield Changes" (X)
Associated Press - Aug. 13, 2008 - "A lone anthrax mailer? Skeptics question FBI case" (X)
Time Magazine - Aug. 13, 2008 - "Nagging Questions in the Anthrax Case" (X)
The New York Times - Aug. 13, 2008 - "Another Twist in Case of Dead Anthrax Suspect" (X)
The Washington Post - Aug. 14, 2008 - "Hair Samples in Anthrax Case Don't Match"
The Eureka Reporter - Aug. 14, 2008 - "Yes, this might have been a real government conspiracy" (X) (Interview with Richard Ebright) - Aug. 14, 2008 - "The Real Bioterror Threat" (X)
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Opinion) - Aug. 14, 2008 - "FBI mishandling of anthrax case leaves many questions unanswered" (X)
The Los Angeles Times - Aug. 15, 2008 - "Anthrax scientist Bruce Ivins slipped under the radar because of FBI obsession" (X)
CIDRAP News - Aug. 15, 2008 - "FBI conclusions in anthrax probe meet skepticism"(X)
The New York Times - Aug. 16, 2008 - "F.B.I. Will Present Scientific Evidence in Anthrax Case to Counter Doubts" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Aug. 16, 2008 - "Senate could grill FBI on anthrax investigation in September" (X)
The Hartford Courant - Aug. 16, 2008 - "Labs That Perform Bioterrorism Research Proliferating" (X)
The Palm Beach Post - Aug. 16, 2008 - "Signs of madness boost anthrax suit" (X)
The New York Times (Opinion) - Aug. 17, 2008 - "Headlines and Exonerations" (X)
The Palm Beach Post - Aug. 17, 2008 - "Anthrax break spurs memories of '01 scare" (X)
American Conservative Magazine - Aug. 25, 2008 (on line on Aug. 18, 2008) - "The Anthrax Files" (X)
Associated Press - Aug. 18, 2008 - "Daschle says there are still questions on anthrax" (X)
Associated Press - Aug. 18, 2008 - "FBI had, then tossed anthrax type used in attacks" (X)
ABC News - Aug. 18, 2008 - "Anthrax Scientist Aided FBI's Probe" (X)
Science Now - Aug. 18, 2008 - "The Anthrax Case: The Trail of the Spores" (X)
FBI press briefing - Aug. 18, 2008 - "The Science"
The New York Times - Aug. 19, 2008 - "F.B.I. Details Anthrax Case, but Doubts Remain" (X)
The Washington Post - Aug. 19, 2008 - "FBI Elaborates on Anthrax Case" 
The Los Angeles Times - Aug. 19, 2008 - "Scientists elaborate on the case against Bruce Ivins" (X) - Aug. 19, 2008 - " Army secretary orders review of Fort Detrick personnel procedures" (X)
Science News - Aug. 19, 2008 - " FBI reveals more details of anthrax investigation" (X)
Nature News - Aug. 19, 2008 - "FBI to reveal anthrax data" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Aug. 20, 2008 - "Scientists still looking for FBI to release anthrax data" (X)
The Washington Post (Editorial) - Aug. 20, 2008 - "'Spore on the Grassy Knoll'"
The New York Times (Editorial) - Aug. 20, 2008 - "Too Little Information" (X) - Aug. 20, 2008 - "Ivins' Attorney To Be Interviewed In Congressional Probe"(X)
CIDRAP News - Aug. 20, 2008 - "FBI says it easily replicated anthrax used in attacks" (X)
Nature (Editorial) - Aug. 20, 2008 - "Case Not Closed" (X)
Nature - Aug. 21, 2008 - "Too close for comfort" (X)
The New York Times - Aug. 21, 2008 - "A Trained Eye Finally Solved the Anthrax Puzzle" (X)
WTOP Radio - Aug. 21, 2008 - "Local scientist helped solve anthrax puzzle" (X)
Science Daily - Aug. 21, 2008 - "FBI Unveils Science Of Anthrax Investigation" (X)
CNN - Aug. 21, 2008 - "Ivins’ attorney: Don’t blame the FBI" (X)
The Albuquerque Journal - Aug. 22, 2008 - "Working In Secret" (X)
Las Cruces Sun-News - Aug. 24, 2008 - Same as Albuquerque Journal above, but easier to access.
USA Today - Aug. 24, 2008 - "FBI explains the science behind the anthrax investigation" (X)
Chemical & Engineering News - Aug. 25, 2008 - "Validation: FBI's Anthrax Analysis" (X)
The Boston Globe (Opinion) - Aug. 25, 2008 - "Craving the dark magic of science" (X)
CIDRAP News - Aug. 26, 2008 - "Anthrax probe prompts concerns about military labs" (X) - Aug. 27, 2008 (opinion) - "White Powder and 007" (X)
The New York Times (Opinion) - Aug. 28, 2008 - "Media’s Balancing Act" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (Opinion) - Aug. 29, 2008 - "If not Ivins ... " (X)
The Philadelphia Inquirer - Sept. 1, 2008 - "Cracking the anthrax case" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (Editorial) - Sept. 6, 2008 - "A marathon, not a sprint" (X)
The New York Times - Sept. 6, 2006 - "Lawmakers Seek Anthrax Details" (X)
The Frederick News-Post - Sept. 7, 2008 - "Early anthrax suspect doubts guilt of Ivins" (X)
The Daily Princetonian - Sept. 8, 2008 - "FBI: Anthrax suspect Ivins obsessed with Kappa" (X)
The Frederick News-Post - Sept. 11, 2008 - "Science behind the anthrax case" (X)
The Register (UK) - Sept. 11, 2008 - "Press proves immune to FBI's anthrax corrective" (X)
UMB News - Sept. 11, 2008 - "Ctr for Health & Homeland Security Hosts Forum to Discuss Anthrax Case" (X)
The Examiner (AP) - Sept. 12, 2008 - "Rep. Bartlett skeptical that Ivins sent anthrax" (X)
The New York Times - Sept. 13, 2008 - "Another Twist in Case of Dead Anthrax Suspect" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Sept. 13, 2008 - "Congress to take up anthrax investigation" (X)
The New York Post (editorial) - Sept. 14, 2008 - "GET ’THRAX FACTS" (X)
Associated Press - Sept. 14, 2008 - "Anthrax probe prompts lab security review" (X)
The Jurist - Sept. 15, 2008 (opinion) - "The Anthrax Case: Congress Must Demand an Independent Inquiry" (X)
The Blog of the Legal Times - Sept. 15, 2008 - "New Twist in Hatfill Case" (X)
FBI - Sept. 15, 2008 - "FBI letter to the National Academy of Sciences" (X)
FoxNews.Com - Sept. 16, 2008 - "FOX News Exclusive: Anonymous Note Casts Doubt on Anthrax Probe" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (editorial) - Sept. 16, 2008 - "Mueller on The Hill" (X)
Los Angeles Times - Sept. 16, 2008 - "Scientist concedes 'honest mistake' about weaponized anthrax" (X)
Associated Press - Sept. 16, 2008 - "Independent panel to study anthrax case" (X)
The New York Times - Sept. 17, 2008 - "Independent Review Set on F.B.I. Anthrax Inquiry" (X)
The Washington Post - Sept. 17, 2008 - "FBI to Get Expert Help In Anthrax Inquiry" 
Frederick News-Post - Sept. 17, 2008 - "Independent scientists to review evidence against Ivins" (X)
The Chicago Tribune (editorial) - Sept. 17, 2008 - "Anthrax killer, dead or alive" (X)
USA Today - Sept. 17, 2008 - "Senators question anthrax probe" (X)
The Washington Post - Sept. 17, 2008 - "Lawmakers Question Results of Anthrax Investigation"
Associated Press - Sept. 17, 2008 - "Leahy: Suspect had help in anthrax attacks" (X)
The San Francisco Chronicle - Sept. 18, 2008 - "Senator doubts anthrax suspect acted alone" (X)
The Washington Post - Sept. 18, 2008 - "Anthrax Suspect Didn't Act Alone, Leahy Posits" 
The New York Times - Sept. 18, 2008 - "Senator, Target of Anthrax Letter, Challenges F.B.I. Finding" (X)
Analytical Chemistry - Sept. 18, 2008 - "Tracing killer spores" (X)
The Washington Post (editorial) - Sept. 19, 2008 - "Anthrax Suspicions"
Scientific American - Sept. 19, 2008 - "Seven Years Later: Electrons Unlocked Post-9/11 Anthrax Mail Mystery" (X)
Reporters Committee - Sept. 19, 2008 - "Responding to Hatfill, Locy presses court to decide her case" (X)
CIDRAP News - Sept. 19, 2008 - "Leahy doubts FBI in anthrax case; scientist admits error" (X)
Las Vegas Sun - Sept. 20, 2008 - "Overcoming anthrax doubts" (X)
The New York Times - Sept. 24, 2008 - "Critics of Anthrax Inquiry Seek an Independent Review" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Sept. 24, 2008 - "Ivins lost lab access in March after anthrax spill" (X)
Associated Press - Sept. 24, 2008 - "Anthrax suspect was barred from labs after spill" (X) - Sept. 24, 2008 - "‘New York Times’ Editors Are No Crime-Solvers" (X)
The Los Angeles Times - Sept. 24, 2008 - "Ivins claimed he knew who sent anthrax"(X)
USA Today - Sept. 24, 2008 - "FBI did not analyze anthrax from biodefense lab" (X)
Associated Press - Sept. 24, 2008 - "Documents: Ivins bragged he knew anthrax killer" (X)
CNN - Sept. 24, 2008 - " Suspect: 'I finally know who mailed the anthrax letters'" (X)
The Washington Post - Sept. 24, 2008 - "Ivins: 'I Know Who Mailed The Anthrax!'"
The New York Times - Sept. 25, 2008 - "Anthrax-Case Affidavits Add to Bizarre Portrait" (X)
The Washington Post - Sept. 28, 2008 - "Two Portraits of a Bioterror Suspect"
Nature - Sept. 29, 2008 - "Silicon highlights remaining questions over anthrax investigation" (X)
McClatchy Newspapers - Sept. 30, 2008 - "FBI won't release details on anthrax suspect" (X)
Associated Press - Oct. 1, 2008 - "Legal troubles remain for reporter on anthrax case" (X)
Frederick News- Post - Oct. 2, 2008 - "FBI outlines scope of anthrax study" (X)
The Times of Trenton - Oct. 6, 2008 - "Pursue anthrax probe" (X)
Physics Today - Oct. 6, 2008 - "FBI call on NAS to study anthrax case" (X)
USA Today - Oct. 12, 2008 - "White powder scares cost law enforcement time, money" (X)
American Journalism Review - Oct/Nov 2008 - "Trying Again" (X)
Associated Press - Oct. 16, 2008 - "New lab security report may signal need for pause" (X)
Washington Post - Oct. 27, 2008 - "Trail of Odd Anthrax Cells Led FBI to Army Scientist" 
Town Topics - Oct. 29, 2008 - "Holt Asking Hard Questions About Anthrax" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Oct. 29, 2008 - "Detrick releases Ivins' personnel file"(X)
Associated Press - Oct. 30, 2008 - "Fla. ruling will help widow's anthrax lawsuit" (X)
BBC World News - Oct. 30, 2008 - "Drum maker is treated for anthrax" (X)
The New York Post - Nov. 2, 2008 - "Scientists Slam FBI 'Thrax Probe in Bid to Clear Buddy 'Dr. Doom'" (X)
City Journal - Nov. 3, 2008 - "Bioterrorism’s Deadly Math" (X)
Nursing Times - Nov. 3, 2008 - "Man dies in hospital from anthrax inhalation" (X)
Readers Digest - Nov. 10, 2008 - "Are We Safer Since 9/11?" (X)
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press - Nov. 12, 2008 - "Newspapers seek unsealing of anthrax search records" (X)
Associated Press - Nov. 12, 2008 - "Newspapers seek gov't documents in anthrax inquiry" (X)
Global Security Newswire - Nov. 13, 2008 - "Newspapers Pursue Anthrax Probe Records on Hatfill" (X)
The (Baltimore) Examiner - Nov. 16, 2008 - "Scientific impossibility: Did FBI get their man in Bruce Ivins?" (X)
Associated Press - Nov. 17, 2008 - "Judge orders Hatfill search warrant made public" (X)
Associated Press - Nov. 17, 2008 - "Judges throws out contempt order against reporter"(X)
USA Today (editorial) - Nov. 17, 2008 - "The real cost of fining a reporter" (X)
The (Baltimore) Examiner - Nov. 20, 2008 - "Costly program with a shady past" (X)
The (Baltimore) Examiner - Nov. 21, 2008 - "Md. lawmakers consider anthrax investigation commission" (X)
The Baltimore Examiner (editorial) - Nov. 23, 2008 - "Self (inflicted) defense can up risk" (X)
Associated Press - Nov. 25, 2008 - "Documents released in Hatfill anthrax case"(X)
The New York Times - Nov. 25, 2008 - "New Details on F.B.I.’s False Start in Anthrax Case" (X)
NBC - Nov. 25, 2008 - "Documents explain early FBI interest in Hatfill as anthrax suspect" (X)
Los Angeles Times - Nov. 26, 2008 - "FBI's early anthrax hunches revealed in documents" (X)
The Washington Post - Nov. 26, 2008 - "In Anthrax Probe, Focus on Hatfill Relied on Informants"
The Frederick News-Post - Nov. 26, 2008 - "Court unseals Hatfill anthrax documents" (X)
The Washington Post - Nov. 30, 2008 - "Report Sounds Alarm Over Bioterror" 
Associated Press - Dec. 2, 2008 - "Security refresher ordered for Army labs" (X)
The Frederick News-Post - Dec. 4, 2008 - "Detrick scientists receiving additional biosecurity training" (X) - Dec. 5, 2008 - "Commentary: WMD terrorism fears are overblown" (X) - Dec. 10, 2008 - "Psychological Tests for Bioagent Researchers?" (X)
Associated Press - Dec. 15, 2008 - "Court sides with NY Times in anthrax libel case" (X)
The New York Times - Dec. 15, 2008 - "Justices Reject Appeal in Anthrax Libel Suit" (X)
Reporters Committee - Dec. 15, 2008 - "Supreme Court won't hear Hatfill's libel suit" (X)
Associated Press - Dec. 18, 2008 - "Military: Repeat of anthrax attacks harder today" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Dec. 19, 2008 - "Security at military biolabs to get tighter" (X) - Dec. 22, 2008 - "Survey Reports Scientists 'Suspicious' Of FBI" (X)

(c) 2005-2008 by Ed Lake
All Rights Reserved