October 5, 2008 - Hmm.  Suddenly, everything has gone quiet.  I haven't received any emails in days, and there has been absolutely no news about the Anthrax case since the article in Nature came out on September 29th.  I expected some kind of response to that article.  A response may be in the works, but I'm seeing no clear indication of it.

The scientists I've talked with don't feel that posting responses on Nature's web site would be the right way to counter the nonsense printed in the article.  It's okay for me, but not for them.  I know that some phone calls to the author of the article have been made, but I'm hoping that won't be the end of it.  I'm hoping that, at minimum, some kind of formal letter to the editor is being prepared.

That happened with the total nonsense about fumed silica that was printed in The Washington Post.   A letter to the editor was written, but it had little impact.  The false information from the original article influenced scientists for years afterward. 

The total nonsense printed in Science Magazine went without a formal response, and, as a result, many many scientists believed what was printed, and many of them cited the article as a reference in their scientific papers, even though the article didn't involve any new research and was written by a journalist, not a scientist.

The screwball beliefs of the conspiracy theorists have also found listeners in Congress.   Back on Sept. 16, Rep. Jerrold Nadler demanded information from FBI Director Mueller about the dry weight percentage of silicon in the attack anthrax.  Clearly, someone had convinced Nadler that if the percentage was "too high" it would mean that it definitely had something to do with "weaponization."  Exactly what percentage would "too high?"   Apparently, it would be whatever the percentage of silicon in the attack spores was.  And what is the science behind that percentage being "too high?"  There is none. 

Director Mueller has written a letter to the National Academy of Sciences asking them to review the scientific information in the case.  But that could take years. 

First impressions are long lasting impressions.  People remember headlines.  They don't remember retractions or letters to the editor printed at the bottom of page 65.   They remember conspiracy theories, they rarely remember complex scientific explanations. And whether or not there is enough solid evidence to have convicted Dr. Bruce Ivins of the anthrax murders is a relatively insignificant question when compared to the question of whether or not agents of the U.S. government perpetrated some vast criminal conspiracy to kill innocent Americans and then to cover up facts about some secret and illegal bioweapons program that produced the supposed "weaponized" spores the conspiracy theorists believe were in the anthrax letters. 

The science used by the conspiracy theorists is junk science.  It's the same kind of junk science used by the conspiracy theorists who claim that the moon landings were a hoax.  They use mistaken beliefs phrased in scientific terms.  And they attack true experts who dispute their beliefs as being part of the conspiracy.   The silica controversy has been going on for seven years!  The August 18 roundtable discussion of the science of the case helped somewhat.  And the scientific articles that will be printed in scientific journals in coming years will help -- eventually.  But, there are thousands of scientists who have accepted the junk science as valid because it was printed in Science and in Nature and has never been clearly and formally contradicted.  And the conspiracy theorists are still hard at work trying to convert more scientists to their junk science beliefs, while those with solid facts and valid information plod along following established procedures so that their work can be formally printed in obscure scientific journals that few will read.

It would help if, just this once, some of those scientists with solid facts would become as aggressive in getting out the facts as those with junk science beliefs are in promoting their junk science beliefs.  The "lunatic fringe" isn't just on the fringe this time.

October 2, 2008 (B) - Looking through my web site logs for yesterday, I happened to notice a link that came in from a blog web site.  Out of curiosity, I went to that link and found information which correctly showed that I was wrong in the times I posted when I analyzed the times Dr. Ivins could have driven to New Jersey to mail the media letters.  I had used the wrong time for him leaving for the day on the 18th.  Dr. Ivins evidently also had plenty of time to drive to New Jersey during the day on September 18, 2001, to mail the media letters.  He didn't have to drive during the night of September 17-18.  Or, theoretically, he could have driven to New Jersey twice.

It doesn't change anything of significance, except to give Dr. Ivins two windows of opportunity to mail the media letters.  While I appreciate that the error was noticed so I could go back and correct my Sept. 28 comment, I wish someone had emailed me about it.  It was pure luck that caused me to notice that link and to investigate it.  I haven't had the time to analyze my web site logs very often in the past 2 months.  I really need people to point out errors on this web site so that I can keep it as accurate as possible.

October 2, 2008 (A) - The Frederick News-Post has an article this morning titled "FBI outlines scope of anthrax study" which describes (and provides a link to) a letter sent by the FBI to the National Academy of Sciences with 15 suggested questions that should be addressed in an independent study of the scientific aspects of the FBI's Amerithrax investigation.  Several of the questions relate to the evidence found in the flask which Bruce Ivins controlled.  Others relate to other issues:

5) What effects do growth conditions have on distribution of elements (e.g. Si [Silicon]), stable light isotope ratios, and C-14 dating?

9) Which methods could be used to explore the distribution and concentration of elements within a BA [Bacillus Anthracis] spore?  Do they provide adequate spatial resolution?

11) Is there a need for post-treatment of BA to result in powders with a friable character?  Alternatively, can BA samples dried with rudimetary methodology pose an inhalation hazard resulting in pulmonary anthrax?  Were BA spores in 2001 mailings treated post production to make them more friable?  Were BA spores in 2001 mailings weaponized?

October 1, 2008 - The McClatchy newspapers, which evidently include The Anchorage Daily News, the Miami Herald and over a dozen others, printed an article yesterday titled "FBI won't release details on anthrax suspect."  The title is, of course, deliberately misleading.  A more accurate title would be, "FBI has not yet released all details on anthrax suspect."   The article contains this:

David M. Hardy, the section chief of the FBI's records management division, notified McClatchy that his office could not immediately release the records because there were "investigative leads still open" and the FBI needed to withhold the documents in order to protect confidential sources, privacy, law enforcement techniques and a suspect's right to a fair trial.

The investigation, known as Amerithrax, is not officially closed. But when it is, Hardy said, the FBI will release documents on a "rolling basis as soon as practicable." ...

"Although the FBI cannot predict with absolute certainty when the Amerithrax investigation will be formally closed, we can assure you that the FBI has already begun to make initial preparations," he said.

Lucy Dalglish, the executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said she was not surprised by the decision because open records exemptions give the FBI broad latitude to cite the need to protect law enforcement efforts.

"There's virtually no chance of getting FBI records in this case until they decide to close it," she said. "This is a situation where it's probably going to be years before we figure out what they've got."

Meanwhile, I've heard from others who are using the Freedom of Information Act to attempt to get information about the case from the FBI and DOJ.  Mostly, they are also just receiving letter replies which state that the case is not yet closed and that scientific information will be released via peer-reviewed scientific publications. 

But, some information is getting out.  A sample of Bruce Ivins' handwriting has showed up on the Hartford Courant's web site.  The document evidently came from the copyrights office, so it has nothing to do with the investigation, and there would be no reason not to release it. 

Looking at the document, all I notice of interest is that Bruce Ivins didn't use serifs when drawing the number 1.  But it's too small a sample to prove anything, since it shows that he would sometimes draw a line through his 7's and sometimes he wouldn't. 

September 30, 2008 - I don't ordinarily register onto web sites just so I can post comments disputing nonsense said on the web sites, but I made an exception with the Nature article and their web site.  The Nature article is really stupid.  It uses JUNK SCIENCE to argue against valid science.  That requires a response.

September 29, 2008 - Today, the prestigious scientific journal Nature has an extremely interesting article on-line titled "Silicon highlights remaining questions over anthrax investigation."  The article says,

Under an electron microscope, [USAMRIDII scientist Peter} Jahrling and a colleague observed black dots that they speculated might be particles of silicon dioxide, or silica. Materials analysis by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Washington DC confirmed that the sample contained both silicon and oxygen, and many assumed that the elements were combined as silica.

Spores are sticky, and tend to clump together. One method of weaponizing the spores is to coat them with something that interrupts the weak van der Waals interactions between each particle.

In 2002, as part of the FBI investigation, scientists at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico, used electron microscopy to analyse the composition of the spores. The results were finally made public last month. They found silicon and oxygen in the spore coat, but not on the most external layer, the exosporium. The location of the silicon, the FBI says, suggests that it was incorporated naturally into the structures during growth, not added as a final coating to weaponize them.

But other experts disagree with the conclusion. "I don't think the guys at Sandia understand that the exosporium is not some kind of brick wall," says Stuart Jacobsen, a research chemist based in Dallas, Texas, who is an expert on the preparation and properties of fine-grained powders and has followed the case closely. "It's more like a chain-link fence." Decades ago, a study found that the exosporium is porous to various small molecules. 

Why does this matter to the investigation?

If the spores could not be made by a single scientist in a few evenings, that would suggest the spores came from elsewhere – possibly from a state-organized programme.

there is no indication from the FBI that more data are forthcoming anytime soon. Until they are provided, there will continue to be suspicions and speculations about the silicon in the spores.

Meanwhile, however, the conspiracy theorists can and will continue to use junk science to recruit scientists to join in believing that the anthrax attacks of 2001 were the result of a vast criminal conspiracy perpetrated by the U.S. government.

I thought things seemed to be quieting down, but clearly: It ain't over until it's over.

September 28, 2008 - This morning's Washington Post contains an article titled "Two Portraits of a Bioterror Suspect," which includes this paragraph:

Within USAMRIID's high-security laboratories, Ivins was the go-to man for researchers probing anthrax disease.  Ivins specialized in spore preparation, taking wet bacteria samples and culturing them in glass flasks.  Ivins experimented on mice, rats, golden guinea pigs and monkeys, first injecting the animals with test vaccines and then blasting them with anthrax. After a few days, he counted bodies.

He also was using out-of-town mailboxes to anonymously send gifts and cards to someone in another city. He apparently made an 11-hour round-trip one night to leave a package for that person. When the FBI later questioned him, he explained that he liked taking mindless drives.

Below is a summary and (hopefully) more readable version of the two Bruce Ivins access logs located HERE and HERE.  Only key entries are included in this summary.   My comments are in italics and in parentheses.

THE MEDIA MAILING:

(Other sources indicate that Dr. Ivins worked long hours and used area B301 on September 14, 15 and 16.)

Monday, September 17, 2001:
06:58:20 - 1425 REAR DR IN  (Ivins enters the rear door to Bldg. 1425.)
07:23:15 - B301 OUT/M (Ivins exits area B301.  No entry is recorded)
11:14:49 - CORR TO BACTI OUT (leaves the building?)
19:00:12 - 1425 REAR DR IN (reenters the building at 7 p.m.)
19:13:53 - 1425 REAR DR OUT (leaves the building at 7:14 p.m.)

(Evidently, it was not a problem to follow some coworker into B301 after the coworker used their card to open the door.   That is evidently why there is no entry time for when Dr. Ivins entered B301.)

(It was after 7:14 p.m. on this day that Dr. Ivins presumably drove to New Jersey to mail the anthrax letters to NBC, The New York Post, etc.  That round trip drive takes approximately 7 hours (The Washington Post says 6 hours).  He would have returned home around 2:15 a.m.)

(There also appears to be enough time to drive to New Jersey between 11:14 a.m. and 7 p.m., but mailbox pickup times show that that would probably have resulted in a September 17 postmark.  Plus, according the The Washington Post, Dr. Ivins had an appointment "at 4 or 5 p.m.")

TUESDAY, September 18, 2001: (The media letters get postmarked)
07:02:35 - 1425 REAR DR IN (arrives for the day)
08:35:09 - CORR TO BACT OUT (leaves the building?)
20:14:36 - 1425 REAR DR IN (returns to building 1425)
20:25:43 - B301 IN/M (enters B301)
20:26:56 - B301 OUT/M (exits B301)
20:58:19 - 1425 REAR DR OUT (leaves the building)

(There also appears to be enough time for Dr. Ivins to have driven to New Jersey and back during the day on the 18th.   That would still be consistent with the letteres being postmarked on the 18th.)

THE SENATE MAILING:

FRIDAY, October 5, 2001:

(Other records show that Dr. Ivins worked all day that Friday, including time in B301, evidently continuing to work until after midnight.)

(It would be on this day that he would have learned that the first letters sent to the media failed to alarm anyone, and that, since it was just a single case, Bob Stevens' infection was assumed to be NOT related to terrorism.)

(If Dr. Ivins started to prepare the senate anthrax on this day, the first steps presumably would have been to take spores from flask RMR-1029, to get the spores to germinate, and then to add the living bacteria to nutrients for further reproduction.  The bacteria would then - presumably - have been placed in the incubator room accessed by the KEYPAD.) 

SATURDAY, October 6, 2001:
00:43:30 - 1425 REAR DR OUT (leaves at 43 minutes after midnight)

SUNDAY, October 7, 2001:
14:34:19 - 1425 REAR DR IN (arrives for the day at 2:34 p.m.)
14:55:51 - CORR TO BACTI IN (enters the Bacteriology Dept.)
14:56:11 - B301 IN/M (enters area B301)
14:58:57 - B301 KEYPAD (enters incubator room?)
15:19:08 - B301 OUT/M (exits area B301)

(B301 includes an area where one changes into the protective suit required for entry into the incubator room. Changing into the suit evidently took about 2-1/2 minutes.  Removing the suit presumably requires disinfection, etc.  But he would presumably also have moved the living bacteria to the device where sporulation takes place.)

15:20:08 - CORR TO BACTI OUT (leaves Bacteriology 1 minute later)
15:26:30 - 1425 REAR DR OUT (leaves the building via the back door)

MONDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2001 (COLUMBUS DAY):

13:49:40 - 1425 REAR DR IN (enters the building at 1:49 p.m.)
15:00:38 - B301 IN/M (enters area B301)
15:01:43 - B301 OUT/M (leaves area B301 after one minute)
15:48:58 - CORR TO BACTI OUT (leaves building at 3:48 p.m.?)
21:03:16 - 1425 REAR DR IN (reenters building at 9:03 p.m.)
21:05:42 - CORR TO BACTI IN (enters the Bacteriology Dept.)
21:16:47 - CORR TO BACTI OUT (leaves the Bacteriology Dept.)
22:04:44 - 1425 REAR DR OUT (leaves building at 10:04 p.m.)

(Presumably, between 1:49 p.m. and 3:48 p.m., he took the spores, filtered and cetrifuged away the debris, and then put them in a drying device.  Presumably, that drying device is NOT in area B301.  There is no record of him actually leaving the building, only leaving the Bacteriology Dept.)

(Presumably, between 9:05 p.m. and 9:16 p.m., he took the dry spores from the drying device and put them in the envelopes.)

(Where was he and what was he doing for the 43 minutes between leaving the Bacteriology Dept. and leaving the building? Presumably, he had the anthrax letters in his pocket at that time.  But, maybe not.  Was there some place in the building where he didn not need a key card for entry and where he could have used a biosafety cabinet to put the anthrax in the letters without fear of any CCTV watching him?)

(Presumably, he then drove to New Jersey to mail the letters Senators Daschle and Leahy.  He would have arrived back home at about 5 a.m.) 

TUESDAY, October 9, 2001: (The senate letters are postmarked.)

08:20:11 - CORR BACTI IN (Dr. Ivins either enters via the front door or enters through the back door following someone else who used their card.)
20:30:10 - 1425 REAR DR OUT (Leaves the building at 8:30 p.m.)

The natural assumption is that B301 is where all the hazardous work is done.  But, Dr Ivins worked in the Bacteriology Department, so "hazardous work" may have a different meaning for people who routinely work with bacteria.   A self-contained, sealed drying device could have been used anywhere or, possibly, inside a biosafety cabinet.  The end product would have been a clump of powder smaller than an AA battery. 

There are lots of assumptions being made above, but there is also ample opportunity for someone with real knowledge of Building 1425 at Ft. Detrick to state that there was no biosafety cabinet outside of B301 available to Dr. Ivins.  This entire scenario would then fall apart.  The same would be true if there was no drying device available outside of B301.  That wouldn't prove that Dr. Ivins was not the culprit, however.  It would merely prove that the scenario described above is incorrect.  But the new information might provide information for a new and better scenario.  That's why I'm always on the hunt for new and better information instead of working only with beliefs.

September 26, 2008 - The 2 log sheets (HERE and HERE) showing where Bruce Ivins was within Ft. Detrick on September 17-18 and October 6-9 are generating some very interesting discussions.  The discussions are also separating those who have other theories from those who want to seriously analyze the evidence against Dr. Ivins. 

For those with other theories, just looking at the log sheets is a total waste of time, since to them, everything can be dismissed as simply the innocent comings and goings of an innocent man.  And nothing conclusively proves otherwise. 

But, if you look at the log sheets to see if there's anything in them which seems to support the case against Dr. Ivins, you will find that everything seems to support the case against Dr. Ivins. 

The Wall Street Journal showed that Ivins worked unusual hours on the weekend before the first mailing.  The log times we now have for September show he worked until 7:14 p.m. on the 17th, which could be the time the culprit was preparing the media letters.  Dr. Ivins left the building at 7:14 p.m. and returned the next day at 7:02 a.m.  That's plenty time to drive to New Jersey to mail the media letters, and to get back home by 2 a.m. or so.  But, it certainly doesn't prove that is what Dr. Ivins was actually doing.

What the logs show Dr. Ivins was doing in October is far more intriguing.  The first time shown in the logs has him leaving Ft. Detrick at 12:43 in the morning of October 6, 2001.  The Wall Street Journal's report shows he worked long hours on the 5th in the area where dangerous bacteria is handled.  And, perhaps importantly, that was the day that The New York Times printed news about Bob Stevens.  The Times printed this:

A 63-year-old Florida man has contracted pulmonary anthrax and has been hospitalized with the infection, health officials said yesterday.

But, the officials said, there is no evidence that the man's disease was caused by a terrorist attack and there is no public health risk.

''It is an isolated case, and it is not contagious,'' Tommy G. Thompson, the secretary of health and human services, said at a White House briefing yesterday afternoon. ''There is no terrorism.''

If he started his plan for the second mailing on that day, it would seem logical that he might work late into the night.  Ivins worked until after midnight.

But what would the culprit have been doing on that evening?  Supposedly, he'd have been preparing to grow a new supply of anthrax.  The first step would be to get a sample from the RMR-1029 flask to germinate, and then to transfer the living bacteria into flasks, a fermenter, flasks or plates where they can readily grow and reproduce.  Is that what Ivins did on the evening of Friday the 5th? 

Ivins didn't return to his lab again until 2:34 p.m. on Sunday the 7th.  That could mean that the bacteria had been growing for at least 38 hours.  He apparently used a keypad to enter a "hot room" at 2:59 p.m.  Was that to remove the growing bacteria? 

He was only in the lab for about an hour on that Sunday.  Would that have been enough time to take the growing bacteria from the fermenter or flasks and put them into a device for sporulation?  If that is assumed, then he would next have returned at the end of the sporulation period.

Ivins returned to the lab on Monday, Columbus Day, October 8 at 1:49 p.m.  Since he returned at that hour, it seems clear that Columbus Day was a holiday at Ft. Detrick.  So, again he was able to work alone.  The sporulation run would be complete.

He spent approximately 8 hours working that Columbus Day.  Was it enough time to wash the spores and to filter and centrifuge them to remove debris?  If so, was there also enough time to dry the spores and to put them into the envelopes?  I have no reason to believe there wasn't enough time.

That would mean that he had the two senate envelopes with him when he left at 10:04 p.m. on the evening of the 8th.  He could have travelled to New Jersey and returned by 5 a.m.  His next entry into Ft. Detrick is a few hours later, at 8:20 a.m. on the 9th, when he begins another long work day, staying until 8:30 p.m.  Cleaning up, perhaps?

While there's nothing truly incriminating in any of this, it's certainly something that would require an explanation from Ivins.  According to FBI documents, Ivins couldn't provide any good explanation for what he was doing on those days when the culprit was probably preparing the anthrax for the letters to the two senators. 

According to the Wall Street Journal,

As to the spike in the evenings Dr. Ivins spent in the lab, Dr. Andrews, who was division chief at the time, said he didn't find it unusual. "He could have gone into the suite in the evenings because he wanted peace and quiet,"

September 25, 2008 (C) - MSNBC has an article which points to a web site called ERSNews.com, which somehow obtained the entry logs showing Bruce Ivins' accesses to various places at Ft. Detrick on Sept. 17-18 and Oct. 6-9, 2001.   MSNBC says:

The documents do not appear to challenge the FBI's assertion that Ivins had time to leave work, drive to Princeton, N.J., and then mail the deadly anthrax letters in a mailbox there.

The two pages of security-access documents reveal Ivin’s whereabouts at the Fort Detrick Army lab on September 17th and 18th and October 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th, 2001, the website said.

September 25, 2008 (B) - Among yesterday's news stories about Bruce Ivins is a USA Today article titled "FBI did not analyze anthrax from biodefense lab," which includes more 20/20 hindsight from people who were not part of the Amerithrax investigation: 

Before landing on the FBI's radar, Ivins emerged as the central figure in the separate investigation of anthrax contamination at Fort Detrick, where he confessed to cleaning up spilled anthrax in his office without telling superiors. "I had no desire to cry wolf," Ivins told an Army investigator at the time. The Army's investigation found samples of the type of anthrax used in the letter attacks on Ivins' desk and elsewhere in his office, according to a report May 9, 2002.

"Why didn't (the FBI) analyze it? One presumes this was pretty relevant evidence," says biodefense analyst Michael Stebbins of the Federation of American Scientists in Washington, D.C., who was not part of the investigation. "It raises questions about systematic errors in the FBI investigation."

Majidi, an FBI scientist involved in the investigation, says the bureau viewed the 2002 contamination investigation as an Army matter. As a result, he says, the FBI never submitted samples from Ivins' office for the detailed genetic analysis that later tied a flask in his laboratory to the anthrax used in the attacks.

"I don't know" why the FBI never analyzed the 2002 anthrax in Ivins' office, says Debbie Weierman of the FBI's Washington Field Office. "Suspicion on him was immense, if you look at this in hindsight."

All that is being said is: Knowing what we known now, if we were able to do things over, we would do them very differently.  But, we didn't know then what we know now!

Meanwhile, in a report from CNN, there's this about the status of the investigation:

The anthrax probe continues, Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said.

"We are working to close the investigation soon," Boyd said, adding that "investigative efforts" and "administrative measures" need to be finished.

The documents do not speculate about his motive, though Dr. Ivins was aware by that time that he was under suspicion and might have believed that his e-mail — he maintained at least eight e-mail addresses — was being monitored.

The hundreds of pages of search-warrant affidavits made public on Wednesday, after a request by The New York Times, offer no major disclosures. Rather, the documents, unsealed by Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the Federal District Court here and posted online by the Justice Department, add to a portrait of Dr. Ivins’s eccentric personality and threatening statements as he faced possible murder charges.

For instance, the documents give a fuller account of a group therapy session on July 9 where Dr. Ivins said that he was a suspect in the anthrax investigation and “that he was angry at the investigators, the government and the system in general.”

“He said he was not going to face the death penalty but instead had a plan to kill co-workers and other individuals who had wronged him,” an affidavit by a federal agent said, citing accounts of those present.

At face value, the new e-mails reinforce the view that Ivins was consumed with the criminal case closing in on him and, in the final months of his life, behaved in a way that suggested madness.

Ivins apparently wrote the e-mail to himself, although the name of the recipient on the e-mail was redacted by the authorities.

I haven't had time to read all the documents for myself, but I think it's safe to assume that they'll just show more of what we already know: Bruce Ivins was a very unstable person and much of what he did would fit a picture of a man with a big ego who was about to be arrested for a crime he had previously thought he had gotten away with.

September 24, 2008 (B) - While poking around the Internet, I found an interesting article about the anthrax case by a former DEA special agent name Gregory D. Lee.  The article is titled "‘New York Times’ Editors Are No Crime-Solvers," and it makes some very valid points in its criticism of a recent New York Times editorial:

The editorial read, “None of the investigators’ major assertions, however, have been tested in cross-examination . . .” Sorry, that test is moot when the suspect kills himself. Dr. Bruce Ivins, a mentally unbalanced scientist at the U.S. Army’s laboratories at Fort Detrick, Maryland, killed himself once he was informed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office that he was the subject of a federal grand jury inquiry.

The Times editorial also stated that “. . . there is no direct evidence of his guilt. No witnesses saw him pouring powdered anthrax into envelopes. No Anthrax spores in his house or cars. No confession to a colleague or in a suicide note. No physical evidence tying him to the site in Princeton, New Jersey from which the letters are believed to have been mailed.” I guess if CNN wasn’t there to film the event, then it didn’t happen.

Why would a criminal allow someone to witness his criminal act? Would you bring dangerous anthrax spores inside your house or car if you had safe access to them at work? How much physical evidence can there be if you wore gloves to drop an envelope into a mail box within a day’s driving distance of your home? I think the paper’s editorial staff has been watching too many episodes of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Watching such TV shows gives you just enough knowledge to be dangerous. “Hey, FBI, where’s his DNA, huh?”

One of the first things you learn as a criminal investigator is to not make a mystery out of something that isn’t. The evidence speaks for itself, and one piece of evidence is rarely enough to convince anyone, especially investigators, that a particular person committed a crime. It’s always the totality of the evidence that will prove guilt. 

September 24, 2008 (A) - The New York Times reports that members of Congress are arguing over what kind of investigation there should be of the Amerithrax investigation.

Meanwhile, there are articles today by the Associated Press and the Frederick News-Post about a lab accident back in March of this year which Dr. Ivins improperly handled, resulting in his being banned from further lab use.  The AP article says,

Ivins reported the March accident to his supervisors at USAMRIID 1 hour and 20 minutes after it occurred. In an internal investigator's report, dated March 18, Ivins wrote, "I was cleaning the biosafety cabinet and a few drops of dilute Sterne spores got on my pants."

The investigator wrote that a centrifuge bottle containing the solution had tipped over, spilling about 5 milliliters on Ivins's trousers. Ivins cleaned the surface of the cabinet and floor, and then walked home, washed his pants with bleach in his washing machine and dried them in the dryer before returning to USAMRIID to report the incident.

An Army report revealing that Ivins had not told his Army superiors in December 2001 about a possible anthrax spill around his workstation that he had privately cleaned up. In sworn statements to an Army investigator in May 2002, Ivins conceded that he should have reported the matter immediately.

September 23, 2008 - Although it's been out for several days, someone just brought to my attention a new article in Analytical Chemistry titled "Tracing killer spores - The science behind the anthrax investigation."  Some worthwhile quotes:

Early in the anthrax investigation, some media sources reported that the spores had been weaponized, but others said that the spores did not contain any additives that would make them more infectious. The conflicting media reports created confusion, says James Burans of the National Bioforensic Analysis Center (NBFAC). “I think, in essence, there were a host of declarations made by laboratories who were involved in initial aspects of the analysis that were, perhaps, not necessarily founded upon experience.”
...

The potential weaponization of the spores was another ambiguity. Spores that are weaponized have been made more lethal via antibiotic resistance and/or additives such as silicon dioxide that reduce clumping and increase volatility. Although some people originally stated that the spores were weaponized with silicon dioxide (10–13), the FBI has reiterated that this was not the case. Vahid Majidi of the FBI’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate says that “no intentional additives [were] combined with the Bacillus anthracis spores to make them any more dispersible.” Burans witnessed the Leahy letter being opened. “It just had the consistency of a fine powder—nothing unique or distinguishing,” he says.

In his 2006 Applied and Environmental Microbiology paper, Douglas Beecher of the FBI Laboratory attempted to clear up what had become a “widely circulated misconception” that the samples were weaponized with additives (14). “Individuals familiar with the compositions of the powders in the letters have indicated that they were comprised simply of spores purified to different extents,” he wrote, and he cited a news article in Science (15). Some researchers questioned why he cited a news story rather than scientific results to back up his assertion (16).

Beecher recently explained why he wrote the statement the way that he did. “While I knew the actual characteristics of the powders, I obviously could not cite any publications, because there were none,” says Beecher. “I also felt that I could not simply cite ‘unpublished data’ since the data were not mine, and the use of ‘personal communication’ was out because of nondisclosure agreements.” He says he was hoping to steer readers to comments made in 2002 by then-director of the FBI Laboratory Dwight Adams about the presence of silicon in the spore coat being a natural occurrence. Although the search warrant affidavit stated that the silicon signature seen in the powders from all four letters had never been observed in B. anthracis, silicon had been detected in other types of Bacillus bacteria (17–19).

September 21, 2008 - I can't help but wonder what the FBI is still investigating in the anthrax case.  They've concluded that Dr. Bruce Ivins was the culprit and that he acted alone.  And Dr. Ivins is dead.  Yet, the case has still not been officially closed.  I wonder: If the case is still open, does that mean the grand jury is still hearing the case? 

I looked into how grand juries work.  Their task is "to review the evidence presented by the prosecutor and determine whether there is probable cause to return an indictment."  The original purpose of a grand jury was to make certain that the people in power were not trying to arrest someone without very good reasons to believe he could be guilty.   I see nothing in that which would prevent a grand jury from indicting a dead man.  But the rules for secrecy would still apply:

Why are grand jury proceedings secret?

      Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that the prosecutor, grand jurors, and the grand jury stenographer are prohibited from disclosing what happened before the grand jury, unless ordered to do so in a judicial proceeding. Secrecy was originally designed to protect the grand jurors from improper pressures. The modern justifications are to prevent the escape of people whose indictment may be contemplated, to ensure that the grand jury is free to deliberate without outside pressure, to prevent subornation of perjury or witness tampering prior to a subsequent trial, to encourage people with information about a crime to speak freely, and to protect the innocent accused from disclosure of the fact that he or she was under investigation. 

Ivins had cooperated with investigators and appeared before the grand jury "many times," but had consistently maintained his innocence, the source familiar with the investigation told ABC News.

Back on August 2, 2008, the Baltimore Sun said,

Officials are also bound by grand jury secrecy rules and have begun the process of having documents unsealed for public release, the sources said. They said Justice Department lawyers are combing through material to determine whether to dissolve the grand jury and close the case entirely, which would be a possible indication that Ivins is suspected of having acted alone.

The evidence amassed by F.B.I. investigators against Dr. Bruce E. Ivins, the Army scientist who killed himself last week after learning that he was likely to be charged in the anthrax letter attacks of 2001, was largely circumstantial, and a grand jury in Washington was planning to hear several more weeks of testimony before issuing an indictment, a person who has been briefed on the investigation said on Sunday.

When FBI Director Mueller talks about an independent review of the evidence, he talks about a review of the scientific evidence and how he's seeking for such a review to be done by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).  However, as many in the media and the public have rightly pointed out, the NAS would not be the correct place to review other kinds of evidence against Dr. Ivins - such as how all the other scientists who had access to the RMR-1029 flask were eliminated as suspects. That's the sort of testimony that a grand jury would probably already have heard.

Since grand jury proceedings are secret, I have no way of knowing whether or not a grand jury is still investigating the Amerithrax case.  But, I've seen no official announcement that the grand jury that was hearing the case has been dismissed.  So, I've got my fingers crossed.  A grand jury is the closest thing to an "independent evaluation" of the evidence that we're ever likely to see; an indictment would be the closest thing to an actual trial of Dr. Bruce Ivins that we are ever likely to see; and a bill of indictment would be the closest thing to a trial transcript that we are even likely to see.

September 19, 2008 (B) - Scientific American's web site has an article today titled "Seven Years Later: Electrons Unlocked Post-9/11 Anthrax Mail Mystery" which gives another science reporter's view on recent events in the anthrax case.

September 19, 2008 (A) - CSPAN now has Director Mueller's testimony from Wednesday on line.  Click HERE and look for

Senate Judiciary Cmte. Hearing wit FBI Dir. Robert Mueller

FBI Director Robert Mueller faces questions about the Anthrax investigation, testifing before the Senate Judiciary Cmte. On Tuesday, Dir. Mueller told the House Judiciary Cmte. that the National Academy of Sciences will review the probe of suspect Bruce Ivins.
Wednesday : Washington, DC : 2 hr. 23 min. 

When Senator Patrick Leahy started talking in detail about the attacks, he mentioned that the letters were used as a "weapon" to attack members of the govenment as well as the American people.  He repeated over and over, "This was a weapon."  He was clearly pointing out that the dispute over whether or not the spores were technically "weaponized" didn't matter because the spores were used as a weapon against him and against America.  And he wanted to know how many labs were capable of producing such a "weapon."

Unfortunately, his anger and his wording made the problem of getting a correct answer very difficult.  Director Mueller appeared to try to explain that every lab which had the Ames strain probably also had the ability to make the powder, but Sen. Leahy would then focus on Dugway and Battelle and some possiblity that the "weapon" came from an illegal military bioweapons facility, which changes the definition of "weapon."

It seems very clear to me that the first thing that has to be cleared up before anything else can be resolved, is the exact nature of the anthrax spores in the senate letters.  It's been stated very clearly by scientists who have examined the attack powders that the powders were NOT weaponized with silica.  The element silicon was present inside the natural spore coat, and that would have NO effect related to "weaponization" in the military sense of the term.  We have seen a few pictures of the attack spores and what "weaponized" spores look like, but more pictures are clearly needed. 

It's been said that a picture is worth a thousand words.  In this case, however, a few pictures may be worth tens of millions of words. 

September 18, 2008 (A) - Today's San Francisco Chronicle mentions some of what was said yesterday about the FBI's "investigation" of Dr. Steven Hatfill:

Grassley pressed Mueller to explain why the FBI continued to scrutinize one of its early suspects in the case, bioweapons expert Steven Hatfill, even after obtaining records showing Ivins had accessed his anthrax-processing lab at unusual times.
...

Mueller defended the FBI's investigation, saying "the steps that were taken in the course of the investigation" were "appropriate ... given the information that we had at that particular time."

And Mueller said the lawsuit and resulting settlement were driven by inappropriate leaks about the researcher made to reporters - rather than the FBI's investigation of Hatfill.

In the audience was Steven J. Hatfill, another former Army biodefense scientist, whom the F.B.I. pursued as a suspect for several years before the Justice Department cleared him this summer and paid $4.6 million to settle a lawsuit he had filed against the government.

Dr. Hatfill did not speak. But Senator Grassley asked Mr. Mueller: “Should not the F.B.I. apologize to Dr. Hatfill? Please explain how chasing an innocent man for four years was not a mistake.”

Mr. Mueller replied that investigators had done nothing “inappropriate.” The settlement, he said, was not for scrutinizing Dr. Hatfill but for leaking information about him to the news media. “I abhor those leaks,” he said.

September 17, 2008 (C) - FBI Director Mueller is evidently being thoroughly grilled about the anthrax case by the Judiciary Committee on Oversight today.   I can't find it on TV, but it's evidently on-line somewhere, and it will probably be on CSPAN's web site tomorrow.  Meanwhile, USA Today reports this about what is being said:

Senate leaders on Wednesday expressed serious doubts about the FBI's assertion that Army scientist Bruce Ivins was the lone attacker in the 2001 anthrax assaults that killed five people and injured 17 others.

A day after FBI Director Robert Mueller said he was confident in its case, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., one of the two senators targeted in the attacks, said he believes that there are "others who could be charged with murder."

"I do not believe in any way, shape or manner that he was the only one involved," Leahy told Mueller at a committee hearing.

[Leahy] added: "I believe there are others involved, either as accessories before or accessories after the fact. I believe that there are others out there, I believe there are others who could be charged with murder. I just want you to know how I feel about it, as one of the people who was aimed at in the attack."

Mueller did not directly contradict Leahy, saying "I understand that concern."

Still, Mueller maintained the Justice Department's view that Ivins was the mastermind and sole attacker.

"In the investigation to date, we have looked at every lead and followed every lead to determine whether anybody else was involved, and we will continue to do so," Mueller told Leahy. "And even if the case does become closed, if we receive additional evidence, indicating the participation of any additional person, we certainly would pursue that."

September 17, 2008 (B) - Yesterday's Los Angeles Times contained an article by David Willman titled "Scientist concedes 'honest mistake' about weaponized anthrax." The article begins this way:

An acclaimed government scientist who assisted the federal investigation of the 2001 anthrax mailings said Tuesday that he erred seven years ago when he told top Bush administration officials that material he examined probably had been altered to make it more deadly.

The scientist, Peter B. Jahrling, had observed anthrax spores with the aid of an electron microscope at the government's biological warfare research facility at Ft. Detrick, Md.

The LA Times article also says,

In 2001, Jahrling briefed a roomful of officials at the White House, including Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft, Mueller and Tom Ridge, President Bush's secretary of Homeland Security.

The next day, the Washington Post published a front-page article headlined "Additive Made Spores Deadlier" that reported:

"The presence of the high-grade additive was confirmed for the first time yesterday by a government source familiar with the ongoing studies, which are being conducted by scientists" at Ft. Detrick.

September 17, 2008 (A) - A video of yesterday's exchange between Rep. Jerrold Nadler and FBI Director Mueller is currently available on the CSPAN web site.  To access it, click HERE. 

Look for this section and click on the link there:

House Judiciary Cmte. Oversight Hearing on the FBI
FBI Director Robert Mueller outlined new surveillance proposals to help investigators track security threats as he answered questions before the House Judiciary Cmte. The announcement of the new guidelines, made recently, have been met with criticism by civil liberties groups but are expected to be finalized and fully implemented in the coming weeks.
9/16/2008: WASHINGTON, DC: 1 hr. 54 min.

New items are constantly added at the top of this list of videos, so gradually the entry will move down the list and then off into the archival lists.

September 16, 2008 (B) - The Judiciary Committee grilling of FBI Director Mueller this morning contained very little about the anthrax attacks and absolutely nothing about the Dr. Hatfill investigation.  The one brief discussion I saw resulted from questions by Rep. Jerrold Nadler of Brooklyn, about the dry weight percentage of silicon in the attack spores. 

Rep. Nadler stated that his sources were telling him that if the percentage of silicon was greater than one half of one percent -- or certainly one percent -- then the silicon could not be "naturally occurring" and must have been deliberately added by a "sophisticated operator."  He stated it would mean that the spores were "manipulated to be a very sophisticated killer."  And he implied that only a government bioweapons lab would have "facilities capable of making anything approaching such an anthrax powder."

Director Mueller stated that the percentage was known, but he didn't have it handy and would get back to the committee with the information.  (Director Mueller is scheduled to be asked more questions starting tomorrow at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time.)

In discussions I had with a top anthrax expert this morning, the question of silicon in anti-foaming agents used in growth nutrients was raised.  If such an anti-foaming agent was used by the anthrax killer, and the use of that anti-foaming agent resulted in an unusual amount of silicon showing up in the attack spores, it would have nothing to do with "weaponization" and it wouldn't technically be "naturally occurring."  It may be difficult to prove that such an anti-foaming agent was or was not used, so, instead, we can probably expect to see of arguing over the specific meanings of specific words.

September 16, 2008 (A) - This morning, Fox News has a story where they attempt to make the Assaad letter relevant to the Amerithrax investigation.  Their reason appears to be totally based upon coincidences - particularly timing and misspelled words.  (For my detailed, March 3, 2002, analyis of the timing of the Assaad letter, click HERE.)  But, for the first time we are able to see the actual Assaad letter and exactly what it said.  It's aways good to get new facts, even when they are accompanied by some very bizarre interpretations. This one is particularly bizarre:

The similarities between the typed Quantico letter and handwritten anthrax letters are also striking beyond the obvious connection to Ft. Detrick.

Both warn of biological attacks in fall of 2001. Both express hatred for Israel. Both begin with the word "This," which investigators say is a highly unusual stylistic quality.

This above all else: to thine own self be true

September 15, 2008 (A) - While it's been around a long time, today I spent an hour or so browsing through the web site dedicated to the TIME LINE for the anthrax attacks of 2001 maintained at www.historycommon.org.  It's been updated with a lot of material about Dr. Bruce Ivins and where he fits into the time line.  Like any written history of any event, the historian will occasionally mention some event which might seem to be irrelevant, while leaving out another which might seem to be relatively important.   It will mention a claim, but not the resolution of the claim.   However, it will still be well worth your time to check out.  I've added the link at the top of my references section. 

September 14, 2008 - Today's New York Post has an editorial titled "GET ’THRAX FACTS" calling for a Congressional investigation of the Amerithrax investigation.  And, of course, the Post cannot see any fault by the media anywhere:

Hovering over all this, of course, is the recent FBI history of misidentifying individuals in high-profile cases.

Indeed, another scientist in the same laboratory - Stephen Hatfill - was previously identified by the FBI and remained under a cloud for nearly five years.

As I've written many times before, it is stupid to suggest there is any similarity between what happened to Dr. Hatfill and what happened to Bruce Ivins.   However, since the Dr. Steven Hatfill "investigation" was purely political, I have no idea how it will ever be satisfactorily explained - or if it can be satisfactorily explained.  Politics is about gathering supporters, not about finding the truth.

On the other hand, there are many things about the Amerithrax investigation that can and will be thoroughly explained.  The great thing about science is that it is all about understanding and explaining things.

It seems to me that, along with all the scientific publications that are in the works which will describe the scientific details of the Amerithrax investigation, there could also be many other articles in the works that would come from other sources with scientific knowledge about spores - and anthrax spores specifically.

This "coming wave" of information should thoroughly obliterate the screwball nonsense still being spread by the conspiracy theorists about "weaponized" spores. 

The dumbest argument from the conspiracy theorists is that pure spore concentrations (a trillion per gram) are virtually unheard of - or next to impossible to achieve - with ordinary equipment.  Now that scientists who work with pure spores every day don't have to fear that they'll be accused of mass murder if they speak up, we could get a lot of details from these people who routinely work with spores.  There are many articles which have been published for years which describe working with pure spores.

The ridiculous argument that silicon does not naturally accumulate in spores will undoubtedly be more thoroughly examined, since it's now a scientific issue.  I can envision many papers explaining how, why and where the silicon (and other element) amounts in spores differ from batch to batch.  (I find it very amusing that conspiracy theorists ignore a 1964 scientific report about silicon in spores just because it's "old.")

I don't know if anyone is going to write a scientific paper about spores and how they are affected by van der Waals forces, but I surely hope so.  There's definitely a need for someone to use solid facts to counter all the nonsense spread by the conspiracy theorists.  The conspiracy theory that Gary Matsumoto managed to get printed in Science magazine is largely based upon this questionable argument:

Anthrax spores cling to one another if they get too close; sticky chains of proteins and sugar molecules on their surfaces latch onto each other, drawn by van der Waals forces that operate at a distance of a few tens of angstroms.

We already have pictures of spores "weaponized" at Dugway, but we need some scientific papers to explain WHY those milled spores end up coated with silica.  I explain it on my web site, but I hope my explanation doesn't prevent some scientist from formally publishing a detailed scientific explanation using original research.  (The scientists at the CDC and Dugway couldn't agree on why or how it happens.)

I can also envision publication of scientific papers explaining related questions:

Why doesn't silicon accumulate in a spore's exosporium?
How does the silicon get through the mother germ's outer membrane?
What is the exact form of the silicon found in spores? 
How do van der Waals forces differ in various tiny objects?
Exactly how do van der Waals forces work between different objects?
How does fumed silica help keep spores from absorbing moisture?
Exactly how does moisture cause spores to clump?
Does compression also cause spores to clump?  How?
How much force is required to break up different clumps of different tiny objects?

But before that happens, I hope that we'll see AFIP and USAMRIID come forward to respond in some way to the statements made during the roundtable discussion that they couldn't possibly do what they claimed they did.

I'd certainly like to see a video of how a Transmission Electron Microscope can cause a spore to ooze liquid if the spore was previously killed or tested with liquid chemicals.

I'd certainly like to see the Polaroids that Tom Geisbert took of the "goop" that oozed out of the hydrated spores he examined.

I'd like to see illustrations of what AFIP could actually detect with the equipment they used, versus what can be detected if you use equipment better suited to looking for tiny objects of material stuck onto other objects in the one micron range.

The nice thing about science is that many theories can be conclusively proven or disproven.

And there is absolutely NO chance that the conspiracy theorists are going to see their screwball unscientific beliefs about science proven.