CASE CLOSED … what really happened in the 2001 anthrax attacks?

* details of the proposed NAS-FBI $880,000 study are (so far) difficult to come by

Posted by DXer on June 19, 2009

Lew’s new novel CASE CLOSEDCC - front cover - small

explores the FBI’s failed investigation of the 2001 anthrax case …

* see CASE CLOSED VIDEO on YouTube

* purchase CASE CLOSED (paperback)

* details are (so far) difficult to come by …

NAS Publications

publications of the National Academy of Sciences

In May 2009, it was announced that the National Academy of Sciences would review the FBI’s anthrax inquiry. (see the stated objectives of the study below)

There is considerable difference of opinion as to what the NAS will actually review and what light it may shed on the FBI’s assertion that Dr. Bruce Ivins is the sole perpetrator of the 2001 anthrax attacks.

There is no information on the NAS website regarding the NAS-FBI $880,000 study …

  • Despite the NAS statement on its own web site … … that it provides “descriptions of project scope…” there is not a word on the NAS web site regarding the NAS-FBI $880,000 study, not even an announcement that it has been commissioned.
  • NAS says “We have established a Public Access Records Office to provide access to project materials available to the public.” As of this writing, no project materials regarding the NAS-FBI study are available to the public.

Thus disappointed in my search for information regarding the NAS-FBI $880,000 project, I sent an email (6-19-09) to the NAS News Office (, asking 11 questions, as follows:


It has been announced that NAS will be paid $880,000 to review the FBI’s science used in its investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks. Yet a search of the NAS web sites, including the site for current news, yields not a word about this study.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I am an author, having written a novel CASE CLOSED about what I regard as the FBI’s failed anthrax investigation. I also maintain a blog site which has become a host for intense discussion of the anthrax attacks and the FBI’s investigation …

Here are my questions …

  1. May I have a copy of the contract between the NAS and the FBI for the proposed anthrax related study?
  2. Who is heading the study for NAS and who else will be working on it?
  3. How will the study team coordinate with the FBI during the course of the study?
  4. Who has been designated by the FBI to coordinate and monitor the study from their end?
  5. What role will the FBI  play in directing the study?
  6. Will the FBI have any opportunity to censor or otherwise limit the course of the study or the results reported to the public?
  7. Has the study begun and if not, when will it begin?
  8. When is the study expected to be completed?
  9. Will the complete report of the study be made available to the public? If not, how was the decision to withhold the report made and by whom?
  10. Will there be progress reports available to the public as the study goes on? Will the study team be made available for questions and interviews?
  11. Why is the project not listed in the Current Projects System (CPS) intended to provide information about current committee activities?

NOTE: If it is not possible at this time to answer all of the questions listed above, please answer whichever of the questions can be answered at this time.


Media Reports (which are all we have so far) state that the NAS-FBI $880,000 study will not address the FBI’s conclusions regarding Dr. Ivins …

Science agency to review FBI’s anthrax inquiry … May 9th, 2009 By DAVID DISHNEAU , Associated Press Writer … The National Academy of Sciences said Friday it will review the lab work behind the FBI’s conclusion that Army scientist Bruce Ivins was responsible for the anthrax mailings that killed five people in 2001. The review, which was requested by the FBI, won’t assess the evidentiary value of the bureau’s detective work or the FBI’s conclusion that Ivins acted alone, the academy said.

F.B.I. to Pay for Anthrax Inquiry Review … By SCOTT SHANE … New York Times … May 7, 2009 The Federal Bureau of Investigation has agreed to pay $879,550 to the National Academy of Sciences for a 15-month review of its scientific work on the anthrax investigation, academy officials said, but the review will not assess the bureau’s detective work or its conclusion that an Army microbiologist, Bruce E. Ivins, sent the deadly letters in 2001

stated objectives of the NAS-FBI study …

the areas of scientific evidence to be studied include but may not be limited to:

  1. genetic studies that led to the identification of potential sources of B. anthracis recovered from the letters;
  2. analysis of four genetic mutations that were found in evidence and that are unique to a subset of Ames strain cultures collected during the investigation;
  3. chemical and dating studies that examined how, where, and when the spores may have been grown and what, if any, additional treatments they were subjected to;
  4. studies of the recovery of spores and bacterial DNA from samples collected and tested during the investigation;
  5. the role that cross contamination might have played in the evidence picture.

The committee will not, however, undertake an assessment of the probative value of the scientific evidence in any specific component of the investigation, prosecution, or civil litigation and will offer no view on the guilt or innocence of any person(s) in connection with the 2001 B. anthracis mailings, or any other B. anthracis incidents.

related post …

* Who will lift the veil of secrecy regarding the FBI investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks?

5 Responses to “* details of the proposed NAS-FBI $880,000 study are (so far) difficult to come by”

  1. Barry Kissin said


    FBI recently agreed to pay $880,000 to the National Academy of Sciences for a review of the science used in the FBI’s investigation of the anthrax letters case (“Amerithrax”). According to the FBI, it took years and millions of dollars to develop and apply the science that incriminated Bruce Ivins. It will take another 15 months or more for the NAS to complete its study.

    Though the NAS has announced that this study will not evaluate the quality of the case against Ivins, most mainstream observers assume that if the NAS finds the FBI science to be valid, this would “go a long way” toward confirming the guilt of Ivins. This is due to the fact that the FBI has done its best to pretend that it is the science in Amerithrax that largely establishes Ivins’ guilt. Once one grasps a few basic facts, it becomes apparent that this reliance upon science is not only mistaken but fraudulent.

    Fact 1: Almost all of the FBI’s science relates to matching the genetic fingerprint of the anthrax in Ivins’ custody (called “RMR-1029”) to the genetic fingerprint of the anthrax in the letters (the “attack anthrax”).

    Fact 2: From 1997, when RMR-1029 was created, to September 2001, when the first anthrax letters were mailed, literally hundreds of scientists, technicians and others have had access to anthrax with the same genetic fingerprint as that of RMR-1029.

    Fact 3: The anthrax in Ivins’ custody was in the form of a wet slurry, the form that is suitable for testing vaccine efficacy. The attack anthrax, on the other hand (particularly the anthrax in the letters addressed to Sens. Daschle and Leahy), was in an extremely pure form of “weaponized” dried powder, the form that is suitable to causing death (by inhalational anthrax).

    The Department of Justice — FBI deals with Fact 2 by pretending that it “thoroughly” investigated “every … person who could have had access” to RMR-1029 and that all but Ivins were properly ruled out as potential suspects. Though the DoJ-FBI has been repeatedly questioned about this, it has consistently refused to this day to give any information whatsoever about how all of the persons with access were identified, who they are, and how each one of them was ruled out as a potential suspect.

    The DoJ-FBI deals with Fact 3 by blatantly contradicting all of the initial reports (including its own descriptions) about the form of the attack anthrax. In 2001, a couple of days after the two postal workers died from inhalational anthrax, FBI Director Robert Mueller himself acknowledged that the attack anthrax was weaponized. But Ivins had neither the expertise, nor the equipment, nor the opportunity to produce weaponized anthrax from the wet slurry in his custody. And so the DoJ-FBI now resorts to pretending that there was no special process that went into the production of the attack anthrax.

    NAS review of the science underlying Amerithrax will keep all of the focus and attention upon the above Fact 1, and serves to obscure and distract from Facts 2 and 3.

    Let us not be distracted. It is established and acknowledged that for several years leading into 2001, anthrax weaponization projects were being conducted by the Army at Dugway in Utah as well as by the CIA in Ohio, all in laboratories contracted to be operated by the privately owned company named Battelle Memorial Institute. It is also known that Ivins was under order to send RMR-1029 to both of these locations leading up to the mailing of the anthrax letters.

    Let us also not avoid the implications posed by the DoJ-FBI’s fraud in persecuting Bruce Ivins. This is a deception procured by very powerful forces inside our U.S.A. President/Gen. Eisenhower’s warning about our military-industrial-intelligence complex must be heeded.

  2. DXer said

    In an email described by FoxNews, Bruce Ivins identified someone who he understood had made powdered anthrax closest to the attack anthrax. (Ms. Herridge held up an unredacted copy briefly at 1:25 of the video). FoxNews spoke to the scientist and he confirmed that he had made powdered anthrax but noted that it was using an inactive and not deadly form of anthrax. So the first question to be posed to that scientist (he is widely known and well-regarded, is a nice guy, and has taken calls from reporters since Ivins’ death on the general subject) is:

    What equipment did you use? What were the performance characteristics? Was there a source that would have resulted in the Silicon Signature? Where did you make it? Where were the aerosol experiments done that used it? Edgewood/APG? Did you use Ames in a suspension of soil?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: