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

Archive for January, 2010

* Amerithrax depositions from the Hatfill case … courtesy of DXer

Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 30, 2010

CASE CLOSED is a novel which answers the question … Why did the FBI fail to solve the 2001 anthrax case?

Here’s what readers say about CASE CLOSED …

“CASE CLOSED reads fast and well.”

“It could have happened just the way the author said.”

“Full of intrigue mixed in with almost current events.”

“The real people are just behind the fictional ones.”

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *

******

Amerithrax depositions … courtesy of DXer

******

Amerithrax depositions … Vol 1

testimony of Dwight Adams, John Ashcroft, Timothy Beres, Gary Boyd (SAIC), Tom Carey

Amerithrax depositions … Vol 2

testimony of Edward Cogswell, Barbara Comstock, Mark Corallo, Deborah Daniels, Darrell Darnell, Arthur Eberhart, James Fitzgerald

Amerithrax depositions … Vol 3

testimony of Bradley Garrett, Stephen Guillot, Van Harp, Steven Hatfill

Amerithrax depositions … Vol 4

testimony of Tracy Henke, Roscoe Howard, Michael Isikoff, Daniel Klaidman, Kenneth Kohl

Amerithrax depositions … Vol 5

testimony of Michael Kortan, Nicholas Kristof, Richard Lambert, Allan Lengel

Amerithrax depositions … Vol 6

testimony of Tony Loci, Robert Mueller, Peter Mueller, Virginia Patrick, Channing Phillips, James Reynolds

Amerithrax depositions … Vol 7

testimony of Brian Ross, Robert Roth, Daniel Seikaly

Amerithrax depositions … Vol 8

testimony of Bryan Sierra, James Stewart, Rex Stockham, Vic Walter, Debra Weierman

Amerithrax depositions … Vol 9

newspaper articles

Amerithrax depositions … Vol 10

discovery responses

Amerithrax depositions … Vol 11

miscellaneous exhibits, including but not limited to internal FBI documents

Amerithrax depositions … Vol 12

miscellaneous materials

******

FBI announces - August 8, 2008 - that Dr. Bruce Ivins is the sole perpetrator and the case will soon be closed

LMW COMMENT …

This case, a lawsuit brought by Steven Hatfill to protest the FBI’s designation of him as a “person of interest” in the investigation of the 2001 anthrax attack, resulted in a $5.8 million settlement paid by the government.

A short while later, after Dr. Bruce Ivins had allegedly committed suicide and could no longer defend himself, the FBI announced that Dr. Ivins (and not Hatfill) was the sole perpetrator of the 2001 anthrax attacks.

Some of us find the FBI’s case against Dr. Ivins to be weak and unsubstantiated; eighteen months after announcing that the Amerithrax case would soon be closed, the case is apparently still open.

******

Advertisements

Posted in * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , , | 33 Comments »

* Evidence that the FBI lied to obtain records it had no legal authority to have, and then covered up its illegal activities, does not build confidence that the FBI is telling the truth in its 2001 anthrax investigation.

Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 28, 2010

CASE CLOSED is a novel which answers the question … Why did the FBI fail to solve the 2001 anthrax case?

Here’s what readers say about CASE CLOSED …

“CASE CLOSED is entirely too plausible”
“it’s probably just the tip of the iceberg on what else was covered up.”
“Fiction?? Maybe?? But I don’t think so!!”
“CASE CLOSED is a must read for anyone who wondered what really happened?

******

Evidence that the FBI lied to obtain records

it had no legal authority to have,

and then covered up its illegal activities,

does not build confidence

that the FBI is telling the truth

in its 2001 anthrax investigation

******

thanks to Chris for making me aware of this the article

FBI announces - August 8, 2008 - that Dr. Bruce Ivins is the sole perpetrator and the case will soon be closed

  • The Federal Bureau of Investigation used lies and trickery to illegally obtain thousands of records, then issued after-the-fact approvals in an attempt to cover it up, a Justice Department (Inspector General) investigation released on Wednesday revealed.
  • One of the main problems surrounds the FBI’s unlawful misuse of the already-unconstitutional informal requests known as “exigent letters” to demand information.
  • And they knew it was illegal.
  • According to the DOJ report agents repeatedly and knowingly violated the law by invoking non-existent “terror emergencies” to get access to information they were not authorized to have.
  • “We concluded that the FBI’s acquisition of these records constituted a complete breakdown in the required department procedures for approving the issuance of grand jury subpoenas to obtain reporters’ toll billing records,” said the Inspector General’s report.
  • The FBI acknowledged in a statement released after the Inspector General’s report was made public that “the Bureau did not have in place adequate internal controls to ensure that the appropriate process was used and that appropriate records were kept,” though it insists that it has taken steps to purge illegally obtained records and to prevent similar occurrences in the future.
  • Some members of Congress have already reacted to the report as well. “This was not a matter of technical violations. If one of us did something like this, we’d have to answer for it,” said Senate Judiciary Chairman Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont. “This was authorized at high levels within the FBI and continued for years.”

Josh Meyer writes in the LA Times (1-21-10) …

  • FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III was unaware of the widespread use of the exigent letters until late 2006, when it was uncovered by the inspector general investigation, and he has since taken steps to correct the problem, according to the report and Mueller’s testimony Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
  • Mueller acknowledged that there were “substantial weaknesses, substantial management and performance failures in our internal control structure as it applied to obtaining telephone records.” But he added that better internal controls and changes in policy and training have substantially minimized the possibility of similar errors in the future.
  • “We’ll look at the conduct and assign discipline as warranted,” Mueller said.

read the entire LA Times story at … http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-fbi-phones21-2010jan21,0,1861531.story

******

Read the Inspector General’s report on which these stories are based at … http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/oig/exigent.pdf

LMW COMMENT …

Evidence that the FBI lied to obtain records it had no legal authority to have, and then covered up its illegal activities, does not build confidence that the FBI is telling the truth in its 2001 anthrax investigation. And, since Mueller admits he was aware of these matters in 2006, is it not time to ask if any discipline has been “assigned.”

******

Posted in * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , , , | 6 Comments »

* Our apparent lack of preparedness for a biological attack makes it all the more important that the anthrax attack of 2001 be definitively solved

Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 26, 2010

CASE CLOSED is a novel which answers the question … Why did the FBI fail to solve the 2001 anthrax case?

Here’s what readers say about CASE CLOSED …

“CASE CLOSED is entirely too plausible”
“it’s probably just the tip of the iceberg on what else was covered up.”
“Fiction?? Maybe?? But I don’t think so!!”
“More likely an excellent interpretation of what may have really happened.”
“CASE CLOSED is a must read for anyone who wondered what really happened?


******

Our apparent lack of preparedness

for a biological attack

makes it all the more important

that the anthrax attack of 2001

be definitively solved

******

Joby Warrick writes in the Washington Post  (1-26-10) …

  • More than eight years after the deadly 2001 anthrax attacks, the United States is still unprepared to respond to a majorbiological terror attack, a congressionally appointed commission said Tuesday.
  • The report gave the White House and Congress “F” grades for
    • failing to build a rapid-response capability for dealing with bioterror threats,
    • or providing adequate oversight over security and intelligence agencies.
  • “Each of the last three administrations has been slow to recognize and respond to the biothreat,” said former senator Bob Graham (D-Fla.), who co-chaired the panel along with former senator Jim Talent (R-Mo.).
  • “But we no longer have the luxury of a slow learning curve, when we know al-Qaeda is interested in bioweapons.”
  • The panel gave “A” grades for
    • government programs that secured dangerous viruses and bacteria,
    • and for the Obama administration’s reorganization of the National Security Council to better deal with threats related to weapons of mass destruction.

Read the entire article at … http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/26/AR2010012601265.html?hpid=topnews

LMW COMMENT …

Our apparent lack of preparedness for a biological attack makes it all the more important that the anthrax attack of 2001 be definitively solved. The FBI has clearly not told us enough for us to believe they have solved the case. Either they haven’t solved the case or they are hiding the truth. Which is worse?

Posted in * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , | 9 Comments »

* Epstein (WSJ 1-24-10) … The FBI says Ivins was the sole perpetrator, but it has presented no evidence to support that conclusion … and the largest case in FBI history is still open

Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 25, 2010

CASE CLOSED is a novel which answers the question … Why did the FBI fail to solve the 2001 anthrax case?

The (fictional) DIA team considers the role of the President and Vice-President in the early days of the FBI’s anthrax investigation …

“Then a curious thing happens. A second attack is made against the great country, this time with lethal anthrax powder mailed in envelopes. Is it a coincidence that this occurs within days of the launching of a massive retaliatory attack on Osama? The answer to that question is currently outside the bounds of this fable, although if it was not a coincidence, our tale becomes much, much darker.

“The very best police force in the land is assigned to track down the person or persons who prepared and mailed the lethal anthrax envelopes. But even before any evidence is obtained, the great leader announces the desired result – there may be some possible link to Saddam, he says; I wouldn’t put it past him. The great vice-leader also chimes in, saying that Saddam had henchmen who were trained in the use and deployment of these kinds of substances, so you start to piece it all together.

“I would ask you to note that these instantaneous, unsupported allegations are directed at Saddam; Osama, who sent the planes, is not mentioned.”

******

The FBI says Ivins was the sole perpetrator,

but it has presented no evidence to support that conclusion

… and the largest case in FBI history is still open

******

Edward Jay Epstein writes in the Wall Street Journal (1-24-10) …

  • The investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks ended as far as the public knew on July 29, 2008, with the death of Bruce Ivins.
  • Less than a week after his apparent suicide, the FBI declared Ivins to have been the sole perpetrator of the 2001 Anthrax attacks.
  • The FBI’s six-year investigation was the largest inquest in its history, involving 9,000 interviews, 6,000 subpoenas, and the examination of tens of thousands of photocopiers, typewriters, computers and mailboxes.
    • Yet it failed to find a shred of evidence that identified the anthrax killer—or even a witness to the mailings.
    • Eventually, the FBI zeroed in on Ivins.
    • The FBI turned the pressure up on him, isolating him at work and forcing him to spend what little money he had on lawyers to defend himself.
    • He became increasingly stressed. Then came his suicide (which) provided an opportunity to close the case.

      FBI announces - August 8, 2008 - that Dr. ivins is the sole perpetrator and the case will soon be closed

  • But there was still a vexing problem—silicon.
    • Silicon was used in the 1960s to weaponize anthrax.
    • since weaponization was banned by international treaties, research anthrax no longer contains silicon, and the flask at Fort Detrick contained none.
    • Yet the anthrax grown from it had silicon, according to the U.S. Armed Forces Institute of Pathology.
    • This silicon explained why, when the letters to Sens. Leahy and Daschle were opened, the anthrax vaporized into an aerosol. If so, then somehow silicon was added to the anthrax.
  • But Ivins, no matter how weird he may have been, had neither the set of skills nor the means to attach silicon to anthrax spores.
    • At a minimum, such a process would require highly specialized equipment that did not exist in Ivins’s lab—or, for that matter, anywhere at the Fort Detrick facility.
  • The FBI’s answer was that the anthrax contained only traces of silicon, and those, it theorized, could have been accidently absorbed by the spores from the water and nutrient in which they were grown.
    • No such nutrients were ever found in Ivins’s lab, nor, for that matter, did anyone ever see Ivins attempt to produce any unauthorized anthrax (a process which would have involved him using scores of flasks.)
    • Natural contamination was an elegant theory that ran into problems after Congressman Jerry Nadler pressed FBI Director Robert Mueller in September 2008 to provide the House Judiciary Committee with a missing piece of data: the precise percentage of silicon contained in the anthrax used in the attacks.
  • The answer came seven months later on April 17, 2009.
    • According to the FBI lab, 1.4% of the powder in the Leahy letter was silicon.
    • “This is a shockingly high proportion,” explained Stuart Jacobson, an expert in small particle chemistry. “It is a number one would expect from the deliberate weaponization of anthrax, but not from any conceivable accidental contamination.”
  • in an attempt to back up its theory, the FBI contracted scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Labs in California to conduct experiments in which anthrax is accidently absorbed from a media heavily laced with silicon.
    • When the results were revealed to the National Academy Of Science in September 2009, they effectively blew the FBI’s theory out of the water.
    • The Livermore scientists had tried 56 times to replicate the high silicon content without any success.
    • Even though they added increasingly high amounts of silicon to the media, they never even came close to the 1.4% in the attack anthrax. Most results were an order of magnitude lower, with some as low as .001%.
    • “If there is that much silicon, it had to have been added,” Jeffrey Adamovicz, who supervised Ivins’s work at Fort Detrick, wrote to me last month.
  • If Ivins had neither the equipment or skills to weaponize anthrax with silicon, then some other party with access to the anthrax must have done it.
  • So, even though the public may be under the impression that the anthrax case had been closed in 2008, the FBI investigation is still open—and, unless it can refute the Livermore findings on the silicon, it is back to square one.

Read the entire article at … http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704541004575011421223515284.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

******

LMW COMMENT …

Readers of this CASE CLOSED blog have been aware of everything in Mr. Epstein’s article, and much more, for months.

The FBI’s case has always been unfounded, and the FBI’s insistence that Dr. Ivins was the sole perpetrator does a disservice to our nation.

It’s time for Director Mueller to fess up. Either the FBI doesn’t know who perpetrated the attacks, or they do know and they’re covering up the truth.

Which is worse?

Posted in * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , , , | 46 Comments »

* Dr. Bruce Ivins … email correspondence June 2001

Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 21, 2010

CASE CLOSED is a novel which answers the question … Why did the FBI fail to solve the 2001 anthrax case?

Here’s the (fictional) DIA Director setting up a fresh look at the failed FBI anthrax investigation …

“Those FBI bastards hounded a Defense Department employee until he committed suicide, if it was suicide. After seven years the FBI hasn’t come close to making a case that could convict the lowest grade criminal, let alone an internationally respected scientist. And they think they can say ‘case closed’ and sweep their incompetent investigation under the rug?”

“I’ve already spoken to Secretary Morgan,” General Drysdale continued. “The Secretary agrees that the Defense Department is taking an unwarranted hit from the FBI, and we don’t know why. At my request, the Secretary has authorized us to find out what really happened.

“You’re the team I’ve selected. You’re authorized to go where you need to go, ask what you need to know. You’ll have whatever resources are necessary.

******

excerpts from Dr. Bruce Ivins’

June 2001 emails

courtesy of DXer

******

Dr. Bruce Ivins

Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 5:06 PM
To: ‘Bruce.Ivins@DET.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL
Subject: Spores and Foaming

Bruce,

thought it would be easier if I contacted you directly. With regard to the foaming issue.

When I go back to the original suspension you sent in the 50 ml conical tube and vortex it the same foaming phenomenon occurs. So I do not believe it is a glassware problem or washing problem.

If you will/could go back to one of your 10E10 stocks of the same spore prep. And also make a 10E9 dilution and vortex it to see if you get the same thing.

As described before, it’s like whipped cream on top of the water and will not go back into suspension unless it sits for a day or more. When I enumerate the suspension under the whipped cream it is 0.5-1 log lower than what is expected (i.e. what should be 10E9 is 5 x 10E8 to 1 x 10E8).

In the mean time do you have any ideas on a defoaming agent?

*** REDACTED ***

******

More of Dr. Ivins’ June 2001 emails can be found below.

See more materials like this in these posts and related comments …

* more source materials regarding the FBI’s science in the anthrax investigation

* tracking Dr. Ivins’ RMR-1029 anthrax; more questions for UM and LSU researchers

* USAMRIID RMR records – Dr. Bruce Ivins’ flask 1029 – two documents don’t match

* Dr. Bruce Ivins RMR-1029 inventory records, from 1997 to 2003, pursuant to a FOIA request

* why have Dr. Ivins’ emails concerning his whereabouts when the anthrax letters were mailed in Princeton not been released? who is withholding this information?

******

Here are more of Dr. Ivins’

June 2001 emails

******

From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
To:
Bcc:
Subject: RE: Spores and Foaming
Date: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 7:29:36 AM
When we mix the spores at that concentration, we don’t vortex. I should have said that. I think the
reason that it may foam is that the spore suspension is so pure. In the Vollum 1B spore suspension from
1965 which is about 4 – 5 X 10^10 per ml, and MUCH dirtier, there is no foaming upon vortexing. The
spores you have were twice purified with Hypaque gradient centrifugation. The spores are very
hydrophobic, I believe. I suppose you could try to add a little Tween 80 to the spores to see if that
helps. I’ve heard that in the “OLD DAYS” back in the 50s and 60s here at Detrick, they would soemtimes
add a little Tween 80 to the spores to be aerosolized. We haven’t added any because we didn’t want to introduce another variable into the challenge. If you add something else to the spores being aerosolized,

you may have to be able to demonstrate that the “anti-foam” has no effect on spore LD50, the infection
process, or the specific immune response to the infection. As I said, when we mix the spores at that
concentration, we just rock back and forth or gently swirl. If you want to add something to the spores
before challenge, I think you should first run it by the IPT for their comments.
– Bruce

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 5:06 PM
To: ‘Bruce.Ivins@DET.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL
Subject: Spores and Foaming
Bruce,
thought it would be easier if I contacted you directly. With regard to
the foaming issue. When I go back to the original suspension you sent in
the 50 ml conical tube and vortex it the same foaming phenomenon occurs. So
I do not believe it is a glassware problem or washing problem. If you
will/could go back to one of your 10E10 stocks of the same spore prep. and
also make a 10E9 dilution and vortex it to see if you get the same thing.
As described before, it’s like whipped cream on top of the water and
will not go back into suspension unless it sits for a day or more. When I
enumerate the suspension under the whipped cream it is 0.5-1 log lower than
what is expected (i.e. what should be 10E9 is 5 x 10E8 to 1 x 10E8). In the
mean time do you have any ideas on a defoaming agent?

From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
To:
Bcc:
Subject: RE: Spores and Foaming
Date: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 9:04:29 AM
, these spores are exactly the same spores used for the other rabbits for BioPort. We do get some
foaming, but still get a high dose with 3 X 10^9 per ml. Would it help to use more suspension in your
container? We’ve used these spores for quite awhile with success. As I said, maybe it’s because they
are so clean that they clump. If there were some cell material stuck to the outside, perhaps they would
perform a little more like the old Vollum 1B spore suspension or like some of the less pure Ames spore
suspensions we have used in the past.
– Bruce

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 8:24 AM
To: ‘Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID’
Cc:
Subject: RE: Spores and Foaming
Bruce,
One other question. Is were the spores that you sent to us prepared the
same way as the ones RIID used on the BioPort rabbit studies or the same
spore prep.? Or did you use different AMES spores? Looks like even though
I’m a log low on the AGIs than expected I can still hit the targeted LD50
range and will use These spores and mix by inversion. Thanks for answering
my questions

—–Original Message—–
From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID [mailto:Bruce.Ivins@DET.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL]
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 7:30 AM
To: ‘
Subject: RE: Spores and Foaming
, When we mix the spores at that concentration, we don’t vortex. I should
have said that. I think the reason that it may foam is that the spore
suspension is so pure. In the Vollum 1B spore suspension from 1965 which is
about 4 – 5 X 10^10 per ml, and MUCH dirtier, there is no foaming upon
vortexing. The spores you have were twice purified with Hypaque gradient
centrifugation. The spores are very hydrophobic, I believe. I suppose you
could try to add a little Tween 80 to the spores to see if that helps. I’ve
heard that in the “OLD DAYS” back in the 50s and 60s here at Detrick, they
would soemtimes add a little Tween 80 to the spores to be aerosolized. We
haven’t added any because we didn’t want to introduce another variable into
the challenge. If you add something else to the spores being aerosolized,
you may have to be able to demonstrate that the “anti-foam” has no effect on
spore LD50, the infection process, or the specific immune response to the
infection. As I said, when we mix the spores at that concentration, we just
rock back and forth or gently swirl. If you want to add something to the
spores before challenge, I think you should first run it by the IPT for
their comments.
– Bruce

From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
To:
Bcc:
Subject: RE: Spores and Foaming
Date: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 9:20:04 AM
,
We usually spray at a concentration of 3 X 10^9 per ml. That gives us an aerosol inhaled dose of about
100- 200 LD50s in a 10-minute spray. You can try a test run with some Tween 80 and see if that helps.
I seem to recall they used some concentration between 0.01% and 1%, but I don’t remember exactly,
since it was given to me by word-of-mouth. I still recommend getting the IPT’s opinion. If there’s no
other way to aerosolize than using anti-foam, you may have to do so, but I would hesitate to do it
unless absolutely necessary.
– Bruce

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 8:02 AM
To: ‘Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID’
Subject: RE: Spores and Foaming
True but when I nebulize a 10E9 conc. the foaming happens. Do you not
nebulize that high of a conc.? Also even at lower dilutions my AGI
enumerations are approx. 1 log lower than what I expect. Thus I appears
that even al low conc. they foam out of suspension and I’ll have to add some
type of defoaming agent.

From:
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 9:32 AM
To: ‘
Cc: ‘bruce.ivins@det.amedd.army.mil
Subject: RE: Spores and Foaming
: I believe we are resolving our questions regarding the foaming and
we won’t be vortexing anymore. Bruce has helped us out immensely (see
below). Could you please provide information regarding the anti-foam
formulation that your staff uses – if any – for these high concentration
anthrax aerosols.
Thanks

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 9:22 AM
To:
Subject: FW: Spores and Foaming
—–Original Message—–
From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID [mailto:Bruce.Ivins@DET.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL]
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 9:20 AM
To: ‘
Subject: RE: Spores and Foaming
We usually spray at a concentration of 3 X 10^9 per ml. That gives us an
aerosol inhaled dose of about 100- 200 LD50s in a 10-minute spray. You can
try a test run with some Tween 80 and see if that helps. I seem to recall
they used some concentration between 0.01% and 1%, but I don’t remember
exactly, since it was given to me by word-of-mouth. I still recommend
getting the IPT’s opinion. If there’s no other way to aerosolize than using
anti-foam, you may have to do so, but I would hesitate to do it unless
absolutely necessary.
– Bruce

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 8:02 AM
To: ‘Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID’
Subject: RE: Spores and Foaming
True but when I nebulize a 10E9 conc. the foaming happens. Do you not
nebulize that high of a conc.? Also even at lower dilutions my AGI
enumerations are approx. 1 log lower than what I expect. Thus I appears
that even al low conc. they foam out of suspension and I’ll have to add some
type of defoaming agent.

From:
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 9:57 AM
To: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
Cc:
Subject: RE: Spores and Foaming
We need to look at your spray factor and adjust accordingly – we do NOT want to change anything
from what we do here – I know Bruce is being helpful – BUT——
Can I see the numbers and starting conc. etc.????
Thanks,

From:
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 8:02 AM
To: ‘Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID’
Subject: RE: Spores and Foaming
True but when I nebulize a 10E9 conc. the foaming happens. Do you not
nebulize that high of a conc.? Also even at lower dilutions my AGI
enumerations are approx. 1 log lower than what I expect. Thus I appears
that even al low conc. they foam out of suspension and I’ll have to add some
type of defoaming agent.

From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
To:
Subject: Spores
Date: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 1:49:25 PM
Attachments:
Hi,
I reworded the Statement of Work for the anthrax spores according to what you said. I’ve
enclosed the file here. Please let me know if this looks OK. When it meets your OK, I’ll send it over to
Thanks, and see you in Annapolis!!
– Bruce

From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
To:
Subject: RE: Spray factor data
Date: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 12:54:43 PM
– Does this mean that you and perhaps others (me? ? etc.?)are headed to Battelle to work on
the spore/aersol/foaming/clean or dirty glassware problem? Let us know!
– Bruce

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 12:08 PM
To:
Cc: ‘Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID’
Subject: RE: Spray factor data
Enclosed is a representative sample of what I typically see. Are these
spray factors more in line with what you see or are they still not as
efficient? Some time during the conference can you, myself and
get together to discuss this? Also, thought it might be worth
while if after the conference on Wed. or the IPT on Friday if it might be
possible for me to come to USAMRIID and see if your spores look similar
(they should) and react the same why after making a 10E9 suspension and
vortexing and a 10E9 suspension then nebulizing to see if the foaming
occurs. Assuming you have the time and it is allowable. As you saw from
the spay factor calc. you determined, I can not achieve the targeted aerosol
conc. to reach 100-200 LD50s for the BioPort study.

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 10:23 AM
To: ‘
Subject: RE: Spray factor data
Attached to spread sheet is my recalculated spray factors – the way we
calculate etc.
By my calculations – an aerosol concentration of around 5 X 10(6) cfu/l is
needed for the animals to get around 150 LD50s
Your spray factors are in the low range compared to ours – we usually get
better efficiency
Are you going to repeat this???

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 4:24 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: Spray factor data
Here is the spray factor information that you have been waiting for.
Limited reps. because we had the foaming problem. It looks like I would
have to start with a neb. conc. of approx. 2.9 X10E9 to hit 100-200 LD50s.
Do you usually a larger drop in AGI conc. from the initial neb. 10E9
concentration as compared to the lower dilutions?

From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
To:
Subject: Animal protocol
Date: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 2:22:59 PM
Attachments:
Here is an animal protocol for submission to the LACUC.
Thanks!
– Bruce

From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
To:
Subject: RE: – Stability Indicating Assay sub-team
Date: Thursday, June 07, 2001 8:06:45 AM
Hi,
telephone number and email address are:
I think that you will find him a very competent and knowledgeable individual, with a
great deal of personal experience with respect to fermentation, production of antigen, adsorption onto
Alhydrogel, analysis of antigen product, and desorption from Alhydrogel.
Sincerely,
Bruce Ivins

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 7:52 AM
To: ‘Bruce.Ivins@DET.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL
Subject: – Stability Indicating Assay sub-team
Dear Bruce,
I am wondering if you could provide me with telephone number and his
E:mail address so that I can contact him. I do not have USAMRIID directory
with me.
Regards,

From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
To:
Subject: RE: Suggestions for study
Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 5:21:39 PM
Sure, When would you like the material? How many doses of each? Should I drive it down to
you, or is there someone here that can get it to you?
Regards,
– Bruce

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 11:31 AM
To: ‘Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID’
Subject: RE: Suggestions for study
Dear Bruce,
The monkeys are arriving for the anthrax study. Any chance I can get the
vaccines (both the new and the old) from you to start the immunizations?

—–Original Message—–
From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID [mailto:Bruce.Ivins@DET.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL]
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 3:18 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Suggestions for study
I forgot to add that I wasn’t sure of the final approved groups for
vaccination, and if some of the groups received reduced levels of PA.
– Bruce

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 2:32 PM
To: ‘Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID’
Subject: RE: Suggestions for study
Dear Bruce,
The ACUC has approved our anthrax vaccine study in rhesus macaques. We
should be getting the animals in within a month. We have approval to test
the effect of our CpG ODN on both the old and new vaccines, if you can
provide them for immunization.
Hooray.

—–Original Message—–
From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID [mailto:Bruce.Ivins@DET.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL]
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 7:58 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Suggestions for study
Hi,
I’ll be happy to provide you with the information. The current,
FDA-approved human anthrax vaccine consists of supernatant material,
primarily anthrax protective antigen (in undetermined and varying amounts),
from fermentor cultures of a toxinogenic, non-encapsulated strain of B.
anthracis, V770-NP1-R. Each 0.5-ml dose of the vaccine delivers about 0.725
mg of metallic aluminum (from the aluminum hydroxide adjuvant), protective
antigen in the range of about 0.5 to 20 micrograms, and other material such
as lethal factor, some edema factor (in certain lots but not others) and
other cellular material. The proposed new vaccine will contain less aluminum
(0.5 mg/dose), no lethal factor, no edema factor, and no other B. anthracis
material other than a specified and constant, defined amount of protective
antigen. We are tentatively targeting 50 micrograms as that amount. Use of
the proposed new vaccine in rabbits and rhesus macaques has demonstrated
efficacy against challenge, but has not demonstrated any observable
morbidity, mortality, or local or systemic reactogenicity. (Formal toxicity
studies are scheduled, but have not been conducted yet.) Thus, there is good
evidence of protection, but no evidence of adverse reactions associated with
the product. I should point out that the original vaccine contains
formaldehyde, which may contribute to some of the reactogenicity seen in
humans with the current vaccine. The vaccine you will be testing will not
contain formaldehyde. We have not yet published our findings with respect to
toxicity/reactogenicity of the new vaccine. Unfortunately, the studies
describing efficacy of the new vaccine are in abstract form, but have yet to
be put into a formal publication. I would suggest the following references
are pertinent to the concerns of your ACUC:
1. Comparative efficacy of experimental anthrax vaccine candidates
against inhalation anthrax in rhesus macaques. B. E. Ivins, M. L. M. Pitt,
P. F. Fellows, et al. 1998. Vaccine 16:1141-1148.
2. Comparative efficacy of a recombinant protective antigen vaccine
against inhalation anthrax in guinea pigs, rabbits, and rhesus monkeys. M.
L. M. Pitt, B. Ivins, J. E. Estep, et al. 1996 Abstracts of the Annual
Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology. E-70, p. 278.
3. Comparison of the efficacy of purified protective antigen and
MDPH to protect non-human primates from inhalation anthrax. M. L. M. Pitt,
B. E. Ivins, J. Farchaus and A. M. Friedlander. 1996. Salisbury Medical
Bulletin Special Supplement, # 87, p. 130.
I hope this has been helpful.
– Best regards,
– Bruce
—–Original Message—–

From:
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 3:54 PM
To: ‘Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID’
Subject: RE: Suggestions for study
Dear Bruce,
Hope all is well.
Our protocol was reviewed this morning by the ACUC. They’ve tentatively
approve it, with the caveat that I need to provide more background on the
safety of the vaccine immunogen. Specifically, they want to know about the
PA-based vaccine as well as the original vaccine (which I hope to include as
a positive control). What can you tell me about the safety of these agents?
Can you provide some background on how they are manufactured, how pure they
are, and what other studies have been done that support going into monkeys?
All the best,
—–Original Message—–

From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID [mailto:Bruce.Ivins@DET.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL]
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 7:26 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Suggestions for study
Yes, I can get you both the current vaccine and the new candidate
vaccine. Please email the protocol when it is in final form. Also, please
let me know what you’ll need, when you’ll need it, and how much you’ll need.
Also, We were going to do ELISAs and TNA assays. The mouse passive
protection may be a bit dicey as far as getting conclusive results, since
mice aren’t a very good model for anthrax and specific protection against
anthrax. Good luck on the protocol.
– Bruce

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 1:29 PM
To: ‘Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID’
Subject: RE: Suggestions for study
Dear Bruce,
I submitted the ACUC protocol this morning. Wish us luck. Do you have
access to both the PA vaccine and the old approved vaccine? I’m wondering
whether it would make more sense to study 5 monkeys/group, and immunize
different animals with one or the other type of vaccine +/- CpG ODN. Since
you’re transferring the serum to mice, and can study a large number of mice
per donor monkey, this may allow us to precisely characterize which vaccine
is better, and whether CpG’s work.
What do you think?
—–Original Message—–

From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID [mailto:Bruce.Ivins@DET.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL]
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 1:18 PM
To:
Subject: Suggestions for study
Hi,
I’m including a Word document with suggestions for the CpG/monkey
study. Please feel free to modify it as much as you wish. If you have any
questions, please ask them, either by email or phone.
– Bruce

From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
To:
Subject: RE: Suggestions for study
Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 5:44:16 PM
,
We usually make up the vaccine for use no more than about 2-3 days ahead of schedule,
although we’ve not done the stability studies to see whether we can go longer or not. (My guess is that
we could. I just don’t.) Rather than ship it, I would rather carry it down to you on gel ice in person.
That way, nothing could happen en route with the third-party shipper/handler. I could get it down to
you the first part of next week if needed, or later if desired. I’ll get you extra amounts of each vaccine.
It’s no problem to make the vaccine, and it will only take a couple of hours to drive down, give it to
you, and come back. I’m quite excited about the experiments.
– Bruce

From:
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 5:37 PM
To: ‘Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID’
Subject: RE: Suggestions for study
Dear Bruce,
I believe the protocol calls for a prime/boost, just as planned for use in
humans. We will have 10 animals/arm, and thus need 20 doses each of the new
vaccine and the old vaccine. As I recall, they are already in alum, ready
for administration. We’ll just add our ODN and go. Naturally, we need a
bit extra since there’s some wastage.
In terms of timing, that depends on how stable the vaccine is. I assume its
made up in advance and stored in the fridge? If so, we could accept it
immediately, and start the injections as soon as we can get on the animal
handler’s schedule. If it’s perishable, we’ll have to plan 5the timing and
then let you know. In terms of getting it here, can you ship it on ice?
Seems a shame to make you drive all the way down. If you or a colleague are
coming this way, we’d be happy to wait or a hand delivery.
Let me know, or perhaps we should chat by phone?
—–Original Message—–

From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID [mailto:Bruce.Ivins@DET.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 5:22 PM
To: ‘
Subject: RE: Suggestions for study
Sure, When would you like the material? How many doses of each?
Should I drive it down to you, or is there someone here that can get it to
you?
Regards,
– Bruce

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 11:31 AM
To: ‘Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID’
Subject: RE: Suggestions for study
Dear Bruce,
The monkeys are arriving for the anthrax study. Any chance I can get the
vaccines (both the new and the old) from you to start the immunizations?
—–Original Message—–

From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID [mailto:Bruce.Ivins@DET.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL]
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 3:18 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Suggestions for study
I forgot to add that I wasn’t sure of the final approved groups for
vaccination, and if some of the groups received reduced levels of PA.
– Bruce
—–Original Message—–

From:
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 2:32 PM
To: ‘Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID’
Subject: RE: Suggestions for study
Dear Bruce,
The ACUC has approved our anthrax vaccine study in rhesus macaques. We
should be getting the animals in within a month. We have approval to test
the effect of our CpG ODN on both the old and new vaccines, if you can
provide them for immunization.
Hooray.

From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
To:
Subject: Thanks again!
Date: Thursday, June 14, 2001 6:17:29 AM
I just wanted to tell you once again how much we appreciate all your efforts on the 4th
International Conference on Anthrax. We enjoyed working with you both immensely. The comments that
we heard from many other attendees point to the meeting having been a great success, in large part
due to you. You are both very competent and very personable, and you are a credit to the ASM. Take
care, and many thanks again!
Sincerely,
Bruce Ivins
Research Microbiologist
USAMRIID Bacteriology Division

From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
To: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
Cc:
Subject: RE: Spores and Foaming
Date: Friday, June 15, 2001 12:16:15 PM
,
I am sending you on Monday, 3 15-ml polypropylene tubes of Ames spores, each of which
contains about 10-11 ml of spores at 3.9 X 10^10 per ml. Here are suggestions as to how to handle
them to minimize foaming. This is how we handle them, by the way.
1) To resuspend the spores, don’t shake or vortex the tube. Instead, GENTLY tip the tube back
and forth until the spores are suspended. If spores are in a bottle or flask, then you can GENTLY swirl
to resuspend the spores.
2) We dilute the spores 1:13 (1 ml spores into 12 ml Sterile water for injection) for spraying
rabbits. I would suggest taking spores not from the very top of the tube and adding them to water. To
mix the new suspension (about 1.3 X 10^9 per ml) gently tip or swirl the container.
3) Before spraying, gently tip or swirl the spore suspension before gently pouring into the collison.
If you have any questions, please call me at . If you are still having technical problems
with the spores you should get next Tuesday, please let me know. will come up the following
week (what day is best for you?) If you think my presence would be valuable, let me know, and I’ll also
come. Otherwise, it will just be her. (I don’t mind coming at all – I would just like my presence there to
serve a useful purpose, and not be just a warm body.)
– Bruce

From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
To:
Subject: RE: Spores and Foaming
Date: Friday, June 15, 2001 12:26:09 PM
We shock the dilution that we are going to spray.
– Bruce

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 12:20 PM
To: ‘Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID’
Subject: RE: Spores and Foaming
Thanks,
When you heat shock do you shock the stock or the dilution or both?

From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
To:
Subject: RE: Spores and Foaming
Date: Friday, June 15, 2001 12:28:38 PM
OK,
Again, let and me know about whether or not she, or both of us need to come up the week
after next.
– Bruce

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 12:22 PM
To: ‘Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID’
Subject: RE: Spores and Foaming
Thanks! I’ll let you know what happens next week.
—–Original Message—–
From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID [mailto:Bruce.Ivins@DET.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 12:26 PM
To: ‘
Subject: RE: Spores and Foaming
We shock the dilution that we are going to spray.
– Bruce

From:
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 1:01 PM
To: ‘Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID’
Subject: Spores and counting
Dr. Ivins,
A question on how you enumerate. Our SOPs say a plate should contain from
25-250 spores per plate (we do 5 plates per dilution). Do you have criteria
for rejecting low or high numbers? Say I get a plate that has 12 colonies
and all remaining plates are within the 25-250 range. Do you reject that
plate and average the 4 remaining, use all 5 and average, reject all 5 and
re-enumerate with 5 more etc. I ask this, because it could potentially be a
GLP issue. I apologize if this is any SOP that you have sent but
I have not seen them yet.

From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
To:
Subject: RE: Spores and counting
Date: Friday, June 15, 2001 2:08:24 PM
We don’t have a specific number. When we are counting AGI’s, after plating, we put the samples back
into the cold until the next day. We examine all of the plates. If one group is contaminated or out of
range, we will go back and redilute and replate from the AGI sample. We have had to do that only a
handful of times out of thousands of samples. We usually do AGIs at 3 per set, 10-4 and 10-5 dilutions
(3 plates for each dilution). If you are getting low counts, you might do 10-3 and 10-4 dilutions. If we
get at least 2 of 3 readable plates, we go ahead and count the set and average the counts.
– Bruce

—–Original Message—–
From: ]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 1:56 PM
To: ‘Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID’
Subject: RE: Spores and counting
How many have to be low or high before you reject the whole set?
—–Original Message—–
From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID [mailto:Bruce.Ivins@DET.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 1:20 PM
To: ‘
Subject: RE: Spores and counting
We count 15 – 150 colonies per plate. Because of the large size of the
colonies, it’s next to impossible to accurately count over 150 colonies on a
single plate. I have told many times that 15 – 150 is a more
realistic value than 25 – 250 or 30 to 300. If one plate is over count,
under count, or contaminated, we take note of it and disregard it in the
count and averaging.
– Bruce

From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
To:
Subject: FW: Spores
Date: Monday, June 18, 2001 11:18:57 AM
Attachments:
Hi,
I’m sending this to you again. I just wanted to make sure you received it. When I hear from you
about it, I’ll send it forward here. I think if you send us material about every 2-4 weeks, that would be
good. That will give us the time to purify each batch. Hope you enjoyed Annapolis! I thought there
were some good talks there.
– Bruce

From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
To: ” Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
Cc:
Subject: RE: Spores and counting
Date: Monday, June 18, 2001 1:33:51 PM
,
The spores were sent to this morning by Federal Express. Please let me know when you
get them. Also, keep me posted on your tests with them, so, if we need to, we can plan a trip up there
for next week. Remember, avoid vortexing and vigorously shaking them. If it seems as if the spores I
sent you are clumped a bit at the top, then take the spores you need from about midway down into the
suspension after you resuspend them.
– Bruce

From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
To: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
Cc:
Subject: RE: Spores and counting
Date: Monday, June 18, 2001 1:33:51 PM

The spores were sent to this morning by Federal Express. Please let me know when you
get them. Also, keep me posted on your tests with them, so, if we need to, we can plan a trip up there
for next week. Remember, avoid vortexing and vigorously shaking them. If it seems as if the spores I
sent you are clumped a bit at the top, then take the spores you need from about midway down into the
suspension after you resuspend them.
– Bruce

From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
To:
Subject: FW: Spores and counting
Date: Monday, June 18, 2001 1:39:40 PM
Hi, If Battelle still has trouble with the new spores I sent them this week, I think that there will be
a trip up there next week, with definitely, probably – he wants to see the facilities where
the rPA studies will be done – me maybe, and you if you’d like. I’ll let you know how things go.
– Bruce

From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
To:
Subject: FW: – Stability Indicating Assay sub-team
Date: Monday, June 18, 2001 4:14:22 PM
Could you please include on your list of individuals to receive information about
conference calls, IPT meetings, etc.? Thanks.
– Bruce Ivins
telephone number and email address are:


Posted in * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , , , , | 6 Comments »

* NAS continues to participate in the FBI’s stonewalling efforts to keep the truth about the 2001 anthrax attacks away from public scrutiny

Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 15, 2010

On December 8, 2009, I wrote to NAS spokesperson Willian Kearney as follows …

BILL … It is utterly incredible to me, and very disappointing, that you, and thus the NAS, have simply ignored the questions I have asked regarding the FBI-submitted information. If you have reasons for not releasing information, why not state them? Do you have any intention of ever responding, even if only to tell me that in your judgment my questions are inappropriate? … LEW

This was in followup to questions posed in prior emails …

  • Could you please provide an update on current NAS intentions by answering the following questions …
  • Does NAS still plan to withhold some or all FBI-submitted documents until the end of the study?
  • If so, will NAS provide a list of withheld FBI-submitted documents?
  • If NAS is planning to withhold some or all FBI-submitted documents until the end of the study but release them at that time, what legal authority does NAS cite for doing so?
  • Will NAS provide a list of any FBI-submitted documents which NAS is intending to permanently restrict from access, indicating in each case the specific exemption which is being cited to justify that action?

To date, there has been no response to my December 8 email. NAS has apparently decided to participate in the FBI’s stonewalling efforts to keep the truth about the 2001 anthrax attacks away from public scrutiny, regardless of the laws regarding disclosure of information.

******

CASE CLOSED is a novel which answers the question … Why did the FBI fail to solve the 2001 anthrax case?

Here’s an early discussion by the (fictional) DIA team investigation the FBI anthrax investigation …

“Let’s start with the assumption the Bureau is not dumb,” Sowickey began. “So that can’t be the excuse for the lamebrain way they conducted this supposedly high priority investigation. Nor can it explain the way they failed to establish links between pieces of information they clearly had. Nor why they hinted for years that Farmer was the perp and then gave him $5.8 mil to go away. There was, by the way, even less evidence implicating Dr. Farmer than there was on Dr. Ingram, which is close to nothing. After seven years.”

Click here to …  buy CASE CLOSED by Lew Weinstein

******

Posted in * FBI refusal to testify, * NAS review of FBI science, * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 21 Comments »

* Rudy Giuliani … the FBI has never been able to figure out who did the anthrax attacks

Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 14, 2010

CASE CLOSED is a novel which answers the question … Why did the FBI fail to solve the 2001 anthrax case?

Here’s an early discussion by the (fictional) DIA team investigation the FBI anthrax investigation …

“Let’s start with the assumption the Bureau is not dumb,” Sowickey began. “So that can’t be the excuse for the lamebrain way they conducted this supposedly high priority investigation. Nor can it explain the way they failed to establish links between pieces of information they clearly had. Nor why they hinted for years that Farmer was the perp and then gave him $5.8 mil to go away. There was, by the way, even less evidence implicating Dr. Farmer than there was on Dr. Ingram, which is close to nothing. After seven years.”

Click here to …  buy CASE CLOSED by Lew Weinstein

******

Rudy Giuliani …

the FBI has never been able to figure out

who did the anthrax attacks

******

Wolfe Blitzer, The Situation Room, Jan. 8, 2010 … interviewing form NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani

BLITZER: There — there was at least one terror attack on U.S. Soil that happened after 9/11. I’m referring to the anthrax attacks in New York and in elsewhere. What that a terror attack, do you believe?

GIULIANI: Well, as far as I know, the FBI has never been able to figure out who did it and has never designated it as a terror attack. I mean, I lived through that. I — there was…

BLITZER: But whoever was trying to do it was trying to terrorize a lot of people.

GIULIANI: Yes, but that was not done in the name — as far as we know, that was not done in the name of Islamic terrorism any more than, you know, serial killers who…

BLITZER: Right. It could have been a domestic terror attack, too, and we don’t know, as you correctly point out, who was responsible…

GIULIANI: That’s right. So you’re — so…

BLITZER: …for that anthrax attack.

GIULIANI: …so you can’t — you can’t describe something as a terrorist attack if it hasn’t been investigated and there’s no — no proof. And the best thinking on the part of the FBI is that it wasn’t involved with Islamic terrorism.

But, again, that’s pretty — we’re on pretty shaky grounds there because they’ve never been able to solve that.

BLITZER: And you — you don’t have any inside information on who was responsible?

Who do you believe was responsible — because I know it happened in New York. We remembered what happened…

GIULIANI: Gee, Wolf, it not only happened, there was — there was anthrax found in the office right next to mine. There was attack on city hall as well as on the major networks and Governor Pataki’s office. I mean, I as directly involved in that.

At the time — at the time, I thought it was probably all connected to — to the terrorism that was attacking us. In retrospect, it seems to me, from what I know of it, that it wasn’t. But, again, that’s unresolved and it would be irresponsible to come to a conclusion about it.

Read the entire transcript at … http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1001/08/sitroom.02.html

LMW COMMENT …

Rudy Giuliani was at one time a very capable prosecutor. He knows when there’s a case and when not.

The FBI has not made its case, at least in its public disclosures. Is that because …

there’s more evidence the FBI hasn’t made public?

the FBI has solved the case but are covering up the real perpetrators?

the FBI hasn’t (as Rudy suggests) solved the case?

******

Posted in * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , , , | 24 Comments »

* DXer … observations on the FBI anthrax investigation

Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 12, 2010

CASE CLOSED is a novel which answers the question … Why did the FBI fail to solve the 2001 anthrax case? Here, the (fictional) DIA team considers the role of the President and Vice-President in the early days of the FBI’s anthrax investigation …

“Then a curious thing happens. A second attack is made against the great country, this time with lethal anthrax powder mailed in envelopes.

“The very best police force in the land is assigned to track down the person or persons who prepared and mailed the lethal anthrax envelopes.

“But even before any evidence is obtained, the great leader announces the desired result – there may be some possible link to Saddam, he says; I wouldn’t put it past him. The great vice-leader also chimes in, saying that ‘Saddam had henchmen who were trained in the use and deployment of these kinds of substances, so you start to piece it all together.’

“I would ask you to note that these instantaneous, unsupported allegations are directed at Saddam; Osama, who sent the planes, is not mentioned.”

Click here to …  buy CASE CLOSED by Lew Weinstein

in paperback or kindle

******

DXer … observations on the FBI anthrax investigation

******

these comments are extracted from DXer’s comment to the post … * DXer … Keith Olbermann, who has strongly questioned the FBI’s “Ivins did it all” conclusion about the 2001 anthrax attacks, needs to talk more with his frequent guest Jonathan Turley about Turley’s client Al-Timimi

access

  • it once had been estimated that 1,000 were known to have access.  16 labs.  Perhaps a few more abroad where there no cooperation or where it had been obtained surreptitiously.  That was narrowed, depending on whose estimate you rely on, to 100-300.  At just a few labs rather than 16+.
  • On this central issue of access, the US DOJ committed the most fundamental misdirection imaginable — with no mention at all of Building 1412 where the virulent Ames was often used and appears even to have been stored the first full year when it just sat unused in an unlocked refrigerator.
  • They used the phrase “sole custody” as if it had practical meaning when applied to an unlocked refrigerator or a package left overnight on a desk for shipping — or that was available any time it was used from contamination.

*** see related post … * USAMRIID RMR records – Dr. Bruce Ivins’ flask 1029 – two documents don’t match

genetics

  • In terms of criminal attribution, the genetics … points away from the fellow who was the “go-to” guy for the strain because he would not want to use a weapon with his name on it.

forensic evidence

  • we’ve not heard anything about the failure to associate Dr. Ivins with any copy machine that produced the forensic signature.  Hair, fiber, Tin Signature, Iron Signature, alibi… everything points away from Dr. Ivins, not toward him.

FOIA (Freedom of Information Act)

  • Had there been compliance with FOIA by USAMRIID, EPA and the University of Michigan and Louisiana State University, an Ivins Theory could have been flushed down the toilet many months ago.

*** see related post … * a few of the critical pieces of information the FBI/DOJ are still hiding in apparent violation of FOIA requirements to disclose

Silicon signature

  • When the DOJ gets around to triumphantly explaining that the Silicon Signature was due to a “microencapsulation process,” rather than post-production addition of an additive for the purpose of aiding floatability, will it constitute anything more than admitting to their unproductive obfuscation of the issue by their withholding of the AFIP data?

LMW COMMENT …

It seems clear beyond any shadow of doubt that the “Ivins did it” theory presented by the FBI simply does not hold water. So who really did commit the worst bio-terrorist attack in the history of the U.S.?

  • Does the FBI have more evidence that it is not making public?
  • Has the FBI in fact solved the case but is covering up the real perpetrators?
  • Has the FBI simply failed, after its largest investigation in history, to solve the case?

******

Posted in * FBI refusal to testify, * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , , , | 124 Comments »

* more source materials regarding the FBI’s science in the anthrax investigation

Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 11, 2010

materials sent by DXer …

Colwell – Overview of the Anthrax Science Investigation

Beecher – Forensic Microbiology

Budowle – Microbial Forensics

******

CASE CLOSED is a novel which answers the question … Why did the FBI fail to solve the 2001 anthrax case? Here’s the (fictional) DIA Director giving the charge to his team re-investigating the FBI anthrax investigation …

“Those FBI bastards hounded a Defense Department employee until he committed suicide, if it was suicide. After seven years the FBI hasn’t come close to making a case that could convict the lowest grade criminal, let alone an internationally respected scientist. And they think they can say ‘case closed’ and sweep their incompetent investigation under the rug?”

“I’ve already spoken to Secretary Morgan,” General Drysdale continued. “The Secretary agrees that the Defense Department is taking an unwarranted hit from the FBI, and we don’t know why. At my request, the Secretary has authorized us to find out what really happened.

“You’re the team I’ve selected. You’re authorized to go where you need to go, ask what you need to know. You’ll have whatever resources are necessary.

Click here to buy CASE CLOSED by Lew Weinstein

in paperback or kindle

******


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 8 Comments »

* why have Dr. Ivins’ emails concerning his whereabouts when the anthrax letters were mailed in Princeton not been released? who is withholding this information?

Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 10, 2010

CASE CLOSED is a novel which answers the question … Why did the FBI fail to solve the 2001 anthrax case? Here’s the (fictional) DIA Director giving the charge to his team re-investigating the FBI anthrax investigation …

“Those FBI bastards hounded a Defense Department employee until he committed suicide, if it was suicide. After seven years the FBI hasn’t come close to making a case that could convict the lowest grade criminal, let alone an internationally respected scientist. And they think they can say ‘case closed’ and sweep their incompetent investigation under the rug?”

“I’ve already spoken to Secretary Morgan,” General Drysdale continued. “The Secretary agrees that the Defense Department is taking an unwarranted hit from the FBI, and we don’t know why. At my request, the Secretary has authorized us to find out what really happened.

“You’re the team I’ve selected. You’re authorized to go where you need to go, ask what you need to know. You’ll have whatever resources are necessary.

Click here to buy CASE CLOSED by Lew Weinstein

in paperback or kindle

******

why have Dr. Ivins’ emails

concerning his whereabouts when the anthrax letters

were mailed in Princeton

not been released?

who is withholding this information?

******

DXer’s comment …

Dr. Bruce Ivins

It used to be reasoned that the mailer would be living alone — because otherwise his wife would know.  Dr. Ivins’ wife, in a private note to Dr. Ivins, stated that she knew he had nothing to do with it.  That is a pretty compelling piece of evidence as to her private thoughts.  Especially after the first mailing when the public was sensitive to the matter, the FBI would not have met its burden on the evidence disclosed that Dr. Ivins could have travelled without being observed.

In terms of what has NOT yet been disclosed, there likely are contemporaneous emails from those days that both would establish his location at some particular times and would refer to how he was spending his time generally.

It thus is worth noting that the most probative evidence, such as contemporaneous emails from the dates they allege processing and mailing and Lab Notebook 4010, are being withheld.

Instead the affidavit in support of probable cause for a search referred only to his inability to justify his time in a 2005 interview (or at least that is their characterization). At the same time there was a FOIA for exit/entry times, there was a FOIA for emails.

Why are they withholding the emails? They were processed many months ago but are being withheld.  The FBI’s unsupported factual assertion of travel therefore is in the context of a refusal to provide the documents that might corroborate or contradict their assertion.  If someone cannot back up their claims and refuses to provide documentary support, a logical inference is that the evidence does not support the claim.

Anonymous Scientist’s comment …

I think this is a very good observation. If Ivins sent time-stamped emails on the days he supposedly drove to Princeton to mail the letters this immediately destroys the FBI’s theory. There would have to be at least 12 hour windows of zero emails sent in a distinct pattern. There would also have to be 12 hour windows of zero cell phone usage, zero credit card usage etc.

I think it’s obvious they DON’T have this – and they know fully well that releasing emails will immediately have internet bloggers all over the emails analyzing them for gaping holes in the FBI’s theory.

Michael Green (see below) also pointed out that the FBI failed completely to adequately describe how Ivins made the powder and Green similarly concluded that the reason the never explained it is simple – they couldn’t.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/FBIFrameupOfIvins.html

It is important not to distract ourselves with the task of resolving exactly what attributes the Senate anthrax spores had — attributes that the FBI and DOJ have deliberately kept secret and muddled through confusing and contradictory press leaks and releases. It is wiser to rely on the obvious inference that if the FBI had a simple, straightforward, true and compelling story to tell about how Ivins could have made such a deadly powder in a few brief spates at night, they would have told it.

They did not tell it because they did not have it.

******

Posted in * FBI refusal to testify, * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , , | 27 Comments »