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

* Amerithrax experts insist FBI has failed to prove beyond many reasonable doubts that Dr. Bruce Ivins was even involved in the anthrax mailings, let alone the sole perpetrator … is there more evidence against Ivins that the FBI has not released? has the FBI actually failed to solve the case? or does the FBI know who really did it (not Ivins) but does not want to reveal the true perpetrators?

Posted by DXer on December 7, 2010

Dr. John Ezzell, Lew Weinstein, Ross Getman, Dr. Meryl Nass, Paul Kemp, Dr. James Van de Velde at the Anthrax Mailings Investigation seminar ... UC Washington Center Nov 29, 2010



Thanks to Cliff Kincaid ( for recording the videos

“Case Closed” Author Lew Weinstein Discusses FBI Anthrax Cover-up and Possible Al-Qaeda … Involvement

Attorney Paul Kemp says FBI falsely blamed Bruce Ivins for anthrax attacks (1 of 3) …   

Attorney Paul Kemp says FBI falsely blamed Bruce Ivins for anthrax attacks (2 of 3). …

Attorney Paul Kemp says FBI falsely blamed Bruce Ivins for anthrax attacks (3 of 3) …

UCLA’s Michael Intriligator Says FBI either incompetent or corrupt in anthrax investigation…

Megan Eckstein writes in the Frederick News Post (11/30/10) …

WASHINGTON — The FBI may have closed its Amerithax case against Fort Detrick scientist Bruce Ivins nine months ago, but some experts are not willing to let the issue die quite so easily.

A group of about 25 scientists, professors, writers, terrorism experts and more convened Monday afternoon to discuss the particulars of the investigation and to debate who the real perpetrator may have been.

Lewis Weinstein, who has written extensively about the anthrax attacks in 2001 that killed five and sickened 17 others, introduced the first panel of speakers by saying “none of us on this panel believe the FBI proved its case against Dr. Bruce Ivins.”

Though each speaker came from a different perspective and had different opinions on the real killer, Weinstein said they wanted to address the group Monday “to continue to keep this case alive so someday Americans can know who committed this bioterrorism attack.”

The first panelist to speak was Paul Kemp, Ivins’ attorney since 2007, whose nearly 25 minute presentation could have been the opening argument to the trial that never took place — Kemp’s client committed suicide in July 2008 as the FBI investigation was closing in on Ivins.

“There is no evidence that Dr. Ivins ever made the dried anthrax” used in the attacks, Kemp said. “There were no spores found in his house, in his car, at his desk, any place that it shouldn’t have been.”

Because the attack anthrax was never found on Ivins’ property and because his DNA was never found on the attack letters, critics of the FBI investigation said the final report released in February is nothing more than a laundry list of circumstantial evidence strung together to make Ivins appear mentally unstable and, therefore, guilty.

Kemp argued back with his own list of reasons why Ivins did not appear guilty. Ivins talked openly in front of a grand jury twice in 2007 without legal representation, implying he did not think he had anything to hide. Ivins always insisted Steven Hatfill, who was originally considered a “person of interest” and later cleared of any involvement in the attacks, was innocent, whereas a guilty person would have taken advantage of having a scapegoat. And the FBI found nothing suggesting Ivins’ guilt on his home computer, which investigators admitted had not been tampered with in any way.

Meryl Nass, a doctor who has also written extensively about the Amerithrax investigation, followed by listing and discounting each of the FBI’s means, motive and opportunity for Ivins to have committed the crime.

“We don’t know if he had access to the equipment and the knowledge because we don’t know what knowledge and equipment were required,” she said of the FBI’s inability to pinpoint how the anthrax was prepared. “”Did he have a motive? The FBI comes up with several purported motives, but none of them make sense. É Did Bruce have the opportunity to commit the crime? The scenario the FBI initially floated about how he might have driven to New Jersey to mail the letters was shot down and they never came up with a better story.”

James Van de Velde, a consultant on terrorism issues, added that Ivins, as a prominent anthrax researcher, would not have been dumb enough to use anthrax from his own beaker in an attack.

And Ross Getman, a lawyer and author on the subject, said the FBI changed its timeline of when the letters would have had to be mailed to fit Ivins’ calendar, which has not been released. Getman asserted that Ivins had group therapy sessions scheduled for the two days the FBI originally thought the letters were mailed.

In an interesting turn of events, John Ezzell, who was mentioned several times during the first panel discussion, was sitting in the audience. Ezzell was an anthrax researcher at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases with Ivins. He personally handled the anthrax letters in 2001 when the FBI asked USAMRIID to help identify the powder inside.

Because of his involvement in the investigation, Ezzell had been under a gag order until he recently retired from USAMRIID. In what he said was his first time speaking out about the issue, Ezzell stood up toward the end of the panel’s presentation to address a question. When those in the room realized a true expert was among them, audience members and panelists tossed question after question his way.

“I think it is very valuable for you to have come forward,” said Kemp, Ivins’ lawyer. “This kind of open, forthcoming information É this is the kind of thing that should have been going on since August of 2008 at the very least.”

“Dr. Ezzell, obviously you’ve retired now, so now you can speak out, and now you can provide this kind of information, and that’s all I’ve ever wanted on behalf of Dr. Ivins,” Kemp said.

Despite some strong opinions from the panelists and audience members, the seminar itself never drew any conclusions as to Ivins’ guilt or who the real attacker could have been. When Van de Velde asked Ezzell if he thought Ivins could have done it, Ezzell responded with a hesitant “possibly yes.”



The FBI’s case against Dr. Ivins is clearly bogus: no evidence, no witnesses, an impossible timeline, science that proves innocence instead of guilt. So what really happened? And why doesn’t the FBI offer America a credible story?

I can imagine only 3 possible “actual” scenarios …

  1. The FBI has more evidence against Dr. Ivins but is, for some undisclosed reason, withholding that evidence … POSSIBLE BUT NOT SO LIKELY
  2. The FBI, despite the most expensive and extensive investigation in its history, has not solved the case and has no idea who prepared and mailed the anthrax letters that killed 5 Americans in 2001 … EVEN LESS LIKELY
  3. The FBI knows who did it (not Dr. Ivins) but is covering up the actual perpetrators, for undisclosed reasons … THE MOST LIKELY SCENARIO

The “fictional” scenario in my novel CASE CLOSED has been judged by many readers, including a highly respected official in the U.S. Intelligence Community, as perhaps more plausible than the FBI’s unproven assertions regarding Dr. Ivins.

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *


69 Responses to “* Amerithrax experts insist FBI has failed to prove beyond many reasonable doubts that Dr. Bruce Ivins was even involved in the anthrax mailings, let alone the sole perpetrator … is there more evidence against Ivins that the FBI has not released? has the FBI actually failed to solve the case? or does the FBI know who really did it (not Ivins) but does not want to reveal the true perpetrators?”

  1. DXer said

    Probe found ex-FBI leader in Albany sexually harassed 8 employees
    Bureau fails to publicly identify subject of investigation
    Brendan J. Lyons
    Sep. 8, 2020Updated: Sep. 8, 2020 6:42 p.m.

    He was appointed head of the Albany field office in July 2018, after serving as a section chief for a Weapons of Mass Destruction unit at FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C.

  2. DXer said

    In listing the A-Z directory of commentators, I inadvertently omitted a “V.”


    James Van de Velde, a consultant on terrorism issues, added that Ivins, as a prominent anthrax researcher, would not have been dumb enough to use anthrax from his own beaker in an attack. As I recall,James used to teach a seminar at some place like Yale on intelligence analysis. He has had very responsible positions relating to Al Qaeda’s anthrax program. At this conference moderated by Lew, for which his participation was authorized by his employer, he explained the elite compartmentalization that characterized AQ’s bio as opposed to chem.

    James has explained that in briefing someone like the President it was important to be able to distill the analysis into 2 pages. That was his final exam in his course. It would take someone like him at DIA or CIA or FBI to explain to FBI Director Comey or President Obama why Amerithrax needs to be reopened.

    I have tried to simplify things by focusing on the rabbit issue — which without more demolishes the Ivins Theory. I think that works as a legal approach — establish the alibi that Dr. ivins couldn’t be persuasive on because of the documents withheld from him by the FBI. But it would take a professional intelligence analyst like James to distill an overview.

    A federal undercover helped with the raw material in the form of graphics for public consumption. But it will take someone of James’ professional training to make a 2-pager. I never got below 4 pages and so would have flunked James’ course.

  3. DXer said

    The Amerithrax Summary states:

    “Because of this inconsistency, and knowing that Dr. Ivins also prepared a submission to the FBIR on February 27, 2002, WHICH WAS DESTROYED BY DR. EZZELL’S LAB, investigators contacted Dr. Keim and learned that he still maintained the duplicate slants of Dr. Ivins’s initial submission. In late 2006, the FBI obtained from Dr. Keim the duplicate slants from Dr. Ivins’s submission of February 27, 2002. Based on the handwriting on the labels from the slants, it was clear that Dr. Ivins and his lab technician each prepared two labels.”

    The Summary explains:
    ” In accordance with the protocol, duplicate submissions of each culture were prepared, resulting in a total of eight slants. The labels Dr. Ivins prepared were consistent with the instructions of the protocol, and included notations indicating that the sample was the Ames strain, and was prepared by Dr. Ivins on that date. All eight slants were given to Dr. Ezzell’s lab at USAMRIID, and the four duplicates were forwarded from there to Dr. Paul Keim at Northern Arizona University.

    On or before March 28, 2002 – the date the FBIR was officially up and running and had received its first sample, FBIR001 – Dr. Ezzell’s lab technician advised Dr. Ivins and his lab technician that their submissions were not prepared according to the protocol. Specifically, Dr. Ivins and his lab technician used homemade slants as opposed to the commercially available Remel slants specified by the protocol, so the four slants prepared on February 27, 2002 were rejected by the FBIR, and Dr. Ivins was told to resubmit his culture samples on the appropriate slants.”

    “On April 10, 2002, Dr. Ivins again prepared submissions of four different Ames cultures to the FBIR, this time using the appropriate slants. However, this time, he put his name on only one of the labels and omitted other relevant information. As before, eight total slants were prepared and given to Dr. Ezzell’s lab, who then forwarded the four duplicates to Dr. Keim for strain typing. This time, all four slants were accepted by the FBIR.”

    Page 77 of FBI pdf file #847551 says Ivins claimed later that he couldn’t even remember the FBI discussions:

    “IVINS prepared some of the labels for his lab’s submissions to the repository, but he does not know who actually prepared any of the slants. The preparation of the labels is only one step in the process of the submission, and it is no uncommon for one person to prepare the labels while another prepares the actual slant. IVINS was very upset that his lab’s first submission was rejected because the wrong slants were used. They were instructed to use Remel slants or the equivalent, and IVINS was indignant when told his homemade slants were not an equivalent. He can point to all of the studies which clearly demonstrate his homemade slants meet the same requirement as Remel slants.”




    • DXer said

      The August 18 science briefing was a crock because of what they did not disclose. None of those scientists disclosed that the person who threw it out was the one who had used the same anthrax to make a dried powdered Ames aerosol. That constituted a disqualifying taint on the evidence that rendered the FBI’s Ivins theory — about 50% of the science briefing was on this precise issue — worthless. JE’s characterizations about what was in Ivins’ head are contradicted by the May 24, 2002 email in which he transmitted the protocols, after repeatedly being urged by Ivins’ lab to do so.


      Monday, August 18, 2008

      Federal Bureau of Investigations
      J. Edgar Hoover Building
      William H. Webster Conference Room
      935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
      Washington, D.C. 20535-0001

      BACKGROUND OFFICIAL: Thanks, everybody, for coming today. ***
      Leading today’s discussion is Dr. Vahid Majidi and Dr. Chris Hassell of the FBI. Dr. Majidi is our Assistant Director for the Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate. He comes to us from the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Dr. Hassell is even newer to us. He heads the FBI laboratory. He came from Oklahoma State University as well as Los Alamos. And our format today will be Dr. Majidi will open the program, give a brief overview; Dr. Hassell will introduce the other panel members.

      DR. MAJIDI: Thank you. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I am Vahid Majidi, the assistant director responsible for the FBI’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate. I would like to start today’s session with a brief opening statement and define the scope of our roundtable discussion.

      After nearly seven years of investigation, we have developed a body of powerful evidence that allows us to conclude that we have identified the origin and the perpetrator of the 2001 Bacillus Anthracis mailing. The attribution process and identification of the specific perpetrator relies on the confluence of intelligence, investigations, and forensic information.


      Please note that there were many dedicated individuals including prosecutors, scientists, investigators, analysts, and support personnel that have worked on this case. For the purpose of this meeting, the science and technology community within the Bureau has a lead, and if individuals from the sidelines are asked to provide additional background to any of your questions, please make sure to attribute all answers to the FBI Laboratory Director, Dr. Hassell. You can also use “FBI scientist” as a notation as well.



      QUESTION: So early on Dr. Ivins provided a sample to you guys that was somehow tainted or different or unusable. Can you explain what was wrong with that particular sample?

      DR. MAJIDI: Sure. We have a series of — let me start this way. We spoke with many people and scientists at RID as we were trying to start working on this case. Clearly, did –the world experts who were in RID as well as a few other places. So we asked for their advice on some of these issues. Initially, as we were going through the process of developing a plan to subpoena the sample, we received two — we received a sample from Dr. Ivins. And as we were working on our subpoena everybody then submitted sample based on a subpoena. Subpoena specifically listed a very rigorous methodology of how we expected a sample to be collected. The first sample that Dr. Ivins provided to us prior to the subpoena did not meet the requirements of the subpoena for submission.

      QUESTION: In 2002.

      DR. MAJIDI: That’s right.

      QUESTION: In what way did they not match?

      DR. MAJIDI: They didn’t follow the protocol that we had on the subpoena for sample submission.

      QUESTION: But that was prior to the subpoena?

      QUESTION: He was doing it of his own initiative?

      DR. MAJIDI: That’s exactly — that’s right. So that is the very first sample that we have from Dr. Ivins. He submitted the samples ad hoc, and it was — because the subpoena came after his submission, his submissions didn’t meet our requirements for the sample. So that sample to the FBI repository was destroyed because it didn’t meet our requirements.

      QUESTION: In what way didn’t it meet it?

      DR. MAJIDI: Well, it didn’t follow the protocol.

      QUESTION: What protocol?

      BACKGROUND OFFICIAL: He didn’t comply with the subpoena in terms of the instructions — the very specific instructions that were in the subpoena. He didn’t use the proper medium and, with slants, there was no guarantee that he prepared it in the way that the instructions directed.

      QUESTION: I thought you just said that the first sample was given before there was a subpoena.


      QUESTION: So how could he have not followed the procedures if —

      DR. MAJIDI: Well, that’s the thing. So, he ad hoc submitted a sample —

      QUESTION: So it’s not true that he didn’t follow procedures.

      DR. MAJIDI: Well —

      BACKGROUND OFFICIAL: He didn’t know the procedures. He was provided information as to what was going to be in the subpoena —

      DR. MAJIDI: Right.

      COMMENT: The May 24, 2002 from Ivins’ assistant to Dr. Ezzell. His lab was still urging in May 2002 for a copy of the protocol and the preprepared slants that they wanted used. JE sent the instructions to Dr. Ivins by email May 24 and he forwarded them to his assistant.

      BACKGROUND OFFICIAL: And he submitted those samples before the subpoena came out. But he knew what the protocol was.

      COMMENT: Who is this “BACKGROUND OFFICIAL”. Is it JE? Because the documentary evidence shows his lab asking for and obtaining the protocol ON MAY 24, 2002.

      DR. MAJIDI: Yes.

      QUESTION: Can you make that clear on the record, please?

      DR. MAJIDI: Yes. Yes.

      QUESTION: It’s important.

      DR. MAJIDI: Yes.

      QUESTION: So he did know what the protocols were and did not follow them?

      DR. MAJIDI: Yes. That’s true.


      QUESTION: Was he the only person submitted before the subpoena was sent out?

      BACKGROUND OFFICIAL: Yes. He was the only one.

      QUESTION: Did you say “yes”?

      BACKGROUND OFFICIAL: He was the only person who submitted before the subpoena.

      QUESTION: Okay. And what about the second submission on the subpoena? Did he follow the protocols on that?

      DR. MAJIDI: So we basically got a sample from RID that not only contained RMR-1029, but was not submitted based on the required submission protocols in the subpoena. Now, at the same time, while the subpoena had not been issued, Dr. Ivins was aware of the protocol in the subpoena.

      QUESTION: How was he aware of it?

      DR. MAJIDI: We had discussed with him as to what the protocol was going to be.

      QUESTION: Did he help you develop the protocol?

      DR. MAJIDI: Yes.

      QUESTION: Thank you.

      QUESTION: So what did he specifically do about the mediums and format —
      What does that mean? What did he do not to follow the protocol?

      DR. MAJIDI: Well, again, it wasn’t the right medium and it wasn’t the right type of slant that he submitted the samples.

      QUESTION: Is this something that could’ve been accidental or do you think that he intentionally did not follow the protocol?

      DR. MAJIDI: Well, again, this is not the — this is not the court of law. I’m just here to discuss with you the facts of the case as it relates to science and technology. So I won’t speculate on why, I’m just telling you what.

      QUESTION: What would that do to the court of law? You know, as you guys were doing this, you’re obviously doing it to prepare a criminal case. It’s not science for the sake of science. So how are you protecting these samples? How are you maintaining the chain of custody?

      DR. MAJIDI: So that’s another issue. The first sample we received didn’t really meet our requirements for the chains of custody issue, either.

      QUESTION: So what happened? Well, continue the narrative. So, it’s the first sample, second sample; can you take us through that?

      QUESTION: I’m just wondering if because of the medium issues, that would have made it difficult to identify. Wouldn’t — you know, because it was not using the right medium —

      BACKGROUND OFFICIAL: Well, you know, let me just say from the scientific point of view, if you don’t follow the procedure, the result is ambiguous.

      DR. MAJIDI: So after the first sample, Dr. Ivins received the subpoena —

      QUESTION: When?

      DR. MAJIDI: April 2002?

      BACKGROUND OFFICIAL: Just to clarify the timeline, the first subpoena was dated February 22, 2002. Dr. Ivins submitted his first samples February 27th of 2002. We have reason to believe, based on conversations with other scientists — other FBI scientists — that he actually submitted them in response to the subpoena, based on notations of the conversation that he had, that a scientist had with Dr. Ivins, that he actually did comply. You know, he had the subpoena in hand and he submitted the first samples. They were rejected because they were submitted on the wrong type of slant. He was told to resubmit them in April of 2002. That he did, according to the protocol on the appropriate commercially available slant, though that second sample lacked all four genetic mutations.

      QUESTION: Thank you. Can you identify yourself?

      COMMENT: What is the evidence he had the subpoena in hand? The Amerithrax Summary explains that the FBI scientist who spoke to Dr. Ivins in February 2002 (but does not recall the conversation) did not remember whether he faxed the instructions and the May 24, 2002 email indicates that he had not.

      BACKGROUND OFFICIAL: I’m one of the prosecutors on the case.

      QUESTION: Unless I’m mistaken here, I was told, in fact it turned out, that that second sample was the RMR-1029. How did that get screwed up? You didn’t realize for three years that he had submitted the correct sample that you were looking for; right?

      DR. MAJIDI: No. Okay, so — well, let me repeat this again. The first sample we got, which was submitted ad hoc prior to the issuance of subpoena, that sample, because it was on a wrong slant —

      QUESTION: She just said it was after the subpoena —

      DR. MAJIDI: The very first sample that was submitted —

      BACKGROUND OFFICIAL: And just so — I know it’s kind of confusing, but we had reason to believe that there was something wrong with the April submission. It didn’t have these mutations, and so that caused the investigative team to say that it might be something more to this. And so that’s when, a number of years later, I think in 2006, they consulted with Dr. Keim out of Northern Arizona University, who actually retained his duplicate slant of the original February 2002 submission. He actually had retained that. He hadn’t destroyed his. The repository destroyed their February sample because it was on the wrong slant. Dr. Keim, thankfully, had kept his February 2002 identical submission.

      So, in other words, every researcher submitted two identical slants of the same material. One went to Dr. Keim for strain typing, one went to the repository for the comparison. It turned out, many years later, that actually Dr. Keim had retained his from the February — the initial submission. That initial submission had the mutations. And so —

      QUESTION: And so the first one was destroyed because of the wrong slant and run through the repository without being tested. So had he tested it at the time, do you think he would have been, perhaps, five years — six years ahead of where we are now?

      DR. MAJIDI: Well, no, not really. Because remember the science for genotyping, those specific mutations were developed over the next few years.

      QUESTION: My understanding was — my understanding, tell me if I’m wrong, from the briefings that you gave to Congress last week, was that the second sample of your subpoena, you originally thought was not the RMR-1029/Dougway sample and you thought that Dr. Ivins was being deceptive. And you did not realize for three years, until further testing, that in fact, he’d given you exactly what you’d asked for. Is that right or wrong?

      DR. MAJIDI: The second sample — the second sample that we received from Dr. Ivins did not have the genetic mutations.

      QUESTION: Therefore, it could not have been RMR-1029?

      DR. MAJIDI: Well, again, I don’t want to speculate that far. What I’m saying to you is that every sample we have had of RMR-1029, and the letter samples, they all have the genetic mutations. The daughters of RMR-1029, which we were able to trace back to understand that they were, in fact, coming from RMR-1029, they have the genetic —

      QUESTION: By records? How did you trace it back?

      DR. MAJIDI: We did that investigatively. You know, we looked at many, many, many lab reports. We looked at lab notebooks. We looked at transaction forms and we were able to identify and trace the genealogy of all samples.

      QUESTION: Was the second sample from an isolate that was in his control? A separate one? I mean, can you type it to a different flask in his lab?

      DR. MAJIDI: But — I don’t —

      QUESTION: So you don’t know where that came from.

      QUESTION: Let’s put it another way. His question, was it the sample that you had requested? Did he comply with the subpoena?

      DR. MAJIDI: We asked for all samples. So the answer was, we asked for all Ames samples, and in fact he had submitted an Ames sample. But the second submission, the Ames samples that were received from him, did not — if it was all sample in his laboratory, did not include any of the genetic markers.

      QUESTION: But did he give you what you had asked for? The sample from his lab, from —

      DR. MAJIDI: Clearly not. Because RMR-1029 was in his laboratory and this sample was not directly traceable back to RMR-1029.

      QUESTION: But it was at least enough to say it is questionable.

      BACKGROUND OFFICIAL: Let me clarify something first here. The first sample that he submitted was rejected because it was outside of the subpoena process. It didn’t comply with the full instructions of the subpoena.

      QUESTION: Right. Right.

      BACKGROUND OFFICIAL: In the subpoena process, you have to remember that slants were sent to two different places. One, to Paul Keim and one for the FBI repository submission.

      It was the FBI repository submission that was rejected and disposed of. Dr. Keim saved his sample of that first submission that was rejected. Dr. Ivins then submitted correct samples under compliance of the subpoena, and those went into the repository process and also went to Dr. Keim’s lab for typing.

      Remember, the duplicates were always sent to Dr. Keim to insure that it was Ames and not some other anthrax facility. And then, by 2004, we had brought two assays online. Two of the genetic assays online to begin screening the repository. The repository was not complete at that time, but we had two assays that had been validated and we started to screen the repository.

      In the early screening of the repository, it started to become evident that the two genetic markers that we had in our repertoire at the time were pointing towards USAMRIID. At that point, the focus was put on the samples that were testing positive at USAMRIID, and the FBI went back in, seized additional samples, including 1029, showed that 1029 tested positive.

      And since the repository — second repository sample submitted by Dr. Ivins did not, but was allegedly 1029, that raised some suspicion. At that time, the FBI went back, contacted Dr. Keim, several years later, and found out that he had retained the two original submissions. We seized those, brought them back, and they tested positive for both of those assays.

      QUESTION: Okay. But if the first submission tested positive, yet it was submitted outside the four corners of the subpoena, didn’t you just say that makes the results ambiguous?

      BACKGROUND OFFICIAL: It doesn’t make the results ambiguous. It’s a question of, when talking about the science in a court of law, we would want every sample treated equally.

      QUESTION: So you’re saying it’s a legal issue, not a science —

      Scientifically, there was no problem with the first one — the first sample that Dr. Ivins gave you. Yes, it was in the wrong medium; yes, it was on the wrong slant, but scientifically, had you had the ability then and actually investigated then, you would’ve not been able to tell, so it was more legal chain-of-custody-type of thing.

      BACKGROUND OFFICIAL: Any results on that sample could have been questioned because it was not obtained in the same manner that all of the other repository samples —

      QUESTION: But it could have pointed you to him, it just couldn’t have been used well, and it wouldn’t have stood up in court. Is that fair to say it that way?

      BACKGROUND OFFICIAL: Well, it may have pointed to him, but what I said was, that when we began screening the repository, there were additional samples that pointed us in that direction. So it wasn’t like that — by not testing that sample, that we did not have an early lead as to the source of — of possible source of the anthrax material. We had other samples coming from USAMRIID that were testing positive.

      QUESTION: When was that raid, did you say?


      QUESTION: Didn’t you say that the FBI raided the lab, or, what was —

      BACKGROUND OFFICIAL: Well, we went back and conducted a search.

      QUESTION: Yes, and so what was the date of that?


      BACKGROUND OFFICIAL: April 2004?

      QUESTION: Yes.

      QUESTION: And then when you go back to Keim for — Dr. Keim for —

      DR. MAJIDI: 2006. Was when we collected, we went back to the slant from the first go around. The improper submission was collected from Dr. Keim in 2006.

      BACKGROUND OFFICIAL: So I just want to make sure that’s clear. Are we clear as to why, number one, it was rejected because it didn’t comply with the process and we wanted to make sure that we had an even process in collecting samples from everyone.

      But then, fortunately, it was saved. And we went back. And it’s not that we — you know, that the result is questionable, I mean, obviously we found the markers in that sample, eventually all the markers in that sample. However, it’s possible that it could’ve been argued that that sample was not collected the same way all of the other samples were collected.

      QUESTION: How many others were destroyed —

      QUESTION: Obviously, he gave you two samples and one of them appeared to have the genetic marker. The other didn’t. Why would he have — why wouldn’t he have given you the wrong sample both times? Had something changed in terms of your methodology, or your leads, or —

      BACKGROUND OFFICIAL: We’re here to discuss the science. We can’t speculate —

      QUESTION: Well, can you tell me if there’d been some change in the direction or the technology being used that would have led him to believe that it would have been advisable to change his sample the second time out?

      BACKGROUND OFFICIAL: Well, we can’t speculate on that.

      QUESTION: If you didn’t have Dr. Keim’s sample, would this case have been able to be brought? I mean, would this still be a strong case, in your view, if you didn’t have the sample from —

      DR. MAJIDI: Okay. So let me say that we’re here today — and this is really extraordinary for the FBI and the Department of Justice to talk about a case that hasn’t gone to trial or hasn’t gone through its complete due process. We opened the discussion for a number of reasons. Clearly, for a closure for victims’ families as well as a tremendous public interest.

      We’re — clearly, we understand the victims’ families as well as Dr. Ivins’ family, as well as the Bureau and Justice Department, we really would have liked to do this in a proper manner; gone through a court of law and presented our evidence in their entirety and been able to discuss it. Obviously, from our point of view the investigative and scientific evidence are strong enough that we are disclosing the material to you today.

      So what would have happened, the next step, I think that’s a bit of a moot point.

      QUESTION: What’s a slant?

      DR. MAJIDI: “Slant”?

      QUESTION: Sorry.

      BACKGROUND OFFICIAL: It’s a test tube of agar —

      QUESTION: It’s a what?

      BACKGROUND OFFICIAL: It’s a test tube of a solid medium, agar, that when you fill the tube with the media, if you lay it on a slant, it will form a flat surface on — diagonally across the tube.

      QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

      And when you’re talking about these samples that are collected. It’s not just one sample. These people are submitting multiple samples of everything they had in their lab. So it wasn’t that he gave you one thing from RMR-1029. He was giving you multiple samples from — you know, multiple tubes of anthrax that are all —

      Is that correct?

      DR. MAJIDI: We at least got two copies of every material.

      QUESTION: How many different strengths of anthrax did he have in has lab?

      DR. MAJIDI: As far as I know —

      BACKGROUND OFFICIAL: Multiple strains.

      DR. MAJIDI: Yeah — you know, multiple strains, but remember, the issue here is that –always go back to what was in the letters. Ames. So we — as we look at the universe of anthrax, there are many, many different strains. What were the victims affected by? It was Ames. What was in the envelopes? It was Ames, plus the specific mutations that interest us. What was in RMR-1029? It was the Ames, plus those four specific mutations.

      QUESTION: So how many Ames did he have?

      QUESTION: What’s that — the second strain that he submitted in response to the subpoena, was that available in his lab? Where would he have gotten it from? Where did it come from?

      DR. MAJIDI: Yeah, it was available in his lab.

      QUESTION: So there were — you know, you’ve got 1029. You’ve also got 1030, 1031. There are different test tubes full of Ames in his lab that he would have submitted samples of. Is that correct?


      QUESTION: How many besides Dr. Ivins’ first submission to the FBI lab, which was destroyed — how many other samples were destroyed? Or was that the only one destroyed?

      BACKGROUND OFFICIAL: But remember that —

      QUESTION: I understand that. I just want to know how many were destroyed.

      BACKGROUND OFFICIAL: Once the genetics started coming on-line in 2004, searches were conducted by the investigators, and material was directly sampled. All material. All anthrax.

      QUESTION: I understand that, but the question is just how many were destroyed.

      BACKGROUND OFFICIAL: Remember, the only sample received outside the space of subpoena was that one sample. So that’s the only sample we destroyed.

      COMMENT: The only sample destroyed was from the stock used by the FBI anthrax scientist to make a dried Ames aerosol — which the government denied had ever been made at USAMRIID. General John Parker expressly denied it and the FBI and its anthrax experts — who actually made the dried Ames aerosol — did not correct him. The public was misled for 8 years.

      QUESTION: So — okay. Of the —

      How many samples were sent as a result of the subpoena as opposed to the searches? So — I mean, would you say 500 samples, a thousand samples were sent, and the only one destroyed happened to be the one that was it?

      BACKGROUND OFFICIAL: No. The only sample that was destroyed was not the one that was it. Remember, as I told you as we were screening the repository, there were other samples from USAMRIID which did test positive. So you are wrong in that statement. It was not the only sample. It’s not like that was the sample and we destroyed it.

      QUESTION: No, no, no, but I’m saying it was the only sample that was destroyed happened to be it.

      BACKGROUND OFFICIAL: That was the only sample that was destroyed, and, yes, it was positive, but there were other positive samples.

      QUESTION: Is it a violation of your protocol to destroy a sample just because it doesn’t meet the formatting requirements? Should that have happened? Should that sample have been destroyed?

      DR. MAJIDI: You know, looking at it — hindsight, obviously, we would do things differently today, but let me just go back and say in the days that we started this process, microbial forensics was completely unknown to us. In fact, that’s a science we helped usher with the rest of the community. So what we tried to do was initially stay as closely to the protocol as possible.

      And the amazing thing about this case that I would like to additionally point out is the amount of lessons learned. Were we perfect? Absolutely not. We’ve had missteps and those are the lessons learned that we have incorporated into today’s approach to have sample that involves now pathogens, chemicals, radiological and nuclear material.

      So it was only the past few years that we were able to incorporate all of the lessons learned that we had throughout this investigation.

      QUESTION: Dr. Majidi?

      DR. HASSELL: Let me clarify one thing first, too, because it goes back to your question that I don’t believe it was answered very well earlier about chain of custody, and what’s going on now.

    • BugMaster said

      “BACKGROUND OFFICIAL: Well, you know, let me just say from the scientific point of view, if you don’t follow the procedure, the result is ambiguous”

      Perhaps because there might be clumping of the cells, or the culture conditions could result in the loss of mutants by either transformation or loss of a plasmid?

      “BACKGROUND OFFICIAL: It doesn’t make the results ambiguous. It’s a question of, when talking about the science in a court of law, we would want every sample treated equally.”

      That directly contradicts what was stated a short time earlier!

      “QUESTION: So you’re saying it’s a legal issue, not a science –”

      • DXer said

        This is all the more reason the protocol should have been transmitted prior to May 24, 2002 (see May 24, 2002 email). Ivins’ lab had to plead that he get back to them with the protocol.

  4. DXer said

    “Ivins Case Lives On — Despite FBI Judgment”
    Originally published December 05, 2010

    A group of 25 scientists, professors, writers and terrorism experts convened Monday to discuss and debate the anthrax investigation.
    None of them believe Bruce Ivins was the culprit.

    These aren’t the cranks or the conspiracy theorists. They aren’t the crowd out on the fringe that will submit any theory, however ridiculous, in defiance of common sense, to prove some government plot.

    These were academics, lawyers, doctors, bioterrorism experts and others assembled by the University of California’s Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation. All have unanswered questions about the Amerithrax investigation.

    The panel, which lasted for four hours, talked about that investigation, lessons learned and its broader implications.

    The first half was introduced by Lewis Weinstein, an author who has written on the attacks, who reiterated that no one on the panel believed Ivins was responsible.

    One of the group’s objectives, Weinstein said, was to “continue to keep this case alive so someday Americans can know who committed this bioterrorism attack.”

    Doubts about the FBI’s conclusions still linger nine months after the agency closed the case.

    Certainly, as we’ve said before, the report produced by the FBI that wrapped their case seemed to lack hard evidence, relying instead on a psychological portrait that only circumstantially hinted at guilt.

    Ivins committed suicide by overdose in July 2008. Had his trial gone ahead, we saw in News-Post reporter Megan Eckstein’s story a taste of what Ivins’ attorney may have argued:

    “There is no evidence that Dr. Ivins ever made the dried anthrax” used in the attacks, said Paul Kemp, Ivins’ lawyer. “There were no spores found in his house, in his car, at his desk, any place that it shouldn’t have been.”

    We don’t know, or would aver an opinion either way as to Ivins’ guilt or innocence. However, we do feel that this case was closed preemptively and without thorough review.

    Too many questions remain, enough that a trial may have rendered reasonable doubt. Luckily for the FBI, they may never have to defend their findings.

    That’s unfortunate for us in the Frederick community, Ivins’ friends and associates, and for the nation. Ultimately, it may be for historians to sort out.

    • BugMaster said

      “Luckily for the FBI, they may never have to defend their findings.”

      They’re not that lucky!

    • BugMaster said

      “Too many questions remain, enough that a trial may have rendered reasonable doubt.”

      And that’s the hell of it. Even if Ivins was guilty:

      It’s not “a trial may have rendered reasonable doubt”

      It’s “a trial WOULD have rendered reasonable doubt”

      And yet, it’s “case closed”.

  5. BugMaster said

    Spores will float to the top of a concentrated sucrose solution, just like when your vet looks for worm eggs in dog poop (although they use a concentration solution of magnesium sulfate).

  6. Silicon Accumulator Mechanism (SAM).

    For the NY Post letter and that batch we have high silicon and low purity (at least compared to Senate or Ezzell.)

    A mechanism for this to happen is

    1) Multiple centrifugings

    2) Adding a silicon containing mixture each round

    3) Low efficiency in separation of the bottom.

    Call this a Silicon Accumulator Mechanism.

    This SAM rules out Ivins two ways. Ivins would not have low efficiency each round. Ivins under the FBI/DOJ theory did not have time for multiple centrifuging the first weekend.

    If the discards from a government lab were the source for the outside mailer, then there still needs to be a SAM mechanism sandwiched between the discard and the mailing.

    Competent centrifuging and purification will tend not to accumulate a huge silicon content in the discards, because one discard does not accumulate from the prior discard. Depending on the assumptions, one might be able to have a model where the discards had more silicon than the final retained pellet. How high this could be is an important question.

    The above SAM accumulates high silicon while having relatively low purity. This accords with the first letters.

    • They might have used more sugar cane than experienced lab people and at the same time decanted less below the top.

      This would also explain the Senate letters relative to Ezzell. Their reaction to the first batch might have been use more sugar cane and use a decant process that takes a bit more out of the bottom each iteration. Thus they would not get to pure white as Ezzell did and would have a higher silicon level than Ezzell.

      Ezzell would be adding less silicon at each iteration and would be removing more of the impurities that collect at the bottom. This latter part would be harder for the less skilled and experienced.

      So they end up with tan spores and higher silicon for the Senate letters relative to the Ezzell white spores and presumably lower silicon.

  7. DXer said

    Old Atlantic asks if Moussaoui was an experienced cropduster pilot. He was not experienced but in another lifetime there would be to check out if there experienced cropduster pilots with planes in Portland, Maine and in Georgia.

  8. DXer said

    Old Atlantic writes:
    “December 4, 2010 at 4:04 pm
    Perhaps Jdey was the one who centrifuged over and over, adding sugar cane each time, and then decanting the water at the top only thus producing concentrated silicon in the first letters.”

    You raise a very good point. This, as BugMaster brilliantly has suggested, might explain the tin signature. On the question of Jdey, he was working with anthrax planners Hambali and KSM. He was carrying biology textbooks when arrested at the same time Moussaoui was detained. Ali Al-Timimi in mid-September was discussing helping with Moussaoui’s defense with Bin Laden’s sheik al-Hawali. Portions of Ali Al-Timimi’s proceedings remained highly classified.

    Where did Jdey work? He is said to have been part of the planes operation but pulled out at the last minute (and not due to cold feet) He went whereabouts unknown at the time of the mailings. He had been in Montreal. I think he was 37. More mature than other hijackers. He was a strident and angry supporter of Blind Sheik Abdel-Rahman and was very upset with his detention.

    A BOLO was issued for Jdey at the same time as Aafia Siddiqui who by then had spent at least 6 months studying anthrax as a weapon. Was the report he entered Turkey in early 2002 (with his sidekick Boussara ever corroborated?

    Hat tip to Ken Dillon for first suggesting Jdey as the mailer many many years ago. At the time, we did not know he had been detained as the same time as Moussaoui and then released. We did not know he was carrying biology textbooks, as supplements to Moussaoui’s cropduster manuals. Oopsie. How embarrassing if it turns out that he was the mailer.

    Where is FBI Special Agent Harry Samit when we need him?

  9. DXer said

    What time was the speeding ticket that Dr. Bruce Ivins received in Cortland, New York?

  10. “Ayman Zawahiri would have no reason to use a non-microbiologist to process anthrax when he had microbiologists working for him. The intelligence shows that operations were strictly compartmented. See Tenet’s book. James Vandevelde, who worked on anthrax for the USG, explains even the chemical operatives were compartmented from the bio operatives. He noted that the US understands that it did not wrap up all the compartmented bio cells.”

    “At the same time, it came out that Atta was seen with Jdey.”

    “If in the context of the anthrax investigation, it was disclosed that Jdey was carrying biology textbooks and had been detained and released… and that he was a lab tech… and then it came out that he was part of the planes operation, and connected to anthrax planners Hambali and KSM ”

    “Less than three months after the crash of American Airlines Flight 587 in Queens, New York, rumors were already suggesting that it had been destroyed by an unknown terrorist with a shoe bomb similar to the one found on Richard Reid.[14]” Jdey Wiki entry.

    If the same person did the anthrax attacks and was a shoe bomber on an airplane, some people would call that non-compartmentalization of biology attacks and airplane attacks.

    “Some have theorised that Jdey was responsible for the 2001 Anthrax attacks, which halted inexplicably in several weeks after they began. Amateur researchers conclude that Jdey’s purported suicide mission aboard Flight 587 may have been the reason.[” Wiki Jdey.

    If Jdey did anthrax and shoe bombed the airplane, then it seems Ayman Zawahiri is using his people in dual roles for biology and air attacks.

  11. DXer said

    The government says that it cannot account for 220 ml made by Ivins assistants but that it presumes that it was not used in the attacks because it would have lacked the 4 morphs, the DOJ reasons.

    It then assumes the 100 ml discrepancy is a mathematical error.

    That’s 320 ml total unaccounted for. I would think the USG would have been able to track down the missing 320 ml of virulent Ames — and if they couldn’t, I don’t see why they have confidence in their unsupported speculation on a wide range of issues.

    Given it took nearly 10 years for it to come out that dried powdered Ames was in fact made at USAMRIID – and that it was made by none other than the FBI’s anthrax expert – the question raised is: what else isn’t being shared by individuals motivated by CYA.

  12. One scenario is the following.

    al Qaeda prepared the anthrax in Florida in June, July, August of 2001. They used a centrifuge to dry the anthrax. They were not microbiologists and they thought the centrifuge was just to dry the anthrax not to separate out white spores.

    They used sucrose. The silicon was dense and ended up in the dark material at the bottom of the tube. But they did not know to separate that out and so they left it in.

    The envelopes and notes were prepared in the DC area. Someone drove the anthrax up to the DC area just before 9/11. They put the letters together.

    Their expert in microbiology looked at the anthrax and told them they had not separated it enough.

    Florida al Qaeda: We used the centrifuge to dry it, look its dry.

    Microbiologist: You use the centrifuge to separate out the white spores not just to dry them. This will barely work.

    They send the anthrax out anyhow. But the delivery man drives back to Florida with instructions to redo the anthrax this time using the centrifuge with sucrose to separate out white spores. They stop with tan spores because time is short.

    When he got back to Florida around Sep 20, they send out the “fake” letter to Brokaw and any others sent that time. This may have been a change in plan because they realized the first letters would not work properly and so they needed to assist them by adding a fake letter to the same person, Brokaw. Brokaw was picked as most important and possibly one to NY Post was discarded.

    October 5, they mail more fake letters. The driver drives up to NJ and mails the Senate letters over that weekend.

    They used the same mailbox in Princeton for the FBI to latch onto. They wanted the FBI to look for a domestic terrorist so that the US would lose interest in invading Afghanistan. This is one reason they stopped at tan spores in early October, to head of the US from invading Afghanistan.

    Some background info

    “On June 25, Jarrah took Haznawi to Holy Cross Hospital in Fort Lauderdale on advice of his landlord Charles Lisa. Haznawi was treated by Dr. Christos Tsonas, who gave him antibiotics for a small gash on his left calf.” Wiki article on
    Ahmed al-Haznawi.

    Dr. Tsonas later identified that lesion as consistent with cutaneous anthrax.

    You may wish to review the Wiki article on centrifuge. The denser material, such as silicon ends up at the bottom of the tube in a typical centrifuge using tubes. The bottom of the tube is out from the center but also the tube is at angle going down towards the outside. So the denser material collects at the bottom on the outside. So the silicon from the sucrose ends up there along with the darker material from the prep. If they don’t separate several times more, but just use this to dry, they end up with the NY Post letter.

    They may also have done an intermediate letter for the Florida paper first after 9/18. Or that may have been a trial letter earlier and they used their better material for it. Perhaps the microbiologist visited them in Florida close to 9/11 or they told him what it looked like on the phone or they just gave priority to the Florida paper as a big tabloid.

    • There may also have been Middle East communication protocols involved in the first anthrax not being prepared properly.

      Microbiologist on phone to al Qaeda operative in Florida.

      Micro: Did you centrifuge it 50 times?

      Operative: Yes, Sahib.

      Micro: Did you discard the dark stuff at the bottom each time?

      Operative: Yes, Sahib.

      Micro: If you don’t do it this way it won’t work.

      Both hang up. But they never do it. They didn’t even listen to the microbiologist on the phone. His orders are just ignored.

      Then in the DC area.

      Micro: They said they centrifuged 50 times and discarded each time.

      Driver: All I know was that I was given this to bring up. That was someone else. (Possibly already dead on the planes.)

      • The first letters are the trademark not of a single master mind with full equipment and years of experience. They are the work of an organization that is spread out and that doesn’t know what it is doing. Sort of like the investigation. They are equally matched.

      • The first letters are sometimes said to have a very high silicon content. Perhaps they did something so stupid, the replicators didn’t think of it. Like they add sucrose, centrifuge, and keep the bottom stuff instead of discard it. The silicon in the sucrose then goes to the bottom and accumulates with each round. It is so moronic that the Livermore guys never thought to do it.

        It is easy to imagine though that separating the bottom stuff would seem extra hard work to an al Qaeda operative in Florida. Just pouring off the top would be easier. Separating out what is in the middle sounds like too much trouble to them. Thus they created a procedure to increase the silicon in it with each round. They did this over and over until the silicon had reached absurd levels.

        The high levels of silicon in the first letters indicate moronic stupidity in carrying out a procedure the wrong way that they don’t understand.

        This would exclude Ivins.

        There is actually a Hitler learns orgo

        This is the scene in DC when the microbiologist sees the stuff they brought up.

        • So basically, they just add water and sucrose each round, centrifuge, and then pour off the water from the top. It is totally stupid and useless. But it does accumulate silicon at the bottom each round.

        • DXer said

          Was Jdey a lab tech? What was his day job?

          Jdey was carrying biology textbooks when he was detained at the time Moussaoui was arrested. The authorities then released Jdey. This fact was kept secret for many years. He then was discovered to have been part of the planes operation until he withdrew (but not for cold feet). He knew anthrax planners Hambali and KSM.

          In 2002 or so, Congress was scrutinizing the DOJ/FBI’s negligent failure to permit, under FISA, Moussaoui’s laptop to be accessed, even though the FISA standard was met given Moussaoui’s known connection to Ibn Khattab. See Harry Samit’s 9/10 email fearing that a 747 would fly into the World Trade Center; a correspondent wrote him that he at least could know that he had done all he could done.

          If in the context of the anthrax investigation, it was disclosed that Jdey was carrying biology textbooks and had been detained and released… and that he was a lab tech… and then it came out that he was part of the planes operation, and connected to anthrax planners Hambali and KSM — what DOJ/FBI officials would have been fired instead of going on to lucrative careers in the private sector?

          At the same time, it came out that Atta was seen with Jdey.

          This investigation has been dominated by conflict of interest and careerist calculations that have controlled everything, from start to finish. Add investigator turn-over, compartmentalization, and general bureaucratic inefficiency, and you have Rachel Lieber’s and Ken Kohl’s summary of their unsupported claims against Dr. Ivins.

        • DXer said

        • “Was Jdey a lab tech? ”

          I looked at his Wiki bio and they did not list that he had been a lab tech.

          All they say is:

          “Moussaoui was carrying textbooks on cropdusting; Jdey was carrying textbooks on biology.”

          Does this mean Moussaoui was an experienced crop duster pilot?

        • Perhaps Jdey was the one who centrifuged over and over, adding sugar cane each time, and then decanting the water at the top only thus producing concentrated silicon in the first letters.

      • DXer said

        No spores were found in Florida and the FBI looked hard.

        The leg lesion that suggested anthrax exposure (according to the current head of Homeland biosecurity) was on a guy who had just arrived by plane from Kandahar where there was an anthrax lab. He says he got the lesion while carrying a suitcase and it gashed his leg.

        You disparage the technical ability of the supporters of the Salafist-Jihadis without a sound basis — and more importantly, without recognizing that Ayman Zawahiri did not use the hijackers to participate in any bio operation or planning. See VandeVelde presentation. The bio people, James explained, were the elite and kept compartmented even from the chem people.

        James says the USG recognizes that they have not ferreted out all the bio people. He says Ayman’s plan was to use localized personnel for localized operations (and then they would train people locally). So for example for a US operation, Ayman would use US-based personnel.

        On sophistication generally, for example, the lawyer who posted on this blog about anthrax researcher Aafia Siddiqui also defended A.Q. Khan, the father of Pakistan’s nuclear bomb. (Wikileaks has some interesting items on both A.Q. Khan and Aafia Siddiqui).

        75% of Al Qaeda leadership historically was Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which consisted of highly educated graduates from Cairo’s engineering, law and medical schools.

        As another example, Ali Al-Timimi, rather than being unsophisticated, came to share a suite with lead Ames researchers Ken Alibek and deputy Commander Charles Bailey. (They used the SRI BL-3 to work with the virulent Ames). Ali had a letter from the White House for his classified work for the Navy. His field was bioinformatics. The Fairfax stamp was sold at the local post office and his counsel describes him as an “anthrax weapons suspect.”

        Now Al-Timimi was the former assistant to White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card. The Bush Administration chose to use warrantless wiretaps — and to exclude all of the Amerithrax Task Force — from the information gleaned. It seems that the Bush Administration too was more interested in winning continued tenure in their job than in solving Amerithrax.

        • “You disparage the technical ability of the supporters of the Salafist-Jihadis without a sound basis ”

          The first round of letters is a sound basis. They had time and a budget and according to your statements above, lots of people with access to US labs.

          The explanation for the first round of letters quality has to be found from the application of foul up analysis. The scenario I presented provides such an explanation. There may be variants on this scenario that are better. However, it does tie in with some of the known facts.

        • DXer said

          And what if the material was the lower level of material that had been centrifuged after being lyopholized by USG personnel? (The multi-colored level).

          And what if the second material was the second (tan) level of material that had been centrifuged after being lyophilized by USG personnel and then discarded?

          When Joany Jackman left USAMRIID, who did she leave the samples with?

          When Dr. Ezzell left USAMRIID, who did he leave the samples with?

          Who was Dr. Ivins writing when he wrote someone about the only known virulent Ames from Building 1412 that was missing — 5 ml that he was asking if it had been autoclaved. He said that the person to whom he had been writing had been determined to destroy the samples with which some departing scientist had worked.

          Was it Former Colleage #2, who turned out to be about his only accuser? She left to head the BL-3 lab at Southern Research Institute, which worked with the virulent Ames for DARPA under the contract with the Center for Biodefense at GMU. The scientist convicted of sedition and sentenced to 70 years who was coordinating with Anwar Awlaki shared a suite with the lead Ames researchers there.

    • DXer said

      Old Atlantic writes:

      “One scenario is the following.

      al Qaeda prepared the anthrax in Florida in June, July, August of 2001. They used a centrifuge to dry the anthrax. They were not microbiologists and they thought the centrifuge was just to dry the anthrax not to separate out white spores.”

      Ayman Zawahiri would have no reason to use a non-microbiologist to process anthrax when he had microbiologists working for him. The intelligence shows that operations were strictly compartmented. See Tenet’s book. James Vandevelde, who worked on anthrax for the USG, explains even the chemical operatives were compartmented from the bio operatives. He noted that the US understands that it did not wrap up all the compartmented bio cells.

      “They used sucrose. The silicon was dense and ended up in the dark material at the bottom of the tube. But they did not know to separate that out and so they left it in.

      The envelopes and notes were prepared in the DC area. Someone drove the anthrax up to the DC area just before 9/11. They put the letters together.”

      MSNBC reported that the anthrax was grown in the Northeastern United States (as distinguished from Florida). There is a very real possibility that the hoax letters were sent by someone like el-Shukrijumah, especially given his alleged association with Aafia Siddiqui who says she came to research anthrax as a weapon for 6 months.

      • “The intelligence shows that operations were strictly compartmented.”

        They had to have substantial compartmentation if they were involved in the anthrax attacks and all the interrogations, intercepts, etc. have found no trace of it. (Alt the traces have not made their way to Wikileaks.) In this case, they had to have few people involved in the anthrax attacks. If some were involved in the air attacks as well, those ones died thus helping al Qaeda keep its role in the anthrax attacks hidden.

        Is the MSNBC report still operative as valid? This was based on water analysis according to one link I just checked. Is that still considered valid?

  13. Anonymous said

    It is now 40 days since the NAS anthrax science report was supposed to be completed and published.

    Recent rumors suggested “the end of November or first week of December”. Clearly the end of November did not happen. Today is the end of the first week of December. Will the report be published today? Don’t hold your breath.

    The start date for the project is 4/24/2009.

    A report will be issued at the end of the project.

    Project Duration: 18 months

    • DXer said

      (GETMAN) Do you have any theory as to why the Daschle product showed a silicon signature? It seems like there are many possible explanations that all seem reasonable but I can’t narrow it down. And is there any of knowing whether what was prepared for DARPA had a silicon signature? (EZZELL) I’m not sure but the signature of that, the material we used to make density gradients, and one way is you centrifuge the material and get different spores at different densities from other vegetative cells and from other material in there. So a good way to purify the spores is to put in density gradients, either sucrose or renografin, and we used renografin. And the renografin may have had some sort of silicon signature but I’m not sure what it has but I can check on that.

      Comment: Yes, by all means, I hope the FBI and NAS checks on whether the dried powder made by its expert using Ames supplied by Bruce Ivins had a Silicon Signature, and if so, identifies the source.

      All dried powdered aerosols made by DARPA should similarly be checked, including any, for example, by SRI in Frederick, which subcontracted for the BL-3 work done for the DARPA-funded Center for Biodefense.

      The Center for Biodefense where the sheik coordinating with Anwar Awlaki who has vowed to kill millions of Americans. Dr. Al-Timimi had been mentored by Bin Laden’s sheik, whose detention had been subject of the 1996 fatwa against the United States by Bin Laden. He was the salafist subject to the warrantless NSA wiretapping of which the Amerithrax Task Force was not privy. The few individuals privy included Dr. Al-Timimi’s former boss, White House Chief of Staff.

      Dr. Ivins’ main accuser, Former Colleague #2, came to head the BL-3 lab at SRI.

      If Amerithrax is not set straight by the NAS, and the taint of the massive conflicts of interest removed, there needs to be an independent prosecutor appointed and a criminal probe launched to see who screwed the pooch and why.

      Let those responsible plead the Fifth Amendment just like the lead Amerithrax prosecutor Daniel Seikaly, who was the father of Al-Timimi’s pro bono defense counsel, did in connection with the hyped Hatfill leaks.

      Amerithrax represents the greatest failure of intelligence in the history of the United States and Director Mueller has acknowledged that the buck stops with him.

      • Anonymous said

        Is it possible for you to transcribe what Dr Ezzell said about what a freeze dried (lypholized) product looked like?

      • BugMaster said

        O.K., Ezzell said it first, so I guess I’m off the hook!

        “So a good way to purify the spores is to put in density gradients, either sucrose or renografin, and we used renografin.”

        Sucrose, as in table sugar! Which would add silicon to the spores (sugar cane contains quite a bit of silicon, in fact some cane fields need to be supplemented with it, google “sugar cane” and “silicon”), and, since limestone is used in the processing of cane suger, depending on where the limestone is mined:

        There’s your source of tin!

        But oh, no! Ivins just used water!

        That’s why he had to spend more time in the lab over several nights to prepare the material for the second attacks since using only water takes more time.

        The FBI is just making this crap up as they go along.


        • DXer said

          Bugmaster, I agree with all you are saying in the post above but to reiterate and clarify for others, Ivins used renografin and no traces of renografin were discovered. That is powerful exculpatory evidence. That is what occasioned the unidentified scientist to speculate that Dr. Ivins would have had to use water which takes more time.

          Separately, I urge the NAS to do all it can to address the issue of conflicts of interest — even though I appreciate the NAS lacks the non-scientific information it needs to do that. Conflict of interest analysis should be understood as within the expressly mandated task to consider whether the evidence is tainted. At least enunciate the principles that apply.

          Because under facts not yet disclosed it gets much, much worse.

          Props to the Salafist-Jihadi planners because they gave the US a wedgee like you wouldn’t believe.

        • DXer said

          Note further that Bugmaster’s point about tin seems to be coming close to corroboration. Certainly, the NAS needs to address the sucrose as a source of the tin signature.

        • BugMaster said

          If the FBI had said, “perhaps sucrose was used instead”, that would add credence to their claim that Ivins accomplished this in a very short period of time.

          Their assumption that because renagraphin wasn’t present, water had to have been the only alternative is inconsistent with their claim that this was accomplished over a very short time frame.

          Not that I believe Ivins was able to do it because he could have used sucrose.

          He still lacked the knowledge and skillset to “lyophilize” the material down and introduce it into the letters without killing the cat (as well as all the neighborhood strays)!

  14. DXer said

    Ed writes:

    “The fact that the articles aren’t yet in the public domain is a concession to the scientists who helped with the science of the case.”

    Here is evidence that the scientists are the ones responsible for the withholding of documents in violation of the on-point precedent under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

    The emails by those scientists to Ed would be further evidence and the GAO should obtain all available evidence showing who is responsible for the FACA violation.

  15. DXer said

    Ed writes:

    “Kemp then begins to argue that the FBI accidently broke the first “slant” from flask RMR-1029 that Ivins sent to them in February of 2002. The argument continues into Part 3 of the Kemp video. Mr. Kemp seems to have a basic misunderstanding about that slant. It was not lost or accidently broken. It was discarded because it was not properly prepared as evidence and could not be used as evidence. Ivins did not follow directions when he prepared it — even though he had prepared such evidence for decades in other cases.”

    (Attorney Kemp explained that he was told by the AUSAs that it was lost.)

    Who is the one who discarded or lost the slant? Was it the FBI genetics expert in the 2001-2002 period, scientist Kimothy Smith, who while at LSU provided a BL-3 lab to the former Zawahiri associate Tarek Hamouda?

    (Dr. H was supplied virulent Ames by Bruce Ivins in connection with the DARPA research)

    That constitutes a conflict of interest and so by all means it should be determined in a GAO investigation whether it was merely lost as Paul Kemp states he was told — or whether it was intentionally discarded as is Ed Lake argues. It is far worse for the government’s position if it was intentionally discarded.

    The documentary evidence shows FBI anthrax expert pleading for guidance on the protocol that should be used and slants to use.

    The fact that Richard Holbrooke’s Perseus invested $50 million in NanoBio must be deemed to be irrelevant and it should be assumed that all documents in this matter will come to light or are already in hand. It is time to real quick do the right thing because the IC sincerely is investigating who is responsible for screwing the pooch in Amerithrax — and they have a big bag of tricks.

    Compartmentalization cuts both ways and sometimes an ego can land hard if one’s flight path is not adjusted.

  16. DXer said

    Ed quotes Paul Kemp referring to AUSA Rachel Lieber:

    “In the case of Rachel Lieber, one of the assistant attorneys assigned to the prosecution of the case, she actually took the trouble to call me at home one night in July – early in July – to let me know that that Dr. Ivins had had what she considered to be a ‘meltdown’ – quote unquote – which she felt he was in danger of doing harm to himself, based upon information she received.”

    I emailed Rachel for copies of the contemporaneous notes that Dr. Ivins made on several nights that she claims, without basis, that Dr. Ivins was weaponizing anthrax.

    She refused without justification saying only that the DOJ had produced all that it was going to produce.

    Refusing to produce handwritten notes of Dr. Ivins on the night she claims he was weaponizing anthrax is very wrong and in flagrant violation of the Department of Justice’s obligations under FOIA.

    Rachel should provide the documents reflecting what Dr. Ivins was doing that she is withholding.

    • DXer said

      The other lead AUSA was Kenneth Kohl:

      Judge Cites Prosecutorial Misconduct In Blackwater Dismissal…

      Main Justice – Jan 1, 2010
      Blackwater prosecutors Kenneth Kohl (left) and Jonathan Malis met in Baghdad in December 2008 with families of victims of the shooting. …
      Judge dismisses charges against…‎ – Washington Post

  17. DXer said

    Ed writes:

    “Kemp says that the FBI first believed that Ivins drove up to Princeton on a specific day, but then it was shown that Ivins had an alibi for that day, so the FBI adjusted their case to say Ivins drove to Princeton a day or two earlier. Kemp suggests this somehow shows that the FBI wasn’t sure exactly when Ivins drove to Princeton, but what it really shows is that there were times when Ivins had no alibi and could have driven to Princeton. The fact that the FBI didn’t pinpoint the right night on their first try is irrelevant. The only important point is that Ivins had no alibi. ”

    Ed is mistaken. Dr. Ivins did have an alibi which is why the DOJ need to retract its claim as to its theory on travel.

    See also

    • DXer said

      Dr. Ivins was first asked about his alibi in his interviews and polygraphs in 2001 and 2002. That was the time he would have been in a position to remember specific details or pull up receipts. He passed both his polygraphs. The DOJ has failed to produce Ivins’ polygraph and interviews from 2001 and 2002 in which he was asked about his whereabouts.

      The DOJ has failed to produce any interview statements from this — the most active period of questioning when the memories and records were fresh.

      Dr. Ivins explained what he was doing in an October 5, 2001 work email.

      Why have the emails from Dr. Ivins’ home computer from 2001 not been released? Who is responsible for withholding this alibi information? Who is responsible for withholding the alibi information contained in the polygraphs/302 interview statements from 2001? The former collections scientist at the largest microbiological repository in the world to which the Salafist coordinating with Anwar Aulaqi had unfettered access? Oopsie. Director Mueller, you have an obligation as an officer of the court to reopen the investigation due to the conflicts of interest that riddled the Amerithrax investigation.

      Ed doesn’t remember what he did on a particular night 7 years ago either.

      Dr. Ivins family strongly believe in his innocence as evidenced by the note that Mrs. Ivins wrote Dr. Ivins.

  18. DXer said

    Ed reports:

    “Mr. Kemp then proceeds to argue that there is no evidence that Ivins ever made dried anthrax.”

    Indeed, the FBI’s anthrax expert has confirmed that there is no evidence that Ivins ever made dried anthrax.

    (EZZELL) It’s not an uncommon practice for a scientist to put this material into a freezer and hold on to it for future use and for future(KEMP-interupting) You mean white spores? Wet spores? (EZZELL) Right. (KEMP) Did you ever see any evidence that he produced dry spores? (EZZELL) No.

    (KEMP) I gotta go.

    Instead, it was the FBI’s anthrax expert JE that made dried powdered anthrax from the Ames supplied by Bruce Ivins. It was kept in JE’s unlocked refrigerator.

    “The only place ___ recalled seeing Ba in an odd location was in Room ___ [212] of Building ___ [1412]. This is a lab where __________ and _____________ were working on a Johns Hopkins project involving the use of aerosol samples of Ba in a study of _______________________________________________________ [the effect of a sonicator and corona plasma discharge on Ames spores]. The labeled tubes of Ba samples were stored in a refrigerator which had a sliding glass door where ____ had intended to place ______________ [his ham sandwich?]

    Then what remained was turned over to a scientist who has not yet been identified. That scientist was not Bruce.

    See also

  19. DXer said

    On the postage stamps, Ed writes:

    “The only thing significant about the envelopes is that they were not sold in areas where other possible suspects were located.”

    Ed does not know where the other suspects was located and so his argument makes no sense.

    The stamps were sold throughout Maryland and Virginia, including Fairfax where the other “anthrax weapons suspect” (Dr. Al-Timimi’s counsel’s term for his client) was located.

    It was sold at the post office of everyone (the DOJ says up to 377, excluding duplication) with access to the virulent Ames at USAMRIID, for example. And that’s just USAMRIID.

    Ed is making the same mistake here when he misinterpreted the DOJ evidence as indicating that it pointed uniquely to Dr. Ivins.

    • DXer said

      Some more geography:

      Johns-Hopkins, for example, is located in Maryland where the stamp was sold.

      The DARPA-funded biodefense, where Ali Al-Timimi shared a suite with the leading Ames researchers, including the former acting USAMRIID Commander, is located in Fairfax, Virginia where the stamp was sold.

      The Amerithrax science and FBI document production/withholding to the NAS is being led by the scientist who was the collections scientist there at GMU (at ATCC).

      SRI, which had virulent Ames, a BL-3, and was the contractor for the that DARPA-funded Center for Biodefense, is located in Maryland.

  20. DXer said

    Shane et al, An Afghan Quandary: Fighting Corruption With Corrupt Officials, New York Times, Published: December 2, 2010

    Is there a fellow who has a more important and fulfilling job than Scott Shane? I can’t think of one. Awesome responsibility and intellectual challenges daily. The latest matter dropped in his lap involving 250,000 pages.

    As to the subject of the corruption in Afghanistan, consider the big picture. The US took a country where a few hundred people living a subsistence existence wanted to kill Americans and sends millions of loose money to the country to make sure there would be plenty of loose money sloshing around to heroin suppliers, newly reformed Taliban, and the like.

    Did Richard Holbrooke, with his tens of millions Perseus investment in NanoBio — and then his many hundreds of US investment in Afghanistan and Pakistan — make the situation better or worse? Is Mr. Holbrooke going to be part of the problem or part of the solution? How many chances does he get?

    • DXer said

      Richard Holbrooke’s stated position is to overlook the corruption in Pakistan given that other priorities were more important.

      Would that rationalization serve in Amerithrax also?


      DE RUEHRH #0670/01 1371606
      O 171606Z MAY 09

      C O N F I D E N T I A L RIYADH 000670


      E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/17/2019


      Classified By: CDA DAVID RUNDELL, 1.4(b),(d)

      8. (C) He noted the U.S. agreed that corruption in Pakistan
      was an issue, but the U.S. had decided it was more
      important to help Pakistan. Attaching onerous conditions to
      assistance was a mistake, Holbrooke said. Since the U.S. and
      Saudi Arabia agreed on Pakistan’s importance, the question
      was how to start working together. MbN answered that
      U.S./Saudi security cooperation should stay as it is, since
      it had “never been better” despite past tensions. Each side
      knew its own business best, and the focus should be on
      obtaining results. MbN characterized Saudi cooperation with
      U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies as “one team.”

      9. (C) Holbrooke reiterated that terrorists in Pakistan were
      not under enough pressure and pressed the point that
      U.S./Saudi cooperation on Pakistan needed to rise to a higher
      level. MbN replied that he had asked King Abdullah
      for permission to maintain a “security channel” with the U.S.
      to remain open at all times to facilitate information
      exchange regardless of other issues in bilateral relations.
      The Prince added that the King despised the corruption he saw
      in Pakistan and this colored his views toward that country.

  21. DXer said

    Dr. John Ezzell, the FBI’s anthrax expert attended a recent conference on the anthrax mailings.

    (1) he made dried powdered anthrax using Ames supplied by Bruce Ivins (which had been irradiated in the slurry).

    (2) his resulting dry powder was more pure than the Daschle product.

    (3) he made it at the request of DARPA for testing of mass spectrometry for biodefense detection purposes.

    (4) The work he did was done in Building 1412 at USAMRIID.

    (5) The virulent Ames was kept in the unlocked refrigerator.

    (7) The aerosol samples were put on tapes.

    (8) The DARPA researchers were testing the effect of a sonicator and corona plasma discharge on Ames spores.

    (9) In 2001 (and for years after that), Dr. Ivins had not known that dried powdered anthrax was being made at USAMRIID.

    Question: When was the dried powder created?

    Question: Might the renagrafin Dr. Ezzell used create a Silicon Signature?

    Question: Would traces of renagrafin be found (if it had been used in the mailed anthrax)?

    Question: Is it correct that no traces of renagrafin were found?

    Question: What is the effect of a corona plasma discharge on Ames spores? Would it create a unipolar charge?

    Question: What is the effect of a sonicator?

    Question: Besides Building 1412 and Johns-Hopkins, where else was the research involving a sonicator and corona plasma discharge done?


    audiotape and videotape of Dr. Ezzell’s question and answer

  22. DXer said

    Dr. Ezzell phoned UCDC this morning to say that he had an angioplasty, felt much better, and would be going home in a few days. He is at GWU Hospital (which is at Foggy Bottom Metro)

  23. DXer said

    UCLA’s Michael Intriligator Says FBI either incompetent or corrupt in anthrax investigation.

    • DXer said

    • Why would US govt cover up, if that is the hypothesis was a question asked. If al Qaeda was to blame, why would US government cover up for al Qaeda?

      If the trail led to Pakistan, UAE or Saudi Arabia being involved then that would be a motive to cover up. That can be separate from the agents involved with interacting with Ivins who might just get pressure to solve the case w/o being told more.

      One hypothesis is that 9/11 was primarily to get the Clinton sanctions on Pakistan from its nuclear test lifted. Pakistan was in dire financial condition from these sanctions and could not get IMF or World Bank assistance under them.

      Pakistan on 9/11 was facing the possibility it would have to give up its nuclear weapons to get financial aid while India could keep its.

      If you search Pakistan nuclear sanctions unjust you find their outrage at these sanctions and their fear of this outcome prior to 9/11 in 2001.

      Search: Pakistan nuclear sanctions unjust

      • Anonymous said

        I suppose one could argue that if Al Qaeda managed to obtain powdred anthrax from a US lab that might be covered up out of pure embarassment. On September 11 they use our own planes against us and 2 weeks later they use our own bioweapons against us.

        I think it’s clear where Kemp thinks the anthrax came from. He mentions Battelle, but then mentions Aberdeen and even the name of a Post Office near the Aberdeen labs.

      • Within this hypothesis, the anthrax attack could have been intended to switch attention to a domestic terrorist attack. Once they had anthrax from Ft. Detrick they realized they could use this to refocus US attention after a strike.

        Al Qaeda may have pitched this as part of getting approval from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia for the 911 hit. Or Pakistan or Saudi Arabia thought of it.

        Pakistan would not want the US to invade Afghanistan. Pakistan opposed that immediately after 911.

        By 9/18/2001, Pakistan knew sanctions would be lifted on its nuclear program and it would get aid. So Pakistan could give the go-ahead to al Qaeda to start the anthrax attack to divert attention back to domestic US terrorists, which they expected because the anthrax came from Ft. Detrick. Al Qaeda didn’t want the US to invade Afghanistan either so it could have had this motive even w/o Pakistan. But the cover up motive for US government would make more sense for Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

        The head of Saudi intelligence stepped down just before 9/11.

        “August 31, 2001: Head of Saudi Arabia’s Intelligence Service Is Replaced
        Edit event

        Prince Turki al-Faisal, head of Saudi Arabia’s intelligence service for 24 years, is replaced. No explanation is given. He is replaced by Nawaf bin Abdul Aziz, his nephew and the king’s brother, who has “no background in intelligence whatsoever.”

        History Commons

        The head of Pakistan intelligence had to resign in the month following. General Mahmud Ahmed/Ahmad, spelling depending on source.

    • DXer said

      Some of Professor Michael D. Intrilligator’s published works (excluding those on mathematics and econometrics) include

      Cooperative Models in International Relations Research by Michael D. Intriligator and Urs Luterbacher (Hardcover – Jun 30, 1994)
      $237.00 $214.88 $107.99

      Countering Terrorism and WMD: Creating a Global Counter-Terrorism Network (Political Violence) by Peter Katona, John P. Sullivan, and Michael D. Intriligator (Paperback – Oct 30, 2006)
      (3 customer reviews)

      East/West Conflict: Elite Perceptions and Political Options (Studies in international and strategic affairs series) by Michael D. Intriligator (Paperback – Dec 1987)
      Accidental Nuclear War Proceedings of the 18th Pugwash Workshop on Nuclear War by Derek Paul, Michael D. Intriligator, and Paul Smoker (Paperback – Jun 1990)
      Paperback $28.36

      National Security and International Stability by Bernard Brodie and Michael D. Intriligator (Hardcover – Mar 31, 1983)

      Global Biosecurity: Threats and Responses (Contemporary Security Studies) by Peter Katona, John P. Sullivan, and Michael D. Intriligator (Hardcover – Feb 23, 2010)
      Kindle Edition Auto-delivered wirelessly $99.68
      Hardcover $148.69

      Exploring the Stability of Deterrence (G S I S Monograph Series in World Affairs) by Michael D. Intriligator, Dagobert L. Brito, Christopher H. Achen, and Jacek Kugler (Hardcover – Aug 1987)
      Hardcover $11.96

      Formal Models of Arms Races by Dagobert L. Brito and Michael Intriligator (Paperback – Mar 1996)

      U.S. Soviet Relations: From Confrontation to Cooperation Through Verificational Deterrence (Cisa Working Paper) by V. I. Goldanskii and Michael D. Intriligator (Hardcover – Mar 1996)
      Hardcover $99.95

      Arms Control: The Changing Strategic Environment and the Long-Term Future (Cisa Working Paper) by Michael D. Intriligator, Andrew S. Bair, and Richard Latter (Hardcover – Mar 1996)
      Formats Buy new New from Used from
      Hardcover $99.95

      Arms control: Problems and prospects (IGCC research paper) by Michael D Intriligator (Unknown Binding – 1987)

      Strategy in a missile war;: Targets and rates of fire (Security studies paper) by Michael D Intriligator (Unknown Binding – 1967)

      Dilemmas of Nuclear Strategy by Roman Kolkowicz (Paperback – May 28, 1987)
      Formats Buy new New from Used from
      Kindle Edition Auto-delivered wirelessly $51.20

      Modeling International Conflict by F. C. Zagare (Paperback – Jan 1, 1990)
      $58.95 $56.52 $55.42

  24. DXer said

  25. DXer said

    • DXer said

    • Anonymous said

      Thanks for posting. Compelling stuff from Kemp. He nails it when he says the FBI guided the scientists to reach the conclusions they wanted.
      The FBI deliberately witheld information and data. They refused to share the AFIP lab reports with Sandia, even after being specifically asked by Sandia.

      We know NAS have now received the AFIP lab reports – will NAS ignore it?

    • BugMaster said

      According to Kemp, Ivins wasn’t asked to take an aliquot from RMR-1029 and submit it to the FBI, but rather, he was asked to submit A SLANT!

      Not the same thing, and once again, brings up the issue:


      A slant is a subculture, grown on agar.

      RMR-1029 is a pool of material produced in liquid (shake flasks and fermentors).

      Different environments, and different selective pressure on the morphological mutants that were the basis of the FBI’s assumptions.

  26. DXer said

    I expect to upload an audio of Dr. E today but am still trying to view the video of at least the first session. It is an extremely large file recorded in a special format.

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: