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

* Dr. Greg Saathoff, presenting today (3/23/11) on Amerithrax, is an FBI consultant

Posted by DXer on March 23, 2011


Greg B. Saathoff, University of Virginia … Dr. Saathoff serves as the Executive Director of the Critical Incident Analysis Group (CIAG) at the University of Virginia, which works to understand the impacts of critical incidents on government and the societies they serve and to counteract these effects through the study of past incidents. CIAG believes studying the incidents in an academic setting, behind closed doors, is not enough. Today’s key threat of terrorism involves organizations which know no boundaries and yet are bounded by ideals that motivate its participants toward destructive acts against innocent civilians. Such threats must be examined with candor by a range of professionals including those experts who are actively encountering the threats. …





80 Responses to “* Dr. Greg Saathoff, presenting today (3/23/11) on Amerithrax, is an FBI consultant”

  1. DXer said

    David Willman in Mirage Man explains:

    “Montooth invited a psychiatrist, Dr. Gregory Saathoof, to the meetings for advice on how Ivins might react to certain questioning.” (p. 279)

    • anonymous said,0,4584195,full.story
      amreporter at 10:42 PM May 28, 2011
      The timing of this article is rather strange. I note that it follows but doesn’t acknowledge one by your principal Southern California rival, NcClatchy News, publisher of the Orange County Register. Their story says that evidence the FBI used to charge Ivins could well fit another suspect who is still out there. I think that fairness required you to acknowledge this other story. Mr. Ivins would have made an excellent scapegoat, whether fror Mr. Hatfill or anyone else similarly situated.

  2. Zicon said

    Here is the link that Is briefly described below.. Which was a Newsnight investigation

    A Newsnight investigation raised the possibility that there was a secret CIA project to investigate methods of sending anthrax through the mail which went madly out of control.

    The shocking assertion is that a key member of the covert operation may have removed, refined and eventually posted weapons-grade anthrax which killed five people.

    In the wake of Sept 11th, the anthrax attacks caused panic throughout the States and around the world. But has the FBI found the whole case too hot to handle? Due to where is leads?
    Our science editor Susan Watts reported from Washington.

    • DXer said

      Yes, Dr. BHR posted a compilation of evidence in December 2001 that has stood the test of time as to distribution of Ames very well. (And that is what it addressed).

      Although she has been much maligned by a pornographer posting on the web who argues it is 99% certain a First Grader wrote the letters (and has been wrong on every issue addressed to date, ranging from the genetics, silica, you name it), BHR’s compilation of evidence speaks for itself as does her comment to the NAS in 2010. I think her comment to the NAS, co-authored by experts in the field, is very conservatively stated and solidly grounded in the data. One co-author of the 2010 comment to NAS is the moderator of the Pro-Med list and another did work for DARPA.

      But I have to admit, I’m hopelessly biased. I find her utterly charming.

      I think there is no evidence supporting a Hatfill Theory — or at least accept the federal district court judge’s finding that there was not a “scintilla of evidence.” His forgery of his PhD certificate was even more notable than Dr. Ivins’ prank involving exposing the sororities’ silliness — but in the end not at all probative.

      The US Attorney pulled a “no access to Ames” claim out of his ass given that it in fact was Building 1412 on a continuing (non-stop) basis, and not merely in Building 1425 as US Attorney Taylor claimed.

      Dave Willman, I realize you are on or past deadline but be sure to closely study the documentary evidence. I heard your local public radio interview and you sound like a top-flight journalist. (In your tone, you remind me the NYT Scott S. who covers these issues). Don’t allow access to the FBI investigators who are psychologically committed to their conclusions slow your resort and reliance on the documentary evidence, even if late-arriving. And even if you have only minutes left to deadline, press your contacts for Dr. Ivins’ lab notes on September 28, 29, 30, October 1, and October 2… and see if they don’t relate to potency study involving mice leading up to the October 2 subcutaneous challenge that then led to the need to autoclave the 12 dead rabbits between October 2-5.

      • DXer said

        The ever-efficient USAMRMC FOIA person is submitting a tasker for the autoclave logs from September 1 – October 9.

        • DXer said

          Now in contrast, consider what documentary evidence the pornographer arguing that it is 99% certain a First Grader wrote the anthrax letters can cite in support for the statement:

          “Ivins wrote about the National Enquirer in emails before the attacks, and he had a stack of Enquirers in his office.”

  3. Zicon said

    How do you determine who receives this inoculation? Is it only for government employees that work directly with the labs and the researchers? What about everyone else? What about the people who come in contact with the supplies or does the paperwork or someone just walking by another person who works in the lab? Or what about family members? Shouldn’t they get inoculated as well as the employee? Who’s to say the employee doesn’t bring home something that that might have been in contact with their clothes and hugs their significant other, either in a classified military application or to a regular hospital/public medical facility… If the significant other or any other family member for that matter, takes a breath, they are infected. Then that brings me to the question of, do civilians get the chance to be inoculated as well? If they do get an option to get inoculated, what is the requirement?

    Let’s get back to basics for a moment. What brought about the need for this inoculation and how was it developed? What kind of trial were held to determine the effectiveness of this inoculation? Who were they performed on? Was it just animals? Were there human trials? Where these people aware of the testing that they were in for or were they blind to the facts of what was really going on? Where is the documentation of all the research that would have been based on human trials pre 2001?

    Was 2001 BA attacks used as a trial? But was setup to simulate a terrorist attack?

    Next is based on some of the things that I’ve read it seems like the Inoculation ( Could Be ) a trigger in the SAE’s, but based on other material that the inoculation is “safe?”…. Which on is it?

    Was everyone privy to each others work, that all worked in the same building that Bruce Ivins worked in/co-workers?

    How many people within this small group had knowledge of the on-going research that was taking place at USAMRIID or any other locations that lets say that only Bruce and his assistant would have knowledge of and no one else even to the point his co-workers would not be privy to???

    Do any of the vaccines/Inoc. that Bruce was working on tie to direct Governmental affairs and end result of making a new drug that the government would make money on, or through a larger firm/agency that may have invested 100’s of millions of dollars and many years trying to come up with new drugs/vaccines?

    (Hypothetically speaking) If someone would have contributed close to a billion dollars and countless hours of R&D and years on end, to find out that one persons report could toss everything in the proverbial trash and waste all that time and money???

    Therefore anthrax would have no definitive cause/cure/vaccine based on the type and amount of exposure. Therefore be classified as an incurable substance/agent such as some types of cancer, polio, Ebola, Lupus, Influenza, CJD, Diabetes, HIV-AIDS, even the common cold still has a large number of still growing different strains..

    Since anthrax was originally created as a bio-warfare agent against other countries, it should have been created with a “Fully Working Inoculation” before use.. Since the us government has always tended & trended to be “Reactive and not Proactive” on many levels from bio-war, to an elementary school child’s education therefore anyone can make their own assessments on how poorly the us government has done/handled its affairs from child’s play to Above Top Secret information that could ultimately end up killing us all because of the lack of knowledge or responsibility, security and capability of the us government… Or any government for that matter… Does this bring a false sense of security?
    If I were in a position to make sure that everyone was doing their job or writing protocols for safety.. I would damn sure be asking the tough questions and expecting answers right then and there and not worry about my career etc. or what it may make me look like to everyone else just because I go down a road that no one else dares to even think about going down from pure facts to your dizziest daydreams to ensure the safety of all human life in the world…
    For example if that means that if someone is not using the approved mico-slides, to even being in the place that they are supposed to be or doing what is required then they should get their backsides chapped/chewed off.. If it’s a recurrent event then surely the gov. can do what the private sector does ALL the time is make up some BS reason to fire that person instead of covering somethings to an extent due to classification or status of said person(s) When is “responsibility” just not going to be looked at as a “mere oversight” & the word Ooooops??? Will it be the GAO who gets answers?

  4. Zicon said

    Note this may have already been looked at, and then again it may have not. I can’t say for 100% on the science behind every tiny detail just yet. However this is of interest to me, therefore, I get into a few things below that have been sourced, and anything of my own opinions or questions are noted as well…

    One thing I was curious about is the Anthrax Inoculations, as well as the structure itself based on many factors such as the Tin levels,(TL) Lethal Factor, (LF) etc. etc. In doing so I ran across an interesting website that gets into these details and breaks a few things down for a better understanding of some information. This is what I have found through the Internet because I found it note worthy.

    Here is the site link:
    Below is a copy of what is on the page minus the windows that give visual reference on the page

    Bacillus anthracis produces a toxin composed of three distinct proteins. These are termed (for historic reasons) protective antigen, oedema factor, and lethal factor. Protective antigen is secreted in a precursor form which can heptamerize and form a channel in membranes, which allows the other two factors to enter the target cell. Oedema factor is an adenylate cyclase which leads to an impairment of host defenses. Lethal factor is a protease causing the lysis of macrophages. The concerted action of these proteins is in line with other microbial toxins.

    Invasion of the target cell by the anthrax toxin is a well organized procedure. First, protective antigen (PA) binds to a receptor on the cell’s surface. Next, from the 83 kD PA molecule a domain 20 kD in size is cleaved off by a host protease, furin. Third, seven of the shortened (and still receptor bound) PA63 assemble to a ring-like structure. This complex is able to bind either oedema factor (OF) or lethal factor (LF). The next step is an endocytosis: the cellular membrane containing the receptor bound toxin complex is tilted inward to eventually form a vesicle with the toxin bound to the inner surface. The lumen of this vesicle is acidified (like a lysosome), which induces a conformational change of PA63. This leads to an insertion into the membrane with pore formation. Through this pore OF or LF pass from the endosome into the cytoplasm of the cell, ready to start their destructive enzymatic work.
    In the section on anthrax toxins some pages depend on rather large structure files. So please be patient with slow data lines or an elder CPU in your computer.

    Anthrax toxin receptors

    Two human cellular receptors for PA have been identified. One is called anthrax toxin receptor (ATR) coded by the tumor endothelial marker 8 (TEM8) gene. It occurs more than tenthousendfold on the surface of macrophage cell lines cells. A truncated, soluble form of ATR (lacking the membrane anchoring sequence) is able to protect cell cultures against the lethal action of anthrax toxin. ATR is expressed in a variety of tissues including the central nervous system, heart, lung, and lymphocytes. The ATR cDNA codes for a Protein of 368 amino acids. It is predicted to have a 27 amino acid leader sequence, an extracellular domain of 293 amino acids, a 23 residues transmembrane region, and a short cytoplasmic tail at the carboxy terminus.

    Another cellular protein with receptor function for PA is the capillary morphogenesis protein 2 (CMG2). Both ATR and CMG2 contain a domain structurally related to von Willebrand factor type A (VWA), which is involved in PA binding. The structure of CMG2-VWA is shown to the right.
    von Willebrand factor A domain
    of human capillary morphogenesis protein 2

    Protective antigen

    PA is produced by the bacteria as a protein of 764 amino acids (Mr 85810). Cleavage of a 29 residues signal sequence releases the mature PA83. In this state PA is inactive except for its binding affinity for a receptor. Only after the furin-mediated cleavage to form PA63 binding of one of the other toxin components is possible. Heptamerization and pore formation after acidification leads to a structure similar to the staphylococcal alpha-hemolysin. The pore formed is cation-selective and able to pass other molecules as well, as e.g. the diphtheria toxin A chain. The structural details shown here are: the secreted mature PA83 (renumbered here 1-735), PA83 bound to the VWA of CMG2, and the heptameric complex of PA63 and receptor domain forming a prepore. A theoretical model of the mature pore is also presented.
    Anthrax protective antigen
    ( mature secreted form )

    structural details

    Anthrax protective antigen
    bound to CMG2-VWA

    structural details
    Anthrax protective antigen
    heptameric prepore

    structural details
    Anthrax pore
    theoretical model

    structural details

    Lethal Factor

    LF is a zinc dependent metalloprotease of 809 amino acids (minus 33 signal sequence). In the cytosol of affected cells the protease cleaves dual specificity mitogen activated protein kinase kinases (MAPKK). The cleavage of this class of proteins occurs in the N-terminal proline-rich region preceding the kinase domain. Protein-protein interactions neccessary for the assembly of signalling complexes are thus disrupted.
    Anthrax lethal factor

    structural details

    Oedema Factor

    OF is an adenylyl cyclase that is activated by calmodulin. Upon activation a dramatic elevation of host cell cAMP levels are found. The protein is 800 aminoacids (minus 33 signal sequence) in size. A truncated form of the enzyme lacking the aminoterminal 290 amino acids is sufficient to reproduce the calmodulin-activated adenylyl-cyclase activity. This form was used to elucidate the structure and activation mechanism.
    Anthrax oedema factor

    structural details

    Tackling anthrax

    Like other bacilli Bacillus anthracis is able to differentiate into dormant spores, which may last for years in spite of adverse environmental conditions. The spores will germinate to vegetative cells as soon as nutrients are available. This may occur on the skin or within the lung of a human or animal. Once inside a body the bacilli grow to high titers, aided by the toxin in overcoming host defense. Besides the toxin other components (a poly-D-glutamic acid capsule) contribute to virulence. Both capsule and toxins are coded on plasmids harboured by the bacteria.

    Protection against infection may be gained by vaccination. Licenced vaccines are spores from toxigenic but nonencapsulated B. anthracis or aluminum hydroxide adsorbed cell-free PA. The use of the attenuated live vaccines may have local adverse responses and are not very effective. A still experimental vaccine was constructed by engineering the PA gene into an originally plasmidless bacterial strain. Human vaccination is not usually done as natural anthrax infections are rather rare.

    In early stages infections are cured by antibiotics, with ciprofloxacin as drug of choice. Unrecognized infections usually are fatal. Anti-toxin treatment (e.g. with immunglobulins directed against PA or synthetic peptides competing for binding of the toxin factors) may help to overcome a severe infection.
    formula model


    KA Bradley et al, Identification of the cellular receptor for anthrax toxin, Nature 414 (2001) 225-229
    HM Scobie et al, Human capillary morphogenesis protein 2 functions as an anthrax toxin receptor, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100 (2003)5170-5174
    AM Friedlander, Tackling anthrax, Nature 414 (2001) 160-161
    RC Liddington, A molecular full nelson, Nature 415 (2002) 373-374
    S Cohen et al, Attenuated nontoxinogenic and nonencapsulated recombinant Bacillus anthracis spore vaccines protect against anthrax, Infect. Immun. 68 (2000) 4549-4558
    M Mourez et al, Designing a polyvalent inhibitor of anthrax toxin, Nature Biotechnol. 19 (2001) 958-961
    DB Lacy et al, Crystal structure of the von Willebrand factor A domain of human capillary morphogenesis protein 2: An anthrax toxin receptor, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101 (2004) 6367-6372

    Go to: PA83 free form – PA83 bound to VWA – prepore – pore model – lethal factor – oedema factor – table of contents – index – site map


    12-01/3-05 © Rolf Bergmann

    Dealing with the chemical breakdown of the deadly substance itself to the injections that workers would get regularly to produce antibodies in case of accidental exposure or of any type of biological attack on any part of this earths soil especially when in foreign countries. One thing that I haven’t heard a lot of is the serum inj. chemical makeup from what was the end result that Ivins was working on and how well did it function…

    To what degree did the anti-virus of the deadly substance that produces killer toxins work?
    Is the full formula that was derived from the host flask that would have been in the cold room at USAMRIID being used pre-present-post on anything?
    Is the (Full Formula) of the anti-virus for BA already public knowledge somewhere?
    (Hypothetically to what degree are scientist taking Bac. Anthrax and using it for other medical research and trying to figure out how to convert everything to binding with certain receptors starting with animals based on the subject study but one couldn’t really know unless there were some type of 110% unbiased unrelated human trials which is exactly in a (NOT FUNNY AT ALL WAY) is exactly what happened to these people who paid with their lives who shouldn’t have never been exposed in the first place. From another pov. now scientist and the us government have cryteria to base scientific studies post esposure death that is of human life and not rabbits, dogs or rats etc.
    In my opinion ONLY… Based on all the things that have happened in the past that has been reported or of public knowledge it seems very strange to me that when every huge attack happens either the us or in other countries the governments are always doing some type of training exercise… Why is that????????????????????? Therefore lack of response or everyones head is hiding up someone elses backside and lack of taking responsibilty or knowing what to do incase of something happening..
    What is the mathmatical probabilty that we will see another attack? Has anyone come up with any formula based on all factors at hand known/unknown?

    Some of my opinions got me thinking and which is why I am diving into how anthrax is going to be used from a medical perspective in all degrees of medical/governmental science that for now even the FDA would not have knowledge to, which kinda goes into things indirectly below…

    Here is something I found off the militarytimes website and is just a copy/paste for reading as I found it to be informative dealing with:

    Here is the full link to the page I was reading below:

    Anthrax Innoculations and Spondyloarthropathy

    Note: Spondyloarthropathy is a class of diseases that includes reactive athritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis and Crohn’s disease. See for more information on these conditions. Approximately 8-10% of the population has the HLA-B27 antigen which makes them extremely vulnerable to these types of diseases if exposed to a triggering agent. The AVEC committee seems concerened that the anthrax inoculation can be a triggering agent.

    Review by the Anthrax Vaccine Expert Committee (AVEC) believes there is a potential connection between the anthrax inoculations and the onset or aggravation of AS and other forms of spondyloarthropathy:Results Nearly half the reports noted a local injection-site AE, with more than one-third of these involving a moderate to large degree of inflammation. Six events qualified as serious AEs (SAEs), and all were judged to be certain consequences of vaccination. Three-quarters of the reports cited a systemic AE (most common: flu-like symptoms, malaise, rash, arthralgia, headache), but only six individual medically important events were judged possibly or probably due to vaccine (aggravation of spondyloarthropathy (2), anaphylactoid reaction, arthritis (2), bronchiolitis obliterans organizing pneumonia).
    1st doc. site –>…ry/AVEC_ms.pdf (2002 Report)

    Seven systemic SAEs (‘anaphylactic-like reaction’ [2], bronchiolitis obliterans organizing pneumonia [BOOP], ulnar nerve neuropathy, urticaria, rash, muscle spasms) and seven systemic OMIAEs (‘anaphylactic-like reaction’ [3], arthritis [2], aggravation of spondyloarthropathy and HLA B-27+ arthropathy) were judged to be possible, probable, or very likely/ certain consequences of vaccination with AVA (Table 2).
    2md doc. site –>…verArticle.pdf (2003 Report)

  5. DXer said

    The government’s theory (sometimes speculated as to motive for targeting media) is that Dr. Ivins targeted the media because he didn’t like Gary Matsumoto.

    The 302 on the subject states:

    MATSAMOTO was a reporter for NBC, or possibly ABC or CBS, who wrote a book entitled “Vaccine A.” The book attributes Gulf War Syndrome to the anthrax vaccine and criticizes specific researchers at USAMRIID for their work on the vaccine. MATSAMOTO has a website with some sort of blog dedicated to his book, and IVINS ahs posted questions in an attempt to “stir the pot.” There are fewer than a dozen such postings, and IVINS is identified only as “Guest.”

    Question: What did those postings say? For his part, Mr. Matsumoto thinks the theory of motivation has no sound basis.

  6. DXer said

    FBI consultant Saathoff reports that:

    “In emails he sent Technician #2 during the period of the mailings,
    Dr. Ivins reported that he had acquired a skin infection on his hand.
    The pain, he complained, was severe enough to make it diffi cult to
    play the keyboard in church.

    According to insurance billing records, he sought help from his
    family doctor, who diagnosed cellulitis, a skin infection”

    The phrase “[a]ccording to insurance billing records” may be a tip off that insurance billing records exist that would confirm — or not — that Dr. Ivins went to his scheduled September 17, 2001 group therapy session. Does that report indicate that he did? Does that report indicate the time of his email to Mara and any other emails on September 17, 2001? What is the document retention period for which such records need to be kept by an insurance company? (And if the psychiatrist’s billing computer crashed, was the hard drive available for a computer expert to examine?

    The phrase of “period of the mailings” is unnecessarily imprecise. What was the date of the visits to the doctors? November? August? September? Imprecision is the handmaiden of confusion.

    Creation of a timeline on September 17, 2001 should be a top priority for GAO investigators and analysts.

    While the hand infection is definitely worth noting, it had its parallel of Dr. Hatfill’s antibiotics stored in his girlfriend’s coffee can and his initial denial of being on antibiotics.

    More probative evidence goes to whether he attended the group therapy session and the time that the email(s) were sent. The FBI should have produced the September 17, 2001 from Dr. Ivins to Dr. Linscott especially given that it was relying on it in developing its theory of motivation.

    • BugMaster said

      Note that cellulitis is usually caused by Group A Streptococcus and Staphylococcus, not anthracis.

      Besides, Ivins was vaccinated repeatedly, and therefore had immunity to anthrax.

      If the infection had been Ames strain anthrax (which some would like to imply), it would have been susceptible to the first course of antibiotics prescribed (Keflex).

      • Battle Axe said

        Anthrax is supposedly, if not contaminated with a secondary infection, not painful.

      • Zicon said

        To what degree would a person such as Bruce that was given a vaccine quite often that made him Immune to Anthrax.. How many PPM (Parts Per Million) would be considered as a dangerous level and even the vaccine wouldn’t cure or help that person if exposed by any means…

      • DXer said

        What were the precise dates of the diagnosis of cellulitis? The FBI should provide all the emails they rely so heavily upon from Mara and Pat. Perhaps the dates of diagnosis can be gleaned from the date of the email in which he describes it.

    • Zicon said

      Just saying on the computer crash of the psych…
      Any idiot would have common sense to know that “You ALWAYS keep back-up copies” of anything important that is separate of your main system that has very important information, in any type of business setting.. Outside of business, depending on what one has, would be kept on a separate thumb drive(s), hard drive(s) or printed papers that one would have a random place unaffiliated with the info at hand to keep things secure until ready to use at the best moment when it can help or when your subject is at their lowest/ least expect something damaging to hit hard..

  7. DXer said

    A piece on Ivins: .

  8. Zicon said

    In response to R. Rowley’s post… and making some separate points.

    If a person(s) who are seeing a medical professional, and if you admit to a crime, or you say to the medical professional that you are planning on or going to commit a crime (using judgment on what it is obviously ex. stealing a candy bar vs. murder) it is the duty of the Dr. etc. to make that determination as to what needs to be done as far as the safety of said person(s) and the lives of others, to take the appropriate steps in alerting the proper authorities to defuse the situation.

    Another point is since there is “Supposed to be Dr./Patient Confidentiality and HIPPA where is the “Blurry Line” drawn at by the Dr. etc. based on what type of “crime” has occurred. Also to the occurrence of Past Present & Future based crime(s)

    One Dr. may dismiss ones activities as another Dr. on the exact same thing may go nuts and dial 911…

    Most all Dr’s. practice defensive medicine now for fear of getting sued and patient care goes down the drain

    ~~~(Just making a hypothetical point in this paragraph)

    ~~~As far as ones private affairs/life That should still remain private. In my opinion in this case from how Ivins “Private” life was ripped to pieces and pointed out to the public.. Keep in mind when “ABSOLUTELY NO GUILT HAS NOR WILL EVER BE PROVEN” was made public.. To me that would be the same thing as saying that Clinton is a homosexual and Bush enjoys getting whipped by big hairy men in high heels. Or Obama is really a Muslim who is secretly an atheist and smokes crack. If either one of those men had committed a crime do you think in this lifetime that things like what was just hypothetically said to make a point to become public knowledge? Hell No.. But IF it was true then it shouldn’t matter if things like this come out should it? Or does it… Depending on who you are/social status and how long your inner pockets hang out, and who all you have hanging on.~~~ Such as the supposedly independent panels that are to have no ties to either side of this investigation… Just making a valid point.

    How many wrong doings have been done not only by the “us gov” starting with the CIA back to Roland Carnaby/Cuba BoP, Vietnam, Not to even venture into things that have happened over the past 18 months, and the list can go on and on that can also be seen on Wikileaks who has done an excellent job in showing wrong doings No matter what country it is.. Now!!! has any of the people that were explicably responsible for these atrocities had their lives and medical records/private lives raked through the mud? Shouldn’t fault bear to the president at the time of disaster be held responsible for other agencies screw-ups? I haven’t seen one lately get impeached yet for some severe mishaps and mass disasters/short comings.. It’s called their not doing their jobs.. Get someone who has morals, values, & most of all some “common sense” that can run a country the way it should be run, and not I didn’t inhale.. What a crock!

    How would you feel?

    If I knew 100% I didn’t do it there’s not telling what one might do in that situation. I’d be mad as a hornet, then the FBI used his own emotions that again… were envoked by the FBI against him without just cause – Fact.

    If Ivins admitted to his psychiatrist that he did the crimes, then that person would have to notify the authorities immediately end of story, and then it would not have taken a decade of wasting millions of tax payer dollars, and showing some of the worst work/investigation by a government agency in the history of mankind so far.

    What needs to be done is not focus on Mr. Ivins, and instead look into another agency that had the strain of anthrax on hand in a large quantity from the 1980’s for overseas testing and weaponization.

    Also look at why would some people/labs even have some of the things that are on-hand, when for the mission statements/type of work-jobs that are done. There should be absolutely “NO REASON” to even be “PLAYING” with such things.

    Which plays a “HUGE” part why we are at war and for what? Is it because of the relationship that another “CertaIn Agency” has with the letters ZARI, and the true nature of planning/supply/demand for a growing power, that not only deals with Oil and metals, also bio-weapons that are exchanged for information about others that are potential problems, but are only the assumptions and speculation of D.C.O’s in the field which amounts to flipping a quarter to see if the Intel is credible or not…

    When meetings that deal with things of this nature takes place in the white house, they do so downstairs in a secure room that is basically a Faraday Cage. Not everyone has one of those in their back pockets so one can assume that some peoples conversations are not always private.. B. C. B. & O

  9. Zicon said

    As far as a “TRUE” independent panel that has “NO” ties or connection to the DOJ or the FBI.

    I have yet to see a full blown review that is “TRULY INDEPENDENT”

    Perhaps Lt. General Drysdale of the DIA will get somewhere from an internal p.o.v. because he knows full well of the technology & not to mention the capabilities that are at the FBI’s disposal near the top. Which btw is compartmentalized to a select group.

  10. Zicon said

    It was BI-POLAR.

    • richard rowley said

      Okay, thanks, Zicon.

      I think this was in response to my closing comment below:

      (One thing I HAVEN’T found: any references to ‘sociopathy’ or synonyms for that condition… I’m guessing that was not the diagnosis of Ivins’ psychiatrist)

      • Zicon said

        There are more than one Dx codes that are applied in this case. I will look to see if the list magically appears somewhere. Bipolar was one of the main ones. I mean for example I still hold a medical history record for the most severe and longest reaction to a BSL-2 bio-agent/toxin still to date, now just because I had no control over what it did, does that put certain labels on me for the rest of my life?. I would think not, but society it a F-U place it is what you make if it each and everyday. The worst of the reactions that lasted more than 2 months. To me it’s almost as if in the list of side effects or symptoms that if one thing is missing then it couldn’t be it… There are tons of Dx’s and depending on what scale is usedd when dx’ing someone and the type of treatment/qualifications/Dr-Patient relationship of the Dr. all play a huge part on the outcome and what the ultimate goal is to reach.

      • Zicon said

        Also that’s like trying to distinguish between the elements that must be met in order to charge someone with a certain crime (Ex. the diff. between 1st & 2nd degree murder is when only the PRE-INTENT can be proven or shown) that even a decade later the FBI “HAS NOT” proven anything beyond a reasonable/shadow of a doubt against Mr. Ivins.
        If I were on a jury panel could I sit there and be partial to both sides without a doubt…

        Do I want to hear arguments for days and days No I do not.. If I were a juror I would ask this and I would want the answer to be brief/to the point and take less than 2 mins to explain each answer from both sides and it would go like this starting with the pros., then to the def. to ask in a closing statement style.

        This is EXACTLY how I would ask the questions.

        To the Dir. of the FBI R.M/Obama/Bush too..

        Can you show me specific proof that Ivins committed this crime (Yes or No) If yes explain (No.. Next question)

        Then I would proceed to:

        Who.. (Yes or No)
        What.. (Yes or No)
        Where.. (Yes or No)
        When.. (Yes or No)
        How.. (Yes or No)
        Why.. (Yes or No)

        I would only take specific answers and to the point. If those cannot be answered, then I would vote “NOT GUILTY” all day long, and then even to a newbie traffic court judge would have sense enough to know that there is nothing to go on and would rule a full dismissal Next CASE… That would create a dark cloud in DC and more for obama. GB/RM had a meeting with BO about this case to go over the specifics in Jan of 09 in Washington DC.

  11. DXer said

    Here’s some rich analysis from the full report regarding the zip code on the letters being for Monmouth.

    Much of the analysis consists of cut and paste of the “Case Narrative” — i.e., the Amerithrax Investigative Summary (which does not cite to the record). But of course the lawyers were running with what FBI Quantico gave it which in turn was given the analysis by their consultant and partner, Greg. So the loop is complete and now dutifully reported by the busy journalists as confirmation of Dr. Ivins’ guilt.

    Greg writes:

    “Dr. Ivins did not use the ZIP code of either of these places, however,
    because doing so would not have demonstrated the link between
    them. Code lover that he was, he appears to have come up with
    something much richer.

    Dr. Ivins felt that his own identity, aspirations and resentments,
    were entwined in KKG. His decades of obsession demonstrated
    that entanglement.

    By using the ZIP code of Monmouth Junction, Dr. Ivins may have been
    portraying in code the connection between KKG and his own identity.
    Monmouth Junction may have represented the union of father
    (Monmouth, N.J.) and mother (Monmouth College, KKG), i.e., himself.
    And it also represented his entanglement, his obsession with KKG.
    In other words, in two inter-related ways, the Monmouth Junction may
    have represented Dr. Ivins himself. With the return address on his
    Senatorial letters, he appears to have revealed the identity – at the
    deepest level – of the mailer. Dr. Ivins, in short, signed his letters.”

    • DXer said

      Note that Ivins’ father was born in Ohio, not NJ.

      It was his great-great-grandfather Thomas Ivins who was born in Monmouth.

      The family moved to Ohio in the 19th century.

      • DXer said

        And note that Monmouth College is in Monmouth, Illinois, not New Jersey.

        • richard rowley said

          “And note that Monmouth College is in Monmouth, Illinois, not New Jersey.”

          I’m thinking MAYBE “Greendale School” because it sounds like ‘green beans’, Ivins’ favorite vegetable…..why not? It makes as much sense as much of this tortured stuff!

    • Zicon said

      The whole Monmouth..Also knowing about Monmouth University in NJ. Did that have any relevant direct/indirect meaning with anything having to do with Berklee, United Kingdom or in Colorado of any kind?

      This is what is said via wikipedia on monmouth..

      • Zicon said

        Monmouth NJ goes right to the United States Naval Weapons Station… Which is just East of Monmouth Battle Field State Park in NJ. as well as Monmouth IL and so on…

      • Old Atlantic said

        Trefynwy is the Welsh word for Monmouth. Note the ending carefully, fynwy. The first 3 letters are fyn which also scrambles to FNY. The Third Code!

        The Monnow marks the border between England and Wales. Monmouth is mouth of the Monnow.

  12. Anonymous said

    FBI Response to Independent Expert Behavioral Analysis Panel Report on Anthrax Mailings

    “The FBI appreciates the efforts, time, and expertise of the panel and its highly respected chair and members. The panel’s analysis, findings, and recommendations provide important insight that will further contribute to the public’s understanding of the investigation into the deadly anthrax mailings. The report also provides valuable perspectives that may be useful in preventing future attacks—in addition to what the government has already learned in the course of the investigation.”

    Press release | Report summary (pdf)

    • Anonymous said

      Summary says Ivins wrote an email entitled “after the anthrax attacks” to Nancy Haigwood on September 21, 2001. This was a few days after the letters were mailed but before the anthrax was known about.

      Hmmmmm – now if this is accurate – why wouldn’t the FBI have made that a headline 3 years ago?

      Or has the summary misconstrued the actual email and given it a false meaning?

      • DXer said

        The summary has misconstrued its own text. As explained in the text, that is a characterization by Dr. Ivins 7 years later, the report says, in a January 2008 FBI interview.

        • DXer said

          But note Patrick Walsh only sent around the summary you quote. You had to pay real money to see that the summary was botched.

        • DXer said

          Oh, and the FBI only linked the botched summary.

        • DXer said

          Someone should ask Dr. Saathoff what he was paid by the FBI in 2010 for his other consulting work. (e.g., Aafia Siddiqui, Ghailani and others. (It was a lot). So the spin of this report as pro bono is hugely misleading.

  13. DXer said

    Here are Pat and Mara figuring in his fun with blind folds and sex toys.
    Pat filmed a blindfolded Mara being handed a sex toy and the issue
    that Dr. Greg focuses on is whose idea it was.

    I’ve got an alternative idea, Dr. S:

    Get DOJ to provide the contemporaneous notes that Dr. Ivins made on 5
    nights you say he was weaponizing anthrax and provide a copy of the 9/17 email
    so we can see the time.

    And provide the documents relating to his autoclaving of the dead rabbits on
    10/2, 10/3 and 10/4. see 10/5 email. And then we can leave everyone’s sex toys out of sight
    and out of mind.

    Dr. Saathoff writes:

    “The depth of Dr. Ivins’ obsession is more fully revealed by his behavior
    during Technician #2’s [Mara] last week at USAMRIID. Accompanied by
    Technician #1 [Pat], he covered Technician #2’s eyes with a blindfold he had
    designed and made himself. He then drove her to an adult bookstore,
    where she was escorted to shelves containing sex toys. Meanwhile, he
    had Technician #1 videotape the whole episode. In that videotape, a
    copy of which he gave her, Technician #2 referred to
    Dr. Ivins as having a “criminal mind.” Only later did Dr. Ivins learn
    that Technician #1 had forewarned Technician #2 about the plan.
    As he had lied to KKG Sister #2 about the burglary and vandalism of
    her property, Dr. Ivins lied to Technician #2 about his role in this
    episode. Two years later, in an email dated September 19, 2001, he
    wrote Technician #2 that the plan was Technician #1’s idea: “I swear it
    was hers — I remember her very words when I was initially discussing
    the plan with her. She insists that she doesn’t remember. I also
    remember the planning, planning and more planning that went into it.”

    • DXer said

      The FBI consultant reports that on October 3, he sent Technician #2 the following email:

      “I remember mentioning to you the possibility that after you
      get your degree you might be interested in being an ‘on-call’
      physician for any suspected BW attacks in the country…I’m
      hoping such an attack doesn’t happen, of course. On a more
      humorous note, if a BW ‘crop duster’ ever does buzz through
      your city, you can just look up in the sky, knowing your
      immune system is ready, and give him the finger….”

      Note that this was a time when the New York Times and numerous other periodicals were reporting about the cropduster/BW threat.

      What time was that email sent? The DOJ needs to produce Dr. Ivins’ emails sent to Mara so we can see what time they were sent — and glean the computer they were sent from.

      The Chief of Bacteriology Gerard Andrews told the FBI that there was a computer in the BL-3 connected to the internet and that Dr. Ivins would use the computer.

    • DXer said

      “Dr. Ivins’ disclosures to the FBI concerning his childhood contain some
      highly unusual features. In a February 2008 interview, he reported
      that he had developed his lifelong fascination with blindfolds at the age
      of five or six, when he began blindfolding his stuffed animals and teddy
      bears. He also said his “obsession snow-balled over the years and
      eventually took on a sexual focus.”

  14. Anonymous said

    In addition to Dr. Ivins’s mental health records, the group examined thousands of pages of F.B.I. files, including the scientist’s email messages and transcripts of interviews with many of his colleagues, friends and relatives.

  15. DXer said

    “This pattern was seen again and again. After his suicide, it appeared
    that many of his colleagues viewed him as an innocent man hounded
    to death by the FBI. This view was in part informed by Dr. Ivins’ own
    statements; as reported in The Washington Post10, Dr. Ivins told
    another scientist that he, his wife and son had all been approached at
    a shopping mall by FBI agents who accused him and harassed them.
    Based on review of his own interviews with the FBI and a review of
    the FBI’s interviews with his wife, daughter and son, as well as
    extensive probing interviews with FBI agents and the prosecutor,
    the Panel found no evidence that this event at the mall ever even

    Let me explain to the United States Department of Justice how FOIA works — although it should be unnecessary given that it is the interests of justice at the heart of the matter.

    The 302s of Diane Ivins and the children, as redacted per any applicable statutory exemptions, need to be produced under FOIA.

    They debunk the idea that Ivins could have travelled overnight which is why they are being withheld.

    Given that Dr. Saathoff has reviewed them, they should have been provided in the appendix.

    • Zicon said

      I believe that the “hounding” was at F.T.M in Fredrick MD. I mean come-on there were even eyes in the sky watching him.. None of the characteristics even to how Ivins died does not add up and does not fit the profile of someone who would do this.. Aside from quirkiness he was just a normal human with problems just like every other person in the world.. Has anyone thought to go way back when this exact strain was made into a pure form for Weapons Testing?

      Did anyone ever keep up with records way back when, when things went missing/haywire but never spoken of or even involved the media. Other locations that are still classified for the type of testing that goes on.

      Some can say with certain (in an opinion of course) the strain didn’t come from USAMRIID that caused all these problems. I would look into forms that are in the 400 range Form 402A something going on memory but will correct this if I am wrong that will lead to the other area that had possession of the exact strain at(the so-called 3rd location) that Dir. R. Mueller would only disclose in a closed session of the “SIC”.

      There are over 600,000 people that have TS/ or Comp.Above TS-classification in the us. How many of those from CIA/FBI/DOD/ and any other branch of the gov has “ever” logged on a NON-SECURE internet connection.. The Next BIG question is.. Out of all those people. How many had/has no clue that someone may have tapped/bugged a computer to gain information or passwords. How many people who have access share knowledge with others to cover their A** so that they might not become a fall man for something bigger or to be used as leverage? The only 3 countries that would have any connection to this would be the UK/USSR/China

  16. DXer said

    Dr. Saathoff explains what he imagines to be why Bruce Ivins targeted Tom Brokaw:

    “Tom Brokaw worked for NBC, the network that had rejected his idea
    for a mini-series about the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster.
    And perhaps more importantly, Brokaw had been the co-host of the
    Today Show with Jane Pauley, who was among the most famous
    alumnae of KKG of her generation, as Dr. Ivins himself noted in his
    Internet postings. Just as he had sought revenge in various ways
    against the husband of KKG Sister #2, Dr. Ivins sought it against
    the broadcast partner of this other KKG Sister.”

    Dr. Saathoff,

    Provide the contemporaneous lab notes that Dr. Ivins wrote on the night you and your other FBI consultants say that Dr. Ivins was powderizing anthrax.

    And the documents relating to the subcutaneous challenge on October 2 and the 12 rabbits that needed autoclaving.

    And provide a copy of the September 17, 2001 email to Mara Linscott so I can see what time it was sent.

    That sort of evidence is relevant and probative.

    The speculation above is not.

    • Anonymous said

      “Tom Brokaw worked for NBC, the network that had rejected his idea
      for a mini-series about the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster.
      “And perhaps more importantly, Brokaw had been the co-host of the
      Today Show with Jane Pauley, who was among the most famous
      alumnae of KKG of her generation, as Dr. Ivins himself noted in his
      Internet postings. Just as he had sought revenge in various ways
      against the husband of KKG Sister #2, Dr. Ivins sought it against
      the broadcast partner of this other KKG Sister.”

      That has got to be the most utter BS fantasy ever written – straight out of the mouth of the DoJ and dressed up to come from someone in the medical field to somehow lend authority to it.

    • DXer said

      Dr. Saathoff thinks that Bruce sent anthrax to the media because he knew Gary Matsumoto and because Gary would prompt such a reaction:

      “In some cases, Dr. Ivins targeted his responses broadly and
      symbolically — in writing to The National Enquirer, for example,
      and its parent company, American Media Inc., he was targeting the
      media in general. “Tell Matsumoto,” he had written about one
      journalist, “to kiss my ass.” Sending anthrax to the Enquirer sent
      that message, in bold face italics.”

      Greg may know Gary. (Just kidding, Gary, lighten up.)

  17. DXer said

    At the time of suicide, Dr. Saathoff and the other FBI consultants explain:

    “Dr. Ivins was clearly experiencing many stressors. He was the prime
    suspect in a murder investigation that was likely to lead to a death
    penalty prosecution. He was facing a loss of career status and social
    support in connection with an unwelcomed retirement. His family
    relationships were strained and his social supports limited. He had
    recently suffered a disruption in his relationship with a trusted therapist.
    He had a recent history of alcohol abuse and prescription drug abuse
    (in remission only for several months).”

    • DXer said

      At page 213-214, the authors explain:

      “He also presented with multiple known risk factors for suicide:
      male gender; white race; access to fi rearms; unstable therapeutic
      relationship; suicidal ideas, plan and intent, and at least one possible
      suicide attempt. His diagnostic picture included elements of a number
      of diagnoses known to be associated with an increased risk of suicide:
      Retrospective analysis of his records and investigative materials
      indicates that Dr. Ivins exhibited a number of additional features
      that have been linked to an increased risk of suicide. They include
      co-morbidity (combined presence) of psychiatric problems, (i.e.,
      depression or personality disorder and alcohol abuse); recent lack of
      social support; poor relationships within the family; recent stressful life
      event(s); family history of mental disorders; hopelessness; anxiety;
      shame; psychological turmoil; narcissistic vulnerability; and history of
      Situational risk factors, such as the dissolution
      of his previously expressed religious beliefs, pending retirement,
      diminished psychosocial support system, pending criminal prosecution,
      and diffi culty identifying reasons for living, also likely contributed to his
      increased risk of self-harm prior to the time of his death.
      From a more practical standpoint, individuals who are hospitalized for
      suicidal ideation, as Dr. Ivins was on July 10, 2008, are at increased
      risk for suicide post-discharge.”

  18. DXer said

    Under what authority is Dr. Saathoff selling a report that was paid for by taxpayer funds and thus subject to FOIA?

    • DXer said

      Dr. Saathoff writes in the brief free abstract of the report he is selling:

      “His extensive, unexplained weekend and nighttime hours in the hot suite coincided with the period prior to the mailing of the anthrax letters in September and October. These odd hours enabled him to evade whatever supervisory oversight and observation by colleagues might ahve occurred.”

      Now this is where one would expect him to refer to the lab notes on September 28, 29, 30, October 1, and October 2.” Or the subcutaneous challenge on October 2, or the death of the 12 rabbits, or the time of the September 17 email.

      Does he include the lab notes in the portion of the report he is selling?

      Note that there are numerous places where the entire report can be made freely available (such as

      • DXer said

        “To most of his colleagues and acquaintances, Dr. Ivins was an eccentric, socially awkward, harmless figure, an esteemed bacteriologist who juggled at parties, played the keyboard at church and wrote clever poems for departing colleagues. That is precisely how Dr. Ivins wanted them to see him. He cultivated a persona of benign eccentricity that masked his obsessions and criminal thoughts.”

        Yes, yes, that’s the prose part. Sweets on Bones couldn’t have been more eloquent.

        But let’s get to the proof part. Has Dr. Saathoff given the public the documents relating to how Dr. Ivins spent those nights in September and October? Or has he withheld the lab notes like the DOJ did.

        • DXer said

          Dr. Saathoff says that in the 1970s, Dr. Ivins stole KKG Sister #2 “irreplaceable research notebooks” without noting, as wasn’t it reported elsewhere, that he told her where to find them.

        • DXer said

          Dr. Saathoff says that KKG Sister #2 (Nancy Haigwood) that Dr. Haigwood immediately suspected Dr. Ivins of the anthrax mailings upon getting a photoshopped picture of him working with anthrax (so as to spell out a holiday greeting) without noting that she was really pissed that her vaccine research had been described in the Washington Post as “cold fusion” in September 2001. Bruce reviewed articles for publications that rejected the article proposing her theory. (While I don’t purport to have a clue whether her theory was valid, note that she was angry over the Wash Po September 2001 reference to her research). Her gut reaction is not probative whatosever of who is responsible of the anthrax mailings of Fall 2001.

        • DXer said

          Dr. Saathoff writes:

          “In the early 1980s, KKG Sister #2 unknowingly moved into Dr. Ivins neighborhood in Gaithersburg, MD, He quickly discovered her presence.”

          No. That is what a mistaken AP report said in early August 2008. In fact, Dr. Ivins had already moved from Gaithersburg. See contemporaneous news articles (from the early 1980s) I have posted.

          This report already proving to be a crock fiction based on factual misstatements. I’ll get around to posting the documentary evidence (previously posted on this blog)( that, by the way, Dr. Saathoff could have found by googling or by searching ProQuest or Frederick News-Post archives).

        • DXer said

          Withhold the contemporaneous documents and then serve up gems like this?

          “Princeton represented his father and perhaps his unmet college aspirations and the humiliation and rage wrapped up in these concepts for him.”

        • Lew Weinstein said

          Did anyone on that panel actually meet Dr. Ivins?

        • DXer said

          In an article April 22, 1983, the Frederick paper explained “Ms. Ivins is the wife of Dr. Bruce Ivins, a microbiologist at Fort Detrick. They have lived in Frederick since January 1981.”

        • DXer said

          Nancy Haigwood moved to Gaithersburg in 1982 after Dr. Ivins had already moved to Gaithersburg. The mistake initially was made by the AP in an article that sought to create a stalker narrative.

          Now I don’t worry so much about factual mistakes relating to 30 years ago — like whether Dr. Ivins returned the lab notebook or who followed who to Gaithersburg.

          But I am greatly disturbed by the withholding by the DOJ and its consultants issuing this report of contemporaneous documents created by Bruce Ivins in the lab on the nights that the FBI says the anthrax mailed to US Senators was processed.

          And given that Dr. Saathoff is writing so much about Dr. Ivins relationship with Mara Linscott, I would hope that he included a copy of his email to her on September 17, 2001 so we can see what time it was sent.

        • DXer said

          KKG Sister #2, Nancy Haigwood, was furious over this article. It related to the failure to have a key article on a key breakthrough published. (And such breakthrough on something AIDs could mean a lot to researcher).

          As a general matter, though, criminal profilers should recognize that one person’s immediate “gut reaction” that another is guilty is, without more, reason to ask: What motivates the anger?

          It is not evidence that the other party is in fact guilty of murder.

          The Washington Post

          September 23, 2001 Sunday
          Final Edition

          Trials and Errors

          BYLINE: Reviewed by Lorraine Adams ( a staff writer for the Washington Post)

          SECTION: BOOK WORLD; Pg. T05

          BIG SHOT

          Passion, Politics and the

          Struggle for an AIDS Vaccine

          By Patricia Thomas

          There is Nancy Haigwood, 31, a molecular biologist whose vaccine was ridiculed for years as “weird science” or “cold fusion.”

        • DXer said

          Now two days before her research was described as “cold fusion” in the Washington Post, and her fury over that, Dr. Ivins wrote her. The FBI consultant writes:

          “On September 21, 2001, however, three days after the first letters were
          postmarked, she received an email from him at her place of work,
          in Seattle. He inquired about personal matters — her sons and their
          educational plans — which he had no way of knowing about, to her
          knowledge. He also offered a comment about his professional life:
          “since we are the primary BW [Biowarfare] research center in this
          country, we are all more than a bit on edge.”

          Why would he not have reason to know of her sons given that I do? And by googling Old Atlantic knows what my cat looks like?

          Is even googling or a simple search of alumni news or a news database of a former classmate now considered stalking when it suits someone’s purpose of spin? Spin by an FBI consultant who evidences ABSOLUTELY NO KNOWLEDGE WHATSOEVER OF WHAT DR. IVINS WROTE IN HIS CONTEMPORANEOUS NOTES ON THE 5 DATES HE CLAIMS DR. IVINS WAS WEAPONIZING ANTHRAX? Enough with the bullshit, please. Produce the documents now or in litigation.

  19. Old Atlantic said

    “Such threats must be examined with candor by a range of professionals including those experts who are actively encountering the threats. ” Encountering or encouraging?

    • DXer said

      If the report does not include copies of Dr. Ivins’ lab notes made on the dates they say he was weaponizing anthrax and the time of the September 17, 2001 email to Mara, as well as the documents relating to the 10/2 subcutaneous challenge resulting in the 12 rabbits need autoclaving, then it will be Dr. Saathoff and Dr. Schouten who are central to what looks to be the greatest failure of intelligence in US history.

  20. DXer said

    I believe the 5 dates of lab notes, specified in the Amerithrax Investigation Summary, that the DOJ is withholding and has refused to produce under FOIA are:

    September 28, 2001
    September 29, 2001
    September 30, 2001
    October 1, 2001
    October 2, 2001

    The date of the email from Bruce Ivins to Mara Linscott that the DOJ has failed to produce (so that we can confirm the time it was sent) is September 17, 2001. It is an important email under the DOJ’s theory and they have quoted it at length. The DOJ should produce it given that it nowhere has stated the time it was sent.

    Finally, given that Dr. Ivins’ October 5, 2001 email recounts that 12 rabbits have died pursuant to the October 2 subcutaneous challenge — and it was contemplated that the subcutaneous challenge was going to be done at USAMRIID upon shipment of the immunized rabbits from Covance — the documents relating to that subcutaneous challenge should be produced.

    Sweets (from the tv show Bones) would have requested these documents from Booth before venturing an opinion on what Dr. Ivins was doing on those nights in late September 2001 or early October 2001. He would recognize that is the most probative evidence. Evidence of question marks on an 1987 form in comparison are meaningless.

  21. DXer said

    Richmond Times Dispatch (Virginia)

    March 7, 2002 Thursday City Edition


    BYLINE: Frank Green, Times-Dispatch Staff Writer, Contact Frank Green at (804) 649-6340 or,

    To succeed, they must swim in the toxic wake of deviance and cruelty.
    They do so at emotional risk, sometimes under the white-hot glare of media attention and unrealistic public expectations. Most cope. Some thrive. But the stress sometimes can lead to anxiety disorders, depression, failed marriages and substance abuse.

    The 30 FBI special agents, men and women who work as profilers for the bureau’s National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime, usually do not confront emotional trauma head-on as they would in a shootout or working at a fresh crime scene.

    Instead, they meet horror indirectly, in a more subtle form over a much more extended period.

    “Profiling is intensive work. Profilers look at the crime scene, including the photographs which are sometimes quite graphic,” said Dr. Greg Saathoff, a psychiatrist and executive director of the University of Virginia’s Critical Incident Analysis Group. He also is a consultant to the FBI.

    “Some have dramatic reactions to the experience of solving the unspeakable crimes,” Saathoff said. “Some people find themselves being pulled into the crime in a very personal way – particularly crimes involving children, or crimes involving torture or significant brutality.”

    But most profilers don’t reveal their personal reactions to the depravity they study. “These are people who tend to be quite stoic, as are most in law enforcement,” Saathoff said.

    “Sometimes, intellectually, they are prepared to do the work but emotionally find that it has more of an impact than they might expect and, frankly, you don’t know how it is going to affect people until they actually start working in the area,” he said.

    “I don’t want to paint a picture of a group of weak-kneed, quivering people who can’t deal with difficulties. I think we all are challenged when we’re faced with crimes that are unspeakable. And it is those that we have difficulty finding words for that are going to be most challenging.”

    • DXer said

      Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Business News

      July 4, 2010 Sunday

      UVa doctors pen book on criminal poisoning

      BYLINE: Tasha Kates, The Daily Progress, Charlottesville, Va.

      July 04–Poisoning symptoms can be different every time — nausea, seizures, skin discoloration, double vision and more. Determining that a patient has been poisoned takes a team of doctors, specialists and psychologists, plus law enforcement if the poisoning is a crime.

      To ensure that all these professionals can work together easily, two University of Virginia doctors have helped co-author a new manual called “Criminal Poisoning: Clinical and Forensic Perspectives.”

      Dr. Gregory B. Saathoff, associate professor of research in psychiatry and neurobehavioral sciences and associate professor of emergency medicine at UVa, said the book helps create a common language for the professionals.

      “One of the big goals with this book is to really bring the disciplines together,” Saathoff said. “The poisoner succeeds when the various disciplines are not communicating.”

      The book points out that the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report shows that 0.16 percent, or 638 of 389,756 homicides between 1980 and 1999, were poisonings. Although the total number of homicides decreased about 8 percent in that time period, homicidal poisonings increased by 18 percent.

      Dr. Christopher P. Holstege, the book’s co-author and chief of UVa’s Division of Medical Toxicology and associate professor of emergency medicine and pediatrics, said the federal statistics might be misleading.

      “The problem is we don’t know how many are occurring,” Holstege said. “There is probably a significant percentage not being picked up.”

      Holstege said UVa has seen suspected date rape cases involving drugs and cases of Münchausen syndrome by proxy, when a person induces illness in another person. The toxicologist said it is rare to get a criminal poisoning case resulting in homicide in the area.

      Donna Somerville faced a first-degree murder trial in 2004 in Orange County after being accused of drugging and killing her husband, Hamilton Somerville, with Oxycodone, codeine and morphine in 2001. She was acquitted.

      Q. Where do people obtain poisons?

      Holstege. You’d be surprised where they can get them. There was a study done five years ago that looked at what you could buy on eBay, and there are all types of things you can buy on eBay. There is a whole host of toxins out there in the grocery store, pharmacy and herbal store.

      Q. How has the Internet affected people who poison?

      Holstege. The Internet is just ripe with this information now, whereas before you couldn’t find this information. You had to find books on it, and there weren’t many books on it.

      They’re able to get the information of what things can be used to intoxicate somebody, how can they deliver that and concentrate it. There is historical data now that is more accessible to the public about past poisonings.

      Q. Why do people poison others? What qualities do poisoners have?

      Saathoff. It can be a silent killer. It is certainly much harder to detect poisoning than it would be to detect fatality by gunshot or stabbing.

      For effective poisoning to take place, there is planning that is required. In many cases of criminal poisoning, there also is an intimacy — intimacy between doctor and patient, or a kind of special relationship that people have with family members or co-workers. For some poisoners, some of the incentive is that process of planning, planning, planning. It’s something we have seen on many occasions when poisoners talk about the steps that they went through. They can be very specific and very detailed in terms of reliving the methodical process.

      Sometimes you have an issue where the poisoner maintains a very strong bond with the victim so that the victim is the last to know. The victim sometimes will, to the bitter end, state ‘they have taken good care of me,’ but in fact the opposite is true. … If there ever was an Academy Award for criminals, it would most likely go to poisoners because of this whole issue of things not being as they seem.

      • Zicon said

        In short term it’s called being human.

        People with extremely high IQ’s in the area of their work, tend to have little to “NO” people skills, and tend to get bored very quickly in conversation with others. They also keep to themselves, and when they speak it’s direct, blunt and to the point then it is end of conversation/ or just walk away without leaving the interaction with an ending of thank you or good bye.

        The biggest problem of people like this if they are proved to be wrong or are shown-up they get very pissed and hold a grudge for awhile untill they except that they too can be wrong, then days later, they will go back and right the wrong in a previous conversation/work and extremely hate to admit defeat.

        Not to profile, but I view people more as a button on a stove from Low Med Med-Hi Hi from a cognitive pov. Which gives one a better understanding on how to either interact with others, or to subliminally get a message across without the issues of confrontation that ends in disaster.

    • DXer said

      This sort of stuff reported in the media accounts is so far afield from the type of probative evidence the FBI should be relying on it’s not funny.

      Dr. Hatfill forged his PhD diploma in gaining access to ebola. The same logic relied upon by Dr. Saathoff and the fellow psychiatrists and Red Cross officials would point equally to Dr. Hatfill. (especially given that taking a lab notebook of a colleague you are smitten with to get her attention (and then leaving it in her locker) or being obsessed with sorority co-eds is a lot less serious than forging a PhD diploma.

      The reporters should have asked Dr. Saathoff for his expert opinion on Dr. Hatfill! :0)

      Instead, the government employees paid by US taxpayers need to comply with FOIA as to the relevant documents relating to what Dr. Ivins was doing on the dates of interest or leave for the private sector.

      “On a 1987 government form, for instance, he left question marks next to “Memory Change,” “Trouble With Decisions,” “Hallucinations,” “Improbable Beliefs” and “Anxiety.”

      He also had a history of “disqualifying” behaviors, including burglarizing two Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority houses and stealing the lab notebook of a colleague who had belonged to the sorority.

      “Despite criminal behavior and sabotage of his colleague’s research, Dr. Ivins was hired by USAMRIID and received a security clearance, allowing him to work with potential weapons of mass destruction,” the report concluded.

      Read more:

      • Anonymous said

        I completely agree. Saathoff and his cronies could have equally said Hatfill was off the wall, in fact much more “dangerous” than Ivins.

      • Zicon said

        In response to: On a 1987 government form, for instance, he left question marks next to “Memory Change,” “Trouble With Decisions,” “Hallucinations,” “Improbable Beliefs” and “Anxiety.”

        Doesn’t matter if it was a government form or a FOIA request..

        Who hasn’t had “some” type of psychological problem(s) or issues in their lifetime. Any adult who says they haven’t well I wouldn’t hold my breath. Which brings a separate point of a different topic, just to make my point.. Just because the got embarrassed by what was put out in Wikileaks and you have government officials inciting murder would that not be a psych. problem, and that a certain female should not hold a government position.. So how does one justify who is really a good person, and one who is not?, when in a exec. position for the
        Perhaps some of the questions/answers that some are seeking here or anywhere else dare to send those questions to Julian Assange to see what floats to the surface… Or would those is high public positions dare to venture down that road for fear of your civil rights being violated up/down and get put on a very big FBI list that was made based on what?. and what type of day those agents are having for example RM supports RP this person is now on our list for surveillance based on your god given right to believe anything or what shreds are left of the constitution.

  22. Zicon said

    For this to come up someone “must be close to someone or something”. So time for damage control. All this will do is create many questions so that everyone must take a step back. You can expect there be a picture painted out to an exact science, so that no matter what arises there will be many directions to take the statements that will be made. There are some good points to be made by the “CRS” the biggest part of the CRS will just make things more complicated and bear no meaning on things due to not being able to view/study many things that may/maynot still be in the FBIR/Destroyed. CWOTO

    • Anonymous said

      The graphic says it all “In 2009, an “independent” panel was convened”.

      It is clearly not an independent panel. Saathoff works for the FBI – and Saathoff chose all the other panel members himself. And the Department of Justice paid for it all.

      Then they went to David Willman (the FBI’s go-to journalist for the “exlusive” of Ivins’ suicide) and gave him another “exclusive”.

      How convenient for everyone. The sorority obsessions replayed yet again for public display.

      A poor piece of pure propaganda. They don’t have a scintilla of evidence that Dr Ivins or USAMRIID was involved in any way in the anthrax attacks.

      • DXer said

        Don’t fault Dr. Saathoff and other FBI profilers for doing their job. Fault the reporters at the conference right now who when questioning opens up, won’t know enough about Amerithrax to ask if he is now making available Dr. Ivins’ contemporaneous notes on 5 days the FBI speculates he was processing anthrax. Fault the reporters for NOT doing THEIR job. (They relate to his lab work with the animals). And note the reporters will listen to the stuff about a fixation on sororities in the 1970s and early 1980s etc. without asking Dr. Saathoff if he could provide a copy of the September 17, 2001 email to Mara Linscott.

        • Anonymous said

          “Don’t fault Dr. Saathoff and other FBI profilers for doing their job.”

          Saathoff wrote, or was behind the statement “In 2009, an “independent” panel was convened”. Clearly a total misrepresentation. Thus Saathoff is at fault. He misrepresented the report and the panel.

        • richard rowley said

          “Don’t fault Dr. Saathoff and other FBI profilers for doing their job.”

          A slight correction here: in the context of a criminal investigation, profiling is done based on the characteristics of the crime(s)/crime scene(s)/MO/perp’s signature/identity of victin etc. and is done in reference to an “unknown subject” (UNSUB). The basic idea of the profile is to give investigators a better idea of the TYPE of person they should give a hard look at. Organized vs disorganized. Race. Age. Likely occupation etc. Profiles are like silhouettes: they need to be filled in.

          What we have here (in this panel’s product) is something like an anti-profile: they apparently (the panel AS A PANEL)weren’t consulted in the 2001 to mid 2008 timeframe(the time when the task force was looking at many many persons). Rather their function is to come up with recommendations based on the conclusions of the gov’t’s FINAL REPORT. Though they stipulate

          “The Panel thus undertook its work with no predispositions regarding Dr. Ivins’ guilt or innocence and in fact without even a focus on that issue”. (page 1)

          the net effect, since they weren’t involved in a profile (to compare Ivins to that profile) AND they (as individuals and as a panel) never examined Ivins, is that they accept the gov’t characterizations implicitly on just about all counts (of the material I’ve looked at so far). This can’t help but skew their conclusions and, despite the early disclaimer, they DO have at least a minor ‘focus’ on the question of Ivins’ guilt/innocence:
          they accept numerous (to me) implausible motives, they come up with a tortured explanation for the return address on the Leahy/Daschle letters, they make much of Ivins’ fondness for codes etc.

          I don’t think this panel’s report will change anyone’s mind, if the person has a good knowledge of the case to begin with. It will, alas, impress those whose interest in Amerithrax is very casual (ie just follows major ‘findings’ in the newspapers).

          Bottom line: a totally derivative report, flawed by the fact that the head of the panel is an FBI consultant and thus isn’t an outside observer with no personal biases…..

          (One thing I HAVEN’T found: any references to ‘sociopathy’ or synonyms for that condition… I’m guessing that was not the diagnosis of Ivins’ psychiatrist)

  23. DXer said

    If associate professor Saathoff did not require that FBI give him a copy of the September 17, 2001 email to Mara Linscott, prior to rendering his opinion, so that we can see the time it was sent (the FBI says Dr. Ivins can be assumed to have travelled to Princeon on the night of September 17)]…

    and did not require that the FBI provide him with the contemporaneous lab notes that Dr. Ivins on the 5 nights that the FBI says Ivins was making anthrax into a fine powder,

    and the documents relating to the October 2 subcutaneous challenge requiring the autoclaving of 12 dead rabbits on October 3, October 4 and October 5,

    and instead in comparison finds question marks written on a 1987 form probative,

    then Dr. Saathoff needs to rethink the value of the role of psychiatrists and Red Cross officials in true crime and intelligence analysis in keeping this country safe from an anthrax attack.

    The US Army says that the DOJ is mistaken that the September 17, 2001 email was written on Dr. Ivins work computer as AUSA Rachel Lieber and AUSA Kenneth Kohl claim. The USAMRIID FOIA person is sandra Ms CIV USA MEDCOM USAMRMC Rogers

    If it was written on his home computer, then it is all the more important that we learn what time it was sent.

    Rachel Lieber inexplicably has refused to produce the lab notebook pages that Dr. Ivins wrote at the time the DOJ claims he was powderizing anthrax or the September 17, 2001 email (so as to show the time it was sent).

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 )

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: