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

* Oct 26, 2012 journal article discussing Amerithrax forensics and the need for objective, scientifically-based criteria

Posted by DXer on November 1, 2012



112 Responses to “* Oct 26, 2012 journal article discussing Amerithrax forensics and the need for objective, scientifically-based criteria”

  1. DXer said

    Forensic evidence in the firing line in the US
    By Angeli Mehta4 October 2016

  2. DXer said


    .Authors:Maxwell, Mark W..Source:Chemical & Engineering News (00092347); 5/6/2013, Vol. 91 Issue 18, p5-5, 1/4p.Document Type:Letter.Subjects:Failed Evidence: Why Law Enforcement Resists Science (Book); Science & law.Abstract:

    A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article concerning the review of the book “Failed Evidence: Why Law Enforcement Resists Science” by Charles Tumosa in February 18, 2013 issue and April 1, 2013.

  3. DXer said

    And in giving thanks, let’s thank people who can think for themselves.

    11 o’clock News – Revealing more secrets than WikiLeaks

    Friday, November 16, 2012
    Anthrax Mission Impossible: Ivins Couldn’t Make This Stuff Up

    …But the FBI sure as hell can.


    Glenn Greenwald: “As always, in Establishment Media World, nothing is more insane or radical than refusing to believe every word the Government says. Even after Iraqi mushroom clouds and the whole litany of Government falsehoods, the establishment hallmark of Seriousness and Sanity is accepting the Government’s word. When it says Iraq was behind the attacks, then it was. When they said Hatfill was the culprit, he was. Now that they say that Ivins is, he is, and only “conspiracy theorists” — comparable to those who disbelieve we landed on the moon — would question that or demand to see the actual evidence. The FBI is relying, understandably so, on their mindless allies in the media to depict its case against Ivins as so airtight that no real investigation is necessary.”

  4. DXer said

    Finally, on this Thanksgiving, we have all the reporters to thank who dare weigh in on a complicated matter and try to get things right — we owe a special thanks to those who obtain documents or interviews.

    Relatedly, we owe an even greater thanks to those government employees and experts who make themselves available to be interviewed — even when the questions are difficult.“murder-weapon”-to-borrow-us/

    The fact that there are so many unanswered questions just makes it a continuing journalistic challenge.

    Dr. Ivins describes weaponized anthrax that says he had heard had been shipped to Ft. Detrick and then went missing.

  5. DXer said

    On Thanksgiving, I especially have Lew to thank for tirelessly uploading the documentary evidence whether dressed up in a graphic or not. He always has shown excellent judgment in what to post and what not to post.

    Dr. Ivins email about the Ames missing from building 1412 and the autoclaving of samples there.

    Dr. Ivins’ expressed concern to a superior that he was missing samples — only to be told to shut up. He never identifies the superior telling Ivins that everything was under control.

    Hot News!

    Lew regularly uploaded the admissible sworn deposition testimony and statements casting doubt on the FBI’s Ivins Theory.

  6. DXer said

    Although I especially liked the graphics that showed the artist’s whimsy and contained surprises I needed to look for — some of the most powerful ones were focused on documentary evidence.

    Missing Ames

    The FBI removed the original of Lab Notebook 4010 (and other notebooks that were subpoenaed) without leaving a copy and still hasn’t returned key notebooks to USAMRIID so they can be produced under FOIA.

    Henry Heine spider

    Operation Noble Eagle


    I have tried to prove myself to him as the Oracle of the Golden Snowball by predicting the local first 1″ of snowfall as November 27 at 10:01 a.m.

  7. DXer said

    Some of my favorite taxpayer-funded graphics:

    The “Hatfill Theory” was part of the same unstoppable train wreck as the “Ivins Theory.” There was a change of cars (investigators), but it was the same flawed train of reasoning and the investigators never overcame the earlier truncated emphasis of the investigation.

    The US Attorney and AP created the impression that the Federal Eagle stamp was uniquely sold in Ivins’ post office (near USAMRIID) when it in fact was sold throughout Maryland and Virginia. This misstatement by the US Attorney (picked up by AP) was as great as any misstep in connection with a “Hatfill Theory”.

    The scientists should consider why olive oil was what the bloodhounds smelled at Denny’s when the FBI assumed they were tracking Steve Hatfill who had visited the day before.

    In addition to helping the FBI with Amerithrax, the psychic relied upon the government prosecutors and investigators helped with 911 by her astral travelling and retrieval of etheric body parts at Ground Zero … She reports she was granted her psychic abilities by a being claiming to be an extraterrestrial …

  8. DXer said

    KSM was in a charity in Pakistan after the WTC 1993 bombing. After the 1993 bombing, KSM received a reporting call from the dorm room of subtilis expert and blind sheik supporter Walied Samarrai. Walied lived within 20 miles of the Princeton mailbox in 2001.

    Along with Zawahiri, blind sheik Abdel Rahman and his two sons have had considerable influence over Bin Laden. He reportedly treated them like sons. The leaders in charge of Al Qaeda’s anthrax production program thus had a close connection to those imprisoned in connection with the earlier bombing of the World Trade Center. The imprisoned WTC 1993 plotter Yousef was KSM’s nephew. KSM claims to have been responsible for the planning of WTC 1993.

    WTC 1993 mastermind Ramzi Yousef had been the mentor of the new husband of MIT-graduate Aafia Siddiqui, who now faces trial at Guantanamo.

    In light of this, investigator Ed Montooth and AUSA Rachel Lieber should have avoided withholding of documents (to the extent not exempt under FOIA) that might be deemed exculpatory of Dr. Ivins.

    Too much was at stake to rely on Ed Montooth’s comfort level or Rachel Lieber’s zealousness.

    The DOJ should have complied with FOIA.

    Amerithrax represents the greatest failure in intelligence analysis in the history of the United States.

  9. DXer said

    Laurie Mylroie in a 2001 book described a “Waly Samar” who was a microbiologist connected to the WTC 1993 participants based on phone records. Was he the subtilis expert allegedly connected to Al Qaeda’s anthrax program that the FBI reports it was able to confidently exclude (in adjudging Dr. Ivins the sole culprit)? Did “Waly Samar” live in Trenton in 2001? Who does “Waly Samar” think is responsible for the Fall 2001 anthrax mailings?

    Posted by Lew Weinstein on April 30, 2011

  10. DXer said

    Here is a representative editorial on these issues:

    EDITORIAL: Flawed science

    Frederick News-Post, The (MD) – Monday, February 21, 2011

    Author: The Frederick News-Post, Md.

    Feb. 21–The FBI’s weak case against Bruce Ivins, the lone suspect in the Amerithrax attacks, was dealt an embarrassing blow with Tuesday’s release of a report by the National Research Council.

    The 170-page document, a review the FBI itself requested, stated that the case for Ivins’ culpability in the deadly anthrax mailings of 2001 was based largely on flawed science, and that the strength of that evidence was overstated by the FBI.

    According to the report, over the course of its investigation, the FBI devoted 600,000 hours to the case and assigned 17 special agents to a task force along with 10 U.S. postal inspectors. The investigation spanned six continents and involved more than 10,000 witness interviews, 80 searches, 26,000 e-mail reviews, and analyses of 4 million megabytes of computer memory. It resulted in 5,750 grand jury subpoenas issued.

    Twenty-nine government, university and commercial laboratories assisted in conducting the scientific analyses that were a central aspect of the investigation.

    Despite all that, the council’s reports states: “It is not possible to reach a definitive conclusion about the origins of the B. anthracis in the mailings based on the available scientific evidence alone.”

    In other words, despite what the FBI and Justice Department claimed, no one really knows where the anthrax came from that was used in the fatal mailings.

    The council could not determine how skilled the manufacturer needed to be to produce the spores, which could have taken anywhere from two days to months to prepare. Also overturned was a conclusion by the Justice Department that the anthrax came from a flask created and maintained solely by Ivins.

    From a purely scientific standpoint, there is no smoking gun to tie Ivins to the anthrax mailings.

    The FBI, in our opinion, built their case on largely circumstantial evidence — that Ivins had to be the one because he fit the psychological profile.

    With the science that underpinned that finding now in doubt, the FBI’s case is in tatters. We will probably never conclusively know if Ivins was guilty. And that the FBI used shoddy evidence to push him as the suspect, pre-emptively wrapping up the case after Ivins’ suicide in 2008, does not fulfill due process and is an injustice.

    Even worse, if Ivins was not the anthrax mailer, the real killer, or killers, is still on the loose.

    • DXer said

      If Ed in his self-published book was going to make up stuff about an imaginary First Grader in Frederick, MD who started classes on August 20, 2001, then he should have got the most basic objective facts right. On the front page of the Frederick News-Post on August 27, 2001, an article about day care centers explained: “Nine YMCA child care centers … are closed today the first day of school due to staffing shortages.” Another front page article on August 27, 2001 has the headline: “Teachers try to set tone as schools open doors.”

      Ed knows that Dr. Ivins committed suicide shortly after visiting Ed’s website. (p. 377) So why doesn’t he take more care in getting his facts right? He knows that Dr. Ivins’ daughter also attempted suicide and so he should be doubly scrupulous in his fact-checking and wild speculation. For example, where does he cite the information I gave from the regulating state agency that Diane did not get her license for a day care center until well AFTER 2001? Now he says he doesn’t have an obligation to correct mistakes in his “on demand” book (which is only printed when someone orders it.). I think it costs Ed 25 cents to make a correction and submit a revised pdf. If Ed is going to involve a First Grader in a multiple murder, doesn’t Ed think it is worth two bits to get his facts right? Instead, he has arranged to give the uncorrected copy to the Frederick public library. That’s extremely shoddy and irresponsible research.

      • DXer said

        On his website, Mr. Lake states:

        “His wife filed for a license to run a day care center in their home a year AFTER the anthrax attacks.”

        Where does he make that disclosure in his book?

        It related to an earlier go-round on this issue when I got the licensing info for him.

        But as you can see, he was not deterred — and over the past 4 years he never called to make any inquiry.

        One thing that the NK/NYT experience showed in connection with Hatfill Theory — ALWAYS make such an inquiry BEFORE you publish.

        Always give the other party a chance to correct any error.

        • DXer said

          Ed has published a book in which he alleges that Diane Ivins was running an unlicensed day care center where she let a First Grader in her care participate in a murder plot — on more than on occasion

          Ed’s claims have no factual basis.

          Ed writes:

          “Back in 2002, when I first heard the hypothesis that a child wrote the letters, I was dubious. But, the facts added up. So, I was maybe 30% convinced.

          Then more facts showed up, the new facts supported the hypothesis, and there were no facts disputing the hypothesis. When I discovered that the writing on the senate letter and envelopes was about half the size of the writing on the media letter and envelopes, I became 65% convinced. (Children learn to write smaller in first grade.) That was probably the percentage when I wrote my book.

          Then, after I wrote my book in 2005, I noticed the way the writer drew R’s and how the writing clearly showed he had learned the proper way to draw R’s during the period between the writing of the Brokaw letter and the writing of the Leahy letter. I was then about 90% percent convinced.

          The biggest problem I had at that time was that the person the media thought was the anthrax mailer (Hatfill) was unmarried and didn’t have any apparent access to children. The same with the person living in New Jersey who I saw as the most likely person to be the culprit: No known access to children.

          Then Ivins was identified as the anthrax mailer. BOOM. Ivins wife ran a day care center. The percentage of certainty jumped to 99%.

          Then someone argued that Ivins wife didn’t apply for a license until January 2003, so she couldn’t have been running a day care center in September of 2001.

          I argued that it must have been an unlicensed day care center. But, the certainty percentage dropped to 98.5%.

          Then David Willman’s book stated that Diane Ivins started her day care center in the early 1980’s. Bingo! The percentage went back to 99%.


          Comment: Ed lacks critical reasoning ability, does not check his sources before publishing, and does not rely on validated scientific methods in reaching his conclusions. Before he alleged that Diane ran an unlicensed day care center and allowed a First Grader to participate in murder, he needed to make necessary inquiry and needed to get his facts right. Now that error has been pointed out to him, he needs to correct his published false claims. A published opinion is also actionable where it implies facts that are not true. Given that imputation of the crime is libelous per se, he risks a suit for libel and an award of punitive damages. These sorts of percentages he throws out are the sort of junk science that has caused such an uproar in the area of criminal forensics.

  11. DXer said

    Al Qaeda anthrax lab technician tells me that he realizes that by addressing these issues he may “jack myself up” but says that the “plan is on the way.”

    Amerithrax represents too important a matter to suffer fools gladly. Ed is a fool because he has no factual basis in urging that a First Grader wrote the anthrax letters without even so much as making the most basic inquiry on the issue.

    He is just making stuff up.

    • DXer said

      Not even able to get right the factual issue of the first day of school correct, Ed presses on. He notes that Dr. Ivins “defended pedophilia and said it was just a matter of ‘sexual orientation.’ So, using a child to write the letters would be a far less terrible act than other acts with child he seemed to think about.”

      Ed is saying that Mrs Ivins, who well AFTER the 911 mailings first became a licensed day-care provider, allowed Bruce to have a child in her charge write the murderous screed and address the letters — not once, but twice. I provided the state licensing record to Ed — did he include the citation?

      Ed apparently has never asked a First Grader to write a thank you letter.

      Ed refuses to make corrections in his online book “on-demand” book because it has already been “published.”

      To the contrary, it is a simple matter to make corrections — and one should never NOT make corrections when errors are pointed out.

    • DXer said

      The Al Qaeda anthrax lab technician admitted in 2012 that he had been part of the Malaysian biological weapons program. Although captured in December 2001, the FBI did not get around to interviewing him until November 2002.

  12. DXer said

    In A CRIME UNLIKE ANY OTHER, Ed notes at p. 353 that “Dr. David Relman, who had been co-chair on the review of the Amerithrax case by the National Academy of Sciences, also argued that Al Qaeda could have done it.”

    “In Have We “Met the Enemy”?, Science 3 February 2012: Vol. 335 no. 6068 pp. 540-541

    Ed disagrees with Dr. Relman.

    Dr. Relman was chair of the June 12, 2012 conference at the NAS at which the science relied upon in Amerithrax was discussed.

    Ed did not discuss (or read or listen to) the presentations — such as by Claire Fraser-Liggett, the FBI’s genetic scientist. Or former key FBI scientist Bruce Budowie. He should make it a point to focus on what the experts are saying so he can reach more informed conclusions.

    I agree with David Relman and thought his article in 2003 with JB Petro in Science on the “Perils of Scientific Openness” was brilliantly done. It even appended a draft FOIA request for the materials seized from Dr. Zawahiri. If Amerithrax ever comes to be solved, we likely will owe much to these men.

    from DXer … infiltration of U.S. Biodefense? … Zawahiri’s Correspondence With Infiltrating Scientist Was Part of Parallel Compartmentalized Cell Operation
    Posted by Lew Weinstein on February 20, 2010


    • DXer said

      At page 352, Ed writes that “In July 2001, Pulitzer Prize winning science writer Laurie Garrett self-published a book via Kindle titled “I Heard the Sirens Scream” in which she seemingly argued that al Qaeda sent the anthrax letters.”

      Ed uses the word “seemingly” — he says he hasn’t read it.

    • DXer said

      Ed spelled the name Rehlman and does not cite the article. But in the quote above I corrected it for him).

      I explained today to Ed.

      On page 352, you write:

      “Dr. David Rehlman [sic], who had been co-chair on the review of the Amerithrax case by the National Academy of Sciences, also argued hat al Qaeda could have done it.”

      In his piece in SCIENCE, “Have We Met The Enemy?”, he discusses the science relating to the testing done in Afghanistan. I don’t see that you cite the article or evidence any awareness of the issue.

      But as for the errata, note that his name is Relman, not Rehlman. He was the chair of the June 2012 conference at NAS at which the key FBI genetics scientist presented on the science relating to anthrax. That scientist famously said that she thinks the FBI’s use of science probably was misleading.

  13. DXer said

    Ed writes:

    “The July 20, 2012 issue of the Journal of Bioterrorism & Biodefense contained an article by Dr. Yurii V. Ezepchuk titled “Bioterrorism & Biodefense Attacks on America which declared that … the FBI pointing the finger at Dr. Ivins was “obviously the consequence of complete incompetence of the investigators.” (p. 352)

    “So the story isn’t over.” (p. 353)

    Dr. Yurii V. Ezepchuk wrote:

    “From my point of view, the report made by Dr. Christos Tsonas from Holy Cross Hospital in Fort Lauderdale, Florida is worthy of attention. According to Dr. Tsonas, at the end of June 2001, a pilot with a terrible abscess on his leg came to see him. Dr. Tsonas prescribed this pilot with an antibiotic, which subsequently was discovered in the apartment of the hijacker Ahmed Alhaznawi. According to the hypothesis of Dr. Tsonas, the pilot he treated had been infected with the skin form of anthrax. Furthermore, a pharmacist in Del Rey Beach, Florida witnessed the hijackers Mohamad Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi seeking medicine in the pharmacy for a severe skin irritation on their hands [15].

    In my opinion, these facts provide evidence that the hijackers had contact with anthrax spores. I ruled out that they pre-packed the anthrax spores into envelopes because they did not have the necessary microbiological conditions, not to mention the qualifications. More than likely someone from overseas delivered the anthrax spores a few months before the planned terrorist attack on September 11. …

    Having the anthrax spores delivered to his home in Florida, the hijacker naturally decided he was interested in which form the anthrax was and whether or not they were damaged during transport. Evidently the bottles were undamaged, but whoever packaged the bottles did not take sufficient care in packaging the bottles as a small amount of the spores were on the wrapping material. The hijacker unwrapped the parcel without rubber scientific protective gloves and isolated spores came into contact with his hands causing an erythema, from which he was saved with the help of antibiotics. One cannot eliminate the possibility that the other terrorist was present and not wearing rubber scientific protective gloves when the parcel was unwrapped. The terrorist transferred an undetermined amount of anthrax spores from his hands to his leg, causing the anthrax to contaminate his skin. Even if he had opened just one flask, he would have not been successful in avoiding infection through inhalation of the anthrax, resulting in the usual outcome. Again, I am positive that the hijacker did not actually send the envelopes containing anthrax spores. This endeavor could only be accomplished by a qualified microbiologist.”

    After discussing the familiar issues of the hijacker’s leg lesion and Atta’s red hands, the author writes:

    “Creating these conditions in a garage, basement, or residential room, as a few FBI investigators proposed, is impossible. Failure to observe the indicated conditions of working with an extremely virulent strain of anthrax in powder form inevitably leads to spreading the anthrax spores into the surrounding environment and infects the handler(s). Consequently, filling the envelopes with the powder form of anthrax spores can only be accomplished by one who possesses microbiological skills and experience and only in the conditions of a microbiological laboratory.

    An example of this type of improper handling of the microbiological pathogens is well-demonstrated in an incident that occurred on March 1, 2002 in a laboratory in Texas. An employee studying samples distributed by terrorists worked without gloves. As a result, the employee found that his hands had transferred to his chin, as he discovered after shaving. The skin form of anthrax that developed was easily treated with antibiotics. However, all of the reports indicated that not one of the 40 workers in this specialized laboratory had been given the anthrax vaccine [13].

    The following reports from the investigative committee of the base laboratory stated that the necessary skills for the handling of the anthrax spores were possessed by Iraqi microbiologist Waly Samar (Walied Samarrai), who worked in New York but lived in New Jersey, from where the first contaminated envelopes were sent [14]. He was a citizen of the USA and graduated from Hunter College where he received a doctorate degree in microbiology. It was easy for him to disguise his work under his investigation of non-pathogenic Bacillus subtilis, which is similar to the composition of the causative agent Bacillus anthracis, better known as anthrax. Since the laboratory techniques and technology used for both microorganism spores are very much alike and require similar precautions, his work was easily conducted under routine experimentation. As a highly competent microbiologist, Samar knew what had to be done in order to prevent contamination of laboratory facilities. Apart from filling the envelopes, he was not successful with the lyophilizing process of anthrax, indicating that the powdery material substance used was prepared ahead of time at a different location. Later it was found that some of the anthrax letters were contaminated with Bacillus subtilis spores. This bacteriological analyzes can be considered as evidence that handling with the anthrax letters was carried out in the lab in which Bacillus subtilis was cultivated [10].

    How, where, and when did [S]amar obtain this material?”

    This extraordinary passage is all the more extraordinary when you realize that the subtilis expert Walied was in frequent telephone contact with the number of the apartment associated with anthrax planner KSM’s nephew Ramzi Yousef up to the moment that the blind sheik Abdel-Rahman was arrested. I have uploaded a copy of the telephone records — they were an exhibit in the prosecution of the WTC 1993 trial. (The author follows the Mylroie and John Adams tradition) of referring to him as “Waly Samar”).

    A call was made to a Pakistan charity after WTC 1993 explosion from Walied’s dorm room. KSM could be asked if they were at the charity that night to hear news on how the attack on the Trade towers went. Or alternatively and more simply, Walied could be ask who made the call and for what purpose.

    Years ago, I first emailed the NYC-area professor to engage him on these issues but didn’t hear back. (It may have been in 2002 or 2003, I don’t recall). The CIA would have known about this for years before 2001 — or at least we can recognize that Mr. Woolsey wrote the preface, as I recall, for Ms. Mylroie’s book that touched on this background that came out in September 2001. WS’s thesis on subtilis, as I best recall, was published in 1994 — on the subject of subtilis mutations as I remember it. Does Ed even mention that the mailed anthrax was contaminated with subtilis? Where?

    More recently, his work has involved making microbiological training more readily available to people in Afghanistan using video.

    At the time of Laurie Mylroie’s lead, my focus was always on the fact that Dr. Ayman sent for top EIJ leaders in 2001 to northern Iraq to form Ansar Al-Islam from an amalgamation of existing groups. I felt that the evidence did not support her claim that KSM was not the same KSM who attended North Carolina in the 1980s. DNA analysis would be a simple and foolproof means of checking.

    But when viewed instead as a connection to KSM’s nephew Ramzi Youssef, the WTC 1993 bomber — especially in light of the subtilis contamination in the mailed anthrax and other circumstantial evidence connecting the motive of the Fall 2001 anthrax mailings to the motive of the WTC 1993 bombers — the lead is white hot. If you don’t understand the importance of the blind sheik to those involved in Dr. Zawahiri’s anthrax program, then you probably are not very well read. For example, there’s one prolific internet poster, who argues that it is nearly certain a First Grader wrote the letters. He takes pride in the number of books and articles he hasn’t read. Scott Shane, in contrast, is very well read both on Amerithrax and subjects like Anwar Awlaki. He would be the sort of the reporter best equipped to conduct such an interview of WS. Or that hardworking McClatchy fellow, who did such brilliant work in association with ProPublica and Frontline on Amerithrax, would be very well-suited given his background on the subject of Moussaoui.

    But on all matters relating to him, WS is himself the best person to address these issues so as to avoid factual errors creeping in. He seems like a very likable fellow and a credentialed journalist is the best choice to conduct such an interview.

    Ed, as he did throughout the book with each issue he addressed, he got a basic fact wrong. He said that Dr. Ezepchuk said Dr. Samar was Iranian-born. No he didn’t. Ed needs to stop making stuff up. It’s as if Ed didn’t read Dr. Ezepchuk’s article either. (He doesn’t read most literature that comes out).

  14. DXer said

    I don’t see where Ed in A CRIME UNLIKE ANY OTHER mentions the blockbuster Emmy-nominated report by Frontline, ProPublica or McClatchy. Perhaps someone could point it out to me if I missed it.

    THE ANTHRAX FILES: Congratulations to FRONTLINE, ProPublica and McClatchy For Their Much Deserved Emmy Nomination For “Outstanding Investigative Journalism”
    Posted by Lew Weinstein on July 24, 2012

    ProPublica, McClatchy Newspapers and PBS’ Frontline … the FBI’s case against anthrax suspect rife with questions
    Posted by Lew Weinstein on October 11, 2011

    PBS Frontline, McClatchy and ProPublica … The FBI’s false case against Dr. Bruce Ivins, built on obviously unproven innuendos and assertions, is beginning to unravel.
    Posted by Lew Weinstein on July 19, 2011

    McClatchy & ProPublica: security gaps at USAMRIID (in 2001) mean that deadly anthrax could have easily been smuggled out of the facility, including by terrorists … this information was (wrongfully) not been made public for more than nine years … LMW: This is precisely the kind of information the FBI, smugly insisting that Dr. Bruce Ivins was the sole perpetrator, desperately wants to keep hidden. Director Mueller must be held accountable, for the pathetic Amerithrax investigation, for continuing to insist it was Ivins even as the case disintegrates, and for withholding documents which should be released under FOIA.
    Posted by Lew Weinstein on October 24, 2011

  15. DXer said

    At 283 of his heavily fictionalized A CRIME UNLIKE ANY OTHER, Ed writes

    “Ivins stated that he didn’t want to be come another Richard Jewell (who was wrongly described as “suspect” in Centennial Park bombing during the 1996 Olympics) just because it would let every else off the hook. He was afraid that the FBI might arrest him for allowing material from flask RMR-1029 to get into the hands of the person who sent the letters. He worried that he could get as much as a five year jaii sentence for being negligent with U.S. government property.”

    This is as good a reason for suicide as any — apart from the humiliation over being swabbed to test the semen on the stained panties.

    In GAO’s Assessment Of The Effectiveness Of DIA’s Monitoring Of A Visiting Foreign National Working With Dr. Ivins With Virulent Ames In Biolevel 3 Prior To 9/11, Past Audits Suggest That DIA Did No Vetting At All ; FOIA Responses To Date Indicate That USAMRIID Incredibly Did Not Preserve The Records Relating To That Research

    December 23 USAMRIID FOIA Response: There was no key card access system in May 1998 that recorded access to the B3 with Ivins by the former Zawahiri associate supplied with Ames.
    Posted by Lew Weinstein on December 23, 2011

    from DXer … the lifelong friends of Dr. Tarek Hamouda, supplied virulent Ames by Bruce Ivins, actively denounce their former medical school associate Ayman Zawahiri as a fanatic – one serving as President of CAIR-St. Louis and the other as author of INSIDE JIHAD.
    Posted by Lew Weinstein on May 7, 2010

    Records Were Not Kept Of Transfer Of Ames From RMR 1029 To Researchers At USAMRIID Prior To ’02 And It Is Mistaken Assumption That A Perpetrator (Or Innocent Accessory Before The Fact ) Would Keep A Sample To Submit To FBI ; They Would Be Highly Motivated To Throw Away Any Evidence That Would Trace Back
    Posted by Lew Weinstein on June 20, 2012

  16. DXer said

    To be precise, the email was sent 9:57 p.m on September 26, 2001. So it both on its face explains what he was doing in the lab the previous night — on September 25 — and evidences what he was doing in the lab that evening on September 26. Why was this email withheld? Did AUSA Lieber not know about it? Is that why she incorrectly concluded that Dr. Ivins had no reason to be in the lab on those nights?

  17. DXer said

    I can’t get Ed to read Dwight Adams’ article. Instead he wrote and is trying to selling libelous fiction.

    He has no regard for the actual facts and doesn’t understand the concept of validation of a method.

    He writes the following fiction about the anthrax mailings — and hopes to have it treated as non-fiction.

    “In the late summer of 2001, Diane’s day care center was evidently still a going operation, but the twins had grown into young adults, seniors in high-school preparing to enter college and leave home for lives of their own. [Note he never interviewed Diane, Amanda, or Amanda’s brother].

    He writes:

    “The facts iindicate that a child who had been in Diane’s day care was just starting first grade.”

    Rather than making a simple inquiry, he fails to make any inquiry at all and states it as if it were fact:

    “The facts in indicates that a child who had been in Diane’s day care was just starting first grade.”

    This is fiction — and in this context, it is wildly irresponsible fiction.

    “The first day of school was evidently Monday, August 20. His mother would drop him off on her way to work, and the child would wait with Diane until the school bus arrived. Then in the afternoon, the school bus would be there to take him inside where he’d wait until his mother got out of work and could pick him up. And, if Diane and the mother were friends, they would often sit around and talk for awhile, leaving the child to do his homework or play with toys.”

    “And that would be the situation when Bruce came home from work. He’d find two women talking in the kitchen, possibly talking about their husbands, sharing secrets with each other that they couldn’t share with their husbands. And, Ivins’ paranoid would be inflamed even more than it already was.”

    [Note: He is just making this up. He never attempted to call Diane or either of the kids and ask if it was true. And it has no basis in fact.]

    “In another room, the child would be sitting and doing his homework — copying things to practice his newly learned skill in writing in block letters.”

    [Note: Ed imagines that a First Grader has homework. The claim has no basis in fact.]


    “It must have seemed like an absolutely brilliant solution to the handwriting dilemma! A 6-year-old child would write about the same way a handwriting expert might assume an adult Muslim terrorist from Afghanistan … or Yemen or some other Middle Eastern country would write in English. It would be crude, unsophisticated, awkward, and best of all, the handwriting could never be traced back to Ivins.”

    [Note: This defies common sense. The kid would be able to tell anyone that Dr. Ivins asked him to write a letter.]

    “It was the perfect solution — for a sociopath. It even had the added enjoyment for Ivins of allowing him to play a trick on Diane and her friend that they would never know about. It would never occur to them – and probably not to forensic handwriting experts either — that someone would use a child in such a way. That made it an even more perfect solution.”

    “Of course there was a definite risk that the child might tell his parents about writing the letter. But, Ivins’ skills and experience with manipulating people could easily get around that problem. Children were infinitely easier to manipulate than the adults Ivins worked with and attempted to manipulate nearly every day.”

    “So, the facts indicate that one afternoon in late August 2001, Ivins decided to persuade the first grader to make a copy of the code letter that Ivins had printed out. The child just had to make sure that all the highlighted characters — the A’s and T’s were also traced over in the copy.”

    “Perhaps Ivins attracted the six-year-old child’s attention by doing some funny juggling. Then he’d ask if the child wanted to learn how to juggle. Ivins would offer to give him a few lessons in exchange for some help writing a letter. For Ivins, there would be yet another added benefit of having the child use a pen from his school backpack, making it almost impossible to trace.”

    [Note: First Graders aren’t given such pens — and the type ink is known — for use in school.]

    “And, the child would be focused on the fun of learning to juggle. If he talked about his time with Mr. Ivins, he’d talk about the juggling lesson, not about the chore he did for Mr. Ivins.”

    “Later, when Ivins examined the letter the child had written, he saw that the child had done far less than a perfect job.”

    [Note: Ed has just made this implausible piece of fiction up out of whole cloth. He is baselessly claiming that Mrs. Ivins had a First Grader in her care in 2001 and that she left such a child in the unsupervised company of an adult male in another room who then used the child to write a letter, Ed imagines, to kill some people. That is libelous per se. Ed thinks that to be controversial will help sell a second copy of his book. Libeling a child care provider with libelous per se baseless fiction is not the sort of controversy someone aspiring to be a published author should seek. ]

    “Ivins saw that some of the A’s and T’s were not as thoroughly darkened as others, and some additional characters seemed slightly traced over. However, the letter would be perfect because the coding was not perfect.”

    Turning to the second letter, Ed writes:

    “Ivins probably helped the child avoid leaving fingerprints by putting a sheet of paper under his hand, but other things didn’t go as Ivins planned. It appears that when asked to write the return address on the first envelope, the first grader wrote the only way he knew how to write. It appears that when asked to write the return address on the first envelope, the first grader wrote the only way he knew how to write, which was using characters so large that there was barely room left on the envelope for the actual destination address. And large writing of the return address would have left no doubt that a child was doing the writing, not an adult.”

    “Having ruined one envelope, Ivins couldn’t instruct the child on how to write smaller, since it would mean the child had done something wrong. It would the writing into something other than a favor. It would be come a learning chore that the child would clearly remember and probably talk about with his parents later.”

    “So, Ivins changed plans. No more return addresses.”

    The rest of the book is written taking the same license. Ed thinks it is okay to make stuff up and to assert substitute implausible theory — commonly contradicted by the documentary evidence that was finally produced — for evidence.

    It isn’t okay. FBI scientist Dwight Adams who was with the FBI leading the Amerithrax effort until 2006 explains the importance of relying on objective, validated methods in the article above.

    Dr. Budowie made similar learned points at a June 2012 NAS conference on microbial threats.

    And the key FBI genetics scientist Dr. Fraser-Liggett has famously explained that she thinks the FBI’s use of science was misleading.

    But Ed’s treatment of these issues goes way beyond misleading. It is sheer fiction.

    Ed should leave the issue of assessment of evidence in Amerithrax to the grown-ups.

    • DXer said

      David WIllman in his writing extensively relied upon Judith McLean, his mental health counselor. He explains that McLean said Ivins saw himself as an “avenging angel of death” and had obtained ammonium nitrate to make a bomb.*

      This “avenging angel of death” is the concept Judith McLean uses in her 2009 book to describe the murderous astral entities that she thought were pursuing her.

      Ed who writes on the same subject attempts to launder his reliance on Judith by citing David Willman’s book at p. 50. ** (Ed refuses to read Judith’s book PSYCHIC ASCENSION, which is available online.)

      But he is not merely content to rely on the woman who thought that she received her instructions each night from an alien who had implanted a microchip in her butt. He is going to tell you the specifics of the ammonium nitrate bomb and the details of Dr. Ivins’ planning!

      Thus, Ed does not merely rely square and center on the counselor who says she was psychotic. He embellishes on the guidance on these matters given by the extraterrestial!

      The anthrax killings: A troubled mind

      Bruce Ivins, who became a respected Army scientist and an authority on the laboratory use of anthrax, had a penchant for vendettas, especially against women.
      May 29, 2011|By David Willman, Los Angeles Times

      On July 18, 2000, Ivins told a mental health counselor that he had recently planned to poison his former assistant, Mara Linscott. In addition to having cyanide, he said that he had once obtained ammonium nitrate, to make a bomb.”

      Ed writes:

      “In January of 2000, Ivins purchased ammonium nitrate, very likely for the purpose of constructing a “fertilizer bomb” similar to the one Timothy McVeigh used to blow up the Alfred P. Murray Federal Building in Oklahoma City in April of 1995, killing 168 people, including 19 children, and injuring over 800 others.

      Ivins wasn’t a cold-blooded murder, however, so his bomb would be much smaller, and his plan was very likely much more complex. The bomb he evidently planned to build would have to be something he could carry or transport in his car. It would just be the “attention getter,” the first part of a two part plan. Perhaps he’d leave a critical wire unconnected so it wouldn’t explode, or he’d arrange for the bomb to be found and disarmed before it was set to explode.”

      Ed is writing fiction.

      Mr. Willman and Dr. Saathoff have never retracted their reliance on Ms. McLean. Instead, they centered their narrative around her claims — just as Ed now does.

    • DXer said

      Ed in his introduction purports to be telling the “true story of how and why Dr. Ivins did what he did.”

      At page 49, Ed writes: “Ivins still had the unsent letter with the hidden message he had constructed after the LAX bomb plot was exposed. He still had the ammonium nitrate needed for a bomb.”

      Now, as you’ll recall, this letter had various A’s and T’s double-lined. Significantly, Ed is saying that Bruce wrote the letter in 2000, long before Atta’s name was known.

      Ed’s claims have no basis in fact. He just makes things up and asserts them without any factual sourcing.

      Ed argues that Ivins double-lined various of the As and Ts because he didn’t like the Yankees etc.


    • DXer said

      Rather than turn to the lab notebooks and emails to determine what Dr. Ivins was doing in August 2001, Ed elaborates on his bullshit fantasy.

      He writes:

      “The next problem to solve was the letter he planned to lave with the fertilizer bomb. .. Then , at some point, possibly around August 27, 2001, Ivins seems to have gotten an idea for the perfect way to write the letter as if it was being done by someone just learning English.”

      Hehe. Yes, he indeed is correct. The letter seems written by someone who had just learned English. KSM, assisted by anthrax facilitator Rabbani, personally taught a number of the hijackers English, including the one coming from Kandahar with the blackened lesion.

      To borrow Dr. Budowie’s analogy at the NAS June 2012 conference, Ed isn’t merely determined to invade Canada. He is determined to charge the playground in Canada and involve a non-existent First Grader.

      Ed’s entire tale about the ammonium nitrate bomb is being spun out from the tale told by the woman who in 2009 explained the following things in a book available online.

      Do these folks like Mr. Willman, Dr. Saathoff, and Ed realize that once they started telling a story based on Judith’s claims that the judge would start yelling and they would be able to hear him down the hallway?

      • DXer said

        Ed’s key witness explains:

        – “The year following the September 11th terrorist attacks, I did bilocation work in both New York City and Afghanistan. As I traveled in astral form at night and back into my body in the morning, I found there were occasions where I was followed by Taliban entities. I became aware that many of the terrorists who died in Afghanistan during our war with them were the entities who followed me. They had continued their terrorist activities in the astral plane … I had to be very careful about self-protection and working with other beings of light. When I left my body at night, I went through a portal of energy that I had created. The portal of energy was a spiral vortex formed as an entrance into the astral plane. This had to be closed down after my discovery of the entities. A new portal of energy was constructed through which these entities could not follow. After a month or more of doing bilocation work in Afghanistan and at the World Trade Center site, I found myself physically exhausted. My allergies worsened, and I was aware I was bringing back toxins from the World Trade Center debris and its surrounding air into my physical body. … One form of self-protection I often use is to take the white light energy and build a geode type crystal energy shield around myself that seems impenetrable.”

        — “In 1996, my mother called and informed that my cousin’s fiance was missing. The wedding was a week away and the bride, John, had disappeared. At that time, the police had insubstantial information or leads to find her. My cousin was frantic. That night in meditation, I received instructions that I should go to Joan. Using remote viewing (viewing long distance events through clairvoyance), I saw Joan in a forested area near or in a state park. I saw her lifeless body in a ravine. I bilocated my astral body to this area and tried to rouse her spirit. It seemed Joan had been drugged, causing her spirit to be confused, very groggy, and unaware of what had happened to her. I helped her remove myself from her physical body. Then, in a slow process, we moved together until I saw a vortex of light open from another dimension. Joan was afraid to move on and wanted to immediately incarnate again. It took some time to help her move through the dimensional vortex to the spirit helpers in the other realm. Throughout the next couple of days, I moved into that other dimensional awareness to make sure she was recovering. Her determination to reincarnate immediately was strong for quite a period of time. Later, she settled into an understanding of all that had happened with her death and was not so anxious to come back down to the earth plane. A few days after this occurrence, I called the police in Oregon and gave them a description of the area in which I had seen Joan’s body. Fortunately, they accepted psychic impressions. I described the type of area I had seen. They informed that she just had been found. She had been located in a forested area in a ravine, as I had described to them. Police discovered Joan had been murdered. My cousin was open to hearing this psychic information, and my experience greatly comforted him. Nevertheless, he grieved continuously for several years until Joan appeared to me and asked me to tell my cousin to let her go and move on with his life.”

        — “As a clairvoyant, I can see these entities hanging around bars and am disgusted to see them affixing to drinking people like parasites. Parasitic entities attach themselves to the aura of the drinker and vicariously experience the sensation of drinking once more. Since alcohol, tobacco, and drugs cause ethic holes in the aura, the entity easily attaches or enmeshes itself with the energy body of the human and gratifies their lust for the substance. Heavy drinkers or drug users often come into treatment with attached entities that use them for their own etheric gratification.”

        — “As a healer and psychotherapist, I treated sexually abused persons who came into therapy bringing abusive entities. It is a delicate matter bringing this up to a client. Sometimes the work of releasing this sexual predator must take place after session, while I am in meditation. The client’s belief system may not be able to handle an assertion that they may have an entity attached to them.”

        — “[I]t was evident to me that an entity had attached itself at that time. Subsequently the child’s, and later adult’s, personality changed and that of the abusive spirt came forth. I exorcised this entity from my client, but found the entity then attached itself to me with a murderous intent. It took a little help from my spirit team to get this predator away from us and into a dimension where he could do no mischief.”

        — “If they are negative spirits haunting or hurting others, I sometimes call in a team of spirit helpers, or “ghost busters,” to move the entities along. Spirit releasing and exorcism should not be feared, but you do need to know what you are doing or obtaining help with this task.”

        — “An entity may be witnessed going around a house and living as though they are still alive. This is the type of experience I witnessed in Cape May, New Jersey. While staying at a bed and breakfast, I realized there were three old women entities living in this 1790 house. These women were quite active in their daily routine, having tea and visiting the neighbors. One woman was aware of me and told me she stayed earth bound with her sisters since they refused to move on. We discussed her responsibility to herself, and she decided to move through to another dimension. Her sisters remained in the house. The following evening, I found our room full of hundreds of spirits from the church where these women had belonged.”

        — “Some individuals have a visitation, or several visitations, from extraterrestrials or ancient illuminated beings that help cleanse away cellular memories and implanted devices. Implants are specific coding devices often used by extraterrestrials to communicate with the person or obtain information from the brain of the person.”


      • DXer said

        Ed imagines that the non-existent First Grader had written the first anthrax letter on August 27, 2001, the first day of school. (It was a Monday).

        He imagines him the non-existent First Grader bringing his homework that first day of school in a backpack. Wow! That’s a tough school system in Maryland — giving a First Grader homework that leads him to write “Death to America!” etc. the first day of school.

        The kid barely knows his teacher’s name and he’s expected to double-line the letters spelling out A-T-T-A and a genetic code? Before the world even knows Atta’s name?

        If Ed knew kids, he would know that it’s a time for bringing his teacher an apple, not dissing the big Apple and writing a letter to accompany an imaginary ammonium nitrate bomb.

        Ed’s entire book has been focused so far on smearing Dr. Ivins, much of dating to events a quarter century earlier.

        We saw the same phenomenon from a few in assessing the evidence under a Hatfill Theory.

        • DXer said

          Instead of imagining fantastic facts in which Bruce on August 27, 2001 is juggling for a First Grader in his living room while urging him on to write murderous threats and underlying the letters spelling A-T-T-A, Ed should have reconstructed the day relying on the documentary evidence from that afternoon and early evening from Ivins’ work computer and lab notebooks.

          see, e.g.,

          From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
          RE: Anthrax, mice, and CpG Monday, August 27, 2001 7:37:48 PM
          (b) (6)
          (b) (6)
          Hi, Is just before noon on Thursday or Friday better for you? – Bruce
          —–Original Message—– From: Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 5:00 PM To: ‘Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID’ Subject: RE: Anthrax, mice, and CpG
          Absolutely. Let me know how we can arrange it.

          —–Original Message—– From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID [mailto:Bruce.Ivins@DET.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 3:20 PM
          (b) (6)
          (b) (6)
          To: ‘ Subject: RE: Anthrax, mice, and CpG
          Can I get this to you on Thursday or Friday? – Bruce

        • DXer said

          Bruce was going about his business on 9/11.

          We need events scrupulously reconstructed from the contemporaneous documents — not spun by fiction writers writing their sixth unpublished novel.

          Someone writes him at 1:29 P.M. noting “Big day for terrorism, isn’t it!!! Thanks.”

          Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 1:29 PM To: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID Subject: FW:

          Tuesday, September 11, 2001 10:35 AM
          Subject: (6)

          Hi We received the rPA/Alhydrogel shipments this morning. The rPA is labeled 0.914 mg/ml and there is 1.1-mL per vial in ammonium acetate so we calculate 1.0054 mg rPA / vial. Could you please have Bruce or someone generate new formulation instructions for this concentration of rPA since the formulation you provided is for the 1.18 mg/ml concentration. We want to make sure that we formulate it exactly as you want it formulated. LOT # was 100516.
          Big day for terrorism isn’t it!!! Thanks”

          Bruce responds matter-of-factly to the technical issue asked.

          From: To: Subject: Date:
          Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
          RE: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 2:07:39 PM
          (b) (6)
          Per 0.5-ml dose: PA – 55 microliters (PA = 0.914 mg/ml) Alhydrogel – 47 microliters PBS – 398 microliters
          – Bruce

          From: To: Subject: Date:
          Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
          RE: rPA Rabbit serum Tuesday, September 11, 2001 3:32:48 PM
          (b) (6)
          When we have sera in bottles which break, we usually put the bottle in a beaker, then let the serum thaw. If the serum doesn’t have to be sterile, it can be put into containers again and either refrozen or refrigerated. If there is lots of glass in the serum, it can be centrifuged to pellet the glass. Filtering with syringe filters will take forever. Only a few ml at most will go through without clogging. If someone wants to talk to me about the problem, which we have encountered and dealt with before, they can call me at
          – Bruce

        • DXer said

          Dr. Ivins on September 11, 2001 at 4 p.m. received the “Strategic Plan — Anthrax” which contradicts Ed’s entire spin. It needed to be modified that week to reflect pending projects.

          September 11, 2001 “Strategic Plan – Anthrax” (produced today to DXer under FOIA)

        • DXer said

          Those of us paying attention to the documentary evidence rather than some wet dream about imaginary First Graders, know that September 11, 2001 was the day that Dr. Ivins was notified that his performance was assessed as Exceptional.

          On September 11, 2001, Dr. Ivins was notified that his performance was assessed as Exceptional

          Posted by Lew Weinstein on September 4, 2012

    • DXer said

      Next Ed writes of “The J-Lo Letter” (p. 57):

      “In early September 2001, Ivins may have mailed another box of detergent and mysterious odds and ends to movie actress and singer Jennifer Lopez c/o the Sun magazine in Boca Raton, Florida. Some decoding was required for the letter, too. The large manila envelope contained a cigar tube with a cheap cigar insiide, an empty can of chewing tobacco, an empty detergent box, and a tiny Star of David pendant buried in a mound of detergent around which a love letter had been carefully folded.

      The unsigned letter contained some sexual innuendo, and the writer expressed how much he loved Lopez, asking her to marry him. The letter itself was on a business-size sheet of stationery decorated with pink and blue clouds around the edges.

      Jennifer Lopez’s most recent movie was The Cell, which was about a beautiful psychologist who uses newly developed experimental technology to causer her mind to enter the mind of a comatose serial killer in an attempt to enter the mind of a comatose serial killer in an attempt to stop another killing.””

      In borrowing the reference to The Cell from me, Ed is turning the relevance of The J-Lo letter on its head.

      Those who read it recall that the letter sent to AMI in Florida say that the letter referred to Jennifer Lopez planned marriage. A wedding or marriage is well-known Al Qaeda code for an attack. The sender said how much he loved her and asked her to marry him. Stevens noted at the time it was especially off the wall given that the Sun did not deal with celebrities, which was the subject of the sister-paper Globe. Stevens’ fellow photo editor Roz Suss was looking over his shoulder: “With that Bob says to me,” Hey, I think there’s something gold in here. It looks like a Jewish star sticking out of the powder.” I walked up behind him and reached over his shoulder. I pulled this little star out of what looked like a mound of powder in this letter. I remember it as a fine white powder.” “It looked like something from a Cracker Jacks box,” she says. She picked it out of the powder and tossed it in her wastebasket. Stevens’ colleague Bobby Bender has a different recollection. He says he opened a letter to Jennifer Lopez, recalls handling a large envelope to Jennifer Lopez, care of the Sun. In it was a cigar tube containing a cigar, a small Star of David charm, and something that seemed like soap powder. Hambali and two al-Qaeda minions considered attacking an Israeli restaurant, with a Star of David above it, in the Khao San Rd. backpacker area in Bangkok.

      A December 1998 Presidential Daily Brief to President Clinton explained: “An alleged Bin Ladin supporter late last month remarked to his mother that he planned to work in ‘commerce’ from abroad and said his impending ‘marriage,’ which would take place soon, would be a ’surprise.’” The December 1998 PDB continued: “‘Commerce’ and ‘marriage’ often are code words for attacks.” Of course, sometimes, a young man just wants to tell his mom he’s got a job or warn her that she may not approve of the woman he intends to marry. Similarly, sometimes folks who write to tabloids are merely commenting on JLo’s impending nuptials.

      Jennifer Lopez’s fame had withstood a number of under performing movies, to include the movie “The Cell” in the year 2000. In the movie, following a trail of bodies, an FBI agent tracks down and captures a disturbed serial killer. Before the killer can reveal the whereabouts of his next victim (a woman trapped in a cell on the verge of drowning), he falls into a coma. Enter beautiful FBI psychologist Lopez, who uses a radical link to the killer’s brain that could destroy her own sanity. “Her mission: Find the cell’s location before time runs out, and avoid getting trapped inside the killer’s head.” According to an early National Enquirer, Stevens held it up to his face and then put it down on the keyboard (where traces of anthrax were found). The publisher’s wife was the real estate broker who rented to two of the hijackers.

      The heaviest concentration was in the mailroom on the first floor, with positive findings in many cubicles throughout the first floor. The second floor had positive traces mainly in the hallways. The third floor had the fewest positive traces. The FBI has a theory that the spores were distributed on copy paper, perhaps having fallen onto an open ream of paper in the mailroom where it was stored. Perhaps instead spores could have been spread by a vacuum cleaner and collected at copier machines because of the electrostatic charge and the fans
      on the machines.

      Mrs. Stevens recently explained: “They get strange letters sometimes, and the consensus seems to be that if Robert wasn’t wearing his glasses and if it was something funny, he would hold the letters up to his face. They think perhaps that’s how he got it. Just bad luck.” The key expert evidence on this issue of the Jennifer Lopez letter thus far is the New England Journal of Medicine in which Stevens’ doctor concludes that the letter, opened 9/19 and resulting in symptoms appearing 9/30, evidenced an incubation period consistent with inhalational anthrax.

      A CDC report discusses a second letter of possible interest thought to have been opened on September 25 by a different woman who was exposed. The FBI went back to AMI in August 2002. A February 2003 article in Esquire says the “cops and the doctors” have concluded that there were two letters, following two different paths, with one having been mailed to an old address of the National Enquirer before being forwarded. If there were two different letters, were they to two different AMI publications? That would make sense — with one directed to the Sun and one directed to the National Enquirer.

      What does the J.Lo letter tell us about the sender, or senders? J.Lo is what they used to call a “sex bomb” — and the biggest one at the time. She had international fame. The vehicle had a “weird” love letter, a Star of David, maybe a cigar. Who had “issues” and weird obsessions with women, sex (with a cigar being a crude symbol) and Jewish symbolism? Atta, for example, had strict instructions in his will about what women would be allowed to do at his funeral. Follow the anomalies.

      Two of the hijackers had subscriptions to AMI publications, as did Al Qaeda operative al-Marabh. Boston cab driver Al-Marabh had been in contact with the hijackers, to include Alghamdi who rented an apartment from the wife of the AMI publisher. Atta was seen at the apartment of Al-Marabh and his uncle (the co-founder with Jaballah of an islamic school in Toronto in the Spring of 2001. After coming to Canada in 1996, Jaballah spoke with Ayman Zawahiri regularly on Ayman’s satellite phone.

    • DXer said

      In Ed World, Dr. Ivins made special efforts to be able to prove he sent the anthrax letters!

      “Trimming each letter in a slightly different way provided him with something else he wanted He could save the irregular trimmed edges as additional proof that he sent the anthrax letters. And, since he’d be sending out copies, he’d have the original letter, too.” (p. 65)

      In trying to follow the logic of someone who makes up nonsense about an imaginary First Grader and then reasons that Dr. Ivins wanted to prove he sent the letters, one marvels that Ed titled his book “What The Facts Say About Bruce Ivins.”

      Earth to Judith’s extraterrestrial and to Ed: If Ivins sent the letters he would want to avoid detection, not be able to prove he was the murderer.

    • DXer said

      September 17, 2001, the date now claimed as the date of mailing, Lake engages in make-believe.

      Dr. Ivins took 4 hours of personal time to deal with a personal issue involving his daughter, not fix his car. Source: Ivins attorney.

      Lake writes:

      “He took the rest of the day off as four hours of paid leave. He may have had his car checked to make sure everything was ready for the drive. It would be a disaster if he had car problems on the drive to New Jersey. Then, he had his regular Monday evening group therapy session, which was from 5:30 to 7 p.m.” (p. 66)

      At least Lake recognizes that Dr. Ivins did in fact go to his group therapy session. This was not known at the time of his death and the government’s first proffer of the theory that Dr. Ivins had mailed the anthrax letters and had no alibi. In the first news reports it had been speciously suggested that he went and mailed the letters that afternoon.

      • DXer said

        September 17, 2001 is now claimed by the DOJ as the date of mailing. In connection with my typo above, note that the DOJ had never specified the date of mailing — there had been a range of several days given that Monday was a postal holiday. The DOJ refused to specify the date or time to Ivins or defense counsel.

        Ed notes that Dr. Ivins arrived for work on the morning Tuesday, September 18, 2001. And so he had an even stronger alibi if the mailing in fact was September 18, 2001, the date the letter was postmarked.

    • DXer said

      Mr. Lake explains the government’s error as to thinking that Dr. Ivins had no reason to be in the lab on September 25th. (p. 70) As explained in the email I obtained from FOIA, Dr. Ivins was cleaning the lab and details the work in an email to Patricia Worsham.

      Mr. Lake curiously and without basis tries to characterize his relationship with Dr. Worsham as hostile. He evidently does not understand workplace humor. He views Ivins’ use of the phrase Queen of the Universe in the September 25 email detailing his work that night in the lab as hostile. Mr. Lake, however, never bothered to call Dr. Worsham or any of Dr. Ivins colleagues. One merely needs to read Dr. Worsham’s own defense of Dr. Ivins to know the warmth and mutual respect and humor in their relationship. She held up a T-shirt at his funeral that said: “The Queen is not amused.”

      Given that the claim he had no reason to be in the lab was the heart of the DOJ’s theory, Lake should instead have focused on the fact that the September 25 email contradicted the DOJ’s theory.

      It was especially important to remove clutter in the B3 because that week 52 rabbits were arriving.

      Indeed, an email finally produced to me after months of wrangling shows that the animal studies required that points be done at night.

      This September 12, 2001 email explains that the passive mouse protection study would require postponement of a planned decon because Dr. Fellows had time points that had to be done at night
      Posted by Lew Weinstein on November 23, 2011

      Dr. Worsham, a key FBI expert who gave the opening statement before the NAS on the science, has said she thinks that Dr. Ivins is innocent and unjustly accused by people like Mr. Lake.

      * Deposition Excerpt of Patricia Worsham in Stevens v. United States: Product Could Not Have Been Made At USAMRIID With Equipment She Has Seen At USAMRIID
      Posted on July 16, 2011

      I have been in contact with many of Dr. Ivins colleagues. We all should have such friends as these.

      While his colleagues think Ivins innocent, not even Ed’s proofreaders think his First Grader Theory passes the giggle test.

    • DXer said

      Now this First Grader that Lake could have confirmed did not exist by the most basic of inquiries — such as contacting Paul Kemp, calling Mrs. Ivins or calling one of the quoted neighbors. But any mother or father can look at the letters and see that it was not written by a First Grader in his first weeks of school. Ed clearly has evidently never had children and is not familiar with the First Grade. Having spent a decade publishing pornography — naked women with the heads of celebrities pasted on that he published under the name FakeDetective — he thinks he “knows it when he sees it.” Well, respectfully, in a country of several hundred million, I don’t know anyone who sees it like Ed does. … other than one internet poster from whom he took the idea in December 2001.

      Continuing what he urges the “true story” of what actually happened, Lake writes (p. 74):

      “It was probably on the 1st or 2nd of October that Ivins again convinced the first-grader to write another letter and to address more envelopes — ..

      “Since it was possible that the lack of a return address had caused the first set of letters tossed into the trash without ever being opened, Ivins would try to get the child to write smaller when writing the return addresses.”

      “But, as it turned out, the child was already writing much smaller without being asked to do so. He had no problem fitting the return address into the corner, although he didn’t specifically write it smaller. His writing was still just one size, but that size was smaller. Writing smaller was one of the things they learned in first grade where they had to write between the lines on lined paper, instead o the blank drawing paper they used in kindergarten. In the space of a just a few weeks, the child had also learned to write with greater confidence….”

      “The child had also learned about punctuation, something the children were taught in the first weeks of first grade. Only the question mark seemed unfamiliar to the first grader. He construted it as if he’s never seen on before, but it didn’t really matter. All that mattered was that the child more than willing to write the letters and address the envelopes in return for another lesson in juggling.” (p. 74)

      Comment: Ed does not cite any learning about when First Graders learn handwriting and he has none. He contacted some first grade teachers to ask if he could work with the children but he says the teachers responded with an emphatic no.

      Nor does he consider that magnification of the pixels would show whether a change in the size of printing was the setting on the xerox machine. Or whether it was a decision by the writer to write smaller to fit more — or for no particular reason.

      Ed has a singularly incurious mind if it does not involve the issue how a First Grader can be made to do something by a bad man. He doesn’t read the literature — not on handwriting analysis and not on the science relied upon in Amerithrax. For example, I still haven’t been able to get Ed to embrace Dr. Adams’ point — and Dr. Adams was head of the FBI lab until 2006 — that objective, scientific method should be relied upon. I “know it when I see it” doesn’t cut it.

    • DXer said

      In discussing the origin of the strain, Ed neglects to mention that two slants were sent from Texas and Bruce only had one of the two slants that had been sent. A researcher who went to work for the CIA had the other one.

    • DXer said

      Citing Mr. Willman as authority, Ed writes that Dr. Ivins did not have permission from the FBi or from Dr. Ezzell to act pursuant to Peter Jahrling’s request that Ivins examine the spores.

      To the country, at 5:10 of this video, Attorney Kemp, who was sitting on this filmed panel a couple feet to my side, says:

      “Everything that was done in examining the Daschle and Leahy letters was done in the presence of FBI agents and postal inspectors.”

      Even Dr. John Ezzell then made himself available for a question and answer and does not dispute the statement.

      Indeed, if the FBI’s expert Dr. Ezzell was furious, it is worth noting that JE had made a dried powder out of Flask 1029 and then his lab threw out the same submitted by Ivins. That constituted a massive conflict of interest.

      Although John Ezzell can best explain why he was angry, let’s not falsify the record about whether Dr. Ivins made the examination without authority and on his own when the facts are otherwise.

      Dr. Kemp also discusses the failure to preserve Dr. Ivins’ first submission. (It was thrown out by Dr. Ezzell’s lab according to the Amerithrax Investigative Summary).

      In one of the latter videos, Attorney Kemp notes that Dr. Ivins fully explained the reason for his presence in the lab which DOJ prosecutors thought seemed suspicious.

      On the postmark, Attorney Kemp explained the DOJ previously had claimed the mailing was done a day previous (as they explained to Attorney Keim in July 2007). Attorney Kemp says that the prosecutors changed the date of claimed mailing when the DOJ was corrected as to the day he took 4 hours of personal leave.

      Kemp explains that the DOJ misrepresented the post offices where the Federal Eagle stamp was sold. He says that according to the search warrants, they were actually out of Fairfax, VA, not Frederick.

    • DXer said

      At page 105-106, Ed discusses a woman who contracted cutaneous anthrax on her finger. She was the girlfriend, he reports, of an OpEd editor Mark Cunningham. The New York Post had an editorial a year ago reporting that argued that the FBI clearly can’t be trusted to judge cases that reflect badly on its own conduct.

      NY Post editorial: a group of eminent scientists have found that the FBI’s Amerithrax conclusions may be shockingly wrong … (the FBI) clearly can’t be trusted to judge cases that reflect badly on its own conduct
      Posted by Lew Weinstein on October 24, 2011’s-amerithrax-conclusions-may-be-shockingly-wrong-the-fbi-clearly-can’t-be-trusted-to-judge-cases-that-r/

      New York Times and Washington Post and other major media outlets had similar editorials last Fall.

      Washington Post editorial (10/21/11) calls for independent review of FBI investigation of Dr. Bruce Ivins in 2001 anthrax attacks …
      Posted by Lew Weinstein on October 22, 2011

      a NYT editorial, showing no confidence in the FBI’s unraveling case against Dr. Bruce Ivins, calls for an independent review of the FBI’s anthrax investigation to assure that the culprits are not still at large

      Instead of answers, we got someone’s fantasies about a First Grader who provably doesn’t exist.

      Instead of the promised work by GAO assessing the investigation, the head of the investigation tells me that the GAO hasn’t formally started — two years later.

      God help these people in their careers if Dr. Zawahiri attacks with aerosolized anthrax.

    • DXer said

      I believe it was last Fall that Martin Hugh-Jones, Barbara Hatch Rosenberg and Anonymous of this blog co-authored an article on some of the science issues that Dr. Kingsbury, of GAO, told the New York TImes raised reasonable issues and would be considered in their forthcoming report. Ed at page 136 notes that Martin is an “anthrax expert at Louisiana State University who maintains a global database of anthrax outbreaks for the World Health Organization. He quoted Dr. Hugh-Jones saying that it was relatively simple to obtain anthrax cultures from USAMRIID.

      … if you needed a culture, you called up Art” Col, Arthur Friedlander, USAMRIID’s senior military research scientist… [That essentially is what a former Zawahiri associate did in acquiring virulent Ames from Bruce Ivins]. (p. 138)

      The scientist who made the large amount of virulent Ames that is missing, who was thanked by the former Zawahiri associate for providing technical assistance re the Ames, is the person who could explain about the rabbits ; but she’s not talking.

      Posted by Lew Weinstein on November 9, 2011

      Of Dr. Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, Ed notes that she has “impressive credentials to make many people listen to her theories.

      As for my friend Anonymous, he used to work with silica and DARPA.

      And so all of these folks giving their opinion on the technicial and factual issues — including New York Times, Frontline, ProPublica, McClatchy, New York Post, these three authors, the numerous USAMRIID colleagues like Worsham, Adamovicz, Andrews and others) and even the FBI’s scientists — were influential individually and collectively they were a freight train.

      Unfortunately a freight train can’t keep ahead of a crop-duster.

    • DXer said

      Ed then discusses Terry Abshire and the issue of morphs.

      Terry Abshire says that in addition to her own material, she saw another sample that looked to have the same morphs — a scientist tasked to make certain that USAMRIID’s internal repository contained only pure cultures.
      Posted by Lew Weinstein on March 22, 2011

    • DXer said

      Ed discusses the silicon signature at 175-178 though his discussion dates to 2002.

      The key is that Dr. Majidi agrees that it may point to silica having been used in the cutlure to grow the anthrax.

      Ed ignores the implication and instead prefers to debate the issue as it was framed in late 2001 and 2002.

      from DXer … infiltration of U.S. Biodefense? … Co-inventors of the patent using silica in the culture medium and their Salafist-Jihadi colleague
      Posted by Lew Weinstein on February 20, 2010

      Did the anthrax grown in soil reported at the June 2001 anthrax conference by Dr. Ezzell and his colleagues contain a Silicon Signature?
      Posted by Lew Weinstein on March 19, 2011

      Silicon Signature – what were samples 040030-2 and 040255-1 that showed Silicon Signature? If one was Flask 1030, what was the other? Dugway?
      Posted by Lew Weinstein on March 12, 2011

      Silicon evidence cannot be linked to Detrick or Ivins, so the FBI just ignores it … will they get away with this? (5-14-09)
      Posted by Lew Weinstein on May 14, 2009

      • DXer said

        At page 378, Ed cites “The Silicon Layer Supports Acid Resistance of Bacillus Spores, by Ryuichi Hirora, Journal of Bacteriology, Jan 2010.

        Ed apparently doesn’t understand that with silica absorbed into the coat, the anthrax will be resistant to being destroyed by sunlight and thus is a more effective weapon. The 2002 debate involving “weaponization” (focused on floatability) simply served to confuse or obscure things.

        When done by officials, suppression of information relating to the purpose served by silica can serve a legitimate goal.

        Rather than discuss this implications of the 2010 study, however, Ed rehashed how things were framed in the media in 2002.

    • DXer said

      Ed next addresses the February 2002 slants. The following issues are some of the factual issues raised:

      The Instructions For Preparing and Shipping TSA Slants for B. anthracis Ames Expressly Note That An Equivalent Can Be Used; Special Pathogens Laboratory Itself Submitted Home-made Slants In May 2002
      Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 9, 2012

      Did the FBI Scientist Throw Out The Other Slants That Did Not Use Specified TSA Remel Slant Or Only Dr. Ivins’ February 2002 Submission From RMR 1029 From Which Its Scientists Had Made A Dried Powder? Who Threw It Out?
      Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 7, 2012

      Indeed, Mr. Lake cites to these instructions without noting their date or showing that anyone in Dr. Ivins had seen them. We have his in-box. They are not in it. The subpoena was sent to USAMRIID and by most accounts he submitted them before the formal subpoena had arrived.

      GAO Should Obtain From The FBI The Laboratory Chain-Of-Custody Form that has a space that identifies who destroyed the Feb. 02 sample submitted by Dr. Ivins and states the reasons it was not preserved (such as the others that were preserved using different slants)
      Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 7, 2012

      Instructions were still slow in coming even as of May 2002.
      Posted by Lew Weinstein on April 5, 2010

      • DXer said

        Mr. Lake expressly concedes that Ivins understood the homemade slants were equivalent to Remel slants — but fails to recognize that on the face of the instructions equivalent slants are expressly accepted. Lake notes that Ivins “declared that he could point to numerous studies which showed that his home-made slants met the same requirements as Remel slants. (p. 183) (See literature)

        Dr. Ivins’ point may seem “silly” (p. 184) to Mr. Lake but it seems that Mr. Lake is not used to the rules applied to construing the plain meaning of language. See, e.g., Sutherland’s treatise on interpreting statutory language. Where the language says that Remel slants — OR AN EQUIVALENT — can be used… then that is what it means. If Dr. Ezzell wants to change it in connection with the first submission, fine. But the prosecutor shouldn’t start start t spinning the February 2002 submission as evidence of a guilty consciousness.

        Instead, that issue arises only upon the destruction of evidence.

        This entire issue thus was misframed by the DOJ. (Ed just parrots what Rachel argued in the Amerithrax Investigative Summary, mistaking prosecutor’s argument for evidence). The issue that needs flagging is the destruction of evidence by the lab (Ezzell’s lab) whose virulent Ames contained the 4 morphs — the lab that had made a dried powder out of Flask 1029. Destroying the slants — which were equivalent — was a destruction of evidence in violation of the principles espoused by John himself in his chapter on the preservation of evidence in Dr. Budowie’s weighty treatise on Microbial Forensics (1st ed). His chapter was supplanted by a chapter on the same subject by former CIA/FBI scientist Jenifer Smith (2d ed.).

        Has Ed even READ the form he cites?

        The Instructions For Preparing and Shipping TSA Slants for B. anthracis Ames Expressly Note That An Equivalent Can Be Used; Special Pathogens Laboratory Itself Submitted Home-made Slants In May 2002
        Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 9, 2012

        Did the FBI Scientist Throw Out The Other Slants That Did Not Use Specified TSA Remel Slant Or Only Dr. Ivins’ February 2002 Submission From RMR 1029 From Which Its Scientists Had Made A Dried Powder? Who Threw It Out?
        Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 7, 2012

    • DXer said

      Ed spends 4 pages discussing Pat Worsham in Spring 2002 apparently oblivious to the fact that Dr. Worsham is one of an army of experts, with personal knowledge of the same issues being addressed by Ed, who defends Dr. Ivins’ innocence.

      Ed is just swallowing the spin of the beautiful AUSA who could make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. A prosecutor’s spin, however, must never be a substitute for evidence. Instead, as former FBI Director Dwight Adams explains in the article above, objective scientific criteria should be used. Otherwise, rationalizations are too easily manipulated — such as when Ed is constantly assuming what Dr. Ivins thought. His subtitle is incredibly inapt.

      Deposition Excerpt of Patricia Worsham in Stevens v. United States: Product Could Not Have Been Made At USAMRIID With Equipment She Has Seen At USAMRIID
      Posted by Lew Weinstein on July 16, 2011

    • DXer said

      I don’t think I’m going to be able to finish it. I’m halfway through and i can tell ya, a suspense novel it ain’t. Much of it is a rehash, even republication, of the 2005 self-published book, with an inordinate emphasis on the debate as it was framed in 2002. He doesn’t ever address any direct evidence as far as I can see — and that’s because there isn’t any.

    • DXer said

      Ed’s discussion of a bloodhound story and Hatfill theory (p. 200-204) is taken from his view in 2002 – that’s 10 years ago. See his 2005 self-published book. He has always been mistaken in thinking that the investigators did not think they had their man in Hatfill. David Willman did a good job in gaining access to the last set of investigators who dumped on the first set of investigators– and even dumped on Director Mueller for being fixated on Dr. Hatfill. I may be harsh to the extent David does not revisit the subject and address the science that had been relegated to an appendix to an epilogue. And I don’t like it when book authors write stories on the subject because of the financial conflict of interest. And I may be harsh that he has not retracted his reliance on the first counselor who in 2009 explained that she had been receiving her instructions from an alien. But his numerous interviews with investigators makes it a very serious journalistic contribution by any measure. He may have been channeling the alien — but importantly he was also channeling the views of the investigators. As a result, we now know that the current investigators felt cramped in their investigation of other theories because of the FBI Director Mueller’s fixation on Dr. Hatfill. For what it’s worth, a Hatfill Theory was stronger than an Ivins Theory — and a federal district court looked at it and found that there was not a scintilla of evidence in support of the theory. The same is true of an Ivins Theory.

      Ed has no basis for his idiosyncratic view of the bloodhounds. He never interviewed the handlers or agents responsible for using the bloodhounds. It may have been bad science but they were hoping that a scent of the letter — even where a “transfer unit” was used. This is part of the science that should be explained by the GAO so that we are not left with Ed’s conspiracy theory that investigators created a sting to trap the leaker Seikaly. (Seikaly was the lead prosecutor whose daughter came to represent “anthrax weapons suspect” Al-Timimi pro bono.) Ed’s suggestion that they set a trap for attorney Seikaly is foolish. Instead, the problem is that internal emails show that never even asked him if he was the leak.

      Did the Amerithrax investigation go to the dogs early on? What were the bloodhounds smelling at the Denny’s when they reportedly went nuts?
      Posted by Lew Weinstein on April 12, 2010

      Daniel Seikaly pled the Fifth Amendment in connection with the leaks

      Who does former lead Amerithrax prosecutor Daniel Seikaly and his daughter, Ali Al-Timimi’s former defense counsel, think is responsible for the anthrax mailings of Fall 2001?
      Posted by Lew Weinstein on May 22, 2011

      The investigation did go to the dogs. The problem is that the investigation never got out of the pound.

      That’s all you need to know about what Ed wrote. But here is further background on the use of bloodhounds for those who did not follow or remember the particulars of the issue.

      For those who believe in Tinkerbelle (one of the dogs used) , while most jurisdictions allow bloodhound evidence, courts generally retain reservations about the possibility of inaccuracy of the evidence. It is evident the dog cannot be cross-examined and there is always the possibility that the dog may make a mistake. Accordingly, there are strict foundational requirements. The notion that such evidence is of slight probative value or must be viewed with caution stems at least in part from fear that a jury will be in awe of the animal’s apparent powers and will give the evidence too much weight (as the ABC and Newsweek reports amply illustrated). Putting aside for a moment use of the scent transfer device, five specific requirements are commonly required to establish an adequate foundation for dog-tracking evidence: (1) the handler was qualified to use the dog; (2) the dog was adequately trained; (3) the dog has been found reliable; (4) the dog was placed on the track where the guilty party had been; and (5) the trail was not stale or contaminated.

      For example, a bloodhound provided with the deceased tennis shoes might very reliably lead authorities to the deceased’s body in the woods. What would have been used for the scent pack here is the human scent, if any, on the letter on which the perpetrator rested his hand in writing the letter. Tennis shoes are far more likely to carry a scent than a piece of paper on which the perp rested his hand (while possibly using gloves) to write a 28-word letter. Just ask my wife. The dogs would not have been clued to the biological agent as biological agents such as anthrax tend not to have a distinctive scent.

      Here, there would be no such log because the use of the dog would not have been the subject of testing and training showing the dog performed reliably under similar circumstances. At a minimum, the “trail” would have been contaminated by the irradiation and anthrax, and would have grown stale by the passage of time. FDA concluded that irradiation can produce small changes in the taste, smell, and sometimes texture of foods and that consumers should be informed of this. Jurors should too. Remember that scene from “Miracle on 34th Street” where the official finding of the agency of the United States’ government was deemed binding on the prosecution? Imagine Attorney Connolly calling FDA scientists who found irradiation caused changes in smell, no doubt amplified by the much keener sense of a bloodhound.

      The United States Post Office explains in a FAQ that “the materials in the mail are heated and may become chemically altered. Paper dries out and may become dusty, discolored, and brittle.” Some postal workers and federal agency staff have reported symptoms such as eye, nose, throat and skin irritation, headache, nausea and occasional nosebleeds. What does the USPS do under these circumstances? Their solution includes “[u]sing hypoallergenic deodorizers to eliminate any smells.” “Testing each batch of aired-out mail to ensure no detectable amoungs of gas exist before delivery.” Alas, Tinkerbelle’s lengthy log shows that perfume does not confuse her, but likely is silent on this question of irradiated paper. The prosecution witness who might testify that a bloodhound’s sense of smell is 200 times as powerful as a human’s sense of smell would merely be helping the defense argument. No amount of log keeping or experiments after the fact would serve to permit admissibility under the court precedent. The bloodhound evidence was always a bogus and hugely prejudical diversion since the first sensational Newsweek story.

      In any event, the perp would have worn gloves and only briefly handled the letter. More broadly, there is an article that collects cases from 40 or so states and nothing approaching the delays has ever been found admissible. In a city landscape, the time period is much more restrictive. The Leahy letter, written by the perp sometime prior to the October 9, 2001 postmark, was not discovered until mid-November, and as of November 19, 2001 a protocol was still being developed for its opening. Thus, the 40 day period that had been passed by the (likely glove-wearing) perp already would have resulted in a stale trail.

      Lucy was adorable. She’s widely known to be a people person.

      There is a separate additional issue of use of the “scent transfer unit” here. A “scent transfer unit” such as used here looks like a Dustbuster, modified with a small frame at the end to secure a piece of gauze over its intake opening. The user attaches a piece of sterile gauze to the unit, activated the unit, and holds it against the item from which the scent is to be taken (such as where the person sat the night before). Depending on the jurisdiction, the scent transfer unit, which is a new technology, may be subject to the rule regarding new scientific methodology. Under that rule, the proponent of such evidence must establish the new scientific principle or technique is sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs under the circumstances of the case. Here, there is no such general acceptance as explained by Scott Shane in an excellent article in the Baltimore Sun relying on experts in the Maryland area. The purpose of the requirement is to avoid factfinders from being misled by the `aura of infallibility’ that may surround unproved scientific methods. This would constitute a possible third independent grounds for excluding the evidence. Absent a training log showing the dog performed reliably under similar circumstances, given the time period that had passed, and in light of the use of the scent transfer unit, there is nothing the FBI or trainers would be able to do to save the admissibility of the bloodhound evidence because it will be found by a court to be unreliable.

      Both of the major police bloodhound associations howl against the reliability of the Scent Transfer Unit used by the three blood handlers. Dennis Slavin is an urban planner and reserve officer with the South Pasadena Police Department. One of the other dog handlers is a civilian who runs his own bloodhound business. Shane, in his very impressive Baltimore Sun article, explained that an FBI agent, Rex Stockham, examining the technology for the FBI lab says: “It’s going to be criticized. I’m critical of it myself.” The President of the Bloodhound Association, who is critical of the technology used by these handlers, had testified 21 times, and likely will have testified 22 if the FBI attempts to rely on the evidence in a prosecution. Shane notes that a federal jury awarded $1.7 million last year to a man wrongly accused of rape after police identified him in part based on the use of Slavin’s bloodhound, TinkerBelle. Shane’s article, essential reading, gives the further example of their use in the sniper investigation, where “given the scent taken from spent shell casings, followed two false trails in Montgomery County. One led to a house, for which a search warrant was obtained and which turned out not be relevant. The other led to a dog-grooming parlor, the officer said.” Phew. I wonder if Stan Bedlington knew any of this when he said on national tv that the evidence against his friend was “mounting” based on the Lucy’s and Hatfill responding to each other. He is a ladies’ man, after all. Oh, but that’s right. He lived near a neighborhood named Greendale. The trainers reportedly tested their dogs on irradiated paper — presumably before actually doing the search but after being asked to do so. That would not pass muster that past training be substantiated by a training log.

      The New York Times also had an excellent article in December 2002 surveying the field that noted the case where dogs falsely indicated the presence of explosives in the cars of three medical students bound for Miami. The country watched the drama unfold on television as the men were held and authorities closed a major highway across Florida. No trace of explosives was found. When dog handlers are excited, dogs can overreact and give a false positive. “Dogs want rewards and so they will false alerts to get them. Dogs lie. We know they do,” an expert told the Times. “One of ‘TinkerBelle’s most incredible talents,”her homepage touts, is her ability to find the person responsible for loading a gun using scent from an expended bullet casing.” Indeed, she finds the “smoking gun.” Most of all, the page notes, she too is a people person.

      With the investigation going to the dogs, nearly 100 law enforcement officers gathered to watch some of their colleagues jump in a lake near where Dr. Hatfill lived, and in late January 2003, the FBI continued searching the forest in Frederick. Locals were amused that some of the ponds had been dry earlier that year. While they may seem to enjoy their dinners at Georgetown, FBI agents and surveillance specialists do not have an easy job. The public demands that they exhaustively pursue all leads, but then there is an uproar if they cross some unpredictable line and step on — or run over someone’s toe.

      The FBI is damned if they do and damned if they don’t. All we can ask at the end of the day is that they comply with FOIA, avoid conflicts of interest, and then we won’t presume that we could do better.

      Because as Dr. Adams often says, none of us is smarter than all of us. Dr. Adams would be a fascinating interview on whether the bloodhounds was an appropriate method. It is best understood as a way of pressuring suspects in the hopes of getting a lead.

    • DXer said

      Here is the emai regarding Dr. Ivins work on the spores in the Daschle letter. Ed seems not to realize that the entire letter is said by this email to have been signed out. Dr. Ivins specifically notes who was with him in the B3.

      Before Ed starts imputing thoughts, without basis, to Dr. Ivins, if Ed wants to purport to be addressing the facts, he should correctly characterize the contemporaneous documentary evidence. The idea that the letter was signed out without FBI knowledge and approval has no basis. GAO of course has access to the unredacted email so that GAO can identify who was in the B3 with Bruce and who was observing his examination.

      This was an early period where DOJ and FBI was making an attempt to sort out the conflicts of interest — perhaps inevitable when dealing with a small field of anthrax experts. Dr. Ezzell understandably may have been wanted to avoid criticism for his well-intended work due to the fact his lab had made a dried powder out of Ames that came from Flask 1029. That flask was known by then to have been the largest repository of Ames in the country. His own lab had an unsecured sample in an unlocked refrigerator in a tupper ware container. Terry, his assistant, did not submit her genetically matching sample at the time.

    • DXer said

      Contrary to Ed’s lay mischaracterization, the NAS described the finding from testing of 22 lbs. regarding the remains of the hijacker that had the leg lesion.

      NAS: FBI believes positive finding in hijacker remains from Flight 93 was due to laboratory contamination
      Posted by Lew Weinstein on February 15, 2011

      Ed wrote on the subject and then hung citations like Christmas lights — without conforming his text to the documents. He needed someone doing substantive fact checking of sources so as to avoid mischaracterization of the cited documents. It is for the GAO to probe the FBI’s claim that the positive assay was due to laboratory contamination.

    • DXer said

      Ed says schools opened August 20, 2001. I’ve asked him whether it was fact .. or bullshit unsupported assertion that might better help him spin the nonsense about Dr. Ivins juggling for a First Grader to persuade him to write the anthrax letters.

      He says that it was on August 27, 2001 that Dr. Ivins did his juggling act for the (non-existent) kid. So he had the kid’s school having a first day of school the previous week, on August 20, 2001.

      Hey, if you are going to make bullshit nonsense up you might as well be specific, right?

      I try to post these corrections and questions on his blog but he deletes the posts that contradict his First Grader Theory. A true believer, he is quite wedded to the theory and is not interested in fact-checking.

      See, e.g., “Schools ready to open doors,” Frederick News-Post, August 24, 2001.

      All the Frederick Public Schools operate on the same calendar.

      Maybe Ed’s imaginary First Grader went to an imaginary elementary school that followed a different calendar. Is that it?

      Click to access 150.pdf

      Each fall, FCPS staff prepares calendar options for the next school year for the Board of Education’s review, modification and approval. In November or December the Board publishes the proposed calendar and solicits input from employees and the community. The Board adopts and announces the calendar in January.

      Typically, school starts before Labor Day and ends in mid-June.

      Amerithrax is too important an issue to suffer fools gladly. His new book is largely a cut-and-paste of his 2005 book and mainly focused on how issues were framed in newspaper articles in 2002.

      • DXer said

        All Ed needed to do was a simple google to know his entire argument was factually unsupported.

        News, August 24, 2001 : Front Page : 24, 2001 – … teachers prepare lor the start of classes Schools ready to open doors By BARBARA BROWN Staff It’s back to early mornings homework and …

    • DXer said

      At 273, after finally leaving the 2002 timeframe, Ed cites the April 2007 letter in which AUSA Kenneth Kohl explains that he is not a target of the investigation.

    • DXer said

      On the FBI’s concocted code theory, Ed writes: “It seems to be too complicated a code for Ivins to have constructed it in the few days he had between 9/11 and the sending of the media letters.” (p. 356)

      So what then does Ed conclude? He argues that Bruce Ivins had a First Grader write the code for him on the first day of school!

  18. DXer said

    Of Amerithrax, the authors write:

    “Traditional forensic science (DNA, fingerprints, handwriting, trace evidence, etc.) played little to no role in the outcome of this seven‐year investigation.”

    • DXer said

      The authors write:

      “Traditional forensic evidence did not provide any meaningful results that could have assisted in the identification of the perpetrator. Evidence associated with the anthrax letters included, tape-end matching, ink analysis, fibers, trash marks from the photocopy process, and human DNA analysis.”

      Dr. Adams should encourage release of the examination of the photocopy toner ink analysis (as distinguished from the issue of photocopy track marks) so that it can be confirmed that in fact the photocopiers at USAMRIID were not used. The Amerithrax Investigative Summary makes a point of time that Dr. Ivins spent alone in the library. Alternatively, upon continued withholding by the DOJ, the GAO should interview former FBI scientist Dr. Bartick.

    • DXer said

      The authors discuss the 2012 forensic science bill:

      “In the US court system, expert testimony serves as the gateway for the admissibility of scientific evidence, and for scientific evidence to be admissible, it must be both relevant and reliable. The 1993 US Supreme Court decision inDaubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. established the current reliability test for expert testimony in the American federal system, and directed that American trial judges are charged with the responsibility of acting as gatekeepers to exclude unreliable scientific evidence8.

      The aforementioned NRC Report represents one of the most challenging developments in forensic science in recent years, for it called into question the reliability of certain types of forensic evidence that had previously been routinely admitted under Daubert. The concerns and criticisms cited throughout the Report reverberated like shock waves through the US judicial system. In fact, shortly after the release of the Report, US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia cited the Report in an opinion and wrote that ‘serious deficiencies have been found in the forensic evidence used in criminal trials’9. Scalia clearly agreed with the NRC conclusions that ‘some forensic science disciplines are supported by little rigorous systematic research to validate the discipline’s basic premises and techniques’ and that ‘only nuclear DNA analysis has been rigorously shown to have the capacity to consistently, and with a high degree of certainty, demonstrate a connection between an evidentiary sample and a specific individual or source’10.

      As is so often the case, it did not take long for the US Congress to react. US Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, introduced the Forensic Science and Standards Act of 2012. If enacted, this Act would require the development of forensic science standards; require the implementation of those standards in forensic science laboratories; and create a National Forensic Science Coordinating Office to administer grants for research in accordance with a national forensic science research strategy11.”

  19. DXer said

    The authors write:

    “A Japanese proverb (anonymous) states, ‘None of us is as smart as all of us’ and it correctly captures the intent of not only this paper.”

    • DXer said

      The article has a section on “Inter-agency efforts in the anthrax investigation.”

      Here is a video about such inter-agency efforts used in conducting the search of AMI — focusing on EPA’s help.

      EPA failed to provide documents under FOIA regarding the decontamination agent, Nanoprotect, made by the researcher supplied virulent Ames by Bruce Ivins whose lifelong friends at medical school had been recruited each Friday by Ayman Zawahiri and whose intention to use anthrax against US targets had been announced by spring 1999. Ayman’s sisters taught at the medical school — his sister Heba taught microbiology.

  20. DXer said

    The Washington Post and CBS Sixty Minutes television news program completed an investigation into comparative bullet lead analysis and its promotion by the FBI Laboratory. As a result of these investigations, 60 Minutes aired a program titled Evidence of Injustice on November 18, 2007. Dwight Adams, Director of the FBI Laboratory, explained that comparative bullet lead analysis was scientifically unsupported and misleading to the point of false testimony. Dr. Adams is the lab directory that commissioned the NAS study that debunked the method. He is interviewed about 6 minutes in or so. A half minute further, 60 Minutes notes that Dr. Adams wrote Director Mueller: “We cannot afford to be misleading to a jury…” and “We plan to discourage prosecutors from using our previous results in future prosecutions.” But as 60 Minutes emphasizes that neither the DOJ nor the FBI ever made any attempt to identify cases in which the flawed testimony had led to conviction.

    Now the issue of wrongfully convicted criminals, of course, is serious. But I can empathize with the view that with a never-ending crimes such as bank robberies, shootings, assaults etc that there is an issue of resources. And I understand that no prosecutor wants to imagine that they convicted an innocent man (and they may not believe it).

    But in a national security matter involving the anthrax threat, it is really, really wrongheaded not to be sure that missteps are corrected and set right.

    For starters, moving forward, correct the false statements to the federal district court that are still being circulated by the witness controlled by the alien who had implanted a microchip in her butt.

    Disclose the forensics that Dr. Adams knows was done on the toner used in photocopying the letters. (Compare the false innuendo in the Amerithrax Investigative Summary about his time in the library where there were photocopiers.)

    Acknowledge that the claim that the lyophilizer was available to Dr. Ivins to use — or was even in the B3 where he was — was incorrect.

    Withdraw the false statement that Dr. Ivins had no reason to be lab those nights that the contemporaneous documents show had his hands full with killing 52 rabbits.

    Dr. Adams had access to those lab notebooks in 2006 when they were not returned to Dr. Ivins despite his repeated pleas. It simply is not fair to allow the statements by the prosecutors to go uncorrected.

    Dr. Adams should address the matter of the scientific experiment that Dr. Ivins provably was working on in early October and be asked why the FBI did not return copies of the notebooks to Dr. Ivins so that he could reconstruct his time.

    There’s no forensic evidence to debunk in Amerithrax because there was none that pointed to Dr. Ivins. The genetics analysis and 4 morphs merely narrowed things from 700 to 300 — and that is just at USAMRIID alone.

    Note that actually the testing showed that the anthrax in the letters did NOT come from the Flask but we know what he meant by the overbroad comment in past media interviews.

    “Absence of Meglumine and Diatrizoate” in Scientific Approaches Used To Investigate The Anthrax Letters (February 2010)

    Of course once given to someone it can go anywhere.

    There is a strong analogy here between the lead bullet analysis issue and the prosecutor’s misleading use of the Flask 1029 and the Flask 1029 inventory at issue here. (Dr. Ivins noted that transfers done at USAMRIID were not even recorded).

    Barry Scheck says it is a failure on the part of the attorneys at the Department of Justice to own up to a very serious scientific error.

    Dr. Adams at the end (12:37) urges that there is nothing that DOJ/FBI should be hiding regarding past cases involving bullet lead analysis.

    The same is true of Amerithrax.

  21. DXer said

    At the time of the FBI’s scientific briefing, Dr. Dwight Adams, “a former director of the F.B.I. laboratory who was deeply involved in managing the anthrax genetic research until he left the bureau in 2006, said he was confident that the groundbreaking forensic effort would be validated by the broad scientific community.”

    Dr. Adams can explain whether it was proper protocol for the FBI scientist who made a dried powder out of Flask 1029 to throw out the February 2002 sample submitted by Dr. Ivins. (See Amerithrax Investigative Summary for assertion that it was JE’s lab that threw it out; the records relating to the destruction have not been disclosed).

    August 16, 2008
    F.B.I. Will Present Scientific Evidence in Anthrax Case to Counter Doubts

    WASHINGTON — Growing doubts from scientists about the strength of the government’s case against the late Bruce E. Ivins, the military researcher named as the anthrax killer, are forcing the Justice Department to begin disclosing more fully the scientific evidence it used to implicate him.

    In the face of the questions, Federal Bureau of Investigation officials have decided to make their first detailed public presentation next week on the forensic science used to trace the anthrax used in the 2001 attacks to a flask kept in a refrigerator in Dr. Ivins’s laboratory at Fort Detrick, in Maryland. Many scientists are awaiting those details because so far, they say, the F.B.I. has failed to make a conclusive case.

    “That is going to be critically important, because right now there is really no data to make a scientific judgment one way or the other,” Brad Smith, a molecular biologist at the Center for Biosecurity at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. “The information that has been put out, there is really very little scientific information in there.”

    F.B.I officials say they are confident that their scientific evidence against Dr. Ivins, who killed himself last month as the Justice Department was preparing an indictment against him, will withstand scrutiny, and they plan to present their findings for review by leading scientists. But the scrutiny may only raise fresh questions.

    The bureau presented forensics information to Congressional and government officials this week in a closed-door briefing, but a number of listeners said the briefing left them less convinced that the F.B.I. had the right man, and they said some of the government’s public statements appeared incomplete or misleading.

    For instance, the Justice Department said earlier this month in unsealing court records against Dr. Ivins that he had tried to mislead investigators in 2002 by giving them an anthrax sample that did not appear to have come from his laboratory.


    In addition, people who were briefed by the F.B.I. said a batch of misprinted envelopes used in the anthrax attacks — another piece of evidence used to link Dr. Ivins to the attacks — could have been much more widely available than bureau officials had initially led them to believe.

    Representative Rush Holt, the New Jersey Democrat who has followed the anthrax case closely and requested this week’s briefing from the F.B.I., said in an interview that he was not ready to draw any firm conclusions about the investigation. But he said: ‘The case is built from a number of pieces of circumstantial evidence, and for a case this important, it’s troubling to have so many loose ends. The briefing pointed out even more loose ends than I thought there were before.”


    “Do you believe Bruce Ivins was responsible for the anthrax attacks?” The Frederick News-Post, the hometown newspaper in Fort Detrick, asked its readers this week. (Of those who responded, 34 percent said no, compared with 26 percent who said yes.)

    In its case against Dr. Ivins, the F.B.I. developed a compelling profile of an erratic, mentally troubled man who could be threatening and obsessive, as in his odd fascination with a sorority from his college days. But investigators were never able to place him at the New Jersey mailboxes where the anthrax letters were dropped, and the case against him relied at its heart on the scientific evidence linking the anthrax in Dr. Ivins’s laboratory to the spores used in the attacks.

    It took the F.B.I. several years to develop the type of DNA testing that allowed them to trace the origins of the “attack strain,” as it was called, and they concluded that the anthrax that Dr. Ivins controlled was the only one of more than 1,000 samples they tested that matched it in all four of that strain’s genetic mutations.

    Dwight Adams, a former director of the F.B.I. laboratory who was deeply involved in managing the anthrax genetic research until he left the bureau in 2006, said he was confident that the groundbreaking forensic effort would be validated by the broad scientific community.

  22. DXer said

    Dr. Dwight Adams addressed these issues in the course of his work on the FBI’s Amerithrax investigation in media outlets such as CNN:

    “The goal is to assess contamination throughout the building, particularly in the mailroom, to generate new leads in the criminal investigation, said Dwight Adams, an FBI lab supervisor.

    In addition, he said, investigators want to find “a dissemination device, such as a letter or letters, again to generate new leads.”

    Finally, they will be looking for “large quantities of spores” to compare them to spores found in letters sent to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, and Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont.

    Laboratories recently have developed techniques to scrutinize quickly thousands of samples — quantities that would have overwhelmed labs a few months ago, Adams said.

    “These new techniques allow not only for qualitative sampling, but quantitative sampling,” he said.

    The samples will be taken to a public health laboratory in Miami for review and analysis.”

    “FBI to renew anthrax search in Florida, August 26, 2002.

    • DXer said

      Dr. Adams can address the concentration of spores that the scientific investigation he supervised found on Robert Stevens’ keyboard and its implications for discerning the delivery device.

      “We hope to do a very comprehensive, Dwight Adams said.

      Adams said the FBI particularly wants to assess spore distribution in the AMI mail room. And, he said, the FBI is looking for a large quantity of spores to compare against the spores found in the Leahy and Daschle letters.

      In recent weeks, media attention has been focused on FBI searches of the home of Steven Hatfill, a former government scientist involved in bioterror research who has vigorously asserted his innocence.

      “FBI re-enters anthrax building,” St. Petersburg Times (Florida), August 27, 2002
      South Pinellas Edition

      • DXer said

        Dr. Adams could confirm (or not) Maureen Stevens report about what investigators concluded about the method of delivery and how Dr. Stevens was infected.

        “The most chilling detail surrounding Robert Stevens death may have been how he was exposed to anthrax, especially since he never handled the mail at work.

        “It was a very odd letter and it was passed around the office and everyone was making fun about it and Robert was passed it and he looked at it,” explained Stevens. “He wasn’t wearing his glasses so he lifted it up to his … to his face to read and that’s how they think he inhaled the anthrax.” 9 at 1:28 – 1:58

        See video.

        And see quoted remark from video in article:

        The JLo letter was passed around the office, he held it up to his face, and set it down on the keyboard, before it was thrown out in his wastebasket.

        The FBI should produce to GAO the documents relating to Dr. Adams scientific canvass of the contamination of the AMI offices to include any and all conclusions drawn as to the delivery method.

        • DXer said

          Dr. Adams could confirm whether there was ever any scientific evidence implicating Dr. Hatfill.

          With lead prosecutor Seikaly leaking the hyped story about the anthrax smelling bloodhounds to Newsweek — whose daughter would represent “anthrax weapons suspect” Ali Al-Timimi pro bono — Dr. Adams can provide his view of the scientific validation, if any, done in connection with using the bloodhounds.

          If it was not a scientifically validated method, who had responsibility for permitting its use? The “Hatfill Theory” seems to have derailed Amerithrax for many years. Didn’t he think at the time that it might have the FBI barking up the wrong tree?

          The Washington Times
          August 27, 2002, Tuesday, Final Edition
          FBI turns to Florida for clues to anthrax

          SECTION: NATION; Pg. A03

          Dr. Dwight Adams, assistant director of the FBI’s laboratory division, said spores found at American Media will be compared with the anthrax sent to Washington to determine whether they originated from the same stock.

          The FBI has not named any suspects in the anthrax investigation, although the bureau is said to have a list of 30 “persons of interest.”

          Mr. Hatfill, who twice during the past month has held press conferences declaring his innocence, is the only one on the list to be named by authorities. He worked at Fort Detrick, the Pentagon’s top biological-defense research center in Frederick, Md., until 1998.

        • DXer said

          Dr. John P. Mabry, as a former FBI Division Chief Division Counsel and trained as an attorney, can advise us whether it constituted a conflict of interest to have the daughter of the lead Amerithrax prosecutor, who pled the Fifth Amendment about leaking the hyped bloodhound stories, to later represent “anthrax weapons suspect” (his defense counsel’s term in a a court filing). We need GAO’s guidance on the question.

          Here is an excerpt from Dr. Adams testimony at deposition:

          From January 11, 2006 Deposition of Dwight Adams:

          “THE WITNESS: I think any prosecutor or investigator would be concerned about information, especially wrong information, being put into the press that would damage an investigation.

          BY MR. CONNOLLY:

          Q How would it damage an investigation?
          A It could indicate which way the investigation is going. It could signal to the perpetrators what we are attempting to accomplish, and maybe you have not even gotten to that point yet in the investigation. So you — they or the person — the perpetrator of this crime could have been destroying evidence, for example.

          A I don’t think I was concerned about the investigation but I was concerned to see a lot of
          wrong information particularly related to the science of the investigation appearing in the press.


          Q Could it help the perpetrator map the investigation, the FBI’s investigation if it knew who the FBI
          was interested in, at least speaking to?
          A Yes.


          Q Earlier you testified that regarding the scientific aspect of the investigation there was information that simply in your view too sensitive to share to the public about the particular characteristic of the organism sent in the mail. Is hat correct?
          A In so many words, yes, sir.

          Q Did you feel like you had the same restrictions in informing the senate, congress or staff in terms of what it is you would reveal to them about the particular characteristics of the organism that was sent?

          A As I’ve already stated there was specific information that I did not feel appropriate to share with either the media or to the Hill because it was too sensitive of information to do so. It would show too much of where were were going and what we hoped to accomplish. But in more broad terms I was able to at least give them the sense that, one, we clearly knew what we were dealing with and how were going to get to the answers of who might be responsible for this.
          I just recall we were restricted or told to hold back in talking about specific individuals or specific techniques and just give a broader view of —

          A *** It was the director [Mueller] stating that the briefing would be fine but we need to keep that type of information on individuals and other things close hold and not reveal that. I also remember that the director himself went — when we actually were before the two senators.

          Q I just want to go the very bottom there it says, “Follow Up Action : SC Carey pointed out that the FBI never precluded looking at international origin of anthrax.” Do you see that?
          A Yes
          Q Do you have any recollection of Mr. Carey or anyone else making sure the staffers understood that the FBI hadn’t explicitly limited their pool of candidates who could have been involved in this domestic source?
          A Yeah, I recall that being a topic of discussion on occasion, yes.”

        • DXer said

          Dr. Dwight Adams briefed a Congressional committee explaining that silica was found absorbed in the spore coats. Dr. Majidi confirmed at the briefing that the forensics are consistent with the silica being in the growth medium. Dr. Al-Timimi shared a suite with the Ames anthrax researchers who developed the process in early 2001 for growing anthrax with silica in a microdroplet cell culture. Thus these leaks by the lead Amerithrax prosecutor whose daughter then represented “anthrax weapons suspect” Al-Timimi requires the attention of GAO in its review. Conflicts of interest are within the GAO’s area of expertise. His family is Palestinian; he was born in Haifa in 1948; his sister-in-law and brother argued that Bin Laden was not responsible for 911. She says to be born Palestinian is necessarily to be political.

          By way of background, in early August 2002, after he hyped the bloodhound liking Hatfill as evidence, the head of the FBI District of Columbia Field Office initiated a leak investigation related to Amerithrax information. The first leak investigation concerned leak of bloodhound story to Newsweek (according to email discussed in deposition of lead prosecutor Daniel Seikaly in which he repeatedly pled the Fifth Amendment). A memo from DC Field Office head Van Harp read:

          TO: OPR
          From: Washington Field
          ADIC’s Office: Harp Van A (202) xxx-xxxx
          Title: UNSUB




          The appearance of this information in the media affects the conduct of this investigation as well as the morale of the dedicated personnel who have expended enormous energy and effort on this investigation.

          As such, I am requesting that either a media leak or OPR investigation be initiated. In the event a leak investigation is initiated then the enclosed LRM should be hand delivered to AAG Chertoff. [REDACTED]

          The investigation was closed in October 2002. The memo read:

          Date: October 8, 2002
          To: Mr. H. Marshall Jarrett
          Office of Professional Responsibility
          United States Department of Justice

          From: David W. Szady
          Assistant Director
          Counterintelligence Division
          Subject: [REDACTED[

          The purpose of this memorandum is to notify your office of the closing of the FBI’s criminal investigation of the captioned media leak matter. It is the understanding of the FBI that your continUed investigation of this matter will be pursued by your office.


          After a January 9, 2003 “exclusive” report by ABC’s Brian Ross that the FBI was focusing on Hatfill and was going to conduct a second round of interviews with other former and current government scientists so that they might rule them out by the process of elimination, the FBI initiated a second media leak investigation. This time it was to proceed with “extreme zeal.”

          The memo read:

          Precedence: PRIORITY Date: 1/13/2003

          To: Director’s Office
          Washington Field
          From: Washington Field
          Contact Richard L. Lambert 202-xxx-xxxx
          Approved by: Harp Van
          Lambert Richard L
          Title: AMERITHRAX
          MAJOR CASE 184
          00: WFO

          Synopsis: To request the opening of new OPR media leak investigation regarding captioned case.

          [large redacted passages]

          To demonstrate the seriousness with which the FBI views this matter, it is requested that the OPR inquiry commence with an interview of IIC Rick Lambert who will waive all Fifth Amendment privileges and accede to a voluntary polygraph examination to set a tone of candor, forthrightness and cooperation.


          The instant matter is the second unauthorized media disclosure to occur in this investigation. Its potential detriment to the effective prosecution of the case is substantial. Accordingly, in the interests of both specific and general deterrence, the Inspector in Charge requests that this OPR inquiry be pursued with unprecedent zeal.”

          A June 2003 email then shut the barn door long after the horse had left the barn door:

          From: DEBRA WEIERMAN
          To: Lisa Hodgson
          Date: Wed, June 4, 2003 12:18 PM

          Lisa: Please disseminate to all WFO employees. Thanks, Debbie
          For the information of all recipients, Director Mueller has ordered that no one discuss the AMERITHRAX case with any representative of the news media. The WFO and Baltimore Media Offices have released several media advisories, which were coordinated with the US Attorney and FBIHQ, to explain specific milestones in the case. However, NO FBI WFO EMPLOYEE, INCLUDING MYSELF AND INSPECTOR RICK LAMBERT, WHO IS IN CHARGE OF AMERITHRAX, IS TO RESPOND TO ANY MEDIA INQUIRIES, THE ONLY EXCEPTION IS DEBBIE WEIERMAN IN THE MEDIA OFFICE. All inquiries from reporters or journalists received by any WFO employee are to be immediately referred to Debbie at xxx-xxxx, and she will handle.

          I thank everyone at WFO for their dedication to the job and to this office. I also thank you for your cooperation in this very important matter.

          Mike Rolince

          In October 2007, the former Criminal Chief of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, Daniel Seikaly — Al-Timimi’s pro bono counsel’s father — was deposed in the civil rights action by Steve Hatfill about whether he was the source of leaks relating to Steve Hatfill in connection the use of bloodhounds in the anthrax investigation and the draining of ponds in Frederick, Maryland. Key stories appeared in Newsweek and Washington Post. Attorney Seikaly pled the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination in connection with most substantive questions.

          Here are some excerpts from the deposition:

          “Q. … calls this article, quote ‘An exclusive look at the search for the perpetrator of America’s worst bioterror attack.” Did you tell Mr. Klaidman [of Newsweek] that you were giving him an exclusive on this information?

          [deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

          Q. Did you tell Mr. Klaidman that the FBI was acting on a tip when it searched the pond in Frederick?

          Q. Did you tell Mr. Klaidman that FBI agents had interviewed the acquaintance of Dr. Hatfill’s that was supposedly the tipster?

          [deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

          Q. Did you tell Mr. Klaidman that the acquaintance had told the FBI that Dr. Hatfill said toxic bacteria could be made in the woods and the evidence could be tossed in the lake?

          [deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

          Q. Did you tell Mr. Klaidman that the FBI might drain the entire pond the month after this report?

          [deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

          [Lawyer defending deposition] Mark, let me say something on the record so we all understand the assertion because the manner in which — or the type of questions you’re asking here. My client has been instructed to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege regardless of whether or not the answer to the question would be yes or no, because even if the answer were to be no, if he answered no to certain questions, I think an inference could be drawn from that as to what he does or doesn’t know.

          So I just want to make sure you understand in terms of our Fifth Amendment assertion here is that he’s asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege to questions that may have a yes or no answer, and it’s not fair to assume that the answer to every one of these questions would be yes or no if he were to answer the questions. Does that make sense?

          Q. It makes sense, but we will be seeking an adverse inference as to all questions where the fifth amendment is taken.


          Q. Mr. Seikaly, do you deny any of the statements attributed to you by Mr. Klaidman with respect to the [Newsweek bloodhound story]

          [deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

          Q Is it actually even true whether the search of the pond was prompted by a tip?

          Q. Are you aware of any information that might have been used as a predicate for the pond search having been obtained as the fruits of electronic surveillance?

          [deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

          Q Did you tell Mr. Klaidman that agents might be looking for a wet suit that could have been used to dispose of — that could have been used and disposed of by the anthrax attacker?

          [deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]


          Q. Did you give Allan Lengel of The Washington Post any information reflected in this article?

          [deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

          Q. Mr. Lengel has testified that you told him the FBI search of the pond in Frederick was tied to Steven Hatfill and that it was triggered by a hypothetical statement Dr. Hatfill has made about anthrax; is that correct?

          A. That Mr. Lengel testified about that?

          Q. Is it correct that you told Mr. Lengel about those things?

          [deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

          Q. How did you know that the FBI’s search of the pond in Frederick was tied to Steven Hatfill?

          [deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]


          Q. Why did you decide to disclose information to Mr. Lengel about the pond search?

          [deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]


          Q Did you tell Mr. Lengel that the items recovered from the pond up to that point included a clear box with holes that could accommodate gloves?

          [deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]


          Q Did you tell Mr. Lengel that the items recovered from the pond up that point included vials wrapped in plastic?

          [deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

          Q. Do you specifically deny making any statement that Mr. Lengel has attributed to you?

          [deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]


          Q. How did you know that tests for the presence of anthrax bacteria on the equipment were continuing after two rounds of tests produced conflicting results?

          [deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

          Q. Why did you disclose that information to Mr. Lengel?

          [deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]


          Q Did you tell Mr. Lengel that the search of the pond in Frederick netted nothing but a hodgepodge of items that did not appear to be linked to the case?

          [deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]


          Q If we take the dates from Exhibits É, it appears that you disclosed investigative information to Mr. Lengel for articles that appeared in January 2003, May 2003, June 2003 and August 2003. Is that right?

          [deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]


          Q. É Do you know whether you ever saw this e-mail before?

          A. I don’t believe I have.

          Q. Okay. Let’s look at the partially redacted paragraph. It says, quote, “WFO [Washington Field Office] has opened a leak investigation in an attempt to find out who spoke to Newsweek Magazine over the weekend about the bureau’s use of bloodhounds in the anthrax investigation,” closed quote. Do you see that?

          A. I do.

          Q. And the date of the email is August 5th, 2002.

          A. That’s correct.

          Q. The investigation that’s referenced here is about the story that you gave Mr. Klaidman, is it not?

          A. Assert my Fifth Amendment Privilege in response.


          Q. Okay. In the bottom e-mail, when Blier begins, “here is a summary of my conversation with Glen about the anthrax leak investigation.” Now, Bill Blier worked for you, did he not?

          A. Yes.

          Q. Did you know what Mr. Blier was referring to when he referred to, quote, the anthrax leak investigation?

          A. I believe that it was an investigation involving the possible compromise of classified information is my understanding. I did know about an investigation in that.


          Q And do you know whether that had anything to do with bloodhounds or Newsweek?

          A I don’t believe it did but I don’t know.


          Q You were aware of an anthrax investigation, yes?

          A. I was — I was aware that there was a discussion of an investigation involving the compromise of classified information arising from the anthrax investigation, the Amerithrax investigation. I do recall knowing that we were — we and the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the Justice Department were concerned about this and were seeking to find out who compromised the classified information.


          Q. Did you think it remarkable in any way that bloodhounds could track a scent from anthrax letters that were ten months old to a Denny’s in Louisiana where someone had eaten the day before?

          [deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

          A disqualification due merely to an “appearance” (rather than an actual conflict) due to a “close family relationship” in connection with a representation that was “substantantially related” is personal and would not serve to disqualify the law firm, Bryan Cave. Moreover, here, the representation at issue was prior and not contemporaneous. But given that it was deemed appropriate to plead the Fifth Amendment, the circumstances requiring withdrawal are compelling. Think of the mess that would result upon a claimed leak of Al-Timimi information. Although she has co-authored with the former NSA General Counsel on requirements re security clearances — and thus would be a valuable addition to the team — I am sure there are others at the firm who would be willing to work on such an interesting case.

        • DXer said

          If GAO had the benefit of FBI emails they could follow the chronology of events.

          “From: Ann Todd
          To: Dwight E. Adams, Richard Lambert, Thomas Carey
          Date: Fri. Nov. 1, 2002 3:09 PM
          Subject: AMERITHRAX BRIEFING

          I realize that we just briefed the staff of Daschle and Leahy less than a month ago, October 4th to be exact, but staff is disturbed by recent media accounts regarding the progress and focus of the Amerithrax investigation. Staff has requested another briefing Tuesday, November 5th at 11:00 a.m. or early afternoon. Daschle’s staff have specifically requested that Mr. Harp attend this briefing. A primary focus of this briefing will be the article which appeared in the Washington Post on Monday, October 28th titled “FBI’s Theory on Anthrax is Doubted.” If you need the article please let me know and I will fax it to you.

          Please let me know your availability as soon as possible.

          As always, thanks for your cooperation and patience.”

  23. DXer said

    Wayne D. Lord served at the FBI’s Washington Field Office. From 2001-2004, SSA Lord served as Unit Chief of Behavioral Analysis Unit III (BAU-III), a component of the FBI’s Critical Incident Response Group (CIRG). The CIRG is an FBI field entity located at the FBI Academy, Quantico, Virginia. Established in May 1994, the CIRG is designed to provide rapid, multidisciplinary assistance to incidents of a crisis nature. BAU-III. CIRG, for example, arranged for the contribution of consulting psychiatrist Dr. Saathoff to Amerithrax. Dr. Lord has wide-ranging interests (from marine zoology to exploited children). He has a faculty appointment at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (like Hodgens of the tv show BONES, he knows bugs of the insect kind).

    Does Agent Lord agree that Dr. Saathoff’s EBAP report submitted to the federal court should be corrected?

    The report extensively on the counselor who has written in a 2009 book saying that she was controlled by an alien in 2000 and received her instructions each night from the alien. The alien had implanted a microchip in her butt and controlled her actions in 2000 when she counseled by Ivins in several sessions.

    In emails that month, Dr. Ivins explained to a confidante, Mara Linscott, that he was very exasperated with the counselor and what she was saying. She had told her colleagues that Dr. Ivins wanted to murder Mara — to poison her if she lost a soccer game. (The counselor reports that she never filed a police report, she claims, because she did not know the name of the colleague that Dr. Ivins intended to poison if she lost the soccer game; this makes no sense because it would be a simple matter for an investigating officer to ask Dr. Ivins which former assistant he was going to Upstate NY to see play soccer.)

    This devastating claim was reported uncritically by the Washington Post the day before the presentation by US Attorney of an Ivins Theory. Ivins was now officially a murderous fiend who would resort to a deadly substance to kill — he must be guilty of Amerithrax and so no need to actually expect US Attorney Taylor to make factually sound claims relating to the science (such as the falsehoods he told about the lyophilizer). The Washington Post did not name the counselor. So it could not be gleaned by the public that she was only briefly a licensed counselor at all for a very short period and says that she had been protected from a psychiatric diagnosis all those years by her husband, who was in medical personnel. As Nicholas Kristof explained, in such a situation, naming the source of the claim allows one to assess the credibility of the accuser.

    Ivins’ counselor in her 2009 book writes that she thought she was being chased by murderous astral entities — the murderous entities were attached to her clients and she would have to have emergency exorcisms performed. She believed she had the power of remote viewing and also astral travel. She would travel each night to WTC Ground Zero and Afghanistan and then be chased back from Afghanistan by the murderous Taliban astral entities. She would protect herself by escaping through an energy vortex that would close at the last minute.

    But because her name was never revealed by the Washington Post or the FBI, her delusions relating to murderous entities she perceived attached to her client could never be pointed out.

    Don’t the courageous revelations in Judith McLean’s lucidly and engagingly written book disqualify her from serving as a witness and accuser of Dr. Ivins? According to the EBAP panel, she annotated the psychiatrists’ notes. That file was given Ivins’ present counselor in July 2001 and that file set in motion the events leading to his commitment and ended with his suicide.

    If Ms. McLean were a witness in a case managed by Dr. Lord, wouldn’t he advise the prosecutors and court that she could not be relied upon as a witness given that her factual claims were unreliable? And that she was not qualified to serve as a witness?

    Does Dr. Lord agree that Dr. Saathoff (and the consulting colleagues Gregory enlisted to be on the behavioral panel) should have contacted the federal district court judge and corrected (deleted) their reliance on that witness? Barry Scheck of the Innocence Project says that FBI Agents of his acquaintance agree that there is a duty to correct.

    Don’t consulting psychiatrists have a duty to correct representations made to a federal court just as lawyers do? Just as bug scientists and marine zoology scientists do?

    Shouldn’t the FBI be relying on objective, scientific evidence in such an important national security case? Otherwise the wrong conclusion might be reached and a very real national security threat might go unaddressed by hard-working well-meaning prosecutors, investigators and consulting scientists.

    To err is human. We all make mistakes. But it is important that we all correct our missteps in such a matter — and respectfully (even persist) in asking that others do also. (On various occasions, I have unsuccessfully asked David Willman, the Washington Post, Dr. Saathoff, Dr. Schouten and members of the EBAP to correct themselves on this point).

    If they find that Dr. Ivins was guilty we can turn to the computer records relating to his work with the 52 rabbits on those nights the FBI claims he had no reason to be in the lab. His work with the 52 rabbits is nowhere disclosed in the Amerithrax Summary. Instead, the DOJ and FBI centrally relied upon their claim that he had no reason to be in the lab. At least in turning to those documents relating to the rabbit study, we will be relying on probative and reliable contemporaneous documentary evidence. See, e.g., October 5, 2001 email. And on that issue, we can turn to the digital forensic expertise of co-author Dr. Mark R. McCoy. And ask him about the importance of finding the missing laptop that had been in the BL-3 — that Dr. Ivins reports was taken home by his chief accuser, Patricia Fellows.

    • DXer said

      For those who don’t know him, let me introduct Dr. Hodgins, “King of the Lab.”

      “What do you think Hodgins should blow up next?”


      “Are you staying or going?”

      “Want to do it again?”

    • DXer said

      The New York TImes quotes Dr. Dwight Adams on Amerithrax:

      By late 2005, genetic analysis by top outside experts had matched the spores to a flask of anthrax at the Army institute. Dr. Ivins had custody of the flask, but some agents were still convinced Dr. Hatfill was the culprit.

      The science alone could not close the case. “We could get to a lab, to a refrigerator, to a flask,” said Dwight E. Adams, the F.B.I. laboratory director until 2006. “But that didn’t put the letters in anyone’s hand.”

  24. DXer said

    Dwight E. Adams

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Fields Biology, Botany, Forensic Science
    Institutions Federal Bureau of Investigation, University of Central Oklahoma
    Alma mater University of Central Oklahoma, Illinois State University, University of Oklahoma
    Notable awards Presidential Rank Award of Distinguished Executive (2003)
    Dwight E. Adams (born 2 February 1955), is one of the world’s foremost forensic scientists.



    Adams received a B.S. in Biology from the University of Central Oklahoma in 1977. He went on to study Biology and Microbiology and received an M.S. in Biology from Illinois State University in 1979 and a Ph. D. in Botany from the University of Oklahoma in 1982.[1]


    Federal Government

    Adams career with the Federal Bureau of Investigation began as a Special Agent in 1983 in Memphis, Tennessee. Adams joined the FBI Laboratory in 1987. While at the Laboratory, Adams headed the research team that “developed and validated the DNA testing procedures ultimately used in the FBI and throughout the world.”[2] Adams’ research into reliability of DNA through validation enabled the FBI to be the first public crime laboratory to offer DNA testing for criminal casework.[3] Adams would go on to be the first FBI Agent to testify in cases in which DNA evidence would be admitted in US Courts. He would testify over 130 times at all levels of Federal and State courts.[2] In 1994 through 1996, Adams left the FBI Laboratory to go back into the field in the Newark, NJ field office. While there, Adams supervised the Interstate Theft Squad and Multiagency Interstate Task Force. Further, Adams was the Violent Crimes program coordinator, leading two successful undercover operations. Dr. Adams would return to the FBI Laboratory in 1997, eventually being named as “Acting” Directory of the FBI Laboratory in 2001. FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III would name him Assistant Director to the FBI and Director of the FBI Crime Lab on April 17, 2002,[3] the largest and most complex laboratory of its kind in the world with an operational budget of more than $100 million.[1] In 2003, Adams was the recipient of the Presidential Rank Award as Distinguished Executive; the highest award given within the Federal Government.[2] Dr. Adams retired from the FBI after 23 years of service on June 30, 2006.[2]

    Current career

    On July 1, 2006, Adams was named the first Director of the University of Central Oklahoma Forensic Science Institute, returning to his old Alma Mater. While Director, Adams has created a unique dual-degree Forensic Academic program and overseen the construction of a 30,000-square-foot (2,800 m2) facility on the UCO campus to house the Forensic Science Institute.[4] Adams is also a scientific advisor to DNA Solutions, an Oklahoma DNA analysis company.[5]

    • DXer said

      Assistant Professor Forensic Science Institute and School of Criminal Justice


      J.D. Law, University of Alabama, 1984

      B.S. Business Administration/Accounting, University of Tennessee, 1981 Dr. Mabry holds a B.S. in Business Administration/Accounting from the University of Tennessee and a J.D. in law from the University of Alabama. He is a member of the Alabama State Bar and a former Law Clerk for U.S. Circuit Court Judge Peter T. Fay, U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Judicial Circuit. Dr. Mabry joined the faculty of the Forensic Science Institute in 2009 after retiring from the FBI with 25 years of service as a Special Agent, Supervisory Special Agent and Chief Division Counsel. During his FBI career, Dr. Mabry served in three field offices and the FBI’s Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit in Quantico, Virginia. Dr. Mabry’s investigative and supervisory experience includes violent crimes, white collar crime, organized crime, SWAT operations, domestic terrorism and international terrorism. He has worked and supervised a number of high-profile child abduction cases in both the United States and abroad and is a recipient of the Excellence in Investigations Award from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

    • DXer said

      Dr. Mark R. McCoy, Associate Professor

      Ed.D. Occupational and Adult Education, Oklahoma State University, 2000
      M.S. Forensic Science, National University, 1984
      B.S. Public Administration, Western Michigan University, 1980

      Dr. McCoy joined the faculty at UCO in the fall of 2005 following retirement from his position as Deputy Inspector with the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation (OSBI). Prior to his career at the OSBI, he worked as a police officer for the Tulsa Police Department and was an officer in the United States Marine Corps.

      During Dr. McCoy’s 20+ years with the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation he was assigned to the Lawton Regional Office, was the resident agent in Stillwater, Ok. and was assigned to the OSBI headquarters in Oklahoma City. He was involved in conducting and supervising all types of criminal investigations including homicide, rape, robbery, embezzlement, and public corruption. Dr. McCoy specialized in computer crimes and the forensic examination of digital evidence and was the first supervisor of the OSBI Computer Crime Unit. ***

      Dr. McCoy serves as the Forensic Science Institute’s Digital Evidence Program Administrator and as an Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice.

      His research interests include digital forensics, computer crime, the application of technology in law enforcement and law enforcement education and training.

    • DXer said

      Wayne D. Lord, Ph.D.,

      Associate Professor Forensic Science Institute and Biology


      BS Biology, Eastern University, St. Davids, Pennsylvania 1976

      MS Entomology and Ecology, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware 1978

      Ph.D. Zoology, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire 1982

      Dr. Wayne D. Lord is currently an Associate Professor in the Forensic Science Institute and Department of Biology at the University of Central Oklahoma. As a Supervisory Special Agent and twenty-one year veteran of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, he has previously served in a wide variety of investigative and supervisory assignments in the forensic and behavioral sciences. Dr. Lord served as a Unit Chief in the FBI’s National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC) which is part of the FBI’s Critical Incident Response Group (CIRG). Specifically, Dr. Lord directed Behavioral Analysis Unit -III, which provides behaviorally-based investigative and operational support to time sensitive and complex crimes involving child victims, including child abductions, child homicides, mysterious disappearances of children, and child sexual victimization. Additionally, Dr. Lord provided oversight for the NCAVC’s behavioral research program.

      Following completion of New Agent’s training in 1986, Dr. Lord was assigned to the Hartford, CT Resident Agency of the FBI’s New Haven Field Division, and subsequently served in the Forensic Science Research and Training Center (FSRTC) of the FBI’s Laboratory Division. Dr. Lord was instrumental in the conceptualization, development, and management of the FBI’s nationwide Evidence Response Team (ERT) program. He has also served as a field division relief supervisor, FBI pilot-in-command and SWAT team member. Prior to entering FBI service, Dr. Lord served as a USAF Medical Entomologist and Parasitologist at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC) in Washington, DC and held a faculty appointment at the F. Edward Hebert School of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS) in Bethesda, MD. Additionally, Dr. Lord served as a forensic science consultant to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP), the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, State of Connecticut, and the Connecticut State Police Forensic Laboratory.

      Dr. Lord holds academic degrees in biology, entomology/ecology, and zoology. He has extensive experience in criminal investigations, the detection and recovery of human remains, crime scene management, forensic entomology, and in the behavioral analysis of violent crimes. Dr. Lord has co-authored over fifty scientific articles and book chapters, and lectures extensively throughout the United States and abroad. Dr. Lord’s research interests include the study of juvenile mortality in social organisms, the behavioral ecology of child abduction and child homicide, the biology of vertebrate decomposition, the population ecology of social wasps (Hymenoptera:Vespidae), the natural history of Harvestmen (Opiliones), and the parasites of marine mammals.

    • DXer said

      Dr. Adams explains that :

      “From isotopic ratio analysis to three-dimensional imaging, impression evidence and other forensic science disciplines can and should replace outdated procedures and meet these new challenges with rigorous scientific advances.”

      GAO should address the scientific work on isotope ratio analysis as part of its charge.

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: