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

* Dr. Ken Dillon appeals FBI’s wrongful stonewalling of documents from the September-October 2001 time period of the anthrax mailings

Posted by DXer on June 6, 2016

dillon jun 2016


dillon p2 Jun 2016


26 Responses to “* Dr. Ken Dillon appeals FBI’s wrongful stonewalling of documents from the September-October 2001 time period of the anthrax mailings”

  1. DXer said

    That’s hunky dory that Dave Hardy has now agreed to produce 102 pages of Sept-October 2001 Ivins emails that previously were “overlooked”, Dave says, by the FBI’s WFO Field Office.

    Dave Hardy’s claim that 241 pages are being withheld because they are “duplicative” should no more be credited than his claim in 2015 to Kenneth Dillon that the documents had previously been processed for another requestor.

    On this subject of documents in Amerithrax, nothing that Dave Hardy says can be relied upon because everything he has ever said has proven inaccurate — at the cost of many thousands in legal fees. And, notably, years of my life spent waiting for Dave to comply with FOIA.

    It is outrageous that Hardy did not just cut the BS out and doesn’t just include the 241 pages on the CD mailed to Dillon yesterday. Enough already.

  2. DXer said

    For history sake, let the record show that in Appeal No. DOJ-AP-2016-003776 relating to Request No. 1327397-000

    Matthew Hurd, Associate Chief, for Sean O’Neill, Chief, Administrative Appeals Staff has denied Dillon’s request for Dr. Ivins’ Notebook 4282 which has not been produced and has entries during the mailing period, including the actual date of mailing.

    It was Matthew Hurd, Associate Chief, for Sean O’Neill, Chief, Administrative Appeals Staff that inexcusably and without explanation refused to produce this potentially dispositive alibi evidence — with the DOJ’s entire “Ivins Theory” hinging on the false claim that Dr. Ivins had no reason to be in the lab.

  3. DXer said

    Dillon has proved to be the rudder of this ship. I wish I had had him this week to keep things on course.

    Spent a couple days in Manchester, CT, where Bobby Gentile allegedly had the stolen $500 million Isabella Gardner paintings. And then a couple days in Philadelphia, where he allegedly once took the main one.

    It was a wonderful trip (with wonderful connections made) but in Philadelphia I had my hotel room broken into and things stolen — like my colleague’s IPAD. (I assume it was a coincidence). Fortunately, I have no secrets* — and I can’t use the type of toenail clipper taken.

    My crew had planned on digging up the Italian garden in Wickham Park in Manchester but then they all got lost in the hedge maze.

    Anthrax, Al Qaeda and Ayman Zawahiri: The Infiltration of US Biodefense

    *Look for documents relating to Adnan El-Shukrijumah among the Sarasota documents to be released. But first up: the 28 pages.

  4. DXer said

    The FBI FOIA Officer, I’m told, with apologies for the delay, notes that the Table of Contents of the Interim Case Management Summary is still undergoing the declassification review.

    There are some awkward aspects, to be sure. For example, one of Yazid Sufaat’s assistants, Al Barq, was roughly treated. He ended up in an Israeli prison, as I recall, by way of Jordan.

    Another fascinating issue is the outrageous failure to disclose the second lab that Rauf Ahmad visited for Ayman Zawahiri. You would be shocked to know the lab’s identity.

    I’ll be glad to tell you after the FBI wrongfully withholds the identity of the lab.

  5. DXer said

    Watchdog group sues for documents from the Department of Energy

    A California advocacy group has filed suit against the US Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) for alleged violations of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).


    A January 2016 request for information about a 2007 shipment of live anthrax to LLNL from the US Army’s Dugway Proving Ground in Utah has elicited no response from the NNSA, the complaint says. …

    We should not have to file lawsuits in order to obtain public information,” Yundt said in the statement. “Congress enacted the FOIA specifically so that organizations like Tri-Valley CAREs would have free access to unclassified, non-exempt records that disclose the operation of the government.”

    A January 2016 request for information about a 2007 shipment of live anthrax to LLNL from the US Army’s Dugway Proving Ground in Utah has elicited no response from the NNSA, the complaint says.

  6. DXer said

    Bruce Ivins telephone records, wrongfully withheld by the FBI from FOIA requestor Dillon, are described only generally in the Washington Field memo 279A-WF-222936-USAMRIID, 10/12/2006. The numbers of his primary and secondary work telephone numbers are sortable and separately printable. His records from Building 1412 are addressed in a separate memo.

    No detail is possible without the actual record of date and time calls were made and so AUSA’s unsupported claim he was making a powderized anthrax — and Ivins could not establish an alibi — is supported only by the FBI’s withholding of a staggering amount of exculpatory information (per the former lead Amerithrax investigator Richard L. Lambert).

    His home telephone records from his records are addressed in a separate memo.

    • DXer said

      The telephone records are provably uploaded into the AMERITHRAX Major Case Database. In litigation, Dillon should be awarded attorneys fees given the FOIA Officer’s apparent failure to do the relevant searches in the AMERITHRAX Major Case Database. The idea that Dillon should have to submit another request, going back to the end of a years’ long queue, and specify that the phrase “telephone records” be searched is unreasonable and warrants the award of attorneys fees to deter such crappy searches.

  7. DXer said

    Among the many documents wrongfully withheld from Dillon from Sep 01-Oct 01 were the notes from “around 9/0-10/01 about Protocol 112-MPL
    The folder title is “Protocol 112-MPL Titration/Adjuvant and Antigen Preparation.” And the FBI’s comments state: “Suspicious entries abruptly stopping around 9/01-10/01.”
    A key folder never produced to me was “Visit and Studies by __________.”

  8. DXer said

    Hundreds of pages of material responsive to Ken Dillon’s Sep-Oct 2001 request were referred to Army MedCom and then not processed by the Army and made publicly available in the USAMRMC Electronic Reading Room. The Army should do so now. I would like to thank the Army in advance for its attention to this matter.

    Referrals, Consultations, and Coordination:
    Procedures for Processing Records When Another Agency or Entity Has an Interest in Them

    In the course of processing records responsive to FOIA requests, it is not uncommon for agencies to locate records which either originated with another agency, or another component within their agency, or which contain information that is of interest to another agency or component. The long-standing practice in such situations is to either refer the requested record to the originating agency or component for it to process, or to consult with the other agency or component that has equity in the document to get its views on the sensitivity of the document’s content prior to making a disclosure determination. Typically, agencies refer records for direct handling to another agency when the records originated with that other agency. By contrast, when records originated with the agency processing the request, but contain within them information of interest to another agency, the agency processing the request will typically consult with that other agency prior to making a release determination.

    There are several benefits to these procedures. They foster efficiency and ensure consistency of responses. They also help ensure that agencies making release determinations are fully informed about any sensitivities of the content of the documents. While referrals and consultations are widely utilized and accepted, see, e.g., Sussman v. U.S. Marshals Service, 494 F.3d 1106, 1118 (D.C. Cir. 2007), it is important that agencies remain cognizant of the importance of keeping requesters informed so that they understand what has happened to the documents that are responsive to their requests, that they are not disadvantaged by the referral and consultation process, and that they have a point of contact at the relevant agency where they can make inquiries about the status of their requests, including the status of any records that have been referred.

    The updated procedures for referrals and consultations that are outlined below are designed to address all these important interests. They set forth the general rules agencies should follow both in making referrals and consultations and in handling any such referrals and consultations sent to them. They also address the exceptional cases where there is a need to protect personal privacy or national security interests and so coordination, as described below, rather than the standard referral procedures, should be used. Lastly, the procedures are designed to maximize efficiency and ensure agency accountability for the overall benefit of FOIA administration.

    Threshold Considerations

    There are a few threshold considerations that must be taken into account prior to making a referral or consultation. First, while the typical practice should be to refer records when they originated with another agency, if the agencies jointly agree that the records can be handled as a consultation, that is permissible. Ultimately, the agency in the best position to respond regarding the records should do so. Typically that is the originator of the records, but that is not necessarily always the case.

    Second, before making a referral of records to another agency or component for handling and direct response to the requester, agencies must be sure that the entity that will receive the referral is itself subject to the FOIA. It is not appropriate to refer records for direct response to the FOIA requester if the entity that originated the records is not itself subject to the FOIA. See EPIC v. NSA, No. 10-0196, 2011 WL 2650206, at *5 (D.D.C. July 7, 2011) (holding that while “[i]t is true that agencies that receive FOIA requests and discover responsive documents that were created by another agency [they] may forward, or ‘refer’“ those documents to the originating agency, if the originating entity is not an agency subject to the FOIA, it “cannot unilaterally be made subject to the statute by any action of an agency, including referral”). Thus, a referral should not be made to Congress, the courts, state governmental entities, private businesses, or individuals. As discussed below, an agency may consult with such entities as necessary, but the agency must then make a disclosure determination and respond itself concerning those documents.

    Updated Standard Procedures for Making a Referral

    In the absence of a processing agreement, when an agency locates records which originated with another agency or component, the records should ordinarily be referred to the originating agency for processing and direct response to the requester. The following steps should be taken when making a referral of documents to another agency or component, subject to the exceptions described below regarding coordinating a response.

    • Identify records appropriate for referral to other agencies or components as soon as practicable during the course of processing a request.

    • Prior to making the referral, review the records for any equity your agency may have and include your agency’s disclosure recommendations in the referral memorandum. That will facilitate the processing of the referral by the receiving agency.

    • Send the documents, with the accompanying memorandum containing your agency’s disclosure recommendations, to the originating agency or agencies as soon as practicable during the course of your processing.

    • Include in the referral package the FOIA request number assigned by your agency. That original FOIA request number should always accompany any communication concerning the referred documents. Also include a copy of the FOIA request.

    • Provide the date the request giving rise to the referral was received by your agency. That will allow the agency receiving the referral to place the records in any queue according to that request receipt date.

    • Advise the FOIA requester that a referral of records has been made, provide the name of the agency to which the referral was directed, and include that agency’s FOIA contact information.

    • Maintain a copy of the records being referred and the cover memorandum accompanying the referral.
    These steps serve several overlapping purposes. They make the referral process transparent; they maximize administrative efficiency; and they facilitate tracking of the referred documents. By identifying the agencies to which referrals were directed and by maintaining the original FOIA request number on any communication concerning the referred documents, the requester will be able to readily match the documents released as a result of the referral with the original request.

    • DXer said

      The FBI failed to identify to Dillon the identity of the agency to which they had been referred.

      But his focus, in his DOJ appeal, should be empowering folks to lay their hands on the documents as a practical matter.

      He needs to help them do their job.

      Here is the pertinent legal background on this issue of the “referred/direct” documents:

      It is clear that an agency in possession of records originating with another
      agency cannot refuse to process those records merely by advising the requester to
      seek them directly from the other agency. See, e.g., In re Wade, 969 F.2d
      241, 247-48 (7th Cir. 1992) (explaining that agency cannot avoid request
      or withhold documents merely by referring requester to another agency where
      documents originated); see also FOIA Update, Vol. XV, No.
      3, at 6 (advising agencies of record-referral responsibilities); In litigation, the defendant agency
      ordinarily will include in its own court submissions affidavits from the originating
      agency to address any contested withholdings in these records. See, e.g., Williams v. FBI, No.
      92-5176, slip op. at 2 (D.C. Cir. May 7, 1993); Oglesby v. United States
      Dep’t of the Army, 920 F.2d 57, 69 & n.15 (D.C. Cir. 1990); Fitzgibbon
      v. CIA, 911 F.2d 755, 757 (D.C. Cir. 1990); Greenberg v. United States
      Dep’t of Treasury, 10 F. Supp. 2d 3, 11, 18 (D.D.C. 1998) (requiring
      agency or component that referred documents to justify nondisclosure)

    • DXer said

      I then had a call with a Mr. John Peterson of MedCom. I always enjoy talking to him as he guides me toward understanding the process. He explained that the party to which the FBI recently sent documents is not “MedCom” but is a pass-through. They then send it to who they think is best suited to process it. Joseph W’s group does not do any processing.

      So the key is for Joseph W. to use the database available called FACTS to find out where the documents were sent. Were they sent to SJA? The lawyers? That would be my guess. I have always argued that JAG had the documents all along and that they were being wrongfully withheld under FOIA.

      Alternatively, if they were mailed to USAMRMC or USAMRIID, maybe they never made it to the FOIA Officer, never made it past the Commander. (That would be really wrong).

      As for John’s recommendation of suing the FBI, while I urge Dillon to do that in connecton with his request for documents relating to Ivins from September-October 2001, I think Army would be what the law deems a “necessary party”, given that it seems that the Army was given the documents by the FBI and the FBI was relying on the Army to process them. And I have always claimed that the lawyers had these documents being wrongfully withheld by the Army.

      In any event, to best position himself relative to the Army, hopefully Dr. Dillon or I should now submit a formal FOIA request to USAMRIID/USAMRMC/Medcom with all the “i’s” dotted.

      In another context, Mr. Peterson has made it clear that in any litigation he will relying on any technical defenses we allow him.

    • DXer said

      Agencies have continued to refer requested records to originating agencies for direct FOIA responses — and when litigation has resulted, the government generally has not raised any issue over which agency is the “proper party defendant,” but instead has provided affidavits from the originating agencies to justify any contested nondisclosure. The practice has continued, as a practical matter, with acceptance both tacit and widespread. See, e.g., Oglesby v. Department of the Army, 920 F.2d 57, 69 & n.15 (D.C. Cir. 1990); Fitzgibbon v. CIA, 911 F.2d 755, 757 (D.C. Cir. 1990); Zang v. FBI, 756 F. Supp. 705, 706-07 & n.1 (W.D.N.Y. 1991).

      [ But in going forward with litigation, one does not omit a potentially “necessary party.” ]

      Accordingly, the question for FOIA officers now is how best to handle the records of another agency in a given case — by acting independently, by making a full record referral, or by merely consulting with the other agency. The short answer is that the agency that is best able to determine a record’s sensitivity, and in turn its exemption status, is the agency that should process that record under the Act. While this may vary in particular cases, as a general rule the agency that originated a record is usually the most appropriate agency to make a FOIA-disclosure determination regarding it. The primary advantages of record referrals are overall administrative efficiency and consistency of response.

      Further, agencies should be alert to two general principles regarding FOIA referrals. First, it is never appropriate to make a full referral of records (or of the responsibility for directly responding to a requester) to an entity that itself is not subject to the Act. Accordingly, a referral may not be made to Congress, the judiciary, state governmental bodies, private businesses, or to individuals. Second, as a matter of sound administrative practice, whenever an agency refers a record to another agency for response, it should advise the requester of this fact and of the identity of the agency to which the referral was made — except in the unusual case in which to do so would itself disclose a sensitive, exempt fact. See, e.g., FOIA Update, Spring 1991, at 6 (advising how to make referrals to law enforcement agencies in context of third-party FOIA requests).

  9. DXer said

    Bruce Ivins’ “Laboratory notes, computer files, and other documentation kept by Bruce Ivins were among the subjects of the 110 pages deleted by the FBI from Part 06. Yet, the USAMRIID failed to produce them or acknowledge their existence under FOIA, even though they were sought for years in the course of numerous requests. Most recently, the request was made to the FBI in the request by Ken Dillon above. But I’ve made the same request to USAMRIID.

    Many of the 110 pages referred to the USAMRIID in Part 06 are appropriately exempt from production under (b)(6). But those relating to Bruce Ivins most definitely were NOT.

    It turns out that USAMRIID appears to have been part of the problem rather than part of the solution — and Medcom has proved the same black hole as the FBI.

    It is difficult to sort out what amount of failure to produce is due to inefficiency and what part is due to calculated game of hide-the-ball.

  10. DXer said

    Upon exhaustion of this appeal, in litigation Dillon should include in his Complaint allegations about the emails that a committee of DOJ and FBI personnel had John Peterson with the Army cull from production.

  11. DXer said

    The person who swore Dr. Ivins had no reason to be in the B3 laboratory on

    September 14 [8:54 p.m. to 12:22 a.m.)
    September 15 (8.05 p.m. to 11:59 a.m.), and
    September 16 (6:38 p.m. to 9:52 p.m.)

    was Postal Inspector Thomas F. Dellafera.

    Click to access 08-430-m-01app.pdf

    Who drafted that affidavit for a search warrant? Was it AUSA Rachel Lieber? As I recall, when I asked her help in getting these notebooks she said I would never get anything more under FOIA. (And I still haven’t got Notebook 4282).

    Did Postal Inspector Dellafera ever even read Notebook 8242 explaining Dr. Ivins’ reasons for being in the lab on those dates? (You could ask him).

    I submit that he did not.

    The paralegal for Amerithrax then went to work for a very good friend of mine. ( DOJ lawyers would make sure he was kept away from me when I visited DC. ) Do you think DOJ paralegals have the same difficulties in maintaining and accessing the most pertinent documents as staff at FBI’s FOIA operation? I suspect so. Document control in a complex case is not easy. Secretaries have told me that I am the only fellow who has papers in his office with footprints on them. And the documents we’ve seen in Amerithrax are just a small tip of a very large iceberg.

    Now it might have been difficult for Ivins to provide a copy of Notebook 4282 because in 2007 the FBI took the only copy in advance of the grand jury. He pleaded for the return of a copy to no avail.

    Nonetheless, Ivins’ defense counsel has said in a filmed presentation that Dr. Ivins was quite clear in explaining that he DID have reason to be in the lab in connection with his experiments.

    I think you will find that the notebook that the FBI is withholding will not support Inspector Dellafera’s sworn affidavit and the prosecutor’s claims.

    I will trust that the DOJ did not shred Notebook 4282 like DOJ shredded the Fellows and Linscott civil depositions.

  12. DXer said

    I’m glad Dillon is on our side. If it turns out that Jdey is the mailer, the full $2.5 million should be restored and given to him.

    • DXer said

      Actually, I guess the relevant amount now is $5 million under the Rewards For Justice. My money is on El-Shukrijumah but I like the Jdey theory fine. Typically, the person who did the recon was different than the one who did the operation. And Shukrijumah did do the recon.

      * DXer says … Adnan El-Shukrijumah, son of Saudi missionary, was the Fall 2001 anthrax mailer and FBI is withholding relevant documents
      Posted on May 12, 2016

      • DXer said

        Note: It is Adnan’s handwriting — not Jdey’s.

        • DXer said

          Or, rather, although it was not Jdey’s handwriting, was it Atta’s handwriting?

          The USG Has Denied FOIA Requests For Atta’s Handwriting Since The Fall 2001 Anthrax Mailings On Grounds It Could Interfere With Enforcement Proceedings

          Posted by Lew Weinstein on November 1, 2013

          See also
          Amerithrax: GAO And Reporters Should Obtain Handwriting Exemplars Of Atta’s Associate El-Shukrijumah, Al Qaeda’s Head of External Operations, Who Promoted His Father’s Language Course

          Posted by Lew Weinstein on May 15, 2013

        • DXer said

          Ivins handwriting, in contrast, looks nothing like the handwriting in the anthrax letters from Fall 2001.

          Moreover, Lab Notebook 4282 when produced will show — I venture — that Dr. Ivins was conducting animal checks on September 14 and 15, 2001.

          The FBI mistakenly thought he had no reason to be in the lab and thus imagined him to be rendering anthrax into a dried powder.

        • DXer said

          The FBI scientist who was testing for the genetic morphs in Spring 2002, Dr. Kimothy Smith, was the one involved in the project detailed in Notebook 4282 that the FBI has wrongfully failed to produce under FOIA. He had isolated the Kruger strain that was being tested and compared to other strains for virulence. It came from a park in South Africa. Dr. Smith spoke about his work attended at a UK conference attended by Dr. Ayman’s infiltrating scientist Abdur Rauf.

          In Amerithrax, the testing of samples (incorrectly) found no morphs in the sample submitted by Bruce Ivins’ laboratory. The FBI thus reasoned that Ivins submitted a false sample due to a consciousness of guilt. Instead, I respectfully submit that what the FBI should have concluded was that the FBI scientist who did the testing at NAU had a conflict of interest and thus that aspect of the testing was not a sound premise for an Ivins Theory.

          Indeed, the FBI scientist KS is the one who made the B3 available to the former Zawahiri associate at LSU. He and his colleagues (assisted by Patricia Fellows, also thanked by the former Zawahiri associate) were developing a more virulent strain of anthrax — due to an increased number of virulence plasmids. Fellows’ research was part of Pamala Coker’s thesis. Smith, Fellows and Coker were all thanked by the former Zawahiri associate — Smith and Coker for supplying the B3 and Fellows for her technical assistance. The Michigan scientist from Egypt also thanked Bruce Ivins for supplying virulent Ames. (see patents first published in 2003 or so).

          Conflicts of interest often arise through no one’s fault. And it certainly is no crime to have been taught microbiology by Dr. Ayman Zawahiri’s sister Heba. And it is no crime to have had classmates and friends recruited into jihad by Dr. Ayman Zawahiri. See the book INSIDE JIHAD by my friend, “Tawfiq” Hamid, who was the Michigan scientist’s childhood friend and Cairo medical school classmate back in Egypt.

          But the circumstances of this case led to conflicts of interest that (the FBI Director Mueller recognized) needed to be scrupulously avoided and addressed so that the validity of scientific conclusions could be assured. In the end, because of the compartmentalization and rush of events upon Ivins’ suicide, there was a train wreck.

          Here, even before consideration of such conflicts, conclusions drawn from the genetics analysis rested on quicksand because of the lack of inventory control. The FBI just ignores the fact that there was a lack of inventory control and recording of transfers prior to Fall 2001. No amount of above-the-fold USA Today stories by Alison Young is going to change that until she pushes her analysis and factual discovery to events prior to 2002.

          The FBI has not even provided Notebook 4282 — let alone the notes relating to the testing of the decontamination agent by the former Zawahiri associate alongside Bruce Ivins, Patricia Fellows, Mara Linscott in the B3.

          DOJ shredded Fellows and Linscott’s civil depositions. That’s right. DOJ shredded Fellows and Linscott’s civil depositions. It is shocking to even write the words.

          A key laptop went missing. That’s right. Poof. Gone. Taken.

          And the decontamination notes went missing.

          In the event DOJ lawyers are required to take ethics training as ordered by one federal court judge recently, the issue of compliance with FOIA should be addressed.

          Anthrax, Al Qaeda and Ayman Zawahiri: The Infiltration of US Biodefense

        • DXer said

          Notebook 4010, relating to the so-called “murder weapon” Flask 1029, is sought by Dillon. The reason Notebook 4010 is not uploaded to the USAMRMC Reading Room is that the FBI removed it from USAMRIID and has failed to give it back. I believe it is 88 pages long. It should now be provided to Dillon and provided to USAMRMC so that it might upload it. I may or may not have 30 pages of Notebook 4010. (I definitely have snagged an occasional page or two). But even if I do, the entire notebook should be returned to USAMRIID and made available for uploading to the USAMRMC’s wonderful electronic reading room.

          If you search the FBI’s “Vault”, the 88 page Notebook 4010 is nowhere to be found.

          Respectfully, if the FBI forces there to be litigation over these documents, the FBI should be ordered to pay Dillon’s attorneys fees for its failure to provide this central document.

          Click to access 20080923_0808076%20Shane,Access,RMR,Notebook.pdf

        • DXer said

          In litigation (if continued stonewalling makes it necessary), civil discovery would show that the DOJ and FBI culled key emails from production — such as this one on the alleged date of mailing to Mara Linscott.

          DOJ For 4 Years Withheld This Email (Message 0438) Written By Bruce Ivins On The Date Of Alleged Mailing Of Deadly Anthrax ; [Someone] Should Obtain A Full Set Of Emails From DOJ, Including Those That DOJ Has Still Failed To ProduceFN
          Posted on March 1, 2012

          “Why Didn’t USAMRIID Locate And Produce This Email
          Pursuant To The Formal Request Under FOIA?
          Did It Only Produce Emails Written On One Of Dr. Ivins’ Computers?
          Where Are All The Missing Emails He Is Known To Have Written?”

          The FBI has failed to produce the emails from Bruce Ivins to Mara Linscott (e.g., dated 9/15/2001 and 9/26/2001) that have times that would confirm her statement that he would go to the B3 to use the internet; she would know – he was emailing her.
          Posted by Lew Weinstein on November 30, 2011


        • DXer said

          Given his expertise, prestige and stature on such matters, it would be fascinating to hear from Dr. Kimothy Smith about what he can share about the still-withheld Notebook 4282 and Dr. Ivins’ reearch on virulence of the Smith-provided Kruger and other strains.

          United States Senate
          Oct 4, 2007 – Dr. Kimothy Smith, Acting Director of the National Biosurveillance .

        • DXer said

          This article explains all the money Dr. Smith and his close friend, Dr. Coker, made as the result of the unfortunate Fall 2001 anthrax mailings. I called Dr. Coker years ago and she declined to answer any questions. (She went to work at a cat clinic in the end).

          She (and Kimothy) gave access to the B3 to a non-citizen trained by Ayman Zawahiri’s sister whose friends were recruited to jihad. (My good friend at LSU, Hugh-Jones, did not have a key to the B3 — the grad students did.) (Bruce Ivins supplied Tarek, the non-citizen, the virulent Ames.) Dr. Coker wrote a doctoral thesis on how to make a more virulent strain of anthrax — with key research provided by Ivins’ co-researcher Patricia Fellows. If the FBI does not cough up Notebook 4282 about the virulence research, I expect that Dillon will bring suit and that the FBI will be paying attorneys fees.

          [Incidentally, the former Zawahiri’s associate’s co-principal (James) went to head international vaccines for what may be the largest pharmaceutical company in the world. (Dr. Baker insisted that Ames needed to be stored in a B3 — and thus as a matter of logic University of Michigan did not have it. The problem is that I now have proved at Dugway it was kept under BL-2 conditions — and I explained at the time to James that it was a BL-2 pathogen in liquid form at the time.]

          So, yes, Kimothy, James, and Tarek .. and Vahid, former US Attorney Taylor, and many others… it is nice to make a lot of money. But you’ve built your careers on a dead man and buried evidence.

          The FBI is still withholding exculpatory information according to the FBI’s former lead investigator Richard L. Lambert.

          It is time for the FBI to produce Notebook 4282 before the sky falls.

          We will then be in a position to consider the evidence — instead of AUSA Lieber’s cotton candy Ivins Theory that melts in the mouth.

          Anthrax, Al Qaeda and Ayman Zawahiri: The Infiltration of US Biodefense

          Anthrax Scientist Leaving, April 4, 2002

          In a bittersweet twist to the research that thrust Northern Arizona University into the national spotlight last fall, one of the university’s key anthrax researchers is moving to greener pastures — about $50,000 greener.

          Kimothy Smith, one of the NAU researchers who has been working to solve the FBI investigation into the source of the mailed anthrax attacks last fall, is leaving to work at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories east of San Francisco.

          Today is his last day in the laboratory of Paul Keim, the NAU geneticist who has been heading up the investigation.

          At Livermore, Smith will command a six-figure salary to apply the research skills he’s honed in Keim’s lab to national defense work. His salary will more than double.

          “I actually attempted to retain his services for Arizona through promotions and pay raises, but we just got outbid — by a lot!” said Keim.

          NAU President John Haeger lamented Smith’s departure Thursday, calling it another example of NAU’s inability to compete for faculty on the level of Arizona State University or the University of Arizona.

          “The loss of Kimothy Smith is another example of the problem NAU has been facing in having faculty salaries that average more than 20 percent less than our sister institutions, and it’s a problem that the state is going to have to address at some point so that we can maintain our competitiveness,” Haeger said.

          While NAU would have been hard-pressed to counter Livermore’s offer even with a 20 percent increase, it would have given university administration a lot more leeway, he said.


          Smith began work at NAU three years ago as a post-doctoral researcher in Keim’s lab. He has published several papers since he’s been here on the genetic diversity of anthrax types worldwide — extensions of work he started as a graduate student under Martin Hugh-Jones at Louisiana State University. While at NAU, he was promoted to become a professor, and he’s been teaching for the past year.

          And until the terrorism events of last fall, Smith would have expected that would be about where he would land — teaching and doing research in a university.

          “I never anticipated being involved in a forensic investigation,” he said. “No way did I ever expect being called by Newsweek, CNN, The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, the L.A. Times … the Oklahoma Gazette, for God’s sakes. I will be making a six-figure salary. I never expected to make that.”

          The spate of anthrax mailings that the FBI and researchers like Keim and Smith are still working to solve changed all that. All of a sudden, there’s been an increased interest in bioterrorism — and the need for people who can work with bioterrorist pathogens in a lab has skyrocketed.

          “It’s supply and demand,” Smith said, breaking his grin only long enough to take puffs from a pipe outside NAU’s Wettaw building Thursday. “Very honestly I can tell you my monetary value has doubled.”

          Smith estimated there are up to 200 people in the country who have handled anthrax in a laboratory setting. Add to that a veterinary degree — Smith ran a veterinary clinic in Oklahoma before starting graduate school — and the field narrows to about 20 people, he said.

          And of the people who have epidemiological backgrounds and the ability to work with bioterrorism agents, Smith estimates there are about five in the country whose situations allow them to travel for the high-powered jobs that have come available.


          Pamala Coker, a former colleague of Smith’s at LSU and also a trained veterinarian, is within two months of finishing her doctoral degree in anthrax research.

          And her outlook is also a lot different than she expected.

          “We could just be still slaving away at $45,000 a year writing grants for a living. Thank God we don’t have to do that,” Coker said.

          Instead, she’s been offered six-figure salaries at the ITT Systems and Sciences Corporation in Alexandria, Va., and Signature Science, a Texas-based private research institution.

          But Coker admits the unexpected demand and salaries come with an emotional toll.

          “When you look at what caused this to come about, it’s rather a sad situation. I tell people, ‘Oh yeah, it’s really great, but it’s a sad state of affairs that got us here’ — and it’s not something that’s going to end in six months.”

          For Keim, that demand has resulted in a hit to research in his lab. Smith has been a key researcher in the lab and a valued colleague in work with anthrax and a host of other pathogens, including plague.

          But Keim said Smith’s departure is proof that training is working just like it’s supposed to at NAU.

          “There are about 35 people in the Keim lab and with only a few exceptions we have trained them all in molecular genetics,” he said. “All the students leaving my lab land great jobs across the country. While I regret having Kimothy leave, it is the natural cycle.”

          Keim acknowledged Smith’s departure is part of a national need for people with his skills.

          “The United States university system will not be able to train enough microbiologists to fill the new jobs opening the next year,” he said.


          Page Stoutland, deputy division leader for counterterroism at Livermore, said his research budget has doubled to about $40 million a year since last fall. Keim’s Lab at NAU has seen its budget for bioterrorism work double as well to more than $2 million a year.

          Livermore is planning a new lab, worth up to $2 million, where Smith and others will be “pushing forward to develop new and improved technologies and expanding to look at wide range of pathogens,” Stoutland said. Smith will be working with about 100 other researchers in chemical and biological terrorism research at Livermore.

          Besides the research, what Smith is most looking forward to in the Bay Area is the lifestyle, he said: “Sunshine, beaches, girls in bikinis … I’m kidding!”

          Smith said his father lives nearby, and he’ll be able to hop on a public transit system to meet him for lunch. And while teaching won’t be a primary focus of the research at Livermore like it is at NAU, the lab maintains a collaborative arrangement with the University of California at Davis.

          “Part of my duties will be to foster that collaboration and to teach if I want to,” he said.

          But Smith and the people who have hired him know he could dash off in a moment’s notice to fight bioterrorism abroad.

          No matter what, Smith said he’ll stay at the ready to fly to Iraq on 24 hours’ notice, if Saddam Hussein allows United Nations weapons inspectors back into the country.

          Smith recently completed training with the U.N.’s Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission.

          “The Security Council has been testing the communication infrastructure,” he said, “seeing how fast you respond to their e-mails, and if you still want to go. Rumors are that there could be a U.N. presence in Iraq, depending on what action the U.S. takes.”

      • DXer said

        Atta Was Coordinating With Jdey’s Associate Al-Hazmi, First In Fort Lee, NJ In Late August 2001 And Then In Laurel, MD in September 2001 ; Jdey’s Associate Nawaf Al-Hazmi Had Been At The Planning Meeting At Yazid Sufaat’s Kuala Lumpur Condo With Anthrax Planner Hambali And Anthrax Lab Director Yazid Sufaat And Yet The FBI Never Told The Public That Jdey Had Been Detained Along With Moussaoui In August 2001 (With Biology Textbooks) And Then Released
        Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 25, 2012

        Where was Jdey detained and released?
        Posted by Lew Weinstein on February 1, 2012

        If Jdey Was Detained (And Released) At Same Time As Moussaoui Was Detained, Was Moussaoui In Touch With Him Or In His Presence During The Week Before The Arrest?
        Posted by Lew Weinstein on February 1, 2012

        The dropping of the ball relating to Al-Mihdhar and Al-Hazmi’s entering the country after the meeting at the KL condo of the anthrax lab tech was closely related to the detention and release of Jdey at the time of Moussaoui’s arrest.
        Posted by Lew Weinstein on February 7, 2012

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: