* Ivins/Amerithrax-Notebook 4282 FOIA follow-up by DXer
Posted by DXer on June 13, 2016
Re Ivins/Amerithrax-Notebook 4282
Sandra and Joseph,
Did Medcom inquire of DOJ about Notebook 4282? If Medcom inquired of DOJ, did Medcom get a reply?
The notebook has an entry on the date of the first mailing of anthrax in 2001 that murdered 5 people. I am informed and believe that it also has entries on 9/14/2001 and 9/15/2001, the date that the FBI theorized Ivins prepared the anthrax.
The FBI claims Ivins had no legitimate reason to be in the lab. In contrast, I think the notebook will evidence a virulence study that shows Ivins was responsible for the nighttime and weekend animal checks. (According to lab tech Mara Linscott, such checks were a one-person job and took a couple hours, such as what was observed).
I have suggested instead that an Al Qaeda operative Adnan El-Shukrijumah from Florida was responsible — was the mailer. He was an associate of Mohamed Atta who met with Atta in a Sarasota residence. Adnan told his mother on or about September 11, 2001 that he was coming back into the country. Adnan was staying with Al Qaeda’s #3 KSM. KSM was getting briefed by Al Qaeda’s lab director Yazid Sufaat, who I have interviewed. Sufaat does not deny responsibility for the anthrax mailings and instead pled the Fifth.
The Army and FBI has not treated the issue with the expedition warranted under the FOIPA statute.
Sometimes, as in the case of the Florida Pulse shooter, the FBI closes a case upon lack of evidence when actually the problem is that the evidence was available but not efficiently obtained.
This entry was posted on June 13, 2016 at 6:48 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
Tagged: foia requests and anthrax, notebook 4282. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
CASE CLOSED ... what really happened in the 2001 anthrax attacks? 
DXer said
I never received a response from Medcom on this.
DXer said
Stop the presses. The attachments coming by email Notebook 4282 did not in fact contain the Notebook.
DXer said
USAMRIID today produced Notebook 4282. It was emailed yesterday but my mailbox apparently was full. I want to thank whoever helped being able to locate it.
DXer said
Look at all the money that continues to be spent on biodefense when the Army did not even bother to make a copy of Bruce Ivins’ lab notebooks from the period of the anthrax mailings.
UW-Parkside training event simulates anthrax attack
GREGORY SHAVER gregory.shaver@journaltimes.com
http://journaltimes.com/news/local/uw-parkside-training-event-simulates-anthrax-attack/article_2a4d01d9-fc3d-5505-bde8-7faa20f77a71.html
Ivins was known to have the largest repository of genetically matching Ames anthrax.
Yet, when it was brought to the Army’s attention that the notebook existed but not uploaded, they were never obtained and uploaded.
The Army did not even unredact the list of notebooks sent in one email — thus preventing it from being compared by members of the public to the notebooks uploaded.
********************************
The Army has not even uploaded Notebook 4010 relating to the so-called murder weapon (Flask 1029). (I expect Dillon will be bringing suit for this failure to provide the 88 page Notebook 4010.)
********************************
Do you really think SJA was so inept as to not make a copy?
The same applies to the missing laboratory notes relating to the Warfare Decontamination Efficacy Study.
The same applies to the emails that have not been provided — the emails that were culled by John Peterson acting at the direction of a committee of DOJ and FBI personnel.
For example, go to look for the email that Bruce Ivins wrote on September 2, 2004 3:43 PM. Can’t find it, you say?
MedCom’s John Peters, where is Bruce Ivins email from September 2, 2004 that he provably emailed at 3:43 PM?
(see FBI Washington Field Memo dated September 14, 2004.)
DXer said
Weeks have passed and USAMRIID did nothing to get this notebook back from FBI even though USAMRIID FOIA claimed to have sought the return of the notebooks taken by the FBI from USAMRIID years ago.
DXer said
The FBI also withheld numerous documents about the animal experiments in October 2001 involving rabbits. But this blog obtained those documents and in doing so crushed an Ivins theory. Now we are turning to the period of the first mailing and period prior to that.
DXer said
DXer said
This blog has summarized some of the documentary evidence relating to his work with the rabbits. (There is additional material that was produced later).
For the earlier period in September, the FBI refuses to produce the documents from Ivins’ computer from Sep-Oct 2001 even though in 2004 the FBI cloned the contents of his computers.
DXer summarizes the documentary evidence relating to Dr. Ivins work with rabbits (nowhere mentioned by the DOJ) which demolishes the FBI’s claim that Dr. Ivins had no reason to be in the lab
Posted by Lew Weinstein on July 3, 2012
DXer said
In this study of the relative virulence of different strains, Dr. Ivins wrote in May 2000. Shortly before opening the notebook in June 2000, Dr. Ivins wrote and said he planned to initially screen the virulence in immunized guinea pigs and then take the most virulent strains into rabbits and monkeys. His correspondent spoke at NIH and Ivins referred to his comments about having Kruger A, Kruger B, and strains from China.
From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
To: Subject:
B. anthracis strains
Date: Monday, May 01, 2000 3:33:43 PM
Hi,
It was great to see you at the NIH last week. I was very much interested in your comments on the
various B. anthracis strains you have, especially Kruger A, Kruger B, and the strains
from China. (The Kruger strains that we have received from ______________
include 1960A (ASIL K3878), K1 (ASIL K1769) and S35 (ASIL K1373). If you would be willing to collaborate,
we would be interested in receiving some of the above strains, and any other strains you feel would be especially
worthwhile in studying in animal hosts. You would of course be an author on any paper that came of
the virulence study work. What we would do is initially screen the virulence in immunized guinea pigs,
then take the most virulent strains into rabbits and monkeys.
I hope you had a good trip back to ______________.
I look forward to hearing from you
Sincerely,
Bruce Ivins
USAMRIID Bacteriology Division
DXer said
Bruce Ivins reportedly received 10 isolates of Bacillus anthraces of Kruger A from Northern Arizona University on 29 Mar 02. NAU was where Kimothy Smith was located, doing the testing of the Ames samples for the FBI.
The first sample of Ames submitted by Bruce Ivins was thrown out. The second sample inexplicably did not show the 4 morphs that it contained. When was that second testing done? Who did it?
“From:
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 11:20 AM
To: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
Subject: SELECT AGENT PAPERWORK
Importance: High
An audit of our records indicates that paperwork is missing for transfer of 10 isolates of Bacillus
anthracis Kruger A for from _____________ Northern Arizona University, 29 Mar 02.
Please provide a copy of the completed EA-101 to this office as quickly as possible.”
Did Bruce Ivins ever locate and produce a copy of the EA-101 transfer records?
In FBI lab notes I will have to link, there was a pre-911 transfer of Ames for which no records existed — that is, they did not know to whom it was given.
DXer said
Kimothy Smith from NAU explained how mutations might be able to identify the source of the mailed anthrax in October 2001.
Anthrax bacteria likely to be US military strain
24 October 2001
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1473-anthrax-bacteria-likely-to-be-us-military-strain.html#.UvAkX80VdkI
“We could soon know. Paul Keim’s team at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff has pioneered the genetic analysis of anthrax bacilli. Team member Kimothy Smith says they have found that some DNA regions mutate frequently, as often as once in every 1000 cell divisions.
By comparing the amount of mutation, says Smith, “you can say with a high degree of confidence how many bacterial generations separate an unknown strain from closely related reference strains”. This can help pinpoint the exact strain the unknown anthrax came from.
It is also a way of counting the number of cell divisions the bacilli have been through since they parted company with the most closely related strain. And a small batch of anthrax will have undergone many fewer cell divisions than a big batch.
So the analysis could reveal whether the anthrax came from a 50-litre fermenter, such as a small-scale terrorist could obtain, or the huge vats of a state-sponsored bioweapons facility.”
DXer said
Here is a report about a separate monkey study Ivins was working on in September 2001.
Produced today to this blog: August 30, 2001 Research Progress Report Form by Bruce Ivins about monkey study ongoing in September 2001
Posted by Lew Weinstein on December 1, 2011
DXer said
You may remember FDA CBER from reports about storage and inventory problems.
FDA found more than smallpox vials in storage room
Washington Post-Jul 16, 2014
… of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), … the agency mishandled live anthrax and other deadly pathogens in a …
“Federal officials found more than just long-forgotten smallpox samples recently in a storage room on the National Institutes for Health campus in Bethesda, Md. The discovery included 12 boxes and 327 vials holding an array of pathogens, including the virus behind the tropical disease dengue and the bacteria that can cause spotted fever, according to the Food and Drug Administration, which oversees the lab in question.
“The fact that these materials were not discovered until now is unacceptable,” Karen Midthun, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), told reporters Wednesday. “We take this matter very seriously, and we’re working to ensure that this doesn’t happen again.”
The FDA said Wednesday that it is reviewing its safety protocols and digging through all other similar storage rooms, at its headquarters and nationwide, to make sure no more vials are tucked away in forgotten corners.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/fda-found-more-than-smallpox-vials-in-storage-room/2014/07/16/850d4b12-0d22-11e4-8341-b8072b1e7348_story.html
DXer said
Meredith Savary is the FBI FOIA analyst. I would like to thank Ms. Savary in advance for tracking down the Army’s previous request that a copy be returned. It will expedite matters if attention is only to this Notebook 4282, (Notebook 4010 has separately been requested by Ken DIllon in a separate pending request). A copy was seized from Bruce Ivins in 2007. No copy was left and USAMRIID does not have a copy.
DXer said
The FBI FOIA analyst should note that the documents should have been produced in connection with Ken Dillon’s request for all documents from Sep-Oct 2001, including notebook pages such as the September 18 entry. FBI’s Dave Hardy recently wrongfully denied the request saying that all such documents and pages had been produced and uploaded to the Vault. Dillon is appealing that denial and DOJ can be expected to grant his appeal (again) because the pages provably exist.
DXer said
AUSA Lieber also relied on 2:15 hours that Bruce Ivins spent in the lab on September 16, 2001, Sunday.
Was that, like the time on September 15, 2001, Saturday, a check on the animals involved in the experiment?
Was the FBI’s Ivins Theory just due to the inability of the DOJ to efficiently retrieve documents from the FBI?
That couple of hours was the amount of time was the time that checking on the animals would take, according to Ivins’ lab assistant. She explained it was a one-person job.
Was the Ivins Theory just due to AUSA Lieber and US Attorney Taylor not understanding this?
Was it due to the failure of the FBI scientist to provide more detail on the lab entries during that period?
With the last notebooks, why did it take Medcom many weeks to get the notebooks even after receiving them from the FBI?