* USA Today reports on bioWatch technology to detect anthrax and other bioterror agents

CASE CLOSED is a novel which answers the question “Why did the FBI fail to solve the 2001 anthrax case?” … click here to … buy CASE CLOSED by Lew Weinstein

Here’s what readers say about CASE CLOSED  …

“Weinstein raises some very interesting and disturbing theories. CASE CLOSED is a great read, suspenseful and a real page turner. Please tell me it’s not true!”

“You will not want to stop reading … Lew Weinstein addresses the 2001 anthrax case with the pen of a highly skilled investigator.”

******

bioWatch technology is operating in over 30 cities

Steve Sternberg writes in USA Today (10-6-09)

• As the anthrax attacks unfolded in 2001, the White House ordered Tom Slezak to Washington, D.C., to deploy experimental technology that scientists from Livermore and the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico had developed to protect athletes and spectators at the 2002 Winter Olympics.
• The detection system had never been put to a real-world test. Soon, the safety of many U.S. cities would depend on it.
• Today, eight years after the anthrax attacks, the system Slezak’s research team started, known as BioWatch, is quietly operating in more than 30 cities.
• In September 2005, BioWatch detected bacteria that cause tularemia — a known bioterror agent— on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., during an anti-war demonstration that drew thousands of marchers. Further tests suggested the bacteria occurred naturally and was no threat, officials said then.
• “There’s a general feeling that anthrax will be the most likely agent of choice. It’s available in nature, it doesn’t require heavy science to manipulate, and it can be granulized into a form that makes it easier to disseminate” and inhaled.
• Another reason anthrax is appealing to bioterrorists, he says, is that it is difficult to detect. Anthrax detonates silently, without smoke or flame. Its spores are odorless and all but invisible. Like a deadly pollen, they can float on air.
• “We’re looking for aerosolized anthrax,” Hooks says. “That’s the No. 1 aerosolized biological risk agent.”
• Anthrax appears to be especially attractive to al-Qaeda, according to the WMD commission report. The terrorist network that orchestrated 9/11 had two biological stations in Qandahar, Afghanistan, that were unknown to Western intelligence services until U.S. troops found them in 2001, the report says.
• “It’s our information that the effort al-Qaeda started in Qandahar in the late ’90s has been relocated to Pakistan,” Graham says. “They’ve had eight years to regroup.”
• Graham says he can’t discuss whether other terrorist groups also are tinkering with anthrax or other bioweapons.
• Although the anthrax case has not been closed because the lead suspect committed suicide, the FBI blames the attacks on a lone government scientist, Bruce Ivins of the United States Army Research Institute for Infectious Diseases.
• “The Ivins case showed that this is now something that an individual can do,” Kadlec says.

read the entire article at … http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-10-05-biowatch-biological_N.htm

for more about bioWatch … http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/systems/biowatch.htm

* Robert Stevens died eight years ago today, the first victim of the still unsolved anthrax attacks

CASE CLOSED is a novel which answers the question “Why did the FBI fail to solve the 2001 anthrax case?” … click here to … buy CASE CLOSED by Lew Weinstein

Here’s what readers say about CASE CLOSED  …

“CASE CLOSED reads fast and well. It could have happened just the way the author said. Full of intrigue mixed in with almost current events. The real people are just behind the fictional ones.”

“Author Lew Weinstein does a terrific job telling this fictionalized account of an inter agency post-mortem investigation of the (real) failed FBI investigation.”

******

Robert Stevens

On October 5, 2001, Robert Stevens, photo editor for American Media Inc. of Boca Raton Fla., died after being infected with respiratory anthrax.

Eight years have passed.

We don’t know why Mr. Stevens was chosen to receive an anthrax laced letter; no letter addressed to him or to AMI has been recovered.

And we don’t know why his murderers have yet to be brought to justice.

We do know that Dr. Bruce Ivins, accused by the FBI as the sole perpetrator of the anthrax attacks, has never, after 8 years of the most comprehensive investigation ever undertaken by the FBI,  been linked to either Mr. Stevens or AMI.

Lawsuit by Mrs. Stevens vs. U.S. and Battelle

Mrs. Maureen Stevens, the victim’s widow, has filed a $50 million lawsuit blaming the federal government for her husband’s death, alleging that the government’s lack of security allowed a mentally unstable man access to “some of the deadliest substances known to mankind.”

The U.S. government appealed to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, asking that Mrs. Stevens’ suit be dismissed.

In March of this year, U.S. District Judge Daniel T.K. Hurley in Florida refused to dismiss Stevens’ suit against the federal government and Battelle Memorial Institute, sending the case back to U.S. District Court in West Palm Beach.

******

* questions to NAS regarding scientific aspects of the NAS review of FBI science used in investigating the 2001 anthrax attacks; questions posed by CASE CLOSED blog participants

why the FBI failed to solve the 2001 anthrax case

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon

* see CASE CLOSED VIDEO on YouTube

questions to NAS regarding scientific aspects

of the NAS review of FBI science

used in investigating the 2001 anthrax attacks;

questions posed by CASE CLOSED blog participants

NAS Publications

***

The following email was sent (6-30-09) to Mr. William Kearney, Deputy Executive Director & Director of Media Relations, Office of News & Public Information, National Academy of Sciences, 2101 Constitution Ave. NW #182, Washington, DC 20418

***

BILL … here are the questions submitted to the CASE CLOSED blog related to scientific aspects of the NAS-FBI study. A couple of questions stray a bit into procedural aspects, but most are straight science. The questions reflect the varied interests of CASE CLOSED blog participants; collectively I think they add up to a very impressive and rather daunting agenda … LEW

Dear Mr. Kearney,

Let me repeat that I, along with the many readers and contributors to the CASE CLOSED blog, truly appreciate that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has undertaken the difficult task of reviewing scientific approaches and conclusions of the FBI investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks.

In addition to procedural questions related to this review already submitted, there are scientific questions presented below, also submitted, as were the procedural questions, by contributors to the CASE CLOSED blog.

We understand that the list is long and that the study team has yet to be formulated, so we are surely not expecting a speedy response. However, we hope that you will distribute these questions to the study team as it comes into being, and that serious consideration will be given to answering each of these questions as your study proceeds.

Here are the questions …

1. Will the NAS study team evaluate the scientific basis for the FBI’s explanation that the White House staff was taking the anthrax drug Ciprofloxacin prior to the anthrax mailings?

2. Will the NAS study team comment on aspects of the FBI investigation if it is deemed that the investigative methods clearly impacted the scientific analysis?

3. Will the NAS study team provide definitive documentation regarding the science and methodology that allowed the FBI to exclude as suspects the perhaps 100 to 300 other scientists (other than Dr. Ivins) who had isolates from flask 1029?

4. Will the NAS study team be obtaining and evaluating the internal laboratory reports written by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) on the SEM and EDX analysis of the Daschle and New York Post powders?

5. Will the NAS study team be limited to sources of scientific data provided by the FBI or will the NAS study team have unlimited access to whatever scientific data it deems necessary to perform its tasks?

6. Will the NAS study team address the implications of

6a. anthrax in the letters to the Senators being composed of pure spores, one trillion in a gram

6b. particles of said anthrax milled down (by some method) to the size of one or two spores?

7. Will the NAS study team verify whether anthrax spores in the 2001 mailings were treated post-production to make them more friable?

8. Will the NAS study team verify whether anthrax spores in the 2001 mailings were “weaponized?”

9. Will the NAS study team evaluate if it was feasible for mail sorting machines to have assisted in the pulverization and aerosolization of the BA spores in the postal facility?

10. Will the NAS study team seek to provide sufficient proof of its independent investigation of these scientific issues to dispel an understandable skepticism that it is an inherent conflict of interest for NAS to be taking money from the FBI, the very agency whose science is being evaluated, rather than being directly funded by the Congress?

11. Will the NAS study team permit any scientists employed at Battelle-managed labs to be part of the project team? Would such participation constitute a conflict of interest under NAS policy?

12. Will the NAS study team determine if b. subtilis genetically identical to the contaminant present in the letters mailed to New York was also isolated from the AMI building in Florida?

13. Will the NAS study team consider and scientifically evaluate hypotheses other than those which comprise the “official” theory of the FBI?

14. Will the NAS study team evaluate the scientific methods used by the FBI to reach their stated conclusion that the powder sent to Senators Daschle, Leahy and other recipients contained no special additives and was not weaponized?

14a. did the FBI use accepted scientific method to reach that conclusion?

14b. if the FBI prepared a powder of anthrax or anthrax simulant that acted the same as the powder in the Hart building?

14c. if, in reaching its conclusion, did the FBI used equipment similar to what was available to their suspect Dr Bruce Ivins inside Fort Detrick where they claim the powder was manufactured?

15. Will the NAS study team determine whether, if the FBI did prepare a powder or powder stimulant in this simple manner, it also re-aerosolize (in other words after initially falling on surfaces, then formed a secondary aerosol) under common office activities? (ref. Secondary Aerosolization of Viable Bacillus anthracis Spores in a Contaminated US Senate Office. Christopher P. Weis, PhD; Anthony J. Intrepido, MS, CIH; Aubrey K. Miller, MD, MPH; Patricia G. Cowin, MS, CIH; Mark A. Durno, BS; Joan S. Gebhardt, PhD; Robert Bull, PhD; JAMA. 2002;288:2853-2858; http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/288/22/2853).

16. Will the NAS study team determine if more than 80% of the B anthracis particles collected on stationary monitors fell within an alveolar respirable size range of 0.95 to 3.5 µm? (ref. Secondary Aerosolization of Viable Bacillus anthracis Spores in a Contaminated US Senate Office. Christopher P. Weis, PhD; Anthony J. Intrepido, MS, CIH; Aubrey K. Miller, MD, MPH; Patricia G. Cowin, MS, CIH; Mark A. Durno, BS; Joan S. Gebhardt, PhD; Robert Bull, PhD; JAMA. 2002;288:2853-2858; http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/288/22/2853).

17. Will the NAS study team determine if the amounts of silica detected by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) in their analysis of both SEMs and EDX spectra of the Daschle and New York Post powders (AFIP detected the elements silicon and oxygen in both powders; their reports show that there was more than one order of magnitude more silica in the New York Post powder compared with the Daschle powder) can be explained as being “naturally occurring” as the FBI claim?

18. Will the NAS study team determine if either the FBI or Sandia correctly concluded that the silica found in the spores sent to senators Daschle and Leahy could have been added as a molecular monomer rather than as already formed solid fumed silica nanoparticles? The FBI and Sandia national labs announced last year that the silica found in the spores sent to senators Daschle and Leahy consisted of a continuous coating of a phase of SiOx underneath the exosporium. Since this was underneath the exosporium they concluded that the spores were not “weaponized” – since weaponization usually involves forming a coating of fumed silica nanoparticles (silica particles with individual particles in the size range 10-50nm) which is located OUTSIDE the exosporium.

19. Will the NAS study team determine if the FBI attempted and/or succeeded in re-creating the silicon signature found in the Daschle, Leahy and New York Post powders? More specifically, was the FBI able to recreate the identical continuous phase of SiOx under the exosporium? Was the quantity of SiOx the same or similar? What form of silicon was added to the spores if they did try to do this? Was it added during spore preparation or after spore preparation?

20. Will NAS determine if and how the FBI ruled out that the spores were treated with a monomer of a siloxane compound (for example Dimethyldichlorosilane (trade name Repelcote)) that penetrated the exosporium in its monomer form and then polymerized on the spore coat in situ? When Dimethyldichlorosilane polymerizes it loses HCl and forms a polymer of SiOx.  ( A 1961 study shows that even large molecules can penetrate the highly porous exosporium (ref. Gerhardt, P. & Black, S. H. . J. Bact. 82, 750–759 (1961)).

21. Will the NAS study team determine if the FBI attempted and/or succeeded with reverse engineering with polymerized glass techniques as described above?

22. Will the NAS study team evaluate the reported FBI results which indicated (a) that the spore powder on the Leahy letter contained 14,479 ppm of silicon (1.4%), (b) that the spore powder on the New York Post letter was found to have silicon present in the sample; however, due to the limited amount of material, a reliable quantitative measurement was not possible, and (c) that insufficient quantities of spore powder on both the Daschle and Brokaw letters precluded analysis of those samples?

23. Will the NAS study team determine if the FBI used Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) spectroscopy to obtain the result of 14,479 ppm of silicon in the Leahy powder? How much sample was needed for this in total? Was the sample dissolved in solution first using standard ICP protocols? How much of the solution was used to introduce into the ICP nebulizer? Were standards used for calibration per normal ICP protocol?

24. Will the NAS study team determine if, when the FBI in their April 17, 2009 response above stated that the New York Post sample also contained silicon, that this was or was not an ICP result? How much total sample was used? Was the sample prepared in solution first?  How much solution was placed in the ICP nebulizer? What were the results that the FBI stated were unreliable?

25. Will the NAS study team draw its own conclusion as to whether the quantitative silicon result for the New York Post powder is unreliable?

26. Will the NAS study team determine if the FBI science labs used accepted scientific methods to demonstrate that it was possible to manufacture 5-10g of anthrax powder in the time frame of 12-24 hours total work performed over a period of 2-3 weeks as they claim Dr. Bruce Ivins did at Fort Detrick?

27. Will the NAS study team determine how many runs would be needed in 3 litre preparation flasks? How many spores per ml of liquid in each flask? How much centrifugation would be needed to concentrate the powder to one trillion spores per gram? And whether the material could have been dried using only the equipment available at Detrick?

28. Will the NAS study team determine if the FBI performed these runs in order to scientifically prove their theories are sound?

29. Will the NAS study team determine if Detrick had access to the proprietary azeotropic drying technology used by Dugway and described in an April 2008 joint publication between Dugway and the CDC which reported on the simulated opening of a letter filled with spores? And if Detrick had an exclusionary ball mill separated by increasingly finer mesh screens? (ref. Development of an Aerosol System for Uniformly Depositing Bacillus Anthracis Spore Particles on Surfaces, Aerosol Science and Technology, Volume 42, Issue 3 March 2008 , pages 159 – 172 ; Paul A. Baron,1 Cherie F. Estill,1 Gregory J. Deye,1 Misty J. Hein,1Jeremy K. Beard,2 Lloyd D. Larsen,2 and Gregory E. Dahlstrom2; (http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/560588 790515467.pdf)

29a. Will NAS determine why the authors of this paper chose to simulate the envelope containing the Daschle powder being opened in the Hart building by using a powder especially prepared for aerosolization instead of simply drying without any special equipment as the FBI claim?

30. Will the NAS study team determine, if Detrick did not have the equipment used in the Dugway/CDC report, what basis there was (or not) for the FBI theory that a product like the Daschle or Leahy powders could be made without this equipment?

31. Will the NAS study team determine if the FBI demonstrated that they could make an identical product without such equipment that yielded powder particles that formed secondary aerosols as was shown by the EPA to take place in the Hart building?

32. Will the NAS study team determine the significance of the Sandia report that, out of 200 samples they tested for the FBI, none matched the silicon signature of the mailed spores?

33. Will the NAS study team seek independent information regarding the silica content of the New York Post powder from AFIP, since the FBI refused to share that information with Sandia?

34. Will the NAS study team evaluate the significance of the WMD Chief’s admission, under the DARPA-funded cutting edge patent, that there would be large amounts of silica that then were removed from the surface through repeated centrifugation or an air chamber, which would lead one to expect trillion spore concentration and large amounts of silica absorbed in the coat and in debris in the first batch and then pure spores in the second batch after repeated centrifugation.

35. Will the NAS study team determine if the 1070 samples examined by the morphotype analysis accurately reflects the actual number of anthrax samples held in the U.S. in the 2001 timeframe?

36. Will the NAS study team evaluate whether the process of self-submission of anthrax samples by labs and individuals (per the FBI methodology) was a reliable representation of the Ames samples that may or may not have existed prior to 2001?

37. Will the NAS study team determine the ancesteral linkage between RMR1029 and the tested samples that were positive for 2 of 4 or 3 of 4 of the morphotype markers?

38. Will the NAS study team report on the expected links between labs that contributed precursor spore preps that were used to make RMR1029?

39. Will the NAS study team determine why there is a discrepancy between the number of labs known to have samples of RMR1029 prior to September 2001 and the two labs reported to test positive for RMR1029 by the testing methodology?

40. Will the NAS study team determine why the FBI did not use the labs known to have RMR1029 plus some self-generated samples of RMR1029 as an external proficiency test of their contract labs?

41. Will the NAS study team determine if the FBI used any type of proficiency testing for their genetic analysis?

42. Will the NAS study team evaluate the statistical probability of finding 4 positive morphotypes in any Ames sample, in any of the 32 or so precursor Ames strains that made up RMR1029, or in repeat analysis of RMR1029 itself?

43. Will the NAS study team determine the probability of losing one or more of the morphotypes from progeny/descendent samples derived from RMR1029? The number of generations occurring before the sample becomes negative equals 3 or fewer morphs according to the FBI.

44. Will the NAS study team determine and report on the precision, accuracy, linearity, sensitivity, specificity, reproducibility, and upper and lower limits of quantitation data values for the four morph assays?  Will the NAS study team determine if the FBI validated parallelism, robustness and ruggedness of the assays?

45. Will the NAS study team determine the reasonableness of the claim by the FBIs subcontractors that they had no issues with cross contamination and false positives with the morph analyses, and indicate if such a claim was substantiated by any data?

46. Will the NAS study team determine if the B. subtilis contaminant found in the first batch of letters was genetically identical to any forensic evidence collected from any lab?

47. Will the NAS study team determine if the B. subtilis contaminant found in the first batch of letters was tested against strains from Dugway proving grounds?

48. Will the NAS study team determine if the FBI’s scientific analysis of the silicon content was sufficient to support their claim that exognenous silicon was not added?  In particular, Will the NAS study team determine if the FBI performed titration experiments to show that their analysis was sufficiently sensitive to detect added silcon compounds?

49. Will the NAS study team determine if the FBI’s conclusion of “no added silicon” is supported by scientific evidence?

50. Will the NAS study team determine what analyses were completed to substantiate the FBI claim that none of the spore preps were milled or otherwise processed?

51. Will the NAS study team determine what data was used to substantiate the claim that mail sorting equipment imparted physical characteristics to the spore preps?

52. Will the NAS study team determine, given that both sets of letters were handled by mail sorting equipment, why is there such a discrepancy between their physical states (factors other than purity and concentration)?

53. Will the NAS study team evaluate the FBI “theory” that Ottillie Lundgren and Kathy Nguyen died from “cross contamination,” and, if so, why there were not many more casualties along the east coast from such “cross contamination”?

54. Will the NAS study team determine if the same genotype of subtilis was discovered in each of the hundreds of swab samples taken from the AMI building by the FBI during 2 visits to this building?

55. Will the NAS study team determine if any of the swab samples taken from the New York Post (NYP) building and other contaminated buildings associated with the NYP powder and NBC powder showed the presence of the subtilis genotype found in the raw powders?

56. Will the NAS study team evaluate the implications of the following scenario: (a) if subtilis was found in swab samples from the NYP and NBC buildings but not the AMI building, is it reasonable to conclude that the powder sent to the AMI building (the envelope for which was not recovered) did not contain the subtilis genotype? (b) if this is the case, does this cast doubt on the FBI theory that only 2 batches of anthrax powder were prepared from RMR-1029 by the perpetrator(s)? (c) If only 2 batches were prepared, does this suggest a different timeline for the production than the FBI theory that the powder sent to AMI must have been the same batch as the Daschle/Leahy powder, which, according to the FBI theory, was manufactured after the media powders had been sent?

57. Will the NAS study team determine if hydrophobicity testing of the Leahy and/or Daschle powder was undertaken? This can be performed using a simple phase transfer test where a small sample of powder is shaken in a tube containing water and a non-polar solven such as hexane – the test measures what fraction of the powder sample goes in to the water phase.

57a. If this test was performed what was the degree of hydrophobicity of the Daschle and/or Leahy powder?

57b. If the degree of hydrophobicity was close to 100% what is the theory behind this?

57c. Could a coating of hydrophobic polymerized glass on the spore coat underneath the exosporium in a dry powder (where the exosprorium will have collapsed) cause the spores to be unusually hydrophobic?

57d. Would this also enhance the powder’s ability to form an aerosol since it will inhibit clumping of spores due to water-bridging phenomenon?

58. Will the NAS study team evaluate the origin of the tin detected in letters to the New York Post and to Senators Daschle and Leahy, and perhaps in other letters as well?

59. Will the NAS study team evaluate the significance of absence of fiber evidence?

60. Will the NAS study team the validity of printing defects on the envelopes as establishing where the envelopes were purchased?

* tracking Dr. Ivins’ RMR-1029 anthrax; more questions for UM and LSU researchers

… why the FBI failed to solve the 2001 anthrax case

* purchase CASE CLOSED (paperback)

* see CASE CLOSED VIDEO on YouTube

Dr. Bruce Ivins

tracking Dr. Ivins’ RMR-1029 anthrax;

more questions for UM and LSU researchers

The following email was sent to researchers who performed anthrax vaccine research at the University of Michigan (UM) and Louisiana State University  (LSU) in 2001 …

Dr. James Baker has graciously replied to my earlier questions, stating …

• That work was done
  • at USAMRIID by a microbiologist under Dr. Ivins direct supervision
  • and at LSU under the direction of Dr. Hugh Jones.
• There was never any ‘distribution’ of anthrax and all the work done at UM used simulant organisms.
• I apologize if the citation was confusing.

Dr. Baker’s answer has been posted to the CASE CLOSED blog. There is a comment posted to that article (see … DXer said June 27, 2009 at 6:47 pm), which includes citations from various patent applications and other materials, and asks the following questions, which I am forwarding to you …

1. When was the research at USAMRIID done? What month(s) and year(s)?
2. When was the research at LSU done?
3. Who was the microbiologist who worked under the supervision of Bruce Ivins at the BL-3 lab at USAMRIID?
4. Who were the NanoBio scientists who worked under the supervision of Dr. Martin Hugh-Jones at LSU?
5. Was Bruce Ivins-supplied virulent Ames at LSU?
6. If so, was it still in existence at the time of the subpoenas during the mid-October 2001 through February 2002?
7. What do the LSU researchers, including FBI genetics consultant Kimothy Smith, say about whether virulent Ames was at LSU and, if so, whether any supplied by Bruce Ivins was provided in response to the subpoena.
8. What does Pamala Coker say? (she would have taken over by the time of the subpoena from Kimothy)

You may wonder why I am asking these questions. Who am I, and what right do I have to bother you so many years after these events took place?

I am a novelist, the author of CASE CLOSED, which presents a fictional scenario to explain why the FBI failed to solve the anthrax case. I started the CASE CLOSED blog to promote the novel, but it has taken on a life of its own as a forum for those who don’t believe the FBI’s accusation of Dr. Ivins (and a few who do) to present and argue their positions. This has stimulated me to continue to seek answers.

The FBI’s case simply does not wash. Why?

The central problem is that the FBI accused Dr. Ivins, claiming he is the sole perpetrator of the 2001 anthrax attacks, without ever proving its case. It is very convenient to the FBI to have charged a dead man, eight days after his alleged suicide, since this means they never have to go into court and actually prove their case.

The FBI has ever since their announcement refused to answer questions, even those from Congressmen and Senators. Many people, including scientists, journalists, Congressmen and Senators, have publicly expressed their doubts about the FBI’s conclusions. The FBI has presented no witnesses and no physical evidence to support its case against Dr. Ivins. More pertinent to the questions included here is that the FBI has never explained how it excluded other research labs as potential sources of the attack anthrax.

RMR-1029 log - p.1

The CASE CLOSED blog has now obtained and published Dr. Ivins’ RMR-1029 inventory logs …

https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/dr-bruce-ivins-rmr-1029-inventory-records-pursuant-to-an-foia-request/

It is the intent of the CASE CLOSED blog to track down, to the extent possible, and to eliminate, to the extent possible, other potential sources of RMR-1029 anthrax which might have been diverted and modified for use in the 2001 attacks.

So … if you have answers to any of the questions above, I look forward to your responses.

LEW WEINSTEIN

* tracking Dr. Ivins’ RMR-1029 anthrax; Dr. James Baker says none at the University of Michigan

… why the FBI failed to solve the 2001 anthrax case

* purchase CASE CLOSED (paperback)

* see CASE CLOSED VIDEO on YouTube

Dr. Bruce ivins

***

tracking Dr. Ivins’ RMR-1029 anthrax;

Dr. James Baker says none at the University of Michigan

***

Last summer, Senator Charles Grassley asked FBI Director Robert Mueller the following questions …

• Of the more than 100 people who had access to RMR 1029, how many were provided custody of samples sent outside Ft. Detrick?  Of those, how many samples were provided to foreign laboratories?
• If those with access to samples of RMR 1029 in places other than Ft. Detrick had used the sample to produce additional quantities of anthrax, would that anthrax appear distinguishable from RMR 1029?
• How can the FBI be sure that none of the samples sent to other labs were used to create additional quantities of anthrax that would appear distinguishable from RMR 1029?

So far as we know these questions remain unanswered.

Now that Dr. Ivins’ inventory log for the RMR-1029 anthrax has been published on this blog,  the public process of tracking the RMR-1029 anthrax is proceeding.

*** See related post … Dr. Ivins’ RMR-1029 inventory log …  (https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/dr-bruce-ivins-rmr-1029-inventory-records-pursuant-to-an-foia-request/)

Anthrax vaccine research was performed at the University of Michigan (UM) and/or Louisiana State University (LSU) which may or may not have made use of RMR-1029 anthrax supplied by Dr. Bruce Ivins. I sent emails to 9 researchers at UM and LSU …

• The FBI says that Dr. Bruce Ivins, with anthrax from flask RMR 1029, was the sole perpetrator of the 2001 anthrax attacks. They say they have methodically excluded perhaps 100 other potential suspects who had access to anthrax from flask RMR 1029, in some cases provided by Dr. Ivins for their research.
• But the FBI has steadfastly refused to provide any details as to how they excluded the others, thus leaving an opening for vast doubts that they are telling the whole story, or that Dr. Ivins is the sole perpetrator, or even involved at all.
• In particular, there have been conflicting and confusing representations in various comments posted to my CASE CLOSED blog about Dr. Ivins’ possible distribution of Ames strain anthrax to the University of Michigan and/or Louisiana State University, and I wonder if you could clarify for me:
  • To which labs did Dr. Ivins ship the virulent Ames strains?
  • In which labs was research with the Ivins supplied anthrax done?
  • Was any sample supplied by Bruce Ivins still in existence at the time of the later subpoenas of Louisiana State University and University of Michigan?
  • Who would have provided an isolate of that sample in response to any subpoena during the mid-October 2001 to February 2002 period?

Dr. James Baker, the lead researcher at the University of Michigan, responded, stating …

• “That work was done at USAMRIID by a microbiologist under Dr. Ivins direct supervision and at LSU under the direction of Dr. Hugh Jones.
• There was never any ‘distribution’ of anthrax and all the work done at UM used simulant organisms.
• I apologize if the citation was confusing.”

* Dr. Bruce Ivins RMR-1029 inventory records, from 1997 to 2003, pursuant to a FOIA request

CASE CLOSED is a novel which answers the question “Why did the FBI fail to solve the 2001 anthrax case?” … Here’s an excerpt from the CASE CLOSED story; the (fictional) DIA team reviews the connection between the anthrax attack and the subsequent invasion of Iraq …

“After the nationwide panic caused by the anthrax mailings settled down, pretty much nothing happens in the FBI’s anthrax investigation. The next we hear about anthrax is in February 2003, when Secretary of State Abner Grant goes to the United Nations and holds up a vial of something – it wasn’t actually anthrax – claiming that Saddam can deliver biological weapons of mass destruction to the eastern seaboard of the U.S. Of course, we learn later that Saddam had neither WMD nor any way to reach our shores. U.N. arms inspector Blix said something much like that a few days before we invaded Iraq.”

*** click here to buy CASE CLOSED by Lew Weinstein

******

Dr. Bruce Ivins RMR-1029 inventory records,

from 1997 to 2003,

pursuant to a FOIA request

******

One of the CASE CLOSED bloggers asked for USAMRIID lab records regarding RMR-1029 anthrax, and received the following response …

Attached is the response to your FOIA request for USAMRIID lab records
of individuals accessing or otherwise using the anthrax research
flask(s) designated Reference Material Receipt Record “1029” (RMR-1029)
from 1996 to 2008.

Redactions are pursuant to the privacy concerns under 5 U.S.C. 552,
exemption (b)(6).

Please call upon me if I can be of any further assistance.

Respectfully,

jpp

John P Peterson
Chief, Freedom of Information/
Privacy Act Office
HQ, U.S. Army Medical Command
COMM: 210-221-7826

The USAMRIID RMR-1029 Inventory Documents, covering the period October 22, 1997 to November 18, 2003,  follow …

* AP story mentions al-Qaida “anthrax program” … related comments by readers of this blog

Lew’s new novel CASE CLOSED

explores the FBI’s failed investigation of the 2001 anthrax case …

* see CASE CLOSED VIDEO on YouTube

* purchase CASE CLOSED (paperback)

***

AP story mentions al-Qaida “anthrax program”

***

Kathy Gannon writes for AP (6-21-09)

• Estimates of al-Qaida’s annual budget needs vary wildly from $300 million to as low as $10 million.
• (Juan Carlos, a former U.S. National Security Council adviser on terrorism who now works at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington) … estimates al-Qaida’s needs as “modest,” said its big expenses are payments to families; food and shelter to maintain operations; travel and logistics; money for cells engaged in plots; bribes, and expenses for longer-range plans such as an anthrax program.

read the entire article at … Taliban gains money, al-Qaida finances recovering

************************

Perhaps stimulated by that story, DXer has posted several very detailed comments this morning. You can read DXer’s entire comments at the bottom of the post …

nagging-questions-in-anthrax-case

extracts from comments by DXer …

• The White House knew of the anthrax threat in a February 2001 briefing from the CIA to President Bush.
• To begin to understand Amerithrax, the government should declassify the early February 2001 PDB from the CIA to President Bush on Al Qaeda’s interest in biological weapons.
• President Bush (was briefed) in February 2001 about a threat to use mailed anthrax if bail was denied the Vanguards of Conquest #2 Mahmoud Mahjoub.
• Bail was denied; anthrax letters were mailed.
• The CIA has known of the plans by Zawahiri and the Vanguards of Conquest to use anthrax since July 1998, when the CIA seized a disc from Ayman Zawahiri’s right-hand, Ahmed Mabruk, during his arrest outside a restaurant in Baku, Azerbaijan.
• Mabruk claimed that Zawahiri intended to use anthrax against US targets.

************************

• Let’s consider the case of Kathy Nguyen (one of the 5 anthrax victims who died)
  

  Kathy Nguyen

  • an article about her infection in the Journal of the American Medical Association explained that an epidemiological study of her workplace and residence had not turned up any explanation of how she was exposed.
  • She had worked in the stockroom of Manhattan Eye, Ear and Throat Hospital (MEETH), which was a subsidiary of Lenox Hill.
• Dr. Hassan Faraj was an intern there at the time and then finished his residency at Lenox Hill in 2004.
  • (Dr. Faraj) was listed in 2002 as an author of the AMA article about the fatal anthrax inhalation exposure of Kathy Nguyen.
  • An arrest warrant issued for Dr. Hassan Faraj on immigration charges on June 29, 2004.
  • The United States government charged Dr. Farah with providing aid to a supporter of Osama Bin Laden and making false statements.
  • Dr. Faraj formerly worked for the Al Qaeda front charity, BIF, in Zagreb, Croatia.
  • In the fall of 2004, the government discovered that the defendant (Hassan Faraj) used his fraudulently-obtained United States citizenship in January 2002 to sponsor the attempted entry into the United States by suspected foreign terrorist Amir Abdulrazzak, also known as Amir Amrush.

************************

In addition, a new contributor to our blog (AS) posted two comments this morning that I’d like to repeat here.

comments by AS …

• What is the FBI’s explanation for the fact that the White House staff was taking Cipro prior to the Anthrax mailings?
• Are we really to believe the FBI “theory” that Ottillie Lundgren and Kathy Nguyen died from “cross contamination”? If that were possible why did we not have many casualties along the east coast from “cross contamination”?

LMW COMMENT …

I don’t know any reasonable person, myself included, who believes the FBI has made its case that Dr. Bruce Ivins is the

Congressman Holt

sole perpetrator of the anthrax attacks. There is so much evidence out there, including but surely not limited to the notes above, suggesting a far more complicated and frightening scenario.

We should all be writing to our representatives in Washngton demanding that they support Congressman Rush Holt’s bill to create an Anthrax Investigative Commission.

* Senator Grassley pushes for FBI answers to questions about its anthrax investigation asked in September 2008; FBI Director Mueller says the questions have been answered and sent to the DOJ

Lew’s new novel CASE CLOSED

explores the FBI’s failed investigation of the 2001 anthrax case …

* see CASE CLOSED VIDEO on YouTube

* purchase CASE CLOSED (paperback)

***

Senator Grassley pushes for answers

***

June 17, 2009 … Senator Chuck Grassley, in a written statement prepared for the Senate Judiciary Committee oversight hearing of the Department of Justice, questioned Attorney General Eric Holder, and warned the department that “until we start getting some answers to these outstanding requests, I’m noticing my intention to hold certain Justice Department nominees.” Grassley said he has had letters go unanswered and questions for the record from hearings a year ago have yet to be answered.

Extracts from Senator Grassley’s statement are presented here (the entire statement is below) …

• During the last three oversight hearings—with the department and FBI—I’ve started off my questions with a
  

  Senator Grassley

  request for an explanation as to why I have not received answers to QFRs from both the FBI and the department.

• I asked FBI Director Mueller at the March FBI Oversight hearing why the FBI has questions outstanding from the March 2008 and September 2008 hearings.
• Director Mueller stated that the FBI had answered the questions and provided them to the department for approval.
• He added that those responses were forwarded by the FBI to the department by December of 2008, some as early as June 2008.
• I find this unacceptable and contrary to the repeated promises from nominees from the department to provide answers to Congress in a timely fashion.
• Mr. Attorney General, at your confirmation hearing in January, you stated that you would “try to do all that we can, to make sure that we respond fully.  And in a timely fashion…”
• You also asked for time to “check on the internal workings of the department to make sure that we’re doing it as quickly as we can.  And if we’re not, if I can’t give it to you, at least I can give you an explanation.”
• Well it has now been five months since you’ve been confirmed, so I want to hear an explanation to why these answers are outstanding.

Here are the 18 questions asked in Senator Grassley’s September 2008 letter to FBI Director Mueller …

1. What is the date (month and year) that the FBI determined that the anthrax came from a specified flask in Ivins’s
   

   FBI Director Mueller

   lab (”RMR-1029″)?

2. When (month and year) did the FBI determine that Dr. Hatfill never had access to the anthrax used in the killings?
3. How did the FBI determine that Dr. Hatfill did not have access to the anthrax used in the killings?  Was that because the FBI determined that Dr. Hatfill no longer worked at USAMRIID when the powder was made?
4. Was Dr. Hatfill or his counsel informed that Dr. Hatfill had been cleared of any involvement in the anthrax killings before the Department of Justice offered a settlement to him?  Was he informed before signing the settlement agreement with him?  If not, please explain why not.
5. Was Judge Walton (the judge overseeing the Privacy Act litigation) ever informed that Dr. Hatfill had been eliminated as a suspect in the anthrax killings?  If so, when.  If not, please explain why not.
6. Was Dr. Ivins ever polygraphed in the course of the investigation?  If so, please provide the dates and results of the exam(s).  If not, please explain why not.
7. Of the more than 100 people who had access to RMR 1029, how many were provided custody of samples sent outside Ft. Detrick?  Of those, how many samples were provided to foreign laboratories?
8. If those with access to samples of RMR 1029 in places other than Ft. Detrick had used the sample to produce additional quantities of anthrax, would that anthrax appear distinguishable from RMR 1029?
9. How can the FBI be sure that none of the samples sent to other labs were used to create additional quantities of anthrax that would appear distinguishable from RMR 1029?
10. Please describe the methodology and results of any oxygen isotope measurements taken to determine the source of water used to grow the spores used in the anthrax attacks.
11. Was there video equipment which would record the activities of Dr. Ivins at Ft. Detrick on the late nights he was there on the dates surrounding the mailings?  If so, please describe what examination of the video revealed.
12. When did the FBI first learn of Dr. Ivins’ late-night activity in the lab around the time of the attacks?  If this is powerful circumstantial evidence of his guilt, then why did this information not lead the FBI to focus attention on him, rather than Dr. Hatfill, much sooner in the investigation?
13. When did the FBI first learn that Dr. Ivins was prescribed medications for various symptoms of mental illness?  If this is circumstantial evidence of his guilt, then why did this information not lead the FBI to focus attention on him, rather than Dr. Hatfill, much sooner in the investigation? Of the 100 individuals who had access to RMR 1029, were any others found to suffer from mental illness, be under the care of a mental health professional, or prescribed anti-depressant/anti-psychotic medications?   If so, how many?
14. What role did the FBI play in conducting and updating the background examination of Dr. Ivins in order for him to have clearance and work with deadly pathogens at Ft. Detrick?
15. After the FBI identified Dr. Ivins as the sole suspect, why was he not detained?  Did the U.S. Attorney’s Office object to seeking an arrest or material witness warrant?  If not, did anyone at FBI order a slower approach to arresting Ivins?
16. Had an indictment of Dr. Ivins been drafted before his death?  If so, what additional information did it contain beyond the affidavits already released to the public?  If not, then when, if ever, had a decision been made to seek an indictment from the grand jury?
17. According to family members, FBI agents publicly confronted and accused Dr. Ivins of the attacks, showed pictures of the victims to his daughter, and offered the $2.5 million reward to his son in the months leading up to his suicide.  These aggressive, overt surveillance techniques appear similar to those used on Dr. Hatfill with the apparent purpose of intimidation rather than legitimate investigation.  Please describe whether and to what degree there is any truth to these claims.
18. What additional documents will be released, if any, and when will they be released?

Related Post …

* Who will lift the veil of secrecy

regarding the FBI investigation

of the 2001 anthrax attacks?

Here is the complete text of Grassley’s June 17, 2009 statement …

Prepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley

Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Oversight hearing on the U.S. Department of Justice

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Chairman Leahy, thank you for calling this hearing today on oversight of the Department of Justice.  I appreciate you holding these oversight hearings to keep an open dialogue between the department and the committee.  I also appreciate Attorney General Holder appearing today.  Everyone on the committee knows that oversight is important to me and I’ve repeatedly asked tough questions of the department, regardless of who’s sitting in the White House.  While my duties as the Ranking Member of the Finance Committee will keep me away from today’s hearing, I will submit this prepared statement and some questions for the record (QFRs) for Attorney General Holder.

First, I am requesting information from Attorney General Holder about the role the acting U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California—and the department—had in referring allegations of misconduct by Inspector General Gerald Walpin, the Inspector General for the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), to the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE).  Specifically, I want to know whether department regulations require a U.S. Attorney to obtain prior approval of any allegations of misconduct by non-department government officials prior to a referral for investigation or sanction.  If there are regulations, I want to know if they were followed in this instance by the acting-U.S. Attorney and who at the department knew of and who approved the allegations of misconduct prior to the referral.

I also want to ask the Attorney General about a letter I sent him about the department’s implementation of recommendations issued by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) earlier this year in a report about cooperation between the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).  The GAO report made specific recommendations for both agencies, including: (1) DOJ and DHS rework existing memorandums of understanding (MOUs) to clarify their jurisdiction in counternarcotics investigations (2) DOJ and DHS develop a more efficient cross-designation procedure for counternarcotics agents, and (3) increase ICE participation at DOJ run fusion centers.

As GAO noted, these “long-standing jurisdictional disputes have led to conflicts between DEA and ICE, with the potential for duplicating investigative efforts and compromising officer safety.”  It is my understanding the departments are close to an agreement, but that it is not yet finalized.  If and when that agreement is complete, I expect all the recommendations GAO made to be fully implemented.  Failure to implement all of these recommendations increases the risk to federal law enforcement agents and our ability to combat the flow of illegal narcotics.  I want to see leadership from Attorney General Holder and Secretary Napolitano to fix this problem immediately.

Finally, I want to point out my serious concerns with the department’s continued failure to respond in a prompt manner to letters and other inquiries from members of the Judiciary Committee.

During the last three oversight hearings—with the department and FBI—I’ve started off my questions with a request for an explanation as to why I have not received answers to QFRs from both the FBI and the department.  I asked FBI Director Mueller at the March FBI Oversight hearing why the FBI has questions outstanding from the March 2008 and September 2008 hearings.  Director Mueller stated that the FBI had answered the questions and provided them to the department for approval.  He added that those responses were forwarded by the FBI to the department by December of 2008, some as early as June 2008.  It has now been well over a year since those first QFRs were sent to the department by the FBI.

I also have a number of letters that have gone unanswered by the department.  I say unanswered because I’ve received a response to some of the letters and believe they fail to answer the questions asked.  In fact, I presented a full binder of outstanding letters and document requests I’ve made to the department and its subordinate agencies to Mr. Holder when he was making the rounds during his nomination.  I told Mr. Holder that he may want to clean up these outstanding requests from by the last administration so the new administration could start fresh.  So far, the responses I’ve received to those letters are insufficient and in some cases fail to answer the questions.

I find this unacceptable and contrary to the repeated promises from nominees from the department to provide answers to Congress in a timely fashion.  For example, Mr. Attorney General at your confirmation hearing in January, you stated that you would “try to do all that we can, to make sure that we respond fully.  And in a timely fashion…”  You also asked for time to “check on the internal workings of the department to make sure that we’re doing it as quickly as we can.  And if we’re not, if I can’t give it to you, at least I can give you an explanation.”  We’ll it has now been five months since you’ve been confirmed, so I want to hear an explanation to why these answers are outstanding.

I also questioned Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legislative Affairs, Ron Weich, about responding to congressional inquiries.  I asked Mr. Weich for his commitment to timely, responsive, and complete answers.  He stated that if he was confirmed he looked forward to responding to requests in a timely fashion.  Well, we confirmed Mr. Weich and it still seems to be business as usual at the department.

I’m tired of hearing nominees say one thing and do another.  At the March FBI Oversight hearing, the Chairman stepped out for a minute and I asked his staff to take note of something I’ve learned over the years.  I’ve learned that holding up nominees for an executive branch agency is an effective tool to get answers.  I don’t take the decision to hold up nominees lightly.  That said, I believe it’s time that the department got down to business and answered our questions.  So, until we start getting some answers to these outstanding requests, I’m noticing my intention to hold certain Justice Department nominees.  I’ll make sure my holds are open and transparent so that the department knows what they need to produce before I release the nominee.  Hopefully, this will get the attention of the Attorney General and the rows of Justice Department staffers sitting behind him.

I hope the Attorney General will provide answers to these important questions and work to provide the committee with the outstanding document and information requests I have.

* lack of control of Ft. Detrick anthrax inventory undercuts the FBI’s case against Dr. Bruce Ivins

Lew’s new novel CASE CLOSED

explores the FBI’s failed investigation of the 2001 anthrax case …

* see CASE CLOSED VIDEO on YouTube

* purchase CASE CLOSED (paperback)

* lack of control of Ft. Detrick

anthrax inventory undercuts …

Nelson Hernandez writes in today’s Washington Post (6/18/09) …

• An inventory of potentially deadly pathogens at Fort Detrick’s infectious disease laboratory found more than9,000 vials that had not been accounted for, raising concerns that officials wouldn’t know whether dangerous toxins were missing.
• The vials contained some dangerous pathogens, among them the Ebola virus, anthrax bacteria …
• “I can’t say that nothing did [leave the lab], but I can say that we think it’s extremely unlikely,” Kortepeter said.
• the overstock and the previous inaccuracy of the database raised the possibility that someone could have taken a sample outside the lab with no way for officials to know something was missing.

read the entire article at … http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/17/AR2009061703271.html

LMW COMMENT …

It just keeps getting worse. How can anyone believe the FBI’s assertion that Dr. Bruce Ivins was the sole perpetrator of the 2001 anthrax attacks.

In my novel CASE CLOSED, I described inventory and physical controls at Fort Detrick as being shockingly inadequate, thus allowing many people to have potential access to the anthrax that was used in the 2001 attacks. The real world, apparently, was even worse that I imagined.

Who will hold these people — USAMRIID, the FBI, Iowa State University, Battelle, others — accountable for their role in the investigation of the still unsolved case of the 2001 anthrax attacks?

Members of Congress have asked good questions of FBI Director Mueller, and have been stonewalled with no answers, or answers that were so unresponsive as to be insulting and demeaning to the Congress and to the American people. So far, there has been no meaningful follow-up by the Congress to this disgraceful arrogance on the part of the FBI.

The bottom line … Who is hiding what? Why?

RELATED ARTICLE …

* Who will lift the veil of secrecy regarding the FBI investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks?

It seems that the FBI’s stonewalling tactics are working just fine for them. Congress is accomplishing little, despite many strong statements and excellent questions, to lift the veil of secrecy which surrounds the failed FBI anthrax investigation.

* are hoax anthrax attacks one consequence of the FBI’s failure to solve the case?

Lew’s new novel CASE CLOSED

explores the FBI’s failed investigation of the 2001 anthrax case …

* see CASE CLOSED VIDEO on YouTube

* purchase CASE CLOSED (paperback)

Here is a selection of stories about hoax attacks for just the last month or so. Would these be happening if the FBI had solved the 2001 case?

June 15, 2009

The Charleston Gazette Mon, 15 Jun 2009 20:50 PM PDT CHARLESTON, W.Va. — An envelope containing white powder was delivered and opened at Kanawha Circuit Judge Paul Zakaib Jr.s office on Monday, but authorities quickly concluded it was not dangerous.

June 13, 2009

WKTV Utica Sat, 13 Jun 2009 10:51 AM PDT SCHENECTADY, N.Y. (AP) – FBI agents created a stir in Schenectady when they swarmed an auction house wearing hazardous materials suits, reportedly to check out a suspicion that there might be anthrax in the trash at the building.

June 12, 2009

WRGB Albany Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:15 AM PDT Sources tell CBS6 The FBI has made an arrest near Congress and Broadway in Schenectady. The are suspicions the arrest may be connected to reports of anthrax.

June 4, 2009

Deseret News Thu, 04 Jun 2009 15:36 PM PDT OREM — Initial tests confirm that a white powdery substance found at Utah Valley University is not anthrax or any other…

June 3, 2009

ABC Action News Tampa Bay Wed, 03 Jun 2009 13:15 PM PDT
The federal appeals court in Atlanta has upheld the six-year prison sentence of a Florida prison inmate who threatened President George W. Bush, ex-Gov. Jeb Bush and federal employees with…

May 29, 2009

The Tampa Tribune Tue, 19 May 2009 06:41 AM PDT Law enforcement has arrested a second suspect in connection with April’s anthrax hoax.

May 27, 2009

WBAL-TV Baltimore Wed, 27 May 2009 15:07 PM PDT Maryland State Police are trying to find the person behind the first anthrax scare they’ve had to respond to in nearly a year.

May 19, 2009

Miami News-Record Tue, 19 May 2009 08:28 AM PDT
The Miami Police Department was quarantined Friday evening after a suspected anthrax threat.

May 13, 2009

KXAN 36 Austin Wed, 13 May 2009 10:05 AM PDT An Overland Park man has pleaded guilty of mailing the Internal Revenue Service a white powder he claimed wasanthrax. The letter was sent to the IRS in Austin and said “YOU HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO ANTHRAX DIE!” on it.

May 2, 2009

KSPR Springfield Sat, 02 May 2009 19:40 PM PDT The Pulaski County Sheriff’s Department went into lockdown after finding a white powder believed to be anthrax.

April 27, 2009

The Tampa Tribune Mon, 27 Apr 2009 11:42 AM PDT
A suspicious white powder found in an envelope at the Hillsborough County Courthouse this afternoon is notanthrax, Tampa Fire Rescue officials said.