Glenn Greenwald nails it to the wall yet again.

[mhatrw]

His post tonight may be his best yet, and that's saying a lot: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald

...

If the Post's reporting about Ivins' September 17 activities is accurate -- that he "return for an appointment in the early evening, about 4 or 5 p.m." -- then that would constitute an alibi, not, as the Post breathlessly described it, "a key clue into how he could have pulled off an elaborate crime," since any letter he mailed that way would have a September 17 -- not a September 18 -- postmark. Just compare the FBI's own definition of "window of opportunity" to its September 17 timeline for Ivins to see how glaring that contradiction is.

In theory (and there is no evidence for this at all), Ivins could have left Fort Detrick that night after work and driven to New Jersey, but then the leaked information reported by the Post about Ivins' September 17 morning "administrative leave" would be completely irrelevant, and according to the Post, that isn't what the FBI believes occurred ("Authorities assume that he drove to Princeton immediately after" he took administrative leave in the morning). The FBI's theory as to how and when Ivins traveled to New Jersey on September 17 and mailed the letters is simply impossible, given the statement in their own Probable Cause Affidavit as to "the window of opportunity" the anthrax attacker had to mail the letters in order to have them bear a September 18 postmark. Marcy Wheeler and Larisa Alexandrovna have now noted the same discrepancy. That is a pretty enormous contradiction in the FBI's case.

* * * * *

The FBI's total failure to point to a shred of evidence placing Ivins in New Jersey on either of the two days the anthrax letters were sent is a very conspicuous deficiency in its case. It's possible that Ivins was able to travel to Princeton on two occasions in three weeks without leaving the slightest trace of having done so (not a credit card purchase, ATM withdrawal, unusual gas purchases, nothing), but that relies on a depiction of Ivins as a cunning and extremely foresightful criminal, an image squarely at odds with most of the FBI's circumstantial evidence that suggests Ivins was actually quite careless, even reckless, in how he perpetrated this crime (spending unusual amounts of time in his lab before the attacks despite knowing that there would be a paper trail; taking an "administrative leave" from work to go mail the anthrax letters rather than just doing it on the weekend when no paper trail of his absence would be created; using his own anthrax strain rather than any of the other strains to which he had access at Fort Detrick; keeping that strain in its same molecular form for years rather than altering it, etc.).

The FBI dumped a large number of uncorroborated conclusions at once on Wednesday, carefully assembled to create the most compelling case they could make, and many people -- as intended -- jumped to proclaim that it was convincing. But the more that case is digested and assessed, the more questions and the more skepticism seem to arise among virtually everyone.

...

much more: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald

[EFerrari]

1. Compare that sloppiness with the way they treated Hatfill:

from NYT 08/10/02

Anthrax Inquiry Draws Protest From Scientist's Lawyers
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
This article was reported by William J. Broad, David Johnston and Kate Zernike and written by Mr. Broad.

A lawyer representing Steven J. Hatfill, a germ weapons expert, has protested to the Justice Department that the government is violating his client's rights in its search for the culprit in the anthrax attacks that killed five people last fall.

"We are very angry at the way they have treated this man, who has done nothing but cooperate fully with federal authorities," said Jonathan Shapiro, the criminal lawyer Dr. Hatfill hired to represent him after government inquiries about him intensified last week.

Mr. Shapiro would not describe how this anger had been conveyed to the Justice Department, except to say "we've made it clear."

snip

They are quick to say that repeated searches of Dr. Hatfill's apartment and related locations have yielded no incriminating evidence. Agents have examined his home computer, looked through documents and even brought in bloodhounds to sniff his clothing. Borrowing investigative techniques used in espionage cases, they have compiled a minute-by-minute timeline of Dr. Hatfill's whereabouts on days when the anthrax-tainted letters were mailed.

http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/nyt2.html#nyt20810

:shrug:

[Mabus]

2. They have a minute-by-minute account of Hatfill but large gaps in their Ivins investigation?

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!

Great find sfexpat2000!

K&R

[EFerrari]

5. WTF is right. Btw, there are a lot of NYTs articles at that link

relating to the Hatfill investigation and to the attacks in general.

[Supersedeas]

12. I would have missed that...thanks for the heads-up.

[EFerrari]

13. Mabus: Maybe the FBI / BushCo DoJ changed their tactic

because they could claim ignorance if Ivins's family sues them. With Hatfill, they showed how much they knew. Maybe they didn't want to make that mistake again?

[Mabus]

16. Plus, leaving holes increases the plausibility that it was Ivins

It works both ways. If they can't account for his whereabouts then it leaves Ivins a window of opportunity in which to have acted (even though, as you have demonstrated, they can't even get that part straight).

And I still can't get over that Ivins was awarded his medal a week after Blix said the UN was preparing to excavate suspected biological warfare dumps (anthrax anyone?) and just under a week before Bush issued his 48 "surrender or else" ultimatum to Saddam and his sons. Bush's ultimatum, at a time when the UN was going to excavate Saddam's anthrax dump because it was finally deemed safe to do so, resulted in the UN asking its personnel to leave Iraq (and their hunt for the alleged WMDs, whether they were biological, chemical or nuclear). Hence, no excavation of Saddam's dumping site. Speaking of which, if the UN knew where to dig, why haven't we? Would doing so have proven, beyond a shadow of the doubt, that one more reason why BushCo pushed us into this war was just as phony as claiming that he was helping Osama and the terrorists?

[Mabus]

18. My favorite paragraph from that article

For their part, government officials say their interest in Dr. Hatfill has grown for several reasons. He clearly had the skills and access necessary to obtain anthrax spores and turn them into a weapon. He has also long complained publicly that the government was paying too little attention to the bioterror threat. Finally, investigators have uncovered aspects of his past that raise suspicions and have discovered inconsistencies in his accounts of his life.

One, two, three and it sounds exactly like the template for their case against Ivins.

(1)Ivins had had the skills and access necessary to obtain anthrax spores and allegedly he was able to turn them into a weapon.
(2)One of the first motives put forth was that Ivins had long complained publicly that the government was paying too little attention to the bioterror threat.
(3) During the course of their investigation they allegedly found aspects of his past that raise(d) suspicions and ...discovered inconsistencies in his accounts of his life. (Bonus for them that they found a suspect with addiction problems who seeking counseling.)

[EFerrari]

23. Exactly. They tried to do a hurried Hatfill on Ivins. n/t

[Junkdrawer]

3. Ahem. Glenn got that tip from sfexpat2000 (with a little help from yours truly)...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3765986&mesg_id=3770875

[mhatrw]

4. Very good!

I am all for giving credit where credit is due. Kudos to both of you.

[Mabus]

7. Kudos to the both of you

Thanks top sfexpat2000 for finding it and thanks to you for getting Greenwald's attention with it. You know, this networking stuff actually pays off once in a while.

[blm]

66. salute to you both....

.

[EFerrari]

6. There's something else here that is sort of strange.

I posted this to another thread last night. This is what the FBI thought about their suspect in 2003:
The Pursuit of Steven Hatfill

By Marilyn W. Thompson
Sunday, September 14, 2003; Page W06

He says he's a patriot, and some on the front lines of the war against terror sing his praises. But his provocative life and career have kept him at the center of the FBI's frustrating hunt for the anthrax killer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A49717-2003Sep9?language=printer


This is what FBI were saying at that time:

"FBI psychologists, handwriting analysts and forensic experts used the letters to produce an early behavioral profile of the perpetrator. The analysis took into account the words and phrases chosen by the writer, the style of punctuation and the selection of intended targets. The conclusion: The killer was most likely a middle-aged white male with scientific expertise who had some recent beef with the government and chose media and political targets for maximum visibility. It was likely, FBI analyst James Fitzgerald said, that the criminal had timed the letters to take advantage of the 9/11 panic and hoped to use them to draw attention to his special, as yet unknown cause.

Privately, agents shared other theories. The perpetrator might have an interest in an enterprise that could benefit from the hysteria surrounding a bioterror event. And almost certainly, agents hypothesized, the perpetrator had no idea what postal machines would do to a finely ground anthrax powder."

Does Bruce Ivins strike you as someone who wouldn't know how postal machines work? The guy was curious about everything. He could probably have built a postal machine for fun if he set out to explain it to you. I don't buy that for a minute, any more than I buy that Ivins had any reason to mail those envelopes knowing, as he would have, that they would kill total strangers on their way to their recipients' desks.

Was he so careful that he drove anthrax two hundred miles without a trace TWICE, or was he so careless that he never thought about postal machines spreading anthrax all over town?

[AuntPatsy]

8. Your investigation results are proof that we no longer allow real investigative jounalism

to occur....

[EFerrari]

9. You remember that poor mayor whose wife was sent pot

and the sherrif's dept shot their dogs? The pot was never really supposed to get to that address.

I wonder if the same was true for those envelopes of anthrax.

Because whoever mailed them probably did know what would happen at the post office. And in the mailbox and so on. Not to mention, when you send mail to an executive at a place of business, the recipient usually doesn't open their own mail. :shrug:

It's hard to believe those attacks were on individuals, in other words.

[AuntPatsy]

11. Now that is interesting and I agree, in the case of mailing things to executives, nine times

out of ten a secretary or such opens packages....hmmmmm..your good

[Mabus]

14. And a lot of people knew that because of the Unabomber

A number of the Unabomber's packages were opened by staff and not the addressee.

As a government employee in a secured facility, it makes sense that Ivins was familiar with a government-style centralized mail room that would distribute mail around the facility. After all, they were doing some pretty secretive stuff there, they couldn't let the postal workers wandering around delivering mail from desk to desk. Ivins would have had to know about that.

[suffragette]

26. The FBI is focusing mostly on behavior rather than on motive and opportunity.

And the few times they address motive and opportunity, since they tend more toward needing to show something resembling proof, the big holes are readily apparent.

Whereas with behavior, well, that can be alleged and speculated on and spun until one is dizzy.

Yet, even there the parts the FBI has evidence to point to, for example the "cordial and brief" emails to Haigwood and the "calm" voicemail to Duley don't match up with the their or the FBI's portrayal of his behavior.

[EFerrari]

10. Firms vie for anthrax pacts

Firms vie for anthrax pacts
Annapolis, Rockville companies seeking share of millions of vaccine doses

By Frank D. Roylance | Sun reporter
August 11, 2008

Drug companies based in Annapolis and Rockville are battling for potentially lucrative federal contracts to supply at least 25 million doses of new, improved anthrax vaccine to protect Americans against another bioterror attack like the one in 2001.

PharmAthene Inc. of Annapolis, which is also developing drugs to protect against chemical nerve agents and the plague bacterium, says it could begin delivering its SparVax vaccine to the Strategic National Stockpile as early as 2012.

In Rockville, Emergent BioSolutions Inc. announced that it, too, had a recombinant anthrax vaccine in development.

oth companies filed proposals July 31 in response to a request from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for a more modern, bioengineered vaccine to replace the current vaccine, BioThrax, made by Emergent.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/health/bal-te.md.vaccine11aug11,0,7681658.story?track=rss

[Supersedeas]

38. thanks for the link

[suffragette]

15. Here's another one about possible inaccuracies

http://scienceblogs.com/mikethemadbiologist/2008/08/finally_the_scientific_issues.php?utm_source=sbhomepage&utm_medium=link&utm_content=channellink

Finally, in the released affidavits for the search warrants, there is repeated reference to a single strain, although, according to the NY Times, there is a strain mixture. I don't think this is a misunderstanding on the part of the affidavit author, since there is a detailed discussion of Bacillus subtilis contamination. Either, once again, anonymous sources are talking out of their asses, and the media isn't challenging them on this, or there is something screwy with the affidavit.

The paragraph on the original page links to the DOJ docs and to the NY Times article.

The author of this goes into more detail in his recent post section in the left hand column on his page.

I'm lost in the science of this, but the part about the conflicting references to single strain or strain mixture sure caught my eye.

Anyone have time to dig through the DOJ docs to corroborate this?

[EFerrari]

17. We need a science guy like JoeIsOneOfUs but my understanding

so far is, the FBI believe that the attacker used the first batch to grow a new batch and that's when the new bacillus came into the picture.

It would mean, the new batch was both contaminated AND more refined.

I don't even know if it's possible to grow a new batch in that time frame. :shrug:

[mhatrw]

19. The anthrax Ivins worked with was wet.

Any microbiologist worth his salt can grow anthrax. The problem is drying it, milling it finely and weaponizing it so that it can easily kill people via inhalation.

[EFerrari]

22. Right. That much I get.

[Mabus]

24. But the FBI said that was inexpensive to do and could have been done anywhere

ource: Los Angeles Times, November 10, 2001.

THE ANTHRAX THREAT

Loner Likely Sent Anthrax, FBI Says

By ERIC LICHTBLAU and MEGAN GARVEY, TIMES STAFF WRITERS


***

"He's shown us he knows anthrax," said an FBI supervisor who spoke on condition of anonymity. And forensic analysis indicates that the anthrax in the Oct. 9 letter sent to Daschle was much more highly refined than what was contained in the two letters sent to the media Sept. 18, officials said.

That refinement process would require only "basic laboratory equipment"--including a microscope, a centrifuge and a milling device. The equipment would be available in many labs or could be purchased for as little as $2,500, officials said. "You could do it on a shoestring," the FBI supervisor said.

FBI investigators said they are tracking recent purchases of milling and other equipment and are also curious about whether the mailing of the three letters on Tuesdays--Sept. 18 and Oct. 9--could indicate something about the attacker's work schedule or access to a lab. But investigators said the relative ease of getting the processing equipment--and the lack of information about what labs and research centers even possess anthrax--have hindered their efforts.

Although early speculation indicated the highly refined strain of anthrax could only have been produced by labs in the United States, Iraq or Russia, investigators now believe "it could be from anywhere," one senior FBI official said.

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/EPI/bioter/lonerlikelyanthrax.html

[mhatrw]

25. Where is the evidence Ivins used a centrifuge and a milling device?

I have seen none whatsoever.

Furthermore, if making anthrax that deadly to mail can be done by anyone anywhere, why do we give thousands world scientists basically unfettered access to deadly anthrax raw material to this day?

[defendandprotect]

30. Not true -- from what I've read only 4-5 people in US know how to weaponize anthrax AND . . .

one of those guys said that the stuff in the Daschle letter was so sophisticated that it would

probably take him a year, in a lab, with a staff to recreate it --- and he wasn't sure if he

could!

[suffragette]

21. Looks like quite a few scientists are really digging

into the science aspects of this.

I'm definitely not in that league. Science was never one of my best subjects.

That person's blog does link to another science blog that describes it in easier terms:
http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2008/08/anthrax_case_reasonable_doubt.php
Furthermore, the FBI acknowledges the anthrax in the two sets of letters (one set to the media and one set to the Senate) were grown separately. One was contaminated with Bacillus subtilis and the other wasn't. Both had an unusual silicon treatment, presumably to make them more easily dispersible. This isn't something you add with conventional laboratory equipment of the kind the FBI says Ivins had access.

The case, as laid out in the FBI documents, has some fairly cogent sounding evidence Ivins had something to hide and tried to hide it, for whatever reasons. But it certainly doesn't lay out a tight science case. A half way decent defense attorney would have had a field day with the alleged science evidence against Ivins and it is hard to believe prosecutors really thought they had enough to convict "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Still, the guy in the 1st blog is still pointing this out as a discrepancy between how the DOJ is saying it and how it's being reported in the NYT.

Hope JoeIOneOfUs sees this and can elaborate.

[Mabus]

27. From what I understand the scenario is this

Using one of the affidavits that was sworn out (http://www.usdoj.gov/amerithrax/07-524-M-01%20search%20warrant%20affidavit.pdf) on page 5 under the heading "Bacterial contaminant found in attack letters" Ivins allegedly sent out the first batch to The NY Times and Brokaw which was contaminated with bacillus subtilis (a bacterial contaminant) but this contaminant was not in the second batch sent to Leahy and Daschle. Therefore they concluded that the origin of the anthrax from both batches were from the same source material but that the first batch had been contaminated by a bacteria.

If you recall, according to news reports, the first batch was slightly granular but the second batch was powdery. I'm thinking of it as the difference between ordinary sugar (which is granular) and confectionery sugar (which is powdery).

[suffragette]

28. We're talking batches, but the scientist is talking about strains

Finally got it. I think I see what the scientist was getting at.

From NYT:

"The genome of various stocks of the Ames strain of anthrax used in the attacks were almost identical in all the 5 million chemical letters of their DNA. But researchers found enough differences in the attack strain to provide a reasonable chance of identifying its source.

The chief difference was that a stretch of DNA was flipped head to tail in some bacteria in the attack strain, but not in any other samples.

Further, the attack strain contained bacteria with both the flipped and the unflipped DNA, showing that it was a mixture of two strains, which analysts later found reflected a mix of origins — 85 percent from the Dugway Proving Ground of the Army in Utah and 15 percent added at Fort Detrick, according to one person close to the investigation."

In DOJ docs, on p4:

"The Task Force investigation has determined that each of the isolates in the FBIR is directly related to a single Bacillis Anthracis Ames strain spore batch identified as RMR-1029."



And the scientist was adding the part about the contaminant to point out that the since the documents discuss that part at length, it isn't confusion about the different batches that would lead to the above differences in how many strains there were.

Ok, since this is just now finally becoming clearer to me, I don't have time before work to go through the DOJ docs and see if they referent a 2nd strain at some point. Thanks for your replies. It took seeing those and realizing I was thinking about batches as well for me to see past that to what the scientist was getting at.

I think that scientist has a point.

[Mabus]

29. I think you may find article very interesting

It is an interview with William Patrick who "From 1951 to 1969, (he) developed germ agents for warfare" at Ft. Detrick.

Broad (the interviewer): Is this hard or easy for anybody to do (weaponizing things like anthrax)? What does it take to develop the agent and get to the point that you can disseminate it?

Patrick: Well that's a difficult question for me because it is second nature to me. But it is a little bit more difficult for a Tom, Dick, and Harry type of terrorist. Now what concerns me are graduate students and professors in microbiology and chemical engineering who have a better appreciation of the finer points of detail. If they were to get disgruntled, I think they could, with a little trial and error, come up with a reasonably acceptable BW agent. But, they are going to have problems with its dissemination.

***

Patrick (a few paragraphs later during his explanation of making large quanitities): Then you've got to have industrial equipment like centrifuges and ion exchange resins to purify and concentrate the organism from its growth substrate. And then, finally, you've got to be able to stabilize the organism and freeze dry it, or dry it by some other means like spraying it -- the Iraqis concentrated primarily on spray drying.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bioterror/biow_patrick.html

So, if Ivins was doing this all at night at Ft. Detrick labs, was he able to start and stop the processes so they wouldn't be detected by his co-workers during regular working hours?

[defendandprotect]

31. Ivins wasn't considered capable of making weaponized anthrax . . .

and this was a more highly sophisticated form of anthrax because of its "airborne" qualities.

[Mabus]

44. It wasn't weaponized

See sfexpat2000's find below at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3775001&mesg_id=3790559

[EFerrari]

64. Meryl Nass posted this Science article today:

The Anthrax Case: From Spores to a Suspect

By Martin Enserink
ScienceNOW Daily News
12 August 2008
The scientific evidence against Bruce Ivins, the 62-year-old Army scientist who killed himself while about to be indicted for the anthrax murders, is finally emerging. Last week, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) laid some of its cards on the table. One key document, scientists say, now enables a reconstruction of the trail that led the FBI from the deadly letters back to Ivins's lab at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) in Fort Detrick, Maryland.

The investigation relied heavily on outside labs such as The Institute for Genomic Research (TIGR) in Rockville, Maryland, which sequenced a large number of anthrax samples; it also required the development of new genetic tests. Although none of the steps was revolutionary or particularly inventive, researchers say, combining them to solve a criminal case was. Surprisingly, many past speculations on the forensic science were wrong on one point: Sophisticated fingerprinting techniques for Bacillus anthracis developed at Northern Arizona University (NAU) in Flagstaff, widely rumored to be crucial, didn't play a significant role.

Scientists say they need many more details to decide the merits of the case against Ivins. But despite the bureau's widely ridiculed mistakes--including an early focus on Ivins's former colleague Steven Hatfill--"the scientific evidence is probably really strong," says Steven Salzberg, a former TIGR researcher now at the University of Maryland (UMD), College Park. "They've got some very good people," Salzberg says. "The impression that they're not good may just come from their style. They never tell you anything."

The main document unsealed last week is an October 2007 affidavit by Thomas Dellafera, a postal inspector. Filed in support of a warrant to search Ivins's home, cars, and a safety box, the 25 pages of text didn't spell out the details of the evidence. But a close reading of the four paragraphs about the FBI's genetic analysis helps clarify how the bureau approached the problem, says microbiologist Jeffrey Miller of the University of California, Los Angeles.

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/812/1

[suffragette]

34. I've seen scientists making the exact point you make

at the bottom of your post. It's an important one.
Can't recall exactly where I saw this since I've looked at so much material on this. <lol

[Mabus]

35. Me too.

You should've seen the look on my husband's face last night when he realized I was reading search warrants from the Ivins case. I printed some of it out so I could read while I was making dinner. He came in to help me and just rolled his eyes and backed out slowly. He did yell from the other room that he would help out if I needed otherwise he was sure he'd hear about it later. :blush:

It just hit me. I know I can't start making a cake then stop, put in the fridge (or leave it out all day) and then expect that I could pull it out without the temperature and/or temporal periods of dormancy having an effect on the ingredients. At the very least, I don't think I could just take it out and start up where I left off. Going back to my cake example, let's say I made it with a softened (room temp) butter. After a few hours in the fridge, that softened butter in the cake has hardened up again.

I'm assuming that if he was using equipment around the lab for a few days to keep the processes he was using static or to cook it during the day, that someone would notice.

[suffragette]

36. We are thinking alike

When I started thinking more about explaining the differentiation between the strains, the batches and the contaminant, I started thinking about cooking as well. That if I had snap peas in my garden (one strain) and , say, added some from your garden (a different strain) then made one into one kind of salad (batch) and the rest into another with the addition of lemon thyme, that would clarify the whole strain/ batch thing more.
<lol>
I think the cake analogy is a good one and pertinent.

[Mabus]

37. You know I see stuff like this posted

Can't find WMD in Iraq? Plant it?-by Larisa Alexandrovna and paragraphs like this and I begin to question the type of research they are doing at Ft. Detrick. I can also put on my :tinfoilhat: and wonder if there was another reason why Ivins and the others got their medals in 2003 right before we went into Iraq.

The source said intelligence officers understood quickly what they were being asked to do and that the assumption was they were being asked to provide WMD in order for coalition forces to find them.

“But the guys were thinking this is absurd because anything put down would not pass the smell test and could be shown to be not of Iraqi origin and not using Iraqi methodology,” the source added.

***

“Can we prepare something for that? We could bring in some nuclear material from the former Soviet Union, and pretend they are Iraqi.”

Mohammed, stunned by the unexpected nature of the request, indicated that such a ploy could be easily uncovered by forensic examination of the evidence by outside experts, such as UNSCOM (the United Nations Special Commission) or the IAEA, who would undoubtedly be called in to verify such a finding. Dave sat in silence for a few moments, before springing to his feet. “I have to leave for a meeting,” he said. “Stacey will show you out.”

http://www.atlargely.com/2008/08/cant-find-wmd-i.html

[EFerrari]

39. I found the paper that lays out the case anthrax was not weaponized

and could have been made by a "loner". Published 5/2006 (FBI scientist, btw):

Forensic Application of Microbiological Culture Analysis To Identify Mail Intentionally Contaminated with Bacillus anthracis Spores{dagger}
Douglas J. Beecher*

FBI Laboratory, Hazardous Materials Response Unit, 2501 Investigation Parkway, Quantico, Virginia 22135

Received 20 April 2006/ Accepted 22 May 2006

ABSTRACT


The discovery of a letter intentionally filled with dried Bacillus anthracis spores in the office of a United States senator prompted the collection and quarantine of all mail in congressional buildings. This mail was subsequently searched for additional intentionally contaminated letters. A microbiological sampling strategy was used to locate heavy contamination within the 642 separate plastic bags containing the mail. Swab sampling identified 20 bags for manual and visual examination. Air sampling within the 20 bags indicated that one bag was orders of magnitude more contaminated than all the others. This bag contained a letter addressed to Senator Patrick Leahy that had been loaded with dried B. anthracis spores. Microbiological sampling of compartmentalized batches of mail proved to be efficient and relatively safe. Efficiency was increased by inoculating culture media in the hot zone rather than transferring swab samples to a laboratory for inoculation. All mail sampling was complete within 4 days with minimal contamination of the sampling environment or personnel. However, physically handling the intentionally contaminated letter proved to be exceptionally hazardous, as did sorting of cross-contaminated mail, which resulted in generation of hazardous aerosol and extensive contamination of protective clothing. Nearly 8 x 106 CFU was removed from the most highly cross-contaminated piece of mail found. Tracking data indicated that this and other heavily contaminated envelopes had been processed through the same mail sorting equipment as, and within 1 s of, two intentionally contaminated letters.

http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/full/72/8/5304

[suffragette]

40. single strain/strain mixture weaponized/not weaponized

in Princeton/in Frederick

Ivins is cunning/ Ivins is sloppy

Pretty clear case they've laid out, isn't it? Every reason to declare it solved and closed.
:crazy:

[EFerrari]

41. I don't know if Ivins is guilty but I do know FBI needs to be shut down.

before they "fight crime" again.

[suffragette]

62. You know I agree with that

[Mabus]

42. The two paragraphs that jumped out when I read it.

Individuals familiar with the compositions of the powders in the letters have indicated that they were comprised simply of spores purified to different extents (6). However, a widely circulated misconception is that the spores were produced using additives and sophisticated engineering supposedly akin to military weapon production. This idea is usually the basis for implying that the powders were inordinately dangerous compared to spores alone (3, 6, 12; J. Kelly, Washington Times, 21 October 2003; G. Gugliotta and G. Matsumoto, The Washington Post, 28 October 2002). The persistent credence given to this impression fosters erroneous preconceptions, which may misguide research and preparedness efforts and generally detract from the magnitude of hazards posed by simple spore preparations.

And, couldn't "(T)he persistent credence given to this impression fosters erroneous preconceptions, which may misguide..." a certain investigation of Ivins?

Another paragraph of interest brings up the question, were there two batches made?

While size analysis of freshly prepared powders may bear signatures of the production process and predict some of their performance characteristics, size determinations for material recovered after it has been deployed must be viewed with circumspection. Particle size distributions are dynamic (13), changing as a powder experiences different conditions upon handling, such as compaction, friction, and humidity, among other factors. The size distribution of a recovered powder represents its state after an unknown period of aging and an unknowable set of conditions experienced during handling. It may not resemble the initial product."

In other words, there are a number of factors that could contribute to two letters being more powdery than the others. It doesn't mean, conclusively, that there were two separate batches prepared at two separate times.

While we don't know the letters were handled on the specific dates we can look up the weather. I searched "Princeton, NJ" at maps.google.com and found that the nearest airport whose weather I could find was the Newark International Airport. Granted, according to google, NIA is approximately 50 miles away. From the weather records I could find, the humidity was higher in Sept than in October.

Weather recorded at the nearest airport (Newark International Airport) on Sept. 17 was 60% humidity (http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/Newark_Newark_International_Airport/17-09-2001/725020.htm) and 60% on Sept. 18 (http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/Trenton_Mercer_County_Airport/18-09-2001/724095.htm).

On Oct. 8 and 9th the humidity was more than 15% lower. On Oct. 8 the humidity was 41% (http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/Newark_Newark_International_Airport/08-10-2001/725020.htm). On Oct. 9 the humidity was 45% (http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/Newark_Newark_International_Airport/09-10-2001/725020.htm)

[defendandprotect]

51. Supposedly some of the letters got "wet" ---

All the letters probably contained the same material. The clumping of the anthrax in the two letters mailed on Sept 18 (to NBC and the NY Post) probably resulted from the letters getting wet in the course of mail processing or delivery, according to Army scientists. This conclusion is strengthened by the similarity of the Florida anthrax (the first to be observed, probably also mailed on Sept 18) to that in the Daschle letter, mailed Oct 9.

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/compilationofanthraxevidence.html



AND, of course, this "airborne" anthrax was highly dangerous in that it was able to travel
from Sen. Daschle's office to the offices of Feingold, who was behind him and around the
corner!


The Leahy letter was misdirected and might have otherwise also done harm to a number of
people in his offices ---

[mhatrw]

43. Note the lack of supporting footnotes in this paper.

There was also a later letter to this same journal noting the problems with this paper.

http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/full/73/15/5074

[EFerrari]

45. Beecher looks like a fixer. I'm wondering what was happening / decided

Summer of 2006. :shrug:

[Mabus]

50. D'oh

Doncha know they were issuing reports that would fit the skills of Hatfill. Just keep repeating to yourself that at that time they had to make sure the evidence they were compiling against Hatfill would be airtight.

(from a website outlining the case against Hatfill) In the fifth place, Dr. Hatfill's former co-workers alerted the FBI in August, 2000, after he "was seen taking home a large piece of lab equipment that can be used to handle dangerous materials." (National Post, July 5, 2002, p. A12)
(source: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MOO208A.html)

Hatfill didn't have the expertise with anthrax that Ivins did. Therefore, the earlier reports had to downplay the sophistication of it and make it fit the evidence (like the quotation above) fit Hatfill.

[mhatrw]

54. Wrong. Hatfill had MORE experience than Ivins in anthrax weaponization.

Ivins has zero experience in making anthrax lethal.

But yes, they were trying to hide the fact that they couldn't figure out how to reverse engineer highly lethal anthrax using any sort of homemade lab Hatfill could have conceivably created.

[defendandprotect]

56. Coming back to Hatfill for a moment . . . .

I keep wondering about what strength or knowledge he had that kept him going ---

'cause I kind of remember that they were sure ransaking his life, home and belongs!

And very threatening to him ---

What was the secret to his succeeding -- a great lawyer, inner strength --

or what???

[mhatrw]

57. He had friends in high places in the US bioweapons program.

While he may have been innocent of the anthrax mailings (the FBI certainly had no case against him), he is anything but an innocent man when it comes to biowarfare.

[defendandprotect]

46. This is nonsense . . . .

bottom line being that neither would Ivins know how to "float" the anthrax . . .

Indeed, one of the 4-5 scientists in US who do know how to weaponize anthrax said that

the stuff in the Daschle letter was so "highly sophisticated" that he wasn't sure that

he would be able to duplicate it -- even if given a year, a lab and a staff.

[EFerrari]

47. The point is that in Summer 2006, the FBI changed its story

about the nature of the mailed anthrax and it sent this science guy out into the public to make the case. Or, that's the point I'm taking, anyway. :)

[Mabus]

52. Speaking of changed stories

Or at least stories that omit evidence. I ran across this story from September 14, 2003 that contained a piece of evidence that the FBI had that I wasn't aware of. What do you think?

Some of the letters, however, were creased in a special manner used by pharmacists to ship medications, with the corners folded inward. All had been photocopied by the sender, obscuring some details and sending agents on a mad scramble to identify and locate the signature patterns of specific copiers. Agents, sometimes disguised as Xerox repairmen, looked at thousands of copiers and finally isolated one that could produce the unique smears seen on the letters, but haven't disclosed its location. They microscopically examined the paper, even the strips of Scotch tape used to reinforce the seal on the backs of all the letters. All of the tape appeared to come from a single roll, according to a source familiar with the study.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A49717-2003Sep9?language=printer

Do you recall anything about Ivins being tied to a copy machine? You'd think if they found the copier at Ft. Detrick that they'd mention it as a piece of evidence in the search warrant affidavits as a compelling reason why Ivins was a suspect. If they located the copier elsewhere, then was that a place that Ivins would have/could have used? Was it in a location where someone had access to the type of anthrax that was used?

I dunno. It just seems that if you have isolated one copier that could produce the "unique smears" on the letters, then it is something you'd want to tie your suspect to and include, because it is pretty strong circumstantial evidence, in any search warrant. But that's just me. :shrug:

[EFerrari]

53. On the contrary, what I remember is when FBI switched their focus

to Ivins, all of a sudden, they had no evidence from tape and etc. I assume they didn't bring the bloodhounds to sniff the Ivins house, either, as they did to Hatfill but that's only an assumption on my part.

[Mabus]

55. They also took dogs to Hatfill's mentor's house (Bill Patrick)

partly because he kept getting fingered by others.

This whole thing is just incredible.

[mhatrw]

58. Read this for some background.

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/Bioter/messageanthrax.html

[Mabus]

59. I think I was the first one to post that link

a couple of days ago, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3775001&mesg_id=3778591

[mhatrw]

60. So that's where I saw it!

Sorry!

[Mabus]

67. LOL

No need to apologize. Stuff has been flying around fast and furiously and it is easy to lose track. It is reassuring to know that there are others who actually click through to links and read the stuff.

[Mabus]

68. I thought they focused on Ivins

because he was showing the most stress from the investigation.

I don't recall reading anything about using the dogs in the Ivins investigation. Perhaps they were worried that the dogs would try to finger Hatfill again. :crazy:

[suffragette]

61. You'd think at this point they would disclose the location of the copier

if it implicated Ivins.

Of course, if it doesn't .....

Great find.

When I went to search on this more, I found some articles from the "Daily Princetonian" that noted the FBI Had been examining machines there, but didn't note the result:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en-us&q=+site:www.dailyprincetonian.com+fbi++finds+copier++anthrax+letter

I also found an article at The American Prospect from 2002 that says this:
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_enemy_within

Identifying the lab from which the anthrax in the letters originated will supply one major piece of the puzzle. But investigators point out that this information is far from sufficient. Indeed, the classic criminal investigator's questions -- who had not just the weapon, but the motive and the opportunity? -- will most likely be addressed by thoe gumshoe special agents out in the field questioning people, gathering testimony, and testing hypotheses. Already investigators have identified the Xerox machine used to photocopy the letters sent to Democratic senators, NBC, and the New York Post last fall, a source close to the investigation said. The machine is "publicly accessible" and is in New Jersey, but in what town or what facility was not disclosed.

Don't know where that author sourced that from.

[Mabus]

65. and if they had identified the copier, why did they search Ivins' house for one

In the search warrant affidavits (see http://www.usdoj.gov/amerithrax/08-430SWAffidavit07524.pdf p. 20) among the items they were looking for were a "photocopy device" and "photocopy exemplars".

I mean if the letters were copied in New Jersey (and they know where the machine was located) and mailed from New Jersey (we know the letters were mailed from Princeton at 10 Nassau) where does Ivins fit in and when did he have the opportunity to use the copier? If Ivins did mail the letters, was the copier en route from Ft. Detrick to Princeton or would he have needed to make a side trip? If the copier is in a public location were there survelliance tapes? Publicly accessible could be anything from a copier in a library or a grocery store.

And you are so right. If it implicated Ivins, they would be talking about it. But that's just it, isn't it? They aren't talking about the copier because they can't link it to Ivins. They aren't talking about the handwriting samples they took because they can't link it to Ivins. And despite searching his house, his cars and spying on him for months they still weren't able to find anything to conclusively pin it on Ivins (or anyone else).

fwiw, I've also run across articles that they were checking out the computers at Rutgers.

[defendandprotect]

48. And anthrax in Daschle letter was "weaponized" . . . Ivins didn't know how to do this . . .

2. WEAPONIZATION

"Weaponization" is used here to mean preparation of the form of anthrax found in the Daschle letter: fine particles, very narrow size range, treated to eliminate static charge so it won't clump and will float in the air. The weaponization process used was extraordinarily effective. The particles have a narrow size range (1.5-3 microns diameter), typical of the US process.

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/compilationofanthraxevidence.html

[defendandprotect]

49. Only 4-5 scientists in US knew how to weaponize anthrax . . and Ivins wasn't one of them ---

ONE of those scientists, however, commented that the Daschle letter anthrax was so highly
"sophisticated" that he wasn't sure that he could reproduce it --- even if he was given a
a lab, a stuff -- and a year!

ALSO keep in mind that someone might have had as much as 2 years to create this sophisticated
anthrax because it was separated from the original generation about 2 years previous to the
attack --

[Mimosa]

20. I don't believe anything the FBI asserts

Very convenient for the FBI's 'case' that Mr. Ivins is DEAD, isn't it.

[defendandprotect]

32. If anyone here comes upon the orginal articles from 8/1 . . .

please repost it ---

especially if it mentions how Ivins was found ---

it seems the original articles mentioned that this was NOT the first time these

responders had been called --- maybe twice before?

Unfortunately, when I noticed that I didn't pick up the link ---

It's somewhere in all of DU stuff on this Ivins story ---

[suffragette]

63. Are you referring to Ivins having been found unconscious in March?

emptywheel has that info in her excellent timeline with a link to a WaPo article from 8/5/08

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/timeline-collection/anthrax-investigation-timeline/
March 19, 2008: Ivins found unconscious in his home


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/05/AR2008080503747_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008080503796&pos=
According to the scientist, who said he spent about 80 hours with Ivins to help him recover from his addiction, the FBI agents pressured Ivins's children, and they were pressuring Ivins in public places. One day in March, when Ivins was at a Frederick mall with his wife and son, the agents confronted the researcher and said, "You killed a bunch of people." Then they turned to his wife and said, "Do you know he killed people?" according to the scientist.
The same week, Ivins angrily told a former colleague that he suspected his therapist was cooperating with the FBI. On March 19, police were called to Ivins's home and found him unconscious. He was evaluated at Frederick Memorial Hospital.



Until your post prompted me to look this up, I hadn't connected how this occurred in the same month in which FBI harassed Ivins and his family in the mall. Who knows, maybe even within days of that.


I put Ivins Aug 1, 2008 into google and found many of the articles from then and also found this which I hadn't focused on before:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-anthrax1-2008aug01,0,2864223.story?page=2

The scientist faced forced retirement, planned for September, said his longtime colleague, who described Ivins as emotionally fractured by the federal scrutiny.

"He didn't have any more money to spend on legal fees. He was much more emotionally labile, in terms of sensitivity to things, than most scientists. . . . He was very thin-skinned."



Forced retirement? And his savings gone from spending it all on legal fees. And he and his family being publicly and privately harassed by the FBI. He was really being hammered on all sides. Thin skinned? You'd have to have skin made out of titanium to endure what he was put through.

[robertpaulsen]

33. Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours

Damn! Missed it by that much!

Looks like I've got a lot of catching up to do on this case. Thanks to Glenn Greenwald and everyone here for staying on top of this!