Available from BarnesAndNoble.com
Click here.

Also available from Amazon.com
Click here.

Analyzing the Anthrax Attacks
(2009-2010 Edition)

Commentary
& Analysis
by
Ed Lake

IF YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR SEE ANY ERRORS ON THIS SITE, PLEASE CONTACT ME AT:
detect@newsguy.com



Available from BarnesAndNoble.com
Click here.

Also available from Amazon.com
Click here.  


My original analysis and working hypothesis,
and everything from prior to January 1, 2005, 

can still be accessed by clicking HERE.
All the information gathered and analyzed from
January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2008,
can still be accessed by clicking HERE.

 
CONTENTS

(click on the Section to go to it)

Overview
Thoughts and Comments
  Latest references (top)
Latest references (end)

KEY SUPPLEMENTAL PAGES
(click on the name to link to the page)
The Bruce Ivins Timeline
The Errors That Snared Dr. Bruce Ivins
Dr. Ivins Takes The Fifth
Bruce Ivins' Consciousness of Guilt
The Coded Message in the Media Letters (the "smoking gun")
Dr. Ivins' "Non-Denial Denials"
The Facts Say: A Child Wrote The Anthrax Letters

The Attack Anthrax Pictures
The annotated version of the Aug. 18, 2008, roundtable discussion
Van Der Waals Forces & Static Electricity: How they affect bacillus spores
The Steven Hatfill Timeline/The Attempted Lynching of Steven Hatfill
The Campaign to Point the Finger at Dr. Hatfill
Dr. Hatfill & The "Clueless" Media
The Media & Iowa State University
Anthrax, Assaad, Terror and the Timeline
Other Theories About the Anthrax Case
Reviews of my book
My comments about other anthrax-related books

Overview

This web site was started on November 22, 2001 to keep track of facts related to the anthrax attacks which had become a major news event during the previous month.  I found that most people only wanted to discuss beliefs, opinions and conspiracy theories.  I wanted to see what the facts said.  Plus, news stories were appearing and then being deleted, and I needed a place to retain the articles which contained new information.  So, for the next seven years I accumulated facts and references and analyzed all the data I could find.  In March of 2005, I even self-published a book describing what the first three years of my analysis had found. 

On August 1, 2008, the news broke that the person the FBI believed to be the anthrax mailer had committed suicide.  His name was Dr. Bruce Ivins, and he worked at the USAMRIID labs at Ft. Detrick, MD.

The conspiracy theorists and True Believers who had argued their beliefs and opinions for the prior seven years were not persuaded by the FBI's evidence.  They continue to argue their beliefs and opinions, claiming that the FBI cannot prove Dr. Ivins was guilty.  After all, if the FBI was right, that would mean they have been wrong for seven years.  And that couldn't be, even though they don't even agree with each other about key facts:

Some still believe al Qaeda was behind the attacks.
Some still believe Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks
Some still believe a vast Jewish conspiracy was behind the attacks.
Some still believe the Bush administration was behind the attacks.
Some still believe the CIA was behind the attacks.
Some still believe pharmaceutical companies were behind the attacks.
Some still believe a writer was behind the attacks in order to sell books.
Some still believe Dr. Steven Hatfill was behind the attacks.
Some still believe a different scientist was behind the attacks.
Some still believe that a military person was behind the attacks.
Some still believe their next door neighbor was behind the attacks.

Some still believe the attack spores were "weaponized" with silica or silicon and that anyone who says otherwise is either lying or incompetent.  They still believe there must be some vast criminal conspiracy to cover up the real facts, because they simply do not believe anything the government - and particularly the FBI - says.

Some still believe that Dr. Ivins did not have the ability to make the attack anthrax. 

And, perhaps most bizarre of all, some still believe that there is some similarity between the "investigation" of Dr. Steven Hatfill (who was eventually exonerated) and the investigation of Dr. Bruce Ivins.  The facts show that the two cases could not be more different.  Dr. Hatfill was the victim of an attempted lynching by conspiracy theorists, people in the media and some politicians.  They worked together for six months to get Dr. Hatfill arrested for a crime he didn't do.  The FBI's Hatfill "investigation" was purely political and based upon "tips" from those same conspiracy theorist scientists who claimed the FBI was "covering up" for Dr. Hatfill when the FBI's investigation found nothing to tie him to the mailings.  The Ivins investigation, on the other hand, was the result of years of detailed scientific analysis and an equally detailed criminal investigation.

The Case Against Dr. Ivins

The facts say that Dr. Ivins was the anthrax mailer:

1.  He was in charge of the RMR-1029 flask containing the "mother" spores which produced the attack anthrax "daughter" spores.  He was in charge of "the murder weapon."

1.1  He tried to destroy "smoking gun" evidence that he had encoded a hidden message inside the media letters, but the evidence was recovered and clearly points to Dr. Ivins as the anthrax mailer.

2.  The FBI investigated everyone else who had access to the RMR-1029 flask and eliminated all of them as suspects.  Eliminating potential suspects is routine police procedure.

3.  He had worked with Bacillus anthracis for over 20 years and had all the necessary expertise and equipment to prepare the spores in the anthrax letters.  He could routinely make a trillion spores a week.

4.  He accessed the locked room (lab B3) where the RMR-1029 flask of spores was stored at the times the attack anthrax would have been prepared.

5.  He worked alone and unsupervised in his lab for long hours at night and on weekends during the time the attack anthrax would have been prepared.

6.  He had no scientific reason or verifiable explanation for working those hours or at those times.

7.  In December of 2001, Dr. Ivins secretly swabbed and bleached more than 20 areas in his lab, destroying possible evidence.   In April of 2002, he did it again.  Both cleanings were unauthorized and against protocol.  His explanations for doing it were contradictory to his actions.

8.  Investigators examined another flask of Ames anthrax spores created by Dr. Ivins for his own use in his work and found that a percentage of the spores in flask RMR-1030 contained silicon just like what was in the attack spores.

9.  It was not commonplace for him to work long evening hours in lab B3 before the anthrax attacks or in the months after the anthrax attacks.  His long hours in B3 at that time broke his normal work pattern.


10.  He had multiple motives for sending the anthrax letters.

11.  He tried various ways to mislead investigators when they started to suspect him.

12.  He had no verifiable alibi for the times when he could have driven to New Jersey to mail the letters.

13.  He was known to drive long distances and to use various methods to mail letters and packages so they could not be traced back to him.

14.  He had various connections to the New Jersey area where the anthrax letters were mailed.

15.  He had serious mental problems, which appear to include murderous impulses.

16.  The pre-stamped envelopes which were used in the attacks had print defects, and one of the post offices which sold those envelopes was a post office which Dr. Ivins used.

17.  His wife ran a day care center at the time of the attacks, Ivins had many contacts with children, and the facts indicate that a child of about 6 was used to do the actual writing on the anthrax letters.

18.  Investigations found no evidence that someone other than Dr. Ivins sent the letters.

19.  There is no evidence that Dr. Ivins could not possibly have sent the anthrax letters.

20.  People commit suicide to escape justice.  People who are unfairly accused sue their tormenters.

Although the case was officially closed on February 19, 2010, there may still be some additional facts pointing to Dr. Ivins' guilt which have not yet been disclosed by the FBI, specifically information related to his sessions with his psychiatrist or psychologist.  That information is still "under seal" by court order.

Meanwhile, those who cannot accept the FBI's findings continue to use every tactic they can to cast doubt upon the FBI's findings.  They have no proof of Dr. Ivins' innocence, so all they can do is try to make it appear that if there is any doubt - reasonable or not - about Dr. Ivins' guilt, then he must be innocent.

Conspiracy Theorists and True Believers 

Because they often support each other in opposing the FBI's official findings, it is sometimes difficult to tell a Conspiracy Theorist from a True Believer.  But, there is really are very distinct differences:

Conspiracy theorists often do not know or care who sent the anthrax letters, they only know that "the government" cannot be trusted, "the government" is lying about something, and they want to expose it.

True Believers feel they know beyond any doubt who sent the anthrax letters, and anyone who does not believe as they believe - including the FBI - is just not looking at the right facts.

Both will do anything and everything they can to get the undecided and uncertain to join with their cause.  And there are differences in their tactics as the go about their recruiting: 

The #1 tactic used by conspiracy theorists is junk science.  They wildly misinterpret facts about the case, they claim their bizarre misinterpretations prove something, and they demand that those misinterpretations and baseless claims be either accepted or disproven.
 
The #1 tactic used by True Believers is to accuse the non-believer of being "closed minded" and to wear down the non-believer as he tries to prove he is not "closed minded."

There's really no point to arguing with a True Believer.  Back in 1951, Eric Hoffer published his landmark book "The True Believer" in which he stated that the only way to change a True Believer's mind is to convert him to a different belief.  So, unless you are prepared to do that, it's best to just avoid them.  They will bury you in irrelevant facts if you don't avoid them, they'll claim that if you do not read everything they read and interpret everything the way they interpret them, then you are ill-informed and your opinion is worthless.

Conspiracy theorists, however, appear ready to debate some of the relevant facts of the case.  They just move on to different facts if they are proven wrong about their first set of facts.  Example:

The initial theory about the anthrax being "weaponized" was that the attack spores were coated with bentonite and the government was covering up that fact.  That theory was quickly shown to be false.  When the next theory that the attack spores were coated with fumed silica was also disproved, they moved on to a new theory that the attack spores had tiny particles of silica glued to them to defeat van der Waals forces.  When that was shown to be nonsense, they moved on to a theory that the spores were treated with a waterproofing substance that would coat the spore coat without leaving any trace on the exosporium. 

The conspiracy theorists and True Believers seem to have a few followers in Congress.  Perhaps there will also be some Congressional hearings.  I hope so.  Congressional hearings seem to be the only way to clarify certain details about others who were caught up in the investigation. 

Thoughts and Comments
by Ed Lake

Updates & Changes: Sunday, August 29, 2010, thru Saturday, September 4, 2010

August 29, 2010 - The plan has been that, as soon as the move to my new apartment was completed, I was going to start seriously thinking about writing a new book about the anthrax attacks of 2001.  And, I have been thinking about it.   I'm thinking about it as I write these words.  I've been thinking about it for a long time.

Back on March 10, I started assembling an outline for the new book.   But, that was before I began going through the 2,720 pages of supplementary documents from the Amerithrax investigation.  It was also before I started putting together the Bruce Ivins Timeline.  It was also a few days before I put together a supplemental page called "The Errors That Snared Dr. Bruce Ivins."  A few days after that, I discovered that Bruce Ivins had "taken the fifth" when asked about a person's name.  Weeks later, I created my supplemental page about "Bruce Ivins' Consciousness of Guilt." 

But, more importantly, I had created the outline 2 months before I created the Hatfill Timeline supplemental page which suddenly caused me to fully realize that Barbara Hatch Rosenberg had, in effect, organized a lynch mob to go after Dr. Hatfill and accuse him of a crime he didn't commit.  And, the FBI was trying to stop the lynch mob.  But, today, the FBI is almost universally accused of being responsible for trying to lynch Dr. Hatfill, and the actual, undeniable, thoroughly documented facts are totally ignored!

And it wasn't until just two weeks ago that I put together the information about The Media & Iowa State University and discovered that the ISU brouhaha was simply a media feeding frenzy that was evidently started over a silly mistake, and it had absolutely nothing to do with the FBI's investigation.

When I look at the March 10 outline now, it only shows me how much I've learned in the past five and a half months.  In metaphorical terms, on March 10, I was planning to build a house from a pile of bricks with no mortar for holding the bricks together.  During the past 5½ months I believe I found the mortar.

Now, I've got the mortar and the bricks, but what I need is an architectural design -- i.e., a new outline.  How do I put all these "bricks" together to make a solid, sturdy, comfortable house in which to live.  I.e., how do I put all these pieces of information together in a way that is easy to understand and enjoyable to read?

The biggest problem is that a lot of things were happening all at once.  In the fall of 2001, for example, the FBI was just starting its investigation, which necessarily included pursuing a lot of false leads.  But one of the leads found in the very first days of the investigation would eventually lead directly to the anthrax killer.  Meanwhile, the media was going off in all directions, using sources instead of facts, reporting beliefs as facts and confusing everyone.  And, while that was happening, Dr. Ivins was learning that he'd made key mistakes, and he was trying to correct or negate those mistakes, while at the same time he was attempting to mislead the investigation.

I can't do as they do in the movies.  I can't cut from a scene where a scientist assisting the FBI is examinng the DNA of the bacteria that killed Bob Stevens along side a catalog of Ames strain information, to a scene where a reporter is listening to a source tell him something which he then misinterprets as he writes down his notes, to a scene where Bruce Ivins is frantically looking through newspapers for information about how many people were dying from the anthrax he'd put in the letters believing that no one would be seriously harmed.  I don't have those kinds of details, and it is extremely unlikely that any two key events happened at the same instant as is so easily and often depicted in the movies.  Plus, I'm writing words, so I can't take advantage of the fact that "a picture is worth a thousand words."

So, I've got to organize the information in a totally different way.

And I need to decide how much I'll write about my own methods.  The book has to be about what happened before and after the anthrax attacks of 2001.  It can't be a book about how I gathered information and tried to figure things out. 

I'm somewhat surprised that there haven't already been a bunch of new books published about the anthrax attacks, written by people who were directly or indirectly involved.  I know of one that is being written by someone only peripherally involved.  There was also talk of a reporter writing a book about Dr. Hatfill, but I wouldn't be a bit surprised if that didn't turn out to be a very bad idea by a reporter who seemed to rely too much on what his sources told him and not enough on solid, confirmed facts.

That may be the problem.  It was easier to write a book about the anthrax attacks when anyone's theory could be valid and there were very few solid facts which needed to be understood and explained.  It's a lot more difficult to write a book using a collection of facts when there may be solid facts which say that your personal collection of facts is blatantly misleading and missing important, critical details.

Mark Twain once said, "It ain't what you know that gets you into trouble.  It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld probably said it best, almost poetically:

As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.

There's a point where a writer/analyst has to stop worrying that there might be
things he doesn't know that he doesn't know (unknown unknowns), and he has to start writing about and evaluating things he knows for certain (known knowns) and things he knows he doesn't know (known unknowns).

That point passed when I started this comment this morning.


Updates & Changes: Sunday, August 22, 2010, thru Saturday, August 28, 2010

August 27, 2010 - Just in case someone cares, yesterday I finished moving out of my old apartment.  I've still got a lot of unpacking and rearranging to do in my new apartment, but it shouldn't take as much of my time as the actual move.   So, I can once again go back to focusing on anthrax related matters for at least a few hours per day.

August 24, 2010 (B) - Hmm.  There were 67 responses to Professor Fish's opinion piece when I started writing my (A) comment this morning, and there were 74 when I finished about an hour later.  Now, about six hours later, there are 241 comments.  And they've stopped accepting comments, possibly because they appear to be endless and repetitious, but more likely because some supervising editor decided 241 was enough and he/she had to head home. 

There are a few comments about the anthrax case: #68 is a lengthy comment by Ike Solem (a regular on some forums I watch), and he
provides a whole array of mistaken beliefs that he claims dispute the government's position; #77 mentions the "weaponized anthrax; " #112 says "the ultra pure anthrax was weapons grade;" and #115 is Ike Solem again, cutting and pasting the same comment he made earlier in the day,  just in case some ignorant weakling who is being duped by the government wasn't persuaded by the first posting of his list of arguments. 

August 24, 2010 (A) - Someone who read my comment on Sunday just advised me of a New York Times opinion piece titled "Truth and Conspiracy in the Catskills."  It's by Professor Stanley Fish, and it's about "The Truth Gathering" meeting that took place in Livingston Manor, NY, on August 14 and 15.  "The Truth," in this context, of course, is the claim that "the government" was behind 9/11 and we are all being manipulated like puppets by the "ruling class" a.k.a. "elites."  Barry Kissin was there to present his views about the anthrax attacks, of course.  Fish describes Kissin as the "
resident rabble-rouser who harangued the audience with the sins of elites who deliberately killed 3,000 of their own citizens and bullied 'beleaguered countries' like North Korea and Iran."

While I generally agree with Professor Fish's comments in the article, until I see some solid data I disagree with his belief that the "Truthers" are "left-wing conspiracy theorists."  That doesn't fit the facts as I've gathered them.  Prof. Fish seems to be doing the same thing the "Truthers" are doing: he's making a judgment without first examining all the data.  
Here are several of the reader comments on this subject:

Comment #8 says,

Truthers come in all shades of radical politics, left and right, and their beliefs are as varied as they are extreme

Comment #35:

"Truthers" are most certainly not "left-wing" in essence

Comment #65:

I'm not sure why Mr. Fish calls the Truthers "left-wing," as anti-government conspiracy theorists tend to be right-wing, which is also supported by the demographic make-up [of the meeting] (95% white, 90% male).

The 74 (as of this moment) comments are probably more interesting than the opinion piece itself.  They seem to show a lot of familiar patterns.  There are numerous serious misunderstandings that seem to be the result of some image seen on 9/11 or some basic misunderstanding of physics.

For example, reader comment #19 talks about a "miniscule hole" in the side of the Pentagon and asks, "
what of the fact that the aircraft left only one single piece -just one, mind you- of wreckage?"  #24 also asks, "why is there such a small amount of damage"?  #46 says, "the lack of bona fide airplane debris in the pentagon site also leaves more questions than answers."

Some of these concerns seem to be matters of perception.  The Pentagon is a BIG building, and the hole made in the side the building by the jet liner was very large.  But the hole is small compared to the size of the building.  All the parts of the aircraft were there, mostly inside the hole.  Only a few pieces of debris were outside.  It seems that in many people's minds, that just isn't right.  There should have more debris outside.  It's a misunderstanding about mass and speed and inertia.  I recall seeing photos of other aircraft accidents, situations where the plane hit the ground going straight down at high speed.  It was hard to believe how small the impact area was and how little debris there was around the hole.  But, though initially "hard to believe," it made perfect sense when the laws of physics were also factored in.

The same with the comments about why the Twin Towers collapsed straight down instead of toppling over like a child's pile of wooden blocks or some brick chimney.  I recall seeing TV images of a building demolition project where the exposives didn't go off as planned and the structure seemed in danger of toppling over.  But, it didn't.  Instead, the remaining beams on the first floor all bent in unison and the building dropped down about ten or twenty feet from its original position, but still upright and still largely intact. 

Besides, there's a straight-forward answer for why the Twin Tower bulidings collapsed they way they did: due to a design decision, there was nothing solid holding up the floors between the outer frame and the elevator columns.  So, when beams melted and a floor fell upon the floor below, and then both of those floors fell on the floor below them, it became an unstoppable cascade effect.  The Twin Towers collapsed from the inside first.

I could probably go on and on, but the point seems to be that a lot of people draw a conclusion from one piece of evidence and never look for additional data.  As I commented on Sunday, as soon as they've drawn a conclusion, from that point on they only believe "evidence" that supports their initial conclusion - even if the "evidence" is just rumor and theory. 

And each and every one of them is ready to fight with any means at their disposal any competitor who attempts to dominate the herd with counter claims. 


August 22, 2010 - Last week, I had what might be called "an epiphany."  A question that has been really bugging me for nine years was suddenly fully answered.  Things that never really quite made sense before, immediately made complete and total sense.  And the explanation was so obvious and straightforward that I had no doubt that it was the right answer.  I just never made the connection before.
  I never viewed things from that particular angle.

As usual, I was arguing with someone who simply could not believe that Bruce Ivins mailed the anthrax letters.  And, as with so many other similar discussions I've had in the past nine years, it was clear to me that no amount of evidence could ever persuade her.
   As far as she is concerned, if there's any possiblity of some other explanation for any item of evidence against Ivins, then it is possible the whole case against Ivins is just a big mess of mistakes.  I don't know who she thinks sent the anthrax letters.  She's never offered any evidence to support a case against an alternative suspect.  Instead, her arguments are totally about flaws that she can imagine in the FBI's case.

I've had countless similar discussions with countless other people over the years, although usually it's clear that most of them have alternative suspects.  Yet, they very rarely argue the evidence.  They never argue how their evidence is better than the FBI's evidence against Dr. Ivins.  They usually only argue that the FBI's case against Bruce Ivins is not sufficient to get a conviction, therefore he must be innocent. 
(The exceptions are True Believers who argue that they have the evidence, but non-believers are closed-minded and unwilling or incapable of seeing it as evidence.)

That kind reasoning never made any sense to me.  A lack of evidence does NOT mean a person is innocent.  It only means that person cannot be proven guilty in a court of law.  Many guilty people go free due to the lack of evidence proving their guilt beyond any reasonable doubt.

Then, last week I happened to read an article in the August 16, 2010 issue of Newsweek titled "The Limits of Reason"    The article is subtitled "Why evolution may favor irrationality."  It says,

Reason is supposed to be the highest achievement of the human mind, and the route to knowledge and wise decisions. But as psychologists have been documenting since the 1960s, humans are really, really bad at reasoning.
...

An idea sweeping through the ranks of philosophers and cognitive scientists suggests why this is so. The reason we succumb to confirmation bias, why we are blind to counterexamples, and why we fall short of Cartesian logic in so many other ways is that these lapses have a purpose: they help us “devise and evaluate arguments that are intended to persuade other people,” says psychologist Hugo Mercier of the University of Pennsylvania. Failures of logic, he and cognitive scientist Dan Sperber of the Institut Jean Nicod in Paris propose, are in fact effective ploys to win arguments.

Of course!  How could I not have realized that before!?  When a person's motivation is to win an argument, it becomes a matter of "survival of the fittest," and the survivor is the person who wins the argument, which is not necessarily the person with the best logic and reasoning.  It's why nerds do not get into arguments with jocks.

The Newsweek article suggests that, to the vast majority of humans, arguing isn't about seeking the truth, it's about overcoming opposing views.  It's a competition.  And humans are very competitive creatures.

We see it all the time - particularly during election time.  Those who can persuade others by ridiculing the opposing side get elected.  Those who can win arguments by appealing to human emotions get elected.  Those who can win arguments by preying upon fears get elected.  Even charisma is better than logic and reasoning when the battle is in the political arena.  Luckily for us, charisma isn't an exclusive attribute of people who are incapable of logic and reasoning.  

No one sees themself as being incapable of logic and reasoning, however.  From a conspiracy theorist's point of view, there is a form of "reasoning" behind their belief in massive conspiracies or a belief that their next door neighbor sent the anthrax letters.  The Newsweek article calls it "motivated reasoning."   If someone starts out with a strong belief or suspicion, they are motivated to look harder for flaws in any argument that doesn't support the conclusion they prefer.

In arguments over the anthrax case, conspiracy theorists prey on fears that the government is some kind of gigantic, evil cabal run by sinister politicians who are only out to control your mind and take away your stuff.  They claim the anthrax attacks were some evil plot to help start an unnecessary war or some kind of crazy plot to test bioweapons on innocent Americans.  And tens of thousands of people may have helped, possibly even your next door neighbor.  The logic may be idiotic, but logic isn't what is important when persuading people, basic emotions are the more important factor.

I've probably said a dozen times on this web site that the primary tactic used by True Believers is persistence.  There's no way to change their minds, so, they'll still be arguing their beliefs long after everyone who opposes them has given up and gone home.  And, they will view that as a victory for their cause.  It may be a "scorched earth" victory.  They didn't persuade anyone.  The others just walked way.  But, in the area of "survival of the fittest," the "fittest" can also be those who are still standing and who are still ready to fight even after everyone else has quit.  They view the others as weaklings who cannot stand up and fight for what they believe -- and, in the "survival of the fittest," weaklings are automatically wrong, regardless of what their weaknesses are.   

Those who prefer logic and reasoning may end up sitting on hill tops and sulking because no one will listen to them.

Or they might start a blog.

Faulty thinking impedes the human search for the truth, but it advances arguments.  

If your goal is to win an argument, truth may be your mortal enemy. 

Updates & Changes: Sunday, August 15, 2010, thru Saturday, August 21, 2010

August 19, 2010 - While pondering a very interesting Newsweek article that's going to require a lot more careful thinking before I can write a comment about it (I expect to be done by Sunday), I stumbled upon a different Newsweek article of more basic interest.  It's also from Newsweek's August 16 issue.  The article is titled "Take this blog and shove it,"and it seems like the author may have been reading this web site.  The article begins with this:

In the history of the web, last spring may figure as a tipping point. That’s when Wikipedia, “the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit”—a site that grew from 100,000 articles in 2003 to more than 15 million today—began to falter as a social movement. Thousands of volunteer editors, the loyal Wikipedians who actually write, fact-check, and update all those articles, logged off—many for good. For the first time, more contributors appeared to be dropping out than joining up. 

Since I recently "tossed in the towel" in my efforts to update the Wikipedia article about the anthrax attacks of 2001, it's certainly something to which I can relate.   Whether or not I've logged off "for good" remains to be seen, but that seems to be the way things are looking.  Here's more from the Newsweek article:

There’s no shortage of theories on why Wikipedia has stalled. One holds that the site is virtually complete. Another suggests that aggressive editors and a tangle of anti-vandalism rules have scared off casual users. But such explanations overlook a far deeper and enduring truth about human nature: most people simply don’t want to work for free.

It wasn't working for free that bothered me.  I have no problem with donating time to the "common good."  After all, I've spent a lot of time (i.e. work) updating the information on this web site, and I certainly don't get paid for doing it.  In fact, it costs me money to do it.   But, there's one big difference between putting research information on this web site and putting research on Wikipedia.  On this web site, no one is going to override what I write and replace it with something that suits their own personal beliefs.  The problem on Wikipedia is the working for free and  having those "aggressive editors" distort the "tangle of anti-vandalism rules" to prevent solid facts from being used on Wikipedia and
having your hard work negated by people who prefer their own beliefs to the facts. 

Why do so many Wikipedia editors prefer their own beliefs, instead of the actual facts about the anthrax attacks of 2001?  That's the subject of the other Newsweek article that I'm still thinking about.

August 15, 2010 - I spent much of the past week moving my library to my new apartment.   As part of the process, I've also been getting rid of old books that I don't need or want anymore.  I'll still have between 1,000 and 1,100 books left after the move. 

I've hauled roughly 30 plastic shopping bags full of books to Goodwill, including nearly all the paperback novels I had acquired years ago when I made it a regular practice to check out every advertised book sale within 20 miles.  At an average of about 12 books per shopping bag, that means I gave away roughly 360 books.  Counting the books I kept, that also means I had to make approximately 1,400 decisions

Deciding which books to keep was usually easy.  If it was a general reference book, or if it had to do with science, psychology, writing, criminology, forensics, anthrax, the Civil War, WWII, general history or the military, I kept it.  Even deciding what to throw away was occasionally easy: Will I ever get around to reading Norman Mailer's autobiography?  Probably not.  A biography of Gary Cooper?  No.  George Lucas's autobiography?  No.  So, into a bag for Goodwill they went.  Same with biographies of President Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt and George C. Marshall.  Some decisions were less easy: Will I ever find a need for all those books about the Watergate investigation I bought and read in the late 1970s?  I once found it extremely interesting how each person involved saw the situation from a very different point of view: Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Dean, Magruder.  But, now I can't see that I'll ever need to do any more research about that subject.  There are just too many more recent events of far more interest to me.  And I need the shelf space more than I need those books.  So, into the bags those books went. 

(I just weighed a "typical" bag of books.  Exactly 10 pounds.  That means I've hauled about 300 pounds of books to Goodwill.  I've got two more bags ready to go.  But, that should be the last of them.)      

Also on the subject of books, last week I read an interesting article in the August 8, 2010 issue of Newsweek titled "Who Needs a Publisher?"  It contains this very interesting paragraph:

Until recently, reviewers and booksellers looked down on self-published authors the way Anna Wintour scorns Dress Barn. Now new writers and established authors alike are increasingly taking publishing into their own hands, and the publishing establishment is paying attention. According to a recent Bowker report, the market for “nontraditional books” in the United States grew by more than 750,000 new titles in 2009—a 181 percent increase over 2008. Five of the top 100 bestsellers in the Kindle store—which now produces more sales than Amazon’s hardcover list—are currently self-published.

I don't know why I never looked into turning my book "Analyzing the Anthrax Attacks" into a Kindle book, but I didn't.  That's a mistake I don't expect to make when it comes time to publish my next book on the subject.  In fact, writing those words caused me to spend a few minutes checking out how books are put on Kindle, and I'm now wondering if I shouldn't get the current version onto it.  But, I think it's going to require either some research or some hand-holding by someone who has already done it.  The Q&A pages seem to indicate that it's a very easy process -- almost too easy.   It looks like something I could set up all by myself in about 15 minutes at no cost to me.  But, that can't be right.  I'll try to find some time this week to look into it.  (Another interesting Newsweek article titled "Books vs E-Books" gives additional information about the change in how books are bought and read.)

There were also some other "books" in my closets that required decisions.  I had several early drafts of my anthrax book in 3-ring binders.  The binders went to Goodwill.  The thousands of sheets of computer paper went into a dumpster.  I have plenty copies of the final version that was printed and self-published. 

I once wrote a novel based upon a true story of high-adventure that took place from November 30, 1941 to January 7, 1942.  It involved a flight around the world in a Pan Am flying boat at a time when World War II was raging.  Years ago, an agent was interested, but he couldn't get any publisher interested.  So, I had lots of copies that were returned by the publishers.  They went into the dumpster.  I just saved one copy for myself.  I have other books that I wrote long ago, but which never got any publisher interested.  I'll have to decide what to do with them.  Do I save paper copies, or do I save only the digital copies in my computer?  Decisions, decisions.  The copies of my screenplays were easy decisions.  I saved one paper copy, and the other paper copies went into the dumpster.  (I wonder how my WWII book would sell via Kindle.  I've got to learn more about selling books via Kindle.)  

Meanwhile, on the subject of anthrax, I notice that people are once again changing the Wikipedia article about the anthrax attacks of 2001 to include or emphasize their favorite
subjects. 

On Friday, someone at IP address 216.195.203.66 extracted the information about the Chile anthrax letter from the section about "Other letters reported in the media" and turned it into a section all by itself.  The explanation: "
This was actual anthrax and deserves its own section."  Yes, it was "actual anthrax," but it was just a trace, it was a different strain, and it harmed no one.  Yet, for some reason, several editors feel the Chile anthrax letter is so important that it needs a section all by itself.  It was a section by itself before I combined it into the section about letters that weren't related to the attacks.  Others had even tried to get rid of it altogether.  Now it's back to the way it was in May.  The IP address belongs to something or someone at 1180 Avenue of the Americas in New York City.

Also on Friday, someone  who calls himself JoshNYC added a new section titled "Anthrax archive destroyed," which evidently relates to his favorite conspiracy theory: why the anthrax archive at Iowa State University was destroyed.   The addition uses a November 9, 2001 article from The New York Times as its only source -- just as if nothing new has been learned in the past nine years.  The Times article uses journalistic theories which we now know had nothing to do with reality.  In fact, it now appears the FBI went straight to Ft. Detrick, and it was only the media reporters who were bumbling around in the dark as they misinterpreted data and went on a wild goose chase to Ames, Iowa.  The addition to Wikipedia prompted me to create a new supplemental page to this web site.  It's a "work in progress" about "The Media and Iowa State University."  Currently, it's just my July 25 comment with some added notes.

JoshNYC also added another new section titled "Evidence of 9/11 link to anthrax" which resurrects the old idea that al Qaeda was somehow behind the attacks.  The three sources he uses are actually a single article from the March 23, 2002 issue of the New York Times.  He just links to the same article three times.

JoshNYC also
created a new section he calls "False report of Bentonite."  He used information that was previously part of the section titled "Controversy over coatings and additives," which is now only about silicon and silica theories.  So, that change might have been a good idea.

All the Wikipedia editors I had been arguing with a couple weeks ago went silent the day after I threw in the towel.  There's been no discussion since then.

On Wednesday of this coming week (August 18), my computer gets moved to my new apartment.  That's when the cable guy arrives to set up the new connections.   Busy busy busy.  I'll also be switching my phone from AT&T to my cable company.   Decisions, decisions, decisions.

Updates & Changes: Sunday, August 8, 2010, thru Saturday, August 14, 2010

August 8, 2010 - O
n Thursday, I threw in the towel and stopped trying to edit and improve the Wikipedia article about the anthrax attacks of 2001.  I just don't have the time to participate in all the debating.  I needed to get on with my move to my new apartment, and when I'm done with that, I still plan to try to write a new book about the anthrax attacks.

In one of my final postings to the discussion page, I described what they were doing as "bull in a china shop editing."  The other Wikipedia editors evidently felt they were "improving" the article by smashing (i.e., deleting) important information, and I would have to go in and try to put the pieces back together.  The problem was, while it might take another editor only a second to blindly delete something,  it could take me hours to find the original sources and write new text in order to put things back together -- and, at the same time, I'd have to explain on the discussion page why the deleted information was important, explaining it in a way that wouldn't generate more endless arguments, and explaining it in a way that wouldn't offend the editor who brainlessly made the deletion.

Worst of all, if I tried to rush my own edits, I could easily make mistakes, which I'd then have to spend even more time to correct.  And my mistakes would give the other Wikipedia editors ammunition to justify further deletions and modifications.   It all became an exercise in futility.  It wasn't worth the time and effort.


But, while I'm not going to be debating edits to the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia's discussion pages for awhile, that doesn't mean I won't be checking the article and the discussions from time to time to see if something interesting as been posted.  On Friday, something interesting was posted.  Someone found the "BIO Personal" message that Bruce Ivins forwarded to a former colleague in July of 2000.  The message was mentioned on page 59 of the FBI's Summary Report as one part of the circumstantial evidence case against Dr. Ivins:

In addition, on July 27, 2000, Dr. Ivins forwarded an e-mail to Former Colleague #1 which began “Biopersonals: I have single-stranded too long! Lonely ATGCATG would like to pair up with congenial TACGTAG,” along with a note “this is some cute humor for anyone who has ever had anything to do with biochemistry or molecular biology..”(41)

Footnote 41 says:

(41) This e-mail was notable not because of any particular meaning ascribed to those specific nucleic acids, but rather because it demonstrated Dr. Ivins’s familiarity with DNA, specifically As, Ts, Cs, and Gs.

In a discussion on the Wikipedia talk page, a link was provided to the 'BIO personals" message Dr. Ivins had forwarded and commented upon.  The message is in a "scijokes" section of a biology web site and begins this way:
From: nathan

BIO Personals

I've been single-stranded too long! Lonely ATGCATG would like to pair up
with congenial TACGTAC.

Menage a trois! Ligand seeks two receptors into binding and mutual
phosphorylation. Let's get together and transduce some signals.

Some dates have called me a promotor. Others have referred to me as a real
operator. Personally, I think I'm just a cute piece of DNA who is still
looking for that special transcription factor to help me unwind.

Highly sensitive, orally active small molecule seeks stable well-structured
receptor who knows size isn't everything.

There must be a rational way to meet a date! I'm tired of hanging out in
those molecular diversity bars, hoping to randomly bump into the right
peptide. I want a molecule that will fit right into my active site and
really turn me on. I'll send you my crystal structure if you send me
yours!

Gene therapy graduate. After years of producing nothing but gibberish, I've
shed my exons and am ready to express my introns. All I need is a cute
vector to introduce me to the right host.

[more]

It seems to be a terrific example of "geek" humor, since it turns complex, arcane, scientific terminology into a story that only another "geek" would be likely to appreciate -- a story about a "lonely ATGCATG" seeking true love. 

In the Wikipedia discussion, the consensus of personal opinions among the other editors appears to be that this item of circumstantial evidence wasn't really evidence against Ivins.  Indications are that those Wikipedia editors don't believe that any circumstantial evidence is real evidence.   In that same discussion, I tried to explain that most criminal cases that go to trial are circumstantial evidence cases, but there was no sign that anyone paid any attention to what I wrote.

One Wikipedia editor dismissed the FBI's circumstantial evidence this way:

The only thing that seems clear upon a close reading of the source is that he [Ivins] was fascinated by and familiar with such codes, as were some of his colleagues, and that the FBI summary report merely points out two instances which demonstrate Ivins' general familiarity with such codes, a general familiarity which some of his colleagues quite clearly shared with him.

It's a very good example of Wikipedia editors replacing good circumstantial evidence with uninformed opinion.  The editor assumes that because Ivins forwarded the message to Former Colleague #1, that must mean that Former Colleague #1 shared with Ivins "a general familiarity" with such codes.  However, the evidence indicates it is far more likely that it was another example of Ivins being a lonely, mentally disturbed "geek" who used what he considered to be "cute humor" to try to ingratiate himself with a woman who really wasn't interested. 

On page 41, the FBI Summary Report says this about Former Colleague #1:

Former Colleague #1, with whom he would become increasingly obsessed, left the lab in the summer of 1999.   

And page 42:

In e-mails sent in 2000 to Former Colleague #1 and Former Colleague #2, two women on whom he was admittedly fixated and reliant, he expressed concerns about “delusional” thoughts he was having and feared that he was becoming increasingly mentally disturbed.

Page 43:

Those e-mails, in which he treated Former Colleague #1 and Former Colleague #2 as close confidantes about his mental health problems, contrasted with other e-mails, such as the one he sent to Former Colleague #1 on October 27, 1999, in which he expressed feelings that Former Colleague #2 had betrayed him

Pages 44 and 45 discuss Ivins sending emails to Former Colleague #1, telling her about his mental problems.  The one below is probably the most significant item on those pages, because it took place 6 months before the anthrax attacks:

On March 4, 2001, he sent an e-mail to Former Colleague #1 revealing that:

The [therapist] I saw before I went into group wanted to get me put in jail.

So, Former Colleague #1 wasn't exact an intimate buddy of Ivins' who enjoyed sharing mutual interests.  The footnote at the bottom of page 46 says this about how she viewed Dr. Ivins' emails:

Over the course of her first few years after she left USAMRIID, Former Colleague #1 was inundated with e-mails from Dr. Ivins, literally hundreds and hundreds of them, many of extraordinary length and detail. As she stated in numerous interviews, she frequently did not reply to those e-mails for days, and when she did it was often in a cursory fashion.

I can see how a Wikipedia editor who is unfamiliar with the Amerithrax investigation might conjure up a theory that Ivins sent the "BIO personal" email to Former Colleague #1 because she shared an interest in such "jokes," and therefore the FBI's evidence must be just another theory.  However, the facts seem to show that only Ivins had the fascination with manipulating such codes, and there's no reason to believe that anyone else at USAMRIID shared that fascination.

Furthermore, at the top of page 64 in the FBI's Summary Report, there is this information about what happened when Dr. Ivins tried to share his enjoyment of "G
ödel, Escher, Bach" with a fellow scientist:

"it turns out that Dr. Ivins gave a copy of this book [Gödel, Escher, Bach] to another scientist in the fall of 2006, telling the scientist that it was a great book, and later expressing disappointment that the scientist never read it, even asking the scientist to give it back to him, demonstrating that this is not a book he would casually throw away."

On Wikipedia, however, another editor added another opinion about the evidence:

By the way, Gödel, Escher, Bach won the Pulitzer Prize in 1980. So it's also rather unsurprising that Ivins was in possession of the book.

It may not be surprising to someone whose inclination might be to dispute all circumstantial evidence, because he doesn't view it as real evidence, but in a court of law it is real evidence, because all the items of circumstantial evidence are combined and viewed together as "the case against Dr. Bruce Edwards Ivins."  Dr. Ivins' interest in the codes described in "G
ödel, Escher, Bach" help create a very solid case.   And, the discussion about it on Wikipedia shows it to be one of many examples where Wikipedia editors "synthesized" their own conclusions in violation of Wikipedia rules.  I tried to put a stop to such things by creating a discussion section about the Wikipedia rule against synthesizing, where I carefully explained the rule.  But, it accomplished absolutely nothing. 

So, I'm just going to watch how the Wikipedia anthrax article is modified over the next few months.  Maybe sometime in the future I'll get back into a mood where I'll want to do more windmill tilting -- but not right now.     

All prior Thoughts and Comments are also available.
Click HERE for year 2010 - Part 2.
Click HERE for year 2010 - Part 1
Click HERE for year 2009 - Part 2.
Click HERE for year 2009 - Part 1.
Click HERE for year 2008.

Click HERE for year 2007.
Click HERE for year 2006.
Click HERE for year 2005.
Click HERE for year 2004.
Click HEREfor years 2001, 2002 and 2003.

References:

The FBI's summary report of the Amerithrax case
Search warrants and attachments to the Summary report
The 2,720 pages of supplementary files for the Amerithrax case
Dr. Bruce Ivins' emails while at Ft. Detrick
HistoryCommons.org - Timeline of the 2001 Anthrax Attacks

Edited version of the Hatfill v Ashcroft et al lawsuit Court Docket
Edited version of the Hatfill v Foster/Vanity Fair/Readers Digest Court Docket
Edited version of the Hatfill v The New York Times Court Docket
Edited version of the Maureen Stevens vs The United States lawsuit Court Docket
Edited version of the Maureen Stevens vs Battelle Memorial, et al lawsuit Court Docket

Click HERE to view references from 2005 through 2008.
Click HERE to view pre-2005 references.

2009

The New York Times - Jan. 3, 2009 - "Portrait Emerges of Anthrax Suspect’s Troubled Life - (X)
Scientific American - Jan. 5, 2009 - "A steady stream of clues pointed to Ivins during FBI anthrax investigation" (X)
CNN - Jan. 6, 2009 - "'Let me sleep,' anthrax suspect wrote before suicide" (X)
Associated Press - Jan. 6, 2009 - "Records reveal anguish of anthrax suspect's wife" (X)
The Frederick News-Post - Jan. 23, 2009 - "
Army releases some Ivins e-mails" (X)
The New York Times - Feb. 4, 2009 - "Science Found Wanting in Nation's Crime Labs" (X)
Science Magazine - Feb. 7, 2009 - "
U.S. Army Lab Freezes Research on Dangerous Pathogens" (X)
The New York Times - Feb. 9, 2009 - "Army Suspends Germ Research at Maryland Lab" (X)
The Baltimore Sun - Feb. 10, 2009 - "Biodefense lab starts inventory of deadly samples" (X)
WTOP.com - Feb. 10, 2009 - "Lawer: Evidence against Bruce Ivins 'Undercut'" (X)
The Washington Post - Feb. 10, 2009 - "Most Research Suspended at Fort Detrick" (X)
Scientific American - Feb. 10, 2009 - "Army anthrax lab suspends research to invertory its germs" (X)
Nature - Feb. 25, 2009 - "Anthrax investigation still yielding findings" (X)
New Scientist - Feb. 27, 2009 - "Revealed: Scientific evidence for the 2001 anthrax attacks" (X)
Rush Holt - Mar. 3, 2009 - "Holt Introduces Anthrax Commission Legislation" (X)
MyCentralJersey.com - Mar. 3, 2009 - "Holt seeks congressional anthrax commission" (X)
FBI Press Release - Mar. 6, 2009 - "FBI responds to Science issues in Anthrax case" (X)
FoxNews.com - Mar. 7, 2009 - "FBI's Evidence in Anthrax Case Leaves Puzzling Scientific Questions" (X)

Associated Press - Mar. 7, 2009 - "Ruling lets anthrax suit go forward" (X)
Los Angeles Times - Mar. 8, 2009 - "Anthrax hoaxes pile up, as does their cost" (X)
USA Today - Mar. 10, 2009 - "15,300 government workers have access to agents of bioterror" (X)
The Times of Trenton (Opinion by Rush Holt) - Mar. 12, 2009 - "Preventing Bioterrorism" (X)
New Scientist - Mar. 13, 2009 - "Columbus innocent over anthrax in the Americas" (X)
USA Today - Mar. 14, 2009 - "Tracing anthrax's American roots" (X)
Associated Press - Mar. 24, 2009 - "Letters mimicking anthrax scare sent to Congress" (X)
Associated Press - Mar. 31, 2009 - "Judge dismisses lawsuit over anthrax letter" (X)
The Scotsman - Apr. 4, 2009 - "Dorothy H. Crawford: World waits for ground-breaking anthrax evidence" (X)
Seed Magazine - Apr. 14, 2009 - "The Anthrax Agenda" (X)
The Palm Beach Post - Apr. 15, 2009 -
"Judge urges settlement in 'National Enquirer' anthrax case" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (Columnist/Opinion) - Apr. 22, 2009 - "Cold Comfort" (X)
The Washington Post - Apr. 22, 2009 - "Deadly Pathogens May Have Gone Missing at Fort Detrick" (X)
Sciencemag.org - May 6, 2009 - "FBI Anthrax Investigation Under Scientific Review" (X)
The New York Times - May 7, 2009 - "F.B.I. to Pay for Anthrax Inquiry Review" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (editorial) - May 14, 2009 - "End Of Story?" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (commentary by Barry Kissin) - May 24, 2009 - "The Lynching Of Bruce Ivins" (X)
Associated Press - May 28, 2009 - "Prosecutor in anthrax, Blackwater cases resigns" (X)
Frederick News-Post - June 17, 2009 - "USAMRIID finds more than 9,200 unrecorded disease samples" (X)
Associated Press - June 17, 2009 - "9,200 Uncounted Vials Found At Army Biodefense Lab" (X)
The Washington Post - June 18, 2009 - "Inventory Uncovers 9,200 More Pathogens" (X)
Frederick News-Post - July 2, 2009 - "Committee to review FBI anthrax investigation" (X)
Microbe - July 2009 - "Questions Linger over Science behind Anthrax Letters" (X)
Frederick News-Post - July 26, 2009 - "
Anthrax case: Amerithrax debate lives online" (X)
Frederick News-Post - July 26, 2009 - "Anthrax case: Seeking an Ending" (X)
Frederick News-Post - July 26, 2009 - "
Anthrax case: Studies scrutinize lab security, shy away from federal investigation" (X)
Associated Press - July 26, 2009 - "US on verge of closing anthrax probe after 8 years" (X)
The Washington Times - July 30, 2009 - "Lessons learned from the anthrax letters" (X)
Associated Press - July 30, 2009 - "Review begins of FBI science in anthrax case" (X)
Frederick News-Post - July 31, 2009 - "Group begins scientific review of FBI's anthrax investigation" (X)
Frederick News-Post (editorial) - July 31, 2009 - "Dubious study" (X)
Nature - July 31, 2009 - "Anthrax investigation probe undeway" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Aug. 1, 2009 - "Experts urge panel to deepen forensic understanding" (X)
The Washington Post - Aug. 1, 2009 - "Lawmaker 'Skeptical' of Anthrax Results" (X)
USA Today - Aug. 3, 2009 - "Anthrax case not closed: Panel reviews Bruce Ivins, mail probe" (X)
Frederick News-Post (Opinion) - Aug. 12, 2009 - "A Shocking Mockery" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Aug. 13, 2009 - "Fort Detrick passes national accreditation" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Sept. 25, 2009 - "Panel continues study of anthrax mailings" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Sept. 26, 2009 - "Expert: Anthrax spore coatings not unique" (X)
USA Today - Oct. 5, 2009 - "Behind the scenes, system sniffs for biological attacks" (X)
BBC - Dec. 17, 2009 - "Anthrax found in dead heroin user from Glasgow" (X)
The Wall Street Journal - Dec. 19, 2009 - "A Conspiracy-Theory Theory" (X)
Newsweek - Dec. 21, 2009 - "Red Mind, Blue Mind" (X)
Digital Journal - Dec. 27, 2009 - "NH Woman Critically Ill With Anthrax" (X)
The Associated Press - Dec. 27, 2009 - "Drums a possible source of anthrax in N.H. woman" (X)
Medical News Today - Dec. 29, 2009 - "Anthrax Found in Drums Linked to Infected Woman" (X)
Associated Press - Dec. 30, 2009 - "Anthrax case: Drum suspicions are detailed" (X)

2010
Washington Examiner (Opinion) - Jan. 1, 2010 - "Who was behind the September 2001 anthrax attacks?" (X)
The Associated Press - Jan. 11, 2010 - "Fed panel wants more scrutiny of biolab workers" (X)
The Wall Street Journal (Opinion) - Jan. 24, 2010 - "The Anthrax Attacks Remain Unsolved" (X)
The Washington Examiner (Opinion) - Jan. 29, 2010 - "Anthrax attacks still unexplained" (X)
The Wall Street Journal (Letter to Editor) - Jan. 31, 2010 - "Anthrax Case: FBI Used Good Science" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Feb. 19, 2010 - "
Ivins' attorney: Anthrax case to be closed today" (X)
The Associated Press - Feb. 19, 2010 - "AP Source: FBI formally closes anthrax case" (X)
The New York Times - Feb. 19, 2010 - "F.B.I., Laying Out Evidence, Closes Anthrax Letter Case" (X)
Reuters - Feb. 19, 2010 - "Anthrax investigators looked at 1,000 suspects" (X)
USA Today - Feb. 19, 2010 - "'Ġodel, Escher, Bach' author downplays FBI anthrax case link" (X)
The Baltimore Sun - Feb. 19, 2010 - "Anthax investigation closed" (X)
The Los Angeles Times - Feb. 20, 2010 - "U.S. closes case on anthrax letters" (X)
The Washington Post - Feb. 20, 2010 - "FBI investigation of 2001 anthrax attacks concluded; U.S. releases details" (X)
The Palm Beach Post - Feb. 20, 2010 - "U.S. closes 2001 anthrax case" (X)
USA Today - Feb. 20, 2010 - "Anthrax myth persists despite evidence" (X)
The New York Times (opinion from Nov. 10, 2001) - Feb. 20, 2010 - "On the trail of the anthrax killers" (X)
The Wall Street Journal - Feb. 20, 2010 - "U.S. Closes Case in Anthrax Attacks" (X)
AntiPolygraph.org - Feb. 20, 2010 - "DOJ Rationalizes Away Polygraph's Failure to Catch Alleged Anthrax Killer" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Feb. 20, 2010 - "Government  closes 'Amerithrax' case" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Feb. 23, 2010 - "FBI report fails to end questions about Ivins' guilt" (X)
The Daily Princetonian - Feb. 24, 2010 - "FBI closes anthrax letter investigation" (X)
The New York Times - Feb. 24, 2010 (opinion) - "Haste Leaves Anthrax Case Unconcluded" (X)
Asia Times - Feb. 25, 2010 - "Doubts cloud closing of anthrax case" (X)
The Baltimore Sun - Feb. 26, 2010 -
"Bill for more investigation of '01 anthrax case passes House."  (X)
The Times of Trenton - Feb. 26, 2010 - "Holt: Last word not in on anthrax case" (X)
The New York Times (editorial) - Feb. 28, 2010 - "The F.B.I.'s Anthrax Case" (X)
The Frederick News-Post - Feb, 28, 2010 - "FBI reports chronicle Ivins investigation" (X)
TheSmokingGun.com - Mar. 1, 2010 - "The Strange World of Dr. Anthrax" (X)
FoxNews.com - Mar. 1, 2010 - "Anthrax Letter Scientist 'Obsessed' with Bondage, Sorority"  (X)
The Trentonian - Mar. 1, 2010 - "The Smoking Gun reports: Anthrax mastermind was cross-dresser" (X)
The Register (UK) - Mar. 2, 2010 - "The anthrax scare: Case and flask closed" (X)
The Frederick News-Post - Mar. 4, 2010 - "Police: Ivins not linked to other unsolved cases" (X)
The Frederick News-Post - Mar. 4, 2010 - "Holt seeks investigation into FBI's case against Ivins" (X)
Anderson Cooper 360 - Mar. 5, 2010 - "Inside the mind of the suspected anthrax killer" (X)
Courier News (opinion) - Mar. 7, 2010 - "Bioterror preparedness needs a boost from congress" (X)
AOLnews.com - Mar. 10, 2010 - "Lawer Doubts Case Against Anthrax Suspect" (X)
CNN (opinion) - Mar. 12, 2010 - "Can the House trust the Senate?" (X)
Bloomberg - Mar. 15, 2010 - "Obama Veto Is Threatened On 2010 Intelligence Budget Measure" (X)
Bloomberg - Mar. 15, 2010 - "Obama Veto Is Threatened On 2010 Intelligence Budget Bill (Update 1)" (X)
RawStory.com - Mar. 15, 2010 - "Protecting agencies from oversight, Obama threatens to veto intelligence funding" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Mar. 20, 2010 - "Adminstration rejects call to further probe Amerithrax" (X)
Pittsburgh Review-Journal (Opinion) - Mar. 21, 2010 - "Anthrax questions" (X)
Accuracy In Media - Mar. 24, 2010 - "Obama Obstructs Oversight of FBI in Anthrax Case" (X)
The Atlantic - Apr. 16, 2010 - "The Wrong Man" (X)
MSNBC - Apr. 16, 2010 - "Exonerated anthrax suspect: FBI harassed me" (X)
Foreign Policy - Apr. 19, 2010 - "The Elite Med Squad That Saved You from Anthrax" (X)
Salon.com (Glenn Greenwald) - Apr. 21, 2010 - "Unlearned lessons from the Steven Hatfill case" (X)
UPI (Opinion) - Apr. 22, 2010 - "Outside View: Anthrax Letters: Was Bruce Ivins Hounded to Death?"  (X)
The New York Times - Apr. 22, 2010 - "Colleague Disputes Case Against Anthrax Suspect" (X)
Science Magazine - Apr. 22, 2010 - "Ex-USAMRIID Scientist Defends Bruce Ivins Using Back-of-the-Envelope Math" (X)
ProPublica.org - Apr. 23, 2010 - "Colleague Says Anthrax  Numbers Add Up to Unsolved Case" (X)
PhysicsToday.org - Apr. 27, 2010 - "Co-worker says Ivins didn't make anthrax letter spores" (X)
Frederick News-Post (Opinion) - May 1, 2010 - "Anthrax attacks, cont'd" (X)
The Racine Journal-Times - June 11, 2010 - "The Armchair analyst: Ed Lake has spent nine years tracking the anthrax investigation" (X)


© 2001-2010 by Ed Lake
All Rights Reserved.