New book - front cover

Click HERE to Order
from the Printer!


Click HERE to order from Amazon.com!

Analyzing the Anthrax Attacks
(2009-2014 Edition)

Commentary
& Analysis
by
Ed Lake

IF YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR SEE ANY ERRORS ON THIS SITE, PLEASE CONTACT ME AT:
detect (at) newsguy (dot) com

The discussion blog for this web site is at
anthraxdebate.blogspot.com

New
                  book - front cover

Click HERE to Order
from the Printer!


Click HERE to order from Amazon.com!
Click HERE to buy the Kindle version!

Click Here to order from Barnes & Noble!
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.
Click HERE to buy the Kindle version!

Click Here to order from Barnes & Noble!
 
CONTENTS

(click on the Section to go to it)

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

VIDEOS
  12 FACTS which  show that a child wrote the anthrax letters
Ed Lake describes his book "A Crime Unlike Any Other"

KEY SUPPLEMENTAL PAGES

(click on the name to link to the page)
Where & When Bruce Ivins Made the Anthrax Powders ... Allegedly
How Bruce Ivins Made the Anthrax Powders ... Allegedly
FOIA Pictures of Bruce Ivins' Laboratory
FOIA Pictures of Bruce Ivins' Office
The Bruce Ivins Timeline
The Errors That Snared Dr. Bruce Ivins
Bruce Ivins' Consciousness of Guilt
The Coded Message in the Media Letters (the "smoking gun")
Dr. Ivins' "Non-Denial Denials"
Evidence vs. Beliefs
The Mysteries of the AFIP "Report"
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
PBS Frontline vs. The Anthrax Facts
Anthrax, Assaad, Terror and the Timeline
Other Theories About the Anthrax Case
The Illogical al Qaeda Theory
Mohamed Atta did NOT write the anthrax letters
Reviews of my first 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.

1.2  He was a diagnosed sociopath.  In 2000, a year before the anthrax mailings, Ivins had talked with his mental heath counselor about his plan to poison a "young woman."  The counselor called the police, but because Ivins hadn't provided a name, there wasn't anything they could do.  The facts indicate the woman was Ivins' former assistant, Mara Linscott.  Ivins evidently changed his mind about poisoning her.

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 suite (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 the Bacteriology Division's Suite B3 before the anthrax attacks or in the months after the anthrax attacks.  His long hours in Suite B3 at that time broke his normal work pattern.  Suite B3 was a BioSafety Level-3 area.


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.  The ZIP Code used in the return address on the senate letters was 08852.  It belongs to Monmouth Junction, NJ.  According to a letter in Ivins' files, his ancestors on his father's side came from an area then known as Monmouth, NJ.  Plus, Monmouth College in Monmouth, IL, is where the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority (an obsession of Ivins') was founded.

15.  He had serious mental problems, which appear to include murderous impulses.   He'd been seeing psychiatrists since 1978.

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 disproved.
 
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, December 14, 2014, thru Saturday, December 20, 2014

December 20, 2014 - There are numerous news stories about the GAO report this morning.  All basically say the same thing: The science in the Amerithrax case wasn't perfect.  Only it's phrased as: the science was "flawed."  At the bottom of this web page, I'm adding links to the articles which aren't just repeats of other articles.  They include articles from The New York Times, PBS Frontline (with ProPublica & McClatchy), The Frederick News-Post and The Boston Globe.  

Conspiracy theorist Dr. Meryl Nass is also voicing her opinion on her blog:

If you actually say, out loud, that the FBI faked its search for the anthrax criminal(s), flushed $100 million down the toilet in its most expensive case to date, and deliberately avoided conducting a credible investigation to find the anthrax letters perpetrators, then you question the entire edifice of US law enforcement and imply a conspiracy around an anthrax letters coverup at the highest levels of government, as suggested in Professor Graeme MacQueen's recent book. And that, ladies and gentlemen, you are simply not permitted to do.
In reality, of course, you are "permitted" to do that.  You just have to accept that most people will then consider you to be a true conspiracy theorist from the Lunatic Fringe.

December 19, 2014 (C) - I just returned from the health club, and the first thing I noticed when I turned on my computer was that the news media is already writing dubious news articles about the GAO report.  The Associated Press has released an article titled "Report: FBI's Anthrax Investigation Was Flawed."  In other words, the FBI's investigation was not "perfect."  The AP article begins with this:

The FBI used flawed scientific methods to investigate the 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people and sickened 17 others, federal auditors said Friday in a report sure to fuel skepticism over the FBI's conclusion that Army biodefense researcher Bruce Ivins was the sole perpetrator.

The 77-page report from the Government Accountability Office says the FBI's research, including novel microbial forensic tests, did not provide a full understanding of how bacteria change in their natural environment and in a laboratory. This failure to grasp the reason for genetic mutations that were used to differentiate between samples of anthrax bacteria was a "key scientific gap" in the investigation, the report says.

The GAO also found a lack of rigorous controls over sampling procedures and a failure to cite the degree of uncertainty in measurement tools used to identify genetic markers.

"Although the complexity and novelty of the scientific methods at the time of the FBI's investigation made it challenging for the FBI to adequately address all these problems, the agency could have improved its approach," the report said.

The GAO didn't take a position whether Ivins, who worked at Fort Detrick in Frederick, Maryland, made and mailed the anthrax-filled envelopes.

I haven't yet read the GAO reports, but  I did notice this on page 2:
GAO did not review and is not taking a position on the conclusions the FBI reached when it closed its investigation in 2010.
In other words, it wasn't part of the GAO's job to re-investigate the case.  That should thoroughly upset every conspiracy theorist and Anthrax Truther.  However, the Truthers will probably all be pleased by reactions from a politician and from Dr. Ivins' lawyer that have been added to later versions of the AP article:

The GAO report was requested by a trio of congressional members led by Rep. Rush Holt, D-New Jersey, whose district includes the Princeton mailbox used in the attacks. Holt, who is retiring at the end of the year, said Congress should demand a comprehensive, independent review of the investigation to ensure that lessons have been learned.

"The GAO report confirms what I have often said — that the FBI's definitive conclusions about the accuracy of their scientific findings in the Amerithrax case are not, in fact, definitive," Holt said in a written statement.

Ivins' attorney, Paul F. Kemp, said he hopes Holt's plea doesn't fall on deaf ears.

"There's no evidence he did it," Kemp said.

Did the FBI ever claim that their scientific findings were "definitive"?  I seriously doubt it.  It appears to be just a politician distorting things to make a false argument.  The same with Mr. Kemp's absurd remark. 

December 19, 2014 (B) - Ah!  The GAO report appeared while I was on my old computer doing some weekly updating chores.  Click HERE for the 77-page pdf file.   The report is titled "Anthrax: Agency Approaches to Validation and Statistical Analyses Could Be Improved," which doesn't sound very dramatic or earth-shattering.  And, it looks like it's time for me to break for lunch and then head to the health-club for a workout.  I'll start going through the report when I get back.  Unless I see something particularly fascinating, I may save my comments until Sunday. 

December 19, 2014 (A) - Well, today's "the day" -- supposedly.  I hate relying totally on an Anthrax Truther blog for information, but I haven't been able to  find any other source which also says the General Accountability Office's (GAO's) review of the Amerithrax investigation is due out today. 

Searching the GAO's web site for the word "Amerithrax" finds no new report.  But, there's also section on their web site where new reports are listed by day issued.  Click HERE.  It shows 3 reports on other subjects were issued yesterday by the GAO, 5 on Wednesday, 5 on Tuesday and 1 on Monday.   But, as of this moment (8:45 a.m. Central Time), no report on any subject has yet been released today.  I also note that they released EIGHT (8) reports last Friday.  Based upon that singular tidbit of data, Friday seems like a big report-issuing day for them.  I'll be checking the GAO's site periodically during the day. 

December 18, 2014 - I've been thinking for some time about how STUPID it was for Sony Pictures to make a movie about assassinating a living Head of State.  I can see some individual being that STUPID, but there must have been hundreds of people involved in the project.  How could it get APPROVED?  It simply amazes me.

I bring up this subject because (A) I don't have anything related to the anthrax attacks of 2001 to write about today, and (B) because someone  just sent me two links to articles about the Sony cyber attack. 

The first article is from Wired Magazine and is titled "The Evidence That North Korea Hacked Sony Is Flimsy."  The second article is from The New York Times and is titled "U.S. Said to Find North Korea Ordered Cyberattack on Sony."  The Wired article begins with this:

The New York Times reported this evening that North Korea is “centrally involved” in the hack, citing unnamed U.S. intelligence officials. It’s unclear from the Times report what “centrally involved” means and whether the intelligence officials are saying the hackers were state-sponsored or actually agents of the state. The Times also notes that “It is not clear how the United States came to its determination that the North Korean regime played a central role in the Sony attacks.” The public evidence pointing at the Hermit Kingdom is flimsy.

Other theories of attribution focus on hacktivists—motivated by ideology, politics or something else—or disgruntled insiders who stole the data on their own or assisted outsiders in gaining access to it. Recently, the finger has pointed at China.

The two articles make very interesting reading.  I've seen news stories before about "cyber attacks,"  but I've never seen them strung together and compared the way they are in these two articles.  Here's part of the New York Times article:

The Sony attacks were routed from command-and-control centers across the world, including a convention center in Singapore and Thammasat University in Thailand, the researchers said. But one of those servers, in Bolivia, had been used in limited cyberattacks on South Korean targets two years ago. That suggested that the same group or individuals might have been behind the Sony attack.

The Sony malware shares remarkable similarities with that used in attacks on South Korean banks and broadcasters last year. Those intrusions, which also destroyed data belonging to their victims, are believed to have been the work of a cybercriminal gang known as Dark Seoul. Some experts say they cannot rule out the possibility that the Sony attack was the work of a Dark Seoul copycat, the security researchers said.

The Sony attack also borrowed a wiping tool from an attack two years ago at Saudi Aramco, the national oil company, where hackers wiped off data on 30,000 of the company’s computers, replacing it with an image of a burning American flag.

I think there are a lot of lessons to be learned from this latest cyber attack.  The first lesson is: Don't make movies about assassinating a living Head of State, no matter how terrible or insane that Head of State may be.  It's just plain STUPID.  The second lesson is: Don't underestimate the number or capabilities of Internet nut cases who are just looking for some way to mess with organizations and people they don't like.

December 17, 2014 - On my interactive blog, I thought I was making some progress in showing "DXer" that he has no meaningful evidence to support his belief that Adnan el-Shukrijumah was the anthrax mailer instead of Dr. Bruce Ivins.  DXer can't even provide any meaningful evidence that Shukrijumah was within two thousand miles of Princeton at the time of the anthrax mailings.  Nor can he provide any meaningful evidence that al Qaeda had access to the contents of flask RMR-1029. 

I have to include the qualifier "meaningful" when I talk about evidence with DXer, because he is likely to argue that the fact that Shukrijuma was alive at the time of the anthrax mailings is circumstantial evidence that it is possible that he could have been the mailer.  It would be impossible if Shukrijumah were dead, but if he was alive, no one can say it is "impossible."  So, by adding the qualifier "meaningful" I hope I can avoid arguing about "evidence" that doesn't prove anything other than that it was "possible" for Shukrijumah to be the mailer.

About all DXer can do is argue that al Qaeda was interested in using anthrax as a weapon, which no one argues against.  As DXer tried to argue his beliefs over the past few days, he repeatedly demonstrated that the facts said he was WRONG, not right.  Then, when I thought I was making some progress in demonstrating that he has no meaningful evidence to support his beliefs, he suddenly shifted the argument to being about Bruce Ivins.  As a result, I told him I would just ignore his emails and his attempted posts to my interactive blog unless he addressed his primary belief: that al Qaeda was behind the anthrax attacks.  Arguing over details like when Bruce Ivins committed the KKG burglaries will not solve anything.

Interestingly, a second Anthrax Truther posted a comment last night which shows he still does not understand circumstantial evidence.  Here are the key points in his post:

1) DXer is right: there's no evidence Ivins made either trip to Jersey, no evidence he was in Jersey in the entire calendar year of 2001.

2) Lake is right: there's no evidence that Shukrijumah was in New Jersey, or, for that matter, in the US in September-October of 2001.

That doesn't exclude the possibility that such trips were made WITHOUT LEAVING ANY SIGN WHATSOEVER, but as to a 'skein of evidence', it simply does not exist ...  the trips are merely being INFERRED

You may yet persuade people of your suspect's guilt by OTHER skeins of evidence, but not via a non-existent skein pointing to (merely putative) trips, trips which may never have been made. 
And, here's the key part of my response:
True. The trips to New Jersey made by Dr. Ivins are "inferred" or logically deduced. That is how circumstantial evidence works. But no trip by Shukrijumah to New Jersey at the time of the mailings can be inferred by the available evidence. The evidence infers just the the OPPOSITE, that Shukrijumah was nowhere near New Jersey at the time of the mailings.
....

It's the "OTHER skeins of evidence" which "infer" that Ivins made the trips to New Jersey. No one has argued that Ivins' trips to New Jersey are evidence of his guilt.

DXer, on the other hand, IS arguing that evidence that Shurkijumah MAY have been somewhere in the Western Hemisphere at some time after 9/11 is meaningful evidence that Shukrijumah was in New Jersey to mail the anthrax letters. It is NOT meaningful evidence of any kind related to the anthrax mailings.
I doubt very much that this will alter the second Truther's mistaken beliefs about circumstantial evidence.  He will probably always mistakenly argue that unless you have direct evidence specifically showing that Dr. Ivins drove to New Jersey to mail the letters, then Ivins could never have been convicted of being the mailer because you have no evidence he did the actual mailing.

The DOJ does have an abundance of circumstantial evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Ivins prepared the anthrax letters, that he acted alone, and that he had no alibi for the time when the letters could have been mailed.  That evidence "infers" that Ivins must have driven to New Jersey to mail the letters.  And such an inference is totally acceptable in any criminal court in America - regardless of whether the Truther accepts it or not.    

December 16, 2014 - Someone sent me a link to an article titled "CrowdSolve wants to turn amateurs into true detectives" about a plan to create a web site where amateur detectives can theoretically help solve crimes.

The idea being that people with lots of free time on their hands will be able to find a nugget seemingly missed by harried police officers in-between arguments with the chief.
The article also says,
Of course, as with any project in 2014, the site won't be launching without users putting hands into their pockets. CrowdSolve is currently asking for donations on Indiegogo, with a target of $50,000 necessary before the documents can begin to flow. The bulk of that cash will be used to obtain the relevant documents ready for a launch around August next year.
I think the first "crime" they should try to solve is the apparent con game of trying to get $50,000 to access court documents.  They claim it costs $1 per page.  But, that's from the time when a person had to go in person to the court house to get a clerk to make a Xerox copy of a document.  It seems unlikely that many courts in the USA still do things that way.  A recent article HERE showed an exception where a California state court started charging $1 a page because they were "cash strapped" and needed more revenue to keep the court functioning.  For federal cases, PACER currently charges 10 cents per page, they have a maximum of $3 for a single document, and they don't charge you anything if you don't access at least $15 worth of pages in a fiscal quarter. 

Beyond that, the article does show another problem: How amateur detectives can easily point to the wrong people.  They cite the Boston Bombing case as an example.

December 14, 2014 (B) - For what it's worth, Lew Weinstein's blog now says:
The GAO report, based on new information, is expected Friday, December 19, 2014.
If it happens, I should have something interesting to write about next Sunday.

December 14, 2014 (A) -
If the General Accountability Office (GAO) is going to release their review of the Amerithrax investigation "sometime this fall," it will have to be done this week.  Winter begins next Sunday.  Lew Weinstein says, "I’m told by GAO the report will be issued the week of Dec 15."  That's this coming week.  So, we'll soon see if it actually happens or not. 

Meanwhile, "DXer" from Lew Weinstein's blog tried endlessly to argue his beliefs on my blog last week, and in the process he again showed how illogical his beliefs are.


He argued (once again) that the reason al Qaeda terrorists taped the anthrax letters shut and took several precautions to make certain no spores could escape from the letters was because the terrorists wanted to avoid killing an American mailman.  DXer posted this in support of his belief:

CNN.com – Transcripts
edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0111/15/ltm.01.html
Nov 15, 2001 … Target: Terrorism: Look at Al Qaeda’s Dreadful Recipe Book … and was given three chapters of the manual, in order to prove it’s existence. … The poisonous letter is the title of one section [on] poison inks. … “Wipe the envelope from the inside with silicone sealant,” it goes on, “so it would not kill the mailman.
The problem with that reasoning is, of course, the person who sent the letters did NOT wipe the inside of the envelopes with silicone sealant, and the letters DID kill two postal employees. So, the anthrax mailer was NOT following al Qaeda's "Recipe Book."  Looking at the actual CNN transcript that DXer quoted from, I noticed that he appears to have deliberately left out a key clause:
The poisonous letter is the title of one section [on] poison inks. "Write a letter to the victim mentioning very exciting and very interesting news," it reads. "Wipe the envelope from the inside with silicone sealant," it goes on, "so it would not kill the mailman."
The anthrax letters contained a SINISTER THREAT LETTER, they did not include "a letter to the victim mentioning very exciting and very interesting news."  So, again, the anthrax letter mailer did NOT follow the "Recipe Book."  Does the "Recipe Book" instruct terrorists to include medical advice in their "poisonous letters"? Dxer is just twisting and distorting things to make them fit his beliefs.

There's good reason for Bruce Ivins to have taped the letters shut and to have included medical advice in the text of the letters.  He wanted to avoid killing anyone.  But, it's silly and illogical to claim that al Qaeda was following the "Recipe Book" when they sent the letters, since the letters clearly do NOT follow the "Recipe Book."
 
DXer also argued (once again) that the return address on the Senate anthrax letters is a bunch of al Qaeda codes.  He wrote this about using Franklin Park, NJ, in the return address:

El-Shukrijumah may have been announcing by the address who the sender was — speaking in a code as he taught his colleagues (like Binyam) plotting with Padilla to do.
As it happens, there's a park called "Franklin Park" in the Florida town of Franklin Park, just across the street from where DXer's imagined anthrax mailer, Adnan el-Shukrijumah, attended a mosque.  So, in DXer's fanciful theory, the reason Franklin Park was used in the return address was because el-Shukrijumah wanted to announce "by the address who the sender was - speaking in a code."

But, DXer also believes that Mohamed Atta did the actual writing on the letters and envelopes (even though the handwriting is clearly NOT Atta's handwriting).  So, why would Atta include a code telling his fellow terrorists who the mailer was going to be?  Why wouldn't Atta use a code to tell his fellow terrorists that he WROTE the letters?

And, why would either one of them need to announce to fellow terrorists who the mailer or writer was?  And why use a code? 

Here's the return address used on the Senate anthrax letters:
4TH GRADE
GREENDALE SCHOOL
FRANKLIN PARK NJ 08852
Why not use Franklin Park, FL, in the return address?  And are we to believe that it was just a coincidence that the letters were mailed only 10 miles from Franklin Park, NJ?  We know why Ivins used Monmouth Junction's ZIP code, but why would an al Qaeda terrorist use it?  DXer also needs to explain why an al Qaeda terrorist would travel to Princeton, NJ, to mail the letters.  Bruce Ivins had a good reason.  He was obsessed with the KKG sorority, he'd broken into their offices in the past, and the mailbox he used was the closest mailbox to the KKG office in Princeton.  He could look over the KKG office while there. 

It would be interesting to see how DXer rationalizes why the letters were mailed from Princeton, New Jersey.  Presumably, he will simply dream up some new "code" that only he can see in the return address, and it will explain why Princeton was used.

DXer also argues that one reason al Qaeda sent the anthrax letters is because,

Zawahiri seeks his justifications in the hadiths — which is why he would have used the extremely virulent Ames strain of anthrax. The hadiths commanded that one use the weapon of one’s enemy.
But, the Ames strain was never used as a weapon by America (the "enemy").  The Ames stain was first discovered in 1981 and the US bioweapons program (which used the Vollum1B strain) was shut down in 1969.   

The illogical al Qaeda Theory just gets more illogical every time DXer tries to argue in favor of it.

judge commenting on evidence vs
                              opinions
Lastly, I've created a new thread for my interactive blog using the cartoon above to get it started on the subject: Evidence vs Opinions.  DXer has been using the thread to offer his opinions about a 2014 PhD thesis by Michael Garvey.  Dr. Garvey's thesis is that more work needs to be done to fully establish Microbial Forensics as a accepted scientific discipline.  It appears that in DXer's opinion, this somehow means that Dr. Garvey in some way doesn't agree with the findings of the Amerithrax investigation.

As far as I can tell, Dr. Garvey offers no opinion on Dr. Ivins' guilt.  The only relevant opinion he offers is a statement on page 94 where Dr. Garvey says,
"this author does not believe that the material recovered from OCONUS [Outside the CONtinental United States] missions was related to the 2001 anthrax attacks.In other words, Dr. Garvey doesn't believe DXer's theory that the attack anthrax was made in Afghanistan.

Updates & Changes: Sunday, December 7, 2014, thru Saturday, December 13, 2014

December 13, 2014 - Hmm.  I'd forgotten that the FBI caught the guy in the Syracuse, NY, area who had been sending out hoax anthrax and ricin letters since 1997.  A headline dated yesterday afternoon on Syracuse.com reads:  "Cicero man admits he was the mystery mailer who sent 21 fake anthrax letters over 15 years."  Cicero, NY, is a few miles north of Syracuse.  Here's what some of his letters looked like:

text of hoax
                                anthrax letters

According to the Syracuse.com article:

A Cicero man admitted today that he sent nearly two dozen mailings filled with white powder and a deadly threat between 1997 and 2012.

Brian D. Norton, 59, pleaded guilty in federal court to conveying false information threatening injury or death.

He admitted sending 21 letters containing what he falsely claimed was anthrax or ricin to people, schools and organizations starting in 1997.

His arrest in June was the result of a 17-year investigation by FBI agents.

Back on June 11 of this year, I wrote about the FBI catching the guy.  So, we now also have a confession. 

December 12, 2014 - This morning, when I did my regular daily Google search for anthrax+2001, up popped a very interesting article about the "Ebola crisis" that existed for most of October.  It's from CIDRAP (the Center for Infectious Disease Research And Policy), and it is titled "COMMENTARY: When the next shoe drops - Ebola crisis communication lessons from October."  It begins with this:

In contrast to the Ebola crisis in West Africa, which started in late 2013 and will last well into 2015 or longer, the US "Ebola crisis" was encapsulated in a single month, October 2014. But there may well be US Ebola cases to come, brought here by travelers or returning volunteers. And other emerging infectious diseases will surely reach the United States in the months and years ahead.

So now is a propitious time to harvest some crisis communication lessons from the brief US Ebola "crisis."

We're putting "crisis" in quotation marks because there was never an Ebola public health crisis in the United States, nor was there a significant threat of one. But there was a crisis of confidence, a period of several weeks during which many Americans came to see the official response to domestic Ebola as insufficiently cautious, competent, and candid—and therefore felt compelled to implement or demand additional responses of their own devising.

It describes 4 "lessons" that should have been learned from the "crisis":
1. Don't over-reassure
2. Acknowledge uncertainty
3. Don't overdiagnose or overplan for panic
4. Tolerate early overreactions; don't ridicule the public's emotions
And it ends with this:

Treat the public like grownups

Aiming to convince the public that there was no cause for Ebola alarm, officials and experts used overconfident over-reassurance and absolutist invocations of "the science." And then they had the gall to ridicule the public as hysterical and panic-stricken. We hope that before the next unfamiliar and frightening infectious disease arrives, officials and experts will practice treating the public like grownups.

The reason the article popped up during my search was because the anthrax attacks of 2001 are briefly mentioned:

The CDC's pre-Dallas policies were promptly changed once they proved inadequate. But [CDC Director Tom] Frieden hadn't warned that errors and policy reversals were to be expected as officials climbed the Ebola learning curve. Instead, he reiterated often his contention that Ebola was well-understood and would succumb to tried-and-true public health measures.

(By contrast, after some initial overconfident over-reassurances during the 2001 anthrax attacks, Frieden's predecessor Jeff Koplan, MD, MPH, warned that public health officials would learn things in the coming weeks that they would then wish they had known when they started.)

There's a great deal of very interesting material in the article, including some links to additional material in the final section: "Other crisis communication lessons."

While it's about "crisis communication," it also relates to the reactions you'll get from conspiracy theorists.  In the world of conspiracy theorists, admission of uncertainty by a public official is the same as an admission of incompetence.  And any statement implying certainty that turns out to be incorrect is the same as "being caught in a lie," which is viewed as "proof" of a conspiracy.

While there are certainly some "crisis communication" lessons that can be learned from the "Ebola crisis," there are also people out there who will consider such lessons to be instructions on how to manipulate the public in order to lead them away from "the truth."  So, no matter how well you communicate with "the public," there will always be some "Truthers" who will believe what they want to believe.

December 11, 2014 - Someone just sent me an email with a link to an article titled "What Would Joseph Pulitzer Think of Rolling Stone?"  While the bulk of the article is about how Rolling Stone magazine botched that rape story at the University of Virginia, it also has this comment about the anthrax attacks of 2001:
[Sabrina Rubin] Erdely [the author of the Rolling Stone article] did find time to interview Wendy Murphy, whom she introduced to readers as an attorney who has filed Title IX lawsuits. She’d have been better identified as the activist who made incendiary and spurious public statements in the Duke lacrosse hoax. It’s disturbing how these same people -- and the same news outlets -- keep arising in stories. Al Sharpton, Tawana Brawley’s champion and Crown Heights riots provocateur, is now organizing protests over the police shooting in Ferguson. The New York Times, cheerleader of the fake Duke lacrosse claims, led the witch hunt against Steven Hatfill.

That case was reported properly by diligent Los Angeles Times investigative journalist David Willman. It was not Hatfill who terrorized the East Coast with anthrax, it was government scientist Bruce Ivins, who killed himself when the FBI finally closed in. Willman, who won an earlier Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting on the Food and Drug Administration, would have made Joseph Pulitzer proud. Rolling Stone magazine—not so much.

The article is about inaccurate news reporting.  I don't think the section above is a very good summary of the anthrax attacks of 2001, but at least it seems to indicate that the anthrax attacks haven't been totally forgotten.

December 10, 2014 - In case anyone is interested, the "CIA Torture Report" can be found HERE in unsearchable pdf format, and it can be found HERE is a searchable text format.  I did a search for the word "anthrax" and found it on 5 pages.  Most of it is meaningless and largely redacted, but page 111 contains this:
April 3, 2003. KSM [Khalid Sheikh Mohammed] also named three individuals who, he said, worked on an al-Qa'ida anthrax program that was still in its "earliest stages."
And on page 112 it says:
After CIA interrogators "demonstrated the penalty for lying," al-Barq again stated that "I made the anthrax" and then immediately recanted, and then again stated that he made anthrax.

Two days later, al-Barq stated that he had lied about the anthrax production "only because he thought that was what interrogators wanted."
Also, someone sent me a link to an interesting article from the conspiracy theory web site globalresearch.ca which describes a work of art about 9/11 conspiracy theories that will be included in the 9/11 museum in New York City.  Here's the artwork:

9/11 conspiracy theory artwork

The artist is Anthony Freda, who has contributed provocative political art to publications like The New York TimesTimeRolling StoneEsquireThe New Yorker, and Playboy.  According to the globalresearch.ca article:
Museum officials told Freda that “9-11 Questions” will rotate with other works on display and that it may also be included in traveling 9/11 art shows organized by the museum. But he concedes that museum officials, now that they own it, can do whatever they want with the piece — including locking it in a vault forever.
December 9, 2014 (B) - Overnight, I received three emails from DXer.  The first email contained this section of page 068 from Dr. Ivins' notebook #4010 (click HERE for a larger version):

Ivins notebook 4010 page 068

The intent of the email was to show that I still haven't fully corrected my mistake about when flask RMR-1029 was created.  The note describes how RMR-1029 was created, it is signed at the bottom by Bruce Ivins, and it is dated "22 Oct 97."

So, I again stand corrected.  In yesterday's comment, I stated that, while I could be wrong, it was my
"my understanding that 22 Oct. 1997 was the date that the project was approved and the RMR number was assigned."  That "understanding" was clearly wrong.  It means absolutely nothing to the Amerithrax investigation, of course.  However, I always appreciate being shown when I have an understanding that is incorrect.   

Vastly more interesting is the fact that that notebook entry also shows that DXer is wrong in arguing that flask RMR-1029 was stored in Building 1412 for some time.  The note says,
The spores were then dispensed into 2 equal lots, 500ml/lot, in polycarbonate screw-capped flasks (sterile).  They were store in the B3 cold room at 2-8 C. 
So, in addition to Dr. Ivins' statement to the FBI that flask RMR-1029 was never stored in Building 1412, we now have a written statement to that effect in Dr. Ivins' own notebook. When the flasks were created they were stored in the Suite B3 cold room, i.e., room B311, two doors down from Ivins' lab in B313 in Building 1425.  That should put an end to the matter.  The fact that scientists in Building 1412 had a different number (#7737) for the contents of flask RMR-1029 means nothing.

The second email contained only this in the subject line:
I'm embarrassed for you because there are 217 mistakes like this - we're stuck at #1 because you refuse to correct your mistake
I hope they consider the mistake corrected.  I do.  And I appreciate being corrected with facts and evidence, instead of with opinions and beliefs.

The third email was a long, rambling opinion about "the reason Dr. Ayman Zawahiri would have used the extremely virulent Ames strain."  It begins with this:

Zawahiri seeks his justifications in the hadiths — which is why he would have used the extremely virulent Ames strain of anthrax. The hadiths commanded that one use the weapon of one’s enemy.
The problem is, of course, that the Ames strain was never used as a weapon because it makes a very poor weapon.   Yes, it is "extremely virulent" if left untreated.  But, it's easily treated.  Just about any antibiotic can kill it.  Vollum is still the anthrax strain of choice for making bioweapons.  And there are MANY other anthrax strains that would make a better weapon than Ames.  Ames was selected for use in making vaccines because it killed a vaccinated cow and because it reproduces very rapidly. 

DXer has argued that same misunderstanding in the past, and still hasn't corrected his mistake.  When it's pointed out to him that the anthrax mailer took several precautions to prevent anyone from being harmed by the anthrax in the letters (taping the letters shut, wrapping the spores in the pharmaceutical fold, including warnings in the letter, etc.), DXer will just argue that "the hadiths" also include reason for doing that.  He demonstrates that he does not use the scientific method, he instead argues only opinions, and he has an opinion that fits any counter-argument.

December 9, 2014 (A) - This morning, someone sent me a link to a recent Scientific American article titled "Why Do People Believe in Conspiracy Theories?"  It says,

About a third of Americans, for example, believe the “birther” conspiracy theory that Obama is a foreigner. About as many believe that 9/11 was an “inside job” by the Bush administration.

The idea that such beliefs are held only by a bunch of nerdy white guys living in their parents' basements is a myth. Surveys by Uscinski and Parent show that believers in conspiracies “cut across gender, age, race, income, political affiliation, educational level, and occupational status.”
That's been my experience, too.  Some of the top conspiracy theorists I've dealt with are lawyers and college professors.  That's what makes them so fascinating.  They all have different theories, yet they all basically think alike.  Each thinks that he or she is the only one who really sees "the truth."  And you can't really get them to argue with one another.  Their focus is always to argue against "the government" and against anyone who agrees with the government findings.  And when doing that, they look at the other the conspiracy theorists as allies.

A college professor recently wrote a review of Graeme MacQueen's book "The 2001 Anthrax Deception" for ThePeoplesVoice.org.  The review is dated Dec. 5 and the reviewer, Prof. Edward Curtin, gushes on and one about how MacQueen uses a "plethora" of facts to support his conspiracy theory: 

MacQueen, in countering anti-conspiratorial thinkers of the left and right who approach such issues with minds like beds already made up, explains his method thus: “The tools of investigation are no different from those used to test other proposals. We use evidence and reason. In some cases we will be able to make confident assertions and in other cases we shall have to acknowledge that we are speculating, but even in this second case we will do our best to ground our speculation in evidence. Ideology, national loyalty, outrage and ‘common sense’ will not do the job.”
What kind of "evidence and reason" is he talking about?  An example:

The anthrax letter attacks began on September 18, 2001 when the first letters were mailed from Princeton, New Jersey. Between October 3 and November 20 twenty-two people were infected with dried anthrax spores and five died. Between October 6 and October 8 especially highly refined and aerosolized anthrax letters were sent to two key Democratic Senators, Thomas Daschle and Patrick Leahy. Before October 3 when the first case, that of Robert Stevens who died two days later, was diagnosed, the FBI claimed that “no one except the perpetrators knew…that the attacks were in progress.”

Yet The New York Times, between September 12 and October 3, made reference to the possibility of biological or chemical terrorist attacks 76 times, 27 references specifically to anthrax. Many of these warnings came from government leaders.
So, there must have been a conspiracy if the media was worried about the possibility of an anthrax attack before there actually was an anthrax attack.  That's the same logic I mentioned on Sunday that Pearl Harbor conspiracy theorists use.  If you are worried about the possibility of an attack before there actually is an attack, then you must have had prior knowledge of the attack - or even helped to arrange it.

The world of conspiracy theorists has no place for intelligent people who pay attention to what is going on in the real world.  In the world of conspiracy theorists, if there is a "possibility" of an attack, then the government should put an end to that possibility.  That's what we pay taxes for.  If "the government" can't eliminate the "possibility of an attack," then they are either incompetent or they are working to allow the attack to happen for some political reason.  It's all so simple and logical - if you're paranoid.

December 8, 2014 - Yesterday, "DXer" sent me an interesting email which I posted to my interactive blog.  The main purpose of the email was to point out a "mistake" I made on my supplementary web page about The illogical al Qaeda Theory.  On that page I wrote,
1.  The belief is that some scientist member of al Qaeda (or just some Muslim scientist named xxxxx xxxxxxx) was given access to a B3 suite at USAMRIID in May 1998.  While there, the scientist was given a sample of the Ames strain.   (But records show that the first sample taken from flask RMR-1029 which was removed in Sept. 1998.)  Click HERE for more details. 
DXer said in his email:
That’s not what the records show. The records show that the first known sample taken from Flask RMR-1029 were from March 1998. The inventory he relies upon has been noted by Ivins to not reflect all the transfers and yet Ed relies on it because of a lack of mastery of the documents.

I have uploaded and linked the FBI’s expanded log of known withdrawals from Flask 1029 (based on the documents that the FBI was able to obtain).
The Reference Material Receipt Record says that the date the contents of RMR-1029 were "Received at USAMRIID" was "22 Oct 97."  But then it shows "Amount In" as "1000 ml" on 9/17/98.  Here's the first page of that document (click HERE for a larger version): 

RMR-1029
                                inventory log

It's my understanding that 22 Oct. 1997 was the date that the project was approved and the RMR number was assigned.  But, I could be wrong.  In any event, it's my understanding that it was a major project.  It took a long time to actually assemble and purify the contents of the flasks that eventually contained material RMR-1029 and were put into inventory.  But, again I could be wrong. 

DXer also provided a link to "the FBI's expanded log."  It's HERE.  But, the image at that link is not in context, so I had to search for the original.  I found it on page 8 of FBI file "24 of 59," where it is the last page of a FBI report that begins on page 6.  The "expanded log" does indeed have some entries prior to September 17, 1998 when flask RMR-1029 was officially created with 1000 milliliters of spore concentrate and the first sample was removed.  Here's that part of the "expanded log" showing three removals prior to the Sept. 17, 1998, log entry, two in March 1998 and one in May:

FBI log checking
                                on RMR-1029 entries
 
It's unclear exactly what was going on at that time.  The contents of flask RMR-1029 were received in batches from Dugway and from Ivins' own work.  The spores had to be purified and tested before exactly 1000 milliliters were poured into two 500 ml flasks and the inventory for RMR-1029 began.  Exactly what was dispensed on May 13, 1998 - and to whom - is unclear.  The link I used on my web page doesn't explain anything.  And DXer won't provide sources and details of what he thinks happened.  

In his June 19, 2012, comment on my interactive blog DXer wrote something that is almost indecipherable (and of course he doesn't provide links to any sources):
And you talk about tours of USAMRIID when in fact Bruce Ivins GAVE virulent Ames to a former Zawahiri associate as part of research that was conducted at the BL-3 at USAMRIID. As part of his official duties. As evidenced by numerous patents by the DARPA-funded researchers.

Tarek Hamouda thanked Patricia Fellows, Dr. Ivins' chief accuser, for her technical assistance and thanked Bruce Ivins for supplying the Ames. 
I can't be certain that the May 13, 1998 entry does not refer to that transfer, and I don't know for certain exactly what was transferred.  So, I think the easiest thing to do is to just remove the two sentences from my web page about the al Qaeda theory rather than rephrase or try to explain things.  I've done that.  And I modified an update comment at the bottom of the page to try to clarify things a bit.

December 7, 2014 - Hmm.  Today is both Sunday and Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day, the 73rd anniversary of the Sunday, December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor.  That would seem to make it an opportune time to plug my novel "Clipper," which is available for Kindle owners for just $2.99.  The attack on Pearl Harbor is the central event in "Clipper."

Cover of
                                      the novel "Clipper"

This subject is not entirely off topic, since one reason I got interested in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was all the conspiracy theories that were spawned by Pearl Harbor Truthers in the decades that followed the attack.  I've actually met some Pearl Harbor Truthers over the years.   I remember talking with one at the Austin Film Festival in 2001, just a few weeks after 9/11.  I don't recall his name, but he was rail-thin, in his 50's or 60's, very tense and driven, and also thoroughly dedicated to spreading this theory that Pearl Harbor was made possible via a U.S. government conspiracy: President Roosevelt allowed Pearl Harbor to happen so that America would be drawn into World War II.  The Truther didn't particularly like me telling him that my novel "Clipper" debunked all such conspiracy theories.  It was like he was on a mission, dedicating his life to getting people to learn "the truth" about Pearl Harbor.  Of course, he was also at the Austin Film Festival to try to sell his screenplay about the conspiracy.

I've probably argued with some Pearl Harbor Truthers on the Internet, too.  But, it was long ago, in the early days after the anthrax attacks.  My personal library still contains some key books on the subject, books that look at what really happened, not what Truthers believe happened.  "At Dawn We Slept" is a prime example of a book that describes what really happened.

 "Clipper" is a novel that debunks the Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories by showing what the facts and evidence say as seen through they eyes of fictional characters who go on a real life, epic and historical adventure, encountering key real people from the time.  A week before Pearl Harbor, the main character, Professor Jessica McCann, is asked to go on an important mission for the U.S. government.  She leaves San Francisco on November 30, 1941,
aboard a Pan Am Clipper bound for Pearl Harbor.  There, she is to meet with a Japanese naval officer, an old friend she grew up with and still exchanges letters with.  But the officer is unable to make his planned Pan Am flight heading east from Macao, and he instead boards a tramp steamer bound for Darwin, Australia.  An "epic adventure" ensues as Professor McCann heads for Australia to meet him there while powerful forces in American and Germany work to make certain that Jessica McCann's mission fails.

If you go to the sample chapters of "Clipper" on Amazon.com, you'll see that nearly everyone in the story is expecting war to break out with Japan at any moment.  While no one even remotely thinks the Japanese are planning to attack Pearl Harbor, they are all fully expecting that Japan will at any moment attack the Philippines and invade Indochina, which would start a war with America.  It was only the average American who was totally surprised when Japan started the war. 

That can be compared to the anthrax attacks.  There were many people in the government expecting al Qaeda to use some kind of bioweapon on America after the failed attempt to bring down the North Tower of the World Trade Center in February, 1993.  To many Americans, it is incomprehensible to expect such a thing.  You don't expect or plan for an attack by terrorists or foreigners, you do something to stop the attack.  And, if you expected an attack and did not stop it, then you are either incompetent or you conspired to allow the attack to happen, which is what conspiracy theorists believe about Pearl Harbor and the anthrax attacks.  (I don't think anyone was ever dumb enough to believe it was really Americans who bombed Pearl Harbor, the way some believe today it was really Americans who perpetrated 9/11.)

Checking through my old journals, I see I was writing "Clipper" in 1990. When I was done writing he book, I found an agent to help me market it.  He was a top agent who really loved the book and more or less came out of retirement to help me find a publisher.  He tried about 50 publishers, but couldn't get a sale.  He passed on to me some comment letters from editors.  I recall one said my novel was like a series of adventures, instead of one single story.  Another editor wrote me to say he was going to mention the idea to one of his writers, Ken Follett.  Ken Follett later wrote a totally different book about an adventure aboard a Boeing-314 Pan Am Clipper.  It was called "Night Over Water."  The editor sent me a copy when it was published in 1991.

Eventually, my agent and I gave up on finding a publisher for "Clipper," and I moved on to writing screenplays.  I got a Hollywood agent interested, and he tried selling several of my screenplays.  Although one screenplay was optioned for awhile, none was ever produced into a movie.

Then I got involved in on-line arguments about the anthrax attacks of 2001, and I wrote two self-published non-fiction books on that subject.

(Somewhere in a closet I have copies of manuscripts for three or four other novels I wrote before "Clipper" (and before the age of home computers, which means they're not on disks) but couldn't get an agent or publisher interested.  Some people don't understand about hobbies - particularly writing as a hobby.  They think if you don't make money, you should stop doing it.  I get enjoyment from the writing process, just as I do in writing for this web site.  Getting paid for doing it would just be a bonus.)

And now I'm trying to find the time to get back to work on the second in a series of three new science fiction novels.  I haven't written a word for it since mid-August, largely because converting to a new computer is taking up so much of my time.  I also keep thinking that I should set up another web site where I can write about things that are not connected to the anthrax attacks of 2001 - like books, movies, current events, TV, psychology and other interests of mine.  I just keep waiting for the General Accountability Office (GAO) to publish their review of the Amerithrax investigation so that I can wrap things up on this web site.  It was supposed to happen "sometime this fall," but fall will be over in two weeks, and there's still no sign of that GAO review.

A couple arguments last week showed me it is getting close to the time when I need to wrap up things on this web site.  One Truther wrote:

If you cannot make your argument without intentionally lying, Ed, it reveals the weakness of your argument.

And if you are not intentionally lying, it just reveals you to be incredibly stupid.
And a different Truther wrote:
That [the details of his theory] will eventually be understood by those with an open mind. In 2020, or 2022. Or whenever. With any 'luck' at all, Mister Lake won't live to see it.
I've got a lot of things I'd rather be doing than arguing with people who don't know the difference between saying an idea is stupid and saying a person is stupid, and arguing with people who hope you will soon be dead.

Updates & Changes: Sunday, November 30, 2014, thru Saturday, December 6, 2014

December 6, 2014 (B) - Hmm.  This afternoon, after working on my new laptop computer most of the day, I turned on my old computer to download my web site statistics, which I still cannot do on my laptop (because I need to set up a new password, and I haven't found the time to do that).  While I was working on my old computer, the browser screen suddenly changed.  It switched from the old Firefox web browser screen I've been using for a decade to the new Firefox web browser screen.

Ordinarily, that probably wouldn't be a problem for most people.  But for me it meant I stopped having any ability to maintain this (or any) web site via my old computer.  The new version of Firefox doesn't have any web site composer capability. That's why I couldn't use Firefox on my new laptop and had to hunt around until I found the SeaMonkey browser which does what I need to do.

I'd stopped maintaining this web site with my old computer anyway.  But, I just did that 7 days ago.   It makes me wonder what I would have done if they had changed the version of Firefox on my old computer a month ago.  I would have suddenly lost all ability to maintain this web site.  I got a flash of paranoia wondering if someone has been keeping track of what I'm doing and made the change because they knew I could now handle the change.  Or was it just luck that made me ready for the change?     


December 6, 2014 (A) - I probably should save this for tomorrow's comment, but I'll mention it today and hope I can think of something else to write about for my regular Sunday comment.

According to NBC News, a top al Qaeda terrorist was killed yesterday in
Shinwarsak, South Waziristan, by the Pakistani military:
Adnan el Shukrijumah, who was indicted in July 2010 for his alleged role in planned terror attacks in the U.S. and Britain, was killed along with two others in a pre-dawn raid, the military told NBC News. 
According to the British newspaper The Telegraph:
After the attacks on the Twin Towers, Shukrijumah was seen as one of al-Qaeda’s best chances to attack inside the US or Europe, according to testimony given to US authorities by Abu Zubaydah, a captured terrorist. Shukrijumah studied at a community college in Florida but when the FBI arrived to arrest him as a material witness to a terrorism case in 2003, he already had left the country.
An article in today's issue of another British newspaper The Independent contains a few additional details:

He had come to South Florida in 1995 when his father, a Muslim cleric and missionary trained in Saudi Arabia, decided to take a post at a Florida mosque after several years at a mosque in Brooklyn.

But at some point in the late 1990s, the FBI says Shukrijumah became convinced that he must participate in "jihad," or holy war, to fight perceived persecution against Muslims in places like Chechnya and Bosnia. He eventually went to a training camp in Afghanistan where he studied the use of weapons, explosives and battle tactics.

Another British newspaper, The Globe and Mail, doesn't add anything significant, nor does a Reuters article on the subject.  England's BBC.com web site contains a "profile" of Shukrijumah, but it doesn't say much.

What they are all missing is the fact that "DXer" believes that Shukrijumah was the anthrax mailer.  None of the news articles even mentions the anthrax attacks, nor do they state that Shukrijumah was in the U.S. at the time of the attacks.  Maybe they know something that DXer doesn't know -- or something he refuses to believe.

December 4-5, 2014 -  Yesterday, on my interactive blog, "DXer" wanted me to prove this flask of  "anthrax spore concentrate" was NOT the Ames strain. 

anthrax spore concentrate

The flask was evidently found in a lab in Kabul, Afghanistan sometime after 9/11.  The photo comes from Lew Weinstein's blog HERE.  

The "proof" I provided to DXer was that, if it was the Ames strain, it would have been a MAJOR news story, since the FBI found that the Ames strain had been sent to only three foreign countries, and Afghanistan wasn't one of the three.  

However, DXer seems dedicated to assuming that it IS the Ames strain until someone in authority proves to him personally that it is NOT the Ames strain.  And then DXer will decide whether to believe the official or not.

He also wants some handwriting expert to verify his own observation that the handwriting on the label belongs to
Rauf Ahmad.  DXer says, "GAO should obtain the FBI’s expert handwriting comparison."  It's unclear what DXer will do with the verification if he gets it.  It doesn't appear to mean anything to the Amerithrax investigation.  But, DXer probably thinks it does.

In another discussion with a different Anthrax Truther yesterday, the Truther argued that the FBI is using arguments that are "not falsifiable."  He quoted me:
"Not falsifiable" means it is NOT POSSIBLE to prove false.
And then he wrote:
IOW the Ivins-is-guilty hypothesis is independent of any chronology/set of circumstances. And hence unfalsifiable.
I really had a laugh over that one.  The Truther believes he knows who sent the anthrax letters, and it was NOT Dr. Ivins.  In the real world, that should mean that he can prove someone other than Bruce Ivins did it.  And that would mean he can prove the FBI claim that Ivins did it is false.

So the Truther is saying, in effect, that "the Ivins-is guilty hypothesis" is unfalsifiable, while at the same time the Truther is saying he can prove the "hypothesis" is false.

Apparently, like other Anthrax Truthers, all he needs to prove the FBI is wrong is for the FBI to provide him with evidence that the FBI is wrong.  Until then, he'll assume the FBI is lying.  And, if the FBI were to provide him with the material he wants and  it did not contain the evidence he believes is there, then that would prove that the FBI is still hiding the evidence and still lying. 

The Truther's claim that the FBI is lying is "unfalsifiable."  The Truther cannot prove the FBI is lying, and no evidence the FBI could ever provide would convince the Truther that they are not lying.  He'd just continue to argue that it is "possible" that the FBI is still lying, and there would be no way to prove it was "impossible."  That's basic reasoning for Truthers and conspiracy theorists.  Their claims are unfalsifiable because you need to prove their claims are impossible.  If you can't, then they'll just continue to believe what they want to believe.

December 3, 2014 - I've been incredibly busy trying to get my new laptop computer into operation, which caused me to neglect adding any comments to this web site for a few days.  During that time, I have been arguing endlessly with two Anthrax Truthers on my interactive blog, but I haven't had time to write a comment about it here.  That's probably just as well, since it's same-old, same-old.

This morning, I noticed a long article about the anthrax attacks of 2001 and Graeme MacQueen on OpEdNews.com.  It's dated yesterday, and I see it's a copy of a new article dated Monday from the conspiracy theorist web site GlobalResearch.ca.  I haven't had a chance to read it, but it looks mostly same-old, same-old.

I've been trying for over two weeks to set up an Outlook.com email account in the SeaMonkey email program I'm using on the laptop.  Yesterday, I finally succeeded.  Now I need to write a description about how it was done, so that interested people on a Microsoft forum can see what was required.  I'll start on that as soon as I upload this comment.

I also really want to write something about the movie "Temple Grandin" (which I watched for the second time on Monday evening) and some comments Jerry Seinfeld made on NBC News a couple weeks ago:



This web site, however, may not be the right place to write about that, even though it might be highly relevant if viewed from the right angle.  I also want to tie it all in to the differences I have seen over the years between people who watch sports and people who watch movies - and people who don't like either one.  But that's going to take a lot of thinking to sort out.

And then I need to work on about a dozen remaining problems in getting things on my old computer shifted over to my new laptop.

Busy, busy, busy.

November 30, 2014 - This update is being done via my new laptop computer using the SeaMonkey web page composer program - as will all updates in the foreseeable future (unless something goes wrong). 

There's still  no news about when the General Accountability Office will be releasing their review of the Amerithrax Investigation.  And the Anthrax Truthers are still just arguing the same things they've argued for over a decade: The FBI is wrong, and the Truthers believe they know "the truth," although it appears that no two Truthers have the same idea of what "the truth" is.

In the world of science and in the world of criminal investigations, "the truth" is what the facts and evidence say is correct

In the world of Anthrax Truthers, "the truth" is whatever they believe is "true," regardless of what the facts and evidence say.

In the world of science, the search for "the truth" generally begins with the observation of some kind of phenomenon, e.g., if left in an open Petri dish, anthrax spores dry all by themselves.  How is this possible?  Some "experts" claim that it requires very sophisticated drying equipment to dry anthrax spores, and they claim it's not possible to dry anthrax spores without such sophisticated equipment.

In the world of criminal investigations, the FBI determined that Dr. Bruce Edwards Ivins was the person who, in 2001, sent the anthrax-filled letters which killed 5 people and injured 17 others.  However, some outside "experts" claim that it was not possible for Dr. Ivins to have done such a thing (one reason being he had no way to dry spores).

Here's video of scientist Nobel Prize winning physicist Richard Feynman explaining the "scientific method":



In the video, Dr. Feynman starts by explaining how physicists begin a search for "a new law," i.e., a search for an explanation of some observed phenomenon. 

In the world of criminal investigations, an investigator begins with a search for the perpetrator of a crime, e.g., who sent the anthrax letters?

Dr. Feynman explains that physicists often begin with "a guess."  (He probably should  have said "an educated guess.")

Criminal investigators often do somewhat the same thing.

The initial "guess" in the Amerithrax investigation was that the letters were sent by the same people who had just attacked America in a different way on 9/11.  The "guess" was that Islamic terrorists had sent the anthrax letters as a followup to 9/11.

Dr. Feynman then says the next step is to "compute the consequences of the guess," i.e. to determine what else must (or should) be true if the "guess" is true.

The 9/11 terrorists could not have mailed the anthrax letters themselves, since they were all dead at the time of the mailings.  And, if the 9/11 terrorists had a companion who stayed behind to mail the anthrax letters, there should have been some trace of anthrax spores where the terrorists went.

The FBI investigated every place the 9/11 terrorists visited, testing for any trace of anthrax spores.  They found NO TRACE of spores anywhere.  (Much later, some outside investigators argued that a gash in the leg of a 9/11 hijacker might have been an anthrax lesion.  But that wasn't part of the FBI's investigation.)

The FBI began looking overseas for some trace of where the spores may have been grown by Islamic terrorists.   They found no connection to the mailings.

Meanwhile, the FBI also learned that the strain of anthrax used in the attacks was the Ames strain, which was used primarily in American microbiology labs.

In the video, Dr. Feynman explains that if all your work to verify your "guess" shows negative results, then the "guess" is WRONG.  And he explains:

"If it disagrees with experiment, it's WRONGIn that simple statement is the key to science.  It doesn't make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn't make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess or what his name is, if it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong.  That's all there is to it."

In criminal investigations (as opposed to scientific investigations), that comment could be translated to mean,

If a "guess" disagrees with the evidence, it's WRONGIn that simple statement is the key to law.  It doesn't make any difference how beautiful your "guess" is, it doesn't make any difference how smart you are, who made the "guess" or what his name is, if it disagrees with the evidence, it's wrong.  That's all there is to it.

There was no meaningful evidence to support the "guess" that Islamic terrorists were behind the anthrax letter attacks.  The evidence suggested just the opposite: that Islamic terrorists were NOT responsible for the anthrax attacks of 2001.  So, the investigators had to look elsewhere (while also continuing to look for evidence they may have missed when investigating their first "guess.")

The next "educated guess" was that a "lone wolf" had sent the letters. Past experience on vaguely similar attacks had shown that to be the next best "educated guess."  If the killer was NOT a "lone wolf" but part of some criminal conspiracy, the search for a "lone wolf" should uncover evidence of that, too.  (There's no logical way to start by looking for a criminal conspiracy.) 

The FBI asked for help from the public.  In response they received thousands of tips, including some from "experts" in scientific fields who pointed at Steven Hatfill as a likely suspect, and at least one (from Nancy Haigwood) pointing at Dr. Bruce Ivins.

It became a process of elimination.  If the evidence showed that a potential suspect could NOT have committed the crime alone, then he or she was eliminated as the "lone wolf," but still kept as a candidate for a participant in a criminal conspiracy.

As everyone now knows, it was an advancement in forensic microbiology that eventually pinpointed the person the facts and evidence showed to have committed the crime: Dr. Bruce Edwards Ivins of USAMRIID.  The new evidence showed that the attack spores originated with a flask he controlled.  And a vast amount of additional circumstantial evidence showed Dr. Ivis had means, motive, opportunity, and that he'd tried on multiple occasions to mislead the investigators.

The facts and evidence showed beyond a reasonable doubt that Dr. Ivins was the anthrax killer.  Of course, there are many people who think the FBI is wrong, but that doesn't matter.  Dr. Feynman explains why at about the 8:45 mark in the video:
The problem is not to say that something might be wrong, but to replace it with something [better].  And that is not so easy.
As Dr, Feynman explains, when attempts are made to substitute some other theory for the finding that is supported by facts and evidence, it becomes immediately apparent that the replacement theory doesn't work.

No "replacement" theory I've ever seen about who sent the anthrax letters can even explain the basic issues, like how was access to Flask RMR-1029 obtained?  The theorists conjure up ways that are "possible," but they have no evidence to support their theory that their suspect did things that "possible" way.  Their theories are based upon what is "possible," not upon facts and evidence.  Therefore their theories cannot replace (or even meaningfully compare) to the FBI's finding, based upon facts and evidence, that Dr. Ivins was the anthrax killer.

Thus endeth my lecture for this Sunday ... except for one additional comment: Yesterday, "DXer" attempted another post to my interactive blogHe wrote only this:

Why didn't you apply the scientific method to your theory a First Grader wrote the Fall 2001 anthrax letters? 
Of course, he didn't even attempt to explain how he arrived at the screwball belief that I didn't use the scientific method to conclude that a First Grader wrote the anthrax letters.  It's what the evidence says.  And no one has ever produced any better evidence of a different conclusion.  That's the "scientific method" in a nutshell.

Since this comment is also being written to test my ability to include visual links to YouTube videos, here's the video I created a couple years ago to explain 12 facts which show that the letters were written by a child just starting first grade (and there are a lot more facts which aren't mentioned in the video):



People may not believe this finding, but no one has ever produced a better explanation of the facts and evidence.

Updates & Changes: Sunday, November 23, 2014, thru Saturday, November 29, 2014

November 27, 2014 - I hope everyone has a great Thanksgiving.  That includes all those who are absolutely certain they know the "truth" about the anthrax attacks of 2001, and all those who see no reason to reject what the current available evidence seems to say about the attacks, and all those who don't really give a damn one way or the other.

November 26, 2014 - Yesterday's comment got a couple interesting reactions.  An Anthrax Truther on my interactive blog twisted and distorted something I wrote in the comment in order to argue once again his pet theory that the anthrax attacks of 2001 were a criminal conspiracy led by a criminal mastermind who he cannot name. 

Meanwhile, someone else sent me an email suggesting that I just take my new laptop computer back to the store and get my money back, instead of asking "experts" how to solve the touchpad problem or trying to figure it out for myself.   As I see it, that wouldn't solve anything, since it appears that the "two finger scroll" touchpad problem is very common, and it could appear again in a replacement computer.

This morning, a discussion I was having on a SeaMonkey support forum resulted in me finding the solution to a problem I was having with setting up an email account.  It turned out to be a wrong entry I made while trying to set up the account.  Once I put in the correct entry, everything worked perfectly.  And that simple solution suggests that my touchpad problem may be solveable by a simple change in settings, too.   In a Youtube video HERE, someone shows how simply turning off a switch and then turning it back on again solves the problem of the touchpad not working.   But, "Alex Fischer" posted this comment in response:
 
Short term solution! I've been using this same method however the problem keeps reoccurring...

And the problem keeps reoccurring on my laptop, too.  But, for me, a permanent solution may just be to find that switch and turn off the two finger scroll option permanently.  I don't really need the two finger scroll option, but there may be times when I can't use the mouse and will need all the other touchpad capabilities.

I just need to find that switch to give it a flick in order to see what happens.

November 25, 2014 - This is mostly off-topic, but someone might find it interesting:

Yesterday, in the middle of a snow storm, I drove over to my local computer store and picked up my "new" laptop, which I'd taken in for repair on Friday because the touchpad had stopped working, plus I was having difficulty getting the SeaMonkey email program to work, and I'd hope they might help me with that.  After spending about a half hour with their "experts" yesterday, I learned that they had no clue as to how to get the SeaMonkey email program to work.  They'd never worked with that particular problem in that particular software before.   Since I'd been working on it for several days before I turned it over to them, I was probably much more of an "expert" than they were.  

Then I learned that they'd fixed the touchpad problem in a way that I knew from past experience wouldn't last.  And it didn't.  As soon as I got the laptop home, the touchpad stopped working again.

This could be viewed as an "on topic" problem, since the "problem" involves dealing with "experts."   Each "expert," like everyone else, has his own unique view of the world and his own history of past experiences.  And, like most "experts," the "experts" at the computer store deal with dozens or maybe hundreds of different problems every day.  They tend to view problems as patterns, i.e., similar to past problems they've seen, while my problem may not fit any pattern or past problem.

And then there's also the "telephone game" problem: When I brought in the laptop for repair, I described the problems to the "expert" tending to the customer counter.  He typed his understanding of the problem into their computer system.  A day or so later, a different "expert" was assigned to fix the problem.  That "expert" read what the first guy typed and did his own interpretation of the problem.   So, what the "expert" who actually worked on the computer understood as the problem may have been significantly different from what I originally described.

I've had the touchpad problem fixed five times since I bought the laptop computer on October 1.  I've learned that I really should be using a mouse, not the touchpad.  I'm much faster at using the mouse.  Plus, I've learned that there are two different ways to "solve" the touchpad problem.  One "solution" works, one doesn't.   The "solution" that allows "two finger scrolling" will work for awhile, and then the touchpad will suddenly stop working altogether.  The solution that does NOT allow "two finger scrolling" works, but it's not the "current" advertised method for using the touchpad.

So, what I need to do is first try to see if I can fix the problem myself.  If I can't, I need to be very careful and very specific when I describe the problem to the "experts" at the store.  I can't leave any room for misinterpretations. 

"Experts" are just humans like the rest of us.  When dealing with an "expert," you need to penetrate through his biases, prejudices and ignorance, just as with any non-expert.  And you need to explain the problem in terms that your grandmother would understand.

November 24, 2014 - My new laptop computer is "in the shop" again with that same touchpad problem.  So, I thought I'd waste some time by looking through YouTube.com to see if there were any Graeme MacQueen videos where he does more explaining of his conspiracy theory beliefs.  I found there are numerous videos where MacQueen is explains his beliefs.  The first one I checked is HERE.  It's a VERY interesting radio interview that was uploaded on July 26, 2011.  In it, MacQueen explains how it's clear to him that the anthrax letters were a U.S. government plot, because he has no doubt that the writer of the letters intended for them to appear as if a Muslim terrorist sent the letters.  And, sure enough, the first thought the FBI (and everyone else) had when the letters were first found was that they were from Muslim terrorists.

The FBI then began to uncover evidence that the anthrax actually came from a U.S. laboratory, which MacQueen describes as the FBI's false story "falling apart." 

Later, MacQueen describes the ABC news stories which claimed that bentonite was found in the anthrax powders.  He assumes that this is ABC news getting another "false story" from "the government."  And that story, too, quickly "fell apart."  The idea that it could have been the result of an over-eager ABC reporter getting bogus information from an unreliable source is, apparently, never even considered as a possibility.

Most interesting, however, is how supremely confident MacQueen is in his beliefs.  It's also very interesting that he's often right about the intentions of the anthrax mailer (if you look at the evidence regarding Bruce Ivins' motives and intentions), but he wrongly and without basis assumes that the mailer was an official representative of "the U.S. government" perpetrating a "false flag" operation on the public.

The interview is a very good illustration of someone starting with a belief (in this case, a belief that the anthrax attacks were part of a false flag operation that also included the US government perpetrating the 9/11 attacks), and then twisting all the "evidence" to make it fit that imagined scenario, while ignoring anything that doesn't fit.

November 23, 2014 - For awhile, I didn't have any on-topic subjects to write about this morning.  There's been nothing in the news.  The Anthrax Truthers have stopped arguing on my interactive blog, which means they aren't providing any new absurdities for me to write comments about.   "DXer's" recent posts to Lew Weinstein's blog seem to be about screwball side issues that have little or nothing to do with the Amerithrax investigation.  So, there was nothing worthwhile there for me to comment about, either. 

But, then my daily Google news search for "anthrax+2001"  turned up an "in-depth" interview with conspiracy theorist Graeme MacQueen, the author of
"The 2001 Anthrax Deception : The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy."  What's most interesting about that interview is that it shows a conspiracy theorist explaining his reasoning.

For example, the interviewer, Julian Charles of TheMindRenewed.com, says
, "Then they turned to Bruce Ivins, and that was successful  in the sense that the case was closed.  But you, along with many others, maintain that that case was extremely flimsy, almost to the point of non-existence."  And then the interviewer asks, "Could you give us an idea of how implausible that case was against Dr. Ivins?"

And MacQueen explains!  Here's a small part of his explanation:

So the FBI then has a field day: “Oh well, the fact that he took his own life just shows his guilty conscience”, and they write a document in which the case against Ivins is made. (I think it’s something like 90 pages long; you can find it on the Internet). You have to realise how outrageous this is. The man is dead, and you’re making a case against him, a case on the most flimsy, circumstantial evidence, slander, and all the rest of it.  He has no chance to rebut this. He had a lawyer, but the lawyer really has no function anymore because Ivins is dead.  This, by the way, is part of a common pattern that we find in fraudulent events. This is the Lee Harvey Oswald phenomenon. Remember that Oswald supposedly killed Kennedy, and then just happened to be murdered in the presence of 70 Dallas police officers. Well, that meant, of course, that he would never be able to tell his story; he would never be tried; he would be convicted by slander, not by a legal process. I believe this is a fairly common pattern with these things.

MacQueen's explanation shows he is seeing patterns between things that happened decades apart under different Presidential administrations.  That's a clear indicator that he is seeing "the government" as evil, regardless of who is in the White House.  For him, everyone in the entire government is - and always has been - part of a vast criminal conspiracy to cover up all their evil deeds.

However, I found this comment in a different paragraph to be particularly interesting:


He [Ivins] himself wrote a note to someone saying something like this: “The state demands its blood sacrifice, and it appears I am to be that sacrifice.”

I didn't recall reading that quote before.  Researching the supposed quote, I found something like it mentioned in a February 2010 New York Times article by Scott Shane:

Long before he became a serious suspect, Dr. Ivins, one of the government’s most experienced anthrax researchers, was a valued consultant to the F.B.I. investigators on the letters case. Only after path-breaking genetic analysis led to his lab did investigators consider that their genial scientific adviser might actually be their quarry.

As they focused on Dr. Ivins and read his e-mail messages, the report said, they began to be increasingly convinced that he was the mailer. And as he became aware that he was under scrutiny, he directed the F.B.I. repeatedly to other potential suspects. Once, in 2007, he wrote what the F.B.I. calls “an illogical 12-point memo” suggesting that the two female former colleagues with whom he was obsessed might have mailed the letters.

When one of the women, made aware of the memo, confronted Dr. Ivins about it in 2008, he wrote to her, blaming an alternate personality he called “ ‘Crazy Bruce,’ who surfaces periodically as paranoid, severely depressed and ridden with incredible anxiety.” He complained that “it seems as though I have been selected as the blood sacrifice for this whole thing.”


I noticed that the two quotes did not match.  And, I still couldn't recall Ivins ever saying such a thing.  Checking further, I found this on page 69 of the Amerithrax Investigation Summary:

As his depression took on a new level of severity in the spring of 2008, and he was briefly hospitalized for his first articulated suicide plan, Dr. Ivins sent a number of e-mails that are both evidence of his fixation with and reliance on Former Colleague #1 and evidence of his guilty conscience.  For example, in an e-mail to Former Colleague #1 [Mara Linscott] and her close relative [probably her sister] on March 19, 2008, at approximately midnight, just prior to this first hospitalization, he said the following:

I miss the days that all would say that I was sane without a snicker.
I miss the days when I felt that we were doing what was
worthwhile for our soldiers. I miss the days when I believed that
our undertakings were worthy and honest and sacrificial. I miss the
days since I could talk to you!

O, Healer! O devoter of your life to the lives of others! I can hurt,
kill, and terrorize, but others place me with the vilest of the
vile. . . . Go down low, low, low as you can go, then dig forever,
and you’ll find me, my psyche. I can kill none but myself. I can
terrify none but myself, but I can love and hug and turn toward the
good, all who are willing. Give[n] my long-distant and non­
productive past. Our pasts shape our futures, and mine was built
on lies and craziness, and depression, and thievery, and things that
make an honest man and woman cry. Alone. The farther I go, it’s
alone. The state smells its carniverous death-blood sacrifice. I
look into the mirror and cry out who it is.

I'd say that Graeme MacQueen and Scott Shane both took those two final sentences out of context and significantly distorted what Ivins actually wrote.  Why wasn't this the headline?:

"I can hurt, kill and terrorize,"
  Dr. Bruce Ivins confessed!


Why didn't they also quote Ivins as saying that his life was "built on lies and craziness, and depression, and thievery, and things that make an honest man and woman cry"?

What exactly was Ivins trying to say in that incoherent, rambling email?  It certainly was NOT that he was an innocent man being sacrificed by "the state."  The DOJ says it shows "evidence of his guilty conscience."  I agree.  And, to me, it seems that Ivins was saying, "I've killed and committed terrorism; the government wants to devour the killer; I look in the mirror, and I cry out that the killer is me."

But, I digress.  In the Graeme MacQueen interview, Mr. Charles asks more questions:

What kind of weaknesses were there with the evidence?  Can you drag up a couple of things to give us an idea?

And Graeme MacQueen again explains!
 
Well, the FBI claims that he had the capacity, the requisite tools and equipment, and presumably some motivation to make this product, and so on.  All of this is unsupported by the evidence. He did work with anthrax; he worked at the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), a US military lab.

and

Anyway, the point is, he didn’t work with the kind of anthrax that was sent, especially the anthrax sent to the senators; he worked with it in a liquid form.  They got a highly-refined dried form of anthrax.  There’s no evidence he knew how to do that; there’s no evidence that he had the equipment to produce this product, which was not merely refined and dried, but which had also, as I said before, undergone this micro-encapsulation process—tin added and silicon. There’s no evidence that Ivins could have done that, or that he had the equipment to do that.  So, from a scientific point of view, this is very far-fetched.  And, by the way, colleagues of his – a former boss of his – have come out and said this.  They’ve also said, “Where do you think he made it?  Do you really think he made it in his lab at Fort Detrick?  I mean, we would have noticed.  And furthermore, it would have taken him something like 10,000 hours, not the couple of dozen hours that you’re claiming.”
and

Fort Detrick was badly equipped to produce this product.  The two most likely suspects are laboratories at either Battelle Memorial Institute, which does a tremendous amount of work for the US intelligence agencies, and specialises in aerosols, and so on.  And, the other would be the Dugway Proving Ground.  Dugway also works for the US military; it’s part of the military-industrial complex, and it’s also possible that Dugway and Battelle worked together on this. Ivins had nothing to do with them; he didn’t have access to their equipment.  Over the years I’ve referred to a number of quite technical articles on the anthrax spores used in the attacks, and it’s looking increasingly as if this product was taken from the US bioweapons programme.  It was probably taken from stores that already existed; it wasn’t created specially for the Anthrax Attacks.  This was most likely anthrax that was kept either at Dugway or Battelle.

That is all so totally wrong and ignorant!  In his lab, Dr. Ivins had all he needed to make the dry anthrax powders.  The people who say he didn't are simply ignorant of the facts.  They are either being self-serving in arguing that Ivins could not possibly have done something totally illegal right under their noses, or they believe total nonsense, such as the spores being "weaponized" with tin and silicon and that Dr. Ivins would have to have followed standard procedures when creating an illegal powder.

The problem, of course, is that if an official of the US government comes forward to show how wrong and ignorant the Anthrax Truthers are, a silly argument by Truthers that is only of interest to a tiny group on the Internet will instantly become front page news.

In my supplemental web page HERE, I explain how easy it would have been for Ivins to create the anthrax powders.  I think that's the "most likely" way that Ivins did it.  For years I've challenged anyone and everyone to find fault with that analysis.  But, I'm just a guy on the Internet.  The Anthrax Truthers cannot be bothered with arguing facts and evidence with "some guy on the Internet."  They want to argue with an official of the US Government so that the issue will become front page news.  And then a whole new group of "concerned citizens" and media commentators can complain that the US Government is giving terrorists a detailed description of how to cheaply and easily make lethal, dry anthrax spores.  It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

And, of course, the Anthrax Truthers will then demand proof that Ivins knew how to do things that he hadn't been formally taught to do.  The Anthrax Truther argument is: If Ivins didn't do it as part of his job, and if he didn't take a course in doing it, then he didn't know how to do it - no matter how simple it may be.

In the Graeme MacQueen interview, there are several other interesting explanations which show how a conspiracy theorist thinks and reasons.  Like all Anthrax Truthers, he starts with a belief and then only discusses "evidence" which he feels support his belief, while ignoring any facts and evidence which totally debunks his belief.

I look forward to the General Accountability Office publishing its long-awaited review of the Amerthrax Investigation.  I don't think there's any chance that it's going to argue that Ivins was "an innocent man," but they might offer some suggestions on how to deal with Truthers who do not accept the "official" version of anything and rely instead on their own personal beliefs and the support of others who disagree with the government.

Meanwhile, I'd really like to see a public debate between
the experts with the facts and evidence showing it was incredibly easy for Ivins to create the anthrax powders, and the so-called "experts" who think it was "impossible" for Ivins to have created the anthrax powders.  I think it would be very educational for everyone interested in this subject.

All prior Thoughts and Comments are also available.
Click HERE for year 2014 - Part 3.
Click HERE for year 2014 - Part 2.
Click HERE for year 2014 - Part 1.
Click HERE for year 2013 - Part 3.
Click HERE for year 2013 - Part 2.
Click HERE for year 2013 - Part 1.
Click HERE for year 2012 - Part 3.
Click HERE for year 2012 - Part 2.
Click HERE for year 2012 - Part 1.
Click HERE for year 2011 - Part 3.
Click HERE for year 2011 - Part 2.
Click HERE for year 2011 - Part 1.
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 HERE for years 2001, 2002 and 2003.


References:

The FBI's summary report of the Amerithrax case
The revised version of the FBI' summary report of the Amerithrax case
Search warrants and attachments to the Summary report from the DOJ's web site
The 2,720 pages of supplementary files for the Amerithrax case in the FBI's "vault" (Click HERE for my notes about those pages)
Dr. Bruce Ivins' emails while at Ft. Detrick from USAMRIID's web site
NAS "Review of the Scientific Approaches Used During the FBI's Investigation of the Anthrax Attacks of 2001"
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 (with full depositions)
Edited version of the Maureen Stevens vs Battelle Memorial, et al lawsuit Court Docket
UCLA's "Disease Detectives" site about the anthrax outbreak of 2001
Frederick Police Department's report on Ivins' Suicide
Report of the Expert Behavioral Analysis Panel

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

NOTE: The (X) following references below includes a link to my copy of the articles, which may or may not be visible on-line.

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)
USA Today - Feb. 19, 2010 - "Q&A: Anthrax and Ivins Case" (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 Huffington Post - Apr. 14, 2010 - "Crying Wolf: The Terrorist Crop-Duster" (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)
The Wall Street Journal (blog) - Sept. 16, 2010 - "GAO to Take Look at FBI Anthrax Probe" (X)
The New York Times - Sept. 16, 2010 - "New Review in Anthrax Inquiry" (X)
The Times of Trenton - Sept. 16, 2010 - "Holt: FBI anthrax investigation is itself subject of probe" (X)
The Frederick News-Post - Sept. 17, 2010 - "GAO to review FBI's Ivins investigation" (X)
The Washington Post - Oct. 4, 2010 - "William C. Patrick III, 84, dies (X)
The New York Times - Oct. 10, 2010 - "William C. Patrick III, Expert on Germ Warfare, Dies at 84" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (Opinion by Barry Kissin) - Oct. 16, 2010 - "In the shadow of 9/11" (X)
The Frederick News-Post -Nov. 30, 2010 - "Amerithrax experts debate FBI findings, insist Ivins was innocent" (X)
The Baltimore Sun - Dec. 5, 2010 - "Researcher tells how anthrax may have been made" (X)
The Frederick News-Post - Dec. 5, 2010 - "Ivins' lawyer, colleague share details FBI left out" (X)
Homeland Security Today - Dec. 9, 2010 - "Science Report on FBI Anthrax Probe Delayed Again" (X)
The New York Times - Dec. 9, 2010 - "F.B.I. Asks Panel to Delay Report on Anthrax Inquiry" (X)
The Miami Herald - Dec. 9, 2010 - "FBI seeks delay in outside review of anthrax probe" (X)
The Frederick News-Post - Dec. 10, 2010 - "Amerithrax review delayed after FBI releases more docs" (X)
Science Magazine - Dec. 10, 2010 - "New FBI Material Delays Academy Report on Anthrax Attacks" (X)
The Frederick News-Post - Dec. 11, 2010 - "National Academy of Science review panel surprised by FBI's last-minute document release" (X)

2011

Gazette.net - Feb. 14, 2011 - "Report on FBI's anthrax findings to be released Tuesday" (X)
The New York Times - Feb. 15, 2011 - "Review Faults F.B.I.'s Scientific Work in Anthrax Investigation" (X)
The Washington Post - Feb. 15, 2011 - "Anthrax report cast doubt on scientific evidence in FBI case against Bruce Ivins" (X)
The Los Angeles Times - Feb. 15, 2011 - "Evidence linking anthrax to Bruce Ivins 'not as definitive as stated,' panel says" (X)
CNN - Feb. 15, 2011 - "Scientific review reaches no conclusion on source of anthrax" (X)
NPR - Feb. 15, 2011 - "FBI Faulted For Overstating Science In Anthrax Case" (X)
ABC News - Feb. 15, 2011 - "Panel Review Questions FBI Theory in Anthrax Attacks after 9/11" (X)
USA Today - Feb. 15, 2011 - "Panel can't rule out other sources of deadly anthrax spores" (X)
The Washington Post - Feb. 15, 2011 - "Ivins case's inconvenient issue: his polygraph" (X)
Nature - Feb. 15, 2011 - "Science falls short in anthrax investigation" (X)
CIDRAP News - Feb. 15, 2011 - "NRC: Data insufficient for firm conclusion in anthrax case" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Feb. 16, 2011 - "Report casts doubt on FBI's investigation of anthrax attacks" (X)
Salon.com (opinion) - Feb. 16, 2011 - "Serious doubt cast in FBI's anthrax case against Bruce Ivins" (X)
New Scientist - Feb. 16, 2011 - "Scientists critical of FBI's anthrax conclusions" (X)
The Washington Post - Feb. 16, 2011 - "Sen. Leahy on anthrax case: 'It's not closed.'" (X)
CIDRAP News - Feb. 16, 2011 - "Anthrax expert says NRC report supports FBI" (X)
The Washington Post (Editorial) - Feb. 17, 2011 - "Answers in 2001 anthrax attack are still elusive" (X)
Frederick News-Post (Opinion) - Feb. 19, 2011 - "NAS on Amerithrax" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Feb. 20, 2011 - "One year after FBI closes Ivins case, doubts still linger" (X)
Frederick News-Post (Opinion) - Feb. 21, 2011 - "Flawed Science" (X)
The Boston Globe (Editorial) - Feb. 22, 2011 - "Consider the case solved" (X)
The Brown and White - Feb. 25, 2011 - "Gast heads panel discussing anthrax letters" (X)
Stanford Medicine - Feb. 25, 2011 - "New review of anthrax case discussed by review committee vice chair" (X)
The Baltimore Sun - Feb. 28, 2011 - "Trouble in the air at Ft. Detrick" (X)
The New York Times (letter to the editor from Rush Holt) - Mar. 1, 2011 - "The Anthrax Attacks" (X)
University of Maryland (press release) - Mar. 7, 2011 - "University of Maryland School of Medicine publishes scientific paper on 2001 anthrax attacks" (X)
UPI - Mar. 8, 2011 - "Science behind anthrax letters revealed" (X)
News-Medical.net - Mar. 8, 2011 - "Institute for Genome Sciences plays key role in investigation of anthrax attacks" (X)
ScienceBlog.com - Mar. 8, 2011- "Now, the story can be told - how scientists helped ID 'Amerithrax'" (X)
NPR - Mar. 9, 2011 - "Lab Vs. Courtroom: Different Definitions Of Proof" (X)
LiveScience.com - Mar. 14, 2011 - "Anthrax in 2001 Letters was Traced to Maryland by Genetic Mutations" (X)
DiamondbackOnLine.com - Mar. 17, 2011 - "UMD: Anthrax Investigation" (X)
VillageSoup.com - Mar. 18, 2011 - "Q&A: Meryl Nass" (X)
The Los Angeles Times - Mar. 22, 2011 - "Report  Faults Army in 2001 anthrax mailings" (X)
The New York Times - Mar. 23, 2011 - "Panel on Anthrax Inquiry Finds Case Against Ivins Persuasive" (X)
CNN - Mar. 23, 2011 - "Suspect in 2001 anthrax case had long history of mental problems" (X)
Associated Press - Mar. 23, 2011 - "Expert panel faults Army in anthrax case" (X)
The Miami Herald - Mar. 23, 2011 - "FBI's anthrax suspect is likely killer, panel concludes" (X)
MSNBC - Mar. 23, 2011 - "Medical records point to doctor in anthrax attacks, report says" (X)
ABC - Mar. 23, 2011 - "Report: 2001 Anthrax Attacks Were Preventable" (X)
The Washington Times - Mar. 23, 2011 - "Panel: Anthrax-attack suspect sent up red flags" (X)
Reuters - Mar. 24, 2011 - "U.S. Experts: Army researcher was anthrax attacker" (X)
Wired Magazine - Mar. 24, 2011 - "Anthrax Redux: Did the Feds Nab the Wrong Guy?" (X)
The Times (Trenton, NJ) - Mar. 25, 2011 - "Holt remains skepical about conclusions in anthrax investigation" (X)
Wired Magazine - Mar. 28, 2011 - "Postage Stamps Delivered Anthrax Suspect to FBI" (X)
The Gazette - Apr. 7, 2011 - "Joe Volz: Frederick massacre averted?" (X)
The Washington Post - Apr. 16, 2011 - "How anthrax sleuths cracked the case by decoding genetic 'fingerprints'" (X)
The Miami Herald - Apr. 20, 2011 - "Was FBI too quick to judge anthrax suspect the killer?" (X)
TheRealNews.com - Apr. 21, 2011 - "Did FBI Target Wrong Man as Anthrax Killer" (X)
ProPublica.com - April 23, 2011 - "Colleague Says Anthrax Numbers Add Up to Unsolved Case" (X)
Palm Beach Post - Apr. 30, 2011 - "Doubt of anthrax suspect's role resurfaces in lawsuit" (X)
BioPrepWatch.com - May 2, 2011 - "Attorneys contest Ivins' guilt" (X)
McClatchy Newspapers - May 19, 2011 - "FBI lab reports on anthrax attack suggest another miscue" (X)
TickleTheWire.com - May 26, 2011 - "Rep. Nadler Criticizes the FBI in Letter to Director Mueller Over Anthrax Probe" (X)
McClatchy Newspapers - May 26, 2011 - "Congressman presses FBI for anthrax information" (X)
The Los Angeles Times - May 29, 2011 - "The anthrax killings: A troubled mind" (X)
The Daily Beast - June 3, 2011 - "Anthrax Attacker Bruce Ivins' Obsessions" (X)
Associated Press - June 3, 2011 - "The anthrax scare and one deeply troubled man" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (Opinion by Barry Kissin) - June 4, 2011 - "Lessons from Amerithrax" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (Opinion) - June 6, 2011 - "A marathon, not a sprint" (X)
The Gazette - June 9, 2011 - "A treasure trove of information about Amerithrax" (X)
RealClearPolitics.com - June 9, 2011 - "Anthrax Attacks and America's Rush to Judgment" (X)
The Washington Post (Opinion) - June 10, 2011 - "Inside our own labs, the threat of another anthrax attack" (X)
The Los Angeles Times - June 12, 2011 - "Book Review: 'The Mirage Man' by David Willman" (X)
The Boston Globe (Opinion) - June 15, 2011 - "Revisiting Mueller and the anthrax case" (X)
Clinical Psychiatry News - June 21, 2011 - "Use of Psychological Profile to Infer Ivins' Guilt is Problematic" (X)
The Philadelphia Inquirer (book review) - July 17, 2011 - "Bungled pursuit of a killer" (X)
The Boston Herald - July 18, 2011 - "Justice Department lawyers contradict FBI findings in anthrax case" (X)
Salon.com - July 19, 2011 - "DOJ casts serious doubt on its own claims about the attack anthrax" (X)
Frederick News-Post - July 19, 2011 - "Justice Department filings poke holes in Ivins' case" (X)
The New York Times - July 19, 2011 - "U.S. Revises Its Response To Lawsuit On Anthrax" (X)
Associated Press - July 19, 2011 - "Justice Department corrects court filing in anthrax suit" (X)
The Washington Post - July 19, 2011 - "Justice Department corrects legal filing regarding anthrax attacks" (X)
MSNBC - July 19, 2011 -
"Government lawyers backtrack on anthrax case" (X)
Village Voice (blog) - July 19, 2011 - "Bruce Ivins Maybe Didn't Send Anthrax, Government Admits in Court Papers" (X)
The Macon Telegraph - July 19, 2011 - "Justice Department retracts court filings that undercut FBI's anthrax case" (X)
The Sacramento Bee - July 20, 2011 - "Justice Dept backtracks on anthrax claims" (X)
Wired Magazine - July 20, 2011 - "Justice Department Trips in Anthrax Case.  Again" (X)
Miami Herald - July 20, 2011 - "Justice Department waffling in anthrax case could be costly, experts say" (X)
ProPublica.org - July 20, 2011 - "Government Anthrax Flip-Flop Could Boost Victim's Lawsuit" (X)
CIDRAP news - July 20, 2011 - "DOJ defense of Army lab stirs up anthrax case controversy" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (Opinion) - July 25, 2011 - "Another Ivins twist" (X)
The New York Times - July 26, 2011 - "Suspect's Manifesto Points to Planned Anthrax Use, But Also to a Lack of Expertise" (X)
ProPublica - July 26, 2011 - "Stephen Engelberg on the FBI's Anthrax Case" (X)
Global Security Newswire - July 27, 2011 - "Norway Killer Wrote of Anthrax Attacks" (X)
Kansas City Star - July 27, 2011 - "Judge says US must show 'good cause" to revise anthrax filing" (X)
The Miami Herald - July 29, 2011 - "Judge allows feds to revise filing in anthrax case" (X)
The Washington Post (review) - Aug. 11, 2011 - David Willman's 'The Mirage Man'" (X)
WMD Junction - Aug 22, 2011 - "New Questions About the FBI's Anthrax Case" (X)
NPR (Laurie Garrett interview) - Aug. 26, 2011 - "A look back at 9/11 in 'I Heard the Sirens Scream'" (X)
National Journal - Sept. 1, 2011 - "After 9/11, Anthrax Attacks Seemed Too Natural" (X)
CIDRAP news - Sept. 1, 2011 - "Public health leaders cite lessons of 2001 anthrax attacks" (X)
The Kansas City Star - Sept. 2, 2011 - "Sen. Grassley asks Justice Department to explain contradictory acts on anthrax" (X)
Montgomery Life - Sept. 7, 2011 - "9/11 Ten Years Later" (X)
Ames.Patch.com - Sept. 8, 2011 - "Ten Years after 9/11: ISU Recalls Anthrax Scare" (X)
The Journal Gazette (Fort Wayne, IN) - Sept. 11, 2011 - "Pence: 'Remember the triumph of freedom'" (X)
Wired Magazine - Sept. 11, 2011 - "Terror and Bioterror: 9/11 to 10/4 - Part 1" (X)
Arizona Daily Sun - Sept. 12, 2011 - "NAU researcher thrust into the maelstrom" (X)
National Review - Sept. 14, 2011 - "Saddam: What We Now Know" (X)
The Guardian - Sept. 15, 2011 - "The anthrax scare: not a germ of truth" (X)
New Scientist - Sept. 15, 2011 - "Did research funding lead to anthrax attacks?" (X)
Asbury Park Press - Sept. 16, 2011 - "Another 10th Anniversary: Anthrax Attacks" (X)
The Wall Street Journal (Book Review) - Sept. 17, 2011 - "When Death Came Hand-Delivered" (X)
Wired Magazine - Sept. 18, 2011 - "Terror and Bioterror: 9/11 to 10/4 - Part 2" (X)
Wired Magazine - Sept. 25, 2011 - "Terror and Bioterror: 9/11 to 10/4 - Part 3" (X)
USA Today - Sept. 30, 2011 - "Strides in biodefense follow 2001 anthrax scare" (X)
CNN - Oct. 1, 2011 - "Strange sorority fixation was link that led to anthrax suspect" (X)
USA Today - Oct. 2, 2011 - "Al Qaeda lab lingers in anthrax story" (X)
Wired Magazine - Oct. 2, 2011 - "Terror and Bioterror: 9/11 to 10/4 - Part 4" (X)
The Daily Mail (UK) - Oct. 3, 2011 - "The laboratory crush that led the FBI to the U.S. Anthrax killer" (X)
Annals of Internal Medicine - Oct. 3, 2011 - "The Anthrax Attacks 10 Years Later" (X)
The Hartford Courant - Oct. 5, 2011 - "Anthrax Attacks Still A Mystery After 10 Years" (X)
PBS (Press Release) - Oct. 5, 2011 - "Frontline Investigates the Anthrax Mailings" (X)
University of Wyoming News - Oct. 7, 2011 - "UW Professors: Accused Anthrax Killer Couldn't Have Done It" (X)
Aberdeen News - Oct. 9, 2011 - "Ten years since Daschle received anthrax-laced letter" (X)
The Times of Trenton - Oct. 9, 2011 - "A decade on, legacy of anthrax attack lingers in Mercer County and beyond" (X)
The New York Times - Oct. 9, 2011 - "Scientists' Analysis Disputes F.B.I. Closing of Anthrax Case" (X)
The Baltimore Sun - Oct. 9, 2011 - "Frontline's 'Anthrax Files' takes hard look at FBI role in suicide of Ft. Detrick scientist" (X)
The Kansas City Star - Oct. 10, 2011 - "Fresh doubts raised on 2001 anthrax attacks" (X)
PBS Frontline - Oct. 10, 2011 - "Clair Fraser-Liggett: 'This Is Not an Airtight Case By Any Means'" (X)
PBS Frontline - Oct. 10, 2011 - "Edward Montooth: 'The Mandate Was to Look at the Case with Fresh Eyes'" (X)
PBS Frontline - Oct. 10, 2011 - "Rachel Lieber: 'The Case Against Dr. Bruce Ivins'" (X)
PBS Frontline - Oct. 10, 2011 - "Paul Keim: 'We Were Surprised It Was the Ames Strain'" (X)
PBS Frontline - Oct. 10, 2011 - Nancy Haigwood: “I Had a Gut Feeling It Was Bruce”  (X)
PBS Frontline - Oct. 10, 2011 - "New Evidence Adds Doubt to FBI’s Case Against Anthrax Suspect" (X)
PBS Frontline - Oct. 10, 2011 - "Did Bruce Ivins Hide Attack Anthrax from the FBI?" (X)
PBS Frontline - Oct. 10, 2011 - "Was FBI’s Science Good Enough to ID Anthrax Killer?" (X)
The Miami Herald - Oct. 11, 2011 - "Decade-old anthrax attacks included hit to Boca Raton offices" (X)
Science Magazine - Oct. 11, 2011 - "New Challenge to FBI's Anthrax Investigation Lends an Ear to Tin" (X)
The Macon Telegraph - Oct. 11, 2011 - "Was FBI's science good enough to ID anthrax killer?" (X)
Caspar Star-Tribune - Oct. 11, 2011 - "University of Wyoming professors seek to clear former colleague's name in anthrax controversy" (X)
The Gazette - Oct. 12, 2011 - "Questions remain 10 years after anthrax mailings" (X)
The Miami Herald - Oct. 12, 2011 - "Newly released files cloud FBI's anthrax finding" (X)
Council on Foreign Relations (opinion by Laurie Garrett) - Oct. 12, 2011 - "The Anthrax Letters" (X)
Journal of Bioterrorism & Biodefense - Oct. 13, 2011 - "The 2001 Attack Anthrax: Key Observations"
ProPublica.com - Oct. 15, 2011 - "Despite Evidence of FBI Bungling, New Probe Into Anthrax Killings Unlikely" (X)
The Los Angeles Times - Oct. 16, 2011 - "Science in anthrax letter case comes under attack" (X)
The New York Times (editorial) - Oct. 17, 2011 - "Who Mailed the Anthrax Letters?" (X)
Fox News - Oct. 18, 2011 - "Doubts Persist About Anthrax Investigation 10 Years Later" (X)
The Daily Reveille - Oct. 20, 2011 - "Professor is worldwide anthrax specialist" (X)
The Washington Post (editorial) - Oct. 21, 2011 - "New questions about FBI anthrax inquiry deserve scrutiny" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (opinion by Barry Kissin) - Oct. 22, 2011 - "Anthrax whodunit" (X)
The Vancouver Sun - Oct. 22, 2011 - "Was this man the anthrax killer?" (X)
The New York Post - Oct. 23, 2011 - "Anthrax and the FBI" (X)
The Vancouver Sun - Oct. 24, 2011 - "The Hunt for America's anthrax killer" (X)
ProPublica.com - Oct. 24, 2011 - "Secret Reports: With Security Spotty, Many Had Access to Anthrax" (X)
The New York Times - Oct. 27, 2011 - "The Anthrax Investigation: The View From the FBI" (X)
The Palm Beach Post - Oct. 28, 2011 - "Lantana anthrax widow settles $50 million lawsuit against federal government" (X)
NPR - Oct. 29, 2011 - "Scientific Case Still Open on 2001 Anthrax Case" (X)
Associated Press - Oct. 30, 2011 - "Settlement reached in anthrax death lawsuit" (X)
Reuters - Oct. 30, 2011 - "Deal reached in U.S. 2001 anthrax death suit: filing" (X)
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - Nov. 1, 2011 - "Amerithrax review: Lessons for future investigations" (X)
AAAS - Nov. 1, 2011 - "Ten Years After Deadly Anthrax Mailings, AAAS Event Explores Lingering Questions"  (X)
Patch.com - Nov. 21, 2011 - "The Day Terror Came to Oxford" (X)
Associated Press - Nov. 29, 2011 - "U.S. to pay widow $2.5M in 2001 anthrax death" (X)
AP & Time Magazine - Nov. 29, 2011 - U.S. to pay widow $2.5M in 2001 anthrax death" (X)
CNN - Nov, 29, 2011 - "Family of 2001 anthrax victim settles with government" (X)
Palm Beach Post - Nov. 29, 2011 - "U.S. to pay Lantana widow $2.5 million for the 2001 anthrax attack that killed her husband" (X) (X)
The Washington Post - Nov. 29, 2011 - "Federal government settles suit in fatal anthrax attacks" (X)
The New York Times - Nov. 29, 2011 - "U.S. Settles Suit Over Anthrax Attacks" (X)
ProPublica.org - Nov. 29, 2011 - "Government Settles Case Brought By First Anthrax Victim For $2.5 Million" (X)
Palm Beach Post - Nov. 30, 2011 - "Anthrax victim's wife: $2.5 million settlement brings 'a little finality'" (X)

2012

Journal of Bioterrorism & Biodefense - Jan. 31, 2012 - "Letter to the Editor in response to 'The 2001 Attack Anthrax: Key Observations"
The Washington Post - Jan. 27, 2012 - "Justice Dept. takes on itself in probe of 2001 anthrax attacks" (X)
Slate Magazine - Jan. 30, 2012 - "How fake bioterrorism attacks became a real problem" (X)
Gazette.Net - Mar. 22, 2012 - "Paul Gordon: An exercise in futility"  (X)
The Cavalier Daily - Mar. 23, 2012 - "Panel reviews 2001 attacks" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Apr. 8, 2012 - "Beyond the breach: Officials take a look at security and safety a decade after anthrax scare" (X)
BusinessInsider.com - Nov. 26, 2012 - "Nick Kristof: Here Are 3 Things I've Been Very Wrong About."
Racine Journal-Times - Dec. 8, 2012 - "Local Man self-publishes book about anthrax attacks"
Journal of Bioterrorism & Biodefense - Dec. 17, 2012 - "Evidence for the Source of the 2001 Attack Anthrax"

2013

NewsWithViews - Apr. 20, 2013 - "The Media Wants Arabs Exonerated" (X)
Frederick News-Post - July 28, 2013 - "Questions on anthrax suspect linger"  (X)
Frederick News-Post - July 29, 2013 - "Scientists who worked with Ivins still question government's methods" (X)
The Trentonian - Oct. 20, 2013 - State Watch: "Ready for Anthrax Sequel? (X)


2014

Hartford Courant - April 14, 2014 - "Oxford Woman, 94, An Unlikely Victim Of Anthrax Attacks" (X)
Accuracy in Media - May 21, 2014 - "Lies of the 9/11 'Truth' Movement" (X)
The Atlantic - Oct. 26, 2014 - "21 Days" (X)
The Los Angeles Times - Oct. 27, 2014 - "The Atlantic trots out a dubious source to support an Ebola quarantine" (X)
Associated Press - Dec. 19, 2014 - "Report: FBI's Anthrax Investigation Was Flawed" (X)
The New York Times - Dec. 19, 2014 - "Inquiry in Anthrax Mailings Had Gaps, Report Says" (X)
PBS Frontline - Dec. 19, 2014 - "New Report Casts Doubt on FBI Anthrax Investigation" (X)
The Frederick News-Post - Dec. 20, 2014 - "Amerithrax Detrick lab addresses flaws in FBI's Amerithrax investigation" (X)
The Boston Globe - Dec. 20, 2014 - "FBI evidence often mishandled, inquiry finds" (X)


© 2001-2014 by Ed Lake

All Rights Reserved.