The Anthrax Attacks


New book - front cover
Click HERE to Order from the Printer!
Click HERE to order from!
Click HERE to buy the Kindle version!
Click Here to order from Barnes & Noble!
Ed Lake

To go to the current front page, click

New book - front cover
Click HERE to Order from the Printer!
Click HERE to order from!
Click HERE to buy the Kindle version!
Click Here to order from Barnes & Noble!

There was so much confusion and there are so many extraneous details about the anthrax attacks that killed 5 people and made many more ill, that I decided it was time to assemble what little actual information that I could find on the Internet and to analyze it myself.
This was done for my own education, but I'm sharing it for others who might be interested.
(Comments on new developments are in the Updates & Thoughts Section)
(New References are added as they come available - nearly daily)
(Last significant update to the "working hypothesis": December 26, 2004)


(click on the Section or Page to go to it)


Sections on This Page Supplemental Pages
#1. The Envelopes The Return Address Puzzle
#2. The Letters Handwriting Analysis Details
#3. The Anthrax    Zeroes and O's
#4. Refining anthrax     Hoax Letters
#5. The Targets     The Maryland Snipers
#6. Cross-contamination What is a spore?
#7. The Timeline    The Pharmaceutical Fold
#8. The Geography    Glove Boxes & Mail Boxes
#9. A Theory About Who Did It Assaad, Terror & the Timeline
#10. Microbial Forensics What was Plan A?
#11. Updates & Thoughts Kathy Nguyen & The New York Cases
#12. References - top Questions for the FBI
   References - 2001    Circumstantial Evidence
   References - 2002 Other Theories about the Anthrax Case
   References - 2003    Al Qaeda & "Camp Jingo"
   References - 2004    Dr. Rosenberg's "suspect" named?
     The two "Boogie Man Theories"
   References - bottom    Links to sites with other theories

Dr. Hatfill And The Clueless Media
   References - 2005    Did Dr. Hatfill Do it?

   It's all just Politics!

The anthrax mailer: right wing or left?

Weaponization is just a Buzz Word!

The Florida Anthrax Cases

Hoaxes & Barbara Hatch Rosenberg

Dr. Rosenberg's "Political Campaign"

  Dr. Rosenberg's bio

The Logic of Spore Coatings

The Dr. Berry Investigation


The Ricin Case(s)

#1 - The Envelopes:

So far, all the anthax cases appear to be the result of 4 existent and at least 3 other letters mailed from Trenton, New Jersey, to New York, Washington, DC, and Lantana, Florida.  The existent envelopes are below (click on the images to view a larger version):
Envelope #1
Envelope #2

Envelope #3
Envelope #4

The letter to the New York Post was located in their mailroom unopened weeks after it had been delivered, but it had  apparently gotten damp or wet somehow, and the dampness caused the anthrax inside to clump together like "Purina Dog Chow".

The envelope addressed to Tom Brokaw has a staple through the stamp, placed there by Brokaw's assistant after opening the letter.  She stapled the letter to the envelope.  The Brokaw letter show the holes caused by the staple.

The wet stain along the bottom of the letter addressed to Senator Daschle was caused by John Ezzell at USAMRIID.  He cleaned the surface of a glove box (a.k.a. "safety cabinet") with bleach before trying to take a picture of the envelope propped up against the back of the box, and there was still some liquid bleach in a groove in the surface.  The bleach soaked up into the envelope.

The four envelopes that have been photographed were all pre-stamped envelopes most likely bought at a post office and were all postmarked at the mail processing facility in Hamilton Township near Trenton, New Jersey. There's no reason to believe that the missing letters were any different or mailed from anywhere else.

Pre-stamped envelopes can be bought from post office vending machines in packs of 5.  It's probably no coincidence that the first mailing appears to have consisted of 5 letters.  By using pre-stamped envelopes, the terrorist avoided any possibility of being traced through the envelopes or stamps.  He would most likely have no previous history of using such envelopes, and therefore no previous letters he wrote would connect him to the mailing - either through the envelopes or the stamps.

In addition, by using pre-stamped envelopes he wouldn't have to moisten the stamps with saliva, which might contain DNA.  Same with sealing the envelopes.  He apparently taped them shut and didn't glue them shut.

The envelopes show there were TWO separate anthrax mailings:

Envelope #1 is postmarked Tuesday, September 18, 2001.
Envelope #2 is postmarked Tuesday, September 18, 2001.

Envelope #3 is postmarked Tuesday, October 9, 2001.
Envelope #4 is postmarked Tuesday, October 9, 2001.

Although a letter might be postmarked on a specific date, it could easily have been placed in a mailbox after the last collection on the day before - thus creating some confusion about the actual mailing date and providing the basis for an alibi for the postmark date.

The missing envelopes were most likely also postmarked on September 18, 2001.  The anthrax letter sent to American Media had already made several people ill by the time of the second mailing, and the 7-month-old son of an ABC producer had only been in the ABC mailroom on Sept. 28.  A 27-year-old assistant to Dan Rather at CBS had contracted cutaneous anthrax by this time, too.  Most likely, the ABC and CBS letters were addressed to Peter Jennings and Dan Rather.  Unfortunately, the envelopes and letters sent to AMI, ABC and CBS were all destroyed by normal waste disposal procedures before anyone was aware that they had contained anthrax or would be evidence in a crime.

The envelopes for Tom Brokaw and the New York Post had no return addresses.  But the envelopes sent to the Senators had return addresses for a nonexistent Grade School.  Did the perpetrator want to make the letters to the Senators appear more acceptable and less alarming? A letter from a grade-schooler might even go to the top of the stack to be read personally by the Senator.  That could show some understanding of how things work with politicians and how strange mail would be viewed by such recipients.

There are a lot of theories about what the return address means.  I've created a separate page evaluating them.  It's HERE.

But there are other questions:  Why leave the return address on the media letters blank?  Why create such a totally scrambled return address on the Senators' letters?  Why didn't the culprit just use a valid school address?  The most logical answer seems to be: Because, if something went wrong, the culprit didn't want the anthax-laden letters to be returned to a grade school or some other innocent party.

The addresses were probably copied from a computer printout!  The fact that "BUILDING" is on a line by itself for the Senators' letters, indicates that some computer format was involved that had 2 address lines with only 25 or 30 characters allowed on a line.  This is confirmed by the use of the 9 digit zip code and the absence of a comma between city and state on all the letters.  Computer printouts very often do not place a comma there.   For example, the addresses on the mailing labels the magazines I get do not have commas between city and state.  Could the computer printout be some kind of mailing list or a printout of labels for some newsletter?

In addition to being taped shut, the Daschle and Leahy envelopes apparently also had cellophane tape around the edges.  Was it there to prevent any anthrax from getting out of the envelope to contaminate the mail system?  Most "experts" think the tape was an attempt to keep the anthrax from getting out before the letter was opened - which it failed to do.

The St. Petersburg Times printed a hoax letter that can be compared to the anthrax letters to show how printed handwriting can differ.  I compare the handwriting on the supplemental handwriting page which can be accessed by clicking HERE.  The letter was mailed after the first anthrax mailing and shortly before the second anthrax mailing, which by itself is interesting, since it shows how many nut cases there are out there who can be set off by any news event.

It's also interesting that both Senators' letters had problems in the postal system.  The address on the letter to Senator Daschle was written too close to the bottom of the envelope, and as a result, a human had to interpret the code and direct it to the proper place.  The address on the letter to Senator Leahy was farther from the bottom, but it was misread by a postal machine which interpreted a 1 as a 2 and sent it to zip 20520-4502 instead of 20510-4502, thereby contaminating the State Department's mail center and delaying its delivery to Senator Leahy.

The fact that the person who addressed the letter uses both serifs on his number 1s and also wrote the 1 at a slight angle caused the machine misread.  For people who understand how machines read human handwriting, this seems like a very routine error, but for people who like to develop conspiracy theories, this seems very suspicious, and many of them see a mysterious and "obviously deliberate" delay in delivering the Leahy letter.

#2 - The Letters:

At this time, 4 of the letters that were contained within the envelopes have been released to the Internet by the FBI via their web site.

In addition, much larger copies were made available via The Freedom Of Information Act to (now defunct) where we obtained copies for this page.

Click on the images to view a larger version.
Letter #1
Letter #2

Letter #3
Letter #4

The New York Post letter is apparently a copy of the Brokaw letter but the authorities say the Post letter is also a Xerox-type copy.  They say that all the letters are Xerox-type copies.

The odd size of the letters is made more odd by the fact that so little is made of it by the FBI, and the media either doesn't seem to even notice or they provide totally incorrect information about it.  The one mention I found about it was totally wrong:

A feature story in The Wall Street Journal reported on the unusual paper sizes: "One clue was contained in the missive to the New York Post: The letter, which read in part, "Death to America," wasn't printed on a paper size normally found in the U.S., says an FBI official familiar with the matter.  An FBI spokesman declined to elaborate.  Erich Speckin, who runs a private forensic laboratory in Okemos, Mich., says the height-to-width ratio was approximately 1.41 to 1, according to a photo released by the FBI.  He says that ratio is common for business letters in Europe and elsewhere but rare in the U.S. That could suggest that the mailer is from another country or has traveled outside the U.S."

Erich Speckin's analysis was apparently done by using the images from the FBI's web site.  And we were fooled for a long time, too.  But when you look at the sizes of the letters using the images I obtained from you see a totally different situation.
Letter #1
Letter #2
Letter #3
Click on image to see larger version.

Letter #1 measures approximately 225 millimeters in length by 215.9 millimeters in width.
Letter #2 measures approximately 230 millimeters in length by 165 millimeters in width.
Letter #3 measures approximately 215 millimeters in length by 208 millimeters in width.

American standard copy paper is 8-1/2 inches by 11 inches, or 215.9 mm by 279.4 mm.
The graphic below shows the size of the letters compared to standard 8-1/2 by 11 paper.

A close look at the letters shows that the all appear to have irregular edges.  It appears that a pair of scissors was used to create all three of the letter sizes out of standard 8-1/2x11 inch copy paper.

Why would he do that?  One guess is that the terrorist was aware that copy machines sometimes leave gripper marks on paper, and some edges may have been trimmed to remove those marks.  Another guess is that he wanted to cut away some smudges or other kind of marks that might be traceable - such the signature of the person who actually wrote the letters.  Another guess is that the original may have been written lower on the paper, and when copies were made the writing was moved higher, and as a result the copies had to be cropped because they showed identifying marks on the underside of the lid of the copier.

The best guess, however, seems to be that the paper was cropped to make it easier to get into a small envelope after it had been folded with the "pharmaceutical fold".   The letters were all folded with the pharmaceutical fold, which is definitely not a normal fold.  This has significant implications as to the motives of the "terrorist".  It's the way drugs have been safely wrapped for centuries.  For more details about the implications of this fold, click HERE.

The anthrax mailer must either have practiced folding the letter and getting it into the small size envelope, or he may have folded enough 8-1/2 by 11 sheets of paper to know that it is difficult to neatly fold that size paper with the pharmaceutical fold and get it into a small envelope.  To make things easier for himself, he simply cropped off the lower portion.

It would be interesting to see how the letter to Senator Leahy was cropped, but apparently no equivalent pictures have been taken of the Leahy letter.

The brown stains on the Daschle letter are apparently from an accident at USAMRIID where the edge of the envelope was allowed to get soaked with bleach while being set up for a photograph.

The actual letters are obviously meant to be seen as coming from some Muslim terrorist.  But there is nothing in the letters that would be known only to a Muslim.  Plus, experts in such things say that these phrases are not common usage.  "Allah is great", for example, is not a common expression.  It is more common for a Muslim to say "Allahu akbar", which means "God is great".  If speaking in English, they would say "God is great".  The phrase used in the letter would be viewed by a Muslim as being a mix of two different languages.  The use of the name "Allah" in English is more common in Hollywood action movies.  While there's nothing conclusive in this, the letters could easily be from some domestic terrorist wishing to put the blame on the same people who caused the WTC catastrophe.

The letter to Tom Brokaw reads as follows:


Who puts a zero in front of a single-digit month that way?  Someone who commonly deals with computers and computer forms?

The date on the letter is in the form used mainly in the United States.  Most of the rest of the world would write the date as 11-09-01.

"THIS IS NEXT" almost certainly refers to the anthrax sent with the letter, but it requires the person reading the letter to know that - or to figure it out.

Why misspell penicillin?  Was that deliberate or is the perpetrator just a bad speller?

Of all the indicators that the terrorist did not really want to do any harm to anyone, the fact that he instructs the reader of the letter to take penicillin is foremost.  Would a bin Laden operative do that?  Would anyone wanting to do maximum damage do that?  What kind of terrorist sends anthrax and tells the victim to take penicillin because it works very well to cure anthrax?

There are clear indicators that the date on the letter was not written by the same person who wrote the text of the letter.  For a detailed explanation of this observation (with graphics) go to the Zeroes and O's section of the Handwriting page, or click HERE.

The letter to Senator Tom Daschle reads as follows:


The Daschle letter makes it clear that the powder in the letter is anthrax, which the earlier Brokaw letter failed to do.  The Brokaw letter instructed the reader to take penicillin, which the Daschle letter fails to do.  Both letters provide information to the reader that would allow him to escape death by taking medication!

It's very interesting that the terrorist changed his warning from "TAKE PENACILIN NOW" to "WE HAVE THIS ANTHRAX".  Experts say that penicillin is not the best antibiotic to take for anthrax.  But what other antibiotic could the terrorist mention without naming a specific brand name and pointing a finger at a drug maker?  So, the terrorist changed his warning to just say the powder is anthrax without mentioning any specific antibiotic.  In effect, the terrorist made his warning more specific and more effective in the second mailing.  From another point of view, the first warning was directed to the person receiving the letter, while the second warning was more like a warning to America.  A lot can be made from this, but it's still all speculation.

"YOU DIE NOW" and "ARE YOU AFRAID?" seem like lines from some third-rate Hong Kong kung fu movie.

It doesn't take an expert to see that the handwriting on both letters comes from the same person, even though both are written in block letters.  Individual characters and numbers are drawn the same way on both letters.   There seems little chance that the person is right handed and wrote with his left hand.  When I've attempted that, the letters looked ragged and irregular, like they were written by someone afflicted by palsy.  These letters don't show that.  They show the writer wrote naturally but still found it difficult to write in a straight line on unlined paper.  And he made the first character in many words larger than the rest of the characters, which indicates that he was accustomed to writing in upper and lower case.

The FBI has a web page dedicated to analyzing the letters and profiling the author HERE.

However, I have no restrictions on wild speculations, so I have a supplemental page dedicated to analyzing the handwriting.  It's HERE.

Did the writer merely attempt to make his letters look like they were written and sent by a child?  That makes sense for the letters to the Senators, since they might enjoy opening a letter from a child.  But why do that with the letters to the media?  And why write like a child on the letters inside?  There the writer wanted to be taken seriously.  But he also wanted to disguise his handwriting.  There is one perfect way to disguise one's handwriting:  Have someone innocent do the actual writing for you.

What child would the anthrax terrorist have available to do the writing?  It would have to be someone he could depend upon for all three mailings, and someone he knows would never tell anyone about the letters.  The obvious possibility: his own child.

The indications that the date was put on the letters by someone other than the person who wrote the text means that two people must have been involved - and the person who added the date was almost certainly the culprit.  (It's a final editing decision.)  For details about the indications that two people were involved in writing the letter, click HERE.

One Internet source has pointed out that American children in kindergarten are taught to write in a mode called "modified uncial" which is defined as follows:

Uncial (pronounced un:shel) is a term applied to a particular calligraphic style based on ancient lettering, and is often considered the most expressive calligraphy. Typically an uncial face features a combination of capital and lowercase letterforms without the separate capital set and lowercase set that we're accustomed to.
He also points out that a child of 6 who has learned to write that way in kindergarten would have just been starting first grade in September of 2001, when the anthrax letters were written.  So, he'd have been a the peak of his ability to write that way.  And, since the handwriting in the letters shows this form of writing along with other child-like indicators, he believes the handwriting could very well be the handwriting of a 6-year-old.

I realize that people find it hard to accept that a child might have been used to write the anthrax letters, and I'm not actually stating that is true.  I'm merely analyzing the data and giving my evaluation of what the data indicates.  It appears to indicate that a child most likely did the writing, but there could be some other unconsidered explanation.

#3 - The Anthrax:

A little bit about Anthrax and its history: Technically, anthrax is a disease.  A disease cannot be placed into an envelope.  Spores of Bacillus anthracis (an organism that causes the anthrax disease) are what was in the envelopes.  But in accordance with common usage, I will generally use "anthrax spores" instead of "spores of the bacterium that cause anthrax" or similarly lengthy scientific verbiage on this site.  A chart of all the anthrax cases and key details about the cases can be viewed by clicking on the "thumbnail" below:

History: Anthrax has been around longer than man and is thought by many historians to be the fifth and sixth of the ten plagues of ancient Egypt.  It's also the first disease to be determined to be caused by a bacterium.   That was accomplished by Robert Koch in 1877, and he also took micrographs of anthrax at that time.  Plus, he was able to cause the bacteria to form spores, so creating spores in a lab isn't something that was recently discovered in some government bioweapons lab.  Anthrax was allegedly used as a biological weapon in World War One.

Strains:  Anthrax has different strains, the best known being Vollum, Stern and Ames.  A strain is akin to a race in humans.  It's a lineage with slightly different DNA causing slightly different characteristics.   Since Bacillus anthracis is asexual and essentially reproduces by cloning itself, it takes a very long time for repeated DNA differences to show up.

Spores:  Spores are formed when environmental conditions change and the bacterium finds it cannot continue to survive.  A portion of the bacterium goes into a type of hiberation by forming a spore which can survive for decades - if not centuries.  The size of a spore is determined by Nature, NOT by milling, and a typical anthrax spore is roughly 1 micron in diameter and weighs roughly one trillionth of a gram (which is naturally a trillion spores per gram).

The Leahy letter contained enough refined anthrax spores to kill over 100,000 people.  The Daschle letter probably had an equal amount.  According to The New York Times, the anthrax in the Leahy letter officially weighed just 0.871 grams.  And the other letters had roughly the same amount.  (There are countless articles which incorrectly say there were about 2 grams in each letter.)

All the anthrax found in the letters is now known to be from the "Ames strain", which originated in Texas and was sent to the US Army for research in 1980.  The Army later distributed it to various academic institutions for study.  Since that time the strain has been further widely distributed to researchers around the world.  A DNA analysis shows that the anthrax originated at the USAMRIID facility in Fort Detrick, MD.  While other government laboratories obtained Ames anthrax from Ft. Detrick, the number of such labs is not very large.

It is important to note that the FBI has stated "The anthrax utilized in (the Daschle letter) was much more refined, more potent, and more easily disbursed than letters (to the New York Post and NBC)''.

The relatively unrefined anthrax in the media letters proved to have a dramatically difference effect on the victims, depending upon the age of the victim:

Age    Location         type        name

7 mos  ABC - New York   cutaneous   child
23     NBC - New York   cutaneous   Casey Chamberlain
27     CBS - New York   cutaneous   Claire Fletcher
30     New York Post    cutaneous   Joanna Huden
32     NJ Post Office   cutaneous   Teresa Heller
34     New York Post    cutaneous   male
38     NBC - New York   cutaneous   Erin O'Connor
38     New YOrk Post    cutaneous   Mark Cunningham
39     NJ Post Office   cutaneous   Richard Morgano
61*    New York         inhalation  Kathy Nguyen
63*    AMI - Florida    inhalation  Bob Stevens
73     AMI - FLorida    inhalation  Ernesto Blanco

This chart seems to indicate that the type of infection was largely dependent upon age.  But the low concentration of spores in the media letters may also have played a role.  Older people may be like canaries in a coal mine or on the battlefields of WWI when it comes to anthrax.  If there is something hazardous in the air, they may be the first indicators of the problem, because it apparently doesn't take many spores in the air to affect them.

However, people were suffering from cutaneous infections from the September 18 mailing for almost a week before anyone began showing signs of inhalation anthrax.  Because it usually takes longer for inhalation anthrax to take effect, and because the cutaneous cases were not as serious and were misdiagnosed, it was the first inhalation case that sounded the alarm bells.  One of the effects of a surprise attack is that it takes awhile for everyone to realize what's happening - and people die while facts are being gathered and analyzed.

When you look at the anthrax cases known or believed to have come from the Oct. 9 mailing this is what it looks like when sorted in order by age:

Age    Location         type        name

35     NJ Post Office   cutaneous   Patrick O'Donnell
43     NJ Post Office   inhalation  female
47*    DC Post Office   inhalation  Joseph Curseen
51     NJ Post Office   cutaneous   Linda Burch
55*    DC Post Office   inhalation  Thomas Morris
56     NJ Post Office   inhalation  Norma Wallace
56     DC Post Office   inhalation  Unk.
57     DC Post Office   inhalation  Leroy Richmond
59    DC Mail Center   inhalation  David Hose
94*    Connecticutt     inhalation  Ottilie Lundgren

While not as clear-cut as with the cases where less-refined anthrax was used, here, too, all the cutaneous anthrax cases are at the low end of the age range.  And the higher concentration of spores in the air caused younger people to suffer inhalation anthrax.

Scientists may debate the exact meaning of this, but it seems to indicate that the age of the victims was more important than any other facter regarding whether or not they got inhalation anthrax.

Some experts speculated that the anthrax is not of different sizes but of different quantities, and that there was much less in the media letters than in the Senators' letters.  Spore size is determined by Nature, not by processing, although you may have clumps of spores or individual spores.  (An individual spore is approximately 1 micron in diameter - 1000th of a millimeter.)  The evidence seems to indicate that the powder in the Senators' letters was refined to get rid of impurities - dead anthrax germs.  Here's a quote from a May 7, 2002, article in The New York Times: "Federal officials said the first wave of well-documented attacks with mailed anthrax — in  letters from Trenton postmarked Sept. 18 to NBC News and The New York Post — was  relatively crude.  The powder was heavily contaminated, they said, with what biologists call vegetative cells — anthrax bacteria before processing in the laboratory turns them into hardened spores. Vegetative cells in dry anthrax powder are generally dead and therefore harmless, experts said."

Later information indicated that the anthrax in the letters to the two Senators was ten times as pure as the anthrax in the letters to the media.

Because the anthrax spores in the mailing to the Senators were much plentiful and thereby more deadly, they did more harm.  In all the letters, individual spores could pass through the porous paper (All paper has tiny openings or pores that are too small for the eye to see).  Merely handling the unopened letter sent to The New York Post was enough to give three people cutaneous anthrax.  But the Senators' letters allowed fine powdered anthrax to escape into the air and cause several deaths.

The fact that the spores were of different purity strongly suggests that an anthrax refining process took place between the mailing of Sept. 18 and the mailing of Oct. 9.  And since it seems highly unlikely that anyone could steal from a secure government lab all the anthrax used in the seven letters without leaving behind some trace, it seems clear that only some very small amount was actually stolen.  And it didn't even have to be in spore form.  It could have been live or frozen Ames anthrax germs.  The Ames strain of anthrax is known for its ability to grow very fast.  The stolen anthrax could then be cultured in some non-government lab or makeshift facility.  Later, it could have been refined into the spores used in the second mailing.

For a further detailed explanation of the significance of the size of the spores, click HERE.

#4 - Refining anthrax

While I certainly do not want to provide on this web site any kind of formula for producing weaponized anthrax, there are some basic steps in refining anthrax that should be known to anyone familiar with germs that sporulate (produce spores).

After doing some long-overdue research into the subject of sporulation, I found that there appear to be 5 basic steps involved in producing the anthrax powder found in the letters sent to Senators Daschle and Leahy:

1.  Germination - Causing the seed spores to develop into living germs.
2.  Vegetation -  Growing sufficient anthrax germs to provide what is needed for the mailings.
3.  Sporulation - Causing the anthrax germs to create spores.
4.  Separation - The process which frees spores from dead "mother germs" and other debris.
5. Weaponization - Drying the spores into a superfine powder.

Each of these "steps" could have 50 sub-steps and might possibly be done in a hundred different ways, so there's nothing secret to this.  The secrets are all in the sub-steps and details.  But there are some basic factors to consider in the basic steps:

Steps #1 thru #3 create the raw materials and are "creation steps" that must take place before steps #4 & #5.   "Refining" is defined as "freeing from impurities".  In this case that means separating the spores from the debris.

Steps #1 thru #4 all occur naturally.  All that man really does is speed up the process by controlling the environment.  Step #4 is done naturally in a process called "lysing".

Steps #1 thru #3 are relatively simple and require almost no specialized equipment, although #3 requires a very delicate touch to avoid killing all the germs instead of causing them to sporulate.

Unless the industrialized output from Step #4 is a wet paste or a solid brick of spores, Step #5 might not be needed to produce what was found in the Senators' letters.

Step #5 has received all the media attention, and it causes all the arguments over whether it can be done in a small lab or requires a massive government facility, but, no matter where it is done, if you already have a quantity of pure spores, it should be a relatively quick process to get dry individual spores when working with a small batch.

Step #5, the weaponization step, was evidently very simple for the attack anthrax.  As far as I have been able to determine, the only significant question is about the drying method used to keep the spores from forming clumps.  If the spores clump together, the clumps can become too big to be absorbed through the lungs and thereby become worthless as a weapon.

It appears that the anthrax refiner/mailer only went to Step #3 when he prepared the anthrax for the first mailing.

There appears to be good reason why the first mailing apparently contained anthrax that was processed only through Step #3:  The next step required special expertise and lots of time.

It appears that the culprit paused at the end of Step #3 and sent out the anthrax he had, rather than to delay action for the time it would take to do the last two steps.  If he was worried about a biological attack and wanted to awaken America to the danger, he may have felt America couldn’t wait until he completed the last two steps.

It would be nice to know for certain that the anthrax in the letter sent to The New York Post was from Step #3 and the anthrax in the letter sent to Senator Daschle was from Step #5.  I’ve seen nothing in the hundreds of newspaper articles that indicates otherwise.  And it seems a logical conclusion.  So it will be my working hypothesis from this point - rather than the first batch being an "early experiment" that produced a less-refined product.

In this case, a picture may be worth a million words.  Clicking on the "thumbnail" picture below will lead to a larger version which shows a Bacillus anthracis spore (B) still inside a dead "mother germ" and how germs divide to create new germs (A).   This is the stuff that was apparently in the media letters!  I.e., dead mother germs with spores inside and dead germs which failed to sporulate.  It's brown, crunchy stuff that looks like "Purina Dog Chow" when wet.  Note how cleanly the spore is separated from the dead "mother germ"!  And when run through post office machines or manually handled, the spores get released just as they do in nature, and can be as dangerous and deadly as in nature.

Understanding sporulation is the key to understanding the importance of Step #4.  One web site  described sporulation this way:

"When conditions become hostile to the anthrax bacillus — if it runs out of food, becomes too cold, too dry, too low in carbon dioxide — it resorts to a defense mechanism. The DNA and other essential cell matter gather together near the middle of the cell, and a hard wall forms around this cluster. This is the spore.
"As if in hibernation, the anthrax spore waits inside the carcass of a now-dead cell, waiting for more hospitable conditions. Sporulation is key for the bacteria’s survival in nature, and also key for its use as a weapon."
Was the "debris" that apparently constituted about 90 percent of the "powder" found in the New York Post letter just the natural "debris" left behind from sporulation?  I.e., was it just dead "mother cells" and dead anthrax germs that failed to sporulate?

If so, it tells us a lot about the culprit.  It tells us he hoped the unrefined anthrax he sent to the  media would accomplish his mission.  When it accomplished nothing, he then moved ahead to steps #4 and #5.   It tells us he hesitated before actually refining the anthrax and demonstrating that he knew more about the refinement process than a routine terrorist.  It tells us he's a scientist.  It makes it a near certainty that the anthrax was being refined during the 3 week period between mailings - and most likely during the last week and a half or two weeks of that time frame, after he learned that his first mailing had failed to achieve its purpose.  It tells us he was probably using specialized equipment and labor intensive procedures during that period.   It tells us it is extremely unlikely that the refining was done in another country.  Etc.

Clicking on the thumbnails below will show you two larger images of what the Senate anthrax may have looked like.  They are concentrations of pure anthrax spores.

As further evidence that the attack anthrax may not have gone through any "weaponization" step, there is this paragraph from an ABC article:

"Bill Patrick, a scientist who used to make anthrax weapons for the United States, patented a secret process that involved freeze-drying the spores, milling the resulting anthrax 'cake' to yield particles of the proper diameter, then coating them with a special mixture to dampen electrostatic charges that cause clumping. Patrick calls this making the particles 'slippery.'"
As a result of an analyis by Ken Alibeck and Matthew Meselson in  The National Journal, we know the anthrax spores in the letters were NOT milled, were NOT coated and were probably not freeze-dried.
"The material, in fact, is of mediocre quality, [Ken Alibek] told me, and was not produced industrially. It definitely had not been milled, nor did it appear to have any sort of coating to reduce static or otherwise enhance its deadliness. Silica supposedly found in the material, Alibek thinks, may simply be a residue from an unsophisticated drying process. Meselson concurs that the anthrax evinces no sign of special coating or processing. 'There is no evidence that I know of,' he told me, 'that it was treated in any special way.'"
So, the culprit may not have done any actual "weaponization".  All he may have done was to separate the spores from the debris.

It is also important to know that during the sporulation process the bacterium will absorb various elements from its environment.  For example, it needs and absorbs calcium to help protect the spore from heat and it needs and absorbs magnesium to help protect the spore from radiation.  It also absorbs elements it does not necessarily need - such as silica.  Up to 2.5% of a spore's total dry weight can be such metal ions.  While some of the ions may be part of the vegetating bacterium, most are assimilated during the sporulation process, and they are released again when the spore germinates.  Silica found in the Daschle spores is almost certainly from this process.  The new science of "microbial forensic" the silicon ions and other trace elements could very well help identify the specific lab where the spores were made.  Every lab could present a different "signature" composed of specific ions and trace elements.

#5 - The Targets:

When tracking down serial killers or terrorists, law enforcement agencies nearly always have to consider the targets:  Why did the perpetrator single out these specific people or businesses for attack?

The targets for the first anthrax mailing were all media related:

Tom Brokaw of NBC News.
The New York Post.
American Media (which publishes supermarket tabloids such as "The National Enquirer", "The Globe" and "The Sun").
Probably Dan Rather and Peter Jennings, too, since people at ABC and CBS got anthrax.

Experts in serial killings will tell you that the first killing is key to the killer's mind.  The first crime requires the criminal to step beyond the normal and to actually take a terrible action that he knows could lead to imprisonment.  So, he spends a lot of time thinking about it.   And the choice of target tells investigators more about him than any subsequent killings.  If he gets away with the first crime, the rest are easier and require less emotion and less thought.  It's the first crime that is critically important.  And the first crime in the anthrax case is the letters sent to the media.  The first victim was the media.  The anthrax terrorist desperately wanted the media to report on his actions! He wanted to generate alarming stories in the media.

Why did he want alarming stories in the media? Mostly likely so that people would force the authorities to take action to round up the terrorists and potential terrorists in our midst.  Some of the 9-11 terrorist had lived for awhile in Central New Jersey.  There could be lots more just waiting for the opportunity to strike with bioweapons.

The targets for the second anthrax mailing were Democratic politicians:

Democratic Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota.
Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont.

The most common reason for a terrorist to attack something is because he hates that thing.  But this particular terrorist took a number of careful precautions to make certain that the anthrax didn't do as much harm as it could.  That strongly suggests that this particular terrorist isn't motivated entirely by hate of his targets, but more by wanting to make news that will further his cause.  And to get people to take action.

The most obvious reason for sending an anthrax letter to Tom Brokaw is:  The anthrax terrorist watches Tom Brokaw's news show.  If the terrorist's intention was to generate news, then the best target is the news show he watches.  He can then just sit back and see what happens.  However, the culprit also sent anthrax-laden letters to Dan Rather and Peter Jennings.  So, his primary motive was to alarm the media.

Why The New York Post?  Again, the most obvious reason is that the anthrax terrorist reads The New York Post.  Certainly, the New York Times is more of a "symbol" of America than the Post, and the Times would be seen as a more appropriate target by some foreign terrorist.  Who outside of New York really knows much about the Post - or cares about the Post?  But a person who is trying to make news would most likely send a letter to a newspaper he reads.  It seems likely that he sent the letter to the Post because he reads the Post.

On the other hand, the New York Post offices are located in the same building as the Fox  Network - the building at 1211 Avenue of the Americas.  If he targeted NBC, ABC and CBS, why not Fox?  The answer could be that by sending a letter to the Post he was "killing two birds with one stone", since Fox is in the same building.

Why American Media - a publisher of supermarket tabloids?  It's quite possible that he views the tabloids as the print media for the rest of America.   An attack on The National Enquirer could put the news where he wants it: on supermarket stands all over America!  People would be demanding that some action be taken to prevent further attacks!

But there is another, much more likely reason for picking The National Enquirer:  For days prior to the first anthrax mailing, it was in the news everywhere that Mohamed Atta had taken flight training at an airport in Lantana, Florida.  If the anthrax mailer wanted to connect 9-11 with the anthrax mailing, sending an anthrax-laced letter to a Lantana newspaper would be a very good way to do it.  And an Internet search for a Lantana newspaper could easily have found an obsolete address for The National Enquirer.  (Try an Internet search today for Lantana and The National Enquirer and you'll find hundreds of hits.)  It seems more clear why the anthrax mailer chose The National Enquirer as a target than some other targets.

Why Senator Tom Daschle?  Senator Daschle is Senate Majority Leader,  which makes him a "top Democrat" and a likely target for any right-wing American extremist (or foreign terrorist).

Why Senator Leahy? He was a relatively unknown Senator from Vermont, even though he was a high-ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee - which approves spending on government projects. He's also known to be an environmentalist, and environmentalists are seen by some as enemies of bioweapons research.  The terrorist's motive for targeting Senator Leahy could be key to this case.

There's a very good reason for targeting Senator Leahy - and Daschle:  Early in October, a week prior to the second anthrax mailing, the newspapers and TV news shows were filled with stories about the proposed "Anti-Terror Bill" which would have permitted indefinite jailing of non-Americans suspected of terrorist offenses, would have permitted law enforcement agencies to share wire-tap information without a court order, etc.  Senator Leahy was highly visible on this issue as he worked to negotiate acceptable alternatives that wouldn't violate the rights of all Americans.  At this same time, Attorney John D. Ashcroft was forcefully declaring that the legislation was vital to preventing another terrorist attack.  A person obsessed with stopping bioterrorism would certainly see quibbling over civil rights as being absurd when terrorists could strike with bioweapons at any time.  Sending anthrax to Senator Leahy (and Daschle) would be sending the "right" message, showing them very clearly how easy it was for a bioterrorist to create havoc.  The intent was apparently to get them to stop hobbling the FBI and to let the FBI go after potential terrorist - particularly those in Central New Jersey - will all possible speed.

The best way to stop an imminent threat of a bioweapons attack is to round up and jail all the people who would be likely to carry out such an attack.  That was most likely his objective for both mailings - to generate public and congressional outrage so that all potential terrorists would be rounded up.  The 9-11 terrorists had moved freely in our midst.  That couldn't be allowed to happen again.

#6 - Cross-contamination:

The chart below was prepared by the Centers For Disease Control (CDC) to show how the mail system was contaminated by the two anthrax mailings (click on the chart for a larger version):

Cross-contamination primarily occurred when two letters to the Senators containing highly refined anthrax moved through the postal system.  The letters went through machinery - including rollers that bend the letters and alternately squeeze and unsqueeze the letters, which could cause the spores to work their way through the paper.  Other machinery stacks and bags the letters.

During this process, any tiny spores which worked their way out of a letter could easily attach themselves to the equipment or to other letters in the vicinity - particularly equipment and letters which happen to come in direct contact.

By this method, spores were found to have settled on parts of the machinery in a number of different post offices.  While spore size is determined by Nature and the media letters probably also produced some cross-contamination, the letters to Daschle and Leahy were particularly vulnerable to cross-contaminating equipment and other letters because the anthrax within those letters was almost pure spores of the right size to get through the paper of an envelope and a folded letter.  The letter to Patrick Leahy, moreover, was accidentally misdirected to the State Department's mail facility in Washington where it was further handled before being put back into the system to be sent to Leahy's office.

As a result, the letter to Leahy apparently contaminated other letters and mailbags that moved out of the Senate's mail facility to places around the world.  Mailbags that reached State Department facilities in Russia, Peru and other countries were found to have picked up some of the spores.  The amounts are theoretically "harmless", but they vividly illustrate the mechanics and dangers of "cross-contamination".

Enough spores were apparently in Ottilie Lundgren's mail to kill her.  It now appears that for every microscopic spore that works its way through the paper fibers of an envelope, there could be hundreds still caught within the paper fibers, and Ottilie had a habit of tearing her junk mail in half before throwing it away.  That process of tearing the mail in half would be all that was needed to release the spores inside the paper and kill Ottilie.

The envelopes holding the anthrax have been compared to a sieve, but actually they were more like sponges.  When put into contact with other "sponges", the anthrax was transferred into the other mail - it didn't just cling to the surface of the mail.  For detailed illustrations of the way the anthrax went through the paper, click HERE.

#7 - The Timeline

July 26, 2001:  At the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention in Geneva, Switzerland, the United States rejects a draft accord intended to ensure compliance with a United Nations ban on biological weapons.   The U.S. position is that the draft accord failed to provide any deterrent to states manufacturing illicit biological weapons.

August 17, 2001:  Many American scientists are very angry with the Bush administration for quashing the BTWC accords, and they voice their opinions in the media.  Other scientists undoubtedly agree with the U.S. position, but all are also undoubtedly very concerned about the dangers of bioweapons.

August, 2001:  Sometime this month, there was apparently a mailing of "threatening letters" to people in the media, including Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity of the Fox News Network.  Everyone who has seen these letters says that the handwriting was identical to the anthrax letters.

Sept 4, 2001: The Baltimore Sun prints an article titled "Bush treaty moves put is in danger".

Pre-Sept. 11:  Some time prior to September 11, 2001, an unknown number of "threatening letters" (possibly as many as 15) with handwriting very similar to the anthrax letters were mailed from Indianapolis, Indiana, to a number of people in the media.   Details of this mailing are very sketchy, mostly what is described HERE.

Sept. 11, 2001:  America is attacked by terrorists who flew aircraft into the World Trade Center.

Sept. 18, 2001: The anthrax-laced "media letters" to Tom Brokaw and the New York Post in New York are postmarked in Trenton, NJ.   In addition, the anthrax-laced letters to American Media, Dan Rather and Peter Jennings were most likely postmarked on this date - although all the letters may have actually been placed in a mailbox after the last collection on the 17th.  The powder in the envelopes is "unrefined", i.e., 10 percent spores and 90 percent harmless "debris".

Sept. 18, 2001:  The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported that Milwaukee police were called to the home of a highly educated scientist on this date, supposedly because of a domestic dispute about a lawnmower.  While at his home, the scientist actually told Milwaukee police that he was building "an anthrax delivery system" in his basement!   Ten days later, using a search warrant, the FBI took away his computer and some other objects, but didn't see any "anthrax delivery system".   The scientist's specialty is in the areas of radio chemistry, military ordnance and munitions, and decontamination - and he previously worked for a company that handled anthrax.  Since he was in Milwaukee on this date, he had a perfect alibi - he couldn't have been in Trenton, New Jersey, mailing the anthrax letters. But what a coincidence that he just happened to have the police pay a visit on this date!  And it was certainly handy for a potential suspect to have the FBI specifically verify via a search warrant that he had no anthrax!

Sept. 22, 2001: An  editorial page assistant at New York Post first notices blisters on her finger. She later reportedly tests positive for skin form of anthrax.

Sept. 26, 2001: Richard Morgano, 39, a maintenance worker at the Trenton regional post office in Hamilton, NJ, visits a physician to have a lesion on his arm treated.  The CDC later confirms that he had the skin form of anthrax.  He recovers.

Sometime around this point in time, the anthrax refiner/mailer apparently realized that his first mailing was a failure (because there was nothing in the media about it) and he began preparing for the second mailing.

Sept. 27, 2001: Teresa Heller, 32, a letter carrier at the West Trenton post office, develops a lesion on her arm which the CDC later confirms is the skin form of anthrax.  She recovers.

Sept. 28, 2001: Erin O'Connor, 38, assistant to Tom Brokaw, notices a "bad rash" which the CDC later confirms is anthrax.  She recovers.

On this same day, the 7-month-old son of an ABC producer develops a rash which is later confirmed to be cutaneous anthrax (the skin form).  He recovers.

Sept. 30, 2001: Bob Stevens, 63, a photo editor at "The Sun" in Boca Raton, Florida, starts to feel ill.  He is later confirmed to have contracted inhalation anthrax:  He dies on October 5th.

Oct. 1, 2001: Ernesto Blanco, 73, an American Media mailroom employee is hospitalized with pneumonia.  It turns out to be inhalation anthrax.  Nevertheless, he recovers.

Oct. 3, 2001: Bob Stevens is confirmed to have anthrax.  This is the first confirmation that anthrax has infected anyone.  But, at this time, it is still thought to be an isolated case - and possibly from some natural form of anthrax.

Oct. 3, 2001: The FBI interviews an Egyptian-American scientist formerly employed by The U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Ft. Detrick, MD, because of an anonymous letter sent to the FBI saying the man was responsible for the anthrax breakout.  (At this time the "breakout" was still thought to be isolated and probably from natural causes.) The FBI concludes that the letter was a false accusation.

Early Oct., 2001: The "Anti-Terror" Bill is argued in the Senate and Senator Leahy is seen as a key opponent to Attorney General Ashcroft's proposals to stop terrorism.

Oct. 5, 2001:  Bob Stevens dies.  He's the first known death from inhalation anthrax in the U.S. since 1976.

Oct. 7, 2001:  The AMI offices are shut down when spores are found on Steven's keyboard.

Oct. 9, 2001:  The post office postmarks the second mailing of anthrax-laced letters addressed to Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy. These letters have refined spores without the debris, making the powder at least ten times as deadly.

Oct. 10, 2001:  Stephanie Dailey, 36, an American Media employee tests positive for exposure to anthrax:  Takes antibiotics and does not come down with the disease.

Oct. 12, 2001:  Post officials believe on this day, the anthrax letter addressed to Sen. Leahy was misrouted and passed through a State Department mail facility in Sterling, Va.

On this day, one of Tom Brokaw's assistants is diagnosed as having cutaneous anthrax.  She remembers a letter from St. Petersburg, FL, and Judy Miller at the New York Times gets a hoax letter from St. Petersburg.  St. Petersburg is the focus of attention for the moment as numerous hoaxes and incorrect positive readings for anthrax confuse the issue.

Oct. 13, 2001: The media starts reporting that the anthrax could have come from terrorists.  The Tom Brokaw letter has been found and is being examined.  Brokaw's assistant is the second known case of anthrax - Bob Stevens being the first.

Oct. 14, 2001:  The number of known cases of exposure to anthrax has grown to 12, all connected to the "media mailing".  Most are cutaneous anthrax (the skin form).

The New York Times reports that the Brokaw letter was mailed from Trenton, NJ, and that it was postmarked Sept. 18.  Focus shifts from St. Petersburg to Trenton.   All three letters from St. Petersburg are hoaxes with non-lethal powder.  The material in the Brokaw letter is described as being brown and granular, or sand-like.  5 more people at AMI are shown to have been exposed to anthrax, but all but 1 will prove to be "false positives".

Oct. 15, 2001: The letter to U.S. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle is opened.  It tests positive for anthrax.

A 7-month-old son of an ABC freelance producer is diagnosed with cutaneous anthrax.  Ernesto Blanco at AMI is confirmed to have inhalation anthrax.

Oct. 16, 2001:  U.S. Senate offices close as hundreds line up to be tested for anthrax.  28 are confirmed to have been exposed to anthrax.

Oct. 17, 2001:  The anthrax in Florida and in New York are confirmed to be of the same strain.

Oct. 21, 2001:  Thomas Morris Jr., 55, a Washington postal worker has inhalation anthrax, although no one initially believes him.  He dies on this day.

Oct. 22, 2001:  Joseph Curseen, 47, a Washington postal worker, develops inhalation anthrax and goes to the hospital.  He dies the same evening.

Two more postal workers are hospitalized; nine others are ill with symptoms.  Authorities test 2,200 workers.

Oct. 23, 2001 - The FBI puts photographs of the anthrax letters on its web site.

Oct. 24, 2001, Peter Jahrling is summoned to the White House where he tells the Bush Cabinet, "This anthrax could have come from a hospital lab or from any reasonably equipped college microbiology lab."

Oct. 25, 2001: An employee at the State Department's mail facility is hospitalized with anthrax.

Oct. 29, 2001:  Kathy Nguyen, 61, a New York City hospital worker is hospitalized with inhalation anthrax.  Shedies on October 31.  There seems to be no link to the other anthrax cases.

Nov. 4, 2001:  More traces of anthrax are found in New York and Washington, followed later by more and more findings as cross-contamination spreads the anthrax to State Department offices world-wide.

Nov. 20, 2001: A sample taken from the plastic evidence bag containing the still-unopened letter to Sen. Patrick Leahy contains at least 23,000 anthrax spores, enough for more than two lethal doses.  The unopened envelope is suspected to contain enough anthrax to kill 100,000 people.

Nov. 21, 2001:  Ottilie Lundgren, 94, of Oxford, Conn., is diagnosed as having inhalation anthrax.  She dies.  On November 30 it is determined that the probable source of the anthrax that killed her is cross-contamination from the letters sent to Senators Daschle and Leahy.  Her age may have caused her to be vulnerable to the disease even though the quantity of spores she could have encountered that way was extremely small.

Dec. 12, 2001: Newspapers break the story that the U.S. military has recently developed anthrax in highly lethal powder for, although they claim to have kept track of every bit of it.

Dec. 16, 2001: DNA testing confirms that the anthrax in the letters to Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy probably originated at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Disease at Fort Detrick, MD.

Dec. 19, 2001:  ABC news publishes a report that a scientist who was fired twice from Battelle Memorial Institute in Columbus, Ohio, is the focus of an FBI investigation.  That company does bioweapons research with anthrax for the CIA and the military!

Dec. 20, 2001:  The FBI states emphatically that the fired scientist is NOT the focus of any investigation.

Jan. 20, 2002: The Hartfort Courant breaks the news that anthrax may be missing from Ft. Detrick, and also shows how some scientists can be petty, vindictive and unstable.

Feb. 27, 2002: The FBI starts sending out subpoenas to every known facility using anthrax to get samples for DNA analysis and comparison to the anthrax from the Leahy letter.

July 29, 2002:  The "Scientific Working Group on Microbial Genetics and Forensics" is put together by the FBI.

Aug. 1, 2002: After reporting for months that the FBI is "clueless" in the anthrax case, the media begins reporting that an arrest of Dr. Hatfill is imminent.

Aug. 29, 2002:  The FBI and other agencies returned to the AMI building for a more thorough search, seeking the missing AMI letter and more information about the anthrax spores and how they spread through the building.

#8 - The Geography

According to FBI profilers, the anthrax mailer is almost certainly familiar with Trenton, or lives close enough to drive there.  Most criminals, the profilers say, act where they are comfortable.  However, it seems to me that "close enough to drive there" includes a lot of territory - including New York City.  Here's a map (click on the "thumbnail" for a larger version):

The anthrax mailer must have been in the Trenton area to mail the letters, but that's an easy drive from anywhere in central New Jersey or even New York City.  Since spores were found in a mailbox there, the most likely place for the second mailing was across the street from Princeton University in Princeton, NJ.

The deaths in Florida and Washington were the result of mailed letters from the Trenton area and do not require additional travel by the terrorist.  The death of Kathy Nguyen seems unconnected to mail deliveries and is more likely connected to other events.  Click HERE for details.

It's also possible that the terrorist lives somewhere else and merely travels to the Trenton area to get to where his equipment and the anthrax is stored.

#9 - A Theory About Who Did It

Developing a theory requires asking and answering questions:

1. Could the anthrax terrorists be Al Qaeda?

That seems extremely unlikely.  Al Qaeda terrorists are vicious, dedicated killers who look for maximum damage and maximum impact.  They choose their targets carefully, seeking to bring down symbols of America and American institutions.  They seek a high death toll.

The anthrax letters seem to be from someone who thinks exactly the opposite.  The first letters told the recipients to take penicillin - a good antidote for anthrax.  It’s highly unlikely that anyone from Al Qaeda would do that.  The second letters actually told the recipients that the powder in the letters was anthrax - a more pointed warning than merely telling them to take penicillin.  Clearly, the terrorist was warning the recipients that the powder in the letters was dangerous and to act accordingly.   That’s certainly not something the Al Qaeda would be likely to do.  In addition, the anthrax was apparently placed inside the letters which were folded in the "pharmaceutical fold" that has been used for centuries to safely dispense drugs.  It was an extra precaution.  And, the second letters were also taped shut in an apparent (failed) attempt to make certain none of the anthrax escaped before the letters reached their destinations.  I cannot think of any reason why Al Qaeda would do that.  They would more likely want to contaminate the mail system instead of taking precautions to prevent that from happening.

A November 10, 2001, article in The Seattle Times included his paragraph:

"FBI officials said they doubt the letters were sent by Middle Eastern terrorists because they do not resemble other such letters sent in the past. One official said that such letters typically include some Arabic text, but these do not."
The targets do not seem to be targets that Al Qaeda would choose.  Why would they pick The New York Post?  Why would they pick Senator Patrick Leahy who has almost nothing to do with foreign policy?

The letters seem intended to do minimum harm, but to generate maximum reaction against al Qaeda and other Muslim terrorists.

And why use the Ames strain of anthrax?  One of it’s primary properties is that it is easily cured.  It’s used for testing antibiotics.  Almost any type of antibiotic kills it.  A true terrorist would try to find  (or develop) a strain of anthrax that has no known cure.

And while penicillin is an antibiotic, it is far from the best antibiotic to use against anthrax.  For his second mailing, the terrorist changed his warning from a general one of taking penicillin to a specific one of telling the letter recipients that the powder was anthrax.  In other words, between mailings the terrorist decided to use a better and clearer warning to alert the letter recipients of the danger.  Would al Qaeda do that?

And, too, there were at least seven letters mailed with anthrax in them, 5 to the media and two to the Senators.  That is a lot of anthrax!  Plus, the anthrax sent to the media was unrefined, while the anthrax sent to the Senators went through a refining process, which implies that refining took place between the two mailings.  It is highly unlikely that some al Qaeda terrorist would be able to do such sophisticated and labor-intensive refining while hiding out somewhere in the U.S.  And why would they bring into the country both refined and unrefined anthrax, using the unrefined batch for the meda and the refine anthrax for the Senators?

Lastly, if Al Qaeda had a supply of anthrax sufficient to kill thousands of people, they could have found countless ways to do that, instead of sending it to two Senators and telling them what the powder was.  They wouldn't have sent letters designed to do minimum harm while generating a maximum reaction against Muslims and al Qaeda.  And they certainly would have used their supply of anthrax in another more deadly attack after America began hunting down al Qaeda leaders all over the world, and, very likely killing their leader - Osama bin Laden.

The evidence almost certainly indicates that the terrorists were not Al Qaeda.

2.  Why would the letter writer include such phrases as "Death to America" and "Allah is Great" if the person who sent the letters was not Al Qaeda or someone of a like mind?

The Al Qaeda had just attacked America and destroyed the World Trade Center and parts of the Pentagon.  The timing was right for someone to take advantage of that to promote their own cause.  Two possible "causes" come to mind: (1) seeking revenge, the person behind the anthrax letters could have wanted to fuel the hatred for Muslims and the people responsible for the WTC disaster, or (2) seeking government action, someone could have wanted to demonstrate to America what other terrible atrocities the Al Qaeda could commit if America was not fully prepared - and if the American authorities didn't take immediate action to round up potential terrorists.

After the anthrax attacks became public knowledge, there were literally thousands of hoax anthrax letters from people attempting to take advantage of the situation for their own goals.  Many arrests have been made.  The only real difference between those hoaxes promoting their various causes and the real attack is that the sender of the anthrax letters actually possessed a supply of anthrax.

3.  Who could have done such a thing?

One October long ago, a concerned scientist from Princeton sent a letter to a high Democratic politician warning that America was in great danger from weapons of mass destruction.  The intent was to alert America to such dangers so that precautions could be taken.  The letter was from Professor Albert Einstein, it was delivered to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on October 11, 1939, and it advised FDR that America was in possible danger from a program in Nazi Germany that could result in the building of an atomic bomb.  The result of that letter was the Manhattan Project and America's nuclear development program.

So, there is a precedent for a scientist using a letter to try to alert America to the dangers of weapons of mass destruction.

The anthrax attacks required considerable knowledge of how to handle a dangerous germ such as  anthrax.  However, that doesn’t mean the person had to have actually worked with anthrax in some bioweapons laboratory.  It’s actually highly unlikely that the person learned how to create the tiny anthrax spores by working with anthrax.  It’s too dangerous and it’s too wasteful.  The person would have used a similar but non-deadly germ such at Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) and experimented with it to learn how to create the microscopic spores.  Once the correct method had been found using Bt, then a limited supply of anthrax could be used to create the highly refined anthrax powder sent to the two Senators.

While this doesn’t require any actual experience with anthrax, it still requires a great deal of knowledge and experience - and access to the right equipment.  It’s for that reason the government and most experts believe that the terrorist is a member of the scientific community - or in a related field such as medicine or academia.  In other words, it was done by an experienced scientific expert familiar with handing dangerous biological forms - possibly getting assistance from another scientist in another field to develop the unusual refining process.

According to a story in the April 15 issue of Newsweek, the spores in Senator Leahy's letter were "ground to a microscopic fineness not achieved by U.S. biological-weapons experts".  Does that mean that it was done in some foreign country?  No, absolutely not.  It just means exactly what it says - U.S. biological-weapons experts haven't refined anthrax to that degree.  Most U.S. biological-weapons experts haven't been working on powdered anthrax for decades - except, apparently in some very small programs.  It takes no stretch of the imagination to see that some American scientist could have used up-to-date equipment and techniques to improve upon the processes last used by government labs back in the 1970s.  The fact that government scientists don't know how to do it doesn't mean that scientists in private labs and university labs haven't been able to do it.  All that is really required is knowledge, time, equipment and the anthrax.

The fact that in the first mailing the terrorist told the letter recipients to take penicillin and in the second mailing told the recipients that the power was anthrax could have some meaning.  Penicillin is not the best antibiotic for anthrax.  Did the terrorist learn that fact between mailings?  If so, it indicates that he isn't a doctor and cures for anthrax aren't something he's studied.  It also verifies that the first mailing was hastily prepared.

It's also interesting to examine what the anthrax mailer knew and didn't know at the time of the second mailing on October 8 or 9.   He knew that Bob Stevens had died of anthrax, but the authorities were still thinking that the anthrax could have come from natural sources.  He knew that all the anthrax letters to the New York media had apparently been ignored.  Three weeks had gone by and there had been absolutely nothing about them in the news.  And the anthrax letter he  sent to the National Enquirer in Lantana, Florida, on September 18 had somehow killed a photo editor at The Sun in Boca Raton, Florida, on October 5.   The anthrax mailer might connect those two facts, but would the authorities make any connection?  Or would the authorities conclude that Bob Stevens somehow contracted natural anthrax while on vacation?  Would the final diagnosis be: death from natural causes?

Although the anthrax mailer probably knew he had actually killed someone, that fact clearly wasn't as important to him as the fact that no one was paying any attention to his letters.  The anthrax mailer made certain that the next letters were not simply tossed away like the first.  He did this by stating in the letters that the powder was anthrax AND refining the anthrax to make it much more deadly!  That could not be ignored after Bob Stevens died.  And it wasn't.

4.  Isn’t anthrax carefully guarded and controlled?

Yes, but apparently not carefully enough. Laboratories are protected mainly against intruders, and there are safeguards that make it virtually impossible for an outsider to get into one.  But there are far fewer controls preventing an insider from taking something out of such a lab.  Scientists have reportedly taken test tubes filled with anthrax to conventions and meetings.  Others take samples home with them to work on in their own basement labs.  This has been documented in several news reports - mainly regarding Ft. Detrick and Battelle.

It's important to understand that the anthrax that was taken from the government lab was probably no more than a tiny fraction of what was used in the mailings.  The thief didn't have to take enough anthrax for all seven letters. The stuff can be grown.  And it grows very fast.  And it didn't even have to be in spore form.  It could have been anthrax germs in a test tube.  The only requirement was that they be of the fast-growing Ames anthrax strain.  Because the anthrax in the first mailing was unrefined and the anthrax in the second mailing was refined, that seems to make it a near certainty that the anthrax was being cultured and refined during the period between the mailings.

5.  Could the anthrax have been purified in a home laboratory?

There was a lot of debate about this.  Some scientists originally said it required only about $2,500 dollars worth of equipment.  And the actual equipment is available from many supply houses which sell and resell such equipment.  There are so many places where the equipment is sold and so many individual pieces of equipment that could have been used, that it is totally impractical to even attempt to check them all.  The equipment is in great abundance; what is in limited supply is the right knowledge and some unrestricted access to the Ames form of anthrax.

As more information was learned about the anthrax, however, it became a near certainty that while the first batch could have been produced in a "home lab" the second batch could not have been refined in a "home lab".  But that doesn't mean it required a massive government project.  There is a big middle-ground.  There are thousands of professional laboratories where the culprit might have used professional equipment that has nothing to do with any government project.

On October 24, 2001, Peter Jahrling, the senior scientist at USAMRIID was summoned to the Roosevelt Room of the White House to talk with John Ashcroft, Cabinet officials, CIA, FBI and national security people about the Daschle anthrax which Jahrling had been studying.  At that meeting, Peter Jahrling said,"This anthrax could have come from a hospital lab or from any reasonably equipped college microbiology lab."

An Aug. 20, 2002, article from The Hartford Courant goes into detail about one type of machine that could have been used. There are apparently many labs in Central New Jersey that have the machine.  For a glimpse at what such machines look like, click HERE.

"Dozens of academic labs, pharmaceutical companies and firms that specialize in making fine industrial powders are in this part of southern New Jersey. Any could have employees with the knowledge, and the equipment, to produce the refined, easily inhaled anthrax powder sent to Senate and media offices, some scientists and law enforcement officials say."

"But one law enforcement official interviewed in Princeton last week, who spoke on the condition that his name not be used, noted that there are at least half a dozen companies within a 40-minute drive of the mailbox whose employees might have the expertise to launch such an attack."

"There are several ways to turn bacteria into such a fine powder. One method involves a process known as non-contact, or non-mechanical, milling. Instead of a grinding wheel, a jet of air is used to reduce the material to a powder.

"Several labs at Princeton University, and countless private companies in the area, work with the $50,000 machines, which can be purchased secondhand for about a third of the original cost, [Prof.] Ebright said.

"Asked whether faculty or students had been contacted by federal agents following the discovery of the mailbox earlier this month, Princeton University spokeswoman Marilyn Marks said: "We don't comment on FBI investigations." She added that nobody on the campus works with anthrax."

The argument that the refined anthrax used in the second mailing couldn’t have been produced in a home laboratory or a non-government lab seems to come primarily from people who do not know how anthrax can be refined to such a degree.  For them, the only known process is "secret" and is patented by Bill Patrick.  But that doesn’t mean that someone couldn’t have been told the "secret" or figured it out.   In fact, figuring it out is almost a career requirement in a situation like this.  And once figured out, the process can be improved upon.  There have been many improvements in technology since Bill Patrick's inventions were first patented.

If someone can do something previously thought impossible and the process is a "secret", any scientist with the time and inclination will try to figure out how to do it.  If you are a respected scientist and someone is doing something you don’t know how to do, you have to figure out how to do it or you are no longer tops in your field.  Knowing how to do it could solve many problems and lead to other new discoveries that will generate credentials and rewards.  And among those discoveries would be how to keep the spores separated in a way that no one has ever seen before.

Apparently, the "secret" is in what chemicals are used and how they are used.  The equipment is standard stuff.  "Experts" who don't know how to do it are no judge on what was needed to do it.  Plus there is information (at the end of the Refining Section) that indicates that Bill Patrick's patented process was not used.

(Although I had no background in hydraulics, I once invented a simple bi-directional hydraulic flow meter (patent #5458007) and as soon as the "hydraulic experts" learned that it wasn’t the impossible idea as they had thought and that the patent application had actually been made, many of them tried to invent a better one. Some of their attempts were wildly complicated and impractical, but they spent a lot of time and money on it before they all eventually gave up.  Much of my life has been fighting with "experts" who felt that things couldn't be done until I did them, or who felt that things could be done but didn't know that they couldn't (and who wouldn't believe me when I told them).)

You have to know how it was done before you can know if it can be done in a makeshift lab or a non-government lab.  Chances are good that the idea is really very simple - and the best and most simple ideas require very little equipment.  But instead of a "makeshift lab", it's much more likely that the anthrax was made in a sophisticated lab where some scientist had unlimited access and could work without being questioned.  Here's what a couple other "experts" were quoted as saying in the National Journal:

"If the U.S. anthrax was very pure but not specially weaponized, could it have been made by amateurs? In small quantities, yes, according to both [Ken] Alibek [a former Soviet bio-weapons official] and [Matthew] Meselson [a Harvard University biologist]. It could be done, Alibek says, with 'a very simple, nonindustrial process -- a very primitive process -- that could let you get a trillion spores in one gram. You can't make hundreds of kilos, but you could make hundreds of grams at this concentration.'
"Meselson concurs. 'It's something that could be done by a fair number of people.' The necessary glassware, culturing media, centrifuges, and so on 'would exist in a large number of places, both hospitals and laboratories -- widespread.'"

6.  Who did it?

A Working Theory for who the anthrax terrorists might be:

The person who supplied the anthrax is most likely someone formerly with some U.S. military bioweapons development program.  The person who refined and mailed the anthrax may have learned from the supplier, or may merely have obtained the Ames anthrax from him.  He has most likely never been with any U.S. military bioweapons program.

The idea that the terrorist worked for the government has apparently been common gossip ever since Barbara Hatch Rosenberg gave a talk at the BTW conference in Geneva in November, 2001.   Around November 28, 2001, her talk was the subject of an article in "Greenpeace Germany" a publication of the environmentalist movement.  The Greenpeace article apparently quoted Rosenberg as saying, ``It seems the attacker ... wanted to force through an increase in the budget for U.S. research on biological weapons.''  The magazine also reported that Rosenberg speculated that the attacker, who used anthrax-laced mail, had probably wanted to cause panic rather than kill anyone.

After nearly seven years of negotiations, what was intended to be the final session to complete the treaty ended in disarray on Aug. 17, 2001, when the U.S. government decided to block the treaty being negotiated by 143 countries at the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention (BTWC) in Geneva, Switzerland.  To avoid another publicity fiasco like the one that followed its rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, the U.S. delegation remained in Geneva after rejecting the biological weapons treaty until the negotiating session disbanded in order to prevent other nations from reaching a biological weapons agreement among themselves.  Such tactics further angered many American and foreign scientists.  For a number of articles describing the scientific community's reaction to this rejection, visit the Federation of American Scientist's web site HERE.

All this discussion of biological weapons was clearly on the minds of many scientists, both those who supported America's position at the BTWC and those that didn't.  So, there are a lot of scientists out there with an agenda that fits the terrorist's profile.  It seems clear that the anthrax terrorist(s) wanted to use the media to frighten the American people into either (a) funding bioweapons research - which includes antidotes against such weapons - or (b) to make it clear to the American people that a treaty banning biological weapons is critical to our safety.

A common cause may have brought two scientists/terrorists together. One with anthrax and one with available equipment and expertise, both with a need to use the anthrax for a demonstration to support their cause.

However, it's difficult to imagine anyone sending anthrax through the mail in order to generate support for a treaty.  And the fact that the terrorist had anthrax in his possession indicates they probably supported the Bush adminstration's point of view: If biological weapons are banned, only criminals will have biological weapons.  But the anthrax mailer was very likely acting out of self-preservation - out of fear that millions of Americans could die from a bioweapons attack and he could be one of them!  So, he could be from either side of the BTWC issue.

Most likely, there was an original plan that was made unworkable by the Sept. 11 attack.  (See "Plan A".)  And as part of "Plan A", the person with access to Ames anthrax turned some of the Ames anthrax over to the other person who would process it and use it for some kind of demonstration.

The supplier of the anthrax probably obtained the anthrax well before Sept. 11 - before he was let go from his job with some military bioweapons lab - and he kept it around as evidence of how easily it can be obtained.  It proves his case that anthrax can be obtained easily.  He did it.

Regardless of whatever happened before September 11, things really began on that date. On that date the anthrax mailer became more alarmed than ever before.  America had been attacked by foreign terrorists!  Bioweapons attacks could be next, but, in his eyes, no one cared!  No one was paying any attention!  He had to make them pay attention.

There's nothing more frustrating in this world than to be an expert on a subject and to be ignored.

So, on September 18, 2001, the supplier (with known connections to a source for anthrax) would likely arrange for an alibi for himself - while the refiner/mailer used some of the anthrax he had in his possession to send out REAL anthrax letters to the media - to Tom Brokaw, The New York Post, American Media in Florida and most likely Dan Rather and Peter Jennings.

But again nothing happened!  It took weeks before the first case appeared in the news, and then it was initially thought to be anthrax from natural causes!  (The letters sent to AMI, CBS and ABC were literally discarded, and even the letters to NBC and the New York Post had to be dug out of the trash or out of junk mail bins!)  The anthrax mailer was probably wildly upset.  A real bioweapons attack could come at any moment and no one was doing anything to prevent it!  He was now refining some more anthrax to create a much more deadly variety that no one was going to interpret as being from "natural sources".

To make matters worse, at this time the "Anti-Terror Bill" proposed by Attorney General Ashcroft was being "watered down" by Senate Democrats concerned with civil rights.  This would have infuriated anyone looking for total waragainst bioterrorism and to round up potential terrorist cells in American which might be ready to attack at any moment.  And Senator Leahy might have appeared to be a key figure in protecting "the rights of terrorists!"

The location of spores found in various Florida post offices indicates that the letter that killed Bob Stevens, a photo editor at The Sun in Boca Raton, Florida, was originally addressed to the National Enquirer in Lantana, Florida.  The National Enquirer had moved its location a year before the attack, and the letter was forwarded to the new location in Boca Raton.

The media was still reporting that the anthrax that killed Bob Stevens could have been from natural causes.  Did the anthrax mailer put two and two together and realize that he had actually killed someone?  Most likely he did.  But it obviously didn't change anything.  The anthrax mailer still hadn't awakened America.  No alarm had been sounded.  Apparently, no one even realized that his letters to the media contained anthrax!

So, at some point in time, the anthrax refiner/mailer began refining the anthrax by separating he spores from the debris to produce a powder that was nearly pure spores - and at least ten times as dangerous.  Then, probably late in the evening of October 8, 2001, the anthrax refiner/mailer put enough refined anthrax to kill hundreds of thousands of people into two envelopes, sealed them tight (including some tape around the edges), drove to a mailbox in the Trenton, New Jersey area, most likely the mailbox across the street from Princeton University in Princeton, NJ, where he mailed them to Senators Leahy and Daschle.  These two letters would be a wake up call that no one would be able to ignore!  Two Senators’ offices doused with deadly, highly refined anthrax?!  How could that be ignored?  But he did use a variety of anthrax that is very easily killed with most antibiotics, he taped the envelopes around the edges to seal them tightly, and he actually stated in the letter that the powder was anthrax.  So, he clearly wasn’t looking to kill anyone else.  Certainly, he was not looking for maximum damage as a bin Laden terrorist would.

Profiles of the anthrax terrorists:

The unidentified "anthrax terrorist" is most likely two people: the "supplier" who obtained the Ames anthrax from a government lab and the "refiner/mailer" (plus, perhaps, an uninvolved child).

Profile of the anthrax supplier:

1.  The supplier probably took the Ames anthrax from a government facility.
2.  The supplier was probably fired from that facility.
3.  The supplier is probably considered an unstable personality, perhaps even a "drunk".
4.  The supplier is almost certainly unmarried.
5.  The supplier is a loner with few friends - if any.
6.  The supplier is disgruntled and uncomfortable working with others.
7.  The supplier probably uses phrases like "I keep telling them, but they don't listen."
8.  The supplier doesn't care much about "rules".
9.  The supplier believes that a free exchange of information is key to advancements in science.
10.  The supplier may have had knowledge needed by the refiner/mailer.
11.  The supplier is probably in his late 40s or early 50s.
12.  The supplier probably lost his security clearance as a result of his actions.

Profile of the anthrax refiner/mailer:

1.  The refiner/mailer is probably in his 40s.
2.  The refiner/mailer may currently work in the health industry or in academia.
3.  The refiner/mailer has almost unlimited access to scientific equipment and facilities.
4.  The refiner/mailer probably lives within commuting distance of NYC.
5.  The refiner/mailer was in the Trenton, NJ, area late on Sept. 17 and October 8, 2001.
6.  The refiner/mailer probably reads the New York Post.
7.  The refiner/mailer probably lives alone.
8.  The refiner/mailer is probably an American citizen.
9.  The refiner/mailer may have some connection to the publication of a newsletter that expresses his beliefs.
10.  The refiner/mailer thinks that voting is a waste of time.  If he belonged to a political party, it would be the Fascist Party.
11.  The refiner/mailer may be a have mood swings between blatant egotism and deep anger.
12.  The refiner/mailer may be divorced.
13.  The refiner/mailer may have a small child and visitation rights with the child.
14.  The refiner/mailer may have used his child to address the envelopes and to write the letters.
15.  The refiner/mailer may already have published his "manifesto".
16.  The refiner/mailer probably uses the Internet frequently.
17.  The refiner/mailer may have expressed anti-Muslim sentiments during the period before the 9-11 attacks and followed that with a lot of "I told you so" comments after 9-11.  He may have expressed concerns about the number of Muslims living in Central New Jersey.

#10 - Microbial Forensics

In the spring of 2002 it appears that the FBI had just about reached a dead end on the anthrax case.  While the FBI may have identified one or more persons who they believedwere behind the crime, they were evidently unable to make an arrest because they were unable to find sufficient proof which could be taken into a court of law to get a conviction.  The culprit(s) had done a very good job of covering tracks - which seems relatively easy to do when committing a crime via the U.S. Mails.

There were none of the traditional types of evidence which enable prosecuting attorneys to win cases in court.  There were no witnesses.  There were no fingerprints.  There were no DNA traces which could link a person to the crime.  The paper, envelopes, inks and other physical evidence were common and could have been obtained by almost anyone.  They apparently couldn’t find a solid match on the handwriting.  Whatever circumstantial evidence they had, it was far from being enough to be absolutely certain of a conviction. And the anthrax case was not a case the Department Of Justice would be willing to risk losing.

In short, it appears that, while they may have known who committed the crime, they couldn’t proveit, and they were running out of ideas on ways to try to prove it.

An idea

So, they started looking around for new ideas.  They began asking respected scientists in various fields if they could think of aspects of the crime which had not yet been thoroughly investigated.

It is unknown who first came up with the idea, but their questioning of scientists uncovered a vast area where scientific knowledge had been accumulating but where the information had not been organized and formalized into "an official science".   That area was unofficially called "microbial forensics".

According to the article in the September 17, 2003, issue of Science Magazine announcing the creation of the new science, "Microbial forensics can be defined as a scientific discipline dedicated to analyzing evidence from a bioterrorism act, biocrime, or inadvertent microorganism/toxin release for attribution purposes".

It was quickly realized that this new science had to be formalized and recognized or evidence produced by the science would never hold up in court.  If that wasn’t done, defense attorneys would question every finding presented in court to make certain that "reasonable doubt" would be clearly present to every juror in the jury box.  (Interestingly, many papers on the subject mention the DNA evidence discounted by the jury in the O.J. Simpson case.)

The working group

On June 7-9, 2002, a "working group" of 35 scientists was assembled by the American Academy of Microbiology in Burlington, Vermont.  In her highly informative paper "Microbial Forensics" by Abigail A. Salyers, published in December of 2003, Ms Salyers says,

For the first time in the history of these AAM-organized meetings, three scientists from the FBI were included. The FBI scientists, all of whom had had direct involvement in investigation of the anthrax case, helped provide the occasional reality check, as other scientists not familiar with work in the field grappled with the question of how to establish standards for evidence collection and for analysis and interpretation of the plethora of new molecular tests, more of which are being published every month. The anthrax attack was not the only example of the possible use of microbial forensics considered by the group of AAM experts. Other examples included intentional contamination of others by HIV-positive individuals and outbreaks of hospital-acquired or foodborne disease. Understandably, however, the anthrax bioattack dominated the discussion.
The mission of this group was not to investigate the anthrax case.  It was to formalize the science so that the FBI could use the science in the anthrax case.   Ms Saylers explains:
All of us remember the debacle of the O. J. Simpson trial during which lawyers were trying to establish the validity and limitations of a DNA-based analytical method used for identifying the human source of a blood sample, and few would argue that an actual trial is the place to establish whether a scientific test is reliable.  Now that years have passed since the Simpson trial and the tests about which there was so much argument at the time have been used in many courts cases, the public and the legal profession have become more comfortable with the use of such tests for identifying murderers and rapists. Reaching the same level of comfort with microbial forensics will not be nearly as easy.

This is so because one is not dealing with a single familiar species, Homo sapiens, but with a huge diversity of microbial species with names that are unfamiliar, in some cases even to the average microbiologists. In contrast to DNA-based tests now widely used to identify human suspects, a single set of tests and interpretations will not work for all microbial species. Moreover, although these tests are widely used by scientists, they have not been validated in a way that would give a nonscientist confidence that they are reliable enough to send someone to jail.

There was already a lot of information on file and a lot of work had already been done by scientists investigating outbreaks of various well-known infections.  For example, the CDC has a system called PulseNet which tracks outbreaks of Salmonella and other diseases.  But the purpose of such work is to figure out where and how a disease began (and to track it until it is fully under control), NOT to convict a killer in a court of law.   (This could explain why the CDC seems satisfied that the anthrax which killed Bob Stevens could have been in either or both of two different letters which arrived at different times, while the FBI needs to be certain exactly which letter contained the anthrax.)

Formalizing the new science

Formalizing a science involves such things as Quality Assurance and Quality Control, to make certain that the evidence isn’t contaminated and a chain-of-custody is maintained from the time the evidence was found until it’s presented in court.  It involves statistical analysis so that an "expert" can go into court - as in the O.J. Simpson case - and state with authority that the chances of error are 1 in 10 thousand or 1 in 500 million.   False positives and false negatives are a fact of life in many testing procedures, and a jury has to understand that "reasonable doubt" isn’t the same as "no doubt whatsoever" in a situation where tests showed that a spore came from a specific lab - with 99.999999999 percent certainty.

These tests - as they relate to the anthrax case - evidently involve just about every aspect of growing and refining anthrax.  Variations in the DNA of a bacterium will certainly be part of the investigation, and work is being done to completely sequence at least 10 variations of anthrax stains in order to provide a baseline of data.  According to the authors of an article titled "Microbial Forensics - ‘Cross-Examining Pathogens" in Science Magazine from June 14, 2002,

We speculate that the sequencing of additional Ames lab strains and other distantly related strains may yield polymorphisms that lead to identification of the source of the 2001 bioterrorism strain (or strains).
This work on DNA could identify from which lab the Ames anthrax originally came (i.e., Ft. Detrick, Battelle, LSU, Northern Arizona U, Dugway, etc.).  But that wouldn’t automatically mean that the same lab produced the spores in the anthrax letters.  Far from it.  In fact, it’s a near certainty that the anthrax spores were made in some other lab not directly associated with the originating lab.   So, it is absolutely critical to positively identify the lab where the spores were actually made.

Fortunately, it seems that when a spore is formed it will absorb trace elements and other materials from its surroundings.  The existence of traces of a particular isotope of silica, for example, could point to the use of a specific piece of equipment made by a specific company and used in only a few specific labs.  As with DNA, the existence of some element could eliminate Lab Z while the existence of another element could point to Lab J.  And an accumulation of such evidence could determine that the anthrax could only have been made in Lab J.  And decay rates on various isotopes may also help determine when it was made.  Then it becomes a matter of identifying which person working in Lab J at the time in question could have done it.

The work of formalizing the new science of microbial forensics was evidently done in relative secrecy (probably to avoid reporting of premature results), since I can find absolutely no mention of it until the group completed its work and announced its existence in an article in the September 17, 2003, issue of Science Magazine.  One of the members of the steering committee and the working group, Paul Keim of Northern Arizona University, has written a detailed paper about the project which is titled "Microbial Forensics: A Scientific Assessment", which lists the names of all the participants.   This document and the paper by Abigail A. Salyers (who was also on the steering committee and a member of the working group) should be required reading for anyone trying to understand what this new science means to the anthrax case.

Using the New Science

Sometime in the fall of 2003, the FBI evidently began putting the new science to work.  Whether or not they could even have gotten search warrants for lab equipment prior to the recognition of the science is unknown, but it’s seems clear that the investigation was re-energized after a long period of treading water while the working group did its function.

And, in early 2004, the FBI asked for delays in the Hatfill and Stevens lawsuits to allow them time to complete their investigation utilizing this new science.  Evidently - based upon statements made at a hearing in the Dr. Hatfill lawsuit -  findings are expected to be announced in June or July of 2004.  There may even be an arrest or arrests.

If there is no arrest, the minimum we should be able to expect is that the specific labs will be identified, i.e., the lab where the Ames anthrax originated and the lab where the spores were made.

If that happens, then all the scientists who have been misled by amateur detectives pointing at Dr. Hatfill and all the scientists and others misled by journalists using speculation instead of facts regarding the need for massive facilities to put coatings on the anthrax, and all the people who somehow became convinced that al Qaeda sent the anthrax, all those people can finally focus on the real situation and who might have done the crimes.  It’s very possible that someone misled by all the bad information in the media, or by their own misconceptions, may suddenly realize he has the missing piece of evidence needed to convict the culprit or culprits.

Let’s hope so.

#11 - Updates & Thoughts

Current comments and updates are now on the new "front page".  Click HERE.

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

# 12 - References:

FBI site with copies of envelopes and letters
Linguistic/Behavioral Analysis of Anthrax Letters - from
Richard M. Smith's web site on "The Anthrax Investigation"
UCLA's "Disease Detectives" site about the anthrax outbreak of 2001
University of Wisconsin - Bacillus anthracis and anthrax
The Center for Counterproliferation Research - Nov. 2002 - "Anthrax in America: A Chronology ..."
Lousiana State University - The World Anthrax Data Site
ABC, Australia - Timeline of Atta's and other terrorists' movements
CBC - Oct. 2002 - Background information on Anthrax
South Florida Sun-Sentinel - "Chronology of anthrax events".
Barbara Hatch Rosenberg - "Analysis of the Anthrax Attacks"
Biohazard News - "A civilian initiative addressing the threat of bioterrorism"
CODENAME ZABADI: Zawahiri's Infiltration Of US Biodefense - NOVA - "Interviews with Biowarriors - Bill Patrick"
The CDC - Nov-Dec 2001 - "Research: Bioterrorism-related inhalational anthrax"
Emerging Infectious Diseases - Oct. 2002 - Investigation of Bioterrorism related anthrax"
The General Accounting Office - Dec. 10, 2002 - "Information On U.S. Domestic Anthrax Attacks"


Insight Magazine - Jan. 26, 1998 - "Cooking Up The Plague At Home"
The New Yorker - Mar. 9, 1998 - "Bioweaponeers" by Richard Preston
US Air Force - Apr. 1998 - "Biological and Chemical Warfare: A Challenge for Air Force Medical Readiness"
The Washington Post - Feb. 5, 1999 - "Anthrax Hoaxes Are Sent In Mail"
The Washington Post - Mar. 4, 1999 - "Anthrax Vial Smuggled In to Make a Point At Hill Hearing"
JAMA - May 12, 1999 - "Anthrax as a Biological Weapon" (X)
The Philadelphia Inquirer - Nov. 14, 1999 - "Clouded By A Fear Of Bioterrorism"
The Sunday Age (Australia) - June 4, 2000 - "Terror alert on anthrax" (A)
CNN.COM - July 26, 2001 - "U.S. rejects germ warfare accord"
The Miami Herald - Aug. 30, 2001 - "Japanese sect was close to bioterrorism, journal says"
Sept. 2001 - Defence R&D Canada - "Risk Assessment of anthrax threat letters"
New Scientist - Sept. 1, 2001 - "Tokyo narrowly escaped a devastating anthrax attack"
New York Times - Sept. 4, 2001 - "U.S. Germ Warfare Research Pushes Treaty Limits"
Baltimore Sun - Sept. 4, 2001 - "Bush treaty moves put us in danger"
2001 - After 9-11
The Public I - Sept. 12, 2001 - "U.S. Biological Weapons Lab Locked Down, 50 Miles from Pentagon"
The San Diego Union-Tribune - Sept. 20, 2001 - "Experts say Jersey City is a breeding ground for terrorist cells"
Time Magazine - Sept. 24, 2001 - "Bioterrorism: The Next Threat?" -  or HERE
MSNBC - Sept. 24, 2001 - "WHO warns of biowarfare threat"
Columbus Alive - Sept. 27, 2001 - "Anthrax ground zero"
The Washington Post - Sept. 29, 2001 - "Demand Growing for Anthrax Vaccine"
The Washington Post - Oct. 2, 2001 - "Before Attack, U.S. Expected Different Hit"
The Iowa State Daily - Oct. 2, 2001 - "The biology of terrorism"
Florida Today - Oct. 4, 2001 - "Lantana man hospitalized with anthrax"
Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel - Oct. 4, 2001 - "Scientist's Anthrax Claim Was Bogus"- or HERE.
The Washington Post - Oct. 4, 2001 - "Senate Democrats, White House Reach a Deal on Anti-Terror Bill"
The New York Times - Oct. 5, 2001 - " Florida Man Is Hospitalized With Pulmonary Anthrax" (X)
New Scientist - Oct. 5, 2001 - "Labs work overtime to find anthrax source"- or HERE.
Newsweek on the Web - Oct. 8, 2001 - "Anthrax Alarm" (X)
The New York Times - Oct. 9, 2001 - "Natural Cause Appears Unlikely in 2 Anthrax Cases" (X)
New Scientist - Oct. 9, 2001 - "Florida cases likely to be first ever anthrax attack" - or HERE.
E! On-Line - Oct. 9, 2001 - "The J.Lo-Anthrax Connection?"
Sun-Sentinel - Oct. 10, 2001 - "Anthrax found in Boca appears to be manmade in Iowa lab: CNN"
Charlie Rose - Oct. 10, 2001 - Interview with Nicholas Wade, Matthew Meselson and Stephen Morse (at :32)
The New York Times - Oct. 11, 2001 - "A NATION CHALLENGED: A MEDICAL MYSTERY; Florida Inquiry Finds Anthrax In Third Person" (X)
Worthington Daily Globe - Oct. 11, 2001 - "Possibility Drugs Could Be Laced with Anthrax" (X)
ABC News - Oct. 12, 2001 - "NBC Worker Has Anthrax"
The Chicago Tribune - Oct. 12, 2001 - "After anthrax exposure, worker fine, back on job"
The New York Times - Oct. 12, 2001 - "Information on Anthrax Is Derived From Cases Mostly Outside the U.S." (X)
CNN - Oct. 12, 2001 - "NBC News Employee Tests Positive for Anthrax Exposure" (X)
Time Magazine - Oct. 12, 2001 - Anthrax: Separating Fear from Fact" (X)
The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel - Oct. 13, 2001 - "Postal workers tested for anthrax"
The St. Petersburg Times - Oct. 13, 2001 - "Brokaw’s aide tests positive"[and HOAX letters]
The Baltimore Sun - Oct. 13, 2001 - "Woman in N.Y. 4th anthrax case"
Newsday - Oct. 14, 2001 - "Letter to Brokaw traced"
The New York Times - Oct. 14, 2001 - "Fear Hits Newsroom in a Cloud of Powder"
The New York Times - Oct. 14, 2001 - "Anthrax Inquiries Expand in Three States"
The Las Vegas Review-Journal - Oct. 14, 2001 - "Anthrax bacteria in Reno letter" (X)
The Baltimore Sun - Oct. 14, 2001 - "More anthrax cases found"
Associated Press - Oct. 14, 2001 - "More anthrax cases show up at NBC, Microsoft"
USA Today - Oct. 15, 2001 - "On the trail of anthrax: A detective story"
CNN - Oct. 15, 2001 - "FBI: Hijacker-anthrax link coincidental"
CNN - Oct. 15, 2001 - "Tracking the Terrorists: America's Most Wanted" (X)
Reuters - Oct. 15, 2001 - "Anthrax found in envelope to Microsoft Reno office" (X)



In November 2007, I received Cease & Desist letters from The Washington Post, Newsweek, The Wall Street Journal and Reuters demanding that I remove my copies of their articles from this web site.  I complied.  My copies were removed, which means that some of the links on this site may no longer work. 

On February 13, 2010, The Baltimore Sun sent me the same type of letter, so their articles have also been removed. 

Many of the removed articles can be found elsewhere by doing a Google search for the headline.  Or other research sources will sometimes work. 

The Los Angeles Times - Oct. 16, 2001 - "ABC Producer's Infant Contracts Anthrax of Skin"
The Los Angeles Times - Oct. 16, 2001 - "Tracing Tainted Letters Is Daunting Detective Work" (X)
The Washington Post - Oct. 16, 2001 - "Anthrax Scare Comes to Capitol Hill"
ABC News - Oct. 16, 2001 - "Anthrax suggests government expertise" (X) - Oct. 17, 2001 - "Ken Alibek: Preparing for the range of bioterrorism possibilities" - Oct. 17, 2001 - "Plague as a Weapon of War"
RSF/IFEX - Oct. 17, 2001 - "Anthrax: Reporters Without Borders concerned about threats against the press"
The New York Times - Oct. 17, 2001 - "Daschle Letter Called First Use of Anthrax as Weapon"
The New York Times - Oct. 18, 2001 - "NBC; Doctor in City Reported Anthrax Case Before Florida" (X)
Associated Press - Oct. 18, 2001 - "Letter to Microsoft office in Nevada tests negative for anthrax"
The Houston Chronicle - Oct. 18, 2001 - "Fastest tests for anthrax not always the most accurate"
The Baltimore Sun - Oct. 18, 2001 - "A lethal mastery of some science"
The Wall Street Journal - Opinion by R. James Woolsey - Oct. 18, 2001 - "The Iraq Connection"
The Washington Post - Oct. 19, 2001 - "N.J. Mail Carrier, CBS Employee Have Anthrax"
The Guardian - Oct. 19, 2001 - "Don't blame Saddam for this one"
Atlanta Journal-Constitution - Oct. 19, 2001 - "Experts doubt anthrax a domestic plot"
South Florida Business Journal - Oct. 19, 2001 - "American Media has history of threats"
The Christian Science Monitor - Oct. 19, 2001 - "In anthrax probe, microbial clues"
Portsmouth Herald (AP) - Oct. 19, 2001 - "Postal Carrier Contracts Anthrax"
The Washington Times - Oct. 19, 2001 - "Handwriting analysts detect a passionate man on the edge" (X)
The New York Times - Oct. 19, 2001 - "Experts Adjust Approach To Each New Anthrax Case" (X)
The Baltimore Sun - Oct. 21, 2001 - "Police say letter to New York Post is anthrax-laced"
The San Francisco Chronicle - Oct. 21. 2001 - "Did bin Laden buy bioterror? 1999 testimony says he did"
USA Today - Oct. 21, 2001 - "Experts seek clues in a bioterrorist's penmanship"
Newsweek - Oct. 22, 2001 - "Anxious About Anthrax" (X)
The Daily Princetonian - Oct. 22, 2001 - "Hamilton complex scrutinized by FBI after discovery of third anthrax letter"
The New York Times - Oct. 23, 2001 - "For Some, Anthrax Falls To the B-List" (X)
The New York Times - Oct. 23, 2001 - "Experts Revisit Views On Surviving Anthrax" (X)
The Washington Post - Oct. 23, 2001 - "White House Mail Machine Has Anthrax" 
The Asia Times - Oct. 24, 2001 - "Moscow shrugs off anthrax claims"
The New York Post - Oct. 24, 2001 - "Osama bought a batch for 10G"
The New York Times - Oct. 24, 2001 - "The Investigation" (X)
The Chicago Tribune - Oct. 24, 2001 - "Anthrax Central"
AFP - Oct. 25, 2001 - "Suspected hijacker may have transported anthrax"
The New York Times - Oct. 25, 2001 - "U.S. Officials Acknowledge Underestimating Mail Risks"
The New York Times - Oct. 25, 2001 - "Contradicting Some U.S. Officials, 3 Scientists Call Anthrax Powder High-Grade" (X)
The Washington Post - Oct. 25, 2001 - "Additive Made Spores Deadlier"
The Washington Post - Oct. 25, 2001 - "No Consensus on Who Wrote Anthrax Letters"
Tom Ridge White House Press Briefing - Oct. 25, 2001 - "Operation Enduring Freedom"
The Nation - Oct. 25, 2001 - "Press Watch: Seven Days in October"
ABC News - Oct. 26, 2001 - "Troubling Anthrax Additive Found" (X)
Washington Post - Oct. 26, 2001 - "U.S. says Anthrax germ in mail is 'Ames" strain"
The Baltimore Sun - Oct. 26, 2001 - "Officials widen hunt for anthrax"
The Los Angeles Times - Oct. 26, 2001 - "Ridge Offers Few Answers on Anthrax"
Wired Magazine (AP) - Oct. 26, 2001 - "Anthrax From One Source?" (X)
The Washington Post - Oct. 27, 2001 - "FBI and CIA Suspect Domestic Extremists"
The New York Times - Oct. 27, 2001 - "Anthrax Outbreak of '57 Felled a Mill but Yielded Answers"
The Times of India - Oct. 27, 2001 - "Tests reveal ‘Iraqi’ chemical in anthrax"
The New York Times - Oct. 27, 2001 - "Czechs Confirm Iraqi Agent Met With Terror Ringleader"
Fox News - Oct. 27, 2001 - "Clues in Anthrax Attacks Point in All Directions" (X)
Southeast Missourian (AP) - Oct. 27, 2001 - "Investigators say three letters with anthrax similar" (X)
The New York Times - Oct. 28, 2001 - "Anthrax Closes a 3rd New Jersey Post Office" (X)
The Los Angeles Times - Oct. 28, 2001 - "U.S. Anthrax Battle Lacking in Expertise" (X)
Newsday - Oct. 28, 2001 - "Federal agencies' discord hinders bioterror battle"
The Washington Post - Oct. 28, 2001 - "Investigators Try To Piece Together A Deadly Puzzle" - Oct. 28, 2001 - "Rumsfeld on ABC's 'This Week'"
The Guardian - Oct. 28, 2001 - "Anthrax attacks' 'work of neo-Nazis'"
Human Events - Oct. 29, 2001 - "Milling Anthrax: Just a Click Away?"
The Los Angeles Times - Oct. 29, 2001 - "For Cattlemen, Anthrax Just Another Aggravation"
New Scientist - Oct. 29, 2001 - "Anthrax preparation indicates home-grown origin" - Oct. 29, 2001 - "Tom Ridge, Other Federal Officials Brief on Anthrax"
The Washington Times - Oct. 29, 2001 - "No proof of Iraqi contamination"
Reuters - Oct. 29, 2001 - "British Say No Evidence Iraq Linked to Anthrax" (X)
The Wall Street Journal - Oct. 29, 2001 - "Anthrax: The Elephant In the Room"
The Wall Street Journal (comment) - Oct. 29, 2001 - "After bin Laden, We Must Target Saddam"
The San Francisco Chronicle - Oct. 30, 2001 - "Silica grains detected in anthrax letter are tiny clues"
The New York Daily News - Oct. 30, 2001 - "Spore Samples Are Scarce"
Scripps Howard News Service - Oct. 30, 2001 - "Secret desert project on anthrax"
The Washington Post - Oct. 30, 2001 - "Germ Tests Point Away From Iraq"
CNN transcript - Oct. 31, 2001 - "New York City Inhalation Anthrax Patient Dies" (X)
The New York Times - Oct. 31, 2001 - "Excruciating Lessons in the Ways of a Disease"
The New York Times - Oct. 31, 2001 - "Anthrax Prods a Rewriting Of Medical Dogma, Quickly" (X)
The National Enquirer - Oct. 31, 2001 - "The Nightmare That Came In The Mail"
Newsweek - Oct. 31, 2001 - "Tracking Anthrax" (X)
Opening Statement by Gen. John S. Parker - Oct. 31, 2001 - "Terrorism Through the Mail"
Testimony by Gen. John S. Parker & others - Oct 30-31, 2001 - "Terrorism Through the Mail"
The New York Times - Nov. 1, 2001 - "Bush Team Rejects U.N. Plan to Condemn Anthrax Attacks"
Washington Post -Nov. 1, 2001 - "List of confirmed anthrax cases"
The New York Post - Nov. 1, 2001 - "Pre-9-11 terrorist mail came from 'Indy'."
ABC - Nov. 1, 2001 - "Additive Search Requires More Study" - Nov. 1, 2001 - "Hannity, O'Reilly Hit by Anthrax Scare Letters"
Vidyya Medical News Service - Nov. 1, 2001 - "Anthrax, Made In The USA"
ABC News - Nov. 1, 2001 - "Technique Could Find Anthrax Sender" (X)
The New York Times - Nov. 2, 2001 - "Clusters of Illness Suggest That Most Infections Came From Two Mailings"
The New York Times - Nov. 2, 2001 - "Familiar Anthrax Strain Is Seen in Woman's Death" (X)
The New Jersey Star-Ledger - Nov. 2, 2001 - "Investigators focus on domestic culprit"
The Wall Street Journal - Nov. 2, 2001 - "Health Officials Wonder if Age Is Factor Of Risk in Cases of Inhaled Anthrax
Forward - Nov. 2, 2001 - "B'nai B'rith Execs: '97 'Hoax' Was Anthrax" - Nov. 3, 2001 - "Radio Address by the President to the Nation" or HERE.
Reuters - Nov. 4, 2001 - "Anthrax is 'second wave' of terrorism: Bush's radio address" (X)
The Los Angeles Times - Nov. 4, 2001 - "Lacking Leads, Anthrax Hunt Comes Home" (X)
The New Yorker - Nov. 5, 2001 - "The Ames Strain"
Washington Post - Nov. 5, 2001 - "Some terrorism specialists suspect an angry loner with scientific knowledge"
The New York Times - Nov. 6, 2001 - "Anthrax Investigators Are Hoping Bronx Case Leads Them to Source" (X)
The Los Angeles Times - Nov. 6, 2001 - "FBI Turns Down Hundreds of Ex-Agents Offering Help" (X)
The Trentonian - Nov. 6, 2001 - "Handwriting on Anthrax letters speaks volumes" - Nov. 7, 2001 - "CDC Update on Anthrax Investigations" - Nov. 8, 2001 - "Postal inspectors investigate dying worker's 911 call about a tainted letter"
The New York Times - Nov. 9, 2001 - "Experts See F.B.I. Missteps Hampering Anthrax Inquiry"
Associated Press - Nov. 9, 2001 - "Experts offer competing theories for source of anthrax: Was it New Jersey basement or Iraq?" - Nov. 9, 2001 - "Mylroie: Evidence Shows Saddam Is Behind Anthrax Attacks"
The New York Times - Nov. 10, 2001 - "One Center Staying Open; Anthrax Found at 4 Others" (X)
The New York Times - Nov. 10, 2001 - "Agency Looks Into Claim Doctor Had Skin Anthrax" (X)
Republic News Services - Nov. 10, 2001 - "FBI profiles anthrax culprit"
The Seattle Times - Nov. 10, 2001 - "Mailer of anthrax profiled as a loner"
The Los Angeles Times - Nov. 10, 2001 - "Loner Likely Sent Anthrax, FBI Says"
Time Magazine - Nov. 11, 2001 - "Profile of a Killer"
Agence France-Presse - Nov. 11, 2001 - "FBI: Anthrax mailer more 'Unabomber' than Bin Laden"
The Washington Post - Nov. 11, 2001 - "Kathy Nguyen's Mystery Link"
The New Yorker - Nov. 12, 2001 - "The Ames Strain" (X)
The Guardian - Nov. 12, 2001 - "Bin Laden denies anthrax attacks"
ABC - Nov. 12, 2001 - "Doctor May Be Missing Anthrax Link"
U.S. News & World Report - Nov. 12, 2001 - Bravado--and blood--in Taliban territory"
The New York Times - Nov. 13, 2001 - "When Everything Changed at the C.D.C." (X)
CNN - Nov. 14, 2001 - "Evidence suggests al Qaeda pursuit of biological, chemical weapons"
CNN - Nov. 18, 2001 - "FBI tests Leahy anthrax letter" (X)
U.S. Mission Geneva - Nov. 19, 2001 - "John R. Bolton Press Briefing"
U.S. Mission Geneva - Nov. 19, 2001 - "John R. Bolton Statement"
CNN - Nov. 20, 2001 - "HHS chief: Anthrax terrorism likely domestic"
CNN - Nov. 21, 2001 - "Scientists: Anthrax 'almost certainly' from U.S. defense lab"
The New York Times - Nov. 21, 2001 - "At an Anthrax Lab, the World Changed Quickly"
The New York Times - Nov. 21, 2001 - "In Utah, a Government Hater Sells a Germ-Warfare Book"
The Wall Street Journal - Nov. 21, 2001 - "Officials Confirm Inhalation Anthrax In 94-Year-Old Connecticut Woman" (X)
The New York Times - Nov. 22, 2001 - "Case in a Small Town Compounds a Puzzle for Epidemiologists" (X)
Economist - Nov. 22, 2001 - "Chilling evidence in the ruins of Kabul"
The Asia Times - Nov. 24, 2001 - "US on its own in biological weapons debate"
Washington Post - Nov. 25, 2001 - "Anthrax Type That Killed May Have Reached Iraq"
Washington Post - Nov. 25, 2001 - "Deadly anthrax strain leaves a muddy trail"
The Washington Post - Nov. 26, 2001 - "Source of Conn. Anthrax Remains a Mystery" 
The Wall Street Journal - Nov. 26, 2001 - "Showing Failings in FBI's Terror Policing" (X)
The Wall Street Journal - Nov. 27, 2001 - "Chile Anthrax Letter Differs From Others"
The Wall Street Journal - Nov. 28, 2001 - "Anthrax Letter Sent to Chile Came From New York"
USA Today - Nov. 28, 2001 - "Anthrax scare based on simple science"
The Wall Street Journal - Nov. 29, 2001 - "U.S. Believes Lab Contamination Was Source of Anthrax in Chile"
Washington Post - Nov. 29, 2001 - "Letters anthrax spores pose many obstacles to analysis"
Newsday - Nov. 30, 2001 - "A Solution For Anthrax Mystery" ("Spores seep through paper") or HERE.
The Washington Post - Nov. 30, 2001 - "Ames Strain Of Anthrax Limited to Few Labs" 
The New York Times - Dec. 2, 2001 - "Anthrax inquiry looks at U.S. labs"
The New York Times - Dec. 3, 2001 - Postal Center in Connecticut shows traces of anthrax
The New York Times - Dec. 3, 2001 - "Terror anthrax linked to type made by U.S."
The Wall Street Journal - Dec. 3, 2001 - "Electrostatic Charge Kept Anthrax Spores From Spreading More"
Federation of American Scientists Report (BHR) - Dec. 3, 2001 - "A compilation of evidence ..."
The New York Times - Dec. 4, 2001 - "First Challenge In Anthrax Case: Not Missing It" (X)
Global Security Newswire - Dec. 4, 2001 - "Anthrax I:  Powder Produced Recently, Watchdog Says"
The Independent (London) - Dec. 4, 2001 - "FBI Fears US Anthrax Attacks Were An 'Inside Job'"
The New York Times - Dec. 5, 2001 - "Anthrax Pervades Florida Site, and Experts See Likeness to That Sent to Senators" (X)
Committee on International Relations - Dec. 5, 2001 - Russia, Iraq, and Other Potential Sources of Anthrax
Washington Post - Dec. 6, 2001 - "Leahy mail holds note identical to Daschle letter"
The New York Times - Dec. 6, 2001 - "Anthrax Investigators Open Letter Sent to Senator Leahy"
The New York Times - Dec. 8, 2001 - "Raid and Investigation Unite City for Immigrant"
Newsweek - Dec. 9, 2001 - "A U.S.-Based Al Qaeda 'Sleeper Cell' Was Poised to Launch a Post-Sept. 11 Attack" (X)
FI2 - Dec. 10, 2001 - eschew obfuscation - NOT!
Nature - Dec. 10, 2001 - "Biologists fight back"
Global Security Newswire - Dec. 10, 2001 - "BWC: Review Conference Collapses"
The NTI Newswire, Dec. 10, 2001 - Al-Qaeda:  Anthrax Found in Al-Qaeda Home"
The Wall Street Journal - Dec. 11, 2001 - "Anthrax Probe ..."
University Wire - Dec. 11, 2001 "FBI interviews Iowa State U. international students"
Baltimore Sun - Dec. 12, 2001 - "Anthrax matches Army spores"
Baltimore Sun - Dec. 13, 2001 - "Army confirms making anthrax in recent years"
The New York Times - Dec. 13, 2001 - "U.S. Recently Produced Anthrax in a Highly Lethal Powder Form"
USA Today - Dec. 13, 2001 - "Probe reportedly focuses on Army test facility" (X)
Associated Press - Dec. 13, 2001 - "FBI using the mail to seek clues about anthrax-tainted letters" (X)
The New York Times - Dec. 14, 2001 - "FBI queries expert who sees federal lab tie to anthrax cases"
Washington Post - Dec. 15, 2001 - "Army's Anthrax Material Surprises Some Experts"
Washington Post Map shows locations of NBC, CBS, ABC and Kathy Nguyen's hospital
Washington Post - Dec. 16, 2001 - "Anthrax matches army stocks" 
The Los Angeles Times - Dec. 17, 2001 - "Anthrax's Dogged Detective" -
The London Daily Telegraph - Dec. 17, 2001 - " CIA links Porton Down to anthrax attacks"
Reuters - Dec. 19, 2001 - "Anthrax Investigators Focus on Scientist" (X)
Time Magazine - Dec. 19, 2001 - "Anthrax: Where the Investigation Stands"
The Hartford Courant - Dec. 19, 2001 - "Turmoil In A Perilous Place"
The Albuquerque Journal - Dec. 19, 2001 - "UNM Anthrax May Be Twin To Strain in Attacks"
ABC News - Dec. 20, 2001 - "U.S. Scientist Is Questioned"
Reuters - Dec. 20, 2001 -  "Fired Scientist Not Focus of Anthrax Probe"
The Hartford Courant - Dec. 20, 2001 - "Anthrax easy to get out of lab" - Dec. 20, 2001 - "Authorities Identify All Victims Of Flight 93"
Boston Globe - Dec. 21, 2001 - "Body of missing Harvard professor found in Louisiana"
Washington Post - Dec. 21, 2001 - "FBI investigates possible financial motive in anthrax attacks"
The Abilene Reporter-News - Dec. 21, 2001 - "Inventor of anthrax process says spores will not be `smoking gun' to identify who mailed killer letters"
The Columbus Dispatch - Dec. 21, 2001 - "Anthrax Probe Story Is Baloney, FBI Says"
The Miami Herald - Dec. 21, 2001 - "Anthrax investigators focusing on strain from military facility"
New York Times - Dec. 22, 2001 -U.S. Inquiry Tried, but Failed, to Link Iraq to Anthrax Attack or HERE.
The Washington Post - Dec. 23, 2001 - "Perpetrator, Motive Remain Elusive in Anthrax Case"
The Wall Street Journal (Commentary) - Dec. 24, 2001 - "FBI Overlooks Foreign Sources of Anthrax"(X)
CNN - Jan. 3, 2002 - "FBI: Letter in Daschle's office a hoax" or HERE.
The Washington Post - Jan. 4, 2002 - "2nd letter to land in Daschle's office"
The Baltimore Sun - Dec. 23, 2001 - "Army harvested victims' blood to boost anthrax"
Linn's Stamp News - Dec. 24, 2001 - "Anthrax probe teaches USPS its machines can track mail"
The New York Times - Dec. 26, 2001 - "Tracking Bioterror's Tangled Course" (X)
Newsday - Dec. 27, 2001 - "Scientists at Loss in Anthrax Probe"
The Wall Street Journal - Dec. 31, 2001 - "Computer in Kabul holds chilling memos"
The New York Times (editorial) - Jan. 4, 2002 - "Profile of a Killer"
The Los Angeles Times - Jan. 4, 2002 - "2nd Daschle Letter Said to Be a Hoax"
Baltimore Sun - Jan. 6, 2002 - "Everyone has an anthrax theory"
The New York Post - Jan. 13, 2002 - "Webheads help hunt the 'thrax"
Associated Press - Jan. 14, 2002 - "High court won't hear FBI informant's appeal"
Boston Globe - Jan. 15, 2002 - "Scientist's death is called accidental".
The New York Times - Jan. 15, 2002 - "F.B.I. Tests Rutgers Photocopiers for Clues to the Anthrax Mailer"
Associated Press - Jan. 15, 2002 - "FBI Examining Anthrax Link at Rutgers"
The Wall Street Journal - Jan 18, 2002 - "Anthrax probe centers on labs"
The Wichita Eagle - Jan. 19, 2002 - "High court won't review public defender's [WMD] case"
The Hartford Courant - Jan. 20, 2002 - "Anthrax Missing From Army Lab"
The Washington Post - Jan. 21, 2002 - "Army Lost Track of Anthrax Bacteria" - Jan. 21, 2002 - "Breakthrough Near In Anthrax Probe"
The Princetonian - Jan. 21, 2002 - "FBI examined photocopiers on campus"
The Washington Post - Jan. 23, 2002 - "FBI says Central N.J. May Hold Key to Solving Anthrax Mystery" 
FBI Press Release - Jan. 23, 2002 - Reward for information on the anthrax case raised to $2.5 million.
FBI Reward Poster - Jan. 23, 2002
CNN transcript - Jan. 23, 2002 - "FBI, Postal Service Raise Anthrax Reward to $2.5 Million"
Scripps Howard News Service - Jan. 23, 2002 - "Amateur sleuths offer clues to anthrax mailer"
The Frederick (MD) Gazette - Jan. 24, 2002 - "Detrick's security lapses date to 1980s" - Jan. 26, 2002 - "Fort Detrick's anthrax mystery"
The Washington Post - January 29, 2002 - "One Anthrax Answer: Ames Strain Not From Iowa" 
The Wall Street Journal - Jan. 29, 2002 - "FBI Sends E-Mail to 40,000 Scientists Requesting Tips"
The New York Times - Jan. 30, 2002 - "Geographic Gaffe Misguides Anthrax Inquiry" (X)
NPR - Jan. 30, 2002 - "Tracing anthrax spores to a lab in Texas"
The FBI Letter to 40,000 Scientists (from and the cover letter
The Iowa State Daily - Feb. 1, 2002 - "Ames anthrax famous, but strain from other state"
Global Beat - Feb. 4, 2002 - "Free Speech Versus 'Cook Books' for Weapons of Mass Destruction"
The Hartford Courant - Feb. 6, 2002 - "Anthrax Mystery Turns Scholars Into Sleuths"
The New York Times - Feb. 6, 2002 - "Terror Acts by Baghdad Have Waned, U.S. Aides Say"
The Wall Street Journal - Feb. 7, 2002, - "FBI's New Approach in Search For Anthrax Mailer Focuses on Labs" - Feb. 8, 2002 - "Is a U.S. bioweapons scientist behind last fall's anthrax attacks?"
Fox News Channel - Feb. 8, 2002 - "Bioterror Boondoggle"
New Scientist - Feb. 9, 2002 - "After months of bungled investigation, it now looks certain ..."
The Washington Post - Feb. 10, 2002 - "Agency With Most Need Didn't Get Anthrax Data"
The New York Times - Feb. 13, 2002 - "Scientist's Findings Could Aid Anthrax Inquiry"
The Daily Princetonian - Feb. 19, 2002 - "Investigators explore new anthrax suspect"
The Trenton Times - Feb. 19, 2002 - "Expert: Anthrax scientist ID'd"
The Baltimore Sun - Feb. 19, 2002 - "Biodefense funding creates quandary"
JAMA - Feb. 20, 2002 - "Fatal Inhalation Anthrax With Unknown Source of Exposure in 61-Year-Old Woman in New York City"
The Guardian - Feb. 20, 2002 - Anthrax suspect 'is US scientist'
The Trenton Times - Feb. 20, 2002 - "FBI says no prime anthrax suspect"
The Trenton Times - Feb. 21, 2002 - "Anthrax expert stands by her claim"
The Baltimore Sun - Feb. 22, 2002 - "FBI scrutinizes biodefense labs in anthrax probe"
The Washington Post - Feb. 22, 2002 - "Maine Woman Acquitted In 1st Anthrax Hoax Trial"
The Washington Times - Feb. 25, 2002 - "Suspect worked in U.S. Lab"
Reuters - Feb. 25, 2002 - "FBI Not Close to Identifying Anthrax Probe Suspect" (X)
The New York Times - Feb. 26, 2002 - "U.S. Says Short List of 'Suspects' Is Being Checked"
The Washington Post - Feb. 26, 2002 - "FBI Still Lacks Identifiable Suspect in Anthrax Probe"
The Washington Times - Feb. 26, 2002 - "Anthrax probe focuses on letter"
The Baltimore Sun - Feb. 26, 2002 - "No leading suspect emerges in anthrax probe, FBI reports" - Feb. 26, 2002 - "Looking For The Anthrax Man" (X)
The New York Times - Feb. 27, 2002 - "Labs Are Sent Subpoenas for Samples of Anthrax"
The Philadelphia Inquirer - Feb 28, 2002 - "Anthrax tip may yet help"
New Scientist - Mar. 2, 2002 - "Why is the FBI ignoring vital clues in the hunt for the anthrax attacker?" - or HERE
The Los Angeles Times - Mar 3, 2002 - "Science Could Help to Crack Anthrax Case"
The Hartford Courant - Mar. 4, 2002 - "Anthrax Probe Remains Slow Go"
The Washington Post - Mar. 4, 2002 - "Experience at Work in FBI Anthrax Case"
The Frederick News Post - Mar. 6, 2002 - "Anthrax story: Detrick cleared"
Toronto Globe And Mail - Mar. 6, 2002 - "On the trail of the anthrax killer"
The Memphis Flyer - Mar. 7, 2002 - "Conspiracy Theories"
ESD Journal - Mar. 8, 2002 - "Anthrax Spread Reduced by Static Charges"
The New Yorker - Mar. 11, 2002 - "The Anthrax Culprit" (interview with Barbara Hatch Rosenberg) (X)
BBC - Mar. 14, 2002 - "Anthrax attacks" or HERE
The Scotsman - Mar. 15, 2002 - "Anthrax attacks may have been CIA test gone wrong"
The Nation - March 18, 2002 - "The Anthrax Fumble"
The US Dept. of State - Mar. 19, 2002 - "State Official Details Threat of Chemical, Biological Weapons" - Mar. 20, 2002 - "British Suggest Anthrax Attacks Were CIA Backed"
The New York Times - Mar. 23, 2002 - "Report Linking Anthrax and Hijackers Is Investigated"
Reuters - March 23, 2002 - "No New Evidence Linking Hijackers with Anthrax" - FBI (X)
ABC-Australia - March 23, 2002 - The FBI checks out EcoGen
The Baltimore Sun - March 24, 2002 - "Hijacker's lesion deepens mystery"
The Manchester Guardian - March 24, 2002 - "Britain accused on terror lab claim"
The Los Angeles Times - March 25, 2002 - "FBI Denies That Hijacker Had Skin Anthrax" (X) - March 26, 2002 - "CHAT: Ask the FBI: The anthrax investigation"
The Wall Street Journal - Mar. 26, 2002 - "Anthrax Probe Was Complicated By Muddled Information, FBI Says"
The Wall Street Journal - Editorial - Mar. 26, 2002 - "Al Qaeda is still a bioterrorism threat"
The New York Times - Mar. 27, 2002 - "Mystery Death From Anthrax Is Analyzed"
CNN - Mar. 27, 2002 - "Anthrax terror remains a mystery"
The Washington Post - Mar. 28, 2002 - "Memo on Florida Case Roils Anthrax Probe"
The Daily Telegraph (London) - Mar. 31, 2002 - "FBI Questions UK Scientists"
FAS Web site - April 2002 - "Lessons from the Anthrax Attacks"
The New York Times - Apr. 2, 2002 - "Bioterror Agents Join List of `Emerging' Ills"
The Beacon Journal - April 3, 2002 - "School Enlists In War"
Reuters - Apr. 3, 2002 - "Firm Launches Kids' Masks for Bio-Warfare"
Associated Press - Apr. 4, 2002 - "Anthrax Victim Wasn't Wearing Gloves"
ABC News - Apr. 4, 2002 - "No Suspects, Few Clues"
CNN - Apr. 5, 2002 - "FBI giving polygraph tests in anthrax probe"
The Hartford Courant - Apr. 5, 2002 - "More Anthrax Tests Planned"
The New York Times - Apr. 7, 2002 - "G.I.'s Search Afghan Caves, Finding Trove of Material"
MSNBC - Newsweek on-line - Apr. 7, 2002 - "Secret New Analysis Suggests Anthrax Attacker May Be a Scientific Whiz" (X)
Counterpunch - Apr. 8, 2002 - "Anthrax and The Agency"
US News & World Report - Apr. 15, 2002 - "Many leads, many dead ends"
Newsweek - Apr. 15, 2002 - "A Sophisticated Strain of Anthrax"
The Washington Post - Apr. 8, 2002 - "Powder Used in Anthrax Attacks 'Was Not Routine'"
USA Today - Apr. 9, 2002 - "'Thousands' could be anthrax suspects" (X)
CNN - Apr. 11, 2002 - "Official: Unusual coating in anthrax mailings"
Technology Review Online - Apr. 16, 2002 - "Is Osama bin Laden behind the mail attacks?"
The Washington Times - Apr. 18, 2002 - "Handwriting analyst adds to anthrax terrorist's profile" (X)
The Washington Post - Apr. 19, 2002 - "Anthrax Patients' Ailments Linger"
The New York Times - Apr. 20, 2002 - "Anthrax Contaminates Army Lab; Employee Tests Positive"
The Los Angeles Times - Apr. 21, 2002 - "Scientists Weigh In With Deductions on Anthrax Killer"
The New York Times - Apr. 22, 2002 - "Brooklyn Trial Revisits Fears Over Anthrax After Sept. 11"
The Washington Post - Apr. 24, 2002 - "2nd Leak Of Anthrax Found at Army Lab" - Apr. 24, 2002 - Case documents in USA v. Zacarias Moussaoui
Associated Press - Apr. 26, 2002 - "Anthrax Traces Found in Post Office"
Frederick News-Post - Apr. 26, 2002 - "Army questions scientist's motives for anthrax search"
Newsweek - Apr. 28, 2002 - "The Phantom Link to Iraq" 
The Weekly Standard - Apr. 29, 2002 - "Remember Anthrax?"
The Baltimore Sun - Apr. 29, 2002 - "Noticing a toxic similarity"
The New York Post Editorial - Apr. 29, 2002 - "STILL WAITING FOR ANSWERS"
The New York Post Columnist - Apr. 29, 2002 - "Why The Bureau Might Go Wrong"
Associated Press - Apr. 30, 2002 - "Official: Atta Didn't Meet Iraqi"
JAMA - May 1, 2002 - "Anthrax as a Biological Weapon" (.pdf)
The  Baltimore Sun - May 1, 2002 - "A few anthrax spores can kill, doctors say"
Associated Press - May 3, 2002 - "FBI agent warned last July that Middle Easterners training at U.S. flight schools"
The New York Times -  May 7, 2002 - "Anthrax Sent Through Mail Gained Potency by the Letter"
The New York Times - May 9, 2002 - "Postal Theory: Mail Sorter Acted as Mill for Anthrax" - May 9, 2002 - "Gene research may help solve anthrax mystery"
TIGR Press Release - May 9, 2002 - Scientists Find New Markers For Anthrax Isolates"
NIH News Release - May 9, 2002 - "Researchers Unravel Anthrax Genomes"
Reuters - May 9, 2002 - "Anthrax Traces at Fed Could Be False Positives" (X)
New Scientist - May 9, 2002 - "Anthrax attack bug "identical" to army strain"
The Washington Post - May 9, 2002 - "Clues to Anthrax Attacks Found"
The Boston Globe - May 10, 2002 - "Anthrax investigation gets boost"
Nature - May 10, 2002 - "Killer anthrax fingerprinted"
The New York Times  - Editorial - May 11, 2002 - "The Deepening Anthrax Mystery"
The Washington Post - Editorial - May 12, 2002 - "Terror by Mail"
FBI Response to New York Times May 11 Editorial - May 18, 2002 - "F.B.I.'s Anthrax Inquiry" - May 13, 2002 - "The Anthrax Letters: More Disinformation?"
ABC - MPVI - May 13, 2002 - "Mailbox Bomb in Philadelphia"
Reuters - May 17, 2002 - "Two Men Charged in Alleged Florida Bomb Plot"
The New York Times - May 19, 2002 - "U.S. Intercepting Messages Hinting at a New Attack"
The American Prospect - May 19, 2002 - "The Enemy Within" (X)
The Baltimore Sun - May 21, 2002 - "FBI to polygraph workers in Md., Utah on anthrax"
also Washington Post, ABC and The New York Times (AP)
The Washington Post - May 22, 2002 - "IMF-World Bank Anthrax Response Causes Furor"
The New York Times - Editiorial - May 24, 2002 - "Connecting Deadly Dots"
Associated Press - May 24, 2002 - "IMF Reports Further Anthrax Testing"
Fox News - May 24, 2002 - "Financial Analyst May Have Known About Sept. 11 Attacks"
The Washington Post (AP) - May 29, 2002 - "Gov't: Pair Planned S.Florida Attacks"
Associated Press - May 31, 2002 - "Anthrax Antidote Being Developed"
National Journal - June 1, 2002 - "Does Al Qaeda Have Anthrax? Better Assume So"
The Wall Street Journal - Editorial - June 3, 2002 - "The "lone wolf" theory is evidence of the Bureau's ineptitude."
The Washington Post - Columnist - June 3, 2002 - "Weighing an Attack on Iraq . . ."
The St. Petersburg Times - June 3, 2002 - "Which is more dire: hurricane or terror?
The New Republic - June 4, 2002 - "Sender Unknown" - June 5, 2002 - "So What's the FBI Doing About Anthrax Attacks?"
ABC News - June 6, 2002 - "Face to Face with a Terrorist"
ABC News - June 6, 2002 - "Face to Face with Atta"
Associated Press - June 7, 2002 - "Administration Sued in Anthrax Case"
The Baltimore Sun - June 9, 2002 - "Failure to stop longtime terrorist haunts U.S."
Associated Press - June 10, 2002 - "U.S. Nabs 'Dirty Bomb' Suspect"
USA Today - June 11, 2002 - "Threat of 'dirty bomb' softened"
Sun-Sentinel - June 11, 2002 - "Boca mayor: Feds should take over anthrax-contaminated building"
San Francisco Chronicle - June 12, 2002 - "Airline passenger's rash sets off a smallpox scare"
Reuters - June 12, 2002 - "Bush Signs Measure Boosting U.S. Bioterror Defenses" (X)
The Indianapolis Star - Editorial - June 13, 2002 - "Unfinished task of anthrax probe"
Baltimore Sun - June 13, 2002 - "FBI looks into possibility anthrax was grown secretly at Fort Detrick"
The Hartford Courant - June 13, 2002 - "Scientists: FBI Questions Suggest Insider Grew Spores At Lab, Refined Them Elsewhere"
Dr. Barbara Hatch Rosenberg's rant - June 13, 2002 - "The Anthrax Case: What the FBI Knows"
The Star Press - June 14, 2002 - "Pence wants the FBI to look at foreign links to anthrax letters" - Pence's Letter to Attorney General Ashcroft is HERE.
The Macon Telegraph - June 14, 2002 - "FBI Probes Leads on Anthrax Source"
The Wall Street Journal - June 14, 2002 - "How Bush Decided That Hussein Must Be Ousted From Atop Iraq"
Department of Justice: The Immigration and Naturalization Service's Contacts With Two September 11 Terrorists
The Washington Post - June 14, 2002 - "They Heard It All Here, And That's the Trouble"
Science Magazine - June 14, 2002 - "Comparative Genome Sequencing for Discovery of Novel Polymorphisms in Bacillus anthrasis"
Scotland on Sunday - June 16, 2002 - "FBI ‘guilty of cover-up’ over anthrax suspect"
U.S. News & World Report - June 16, 2002 - Columnist - "The road to Baghdad"
Associated Press - June 19, 2002 - "Genetics Not Helping Anthrax Probe"
Associated Press - June 21, 2002 - "New technology for catching liars poses privacy, moral problems" - June 21, 2002 - "I'm ready for my close-up, Sen. Daschle"
The New York Times - June 22, 2002 - "Anthrax in Mail Was Newly Made, Investigators Say"
The New York Times - June 22, 2002 - "Conspiracy Theory Grips French: Sept. 11 as Right-Wing U.S. Plot"
Edward Jay Epstein - "The Terror Crop Dusters"
The Washington Post - June 23, 2002 - "Anthrax Spores From Hill Said to Be Made Recently" 
The Guardian - June 24, 2002 - "Anthrax killer 'could grow more bacteria'"
The BBC - June 24, 2002 - "New Anthrax Attack Fear"
USA Today - June 24, 2003 - "FBI mystified by anthrax attacks"
The Washington Post - June 25, 2002 - "FBI Searches Home in Anthrax Probe"
The New York Times - June 26, 2002 - "Search of Biologist is Uneventful" (X)
The Baltimore Sun - June 26, 2002 - "Frederick scientist's home searched in anthrax probe"
The Hartford Courant - June 26, 2002 - "FBI Searches Home In Anthrax Case"
ABC News - June 27, 2002 - "Blueprint for Anthrax Attack" (X)
The Baltimore Sun - June 27, 2002 - "Scientist theorized anthrax mail attack"
The Hartford Courant - June 27, 2002 - "The Case Of Dr. Hatfill: Suspect Or Pawn"
The Washington Post - June 27, 2002 - "Biological Warfare Experts Questioned in Anthrax Probe"
The New Prospect - June 27, 2002 - "Who is Steven Hatfill?" by Laura Rosen
The Trenton Times - June 28, 2002 - "FBI's anthrax probe focuses on scientists"
The San Antonio Express-News - June 30, 2002 - "FBI planning new search at anthrax scene"
The New York Times (columnist) - July 2, 2002 - "Anthrax? The F.B.I. Yawns"
Associated Press - July 3, 2002 - "No anthrax found in apartment of ex-Army scientist questioned in deadly mailings"
World Socialist Web Site - July 3, 2002 - "Why is the US government protecting the anthrax terrorist?"
World Socialist Web Site - July 5, 2002 - "US media silent on anthrax cover-up charge"
Red Flags Weekly (Meryl Nass) - July 8, 2002 - "Questions Nobody Wants To Ask"
The Zimbabwe Mirror - July 9, 2002 - Ex-Rhodesian under probe for US anthrax attacks"
Newsweek - July 15, 2002 - "Solving the Anthrax Case—With No Mistakes"
The Christian Science Monitor - July 10, 2002 - "Anthrax case homes in on unusual suspect"
The New York Times - Columnist - July 12, 2002 - "The Anthrax Files"
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - July 14, 2002 - "Their Faraway Eyes; In The LAX Case, As In Anthax, The FBI Averts Its Gaze
Scotland - July 16, 2002 - "FBI ‘guilty of cover-up’ over anthrax suspect"
The Weekly Standard (columnist) - July 17, 2002 - "Who Is Syed Athar Abbas?"
Reuters - July 17, 2002 - "US: Al Qaeda Tried for Bio Weapons in Afghanistan"
The Baltimore Sun - July 18, 2002 - "Boss says Md. doctor isn't anthrax suspect"
Associate Press - July 19, 2002 - "White House Warns on Anthrax Tests"
Sun-Sentinel - July 19, 2002 - "U.S. considers takeover of tainted AMI building for use as anthrax lab"
Middle American News - August 2002 - "Dr. Strangelove Disarms America"
Time Magazine - July 21, 2002 - "The Noose Widens"
Insight Magazine (commentary) - July 22, 2002 - "Media Manufacture Cloud of Suspicion Over Hatfill"
Newsday - July 23, 2002 - "Clash of agencies hampered inquiry into anthrax mystery"
UPI - July 23, 2002 - "White House: Anthrax Test Kits Not Reliable"
The Christian Science Monitor - July 25, 2002 - "At anthrax base, 'space suits' and haze of suspicion"
The Los Angeles Times - July 28, 2002 - "War on Terrorism Highlights FBI's Computer Woes"
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review - July 28, 2002 - "Slowness in Tracking Down Anthrax Killer is Intolerable" or HERE.
Newsday - Aug. 1, 2002 - "FBI searches trash bins near former Army researcher's home"
WUSA - Aug. 1, 2002 - "Anthrax Investigation Leads Back to Scientist's Home" or HERE (a.m. & p.m).
CBS - Aug. 1, 2002 - "Heat On Scientist In Anthrax Probe" or HERE (a.m. & p.m. versions).
CNN - Aug. 1, 2002 - "Anthrax Investigation"
The Washington Post - Aug. 1, 2002 - "Md. Home Searched In Probe of Anthrax"
The New York Times - Aug. 2, 2002 - "Apartment Searched Anew in F.B.I.'s Anthrax Inquiry"
The Baltimore Sun - Aug. 3, 2002 - "Ex-Fort Detrick scientist is put on leave from new job at LSU"
The Boston Globe - Aug. 3, 2002 - "Germ researcher is put on leave"
The Washington Times - Aug. 3, 2002 - "Scientist says FBI asked about setup"
United Press International - Aug. 3, 2002 - "Lab security may not prevent anthrax theft"
The Washington Post - Aug. 4, 2002 - "Still No Arrests in Anthrax Probe, but 'Progress' Is Noted"
Newsweek - Aug. 12, 2002 issue - "The Hunt for the Anthrax Killer" 
The Ocala Star-Banner - Aug. 4, 2002 - "FBI returns to search Ocala storage shed"
USA Today - Aug. 8, 2002 - "Anthrax probe proceeding with increased vigor"
The Baltimore Sun - Aug. 8, 2002 - "Security clearance with faulty resume"
Associated Press - Aug. 9, 2002 - "Hatfill to Make Statement Sunday"
The Sydney Morning Herald - Aug. 10, 2002 - "Anthrax scientists under microscope" (X)
The New York Times - Aug. 10, 2002 - "Anthrax Inquiry Draws Protest From Scientist's Lawyers"
The Washington Post - Aug. 11, 2002 - "Ex-Army Scientist Denies Role in Anthrax Attacks"
Associated Press - Aug. 11, 2002 - "Experts: Hatfill Courting Public"
The New York Times (AP) - Aug. 11, 2002 - "Steven Hatfill's Statement"
Transcript - Aug. 11, 2002 - The Q&A session with Dr. Hatfill's lawyer Victor Glasberg
The Washington Post - Aug. 11, 2002 - "Scientist Steps Up Anthrax Defense"
ABC - Aug. 11, 2002 - "Anthrax Probe Figure Claims Innocence, Protests Gov’t ‘Innuendo’"
ABC - Aug. 11, 2002 - "Scientist Responds To Anthrax Allegations"
The London Sunday Times - Aug. 11, 2002 - "US ‘Anthrax Suspect’ Trained At Porton Down"
The Washington Post - Aug. 12, 2002 - "FBI Said Not Ready to Clear Hatfill"
The Wall Street Journal - Aug. 12, 2002 - "Anthrax Investigators Test Mailbox in Princeton Area"
USA Today - Aug. 12, 2002 - "Official: No physical evidence links anthrax to Hatfill"
The Guardian - Aug. 12, 2002 - "Scientist denies anthrax link"
CBS - Aug. 12, 2002 - "Scientist Wants Leaks Investigated"
The Hartford Courant - Aug. 12, 2002 - "Cloud of Suspicion"
Newsweek - Aug. 12, 2002 - "A ‘Person of Interest’" 
USA Today - Aug. 12, 2002 - "Official: No physical evidence links anthrax to Hatfill"
The Baltimore Sun - Aug. 12, 2002 - "Scientist says he's anthrax 'fall guy'"
CNN - Wolf Blitzer interviews - Aug. 12, 2002
Daily Insight - Aug. 12, 2002 - "Media Manufacture Cloud of Suspicion Over Hatfill"
Florida Today - Aug. 13, 2002 - "Agency hushed anthrax scandal"
The Washington Times - Aug. 13, 2002 - "FBI second-guessed in anthrax probe"
The New York Post - Aug. 13, 2002 - "‘Anthrax' Doctor Failed Lie Test"
The Washington Post (AP) - Aug. 13, 2002 - "Hatfill Novel Depicts Terror Attack" - Aug. 13, 2002 - "Why Isn't Stephen Hatfill in Jail?"
The New York Times (columnist) - Aug. 13, 2002 - "The Anthrax Files"
The Baltimore Sun - Aug. 13, 2002 - "FBI defends anthrax inquiry"
The Trenton Times - Aug. 13, 2002 - "Anthrax found in mailbox"
The North Jersey News - Aug. 14, 2002 - "The Scientist And The Mailbox"
The Trenton Times - Aug. 14, 2002 - "Anthrax probe goes door to door"
The Wall Street Journal - Aug. 14, 2002 - "Merchants Near New Jersey Site Are Canvassed in Anthrax Probe"
Nicholas Stix - Aug. 14, 2002 - "A High-Tech Lynching: ABC News, The FBI, And The Greendale School Myth"
The Naples News (Scripps Howard) - Aug. 14, 2002 - "Martin Schram: When the only evidence is barking dogs"
The Athens Banner-Herald - Aug. 14, 2002 - "FBI leaks threaten innocent people and criminal investigations"
NewsMax - Aug. 14, 2002 - "FBI and Anthrax: Another TWA 800 in the Making?"
Associated Press - Aug. 14, 2002 - "FBI shows Hatfill's photo; researcher denies having been to Princeton, N.J."
The New York Times - Aug. 14, 2002 - "Anthrax Finding Prompts Questions in Princeton About Scientist"
The Baltimore Sun (AP) - Aug. 14, 2002 - "Agents circulate Hatfill photo in N.J."
The New York Daily News - Aug. 14, 2002 - "Anthrax doc denies being at mail site"
CNN - Aug. 14, 2002 - Aaron Brown interviews Hatfill's spokesman Pat Clawson.
The Miami Herald - Aug. 14, 2002 - "Hatfill novel depicts terror attack"
The Washington Post - Aug. 15, 2002 - "Evidence Lacking as Probe of Scientist in Anthrax Scare Intensifies"
USA Today - Aug. 15, 2002 - "Attorney protests anthrax case leaks - FBI agents investigate tainted mailbox in N.J."
Fred On Everything - Aug. 15, 2002 - "Steve Hatfill, Anthrax, And Bushwah"
The Express Times - Aug. 15, 2002 - "Legislator irate over FBI's anthrax probe"
The Albion Monitor - Aug. 16, 2002 - "Five Deaths, Five Grams, Five Clues"
The Mail & Guardian - Aug. 16, 2002 - "Murky past of a US bio-warrior"
The Christian Science Monitor - Aug. 16, 2002 - "Turning the spotlight on the FBI"
The Arab News - Aug. 16, 2002 - "While media spotlights one anthrax suspect, another is too hot to touch"
The Associated Press - Aug. 16, 2002 - "Feds Hold 9/11 Hijackers' Remains"
The Baltimore Sun (opinion) - Aug. 16, 2002 - "Who's suspect here?"
The BBC - Aug. 18, 2002 - "Anthrax killer 'is US defence insider'"
TooGood Reports - Aug. 18, 2002 - "FBI Anthrax "Person Of Interest" Positively ID'd In Princeton, NJ"
The Washington Post - Aug. 18, 2002 - "You May or May Not Be a Suspect, But You Will Be All Over the News"
The Baltimore Sun (columnist) - Aug. 19, 2002 - "FBI anthrax investigation smells funny"
The Wall Street Journal - Aug. 19, 2002 - "The Hatfill Case: Essential Background"
USA Today - Aug. 19, 2002 - "U.S., Russia tussle over deadly anthrax sample"
The New York Times - Aug. 20, 2002 - "Official Suspects Anthrax Is From Last Fall"
The Hartford Courant - Aug. 20, 2002 - "Anthrax Inquiry May Get Wider"
Evening News 24 - Aug. 20, 2002 - "Scientist death adds to conspiracy plot"
The Denver Post (editorial) - Aug. 20, 2002 - "Anthrax probe troubling"
The South Florida Sun-Sentinel - Aug. 20, 2002 - "One individual can relate with a media frenzy"
CNN - Aug. 22, 2002 - "Ashcroft: No charges yet in anthrax probe"
The Advocate - Aug. 22, 2002 - "Hatfill's work continued after firing"
Science Magazine - Aug. 22, 2002 - "Unconventional Detective Bears Down on a Killer"
The Washington Post - Aug. 24, 2002 - "Handling of Anthrax Inquiry Questioned"
The Advocate - Aug. 25, 2002 - "Hatfill to reveal new data"
CNN - Aug. 25, 2002 - "Scientist blasts Ashcroft for anthrax 'innuendo'"
Associated Press - Aug. 25, 2002 - "Hatfill Files Complaint on FBI Probe"
CNN - Aug. 25, 2002 - Transcript of Dr. Steven J. Hatfill's second statement
CNN - Aug. 25, 2002 - Interview with Newsweek's Mark Miller"
CNN - Aug. 26, 2002 - "FBI to Reenter AMI Building"
The National Review (columnist) - Aug. 26, 2002 - "Hatfill Strikes Back"
The South Florida Sun-Sentinel - Aug. 26, 2002 - "FBI to search for more evidence at anthrax site in Boca"
Reuters - Aug. 26, 2002 - "FBI Resumes Probe of Florida Anthrax Building" (X)
US News & World Report - Aug. 26, 2002 - "Circle of suspicion"
The Baltimore Sun - Aug. 26, 2002 - "Anthrax figure steps up offense"
TooGoodReports - Aug. 26, 2002 - "FBI Terrorizes Hatfill"
The Washington Times (advertisement!) - Aug. 26, 2002 - "Who Mailed The Anthrax?"
The Hartford Courant - Aug. 26, 2002 - "Hatfill Gives Public Statement But Refuses To Answer Questions"
The Miami Herald - Aug. 27, 2002 - "Anthrax probe to use new methods"
The Miami Herald - Aug. 28, 2002 - "Anthrax mail may still be inside American Media offices"
The Washington Times - Aug. 28, 2002 - "Hatfill to undergo blood test for FBI"
The Advocate - Aug. 29, 2002 - "LSU scientist discounts Hatfill's blood-test offer"
The Palm Beach Post - Aug. 29, 2002 - "Tabloids get anti-snoop pledge"
The Sun-Sentinel - Aug. 29, 2002 - "FBI scouts back issues of tabloids in search for anthrax motive"
The Chicago Sun-Times (columnist) - Aug. 29, 2002 - "FBI's bullying tactics are growing tiresome"
PBS Online News Hour - Aug. 29, 2002 - "Searching For Clues"
The Wichita Times Record News - Aug. 31, 2002 - "Not the killer"
Salon Magazine - Aug. 31, 2002 - "Bio-sleuth or crackpot?"
The Philadelphia Inquirer - Sept. 2, 2002 - "Culprit in anthrax attacks still elusive"
Edward J. Epstein - Sept. 2, 2002 - "What a Hostile State would have Learned from the Anthrax Letters?"
Associate Press - Sept. 3, 2002 - "Former Anthrax Reseacher Loses Job"
The Sun-Sentinel - Sept. 3, 2002 - "U.S. teams scour former AMI building for traces of anthrax"
The Advocate - Sept. 4, 2002 - "LSU firing devastates Hatfill"
The Washington Post (AP) - Sept. 4, 2002 - "Scientist in Anthrax Probe Fired"
The Baltimore Sun - Sept. 4, 2002 - "Anthrax researcher is fired from job at LSU"
CNN - Sept. 4, 2002 - "Justice Dept. wanted Hatfill off its LSU programs"
The Washington Post (editorial) - Sept. 5, 2002 - "Blacklisting Steven Hatfill"
The Wall Street Journal - Sept. 5, 2002 - "Making the Iraq Case"
The Wall Street Journal (commentary) - Sept. 5, 2002 - "The Iraq Connection"
The Rocky Mountain News (columnist) - Sept. 5, 2002 - "Littwin: Anthrax trail on wrong path?"
The Washington Post - Sept. 5, 2002 - "LSU: Justice Did Not Cause Hatfill Firing"
The Advocate - Sept. 5, 2002 - "LSU axes official - E-mail on Hatfill not forwarded"
Reuters - Sept. 5, 2002 - "FBI Criticized for Failing to Solve Anthrax Case"
The Daytona Beach News-Journal - Sept. 6, 2002 - "FBI continues hunt for clues in Boca Raton anthrax attack"
The Gainesville Sun - Sept. 6, 2002 - "Attorney: Hatfill is owed new job"
The Naples Daily News - Sept. 6, 2002 - "Guest editorial: Blacklisted"
The New York Post (editorial) - Sept. 7, 2002 - "Anthrax Scapegoat?"
The Advocate - Sept. 7, 2002 - "LSU's administration changing after dismissal of Hatfill"
The Rapid City Journal - Sept. 7, 2002 - "Anthrax kills Butte County cattle"
The Hartford Courant - Sept. 7, 2002 - "Anthrax Killer Outlasting The Hunters"
The Postal Magazine - Sept. 7, 2002 - "A Year Later: Evidence points to foreign terrorists as anthrax culprits"
The Palm Beach Post - Sept. 9, 2002 - "Anthrax investigation at AMI still `day-by-day'"
The Washington Post - Sept. 9, 2002 - "U.S. Not Claiming Iraqi Link To Terror" - Sept. 9, 2002 - "One Possible Anthrax Scenario" (X)
Associate Press - Sept. 10, 2002 - "Police Investigate 'Buzz' Aldrin"
The Weekly Standard - Sept. 10, 2002 - "From the Mixed-Up Files of Mr. Steven J. Hatfill" - Sept. 10, 2002 - "The Department of Injustice?"
The Miami Herald - Sept. 10, 2002 - "Feds still stumped by source of anthrax in Boca"
Reuters - Sept. 10, 2002 - "FBI Concludes Search of Florida Anthrax Building" (X)
The Daily Princetonian - Sept. 11, 2002 - "Borough mailbox near Holder Hall removed after FBI finds anthrax trace" (X)
The Florida Sun-Sentinel - Sept. 11, 2002 - "FBI finishes searching AMI building for clues"
Reuters - Sept. 11, 2002 - "Astronaut Aldrin Says He Hit Man in Self Defense" (X)
The Baltimore Sun - Sept. 12, 2002 - "Scientist's apartment searched a third time"
The Washington Post - Sept. 12, 2002 - "FBI Returns To Hatfill Apartment"
The Palm Beach Post - Sept. 12, 2002 - "Anthrax hunters' next job: Checking 5,000 samples"
The Palm Beach Post - Sept. 13, 2002 - "FBI finds 800 anthrax-tainted AMI letters"
The Miami Herald - Sept. 14, 2002 - "TV dots airwaves with inaccuracies"
The New York Times - Sept. 14, 2002 - "Lab Suggests Qaeda Planned to Build Arms, Officials Say"
The Palm Beach Post - Sept. 15, 2002 - "Anthrax at AMI traveled via copiers"
The Weekly Standard - Sept. 16, 2002 - "The Hunting of Steven J. Hatfill"
The Financial Times (London) - Sept. 18, 2002 - "US in biological weapons warning"
The Hartford Courant - Sept. 18, 2002 - "Anthrax Hits, Misses Traced In CDC Study"
The Financial Times (London) - Sept. 18, 2002 - "Anthrax hunt conspires to dent confidence"
The Washington Post - Sept. 19, 2002 - "U.S. Drops Bid to Strengthen Germ Warfare Accord"
The Palm Beach Post - Sept. 19, 2002 - "Dead anthrax spores entered Boca sewer"
The Washington Post - Sept. 19, 2002 - "Senator Questions Anthrax Investigation"
USA Today - Sept. 19, 2002 - "Proof of 'person of interest' sought"
The Los Angeles Times (opinion) - Sept. 22, 2002 - "Anthrax Attacks Pushed Open an Ominous Door"
The Boston Globe - Sept. 23, 2002 - "Anthrax probe raises doubts on FBI"
The Buffalo News (editorial) - Sept. 23, 2002 - "U.S. sent Iraq germs in mid-'80s"
The Christian Science Monitor - Sept. 24, 2002 - "Academia becomes target for new security laws"
The Corpus Christi Caller-Times - Sept. 25, 2002 - "One year later: anthrax probe seems stalled
CBS - Sept. 25, 2002 - "The Director"
Accuracy In Media (AIM commentary) - Sept. 27, 2002 - "A Shaggy Dog Story"
United Press International - Sept. 27, 2002 - "Other antibiotics work against anthrax"
The Virginian-Pilot - Sept. 28, 2002 - "Vendors hawk everything needed in disaster"
Scripps-Howard News Service - Sept. 29, 2002 - "Critics argue new attacks probably likely"
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch - Sept. 29, 2002 - "St. Louis native labeled "person of interest" in anthrax case fights to clear his name
USA Today - Sept. 30, 2002 - "Anthrax case remains frustrating"
The Scientist - Sept. 30, 2002 - "Today's World: Research vs. Security"
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch - Sept. 30, 2002 - "Pat Clawson, Hatfill's PR Guru Profiled as an 'FBI Informant'"
The CDC - October, 2002 - "First Case of Bioterrorism-Related Inhalational Anthrax in the United States, Palm Beach County, Florida, 2001"
The Philadelphia Inquirer - Oct. 2, 2002 - "For Decades, Mailing Germs Was Routine" - Oct. 3, 2002 - "Alibek Doubts FBI Claims on Hatfill"
CNN - Oct. 3, 2002 - "Walker Lindh: Al Qaeda planned more attacks"
Reuters - Oct. 3, 2002 - "2 US firms banned from selling anti-anthrax sprays" (X)
Accuracy In Media (AIM commentary) - Oct. 3, 2002 - "Curiouser And Curiouser" - Oct. 3, 2002 - "Hatfill Story Irks FBI"
NPR - Oct. 4, 2002 - "Rethinking the Anthrax Attacks" (audio)
Reuters - Oct. 4, 2002 - "U.S. Officials Agonize over Anthrax Decisions" (X)
The Florida Sun-Sentinel - Oct. 5, 2002 - "1 year later, yet no anthrax culprit found"
Reuters - Oct. 6, 2002 - "Fired researcher in US anthrax probe plans to sue" (X)
The New York Times - Oct. 6, 2002 - "Seeking Terrorist Plots, F.B.I. Is Tracking Hundreds of Muslims"
CNN - Oct. 6, 2002 - "Researcher says he'll sue over anthrax probe"
Newsday - Oct. 7, 2002 - (part 1) "Unknown dominates probe"
Newsday - Oct. 8, 2002 - (part 2)  "The Anthrax Crisis" - Oct. 8, 2002 - "Anthrax probe ignoring foreign links?"
The Baltimore Sun - Oct. 9, 2002 - "Former Army Scientist Forged Ph.D. Certificate"
The Baltimore Sun - Oct. 9, 2002 - "A year later, clues on anthrax still few"
The Hartford Courant - Oct. 9, 2002 - "An Anthrax Widow May Sue U.S."
The Florida Sun-Sentinel - Oct. 10, 2002 - "One year after, no anthrax culprit found"
The Wall Street Journal - Oct. 14, 2002 - "Armchair Sleuths Track Anthrax Without a Badge" - Oct. 15, 2002 - "Ashcroft May Target Hatfill With RFK Tactics"
The Frederick News-Post - Oct. 16, 2002 - "Billion dollar lab planned at Detrick"
Bulletin Of Atomic Scientists - Sep/Oct 2002 - "NEW LABS, MORE TERROR"
The Virginian-Pilot - Oct. 19, 2002 - "Truckload of anthrax-related waste coming to Norfolk"
Africa On-Line - Oct. 19, 2002 - "FBI in Zim, S. Africa"
UPI - Oct. 20, 2002 - "Czechs retract terror link"
The New York Times - Oct. 21, 2002 - "Prague Discounts an Iraqi Meeting"
Time Magazine - Oct. 28, 2002 - "Sleuth Without a Badge"  (X) - or HERE.
ABC - Oct. 22, 2002 - "Bloodhounds Lead Investigators to Ex-Government Scientist in Anthrax Case"
Accuracy In Media - Oct. 23, 2002 - "ABC News Repeats Shaggy Dog Story"
Insight Magazine (commentary) - Oct. 29, 2002 - "No Progress in Battle on Bioterror - Why?"
Media Monitor (AIM) - Oct. 24, 2002 - "Why Is Dr. Hatfill A Person Of Interest?"
World Socialist Web Site - Oct. 24, 2002 - "One year since the anthrax attacks on the US Congress"
The Washington Post - Oct. 27, 2002 - "Six Weeks in Autumn"
The Washington Post - Oct. 27, 2002 - "FBI's Theory On Anthrax Is Doubted" 
The Baltimore Sun - Oct. 29, 2002 - "FBI's use of bloodhounds in anthrax probe disputed"
Front Page Magazine - Oct. 30, 2002 - "Politically Correct Profiling"
AFIP - Oct. 31, 2002 - "Detecting Environmental Terrorism"
American Journalism Review - Nov. 2002 - "Into The Spotlight"
ABC - Nov. 1, 2002 - "FBI Chief Dissatisfied Anthrax Mailers Not Caught"
The Washington Post - Nov. 1, 2002 - "FBI Working to Replicate Type of Anthrax Used in Last Year's Deadly
The Los Angeles Times - Nov. 2, 2002 - "FBI Laments Lack of Anthrax Arrests"
The New York Times - Nov. 2, 2002 - "Familiar Anthrax Strain Is Seen in Woman's Death" (X)
The Washington Post - Nov. 2, 2002 - "FBI Secretly Trying to Re-Create Anthrax From Mail Attacks"
The Baltimore Sun - Nov. 3, 2002 - "Anthrax powder from attacks could have been made simply"
Letter from FBI to Sen. Grassley - Nov. 4, 2002 - re: The media and the first search of Dr. Hatfill's apartment
Reuters - Nov. 5, 2002 - "No Apollo Moon Landing? NASA Book to Combat Doubts" (X)
Time Magazine - Nov. 5, 2001 - "The Mystery Deepens" (X)
The Washington Post - Nov. 5, 2002 - "Anthrax Under The Microscope" 
BBC News - Nov. 8, 2002 - "Nasa pulls Moon hoax book"
The Washington Times - Nov. 8, 2002 - "U.S. says Baghdad is hiding anthrax"
BBC News - Nov. 7, 2002 - "Plague scare in New York"
The New York Times (editorial) - Nov. 8, 2002 - "Plague in Perspective"
The New York Times - Nov. 10, 2001 - "One Center Staying Open; Anthrax Found at 4 Others" (X)
Global Security Newswire - Nov. 11, 2002 - "FBI science experiment could help anthrax investigation"
The Los Angeles Times (editorial) - Nov. 12, 2002 - "Beef Up the Biotreaty"
The Miami Herald - Nov. 12, 2002 - "Study: Low-level anthrax exposure not as dangerous"
Reuters - Nov. 12, 2002 - "Bin Laden Warns Against Backing U.S. 'Butchers'" (X)
Tooele (Utah) Transcript Bulletin - Nov. 14, 2002 - "Anthrax use questioned in Dugway investigation"
ABC Australia - Background Briefing - Nov. 17, 2002 - "Anthrax: a Political Whodunit"
AIM Report - Nov. 20, 2002 - Notes From The Editor's Cuff  - by Reed Levine"
The New York Times - Dec. 3, 2002 - "C.I.A. Hunts Iraq Tie to Soviet Smallpox"
AIM Report - Dec. 6, 2002 - "'Person of Interest' Takes It Personally"
Knight-Ridder - Dec. 8, 2002 - "Anthrax attacks set off a frenzy of invention"
BBC News - Dec. 9, 2002 - "Cow dies from anthrax at farm"
DefenseLINKnews - Dec. 9, 2002 - "Skilled Technician Behind Anthrax Attacks, New CDC Director Believes"
JAMA (Reuters) - Dec. 10, 2002 - "Office Activity Stirs Up Weeks-Old Anthrax Spores" (X)
JAMA - Dec. 2002 - "Secondary Aerosolization of Viable Bacillus anthracis Spores in a Contaminated US Senate Office"
Fox News - Dec. 12, 2002 - "Anthrax Investigators Search Public Land in Maryland"
Associated Press - Dec. 12, 2002 - "U.S. Defends Treatment of Steven Hatfill"
ABC News - Dec. 12, 2002 - "Anthrax Clues Underwater?"
United Press International - Dec. 12, 2002 - "FBI may be searching for anthrax clues"
The Washington Post - Dec. 13, 2002 - "Justice Dept. Says It Intended To Shield Anthrax Probe Figure"
The Baltimore Sun - Dec. 13, 2002 - "FBI investigators search Md. forest for anthrax"
The Frederick News-Post - Dec. 13, 2002 - "FBI searches Catoctin woods"
The Frederick News-Post - Dec. 14, 2002 - "FBI continues anthrax search"
The Frederick News-Post - Dec. 16, 2002 - "FBI agents shift watershed search"
The New York Times - Dec. 17, 2002 - "After 9/11, Universities Are Destroying Biological Agents"
The Frederick News-Post - Dec. 18, 2002 - "City briefed on search, but mayor still in dark"
The Baltimore Sun - Dec. 18, 2002 - "Cleanup of anthrax will cost hundreds of millions of dollars"
The Washington Post - Dec. 19, 2002 - "No Anthrax Leads in Search of Forest"
The Frederick News-Post - Dec. 20, 2002 - "FBI search in Catoctins could be wrapping up"
The Virginian-Pilot - Dec. 24, 2002 - "Anthrax due in Norfolk for burning this week" - Dec. 24, 2002 - "FBI is tracking Hatfill"
The New York Times - Dec. 24, 2002 - "With Dog Detectives, Mistakes Can Happen"
The Baltimore Sun - Dec. 27, 2002 - "Anthrax fighters await outcome"
The Washington Post (editorial) - Dec. 31, 2002 - "Anthrax, One Year Later"
Nature - Jan. 2, 2003 - "Law sends laboratories into pathogen panic"
The Washington Times - Jan. 3, 2003 - "Anthrax answer due in weeks"
ABC News - Jan. 9, 2003 - "Sources: Anthrax Probe Zeroes in on Scientist"
Reuters - Jan. 15, 2003 - "New US anthrax scare" (X)
CNN - Jan. 15, 2003 - "Postal Service tests facility for anthrax"
CNN - Jan. 15, 2003 - "Postal Service finds no anthrax at facility"
CNN - Jan. 16, 2003 - " Scientist who allegedly destroyed plague vials arrested"
USA Today - Jan. 17, 2003 - "Scientist admits lying about plague vials"
The Modesto Bee - Jan. 18, 2003 - "CDC anthrax study violated privacy regulations, experts say"
The Amarillo Globe-News - Jan. 18, 2003 - "Federal agents search Tech researcher's home"
The Houston Chronicle - Jan. 20, 2003 - "This one spread like plague"
CNN - Jan. 21, 2003 - "Security to tighten at research labs"
The Miami Herald - Jan. 22, 2003 - "FBI searches Palm Beach County ex-home of Saudi family"
The New York Times - Jan. 22, 2003 - "U.S. Is Deploying a Monitor System for Germ Attacks"
The Palm Beach Post - Jan. 23, 2003 - "Terrorism financing concern behind search"
The Frederick News-Post - Jan. 24, 2003 - "FBI again snoops about watershed"
WTOP -Washington - Jan. 24, 2003 - "Anthrax Probe Focusing Again on Frederick Forest"
The Washington Post - Jan. 25, 2003 - "Hunt for Clues in Anthrax Case Revived"
The Baltimore Sun - Jan. 25, 2003 - "Anthrax investigators return to Frederick"
The Baltimore Sun - Jan. 26, 2003 - "Terror threat casts chill over world of bio-research"
WBAY TV- Green Bay, WI - Jan. 27, 2003 - "New search in anthrax case"
The Frederick News-Post - Jan. 29, 2003 - "FBI divers resume anthrax search"
WorldNetDaily - Jan. 29, 2003 - "Top Secret checks required at labs"
Newsday - Jan. 31, 2003 - "Anthrax Search in Md. Mountains Ends"
The Washington Post - Feb. 2, 2002 - "The Big Difference Between Intelligence And Evidence"
The Frederick News-Post - Feb. 4, 2003 - "County awaiting payment from FBI"
The Washington Post - Feb. 7, 2003 - "U.S. May Seek Wider Anti-Terror Powers"
Global Security Newswire - Feb. 7, 2003 - "Hatfill Manuscript Prompted FBI Forest Searches"
The Washington Post - Feb. 9, 2003 - "Fort Detrick's Tower of Doom To Come Down"
The Jeruselem Post - Feb. 11, 2003 - "Israeli expert implicates Iraq in US anthrax attacks"
The Los Angeles Times - Feb. 12, 2003 - "Biodefense Lab on the Defensive"
Armed Forces Institute of Pathology - Feb. 2003 - Silicon made the anthrax easily aerosolized
The Sun-Sentinel - Feb. 14, 2003 - "Congress agrees to buy, clean up anthrax-tainted AMI building"
The Sun-Sentinel - Feb. 15, 2003 - "Anthrax victim's widow files $50 million suit against government"
The State (South Carolina) - Feb. 16, 2003 - "Anthrax Scare Closes N.J. Post Office"
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch - Feb. 16, 2003 - "FBI announces bioterrorism guidelines"
The Denver Post - Feb. 17, 2003 - "Anthrax strain traced to '93 plot"
Associated Press - Feb. 19, 2003 - "Anthrax ruled out in powder found at Morris post office"
Science magazine - Feb. 21, 2003 - "Report Spells Out How to Fight Biocrimes"
The Sun-Sentinel - Feb. 27, 2003 - "Widow of anthrax victim gives first U.S. interview"
The New Jersey Star-Ledger - Mar. 2, 2003 - "Scientists are FBI's most wanted"
The New York Post - Mar. 7, 2003 - "Blix Will Bare Iraq's 'Thrax"
The Miami Herald - Mar. 8, 2003 - "Blix Says Iraq May Still Have Anthrax"
The Baltimore Sun - Mar. 9, 2003 - BOOK REVIEW: "The Killer Strain: Anthrax and a Government Exposed"
Biohazard News - Mar. 10, 2003 - "Interview with Martin Hugh-Jones - On Anthrax"
The Baltimore Sun - Mar. 12, 2003 - "New methods trace anthrax source by water"
The New York Times - Mar. 16, 2003 - "Iraq Links Germs for Weapons to U.S. and France"
The Washington Times - Mar. 22, 2003 - "Anthrax buried for good"
The Wilkes-Barre Times-Leader - Mar. 22, 2003 - "Iraqi Scientists Sought for Questioning"
The Washington Post - Mar. 23, 2003 - "Al Qaeda Near Biological, Chemical Arms Production"
The New York Times - Mar. 24, 2003 - "Lab Technicians Eagerly Await Work"
The New York Times - Mar. 27, 2003 - "Key to Strains of Anthrax Is Discovered"
The Washington Post - Mar. 28, 2003 - "Moussaoui Said Not to Be Part of 9/11 Plot"
The Washington Post web site - Mar. 31. 2003 - "Kenneth Alibek Q&A on bioterrorism"
Insight Magazine - Apr. 15, 2003 - "Did the FBI Make Rush to Judgment?"
The Trenton Times - Apr. 7, 2003 - "Fumigation near for post office tainted by anthrax"
ABC (Australia) News - Apr. 8, 2003 - "Suspected WMD site in Iraq turns out to contain pesticide"
The Financial Times - Apr. 7, 2003 - "Experts probe suspected WMD cache"
The Chicago Sun-Times (columnist) - Apr. 7, 2003 - "Where are the WMD?"
The Baltimore Sun - Apr. 11, 2003 - "Tests point to domestic source behind anthrax letter attacks" (X)
CNN - Apr. 14, 2003 - "U.S.: Mobile labs found in Iraq"
CNN - Apr. 15, 2003 - "Tests rule out suspect bio-labs"
VOA News - Apr. 16, 2003 - "US Troops Raid Home of Iraqi Scientist ["Dr. Germ"]"
The New York Times - Apr. 17, 2003 - "Bayer to pay $257 million in [Cipro] fraud case"
The Sun-Sentinel - Apr. 18, 2003 - "Anthrax-contaminated office building in Boca bought for $40,000"
The Washington Post - Apr. 18, 2003 - "Washington Chief To Retire From FBI"
AFP - Apr. 18, 2003 - "US to field 1,000-member WMD force in Iraq"
The Palm Beach Post - Apr. 20, 2003 - "Case of the Homeland Whodunnit"
The New York Times - Apr. 21, 2003 - "Illicit Arms Kept Till Eve of War, an Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert"
Dept. of Homeland Security - Apr. 21, 2003 - "Postal Workers Deprived of Significant Information Concerning Anthrax Contamination at Wallingford"
The Hartford Courant - Apr. 22, 2003 - "Anthrax Levels Kept In Secrecy"
The Montreal Gazette - Apr. 24, 2003 - "Quebec-bound ship to be seized over anthrax"
The Canadian Press - Apr. 25, 2003 - "Egyptian sailor had anthrax bacilli, but not clear if they caused death"
The New York Times - Apr. 27, 2003 - "Scientist: Claims To U.N. Were Lies"
The Los Angeles Times - Apr. 27, 2003 - "Concern Grows Over Weapons Hunt Setbacks"
The Sun-Sentinel - Apr. 28, 2003 - "Bioterrorism Plot? Egyptian sailor on way to Canada dies from anthrax in Brazil"
MSNBC - Apr. 28, 2003 - "Suspected anthrax shipment nabbed" (X)
Reuters - Apr. 29, 2003 - "Anthrax Did Not Kill Egypt Sailor in Brazil - Medic" (X)
The Halifax Daily News - Apr. 30, 2003 - "Ship anthrax-free, officials say"
TIGR News Release - Apr. 30, 2003 - "Anthrax: 'A Soil Bug Gone Bad'"
Nature - May 1, 2003 - "DNA sequence may help stop killer in its tracks"
The Financial Times - May 2, 2003 - "Doubts grow over Iraq 'smoking gun'"
The Fox News Channel - May 5, 2003 - "'Mrs. Anthrax' Surrenders to U.S. Military"
Business 2.0 - May, 2003 - In the Company of Spies" (Inside SAIC, Hatfill's former employer)
Associated Press - May 7, 2003 - "U.S. Tests Suspected Iraq Bioweapons Lab"
CBS - May 8, 2003 - "FBI Still Watching Hatfill"
The New York Times - May 10, 2003 - "Suspected Weapons Lab Is Found in Northern Iraq"
The New York Times - May 10, 2003 - "Another U.S. teams says it found a secret lab"
The Washington Post - May 11, 2003 - "New Find Reignites Anthrax Probe"
UPI - May 11, 2003 - "Report: FBI revives anthrax investigation"
UPI - May 11, 2003 - "One person may be behind anthrax attacks"
CNN - May 11, 2003 - "Traces of disease found on object near Fort Detrick, Maryland"
The New York Times - May 12, 2003 - "Md. Pond May Be Drained in Anthrax Probe"
The Baltimore Sun - May 12, 2003 - FBI might drain Md. pond as part of its anthrax probe"
CNN - May 12, 2003 - "Anthrax Investigation" (Retraction: no anthrax in pond.)
NBC - May 12, 2003 - "Mayor of Frederick comments on Anthrax investigation" - May 12, 2003 - "FBI May Drain Pond In Anthrax Search"
The Guardian - May 12, 2003 - "Anthrax letters prepared under water, says FBI"
The New York Times (editorial) - May 13, 2003 - "Iraq's Mobile Laboratories"
The Washington Times - May 13, 2003 - "Officials call water safe from anthrax"
USA Today - May 15, 2003 - "Weapons search could take years"
MSNBC/AP - May 17, 2003 - "The ‘person of interest’ emerges" (X)
NEWSWEEK - May 26, 2003 - "Anthrax: Finally, the FBI Uncovers a Tantalizing Clue"
Associated Press - May 19, 2003 - "Anthrax Case 'Person of Interest' Injured"
CNN - May 19, 2003 - "Hatfill ticketed in altercation with FBI agent"
The Baltimore Sun - May 20, 2003 - "FBI vehicle hits Hatfill, but he gets the $5 ticket"
SEED Magazine - May 24, 2003 - "How One Man Lied His Way Into The Most Dangerous Lab In America"
The Washington Post - May 27, 2003 - "Ft. Detrick Unearths Hazardous Surprises"
AIM - May 27, 2003 - "FBI Is Unprepared for Biological Terrorism" - May 28, 2003 - "Iraqi Mobile Biological Warfare Agent Production Plants"
USA Today - May 28, 2003 - "Anthrax investigators tail scientist '24/7'"
The Washington Post - May 30, 2003 - "Tests Differ on Anthrax Contamination at Pond"
Reuters - June 4, 2003 - "Belgium finds nerve gas ingredient in letters" (X) - June 4, 2003 - "To Serve, to Protect, to Brag"
The Boston Globe (Opinion) - June 4, 2003 - "Preventing future bioweapons risks"
The Baltimore Sun - June 5, 2003 - "Media organization rebuffs Hatfill request to speak at conference"
Inside Baltimore - June 9, 2003 - "FBI Drains Frederick Pond in Anthrax Probe"
Associated Press - June 9, 2003 - "FBI Drains Maryland Pond in Anthrax Probe"
ABC News - June 9, 2003 - "Underwater Evidence?"
The New York Times - June 9, 2003 - "Pond Drained in Search for Evidence in Anthrax Case"
The Washington Post - June 10, 2003 - "Md. Pond Drained for Clues in Anthrax Probe"
The Baltimore Sun - June 10, 2003 - "FBI searching for spores and discarded equipment"
Frederick News-Post - June 11, 2003 - "Anthrax info scarce"
CNN - June 12, 2003 - "Maryland pond drained in anthrax probe"
The Corvallis Gazette-Times - June 13, 2003 - "Scientist: Anthrax case was ‘perfect crime'"
The Ledger-Enquirer - June 13, 2003 - "Anthrax Investigators Search Drained Pond"
The Washington Post - June 14, 2003 - "FBI Does Some Heavy-Duty Digging in Md."
Frederick News-Post - June 14, 2003 - "FBI scrapes pond in anthrax search"
The Washington Post - June 15, 2003 - "Anthrax Probe Poses Only Passing Worry"
Insight Magazine - June 24, 2003 - "Is FBI Closing in on Anthrax Killer?"
GDH News Service (India) - June 24, 2003 - "Anthrax claims 3 lives in Orissa"
Frederick News-Post - June 25, 2003 - "Sights, sounds from anthrax search"
Newsday - June 25, 2003 - "Huge sieve strains muck in anthrax search"
The Washington Post - June 29, 2003 - "FBI Ends Anthrax Probe Of Pond Near Frederick"
The New York Times - July 2, 2003 - "Subject of Anthrax Inquiry Tied to Anti-Germ Training"
The Washington Post - July 3, 2003 - "Anthrax Suspect Trained U.S. Team on Bioweapons"
The Baltimore Sun - July 3, 2003 - "Hatfill's biowar classes may have led to scrutiny" - July 3, 2003 - "Anthrax Investigation" (Q&A with Marilyn Thompson)
The Manchester Guardian - July 3, 2003 - "Anthrax Suspect Did Work for Pentagon"
The Frederick News-Post - July 3, 2003 - "Germ lab links Hatfill, anthrax"
The Frederick News-Post - July 10, 2003 - "No Respite for Hatfill"
The Hartford Courant - July 15, 2003 - "A Rare Look At A Top-Secret Facility"
The Washington Post - July 16, 2003 - "FBI Field Office Gets New Chief"
The Florida Sun-Sentinel - July 18, 2003 - "New owners preparing to decontaminate Boca building hit by anthrax in 2001"
The Palm Beach Post - July 18, 2003 - "Anthrax building to get cleaned up"
The Hartford Courant - July 18, 2003 - "FBI Again Refuses To Release Anonymous Anthrax Letter"
The Los Angeles Times - July 20, 2003 - "Anthrax Case Is a Lure to Persons of Interest"
Scripps Howard News Service (column) - July 22, 2003 - "Dan K. Thomasson: Another botched investigation?"
NPR -July 24, 2003 - "Anthrax Update"
The Washington City Paper - July 25, 2003 - "Watching The Detectives"
The Washington Post- Aug. 1, 2003 - "Md. Pond Produces No Anthrax Microbes"
The Baltimore Sun - Aug. 2, 2003 - "Hatfill prepares suit while FBI continues anthrax investigation"
The Frederick News-Post - Aug. 2, 2003 - "No anthrax in pond"
BBC News - Aug. 5, 2003 - " FBI draws blank in anthrax probe"
The Florida Sun-Sentinel - Aug. 7, 2003 - "New owner delays anthrax inspection of AMI building"
News Analytik - Aug. 9, 2003 - "Researchers Develop Anthrax Tracking Method" (X)
The Washington Times - Aug. 10, 2003 - "Accused scientist says letter links to anthrax mailers"
The Baltimore Sun - Aug. 13, 2003 - "Pond tested after dog, owner get lesions"
Associated Press - Aug. 15, 2003 - "Ark. letter processed in 2001 contained anthrax traces"
Associated Press - Aug. 15, 2003 - "Scientist Lashes Out at FBI Surveillance"
The Los Angeles Times - Aug. 16, 2003 - "Traffic Court Gets Its Man: Figure in Anthrax Inquiry"
The Baltimore Sun - Aug. 16, 2003 - "Hatfill foots bill for traffic misstep"
The Star-Ledger - Aug. 16, 2003 - "FBI letter shows anthrax taint 2 years later"
The Washington Times - Aug. 20, 2003 - "Anthrax probes routine for FBI"
The New York Times - Aug. 21, 2003 - "Exclusive!  It's Doom For Tabloid Archives!"
The Washington Post - Aug. 26, 2003 - "Hatfill Sues U.S. Over Anthrax Probe"
The Washington Post - Aug. 26, 2003 - "Hatfill Sues Ashcroft and the FBI" - Aug. 26, 2003 - Steven J. Hatfill, MD vs. Attorney General John Ashcroft
Statement - Aug. 26, 2003 - "Statement of Thomas G. Connolly, Attorney for Dr. Steven J. Hatfill"
The Baltimore Sun - Aug. 27, 2003 - "Hatfill files suit to stop surveillance"
The New York Times - Aug. 27, 2003 - "Scientist Files Suit Over Anthrax Inquiry"
The Washington Post - Aug. 27, 2003 - "Hatfill Sues Over Anthrax Probe"
The Palm Beach Post - Sept. 2, 2003 - "Web site tracks cleanup efforts at AMI"
AScribeNewswire - Sept. 3, 2003 - "University of Maryland Researchers Develop Anthrax Tracking Method"
NBC - Sept. 4, 2004 - "Don Foster ... discusses his investigation of anthrax attack" (X)
The Scientist - Sept. 5, 2003 - "Smallpox expert decries treatment of two scientists"
The Washington Post - Sept. 7, 2003 - "Hatfill Ex-Colleague Gets FBI Job"
Vanity Fair - Oct. 2003 - "The Message In The Anthrax"  or HERE.
The Washington Post - Sept. 8, 2003 - "Ex-Prosecutor's Past Case Contrasts With Anthrax Probe"
Capital News Service - Sept. 11, 2003 - "FBI commissions anthrax tracking method"
The Washington Post - Sept. 14, 2003 - "The Pursuit of Steven Hatfill" - Sept. 15, 2003 - A Q&A Session With Marilyn W. Thompson
The Trentonian - Sept. 15, 2003 - "VANITY FARCE? Hatfill lawyer rips mag’s anthrax article"
Florida Today - Sept. 19, 2003 - "Tax collector at war with anthrax"
The National Review - Sept. 19, 2003 - "No Question About It - Saddam and the terrorists"
Australian Broadcasting Corp. - Sept. 20, 2003 - "History of Bioweapons"
The Florida Sun-Sentinel - Sept. 24, 2003 - "Widow of Boca newsman killed by anthrax sues U.S. for $50 million"
The Florida Sun-Sentinel - Sept. 24, 2003 - "Widow of anthrax victim files lawsuits alleging negligence"
The New York Times - Sept. 25, 2003 - "FBI Teams Up With Scientists on Germ Lab"
The New York Times - Sept. 26, 2003 - "F.B.I. Names Top Scientists for Advisory Panel on Germs" (X)
Science Magazine - Sept. 26, 2003 - "Building Microbial Forensics as a Response to Bioterrorism"
Associated Press - Sept. 26, 2003 - "Fort Detrick to serve as hub of germ crimes lab"
The New Zealand Herald - Sept. 27, 2003 - "Sleuth fuels row over anthrax case"
The Palm Beach Post (editorial) - Sept. 27, 2003 - "Seeking anthrax answers"
Associated Press - Sept. 17, 2003 - "Mail Irradiation Part of Anthrax Legacy"
The Florida Sun-Sentinel - Sept. 28, 2003 - "Widow's anthrax case stalled by security"
News Release from Pat Clawson - Sept. 29, 2003 - Clawson sues the St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Reuters - Sept. 29, 2003 - "Anthrax Mailer May Not Have Intended Harm"
USA Today - Sept. 29, 2003 - "FBI fails to re-create anthrax production"
The Washington Post - Sept. 30, 2003 - "D.C. FBI Chief Regrets Leaks and Labels in Anthrax Case"
CBS - Sept. 30, 2003 - "Anthrax Probe Panned By New Boss"
The Fort Detrick Standard - Oct. 2, 2003 - "Biological warfare team reunites again at Detrick"
The Frederick Gazette - Oct. 2, 2003 - "Holding down the fort"
The Palm Beach Post - Oct. 3, 2003 - "Author links anthrax attacks to hijackers"
The Washington Post - Oct. 5, 2003 - "Ft. Detrick Celebrates 60 Years, New Role"
USA Today - Oct. 5, 2003 - "Chief weapons hunter: Tips to anthrax, Scud missiles in Iraq"
The New York Post - Oct. 6, 2003 - Opinion column by Richard Spertzel: "Glass Half Full"
Newsday - Oct. 7, 2003 - "Anthrax Probe Should Trump the WMD Search"
Associated Press - Oct. 9, 2003 - "FBI chief confident about anthrax probe, mum on leak"
CBS News - Oct. 9, 2003 - "Is Al Qaeda Making Anthrax?"
Global Security Newswire - Oct. 10, 2003 - "Two years later, anthrax culprit still at large; cleanup continues"
Roll Call - Oct. 15, 2003 - "Daschle Names Names"
MSNBC - Oct. 15, 2003 - "FBI launches germ forensics network" (X)
The Washington Post - Oct. 16, 2003 - "New Chief of FBI Office Comes Prepared"
Associated Press - Oct. 16, 2003 - "Bioweapons Vets Urged To Share Secrets"
CNN - Oct. 16, 2003 - "Bill would compensate anthrax victims, survivors"
The Daily Princetonian - Oct. 17, 2003 - "Cole talks on lasting effects of Princeton anthrax scare"
The Washington Times (commentary) - Oct. 21, 2003 - "Unresolved anthrax enigma"
The New York Post - Oct. 22, 2003 - "New FBI Section Focuses on WMD"
National Review (Book Review) - Oct. 27, 2003 - "Unequal Struggle"
Associated Press - Oct. 24, 2003 - "Anthrax cleanup of Hamilton facility begins"
The Tampa Tribune - Oct. 29, 2003 - "Puzzle Of The Anthrax Murders"
The New York Times (AP) - Nov. 6, 2003 - "Anthrax Scare Closes 11 D.C. Mail Centers"
Al (Reuters?) - Nov. 7, 2003 - Anthrax back to haunt US mail service"
The Sydney Morning Herald - Nov. 8, 2003 - "Without A Clue"
The Washington Post - Nov. 8, 2003 - "Anthrax Scare Ends After More Testing"
The Los Angeles Times - Nov. 9, 2003 - "Post Offices Reopen After Anthrax Scare"
Accuracy in Media (AIM) - Nov. 14, 2003 - "New Development in Anthrax Case"
Hatfill v Ashcroft et al - Nov. 21, 2003 - "Declaration of Richard L. Lambert"  (.pdf file)
Science Magazine - Nov. 28, 2003 - "Anthrax Powder - State of the Art?" - or HERE
The Baltimore Sun - Nov. 28, 2003 - "Additive use could shift theory in anthrax case"
Lawsuit documents - Dec. 2, 2003 - Maureen Stevens vs. The United States of America
CNN (via AP) - Dec. 2, 2003 - "FBI wary of anthrax probe disclosure"
The Washington Post - Dec. 3, 2003 - "FBI Urges Keeping Anthrax Probe Secret"
The Washington Monthly - Dec. 3, 2003 - "Agent Provocateur" (Laurie Mylroie)
KATV (AP) - Dec. 2, 2003 - "FBI Says Disclosure of Anthrax Probe Details Could Aid Terrorists"
Journal of Bacteriology - Dec. 16, 2003 - "Scientists discover how anthrax creates its deadly spores"
The Washington Post - Dec. 17, 2003 - "Targeting Spread Of Deadliest Arms"
The Washington Times (Columnists) - Dec. 26, 2003 - "Anthrax Terror"
The New York Times - Dec. 28, 2003 - "U.S. Has New Concerns About Anthrax Readiness"
Accuracy In Media - Jan. 1, 2004 - "Saddam Behind Anthrax Attacks?"
The New Haven Register - Jan. 5, 2004 - "Labs handling toxins require greater scrutiny, experts agree"
The Washington Post - Jan. 7, 2004 - "Iraq's Arsenal Was Only on Paper"
The Florida Sun-Sentinel - Jan. 13, 2004 - "Anthrax building getting tenant, cleanup"
The Miami Herald - Jan. 13, 2004 - "New Giuliani company will occupy former anthrax building"
The Ft. Detrick Standard - Jan. 22, 2004 - "Building 470 dismantling complete"
The Baltimore Sun - Jan. 27, 2004 - "Judge doubts Hatfill suit will harm anthrax probe"
Cnews - Jan. 27, 2004 - "Anthrax kills nine cows in western Saskatchewan, farm quarantined"
The Florida Sun-Sentinel - Jan. 30, 2004 - "Boca company claims cleanup of anthrax-infected building a patent violation"
The Palm Beach Post - Jan. 31, 2004 - "Feds seek delay in anthrax lawsuit"
The Miami Herald (AP) - Jan. 31, 2004 - "U.S. asks to defer anthrax lawsuit"
The Florida Sun-Sentinel - Feb. 3, 2004 - "Judge will weigh Feds' plea for delay in lawsuit over anthrax death"
Associated Press - Feb. 3, 2004 - "FBI still looking for a suspect in 2001 anthrax attacks"
The Washington Times - Feb. 4, 2004 - "Ricin discovery recalls anthrax"
The Washington Post - Feb. 4, 2004 - "Investigators Seek Ties In Anthrax, Ricin Cases"
The Washington Post - Feb. 7, 2004 - "Hatfill Lawyers Given Go-Ahead"
The Baltimore Sun - Feb. 7, 2004 - "Anthrax case lawsuit to go on, judge rules"
The Washington Post - Feb. 8, 2004 - "DNA Analysis of Ricin Could Track Source"
Associated Press - Feb. 12, 2004 - "FBI Director Predicts Success in Ricin, Anthrax Probes" or HERE.
The Florida Sun-Sentinel - Feb. 14, 2004 - "Company about to start anthrax office cleanup"
The Florida Sun-Sentinel - Feb. 15, 2004 - "Anthrax cleanup starts at former site of American Media"
Newsday - Feb. 17, 2004 - "FBI questions scientist about anonymous letter from anthrax scare"
The Hartford Courant - Feb. 17, 2004 - "FBI Questions EPA Scientist About Anthrax Case"
The Washington Times - Feb. 23, 2004 - "Anthrax attacks stump FBI, but remain priority"
The Chicago Tribune - Mar. 2, 2004 - "FBI hits wall in anthrax investigation"
American City Business Journals - Mar. 2, 2004 - "MRI scientist talks terrorism"
Associated Press - Mar. 4, 2004 - "Post Office Got 20,000 Powder Reports"
Associated Press - Mar. 11, 2004 - "Federal attorneys argue anthrax lawsuit needs to be delayed"
The Florida Sun-Sentinel - Mar. 11, 2004 - "FBI at crucial stage in finding source of anthrax attack"
UPI (commentary) - Mar. 13, 2004 - "Outside View: FBI behind the anthrax curve"
Associate Press - Mar. 29, 2004 - "U.S. Wants Anthrax Probe Suit Dismissed"
The Washington Post - Mar. 30, 2004 - "Judge Delays Lawsuit To Help Anthrax Probe"
The Baltimore Sun - Mar. 30, 2004 - "Judge postpones Hatfill's lawsuit"
The Washington Times - Mar. 30, 2004 - "EPA staff queried in bioterror probe"
NPR - Apr. 2, 2004 - "Court case surrounding the 2001 anthrax attacks"
Newsweek - Apr. 12, 2004 - "Interrogation: Al Qaeda and Anthrax" (X) - Apr. 7, 2004 - "Bipartisan Cover-Ups—From Vince Foster to Anthrax"
The Washington Post - Apr. 13, 2004 - "Suspicious Powders, Packages Keep FBI Unit on Edge"
Associated Press - Apr. 22, 2004 - "Feds find lax security at anthrax lab"
Reuters - Apr. 27, 2004 - "Ills linger from 2001 U.S. anthrax attacks -study" (X)
Associated Press - Apr. 28, 2004 - "Judge grants six-month stay in anthrax civil suit"
The Kansas City Star - May 9, 2004 - "Threat of anthrax worries author most" - May 10, 2004 - "Microbes in court"
The Hartford Courant - May 16, 2004 - "FBI Retracing Steps In Anthrax Investigation"
Associated Press - May 16, 2004 - "FBI anthrax probe revisits former Detrick researcher"
CNN - May 17, 2004 - "Researcher quizzed again in anthrax probe"
Genome News Network - June 4, 2004 - "Deaths Blamed on Mysterious Microbe with Anthrax Genes"
The Baltimore Sun - June 11, 2004 - "Live anthrax accidentally shipped from Frederick to California lab"
The Oakland Tribune - June 11, 2004 - "Workers exposed to anthrax"
The Scientist - June 11, 2004 - "US lab is sent live anthrax"
The Oakland Tribune - June 12, 2004 - "Anthrax incident spurs concern"
The Washington Post - June 12, 2004 - "Md. Lab Ships Live Anthrax In Error"
Maryland Gazette - June 18, 2004 - "City company still probing anthrax shipment errors"
The Wall Street Journal (editorial) - June 18, 2004 "Spinning 9/11"
The Palm Beach Post - June 24, 2004 - "Firm to start cleaning Boca anthrax site"
The Washington Times - June 28, 2004 - "Hill Anthrax response spread toxin"
Associated Press - June 29, 2004 - "Art professor indicted over biological materials"
The Baltimore Sun - July 4, 2004 - "Distinct signature found in ’01 anthrax"
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer - July 6, 2004 - "U.S. shows anthrax probe details to judge"
The Baltimore Sun - July 8, 2004 - "Judge delays Hatfill lawsuit until Oct. 7"
The Miami Herald - July 10, 2004 - "New Giuliani company details plans for anthrax clean up"
The Miami Herald - July 12, 2004 - "Former tabloid headquarters cleaned of deadly anthrax spores"
Lawsuit - July 14, 2004 - "Steven J. Hatfill vs. Nicolas Kristof & The New York Times"
The Washington Post - July 14, 2004 - "Former Army Scientist Sues New York Times, Columnist"
Editor & Publisher - July 14, 2004 - "Experts: Hatfill's Suit Against 'NY Times' Will Be Tough to Win"
The Wall Street Journal - July 15, 2004 - "New York Times Sued For Its Anthrax Series"
The Washington Post - July 18, 2004 - "Anthrax Probers Still Seek Md. Leads"
Congressional Quarterly - July 19, 2004 - "Postal Inspectors Bulk Up in the Pursuit of Anthrax Terrorism"
Fox News - July 20, 2004 - "Anthrax Probe Takes Over Army Labs"
Associated Press - July 20, 2004 - "FBI Anthrax Probe Closes Labs At Fort Detrick"
ABC News - July 20, 2004 - "FBI Imposes October Deadline to Make a Case in the 2001 Anthrax Poisonings"
The Baltimore Sun - July 21, 2004 - "Closing of lab marks renewed intensity in anthrax probe"
The Sun-Sentinel - July 24, 2004 - "Dismiss anthrax lawsuit, U.S. asks federal judge"
Associated Press - July 26, 2004 - "FBI Completes Search At Fort Detrick"
New Scientist - July 30, 2004 - "Swollen chest may indicate anthrax attack"
The Baltimore Sun - Aug. 1, 2004 - "Buried secrets of biowarfare"
Associated Press - Aug. 5, 2004 - "FBI, Post Office search doctor's homes in anthrax probe"
Reuters - Aug. 5, 2004 - "FBI Searches NY and NJ Houses in Anthrax Probe" (X)
NBC - Aug. 5, 2004 - "Locations In N.Y., N.J. Searched In Anthrax Probe" (X)
ABC - Aug. 5, 2004 - "New Developments in Anthrax Letters Case"
The Philadelphia Inquirer - Aug. 5, 2004 - "Anthrax inquiry leads to Shore"
Wellsville Daily Reporter - Aug. 5, 2004 - "FBI searches home of Dr. Kenneth Berry in Wellsville, allegedly for traces of anthrax"
Wellsville Daily Reporter - Aug. 6, 2004 - Four articles about Dr. Berry
The Washington Post - Aug. 6, 2004 - "N.Y. Home Searched In Anthrax Probe"
Associated Press - Aug. 6, 2004 - "Doctor connected to search of homes in anthrax probe got patent for surveillance system"
The New York Post - Aug. 6, 2004 - "'THRAX RAID TARGETS VACCINE DOC"
The New York Daily News - Aug. 6, 2004 - "FBI agents search doctor's homes in anthrax case"
The Hartford Courant - Aug. 6, 2004 - "Residences Searched In Anthrax Probe"
The New York Times - Aug. 6, 2004 - "Doctor's Homes Are Searched in the Anthrax Investigation"
The (NJ) Star-Ledger - Aug. 6, 2004 - "FBI searches houses tied to doctor from Jersey"
Asbury Park Press - Aug. 6, 2004 - "Anthrax case hits home"
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - Aug. 6, 2004 - "N.Y. physician linked to searches by FBI anthrax probe also employed by UPMC"
KDKA - Aug. 6, 2004 - "Local Ties in Federal Anthrax Probe"
UPI - Aug. 6, 2004 - "Anthrax raid focuses on NY doctor"
The Trentonian - Aug. 6, 2004 - " Berry prominent in forensic probes"
Hornell Evening Tribune - Aug. 6, 2004 - "Wellsville doctor leaves clear trail on the Internet"
The (New Jersey) Times - Aug. 7, 2004 - "Doctor's homes, past probed"
The (NJ) Star-Ledger - Aug. 7, 2004 - " A routine arrest in a baffling case"
The New York Post - Aug. 7, 2004 - "Ladies And Germs"
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review - Aug. 7, 2004 - "FBI queried ex-neighbors of anthrax probe figure"
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review - Aug. 8, 2004 - "FBI scours car of doctor"
The (NJ) Star-Ledger - Aug. 8, 2004 - " Instead of waking U.S. to bioterror, he woke the FBI"
The Buffalo News - Aug. 8, 2004 - "Amid anthrax probe, doctor snaps"
Wellsville Daily Reporter - Aug. 8, 2004 - "Dr. Berry's family returns home to Wellsville"
The Herald Standard - Aug. 8, 2004 - "FBI continues anthrax probe at Connellsville Airport"
WGRZ-TV - Aug. 10, 2004 - "Anthrax Probe: Two Views of FBI Investigation"
Wellsville Daily Reporter - Aug. 10, 2004 - "Helms: FBI owes Berry big-time apology"
The Times Herald - Aug. 10, 2004 - "Feds engage in public spectacle"
WGRZ-TV - Aug. 10, 2004 - "Authorities "Not Excited" By Results From Search Of Berry Homes"
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review - Aug. 11, 2004 - "Doctor aided Defense Dept." - Aug. 11, 2004 - "Using The Patriot Act To Target Patriots"
Lawrence (KS) Journal-World - Aug. 12, 2004 - "CDC chief tours K.C. facilities, discusses anthrax, bioterrorism"
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review - Aug. 15, 2004 - "Doctor in anthrax probe flaunted 'connections'"
The Buffalo News - Aug. 15, 2004 - "Anthrax probe puts doctor's career at risk"
Newsday - Aug. 18, 2004 - "Doctor loses job amid anthrax probe"
Fox News Channel - Aug. 18, 2004 - "FBI Took Coolers From Anthrax Investigation"
The Los Angeles Times - Aug. 20, 2004 - "Anthrax Leaks Blamed on Lax Safety Habits"
New York Daily News (columnist) - Aug. 22, 2004 - "1.5B for labs only fuels my bioterror" - Aug. 30, 2004 - "Researchers improve detection of diverse anthrax strains"
HHS - Sept. 2005 - "Terrorism and other Public Health Emergencies" - A Reference Guide for Media
Seattle Post-Intelligencer - Sep. 9, 2004 - "Panel urges sharing of data on germs"
Seattle Post-Intelligencer - Sep. 9, 2004 - "GAO: U.S. underestimated risks of anthrax"
Genome News Network - Sept. 17, 2004 - "Three Years after the Anthrax Letters, Are We Safer?"
General Accounting Office - Sept. 2004 - Guide to Ensure an Appropriate Reponse to Anthrax Contamination
The New York Times - Sept. 27, 2004 - "Isolated desert town is ready to become a target"
Associated Press - Oct. 1, 2004 - "Doctor at focus of anthrax probe files charges against family"
The (NJ) Star-Ledger - Oct. 2, 2004 - "Family strife blamed on anthrax probe"
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review - Oct. 2, 2004 - "Former UPMC doctor appears in court"
The Asbury Park Press - Oct. 2, 2004 - "Anthrax probe a blow to doctor's career, marriage, says lawyer"
The New York Times - Oct. 3, 2004 - "Interest in Bioterror Issues Puts Doctor Under Scrutiny and His Life in Turmoil"
Associated Press - Oct. 4, 2004 - "Lawyer: U.S. wrecking life of man searched in anthrax probe"
NBC News - Oct. 4, 2004 - "Hatfill strikes back in anthrax case" (X)
Hatfill v. Foster - Oct. 4?, 2004 - Hatfill's lawsuit against Don Foster, Vanity Fair and Reader's Digest - Oct. 5, 2004 - "Lawyer: Anthrax Probe MD Reeling"
Associated Press - Oct. 7, 2004 - "Judge admonishes government lawyers in anthrax lawsuit case"
NBC News - Oct. 7, 2004 - "Three years later, still no relief for anthrax ‘person of interest'"
The New York Times - Oct. 7, 2004 - "Anthrax Inquiry Draws Criticism From Federal Judge"
The Washington Post - Oct. 8, 2004 - "Anthrax Probe Leaks Assailed" 
USA Today - Oct. 14, 2004 - "Anthrax slip-ups raise fears about planned biolabs"
Associated Press - Oct. 15, 2004 - "N.Y. Times Seeks Hatfill Suit Dismissal"
Associated Press - Oct. 21, 2004 - "Judge: Hatfill Can Question Reporters"
USA Today - Oct. 22, 2004 - "Judge: Hatfill can't query scientists in anthrax case"
The Washington Post - Oct. 22, 2004 - "U.S. Agrees to Waivers in Hatfill Suit"
The New York Times - Oct. 22, 2004 - "Anthrax Figure Wins a Round on News Sources"
The (NJ) Star-Ledger - Nov. 6, 2004 - " Doctor admits attack on wife, stepdaughter"
Newsday (AP) - Nov. 6, 2004 - "Doctor in anthrax probe gets probation for assaults"
Hatfill vs. Ashcroft - Nov. 8, 2004 - The Government's Response to Dr. Hatfill's Complaint
The Oakland Tribune - Nov. 11, 2004 - "State might tighten rules on biosafety"
The New York Times - Nov. 21, 2004 - "City and F.B.I. Reach Agreement on Bioterror Investigations"
The Oxford (CT) Republican-American - Nov. 21, 2004 - "Anthrax Revisited"
Associated Press - Nov. 29, 2004 - "Hatfill's Libel Suit Dismissed"
Hatfill-v-Kristoff  - Nov. 29, 2004 - Case Dismissal & Memorandum Opinion
The Washington Post - Nov. 30, 2004 - "Judge Dismisses Hatfill Suit Against N.Y. Times"
The New York Times - Nov. 30, 2004 - "Times Wins Libel-Suit Dismissal"
Editor & Publisher - Nov. 30, 2004 - "Kristof and 'N.Y. Times' Attorney See Libel Dismissal As Double Victory"
Newsweek - Dec. 1, 2004 - "Whistle-Blower Crackdown Spreads" 
The Sun-Sentinel - Dec. 9, 2004 - "Boxes of sensational tabloid photos delay final cleanup of AMI building"
The Washington Post (Editorial) - Dec. 15, 2004 - "Anthrax Killer at Large"
Editor & Publisher - Dec. 17, 2004 - "AP and NPR Subpoened by Anthrax 'Person of Interest'"
Associated Press - Dec. 17, 2004 - "Hatfill Subpoenas News Organizations"
The Los Angeles Times - Dec. 18, 2004 - "Scientist Subpoenas News Outlets in Anthrax Leaks"
The Hollywood Reporter - Dec. 21, 2004 - "Nets to resist subpoenas in anthrax case"
ABC News - Dec. 21, 2004 - "Experts Fear Slowing Momentum on Bioterror"


For articles from 2005, 2006 and 2007, see the new "front page".  Click HERE.

(c) 2001 - 2007 by Ed Lake
All Rights Reserved