Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 25 February 2009 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2009.120
News
Anthrax investigation still yielding findings
Chemical composition of spores doesn't match suspect flask.
The deadly bacterial spores mailed to victims in the US anthrax attacks, scientists say, share a chemical 'fingerprint' that is not found in bacteria from the flask linked to Bruce Ivins, the biodefence researcher implicated in the crime.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) alleges that Ivins, who committed suicide last July, was the person responsible for mailing letters laden with Bacillus anthracis to news media and congressional offices in 2001, killing five people and sickening 17.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
Although the tin and iron may have come from the water used for cultivation, their amount, in my opinion, far exceeds the levels commonly present in the water used in a laboratory. Another possibility to consider is that the suspect used a primitive but a sturdy and a widely-available container to dry the spores, namely a tin can. It would explain a simultaneous presence of both elements. This suggestion is easy to test in experiments.
So, in fact, the FBI cannot show that it "reverse engineered" anything.
I have never believed that the FBI solved the anthrax case; it is my suspicion that the FBI was told not to solve the case. Caveats: I have no secret documents, I have interviewed no one who was a participant. It just doesn't make sense to me. Since I'm a novelist, I wrote a short novel, called CASE CLOSED, to explore one possible scenario of what might have happened. Anyone interested in reading a pre-publication serialized version of CASE CLOSED (there is no charge) can access it through my author web site at http://novelwriting.wordpress.com/
Thank you Lewis Weinstein. I agree the FBI's claim to have solved this case is premature. I have also had my doubts since the announcement. I feel, but do not know, that the Bureau took the suicide of Ivin's as an admission of guilt. I also suspect that its possible that other person(s) of interest known or unknown who are just as likely responsible. No one ever knows or understands why someone takes their own life. Such an act in and of itself is not an admission of guilt. I'm not even convinced that it would take someone of Ivin's expertise to commit such a terrible crime. If the anthrax attack was the result of some homegrown disturbed individual(s) they apparently were patiently waiting for some outside group to commit a terrorist attack of a massive scale to draw attention away from themselves. If the true criminals are still free then the FBI has succumbed to pressure and put more citizens at risk.
For me, the issue of why the anthrax attacks stopped is as big a mystery as who did it and why. The person was very successful is sowing fear, but then suddenly just plain stopped. My suspicion had been that the perpetrator either died or lost his access to his source of anthrax as a result of the attacks. In the case of Ivins, the reason to stop would have been that in the process of fingering a co-worker (even if erroneously), the investigation had hit too close to home for his comfort. -- I know that there is a constant counter-current of doubt that the anthrax letters case has been solved from people like Mr. Deal. Maybe they are correct about Ivins. However, if there is any danger of the anthrax letter sender striking again, then why did he or she not do it again years ago?
I attended the "biodefense meeting" of Feb. 24 in Baltimore. One thing we are reminded of is this: The entire scientific investigation has been focused upon looking for a match between the attack anthrax and the samples of Ames strain anthrax that were collected about seven years ago, numbering 1070 samples. According to the FBI scientists, these samples were collected as the result of an FBI request for "voluntary submissions" of Ames strain samples made to laboratories all over the world (with the greatest majority of course being American laboratories). The scientists spoke to us on Feb. 24 about all of the expensive and time-consuming rigor that went into producing results that would be admissible in a court of law. What renders all of it inadmissible is the (tacit) underlying assumption that the laboratory that generated the attack anthrax would produce a sample of the same anthrax in response to an FBI request for "voluntary submissions." Some subpoenas were issued. This of course does not dispose of the problem. A subpoena is a piece of paper that commands the production of evidence within a certain period, like one month. There is hardly more reason to believe that the laboratory that generated the attack anthrax would produce a sample of it in response to a subpoena than it would in response to a request for voluntary submission. As for unannounced searches and seizures, I expect there were a few of those. For this to add to the validity of the science, one underlying assumption is that one of these unannounced searches would have occurred at the guilty laboratory. The other assumption is that the guilty laboratory would have left laying around a batch of anthrax matching the attack anthrax. The "underlying assumptions" I am identifying are not just insupportable. What is being assumed to be true is almost certainly false. There is every reason to expect that immediately after perpetrating the anthrax attacks, the guilty parties hid/disposed of the anthrax remaining in their custody that could connect them to the crime. This would be especially easy to do in a facility shrouded in layers of secrecy. The FBI might as well have asked for everyone's samples of dried Ames strain, concentrated to the degree of one trillion spores per gram, containing particles between 1 and 4 microns in size, with the presence of silicon in the spore coat,etc. Bottom line: The FBI's claim is erroneous that the science behind Amerithrax narrows the possible sources of the attack anthrax to eight labs (seven of which were at USAMRIID, and one of which was at an "institution" the FBI continues to refuse to identify). The science behind Amerithrax is being used by the DOJ-FBI to imbue groundless conclusions with the aura of scientific authority and precision. The science is also being used to occupy (distract, confuse) us with esoteric matters that cannot contribute to real insight into the origin of the anthrax letters.
The anthrax incident was created as an excuse to install postal mail monitoring systems. Government national security contractors were already monitoring all U.S. telephone, Internet and e-mail communications, the only piece missing was postal mail. Once they had what they wanted - a green light to proceed with the mail monitoring installation project - the anthrax incidents stopped. When Hatfill wouldn't take the fall, they pinned it on Ivins. Programs to electronically isolate, immobilize and "neuter" opponents and undesirables were described by Pentagon consultant Col. John B. Alexander in a 1/14/07 Washington Post Magazine article by Sharon Weinberger. Defend-Dissent.com provides details.