2001 anthrax attacks
2001 anthrax attacks | |
---|---|
![]() Laboratory technician holding an anthrax-laced letter sent to Senator Patrick Leahy | |
Location | |
Date | September 18, 2001 | – October 12, 2001
Target | U.S. senators, media figures |
Attack type | Bioterrorism |
Weapons | Anthraxbacteria |
Deaths | 5 (Bob Stevens,Thomas Morris Jr., Joseph Curseen, Kathy Nguyen, and Ottilie Lundgren) |
Injured | 17 |
Motive | Unknown; possiblemental illnessor attempts to rejuvenate a failinganthrax vaccineprogram at Fort Meade[1] |
The2001 anthrax attacks,also known asAmerithrax(aportmanteauof "America"and"anthrax",from its FBI case name),[2]occurred in the United States over the course of several weeks beginning on September 18, 2001, one week after theSeptember 11 terrorist attacks.Letters containinganthraxspores were mailed to several news media offices and to SenatorsTom DaschleandPatrick Leahy,killing five people and infecting 17 others. Capitol Police Officers and staffers working for SenatorRuss Feingoldwere exposed as well. According to theFBI,the ensuing investigation became "one of the largest and most complex in the history of law enforcement".[3]
A major focus in the early years of the investigation wasbioweaponsexpertSteven Hatfill,who was eventually exonerated.Bruce Edwards Ivins,a scientist at the government's biodefense labs atFort DetrickinFrederick, Maryland,became a focus around April 4, 2005. On April 11, 2007, Ivins was put under periodic surveillance and an FBI document stated that he was "an extremely sensitive suspect in the 2001 anthrax attacks".[4]On July 29, 2008, Ivins committed suicide with an overdose ofacetaminophen(Tylenol/Panadol).[5]
Federal prosecutors declared Ivins the sole perpetrator on August 6, 2008, based on DNA evidence leading to an anthrax vial in his lab.[6]Two days later, SenatorChuck Grassleyand RepresentativeRush D. Holt Jr.called for hearings into the Department of Justice and FBI's handling of the investigation.[7][8]The FBI formally closed its investigation on February 19, 2010.[9]
In 2008, the FBI requested a review of the scientific methods used in their investigation from the National Academy of Sciences, which released their findings in the 2011 reportReview of the Scientific Approaches Used During the FBI's Investigation of the 2001 Anthrax Letters.[10]The report cast doubt on the government's conclusion that Ivins was the perpetrator, finding that the type of anthrax used in the letters was correctly identified as theAmes strainof the bacterium, but that there was insufficient scientific evidence for the FBI's assertion that it originated from Ivins' laboratory. The FBI responded by saying that the review panel asserted that it would not be possible to reach a definite conclusion based on science alone, and said that a combination of factors led the FBI to conclude that Ivins had been the perpetrator.[11]Some information is still sealed concerning the case and Ivins' mental health.[12]: 8 footnote [13]The government settled lawsuits that were filed by the widow of the first anthrax victimBob Stevensfor $2.5 million with no admission of liability. The settlement was reached solely for the purpose of "avoiding the expenses and risks of further litigations", according to a statement in the agreement.[14]
Context
[edit]Theanthraxattacks began just a week after theSeptember 11 attacks,which had caused the destruction of the originalWorld Trade CenterinNew York City,damage tothe PentagoninArlington, Virginia,and the crash of an airliner inShanksville, Pennsylvania.The attacks came in two waves. The first set of letters containing anthrax had aTrenton, New Jersey,postmarkdated September 18, 2001. Five letters are believed to have been mailed at this time toABC News,CBS News,NBC Newsand theNew York Post,all located in New York City, and to theNational EnquireratAmerican Media, Inc.,(AMI) inBoca Raton, Florida.[15]
The first known victim of the attacks,Robert Stevens,who worked at theSuntabloid, also published by AMI, died on October 5, 2001, four days after entering a Florida hospital with an undiagnosed illness that caused him to vomit and be short of breath.[16][17]The presumed letter containing the anthrax which killed Stevens was never found. Only theNew York PostandNBC Newsletters were actually identified;[18]the existence of the other three letters is inferred because individuals at ABC, CBS and AMI became infected with anthrax. Scientists examining the anthrax from theNew York Postletter said it was a clumped coarse brown granular material which looked similar to dog food.[19]
Two more anthrax letters, bearing the same Trenton postmark, were dated October 9, three weeks after the first mailing. The letters were addressed to two U.S. Senators,Tom Daschleof South Dakota andPatrick Leahyof Vermont. At the time, Daschle was the Senate majority leader and Leahy was head of the Senate Judiciary Committee; both were members of the Democratic Party. The Daschle letter was opened by an aide, Grant Leslie, on October 15, after which the government mail service was immediately shut down. The unopened Leahy letter was discovered in an impounded mailbag on November 16. The Leahy letter had been misdirected to the State Department mail annex inSterling, Virginia,because aZIP codewas misread; a postal worker there, David Hose, contracted inhalational anthrax.
More potent than the first anthrax letters, the material in the Senate letters was a highly refined dry powder consisting of about one gram of nearly purespores.A series of conflicting news reports appeared, some claiming the powders had been "weaponized" withsilica.Bioweapons experts who later viewed images of the anthrax used in the attacks saw no indication of "weaponization".[20]Tests atSandia National Laboratoriesin early 2002 confirmed that the attack powders were not weaponized.[21][22]
At least 22 people developed anthrax infections, 11 of whom contracted the especially life-threatening inhalational variety. Five died of inhalational anthrax: Stevens; two employees of the Brentwood mail facility in Washington, D.C. (Thomas Morris Jr. and Joseph Curseen),[23]and two whose source of exposure to the bacteria is still unknown: Kathy Nguyen, aVietnamese immigrantresident of the New York City borough ofthe Bronxwho worked in the city,[24]and the last known victim, Ottilie Lundgren, a 94-year-old widow of a prominent judge fromOxford, Connecticut.[25]
Because it took so long to identify a culprit, the 2001 anthrax attacks have been compared to theUnabomberattacks which took place from 1978 to 1995.[26]
Letters
[edit]Authorities believe that the anthrax letters were mailed fromPrinceton, New Jersey.[27]Investigators found anthrax spores in a city street mailbox located at 10Nassau Streetnear thePrinceton Universitycampus. About 600 mailboxes were tested for anthrax which could have been used to mail the letters, and the Nassau Street box was the only one to test positive.
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/29/Amerithrax-letter-a.jpg/220px-Amerithrax-letter-a.jpg)
TheNew York Postand NBC News letters contained the following note:
09-11-01
THIS IS NEXT
TAKEPENACILIN[sic] NOW
DEATH TO AMERICA
DEATH TO ISRAEL
ALLAH IS GREAT
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1e/Anthraxnote2.jpg/220px-Anthraxnote2.jpg)
The second note was addressed to SenatorsDaschleandLeahyand read:
09-11-01
YOU CAN NOT STOP US.
WE HAVE THIS ANTHRAX.
YOU DIE NOW.
ARE YOU AFRAID?
DEATH TO AMERICA.
DEATH TO ISRAEL.
ALLAH IS GREAT.
All of the letters were copies made by a copy machine, and the originals were never found. Each letter was trimmed to a slightly different size. The Senate letter uses punctuation, while the media letter does not. The handwriting on the media letter and envelopes is roughly twice the size of the handwriting on the Senate letter and envelopes. The envelopes addressed to Senators Daschle and Leahy had a fictitious return address:
4th Grade
Greendale School
Franklin Park NJ 08852
Franklin Park, New Jersey,exists, but the ZIP code 08852 is for nearbyMonmouth Junction, New Jersey.There is no Greendale School in Franklin Park or Monmouth Junction, though there is a Greenbrook Elementary School in adjacentSouth Brunswick Township, New Jersey.
False leads
[edit]The Amerithrax investigation involved many leads which took time to evaluate and resolve. Among them were numerous letters which initially appeared to be related to the anthrax attacks but were never directly linked.
For example, before the New York letters were found,hoaxletters mailed fromSt. Petersburg, Florida,were thought to be the anthrax letters or related to them.[28][29]A letter received at the Microsoft offices inReno, Nevada,after the discovery of the Daschle letters, gave afalse positivein a test for anthrax.[30]Later, because the letter had been sent from Malaysia,Marilyn W. ThompsonofThe Washington Postconnected the letter toSteven Hatfill,whose girlfriend was from Malaysia.[31]The letter merely contained a check and some pornography, and was neither a threat nor a hoax.[32]
Acopycathoax letter containing harmless white powder was opened by reporterJudith MillerinThe New York Timesnewsroom.[33][34]
Also unconnected to the anthrax attacks was a large envelope received atAmerican Media, Inc.,in Boca Raton, Florida (which was among the victims of the attacks), in September 2001. It was addressed "Please forward toJennifer Lopezc/o The Sun ", containing a metalcigar tubewith a cheap cigar inside, an empty can of chewing tobacco, a small detergent carton, pink powder, a Star of David pendant, and "a handwritten letter to Jennifer Lopez. The writer said how much he loved her and asked her to marry him."[35]Another letter, which mimicked the original anthrax letter to Senator Daschle, was mailed to Daschle from London in November 2001, at a time when Hatfill was in England, not far from London.[36][37][38]Shortly before the discovery of the anthrax letters, someone sent a letter to authorities stating, "Dr. Assaadis a potential biological terrorist. "[39]No connection to the anthrax letters was ever found.[40]
During the first years of the FBI's investigation, Don Foster, a professor of English at Vassar College, attempted to connect the anthrax letters and various hoax letters from the same period to Steven Hatfill.[36]Foster's beliefs were published inVanity FairandReader's Digest.Hatfill sued and was later exonerated. The lawsuit was settled out of court.[41]
Anthrax material
[edit]![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/76/Anthrax_Envelope_to_Daschle.jpg/220px-Anthrax_Envelope_to_Daschle.jpg)
The letters sent to the media contained a coarse brown material, while the letters sent to the two U.S. Senators contained a fine powder.[42][43]The brown granular anthrax mostly caused cutaneousanthraxinfections (9 out of 12 cases), although Kathy Nguyen's case ofinhalational anthraxoccurred at the same time and in the same general area as two cutaneous cases and several other exposures. The AMI letter which caused inhalation cases in Florida appears to have been mailed at the same time as the other media letters. The fine powder anthrax sent to Daschle and Leahy mostly caused the more dangerous form of infection known as inhalational anthrax (8 out of 10 cases). Postal worker Patrick O'Donnell and accountant Linda Burch contractedcutaneous anthraxfrom the Senate letters.
All of the material was derived from the same bacterialstrainknown as theAmes strain.[44]The Ames strain is a common strain isolated from a cow in Texas in 1981. The name "Ames" refers to the town ofAmes, Iowa,but was mistakenly attached to this isolate in 1981 because of a mix-up about the mailing label on a package.[45][46]First researched at theUnited States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases(USAMRIID), atFort Detrick, Maryland,the Ames strain was subsequently distributed to sixteen bio-research labs within the U.S., as well as three international locations (Canada, Sweden and the United Kingdom).[47]
DNA sequencingof the anthrax collected from Robert Stevens (the first victim) was conducted atThe Institute for Genomic Research(TIGR) beginning in December 2001. Sequencing was finished within a month and the analysis was published in the journalSciencein early 2002.[48]
Radiocarbon datingconducted by theLawrence Livermore National Laboratoryin June 2002 established that the anthrax wasculturedno more than two years before the mailings.[49]
Mutations
[edit]![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a3/RMR-1029.jpg/220px-RMR-1029.jpg)
Early in 2002, it was noted that there were variants or mutations in the anthrax cultures grown from powder found in the letters. Scientists at TIGR sequenced the complete genomes from many of these isolates during the period from 2002 to 2004. This sequencing identified three relatively large changes in some of the isolates, each comprising a region of DNA that had been duplicated or triplicated. The size of these regions ranged from 823 to 2607base pairs,and all occurred near the same genes. Details of these mutations were published in 2011 in theProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.[50]These changes became the basis ofPCRassays used to test other samples to find any that contained the same mutations. The assays were validated over the many years of the investigation, and a repository of Ames samples was also built. From roughly 2003 to 2006 the repository and the screening of the 1,070 Ames samples in that repository were completed.[51]
Controversy over coatings and additives
[edit]On October 24, 2001, USAMRIID scientistPeter Jahrlingwas summoned to the White House after he reported signs that silicon had been added to the anthrax recovered from the letter addressed to Daschle. Silicon would make the anthrax more capable of penetrating the lungs. Seven years later, Jahrling told theLos Angeles Timeson September 17, 2008, "I believe I made an honest mistake,” adding that he had been "overly impressed" by what he thought he saw under the microscope.[52]
Richard Preston's bookThe Demon in the Freezer[53]provides details of conversations and events at USAMRIID during the period from October 16, 2001, to October 25, 2001. Key scientists described to Preston what they were thinking during that period. When the Daschle spores first arrived at USAMRIID, the key concern was thatsmallpoxviruses might be mixed with the spores. "Jahrling met [John] Ezzell in a hallway and said, in a loud voice, 'Goddamn it, John, we need to know if the powder is laced with smallpox.'" Thus, the initial search was for signs of smallpox viruses. On October 16, USAMRIID scientists began by examining spores that had been "in a milky white liquid" from "a field test done by the FBI's Hazardous Materials Response Unit.” Liquid chemicals were then used to deactivate the spores. When scientists turned up the power on the electron beam of the Transmission Electron Microscope (TEM), "The spores began to ooze." According to Preston,
"Whoa," Jahrling muttered, hunched over the eyepieces. Something was boiling off the spores. "This is clearly bad stuff," he said. This was not your mother's anthrax. The spores had something in them, an additive, perhaps. Could this material have come from a national bioweapons program? From Iraq? Did al-Qaeda have anthrax capability that was this good?
On October 25, 2001, the day after senior officials at the White House were informed that "additives" had been found in the anthrax, USAMRIID scientist Tom Geisbert took a different, irradiated sample of the Daschle anthrax to theArmed Forces Institute of Pathology(AFIP) to "find out if the powder contained any metals or elements.” AFIP'senergy-dispersive X-ray spectrometerreportedly indicated "that there were two extra elements in the spores: silicon and oxygen. Silicon dioxide is glass. The anthrax terrorist or terrorists had put powdered glass, or silica, into the anthrax. The silica was powdered so finely that under Geisbert's electron microscope it had looked like fried-egg gunk dripping off the spores."
The "goop" Peter Jahrling had seen oozing from the spores was not seen when AFIP examined different spores killed with radiation.
The controversy began the day after the White House meeting.The New York Timesreported, "Contradicting Some U.S. Officials, 3 Scientists Call Anthrax Powder High-Grade – Two Experts say the anthrax was altered to produce a more deadly weapon,”[54]andThe Washington Postreported, "Additive Made Spores Deadlier.”[55]Countless news stories discussed the "additives" for the next eight years, continuing into 2010.[56][57]
Later, the FBI claimed a "lone individual" could have created the anthrax spores for as little as $2,500, using readily available laboratory equipment.[58]
A number of press reports appeared suggesting the Senate anthrax had coatings and additives.[59][60]Newsweekreported the anthrax sent to Senator Leahy had been coated with a chemical compound previously unknown to bioweapons experts.[61]On October 28, 2002,The Washington Postreported "FBI's Theory on Anthrax is Doubted,”[62]suggesting that the senate spores were coated withfumed silica.Two bioweapons experts that were utilized as consultants by the FBI,Kenneth AlibekandMatthew Meselson,were shown electron micrographs of the anthrax from the Daschle letter. In a November 5, 2002 letter to the editors ofThe Washington Post,they stated that they saw no evidence the anthrax spores had been coated with fumed silica.[20]
InSciencemagazine, one group of scientists said that the material could have been made by someone knowledgeable with standard laboratory equipment. Another group said it "was a diabolical advance in biological weapons technology.”[63]The article describes "a technique used to anchor silica nanoparticles to the surface of spores" using "polymerized glass.”[63]
An August 2006 article inApplied and Environmental Microbiology,written by Douglas Beecher of the FBI labs in Quantico, Virginia, states "Individuals familiar with the compositions of the powders in the letters have indicated that they were comprised simply of spores purified to different extents."[64]The article also specifically criticizes "a widely circulated misconception" "that the spores were produced using additives and sophisticated engineering supposedly akin to military weapon production.”[64]The harm done by this misconception is described this way: "This idea is usually the basis for implying that the powders were inordinately dangerous compared to spores alone. The persistent credence given to this impression fosters erroneous preconceptions, which may misguide research and preparedness efforts and generally detract from the magnitude of hazards posed by simple spore preparations."[64]Critics of the article complained that it did not provide supporting references.[65][66]
False report of bentonite
[edit]In late October 2001,ABCchief investigative correspondentBrian Rosslinked the anthrax sample toSaddam Husseinbecause of its purportedly containing the unusual additivebentonite.On October 26, Ross said, "sources tell ABCNEWS the anthrax in the tainted letter sent to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle was laced with bentonite. The potent additive is known to have been used by only one country in producing biochemical weapons—Iraq.... [I]t is a trademark of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program... The discovery of bentonite came in an urgent series of tests conducted atFort Detrick,Maryland, and elsewhere. "On October 28, Ross said that" despite continued White House denials, four well-placed and separate sources have told ABC News that initial tests on the anthrax by the U.S. Army at Fort Detrick, Maryland, have detected trace amounts of the chemical additives bentonite and silica ",[67]a charge that was repeated several times on October 28 and 29.[68]
On October 29, 2001, White House spokesman Scott Stanzel "disputed reports that the anthrax sent to the Senate contained bentonite, an additive that ha[d] been used in Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program.” Stanzel said, "Based on the test results we have, no bentonite has been found.”[69]The same day, Major General John Parker at a White House briefing stated, "We do know that we found silica in the samples. Now, we don't know what that motive would be, or why it would be there, or anything. But there is silica in the samples. And that led us to be absolutely sure that there was no aluminum in the sample, because the combination of a silicate, plus aluminum, is sort of the major ingredients of bentonite."[70]Just over a week later,Homeland Security AdvisorTom Ridgein a White House press conference on November 7, 2001, stated, "The ingredient that we talked about before was silicon."[71]Neither Ross at ABC nor anyone else publicly pursued any further claims about bentonite, despite Ross's original claim that "four well-placed and separate sources" had confirmed its detection.
Dispute over silicon content
[edit]Some of the anthrax spores (65–75%) in the anthrax attack letters contained silicon inside their spore coats. Silicon was even reportedly found inside the natural spore coat of a spore that was still inside the "mother germ,” which was asserted to confirm that the element was not added after the spores were formed and purified, i.e., the spores were not "weaponized.”[21][22]
In 2010, a Japanese study reported, "silicon (Si) is considered to be a" quasiessential "element for most living organisms. However, silicate uptake in bacteria and its physiological functions have remained obscure." The study showed that spores from some species can contain as much as 6.3% dry weight of silicates.[72]"For more than 20 years, significant levels of silicon had been reported in spores of at least someBacillusspecies, including those ofBacillus cereus,a close relative ofB. anthracis."According to spore expert Peter Setlow," Since silicate accumulation in other organisms can impart structural rigidity, perhaps silicate plays such a role for spores as well. "[73]
The FBI lab concluded that 1.4% of the powder in the Leahy letter was silicon. Stuart Jacobson, a small-particle chemistry expert stated that:
This is a shockingly high proportion [of silicon]. It is a number one would expect from the deliberate weaponization of anthrax, but not from any conceivable accidental contamination.[74]
Scientists at theLawrence Livermore National Laboratoryconducted experiments in an attempt to determine if the amount of silicon in the growth medium was the controlling factor which caused silicon to accumulate inside a spore's natural coat. The Livermore scientists tried 56 different experiments, adding increasingly high amounts of silicon to the media. All of their results were far below the 1.4% level of the attack anthrax, some as low as.001%. The conclusion was that something other than the level of silicon controlled how much silicon was absorbed by the spores.[74][75]
Richard O. Spertzel,a microbiologist who led the United Nations' biological weapons inspections of Iraq, wrote that the anthrax used could not have come from the lab where Ivins worked.[76]Spertzel said he remained skeptical of the Bureau's argument despite the new evidence presented on August 18, 2008, in an unusual FBI briefing for reporters. He questioned the FBI's claim that the powder was less than military grade, in part because of the presence of high levels of silica. The FBI had been unable to reproduce the attack spores with the high levels of silica. The FBI attributed the presence of high silica levels to "natural variability".[77]This conclusion of the FBI contradicted its statements at an earlier point in the investigation, when the FBI had stated, based on the silicon content, that the anthrax was "weaponized", a step that made the powder more airy and required special scientific know-how.[78]
"If there is that much silicon, it had to have been added," stated Jeffrey Adamovicz, who supervised Ivins' work at Fort Detrick.[74]Adamovicz explained that the silicon in the anthrax attack could have been added via a large fermentor, whichBattelleand some other facilities use but "we did not use a fermentor to grow anthrax at USAMRIID... [and] We did not have the capability to add silicon compounds to anthrax spores." Ivins had neither the skills nor the means to attach silicon to anthrax spores. Spertzel explained that the Fort Detrick facility did not handle anthrax in powdered form. "I don't think there's anyone there who would have the foggiest idea how to do it."[74]
Investigation
[edit]![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fb/FBI_search_during_Amerithrax_investigation.jpg/220px-FBI_search_during_Amerithrax_investigation.jpg)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a6/Anthraxreward.jpg/220px-Anthraxreward.jpg)
Authorities traveled to six continents, interviewed over 9,000 people, conducted 67 searches and issued over 6,000 subpoenas. "Hundreds of FBI personnel worked the case at the outset, struggling to discern whether the Sept. 11 al-Qaeda attacks and the anthrax murders were connected before eventually concluding that they were not."[79]In September 2006, there were still 17 FBI agents and 10postal inspectorsassigned to the case, including FBI Special AgentC. Frank Figliuzziwho was the on-scene commander of the evidence recovery efforts.[citation needed]
Anthrax archive destroyed
[edit]The FBI andCenters for Disease Control and Prevention(CDC) both gave permission for Iowa State University to destroy the Iowa anthrax archive and the archive was destroyed on October 10 and 11, 2001.[80]
The FBI and CDC investigation was hampered by the destruction of a large collection of anthrax spores collected over more than seven decades and kept in more than 100 vials atIowa State University,Ames, Iowa. Many scientists claim that the quick destruction of the anthrax spores collection in Iowa eliminated crucial evidence useful for the investigation. A precise match between the strain of anthrax used in the attacks and a strain in the collection would have offered hints as to when bacteria had been isolated and, perhaps, as to how widely it had been distributed to researchers. Such genetic clues could have given investigators the evidence necessary to identify the perpetrators.[80]
Al-Qaeda and Iraq blamed for attacks
[edit]Eventsleading up to theIraq War |
---|
![]() |
|
Immediately after the anthrax attacks,White Houseofficials pressuredFBI DirectorRobert Muellerto publicly blameal-Qaedafollowing theSeptember 11 attacks.[81]During the president's morning intelligence briefings, Mueller was "beaten up" for not producing proof that the killer spores were the handiwork ofOsama bin Laden,according to a former aide. "They really wanted to blame somebody in the Middle East," the retired senior FBI official stated. The FBI knew early on that the anthrax used was of a consistency requiring sophisticated equipment and was unlikely to have been produced in "some cave". At the same time, President Bush and Vice President Cheney in public statements speculated about the possibility of a link between the anthrax attacks and al-Qaeda.[82]The Guardianreported in early October that American scientists had implicated Iraq as the source of the anthrax,[83]and the next dayThe Wall Street Journaleditorialized that al-Qaeda perpetrated the mailings, with Iraq the source of the anthrax.[84]A few days later,John McCainsuggested on theLate Show with David Lettermanthat the anthrax may have come from Iraq,[85]and the next weekABC Newsdid a series of reports stating that three or four (depending on the report) sources had identifiedbentoniteas an ingredient in the anthrax preparations, implicating Iraq.[67][68][86]
Statements by the White House[69]and public officials[70]quickly stated that there was no bentonite in the attack anthrax. "No tests ever found or even suggested the presence of bentonite. The claim was just concocted from the start. It just never happened."[87]Nonetheless, a few journalists repeated ABC's bentonite report for several years,[88]even after the invasion of Iraq proved there was no involvement. In an interview withHamid Mir,Osama bin Laden denied any knowledge of the Anthrax attacks.[89]
"Person of interest"
[edit]Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, a molecular biologist at theState University of New York at Purchaseand chairwoman of a biological weapons panel at theFederation of American Scientists,and others began claiming that the attack might be the work of a "rogue CIA agent" in October 2001, as soon as it became known that the Ames strain of anthrax had been used in the attacks, and she told the FBI the name of the "most likely" person.[90]On November 21, 2001, she made similar statements to the Biological and Toxic Weapons convention in Geneva.[91]In December 2001, she published "A Compilation of Evidence and Comments on the Source of the Mailed Anthrax" via the web site of theFederation of American Scientists(FAS) claiming that the attacks were "perpetrated with the unwitting assistance of a sophisticated government program".[92]She discussed the case with reporters fromThe New York Times.[93]On January 4, 2002,Nicholas KristofofThe New York Timespublished a column titled "Profile of a Killer"[94]stating "I think I know who sent out the anthrax last fall." For months, Rosenberg gave speeches and stated her beliefs to many reporters from around the world. She posted "Analysis of the Anthrax Attacks" to the FAS web site on January 17, 2002. On February 5, 2002, she published "Is the FBI Dragging Its Feet?"[95]In response, the FBI stated, "There is no prime suspect in this case at this time".[96]The Washington Postreported, "FBI officials over the last week have flatly discounted Dr. Rosenberg's claims".[97]On June 13, 2002, Rosenberg posted "The Anthrax Case: What the FBI Knows" to the FAS site.[98]On June 18, 2002, she presented her theories to senate staffers working for Senators Daschle and Leahy.[99]On June 25, the FBI publicly searchedSteven Hatfill's apartment, and he became a household name. "The FBI also pointed out that Hatfill had agreed to the search and is not considered a suspect."[100]American Prospect and Salon.com reported, "Hatfill is not a suspect in the anthrax case, the FBI says."[101]On August 3, 2002, Rosenberg told the media that the FBI asked her if "a team of government scientists could be trying to frame Steven J. Hatfill".[102]In August 2002, Attorney GeneralJohn Ashcroftlabeled Hatfill a "person of interest"in a press conference, though no charges were brought against him. Hatfill is a virologist, and he vehemently denied that he had anything to do with the anthrax mailings and sued the FBI, the Justice Department, Ashcroft,Alberto Gonzales,and others for violating his constitutional rights and for violating the Privacy Act. On June 27, 2008, the Department of Justice announced that it would settle Hatfill's case for $5.8 million.[103]
Hatfill also suedThe New York Timesand its columnistNicholas D. Kristof,as well asDonald Foster,Vanity Fair,Reader's Digest,andVassar Collegefor defamation. The case againstThe New York Timeswas initially dismissed,[104]but it was reinstated on appeal. The dismissal was upheld by the appeals court on July 14, 2008, on the basis that Hatfill was a public figure and malice had not been proven.[105]The Supreme Court rejected an appeal on December 15, 2008.[106]Hatfill's lawsuits againstVanity FairandReader's Digestwere settled out of court in February 2007, but no details were made public. The statement released by Hatfill's lawyers[41]said, "Dr. Hatfill's lawsuit has now been resolved to the mutual satisfaction of all the parties".
Bruce Edwards Ivins
[edit]![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9d/Bruce_Ivins_award_ceremony_crop.jpg/170px-Bruce_Ivins_award_ceremony_crop.jpg)
Bruce E. Ivinshad worked for 18 years at the government's bio defense labs atFort Detrickas a biodefense researcher. The Associated Press reported on August 1, 2008, that he had apparently committed suicide at the age of 62. It was widely reported that the FBI was about to press charges against him, but the evidence was largely circumstantial and the grand jury in Washington reported that it was not ready to issue an indictment.[107]Rush D. Holt Jr.represented the district where the anthrax letters were mailed, and he said that circumstantial evidence was not enough and asked FBI directorRobert S. Muellerto appear before Congress to provide an account of the investigation.[108]Ivins' death left two unanswered questions. Scientists familiar with germ warfare said that there was no evidence that he had the skills to turn anthrax into an inhalable powder. Alan Zelicoff aided the FBI investigation, and he stated: "I don't think a vaccine specialist could do it… This is aerosol physics, not biology".[109]
W. Russell Byrne worked in the bacteriology division of the Fort Detrick research facility. He said that Ivins was "hounded" by FBI agents who raided his home twice, and he was hospitalized for depression during that time. According to Byrne and local police, Ivins was removed from his workplace out of fears that he might harm himself or others. "I think he was just psychologically exhausted by the whole process," Byrne said. "There are people who you just know are ticking bombs. He was not one of them."[110]
On August 6, 2008, federal prosecutors declared Ivins the sole perpetrator of the crime when US AttorneyJeffrey A. Taylorlaid out the case to the public. "The genetically unique parent material of the anthrax spores... was created and solely maintained by Dr. Ivins." But other experts disagreed, including biological warfare and anthrax expertMeryl Nass,who stated: "Let me reiterate: no matter how good the microbial forensics may be, they can only, at best, link the anthrax to a particular strain and lab. Theycannotlink it to any individual. "At least 10 scientists had regular access to the laboratory and its anthrax stock, and possibly quite a few more, counting visitors from other institutions and workers at laboratories in Ohio and New Mexico that had received anthrax samples from the flask.[111]The FBI later claimed to have identified 419 people at Fort Detrick and other locations who had access to the lab where flask RMR-1029 was stored, or who had received samples from flask RMR-1029.[112]
Mental health issues
[edit]Ivins told a mental health counselor more than a year before the anthrax attacks that he was interested in a young woman who lived out of town and that he had "mixed poison" which he took with him when he went to watch her play in a soccer match. "If she lost, he was going to poison her," said the counselor, who treated Ivins at a Frederick clinic four or five times in mid-2000. She said that Ivins emphasized that he was a skillful scientist who "knew how to do things without people finding out". The counselor was so alarmed by his emotionless description of a specific, homicidal plan that she immediately alerted the head of her clinic and a psychiatrist who had treated Ivins, as well as the Frederick Police Department. She said that the police told her that nothing could be done because she did not have the woman's address or last name.[113]
In 2008, Ivins told a different therapist that he planned to kill his co-workers and "go out in a blaze of glory". That therapist stated in an application for a restraining order that Ivins had a "history dating to his graduate days of homicidal threats, actions, plans, threats and actions towards therapists". Dr. David Irwin, his psychiatrist, called him "homicidal, sociopathic with clear intentions."[114]
Evidence of consciousness of guilt
[edit]![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f1/Bruce_Ivins%27_office_at_Fort_Detrick.jpg/288px-Bruce_Ivins%27_office_at_Fort_Detrick.jpg)
According to the report on the Amerithrax investigation published by the Department of Justice, Ivins engaged in actions and made statements that indicated a consciousness of guilt. He took environmental samples in his laboratory without authorization and decontaminated areas in which he had worked without reporting his activities. He also threw away a book about secret codes, which described methods similar to those used in the anthrax letters. Ivins threatened other scientists, made equivocal statements about his possible involvement in a conversation with an acquaintance, and put together outlandish theories in an effort to shift the blame for the anthrax mailings to people close to him.[12]: 9
The FBI said that Ivins' justifications for his actions after the environmental sampling, as well as his explanations for a subsequent sampling, contradicted his explanation for the motives for the sampling.[115]
According to the Department of Justice, flask RMR-1029, which was created and controlled by Ivins, was used to create "the murder weapon".[47][116][117][118]
In 2002, researchers did not believe it was possible to distinguish between anthrax variants.[119]In January 2002, Ivins suggested that DNA sequencing should show differences in the genetics of anthrax mutations which would allow the source to be identified. Despite researchers advising the FBI that this may not have been possible, Ivins tutored agents on how to recognize them. Considered cutting edge at the time, this technique is now commonplace.[119]In February 2002, Ivins volunteered to provide samples from several variants of the Ames strain in order to compare their morphs. He submitted two test tube "slants" each from four samples of the Ames strain in his collection. Two of the slants were from flask RMR-1029. Although the slants from flask RMR-1029 were later reported to be a positive match, all eight slants were reportedly in the wrong type of test tube and would therefore not be usable as evidence in court. On March 29, 2002, Ivins' boss instructed Ivins and others in suites B3 and B4 on how to properly prepare slants for the FBI Repository. The subpoena also included instructions on the proper way to prepare slants. When Ivins was told that his February samples did not meet FBIR requirements, he prepared eight new slants. The two new slants prepared from flask RMR-1029 submitted in April by Ivins did not contain the mutations that were later determined to be in flask RMR-1029.[120][121]
It was reported that in April 2004, Henry Heine found a test tube in the lab containing anthrax and contacted Ivins.[119]In an email sent in reply, Ivins reportedly told him it was probably RMR-1029 and for Heine to forward a sample to the FBI.[119]Doubts regarding the reliability of the FBI tests were later raised when the FBI tested Heine's sample and a further one from Heine's test tube: one tested negative and one positive.[119]
A DOJ summary report of February 19, 2010, said that "the evidence suggested that Dr. Ivins obstructed the investigation either by providing a submission which was not in compliance with the subpoena, or worse, that he deliberately submitted a false sample."[12]: 79 Records released under theFreedom of Information Actin 2011 show that Ivins provided four sets of samples from 2002 to 2004, twice the number the FBI reported. Three of the four sets tested positive for the morphs.[119]
The FBI said that "At a group therapy session on July 9, 2008, Dr. Ivins was particularly upset. He revealed to the counselor and psychologist leading the group, and other members of the group, that he was a suspect in the anthrax investigation and that he was angry at the investigators, the government, and the system in general. He said he was not going to face the death penalty, but instead had a plan to 'take out' co-workers and other individuals who had wronged him. He noted that it was possible, with a plan, to commit murder and not make a mess. He stated that he had a bullet-proof vest, and a list of co-workers who had wronged him, and said that he was going to obtain a Glock firearm from his son within the next day, because federal agents were watching him and he could not obtain a weapon on his own. He added that he was going to 'go out in a blaze of glory.'"[12]: 50
While in a mental hospital, Ivins allegedly made menacing phone calls[122]to his social workerJean Duleyon July 11 and 12.
Alleged hidden texts
[edit]In the letters sent to the media, the characters 'A' and 'T' were sometimes emboldened or highlighted by tracing over, according to the FBI suggesting that the letters contained a hidden code.[12]: 58 [123][124][125][126][127]
Some believe the letters to theNew York Post[128]and Tom Brokaw[129]contained a "hidden message" in such highlighted characters. Below is the media text with the highlighted As and Ts:
- 09-11-01
- THIS IS NEXT
- TAKE PENACILIN [sic] NOW
- DEATHTO AMERICA
- DEATHTO ISRAEL
- ALLAH IS GREAT
According to the FBI, Summary Report issued on February 19, 2010, following the search of Ivins' home, cars, and office on November 1, 2007, investigators began examining his trash.[12]: 64 A week later, just after 1:00 a.m. on the morning of November 8, the FBI stated that Ivins was observed throwing away "a copy of a book entitledGödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid,published by Douglas Hofstadter in 1979 "and" a 1992 issue ofAmerican Scientist Journalwhich contained an article entitled 'The Linguistics of DNA,' and discussed, among other things,codonsand hidden messages ".[12]: 61
The bookGödel, Escher, Bachcontains a lengthy description of the encoding/decoding procedures, including an illustration of hiding a message within a message by emboldening certain characters.[130]According to the FBI Summary Report, "[w]hen they lifted out just the bolded letters, investigators got TTT AAT TAT – an apparent hidden message". The 3-letter groups are codons, "meaning that each sequence of three nucleic acids will code for a specific amino acid".[12]: 59
- TTT =Phenylalanine(single-letter designatorF)
- AAT =Asparagine(single-letter designatorN)
- TAT =Tyrosine(single-letter designatorY)
The FBI Summary Report proceeds to say: "From this analysis, two possible hidden meanings emerged: (1) 'FNY' – a verbal assault on New York, and (2) PAT – the nickname of [Dr. Ivins'] Former Colleague #2." Ivins was known to have a dislike for New York City, and four of the media letters had been sent to New York.[12]: 60 The report states that it "was obviously impossible for the Task Force to determine with certainty that either of these two translations was correct", however, "the key point to the investigative analysis is that there is a hidden message, not so much what that message is".[12]: 60 According to the FBI, Ivins showed a fascination with codes and also had an interest in secrets and hidden messages,[12]: 60ff and was familiar with biochemical codons.[12]: 59ff
Ivins' "non-denial" denials
[edit]Experts have suggested that the anthrax mailings included a number of indications that the mailer was trying to avoid harming anyone with his warning letters.[36][92]
Examples:
- None of the intended recipients of the letters were infected.
- The seams on the backs of the envelopes were taped over as if to make certain the powders could not escape through open seams.[131]
- The letters were folded with the "pharmaceutical fold", which was used for centuries to safely contain and transport doses of powdered medicines (and currently to safely hold trace evidence).[citation needed]
- The media letters provided "medical advice": "TAKE PENACILIN [sic] NOW. "
- The Senate letters informed the recipient that the powder was anthrax: "WE HAVE THIS ANTHRAX."
- At the time of the mailings, it was generally believed that such powders could not escape from a sealed envelope except through the two open corners where a letter opener is inserted, which had been taped shut.[132]
In June 2008, Ivins wasinvoluntarily committedto a psychiatric hospital. The FBI stated that during a June 5 group therapy session there, Ivins had a conversation with an unnamed witness, during which he made a series of statements about the anthrax mailings that the FBI said could best be characterized as "non-denial denials".[12]: 70–71 When asked about the anthrax attacks and whether he could have had anything to do with them, the FBI said that Ivins admitted he suffered from loss of memory, stating that he would wake up dressed and wonder if he had gone out during the night. Some of his responses allegedly included the following selected quotes:
- "I can tell you I don't have it in my heart to kill anybody."
- "I do not have any recollection of ever have doing anything like that. As a matter of fact, I don't have no clue how to, how to make a bio-weapon and I don't want to know."
- "I can tell you, I am not a killer at heart."
- "If I found out I was involved in some way, and, and..."
- "I don't think of myself as a vicious, a, a nasty evil person."
- "I don't like to hurt people, accidentally, in, in any way. And [several scientists at USAMRIID] wouldn't do that. And I, in my right mind wouldn't do it [laughs]... But it's still, but I still feel responsibility because [the RMR-1029 flask containing the anthrax spores] wasn't locked up at the time..."
In an interview with aconfidential human resource(CHR) which took place on January 8, 2008, the FBI said that the CHR told FBI agents that since Ivins' last interview with the FBI (on November 1, 2007), Ivins had "on occasion spontaneously declared at work, 'I could never intentionally kill or hurt someone'".[133]
Doubts about FBI conclusions
[edit]After theFBIannounced that Ivins acted alone, many people with a broad range of political views, some of whom were colleagues of Ivins, expressed doubts.[134]Reasons cited for these doubts include that Ivins was only one of 100 people who could have worked with the vial used in the attacks and that the FBI couldn't place him near the New Jersey mailbox from which the anthrax was mailed.[134][135]The FBI's own genetic consultant, Claire Fraser-Ligget, stated that the failure to find any anthrax spores in Ivins' house, vehicle or on any of his belongings seriously undermined the case.[121]Noting unanswered questions about the FBI's scientific tests and lack of peer review, Jeffrey Adamovicz, one of Ivins' supervisors in USAMRIID's bacteriology division, stated, "I'd say the vast majority of people [at Fort Detrick] think he had nothing to do with it."[136]More than 200 colleagues attended his memorial service following his death.[137]
Alternative theories proposed include FBI incompetence, thatSyriaorIraqdirected the attacks, or that similar to some9/11 conspiracy theoriesthe US government knew in advance that the attacks would occur.[134]SenatorPatrick Leahy,who had received an anthrax-tainted letter, said the FBI had not produced convincing evidence in the case.[citation needed]The Washington Postcalled for an independent investigation in the case saying that reporters and scientists were poking holes in the case.[138]
On September 17, 2008, Senator Patrick Leahy told FBI Director Robert Mueller during testimony before the Judiciary Committee which Leahy chairs, that he did not believe Army scientist Bruce Ivins acted alone in the 2001 anthrax attacks, stating:
I believe there are others involved, either as accessories before or accessories after the fact. I believe that there are others out there. I believe there are others who could be charged with murder.[139]
Tom Daschle,the other Democratic senator targeted, believes Ivins was the sole culprit.[140]
Although the FBI matched the genetic origin of the attack spores to the spores in Ivins' flask RMR-1029, the spores within that flask did not have the same silicon chemical "fingerprint" as the spores in the attack letters. The implication is that spores taken out of flask RMR-1029 had been used to grownewspores for the mailings.[141]
On April 22, 2010, theU.S. National Research Council,the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences, convened a review committee that heard testimony from Henry Heine, a microbiologist who was formerly employed at the Army's biodefense laboratory in Maryland where Ivins had worked. Heine told the panel that it was impossible that the deadly spores had been produced undetected in Ivins' laboratory, as maintained by the FBI. He testified that at least a year of intensive work would have been required using the equipment at the army lab to produce the quantity of spores contained in the letters and that such an intensive effort could not have escaped the attention of colleagues. Heine also told the panel that lab technicians who worked closely with Ivins have told him they saw no such work. He stated further that biological containment measures where Ivins worked were inadequate to prevent Anthrax spores from floating out of the laboratory into animal cages and offices. "You'd have had dead animals or dead people," Heine said.[142]According to Science Magazine,[143]"Heine caveated his remarks by saying that he himself had no experience making anthrax stocks." Science magazine provides additional comments by Adam Driks of Loyola who stated that the amount of anthrax in the letters could be made in "a number of days". Emails by Ivins state, "We can presently make 1 X 10^12 [one trillion] spores per week."[144]AndThe New York Timesreported on May 7, 2002, that the Leahy letter contained.871 grams of anthrax powder [equivalent to 871 billion spores][145]
In a technical article to be published in theJournal of Bioterrorism & Biodefensein 2011, three scientists argued that the preparation of the spores did require a high level of sophistication, contrary to the position taken by federal authorities that the material would have been unsophisticated. The paper is largely based on the high level oftindetected in tests of the mailed anthrax, and the tin may have been used to encapsulate the spores, which required processing not possible in laboratories to which Ivins had access. According to the scientific article, this raises the possibility that Ivins was not the perpetrator or did not act alone. Earlier in the investigation, the FBI had named tin as a substance "of interest" but the final report makes no mention of it and fails to address the high tin content. The chairwoman of theNational Academy of Sciencespanel that reviewed the FBI's scientific work and the director of a separate review by theGovernment Accountability Officesaid that the issues raised by the paper should be addressed. Other scientists, such as Johnathan L. Kiel, a retired Air Force scientist who worked on anthrax for many years, did not agree with the authors' assessments — saying that the tin might be a random contaminant rather than a clue to complex processing.[146]Kiel said that tin might simply be picked up by the spores as a result of the use of metal lab containers, although he had not tested that idea.[146]
In 2011, the chief of the Bacteriology Division at the Army laboratory, Patricia Worsham, said it lacked the facilities in 2001 to make the kind of spores in the letters. In 2011, the government conceded that the equipment required was not available in the lab, calling into question a key pillar of the FBI's case, that Ivins had produced the anthrax in his lab. According to Worsham, the lab's equipment for drying spores, a machine the size of a refrigerator, was not in containment so that it would be expected that non-immunized personnel in that area would have become ill. Colleagues of Ivins at the lab have asserted that he couldn't have grown the quantity of anthrax used in the letters without their noticing it.[147]
A spokesman for the Justice Department said that the investigators continue to believe that Ivins acted alone.[146]
Congressional oversight
[edit]Congressman Rush Holt, whose district in New Jersey includes a mailbox from which anthrax letters are believed to have been mailed, called for an investigation of the anthrax attacks by Congress or by an independent commission he proposed in a bill entitled the Anthrax Attacks Investigation Act (H.R. 1248).[148]Other members of Congress have also called for an independent investigation.[149]
An official of the U.S. administration said in March 2010 that President Barack Obama probably would veto legislation authorizing the next budget for U.S. intelligence agencies if it called for a new investigation into the 2001 anthrax attacks, as such an investigation "would undermine public confidence" in an FBI probe.[150]In a letter to congressional leaders,Peter Orszag,the director of theOffice of Management and Budgetat the time, wrote that an investigation would be "duplicative", and expressed concern about the appearance and precedent involved when Congress commissions an agency Inspector General to replicate a criminal investigation, but did not list the anthrax investigation as an issue that was serious enough to advise the President to veto the entire bill.[151]
National Academy of Sciences review
[edit]In what appears to have been a response to lingering skepticism, on September 16, 2008, the FBI asked theNational Academy of Sciences(NAS) to conduct an independent review of the scientific evidence that led the agency to implicate U.S. Army researcher Bruce Ivins in the anthrax letter attacks of 2001.[10]However, despite taking this action, Director Mueller said that the scientific methods applied in the investigation had already been vetted by the research community through the involvement of several dozen nonagency scientists.[10]
The NAS review officially got underway on April 24, 2009.[152]While the scope of the project included the consideration of facts and data surrounding the investigation of the 2001Bacillus anthracismailings, as well as a review of the principles and methods used by the FBI, the NAS committee was not given the task to "undertake an assessment of the probative value of the scientific evidence in any specific component of the investigation, prosecution, or civil litigation", nor to offer any view on the guilt or innocence of any of the involved people.[153]
In mid-2009, the NAS committee held public sessions, in which presentations were made by scientists, including scientists from the FBI laboratories.[154][155][156]In September 2009, scientists, includingPaul Keimof Northern Arizona University, Joseph Michael of Sandia National Laboratory and Peter Weber of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, presented their findings.[157][158]In one of the presentations, scientists reported that they did not find any silica particles on the outside of the spores (i.e., there was no "weaponization"[citation needed]), and that only some of the spores in the anthrax letters containedsiliconinside their spore coats. One of the spores was still inside the "mother germ", yet it already had silicon inside its spore coat.[21][159]
In October 2010, the FBI submitted materials to NAS that it had not previously provided. Included in the new materials were results of analyses performed on environmental samples collected from an overseas site. Those analyses yielded evidence of the Ames strain in some samples. NAS recommended a review of those investigations.[160]
The NAS committee released its report on February 15, 2011, concluding that it was "impossible to reach any definitive conclusion about the origins of the anthrax in the letters, based solely on the available scientific evidence".[160]The report also challenged the FBI and U.S. Justice Department's conclusion that a single-spore batch of anthrax maintained by Ivins at his laboratory at Fort Detrick in Maryland was the parent material for the spores in the anthrax letters.[160][161]
Aftermath
[edit]![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9d/2001_Anthrax_Attacks_Mail_Flow_Diagram.svg/220px-2001_Anthrax_Attacks_Mail_Flow_Diagram.svg.png)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c4/Amerithrax_Investigative_Summary.pdf/page1-220px-Amerithrax_Investigative_Summary.pdf.jpg)
Contamination and cleanup
[edit]Dozens of buildings were contaminated with anthrax as a result of the mailings. New York-based Bio Recovery Corporation and Ohio-based Bio-Recovery Services of America were placed in charge of the cleanup and decontamination of buildings in New York City, including ABC Headquarters and a midtown Manhattan building that was part of the Rockefeller Center and was home to theNew York Postand Fox News.[162]Bio Recovery provided the labor and equipment, such as HEPA filtered negative pressure air scrubbers, HEPA vacuums, respirators, cyclone foggers, and decontamination foam licensed by the Sandia National Laboratories. Ninety-three bags of anthrax-contaminated mail were removed from theNew York Postalone.[163]
The decontamination of the Brentwood postal facility took 26 months and cost $130 million. TheHamilton, New Jersey,postal facility[164]remained closed until March 2005; its cleanup cost $65 million.
TheUnited States Environmental Protection Agencyled the collaborative effort to clean up theHart Senate Office Building,where Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle's office was located, as well as the Ford Office Building and several other locations around the capitol.[165]It used $27 million of its funds for itsSuperfundprogram on the Capitol Hill anthrax cleanup.[166]One FBI document said the total damage exceeded $1 billion.[167]
Preparedness and research
[edit]The anthrax attacks, as well as the September 11, 2001 attacks, spurred significant increases in U.S. government funding for biological warfare research and preparedness. For example, biowarfare-related funding at theNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases(NIAID) increased by $1.5 billion in 2003. In 2004, Congress passed theProject Bioshield Act,which provides $5.6 billion over ten years for the purchase of new vaccines and drugs.[168]These included themonoclonal antibodyraxibacumab,which treats anthrax as well as anAnthrax Vaccine Adsorbed,both of which are stockpiled by the US government.[169]
Immediately after 9/11, well before the mailing of any of the letters involved in the anthrax attacks, the White House prudently began distributingciprofloxacin,the only drug approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of inhalational anthrax,[170]to senior staffers.[171][172]
Ciprofloxacin manufacturerBayeragreed to provide the United States with 100,000 doses for $.95 per dose, a cut in the price from $1.74.[173]The Canadian government had previously overridden the Bayer patent,[174]and the US was threatening the same measure if Bayer did not agree to negotiate the price.[175]Shortly afterward, it was recommended thatdoxycyclinewas a more appropriate drug to treat anthrax exposure.[173]A widened use of thebroad-spectrum antibioticciprofloxacin had also raised serious concerns amongst scientists about the creation and increased spread ofdrug-resistantbacteria strains.[173]Numerous corporations offered to supply drugs free of charge, contingent on theFood and Drug Administrationapproving their products for anthrax treatment. They includedBristol Myers Squibb(gatifloxacin),Johnson and Johnson(levofloxacin) and GlaxoSmithKline (two drugs).Eli LillyandPfizeralso offered to provide drugs at cost.[173]
U.S. mail crackdowns
[edit]The attack led to the widespread confiscation and curtailment of US Mail, especially to US media companies: "checks, bills, letters, and packages simply stopped arriving. For many people and businesses that had resisted the cultural shift to e-mail, this was the moment that pushed them online."[176]
Policy
[edit]After the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent anthrax mailings, lawmakers were pressed for legislation to combat further terrorist acts. Under heavy pressure from thenAttorney GeneralJohn D. Ashcroft,a bipartisan compromise in the House Judiciary Committee allowed legislation for thePatriot Actto move forward for full consideration later that month.[177][178]
A theory that Iraq was behind the attacks, based upon purported evidence that the powder was weaponized and some reports of alleged meetings between 9/11 conspirators and Iraqi officials, may have contributed to the hysteria which ultimately enabled the2003 Invasion of Iraq.[179]
Adverse health effects
[edit]Years after the attack, several anthrax victims reported lingering health problems including fatigue, shortness of breath and memory loss.[180]
A 2004 study proposed that the total number of people harmed by the anthrax attacks of 2001 should be raised to 68.[181]
Apostal inspector,William Paliscak, became severely ill and disabled after removing an anthrax-contaminated air filter from theBrentwoodmail facility on October 19, 2001. Although his doctors,Tyler CymetandGary Kerkvliet,believe that the illness was caused by anthrax exposure, blood tests did not find anthrax bacteria orantibodies,and therefore theCDCdoes not recognize it as a case of inhalational anthrax.[182]
Media
[edit]Television
[edit]The case was referenced on season 4, episode 24 ofCriminal Minds,
The second season of theNational GeographicTV seriesThe Hot Zonefocused on the attack.[183]
Season 12, episode 13 ofUnsolved Mysteriesprominently featured the anthrax attacks in detail.[184]
Dan Krauss' "The Anthrax Attacks: In the Shadow of 9/11"fromNetflixand theBBCtakes a "quasi-documentary" approach to the investigation. First streamed on September 8, 2022. [185] [186]
Season 8, episode 3 of "How It Really Happened" covers the timeline of the2001 Anthrax Attacksand investigation. First streamed in June of 2024.[187]
See also
[edit]- Anthrax hoax
- 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack– first widely recognized instance of bioterror in the United States
- 2003 ricin letters
- April 2013 ricin letters
- Austin serial bombings
- Anthrax War,2009 documentary
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
- Domestic terrorism in the United States
- Health crisis
- List of journalists killed in the United States
- List of unsolved murders
- October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts
- Statement on Chemical and Biological Defense Policies and Programs
- Timeline of violent incidents at the United States Capitol
- United States Postal Service Irradiated mail
References
[edit]- ^FBI, DoJ (February 19, 2010)."AMERITHRAX INVESTIGATIVE SUMMARY"(PDF).The United States Department of Justice.Archived(PDF)from the original on April 11, 2018.RetrievedApril 13,2018.
- ^"AMERITHRAX INVESTIGATIVE SUMMARY"(PDF).Federal Bureau of Investigation.RetrievedSeptember 7,2019.
- ^Amerithrax or Anthrax InvestigationArchivedNovember 27, 2016, at theWayback Machine,U.S.Federal Bureau of Investigation.
- ^FBI Amerithrax Documents(PDF)(published December 9, 2008), April 1, 2005, p. 67, archived fromthe original(PDF)on October 31, 2011
- ^"Ivins case reignites debate on anthrax".Los Angeles Times.August 3, 2008. Archived fromthe originalon May 12, 2009.RetrievedApril 5,2009.
- ^"U.S. officials declare researcher is anthrax killer".CNN.August 6, 2008.Archivedfrom the original on August 8, 2008.RetrievedAugust 7,2008.
- ^Meyer, Josh (August 8, 2008)."Anthrax investigation should be investigated, congressmen say".Los Angeles Times.Associated Press.Archivedfrom the original on August 12, 2008.RetrievedAugust 8,2008.
- ^Cole, Leonard A. (2009).The Anthrax Letters: A Bioterrorism Expert Investigates the Attacks That Shocked America—Case Closed?.SkyhorsePublishing.ISBN978-1-60239-715-6.RetrievedMarch 29,2011.
- ^Shane, Scott (February 19, 2010)."F.B.I., Laying Out Evidence, Closes Anthrax Letters Case".The New York Times.Archivedfrom the original on February 25, 2010.RetrievedFebruary 19,2010.
- ^abcReview of the Scientific Approaches Used During the FBI's Investigation of the 2001 Anthrax Letters.National Academies Press. 2011.doi:10.17226/13098.ISBN978-0-309-18719-0.PMID24983068.
- ^Sheridan, Kerry (February 15, 2011)."Science review casts doubt on 2001 anthrax case".Agence France-Presse.Archived fromthe originalon April 23, 2011.RetrievedFebruary 15,2011.
- ^abcdefghijklm"Amerithrax Summary Report"(PDF).justice.gov.Federal Bureau of Investigation, US Dept. of Justice.Archived(PDF)from the original on August 15, 2014.
- ^Shane, Scott (February 16, 2011)."Expert Panel Is Critical of F.B.I. Work in Investigating Anthrax Letters".The New York Times.Archivedfrom the original on February 17, 2011.RetrievedFebruary 16,2011.
- ^"Government Settles Anthrax Suit for $2.5 million".Frontline.pbs.org. November 29, 2011.Archivedfrom the original on November 18, 2015.RetrievedAugust 23,2017.
- ^Andrew C. Revkin and Dana Canedy,"Anthrax Pervades Florida Site, and Experts See Likeness to That Sent to Senators"ArchivedMarch 6, 2016, at theWayback Machine,The New York Times,December 5, 2001
- ^"Chronology of 2001 anthrax events".Sun-Sentinel.December 24, 2012.Archivedfrom the original on May 24, 2013.RetrievedDecember 26,2012.
- ^"An Anthrax Widow May Sue U.S. Woman Whose Husband Died In Florida Is Angry At Army Lab's Possible Role As Bacteria's Source".Sun Sentinel.October 9, 2002.Archivedfrom the original on September 20, 2012.RetrievedDecember 26,2012.
- ^"My anthrax survivor's story – NBC News employee speaks out for the first time on her ordeal".NBC News.September 13, 2006. Archived fromthe originalon October 21, 2014.RetrievedMarch 30,2008.
- ^Orin, Deborah (October 26, 2001)."Anthrax Spreads as Probe Widens".New York Post.Archivedfrom the original on December 27, 2017.RetrievedMarch 27,2018.
- ^abFrerichs, Ralph R. (November 5, 2002)."Anthrax Under The Microscope".ph.ucla.edu.University of California, Los Angeles.Archivedfrom the original on June 10, 2011.RetrievedSeptember 12,2011.
- ^abc"Sandia aids FBI in investigation of anthrax letters".YouTube. November 19, 2008.Archivedfrom the original on November 1, 2014.RetrievedSeptember 12,2011.
- ^ab"J. Michael, September 25, 2009 NAS presentation"(MP3 audio).nationalacademies.org.Archivedfrom the original on September 27, 2011.RetrievedSeptember 12,2011.
- ^O'Keefe, Ed (October 21, 2011)."Postal workers mark 10 years since anthrax attacks".The Washington Post.Archivedfrom the original on September 17, 2018.RetrievedSeptember 16,2018.
- ^Thomas, Evan (November 11, 2001)."Who Killed Kathy Nguyen?".Newsweek.Archivedfrom the original on September 17, 2018.RetrievedSeptember 16,2018.
- ^Altimari, Dave (April 14, 2014)."Oxford Woman, 94, An Unlikely Victim Of Anthrax Attacks".Hartford Courant.Archivedfrom the original on September 17, 2018.RetrievedSeptember 16,2018.
- ^Lengel, Allan (September 16, 2005)."Little Progress In FBI Probe of Anthrax Attacks".The Washington Post.Archivedfrom the original on November 16, 2007.RetrievedJune 17,2008.
- ^"Anthrax: a Political Whodunit".Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Archived fromthe originalon September 17, 2008.RetrievedMarch 30,2008.
- ^Miller, Judith (October 14, 2001)."Fear Hits Newsroom in a Cloud of Powder".The New York Times.Archivedfrom the original on January 2, 2011.RetrievedMarch 29,2011.
- ^"Tampabay: Brokaw's aide tests positive".St Petersburg Times.Archivedfrom the original on June 21, 2012.RetrievedSeptember 12,2011.
- ^Powell, Michael; Blum, Justin (October 14, 2001)."Anthrax confirmed at Microsoft in Reno; 5 more cases in Florida".The Seattle Times.Archivedfrom the original on October 16, 2011.RetrievedMarch 29,2011.
- ^Frerichs, Ralph R."Md. Pond Drained for Clues in Anthrax Probe".ph.ucla.edu.University of California, Los Angeles.Archivedfrom the original on June 10, 2011.RetrievedSeptember 12,2011.
- ^Nieves, Evelyn (October 15, 2001)."A Nation Challenged: Nevada; Final Tests Are Negative For 4 Workers In Reno Office".The New York Times.Archivedfrom the original on July 16, 2014.RetrievedMarch 29,2011.
- ^David Barstow (Oct. 13, 2001),"A NATION CHALLENGED: THE INCIDENTS; Anthrax Found in NBC News Aide"ArchivedOctober 28, 2018, at theWayback Machine,The New York Times
- ^Judith Miller (Oct. 14, 2001),"A NATION CHALLENGED: THE LETTER; Fear Hits Newsroom In a Cloud of Powder"ArchivedOctober 27, 2018, at theWayback Machine,The New York Times
- ^The National Enquirer,October 31, 2001.
- ^abcFrerichs, Ralph R."The Message in the Anthrax".ph.ucla.edu.University of California, Los Angeles.Archivedfrom the original on August 7, 2011.RetrievedSeptember 12,2011.
- ^"FBI: Letter in Daschle's office a hoax".CNN.January 3, 2002.Archivedfrom the original on April 4, 2008.RetrievedMarch 29,2011.
- ^Thompson, Marilyn W. (September 14, 2003)."Start of rightcontent.inc".The Washington Post.Archived fromthe originalon October 18, 2011.RetrievedMarch 29,2011.
- ^"Fort Detrick's anthrax mystery".Salon.January 26, 2002.Archivedfrom the original on January 25, 2011.RetrievedSeptember 12,2011.
- ^"National Defense University".www.ndu.edu.Archivedfrom the original on February 25, 2019.RetrievedMarch 18,2019.
- ^ab"Dr. Steven J. Hatfill's Defamation Lawsuit Against Vanity Fair and Reader's Digest Resolved – Publishers Issue Statements Retracting Implication Of Guilt"(PDF).Archived fromthe original(PDF)on May 24, 2010.RetrievedJune 16,2010.
- ^"Letters carried fresh anthrax".The Baltimore Sun.June 23, 2002.Archivedfrom the original on April 3, 2015.RetrievedSeptember 27,2012.
- ^"Massive cross-contamination feared".New York Daily News.October 26, 2001.RetrievedSeptember 27,2012.
- ^"U.S. Says Anthrax Germ In Mail Is 'Ames' Strain".The Washington Post.October 26, 2002.Archivedfrom the original on March 4, 2012.RetrievedSeptember 27,2012.
- ^Broad, William J. (January 30, 2002)."Geographic Gaffe Misguides Anthrax Inquiry".The New York Times.Archivedfrom the original on March 2, 2012.RetrievedMarch 29,2011.
- ^Frerichs, Ralph R."One Anthrax Answer: Ames Strain Not From Iowa".ph.ucla.edu.University of California, Los Angeles.Archivedfrom the original on September 27, 2011.RetrievedSeptember 12,2011.
- ^ab"FBI explains the science behind the anthrax investigation".USA Today.August 24, 2008.Archivedfrom the original on February 16, 2011.RetrievedMarch 29,2011.
- ^Read, T. D.; Salzberg, S. L.; Pop, M.; Shumway, M.; Umayam, L.; Jiang, L.; Holtzapple, E.; Busch, J. D.; Smith, K. L.; Schupp, J. M.; Solomon, D.; Keim, P.; Fraser, C. M. (2002)."Comparative Genome Sequencing for Discovery of Novel Polymorphisms in Bacillus anthracis".Science.296(5575): 2028–2033.Bibcode:2002Sci...296.2028R.doi:10.1126/science.1071837.PMID12004073.S2CID15470665.
- ^Frerichs, Ralph R. (November 2, 2002)."FBI Secretly Trying to Re-Create Anthrax From Mail Attacks".ph.ucla.edu.University of California, Los Angeles.Archivedfrom the original on June 10, 2011.RetrievedSeptember 12,2011.
- ^Rasko, David A.; Worsham, Patricia L.; et al. (March 22, 2011)."Bacillus anthracis comparative genome analysis in support of the Amerithrax investigation".Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.108(12): 5027–32.Bibcode:2011PNAS..108.5027R.doi:10.1073/pnas.1016657108.PMC3064363.PMID21383169.
- ^"FBI Anthrax Briefing, Aug 18".Archivedfrom the original on February 5, 2012.RetrievedSeptember 12,2011– via Google Docs.
- ^Willman, David (September 17, 2008)."Scientist admits mistake on anthrax".Los Angeles Times.Archivedfrom the original on December 7, 2010.RetrievedMarch 29,2011.
- ^pp. 164–193
- ^William J. Broad,"Contradicting Some U.S. Officials, 3 Scientists Call Anthrax Powder High-Grade"ArchivedMarch 6, 2016, at theWayback Machine,The New York Times,October 25, 2001
- ^Weiss, Rick; Eggen, Dan (October 25, 2001)."Additive Made Spores Deadlier".The Washington Post.Archivedfrom the original on October 18, 2011.RetrievedMarch 29,2011.
- ^Bernstein, Richard (February 24, 2010)."Haste Leaves Anthrax Case Unconcluded".The New York Times.Archivedfrom the original on February 28, 2010.RetrievedOctober 4,2011.
- ^"The Anthrax Attacks Remain Unsolved".The Wall Street Journal.January 24, 2010.Archivedfrom the original on May 13, 2011.RetrievedMarch 29,2011.
- ^"Loner Likely Sent Anthrax, FBI Says".Los Angeles Times.Archivedfrom the original on April 7, 2008.RetrievedMarch 30,2008.
- ^"Official: Unusual coating in anthrax mailings".CNN.April 11, 2002.Archivedfrom the original on August 7, 2008.RetrievedMarch 30,2008.
- ^"Anthrax Sent Through Mail Gained Potency by the Letter".The New York Times.Archivedfrom the original on April 6, 2008.RetrievedMarch 30,2008.
- ^"A Sophisticated Strain of Anthrax".Newsweek.Archivedfrom the original on April 6, 2008.RetrievedMarch 30,2008.
- ^Gugliotta, Guy; Matsumoto, Gary (October 28, 2002)."Start of rightcontent.inc".The Washington Post.Archived fromthe originalon October 18, 2011.RetrievedMarch 29,2011.
- ^abMastumoto, Gary (November 28, 2003)."Anthrax Powder: State of the Art?".Science (magazine).Vol. 302, no. 5650. pp. 1492–1497.doi:10.1126/science.302.5650.1492.
- ^abcBeecher, Douglas J. (August 2006)."Forensic Application of Microbiological Culture Analysis To Identify Mail Intentionally Contaminated with Bacillus anthracis Spores".American Society for Microbiology.72(8): 5304–5310.Bibcode:2006ApEnM..72.5304B.doi:10.1128/AEM.00940-06.PMC1538744.PMID16885280.
- ^"Science aids a nettlesome FBI criminal probe".Chemical & Engineering News.Archivedfrom the original on April 1, 2008.RetrievedMarch 31,2008.
- ^Mereish, K. A. (2007)."Unsupported Conclusions on the Bacillus anthracis Spores".Applied and Environmental Microbiology.73(15): 5074.Bibcode:2007ApEnM..73.5074M.doi:10.1128/AEM.02898-06.PMC1951018.PMID17660313.
- ^ab"Anthrax Investigation / Bentonite / Cases".Vanderbilt University. October 28, 2001.Archivedfrom the original on March 8, 2012.RetrievedMay 30,2009.
- ^abGreenwald, Glenn(April 11, 2007)."Response from ABC News re: the Saddam-anthrax reports".Salon.Archived fromthe originalon August 6, 2008.RetrievedMarch 27,2018.
- ^ab"No proof of Iraqi contamination".The Washington Times.October 29, 2001.Archivedfrom the original on October 16, 2012.RetrievedSeptember 12,2011.
- ^ab"Tom Ridge, Other Federal Officials Brief on Anthrax".USInfo.org.Office of International Information Programs, US Department of State. October 29, 2001. Archived fromthe originalon March 10, 2005.RetrievedMarch 27,2018.
- ^"Press Briefing by Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge".White House.Archivedfrom the original on July 28, 2011.RetrievedMarch 30,2008.
- ^Hirota, R.; Hata, Y.; Ikeda, T.; Ishida, T.; Kuroda, A. (2010)."The Silicon Layer Supports Acid Resistance of Bacillus cereus Spores – Hirota et al. 192 (1): 111 – The Journal of Bacteriology".Journal of Bacteriology.192(1): 111–116.doi:10.1128/JB.00954-09.PMC2798246.PMID19880606.
- ^"Small Things Considered: Through the Looking Glass: Silicate in Bacterial Spores".Schaechter.asmblog.org. January 11, 2010.Archivedfrom the original on July 25, 2011.RetrievedSeptember 12,2011.
- ^abcd"The Anthrax Attacks Remain Unsolved; The FBI disproved its main theory about how the spores were weaponized".The Wall Street Journal.January 24, 2010.Archivedfrom the original on May 13, 2011.RetrievedMarch 29,2011.
- ^"Peter Weber September 24, 2009 NAS presentation – audio".Archivedfrom the original on September 27, 2011.RetrievedSeptember 12,2011.
- ^Spertzel, Richard (August 5, 2008)."Bruce Ivins Wasn't the Anthrax Culprit".The Wall Street Journal.Archivedfrom the original on January 18, 2015.RetrievedOctober 4,2011.
- ^Lichtblau, Eric; Wade, Nicholas (August 18, 2008)."F.B.I. Details Anthrax Case, but Doubts Remain".The New York Times.Archivedfrom the original on December 10, 2008.RetrievedOctober 4,2011.
- ^Johnson, Carrie (September 17, 2008)."FBI to Get Expert Help In Anthrax Inquiry".The Washington Post.Archivedfrom the original on April 3, 2015.RetrievedOctober 4,2011.
- ^Rosenberg, Eric (September 17, 2006)."5 years after terror of anthrax, case grows colder".Houston Chronicle.RetrievedDecember 26,2012.
- ^ab"A Nation Challenged: The Inquiry; Experts See F.B.I. Missteps Hampering Anthrax Inquiry".The New York Times.November 9, 2001.Archivedfrom the original on July 5, 2009.RetrievedOctober 4,2011.
- ^Landers, Jackson (September 12, 2016)."The Anthrax Letters That Terrorized a Nation Are Now Decontaminated and on Public View".Smithsonian Magazine.The Smithsonian Institution.RetrievedSeptember 20,2020.
- ^"FBI was told to blame Anthrax scare on Al Qaeda by White House officials".Daily News.New York. August 2, 2008.Archivedfrom the original on February 5, 2009.RetrievedDecember 26,2012.
- ^"Iraq 'behind US anthrax outbreaks'ArchivedDecember 1, 2016, at theWayback Machine",David Rose and Ed Vulliamy,The Guardian,October 14, 2001
- ^"The Anthrax Source".The Wall Street Journal.October 15, 2001.Archivedfrom the original on March 1, 2015.RetrievedOctober 10,2011.
- ^"One Month After 9/11, McCain Said Anthrax 'May Have Come From Iraq,' Warned Iraq Is 'The Second Phase'".Thinkprogress.org.August 1, 2008. Archived fromthe originalon August 4, 2008.
- ^Ross, Brian; Isham, Christopher; Vlasto, Chris; Matsumoto, Gary (October 26, 2001)."Troubling Anthrax Additive Found".ABC News.American Broadcasting Company.Archived fromthe originalon April 13, 2014.
- ^Drum, Kevin (August 2, 2008)."Bentonite".CBS News.Archived fromthe originalon February 1, 2011.RetrievedMarch 29,2011.
- ^Malkin, Michelle(September 18, 2006)."Anthrax attacks: 5 years later".Archivedfrom the original on July 20, 2008.RetrievedAugust 4,2008.
- ^McCarthy, Rory (November 12, 2001)."Bin Laden denies anthrax attacks".The Guardian.ISSN0261-3077.RetrievedJanuary 30,2024.
- ^York, Anthony (August 31, 2002)."Bio-sleuth or crackpot?".Salon.Archivedfrom the original on June 26, 2012.RetrievedAugust 3,2012.
- ^Couzin, Jennifer (August 23, 2002). "Unconventional Detective Bears Down on a Killer".Science.297(5585): 1264–1265.doi:10.1126/science.297.5585.1264.PMID12193766.S2CID176721295.
- ^abFrerichs, Ralph R."A Compilation of Evidence and Comments on the Source of the Mailed Anthrax".ph.ucla.edu.University of California, Los Angeles.Archivedfrom the original on August 7, 2011.RetrievedSeptember 12,2011.
- ^Broad, William J. (December 14, 2001)."F.B.I. Queries Expert Who Sees Federal Lab Tie in Anthrax Cases".The New York Times.Archivedfrom the original on April 2, 2015.RetrievedMarch 29,2011.
- ^Kristof, Nicholas D. (January 4, 2002)."Profile of a Killer".The New York Times.Archivedfrom the original on February 8, 2012.RetrievedMarch 29,2011.
- ^Lemann, Nicholas (January 7, 2009)."Whodunit Dept.: The Anthrax Culprit".The New Yorker.Archivedfrom the original on October 11, 2011.RetrievedSeptember 12,2011.
- ^Miller, Judith; Broad, William J. (February 26, 2002)."U.S. Says Short List of 'Suspects' Is Being Checked in Anthrax Case".The New York Times.Archivedfrom the original on April 13, 2014.RetrievedMarch 29,2011.
- ^Frerichs, Ralph R."FBI Still Lacks Identifiable Suspect in Anthrax Probe".ph.ucla.edu.University of California, Los Angeles.Archivedfrom the original on June 10, 2011.RetrievedSeptember 12,2011.
- ^Rosenberg, Barbara Hatch (June 13, 2002)."The Anthrax Case: What the FBI Knows".Federation of American Scientists. Archived fromthe originalon April 16, 2014.RetrievedApril 9,2014– via sunshine-project.de.
- ^York, Anthony (June 21, 2002)."I'm ready for my close-up, Sen. Daschle".Salon.Archived fromthe originalon June 7, 2011.RetrievedSeptember 12,2011.
- ^Altimari, Dave; Dolan, Jack; Lightman, David (June 28, 2002). "The Case Of Dr. Hatfill – FBI Anthrax Mail Suspect or Pawn".Hartford Courant.
- ^"Who is Steven Hatfill?".The American Prospect.Prospect.org. July 2, 2002. Archived fromthe originalon September 13, 2012.RetrievedSeptember 12,2011.
- ^Taylor, Guy (August 3, 2002)."Scientist says FBI asked about setup; Anthrax researcher in the spotlight".The Washington Times.Washington, DC.RetrievedDecember 26,2012.
- ^Shane, Scott; Lichtblau, Eric (June 28, 2008)."Scientist Is Paid Millions by U.S. in Anthrax Suit".The New York Times.Archivedfrom the original on November 30, 2011.RetrievedJune 28,2008.
- ^Gerstein, Josh (February 2, 2007)."Judge Gives Rationale for Tossing Hatfill Suit Against Times".The New York Sun.Archived fromthe originalon August 18, 2007.RetrievedApril 2,2008.
- ^Lewis, Neil A. (July 15, 2008)."Dismissal of Suit Against Times Is Upheld".The New York Times.Archivedfrom the original on December 9, 2008.RetrievedMarch 29,2011.
- ^Stout, David (December 15, 2008)."Justices Reject Appeal in Anthrax Libel Suit".The New York Times.Archivedfrom the original on November 7, 2016.RetrievedMarch 29,2011.
- ^Shane, Scott (August 4, 2008)."Anthrax Evidence Called Mostly Circumstantial".The New York Times.Archived fromthe originalon February 24, 2017.
- ^Kiehl, Stephen (August 5, 2008)."Doubts about anthrax story".The Baltimore Sun.Archived fromthe originalon October 7, 2008.
- ^Shane, Scott; Lichtblau, Eric (August 2, 2008)."Scientist's Suicide Linked to Anthrax Inquiry".The New York Times.Archived fromthe originalon February 5, 2017.
- ^Dishneau, David (August 2, 2008)."Ivins had mild persona, but some saw dark side".USA Today.Associated Press.Archived fromthe originalon March 5, 2016.RetrievedOctober 10,2011.
- ^Nass, Meryl (August 5, 2008).""Pressure Grows for FBI's Anthrax Evidence" --NY Times ".Archivedfrom the original on August 10, 2008.RetrievedAugust 10,2008– via Anthrax Vaccine.
- ^Gordon, Greg; Engelberg, Stephen (October 25, 2011)."Secret Reports: With Security Spotty, Many Had Access to Anthrax".Frontline.Archivedfrom the original on November 17, 2015.RetrievedAugust 23,2017– via PBS.
- ^Goldstein, Amy; Hull, Anne; Tate, Julie (August 7, 2008)."Acquaintances and Counselor Recall the Scientist's Dark Side".The Washington Post.Archivedfrom the original on December 1, 2010.RetrievedMarch 29,2011.
- ^Time Waster."Anthrax Suspect" Homicidal, Sociopathic "".The Smoking Gun.Archivedfrom the original on December 20, 2011.RetrievedSeptember 12,2011.
- ^FBI file #847376ArchivedNovember 5, 2010, at theWayback Machinepp. 6, 11
- ^"Army Scientist Bruce Ivins Was Anthrax Killer, U.S. Says".Fox News.August 6, 2008. Archived fromthe originalon February 1, 2011.RetrievedMarch 29,2011.
- ^"U.S.: Scientist was anthrax killer – US news – Security".NBC News.August 6, 2008.RetrievedSeptember 12,2011.
- ^"US officials release evidence against anthrax scientist Bruce Ivins".Daily News.New York. August 7, 2008. Archived fromthe originalon October 9, 2011.RetrievedDecember 8,2015.
- ^abcdef"Did Bruce Ivins Hide Attack Anthrax From the FBI?".Propublica.October 11, 2011. Archived fromthe originalon August 31, 2017.
- ^"New Evidence Adds Doubt to FBI's Case Against Anthrax Suspect".ProPublica.October 10, 2011. Archived fromthe originalon July 20, 2017.
- ^ab"The Anthrax Files".Frontline.October 11, 2011. Archived fromthe originalon October 29, 2015.
- ^"Phone messages from Bruce Ivins to his therapist".FrederickNewsPost.com.Archived fromthe original(Audio)on March 13, 2012.RetrievedSeptember 12,2011.
- ^Shane, Scott (February 19, 2010)."F.B.I., Laying Out Evidence, Closes Anthrax Case".The New York Times.Archivedfrom the original on February 25, 2010.RetrievedMarch 29,2011.
- ^Warrick, Joby (February 20, 2010)."FBI investigation of 2001 anthrax attacks concluded; U.S. releases details".The Washington Post.Archivedfrom the original on November 10, 2012.RetrievedMarch 29,2011.
- ^"A hidden assault".The Washington Post.February 20, 2010.Archivedfrom the original on November 10, 2012.RetrievedMarch 29,2011.
- ^"The anthrax scare: Case and flask closed".The Register.Archivedfrom the original on July 9, 2015.RetrievedJuly 8,2015.
- ^"FBI report fails to end questions about Ivins' guilt".fredericknewspost.com.February 23, 2010. Archived fromthe originalon August 31, 2011.RetrievedSeptember 12,2011.
- ^"NY Post Letter"(PDF).justice.gov.Archived(PDF)from the original on May 8, 2017.RetrievedJune 6,2017.
- ^"Brokaw letter"(PDF).justice.gov.Archived(PDF)from the original on May 8, 2017.RetrievedJune 6,2017.
- ^"Microsoft Word - J_GEB page 404.doc"(PDF).Archived(PDF)from the original on March 5, 2016.RetrievedSeptember 12,2011.
- ^Shane, Scott; Lichtblau, Eric (August 2, 2008)."Will suicide close case on anthrax?".The Seattle Times.Archivedfrom the original on June 22, 2011.RetrievedMarch 29,2011.
- ^Frerichs, Ralph R."How the Experts Missed Anthrax".ph.ucla.edu.University of California, Los Angeles.Archivedfrom the original on June 10, 2011.RetrievedSeptember 12,2011.
- ^"File #847551"(PDF).justice.gov.Federal Bureau of Investigation, US Dept. of Justice. p. 47. Archived fromthe original(PDF)on June 2, 2013.
- ^abcManjoo, Farhad (August 7, 2008)."The Anthrax Truth Movement".Slate.Archivedfrom the original on August 31, 2011.RetrievedSeptember 12,2011.
- ^Greenwald, Glenn (August 6, 2008)."The FBI's selective release of documents in the anthrax case".Salon.Archived fromthe originalon August 8, 2008.RetrievedDecember 8,2015.
- ^"The Case Still Isn't Closed".Newsweek.August 8, 2008.Archivedfrom the original on October 9, 2012 – viaThe Daily Beast.
- ^"In Anthrax Case, Hindsight Shifts View of Ivins".The Wall Street Journal.August 9, 2008.
- ^"Holes in the Anthrax Case?".The Washington Post.August 9, 2008.Archivedfrom the original on November 10, 2012.RetrievedMarch 29,2011.
- ^Ryan, Jason (September 17, 2008)."Leahy: Others Involved in Anthrax Attacks".ABC News.Archivedfrom the original on January 22, 2012.RetrievedSeptember 12,2011.
- ^Kiely, Kathy; Leinwand, Donna (August 13, 2008)."Daschle buys Ivins as sole culprit in 2001 anthrax attacks".USA Today.Archivedfrom the original on February 11, 2011.RetrievedMarch 29,2011.
- ^Kwok, Roberta (February 25, 2009)."Anthrax investigation still yielding findings".Nature.doi:10.1038/news.2009.120.Archivedfrom the original on November 4, 2018.RetrievedMarch 27,2018.
- ^Shane, Scott (April 22, 2010)."Colleague Disputes Case Against Anthrax Suspect".The New York Times.Archivedfrom the original on May 12, 2011.RetrievedMarch 29,2011.
- ^Bhattacharjee, Yudhijit (April 22, 2010)."Ex-USAMRIID Scientist Defends Bruce Ivins Using Back-of-the-Envelope Math".sciencemag.org.Archived fromthe originalon January 13, 2012.RetrievedSeptember 12,2011.
- ^Ivins, Bruce E. (August 2, 2004)."Emails"(PDF).United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases.p. 3. Archived fromthe original(PDF)on April 2, 2012.RetrievedMarch 27,2018.
- ^Broad, William J.; Johnston, David (May 7, 2002)."Anthrax Sent Through Mail Gained Potency by the Letter".The New York Times.Archivedfrom the original on March 2, 2012.RetrievedMarch 29,2011.
- ^abcBroad, William J.; Shane, Scott (October 9, 2011)."Scientists' Analysis Disputes F.B.I. Closing of Anthrax Case".The New York Times.Archivedfrom the original on October 10, 2011.RetrievedOctober 10,2011.
- ^Wiser, Mike (July 18, 2011)."New Documents Cast Doubt on Federal Anthrax Case".Frontline.WGBH.Archivedfrom the original on September 20, 2015.RetrievedMarch 27,2018– via PBS.org.
- ^"Holt Calls for Congressional investigation into FBI handling of Anthrax attacks, Follows FBI Announcement to Close Its Investigation".Press Release of Congressman Rush Holt, 12th District of NJ.March 3, 2010. Archived fromthe originalon April 7, 2010.RetrievedDecember 26,2012.
- ^"Nadler Renews Call for Independent Investigation of Anthrax Attacks".Press Release of Jerrold Nadler.March 4, 2010. Archived fromthe originalon March 5, 2012.RetrievedDecember 26,2012.
- ^"Obama Veto Is Threatened on 2010 Intelligence Budget Measure".Bloomberg News. March 15, 2010. Archived fromthe originalon November 29, 2011.RetrievedDecember 26,2012.
- ^"Administration rejects call to further probe Amerithrax".The Frederick News-Post.March 20, 2010. Archived fromthe originalon September 23, 2011.RetrievedSeptember 12,2011.
- ^Shane, Scott (April 22, 2010)."Colleague Disputes Case Against Anthrax Suspect".The New York Times.Archivedfrom the original on May 12, 2011.RetrievedMarch 29,2011.
- ^"Project: Review of the Scientific Approaches used During the FBI's Investigation of the 2001 Bacillus Anthracis Mailings"..nationalacademies.org.Archivedfrom the original on September 17, 2011.RetrievedSeptember 12,2011.
- ^"Meeting 1: Review of the Scientific Approaches used During the FBI's Investigation of the 2001 Bacillus Anthracis Mailings"..nationalacademies.org. August 6, 2009.Archivedfrom the original on April 21, 2010.RetrievedSeptember 12,2011.
- ^"Video of Session 1".Archived fromthe originalon July 27, 2011.RetrievedJune 21,2010.
- ^"Video of Session 2".Archived fromthe originalon July 27, 2011.RetrievedJune 21,2010.
- ^"Meeting 2: Review of the Scientific Approaches used During the FBI's Investigation of the 2001 Bacillus Anthracis Mailings"..nationalacademies.org.Archivedfrom the original on October 8, 2009.RetrievedSeptember 12,2011.
- ^"Top News".National-Academies.org. September 25, 2009. Archived fromthe originalon September 27, 2011.RetrievedSeptember 12,2011.
- ^"J. Michael, September 25, 2008 NAS presentation, audio".Archivedfrom the original on September 27, 2011.RetrievedSeptember 12,2011.
- ^abcNational Research Council (2011).Review of the Scientific Approaches Used During the FBI's Investigation of the 2001 Anthrax Letters.Washington, DC: National Academies Press.doi:10.17226/13098.ISBN978-0-309-18719-0.PMID24983068.Archivedfrom the original on May 10, 2017.RetrievedJune 6,2017.
- ^"Scientists question U.S. anthrax attack evidence".Reuters.February 15, 2011.Archivedfrom the original on February 18, 2011.RetrievedMay 28,2011.
- ^"Bio-Recovery Services".www.biorecovery.net.Archivedfrom the original on October 10, 2016.RetrievedSeptember 30,2018.
- ^Davison, Laura; Basak, Sonali; McMahon, Madeline (November 3, 2014)."Bio-Recovery Leads Cleanup of Ebola Spaces in New York".Bloomberg Businessweek.Archived fromthe originalon November 17, 2014.
- ^The Hamilton sectional center facility (SCF) is located near Trenton and processes mail to and from the 085 and 086 ZIP-code areas. SeeZIP code prefixes.
- ^"The Anthrax Cleanup of Capitol Hill." Documentary by Xin Wang produced by the EPA Alumni Association.Video,TranscriptArchivedSeptember 30, 2018, at theWayback Machine(see p 3, 4). May 12, 2015.
- ^Office, U.S. Government Accountability (June 17, 2003).Capitol Hill Anthrax Incident: EPA's Cleanup Was Successful; Opportunities Exist to Enhance Contract Oversight(Report).Archivedfrom the original on April 15, 2018.RetrievedSeptember 30,2018.
- ^Lengel, Allan."Little Progress In FBI Probe of Anthrax Attacks".The Washington Post.Archivedfrom the original on July 24, 2008.RetrievedApril 8,2008.
- ^"President Bush Signs Project Bioshield Act of 2004".White House.Archivedfrom the original on July 14, 2011.RetrievedApril 7,2008.
- ^Alexander, Kellen (September 18, 2012)."U.S. grows its biodefense stockpile".BioPrepWatch.Archived fromthe originalon January 18, 2013.
- ^United States Department of Justice,"Amerithrax Investigative Summary",p. 20
- ^Los Angeles Times, 8 Jun. 2002"Anthrax Threat Known, Suit Says"
- ^Slate, 7 Aug. 2008,"The Anthrax Truth Movement: The Web Searches for Holes in the FBI's Latest Lone-Gunman Theory"
- ^abcdBayer cuts price of ciprofloxacin after Bush threatens to buy generics,PMC (PubMed Central),Fred Charatan, November 1, 2001. Retrieved October 5, 2019.
- ^Harmon, Amy; Pear, Robert (October 19, 2001)."A Nation Challenged: The Treatment; Canada Overrides Patent for Cipro to Treat Anthrax".The New York Times.
- ^McNeil, Donald G. Jr. (October 17, 2001)."A NATION CHALLENGED: THE DRUG; A Rush for Cipro, and the Global Ripples".The New York Times.
- ^Jackson, Landers (September 12, 2016)."The Anthrax Letters That Terrorized a Nation Are Now Decontaminated and on Public View".Smithsonian.com.Archivedfrom the original on June 19, 2018.RetrievedJune 19,2018.
- ^Lancaster, John (October 4, 2001)."Start of rightcontent.inc".The Washington Post.Archivedfrom the original on March 10, 2011.RetrievedMarch 29,2011.
- ^"Senate Approves USA PATRIOT Anti-Terrorism Legislation".Fas.org.Archivedfrom the original on October 10, 2011.RetrievedSeptember 12,2011.
- ^Harnden, Toby (October 26, 2001)."Building the case against Iraq".The Daily Telegraph.London.Archivedfrom the original on February 24, 2011.RetrievedApril 7,2008.
- ^"Anthrax survivors find life a struggle".The Baltimore Sun.September 18, 2003.Archivedfrom the original on June 10, 2011.RetrievedMarch 29,2011.
- ^Cymet, T. C.;Kerkvliet, G. J. (November 2004)."What is the true number of victims of the postal anthrax attack of 2001?"(PDF).The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association.104(11): 452.PMID15602039.Archived fromthe original(PDF)on March 5, 2016.RetrievedOctober 10,2011.
- ^Shane, Scott (June 7, 2005)."After a Shower of Anthrax, an Illness and a Mystery".The New York Times.Archivedfrom the original on December 30, 2013.RetrievedApril 10,2008.
- ^Petski, Denise (January 13, 2021)."'The Hot Zone: Anthrax': Tony Goldwyn & Daniel Dae Kim To Star In Season 2 Of Nat Geo Series ".Deadline Hollywood.RetrievedJanuary 14,2021.
- ^"Roku".
- ^"BBC Studios Productions announces new Netflix commission – The Anthrax Attacks".
- ^Anderson, John (September 6, 2022)."Investigating the Investigation".Wall Street Journal.
- ^"Watch How It Really Happened".2017.
Further reading
[edit]Books
Source for this list:
- Decker, R. Scott (March 19, 2018).Recounting the anthrax attacks: terror, the Amerithrax Task Force, and the evolution of forensics in the FBI.Rowman & Littlefield.ISBN9781538101490.OCLC1002117262.
- Coen, B; Nadler E (2009).Dead Silence – Fear and Terror on the Anthrax Trail.Counterpoint Press.ISBN978-1-58243-509-1.
- Cole, LA(2009).The Anthrax Letters, A Bioterrorism Expert Investigates the Attacks That Shocked America—Case Closed?.Skyhorse Publishing.ISBN978-1-60239-715-6.
- Graysmith, R (2003).Amerithrax: The Hunt for the Anthrax Killer.Berkley Books.ISBN978-0-425-19190-3.
- Sarasin, P (2006).Anthrax: Bioterror as Fact and Fantasy.Harvard University Press.ISBN978-0-674-02346-8.RetrievedSeptember 27,2011.
- Thompson, MW (2003).The Killer Strain, Anthrax and a Government Exposed.HarperCollins.ISBN978-0-06-052278-0.
- Willman, David(2011).The Mirage Man: Bruce Ivins, the Anthrax Attacks, and America's Rush to War.Bantam Books.
Articles
- Rasko, D. A.; Worsham, P. L.; Abshire, T. G.; Stanley, S. T.; Bannan, J. D.; Wilson, M. R.; Langham, R. J.; Decker, R. S.; Jiang, L.; Read, T. D.; Phillippy, A. M.; Salzberg, S. L.; Pop, M.; Van Ert, M. N.; Kenefic, L. J.; Keim, P. S.; Fraser-Liggett, C. M.; Ravel, J. (2011)."Bacillus anthracis comparative genome analysis in support of the Amerithrax investigation".Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.108(12): 5027–5032.Bibcode:2011PNAS..108.5027R.doi:10.1073/pnas.1016657108.PMC3064363.PMID21383169.
- Matsumoto, Gary (November 28, 2003). "Anthrax Powder — State of the Art?".Science.302(5650): 1492–7.doi:10.1126/science.302.5650.1492.PMID14645823.S2CID107181133.
- Freed, D(May 1, 2010)."The Wrong Man".The Atlantic.Archivedfrom the original on May 13, 2011.RetrievedMarch 29,2011.
- Kournikakis, B.; Armour, S. J.; Boulet, C. A.; Spence, M.; Parsons, B. (September 2001).Risk assessment of anthrax threat letters(PDF)(Report). Defence Research Establishment Suffield. DRES-TR-2001-048.RetrievedApril 9,2014.
External links
[edit]- 'Amerithrax' investigationby theFederal Bureau of Investigation
- Investigation files
- Public briefingof theUnited States National Research CouncilReview of Science in FBI's Anthrax Case (2011-02-15)
- Louie Gohmert (May 15, 2018),THE HISTORY OF ROBERT MUELLER,Housespeech inCongressional RecordonFBIhandling of anthrax investigation, etc.
- Timeline and discussionof attacks by theUniversity of California, Los AngelesDepartment of Epidemiology
- Dr.Steven Hatfilllawsuits:
- Julie Hilden (Sep. 16, 2002),"Should Possible Anthrax Suspect Steven Hatfill, Who Maintains His Innocence, Use Libel Suits To Get More Information About The Claims Against Him?",FindLaw commentary
- Filingby Steven Hatfill forHatfill v. Ashcroft(bad link)
- "Steven J. Hatfill v. The New York Times Company, and Nicholas Kristof,416 F.3d 320 "Filing,CourtListener.com
- Kristof columns cited inHatfill v. Timeslawsuit:
- Nicholas Kristof (Jan. 4, 2002),"Profile of A Killer",The New York Times
- Nicholas Kristof (May 24, 2002),"Connecting Deadly Dots",The New York Times
- Nicholas Kristof (July 2, 2002),"Anthrax? The F.B.I. Yawns",The New York Times
- Nicholas Kristof (July 12, 2002),"The Anthrax Files",The New York Times
- Nicholas Kristof (July 19, 2002),"Case of the Missing Anthrax",The New York Times
- Nicholas Kristof (Aug. 13, 2002),"The Anthrax Files",The New York Times
- Suspect powder inThe New York Timesnewsroom:
- Editors' note (Oct. 13, 2001),"To Our Readers",The New York Times
- David Barstow (Oct. 13, 2001),"A NATION CHALLENGED: THE INCIDENTS; Anthrax Found in NBC News Aide",The New York Times
- Judith Miller (Oct. 14, 2001),"A NATION CHALLENGED: THE LETTER; Fear Hits Newsroom In a Cloud of Powder,The New York Times
- Judith Miller,Stephen Engelberg, andWilliam Broad(November 2001),"Future Germ Defenses"web page for "Bioterror" episode ofNovafirst aired onPBSonNovember 13, 2001,shortly after anthrax attacks and publication ofGerms: Biological Weapons and America's Secret War
- 2001 anthrax attacks
- 107th United States Congress
- History of New Jersey
- October 2001 crimes in the United States
- September 2001 crimes in the United States
- Serial murders in the United States
- Terrorist incidents in the United States in 2001
- Terrorist incidents involving postal systems
- Unsolved murders in the United States
- Saddam–al-Qaeda conspiracy theory