I think I reversed the order of the mailings, but my fundamental point is that the Post & Brokaw powders contained a strain of b. subtilis not found in the other mailings, nor found in known captive strains of b. subtilis .

To my mind, this means that the Post & Brokaw powders came from a different batch, and perhaps a different hand at a different location, than the other powders, and therefore require a definitive chain of evidence and proof all their own.

I don’t see that chain of proof in the documents released yesterday.

JA

The first mailings (postmarked Sept. 18) were to media offices – the NY Post and NBC (whose letters were found), but also including the Florida office of AMI, and ABC and CBS in New York (where letters were not found, but people developed anthrax disease). The anthrax found in the Post and NBC letters was clumpy and brownish. More cases of cutaneous anthrax developed than of inhalation.

The second mailings (postmarked Oct. 9) were to Sens. Daschle and Leahy. Both letters were found; the anthrax was tan, very fine and “floaty”, and very pure. More cases of inhalation disease developed than cutaneous.

Those are baselines for discussion.

Can you correct/clarify your question to help us understand which batch the question refers to?

But I do not believe that based on the sketchy information that we have about chain of custody of any of the anthrax that even Mr. Lake can say conclusively that the anthrax researchers have seen was exactly the same anthrax used in the attacks.

I tend to trust my gut at this point — since it’s failed me less than the government — that whatever the anthrax was that was used in the attacks, that it couldn’t be readily duplicated being somewhat specialized, and yet the DNA matched that of a U.S. lab. Both of these points have been repeated with consistency, and neither of these points are things that the powers that be would want published if they were true.

A coated anthrax generated from an American lab could certainly match these stories.

And coated or not, it still strains comprehension that a “lone gunman” did this in his spare time, made a batch or more of a highly specialized anthrax product in a couple extra hours here and there.

My experience with clearances is with DoD and contractors. There is supposed to be uniformity within DoD and the Intel world and from personal experience I believe this is pretty true. The forms for contractor clearances (again within DoD and Intel) are consistent with the forms for government employees. The form numbers may be different but the info is the same.

I don’t know of any instance where having a rich uncle or a congressman will get you any cutting of corners, but that’s not to say it doesn’t happen – particularly in the Bushie world. One thing that does frequently happen is that the clearance authorities get a big backlog. People being people, there may be some shortened processes just to get people cleared. It is very possible that external pressure – e.g., a contractor on a very tight schedule with a vocal government customer – may be applied to the system.

The second sample of RMR-1029, when tested, does not match the evidentiary samples from victims. This is April 2002.

A third sample or RMR-1029, slanted in the presence of an FBI SA in the B3 containment room, is sealed, then stored in B3 freezers which themselves are sealed with evidence tape. April 2004.

In June of 2004, it is these samples which are forwarded to the Navy Medical Research Center in Silver Spring, MD. It also is these samples which are reported as a match to the evidentiary samples from victims (i.e., the samples exhibit the tell-tale 4 mutations that identify them as a particular sub-type of Ames).

On the basis of this positive match, Ivins becomes a prime suspect.

Question: can we demonstrate chain of custody all the way from Detrick to NMRC? Can we access the results of the NMRC tests? Who had de facto authority over that facility at that time, and did other samples tested there also match the evidentiary samples?

Question: Only the first mailings match the tell-tale 4 mutations strain definitively. The second mailings — the Post and Brokaw powders — are contaminated with a specific strain of b. subtilis. Both the Post and Brokaw samples contain precisely the same strain, but that strain is different from other known isolates of b. subtilis.

Search warrant affidavit 07-528-M-01 properly concludes that the Post and Brokaw powders derive from a production event separate from the production event that generated the powders contained in the first mailings, but cannot explain the differences in batches other than to suggest that the vial of RMR-1029 is the parent to both.

Comment: The FBI cannot prove the provenance of batch #2. Obviously it was grown and processed at a separate time, and perhaps at a separate location, from batch #2.

Question: Since the strain of b. subtilis apparently is unique, might it be possible that it derives from an experimental, controlled strain emanating from some lab or other and not from simple ambient contamination? If so, what lab? Where is the matching vial of b. subtilis ?

JA

The question is how long ago it left the mil labs, and where the spores were produced and refined. Without a lot more evidence and examination and discussion of the evidence by competent discussants, it’s pretty hard to say.

Yes that sure is a major question and without its answer we don’t have a clue who sent the Anthrax and neither does the US government.