December 31, 2008 - If there's anyone out there who thinks that no one any longer believes that Dr. Hatfill was the anthrax mailer, check out the posting on December 30th, 2008 at 7:54 pm by "AnthraxSleuth" on The Blogger News Network.  He writes:

I have facts and evidence, Physical evidence that Steven Hatfill is the Anthrax Mailer.
 [...]  I have facts and more physical evidence that the FBI, one agent in particular, have fallen all over themselves to not investigate the real culprits. [...] 
the truth is coming out, I’m making damn sure of it.

December 30, 2008 - This morning, Dr. Meryl Nass's blog contains a correction to her earlier comments about mutants found in the attack anthrax.  The correction also contains errors, but it is a step in the right direction.

Meanwhile, the long discussion on The Blogger News Network shows why I like arguing with conspiracy theorists so much.  They sometimes try to argue science.  And, when pressed, they will describe the science that they feel supports their argument.

One current scientific argument boils down to this:

The FBI stated that they used four key DNA mutations to find the source of the attack anthrax.  The source was determined to be the flask known as RMR-1029, which was controlled by Dr. Bruce Ivins.

The search identified eight samples with the key four mutations from the attack anthrax.  A total of about 1,070 samples from over 15 labs were tested. 

The FBI states that RMR-1029 was one of those eight samples, and RMR-1029 was the "parent" of the attack anthrax and the "parent" of the other seven samples.

It can undoubtedly be proven via documents and paper trails that RMR-1029 was the "parent" of the other seven samples.

However, in the discussion, "BugMaster" argues that it is impossible to prove that one of the other seven samples couldn't be the "parent" of the attack anthrax instead of RMR-1029.  The argument is evidently based upon a belief that Bacillus anthracis does not mutate fast enough to allow anyone to distinguish DNA differences between RMR-1029 and any sample grown from spores in RMR-1029.

In the roundtable discussion on August 18, however, Dr. Paul Keim made statements which seem to suggest that when using the entire DNA, it is now possible to distinquish which batch is the parent and which is the descendant.  I pointed that out to "BugMaster," but she/he claimed that if that is indeed what Dr. Keim said, then he is WRONG.

Ah!  Love it! Love it!  Love it!  A dispute between scientists that can seemingly be easily resolved by getting more information!  I'm attempting to do so.

Meanwhile, the discussion has been taken over by a True Believer who posts endless and irrelevant messages which he wants everyone to read.  And, if they don't, that is proof to him that others don't have all the information about the case that he has, and they don't care about the "truth" as he sees it.  That's why I avoid (whenever possible) arguing with True Believers.  But some things he says are interesting.  Consider the statement he made on December 28th, 2008 at 8:08 p.m.   It begins this way:

I’ve had a long heart-to-heart with the anthrax mailer. He’s convinced me that the US DOJ has problems that are far more difficult to resolve than the embarrassment over ...

December 29, 2008 - On Christmas, I mentioned a discussion on The Blogger News Network  where some people were arguing that comments on Dr. Nass's web site about an unclear statement in a slide presentation by Dr. Jacques Ravel somehow indicated that the FBI was in error and

the morphologic variations in spore colonies were not entirely identical between the NY Post and Leahy letters 

As a bonus, Dr. Ravel confirmed that the four identical mutations were present in each of the anthrax letters and in flask RMR1029.

BTW, if you want to see an extremely lively discussion of the current status of the anthrax investigation, click on that Blogger News Network link above.

December 28, 2008 - Although there are still a few days left in 2008, this seems a good time to summarize certain facts for the past year.  A chart showing activity for this web site explains a lot:

Clearly, August was an unusual month.  It was on August 1 that the news broke about Dr. Ivins allegedly being the anthrax mailer.  As I recall, there were days during that month when I had over 400 unread emails in my inbox.  I'm still trying to absorb all the new information that came out that month.

I wrote about 115,000 words of comments during 2008, far more than in any previous year.   Add in another 14,000 words in the new supplemental sections I wrote, and the total comes to well over the number of words that would be in 2 novels.

Things have quieted down significantly since August, however.  The conspiracy theorists and True Believers rarely send me emails these days, although they still discuss their beliefs on public forums such a Dr. Meryl Nass's blog, FreeRepublic.com and as added comments to articles on The Blogger News Network and elsewhere.

2009 looks like it should be the wrap-up year.  The promised scientific reports detailing facts about the scientific elements of the Amerithrax investigation should be published.  The promised Congressional hearings into the processes and findings of the Amerithrax investigation should take place.  We may even see a book or two from insiders in the case.  And each of those activities should spur heated reactions from people with contrary beliefs and opinions.

Personally, I'm looking forward to 2009 very much. 

December 25, 2008 - How did I spend my Christmas, you ask?  I spent it enjoying myself.  What I enjoy most these days - and for most of the past seven years - is arguing about the anthrax attacks of 2001.  And things get particularly enjoyable when something new is learned or when some complex issue is clarified.

The discussions which greatly clarified for me the issue of the mutants in the attack spores took place HERE, but some of the discussion by "anonymous" was carried over from Dr. Meryl Nass's web blog, where Dr. Nass recently made this comment:

To make a big deal about 4 morphologic findings that were present in the anthrax letters--and then to learn one sample had 3 and the other 5, MEANING THEY WERE NOT IDENTICAL--defies understanding.

IS FBI simply practicing its own version of Hitler's Big Lie? As paraphrased by the OSS: "People will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it."

One sample having 5 and the other 3 must mean that the first had all 4 of the morphological varients plus the orginal (for a total of 5), while the second had only 2 plus the original (for a total of 3).

So one had all four, but the other only 2.

....
Hey guys, this is FBI science we're talking about here, not real science. The FBI invented their own laws of science a long time ago

1.  There were "well over a dozen" mutations or "morphological varients" in the attack anthrax.  That was noticed almost immediately.

2.  Using scientific procedures which had never before been applied to microbial forensics, scientists selected four of those mutants as key search criteria when they went through the approximately 1,070 samples of the Ames strain the FBI collected from over 15 different labs around the world.

3.  They found only eight samples from among the 1,070 which had all four mutants.  All eight samples came from just two labs: USAMRIID and one other (presumably Battelle).

4.  None of the other samples contained 3 of the key mutations.  Some contained 1 or 2.

5.  DNA testing showed that seven of the eight matching samples were "daughters" of the "mother" spores in the eighth sample, the RMR-1029 flask controlled by Dr. Ivins.

6.  The attack spores were also "daughters" of the mother spores in the RMR-1029 flask.

The above facts say that the attack anthrax could not possibly have come from any of the other 1,062 sources.  And since "daughter" spores can presumably only produce "granddaughter" spores, the only possible known source is RMR-1029.

The information on Dr. Nass's web page needs clarification, but no valid interpretation will change the fact that the attack anthrax was grown from spores in flask RMR-1029.  The seven samples of daughter spores couldn't produce it, and no other known source had the three mutants found in the media anthrax, much less the five in the senate anthrax.

Mutations are random, although certain types of mutations are more common than others.  If a viable mutation occurs early in the growing process, there should be many of that mutation in the final product.  If a viable mutation occurs late in the growing process, there should be very few of that mutation in the final product.  The four key mutations were probably picked because there were many of them in the attack anthrax (but still far less than 1% of the total), and they were specific mutations which would be easily and reliably identified. 

And since mutations are random, the chances of three mutations exactly matching those in the attack anthrax growing spontanously in new growth is virtually nonexsistant. 

We all need to wait for the scientific papers which will go into the details. Two quotes from the roundtable discussion seem to make that very clear:

It is important to emphasize that the science used in this case is highly validated and well accepted throughout the scientific community. The novelty is in the application of these techniques for forensic microbiology.

One other aspect of this is that we’re trying to preserve the peer reviewed scientific publishing process, so we’ve identified a number of papers that will come out of this also, so again, these are multiple layers of validation. We talked about the various ways that — we had the working groups that advised on the approach, how we develop the process; we had many people work on the actual samples themselves and on the repository. There were so many people involved in this that participated we want allow them another layer of validation, which is the peer review process. So this will be made public. We have more than 10 papers that we have tentatively identified to be published on this. We’re just preserving the ability to do that. If we disclose everything here then we will not be able to publish those papers.

December 24, 2008 - FWIW, I took the chart of Dr. Ivins' overtime hours in lab B3 that was in search warrant applications and re-did it to show year 2000 and 2001 separately, instead of as overlapping graphs.  Here is the result: 

While the chart makes it clear that Ivins spent a LOT of time in lab B3 at the time the culprit would have been preparing the attack anthrax, far far more than at any other time in the two years, the most curious thing the graph shows is that he began working long hours in lab B3 in August of 2001, the month before 9/11.

That seems to indicate that whatever he was doing, it wasn't entirely connected to the events of 9/11.

But, then again, if he was worried about a possible anthrax attack and/or the lack of available anthrax vaccines and/or the future of his work, there's no reason to believe that those worries would have suddenly popped into his head on 9/11.

One could conclude that he was experimenting or practicing in August.  The fact that he had no explanation for what he was doing suggests that whatever it was, it wasn't something he wanted the authorities to know about. 

December 22, 2008 - This morning, on NPR's "Morning Edition," they have a story titled "Survey Reports Scientists 'Suspicious' Of FBI."  I can testify to that.  Many of the scientists with whom I talk are suspicious of the FBI.  But that's mainly because I often talk with conspiracy theorists, and there seem to be a large number of conspiracy theorists among scientists.  Some even have downright hatreds for the FBI and just about every department in every branch of the government. 

Interestingly, the article says:

Only 15 percent of scientists who responded to the survey had ever had any professional contact with law enforcement agents.

[Michael] Stebbins [the director of biology policy at the Federation of American Scientists]  is surprised though, by what he sees as an "unhealthy level of paranoia" among scientists. Researchers worried that the FBI would inhibit their ability to conduct research, or would want to classify their work, read their personal e-mails, or ask them to monitor the work of their colleagues.

Daniel Cloyd, who runs the FBI's Counterintelligence Division, says misconceptions about law enforcement are widespread.

"In movies, we tend to run the gamut," he says. "We're either supermen and women who can do no wrong, or we're bumbling fools who can do nothing right." Neither is accurate, he adds.

the vast majority of scientists seemed open to helping the FBI under certain circumstances. Just over 90 percent reported that requesting technical expertise in a specific area was a "good or excellent" reason to be consulted by the FBI. Eighty percent said helping with an ongoing investigation would be a "good or excellent" reason to help.

December 21, 2008 - I've been so busy arguing for the past week that I didn't have any time to think about what I'd write for today's comment.  I awoke this morning thinking I'd write about how Internet archivers are recording arguments that in the past would have purely oral and lost forever, but today they are in a visual format and are recorded forever.  I was particularly fascinated by the ongoing conversations HERE and HERE which seemed to hit home on one of my main themes: Some people will argue beliefs as if they were facts and dismiss facts as absurd beliefs - no matter how much evidence there is to support the facts. 

Back in 2001 or 2002, when I first heard the suggestion that a six-year-old child might have written the anthrax letters, I just dismissed the idea.  It didn't seem logical that anyone would use a child that way.  It seemed too risky.  But, as arguments about the handwriting continued, with some claiming it was disguised and others claiming it was an Arab who was just learning to write with Roman characters, facts started piling up which truly pointed toward a child having written the letters.  I changed from dismissing the idea to saying it was "possible," to saying it was "likely," to saying it was "very likely," and finally when some key evidence appeared, to saying it was "a near certainty."  When the FBI identified Bruce Ivins as the culprit, and it turned out that Bruce Ivins' wife ran a day care center and he had a lot of contact with children of the right age, it was just icing on the cake.  However, I can't go beyond "a near certainty," since without sworn statements from the writer or the culprit or other solid evidence, there is always the possibility of another explanation, and I need to keep an open mind for that.  But, some will argue that just shows that I have a "closed mind," since anyone with an "open mind" would immediately see that the whole idea is foolish and would dismiss the idea completely without even looking at the evidence. 

But, this morning the argument changed.  Suddenly, the person I was arguing with seemed to accept the possibility that I might be right.  What happened?  The only thing I can see is that I mentioned that what we were arguing about was not my original idea.  It came from someone else.  My web site says I got the idea from someone on a news discussion group.   Later I learned the idea may have originally come from Brother Jonathan.  Did the fact that it wasn't my idea change things?  Did that somehow change it from one person's screwball idea to a possibly valid idea shared by other people? 

This morning, there was an email in my inbox from a law enforcement official in another country who regularly reads this web site, and he was impressed by the discussion, but he felt there was still the unanswered question of how the culprit avoided getting the child's fingerprints all over the envelopes.  I don't know.  I  don't know that fingerprints can't simply be wiped off a letter.  I don't know that a scientist wouldn't have ways to get rid of fingerprints.  I don't know that the culprit didn't simply show the child how to avoid getting the letter "messy" by putting a piece of paper under the hand that was holding the envelope in place.   I remember doing that when I was a kid.  The hand holding the pen wouldn't leave fingerprints if the adult was on hand to make sure it didn't.  And there could be other answers as well. 

And I certainly don't know why the culprit chose to use a child instead of one of the hundred other methods of disguising handwriting that have been suggested over the years.  Maybe he just thought it was a different way that had never been done before and no one would expect it.  Maybe he figured they'd assume one of the other routine methods was used.  Or they'd believe that an actual Muslim terrorist wrote the letters.

Last week I also discussed other things with other people, but as I write these words a new idea has occurred to me.  If Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer, how would he have reacted when he saw on my web site I was claiming that a child wrote the letters?  We know he was at least an occasional visitor to this site.  He paid a visit a few days before he committed suicide.  And he used a method that regular visitors use to get to my site: He typed my name into Google.  It requires fewer key strokes than typing in my web site name or almost any other search argument.   With all the records that are kept of what people do on the Internet, I wonder what information is out there about Ivins' searches that hasn't yet been found.  And how much can be solidly connected to Ivins?

If more people were thinking of ways to find evidence related to Bruce Ivins instead of looking for ways to prove the FBI was wrong about him, I wonder what would turn up.   I've been discussing an idea with the FBI that might produce a "smoking gun" if proper records are kept by the right people for long periods.

For nearly seven years, the debate was over who did it.  Now that the culprit has been identified, I'd like to see some debate over ways to confirm it was Ivins.  Discussing theories about how the FBI is totally wrong and part of some conspiracy seems much more a waste of time today than it did before the facts about Ivins became known. 

December 17, 2008 - It's strange that over seven years after the anthrax attacks of 2001, a question that has never been asked before can still generate a very interesting finding.  In an on-line discussion HERE, I was asked, “Ed: Do you think that it is likely that the mailer waited until the FBI was looking at the mail before they mailed the Senator letters?”

The person asking the question had a theory that the culprit decided to send the Senate anthrax letters after seeing a CNN report on the 8th of October which mentioned that the FBI was on the case.  I couldn't see any reason for that being a factor.  Besides, it took at least a week to prepare the letters.  How could he get a motive on the 8th and mail the letters that same night? 

My previous thinking was that the letters were prompted by reports in the media that Bob Stevens' infection may have come from natural sources.  But, that was also pushing the time needed to prepare the anthrax.  Those stories came out on the 4th and 5th.

So, I took a look at the headlines for around the time when the facts say that Dr. Ivins would have had the minimum time needed to prepare the anthrax - 7 to 10 days prior to the mailing.  Suddenly, boom.  There was a headline on page 16 of The Washington Post on September 29, 2001, that said:

Demand Growing for Anthrax Vaccine 
Fear of Bioterrorism Attack Spurs Requests for Controversial Shot

More than 1,000 people in the past two weeks have tried to get shots directly from the vaccine's maker, BioPort of Lansing, Mich. Callers there are being shunted to a recorded message that reflects what doctors everywhere are saying: 

   "All the stockpile that currently exists is owned by the Department of Defense. At this time there is no opportunity for any commercial sales." 

That reality has infuriated some. 

I believe The Post's issue for the 29th actually comes out on the evening of the 28th.  Plus, for an article like that, Dr. Ivins may even have been called - although his name isn't mentioned in the article.  I began to wonder: What was Dr. Ivins doing on the evening of the 28th?  We have a source that tells us:

Beginning on September 28, Dr. Ivins worked eight consecutive nights which consisted of the following times in building 1425 with time spent in Suite B3:

I suppose some will argue that he was working hard on perfecting a new vaccine.  But, wasn't he working hard on that before?  And how come nothing new came from his sudden hard work on a new vaccine?  And why didn't he tell FBI investigators that is what he was doing?  Instead, the facts seem to indicate he was working hard to generate further interest in putting more effort into vaccine development.  And one way to do that would be to send the anthrax filled letters to Senators Daschle and Leahy. 

December 15, 2008 - According to The Associated Press this morning, the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected Dr. Hatfill's appeal in his lawsuit against the New York Times.  I think that ends the last of Dr. Hatfill's lawsuits.  The court decided that Dr. Hatfill was a celebrity at the time of the articles and would therefore have to prove actual malice, which the court felt he hadn't proved.  More details HERE and HERE. 

December 14, 2008 - While there was absolutely nothing new about the Amerithrax investigation in the main stream media last week, it was a week of many discussions of the subject, including the lengthy ones on-line HERE and HERE.  Even when I'm just arguing with the same people I've been arguing with for seven years, sometimes bits of new and worthwhile information come to the surface.   Or new questions are asked. 

In one conversation, it occurred to me that a critical factor in making the attack anthrax would have been speed.  The culprit would almost certainly have made the powders using the fastest method he could use.  That poses a basic question: Does Bacillus anthracis grow fastest in a fermenter, in shaking flasks, in solid medium on plates, or some other way?  I think I know the answer, but I'm trying to confirm it.  The answer might also say something about the source of the silicon found in the spores.

In another conversation, or maybe it was the same one, a scientist mentioned a bizarre interpretation of what he'd read in the news.  He seemed to be saying that he and some other scientists were sitting around chuckling to themselves while awaiting the FBI's publication of a scientific paper where the FBI would try to argue that the rate of mutant generation in Bacillus anthracis can be used to precisely determine the exact time that a spore was made.   It's a crazy idea, since growth rate and mutation rates are easily slowed down or speeded up by adjusting the environment.  Plus, mutation rates are only averages, like one per billion replications.  Plus, many mutations are not viable, and the mutant does not reproduce.  But then I realized that the scientist mistakenly believed that FBI scientists were trying to use such a ridiculous method, and he and other scientists were just waiting around for the FBI scientists to publish their findings so they could tear them apart.  Wow. 

In another part of the discussions, an interesting question was brought up: Should we all stop discussing Adolph Hitler?  After all, Hitler committed suicide before he could be tried for his crimes.  And isn't everyone innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?

In an email conversation, I learned that it is only in the movies where scientists are absolute masters of precise wording.  I had to use very precise questions to make absolutely certain that a scientist who repeatedly uses "on" when he really means "in" really meant "in."  It would be funny if it wasn't so frustrating.

Clearly, it is also only in the movies where scientists always insist on discussing facts instead of beliefs.  Trying to discuss facts with some scientists last week just resulted in them leaving the conversation.  They would only discuss beliefs. 

Lastly, in the on-line discussions, it was again demonstrated that those who think that Bruce Ivins is innocent may all agree that the FBI is wrong, but each has his own personal theory about who sent the antrhax letters.  And their theories are based entirely on beliefs, not facts.   While there is a clear distinction between the ways True Believers and conspiracy theorists think, if the only way a True Believer can justify his belief that the FBI is wrong about Bruce Ivins is to conjure up a conspiracy by the government to cover up crimes by al Qaeda, then so be it.  Try to prove it isn't  possible.

Fascinating stuff, but when you argue with the same people year after year, they soon learn how to end a conversation when it's clear they aren't making any progress.   Most just disappear.  But one person endlessly reminds me of Matthew Harrison Brady, the True Believer role played by Frederick March in the movie "Inherit The Wind."  When Brady found that arguments based upon his beliefs were in a losing fight, he simply began reciting (or preaching) endlessly from his gospel.  The Internet equivalent is to start cutting and pasting endless irrelevant material, until, as in the movie, everyone just gets up and leaves.  It turns what could be a very good and enlightening discussion into something mind-numblingly tiresome and meaningless. 

December 12, 2008 - While a debate rages HERE about whether or not the Bush administration was framing Dr. Ivins in order to cover up for al Qaeda (!!!!), and another debate rages HERE about whether the FBI has any real evidence against Dr. Ivins or not, someone notified me about a brief radio segment from the National Academy of Engineering where the questions about the silicon found in the anthrax spores are raised once again.  The segment raises more questions than it answers and seems to take things out of context.  I'll try to contact the people who were interviewed to see what they actually said and meant. 

December 11, 2008 - A Blogger News Network post titled "Leading Theories of the Anthrax Mailings Case" generated some comments which have caused me to think a bit about the handwriting on the anthrax letters.

For years I've been stating that the facts seem to make it a near certainty that a child of about 6 did the actual writing on the anthrax letters (except, perhaps, the date on the media letter) and the anthrax envelopes.  The "person of interest" I had in New Jersey didn't have any access to children, as far as I knew.  But, facts are facts.  So, either he had some access I didn't know about, or the handwriting was evidence that the scientist in New Jersey was innocent. 

The situation with Bruce Ivins is very different.  Ivins' wife ran a daycare center in their home.  Daycare centers mainly take care of pre-schoolers younger than 5 or 6, but they also routinely take care of older children for short periods before and after school when their parents have to work and the children are still too young to be at home alone, e.g., kindergarteners and first graders - children who are 5 or 6. 

In addition, there are reports that Ivins sometimes played piano in a "humble little school auditorium" and that his eulogy praised him for "His Devotion to Children."  So, if a child of about 6 did write the letters and address the envelopes, it appears Dr. Ivins would definitely have had access to children of that age. 

None of this conclusively proves anything, of course, but when people say they find it "impossible to believe" that the FBI "could persuasively rule out the other 99 (or perhaps as many as 299) scientists who had access to the virulent strain of anthrax from the flask Ivins kept" or they find it "impossible to believe" that anyone would use a child to write the anthrax letters, they are saying the facts have no meaning to them because the facts are "impossible to believe."  That makes me wonder: 

When someone finds something is "impossible to believe" in spite of what the facts say, does that say something about the facts or about the person?  Or both?

If both, and, if many people find using a child to write terrorism letters "impossible to believe," would presenting such evidence to a jury do more harm than good?  Could any evidence be good enough if many people would always find the evidence "impossible to believe?"  Testimony might work.  But, would a jury believe the testimony of a 13 year old recalling what he says he believes he did when he was 6?  Or might that, too, be "impossible to believe?" 

December 7, 2008 - Because the anthrax murder case has been solved, I've been mulling over creating a new first page for this web site, which would be implemented on January 1, 2009.  The whodunnit mystery is over.  The only real question remaining is: Can anything convince the conspiracy theorists and True Believers that the case is solved?

Here the facts of the case against Dr. Bruce Ivins, as I see them:

1.  He was in charge of the RMR-1029 flask containing the "mother" spores which produced the attack anthrax "daughter" spores.

2.  He had worked with Bacillus anthracis for over 20 years and had all the necessary expertise and equipment to prepare the spores in the anthrax letters.

3.  He accessed the locked room where the RMR-1029 flask of spores was stored at the times the attack anthrax would have been prepared.

4.  He worked alone and unsupervised in his lab for long hours at night and on weekends during the time the attack anthrax would have been prepared.

5.  He had no scientific reason or verifiable explanation for working those hours or at those times.

6.  He had multiple motives for sending the anthrax letters.

7.  He tried various ways to mislead investigators when they started to suspect him.

8.  He had no alibi for either of the times when he could have driven to New Jersey to mail the letters.

9.  He was known to drive long distances and to use various methods to mail letters and packages so they could not be traced back to him.

10.  He had multiple connections to the New Jersey area where the anthrax letters were mailed.

11.  He had serious mental problems, which appear to include murderous impulses.

12.  The pre-stamped envelopes which were used in the attacks had print defects, and one of the post offices which sold the envelopes with those print defects was a post office which Dr. Ivins used.

13.  His wife ran a day care center at the time of the attacks, and the facts indicate that a child of about 6 was used to do the actual writing on the anthrax letters.

14.  Investigations found no evidence that someone other than Dr. Ivins sent the letters.

15.  There is no evidence that Dr. Ivins could not possibly have sent the anthrax letters.

Meanwhile, those who cannot accept the FBI's findings continue to use every tactic they can to cast doubt upon the FBI's findings.  They have no proof of Dr. Ivins' innocence, so all they can do is try to make it appear that, if there is any doubt - reasonable or not - about Dr. Ivins' guilt, then he must be innocent.  After all, if Bruce Ivins is guilty as the evidence clearly indicates, then the conspiracy theorists and True Believers must be wrong in what they are trying to get people to believe.  And they can never accept that.

And, because they cannot accept it, for years to come there may be an ongoing need to disprove the myths and nonsense being spread by the conspiracy theorists and True Believers.

An alternative idea for the future of this web site was to continue with the evaluation of where I was right and where I was wrong in my analysis.  But that seems of limited value.  When a case or project or investigation is complete, there can be great value in looking back at all the missteps and wrong paths that were taken, so that lessons can be learned which might help make future cases, projects or investigations go more smoothly.  But only investigations which are complete in about 48 hours tend to be similar to other investigations.  Investigations which go on for years are usually different from all prior investigations, and that is one key reason they go on for years. 

The facts now say that the FBI had "persons of interest" in November and December of 2001, but their investigations could not find solid proof that any of them were the anthrax mailer.  In fact, that's what they repeatedly old us: They had a list of 12 to 20 "persons of interest," with names being added and removed as facts were collected, but none could be solidly proven to be responsible for the attacks.

Prior to Bruce Ivins' suicide, the facts indicated to me that the FBI knew as early as November or December of 2001 who had sent the anthrax letters, but they just couldn't prove it.  And they were working on the new science of "microbial forensics" in hopes that the would be able to use that science to prove who sent the letters.

I was right about what they hoped to get from "microbial forensics."  But I was wrong in believing that it would prove some already known suspect to be guilty.

The facts now indicate that they had no viable suspects for several years after the attacks, as the science of microbial forensics was being validated.   It was during that time that Dr. Hatfill appeared to be the focus of the FBI's attention as a result of "tips" from scientists and pressures from the media, politicians and the public.  With no true viable suspects, it's quite possible that even some FBI agents felt that Dr. Hatfill might be the anthrax mailer.  After all, respected scientists were pointing at him. 

The first item of microbial  forensic evidence they were hoping to use to narrow down the search for the killer -- the "silicon signature" -- proved to be of little or no value.  My thinking was that it could have come from the glass container used to grow the bacteria.   I thought they might be able to trace the "polymerized glass" back to a manufacturer and then to a specific lab.  But, the silicon evidently turned out to be just silicon that was in the nutrients or water used to grow the bacteria.  The silicon got into the spores the same way iron gets into a human body if you eat raisins, or zinc gets into a human body if you eat peanuts.  It comes from what you eat or drink.

That might have been proof of something if it could have been shown that no one else working with anthrax used nutrients or water or food additives with that form of silicon.  But, no one could show that.  Plus, the crime happened years ago, and criminals do not keep accurate records of every detail of their crimes. 

The same with the Bacillus subtilis bacteria found in the media letters.  They might examine ten thousand samples from a thousand different labs today, but what would those samples prove about what was happening in September and October of 2001?

Then, in late 2003 or early 2004, came the breakthrough.  A scientist at Ft. Detrick noticed that there were viable mutants of the Ames strain bacteria in the attack anthrax.  And those mutants appeared in only a few of the many Ames samples collected from labs around the world.

Eventually, the investigation found that the lengthy production runs which created the spores in the RMR-1029 flask had produced those viable mutant bacteria.  And of the 1,072 samples of the Ames strain that were tested from 16 or more labs, the key mutants found in the attack anthrax only showed up in 8 other samples.  Those 8 samples came from only 2 sources.  And one of those 2 sources was Ft. Detrick.  And it could be shown that the bacteria in the 7 of the 8 samples and the anthrax letters were all "daughter" bacteria grown from the source of the 8th sample: the "mother" spores in the RMR-1029 flask controlled by Dr. Bruce Ivins.  That flask was the "smoking gun."

True, there were others who had access to the RMR-1029 flask.  But it is standard police work to check out and eliminate people from a list of "possible suspects."  It's a routine matter of checking out alibis (opportunity), of checking out capabilities (means), and of looking for possible motives.   It took years to check out the hundreds of people who might have had access to RMR-1029.  And when all but one of those "possibles" were eliminated as suspects (along with all the others whose names had come up in the past years), the investigators were left with only one viable suspect: Dr. Bruce Ivins.  And, as seen in the 15 facts listed above, there is an abundance of circumstantial evidence that Dr. Ivins was indeed the one and only anthrax mailer. 

So, instead of looking for facts about who committed the crime, which we now have, it appears the future will be mostly about disproving the junk science that conspiracy theorists will continue to use to argue that the case is not solved.  The True Believers will continue to claim that anyone who disagrees with them is "closed minded," but they've already been doing that for seven years, so nothing is different there.

Hopefully, in 2009 there will be hearings and investigations into the Amerithrax findings which will help clarify everything - as will all the scientific reports that are in the works.  None of it will change the minds of True Believers and determined conspiracy theorists, of course.  But, like what happened with those who insist that the moon landings were some vast government hoax, in time their arguments will almost certainly be viewed as they should be viewed: The arguments from the ever-present Lunatic Fringe.