as well as a copy of Camus's The Plague, is it not?

Is the 07-529-m-01 affidavit the file folks are concerned about?

If I click in some areas of the document, I get a blue box. Not the same size either and not in all places.

Interesting...

Acrobat has gotten a whole lot more powerful over the years and there are layers of metadata in each document now.

This is the first one that I looked at.

Here's what I don't understand, from the TVNewser Brian Ross interview - apparently, Ross is saying that the White House denied the existence of bentonite in the anthrax samples soon after the initial report:

Ross says he was told it was not bentonite not just by the White House, but by the same sources from the original report. [...] The idea the ABC report contributed to the White House's case for war with Iraq was dismissed by Ross. "The people who say the White House lied to us to build a case on Iraq or something doesn't hold," he said, citing it was the White House who denied it was bentonite from day one.

If this is true, and the White House corrected the record on bentonite, why did John McCain reference the anthrax-Iraq connection on his Letterman appearance from 10/18/01? Was he given the same incorrect information as Brian Ross?

Perhaps more importantly: I can accept that the White House denied the existence of bentonite relatively early on in the process. However, given that important development, why wasn't the Iraq-anthrax connection severed with as much enthusiasm as it was built by Ross and ABC News? It seems to me that if ABC News started floating the idea of an Iraq-anthrax connection, they should have corrected the story loudly and swiftly. I'm not convinced that they did so.

begins "I JUST HEARD TONIGHT ... "

Meaning someone ELSE said they have it. How the hell can the AP leave that out of the quotes?

Keep in mind that ANY evidence that claims to be based on emails is highly suspect. Given the widely known ability to forge "sender" addresses (e.g. SPAM), and with the amount of spyware out there, it's trivial for people to forge emails.

When the FBI hangs its hat on email evidence, people should be skeptical. To the average computer user it may not be apparent how flimsy such "evidence" is, but the average computer user does understand Spyware and Spam.

Peace.

In addition to the sentence starting "I just heard tonight ... " The email was from Sept 26, not "a few days before the attacks" it was AFTER the first wave of attacks.

or just the FBI excerpts?

"particularly in the wake of 9/11, he was angry towards those who embraced the ACLU position that civil liberties must be safeguarded, and Sens. Daschle and Leahy, at the time, were widely perceived to have been holding up passage of the Patriot Act;"

Only a lone sociopath, not a group of sociopaths or cold people with warped utilitarian ideas, would act on what may have been the main motive.

Open the PDF in photoshop RGB--300 dpi or higher. Play with the image curves until you have a better view.

Ivins had bought two guns in 2005 (so even if he gave one to his son, etc....)

I'm quoting the NY Post because I think I saw the story elsewhere also (but can't currently find it).

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08032008/news/nationalnews/mad_thrax_genius_was_banking_on_success__122802.htm

Jack Moberly, manager of The Gun Center, told The Post Ivins acted "nervous" and "rocked back and forth on his legs" as he purchased a .40-caliber Glock 27 pistol in 2005. He claimed he wanted the firearm for target shooting.

A few weeks later, he returned to the shop, and exchanged the gun for a .40-caliber Glock 23 because, he said, the Glock 27 felt too small in his hand.

Several months after that, Moberly said, Ivins again entered the store, this time to buy a spare gun, another Glock model.

-----

There is a Gun Center within a block or so of Ivins' residence, btw.

ttp://www.usdoj.gov/amerithrax/07-524-M-01%20attachment.pdf

Am I reading this right, that the "individual genetic mutations" are just based on "morphological differences"?

And does obtaining samples after the fact really rule out other labs from having the strain in question before the attacks?

Just to remind that Ivins was within walking distance of his place of work, e.g.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/i/bruce_e_ivins/index.html?inline=nyt-per

"Dr. Ivins and his wife, Diane Ivins, raised two children in a modest Cape Cod home in a post-World War II neighborhood right outside Fort Detrick, and he could walk to work."

---- IMO, keep this in mind when interpreting his staying late at work. It is different than having a long commute.

Lastly, the NY Times Sept 27, reports that in NYC, a run on Cipro began the day after 9/11 and grew. There is a Sept 12 op-ed in the NYT saying it is small comfort that these terrorists did not have anthrax or sarin.

So I think Ivins' saying "bin Laden has sarin and anthrax" is not something indicative of anything, rather what was in the media at the time - perhaps further examination will show that.

7-529-M-01 search warrant affidavit.pdf

pg 9 - first redaction

[unreadable] a federal grand jury subpoena was served to USAMRIID [unreadable] samples be provided in duplicate for every culture and subculture of Ames strain [whole third line unreadable] held by several USAMRIID [researchers?] Bruce Ivins

---

About four months after Ivins wrote the letter about "dialogue" between local Jewish and Muslim congregations in Frederick, there was in fact an harmonious community dialogue involving two Jewish congregations and local Muslims. The congregation of the rabbi who had supposedly dismissed out of hand the idea of a dialogue, participated fully.

This may have some bearing on whether Ivins´ letter to the editor about this matter was sarcastic. (In any case, "ironic" would be the wrong term.)

But why would anyone think a public letter written in 2006--when Ivins was already in very serious mental difficulties--might have serious evidentiary bearing on a crime committed in 2001. Circumstantial indeed!

Link at sig.

R. Jackson Wilson