Excuse me, but you are not.

Let's recall, first of all, that the original Amerithrax case was broken up into two parts by the FBI, per normal practices, into a forensic section, Amerithrax 2, initially led by David Lee Wilson, and a detective section, Amerithrax 1, initially led by John "Jack" Hess. (all during 2001). By all accounts, they were doing a pretty good job up through Dec 2001.

The original forensic investigation of the letters, to start with, also had two components. As noted earlier, bioweapons have two components - a pathogenic organism, and a packaging and delivery system. The pathogen was quickly identified as anthrax, specifically the Ames strain, reported to have been isolated from a dead cow in a Jim Hogg county, Texas in 1981 (and has been found there since). This is where the genetic forensics comes in.

However, what made the anthrax deadly was the preparation and delivery method. Some kind of silica coating had been applied to the spores, which were incredibly pure, leading to a preparation that could float through the holes in an envelope, contaminating the Princeton NJ post office box, the Brentwood Mail Facility, and the entire Hart Senate Office Building.

Speaking of the Hart Senate Building, the cleanup was completed by several companies, including Camp Dresser McKee (CDM). CDM is a large company, but their anthrax cleanup division is headquartered at Oak Ridge, TN and few miles from the national lab managed by the UT-Battelle consortium.

And, the Princeton mailbox with the spores where the letter was mailed from, is (thanks to Glenn for the tip) only 2 km or so from the corporate headquarters of Battelle Ventures. Hardly proof of anything, but note that this is the same sort of "evidence" that is being used to convict Bruce Ivins in the press.

The only real evidence is the weapon itself - weaponized in the sense that the coating treatment allowed it to effectively aerosolize and penetrate the lungs. If just one letter, carefully taped, can release that many spores and contaminate entire buildings, that's a prepared weapon. There isn't any credible doubt about this.

Since any strain of anthrax can be prepared in that manner, tracing the culprit involves narrowing it down to specific strains. This means knowing something about the family relationships of anthrax. See here for a brief primer:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=anthrax-genome-spills-its

One important point is this: "Bacillus anthracis exhibits low genetic diversity." The entire detailed technical story of how this affects forensics approaches, written by a leading expert in the field, can be found here:

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/ancham/80/i13/html/0708feature_keim.html

In order to rapidly screen large numbers of samples for the presence of the Ames strain, a rapid selective assay was recently developed:

Van Ert, M. N.; et al. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2007, 45, 47–53. (google-able)

This only allows one to distinguish between Ames and non-Ames. We also know that Ames was widely distributed, to at least five labs. The FBI say they have a new rapid assay which distinguishes among Ames strains.

From the FBI document:

The four aforementioned molecular assays have been applied to each of the more than 1000 Bacillus anthracis samples contained within the FBIR. Of the more than 1000 FBIR samples, only eight were determined to contain all four genetic mutations.

What does this mean? That only eight of the FBIR samples were Ames strains? What is this "1000 samples"? Are they only from Fort Detrick, or do they also include many samples from Dugway and Battelle?

All in all, it looks very shady without further explanation. If they wanted to prove conclusively that whatever was in "Ivin's flask" was the same as the letter spore, they should have done a whole-genome sequencing of the flask strain (cost - several thousand dollars, perhaps) in order to compare it, base by base, to the letter strain.

http://bracesupport.com/fla/Epi-sport.htm

That seems to be what Ivin's wearing.

I'd start with wiki and work my way out. There is some cross discipline connection between the two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Questioned_document_examination

Another analysis

http://iwhome.com/spectrum/crevnts.htm

Annie W.,

You can break the case. I just want to sit back and sip a nice cool drink while you all work furiously away

;-)

typically used to assuage symptoms of medial or lateral epicondylitis

If the state department had ANYTHING to do with the construction, the Chinese government probably knows more about the employees than the employer!

http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/world/2008/08/07/D92DP7G80_china_bush/index.html

Wasn't it the new Russian Embassy that was so full of bugs the feedback alone could have brought the building down? And it had to be torn down and rebuilt doe to the massive numbers of 'compromised areas'.

Yeah and about those adults bringing integrity and whatever else to the White House? Yeah...

But hey, the Olympics in China is all just about the 'sport'. Yeah, which 'sport' is left open for you to decide...

typically used to assuage symptoms of medial or lateral epicondylitis

(Shakes head, has no idea what that is will have to google.)

That other analysis has some interesting differences. Not an exact science, sort of an art and a skill:

The three envelopes and the three notes appear to be written by the same person. Note the size, spacing, proportions, letter ' R' and 'E', numerals and many other indications. There is obvious disguise throughout the notes and the envelopes.

The envelope addressed to the Senator has a return address from a 4th grade elementary school. The writer was trying to imitate the immature script of a child. Inside the notes, the writer purposely misspells "penacilin."

The note to the Senator uses punctuation. This is not consistent with the other notes that have no punctuation at all. The writer is trying to disguise their literacy of English and their education level.

The letters to Brokaw and the NY Post are the same exact letter. One may be an original and the other a photocopy or they are both photocopies. Copies of this same note may appear in other letters yet to be received.

The formation of the numeral '1' may indicate a European or Middle Eastern education.

The writing on the envelopes is sloping downward. This can sometimes happen when the writer is using his non-dominant hand and cannot maintain control over the baseline. Additionally, the handwriting formations lack consistency, typical of anonymous note writers attempting to disguise their own handwriting.

Analyzing the language used, the phrase "Allah is great" should be examined more carefully. Is this a phrase that Muslims using English as second language typically use?

(that's what I thought)

All of the notes are mailed in prepaid postage envelopes. Perhaps the writer purposely acquired the prepaid envelopes so that affixing postage stamps would not be necessary and therefore meddling with the envelopes as little as possible leaving no traces of saliva or possible fingerprints.

BEHAVIORAL PROFILE OF THE WRITER

The angular handwriting appears masculine and is probably written by a man.

The dates on the notes are 09-11-01. The precision of using double-digit numbers suggests someone who is mathematical, technical and/or computer literate.

The handwriting formations suggest that the individual is organized, logical, systematic and analytical in his thinking style, controlling, persistent. He is good at planning and follow through. The handwriting has indications of intense hostility and anger. However, these characteristics are an educated guess due to the disguised nature of the handwriting.

There is retracing on the initial letters of "This", "Take" and "Allah" in the Brokaw/NY Post letters. This suggests anxiety on the part of the writer. He may have conflicting feelings about his actions and what he is writing on those particular lines. The other phrases "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" seem like canned language possibly used to throw off the real identity of the writer.

The letters to Tom Brokaw and NY Post were postmarked the same day: September 18. The note to the Senator was postmarked October 9. If the notes are read in that sequence, the first note gives the advice to "take penacilin" while the following note states: "you die now are you afraid?" The language is conflicting. Why is the writer speaking of death and yet giving advice to take "penacilin"? Additionally, one of the notes states "Are you afraid?" The anxiety in the writing along with the conflicts of the language suggest that the writer was afraid and conflicted about his actions.