Distinct signature found in ’01 anthrax

Baltimore Sun ^ | 4/7/04 | Scott Shane

[TrebleRebel]

Distinct signature found in ’01 anthrax Discovery raises hope that source can be traced By Scott Shane Sun National Staff Originally published July 4, 2004 In a possible break for the FBI's investigation of the anthrax letters of 2001, scientists have discovered that the mailed anthrax was a mix of two slightly different samples, giving the bacteria a distinct signature that might make it easier to match with a source, according to two non-government experts who have been told of the finding. The discovery that bacteria taken from the letters all grew in the double pattern was made at least a year ago, and it is not known whether the FBI's hunt for a matching sample has succeeded.

[Mitchell]

Thanks -- that makes sense.

[Shermy]

"If the difference is the inverted section on plasmid, then we did know that back in 2002. That is the way I read the Read article in Science. I even wrote to a guy at TIGR and he confirmed that I was reading it correctly."

That's beyond me. I do remember first reports in 2001/early 2002 of a "genetic" difference between (I think) the AMI and a senate anthrax - but a scientist, from Stanford I recalled, commented that it might not mean much, there's all sorts of reasons for vairations, etc.

There was also the reports about the difference between the Daschle and Leahy anthrax - one was "clumpy" and looked like "puppy chow." This was later explained as after the fact damage by irradiation, water, or something else.

"There was a question if what was sequenced from Bob Stevens had been influenced by the massive amount of antibiotics he
was given, but they could have, but I never heard the results....compare it with what was in the unopened envelope to the Senator. If they compared the two and they both had the same 50% inversion, then the antibiotics had no effect. It was like that supposedly when they stole it. My scenario is that they stole it by taking a little out of a couple of vials. Then it would not look like any was missing and the thief would be long gone by the time any discovery was made."

My first question would be why the Leahy anthrax wasn't compared to the AMI anthrax, rather than via Stevens' blood. But maybe there wasn't enough found at AMI to make a test...is that true? Sounds a little familiar.


Then there's that story of the Egyptian sailor in Brazil that's never been explained...

[Mitchell]

If the difference is the inverted section on plasmid, then did know that back in 2002.

Are you sure about this? Where in the Science article does it say that they found genetic differences within the Florida isolate?

Even so, it would be something new. After all, the Science article was about the anthrax delivered to AMI, while it would appear that this new finding is about the NY and DC anthrax ("The discovery that bacteria taken from the letters all grew in the double pattern....").

[Mitchell]

"... the Florida isolate contains a mixture of both orientations."

You're absolutely right -- thank you for the reference. I'd missed that in reading it.

I still think this latest report adds something new, in that it seems to refer to the anthrax mailed to NY and DC, whereas the Science paper is about the FL anthrax. Of course, it's impossible to make a solid judgment about the recent report (no details, no peer review, not even a named source).

[Mitchell]

I posted an analysis in 2002 about apparent differences between the anthrax in Florida as compared with the anthrax in the Northeast. [This doesn't address the issue of whether there were differences between the NY anthrax attack and the DC anthrax attacks.]

I think this analysis might still be of interest today. Below are copies of a couple of posts about this. (I think there were earlier postings, but these are probably the clearest and most complete.)

---

A summary of the differences in symptoms in Florida vs. the Northeast.

Originally posted on 5/12/2002, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/680790/posts?page=73#73

There do appear to be differences in symptomatology among the various anthrax mailings. It's too early to say whether these differences are caused by genetic differences in the anthrax, different physical preparation of the powder, or some other differences in the patients or the environment.

There are three differences in symptoms, of which two appear to require further explanation:

1. Compare the long-term symptoms of the people who contracted inhalation anthrax and survived. The postal workers in the Northeast all continue to suffer from symptoms similar to Gulf War Syndrome, while the patient in Florida is back to his old self.
    
2. Compare the people who contracted anthrax after being exposed directly via letters opened in their place of business (unrecognized by the recipient at the time). In Florida, the only cases were of inhalation anthrax. In New York, the only cases were of cutaneous anthrax. (The Washington letters can't be compared in this way. The Daschle letter was caught upon opening, and everyone was given immediate treatment. The Leahy letter was caught by the authorities before delivery.)

[The third difference appears to be easily explainable: the number of cross-contamination cases and postal worker infections in the Northeast (many inhalation anthrax) vs. none in Florida. But this can probably be explained by the different machines in use in the Trenton post office, which squeezed powder out of the envelopes there and sent it flying.]

Differences 1 and 2 above may not be statistically significant, due to very small sample sizes (especially in Florida); but they are suggestive of a difference.

If I had to guess, I'd say that difference 1 would appear to be due to a genetic difference between the FL anthrax and the anthrax distributed in the Northeast. It could also be due to some other difference (a chemical agent added to the NY and/or DC anthrax, or some other aspect of the physical preparation). (Or maybe it's just due to chance. Perhaps Blanco in FL was unusually hardy. But he's quite old, which makes me doubt that it's just chance in this fashion.)

Difference 2 is strange. The same bacterium causes both inhalation and cutaneous anthrax; the difference is just the site of infection. My first inclination was to say that this difference indicates a difference in physical preparation (after all, the whole point of "weaponization" is to make the particles small enough to lodge in the lungs, as well as to make them free of electrical charge so they'll move around easily) or in delivery method. But the delivery methods were apparently the same. And what kind of physical preparation could prevent cutaneous anthrax cases from arising at AMI? The building was heavily contaminated, after all.

So I'm not sure what to make of difference 2. Maybe it indicates a genetic difference as well? There could be different genetic propensities for the bacteria to do differentially better or worse at different infection sites.

---

A preliminary statistical analysis indicating that the symptomatic differences probably aren't due to chance, but this isn't definitive due to the small sample size.

Originally posted on 4/24/2002, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/671281/posts?page=13#13 and http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/671281/posts?page=14#14

Let's analyze this statistically. Take as the null hypothesis the statement that there is no difference between the FL and NJ anthrax. Of the 6 inhalation anthrax survivors, 1 refuses to be interviewed. So, of the 5 we know about, 1 (Blanco) has fully recovered, and 4 are experiencing the syndrome of symptoms described in the article (memory loss, fatigue, joint pain). Assuming the null hypothesis now, all patients were exposed to the same anthrax; this anthrax would then appear to cause this syndrome among about 80% of the survivors (due to genetic differences among patients or other factors). The fully-recovered patient could equally likely have been any one of the five (by the null hypothesis). The probability that the fully-recovered patient (we would expect to have one) would be the patient from FL is 1 out of 5, or 20%.

So I conclude that the probability that this is due to chance (rather than to some difference between the FL and NJ anthrax) is 20%. In statistical terms, we can say that there is a difference between the FL and NJ anthrax at the p=0.8 confidence level. This is not statistically significant (because of the small sample size), but it's high enough to be suggestive. It does add to the weight of other evidence that there is a difference.

In terms of other measures, notice that there doesn't appear to be a difference in mortality rate between the FL anthrax and the NJ anthrax, among the people who contracted the inhalation form of the disease. Fatalities numbered 1 out of 2 cases in FL, and 4 out of 9 cases in the Northeast.

On the other hand, there does appear to be a difference in the site of infection. There were many cases of cutaneous anthrax in the Northeast, but none in FL. This suggests a difference in physical preparation or delivery method, but it's conceivable that a subtle genetic difference could make one type more virulent at a particular site than another.

---

There's one minor correction to make here. I wrote: ...at the p=0.8 confidence level.

I meant, of course, the 80% confidence level, or, equivalently, p=0.2. (Typically, people would like to see a 95% confidence level, or p <= 0.05, to call something statistically significant.)

This p value of 0.2 is based just on the differential rate of full recovery among survivors in the two populations (FL vs. the Northeast). I suspect that if you also include the difference in cutaneous anthrax incidence rate, the difference may prove to be statistically significant.

---

[Mitchell]

I do remember first reports in 2001/early 2002 of a "genetic" difference between (I think) the AMI and a senate anthrax

Yes, I recall that too. There were supposedly small genetic differences between the FL anthrax and the DC anthrax. What I heard was informal second-hand talk, though, not verifiable published information.

I know of one published article that appears to allude to this. It's a Washington Post article from Aug. 4, 2002, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A40838-2002Aug3. Here's a short excerpt with the relevant allusion:

One law enforcement official confirmed that tests are still underway on the spores recovered from a letter to Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.). "There is still optimism that the science will narrow this thing down further," he said. But he acknowledged that "the science is only going to take us so far."

The problem for analysts is that while they can compare genetic material from different samples, or "isolates," of the Ames strain, they do not yet know how to interpret the mutations that can occur across generations of a bacterium, or even among different bacteria from the same lab and strain.

It sounds as if they were saying that they found small genetic differences, but that they weren't sure exactly what to conclude from that.

[Mitchell]

Why do you think there were no cases of cutaneous anthrax in Florida, while there were so many in the Northeast? That's a peculiar anomaly.

[Mitchell]

I don't know either, but it's strange that there were no cutaneous anthrax cases in FL, while there were so many in the Northeast.

Much of the AMI building was said to have been very heavily contaminated, apparently much more so than any of the New York media buildings -- those buildings weren't shut down for massive clean-ups.

It's doubtful that people in Florida would have fewer nicks and cuts than people in New York. In fact, Floridians typically dress more informally than New Yorkers, so the people at AMI would probably have more exposed skin and fewer layers of clothing.

It really is a very distinctive difference, and it's hard to see what could have caused it.

[Shermy]

U.S. Shows Anthrax Probe Details to Judge

[Khan Noonian Singh]

<< Claire Fraser, the president of The Institute for Genomic Research in Rockville, Md., said her laboratory had identified subtle differences in the DNA of the various strains of anthrax that killed people in Florida, Washington and New York. She said the research was helping to narrow the hunt for the person who mailed the anthrax spores last fall. >>

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/020307-attack02.htm

[tortoise]

....he says it could only have been done in a well equiped lab.

Which any fully competent biotech fella could have in their garage. It is not unknown in these parts for biotech research gurus to personally own all the gear required to genetically engineer biowarfare agents in a weaponized form. The equipment costs some bucks but isn't that expensive, and is generally readily available. A lot of the biotech equipment made in Russia is particularly cheap and quite serviceable.

What has saved us to date is that it takes more brains than money currently to put something nasty together. And that won't last forever.

[jpl]

Disclosing such information would provide "a voyeur's window" into the investigation, Lambert said, and give Hatfill or others ideas about destroying or hiding evidence, retaliating against witnesses or fleeing the country.

So Hatfill is considered a threat to destroy or hide evidence, retaliate against witnesses, or even to go so far as to flee the country? If Lambert really said this, this is an absolutely remarkable statement. It means that either the government still seriously believes that he may have actually done it, or they know he didn't do it but are trying to give the false impression that he's still a suspect.

[TrebleRebel]

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

---

)
STEVEN J. HATFILL, M.D., )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action Number
) 1:03CV01793
ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN ASHCROFT, )
ET AL., )
)
Defendant. )

---

DECLARATION OF RICHARD L. LAMBERT

I, Richard L. Lambert, declare as follows:

1. This declaration is submitted in support of the
government's motion for a stay of proceedings in this civil
action due to the pendency of a related criminal investigation.
The statements made in this declaration are based on my personal
knowledge of facts and information obtained and reviewed in the
course of my official duties.

2. I am a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI). I entered on duty with the FBI in July
1988. I have been a Special Agent for over l5 years. My
education consists of a Bachelor's Degree, Masters Degree in
Political Science, Master's Degree in Public Administration and
Doctor of Jurisprudence Degree. I am licensed to practice law in
the State of Texas. Before entering on duty with the FBI, I
practiced law in Austin, Texas. Since entering on duty with the
FBI I served as a white collar crime and violent crime

-1-
___________________________________________________________



investigator in the St. Louis Field Office; as a Supervisory
Special Agent in the Legal Counsel Division and Office oj
Professional Responsibility at FBI Headquarters; as a Supervisory
Special Agent of an Organized Crime/Drug Squad in the Norfolk
Field Office; as an Assistant Inspector in the Inspection
Division at FBI Headquarters; and as an Assistant Special Agent
in Charge of counterterrorism and foreign counterintelligence
matters in the San Diego Field Office. Since October 5, 2002, I
have been assigned as the Inspector in Charge of the joint
FBI/U.S. Postal Inspection Service investigation known as
''AMERITHRAX."

3. The AMERITHRAX investigation was initiated in
October 200l. The objective of the investigation is to identify
and to prosecute the individual or individuals responsible for
the worst bioterrorism attack in U.S. history. These attacks
involved the mailing of four anthrax-laden letters: two letters
were mailed to New York, New York on or about September l8, 2001
and two letters were mailed to Washington, D.C. on or about
October 9, 200l. It is suspected that a fifth anthrax-filled
letter was mailed to Boca Raton or Lantana, Florida on an
undetermined date. Two United States Senators and two highly
prominent members of the news media were specifically targeted
for anthrax exposure by the perpetrator(s) of the attacks. The
FBI has recovered four envelopes containing letters and anthrax

-2-
___________________________________________________________



powder which were used in these attacks. These envelopes were
addressed to Tom Brokaw at the National Broadcasting Corporation,
the "Editor'' of the New York Post newspaper, U.S. Senator Tom
Daschle, and U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy.

4. As a consequence of these mailings, 22 persons were
infected with anthrax; five persons died and l7 survived. Tt is
estimated that over 30,000 individuals underwent an antibiotic
regimen to protect against anthrax infection. At least l7 post
offices and other public office buildings were contaminated with
anthrax, requiring the expenditure of millions of dollars for
clean up and remediation. The total estimated economic damage
from these attacks stands at over one billion dollars. The
concomitant injury to the collective American psyche is
incalculable. These acts of bioterrorism exacerbated the
trepidation and vulnerability felt by the American people in the
aftermath of the September ll, 2001 terrorist attacks, spawning
nationwide fear about the safety of all mail delivered through
the U.S. postal system.


Investigative Methodology

5. The scope and complexity of the AMERTTHRAX
investigation are unprecedented in the FBI's 95 year history. To
date, the FBI has expended over 23l,OOO agent hours in the

-3-
___________________________________________________________



investigation of the anthrax attacks - the equivalent of 89 Agent
work years.

6. To advance the AMERITHRAX investigation, the FBI
has developed an analytical framework for prioritizing
investigative initiatives. This framework consists of a
bifurcated approach which focuses concurrently on traditional
evidence collection methods targeting people and places, and
scientific evidence collection procedures aimed at profiling and
exploiting the rorensic characteristics or the anthrax evidence
itself.

7. With regard to the first prong or this framework,
individual persons have been identified for investigation based
upon the extent to which they exhibit one or more investigative
criteria. The second prong of the AMERTTHRAX investigation is
focused on an examination of the anthrax spores which were found
within the envelopes mailed to the victims of the attacks.

8. Both investigative prongs are active and ongoing
resulting in the collection or additional evidence, the
generation of new investigative leads, and the development of
cutting-edge forensic techniques and analysis.


-4-
___________________________________________________________



Specific Harms Reasonably Anticipated from Proceedings on
Plaintiff's Privacy Act Claim


9. A stay of plaintiff's Privacy Act claim is viewed
by the FBI as critical to the integrity and successful resolution
of the AMERITHRAX investigation. Litigating plaintiff's claim
before the criminal investigation is resolved will undermine the
government's ability to investigate and prosecute the
perpetrator(s) of this crime and potentially permit the
restrictive rules of criminal procedure to be circumvented. It
is reasonably anticipated that plaintiff will seek discovery of
and access to information collected under the auspices of the
AMERITHRAX investigation. Such discovery would likely seek
investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes,
including case summaries and other probative evidentiary
documents revealing details of the investigation, such as the
character and nature of evidence acquired, the identities of
individuals who are cooperating, the names and addresses of
persons interviewed, the substance of witnesses' statements,
investigative techniques and procedures, and ongoing and planned
investigative initiatives.

1O. Accepting as true plaintiff's allegation that he
is being investigated in connection with the anthrax attacks, it
rollows that allowing plaintiff to take civil discovery of
investigative files and to depose investigative agents and

-5-
___________________________________________________________



officials could easily enable plaintiff to probe into how and why
he is being investigated and where the investigation is headed.
Indeed, the broad and sweeping nature of plaintiff's complaint
appears calculated to lay the predicate for discovery into every
aspect of the investigation as it might relate to plaintiff.
Plaintiff's complaint alleges numerous specific investigative
actions relating to him -- such as polygraph examinations,
searches of his residence, and electronic surveillance of his
telephone. The complaint further makes allegations regarding the
motives behind, evidentiary basis for, and results of, these
alleged actions. It is not possible to proceed with discovery on
any of these subjects without divulging sensitive information
that will compromise and frustrate the AMERITHRAX investigation.

11. If such information reaches plaintiff or other
individuals, it will afford them a voyeur's window into an
active, pending and ongoing criminal investigation. Such
disclosures will provide information concerning the focus and
direction of the investigation, including the FBI's interest in
specific individuals and the factual predicate for that interest.
Arming plaintiff or other individuals with such knowledge will
afford them multiple opportunities to interfere with and obstruct
the investigation by destroying, hiding, secreting, and otherwise
concealing evidence; coercing, intimidating, harassing, or
retaliating against witnesses; fleeing the country or avoiding

-6-
___________________________________________________________



FBI contact; framing justifications, altering recollections,
crafting alibis, manufacturing exculpatory explanations, or
feigning lack of remembrance.

12. Revealing the specific investigative techniques
being used by the FBI in this case will impair their
effectiveness by permitting plaintiff or other individuals to
identify and employ countermeasures aimed at thwarting them.

13. Once public, it is probable that these disclosures
will subject both those under investigation and witnesses to
intense media scrutiny, thus chilling the cooperation and
diminishing the candor which might otherwise be forthcoming
during interviews with the FBI.

14. If classified information were disclosed in this
case, even inadvertently, it would reveal scientific and
technological matters related to national security; special
intelligence collection activities, sources, and methods; and the
vulnerabilities and capabilities of installations, projects and
plans relating to U.S. bio-weapons defense and national security.
In the hands of those hostile to the U.S., this valuable
intelligence could aid state-sponsors of terrorism or terrorist
organizations in their efforts to genetically engineer or alter
their anthrax bio-weapons to "spoof" or escape detection by
currently utilized U.S. defense technologies.

-7-
___________________________________________________________



15. In addition to the foregoing harms posed by
disclosure of the types of information described above, any
discovery proceedings in this matter will divert and distract FBI
Agents and Postal Inspectors from investigating the most serious
bioterrorism attack in U.S. history. Permitting discovery to go
forward in this matter may impede investigators' ability to
identify, gather and collect evidence in a timely manner. This
consequence will accrue if investigators are embroiled in
responding to interrogatories, requests for production of
documents and depositions.

16. All of these outcomes will seriously and adversely
affect the FBI's ability to effectively and efficiently conduct
the AMERITHRAX investigation.

-8-
___________________________________________________________



Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 1746,
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct.

Executed this 21st day of November, 2003.


(signed)
Richard L. Lambert
Inspector in Charge
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Washington, D. C.

[TrebleRebel]

"The second prong of the AMERITHRAX investigation is
focused on an examination of the anthrax spores which were found within the envelopes mailed to the victims of the attacks."

These are the spores that the Army labs publicly stated were coated with silica to prevent clumping and which other military labs privately stated were also processed with the aid of a polymerized glass binder - a process that was previously unknown to any US bioweaponeers.

These are the same spores that FBI scientist Dwight Adams privately stated had no additives at all.

Who is right and why is this happening? Does the media even care?

[TrebleRebel]

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you. That gives them another 4 months to dream up the next delay. I suppose Maureen Stevens will have to wait too.


http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/health/bal-te.anthrax08jul08,0,5033760.story?coll=bal-health-headlines

Judge delays Hatfill lawsuit until Oct. 7

By Scott Shane
Sun National Staff
Originally published July 8, 2004

After reviewing a secret progress report on the FBI's anthrax investigation, a judge has confirmed his postponement of Dr. Steven J. Hatfill's lawsuit against the federal government for at least three more months.

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton signed an order Tuesday delaying proceedings in the lawsuit until Oct. 7, when he will again review the investigation. Government lawyers had sought the postponement, saying that Hatfill's lawyers' requests for documents and depositions would interfere with the case.

On Tuesday, Walton reviewed a classified declaration written by Richard Lambert, the FBI inspector in charge of the investigation of the anthrax-laced letters that killed five people in 2001. The declaration was then "stored in an appropriate secure container at the Department of Justice," according to court papers.

Hatfill, a former Army biowarfare expert at Fort Detrick in Frederick, denies any connection to the attacks.