Slashdot Mirror
Researchers Dispute Closing of the Bruce Ivins Anthrax Case
Stirling Newberry writes "The New York Times reports that an upcoming paper by Martin E. Hugh-Jones, Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, and Stuart Jacobsen – all of whom have long questioned the closing of the Bruce Ivins anthrax case – points to the presence of tin in the spore samples as a sign that the samples mailed had been processed beyond what Ivins alone could have done. While not disputing that the spores came from Ft. Detrick, Hugh-Jones, who has co-authored several papers on anthrax signatures, contends according to the Times: 'it appears likely that Dr. Ivins could not have made the anthrax powder alone with the equipment he possessed, as the F.B.I. maintains. That would mean either that he got the powder from elsewhere or that he was not the perpetrator.' For a good summary of the case from a medical standpoint, this paper in the Annals of Internal Medicine is an excellent place to start. A review by the National Resources Council that stated the evidence available was not sufficient to locate the source of the spores is also available."
My first thought was, how was the glassware used in making and storing the anthrax prepared? It'd be pretty easy to get some measurable tin contamination just from things like not acid washing the glassware used, and I'd be a little surprised if that had been done.(Admittedly, I'm not a microbiologist, but glass tends to hang onto cations like metals. I'm not sure why you'd take extraordinary measures to get rid of it unless you were planning to have it trace element analyzed.)
When they first detected trace silicon in the spores, they thought it might be from weaponization, but it turned out to be internal to the spores rather than an external additive. (Boring sort that I am, I read the FBI summary report of the Ivins case.)
You laugh, but things that simple have sunk papers before.
The researchers found a single inconsistency in the FBI's case: the sample has too much tin. This alone is not enough to disprove it. There are alternative explanations.
As well, anecdotally, apparently even the most open and shut cases have at least one extremely odd occurrence that is hard to explain. And by open and shut cases I mean cases where the murderer took the police to where he had buried the bodies.
For example, the murderer drove in 10 minutes a distance than normally takes 25 minutes. Or a disgruntled former employee who lives nowhere the scene of the crime happened to walk by at the same time the guilty person was committing the murder.
On the other hand, it is also true that once policemen zero in on a potential target they have a really hard time retargeting their sights. This happened to Richard Jewell, who on the basis of the evidence should have been declared not a suspect much much earlier. But the FBI had become convinced he was guilty and kept on ignoring and rejecting exculpatory evidence.