markmc20001
Guest
- Messages
- 877
Scientists Analysis Disputes F.B.I. Closing of Anthrax Case
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/science/10anthrax.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
A decade after wisps of anthrax sent through the mail killed 5 people, sickened 17 others and terrorized the nation, biologists and chemists still disagree on whether federal investigators got the right man and whether the F.B.I.s long inquiry brushed aside important clues
The new paper raises the prospect for the first time in a serious scientific forum that the Army biodefense expert identified by the F.B.I. as the perpetrator, Bruce E. Ivins, had help in obtaining his germ weapons or conceivably was innocent of the crime.
If the authors of the new paper are correct about the silicon-tin coating, 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.
Over the years, the bureau performed hundreds of tests to explore tins use in microbiology and significance in the attack germs. It also hunted for clues to how the spores had become laced with silicon, which the United States had used decades ago as a coating in germ weapons. In 2005, scientists at an internal F.B.I. symposium called tin a possible fingerprint of the attack germs.
After that, the forensic clue disappeared from public discussion, except for a passing mention in a 2009 press release. Although the chemical fingerprint of the spores is interesting, the release said, it was not relevant to the investigation.
In the end, the F.B.I. without alluding to its private tin labors declared publicly that the attack germs had no special coating, saying that conclusion supported its finding that Dr. Ivins had grown and dried the spores alone, using standard equipment in his lab at Fort Detrick.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/science/10anthrax.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1