In late 2002, the Federal Bureau of Investigation found considerable amounts of tin in the anthrax-laced letters that killed five people, sickened 17 others and shook a wounded nation reeling from the 9/11 terror attacks.The Bureau dubbed tin an "element of interest" early on in an eight-year investigation before finally closing its tedious inquiry in 2001, never to mention it again and before an agreeable conclusion concerning the origins of the anthrax, were actually known.But the bureau maintained (and still does) that all signs point to Bruce Ivins, the Fort Detrik, Md., Army anthrax specialist who investigators claim holed up in his lab for long stretches of time on the days prior to the September and October 2001 mailings – and who had a penchant for not only mailing letters and packages under pseudonyms but for speaking of a "Crazy Bruce" who'd do things “normal Bruce” would be unable to recall after the fact.Ivins killed himself with an overdose of Tylenol in 2008 before any kind of prosecution was made against him.Now, three outside scientists – long preoccupied with the case – are calling bullshit, according to the New York Times.Martin E. Hugh-Jones, a world renowned anthrax expert at Louisiana State University; Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, a biologist; and Stuart Johnson, a chemist, claim that traces of tin in the dried anthrax spores suggest a high sophistication in manufacturing skill. This runs counter to federal insistence that the "attack germs" were sloppy. They also raise the idea – a first in a "serious scientific forum" – that Ivins was innocent. Or, at the very least, worked with an accomplice. Their paper will appear in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Bioterrorism & Biodefense.Heads of both a National Academy of Science panel and the Government Accountability Office say the paper raises "important questions that should be addressed." Dr. Alice P. Gast, president of Lehigh University and head of the NAS panel that spent a year and a half combing the FBI's methodology and findings, tells the Times the paper "points out connections that deserve further consideration. Herself a chemist, she added that that the microorganism analysis "just wasn't pursued as vigorously as the microbiology."The authors claim that the presence of tin in the mailed letters suggests that after the germs had been cultivated and dried they were sealed in a unique silicon coating, with tin being the chemical catalyst. (These sorts of coatings are known as microencapsulants.) If their theory is correct, it "appears likely" that Ivins couldn't have possibly manufactured the deadly powder using only his lab equipment—as the FBI holds.And if in fact the case is reopened, as the authors wish, the Times claims this may all "embolden calls for a national commission to investigate the first major bioterrorist attack in American history."Reach this writer at brian@motherboard.tv.
Advertisement
Advertisement