WP article on anthrax letter investigation by FBI

[Guest guest]

washingtonpost.com

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/24/

AR2006092401014_pf.html

FBI Is Casting A Wider Net in Anthrax Attacks

By Allan Lengel and Joby Warrick

Washington Post Staff Writers

Monday, September 25, 2006; A01

Five years after the anthrax attacks that killed five people, the FBI

is now convinced that the lethal powder sent to the Senate was far

less sophisticated than originally believed, widening the pool of

possible suspects in a frustratingly slow investigation.

The finding, which resulted from countless scientific tests at

numerous laboratories, appears to undermine the widely held belief

that the attack was carried out by a government scientist or someone

with access to a U.S. biodefense lab.

What was initially described as a near-military-grade biological

weapon was ultimately found to have had a more ordinary pedigree,

containing no additives and no signs of special processing to make

the anthrax bacteria more deadly, law enforcement officials

confirmed. In addition, the strain of anthrax used in the attacks has

turned out to be more common than was initially believed, the

officials said.

As a result, after a very public focus on government scientists as

the likely source of the attacks, the FBI is today casting a far

wider net, as investigators face the daunting prospect of an almost

endless list of possible suspects in scores of countries around the

globe.

" There is no significant signature in the powder that points to a

domestic source, " said one scientist who has extensively studied the

tan, talc-like material that paralyzed much of Washington in the

deadliest bioterrorism attack in U.S. history.

The FBI says it remains optimistic that it will find whoever killed

five people -- two of them from the Washington area -- in a series of

bioterrorism-by-mail attacks that rocked a nation still in shock from

the Sept. 11 terrorist strikes. The bureau has assigned fresh

leadership to the case -- Special Agent Ed Montooth -- and retains a

full-time investigative force of 17 agents and 10 postal inspectors.

" There is confidence the case will be solved, " said ph Persichini

Jr., acting assistant director in charge of the FBI's Washington

field office.

The prevailing views about the anthrax powder, meanwhile, have been

coalescing among a small group of scientists and FBI officials over

several years but rarely have been discussed publicly. In interviews

and a recently published scientific article, law enforcement

authorities have acknowledged that much of the conventional wisdom

about the attacks turned out to be wrong.

Specifically, law enforcement authorities have refuted the widely

reported claim that the anthrax spores had been " weaponized " --

specially treated or processed to allow them to disperse more easily.

They also have rejected reports that the powder was milled, or

ground, to create finer particles that can penetrate deeply into the

lungs. Such processing or additives might have suggested that the

maker had access to the recipes of biological weapons made by the

United States in the 1950s and 1960s.

In fact, the anthrax powder used in the 2001 attacks had no

additives, writes J. Beecher, a scientist in the FBI

laboratory's Hazardous Materials Response Unit, in an article in the

science journal Applied and Environmental Microbiology.

" A widely circulated misconception is that the spores were produced

using additives and sophisticated engineering supposedly akin to

military weapons production, " Beecher writes in the journal's August

edition, in what is believed to be the most expansive public comment

on the nature of the powder by any FBI official. " The idea is usually

the basis for implying that the powders were inordinately dangerous

compared to spores alone. "

The FBI would not allow Beecher to be interviewed about his article.

But other scientists familiar with the forensic investigation echoed

his description. Whoever made the powder produced a deadly project of

exceptional purity and quality -- up to a trillion spores per gram --

but used none of the tricks known to military bioweapons scientists

to increase the lethality of the product. Officials stressed that the

terrorist would have had to have considerable skills in microbiology

and access to equipment.

" It wasn't weaponized. It was just nicely cleaned up, " said one

knowledgeable scientist who spoke on the condition he not be

identified by name because the investigation is continuing. " Whoever

did it was proud of their biology. They grew the spores, spun them

down, cleaned up the debris. But there were no additives. "

Moreover, scientists say, the particular strain of anthrax used in

the attacks has turned to out to be a less significant clue than

first believed. The highly virulent Ames strain was first isolated in

the United States and was the basis for the anthrax weapons formerly

created by the United States. The use of the Ames strain in the 2001

attack was initially seen as a strong clue linking the terrorist to

the U.S. biodefense network.

But the more the FBI investigated, the more ubiquitous the Ames

strain seemed, appearing in labs around the world including nations

of the former Soviet Union.

" Ames was available in the Soviet Union, " said former Soviet

bioweapons scientist Sergei Popov, now a biodefense expert at

Mason University. " It could have come from anywhere in the world. "

Many law enforcement officials believe that ever-improving technology

eventually could lead to a break in the case. Ongoing tests could

lead authorities to the lab where the anthrax originated -- something

authorities have said for years could help close the case.

More traditional tactics are still being used: The FBI has conducted

9,100 interviews and issued 6,000 subpoenas in one of the most

exhaustive and expensive investigations in the bureau's history.

Authorities say investigators continue to have a number of specific

individuals in their sights, describing the suspect list as " fluid. "

One prevailing theory among investigators is that the attacks came

from within the United States rather than from an overseas terrorist

organization.

However, a law enforcement official said, " we have not closed the

door on any possibilities. There's a discrete number of individuals

who continue to be investigated, both internationally and domestically. "

Over the years, officials have publicly identified only one " person

of interest, " and that was more than four years ago. J.

Hatfill, a former Army scientist, has denied wrongdoing and has never

been charged. He is suing the Justice Department, alleging that

officials leaked false information about him that caused great harm.

Law enforcement officials won't talk about Hatfill.

Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff, in a meeting this month

with Washington Post reporters and editors, would not say whether any

single individual continues to draw special attention as a " person of

interest. "

" I'm not telling you that right now the bureau is focused on someone

or not focused on someone, " Chertoff said. " There are in my

experience a lot of instances where we might know or have a good

reason to believe who committed a criminal act, but we may not be

able to prove it. So when you say something is not solved, you should

not assume from the fact that there is no criminal prosecution we

don't have a good idea of what we think happened. "

Persichini, of the FBI's Washington office, acknowledged frustrations

but said that " no one in the FBI has for a moment stopped thinking

about the innocent victims of these attacks, nor has the effort to

solve this case in any way been slowed.

" While not well known to the public, the scientific advances gained

from this investigation are unprecedented and have greatly

strengthened the government's ability to prepare for -- and prevent

-- biological attacks in the future, " Persichini said.

Nonetheless, failure to solve the mystery has bred public skepticism.

" If the FBI's investigation has become a cold case, then it's time

for [FBI Director S. Mueller III] to acknowledge that and take

steps to deal with it, " said Sen. E. Grassley (R-Iowa), a

frequent critic of the FBI. " I'm concerned that the FBI may have

spent too much time focusing [on] one theory of what happened and too

little effort on the other possibilities. "

Staff writer Spencer S. Hsu and staff researcher Meg

contributed to this report.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Meryl Nass, MD

Mount Desert Island Hospital

Bar Harbor, Maine 04609

207 288-5081 ext. 220