{"id":891,"date":"2010-02-28T09:24:30","date_gmt":"2010-02-28T16:24:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.harvardnsj.com\/?p=891"},"modified":"2010-02-28T09:24:30","modified_gmt":"2010-02-28T16:24:30","slug":"nsj-analysis-fbi-closes-amerithrax-investigation-harvard-poll-questions-publics-preparedness-for-anthrax-attack","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/nsj\/2010\/02\/nsj-analysis-fbi-closes-amerithrax-investigation-harvard-poll-questions-publics-preparedness-for-anthrax-attack\/","title":{"rendered":"NSJ Analysis: FBI Closes Amerithrax Investigation; Harvard Poll Questions Public\u2019s Preparedness for Anthrax Attack"},"content":{"rendered":"

In September and October of 2001, an anonymous source dropped a white powder containing deadly anthrax into the mail.\u00a0 The attack killed five people; threatened the safety of Congress, the media, and the public at large; and rekindled the fears still raw from the September 11th<\/sup> attacks.\u00a0 The FBI ultimately focused on Bruce Ivins as a suspect, a biologist at the Army\u2019s Fort Detrick biodefense lab, who had the access and knowledge necessary to carry out the plot.\u00a0 Over the past nine years, the FBI has conducted a far-reaching and costly investigation, looking into Ivins\u2019s colleagues and tracing every scientist who had access to his supply of anthrax.\u00a0 In all, the investigation spanned six continents, included 9,100 interviews, and was tasked by 27 FBI and postal service agents.\u00a0 (See the article in the Washington Post<\/a><\/em>.)\u00a0 However, prosecutors never had the opportunity to officially charge or try Ivins, who committed suicide in 2008 while in government custody.<\/p>\n

Nonetheless, last week the FBI closed the case, clearing other scientists of culpability and deciding only Ivins could have committed the terrorist act.\u00a0 On February 19, 2010, the Department of Justice released its Amerithrax Investigative Summary<\/a><\/em>, <\/em>which begins,<\/p>\n

In its early stages, despite the enormous amount of evidence gathered through traditional law enforcement techniques, limitations on scientific methods prevented law enforcement from determining who was responsible for the attacks. Eventually, traditional law enforcement techniques were combined with groundbreaking scientific analysis that was developed specifically for the case to trace the anthrax used in the attacks to a particular flask of material. \u00a0By 2007, investigators conclusively determined that a single spore-batch created and maintained by Dr. Bruce E. Ivins at the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (\u201cUSAMRIID\u201d) was the parent material for the letter spores. \u00a0An intensive investigation of individuals with access to that material ensued. Evidence developed from that investigation established that Dr. Ivins, alone, mailed the anthrax letters.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In addition to access, Ivins logged excessive nighttime hours, was absent during the time the envelopes were mailed, and could have made the trip to the mailbox in Princeton, NJ, during that window.\u00a0 Critics say that without physical or other decisive evidence, the investigation should not be closed.\u00a0 Regardless, the Justice Department is satisfied with its result.\u00a0 Assistant Director in Charge Joseph Persichini, of the FBI Washington Field Office, stated<\/a> categorically that, \u201cBruce Ivins was responsible for the death, sickness, and fear brought to our country by the 2001 anthrax mailings.\u201d<\/p>\n

Normally, when a suspect is not formally indicted, the evidence against him is not publicly released, in part due to the presumption of innocence of criminal defendants.\u00a0 However, according to the FBI\u2019s website, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia stated at the press conference<\/a> that \u201cbecause of the extraordinary public interest in this investigation . . . we are compelled to take the extraordinary step of providing the victims, their families, Congress, and the American public with an overview of some recent developments as well as some of our conclusions.\u201d\u00a0 The Amerithrax Investigative Summary<\/em>, 96 pages in length, chronicles in detail the investigation conducted and the evidence obtained. \u00a0On the last page, its brief conclusion states, \u201cBased on the evidence set forth above, the investigation into the anthrax letter attacks of 2001 has been concluded.\u201d<\/p>\n

Critics of the investigation will no doubt continue to question its processes and the substance of the evidence uncovered.\u00a0 There is, however, a larger national security issue lurking between the lines.\u00a0 Nine years later, is the U.S. population prepared to deal with a widespread anthrax attack?\u00a0 A December 2009 poll<\/a> conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health found that while 89% of respondents would follow recommended procedures to obtain necessary antibiotics, almost 40% would not begin taking them immediately, as directed. \u00a0That study, at a minimum, raises concerns about how effective federal, state, and local programs would be at reducing the effects of such a bio-terror attack, even assuming those programs themselves are operating under ideal conditions.<\/p>\n

Image courtesy of the AP, via the Washington Post<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In September and October of 2001, an anonymous source dropped a white powder containing deadly anthrax into the mail.\u00a0 The attack killed five people; threatened the safety of Congress, the media, and the public at large; and rekindled the fears still raw from the September 11th attacks.\u00a0 The FBI ultimately focused on Bruce Ivins as a suspect, a biologist at the Army\u2019s Fort Detrick biodefense lab, who had the access and knowledge necessary to carry out the plot.\u00a0 Over the past nine years, the FBI has conducted a far-reaching and costly investigation, looking into Ivins\u2019s colleagues and tracing every scientist […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-891","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/peZtUX-en","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/nsj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/891","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/nsj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/nsj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/nsj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/nsj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=891"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/nsj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/891\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/nsj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=891"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/nsj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=891"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/nsj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=891"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}