◆ SpookStack

FD-302a (Rev. 10-6-95) 279A-WF-222936-BEI Continuation of FD-302 of Dr. Bruce EF. Ivins ,On 11/01/2007 _ , Page 3 investigators to focus attention away from the IVINS lineage. b3 IVINS was reminded that both of these interviews occurred after 6 he claims to have been made aware that RMR-1029 had similarities to the mailed material. Dr. IVINS was reminded that he had prepared samples of RMR-1029 for the FBIR in February of 2002. The samples were refused, because Dr. IVINS had failed to follow the specific protocol outlined in the subpoena attachment. Dr. IVINS had no explanation as to why he would not have followed the protocol for his official submission to the FBIR in April of 2002. The interviewing agents informed_Dr. IVINS that the February 2002 samples were collected from and genetically analyzed. It was explained in detail that the RMR- 1029 samples from both the February 2002 and April 2002 sample sets, were polar opposites with regard to their genetic results. Dr. IVINS offered several explanations for why the RMR~ 1029 from April 2002 was completely devoid of the genetic markers, which are known to be present in RMR-1029., * Single colony technique or picking a colony that most represents the majority of colonies in the sample. Refuted by the interviewing agents, as outlined above. ° RMR-1029 has phenol, which could prevent the organism from growing. ; Refuted by the interviewing agents, since the protocol within the suppose attachment specifically addresses , Maybe the April 2002 submission did not include RMR- 1029. Refuted by t j Lewi agents, since an e-mail from Dr. IVINS to SSA ion April 9, 2002 identifies the April 2002 samples, to include RMR-1029, . It was a gross laboratory mistake. Refuted by the interviewing agents, since it would have been TWO (2) gross laboratory mistakes, due to the fact that each sample consists of TWO (2) slants. ° He may not have received the subpoena with the instructions for submissions to the FBIR.