One of the critical points here seems to be whether the sources deliberately lied to Ross or were simply wrong. Ross himself is using this distinction as an excuse. Until we know exactly who they were, how do we know for sure they were pushing deliberate falsehoods on Ross?

Even if they worked at Ft Detrick, they may have been able to pass on nothing but hearsay and gossip. And Ross didn't seem interested in parsing it.

Hatfill claimed on his resume to have gone to a Green Beret school at Fort Bragg where they taught "unconventional warfare" and "psyops," two kinds of "warfare" definitions that one could attach to, say, an Iraqi bioattack on the U.S., or a false flag bioattack by the U.S. on itself.

Hatfill also claimed that he joined the Selous Scouts in the late seventies. The Selous Scouts were a white supremacist Rhodesian irregular military unit that has been connected to intentionally poisoning rural Zimbabwean farmers and their livestock using, among other things, ANTHRAX.

Hatfill also wrote an unpublished novel before 9/11, EMERGENCE, in which there is a biological attack on the U.S. by Iraq (actually, a false flag attack by a Russian mobster) which results in the U.S. nuking Baghdad.

Hatfill had also been interviewed for the Washington Times about bioterror attacks, a few years before 9/11. There was a picture of him in a home kitchen wearing a gas mask, rubber gloves and some garbage bags whipping up a batch of bubonic plague. So Hatfill presumably got permission, or was allowed, to hype up the fear of bio attacks.

This is the guy who got the settlement from the FBI.

Now, think for a second. The Army denies that he was ever in that Green Beret school (then the Institute for Military Assistance). Why does Fort Detrick, and the Army runs this super-secure anthrax lab, hire a guy who lies about his military record? Or who lies about being in a military unit that was using anthrax to kill civilians?

A logical answer is that Hatfill was telling the truth, that he does have a history of "irregular warfare" and "psyops" training, that he did belong to the Selous Scouts. Anyone with a familiarity of the military recordkeeping knows that service records for soldiers doing dark work often don't reflect that.

[A former friend of mine was TDY (temporary duty) to Vietnam in the very early sixties and his records show him as having been in the States all that time. Why? Because he wasn't supposed to be there. The U.S. wasn't supposed to have combat troops in Nam at the time.]

The same may apply to Hatfill's history.

When it became apparent that the anthrax originated somewhere in the U.S.'s military-industrial complex it was necessary to find a patsy among the employees. Hatfill was clever enough to cover his ass. Any move against him in public would expose not only his history but our government's history with anthrax as a bio-agent. It probably isn't a coincidence that Hatfill would study "psyops" and "irregular warfare" with the Green Berets and immediately turn up in Southern Africa sprinkling anthrax in the countryside and years later be in the middle of a second anthrax scandal. What are the odds?

In recognition of his history of legal suits, we must all say that no one, including the FBI, has come up with any evidence of Hatfill being the anthrax killer. In fact, after seven years there is no physical evidence that any individual committed those crimes. And if there was a conspiracy within the military-industrial complex to advance a false flag operation it is not impossible that their designated patsy was one step ahead of them and made sure that when they began floating his name that he had a means to protect himself.

After the FBI backed off Hatfill, the problem with making the case against Ivins, if he were going to be the patsy, would be to make a credible alternate history for Ivins to make him look suspicious. So far, all we have is Duley, and about three weeks of a reported history of mental disease and treatment. That Duley has gone into hiding AFTER the homicidal maniac was dead suggests that she may be afraid of someone other Ivins.

Think about it.

The current cover story will be more than enough for the MSM to hide behind but not enough for the thinking person.

Without Duley's affidavit, the only available information on Ivins' mental state would be coming from his coworkers and others who have known him for many years.

I think this is a very important topic that needs to be better addressed. The FBI did not have a warrant to remove those computers. They didn’t need one. Because the head librarian let them have the computers with only minimal fuss.

The FBI made all sorts of appeals to patriotism, stated they had “tons of evidence” and only needed the computers to confirm what they already knew, etc. I’m sure they put much more pressure on the librarian than was reported.

This is an important part of the story because it shows another side to the destruction of our rights. Why get a warrant when you can entice/pressure the subject to give you what you want?

The proper (and documented) response to request of library equipment by law enforcement officials is to refuse, then call legal council. Instead, the head librarian folds, gives in, hands them everything they want. Unless this was a private library, those weren’t his to give away. But he did. And the police state chalks up another victory.

is still sealed, but supposedly it was DNA evidence that led the FBI to Ivins. See sig for Yahoo story.

Mr. Greenwald: You want to go down the rabbit hole? Try chasing down the reason why the FBI won't investigate Dr. Philip Zacharias (sp?), also known as Dr. Zack.

Everyone following the case knows he's likely the one who did it. Dr. Ivins worked for Dr. Zack at one point. Right before the anthrax attacks Dr. Zack was caught on security cam removing a sample during a time in which he was NOT supposed to be there (he'd just been fired for a racially motivated attack against an Egyptian coworker, Dr. Assad).

Later, Dr. Zack tried to frame Dr. Assad for the Antrax attacks. Dr. Assad was cleared of suspicion, but Dr. Zack was never investigated. Or if he was, the FBI isn't talking. No media outlet even mentions Dr. Zack's name despite the fact there's tons of evidence sufficient to place him under suspicion. WHY?

This stinks to high heaven. Over at Huffington Post discussions about Dr. Zack are deleted. WHY?