Is information that is spoken in a group therapy session considered confidential? How can it be when it is spoken amongst several people? Where are the notes Duley was surely taking during this session or took afterwards? Where are the others who were in this session and also heard Ivins' crazy talk? Surely the FBI has interviewed them as well. Where are their statements?

I think the fastest way to discredit this entire story is to blow the lid off this "homicidal killer" thing, if indeed it's untrue. The media and the citizenry have heard a lot about it, and it seems it would be easy to disprove if it didn't happen.

Keep pulling at it.

This is an inside job to get more government funding at the labs.

The deed was done around right after 9/11 to get the attention needed.

but sean seemed to be the type who has to read what he writes a few times to understand what he writes.

Marcy Wheeler's timeline has at least one significant error in it:

"October 29, 2001: General John Parker mis-reports that silica found in anthrax sample"

Silica (not bentonite!) was indeed a component of the anthrax preparation. As related previously, there are a number of authoritative sources on this:

Detecting Environmental Terrorism: AFIP's Department of Environmental and Toxicologic Pathology provides critical DoD, Homeland Defense programs by Christopher C. Kelly

Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, October 31st, 2002.

When US Army investigators at Ft Detrick, Md, examined anthrax found in a letter sent to Sen. Thomas Daschle last fall, they discovered that the highly refined spores floated in the air, making them much easier for potential victims to inhale. What made this anthrax so easily aerosolized? A series of sophisticated tests revealed some clues, but the presence of another unidentifiable substance left the investigation incomplete. That’s when Ft Detrick contacted AFIP’s Department of Environmental and Toxicologic Pathology for assistance...

...“Ft Detrick sought our assistance to determine the specific components of the anthrax found in the Daschle letter,” said Florabel G. Mullick, MD, ScD, SES, AFIP Principal Deputy Director and department chair. AFIP experts utilized an energy dispersive X-ray spectrometer (an instrument used to detect the presence of otherwise-unseen chemicals through characteristic wavelengths of X-ray light) to confirm the previously unidentifiable substance as silica."

That has never been refuted or challenged, other than a dishonest claim that the anthrax was actually low-tech, based on a misleading claim by FBI scientist Douglas Beecher. All the analysis pointed towards the same thing: a high tech, silica coated preparation that could only be made by a very secret and specific process, which involves the addition of various additives, namely some form of silica.

Gary Matsumoto clearly described this in his article for Science (2003), at http://cryptome.org/anthrax-powder.htm

...More revealing than the electrostatic charge, some experts say, was a technique used to anchor silica nanoparticles to the surface of spores. About a year and a half ago, a laboratory analyzing the Senate anthrax spores for the FBI reported the discovery of what appeared to be a chemical additive that improved the bond between the silica and the spores. U.S. intelligence officers informed foreign biodefense officials that this additive was “polymerized glass...

...“If there’s polymerized glass, it really narrows the field [of possible suspects],” says Jacobsen, who has been following the anthrax investigations keenly. “Polymerized glasses are exotic materials, and nanotechnology is something you just don’t do in your basement.”

By March 2002, federal investigators had lab results indicating that the Senate anthrax spores were treated with polymerized glass, and stories began to appear in the media. CNN reported an “unusual coating” on the spores, and Newsweek referred to a “chemical compound” that was “unknown to experts who have worked in the field for years.” When Science asked the FBI about the presence of polymerized glass in the Senate powder, an FBI spokesperson said the bureau “could not comment on an ongoing investigation.”

This has never been refuted in any way - but when the FBI came out in 2005 and claimed the powders had been "misidentified" and were just "ordinary", the press parrots repeated on que - didn't even bother printing corrections.

This all leads back to Dugway Utah and Battelle Memorial Institute. Here's an odd tidbit: the lead FBI agent pushing the Hatfill theory was Richard L. Lambert, who was reassigned to Knoxville Tn after the Hatfill case collapsed (by Richard Mueller, FBI Director). Oddly enough, that's where one of Battelle Memorial Insitute's major locations is - the Oak Ridge TN nuclear research complex, managed by Battelle. Now they've got their pet FBI officer on site - must be convenient.

Battelle is huge, very secret, and have had their fingers in U.S. biowarfare and nuclear warfare contracting from the very beginning. They frequently partner up with Bechtel, as well - both Battelle and Bechtel are major contractors at Oak Ridge (guess what: they also jointly manage the National Renewable Energy Lab in Colorado, and Battelle is the lead coordinator on FUTUREGEN, the coal-to-gas project). Reminds one of IG Farben, actually.

For more on Lambert's role, see this:

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/12/2/173048.shtml

"Richard L. Lambert, the FBI inspector in charge of what is being called the "Amerithrax" investigation, says in a court document that Hatfill's lawsuit could jeopardize the probe and expose national secrets related to U.S. bioweapons defense measures...

"...The Justice Department is seeking to delay Hatfill's case until a decision is made on a forthcoming government attempt to dismiss the lawsuit entirely. Hatfill's lawyers were preparing a response Tuesday opposing the delay."

Three cheers for Hatfill! They learned their lesson, though, and for their next frame-up target they chose an emotionally sensitive individual for harrassment - bet they all cheered when they heard about his suicide. "Now we can finally close this thing..."

In people's minds, the most damning evidence of Ivins' guilt is his suicide. If not guilty, why would he take his life?

But doesn't the pornography claim, if true, would provide a motive? For a quiet, private person, a respected professional and scientist, and a family man, the perspective of having this little dark secret broadcast on the national media, and then regurgitated over and over on talk shows, must have been torturous. Quite possibly too, there could be more secrets in his life -- not related to anthrax, but ruinous for his career and family and community standing. If you dig long enough, you can find skeletons in everyone's closet.