I can't find a transcript and the audio is not yet ready on NPR's site, but All Things Considered just ran a story in their second hour highlighting two critical "proofs" in support of the FBI's case against Ivins that apparently were given during a briefing held for journalists today.

The only problem is, by my reading, both these "proofs" are false.

Proof #1: Ivins provided false samples to the FBI in an effort to mislead them, early on in the investigation.

Proof #2: The anthrax used in the letters was easy to make, in fact the FBI duplicated it, and the equipment in the USAMRIID labs contained everything necessary.

As for #1, NPR's own site has the transcript of an interview with Paul Kemp that dispels the myth of Ivins' attempt to mislead investigators. Yet Scott Simon, the NPR interviewer, doesn't question the obvious contradictions.

As for #2, the last I heard was the FBI had totally failed to reverse-engineer the "weaponized" anthrax found in the Daschle/Leahy letters, so they are now saying they have? Then, several scientists at USAMRIID stated unequivocally that they'd never seen a product like it, and added that nobody there had the knowledge or equipment to make it in any case. Other sources spoke of the purity, fineness, and coating of this anthrax as well --

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/government/84/8449gov1.html

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/anthraxterrormystery.html

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9907EEDB173EF934A25753C1A9679C8B63

among others.

Link to the skeleton of the NPR on-air report here:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93710969

Sad to say, the coverage on the "left" is just as bad as the coverage on the "right" - Amy Goodman had Glenn Greenwald on, but didn't go into any detail, and hasn't covered the story since then. The Huffington Post just parroted the WaPo / LA Times "breaking news" as did many other left-wing commentators and writers. Compare that to Amy Goodman's endless coverage of "The Jena Six", for example.

Seriously - Amy Goodman's Democracy Now website has about 7,000 hits for Jena Six and only 65 hits for anthrax letters. Just like the mainstream press, the sensational personal story gets massive coverage, and the government's atrocious behavior gets very little. The story, in this case, is the same across a very wide range of media outlets - and I personally think that says a lot about ALL U.S. media, not just "the mainstream."

As far as Battelle? Well, Democracy Now has exactly one mention of Battelle, in a story about voting in Ohio. A similar company to Battelle, but much smaller and less important, is Blackwater - and Democracy Now has about 28,000 hits on Blackwater.

The issue here is probably Battelle's non-profit status, which is an issue that many organizations (on both the left and the right) that are funded by secretive non-profits probably don't want to see aired.

Non-profits have reduced reporting rules, so they are obvious fronts for intelligence agencies and behind-the-scenes manipulators. No one really knows who is actually funding the left-wing and right-wing news outlets in the U.S., or who is funneling money to the non-profit foundations that fund Democracy Now, Alternet, etc. - but if Democracy Now was a political campaign, the funding would look awfully odd for a passionate left-wing outlet, I can tell you that - more like that of McCain & Obama, only less populist.

This anthrax issue is, at least, exposing a lot of other issues. This is a far more important issue than the Jena Six and similar stories, and Battelle is far more important than Blackwater, but you still don't get any coverage. Why not?

The reporting of Duhley's "credentials" contained obvious GLARING inconsistencies.. but that's recent and tangible.

The whole business about the "sameness" or "difference" between the mailed anthrax samples has always smelled to high heaven.

Today's report that the FBI back in 2002 had some "matching" anthrax but tossed it thinking it could not be used in court ... again ... smells bad and illogical

Aug 18th, 2008 | WASHINGTON -- FBI scientists early on had — but destroyed — the unique strain of anthrax used in the deadly 2001 attacks that years later would lead them to Dr. Bruce Ivins, the government's top suspect in the nation's biggest bioterror case.

FBI Assistant Director Vahid Majidi said Monday the initial anthrax sample that Ivins took from his Army lab in February 2002 and gave investigators did not meet court-ordered conditions for its preparation and collection.

In a briefing for reporters, Majidi said the sample kept at the FBI lab was destroyed because the bureau believed it might not have been allowed as evidence at trial.

He gave investigators a second sample of anthrax from his lab in April 2002 to comply with standards in a subpoena issued in the case. But that sample contained a different strain than what he submitted two months earlier in what prosecutors call an attempt to deceive or confuse investigators.

As part of the February 2002 subpoena, Ivins gave investigators two samples of the unique Ames anthrax strain known as RMR-1029 that he created in his lab. One went to the FBI lab, where it was destroyed. The other went to the lab of Dr. Paul Keim, a geneticist at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, Ariz.

Keim still had his RMR-1029 sample in 2006 when the FBI realized it could match Ivins to two batches of anthrax-laced letters that were mailed in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. The anthrax letters killed five and sickened 17 after turning up on Capitol Hill, in newsrooms and postal facilities. {more}

so I guess this means the Ivins gave the FBI the "right" (incriminating) anthrax the first time ... the Keim stuff that 6 years later was "matched" to exactly what ????

yes, the claims of reverse engineer need explanation ... as does this newly discovered "nanotech" marker, imho, questions of "transferability" to other types of biological samples, as in, "is there another explanation for this common trait?"

Ennealogic writes that NPR are reporting the FBI are now saying the anthrax was easy to make after all - and they recreated it.

That's not what the FBI said back in September 2003 - after trying for 18 months to recreate the powder.

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/EPI/bioter/fbifailsanthrax.html

Source: USA Today, September 30, 2003

FBI fails to re-create anthrax production

By Toni Locy, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Two years after the nation's deadly anthrax attacks, the FBI still has not been able to re-create the process the killer used to produce the substance sent through the U.S. mail, a top FBI official said Monday.

But Michael Mason, the new assistant director in charge of the FBI's Washington field office, said testing has helped investigators "narrow" some aspects of the investigation and convinced them that the culprit has special expertise.

"We would not have that if reverse engineering had completely failed to provide us with any information or valuable leads," Mason said.

The FBI had hoped that by now, "reverse engineering," working backward from the end result to determine how something was made, would have re-created the process used to produce the anthrax.

In doing so, agents had hoped for clues to identify the killer.