What I do not understand is the rational of protecting sources trumping the newsworthiness of compromising sources when the act of leaking is the news. The same thing happened with Plame, the excuse of protecting source, while sounding highly idealistic should not apply when the source is lying. And this should be decided by the reporter on basis of news value. This is not a difficult moral or legal concept, it's called doing their job. How difficult is it to separate the substance from the manipulation? When the substance is shit the manipulation is the news.

On the subject of Anthrax, this CBC interview is worth a listen. Go from http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2008/200808/20080813.html

There are two things to keep in mind. It is quite possible that Ivins made the drop and acted alone. I find the FBI's changing theories troubling but not exculpatory.

I agree completely with both of those statements.

I was never too convinced of the day time trip anyway.

And I think most people would have naturally accepted the idea of a trip under the cover of darkness without much trouble. Which, in a way, is my point: The easier timeline to sell would have been the hours of sleep, why wasn't it the first choice? Since the FBI was holding most of the information in the case and they made the night time trip their choice only after the first timeline fell apart, can't we logically infer that they must have initially found an overnight trip problematic? That there might be some evidentiary obstacle with the overnight timeline?

As for the USPS I don't think there is anything remotely definitive about the statement I received from them. That's why I prefaced it with "for what it's worth". Even an answer such as the one they supplied doesn't tell us whether those are guidelines or strictly enforced mandates. That's why I also wanted to know whether late pick-ups require written reports from the postal clerk.

Sad that this "conspiracy" theory has to even be considered. Sad that the only investigative journalism, that delves into issues, on Salon comes only from Glenn. Can't anyone else do some investigations and not go on their feelings or what their friends think or feel? Is that too much to ask for? Maybe have someone as dedicated to foreign affairs, which come on is easy pickins, investigate class and economic issues or how the various governmental departments work?

Glenn,

OK, so I went to read the American Conservative piece, and a fascinating bit of garbage is quoted as part of the "circumstantial case" against Ivins, which is that he was obsessed with a Princeton sorority located close to one of the mailboxes. The thing is, Princeton doesn't have sororities (or fraternities for that matter). Princeton has eating clubs. 27 years ago, which is the supposed time of the "obsession," some of those clubs were coed, some were all male, none were all female. Who pays these people to come up with this stuff?

Peace, and keep up the great work.

AS WELL AS all the comments and controversy about COATINGS to undermine the idea that making weapons grade (lighter than air) anthrax is "easy" ...

I do recall reading that that making generic impure "anthrax" -- crude, clumpy, not inclined to disperse -- is pretty easy, but it doesn't "float."

See, I mighta bought the "fireman arsonist" wrt Ivins except that the whole "didn't want to kill anybody just wanted to raise awareness" is undermined by the weapons grade "lighter than air" stuff used, which (1) points the finger back on bioweapons research labs (undermining any "hero" status for Ivins or the labs) and (2) vastly increases the risk to same "public" with infection of innocent bystanders, massive site contamination, etc.

The reported extreme shortage of available vaccine that summer mentioned a few days ago ALSO makes the idea of using high grade anthrax really really reckless and "crazy"** ... yes, it would expose serious problems in the vaccine delivery system, but there would be no "heroes" ... and it should be noted, there weren't.

** I think part of the theory of Hatfil's "guilt" was that he did have deep grievance with the government and the biolabs so implicating and discrediting them fit his theoretical motive -- Ivins not so much, if at all.

Who knows?

"Carney in trouble: Irate liberals target Pa.'s Blue Dog Democrat" appeared in the local paper, The Pocono Record, today.

I think there's another question raised by the change of timeline. When the FBI released their evidence they must have predicated their initial timeline on whatever various records and witness accounts they had establishing Ivins' whereabouts as best they could at various times on both the 17th and 18th. It stands to reason that the first timeline they presented offered what they considered (although it turned out to be untenable) the best window of opportunity as opposed to other more restrictive windows. After all they could have claimed from the beginning that Ivins made an overnight trip, but they didn't. Why not? There must have been some element of an overnight trip that they initially rejected, or for some reason found less likely.

There are two things to keep in mind. It is quite possible that Ivins made the drop and acted alone. I find the FBI's changing theories troubling but not exculpatory. I was never too convinced of the day time trip anyway. I'm no expert on the USPS but I would expect the Postal Inspectors are and those are the investigators you want to talk to. It is also my suspicion that the anthrax used is that easy to make. This is something one might expect the paranoids in this country at that time, and even today, to wish to keep quiet.

Cargo, and perhaps the rest of you, should read this law review essay. Proving someone innocent is like proving a negative. You have seen too many Perry Mason episodes and watched too many movies.

The Myth of Factual Innocence

http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/82-2/Hoffman%20Author%20Approved%20Edits(H)(P).pdf