has always been a mystery ...

I also want to know how they knew the second Ivins sample was "the wrong stuff" and whether it was even reasonable for him to have done this as a subtefuge .... since any suggestion of "impeding the investigation" -- for any reason -- would have ? / might have? / could have? thrown the spotlight on him ...

but apparently, the "wrong stuff" was recognized as "not what was requested" (the March sample not matching the February sample? or what and by what criteria?) and then what happened?

... It appears THE SPOTLIGHT was not thrown on Ivins until years later ... curiouser and curiouser ...

Given that the circumstantial evidence we have seen so far points fairly indiscriminately in multiple directions, I wanted to take a minute to revisit the notable discrepancy between the clumpy spores mailed in September and the weaponized version of anthrax mailed in October.

What are the likeliest explanations for this difference? Two possibilities immediately suggest themselves:

1 - A learning curve by whoever treated the spores. If someone (or a group) was developing a deadly expertise instead of simply putting long-standing knowledge to use, you would expect the second sample to be more refined. This would seem to be true for any of the suspects mentioned in the American Conservative article except for the most cutting-edge bioweapons researchers - they would get better at their task with more hands-on work, perhaps would know more, after a first attempt, what kind of discreet questions to ask of their colleagues.

2 - Two independent attacks: it's possible that the Media samples and the Congressional samples were produced by two different individuals or groups. Interestingly, in the case of copy cat crime, usually the copy cat is a crude, less capable imitator. In this case, to the contrary, assuming there were two sources for the anthrax, the "copycat" version was significantly more sophisticated and lethal.

Why would someone with the ability to produce weaponized anthrax decide to mail their more sophisticated version after a cruder attack had already been launched? If you assume, for the moment, that the first attack might have been the result of some kind of personal vendetta, psychological dysfunction, or greed, why would anymore with more ability see opportunity in the example set and want to go down that same road?

Obviously, we can't answer these questions with what we know now, or really even choose reasonably between the two options. The shift in target - from media figures to congressmen still opposed to the Patriot Act, despite the first, cruder anthrax attack, does, however, suggest one line of investigation.

But why would a hypothetical, more sophisticated copy cat bother to upgrade the anthrax used? Surely low-grade material that wouldn't tend to incriminate the most advanced labs and workers, material like that used in the first attack, would have made more sense for such a copy cat to use?

Of course we don't know the hypothetical copy cat's intentions or designs. But still, I can think of at least one possible explanation for the weapons upgrade. More sophisticated anthrax spores would rule out most domestic manufacturers and independent agents, making a foreign government the more likely (and all the more terrifying) source.

Perhaps one foreign government in particular.

I haven't had the time to read much of what's been written here this afternoon, unfortunately, but thank you, Susan Sunflower, for keeping this endangered word alive.

that somehow can be ignored wrt the Keim 2002 sample now in this posthemous non-trial environment ...

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.

I don't see this "quibble" spelled out.

The whole "Ivins gave the right stuff in the first sample, and deliberately gave the wrong stuff in the second sample" needs fleshing out since Ivins lawyer says there was a confusion and/or miscommunication as to what was being requested wrt the second sample (a month after the first).

When was the first sample "disqualified" and why -- whether Ivins knew anything about it being "thrown out" and/or destroyed in March 2002?

what's not explained here is

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.

They claim they had ALREADY matched Ivins to the 2 batches of the anthrax laced letters ... and now state that there were TWO batches (are they talking about anthrax or the date of mailings or the commonality of two sets of letters)... whatever.

the leak(s). I'd sum up the place-him-at-the-scene leak as "Ivins doesn't have an alibi for one of the drops, and he filled his tank with gas that day." Is there evidence that he filled it the next day, or late that night? Lots of questions follow, none of which are answered. As Glenn (re)iterates -- we simply don't know if such evidence exists, circumstantial or otherwise.

In fact, we know almost nothing about the FBI's case. To confidently state that Ivins did it, alone, it would take a lot of evidence, precisely because the case itself is so rambling -- groups of letters were sent from different places on different dates. That at least we know for sure. But we don't know much else -- the "bentonite" thing should remind us that any reports about forensic information we've heard could be inaccurate.

If we've learned anything in the past decade or two, it's that the establishment media is not worthy of our trust.

OT--but then what is not when in recent days we have seen the failure of "cones of silence" and Condi,George the Less and Johnny "Bomb'em" playing short/mid term memory loss games and doing a very retro "stations of the cross" about old Soviet Union evil ways that Russia is being branded with now again.

The neo-cons must be so very happy to be able to dredge up all the old golden oldies they surely cherish from the days of the Pinko Treachery, Red Terror Menace and the Soviets Will Bury US Unless We Outdo Reds With American Militarism.

When one strips away the shabby American "Let Freedom Ring!!" and "We Are Spreading Demockracy!!" propaganda vs. Russian Out Of Bounds Aggression we see the chest deep hypocrisy Americans are wading in over telling Russians what is and is not.

Americans in Iraq--OK. Russians in Georgia--Not OK.

Common denominator for above. Who is after oil control and who is not being honest about the motives,reasoning and framing.

As GG has revealed throughout several weeks of this Bruce Ivins story the establishment media uncritically amplifies and carries water for the dug-in power centers surrounding this dubious and increasingly unfounded Bruce Ivins takes the wrap framing.

As then with Russia too. The establishment media going with being uncritical of the swiss cheesed logic Bush/Cheney WH is shoveling about how Russia can not do what Bush/Cheney WH very much did back in 2002/early 2003 leading up to UN being told to shut up and get out of way and Iraq getting Shock and Awe.

American media amplification that astounds on how factless,truthless and simply witless it is.

How shameless it is.

How rotted the footings and foundations of American media have become.

GG surely swims against this so very much so very often.

As then does Bill Moyers who the other night by having Andrew Bacevich on and conducting one of the most solid hours of TV journalism questioning and reveal to be found across the last three decades. Beyond remarkable. Exceeding in all manners.

The tide surely is growing stronger. The swim ever harder.