The one question that should be asked over and over is simply: IF Mr. Ivins acted completely alone, who were the 4 'separate' govt sources that leaked to ABCNews that the anthrax definitely came from Iraq, and since according to the FBI they were completely wrong, weren't they obstructing justice? Get to the bottom of that and I'm sure you'll have an even more interesting story.

Do you think the govt was behind the anthrax attacks in order to promote war against iraq, or do you think they just opportunistically took advantage of the anthrax attacks to promote war in iraq by lying about it?

Either way its baffling that ABCNews would stand up for their sources since they were so obviously lied to... unless there is some kind of collusion going on.

Was anthrax found in the PO Box? Because back when I was a bitty stamp collector, you used to be able to address envelopes to "Postmaster" asking them to be forwarded on with the town/city's postmark. I bet you can't do that any more, but could you do it in 2001?

The technology for identifying a human individual by DNA is on pretty solid ground. Each individual gets some genes from each of their parents, and as a result, their own genome is unique. Automatic technology can sequence DNA if it can be recovered in sufficient quality, and the quantity is hardly a significant barrier.

Organisms like bacteria multiply without recombination, and as a result, barring some mutation, or sporadic recombinations, the DNA of the parent is the same as the descendent.

The system quoted for DNA analysis is the system put out by IBIS biosciences.

A reference is here:

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/86/i32/8632notw8.html

IBIS does not indicate that their DNA analysis system, at least as it relates to Anthrax, is usable for this type of forensic analysis.

The DNA amplification kits listed by IBIS, including anthrax are here

http://www.ibisbiosciences.com/pages.asp?ID=22

And indicate that these kits are for Research Use Only ( RUO )

From the page related to organism identification here:

http://www.ibisbiosciences.com/pages.asp?ID=33

The Ibis T5000™ Biosensor System is a research use only (RUO) universal biosensor platform designed to identify any biological organism, including bacteria, viruses, fungi, protozoa, and parasites.

Clearly, the DNA evidence that the FBI is quoting was not intended to be part of a legal proceeding of any type.

It is not really correct to call the FBI releases "leaks". They are in fact carefully ( or not so carefully ) crafted propaganda intended to steer the public away from the actual facts and implications of the case and protect those actually involved in this crimes perpetration.

I've never argued that Ivins is innocent. I really don't know. The point is that, based on what the FBI has done and said, neither does anyone else. And we should know.

That didn't come across right. Far be it from me to lecture you on the standards of innocence and/or guilt in our system. I know you have never made that claim and was speaking to some in the larger audience of your readers. I completely agree that we don't know and that we should know.

Even talking about whether one would "convict" him as a juror now makes absolutely no sense. The evidence hasn't been presented.

The question is, given an arrest, as the FBI claims was imminent, would a prosecutor even proceed with the case. People are arrested and never proceed to trial, although less often in the federal system, I would imagine.

And if, after seven years, the FBI hasn't thought about the various possibilities with regard to the postmark -- like it never occurred to the FBI, as the mailman-commenter suggested, that perhaps it could have been dropped in the mailbox earlier but picked up after 5 -- then that's all the more reason to have a full public investigation of this case.

If there was a missing white woman we might have that investigation, at least in the media.

How can they go public with accusations against Ivins and pronounced the case definitively solved and closed if -- on such a vital issue (the "window of opportunity" for doing the mailbox drop, and when Ivins did it) -- they have no idea what they're talking about.

-- GlennGreenwald

That was the point at which (changing theories) I started to say, "Wait a minute..." and my earlier comments here reflect that, as Reilly can tell you.

Welcome back GG, and thank you for cataloging some of the holes and the backfilling associated with "The Lone Ivins Theory". Digging there is necessary, and your clarification that you are not engaging in speculation but are rather seeking disclosure of facts to support conclusions is an important reminder.

But whether Ivins did it or not, and whether he acted alone or not, there is a separate but related track to the evaluation of the significance of the anthrax attacks. That, of course, is how the attacks were interpreted, used, invoked in support of actions recommended and implemented by those charged with formulating government policy.

Who told ABC News' Brian Ross -- falsely -- that there was bentonite in the anthrax, and tied bentonite to Iraqi-produced anthrax? And why in the world is anyone allowing Brian Ross to continue not to identify these "sources"? Ross recently was "interviewed" about this and said, if I saw a correct report, only that it it wasn't Ivins and it's somehow not important now because those "sources" were contradicted soon after? So that means it was never said? WTF?

Who made these false assertions? Let's work backwards and see whether there is some intersection between those sources and Ft. Detrick, maybe. Maybe somewhere else. Maybe Scooter Libby, who was on the chopper that flew Cheney to Camp David on the afternoon of September 11? I don't know. But one thing is certainly clear beyond rational dispute: Brian Ross received (and publicized) false but very specific information from "government sources" that suggested a link of these anthrax attacks to Iraq. Why is this not being investigated? Who does Brian Ross think he is to continue covering up a plain crime?