Glenn,

Congratulations on another outstanding piece on this case. It makes me proud to be a long time subscriber to Salon. I am convinced, by what has happened in similar cases (e.g., the DOJ US attorney firings), that if you and others outside the mainstream media keep the pressure on, eventually, at least some in the mainstream press will be forced to take notice. It may not force the Bush administration to take any real action of course (c.f. the Attorney firing cases), but it will at the very least contribute to the historical record. Constructing an accurate historical account of what has happened during the Bush administration, it seems to me, is as important to the future of this country as cleaning up the messes left by them. Only by confronting and exposing in detail the deceptions and outright lies told by this government can we have any hope of reversing the damage and restoring as a collective perception the sense that we have a government of laws not of men.

Sig has the link.

The short of it: the FBI claimed Ivins gave a bogus sample of his anthrax to them, trying to cover his tracks. Now their story is that he gave them a real sample, but they screwed up the initial test and it took 3 years to realize it was a "match". Why are these test results not made public?

What a conspiracy theory Glenn is putting out there, jeez.

An investigtion frequently lacks complete evidence. It is like trying to put a jig saw puzzle together with only a quarter of the pieces. It is often pointed out that there is no evidence showing that Bruce Ivins could be placed in New Jersey at the time the letters were mailed. There is actually no evidence placing anyone else at the mail box on that day. This is a piece of the puzzle that may never be available. Investigations are frequently the opposite of scientific. Science assembles facts and then draws a conclusion. Police investigations frequently start with the conclusion (the suspect) and try to build a case against them. Police take their limited evidence and present it as convincingly as possible to the suspect hoping to get a confession. That is what the FBI was planning to do with Bruce Ivins when his suicide changed their plan. I don't believe that there was any kind of conspiracy. If the government wanted to conspire they wouldn't name their own lab. They would much rather name foreign terrorists. It is just the nature of investigation. A limited amount of evidence is available. Most of us are not in jail. This is not because we are not guilty. It is because the police have not decided to "build a case" against us.

I made the exact same point about the shabby reporting in that WaPo article the other day:

Speaking of "without a clue", the WaPo reporter introduced that segment of the story with "Meanwhile, government sources offered more detail about Ivins's movements on a critical day in the case:", rather than stating "government sources offered a different timeline", or something to that effect.

Only our MSM would offer "more detail" as a description of changed detail. And no relevant questions were asked, as obvious as they all are. Of course whatever mysteries there are in this case, the behavior of the media isn't one of them -just SOP.

-- Reilly Saturday, August 16, 2008 04:35 PM

___________________

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.

_______________________

@ -- L.W.M. Re: eddy2454

The mail might not have been collected at or before 5 o'clock. The anthrax letter could have been placed in the box anytime before 5, but if the box is collected after 5, it will bear the next day's postmark.

For what it's worth I contacted the USPS the other day via e-mail and asked them that very question. Here's their reply:

"Thank you for contacting us about the changes in Collection times at the Collection boxes and how that is noted.

I apologize but occasional changes in transportation may result in adjustments to collection schedules. In some cases, it is necessary to collect the mail at a different time during the day. But whatever that last collection time is indicates it will still be postmarked for the particular day.

I also asked if records were kept of late pick-ups but they didn't offer any response to that question.

I am a retired federal worker. Admin leave is not vague. It should be specifically shown in the Time sheets and pay records of Ft Detrick as well as on the pay stub to Ivins. It should show start time and end time and total hours and minutes of admin leave granted.

Admin leave usually meant in my time that the employee was away from his/her station on official business. For example, I sometimes gave talks to organizations for the elderly about Medicare and/or Social Security benefits, etc. I also went to the VA hospital in our locality on matters concerning SSA. If I remember correctly that was charged as admin leave.

Surely the FBI knows exactly how many hours and the specific time of the admin leave from pay records . . . so why use words like "briefly" or leaving "shortly after reporting for work", etc.. In my opinion this is a BIG hole in the FBI misinformation. Are they just seeing if they can get away with it?

The members of the Senate and House could certainly obtain those pay records to establish the exact times involved and probably the reason for the admin leave.

In my opinion this is a critical point in the "evidence" being used against Ivins. The FBI should have to present their allegations on this point in the form of hard evidence.

Thank you, Glenn, for standing up for Justice, whatever the hard evidence may prove in the end (if there ever is an end).