Comments: New Tomdispatch

What I find most interesting about the allegations that Bruce Ivins was responsible for the anthrax mailings is the evidence that they don't show us. For instance, it should be easy--and it should not reveal any so-called "classified methods"--to present the DNA evidence that the anthrax spores that were mailed were identical to those in Ivins's lab and were not present in any other laboratory that was examined. It should also be easy to show that there was some trace of those spores that could be uniquely linked to Ivins--some spores in his home, in his car, in his gym locker, or some place else that even the most careful person might leave traces. Finally, they should be able to tell us how Ivins, of all people, was selected out of the HUNDREDS of people in his lab alone who had access to anthrax.

Instead, we have seen only the FBI's character assassination: the guy was weird, he liked porn, he had an unhealthy obsession with a sorority. We have already seen the FBI revise their circumstantial case for Ivins guilt when it turned out that the timeline they constructed for his supposed drive to Princeton to mail the anthrax would actually have exonerated him.

It is still possible that Ivins indeed was the guilty party. But after Hatfill, Wen Ho Lee, Richard Jewell, and Brandon Mayfield, I say that they have to show us a lot more for us to be convinced.

Posted by emmet jay at August 18, 2008 01:04 PM