ADMIN EDITORIAL - Attorneys say guilty verdict unlikely FNP 08/10/08

I think the DNA evidence would be impeachable, almost without a doubt. The "science" of microbial forensics was created specifically for this case (completed in June of 2003 - American Academy of Microbiology - Abigail A. Salyers) with the goal of giving the science "legitimacy", specifically so it would not be blown out of court when they finally found a suspect. Ms. Salyers is on the record as saying this.

Regardless, assuming that the concepts and the evidence chain is believable (and that is open to doubt, as at least SOME of it was contaminated by bleach during one of the initial tests), they would still have to prove that the DNA could only have come from that vial. And the very basis they are using to "explain" the DNA, would open the possibility that the same DNA was elsewhere. (Some of the spores are basically clones of each other, which is where the DNA match is made - so who is to say that those clones were not removed by someone ELSE and grown/re-cloned?)

And, it ultimately still comes down to the fact that it would be impossible to isolate Dr. Ivins as the only person who could have accessed that vial. The internal security was almost nil in the lab at that time. (External security was good - so people couldn't get IN, but what happened once they were in the lab was basically unchecked).

So, it basically is just at a standstill. They are "pretty" sure the anthrax came from that vial, Ivins had access to it (along with a dozen other people), and Ivins was a bit strange.

Now - here's a quick list of what would blow it out of the water - the envelopes did NOT come from the Frederick PO. They came from Elkton MD or one of two locations in VA; Ivins could almost certainly NOT have been in NJ to mail the letters; Ivins had no motive; and Ivin's mental illness seems to have been seriously exaggarated by the investigators. They apparently fed information from accusers to an unlicenced "therapist" who then, working with the FBI, used her ill-gotten information to stamp a seal of legitimacy on the claims.

Unless there is a whole lot more that they haven't told us (and there doesn't seem to be) the only people who would have possibly voted "guilty" on a jury would be people who have already decided that Ivins is guilty, and refuse to change their mind, no matter what. Hopefully the defense would have striken them off the jury, pronto. but, honestly, I doubt seriously that the Grand Jury would have indicted Ivins in the first place. We will never know now.