posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 12:19 PM
If you have read any of my posts in this thread it is probably obvious to you that my bias is towards Ivins' innocence. It is most definitely not. My
bias is towards getting at the truth despite the FBI's selective presentation of their evidence against Ivins. While the FBI holds all of the
evidence cards, they continually pull out a fresh card whenever a previous one is disproved. Take the window of opportunity that they said Ivins had
on Sept 17, 2001 to mail the attack letters during the lengthy time he took off work that day. When bloggers pointed out the impossibility of mailing
the letters after 5pm on the 17th and returning for a 5pm meeting the same day, the FBI didn't acknowledge their error, but simply changed their
story. With that kind of selective and shifting presentation of the evidence, I am forced to be biased against their evidence until it is corroborated
by independent sources.
This bias of mine certainly has the appearance of being in favor of Ivins' innocence, but it is not. I do not know who sent the anthrax letters, and
I want to find out who did. If it was Ivins I wouldn't be surprised. Neither would I be surprised if the culprits turned out to be those who stood to
gain much more than Ivins from the panic that those letters created. I choose not to pick a card from the FBI, look at it, remember it, and then put
it back in the deck............