Time to place your bets about the anthrax case:

[hedgehog]

What do you think of the recent stories?

[gateley]

1. Door Number Three.

I'm not saying Ivins wasn't 'unstable', but I don't see any evidence that he was behind the attacks.

[VOX]

2. A frame-up. Even The Wall Street Journal (hardly a liberal rag) says Ivins wasn't the culprit...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121789293570011775.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Bruce Ivins Wasn't the Anthrax Culprit
By RICHARD SPERTZEL
Wall Street Journal | August 5, 2008; Page A17

Over the past week the media was gripped by the news that the FBI was about to charge Bruce Ivins, a leading anthrax expert, as the man responsible for the anthrax letter attacks in September/October 2001.

But despite the seemingly powerful narrative that Ivins committed suicide because investigators were closing in, this is still far from a shut case. The FBI needs to explain why it zeroed in on Ivins, how he could have made the anthrax mailed to lawmakers and the media, and how he (or anyone else) could have pulled off the attacks, acting alone.

I believe this is another mistake in the investigation.

<snip>

[EFerrari]

3. That isn't the WSJ but an associate of Dr. Ivins. n/t

[rucky]

4. The third one, but we'll never find out for sure.

The official story will remain option #1

[Fumesucker]

5. Another choice...

We will never learn the truth, at least not until a lot of us have passed on from natural causes.

[librechik]

6. if the government wasn't involved, why the rush to close the case?

I can't think of any other reason, assuming they actually have the safety of the public in mind.

[Kaleko]

7. If the FBI wasn't covering up, there would be an exhaustive autopsy.

Does anybody know whether Dr. Ivin's body has been cremated?