Sherman, Set The Wayback Machine For October 2001

As the nation, still reeling from 9/11, was further terrorized by the infamous Anthrax Letters.  Almost ten years later, the National Academy of Sciences report on the case reveals that from a scientific perspective, Bruce Ivins, the man suspected of the crime, may not have been the culprit.

An independent panel of scientists has determined that the FBI did not have enough scientific evidence to produce a conviction in the case of the 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people.

The National Academies of Sciences released a review Tuesday of the science used in the investigation. The $1.1 million report, which was commissioned by the FBI, concluded that the man accused in the case, Bruce Ivins, could have carried out the attacks, but the science alone did not prove it.

In October and September of 2001, letters containing anthrax killed five people and infected 17 others. Recipients included NBC News, The New York Post, Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT).

Even after over 600,000 investigator work hours spent by the FBI's "Amerithrax Task Force," the case against Ivins was largely circumstantial.

Ivins killed himself in 2008 just as the government was prepared to indict him. The Justice Department closed the case last year, concluding Ivins had acted alone in stealing the spores from the government lab where he worked.

The report released Tuesday questioned the link between a flask of anthrax found in Ivins' office and the letters.

"The scientific link between the letter material and flask number RMR-1029 is not as conclusive as stated in the DOJ Investigative Summary," the report said.

The panel added that another explanation for the link "was not rigorously explored" by the FBI.

The case was closed when Ivins killed himself three years ago.  There were plenty of questions then about Ivins and his sudden death, and what the FBI was trying to prove.  Now, it seems, somebody has the courage to point out that the case against Ivins wasn't as airtight as the country was led to believe.

Will Eric Holder re-open the case?  Doubtful.