So he owned a Glock?  Better and better.  Skipped an effective method in favor of a poor one!  

Clearly, whoever did him in did not manage the cleanest, most realistic job ever.  It must have been quite a botched affair, with the tylenol being an improv solution to a messy hit.  

Wouldn't be surprised if an autopsy had shown he had "strangled himself."  ;D  Whatever the reason, they probably knew full well why they didn't want to conduct one.  

The Fates are kind.

Poisoning inconvenient people has been done before.

The best evidence of a coverup of the anthrax letters by the FBI is the abysmal lack of evidence that the government shoveled on this dead man. The lack of autopsy only adds to suspicions of prudent observers of this administration. After all, should these guys ever be taken at their word? If the general odds for finding something suspicious in the "suicide" death of someone is low, maybe the odds go up if its the autopsy of a suspect in one of the great crimes of this young century.

The false return address "Greendale School" was used to implicate Hatfill before it was used to implicate Ivins.

The three days in a row when he was on OT for 2:15 exactly is a little peculiar. Maybe a clerical error, eh?

And what does it prove? Who else was around? You don't know. Do the Fort Detrick security guards go home at night? And let's say he was there all by himself for three nights. It takes weeks to whip up a batch of anthrax. Did he hide the stuff in his sock and take it home at night? No one noticed during the day? "Don't open my locker. I've got some fresh Ames strain brewing in there."

And the FBI makes no explanation of how Ivins, or any one person, manufactured the weaponized version of anthrax. The FBI never gives us a handwriting analysis. You figure that they must have tried to match his handwriting, eh? No fingerprints, no DNA on the envelopes. Pretty clean operation for a psychotic madman. You'd figure he would have drooled on at least one envelope. The FBI never even places Ivins in New Jersey during those periods.

So we have Ivins as the criminal who has no way of making the "weapon" (lab scientists like Ivins aren't in the military manufacturing end and don't have the equipment), is never connected to the weapon by any physical evidence, and can't be placed anywhere near where the weapon was deployed when it was deployed. And whose implied motive doesn't make any sense. Solid.

Here's an example of the quality of the evidence against Ivins:

The Associated Press wrote:

In the e-mail, Ivins wrote that "Bin Laden terrorists for sure have anthrax and sarin gas" and have "just decreed death to all Jews and all Americans." The letters to Daschle and Leahy said: "WE HAVE THIS ANTHRAX . . . DEATH TO AMERICA . . . DEATH TO ISRAEL."

But the AP is apparently doing a little suspicious editing here (following the feds' lead). If you read the actual email it reads: "Tonight I heard that bin Laden..." That is, he wrote to a friend that he heard that the terrorists had anthrax and sarin gas. And if you look google the date of the email, sure enough there was a news report that day that said that bin Laden's group had anthrax and sarin gas and that they'd issued a threat. That means that if you heard that news story and told a friend about it then you are a suspicious person, according to the FBI. Logically, if you were really looking for the killer(s) you'd look for whoever released that false story, but guess who'd that go back to.  

This is the official smearing of a citizen. Sleep tight, patriots.