Many commentators have already noted, the most damning evidence(but circumstantial)against Ivins is the extended working hours around the time of the mailings.
But what makes me intensely suspicious of all this is the lack of an autopsy. The final point of the State's case reads:
"Taken together, it is reasonable to believe that...spores residual from the September or October 2001 mailings may persist inside the home or office of the person who mailed them, even six years after the crime."

OK. They tested these places and found nada.  Did they wonder if traces persisted inside HIM? Surely, since these spores are so durable, they might be present in trace amounts inside the man. Does anyone have a clue here as to whether spores might stick around even in the absence of an acute illness?
In any event, it seems inexcusable that no autopsy was done. But ESPECIALLY in the case of  an alleged bio-terrorist.

 Welcoming dialogue among the coalition parties regarding impeachment of President Pervez Musharraf, the lawyers of Rawalpindi have termed it a positive sign and vowed to continue the struggle for the reinstatement of deposed judges and an independent judiciary.
 

Our troubled ally seems to be in some respects not so different from us:.Lawyers rejoice at impeachment talk.

if only because its relevance is not solely due to responsible reporting by our lax MSM, but actually could kick off a huge diplomatic imbroglio.
It seems the Pakistani author of the Anarchist's Arsenal, who is a U.S.-trained neuroscientist, no less, was actually detained in Bagram for a time, and is alleged to be linked to al-Qaeda. She is due to be arraigned in  a New York court next week.
She disappeared from Karachi in 2003 and is thought to have been detained in Bagram that year, for an unspecified time, and was apprehended in Ghazni in Afghanistan this July.
Now here is where it gets troubling. She is accused of trying to kill U.S. soldiers and FBI agents, and plotting to kill "large numbers of Americans." 
In turn, her family alleges that she has been raped and tortured at Bagram.
And she is said to have links to at least two high-level detainees at Guantanomo.
This one could become a story that, unlike all the others, doesn;t vanish, solely because Pakistan is a large nation on the Afghan border with nukes, and they are not well known (unlike the Australians, the Canadians, or the British) for brownnosing deference to the Bush Adminstration when it comes to detainees. 

Jacob Weisberg, who paints Bush's "tragedy" in classical as well as Shakespearean terms, was asked in January of this year, in an online discussion, two questions in succession about Bush's sincerity in driving the nation to war in Iraq, and impeachment. I found the exchange extremely interesting:

Middle America: Not only were there no WMD, but there was no connection to the 9/11 attacks. I think that is as significant a reason that the war in Iraq (and Bush) will be seen as failures.

Jacob Weisberg: Yes, though to be fair, I think it's important to remember how widely shared the belief that Iraq had WMD was. In my discussion of why Bush went to war, I put a lot of emphasis on the anthrax attacks in October, 2001, which I think had as much impact as 9/11 in Bush's decision to invade Iraq. Bush and Cheney were wrong, and they used evidence dishonestly, but they sincerely believed Saddam had WMD, and suspected that he had a role in the anthrax attacks.

_______________________

Mesa, Ariz.: Very simple question. Has he committed impeachable offenses?

Jacob Weisberg: Not in my opinion. Failure, error, misjudgment, incompetence -- yes. High crimes and misdemeanors - no

(italics mine)

I must commend Weisberg for seeing the importance of the anthrax attacks as casus belli, but he is wrong on the question of sincerity, and what is coming to light now with the fruits of the FBI's seven-year "investigation" might remove this invidious 'sincerity' defense conclusively. John Judis' call for a Congressional investigation  should be answered as quickly as possible, before the trail goes cold-because we know it will. 

Richard Cohen, in a burst of candor, appears to have been forewarned about the anthrax attacks, and was popping Cipro as a prophylactic while Postal Service workers, less highly informed, were getting sick and dying.
Now apparently he is miserable about having helped terrify us all into a senseless war (no regret about having kept the Cipro tip to himself, though).
The logical thing to do, of course, is for Congress, or a Federal Court, to learn how Cohen obtained this information and from whom. But anything from Cohen must be taken with a grain of salt. As he said of Monica Goodling:

"But for vowing to take the Fifth in the ongoing probe of why and how eight U.S. attorneys were fired, I offer her my hearty congratulations. She knows that in Washington, free speech can cost you a fortune in legal fees."

That must be the reason he saved his revelation regarding the "high government official" until it burst from him on March 18, 2008. Is anyone curious about this "high government official," who seems to have been using him as deftly as I.Lewis Libby used Robert Novak?

In this rather sorry context, note that Novak spent "a fortune on legal fees" due to his exercise of free speech in the service of "senior adminstration officials." 
 
Being a conduit for the dissemination of State Secrets for this Administration gives a journalist a lesson in the art of balancing candor and prudence, and Richard Cohen makes Robert Novak look like a loose cannon. (Until that strange confession of March 18, of course.)