“He gave investigators a second sample of anthrax from his lab in April 2002 to comply with standards in a subpoena issued in the case. But that sample contained a different strain than what he submitted two months earlier in what prosecutors call an attempt to deceive or confuse investigators.”
I don’t see this in other articles about today. Perhaps it is bleed over from earlier stories, or the reporter is at a loss to understand what is told him.
The stories are all over the place.
ABC says some intereseting things,
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/FedCrimes/Story?id=5603993&page=2
...The scientists noted that the anthrax used in the attacks had no additives on the anthrax spores, but that the mineral silica was present in the deadly substance.
Although the FBI was able to reverse-engineer anthrax similar to the anthrax used in the mailings, scientists have been unable to reproduce it with the silica. ...
...As the FBI constructed a genetic fingerprint of the anthrax used in the attacks, investigators found that the second set of samples Ivins provided to the bureau had none of those genetic markers, but that the sample called RMR-1029 matched the four key genetic markers.