Incredible, you cite the CDC article as your authority that the JLo letter didn't contain anthrax, and yet that article concludes it DID contain anthrax! You should work for the FBI. I seem to remember they recently published a paper citing an article in Science magazine as authority that the spores contained no additives, when the Science article actually stated the spores DID contain additives. And we all know the FBI lab's reputation for honesty and integrity.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol8no10/02-0354.htm
The index patient’s infection most likely occurred from inhalation of B. anthracis spores following a primary aerosolization, i.e., spores released into the air after opening a spore-containing letter. This scenario is consistent with co-workers’ recollections that the index patient held a letter containing powder over his computer keyboard, as well as environmental samples showing contamination at his keyboard, an incoming-mail desk near his workspace, and his mailroom mailbox.
I looked at ALL the evidence. The evidence doesn't support the CDC's "conclusions".
It appears that the CDC is simply reporting on testimony without actually evaluating what was said. They had lots of testimony about the J-Lo letter. But that doesn't mean it contained anthrax. It just means a lot more people remembered that letter than the actual anthrax letter.
It appears to be another false bureaucratic assumption, just like AFIP's false assumption that detecting silicon and oxygen in the attack anthrax meant the powder had been "weaponized" with silica.
If conclusions are NOT supported by the facts, I look for a different explanation which IS supported by the facts. I don't blindly accept any bureaucrat's word about anything.
Ed