We can draw one strong suspicion from all evidence collected so far and the events that occurred. If Hatfield didn't committ the act...the person who did committ the act...knew Hatfield to a great extent. There were more than just one or two cards drawn on the table to lead at Hatfield in a strong manner...so the offending party had know certain portions of his history (not the current stuff...but over 20 years of his history). When you see no repeat of anthrax affair...no further attempts...this leads to a person who had an agenda to worry people in a certain direction. The guy who did this...wanted a massive government support program and knew he or she was in the position to be a major player in that anthrax program.
Generally, agree, except I would say, if it WAS Hatfill, perhaps he was spooked and destroyed all his stuff due to the investigation.
Sorry, but there's absolutely no evidence to support this notion, and no valid reason whatsoever to believe that this is the case.
You really need to stop believing all the ridiculous BS that Rosenberg, Kristof, Weberman, and Foster were putting out years ago. Conde Nast just retracted their entire article for Pete's sake!
As the eminent Jayson Blair once advised us, don't believe everything you read in the newspapers.
"Hatfield didn't committ the act...the person who did committ the act...knew Hatfield to a great extent."
Could you name one reason why?