&otFor yet another recent view of these issues, Ed, see
“Mediating the Anthrax Attacks: Media Accuracy and Agenda Setting During a Time of Moral Panic; in the Atlantic Journal of Communication 2007, Vol. 15, No. 1, Pages 19-40
and
Terror, Tort, and the First Amendment
HATFILL V. NEW YORK TIMES AND MEDIA LIABILITY FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS from Fall 2006 issue of the Brooklyn Law Review.
The law student, for examples, cites the close student of the investigation (and well-sourced on technical issues) Deborah MacKenzie as authority on the issue of silica.
31 MacKenzie, The Insider, supra note 24; An Interview with Van A. Harp, supra note 19. The anthrax particles in the letter were of a uniform size, highly concentrated with no debris, coated to prevent clumping and had been treated with an unusual form of silica to facilitate the drying process. MacKenzie, The Insider,
[NEW SCIENTIST, Feb. 9, 2002, at 88 [hereinafter MacKenzie, The Insider].
The sourcing of the other articles above is equally meaty.
But everything is virtually worthless if it is not put in context. What good is quoting an article from February of 2002 when it's clear that people were operating under all sorts of misconceptions back then and that the media was filled with BAD information? It's just burying the facts under an endless stream of words.
Check the comment I just put on my web site. It's about what Senator Leahy said just a day or two ago about the Amerithrax investigation. Here's the part that TrebleRebel will enjoy:
I wish they had turned this investigation over to some good sheriff or police chief somewhere. I think it’s been very badly handled.
Whether or not you understand that it is just someone's opinion and not holy writ, it's still very interesting.