Too bad. You said: "...this web site was created to analyze the data related to the anthrax attacks when the culprit was not yet known. Now that the culprit has been presumably correctly identified, what should I be analyzing?"
If you were originally on the right track, you let yourself get switched off by the FBI.
"IF" is the key word in that comment. The facts I had against my "person of interest" are nothing compared to the facts pointing to Dr. Ivins as the culprit.
My "person of interest" didn't even have any known access to the Ames strain, much less to RMR-1029. I had to theorize that there might be a connection to another scientist who the FBI had looked at, who theoretically could have had some kind of access to the Ames strain.
I follow the evidence, and if NEW evidence shows I was almost certainly wrong, then I have no problem shifting my focus to what the new evidence says.
It is people who follow their beliefs who have problems with adjusting to new evidence and who try to rationalize ways that their beliefs could still be valid.
Follow the money. Who profits from the anthrax vaccine that Bruce Ivins invented?