The only hope for a resolution to a disagreement is when there is a reasonable way to find out who is right and who is wrong.
The FBI and DOJ have presented a mountain of evidence showing that Dr. Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer. Those who disagree, not only fail to present better evidence to support their beliefs, they often present no evidence at all on key issues. They present only questions or opinions.
For example, there is solid evidence that Dr. Ivins had full access to the "murder weapon,' i.e., flask RMR-1029 which contained "morphs" identical to the "morphs" found in the powders in the anthrax letters. Ivins helped create the contents of the flask and controlled who had access to it.
Those who believe Dr. Ivins was innocent, however, have no evidence that someone else took a sample from flask RMR-1029, grew more bacteria from the sample, and then used it in the anthrax letters. All they have are endless "possibilities" which have not been disproved. Instead of proving that their own suspects sent the anthrax letters, those who disagree with the FBI attempt to shift the burden of proof to the FBI to prove that their suspects could not possibly have made the powders and sent the anthrax letters.
Asking the other side to prove themselves wrong is not a reasonable way to resolve a disagreement.
Some issues in dispute should be easily resolvable. For example, R. Rowley (in an email) CLAIMS that the misspelled word "PENACILIN" in the media letters is a deliberate attempt to appear "foreign." The FBI, on the other hand, agrees that the misspelling is deliberate, but they provide compelling evidence that it was part of a coded message Dr. Ivins put in the media letter. (Click HERE for details.) They CLAIM that the misspelled word is part of a coding technique explained in the book Godel, Escher, Bach, which Dr. Ivins was observed throwing away after a search of his home.
Mr. Rowley's CLAIM is just a CLAIM, without evidence. (Unless you have a confession, there is no way to prove that the writer deliberately misspelled a word in order to appear foreign or semi-literate.) And Mr. Rowley refuses to accept the FBI's evidence-supported CLAIM, bizarrely arguing his new CLAIM that the FBI's evidence wouldn't be allowed in court because the FBI agent who deciphered the hidden message was not a certified cryptographer.
That last CLAIM seems like it could be resolvable. But, even if enough facts were found to convince Mr. Rowley that there would be no problem with the FBI agent presenting his findings in court though he is not a certified cryptographer, Mr. Rowley would just argue that it doesn't make any difference, he's still going to believe what he wants to believe about who sent the anthrax letters.
So, at this point in time, it appears that the only real question worthy of discussion is: Is there any way to get someone who refuses to compare facts and evidence to stop making baseless claims and to argue only whose evidence makes a better criminal case proving who sent the anthrax letters?