According to the Associated Press:
“FBI scientists early on had — but destroyed — the unique strain of anthrax used in the deadly 2001 attacks that years later would lead them to Dr. Bruce Ivins…:
***[This was anthrax that] Ivins took from his Army lab in February 2002 and gave investigators”
The FBI’s excuse for destroying the anthrax sample which Ivins gave them?
“The sample kept at the FBI lab was destroyed because the bureau believed it might not have been allowed as evidence at trial.”
However, every trial lawyer in the country will tell you that prosecutors don’t destroy evidence just because they are not sure a judge will allow the evidence to be introduced at trial. Instead, lawyers keep all the evidence. If more bullet-proof evidence comes along, only then would a prosecutor be less attached to the earlier evidence.
But even then, he would still hold onto the earlier evidence as a backup, in case the better evidence is lost, or the authenticity, reliability or chain of custody of the better evidence is challenged in court.
The FBI’s explanation is so shallow that Rolf Lindgren suggests that reporters ask the following question at the next FBI news conference:
“Now that Dr. Ivins is dead and he won’t have a trial, no evidence will ever be admitted. Have you destroyed the rest of the evidence yet?”