This information came from recently unsealed court documents, and affadavits.
Here is what an e-mail, dated Sept 7th/07 said:
"Yes! Yes! Yes!!!!!!! I finally know who mailed the anthrax letters in the fall of 2001. I've pieced it together!"
"I'm not looking forward to everybody getting dragged through the mud, but at least it will all be over," Ivins allegedly wrote.
"Finally! I should have it TOTALLY nailed down within the month. I should have been a private eye!!!!"
He sounds pretty happy that he figured it out! Lots of exclamations marks, he must have been pleased.
Ivins' lawyer, Paul Kemp, maintains Ivins was innocent and said scientist would have been cleared if the case had gone to trial.
"The absence of any information from the search warrants that conclusively finds he did it only confirm that,"
He said the September 2007 e-mail is merely Ivins "attempting to explain who could have had access to the (anthrax) beaker," Kemp said.
Ivin's Lawyer said and I quote :
"He had his own views about who might have been capable of this thing. And he explained that to the FBI."Ivins had his own views on who was capable of committing this crime and he explained that to the FBI.
"In addition, Ivins has sent at least one other e-mail to himself that details his opinion of who may have been the anthrax mailer,"states another affidavit.
It is pretty safe to assume, he did not think he was the killer, so did he infact know who the real anthrax killer was? Was he right?
On a seperate note, I want to note the way the article reporting this news story was written.
First of all, I find it written in a confusing manner.
Secondly, from the title that was chosen, "Ivins bragged"??
Usually we brag to other people, we don't brag in e-mail to ourselves, I am of the opinion that word was chosen to portray Ivins in a negative light, as arrogant or self-absorbed. No one likes a braggard.
Thirdly: the article notes that Ivins used another e-mail account to post what is claimed as "violent messages" about the tv show, the Mole. What this bit of garbage is even doing in this story, is beyond me? It is not relevant, has nothing to do with the FBI investigation. So why is it here? Again to cast Bruce Ivins in a negative light, as a person with a propensity towards violence.