Evidently the carbon dating information was only fed to one source, the New York Times. The wide publicity given the information in other papers and on TV news is based on that Johnston/Broad article. There is no reason to question the authenticity of the carbon dating information. (It would be too easy to contradict.) Where the "spin" comes in is the conclusions to be drawn from that information. Here the "investigators" are clearly making an unwarranted "stretch."
The age of the anthrax specimens of no more than two years would rule out anyone who did not have access to the Ames strain developed at the army’s weapons program at Ft. Detrick in the last two years. However, the article points out that the "perpetrator" could prepare more anthrax given such recent knowledge and capability.
The rest of the article is devoted to lauding the intensity and scope of the FBI investigation. It cites over 5,000 interviews conducted and more than a thousand grand jury subpoenas served. According to investigators hundreds of polygraph (lie detector) tests have been administered including a three-hour session with William Patrick III.
The age of the anthrax specimens of no more than two years would rule out anyone who did not have access to the Ames strain developed at the army’s weapons program at Ft. Detrick in the last two years. However, the article points out that the "perpetrator" could prepare more anthrax given such recent knowledge and capability.
The rest of the article is devoted to lauding the intensity and scope of the FBI investigation. It cites over 5,000 interviews conducted and more than a thousand grand jury subpoenas served. According to investigators hundreds of polygraph (lie detector) tests have been administered including a three-hour session with William Patrick III.