So the anthrax guy was suicided by the CIA or something

[Orrex]

Here's a lesson for you: when you're ever under intense and public scrutiny because you're being investigated for suspected involvement in an attack of domestic terrorism, if you die for any reason, it's because the government did it.

[madinmaryland]

1. MIHOP or LIHOP???

:tinfoilhat:

[Orrex]

2. Neither!

[dropkickpa]

3. I prefer french toast!!!!!!!!!

Mmmmmmm!

[Heddi]

6. me hungy

I love the Eggs over MyHammy ha ha

[PVnRT]

4. Great, another coincidence theorist...

This is the same government that coordinated the outstanding, efficient response to Hurricane Katrina; you think they can't kill one person and make it look like a suicide? OPEN YOUR EYES

[TZ]

5. Of course!

Just like the thousands of other microbiologists that have "suicided" and weirdly enough I know nothing about...:crazy:
And here I thought I was a senior member of the Big Yak conspiracy...:P

[LeftishBrit]

7. Similarly if a British jury puts an innocent person behind bars...

this must be because Tony Blair knew the person who really committed the murder. (Background for non-Brits: Barry George was convicted eight years ago for the murder of TV presenter Jill Dando and has just been acquitted on a re-trial). Sadly there's a long list of unsound convictions before Tony Blair ever got into office- indeed one of the triggers for the abolition of the DP in Britain is that a few unfortunates were found to be certainly or probably innocent, tragically after they had already been executed.

[Orrex]

8. When America executes somebody, he's guilty

Facts be damned. That's why capital punishment is such a righteous and effective deterrent, you know.

[lizerdbits]

9. One of my coworkers got a call asking if she knew him

since she used to do anthrax work (she didn't know him). I said maybe he did something wrong and would rather not go through a trial and conviction. She said maybe he thought of what was done to Hatfill (career/reputation destroyed) and decided he'd be better off dead. :shrug:

But the giant conspiracy is much more fun. :eyes:

[TZ]

10. Yes, no scientist would ever object to their career

ending and being dragged through the mud and possibly going to jail....It must be murder....

[HamdenRice]

11. Well, that applies to whether he was guilty or innocent, doesn't it? nt

[varkam]

12. Not necessarily. eom

[HamdenRice]

13. After a few days, it certainly seems the case is falling apart. Talk about junk psychology!

Thanks to the excellent reporting by DU's greatest skeptic of all, investigative reporter, Larissa Alexandrovna (her blog is At-Largely, and at DU she is lala_rawaw), the psychological profile of Bruce Ivins is completely falling apart.

It turns out the "psychologist" or "therapist" who diagnosed him was a college grad (not a PhD or MD), Jean C. Duley, a "therapist" who can neither spell "therapist" nor conjugate "subpoena;" who wants to go into drug counseling, but has a history of DWI convictions; and who has filed for banruptcy at least once. The financial aspect is interesting, because the NY Times has now verified a tip that Larissa reported first -- namely, that the FBI suggested to Dr. Ivin's son that he might collect a $2.5 million reward and a sports car if he would rat out his father. They also pressured Ivin's vulnerable daughter while she was hospitalized for depression.

http://www.atlargely.com/2008/08/jean-c-duley-te.html

Larissa also aggregated other news, eg from the Daily News of NYC, that the administration first tried to lie about the source of the anthrax in Fall 2001, pressuring the FBI to say it came from Osama bin Laden, even though they already knew it came from US bio weapons research stockpiles.

http://www.atlargely.com/2008/08/fbi-was-told-to.html

It certainly seems that we should all be skeptical of the junk psychology that the Bush administration has been spreading in the press about Dr. Ivins, at minimum, and skeptical about the entire case against him and the real root causes of his suicide.

[TZ]

14. Actually its not so cut and dry

There was anthrax found in this guys office and it has long been known that a researcher at USAMRIID HAD to be responsible ( this ames strain only found there).
Plus they found in HIS POSSESSION that a drying machine for anthrax that could make it powdered.
Plus he HAS an association with Princeton, NJ where the letters were mailed.
Lots of PHYSICAL evidence pointing to this guy being the one.
Don't trust everything you read on the nets..Its a big disinformation superhighway.
By the way..the SCIENCE here is beyond questioning..not a silly psychology story.
BTW--I trust science NOT people

I wouldn't believe every conspiracy theory that comes down the Pike, HR..Thats why you are NOT a skeptic.

[HamdenRice]

15. "every conspiracy theory that comes down the Pike, HR"

What exactly is the conspiracy theory that my post "believes"? Are you saying that the questioning of the son and daughter, as reported in the NY Times is a conspiracy theory? Or are you saying that the fact that his "therapist" is fraudulent is a conspiracy theory?

You tend to lump all questioning of any particular official narrative together. "If you believe X, you must believe Y." But that's not how logic works. You tend to jump to inferences about what others "believe."

So I would ask you to calmly and resonably explain what exactly is a "conspiracy theory" in my post.

I'm genuinely curious about your thoughts on this because, as usual, your argument leaves me perplexed about certain jumps in logic.

"I wouldn't believe every conspiracy theory that comes down the Pike, HR..Thats why you are NOT a skeptic."

Skeptics also should not believe every official narrative of the Bush administration/government/corporations -- and especially should not cling to them even as their major elements fall apart under public scrutiny.

[madinmaryland]

17. There does seem to be something fishy about this whole thing.

Maybe there isn't, but until there is something official released about this case, we are only speculating on what may have happened.

BTW, what HR said about the psychologist, has been reported on the news.

[TZ]

18. I have ties to the anthrax vaccine/ Detrick community.

There is ALOT of physical evidence that this guy did this and there is a story that he may have had investments in the anthrax vaccine..something I suspected the anthrax person having even before I had a name..by the HR..you and 99.9% of DU have assumed that this guy couldn't POSSIBLY committed suicide. Here's where you are not a skeptic again..I don't particularly trust Bush Co...but its also a HUGE flaw in logic to assume that they are responsible for EVERY evil in this country.
Again..you don't have any idea of what goes in the biotech/pharma community..You should talk to the tons of people (including me) who find that the BETTER science is practiced in the COMMERCIAL environment..the academic field has many many problems..and I could pull pHD after pHD who would agree with me.


One other thing..In the year 2000 the anthrax vaccine program was having big problems with safety issues and efficacy issues..What better way to jump start the vaccine program than to show the world who important it was..or perhaps this guy PROFITED from the vaccines...Isn't that what you and all the other health woos think I do? Profit from Pharmaceuticals (for the record I have no stock in anything, even my own company)

[HamdenRice]

19. "you and 99.9% of DU have assumed that this guy couldn't POSSIBLY committed suicide"

Once again you are conflating a critique of the many different flaws in the official story into a grand conspiracy theory -- something you do with some regularity -- and throwing in an irrelevant defense of big pharma to boot. These are simply not connected issues.

There are various parts of the official narrative that are breaking down, so perhaps it makes sense first to try to state the express and implied official narrative, which goes something like this:

1. Ivins was the person who had access to the Fort Detrick anthrax, weaponized it by himself (only 1 suspect) and sent it to the victims;

2. The FBI was closing in on Ivins and about to get an indictment;

3. Ivin's "therapist" provides proof that Ivins was psychologically unstable with a history of murder threats, and so fits the profile of the anthrax killer;

4. Ivins committed suicide rather than face a trial for a crime of which he was guilty;

5. With Ivins dead, the case can now be considered solved and closed.

The point isn't that someone killed him and that he didn't commit suicide -- a claim that my post didn't make, but that you seem fixated on.

It's that most of the pieces of the official narrative are being discredited.

The FBI was not about to get an indictment. Ivins "therapist" was both unqualified and extremely troubled herself -- just a recent college grad, not a psychologist or psychiatrist qualified to make such a diagnosis. As the NY Times and other sources are suggesting, Ivins may as well have committed suicide because he was being falsely accused as because he was guilty. Ivins was being harrassed in the most blatant way, and friends and relatives were being pressured and even bribed to say he was guilty even though they didn't think he was.

It is absurd to close the case until either it is definitively shown Ivins was the guilty party or some other person is arrested.

I was talking to a professor of medicine the morning the story broke and she told me that in her opinion, it is impossible for a single person to weaponize anthrax. Even if Ivins was guilty, it is extremely unlikely that he acted alone -- which means that for reasons the public is not privy to, the FBI seems not to want to find his (or the real anthrax mailer's) co-conspirators.

I simply don't think you can consider yourself a skeptic if you hold on the the official narrative after so much of it has been publicly and spectacularly discredited.

[Heddi]

20. I agree that this story smells very fishy

And I agree that I don't necessarily think it automatically delves into the realm of "conspiracy theory" to say that you distrust the "official" account of who this guy was and what happened. Perhaps if our government and its various agencies had a history of being totally forthright and honest regarding everything, had no history of convoluting evidence and creating evidence out of thin air to "nail" people, history of coercion and other sub-ethical practices. But that's not the case. The FBI is hardly a paragon of truth and justice when it comes to many issues. Would I trust them to find a kidnapper? Maybe. Do I necessarily trust them with issues related to national security, War on Terror, 9/11 and other issues? Not automatically. The FBI (and CIA) are well known to have party-loyalty-above-anything-else rank and file and higher ups. This is COMMON KNOWLEDGE. No conspiracy theory about it. There has been case after case after case of the FBI and/or CIA doing things against relatively ordinary citizens that are unjust, unfounded, illegal, and made-up.

I am particularly queasy about this "therapists" note. It reminds me of the Arabic Flight Manual, Manifesto, Koran, And picture of the hijackers making frowny faces at the twin towers that were found just hours after the attacks. That doesn't mean I discount the entire "official theory" of 9/11, and it doesn't mean that I don't find a bit of validity in some of the questions surrounding 9/11. It just means that I find THAT piece of evidence (and others) to be questionable.

Just like i find this woman's account of homicidal personality and poisioning people and all that junk. That is just too...I don't know. And the fact that it's not substantiated by a single. other. person. And that NUMEROUS people said they knew he was being trailed. And that they attempted to bribe the son. And the daughter. And that this KNOWN psychopathic homicidal individual was given the keys to the palace, so to speak, with regards to bioweapons?

yeah. Something smells funny. I'm not buying this story for a second.

I should say, though, that I *do* believe he killed himself. But I don't believe it was because he was about to be found guilty in a trial that hadn't been set yet. I think he was under immense pressure, that his family was under intense pressure and scruitiny, his way of life was about to come to an end. they're bribing his mentally unstable daughter fercryinoutloud. I don't think he was murdered. I think he did kill himself, but not for the reasons we're being told.

[HamdenRice]

21. I agree -- plus there is the political context of the anthrax mailings

From what I've heard from doctors and scientists, one person could not have weaponized the anthrax, which means that the very idea of targetting one lone nut scientist is, a priori, not looking for the real perpatrators.

If the purpose of the anthrax attacks was to spur research in bio counter-terrorism funding and research, the targets seem, well, idiosyncratic -- the Democratic leaders who were holding up passage of the patriot act.

I suppose this is a theory about a criminal conspiracy, even if it isn't what is colloquially called a "conspiracy theory."

[Heddi]

22. I really dislike the term 'conspiracy theory"

because I feel it is a way to automatically devalue and dismiss the concerns of another. It's like if anyone dares to question anything, they are seen as a "conspiracy theorist". It's often used as a slur, and often used by people who have no counter argument to make.

That being said, there are legitimate things that I can call "conspiracy theories' that are just so wacky and out there that I can't believe that ANYONE would take them seriously. But they do. Hubby's uncle is one of them. Survivalist, lives in the mountains, off the grid, doesn't use a phone or any other way to be "traced" and smells some gov't complicity, surveillance, and ulterior motives in every single thing. Down to the food you eat. They WANT you to eat bread so that you won't ask for cake. He actually said that once. And he believed it. Refused to buy bread because of some government conspiracy to put microchips in the bread. I don't think he was schizophrenic, just.....deluded.

There are tons of websites devoted to how the Zapruder film was created by NASA in top secret government labs using photo and film techniques that weren't available until the 1980's. The entire film is fake, it was never real, and it's questionable whether JFK was really actually shot...It's ridiculous, but *some* people believe it.

Anyhoo.

Pretty much NOTHING about this case makes sense other than a guy that worked in a lab around anthrax may have reason to be a suspect. If that were it, I'd probably be "Yeah, i can see where a scientist working in a lab around anthrax would maybe be a person of interest".

But when you get to the details, all of that falls apart. It's ludicrous, and the more statements the FBI and feds release, the MORE ridiculous it gets. That the ONLY person who saw this homicidal, sociopathic, already killed 5 people kind of guy, was someone who knew him for 6 months. I mean, at least the Unibomber's brother was able to say "You know, this guy sending bombs sounds like a nut. My brother is a nut...." and make the connection.

But this guy is homicidal and sociopathic from his GRAD SCHOOL DAYS. Stalks on his free time. Has a way to get from MD to NJ to mail packages without raising suspicion. Can fool his friends and family for DECADES with them having NO CLUE to his "true self". but the one person that can see through this thin facade of hatred and murder is a multiple DUI new grad drug councelor who only interacted with him on 2 occasions over a 6 month period of time?????????????

And the misspellings. She can't spell therapist. She can't spell psychologist (it was originally misspelled, crossed out, and spelled correctly). Can't spell Testify. Can spell Subpoena but can't use it properly in a sentence. Handwriting is erratic, disjointed.

[HamdenRice]

23. I agree on both counts

The problem with the term "conspiracy theory" is that the media and others use it to assert, implicitly, that any allegation of a criminal conspiracy is, a priori, crazy. But there are criminal conspiracies, both outside government (organized crime; insider trading networks; money laundering; drug cartels; etc.) and inside government (Niger forgeries; Office of Special Plans; etc.) It seems to be a term designed to prevent investigation of wrong doing.

As for this case, I suppose the most tin foil hat part of it is its connection to 9/11 and the anthrax mailings. IIRC, the professor of medicine I was talking to said there was some way of dating the weaponization of the anthrax, and that it had to have been done before 9/11, which means it wasn't just a copy cat, add on, attack.

The fact that Cheney's office began taking Cipro before the anthrax attacks, is just one of that long list of bizarre coincidences that we won't be able to explain until there is a full investigation of both 9/11 and the anthrax attacks.

But the official narrative about Ivins has simply fallen completely apart.

[madinmaryland]

26. I'm a bit confused by your response..

I thought the definition of a skeptic is as follows:

1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.
2. a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.
3. a person who doubts the truth of a religion, esp. Christianity, or of important elements of it.
4. (initial capital letter) Philosophy. a. a member of a philosophical school of ancient Greece, the earliest group of which consisted of Pyrrho and his followers, who maintained that real knowledge of things is impossible.
b. any later thinker who doubts or questions the possibility of real knowledge of any kind.

I haven't taken a poll of DU to determine that 99.9% of the people here believe that the guy could not have committed the crime.

I am also a bit confused as to where I ever said or implied that the commercial scientific enviroment is any better or worse. I am NOT in that industry and would never make any statement one way or another. As to your comments about DU'ers bashing Big Pharma, the only thing I can say is that Big Pharma (at least my definition of it) is a FOR PROFIT industry. The goal of a FOR PROFIT industry is to make a profit for the owners and shareholders. Imply from that whatever you want.

I never have and never will question your integrity or capabilities in your industry. I am glad for your sake, that better is practiced in the commercial industry.

Finally, until we see the report from the FBI, we are only speculating on what is going on (or at least 99.9% of DU will be, unless you know something more about this than has been published).

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HamdenRice]

24. Wall Street Journal Opinion piece by bio-weapons expert: It wasn't Ivins

The official narrative is now in tatters, and it seems unreasonable for anyone with a skeptical frame of mind to believe that Ivins was on the verge of being indicted as the guilty party. Mr. Richard Spertzel, head of the biological-weapons section of Unscom from 1994-99, and a former member of the Iraq Survey Group (1994-1999) thinks that, based on scientifical principles, it was impossible for Ivins to have been the culprit:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121789293570011775.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

OPINION

Bruce Ivins Wasn't the Anthrax Culprit

By RICHARD SPERTZEL

August 5, 2008; Page A17

Over the past week the media was gripped by the news that the FBI was about to charge Bruce Ivins, a leading anthrax expert, as the man responsible for the anthrax letter attacks in September/October 2001.

But despite the seemingly powerful narrative that Ivins committed suicide because investigators were closing in, this is still far from a shut case. The FBI needs to explain why it zeroed in on Ivins, how he could have made the anthrax mailed to lawmakers and the media, and how he (or anyone else) could have pulled off the attacks, acting alone.

...

What's more, they were also tailored to make them potentially more dangerous. According to a FBI news release from November 2001, the particles were coated by a "product not seen previously to be used in this fashion before." Apparently, the spores were coated with a polyglass which tightly bound hydrophilic silica to each particle. That's what was briefed (according to one of my former weapons inspectors at the United Nations Special Commission) by the FBI to the German Foreign Ministry at the time.

...

From what we know so far, Bruce Ivins, although potentially a brilliant scientist, was not that man. The multiple disciplines and technologies required to make the anthrax in this case do not exist at Army's Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases. Inhalation studies are conducted at the institute, but they are done using liquid preparations, not powdered products.

<end quote>

Thanks to DU's kpete for bringing this article to everyone's attention!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3732487#3733128

[HamdenRice]

25. Now this should piss anyone off, given the WSJ op-ed: Admin says "case closed"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3738432

Thanks to DUer spanone:

Feds to declare anthrax case solved

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Federal investigators will declare the 2001 anthrax case solved on Wednesday, when they make public their case against government researcher Bruce Ivins, a government source familiar with the case told CNN on Tuesday.

But the case will not be considered closed, because administrative details remain incomplete, said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing.

Before making the information public, the FBI is expected to share the evidence of Ivins' involvement with survivors and relatives of victims in the anthrax attacks, the source said.

<end quote>

Anyone want to dispute the idea that this looks an awful lot like a coverup?