I disagree with the bolded statement; I think it is possible that only after the incredibly expensive cock-up with Hatfill, some-one might say, “Just make this go away, any way you have to.” Furthermore, I have no doubt that somewhere in an organization as large as the FBI, there is at least one individual who could and would murder someone and make it look like suicide.
But, just because I find it credible, doesn’t mean I am convinced it happened that way. I just won’t dismiss it on logical grounds.
My first impression was that the FBI had adequate evidence to focus the investigation on Irvin, but inadequate evidence to secure a conviction (or, possibly, even an indictment); that Irvin committed suicide because he could not face the treatment Hatfill stood up to; and that this story will always remain the basis for a Conspiracy Theory (as opposed to a ‘conspiracy theory’).
However, I am troubled by that ‘therapist’; what a stupid piece of evidence to release. That make no sense to me; the FBI should have know her qualifications and background would be investigated by the media …
Don’t be so sure. Most therapists consider the privacy of their sessions to be as sacrosanct as lawyers do their sessions with clients or good reporters do the names of their sources or priests do the confessional. It’s one of the things that made me question the therapist.
Let me add once again that I am not saying that Ivins was innocent or that the FBI murdered him or anything like that. I am simply saying that it does not appear from where I sit that the FBI has by any means proven its case against him, and if the press conference they gave a couple of days ago is the best evidence they have, it’s really not good enough. Their smoking gun doesn’t smoke well enough, their motive stinks to high heaven, and they have by no means clearly established opportunity, let alone sole opportunity. Ivins may well have been the killer, and he may even have been the only killer. But it’s not proven, and at this point, the case is being closed. That doesn’t make me feel warm and fuzzy.
That last “therapist” is the one who claimed he was dangerous and the FBI gave her statements inordinate weight. And since she isn’t really a therapist, just a beginning drug counselor, and seems a wee bit nutty herself, in reality her opinions hold considerably less weight than those of a proper MD or PhD. But, like Oy! said, you aren’t likely to get a good quote out of the other guys.
This was my point. The FBI certainly has a well-presented case, but it still seems that their 100% conclusive and undeniable certainty that Ivins acted alone isn’t justified by those facts they’ve presented thus far.
The FBI will make a big deal about a “Death to America” note (when the link I provided shows there’s hardly anything unique or conclusive about that), but won’t dwell on the fact that the handwriting on the envelopes didn’t match Ivins’. They’ll make a big deal about his working late in the lab (suspicious, but hardly conclusive) and not bring up that they can’t prove he was anywhere materially relevant to the dispersal of the anthrax. Sure, circumstantial evidence is used all the time (and often successfully) in criminal cases, but to argue with such complete confidence and assurance that you got your “man”, especially since the investigation has had a history of bungles and missteps over the years, you better present more of a “smoking gun” and less a daisy chain of hypotheticals.
They’ll make claims that he was the only one who could’ve had access to this material and have the knowledge to synthesize it, but colleagues and records question the complete accuracy of these assertions. Could they completely rule out everyone else who had access to this particular strain? There’s no possibility he might’ve had an accomplice, even? And just because he worked in that lab doesn’t mean he necessarily had the technical expertise to synthesize the anthrax into the rarefied level of fineness that typified this batch used in the attack–particularly given that it had to be done clandestinely. And how believable is it that, given that it had to be done clandestinely, that they would find absolutely zero forensic evidence to prove he might’ve done what they said he did. Is it reasonable to believe that he could completely eliminate every single bit of trace evidence of something that fine and easily dispersable?
I’m not saying he didn’t do it and I’m not alleging that there’s some master cover-up going on. But it seems so convenient that the guy offs himself (which I believe he did on his own), and then the FBI, mere days later comes out with the “He did it/100% Guilty/Move along/Nothing to See Here” presentation. It reeks of opportunism, laying all of the blame on this one guy who they won’t have to try and who can’t defend himself. What agency wouldn’t prefer to close the case on a corpse than to continue to dwell on any number of avenues that still could merit investigation? And we do remember the last time the Feds were sure about their suspect, don’t we? There may be reasonable answers for any or all of these questions, but the “Trust us, it’s Finished” insistence that all loose ends are tied up (or irrelevant) is simply not all that convincing to me, given their track record thus far. IMHO.
There are lots of people who are crazy as a bedbug, but they don’t send anthrax through the mail. This man died before there could be a trial, and we are never going to know unless someone else happens to confess or we miraculously turn up conclusive evidence that can truly close the case. The only way we could even possibly get close with the evidence we have now would be to hold a trial with someone coached extremely well on the details of Ivins’ life and work playing Ivins and represented by a team of top trial lawyers. And that charade would cost millions, and wouldn’t be conclusive.
ETA: Hell, a trial wouldn’t have been conclusive. Not with this kind of evidence.
A hundred rounds of ammo is one box, buyable at Wal-Mart, $25. It’s one event’s shooting for me. Considering I don’t want to drive out of my county every week, I tend to pick up four or five at a time. Hundreds of rounds of ammo is not much.
The bulletproof vest, we’re talking about a research scientist. Why not? They’re cool. I might get one for the heck of it, myself.
The New Jersey business is particularly interesting because the FBI initially listed a window of time when the letters must’ve been mailed because of the postmark on the letters. But since Ivins has an alibi for that window, they are now claiming that he mailed the letters earlier that day and then got to where he was verified to be that night (3 hours away). The only problem is that if he had mailed the letters earlier that day, they would’ve carried a different postmark. So the evidence they’re trying to pin on him actually in-a-way exonerates him (at least directly; there’s no reason an accomplice could’ve dropped off the letters in another state, except that the FBI has ruled out that possibility in their Acted-Alone assertion).
So, this guy was so good that he made, in his kitchen, weaponized anthrax that was BETTER than what he could make at work? Gerry Spence would wipe the courtroom floor with the entire Justice Department.