Anthrax: the big question

Now that Ivins, accused of the anthrax killings, is dead, it seems likely (though not yet proven) that the killer died with him. The FBI seems bound and determined that the case die with him as well. We'll see about that.

But whether or not he is the murderer, this continues to be a question, one that bothers me no end: How could a man with so many mental health alarm bells going off all around him still maintain his security clearance? Is there anyone else out there with the same magnitude of mental distress working in biological warfare labs? Atomic energy labs? Like, atomic warheads?

I know. Now I am being paranoid. The FBI and the DHS are keeping careful tabs on all this. What could go wrong?

There. I feel better already. Don't you?

.

Anthrax: some new considerations

Richard Spertzel, head of the biological-weapons section of Unscom from 1994-99, categorically denies that Ivins could possibly be the lone perpetrator of the anthrax killings in today's Wall Street Journal. You should read the whole thing, but here are some highlights:

I believe this is another mistake in the investigation.

Let's start with the anthrax in the letters to Sens. Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy. The spores could not have been produced at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, where Ivins worked, without many other people being aware of it. Furthermore, the equipment to make such a product does not exist at the institute.

*****

The FBI spent between 12 and 18 months trying "to reverse engineer" (make a replica of) the anthrax in the letters sent to Messrs. Daschle and Leahy without success, according to FBI news releases. So why should federal investigators or the news media or the American public believe that a lone scientist would be able to do so?

Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com also raises some more doubts. So we have one from a major conservative paper and one from a liberal e-journal.

As my little friend Mickey says when he drops something, "Uh-oooooh!" So what really is going on with this case?

Anthrax: still weird

I am following the anthrax killer case with great interest because it is fascinating, important, and frightening. I am also trying to keep an absolutely open mind about Ivins and everything else. Yet it is, at this early stage, difficult to have a lot of confidence in how the FBI has handled the case going back to the very beginning. Now Andrew Sullivan has a post based on a NYT's article that pushes towards a type of conspiracy theory.

Meanwhile The Washington Post has an article essentially wondering why Ivins kept his top level security clearance right through the final days of the investigation.

Very strange, as one of my readers said.

simple incompetence is usually Ockham's solution. I'm partial to it myself.

.