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?

More weird stuff

On the anthrax case that is. There is obviously other weird stuff out there. But Glenn Greenwald on Salon.com does some real reporting (as opposed to simply bloviating like I and most bloggers do) by discovering that the ONLY source of Ivins homicidal behavior and threats comes from his social worker (NOT a therapist and certainly not a psychiatrist) is somewhat problematical herself.

Here is the core of it:

So much of the public reporting about Ivins has been devoted to depicting him as a highly unstable psychotic who had been issuing extremely violent threats and who had a violent past. But that depiction has been based almost exclusively on the uncorroborated claims of Jean Carol Duley, a social worker (not a psychiatrist or psychologist) who, as recently as last year, was apparently still in college at Hood College in Frederick, Maryland. Duley's scrawled handwritten complaint against Ivins, seeking a Protective Order, has served as the basis for much of the reporting regarding Ivins' mental state, yet it is hardly the model of a competent or authoritative professional. Quite the opposite. Duley herself has a history that, at the very least, raises questions about her credibility. She has a rather lengthy involvement with the courts in Frederick, including two very recent convictions for driving under the influence -- one from 2007 and one from 2006 -- as well as a complaint filed against her for battery by her ex-husband.

If you go back and reread all the news stories, they ALL base their depiction of Ivins supposed pathology on a hand scribbled note by Duley. It is a thin thread indeed. I was a bit suspicious myself, having seen enough historical research reporting received wisdom that is based on one highly unconvincing source (in fact, I can show you several places in my book where I do exactly that!)

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.

.

Anthrax: weirder and weirder

And now a bit frightening. Ivins' social worker (?) now claims that Ivins was a psychopath:

"As far back as the year 2000, the respondent has actually attempted to murder several other people, either through poisoning ... He is a revenge killer. When he feels that he's been slighted or has had — especially toward women — he plots and actually tries to carry out revenge killings," Duley [the social worker] said.

I still don't know what to think of this. If the guy was that much of a threat, you would think that his co-workers, friends and family would have noticed something, and that does not seem to be what they are saying. Quite the contrary. You would also think that the FBI in the course of one of the most intense investigations in its history might have picked up on it sooner. Say, after five years instead of seven.

So where does that leave us? Unfortunately, since the FBI doesn't want to talk about it, this case is going to be tried in the media. I don't think it will be pretty and worse, don't think it is going to produce a definitive conclusion. We may never know for sure.

On an even scarier note, I heard on the news (don't remember the source) that Ivins was supposedly going to talk with the FBI about a plea bargain. A plea bargain about what? Accomplices? Or simply a full confession in return for life without parole?

Update on Anthrax

Jack raises some interesting points. From memory, I recall the reason for thinking it had to come from the US was the spores were identified as the Ames strain which was developed in an American lab. Now the FBI claims to have technology that can link the strain used in the killings directly to Ivins office, to his very desk in fact. But like all new technology, this can probably be contested.

But I see that all the newspapers have new info so we will see. But for the moment we both agree that this is strange, very, very strange.

The kind of weirdness conspiracy nuts love, unfortunately.

Anthrax

The news yesterday that Bruce Ivins, a top researcher at a government lab, was about to be indicted as the post-9/11 anthrax killer and had forestalled this by committing suicide is very disturbing on several levels. Not that it was a researcher in a government lab. That has been almost a certainty since a few months after the last death from anthrax. But consider: there could not have been in the whole world more than 50 people with access to that particular strain of anthrax with the knowledge to use it. In fact, I would guess that it couldn't be much more than 30. And it took the FBI SEVEN YEARS to build a case? After publicly naming someone else at the same lab as a "person of interest." And having to pay nearly $6 million to the poor guy as a result. Taxpayers' money, as they say (thanks, John Ashcroft).

And are we even sure that they have the right guy? Not by a long sight yet.

And there is the curious case of ABC's reporting of the incident back when it helped build up support for the invasion of Iraq. Supposedly four separate sources told them that government laboratory tests (the same lab Ivins worked at) had proven that the anthrax came from Iraq. The only problem is, it wasn't true. Now only folks at ABC know who those four 'sources' were. ABC though is keeping very quiet about who these four people were.

Despite the fact they broke security in a time of national emergency, lied, and, oh well, helped start a war we didn't need to fight.

And then there is the question: if the reports of Ivins "homicidal threats" going back to grad school, which admittedly aren't backed up at the moment by much at all, prove to be true, how did Ivins receive the top security clearance he would have needed to do the work we know he did? Wouldn't this have been handled by the FBI too?

Glenn Greenwald on Salon.com has the most disturbing take on the story yet. He seems to be hinting at a government conspiracy of the type so often imagined implausibly by Hollywood.

I wish I disbelieved it a little harder than I do.