There are and will be terrorist within our own ranks.. No question about that.
What do ya expect when you let someone play with Anthrax, something bad will happen. Intentional or not. There is an obvious link the military lab, but how far up the chain of command does this go? Hmm.

Originally posted by mapsurfer_
There are and will be terrorist within our own ranks.. No question about that.
What do ya expect when you let someone play with Anthrax, something bad will happen. Intentional or not. There is an obvious link the military lab, but how far up the chain of command does this go? Hmm.

Right now my interest is mainly in documenting the information while it is still fairly fresh and available. I think this may grow into another interesting conspiracy subject, but history tells us that the facts get obfuscated through time and we are better served to detail the facts before the dis-informationists muddy the water. I don't really care if it is a hot topic at the moment, since it tends to be a sad and depressing topic regardless of Ivins' guilt or innocence. It feels like you're picking at a scab, but I think it is worthy of analysis.

The 64 dollar question, of course, is whether he had a dark side that he managed to keep hidden from everyone who knew him and loved him. The evidence comes from only two sources (so far, at least).

The first is Nancy L. Haigwood, a microbiologist who went to the U of Cincinnati with Ivins. She and her former husband, Carl J. Scandella, think Ivins may have wanted to get close to her when he moved in down the street from the couple in the suburbs of Washington in the early 1980s. Scandella did not know that Ivins had been their neighbor until he was told recently by a reporter.

From a Nature magazine article (gossip in a science rag- wtf?)-

Haigwood said Ivins' obsession with her began in the 1970s when the two worked in different labs at the University of North Carolina. Haigwood said they chatted and she tried to be collegial. But Ivins fixated on her membership in the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority.
"This was just a slight social interaction that I think he would have liked to see as a long-term friendship, and I didn't," Haigwood said.
Ivins stepped up his attentions in 1982, when he was at Fort Detrick and Haigwood worked at a nearby company in Maryland. One day, Haigwood said, she found her sorority's Greek initials spray-painted on the back window of her fiance's car -- carefully, so they could be removed without damaging the paint job. Her fence and sidewalk also had been spray-painted, Haigwood said. She reported the vandalism to police and accused Ivins when she bumped into him.
"He denied it, but there was no question it was he," she said. "He was really good at snooping, even in the 1980s."
After that confrontation, Ivins continued to send Haigwood e-mails that made her uncomfortable.
"He knew quite a lot about me without me telling him," she said. "He knew my sons' names and their years in school."
Haigwood, who researches HIV transmission and vaccines, said she contacted the FBI shortly after the American Society for Microbiology asked its members in 2002 to think of possible suspects in the anthrax case. Agents soon interviewed her and have stayed in touch off and on ever since, she said.
FBI officials told her of their plans to accuse Ivins and of his suicide before the news broke, and they will debrief her more in the coming weeks, she said.
Haigwood said FBI agents were "very ethical and above board." And reading their case files convinced her they have the right suspect. "The evidence was compelling," she said.

This is very important- Haigwood says the FBI shared their evidence with her, and will continue to debrief her. Why would they impeach their own witness if they truly planned on prosecuting Ivins? She then claims that she started to fear that if Ivins found out that she fingered him, that he might want to retaliate against her.

Did the FBI ask you to meet with Ivins and wear a hidden recording device?

Yes. I came close to setting a meeting up. I was going to have lunch with him when visiting Washington DC. Ultimately, I couldn't do it. I was afraid. The FBI told me there might be guns involved. I would be surrounded by disguised agents. But the agents thought I would be too nervous to do it.

Talk about cloak and dagger, Haigwood is set up to bust Ivins with a wire, but the FBI scare her with tales of gunfire. The result is exactly what the FBI wants- they don't really want Ivins point of view recorded, so they scare Haigwood off with talk of gunfire, leaving only the impression that Haigwood is so convinced of Ivins guilt that she almost risks gun play.

That's it. That's the big "stalking" claim against Ivins. Someone who thinks Ivins might have pulled a college prank on her, and who she voluntarily kept in touch with over a period of three decades, but whom she harbored a feeling that he was 'obsessed', at least after the FBI scared the crap out of her.

From The Oregonian newpaper-

Ivins kept in touch with Haigwood via phone calls, letters and e-mails, and while some of the correspondence made her uncomfortable, she never cut off contact with him, a decision she later regretted. She said she sent him polite but curt replies.

Haigwood hasn’t seen Ivins in 26 years, although she kept reluctantly correspondening with him. She thinks he may have spray painted her fiancé’s car rear window (carefully avoiding the car’s paint). She thinks he somehow found out where she had moved, and then moved into her neighborhood to be near her. How about the possibility that by coincidence, Ivins was already in the neighborhood when she moved there, and Ivins spotted her car? Was Haigwood stalking Ivins? Was she projecting her own neurosis onto Ivins? Did this juggling, dashing man capture her heart and then reject her? Does she have a secret obsession with anthrax? She is, after all, a microbiologist.

This is about the lamest accusation of stalking that I have ever heard. Yes, Ivins got strung out on the history and inner workings of Kappa Kappa Gamma. But to twist that into the story coming from the FBI through the supine press of Ivins being rejected by a Gamma, and then stalking her for a lifetime is simply gauche.

The meat of the case against Ivins rests on Jean Duley's shoulders. Haigwood's claim of being 'stalked' by Ivins is rather subjective. You normally don't return letters, phone calls, and e-mail to a stalker.

Jean Carol Duley was born on March 31, 1963. She spent her early childhood in several Southeast Asia countries as a result of her father's diplomatic work. They returned to the upper class Chevy Chase, Md. area and Jean attended Walt Whitman High School in the late 1970's in Bethesda, Md. She claims that she dropped out of Whitman due to her involvement with drugs, mainly cocaine. By 1984 she had obtained her GED and was working as a warranty manager at a car dealership. She marries William A. Duley and adopted a biker lifestyle. In the midst of heavy drug use, she and William filed for ex parte injunction against William's ex-wife, Robin Lynn Duley, and her boyfriend, Richard Dale Johnson in July, 1990. William sued for permanent custody of his and Robin's child in November, which is granted in February, 1991.

Things soon started falling apart between Jean and William, and she filed 3 counts of battery against him in March, 1992. Two months later, Williams filed for divorce against Jean. In October, 1992, Jean had a citation for paraphernalia /with intent to use dismissed. By 1993 Jean claims that she had hit a bottom when she woke up in the SE lockup in Wash DC, and couldn't remember how she got there. She resolved to fight her addictions and moved into a half-way house in Montgomery County, where she lived for 18 months.

By March, 1994, William Duley was granted a final divorce decree from Jean. She then said that she went through several relapses and recoveries. She married Thomas John Wittman about that time, and by October, 1995, was charged with dui and causing a non-injury accident due to excessive speed. She hired Frank Cornelius as an attorney and he got the dui dropped for a guilty plea on the failure to avoid collision charge. In February, 1999, she was again charged with dui, crossing the centerline, and no registration. Her attorney, Reginald Bours, got all charges dropped in return for a lesser charge of impaired driving.

Three weeks later, in March, 1999, Thomas Wittman filed for divorce against Jean Wittman, and it was granted two months later. In July, Jean co-sponsored the 1st annual clean and sober bikers event (in Frederick), Easier Riders, where she was interviewed by the Washington Post and revealed much of the background on her life. In September, 1999, Frederick Memorial Hospital sued her for $1080.73, and the courts granted her a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Soon after that, Jean entered Frederick Community College where she studied to become an addictions counselor.

In 2002, Duley was cited for no headlights. In 2003, she was in an injury accident and pled guilty to the charge of failure to avoid collision due to speed. In 2005, she was cited for running a stop sign. In April, 2006, she was charged with dui, unsafe lane change, no registration, impaired alcohol, and impaired drugs. Her attorney, Mary Drawbaugh, the same attorney who questioned Duley at the Ivins peace order hearing, defended her at a jury trial for these charges. They were all dropped for a reduced charge of reckless driving, with a $580 fine. She graduated in late 2007 from Hood's College (where she made the Dean's list), with a bachelor's degree in Social Work (BSW). In January, 2008 she started working at Comprehensive Counseling Associates, and became a certified supervised counseler in alcohol/drugs (BSW CSC-AD). In other words, she is an addictions counselor trainee, with mandated close supervision by a certified counselor.

Just prior to that, however, on December 23, 2007, Duley is charged with dui, impaired alcohol, and no headlights (on the highway). Mary Drawbaugh once again defended Duley, who pled guilty to the dui on April 24, 2008. The lesser charges were dropped, and Duley was sentenced to 90 days house arrest, with permission to travel directly to work and back. The Judge backdated the start of the house arrest to 4/17/2008, so Duley was released from it on or about July 16, 2008. Bruce Ivins was referred to Duley after a four week detox/rehab stay at the Massie Unit of the Finan Center in Cumberland, Md, on (or about) May 26, 2008. This implies the the entire time that Ivins was being counseled for addictions recovery by Duley, she was was under house arrest. Her claimed six month experience with Ivins is highly questionable, due to his four week stay at Finan Center in May, and a previous four week stay at Surburban Hospital in Bethesda, Md. in March-April.

I am not saying that Jean Duley is anything other than a fine human being. Her brushes with the law, and problems with addictions, are only brought up here for a fuller understanding of her ability, both as a professional, and as a person, to judge Ivins' mental state and his danger to others. Personally, I admire her achievements in the face of her adversities, and her commitment to help others. But it is only fair to know the background of someone whose statements have been so widely used to destroy another person's entire life achievements. She, of course, should not be held accountable for the media circus that has ensued since her testimony. In fact, she pleaded that the account she was about to present to the court be held in closed session. She wants us now to think that this was to protect Ivins' privacy, but it seems obvious to me that her request for privacy was out of fear of retaliation from Ivins. While I believe her fear of Ivins was real, the actual danger to her from Ivins is another question.

Her testimony was completely non-adversarial, and mostly un-corroborated hearsay. She has gone into hiding, and no verification has been forthcoming from her, her supervisor(s), or even the FBI. Therefore, her background is certainly fair, pertinent, and even essential for a chance of uncovering the truth about Ivins behavior and intentions.

Paraphrasing (for brevity) the Q&A between Duley and her attorney, Mary Drawbaugh-

1. I am Program Director of the Frederick Psychiatric Center, running group and individual therapeutic sessions.
She was an entry level trainee addictions counselor at a private counseling company, running a sobriety class while under house arrest for drunk driving.

2. The FBI informed me that the respondent was involved in serious federal crimes and their investigation resulted in a subpoena for me to testify before a federal grand jury.
The FBI scared the crap out of her by saying that the respondent was a serial mass murderer, and that they wanted her to help nail him.

3. I have been very cooperative with the FBI.
Screw that counselor confidentiality crap.

4. I have been seeing the respondent once a week in group and once every two weeks in individual sessions for six months.
She became a counselor six months ago. Ivins was referred to her sobriety class upon release from rehab on 5/28/2008, just a month and a half before she had him committed.

5. Respondent has made threats to my personal safety in the course of those six months.
I can’t argue this statement, since I wasn’t there, but a little more detail would have been helpful. Did he want her to pull his finger, or skin her alive? See response number 9, below.

6. On July 9th, respondent was extremely agitated and out of control in group. He described to the group a very long and detailed homicidal plan and intention. He had bought a bulletproof vest and had obtained a gun to kill his co-workers. Since he was about to be indicted on capital murder charges, he was going to go out in a blaze of glory and take everybody out with him. He had been roaming the streets of Frederick trying to pick a fight with somebody so he could stab him; he wasn’t going to be taken out without a fight. I knew him so well that I knew he plots and plans, so I tried to get as much detail as possible. He described what he was going to do at his place of employment in detail.
How in the world did Ivins know that an indictment for murder was imminent? Duley claims she wasn’t contacted by the FBI until after that class, so she couldn’t have told him. Ivins’ attorney, Paul Kemp, adamantly claims that up until the day of Ivins’ death, neither he, nor Ivins knew about the grand jury. The FBI, or even a federal prosecutor, can not bring an indictment in a capital murder case. Federal grand juries meet in closed session and only the FBI, DOJ, and subpoenaed witnesses would be aware of them. Unless there was an intentional leak, there’s no way Ivins could possibly know about a grand jury, and even then, it was not true that an indictment was imminent. After all, Duley claims she was subpoenaed to appear more than three weeks after Ivins’ rant. The search of Ivins’ house on the 12th of July did turn up a bullet-proof vest, and quite a variety of ammunition. But no gun was found, and the bullets were consistent with his hobby of target shooting. One of Ivins’ forum posts referred to the TV reality show, The Mole. In that post, Ivins described his wish to poke the mole’s eyes out, and cut his throat. That was obviously an attempt by Ivins to shock the forum’s readers, but it also indicates that he may well have talked about roaming the streets of Frederick, looking for someone to stab in his July 9th class. It is likely he was having either a neurotic or psychotic episode, and was venting his frustration at the unrelenting investigation. The doctors did release Ivins to the public on the same day that Duley was filing this petition, after two weeks of psychiatric evaluation. Obviously, that evaluation failed in its determination that Ivins was not a danger to himself (unless, of course it wasn’t a suicide). In any case, Duley’s fear for her own safety certainly was not trivial, or unfounded.

7. I contacted both of his attorneys and the Frederick Police Department. They went to his place of employment and picked him up, and had him committed to Frederick Memorial Hospital.
How did Duley know about Ivins’ attorneys? And why would she warn them that she just turned their client in?

8. He was transported the following day to Sheppard Pratt high security and put on homicidal and suicidal watch. On July 16th he was supposed to have a permanent commitment hearing. On the advice of his attorneys, he avoided a permanent commitment hearing by having himself voluntarily placed.
How did Duley know about matters pertaining to attorney/client privilege? From Maryland’s assisted treatment laws-

§ 10-624.(b) (2) Within 6 hours after being brought to an emergency facility, a doctor must evaluate the individual and determine whether the individual meets the requirements for involuntary admission. (3) The individual must be released promptly after the examination unless they:
(i) Ask for voluntary admission; or
(ii) Meet the requirements for involuntary admission.
§ 10-803. (b) An individual may not be held for more than 3 days after the individual asks for release, unless the admission status of the individual has been changed to an involuntary admission.

Since a permanent commitment hearing can only be scheduled after an involuntary commitment, Duley’s assertion that a hearing was scheduled for July 16th means that either a) Ivins was involuntarily committed, b) the hearing was illegally scheduled, c) Duley was fibbing, or d) someone lied to Duley. In any case, voluntarily admitting yourself actually extends your stay, and increases your chances of permanent commitment; it is not the get out of jail free card that Duley implies, which she should know as the 'Program Director of Frederick Psychiatric Center'.

9. The respondent left me two phone messages from Frederick Memorial Hospital at 4:25am and 4:28am, on July 11th. They were sort of a ranting, blaming me for having done this to him. He was saying that obviously we no longer have a therapeutic relationship, and how could I do this to him? The FBI has that tape because they need to enter it into evidence for the grand jury hearing.
Ivins was pissed that she had him committed, which ended his career in disgrace. He thought that she was helping the FBI to frame him. The fact that he didn’t say that he was going to tear her from limb to limb I think shows unusual restraint. The third phone message at 11:25am July 11th from Sheppard Pratt was described by Duley elsewhere as chilling, that Ivins coldly thanked her for ruining his life. Even after Duley turned him in, an obvious, direct threat was not made. A patient under psych evaluation, and put on ‘high security, homicidal and suicidal watch’ would be hard pressed to make threatening phone calls at 4:30 in the morning, anyway. Did the hospitals give Ivins a room phone and a phone book to look up Duley’s work number? Why didn’t the FBI release the transcripts of these calls when presenting their ‘evidence’, if it was helpful to their case?

10. As far back as 2000, the respondent has attempted to murder several other people, either through poisoning, he is a revenge killer when he feels slighted, especially towards women. He plots and actually tries to carry out revenge killing. He has been forensically diagnosed by several top psychiatrists as a sociopathic, homicidal killer. And I have that in evidence. I do have, and through my working with him, I also believe that to be very true.
An anonymous counselor from Duley’s company claims that in 2000, Ivins told her that he plotted to poison a woman that he was infatuated with if she lost a soccer game. He traveled to that game with some poison, but since she won, he didn’t go ahead and kill her. This anonymous counselor reported it to the police, but without any evidence, and not even a name of the woman, they couldn’t charge Ivins with plotting to possibly attempt murder. It is hard for me to believe that this counselor would make up such a lie, because I see absolutely no motive for her to lie. Therefore, I believe her story is probably true. But that still doesn’t make Ivins’ story true. Ivins is odd in some respects, and I think telling horrible, sadistic stories to counselors (and internet forum people) is one of his quirks. Or, I could be wrong and Ivins is the anthrax killer. But for Duley to claim he attempted to murder ‘several other people’ (other than who?), she must either be embellishing on the one poison story, or Ivins told some other stories not mentioned by anyone. A revenge killer does not kill people that he has never met, such as the anthrax killings. Greed, religion, or politics (not revenge) is a motive for terror type mass murders. Several top psychiatrists did not diagnose Ivins as sociopathic. That term isn’t even used professionally nowadays, and Ivins was the opposite of someone who has an Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD), since they are incapable of any sustained altruistic behavior. Dedicated, long term church/charity volunteers, and mentors can be evil, but they are the antithesis of someone with APD.

A diagnosis of being a homicidal killer is equally impossible. You can diagnose someone who has homicidal thoughts, or has homicidal tendencies, but the only way you can diagnose someone as a killer is to witness an act of murder (or have compelling evidence, at least). Several top psychiatrists, not named, diagnoses not in evidence, yet claimed to be in evidence, is just so much more of Duley’s paranoid exaggerations. And to top off the cake, Duley, an expert in the psychiatric field (did I mention she was the Program Director of the Frederick Psychiatric Center?) weighs in on Ivins’ diagnoses, herself.

11. I am fearful for my personal safety, and so is the FBI. I’ve requested protection of the FBI, but they will be following him, and can’t offer any protection for me. They very much suggested that I get a protection order. I am scared to death.
They were scaring the pants off Duley to get her to enter non-adversarial hearsay into the court record. They were the ones that gave Duley the history of Ivins’ stalking, obsessive, murderous history reaching all the way back to his college days. They, and only they, could have told her that he was going to be indicted on 5 capital murders. These are the same clowns that offered reward money to Ivins’ son, showed autopsy photos of anthrax victims to Ivins’ daughter, told Ivins’ wife he was a murderer in public, and drove over Hatfill’s foot. Then they call Duley up, tell her that the homicidal killer is being released, and that they can’t protect her. But a ‘peace order’ petition would? Yeah, this terrorist wouldn’t want to risk violating a peace order. It would surely make him stop and think how wrong he has behaved and it would certainly stop him from having revengeful thoughts. Or not. Maybe he would simply break off their ‘therapeutic relationship’, and berate her for ruining his life. Oh yeah, that’s right, he already did that. Never mind. I don’t blame Duley for being scared to death; the FBI doesn’t need her anymore, and if she’s smart, she won’t say anything that screws up the FBI’s postmortem case against Ivins. The FBI doesn’t like their butts uncovered.

From Duley's scribbled text in the peace order....

client has a history dating to his graduate days of homicidal threats, actions, plans, threats & actions towards theripist. Dr. David Irwin his psychiatrist called him homicidal, sociopathic with clear intentions will tetisfy with other details FBI involved, currently under investigation & will be charged w/ 5 capital murders. I have been subpoena to testify before a federal grand jury August 1, 2008 in Washington, D.C.

From the FBI's deluge of evidence, (07-529-M-01 search warrant affidavit)-

On July 18, 2007, a forensic psychiatrist completed a detailed review of Dr. Ivins insurance billing records for medical appointments and prescriptions. Additionally, this psychiatrist was provided with an overview of Dr. Ivins' social habits, interests, and obsessions. The forensic psychiatrist stated that based on his experience, if Dr. Ivins was the mailer, it is quite possible that Dr. Ivins retained some kind of souvenir or references to the mailing events."{sic}

Paul Kemp (Ivins' erstwhile attorney) was asked about Duley's reference to Irwin-

She got up on the stand and gave this whole thing about how she knows, from other people, that he threatened, that he was going to be charged with five capital murders, and that she knows that he had some psychiatrist by the name of Dr. Irwin.
Well, I know he was treated by a Dr. Irwin nine years ago, and I don't know if he had discussed that with her in their sessions or not. I wasn't there.

A forensic psychiatrist, btw, is a gun for hire. Defense attorneys hire them to get their client off on an insanity plea. The government hires them to convict who they want behind bars. Ostensibly, they are an unbiased evaluator of one's mental health. So, according to Kemp, Irwin saw Ivins nine years ago, but the FBI claims that Ivins was analyzed by a forensic psychiatrist last year. Are these the same guy? Or did Duley just stumble upon a fortuitous alignment of 'several top psychiatrists who diagnosed Ivins as a sociopathic, homicidal killer'?

Let's stop and think.... Duley says that several top psychiatrists diagnosed Ivins as a sociopathic homicidal killer. And she has evidence of that. Or does she mean that the FBI showed her what she thought was evidence of that?

Get real, everybody even remotely connected to this case is read the riot act, forced to sign a non-disclosure agreement, and can't even discuss Ivins' case amongst themselves. But Duley is not only allowed to discuss the case, but is encouraged to publicly enter her assertions into an open court record.

This is really good legwork on your part.. Very well documented thread.
Star+Flag for this one. It is going to take a bit of time to digest all the information here, but I am glad somebody is doing the work to preserve the data and facts as we know them.

Thank you, my friend. I try to research between work hours. There is a little more to this story, so I hope you will bear with me.

In their 07-525-M-01 search warrant affidavit (pages 7-9), the FBI presented a chart showing the monthly hours Ivins worked in his B3 lab after 6pm, for a two year period, 2000-2001. They also presented two tables of Ivins' hours that spiked just before the two anthrax mailings, and they described his lack of hours after the mailings. The data looks very incriminating to Ivins. I made one small assumption in an effort to flesh out this data from 9/11 to mid October. I assumed, since the FBI described these two spikes in Ivins' hours as 'consecutive days', that Ivins probably didn't have many lab hours in the several days prior to these spikes or the FBI would have surely included them. This assumption hardly affects the overall picture, but simply fills in two small gaps in the information the FBI presented to the search warrant judge. I charted this data in Excel, noting my assumptions-



By subtracting those hours from the monthly totals, we know how many hours Ivins spent in his lab during the periods that the FBI chose not to directly reveal. Since we only know the average hours Ivins worked at the beginning of September and the end of October, I averaged the two periods before the mailings, also-



Based on this chart, a perfectly valid explanation of these hours (according to Ivins' attorney) is that Amanda Ivins was having extreme difficulty in school, which drew Ivins away from his lab during the day, and he was making up for that time during the evenings and on the weekends. The high hours at the start of the school year, tapering off to normal by October fits this description. The FBI claims that Ivins had no explanation for the excessive hours other than the 'inadequate excuse' of 'problems at home' and he wanted to 'get away'.

Am I being deceptive, here? You betcha, just like the incriminating way the FBI presented this information to a search warrant judge (and now to the general public as their 'solid' case). By averaging the pre-mailing periods, I have blurred the spikes that occurred. And by isolating the heavy lab use prior to 9/11, including an unusually high activity during the month of August, the FBI has likewise distorted the true picture. Why doesn't the FBI simply publish the true info in full detail? Why the selective presentation?

Why does Taylor publicly describe the RMR-1029 flask as the smoking gun that Ivins had created and had sole control of? Their own affidavits indicate that that exact ames strain of anthrax was available at 16 other labs, with over a hundred individuals having access to it. Do you believe the FBI is so competent that they can rule out a hundred people, and if so, that not one of those hundred people passed a tiny smear of it to someone else the FBI wasn't aware of? After all, they didn't formally clear Hatfill (after six years of intimidation) until after Ivins' death.

What exactly cleared those hundred people who had access to RMR-1029? A lie detector test? Like the two that Ivins passed? Despite the Washington Post reporting in late December, 2001 that the FBI was pursuing the possibility that financial gain was the motive behind the anthrax mailings, and that Battelle and Dugway were especially indicated, the Columbus Dispatch reported that FBI Director Mueller had assured Ohio Senator DeWine that the bureau was not investigating, nor intending to investigate, anyone with, or formerly with, Battelle. The folks at Battelle are off the hook? Damn, there goes that "universe of people the FBI winnowed down to Ivins" as an excuse for their 7 year investigation.

Like most people, I like FBI TV shows- I Led 3 Lives (personally approved by Hoover), The Untouchables, The Profiler, Numb3rs. Most rank and file agents don't run over Hatfill's foot, flip him off, or intimidate Ivins' children. But their politically motivated bosses (like in the TV shows) are a different kettle of fish. You can put lipstick on Hoover, but he'd still be a pig. And if it was the right shade of pink, he would have simply loved it.

FBI investigations often wreck the careers, reputations, and even the very lives of people swept up into the media frenzy surrounding sensational events. And often, it turns out that the people investigated are innocent. But it is natural for most of us to assume that there must be some grounds for suspicion, since we realize that nearly all of the honest, hardworking career agents have more motivation to be diligent and fair than to harbor personal biases. However, we must also take into account that the FBI is an agency of the Department of Justice, and as such, is part of the Executive branch of our government. The Executive branch is political. Officials high in the bureaucracy of the FBI are concerned with interagency turf wars, covering their bosses’ asses, and many other political motivations. Until this administration, the DOJ was political only to the point that the President picked the Federal Attorneys and the Attorney General, and left the department essentially autonomous. The Judicial Branch of our government is now the sole protector of our constitutional rights.

There are many laws carrying severe penalties for leaking information during an investigation, specifically because those revelations can easily destroy the lives of presumably innocent people under investigation. The rank and file agents do not leak their raw suspicions to the media. Higher officials, however, do not adhere to this restriction, evidenced by Libby (Mr. Germ), who even with a special prosecutor, was only given a commuted prison sentence for lying to the prosecutor, not punished for outing a covert CIA agent through leaks to the media.

Without any meaningful criminal liability, high officials have little encumbrance to politically motivated media leaks that greatly enhance their ability to ‘target’ someone for a crime, whether that person is guilty, or as it may happen, is innocent. In recent years, civil lawsuits against media and agency violations of constitutional privacy laws have added only slight embarrassment to (and very rarely, a public apology from) the parties involved. Even then, the civil penalties are almost never shouldered by the responsible individuals. Either the news agency or the government foots the bill. And, of course, we as media consumers and taxpayers are the ones that ultimately pay the tab.

So what have we paid for? Well, in 1965, Hoover’s FBI composed an embarrassing audio tape of illegal surveillance snippets, sent it MLK with a note suggesting suicide. In 1970, they planted a knowingly false media gossip story that Jean Seberg’s pregnancy was from a prominent Black Panther. Reaction to the story caused premature labor leading to the death of the white, girl baby and Jean’s psychotic attempts at suicide on every anniversary of the baby’s death, until she eventually succeeded. During her descent into psychosis, she managed to win a token settlement from the periodicals that published the rumor, and an apology. FBI Director William H. Webster was also contrite. Suicide indicates that the person was emotionally incapable of handling pressure and stress, but it does not denote guilt. MLK and Seberg were both innocent, but had very different reactions to public humiliation.

Tameleo, Limone, Greco, and Salvati spent 33 years in prison for an FBI murder frame-up. Tameleo and Limone were finally released and won a $101.75 million lawsuit against the FBI. Unfortunately, Greco and Salvati did not survive the prison ordeal. Jeronimo Pratt also spent 25 years in prison (8 years in solitary) for another FBI frame-up for murder. Pratt won $4.5 million in the subsequent lawsuit against the FBI. Frederick Whitehurst won $1.4 million as a whistleblower against the FBI laboratory misconducts of the 1990’s. Dr. Wen Ho Lee won $1.6 million from the government and media for ruinous accusations of spying for China. In 2000, US District Judge James Parker offered the following apology to Lee in court-

"Dr. Lee, I tell you with great sadness that I feel I was led astray last December by the Executive Branch of our government through its Department of Justice, by its Federal Bureau of Investigation and by its United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico, who held the office at that time.
"I am sad for you and your family because of the way in which you were kept in custody while you were presumed under the law to be innocent of the charges the Executive Branch brought against you.

"I might say that I am also sad and troubled because I do not know the real reasons why the Executive Branch has done all of this. We will not learn why because the plea agreement shields the Executive Branch from disclosing a lot of information that it was under order to produce that might have supplied the answer.

"Although, as I indicated, I have no authority to speak on behalf of the Executive Branch, the President, the Vice-president, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of the Department of Energy, as a member of the Third Branch of the United States Government, the Judiciary, the United States Courts, I sincerely apologize to you, Dr. Lee, for the unfair manner you were held in custody by the Executive Branch.”

The lawsuits were just starting to roll, however, when the 9/11 and 9/18 attacks caused such panic that privacy rights seems to simply evaporate in the frenzy of ‘getting back’ at those damn terrorists. I admit my own anger at the time. I really believe that those who managed to keep their sense of fairness about them were few and far between. But most of us that lost it for awhile, quickly realized that what we were willing to sacrifice in anger, was too precious to give up in fear. The deaths caused by those tragic events are a cost of freedom, and a reason to honor its victims by reinforcing those freedoms through strength, not abdicating them in anger or fear. Sorry about the lecture, but we must be not continue to allow more lives to be destroyed by capricious suspicions. Dr. Ivins wasn’t targeted for minority political, religious or racial reasons, since he was middle of the road, catholic and white. But the path that the FBI blazed on their post-attack journey was anything but unbiased.

From almost the start of the investigation, the FBI profile of the attacker was a loner with a grudge against a government agency. Ivins didn’t fit that profile, so a motive needed to be constructed to tie Ivins to the murders. Within days of his death, officials anonymously spread the rumor that Ivins’ motive was to test his vaccine.

Dead Anthrax Suspect May Have Been Testing Vaccine
Aug 1, 2008 WASHINGTON (CBS) ― Anthrax-laced letters that killed five people and severely rattled the post-9/11 nation may have been part of an Army scientist's warped plan to test his cure for the deadly toxin, officials said Friday. For more than a decade, Ivins had worked to develop an anthrax vaccine that was effective even in cases where different strains of anthrax were mixed-a situation that made vaccines ineffective-according to federal documents reviewed by the AP. Ivins conducted numerous anthrax studies, including one that complained about the limited supply of monkeys available for testing. The study also said animal testing couldn't accurately show how humans would respond to anthrax treatment.

The Justice Department said Friday only that "substantial progress has been made in the investigation." Authorities were investigating whether Ivins, who had complained about the limits of testing anthrax drugs on animals, had released the toxin to test the treatment on humans. The officials all discussed the continuing investigation on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.

Only problem with that particular theory is that none of the victims had taken an anthrax vaccine. Oh, well, they’re officials, not geniuses. Another motive has to appear soon to keep the ball rolling, though, and it soon does-

Anthrax Scientist Bruce Ivins Stood to Benefit From a Panic
Bruce E. Ivins, the government biodefense scientist linked to the deadly anthrax mailings of 2001, stood to gain financially from massive federal spending in the fear-filled aftermath of those killings, the Los Angeles Times has learned. Ivins is listed as a co-inventor on two patents for a genetically engineered anthrax vaccine, federal records show. Separately, Ivins also is listed as a co-inventor on an application to patent an additive for various biodefense vaccines.
As a co-inventor of a new anthrax vaccine, Ivins was among those in line to collect patent royalties if the product had come to market, according to an executive familiar with the matter. The product had languished on laboratory shelves until the Sept. 11 attacks and the anthrax mailings, after which federal officials raced to stockpile vaccines and antidotes against potential biological terrorism. A San Francisco-area biotechnology company, VaxGen, won a federal contract worth $877.5 million to provide batches of the new vaccine. The contract was the first awarded under legislation promoted by President Bush, called Project BioShield. One executive who was familiar with the matter said that, as a condition of its purchasing the vaccine from the Army, VaxGen had agreed to share sales-related proceeds with the inventors.

USAMRIID states that Ivins, at the time of his death was receiving $2000 a year in royalties. I think a civil servant scientist, happily driving a faded 20 year old van, and living in a modest home, is unlikely to be a money-grubbing murderer. Hm, if money is the motive, wouldn’t the people making the REAL money be more likely? The Carlyle Group’s BioPort, DynaVax, VaxGen, Cipro manufacturer Bayer, Rumsfeld’s Gilead, are all feeding off the Bush administration’s project Bio Shield, funded by 21 billion taxpayer dollars. If Ivins somehow tapped into the big money, it certainly didn’t show in his lifestyle. And at 62 years of age, it is unlikely he was saving it for a rainy day.