Posted on 08/06/2008 11:48:15 AM PDT by Shermy
Fed’s try to bribe alleged suspect’s children to turn against him.
‘The officials defended the tactics used in the Ivins investigation, rejecting complaints he made to a colleague about what he considered to be the aggressive questioning of his two children, who are both 24.
One official said the questioning, which reportedly included pressuring Ivins’ children to turn on their father, involved “appropriate” techniques.
According to news media reports, FBI agents showed Ivins’ daughter pictures of the victims and said, “Your father did this.” They told his son he could collect the $2.5 million reward, plus a sports car of his choice.’
I would consider any activity like this illegal.
Not only a government agency involved in bribery to gain judicial judgment
and conviction, but also it’s clearly punishing a person without a judgment
of guilt by conviction in open court.
I further find it quite disturbing, because I too have had family and other
social contacts destroyed over the last 6 years with similar tactics.
Imagine my surprise when my own sister and her husband wanted to know,
“exactly just what they had to do to get their house paid off?” ($100,000)
Like they we’re about to win a game show or something.
And the subsequently try to explain to me that it would be best if I left my
laptop computer with them, and that “Sometimes, It’s too big of a job for the
Public to know what’s best.” (In regard to their own governance). It wouldn’t
have been so offensive if they hadn’t been so adamant in their out of
character performance.
With in the same week, at the residential structure I was remodeling, the
home owner, out of the blue, wanted to know, “exactly what he could do
to get a million dollars?”
I said, “I don’t know? ...Maybe you could tell me.”
What you people should be aware of, We’ve got some seriously fukced up
sh!t being perpetrated against people in our country do to their political views,
or peace activities.
And the tactics being employed to silence those people are far more egregious
than a casual brush of their 1st Amendment Constitutional Rights.
There is a serious subversion of entire law enforcement community in the
name of security. If you don’t speak out against these type of abuses collectively,
you resign yourself to self-imposed 2nd class citizenry.
I would consider any evidence gathered in the Bruce Ivin’s matter as highly
suspect of having any judicial integrity.
- Tracy Mapes
This is astonishing. Someone writes an email about something in their direct area of expertise in light of current catastrophic news events, and it's suspicious. To the contrary, it's normal. It's what people do. Thousands of threads on hundreds of forums at that time said the same thing. That Ivins accurately described the Osama fatwa, as did millions of commentators, forum posters and news people, demonstrates only that he has an attention span; is able to recall relevant past events and connect them to current events, and *gasp!* wonder about what that means for tomorrow. He did what any rational adult does in the aftermath of an assault: he assesses the enemy's position to determine current risk. Anticipating what might come next is a hallmark of normalcy.
Granted, they did not release the entire text of the email, but I strongly suspect that if the e-mail had contained anything more incriminating than this, they'd have released that, and not this lame stuff.
bttt
It isn't illegal, but it's highly unethical, and as you correctly note, rather disturbing.
It also isn't necessary to resort to these kinds of tactics if you have a truly strong case with evidence to back it up.
I sure as hell would never vote to convict anyone in a court of law if I knew that family members were being bribed with millions of dollars for their testimony!
Everything about these reports just screams that their case against Ivins was somewhere between flimsy and nonexistent.
Not to mention if he’s the only perp, why go for a plea bargain at all? Isn’t a plea bargain more suitable for trying to turn one plotter against another?
I wonder if that's the letter that accused fellow scientist Assad.
London shiekh "Captain Hook" who came out quite some time before 9/11 calling for OBL to use anthrax, as I recall.
The USPS was involved with the investigation. The USPS was also conducting it’s own investigation.
My guess is he came across the co-worker during the course of the investigation.
I don't believe for a second the feds would cut any deal with a solitary anthrax murderer if they had a strong case.
Huh? Who is this postal worker? How does he know the unnamed co-worker who supposedly told him these things?
Along with the FBI, the Postal Inspection Service also conducted an investigation of the anthrax attacks. Undoubtedly the "unnamed co-worker" was interviewed by the named postal inspector.
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY
He may. or may not, be guilty - his guilt hasn’t legally been proven in an unbiased trial. In fact, no charges were actually filed against him.
It has been 7 years since the event and the Feds would really like to pin this on someone.
Commiting suicide isn’t proof one way or the other.
Did he commit suicide? Why? Because of guilt or because he was paranoid or because the pressure of being under suspicion was too much?
We will never know.
Its much easier to acuse and publically convict a dead man - especially with the assistance of the media.
He won’t be the first man convicted in the media but not in court.
The stories about Ivins character and conduct certainly give rise to suspicions.
But that would be be the case if they were true or exaggerations planted for that purpose.
If the stories of his questionable behavior, unbalanced mental state and suspicious conduct are true why was he employed in such a sensative position? Why was his employment not terminated? Why has it taken 7 years to decide he is guilty?
Especially since much of that 7 years was spent trying to prove Hatfill, not Ivins, was the guilty party and then fighting his claims of innocence.
The Feds were sure it was Hatfill, now they are equally sure it is Ivins - only Ivins can’t can’t deny it as Hatfill did.
Remember Richard Jewell and the Duke Lacrosse team?
“The same week, Ivins angrily told a former colleague that he suspected his therapist was cooperating with the FBI. On March 19, police were called to Ivins’s home and found him unconscious. He was evaluated at Frederick Memorial Hospital.”
That would be in March of this year.
He suspected his “therapist” was cooperating with the FBI months before July, when Duley claimed the threats were made.
If his therapist was cooperating with the FBI, isn’t that a breach of ethics?
After they destroyed Jewel and Hatfill reputation, botched defending this country and have demonstrated they are as incompetent keystone cops, believing anything these overpaid morons have to say is going to require a ton of stupidity and even more gullibility!
But I agree, it's still pretty unethical, and I sure as heck wouldn't want to rely on her discretion!
Of course, with her background I doubt her credibility could survive more than about ten seconds on the witness stand.
Jumbled stories, coming out, but one theme is the preprinted envelopes had a defect consistent only with envelopes from Virginia and Maryland. Probably was not sold at the p.o. where Ivins had his box.
I wonder who recommended her to him, if he sought a therapist or if it was a condition he had to meet to keep his job.
“Powder from anthrax-laden letters sent to the New York Post and Tom Brokaw of NBC contained a bacterial contaminant not found in the anthrax-containing envelopes mailed to Sens. Patrick Leahy or Tom Daschle, the affidavit said.
Investigators concluded that “the contaminant must have been introduced during the production of the Post and Brokaw spores,” the affidavit said.”
The stories keep saying he was the “sole custodian” to mislead the unwary with the idea that means he is the only one who could have accessed it.
No, not necessarily. Indeed, if she believed Ivins was dangerous, under the Tarasoff Decision I and II, she would have to notify potential victims.
At first, I thought I did not know Dr. Ivins. Imagine my shock when I was looking at CNN (in a waiting room; I’d never watch that on purpose) and saw his picture, and realized that he’s the friendly guy who would always say hello when he saw me at work or at the gym.
I will just say that there is nothing really suspicious about working in a lab during non-business hours. Scientific research does not typical fit into a convenient 9 to 5 schedule; researcher’s schedules revolve around experiment time tables, and there is nothing unusual about being in the lab late at night or on weekends.
I am, to use the words of Tom Daschle, deeply saddened. Except that I sincerely mean the words. May God comfort his family.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.