This is not a frivolous lawsuit. A person died because according to the FBI weaponized anthrax from the one of its labs was placed into envelopes by and mailed it to 7 different places. The FBI report specifically says Ivins, an employee of the government did it. That makes the government liable.
If you read my complete post in my blog, I am pointing out that Justice wanted it the other way, that Ivins could’t have done it so they couldn’t be sued. That is deceitful.
If you read further you will find I don’t think Ivins did it, I think it was more likely done by unknown Islamist terrorists.
But if the judge finds Ivins responsible, the government should pay.
You misinterpret my post. I AGREE that a DOJ lawyer trying to make the case that Ivins was NOT responsible is a disgustingly perfect example of talking out of both sides of one’s mouth. It is deceitful, and the lawyers who came up with that tack are complete tools.
I never meant that the lawsuit was frivolous. I think Ivins very likely IS the culprit, and yes, the federal government is liable. The failure to manage his work and breakdown of any sense of accountability at Ft. Detrick were not just negligent, they were in my opinion criminal.
I have made a careful study of the facts of the case. There is a chance that the attack was from foreign actors. However, I am pursuaded that the weight of the evidence supports the contention that Ivins is the actor. Yes, the case is circumstantial, but enough circumstantial evidence can make a case. It is a fallacy to believe that circumstantial evidence is worthless, or that a conviction cannot be obtained based on it, if there is enough to reasonably exclude other possibilities.
The problem here is the microbial forensics needed to meet the Daubert standard. How do we get the proof that the b. anthracis used in the attack is derived from Dr. Ivin’s flask? That and arguments and misteps early in the investigation regarding the evidence collection, methods of analysis and ascertaining the adjuvants and techniques used to produce the powder, may have irretrievably tainted the scientific investigation. Were this to have gone to a jury, a good trial counsel may well have won an aquittal.
That however, is speculative. All I can do is look at the weight of the evidence with which we are presented, and the evidence leads me to Dr. Ivins. You see things differently. We agree to disagree.