It’s not “some in the FBI” nitpicking his famly to prove a lawyer was lying, it was me.
I just made a comment that pointed out a fact, no need to get all emotional about it.
Of greater concern is an apparent relationship to Dr. Meryl Nass, and choice of lawyer. Ivins may have been responsible for putting some of the heat on Hatfill and others; that and a relationship with a peculiar leftwing Cuban-indoctrinated no-account anti-vaccine Dr. from Maine, who belongs to a little outfit called Physicians for Social Responsibility, [see Win Without War] an organization that was aiding the regime of Saddam Hussein on the matter of sanctions, should raise an eyebrow at minimum, particularly because while Nass’s friends on the left were taking potshots at other scientists, they overlooked both Ivins and al Timimi.
It may be Nass overstated her familiarity with Ivins. That’s what I thought at first, and I assumed he was getting the Hatfill treatment and she was just sticking her nose in to promote her website. But that may not be the case. I suggest taking a breath before automatically assuming he’s another Hatfill getting railroaded by the eeeeevil FBI. More than the FBI Hatfill was attacked by the left.
I’m not sure about Ivins and he shouldn’t be assumed to be anything at this point. One thing I don’t believe is that if he is guilty he was alone. I don’t think this was a one-person job, and I don’t think an anti-abortion stance was the motive, though if he is guilty that will be the press’s angle on it, rather than on his other politics. I have thought all along that the anthrax attackers were linked to the anti-vaccine effort, and a true link to Nass should- pardon the pun- raise red flags.
I’m not convinced of Ivins’ guilt. I have a vague recollection that I read somewhere yesterday or the day before that Ivins was working on an athrax vaccine. If he were opposed to vaccines, then why would he be trying to develop one. The FBI was suggesting that Ivins had a financial motive for the anthrax mailings and that he wanted to scare lawmakers and the public into funding vaccine research.
I’m too lazy at the moment to try to find where I read such. I could have heard it on the radio. Who knows! :-)
Or maybe, I became obtuse due to temporary lack of quality sleep and meat and bacon in my Kibbles and Bits. This too shall pass, FRiend.
Now, to the meat of the issue. Considering (from what I read) that Ivins was an active Democrat (though, apparently, anti-abortion) and must have had Democrat friends, the "choice" of lawyer may not be surprising. I don't know who recommended CCA for his counseling (and how and why Duley with her police record became his "counselor"), and I don't know who recommended (or imposed) this lawyer to him.
I asked some of these questions here : http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2057540/posts
I can only surmise that when the left found Ivins was the subject of FBI investigation they wanted to take control of the spin and be on the inside of the investigation (through his lawyer) no matter what Ivins' "involvement" with Amerithrax was - an expert, helping investigators and co-inventor of vaccine, or perpetrator. Reminds me a little bit of Libby who was answering question hoping to help Plamegate "investigation"...
One thing that could help find this out would be to learn when Paul Kemp became his lawyer, and correlate that with when he became a "subject" of FBI investigation. We need a lot more information than bits and pieces provided so far by FBI. There must be some people in Maryland who could help provide some of these answers.
I don't make any conclusions about guilt or innocence of Ivins, in fact I don't know that much about the case, just trying to find and post some relevant information and ask some questions. And so far, on the basis of what FBI produced and the caliber of their witnesses (like Jean Duley) compared to opinion of many of his colleagues at the lab (who hardly have much of a reason to cover things up, especially after Hatfill experience), it's very thin, to say the least. It's like they are throwing multiple charges against the wall, hoping that one or the other will stick with one or the other "groups" of people - after all, they are taking their case to the "court of public opinion". And they are playing what amounts to "identity criminal politics" with this case.
Most of Ivins' idiosyncrasies could be easily explained by psychology of many brilliant men, which he undoubtedly was, and the stress of being under investigation and harassment. Whether Ivins was a willing or unwitting participant, or not a participant at all in the anthrax attacks, this case should not be "closed" - and that's exactly what [some people at] FBI and DOJ are so obviously anxious to do, for whatever reasons, and in a very deceitful way. And that raises yet another "red flag". And that's exactly why we should keep questioning entire Amerthrax investigation, and keep digging the facts from [more] reliable sources.