We're not the only people that are skeptical about the FBI's handling of the is.

Richard Schuler, attorney for anthrax victim Robert Stevens' widow, Maureen Stevens, said his client will attend Wednesday's FBI briefing with a list of questions.

"No. 1 is, 'Did Bruce Ivins mail the anthrax that killed Robert Stevens?'" Schuler said, adding, "I've got healthy skepticism."

The article also points out that Ivins would sit at his desk and weep.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080806/ap_on_go_ot/anthrax_investigation;_ylt=Ap7Hyq9iXMP64yGGwvxQ8eGWwvIE

The only hint that Ivins might have been secretly gay was the brother calling him "wussy" and being suprised that Ivin's could ever get married. The nutjob brother based this on Ivin's being a caregiver for their cancer ridden mother. This makes my head spin.

Ivin's obviously wasn't a thick skinned as Hatfill who seems to have had to training to take this kind of attack.

I don't know many that could take that kind of onslaught.

p.s. If the porn had been kinky we would already know, the worst they could come up with is some of the women were blindfolded, not bound. This is a guy that was ashamed to read vanilla porn...

Aha! Of course, now we know Ivin's has to be the terrorist. Besides, we already know he was wussy..even if he liked sorority girls 27 years ago.

It is only implied that the scientist officially borrowed the equipment to take home. It is more apparent that he officially borrowed the unit to take from one approved lab, to another in the same area.

Scientist aren't allowed to just move equipment from one lab area to another, and Ivin's didn't.

The leaks so far are designed to be vague but sinister. This is just one more instance of the same.

I like reading a number of your posts. But you do seem to try to goad on a few here.

Do we really need to now see all the links that your post will now generate to try and show why their views are legit?

Next up, you'll have to gratuitously bash Ron Paul and get a few others all riled up and ready to take you to task.

Come on, take this fight back to the last few threads where it already took over.

My two cents and my last comment on this.

It's scary what ooemex points out on how we all could be desribed/defined if someone wanted to.

The gun nuts are correct on this. Anyone that has a couple of old rifles will be described as having a weapons cache. Anyone that has looked (used) at porn is viewed as a twisted perv. Anyone of us here that post regularly could be called obsessive anti-government extremists. Never mind that there is a wide swath of ideologies, they would pick the most sensational. Hell, they might even call us radical racists by picking apart Electro's old sarcastic comments as legit and branding us all in agreement because we ignored his baiting.

It's scary. If Ivins was innocent, no wonder he killed himself, especially after they harassed his family. Damn.

Funny that you should mention Hillerman, aka clio.

I just read his foreward where he detail the true killing of a cop in 98 and how the FBI took over the investigation.

They prevented local cops from helping in the search of the canyons and when all was done, determined the killers probably died. Case closed. The local cops said the killers probably died of laughter.

On one of the other threads, someone pointed out that "forensically diagnosed" means they didn't have to interview him.

My guess is the forensic diagnosis was of the anthrax killer in general. Since Duley was told it was Ivins, it means he was the homicidal maniac. She had no reason to doubt the FBI, they just used her to get the info out there and pressure Ivins even more.

Again, the FBI wouldn't offer her protection after Duley was released, I guess they weren't that afraid of the serial killer, were they?

The ones remaining in the lab that are speaking out in Ivin's defense have to be pretty brave.

God knows, nobody in their right mind would want the focus of the investigation to switch to them.

In the meantime, if Ivins didn't do it, the killer is sitting pretty happy right now.

In spite of the reference to porn that Iveins liked that involves women being blindfolded (as proof of what, I'm not sure...I know plenty of women that liked..to me.. the creepy movie 9 1/2 weeks) it seems that some reporters are becoming intrigued.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/05/washington/05anthrax.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&ref=us&oref=slogin

It raises some interesting questions.

There are always side discussions here. They are just that.

Since GG's article was posted, the AP had an article from leaked sources that said Ivins was obsessed with a sorority and that explained why the anthrax letters were sent from where they were...without any evidence.

It seemed ridiculous to even me, and then the AP corrected their story.

Personally I think Bush & Co. were willing to capitalize on anything that would further their goals. The anthrax scare was just one more thing to use in the run up to the war with Iraq.

Frankly, protecting sources that outright lie to you to push their agenda is despicable.

p.s. the sorority angle is now one of the lead articles at Yahoo. I guess it's sexy since it involves college girls, even if it doesn't make a lick of sense.