thelastnamechosen disagreed with lcr on whether Duley should have sought a restraining order, here:

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/03/journalism/permalink/8aa5c4a77db547e032583299d8f71fb9.html

It requires balancing. In this case, the FBI was already involved in a high profile case. The FBI encouraged her to get a restraining order where they could have provided protection until the case was made public. The hearing became a way to avoid FBI policy of not disclosing names of person not yet charged. The use of live testimony seems unusual for a temporary restraining order. Under these circumstances, I wonder if the hearing was orchestrated, and whether Duley could have been more discrete if the only purpose was her protection.

Also, I did not see a direct threat against her.

Why is it OK to put a media bow on this?

I would say therapists always owe a duty of discretion, to be balanced against public and their own safety. She reported him, which is not what I am questioning. He was admitted, and not kept, in the psych ward. I question her lurid allegations, think they were fed to her, and think she should have been more careful before regurgitating them.

I'm mainly questioning what Duley said in the written statement, about Ivins' history since graduate school. She may have misinterpreted the import of she says what Ivins said to her on July 9. I wasn't there and don't know who was and what they heard.

You mentioned Tom Ivins as the other witness. He was asked to comment on Duley's statements, IIRC, and thus her statements affected his comments.

Notice that the Hartford Courant not only does not cite Duley's story, they state a different reason for his hospitalization.

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-fbi.artaug04,0,3746296.story

"Diagnosed with depression, he told a therapist he was considering suicide."

I did not hear Duley talk about depression or suicide, so if this is true, who was the therapist?

The more I listen to Duley, the more I think she is not only repeating fabrications, but fabricating on her own. I know - he said it in a group session. Good luck disproving that aspect of her story.

Another thing - if he actually had a file like she says, and said the things she says he said, not only would it be unlikely that he lasted until July 10, it would be unlikely he would be released from the psychiatric facility. As a voluntary admission perhaps he could leave voluntarily, but Duley's story is that he was originally involuntarily committed, then did a voluntary admission to avoid an extension of involuntary commitment. If he had a history like Duley says, and made calls to her like she says (did she tell the doctors?), then the doctors could have sought involuntary commitment. Yet they released him July 24, which tells me that someone made a determination he was not a threat to self or others. So who was Duley to question that, and if he was a homicidal maniac like she claimed and the FBI agreed she was in danger, what did she think a court order would do to stop him? And who made this into a live-testimony hearing rather than the usual affidavit sufficient for a temporary order?

One question I don't think I've heard, which is premised on Ivins having committed suicide, is whether this hearing contributed to that suicide. The guy gets out of the hospital and then hears about this - how did that affect him?

Moreover, this hearing served to announce that Ivins was being investigated, even though FBI policy is not to name people until charged.

I call b*ul*s*it on the whole thing. No need to parse or impeach - I think the Duley hearing is an outright, orchestrated fabrication that should be given no credence.

Her story is only slightly more believeable than the idea that 4 planes were hijacked and all disappeared inside buildings or the ground, and caused two massive steel buildings to collapse.

Why do we take these stories seriously?

Why do you publish stories like this?

Notice the standard technique:

"His decades-long obsession with a college sorority may link a former Army biowarfare scientist to four anthrax-laced letters dropped off at a New Jersey mailbox in 2001, authorities said Monday in the latest twist of one of the most bizarre unsolved crimes in FBI history."

That Ivins had a decades-long obsession with a a college sorority is taken as fact.

And again:

"U.S. officials said Bruce Ivins' fixation with Kappa Kappa Gamma could explain one of the biggest mysteries in the case: why the anthrax was mailed from Princeton, N.J., 195 miles from the lab it's believed to have been smuggled from."

Now for "balance":

"Still, authorities acknowledge they cannot place Ivins in Princeton the day the anthrax was mailed. And the curious explanation connecting the scientist and a sorority is unlikely to satisfy his friends and former co-workers who question what motive the married father of two might have had for unleashing the attack."

Then there's this, which makes no sense at all:

"One official said investigators were working off the theory that Ivins chose to mail the letters from outside the sorority's Princeton chapter to confuse the government if he ever were to emerge as a suspect in the case."

Some theory. If he had created a paper trail documenting his supposed obsession with the sorority, why woud he think that mailing from near the sorority confuse the government?

"Details about Ivins' alleged obsession with the sorority will be spelled out in court documents that could be made public as early as Tuesday."

So why not wait to see those details, and whether they are substantiated? Instead, AP cites unnamed "authorities" that are not authorized to speak, unnamed "officials" spoeaking unofficially.