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.

Thank you Glenn. Even when it shatters all of my childhood impressions of America. We need more good and critical souls out here and I, for one, find inspiration in finding the truth in all things. You are the epitome of clear thinking and it's (once again) refreshing to see through the insanity of the MSM. I never can watch the evening news without deep skepticism. I never have been one to march lockstep with the masses, and for good reason. I don't want to be some sad statistic of mass hysteria. I honestly believe that people suspect worse but simply are too afraid to realize it on a conscious level. I guess it'd blow their minds. You da man. If you're ever needing a mechanic/welder/fabricator in S. America, look me up. I'd be honored to work on your stuff. Bless you once more and keep up the very patriotic job of questioning authority (I'm an older hippy type).

lcr said

... claims about the past (poisonings, etc.) are true...

I think this is an obvious euphemism for the anthrax attacks, but that is just my opinion.

The FBI has been watching him like a hawk.

The same organization that says the anthrax terrorist infiltrated the FBI's own investigation into the anthrax mailings. Operating right under their noses for years.

What could he have done under the watch of the FBI?

Uhmmmm... maybe kill himself? Possibly kill others?

In all of this, where was the psychiatrist who was supposedly treating Ivins? Why did he/she not admit the patient if it was deemed necessary?

Why didn't the FBI take him into to custody or at least prevent his release from Sheppard Pratt? Why is it the responsibility of the mental health profession to keep this guy from being a danger to himself or others considering he was about to be indicted, using information from the FBI, for attacks against the nation with weapons of mass destruction.

Ivins was admitted through a local hospital and then transferred to Sheppard Pratt, usually considered a reputable institution. Why did they let him go?

Why didn't the FBI prevent his release considering he was about to be indicted, using information from the FBI, for attacks against the nation with weapons of mass destruction.

How would you feel if the "men in white coats" came to pick you up at your place of business -- effectively ending your career even if you weren't guilty of anything.

I would probably think it wasn't a good idea to leave a threatening message on my therapists answering machine.

For those on the thread who aren't clinicians, you may not realize that decisions about dangerousness are often difficult, requiring time and thought -- and not infrequently -- consultation with an independent colleague.

This statement is so far removed from the evidence that has been presented, you are just making shit up.

Was this the last straw?

It is my last straw. You offer nothing but conjecture based upon evidence that does not exist. You are doing the exact same thing to Jean Duley that you accuse Duley of doing to Ivins.

At this point, I am going to come straight out and say I don't think you are truly a psychologist. If you really are, then you are in no position to question the competence or professional demeanor of Jean Duley.

-----

dvw said

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.

Although I don't have any direct evidence, I see it as a very logical conclusion the FBI encouraged Duley to get a restraining order just so the media would have a really nice bow to put on this package.

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.

Assuming the facts offered by Duley to be true, I would really like to hear a sincere argument as to why Duley would owe Ivins any discretion considering the circumstances.

-Three branches, Kid.

Congress, The Executive, and The Media.-

Good thing that other remaining branch isn't corrupted or surely all would be lost.

Er....

Readers may want to know that Dan Gillmor (ex-Mercury News reporter, now a J-professor at Arizona State) and I have called on ABC News to answer three key questions drawn from Glenn's two columns:

My post on it:

Three Vital Questions for ABC News About its Anthrax Reporting in 2001. "We can never trust them if they can't take action when they get played. This looks like a case where ABC News got played."

http://is.gd/1dLx

Dan Gillmor's post:

ABC Has Major Questions to Answer in Anthrax Story. "What the organization is doing now is journalistically unforgivable."

http://is.gd/1dLI

Cheers.

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.