ABC News is being asked many sharp and reasonable questions about its coverage of the 9/11 anthrax attacks, and especially about Brian Ross's promotion of the bentonite story: http://tinyurl.com/62lqel So far, nothing but stonewalling and a dead silence in response. Contemptible. The era of the MSM cannot end too soon. Perhaps the Internet will restore the Fourth Estate. --seanmcbride

This is just another reason we need to turn our resources on the MSM vs "bad" democrats. Certainly both are deserving, but more and more, it's the MSM which has the closest contact and the most impact on our citizenry. 1,000 media skeptics + infusion of funds used wisely = 10,000 media skeptics. And so on until advertisers start running away, media revenue drops, and then all of a sudden, they find their "guts" to do real journalism and investigation again.

Of course I'm oversimplifying for brevity's sake, but you get the idea.

Bringing up her drunk driving record? You're purposefully undermining her character with unrelated information. Shame on you, Glenn.

All these folks whose impressions of Ivins differ from Duley's? How well do the people at your church know you? Well enough to say hi after Mass and ask how you like the new car? How well do most of your neighbors know you? Would they be on the television saying "He's a nice quiet man, kept to himself.".

I agree that the source of the bentonite story needs to come out. But as for the attack on Duley's character, shame shame shame on you.

-- TerryMcT

Shame on you Terry!

A scientist gets his reputation smeared by the words of a woman whose credibility goes without question and you think that is just fine. Then when it turns out she is a drunken college girl, she needs to be protected?

Piss on that!

i dont get why, in that article, we are supposed to feel sympathy for her expensive legal fees.

My point simply is that we are given no evidence; only stories that Dr. Bruce Ivins was in a homicidal frame of mind recently (how is that relevant to 2001 at all) and maybe as far back as 2000 (undetected to everyone around Dr Ivins including those who scrutinize him for his security clearance).

Likewise, while the Administration has little credibility with me, there is little hard evidence of anything.

The current story then boils down to credibility. I vote for the scientist.

When the evidence is shown, that's a different matter altogether.

So, Show me!

Since none of has direct knowledge of the FBI's case, it is all speculation at this point. But I most definitely believe you belabored Ms. Duley's criminal record quite unnecessarily.

In reports that I read, several co-workers appeared to corroborate the viewpoint that there was something hinky about Mr. Ivins. His own brother said:

"I was questioned by the feds, and I sung like a canary ... He had in his mind that he was omnipotent."

That proof of guilt but it proof he was not universally well thought of.

Nor is lack of previous criminal record proof of innocence.

In many, many criminal cases, friends, relatives and co-workers will express great disbelief that the accused committed the crime, even in instances in which the evidence is very clear. So universal denial is not indicative of guilt or innocence either.

There are people in highly skilled environments who are unstable personalities who hold onto their jobs for many years, and, in fact, often perform their jobs in an exceptional manner. And, if all goes well, they retire with sterling records.

Often they will not be removed from their jobs, even in sensitive environments, until their superiors have sufficient evidence of criminal behavior because that would open employers up to lawsuits.

Further, whether a criminal indictment was imminent or not, Mr. Ivins may have perceived that it was. Rational mindsdo not always prevail in such instances.

But suicide is neither proof of guilt or innocence either, of course, even if a confession was left behind (which, apparently, in this case, it was not).

I wish that, instead of speculating yourself, you would have focused on pressures for the FBI to reveal its evidence, ABC to reveal its sources and reasonably discussed the rush to judgment of Mr. Ivins.

I've noticed that in all of the coverage so far nothing has been said about his politics. After all, the timing and the targets could not have better scripted to advance the NeoCons agenda.

One further point: How many news stories on mass murderers include statements from family members, friends, neighbors and co-workers "stunned" by the behavior of the "really nice, helpful, normal guy" they really didn't know so well after all?

Sure, they may not have known him as well as they thought. But the same applies to Ms. Duley, even if she's being honest about her professional opinion.

Judging someone's mental health is a tricky business, even for people with far better qualifications and much more experience than Ms. Duley, even when they've had far more exposure to the subject than Ms. Duley seems to have had with Mr. Ivins. Her opinion should not be given nearly the weight that most media reports seem to be giving it.

Bit of Speculating Yourself?

What did I speculate about? Be specific.

Since none of has direct knowledge of the FBI's case, it is all speculation at this point.

If I were asked to state the primary point of my post, it would be that.

In reports that I read, several co-workers appeared to corroborate the viewpoint that there was something hinky about Mr. Ivins. His own brother said: "I was questioned by the feds, and I sung like a canary ... He had in his mind that he was omnipotent."

"Hinky" is hardly suggestive of "mass murderer" or "psychopath." And the brother you're quoting hasn't spoken to him since 1985. Do you think he's credible?

That proof of guilt but it proof he was not universally well thought of.

There are very few people -- if there are any -- who are "universally well thought of."

I wish that, instead of speculating yourself, you would have focused on pressures for the FBI to reveal its evidence, ABC to reveal its sources and reasonably discussed the rush to judgment of Mr. Ivins.

The only way we're ever going to get to the bottom of what happened is if the public believes they don't know what happened. The rush to depict Bruce Ivins as guilty and dead and buried is inconsistent with that goal, and I'll thus continue to raise questions about it.

I was just on a radio show where the host was sympathetic to what I had written but began by summarizing the facts based on the claim that it's "highly likely" that Ivins is the anthrax attacker. No rational person could make that claim, but that is the perception that is growing, and Jean Duley's claims are an important foundation for that perception.

Anyone who thinks that she shouldn't be scrutinized is prioritizing some weird sense of gentility or "good taste" above the facts and the truth. Given the stakes, I think that prioritizing is unbelievably warped.