With new analyses showing that the admixture of anthrax could not have come from anywhere in the world but Ft. Detrick, FBI agents plunged deep into Ivins' history.

That history included a pattern of letter-writing to newspapers. In one he defended the safety of research conducted on anthrax at Ft. Detrick.

"The only way I can think of being seriously injured by anthrax or plague vaccine is to get plunked on the head by a vial of the stuff," Ivins wrote in a letter published April 12, 1997, in the Frederick (Md.) News-Post.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-anthrax4-2008aug04,0,3024133,full.story

Pattern of letter writing -- gotcha! Defending his profession -- case closed!! (And he signed his own name -- you know there's something suspicious about that!!!)

There is one single factor that, above all others, makes me question the FBI's identification of Dr. Ivins as the sender of the anthrax. It is not the credibility of Ms. Duley. It is not the comments of his estranged (and, quite frankly, asshole-sounding) brother. It is not his mental stability, or lack thereof. It isn't that so many of his friends and co-workers deny the allegations.

It is, quite simply, the demonstrated incompetence of the FBI in pursuing this case.

Two words: Steven Hatfill

It will be interesting to see what concrete evidence the FBI is able to proffer in support of their allegations. Assuming they proffer any, that is.

Question: Could the FBI have argued that - by some convoluted logic - FISA allowed them to seize the public library computers? I'm surprised (and disappointed) that a librarian would give up the computers without a warrant, particularly given that the library in question subscribes to the ALA's Library Bill of Rights and considering that many, many, many people who have nothing whatsoever to do with this investigation would have used those same computers. I tried to review the library's privacy policy, but it wasn't available on their website. I wonder if they actually have one. Every library should and it should be publicly available.

How do we know this is the same Culey?

don't need this 'Theripist' Badie was writing about - perhaps Glenn can apply for group

theripi for the whole thread and we invite Nancy too!

Quote from your article:

"None of this is to defend Ivins, nor is to suggest that this constitutes evidence that Duley is lying or is otherwise inaccurate in her claims."

Ummmmm...well...really...isn't this what your very long article is all about???

You do everything you can in the way of character assassination against Duley, but then you use these weasel words to cover yourself? Please.

*MoodyRiver*

So maybe you need to explain your position more fully.

Had Ivins lived, been charged, and gone to trial, I presume Ms. Duley would have been called as a witness. Can we agree on that basic premise?

If called as a witness, would not the attorney representing Mr. Ivins have done a thorough check of Ms. Duley with respect to her credibility as a witness? And, would I expect an attorney mounting an aggressive defense to have stopped at Ms. Duley's professional expertise to the exclusion of any public record which might reflect on her credibility?

Further, had there been an actual trial, and given the MSM's love of sensational reporting, would I expect those reporting on the trial to exclude from their reports that which Ivins' defense revealed about Ms. Duley during the trial?

So, I sit here as a former consumer of the mainstream print media wondering what the difference is between my reading it on my computer monitor or reading it held in my ink stained hands?

Truth is Ms. Duley is really interesting to me only to the extent that she seems to be the sole basis on which Ivins' is being convicted in the court of public opinion. The questions posed by Jay Rosen and Dan Gillmor are a good deal more pressing. However, since the media seems disinclined to get answers for those questions, it seems entirely reasonable to focus on Duley given the central role the media has afforded her as the basis for case closed.

But she doesn't appear to have used an attorney for her complaint against Ivins. If anything, her savings were likely depleted from attorneys' fees, court costs, and fines and probation for her various criminal proceedings

Any evidence at all for this this statement?

Prior to the restraining order against Ivins which Duley obtained two weeks ago, Ivins had no criminal record at all, at least not in Frederick.

You know, if you don't feel like searching a bunch state and federal databases to find information about Ivins, there are companies you can pay to do this for you. That way you don't have to limit your statement to "at least not in Frederick."

What is certain is that Jean Carol Duley is hardly some upstanding, authoritative source on Bruce Ivins' psychological state or his guilt, nor is she some accomplished and highly credible psychological professional...

Duley's psychological evaluation of Ivins is the least interesting aspect of her testimony. Ivins' alleged statements at group counseling, presumably in front of other patients, is the obviously the most important issue. It isn't complicated. He either said those things at group or he didn't. Duley does not need a professional degree to testify to those facts. Duley's credibility is certainly an issue if you are challenging the truth of the matter. Is that what you are doing? Do you suspect that Ivins did not make those statements during group counseling?

Glenn, you are a lawyer. People are convicted of very serious crimes everyday based upon the testimony of people much less credible than Duley.

I'm really surprised that some people think that "good taste" (whatever that means) is more important than knowing all the relevant facts.

It certainly isn't. Your approach isn't a particularly good way to get Duley to speak to you either--or anybody for that matter.

I'm sure that's true. But if you become the chief accuser in the most significant news story in the country, then your entitlement to keep such facts concealed is obviously diminished.

Chief accuser? Really? Is it your hypothesis that the grand jury is a figment of Duley's imagination? The LA times reported --"...the Justice Department was about to file criminal charges against him for the attacks, the Los Angeles Times has learned." Is it your contention that this information is not true?

I can see making the argument that she is the "chief accuser" for the idea that Ivins was friggin nuts, but "chief accuser" period?

----

Glenn,

I can't see at all how this is a productive line of inquiry, but I don't see many things. I would love to hear a strategic argument taking this road.

The way I see it is either Ivins made those statements at group-- or he didn't. If he did, Duley is just a footnote. If he didn't, then things will get very interesting very fast.

If it turns out that Ivins' statement at group can be confirmed by other patients, doctors or recordings, or if he directly threatened violence in the messages that Duley claims the FBI has copies of, then all of this Duley crap is going to look very stupid and petty.

Is it your hypothesis that Duley is lying about the group session? If not, how can any of the crap that you posted have any relevance?