What does it tell you when the most significant crimes in the United States over the past fifty years have gone effectively unsolved. Where perpetrators and alleged perpetrators are killed, declared mentally incompetent, or commit suicide?

The NYTimes article by Scott Shane Glenn links to provides pretty flimsy circumstantial evidence against Ivins. After noting the "flask" of anthrax to which the attack material has been traced genetically was under Ivins' control, Shane points out that at least 10 people had access. The rest of the circumstantial evidence:

That evidence includes tracing the prestamped envelopes used in the attacks to stock sold in three Maryland post offices, including one in Frederick, frequented by Dr. Ivins, who had long rented a post office box there under an assumed name, the source said. The evidence also includes records of the scientist’s extensive after-hours use of his lab at the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases around the time the letters were mailed, the source said.

The prestamped envelopes and the post office box under an assumed name are indeed interesting. Post offices have security cameras and once Ivins was a suspect, the FBI could have gotten a warrant to examine the mail that came to the box. Whatever they found there on security tapes and/or from intercepted mail could indeed be interesting. However, Shane points out that there appears to be no evidence putting Ivins in Princeton on the days the letters were mailed from there.

The second half of the paragraph is bunk. A scientist working after hours is hardly unique. He'd be more suspicious if he only put in 9 to 5 in the lab. Only if they can prove extended time when he was the only one present in his area is there even a remote reason to wonder about this. Further, it should be very easy to check his research notes. A scientist as meticulous as Ivins has been described would likely keep a very detailed notebook on his experiments. It should be possible to look in the notebooks and determine if the activities described there can account for the after-hours time spent there. I'd check for notebook entries and work logs on the days the letters were mailed in Princeton: did he work in the lab all day on those days, especially during the time window when the letters were deposited in the mailbox?

I have been troubled by the widespread and unquestioning reporting of Jean Duley's allegations re Dr. Bruce Ivins. Consequently, I have been on a one-person crusade all day, emailing reporters at The New York Times and the Washington Post the following:

I fear that the media have made a rush to judgment based on the statements by Jean C. Duley, the Frederick, MD, social worker.

Ms. Duley may not be aware that there is a subset of people suffering from mental illness who come to believe, wrongly, that they will or have harmed others. This can occur in people with OCD. For example, Charles Barber, now a Yale lecturer, in "Songs from the Black Chair," describes on p. 56 and elsewhere that, as his mental illness grew, his homicidal ideation and thoughts that he had acted on it obsessed him. He had not actually committed acts of violence, but he began to believe that he would and had.

In addition, specialists on OCD know about people with scrupulosity, who believe that unless they repeat a series of actions, they will cause harm to come to someone or have caused harm to others. One of the experts on this is Dr. Charles Mansueto of the Behavior Therapy Center of Greater Washington. For a quick article re this, see "OCD Sufferers Consumed by Religion" by Tom Dunkel, The Baltimore Sun, September 9, 2005, reprinted at http://www.anxietyandstress.com/ocdreligionandscrupulosity.html

I also sent the reporters the following email:

This email * * * concerns the statements made by social worker Jean Duley re Dr. Bruce Ivins. I hope that you are aware of the substantial body of work on false confessions completed by mental health professionals. See, e.g., the work done by Saul Kassin, Professor of Psychology, Williams College. His website (and contact information) is http://www.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/index.html

I have no specific information concerning Dr. Ivins and his alleged involvement with the anthrax letters of 2001. I remain concerned, however, about the impressions created by the statements made by Jean Duley regarding Dr. Ivins. I am a former Special Agent (GS-1811) for an agency other than the FBI. I am aware that the subjects of investigations face enormous stress.

Per wtop.com link given at antiwar.com:

"Dr. David Irwin, his psychiatrist, called him homicidal, sociopathic with clear intentions," the document states. "Will testify with other details."

According to a recording at the Shady Grove Psychiatric Group, Irwin is out of the office until Monday. A message left was not returned.

Haven't heard any quotes from him, but it could be that he is (very properly) preserving patient confidentiality.

Link at sig.

If Ivins is guilty, Ross will look pretty stupid being a conduit for distracting information that led away from the culpret. ...In any event, it doesn't sound like he's protecting a whistle blower, which ought to be the only criteria for withholding sources.

Geewhiz,

QUOTE One has to believe that Willman is the next Judith Miller. He is loving the scoops but has no idea he is being manipulated by others. And of course, none of his readers will ever know it. END QUOTE

Most maintream media journalists, like Judith Miller and David Willman, have little expert knowledge about most of the topics they report on. The Internet has made it possible for the best experts in any given field to give these mediocrities a serious spanking on a level playing field. In the world of Internet new media, traditional "journalists" may well have no place on the food chain. Intelligent consumers of news will be able to go directly to the best minds on the topics of the day, without a mediating dumbed-down filter designed to protect the interests of the handful of oligarchs who own the mainstream media. These "journalists" are running scared -- the Internet is eating their lunch.