You're raising essential questions that must be chased down

... but I too think that it is not wise or necessary to post detailed information about the accuser's criminal record. Mentioning it is reasonable, but I don't see why all the details of her record-- and her address-- need to be included in this post.

I agree there's no reason to include her home address -- I didn't notice it was part of what I posted, so I just whited it out and re-posted it.

But everything I published are public records. They're part of the public Maryland judicial data base. She's being used by the DOJ and media to depict Ivins as this crazed psychopath in one of the most important cases of this decade. I think public records that reflect on her credibility are absolutely relevant and should be considered.

Glenn Greenwald is one of the last authentic journalists standing in America. It is a disgrace that the mainstream media (and ABC News especially) haven't been aggressively investigating all of the questions that Greenwald has raised, and many more. With regard to Jean Carol Duley: given the gravity of the case and the seriousness of her charges, it is important that we know everything about her that bears on her credibility. Ivins' coworkers appear to be much more credible than Duley in getting a handle on Ivins. It is difficult to imagine a less credible source than Duley.

Not sure why a couple of people think it's strange that Glenn should bring up Duley's record with the courts.

1) It's absolutely relevant to her credibility - the implication of arrests for drug paraphenalia and DUI is that she's either an alcoholic, a junkie, or permanently stoned. Those characteristics have implications for her reliability that could escape only someone who (i) has never actually had to deal with any of the above types of people, or (ii) is one of them.

2) Even if the above was nothing more than a reflection on her character (rather than the accuracy or reasonableness of her perceptions), it would certainly be relevant to how much credibility we should be willing to accord her, for reasons that surely only the most sophomoric would question.

3) It's hardly underhanded, as at least one person has suggested, for Glenn to bring these matters up. They're a matter of public record! There's nothing secret about any of them.

Basically, the criminal convictions and their nature suggest that we should be very suspicious of both the subjective honesty and the objective accuracy of anything she had to say about Ivins.

Now, we could go further and suggest that the application for a protective order should be viewed in the context of Duley’s “familiarity” with the courts – and I suspect many law enforcement officers and not a few PDs would be willing to go there. Specifically, one could suggest that the accuracy of any one of a person's legal claims is inversely proportional to the number of times their name appears on the docket.

But it’s not necessary to go that far for us to draw the reasonable inferences I've suggested from the content of her criminal record.

What is not yet clear is why Ivins was meeting with Duley at all. Ivins must have been drawing an extremely high salary and his govt. job probably has a lot of stipulations particularly with regard to mental health and treatment. Both factors suggest that Duley, and a group meeting, would be at the very bottom of the list of "things to do when you (the bio-weapons researcher) are feeling homicidal". No reporting I've seen has claimed that Duley has any form of security clearance. What gives here?

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

Character issues are regularly and routinely brought up in court cases of every kind. They help to establish and explain patterns of behavior.

On a more sinister level, it is not at all unreasonable to believe that "the fix was in," meaning someone paid her to make these accusations in order to bolster the FBI's case and get it dismissed by the media and closed more quickly. If people believe the guy was a psycho, then it's a mere baby step to believe he was guilty, whether or not that was actually the case.

Don't believe that happens? Ha! Think again. Duley who may be of questionable moral character given her past record, gladly accepts some generous hush money in exchange for embellishing her story. Case gets closed. Everybody on the gov't side of things is happy. Cover-up complete.

Not at all hard to imagine.

You said Duley's DUI fine was $1,000, but it looks to me like it was $500, and then that $500 was suspended. What do you think?

Where do you see that?

Didn't AJ Weberman play a key role in selling the FBI on the notion that Stephen Hatfill was responsible for the 9/11 anthrax attacks? Isn't the FBI now paying Hatfill nearly $6 million as a result of this false accusation?

"Show Me!"

----

Duley's record is extremely relevant; let us put it this way - they are as relevant as all the alleged facts about Dr. Bruce Ivins revealed so far which have no relevance to establishing whether he committed a crime in 2001.

In the absence of evidence, it comes down to credibility.

To me, a credentialied scientist, with a good scientific reputation, papers published in peer reviewed journals, no criminal record until recent events, with a security clearance, a regular participant in his church's community activities, is intrinsically more credible than a Duley. I say this because to accomplish all that requires a certain discipline and strength of character.

It could very well be that Dr Ivins suffered from a breakdown in the last year or so; but unless that is tied to his alleged activities in 2001, it doesn't seem relevant to me.

In 1988, Ambassador to India John Gunther Dean had some suspicions about how Pakistani General Zia-ul Haq died; the response of this very crowd who is in charge now was to "prove" that he had "mental problems" via State-Department paid psychiatrists, no doubt with greater credentials and credibility than Duley. So the "mentally unstable" card is not a new one for this gang.

So,

Show Me!

As GG said, it could very well be that the FBI has an airtight case.