Read other letters about this article

• Tuesday, August 5, 2008 09:52 AM

  good wrap up thus far

  it is great to see the msm's parroting of the FBI contrasted with outside sources. The FBI looks more and more like nothing more than brute enforcers, not a group that cares about the truth

  (not that I thought they really cared about the truth... that Frontline documentary about J. Edgar Hoover is required viewing, and reiterates the idea that those who are foaming at the mouth about this or that issue may be actually talking about themselves, not their targets.)

  The FBI looks, to me, like they're throwing accusations against the wall to see if any of them will stick. Porn, sororities, going postal... So my question is this: since the FBI has tried to create an image of him as a stalker/porn addict - how would any of these things reasonably connect to motives thus far ascribed to him (i.e. get money for research, show how easy it was to send/ not meant to kill anyone/ postal sorting made it lethal / other reasons given for sending anthrax. -- what, if any, correlation exists in research lit. between motives and his so-called obsessions?

  Seems the FBI decided to go with the Hinkley/Chapman model.

  Since Ivins did not fit any of the actual life characteristics of either of those guys - he held a stable job for years, published in scholarly journals, actually assisted in improving work at the lab -- I guess what I'm trying to ask is how realistic is this model?

  It would seem to me that Robert Hanson (Hansen?) - the guy who was a double agent for years and years - would be a better fit. But then that would, again, imply more than one person involved in a conspiracy to commit murder.

  anyone have any thoughts on this?

  —fauxreal Read fauxreal's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel