- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I admit that I have read only half of the posts in response to Glenn’s Greenwald’s latest article. Perhaps someone else has covered the following. If not, here goes. As noted by others, the Frederick News-Post published portions of the transcript of the audio-recording of social worker Jean Duley’s sworn testimony. I’ve listened to the entire ten-minute recording many times, and have drafted a more comprehensive transcript. I will post the transcript below. (For purposes of brevity, I have omitted the names of the speakers. The questions were posed by Duley’s attorney, and the answers were by Duley.)
I have several thoughts about Duley’s testimony. The most important question involves the purpose of the hearing, which was suggested by the FBI: Did Duley need PROTECTION from Ivins, or did the FBI need PUBLICITY indicating that Ivins was a sociopathic homicidal killer who was the subject of a grand jury proceeding? It was the FBI that suggested that Duley request an order of protection, knowing that it would draw the noose around Ivins tighter. If the FBI had doctors who would testify that Ivins was homicidal, they could have kept him locked up at Sheppard Pratt under an involuntary commitment to prevent both homicide AND suicide. Instead, the FBI’s tactic was to follow Ivins as soon as he was released from the hospital, which would prevent homicide but not suicide, and to have Duley seek the order of protection, so that the world would know how that Ivins was a man who “plots and plans.”
Q: Ms. Duley, state your full legal name for the court, please.
A: Jean Carol Duley.
Q: And how old are you, ma’am?
A: Forty five.
Q: It’s my understanding that you’ve asked this court to keep your addresses, both personal and professionally, confidential, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: During the course of the last six months, where were you employed?
A: Uh, Psychiatric Center, Frederick
Q: And in what capacity, what was your job title?
A: Uh, Program Director.
Q: And during your time at that location, did you run group therapeutic sessions?
A: Group and individual counseling.
Q: And during the course of your employment, did you come into contact with the person who you named as the respondent in your petition?
A: Yes.
Q: Did there come a point in time in the last couple of weeks where you were contacted by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation?
A: Yes.
Q: And as a result of their investigation, were you issued a subpoena to testify before a federal grand jury?
A: Yes.
Q: And did the Federal Bureau of Investigation contact you regarding investigation alleging that the named respondent in this action had been involved in some very serious federal criminal offenses?
A: Uh, yes, um hum.
Q: And have you been cooperating with the FBI in that regard?
A: Yes, very much so.
Q: And if you could name the special agent who’s in charge of the investigation for the record.
A: I have to put on my glasses; I apologize. Hold on. Uh, one of them is Daniel Boorsuk {sp?)
Q: Okay. How long have you known the person that you’ve named as the respondent in this action?
A: Six months.
Q: And how often did you see him?
A: On a weekly basis, once a week, and on an individual basis, approximately every other week.
Q: During the course of your involvement with him professionally did he ever make any threats that were what you would consider to be homicidal in nature?
A: Yes.
Q: Did he make any threats that you would consider to be threatening to your personal safety during the course of those six months?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: Okay. Most recently what brings you before the court is a number of instances involving him that you feel are threatening to your personal safety at this time, is that correct?
A: Yes, very much so.
