If not here's the Time story outlining how the FBI tormented her.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,947393,00.html

Her story was the first thing that came to mind when I read about Ivins' suicide.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1829495,00.html?cnn=yes

How Solid is the Anthrax Evidence?

You got that right.

I knew that one would be fondly remembred.

I was irritable, posted immoderately, and apologised (twice) within ten minutes. RMP has no obligation to accept my apology, but I hope he will.

The episode is so green in my memory it brings the blush of shame to my maidenly cheek. I'm so famisht I'm gonna take a ride, and let you solve the case.

And if I suddenly decide it's all TOO MUCH and the shame is more than I can bear, and I ride over a cliff to my ultimate destruction, well, maybe you'll sleep better at noght, and maybe you won't.

But I would think poor Ivins would be a lesson to you in how much a guy can take!

By all accounts he was a human. Big difference.

1. They worked at Ft. Detrick in the lab (access to raw anthrax).

2. They were anti-Arab and harrassed a co-worker based on religion and national origin. >>> Not afraid to ruin a life.

3. Could their beliefs and loyalties (however wrong) have led to a domestic terror attack on perceived liberals? e.g. ruin more lives (death).

4. Make the attack seem to come from Islamists (the letters).

Motive, means, opportunity.

I accept although I don't even remember what you were/are apologizing for. I don't take things personally just ignore those who aren't contributing anything and that certainly doesn't apply to you.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Please tell me no one believes that shit! That's the best they could come up with??

Magupta, thanks for the link to the Frederick News story.

Public humiliation in the workplace and having your life work ruined obviously are additional good reasons Ivins might have been pushed over the edge.

I find Ivins' apparent social isolation striking, and certainly consistent with serious depression. His colleagues remember him fondly, and he was clearly very talented outside of his profession (the piano playing, the songs for special occasions), but he doesn't seem to have had any real friends or confidantes. If he complained to anyone privately while all the FBI harassing and intimidation was going on, no one has spoken up to confirm this. Perhaps he confined his anger to his therapy group. Interestingly, he doesn't seem to have sought any kind of spiritual counseling through his church.

Bits and pieces loosely glued with speculation - I keep checking back here every few hours (ok, minutes) just to see what new shards of information the GGA (Glenn Greenwald Army) has gleaned.

pajaro505 -- It's good to know some folks are reading and thinking about the core issue in the 9/11 attacks controversy. What is really bizarre -- and quite telling -- is that when the subject of the Camel Club comes up, quite a few people become quite anxious and distressed -- they clearly want the subject to go away, to be buried. And it HAS been buried. That kind of behavior creates strong suspicion.

Your points cut right to the heart of the matter.

QUOTE

Investigate Camel Club

1. They worked at Ft. Detrick in the lab (access to raw anthrax).

2. They were anti-Arab and harrassed a co-worker based on religion and national origin. >>> Not afraid to ruin a life.

3. Could their beliefs and loyalties (however wrong) have led to a domestic terror attack on perceived liberals? e.g. ruin more lives (death).

4. Make the attack seem to come from Islamists (the letters).

Motive, means, opportunity.

END QUOTE

With even Froomkin now asking who told Ross that there was dentonite detected in the anthrax and that this made it appear Iraqi in origin, could somebody please find out the answer to that?

And if Ross refuses to say who told him this (notwithstanding the numerous reasons this should not be considered "privileged"), could somebody please get Ross to answer the question of whether the government has ever asked him who it was?

Ross can answer that question -- have you been asked by government investigators? -- with a yes or a no, and there is no conceivable disclosure of any supposed "source". I am growing increasingly suspicious that, well, those investigating the anthrax attack had little to no interest in finding out who provided false, mis-directing Iraqi "link" information. Let's assume the investigators already knew there was no dentonite and the White House already was publicly distancing itself from the firestorm created by the dentonite story, would the investigators simply ignore it because it suggests that somebody had some motives here?

Look, if the anthrax had no dentonite in it, who would have enough knowledge credibly to say that it did and to say that this meant Iraq? And who would have any incentive to have that kind of person make such a statement? If Ross' "sources" were government scientists rather than political or military sources, how would that kind of information be leaked in the first place, or remain confidential during an investigation, unless people higher up than the scientist/leaker wanted the identity to remain secret? And if the dis-information about dentonite came from a scientist but the FBI never tried to find out who that scientist was, is it that much of a stretch to conclude that the leaker was providing information that somebody higher up than the leaker thought was useful?

It was highly sophisticated anthrax from an American bioweapons source, it would appear. A fairly limited number of people, Ivins included, might have had access to it. And Ross' "sources" for the false dentonite story supposedly included government scientists? Now, assuming Ivins is the anthrax killer (definitely not proven), if he sent out the anthrax then falsely "sourced" a dentonite connection would be both (1) a logical, though probably naive, cover story and hopeful diversion, but also (2) a very good reason for the FBI to try to find out who said there was dentonite in the anthrax, because it would lead them straight to a liar. So did the FBI try to find this out?

Why wouldn't they try to find this out? Why wouldn't Ross disclose this? For those really into conspiracies, what if the government, or some highly placed within the government, put a highly respected biowarfare scientist up to providing "background information" to the media suggesting an Iraqi connection to the anthrax? Would that same government group go out of it's way to identify that shill in the future? Or would they likely try to set up somebody else to take that fall? And if that didn't work out and there became risk of increased attention to the lack of results or finality to the investigation of the most damaging biological attack in US history, would such government types hesitate to set up their stool pigeon to be (1) dead and (2) blamed?

Even paranoids have enemies. Ross, of course, could go far to set a lot of questions to rest (even if he created more) by telling the truth. Journalists aren't exempt from principles of morality. Who told him, falsely, that there was dentonite in the anthrax? For Ross to have allowed such demonstrably felonious propaganda to be disseminated is unfortunate -- but to protect his "sources" for that malevolent disinformation can under no construct be considered consonant with the reasons for journalistic privileges under the Constitution.