That televised FBI propaganda attack on the dead Ivins yesterday was straight out of the USSR, and about as convincing. For a realistic view of the situation see attorney-blogger-journalist Glenn Greenwald's analysis.

Sorry Glenn, I mean no insult when I call you a journalist. :-)

I have had the occasion to study the USA justice system for a few articles, and what I saw turned my stomach. The local prosecutor, police, "expert" witnesses and other state goons all lie and think it is all for the best. I bet they sleep well at night after convicting a man of a crime they know they could not convict him of in a fair trial. Prosecutorial misconduct is an interesting thing to research.

Ivans may well have been involved in some way. However, the FBI's case is a mess and full of useless tidbits of circumstantial evidence that they twist to make sound ominous. I hope Salon will keep pounding home the holes in the case; so that we may find out the real culprits. (which may well include Ivins)

But please FBI, stop with the "Ivin the terrible" crap and look at the facts!

PC Roberts wrote:

http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=13265

Do You Feel Safe Now? Proud?

Now that military officers selected by the Bush Pentagon have reached a split verdict convicting Salim Hamdan, a onetime driver for Osama bin Laden, of supporting terrorism, but innocent of terrorist conspiracy, do you feel safe?

Or are we superpower Americans still at risk until we capture bin Laden's dentist, barber, and the person who installed the carpet in his living room?

The Bush regime with its comic huffings and puffings is unaware that it has made itself the laughingstock of the world, a comedy version of the Third Reich.

Hamdan was not defended by the slick lawyers that got O.J. Simpson off, and he most certainly did not have a jury of his peers. Hamdan was defended by a Pentagon-appointed U.S. Navy officer, and his jurors were all Pentagon-appointed U.S. military officers with an eye on their careers. Even in this kangaroo court, Hamdan was cleared of the main charge.

The U.S. Navy officer who was Hamdan's appointed attorney is certainly no terrorist sympathizer. Yet even this United States officer said that the rules Bush designed for the military tribunals were designed to achieve convictions. He also said that the judge allowed evidence that would not have been admitted by any civilian or military U.S. court. He said that the interrogations of Hamdan, which comprised the basis of the Bush regime's case, were tainted by coercive tactics, including sleep deprivation and solitary confinement.

Does this make you a proud American?

[...]

The lesson that our administration is trying to tell us is very simple. Behave or we can convict you of anything, just like in the USSR. If they do not feel like going to court at the time of your brutal capture, why they may just keep you in jail for a few years. (are up to decades yet?) Or, they may just destroy your life by trying you in the press. That always gets ratings.

I once had an educated woman tell me that she never worried about her kids and the law because they would never break the law; good boys they were. I wonder if she would feel the same today?

If your worst enemy could be your judge, prosecutor, jury, jailer, and interrogator; would you feel safe knowing you had done nothing wrong? And yet, many people I know talk about defence lawyers as if they were the scum of the earth. Stupidity is in abundance in this country.

By the way, what sentence did Hitler's chauffeur get?

Autopsy issues

Thank's to Dr. Stevo and others who injected a note of sanity into this discussion. Was stunned when I first heard that they weren't doing an autopsy. If any case deserved one, it was Ivins'.

Most peculiar, as I said but we've all seen this happen in other suspicious death cases of a much lower profile. But this is most definitely not a low profile case. It still has to share newsspace with Heath Ledger's OD, however. If only Mary Kate Olson had been involved the Feds might have tried harder to get some answers. Of all the red flags so far, the failure to perform an autopsy bothers me the most. As you say, we know next to nothing about the mechanism of his death. From what I understand, the synergistic effect of acetaminophen combined with ethanol would shut his liver down. Acetaminophen, I learned, is not toxic by itself. You can google how this works if you don't already know. I'm assuming you do. I'm assuming Ivins knew as well, and what a terrible death awaited him but not sure what to make of that. Perhaps he thought the hydrocodone would knock him out. Was this prescribed or did he buy it on the street? Perhaps both. Did he take 20, 30, 50? We should know this. Liver failure is difficult to misdiagnose in a clinical setting, I would think. Add the likely respiratory and other CNS suppression of a hydrocodone overdose, that's not a good prognosis. Although, as you say, that can be reversed. Liver damage, not so much.

Ivins had apparently been drinking excessively at some points and had been treated with "various psychotropic medications including antidepressants, antipsychotics, and anti-anxiety, for his mental health issues from 2000 through 2006." Was he drinking at the time? What drugs did he still have around that he might have taken as well? These drugs are metabolized by the liver and anxiolytics can contribute to respiratory suppression. Did he have impaired liver function from alcohol abuse? Did he have other medical problems that might have contributed to psychiatric symptoms when he was alive? He apparently thought he had aplastic anemia. Although there is no documentation of this, he was getting anthrax vaccine yearly and it's not necessarily a benign substance.

This is what interests me most, his alleged drug use. Even knowledgeable people are unaware of all the dangerous consequences of various drug interactions and his alleged drug use is something we should all know more about. A full set of toxicology screens should have been done.

Have waded through the mental health stuff and will post more later. Suffice it to say it's another can of worms. Suggest resisting armchair diagnosis -- there's enough confusion out there already.

-- lcr

Good luck with that, resisting the armchair diagnosis. Your diagnostic skills seem sharp. Any indication in what you've read so far of stimulant/amphetamine abuse? All the late nights at the lab made me wonder about that. It could explain several oddities.