Actually in the mid 1970s, the problem of stalking became national when that young actress of "My Sister Sam" was shot and killed by a stalker and -- in Los Angeles, where I lived in the year or two prior to that, there were a couple ex-lover stalker cases in which the police and restraining orders were ineffective to prevent "murder foretold."

Prior to that, each stalked women (or man, I presume)thought it was somehow unique to them or their relationship. People said things like "He must like you an awful lot." If you were really lucky, people would accuse you of somehow encouraging or offering false hope or being "too nice" or maybe "confused" ... It sucked. I was stalked for 3 years by a man I had known and dated only about 4 months. He became controlling, I broke up with him, all hell broke loose.

Societally, it was one of those genuine 'feminist' sea changes of consciousness that this sort of "if I can't have you nobody can" or "One of us will have to die if you don't come back to me" trash was NOT ROMANTIC, it was criminal and sexist. Women were not property. This was criminal harrassment, not "unrequited love." It was NOT ROMANTIC, in a "the one who got away" or "the one who broke my heart" popular fiction way ... even if many of us have someone ...

Ivins and the microbiologist were vaguely in the same general field ... professional rivalry and jealousy are rampant... curiosity into the current doings of "old college friends" is not uncommon ... It sounds as if "they" never lost touch of one another for long.

Ivins did very well for himself in his chosen field, apparently in his marriage, his church, his children, etc -- but the grass may have been greener or the road not taken and other "might have beens" may have been a factor.

There was no indication of any "bad blood" between them. Only God may know what Ivins' "real" motivations were, but I could detect no "malice" in his actions -- attention seeking, annoying, exasperating, "immature", sure.

To recap:

1. The postmark and the mailbox clearance times make it necessary that the first letters were put in the mailbox between 5:00 pm Monday, September 17, 2001 (earlier in the mailbox and it would have an earlier postmark) and noon, Tuesday, September 18, 2001.

2. As per the leak to the WaPo, Ivins made it to an appointment at 4 or 5 PM in Frederick on September 17, 2001, after having taking some hours of administrative leave earlier that day.

3. Therefore Ivins could not have used the administrative leave period to post the letters.

However, we do not know - we are not told what Ivins did after his evening appointment in Frederick. In principle he could have left Frederick say at 6PM and returned by 1:00AM.

Is there anything in the records released that gives Ivins's schedule for the 17th evening and 18th morning? (I imagine there is something there which keeps the authorities from pinning it onto him in that interval, but if it was revealed, I missed it.

"Ivins did very well for himself in his chosen field, apparently in his marriage, his church, his children..." -- susan sunflower

And if you couple that with the article seanmcbride cited stating; "More than 250 people attended the hourlong service. Speakers cited the turnout as evidence of how important Ivins was to the church community.", then it really becomes hard to make the leap to the diagnosis of paranoid personality disorder, which Ivins in one of those e-mails, claimed his psychiatrist had arrived at. Here's the Wiki definition:

Paranoid personality disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis characterized by paranoia and a pervasive, long-standing suspiciousness and generalized mistrust of others. (DSM-IV) For a person's personality to be considered a personality disorder, an enduring pattern of characteristic maladaptive behaviors, thinking and personality traits must be present from the onset of adolescence or early adulthood. Additionally, these behaviors, traits and thinking must be present to the extent that they cause significant difficulties in relationships, employment and other facets of functioning.

And after two decades of what the microbiologist characterizes as being "stalked" by Ivins, which has to imply some outright demonstrated unwillingness by her to communicate with him, she begins an ongoing e-mail correspondence with him in 2002, which never seems to raise Ivins' suspicions. That's not very effective paranoia.

BTW, from the world of the easily smitten: I misread your "...but the grass may have been greener or the road not taken..." as "...but the grass may have been greener on the road not taken..." and thought "Wow that's great, who is that woman?" My saving grace I guess is that if I ever did become a stalker I'm sure I'd end up at the wrong street address. Anyway I'm convinced it's time for perscription glasses. Love shouldn't be that blind.

shooter: So? Are you looking for a revival of the gold standard or something?

I am looking for a government that is honest enough to take what it wants via taxes and not through the back-door theft of debasing the currency.

shooter: By your definition, we've always been fascists. For that matter, what country DOESN'T have close relations between the people that make stuff, and the people that tell us what can be done with it? If every country is fascist to one degree or another, you'll have to develop another scare word for Hitlerism.

The USA for its first century was very close to a Laissez-faire capitalism. The period of explosive growth and wealth creation was close to 'free-market', even though one could name many shady deals that the government should not have done. But then, that would be the opposite of your Repug Party now, right?

shooter: So far all I hear from you is whining that the world isn't perfect. What exactly are you expecting? Is there any change in the system that you think would be the magic key to happiness? Or perhaps you just like being morose? What's your problem? -- shooter242

No whining here, just telling you the facts. I don't think facts "whine". I expect that the government should play by the rules first; and that would be the constitution. Perhaps you have heard of it?

I also expect the government to stop the ham-fisted interference in the marketplace and let free men and women interact in a voluntary, informed fashion. Giving favors, subsidies, preferential regulation, preferential treatment, no-bid contracts, or any other special treatment is welfare for the rich. This besides being counter productive in the long run.

However, your idiot Republican Party has destroyed the central government in that it is just as bankrupt as the old USSR was at the end. We may see the husk continue on for several more years but your party has done bin Laden's work for him.

Congratulations, fool.

PS: If you do not think we are in deep shit; give us your plan to repay 65 Trillion Dollars.