Anthrax
 

I don't know how closely anyone has been following the developments in this case, but I have. Now, I don't think I have ever bought into any sort of conspiracy theory in my entire life. I think that Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy. I think we went to the moon. I don't think that our government toppled the twin towers or destroyed the Pentagon. And yet, the more I learn about the recent events in the Anthrax investigation, the less I am believing the official story.

First, there is the reaction from co-workers, who don't believe that he is the guy.

Then there is the fact that the only negative opinions that have been reported of this guy are from a social worker, who seems to have a questionable past.

There is also the problem that the DNA tests that were supposedly used to trace the strain, not to Ivins, but just to his laboratory, should have been able to have easily been performed 6 years ago, but were just done recently. Also, although Ivins was a prime suspect for at least a year, his security clearance was only yanked a couple of weeks ago. Oh, and let's not forget that the last suspect successfully sued the government for being falsely accused. Richard Jewell, anyone?

And on top of all of this are the possible motives of the Bush administration who were desperately trying to pin this on Al Qaida and/or Iraq. Plenty of questions there as well, such as why did ABC News receive information from 4 separate sources in 2001 that the strain found had to have come from Iraq. Who were those sources exactly? Today's NY Daily News reports the following:
By the time Bush and Cheney were making those statements, they should have been aware that this particular strain was produced in the United States.

Perhaps it is just me, but I find this whole thing very suspicious. There is a very interesting article over at Slate, but they are far from the only ones that are sharing my suspicion.

We think only other gov'ts do this stuff. We are wrong.

Yes, I have heard about this... Daily, extensively, excessively... (Did I mention I live in Maryland?) So please, let me comment...

Friends/co-workers hardly ever believe the guy they knew could have done whatever it was...


It was a group session where he recited detailed fantasies about getting guns and killing people. So it's not just the word of this one social worker. Also people go see a physciatrist , he was "assigned" to see a social worker. Some type of mental disorder must have been present for that to happen. In fact we are hearing from a number of sources in his past about "instability" issues.

From Wikipedia:
DNA sequencing of the anthrax taken from Robert Stevens (the first victim) was conducted at The Institute for Genomic Research beginning in December 2001. Sequencing was finished within a month and the analysis was published in the journal Science in early 2002.

Those test showed the Anthrax came from Fort Detrick. They might have re-run the test recently but they did not wait 6 years.

Also toss in the fact that Ivins holds a patent on a synthetic vaccine for Anthrax from which he stood to make heavy profits if the government suddenly needed a large supply. So for me the only real question is what took so long?

I believe CP is 100% right.

But when I mention Vince Foster...... ;)

I'm with you on that one. He was placed in the park after he was dead.....

Do they commonly have the expertise necessary to state that the accused had no access to the equipment necessary to commit the crime?
Do you have any cites to back this up? I've heard that he recently suffered from depression, which might better explain his suicide, but doesn't seem to suggest that there were any problems with his mental condition at the time the crime occurred.

So, then why was his security clearance allowed until July 10th. If they knew that far back of where this came from, I find that pretty surprising.

Doesn't seem that the actions he was going to be charged with had the ability to create the type of demand that you suggest.

Open a thread and state your case then. :)

Maybe I'm missing something, but assuming that there is a government conspiracy here, what are you saying it is?

I don't see how the Bush administration trying to pin it on Al Qaeda would lead to them ultimately pinning it on one of our people. And if they really did want to pin it on Al Qaeda it doesn't seem to me that they certainly should have been able to do a better job of it than open ended statements about "the dots start to add up."

So I'm curious what conspiracy you are seeing and what the goal of it was that it lead to framing this guy?

He was about to blow the whistle on the secret conspiracy and had evidence that Bush and his cronies were attempting to plant anthrax manufacturing equipment in Iran to prove that Ahmadinejad is in league with bin Laden and therefore justify yet another invasion of a peace loving middle eastern nation to satisfy his bloodlust and wanton desire for imperialist America to expand their hold on oil, making his buddies and himself rich(er) beyond their wildest imaginations while forcing the American public to become (even more) beholden to their every whim because they have less and less money of their own and also destroying the planet along the way because of ignoring global warming because they want dirtier air and water to poison the very people they are trying to control.

Leo! You've finaly seen the light!! Congratulations!!! ;)

Wow, that's the truest thing I've ever seen Scaeagles post. ;)

Damn, I thought this thread was gonna be about Scott Ian's group :(

Really, the only thing I'm trying to suggest is that the official case just doesn't make sense to me. I'm not trying to suggest any specific conspiracy, just trying to figure out why there seem to be a lot more questions than answers.

I have yet to see anything that convinces me that this guy did it. His co-workers say that he couldn't have done it, not with the equipment that he had access to. The guy is a upstanding member of his church, a family man who loves his work and has been recognized by congress for his outstanding work in his field. And yet, shortly after the worst terrorist attack on American soil, he decides that he is going to attempt to kill a whole new bunch of innocent Americans, simply for monetary reasons. So, all by his lonesome, he sends out a bunch of notes which make him look Islamic.

Meanwhile, ABC is being told that there is no doubt that it is an Iraqi strain. Everyone from Bush to Cheney to McCain is subtly suggesting that it could be the Iraqis or another Islamic terrorist group. And yet, while they are doing this, it is clear from those investigating that it is American. Years before they finally get around to charging the right guy, they falsely accuse someone else, and even though they now suspect a new guy (Ivins,) they let him keep his security clearance and access to all that anthrax. And, when it comes time to charge him, they let him know ahead of time. Is that SOP? Doesn't seem like it would be, for flight reasons.

See, most criminal cases seem pretty cut and dry. All of the pieces make sense when put together. Here, you put all the pieces together and it just leads to more questions. My feelings here are nothing but pure gut feeling and I'm probably coming off as more of a kook than I would prefer, but I hate when things don't add up. I hate when there are all sorts of loose ends. And worst, I hate to see a man commit suicide, which very well may have been a combination of depression and increasing pressure, and have the suicide be used as proof that he committed a very evil act. The act that supposedly he didn't have the equipment to do. Nope, I don't like cases like that.

Heh, heh, no thanks, I'll just tip my King over right now and spare myself a day of googling:p


:)

If I ever decide to open a thread such as this again, I will first reflect upon this advice. ;)

I was thinking of the same song!

No, that's not a theme song, rather the theme band.

This just doesn't sit right.

Fed's say Ivins alone was responsible.

I haven't much opinion and since a full trial will never be held everybody will get to pick and choose whatever they want without much official record to counter any story.

But assuming that the information in the released documents today isn't just fabricated out of whole cloth then while maybe he didn't do it he certainly wasn't the great nice person others have been saying.

My main concern has never been how nice a guy he was. Statements from many in his life did claim that he was though. Still, I'm not sure, at least in what I've read today, that there is anything to suggest that he was unstable back in 2001. Opinionated, sure, but they seem to be relying on the statement of one lone individual as to his recent stability, and she seems pretty unstable as well. Not to mention, what if this mental instability was the result of the investigation?

Regardless, I didn't see anything in the case they laid out today that wasn't circumstantial, and even that has holes.

Of course you didn't see anything that wasn't circumstantial. The DoJ explicitly said "this is a circumstantial case." He also said he felt it was a strong enough circumstantial case to have won in court.

We'll never know.