This whole case has seemed extra convoluted and fishy to me from the very start. It got even more so after the events with Hatfill and the feeding frenzy of character assassination that followed initial announcements of suspicion.
I was asked by someone I care about yesterday whether I thought this might be a case where Ivins had been framed or falsely implicated. I thought about it, trying to work out all of the information I know from the various news reports and weighing them against the facts that are known (which are few). I had to honestly admit I hadn't formed an opinion on it because there just wasn't enough information for me to trust any kind of accusation.
And, in that, I find it odd to see so much conclusiveness in some of the posts here, both conspiracy theorist and otherwise.
To go through my thoughts on the subject, I have to be clear that I'm not only counting facts and I try to avoid going too far into speculation in most cases. The problem is that there is so little evidence available to the public and we don't know when any other evidence will be released (yet). I think some of the most critical information on whether Ivins was possibly the person who did this will come in not about the level of circumstantial connection to his lab or areas where he had access, but instead on whether this was someone who was of a state of mind to commit these acts and whether there is evidence of actions, materials, and motivations linked directly to him.
On the state of mind thing I am just not clear. From the LA Times article that boloboffin linked earlier
[link]:
She added that Ivins had been "forensically diagnosed by several top psychiatrists as a sociopathic, homicidal killer. I have that in evidence. And through my working with him, I also believe that to be very true." The implication there and the language used certainly seems very official and ominous, but it doesn't make any rational sense. This was someone who has, for nearly two decades, had pretty high security clearance. Not only that, but since 9/11 checks on security clearance has gotten tighter and more careful. It certainly boggles the mind how, if the implications being made about his sanity are in any way accurate, this man still managed to not only get security clearance to operate in the facility, not only to work with the dangerous materials, but also to
assist the FBI in examining the early anthrax attack evidence in the early stages of the investigation. So, someone for whom several psychiatrists diagnosed as sociopathic and homicidal was not only given access to extremely dangerous biological material, but was also used to examine some of the earliest evidence from the anthrax attacks. That alone makes the allusions that this man's state of mind was known to be dangerous of a questionable veracity, to say the least. I don't discount the therapist making a restraining order, which is verifiable through court documentation, but unless there is more information in the unreleased evidence about documented assessments of his mental stability I have to chalk the current claims about his alleged mental state to be in the speculative are, at best.
The evidence of actions and materials are also not quite clear, but more concrete. There is supposedly evidence that some of the mailing materials came from close to where he lived, and there is the evidence that places him in a position to acquire the anthrax (which has been traced back to his lab). While this doesn't put the blame on Ivins for the actions, it certainly puts him high on the list of those who are capable of the actions. The problem is that this type of evidence is highly circumstantial, and if that is reflective of the rest of the evidence that is currently being held then that doesn't necessarily make the case that it was Ivins.
Another thing I wanted to touch on was some of the reporting that's going on about the topic. A lot of the major news agencies are framing this case as if there was definitely an impending indictment. For example, a CNN article
[link] are saying things like: "the day Ivins died, lawyers were to meet and discuss a possible plea deal for him." The implication of such statements is that there is a presumed element of bargaining for the defendant on the case, but in reality even if the meeting was to discuss and plea deal it was most likely set up by the prosecution and not the defense. Furthermore, the case hadn't even finished going before a grand jury for authorization to go to trial, and that fact is being highly under-reported. There isn't necessarily reason to believe that this case was even going to make it all the way to court, let alone be a conclusive case on the anthrax attacks like some of the stories out there seem to imply but not outright state. Naturally, since the defendant is now dead we're not going to be able to know for sure how a trial would have worked out, but perhaps the evidence might be released at a later date if the FBI really does decide to call the case closed.
My only opinion on the matter at this point is that if the FBI does indeed close the case, they had better be able to present some pretty definitive evidence to the culpability of Ivins if they think he was the culprit. While that may not seem like it's necessary for a case that may for all intents be going cold, it's important for the historical implications of the case in the post-9/11 world. There may not be an overriding legal reason to document the closing of the case to the fullest extent possible, but if it isn't done then the FBI will be inviting heavy questioning of their reliability and due diligence on the case in the history books. That is not only tasty fodder for conspiracy theorists, but it also serves to damage the overall public confidence in the agency as a whole from a law enforcement stance.
