Reply #21: 'Maybe someone else was involved?' How do you explain the silicon? [View All]

According to everyone with an informed opinion in the case, Ivins couple not have weaponized the anthrax. That means the FBI's theory of the case is wrong. Full stop. The FBI commissioned tests, run by a lab of their choosing, which found that the silicon the anthrax was coated with could not have been present purely as the result of contamination. In other words, the silicon was there because someone who knew how to put it there, PUT it there. Ivins, by all accounts, did not know how to do that, nor was the equipment needed to do that available at Ft. Detrick.

Second, to 'accuse' people of crimes, you only need a willingness to follow an agenda. That agenda can be justice-seeking or criminal. Was Stephen Hatfill 'accused?' He was outright persecuted, just as Ivins was. Hatfill at least lived through it, and collected $5.8 million for the harassment.

Here's something you should know about our criminals justice system: law enforcement routinely - yes, routinely - behaves with malice aforethought in prosecuting suspects. That can result in nakedly illegal activity, and often does. I've posted this column a number of times on this site, but in case you missed it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/02/opinion/02moran.html

Ivins was dead before it even became necessary to 'accuse' him. His 'theripist', Jean Duley, is not somebody whose credibility one should rely on. Go and listen to the messages Ivins left for her, and tell me whether they are remotely threatening.