No, that's not the opinion of a government psychiatrist. And I am taking any statements from anyone connected to the government (army, FBI) with a grain of salt.
But the case of Bruce Ivins is taking a decidedly bizarre turn as evidence is coming out not of conspiracy involving the government but of something even more frightening; that Ivins was a sick man with access to lethal poisons.
A therapist who appeared to be a clinching witness in the grand jury case against Ivins has given testimony that indicates Bruce Ivins had no business anywhere near a weapons lab:Social worker Jean C. Duley also said Ivins left her a telephone message in mid-July, after she had alerted police to his threats, telling her that that her actions had made it possible for the FBI "to now be able to prosecute him for the murders."
Duley testified at a Frederick County District Court hearing July 24 in a successful bid for a protective order from Ivins. The New York Times obtained a recording of the hearing and posted on its Web site Saturday.
Duley testified that Ivins had tried to poison people even before the 2001 attacks.
"As far back as the year 2000, the respondent has actually attempted to murder several other people, either through poisoning ... He is a revenge killer. When he feels that he's been slighted or has had - especially toward women - he plots and actually tries to carry out revenge killings," Duley said.
She added that Ivins "has 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."
Duley told the judge she was "scared to death" of Ivins.
Does this prove Ivins is guilty? No, but it certainly makes a strong case that Ivins was capable of committing the crime. Is it a coincidence that a homicidal scientist worked in the same lab where anthrax was used in homicides? I think not.
Ivins sickness raises extremely troubling questions about just how well the army is vetting people working at our labs. Ivins was actually committed after making his threats to Duley and she sought an order of protection after he was relesaed. He claimed he was going to go out "in a blaze of glory" by killing his co-workers.
As I mentioned, this doesn't prove the absence of conspiracy. But it is one more indication that conspiracy involving this mentally unstable person would have been unlikely.
Share