The “evidence” against Anthrax Guy




Just reading AP’s summation of the “evidence” the government has against now-deceased Anthrax Guy, and you get the distinct sense that the government dusted off the old evidence, whited out the word “Iraq” and instead wrote in “Anthrax Guy.” It’s pretty hilarious.

1. “some colleagues say it would have been difficult, if not impossible, for Ivins to do the conversion unnoticed. The court documents say Ivins was unable to provide ‘an adequate explanation for his late laboratory work hours’ around the time of the attacks.”

I.e., He worked late.
____________________

2. “Prosecutors say they ruled out everyone else as suspects but did not explain how.”

Compelling.
____________________

3. “Q: What motive would Ivins have had to unleash an attack?

A: It’s not clear…”
____________________

4. “Q: Did Ivins travel to Princeton, N.J., where the anthrax letters are believed to have been mailed?

A: The Justice Department said he could have driven to Princeton during that period, although there is no direct evidence of his presence there.”

Uh huh – we all COULD have driven to Princeton.
____________________

5. This one is perhaps my favorite:

Q: Why target media organizations and politicians?

A: Ivins was angry when an investigative reporter sought information from his notebooks on the vaccine additive. He said in an e-mail, “We’ve got better things to do than shine his shoes and pee on command.” He also said he was anti-abortion, and the Catholic anti-abortion movement has criticized Catholic lawmakers who voted for abortion rights. The documents pointed out that two prominent lawmakers in this category were former Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., and Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., both recipients of the 2001 anthrax mailings.

Excuse me? He was pro-life so that pretty much guaranteed that he was a mass murderer? Oh I can’t wait for the fall out from this assumption.
____________________

6. “Q: Has the FBI matched handwriting samples from the letters?

A: There was no such evidence in the documents.”

Yeah, no such evidence.

NOTE FROM ROB: Talk of the Nation on NPR did a segment on this today and spoke with Congressman Rush Holt (D-NJ), and to say the least, he wasn’t impressed with the investigation. The post box used in the mailings and the contaminated mail sorting facility are in his congressional district. You can listen here.


CyberDisobedience on Substack | @aravosis | Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

© 2021 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS