Apparent Suicide In Anthrax Case 339
penguin_dance passes along the news that a respected anthrax researcher, about to be indicted, has committed suicide. The FBI has been investigating the case since anthrax-contaminated letters were sent to the media and various politicians in 2001. The AP's coverage mentions that prosecutors intended to seek the death penalty. The suicide was not the one you might imagine if you've been following the story. "A top government scientist who helped the FBI analyze samples from the 2001 anthrax attacks has died in Maryland from an apparent suicide, just as the Justice Department was about to file criminal charges against him for the attacks, the Los Angeles Times has learned. Bruce E. Ivins, 62, who for the last 18 years worked at the government's elite biodefense research laboratories at Ft. Detrick, Md., had been informed of his impending prosecution... The extraordinary turn of events followed the government's payment in June of a settlement valued at $5.82 million to a former government scientist, Steven J. Hatfill, who was long targeted as the FBI's chief suspect despite a lack of any evidence that he had ever possessed anthrax."
Riiight. (Score:2, Insightful)
"Suicide", eh?
Strange case of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy? (Score:3, Insightful)
A little too easy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Shouldn't they confirm through investigative work that he did in fact commit these crimes rather than just assume since they were about to file charges & that he "committed suicide" that he did it? IT seems like poor reasoning on anyone's part to just assume this is the logical conclusion just because he offed himself before shit hit the fan. What if the suicide was for some completely different reason? Lots of people commit suicide for reasons other than legal troubles.
Suicide is an option! (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe this guy is innocent and when he saw the hell that Hatfill went through, he decided he'd rather check out instead.
Just kidding! ... but not really.
Conspiracy Theory: Allways kill the assisin (Score:5, Insightful)
What's the best way to maintain plausible deniability [wikipedia.org]? Kill the person who actually committed the crime. Your patsy does the dirty work, then you dispose of them.
innocent til shown guilty (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately unless he wrote a confession note it's possible that he was simply depressed and the news of being prosecuted as his co-worker was acted as a last impetus to suicide. TIme will tell I suppose.
Re:Oh, the irony (Score:5, Insightful)
I want murderers to spend the rest of their lives horribly and end horribly
You conveniently ignore the fact that the law-enforcement system wrongly incarcerates many people, murderers included. We'll ignore your distopian ideal until they fix that glaring issue.
Given the overall tone of your post, may I suggest making some changes in your life to introduce a bit more positive attitude?
Re:A little too easy... (Score:5, Insightful)
What? You mean it might be possible that a depressed individual, accused of a crime, might commit suicide because of the pressure of the situation, and not guilt over getting caught? What!?
The FBI has obviously repeatedly targeted people without sufficient evidence in this case. Obviously the guys life would be ruined, guilt or innocence be damned.
Terrorism (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Riiight. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh, the irony (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you mean "Civilized people give civilized treatment". Otherwise, what marks them as civilized? Anyone can treat their own well - it's also treating those who are different that makes us a civilization and not a tribe.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Clueless FBI (Score:5, Insightful)
The article was, predictably, poor in science, but it sounds like the reason the FBI suspected him was that there was an anthrax contamination that he bleached but didn't report and didn't recheck to be sure nothing survived.
While that would have been a good step to take, anthrax microbes by themselves aren't harmful, in order to be a weapon it needs to be processed. Purified anthrax spores are what will send you to the hospital. I don't know how that's done, but the point is that anthrax growing on your lab bench is not the same as having plutonium all over your lab bench. Anthrax bacterial contamination in a fume hood would be an annoyance, not a serious safety issue.
Furthermore, bleach is a heavy duty sterilizing agent. You douse your bench in bleach and you really don't have to worry about residual contamination in most cases. Reswabbing is easy to do and would have been the right thing to do, but it's understandable that he didn't: it's kind of like checking for a pulse in someone you just burned at the stake.
We're of course not getting the full story, and it's more suspicious that his house was in the area the letters were coming from, but from what the article is saying, it sounds like the FBI may have harassed a man into suicide over "evidence" that would have been dismissed as unimportant if it were put into context.
Re:Prepare a press leak, Smitty, we have a patsy (Score:5, Insightful)
A dead enemy isn't a very effective manipulative tool;
They don't need an enemy, they just need a distraction. Enemies (better still, the shadowy faraway kind who wear scary headgear) can be manufactured at will.
Re:Prepare a press leak, Smitty, we have a patsy (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:How do you spell, TERRORIST? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you look hard enough for conspiracies, you'll find them. They may not really be there, but it's pretty darn hard to prove something doesn't exist.
Re:Motive? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no mention of any potential motive for a "top government scientist" to start mailing anthrax.
And yet all the suspects were top US government scientists.
Face it -- this terrorist attack came from a US citizen. Anthrax is hard to weaponize, and a US source was always the most likely origin.
The perpetrator probably had no relation to 9/11, or Iraq. In fact, his agenda may have been to increase domestic tensions to incite our invasion of Iraq. (Witness the spurious mention of bentonite, which was known to be an Iraqi addition to anthrax agents. It was not in the mailed anthrax, but plenty of news sources reported incorrectly that it was.) He might not have had any agenda; Ivins was obviously mentally ill.
No, sadly, I don't think these questions will ever be answered.
Re:Motive? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is this News For Geeks? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Motive? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Motive? (Score:3, Insightful)
Given that this has been a headline for at least 12 hours now, I did some reading.
A motive that was given in this news account [sfgate.com]
was that he was working on a vaccine for Anthrax and wanted to test it.
There was also some evidence that before the 2001 anthrax attack, he had conducted tests outside of normal work protocol. His attorney stated that he had been cooperating with the FBI for more than a year. There is also a report that he was forcibly removed from his job due to his becoming unstable.
The impression I get is that he had psychological problems that drew the attention of authorities. Those same problems may have
made it hard to deal with the pressure of an FBI investigation of more then 12 months.
There are reports of evidence that in he same time frame as the attacks, he removed anthrax material from work to do his own tests.
These tests may or may not have been related to the attacks themselves. There are also reports that he was about to be indicted.
Re:in this thread (Score:4, Insightful)
Um... you do realize that if this guy was responsible, that means that the anthrax came from inside one of the top anthrax researchers in a Army-run facility, sent with a clear intent to link the anthrax with Islamic terrorism in the wake of 9/11?
And if he didn't do it, what does that mean about the FBI investigation?
There is no good option here.
however, rabid, paranoid schizophrenic musings on all evil in the world falling at the government's doorstep
Oh. I recognize this strawman. Nevermind.
Re:Oh, the irony (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, he would be tried, there would be an appeal, a new trial, another appeal, an appeal of the appeal, a sentencing, and appeal of the sentencing, and appeal of the appeal to the sentencing, an appeal to the SCOTUS, a lobbying effort at the state level to ban execution, a lobbying effort at the federal level to ban execution, pleas to the Governor and President to get his execution stayed, etc...
So that eventually, after 20+ years and millions upon millions of tax payer dollars are wasted, he might get executed.
It's cheaper just to toss violent offenders into jail and lock them up for the rest of their natural lives.
-Rick
Re:in this thread (Score:3, Insightful)
"however, rabid, paranoid schizophrenic musings on all evil in the world falling at the government's doorstep is not anywhere near the definition of "healthy distrust". more like pathological hobbling distrust"
Hobbling? If the gummint is responsible for all the evil in the world, and I have the special insight to see that, than everything is understandable. My special insight explains everything, and is more comforting than not knowing why some things happen. Uncertainty is terrifying.
From lying sources protected by ABC News (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't really wonder what was going on when three or four "well-placed sources" claimed that government tests had linked the anthrax to Saddam. Just toss the deceit on the pile; I think there's some space in between the "Smoking Gun Mushroom Cloud" and the "Mobile Biological Weapons Laboratories".
What I wonder about is:
Why hasn't ABC outed the people who lied to them?
Why is Glenn Greenwald the only person who seems to care that ABC is protecting government insiders who lied about anthrax attacks?
Re:Motive? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ivins was obviously mentally ill.
Obviously? How do you figure that? All we know is that a dude who was sane enough for the FBI to work with for many months is now dead. Suicide has not been proved, and even suicide does not prove mental illness. Guilt has not been proved, and neither was the man ever formally charged. There is very little we know about this incident, and it is irresponsible of you to claim that anything is 'obvious' at this juncture.
Re:Motive? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's true, people miss that religion can be a cause, but more often than not, it's that the terrorist is a fucking prick who doesn't care about killing innocent people....and all religions have pricks as members.
Re:oh, no strawman (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, it's a strawman -- do you know what that means? Spend as long as you like defending it then knocking it down if that irrelevance is what is fun for you. Ignore the reality of who was accused and what they may have been trying to accomplish if the accusation is true, or what it means if it is false. In fact, pretend it was never even mentioned, like you did in the worthless post I'm replying to. Strawmen, platitudes, false dichotomy, and most of all deliberate ignorance are what pass for insight for you, and I already said nevermind to that.
Re:Oh, the irony (Score:3, Insightful)
Specifically, people that (as in example below) behead someone on a bus for laughs may not be fit for any society at all, even a highly restricted one in prison.
A vital component of "humanity" is the ability to recognize that others exist apart from your own needs. When you have a person (?) that does not have the that functional capacity, is there really any point? Someone that places zero value on the lives of others is not going to be able to function in any society, especially ours. There are some people that unless they are isolated from all human contact are just going to abuse, destroy and kill.
Jeffery Dalhmer, for example. He couldn't function in prison either. What exactly do we do with people like that? It has nothing to do with the "expense" of a life sentance. It has everything to do with the safety and wellbeing of the fellow prisoners and guards. If you have someone that is "in" for the rest of their life and other people mean nothing to them, what is there to stop them from killing other prisoners? What possible disincentive could there be? Beatings? Torture? Medical experiments? What?
I will say that your average murderer generally doesn't fit this profile at all. But there is clearly a difference between someone that kills people the way others step on ants and a functioning, social person. If you can't discern between the two, there is a problem. Because you are going to set up a situation where the remorseless sociopath is going to be turned loose on people that have done nothing to deserve that treatment.
So I guess you have to either find a way to permanently incarcerate people without any contact with others - so they can harm no one - or, you have to decide that society does not have the right to protect people from such danger. Most first-world countries other than the US have (a) very few sociopaths that need this sort of isolation and (b) decided the sociopath's rights outweigh those of other prisoners and society in general. The US has a confusing mix today, mostly from nobody wanting to really make a decision on this at all. In neither case is this a good outcome.
Re:Motive? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think in regards to the anthrax, the Media was just stupid and unreliable (as normal), and the Government happily let them report every misconception and misunderstanding... perhaps to draw attention away from their own cluelessness.
Re: Statute of Limitations (Score:3, Insightful)
Or treason and sedition.
Re:Motive? (Score:1, Insightful)
....and all religions have pricks as members.
Some more than others.
Re:Prepare a press leak, Smitty, we have a patsy (Score:5, Insightful)
You also have to worry that he was involved but that he had co-conspirators and his suicide may prevent the investigation from getting to them.
There is also the possibility the co-conspirators stood with a gun to his head and forced him to swallow the over dose so he would be the fall guy and would have no chance to expose them in exchange for a plea deal.
You hate to think your government would have perpetrated the Anthrax attacks on purpose to amplify the fear after 9/11 and insure the country would support invading Iraq, but everything that's been unveiled about the Bush Administration in the last few years you KNOW they are ruthless enough and may well have been willing to do such a thing to get their way, and seem to have a pretty low regard for the rule of law or the value of human life. Addington in Cheney's office in particular seem to be capable of just about any kind of atrocity. It appears he almost single handedly pushed the U.S. in to torturing people.
I find it a little odd the FBI would have been quite as blatant as they were in tipping their hand to him that he was going to be charged, going to be charged with murder and he might get the death penalty. Its kind of like they were trying to force him to either flee or kill himself.
Re:Motive? (Score:5, Insightful)
Read the article. He was going to a shrink for years, and admitted to thoughts of suicide. He died from an overdose of prescription medication. I think 'obviously mentally ill' is a valid supposition.
Whether he was guilty or not is another matter. That's why I used 'the perpetrator' in my post above.
Re:strawman? (Score:3, Insightful)
See, you can't even stop talking to your strawman for a single second.
All I said was that the deceased and accused was a top researcher at an army-run research lab, and that the attacks were designed so as to be linked with Islamic terrorism. These are both facts, not speculation, not conspiracy, they are proven facts.
And of course you ignore that, and turn that into "the gummint is responsible for all the evil in the world". But that's not what I said, implied, or am getting at. You, who cannot see past your own idiotic false dichotomies and strawmen, not only can't see that, you aren't even mentally capable of addressing it. And yes, I have no respect for your self-imposed idiocy either. Prove you can do something other than babble at your imaginary enemy or you're as delusional as the conspiracy theorists you rail against.
Re:Oh, the irony (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it doesn't. It has everything to do with the safety and wellbeing of the fellow prisoners, guards and Jeffrey Dahmer. Once you don't give him the same human rights as others, you're no longer acting civilized. Whether he himself has broken those rights is irrelevant -- our ability to not let that be a factor in how we treat him is what makes us civilized and unlike him.
If you let who people are decide whether you treat them with respect, you will quickly polarize the society into "those like us" and "those unlike us", and you'll be back to a tribal society, not a civilization. We're on the path there, I'm afraid.