Jump to content

Talk:Bruce Edwards Ivins/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Rather than reporting contamination to his superiors, Ivins said, he disinfected the desk. "I had no desire to cry wolf," he later told an Army investigator[1]

unauthorized sampling[2]Geo8rge (talk) 12:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't read the articles, but in the past Ivins seemed to have sent a lot of letters to the editor of The News of Frederick, MD. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 11:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

What makes you assume the match is for a letter? He was in the Red Cross, so the hits could be reports of blood donor drives. jnestorius(talk) 12:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Some are for the blood drives, but some could be letters. If he made a habit of writing letters, it would fit the pattern, since he is alleged to have used letters to the media to spread anthrax. Also, what were the letters about? Was his possible motive to deflect scrutiny about the safety of the anthrax vaccine? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 13:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, that seems to be the case. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 13:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The Smoking Gun - restraining order / psychiatric commitment

Important details here:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0801081anthrax1.html

Should be added to article. --19:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that, as long as the innocent party is not named here. --Elliskev 19:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Which was just done... I'm going to remove the name and request it be discussed. --Elliskev 19:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Combining and Renaming the Article

Were it not the anthrax investigation, neither of these two scientists would have merited an encyclopedia article. Should not Ivins's and Hatfill's articles be combined and called something like 2001 Anthrax Investigation? If the FBI drops charges and gets yet another suspect, do we then create a third article about some mudane microbiologist who also doesn't merit an article? Someone chime in and tell me if you agree. I'd need someone to do the job if the the powers-that-be agree. --MartinezMD (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The nature of the crime and the involvement of the individuals are notable enough (WP:Notability) to be in separate articles. DockHi 17:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, Hatfill even if he was innocent deserves an article because of what the DOJ did to him and the following media frenzy. It was a pretty large event at the time and even if he had nothing to do with this case it is a good example of misconduct by the DOJ (smaller scale of Valerie Plame). This guy we are all assuming is probably guilty because of the suicide and the fact that DOJ messed up big time with Hatfill that they would be sure to get it right this time. I would at least let it play out to see what happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.222.40 (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
|I would say Hatfill should be part or the overall investigation as it is assumed he was a dead end in the investigation. Ivins probably should have is own page as his work an resume are important as he is most likely involved in the crime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo8rge (talk • contribs) 21:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hyperbole?

"terrorized the whole nation"...? Шизомби (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

That statement is not accurate, because the whole nation was not terrorized. I know this from original research. I wasn't terrorized by the anthrax letters. I have removed that statment. Jons63 (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Image

Why delete the image it meets every fair use criteria. He is dead, it is low resolution, it is sourced, it incurs no revenue loss to the copyright holder. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. At the very least they should offer an explanation. (Wingnutrules (talk) 00:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC))
I disagree. First of all, it isn't reasonable to say that no free alternatives exist. Secondly, you may only upload a copyrighted image if the image is the subject of the article in which it appears. For example, if this article was critical commentary and press coverage of the specific photo, then it could be uploaded. But a copyrighted image can't be used to simply illustrate the subject. Brianga (talk) 00:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Use of this image is purely decorative in nature and does not qualify for "fair use". A "fair use" use of the image would be made to discuss the image itself -- like what you would find on a significant image by a famous photographer, not merely to "illustrate the subject".
The no alternative image can be procured is blatantly wrong. One can procure a Free alternative by
  • requesting a Free image from the family, friends or colleagues
  • drawing a portrait and putting it under a Free licence.
The clauses apply, very obviously, to everybody. Dead or alive.
The "crystal ball" comment is quite telling: if you do not have one, how can you state that no free image exists? Obviously the uploader is just saying anything to fill in the "fair use" form. These fields are not simply lame excuses to get a free jocker to use about anything, you know; they have to be true. Rama (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you really say that this, or someone else's version would be a free substitute for the deleted image? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:POINT. Grow up. Rama (talk) 09:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
"Theatrical release poster" is actually mentioned on Hellboy II: The Golden Army, so I fail to see your problem with this. It so happens that I find the policies on DVD covers too lax. But I accept them for what they are, I do not make WP:POINTs, and I deal with clearly unacceptable matters, such as the image you have uploaded. Rama (talk) 09:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
The fair use template for movie posters states that the image may be used "to provide critical commentary on the film, event, etc. in question or of the poster itself". That situation is unique to movie posters, and does not carry over to this image in question. Brianga (talk) 11:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes "Theatrical release poster" appears as the image caption. Is your argument that the image above would have been spared if it had a caption that said "Bruce Edwards Ivins working for the Red Cross"? Wouldn't that have been easier to add, than to delete the image. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Don't be silly. Is there something important with the poster? Yes, it is the release poster. Is there something important with the image shown by getty? No, it's just another snapshot. And don't make me defend theatrical posters, I actually think that they should go. That's really not the point. Your image, as it is, is downright illegal. If you do not understand it, read Wikipedia:Fair_use and learn, and stop arguing like a frustrated child. Rama (talk) 10:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Please always try to remain civil and try not to resort to name calling. There is no reason for saying I am "arguing like a frustrated child". Attack my arguments directly, please don't attack me personally. Fair use of an image is not "downright illegal" under the Copyright Act of 1976 or the DCMA. What we are discussing here is Wikipedia rules for fair use. Please cite a specific line of text in Wikipedia:Fair_use, telling me the answer is in there is like saying the answer is in the Bible, cite a chapter and a verse. The analogy to a movie poster isn't trivial, if this was a trial I would be expected to cite previous court cases and other legal precedences. Also you never answered the question if a caption would have satisfied the need to discuss the specific image in the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 10:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • How about #6, unacceptable use for images: "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article."? Let's deal with this image, not other movie posters or dvd covers. They are not relevant to this discussion. If you find fault in the fair use rationale of those images, feel free to nominate them for deletion. Brianga (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, Major news agencies:

Is your argument now that the Maryland paper is a news agency? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I asked this earlier and never got a response: Would adding "This undated photo provided by the Frederick News Post shows Dr. Bruce E. Ivins, a biodefense researcher at Fort Detrick, Md." (from the AP) be sufficient to show sourced commentary? As was given as the example for keeping the Hellboy poster in the movie article.
  • It is a yes or a no answer to my question ... Would adding "This undated photo provided by the Frederick News Post shows Dr. Bruce E. Ivins, a biodefense researcher at Fort Detrick, Md." (from the AP) be sufficient? If the answer is "no", what wording would satisfy you? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • If it was a matter of wording in your rationale, I would have fixed the wording to make it acceptable. It isn't about wording. It's because of the other reasons that I have outlined. Brianga (talk) 14:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The process here is such a joke. One opinion is different than the other, but that doesn't matter because one party gets to just summarily decide to delete the photo, even though the reason for doing so is completely subjective and subject to debate, maybe even an appeal. Pfft. I get the impression that this is less about the merits of pulling the photo and more about some folks having a bent on arguing about photos on a regular basis, powering up, and splitting hairs to the millionth degree.(Wingnutrules (talk) 01:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC))
Appeal the move and put the issue to rest. --MartinezMD (talk) 05:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:DRV Brianga (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
What is subjective in saying that the argument "a Free image cannot be procured" is bogus? We even have a Free image now. There is nothing subjective here, it's just how reality is. Rama (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Well at the time the free image was not known to anyone. How in the world should we have "know better" and picked the "obvious to only you" free material out there? There is and was plenty here that was subjective. I find it hilarious that you somehow see yourself as all-powerful that you are the one who gets to determine this. Good news is, you don't. Well we do have a free image now, that is true. Now you can move on in your purpose in life to flex your muscles summarily deleting other people's photos drunk with power. (Wingnutrules (talk) 22:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC))
It was not subjective. Already at that time it was obvious that finding a Free photograph was not impossible. The fact that it has actually been done proves in an iron-clad manner that I was right, but I would have been even if it had not.
The purpose of deleting the photograph was to respect the law. Copyright law. The way you are talking about "other people's photos" is quite indicative of how much you have lost the touch with it: the photograph never was Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s. Rama (talk) 09:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Patriot Act

I would like to see an addition in the article indicating the second set of anthrax attacks, 10 days before vote was scheduled for the Patriot Act, with all indications being that the Act would not pass, was the reason the Patriot Act was ever voted into law. 4.156.252.15 (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The topic should be brought up in the Patriot Act article discussion page first before here and see if anyone knows anything credible to that effect. --MartinezMD (talk) 06:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

email evidence of Ivins' state of mind

It would help if we had the original emails and coroberation from the reciepients of the emails. If he was paranoid what was he doing putting his thoughts into an email? And according to 'a clinical psychiatrist' he may have been trying to attract attention or sympathy. Like, if he did it why didn't he just go public and confess, what could be more attention seeking than that.

emacsuser (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Motive

Too early, I suppose, for speculation on a motive. Could be a mental aberration, but a desire to stimulate funding for his research is another possibility. Dynzmoar (talk) 13:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Maryland court documents show he had been under psychiatric treatment and had been served with a restraining order directing him to stay away from a woman he was accused of stalking and threatening. And a lab colleague told the A.P. he was recently removed from his workplace by the police because of fears that he had become a danger to himself or others. [...]In a scientific journal last month, Dr. Ivins wrote of the limited supply of monkeys available for testing the vaccine, and how, in any event, testing on animals would not necessarily indicate how humans would react.

[3] 75.63.2.225 (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

  • The Smoking Gun has a copy of that restraining order, and also a statement from Ivins' own therapist that he was "socipathic, homicidal." I don't know how to edit Wikipedia references--maybe someone else can add this one:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0801081anthrax1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.239.7 (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Let me remind everybody that Ivins was not proven guilty, just as Steven Hatfill was not proven guilty. Simply because a dead man is accused does not make him guilty, at least in the US. Let us not speculate on motive of a man who must be presumed innocent. And let's expect physical evidence from our government before we blindly accept this story. --chodges (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • There is now some evidence that Dr. Ivins may have had some bizarre obsessions toward women that played a role here. Witnesses have told authorities that for decades, since Dr. Ivins was in college, he had been obsessed with a sorority called Kappa Kappa Gamma. His own emails confirm his obsession with this sorority. And in Princeton New Jersey, the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority house is located at 20 Nassau Street, just a few doors down from the mailbox where the anthrax letters were mailed.
    • There is no Kappa Kappa Gamma house at Princeton. That address is only for storage. You might wonder why the FBI is reaching so hard to make Ivins out to be a nutcase. 66.165.0.166 (talk) 01:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-anthrax0804,0,4233390.story —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.239.7 (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Patents owned by US Army?

That seems strange. Is a government institution allowed to own patents? I thought it'd be like copyright, where it's essentially public domain. 74.78.113.220 (talk) 06:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The US Government can own patents on things developed by people in their employment. See this. Jons63 (talk) 06:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Some article issues

I've noticed a few issues in the article which need addressing. The most salient of these is neutrality. The article cites this AP news report which says that after the year 2000, he contributed to 16 articles, but was not named as the first author on any. This article then goes on to say that "He often cited the 2001 Anthrax attacks in his papers to bolster the significance of his research in years subsequent to the attacks." This claim 1) is not sourced and 2) implies, at least tacitly, that the papers were purposely slanted to make his research appear more important, which could call into question the validity of the papers. However, the AP article linked above contains a quote which states fairly clearly that he had little direct involvement in the research and papers: "He got his name on a lot of these publications because he was providing the spores," said Ezzell, who retired from the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, Md. "That is one of the reasons he was on so many publications. So many of the studies were conducted with his spores." and that his work was more involved as a member of a team. In the next sentence in the article is the lead in of "he writes with his co-authors" followed by a quote from the abstract of a paper in which the benefits of post-anthrax exposure vaccination is stressed, followed by mention of two patents for vaccine technology he had co-invented. Ivins is the 8th of 12 authors on that paper. The way in which all of it is written implies something which isn't supported in the article and is a neutrality issue.

The other issue is, that although the obituary and another reference mentions them, I'm not entirely sure the article should contain name reference to his children. WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy would apply here. The things which make this person notable absolutely have nothing to do with his wife and children, and the article would be fine in simply stating he was married with two children. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how much scholarly publishing you've done, but when there is an up-and-coming guy you often let that one get first credit to bolster his resume if he's done sufficient work. The mentor can still be actively involved in the entire lab (if done at his site) and directs and oversees much of the activity. Ivins is listed second or third on 9 of those 16 articles, some of which have 9 to 10 authors. There is also no required order either. It is something the principal investigator assigns when he submits the article. Also, how many is "so many" credit on articles for just contributing the spores? Four? Five? Half? Most? They don't say how many, do they?
As for stressing post-exposure prophylaxis, that has not been refuted. Only his co-authors can shed light on that emphasis - if it was something he emphasized or them. Overall, I don't see a lack of neutrality in this section as much as a lack of general information. Who emphasized what, who did what work, etc. I do agree, his kids' names need to go. --MartinezMD (talk) 08:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Massive edits

I have reverted the massive edits just instituted. It damaged too many references, a mature, long article needs to be edited very carefully. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Richard, I will not enter into arguments with you, but I will not put up with sniping comments from you either. Meanwhile, be so good as to contain the condescending tone. You jumped in immediately and reverted the editing I had done even while I was attempt to correct the one error that had occurred, which was an accidental omission of one character - a > at the end of one reference. The edit was not massive. It did, however, omit repetitive quotes in references, a huge number of which contained repetitive referrals to his committing suicide or added no other context other than was being cited, or condensed quotes down to that which actually was being referenced in the text, multiple blanks (such as |first= |last= |authorlink= |coauthors=) in citation templates, a brief bit that came from and was cited to a blog posting. It also contained citations needed tags, other reference format fixes, and the material above about the family. Nothing of note was changed in the article itself, a citation was added and a small amount of copy edit that clarified one sentence. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, I did leave one citation to a blogspot page, which doesn't meet WP:V, but may contain relevant material if a proper citation can be found. It is currently reference #31, to http://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
"Sniping comments" and "condescending tone" are uncalled for, please assume good faith and keep civil. This was the edit. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 11:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. And for the record, this is the correction that was needed to fix the omitted > that "damaged too many references." Thanks to MartinezMD for the needed citations. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

FBI's wrong timeline

This blog [1] has an analysis of the FBI's timeline which shows that it is impossible. It links to some documents which can be used here. 128.6.168.245 (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Bruce's strange letters to the editor.

Should be added to the article:

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/news/display.htm?StoryID=78274

Referenced by Glenn Greenwald:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/01/anthrax/index.html

--John Bahrain (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Some are not so strange, like supporting equality and respect for black people, and suggesting one should not rule out women clergy... Anyway I've also added some possibly exculpatory quotes which give relevant context. If he was indeed guilty, time and additional evidence will bear that out, but there's nothing worse than the possibility of the actual perpetrator(s) getting a free ride because of a "jump on the bandwagon" to pin it on a guy who cracked under the pressure. That and the need for Wikipedia presenting both/all sides. See Dr. Byrne quotes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.187.197 (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The Frederick News-Post has a collection of his letters and careful reading of them shows he was not a conservative Catholic. He supported several left leaning positions -- people are born gay, women in the preisthood, civil rights. I don't edit here but someone might want to check out those letters. The anti-abortion stuff seems to have been mostly his wife's issue per the material we have now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.109.9 (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

examination of hair samples from mailbox

'Federal investigators probing the deadly 2001 anthrax attacks recovered samples of human hair from a mailbox in Princeton, N.J., but the strands did not match the lead suspect in the case, according to sources briefed on the probe' [2]

emacsuser (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Greendale School, 4th Grade

Interesting link between Ivins and the fictional return address on the Anthrax Envelopes: News story is here.

Rwflammang (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

FBI also managed to link Greendale School to Hatfill. Like the KKG sorority which has locations all over the country, how hard would it be to link you or anyone to Greendale School or to the KKG sorority? (Sorry, I still don't quite know how to sign this.)EFerrari

Kappa Kappa Gamma...

The report that the article sites called the place near the mailbox an unlived in storage facility...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080804/ap_on_go_ot/anthrax_investigation

"The mailbox just off the campus of Princeton University where the letters were mailed sits about 100 yards away from where the college's Kappa Kappa Gamma chapter stores its rush materials, initiation robes and other property. Sorority members do not live there, and the Kappa chapter at Princeton does not provide a house for the women."

Any idea how that got reworded to sound as though it was their main office? If no one objects I'm going to fix that... --Electrostatic1 (talk) 02:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Your right.. I fixed it.--Pensil (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

doubts grow on FBI's anthrax evidence

"It's very hard to get the sense of whether this was scientifically good or bad. We didn't really get the question settled, other than taking their word for it."[3]

emacsuser (talk) 14:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a factual error in the section "Anthrax containment breach". Ivins did report the spill to his ethics officer:

http://www.propublica.org/article/ivins-told-ethics-officer-about-anthrax-clean-up-806/

67.117.147.144 (talk)E. Ferrari —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The article above helps explain why people doubt the DNA and envelope evidence. A DNA analysis done in 2002 at the University of Northern Arizona found that that the anthrax used the attack was identical to the reference Ames strain, which is the standard laboratory strain of anthrax, as well as to several derivatives of this strain.[4] How was the FBI able to narrow it down to a particular flask? Do they have a method of DNA analysis that is superior to what UNA used? If so, they don't tell us what it is. The FBI pursued Hatfill for years, although he's an ebola specialist and didn't even work with anthrax. Ivins wasn't a suspect until the case against Hatfill started falling apart in 2006. It's like the FBI was just looking for any old scientist to be the scapegoat. The FBI announced that the killer was a "lone American" back in November 2001, before there was any DNA evidence.[5] Bush publicly asked the FBI to consider a "Middle East source," but FBI seems to have its own agenda. The biggest hole in the FBI's case is that the anthrax used in the attack was state of the art stuff with a high-tech anti-clumping agent.[6] Yet the FBI would have us believe that this is the product of an alcohol, porn and sorority obsessed weirdo who created it in just a few weeks in his spare time at a vaccine lab that has no specialized equipment to weaponize anthrax -- and without his colleagues noticing anything out of the ordinary. Kauffner (talk) 05:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not particularly thrilled about the available evidence either, but I wonder if 40-50 years from now there will be release of classified documents... Regardless, painted as a weirdo or not, Ivins certainly had the technical expertise (not to the exclusion others), and if you've ever worked in a lab, you can do a lot without your colleagues knowing anything. For all I know it was a weapons lab and they don't want the public to know about it. We can only write the article with the information available, but it looks well balanced. Each section against him has a contrasting or second point of view. Hopefully more information will surface. --MartinezMD (talk) 06:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Parents

1. What purpose does it serve to list his parents? and 2. Are they even accurate? The editor who listed them wrote earlier that he "thinks" those are them. --MartinezMD (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well since no one has come up with a verification of his parents, or more importantly, a reason his parents should be noted, I removed them from the info box. This guy was married so perhaps his wife would be a more important relative to list if any. --MartinezMD (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It's extremely important to list his father, since he got his degree in pharmacology at Princeton and the letters were mailed from there. Pharmacology is important to understanding how the spores sprang out of the letters. Some drugs, notably asthma medicines, are administered in powdered form. Ivins worked in his father's drugstore and might have gotten ideas there. He may have learned the pharmacological fold used in the bomb from his father. I urge that information about his father be put back into the article.--Mike Emmert (talk) 07:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Mike Emmert

Two points Mike: First, the parents are still listed in the article itself, 1st paragraph of the early/family life along with the reference; they were just removed from the info box. Second, BE Ivins had extensive formal academic training. Your suggestion of his father's influence is conjecture unless you have something more than "might" or "may have". As a side note, powdered asthma medications (primarily steroids) are a very modern invention compared to anything that was available in the Ivins' earlier lives, and a general pharmacist doesn't receive much (if any) training in particle size/delivery system design.--MartinezMD (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Bruce was a Wikipedia contributor using the account User:Jimmyflathead according to the Smoking Gun.[7]

--John Bahrain (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times (August 6, 2008), '[Presents Anthrax Case, Saying Scientist Acted Alone]' states:
"Dr. Ivins engaged in an editing war on the Wikipedia entry for the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority, trying, often unsuccessfully, “to post derogatory information.”"
I don't think this information belongs in the article. It seems to me that it's only marginally relevant. --Elliskev 13:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
It is referenced in other articles, and it seems to be used as evidence that Ivins was obsessed with Kappa Kappa Gamma, which is very relevant to the case. In fact, I think his account should be checked by the admins. In the current article: "Anonymous sources told the Associated Press[26] that Ivins reportedly was obsessed with the college sorority Kappa Kappa Gamma (KKG) ever since he was rebuffed by a woman in the sorority during his days as a student at the University of Cincinnati. According to The Smoking Gun, US Government court documents stated that Ivins edited the KKG article in Wikipedia using the account name "Jimmyflathead"[27] with which he attempted to add derogatory information about the sorority to the article.[28]
Reports were leaked that anthrax spores were found, thus suggesting the letters were mailed from, a postal drop box located at 10 Nassau Street, less than 100 yards away from a building at 20 Nassau Street containing an office used by Princeton University's Kappa Kappa Gamma chapter to store property. As of this date, leaks from the law enforcement community claim they have not been able to place Ivins in Princeton the day the letters were mailed. Katherine Breckinridge Graham, an advisor to Kappa's Princeton chapter, stated that there was nothing to indicate that any of the sorority members had anything to do with Ivins." FunkMonk (talk) 13:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
So I'm poking around Jimmyflathead's contrib page and I'm not seeing much in the way of an obsession with KKG. He did contribute to their pages, mostly by adding "Notable Kappas", many of whom are indeed notable. More controversialy, he noted that a member of the SLA was a Kappa, and that some Kappas were convicted of hazing in the 90's. Looks like he just googled most of his info, and did not cite references, which is not great, but is also not particularly uncommon among wiki editors. I have not yet looked at all of his KKG edits, but they do not stand out as being bizarre in any way. Rwflammang (talk) 14:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The fact that Ivins was a Wikipedian clearly belongs in the entry, I think.
The FBI claimed that his Wikipedia editing was "obsessive," pathological and evidence of his guilt. Some people here don't think it was obsessive or pathological. People can read his edits and decide for themselves.
Besides, it's a notable and newsworthy, so readers will be interested and want to know.
Isn't it as relevant as the fact that he was in the school choir?
Anyone disagree? Nbauman (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Neither is relevant imo and find both a waste of time and space. A few wikipedia entries neither supports nor refutes an obsession. It could easily have been more personal or shown in other places. --MartinezMD (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
It's the FBI that made the claim, not us. His behaviour on Wikipedia is specifically mentioned by the FBI as evidence of an obsession with KKG, so the incident is very notable, and is in no way analogous to something as trivial as him being in a school choir. FunkMonk (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
By the standards of Wikipedians, his edits were not particularly obsessive, but our opinions are not a reliable source. You have to picture it from an outside perspective; a grown man makes many edits to a sorority article (and few other topics) with which he hasn't any connection since his college days. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
After looking at his contributions, I can only say that it's very dissappointing that he didn't edit any articles related to anthrax. The edits he did make seem unexceptional, although at one point another editor accussed of being obsessed. The FBI has cited them as a major piece of evidence -- this is what makes them notable. Kauffner (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't realize initially that this was the basis of the FBI claim. I thought it was simply a Wikipedia user who suggested they were relevant. I offered no further objection on the inclusion to the article, and it should end any debate.--MartinezMD (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

O.K. -- hold on just a minute here. Does Wikipedia have any way of knowing whether or not Bruce Ivins was this Jimmyflathead person? This may be flattering to us, but it could also be a pure smear. Wowest (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible innocence?

I think a section giving the arguments infavor of innocence should be included. Perhaps 2 sections one with the arguments for guilt and one for innocence?

The Patsy Was Bruce Ivins the anthrax killer? [8] Geo8rge (talk) 11:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

We should proceed carefully with the topic of guilt. Public information is still very preliminary. How many times have we seen, such as the issue of the spores being 'weaponized' or not, different information? If the guy did it I'm all for pointing out the details, but I'd like it to be accurate. --MartinezMD (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorority and lyophilizer summary: The FBI's coordinated leaking is making their claim to have solved the anthrax case appear quite dubious, in some instances laughably so.[9]Geo8rge (talk) 10:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think the FBI is behind these leaks? I get the impression that the "Anonymous Government Officials" are one or two guys in a congressman's office. Rwflammang (talk) 13:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There is very little evidence supporting guilt of this person. The FBI admits that he was only one of between one and twelve dozen person who had access to the strain and that he was not in NJ on the date the letters were mailed from NJ. Several persons also have expressed publicly that they have felt harassed during the investigation into professing his guilt. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.anthrax05aug05,0,7051572.story I think it would be premature at this point to presume his involvement in the attacks. The FBI and news media also widely claimed that he committed suicide in response to an imminent indictment, however the courts involved have publicly admitted that this was not the case and that any motion to that end would have taken several weeks from his suicide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.75.121 (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Anthrax Indictment May Have Been Weeks Away[10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo8rge (talk • contribs) 10:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Everyone knew that except the media and the FBI. 128.205.75.121 (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

seems like the FBI is covering it's ass, badly

It seems extremely unlikely that Bruce Ivans was the anthrax mailer. He wasn't even a right wing nut job. He was just who the FBI got the "crack".

The FBI claims he drove to Princeton, mailed the letters, and returned to work. He was seen at work that same day at 5pm. However, this story blatantly contradicts the fact that the letters were post marked the following day! How can he have mailed them well before 5pm but have the letters postmarked the following day? Sorry FBI guys but he has the U.S. postal service as a witness that the letters ere not mailed until after 5pm.

128.6.168.245 (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyway hopefully this guy's family will also sue the FBI. 128.6.168.245 (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, can someone please add the FBIs official version of what happened? Then we can easily point out that letters were not postmarked according to their version, which seems fair. 128.6.168.245 (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, the whole "2008 investigation" section seems to list issues backwards relative to their importance. I mean the most important paragraph is the last one which say something about hat the FBI thinks, and his Lawyers response.

Also I don't quite see the sorority wikipedia page connection. The sorority's "house" in Princeton is just a little garage for having meetings, so it's not a sorority in the normal sense of the term. I'm not 100% why we're bothering to relate that part of the story at all. I suppose the FBI wants people to believe either that he would have been familiar with the area because of the sorority or just that he was a freak in his editing of wikipedia articles. Neither seems like a terribly high priority for inclusion since the FBI doesn't then g and tell us what conclusion they want us to draw from this information about the sorority. 128.6.168.245 (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It is true that the FBI wants people to believe what it wants people to believe. 128.205.75.121 (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Personal Life

Also if i read his Letter to Editor i cant see that Dr.Ivins was a bad man, but maybe as German i see some Points different? Also is the Question from the NYT with the "Suicide of Dr.Hatfill" in the year 2002 very smart.Will the File be closed? I pitty his family and ask myself what his Co-Workers are thinking now? There are going with the "Wave" or there are with Independent Brain? Juergen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.241.211 (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there something you are suggesting we add or remove from the article or are you just commenting?--MartinezMD (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I am just commenting but i think he is "just the possible" Attacker not the 100% proof Attacker! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.241.211 (talk) 04:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Medical Treatment?

Does anybody know which kind of Medical Treatment ge got? Juergen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.241.211 (talk) 10:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I was attentive, having an interest in the medical aspects, but never found a single report.--MartinezMD (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

His method of presumed suicide would have resulted in liver failure? The time required for death from ingestion would have been at least a few days. He was under medical supervision during the period of ingestion? When and where did ingestion occur? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.75.121 (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There are no specific details of his actual death that I can find. It's true that liver failure would take days, if not weeks, to kill him. However, codeine could have caused anoxia. Also, a recent review article from the Times says it was Tylenol PM, which contains diphenhydramine (Benadryl) and that too could lead to a more rapid demise. I'll try to find that article again and post it. --MartinezMD (talk) 03:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Found the reference. Also found another mentioning that the offical police report listed both liver and kidney failure. That would have accelerated his death. I will post an addendum and references in a minute. The family declined putting him on the liver transplant list... --MartinezMD (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, final good explanation from the reference - the family took him off the ventilator. So death would've been fairly rapid if he had unsupported liver and kidney failure. This is pretty common in cases like this.--MartinezMD (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Which kind of SSRI did he get before? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.241.211 (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reference he was on an SSRI? I don't as of yet.--MartinezMD (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
okay, I'll do your work for you ;) LA Times mentions his use of Celexa. --MartinezMD (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC) http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-ivins7-2008aug07,0,3490858.story

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/EPI/bioter/detect/antdetect_fbiwarrant.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.241.211 (talk) 04:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

mispell

"the had FBI refused to comment on the situation."... ? comment made by Dwo shwoom (talk) 28 January 2009 (time: n/a) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.130.166.213 (talk) 04:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC) I confirm this post, autodolt.

Fixed. You could have done it with less effort than you put into this section... To "confim" your post, you "sign" it using 4 tildes(~) or pressing the signature button on the upper row above your edit box. Nice catch btw. --MartinezMD (talk) 04:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Guilt or innocence

IMO, there should a section consolidating the guilt vs innocence arguments, since that is likely to be the top reason someone would read this article. Kauffner (talk) 03:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

WSJ still not convinced

See here. Rwflammang (talk) 04:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

polygraph evidence

.. the DOJ characterizes Ivins’ passing of the polygraph as part of an effort to “stay ahead of the investigation,” alleging that he used countermeasures to fool the polygraph:
.. While FBI and DoD polygraphers claim that Ivins showed “classic” signs of countermeasure use, it should be noted that no polygraph operator has ever demonstrated the ability to detect polygraph countermeasures .. Viralmeme (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

many holes in FBI's case

.. the letter spores contained a Bacillus subtilis contaminant, and silicon to enhance dispersal. FBI has never found the Bacillus subtilis strain at USAMRIID ..
FBI fails to provide any discussion of why no autopsy was performed ..
the body of the report acknowledges hundreds of people who had access to the spores ..
FBI emphasizes Ivins' access to a photocopy machine, but fails to mention it was not the machine from which the notes that accompanied the spores were printed ..
Ivins certainly had mental problems. But that does not explain why the FBI accompanied Ivins' therapist, Ms. Duley (herself under charges for multiple DUIs) and assisted her to apply for a peace order against him. Nor does it explain why Duley then went into hiding, never to be heard from again.
.. FBI obtained a voluntary collection of anthrax samples. Is that the way to conduct a multiple murder investigation: ask the scientists to supply you with the evidence to convict them? ..

Viralmeme (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Jean C. Duley

The knowns knowns, as opposed to the known unknowns, of Jean C. Duley warrant mention either here or in her own article. Many of the Ivins news stories seem to have qualities of a smear, and many employ data provided by Ms. Duley. However, new information is coming to light that might help casual readers better assess her claims and motives for stepping into the spotlight as an insider to this investigation. Here are some of the issues that are being raised: http://www.atlargely.com/2008/08/jean-c-duley-te.html.

The question is, should this information be interpolated into Ivins' article, or would it be better to create a separate article for Duley? Pulsadinura (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Palinsurda. In general, the tone of this article remains like a tabloid press release for the FBI. There are MAJOR problems with the FBI case against Ivins, and Wikipedia should provide better NPOV. Here is an excellent online source for a more critical perspective on the Anthrax case: http://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2010/02/fbi-case-closed-and-ivins-did-it.html. I hope that all editors to this page will consult the many resources on Dr. Nass' page before further perpetuating the smear campaign against Ivins.--BenJonson (talk) 03:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Whether or not this particular source is valid, there are significant concerns about Duly's credibility which should be documented in the article. For example, http://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2010/03/jean-duley-emerges-from-undisclosed.html. --BenJonson (talk) 03:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Clue me in, what is BLP? Rwflammang (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Biographies of Living Persons; as in, "Wikipedia gets sued." Phlegm Rooster (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: BLP, etc... The sources of her criminal history seem valid, and also detailed in Greenwald's Salon.com series:http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/ (Monday Aug. 4, 2008 06:32 EDT Additional key facts re: the anthrax investigation). I didn't recommend Atlargely as a citation, but to provide context for this discussion. BLP concerns should be hashed out then, and you are likely better versed in them at the moment. Did you have any specific problems in mind? If you wish to tread lightly here, perhaps we should strike "Stalking allegations" and "Alleged plot to kill co-workers," which are charges that appear to emanate from Duley only. If we can't scrutinize her credibility as well as her claims, it might be better to omit them until we have better info on Ivins' behavior prior to his death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulsadinura (talk • contribs) 16:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

*Right.--BenJonson (talk) 03:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

All information should be included as per the BLP standard as long as it it meets verifiability standard. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.75.121 (talk) 11:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Suicide

I'm confused. We're told that this guy was motivated by his strong Catholic beliefs to attack "two pro-choice Catholic lawmakers". Another article describes it as his "dislike of Catholic senators who favor abortion rights".[11] But according to this article, "In Catholicism, death by freely chosen act of suicide is considered a grave and mortal sin." Question: Is abortion and suicide on the same level in Catholicism, or is one worse than the other? And, should his alleged Catholic beliefs be represented in the article? I don't see anything in the current article about abortion. Viriditas (talk) 03:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

To devout Catholics, and official church doctrine, abortion is no different than murder. Life begins at conception. Suicide is also sinful because the life belongs to God and not the individual. There is significantly more attention and protests about abortion than suicide as the victim is "innocent" in abortion but self-chosen in suicide. Both are considered highly serious sins. In world reality, many people fight for the rights/lives of others only to end their own. Unless his philosophical views are made clearer, it would be difficult to be fair. Besides, someone who is alledgedly psychopathic may not exactly be able to logically reason out the paradox here. --MartinezMD (talk) 04:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
It's a current event and this is largely all speculation at this point. And that's assuming it actually was a suicide. Peter Grey (talk) 04:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Right, Peter. It may not have been a suicide, and even if it was, Ivins psychopathology has been a substitute for real evidence. These accusations of his mental instability, which was substantially exacerbated by the FBI's hounding, indicate the FBI's substantive case requires extensive fortification from largely irrelevant circumstantial evidence in order to be publicly promulgated with any success.--BenJonson (talk) 03:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
If the death certificate says suicide, and we can source it in a newspaper account, that's WP:RS. If anybody has a WP:RS that claims it's not a suicide, they can add that too. Nbauman (talk) 14:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to see a single sentence written or said by Ivins that validates the FBI's claim that he was strongly anti-choice because of "conservative Catholic" beliefs. His wife seems to have been the "pro-lifer". The only email of his I've seen that mentions it says, "I'm not pro-abortion, I'm pro-life but". These are not the words of an abortion clinic bomber. So, 1) Using this alleged position as a motive seems very questionable to me and 2) Using this one position to describe him as a conservative Catholic also seems very out of proportion when put in the context of his other positions on sociol issues that can be found in his email and ltte. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EFerrari (talk • contribs) 18:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

O.K. -- it says HERE: http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/news/display.htm?StoryID=79878 that Ivin's Coptic Christian friend and colleague, who was harassed by Phil Zacks, asserts that Zacks did NOT commit suicide. Wowest (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The FBI is obviously lying about Ivins

Ivins did not have access to and nor could he have produced the "weaponized" anthrax used in the attacks. Specifically, neither he nor the laboratory he worked at, could have coated the anthrax spores with a polyglass. See this for more details: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121789293570011775.html

As such, this article is totally bogus, which unfortunately is typical of Wikipedia on 9/11, false flag operations and bone fide governmental conspiracies. Bofors7715 (talk) 07:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This article needs to proceed cautiously in either direction - Ivins responsible or not. Your WSJ article is an opinion piece refuting a set of statements. However, we there are given conflicting facts - did he have a lypholizer or not, are the spores modified or not, etc. Please try to be mature in the article and not post things like "it should be obvious that the FBI is lying". That isn't helpful. --MartinezMD (talk) 08:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that such extreme statements should be avoided. So here's how I would reword the header: The FBI's case against Ivins is lousy. Personally, I think that a new investigation will be called. I certainly hope that one is. Whether or not that happens, Wikipedia should NOT reflect what the FBI says about the case as proven, especially in instances where it is demonstrably WRONG, or even DOUBTFUL, as it is in quite a few instances.--BenJonson (talk) 03:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The "weaponized" spores were of ultra-high purity, coated with a glass-like material to hold weak electrostatic charges and then bound to silica particles to prevent clumping. Ivins could not have completed any of these steps, he had neither the skills, nor the equipment, nor the time. If it is not obvious to you that the FBI has constructed the mother of all flimsy frames for Dr. Ivins, you "really should not be editing this article because do not understand the basic facts of the case . Bofors7715 (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Bofors, updated evidence as of 6/10 substantiates your claims here. The case is flimsy indeed.--BenJonson (talk) 03:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Here is a small quote from another article "But in an e-mail obtained by FOX News, scientists at Fort Detrick openly discussed how the anthrax powder they were asked to analyze after the attacks was nearly identical to that made by one of their colleagues" http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,342852,00.html --MartinezMD (talk) 08:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
If you think anything sourced by FOX News, which is well known to be an outlet for right wing propaganda, is reliable information, something is wrong with you. Bofors7715 (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Bofors, you appear to be quite the conspiracy theorist. Please read WP:FRINGE and do not insert your points of view into articles before discussing it with other editors. 9/11 was not a false flag operation, and it's patently ludicrous to suggest otherwise. It smacks of a disconnect with reality. Enigma message 07:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
If you unable to recognize and admit that 9/11 was US state-sponsored terrorism, something that has been well established, you really have no idea what is going on. Specifically, I will assume that you fail to understand (or at least will not admit) that the Anthrax Attacks were by definition a false flag operation. Bofors7715 (talk) 00:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
What amuses me is that, at least according to 2001 anthrax attacks#Amateur investigators, none of these conspiracy theorists considered Ivins even though he was in the news a few times. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Whatever... Bofors7715 (talk) 00:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Bofors, you need to find a website that will tolerate lunatic views that are not even remotely connected to reality. It has been established that 9/11 was not "US state-sponsored terrorism". Wikipedia is clearly not for you. Enigma message 01:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Enigmaman, since you are such expert on "reality" and 9/11, why don't you explain to all of us how World Trade Center (WTC) building 7 collapsed: http://video.google.ca/videosearch?q=world%20trade%20center%207&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wv#

Why the off topic baiting? --BenJonson (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Please note that 428+ Architects & Engineers have found it to be an obvious case of controlled demolition: http://www.ae911truth.org/ Bofors7715 (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I note that all you can find are conspiracy websites which have zero credibility whatsoever and are obviously very biased, as are you. Enigma message 01:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Let's tone it down in here a little. This Talk page is about the article, and this article is about Ivins and anthrax allegations. Tertiary conspiracy theories about 9/11 do not belong here. There is an article for that. --MartinezMD (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


Another obvious lie: The NYTs is reporting that the FBI knows Ivins did not submit a false anthrax sample but instead, that there was a mix up in the format of the submission. "But F.B.I. officials acknowledged at the closed-door briefing, according to people who were there, that the sample Dr. Ivins gave them in 2002 did in fact come from the same strain used in the attacks, but, because of limitations in the bureau’s testing methods and Dr. Ivins’s failure to provide the sample in the format requested, the F.B.I. did not realize that it was a correct match until three years later." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/16/washington/16anthrax.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin

And yet, as the Wiki article says, Jeffrey Taylor continued to claim that Ivins tried to decieve the FBI by turning in a different strain as late as August 8, 2008.

Everyone please stay on topic. This is not the place to bring up 9/11 conspiracy theories. This discussion is only derailing the facts at hand relating to Bruce Edwards Ivins. I hope no more discussion of 9/11 occurs on this page. 128.205.75.121 (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed.--BenJonson (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There were quite a few reports linking the Dugway Proving Ground to the 2001 anthrax attacks [1][2][3]. Shouldn't it be also included in the article?Froy1100 (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC). This has been used by some to speculate about government involvement in the case, arguing that only the DPG had the capacity to modify the anthrax in that way. At least it should be mentioned in a "Conspiracy Theories" section. Opinions?Froy1100 (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)\\

Yes, it should. The Dugway connection is a significant one. http://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2010/03/my-summary-of-unresolved-issues-in.html --BenJonson (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


Dr. Irwin and other holes in Jean Duley's Testimony

The current article wording, including my quotations from the Duley complaint (one can only hope that her testimony is more reliable than her spelling and grammar, which I would put about at about 4th grade) reads:

According to Duley, "Dr. David Irwin his psychiatrist called him homicidal, sociopathic with clear intentions" (sic) and she would "tetisfy with other details" (sic).[66] She further alleged a "detailed homicidal plan" to kill his co-workers after learning he was going to be indicted on capital murder charges and stated that, upon hearing of his possible indictment, Ivins had purchased a gun and a bulletproof vest.[67] Ivins was subsequently committed for psychiatric evaluation, and his home was raided by federal agents who confiscated ammunition and a bulletproof vest.[68] He was released from his committal on July 24, five days before his death.

Questions: 1) Has anyone ever located Dr. Irwin? Who is he? Is he alive? Is there any corroboration for this claim by Duley. If not, why not? 2) Have the gun and bulletrpoof vest been recovered? Are they in evidence? 3) Is there any corroborating testimony for the claim of Ivins' "detailed homicidal plan"? --BenJonson (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


Report from inquiry panel released at news conference

On March 23, 2011. See https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/us/24anthrax.html?ref=us

I'm too tired to try to add it to the article in a well-written way. Had not followed the case closely; reading the current Wiki article, it seems to be pretty well done. Publius3 (talk) 04:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Balance?

I've just looked at this article because I added a citation. It strikes me as potentially unbalanced, because it has much more material regarding doubts about Ivin's involvement in the anthrax incident versus the reports that he was involved. Do others also feel that the article is not well balanced?--Gautier lebon (talk) 14:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree it's a little unbalanced. The problem is that the initial investigation was a screw up with the very public erroneous focus on Hatfill. This led to a lot of doubt and gave people with conspiracy theories undue weight.MartinezMD (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I disagree. I don't think the article is unbalanced. The question of whether or not the story put forth by the FBI and DOJ in 2008 is correct is a natural question that needs to be given substantial treatment for the education of the readers who are interested in the subject. And the discussion of that question is not really overly extensive in the article. The FBI and DOJ have put out a "lone wolf" theory blaming a dead man who was never charged with the crime during his lifetime. This article is about that man, who is not widely known for any other reason and is unable to defend himself against the charges, and a trial will never be held to produce a more final answer to the question. The FBI & DOJ have not only said that he was involved in the crime, but also that he acted alone without anyone else knowing about it. Moreover, that narrative has been called highly questionable by at least one U.S. Senator and a panel from the National Academy of Sciences. At least one other Senator and a Congressman have called for an independent review of the subject. That's a lot more than just the offbeat notions of a few "conspiracy theorists", and it seems like it merits more than a footnote or two. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Why did they tell him?

If anybody finds a reliable source that states that, please add that info! Sounds awfully irresponsible on their part. Шизомби (talk) 13:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Is that standard procedure? I've never been charged so can't say. Joshdboz (talk) 13:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
|The Feds were likely questioning him constantly trying to find an inconsistency in his statements. He would have known he was a prime suspect. The Feds would also have told him he should confess and make everything easier. Even if they did not tell him he likely would have gotten bail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo8rge (talk • contribs) 21:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
It's an old trick used to pressure a person being questioned, in the hope that the person may become flustered and make incriminating statements or even confess.Wzrd1 (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

domestic terrorist?

any consideration in adding him as a domestic terrorist e.g. McVeigh, Unabomber —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.27.114 (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

  • First it needs to be PROVEN that this guy commited the crimes. Everyone is quick to convict without a trial. Let's not Hatfill this guy if he isn't guilty. --MartinezMD (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that it's not a good idea to call him a domestic terrorist when he hasn't been proven to be. The article already exhibits what he was alleged to have done yet not assuming he is guilty. For instance drawing the distinction that the FBI was ready to prosecute him is not the same as saying "he's the culprit and is guilty". (Wingnutrules (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC))
let's be reasonable here. we can't categorize anything on the bases of hunches or unwavering doubt in our law enforcement. the f.b.i. kinda has a record too, you know? but the as-yet-available evidence seems to be pretty damning, imho. could go either way, still. this is an encyclopedia, not a news rag. as tough as it may be, we'd be better off sitting on this one. - Μετανοιδ (talk, email) 05:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Christian terrorist? Or at least a Christian extremist/anti-abortion extremist? 173.16.125.178 (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
To call him such means conviction by trial of Wikipedia editor, as he was never charged or tried for any crime whatsoever, he was only given trial by press.Wzrd1 (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Refs

Currently refs 3 and 6 look like the exact same AP article w/ matching titles but they are actually slightly different in content, so no need to get rid of the second one. Joshdboz (talk) 13:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I would change the link for the article “What Went Wrong” by the Frederick News Post to http://www.fredericknewspost.com/breach/day1.htm -- this is the archived page on the paper’s site.
The current link points to the article as quoted in http://www.nograftonbdlab.org/ and that page’s link back to the original is broken.
Any problems with doing so? Riyuky (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The URL for ref 64 should be changed to http://www.scientiapress.com/jdey-anthrax-mailings. Kjdillon (talk) 14:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)Kjdillon

Ref 64 is a broken link.

Philip Zack

The name Philip Zack is note-worthy here. The Hartford Courant newspaper ran a series of articles in December 2001 and January 2002 which discussed Dr. Zack as a "person of interest" in the 2001 anthrax attacks in the US. After Zack had been fired from Fort Detrick, a surveillance camera recorded him being let in at 8:40 p.m. on Jan. 23, 1992.

Salon magazine

Salon magazine ran a story by Laura Rozen on January 26, 2002, which reported that Zack was among those: "eager to continue working on projects USAMRIID said they should stop. What followed, the documents reveal, were scientists sneaking into the Army biowarfare lab to work on pet projects after-hours and on weekends, former workers like Zack, who left in 1991, still being let in to do lab work, pressure applied to technicians to help out, documents going missing, and deliberate mislabeling of specimens among other efforts to hide unsanctioned lab work."

Dr. Ayaad Assaad

In 1991, when working at USAMRIID, Dr. Assaad filed a formal complaint against co-workers including Philip Zack and Marion Rippy for racial harassment. The USAMRIID Commander, Col. Ronald Williams, investigated and ruled in Assaad's favor, singling out Zack and Rippy for leading the so-called "Camel Club" which had anonymously sent Assaad an eight-page insulting poem. According to Salon magazine: "The Army investigation documents further revealed that the two [Zack and Rippy], both married, were also having an affair." Col. Williams wrote to Assaad: "Based upon your complaint, I directed that an informal investigation be conducted. The investigation revealed that Lieutenant Colonel Zack and Dr. Rippy had participated in discriminatory behavior. On behalf of the United States of America, the Army, and this Institute, I wish to genuinely and humbly apologize for this behavior." Both Zack and Rippy were reprimanded. Zack left USAMRIID in December 1991, Rippy left in February 1992. Assaad stayed on until March 1997

References

  1. ^ http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/08/09/goggle-maps-says-maybe-maybe-not/#comment-93510
  2. ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/13/AR2008081303731.html?hpid=moreheadlines
  3. ^ http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/16/america/anthrax.php

FAMILY

DOES ANYONE KNOW WHAT HAPPEN WITH THE CASES OF HIS FAMILY? I think there suit a file ?

no autopsy = murder

how unusual is it for an autopsy to not be performed in questionable deaths, where the death is not a murder or suicide? The fact that the government, as opposed to merely an element of it, was possibly behind a terror campaign, gives great weight to this unanswered question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.14.66 (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

An autopsy wouldn't be needed if he had findings of liver and kidney failure with toxic levels of acetaminophen in his blood because the diagnosis is present before his death. This is also not the place to infer conspiracy theories. Get a reliable source and it can be included in the article.--MartinezMD (talk) 04:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
how does the presence of that toxicity prove that the death was a suicide? And will you please stop accusing other wikipedians of engaging in "conspiracy theories" simply because they don't uncritically accept the claims of the FBI? That's simply bad manners.--BenJonson (talk) 03:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You must not understand properly what an autopsy is for, how serious and necessary it is to perform them, why we do them, and how one reaches or is able to reach a final conclusion on wether a liver failure and or kidney failure has arrived swiftly. Such acute diseases are very necessary to determine. And only in cases of political controversy it seems have they so thoroughly and continually been avoided. It's classic almost to the point that it is laughable. Re, Marilyn Monroe, Zachary Taylor, Louis T. McFadden, and too many others to even bother to mention. Nunamiut (talk) 17:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Right. The failure to perform an autopsy is either 1) yet another example, as if we needed one, of the complete incompetence of the FBI or 2) a hint of foul play. Perhaps MartinizMD can prove which it was. --BenJonson (talk) 03:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
First, the toxicology analysis of his blood samples were consistent with overdosing of APAP (acetaminophen/diphenhydramine. He had total liver failure and kidney failure, which is consistent with overdosage of APAP. The bottles were likely found nearby. The CORONER decides to autopsy or not, not the FBI, police or Jehovah witnesses. His suicide was a local law enforcement issue, not an FBI involved investigation. Indeed, his suicide would be outside of the jurisdiction of the FBI, even IF he was being investigated for the anthrax letters.Wzrd1 (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a cover up

Consider just a small amount of the clear evidence of a cover up:

No autopsy was performed on Bruce Ivans

No one has been arrested for the anthrax attacks.

No one has been found guilty of the attacks.

The sole alleged perpetrator of the attacks is dead. The FBI insists on a "lone gunman" type theory, thereby absolving possible defendants of liability.

Crimes can easily be covered up with "lone radical" theories. The targets of the anthrax were not natural enemies of any Jihadist, rather they were people who drew the ire of powerful people within the US.

The timing of Bruce Ivans Death and the Timing of the FBI investigation is highly suspicious. The FBI did not file charges until about 7 years after the event which gave rise to the criminal charges.

Patrick Leahey implied FBI officials were covering up the case.

Rumsfeld and other well connected individuals did it. He is a satanist. The Bushes are satanists as well. They did it to retaliate against news agencies that published negative information about them, and to intimidate politicians, and for pure sadism. Satanists run the Pentagon and other major national institutions. If they perpetrated 9/11, why certainly a few anthrax letters are small potatoes by comparison.

Tyrants hate bad publicity.

You confuse incompetence with malfeasance. A common error for those who are devout conspiracy theory followers.Wzrd1 (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

911 Iraq motive

The case is made by Graeme MacQueen mp3 here. The context of the previous week's events will, of course, bring accusations of "conspiracy theories", but it is a conspiracy per se, hence speculation -- based on contextual facts (i.e. "makes sense") -- is the only way forward. Not outingt the obvious lies of biased involved parties (the US military & state apparatus) is IMHO inexcusable. 203.184.41.52 (talk) 10:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Except for the fact that Iraq did not have weaponized anthrax. Remember the WMD debacle? Weaponized anthrax is considered by all to be a WMD. Iraq's process, from research only, was also substantially different. So, either the administration DID find WMD's in Iraq and chose to instead embarrass the nation by denying them AND cover up an Iraqi WMD attack upon the US, which would be a clear cut act of war or the conspiracy theory is wrong. The "makes sense" part then yields to Occam's razor, the conspiracy theory would have to be that the US choose to loose standing and face international criticism over invading Iraq and finding no WMD's AND pass up the opportunity to declare war on Iraq for a WMD attack OR the anthrax was NOT weaponized by Iraq, as it was coated and prepared differently than the Iraqi anthrax weaponization program did, but prepared in a way researched and used in past US programs. In short, the conspiracy theory fails on any examination of the facts as known.Wzrd1 (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Expert Behavioral Analysis Panel

Their conclusion is utterly baseless, as the Army does not perform background investigations, at the time, the FBI did, which changed, if memory serves, around 2004-2005 to OPM performing the background investigations. Something that ANYONE who ever had a clearance would know. The ONLY thing that is correct in their conclusion is that he should not have had a clearance when he showed signs of mental illness. But, to blame his employer, the US Army, is as correct as blaming his parish priest for not investigating him, as neither DOES perform background investigations at all. The Army CAN "pull" his clearance at any time, even for mere suspicion of instability. That it failed to do so shows a habitual failure by the Army to follow their own regulations regarding clearances and access, as was further displayed in the Manning case. Even if a clearance is suspended, it CAN be regained, if his mental health issues are successfully treated.Wzrd1 (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bruce Edwards Ivins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Bruce Edwards Ivins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Bruce Edwards Ivins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bruce Edwards Ivins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bruce Edwards Ivins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bruce_Edwards_Ivins/Archive_1&oldid=1136581518"