Now, the Wall Street Journal weighs in with more questions.
Way down in the seventh graf, the article notes that the FBI has yet to postulate a motive for Ivins, if he was the anthrax attacker. Related to that is both the lack of a suicide note and what appears to be a facile assumption that Ivins’ suicide reflects the biblical proverb that “the guilty flee when nobody pursues.”
Well, in the case of depression, sometimes the innocent flee tyranny and bullying, even if the “fleeing” is life-ending.
From there, the story goes to the biggest evidentiary issues:
More than 100 people had access to the anthrax in question, a larger number than many had previously believed. The FBI didn't find any anthrax spores in Dr. Ivins’s three cars or in his house.
As a result of these and other issues, scientists in this field are split on the strength of the evidence.
The New York Times adds more thought on the issue of scientific skepticism, in the last few grafs.
So, too are some Members of Congress skeptical:
New Jersey Democrat Rep. Rush Holt, who was briefed by phone by FBI Director Robert Mueller, said there are “still big questions” about whether Dr. Ivins acted alone. “So maybe there is still a murderer at large.” Mr. Holt's district is home to some of the anthrax victims and to the mailbox where the letters were mailed. “My measure of when we can call this case closed is when the people of central New Jersey ... feel that they have closure. I would say so far it's probably not good enough to put all their fears to rest.”
Read the whole story. It’s got information on how Ivins could have accessed his lab late at night, with graphics, and more.
And, yet one other telling point against the airtightness of the government’s case — why isn’t either FBI Director Robert Mueller or Attorney General Mike Mukasey hogging headline space and microphone airtime to announce the conclusion of this allegedly successful investigation?
No comments:
Post a Comment