Ivins case — where’s the motive?

While depression, or more serious mental illness, if true, may be an explanatory factor in lowering inhibitions that “normal society” has in mind, it is NOT a motive.

Even in criminal cases involving an insanity defense, the mental state is an exculpatory factor, not a motive.

Now, if we had a specific act, connected to mental condition, like Ivins writing a “Taxi Driver” letter to the Princeton chapter of Kappa Kappa Gamma, we’d have motive. But we don’t have such a thing and never will. If it existed, the FBI would be trumpeting it.

Justin Raimundo, before going a bit around the bend, notes that the government seems intent on playing this up as the pervert angle on Ivins.

Ditto as far an anthrax vaccine and motive.

The only way that mere work on an anthrax vaccine could be considered as motive would be if Ivins had been psychiatrically diagnosed as suffering Munchausen by proxy.

And he hasn’t.

Otherwise, if we had information that Ivins had talked to Pfizer or Glaxo about commercial production of a vaccine he had developed, then we’d have a motive.

Again, though, we have no record of such talks, because they obviously didn’t happen.

Beyond that, it looks like the FBI is throwing crap at the wall and seeing what sticks, such as claiming that Ivins’ ardent pro-life stance is a motive.

I’m not alone in asking these questions. One of the anthrax letter targets, Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, is asking the same thing. Supposedly, Leahy met with FBI director Robert Mueller late Thursday, but so far, nobody’s talking about what was said.

And, per Vermont Public Radio, Mueller may or may not tell us more, saying more details may be released in the future.

Well, Sen. Charles Grassley wants him to start talking NOW, along with Attorney General Mike Mukasey, not just about Ivins but also about the botched deliberately heavy-handed investigation of Steven Hatfill. He’s got an 18-point questionnaire on the subject is a motive.

Key points:
1. Was there a polygraph of Ivins? If so, show it.
2. Who besides Ivins, of the more than 100 people who had access to anthrax strain RMR 1029, was provided custody of samples sent outside Fort Detrick?
3. What, if any, late-night video surveillance did Fort Detrick have?
4. If the FBI now believes (or claims to believe) Ivins’ mental health was such a factor, when did it first know about his mental health history and why did it not focus attention on him instead of Hatfill then?
5. What more are you going to release?

Grassley’s phone number is 202-224-3744. Call him and comment him for the effort, and to stay the course.


Oh, and beyond Hatfill, let’s not forget the FBI’s botched deliberately heavy-handed investigation of botched deliberately heavy-handed investigation of Steven Hatfill. He’s got an Richard Jewell.

Maybe some of Ivins’ relatives could try suing the FBI over wrongful death by forced suicide.