Get FREE BuzzFlash News Alerts

Email:  

Tim Mooring: We need at least an autopsy in the death of Dr. Bruce Ivins

A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION
by Tim Mooring

The circumstances surrounding the death of Dr. Ivins needs to be thoroughly investigated. Maryland state "health officials" have apparently ruled his death a suicide without even performing an autopsy -- deeming it unnecessary as a blood sample sufficed to show the cause of death. Are CSI fans watching the show just to view the commercials? This is a most ridiculous finding. It leaves unanswered critical medical questions such as: How were the toxins introduced into his system? When were the toxins introduced? You can't know the answer to the second question without addressing the first -- and that can't be done without a full autopsy.

This is not a minor question. It is instead indicative of a pattern of behavior by government agencies connected with this investigation. Why, if Dr. Ivins was suspected of being a mass murderer, was he released from custody on the day he was to be charged? This is a weird legal process to follow. None of it makes sense.

The government seems determined to try Dr. Ivins' case in the court of public opinion on the basis of purely circumstantial evidence. People will make the point that circumstantial evidence is the determinant in many cases. The essential difference is circumstantial evidence is normally presented in support of at least a minimum of physical evidence or eyewitness testimony. Additionally a motive for the crime needs to be produced in evidence. None of this is being done in Dr. Ivins' case. Of course the defense is necessarily hampered in their ability to defend Dr. Ivins by the fact that he is not actually charged with a crime -- being conveniently dead.

There is a great deal of circumstantial evidence, including the points made above, to indicate that government officials are yet again lying through their teeth -- as has been their want for 7+ years. Political poisonings are a popular tool of autocratic regimes right now. For instance: it's almost certainly inadvisable to be on the enemies list of Russia's prime minister. Putin was recently quoted as conveying Cheney's advice for Leahy to Georgia's president in reference to his agreements with Western governments. A careful diet is definitely indicated for Mr. Saakashvili.

The Frederick News Post has published an aggregation of Dr. Ivins' letters to the editor. In these letters, Dr. Ivins comes across (IMHO) as a deeply religious man of high moral values, an opponent of discrimination, even a champion of human rights. He writes with the precision and formal courtesy that you would expect of a scientist. These are obviously misimpressions if he was indeed the ogre that the government seems willing to go to any length to convince us that he was. But these same authorities can't even be bothered with the formality of an autopsy -- it might introduce an unwanted element of physical evidence into their idle ruminations on the certainty of his guilt.

It is clear to me that every aspect of Dr. Ivins' death must be investigated as if it were a homicide. This is a national security issue of the very first order. If Dr. Ivins was not an ogre, that fact alone would almost certainly illuminate the entire matter in every direction. The death of Dr. Ivins would have been, by all accounts I have read, particularly protracted and unpleasant. If the anthrax killers (necessarily plural at this point) are still out there -- then Dr. Ivins' death would be very much in line with their modus-operandi. We should all consider this very carefully and write to Congress demanding a full investigation into the death of Dr. Bruce Ivins.

My thanks to BuzzFlash for helping to keep this issue in public view. Thanks for nothing to MSM.

A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION

Tim Mooring
San Francisco, CA


bush's gay photo's, anthrax & the national enquirer

http://poland.indymedia.org/pl/2004/09/9014.shtml

No Autopsy Source Reference

There were several references that I saw, here's one: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aGwtzOlYDSok&refer=home

Clarification Please!

Who says a coroner listed a cause of death without an autopsy? Either I missed that tidbit in the articles I've read or it wasn't reported. Autopsies are required by law in all suspicious (i.e.; unanticipated deaths in which a cause of death is not manifestly evident (as a death due to acetaminophen/EtOh-induced liver failure would be). I'd appreciate some kind of reference or documentation that no autopsy was done before conjuring up unknown 'toxins' introduced in nefarious ways before eschewing him having washed a bottle of Tylenol down with a Stoly chaser (alcohol lowers the LD-50 of acetaminophen considerably).

Clarification

I'm not sure if you meant (as a death due to acetaminophen/EtOh-induced liver failure would be) as (suspicious) or (not manifestly evident) or (manifestly evident). In any case my knowledge of toxicology - beyond Stoly - is admittedly limited. But I still don't understand how the cause of death could have been "manifestly evident" if that is what you intended.

quote from bloomberg

Ivins's death is being investigated as an apparent suicide from a drug overdose, said Lieutenant Shawn Martyak of the Frederick Police Department's criminal investigation division. Based on laboratory test results of blood taken from the body, the state medical examiner ``determined that an autopsy wouldn't be necessary'' to determine the cause of death, Martyak said.

Bloomberg Quote Reply...

Timoor, What this quote suggests (without actually listing the results) is that blood chemistries were sufficient to identify the cause of death. Such findings would include toxic-lethal levels of acetaminophen, presence of alcohol in quantities sufficient to be medically relevant, liver enzymes elevated to levels sufficient to indicate liver failure. All that said, though, I'm a little surprised they didn't do a post on a suspicious death anyway. It's usually routine.

Dr. Ivins

The anthrax attacks occurred late in 2001 and early 2002, hot on the heels of the 9/11 attacks. We were promised swift action and yet, none was forthcoming. It was no coincidence that those attacks occurred when they did. They were staged to keep us in fear and to distract us from anything else that was going on. Sen. Daschle and Sen. Leahy made convenient targets for the anthrax - they were deciding whether to sign the Patriot Act and were probably not going to do so. Bingo - a little anthrax powder conveniently arrives in the mail. The FBI focused whatever attention it was paying to this matter on Dr. Steven Hatfil - a foreigner. He is from South Africa. He's a stranger. Not one of us. A lot of propaganda was generated to keep us hooked on fear of Dr. Hatfil, when the man had nothing to do with the anthrax attacks. And shortly after Dr. Hatfil left the US for Australia, any "investigation" into those attacks was either halted or just ran out of steam. And now they're blaming Dr. Ivins, a serious right-winger, saying he sent out that powder. After I heard that rumor about him the first time, I later heard that the anthrax strain used was different from the one Dr. Ivins had been working on. But I only heard that once. After that, I only heard that the strain used in the attacks was identical to the one Dr. Ivins was studying. Then I heard that Dr. Ivins was mentally unstable and had been under treatment for mental illness since the age of 19. If that were true, why was he allowed to work with a deadly disease??? His "therapist" said she was deathly afraid of him, yet she herself is not a licensed therapist and also has a long history of drug and alcohol abuse. All of this adds up to odd circumstances that don't lead to the conclusion that Dr. Ivins was the culprit behind the anthrax attacks. My vote goes to Dick Cheney and Karl Rove - master manipulators, completely without conscience and totally amoral. They're the ones who stood to gain and they are evil enough to let 5 people die from a horrible disease, just to achieve a political end. I hope we find their greasy, nastyfinger prints on these crimes soon. They did not commit these crimes personally but I believe completely that they are responsible for sending out the anthrax. In September of 2004, an anti-war rally was held in Washington, DC, attended by a couple hundred thousand people, although MSM didn't report on it at all. If they had, they might have noted that in the middle of the march, sensors that detect biological weapons were set off and blared in a circle around the city for quite some time. At least one person became quite ill from tularemia poisoning, others less so and many people tested positive for exposure. Helicopters overhead had been noted; it was after their departure that the sensors sounded the alarm about the presence of a toxin. I don't doubt for a minute that our government was behind that attack as well. This group of repugnicans have demonstrated repeatedly that they have no consciences, no morals and absolutely no qualms about injuring/killing others in pursuit of a political gain.

Ivins

Did we get an autopsy of the 'suicide' of the DC Madam? We'll never get the truth here... and no one will be held accountable for the intimidation of the Ivins family or the lack of evidence in the accusation and post mortem conviction of Bruce Ivins. Nothing will happen until someone in the msm grows a backbone and demands answers in prime time over and over and over. Yeah, right.

microboligists deaths

Doesn't anyone remember the rash of microbioligists deaths shortly after the "anthrax attacks?" There were at least 14 microbioligists that died under mysterious circumstances in 2001 and 2002. Most of those deaths were ruled suicides. One of them had been shot 3 times and was ruled a suicide. One of them was run over, he too was ruled a suicide. I remember that at one time if you were a government microbioligist, your life expectancy was greatly in question. Now we have the lead suspect (government microbioligist) in the "anthrax attack" who has died and been determined a suicide without even an autopsy. Unless the autopsy was performed by a very independent coroner, I have no doubt that it would declare Ivins a suicide also. ....How quickly we forget. The American collective memory has to be the shortest in the world.

Autopsy Needed for Certain

The fact that an autopsy has not been ordered under these circumstances makes it clear that the powers that be are afraid of one. Why? Always remember what happened when the Democratic Senate leadership which, for a few precious months, were in the majority and preparing to hold hearings on the PATRIOT Act. They all lost their offices, access to their computers, access to their files and access to their mail until the following February after they lost majority standing. There were no hearings. Virtually no study was made of the contents of the tome that was the PATRIOT Act bill which contained in its legalese violations of four parts of our Bill of Rights. A brief attempt to take the bill over to legal minds in the Supreme Court building was short-circuited when a trace of the anthrax was found in the building's basement, shutting it down. I'd like to know more about that. And so, the PATRIOT Act as well as other mischief was enacted and continues to wreak havoc on our nation. There are too many holes in this Ivins' media campaign to pin it on a mad scientist. Also note that some time back, the Bush administration announced that the anthrax had not come from the Fort Detrick labs after all. Apparently, they had to back pedal on that story. Too many people must have known the truth. There had to be a fall guy. Otherwise, the investigation under an Obama presidency with a solid majority caucus of Democrats in Congress might have gotten to the truth. Pat Williams