Who Is Rehashing the Shrinks-4-Hire Report on Bruce Ivins?
Slightly over a week after McClatchy focused new attention on evidence that Bruce Ivins may not have been able to produce the anthrax used in the 2001 attacks, and just days after Jerrold Nadler called attention to the FBI’s obfuscations about the technical data McClatchy used, the LAT has decided to ignore such technical problems with the FBI’s case and return to claims that Ivins must be the killer because he was mentally unstable.
Of note, much of the LAT story fleshes out the Shrinks-4-Hire report, complete with names, a detailed description of how Bruce Ivins’ mother tried to abort Ivins by bouncing down the stairs, and descriptions from his psychiatrists.
Ivins grew up in Lebanon, Ohio, a small town 30 miles northeast of Cincinnati. His parents had planned the arrivals of their first two children, both sons, but by late 1945 the couple had no desire to add to the family. In conversations with a sister-in-law, Mary Ivins described how she tried to abort the unwanted third pregnancy:
Over and over, she descended a series of steps by bouncing with a thud on her buttocks.
Bruce Ivins, born April 22, 1946, would eventually hear the story himself.
[snip]
A psychiatrist who treated him in the late 1990s, Dr. David Irwin, confided to a therapist that Ivins was the “scariest” patient he had ever known.
It’s as if someone leaked the LAT an unredacted copy of the report in an effort to drown out increasing focus on the many problems with the case. And it’s as if the LAT simply used that as a template for their story, without consulting the information released since the Shrinks-4-Hire was completed that poses problems for it: not the National Academy of Sciences report and the McClatchy stories raising key technical questions about the case, and not Noah Shachtman’s story raising doubts about the FBI’s claim no one else could have accessed Ivins’ anthrax.
I guess some people tied to the anthrax case believe if you keep repeating the story, “Bruce Ivins stalked women, so he must have tried to kill Patrick Leahy” enough times, people will continue to believe it.
Even Leahy seems strangely disconnected as he is running point for Obama’s attempt to re-up Mueller, who has led the charge to whitewash the Amerithrax case.
He sure has! I don’t hear anything coming from Daschel either. In numerous articles about Manning I see the insanity stuff being dropped frequently as well.
Yes, the “mentally unstable” argument for guilt is all the rage in government corners lately. But when so few media peeps are investigating facts and details, why wouldn’t the government pick the low hanging fruit?
If Ivins was such a basket case why on earth was he allowed in a lab with weapon grade material?
I guess they are actually trying to reveal just how crazy the people running things in this country really are.
@#3
That was the first thought that entered my head-wasn’t there any vetting of background BEFORE security clearance was given?
I think it is a really cheap shot to haul in his mother and the abortion issue.
Wonder what the familial “background” is on Cheney,Yoo,Addington,etc,ad infinitum??
I posted this on a Jeff Kaye thread a few days ago:
Obama Administration Seeks to Test Anthrax Vaccine in ChildrenMay 6, 2011 … Obama Administration Seeks to Test Anthrax Vaccine in Children … Bill First, a doctor, criticized the anthrax vaccine on CNN stating, …
http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/802/52/ – Cached►Obama
Administration Seeks to Test Anthrax Vaccine in Children …May 24, 2011 … by Alliance for Human Research Protection Whose children will be sacrificed in an illegal and unethical experiment in the name of Biodefense …
healthimpactnews.com/…/obama-administration-seeks-to-test-anthrax-vaccine -in-children/ – Cached
Fortunately, Gitchee, there is no end of supporters who will “vouch” for Obama’s “sanity” despite his interest in testing anthrax vaccine on children (though, as I pointed out on Jeff Kaye’s thread, it likely will not be HIS children, he is not nuts, afterall) and inspite of his droning on interminably, possibly “forever” … and then, there is that “looking forward” (and ONLY forward) “perspective” which suggests a rather “narrow” and circumscribed sensibility.
The “psychological” debasement of the “New World Order” American government’s scapegoats is a tried and true manner of dismissing ANYTHING or ANYONE which or whom the PTB wish to have studiously ignored. Anyone who chooses to continue “looking” may well find that they are determined “deficient” and a “threat” to “forward”.
The public is frightened out of their wee little wits by the thought of the unhinged amongst us, especially if the unhinged have “questioned” anything considered part of “exceptional” reality, on the other hand … the truly depraved, whether avaricious banksters doing “Gawd’s work”, or gun-toting grifters and “clutchers” from Eric the Prince to the hate-crime crowd are considered “astute” on the one hand and simply “concerned patriots” … on the other foot.
Should Obama ever appear in an international court of law, facing charges of crimes against humanity or other such peccadillos, he needn’t fear being considered mad or unhinged. Neither will “W” nor any of the unusual suspects ever be considered or determined “strange”, “demented”, or, even, “odd” …
DW
I have always considered that “looking forward” meme to be a little more than suspect.
Following it’s logical(or illogical)conclusion, are we to expect Judeo Christian and Islamic religions to be cast aside,also?
After all, isn’t that looking backwards-considering how long they have been around??
“Looking forward”, apparently, has little to do with looking WHERE we are actually going. Considering destination is rather like “nuance” under “W”, “… we don’t ‘do’ that …” and, if ya don’t know where you’re going, where ya came from, or what you’ve been doing, then it all becomes new again and everything goes ’round and ’round … where it stops nobody knows.
When “they” said “they” were gonna run “it” like a “business” … who could have imagined that they meant like Las Vegas?
Ain’t so much like ‘leventy-dimension chess or even the more esoteric forms of poker, more like craps …
The thing is, if ya don’t look behind ya, then ya never need worry ’bout what’s gainin’ on ya …
DW
Didn’t Satchel Paige make a similar remark?
“Don’t look back,you never know who’s gainin’ on you”?
Ah, number six of Paige’s Six Rules for Staying Young …
;~DW
I read his book
a bizallion times when I was a kid. He was a legend.
Here’s his list on
“
There were more in his book.
1) Never sit when you can lie down.
2) Never stand when you can sit.
3) Never walk when you can stand.
To close with the ‘avoid running at all times’
Leroy ‘Satchel’ Paige . . . one of the greatest of any sport, any time.
There are those, Larue, who would say that Satchel Paige was the greatest pitcher … ever.
DW
Truth rests in the now. We have a nation trained to focus on past or future where no facts exists. The facts are now…and what is happening now is where the threat to the new world order exists.
What is happening right now. WIGO.
Someone please remind me why Obama wants to re-up Robert Mueller for another two years.
I saw this last night and thought of you. It is the lead story, the biggest headline. As if it is news.
It was on the bottom of the front page in the edition I saw (didn’t read it – it was in a pharmacy, while I was waiting for my prescription). I wondered why they were running it, since the case had pretty much dropped off the radar for most people, and the FBI apparently declared it closed when he died.
Oh, you saw that story from last night. Great.
and the answer to why now with this story: the writer, a former LATimes staff writer, has a book coming out! from the “about this story” blurb:
i thought it odd Willman’s e-mail address wasn’t at the bottom of the article, as is the norm for LA Times writers, so did a search of his name on the site and this blurb popped up. His previous article for LAT credits him as “By David Willman, Special to The Times”. wonder why the change for this story?
Thanks. Book promo clears up a lot of my questions about the piece like why the LA Times ran it now, why it moves forward and backward in time so awkwardly, why some information is sourced but much is not, why so many details seem irrelevant to the story, and why he never follows up on topics he establishes. It reads like cut and paste – and it is. Of course, the original may be none too well researched or reasoned either.
oh lordy, the Amazon page for Willman’s book is to gag:
from the Product Description: “Engrossing and unsparing, The Mirage Man is a portrait of a deeply troubled scientist who for more than twenty years had unlimited access to the U.S. Army’s stocks of deadly anthrax. It is also the story of a struggle for control within the FBI investigation, the missteps of an overzealous press, and how a cadre of government officials disregarded scientific data while spinning the letter attacks into a basis for war. As The Mirage Man makes clear, America must, at last, come to terms with the lessons to be learned from what Bruce Ivins wrought. The nation’s security depends on it.”
the National Security correspondent for Time gives it a big thumbs up: “Most strikingly, Willman shows how this emotionally warped man pumped the bellows that fanned the flames of war with Iraq. It’s a haunting and heartbreaking tale.”
Seamlessly, without a hitch or single glitch, the “narrative” upon which the “Official 21st Century History of American Exceptionalism, Courage, Truth, Justice, Security and Open Transparency” will be based is happily dark and stormy knighted by the grave pronouncments of “experts” more than willing to lend their support and good name to the just and proper cause …
The blockbuster movies will soon follow.
Go to the Mall and buy the book, buy the tickets, buy the little skull and bones sticker flags and proudly defeat those foreign AND domestic terrorists who hate Americans for their freedoms.
Consider Willman’s “book” to be the equivalent of a drone attack upon the character of a dead man or the waterboarding of conscience, generally, rosalind.
We are soon to be deeply awash in an overwhelming tsunami of rightthought … embraced wholeheartedly by both Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum and, as well, by all the third-rate hacks who want to get themselves $ome …
DW
DeeDub, your mastery of words is both awe inspiring and humbling.
A pleasure and privilege to read your posts.
So the LAT gave this rehash featured front page status on Memorial Day Sunday…..to help this shill sell his slanted book??
Lovely. Is LAT the publisher? Do they have a financial interest in the book sales somehow? It is still curious.
well, the willman book is published by Bantam Books, a subsidiary of Random House, which publishes the LA Times “Sunday Crossword Omnibus”.
do wonder what kind of deal major papers have with their writers when they go off to write a book on a subject they covered for the paper, the paper must get a cut some how.
how terribly inconvenient for McClatchy et al to render the book’s thesis suspect days before publication…
Thank you McClatchy et al for making that a remaindered book before it hits the shelves.
It was up on their website last night. I saw it and brought it over here (Dog Walking article) at 8:28 pm. Don’t know when they put it up, though.
For 3 and 4: Yes. there is vetting, and it is quite thorough for the TS-level stuff. This kind of thing if true would be an excellent lever for anyone trying to gain access.
The fact they are rehashing debunked and at least dubious assertions means that the DOD/DOJ had even less than we thought on Contestant #2. If I were Ivins’ heirs and family, it’s time to sue for slander with these reports already out there.
Just remember the ones who did the killing are still out there, just apparently very well connected.
Plague War | FRONTLINE | PBSA report on the growing threat of biological weapons in the world, biological warfare, bio agents, bio terrorism and the rise and fall of the Soviet Union’s …
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/plague/ – Cached – Similar
Excellent primer on several facets relating to this issue. Although a somewhat older piece, in this case, “looking backwards” is quite an eyeopener.
OT. Nothing to see here, move along:
Government Report Absolves a Karzai in Afghan Bank Fraud
It makes me think of all the airplane crashes that are labeled “pilot error”. Wonder how many of these are called such because it’s the easiest way of closing the case without disturbing any powerful corporate entities such as airlines or airplane manufacturers?
Gosh. I thought doctor-patient confidentiality survived the death of the patient under HIPAA. Could someone in the gov’t have leaked information that was private to the LA Times? Don’t they know how upset the current administration gets when people leak stuff? Do they really want to have sleep naked in their jail cell? Oh, wait. Now I remember. Pixie dust, in contrast to doctor-patient confidentiality, does survive the broader meaning of “death” (which includes the end of an administration). NVM.
This is what one scholar calls “Psycho-History.”
Go to
http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/51990
and listen to the lecture.
I always thought psychohistory was Hari Seldon’s gig (Asimov’s Foundation series).
Great read Mz. Wheeler, I was smiling as I read, thinking of the recent reports last week I’d seen trying to tie in Ted Kyz The Unibomber to the anthrax efforts.
Anything to obfuscate it might have been a false flag inside job or just a case of bungling of the highest order by investigating agencies.
LeSigh.
The ones I was seeing were trying to connect him to the Tylenol poisonings, not the anthrax letters.
How quickly one forgets…
Only two months ago, I wrote an article here at FDL regarding the biased intent and construction of the “behavioral analysis”report, from which the LA Times evidently got the unredacted portion. The article was posted on March 23, “Psychologizing Bruce Ivins: Who are the Amerithrax Behavioral Analysis Experts?”
The Amerithrax behavioral “experts” were, one, not all behavioral experts at all, and two, as I noted, “the panel’s bona fides reveals… an overwhelming stacking of this ‘expert’ panel by doctors and others who are deeply beholden to government interests, and in particular to security agencies, including those involved in bioterrorism security.” (And by the way, I was alone in noting the connection between this panel and former Reagan Attorney General, Edwin Meese.)
Gregory Saathoff, the chair of this panel examining Ivin’s behavioral history, has worked with the FBI for 15 years as Conflict Resolution Specialist to the FBI’s Critical Incident Response Group. Another panel member, Dr. Ronald Schouten (MD and JD) “served as a subject matter expert for the Biological Threat Classification Program of the Department of Homeland Security and has testified before the Congressional Subcommittee on Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Attack.” Another panelist was Dr. David Benedek, a Guantanamo psychiatrist, who was also on the panel which consulted with others about Nidal Hasan in Spring 2008. Evidently, he was not very good in assessing dangerousness then.
None of these conflicting interests are mentioned in the report, but are the fruit of my research. And there is more of similar ilk on the other panel members in my article referenced above.
Btw, as for the LA Times article, if so many therapists heard of threats by Ivins to harm others, they were remiss in their duties to report threats of harm, and should lose their licenses. They could also be sued for Tarasoff violations in their states, though consultation with an attorney would be necessary to see if that were possible.
But all that is besides the point. The psychological picture constructed by the LA Times, likely lifted in large part, without any source given, from the “Amerithrax Expert Behavioral Analysis Panel,” is highly dubious, constructing a post hoc picture of supposed (and uncorroborated or proven) “facts” to justify a portrait the FBI needs to make their case. As I wrote in my March article:
A Tasaroff claim is very hard litigation, even under the best circumstances. For Ivins, it does not appear actionable harm occurred to any potential victims the mental health providers did or could reasonably been predicted to have violated. As to a licensing action, you probably have a better read than I do, but my hunch is psych licensing boards are not crazy about setting that kind of example. Especially, again, where there are no resultant “victims” that reasonably could have been identified and warned. Even with all the disclosures, I do not recall seeing any hint that a professional foresaw Ivins causing anthrax mischief and death to the specific or general victims. The older allegations as to the women and colleagues is maybe a closer call, but there was never actionable harm to them.
I am only speaking of this (emphasis added):
The revelation of a plan is an automatic trigger for a Tarasoff warning. I know. I have explained this to many 100s of patients as part an informed consent discussion at the beginning of psychotherapy as regards the limitations of confidentiality.
It appears the final threat had finally brought about a Tarasoff and Ivins was involuntarily hospitalized. But this doesn’t explain the earlier specific threats made and the failure of any action taken by those mental health professionals… assuming this actually happened as reported, a big assumption, imo.
I don’t buy the psychological vilification of Ivins, though thanks to the fact that the government’s “evidence” has been kept classified, we won’t know. And, of course, Ivins is not alive to defend himself. I only mention the Tarasoff material because it sticks out to me, a mental health professional. I agree that anthrax victims lack a specific known threat, and their cause of action would be quite tangential, and probably not a legal possibility. However, some strange things have happened in court in relation to Tarasoff warnings, and therapists out there reading this material should not get the idea that they don’t have to beware Tarasoff violations.
Yep, I pretty much agree with all that.
empiricalguy @ 29: “Psycho-history” appears to me to have the same objective as the “Twinkie Defense.”
The government hires shrinks, not to present reasoned professional opinions, but to give the appearance of legitimacy to efforts to silence the truth. The news media seemingly never catch on and thus, from Oppenheimer to Bradley Manning, allegations about mental health and loyalty have been shockingly effective.
Dr. Donald Soeken, formerly of the U.S. Public Health service, was one of the few to refuse to dutifully confirm diagnoses presented by managers eager for a reason to fire their employees, and typically, he realized, the employees were whistleblowers. Almost none of those sent to him for mental exams had any evidence of a serious problem. After Soeken exposed the farce to Congress, a law was passed making it illegal to force mental exams on government employees. But, that protection doesn’t apply to employees with security clearances. Unsurprisingly, agencies readily exploit that loophole and even the few restrictions that apply, such as privacy of medical files, are blatantly violated. Soeken’s website, the Whistleblower Support Center and Archive, makes available thousands of articles, reports and videos about whistleblowers, including those who have been subjected to psychiatric abuses, a much more common problem than the public realizes.
Maybe in some instances that is quite correct. I do not know that such is the case with Manning however; to date, the reports, if accurate, seem to indicate that the psychiatric and psychological experts that have evaluated Manning while in custody have given fairly measured and professional evaluations and opinions. They just were not followed until the transfer to Leavenworth.
With respect to Manning, I was referring to mental health allegations made public by the government as justification for subjecting him to abuses at the prison in Virginia. Those statements, claiming Manning was highly suicidal and therefore required extreme treatment (a form of mental torture), were contradicted by the evaluation done at Leavenworth, where Manning may have found another Don Soeken. While the earlier abuses backfired somewhat, spurring progressive to action, the government succeeded in creating a negative aura around Manning (and all whistleblowers and people with depression). In fact, in one case after another, the government have taken actions that expectedly would create or exacerbate emotional distress in whistleblowers and then wrongly conflated alleged depression with untrustworthiness, paranoia and violence, clearly for the purpose of undermining the whistleblowers’ credibility. Mainstream media, for the most part, have contented themselves with dictation.
Philip Zack?
FDL Book Salon should put Willman on the schedule.
That would be a fun chat, wouldn’t it?
Heh, yes indeed it would.
Sam Zell has gutted the staff at the LA Times to the point that they may need to stoop to recycling, or even outright plagiarism.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/13/ap/business/main20053747.shtml
As much fun as it is to decry the (left / right / choose one) bias of big media, simple economic considerations can explain a lot.
Investigative journalism is costly. Recycling gossip is not.
On radio or TV, talk shows and reality shows are about as cheap as you can get.
Which reminds me– what happened to the Marcy Wheeler fund drive thermometer thingy that used to be top right?
Investigative journalism? We got it, right here.
Bob in AZ
Recent targets: Spitzer, Assange, Manning, Ivins. Interesting.
Update:
Interview: Bradley Manning’s father no fan of his son
LINK.