Thursday, August 07, 2008


The police seem to investigate with blinders on. We often see cases where an innocent man is finally released for a crime he didn't commit, with an obvious suspect living down the street who the police didn't even look at. Part of the problem is psychological: police become invested in 'their perp', and are unable to see anyone else as even a possibility.

There is also a serious tactical reason for police blinders. Paying too much attention to too many possible suspects raises the distinct possibility that a defense lawyer will raise the issue. After all, if the police themselves weren't convinced that the defendant committed the crime, a fact finder should be able to draw reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt. While quiet sub rosa investigations are possible, any obvious investigation of an alternative suspect is discouraged.

Of course, the FBI had its perp in Hatfill. The parallel investigation of Ivins was not only no secret, it appears to have been known by almost everybody who knew Ivins. In fact, the publicity of the investigation was part of the harassment of Ivins. Each of Hatfill and Ivins could have used the investigation of the other as part of a very good defense. This makes no sense from the point of view of obtaining a conviction, if that was in fact the FBI's intent.

Of course, the FBI wasn't trying to obtain a conviction. The released evidence against Ivins, advertised as conclusive, would never have resulted in a conviction (lots of problems listed here; e.g., why would an expert on anthrax strains not notice that the strain he used might be traced back to him?; see the whole site), and the evidence against Hatfill was so weak it was a joke. The entire point of the investigation, including the parallel public investigations of Hatfill and Ivins which looked more like persecutions than prosecutions, was to so muddy the waters that any investigation would prove to be impossible. The FBI wasn't trying to investigate the anthrax attacks, it was trying to cover them up.

Why? As posted here before, the attacks were directed at Democrats who were having doubts about the Patriot Act, just when the Patriot Act was being debated (it worked so well they tried it again). Immediately after the attacks, the rare spine of the Democrats disappeared, and the Act passed, thus formalizing Bibi Netanyahu's Islamophobic 'war on terror' into the American legal system. It has also been noted that other subjects of the attacks may well have been those media people who particularly angered Bush/Cheney at the time (with the broadening of the attack intended to make the directed attack on Democratic legislators less obvious). Of course, as part of the same neocon package, the attacks were later used as part of the lie campaign to convince Americans it was necessary for the United States to make its disastrous attack on Iraq.

Employees of an American government agency, under orders from on high, waged a lethal terrorist bio-warfare attack on American citizens with the intent of scaring law-makers into passing a fascistic anti-Constitutional series of laws against the liberty of the American people, eventually lied about their own attack to trick Americans into a multi-trillion dollar debacle of a war, and the whole thing is covered up by the main American federal police unit. It is not a pretty picture.

It gets worse (and perhaps a bit better). After harassing Ivins almost to the point of insanity, they force him into a mental institution, manipulate someone they have a hold on into branding him as a psychopathic killer (and spread even more bizarre stories), and then, either 'suicide' him or harass him to the point where suicide was his only option. One psycho perp, conveniently dead, case closed. Americans who went along with the Patriot Act as it would only cover the swarthy should reflect on what has been done to a white, middle-class American, a loyal government employee for decades, decorated for his exceptional service to the safety of the American people, whose only crime was to be in a position to be used as a patsy to protect the guilty.

The only good in this comes out of the internet. For years, Americans have been fed Official Stories by the disgusting American media. The Stories are always presented as facts, with no possible alternative. You might feel uneasy about these Stories, but you were always alone. The only chance you had to complain was in letters to the editor, which of course would never be published unless they reflected the Official Story. The internet allowed a community of individuals to immediately call shenanigans on the FBI's increasingly addled lies. While the FBI has achieved its desired cover-up, its reputation has been irrevocably damaged, as has the ability of the disgusting American media to peddle obvious crock-of-shit Official Stories as news.