Fox News - FBI used aggressive tactics in anthrax

[mathqueen]

You are over-reacting. I am not proffering any "conspiracy theories", I'm merely QUESTIONING the official story. People who accept preposterous things that they're told remind me of a child sitting in the corner with his hands over his ears chanting to himself "I'm a good citizen of the new world, I will never ask questions". The thing about this particular episode is that there are so many obvious holes in the way of belief of what the public is being told happened and it is far harder to accept things as being what the way the FBI claimed, than to see what is wrong with it.

Doesn't it make you wonder why there was no autopsy in this case? Apparently there was not even an examination of the body to ascertain whether or not there were bruises, sign of force etc.

It is not necessary to hold an autopsy to claim that someone ingested drugs. All you have to do, and all that was done in this case, was to take a blood sample from the corpse and analyse it for the presence of tylenol.

Now if you are going to hang all your evidence on the court document that was written by a woman of questionable knowledge, consider how much weight you can really put on a court document where she described herself as a "theripist". Have a look at this:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years...81anthrax2.html

Now as for "the FBI don't have to come up with a perpetrator" Well, yes they do if they want to close the case and stem any future public scrutiny

[MorningGlory]

Hmmm....you sure are having a 'tin foil hat' moment, bts, if you believe any of that. If there was no autopsy....how do they know what killed the man? Since when did the FBI ever care about being made to look silly? They've done that to themselves many times before. What would be their motive in killing Dr. Ivens? They were going to charge him with a death penalty offense anyway! And you're right, it was a therapist (not a psychiatrist) that testified about him but she DID ask for a restraining order because he threatened her and his therapy group. He was evaluated by a psychiatrist however at some point in the last few months. That's public record. You just have to think about it rationally; the FBI didn't have to come up with a perpetrator. Why would they?

You are over-reacting. I am not proffering any "conspiracy theories", I'm merely QUESTIONING the official story. People who accept preposterous things that they're told remind me of a child sitting in the corner with his hands over his ears chanting to himself "I'm a good citizen of the new world, I will never ask questions". The thing about this particular episode is that there are so many obvious holes in the way of belief of what the public is being told happened and it is far harder to accept things as being what the way the FBI claimed, than to see what is wrong with it.

Doesn't it make you wonder why there was no autopsy in this case? Apparently there was not even an examination of the body to ascertain whether or not there were bruises, sign of force etc.

It is not necessary to hold an autopsy to claim that someone ingested drugs. All you have to do, and all that was done in this case, was to take a blood sample from the corpse and analyse it for the presence of tylenol.

Now if you are going to hang all your evidence on the court document that was written by a woman of questionable knowledge, consider how much weight you can really put on a court document where she described herself as a "theripist". Have a look at this:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years...81anthrax2.html

Now as for "the FBI don't have to come up with a perpetrator" Well, yes they do if they want to close the case and stem any future public scrutiny.

Over reacting? It was not I who said yours was a conspiracy theory. I'm a little amazed that you have a nefarious government plot as the explanation for everything however. Has it not occurred to you that this man really was the one who sent the anthrax? It would seem to me, if the government wanted to close this quickly and were being subversive about it, they would simply have tied the anthrax mailings to the 19 hijackers who perpetrated the attacks on 9/11. That would have made SO much more sense than this Dr. Ivens, saved millions of dollars, and ended the case seven years ago. This as opposed to revealing that the FBI had been duped into using the perpetrator as part of the investigating team and spent seven years bumbling about .