Comments on: Release Ivins’ Lie Detector Test

By: Gerald

Gerald — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 15:34:20 +0000

Again, I bring up the factor of Dr Ivins mental problems.

The lie detector test could have just been inconclusive, and indeed the authorities might have determined that it was useless to have apply it again to this individual who was as someone say “a basket case.”

You can’t apply all the rules of logic to crazy people.

It is like saying “it is too risky to be a suicide bomber.”

By: bmaz

bmaz — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 02:13:37 +0000

Good conversation is never a waste of time.

By: R.H. Green

R.H. Green — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 00:06:02 +0000

In reviewing a third atttempt on this issue, I noticed that I had made an error in confusing data from the WSJ article and EW’s timeline. She has investigators “working with Ft Detrick scientits to identify anthrax” almost immediately after the attacks. The WSJ reported that Ivins took only one test as part of the vetting process, but it places this testing at Dec. 01. I suppose I was assumming the Ivins was in that Oct working group; perhaps not. If not, then this conversation has been a waste of time.

By: bmaz

bmaz — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 23:56:56 +0000

Someone somewhere pointed out that the metallic taste is also indigenous to one of the anti-psychotic or whatever meds he was supposedly prescribed. FWIW.

By: wavpeac

wavpeac — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 23:30:41 +0000

It’s possible that it could have gone that way. But doesn’t seem very common. Kaczinski might be an example of that. But again, his history of mental illness went WAY back. It was obvious. It’s not like he just got sick one day out of the blue. There were signs in college that he was not well. He was very antisocial. I just don’t hear anything that corroborates that in Ivins.

And I really do wonder about the possibility of LSD being used. It seems really strange that he would report the metallic taste. I have lots of clients on psych meds, and never have had any of them complain of anything like that. Usually if they have a strange taste it is mild, and it goes away. Not coming and going. That seems very strange to me if it’s true that he was reporting such a thing.

By: Hmmm

Hmmm — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 22:34:35 +0000

(also to ew @ 15 & wavpeac @ 22)

I see what you mean about inconsistency. But, without wishing to impugn Ivins, it seems like it would all be consistent if ivins started out in life psychopathic or sociopathic (allowing him to pass the early polygraphs), but later became astable due to some combination of stress, alcochol, the anthrax vaccine, and/or the psychoactives his mental health care providers gave him.

Though really, I suppose all of that is neither here nor there as to proving he did the deeds. We really are grasping at awfully unlikely straws in an overabundance of generosity in our attempt to make the FBI “case” — such as it may be — make any sense at all. And it’s not really working, is it? Is my takeaway.

P.S. to ew. wrt the h/t: de nada.

By: bmaz

bmaz — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 22:23:09 +0000

It is my understanding that the screening for participation in the investigation was precisely for the purpose of insuring that they did not have the perpetrator involved in the investigation as they were aware that the person they were looking for may be a scientist with expertise in the field. In that regard, I think it a pretty sound assumption that sufficient relevant questions were asked, and it is crystal clear that Ivins produced clean charts on his polygraph. In the first place, if that was not the case, they would not have cleared him for participation; secondly, they would be shoving them down the throat of the public as proof of their case that Ivins is the lone gunman.

By: R.H. Green

R.H. Green — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 22:14:49 +0000

I think you missed my point. I take your point about confrontation, and I’m not addressing whether the polygraph report is favorable th Ivins, or not (at least,not directly). I simply gathered that Ivins was not interviewed under polygraph about the mailings as others later were. This (correction) WSJ article describes Ivins being interviewed to be vetted to participate in the investigation, (in handling evidence?). Others were interviewed (I surmise) more extensively, concerning the mailings, and at a later date. We don’t know that such things, as his whereabouts on the relevant dates, weren’t also covered with Ivins, but we don’t know that they were.

By: bmaz

bmaz — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 21:45:22 +0000

That is something we should have straight for the timeline; however, I don’t think it would affect, without a lot more, the idea that the poly is favorable to Ivins. Irrespective of the purpose of a polygraph, it should never be made any more confrontational than is has to be; the more confrontational the session is, the less validity the results possess. As long as they asked sufficient relevant questions about involvement in and knowledge of the mailings/attacks, this timing vagary should not be significant to the result.

By: R.H. Green

R.H. Green — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 21:08:47 +0000

I,ve noticed a bit of a snag in the thinking about the timeline and the polygraph. EW reports that Ivins was given the test “that winter”, but her timeline indicates that the Detrick personnel were brought into the case sometime in Oct. of 01. Still quoting from the WaPo article we learn that some in the lab were undergoing 3 1/2 hr polygraph interviews as part of the CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. Yet Ivins did not, as he had already “passed” his polygraph during the VETTING interviews that presumably were set up to provide clearance for selected scientists to handle the evidence in the investigation. In short, Ivins was not interviewed in the same way (confrontationally?) as others later were, not for the same purpose.
(I hope the use of CAPS doen’t reek of hysteria or remind anyone of Jody.)