Not enough evidence to press charges, but still able to press their case after the suspect's death

[bigtree]

It's just amazing to watch the gall of the Justice Dept. as they work to convict a dead man who they couldn't even bring charges against when he was alive. These people have no respect for the law. They call this a 'circumstantial' case. It's a botched investigation that they don't deserve to stack up now against Dr. Ivins since the dead man won't have a chance to rebut them in court, or anywhere else. I hope the family slams them.

Justice Dept. anthrax investigation "briefing" on now . . .

[CrazyDude]

1. Damned if they do, damned if they don't n/t

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. Only damned if it's bullshit.

[bigtree]

4. How about solving the case before they put the dead man on public trial?

. . . especially since they never even indicted him.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. Err, how would that work?

Especially if Ivins really was the culprit?

[bigtree]

9. I guess the family will have to initiate some sort of civil case

. . . to clear his name (if he's innocent) from whatever the Justice Dept. feels free to sling around, now that he's not around to rebut the charges.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. No, I mean how's the FBI supposed to continue the case...

if the guy who did it is dead?

[bigtree]

12. that's my thought

I can see forming some sort of committee to further investigate it, but to lay it out like they have seems to elicit one conclusion, that Ivins must be guilty of all of the circumstantial evidence they've stacked up. I think what they're doing right now is too much like a prosecution, and, not a very legitimate means to determine the truth.

[CrazyDude]

14. The brother here, rightly or wrongly, believes he's guilty

I'll concede he sounded bitter, but I don't think those around him are as supportive of him as those around Hatfill were.

[babylonsister]

3. imo, it seems like they're trying a bit too hard. We've all become

such cynics, and with good reason.

[bigtree]

7. It's just too convenient for them to claim that they were about to move on the indictment

. . . and as the spokesman just said, that he knew they were about to move against him. I'd like to see the proof of all of that.

[ROakes1019]

10. suspicious

I, too, find myself doubting anything these guys say. The Justice Department, and the whole Bush Administration, has lost all credibility. What I've always wondered is why only two Democratic senators and NBC were targeted? As a matter of fact, what was Ivins' motive, if he was the culprit? I've lost all confidence in this government and will be so glad to see them gone . . . IF we can keep them out of the White House again.

[jtrockville]

5. Would it be atypical for Ivins' lawyer to give a presser?

I'd really like to hear what he has to say.

[bigtree]

8. I'm sure he will

"circumstantial evidence"

"no direct evidence"

[defendandprotect]

13. It's easy to attack and smear a dead man --- there's be no word from him . . .

but everything surrounding this case --- from the first is BS ---

The stuff that was in the Daschle envelope was very sophisticated --- only 4-5 people

in US know how to weaponize anthrax and this was sophisticated beyond that! ---

Ivins had no experience with weaponizing anthrax ---

FURTHER, Ivins was involved in heading up the investigations for government into all

the samples of the letters --- !!