Jean Duley gave Anderson Cooper the scoop (watch the video!) on Bruce Ivins.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but a few facts are in order. Ms Duley was well known to the Maryland police. Her past charges included possessing narcotics paraphernalia, battery, and many DUIs, including a guilty plea 3 months before Ivins' death. She was under house arrest for 3 months when she began colluding with the FBI.
Whether the FBI used the carrot or the stick to elicit a litany of Ivins' alleged confessed crimes from the mouth of Duley, and to variously put her in front of the TV cameras or hide her from the press, the fact remains she has been the only person to publicly allege that Ivins previously attempted murder and planned other crimes. None of Ivins' psychiatrists or past therapists, nor any of Duley's supervising mental health professionals, have supported any of Duley's allegations. Had Ivins confessed to carrying out or planning such crimes, the law would have required Duley's supervising physician to call in the police much earlier. In fact, Ivins had no police record whatsoever in Maryland.
Remember, Duley had only just received a Bachelors Degree when she was put in the position of counselling Ivins for substance abuse. She has neither the training nor experience to comment to the media on Ivins' psychological pathologies, let alone treat them. She was not qualified to do anything more than substance abuse work, and as someone who had fallen off the wagon, was not even qualified for that.
However, her long prior experience as a member of a biker gang and multisubstance abuser since age 10 may have given her information about control and bondage, etc.
Ms. Duley is as pathetic a figure as Bruce Ivins. Her short career is over. She is a marionette in a theatrical piece, who will fade into obscurity now that she's helped "clinch" the FBI's case.
Has Ms. Duley learned how to spell "therapist" yet?
ReplyDeletePerhaps someone should give Anderson Cooper the real scoop...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?10
She has claimed in the past that her "patients" were the most important thing in her life. But she didn't utter a single compassionate word about Dr. Ivins. I didn't see even a momentary look of compassion in her face or eyes; I didn't hear any compassion in her voice.
ReplyDeleteI feel sorry for Jean Duley. What kind of a life does she have feeling no compassion for other people?
And I feel sorrow and a deep hollowness at her betrayal of Bruce Ivins, and the pain he endured.
It is interesting that on 29 June 2008 there was an article in the Frederick paper where Jean Duley talked about the various ways people kill themselves. "The legal killers" Two-thirds of county’s accidental drug deaths in 2005-06 related to narcotic painkillers
ReplyDeleteOriginally published June 29, 2008
If Bruce had a subtance abuse problem, then he needed more serious and compassionate help than this woman could provide.
ReplyDeleteToo often people who need real intervention are placed in incompetent hands. A degree, a certicate, or a license does not make one "qualified" in and of itself.
The reason the other therapists have not come forward is because of the seemingly endless ridicule they will face in the press.Ms. Duley does in fact care more for her clients than most therapists. She sought out care for Dr. Ivins but his attorney Kemp would have no part of it because it would hurt his case. There is alot of imformation that the public is not aware of. Why do you consistantly badger Ms. Duley. She might have saved countless innocents. If the therapists that treated the VA.Tech killer performed their job as Ms. did maybe the killings would not have happened.
ReplyDeleteMako, The reasons the other people involved in Dr. Ivin's care have not come forward is because it is unprofessional to discuss protected health information. That Ms. Duley continues to seek the limelight by revealing such protected health information mixed with information provided to her by agents is why she continues to face ridicule and scorn.
ReplyDeletemako -
ReplyDeleteHow many troubled people WON'T go to a therapist because of Ms. Duley's behavior?
I agree with you on one thing:
"There is alot (sic) of imformation (sic) that the public is not aware of."
--> mako
ReplyDeleteDuley filed Court documents swearing under oath that Dr. Ivins had made threatening phone calls to her. The actual phone calls are available on line. It turns out that Dr. Ivins made no threats of any sort in those phone calls.
Duley also said in those sworn documents that Dr. Ivins had been stalking her. Absolutely nothing supports this.
The failure to connect the dots in one case does not justify making up the dots in another.
I'd like to point out that one of the things (psychological things) that's missing from the FBI's portrait of Ivins is: any sort of triggering mechanism. If my math is right, Ivins was around 55 years old at the time of the Amerithrax mailings and the extent of his criminal activities was apparently breaking into a sorority house and swiping a code book.
ReplyDeleteHe worked FOR DECADES in bacteriology, mostly on anthrax, yet there's no record of any abuse prior to the Amerithrax mailings.
Very strange!
Where has Duley been hiding for two years? Where is she going now?
ReplyDeleteThe original "plot" for this crime was a conspiracy theory involving Saddam Hussein. Six unnamed sources from "close to the investigation" claimed there was bentonite in the anthrax, which pointed the finger at Iraq. No bentonite though it was thrown into the mix in justifying the invasion. The fallback theory is a "lone nut".
Anyone old enough to remember JFK's assassination knows the first "conspiracy theory" pointed to Cuba and the Soviet Union but was quickly switched to Oswald as a "lone nut".
Same script, new characters, different enemies.
So, Bob in Pacifica, is that why Mr. Mueller facetiously referred to the fact that there will always be a spore on the grassy knoll?
ReplyDeleteMr. Mueller did not refer to a spore on the grassy knoll in any way facetiously. That was a calculated remark with predictable consequences. I know nothing of the JFK conspiracy theories, but I recognize a smear when I see it. And that was a smear. I am the anon who earlier asked, who is the nutty theorist here, the FBI for its "coded messages" and all the rest, or those who don't buy the FBI's story? I didn't live through the JFK murder investigation, but I am not blind to what is going on here. THIS case is most definitely a smear-frame-coverup, and a clear case of death by harrassment or outright murder. I am for leaving JFK mostly out of this discussion just because it is another subject, not the one at hand. But Mr. Mueller's remark was most definitely a smear.
ReplyDeleteI don't know enough about Mueller to comment. But in 1992 when our current head of the DOD Robert Gates was head of the CIA for the first President Bush he blocked releasing a document from the old House Select Committee on Assassinations, the excuse given being that it would have exposed the CIA's spying techniques.
ReplyDeleteThe report was about a man who looked nothing like Lee Harvey Oswald impersonating him in Mexico City, outside the Soviet Embassy 6 weeks before the assassination. On the same day a LHO was meeting with an anti-Castro figure near Dallas and yet a third LHO was applying for work in various radio stations around Alice, TX.
Why would someone pretend to be LHO six weeks before the assassination? Pretending to contact the Soviet embassy in Mexico?
You don't have to bother counting cartridge shells on the Grassy Knoll. Just count the Oswalds. In fact, you don't even have to count the Oswalds. If there was someone impersonating a nobody lone nut 6 weeks before the assassination then you can't believe anything the government said to you about that murder.
Now, a little logic. One news report by a network said that there were six independent sources near the anthrax investigation that said there were traces of bentonite in the anthrax. That proved to be false. Since the anthrax was being examined in Fort Detrick, wouldn't it be interesting to find out who in Ft. Detrick was steering the public away from whomever was guilty?
The logical conclusion is that people lying to steer an investigation away from the true culprits would be accessories to the crime. Was one of the sources Ivins, or any of the other suspects? Gee, the FBI seems incurious on the topic.
Prof. Peter Dale Scott used the term "negative template" when examining government investigations. That is, since the name "CIA" never appears in the Warren Report, maybe that would be a good place to start looking. And if Mueller and the FBI don't want to know who was saying "bentonite" maybe that's the first place to look to find who was behind the anthrax attacks.
hmm, one has to wonder if the timing of this has to do with the very late NAS report ?
ReplyDeleteIt is obvious duley was not qualified to be counselling anyone about addiction when she herself is an abuser. I'm sure this pitiful girl liked having her name in the paper. At least I hope she has no more people to hurt.
ReplyDelete