TrebleRebel just posted a really interesting link on the other thread to a blog with some info about Duley. She sounds to me like somebody who’s very subject to blackmail and pressure.
It has also been reported that the “C” stands for “Carol”.
After agreeing to the terms, fill in Jean Carol Duley for the name and search all records. You will find 7 cases for driving under the influence. The year of birth is correct for a 45 year old woman.
If this is indeed the same Jean C. Duley who set up Bruce Ivins, it goes a long way to explaining just why her specialty is counseling addicts, and why she might need a few favors from higher up to keep her driver's license! After all, Maryland has a “three strikes” law for drunk driving.
She was not a ‘therapist’. She was a social worker.
If Irvins was thinking about killing her why is she in hiding?
Monday Aug. 4, 2008 06:32 EDT
Additional key facts re: the anthrax investigation Its perfectly possible that Bruce Ivins really is the anthrax attacker that he perpetrated the attacks and did so alone. Perhaps the FBI is in possession of mountains of conclusive evidence that, once revealed, will leave no doubt that Ivins is the guilty party. But no rational person could possibly assume that to be the case given the paltry amount of facts many of which contradict one another that are now known. Several points to note: (1) [I omit here liberal micro obsession with bentonite and one story from ABC in 2001. The Salon guy should move on.]
(2) So much of the public reporting about Ivins has been devoted to depicting him as a highly unstable psychotic who had been issuing extremely violent threats and who had a violent past. But that depiction has been based almost exclusively on the uncorroborated claims of Jean Carol Duley, a social worker (not a psychiatrist or psychologist) who, as recently as last year, was apparently still in college at Hoods College in Frederick, Maryland. Duleys scrawled handwritten complaint against Ivins, seeking a Protective Order, has served as the basis for much of the reporting regarding Ivins mental state, yet it is hardly the model of a competent or authoritative professional. Quite the opposite.
Duley herself has a history that, at the very least, raises questions about her credibility. She has a rather lengthy involvement with the courts in Frederick, including two very recent convictions for driving under the influence one from 2007 and one from 2006 as well as a complaint filed against her for battery by her ex-husband. Here is Duleys record from the Maryland Judicial data base:
Just three months ago, Duley pled guilty and was sentenced to probation (and fined $1,000), as a result of having been stopped in December, while driving at 1:35 a.m., and charged with driving under the influence:
On April 21, 2006, Duley was also charged with driving a vehicle while impaired by alcohol, driving while impaired by drugs or alcohol, and reckless driving, and on October 13, 2006, she pled guilty to the charge of reckless driving and was fined $580. Back in 1992, Duley was criminally charged with battery against what appeared to be her now-ex-husband (and she filed a complaint against him as well). Later that same year, she was criminally charged with possession of drug paraphenalia with intent to use, charges which appear to have been ultimately dismissed.
Prior to the restraining order against Ivins which Duley obtained two weeks ago, Ivins had no criminal record at all, at least not in Frederick. A story in todays Frederick News-Post quotes Duleys fiancee as claiming: She had to quit her job and is now unable to work, and we have spent our savings on attorneys. But she doesnt appear to have used an attorney for her complaint against Ivins. If anything, her savings were likely depleted from attorneys fees, court costs, and fines and probation for her various criminal proceedings (Larisa Alexandrovna has more details on Duley).
None of this is to defend Ivins, nor is to suggest that this constitutes evidence that Duley is lying or is otherwise inaccurate in her claims. As I said, its perfectly possible that Ivins is guilty of being the anthrax attacker. I have no opinion on whether he is. The point is that nobody should have any opinion on that question one way or the other until they see the FBIs evidence.
What is certain is that Jean Carol Duley is hardly some upstanding, authoritative source on Bruce Ivins psychological state or his guilt, nor is she some accomplished and highly credible psychological professional, notwithstanding the fact that most media depictions of Ivins are based on uncritical recitations of her accusations. The fact that her depiction contradicts not only the claims of virtually everyone else who knew Ivins but also numerous facts about how Ivins was treated even by the FBI (see below), suggests that a large amount of skepticism is warranted.
(3) The initial report from The Los Angeles Times David Willman said that Ivins committed suicide just as the Justice Department was about to file criminal charges against him for the attacks. But an article from The New York Times Scott Shane this morning reported that the evidence against Ivins was largely circumstantial and that the grand jury in Washington was planning to hear several more weeks of testimony before issuing an indictment.
According to The Washington Post, Ivins enjoyed full-scale clearance at Fort Detrick as late as July 10 hardly what one would expect if the FBI were so certain that he was the anthrax attacker. And judging from an article in todays local Frederick newspaper, The Frederick-News Post Online, the FBI is still searching for evidence against Ivins, as they removed two computers from a public library there.
Members of Congress with some personal stake in this case and who have been attempting to assert some oversight on the FBIs investigation over the last six years Tom Daschle, Pat Leahy, Rush Holt have been uniformly critical of how it has been handled. Numerous experts continue to raise serious doubts about whether Ivins even had the ability to access and handle anthrax of the type that was sent to Daschle and Leahy. Maybe the FBIs evidence demonstrates that he could and did. Maybe it doesnt. But under all circumstances, its inconceivable that anyone would be content with having the FBI simply keep its alleged evidence to itself and not have a full public airing and accounting of what has happened here, an accounting that should include the news organizations led by ABC which are in possession of vital information that they continue to conceal.