Dead Anthrax Scientist Linked to Princeton Sorority
Anyone familiar with Bruce Ivins, the U.S. Army biodefense researcher responsible for sending the anthrax-infected letters of 2001 that killed five people and infected 17 others? In an after-the-fact aside to the F.B.I.’s seven-year investigation, which ended prematurely with Ivins’ suicide last week, multiple unnamed sources told The Associated Press that our favorite Unabomber wannabe “was obsessed with Kappa Kappa Gamma, going back as far as his own college days at the University of Cincinnati when he apparently was rebuffed by a woman in the sorority.”
This might explain why four of the infected letters were sent from a mailbox close to the Princeton chapter. But whether there’s a deeper meaning to this we’ll never know, since Kappa Kappa Gamma members aren’t talking, and because Ivins allegedly peaced out with the help of a bunch of Tylenols with Codeine.
I guess this gives Princeton the dubious honor, along with Harvard, of being somewhat tenuously associated with postal-using psychopaths. If you hear of any others make sure to contact us at tips@ivygateblog.com. Oh, and the F.B.I.
CORRECTION: Ivins died before the Justice Department could formally press capital murder charges.
6 Comments | 
| 
Print This Post
Read more: anthrax, kappa kappa gamma, Princeton
Email – 
Search
About
Follow us on Twitter
Report a bug
Archives
RSS Feed
August 5th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Like most of Princeton’s Greek organizations, Kappa doesn’t have a chapter. According to the story in the New York Post, it was an office that they have on Nassau Street. Assuming that is correct, what the hell does a sorority need an office for?
August 5th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
The guy’s dead, yes, but this post strikes me as potentially libelous.
August 5th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
@dopeyman
Agreed in concept. But death, I believe, is a total defense to a defamation suit, i.e. an injured dead person’s Estate/family may continue a suit already instituted before death, but may not bring such a suit after death. So I think our editors are free to take whatever shots they want at the dead…
August 5th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
there’s nothing really libelous about this. the standard of libel is much higher. plus, yea, he’d have to be not dead. that’s why everyone always comes out with the post mortem, ‘the life of princess diana and who she’s fucked’ type books.
August 5th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Ummm, I am pretty sure publishing that someone is a murderer when they have not been convicted of a crime (nor even charged, in this case), meets the libel standard for a private person, as it is pretty damaging to their reputation. In most states the standard is negligence.
The standard is much higher for public figures like celebs and politicians.
August 5th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Well, he’s dead, so it doesn’t matter, but the tone of the post could possibly protect from a libel suit, according to the Reporter’s Committee for Freedom of the Press: http://www.rcfp.org/news/mag/28-4/lib-avoiding.html.