I viewed this report with an enormous amount of skepticism. Deservedly so, due to the missteps that the FBI has made in this and other cases in the past decade. (Not to mention the politically induced lies that were added to the initial reports from this White House). And certainly, it will now require an open Congressional investigation to root out more facts and reduce the possibilities that this is more hype.

The two mentions in this account that make me feel less skeptical have nothing to do with the depression and suicide of Bruce Ivins, neither of which proves anything about his culpability. But a colleague claimed “He was much more emotionally labile, in terms of sensitivity to things, than most scientists. . . . He was very thin-skinned.” And then there’s this:

The eldest of his two brothers, Thomas Ivins, said he was not surprised by the events that have unfolded.

“He buckled under the pressure from the federal government,” Thomas Ivins said, adding that FBI agents came to Ohio last year to question him about his brother.

“I was questioned by the feds, and I sung like a canary” about Bruce Ivins’ personality and tendencies, Thomas Ivins said.

“He had in his mind that he was omnipotent.”

Ivins’ widow declined to be interviewed when reached Thursday at her home in Frederick. The couple raised twins, now 24.

The family’s home is 198 miles — about a 3 1/2 -hour drive — from a mailbox in Princeton, N.J., where anthrax spores were found by investigators.

All of the recovered anthrax letters were postmarked in that vicinity.

That’s a pretty odd way to phrase things. Saying he ‘buckled under pressure’ initially sounds defensive. But the rest of his brother’s statement sounds like he was highly alarmed by his own brother’s attitudes. In that regard, it reminds me of another brother, that of Ted Kaczynski.

Mull over that a bit: “emotionally labile” suggests swings in temperament, perhaps bi-polar even . “Thin-skinned” and “omnipotent” also show a personality split. Which could mean the scientist was simply mentally ill and committed no crime. But because I’ve seen, up close and personal, what people with bi-polar personalities can do while in their manic state of the bi-polar swing, it does add credence to the allegation, for me.

One characteristic I’ve seen in some bi-polar people is a heightened sense of paranoia towards enemies. In some cases, the bi-polar sufferer sees a real opponent as more personally oppressive than they really are. In others, they imagine a non-enemy to be their foe.

And recall that the anthrax mailings didn’t target terrorists, didn’t target lawmakers but specifically targeted Democrats. That’s not unlike the Unabomber or, just last week, the murderous acts of Jim Adkisson in Knoxville, Tennessee.

Is it possible Ivins believed Democratic Senators would not take terror threats seriously after 9-11 and sent the anthrax letters to persuade them to be more fearful? A Congressional investigation might yield such a conclusion.

And if it does, what do we make of such information? For starters, there’s this:

a) The political gamesmanship that promotes the idea that Democrats are soft on defense can have unintended ramifications when those claims get lodged in the minds of the mentally ill.

b) However, because our society protects free speech, there’s no way to limit such gamesmanship except to tug at the conscience of operatives and biased pundits, in the hope that they might still have consciences.

c) Where security can be enhanced is within weapons research and production facilities. That might mean the immediate removal of such folks from their access to dangerous materials upon any indication of mental and emotional trauma or illness. While some might see that as an infringement on the rights of the individuals or their economic well-being, that impact would be lessened if they were simply transferred to perform other duties at the same rate of pay, that would keep their hands off potentially dangerous agents or weaponry.

There can be no perfect solution that provides guarantees. But if the conclusion of the investigation suggests Ivins was the culprit and no added precautions result, that would be a dereliction of duty. That would mean some lawmakers are loathe to advance the national security from acts of domestic terrorism, even if those acts are rooted in mental illness.

I’ve yet to see any evidence that such footdragging is a partisan trait. But in the wake of the anthrax killings, which magnified the trauma of the 9-11 attacks and may have helped provoke acceptance of over-the-top defense initiatives, our Congress must be keenly aware that it’s not enough to investigate and shrug this one off without additional safeguards. That might mean ending bioweapons research or limiting it only to the creation of vaccines.

But it better result in some changes. Because the system, as it existed, failed us.