CASE CLOSED … what really happened in the 2001 anthrax attacks?

* Amerithrax depositions from the Hatfill case … courtesy of DXer

Posted by DXer on January 30, 2010

CASE CLOSED is a novel which answers the question … Why did the FBI fail to solve the 2001 anthrax case?

Here’s what readers say about CASE CLOSED …

“CASE CLOSED reads fast and well.”

“It could have happened just the way the author said.”

“Full of intrigue mixed in with almost current events.”

“The real people are just behind the fictional ones.”

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *


Amerithrax depositions … courtesy of DXer


Amerithrax depositions … Vol 1

testimony of Dwight Adams, John Ashcroft, Timothy Beres, Gary Boyd (SAIC), Tom Carey

Amerithrax depositions … Vol 2

testimony of Edward Cogswell, Barbara Comstock, Mark Corallo, Deborah Daniels, Darrell Darnell, Arthur Eberhart, James Fitzgerald

Amerithrax depositions … Vol 3

testimony of Bradley Garrett, Stephen Guillot, Van Harp, Steven Hatfill

Amerithrax depositions … Vol 4

testimony of Tracy Henke, Roscoe Howard, Michael Isikoff, Daniel Klaidman, Kenneth Kohl

Amerithrax depositions … Vol 5

testimony of Michael Kortan, Nicholas Kristof, Richard Lambert, Allan Lengel

Amerithrax depositions … Vol 6

testimony of Tony Loci, Robert Mueller, Peter Mueller, Virginia Patrick, Channing Phillips, James Reynolds

Amerithrax depositions … Vol 7

testimony of Brian Ross, Robert Roth, Daniel Seikaly

Amerithrax depositions … Vol 8

testimony of Bryan Sierra, James Stewart, Rex Stockham, Vic Walter, Debra Weierman

Amerithrax depositions … Vol 9

newspaper articles

Amerithrax depositions … Vol 10

discovery responses

Amerithrax depositions … Vol 11

miscellaneous exhibits, including but not limited to internal FBI documents

Amerithrax depositions … Vol 12

miscellaneous materials


FBI announces - August 8, 2008 - that Dr. Bruce Ivins is the sole perpetrator and the case will soon be closed


This case, a lawsuit brought by Steven Hatfill to protest the FBI’s designation of him as a “person of interest” in the investigation of the 2001 anthrax attack, resulted in a $5.8 million settlement paid by the government.

A short while later, after Dr. Bruce Ivins had allegedly committed suicide and could no longer defend himself, the FBI announced that Dr. Ivins (and not Hatfill) was the sole perpetrator of the 2001 anthrax attacks.

Some of us find the FBI’s case against Dr. Ivins to be weak and unsubstantiated; eighteen months after announcing that the Amerithrax case would soon be closed, the case is apparently still open.


34 Responses to “* Amerithrax depositions from the Hatfill case … courtesy of DXer”

  1. Terry said

    Hi DXer and Lew, I noticed that many pages in the deposition PDF files are missing. Do you know what that would be, and is there a way one might be able to get the full depositions, particularly of Steven Hatfill and John Ashcroft? Thank you.

  2. DXer said

    Samples from Building 1412, including from Room 212 in Building 1412 and the cold room had 3 morphs. Remind me: how did the FBI eventually exclude Dr. Hatfill? I personally don’t favor a Hatfill Theory but with Building 1412 being a “black hole” for virulent Ames (to borrow Ivins’ phrase in a 302), I am unclear how one excludes someone who reported to work every day at Building 1412.

  3. DXer said

    “Steven Hatfill’s Strange Trip From Accused Terrorist to Medical Adventurer.” Newsweek, June 18, 2014

    I still aim to upload the full copies of the civil depositions in the Hatfill matter but when the nice weather comes to these parts, it often is slow motoring. In the meantime, we have the benefit of the lengthy deposition excerpts.

    I likely will ask that the full depositions be substituted for what is presently uploaded to the USAMRIID Electronic Reading Room. (The reading room links the deposition excerpts uploaded to this blog).

    Anthrax, Al Qaeda and Ayman Zawahiri: The Infiltration of US Biodefense

    Ernie the Mute Swan

  4. DXer said

    With so many eminent scientists still not persuaded that the DOJ has yet released any probative evidence against Dr. Bruce Ivins, I am hoping that journalists and others, will submit fruitful and well-crafted FOIA requests to a variety of state and federal agencies. It matters a great deal what you ask, how you ask, and who you ask, but the actual process is very easy. And I recommend that we then pool the results.

    Responses to one FOIA request then often can lead to more targeted (and thus more fruitful) follow-up requests. For example, I expect to upload shortly the full civil depositions of the numerous Hatfill v. US depositions — the excerpts above previously were all that was available to me.

    The first 100 pages are free and in the case of the USARMIID requests have been waived. Many agencies now permit emailed requests. There is a form generator online provided by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Unwarranted objections or redactions can be appealed. Suit can be filed to enforce compliance. Observers do not agree on our theories of the case — but I think we all love documentary evidence. A requester may be charged document duplication costs only (above 100 pages) — and not search costs — “when records are not sought for commercial use and the request is made by an educational or noncommercial scientific institution, whose purpose is scholarly or scientific research; or a representative of the news media.”

    FOIA requesters falling into one or more of these three subcategories of requesters under the 1986 FOIA amendments enjoy a “exemption” from the assessment of search and review fees. Their requests, like those made by any FOIA requester, still must “reasonably describe” the records sought in order to not impose upon an agency “an unreasonably burdensome search.” According to the US DOJ, [“t]his fee category, though, includes freelance journalists, when they can demonstrate a solid basis for expecting the information disclosed to be published by a news organization”)

    Although merely a blogger and not a freelance journalist, my experience is that no charge is levied given that most agencies recognize the public policy favoring transparency in the analysis of the Amerithrax investigation. (With respect to FBI, however, I try to make my requests very narrow to avoid fees; the overworked David Hardy and his 60 staff members do not have the same turnaround or generous spirit of DOJ Civil).


    “In 1861, Lord Acton wrote that ‘every thing secret degenerates, even the administration of justice.’ ‘” — United States District Court Judge Mark Wolf, in “The Rise and Fall of the Bulger Empire” in United States v. Salemme et al., criminal docket 94-10287 (dated September 19, 1999)

  5. DXer said

    Dr. Bruce Ivins identified a third party (in addition to Dugway and Battelle), with a very short name, that “has made anthrax spore powder” Was it SRI? I have promised DOJ Civil that I will upload the lengthy missing excerpts from the uploaded depositions above — in an effort so as to get people on the “same page.” I have been having the depositions uploaded at USAMRMC Electronic Reading Room and then having them linked elsewhere.

    My Congressman lives 2 blocks from me down the creek. Each year I save his new house from being flooded due to a blockage at the grate in front of his house from flotsam coming from upstream. Sandra at USAMRMC says he has a Congressional request in to USMRMC regarding research at USAMRIID. The “suspense date” is May 15.

    But the request involves a different matter in which five people have died. Rep. Dan Maffei is looking for a policy report on the EEE virus and whether a vaccine could be commercially available. I spend my weekends clearing an island with some water issues on nearby properties and so I for one appreciate his efforts.

    Given that I believe he is still on an intelligence committee, wouldn’t it be cool if these Congressmen like Maffei and Holt realized that FOIA can be a powerful tool where you have people as efficient, scrupulous and public interest-minded as at DOJ Civil and USAMRIID. I once gave Rep. Maffei’s wife the graphics done by the federal undercover. And Maffei has more degrees than a thermometer.

    DOJ Criminal may be a black hole because of the CYA instincts that kicked in upon Dr. Ivins’ suicide. DOJ Civil and USAMRMC FOIA, however, have shown that our public transparency laws can work as intended. Whether DOJ Criminal cooperates or not — at the end of the day there are no secrets and there are workarounds to FBI FOIA’s Dave Hardy’s assistance. For example, GAO could just interview the relevant people and then under its procedural rules could upload the interviews.

    Perhaps DOJ Criminal FOIA simply needs additional funding — given they get so many requests. Dave Hardy supervises 60 people, I believe.

    From: To: Subject: Date:
    Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
    RE: Anthrax Litigation Tuesday, January 10, 2006 4:10:23 PM
    (b) (6)
    (b) (6)
    Thank you for the information. Here are my comments:
    Exhibit B, part 6. “The ability of to access anthrax spores, at Ft. Detrick and/or other facilities.” Anthrax spores are/were present in and in They are/were also at Battelle Memorial Institute (West Jefferson, OH), Dugway Proving Ground (UT), Louisiana State University (Baton Rouge, LA), and several other laboratories. I don’t know if anthrax spores were taken into the virology suites, and I’m not sure what DSD has/had.
    Exhibit B, part 7. “Any involvement by USAMRIID in the Amerithrax investigation.” should be contacted on this. My laboratory
    performed cfu/gram determinations on three of the Amerithrax letter samples.
    Exhibit C, part 4. “To the extent…the ability of to access anthrax spores, at the labs at Ft. Detrick or elsewhere. See response to Exhibit B, part 6.
    (b) (6)
    (b) (2)
    (b) (2)
    (b) (6)
    (b) (6)
    (b) (6)
    Exhibit C, part 5. “To the extent… knowledge and expertise concerning aerosolizing biological agents, including, but not limited to, anthrax and its simulants.” You should probably talk to
    on this. He told me that was extraordinarily interested in aerosolization in Youmayalsowishtotalkto)and. (2)
    Exhibit C, part 7. “All documents produced to or received from any law enforcement officer or agency investigating anthrax and/or anthrax mailings.” Lots of people here (and who used to be here) have provided DOJ with materials and information related to the investigation. Before USAMRIID starts releasing this, don’t you think you should check with DOJ first?
    Exhibit C, part 8. “…investigative reports, scientific studies and correspondence.” Again, USAMRIID should check with DOJ officials.
    Exhibit C, part 10. I don’t understand this one.
    Exhibit C, part 11. We have documents related to the production of anthrax spores in Leighton and Doi medium. We only made spore suspensions (wet spores). and have made spores, and has made anthrax spore powder. Dugway Proving Ground makes anthrax spores and anthrax spor(e6)powder. Battelle Memorial Institute makes anthrax spores and anthrax spore powder. Shortly before he died (by drinking himself to death) at Battelle told (who used to work in my lab, and now works at DVC on Thomas Johnson Drive in Frederick) that Battelle had made spore powder.
    Bruce Ivins

    Dr. Ivins was responding to this request:

    Subject: FW: Anthrax Litigation Importance: High
    USAMRIID has been subpoenaed for testimony and information as a result of litigation initiated by (b) (b) ( Please review the attached subpoena paying particular attention to the numbered items in (6) (E6x)hibits B&C that pertain to you or your Division. We need your input as to what information you have
    or do) not have available. Also, please let us know if other employees at USAMRIID may have know(ledge of this information.
    6) The Command Group is meeting with (b) (6) from the office of the SJA on Thursday afternoon to discuss what information is available and it subsequent releasability. We would appreciate your initial input (email to me addressing particular numbered items in Exhibits B&C would be fine) before this meeting.
    Any questions please contact me, (b) (6) (b) (6)
    —–Original Message—–
    (b) (5) (b) (5)
    —–Original Message—– From: (b) (6)
    Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 12:53 PM To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6)
    or (b) (6)

  6. DXer said

    Rex Stockham, whose deposition excerpts have been uploaded (with the remainder subject to a pending FOIA request), in 2006 co-pubished on Performance “Evaluation of the Scent Transfer Unit™ (STU-100) for Organic Compound Collection and Release.”

    The scent transfer unit and the anthrax smelling bloodhounds were the scientific underpinning of the FBI’s speculative “Hatfill Theory.”

    It was that “science” that was the subject of lead prosecutor Seikaly’s hyped leaking that derailed the investigation. Prosecutor Seikaly’s deposition has also been uploaded He pled the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination. His daughter then went on to represent “anthrax weapons suspect” Ali Al-Timimi for free. His brother, a businessman in the middle east, publicly lectured that Bin Laden was not responsible for 9/11.

    Some things smell. That’s for sure.

    Anthrax, Al Qaeda and Ayman Zawahiri: The Infiltration of US Biodefense

  7. DXer said

    Vahid Majidi argues that a Hatfill Theory was reasonable.

    Yet a federal district court found that there was not a “scintilla of evidence” supporting a Hatfill Theory.

    The lesson learned is that Dr. Majidi can think of a theory being reasonable — and publicly argue it was reasonable — even after a federal district court found that there was not a scintilla of evidence supporting it.

    To get there Vahid just needs to be totally wrong on basic facts — such as under an Ivins Theory whether there was a two person rule at USAMRIID before January 2002.

    Or whether Dr. Ivins was working on an experiment involving 52 rabbits in the last week of September 2001 and the first week of October 2001. (Ivins was although Vahid seems totally unaware of it ; I have corresponded with Vahid on the issue).

    The documentary evidence — in contrast to his restated conclusory assertions in his new book — show that Dr. Majidi was mistaken on these two factual issues that without more are dispositive of his Ivins Theory. He has promoted and Ivins Theory now for over a half decade without bothering to turn to the contemporary documentary evidence. It is time he address the documents.

    If as a senior DOJ official he had not seen the documents previously, then that would explain his misapprehensions on these issues.

  8. DXer said

    USAMRIID and the FBI/DOJ have continued to fail to provided Dr. Ivins’ September/October 2001 emails. In 1 1/2 years, USAMRIID has made no progress in providing his emails for 2002-2008. They should have been redacted in an hour or so and put in a room for copying and inspection in September 2008. Why would we expect the FBI/ government to solve Amerithrax when they cannot process some emails through FOIA efficiently?

    By a newly produced email dated July 17, 2001, Dr. Ivins wrote:

    “This is to inform you that _____________ a contract employee of CRM who has been working in my laboratory in the Bacteriology Division, will be continuing as an employee until July 15, 2002. Please ensure that she retains keycard access to the building, as well as B-3, B-4, 1412, and other areas to which she previously had access.

    Thank you,

    -Bruce Ivins
    USAMRIID Bacteriology Division”

  9. DXer said

    On the question of the production of Dr. Ivins’ emails, note that it has taken USAMRIID 1 1/2 years to produce approximately 1/6 of his emails.

    I think readers of this blog know that if Lew were doing it, with the amount of documents he makes available daily as evidence, he might have had them all up by September 1, 2008 — within 1 working day.

  10. DXer said

    Bruce Ivins gave virulent Ames to Tarek Hamouda, who graduated from Cairo Medical in December 1982 and obtained his PhD from Cairo Medical in 1994. Dr. Hamouda was head of a DARPA project and being supplied virulent Ames by Bruce Ivins for the research within a few years. Did Dr. Hamouda know Dahab while at Cairo Medical school in the early 1980s? Dahab in the mid-1990s was trained in sending lethal letters by Al Qaeda/EIJ head of intelligence Ali Mohammed. Both were Silicon Valley residents. Ali Mohammed and Dahab reported to Bin Laden that they had recruited 10 sleepers in the US. Similarly, did Dr. Hamouda know Ali Mohammed while at Cairo Medical school in the early 1980s? Dr. Hamouda knew other members of Egyptian Islamic Jihad such as Dr. Tarek Hamid. Dr. Hamouda was Dr. Hamid’s childhood friend. Dr. Hamouda would visit from Khartoum where his mother was an accounting professor. Dr. Hamid, when I called him, explained to me that when he called Dr. Hamouda before 911 and asked a question about patents, Dr. Hamouda said that the success of patents was all in the marketing.

    Did Dr. Hamouda know Aafia Siddiqui who is associated with her brother’s address from the first half of 2001 at 1915 Woodbury in Ann Arbor? (According to one neighbor in Houston, Aafia frequently visited her brother and sister-in-law.)

    Dr. Hamouda’s company garnered $80 million in investment without a product. $50 million was from a DC venture firm Perseus, of which $30 million was invested while the group was led by a fellow now in charge of Pakistan and Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke. The lead CIA WMD person, who was at Department of Energy from 2005-2008 (leading the 600 employees seeking to secure loose nuclear materials), seems to understand the highly compartmentalized and parallel cell operations led by Ayman Zawahiri. The CIA person’s idea on nukes was to steal enriched uranium or obtain it on the black market and sneak it into the United States to test defenses and draw attention to the problem. See August 2009 interview. But given his quote in the recent Washington Post article by Joby Warrick, he seems not to appreciate that the 1997 Al Hayat letter bombs were the exact model for the anthrax mailings — with the targets being NYC and DC newspapers and people in symbolic positions relating to the detention of WTC plotters. He seems not to understand that there was a threat to use mailed anthrax if bail was denied for Vanguards of Conquest #2 Mahmoud Mahjoub. When that bail was denied on October 5, 2001, the anthrax mailer then rushed to mail the anthrax. The Senator targeted was in charge of appropriations to the security units of both Israel and Egypt.

    Follow the money.

    The FBI is constantly subject to criticism. But check out how many of those same people spell “Hatfill” “Hatfield” or ignore that he worked in Building 1412 and drew suspicion upon himself by forging his PhD certificate. Check out how many people like Barry base their criticism on political views rather than an analysis of the facts. Consider how many people address the science without hearing the audio presentations before the NAS or viewing the powerpoints. Consider how many people, like Ed Lake, who opine on Ayman Zawahiri’s anthrax recruitment efforts — and yet never go beyond his argument that “the hijackers were dead, dead, dead.” Consider how many – everyone — never taking the time to educate themselves on the history of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and Ayman’s recruitment efforts using a cell structure compartmentalized at the highest levels. (In fact, the document titled “Cocktail” seized by the FBI from Ali Mohammed’s computer in a search under FISA shows that AQ central would not even know the identity of cell members). Consider how many people — which includes everyone — just ignore the announced intention by Zawahiri’s confidantes that Ayman intended to use anthrax to retaliate for the rendition of senior Egyptian Islamic Jihad leaders. The announcement was made after the rendition of the brother of Ayman Zawahiri and Cairo Medical Pharmacy professor Heba Zawahiri. The outside commentators, without exception, know far less and have far less astute analysis than the FBI. It’s just not clear why the FBI is pretending to be so totally confused.

    The Ivins Theory looks ridiculous only because the Task Force was compartmentalized into three squads and people in the other two squads were not privy to the other investigative information. That squad, for practical purposes, was focused on the origin of the anthrax that was used — with the flask and downstream isolates containing anthrax that was genetically identical. That narrowed the people known to have access from 1,000 to 100-300. This is a time for the Congressional candidates, political activists and other amateur sleuths and journalists to do research and study the facts and get answers to unanswered questions. I’m not asking you to credit what I’m saying. As a Harvard Law trained lawyer licensed in New York and the District of Columbia, I’m daring you to prove anything I’ve said wrong.

    Anthrax and Al Qaeda: The Infiltration of US Biodefense

  11. DXer said

    Didn’t AQ/Ayman’s chief of intelligence Ali Mohammed instruct Dahab to make lethal letters? (so why does the Bush’s CIA WMD fellow say it is not a modus operandi)?

    Didn’t the hadiths require a warning? (There was no fatwa until June 2002). (so why wasn’t a warning required?)

    Don’t the Al Hayat letters relating to the detention of the WTC 1993 plotters serve as the exact model? Newspapers in DC and NYC and people in symbolic positions relating to detention of WTC attackers.

    Didn’t Saif Adel at the time dismiss the idea that Vanguards of Conquest (EIJ) were responsible on the grounds for the Al Hayat letters that it would “mere flirtation” – only to be chastised for purporting to speak to the group by the official spokesman for Vanguards (presumably Al-Sirri in London).

    Doesn’t the CIA February 2001 PDB to President Bush advise about the threat to use anthrax? And in timing it relates to the threat relating to the announced bail hearing announced for Vanguards of Conquest #2, Mahmoud Mahjoub?

    Bruce Ivins gave virulent strain to a former Zawahiri associate Tarek Hamouda. Heba Zawahiri was very distraught over the rendering of her brother Muhammad, as was Ayman. It was when he was rendered that it was publicly announced that Ayman planned to use anthrax to retaliate for the rendering of senior Movement leaders (by Mabruk, Al-Nashar and Al-Zayyat).

    Tarek Hamid was Dr. Hamouda’s childhood friend. He was recruited into the Egyptian Islamic Jihad by Zawahiri. A room was set aside for the purpose at medical school. He pulled out when he got queasy about burying a security officer near the mosque. Tarek Hamouda was in Tarek Hamid’s older brother’s class at Medical School and those two graduated in December 1982 at the height of the frenzy over the Sadat assassination. Tarek Hamid now consults with intelligence agencies.

    Before 911, Tarek Hamid called up Tarek Hamouda to ask about patents and Tarek Hamouda said it was all in the marketing.

    Dr. Hamouda’s firm’s decontamination agent was tested at the Capitol and the firm pitched hand cream to postal workers. They garnered $80 million in investment without a product — with $50 million coming from the DC venture firm Perseus headed by the current Department of State #3 Richard Holbrook.

    Well, we’ve seen the evidence and it was crap. Are they going to have better evidence this time around with their next announcement?

    All the above has been known since at least December 2001. What did the FBI and CIA learn in its 8 year investigation? What steps did it take to advance analysis?

    • DXer said,_Globalizing_Risk,_and_Making_Us_All_Less_Secure_by_Lynn_C._Klotz_and_Edward_J._Sylvester

      Review by Rachel ZelkowitzBy Lynn C. Klotz and Edward J. SylvesterFebruary 13th, 2010; Vol.177 #4 (p. 31) Text Size

      Breeding Bio Insecurity: How U.S. Biodefense Is Exporting Fear, Globalizing Risk, and Making Us All Less Secure by Lynn C. Klotz and Edward J. Sylvester
      American efforts to counter potential biological warfare threats are creating a 21st century Trojan horse.

      Klotz and Sylvester make this point early and often in their latest book. They argue that the boom in biosecurity research in the wake of 9/11 has meant an exponential increase in the number of scientists, technicians and other lab workers with access to dangerous biomaterials such as Ebola virus. This trend alone increases the risk of accident or theft. And the secrecy shrouding much of the research promotes suspicion that could spur an international biological arms race, the authors argue.

      The authors, a biotechnology expert and a science journalist, support their positions with detailed descriptions of potential bioweapons such as anthrax or botulism and what it would take to weaponize them. In the authors’ view, the challenges of engineering a virulent and stable organism make it unlikely that a terrorist group (read: Al Qaeda) could develop and deploy a biological weapon. The billions of dollars earmarked for biosecurity research would be better spent countering existing public health threats, they say, such as flu or drug-resistant staph infections.

      The book is polemic and at times takes on a strident tone. Still, it provides an intriguing overview of biological warfare defense research, past and present. This unequivocal condemnation of U.S. biosecurity efforts merits consideration, particularly by those who would disagree.

      University of Chicago Press, 2009, 272 p., $27.50.

      Getman, At the Zoo, January 31, 2010

  12. DXer said

    Sent: Tuesday June 27 2006 7:38 AM
    Subject: Hot News

    (1) xxxxxx was giving his opinion on xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ?
    (2) ? examine all of the letter spore powder samples. He said like XXXX
    (3) ??????. Then he said he had to look at a lot of samples that the FBI had
    (4) letter material. Then the bombshell, He said that the best duplication
    (5) was if ???? ??????? ?????? ??????? exactly about looking at ?
    (6) xxxxxx coming on and ????? ??????? xxx ??? him if this powder
    (7) his knees got shaky and he sputtered “But I told the General we didn’t
    (8) investigators that xxxxxxx was involved in some way in the letter incident
    (9) was finding it was actually funny. The sentences were quite ????? ??
    (10) words and phrases xxx said that xxxx was the worst Commander
    (11) just believe that I had heard xx had made Ames spore powder just
    (12)?? heard that xxxxxxx either knew about it or was behind it and that
    (13) ???

  13. DXer said

    Note that “PART 3” of this 11/29/2001 memo giving guidance on how reporting is to be done is titled “Amerithrax Pending Persons of Interest.”

    To: All Field Offices Date: 11/29/2001
    Investigative Services

    MAJOR CASE 184
    OO: WF

    Synopsis: The purpose of this EC is to emphasize the importance of captioned investigation; to insure that it receive the highest priority; and to insure coordination in the reporting of investigative information.

    Details: – As you know five (5) individuals have died of Anthrax inhalation. Because the FBI’s investigative efforts may prevent a prospective death, all investigative leads, no matter how material must be exhaustively, aggressively, and immediately addressed. The public safety depends on the FBI’s response and leadership.

    For this reason alone, as well as the extraordinary scrutiny that both the Amerithrax and the Pentbomb investigations are receiving, inside and outside of the government and the criminal justice community, it is imperative that investigative efforts and commitment of resources receive your personal attention, personal direction and highest priority.

    One of the hallmarks of the FBI, over the years, has been quality and timeliness efforts throughout the country. This has never been as important, and necessary as now.

    Each office, if not already done is to designate an agent of point (POC). Preferably, the Agent should be Weapons of Mass Destructi[on] (WMD) trained or science trained agent. “Please contact WTO Case Agent Dave ______ at 202-XXX-XXXX, Bob Roth at XXX-XXX_XXX or SSA John Kerr XXX-XXX-XXXX with the POC and direct contact numbers, i.e., office, pager and cellular.

    Secondly, as many offices are aware daily updates are furnished to IIC Tom Carey at SIOC and the Director is personally briefed two times daily for subsequent briefings by the Director with the Administration, i.e., the Attorney General and the President. In this respect, a daily report has been formatted showing investigative results by those offices with active investigation. This report, not only focuses with active investigation. This report, not only focuses investigative efforts, but also is beneficial in overall coordination, and is the primary vehicle for the above briefings.

    The reporting format is as follows:

    1. Amerithrax Summary of Incidents

    This is a summary of victims, their condition, and status by Divsion. It is self explanatory and relatively static.

    2. Ameritharx Investigative Update


    PART 3 Amerithrax Pending Persons of Interest

    This section must be detailed similar to a prospective presentation to an AUSA, i.e., bio/background, how developed as person of interest, on-going investigation [REDACTED ] and daily investigative results. A brief statement that investigation is “pending” is simply inadequate.

    The investigation update must be submitted to WFO, daily no later than 1:00 p.m, attention SA Michael Carroll and by E-Mail only.

    Each SAC is advised to insure that, as long as there is investigation outstanding in their respective Division, this report is submitted as requested. Secondly, each SAC is advised to insure that, as long as there investigation outstanding in their respective Division, this report is submitted as requested. Secondly, each SAC is requested to personally insure that all investigation (that requested by lead, and all logical follow-on investigation) is aggressively and immediately conducted and reported. Experienced, aggressive, creative Agents should be assigned this investigation in order to insure all logical investigation is conducted, and not just that requested as defined in a lead.

    Amerithrax and Pentbomb are the two (2) most important investigations existing and must be handled as such.

  14. DXer said

    FBI’s rebuttal of Dr. Rosenberg’s claim:

    Washington, DC 20535
    February 25, 2002

    The FBI is vigorously investigating the mailings of anthrax-containing letters. In our investigation we have interviewed hundreds of persons. In some instances, more than once.

    It is not accurate, however, that the FBI has identified a prime suspect in this case.


  15. DXer said

    Author of profile, James Fitzgerald, on first hearing term “person of interest” and Hatfill’s name.

    “Actually I didn’t focus as much on the term as I did the individual that was named because I had never heard the name before or even if there was a name. I don’t even remember if there was a name associated when the term “person of interest” first came out. But I remember saying oh, maybe they finally have someone in the anthrax case because I was out of the loop at this point.”

  16. DXer said

    From Deposition of the retired head of the Washington Field Office Van Harp –


    “Q Are you familiar with my rules regarding the release of information about uncharged individuals?
    A Yes.
    Q What is your understanding of that?
    A You don’t disclose information about an individual that’s being investigated.”

    THE WITNESS: Any information about Mr. Hatfill, and even his name, I think was improper.
    Q What did you personally do to see whether these disclosures of information were coming from within the FBI?

    A I mentioned at a staff meeting if anyone has any ideas, make sure it doesn’t occur; stop it. At one point, after a — the newspaper – actually after a phone call a Newsweek article, I made a referral for an internal OPR investigation. Then subsequently, there was another one that initiated by the fellow that was actually leading the case, and sent that over as well.


    THE WITNESS: I trusted everybody in that [FBI Washington Field Office], particularly those three squads that were working that case. I’ve seen what’s the results of a leak and how it damages a case. And with the effort and the sacrifice that was going on at the time, and then, in the setting — don’t forget that was in connection with — not connection with, but right in the aftermath of 9/11, and several other things that we had ongoing, and my – what I knew for the most part about those agents that were working that case, I did not believe it was coming from them, and I still don’t.


    Q Now, the 45 or so articles that you read in advance of today’s deposition, the complaint we filed in this case describes the leaks as a campaign directed to Hatfill. Do you take any issue with that?

    THE WITNESS: Well, it appears that way. I don’t know what the motivation is or was, a campaign of leaks directed at him. I think it’s a very personal —”

    Q Has anyone else been described as a suspect in the anthrax investigation?

    A *** We went — some very extensive work on several other individuals, and their names were not disclose. I don’t know why Mr. Hatfill’s was and there weren’t, or why theirs weren’t and his was.

    THE WITNESS: But number two, he was not a subject or a suspect, so it shouldn’t have been sent out.

    Q Do you believe that failure to waive is consistent with what you said in your stated purpose of doing the OPR investigation, which is to get to the bottom of the leaks?”

    A Well, it’s probably not consistent in one respect, but, except for Dwight Adams, at least the other — at least those other two are no longer in the Bureau, you know. I mean, I just — I mean, there’s a little bit of concern.

    Now, I know what you said before the break about, well, what can the Bureau do? The bureau can’t do anything to you. You’re no longer part of it and there’s more concern, I would think, about, you know, the consequences now that you’re on the outside rather than on the inside, that simple.


    THE WITNESS: Well, the culture — until I got to WFO, I mean, talking to the media like I did there, I probably in a moth’s time in WFO probably talked more — had more contact than I had in my prior 30 years.

    Q Well, let me ask you this: Once his name came out there, was it enough just to simply say I will not talk about him, or was there an obligation on the part of the FBI to say, on background or otherwise, whoa, you guy, the enthusiasm you all have in the press for Dr. Hatfill as the anthrax killer is not shared here with the FBI, or some words to that effect?
    A I don’t think so. I don’t think so.

    Q If you were as careful as you’ve suggested in your testimony here in terms of speaking to reporters, why do you have a concern about waiving any promises of confidentiality with them?
    THE WITNESS: I don’t have any concern about it. Like I said, if all the others do, I will. I do not recall; I don’t believe I said anything about Hatfill personally, specifically about him in connection with that investigation.
    Q That none of them, none of the disclosures about Dr. Hatfill served a legitimate law enforcement purpose; is that correct?
    A I’d have to agree with that.
    Q Were any of these leaks about Dr. Hatfill done to sweat him, you know, to put pressure on him, to have him act in a certain way for an investigative technique? ***
    A No, no, I would think that if there was a proposed effort or action to do something like that, it would have been discussed with me, and I wouldn’t have — I’d have said no, number one, all right.

    • DXer said

      I don’t see anything in the Van Harp civil deposition that corroborates him as the source of media leaks. It was Attorney Seikaly who was represented at deposition by renown criminal defense attorney Plato Cacheris.
      Revealed: Robert Mueller’s FBI Repeatedly Abused Prosecutorial Discretion
      Establishment DC types who reflexively defend Mueller haven’t explained how they came to trust him so completely. It’s a question worth asking given the bumpy historical record of Mueller’s tenure as FBI director.

      By Mollie Hemingway
      April 19, 2018

      Journalist Mike Allen of Axios recently said that one word described Special Counsel Robert Mueller, and that word was “unafraid.”

      The context for his remarks on Fox News’ “Special Report” was that Mueller had just spun off to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York a bit of his limitless investigation into President Donald J. Trump. Allen’s comment was like so many others from media and pundit types since the special counsel was launched. If there’s one word to describe the media’s relationship to Mueller, it’s “unquestioning.”

      Pundits and politicians have said, repeatedly, that he is “somebody we all trust” with “impeccable credentials.” No matter what his office does, from hiring Democratic donors to run the Trump probe to aggressively prosecuting process crimes, he is defended by most media voices. Criticism of Mueller by people who aren’t part of the Trump Resistance is strongly fought, with claims that disapproval of anything related to Mueller and how he runs his investigation undermine the rule of law.

      The media and establishment DC who reflexively defend Mueller haven’t explained how they came to trust him so completely. It’s a question worth asking given the bumpy historical record of Mueller’s tenure as FBI director from 2001 to 2013.

      For instance, as I noted to Allen, Mueller was also “unafraid” at completely botching the anthrax killer case, wasting more than $100 million in taxpayer dollars, destroying the lives of multiple suspects, and chasing bad leads using bad methods. Let’s look at that and other cases involving how Mueller and those he placed in positions of power used their authorities and decided what charges to pursue.
      The Anthrax Bungling

      Shortly after the terrorist attacks in 2001, letters containing anthrax were mailed to media outlets and the offices of Sens. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., killing five people and infecting 17 others. The FBI quickly focused on an innocent man named Steven Hatfill, relentlessly pursuing him for years while the real killer walked free. As Carl Cannon wrote about the botched case, ridiculous and aggressive methods were used to go after the wrong man:

      So what evidence did the FBI have against Hatfill? There was none, so the agency did a Hail Mary, importing two bloodhounds from California whose handlers claimed could sniff the scent of the killer on the anthrax-tainted letters. These dogs were shown to Hatfill, who promptly petted them. When the dogs responded favorably, their handlers told the FBI that they’d ‘alerted’ on Hatfill and that he must be the killer.

      Mueller and his deputy James Comey were certain they had the right guy. They didn’t, and taxpayers had to pay Hatfill $5.82 million for the error. When that settlement was announced, Cannon noted:

      Mueller could not be bothered to walk across the street to attend the press conference announcing the case’s resolution. When reporters did ask him about it, Mueller was graceless. ‘I do not apologize for any aspect of the investigation,’ he said, adding that it would be erroneous ‘to say there were mistakes.’

      The man the FBI decided was responsible for the anthrax killings killed himself as the FBI pursued him, but reports from the National Academy of Sciences and the Government Accountability Office were critical of the bureau’s scientific conclusions used to determine the man’s guilt.

      Mueller placed Special Agent Van Harp in charge of the initial investigation. He had been “accused of misconduct and recommended for discipline for his role in a flawed review of the deadly Ruby Ridge standoff,” according to a Washington Post report. He had helped “prepare an incomplete report on the 1992 Ruby Ridge siege that had the effect of protecting high-level FBI officials, according to a confidential 1999 report by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility.”

      After Hatfill sued the FBI, Harp admitted that he talked to the media about the anthrax case due to political concerns at the bureau. According to The Atlantic:

      Special Agent Harp, who initially headed the anthrax investigation, conceded after Hatfill sued the government in August 2003 that the FBI had been sensitive to accusations that it had stumbled in other high-profile investigations, and that it had consciously sought to assure the public that it was working hard to crack the anthrax murders. Part of providing such assurance involved actively communicating with news reporters. Questioned under oath, Harp admitted to serving as a confidential source for more than a dozen journalists during the case, but he insisted that he had never leaked privileged information about Hatfill, or anyone else for that matter.

      Hatfill’s attorney’s found the latter claim highly improbable.

  17. DXer said

    More on media leaks-

    Deposition of Special Agent Bradley Garrett –

    Q So when you saw the Attorney General use the term “person of interest” regarding Dr. Hatfill at the time, did you take it that, in essence, was calling Dr. Hatfill a suspect?
    A By my definition, yes.

    “Someone told them we were going to conduct a search.”


    Q If any FBI official tipped off the press as to the June 25 search or August 1st search in advance, what is your view of their conduct?

    THE WITNESS: That it’s absolutely wrong.

    Q Could a higher-up, in your view, supervisor or —
    A It’s still the wrong thing to do.

    Q *** “ ‘ I think we are not going to characterize this guy in any way, shape or form,’ said a senior FBI official Thursday evening, adding that the Bureau was actively investigating several dozen people without classifying any of them as formal suspects. Many of them are scientists who work at Fort Detrick and other government laboratories. and universities where anthrax is studied, authorities said.”

    Was it appropriate for the senior FBI official to say that?
    A. No.
    Q Why not?
    A. Because he’s talking about an ongoing investigation and who possibly are suspects or people of interest, so to speak, which would be absolutely wrong. Again, you are telling people in advance what you are doing.”
    Q. Now, going to the next page, it says: “FBI officials say there’s a tremendous amount of secrecy in the ongoing investigation.”
    “Officials who attended the task force summit say the government is attempting to build a circumstantial evidence case against Hatfill, although one official acknowledged, ‘We may have enough right now to get indictment but we don’t have anywhere near enough to get a conviction.’”
    MR. CONNOLLY: Would you agree it’s an outrage?

    Q Last two shaded paragraphs:
    “Officials attending the meeting,” referring to the counterterrorism meeting, “also told ABC News that FBI agents plan another round of interviews with other persons of interest, including some current and former government scientists. ‘It’s an attempt to rule out anybody else who has come across our radar,’ said one investigator. ‘Then, we can focus entirely on Hatfill.’”

    Do you see that?
    A I do.
    Q What is your view of that disclosure?
    THE WITNESS. That it’s wrong.

    Q Special Agent Garrett, do you remember an occasion in either late 2002 or early 2003 where I placed a phone call to you and volunteered Dr. Hatfill wearing a portable GPS at all times?
    A Yes.
    Q In that conversation, did I also offer to surrender his passport?
    A Yes.
    Q Did I also offer to have an FBI agent ride with him at all times wherever he went?
    A Yes.
    Q Did you pass it on to your supervisors?
    A I passed it on to Special Agent Roth.
    Q It was decided that my offer was rejected; is that correct?
    A That’s my understanding.

    “An FBI analysis suggested he was ‘evasive’ when asked a question about the attacks, a fifth source close to the investigation says.’”

    A. Well, I will just tell you that it’s been my experience that the vast majority of all leaks come from upper management, they don’t come from people investigating the case. So my focus would probably be at the upper management levels of the field office and headquarters and the Department of Justice.”
    Q Would you engage in polygraphs of select individuals?
    A Yes

  18. DXer said

    October 17, 2007 Deposition of [former US Attorney] Roscoe Howard.

    A*** Keep in mind, Isikoff called a lot.


    A Well, I mean, the dogs were brought in to — I mean, that was the center of our
    investigation at the time, was Dr. Hatfill. We had some other individuals we were
    looking at, and the dogs were — I mean, Dr. Hatfill was certainly part of a group that
    we were either trying to eliminate or include.

    Q Did you discuss the other individuals with Mike Isikoff?

    A No.

    Q But you did discuss Dr. Hatfill with —

    A I didn’t discuss it. He certainly knew Dr. Hatfill, yes.


    Q Did you ever discuss with Mr. Isikoff whether bloodhounds had reacted at a
    Denny’s in Louisiana where Dr. Hatfill he supposedly eaten?

    A Did I discuss it with him?

    Q Yeah.

    A [ I don’t remember]


    A. People who thought we were about to indict or on a verge of a breakthrough
    really hurts the investigation.

    Q How is that?

    A Well, because, one, it wasn’t true

    Two, we had lots of other individuals that were looking at. This was a case that I
    thought needed a break ***


    Q Okay. Did you ever discuss with Mr. Isikoff the items found in a search of
    Dr. Hatfill’s apartment?

    A No.

    Q That would be improper?

    A Absolutely.

    Q And what about — what about just disclosing that the dogs were used
    to investigate Dr. Hatfill? Was that improper?

    A No.

    Q That was not improper.

    A Oh, I’m sorry. That the dogs were used?

    Q Yeah.

    A. No, I mean, no. Investigative tools, what they’re doing. People find out. It’s learned.

    Q Did you ever discuss with Mr. Isikoff whether there was a college friend of Dr. Hatfill’s named Smith that figured into the investigation somehow?

    A No.

    Q What about conversations that you had with Ms. Locy?

    A Again, Ms. Locy, the only conversation I remember was an in-office —

    Q Did you tell Van Harp that you had talked to Mr. Isikoff about bloodhounds?

    A No.

  19. DXer said

    From January 11, 2006 Deposition of Dwight Adams:

    “THE WITNESS: I think any prosecutor or investigator would be concerned about information, especially wrong information, being put into the press that would damage an investigation.


    Q How would it damage an investigation?
    A It could indicate which way the investigation is going. It could signal to the perpetrators what we are attempting to accomplish, and maybe you have not even gotten to that point yet in the investigation. So you — they or the person — the perpetrator of this crime could have been destroying evidence, for example.

    A I don’t think I was concerned about the investigation but I was concerned to see a lot of
    wrong information particularly related to the science of the investigation appearing in the press.


    Q Could it help the perpetrator map the investigation, the FBI’s investigation if it knew who the FBI
    was interested in, at least speaking to?
    A Yes.


    Q Earlier you testified that regarding the scientific aspect of the investigation there was information that simply in your view too sensitive to share to the public about the particular characteristic of the organism sent in the mail. Is hat correct?
    A In so many words, yes, sir.

    Q Did you feel like you had the same restrictions in informing the senate, congress or staff in terms of what it is you would reveal to them about the particular characteristics of the organism that was sent?

    A As I’ve already stated there was specific information that I did not feel appropriate to share with either the media or to the Hill because it was too sensitive of information to do so. It would show too much of where were were going and what we hoped to accomplish. But in more broad terms I was able to at least give them the sense that, one, we clearly knew what we were dealing with and how were going to get to the answers of who might be responsible for this.
    I just recall we were restricted or told to hold back in talking about specific individuals or specific techniques and just give a broader view of —

    A *** It was the director [Mueller] stating that the briefing would be fine but we need to keep that type of information on individuals and other things close hold and not reveal that. I also remember that the director himself went — when we actually were before the two senators.

    Q Did you have a sense that Ms. Rosenberg, and I’m not going to ask you what she told you about the science, okay, but did you have a sense that she was briefed in on the organism but had a good sense of what it was?
    A No.
    Q Was she misinformed?
    A Yes.
    Q You could tell that immediately, correct?
    A Related to the science, yes.
    Q You found that in fact the information she provided at least on the science side you didn’t find very credible.
    A That’s right.

    Q I just want to go the very bottom there it says, “Follow Up Action : SC Carey pointed out that the FBI never precluded looking at international origin of anthrax.” Do you see that?
    A Yes
    Q Do you have any recollection of Mr. Carey or anyone else making sure the staffers understood that the FBI hadn’t explicitly limited their pool of candidates who could have been involved in this domestic source?
    A Yeah, I recall that being a topic of discussion on occasion, yes.”

  20. DXer said

    “From: Ann Todd
    To: Dwight E. Adams, Richard Lambert, Thomas Carey
    Date: Fri. Nov. 1, 2002 3:09 PM

    I realize that we just briefed the staff of Daschle and Leahy less than a month ago, October 4th to be exact, but staff is disturbed by recent media accounts regarding the progress and focus of the Amerithrax investigation. Staff has requested another briefing Tuesday, November 5th at 11:00 a.m. or early afternoon. Daschle’s staff have specifically requested that Mr. Harp attend this briefing. A primary focus of this briefing will be the article which appeared in the Washington Post on Monday, October 28th titled “FBI’s Theory on Anthrax is Doubted.” If you need the article please let me know and I will fax it to you.

    Please let me know your availability as soon as possible.

    As always, thanks for your cooperation and patience.”

  21. DXer said




  22. DXer said

    From: Howard, Roscoe, Jr.
    Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 6:42 P.M. (responding to email above which was at 6:39 P.M.)
    To: Blier, William
    Subject: RE: Conversation with Glenn Fine

    Find out who the FBI opened their investigation with. Van says that they have — but wouldn’t that be OIG?

    • DXer said

      From: Blier, William
      Sent : Tuesday, August 13, 2001 1:23 P.M.
      To: Howard, Roscoe C, Jr.
      Subject: RE: Conversation with Glenn Fine

      Van has indicated to Ken that WFO opened the investigation and assigned it to a separate squad, but neither Ken nor any of the agents have been interviewed or have any other indication that an investigation is ongoing. OIG had not received a referral. Ken has prepared and I have approved a letter to Van from inquiring of the status of the “leak investigation.” I think the letter is consistent with the approach you articulated last night. Ken feels strongly about it and we should keep Van and the FBI honest. If we receive no response to the letter, perhaps we should send a copy of it to OIG. We will provide to you a copy of Ken’s letter. Thanks, Bill.

      • DXer said

        From: Howard, Roscoe C, Jr.
        Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 3:55 PM
        To: Blier, William
        cc: Seikaly, Daniel; Leary, Mary Lou; Fredericksen, Scott
        Subject: RE: Conversation with Glenn Fine

        Bill — The letter to Van is fine. It should ask, specifically, what has been done to “open” the investigation. I have some problem with the FBI investigating its own [imagine the field day a publication would have with that]. You mentioned yesterday contacting the DAG and having him make the referral to OIG. We should consider that. As I said yesterday, I think we need to make sure we are doing the “internal inquiry” we represented to the press that we would do. Roscoe

        • DXer said

          From: Blier, William
          Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 3:57 P.M.
          To: Kohl, Ken
          Subject: FW Conversation with Glenn Fine

          Looks like we still have our jobs. Let me know what kind of reaction you get from Van. Thanks, Bill.

    • DXer said

      From: KENNETH KOHL

      Van / Rick / Jack

      Yesterday, ABCNEWS.COM ran another Brian Ross article on the anthrax investigation (attached). The report states that “Federal investigators on the anthrax task force continue to focus on former government Steven J. Hatfill as the man most likely responsible for the bioterror attacks last year that killed five people, even though they have found no hard evidence linking him to the attacks.” The source of the story are described as “several officals who attended a recent task force summit meeting in Washington [who] talked with ABCNEWS on the condition of anonymity.”

      The most disturbing aspect of the article is that the “officials are quoted as saying that [about 5 lines redacted].

      [Comment: the quote redacted relates to the FBI’s plan to re-interview other current and former government scientists (i.e., under a non-Hatfill theory).

      So Mr. Seikaly’s leak had the effect of letting the folks re-interviewed know they were under suspicion].]

  23. DXer said

    From: Blier, William
    Sent: August 11, 2002
    To: Howard, Roscoe C, Fredericksen, Scott; Seikaly, Daniel
    Subject: Conversation with Glenn Fine

    Here is a summary of my conversation with Glenn about the anthrax leak investigation:

    The manner in which investigations of leaks are allocated between OIG and OPR is somewhat less clear than you might think. If the universe of persons with knowledge is mixed, attorneys and agents, OPR and OIG will meet and determine who should do it, with OIG essentially deferring unless there appears to be a potential criminal violation. Glenn opined that his office is better equipped, with a staff of investigators, to handle a criminal investigation than is OPR. He was aware of the allegations in this case, but not of the potential leaking of classified material.

    Neither OIG nor OPR open investigations based on news accounts. Both await a referral from a complainant (Hatfill) or from within the department (in particular, the DAG’s office). So far, his ofice has not received a referral and he does not believe OPR has either. Glenn said we could either wait to see what Hatfill does, or, if we think it is in the department’s or our Office’s best interest for an investigation to be opened, to talk to the DAG’s office and have the referral made by OGI by the DAG. Because Hatfill said he was going to make his referall to OPR, and because the substance of Hatfill’s complaints are not really criminal, Hatfill’s referall would probably result in OPR handling it (with OIG deferring).

    Let me know if you want me to do anything further in this connection. Thanks, Bill.

  24. DXer said

    Exhibits 118-124 are a veritable gold mine of interrogatory responses and requests for admissions — though lawyerly evasion and objection usually requires you to look at your watch rather than ask opposing counsel what time it is.

    Exhibits 128-130 are internal FBI memos from November and December 2001.

    Exhibits 140-143, 147-48, 151, 154, 165-167 are emails, and emails are always cool.

    Exhibit 182 contains the Troutman Sanders profile for D. Seikaly which is online.

    Exhibits 201 are useful summaries titled “Disclosures By Identified Sources” and Exhibit 202 is titled “Disclosures By Unidentified Sources.”

  25. DXer said

    From deposition of Daniel Seikaly:

    “Q. calls this article, quote ‘An exclusive look at the search for the perpetrator of America’s worst bioterror attack.” Did you tell Mr. Klaidman [of Newsweek] that you were giving him an exclusive on this information?

    [deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

    Q. Did you tell Mr. Klaidman that the FBI was acting on a tip when it searched the pond in Frederick?

    Q. Did you tell Mr. Klaidman that FBI agents had interviewed the acquaintance of Dr. Hatfill’s that was supposedly the tipster?

    [deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

    Q. Did you tell Mr. Klaidman that the acquaintance had told the FBI that Dr. Hatfill said toxic bacteria could be made in the woods and the evidence could be tossed in the lake?

    [deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

    Q. Did you tell Mr. Klaidman that the FBI might drain the entire pond the month after this report?

    [deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

    [Lawyer defending deposition] Mark, let me say something on the record so we all understand the assertion because the manner in which — or the type of questions you’re asking here. My client has been instructed to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege regardless of whether or not the answer to the question would be yes or no, because even if the answer were to be no, if he answered no to certain questions, I think an inference could be drawn from that as to what he does or doesn’t know.

    So I just want to make sure you understand in terms of our Fifth Amendment assertion here is that he’s asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege to questions that may have a yes or no answer, and it’s not fair to assume that the answer to every one of these questions would be yes or no if he were to answer the questions. Does that make sense?

    Q. It makes sense, but we will be seeking an adverse inference as to all questions where the fifth amendment is taken.


    Q. Mr. Seikaly, do you deny any of the statements attributed to you by Mr. Klaidman with respect to the [Newsweek bloodhound story]

    [deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

    Q Is it actually even true whether the search of the pond was prompted by a tip?

    Q. Are you aware of any information that might have been used as a predicate for the pond search having been obtained as the fruits of electronic surveillance?

    [deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

    Q Did you tell Mr. Klaidman that agents might be looking for a wet suit that could have been used to dispose of — that could have been used and disposed of by the anthrax attacker?

    [deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]


    Q. Did you give Allan Lengel of The Washington Post any information reflected in this article?

    [deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

    Q. Mr. Lengel has testified that you told him the FBI search of the pond in Frederick was tied to Steven Hatfill and that it was triggered by a hypothetical statement Dr. Hatfill has made about anthrax; is that correct?

    A. That Mr. Lengel testified about that?

    Q. Is it correct that you told Mr. Lengel about those things?

    [deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

    Q. How did you know that the FBI’s search of the pond in Frederick was tied to Steven Hatfill?

    [deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]


    Q. Why did you decide to disclose information to Mr. Lengel about the pond search?

    [deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]


    Q Did you tell Mr. Lengel that the items recovered from the pond up to that point included a clear box with holes that could accommodate gloves?

    [deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]


    Q Did you tell Mr. Lengel that the items recovered from the pond up that point included vials wrapped in plastic?

    [deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

    Q. Do you specifically deny making any statement that Mr. Lengel has attributed to you?

    [deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]


    Q. How did you know that tests for the presence of anthrax bacteria on the equipment were continuing after two rounds of tests produced conflicting results?

    [deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

    Q. Why did you disclose that information to Mr. Lengel?

    [deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]


    Q Did you tell Mr. Lengel that the search of the pond in Frederick netted nothing but a hodgepodge of items that did not appear to be linked to the case?

    [deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]


    Q If we take the dates from Exhibits É, it appears that you disclosed investigative information to Mr. Lengel for articles that appeared in January 2003, May 2003, June 2003 and August 2003. Is that right?

    [deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]


    Q. É Do you know whether you ever saw this e-mail before?

    A. I don’t believe I have.

    Q. Okay. Let’s look at the partially redacted paragraph. It says, quote, “WFO [Washington Field Office] has opened a leak investigation in an attempt to find out who spoke to Newsweek Magazine over the weekend about the bureau’s use of bloodhounds in the anthrax investigation,” closed quote. Do you see that?

    A. I do.

    Q. And the date of the email is August 5th, 2002.

    A. That’s correct.

    Q. The investigation that’s referenced here is about the story that you gave Mr. Klaidman, is it not?

    A. Assert my Fifth Amendment Privilege in response.


    Q. Okay. In the bottom e-mail, when Blier begins, “here is a summary of my conversation with Glen about the anthrax leak investigation.” Now, Bill Blier worked for you, did he not?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Did you know what Mr. Blier was referring to when he referred to, quote, the anthrax leak investigation?

    A. I believe that it was an investigation involving the possible compromise of classified information is my understanding. I did know about an investigation in that.


    Q And do you know whether that had anything to do with bloodhounds or Newsweek?

    A I don’t believe it did but I don’t know.


    Q You were aware of an anthrax investigation, yes?

    A. I was — I was aware that there was a discussion of an investigation involving the compromise of classified information arising from the anthrax investigation, the Amerithrax investigation. I do recall knowing that we were — we and the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the Justice Department were concerned about this and were seeking to find out who compromised the classified information.


    Q. Did you think it remarkable in any way that bloodhounds could track a scent from anthrax letters that were ten months old to a Denny’s in Louisiana where someone had eaten the day before?

    [deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: