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

* The “Hatfill Theory” was part of the same unstoppable train wreck as the “Ivins Theory.” There was a change of cars (investigators), but it was the same flawed train of reasoning and the investigators never overcame the earlier truncated emphasis of the investigation.

Posted by Lew Weinstein on May 10, 2011

******

******

Advertisements

79 Responses to “* The “Hatfill Theory” was part of the same unstoppable train wreck as the “Ivins Theory.” There was a change of cars (investigators), but it was the same flawed train of reasoning and the investigators never overcame the earlier truncated emphasis of the investigation.”

  1. DXer said

    According to his book it was R. Scott Decker’s team that “pursued its first suspect [Hatfill] with dogged determination before realizing that the evidence did
    not add up.” If he was in charge of forensics, why would he develop forensics targeted to the suspect under one theory? Is that what led over a half decade long fixation on Steve Hatfill?

    The federal court judge found that there was NEVER a scintilla of forensic evidence implicating Dr. Hatfill. So what was Decker and his “team” rely on for that half-decade?

    He was ultimately excluded based on the BS claim that virulent Ames was not in Building 1412 — when in fact there were numerous samples throughout 1412.

    Indeed, subsequent history has shown that virulent Ames was mistakenly sent throughout the world.

    So Decker and his team’s theory that it was only in Building 1425 (see Taylor and Persichini’s press conference) — a key premise of its Ivins theory — was a crock.

  2. DXer said

    Trump Takes His ‘Thank-You Tour’ to Wealthy Donor’s Costume Ball
    Bloomberg-6 hours ago
    Steven Hatfill, the biodefense researcher who was wrongly suspected in the 2001 anthrax attacks, was dressed as a Ghostbuster.

  3. DXer said

    Did TV station in Upstate NY broadcast ‘train’ warning night before Hoboken crash?

    “Would you? Could you? On a train?”
    http://www.syracuse.com/state/index.ssf/2016/10/did_tv_station_in_upstate_ny_broadcast_train_warning_night_before_hoboken_crash.html#incart_m-rpt-1

  4. DXer said

    Some readers may remember how analysis of the anthrax epidemic in Rhodesia, 1978-84 was raised in connection with a “Hatfill Theory” in Amerithrax. The renewed online debate at the links below over the anthrax epidemic in Rhodesia points to the importance of direct evidence (or lack thereof).

    In Amerithrax, I don’t know who made the anthrax, who obtained the anthrax, or who mailed the anthrax. (It is Lew, who in a graphic, is emphatic it wasn’t Ivins. I, OTOH, need more info to decide and I’ve been seeking that under FOIA). There are too many possibilities — too many uncertainties.

    Anthrax, Al Qaeda and Ayman Zawahiri: The Infiltration of US Biodefense
    http://www.amerithrax.wordpress.com

    [PDF] biorxiv.org
    Reanalysis of the Anthrax Epidemic in Rhodesia, 1978-84

    J Wilson, W Brediger, T Albright, JS Gagen – bioRxiv, 2016 – biorxiv.org

    http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/05/17/053769.abstract

    anonymous criticism:

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/77010475/Rhodesian%20Anthrax.pdf

    author’s rebuttal:

    http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/05/17/053769.abstract

  5. DXer said

    Former F.B.I. Agent Sues, Claiming Retaliation Over Misgivings in Anthrax Case
    By SCOTT SHANEAPRIL 8, 2015

    WASHINGTON — When Bruce E. Ivins, an Army microbiologist, took a fatal overdose of Tylenol in 2008, the government declared that he had been responsible for the anthrax letter attacks of 2001, which killed five people and set off a nationwide panic, and closed the case.

    Now, a former senior F.B.I. agent who ran the anthrax investigation for four years says that the bureau gathered “a staggering amount of exculpatory evidence” regarding Dr. Ivins that remains secret. The former agent, Richard L. Lambert, who spent 24 years at the F.B.I., says he believes it is possible that Dr. Ivins was the anthrax mailer, but he does not think prosecutors could have convicted him had he lived to face criminal charges.

    In a lawsuit filed in federal court in Tennessee last Thursday, Mr. Lambert accused the bureau of trying “to railroad the prosecution of Ivins” and, after his suicide, creating “an elaborate perception management campaign” to bolster its claim that he was guilty.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/09/us/ex-fbi-agent-claims-retaliation-for-dissent-in-anthrax-inquiry.html?_r=0

  6. DXer said

    My phrasing was that the investigators “never overcame the earlier truncated emphasis of the investigation.” Former lead Amerithrax investigator Richard Lambert, ironically, appears to agree.

    The former lead Amerithrax investigator, who previously was ordered not to respond to key reporter’s inquiries, is available at the email at the end of his complaint. I heard from him last night — he seems to be a nice and approachable fellow. The later investigators channeled their “Ivins Theory” through reporter David WIllman in what Attorney Lambert says was “an elaborate perception management campaign to bolster their assertion of Ivins’ guilt.”

    Let’s have some ace reporters seek to interview Lambert on the subjects raised in this paragraph 53:

    “53. On July 6, 2006, Plaintiff provided a whistleblower report of mismanagement to the FBI’s Deputy Director pursuant to Title 5, United States Code, Section 2303. Reports of mismanagement conveyed in writing and orally included: (a) WFO’s persistent understaffing of the AMERITHRAX investigation; (b) the threat of WFO’s Agent in charge to retaliate if Plaintiff disclosed the understaffing to FBI Headquarters; (c) WFO’s insistence on staffing the AMERITHRAX investigation principally with new Agents recently graduated from the FBI Academy resulting in an average investigative tenure of 18 months with 12 of 20 Agents assigned to the case having no prior investigative experience at all; (d) WFO’s eviction of the AMERITHRAX Task Force from the WFO building in downtown Washington and its relegation to Tysons Corner, Virginia to free up space for Attorney General Ashcroft’s new pornography squads; (e) FBI Director’s Mueller’s mandate to Plaintiff to “compartmentalize” the AMERITHRAX investigation by stove piping the flow of case information and walling off task force members from those aspects of the case not specifically assigned to them – a move intended to stem the tide of anonymous media leaks by government officials regarding details of the investigation. This sequestration edict decimated morale and proved unnecessary in light of subsequent civil litigation which established that the media leaks were attributable to the United States Attorney for the District of the District of Columbia and to a Supervisory Special Agent in the FBI’s National Press Office, not to investigators on the AMERITHRAX Task Force; (f) WFO’s diversion and transfer of two Ph.D. Microbiologist Special Agents from their key roles in the investigation to fill billets for an 18 month Arabic language training program in Israel; (g) the FBI Laboratory’s deliberate concealment from the Task Force of its discovery of human DNA on the anthrax-laden envelope addressed to Senator Leahy and the Lab’s initial refusal to perform comparison testing; (h) the FBI Laboratory’s refusal to provide timely and adequate scientific analyses and forensic examinations in support of the investigation; (i) Defendant Kelley’s erroneous and subsequently quashed legal opinion that regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) precluded the Task Force’s collection of evidence in overseas venues; (j) the FBI’s fingering of Bruce Ivins as the anthrax mailer; and, (k) the FBI’s subsequent efforts to railroad the prosecution of Ivins in the face of daunting exculpatory evidence. Following the announcement of its circumstantial case against Ivins, Defendants DOJ and FBI crafted an elaborate perception management campaign to bolster their assertion of Ivins’ guilt. These efforts included press conferences and highly selective evidentiary presentations which were replete with material omissions. Plaintiff further objected to the FBI’s ordering of Plaintiff not to speak with the staff of the CBS television news magazine 60 Minutes or investigative journalist David Willman, after both requested authorization to interview Plaintiff.”

  7. DXer said

    Clint Eastwood To Direct Film About 1996 Olympics Security Guard Richard Jewell…

    http://deadline.com/2015/03/clint-eastwood-richard-jewell-1996-summer-olympics-jonah-hill-leonardo-dicaprio-1201402476/

  8. DXer said

    Cases in Intelligence Analysis: Structured Analytic … – Page 33

    books.google.com/books?isbn=1483340155
    Sarah Miller Beebe, ‎Randolph H. Pherson – 2014 – ‎Preview – ‎More editions
    Investigators first interviewed Hatfill in early 2002. Other scientists and analysts had been urging them to look more closely at Hatfill because of his background in Africa, scientific capabilities, and activities around the time of the anthrax …

    • richard rowley said

      Thanks for that and the previous link.

      It seems to me that there’s a greater, ie wider problem: once a promising suspect is in sight, no one in the organization(s)* wants to be a wet blanket/truth teller and say, a la Brad Garrett, we’re just not getting evidence that this is the right guy.

      If the prominent cases are any indication, this seems to be getting worse:

      1) Richard Jewell was ‘only’ a suspect in the Atlanta Olympic bombing for 3 months (I had to look it up, and I was surprised that it wasn’t much longer).

      2) Hatfill was a suspect from early 2002-fall of 2006 or 4 1/2 years.

      3) Ivins a suspect from (as early as) March 2005 to August 2008, with his death via suicide the only thing derailing that runaway train.

      This does not seem to be a healthy trend.

      organization(s)* : it depends on whether it is a Task Force specific thing or an FBI specific matter.

  9. DXer said

    Newsweek Runs Intriguing Half-Profile of Steven Hatfill, the Falsely Accused Anthrax Suspect
    By Ben Mathis-Lilley
    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/06/18/steven_hatfill_s_current_whereabouts_newsweek_sort_of_finds_them.html

    Newsweek today publishes a profile of Steven Hatfill, the Army infectious-disease specialist who was identified by the FBI as the leading suspect in a series of post-9/11 anthrax mailings for which he was never charged. … Writer Cameron Bird then documents Hatfill’s plan to build a boat that will sail through the jungle, studying plants and fungi and whatnot for potential medical applications:

    “Hatfill handed me a stack of documents marked “appendix.” On the cover, a serpentine double helix shrouds a wireframe Earth, encircled by the acronym ABSOG—short for Asymmetric Biodiversity Studies and Observation Group, a not-for-profit trust Hatfill had established to support his pharmaceutical mission. I leafed through to find elevation maps, land surveys and blueprints for Hatfill’s unbuilt, twin-diesel-powered boat. Inside the vessel’s aluminum hull, he envisioned a plexus of laboratories, with DNA microarrays and other “space-age zuzu” for analyzing the genetic compositions of plants. Bedrooms would be equipped with video-conferencing systems and DVD players, and the executive cabin was modeled after the president’s quarters on Air Force One.”

    His plan seems ambitious, but plausible: he did work at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases. But the redemption tale is not entirely straightforward. Hatfill’s attorney admits that his client at one point claimed a Ph.D. in biology he didn’t have; the piece mentions that Hatfill plans on hiring a former soldier from the white-ruled African country of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe). And then, discussing a company that Hatfill had launched as part of the research-boat plan:

    “But in late 2013, Hatfill…had sued two of his original Templar associates for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, misappropriation of trade secrets and a host of other claims, after they allegedly used his camp and contacts to launch their own side business. And after my long hiatus waiting for a glimpse of his boat, Hatfill made it clear in October 2012 that I too had overstepped the boundaries. He asserted that everything we had discussed in person was off the record and directed all follow-up questions to his attorney.”

    Then the story ends! It’s very beguiling. Hatfill stopped cooperating, and at some point author Bird must have just given up hope of ever talking to him again. …

    Comment:

    My brother-in-law recently built a diesel-powered boat from scatch — out of steel. Now he is finishing the remote crew quarters on the island at base camp.

    I’m his first mate — and so when the bow thrusters failed him last week and he had a large entourage on board, including the elderly, I jumped out of my chair at the bar shoreside and swung into action when I heard his distress call.FN/

    So Dr. Hatfill, if you ever need a First Mate, I’m your man. My credentials include absolutely loving the New York Botanical Garden in the Bronx and taking close notes about the medicinal value of yet-undiscovered plant species.

    FN/ A first mate’s duties aren’t always that swashbuckling and glamorous. Today’s duties include baking and decorating the Skipper’s birthday cake in the shape of the boat. I was going to make an upside down cake but he objected.

    • DXer said

      Steven Hatfill’s Strange Trip From Accused Terrorist to Medical Adventurer
      By Cameron Bird / June 18, 2014
      6.20_FE0225_

      ***

      “Let’s make sure this is a nice article,” he said, calmly.

      Caught off guard, I stammered. “I—I—I can promise I’ll be fair.”

      “I’ve been generous with you,” he said. “And I’ve had enough shit.”

      ***
      For others, the spores dispersed like aerosol and clung to the lymph nodes before hitting the vital organs. When the dust settled, five people had died, and 17 others were sickened. To medical investigators, the symptoms smacked of anthrax, a weapons-grade bacterium, and the FBI began to short-list several government insiders as possible suspects

      In the absence of evidence against Hatfill, stories about his past devolved into tales of questionable veracity {Note The FBI’s Theory is just Hatfill Redux].. Nicholas Kristof spun out a series of columns in The New York Times that elliptically referred to Hatfill as “Mr. Z,” a cipher from the “shadowy world of counterterror and intelligence.” Don Foster, a “literary forensics” expert from Vassar, asserted in a 10,000-word Vanity Fair article that Hatfill was basically a “rascal” who palled around with bioterrorists. (At least one allegation survived scrutiny: a Ph.D. in biology Hatfill had claimed on a mid-’90s résumé turned out to be forged, one of his attorneys later confirmed.)

      ***

      By 2010, the anthrax investigation had come to an unsatisfying coda. A government scientist named Bruce Ivins, whose guilt the FBI had proclaimed with total certainty, ended his own life before charges could be filed.

      ***

      “What a great thing for a grad student,” Hatfill told me. “Do some fieldwork, sit in a hammock, eat rice and beans.”

      But the expedition would be more than a semester at sea. Anticipating snakebites, dengue fever and other agents of death, Hatfill’s schematics also include a surgical suite. The doctor emphasized that his E.R., staffed by a physician, would keep its doors open to people his crew encountered in the rain forest.

      ***

      “There are at least a million unknown fungi in the Amazon, and more in Borneo,” Hatfill said. “I need to go where bacterial World War III is being waged, where there’s high biodiversity.”

      ***

      Meanwhile, a cadre of Hatfill’s soldier friends were awaiting a call to meet him in Puerto Rico. His property in the El Yunque rain forest sits in a gorge surrounded by mountains, shielded by a double canopy of trees.

      Comment:

      Sign me up, Dr. Hatfill. I had a black water snake from a tree drop in my waders this month while I was cutting brush along the river. The survival technique I invoked was to scream like a girl to be sure that my colleagues heard me and mounted a rescue. (You can only tell it’s not a copper head once you don’t see diamonds wrapped around your scrotum).

      Then later that day there was a snapping turtle, Maggie, who decided to lay eggs under my arm chair. Some tree huggers in the party declared my campfire a no-burn zone until the eggs were hatched. I then made the mistake of seeing GODZILLA which has a terrifying scene involving a MUTO laying eggs. Don’t let a snapping turtle fool you — the slow motion and short neck movements of the huge dinosaur-looking turtle merely serve to lull you into a sense of confidence.

      Anthrax, Al Qaeda and Ayman Zawahiri: The Infiltration of US Biodefense
      http://www.amerithrax.wordpress.com

  10. DXer said

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2013/12/anonymous-sourcing-under-oath-180290.html

    Anonymous sourcing, under oath

    By JOSH GERSTEIN | 12/28/13 10:24 AM EST

    Few journalists wish to be enmeshed in litigation that pries into the dark arts of reporting, but some of the most interesting insights into the inner workings of modern-day journalism come from those rare occasions when reporters are questioned under oath about their craft.

    Last week, The Washington Post’s Paul Farhi published a story asserting that the use of anonymous sources in news stories is on the rise and describing many of the explanations for granting anonymity as of little use to the reader. The Post article included some recent examples from a Post sports story, as well as a two-year-old example from POLITICO.

    It seems beyond dispute that many of such explanations inserted into stories, like “due to the sensitivity of the situation,” are a waste of time and space. However, some — including some that have appeared in The Washington Post — are also not literally true, according to a deposition then-Post reporter Allan Lengel gave in 2006. He also suggested that in some instances editors made up the explanations to satisfy a policy requiring them, without really knowing whether they were accurate.

    During a Privacy Act lawsuit scientist Steven Hatfill brought over reports and statements fingering him as a suspect in deadly mailings of anthrax in 2001, Lengel was asked about a 2004 Post story in which the newspaper said federal investigators probing the anthrax attacks”have narrowed the likely source to a short list of labs, including Fort Detrick, the Dugway Proving Ground in Utah and Louisiana State University, according to law enforcement sources who spoke on the condition that they not be named, citing government rules.”

    When lawyers for Hatfill pressed Lengel on what “government rules” the sources had cited, the reporter replied that the sources really hadn’t mentioned any rules and that an editor inserted the phrase.

    “That was a sort of boilerplate,” Lengel told Hatfill’s attorneys at the deposition. “First of all, it should never have said citing, because they didn’t cite it. … My editor stuck that in and — because we were trying to have a policy of explaining why people aren’t using their names … I think it was an incorrect wording of that, frankly, because nobody really cited government rules.” (The episode is discussed a bit further here.)

    Lengel, who later left the Post and now writes for websites Deadline Detroit andTicklethewire.com, said in an interview this week that he thought the Post’s policy of requiring such explanations was “silly.”

    “I never really liked having to put all these silly explanations in there for that,” Lengel said. “I thought it was obvious if someone was not using their name, there’s a reason for it. I used to kid that we should put: ‘They wanted to remain anonymous for fear they would lose their jobs and have to send their kids to public school.’ It was just a little bit silly that we always put that in there so the reader felt better, but I didn’t think it added much.”

    In 2008, the federal government agreed to pay Hatfill $2.8 million to settle his lawsuit, but only after some fairly unpleasant times for journalists involved in the matter. Former USA Today reporter Toni Locy faced potentially ruinous fines of up to $5,000 a day and a possible stay in jail for contempt of court for not revealing her confidential sources. The contempt citation was dismissed after the case was settled.

    In some respects, Privacy Act lawsuits like the one Hatfill filed against the government have the potential to intrude further into reporting methods than do more conventional libel suits filed against news outlets.

  11. DXer said

    The Trentonian in an article today notes:

    “The investigative chase in 2005 started down a new trail, this time in pursuit of Bruce Ivins, another government scientist. In July 2008 he committed suicide with an overdose of Tylenol. A month later the FBI declared him the sole suspect behind the anthrax letters. On Feb. 19, 2010, it officially closed the investigation, declaring Ivins the perpetrator.

    The FBI said psychological profiles, damning unrefuted circumstantial evidence, and Ivins’ own evasive or false statements to agents all pointed to his guilt….”

  12. DXer said

    Vahid Majidi in his book writes:

    “I will describe my best guess for his motive (and not necessarily what DOJ had in their case closing summary).

    This is a man who learned no lessons from the FBI’s experience with a Hatfill Theory.

  13. DXer said

    Vahid Majidi points to the bullet-proof vest found in Dr. Ivins’ residence.

    Yes, and they found a silencer in Hatfill’s residence.

    Shouldn’t the science guy stick to the science if FBI’s forensic science is going to have any integrity?

    I don’t see any lessons learned from Hatfill whatsoever. An Ivins Theory is Hatfill Redux.

  14. DXer said

    It’s a total hoot that Dr. Majidi goes out of his way to at length justify the reasonableness of a Hatfill Theory only to then claim it could be excluded on the grounds of lack of access to Ames — in light of his mistaken conclusion that RMR 1029 was only stored in Building 1425. It was in all sorts of places over the years in Building 1412. See Henry Heine’s interview. And the interviews of the former heads of the bacteriology division. I have long explained that a Hatfill Theory was mistaken — that there was no “there there.”

    But, please, let’s not justify that it was reasonable for a half-decade only to have a last minute revelation he didn’t have access to Ames.

  15. DXer said

    Dr. Vajid Majidi illustrates this point well and in his September 2013 book on the Fall 2001 anthrax mailings expressly relies on Nicholas Kristof’s theory — in a column on Hatfill.

    On the science, we can see that Dr. Majidi went off the rails by not understanding the isotope and dating analysis — thinking it pointed to September/October 2001 rather than within the last two years.

    Ironically, his confusion on Building 1412 vs. Building 1425 allowed him to move past a Hatfill Theory.

    http://www.amerithrax.wordpress.com

    • DXer said

      In his September 2013 book, Dr. Majidi in accusing Dr. Ivins relies on the fact that the perpetrator used tape on the envelopes to ensure that the mailman wasn’t hurt — when the Al Qaeda encyclopedia (vol. 11) chapter on Poisonous Letter expressly urges that steps be taken to avoid killing the mailman. Is the former FBI’s WMD head really unfamiliar with the Al Qaeda chapter on Poisonous Letters. Really? That’s scary.

      CNN.com – Transcripts
      It turns out that the Al Qaeda terrorists already have a dreadful recipe book on … “Wipe the envelope from the inside with silicone sealant,” it goes on, …
      www-cgi.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0111/15/ltm.01.html

      Target: Terrorism: Look at Al Qaeda’s Dreadful Recipe Book

      Aired November 15, 2001 – 09:42 ET

      THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

      THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
      PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Just this morning comes word that Taliban leader Mullah Mohamed Omar in an interview with the BBC said a plan is already under way to destroy America. It turns out that the Al Qaeda terrorists already have a dreadful recipe book on how to do just that.

      Chapter and verse now on this exclusive report from Mike Boettcher.

      (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

      MIKE BOETTCHER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The extent of Al-Qaeda’s operational knowledge was once contained in these, the never before seen 10-volume Encyclopedia of Afghan Resistance, which the intelligence service of an anti-terrorism coalition partner allowed CNN to videotape.

      In the foreword to each volume this: “To the beloved brother Osama bin Laden, who fought in Afghanistan with his should and his money, who still resists there and presses forward with the Jihad until now.” Inside platitudes give way to precise instruction in a variety of lethal techniques. “Killings from Close Range” the title of one, with a section on ambushes, complete with diagrams. Another volume is called “bomb and land mines.” The explosive volume contains directions on how to set detonators into blocks of TNT and plastic explosive.

      (on camera): Since the mid 1990s, the Encyclopedia of Jihad has been the guidebook for Al Qaeda operations.

      But now CNN has learned a new and even more frightening volume has been added to the collection. The recently publish 11th book in the collection, distributed on CD-ROMs to Al Qaeda cells, is a how-to manual on chemical and biological terrorism. CNN was permitted by an intelligence agency that intercepting the volume to inspect the entire almost 500-page document, and was given three chapters of the manual, in order to prove it’s existence.

      It is currently analyzed by Western intelligence agencies. It’s not known how many copies of the CD were produced. Precise, deadly formulas packed with new volume. All can be made from ingredients readily available to the public. For example, a chapter entitle “Purifying Manure” describes a clear-cut goal — quote — “To acquire pure forms of ammonium nitrate without any foreign substances in order to prepare RDX,” a powerful explosive compound.

      The poisonous letter is the title of one section … Write a letter to the victim mentioning very exciting and very interesting news,” it reads. “Wipe the envelope from the inside with silicone sealant,” it goes on, “so it would not kill the mailman.”

      • DXer said

        He also relies on the fact that the letters clearly articulated that the material inside was anthrax — apparently not realizing that Zawahiri, Sufaat and others play strictly by the book. They understand the koran and hadiths to require a clear warning before the use of a biological weapon.

  16. DXer said

    Dr. Vahid Majidi writes in his new manuscript on Amerithrax:

    “One early investigative effort resulted in erroneous identification of Dr. Steven Hatfill as the prime suspect. The details of this detour and the subsequent resolution will be outlined in a later chapter.”

    Was it a detour or a derailment?

  17. DXer said

    ‘A train has been lifted off my shoulders,’ former suspect in ricin case says
    From Bill Mears, Chris Cuomo and Ed Payne, CNN
    updated 3:08 AM EDT, Wed April 24, 2013

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/23/us/ricin-suspect-released/index.html

    Charges were dropped and “new information” became available, U.S. Attorney Felicia Adams said.

    Curtis said his arrest was surreal.

    “It looked like a scene out of a movie,” said Curtis…

    “I think now, how many people are thrown in jail because of circumstantial evidence and someone can frame you that easily,” he said.

    http://www.amerithrax.wordpress.com

  18. DXer said

    In “Covering America’s Courts: A Clash of Rights”, Toni Locy writes:

    “Police and prosecutors will give you their spin on an investigation or an indictment. Go beyond their press releases. … Try to talk to the suspect himself, his relatives, people in the neighborhood and witnesses. There’s no doubt you’ll often strike out. People will refuse to talk to you, but you must never stop trying. … Do the legwork. Don’t allow government officials to spoon-feed you like a baby.

    Reporters also much avoid falling for the hype of an ongoing investigation.

    Prosecutor, many of whom are elected and politically motivated, want the public to see them as tough on crime and in control. This kind of motivation can cost taxpayers when an innocent person is tarred … and ruined. Ashcroft used the term [person of interest] to descrbe Dr. Steven Hatfill, a former Army scientist who was the main subject for years in the FBI’s investigation into the 2001 anthrax attack that killed five people. The FBI eventually admitted it was wrong…

    I also constantly second-guessed myself:

    – What do I know? How do I know it?

    – Who do I believe? Is someone trying to use me?

    – What is the ‘evidence’? Do I have enough to write a story?

    – Are there gaps in the information I have? Am I taking this on faith in someone or something?”

    • DXer said

      Review
      “If a textbook could teach how to report then Toni Locy would write it. Her career both in the newsroom and classroom has taught her how to nail a story on deadline—whether from a trusted source or a document hidden in a government agency. Getting it first and getting it right has been her hallmark as a reporter, and if those gifts can be taught, it’s in this book.”

      —Stephen Kurkjian,a three-time Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and editor of the Boston Globe’s Spotlight team

      http://www.amerithrax.wordpress.com

  19. DXer said

    The new chief of Capitol Police, as the Frederick, MD police chief, received regular briefings from the FBI in connection with their interest in the ponds in Frederick in connection with the FBI’s Hatfill Theory.

    CBS Local
    Frederick, Md., police chief resigns to become chief of US Capitol …
    Washington Post-Nov 14, 2012

    Frederick Police Chief Kim Dine is leaving to become chief of the U.S. Capitol Police in Washington.

    During Dine’s tenure in Frederick, his department helped the FBI investigate the deadly 2001 anthrax mailings. Dine says he’s proud of having strengthened community relations and reduced Frederick’s crime rate through intelligence-driven and data-driven policing strategies.

    http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/anthraxterrorstarted.html

    “When the investigation started focusing on where the anthrax originated it turned to Frederick and Fort Detrick, and the FBI told us that they would be investigating a number of leads, as many as 20 different leads,” Frederick Mayor JenniferDoughtery said. “That many people, or many places — we knew that.”

    Fort Detrick is home to the army’s research institute of infectious diseases — better known as its bio-weapons lab. It is adjacent to the northern boundary of the city of Frederick.

    A short walk down that freshly cut road off Gambrill Park Road leads to nothing more than a non-descript fishing pond about an acre in size, and about 10 feet at its deepest point.

    Several other ponds located only a few dozen yards away are also part of the mystery that may hold the key to the secrets behind the anthrax-laden letters.

    The other ponds are smaller, and at least one of the ponds was tagged for stocking back in March, prior to the opening day of fishing season last month.

    On one pond a man was seen sitting in a chair, fishing pole in hand and passing the time. He hadn’t caught anything yet, he said.

    Prior to the FBI’s investigation at the ponds they informed Frederick’s Police Chief Kim Dine of their interest in the ponds.

    He had had dealings with the FBI in the past, but not in Frederick.

    After more than 27 years with the Washington D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, Dine took over as Frederick’s police chief in July 2002, and six months later his jurisdiction was the focus of an interest FBI probe.

    “I’m in direct contact with them on a regular basis,” explained Dine. “From time to time they give me a call to tell me something or they’ll call and say they want to come down and give me a briefing. They’ll talk about a direction they want to go ion or stuff like that.”

    During the FBI’s initial investigation in December and January a box was discovered in one of the ponds, according to aWashington Post report earlier this month.

    The article revealed that the box could have been used to safely manipulate the deadly anthrax underwater in one of the ponds.

    The box was described as a laboratory type box that had holes for gloves. The type used in laboratories where researchers don’t want to be contaminated by a toxic substance.

    The box is of interest to the FBI, according to the Washington Post article, and they want to further investigate what other clues may be hiding at the bottom of the pond.

  20. DXer said

    Note: Yazid Sufaat, in chat and in Facebook post, does not deny to me that he was using virulent Ames.

    Science 11 May 2012:
    Vol. 336 no. 6082 p. 669

    “Presumed Guilt in the Anthrax Case”

    In his review of my book American Anthrax on the 2001 anthrax letter attacks (“Have we ‘met the enemy?,’” 3 February, p. 540), D. A. Relman accuses me of imposing a “presumption of guilt” on the FBI’s prime suspect, U.S. Army microbiologist Bruce Ivins. In fact, I described many ambiguities in the case against Ivins and took no personal position on his guilt or innocence. I relied on the report of the National Research Council committee that evaluated the FBI science, and, regarding a possible foreign source for the letter spores, I accepted its conclusion that “We consider these data to be inconclusive regarding the possible presence of B. anthracis Ames at this undisclosed overseas site” (1). Relman served as vice chair of the committee that reached this conclusion.

    [Corrected 14 May 2012 to replace earlier version posted in error.]

    Jeanne Guillemin

    Security Studies Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.

    ________

  21. DXer said

    GAO:

    “The only way to stop that kind of power, is to grab it by the tail on and gun it in the opposite direction.”

    — Denzel Washington’s character in UNSTOPPABLE

  22. DXer said

    David Willman in Mirage Man writes:

    “They showed him Ivins one of his own inventory documents, which suggested that the RMR-1029 flask was once stored in Building 1412, where the institute’s animal experiments were conducted.

    … the interview left a glimmer of an opening for Lambert to insist that Hatfill might have had access to RMR-1029: Ivins said that tiny anthrax samples, or aliquots, that he withdrew from RMR-1029 for animal experiments were stored for brief periods in Building 1412.”

    [Note: Dr. Heine explains that they were kept permanently.]

    “This information could keep alive the possibility that, before leaving USAMRIID in 1999, Hatfill had the opportunity to abscond with a vial of liquid-form anthrax derived from the RMR-1029 flask.” (p. 219)

    *[Note: The animal experiments involving subcutaneous injection, such as those on the dates that the investigators speculate Dr. Ivins made dried powder, were done in Building 1425]. See access records and newly produced lab notes.

  23. DXer said

    Mr. Willman notes:

    “[I]t was obvious to his subordinates that Richard Lambert, with the backing of Director Mueller, was driving the investigation in one direction, toward Hatfill’s indictment.” (p. 212)

  24. DXer said

    David Willman in Mirage Man (June 7, 2011) writes:

    “As his May 2003 retirement date neared, Harp nonetheless made sure he got his final say on the anthrax case. He privately assured senior executive branch officials — that the FBI had essentially solved it. “We’ve got our man,” Harp said. “We know who did it.” The FBI was confident, Harp said, that Steven Hatfill was responsible. Mueller and Deputy Director Bruce Gebhardt had told Harp privately that the evidence was not yet sufficient for prosecution — but they at no point instructed either him or Richard Lambert, the FBI inspector who in October 2002 had superseded Harp as chief of the investigation, to reconsider their theory of the crime.” (p. 196)

  25. DXer said

    • DXer said

      You can close your eyes and call out for Tinkerbelle if you want…

      http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/train-disaster/story?id=13840108
      FBI Investigates Train Carrying Flammable Ethanol — Rules Out Terrorism

      Freight train carrying flammable liquid. (Getty Images)

      By: JACK CLOHERTY and PIERRE THOMAS (@PierreTABC)
      June 14, 2011

      A fiery train disaster was narrowly averted early Sunday near a small town in Iowa. Someone was very determined to derail a train carrying highly flammable ethanol, according to the CEO of Iowa Interstate Railroad.

      Journals found in Osama bin Laden’s compound after he was killed contained evidence of al Qaeda’s desire to target trains and subways in the United States. The FBI is now investigating the Iowa incident, but Bureau sources said early indications are that the incident is not a terrorism related.

      “Someone could have been killed,” Dennis Miller, the CEO of Iowa Interstate Railroad, told ABC News. “Ethanol won’t explode,” he said, “but it will burn.” The trains running along those tracks, he said, often carry flammable ethanol, which they load at a nearby ethanol plant. Each train can carry up to 30,000 gallons of ethanol, “and 30,000 gallons would burn for a long time.”

      Miller said a lock was cut off a track switch box just outside Menlo, a town that sits along the rail line between Des Moines, Iowa, and Omaha, Neb. The track was also “gapped open” about 2 inches, and a black bag was used to cover the switch signal so the tampering would be harder to notice. Miller said the switch tampering, and the creation of the gap in the tracks, clearly indicated to him that someone was trying to derail one of the 130-car trains that were running the track last Sunday.

      The railroad’s chief operating officer, Mick Burkart, said a Union Pacific train did successfully cross the track at the damaged switch Sunday night, but the crew noticed that something was wrong with the track and switch. They reported it to the Iowa railroad, and all traffic was shut down on the track.

      Burkhart said that alert crew probably saved lives…

  26. DXer said

    Did lead prosecutor Daniel Seikaly live up to this guidance?

    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
    Counterterrorism
    Investigative Services

    Title: AMERITHRAX
    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

    REDACTED

    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.

    • DXer said

      His daughter represented “anthrax weapons suspect” Ali Al-Timimi pro bono.

      The recent unsealed filing mentions that the IANA head was questioned about Al-Timimi prior to 9/11. Why exactly?

      A July 2001 visit to Sheik Abdel-Rahman was electronically monitored unbeknownst to participants.

      Before reading letter from [Postal worker] Sattar (who was the blind sheik’s paralegal), “YOUSRY told SHEIK ABDEL RAHMAN that “they” (not further identified) had paid $35,000 for a taxi cab, using the money that YOUSRY was holding. YOUSRY also told SHEIKH ABDEL RAHMAN that SATTAR and another person, who was not further identified, had started their own business and wanted SHEIK ABDEL RAHMAN’S advice on whether the way they planned to operate the business was permissible. SHEIK ABDEL RAHMAN told YOUSRY to tell SATTAR that there were risks in all businesses. ***

      YOUSRY then read [Postal employee] SATTAR’S letter. SATTAR stated that he was upset by an article that an IG leader had written, which stated that SHEIKH ABDEL RAHMAN which stated that SHEIKH ABDEL RAHMAN is “abiding by the peace initiative and encouraging it.” SATTAR wrote that “this was debilitating news to us all, is it true?” SATTAR reminded SHEIKH ABDEL RAHMAN that he (Rahman) still has great influence over IG. SATTAR also informed SHEIKH ABDEL RAHMAN that he had been sending approximately $6,000 per year to SHEIKH ABDEL RAHMAN’s family and asked if that was acceptable. In the letter, SATTAR asked SHEIKH ABDEL RAHMAN what he should do, bearing in mind that “people don’t care anymore and nothing is coming (by way of donations).”

      d. YOUSRY then asked STEWART if he could talk to SHEIKH ABDEL RAHMAN about an issue relating to the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, which had occurred in Yemen on October 12, 2000. Stewart consented. YOUSRY told SHEIKH ABDEL RAHMAN that “some people spoke to [SATTAR] on the phone and said that they did this operation for Omar Abdel Rahman so that he could be released from prison and they asked SATTAR to do some negotiations with the American government and tell them ‘if [Rahman is] not released we’ll execute another operation.’” SHEIKH ABDEL RAHMAN responded that SATTAR had to take himself out of this and that a lawyer should handle any negotiations.”

      What was the business that Sattar had planned to operate?

      Postal Worker’s Letter Tied To Slaying of Afghan Leader – The… [Note this refers to the bomb in the camera that killed the Northern Alliance leader 2 days before 9/11]
      Washington Post – – May 13, 2002
      of hours of wiretaps involving Ahmed Abdel Sattar, 42, the official said. … supplemented his income by selling baby formula at night. …

      So his business apparently involved selling baby formula.

      What was the “taxi cab” “they” paid for $35,000? Did they now own a taxi cab? Or was that code for something else? Where is the food processor that Syed Athar Abbas had delivered one mile down the street from a key hijacker?

      One potential lead that was reported in the press concerned a $100,000 piece of equipment bought by someone from Pakistan paying cash who had it delivered to 215 Main St. in Ft. Lee, NJ, one mile from where pilot Nawaf al-Hazmi lived. Nawaf attended a critical meeting with Yazid Sufaat, the biochemist working on anthrax, in January 2000. The United States alleged in its indictment of Zacarias Moussaoui that on or about April 1, 2001, Nawaf al-Hazmi was in Oklahoma (at the same time Zacarias Moussaoui was in Norman, Oklahoma). Nawaf then lived in Falls Church, VA and attended mosque and met with the imam that spoke alongside fellow Falls Church imam Ali Al-Timimi at a conference with other Salafists in Toronto and London in July and August 2001. The individual from Karachi who had ordered the processor pled guilty to a check kiting scheme that raised the funds used to purchase the processor. The purchaser, Syed Athar Abbas from California and then New Jersey, used the name Arthur Abbas in making the purchase. The front company was Computers Dot Com, a computer peripherals wholesaling firm, owned by Abbas. A Syed Athar Abbas (with records showing a different age and a different social security number) had a computer peripherals wholesaling firm named Mixun Solutions, also based in Karachi. Mixun Solutions went defunct after the New Jersey Syed Athar Abbas was arrested. According to the database PACER, he had initially been denied bail because he turned in two expired passports but failed to turn in the third. The New Jersey Syed Athar Abbas was given back his passport after serving a 15 month sentence.

      Karachi was where KSM and As Sahab was located. KSM settled his family in Karachi in 1998. In April 2001, al Hawsawi, whose laptop contained the anthrax spraydrying documents, traveled to Dubai from Karachi at the direct of Qaeda’s Media Committee. Between September 11 and September 21, 2001, KSM and others at the guesthouse in Karachi, Pakistan recorded many news stories of the 9//11 attacks for future in As Sahab films.

      In “connecting the dots” one also would want to consider whether any supporter of the militants had access to the know-how of this encapsulation technique. I’ve posed the question whether Ali Al-Timimi had access to such know-how. A supporter of the Taliban who was working with Bin Laden’s spiritual mentor, Al-Timimi was a Salafist imam sentenced to life plus 70 years for sedition and exhorting some young men to go abroad and defend their faith. We might also consider, however, whether any supporter of the militants has expertise in such polymerization or encapsulation relating to drug delivery, such as biochemist Magdy al-Nashar. He studied in Raleigh, North Carolina in 2000. His webpage at Leeds explained he was expert in functional polymers used in the delivery of drugs. He was represented by an attorney in Cairo who has been alleged as Ayman Zawahiri’s conduit to jihadists in Egypt and Iraq and elsewhere. Al-Nashar had the keys to the apartment used to make the London subway bombs and to store materials shipped to al-Zawahiri’s chief aide al-Hadi.

      Ali Al-Timimi was a graduate microbiology student at George Mason University, where famed Russian bioweaponeer and former USAMRIID Deputy Commander and Acting Commander Charles Bailey on March 14, 2001 filed a patent involving the use of hydrophobic silica in permitting greater concentration of biological agents. There is a related, more sophisticated, patent based on Dr. Alibek’s know-how published later (after the mailings). The First Floor that intermingled the Center for Biodefense/Hadron and the GMU/ATCC computational sciences people. Here, the government even allowed the method to be commercialized and be published in the public domain for use in a broad range of possible commercial applications. Perhaps the United States biodefense establishment should not let officials commercialize and disclose such dual use technology, whether the patent is assigned to a DARPA-funded program or not — and whether deemed “biofriendly” or not. (The patent, which is not classified, has been assigned to George Mason University). I have uploaded a Floor Plan for the First Floor of Discovery Hall at George Mason University. FBI Director Mueller this Fall cautioned universities to guard against access to pre-patent, pre-classification biochemistry information.

      GMU microbiology grad Al-Timimi, who was working with and had been taught by Bin Laden’s sheik, did mathematical support work for the Navy that required a high security clearance, while working for a Beltway contractor. What did his work for the Navy involve? I asked his wife, who was very gracious and charming, but she could not say with approval of Professor Turley.

      When pressed by the interviewer, “Does it nag at you in the back of your mind that possibly you do know [the anthrax processor]?” Dr. Bill Patrick said: “Possibly, possibly, I could have talked to these people. But it would have been within the context of their having a need to know.” He explained: “ Most of my discussions about the biological problem has been in secure conferences and meetings, and involve people with need to know, with security clearance and what have you. I don’t talk about ‘how to’, I don’t get into ‘how to’ with many people, no people other than the fact that those who really have a need to know.” A GMU thesis that explains that silica, if used, liked was used as part of an encapsulation technique thanks both Dr. Alibek and Dr. Patrick.

      Al-Timimi had a high security clearance for some of his work for the government. Why? When?

      As so well explained by Rutgers professor Richard Ebright, proliferation of know-how serves to proliferate opportunities for access to that know-how.

  27. DXer said

    Agent Lambert’s memo that I have posted from January 2003 after Brian Ross’s January 9, 2003 “exclusive” about the FBI focusing on Hatfill that there would be another media leak investigation that would be pursued with “extreme zeal.” To set the tone of candor and cooperation, he waived any Fifth Amendment privilege and agreed to take a polygraph. The prosecutor who was head of the criminal division at the DC US Attorney’s Office, in contrast, invoked the Fifth Amendment in response to every substantive question re leaking posed by Dr. Hatfill’s attorney.

    “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]

    • 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.

      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

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

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

      • DXer said

        rom 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.

        BY MR. CONNOLLY:

        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.”

        • 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.

        • Lew Weinstein said

          busy morning. where is all this coming from? where are you going with it? ************************************ Lewis M. Weinstein SKYPE: (1) 856-393-1691; see Lew’s author page at … http://www.amazon.com/Lewis-M.-Weinstein/e/B002IZ1BNK/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1 CASE CLOSED … THE HERETIC … A GOOD CONVICTION … THE POPE’S CONSPIRACY (in draft)

        • DXer said

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

          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.”

        • 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?
          THE WITNESS: Yes.

          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

        • DXer said

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

          BY MR. CONNOLLY:

          “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.

          BY MR. CONNOLLY:
          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

      Deposition of Stephen Guillot re LSU program:

      A. We were looking at expending it to three traditional level format programs and then advancing these students to Dugway to get practical — to attend an exercise program at Dugway Proving Grounds in Utah.

      Q. I’m going to go to the next bullet point, which says, “After the first searches of Dr. Hatfill’s apartment, FBI Special Agent Dave D[aw]son called me to state that nothing was found in Dr. Hatfill’s apartment and that Dr. Hatfill was no longer a suspect. I also spoke with Mr. Van Harp, assistant of the FBI.”
      ***
      Q. Is that true, that paragraph?
      A. That is very true.

      ***

      *** And this associate director position was virtually funded in its entirety by DOJ grant?
      A. That is correct.

    • DXer said

      David Willman in Mirage Man writes about the Hatfill search on June 25, 2002:

      “Roth was waiting there, with his co-case agent, Dave Dawson, and Thomas Dellafera, a senior investigator from the U.S. Postal Inspection Service.” (p. 160)

      • DXer said

        See also “Sworn affidavit from U.S. postal inspector Thomas F. Dellafera in support of obtaining a warrant to search the residence and vehicles of Bruce Ivins,” October 31, 2007. cited by Mr. Willman at p. 373, n, 16.

    • DXer said

      David Willman in Mirage Man writes: “The reactions of the dogs would ultimately prove to be useless as evidence, akin to palm reading. But Newsweek had tapped two very well-laced sources for its revelations: the FBI’s Van Harp and Roscoe C. Howard Jr., the United States attorney for Washington, D.C.” (p. 172)

  28. DXer said

    In April 2010, the government filed this statement of the facts in its memorandum in support of its motion for summary judgment in a civil rights and Privacy Act lawsuit brought by Dr. Steve Hatfill.

    “The anthrax attacks occurred in October 2001. Public officials, prominent members of the media, and ordinary citizens were targeted by this first bio-terrorist attack on American soil. Twenty-two persons were infected with anthrax; five died. At least 17 public buildings were contaminated. The attacks wreaked havoc on the U.S. postal system and disrupted government and commerce, resulting in economic losses estimated to exceed one billion dollars. The attacks spread anxiety throughout the nation – already in a heightened state of alert in the wake of the attacks of September 11 – and left behind a lasting sense of vulnerability to future acts of bioterrorism. Given the unprecedented nature of the attacks, the investigation received intense media attention. Journalists from virtually every news organization pursued the story, sometimes conducting their own worldwide investigation to determine the person or persons responsible for the attacks and the motive behind them.

    A. Journalistic Interest In Hatfill That Predates Alleged Disclosures

    Testimony has revealed that at least certain members of the media began focusing their attention upon Hatfill in early 2002 because of tips they had received from former colleagues of his who found him to be highly suspicious. Articles about Hatfill thus began to appear in the mainstream press and on internet sites as early as January of 2002, and continued until the first search of his apartment on June 25, 2002, which, in turn, led to even more intense press attention.

    Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, a Professor at the State University of New York, for example, complained in January and February 2002 on the Federation of American Scientists’ (“FAS”) website of the FBI’s apparent lack of progress on the investigation, and described generally the person she believed was the “anthrax perpetrator.” “Analysis of Anthrax Attacks,” Possible Portrait of the Anthrax Perpetrator (Section IV.6), Defendant’s Appendix , Ex. 1. Rosenberg did not identify Hatfill by name, but described him in sufficient detail: a “Middle-aged American” who “[w]orks for a CIA contractor in Washington, DC area” and [w]orked in USAMRIID laboratory in the past” and “[k]nows Bill Patrick and probably learned a thing or two about weaponization from him informally.” Id. In his amended complaint, Hatfill states that “Professor Rosenberg’s ‘Possible Portrait of the Anthrax Perpetrator’ . . . described [him].”

    [DXer note] – Mr. Hatfill’s resume listed a working knowledge of dried aerosols. Thus, in this regard, a Hatfill Theory on its face was always stronger than an Ivins Theory because there is no evidence among the thousands of pages that Dr. Ivins had such working knowledge. See civil deposition of Bacteriology Chief Andrews.]

    In addition to her postings on the FAS website, Professor Rosenberg also presented a lecture on February 18, 2002 at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, entitled “The Anthrax Attacks and the Control of Bioterrorism.” Ex. 2. During the course of her lecture, Rosenberg stated that she had “draw[n] a likely portrait of the perpetrator as a former Fort Detrick scientist who is now working for a contractor in the Washington, D.C, area[.]” Ex. 3. Rosenberg also commented upon Hatfill’s whereabouts on the date of the attacks, stating that “[h]e had reason for travel to Florida, New Jersey and the United Kingdom” – where the attacks had been and from which the letters had been purportedly sent – that “[h]e grew [the anthrax], probably on a solid medium, and weaponised it at a private location where he had accumulated the equipment and the material.” Id. Rosenberg also stated that the investigation had narrowed to a “common suspect[,]” and that “[t]he FBI has questioned that person more than once[.]” Id. Former White House Spokesperson, Ari Fleischer, immediately responded to Rosenberg’s comments, stating that there were several suspects and the FBI had not narrowed that list down to one. Ex. 4. The FBI also issued a press release, stating that it had “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.” Id. Rosenberg’s comments and writings were subsequently pursued by The New York Times (“The Times”). In a series of Op-Ed articles published from May through July 2002, Nicholas Kristof, a journalist with The Times, accused Hatfill of being responsible for the anthrax attacks. Kristof wrote on May 24, 2002 that the FBI was overlooking the anthrax perpetrator, noting that “experts” (Professor Rosenberg) point “to one middle-aged American who has worked for the United States military bio-defense program and had access to the labs at Fort Detrick, Md. His anthrax vaccinations are up to date, he unquestionably had the ability to make first-rate anthrax, and he was upset at the United States government in the period preceding the anthrax attack.” Ex. 5.

    [DXer note: BHR”s December 2001 website relating to compilation of evidence on the distribution of Ames was ahead of its time and has withstood a decade of learning since ; there was a similarly carefully done submission to the NAS on three biomarkers].

    Hatfill first noticed the Kristof columns in May 2002. Hatfill Dep. Tran. in Hatfill v. The New York Times, No. 04-807 (E.D.Va.), Ex. 6, at 13: 3-6. According to Hatfill, “[w]hen Mr. Kristof’s article appeared, it was the first [time] that [he] realized that [his] name [was] in the public domain with connection with an incident of mass murder.” Id. at 16:15-18. Hatfill has charged that The Times began the “entire conflagration and gave every journalist out there reason to drive this thing beyond any sort of sanity. Mr. Kristof lit the fuse to a barn fire and he repeatedly kept stoking the fire.” Id. at 43:19 – 44:1. In July 2004, Hatfill thus filed suit alleging that these articles libeled him by falsely accusing him of being the anthrax mailer. Complaint, Hatfill v. The New York Times, No. 04-807 (E.D.Va.), Ex. 7.

    [DXer: The lesson to be learned from the NK NYT experience is always contact the person and get their input. In fact, their version of the facts is the one that is best to put forward; at the very least, it is the best person to learn something. There was nothing wrong with the May 2002 column — it was the July 2002 problem that was highly problematic.]

    Hatfill alleges in that lawsuit that “Kristof wrote his columns in such a way as to impute guilt for the anthrax letters to [him] in the minds of reasonable readers.” Id. ¶ 12. The articles, Hatfill claimed, which described his “background and work in the field of bio-terrorism, state or imply that [he] was the anthrax mailer.” Id. ¶ 14. Hatfill specifically alleged that statements in Kristof’s articles were false and defamatory, including those that stated that he: (1) “‘unquestionably had the ability to make first-rate anthrax’”; (2) “had the ‘ability’ to send the anthrax”; (3) “had the ‘access’ required to send the anthrax”; (4) “had a ‘motive’ to send the anthrax”; (5) “was one of a ‘handful’ of individuals who had the ‘ability, access and motive to send the anthrax’”; (6) “had access” to an ‘isolated residence’ in the fall of 2001, when the anthrax letters were sent”; (7) “‘gave CIPRO [an antibiotic famously used in the treatment of anthrax infection] to people who visited [the ‘isolated residence’]”; (8) his “anthrax vaccinations were ‘up to date’ as of May 24, 2002”; (9) he “‘failed 3 successive polygraph examinations’ between January 2002 and August 13, 2002”; (10) he “‘was upset at the United States government in the period preceding the attack’”; (11) he “‘was once caught with a girlfriend in a biohazard ‘hot suite’ at Fort Detrick [where Hatfill had concedely worked] surrounded only by blushing germs.’” Id. ¶ 16 (brackets in original). Hatfill alleges in his lawsuit against The Times that “[t]he publication of [Kristof’s] repeated defamation of [him] . . .gave rise to severe notoriety gravely injurious to [him].” Id. ¶ 29. The injury, Hatfill alleged, “was [made] all the more severe given the status and journalistic clout of The Times.” Id. This harm was compounded, Hatfill alleged, by the fact that these articles were “thereafter repeatedly published by a host of print and on-line publications and on the television and radio news” in the following months. Id., ¶ 30.

    [DXer note: In arguing that Dr. Ayman Zawahiri is responsible for the anthrax mailings and used the cover of universities and charities in developing anthrax as a weapon against the US to retaliate for the rendering of senior EIJ leaders, I am relying on the documentary evidence, to include the correspondence provided me under FOIA by the DIA; unlike a “Hatfill Theory” or “Ivins Theory” there is no scratching of one’s ass speculating as to motive. The EIJ shura members and Blind Sheik attorney announced Dr. Ayman’s motive at the time they announced in Spring 1999 that he was going to use anthrax.]

    The case was initially dismissed by the trial court. Hatfill v. The New York Times, No. 04-807, 2004 WL 3023003 (E.D.Va.). That decision was reversed by the United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 416 F.3d 320 (4th Cir. 2005). Upon remand, the trial court granted The Times summary judgment, finding that Hatfill was a public figure and public official and had failed to present evidence of malice. Hatfill v. The New York Times, 488 F. Supp. 2d 522 (E.D. Va. 2007). In arriving at that conclusion, the court considered Hatfill’s repeated media interviews before the attacks; the fact that he had “drafted a novel, which he registered with [the] United States Copyright office, describing a scenario in which a terrorist sickens government officials with a biological agent”; and had lectured on the medical effects of chemical and biological agents. Id. at 525.

    [DXer Note: Last I looked (which was many years ago], 95% of all published books earn less than $5,000 ; the novel was not a motive to commit murder. The fellow was an M.D. and a Ph.D (based on a forged diploma. The unpublished novel was never a credible motive]. It only might seem so to a Quantico profiler who is not informed on the intelligence analysis about Dr. Zawahiri’s plan to use anthrax against US targets after recruiting specialists.]

    Although not recited by the district court in The New York Times litigation, Hatfill also talked directly to reporters about his suspected involvement in the attacks. Brian Ross of ABC News, and his producer, Victor Walter, for example, talked separately to Hatfill on two to three occasions as early as January and February 2002, Ross Dep. Tran., Ex. 8, at 263:14 – 270:1, and continued talking to Hatfill until May of that year. Id. Ross also spoke to Hatfill’s friend and mentor, William Patrick, about Hatfill. Id. at 287:9 – 295:12. These meetings were prompted by discussions ABC News had in January 2002 with eight to twelve former colleagues of Hatfill at the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (“USAMRIID”). Id. at 242:7 – 246:14. Hatfill’s former colleagues found him to be “highly suspicious because of a number of things he had done when he worked at [USAMRIID], and this behavior was strange “and unusual and they felt that he was a likely candidate.” Id. at 242: 7-17. These meetings were also prompted by ABC News’s own investigative reporting into Hatfill’s background; the more ABC News learned “the more interested [they] became” in Hatfill. Id. at 264: 14-15.

    Scott Shane of the Baltimore Sun also spoke to Hatfill in February 2002. Shane also spoke to USAMRIID employees who had worked with Hatfill. Ex. 9. These employees stated that they had been questioned by the FBI and “asked about a former Fort Detrick scientist” – Hatfill – “who returned a few years ago and took discarded biological safety cabinets, used for work with dangerous pathogens.” Id. at 1. These employees claimed that Hatfill “ha[d] expertise on weaponizing anthrax and ha[d] been vaccinated against it[.]” Id. Shane also called one of Hatfill’s former classmates, who was “plagued” by questions from the Baltimore Sun and others within the media regarding Hatfill’s “alleged involvement with the large anthrax outbreak in Zimbabwe[.]” Ex. 10. According to Hatfill, this classmate was told by Shane that Hatfill was purportedly responsible for “mailing the anthrax letters and also starting the [anthrax] outbreak in Zimbabwe/ Rhodesia twenty years before.” Ex. 11, at AGD29SJH00014; see also e-mail to Hatfill fr. DF Andrews, dated Mar. 1, 2002, Ex. 10. Hatfill told Shane in February 2002 that he had been “questioned by the FBI” and that “he considered the questioning to be part of a routine effort to eliminate people with the knowledge to mount [the] attack.” Ex. 9. Hatfill also confirmed for Shane that he had taken an FBI polygraph. Ex. 12, at 2. In March 2002, Hatfill left Shane a frantic telephone message reportedly stating how he had “been [in the bioterrorism] field for a number of years, working until 3 o’clock in the morning, trying to counter this type of weapon of mass destruction” and fearing that his “career [was] over at [that] time.” Ex. 13, at 2. According to Hatfill, Shane later Case 1:03-cv-01793-RBW Document 232-2 Filed 04/11/2008 Page 17 of 73

    [DXer Note: ABC’s Brian Ross and NYT Scott Shane had made direct contact and thus there is no basis for criticism that they did not make inquiry. Picking up the call and giving the person a chance to provide input is the key journalistic consideration. For example, David Korn made extensive inquiry recently in advance of his Mother Jones pieces. That was good journalism.]

    ____ Hatfill did not sue either Shane or Rosenberg, even though Hatfill has stated that Rosenberg “caused” the focus on him. Ex. 14, at 10. Because Hatfill believed that the portrait Rosenberg painted at the February 2002 Princeton conference and in her website postings was so identifying and incriminating, however, Hatfill advised Rosenberg through his lawyers that “before [she] get[s] close to describing him in the future, by name or otherwise, [that she] submit [her] comments for legal vetting before publishing them to anyone.” Ex. 15. There is no evidence that the agency defendants bore any responsibility for the media presence. Information about FBI searches is routinely shared with a variety of state and local law enforcement authorities. Roth Dep. Tran., Ex. 16, at 163:5 -165:21; Garrett Dep. Tran. Ex. 17, at 79: 8-18. ______

    compounded Hatfill’s problems by calling his then-employer, Science Applications International Corporation (“SAIC”), and accusing Hatfill of being responsible for the anthrax attacks, Ex. 11, at AGD29SJH00014, which, according to Hatfill, cost him his job as a contractor at SAIC. Id. 1

    [DXer note: It turns out that Dr. Hatfill forged his PhD diploma. In a debate about equities, BHR made sound points in her December 2001 website; Dr. Hatfill engaged in outrageous fraud, and became rich to boot. Even a comment she made in a BBC March 2002 interview that struck me as unsupported at the time has more to support it than an Ivins Theory.]

    The media frenzy surrounding Hatfill intensified upon the search of his apartment on June 25, 2002, and the search of a refrigerated mini-storage facility in Ocala, Florida on June 26, 2002. Both were witnessed by the media, and the search of his apartment was carried live on national television. In addition to the television coverage, the searches generated a slew of articles about Hatfill throughout the media, one fueling the next. The Associated Press, for example, detailed in an article, dated June 27, 2002, Hatfill’s (1) work as biodefense researcher, including studies he had conducted at SAIC, and the work he had done at the USAMRIID; (2) his educational background; (3) where he had previously lived; and (4) security clearances he had held and the suspension of those clearances. Ex. 18. The Hartford Courant reported these same details, and additional information regarding Hatfill’s purported service in the Rhodesian army. Ex. 19. The next day — June 28, 2002 — the Hartford Courant reported details about Hatfill’s background in biological warfare, his vaccinations against anthrax, questioning that purportedly had occurred among Hatfill’s colleagues, his educational background (including the claim that he had attended medical school in Greendale), and lectures that he had given on the process of turning biological agents into easily inhaled powders. Ex. 20. None of this information is attributed to a government source.

    B. Hatfill’s Public Relations Offensive

    In July 2002, after these reports and after the first search of Hatfill’s apartment on June 25, 2002, Hatfill retained Victor Glasberg as his attorney. Glasberg Dep. Tran., Ex. 21, at 12: 16-19. Glasberg believed that “any number of people in the media [had] overstepped their bounds. . . . prior to July of 2002 .” Id. at 141:1 – 142:6. To counter this information, Hatfill set out on a “public relations offensive” of his own to “turn [the] tide.” Id. at 138: 20-21, 178: 12-13.

    Recognizing that Hatfill “continue[d] [to] get[] killed with bad press, national as well as local[,]” Hatfill drafted a statement and Glasberg forwarded that statement in July 2002 to Hatfill’s then-employer at Louisiana State University (“LSU”). Ex. 11, at 1. The statement detailed Hatfill’s background, including his medical training and employment history, and provided details about Hatfill’s involvement in the anthrax investigation, including how he had been interviewed by the FBI and had taken a polygraph examination. Id. at AGD29SJH00002-13. Hatfill’s statement corroborated the conversations that Hatfill reportedly had with Scott Shane of the Baltimore Sun in February 2002, and how that interaction had purportedly cost Hatfill his job at SAIC in March 2002. Id. at AGD29SJH00014.

    [DXer note: Someone who forged his PhD diploma should not be paid by federal taxpayer funds relating to biodefense. In fact, query whether someone who forged his PhD diploma deserves to be called “Dr.” By the time the LSU job was denied, the fraud had been discovered. USG should do better vetting of employees as part of biosecurity.]

    In his July statement, Hatfill was careful not to blame DOJ or the FBI for his troubles or for any wrongdoing for the information about him that had made its way into the press. He touted the professionalism of the FBI, noting that “[t]he individual FBI agents with whom [he had come] in contact during this entire process are sons and daughters of which America can be justifiably proud. They are fine men and women doing their best to protect this country.” Id. at AGD29SJH00016. Hatfill’s objection lay with the media, whom he labeled as “irresponsible[,]” for trading in “half-truths, innuendo and speculation, making accusations and slanting real world events . . . to gain viewer recognition, sell newspapers, and increase readership and network ratings.” Id.

    As the investigation proceeded, however, Glasberg publicly criticized investigators on the date of the second search of Hatfill’s apartment, August 1, 2002, for obtaining a search warrant rather than accepting the offer Glasberg had allegedly made to cooperate. Ex. 22. So angry was Glasberg with investigators that he wrote a letter, dated the same day as the search, to Assistant United States Attorney Kenneth C. Kohl, denouncing the fact that the search had been conducted “pursuant to a search warrant.” Ex. 23. Glasberg forwarded a copy of this letter to Tom Jackman of the Washington Post, and to the Associated Press, the morning of August 1st. Glasberg, Dep. Tran., Ex. 24, at 265:12 – 266:5; see also Ex. 25 (Glasberg memorandum to file, stating, among other things, that Glasberg showed Jackman Kohl letter on August 1, 2002).

    [DXer note: It is not realistic for Attorney Glasberg to expect Agent Roth to wait until Monday to conduct a search. Delaying or providing notice of a search would permit the destruction of evidence. Attorney Glasberg might instead have said, “Sure, come right over. We’ll meet you at the door.” I always lead agents or police officers right up to the pile of my dirty laundry with relish.]

    On the day of the search, an FBI spokeswoman at the Bureau’s Washington field office, Debra Weierman, “confirmed that the search was part of the government’s anthrax investigation.” Ex. 25. Weierman added, however, that “she was unable to confirm that [investigators were acting on a search warrant] or to provide any further information about the search.” Id.

    The next day – August 2, 2002 – Glasberg faxed the Kohl letter to members of the media. Ex. 26. In the fax transmittal sheet accompanying the Kohl letter, Glasberg also advised the media that: Dr. Hatfill was first contacted by the FBI earlier this year, as part of the Bureau’s survey of several dozen scientists working in fields related to biomedical warfare. He was voluntarily debriefed and polygraphed, and voluntarily agreed to have his home, car and other property subjected to a lengthy and comprehensive search by the FBI. He and his lawyer Tom Carter were told that the results were all favorable and that he was not a suspect in the case. Id. at AGD16SJH03106. Subsequent to the fax transmittal by Glasberg, Weierman confirmed that the search had been conducted pursuant to a search warrant, but only after receiving appropriate authorization from her superiors. Weierman Dep. Tran., Ex. 27, at 93:16 – 94:14.

    Hatfill had also accompanied Glasberg for his interview with Jackman the day before to address the “media feeding frenzy.” Ex. 28. Glasberg provided Jackman with the promise of an “[e]xclusive personal statement” from Hatfill and the promise of “[n]o other press contacts pending publication” of the article. Id. Glasberg thus provided Jackman background information about Hatfill, Rosenberg’s statements, and other publications. Ex. 25. Hatfill reportedly complained to the Washington Post in the interview about the media feeding frenzy, and about how his “friends are bombarded” with press inquiries. Ex. 29, at 1. Hatfill also complained about the “[p]hone calls at night. Trespassing. Beating on my door. For the sheer purpose of selling newspapers and television.” Id.

    [DXer note: There was never any evidence implicating Dr. Hatfill — none at all. The forging of his diploma reflects poorly on him but is not material to true crime analysis relatng to the anthrax mailings. If the FBI had disclosed that it was its expert that made a dried aerosol powder out of Ames anthrax — and not Dr. Hatfill (who had never worked with anthrax), there might have been a more accurate context in which to judge a “Hatfill Theory” or “Ivins Theory”.]

    C. Attorney General Ashcroft’s Person of Interest Statements

    Following this “media frenzy,” not to mention the two searches of Hatfill’s apartment, former Attorney General John Ashcroft was asked on August 6, 2002 (at an event addressing the subject of missing and exploited children) about Hatfill’s involvement in the investigation. Jane Clayson of CBS News asked General Ashcroft about the searches and whether Hatfill was a “suspect” in the investigation. Ex. 30, at 2. General Ashcroft responded that Hatfill was a “person of interest.” General Ashcroft cautioned, however, that he was “not prepared to say any more at [that] time other than the fact that he is an individual of interest.” Id. At the same media event, Matt Lauer of NBC News also asked General Ashcroft whether Hatfill was a “suspect” in the investigation. Ex. 31. General Ashcroft responded that Hatfill was a “person that – that the FBI’s been interested in.” Id. at 2. General Ashcroft cautioned that he was “not prepared to make a . . . comment about whether a person is officially a . . . suspect or not.” Id.

    [DXer note: It’s hard to fault AG Ashcroft given the news of the search. I have my own theory as to who tipped the press, but I don’t recall that it was ever established. Certainly, the FBI could have been more discreet.]

    General Ashcroft made the same comments at a news conference in Newark, New Jersey on August 22, 2002, stating that Hatfill was a “person of interest to the Department of Justice, and we continue the investigation.” Ex. 32, at 1. As in his previous statements, General Ashcroft refused to provide further comment. Id. When asked upon deposition why he referred to Hatfill as a “person of interest” in the anthrax investigation in response to these media inquiries, General Ashcroft testified that he did so in an attempt to correct the record presented by the media that he was a “suspect” in the investigation, which he believed served a necessary law enforcement purpose. Ashcroft Dep. Tran., Ex. 33, at 81: 5-12; 103:18; 108: 9-13; 138: 5-7; 125: 18-21; 134:22 – 136:8. Prior to making these statements, General Ashcroft did not review or otherwise consult any investigative record, id. at 128:14 – 129:12, much less any record pertaining to Hatfill.

    General Ashcroft’s initial statements on August 6, 2002 were followed, on August 11, 2002, by the first of Hatfill’s two nationally televised press conferences. Ex. 34. During his press conference, Hatfill lashed out at Rosenberg and other journalists and columnists who he believed wrote a series of “defamatory speculation and innuendo about [him].” Id. at 3. In apparent response to the “person of interest” statements, by contrast, he stated that he did “not object to being considered a ‘subject of interest’ because of [his] knowledge and background in the field of biological warfare.” Id. at 4. This was consistent with Hatfill’s statement to ABC News earlier in 2002 in which he stated that “his background and comments made him a logical subject of the investigation.” Ex. 35. As noted, moreover, Glasberg told the media — almost a week before the first of General Ashcroft’s statements — that “Hatfill was first contacted by the FBI [earlier that] year, as part of the Bureau’s survey of several dozen scientists working in fields related to biomedical warfare. He was voluntarily debriefed and polygraphed, and voluntarily agreed to have his home, car and other property subjected to a lengthy and comprehensive search by the FBI.” Ex. 26.

    Hatfill’s second press conference was held on August 25, 2002. In the flyer publicizing the conference, Hatfill identified himself to the media — in bold lettering — as “the ‘person of interest’ at the center of the federal Government’s [anthrax] investigation.” DA, Exhibit 36.

    [DXer: FBI officials understandably feel damned if they do, and damned if they don’t. At the end of the day, they are trying to do their best and we depend on them to keep the country safe. We should temper any criticism with that in mind. The focus should always be on the merits — the relevant and probative merits. Here, on the merits, Dr. Hatfill never worked with anthrax, had no motive, had an alibi, and there was no evidence supporting the speculation he was responsible.]

    D. Clawson’s “Sunshine” Policy

    Patrick Clawson joined the Hatfill team in early August 2002 as spokesperson and “fielded hundreds of inquiries from members of the press worldwide regarding Dr. Hatfill[.]” Ex. 12, at 13. Clawson believed it best to employ a media strategy that would, in his words, “let it all hang out.” Id. at 50:10. Clawson felt that “permitting maximum sunshine into . . . Hatfill’s existence would do both him and the public the best good.” Clawson Dep. Tran., Ex. 37, at 50:16-18.

    “The majority of Clawson’s communications with the press regarding this case have been oral and by telephone and he did not keep a press log or any other regular record of such contacts with the press.” Ex. 12, at 13. Clawson nonetheless admitted upon deposition that he revealed numerous details about Hatfill’s personal and professional background to members of the press (Clawson Dep. Tran., Ex. 37, at 101:9 – 105:21), including Hatfill’s professional expertise (id. at 103:10 – 105:21), use of Cipro (id. at 123:16 – 130:11, 248: 8-13), whereabouts on the days of the attacks (id. at 148:12 – 158:10, 361:15 – 362:3), expertise in working with anthrax (id. at 194:13 – 195:8), former service in the Rhodesian Army (id. at 210:9 – 211:10), and drunk driving arrest (id. at 795: 7-9, 798: 4-6). Clawson also told reporters what had been purportedly removed from Hatfill’s apartment during the two searches of his apartment on June 25, 2002 and August 1, 2002 (including medical books and a jar of bacillus thuringiensis (“BT”)) (id. at 121: 6-12, 131:2 – 131:12, 14:8 – 147:3, 313: 3-10). Clawson also freely relayed to the press that bloodhounds had been presented to Hatfill during the investigation (id. at 200: 15-19); that Hatfill had been the subject of surveillance (id. at 123:12-15, 428: 19-21); that Hatfill had taken polygraphs (id. at 135:16 – 137:17); and that he had submitted to blood tests (id. at 137:18-138:5, 347: 6-10).

    In furtherance of Clawson’s “sunshine” policy, Hatfill, Clawson, and Glasberg, together, provided countless on-the-record, on-background (i.e., for use, but not for attribution), and off-the-record (i.e., not for attribution or use) interviews to counter misinformation. Although Hatfill repeatedly claimed upon deposition not to remember what he said during these interviews, he acknowledged in his responses to the Agency Defendants’ interrogatories having such conversations with, in addition to Mr. Jackman, Judith Miller of The New York Times, Jeremy Cherkis of the City Paper, Guy Gugliotta of the Washington Post, David Kestenbaum of National Public Radio, Rick Schmidt of the LA Times, Rob Buchanan of NBC Dateline, Jim Popkin of NBC News, Dee Ann David and Nick Horrock of UPI, Gary Matsumato of Fox TV, Bill Gertz of the Washington Times, and David Tell of the Weekly Standard. Ex. 12, at 3-4. With respect to the Matsumato interview, Glasberg warned Hatfill before the interview that he “should not be quoted, nor should Matsumato say or imply that he spoke with him.” Ex. 38, at 1. Glasberg warned Hatfill that “Matsumato must be willing to go to jail rather than reveal word one of anything [he] says on ‘deep background.’” Id.

    All of these disclosures became too much even for Glasberg, who attempted to put a stop to them. In August, when Jackman aired his exclusive interview with Glasberg and Hatfill, Glasberg heralded the success of his public relations strategy noting that “Rosenberg, Shane and Kristof are, [each] of them, in varying stages of sulking, licking their wounds, reacting defensively and changing their tune.” Ex. 39. Slowly Glasberg advised both Hatfill and Glasberg to observe “the rule of COMPLETE SILENCE regarding anything and everything about the case[.]” Ex. 40 (emphasis in original). Ultimately, in September 2002, Glasberg ordered Clawson to stand down, noting “[w]hat you know, you know, and you have put virtually all of that into the public record. Fine. That is where we are, and for good or ill we can and will deal with it. But we must put a full stop to any further conveyance of substantive data about ANYTHING from Steve to anyone [but his attorneys].” Ex. 41 (emphasis in original). To no avail. On October 5, 2002, Hatfill and Clawson appeared together at an Accuracy in Media Conference. Hatfill was asked about the reaction of bloodhounds, and stated, I’m not supposed to answer things against . . . but let me tell you something. They brought this good-looking dog in. I mean, this was the best-fed dog I have seen in a long time. They brought him in and he walked around the room. By the way, I could have left at anytime but I volunteered while they were raiding my apartment the second time, I volunteered to talk with them. The dog came around and I petted him. And the dog walked out. So animals like me (laughter). Ex. 42, at 2.

    Disclosures from the Hatfill camp to the media continued. For example, between late 2002 and May 8, 2003, Hatfill’s current attorney, Tom Connolly, and CBS News reporter James Stewart had multiple telephone conversations and two lunch meetings. Ex. 43. According to Stewart, Connolly told Stewart that the investigation was focusing on Hatfill, and detailed at great length the FBI’s surveillance of Hatfill. In virtually every one of these conversations, Connolly encouraged Stewart to report on these subjects. Id. at 96.

    E. Louisiana State University’s Decision To Terminate Hatfill

    At the time of the second search of his apartment in August 2002, Hatfill was working as a contract employee at the Louisiana State University (“LSU”) on a program to train first responders in the event of a biological attack. This program was funded by the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs (“OJP”) as part of a cooperative agreement. Ex. 44. Under the terms of the cooperative agreement, OJP “maintain[ed] managerial oversight and control” of the program. Id. at 2. Following the second search of Hatfill’s apartment on August 1, 2002, Timothy Beres, Acting Director of OJP’s Office of Domestic Preparedness, directed that LSU “cease and desist from utilizing the subject-matter expert and course instructor duties of Steven J. Hatfill on all Department of Justice funded programs.” Ex. 45. LSU, meanwhile, had independently hired Hatfill to serve as Associate Director of its Academy of Counter-Terrorist Education. Following the second search, LSU placed Hatfill on administrative leave. Ex. 46. LSU then requested a background check of Hatfill. Ex. 47. During the course of that investigation, the University became concerned that Hatfill had forged a diploma for a Ph.D that he claimed to have received from Rhodes University in South Africa. Hatfill explained to Stephen L. Guillott, Jr., who was the Director of the Academy of Counter-Terrorist Education at LSU, that “[h]e assumed the degree had, in fact been awarded since neither his [thesis advisor] nor Rhodes University advised him to the contrary.” Ex. 48. LSU’s Chancellor, Mark A. Emmert, made “an internal decision to terminate [LSU’s] relationship with Dr. Hatfill quite independent of [the DOJ e-mail] communication.” Ex. 51.

    Hatfill has now testified that in fact he created a fraudulent diploma with the assistance of someone he met in a bar who boasted that he could make a fraudulent diploma. Hatfill Dep. Tran., Ex. 49 at 19:20 – 20:12. Glasberg, moreover, has stated under oath that Hatfill’s earlier attempted explanation was untrue. Glasberg, Dep. Tran., Ex. 21, at 314:10 – 317:2. In a nationally televised 60 Minutes episode that aired in March 2007, Connolly confirmed that Hatfill forged the diploma for the Ph.D from Rhodes University. Ex. 50, at 3.

    F. Hatfill’s Amended Complaint

    Hatfill claims lost wages and other emotional damages resulting from General Ashcroft’s “person of interest” statements and other for-attribution statements by DOJ and FBI officials. He also seeks to recover for certain other alleged “leaks” by DOJ and FBI officials. Hatfill additionally asserts that the defendants violated the Act by purportedly failing to (1) maintain an accurate accounting of such disclosures, which he asserts is required by section 552a(c) of the Act; (2) establish appropriate safeguards to insure the security and confidentiality of the records that were purportedly disclosed, which he asserts is required by section 552a(e)(10); (3) correct information that was disseminated about him that was inaccurate or incomplete, which he asserts is required by section 552a(e)(5); and (4) establish adequate rules of conduct, procedures, and penalties for noncompliance, or to train employees in the requirements of the Act, which he asserts is required by section 552a(e)(9). Defendants are entitled to summary judgment.”

    [DXer note:

    Bottom-line: The FBI is damned if they do, and damned if they don’t. We should try to keep our focus on the relevant and material merits.

    In its Ivins Theory, the FBI did not learn the lesson of the Hatfill Theory.

    For example, the DOJ has not produced the handwritten notes that Dr. Ivins wrote on 5 nights the investigators speculate that he was making a dried powder. Nor has it produced the copy of the September 17, 2001 email to Mara Linscott (or the other emails he sent on 9/17 that they are withholding — USAMRIID says it the email to Mara was not in fact found on his work computer (in contrast to DOJ’s claim). The time that email was sent might be important in establish the timeline of his whereabouts on 9/17.

    Instead of complying with FOIA, they are trying to spin the “Ivins Theory” by insisting they are confident they are right. Funny. That’s exactly what the investigators did with a “Hatfill Theory.” Instead, the public has a right to disclosure of FOIA of the relevant and material documents.

    The real psychological lesson to take home is that under principles of cognitive dissonance, investigators will not want to think that they drove an innocent man to suicide by ruining his career, reputation and threatening to humiliate him in front of his family. Given the anthrax threat the country faces, we need to look past the understandable concerns of the investigators and prosecutors and get to the relevant documents. Moreover, we need to avoid faulting the investigators just because we disagree on the merits. No one doubts that they gave it their best.

    The DOJ should produce the remaining 50 pages of Lab Notebook 4010. Documentary evidence — not sincere protestations of their confidence — will help get people on the same page.

    • DXer said

      I always call the person most likely to have the information first — and give them the chance of correcting any misapprehensions.

      As a simple example, reporters should have called Attorney Montasser Al-Zayat, who announced in Spring 1999, that Dr. Ayman was going to use anthrax against US targets to retaliate for the rendering of senior EIJ leaders.

      Attorney Hatfill’s attorney wrote this nice note:

      September 5, 2002
      Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, Ph:D. ’
      Biology Department
      State University of New York
      73 .5 Anderson Hill Road
      Purchase, NY !0577-1400

      Dear Dr. Rosenberg:
      I represent Steven Hatfill.
      The New York Times of today reports that you have sent a “new
      commentary about the anthrax attacks” to the FBI. Would you please send me a
      copy.

      I had not intended to write to you informally about the following, but since
      I am writing to get your commentary, I will take the occasion to offer the
      following thought:

      I understand that you have recently observed that the FBI’s focus on Dr.
      HatfilI was a matter, of its own choosing, for which you were in no way
      responsible. I will not comment on the appropriateness of any such position, but
      on behalf of Dr. Hatfilt I would request, and suggest, that before you even get
      close to describing him in the future, by name or otherwise, you submit your
      comments for legal vetting before publishing them to anyone. This will benefit all
      parties.
      Thank you.
      Sincerely,
      Victor M. Glasberg

    • DXer said

      From: DEBRA WEIERMAN
      To: Lisa Hodgson
      Date: Wed, June 4, 2003 12:18 PM
      Subject: AMERITHRAX INVESTIGATION

      Lisa: Please disseminate to all WFO employees. Thanks, Debbie

      For the information of all recipients, Director Mueller has ordered that no one discuss the AMERITHRAX case with any representative of the news media. The WFO and Baltimore Media Offices have released several media advisories, which were coordinated with the US Attorney and FBIHQ, to explain specific milestones in the case. However, NO FBI WFO EMPLOYEE, INCLUDING MYSELF AND INSPECTOR RICK LAMBERT, WHO IS IN CHARGE OF AMERITHRAX, IS TO RESPOND TO ANY MEDIA INQUIRIES, THE ONLY EXCEPTION IS DEBBIE WEIERMAN IN THE MEDIA OFFICE. All inquiries from reporters or journalists received by any WFO employee are to be immediately referred to Debbie at xxx-xxxx, and she will handle.

      I thank everyone at WFT for their dedication to the job and to this office. I also thank you for your cooperation in this very important matter.

      Mike Rolince

      • 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.

        • 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

      Dr. Hatfill also recalls having contact with members of the press after the June 25, 2002 search of his apartment, including: calling Bill Broad (NY Times) to tell Broad to stop calling and that he would not provide an interview, leaving a voicemail message for Vic Walter (ABC) stating that a particular broadcast was libelous, leaving Jim Stewart (CBS) a message saying he would sue him, leaving Marilyn Thompson (Washington Post) two voicemail messages about his opinion of her, receiving a call related to the anthrax investigation from someone affiliated with Insight magazine and telling the person to go away, calling Ed Lake to correct inaccuracies reflected in a New York Times article about “mobile labs,” having an off-the-record conversation during dinner with Judith Miller (NY Times, Pat Clawson, and another friend in an attempt to correct Ms. Miller’s interpretations of information regarding “mobile labs,” discussing his career in Africa and his military experience with with Jason Cherkis (City Paper), and providing Mr. Cherkis of himself that were used in an article, having lunch with Tom Connolly and Ted Koppel (ABC) during which they primarily discussed Dr. Hatfill’s medical studies, having lunch with Tom Connolly, Jim Stewart (CBS) and Mark Katkov (CBS) during which Stewart and Katkov pitched for an interview of Dr. Hatfill and he declined, and speaking with Gary Matsumoto (former Fox TV & freelance writer) generally about biodefense, Dr. Hatfill’s innocence, and the impact the FBI’s harrassing surveillance had on his life.

      Patrick Clawson also coordinated meetings between Dr. Hatfill and the following members of the press in an effort to humanize Dr. Hatfill: Guy Gugliotta (Washington Post), David Kestenbaum (NPR), Rick Schmitt (LA Times), Rob Buchanan (NBC Dateline), Jim Popkin (NBC News), Dee Ann Divis and Nick Horrock (UPI), Gary Matsumoto (former Fox TV & freelance writer), Bill Gertz (Washington Times) and Jason Cherkis (City Paper). During these meetings, Dr. Hatfill generally asserted his innocence and lack of involvement in the anthrax attacks, and he talked a little about his personal life, his medical training in Africa, and the impact the FBI’s harassing surveillance had on his life. Dr. Hatfill also discussed his general observations about biodefense with several of these reporters. All of these meetings were conducted “on background” and “off-the-record.”

      During 2002 and 2003, Dr. Hatfill also provided off-the-record informal discussion with select members of the press. Tom Jackman (Washington Post) interviewed Dr. Hatfill and Vic Glasbert for an article about Dr. Hatfill that was published on August 11, 2002, although Vic Glasberg did virtually all the speaking. David Tell of the Weekly Standard interviewed Dr. Hatfill “on background” in August 2002 for a story that appeared in September 2002.

      Dr. Hatfill has also made formal, public statements regarding the defendants’ actions at issues in this case. In the sumer of 2002, Dr. Hatfill appeared briefly on the Oliver North Show on Radio America. In August 2002, Dr. Hatfill held two news conferences. And in October 2002 Dr. Hatfill spoke at the Accuracy in Media conference in Washington, D.C. Dr. Hatfill has spoken with Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media a number of times on a variety of geopolitical and other subjects.

    • DXer said

      From: “Pat Clawson” [email redacted]
      To: “Vic Glasbegg” [email redacted]
      Cc: [Dr. Hatfill’s email redacted]
      Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 4:08 PM
      Subject: RE: Hatfill Update ….
      Vic,
      Your messsage is understood and I agree with it.
      Gary [Matsumoto] has assured me that he is prepared to go the distance, and I be!ieve him.

      Assuming he gets into DC early this evening, do you wish to meet with him? I certainly have no problem with it, and actually think it would be good to do.
      Regards,
      Pat

      • DXer said

        From: Vic Glasberg [email redacted]
        Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 4:11
        To: Pat Clawson
        Cc: [Hatfill’s email redacted]
        Subject: Ke: Hatfill Update …..

        Pat —

        Steve should not be quoted, nor should Matsumoto say or imply that he spoke with him. In addition, Matsumoto must be willing to go to jail rather than revea! word one of anything “Steve says on “deep background.” The latter applies as well to you. You and Steve know that I do not feel comfortable with Steve’s speaking to anyone about issues that may heart
        however tangentially, on anthrax charges, and recontmend that he not do so.
        i realize how galling it is for you and Steve to continue hearing me say “wait” while evidence mounts that the criminal cloud will in fact dissipate, as we hope and expect. The problem is the existence of the cloud. The fact that a thunderburst will end in 5 minutes does not mean you take your raincoat off in a drenching shower. I will be out of town (Ann Arbor) after this evening, and back in the office on Tuesday.

        Victor M. Glasberg
        Victor M. Glasberg & Associates
        XXX
        Alexandria, VA 22314
        XXX

        From: Via Glasberg [email redacted]
        Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 12:53 PM
        To: steven hatfill
        cc: Pat Clawson
        Subject: Fw: NY Times editorial

        ***

        From: “Vic G!asberg” [email redacted]
        To: “steven hatfi!l” [email redacted]
        Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 12:47 PM
        Subject: NY Times editorial
        >
        ***

        > Ironically, the government’s stupid decision to raid your home rather
        > than seeking cooperation, which raid precipitated our escalated public
        relations reaction, has given your case far greater visibility, and given our
        efforts far greater success, than would othgerwise have occurred. Thanks to
        > the government, Rosenberg, Shane and Kristoff are, each of them, in
        > varying stages of sulking, licking their wounds, reacting defensively,
        > and changing
        > their tune.
        >
        > Pat C!awson is largely responsible for this success. His savvy,
        > drive [technical glitch] commitment to your cause have
        made these successes possible.

        i expect to meet with selected representatives of the press on Monday. Pat is setting it up. If it goes off, which i expect it wil!, there should be something useful on TV Monday evening.
        Vic
        ***

        Sent:
        To:
        Subject:
        Vic Glasberg [ email redacted]
        Friday, August 16, 2002 4:15 PM
        steven hatfill; Pat Clawson
        Status report
        Gentlemen:
        I wish briefly to take stock of where we are, and to confirm certain guidelines as we proceed:

        1. We have met with astonishing success in turning the tide of adverse publicity.

        Starting with what was a torrent of government-leaked defamatory innuendo aimed at Steve, we have achieved a clear public awareness that while Steve, like his biowarfare colleagues, is a legitimate subject of interest to the investigating authorities, they have gone haywire in focusing on him like a loser as they have. The public may well be more concerned at this point with governmenta! unfairness and overreaching in Steve’s case as it is in him as a “person of interest.” The case has reached international
        proportions. I have favorable articles from Le Monde in Paris and the leading paper in San Salvador in my office. I am sure there are tons more. and of course we have the Times and Post editorials.

        All this is an enormous achievement. Pat gets enormous credit for having it happen.

        2. We have put, and are in the process of putting, the principal detractors on the . defensive. Rosenberg has shut up. Shane is publishing helpful stuff. The Times has virtually repudiated Kristoff. Kristoff is backing off, however ungraciously, and I have some things in store for him next week. I do not mean to suggest that the defamation will stop. But it can be expected to continue to calm down, big time.

        3. We are moving forward aggressively on the handwriting and dog fronts, and I expect to have something to report next week. I cannot give you a date, but will let you know. You cannot rush experts, just ask them to hurry.

        4. The above is the good news. There is no particularly bad news to report, but the good news cannot overshadow~the reality that Steve is under a criminal microscope, i compare the matter to the flimsy scaffolding that some years ago surrounded the Washington monument as the masonry was being, repaired. We are in the process of shredding the scaffolding, but WE DO NOT KNOW IF THERE IS MASONRY THERE. We do not know stuff the government has not leaked. We do not know what we do not know. What we do know is that they are eyeing Steve for a capital offense, and that if they can’t nail him for that, some other offense, real or bogus, might be an opportune second.

        We must not allow our delight with our publicity successes to obscure this fact. While the immediate and feasible task at hand is winning the public relations trial, the ultimate task is preventing.(or winning) the courtroom trial. The latter will occur, or not occur, based on things WE DO NOT KNOW, CANNOT EXPECT TO LEARN THROUGH LEAKS OR FRIENDS, AND CANNOT EXPECT TO CONTROL EXCEPT INDIRECTLY, MODESTLY AND UNCERTAINLY VIA OUR PUBLIC RELATIONS WORK.

        5. I have spoken with Jon Shapiro at length about the above. He and I are
        in agreement that it is imperative to maintain appropriate vigilance regarding all matters of interest or potential interest to the authorities, regardless of how bogus, and notwithstanding the recent and hopefully ongoing PR successes, in particular, Steve must continue to observe the rule of COMPLETE SILENCE regarding anything and everything about the case except when communicating in legally privileged circumstances, I have no doubt
        that Steve has been doing this, but precisely because things may seem to be improving on the PR front it is imperative to maintain this rule.

        6. Steve’s only privileged forums now are with his counsel. This means,
        Steve, that you should continue NOT SPEAKING about anything with ANYONE.
        This includes Peck and Pat. If you, Steve, feel a need to communicate anything to Peck or

        Pat, let me Know and we’ll figure it out, just as we did when Pat and I jointly spoke with you on the phone several days ago. Pat, the same goes for you: please do not speak to Steve about ANYTHING except, as a friend, to find out how he’s feeling. Please do not discuss any facts, about the case or about the government’s investigation, surveillance, etc.

        If you need to learn something from Steve, Parr let me hnow. I’ll get it to you. Except for your lawyers, Steve, anyone with whom you speak, including Pat and Peck, can be hauled in front of a grand jury to disgorge 100% of what you discussed. The latter should continue to be zero information of substance. Let your lawyers and Pat attend to the talking. I realize it is a pain in the neck. But being under the criminal microscope is worse, in actuality and in potential.

        Steve and Pat: PLEASE CONFIRM RECEIPT OF THIS MESSAGE. Thank you.
        Have a nice weekend.
        Vic
        Victor M. Glasberg
        Victor M. Glasberg & Associates
        xxx

        ***

        FROM: Vic Glasberg
        Wednesday, September 11,2002 9:04 AM
        TO: Pat Clawson
        CC: steven hatfill; ion shapiro
        SUBJECT Re: Clawson’s Last Posting Before Leaving for Seattle ….
        Thanks for the information on Corish; I”ll pass it on.
        I spoke with Jon about the judge’s order sealing our motion. We are not free to give it to anyone. I asked Jon, rhetorically, if a judge could peremptorily seal one’s own affidavit and thereby prevent one from giving out one’s own statement. He said yes. So right now all the dog business is under wraps.

        Jon advises that you may be called before the grand jury. He says that prosecutors are ruthless in this regard. He has had children called against parents, and parents against children, in death cases. All this raises important issues that we should consider more pointedly at this time. I would confirm my retention of you on virtually day one as an investigator, but it is beyond cavil that you are also Steve’s friend with direct personal
        knowledge of particular facts (e.g. the cipro discussions, the anthrax cabin, the DC terrorism novel), and also his principal press spokesman.

        Counsel for RadioAmerican might think otherwise (you might ask) but I doubt you could plausibly claim any sort of journalist’s First Amendment privilege on these matters. In the end, i believe that you would not have any locked-in privilege to bar your compelled testimony before a grand jury, should your testimony be demanded, as well it may as the government starts scrambling to comeup with something.

        Jon has made it clear that in his view it is important not to provide potential
        substantive ammunition to the feds, regardless of the PR price paid by silence on some issues (as opposed to no silence on the procedural unfairness of the investigation). To date we have focused in this regard on what Steve tells the press, by himself or through you. Now that the tide has turned on the issue of the investigatory unfairness, we must
        turn as well to minimizing Steve’s exposure, and your own, to major problems arising out of your being called to testify before the grand jury.

        What you know, you know, and you have put virtually all of that into the public record.

        Fine. That is where we are, and for good or ill we can and will deal with it. But we must put a full stop to any further conveyance of substantive data about ANYTHING from Steve to anyone but Jon or me, except as Jon may approve. I am ready and willing to argue for more ample disc!osures for PR purposes, but, having made the argument, I wil! defer to Jon, and so too must Steve and you. I don’t think anyone disagrees with this — witness your rebuff of Kyla Dunn to which you refer — but I am writing it down because I have
        not stressed this particular point before and it is important to note.
        I am sending a copy of this to Steve and Jon so that we might all be on the same page.

        Have a nice trip. We can light some more fireqrackers next week complaining to Congress that Ashcroft has not responded to my letter.
        Vic
        Victor M. Glasberg
        Victor M. Glasberg~& Associates

        ***

        Original Message
        From: “Pat Clawson” [email redacted]
        To: “Vic Glasberg” [email redacted]
        Sent: Tuesday, September I0, 2002 8:33 PM
        Subject: Clawson’s Last Posting Before Leaving for Seattle ….

        ,,Victor…
        Call Chris C~rish of our staff here at Radio America…202-xxx-xxxx.
        He’s had !ors of personal experience dealing with the two fundraisers.
        They also raise money for Radio America.
        Aiso, you need to phone Mark Smith, the handwriting expert who has offered his services.

        Interesting guy – and he’s been in touch with the FBI agents working Steve’s case. He has some insight at to their ineptness that you might find helpfu!. His phone is 301 xxx xxxx

        i spoke tonight with Kyle Dunn, the freelance reporter for the New York Times Magazine.

        Be careful – she’s been on the staff of the Center for Investigative Reporting in San Francisco for severa! years. She’s very sharp, not your typical dumb-ass reporter. I declined to discuss Steve’s Africa and military background, told her she’ll need to get answers from you on that.

        I understand that she’s meeting with you on Thursday.
        Ill be reachable via cell — 703-xxx xxxx.
        Regards,
        Pat Clawson

        • DXer said

          David Willman in Mirage Man writes: “On five occasions in 2001, including dates close to when the anthrax-laced letters were mailed, he filled or refilled prescriptions for the antibiotic.” (p. 164)

        • DXer said

          David Willman in Mirage Man writes: “Although Hatfill’s resume claimed “working knowledge” of biowarfare agents, there was no evidence that he possessed the skill to prepare spores as pure and lethal as those loaded into the anthrax letters.” (p. 168)

    • DXer said

      UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
      FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
      STEVEN J. HATFILL, M.D.,
      Plaintiff,
      v.
      JOHN ASHCROFT et al.,
      Defendants.
      No. CIV-A-03-1793(RBW)
      (Judge Walton)
      Washington, D.C.
      Friday, May 5, 2006
      Videotaped deposition of
      STEVEN J. HATFILL

      were not awarded a Ph.D.?
      A Somewhere around 1998.
      approximate there.
      ***
      Q What did you learn in 1998?
      A I’m not 98 or 99, I’m not
      Possibly — anyway, I learned that I
      did not receive it.
      Q And how did you come to that
      understanding?
      A An exchange of e-mails with Rhodes
      University.
      Q And what did those e-mails say?
      A I don’t recall the specifics.
      Q In any job applications that you’ve
      submitted, have you ever attached a copy of a
      diploma?
      A Yes, on one.
      Q Which one?
      A Nationa! Institutes of Health.
      Q And that dip!oma states that you
      have a Ph.D.?
      A Yes. Don’t know what was going
      through my head.
      Q Is that document a forgery?
      A Yes.
      Q Take me through the steps in which
      you created that forged dip!oma.
      A I don’t recall, it’s a decade ago.
      I was talking to one of the guys in the pub
      and he said he was a computer guy. He said
      I’!l whip one up for you.
      Q When did you have the discussion
      with the guy in the pub?
      A While I was at Oxford.
      Q So the diploma was created in 1997
      A I don’t recall a specific time.
      Q Other than the NIH job application,
      did you ever submit that forged dip!oma in
      your job applications for any other position?
      A Not to my recollection.

    • DXer said

      To: Hatfill File
      From Vic
      Re
      Date: August 1, 2002

      [REDACTED]

      We agreed that I would proceed with the meeting with Tom Jackman today.

      [REDACTED]

      I met with Tom Jackman and gave him background information, the letters of reference for Hatfill, the article about Rosenberg’s statements, and the first page of the “Nazi swine” web page. *** I explained that the FBI wanted to repolygraph him, and that he had asked to submit the first (satisfactory) polygraph to a disinterested expert as a precondition. [Comment: polygraphs are inadmissible because they are not reliable — thus it was wrong for someone to leak to USA Today’s Locy that his polygraph showed evasion.]

      Jackman is disinclined to run a story on a suspect short of his being charged, but his editor may think otherwise, particularly if the press are present at today’s search. He will call me later today to advise. [Comment: as i recall, Mr. Jackman did a feature on Dr. Hatfill].

      Let’s also consider Defendant’s Exhibit 26.

      Fax Transmittal Sheet
      From: August 2, 2002
      Media interested in FBI inquiry of Steven Hatfill
      Vic Glasberg, Counsel for Dr. Hatfill

      I am responding to your recent inquiry for information regarding Steven
      Hatfill and the.investigation of him bythe FBI. I am a civil lawyer who for a few
      weeks has been working with Dr. HatfilI on how to address a flurry of defamatory publicity about him which has appeared in the press, on TV, and on the intemet.

      Dr. Hatfill was first contacted by the FBI early this year, as part of the
      Bureau’s survey of several dozen scientists working in fields related to biomedical warfare. He was voluntarily debriefed and polygraphed, and voluntarily agreed to have his home, car and other property subjected to a Iengthy and comprehensive search by the FBI. He and his lawyer Tom Carter were told that the results were all favorable and that he was not a suspect in the case.

      [Comment: it is not fruitful to engage in extended debate about “suspect”, “POI.” They clearly had keen investigative interest in Dr. Hatfill. See Arthur Eberhart depo. By August 2002, they had narrowed a list of 20 POIs to about 5 by August 2002, as I recall Special Agent Eberhart’s deposition.
      Arthur Ebart had a key role in what we’ll call Squad A.]

      Several days ago, Bob Roth of the FBI called Dr. Hatfill to advise that the
      FBI wished to interview him again — Dr. Hatfill expressed his complete willingness to an unrestricted further debriefing, and asked Mr. Roth to calI me. When Mr. Roth did not do so promptly, I called him, so as to set the interview up in the immediate future. What happened thereafter appears on my letter to Assistant U.S. Attorney Kenneth Kohl, copy remitted herewith.

      ***
      Pending clarification of the government’s intentions regarding his status, on
      advice of counsel Dr. HatfilI will not be speaking with the press.”

    • DXer said

      Dr. Hatfill on the Anthrax Letter Attacks:

      “I telephoned Chief Civilian Scientist Peter Jahrling at USAMRIID to try to find out what was going on. He told me that it looked like there were an awful lot of spores in the preparation he had examined for the FBI, and advised me to get our SAIC people on antiobitoics if they thought they had an exposure. No one had any idea of the actual size of the attack, how many letters were involved and whether the attack was still underway or not. I therefore made the rather unpopular decision that every SAIC employee within the area of the Capitol building was to come in, go for nasal swabbing at a nearby clinic, and start antiobiotics. I contacted the clinic, discussed what had to be done with the doctor in attendance, and supervised the process.

      The eventual FBI announcement that the strain used in the letters was called the Ames strain and that Fort Detrick had been using this strain for experiments came as a surprise to me. I knew the bacteriology unit USAMRIID had been doing animal work with anthrax, but thought these involved the old Vollum 1 B used by the former U.S. offensive program. At the time I disbelieved that anyone at Fort Detrick was involved in these acts of domestic terrorism, and I maintain that opinion today.

      A number of weeks later, two investigators from the FBI came by my office. The interview was cordial and short. The agents explained that polygraphs were being conducted on a wide scale in connection with the anthrax letters. They asked if I would consent to a polygraph concerning the anthrax letters. I immediately agreed and the short interview was over. A week or so later on my appointment date, I went down to the FBI Washington Field Office for the polygraph. An agent met me at the entrance and advised me, apologetically, that no one was around to administer the polygraph. I went on to work and a few days later I was telephoned with a new appointment. I went down to the Washington Field Office and this time the polygraph was administered. As I recall, this was in early January 2002. The polygraph examiner told me I had passed and that he believed that I had nothing do with the Anthrax event. I went back to work, believing any involvement in the investigation was completed. Unfortunately, I was wrong.”

      • DXer said

        Dr. Hatfill’s explanation of events continues:

        “In February, I received a phone call from one Scott Shane, a reporter with the Baltimore Sun. All but accusing me of mailing the anthrax letters, Shane wanted to know precise details about a certain classified project on which I had previously worked which I was barred from discussing. I hung the phone up with him in mid sentence and immediately reported the event to my immediate supervisor as an improper solicitation of classified information. Two dates later, I received an email from a former medical school classmate advising that Shane had phoned him and accused me of mailing the anthrax letters and also starting the anthrax outbreak in Zimbabwe/ Rhodesia twenty years before. *** Later I telephoned the Baltimore Sun and left a message for the eidtor that Scott Shane’s accusations had cost me my job.”

        [Thought question: Would SAIC have kept him on if they knew about the forged PhD certificate submitted to NIH?]

        “On leaving SAIC, I secured a position with Louisiana State University to work with a consortium of universities on important federally funded probes for biological defense. I was constantly being called back to SAIC to assist with projects I had started, as to well as to help with new projects. SAIC eventually undertook to contract for my continued services through Louisiana State University, a process that continues today. I continued to work with SAIC because of the close association I had with my superb team there and my desire to help as requested in the completion of important contracts. I consider several of the projects in question to be of national importance for the defense of my country.”

        “At the end of February 2002, a year after my application for clearance had been aborted by the termination of the contract for which I had sought it, I was surprised to receive a letter from the CIA advising that my application had been turned down due to my involvement with Zimbabwean authorities twenty years earlier. I did not need and was not at the time seeking CIA clearance. I was under the impression that my file had been closed pending possible re-application for clearance under a contract for which it would be needed. Since I objected to the adverse conclusions drawn from my time in Africa, however, I appealed the negative determination. My appeal is pending at this time. None of this affected any of my SAIC work in the slightest way.”

        [Thought question: Would CIA have granted him a security clearance if they knew about the forged PhD certificate submitted to NIH?]

        “In June 2002, one Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, a self-proclaimed biological weapons expert whom I do not know, with whom I have never corresponded, and to my knowledge is ignorant of my work and background except in the broadest of terms, saw fit to denounce me as a prime suspect in the anthrax letters in meetings with Senate staffers involved in the anthrax inquiry. ***”

        [Thought question: Would Dr. Hatfill gotten the job wearing a moon suit injecting ebola virus into guinea pigs at Ft. Detrick if it was known he had forged a PhD certificate in seeking to work at NIH? Would he have gotten the earlier research fellowship in 1996 at NIH? Who is at moral fault in setting down this path? Barbara Hatch Rosenberg or Steve Hatfill? Who is the patriot? Didn’t his fraud in obtaining the original job relating to ebola research make him worthy of suspicion given the high level of trust needed before allowing someone access to ebola, such as he came to have at Ft. Detrick? How can Dr. Hatfill ultimately expect to be persuasive if his greatest expression of contrition is Mr. Connolly’s remarks about puffery on a resume or Dr. Hatfill’s private comment at the deposition that he doesn’t know what he was thinking.

        • DXer said

          Dr. Hatfill writes of his earlier history at NIH and USAMRIID

          National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD

          In 1996 I received a research fellowship at the National Institutes for Health.”
          ***
          “I made appropriate arrangements to transfer loaded tissue bioreactors from NIH to Fort Detrick. There they were taken into the high containment facility and equipments safely performed by resident USAMRIID scientists, not including myself. As this work was progressing, I became increasingly aware of the potential health risk caused by the release of a virulent virus in a densely populated area. The more I learned about biological warfare, the more alarmed I became about this potential threat. Several anthrax hoaxes had by then been described in the media, with some legislation being passed by Congress (Nunn-Lugar=Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996) to assist in the training of first responders (i.e., fire and police) to manage potential terrorist attacks similar to the sarin nerve agent attack by Japanese terrorists on the Tokyo subway. I gave a few public lectures on the subject including one to the George Washington University Terrorist Group, showing how easy it would be for a terrorist to culture infectious disease organisms using only low technology methods dating back from the 1800’s. I also began to assist in the development of the Domestic Preparedness First Responder Training Course being developed by Science Applicatioons International Corporation (”SAIC”). In August of 1997, I assisted a friend of mine who was a reporter for the Washington Times, write a small article on the subject. It was published on August 11, 1997.

          USAMRIID, Fort Detrick

          In 1997, I was offered a National Reserach Council position at USAMRIID, at Fort Detrick. My task was to refine the tissue culture system so as to compare Ebola infection in human and animal tissues and (as a hematologist) to dissect the bleeding disorder which the disease caused in the Ebola animal models of human disease.

          The work at USAMRIID was exciting but dangerous. It was difficult to work with the tissue culture system an the Ebola virus in the space suit, and even more difficult to work with the small mice and guinea pigs. The guinea pigs were the worst because they were large enough to be difficult to hold still while injecting with the virus. One careless mistake or bit of inattention and a simple need stick injury would be translated into a slow and painful death from a disease for which there was no vaccine and no cure. It had happened before with other viral agents and researchers in other centers. I believe that researchers in this field are unsung heroes.

          I gave a final public lecture on the potential threat of biological terrorism shortly after I started work at USAMRIID. The next day I was called into the Commander’s office and told no longer to speak publicly without official permission. The hypothetical attack in my talk had been on the White House, and the Secret Service was upset. The Commander was a man I greatly respected, as well as my boss, and his objection was more than sufficient to end my brief tour on the public lecture circuit discussing potential biological terrorism scenarios without first obtaining official permission from USAMRIID.

          Comment:

          But once again: If he had not forged the PhD certificate, would he have had the NIH job and job at USAMRIID?

          Why is that taxpayers always end up the victim? For example, the Department of Justice will refuse to provide the documents provided to Mrs. Stevens and then use more taxpayer money to hide its negligence in paying a settlement.

        • DXer said

          TEVEN JAY HATFILL M.D., Ph.D.
          OFFICES

          United States Army Medical Research Institute for
          Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID)
          Virology Division
          Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD
          21702-5011
          Telephone: (redacted)
          Fax: (redacted)

          National Institutes of Health
          National Institute for Child Health/Development
          Laboratory of Cellular and Molecular Biophysics
          Building 10, Room 10D14
          10 Center Drive
          Bethesda, MD. 20892-1855
          Telephone: (redacted)
          Fax : (redacted)
          24 hour Pager: (redacted)

          PERSONAL DATA
          American Citizenship
          Birth Date: (redacted) 1953, St. Louis MO.
          Social Security No. (redacted)
          Medical License No. RSA-MP28117 SAMDC
          SECRET Security Clearance

          I. EDUCATION
          MEDICAL DEGREES:
          M.Med / Board Certification in Hematopathology (June 1993)

          Three-year residency/specialist training in blood and bone marrow disorders at the University of
          Stellenbosch, RSA. Clinical rotations through coagulation/homeostasis, hemolytic and platelet
          disorders, immunohematology and blood transfusion medicine, hematology-oncology and the bone
          marrow transplantation unit (Groote Schuur Hospital, Cape Town). Pathology rotations through
          forensic, hematology, and chemical pathology / toxicology.

          Medical Degree (April 1984)

          Godfrey Huggins School of Medicine, Salisbury, Rhodesia. LRCS,. Includes; all basic medical
          sciences and clinical studentships (Andrew Fleming Teaching Hospital). Internship (rotating)-at
          the Paul Kruger Hospital (RSA). Educational Council for Foreign Medical Graduates (USA)-
          Certificate No. 376-621-9.

          GRADUATE DEGREES:
          Ph.D. Thesis in Molecular Cell Biology (August 1994)

          Completed by experimental work, thesis, Rhodes University, Department of Biochemistry and
          Microbiology. External Thesis Examiners- Argonne National Laboratory (USA) and NASA
          Center for Special Studies, Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory (USA). Thesis demonstrated
          mitochondrial DNA topology changes in high LET radiation-induced MDS and leukemia, as a
          possible basis for biological dosimetry.

          Comment: The fraud involving the resume is no more material than what Dr. Ivins did a quarter-century ago relating to some pranks involving a sorority.

        • DXer said

          In contrast to Ivins, Dr. Hatfill’s 1999 resume claims he knew former BG (anthrax simulant) production methods.
          And so there was no “there there” to the theory, it was always stronger than an Ivins Theory.

          Former Army scientist forged Ph.D. certificate, school says
          Forgery is kind of intrigue in Hatfill’s past attracting interest in anthrax case
          By Scott Shane | Sun Staff
          October 9, 2002
          http://www.baltimoresun.com/bal-te.hatfill09oct09,0,5372526.story

          His 1999 resume claims “working knowledge … of wet and dry BW [biological warfare] agents, large-scale production of bacterial, rickettsial, and viral BW pathogens and toxins, stabilizers and other additives, former BG [Bacillus globigii] simulant production methods.”

          Shane reports:

          “Such knowledge would be quite relevant to the preparation of the dry anthrax powder in the envelopes. Bacillus globigii is a nontoxic relative of the anthrax bacterium and is often used as an anthrax simulant. Anyone who knows how to grow Bacillus globigii and turn it into a simulant powder could do the same with anthrax, scientists say.”

      • DXer said

        Publications on which one would list credentials:

        Hatfill, S.J., Margolis, L., Duray, P.H. (1996) In-vitro maintenance of normal and pathological human salivary gland tissue in a NASA designed rotating wall vessel bioreactor. Cell Vision, 3; (5); 397-401.

        Hatfill, S.J., Biological Terrorism and Civil Defense, Crisis and Consequence Management, International Terrorism Studies Program, George Washington University Marvin Center, Washington, D.C., August 12, 1997

        Hatfill, S.J., Briefing, Central Intelligence Agency, Non-Proliferation Center, New Headquarters Bldg, September 4, 1997

        Hatfill, S.J., Briefing, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Defense Technology Security Administration, September 17, 1997

        Hatfill, S.J., Briefing, Defense Special Weapons Agency, October 8, 1997

        Hatfill, S.J. Briefing SHIELD, U.S. State Department, 18 November 1997

        Hatfill, S.J., Hauer, J., “Biological Terrorism, Council on Foreign Relations, New York City, Special Meeting, May 21, 1998”

        Hatfill, S.J., Flexible and rapid mass casualty redistribution following a large coverage biological or chemical incident. Potomac Institute for Polyc Studies/George Washington University Terrorism Studies Group – Conference on Biological Terrorism, June 16, 1998

        Hatfill, S.J. Briefing, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Joint Terrorism Task Force, Washington D.C. Field Office, June 29, 1998

        Hatfill, S.J., Briefing, Assistant Secretary for Special Operations/Low-Intensity Conflict, Pentagon, July 4, 1998

        Hatfill, S.J., Briefing, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Medical Affairs, Pentagon, August 11, 1998

        Hatfill, S.J., Barbish, D.F, Briefing Paper, National Security Council, Old Executive Office Building – Room 302, Washington, D.C., October 26, 1998

        J. Huggins, M. Bray, M. Martrinez, and S. Hatfill, Cidofovir treatment for Smallpox and Monkeypox orthopoxvirus infections. (Manuscript in preparation)

        Hatfill, S.J., Bray, M., Thompson, B., Guiesberg, T., Steel, K., Jarhling, P., Huggins, J., and Margolis, L. (1998) Pathogenic differences between Ebola Reston and Ebola Zaire in the NASA RWV Bioreactor (in progress)

        Hatfill, S.J., Integration of the first responder ALERT system with DSWA and DARPA consequence management techniques for an improved non-military defense against chemical and biological terrorism (manuscript submitted)

        Bray, M., Jaax, N., Geisbert, T., Kell, W., Hatfill, S., Huggins, J., Pathogenesis of Lethal Ebola Virus Infection in Adult Immunocompetent Mice. American Socity of Virology, Annual Meeting, Vancouver, Canada, July 11, 1998

        Hatfill, S.J., Margolis, L., Duray, P.H. (1998) Maintenance of human prostate tissue without exogenous hormonal support in a NASA designed rotating wall vessel bioreactor. J. Urol. (in press 1998)

        Hatfill, S.J., Barbisch, D.F. (1998) Flexible and Rapid Mass Casualty redistribution following large area urban coverage by chemical and biological warfare agents. (manuscript in preparation).

        Patrick, W.C, Alibek, K., Hatfill, S.J., Panel presentation on the U.S. Offensive Biological Program, Soviet Union Biopreparat Offensive Biological Program, and Terrorist Manufacture and Use of Biological Weapons, Department of Defense Worldwide Conference on Antiterrorism. San Diego, C.A. August 24-27, 1998.

        Hatfill, S.J., Technology Working Group on Rapid Diagnostics. Potomac Institute for Policy Studies. April 20, 1999.

    • DXer said

      David Willman writes in Mirage Man: “No research [regarding Zimbabwe] has established that the harm to the farmers resulted from an intentional anthrax release, as opposed to a natural occurrence.” (p. 170)

    • DXer said

      David Willman in Mirage Man writes: “Hatfill claimed to have earned a PhD in microbiology — a fiction.”

  29. DXer said

    a. “Hatfill Theory” and “Ivins Theory”: Both Are Jewells In The Rough

    “Mr. Z”: “A Person of Interest”

    The FBI official in charge of the investigation, Agent Van Harp, has said in a USA Today interactive chat and elsewhere that the speculation about foot-dragging by the FBI has no basis. “Those are uninformed outsiders,” he says. As explained in a Wall Street Journal article dated March 26, 2002, which was based on information provided by the FBI, the reason for the delay has related to the many scientific, safety and security issues implicated. He emphatically denied the suggestion by one academic activist (first made in a BBC interview) that it was a CIA experiment gone awry. Barbara Hatch Rosenberg had said: “There may be embarassing information connected with the entire event and that there may not be really enthusiasm about bringing this information out to the position.” Harp reported that all the names of the folks submitted had been investigated and did not pan out. (Five acquaintances in the field supposedly had reached the same conclusion, but note that on any electronic mailing list, there are bound to be people who might agree with any mistaken notion.) Stan Bedlington, a retired CIA counterterrorism analyst is one person who in the Summer of 2002 thought the “evidence is mounting.” Although not a scientist and not demonstrating any knowledge of bloodhound evidence, he mistakenly claimed says that the letters “obviously had some scent of anthrax.” (That’s not even what they would have been testing for given that biological agents such as anthrax apparently do not have a distinctive smell to bloodhounds) He used to have lunch once a week in McLean with Hatfill and others at a bistro. A former counterterrorism analyst, he retired from the CIA in 1994 and now arranges bus tours.

    Though Dr. Hatfill is sometimes made out to be — through wild conjecture — the drinking buddy of the likes of Dr. Mengele, reading his scientific writing leads one to a decidedly less sensational conclusion. (Actually, he’s just a lunch companion of Stan Bedlington.) For a real page turner, see Hatfill, S.J. et al., “Induction of Morphological Differentiation in the Human Leukemic Cell Line K562 by Exposure to Thalidomide Metabolites”, Leukemia Res., vol. 15, No. 2/3, pp. 129-136 (1991).

    Hatfill reports that Nicholas Kristof, the New York Times columnist who made the suggestion of murder publicly, never contacted to ask him for information on the claims he was making. A journalist or other writer should always make the attempt. I wrote Anwar Awlaki a few years ago but he didn’t respond. I don’t have Ayman Zawahiri’s email. I believe everyone else I’ve written or called.

    Hatfill’s statements were very eloquent at his two press conferences, as were the comments of his attorney Victor Glasberg and his spokesperson Pat Clawson. Admittedly, repeated false statements by him regarding the past bring to mind a saying by Thurman Arnold: “Some of the things I remember most vividly never really happened.” The commentary critical of the Hatfill conjecture tends to strike a Richard Jewell theme. Pat Clawson, Hatfill’s spokesman, is pretty direct: “Personally, I think that this is just another TV show being produced by the same company that gave us Waco and Ruby Ridge and Wen Ho Lee and Richard Jewell.”

    Long before 9/11 and the anthrax mailings, Mr. Kristof, a Pulitzer Prize winner, explained the relevant journalistic principle that applies to his series of columns: “Maybe one of the most essential principles of modern journalism is that if somebody is saying something negative about somebody else, you want to get them on-the-record with their name. You don’t want to give somebody a free shot at somebody else without going on-the-record. Indeed, that makes articles stronger; it gives them the reliability that one yearns for. … There were also a lot of occasions when we knew that we needed information and that–to serve the readers’ interest, to provide the most complete picture that we could to the public and to our readership–getting this information would endanger our sources.”

    Here, though, the remote cabin story, for example, was specious. (The story was not plausible from the start because no one would go to a cabin where they had to first take Cipro; and if it were true, the person would necessarily be complicitous and not be telling the story). More generally, he had entirely insufficient basis to not trust that the FBI was doing its job. He also might have realized the dubious value of polygraphs (whether one, two or three) — particularly when he knew there might be good, unrelated, reason that being questioned made the individual very stressed. (For example, claiming he had a PhD when he only had two Masters and an M.D.) Indeed, in an interview on CNN Newsnight with Aaron Brown, Mr. Kristof says: “Some people, even within the FBI have wondered whether his personality, which is rather combative, would cause problems with his polygraph.”

    The same skepticism should have prevailed on the question of bloodhound evidence under these circumstances. Mr. Kristof told Aaron Brown: “So they took those dogs and prepared scent packets from the anthrax letters after they had been irradiated so that they would not actually be dangerous.” Under the applicable case precedent, the bloodhound evidence will not be admissible.

    In hindsight, what Mr. Kristof might have done is to call Dr. Hatfill and ask if he had access to virulent Ames or asked if he really had a PhD as he represented in gaining access to ebola.

    • DXer said

      b. The Greendale School: Where The 4th “R” is Railroading

      On June 26, 2002, ABC’s Brian Ross first reported on the Morning Show,

      “Hatfill, who has worked closely with the military and CIA anthrax experts, has frequently shocked colleagues with his statements and demonstrations of how easily terrorists could make biological weapons. In this photo in 1998, he demonstrated how a terrorist could make a deadly plague in a common kitchen.

      Investigators also are intrigued by the fact that Hatfill lived for years near a Greendale Elementary School while attending medical school in Zimbabwe. Greendale School, as you recall, was the phony return address used in the anthrax letters. Hatfill has told ABC News he had nothing to do with the deadly anthrax mailings, but he says he understands his background and comments make him a logical subject of the investigation, Claire.”

      That’s ironic. Dr. Bedlington, who reports that he came up with the Greendale point, in 1998 in a full-length interview argued that not only could anthrax be simply made, but could be dispersed aerially.

      In the Fall of 2001, political scientist and former senior CIA counterterrorism analyst, Dr. Stanley Bedlington, said: “Frankly, when I heard the news [of 9/11], I thought, ‘It’s got to be biochemical.” “This is frightening enough and yet, you could take a small plane and sprinkle anthrax over New York City and wipe out half the population.” He wrote a very insightful Op Ed piece in the Washington Post, dated October 28, 2001, in which he discusses the importance of piercing Osama Bin Laden’s myth of invincibility. He evidenced the sophistication of his knowledge by pointing to the influence of an Egyptian writer named Qutb on the Al Qaeda leaders.

      By August 2002 (in an interview with CNN’s Paula Zahn) he was talking about anthrax-smelling bloodhounds and the fact that Dr. Hatfill lived near a place (Greendale) used in the return address. He curiously said the “evidence was mounting.” Indeed, isn’t he the original source of the silly “Greendale” point (although to be fair, it was no more silly than what the FBI settled in accusing Dr. Ivins).

      From an August 4, 2002 interview:

      BLITZER: Stan Bedlington, take a look at this, I want to put it up on the

      screen, the return address of one of the letters. Look at this, fourth grade,

      Greendale School, Franklin Park, New Jersey, then the zip code. Greendale School

      — there is no Greendale School in Franklin Park, New Jersey. But, Greendale,

      as far as you know, did ring an alarm bell, when you heard that mention of that

      word.

      BEDLINGTON: Yes, it did. Steve Hatfill got his MD at what is now the

      University of Zimbabwe. It had another name in those days. And I looked it up

      on the Internet. And, in fact, it is located in Greendale, which is a suburb of

      Harare. So you have what I think is an amazing coincidence between the two

      names.

      Dr . Bedlington knew Dr. Hatfill from weekly lunches at a bistro in McClean where former work colleagues get together to swap stories, and once had been shown, privately, a scrapbook of mock pictures of Dr. Hatfill preparing plague in his kitchen (Dr. Bedlington recalls the discussion as relating to anthrax). It would be fascinating to know more about what Dr. Bedlington thinks about the current information given his knowledge and experience.

      There is no Greendale School in Zimbabwe — even though there are many in the United States. No Greendale Primary School or Greendale Elementary School. There never has been. ABC led the pack repeatedly getting it wrong in suggesting that there was a Greendale School that Hatfill lived nearby, in a neighborhood of Harare. ABC’s Brian Ross has relied on a source named Pete Velis who has spent his own money urging his biodefense insider theory. Hartford Courant followed, relying on ABC. I posted the City Atlas listing and the numbers of the two Greendale schools but it did little to stem the false reports. The closest in name is Greengrove, which was a considerable ways from the University. And if you started counting Greendales rather than Greendale Schools, then perhaps most people in the United States are just as closely connected to some Greendale. Most important of all, a perp simply has zero reason to use a name from his past. Indeed, the only reason to use the same address on both envelopes — which helped the second letter be identified before being received — is if something is being intentionally communicated.

      There are 18 Greendales in the US. 6 Greendale Elementary Schools. As well as a Greendale Elementary School in Maryland near Andrews AFB in Prince George’s County that was closed. Mohammed Ali, the US sergeant who accompanied Ayman Zawahiri on his travels in the US, lived near a Greendale School near Sacramento, but there would be no purpose in mentioning it. On coincidences what about “Franklin Park?” Franklin Park is the name of a small neighborhood in an unincorporated area next to Fort Lauderdale. It is sometimes called “Fort Lauderdale” but is not part of the city proper. At 2542 Franklin Park Drive is Masjid Al-Iman mosque. It is a mosque Jose Padilla of WMD (though radiological – as far as we know) fame worshiped at. Also worshipping there was Adham Hassoun among others. Coincidences can be surprising. But the Greendale conjecture always just an incredibly specious point to rely on in publicly suggesting that a medical doctor was guilty of murdering people. As Richard Spertzel, who has told the Baltimore Sun that he has met Hatfill but does not know him well, said: “He’s being railroaded.”

      Once this was pointed out, some reports modified the notion based on unspecified sources that the School named Courtney Selous was informally known as the Greendale School. The suggestion was made, for example, by an anonymous internet poster named Scorpion in soc.culture.zimbabwe (who could be determined to be posting from South Africa but otherwise was using a means of untraceable and false reference to “insect.com.” (According to his posts, he had previously lived in Zimbabwe). The identity was first created on July 9, 2001 when the existence of a Greendale School was first challenged — and then was terminated on August 17, 2001 — when he was asked for support for the proposition in light of all the people from the Greendale neighborhood who said it was untrue. And so if AP or ABC or jdo.orgor any other outlet or party wants to make the claim, they should find someone on the record who would support that claim. The number of the head of the Courtney Selous school is online and available to contact and there may even be a current email available. At the same time, the FBI on its visit to South Africa hopefully considered whether someone in South Africa (or in the US) has a grudge against Hatfill they aim to settle or some other motivation.

      Some of the more colorful theories include a notion, the subject of a full-page advertisement in the Washington Times, is that there is a 98% that the CIA is trying to frame Hatfill. It was taken out by Pete Velis — there is a Bethesda insurance man by that man. Another theory is propounded by an articulate anonymous poster whose screen name The Great Satan on The Free Republic forumover the course of two years. He argued that Project Hatfill is an elaborate psy ops program designed to distract attention from the fact that Saddam engaged in extortion by sending the anthrax, merely using Al Qaeda as mere hand-puppets (his notion extends to 9-11 event as well). Certainly, most people would immediately dismiss those ideas as provably mistaken — while totally swallowing the specious Greendale suggestion beccause it was conveyed by the eminently credible CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and ABC’s Brian Ross. On this score, Ivins Theory is just Hatfill Redux. The Greendale Theory under an Ivins theory is even stupider. Who is it does the FBI think Dr. Ivins is sending a message?

    • DXer said

      c. The Investigation Goes to the Dogs

      For those who believe in Tinkerbelle (one of the dogs used) , while most jurisdictions allow bloodhound evidence, courts generally retain reservations about the possibility of inaccuracy of the evidence. It is evident the dog cannot be cross-examined and there is always the possibility that the dog may make a mistake. Accordingly, there are strict foundational requirements. The notion that such evidence is of slight probative value or must be viewed with caution stems at least in part from fear that a jury will be in awe of the animal’s apparent powers and will give the evidence too much weight (as the ABC and Newsweek reports amply illustrated). Putting aside for a moment use of the scent transfer device, five specific requirements are commonly required to establish an adequate foundation for dog-tracking evidence: (1) the handler was qualified to use the dog; (2) the dog was adequately trained; (3) the dog has been found reliable; (4) the dog was placed on the track where the guilty party had been; and (5) the trail was not stale or contaminated.

      For example, a bloodhound provided with the deceased tennis shoes might very reliably lead authorities to the deceased’s body in the woods. What would have been used for the scent pack here is the human scent, if any, on the letter on which the perpetrator rested his hand in writing the letter. Tennis shoes are far more likely to carry a scent than a piece of paper on which the perp rested his hand (while possibly using gloves) to write a 28-word letter. Just ask my wife. The dogs would not have been clued to the biological agent as biological agents such as anthrax tend not to have a distinctive scent.

      Here, there would be no such log because the use of the dog would not have been the subject of testing and training showing the dog performed reliably under similar circumstances. At a minimum, the “trail” would have been contaminated by the irradiation and anthrax, and would have grown stale by the passage of time. FDA concluded that irradiation can produce small changes in the taste, smell, and sometimes texture of foods and that consumers should be informed of this. Jurors should too. Remember that scene from “Miracle on 34th Street” where the official finding of the agency of the United States’ government was deemed binding on the prosecution? Imagine Attorney Connolly calling FDA scientists who found irradiation caused changes in smell, no doubt amplified by the much keener sense of a bloodhound.

      The United States Post Office explains in a FAQ that “the materials in the mail are heated and may become chemically altered. Paper dries out and may become dusty, discolored, and brittle.” Some postal workers and federal agency staff have reported symptoms such as eye, nose, throat and skin irritation, headache, nausea and occasional nosebleeds. What does the USPS do under these circumstances? Their solution includes “[u]sing hypoallergenic deodorizers to eliminate any smells.” “Testing each batch of aired-out mail to ensure no detectable amoungs of gas exist before delivery.” Alas, Tinkerbelle’s lengthy log shows that perfume does not confuse her, but likely is silent on this question of irradiated paper. The prosecution witness who might testify that a bloodhound’s sense of smell is 200 times as powerful as a human’s sense of smell would merely be helping the defense argument. No amount of log keeping or experiments after the fact would serve to permit admissibility under the court precedent. The bloodhound evidence was always a bogus and hugely prejudical diversion since the first sensational Newsweek story.

      In any event, the perp would have worn gloves and only briefly handled the letter. More broadly, there is an article that collects cases from 40 or so states and nothing approaching the delays has ever been found admissible. In a city landscape, the time period is much more restrictive. The Leahy letter, written by the perp sometime prior to the October 9, 2001 postmark, was not discovered until mid-November, and as of November 19, 2001 a protocol was still being developed for its opening. Thus, the 40 day period that had been passed by the (likely glove-wearing) perp already would have resulted in a stale trail.

      Lucy is adorable. She’s widely known to be a people person.

      There is a separate additional issue of use of the “scent transfer unit” here. A “scent transfer unit” such as used here looks like a Dustbuster, modified with a small frame at the end to secure a piece of gauze over its intake opening. The user attaches a piece of sterile gauze to the unit, activated the unit, and holds it against the item from which the scent is to be taken (such as where the person sat the night before). Depending on the jurisdiction, the scent transfer unit, which is a new technology, may be subject to the rule regarding new scientific methodology. Under that rule, the proponent of such evidence must establish the new scientific principle or technique is sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs under the circumstances of the case. Here, there is no such general acceptance as explained by Scott Shane in an excellent article in the Baltimore Sun relying on experts in the Maryland area. The purpose of the requirement is to avoid factfinders from being misled by the `aura of infallibility’ that may surround unproved scientific methods. This would constitute a possible third independent grounds for excluding the evidence. Absent a training log showing the dog performed reliably under similar circumstances, given the time period that had passed, and in light of the use of the scent transfer unit, there is nothing the FBI or trainers would be able to do to save the admissibility of the bloodhound evidence because it will be found by a court to be unreliable.

      Both of the major police bloodhound associations howl against the reliability of the Scent Transfer Unit used by the three blood handlers. Dennis Slavin is an urban planner and reserve officer with the South Pasadena Police Department. One of the other dog handlers is a civilian who runs his own bloodhound business. Shane, in his very impressive Baltimore Sun article, explained that an FBI agent, Rex Stockham, examining the technology for the FBI lab says: “It’s going to be criticized. I’m critical of it myself.” The President of the Bloodhound Association, who is critical of the technology used by these handlers, had testified 21 times, and likely will have testified 22 if the FBI attempts to rely on the evidence in a prosecution. Shane notes that a federal jury awarded $1.7 million last year to a man wrongly accused of rape after police identified him in part based on the use of Slavin’s bloodhound, TinkerBelle. Shane’s article, essential reading, gives the further example of their use in the sniper investigation, where “given the scent taken from spent shell casings, followed two false trails in Montgomery County. One led to a house, for which a search warrant was obtained and which turned out not be relevant. The other led to a dog-grooming parlor, the officer said.” Phew. I wonder if Stan Bedlington knew any of this when he said on national tv that the evidence against his friend was “mounting” based on the Lucy’s and Hatfill responding to each other. He is a ladies’ man, after all. Oh, but that’s right. He lived near a neighborhood named Greendale. The trainers reportedly tested their dogs on irradiated paper — presumably before actually doing the search but after being asked to do so. That would not pass muster that past training be substantiated by a training log.

      The New York Times also had an excellent article in December 2002 surveying the field that noted the case where dogs falsely indicated the presence of explosives in the cars of three medical students bound for Miami. The country watched the drama unfold on television as the men were held and authorities closed a major highway across Florida. No trace of explosives was found. When dog handlers are excited, dogs can overreact and give a false positive. “Dogs want rewards and so they will false alerts to get them. Dogs lie. We know they do,” an expert told the Times. “One of ‘TinkerBelle’s most incredible talents,”her homepage touts, is her ability to find the person responsible for loading a gun using scent from an expended bullet casing.” Indeed, she finds the “smoking gun.” Most of all, the page notes, she too is a people person.

      With the investigation going to the dogs, nearly 100 law enforcement officers gathered to watch some of their colleagues jump in a lake near where Dr. Hatfill lived, and in late January 2003, the FBI continued searching the forest in Frederick. Locals were amused that some of the ponds had been dry earlier that year. While they may seem to enjoy their dinners at Georgetown, FBI agents and surveillance specialists do not have an easy job. The public demands that they exhaustively pursue all leads, but then there is an uproar if they cross some unpredictable line and step on — or run over someone’s toe.

      • DXer said

        PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT OF MATERIAL UNDISPUTED FACTS
        IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

        Here is an excerpt from Hatfill’s statement of material facts not in dispute about the leaker Mr. Daniel Seikaly. Mr. Seikaly’s beautiful and accomplished daughter later came to represent Al Timimi pro bono. The Washington Post reported in “Hardball Tactics in an Era of Threats” (September 3, 2006) that the FBI has suspected Ali-Timimi of involvement in the anthrax mailings. Al Timimi, a Lashkar-e-Taiba recruiter, was the POI of the other investigative squad. (That squad was not prone to the leaks of the squad pursuing a Hatfill theory). (There were three compartmentalized squads — two investigative squads, and one science squad). Fault only those who had all the information and failed to integrate it successfully — don’t fault those from whom relevant information was kept.

        63. Mr. Seikaly served as Chief of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Attorney’s
        Office for the District of Columbia from August 2001 to August 2004. In that position, he was responsible for supervising all federal criminal prosecutions and investigations in the District of Columbia. Seikaly Dep. at 26:10-29:3 (Ex. 40); Ex. 182; Def.’s Resp. to Pl.’s Second Set of
        Interr. No. 25 (Ex. 122); Ex. 181 at 3.

        64. What Mr. Seikaly learned about the investigation of Dr. Hatfill by the FBI and Justice Department came from regular briefings, as a part of his job. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia had the lead role in the Amerithrax investigation. Kenneth Kohl was the Assistant U.S. Attorney in charge of the case; he reported to William Blier, who reported to Mr. Seikaly. Seikaly Dep. at 34:17-35:19 (Ex. 40). Mr. Seikaly participated in regularly scheduled meetings with the FBI about the anthrax investigation. These briefings were attended by Messrs. Seikaly, Howard, Blier, and Kohl from the U.S. Attorney’s office. The purpose of these meetings was for the FBI to provide the U.S. Attorney’s Office information concerning the
        progress of the investigation. Seikaly Dep. at 36:20-46:2.
        65. Mr. Seikaly knew Mr. Klaidman was a reporter. Klaidman Dep. at 132:13-15 (Ex. 24); Seikaly Dep. at 75:21-76:1 (Ex. 40). Mr. Seikaly also knew that Mr. Klaidman intended to publish the information Mr. Seikaly provided. Klaidman Dep. at 132:16-19 (Ex. 24). Mr. Seikaly voluntarily, intentionally, and willfully disclosed to Mr. Klaidman investigative information about Dr. Hatfill; Mr. Klaidman never tricked or deceived Mr. Seikaly into
        disclosing any information. Klaidman Dep. at 133:18-135:17 (Ex. 24).
        33 Case 1:03-cv-01793-RBW Document 229-3 Filed 04/11/2008 Page 33 of 114

        66. Mr. Klaidman agreed with Mr. Seikaly that he would not identify Mr. Seikaly as a source. Klaidman Dep. at 116:16-117:22 (Ex. 24). In Mr. Klaidman’s twenty-years of experience, Agency Defendant officials generally insist on anonymity because they do not want to get in trouble. Klaidman Dep. at 113:8-116:9 (Ex. 24). A few weeks prior to Mr. Klaidman’s
        deposition, Mr. Seikaly requested that Mr. Klaidman not reveal Mr. Seikaly as a confidential source. Klaidman Dep. at 124:6-126:3 (Ex. 24).

        67. Mr. Seikaly spoke to Newsweek with the knowledge of his boss, Mr. Howard, but without the knowledge of the official responsible for dealing with the press. Mr. Klaidman spoke with Mr. Seikaly numerous times about the information contained in Newsweek’s article about the bloodhounds. Klaidman Dep. at 81:11-82:12 (Ex. 24). Mr. Seikaly told Mr. Klaidman
        that he obtained his information about the investigation of Dr. Hatfill from “briefings” he received in his “supervisory position as head of the Criminal Division . . . .” Klaidman II Dep. at 41:12-42:6, 57:15-59:19 (Ex. 25). Mr. Howard, then the U.S. Attorney and Mr. Seikaly’s boss,
        admitted that Mr. Seikaly informed him that he had recently had a conversation with Mr. Klaidman and that Newsweek was going to run a story about the anthrax investigation; but Mr. Howard claimed not to have inquired further into the substance of Mr. Seikaly’s communication
        with Mr. Klaidman. Howard Dep. at 118:3-126:9 (Ex. 20). Channing Phillips, Mr. Howard’s Chief of Staff and spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office, was the designated media contact for the office, but was unaware of Mr. Seikaly’s communications with the media. Phillips Dep. at 41:17-43:13, 156:18-157:3 (Ex. 35); Def.’s Resp. to Pl.’s Second Set of Interr. No. 25. (Ex.
        122). Case 1:03-cv-01793-RBW Document 229-3 Filed 04/11/2008

        68. Mr. Seikaly disclosed to Mr. Klaidman detailed information concerning the FBI’s investigation of Dr. Hatfill, which Newsweek reported in its issue dated August 12, 2002. Ex. 76. The information he disclosed to Mr. Klaidman included that:

        a. The FBI had used bloodhounds in the anthrax investigation early in the
        week of July 29, 2002. Klaidman Dep. at 45:11-46:16 (Ex. 24); Klaidman II Dep. at 50:20- 53:12 (Ex. 25);

        b. The bloodhounds had been presented with “scent packs” lifted from the
        anthrax-tainted letters. Klaidman Dep. at 59:8-17 (Ex. 24); Klaidman II Dep. at 53:19-57:14
        (Ex. 25);

        c. “[A]gents [had] quietly brought the dogs to various locations frequented
        by a dozen people they considered possible suspects—hoping the hounds would match the scent on the letters.” Klaidman Dep. at 61:13-63:4 (Ex. 24);

        d. “In place after place, the dogs had no reaction. But when the handlers
        approached the Frederick, Md., apartment building of Steven J. Hatfill . . . the dogs immediately became agitated.” Klaidman Dep. at 66:22-68:6 (Ex. 24);

        e. The bloodhounds “were barking and howling and straining at their
        leashes” at search sites associated with Dr. Hatfill. Klaidman Dep. at 51:12-53:8 (Ex. 24);

        f. On August 1, agents arrived at Dr. Hatfill’s apartment “with the
        bloodhounds in tow. When they entered the apartment building, one of the dogs excitedly bounded right up to Hatfill.” Klaidman Dep. at 80:7-81:10 (Ex. 24);

        g. “The agents also brought the bloodhounds to the Washington, D.C.
        apartment of Hatfill’s girlfriend and to a Denny’s restaurant in Louisiana, where Hatfill had Case 1:03-cv-01793-RBW Document 229-3 Filed 04/11/2008 eaten the day before. In both places, the dogs jumped and barked, indicating they’d picked up the scent.” Klaidman Dep. at 61:13-62:20, 69:9-17 (Ex. 24);

        h. The bloodhound evidence led investigators to “believe they were finally
        on the verge of a breakthrough,” but the FBI was not “close to making any arrests in the case.” Klaidman Dep. at 71:21-72:10, 87:9-22 (Ex. 24), Klaidman II Dep. at 43:17-47:4 (Ex. 25);

        i. Dr. Hatfill “waived his physician-patient privilege so investigators could
        ask his doctor about Hatfill’s prescription for Cipro,” who explained that “[Dr.] Hatfill had an infection.” Klaidman Dep. at 91:17-92:21 (Ex. 24).
        69. On June 2, 2005, the Agency Defendants responded to Dr. Hatfill’s interrogatory requesting a description of any communications related to the anthrax investigation between Agency Defendant officials and the media. Mr. Seikaly verified under penalty of perjury the interrogatory response purporting to detail his communications with the press regarding Dr.
        Hatfill; however, this interrogatory response omitted Mr. Seikaly’s communications with Mr. Klaidman about Dr. Hatfill. Def.’s Resp. to Pl.’s Second Set of Interr. No. 25 (Ex. 122).

        70. Mr. Seikaly did not deny the disclosures to which Mr. Klaidman testified,
        although he had the opportunity to do so. On October 10, 2007, Mr. Seikaly was deposed in this case after releasing Mr. Klaidman from his promising of confidentiality. When questioned about the investigative information concerning Dr. Hatfill he disclosed to Mr. Klaidman, Mr. Seikaly
        repeatedly invoked his privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Seikaly Dep. at 75:3-82:13, 91:12-98:14, 124:12-133:20, 140:2-142:21,
        144:20-145:13, 157:13-17, 162:14-19, 174:2-183:12, 196:5-197:16 (Ex. 40).

        • DXer said

          Here are some FBI memos re the investigation of media leaks.

          In early August 2002, the head of the District of Columbia Field Office initiated a leak investigation related to Amerithrax information. The first leak investigation concerned leak of bloodhound story to Newsweek (according to email discussed in deposition of lead prosecutor Daniel Seikaly in which he repeatedly pled the Fifth Amendment). A memo from DC Field Office head Van Harp read:
          TO: OPR
          NSD
          From: Washington Field
          ADIC’s Office: Harp Van A (202) xxx-xxxx
          ***
          Title: UNSUB
          UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE AND/OR
          MEDIA LEAK IN CONNECTION WITH THE
          AMERITHRAX INVESTIGATION
          ***
          [REDACTED]
          [REDACTED]
          The appearance of this information in the media affects the conduct of this investigation as well as the morale of the dedicated personnel who have expended enormous energy and effort on this investigation.
          As such, I am requesting that either a media leak or OPR investigation be initiated. In the event a leak investigation is initiated then the enclosed LRM should be hand delivered to AAG Chertoff. [REDACTED]
          The investigation was closed in October 2002. The memo read:
          Date: October 8, 2002
          To: Mr. H. Marshall Jarrett
          Counsel
          Office of Professional Responsibility
          United States Department of Justice

          From: David W. Szady
          Assistant Director
          Counterintelligence Division
          Subject: [REDACTED[
          The purpose of this memorandum is to notify your office of the closing of the FBI’s criminal investigation of the captioned media leak matter. It is the understanding of the FBI that your continUed investigation of this matter will be pursued by your office.
          [REDACTED]
          ***
          After a January 9, 2003 “exclusive” report by ABC’s Brian Ross that the FBI was focusing on Hatfill and was going to conduct a second round of interviews with other former and current government scientists so that they might rule them out by the process of elimination, the FBI initiated a second media leak investigation. This time it was to proceed with “extreme zeal.”
          The memo read:
          Precedence: PRIORITY Date: 1/13/2003
          To: Director’s Office
          Washington Field
          From: Washington Field
          Contact Richard L. Lambert 202-xxx-xxxx
          Approved by: Harp Van
          Lambert Richard L
          Title: AMERITHRAX
          MAJOR CASE 184
          00: WFO
          Synopsis: To request the opening of new OPR media leak investigation regarding captioned case.
          [large redacted passages]
          To demonstrate the seriousness with which the FBI views this matter, it is requested that the OPR inquiry commence with an interview of IIC Rick Lambert who will waive all Fifth Amendment privileges and accede to a voluntary polygraph examination to set a tone of candor, forthrightness and cooperation.
          [redacted]

          The instant matter is the second unauthorized media disclosure to occur in this investigation. Its potential detriment to the effective prosecution of the case is substantial. Accordingly, in the interests of both specific and general deterrence, the Inspector in Charge requests that this OPR inquiry be pursued with unprecedent zeal.

    • DXer said

      d. Little Man By The Window Stood

      Another story focused on an imagined remote cabin that people could not visit unless they first took Cipro. The story was bogus and hugely prejudicial. As with the other “evidence”, it quickly turned out to stem from what Hafill’s attorney has fairly described as an out-of-control game of telephone. In the June 19, 2002, “The Anthrax Case: What The FBI Knows,” Dr. Rosenberg, wrote: “Remote Location-The Suspect had access to a conveniently-located but remote location where activities could have been conducted without risk of observation.” The finding that the tape used to seal all the letters came from the same roll indicates that the containment set-up used for making the anthrax and filling the letters must have remained accessible from before Sept. 18 until close to Oct. 9 (otherwise the roll used in the first instance would have been destroyed in decontaminating the first set-up). This suggests the perpetrator had confidence in his clandestine arrangements. There is also evidence,which can’t be cited publicly at this time, that the Suspect knew in October that the remote site was contaminated with anthrax.”

      The rumor being told by others by telephone and email was that there was a remote cabin he would go to — and he would only allow people to visit if they first took Cipro. The suggestion was implausible from the start. If it were true, the person would be complicitous and not telling the story. As it turns out, it was a house owned by a communications lawyer where Hatfill once joined some friends and engaged in some male banter about reasons his friends might have to take cipro. The question had arisen because Mr. Clawson’s boss, Oliver North, had received a hoax anthrax letter. The suggestion, albeit mistaken, definitely was something to communicate to the FBI. Just not publicly.

      George R. Borsari Jr., the communications lawyer who owns the house, says the “cabin” is a three-bedroom house. It does appear to be pretty remote, judging by the mapquest map for house owned by George Borsari in Fort Valley, Virginia. He told reporter Shane that he advised the agent that Hatfill had visited the house a few times but had to call from the road in October to get directions. “Boy, if it’s a safe house,” Baltimore Sun reporter Shane quoted him saying, “the CIA is way behind on the rent,” he said. This debunking of the “remote cabin” story is yet another important story Shane wrote — as the story about the little cabin in the woods and Dr. Rosenberg’s suggestion that “the Suspect knew in October that the remote site was contaminated with anthrax” was hugely prejudicial.

      “In a cabin in a wood (trace a cabin outline with your index fingers),

      A little old man by the window stood (trace a window outline)…”

    • DXer said

      e. A Novel Approach To Warning About Bioterrorism

      Dr. Hatfill also wrote a novel. The partial, uncompleted novel, titled “Emergence,” was deposited by his co-author at the Library of Congress, and CNN has described its contents in detail and that report is used here. A terrorist with vague international ties is opposed by a brave American researcher — who fits Dr. Hatfill’s profile — who battles against government bureaucracy to solve the mystery. The novel did not involve anthrax, but plague (“Yesinnia Pestis”). The plague was cultured from the fleas of Prairie Dogs. (Not to worry, the recent outbreak in the midwest involving prairie dogs is monkey pox, not plague). The outbreak begins in Antartica but are dead before rescuers arrive. The medical investigation is then stymied the U.S. State Department and the government of South Africa, which runs the Antarctic base. The book then moves forward eight years to Washington. A Palestinian terrorist with the research skills of a cancer specialist — both Dr. Hatfill and more than one of his accusers are cancer specialists — uses fleas from prairie dog* tunnels and mice to culture the plague bacteria in hotel rooms. Cost: $387. Memories? Priceless.

      The perpetrator’s misdeeds have been financed by Iraq. The terrorist then goes on a public tour of the White House, using a specially equipped wheelchair to spray the bacteria culture on the carpet. CNN reports: “Soon, the president, his staff, members of Congress and the general public begin coming down with sore throats and dementia.” The terrorist dies from the infection in a hospital, where had had been taken after being hit by a cab. (This is implausible; in real life, it would be a beer truck).

      The novel’s protagonist, a CDC researcher from Antarctica, is then put on the case. I picture Steve Segal in the role, giving early and long lectures to his superiors about the dangers of stockpiling such weapons. He goes back to Antactica to fearlessly tackle the medical mystery, though his team members die in the process. In movie “The Patriot”, when Steve Segal’s supervisor needed to call him back to duty to save the world — with respect to a bug that conveniently broke out in Steve’s own hometown — the supervisor’s coded reference to “plastic vials” had tipped him his services were urgently needed to save the world. His CIA’s superiors stood in the background making sure the supervisor did not tip their hand. When the fellow trying to call Steve back to service was initially unsuccessful, and was told by the CIA superiors to move to the next man on the list, the beleaguered fellow said “There is no other man.” If this fellow had a hero complex, like Richard Jewell was alleged by his false accusers to have had, it was because it was warranted. (It’s true — some of us are destined to save the world).

      In the sketchy end of Hatfill’s novel, the United States dropped a nuclear bomb on Baghdad. The novel by Hatfill and Akers “features long and detailed scientific passages and talks extensively about the Soviet Union’s bioweapons program.” It also makes the point that a single terrorist would have formidable hurdles to overcome in launching such an attack. In the book, the CDC is described as suffering form poor leadership and budget constraints with an irrational focus on industrial accidents and inner-city violence.

      Is the Hatfill Theory a Jewell Hero Complex theory or what? Enter the Ivins Theory… Bruce signed up for the Red Cross! Egads! Call the longtime partner of FBI Quantico, a psychiatrist, to argue in an “independent” report that Dr. Ivins wanted to be a hero.

      George Munkelwitz, quoted along with Hatfill in the 1998 “Insight” article , also wrote a novel. He said:

      “The mother of all terror will be a biological attack on the United States – specifically Washington. A single gram of anthrax would shut down the government.”

      He had written a book titled “Mother of Satan” that had to be vetted by the CIA (and may never have been published)

      Maybe it’s time that the FBI should leave the poems and novels and psychological opinions alone. Maybe literature isn’t their thing. Maybe the FBI should be relying on forensics and documentary evidence and informed intelligence analysis.

    • DXer said

      f. Muckraking: Don’t Jus’ Keep Wishin’, Go Fishin’

      Marilyn Thompson, author of The Killer Strain, reported in the Washington Post on May 11, 2003 that in its search of the ponds, the FBI found what appears to some to be be an improvised”glove box” and also wrapped vials. She describes it as a “clear box” — other reports describe it as a plastic tub. Now, why, again, are we talking about it? There is no claim that the glove box has been tied to Dr. Hatfill or that the vials have been. The pond is located near Ft. Detrick. It certainly makes one wonder what fascinating things might lurk in the ponds of nearby parks. (All these years I’ve been wasting time with a metal detector on dry land when I perhaps instead should have taken up scuba diving).

      Ms. Dougherty, the Frederick mayor, was quoted saying that about six weeks ago FBI agents raised the possibility of emptying the spring-fed pond that is roughly an acre in size and 10 feet deep. “Obviously, they want to find other evidence,” she said. “And they think that, as I recall, they want to find other things being hidden by the muck.” The mayor’s attitude the next day was “what is the sudden big deal?” “Mayor Dougherty said that despite a Washington Post article stating that plans to drain the pond are progressing, she knows nothing of the sort and that she should know because she is in contact with the FBI on a regular basis.” Mayor Dougherty was quoted as saying, “the idea of draining the pond was something that was discussed weeks, even months ago, but I don’t think a decision has been made.” It is the ponds on Catoctin Mountain’s north side, near Gambrill Park Road and Tower Road in Frederick that reportedly of the FBI’s interest.

      “If there is anthrax in the water, I am relatively sure that the water is safe,” the Mayor of Frederick said to the local paper. Yet no trace of anthrax was found. Is this how our system of justice is supposed to work? Right or wrong, the story should never have been leaked by those involved in the investigation to the Washington Post reporters. It was misleading and hugely prejudicial. More than anything else, people who think Hatfill is guilty now think that because of this report. Any agent leaking the story may have handed Attorney Glasberg a Section 1983 claim under the civil rights statute, particularly after the similarly sourced March 9, 2003 CBS story about agents who were convinced he was guilty. If the Department of Justice permits those leaks to occur, it risks Section 1983 liability itself.

      As United States District Judge Gladys Kessler for the District of Columbia

      “Difficult times such as these have always tested our fidelity to the core democratic values of openness, government accountability, and the rule of law. The Court fully understands and appreciates that the first priority of the executive branch in a time of crisis is to ensure the physical security of its citizens. By the same token, the first priority of the judicial branch must be to ensure that our Government always operates within the statutory and constitutional constraints which distinguish a democracy from a dictatorship.”

      Here is an aerial photo of the pond relative to that intersection so that you skinny dippers know where not to go:

      POLICE LINE – DO NOT CROSS “Everybody! Watch the ponds!”

      “[P]utting this all into perspective when asked how high of a priority this is for the FBI right now, Dougherty said that it is, “certainly not at the top of their list.” Newsweek, on the plastic tub story, reported: “While some law-enforcement officials are taking the novel theory seriously, others have dismissed it as fantasy. ‘It got a lot of giggles,’ says one FBI source.” As many schoolboy knows (or at least any schoolboy with google available to him could readily learn), a rope is used to retrieve a minnow trap from the bottom of a pond. The USA Today has reported that a rope was found attached to the plastic container.

      “While some law-enforcement officials are taking the novel theory seriously, others have dismissed it as fantasy. ‘It got a lot of giggles,’ says one FBI source.”

      Clawson relying on details from their own “sources,” reportedly said it was “like a K-Mart sweater box; like a piece of Tupperware that just happened to have a hole in it.” Then he added, “From what I understand it doesn’t have anything to do with bioweapons.” School children are even taught online to study the flow of water systems using plastic sweater boxes with a hole cut in it and take it to the pond or stream.

      TOP 10 USES OF A PLASTIC SWEATER BOX FOUND AT A POND

      1. to incubate snake or turtle eggs,

      2. breeding crickets,

      3. snake feeding room,

      4. live bait dispenser ,

      5. common school project to study the flow of water systems,

      6. minnow or turtle trap,

      7. turtle transporter,

      8. breeding waxworms,

      9. RYO wet/dry filter,

      10. to ruin someone’s life while pumping up the value of his litigation claims.

      The Trentonian sets the scene:

      “A short walk down that freshly cut road off Gambrill Park Road leads to nothing more than a non-descript fishing pond about an acre in size, and about 10 feet at its deepest point.

      Several other ponds located only a few dozen yards away are also part of the mystery that may hold the keyto the secrets behind the anthrax-laden letters.

      The other ponds are smaller, and at least one of the ponds was tagged for stocking back in March, prior to the opening day of fishing season last month.

      On one pond a man was seen sitting in a chair, fishing pole in hand and passing the time. He hadn’t caught anything yet, he said.

      A short walk down that freshly cut road off Gambrill Park Road leads to nothing more than a non-descript fishing pond about an acre in size, and about 10 feet at its deepest point.

      Several other ponds located only a few dozen yards away are also part of the mystery that may hold the key to the secrets behind the anthrax-laden letters.

      The other ponds are smaller, and at least one of the ponds was tagged for stocking back in March, prior to the opening day of fishing season last month.

      On one pond a man was seen sitting in a chair, fishing pole in hand and passing the time. He hadn’t caught anything yet, he said.”

      No wonder. Perhaps he’s still annoyed that someone took his clear plastic minnow trap, that was also good for catching bluegills. Or for taking his turtle trap.

      Or perhaps he’s annoyed that the FBI took his live bait dispenser that held shiners for catching bass.

      The area they were searching is a quarter mile west of Fishing Creek Road. According to the Gambrill Park webpage, a small pond, located in the Rock Run area is popular for fishing for large mouth bass, bluegill and channel catfish. As explained by one web thread “Minnow trap advice,” even bluegill can be caught using a minnow trap (not just minnows) There are many species of minnows in ponds. A common minnow is the Golden Shiner. Minnows or shiners, mostly stocked as food for bass. Newsweek reported: “While some law-enforcement officials are taking the novel [glove box] theory seriously, others have dismissed it as fantasy.’“ It got a lot of giggles,’ says one FBI source. (In legal and beltway circles, this means it did not pass the all-important “giggle test.”) The photo in Newsweek of the diver in the wetsuit from last December or January might best be captioned, as Brer Fox once asked Brer Rabbit, “Did you catch minnows or a cold?”

      If a minnow trap, was it Old Pal? Crazy Pal? Singer? Getz em? Or Ketchmor? Or unknown? For the specifications and details of each, see

      http://www.minnowtraps.com/plastictraps.html

      Sample turtle traps

      Yes, some minnow traps, like the two turtle traps above, are rectangular boxes such as illustrated by Pat No. 5,131,184 (1992) that look even more closely like a glove box (which is pictured further below). As the Baltimore Sun reported, explains, what was found was NOT a commercial glove box.

      If the gloves don’t fit, you must acquit!

      My favorite suggestion that I’ve heard though is that it relates to the infestation of Maryland ponds of the Crofton snakehead, a species ruinous to ecosystems that someone released from an aquarium. Numerous traps were set to rid Maryland ponds of the creature.

      The news stories suggest the image of someone sticking their gloved hands into the box while underwater. Well, how does water not rush through the holes? Did Hatfill stick his hands into the box outside the water, walk awkwardly into the water, then submerge the box? Water would seep through. An unanswered question in this fanciful scenario imagined by some in the press and their unnamed sources: where are the “port” or “securing ring” -like devices? If this box was used as alleged, why would these devices be taken away by the perp instead of left there too?

      In the event it turns out to have been homemade, note that frugal fishermen on the internet post to each directions on how to make a homemade minnow trap:

      “I don’t take credit for this I saw it on Rec. Ponds awhile ago Take an empty 2 liter bottle, cut off the top where it is as round athe rest. (making a funnel) invert it back into the rest of the bottle and staple it back together. Put in some food (I used bread)I also tie a string onto it by putting a small hole on the bottom and fishing the string through the funnel hole. Drop it in and wait about an hour an pull it back up. I caught about 20 per container The fish can swim in but can’t get out.”

      “A basic rule of aquatic research,” another poster explains, “is that you have to be prepared to lose anything you put in the water.”

      Please email if you know of others (including your homemade ones, especially if you started with a plastic sweater box.). Dr. Hatfill or his pal Stan may want to start collecting them.

      (Someone else might pull pictures of clear plastic live bait dispensers.)

      The way a minnow or turtle trap works is that the small fish or turtle can swim in but can’t swim out — sort of like being named a Person of Interest.

      The way a minnow or turtle trap works is that the small fish or turtle can swim in but can’t swim out — sort of like being named a Person of Interest.

      In a Washington Post article on May 30, 2003, we are treated to characterization of the false positive due to shoddy lab work as merely a conflicting lab report and the tantalizing (albeit casually dropped) new discovery of gloves wrapped in plastic. Can you imagine the leaker gleefully seizing the issue of the gloves allegedly found, challenging detractors to a duel, and saying “Take that!”

      We are also told that investigators were “surprised” not to find traces of anthrax at the places they searched. Surprised? Wouldn’t it only be surprising if you had assumed your conclusion of a person’s guilt? “Some agents fear that draining the pond, estimated to cost $250,000, could prove useless and embarrassing.” The article states: “The business acquaintance’s tip offered a clue to how the bioterrorism crimes could have been carried out.” Would that be Stan Bedlington, who used to dine weekly with Hatfill and others at a bistro in McClean? If so, Mr. Bedlington went on national tv to announce that he thought the “evidence was mounting” because Hatfill lived near a place named Greendale.

      The same suggestion that a glove box could be used — or that insertion could be made outdoors — was made by numerous people in a group called anthrax_fans@coollist.com. It would occur to anyone naturally — even though it went against the suggestion that a million dollar containment facility would be needed. The statute of limitations on Dr. Hatfill’s libel claim (dating to the first week in July 2002) arguably expires next month. . Depending on the jurisdiction, te statute is tolled by the filing of suit (and service before expiration of the period is not necessary).

      If the vials and gloves journalist Thompson and her collagues says were wrapped in plastic were related to the insertion of powderized anthrax into the letters, they would test positive, right? My source of information indicates no gloves were found –with the question being asked of the law enforcement sources both before and then again after the WP story. The inventory doesn’t in fact list gloves wrapped in plastic, does it? If not, what is the basis for the report?

      A recent USA Today report explains a rope was found attached to it, as google shows is used with a minnow trap or turtle trap. (That’s how you get the trap up from the bottom of the pond). The sources relied upon by the USA Today confirm the absence of any evidence of Hatfill’s guilt beyond exaggerations on his resume etc.

    • DXer said

      g. No Time To Kill

      Then there’s the question of his time cards, which show him working 13 hours on each September 17th and September 18th. In the UK, there were articles on May 31, 2003 in the Observer (repeated in the Guardian) about Dr. Hatfill, along the lines of : while there is no evidence of his guilt, he lied a lot to get jobs. They are based on an earlier longer article in the magazine SEED, which was all old news. It is available on line (at FreeRepublic, for example) in PDF. But if it doesn’t bear on evidence of guilt, there seems to be no point in addressing the many aspects of his claimed exaggerations and false statements. The sections arguing that there is no evidence of responsibility for the Amerithrax crimes is not based on the truth of his statements.

      While it may lend itself to a sense of accomplishment for an investigator burning the midnight oil on a weekend to expose yet another falsehood or fabrication, it is a diversion from the task at hand. By way of example, can they break his alibi based on the September 17, 2001 and September 18, 2001 timesheets or not?

      The full timesheet for September 17 and September 18 is available on line as an appendix to a weighty article by David Tell of the Weekly Standard.

    • DXer said

      h. Handwriting on the Wall

      Trying to read the handwriting on the wall, it’s difficult to imagine what evidence the FBI ever thought it had that was both relevant to the anthrax mailings and reliable enough so as to be admissible.

      As to handwriting, no qualified handwriting expert would give an opinion without a number of handwriting exemplar (as many as possible). In my experience with handwriting experts from the DC area, they have backgrounds in the FBI, CIA or large city police departments. I once uploaded some illustrative snippets taken from Purchase Orders obtained through FOIA apparently filled out by Dr. Hatfill, that by themselves would be wholly insufficent to render an opinion. The FBI, however, had samples from searches. Based only on lay observation of the 6 purchase orders, I note these points:

      First, he uses the European style rather than popular American style (in US government circles, the “European style” is known as the “military style” of writing dates). So instead of March 30, 1996, he renders the date 30 March 1996. The anthrax letters, in contrast, used the popular American style of writing that Hatfill does not use in the random 6 Purchase Orders reviewed.

      Second, when he writes the month using a number rather than the name of the month, he used a “/” rather than a “-” as used by in the anthrax letters. The FBI psycholinguistic profile noted that the writer of the anthrax letters “1. The author uses dashes (“-“) in the writing of the date “09-11-01.” Many people use the slash (“/”) to separate the day/month/year.”

      Third, he used 5 digit zipcodes rather than the 9 digit zipcodes used by the anthrax mailer. For example,below he uses St. Louis, MO 63178. No doubt he also uses nine-digit zipcodes as we all sometimes do, obliging the USPS, at the same time questioning the need.

      Fourth, the far right example below, he used a single number in referring to the day of the month and did not put a “0” in front of it as in the anthrax letters.

      Fifth, Dr. Hatfill on the Purchase Order pictured below just made the number one with a single vertical line whereas “[t]he FBI psycholinguistic profile noted that the writer of the anthrax letters …[i]n writing the number one, the author chooses to use a formalized, more detailed version. He writes it as “1” instead of the simple vertical line.”

      Thus, although I am not qualified to render an expert handwriting opinion, the Purchase Orders I reviewed differ in all these respects from the anthrax letters. These differences, though, demonstrate that any use of handwriting or psycholinguistic experts would not get the government far because the defense would be these major points apparently favoring that he did not write the anthrax letters.

      • DXer said

        One of the samples of Dr. Ivins’ handwriting released this week is 28 MB and more are on the way.

        The letters are not in his handwriting, are they?

        Compare his handwriting along the same lines as Dr. Hatfill’s handwriting:

        First, whether he uses the European style rather than popular American style of dates.

        Second, whether he writes the month using a number rather than the name of the month, and whether he uses a “/” rather than a “-” as used by in the anthrax letters. The FBI psycholinguistic profile noted that the writer of the anthrax letters “The author uses dashes (“-”) in the writing of the date “09-11-01.” Many people use the slash (“/”) to separate the day/month/year.”

        Third, whether he uses 5 digit zipcodes rather than the 9 digit zipcodes used by the anthrax mailer.

        Fourth, whether he uses a single number in referring to the day of the month and did not put a “0″ in front of it as in the anthrax letters.

        Fifth, whether he just make the number one with a single vertical line whereas “[t]he FBI psycholinguistic profile noted that the writer of the anthrax letters …[i]n writing the number one, the author chooses to use a formalized, more detailed version. He writes it as “1″ instead of the simple vertical line.”

        I choose these elements simply because years ago I applied them to Dr. Hatfill’s writing. But I’ll upload representative samples of his writing of letters, words and phrases and you consider what features you think salient and reach your own conclusion.

        GAO should appreciate that handwriting analysis is a forensic science and it should not be overlooked in favor of such topics as isotope analysis. GAO may even have handwriting experts on call given the importance of documents to its investigations.

  30. Lew Weinstein said

    And so, because no one at the FBI or the DOJ had the combination of guts, caring for the truth, and outrage at miscarriage of justice, Dr. Bruce Ivins was pushed to suicide and the American public has been lied to ever since. There are only three possibilities. Either the FBI has a real case against Ivins but won’t present it, or they don’t know who actually prepared the anthrax and mailed the letters, or they do know but are covering up the true perpetrators. None of those choices reflect any honor on the ten year, soon to end, career of FBI Director Mueller.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: