Posted on 02/27/2007 8:58:30 AM PST by EdLake
Hatfill Settles $10M Libel Lawsuit
By JOSH GERSTEIN Staff Reporter of the Sun
February 27, 2007 A former Army scientist named by investigators as a "person of interest" in the 2001 anthrax attacks, Dr. Steven Hatfill, has settled his $10 million libel suit against Vanity Fair and Reader's Digest after the two magazines agreed to retract any implication that the bioweapons specialist was behind the deadly anthrax mailings.
A statement issued today by a lawyer for Dr. Hatfill, Hassan Zavareei, said the case "has now been resolved to the mutual satisfaction of all the parties." He did not indicate whether any money changed hands.
A spokeswoman for Reader's Digest, Ellen Morgenstern, confirmed the settlement, but she would not elaborate. "All I can tell you is we're very satisfied with the results. I can't get into any detail," she said. A call seeking comment from Vanity Fair's parent company, Condé Nast Publications, was not immediately returned.
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
Agreed. A lot of stupid things have been done in the past, particularly during the Cold War. But we've learned from them. People are less willing to "go along" today than they were back then. And the Internet has created a whole different world.
Compare that situation back then to the situation we have today with the anthrax vaccine. Everyone and his brother is bringing up all sorts of possible dangers with the vaccine. Compare it to the move to vaccinate teenage girls in Texas against the virus which causes cervical cancer. The protests have virtually stopped most of it.
You are making MY point by bringing up things from back during the Cold War. And you are making MY point by resorting to misguided experiments as a comparison to sending anthrax through the mails to the media and two senators. There is simply no comparison.
In the MEAN time, I wouldn't be so cocksure of what the folks at Fort Detrick would or would not DO...!!
One thing we KNOW for certain. They knew so little about powdered anthrax that they made mistake after mistake in analyzing it. No one at Ft. Detrick had worked with powdered anthrax in decades. "To Err Is Human" is the title of the chapter in my book where I go through all the stupid mistakes made at Ft. Detrick and AFIP because of their lack of knowledge of such things.
I cannot prove that Ft. Detrick wasn't involved, but all the EVIDENCE says that they weren't. But, you have the right to believe whatever you want to believe, regardless of what the facts say.
The Digest, for one, has its own legal staff.
I think this development is interesting, only because when I left the magazine in 1992 we were justifiably proud of having NEVER lost an editorial lawsuit to that point...and it was primarily due to the top-notch in-house editorial research staff. RD's fact-checking procedures were then the best in the industry.
RD has since fallen on relatively hard times and made significant editorial staff cuts. I don't know any specifics re this case to assess whether short-changed editorial research in any way contributed to the outcome.
"No one at Ft. Detrick had worked with powdered anthrax in decades."
Oh REALLY....???
YOU better do a little study on a guy named "William Capers Patrick III"
~~~~~~~
Furthermore, it DISGUSTS me that people are so ready to write off very real and highly injurious practices to "misguided" events....as if their OWN conspiracy THEORY is more sacred than the lives of 10,000 U.S. Servicemen.....!!!
Unfortunately, what YOU fail to recognize is that the BULK of the U.S. Government's "knowledge" about Bio-Chemical Weapons came at the expense of the LIVES of unsuspecting "test subjects" who were left with NO recourse.
But, let ONE guy play a game of hide and seek and YOU will "write a book". I strongly advise you to read a different book called simply "Germs" in which you will find revealed the callous disregard for our Troops lives AND an expose of the faults in the system currently used to produce those vaccines YOU are so glib to pass over.
Do you REALLY think this technology just dropped out of the sky...???
And, when it comes to "harmless insecticides"...I would proffer that most, if not ALL, of the organophosphates used as "nerve agents" are in FACT derived from said "insecticides", starting with Zyklon B of NaZi fame and on down through Sarin, Soman, Tabun, and VX Gas.
While you're AT it, read "The Bioweaponeers". Toward the end of this little tale of woe you will find a description of one of the more elaborate episodes in the Project SHAD program, this one South of Hawaii.
Be sure to read to the END where it describes how microscopically individuated spores might transport themselves on an average day....
~~~~~~~~
Now, as for the "nullification" of said perpetrator, I would certainly HOPE the government [NSA, CIA, FBI, Homeland Security] WOULD eliminate the threat posed by any individual if they were involved in the "anthrax scare".
Secondly, I would presume that if they had evidence that the person did NOT act alone, they would keep HIM and the ongoing investigation under wraps until they collected or removed some of the "ringleaders". No point in jumping the gun.
[such as YOU have done when responding to me]
~~~~~~~~
Here's ANOTHER link to ignore:
The Bioweaponeers
A former Russian scientist provides details on biological weapons programs in the former Soviet Union.
cryptome.org/bioweap.htm
~~~~~~
OH, and one last thing.
That "cold war" incident you THINK you know all the ins and outs of is STILL going on....
Look up the "Veterans Right to Know Act" [currently dead in the water in committee] and you MAY begin to glimpse the TRUTH.....or not....YOUR choice.
Dr. Hatfill's legal case was SOLID from the get-go. Judge McMahon made some truly damning comments about Don Foster's article when she took on the case after the change of venue.
In her Decision she wrote:
"only an unreasonable reader would conclude that the articles were merely reports about an official investigation."
and ...
"since Hatfill has not been charged with any crime, the articles in suit cannot be described as accurate reports of charges of wrongdoing.
and ...
"Foster came up with these theories and conjectures, not in his role as a Vassar professor, but in his second life as a crime fighter. Early in the article, Foster explains that he lives a double life reminiscent of Indiana Jones."
and ...
"Foster's use of the Richard Jewell comparison, in the overall context of the article, is more than sufficient for me to conclude, as a matter of law, that Foster intended to imply that Hatfill was the anthrax murderer."
Here's that last phrase in BOLD CAPITALS:
"more than sufficient for me to conclude, AS A MATTER OF LAW, THAT FOSTER INTENDED TO IMPLY THAT HATFILL WAS THE ANTHRAX MURDERER."
With comments like that from the Judge, all that Vanity Fair and Readers' Digest could do was negotiate to avoid going to trial where there would be NO LIMIT to what a jury could award. And the only thing they really had to negotiate WITH was money and time (i.e., dragging out the case for years).
It's too bad everyone was sworn to silence in the settlement, because my feeling is that the settlment involved some pretty BIG bucks. It almost certainly wasn't the full ten million dollars asked, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't somewhere in lower millions somewhere.
It really bothers me that almost NO ONE in the media reported on the retraction, and the only one who did -- The New York Sun -- appears to have wrongly interpreted the settlement in implying that there may have been no money involved.
You'll undoubtedly be happy to know that Bill Patrick and I have talked on the phone several times, and he wrote a great review for my book. He wrote:
"With critical assessment of available evidence, Edward G. Lake has generated a very important new book entitled "Analyzing The Anthrax Attacks". This book is truly an analysis of the facts that are currently known. The author does not have a political agenda; he is not a conspiracy theorist; and he sets out the facts in a clear and concise, highly readable narrative. As a result, many of the concepts and conclusions set forth in other print media are shown to be wrong and based upon faulty analysis. I have read many books on this subject, and this book is by far the most informative! The author has performed an outstanding service to our country in putting the anthrax letters in proper perspective." --- William C. Patrick III, President, BioThreats Assessment
While you're AT it, read "The Bioweaponeers".
I've not only read "The Bioweaponeers", I've exchanged many emails with the author of the article, Richard Preston. In fact, Richard Preston also wrote a review of my book:
"Ed Lake's "Analyzing the Anthrax Attacks" is a must-read for anyone interested in the unsolved anthrax terrorist attacks of 2001. It's fascinating, thoughtful, intensely and passionately researched and argued, and intelligently probing about the mysterious events. Lake brings a wealth of detailed knowledge to his account, and he comes to provocative conclusions that not everyone will agree with. He is highly critical of the media at times--sometimes critical of my book, The Demon in the Freezer--but so what, we in the media ought to be able to handle criticism just the way we dish it out, and I think Lake's work deserves to be taken very seriously. We can only hope that one day this horrendous crime will be solved and the perpetrator or perpetrators brought to justice."
I strongly advise you to read a different book called simply "Germs"
I've not only read it, two of the authors Bill Broad and Judy Miller have been corresponding with me via emails for years, and I've talked on the phone with Bill Broad several times.
It's funny that you should mention "Germs", since most conspiracy theorists point out that the book was published on September 12, 2001, one day after 9/11. They usually declare that that couldn't be a "coincidence" and that the authors may have been involved in some conspiracy. ;-)
Dang!! I should have mentioned that, while Bill Broad never reviewed my book (even though he's read it), he DID write about it in an article printed in The New York Times last September. He wrote:
Last year, Edward G. Lake, a retired computer systems analyst in Racine, Wis., self-published a book, "Analyzing the Anthrax Attacks," that documented the silica misunderstanding as well as many other federal and private blunders. “There were,” Mr. Lake said in an interview, “a lot of false assumptions.”
You're not surprised though are you, that the media have no interest in reporting any hint of wrongdoing by one of their brethren in this case? Steven Hatfill isn't Wen Ho Lee. They just don't like the guy, and many of them probably still believe that he was involved.
No, I'm not surprised. The media has totally missed the boat on MANY occasions in their anthrax investigation coverage, and mostly it appears to be because they only want to report on what suits their point of view -- whether that be a LEFT WING OR RIGHT WING point of view.
On the other hand, it's hard to report on something where everyone is sworn to silence.
The reporter who wrote the article in the New York Sun sent me a copy, and we exchanged several emails. The impression I got was that he simply interpreted things the way he did based upon his own past experiences. I don't think he deliberately tried to mislead anyone. He just made wrong assumptions and reported his assumptions as speculation.
Dang! Missed it again. I should have mentioned how easy it is to do that when you begin with a belief and then rationalize everything to fit that belief.
"It's funny that you should mention "Germs", since most conspiracy theorists point out that the book was published on September 12, 2001, one day after 9/11. They usually declare that that couldn't be a "coincidence" and that the authors may have been involved in some conspiracy. ;-)"
Very smug of you to note, but I don't recall making ANY such connection...rather that you could find references to Project SHAD/112 in both that book and The Bioweaponeers article. The REASON it's not mentioned by name is that it was still HIGHLY classified when they were written.
I'm glad to see you're such a close friend of Bill Patrick.
Here's my favorite quote from that cold hearted bastard on page 65 of "Germs":
"Patrick was frank about relishing his days as a germ warrior, saying he was comfortable with memories of killing animals, infecting people and finding ways to produce death. It was part of military readiness, of deterring foes, of keeping the nation strong. 'At the time we were doing this, the objective was to solve the problem and not consider the philosophical ramifications of what we were doing,' he said. 'On Fridays, when we'd sit around and bullshit, we wouldn't say, We have moral obligation to curtail this! It would be, 'How do we increase the consentration?' You never connected it to people. Maybe that's bad. But there was danger involved here."
It's not just his words which classify him as criminally insane, it's his callous masterminding of MUCH of Project SHAD/112 and producing the agents which were shipped to Dugway Proving Ground [or Fort Douglas, Utah or Deseret Test Center if you prefer] and then out to the Navy where unsuspecting Sailors were REPEATEDLY told, "It's only harmless simulants." Navy activities were carried out from Hawaii to the Marshall Islands, along the California Coast, offshore from Nova Scotia, & Puerto Rico; and OPEN AIR land-based tests were performed in Maryland, Georgia, Florida, Panama, Utah, Alaska and Hawaii...in some cases endangering CIVILIAN populations.
Since you're SO enamored of this group of "super patriots" to use YOUR terminology, it would profit you to check out one J. Clifton Spendlove, who ran Dugway, etc. When first contacted by the media he denied that there was ANY culpability on the part of the test conductors. But, when he was deposed under oath in a lawsuit brought by the D.C. firm Shaw-Pittman, he recanted that position and reluctantly admitted that they DID know how dangerous and life-threatening some of the tests were for their human test subjects.
~~~~~~~~
"Knight Ridder Newspapers reported on January 9 that J. Clifton Spendlove, a former top official of secret Cold War testing of defenses against chemical and biological weapons, known as Project 112, has undercut Pentagon denials that servicemen were treated as unwitting guinea pigs. Project 112 was a series of 134 land- and sea-based experiments conducted by the military between 1962 and 1973.
In a recent deposition, Spendlove contradicted past Defense Department statements that the servicemen "were not test subjects, but test conductors".
Fox News reported on January 16 that the Pentagon continues to withhold documents on Cold War chemical and biological weapons tests that used unsuspecting military personnel as "human samplers", despite having told Congress that it had released all medically relevant information."
http://www.basicint.org/update/BWU040205.htm
This information comes from the radical leftist group and conspiracy theorists known as, "British American Security Information Council"...!!!
~~~~~~
Thank you for doing such an OUTSTANDING job of shining the shoes of your heroes and riding their capes to fame and fortune. Next time I suggest you actually READ your source information, not just glean supporting "facts" at your leisure.
Bill Patrick, "You never connected it to people." I'm sure that will warm the souls of the military cockroaches upon whom his potions were tested....Don't YOU...???
ED LAKE, "You can twist things to fit your beliefs all you want, but it just makes you look devious and ignorant. I've collected and analyzed ALL the information I could find, so even you should be able to see I'm not basing my findings on just one fact or distorted belief."
I fully agree..!!!
Here's some data from another subversive group of wack jobs, "Quarterly Journal of the Harvard Sussex Program on CBW Armament and Arms Limitation" about a CONSPIRACY, not a "theory"....
11 December: In the US, J Clifton Spendlove, the
77-year old former director of the Project 112/SHAD
programme [see 30 Jun 03] makes a sworn deposition in the
Vietnam Veterans of America v. McNamara court case. The
VVA and 21 Project SHAD veterans are suing former US
Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and several officials
of both the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs for
having participated in a decades-long cover-up of nformation
related to the tests. In his testimony, Spendlove ontradicts
earlier assertions by Department of Defense officials by
unequivocally stating that some SHAD veterans were used
as “human samplers” and that nose swabs and gargle samples
were taken from some. Spendlove also says that he personally
kept written records and video footage of the tests as they
were carried out. His deposition confirms that these records
also include human dose information that can be correlated to specific internal areas of ships for specific times and durations.
Spendlove believes that all of these records have been declassified and are still on file at the Deseret Test Center Library.
http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Units/spru/hsp/CBWCB63.pdf
~~~~~~~~
YOUR glib assertions about how "mistakes were made" is a shade off-balance, wouldn't you agree.....since these INTENTIONAL ACTS were perpetrated through no "accident", but were intended from the start to endanger U.S. fighting forces in the name of "national security"....???
Furthermore...since these items were only begun to be de-classified in late '99 or thereabouts, how can YOU claim there's a long history of correcting those wrongs...???
You have absolutely NO data to support such a self-serving claim......NONE....!!!
I bet you "think" that these episodes are a "thing of the past"....huh...???
Funny how the recent many-paged "rules" for human test subject practices from SecNav belie that PRESUMPTION.
You just cannot resist twisting facts to fit your beliefs, can you?
My first contact with Bill Patrick was AFTER I wrote my book. Someone told him about it, and he called and asked if I'd send him a copy. I did. He then called me back and offered to write a review for it.
Since you're SO enamored of this group of "super patriots" ...
What I do not do is assume that everyone who disagrees with me is lying - as you seem to do. I collect information from the best sources possible. And some of the best sources about bioweapons would have to be the people with actual experience making them -- like Bill Patrick and Ken Alibek.
When I talked with them, I had already collected a LOT of information, and I just needed to understand the physics and the microbiology involved in making spore powders. I didn't want to be like the so-called "journalists" at the Washington Post who refused to believe any actual expert in microbiology or bioweapons, so they went out and interviewed CHEMISTS and PHARMACISTS to get their opinions on spores, even though such people have NOTHING to do with spores and didn't know their ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to bioweapons.
"You just cannot resist twisting facts to fit your beliefs, can you?
My first contact with Bill Patrick was AFTER I wrote my book. Someone told him about it, and he called and asked if I'd send him a copy. I did. He then called me back and offered to write a review for it.
Since you're SO enamored of this group of "super patriots" ...
What I do not do is assume that everyone who disagrees with me is lying - as you seem to do. I collect information from the best sources possible. And some of the best sources about bioweapons would have to be the people with actual experience making them -- like Bill Patrick and Ken Alibek."
YOU are the one who BRAGGED about your associations, not ME.
Gee, let's see....Patrick wrote a review of your book 'AFTER' you wrote it...???
Well, I'd be REALLY impressed if he had done so BEFORE you wrote it, huh...???
~~~~~~~~~
I had NO knowledge of your associations with various reporters/authors/mad scientists until AFTER you told me about them, now DID I...???
I'm just ocmmenting on the FACT that you might want to look a teensy bit more CAREFULLY at the sources you quote in such an offhand manner.
Go back and read that quote by Patrick...THERE is a shining example of rationalizing ones actions...wouldn't YOU say...???
I'm afraid it's YOU who's holding these folks up as paragons of the truth whilst totally ignoring their own assessment of their acts.
Or did you really "think" that Patrick was being square with you about his involvements in a TOP SECRET bugs and gasses game in which we ALL lose....???
right.
If you'd rather I didn't expose the gaping holes in your methods, then QUIT tossing the soft balls down the middle of the plate.
~~~~~~~~
YOU are the one throwing around the most frequent and plentiful epithets on this thread, Mr. Pot. I'm just disagreeing with your knotting of that tidy little bow, that's all.
When I called Patrick "cold hearted" and "criminally insane" it was for lack any more printable phrases. Let's be HONEST....there's this teensy-weensy possibility that good Ol' Bill left out a few details.
And, there's a corresponding itsy-bitsy probability that if it WERE someone connected to some nefarious goings-on and that person DID get apprehended....the folks responsible for the information and material LEAKS wouldn't exactly be shouting out for all to hear about their complicity or culpability.
That's just plain COMMON SENSE, not some tinfoil hatted paranoiac delusion.
The BLAME GAME is going to be fascinating to watch if we ever DO actually get close to the core of this rotten onion.
But, that's just MY personal take on it.
~~~~~~~~~~
"What I do not do is assume that everyone who disagrees with me is lying - as you seem to do."
WHEN or WHERE did I label you as "LYING"...???
Nice accusation, though, if it were TRUE...!!!
I don't think you ARE disagreeing with me....what I DO think is that you don't comprehend what I'm telling you, since the bulk of your comments in my regard have been very wide of the mark. YOU have this seemingly "knee jerk" habit of attempting to pigeon hole me...and putting words in my mouth.
Or is it that you just don't LIKE my sources...???
[which would be the DOD, VA, heads of highly classified events, sworn depositions, and books/authors upon which YOU place a high degree of value...???]
I NEVER attempted to "interpret" Bill Patrick's words, just quoted them verbatim....!!!
You can draw your OWN conclusions. But, I think upon further reflection you will EVENTUALLY find them shocking.
Yep, some of the serpents DO have silver tongues.
About medical advice...
Al qaeda, per their own ideology, has a requirement to warn their targets before an attack. Osama has a clear pattern of doing exactly that. A warning is issued with an option, convert, submit or be subject to attack. This is one way they justify what it is they do.
Is it not possible that it was indeed sending a warning of future attacks that would comply with their own requirements?
It seems you do consider it to be a warning but I am confused as to why you dismiss that it was a warning from Al Qaeda and settle on the notion it was someone from inside our own country, or even our own government, sending that warning. May I ask what makes you settle on one instead of the other? Is it anything besides the 'medical advice'?
I am offering an angle that the 'medical advice' was a way to keep consistant with their own ideology of providing a warning before a deadly attack. That actual anthrax may have been sent to insure that it would not be dismissed as a haox. Do you find this so impossible? If so, why?
You just keep going off in to Screwball Land with the spin you put on things. And you just cannot stick to the subject -- the anthrax attacks. So, this argument is becoming a waste of time.
The only thing I discussed with Bill Patrick was my book and if there was anything in it that was not scientifically accurate.
He told me he found it to be one of the four best books he'd ever read on the subject of bioterrorism. He teaches classes to first responders, and he recommends my book in his classes.
The only qualm he had with what I wrote in my book was that I use an analogy somewhere where I say the anthrax in the letters sifted through the paper like sand through a window screen -- or something like that. He said that wasn't a good analogy since it takes some force besides gravity to get the spores through the pores in the paper. It needs something like manual handling or being squeezed in post office equipment. He showed me some video tapes he uses in his classes where he demonstrates how simulants can be forced through the pores in an envelope. I could see it with my own eyes, so I have no reason to believe he was not telling the truth.
There's a whole list of reasons. I've listed some of them in this thread.
The anthrax mailer used a deliberately scrambled return address on the senate letters, evidently so there would be no chance that the anthrax-filled letters could be returned to some real school. Would al Qaeda have cared?
All the 9/11 hijackers were DEAD at the time of the mailings. They were DEAD for nearly a month at the time of the second mailing. No anthrax was found anywhere the 9/11 hijackers went. As far as we know, no anthrax was found on any Muslim who could even remotely have been involved in the mailings.
The second batch of letters was sent to two senators would would have been near the BOTTOM of any list of American politicians al Qaeda might target.
According to NBC News, the water used during the growing and refining of anthrax spores came from the Northeastern United States.
There were several unconfirmed reports that the letters were printed on a copy machine the FBI located in Central New Jersey.
There were two different grades of anthrax involved, making it a near certainty that the anthrax culprit MADE the refined anthrax during the period between the two mailings.
There was no follow up to the "warning" even though al Qaeda members were being hunted down and killed all over the world.
There was enough anthrax in the mailings to kill hundreds, if not thousands, if properly distributed, but the person who sent the letters actually took precautions to reduce the risk of anyone being fatally exposed.
Etc., etc., etc.
Yes, in my haste to respond to these discussions in a timely manner I sometimes I do not properly qualify what I write.
I wrote "the authorities have found NO evidence that al Qaeda was behind the anthrax attacks.". I should have written, "AS FAR AS I KNOW AFTER COLLECTING ALL THE INFORMATION I COULD FIND OVER A PERIOD OF FIVE AND A HALF YEARS, the authorities have found NO evidence that al Qaeda was behind the anthrax attacks."
I wrote "In fact, ALL the evidence seems to dispute such a belief." I should have written, "In fact, AS FAR AS I KNOW AFTER COLLECTING ALL THE INFORMATION I COULD FIND OVER A PERIOD OF FIVE AND A HALF YEARS, ALL the evidence seems to dispute such a belief.
Is that better?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.