Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Three Scientists Probed In 2001 Anthrax Attacks
Fox News ^ | 3/28/08 | Catherine Herridge and Ian McCaleb

Posted on 03/28/2008 11:08:46 AM PDT by SargeK

click here to read article

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 last
To: ZacandPook
It was Ken who years ago told me the FBI’s theory. Ed never even bothered to ask him who he understood the FBI suspected.

It is totally absurd to believe that the FBI would tell Ken Alibek who they suspect sent the anthrax letters.

It is just as absurd to believe that Postal Inspectors would tell "BattleAxe" who they suspect sent the anthrax letters.

Federal investigators gather information, they don't distribute information.

If there is any need to tell an outsider anything, a good investigator will tell that outsider only what will help them gather more information, and that includes simply agreeing with whatever the person being questioned says.

Ed at

81 posted on 04/03/2008 7:57:46 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel
So it is hardly a “crock” that the FBI were reverse engineering the powder.

Instead of just mindlessly twisting facts to make them fit your beliefs, why not think a bit about the facts that have been made known about the attack anthrax?

Initially, it was believed that it was a "weaponized" and a very "sophisticated" powder. But that misunderstanding was the result of the fact that the people looking at it at USAMRIDD had never seen powdered anthrax before and didn't have a clue what was required to make it. Nor did people at AFIP. They were making assumptions and jumping to conclusions because, at the time, it appeared that America was under a bioweapons attack by terrorists and/or some foreign government.

Chapter 15 in my book is titled "To Err Is Human" and goes into great detail about the errors made at that time.

When things calmed down a bit, more information was gathered, and it was realized that things might be as bleak as they seemed, they realized that the powder in the Senate letters was rather "ordinary."

But, using an EDX, they had detected silicon and oxygen in the anthrax, which was very unusual since no one could see any additives in the powder. Research into scientific papers showed that this can happen as the result of "lab contamination."

Later, it appears that they also detected traces of a surfactant that no one could see, indicating that the wet spores had been treated before drying about the same way as when you do laundry and put a capful of "Snuggle" into your final rinse before putting your clothes into a dryer. It eliminates the static charge that results from quick drying with hot air.

So, if you want to "reverse engineer" the spores in the Senate letters, you have to create ordinary spores that contain the same kind of lab contamination and the same kind of traces of a surfactant as the attack spores.

How the hell do you do that?

If you can somehow recreate "lab contamination," how do you know it came about the same way as the original? How do you know there aren't a hundred ways the same "lab contamination" can occur?

If you can recreate the traces of surfactant, how do you know you did it the same way as the person who made the attack anthrax? All you are leaving behind are organic molecules on the surface of a spore that can come about in a variety of different ways.

So, there is NO WAY to "reverse engineer" the attack anthrax.

What they had to do was create anthrax (or simulant) powders in just about every way imaginable to see which one was closest to the attack anthrax. If they got something very close to the attack anthrax, they might then try refining the process to see if they can get even closer. IF they found a technique that created a virtually identical powder, then they would try to determine if a suspect had access to the same equipment, ingredients, etc.

A conspiracy theorist doesn't need to do any of this, of course. Just a mention that a powder was created at some point in time that was "the best duplication" of the attack anthrax, and that a scientist at USAMRIID once made it that way, is all the proof needed to point at USAMRIID as hiding a vast and totally illegal U.S. Government bioweapons manufacturing facility.

Ed at

82 posted on 04/03/2008 11:09:49 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

TrebleRebel is off to an island and is uncertain he will have computer access and so I’ll respond in his absence. Ed you are right. What the email referred to was not a process of reverse engineering. It was a process of “which is the closest match.” I provided TR the translation except to the extent it is botched (for example the word valuable nowhere appears). “Duplicate” is used in the sense of matching samples — not recreating. The email refers to the dry powder being made by xxx as the closest matching powder and says the email’s writer’s colleague understands that the former deputy commander knew of it or was behind it. But the email writer’s colleague only was in a position to know the forensics — that is, which match was closest. He was looking through a microscope and not informed by a broad view of the FBI’s investigative interest.

But the dispute you and Stuart are having is semantical and not the significance of the email. The significance of the email is that someone linked to USAMRIID made dry powder and that dry powder was the closest match.

83 posted on 04/03/2008 11:39:53 AM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

Ed, one knows what the FBI suspects both from the questions they ask and the affidavits they swear out saying what they suspect. For the affidavit, see the September 3, 2006 “Hardball in an Era of Threats” in the Washington Post concerning the affidavits relating to the search of Al-Timimi’s residence two weeks after the blind sheik’s son was captured. Federal investigators and prosecutors tell me a lot. Maybe they just don’t have any confidence in you.
I’ve spoken to many of the GMU faculty and students. There has been an entire thesis written on this subject of the infiltration of GMU (using a “red team” or “red cell” approach). Heck, an FBI analyst on Amerithrax was one of Ken’s students and wrote a 671 or so thesis on anthrax. If you haven’t read it, you really should.

84 posted on 04/03/2008 11:47:27 AM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

Focus Ed.

Ken made dry powder. Had a multimillion dollar contract with USAMRIID using Delta Ames.

Charles is the former Deputy Commander.

Ali is the microbiologist.

Pull up from your half-decade semantical squabbles with TR to get a clue.

85 posted on 04/03/2008 11:49:24 AM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

After the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology detected silica, [USAMRIID Major General John] Parker did disclose that the anthrax in question contained silica. Former Deputy Commander Bailey, Dr. Ken Alibek’s co-director of the Center for Biodefense at GMU —told a reporter that the presence of silica is significant, but he declined to say why, citing national security concerns.

“I don’t think I want to give people — terrorists — any information to help them, said Dr. Charles Bailey, a scientist at Advanced Biosystems Inc. at George Mason University.

Now the problem was that at about the time he said, the man in contact with Bin Laden’s sheik and mentored by him was at a desk about 15 feet away — 15 feet from Ken’s unsecured computer and 15 feet from Charles unsecured computer. Ali arranged to have a message from Bin Laden’s sheik hand-delivered to every member of Congress on the first anniversary of the anthrax mailing to the Senators. Like Ken says, this isn’t rocket science.

William Patrick in an interview says he used to keep his bioweapons formulas in black notebooks on the shelf in his living room.

As Ken says, when asked if a student of his could have weaponized the anthrax that was mailed — the knowledge is out there. Indeed.

I recommend that given your keen eye for this sort of technical material you read Ken’s reports to U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command about his research.

Award Number: DAMDl7-03-C-0122
TITLE: Novel Therapeutic and Prophylactic Modalities to Protect
U.S. Armed Forces against Major Biological Threat Agents
Fairfax, VA 22030
REPORT DATE: October 2004
PREPARED FOR: U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command
Fort Detrick, Maryland 21702-5012

That was funded in part by a $3.6 million grant MDA972-01-C-0084 awarded July 2001 by [Defense Advanced Research Progam Agency – DARPA]. There was also an earlier DAMD17-01-C-0033 awarded by the Department of the Army. Read his earlier reports and study the supply of Delta Ames from NIH. Most of all, read the DARPA grants to the extent unclassified.

86 posted on 04/03/2008 12:43:45 PM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: ZacandPook
Federal investigators and prosecutors tell me a lot. Maybe they just don’t have any confidence in you.

Hmmm. Then I guess everyone should just trust you. There's no need for any further comments from me about this.

Ed at

87 posted on 04/03/2008 2:38:25 PM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

Ed, you said the same thing to me in Spring of 2002 when I identified US graduate Yazid Sufaat as a key lab anthrax lab tech.

You then said the same thing when I identified Abdur Rauf (Rauf Ahmad) as a key anthrax scientist helping Al Qaeda infiltrate UK biodefense facilities. Here is the article in the Wash Po crediting me as the first to publicly identify him.

Suspect and A Setback In Al-Qaeda Anthrax Case
Scientist With Ties To Group Goes Free
By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 31, 2006; Page A01

I even gave you Dr. Ahmad’s cell number to confirm the facts and you never bothered to call. (He had given me his resume and invited contact).

So when I a long time ago pointed out that the guy speaking next to the 911 imam and the blind sheik’s son — member of the 3 member WMD Committee — is 15 feet from the leading anthrax scientist and former deputy commander...

and that he is supervising the founder of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad.

and that he is working with Bin Laden’s sheik (al-Hawali) who was the subject of the 1996 Declaration of War against the US by Bin Laden,

yes, it’s time for you to overcome your cognitive rigidity and go with the evidence or at least make basic investigation in the library.

88 posted on 04/04/2008 2:51:41 AM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: ZacandPook

I’m persuaded by Dr. Alibek when he told me yesterday that I am mistaken in my interpretation of the Fox News report and that the individuals referenced are not as I’ve suggested.

So never mind. He hasn’t even seen an FBI agent in 6 years let alone ever been asked for a sample of his handwriting.

89 posted on 04/10/2008 6:22:48 AM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: ZacandPook

By the way, Philip M. Zack is not jewish. He’s Catholic. Married a Methodist. Divorced in 1993. Newspaper article describing the wedding (that I don’t know how to upload). If you trace it back, you’ll see that the Hartford Courant and Balt. Sun never said he was jewish. Some internet poster assumed it. Washington Report assumed it. That journalist also published in the Arab News. Jihad Unspun reported it. Justin Raimondo never bothered to check if he was after I told him there was no basis to think he was. So an entire conspiracy theory gained momentum over the next half decade all because some folks wanted to assume something that fit their preconceptions of the world. But if anyone had bothered to ask any co-worker in making the false allegation of murder, it might have been corrected. The above publications still have not made the correction even though they are all on formal notice. I told the publications at the time that they should make narrow corrections as to their Hatfill stories. Those that did (like redflags and FAS) were not sued. Most of those who didn’t were.

90 posted on 04/11/2008 3:56:54 PM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: ZacandPook

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:
From: Washington Field
ADIC’s Office: Harp Van A (202) xxx-xxxx
Title: UNSUB
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
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.
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
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.
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.

91 posted on 04/13/2008 3:01:26 AM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: ZacandPook

Dr. Hatfill does lunch. Here’s a list of Dr. Hatfill’s media contacts provided in an interrogatory in his civil rights claim.

“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.”

92 posted on 04/13/2008 3:06:22 AM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: ZacandPook

Here are the exhibits relied upon by the DOJ in motion for summary judgment in Hatfill case. Among the deposition exhibits, the Brian Ross exhibits and Arthur Eberhart exhibits (FBI; retired in August 2002) are particularly interesting. Perhaps Ed could link the government’s legal memorandum and supporting exhibits.

Exhibit No. Descriptions

1 “Analysis of Anthrax Attacks,” Possible
Portrait of the Anthrax Perpetrator (Section

2 Press Release, “Biological Weapon Expect to
Discuss the Control of Bioterrrorism,”
Princeton University

3 The Guardian, “US scientist” is suspect in
anthrax investigation, dated February 20,

4 Hartford Courant, “FBI Denies having a Prime
Suspect - Rebuts Reports that Fired Scientist
Tops Anthrax List,” dated 2/26/2002.

5 The New York Times, “Connecting Deadly
Dots,” dated May 24, 2002.

6 Excerpt from the Deposition of Steven J.
Hatfill in Hatfill v. The New York Times,
No. 04-807 (E.D.Va.) (Dated November 11,

7 Complaint in Steven J. Hatfill v. The New
York Times Company, No. 04-CV-807-A
(E.D. Va.)

8 Excerpt from the deposition of Brian Ross,
dated March 23, 2006

9 The Baltimore Sun, “FBI scrutinizes
biodefense labs in anthrax probe - Staff at Fort
Detrick, records at Dugway draw new interest
25 sites have had spores” dated February 22,

10 Email re: Anthrax outbreak in Zimbabwe

11 Email re: Hatfill Statement, dated July 24,

12 Plaintiff Steven J. Hatfill’s Amended
Responses to Agency Defendants”
Interrogatories 13 and 14

13 Baltimore Sun, “Scientist theorized anthrax
mail attack; FBI searched apartment of expert
linked to study,” dated June 27, 2002

14 Washing City Paper, “Watching the
Detectives; Since Becoming the FBI’s Only
Know ‘Person of Interest’ in the Anthrax
Attacks, Steven Hatfill Has Attracted quite a
following,” dated July 31, 2003

15 Ltr. to Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, fr. Victor
Glasberg, dated September 5, 2002

16 Excerpt from the deposition of Robert Roth ,
dated November 4, 2005

17 Excerpt from the deposition of Bradley Garret,
dated August 17, 2005

18 The Associated Press, “Spokesman: Bio
researcher whose home was searched
commissioned 1999 anthrax mail attack
study,” dated June 27, 2002

19 The Hartford Courant, “The case of Dr.
Hatfill: Suspect or Pawn; FBI Scrutiny of the
Ex-Army Microbiologist Intensifies in its
Anthrax Probe, and Speculation Grows About
Why the Agency is Looking at Him,” dated
June 27, 2002

20 The Hartford Courant, “Hatfill Teaching
Bioterrorism Course; Scientist in FBI Anthrax
Probe Works for Government-Funded
Program,” dated June 28, 2002

21 Excerpt from the deposition of Victor
Glasberg, dated March 28, 2006

22 The Washington Post, “Md. Home Searched
in Probe of Anthrax Agents Revisit Former
Army Researcher,” dated August 2, 2002

23 Ltr. to Kenneth Kohl, Esq. fr. Victor M.
Glasberg, dated August 1, 2002

24 Memo to Hatfill File from Victor Glasberg,
dated August 1, 2002

25 The Baltimore Sun, “Scientist’s Rooms
searched again; Anthrax investigators focus on
researcher who worked at Fort Detrick,” dated
August 2, 2002

26 Fax Transmittal Sheet to Media interested in
FBI inquiry of Steven Hatfill fr. Vic
Glasberg, Counsel for Mr Hatfill, dated
August 2, 2002

27 Excerpt from the deposition of Debra
Weierman, dated June 29, 2005

28 Glasbert Press points: “media feeding frenzy”

29 The Washington Post, “Ex-Army Scientist
Denies Role in Anthrax Attacks ‘My Life is
Destroyed’ by Probe, Media,” dated August
11, 2002

30 CBS News , “Attorney General John Ashcroft
discusses recent child abductions, latest on the
anthrax investigation, safety of air travel and
the possibility of an attack on 9/11 this year,”
dated August 6, 2002

31 NBC News transcript: Attorney General
John Ashcroft discusses future White House
conference on child abductions and how to
keep children safe,” dated August 22, 2002

32 article: “Ashcroft: No charges yet in
anthrax probe,” dated August 22, 2002

33 Excerpt from the deposition of John Ashcroft,
dated December 9, 2005

34 Statement of Steven Hatfill, M.D., August 11,

35 ABC’s Good morning America: FBI searches
scientist’s home in Maryland looking for
connection to anthrax mailings; FBI questions
man who may have lived with two of
September hijackers,” dated June 26, 2002

36 Anthrax Investigation News Conference

37 Excerpt from the deposition of Patrick M.
Clawson, dated May 12, 2006

38 Email regarding the Matsumoto interview,
dated October 17, 2002

39 Email regarding NY Times editorial, dated
August 14, 2002

40 Email, dated August 16, 2002

41 Email regarding “Clawson’s Last Posting
Before Leaving for Seattle,” dated September
11, 2002

42 Email re: Hatfill Remarks at October 5, 2002
Accuracy in Media Conference

43 Declaration of James Stewart, dated December
18, 2007

44 Cooperative Agreement

45 Email fr. Timothy Beres to LSU, dated August
1, 2002

46 Ltr. to Steven J. Hatfill, dated August 2, 2002

47 Ltr. to FBI

48 Ltr. fr. William L. Jenkins to Hatfill, dated
August 7, 2002

49 Excerpt from the deposition of Steven J.
Hatfill, dated May 5, 2006

50 60 Minutes: “Tables Turned In Anthrax
Probe,” dated March 11, 2007

51 The Washington Post, “LSU: Justice Did Not
Cause Hatfill Firing,” dated September 5, 2002

52 Memo for the Attorney General from Office of
Professional Responsibility re: Attorney
General Statement, dated January 17, 2003

53 Excerpt from the deposition of David Israelite,
dated October 6, 2005

54 Excerpt from the deposition of Richard
Lambert, dated August 3, 2005

55 Excerpt from the deposition of Robert Roth,
dated November 4, 2005

56 Doe v. Department of Veterans Affairs, __
F.3d __, 2008 WL 613128 (8th Cir. Mar. 7,

57 66 Fed. Reg. 33558, 33559 (Jun. 22, 2001)
(BRU-3. Appropriate Disclosures to the

58 Excerpt from the deposition of Michael P.
Kortan, dated February 17, 2006

59 FBI Manual of Administrative Operations and
Procedures, Part II (Policy And Guidelines For
Relations With The News Media) ¤ 5-1.3, ¦

60 CBS News, “Still no arrest in anthrax attack
case, though FBI investigators believe they
know who the culprit is and where he is” dated
May 8, 2003

61 CBS “FBI Still Watching Hatfill,”
dated May 8, 2003

62 Newsweek, “The Hunt for the Anthrax Killer,”
dated August 12, 2002

63 Excerpt from the deposition of James D.
Stewart, dated May 8, 2006

64 Excerpt from the deposition of Van Harp,
dated September 22, 2005

65 Excerpt from the deposition of Allan Lengel,
dated April 19, 2006

66 Excerpt from the deposition of Michael
Isikoff, dated September 11, 2007

67 Excerpt from the deposition of Daniel M.
Klaidman, dated May 4, 2006

68 Excerpt from the deposition of Toni Locy,
dated May 19, 2006

69 Excerpt from the deposition of Roscoe C.
Howard Jr., Dated October 17, 2007

70 Excerpt from the deposition of Cogswell,
dated November 16, 2007

71 Excerpt from the deposition of Arthur R.
Eberhart, dated May 24, 2006

72 Excerpt from the deposition of Daniel Seikaly,
dated October 10, 2007

73 Excerpt from the deposition of Victor Walter,
dated March 19, 2008

74 The Privacy Act of 1974: Introductory
Remarks of Sen. Sam J. Ervin, Sponsor of S.
3418, at 5 (reprinted version)

75 Declaration of Naomi E. Singer

76 Declaration of Richard L. Lambert

77 Excerpt from the deposition of Robert S.
Mueller, dated March 30, 2006

78 Email re: Amerithrax investigation, dated June
4, 2003

79 Memo to OPR re: Unauthorized disclosure
and/or Media Leak in connection with the
Amerithrax Investigation

80 Memo to H. Marshall Jarrett re: Media Leak
matter, dated October 8, 2002

81 Memo to John Dion re: Media Leak matter,

82 Memo to Director’s Office re: Amerithrax
Major Case 184, dated January 13, 2003

93 posted on 04/13/2008 3:20:56 AM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: ZacandPook

Mr. Clawson at his deposition testified that a reporter told him a federal agent says a silencer was found in Dr. Hatfill’s apartment. At least Dr. Hatfill was not claimed to have kept the silencer in the refrigerator next to the anthrax simulant BT that was found. (He trained first responders etc. which would have been reason enough for the simulant.)

94 posted on 04/13/2008 4:17:46 AM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: ZacandPook

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

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
Thank you.
Victor M. Glasberg

95 posted on 04/13/2008 5:01:13 AM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: ZacandPook

To: Lisa Hodgson
Date: Wed, June 4, 2003 12:18 PM

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

96 posted on 04/13/2008 5:16:19 AM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: ZacandPook
calling Ed Lake to correct inaccuracies reflected in a New York Times article about “mobile labs,”

Hmmm. As far as I know, that's the first time they've mentioned me in any document related to the Hatfill v FBI lawsuit.

If I remember correctly, Dr. Hatfill called me five times. He was really upset about what the media was reporting about the "mobile labs." They were just "mockups" using empty trailers, so soldiers and airmen would know what a "mobile lab" looked like from the outside and they wouldn't blow them up. But the media made it seem that Dr. Hatfill was building REAL mobile labs for making bioweapons.

I tried to set the record straight on my web site. On July 18, 2003, I wrote:

Except for airconditioning equipment, it contained no scientific equipment of any kind. It did NOT contain any fermenter or milling equipment. And even in its completed form it was not intended to be a mockup for anything involving bacteria - not anthrax nor any other form of bacteria.

Ed at

97 posted on 04/13/2008 9:03:57 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: ZacandPook
Perhaps Ed could link the government’s legal memorandum and supporting exhibits.

I've got some of them on my site, but I don't know if I can afford to put the ALL on my site. Plus, some appear to be duplicates of documents posted years ago. I've probably got most of the news articles on my site.

It's probably going to take me days to go through all the documents made available Friday.

Ed at

98 posted on 04/13/2008 9:09:05 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson