Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hatfill v. US - DOJ and FBI Statement of Facts (filed Friday)
US DOJ and FBI Memorandum In Support of Motion For Summary Judgment (Statement of Facts) | April 11, 2008 | Department of Justice

Posted on 04/13/2008 8:20:52 AM PDT by ZacandPook

On Friday, 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].”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

____ 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

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.”

TOPICS: Anthrax Scare; Breaking News; Extended News; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: amerithrax; anthrax; anthraxattacks; bioterrorism; doj; domesticterrorism; fbi; hatfill; islamothrax; trialbymedia; wmd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 951-987 next last
I will post the full-text below of various brief exhibits.
1 posted on 04/13/2008 8:20:52 AM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ZacandPook
It sure it amusing watching the two conjoined parts of the government-media complex point their slimy tentacles at each other.

The government says "we leaked nothing, the press made it all up" and the press says "we didn't accuse anyone, the government did it all on their own".

To me, the solution is obvious: you're both guilty as charged. Pay up suckers, and stop accusing people of being rapists and mass murderers unless you have something solid to back it up.

2 posted on 04/13/2008 8:36:39 AM PDT by jpl ("Don't tell me words don't matter." - Barack Obama, via Deval Patrick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jpl

Reminds me of the Richard Jewell case with the Centennial Olympic Park bombing at the ‘96 games.

3 posted on 04/13/2008 8:57:10 AM PDT by FreedomPoster (<===Typical White American)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ZacandPook

So where did the anthrax come from?

4 posted on 04/13/2008 8:57:22 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster
Very sad case when it was Rudolph all the time. They went way overboard on a not very bright patriotic guy. Pray the power of the Federal Government never focuses on you. It takes a very strong soul to survive the onslaught by idiots with badges.
5 posted on 04/13/2008 9:03:28 AM PDT by mad_as_he$$ (John McCain - The Manchurian Candidate?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rhombus

Are you sure there ever was any? I am not.

6 posted on 04/13/2008 9:04:24 AM PDT by mad_as_he$$ (John McCain - The Manchurian Candidate?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rhombus

The US Army strain was obtained through infiltration.

7 posted on 04/13/2008 9:05:08 AM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rhombus

“So where did the anthrax come from?”

Might as well ask Russell Welch from where the weaponized anthrax in which he was containinated back in the early 90’s.

8 posted on 04/13/2008 9:09:08 AM PDT by Domestic Church (AMDG...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ZacandPook

“General Ashcroft”? Strange.

9 posted on 04/13/2008 9:14:02 AM PDT by Rocky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZacandPook


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 was the POI of the other squad. The theory is described at

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).

10 posted on 04/13/2008 9:24:25 AM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: EdLake


11 posted on 04/13/2008 9:34:06 AM PDT by Perdogg (Reagan would have never said "She's my girl")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
Thanks for the ping, but I'm busy looking through all those documents so I can write a comment about them for my site.

Ed at

12 posted on 04/13/2008 9:38:59 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$

And HERE is the real reason he became the fall guy.

(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.’

13 posted on 04/13/2008 10:45:25 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (Just saying what 'they' won't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jpl

Reading the facts of the case above, Hatfill put ample suspicion upon himself. Due to the fact people died and many of his colleagues thought he was the culprit because he had the knowledge, the equipment (which he took possession of no longer used discarded equipment - why would he need such equipment used to make biological agents?), his behavior was odd according to his colleagues, and he had the training to make the anthrax and his travel allowed for the mailings, Hatfill case against the government is weak. If I sat on the jury, I would not award him a dime.

14 posted on 04/13/2008 10:53:10 AM PDT by jrooney (Obama's mentor says God Da*n America. That explains Obama's refusal to put his hand over his heart.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jrooney
You would be very surprised how common the equipment is to make bio stuff. I have been in one of the most advanced cancer labs in the world and it is unremarkable from the equipment point of view. Guy just sounds like an odd duck with a weird personality.

BTW growing anthrax is no big deal. Weaponizing it a big deal.

15 posted on 04/13/2008 11:02:22 AM PDT by mad_as_he$$ (John McCain - The Manchurian Candidate?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Ugly girl?


Poor taste?


How many fools do you work with? I have worked with plenty.

16 posted on 04/13/2008 11:03:24 AM PDT by mad_as_he$$ (John McCain - The Manchurian Candidate?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jrooney
why would he need such equipment used to make biological agents?

The equipment was non-functional. He acquired it so he could use it to train troops prior to the invasion of Iraq. He wanted soldiers to know what a biosafety cabinet looked like so they wouldn't bust into some bioweapons lab and trash the place, killing themselves in the process.

After the training of the troops was completed, the biosafety cabinets were destroyed.

He also got into trouble with conspiracy theorists because he built a mockup of a "mobile bioweapons lab." People jumped on it and claimed it was further proof that he had access to a bioweapons lab.

In reality, the mockup was just an empty shell. It contained no equipment on the inside -- except for an airconditioner. It was intended solely to teach troops and Air Force pilots what such a vehicle would look like so they wouldn't blow them up and spread deadly toxins all over the place during the invasion of Iraq.

Hatfill called me five times to discuss this.

Ed at

17 posted on 04/13/2008 1:40:57 PM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
The most interesting thing I see in the papers released on Friday is the information from the government that Barbara Hatch Rosenberg was talking to the media about Dr. Hatfill (without naming him) for many months before the FBI began their public investigation of him.

In one document, the goverment says,

Hatfill has stated that Rosenberg “caused” the focus on him.

That is, of course, what I've been saying for nearly six years.

Ed at

18 posted on 04/13/2008 1:47:49 PM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | 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.

19 posted on 04/13/2008 1:48:36 PM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rocky
“General Ashcroft”? Strange.

In this situation, "General Ashcroft" is a short way of saying "Attorney General Ashcroft."

Ed at

20 posted on 04/13/2008 1:50:39 PM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | 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. (At one point, Mr. Clawson says he had it because he trained first responders etc. which would have been reason enough for the simulant.)

21 posted on 04/13/2008 1:50:44 PM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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

22 posted on 04/13/2008 1:51:58 PM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | 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

23 posted on 04/13/2008 1:52:41 PM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ZacandPook

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.

24 posted on 04/13/2008 1:54:43 PM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ZacandPook
the Inspector in Charge requests that this OPR inquiry be pursued with unprecedent zeal.

OPR stands for "Office of Professional Responsibility." It looks an agency where they get you fired or disbarred if they find that you did bad things, they don't prosecute you.

Ed at

25 posted on 04/13/2008 1:58:51 PM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

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

What document is that in? I don't want to pay to download every single document in order to find it.

Ed at

26 posted on 04/13/2008 2:07:24 PM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ZacandPook
Much easier to blame it on a domestic perpetrator than admit the US was attacked with a WMD by islamic terrorists and was powerless to respond.
27 posted on 04/13/2008 2:18:18 PM PDT by Rome2000 (Peace is not an option)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ZacandPook

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 ....
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.

..... Original Message .....
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
Alexandria, VA 22314

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 Glasberg [ email redacted]
Friday, August 16, 2002 4:15 PM
steven hatfill; Pat Clawson
Status report
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.

Have a nice weekend.
Victor M. Glasberg
Victor M. Glasberg & Associates


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.
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 ....

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.
Pat Clawson

28 posted on 04/13/2008 2:34:14 PM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZacandPook

Is his travel patterns consistent with the locations the letters were mailed from?

29 posted on 04/13/2008 2:56:04 PM PDT by JustDoItAlways
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhombus

The anthrax was Ames agricultural type anthrax from a University in Iowa.

My best guess is it came from Iowa originally, then on to Germany’s Department of Agriculture where the Germans gave a kilo to Iraq’s Department of Agriculure in the late 1990’s (supposedly as a gesture of goodwill post Desert Storm). Saddam Hussein’s personal guards intercepted the package on the steps of the Dept. of Ag. building (this is according to the then Department’s Director when interrogated by our intelligence officers), eventually passed on to Al Qu’aeda as some of the bombers were noted to have sores indicative of anthrax contamination and, of course, they had been trained to fly cropdusters. The letters were sent from Trenton, New Jersey, home of the Arab WTC bombers of the early 1990’s who had as their bomb builder, Ramzi Yussef, a cousin to Al Qu’aeda’s third in command, Khalid Sheik Muhammed. There are many connections between Saddam Hussein and terrorist groups, and between groups such as the Egyptian-based Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qu’aeda, but they are purposefully hard to follow, as Hussein wanted deniability.

I have been flamed before for saying the above but for some stupid reason the government keeps trying to blame one of their own.

30 posted on 04/13/2008 3:13:27 PM PDT by SatinDoll (Desperately seeking a conservative candidate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jrooney
Reading the facts of the case above, Hatfill put ample suspicion upon himself.

No, he did not. This is a fabrication on your part.

And it wasn't "many" of his colleagues that thought he was suspicious, it was only a couple. Unfortunately, those people had big mouths and enough connections to get their voices heard. I still think it was largley due to a political agenda on their part.

Hatfill has already received a financial settlement from Conde Nast/Vanity Fair due to their foolishly printing that article from Don "The Shakespeare Dunce" Foster that outright called him the murderer. And mark my words, Hatfill will be receiving plenty more money from the other guilty parties sooner or later.

31 posted on 04/13/2008 3:43:54 PM PDT by jpl ("Don't tell me words don't matter." - Barack Obama, via Deval Patrick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Apparently Hatfield claims Kristof just made that up.

Kristof seems to have behaved in an outrageous way in this case, targeting Hatfield as the bad guy perhaps simply because he had spent some time in South Africa (and therefore was assumed to be a supporter of white supremacists).

Kristof was also a willing mouthpiece for Joe Wilson's lying leaks which did a lot of harm to the Bush administration's foreign policy (before Wilson finally wrote an op-ed in his own name).

32 posted on 04/13/2008 4:02:53 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ZacandPook
I don't understand all this focus on Hatfield.

The real anthrax killers died when they flew the planes they hijacked into the World Trade Center on 11 Sept, 2001, and then also when Saddam Hussein was hung to death.

Political correctness and the idea that you had to have an air-tight legal case before going after whole nations that mean us harm will be the death of too many of us.

Muhhamad Atta and his gang got weaponized anthrax from Saddam Hussein’s regime when Atta met Iraqi intel officers in Prague in May of 2001, and Atta and his villians mailed the Anthrax letters, to be mailed in NJ, by accomplices, after they died. That is why from their safe house in Fla, the first anthrax victim was the guy right there at the National Star, and the druggist had to offer Atta and another fiend some antibiotics days before 9/11.

33 posted on 04/13/2008 4:43:37 PM PDT by Alas Babylon!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000


34 posted on 04/13/2008 4:49:49 PM PDT by Virginia Ridgerunner ("We must not forget that there is a war on and our troops are in the thick of it!"--Duncan Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

The anthrax originally was from a dead cow in Texas.

It may or may not have transited Ames, Iowa. The documentary evidence is ambiguous. Postal Inspector John Richter has told a Freeper that it did transit Ames.

If it did, the direct connection is with USDA Ames, not the University.
USDA had collected strains at Ft. Detrick’s request.

You are correct about the connection between Saddam and EIJ and Saddam and the warlord Hekmatyar. See recent report. It is unsettling that the media seizes on a perceived non-connection with Al Qaeda when it is senior EIJ folks who ran Al Qaeda and were in charge of the anthrax program (e.g., Zawahiri, Atef).

You are guessing, however, it went to Germany. The FBI knows of 16 labs it was at, as I recall. Perhaps 20-30 is a fair estimate of the maximum number. Of the known labs, the FBI has narrowed the field of labs to 4 based on genetic work. See MSNBC report. It may now be able to pinpoint it further based on developments in the science. See Keim’s article last month.

If you have any URLs to provide re Germany it would be interesting to see. Strains were traded like baseball cards. I called USDA Ames in Iowa and submitted a FOIA request nationally and the HQ responded formally denying they had a strain they knew as Ames.

Given Al-Timimi was speaking alongside the AQ WMD recruiter at charity conferences (the blind sheik’s son), associating with the “911 imam,” and his mentors were the WTC 1993-era recruiter Bilal Philips and Bin Laden’s sheik al-Hawali, there is no reason for guessing. (Al-Hawali was the sheik along with the blind sheik Abdel-Rahman OBL referenced in his Declaration of War. Indeed as to Ames strain, for example, we know Ali’s George Mason University Department was working with Delta Ames supplied by NIH under a multi-million dollar DARPA funded contract with USAMRIID. The DOD grants were from 2001. The mailed anthrax was a mix of two strains and included an inverted plasmid.

You are absolutely correct that if Iraqi intelligence helped EIJ on this it would be difficult to learn about.

35 posted on 04/13/2008 4:53:23 PM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!

The CIA does not credit that Atta got Ames from an Iraqi agent in Prague.

36 posted on 04/13/2008 4:55:46 PM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!

Plus, of course, the hijackers were dead at the time of the mailing.

CIA Director Tenet, though, says the anthrax planning was done in parallel with the planes operation.

37 posted on 04/13/2008 4:57:15 PM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: JustDoItAlways

If you are asking about Hatfill, his whereabouts during the day are provably the Frederick, Maryland area.

If you are asking about Al-Timimi, his whereabouts during the day are provably in the Falls Church, Virginia. FBI had tabs on his dinner on 9/16 and his lunch on 9/17 and had interviewed him the first week after 9/11. I do not believe he is suspected of being either the mailer or the processor. He is not believed to have the skill set for drying anthrax — he was a numbers guy, in a bioinformatics. I believe the FBI suspects him of accessing biochemistry information relating to concentration of anthrax using silica and passing it on.

38 posted on 04/13/2008 5:04:31 PM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ZacandPook

Hatfill was taking Cipro. He was known to have been to NJ, and Florida when the attacks in those states occured. He was involved in a program teaching rescue personnel in the event of a biological attack. Bloodhounds reacted over and over again when near somewhere where Hatfill had been based on a scent given to the dogs from the anthrax letters. He had access to anthrax in his duties at Fort Dietrich.

I’ll risk Hatfill suing me for he’ll get my dog, cats and Jeep. But I think the FBI’s been on the right track all along only they can’t prove it.

Plus this fine fellow forged his diploma, such an honest guy.

I don’t get this defense of this man. There’s plenty of evidence pointing his way.

Maybe he is innocent but I sure don’t see any problem with him being a “person of interest”, no I sure do not.

39 posted on 04/13/2008 5:55:26 PM PDT by Fishtalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ZacandPook

The lynchpin is the dead National Enquirer employee in Florida, whose wife was a landlady for a couple of the 9/11 terrorists.

If Hatfill was the poisoner, what’s his connection to the dead man, and why send him the first anthrax letter?

I posit that this fellow was curious, may have even asked questions that alarmed Atta, and that an anthrax letter was sent when all the others were mailed from New Jersey. Frankly, I believe it was not part of their original plan and is the strongest evidence yet pointing to an Al Qu’aeda connection.

Have you noticed how the dead man’s wife seems to have never been publicly interviewed? I’ve not once read any interview she has given to a journalist. It would be just like the FBI to tell her to keep her mouth shut so they can divert attention away from the truth: terrorists hit us with anthrax and the government was caught lacking.

40 posted on 04/13/2008 6:13:15 PM PDT by SatinDoll (Desperately seeking a conservative candidate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: EdLake; jpl

Ed and jpl,

How do supporters assess the forged PhD issue as it bears on damages?

In Defendant’s Exhibit 49, Dr. Hatfill admitted that he did not receive his PhD and submitted a forged diploma in connection with getting his job at NIH.

Question: Would Louisiana State University have grounds for reversing its decision to hire upon discovery of this fraud? Answer: Yes. University Presidents are forced to resign upon plagiarizing a speech. Academia lives and breathes credentials. Forging a diploma is not puffery. It is fraud. Employers should check credentials upon hiring. Here, Dr. Hatfill was working at Detrick, as I vaguely recall, on ebola. The reason to avoid fraud in life is precisely so that when false accusations fly people will give you the benefit of the doubt. Similarly, if in fact a silencer was found (was it?), did he have a BATF permit? Is a silencer lawful in Maryland? One reason not to possess a silencer, if unlawful in the particular state and not the subject of a BATF permit, is so that people won’t think of you as a dangerous character.

Of course, this is not relevant to narrow issues of whether a Privacy Act claim survives summary judgment. But it is relevant to damages — because Dr. Hatfill is claiming the loss of the LSU job as proximately caused by the leaks rather than the forgery of the diploma. Do you think, if the government is found to have violated the Privacy Act, the loss of the LSU job is fairly included in damages? What if LSU claims that they made their decision for independent reasons, such as discovery he had falsely claimed to have a PhD and submitted a forged diploma?

No. CIV-A-03-1793(RBW)
(Judge Walton)
Washington, D.C.
Friday, May 5, 2006
Videotaped deposition of

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
A An exchange of e-mails with Rhodes
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
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.

41 posted on 04/13/2008 6:15:26 PM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ZacandPook

Oh yeah, the stuff about Germany came out about two years ago, was posted here at FR by someone other than myself. The Germans actually went public themselves in that admission, though it seems our government knew all along. How cozy.

Maybe you can find it, maybe not. I don’t always have luck finding old postings here even when they are mine and I know the key words!

42 posted on 04/13/2008 6:21:27 PM PDT by SatinDoll (Desperately seeking a conservative candidate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

I don’t think there is any evidence, known or unknown, that Stevens was asking questions.

His wife was interviewed publicly, as I vaguely recall, on the occasion of the 5 year anniversary. She stridently complained about not being briefed, her perception that there had been a lack of progress etc. She has a lawsuit pending alleging that the USG was negligent in allowing the Ames strain to be accessed. It has been long subject to a stay. Her attorney has not been responsive to any inquiries I’ve made.

I believe her contact with the public, or lack of contract, is controlled by her attorney for litigation reasons, and not by the government, which is her adversary in litigation.

43 posted on 04/13/2008 6:22:49 PM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Fishtalk

Fishtalk, what is your authority he is known to have been in NJ when the attacks occurred when to the contrary it is not known — all indications are that he has never been to Princeton, NJ in his life. As for Florida, the anthrax was mailed from NJ, not Florida.

As for bloodhounds, when used in the sniper case, they alerted to a dog grooming parlor.

As for whether the FBI has been on the right track, they are charged with leaving no stone unturned. If they had not had vigorously investigated Dr. Hatfill, it would seem negligent.

I do think the forged diploma does bear on the equities. When seeking justice, do justice.

Of course, if the FoxNews report is right that the closest match to the powder was dry powder made at Ft. Detrick, it shows that the FBI was anchored to Ft. Detrick for reasons that went way beyond the mere fact that Ft. Detrick was the key origin for distribution of the Ames strain.

Like Dr. Hatfill’s attorney Glasberg said, when scaffolding was around the Washington Monument, you didn’t know whether there was masonry behind it. So we can tear down the scaffolding and poke fun at the Greendale school story, and the cabin in the woods, etc. but we don’t know what the FBI knows.

Personally, I don’t think there is any evidence at all Dr. Hatfill is guilty. I think the pond and bloodhound leaks were an outrage (given that they were so insubstantial). I have no idea how the lawsuit will turn out. As for the Privacy Act claim, it is pretty technical. I have not included the legal discussion.

According to the FoxNews report which relied upon an unnamed law enforcement source, the FBI no longer suspects Hatfill. I credit that.

On the forged diploma business, I think it is far more serious for a professional that recognized by Attorney Connolly or Ed Lake. It is a really, really big deal for an M.D. to have done that.

44 posted on 04/13/2008 6:34:54 PM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ZacandPook

I read that bit about Florida and NJ in that verbiage in this very post. I went back and re-read it but I am way too tired to find it tonight. But I read it....something about he could have been there.

Hey lookit, the guy was taking Cipro...odd. You can wink away the bloodhound thing but at a Denny’s diner, at his girlfriend’s house...when the dogs showed NO response at any other suspects’ homes?

Criminal investigations require investigators go with the odds. This Hatfill guy, sheesh, I think that an investigator that did NOT check into him would be lax indeed. Which doesn’t give said investigators the right to go casting aspersions at someone who is only being investigated and hey, that’s why God made civil courts. Let’s see if Hatfill wins.

There’s an awful lot of circumstantial evidence pointing to Hatfill. An awful lot.

I know the FBI screwed up with the Atlanta thing but this doesn’t mean they’re wrong about Hatfill. There’s an awful lot pointing to this guy,.

I’m not convinced he’s Mister Innocent. It does seem that the FBI can’t get enough on him to convict him but please....I am in no way convinced Hatfill is all that innocent.

Your mileage may vary.

45 posted on 04/13/2008 7:03:27 PM PDT by Fishtalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ZacandPook; EdLake; jpl; TrebleRebel
Q: Whosoever pointed to Hatfill first time? Whether by name or by identifiable descripcion??

Not Rosenberg, some-one whispered the name to her, gave her the idea. Who??

A: ???? Does any-one know? Anwser would reveal much. Anwser of <<who>> would give direction on answer of <<why>>.

Has Hatfill deposed Rosenberg on this Q?
46 posted on 04/13/2008 8:12:09 PM PDT by Khan Noonian Singh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
Stevens wife wasn't Atta's landlady. I don't recall his name, but it was a higher level Enquirer editor whose wife was the rental/real estate agent who had extensive contact with Atta and his 9/11 pals when they were looking for an apartment.

Stevens apparently was just unlucky enough to handle the letter, as was the elderly man who worked in the mailroom, who came very close to dying.

I agree with your point about Hatfill having no connection to the Enquirer, while the hijackers, at least indirectly, did.

47 posted on 04/14/2008 1:06:24 AM PDT by browardchad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Fishtalk

We agree that if the investigators did not check into him they would have been lax indeed. There were three squads — one science/forensics, the other two investigating the two principal theories. We will call the investigative squads Squad A and B and the science squad C. Interesting Youtube video below. Chief investigator Lambert states that the FBI people examining the scientific forensic evidence were NOT ALLOWED to exchange information with the team examining the person of interest evidence. The news all came from work of Squad A. For example, see the deposition excerpt by Arthur Eberhart who retired in August 2002. The work of the other squad likely is classified — such as the NSA wiretaps reportedly use to snare the communications between Al-Timimi and Bin Laden’s sheik. He hand-delivered a threat in al-Hawali’s name warning of dire consequences if Iraq was invaded to every member of Congress on the first anniversary of the anthrax to the Senators. Bin Uthman, who met with AQ military commander Atef and Ayman Zawahiri in the summer of 2000 in Kandahar to discuss WMD, has said in an open letter to Zawahiri that the reason WMD was going to be used/threatened was to deter invasion. He argues that Zawahiri miscalculated. For example, the use of anthrax actually led to invasion rather than deterred it.

I agree that his prospects in the lawsuit are highly problematic. His experience in the libel suits have shown that. But there is no evidence he was in New Jersey. In his deposition, Pat Clawson provided no alibi for him beyond the long days he was spending at SAIC as reflected by his timesheets.

He had a prescription for Cipro reportedly due to dental work or a nasal infection — I forget which. Antiobiotics before oral surgery avoids endocarditis. 20,000-30,000 people each year die from infections affecting a heart valve. Let’s hope when we take penicillin — such as I was prescribed for I can’t remember what this past year — we are not accused of serial murder.

48 posted on 04/14/2008 1:33:24 AM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Khan Noonian Singh

I think BHR has said she had five sources working in the field, but I may be mistaken. One former FAS colleague of hers, a distinguished law professor, was actually the first to raise a “bioevangelist” theory. A smart guy, he is on all five terror lists, he reports. He has been a legal advisor to the PLO and counsel for Bosnia-Herzegovina. He tells me that (1) he was the first in the MSM to urge the “bioevangelist” theory, and (2) but he has never named Hatfill. Indeed, the chief prosecutor who leaked the sensationalist bloodhound and pond draining stories was born in 1948 in Haifa. His sister and brother-in-law were lecturing in 2002 (and his sister-in-law published in 2001) about how after 911 it was important not to jump to the conclusion that Arabs were behind the terrorism. His sister-in-law told the Washington Post in 1982 that to be born Palestine, as she was, is by definition to be political. She nonetheless said that the leading institute on contemporary Arab affairs with which she had started working then — and now heads — required that she maintain her objectivity at her day job. So I do not question the good faith of any of these individuals — but think that they had strong bias in their private life. In the case of the law professor, he is a lawyer advocating a position on behalf of clients and has worked closely with the lawyer for the blind sheik Abdel-Rahman.

I emailed BHR in December 2001 and she responded “They know who the suspects are.” I sensed cognitive rigidity then as I still do now among the same people. People tend to adhere to their original beliefs — formed shortly after considering an issue — and do not process factual information.

But if we don’t credit the good faith of all the intelligent people who were urging a close look at USAMRIID and Dr. Hatfill — and then get over the fact that the theory did not pan out and was based on a lot of faulty information
— then we will never be able to move on and digest the dramatic evidence offered by the recent FoxNews report (if we credit it as reliable).

The documentary evidence shows that Zawahiri planned on using the cover of universities and charities in weaponizing anthrax. The DIA gave me letters between Ayman and the Pakistan scientist helping him infiltrate UK biodefense. The letters expressly said this was the plan and the correspondence is corroborated by earlier memo Ayman wrote to Atef. So when we find the man taught by Bin Laden’s sheik — who is supervising the founder of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad who is writing for his charity’s publication — we should be glad for the expertise people like BHR brought to the table. Because it turns out Al-Timimi’s desk was not much more than 15 feet from the leading anthrax scientist in the world who was working with Delta Ames under a contract with USAMRIID — and the former deputy commander of USAMRIID, a prolific Ames researcher. On March 14, 2001, the leading anthrax scientist and former deputy USAMRIID commander filed a patent on how to concentrate anthrax using silica. The patent was confidential until after 9/11. As Director Mueller has said, universities must guard against the risk of theft of pre-patent, pre-classification biochemistry information.

The leaking prosecutor’s daughter then has worked for Al-Timimi pro bono in the sedition case in which he was convicted and sentenced to life plus 70 years. His conviction was reversed by of alleged NSA wiretapping. The proseccutor has not been able to find discoverable evidence of such wiretapping and in mid-March was given 60 days to try to do so.

49 posted on 04/14/2008 2:03:48 AM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ZacandPook

Here’s a thought question. Another doctor’s home was searched under similar fanfare. An MD, he had a similar background to Dr. Hatfill under a “sound the alarm” bioevangelist theory and had done something to tarnish his good name involving a friend’s will. Most people wouldn’t remember his name. Does everyone know Hatfill’s name because of his legal team’s approach to the press? Press shuts down after a while when then no one is commenting. Reporters need the access to the POI or they don’t feel comfortable writing about the subject. Relatedly, was the forgery of the PhD the real basis for the damage? Could he have received a CIA security clearance having done that just three years earlier? Would he be entrusted to work with dangerous pathogens after 9/11 having been known to have done that? While I admire his counsel’s good work and the firm’s perseverance over many years in vindicating his rights, in terms of avoiding damage, a different approach might have been to act like a turtle until it passed over. His hand perhaps was forced by the series of NK/NYT columns. NK should have contacted Dr. Hatfill before writing the columns — especially the one in early July that imo crossed the line (under an on-point “Pilot B” legal decision).

Someone raising these issues should always contact the person or his representatives and offer them the opportunity to correct mistakes or provide input (and report the information provided by that person). I have always sought the input of Al-Timimi’s counsel, for example, in correcting any mistakes and would promptly make any corrections needed.

If proponents of the stupid “jewish scientist Zack theory” took a similar approach, they might have learned that his two girls were going to a private Catholic school and he and his wife attended the Catholic church downtown. Washington Report, Jihad Unspun, Arab News have not corrected their stories even though put on formal notice that the assumption made as to the person’s religion was wrong.

Analogously, I wrote the lead prosecutor (who is not muslim although born in Palestine) and sought his input months ago — as I did his sister-in-law, head of the Arab contemporary institute and his daughter, who represents Al-Timimi pro bono). The information provided by the individual is bound to be more interesting than the person just providing an outsider’s commentary.

As to Hatfill’s press strategy, let’s consider Defendant’s Exhibit 25 concerning the meeting arranged with Washington Post reporter Tom Jackman and an article he then wrote. The memo is on the day of the search of Dr. Hatfill’s apartment I believe.

The memo reads:

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


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


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.”

50 posted on 04/14/2008 3:19:32 AM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 951-987 next 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