From January 11, 2006 Deposition of Dwight Adams:
“THE WITNESS: I think any prosecutor or investigator would be concerned about information, especially wrong information, being put into the press that would damage an investigation.
BY MR. CONNOLLY:
Q How would it damage an investigation?
A It could indicate which way the investigation is going. It could signal to the perpetrators what we are attempting to accomplish, and maybe you have not even gotten to that point yet in the investigation. So you — they or the person — the perpetrator of this crime could have been destroying evidence, for example.
A I don’t think I was concerned about the investigation but I was concerned to see a lot of
wrong information particularly related to the science of the investigation appearing in the press.
***
Q Could it help the perpetrator map the investigation, the FBI’s investigation if it knew who the FBI
was interested in, at least speaking to?
A Yes.
***
Q Earlier you testified that regarding the scientific aspect of the investigation there was information that simply in your view too sensitive to share to the public about the particular characteristic of the organism sent in the mail. Is hat correct?
A In so many words, yes, sir.
***
Q Did you feel like you had the same restrictions in informing the senate, congress or staff in terms of what it is you would reveal to them about the particular characteristics of the organism that was sent?
A As I’ve already stated there was specific information that I did not feel appropriate to share with either the media or to the Hill because it was too sensitive of information to do so. It would show too much of where were were going and what we hoped to accomplish. But in more broad terms I was able to at least give them the sense that, one, we clearly knew what we were dealing with and how were going to get to the answers of who might be responsible for this.
***
I just recall we were restricted or told to hold back in talking about specific individuals or specific techniques and just give a broader view of —
A *** It was the director [Mueller] stating that the briefing would be fine but we need to keep that type of information on individuals and other things close hold and not reveal that. I also remember that the director himself went — when we actually were before the two senators.
***
Q Did you have a sense that Ms. Rosenberg, and I’m not going to ask you what she told you about the science, okay, but did you have a sense that she was briefed in on the organism but had a good sense of what it was?
A No.
Q Was she misinformed?
A Yes.
Q You could tell that immediately, correct?
A Related to the science, yes.
***
Q You found that in fact the information she provided at least on the science side you didn’t find very credible.
A That’s right.
***
Q I just want to go the very bottom there it says, “Follow Up Action : SC Carey pointed out that the FBI never precluded looking at international origin of anthrax.” Do you see that?
A Yes
Q Do you have any recollection of Mr. Carey or anyone else making sure the staffers understood that the FBI hadn’t explicitly limited their pool of candidates who could have been involved in this domestic source?
A Yeah, I recall that being a topic of discussion on occasion, yes.”
October 17, 2007 Deposition of [former US Attorney] Roscoe Howard.
A*** Keep in mind, Isikoff called a lot.
***
A Well, I mean, the dogs were brought in to — I mean, that was the center of our
investigation at the time, was Dr. Hatfill. We had some other individuals we were
looking at, and the dogs were — I mean, Dr. Hatfill was certainly part of a group that
we were either trying to eliminate or include.
Q Did you discuss the other individuals with Mike Isikoff?
A No.
Q But you did discuss Dr. Hatfill with —
A I didn’t discuss it. He certainly knew Dr. Hatfill, yes.
***
Q Did you ever discuss with Mr. Isikoff whether bloodhounds had reacted at a
Denny’s in Louisiana where Dr. Hatfill he supposedly eaten?
A Did I discuss it with him?
Q Yeah.
A [ I don’t remember]
***
A. People who thought we were about to indict or on a verge of a breakthrough
really hurts the investigation.
Q How is that?
A Well, because, one, it wasn’t true
Two, we had lots of other individuals that were looking at. This was a case that I
thought needed a break ***
***
Q Okay. Did you ever discuss with Mr. Isikoff the items found in a search of
Dr. Hatfill’s apartment?
A No.
Q That would be improper?
A Absolutely.
Q And what about — what about just disclosing that the dogs were used
to investigate Dr. Hatfill? Was that improper?
A No.
Q That was not improper.
A Oh, I’m sorry. That the dogs were used?
Q Yeah.
A. No, I mean, no. Investigative tools, what they’re doing. People find out. It’s learned.
***
Q Did you ever discuss with Mr. Isikoff whether there was a college friend of Dr. Hatfill’s named Smith that figured into the investigation somehow?
***
A No.
***
Q What about conversations that you had with Ms. Locy?
A Again, Ms. Locy, the only conversation I remember was an in-office —
Q Did you tell Van Harp that you had talked to Mr. Isikoff about bloodhounds?
A No.