Posted on 04/13/2008 8:20:52 AM PDT by ZacandPook
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.
Mr. Smith? If that is his real name.
I suddenly feel like Angeline Jolie in “Mr. and Mrs. Smith.”
Is it this guy?
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/smith.html
http://www.computerbytesman.com/anthrax/index.htm
Who is this handsome and enigmatic Smith that the US Attorney is asked about by Dr. Hatfill’s attorney?
Or is it Mr. Smith aka “Dick Destiny”?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/29/fbi_anthrax_attacks/
Or is it someone else.
Of course, Smith is a common name. But this guy featured in the article below is a POI worth considering for the Hatfill classmate. He seems to have been interested in Amerithrax dating back to at least 2001 when he was quoted with BHR, seems to be a preeminent authority on alternative theories and mastered the material while exploring alternative hypotheses. He is quoted with BHR and Ed in an early article about a “bioevangelist theory.” He seems to have created a webpage on anthrax theories that serves as a honey trap, capturing IP addresses. (Don’t go there or you’ll be ensnared in his dastardly web! Oops. Too late.) Privately, I believe he doesn’t credit an Al Qaeda theory — which for someone who is up-to-date on the material is surprising. (The Al-Timimi information is off the charts). And my sense is that he knows a lot of journalists given how often he is quoted as an expert authority on this or that relating to privacy, computer security or the internet.
“If the Internet is like the Old West—wild and untamed—then Richard Smith is the closest thing we have to a town sheriff.”
“In Web We Trust?: The Eyes of Richard Smith”
Monday, April 24, 2000 12:00 AM PDT
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,16444-page,11-c,privacy/article.html
According to Wikipedia, he and his colleagues invented a groundbreaking software in 1986 — two years after Dr. H graduated medical school. So the age is about right.
His address is not in Zabasearch so I don’t have his age. This privacy expert would be too clever for Zabasearch. (It is easy to delete your listing or create false ones in Zabasearch).
But let’s see how he fares under http://www.knowx.com. Heck, let’s drop an unwarranted NSA wiretap on him, hold him under water until he confesses. Or at least email him and ask him. TrebleRebel or Ed, can you? I’m too shy.
http://web.archive.org/web/20011212151547/computerbytesman.com/anthrax/index.htm
On November 30, 2001, this “Mr. Smith”, if that in fact is his real name, wrote:
Is a “Deep Insider” behind the Anthrax Letters?
http://web.archive.org/web/20011225115636/computerbytesman.com/anthrax/deepinsider.htm
In November 2001, the guy is writing with uncommon acumen about the Ames strain. Who is helping him?
University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center
http://hsc.unm.edu/research/commons.shtml
Battelle Memorial Institute
http://www.battelle.org/
Defence Research Establishment Suffield
http://www.dres.dnd.ca/Welcome/
U.S. Army Dugway Proving Ground
http://www.acq.osd.mil/te/mrtfb/commercial/dpg/
Chemical Defence Establishment at Porton Down
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_1441000/1441902.stm
My intelligence source tells me “Mr. Smith” was born in November 1953.
Dr. H was born in August 1953.
Ladies, and gentleman, this is a mole hunt and it’s time to call Bill Murray.
I’ve contacted someone who has access to his birth certificate and he confirms the name on the certificate is in fact “Smith.”
I’ve accessed his communications and confirmed “Mr. Smith” never knew Dr. Hatfill — and we have no reason to think he ever claimed he did. Besides, we’re talking 30 years before 2001.
“Mr. Smith” posts up until the time of the second search.
The Princeton crime scene? [12/20/2002]
The Anthrax Conspiracy Theories Page [Updated 6/9/2002]
How a Zip code was designed to misdirect investigators [7/16/02]
How the anthrax attacker slipped up [7/16/02]
The Mohammed Atta in Prague FAQ [6/16/2002]
Why did the anthrax attacks stop? [4/20/2002]
An analysis of the Daschle and Leahy anthrax mailing addresses [12/14/2001]
Deconstructing the return addresses of the Leahy and Daschle anthrax letters [11/27/2001]
Analysis of the New York Post envelope [5/15/2002]
Is a “Deep Insider” behind the Anthrax Letters? [11/30/2001]
The FBI letter to American Society for Microbiology members [1/29/2002]
His lucid and seemingly dispassionate “Anthrax Conspiracies” page is framed in a way to support a Hatfill Theory —
http://www.computerbytesman.com/anthrax/conspiracy.htm
He doesn’t get to ask whether AQ and “its cronies” were responsible until the 10th item.
“From: Ann Todd
To: Dwight E. Adams, Richard Lambert, Thomas Carey
Date: Fri. Nov. 1, 2002 3:09 PM
Subject: AMERITHRAX BRIEFING
I realize that we just briefed the staff of Daschle and Leahy less than a month ago, October 4th to be exact, but staff is disturbed by recent media accounts regarding the progress and focus of the Amerithrax investigation. Staff has requested another briefing Tuesday, November 5th at 11:00 a.m. or early afternoon. Daschle’s staff have specifically requested that Mr. Harp attend this briefing. A primary focus of this briefing will be the article which appeared in the Washington Post on Monday, October 28th titled “FBI’s Theory on Anthrax is Doubted.” If you need the article please let me know and I will fax it to you.
Please let me know your availability as soon as possible.
As always, thanks for your cooperation and patience.”
According to this feature on computerbytesman expert Smith which mentions his interest in the anthrax case, “Mr. Smith” studied at North Carolina State toward at least one degree, so perhaps focus should shift at least temporarily to the other POI — George Smith (aka Dick Destiny) while we consider he is of the same age.
Kushner, David “Watching Those Who Watch Us,” IEEE Spectrum, IEEE Spectrum v. 39 no. 6 (June 2002) p. 67-8
Abstract: A profile of Richard M. Smith, who spends most of his time tracking down violations of digital privacy, is presented. A kind of Sherlock Holmes of software engineers, he has detected the author of the Melissa virus, the questionable data-gathering practices of RealNetworks and Microsoft, and is now investigating face recognition. His ultimate aim is to get computers to work as people expect them to, without techie baggage.
More on media leaks-
Deposition of Special Agent Bradley Garrett -
Q So when you saw the Attorney General use the term “person of interest” regarding Dr. Hatfill at the time, did you take it that, in essence, was calling Dr. Hatfill a suspect?
A By my definition, yes.
“Someone told them we were going to conduct a search.”
***
Q If any FBI official tipped off the press as to the June 25 search or August 1st search in advance, what is your view of their conduct?
THE WITNESS: That it’s absolutely wrong.
***
Q Could a higher-up, in your view, supervisor or —
A It’s still the wrong thing to do.
***
Q *** “ ‘ I think we are not going to characterize this guy in any way, shape or form,’ said a senior FBI official Thursday evening, adding that the Bureau was actively investigating several dozen people without classifying any of them as formal suspects. Many of them are scientists who work at Fort Detrick and other government laboratories. and universities where anthrax is studied, authorities said.”
Was it appropriate for the senior FBI official to say that?
***
A. No.
Q Why not?
A. Because he’s talking about an ongoing investigation and who possibly are suspects or people of interest, so to speak, which would be absolutely wrong. Again, you are telling people in advance what you are doing.”
***
Q. Now, going to the next page, it says: “FBI officials say there’s a tremendous amount of secrecy in the ongoing investigation.”
***
“Officials who attended the task force summit say the government is attempting to build a circumstantial evidence case against Hatfill, although one official acknowledged, ‘We may have enough right now to get indictment but we don’t have anywhere near enough to get a conviction.’”
***
MR. CONNOLLY: Would you agree it’s an outrage?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
Q Last two shaded paragraphs:
“Officials attending the meeting,” referring to the counterterrorism meeting, “also told ABC News that FBI agents plan another round of interviews with other persons of interest, including some current and former government scientists. ‘It’s an attempt to rule out anybody else who has come across our radar,’ said one investigator. ‘Then, we can focus entirely on Hatfill.’”
Do you see that?
A I do.
Q What is your view of that disclosure?
***
THE WITNESS. That it’s wrong.
***
Q Special Agent Garrett, do you remember an occasion in either late 2002 or early 2003 where I placed a phone call to you and volunteered Dr. Hatfill wearing a portable GPS at all times?
A Yes.
Q In that conversation, did I also offer to surrender his passport?
A Yes.
Q Did I also offer to have an FBI agent ride with him at all times wherever he went?
A Yes.
***
Q Did you pass it on to your supervisors?
A I passed it on to Special Agent Roth.
Q It was decided that my offer was rejected; is that correct?
A That’s my understanding.
“An FBI analysis suggested he was ‘evasive’ when asked a question about the attacks, a fifth source close to the investigation says.’”
A. Well, I will just tell you that it’s been my experience that the vast majority of all leaks come from upper management, they don’t come from people investigating the case. So my focus would probably be at the upper management levels of the field office and headquarters and the Department of Justice.”
***
Q Would you engage in polygraphs of select individuals?
***
A Yes
Deposition of Stephen Guillot re LSU program:
A. We were looking at expending it to three traditional level format programs and then advancing these students to Dugway to get practical — to attend an exercise program at Dugway Proving Grounds in Utah.
Q. I’m going to go to the next bullet point, which says, “After the first searches of Dr. Hatfill’s apartment, FBI Special Agent Dave D[aw]son called me to state that nothing was found in Dr. Hatfill’s apartment and that Dr. Hatfill was no longer a suspect. I also spoke with Mr. Van Harp, assistant of the FBI.”
***
Q. Is that true, that paragraph?
A. That is very true.
***
*** And this associate director position was virtually funded in its entirety by DOJ grant?
A. That is correct.
From Deposition of the retired head of the Washington Field Office Van Harp -
BY MR. CONNOLLY:
“Q Are you familiar with my rules regarding the release of information about uncharged individuals?
A Yes.
Q What is your understanding of that?
A You don’t disclose information about an individual that’s being investigated.”
***
THE WITNESS: Any information about Mr. Hatfill, and even his name, I think was improper.
***
Q What did you personally do to see whether these disclosures of information were coming from within the FBI?
A I mentioned at a staff meeting if anyone has any ideas, make sure it doesn’t occur; stop it. At one point, after a — the newspaper - actually after a phone call a Newsweek article, I made a referral for an internal OPR investigation. Then subsequently, there was another one that initiated by the fellow that was actually leading the case, and sent that over as well.
***
THE WITNESS: I trusted everybody in that [FBI Washington Field Office], particularly those three squads that were working that case. I’ve seen what’s the results of a leak and how it damages a case. And with the effort and the sacrifice that was going on at the time, and then, in the setting — don’t forget that was in connection with — not connection with, but right in the aftermath of 9/11, and several other things that we had ongoing, and my - what I knew for the most part about those agents that were working that case, I did not believe it was coming from them, and I still don’t.
***
Q Now, the 45 or so articles that you read in advance of today’s deposition, the complaint we filed in this case describes the leaks as a campaign directed to Hatfill. Do you take any issue with that?
THE WITNESS: Well, it appears that way. I don’t know what the motivation is or was, a campaign of leaks directed at him. I think it’s a very personal —”
Q Has anyone else been described as a suspect in the anthrax investigation?
A *** We went — some very extensive work on several other individuals, and their names were not disclose. I don’t know why Mr. Hatfill’s was and there weren’t, or why theirs weren’t and his was.
***
THE WITNESS: But number two, he was not a subject or a suspect, so it shouldn’t have been sent out.
***
Q Do you believe that failure to waive is consistent with what you said in your stated purpose of doing the OPR investigation, which is to get to the bottom of the leaks?”
A Well, it’s probably not consistent in one respect, but, except for Dwight Adams, at least the other — at least those other two are no longer in the Bureau, you know. I mean, I just — I mean, there’s a little bit of concern.
Now, I know what you said before the break about, well, what can the Bureau do? The bureau can’t do anything to you. You’re no longer part of it and there’s more concern, I would think, about, you know, the consequences now that you’re on the outside rather than on the inside, that simple.
***
THE WITNESS: Well, the culture — until I got to WFO, I mean, talking to the media like I did there, I probably in a moth’s time in WFO probably talked more — had more contact than I had in my prior 30 years.
***
Q Well, let me ask you this: Once his name came out there, was it enough just to simply say I will not talk about him, or was there an obligation on the part of the FBI to say, on background or otherwise, whoa, you guy, the enthusiasm you all have in the press for Dr. Hatfill as the anthrax killer is not shared here with the FBI, or some words to that effect?
***
A I don’t think so. I don’t think so.
BY MR. CONNOLLY:
Q If you were as careful as you’ve suggested in your testimony here in terms of speaking to reporters, why do you have a concern about waiving any promises of confidentiality with them?
***
THE WITNESS: I don’t have any concern about it. Like I said, if all the others do, I will. I do not recall; I don’t believe I said anything about Hatfill personally, specifically about him in connection with that investigation.
***
Q That none of them, none of the disclosures about Dr. Hatfill served a legitimate law enforcement purpose; is that correct?
A I’d have to agree with that.
Q Were any of these leaks about Dr. Hatfill done to sweat him, you know, to put pressure on him, to have him act in a certain way for an investigative technique? ***
A No, no, I would think that if there was a proposed effort or action to do something like that, it would have been discussed with me, and I wouldn’t have — I’d have said no, number one, all right.
Author of profile, James Fitzgerald, on first hearing term “person of interest” and Hatfill’s name.
“Actually I didn’t focus as much on the term as I did the individual that was named because I had never heard the name before or even if there was a name. I don’t even remember if there was a name associated when the term “person of interest” first came out. But I remember saying oh, maybe they finally have someone in the anthrax case because I was out of the loop at this point.”
FBI’s rebuttal of Dr. Rosenberg’s claim:
Washington, DC 20535
February 25, 2002
MEDIA ADVISORY
The FBI is vigorously investigating the mailings of anthrax-containing letters. In our investigation we have 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.
****
Note that “PART 3” of this 11/29/2001 memo giving guidance on how reporting is to be done is titled “Amerithrax Pending Persons of Interest.”
To: All Field Offices Date: 11/29/2001
Counterterrorism
Investigative Services
Title: AMERITHRAX
MAJOR CASE 184
OO: WF
Synopsis: The purpose of this EC is to emphasize the importance of captioned investigation; to insure that it receive the highest priority; and to insure coordination in the reporting of investigative information.
Details: - As you know five (5) individuals have died of Anthrax inhalation. Because the FBI’s investigative efforts may prevent a prospective death, all investigative leads, no matter how material must be exhaustively, aggressively, and immediately addressed. The public safety depends on the FBI’s response and leadership.
For this reason alone, as well as the extraordinary scrutiny that both the Amerithrax and the Pentbomb investigations are receiving, inside and outside of the government and the criminal justice community, it is imperative that investigative efforts and commitment of resources receive your personal attention, personal direction and highest priority.
One of the hallmarks of the FBI, over the years, has been quality and timeliness efforts throughout the country. This has never been as important, and necessary as now.
Each office, if not already done is to designate an agent of point (POC). Preferably, the Agent should be Weapons of Mass Destructi[on] (WMD) trained or science trained agent. “Please contact WTO Case Agent Dave ______ at 202-XXX-XXXX, Bob Roth at XXX-XXX_XXX or SSA John Kerr XXX-XXX-XXXX with the POC and direct contact numbers, i.e., office, pager and cellular.
Secondly, as many offices are aware daily updates are furnished to IIC Tom Carey at SIOC and the Director is personally briefed two times daily for subsequent briefings by the Director with the Administration, i.e., the Attorney General and the President. In this respect, a daily report has been formatted showing investigative results by those offices with active investigation. This report, not only focuses with active investigation. This report, not only focuses investigative efforts, but also is beneficial in overall coordination, and is the primary vehicle for the above briefings.
The reporting format is as follows:
1. Amerithrax Summary of Incidents
This is a summary of victims, their condition, and status by Divsion. It is self explanatory and relatively static.
2. Ameritharx Investigative Update
REDACTED
PART 3 Amerithrax Pending Persons of Interest
This section must be detailed similar to a prospective presentation to an AUSA, i.e., bio/background, how developed as person of interest, on-going investigation [REDACTED ] and daily investigative results. A brief statement that investigation is “pending” is simply inadequate.
The investigation update must be submitted to WFO, daily no later than 1:00 p.m, attention SA Michael Carroll and by E-Mail only.
Each SAC is advised to insure that, as long as there is investigation outstanding in their respective Division, this report is submitted as requested. Secondly, each SAC is advised to insure that, as long as there investigation outstanding in their respective Division, this report is submitted as requested. Secondly, each SAC is requested to personally insure that all investigation (that requested by lead, and all logical follow-on investigation) is aggressively and immediately conducted and reported. Experienced, aggressive, creative Agents should be assigned this investigation in order to insure all logical investigation is conducted, and not just that requested as defined in a lead.
Amerithrax and Pentbomb are the two (2) most important investigations existing and must be handled as such.
Note that the information was sought from LSU from the DC United States Attorney Office, not the FBI or DOJ HQ.
From: Tracy Henke
To: Daniels, Deborah [Assistant Attorney General]
Date: 9/9/02
Subject: ODP issue
“***
However, on August 1, the FBI had a “formal” warrant to search Mr. Hatfill’s home. In addition, Mary Lou Leary called from the DC USA’s office to ODP and requested copies of all LSU grant applications and award documents. She requested that the information be provided to Bill Blier of the DC USA’s office. ODP complied and provided all the same documentation to OGC.
To our knowledge, Mr. Hatfill was the only individual associated with ODP training to have a “warrant” issued and the only documentation requested by the USA’s office was from LSU where Mr. Hatfill was the subject matter expert. With this information, it was determined that it was inappropriate for Mr. Hatfill to be representing the Department of Justice in training for first responders.
As additional information, it has since been documented that Mr. Hatfill provided false information on his resume and his security clearance had been revoked.
***
[handwritten notations]
7/12/02 Ex. article; sec. clrc. suspended by Dept. of Def. - Hatfill never denied, so no one thought to check
pre-Aug 1 - resume issues reported as well; again never denied [did have press conferences then]
***
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.