Replies

When Lambert enumerates the letters, he mentions the four known letters and then also the hypothesized fifth letter to AMI. He doesn't mention the hypothesized letter to ABC (although it seems the most likely explanation for the baby that got cutaneous anthrax). He doesn't mention a possible second letter to AMI, which some people have talked about.

The whole affidavit is _very_ conservative, just as one would expect. He doesn't mention Kathy Nguyen's death, which can't easily be attributed to one of the letters.

The FBI knows a lot that they aren't saying. I wonder what was in the sealed letter to the judge that just got the FBI an extension of the stay.

I wonder what was in the sealed letter to the judge that just got the FBI an extension of the stay.

You and me both. But after reading this affidavit and some of the quotes attributed to Lambert, I'm even more convinced now than I was before that the official tack they're taking is "We still believe Hatfill is the guy, but we just don't have enough hard evidence in order to justify a prosecution. Just give us a little more time and we think we can get what we need to prove he did it."

I really can't blame them for taking this tack, and it's pretty much what I expected. It's a great way for the government to both have its cake and eat it too. They don't have to admit screwing up (we're the government, we don't make mistakes), and it seems as though they can play the game almost indefinitely as long as they have pliant judges who tend to give the government the benfit of the doubt. It also keeps them from having to pay some hefty cash to Hatfill, Maureen Stevens, and whoever else might decide to sue down the line.

The whole affidavit is _very_ conservative, just as one would expect.

Liberality, ie detail, might harm their argument for a delay.

The FBI knows a lot that they aren't saying.

Yep. This is a case against them. Primary motive: get out of it - money awards and embarassment and careers at stake. From what I understand, they don't have to prove Hatfill did it, but that their acts toward him were reasonable.

Look at their case - what are they going to say, "Yes, we didn't think much of Hatfill case until those Senate staffers yelled at us because of what Rosenberg told them." Or, "Since Nicholas Kristof revealed Hatfill's name in the New York Times we decided to chase Hatfill". Or, "Yes, we spent two years trying to think up ways a guy like Hatfill would have refined a "pure" anthrax that could have acted like the Senate weaponized anthrax, but wasn't created like the Senate anthrax". They're stuck (and victims too, IMO.)

If they really thought it was Hatfill they wouldn't spend so much time insinuating that Hatfill's lawyers would harm other investigations by revealing info they got.

If my (all-new-and-greatly-improved ?)hypothesis is right,
Plum Island might(somewhat truthfully) say: "We have never kept anthrax here."

This leaves out: "But the US Army did."

It also leaves out: "But we stored some kind of "hot" stuff
for the UN."

A Dr.David L. Huxsoll-formerly Col. Huxsoll,CO of Ft.Detrick,and formerly involved with UNSCOM-became the director of Plum Island in June,2000.(He has since moved on.)Huxsoll was on 3 missions to Iraq for UNSCOM,and it would seem entirely plausible(if plausibly deniable)that UNSCOM would "park" anything "hot" from Iraq on Plum Island.

So imagine our enterprising thief is a member of the UNSCOM
team.She may very well be a foreign national,who-once she's done the dirty deed-simply flies home,where she is out of reach of the FBI.

As a UN employee,she can even claim immunity-something her native country would have to waive,and might be very disinclined to do.No questions,no polygraphs,no nothing !

This might be what the FBI has whispered into the judge's shell-like ear .