Replies

The FBI clearly has narrowed their investigation to Ft Detrick and to one individual, Dr Hatfield, in particular. It seems unlikely that the FBI would have done this if they did not have some way to rule out the hundreds of other people world-wide who had access the the Ames strain. The FBI has not articulated any other reason for focusing as they have.

You're relatively new here so I'm trying to be polite, but it's pretty clear you have no idea what you're talking about. For starters, the guy's name is Hatfill, not Hatfield. Second of all, if you were really following the case closely you would know that they've been investigating him for almost three years now, and not only can they not bring an indictment on him, he's in the process of suing the government and they're doing everything they can to stall the process. And if you know anything whatsoever about crime and law enforcement, you know that mass murderers aren't usually in the habit of suing investigators.

The FBI is not all-powerful my friend, they actually make mistakes sometimes, and they've made a huge one here in this case by persecuting this guy who doesn't even have any formal scientific training with anthrax (or bacteria for that matter). They made the mistake of listening to some left-wing reporters and journalists with an apparent political axe to grind, and the day is going to come eventually when they're going to have to come clean and admit that they really screwed this up.

If you're going to survive here at Free Republic, take my advice and try not to believe everything you read in the newspapers, because people who do that are fools.

Thanks for the spelling correction.

Lest I be unclear, I do not think that Hatfill is responsible.

The FBI is not all-powerful my friend, they actually make mistakes sometimes, and they've made a huge one here in this case by persecuting this guy who doesn't even have any formal scientific training with anthrax (or bacteria for that matter).

Agreed that the FBI makes mistakes and big ones too. Richard Jewell comes to mind. On its face it appears that the persecution of Hatfill, which cost him a position at Louisiana State is based on nothing more than the observation that he had access to the bacteria at Ft Detrick. If it is true that hundreds of people worldwide had similar access then it seems the the FBI would not have focused so narrowly on him, even by mistake. IOW I recognize that the FBI makes mistakes, but they have reasons for their mistakes and do not just draw suspect's names out of a hat.

They made the mistake of listening to some left-wing reporters and journalists with an apparent political axe to grind

What can you tell us about this? Which reporters with what axes to grind gave what information to the FBI?

My recollection from the contemporary news releases was that the anthrax used in the attacks was produced in the same batch, not merely from he same strain and that the line was traced to Ft Detrick. I do not recall references to the Ames strain from that time.

I'm happy to remain receptive to more information. As to relying on newspapers, unless I have personal correspondence with participants in the news stories they remain my best sources, do they not? Certainly better than online bulletin boards and webpages.

--

FF

this guy who doesn't even have any formal scientific training with anthrax (or bacteria for that matter).

Apologies for following-up to your article twice, but thought you'd be interested in reading Hatfill's resume:

http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/hatfill.pdf

In particular:

"working knowledge of the former US and foreign BW programs, wet and dry BW agents, large scale production of bacterial, rickettsial, and viral BW pathogens and toxins, stabilizers, and other additives..."

Working knowledge is not formal scientific training, so that doesn't contradict what you wrote but one certainly should draw a different inference concerning his capabilities, no?

His background appears to be exceptionally diverse including training in both submarine and aviation medicine, and over 40 Cesarean sections and hundreds of vaginal births, (presumably as the obstetrician rather than as the mother).

I realize that you are not experienced with me, but perhaps we would both be better served by addressing the issues being discussed.

--

FF